HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 Planning Commission PacketsMEETINGREGULAR AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Special Order of Business
A. Oath of Office for new Commissioners
B. Election of Officers — Chair and Vice -Chair
4. Approval of Minutes:
A. November 18, 2009
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
minutes.)
6. Planning Cases
A. CUP2009-00: Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Saturn of St. Paul
Address: 2375 County Highway 10
Applicant: Jim Price, Saturn Development
7. Other Planning Activity
None
8. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. January20, 2010
B. February3, 2010
9. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. December 16, 2009
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
____ Item No: 6A
Meeting Date: January 6, 2010 OUND
Type of Business: Business
City of Mounds View Staff Rep®lt
MMMMMMMMMF-
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment for Saturn of St. Paul, 2375 Highway 10;
Planning Case CM2009-001
Introduction:
The applicant, Jim Price, representing Saturn of St. Paul, is requesting approval of an
amendment to an existing conditional use permit. They want the City to remove the condition
that states "the dealership in operation on this property shall maintain a new car sales license
at all times" (Resolution 5042).
Discussion:
The Saturn car dealership at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H2 has been in
Mounds View since 1992. Saturn Development built the dealership and has expanded the
business twice. Due to the recent problems in the auto industry, General Motors informed St.
Paul Saturn's parent company, the Rydell Group, that they are discontinuing the Saturn
brand in October 2010. All of the Saturn of St. Paul locations will continue to sell new Saturn
cars until then. After that, the owners will have to make changes to the operation in order to
keep the Mounds View dealership open.
The city code allows motor vehicle sales to be located in B-3 zoning districts as a conditional
use. There have been two City resolutions for their conditional use permit over the years
regarding the Saturn dealership. The first resolution for the initial development of the
property for a dealership was in 1991, and then in 1996 the City amended the CUP to allow
for a building expansion and additional uses on the site. The owners delayed implementing
their approved 1996 expansion plan for two years, and the City Council reapproved them in
1998.
There are many conditions included in the resolutions, one of which will be an issue for the
property owners after the Saturn brand is discontinued: Resolution 5042, Condition #14 —
"The dealership in operation on this property shall maintain a new car sales license at all
times." The Saturn of St. Paul owners are requesting an amendment to their conditional use
permit to remove this condition so that their Mounds View dealership can remain open. They
like Mounds View and want to keep their business open, but at this time, they cannot
guarantee being able to bring a new car franchise here. Though they are ready to move
forward with changes to this dealership if their request is approved.
The Mounds View Saturn dealership has an opportunity to become a "Motor Trend Certified
Advantage" dealership. Since 1949, Motor Trend has been a very popular and widely
subscribed to auto magazine. In January 2009, they introduced a certified used car program
to dealers. The new Motor Trend dealerships are a Certified Pre -Owned Vehicle Program.
The other two local Saturn of St. Paul dealerships will be changed to another car brand, but
the Mounds View store cannot switch to a different (existing United States) new car brand
Saturn CUP Amendment Report
Jarivary 6, 2010
Page 3
Recommendations:
It appears that amending the conditional use permit to remove the condition requiring the
dealership to maintain a new car license would have no adverse impacts and would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports this conditional use permit amendment.
After taking testimony from staff and the applicant, the Commission can take one of the
following actions related to the request:
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit amendment. Resolution 921-10 is
attached if the Commission chooses this action.
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit amendment. If the Planning
Commission selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of
denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial.
3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be
rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the
request until such information has been provided. Because of 60 -day requirements, the
Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to
avoid an inadvertent approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map
2. Aerial View
3. Letter from Applicant
4. Information about Motor Trend program
5. Resolutions 4195 and 5042
6. Planning Commission Resolution 921-10
Aerial View
RESOLUTION NO. 4195
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
BY SATURN OF ST. PAUL,.2375 HIGHWAY 10,'
PLANNING CASE NO. 335=91
WHEREAS, Saturn of St. Paul has requested City approval
to operate an automobile sales dealership at 2375 Highway 10; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance allows automobile sales
dealerships in a B-3, Highway_Commercial District; and
WHEREAS, the development, as proposed, requires a
conditional use permit;.and
WHEREAS; the City. Council has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposals
a) Site plan dated 11/91
b) Lighting plan dated and revised 1/30/92
c) Landscape plan.dated 11/91
d) Parking plan dated 11/91;.and
WHEREAS, the City Council.has determined:that the
proposal is in conformance with the requirements of the Municipal
Code, specifically Chapter 40; and
WHEREAS, the storm water controls for this site were
originally approved as part of the Mounds View Business Park
project and have been reviewed and are considered adequate by the
City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission.has recommended
approval of .the conditional use permit request to the City'
Council in Resolution No. 330-92.
NOW, THEREFORE,. BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of -
the City of Mounds View approves the conditional use permit with
the following conditions:
1., Outside loudspeakersshall be utilized for paging
purposes only.
2. Only minor repairs and maintenance will.be allowed
on site excluding major engine overhauls,
Ask transmission.replacement, and body work.
RESOLUTION NO. 5042
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF THE SATURN DEALERSHIP AT
2375 AND 2395 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 464-96.
WHEREAS, Saturn Development has requested City approval to expand its dealership at
2375 Highway 10 to include the property at 2395 Highway 10, to expand building square
footage and add a car wash, and to expand the types of repair services available; and
WHEREAS, the property subject to this application is described as follows:
Subject to Roads the East 160 8/10 feet ofpart of the Southwest Quarter northeasterly
of Highway in Section 8, Township 30, Range 23.
Subject to Roads the West 134 feet of the East 294 8/10 feet of part of the Southwest
Quarter northeasterly of Highway in Section 8, Township 30, Range 23.
Subject to State Trunk Highway 10/62 over southwesterly 150 feet and subject to
County Road H2 and Ex East 294 8/10 feet part of Southwest Quarter northeasterly of
centerline of State Trunk Highway 10/62 in Section 8, Township 30, Range 23.
WHEREAS, the property is in the B-3 Highway Business District, which requires
approval of a conditional use permit for motor vehicle and recreation equipment sales and
garages accessory thereto, and for car washes; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of conditional use permits is "to provide the City with a
reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the
general welfare, public health and safety; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application dated 10-7-96
2. Zoning Map
3. Letter from Francis J. Coyle dated 10/7/96
4. City Council Resolution 4195
5. City Council Resolution 4611
6. Site Plan dated 11/1/96
9. Landscape Plan dated 10/30/96
10. Floorplan & Building Elevations received 10/4/96
City Council Resolution No. 5042
December 9, 1996
Page 3
which matches the existing site. The frontage along Highway 10 will be sodded as is the
existing site.
C. Lighting and Signage (Section 1114.04, Subd. 2.h., 3.g., 8.h., 2.d., 3.j. 2.j., 3.m., 8.k.)
The applicant is proposing to install additional light standards on the expanded site area
which are the same style as the existing light standards, and they will be located in a
similar pattern. The original plans submitted for this development included a detail of the
light fixtures which are shielded in compliance with the ordinance. The light standards
will be in landscaped areas and not in the parking lot.
Signage is proposed as follows:
a existing pylon sign 10'x 10' on 26' high supports; area = 100 sq.ft.
® existing wall sign 23" x 265; area = 50.8 sq.ft.
a used car sign, ground mounted 8' 6-1/2" x 5' = 42.7 sq.ft.
a two new ground mounted 8'6-1/2" x 5'= 85.4 sq.ft.
® miscellaneous small directional signs
Total Signage = 278.9 sq. ft.
Total Permitted = 100 sq. ft. of signage per tenant; 340 sq. ft. pylon sign = 440 sq.ft.
Existing signage on the site complies with the City Sign Code. The applicant has applied
for a variance in sign regulations to allow the two additional monument signs (Planning
Case No. 468-96).
D. Drainage (Section 1114.04 Subd. 2.g., 3.e., 81)
This conditional use permit combines two existing, developed commercial sites. The
reconstruction of the parking lot on the Citgo site and the building addition may cause
more storm water to flow to County Road H2, and may exceed the capacity of the storm
sewer in this road. A condition on this approval requires the applicant to comply with
any requirements from the City Engineer on the direction of storm drainage to County
Road H2 and Highway 10, prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. The
applicant is also being required to obtain a permit from Rice Creek Watershed District.
E. Outdoor Storage, Sales and Service (Section 1114.04 Subd. 3.k., 3.0., 3.p., 8.i.)
No outdoor sales or servicing is conducted on this site, other than customers viewing cars
in inventory in the parking lot. There are no abutting residential districts, and therefore,
the screening requirements do not apply. Sufficient space for car inventory has been
provided so it will not infringe on required customer, service and employee parking. _
F. Accessory Building (Section 1114.04 Subd. 8.j.)
City Council Resolution No. 5042
December 9, 1996
Page 5
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from
adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in
value and there will be not deterrence to development of vacant land.
(3) The structure and site will have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
The site is bordered on the north and south by roadways, and abuts a business and
industrial park on the east side. The existing site and proposed expansion shows a
attractive combination of buffering and landscaping around the entire perimeter, and this
business helps in creating an appealing gateway to Mounds View and to the residential
neighborhoods north of Highway 10. It serves as an example of high quality
development for potential developers of property in the area.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the [Planning Commission], is reasonably related to the overall
needs of the City and to the existing land use.
The expansion of the Saturn dealership to take in the Citgo property will help unify this
corner, and allow an attractive and successful business additional room. Providing more
room for inventory and expanding the range of services available to Saturn's customers
may translate into more tax revenue to the City. Expansion of the Saturn dealership will
also help in strengthening the vitality and enhancing the appearance of the Highway 10
corridor. This corridor is very important to the long run economic health of the City.
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the
zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The purpose of the B-3 district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor
vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. It allows for auto repair
businesses with approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant's proposal fits within
the limits envisioned by the ordinance for the B-3 district, and its location along Highway
10 is logical and appropriate.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The most recent discussion of comprehensive goals for the City was the Mounds View
2000 project in 1994. The Vision Statement from the Growth, Development and
Business Issue Project Team stated:
"The City of Mounds View will be known as a city with a balance between business and
residential concerns. There will be a positive business climate as shown by public-
private collaboration to recruit, encourage, and retain successful, community-based
enterprises with emphasis on job expansion, increase in tax base, and quality of life.
City Council Resolution No. 5042
December 9, 1996
Page 7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve this amended conditional use permit and development review as shown in the
site plan dated 11/1/96, the landscape plans dated 10/30/96, and the floor plans and elevations
dated 10/4/96, subject to the following conditions:
Outside signage shall be limited to that allowed by the Municipal Code, or as
allowed in any variance approved by the City. Prior to installation of the two
additional monument signs shown at the westernmost driveway on Highway 10
and the easternmost driveway on County Road H2, the property owner shall
obtain approval for a variance for sign area allowed on the site, or for a code
revisions which would allow this additional sign area. Signage is subject to a
requirement that the applicant obtain sign permits before installation.
2. Prior to the issuance of any grading and building permits, the applicant shall:
a. Provide a detail drawing of the lighting fixtures to be used on the
expansion site, showing the style of luminare and dimensions of lighting
standards. These lighting fixtures shall match the existing fixtures at the
Saturn Dealership.
b. Obtain a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District, if required.
C. Submit an existing and future drainage map showing drainage boundaries
and storm water volumes to the City Engineer. The applicant shall make
modifications to the parking lot design and building drains to comply with
the recommendations of the City Engineer as to how storm water is
directed to County Road H2 and Highway 10.
d. Provide to the City an executed cross -access and parking easement across
the three lots which constitute this site, which easement insures that the
site will continue to function as one development.
C. Enter into a development contract as required by Section 1006.06 Subd. 4
of the Mounds View Municipal Code.
3. Vehicle repair, servicing and maintenance are permitted on this site, excluding
body work and painting. All car repairs shall be conducted within the indoor
service bays and not outside the service building, and the service bay doors shall
be closed at 9:00 PM.
City Council Resolution No. 5042
December 9, 1996
Page 9
Adopted this 25th day of November, 1996
Modified and Re -Adopted this 9th day of December, 1996
ATTEST:
Jerome Linke, Mayor
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk -Administrator
MOTOR TREND Announces new MOTOR TREND Certified Pre -Owned Vehicle Progr... Page 2 of 3
sogY, Tom Gill CbawpU in Florence KY (VVip, this Tom Gll(ChevmmI she);, and
Comment. Automotive Group Met County in Ellisville, MO IV 't itHarocaulln
Au(empl va _G,,,p_)Am o C94rlly) in December, 2005, with a rollout program
through 2009 and toward. For more Information -baud mis program, including
how to apply to become an O sdal MOTOR TREND CERTIFIED ADVANTAGE
dealer, pie-s-vialtw NKRJIAy�ate 4_le-10preDuen-
About EASYCARE(tm), an Automobile Protection Corporation brand
Founded In 1964, Automobile Protection ColporationAPCO is Ins leading
independent provider ofaulomogve benefits specifically created to enhance a
caumbees Vehicle buying and ownemhip evpedence in ways that create long.
(am bons between the consumer and Nei, dealership. APCO's benefits are
provided under the EASYCARE brand as well as on behalfofsOme Of the most
preeminent manufacturers In the automotive Industry; including Jaguar. Land
Rover, Marda and Vohs. Wlih over t,B million tornado clm mily in force, APCO
has paid over 81.9 Billion in claims, appmaimately $200 Million of which was In
the last 12 months. Please visit ww.y easyrare.com.
o �r 1 1.
Save This Email Pont
Popular
1 iRSS
SHARE THIS POST
Digg Delicious Tape, BlumbleUpon
Reddit
Faaboolr
Sponsored Links
Extended Car Warranties
Deacon Quotes Call BOB -222-4445 From Top Auto Warranty Providers
AAAuta W arranty.com/Autovrotection
Used Vehicle Warranty
Including roadside Assistance. Free Quote to Warranty Your Vehicle
wtv w.FhleilLYAutomotive5ol utiODg.Cmn
Extended Car Warranty
Top Rated Car Warranty Provldem: Pick The Best One For Your Carl
Ant.WarramyRCP,a ts.com
Pre-Oienad Ford
6 yr/100K Limited Warranty Coverage Search official slur for donalls.
foNcpo.com
Car Buying Mistakes
5 Common Car -Buying Mistakes - Get Car Buying Tips &Advice NOW
www.BHG.uu,
Community Comments
fdertrai (02/08/0903:03 PM)
Jag and LR? LOL That's kinds cutting it close. If the new ones are utterly disastrous 1 wouldn't look twice at a used one, Those are the only
cars I'd recommend getting 2 additional warranties on, If you have to have one ... LOL
Pasta Comment (Must Be Registemd)
User Name
_ - - Not Registered? Signal, Here
Passwofd
Comment
(1024 character limit) 0��
sponsored Links
Car Buying Mistakes
5 Common Car -Buying Mistakes - Get Car Buying Tips &
Advice New
www.BHG.cam
1YEAR t10"
klmm"M! {Ills
Save oft aur ocvernad
First Nameare.
F_
EmN�
Address
city
State 20
Creat CN'd] �/ �' �Mille
I —$Th 4:1Nn1Yrglktiil
:)r�clr 3t Out!
APPAIICL, GIFTS
a f IGIIEI
Cllck Here!
http://www.niotoilrend.com/wonnt/112 0901 motortrend certified pre owned vehicle ... 1 211 2/2 0 0 9
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF MAINTAINING
A NEW CAR LICENSE FOR SATURN OF ST. PAUL, 2375 HIGHWAY 10;
PLANNING CASE CM2009-001
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council approved Resolution 5042 for a
conditional use permit amendment for a second building expansion and additional uses at
the Saturn car dealership on November 25, 1996, then modified and re -adopted the
resolution on December 9, 1996; and,
WHEREAS, the Saturn car dealership, located at 2375 Highway 10 is zoned B-3,
Highway Business; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows motor vehicle sales
in B-3 zoning districts; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the condition of requiring the
dealership to maintain a new car license at all times be removed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and has examined
the potential adverse effects that could result from such an amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission makes the following finding of fact related to this request:
The lot in question, 2375 Highway 10, is zoned B-3, Highway Business.
2. The Future Land Use Map from the City's Comprehensive Plan designates
this area as Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development.
3. The new car dealership in operation at 2375 Highway 10 sells Saturn brand
vehicles, but the manufacturer is discontinuing this car brand in October 2010,
forcing the Saturn of St. Paul owners to make changes otherwise they will
have to close the business.
4. The property at 2375 Highway 10 is within the City's primary commercial
corridor and as such, closed and vacant businesses are not desirable.
5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that they must change the type of
vehicles sold at this dealership, and that they cannot guarantee being able to
sell another new brand of cars.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
December 16, 2009
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
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Lang,
and Walsh-Kaczmarek.
Absent and Excused: None.
2009
Miller, Rundle, Stevenson
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Community Development Director
Roberts.
Index to Minutes = = _ Page
VR2009-003; Variance Reguestto Allow a Zero -Foot Driveway
ack
Setbaf`_`_The-Stati6&! - 2
2010 Planning Commission Meeting_ Schedule 3
Renumber Three Resolutions _ - 4
3. Approval of Minutes
October 7, 2009
MOTION/SECOND: -Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek. To approve the
minutes of the October 7, 2009 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
December 16, 2009
Page 3
Planning Associate Heller indicated that staff trusted the architect to have measured correctly.
Commissioner Lang questioned why there was a five-foot setback at all.
Planning Commissioner Heller stated previously in the code there was a one foot setback and the
city found there were issues with this setback so it was increased to five feet.
Community Development Director Roberts indicated this site plan was somewhat "old school' in
that it was an actual drawing, and not a computerized layout, which isypically what is submitted
for commercial projects now. He indicated that he does not see iy negative issues with this
situation. He stated however, he did agree with Chair Stevenson and does not like approving
variances after the work has been completed.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek indicated is app
Society to make repairs to the side of the garage if
Commissioner Meehlhause stated he shared in the
Commissioner Lang expressed. However, he believes
and has taken care of it. He added that he did not have a
Closed public hearing at 7:26 pm
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner CrE
Resolution recommending approval of a
wash entrance at The Statron, 2280 -Count
6.
0
Planning AssociE
with the first and
Ol
for the Alano
is ---that Chair Stevenson and
.s has made an honest mistake
with approving this variance.
ssiorier_Meehlhause. Resolution 920-09;
a zero -foot driveway setback for the car
ming Case VR2009-003
Motion carried.
Meeting Schedule
3 the 2010 Planning Commission meeting schedule continues
of every month, and no holidays interfere with those dates.
MOTION/SECOND: --Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Stevenson. Approving the 2010
Planning Commission Meeting Schedule.
Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
W'
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. December 16, 2009
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 minutes.)
5. Planning Cases
A. Concept plan review for Coventry Senior Living development located at
2320-2340 Highway 10 and 5260 O'Connell Drive, by Select
Companies
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Review Bylaws
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. April 7, 2010
B. April 21, 2010
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
1. Review Minutes:
a. January 6, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
1
City of Mounds View Staff Report
Item No:5A
Meeting Date: March 17, 2010
Type of Business: Review
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Review of a Concept Plan for the Coventry Senior
Housing Development at 2320-2340 County Highway 10
Introduction:
Select Companies, represented by Greg Johnson, has submitted a concept site plan for
"Coventry Senior Living," a 95 -unit senior housing development on three lots on the south
side of County Highway 10, just south of County Road H2. The building plan shows 18
independent living units, 45 assisted living units, 16 memory care units and 16 high acuity
living (residents needing a higher level of nursing care than basic housekeeping or
personal assistance) units. Select Companies has not yet submitted a formal planning
application to the City for this project. They want to first talk to the Planning Commission
and City Council about their concept plan, and hold a neighborhood meeting about it on
March 18, 2010.
If Select Companies moves forward with an application for this site, this proposal would
involve three planning actions:
1. Rezone three properties from B-3, Highway Business and R-1 Single Family to a
PUD, Planned Unit Development.
2. Major Subdivision to combine three lots into one parcel (2 -steps: Preliminary Plat
and Final Plat)
3. Development Review of the site plan and building design.
Background:
Most of the Planning Commissioners will recognize Select Companies from the other
senior housing project that they have been trying to build on County Highway 10 and
Groveland Road for the last couple of years. Due to the collapse of the financial markets,
they have not been successful in securing financing for their project. Select Companies
still wants to build a facility in Mounds View, and their research has shown there is a need
for senior housing in the city. Recently a new opportunity presented itself to Select
Companies for building the senior housing on a different site in Mounds View. Select
Companies now has an additional developer working with them, and an investor who will
partner with them if they build the project on this new site.
The development site includes three parcels with an area totaling approximately 2.2 acres.
County Highway 10 runs along the northeast side and O'Connell Drive runs along the
southwest side of the site. The three parcels involved currently have mixed zoning
designations -2320 and 2340 County Highway 10 are zoned B-3, Highway Business, and
5260 O'Connell Drive is zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential. 2340 County Highway 10
has a self -serve car wash on the site, and the other two parcels are vacant.
Coventry Senior Living Staff Report
March 17, 2010
Page 3
Setbacks:
The proposed development meets the required building setbacks of 30 feet for the front
and rear yards and 20 feet for side yards. All parking areas meet the required five-foot
setbacks.
Building Design and Materials:
The plans indicate that the building will be three-story with an underground garage. The
building elevations show a mix of siding styles with stone and/or brick accents on the
exterior of the buildings. The plan has the driveway access and main front entrance facing
O'Connell Drive. This building design will be very similar to the plans for the Groveland site
(the Groveland elevation drawing is included in this report).
Wetlands:
There are no wetlands in this development area. The developer would need to apply for a
permit from Rice Creek Watershed District for the onsite stormwater management.
Trails and Park Dedication Fee:
For all new development along Highway 10, the City requires the property owner/developer
to contribute funds for the future trail system based on the amount of County Highway 10
frontage. All subdivisions are subject to a park dedication fee based on the Ramsey
County tax assessed value of the land.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission should review the site plan and be prepared to provide the City
and the developer comments about the concept plans. The Commission should not take
any formal action when doing a concept plan review.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map
2. Aerial Views
3. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
4. Narrative from the developer
5. Neighborhood meeting invitation letter from the developer
6. Building elevation for Groveland site (would be very similar on this new site)
7. Photos of another senior housing building developed by Select Companies in
West St. Paul
8. Site Plan dated March 5, 2010
CD
r ' f
4
Comp Plan Future Land Use Map
Project area is designated as "Mixed Use PUD"
7
11151
' ::i'
no
wrwwww �ww wwww.
wwwww
Future Land Use Designation (Acreage - Percentage)
Single Family Detached - SFD (1177.3 AC - 50.5'X.)
J Single Family Attached -SFA(50.2AC-2.7%)
= Multiple Family - MF (92.8 AC -4.5%)
Mebile Home Pak - MH (44.7 AC - 2.1 %)
Neighborhood Convnercial - NC (3.7 AC -0.2%)
Community Cnnrnardal -CC (19.3 AC -0.9%)
- Regional Commendal -RC (23.3AC- 1.1%)
Regional Conunerdal - RC -PUD (13.5 AC - 0.8%)
- Wgthway Convenience - FIC (18.5 AC -0.9%)
_ Office -OFC (73.8 AC - 3.5%)
Mbtad Use - MU -PUD (37.3AC-1.8%)
■-::gym
I'�II o�w i
7::-:-
A
Light Industrial -Ll (129.4 AC -0.2%)
Light lndusWal - LI -PUD (3&9 AC - 1.7%)
- Heavy Indust hal - HI (53.2 AC -2.6%)
- kvilitut6ml- W (82.5 AC -3.0%)
- Church -CH (23.3 AC -1.1 %)
-
Utility -UT(3.5 AC -0.2%)
Ouldoor Spott/Rec - SRO (72.5 AC - 3.5%)
Iniaar Spatt Ree -SRI (5.2 AC -0.3%)
- Natural Open Space- OSN (51.1 AC -2.5%)
- Passive Open Spars - OSP (88.9 AC - 4.2%)
Water/Wetlands
Neighborhood Meeting Invite Letter from Developer
A LIFETIME OP €vARIN(O
March 5, 2010
Dear Neighbors,
Please accept our invitation to come and view our proposed project on March 181'
at 5:00 at City Hall, we will give a short presentation and answer any questions that we
can.
We are proposing to build a three story 95 unit senior living building. The
property sits between Hwy 10 and O'Connell Drive. This building will consist of
independent living, assisted living, memory care, and high acuity living. Some of the
amenities are a parking garage located beneath, the building, two elevators, central trash
chute, and many more. The building's inviting grand entrance porch is designed to draw
residents rand guests into the building with its, comfortable living suites and many
amenities. The porch's brilliant colonnade is flanked by two curving architectural forms
that welcome the residences and guests into the grand two story lobby. Ilie building's
architecture was designed with respect to the surrounding neighborhood and community.
The shared amenities arc located in the central core area, which is located in the
middle of the building between the independent living units and the memory care/assisted
living units. On the main floor, residents and guests are greeted by a luxurious two-story
lobby, a stone fireplace, a grand stair case, an intimate cafd, and sitting areas with the
comfortable cozy atmosphere of a living room. Other shared amenities include an
activity room with a small kitchen area, a media center, overnight guest roonns, a craft
room onthe second floor; and a sports pub on the third floor. In addition to the heated
parking, the parking level features a fitness center.
We hope to see you at the meeting to discuss this project and respond to any of
your questions.
Respectfully,
Greg Johnson
# U
nn
n
alLLL111
PAWfW 5E11
N 49°16'30" W 140.00"- - _ -
30 __
SETBACK
S 49°16'30" E 171.9'
S 49° 6'30"E99.8T _ O,CON
WW
LL
LL w
n
SGALE: I" = 20'-0" 9 24 X 36 5C.
SCALE: I" = 40'-0" 0 II X 11 F!!
0
�Itl
S 49°16'30" E 171.9'
S 49° 6'30"E99.8T _ O,CON
WW
LL
LL w
n
SGALE: I" = 20'-0" 9 24 X 36 5C.
SCALE: I" = 40'-0" 0 II X 11 F!!
0
rr 1241555(r: Coventry Seni,r Living of ® unds Vietiv
Coventry Senior Living of Mounds View
12415 55th Street North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Legal Description
That padllowin oescribdBlock SommenIIEERSECOND emandoADDITION o Tying ot2tIhwa,, of Easthe
al Preliminary Plat
following described line: Commencing at the le,,t WealMan; thfnai southeasterly,
Loteathence East along the
nortlmdy line ofsaid Lot 2 Lot
of92.00of1tettbeet {ran; menet so utheasterly,alonginc
hertheasterlyein deal line of said Lm 1,e rdyat right
140-00 feet to to said
martntofrly line. distance
line tobe
6.
herein ore of les; thence sowhiarestedy at a right d Lot 2 and
there tanderly line s dismnce of 196.52
feel, more or EN to the THIRD
ADDIestarlyTION,
line of said din 2 o ti mere recorded
plat Reimer,
addt that an
dente
planted in EIGENBEER THIRD ADDITION, according to the recorded plat tlrereof, and simace in
Ramsey County, Mimiasom.
That part of Lot 2, Block 5, EIGEN6IEER SECOND ADDITION lying northwesterly of the
follmeing described line: Commencing at the narawest comer ofsaid Lot 2; thence East along the
Mannerly line afraid Lm 2 a distance of 92.00 feet to on iron; thence soulhnslerly, along the
northeasterly line of said Lor 2, a distance of 140.00 feet to the point efbegirming ofthc line to be
herein described; thence somhwadedy ata right angle to said nDMtarterly linea distance of 196.52
feet, mom or less, to the southwesterly line of said Let 2 and there laminating, according to the
..corded pIn[ INMof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. \
Lot 1, Block 1, EIGENHEER THIRD ADDI'T'ION, according to the recorded plat thereof, and \
sfmne in But.,, County, Minnesota. \
{
EXJSIJNa B(rJLOJNO i
) OZo:N.4irV�ddSi,LP \
Y 4
SI
W 9�
A
h �
g
\ 1• {j
/ \IT
/ a\ \
__---- —_
I
Is
I
I
� I
\ I
� I
I
/ \ i
,f
e \
/ e, LOT 1 �_
/ &OCA, 1
i=
�'�' raurx:, Yvia G.n
95,oew Soa.RR F" / Ll@ ASR"
Fwo—
w -
O- \
J uai
LN1,3V
Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc.
LANDPLANNING . SURVEYING . ENGINEERING
®❑12445 55TH STREET NORTH
LAKEELMQ MINNESOTA 55072
Phone ((5q 439..433 fat (651) 470.9331
LEGEND
• isman, as don PPE uracce r
NOTES
p ELEwners ME BASED M ME N ram Aisdarol woarsL as am or 19M
z) paErmusta O Mrs BUN.. SRnu IS ... an ME a<usrr canon
CDCaoa1PIE SsEn...E mE N rnmeEl nNE or Ler 2. at. s, ised EEa
SLCCNa asoma. is alsm. r0 ease ....5a1'C
a) ME MatoolE ca mato s. cine iz/oa/zaas aro aB/as/zasa.
tonneau ar cuEM...0 omm Klearen l srwues.
pdpNAL SCALE
r mcx = da rEar
o z%m a.
SCALE IN rear
Lna',eb) up",..im,,.,,rwsvl,,,,,,,,avrvnYa.w'n»».v b, as ui
.ad,,, dw rry a dell' Limned Lend Sw,raw
nnderl Le—ofMn Sm¢ofAhu—sa�
Preliminary June 25, 2010
Tonely l Freamm, LS Dme
An iemm U.— X.. 1'98,
17 / UU
\ �e ;ui
sz�
I
—
J uai
LN1,3V
Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc.
LANDPLANNING . SURVEYING . ENGINEERING
®❑12445 55TH STREET NORTH
LAKEELMQ MINNESOTA 55072
Phone ((5q 439..433 fat (651) 470.9331
LEGEND
• isman, as don PPE uracce r
NOTES
p ELEwners ME BASED M ME N ram Aisdarol woarsL as am or 19M
z) paErmusta O Mrs BUN.. SRnu IS ... an ME a<usrr canon
CDCaoa1PIE SsEn...E mE N rnmeEl nNE or Ler 2. at. s, ised EEa
SLCCNa asoma. is alsm. r0 ease ....5a1'C
a) ME MatoolE ca mato s. cine iz/oa/zaas aro aB/as/zasa.
tonneau ar cuEM...0 omm Klearen l srwues.
pdpNAL SCALE
r mcx = da rEar
o z%m a.
SCALE IN rear
Lna',eb) up",..im,,.,,rwsvl,,,,,,,,avrvnYa.w'n»».v b, as ui
.ad,,, dw rry a dell' Limned Lend Sw,raw
nnderl Le—ofMn Sm¢ofAhu—sa�
Preliminary June 25, 2010
Tonely l Freamm, LS Dme
An iemm U.— X.. 1'98,
COVENTRY SENIOR LIVING
Moundsview, Minnesota
Existing Conditions & Removal Plan
TREE SURVEY
Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc.
LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING
N ® 12445 55TH STREET NORTH ®
LAKE ELMO,MINNESOTA 55042
Phone (651) 439.8837 Fac (651) 430.9731
CSIGNAL SOME
I INCH = ]0 UTT
0 15 10 60
SCRLE IN RET
LEGEND
NOTES
1) BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM RAMSEY COUNTY AERIAL
PHOTOANO CONTOURS. PDDITIONALIRILITT INFORMATTON FROM
ASBNLTS BY THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW. FEE. WC. OFFERS NO
GUARANTEE AS TO THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
OTHERS.
2) CONTRACTORTO COORDINATE WITH OWNERS AND UTILITY
COMPANIES FOR RELOCATION OF EXISTING MS. TELEPHONE.
ELECTRICAND FIBER OPTIC LINES THROUGHOUTTHE SUE.
VIEW, MINNESOTA -JUNE 25, 2010
RCv. 7-7-10
PROPERTYBOUNDARY
®
BUILDING REMOVAL
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN
t
EXISTINGTREESTOBEREMOVEO
CONCRETE REMOVAL
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATKN
CONCRETE CURB REMOVAL
- --� -
- EXISTING WATER WI HVOPAM, GATE VALVE AND CURB STOP
NOTES
1) BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM RAMSEY COUNTY AERIAL
PHOTOANO CONTOURS. PDDITIONALIRILITT INFORMATTON FROM
ASBNLTS BY THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW. FEE. WC. OFFERS NO
GUARANTEE AS TO THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
OTHERS.
2) CONTRACTORTO COORDINATE WITH OWNERS AND UTILITY
COMPANIES FOR RELOCATION OF EXISTING MS. TELEPHONE.
ELECTRICAND FIBER OPTIC LINES THROUGHOUTTHE SUE.
VIEW, MINNESOTA -JUNE 25, 2010
RCv. 7-7-10
EXISTING ELECTRIC WI POWER POLE
®
BUILDING REMOVAL
BR. REMOVAL
®
CONCRETE REMOVAL
CONCRETE CURB REMOVAL
NOTES
1) BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM RAMSEY COUNTY AERIAL
PHOTOANO CONTOURS. PDDITIONALIRILITT INFORMATTON FROM
ASBNLTS BY THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW. FEE. WC. OFFERS NO
GUARANTEE AS TO THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
OTHERS.
2) CONTRACTORTO COORDINATE WITH OWNERS AND UTILITY
COMPANIES FOR RELOCATION OF EXISTING MS. TELEPHONE.
ELECTRICAND FIBER OPTIC LINES THROUGHOUTTHE SUE.
VIEW, MINNESOTA -JUNE 25, 2010
RCv. 7-7-10
ON -L "-X
%.t
'3'S MS6
Nlol
%SS
.A SZLL'.
SMlAa3dWl
%zo
'3's zLE'oE
SMIAa3d
L 101
AHWINAS d,7H6'
's3dA GUM ao3 Ntld ONIQVU533S(o
'T1 G1 "ZIV 33 NO so
ltl ONV N31N30 NO.SL 3dIH1S MMlVd 311HM 301M.V
38llbHs 9NIdIN15 3lSltl SS3'YJtl 3161553pptl '3dIH15
O3lNMd 3LXM30M.63901 ONIdH151N3W3Atld (E
'3SIMN3H10
O31ON SS3lNl1 GUM d03OVA 3H1 Ol SNOISN3WIO lltl (Z
SH3H10
AS O301AOtld NOI.W W]NI 30 Aotl noov 3H1 Ol SV AA WMlO
ON SH3330 'ONI'3]3 'M31A SON110W 30 A1103H1 AH S1TMSV
WOHl NOI1VWtl03N1AlImnitlN011aO 'SHOO11W0ONtlmw
lb EvA NnwJ 3sW WOtl3N011VWH.iNIONOO8.N0tl5 (L
S9LON
313HON0003SWOtld e-
1N3W3AVd O3SWOYd J
AWONW9A M80H8
1££6'0£6(159)10e9 ££SS'6£6(ISO 3uOgd
26055 V.LOSANDIIW `()Wqa mq
HS2ION Zams cuss 566ZI = N
ONDIRRMONd • OKMA'dnS • ONINNVld aNVI
-:)UI -uoSIZ)ixg 'usuzaaa3 `zic�3
uejcj InoAe7
elosauu N lmarnspunoyv
COVENTRY SENIOR LIVING
IVA
Moundsview, Minnesota
Grading Plan
\� s�
�r >V
Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc.
LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING
12445 55TH STREET NORTH
® rro T LAKE ELMON MINNESOTA 55042
Phone (651) 439.8833 Fn(651)430,9331
N
FY—+—E
S
M NAL SCAI£
I CH = M NEST
0 15 M He
S. IN FEET
LEGEND
NOTES
1) BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM RAMSEY COUNWAERWL MORDANT CONTOURS.
ADDITIONAL UTILITY INFORMATION FROM ASBUILTS BY THE CRY OF MOUNDS VIEW. FEE,
INC. OFFERS NO GDARANTEE AS TO THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
OTHERS.
2) SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE ALL GUTTER LINE ELEVATIONS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
3) ELEVATION&CONTOURS SHOWN AS FINISHED GRABS ELEVATIONS.
4) PRIOR TO ROUGH GRADING, INSTALL SILT STOP FENCE IN LOCATIONS SHOWN OR AS
DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER OR CRY STAFF.
5) PROVIDE 4 OF NATIVE TOPSOIL IN GREEN AREAS.
8) SLOPES 3:1 AND GREATER SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH FIBER BLANKET.
T) MAINTAIN AND REPAIR SILT STOP FENCES OCCLUDING REMOVAL OF ACCUMULATED SILT)
UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.
8) CONTRACTOR TO INSPECT AND DOCUMENT EROSION CONTROL DAILY AND AFTER ANY
RAINEVENT.
B) 51 LT FENCE FOUND DAMAGED MUST BE REPAIREDOR REPLACED WAN24HOURSUPON
DISCOVERY. REMOVAL CF SILT FENCE REQUIRED AFTER SITE IS STABILIZED (AT
DEFORM OF ENGINEER).
IN ALL EXISTING CITY STREETS SHALL BE SWEPT AS NEEDED AND AS REQUESTED BY
ENGINEER.
11) REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
12) AFTER GOADING OPERATIONS ARE COMPLETED, LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL
UNCOMPACT ALL GREEN AREAS PRIOR TO BUDDING AND -AbIM APING.
Rev. 7-7-10
✓MT.�Ml11MDR VIEW MMNFCl1T4 _nMF]C ]11111 CVCCT'I NTFI CGFFTC
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
- - - - -''- - - - -
EXISTING CONTOUR
sro
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED STORM SEWER WI M.H.,
C.B. & F.E.S.
ORAIWIGEARROW
-----------
PROPOSEDSILTEENCE
® ®
INFRASNS INLETPROTECTKINOR
EQUAL
• °
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
� J
PROPOSES 12-HLTREQ( SOCK
NOTES
1) BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM RAMSEY COUNWAERWL MORDANT CONTOURS.
ADDITIONAL UTILITY INFORMATION FROM ASBUILTS BY THE CRY OF MOUNDS VIEW. FEE,
INC. OFFERS NO GDARANTEE AS TO THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
OTHERS.
2) SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE ALL GUTTER LINE ELEVATIONS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
3) ELEVATION&CONTOURS SHOWN AS FINISHED GRABS ELEVATIONS.
4) PRIOR TO ROUGH GRADING, INSTALL SILT STOP FENCE IN LOCATIONS SHOWN OR AS
DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER OR CRY STAFF.
5) PROVIDE 4 OF NATIVE TOPSOIL IN GREEN AREAS.
8) SLOPES 3:1 AND GREATER SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH FIBER BLANKET.
T) MAINTAIN AND REPAIR SILT STOP FENCES OCCLUDING REMOVAL OF ACCUMULATED SILT)
UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.
8) CONTRACTOR TO INSPECT AND DOCUMENT EROSION CONTROL DAILY AND AFTER ANY
RAINEVENT.
B) 51 LT FENCE FOUND DAMAGED MUST BE REPAIREDOR REPLACED WAN24HOURSUPON
DISCOVERY. REMOVAL CF SILT FENCE REQUIRED AFTER SITE IS STABILIZED (AT
DEFORM OF ENGINEER).
IN ALL EXISTING CITY STREETS SHALL BE SWEPT AS NEEDED AND AS REQUESTED BY
ENGINEER.
11) REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
12) AFTER GOADING OPERATIONS ARE COMPLETED, LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL
UNCOMPACT ALL GREEN AREAS PRIOR TO BUDDING AND -AbIM APING.
Rev. 7-7-10
✓MT.�Ml11MDR VIEW MMNFCl1T4 _nMF]C ]11111 CVCCT'I NTFI CGFFTC
Orre Aw
'833N19N331110104VMWA ONV L AWN
'3SIab $NOILONOO ONIISIX3 3HL ONb 531111110031VJOl N33M136 S310Nbd3a]SIO
ANtldl'SNOIlYYJI AlIIIID ONI1S1X3 a03llYJ 3N031tl15 tl3HdOOlOb1N00 (6
NOROnMLNODOLaOW8S311111MONIISI%301SN01103NNODlNAdIa3A (S
'SNOIIYAO3d50ab0NV1S M3IA SONWN dO ALO N3d NO11O0tl1SNO0 A nun l v Q
35IMa3H100310N SS3-N0 NOIL33S
ON303ab133O ON3 a03ffill00a1S 3O a31N333H1013aV NMOHS SHION3l 3dId (9
'NIbWa31VM M3N H3AO 113A0) d0.9 WOWINIW (9
9Ad.03llt?4WO'S)J3SWVHO 3d6H.9E"3,1014 AL V.Z1 3dld WW1503SOdONd (b
ZSSS 3dI0.9 3dld H31VM03SOdOad (f
01, MS R adid a3M3S AaV11N1503SOdOad (Z
5"3"10 Aa
030IAOad NOILVNHO3Nl30AOtl nDOV314101SV331Nbtlb DONSN3330 "ONI'3d3
'M3IASaNMA 3D ALO 3141 A9 SLIIOOSV All NOI1VW80dNI AIIIIM I0iOIlI00b
'Sa0O1N000Nb OlOHdlMa3VA N0O]A3SI WOa3NOIIVMOdN10NO0aONOVa G
SasoAULTMn
NItlWa3LbM a3sodoaa
--r--rtile—�
5334 ND
`H'W
�--�--�♦ 1S.Z4��
/M a3M35 Wtl015 0350,10",1
a3M3S Aa IINb SNIISD(a
�nK S
NIVAH3IVMONIISI)(3
AtvaN00B A1a3dOHd
4 1wg.7fli
1333 NI 3ltlJS
09 0{ 51 4
1331 M = NJNI I
3 DS IVNiSIW
S
94—A
IV
I££BO£6 (IS) N ££99'6£6 ([59) "mild
MSS V1089N WOWIR Ma 3 Al
IUUON SaaN.LS HISS SWT
OisuaaraONa • ONRIAHnS • ONINNV'IdQNV'I
-auI 'uEuiaaJ3 'ziO3
uvld A,rlr-1n
ejosauu!N ,InlainspunoN
DNIAI7 UOINIS A YIN9A 00
COVENTRY SENIOR LIVING
Moundsview, Minnesota
Ligh ting Plan
02 0D m 0A m m 0D 0A 00 00 00 00 -0s 'a on m 0A 0 m •m 'm m Ai A.p as OA m m
by p b➢ 'OA •0 'OA
0➢ OD 0.0 'OD •OA ➢➢ m 0➢ OA 0➢ 0�04A b9 0OA .0 0➢ 'Op 'wl 0.1\♦OA\OD m OD 0➢ 00 0➢ 0p Oa OA OD 0➢
OA 0➢ 00 bA a.0 0➢ Op 'Op 'OA by 'Op 1m m 0,0 0.1 0.1 0.f 01 A' 0➢ OA OD m 'm 'w0 OA OD 'Op
= OD 0➢ u 0➢ OD 'so '.s 0.0 'Op 'OA m 0➢ m 0.1 oA OA 0.1 0 w0 m 'm 'Op a➢ as 'OD b➢ 'm m
on on wo oo 'm 'pA 'oa 'oo m op oa ➢n o.1 aJ Vsn\� .0 on on .v w on bn m op m
•0 0 •wp •➢ - m up �pa 'o m p.a m on m as 0a •0.0
'0 D 0A _ 01 Oi q •oo 'ol� 'm '0A •m OD 0➢ 'OA '0.0 b0 'OA
bD
Y. Do D oA on z1 m t o1 'at •0 n 10a m Da 'm on 'op on
o➢ m o0 n o.o 'oD u 1 z DAbt ba •00 0A b2 bD '0➢ on oD •oa 0A '0.0 cn bn
m on o.a a 0.➢ o - o. '01 •01 oA on bn m Wm
0''on oD 'on bq 'aA
On Op p0 D 0, On bb RS "oz 'a, ` O., 'OJ 0} 'op 'op � ➢ On by '0,0 bn 'm 'Op '0➢ bD
m m wo n on op Oz bJ 'p., 0.1 ' a�oR '0.1 m oz o., op bn �by9n 'm as ➢A 'u bn 'on o.o m
pn pa o.o n a➢ pn ] bJ • z •0.1 4, `+Ea1 •p.� •aJ 'aJ a.1 aJ mn�PIP oA
'oa 'a.a on o➢ On o➢
Oa oa 0➢ a ➢ 0 02 w, 0., 0} o., of •E,\ 0➢ 00 m o➢ 00
OD Op OA 1 'On m 0 uz OD ,oe ,M o] 0.1 0.1 'On\op 11 an 'On u oa DD aD OD 0.0 m
m m w0 D 0.0 oa as a /� 5
VT , AA;v 1.1 0] a1 a.t of Oa \m on 0.0 an OD On DA oD
bA bA Y. A w pA A o➢ pn on wp .O� T 1a az'is 1 0 02 0.1 'o., '0.1 \ �•on bA on m an pn 'm
on m op on on an oa on op m Op v m v u ®4a 'o m oz o 1 h, 'o on m on m
p ' z
w0 m m (y�T OS, DA b a� •m m
0➢ 0➢ OA 'm On 0, by 'ao 'Op '0➢ 00 OJ 'OJ '0] \ b, •
- ' ' " - •wo bo 'o➢ 'so 'op 0A on oA 0A m •0A •v (/ o] 0➢ m a?� n. o pn
0
'm bn 'on 'm •m 'an •DA 'an 'pn 'a as l3'vO�jQU,VT oA bs 't
b h n tz oz oa m 0A
a:
m •m
_ ; I 'm '0n •0n •0a bn •aD o. •On •m o .. m �5,� CAQO OjQ� m 0, o, m m o
by 'on'os m o➢ oa on bA 'o➢ o.a ba oz b] 1.0 '� /1/ a 1 n 4�0 a p, at oa m m
•OA •OA a➢ 'OA •a0 'OA 'm b0 Op 0➢ 0 b.1 0.1 0.1 0, •0] bJ ' �TiO1pA�eC/�` •,n a1 •w, •m m
a aD m m m m m m pp mAa` b., 0.1 On pA m bn a., O1
a1 c G, , pa
'Op 'Op 'DA 0.0 0➢ 0➢ OD OD OD 0 'Op 'op On 0➢ .1
m on bn bn ao m by •on on an on b��m 'on on oo - o z o.1 .-,
op on pn Oa o pn m .m oo 'on'oA pA on m 0 op on 1 + o, o a1 pt
Ivs�.0\ A 'm '0. � '0
'm boa bA bn 'on m 'oq 'm "0.0 •o➢ 'm wo Qft 'o on on o.➢ m bn 'm•11
m 'oA z 'IA Yi 'at
a G•dL bn aq
nn un on m DA •on on 'off\ bn '0a aA •an •oa •DD 'on oA 'on bA on on ba'.1o'
m oD an ba o0 •o➢ ' ➢\�➢ ' n m o • aa,D bo 'm 'Op 'o➢ pn 0n oa o0 o ez a bA 'o o., m
• o •a 'z 'z. '1. z tl •o., •a
'0 bA 'on on OD an 'cn�n m bA bD 'an 'a40 'oA '0n as n, o.0 an 'u aA_zz�rr l.1 9z 'aa '0z A an
'm 'oD 'pA a➢"N.:.0:�: bn 'On m m 1.1 '¢ ,z ,a a➢ ba aA 'oz 0. .t'' ,o n bD 'oD as b➢ •aD Al z m .v b➢ 4e •m z , o ' op o➢ op on'oA on ➢.1 _ z b] b] n b 01 .1 oa 'On
0n m m on bn •m ba 'o m oA mA 6 oD a1 o on DA oA
• 'Is
Y,I
Is
Ys
p m➢ DO A b a a� m p n '0s
D m m r� ., 0. , m m 0
'm by o➢ n a.o 'm m.
on an m m An on on on m oo on p �➢➢ ,1 as m DA m p.o u
nn nn nn nn nn n nn nn nn nn nn nn n .nn fin An `nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn
Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc.
LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING
12445 55TH STREET NORTH
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042
YE Phone (651) 439.8833 Fax (651) 430A331
N
W FFE E
S
MIONRL SCALE
I INCD _ W FEET
O 11-s si- EO
SCME IN FEET
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
.e LOMWWRE
'A G iW WATT METAL MLIDE DECORATNE WALL FIXTURE -MOUNT 6'17
"ME F.F.E.
T' 175 WATT METAL IWLIDE W110' POLE
NOTES
11 ELEC ITICALTO RE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY AN ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERICOMFACTpi.
2010 SHEET6
Rev. 7-7-10
01 -L -L —w
lOd tl0L
.H315830i 1a SOHO VIVO
68tlH003311 OJ 11HYA9
988 .Zn -Z
W0H80H N33V
31dVW 038
0
888 01,-L
.30W111N8 NWH10V, H31HONV13WV
AHN38301AH3S
SL
lOd 94
11IN308VS'NVASISN3NIH0'f
83d1WINAOHVs
6L
888 .9
V801N V10138
dWOlO HONI8 N3N8
S
888 ,9
SN30NNd tl3Old
3ONHds 3!118
S
888 19
V3WVSN8 S318V
MIA WVsIVH
91,
888 19
tlO0V10 V301d
3OOHdS SIIIH NOVIS
S
es9
VOCHN SONId
3NId NVIHLSOV
OL
I 9
;WPd, NOHON30000HH
1,10HON30000HN WI'd
,3113 VNNV, SNA093UOBUV tl EINVN0AH
VONVH0AH3ll38VNNV
10d E#
,N3H31VMAN0H1NVVO1VNH08N'dS
3VHIdS 83H31VM ANOHINV
L
lOd .8L
OOOW SONId
3NId OOOWdHVMO
ZL
lOd tlOL
,SNH013H.LddtlH. SllItlOO13W3H
A111AV0 SNN013H AddVH11INWO
BNB d/L-Z
VH9HHSOOH300
NV003N,3NIi
31HItlHd, SO1VW
3lddtl8VH03Hld 31Hltl+ldHN8
.z/L-
,3HIdSNNId,SH1tlW
3lddtl9VH03NIdS NNIdOOH
3ZIS
3WVN NIltlI
3INWNOWW00
'NOONH AIH 0NVOIH9V330 NONtlIW1SN13HL 01
HOIHO SAHON191 dO H1d3OVO103613SOOl 3S 11VHS IIOS NRQLV`J NIW 19
113103
SILSVId 3AVH ll VHS HOWL HO1HW N]OH ONtl OO53H3HMStl3Htl IS
'Stl3Htl03N0090NV'S3SSVW
80VHSltltl3N30' tl W HANDO ONIIOHO NOLL GAItl 0919WIW1
S90HHS ONtl833N11NV3ONN 03IVISN130 ITM HO -IOW 000M d33O.S (0
V 31NO3WWI Aa NI 03191dN00 N339 GVH
NOIIOWnNOO ONVONIOVNOIIVIILVO 0311VLSNI AS 11IM ONUNVId ON (E
SH3Hio AS 3N003901 ONIaVU9 H100H 11V (Z
'SH3HLO A9 03OIAOHd lOI1VWH03NI 3J A0tl mom
A.015 A31NVHtl000NSH3330 '1NI'333 "M3IASONWW3OAHO
3H1 AS S1110SSV WOHA NOLLVWHOdNI AIIIIN Itl,WHOOtl "SMWIW0 (I
OWOMHdlMH3VALNnM1 SAV MMNUIVW AN10NOOHIN3tl9
09�
133! 9S XN'I 4
31YOS 1tlN19Np
I££6.0£61150)'Jd E£8 1R 1V1
26055 VSOSafi1''0NNW1aMlV1
MUM Sams HZ55 SM T Himi
0MRaNIONa • DbUg 1 aS • 9NINNV'1d aNV1
•auI 'uos�aug •usuiaaz3 �zJo3
awlaafras olwj 'Ici
H]Nw mmu
33tl11VLN IN NVO �}/✓_/4�\j
33V1 SOOHOI030 �.J
AV W N009 ALV3dOVd
aN'907
uelcj adeaspue7
ejosaumtmamspunoyV
OMAN 90INIS A MINIA00
3AIV IL
NVIJ 9119
101V
"ci
y�
N � 06 mL 01 0 41 X II e ,0-07 ' .I'3IVD9
n3 14 NI 3IVD9 9E X 6L o '0.,06 ..I *3IVDS
NV Id PIIS '
0 C.
mm
Em
3AWG 1-13NN0310 LH'663.AE.94e64S
1� I I L a ..OZ,94.6v S —\ \
FIRST FLOOR FLAN
PLAN
SCALE: MV = I'-0• a )q X 36 SCALE IN FEET
SCALE: 1/32" = P -W s II X it
0' 8' 16' 3E'
All
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
m
rill
w
Fid
w
Oc7
6
W
Q
rJ�
o
r
�
lid
E
w
w
Q
rO
w
�:D
All
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
O
(771
d
d
d
L
u
C
y
3
C
Z
�
O
-
C7
�
O
d
t=]
O
a
� .o
m
*'fir -ylac 191 IB 10
1331 NII IIUS W X 6C..0 -A ' o9Vl^9NOS
V V I® ®�� I� 1.1N�✓�
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
PLAN
SCALE: I46" = 1'-0" s 74 X 36SCALE IN FEET
SCALE: 1/37' = V 0" a II X n G' 9' 16' 32'
A2.3
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
W
6
W
�
N
O�
WW
�
.donEl
O
a
W
W
O�
W
Q
W
Z
A2.3
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
Item No: 6A
Meeting Date: March 17, 2010
momm—tswWr Type of Business: Commission Business
City of Mounds View .Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Review the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws
Introduction:
The Planning Commission's Bylaws state that the Commission shall review the Bylaws on an
annual basis at the first regular meeting in February.
Discussion:
The Planning Commission should review the attached Bylaws. I am not proposing any
changes to the Bylaws.
The Planning Commission reviewed and slightly amended the Bylaws in January of 2007.
The last change was about the number of absences a commissioner may have in a given
year.
Recommendation:
Adopt the Bylaws for the Planning Commission. If the Commission does not make any
amendments or modifications to the Bylaws, then the Commission may readopt them by
motion.
Sincerely,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachment
Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws
City of Mounds View
Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws
B. ELECTIONS; TERMS
Page 2
1. Chairperson: At the first meeting in January, the Commission shall conduct
an election in order to make its recommendation for the chairperson,
following the procedure in Section IV.B.3. The name of the person
recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council for
action at its next meeting in January. Based upon the recommendation of
the Planning Commission, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council,
shall appoint the chairperson of the Commission each year.
2. Vice -Chairperson: The Planning Commission shall elect a vice -chairperson
each year at its first meeting in January, following the procedure in Section
IV.B.3.
3. Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson shall invite nominations
from Planning Commission members. After nominations have been
received, the chairperson shall entertain a motion to close nominations. If
such motion is made and passed, and more than one nomination has been
made, the chairperson shall distribute ballots to the Commission members
and each member shall write his or her selection on the ballot. The
recording secretary shall tally the ballots and announce the nominee
receiving the most votes. In the event of a tie, the recording secretary shall
announce the nominees tied in the voting and balloting shall be repeated
until an election occurs. If only one nomination has been received, the
chairperson may conduct the voting by voice vote. If a majority of the
members present vote in the affirmative for the nominee, the nominee shall
be elected.
4. Assumption of Duties: The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall assume
office at the first meeting in February of each year.
5. Term of Office: The chairperson and vice chairperson shall serve one year
terms, and may be re-elected to additional terms in accordance with this
Section IV.B.
C. DUTIES OF OFFICERS: The chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the
Planning Commission, and shall have the authority to add or cancel regular
meetings and to call special meetings as provided in Section VI. The Chair
shall have the authority to redirect public comment unrelated to the
Commission's business to the most appropriate City commission or to the City
Council. The vice chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson, in
the absence of the chairperson. In the event of the absence of both the
chairperson and vice -chairperson, those members present shall elect a
temporary chairperson to preside over the meeting.
City of Mounds View
Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws
Page 4
in accordance with State Statutes. Planning Commission members shall be
notified by telephone and in writing, if possible, at least seven days priorto a
special meeting.
5. Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may be canceled by
the chairperson or Community Development Director in the event that there
are no items of business requiring the attention of the Commission, or for
lack of a quorum, or in response to inclement weather or for any other good
and sufficient reason. Members of the Commission shall be notified by
telephone of any meeting cancellation. A notice of the meeting cancellation
shall be posted as required by State Statutes.
B. QUORUM: A majority of the number of voting members appointed to the
Commission shall constitute a quorum.
C. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS, ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Chairperson: If neither the chairperson nor the vice chairperson is
present to conduct a meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning
Commission may elect a meeting chairfrom among those members present
prior to the commencement of business. The election shall follow the
procedures set forth in Section IV.13.3, except that the Community
Development Director, or his or her designee, shall conduct the election.
2. Open Meeting Law: Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the
State of Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minn. Statutes 471.705).
3. Adjournment: Meetings shall adjourn at or before 11:00 p.m. unless a two-
thirds majority of the members present agree to extend the time of
adjournment. If there is no objection, the Chairperson may declare the
meeting adjourned without the necessity of a motion or vote by the
Commission.
D. MINUTES: Minutes shall be recorded for regular meetings and each
commission member shall receive a copy of the unapproved minutes for review
and approval at a succeeding meeting. Minutes shall be approved by motion.
Approved minutes shall be the official record of the business conducted and
actions taken by the Planning Commission. Commission members may request
copies of approved minutes after they have been corrected, if necessary, and
signed as approved. Copies of the approved minutes shall be filed with the
Community Development Department. Unapproved minutes shall be clearly
marked "DRAFT; approved minutes shall be marked "APPROVED". A policy
statement regarding the content and format of the minutes shall be on file with
the Director of Community Development which may be reviewed from time to
time as needed.
2. Conflict Due to Economic Interests: A Commissioner has a conflict of
interest if, in his or her discharge of official duties, would be required to take
an action or make a decision that would substantially affect the
Commissioner's financial interests or those of an associated business,
unless the effect on the Commissioner is no greater than on other members
of the Commissioner's business classification, profession, or occupation. In
the event a conflict of interest exists with respect to a particular matter before
the Commission, the Commissioner shall disqualify himself or herself from
taking part in any discussion or action on the matter.
C. EX PARTE CONTACTS: Ex parte contacts are contacts between individuals
seeking to influence the decisions of the Planning Commission and individual
Commission members outside the meeting forum. Such contacts include
meetings with project proponents, residents, property owners, and citizens
separate from Commission meetings, communication between Commission
members outside the meeting forum, telephone calls or letters which attempt to
influence a Commissioner's opinion on a matter which will be subject to the
Commissioner's vote. When the Planning Commission is involved in a matter
which is to be heard and decided by the Commission (e.g. variances), Planning
Commissioners shall indicate to the person contacting them that such contact is
inappropriate and all testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to ensure a
fair hearing for all parties. In all other cases, Planning Commissioners should
discourage such contacts and should avoid expressing any opinion as to the
merits of the case. When ex parte contacts occur, the Planning Commissioner
is responsible for notifying the Community Development Director, and for
conveying the substance of the communication atthe next commission meeting
at which the matter discussed is under consideration.
ATTEST:
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
Ken Roberts, Community Development Director
Revision History:
January 24, 2007
September 1, 2004
February 21, 2001
February 2, 2000
March 5, 1997
February 3, 1993
October 1990
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
January 6, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00PW
. Januac, 2010.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Stevensonlilit, Melhause, Miller, R=uridle,
Schiltgen and Smith.
Absent and Excused: None. � –
Also Present: Planning Associate IUMMWer and Community Development Director
Roberts.
Index to Minutes
Special Order of Bush
CM2009-00; Conditioi
3. -tial Order i
! ath of
Planning Associael.
Schiltgen, and Smit
B. Election
Page
2
for Saturn of St. Paul
Commissioners
the oath of office to Planning Commissioners Cramblit,
of Officers – Chair and Vice -Chair
Planning Associate Heller indicated that the Planning Commission needed to vote on a Chair and
Vice -Chair for 2010.
Commissioner Cramblit nominated Gary Stevenson for Chair of the Planning Commission.
Seconded by Commissioner Meehlhause.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
January 6, 2010
Page 3
Jim Price, representing Saturn St. Paul, stated they were planning to expand the Saturn business
and were shocked with the news regarding the Saturn brand. He indicated they are also seeking
other new car franchises that want to come in to the United States. He indicated the Motor Trend
program is a good value auto dealership that sells high quality used cars. He also indicated they
have also been contacted by Meineke to do their automotive repair services, but they still want to
sell cars too.
Chair Stevenson asked if the current signage on the building would
Trend.
Mr. Price stated that the signs would change after October 20
Commissioner Meehlhause asked if the quality of cars
Mr. Price stated it is the goal of the dealership to mainfain the
currently selling.
Commissioner Meehlhause asked about the previous
Mr. Price indicated land was purchased
and they plan to stay in Mounds View.
India or China but there are details that
MOTION/SECOND:
Resolution recommer
the requirement of m:
Planning Case CM20
an ame=
car license
6. tIker Planning A 'ty
None. ----
7. Next Planning_inmission Meeting:
A. January 20, 2010
B. February 3, 2010
S. Adjournment to Agenda Session
to move the
from Saturn to Motor
of used cnrs_that they are
he business to Blaine.
s, but has since been sold
uid be one from either
mmiss3oner Miller. Resolution 921-10;
to the- Conditional Use Permit to remove
Saturn of St. Paul, 2375 Highway 10;
Motion carried.
MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
April 7, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. January 6, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues
Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address
for the minutes.)
5. Planning Cases
A. IU2010-001 Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for the temporary tent
at The Mermaid
Applicant: Dan Hall, owner
Address: 2200 County Highway 10, Mounds View
6. Other Planning Activity
UmI:7T
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. April 21, 2010
B. May 5, 2010
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. March 17, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
Item No: 5A
Meeting Date: April 7, 2010
Type of Business: Action
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a
Temporary Outdoor Membrane Structure
Introduction:
In 2003, after completion of theAmericlnn Hotel construction and renovation of the existing
facility, the Mermaid erected a temporary outdoor membrane structure for banquets,
receptions and other events. At the time they first installed the tent, there was no zoning
regulations to address such a structure, and is typically the case in Zoning Codes, the
absence of an allowance constitutes a disallowance. In 2004, the City adopted new
provisions for temporary tent structures in business zoned districts, and created an Interim
Use Permit (IUP). The City approved a 5 -year Interim Use Permit for the Mermaid's tent in
March 2005. Since that IUP has expired, the Mermaid has applied to the City for anew IUP
in order to continue using the tent.
Discussion:
The process for reviewing and approving an interim use permit for a temporary outdoor
membrane structure is the same as the process for a conditional use permit. That process
includes staff scheduling a public hearing and sending notices to property owners within 350
feet of the subject parcel.
The specific requirements of the approval process (from the City Code) are:
1. The tent or membrane structure shall comply with all provisions of the Fire Code and
receive an annual fire permit issued by the Fire Marshal.
An annual fire permit is required for this temporary structure. At the time of fire permit
application, the fire marshal will review the application and tent material information, and
conduct an inspection post erection.
2. The property owner shall annually apply for a Zoning Permit, the duration of which cannot
exceed 180 days.
The temporary tent can only be erected for a maximum of 180 days per year as stated in
the International Building Code. The City and the State consider a structure in use for
longer than 180 days a permanent building that would need to meet all building and fire
codes.
3. Adequate parking to accommodate the occupancy shall be provided at a ratio of one
parking space per 40 square feet of tent area. (The City Council may waive the parking
requirement if it can be shown that the site has sufficient existing parking capacity.)
Mermaid [UP Report
April 7, 2090
Page 3
Chapter 1125 Considerations:
Ordinance 735 indicates that a tent IUP application be reviewed similarly to a conditional use
permit as articulated in Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code. The chapter 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 of these potential adverse effects is listed below along with responses.
Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. Having an outdoor temporary membrane
structure at the Mermaid would not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, which
guides this parcel as regional commercial planned unit development.
The Geographical Area Involved. The applicant's property is part of a nine -acre site with a
variety of land uses. The general topography of the site is gently sloping to the south with little
variation. The stormwater from the site is routed to a regional stormwater pond west of the
Mermaid on the north side of County Road H.
Depreciation. Staff is not aware of any property depreciation because of the tent's
existence.
The Character of the Surrounding Area. The site is prominently located at the corner of
County Road 10 and County Road H. The tent, however, is located within a courtyard area
and is screened from all sides but the front by the Mermaid and Americlnn buildings. All of the
uses in the general area are commercial or retail with the exception of the Rice Creek Corridor
and County open space to the south.
The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant has indicated there is a need for the
tent because he is better able to serve his clientele and attract different types of events by
having the tent available for rental. The tent has been successful for the Mermaid for over five
years.
Summary:
The Mermaid has installed the tent in previous years without any issue from a zoning
perspective while satisfying all of the ordinance and code requirements. Since this is the
second application for the tent, City staff believes that the City could approve the request for
an indefinite time period so long as the owner and operator satisfy all the annual conditions.
Given the positive history to this point and the fact that the resolution contains a provision that
allows for City review of the IUP at any point, staff is comfortable in recommending an open-
ended approval.
Recommendation:
Review the request for the Interim Use Permit to allow an outdoor temporary membrane
structure in the courtyard area at the Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center.
Zoning Map
529 g
�3�529¢5287 IN�N� VIN�NIN��iN�N�N� �N�NfNNINI 5288528 5288528 528
g J""^ 11 IIVV {{VV ffVV ((VV RI H e ,
RESOLUTION • 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
�� • k Will 1 NJ IT •
WHEREAS, Dan Hall has applied for an interim use permit for a temporary outdoor
tent structure at the Mermaid, located at 2200 County Highway 10; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned PUD, Planned unit Development, and has
a Comprehensive Plan future Land Use Map designation of Regional Commercial PUD;
and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows temporary outdoor tent
structures in commercial districts by interim use permit; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed
the zoning requirements associated with temporary tents in commercial districts and finds
that all conditions are satisfied by this request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit
request:
1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan
2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Zoning Code.
3. The size of the structure is within permitted allowances and meets setback
provisions.
4. There have been no complaints filed with the City about the use of the tent in the
previous years.
5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the temporary
outdoor structure.
6. The site has adequate parking area available to satisfy the demands of the
temporary structure.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
March 17, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Miller,
Absent and Excused: Commissioner Meehlhause.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller
Roberts.
Index to Minutes
Concept PlanReview for
3. Approval of 1
December 16, 2009 :-
MOTION/SECOND:
of the December 16,
Ayes — 6
Schiltgen, Smith and Stevenson.
Development Director
Page
Development 2
by Select Companies
3
nmissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Rundle. To approve the minutes
regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Nays — 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
March 17, 2010
Page 3
Glen Harstad, the Carwash Company at 2340 Highway 10, indicated he only owns the car wash
site. He stated that the new building would shield the neighborhood from Highway 10 and the
noise. He added he is very proud to be part of this project.
Planning Associate Heller stated the other two parcels are owned by a private person who
intended to build an office building for his own company here. That never happened and the
properties have been for sale for several years.
Chair Stevenson questioned the City -owned corner lot and its salability if this housing
development is located in the middle of the larger redevelopment area.
Planning Associate Heller stated indicate the city's lot is a small odd shaped parcel that does not
connect well to the senior living properties. Any development on the city's lot would make more
sense if at least the adjacent Taiko Japanese Restaurant site was also included This would create
a larger and better shaped parcel to build on. The proposed senior housing development would
probably not hurt future development on the city's lot.
Chair Stevenson asked what will happen with the developmetitsite on Groveland.
Planning Associate Heller stated the City Council recently re approved the Groveland site again
and Select Companies is still looking for financing. Select Companies has indicated that
whichever of the sites can get financing is where they would build the project. City staff
assumes that the purchase agreement between Select Companies and the two owners of the
Groveland site has probably expired, and the lots remain for sale.
Chair Stevenson stated this site will -look better with the new development.
Commissioner Smith asked about landscaping on the site.
Planning Associate Heller stated there will be quite a bit of landscaping. Staff suggested
reducing the parking lot drive aisle in order to have more open space between the parking lot and
the street for landscaping. She added if any of the Commission wants to look at the Select
Senior Living facility in CoorRapid s, it is off Highway 10 and Hanson, and then go south on
Hanson about a half mile. =This facility has a similar setting with the access through a
neighborhood.
Community Development Director Roberts asked the Planning Commission if there were any
items they would want cleared up before the developer comes back.
Chair Stevenson stated the access points into the site should be more decided on.
6. Other Planning Activity
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
April 21, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. March 17, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues
Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address
for the minutes.)
5. Planning Cases
A. VR2010-001 Consideration of a Variance to allow a 6 -foot fence in front
of the house line on a corner lot.
Applicant: Daniel Haga
Address: 5046 Eastwood Road
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Discuss expanding permitted uses in B-1, Neighborhood Business Zoning
Districts
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. May 5, 2010
B. May 19, 2010
6. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. April 7, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
Item No: 5A
Meeting Date: April 21, 2010
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 Six -Foot Tall
Fence in the Front Yard of 5046 Eastwood Road;
Planning Case VR2010-0001
Introduction:
The applicant, Daniel Haga, is requesting a variance to install a 6 -foot tall fence in the "second
front yard" of his corner lot located at 5046 Eastwood Road. The property is located at the
northeast corner of Eastwood Road and County Road H. Since two streets border corner lots,
they have two front yards. As such, the City Code requirement for front yard applies to two
sides of the property, which means that corner lots to have additional limitations. The Zoning
Code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building in a residential district may
exceed four feet in height. The applicant currently has a 4 -foot chain-link fence in this front
yard (on the south side of the house near County Road H). He would prefer to have a 6 -foot
tall wood fence for screening from County Road H, and thus has applied for the variance.
Discussion:
According to the Municipal Code, Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3, fences of a height greater
than 48 inches (4 feet) are not allowed in the front yard of a property. The site plan attached
to this report depicts the existing fence location and the location of where the fence would be if
consistent with City Code. The Zoning Code also establishes a sight triangle that limits all
obstructions within the area at the corner of intersections, measured thirty (30) feet from the
point where the property lines meet at the intersection of two streets. The proposed fence
would not be located within the sight triangle.
Variance Considerations:
For the City to approve this variance, as with any variance request, there needs to be
demonstrated substantial hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that
makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner.
State statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission) review a set of
specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria.
The City has set these criteria in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code
clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria and
a staff comment about each are as follows:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property, which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective
date hereof have had no control.
Haga Variance Report
April 21, 2010
Page 3
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within
the neighborhood.
The requested variance should not cause any adverse effects.
Based upon the review of the above criteria, it appears to staff that the requested variance
does satisfy the hardship and practical difficulty threshold.
Public Hearing:
As with any requested variance, a public hearing is required. City staff mailed notices to all
property owners within 350 feet of 5046 Eastwood Road. No resident or property owner
has contacted staff about this request.
Recommendation:
After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and any
neighbors, the Commission should take one of the following actions:
1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 923-10 is attached for the Commission's
approval if they so choose.
Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should
direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the
denial.
Table the request. If the Commission needs more information before making a decision or
if more discussion is needed, the Commission can table the request until they are provided
such information.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1.
Zoning Map
2.
Aerial Photo
3.
Site Plan
4.
Corner Lot Fence Diagram
5.
Photographic Documentation
6.
Resolution 923-10
Aerial View
Per city code- any fence beyond the red line, cannot be more than 4 -feet tall without a
variance.
The yellow lines are where the applicant is requesting to install a 6 -foot tall privacy fence —
this would replace the current 4 -foot tall chain-link fence.
6 PA
d• a 7
..
R, io _00p Ir � �� 9t `'o Rl Y� ` .•
rs•-0
d.. . 1 v�i � I@��•' �.. as .L`: � � � � � ,rp f✓s�\
Ok e2e.
`V:� N;�: `, s�..�``•.>.� fir-
rA
gw
® .✓" \ix �r f � \"i�j• ,`p'f' x`! 1�f j j�� < 1,, f Irl �
'?411
-- 'a opts/OI�fOn.� 3,I�IrIPa i�rl y � a , r, `F u rr
Ilk
16.5 feet from fence
/+�•r��sc. rr�11 511 1 � AA E+
-- i
. -..- of asphalt
Second front yard.
wouldApplicant . replace
the 4 -foot tall chain-link fence
with a 6 -foot wood fence•,
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 923-10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIX-FOOT TALL
FENCE IN THE SOUTH FRONT YARD OF 5046 EASTWOOD ROAD;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2010-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, Daniel Haga, has applied for a variance to allow a six-foot
tall fence in the south front yard (near County Road H) of his property at 5046 Eastwood
Road; and,
WHEREAS, 5046 Eastwood Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally
described as follows:
Twelve Oaks, Lot 9, Block 2
Ramsey County, Minnesota
(PIN 073023440092)
WHEREAS, Section 1103.08 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the
maximum height of a fence in a front yard four feet (4'); and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a six foot (6) fence in
the front yard abutting County Road H; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents about this proposal:
1. Zoning Map
2. Aerial Photo
3. Photographic Documentation
4. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief
to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a
hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought
about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the
property owner's control; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, April 21,
2010, about this variance request; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria that must be
satisfied in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
Item No: 6A
Meeting Date: April 21, 2010
Type of Business: Discussion
To: Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Discussion about expanding the possible uses in the B-1
Zoning District
Introduction:
Mounds View only has two parcels in the city that are zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business. One
of the B-1 businesses closed and City staff recently noticed remodeling occurring in the vacant
space. After talking to the people working in this space, City staff learned that they planned to
open a thrift store. After reviewing the B-1 zoning code, City staff informed this potential
business owner that the existing B-1 zoning code does not allow thrift stores. In fact, there are
only five uses that are permitted in a B-1 zoning district: barbershops, beauty parlors,
convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type), self-service laundromats and essential
services (utility or government uses). The City may allow a daycare center in the B-1 district
with the approval of a conditional use permit. City staff spoke to the thrift storeowner about this
situation and we anticipate that she will apply to the City soon for a zoning code text
amendment.
Discussion:
Staff has been researching what other cities allow in zoning districts that are comparable to
Mounds View's B-1 district. All seven of the zoning codes from the other cities that staff
reviewed allow several uses in their similar neighborhood business districts. These specific
zoning code sections for the other cities are attached to this report. In general, all of the other
cities zoning codes allow service businesses such as medical clinics and offices, along with
several different types of retail in their respective neighborhood or limited business district
zoning districts.
Both of the B-1 zoned properties in Mounds View are very small — approximately 'h acre in size,
with one building and a parking lot. The small building and lot sizes alone will limit the type of
businesses that would open in these locations. As with many commercial properties in Mounds
View, both of these B-1 properties are directly adjacent to residential land uses.
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 other B-1 zoned property is at 7295 Silver Lake
Road (at corner of County Road 1-12) and is about 2,200 square feet with 15 parking spaces.
Neither property would probably meet the required number of parking spaces for most common
land uses (see Chapter 1121.13 for parking requirements). Both of these properties are located
on main roads and have access points that would be capable of handling more traffic.
1112.01
CHAPTER 1112
B-1, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT
SECTION:
1112.01:
Propose
1112.02:
Permitted Uses
1112.03:
Accessory Uses
1112.04:
Conditional Uses
1112.05:
Interim Uses (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
1112.03 (Rev. 5/04)
1112.01: PURPOSE: 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. (1988 Code §40.16)
1112.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-1 District:
Barber shops
Beauty parlors
Convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type)
Essential services
Laundromat, self-service washing and drying. (1988 Code §40.16)
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 thirty percent (301/o) of the gross floor space of the principal
use.
Subd. 2. Off-street parking as regulated by Chapter 1121 of this Title but not including semi-
trailer trucks.
0
1112.03 1112.04 (Rev. 5/04)
Subd. 2. Professional and commercial (leased) offices; provided, that:
a. The traffic generated will not raise traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the surrounding streets.
b. The architectural appearance of the building housing the office use shall reflect the building
character of the area and shall not be so dissimilar as to cause impairment of property values or
constitute a blighting influence within the neighborhood.
c. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
Subd. 3. Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 1120 of this Title.
Subd. 4. Solar energy and wind generator systems and solar and wind generator structures'. (1988 Code
§40.16)(Rev. 2/97)
Subd. 5. Wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in Chapter
1124 of the zoning code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 6. Day care center, group nursery; provided that: (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed
daily. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (39). (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
c. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02,
subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
d. Not less than forty (40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such space
be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions as specified by the City Council.
(Ord. 595,4-14-97)
e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title.
(Ord. 595,4-14-97)
f Adequate off-street loading and service enhances are provided in compliance with Chapter 1122
of this Title. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
g. The site and related parking and service enhances shall be served by an arterial or collector street
of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
h. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the
Mounds View Sign Code. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
'See Sections 1103.04 and 1103.05 of this Title.
City of Mounds View
1112.05
1112.05 (Rev. 5/04)
h. The structure shall be anchored to the ground. (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
i. The tent or membrane structure shall be maintained in a good condition. Deficiencies
shall be corrected as soon as practicable. (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
j. The IUP can be reviewed at any time by the City if problems arise which would
necessitate revision or termination of the IUP. (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
k. The IUP would become null and void if the property owner fails to comply with the
provisions of the permit or if the structure is removed for more than a one (1) year period, or
if the property undergoes a change of ownership. (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
1. Exceptions: (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
(1) Tents or Membrane structures erected for periods that do not exceed one (1)
week shall not require an interim use permit, however a zoning permit and fire permit are
required regardless of the time frame. (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
(2) To eliminate duplication of review, when a use (e.g., outdoor sales or
storage) would otherwise require a conditional use permit, an interim use permit shall not be
required if a tent or membrane structure is involved and is addressed as part of the CUP.
(Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
City of Mounds View
(5) Racquet clubs, subject to the following:
A. The racquet club building shall be designed as to have an appearance compatible with a
residential area.
B. Only such buildings as are necessary for the racquet courts and associated activities shall be
permitted on the premises. No buildings or additions to buildings for additional accessory uses
shall be permitted.
C. A surfaced parking lot shall be located in conformance with the standards of this Chapter and
Chapter 6 of the Zoning Code except that it shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the
required number of parking spaces per court. The number of required parking spaces shall be
seven spaces per court.
D. Sales of goods and services shall be permitted only upon the following conditions:
1. All sales shall be conducted within the clubhouse building.
2. Sales shall be limited to the following:
a. Services necessary or incidental to the teaching and playing of the game.
b. Equipment, clothing and supplies necessary or incidental to the playing of the
game.
c. Food, beverages, and confections for the convenience of those playing the
game.
E. Plantings, berming and/or other types of landscaping treatment shall be provided to buffer
surrounding residential areas and to ensure the compatibility of the racquet club.
F. The special use permit for the racquet club may include as a condition the conduct of indoor
recreational,educational, and artistic activities that are special events of a temporary nature and
may be permitted with the authorization of the City Council. This authorization is separate from
and in addition to the permit for a racquet club and may be granted on the following conditions:
1. Authorization by the City Council shall specify each separate activity permitted.
2. Authorization by the City Council may limit the dates, times, and maximum number of
participants.
3. Such activity will not create objectionable sound or sight to neighboring lands.
(6) Government buildings and grounds.
(7) Churches.
(8) Public or private schools. (Code of 1988; Ord. No. 588, 11-10-92; Code of 2001)
Article 2. B-2 District
Sec. 5-110. Neighborhood Business District.
For the purpose of this Article, a neighborhood business district is defined as a business district required
for the daily retail business needs of the residents of the locality only. (Code of 200 1)
See. 5-120. Permitted Uses in a B-2 District.
(1) Any uses permitted in a B-1 district except as otherwise provided in the Zoning Code.
(2) Retail business for local or neighborhood needs subject to the following limited extent:
A. The sale and manufacture of baked goods and the sale of confectionery, dairy products,
delicatessen, fruits, vegetables, groceries and meats in permanent buildings only.
B. The sale of dry goods and variety merchandise.
C. The sale of books, magazines, newspapers, cigars, drugs, flowers, gifts, music, photographic
goods, sporting goods, and stationery.
D. Eating places, lunchrooms, restaurants, and cafeterias when housed and used in conjunction
with other businesses permitted in the District.
E. Places for the sale and consumption of soft drinks, juices, and ice cream.
F. Service establishments, barber or beauty shops, custom tailors, laundry agencies, self-service
laundries, hand laundries, coin laundries, shoe repair, ice stations, and milk and egg stations. Also
dry cleaning, pressing, and tailoring shops in which:
1. Not more than five persons are engaged in such work or business at any one time.
2. Only nonexplosives and nonflammable solvents are used.
3. No work is done on the premises for retail outlets elsewhere.
G. It shall be the policy of the City Council to consider other uses not listed in this Section. At
the discretion of the City Council, such uses may be permitted pursuant to and in accordance with
Sections 8-700 through 8-720 of the Zoning Code. (Code of 1988; Ord. No. 587, 11-10-92; Code
of 200 1)
Sec. 5-130. Permitted Accessory Uses in a B-2 District.
(1) Off-street parking and off-street loading as regulated by the Zoning Code.
(2) Buildings and structures for a use that is accessory to the principal use.
(3) Signs as regulated in Chapter 9 of the Zoning Code.
(4) Up to four electronic amusement devices or games not to exceed in area thirty percent of the net retail
sales area.
(5) Licensed permanent cosmetic make-up businesses limited to application of coloring agents to create a
permanent color to the skin of or around the eyes, lips, eyebrows, eyelids facial area and camouflaging of
skin and scar tissue by applying skin coloring are permitted accessory uses to barber shops and hair or
beauty salons. (Code of 1988; Ord. No. 499, 9-15-82; Code of 2001; Ord. No. 682,2-27-01)
Spring Lake Park, MN Code of Ordinances
use permit. Any modification of the preliminary plat or site plan shall require a resubmission to
and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
(5) Should the special use permit be approved, the final plat shall be
submitted to the city in accordance with Ch. 155 of this code and the provisions of this chapter.
(1976 Code, § 35.10) Penalty, see § 10.99
TITLE XV: LAND USAGE / CHAPTER 156: ZONING / NON -RESIDENCE
DISTRICTS; USE REGULATIONS; REQUIREMENTS
TITLE XV: LAND USAGE / CHAPTER 156: ZONING / NON -RESIDENCE
DISTRICTS; USE REGULATIONS; REQUIREMENTS / § 156.110 COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS; PURPOSE AND INTENT.
§ 156.110 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS; PURPOSE AND INTENT.
(A) Purpose. The commercial districts are established to accomplish the general
purpose of this chapter and the Comprehensive Plan and for the following specific purposes:
(1) To group compatible business uses which will tend to draw trade that is
naturally interchangeable and so promotes the business prosperity and public convenience;
(2) To provide an adequate supply of business and professional services to
meet the needs of the residents; and
(3) To promote a high quality of total commercial development and design
that produces a positive visual image.
(1976 Code, § 36.01)
(B) Intent. The specific intent of each commercial district is as follows.
(1) C-1, shopping center commercial district. This district is intended to
provide a district which may be applied to land in single ownership or unified control for the
purpose of developing a planned business center with a unified and organized arrangement of
buildings and service facilities at key locations which are suitable for the use and which are
centrally located within the residential area they are intended to serve.
2)
C-2, neighborhood and service center commercial district. This district is
American Legal Publishing Corporation
170
Spring Lake Park, MN Code of Ordinances
use
District
C -I
C-2
C-3
Commercial recreation such as bowling alleys, billiard halls,
miniature golf, and the like
S
S
Convalescent and nursing homes
S
Day nurseries with at least 50 square feet of outside play space per
pupil, enclosed with five-foot high fence
S
S
S
Drive-in restaurants, or similar uses providing goods and services to
pahrons in autos
S
S
-
Dry cleaning and laundry establishments with no more than four
employees for cleaning or pressing
P
P
-
Dry cleaning and laundry collection stations, and self-service
P
P
-
Equipment rental
P
-
Financial institutions
P
P
S
Greenhouses, nurseries
P
Hospitals
S
Laboratories; medical, dental
P
P
P
Medical equipment rental
P
S
Mortuaries, funeral homes, monument sales
S
P
Motels, hotels, or apartment hotels
S
S
Off -sale liquor stores
P
P
Off-street parking and loading as regulated in §§ 156.050 et seq.
A
A
A
Offices (administrative, executive, professional, governmental,
medical, research); without merchandising services
P
P
P
Offices (as above); with merchandising services
S
P
S
Personal services and repair establishments such as barber and
beauty shops, shoe repair, and the like
P
P
P
Pet and animal shops, clinics, taxidermists
P
P
-
Plumbing and heating showrooms and shops
P
-
Printing, publishing, and related distribution agencies
S
S
-
Private clubs and lodges
S
S
-
Religious or philanthropic institutions
S
S
S
Restaurants, night clubs, and the like
P
P
S
American Legal Publishing Corporation 202
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
1320.05 Land Use Chart. (Revised December 3, 2008)
-.
Zoning Districts:
Uses;
R-1
R-2
R-3 I R -4'I
NB I B-1
B-2
13-31
B-4
1 CC)
GB 11-1
1-2
I I FLEX'
Antenna: Dish o"r Tower "
CA
CA
CAI
CA
CA
CAI CA
C
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
C
C
C
C
Boarding House:
A
P
P
P
C
C
P
P
P
P
Business Service
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
C
P
P
P P
ClinicP
Club or Lodoe inon oro/iU
CI_ ubiSports & Fitness
A
P
P
P I
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
P
Commercial: Recreation
Da Care Facility, 10 or less
P
P
P
P
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Daycare Facility` over 10
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Residential Daycare Facility 6 or less
P
P
P
P
C
Residential Daycare Facile over 6
C I
C
C
C
DoKq ennel
C
C
Dog Run �
A
A
A
Drive-in/DrIVB=up Business
C
C
C
A
Dry Cleaning &Laundry Dick -up station
C
P
D
C
C
P
D
C
D
P
D
P
D
D
P
D
P
D
C
C
--
--
C
C
A
C
D
A
C
C
D
Dry Cleaning` & Laundry. '. self-service
Dwellin :Sin le Famil Attached
Dwelling: Sin le-Fnmil Detached
Dwellin Densit Zonin
Dwellina: Two -Family
Dwelling; Multiple Family
Earth sheltered'Home
C
C
C
C
Financial lnstitulion&Service..,-1
A
A
A
A
P
P
P
P
P
I C
A
I P
P
P
I P
Garage Truck,
Home Occupation• Class I
Home Occupation: Class II
Hotel/Motel
C
P
C
C
C
��
C
House of Womble
C
C
C
C
C
Institutional HousingC
C
C
C
C
Land Reclamation
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Manufacturing &!.Processing: !:Classy
A
A
A
P I
P
P
P
&'Processing'Olass
_Manufacturing
Mining___,
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C I
C
C
C
Manufactured Home Park--
--
--
--
C
--
--
--
--
--
--
P
P
C
Mortuarv� Funeral Home
Multiple Use Operation
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Nursery
Office
P
P
P
P I
P
P
P
P
P I
P
Pawn Sho.to_ _ -
Personal Service..:.
C
A
P
P I
P
C
I P
A
Public Use
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C I
C
I C
C
C
C
C
Research
C
P
C
C
P
P
P
P
Research Animals
C
C
P
P
C
P
C
C'
P
C
C
C
C
Restaurant
Restaurant -Fast FoodC
Retail Sales & Sorvice
P
P
C
A
A
A
A
Service Station im
C
C
C I
C
C
School.-GeneraliEducation
C
C
C
C
C
School. Higher Education
D
C
C
Sctioof Soecial:Education
C
C
C
C
P
C
C
P
P
C
P
C
C
C
CA
Storage Exterior.
Studio
Theater Indoor
Utility Distribution Line
P
I P
P
P
P
P I
P
P
P
P
P
Utillty Substation:
C
C
Utility Transmission
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Vehicle- Motorized leasing and rentals
C
Vehicle - Motorized service
Warehousing
A
A
A I
A
C I
P
P I
C
PI. -Permitted; "D' = Planned Unit', 'L" = Not Permat'ed,
' C" Conditionals. Use Permit; "A' =Accessory;
"CA' = Conditional Accessory Use Permit, '1' =Interim Use Permit
Section 1320 -District Provisions
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 9 of 41
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
E. To accommodate, where possible, a public commons giving residents
a place to gather and interact with one another.
F. To ensure adequate buffering is provided on these sites for the
adjacent residential uses.
G. To require, where applicable, compliance with the City's gateway
requirements.
�Subd. 6 B-1 Limited Business District
A. To establish areas for the location and development of administrative
office buildings and related office uses which are subject to more
restrictive controls.
B. To provide a district which is related to and may reasonably adjoin
high density or other residential districts.
C. To establish a business district in which there is limited contact with
the public and no exterior display or selling of merchandise to the general
public.
Subd. 7 B-2 General Business District (Revised December 3, 2008)
A. To be a place in which people can live, work and play
B. To create a compact, architecturally diverse, pedestrian- and bicycle -
friendly community with a distinct identity.
C. To provide a connected sidewalk system and places for people to
gather and socialize.
D. To implement design standards to promote an attractive environment
with lasting and sustainable value.
E. To group compatible retail and service business uses that tend to draw
trade that is naturally interchangeable and promotes business prosperity.
F. To provide an adequate supply of businesses and professional service
areas to meet the needs of the residents.
G. To minimize the effects of traffic congestion, noise, odor, glare and
similar safety problems.
H. To implement the Plan known as the "Guiding Plan for the B2
District," which was adopted by the City Council on October 27, 2008.
Section 1320 — District Provisions
Adopted: November 13,2006
Page 4 of 41
such proposed Permitted Use may be denied as such, and only considered on a Special
Use application.
(2) Special Uses:
(a) Convenience food stores with gas pumps, subject to the following conditions:
Pump islands shall be set back at least 25 feet from any street right-of-way, at least
40 feet from any non -street property line, and not less than 100 feet from any
non -Commercial District boundary.
(b) Public Buildings.
(c) Churches.
(d) Schools.
(3) Accessory Uses:
(a) Business signs, consistent with the City Sign Code.
(b) Off-street parking facilities.
(c) Temporary greenhouse/seasonal garden centers, as an accessory use to florist shops
and hardware stores only, under the following conditions:
i) A temporary greenhouse/seasonal garden center permit may be approved by
the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Planner, City Engineer and
Fire Marshall.
ii) Only one (1) temporary structure is allowed, with a maximum size of 750
square feet in area. The covered portion of a seasonal garden center may be no
more than 12 feet in height, professionally designed and constructed, and
maintained in a neat and attractive manner. Such a structure must be
predominantly a single color that is compatible with the surrounding
development. Colors, stripes or patterns may be permitted on no more than
eight percent (8%) of the surface area of the sides and roof of the temporary
structure.
iii) A seasonal garden center may occupy no more than 2,500 square feet of
ground area.
iv) A seasonal garden center must be located in a portion of the site that will not
disrupt typical parking needs, required service or vehicular movement,
emergency access, or other site requirement, as determined by the City
Administrator in consultation with the City Planner, City Engineer and Fire
Marshall.
v) A seasonal garden center may be permitted at the discretion of the City
Council for up to 180 days in a calendar year, in the spring, summer and/or
autumn months. The garden center must be removed and the site cleaned and
restored to its original condition within 72 hours after the expiration of the
permit.
vi) Only trees, shrubs, plants and flowers, and associated gardening merchandise
may be sold or displayed in a seasonal garden center. The display of
motorized, fuel -powered, electrical or mechanical gardening/lawn equipment
shall be forbidden within the garden center.
vii) The outdoor portion of a seasonal garden center must be maintained in a neat
and attractive manner, surrounded by an aesthetically approved fence that if
temporary, may be no more than four feet in height, except at entrance
openings. Plants and merchandise may not be displayed more than six feet
above the ground. Boxes, cartons, bins or other similar storage devices are not
permitted in the outdoor portion of the garden center.
viii) Signage for any seasonal garden center shall be limited to no more than a
combined 32 square feet of area, which must be located adjacent to the outdoor
13-2
Interior lot line........................................10
Residential zoning boundary...................25
(2) Maximum Height: Maximum height of buildings shall be 18 feet.
(Source: Ord. 114; Ord. 126; Ord. 155; Ord. 196; Ord. 286; Ord. 294; Ord. 310; Ord. 328; Ord. 437; Ord.
526; Ord. 546; Ord. 557; Ord. 562, 10-19-2004)
13-4
City of Oakdale Chapter 25 of the Zoning Code
vehicles to consume or use the goods or services while on the premises of the principal use,
shall not be permitted:
(3) Business located in a C-1 District which abuts any Residential District shall restrict their
hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
See. 25-71 Access.
(1) Access to commercial activities shall be allowed only on arterial or collector streets, or a
street specifically designed for such development.
(2) Curb cuts within a single proposed site shall not be spaced closer than 100 feet. Commercial
developments of a small scale shall be encouraged to develop a common access drive and
parking facilities. Incentives to promote development of shared parking facilities and access,
such as reduction in setback and/or parking requirements, may be approved by the City
Council.
(3) A turning lane and its appropriate right-of-way must be provided if the City Council
determines that one is needed.
See. 25-72 Requirements on Setbacks, Yards, and Height.
(1) The minimum building setback from any Commercial One District boundary or public street
right-of-way shall be as set forth below.
(a)
(b)
Section 25-68 to 25-72
Revised. June, 2005
Page 46
BUILDING SETBACI{S
FEET
Minor Arterial Street
30
Collector Street
30
Local Street
30
Interior Lot Line
10
Residential Zoning Boundary
30
PARKING LOT OR
CIRCULATION DRIVE
FEET
Minor Arterial Street
15
Collector Street
15
Local Street
10
Interior Lot Line
5
Residential Zoning Boundary
15
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 665 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Toe Apr 8 12:31:10 2003
/first/pubdocs/mcc/3 / 11217_full
ZONING § 44-429
Sec. 44.427. Permitted uses.
Any of the following uses are permitted, provided that the floor area of all buildings in any
one NC neighborhood commercial district shall not exceed 3,000 square feet:
(1) Bakery or candy shop for the production of goods sold on the premises.
(2) Beauty parlor or barbershop.
(3) Dry cleaner or laundromat. All odors must be controlled so as not to be noticeable to
adjacent residents.
(4) Office or medical and dental clinics.
(5) Repair shop, except for motorized vehicles. No work shall be performed outside of the
building.
(6) Drugstore, hardware or grocery store.
(7) Studio.
(8) Tailor or dressmaker shop.
(9) Veterinary or grooming clinic where there are no outside kennels or storage.
(10) Videotape rentals.
(11) Printing shop.
(Code 1982, § 36-127)
Sec. 44-428. Accessory uses.
Accessory uses within an NC neighborhood commercial district are as follows:
(1) Off-street parking.
(2) Signs, in accordance with article III of this chapter.
(Code 1982, § 36-128)
Sec. 44-429. Conditional uses.
Conditional uses for an NC neighborhood commercial district require council approval. Any
of the following conditional uses are permitted, provided that the floor area of all buildings in
any one NC district shall not exceed 8,000 square feet:
(1) Any permitted use listed in section 44-427.
(2) Club, lodge or hall.
(3) Private school, day care center or community service use.
(4) Taxistand or bus stop.
(5) Restaurant, where there are no drive -up order windows or serving of food to patrons
in their automobiles. All cooking odors must be controlled so as not to be noticeable to
adjacent residents.
CD44:63
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 672 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:10 2003
/firstlpubdoes/vitt/3/ 11217_full
§ 44-513
MAPLEWOOD CODE
Secs. 44.513-44-535. Reserved.
Subdivision 77. LBC Limited Business Commercial District
Sec. 44-536. Permitted uses.
(a) Permitted uses in the LBC limited business commercial district are the following:
(1) Offices;
(2) Medical or health-related clinics; and
(3) Day care centers.
(b) The city will allow uses similar to the uses in subsection (a) of this section if they would
not create a nuisance and if they are not noxious or hazardous. The city council shall review
uses that are not clearly similar for a determination of compatibility.
(Code 1982, § 36-154(a); Ord. No. 802, § 1, 6-26-2000)
—Secs. 44.537-41-555. Reserved.
Subdivision III. BC(M) Commercial District (Modified)
Sec, 44-556. Intent.
The \BC(M) business commercial district (modified) is intended to provide for the orderly
transition between more intensive commercial uses and low or medium density residential
areas. Restrictio`rs on but not limited to building height, setbacks, orientation, parking lot
location, or location �of building entrances may be required to ensure compatibility with
abutting residential uses.
(Code 1982, § 36-155(a))\`.,
See. 44-557. Permitted uses.
In the BC(M) business
following uses by right:
(modified), the city shall only permit the
(1) Retail or commercial Dental activities, office clinic, studio, bank, personal service, day
care center, craftsmen's shop or mortuary. All kl ness, storage or display, except signs
and parking, shdll be in a closed building. \
(2) Hotel or
(3) Ind00rjtI
(4) P�iblishing, photocopying or printing establishment.
or candy shop producing goods for on -premises retail sales.
Motor vehicle accessory installation center.
Fridley City Code Chapter 205 (Zoning) Section 205.13.C.(3)(b)
(c) Only items associated with the principal use may e displayed.
(d) Three events per year are permitted, and shall occur no closer than 20 days apart.
(e) Six events per year are permitted for multi -tenant developments, and shall occur
no closer than 20 days apart.
(f) The duration of each event shall be no longer than 10 consecutive days.
(g) The merchandise shall be displayed in a manner that does not impede vehicular
traffic or otherwise cause unsafe traffic conditions.
(h) The merchandise shall not be displayed in the boulevard or on any landscaped
area.
(i) If a tent is to be used, the property owner shall obtain a building permit and
comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code related to tents.
Fees for tents shall be as established by the Uniform Building Code.
(j) The property owner shall pay the fees as established in Chapter 11 of the City
Code.
(k) Signage for temporary promotions must meet the temporary sign definition with
the exception that they may be displayed only during the ten-day event (214).
C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit.
The following are uses permitted with a Special Use Permit in C-1 Districts:
(1) Theaters, lodges and assembly facilities having a seating capacity of less than 300
persons, but not including outdoor theaters.
(2) Hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes and homes for the elderly.
(3) Day Care Centers.
(a) At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 100 square feet
of useable day care floor area.
(b) Reduction of parking spaces may be allowed when provision of space required for
parking stalls, due to the particular nature of the proposed use or other
considerations, would be an unnecessary hardship. Adequate open space shall be
provided to satisfy the total number of required parking spaces.
Fridley City Code Chapter 205 (Zoning)
Section 205.13.3.B.(3)
(9) Solar energy devices NOT an integral part of the principal structure.
(10) Exterior storage of materials and equipment.
(11) Class II Restaurants. (Ref. 900)
D. Additional Restrictions.
For uses, other than principal uses, requirements as to lot size, setbacks, building,
parking, landscaping, screening, etc. shall be at least comparable to similar uses in other
districts, but also subject to additional provisions as provided by the City.
2. USES EXCLUDED
Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless specifically allowed under Uses
Permitted of this district are excluded in C-1 Districts, including, but not limited to: pawn shops,
pawn brokers as regulated by Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code, and secondhand goods'
dealers as defined in Minnesota State Statute 471.925. (Ord. 1104)
3. LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS
A. Lot Area
A minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet is required.
B. Lot Coverage.
(1) The maximum percent of the area of a lot allowed to be covered by the main building
and all accessory buildings is as follows:
(a) One (1) story — forty percent (40%) maximum.
(b) Two (2) story — thirty-five percent (35%) maximum.
(c) Three (3) story — thirty percent (30%) maximum.
(2) The above lot overages will be subject to other considerations, including parking and
open space requirements, use of facilities, and proximity to other districts, which may
decrease the maximum lot coverage.
(3) The lot coverage may be reduced by the City if and when there is provision for
underground parking within the main structure, provided that the lot coverage shall
not be more than thirty percent (30%).
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April i, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
,i
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7 00=p,m.,April
2. Roll Call{ G ,
Members Present' Commissioners Cramblit, Miller,
Absent and Excused: Commissioner
Also Present: Planning Associate fleidr Hellen.
Index to Minutes
r: is
Consideration of an Infer im Use Iicrmit for the temp
Mermaid, 2200H� h'
,County
g way`10
3.
January 6,
of the January 6,
le, Schiltgen, Smith and Stevenson.
ti
e't ,
b ,rF
Page
tent at The
2
ssioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Miller. To approve the minutes
Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes 6 Nays — 0
Motion carried.
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
May 5, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. April 7, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the
record.)
5. Planning Cases
A. TX2010-001 Consideration of an Amendment to the Zoning Code to add "Thrift
Store" as a Permitted Use in a B-1, Neighborhood Business Zoning District.
Applicant: Dawn Huffman
Address: Fridley, MN
B. CU2010-001 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize
Garage at 7406 Spring Lake Road
Applicant: Jason & Darcie Kramber
Address: 7406 Spring Lake Road
6. Other Planning Activity
None
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. May 19, 2010
B. June 2, 2010
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. April 21, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
_ Item No: 5A
MO7 r —D— �jiav Meeting Date: s: 5.2010
V1�IlJJ • 1LYY Type of Business: Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consider a Zoning Code Text Amendment to Add "Thrift
Store' and Other Types of Businesses as Permitted
Uses in the B-1 Zoning District
Introduction:
Dawn Huffman has applied to the City for a zoning code text amendment to add "thrift
store" as a permitted use in the B-1, Neighborhood Business district. She wants the City
to make this change so she may open a thrift store in the vacant space at 2408 County
Road I.
City staff recently noticed remodeling work occurring in the former laundromat space in the
building at 2408 County Road I. (This property is zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business). After
talking to the people working in this space, City staff learned that they planned to open a thrift
store. After reviewing the B-1 zoning code, City staff informed this potential new business
owner, along with the building owner, that the existing B-1 zoning code does not allow thrift
stores. In fact, there are now only five permitted uses in the B-1 zoning district: barbershops,
beauty parlors, convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type), self-service laundromats
and essential services (utility or government uses). The City may allow a daycare center in
the B-1 district with the approval of a conditional use permit. City staff spoke to the thrift
storeowner about this situation, and she has now applied to the City for a zoning code text
amendment for the B-1 zoning district.
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.
Staff researched what other cities allow in zoning districts that are comparable to Mounds
View's B-1 district. All seven of the zoning codes from the other cities that staff reviewed allow
several uses in their similar neighborhood business districts. In general, all of the other cities
zoning codes allow service businesses such as medical clinics and offices, along with several
different types of retail in their respective neighborhood or limited business district zoning
districts.
Zoning Map — B-1 zoned parcels
( 7710 7709 771 p 77217720 w 7715
NN � Mn� u�, 7761 7700 770 '�; � 7701 N
5
V R-4
7655
wil
N N
G'v y CITY HALL
Jb ryas^
I ti/v, /
2408 Cty Rd RD
N
PUP
76A1 7656
7661
7639 764
7651
7635 7630
7234
7625 762
7641
R-4
761 761
7595 759
7631
7581 7580
7,531
7565 7564
7215
7551 755C
7521
7535 7534
7511
7521 752
-471517172
7505 7504
7501
5394
80
ON
ss
„a 7405 ... �� w n n n
7400 w 738 � - -
7362 7395 738 N n N
7390 rn
7350
J733754
,� 7378 =735 735073742 737 ¢
7295 Silver Lake
N
tNV N
m N o
� N [
N N t
I
F 5474 1 5473
M111 5467
R-415462 si63
5420 5421
5401 5414 5415
5406 5445
BRONSON
m W O N
]5395 539A• 5395m 5386 5387 Nfl,N 53B0 5372 5373 5365 5367
53SA 5359 5366
d211"
[a]GE
o
7234
?
O
A 7226
I 1 S
7200
7215
719
7188
7191
-471517172
80
WR
7150
T m
11
�
DR
Ld
N
tNV N
m N o
� N [
N N t
I
F 5474 1 5473
M111 5467
R-415462 si63
5420 5421
5401 5414 5415
5406 5445
BRONSON
m W O N
]5395 539A• 5395m 5386 5387 Nfl,N 53B0 5372 5373 5365 5367
53SA 5359 5366
d211"
[a]GE
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMN
RESOLUTION NO. 924-10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OFRAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 1112.02 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ADD ADDITIONAL
PERMITTED USES TO THE B-1, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, ZONING DISTRICT;
PLANNING CASE TX2010-001
WHEREAS, Dawn Huffman, wants to open a thrift store at 2408 County Road I and has
requested that the City add thrift stores as a permitted use in the B-1 zoning district; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that more types of uses be
added to the B-1, Neighborhood Business District, Chapter 1112.02 of the Zoning Code; and,
WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1112.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code
by deleting thestri6ken language and adding the underlined text as follows:
Chapter 1112.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-1 District:
Barbershops
Beauty parlors
Convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type)
Essential services
Laundromat, self-service washing and drying
Thrift or second-hand store
Retail business for local or neighborhood needs subject to the following limits:
- The sale of dry goods clothing notions and variety merchandise
The sale of books magazines newspapers gifts iewelry, music stationery or
office supplies.
DU cleaning and laundry receiving and pick-up stations (with no cleaning or pressing done
on site
Florist shop
Candy and ice cream stores (shall not include drive-through and/or window pick-up
services
513
MO=T DS t Tf Item No: 10
UNL �/ Meeting Date: May 5, 2010
Type of Business: Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an
Oversized Garage at 7406 Spring Lake Road;
Planning Case No. CU2010-001
Introduction:
The applicants, Jason and Darcie Kramber, are requesting approval of a conditional use
permit to construct an oversized garage on their property at 7406 Spring Lake Road. The
Kramber's own this vacant lot and plan to build a new home. The applicants want to build a
3 -car garage that has extra storage space with the construction of their new home.
The applicants have submitted new house plans that include a garage that would be larger
than what the City Code allows. The City limites the size of accessory buildings, whether
attached or detached from the house, to a maximum of 952 square feet. Anything larger
than 952 square feet must get City approval of a conditional use permit. The garage the
Kramber's are proposing with their new house would be 1,020 square feet. The applicants
indicate that they want the extra space for storage.
Requirements:
Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building,
the number of accessory buildings and the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet.
Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages
exceeding 952 square feet. The garage must be permanent, be uniform in appearance with
the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory
building area on the lot.
Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible
adverse effects of the requested conditional use.
Discussion:
The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,020 square foot garage satisfies
the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds
View Zoning Code. The proposed house and garage would meet all City setback
requirements.
Kramher CUP Request
May 5, 2010
Page 3
Recommendation:
City staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit as requested.
Resolution 925-10, approving the conditional use pemit is attached if the Commission
chooses this action.
2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the conditional use permit. If the
Commission chooses this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of
denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial.
3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered
or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request
until such information has been provided. Because of 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. Zoning Map
2. Aerial View
3. House elevation
4. House first floor plan
5. Letter from Applicant
6. Resolution 925-10
Aerial View
-
�z_'
i
.. ,i
Z,
-
�z_'
i
.. ,i
mr fo rNan
I
A
�
i
.1
�-
r
- -�
>
.
w•��} ;\ § }
!�
-- -
awe
--
»��� .§
\ \104
I
A
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 925-10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW FOR A 1,020 SQUARE -FOOT GARAGE AT 7406 SPRING LAKE ROAD;
PLANNING CASE CU2010-001
WHEREAS, property owners Jason and Darcie Kramber have applied for a
conditional use permit to construct a 1,020 square foot garage; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 7406 Spring Lake Road, is zoned R-1,
Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows:
Lot 78, Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota
PIN 073023230021
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess
of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800
square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,020 square feet, thus requiring City
approval of a conditional use permit; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Zoning Map
b. Aerial View
C. New Home Elevation
d. New Home floor plan
e. Staff Report
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit
request:
1. The proposed oversized 1,020 square foot garage satisfies the zoning
requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code.
2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the
Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential
areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units
and residential property in general.
PROCEEDINGS b; THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNINGCOMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 21, 2010
Mounds View City hall
2401 highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Crambiit, Miller,
Absent and Excused: Commissioner Meehllause.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Hellei_
Ken Roberts.
Index to Minutes
VR 2010-001; Co
of the houseline
B-1 Uses Expansi
3.
April 21, 2010.
Schiltgen, Smith and Stevenson.
comity Development Director
Page
a 6 -foot fence in front
7
March 17, 2010
MOTION/SECOND:' Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve the minutes of
the March 17, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2010
Regular Meeting Page 3
store in a property zoned B-1. Since then, the individual has made application to the City for a
B-1 zoning text amendment that the Commission will consider at their next meeting. The B-1
zoning has limitations because of the small lot size and space restrictions. She indicated there
were several examples of zoning codes from other cities for the planning commission to review.
She stated the commission can either address the applicants request to add a thrift store to the
B-1 District tonight or discuss adding more uses into the B-1 zoning district and amending the
zoning code all at once. She also suggested adding some of these possible uses as conditional
uses would give the city leverage when considering various uses as the planning commission
would need to review the requests.
Chair Stevenson stated in the example of B-1 zoning from
that gave the City Council options to use their discretion a
language similar to this to the City Code.
Community Development Director Roberts stated with this la
some discretion. By adding this language it would assist with
zoning district. -_
Chair Stevenson asked if there has been an issue with
Planning Associate Heller stated she has never s
neighborhood building and many people walk to
Community Developm
the next meeting, staff
Commissioner
strongly
Planning Associate Heller
such as pawn shops and se
have to watch -the -site care
Chair Stevenson si
This gives the city
Roberts stated With the
ronose amendments to
he lilted the language
View could add some
it gives the City Council
s changing within that
added the building is a
being presented at
this issue the one time.
he is would like the`City to add other uses as conditional uses.
there were uses that the commission felt
uses.
1 the example from the City of Fridley has some excluded uses
hand stores. With a thrift store possibly going in there, staff will
ig the second hand store use be permitted by a conditional use.
of how it is handled.
Planning Associate Heller stated that staff would draft an amended B-1 zoning district and bring
the proposed changes before the commission at their next meeting.
hA
MOUNDS VIEtN
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
May 19, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. April 21, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the
record.)
5. Planning Cases
A. CU2010-002 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Sales -
Farmer's Market at 2430 Highway 10 (Wynnsong CarmikeTheater lot).
Applicant: Amaya Basumatary, PMY Management
Address: Mounds View, MN
6. Other Planning Activity
None
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. June 2, 2010
B. June 16, 2010
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. May 5, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
MOUNDt TS f Item 5A
�/ Meeting Date: Mav 19., 2 2010
Type of Business: Commission Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales
in the Parking Lot of the Wynnsong Movie Theater. 2430
Highway 10; Planning Case CU2010-002
Introduction:
The applicant, Amaya Basumatary with PMY Management, is requesting city approval of a
conditional use permit to have outdoor seasonal sales in the parking lot of the Wynnsong movie
theater. She is proposing to have a farmers market on Saturdays from Sam - 2pm in the parking
lot of the movie theater at 2430 Highway 10 from June 19 until October 16 each year. The movie
theater property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development), but is comparable to a B-4, Regional
Business use. Since a PUD does not have specific City Code requirements, staff refers to the
comparable zoning district's requirements fro analyzing a new development request.
City Code Requirements:
Section 1115.04 (Conditional Uses in the B-4 zoning district)
Subd. 2: Open or outdoor service, sale and rental as an accessory use and including sales in or
from motorized vehicles, trailers or wagons for a period greater than 10 days;
Outside service, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to 30
percent of the gross floor area of the principal use.
Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an
abutting residential district in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08 (1) through (5) (Fencing
and Screening) of this Title.
c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the
public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section
1103.09 of this Title.
Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1) e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
Section 1125.01, Subd. 1e: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse
effects of a requested conditional use.
Section 1125.01, Subd. 1g: This section of the City Code states that the Planning Commission
shall make findings of fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as
Basumatary CIDP Report
May fig, 2010
Page 3
Depreciation. The proposed outdoor sales activities would operate one day a week for about four
months during the year—from mid-June through mid-October. It would only be open during daylight
hours so there would be no new lighting that could bother or disturb neighbors. Every summer,
Merryville Farms operates a seasonal produce stand in the Mermaid parking lot, Linder's Flower
Mart is at Mounds View Square, and Robert's Sports Bar holds a weekly flea market. Both Merryville
Farms and Linder's are open every day and have been operating in Mounds View for many years,
and their outdoor seasonal sales do not appear to have had an adverse affect on surrounding
properties.
The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a farmers market as a service
to the residents to be able to shop in their own community, and to have access to fresh, locally
grown produce. As noted above, the outdoor sales would occur one day a week for about four
months a year and only during daylight hours.
City staff is unable to determine if there is a "demonstrated need" for the proposed use as the City
Code requires. The nearest farmers market to Mounds View is held at the Shoreview Community
Center on Tuesday evenings during the summer, and Merryville Farms sells fresh produce in the
city, although farmers markets often sell items other than just produce, such as fresh cut flowers,
homemade jams and maple syrup. If Ms. Basumatary is successful with the farmers market, that
would demonstrate a need for her proposal.
Summary:
Staff has drafted the resolution for the conditional use permit in such a way so that the applicant
would not need to appear before the Planning Commission and City Council each year. The CUP
will remain in effect indefinitely as long as there are no changes to the operation and there have
been no problems or reasons that would warrant the City Council to re-examine the CUP. The
applicant will need to submit a letter of intent and letter of permission from the property owner to
the City each year before the start of the farmers market.
Alternatives:
As with all planning applications, the Planning Commission may recommend approval of the
request, recommend denial of the request or table taking action. In this case, staff is
recommending approval of the request.
If the Planning Commission wants to recommend denial of this request, city staff would want
direction from the Commission to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to
support the denial.
If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they need to
discuss the matter further, the Commission can move to table the request until the applicant
provides the City with such information. Because of 60 -day requirements, the Commission would
need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval.
Zoning Map
* Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 926- 10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW AN OUTDOOR SALES OPERATION AT 2430 HIGHWAY 10 (WYNNSONG MOVIE
THEATER PARKING LOT); PLANNING CASE CU2010-002
WHEREAS, Amaya Basumatary with PMY Management, has applied for a conditional use
permit to operate a seasonal outdoor sales (farmers market) in the parking lot of 2430 Highway 10
(Wynnsong Movie Theater); and,
WHEREAS, the subject properties, located at 2430 Highway 10, are zoned PUD (Planned
Unit Development), and legally described as follows:
Anthony Properties Addition, Lot 3, Block 1
PIN 08-30-23-23-0006
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows open and outdoor sales in
B-3 and higher zoning districts; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to operate the outdoor sales from about June 16 to
October 19 each year; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents about this
proposal:
a. Staff Report
b. Zoning Map
C. Aerial Photo
d. Site Plan of Proposed Location
e. Letter from Applicant
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request:
The proposed outdoor sales (farmers market) meets the requirements as outlined in
Chapters 1115 and 1125 of the Zoning Code.
2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the
outdoor sales would be a type of land use that is consistent with the 'Regional
Commercial' land use designation for the movie theater site.
Resolution 926-10
Page 3
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Conditional Use Permit shall
have no expiration date and shall remain in force so long as the owner or operator meets the
required conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council before approval of the
minutes.
Adopted this 19th day of May, 2010.
Gary Stevenson, Chair
ATTEST:
Ken Roberts, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
May 5, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit,
and Stevenson.
Absent and Excused: None.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi
Ken Roberts
Index to Minutes
TX2010-001 Con,
"Thrift Store" as
n
Garage at
in the
5,
Rundle, Schirtgen, Smith
Development Director
Zoning Code to add
orhood Business
Use Permit for an Oversize
Page
OA
3
3. Approval of Minutes
April 7, 2010
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve the minutes of
the April 7, 2010 regular Planning Comrnission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Ayes — 7 Nays — 0
Motion carried.
May 5, 2010
Page 3
B. CU2010 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage
at 7406 Spring Lake Road. Applicant: Jason and Darcie Kramber
Planning Associate Heller stated the applicants, Jason and Darcie Kramber, are requesting
approval of a conditional use permit to construct an oversized garage on their property at 7406
Spring Lake Road. The Krambers own this vacant lot and plan to build a new home with a 3 car
garage that has extra storage space. The applicants have submitted new house plans that include
a garage that is larger than what the city code allows. The City limits the size of accessory
buildings, whether attached or detached from the house, to a maximum of 952 square feet. The
applicants are proposing a 1,020 square foot garage. Associate Heller stated the, garage would be
a side entry style and the garage doors would not face the street. She indicated this garage is in
line with the Comprehensive Plan, and should not cause any depreciation to surrounding
properties. Staff has reviewed the plans and recommends approval of the conditional use permit.
Chair Stevenson has concerns for construction materials and construction vehicles that will be
stored in the garage. He stated this proposed square footage is not much larger than the 952
allowed square feet.
Commissioner Cramblit questioned the space above the garage and the usage of the space as an
office for a business.
Associate Heller stated itwasa bonus room and accessible only through the house.
MOTION/SECOND:
925-10 for a Conditic
Lake Road. Planning
Ayes — 7
6. Other
None.
mmissioner Rundle/Commissioner Meehlhause. Approving Resolution
Use Permit to Allow for a 1,020 square -foot Garage at 7046 Spring
se CU 2010-001.
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting:
A. May 19, 2010
B. June 2, 2010
Motion carried.
MOu1vnS VIEW
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
June 16, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. May 5, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the
record.)
5. Planning Cases
VR2010-002 Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Lot Widths in a Wetland District
Applicant: Eichi, Inc., represented by Paul Harstad
Address: New Brighton, MN
6. Other Planning Activity
None
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. July 7, 2010
B. July 21, 2010
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. May 19, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
MOUNDS V fEW Item No: 5A
v 1L.�V Meeting Date: June 16, 2010
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 for Reduced Lot Sizes in a Wetland
District at Longview Estates, PIN 07-30-23-42-0066;
Planning Case VR2010-0003
Introduction:
The applicant and property owner, Eichi, Inc. (represented by Paul Harstad), wants to
subdivide a 7.14 -acre parcel into single-family lots that would all front Longview Drive. This
property is located in a wetland district. The City requires properties in wetland districts to be
a minimum of 125 feet wide and 20,000 square feet in area. These standards are larger than
the lot size requirements for properties in non -wetland districts. Mr. Harstad is requesting a
variance to allow for reduced lot widths in order to subdivide the frontage on Longview Drive
into 10 lots. Without a variance, the owner could subdivide the property into a maximum of
eight lots fronting Longview Drive.
Discussion:
City Code Chapter 1010 has the Mounds View Wetlands Zoning Regulations:
1010.07
a. Rationale for Density Standards: The following regulations are required to control
the density of development in wetland zoning districts. The purpose of controlling
development density is to reduce the financial burdens imposed on the community
through rescue and relief efforts occasioned by the occupancy or use of areas subject
to periodic flooding, to minimize loss of life, property damage and the losses and risks
associated with flood conditions and to minimize the detrimental effects of urbanization
on the wildlife habitat, water quality enhancement, recreational and aestheticvalues of
wetlands.
(1) Minimum Lot Size: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet.
(2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred twenty five feet (125') as measured at the
building setback line.
(3) Building Setback:
(a) All buildings, including accessory buildings, as defined in Title 1100 of this
Code, shall be set back at least one hundred feet (100') from the wetland,
except as allowed by an approved wetland alteration permit or approved
wetland buffer permit as provided in Section 1010.08. (Ord. 602, 8-25-97)
Longview Estates Variance Deport
June 16, 2010
Page 3
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title.
If this property were not located in a wetland district, the applicant would be able to
develop it into more lots. The applicant is at a disadvantage to subdivide the property as
other landowners might because the property is in a wetland district and subject to
additional regulations.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
The applicant cannot control the fact that his property is in a wetland district. The city
adopted wetland zoning regulations in 1982, after the Harstads bought this property and
after ten sewer and water pipe stubs were installed.
d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in
that most property owners do not have to work with these wetland district requirements.
In addition, every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the
function of their property.
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for lots 13 feet to 35 feet narrower than
the minimum width required by the city code in order to be able to use the ten utility stubs
that are already in place for this property.
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
Approval of this variance request would not be materially detrimental to the Code or to
other property in the area.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within
the neighborhood.
The requested variance should not cause any adverse effects. The proposed 10 -lots
would be the same density as the homes across the street and should not negatively
affect the wetlands or storm water drainage in the area.
Narrative from Applicant
Construction o Real Estate o Development
2195 Silver Lake Road o New Brighton, Minnesota 55112
Office (651) 636-9991 a Fax (651) 636-3422
May 21, 2010
Planning Cotmnission
City of Mounds View
2401 County Road 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Re: Lot Width Variance Request for Longview Estates, 'Mounds View
To Whom It May Concern:
This variance request is for an approximately seven acre parcel of undeveloped land between Silver Lake
Road and Longview Drive, south of County Road H2. The land is zoned R-1 and has a narrow wetland
running north -south which separates the "upland" on both sides.
My father bought the land in the early 1970s with the intent of building houses on it in conformance with
city code and zoning. When he purchased the land, there were already ten sewer and water services
installed ill the street along Longview Drive. The property was assessed by the City for the installation of
these services. Consequently we paid assessments on this land for approximately 25 years. They are now
paid oft' in their entirety.
Even thought the land is undeveloped, it has a fairly lengthy history regarding land use applications.
We have submitted an application to the City of Mounds View for development on more than one
occasion. One submittal was in 2001 for an 11 -lot development, with all lots fronting Longview Drive.
This proposal was denied by the City Council in 2002, specifically because the lot widths did not comply
with city ordinances in a Wetland District: the minimum lot width in a wetland district is 125 feet. It is
only 75 feet for subdivisions located outside a Wetland District.
Another submittal was in 2004 for a 15 -lot subdivision. Ironically, this submittal was approved by the
City Council, because it met all subdivision ordinances, including lot width, since eight of the lots fronted
Longview Drive and seven fronted Silver Lake Road. Due to the economic slowdown and other matters,
this development was never built.
Now we are asking that the City of Mounds View grant a variance for ten lots fronting Longview Drive
(and no lots fronting Silver Lake Road). The narrowest lot width is 90 feet, which is compatible with
other lots in the neighborhood. All of our proposed lots will meet the Wetland District lot size criteria of
a minimum of 20,000 square feet. (The average lot size will be more than 30,000 square feet.) Even
though we end up with fewer lots than were previously approved, we believe this modified layout meets
the intent or the City's Zoning Code, which is:
ZONING MAP
0 7375 / 5
,360 InI
6
317 �" ^
315 m m m ro N 731(
N
U1,000
N N I N I N I N
FAV
w�
�nE wnn I L
73n
13
5261
7234
517
W 5248 524 o
N
a
M
M
7226
N
N
N
N
N
to
N
5
517
5242 5243
CLEARVIEW
7200
7215
719
523
---
7188
R- 4
51 2
517
5236
523
23
�
N
�
N
N
N
N�O7
N
7191
5230
7172
7180
ns
516
22
7151
�-
5224.522
N
N
N
N
N
7150
0895
6
5167
5218
5227
RIDGE
711
`r
M
ro
n
ro m Cod
Z
O
66
516
521
5212 5213
5,
0
N
N
N
N N N
J
5212
5211
W
OR
16
5163
¢ 5206
-
5206 5207
g 5206 5.
N
d'
m
o
5162
5161
O 5200
5205
5200 5201
5200 54
7100
17094
7095
N
N
m
N
co
N
709
DALE
DR
5148-
5201
5148 5149
514 5'
p
0
0
708
7070
n
to
514
5140
5149
5140 5141
5140 5
7090 �
N
N
5141
J
707
060_
5139
5.132
5133
5132 5133
5132 5
70740
Z
7063
0
R-
5133
5124
5125
0
5124 5125
5124 5
060
703
N
N w
M
N
W
N
512
1iyQ CR T
5116
5117
�
5116 5117
5116 5
7044
WOODCREST
OR
5119
PARKq 0 5108
5109
=
5108 5109
5108 5
7028
go 0
N
N
m
J
N
5113 0. 5100
5101
5100 5101
5100 5
000
N N
C4
N
N
-51D7
ro
WOODCREST
5092 50.91
5092 N
5092
5092 5
rn
5086 50850
5086 508
5086
508
V50805079
5086 5
N
96
—
6960
508 507
5080 507
5080
508
50 5507
I LN
5072 5077
5072 5071
507
0
O
x
5072 5
695
6951
3
506694
50B
506
6940
5066 5065 W
5066
6945
5060 5059 >
5060 505
506
p51
0050665
m
506 5692
,
5054 5053 O
505 5053
5054
50
5054 5
5045
50465045
504
504 5
N
N
N N
N
N
N
N
5048
--
-H------------------------
* Properties not
indicated with a designation are
zoned R-1,
Single Family Residential
AerW View
I� t,
t ip
. r
1 rY
Y '1
i IM1L1 J �-
11
ry`L
�it
'�,
I
of ;
-
I
yy,
� N.
i� 11111
.meq `2 :lam
i I
L e
Y
{I I
�1���11
N
yi7�{E�
II•I
F ,9 I
A ,yam, r -rJ. It
4 L'
�it
'�,
I
of ;
-
t �
yy,
� N.
i� 11111
.meq `2 :lam
�1M, 4
L e
Y
{I I
�1���11
N
yi7�{E�
II•I
I I „•� ffl��
Elchi, Inc.
u
owned parcel
It
u
11 lty ,.r
I
It
j�
�
it I
°• I �"'
6
t
t i I
r
F ,9 I
I I 1
City owned lot
adjacent to
Woodcrest
1� If Park
it
1�t Y I
4
A ,yam, r -rJ. It
4 L'
�it
'�,
I
of ;
-
t �
yy,
� N.
i� 11111
c�
!
L e
Y
�! r ��ikY
em l�ll
Ll
Elchi, Inc.
u
owned parcel
It
u
11 lty ,.r
I I 1
City owned lot
adjacent to
Woodcrest
1� If Park
it
1�t Y I
4
A ,yam, r -rJ. It
4 L'
'�,
yy,
� N.
i� 11111
tt
_ 1
!
L e
Y
�! r ��ikY
em l�ll
Ll
I
le v�
It
u
11 lty ,.r
I
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 927-10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR REDUCED LOT WIDTHS
FOR NEW LOTS IN A WETLAND DISTRICT FOR THE LONGVIEW ESTATES
PROPERTY;
PLANNING CASE VR2010-002
WHEREAS, the applicant, Eichi, Inc. represented by Paul Harstad, has applied for a
variance to allow for reduced lot widths for new lots in a wetland district; and,
WHEREAS, the property known as Longview Estates is zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential, and legally described as follows:
Lot 4, Block 1, Mueller Addition
Ramsey County, Minnesota
PIN 07-30-23-42-0066
WHEREAS, Section 1010.07 Subd. 3a(2) of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates
that the minimum lot width is 125 feet as measured at the building setback line; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow for reduced lot widths
(varying widths from 90 feet to 112.67 feet) on eight lots, in order to subdivide the property to
into ten single-family residential lots; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents about this proposal:
1. Narrative from Applicant
2. Zoning Map
3. Wetland Map
4. Aerial Photo
5. Site plan
6. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief
to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a
hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought
about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the
property owner's control; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, June 16,
2010, about this variance request; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria that must be
satisfied in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
May 19, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. May 19, 2010.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Rundle, Schiltgen, Smith and Stevenson.
Absent and Excused: Commissioners Meehlhause and Miller.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Community Development Director
Ken Roberts
Index to Minutes
CU2010-002 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales -
Farmer's Market at 2430 Highway 10 (Wynnsong Carmike Theater parking lot)
3. Approval of Minutes
April 21, 2010
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the
minutes of the April 21, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
!p
None.
Ayes — 5 Nays — 0
Motion carried.
Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
5. Planning Cases
Page
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
May 19, 2010
Page 3
Associate Heller stated the application for the conditional use permit was signed by a theater
staff member, and that she had talked to the property owner who indicted they had no problem
with the farmers market being held on this site.
Chair Stevenson asked if the conditional use permit would be open-ended with no expiration
date, and if it would be reviewed each year by staff.
Associate Heller stated the Planning Commission and City Council would review the conditional
use permit if there was problem, or if the permit needed to be amended.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Smith. Approving Resolution
926-10 for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Sales — Farmers Market at 2430 Highway
10 (Wymisong Carmike Movie Theater Parking lot) as amended; Planning Case CU2010-001
Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
6. Other Planning Activity
None.
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting:
A. June 2, 2010
B. June 16, 2010
8. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 7:22 p.m.
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Roberts
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Barbara Suciu
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
July 7, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. May 19, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the
record.)
5. Planning Cases
A. Act on Resolution 927-10, Denying a Variance for Reduced Lot Width in a Wetland
District at Longview Estates; Planning Case VR2010-002
B. CU2010-003 and VR2010-003: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an
Oversize Garage and Variance for Reduced Side Yard Setback for a Garage
Applicant: Richard Wyatt
Address: 7515 Knollwood Drive
6. Other Planning Activity
None
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. July 21, 2010
B. August 4, 2010
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. June 16, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
City of Mounds View Staff Report
Item No: 5A
Meeting ®ate: July 7, 2010
Type of Business: Action
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Acton Resolution 927-10, Denying a Variance for Reduced Lot
Sizes in a Wetland District at Longview Estates;
Planning Case VR2010-0003
On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a
variance request by property owner, Eichi, Inc. represented by Paul Harstad. The applicant
wants to subdivide a 7.14 -acre parcel into single-family lots that would all front Longview
Drive. This property is located in a wetland district, and the City requires properties in wetland
districts to be a minimum of 125 feet wide and 20,000 square feet in area. Mr. Harstad
requested a variance to allow for reduced lot widths in order to subdivide the frontage on
Longview Drive into 10 lots.
On June 16, 2010, the Planning Commission voted to deny Mr. Harstad's variance request,
and they directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial. As such, staff presents Resolution
927-10, denying the variance, to the Planning Commission for action.
Respectfully submitted,
sp%
v Imp
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Resolution 927-10
Resolution 927-10
Page 2
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief
to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a
hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought
about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the
property owner's control; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, June 16,
2010, about this variance request; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria that must be
satisfied in order for the City to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings of fact related to the hardship criteria identified in
Section 1125.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code:
1. The proposed lots would be located within in a wetland district.
2. While the proposed lots meet the subdivision requirements of Chapter 1202, the lots
do not meet the requirements of Chapter 1010 that regulate subdivisions within a
wetland zoning district.
3. The minimum lot width for within a wetland zoning district is 125 feet.
4. The parcel is substantially covered by wetlands, which is neither exceptional nor
extraordinary given the number of wetlands within the City.
5. The literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive Eichi, Inc. of rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the parcel could support a
subdivision of up to eight parcels fronting Longview Drive that could meet all City
subdivision requirements.
6. Granting a variance in this case would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other
property owners in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant
approval of the variance.
7. The variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that the
purpose of controlling development density is to minimize the detrimental effects of
urbanization on the wildlife habitats, water quality enhancement, recreational and
aesthetic values of wetlands.
8. The applicant has not met or satisfied the hardship criteria as identified in Section
1125.02 of the Mounds View City Code.
of Mounds View Staff
Item No: 5B
Meeting Date: July 7 2010
Type of Business: Business
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for an
Oversized Garage with a Reduced Side Yard Setback at 7515
Knollwood Drive; Planning Cases CU2010-003 and VR2010-003
Introduction:
The applicant, Richard Wyatt, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit and variance to
construct an oversized garage with a reduced side yard setback on his property at 7515 Knollwood
Drive. The applicant plans to demolish his current attached garage and construct a new larger
attached garage. The current garage is a single car size that is 14' wide x 24' deep (336 square
feet), with a 12 foot side yard setback. The applicant wants to build a new double car wide 24'x
48' garage with the side yard setback of about two feet.
The site plan submitted shows a garage area in excess of what the City allows without a
conditional use permit. Accessory buildings, attached or detached, are limited to 952 square feet.
Anything larger than 952 square feet must go through a conditional use permit application
process. The garage proposed for 7515 Knollwood would be 1,440 square feet plus an 8'x16'
attached covered patio. The applicant indicates that he wants to have a two -car garage so he can
park his vehicles indoors, and have the extra garage depth for a workshop. A 24 -foot wide garage
is a standard width, but that size would place the garage within two feet of the side property line.
The city code requires a five-foot setback for accessory buildings without a variance.
CUP Requirements:
Section 1106 03 Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the
number of accessory buildings and the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings. A
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet.
Section 1106.04 Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages
exceeding 952 square feet, which are that the garage be permanent, be uniform in appearance
with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory
building area on the lot.
Section 1125 01 Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse
effects of the requested conditional use.
CUP Discussion:
The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,440 square foot garage satisfies the
requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View
Zoning Code. All dimensional requirements are satisfied with this request. With the new larger
garage, covered patio and one shed, the total accessory building square footage would be 1,784
and the backyard coverage ratio would be around 4%.
Wyatt CUP and Variance Request
July 7, 2010
Page 3
Variance Discussion:
As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a
demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal
interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes
require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make
its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02,
Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the
criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or
shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since
the effective date hereof have had no control.
The extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property are that the house was built
with only a single car garage and was placed slightly off -center on the lot - further to
the south. Adding a second stall to the garage while meeting the five-foot side yard
setback would be very difficult to do on this lot.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
Title.
The literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by
others in the district, as most other property owners are able to have at least a two -car
garage on their property.
C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
The applicant is not responsible for the conditions that have prompted him to apply for a
variance. Mr. Wyatt purchased the property after the house was built.
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures orbuildings in
the same district.
Granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that
other property owners are able to have two car wide garages.
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
The variance requested is the minimum that would be necessary in order to have a
garage wide enough for two cars. A 24 -foot wide garage is a standard size, and this
width would allow the roof pitch to stay the same, which matches the house.
Fio�ningMap
Spring Lake
7611
7581
7555
7545
7525
CRP
M7 I M I I N7
VI -I
7538
S
K
N
Q 7675
tr
7655
7633
7627
7581
7565
7555
7545
7735 771
N 771
.:. E ,.
7680
p
7669
7670
7
7665
7666
7594
7647
7664
7629
7620
7625
N I N 75N
7719 7718 7i
7709 7710 7%
co 7692 7
- 7670 7
7660
7644 7
76341Q 7
! M B --Ji DRIVE
7474 7489
4
465 907 7485 'o
-Cox) MN a ti4
74711 747
* Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential
7619
7600
7
7565 __
7594
7579
7588
O
7._
758
Z
7555
7572
g
`
W
p
�
O
7960
Y
1 7515
0
7
! M B --Ji DRIVE
7474 7489
4
465 907 7485 'o
-Cox) MN a ti4
74711 747
* Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential
XY ��
.. Ao' • I r r'jt c �
7f
10
aget
�... Ai+ r 3 R7,A1
1, y
a•fS e , �' `'�Ck rf
�
5 3 i l�A
). Iit
I. v;,tu y} y f" s3 f Z, .�..e��ji�P6t,
4r
#r a e r =
i"�_.�e—.'�'. �� -- _ Yom. _ •r Lr },y yam. r�+� J.. �.
fl'
— i � s
•4t� yl
r:
:'1
a
P'�'
N ..1
�,
� _ ..
j� l�'•
L i
T"
rte-----
Front viewof
• •••
.
fl'
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 928-10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW FOR A 1,440 SQUARE -FOOT GARAGE AT 7515 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE;
PLANNING CASE CU2010-003
WHEREAS, property owner Richard Wyatt has applied for a conditional use permit to
construct a 1,440 square foot garage; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 7515 Knollwood Drive, is zoned R-1,
Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows:
South % of Lot 28, Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota
PIN 07-30-23-21-0043
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of
952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square
feet; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,440 square feet, thus requiring City
approval of a conditional use permit; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
a. Zoning Map
b. Aerial Views
C. Statement from Applicant
d. Photographic Documentation
e. Staff Report
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request:
1. The proposed oversized 1,440 square foot garage satisfies the dimensional
requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code.
2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the
Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential
areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and
residential property in general.
3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the design of the garage and
the character and geography of the surrounding area involved.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 929-10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A TWO -FOOT GARAGE SETBACK AT
7515 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2010-003
WHEREAS, the applicant, Richard Wyatt, has applied for a variance to allow for a
garage with a two -foot setback from the property line of his property located at 7515
Knollwood Drive; and,
WHEREAS, 7515 Knollwood Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is
legally described as follows:
South % of Lot 28, Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota
PIN 07-30-23-21-0043
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
1. Zoning Map
2. Aerial Views
3. Statement from Applicant
4. Photographic Documentation
5. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to
property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a
hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought
about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the
property owner's control; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this
request on July 7 2010; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all
must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds
that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property located
at 7515 Knollwood Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. June 16, 2010.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, and Stevenson.
Absent and Excused: Commissioners Schiltgen and Smith.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Community Development Director
Ken Roberts
Index to Minutes Page
VR2010-002 Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Lot Widths in a
Wetland District 2
3. Approval of Minutes
May 5, 2010
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve the minutes of
the May 5, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
C!
None.
Ayes — 5 Nays — 0
Motion carried.
Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2010
Page 3
Ann Tillmann, 5166 Longview Drive, questioned if there was an approval from Rice Creek
Watershed and questioned if the approval from the watershed should have been obtained before
coming to the City of Mounds View. She stated her concerns for the quality of the water on the
wetland.
Planning Associate Heller stated Rice Creek Watershed District has made the determination that
the approval can be an administrative approval instead of a board approval because the board
determined that there has not been any substantial changes from the 2003 plan. She stated the
City typically processes the planning application concurrently with the watershed district
process.
Amy Hermanek, 2760 Wooddale, stated she has concerns for the impact on the neighborhood
with the additional traffic. She indicated she would like to hear the criteria for the hardship.
Justin Johnson, 5178 Longview Drive, stated his concerns about the impact of the existing homes
and the impact of filling the front side of the wetland with homes.
Michael Pugh, 5164 Longview Drive, stated he has lived in his house since January 2010 and
assumed this land was owned by the City and suggested that the City possibly buy this parcel to
maintain the natural look.
Community Development Director Ken Roberts, stated the City is in no financial position to
purchase this land. He added that the applicant would have to come back to the Planning
Commission with a subdivision request along with many engineering reports to be reviewed and
confirmed by city staff.
Chair Stevenson asked for the history on why the city requires the expanded width requirement
for the wetland area.
Director Roberts stated the larger lots have less impact on the wetland than smaller lots.
Commissioner Miller questioned why in 1966 there were ten water and sewer hook-ups installed.
Director Roberts indicated that staff has researched the records from 1966 and there is no
indication why there were ten water and sewer hook-ups installed.
Commissioner Meehlhause stated with the new development the tax income could increase the
tax base for the City of Mounds View.
Commissioner Cramblit questioned if any other anti -flooding technique was included in the
proposed plans.
Mr. Harstad stated they would set the building elevations as part of the development plans. He
un -off to the lowest point of the development. This basic
stated the design is to drain the water r
idea would be implemented with the grading palns.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
8. Adjournment to Agenda Session
June 16, 2010
Page 5
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 8:50 p.m.
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Roberts
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Barbara Suciu
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
July 21, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. June 16, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the
record.)
5. Planning Cases
A. MU2010-001: Consideration of a PUD, Development Review and Major
Subdivision for the Coventry Senior Living Development at 2320 & 2340 County
Highway 10 and 5260 O'Connell Drive
Applicant: Coventry Senior Living
Address: Lake Elmo, MN
6. Other Planning Activity
None
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. August 4, 2010
B. August 18, 2010
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. July 7, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
®f mounds View .Staff
Item No:5A
Meeting Date: July 21, 2010
Type of Business: Action
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Review and Consideration of a PUD (Rezoning), Development
Review, and Major Subdivision for the proposed "Coventry
Senior Living Senior Housing Development on County Highway
10; Planning Case MU2010-001
Introduction:
Coventry Senior Living, represented by Greg Johnson, has submitted a planning application for a
95 -unit senior housing development on three lots at 2340 County Highway 10 ("The Car Wash")
and the two adjacent vacant lots to the southwest. The building would have 18 independent living
units, 45 assisted living units, 16 high -acuity units, and 16 memory care units. The
developer/applicant has purchase agreements to buy the properties. This proposal involves three
planning actions:
1. Rezone three properties from B-3, Highway Business and R-1 Single Family to Planned
Unit Development
2. Major Subdivision to combine three lots into one parcel (2 -steps - Preliminary Plat and
Final Plat)
3. Development Review of the overall site plan
Background:
As you know, Select Senior Living has been trying to build a senior housing building on County
Highway 10 and Groveland Road for the last couple of years. Due to the collapse of the financial
markets, they have not been successful so far in securing financing for their project. Recently an
opportunity presented itself to a previous member of the Select Senior Living project to build the
senior housing on a different site in Mounds View. Coventry Senior Living LLC was then formed
with an additional developer and the owner of 2340 County Highway 10, who wants to partnerwith
them on this new site.
The development site includes three parcels with an area totaling approximately 2.18 acres.
County Highway 10 runs along the northeast side and O'Connell Drive runs along the southwest
side of the site. The three parcels involved have mixed zoning designations - 2320 and 2340
County Highway 10 are zoned B-3, Highway Business, and 5260 O'Connell Drive is zoned R-1,
Single -Family Residential. 2340 County Highway 10 currently has a self -serve car wash on the
site, and the other two parcels are vacant. The immediate area consists of single-family homes, an
apartment building, the vacant commercial "Premium Stop' lot, and directly across County Highway
10 is the Saturn/Motor Trend auto dealership.
Coventry Senior Living Staff Repan
July 21, 2090
Page 3
Demonstrated Need for Such a Use
The applicant wants the City to rezone the property to allow for senior housing. This type of
housing is under -represented in the City's housing demographic, and is in high demand state-
wide. The primary housing option now in the City is single family detached with higher -density
rental housing and manufactured homes second and third respectively. There are currently three
senior housing buildings in Mounds View, but none offer assisted living or memory care units. The
research done by Select Senior Living has shown there is a need for this type of senior housing in
the city
The requested rezoning to PUD would not be out of characterfor the County Highway 10 corridor
and would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Most of the commercial property
along County Highway 10 that is south of this site is zoned PUD. The City has anticipated a mix of
housing and commercial /office development in this area. The proposed development that would
be permitted via the requested rezoning would increase the market value of the subject area from
$819,800 to over $12,000,000. While enhanced market value is desirable, the Commission needs
to determine if the potential use allowed by the proposed change would be appropriate for the
subject area. It is the belief of the applicant that this type of housing is in demand and that it
would be a positive addition to the City's housing stock and to the City as a whole.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DISCUSSION,
Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View City Code requires that any new development project larger
than one or two family dwelling units must obtain approval of a development review. The purpose
of a development review is to allow the Planning Commission to evaluate proposed development
in terms of its consistency with City Codes and other requirements and to ascertain and mitigate
any potential impacts to the adjoining properties and the community as a whole. The Planning
Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, which then acts upon the request.
Building Design and Materials:
The plans indicate that the building will be three story with an underground garage. The
building elevations show a mix of siding styles with stone and/or brick accents on the exterior
of the buildings. The plan has the driveway access and main front entrance facing County
Highway 10. The building design is a residential style with a peaked roof line, versus a flat -
roofed building that are more of a commercial style.
Parking
This development is proposed to be a senior housing PUD, which has its own set of parking
requirements:
(a) Independent living = 1 space per unit with half of the spaces enclosed
(b) Assisted living = 0.5 spaces per unit
(c) Nursing homes and memory care = 1 space for every 4 beds
(d) Facility staff = 1 space for every employee on the largest shift
The proposed parking shown with the concept plan shows a total of 70 parking spaces — 35 open
spaces and 35 in the underground garage. Per the City Code, they are required to provide a total
of 59 spaces, with 9 of those spaces covered. The preliminary site plan shows 11 more spaces
than the total number required by the City Code.
Coventry Senior Living Staff Report
July 21, 2010
Paye 5
Stormwater Drainage Plan:
The grading plan illustrates the proposed grading, drainage and erosion control for the
development. The parking areas will have curb and gutter, and the developer is opting to use
underground stormwater storage rather than adding ponds, although there will be three rain
gardens. All of the runoff generated from the development will be contained within the site. The
applicant will be responsible for receiving approval from RCWD for this development before the City
issues a building permit.
Wetlands:
There are no wetlands in this development area. The developer has submitted a permit application
to Rice Creek Watershed District for approval of their proposed onsite stormwater management.
Utilities:
All utilities on the site would need to be installed underground, per Section 1203.10. Water and
sanitary sewer lines are already present in the O'Connell Drive right of way. All utilities would be
installed and paid for by the developer.
Trail Fee:
For all new development along County Highway10, the City requires the property owner/developer
to contribute funds for the future trail system. This development area has 413 feet of County
ure
foot frontage. The pst contribuon amount for
the st nda da the suggested Trail Fee for this tthisproject lhave n $20 per linear
is $8,260
Development Review Summary:
With the zoning change to a PUD, the proposed high density senior housing use on these parcels
would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and would bring new development and tax
base to the site. The traffic impact to the area would only be on County Highway 10, and would not
be overly excessive even with the high number of residential units since most of the residents do
not drive. The city will execute a development agreement with the applicant to ensure all of the
specific requirements and conditions of development are satisfied and adhered to.
Coventry Senior Living has submitted an application for a major subdivision of three parcels at
2320-2340 County Highway 10 and 5260 O'Connell Drive. The proposed 2.18 acre subdivision
would replat the three lots into one parcel. Major subdivisions are a two-step process. First, a
preliminary plat is submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Then a
final plat is submitted after any recommended changes are done, and the City Council makes a
final decision.
Park Dedication Requirements:
The Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is subject to a park dedication fee. The
dedication imposed is intended to mitigate public costs to the parks system associated with land
development. The fee shall be reasonable and based on the extent of the development. Due to the
increased intensity of the new development by adding 95 new residential units (although the actual
increase in park usage by these residents would be minimal), the recommended fee amount would
be equal to 10% of the market value of the land. To establish the market value, staff uses Ramsey
County determined land values as the basis for dedication computation.
Goveniry Senior Living Stan Report`
July 21, 2010
Page 7
Respectfully submitted,
Umacerc,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map
2. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
3. Aerial View
4. Narrative from the applicant
5. Site Plans
6. Preliminary Plat
7. Resolutions
a. 930-10 Rezoning
b. 931-10 Preliminary Plat and Development Review
�X Ap
W.
m
N
.M
0
NR1
i�
3
....A
�S
1
VFJar)
.�{�Yq
~"
;UA
Y
1
0
NR1
i�
3
E
15 a
yMaQ
March 4. 2010
Dear Ms. Heller,
Coventry Senior Living of Mounds View is a three story 95 unit senior living
building with iS independent living units, 16 memory care units, 45 assisted living units
and 16 units of high acuity living, a parking garage located beneath the buildilig, two
elevators, central trash chute, and many amenities. Visible from Highway 10, the
building's inviting grand entrance porch is designed to draw residents and guests into the
building with its' comfortable living suites and many amenities. The porch's brilliant
colonnade is flanked by two curving architectural form's that welcome the residences and
guests entrance into the grand two story lobby. The building's architecture with its
hipped roofs, and exterior finish materials, such as brick veneer, lap siding, trim, dramatic
overhangs, balconies, and bay windows sharpens the building's residential flare in
respect to the surrounding neighborhood and connnnrnity.
The 2.2 acre site offers large green areas with new landscaping and paved walking
trails. There are a total of 70 parking spaces provided, which consists of 35 open spaces
on the surface and 35 spaces in the heated garage. Due to the size of the site. we will
build an underground storage/treatnnent facility for rate and volume control of storm
water is proposed. The soils on the site are classified as well draining silty sands, which
have good infiltration rates and the ability for the designed system to exceed the
standards of the watershed.
The shared amenities are located in the cental core area, which is located in the
middle of the building between the independent living units and the nnennory care/assisted
living units. on the main floor, residents and guests are greeted by a luxurious hvo-story
lobby, a stone fireplace, a grand stair case, an intimate cafe, and sitting areas with tine
comfortable cozy atmosphere of a living room. The mail roonn, management office,
nurses' office, and public restroonns are centrally located off of the lobby as are the
central dining room and kitchen. Other shared amenities include all activity rooun with a
small kitchen area and a public restroonn, a media center, the activity director's office,
overnight guest rooms, and a craft room on the second floor: and a sports pub on the third
floor. In addition to the heated parking, the parking level features a fitness center, an
employee break room, and support spaces for the building.
RESOLUTION NO. 930-10
• •
•
•'Imp • i •.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Coventry Senior Living, has applied for a rezoning request for
the properties at 2320 & 2340 County Highway 10 from B-3, Highway Business, and 5260
O'Connell Drive from R-1, to PUD, Planned Unit Development Senior Housing to construct a 95
unit senior housing building. The properties are legally described as:
That part of Lot 2, Block 5, EIGENHEER SECOND ADDITION lying
southeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest
corner of said Lot 2; thence East along the northerly line of said Lot 2 a distance
of 92.00 feet to an iron; thence southeasterly, along the northeasterly line of
said Lot 2, a distance of 140.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be
herein described, thence southwesterly at a right angle to said northeasterly line
a distance of 196.52 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly line of said Lot 2
and there terminating, except that part platted in EIGENHEER THIRD
ADDITION, according to the recorded lat thereof, and situate in Ramsey
County, Minnesota
(PIN 08-30-23-31-0070)
And,
That part of Lot 2, Block 5, EIGENHEER SECOND ADDITION lying
northwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest
corner of said Lot 2; thence East along the northerly line of said Lot 2 a distance
of 92.00 feet to an iron; thence southeasterly, along the northeasterly line of
said Lot 2, a distance of 140.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be
herein described; thence southwesterly at a right angle to said northeasterly line
a distance of 196.52 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly line of said Lot 2
and there terminating according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in
Ramsey County, Minnesota
(PIN 08-30-23-31-0069)
And,
Lot 1, Block 1, EIGENHEER THIRD ADDITION, according to the recorded plat
thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota
(PIN 08-30-23-31-0061)
WHEREAS, 2320 and 2340 County Highway 10 are currently zoned B-3, Highway
Business, and 5260 O'Connell Drive is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential; and,
Resolution 93040
Mage 3
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this
resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 21St day of July, 2010.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
Attest:
Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director
(Seal)
RESOLUTION NO.
- •
• • "
• a lyi I ILI IM •
RESOLUTION
_ •RECOMMENDING .. • OF
WHEREAS, Coventry Senior Living has requested approval of a development review,
and preliminary plat for the "Coventry Senior Living" 95 unit senior housing development on the
properties at 2320 & 2340 County Highway 10 from B-3, Highway Business, and 5260
O'Connell Drive legally -described as follows:
That part of Lot 2, Block 5, EIGENHEER SECOND ADDITION lying
southeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest
corner of said Lot 2; thence East along the northerly line of said Lot 2 a distance
of 92.00 feet to an iron; thence southeasterly, along the northeasterly line of
said Lot 2, a distance of 140.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be
herein described; thence southwesterly at a right angle to said northeasterly line
a distance of 196.52 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly line of said Lot 2
and there terminating, except that part platted in EIGENHEER THIRD
ADDITION, according to the recorded lat thereof, and situate in Ramsey
County, Minnesota
(PIN 08-30-23-31-0070)
And,
That part of Lot 2, Block 5, EIGENHEER SECOND ADDITION lying
northwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest
corner of said Lot 2; thence East along the northerly line of said Lot 2 a distance
of 92.00 feet to an iron; thence southeasterly, along the northeasterly line of
said Lot 2, a distance of 140.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be
herein described; thence southwesterly at a right angle to said northeasterly line
a distance of 196.52 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly line of said Lot 2
and there terminating according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in
Ramsey County, Minnesota
(PIN 08-30-23-31-0069)
And,
Lot 1, Block 1, EIGENHEER THIRD ADDITION, according to the recorded plat
thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota
(PIN 08-30-23-31-0061)
WHEREAS, The applicant has requested to rezone the above described lands to PUD,
Planned Unit Development, and are designated as Mixed -Use on the Comprehensive Plan; and,
Resolution 893-08
Page 3
3. All utilities within the development area shall be located underground.
4. No snow storage shall be allowed on site that would reduce the number of parking stalls
or drive aisle widths, or extend beyond the property lines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat submitted by Coventry Senior Living subjectto the
following conditions:
1. Coventry Senior Living shall pay the City a park dedication fee of $67,500 and a County
Highway 10 Trail contribution in the amount of $8,260.
2. Coventry Senior Living shall submit a Final Plat no later than 6 months after the date of
City Council approval or the Preliminary Plat approval will become null and void.
NOW, THEREFORE, HE 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 July, 2010.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Kenneth Roberts
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
July 7, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. July 7, 2010.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Smith
and Stevenson.
Absent and Excused: None.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller
Index to Minutes Page
Action on Resolution 927-10, Denying a Variance for Reduced Lot Width in
A Wetland District at Longview Estates; Planning Case VR2010-002 2
CU2010-003 and VR2010-003; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit
for an Oversized Garage and Variance for Reduced Side Yard Setback
for a Garage. Applicant: Richard Wyatt at 7515 Knollwood Drive
3. Approval of Minutes
May 19, 2010
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Meehlhause. To approve the
minutes of the May 19, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes — 7 Nays — 0
Motion carried.
Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 2010
Regular Meeting Page 2
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
5. Planning Cases
A. Action on Resolution 927-10, Denying a Variance for Reduced Lot Width in a
Wetland District at Longview Estates; Planning Case VR2010-002
Planning Associate Heller stated on June 16, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing to consider a variance request by Eichi, Inc., represented by Paul Harstad, to allow
reduced lot widths in a wetland district as part of a future subdivision of a 7.14 acre parcel
known as Longview Estates.
The Planning Commission voted to deny Mr. Harstad's variance request and directed staff to
prepare a resolution of denial. This resolution is before the Planning Commission tonight for
action.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Meehlhause. Resolution 927-10
Denying a Variance for Reduced Lot Widths within a Wetland District for the Longview Estates
Property; Planning Case VR2010-002
Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
B. CU2010-003 and VR2010-003; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit
for an Oversized Garage and Variance for Reduced Side Yard Setback
for a Garage. Applicant: Richard Wyatt at 7515 Knollwood Drive
Planning Associate Heller stated the applicant; Richard Wyatt, is requesting a conditional use
permit and variance to construct an oversized garage with a reduced side yard setback on his
property at 7515 Knollwood Drive. The applicant wants to demolish the current attached garage
and construct a larger attached garage. The current garage is a single car size and the applicant
wants to build a double car garage with a workshop. The proposed garage size is in excess of the
city code and therefore he is requesting a conditional use permit. In addition, with the larger
garage he will not meet the 5 foot side yard setback and is requesting a variance to allow a two
foot side yard setback.
Planning Associate Heller indicated with the conditional use permit, the new garage should not
depreciate the neighborhood, and is in the confines of the comprehensive plan. The proposed
garage would not be out of character in this area since the new garage will keep the same front
setback and appear as a typical two -car garage from the street. The garage would be extra deep
so the large size would not be noticeable from the fi•ont. The applicant will be removing a shed
from behind the garage with the construction of the new garage.
Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 2010
Regular Meeting Page 3
Planning Associate Heller indicated with the variance there must be a hardship or practical
difficulty associated with the property. She stated that the house was built with only a single car
garage and was placed slightly off -center on the lot, which makes adding a second stall to the
garage while meeting the five-foot side yard set back difficult. By allowing the variance it will
not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district, as most other
property owners are able to have at least a two car garage on their property. The applicant is not
responsible for the conditions that have prompted him to apply for a variance and by granting
this variance it would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that other property
owners are able to have a two car garage. A 24 -foot wide garage is a standard size, and this
width would allow the pitch of the roof to stay the same, which matches the house.
Commissioner Cramblit asked about the breezeway connecting the garage to the house, and if it
will be staying.
Mr. Wyatt indicated the breezeway will be staying in the same place it is currently.
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:18 pm.
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:20 pm,
Chair Stevenson stated with an oversized garage there are a couple of concerns, one being the
height and pitch of the roof, and if the owner is conducting a business out of the garage. He
added the garage is a standard width, but the length is long.
Mr. Wyatt indicated he wants the extra length on the garage for a workshop for working on his
hobby of restoring antique motorcycles. Currently he is unable to park either of his two vehicles
inside, and is renting space off-site to store things, which he would like to have all in one spot.
He added he is not running a business out of the garage, nor does he intend to.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Meehlhause. Resolution 928-10
Approving of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a 1,440 square foot garage at 7515
Knollwood Drive; Planning Case CU2010-003
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause /Commissioner Schiltgen. Resolution 929-10
Approving a Variance for a two -foot garage setback at 7515 Knollwood Drive; Planning Case
VR2010-003
6. Other Planning Activity
None.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. July 21, 2010
B. August 4, 2010
8. Adjournment to Agenda Session
July 7, 2010
Page 4
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,
Ken Roberts
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Barbara Suciu
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
August 18, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. July 7, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the
record.)
5. Planning Cases
A. CU2010-004: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversize garage
Applicant: Robert & Lori Nordby
Address: 8191 Spring Lake Road
6. Other Planning Activity
A. None
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. September 8, 2010
B. September 22, 2010
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. July 21, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
MOUNDtSVVf LVV Item ,2 5A
Meeting Date: August 18. 2010
Type of Business: Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an
Oversized Garage at 8191 Spring Lake Road;
Planning Case No. CU2010-004
Introduction:
The applicants, Robert & Lori Nordby, are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to
construct an oversized garage on their property at 8191 Spring Lake Road. The applicants
want to expand their current 22'x24' detached garage (528 square feet) with a 20'x24'
expansion onto the rear of the existing garage.
The applicants have submitted plans for a garage expansion that would create a garage
larger than what the City Code allows. The City limits the size of accessory buildings,
whether attached or detached from the house, to a maximum of 952 square feet. Any
building larger than 952 square feet must get City approval of a conditional use permit. The
garage the Nordbys are proposing would be 1,008 square feet. The applicants indicate that
they want the extra space to store their boat indoors.
Requirements:
Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building,
the number of accessory buildings and the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet.
Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages
exceeding 952 square feet. The garage must be permanent, be uniform in appearance with
the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory
building area on the lot.
Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible
adverse effects of the requested conditional use.
Discussion:
The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,008 square foot garage satisfies
the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds
View Zoning Code. The proposed garage would meet all City setback requirements.
Nordby CUP Request
August 18, 2010
Page 2
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas
to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential
property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8191 Spring Lake
Road, as low-density residential.
CUP Considerations:
Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address
any potential adverse effects of a conditional use that include, but are not limited to, the
relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation,
the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Staff has
addressed each of these potential adverse effects below.
Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, the Comprehensive Plan
encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality,
appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. With this
project, the applicants would be creating more garage space to have more indoor storage.
Such additional storage would be a benefit to the property and to the neighborhood.
The Geographical Area Involved. The Nordby's home is located on Spring Lake Road, just
north of County Highway 10. Since the garage expansion would be to the rear of the building,
the garage would still appear to be a 2 -car garage as the expansion would not be obvious from
the street. In this case, the proposed oversized garage would not be noticeable or out of place
in the neighborhood. This expanded garage should not affect any neighboring properties.
Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense
by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage, as well as in an economic sense, as
the addition would increase the "value" of the property. Increased property values are a benefit
to everyone.
The Character of the Surroundinq Area. This portion of Spring Lake Road is entirely
residential with the exception of the Thrifty Car Rental business on the corner of Spring Lake
Road and County Highway 10. The homes in this area are a variety of styles and ages and
many have large lots. This property is 115 feet by 187 feet deep (0.49 acres), so the oversize
garage should not affect any neighbors. The proposed garage would not be out of character in
this area particularly since the garage will only become deeper so the extra square footage of
the garage would not be visible from the street.
The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a 1,008 square foot
garage thatwould allow for parking their vehicles and boat inside plus additional storage space
since there are no other accessory buildings on the property.
Nordby CUP Request
August 18, 2010
Page 3
Possible Actions:
The Planning Commission may:
Recommend approval of the CUP as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution
933-10 that approves the conditional use permit if the Commission chooses this
action.
2. Choose to deny the conditional use permit. If the Commission chooses this option,
Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of
denial with findings of fact to support the denial.
3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before
making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the
Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been
provided. Because of 60 -day requirements, the Commission would need to act
upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval.
Recommendation:
City staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit as requested. As such,
staff has prepared Resolution 933-10, approving the conditional use permit as requested.
Respectfully submitted,
MEM
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map
2. Aerial View
3. Site Plan
4. Photos
5. Resolution 933-10
Zoning Map
a
* Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential
���° � \�{
� y.: .� �� m
� � \� � � � � � \
u
Site Plan
AREA Buck Yard. 115 + 69 7935 sgofto
AREA Existing Garage: 74 77 = 528 sq.f't.
AREA Proposed Garage: 24 20 = 460 sq,f't,
AREA Combined Grarooes 1008 sq.('t.
PERCENT Garages/Back Yard =Y.1009/791S»100.=112..77—j
E J
M
-oposed New Garnn,
Existing garage has a 9 foot setback from the side property line. Rear of
expanded garage will have a 6 foot setback from the rear property line. Both
setbacks meet the 5 foot City Code setback requirement.
Photos
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 933-10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW FOR A 1,008 SQUARE -FOOT GARAGE AT 8191 SPRING LAKE ROAD;
PLANNING CASE CU2010-004
WHEREAS, property owners Robert and Lori Nordby have applied for a conditional
use permit to construct a 1,008 square foot garage; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8191 Spring Lake Road, is zoned R-1,
Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows:
Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, the West 187.02 feet of the North 115 feet of Lot 33,
Ramsey County, Minnesota
PIN: 06-30-23-24-0070
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess
of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800
square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,008 square feet, thus requiring City
approval of a conditional use permit; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Zoning Map
b. Aerial View
C. Site plan
d. Photographic documentation
e. Staff Report
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit
request:
1. The proposed oversized 1,008 square foot garage satisfies the zoning
requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code.
2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the.
Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential
areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and
residential property in general.
Resolution 933-10
Page 2
3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the design of the garage
and the character and geography of the surrounding area involved.
4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood.
5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed
oversized garage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,008 square foot
garage, with conditions as follows:
1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other
uses not allowed within the R-1 Single -Family Residential district or by the Zoning
Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use
permit shall be considered null and void.
2. The new garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance
with the existing house.
3. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall become null and void if the work for
which the CUP was granted is not completed within one year from the date of
approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been
granted by the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of
the minutes.
Adopted this 18th day of August, 2010.
Gary Stevenson, Chair
ATTEST:
Kenneth Roberts,
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
E 4:S
IvICiUNDS:' VIEW
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
November 17, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. October 6, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the
record.)
5. Planning Cases
None
6. Other Planning Activity
A. B-2, Limited Business Zoning District Discussion
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. December 1, 2010
B. December 15, 2010
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. November 3, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
July 21, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Miller at 7:00 p.m. July 21, 2010.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, and
Smith.
Absent and Excused: Chair Stevenson.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Community Development Director
Ken Roberts
Index to Minutes
MU2010-001: Consideration of a PUD, Development Review and Major
Subdivision for the Coventry Senior Living Development at 2320 & 2340
County Highway 10 and 5260 O'Connell Drive.
Applicant: Coventry Senior Living
Review Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Participation for 2011-2020
3. Approval of Minutes
June 16, 2010
Page
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Smith. To approve the minutes of
the June 16, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
5. Planning Cases
July 21, 2010
Page 2
A. MU2010-001: Consideration of a PUD, Development Review and Major
Subdivision for the Coventry Senior Living Development at 2320 & 2340
County Highway 10 and 5260 O'Connell Drive. Applicant: Coventry Senior
Living
Planning Associate Heller stated Coventry Senior Living, represented by Greg Johnson, has
submitted a planning application for a 95 -unit senior housing development on three lots at 2340
County Highway 10 and the two adjacent vacant lots to the southwest. The developer/applicant
has purchase agreements to buy the properties. This proposal involves three planning actions:
rezone three properties from B-3, Highway Business and R-1 Single Family to Planned Unit
Development (PUD); a major subdivision to combine three lots into one parcel (2 -steps;
preliminary plat and final plat), and a development review of the overall site plan.
Vice Chair Miller asked if the development review could happen before the rezoning has been
completed.
Planning Associate Heller stated it could happen before the rezoning is completed since rezoning
is a 2 -step process. Typically, the second reading and adoption of the rezoning ordinance for a
development would not happen until the final plat also is ready to be approved. By doing that,
the properties are not actually rezoned until the applicant has completed all the steps in the
development process, and the City is fairly certain that the project will occur.
Planning Associate Heller stated the first issue to consider is the rezoning. The entire block that
includes the three lots proposed for redevelopment are designated in the future land use plan in
the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as Mixed -Use PUD. The City anticipates that this redevelopment
area could include higher density housing and commercial land uses. The proposed senior
housing project would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She added there are a variety
of land uses already in this area — commercial, multi -family and single-family. The Planning
Commission also must consider possible depreciation to neighboring properties because of the
rezoning. Determining possible depreciation is difficult but the quality of life for the
neighborhood should also be taken into consideration. The property tax value of this site would
increase from $819,000 to over $12 million if the project were built. The applicant has indicated
that market studies have shown a need for this type of senior housing in Mounds View.
Currently, the only type of senior housing in the City is independent living.
Planning Associate Heller stated for the development review discussion it is a 95 -unit, three-
story building with an underground garage on 2.18 acres. The developer held a neighborhood
meeting in March and after hearing traffic concerns from the neighbors, turned the building
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 21, 2010
Page 3
around to have the only access on County Highway 10. Ramsey County has approved allowing
two driveways onto County Highway 10 as long as one is only right -in and the other is only
right -out. Parking requirements for the development is 59 spaces with nine of the spaces being
covered. The applicant has proposed 70 spots, 35 underground and 35 above ground, so there
are 11 more parking spaces than required. As for the landscaping, the city consultants have
reviewed the submitted plan and have determined that it exceeds the amount of required
landscaping. City Staff and the developer have talked to the single-family property owner
directly adjacent to the development site, and discussed the type of screening they would like
installed. The developer has agreed to add 2 staggered rows of pine trees to the south end of the
property for screening. Staff recommends that some or all of the parking spaces on the south end
of the parking lot be removed and shown as "proof of parking" to allow additional green space
for the pine trees. The Fire Marshal is currently reviewing the plans for fire access and may
require the developer add a fire hydrant and an emergency access road. The developer is
proposing a monument sign on County Highway 10. The plan is well above the minimum
building elevation as indicated in the Local Water Management Plan, and the developer has
applied to Rice Creek Watershed for the necessary permit. She added the site is not on a wetland
and all utilities will be underground. There also will be a trail fee associated with the new
development along County Highway 10.
Planning Associate Heller stated that with a major subdivision there is a required drainage and
utility easement around the perimeter of the property. With all major subdivisions, there is a
Park Dedication fee based on 10% of the current year property value determined by Ramsey
County. She added the City Attorney is reviewing the plat and title work, and staff does not
anticipate any problems. She stated this meeting is not a published public hearing, but staff sent
notifications to the properties and owners within 500 feet, and has not received any comments.
The developer held another neighborhood meeting on July 19, 2010 and one resident attended.
Commissioner Schiltgen questioned with the parking spaces on the south end eliminated would
the project still meet the required amount parking on the site.
Planning Associate Heller stated that they would still meet the required amount of parking even
if several of the spaces were not constructed. The proof of parking would be shown on the
approved site plans and would be required to be constructed if the City determines there is a need
for them at a later time.
Commissioner Meehlhause suggested adding some language into the proposed resolution
reflecting the proof of parking issue.
Commissioner Schiltgen questioned the sidewalk on the backside of the building and what it
would be constructed with.
Planning Associate Heller stated it would probably be more of a gravel trail that would have the
capability of being driven on by emergency vehicles.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 21, 2010
Page 4
Greg Johnson, Coventry Senior Living, indicated this development concept had been before the
Planning Commission in March 2010. After a meeting with the neighbors in March, the layout
of the building has been modified due to their concerns about traffic.
Community Development Director Roberts stated even though there is another identical
development that is still working on fmding financing, the Planning Commission needs to
address only the issues in front of them this evening. The City is required by law to act on all
submitted planning requests. City staff has been told that if two buildings were built now,
neither would survive.
Commissioner Schiltgen questioned who indicated the need for only one complex.
Director Roberts stated both developers have indicated this to staff.
Director Roberts stated the Commission could list proof of parking as a possible condition on
Resolution 931-10.
Commissioner Meehlhause stated the Commission should put it in the resolution even though the
applicant maybe changing the parking plan.
Director Roberts encourage the Planning Commission to add this language about parking into the
resolution.
Commissioner Smith stated she understood meeting the neighbors and understanding their traffic
concerns, but wondered about the traffic safety of the residents of the facility.
Greg Johnson stated there is a very small amount of drivers living at the facility. He also
indicated there have been discussions with Ramsey County about having acceleration and
deceleration lanes. He also stated that they could add more parking spaces to the underground
garage.
Commissioner Smith asked about the outdoor common area, and if the area in red was the only
common space.
Planning Associate Heller stated the area shown on the site plan is specifically for the memory
care patients. She added these patients have their own secured wing and outdoor space.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. Resolution 930-10
Recommending Approval of a Rezoning Request to PUD, Planned Unit Development for 2320
& 2340 County Highway 10 and 5260 O'Connell Drive, Mounds View Planning Case MU2010-
001— PD -1
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 21, 2010
Page 5
Planning Associate Heller stated she would like to add one other condition stating the applicant
must meet any recommended changes from the City Attorney.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Cramblit. Resolution 931-10
Recommending Approval of The "Coventry Senior Living" Development Review, and
Preliminary Plat with the Additions at 2320 & 2340 County Highway 10 and 5260 O'Connell
Drive, Mounds View Planning Cases MU2010-001— DEl and MU2010-001-MA-1
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Review Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Participation for 2011-2020.
Planning Associate Heller stated the City of Mounds View has previously elected to participate
in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account (LCA LHIA).
Participation in the program is voluntary and provides the City with the opportunity to compete
for grants and loans to support activities that help the City meet its affordable and life cycle
housing goals, clean up polluted sites, and support demonstration projects linking jobs, housing
and transit.
The City's previously adopted LCA LHIA affordable and life cycle housing goals were
negotiated with the Metropolitan Council for the period 1996-2010. If the City wants to continue
to participate in the LCA, then the City now must establish new affordable and life -cycle housing
goals for the next decade (2011-2020). She added the affordable housing goal for Mounds View
is 81 additional units. Metropolitan Council has taken into consideration the limitations on
Mounds View and has lowered the requirement to a range of 53 to 81 units. The Planning
Commission chose 60 units as the goal.
Life cycle housing is described as having housing available for all stages of life - starter homes
to senior housing. With the new proposed new senior housing development, the City would be
adding 95 housing units from that project alone. Our goal range is 80 to 200 units over the next
decade. The potential number of units permitted by medium, high and mixed-use land use
designations in the Comprehensive Plan Update is at least 132 units.
Community Development Director Roberts stated that if we went over any of these goals and
applied for any grants we might have a better chance of receiving the money. He added this is an
incentive for cities to say yes to development proposals. He also added that the Planning
Commission should include goal numbers in the resolution. Staff is recommending 60
Affordable Housing and 132 Life -Cycle Housing Goals.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 21, 2010
Page 6
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Meehlhause. Resolution 932-10
Recommending Approval to Continue Participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account
Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act with Staff Recommended Numbers.
Calendar Years 2011 through 2020.
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting:
A. August 4, 2010
B. August 18, 2010
8. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Miller adjourned
the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Roberts
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Barbara Suciu
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
MOVNnS VIEW
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
October 6, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. July 21, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the
record.)
S. Planning Cases
A. VR2008-005: Re -Approval of Variances for the Select Senior Living Development
Applicant: Joel Larson, Select Senior Living
Address: Lake Elmo, MN
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Discussion about Variances
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. October 20, 2010
B. November 3, 2010
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. August 18, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
3
7 �T Mo �,� r Item No: 5A V 1 V DS t
JEW Y V Meeting Date: October 6. 2010
Type of Business: Action
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 934-10, Reapprove Variances for the Select Senior Living
Development at Highway 10 & Groveland Road
Introduction:
On August 20, 2008, the Planning Commission passed Resolution 892-08, which approved
variances for the Select Senior Living development. The four variances were necessary due
to the size of the project and that it was senior housing, which the code did not address well.
After this project, the City Council amended the City Code to make it easier for the City to
approve senior housing projects, including not needing variances.
Discussion:
As you know, the Select Senior Living project has not yet moved forward due to problems
with securing financing. The applicant has been continuously working to complete the
project, but for reasons beyond his control, the project has not yet began. Per the City Code,
an applicant has one year to complete the work permitted by the variance or the approval is
void. The code also states that the Planning Commission can grant an extension of time up
to another year. Due to the shakeup within the banking industry, Select Senior Living was
not able to start the project within the allowed year and their variance approval became void.
To keep the project moving forward and if the Planning Commission is agreeable, they can
reapprove the variances even though they have expired.
Select Senior Living, represented by Joel Larson, has submitted a letter asking that all of the
planning requests be re -approved. The financing is now moving forward, and on September
13, 2010, the City Council approved issuing private activity bonds that Select will use for
construction of the project. Select should have their financing complete within the next
month, and construction beginning shortly thereafter.
Recommendations:
Staff requests that the Planning Commission pass Resolution 934-10, reapproving the Select
Senior Living variance requests.
Respectfully submitted,
Cyd L._,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Letter from Applicant requesting extension
2. Resolution 934-10
Select Senior Living of Mounds View, LLC.
12415 — 55' Street N.
Lake Elmo MN 55042
Ph: (651) 439-2414 Fax: (651) 439-3254
September 28th, 2010
Ms. Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View MN 55112
Re: Assisted living project
Highway 10 & Groveland
Dear Ms. Heller:
Select Senior Living of Mounds View LLC finds it necessary to once again request a re -approval of
the final plat, conditional use permit, and variances for our senior care facility to be constructed at
Highway 10 and Groveland Avenue.
We are in the process of financing the project using housing revenue bond financing with the city's
assistance, (We will be closing on the bonds in late October) so we need to ask the Planning
Commission and City Council to extend the current project. We are intending to start the project in
November of 2010.
Based on these changed circumstances, we respectfully request that re -approval of the final plat and
all variances that have been approved in the past for this project be added to the Planning
Commission and City Council agendas for their next meetings. We have made no changes to the
project as originally conceived and as approved in October 2008, and the demand for assisted living
facilities within the City has not changed. We are hopeful of a quick re -approval so construction of
this project can commence.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 439-2414 (office), (651) 248-6785 (cell) or by
email at net. We look forward to finally bringing this project to fruition.
Sincerely,
Joel Larson,
Chief Manager
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 934-10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RE -APPROVING VARIANCES TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED SITE
DENSITY, REDUCED UNIT SIZES, REDUCED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND TO
ALLOW ROOF OVERHANG AND BUILDING SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS AT THE
SELECT SENIOR LIVING DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 2865 COUNTY
HIGHWAY 10 AND 7980 & 8020 GROVELAND ROAD;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2008-005
WHEREAS, the applicant, Select Senior Living, has applied for the following variances
for a new 96 -unit senior housing development to be located at 2865 County Highway 10 and
7980 & 8020 Groveland Road:
1. Increased Site Density,
2. Reduced minimum unit sizes,
3. Reduced number of parking spaces,
4. To allow a two foot roof overhang encroachment and a 4-6 foot structure
encroachment into the building setback,
WHEREAS, the properties at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland
Road are zoned R-4, High Density Residential, and are legally described as:
Lot 49, Auditor's Subdivision Number 89, Subject to a 5 foot strip easement along the rear line for public
utility use, Ramsey County, Minnesota (PIN 06-30-23-31-0030)
And,
That part of Lot 48, Auditors Subdivision Number 89 lying South of the North 300 feet front and
rear thereof, except that portion taken for the highway right of way purposes. Subject to
restrictions contained in Document Number 238161, Ramsey County, Minnesota
(PIN 06-30-23-31-0029)
And,
The South 150 feet of the North 300 feet, front and rear of Lot 48, Auditors Subdivision Number
89, including any portion of any street or alley adjacent thereto, vacated or to be vacated,
together with all road privileges, easements and appurtenances thereto attached, Ramsey
County, Minnesota (PIN 06-30-23-31-0028)
WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code requires multiple
family developments to have a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 2,500 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a senior housing development proposal with
a lot area per dwelling unit of 1,148 square feet, due to the smaller unit sizes; and,
Y
WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code requires one bedroom
multiple family units have a minimum floor area of 630 square feet and two bedroom units to
have a minimum of 750 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting approval for studio and one bedroom units that
have floor areas of 432 to 716 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, Section 1121.13 of the Mounds View Zoning Code requires multiple
family properties (independent living units) to provide 2 '/2 parking spaces per unit and the
assisted living and memory care provide 1 space for every 3 beds plus 1 space for every staff
member on the largest shift; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code would require this development to provide
112 total parking stalls and the applicant is requesting a variance to provide 27 fewer stalls
than required by the zoning code - 76 constructed parking stalls and 9 proof of parking stalls,
which the City of Mounds View may require the applicant to construct at any time the City
determines they are necessary; and,
WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code allows for up to a two
foot encroachment for roof overhangs, and Section 1109.04 states that the side yard building
setback for R-4 zoned senior congregate living is 40 feet, which is double the normal R-4
minimum side setback requirement; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has designed a three story residential style senior housing
building with hipped roofs that have a four foot overhang that would encroach two feet into
the building setback on the west and east sides of the north wing, and a small section of the
building footprint that would extend four and six feet into the large building setback; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents about this proposal:
1. Zoning Map
2. Proposed Site Plans
3. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief
to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a
hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought
about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the
property owner's control; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, August 20, 2008, about this
variance request; and,
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2008, the Mounds View City Council approved Resolution
892-08 which approved the variances for the "Select Senior Living" development; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant was not able to complete the work permitted by variances
within the required one year due to issues beyond their control, which caused the variance
approval to become null and void; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, all of which
must be satisfied, in order for the city to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request:
The property is now zoned R-4, High Density Residential.
2. The extraordinary circumstances surrounding this property are the unique lot
size and shape and the type of housing. At the time of the planning application
submittal, the city code did not clearly accommodate the proposed housing.
The side -yard building setback for senior housing is double what is required of
any other multiple family housing developments.
3. Granting the variances would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege
in that all property owners are able to apply for a variance to improve the
function or appearance of their property. Denying the requests would limit the
applicant's ability to redevelop the property.
4. The special conditions or circumstances necessitating the variance request do
not result from the actions of the applicant. At the time of the planning
application submittal, the city had not yet addressed in the city code some of
the unique characteristics of assisted living and memory care housing that
made it difficult for the applicant to avoid needing variances.
5. The applicant believes that permitting the property to have the requested
increased density, reduced unit sizes, reduced parking and encroach into the
building setbacks is the minimum variance, as it allows for a well designed
project with new housing options for Mounds View residents and fits the
architectural characteristics of a residential neighborhood.
6. Granting these variances would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of
the Code since the city is in the process of amending the code to address most
of these issues.
7. The proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets
or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
r.:.2•:i f'i si
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby re -approve the
variances originally approved on August 20, 2008 by Resolution 892-08 to increase the site
density, reduce the minimum unit sizes, reduce the total number of parking spaces to 76
constructed and 9 proof of parking stalls from the required 112 spaces, and allow a two foot
roof overhang to encroach and a four to six foot structure encroachment into the building
setbacks for the proposed 96 -unit Select Senior Living development located at 2865 County
Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road.
Adopted this 6t" day of October, 2010.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Kenneth Roberts
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
of Mounds View Staff
Item No: 6A
Meeting Date: October 6, 2010
Type of Business: Discussion
To: Planning Commission
From: Ken Roberts, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Changes to Granting Variances
Introduction:
On July 21, 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court published their findings in the case
Krummenachervs. City of Minnetonka. This ruling has changed the long-standing analysis that
cities have been using when deciding whether to approve variances. I am attaching to this
report information on the new standards that cities in Minnesota should now consider with the
new interpretation of the variance standard. I also am including materials and information from
the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) about variances and a short analysis done by the LMC's
general counsel. Based on this recent court case and the other materials I have included, the
Planning Commission needs to review and consider possible changes to how the City approves
variances in Mounds View.
Discussion:
Since 1989, cities in Minnesota have been deciding variances based on the findings from a
Court of Appeals decision (Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of Moorhead) that required the
applicant to show he or she would like to use the property "in a reasonable manner that is
prohibited by the ordinance." In other words, the use in question was to be reasonable under
the circumstances, assuming there was some type of hardship unique to the property. The
recent ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court, however, has interpreted State Statute
differently.
The Krummenacher vs. City of Minnetonka case dealt with the expansion of a non -conformity.
The resident wanted to build a second story onto a detached garage that was already too close
to the side property line but it was a legal non -conforming use. The City granted the requested
variance saying that the proposed use was reasonable. The neighbor (Krummenacher) sued in
district court, challenging the City's determination of undue hardship. The District Court and the
Court of Appeals upheld the City's decision to allow the owner's requested variance to expand
the non -conforming garage. Krummenacher appealed the lower court decisions all the way to
the Minnesota Supreme Court.
In what some have described as a landmark decision, the Supreme Court overruled the Court
of Appeals and rejected a 1989 Court of Appeals' decision by holding that a city does not have
the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that the property cannot be put
to a reasonable use without the variance. Specifically, one can find the most important point of
the case at the bottom of page 20 of the decision itself. It states:
"We are unable to interpret the statutory language to mean anything other than what the text
clearly says—that to obtain a municipal variance, an applicant must establish that "the property
in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official
controls."" (Krummenacher vs. City of Minnetonka, A08-1988 at 20)
This analysis from the Supreme Court means that municipalities are limited by the plain
language of the statute. That is, as the law now stands, a City cannot grant a variance unless it
is clear that the property owner cannot put the property to any reasonable use without the
variance. All cities, however, still have their own "community standards" to guide their planning
and land use decisions, including variances. This means the City decides what is a "reasonable
use" - not State Statute. This is important since it provides the City the opportunity to decide
what a reasonable use is in instances — especially where the City has clear standards and
expectations. It also is important to note that the best decisions that cities make are those that
the Planning Commission or City Council supports with a clear and well reasoned record or set
of findings. Variance decisions also require such analysis and documentation.
Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 of the City Code outlines the seven criteria (the City standards) that
Mounds View has set to approve a variance (attached). Staff is not proposing any changes to
these criteria at this time. There is a strong possibility that the State Legislature could change
the State law about variances in 2011 to give cities more latitude and flexibility to approve
variances. If the State changes the law, then the City can decide what if any changes are
necessary to the City Code.
Going forward, the City needs to consider variance requests more carefully. Based on this
recent Court ruling, the standard for approval has changed — could the owner use the property
in a reasonable manner without a variance? If so, then the City should not grant the variance.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Planning Commission members review the attached information and
come to the October 6, 2010 meeting prepared with questions and discussion points.
!ctor
Attachments:
1. LMC Summary
2. Case Summary
3. Case
4. LMC Information
5. LMC FAQ
6. Section 1125.02 of the City Code (Variances)
7. Recent articles from the Star Tribune about Variances
Attachment 1
Taken from the LMC Bulletin, authored by Tom Grundhoefer, general counsel
The court ruling holds cities to a much stricter standard, which considerably limits
variance opportunities.
(Published Jul 21, 2010)
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued a decision that changed the longstanding
interpretation of the statutory standard for granting zoning variances.
In the case of Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, the Supreme Court narrowly
interpreted the definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of
the "undue hardship" test is not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather
whether there is reasonable use in the absence of the variance. This is a much stricter
standard, which considerably limits variance opportunities.
The decision
The City of Minnetonka issued a variance to a residential property owner permitting the
expansion of a legal, non -conforming garage. The city, relying on a 1989 Court of
Appeals decision, concluded that the grant of the variance was reasonable. The city's
decision was challenged by an adjacent property owner. Both the District Court and the
Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that the city's decision was appropriate. On June 24
the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and found the city's
decision impermissible.
The Supreme Court examined the statutory definition of "undue hardship" in Minnesota
Statutes, section 462.357, and concluded that city authority to issue a variance is limited
to those very rare cases where the property cannot be put to "a reasonable use" without
the variance. This establishes a high threshold for both the city and the property owner
when considering variance requests.
The Supreme Court reviewed the parallel county authority that allows for a variance in
situations of "practical difficulties" or "hardship." The Supreme Court found that the city
authority was more limited because it did not contain the "practical difficulties"
provision. The court explicitly recognized that it was changing a longstanding standard
that cities have relied on in considering variance requests. In particular, the court
specifically rejected a 1989 Court of Appeals interpretation of the phrase "undue
hardship," which allowed for the grant of a variance in circumstances where the
"property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited
by the ordinance."
The Supreme Court stated that "unless and until the Legislature takes action to provide a
more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the language of
the statute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grant a variance
unless the applicant can show that her property cannot be put to a reasonable use without
the variance."
Impact of the decision
Because of the far-reaching nature of the decision, there are probably at least four
responses that cities should think about—at least until a legislative correction can be
achieved:
* The city should re-evaluate the criteria that it has historically used in deciding
whether or not to grant a variance. The Supreme Court's decision limits a city's
discretion. The ruling limits the authority to circumstances where the property owner can
demonstrate that there is not a reasonable use of the property absent the variance grant.
* In circumstances where the city council believes the grant of a variance is
appropriate, the city should take great care to make detailed finding describing why the
grant of the variance is necessary to provide the property owner with a reasonable use of
his or her property. What constitutes a reasonable use of property is not defined and may
differ depending on the unique circumstances of the property and attributes of various
communities.
* If a city routinely grants variances, this may be an indicator that it may want to re-
examine its zoning code to ensure that standards, setbacks, uses, and other requirements
are consistent with the city council's current vision for the community. In short, the
court's decision should act as an encouragement to cities to review their land use
practices.
* Cities may want to build greater flexibility into their existing conditional use permit,
planned unit development, and setback regulations to explicitly afford greater latitude to
allow "variance -like" approvals under the zoning code. For instance, a city might
establish alternative setback requirements to allow for construction that is consistent with
neighborhood attributes.
Legislative action
The restrictive court decision has caused a number of League members to call for a
legislative response. The decision, its impact, and a possible legislative response will be
discussed in the League's Improving Service Delivery Policy Committee this summer. It
is anticipated that the League will support a legislative change to provide cities with
greater flexibility—perhaps something similar to the county authority.
Attachment 2
Wednesday, February 3, 2010, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
Beat L. Krummenacher, Appellant vs. City of Minnetonka, Respondent, JoAnne K.
Liebeler, Respondent — Case No. A08-1988: Respondent JoAnne Liebeler applied to
respondent City of Minnetonka for a variance to allow her to build a finished structure,
to be used as a family room and yoga and craft studio, on top of the flat roof of a
detached nonconforming garage on her property. Appellant Beat Krummenacher, one
of Liebeler's neighbors, opposed the variance. The city granted the requested variance;
Krummenacher appealed to the district court. In connection with his appeal,
Krummenacher served Liebeler with written discovery requests, which Liebeler declined
to answer. The district court ruled that it would allow Krummenacher to conduct
discovery only if the court determined that the city's decision to grant the requested
variance was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. In a second order, the district court
concluded that the city's decision to grant the variance was not unreasonable, arbitrary,
or capricious. The court of appeals affirmed. Three issues are before the supreme
court: (1) whether the city's decision to grant the variance was unreasonable, arbitrary,
or capricious; (2) whether the city was prohibited from granting the variance by Minn.
Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e(a) (2008), which authorizes municipalities to grant variances
from zoning standards when strict enforcement of such zoning standards would cause
undue hardship; and (3) whether Krummenacher should have been allowed to conduct
discovery during his appeal to the district court from the city's decision. (Hennepin
County)
Court of Appeals
Beat L. Krummenacher,
VS.
City of Minnetonka,
JoAnne K. Liebeler,
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
Appellant,
Respondent,
Respondent.
:1: '::
Attachment 3
Gildea, J.
Took no part, Dietzen, J.
Filed: June 24, 2010
Office of Appellate Courts
Paul W. Chamberlain, Ryan R. Kuhlmann, Chamberlain Law Firm, Wayzata, Minnesota,
for appellant.
George C. Hoff, Shelley M. Ryan, Hoff, Barry & Kozar, P.A., Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
for respondent City of Minnetonka.
James M. Susag, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren Ltd., Bloomington, Minnesota, for
respondent JoAnne Liebeler.
Susan L. Naughton, St. Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities.
1
SYLLABUS
1. Although Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a) (2008), restricts the ability
of property owners to expand their nonconforming uses, subdivision le(b) authorizes
a municipality to allow an expansion pursuant to ordinance. Because the legislature
gave the municipality discretion to authorize the expansion of a nonconforming use, the
decision to allow respondent to seek a variance under the ordinance to expand a
nonconformity was consistent with Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le.
2. Under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, to establish the "undue hardship"
required for a variance, a variance applicant must establish that "the property in question
cannot be put to a reasonable use" without the variance.
3. Because the municipality applied the wrong standard, a remand for
reconsideration of respondent's variance application under the correct standard is
appropriate.
Reversed and remanded.
OPINION
GILDER, Justice.
This case involves the decision of respondent City of Minnetonka to grant a
variance to respondent JoAnne Liebeler so that she could expand her nonconforming
garage. Appellant Beat Krummenacher is Liebeler's neighbor and he challenges the
City's decision. The district court upheld the City's variance, and the court of appeals
affirmed. See Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 768 N.W.2d 377, 384 (Minn. App.
2009). Because we conclude that the City applied the wrong standard to Liebeler's
2
variance request, we reverse and remand to the City for reconsideration under the correct
standard.
Liebeler owns property located in Minnetonka. Krummenacher is Liebeler's
neighbor to the west. Liebeler's property consists of a 2.4 -acre lot, which contains a
2,975 -square -foot home and an attached two -car garage. The property also contains a
detached flat -roofed garage that a previous owner constructed sometime in the 1940s.
The City has an ordinance requiring that the detached garage be set back a minimum of
50 feet from the property's boundary line. Minnetonka City Code § 300.10. Liebeler's
garage was constructed before this ordinance went into effect, and it does not satisfy the
setback requirement. Specifically, the garage is nonconforming because it is set back
only 17 feet from the front yard lot line. Because the garage was constructed before the
ordinance became effective, however, the garage is a permissible nonconformity.
On March 31, 2008, Liebeler applied for a variance to expand the detached garage
by adding a pitched roof and a second -story room above the garage that could be used as
a yoga studio and craft room. Liebeler's proposal was to renovate the garage itself, both
to fix its leakage problems and improve its appearance, and also to expand the garage by
adding a living space above it. Because adding a second story to the garage would result
in a vertical expansion of a nonconforming structure, Liebeler was required, under the
Minnetonka City Code, to apply for a variance from the City.' See Minnetonka City
1 It appears that Liebeler did not attempt to move the garage to a conforming
location because the unusual characteristics of the lot made relocation impracticable.
Liebeler's lot is L-shaped with only 45 -feet of frontage on the road. Moreover, there is a
(Footnote continued on next page.)
3
Code § 300.29.3(g). Liebeler's proposed addition would not alter the footprint of the
garage and would comply with the City zoning requirements for a detached garage with
respect to maximum height and size.
The City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 15, 2008, to
consider Liebeler's request. Both Liebeler and Krummenacher had an opportunity to
present their arguments at that hearing. Liebeler explained that she believed that the flat
roof was causing leakage problems and that the structure itself needed to be updated.
Krummenacher objected to Liebeler's proposed project, explaining that the added height
of the garage would obstruct his view to the east.
The Planning Commission approved Liebeler's request for the variance. The
Planning Commission based its decision on the following findings: (1) the denial of a
variance would cause "undue hardship" because of the "topography of the site, width of
the lot, location of the driveway, and existing vegetation' ; (2) the preexisting
nonconforming setback was a "unique circumstance'; (3) Liebeler's proposal would
comply with the "intent of the ordinance" because it satisfied the "zoning ordinance
requirements for a detached garage for maximum height and size" and did not alter the
footprint of the garage; and (4) the proposal would not alter the "neighborhood character"
because it would "visually enhance the exterior of the garage" and because there was
(Footnote continued from previous page.)
significant slope immediately behind the garage, making it difficult to move the garage
back.
El
another detached garage on a nearby property that was also set back only 17 feet from the
road.
Krummenacher appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Minnetonka
City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on the variance request on June 30,
2008, at which both sides presented their arguments. After an examination of the record,
the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision and findings. The City
Council found that Liebeler's "proposal is reasonable and would meet the required
standards for a variance." The council listed four requirements and found that the
variance satisfied those requirements as follows:
(1) Undue Hardship: there is an undue hardship due to the topography
of the site, width of the lot, location of the driveway and existing
vegetation.
(2) Unique Circumstance: The existing, non -conforming setback is a
circumstance that is not common to every similarly zoned property.
(3) Intent of the Ordinance: The improvements would not increase the
footprint of the garage, and would comply with the zoning ordinance
requirements for a detached garage for maximum height and size.
(4) Neighborhood Character: The garage improvements would not alter
the character of the neighborhood. The improvements would visually
enhance the exterior of the garage. There is also a detached garage on the
property to the east that is set back 17 feet from [the street].
Krummenacher then brought suit in district court challenging, among other things,
the City's finding of undue hardship. Krummenacher served discovery requests asking
for additional documents from the City, but the City objected to providing more than the
City's record on the grounds that the case was properly subject to record review. The
court declined to order the City to produce the additional documents, and affirmed the
5
City's decision to grant the variance to Liebeler, concluding that the City's decision was
not"arbitrary and capricious."
Krummenacher appealed to the court of appeals. On appeal, he raised three issues.
First, he argued that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a) (2008), prohibits the City from
granting a variance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use. Krummenacher, 768
N.W.2d at 380-81. Second, he argued that the City's approval of the variance request
was "arbitrary and capricious" because Liebeler had failed to meet the "undue hardship"
standard of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. See Krummenacher, 768 N.W.2d at 382-84.
Last, he argued that the district court erred in refusing to compel additional discovery by
the City. See id. at 384. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision in all
respects.
We granted Krummenacher's petition for review. On appeal to our court,
Krummenacher advances the same three arguments he made to the court of appeals.2
I.
We turn first to Krummenacher's argument that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le,
prohibits a municipality from granting a variance that allows for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure. Section 462.357, subdivision le, provides in relevant part:
(a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land
or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control
under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair,
2 On January 26, 2010, Liebeler filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that we should
dismiss the case on the grounds that construction of the expanded garage has been
completed, rendering Krummenacher's claims moot. The motion to dismiss is denied.
2
replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not
including expansion ....
(b) A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose
upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate
nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety.
(Emphasis added.)' Krummenacher argues that because the plain language of paragraph
(a) of subdivision le prohibits the expansion of any nonconformity, the City's decision
allowing Liebeler to expand her nonconforming garage must be reversed. The City
argues that subdivision le(a) restricts the ability of property owners to expand
nonconforming uses, but that under subdivision le(b), a municipality is permitted to
allow an expansion pursuant to ordinance.
The construction of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. Clark v..
Lindquist, 683 N.W.2d 784, 785 (Minn. 2004).4 To interpret a statute, we first assess
' In its brief, the City cites the 2009 version of section 462. 357, subdivision le(a)
which reads:
Except as otherwise provided by law, any nonconformity, including the
lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the
adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued,
including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or
improvement, but not including expansion ....
Minn. Stat. § 462.357 (Supp. 2009) (new language in italics). The "except as otherwise
provided" language in this version of subdivision le(a), however, did not become
effective until May 22, 2009, which was after the City granted the variance. See Act of
May 21, 2009, ch. 149, § 4, 2009 Minn. Laws 2025, 2028. We therefore do not rely on
this version of the statute. We apply the 2008 version of subdivision le, the version of
the statute in effect when the variance was granted.
4 Liebeler did not propose to expand the footprint of her garage, and it is undisputed
that even as remodeled the garage would still be 17 feet from the yard line. In other
(Footnote continued on next page.)
7
"whether the statute's language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous." Am. Family fns.
Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000). If the law is "clear and free from
all ambiguity," the plain meaning controls and is not "disregarded under the pretext of
pursuing the spirit." Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2008); Phelps V. Commonwealth Land Title
Ins. Co., 537 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1995) ("Where the intention of the legislature is
clearly manifested by plain unambiguous language ... no construction is necessary or
permitted."). The legislature has also stated that it intends the entire statute to be
effective. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 ("Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect
to all its provisions.").
This case is about a structure that does not conform with local land use
restrictions. We have recognized that a local zoning ordinance "may constitutionally
prohibit the creation of uses which are nonconforming." County of Freeborn v. Claussen,
295 Minn. 96, 99, 203 N.W.2d 323, 325 (1972). As to "existing nonconforming uses,"
however, these "must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent
domain." Id. But a local government "is not required" to permit the expansion of such
nonconformities. Id.
Subdivision le is consistent with these principles. We read the subdivision in its
entirety and give effect to both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Minn. Stat. § 645.16;
(Footnote continued from previous page.)
words, the scope of the nonconformity would not be expanded if Liebeler's request were
granted. The City nevertheless concedes that the variance sought an "expansion" for
purposes of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le, and we treat it as such for purposes of this
opinion.
see also /n re Kenney, 374 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1985) ("A statute will be construed
so as to give effect to all of its parts."). In paragraph (a), the legislature, with certain
exceptions not relevant here, prohibits a municipality from ordering the removal of
nonconformities.5 Further, the legislature has given property owners the right to repair or
replace a nonconformity so long as they do not expand the nonconformity. In other
words, as long as the property owner does not expand the nonconformity, she does not
need municipal approval to take corrective or remedial action on the nonconformity. But
under paragraph (b), if the property owner seeks to expand the nonconformity, the
municipality may, by ordinance, permit the expansion.
Consistent with the authority the legislature granted to it in paragraph (b) of
subdivision le, the City has an ordinance that addresses the expansion of
nonconformities. See Minnetonka City Code § 300.29(g)(1). This ordinance provides
that "an expansion of any non -conforming use may not be done without first obtaining a
variance." Id Liebeler's proposed addition to her detached garage required a variance
because she proposed to "occup[y] space within a non -conforming area that was
previously not occupied ... vertically." Id.
Krummenacher argues that because state law is superior to municipal law, the City
cannot grant a variance pursuant to its own ordinance if that variance violates state law.
5 The statute allows the municipality to require a nonconformity to be discontinued
when it "is discontinued for a period of more than one year," or "is destroyed by fire or
other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building
permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged." Minn.
Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a)(1) and (2).
E
See Denney v. City of Duluth, 295 Minn. 22, 26, 202 N.W.2d 892, 894 (1972) ("It is
fundamental that a municipality's power to regulate land use by zoning exists by virtue of
authority delegated to it by the state."). But Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(b), grants the
City the discretion to permit the expansion of a nonconformity by ordinance. The City
provided a mechanism for expansion in section 300.29(g)(1), through a variance
application,. and Krummenacher makes no argument that Liebeler's request for a variance
did not satisfy that section of the City Code.
Because the legislature gave the City discretion to authorize the expansion of
Liebeler's nonconforming garage, we hold that the City's decision to allow Liebeler to
seek a variance under the ordinance to expand a nonconformity was consistent with
Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le.
II.
We turn next to Krummenacher's argument that the City's decision must be set
aside because it was arbitrary and capricious. Municipalities have "broad discretionary
power" in considering whether to grant or deny a variance. vanL8ndsehoot v City of
Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503, 508 (Minn. 1983). We review such decisions "to
determine whether the municipality "was within its jurisdiction, was not mistaken as to
the applicable law, and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably, and to
determine whether the evidence could reasonably support or justify the determination."
In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323, 332 (Minn. 2008) (internal quotation omitted).
10
0
Krummenacher argues that the City's decision was arbitrary and capricious
because the City did not apply the proper standard to determine whether Liebeler
demonstrated "undue hardship" as defined in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. This
provision allows a city to grant a variance "from the literal provisions of the ordinance in
instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration." Minn. Stat.
§ 462.357, subd. 6.
Minnesota Statutes § 462.357, subd. 6, provides a definition of "undue hardship,"
and that definition requires that three factors be met. Specifically, the statute defines
"undue hardship" as meaning,
the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions
allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Id.6 To receive a variance, the applicant must show that he or she meets all of the three
statutory requirements of the "undue hardship" test. /d. In addition to satisfying the
"undue hardship" requirement, the statute allows municipalities to grant variances only
6 The Minnetonka City Code has almost identical provisions. Minnetonka City
Code § 300.07.1(a) ("A variance may be granted from the literal provisions of this
ordinance in instances where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and when it is
demonstrated that such actions would be consistent with the spirit and intent of this
ordinance. Undue hardship means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable
use if used under conditions allowed by this ordinance, the plight of the landowner is due
to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if
granted, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.").
11
"when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the ordinance." Id. Krummenacher argues that Liebeler's application does not meet any
of the requirements for "undue hardship."
The first factor a variance applicant must establish to satisfy the statute's definition
of "undue hardship" is that "the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if
used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6;
see also Minnetonka City Code § 300.07.1(a). Krummenacher argues that based on the
plain and unambiguous language of the statute, a municipality may grant a variance only
when the property cannot be put to any reasonable use without it. According to
Krummenacher, Liebeler had a reasonable use for her garage without the addition of a
yoga studio and craft room—its current use as a storage space for vehicles.
Krummenacher argues therefore that the City did not have the statutory authority to grant
the variance.
The court of appeals rejected this argument, relying on its decision in Rowell V.
Board of Adjustment of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989), rev. denied
(Minn. Dec. 15, 1989). The court in that case interpreted the "undue hardship" section of
Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, as requiring a variance applicant to show that the
"property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited
by the ordinance." /d. at 922.
The City urges that we should embrace the interpretation of "undue hardship" from
Rowell, and it appears from the record that the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard is
the standard the City used in evaluating Liebeler's request for a variance. The City
12
determined that the expansion of the garage was a reasonable use of the property and that
the request met the other requirements of the statute. Specifically, as reflected in the City
Council Resolution, the City found that "the proposal is reasonable" and with respect to
"undue hardship," that "[t]here is an undue hardship due to the topography of the site,
width of the lot, location of the driveway and existing vegetation."
The plain language of the statute and our precedent compel us to reject the City's
invitation to adopt Rowelts interpretation of "undue hardship." The statute provides that
to prove "undue hardship," the variance applicant must show that "the property in
question cannot be put to a reasonable use" without the variance. Minn. Stat. § 462.357,
subd. 6. Notwithstanding this language, the court of appeals concluded that "[t]his
provision does not mean that a property owner must show the land cannot be put to any
reasonable use without the variance." Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 922. The court of appeals
essentially rewrote the statute to mean that a municipality may grant a variance when the
"property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited
by the ordinance." Id. at 922. Although the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard has
been used for over 20 years, we simply cannot reconcile that standard with the plain
language of the statute.
The Rowell standard is also inconsistent with our precedent. In support of the
application of a "reasonable manner" standard for determining "undue hardship," Rowell
cites Curry v. Young, 285 Minn. 387, 173 N.W.2d 410 (1969), for the proposition that a
variance is "required where a setback requirement would force a property owner to build
a much smaller structure." /d. at 922. The version of Minn. Stat. § 462.357 in effect
13
when Curry was decided did not contain the definition of "undue hardship" that is in the
current version of the statute. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357 (1969). Moreover, while we
discussed in Curry the dimensions of a structure that could theoretically be built to
comply with the statutory requirements, we based our determination that the variance was
properly granted on the municipality's ordinance. That ordinance required a showing of
"particular hardship," and we concluded that the standard was met because the
"plaintiffs' lot, in the absence of a variance, would be unusable for any purpose." Curry,
285 Minn. at 388-89, 396, 173 N.W.2d at 411, 415. The standard we applied in Curryis
more rigorous than the "reasonable manner" standard adopted in Rowell, and appears
consistent with the plain language of the first part of the "undue hardship" definition that
is in the current statute. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6.
In addition, in formulating the "reasonable manner" standard, the court in Rowell
appears to have relied on the "practical difficulties" standard.? See Rowell, 446 N.W.2d
at 922. But we have made a clear distinction between the "practical difficulties" standard
and the "undue hardship" standard. See Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 328-31. As we
explained in Stadsvold, the "practical difficulties" standard applies to review of county
decisions to grant area variances, while the "undue hardship" standard applies to all
7 In support of the application of this standard, the court of appeals cited Merriam
Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285, 289-90, 210 N.W.2d 416,
419 (1973), overruled on other grounds by Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills,
281 N.W.2d 865, 868 n.4 (Minn. 1979). As in Curry, the version of Minn. Stat.
§ 462.357 in effect when Merriam Park was decided did not contain the definition of
"undue hardship" that is in the current version of the statute. See 297 Minn. at 289-90,
210 N.W.2d at 418-19 (quoting statute).
14
municipal decisions to grant variances. /d. at 327-28 & n.2. Compare Minn. Stat.
§ 462.357, subd. 6, with Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7 (2008).$
In Stadsvold, we interpreted Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7, which sets forth the
statutory standard for county variances. This statute contains both the "practical
difficulties" standard and a "particular hardship" standard. Specifically, section 394.27
authorizes a county to grant variances from "the terms of any official control" but only
when the property owner would face "practical difficulties or particular hardship" in
meeting "the strict letter of any official control." Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7.9 We
distinguished the "less rigorous `practical difficulties' " standard that applies to area
variance applications from the more rigorous "particular hardship" standard that applies
to use variance applications. Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 330-31.10
8 While Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, and Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7, both set
forth standards for granting variances, section 462.357, subdivision 6, applies to
municipalities and section 394.27, subdivision 7, applies to counties.
9 The same dichotomy of language at issue in Sladsvold existed in the predecessor
to the municipal zoning statute, section 462.357. Until 1965, section 462.22 (enacted in
1929, repealed in 1965) granted municipalities the power to vary or modify the
application of a zoning regulation where there were "practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardship" in complying with the strict letter of the regulation. Minn. Stat. § 462.22
(1961). In 1965, the legislature replaced Minn. Stat. § 462.22 with Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
Act of May 22, 1965, c. 670, § 7, 1965 Minn. Laws 995, 1000-03. The new statute
replaced the "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship" standard with the current
single "undue hardship" standard. Id. "Undue hardship" was undefined in the statute
until 1982, when the legislature, borrowing the definition of "hardship" from the county
variance statute, Minn. Stat. § 394.27, added the current definition of "undue hardship" to
the statute. Act of Mar. 22, 1982, ch. 507, § 22, 1982 Minn. Laws 592, 593.
io As we discussed in Stadsvold, "[t]here are two types of variances: use variances
and area variances. `A use variance permits a use or development of land other than that
(Footnote continued on next page.)
15
Adopting the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard would be inconsistent with. the
distinction we made in Stadsvold between the "practical difficulties" and "hardship"
standards. The legislature defined the "hardship" standard in the county statute the same
way it defined the "undue hardship" standard in the municipal statute.11 Because the
legislature used the same language in both the county and city variance statutes when
defining "hardship," our analysis in Stadsvold requires us to conclude that the "undue
hardship" standard in Minn. Stat. § 462.537, subd. 6, is more demanding than the
"practical difficulties" standard the court of appeals appears to have relied on in Rowell,
446 N.W.2d at 922.
Moreover, with respect to the "practical difficulties" standard, we identified in
Stadsvold several factors the county should consider in assessing whether that standard
was met:
(1) how substantial the variation is in relation to the requirement; (2) the
effect the variance would have on government services; (3) whether the
variance will effect a substantial change in the character of the
neighborhood or will be a substantial detriment to neighboring properties;
(4) whether the practical difficulty can be alleviated by a feasible method
other than a variance; (5) how the practical difficulty occurred, including
(Footnote continued from previous page.)
prescribed by zoning regulations.' ... An area variance controls `lot restrictions such as
area, height, setback, density and parking requirements.' " 754 N.W.2d at 329 (quoting
In re Appeal of Kenney, 374 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1985)).
11 " `Hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the
property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions
allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not
alter the essential character of the locality." Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7.
IEO
whether the landowner created the need for the variance; and (6) whether,
in light of all of the above factors, allowing the variance will serve the
interests of justice.
754 N.W.2d at 331 (footnote omitted). Rowelts interpretation of the "undue hardship"
standard, requiring only that the proposed use be "reasonable," would render the "undue
hardship" standard in section 462.357 less stringent than the "practical difficulties"
standard and much less stringent than the "particular hardship" standard in the county
variance statute, which the "undue hardship" standard appears to parallel. See Stadsvold,
754 N.W.2d at 331. In short, our analysis in Stadsvold simply does not leave room for
the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard. 12
12 The City argues that, even if Rowell was based on an erroneous reading of the text
of section 462.357, subdivision 6, the standard in Rowell has been used by municipalities
for many years in determining whether to grant a variance. See, e.g., Mohler V. City of St.
Louis Park, 643 N.W.2d 623, 631 (Minn. App. 2002); Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610
N.W.2d 697, 701 (Minn. App. 2000); Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488, 492
(Minn. App. 1995). The City suggests that, because the legislature has amended section
462.357 many times since Rowell and has not disturbed the court of appeals'
interpretation of the "undue hardship" standard, we should treat the legislature as having
ratified the Rowell standard. But the legislature has provided that "[w]hen a court of last
resort has construed the language of a law, the legislature in subsequent laws on the same
subject matter intends the same construction to be placed upon such language." Minn.
Stat. § 645.17(4) (2008). The court of appeals is not "a court of last resort." See
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid Minnesota Women's Or., Inc., 673 N.W.2d 270, 276
(Minn. 2002) (stating that the court of appeals is not the court of last resort with respect
to statutory construction). Nor does the denial of a petition for review give a court of
appeals decision more precedential value than a court of appeals decision from which no
review was sought. Murphy V. Milbank Mut. fns. Co., 388 N.W.2d 732, 739 (Minn.
1986). We therefore reject the City's argument that the legislature has ratified the Rowell
standard.
17
We recognize that the standard we apply today, while followed elsewhere, is not
the universal rule.13 For example, in Simplex Technologies, Inc. v. Town of Newington,
766 A.2d 713 (N.H. 2001), the New Hampshire Supreme Court provided a thorough and
insightful review of the development of land use variance law, and its practical
construction in modern times. The New Hampshire statute did not contain a specific
definition of "unnecessary hardship," like our statute does, and the court concluded that
its prior definition of the statutory term "unnecessary hardship" "ha[d] become too
restrictive in light of the constitutional protections by which it must be tempered." Id. at
717. The New Hampshire Supreme Court framed the issue in the following terms:
Inevitably and necessarily there is a tension between zoning ordinances and
property rights, as courts balance the right of citizens to the enjoyment of
13 While most jurisdictions use the phrase "unnecessary hardship" rather than "undue
hardship" as the applicable standard, many jurisdictions appear to require that the
variance applicant establish real hardship if the variance is denied rather than simply
requiring that the applicant show the reasonableness of the proposed use. See, e.g.,
Larsen v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Pittsburgh, 672 A.2d 286, 290-92 (Pa. 1996)
(holding that the "mere desire to provide more room for a family member's enj oyment" is
insufficient to constitute "unnecessary hardship" under the statute and requiring
applicants to show that, if the variance request is denied, the property will be "practically
useless"); OK Properties v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Warwick, 601 A.2d 953, 955 (R.I.
1992) ("The court has determined that unnecessary hardship exists when restricting the
property to the permitted uses within the zoning ordinance will deprive the property
owner of all beneficial use of the property and that granting a variance becomes
necessary to avoid an indirect confiscation of the property."); Cochran v. Fairfax County
Board of Zoning Appeals, 594 S.E.2d 571, 577 (Va. 2004) ("[T]he [Board of Zoning
Appeals] has no authority to grant a variance unless the effect of the zoning ordinance, as
applied to the piece of property under consideration, would, in the absence of a variance,
interfere with all reasonable beneficial uses of the property, taken as a whole.") (internal
quotation marks omitted); 3 Anderson's Law of Zoning § 20.16 (Kenneth H. Young ed.,
4th ed., 1996) (describing different states' approaches to the "unnecessary hardship"
standard and suggesting that most states give the term a fairly restrictive construction).
M
private property with the right of municipalities to restrict property use. In
this balancing process, constitutional property rights must be respected and
protected from unreasonable zoning restrictions.
Id. at 716-17. In light of these considerations, the New Hampshire Supreme Court said
that "unnecessary hardship" would, in the future, be established when a landowner
showed that (1) a zoning restriction as applied interferes with a reasonable use of the
property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment; (2) no fair and
substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and
the specific restriction on the property; and (3) the variance would not injure the public or
private rights of others. /d. at 717.14
Had the Minnesota Legislature not defined "undue hardship" in Minn. Stat.
§ 462.357, subd. 6, we might consider the approach articulated in Simplex15 A flexible
variance standard allows municipalities to make modest adjustments to the detailed
application of a regulatory scheme when a zoning ordinance imposes significant burdens
on an individual, and relief can be fashioned without harm to the neighbors, the
community, or the overall purposes of the ordinance. See David W. Owens, The Zoning
Variance: Reappraisal and Recommendations for Reform of a Much -Maligned Toot, 29
Colum. I Envtl. L. 279, 317 (2004) ("If the variance power is to be used both as a
14 These standards were subsequently codified. See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:33
(Supp. 2009).
15 The factors set forth in Simplex are not dissimilar to the factors we embraced in
Stadsvold in construing "practical difficulties." See 754 N.W.2d at 331 (discussing
factors for consideration under the "practical difficulties" standard).
19
constitutional safeguard and as a tool for flexibility, zoning enabling acts and local
ordinances should be amended to delineate these two purposes and set different standards
for each. The failure to make such a distinction underlies much of the past controversy
regarding variances. Courts and commentators have traditionally viewed the variances as
the former—a very limited tool for avoidance of constitutional infirmity in extraordinary
cases. Most variance petitions, and consequently most board of adjustment decision-
making, have viewed the variances as the latter—a tool to provide flexible
implementation rather than constitutional infirmity.").
We recognize that the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard represents a
longstanding interpretation of the undue hardship standard in Minn. Stat. § 462.357,
subd. 6, and that Minnesota municipalities have been granting variances under the
"reasonable manner" standard for many years. We also recognize that our decision will
result in a restriction on a municipality's authority to grant variances as compared with
the "reasonable manner" standard. But whatever value we may find in a more flexible
standard, particularly with regard to area variances, we cannot ignore the plain language
of the statute. See State v.. Peek, 773 N.W.2d 768 773 (Minn. 2009) ("We have no
opportunity to ignore part of the legislature's definition."). We are unable to interpret the
statutory language to mean anything other than what the text clearly says—that to obtain
a municipal variance, an applicant must establish that "the property in question cannot be
put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Minn.
Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Therefore, unless and until the legislature takes action to
provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the
20
language of the statute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grant a
variance unless the applicant can show that her property cannot be put to a reasonable use
without the variance.
Based on the plain language of the statute, and our precedent interpreting language
similar to "undue hardship" in the context of a local government's authority to grant
variances, we reject the "reasonable manner" standard from Rowell. We hold that the
City inaccurately applied the first factor in the "undue hardship" definition of Minn. Stat.
§ 462.357, subd. 6. Our resolution of this issue makes it unnecessary for us to resolve
the other issues Krummenacher raises on appeal.
Having concluded that the City applied the law incorrectly, we must address the
remedy. In cases where a variance has been denied, the general rule is that "[i]f the
zoning authority's decision is arbitrary and capricious, the standard remedy is that the
court orders the permit to be issued." Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 332; see also In re
Llvingood, 594 N.W.2d 889, 895 (Minn. 1999). But there is an exception to this general
rule "when the zoning authority's decision is premature and not necessarily arbitrary."
Stadsvold, 752 N.W.2d at 333 (internal quotation omitted). For example, in
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton, where it was unclear whether the zoning
authority had applied the relevant statutory provisions, we remanded to the zoning
authority for "renewed consideration" under the appropriate standard. 513 N.W.2d 460,
463 (Minn. 1994).
21
Similarly, in Stadsvold, we remanded a variance application to the county board
because the board applied the wrong standard:
The Board, using an "adequate hardship" standard, did not consider
practical difficulties. The Stadsvolds argue the Board's decision was
therefore arbitrary and capricious. The Board did not have the benefit of our
holding in this case regarding "practical difficulties." We cannot tell
whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore,
remand is required to allow the Board to consider the Stadsvolds' variance
application in light of our holding that applications for area variances are to
be considered using the "practical difficulties" standard in Minn. Stat.
§ 394.27, subd. 7.
Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 332. Our precedent therefore supports the conclusion that a
property owner is entitled to have his or her variance application heard under the correct
legal standard, which supports a remand in this case. A remand is particularly
appropriate in this case because a property owner seeking to utilize her property should
not be penalized due to the City's application of the wrong legal standard. We reverse
and remand the matter to the City for renewed consideration of Liebeler's variance
request in light of our rejection of the "reasonable manner" standard from ROWeII.
Reversed and remanded.
DIETZEN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
22
Attachment 4
Caarrsit 14
2. Variances
Variances are an exception to rules laid out in a zoning' ordinance. They are
permitted departures from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a
particular piece of property if strict enforcement would cause the owner
"undue hardship." Variances are generally relate to physical standards (such
as setbacks or height limits) and may not be used.to allow a use that is
prohibited in the particular zoning district. Essentially, variances allow the
landowner to break the rules that would otherwise apply
Minn. Stat, § 462.354, subd. 6. The law provides that requests for variances are heard by the board of
HANOBOOKFORNIMNESOTACI'M 14:19
This chapter tact revised 12/2008
adjustment and appeals; in many smaller communifies, the planning
commission serves that function. Generally, the board's decision is subject to
appeal to the city council. Under the statutory undue hardship standard, a
landowner is entitled to a variance if, and only if, the facts satisfy the three -
factor test for undue hardship, which are:
• The property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance.
• The landowner's situation is due to circumstances unique to the
property not caused by the landowner, The uniqueness generally
relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of
property and economic considerations alone cannot create an undue
hardship.
• The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
l
locality. This factor generally contemplates whether the resulting
structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent
with the surrounding area.
Myron V. City ofplymmdh, 562
Variances are to be granted only if strict enforcement of a zoning ordinance
N.w.za 21 Mm dApp.
Apr. 15, 1997),
7), a 531
causes undue hardship.. A landowner who chased land knowing a variance
11^ lam' g
N.W.2d 815 (Mina 1998)
would be necessary in order to make the property buildable is not barred from
overruled on other grounds by
requesting a variance on the grounds the hardship was self-imposed.
Wensmaan Really, Inc. v. City of
Eagan, 734N.W.2d 623 (Mina
2007).
City ofMaplewood v. Pallukaa,
In granting a variance, the city may attach conditions, but the conditions must
1997 WL 53031,
(Minh, Ct: App. Febeb 11, 1999797 ).
31,
be reasonable and bear some relationshipto the purpose of the variance.
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Pork,
Broad discretion is permitted when denying a request for a variance, but there
643 N.W2d623 (Minn. . ct
App. 2002).
musg
t be legally sufficient reasons for the denial. The Board must make
Y
Nolen v. City ofRden Prairie,
findings concerning the reasons for the denial or approval and the facts upon
610 N.W2d 697 (Mina Ct.
which the decision was based. The findings must adequately address the
App. 2000).
statutory requirements. Best practice suggests seeking specific legal advice
Graham v. Itasca County
from the city attorney before making decisions on requests for variances.
Plamming Comm u, 601 N.W2d
461 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
_
Stotts v. Wright County, 478
An applicant for a variance is not entitled to a variance merely because
992) d 802 (Minn. CG App.
similar variances were granted in the past.
HANOBOOKFORNIMNESOTACI'M 14:19
This chapter tact revised 12/2008
CHAPTER 14
Mohler v. City of St Louis Part;
Error by city staff in approving plans does not constitute undue hardship
643 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. Ct.
entitling a person to a variance. While the result might be harsh, a
App. 2002),.
municipality cannot be estopped from correctly enforcing a zoning ordinance
City ofRosemount, 467 N.W.2d
even if the property owner relies to his orher detriment on prior city action.
Minn. stat. § 462.357, subd. 6.
No use variance may be granted if the use is prohibited in a zoning district: A
Kismetlnveslors v. County of
city may grant use variances when a use is not prohibited in the zoning
Benton, 617 N.W.2d 85 (Minn.
district, but the use is limited by another portion of the zoning ordinance. The
2000).
requirements of unusual hardship and other statutory requirements still apply
to use variances.
C. Specific uses
1. Permitted uses
Chase v. City ofMinneopolir,
Permitted uses are those that the zoning ordinance allows. It is generally
401 N.W.2d 408 (Minn. 1981).
arbitrary and unlawful to deny a building permit for a permitted use unless
Rase Cip'Land:o.Pe xursery v.
the zoning of the property is subsequently changed to prohibit that use.
City ofRosemount, 467 N.W.2d
specifies) are met. The city must grant the conditional use permit (CUP) if the
(,41 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
applicant satisfies all the conditions. Conditional uses remain in effect
2. Accessory uses
Stodola v. City of Orono, 1994 Accessory uses are those uses that cannot stand alone and must be
WL 27290Q 02.93accompanied by a principal, permitted use. For example, a garage may be an
(Mina Ct. App. 1994).94).
accessory use in a residential area.
14:20
This chapter last revised 1212008
HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES
3. Conditional uses
Minn. star. § 462.3595.
Conditional uses are those activities that the zoning ordinance permits if
Mina Stat. § 4623595, sub& 2.
certain conditions (that the council determines or the zoning ordinance
specifies) are met. The city must grant the conditional use permit (CUP) if the
applicant satisfies all the conditions. Conditional uses remain in effect
indefinitely as long as the use complies with the conditions. Note: Before a
CUP is granted, a city must provide notice and a public hearing. A notice of
the time, place and purpose of the hearing must be published in the official
newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing.
A certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with the county recorder or the
registrar of titles, and must include a legal description of the land.
Trisko v. City of Waite Park,
An applicant for a CUP is entitled toonewhen the controlling land use
566 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. Ct.
App.1997).
ordinances authorize the use, and there is evidence of the need for the permit.
Neighborhood opposition, alone, does not authorize the rejection of an
application for a CUP.
In reLivingood, 594 N.W.2d
When a local government denies a landowner a CUP without sufficient
889 (Mim.1999).
evidence to support its decision, a court can order the issuance of the permit
subject to reasonable conditions.
14:20
This chapter last revised 1212008
HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES
Attachment 5
O
UAGUE of CONNECTING & INNOVATING
MINNESOTA SINCE 1913
CITIES
VARIANCES
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a variance?
A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a
permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of
property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A
variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply.
Who grants a variance?
Minnesota law provides that requests for variances are heard by a body called the board of
adjustment and appeals; in many smaller communities, the planning commission or even the city
council may serve that function. A variance decision is generally appealable to the city council.
For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
When can a variance be granted?
A variance should be granted if strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance as applied to a
particular piece of property would cause the landowner "undue hardship." The landowner is
generally entitled to the variance if and only if the applicant meets the statutory three -factor test for
undue hardship. If the applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, then a variance
should not be granted. For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
What kind of authority is the city exercising?
A city exercises so-called "quasi-judicial" authority when considering a variance application. This
means that the city's role is limited to applying the legal standard of undue hardship to the facts
presented by the application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the legal
standard. If the applicant meets the standard, then the variance should be granted. In contrast,
when the city writes the rules in zoning ordinance, the city is exercising "legislative" authority and
has much broader discretion.
What is undue hardship?
Undue hardship is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply the when considering
applications for variances. It is a three -factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To
constitute undue hardship, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. For more information, see
Minn. Stat. 6 462.357.
This material Is provided as general Information and Is not a substitute for legal advice,
Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations.
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281-1200 PAY. (651) 281-1298
INSURANCE TRUST ST. PAUL, MN55103-2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG
What are the undue hardship factors?
The first factor is that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. This
factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but
cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any
reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a
building too close to a lot line, or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is
whether the request to place a building there is reasonable.
The second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property
not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of
the particular piece of property, that is, to the land, and not personal characteristics or preferences
of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a
setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular
piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees.
The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Under this factor consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or
otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance
for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot
line and if that fits in with the character of the area.
What about economic considerations?
Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a variance because they have already incurred
substantial costs or argue they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State
statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create an undue hardship.
Rather, an undue hardship exists only when the three statutory factors are met.
Can a city grant a use variance?
Sometimes a landowner will seek a variance to, allow a particular use of their property that would
otherwise not be permissible under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are often termed "use
variances" as opposed to "area variances" from dimensional standards. Use variances are not
generally allowed in Minnesota—state law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use
that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located. For
more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
Is a public hearing required?
Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied,
but many practitioners and attorneys agree that the best practice is to hold public hearings on all
variance requests. A public hearing allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help
determine if the application meets the undue hardship factors.
What is the role of neighborhood opinion?
Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While
city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in
considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the
statutory undue hardship factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help the
city in addressing these factors, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form
a legitimate basis for a variance decision. If neighborhood opinion is a significant basis for the
variance decision, the decision could be overturned by a court.
What is the role of past practice?
While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three of the
undue hardship factors for each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request, cities
are not generally bound by decisions made for prior variance requests. If a city finds that it is
issuing many variances to a particular zoning standard, the city should consider the possibility of
amending the ordinance to change the standard.
When should a variance decision be made?
A written request for a variance is subject to Minnesota's 60 -day rule and must be approved or
denied within 60 days of the time it is submitted to the city. A city may extend the time period for
an additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the initial 60 -day period.
Under the 60 -day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is
deemed an approval. For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 15.99.
How should a city document a variance decision?
Whatever the decision, a city should create a record that will support it. In the case of a variance
denial, the 60 -day rule requires that the reasons for the denial be put in writing. Even when the
variance is approved, the city should create or direct that a written statement explaining the
decision. The written statement should explain the variance decision, address each of the three
undue hardship factors and list the relevant facts and conclusions as to each factor.
Can meeting minutes adequately document a variance decision?
If a variance in denied, the 60 -day rule requires a written statement of the reasons for denial be
provided to the applicant within the statutory time period. While meeting minutes may document
the reasons for denial, usually a separate written statement will need to be provided to the
applicant in order to meet the statutory deadline. A separate written statement is advisable even
for a variance approval, although meeting minutes could serve as adequate documentation,
provided they include detail about the decision factors and not just a record indicating an approval
motion passed.
Can a city attach conditions to a variance?
By law, a city may impose conditions when it grants variances to insure compliance and to
protect adjacent properties. Any such conditions should relate back to the subject of the
variance request. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed an otherwise applicable
height limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the affect of
excess height. For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
What happens to the variance once granted?
A variance once issued is a property right that "runs with the land" so it attaches to and benefits
the land and is not limited to a particular landowner. A variance is typically filed with the county
recorder. Even if the property is sold to another person, the variance applies.
1125.02
1125.02: VARIANCES AND APPEALS:
Subd. 1. Board ofAdjustmentl:
1125.02 (Rev. 2/04)
Ai IRCHmErJT 6
a. Composition: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall consist of all members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. All members shall serve without compensation.
b. Organization and Meetings: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may elect a
chairman from among its appointed members for a term of one (1) year, and the Board may
create and fill such other offices as it may determine. The Board shall meet by order of its
chairman, after notice, whenever an appeal has been properly presented to it. A two-thirds
(2/3) vote of a properly convened Board meeting shall be required to grant the relief sought
in the appeal.
c. Records: All written reports and recommendations to the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals from the City staff shall be entered in and made part of the permanent written
record of the Board's meeting.
Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances: A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be
issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, or in the case of an administrative variance,
by the Director of Community Development as explained in Section 1125.02, subdivision 6,
to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or
practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of property owner's land. No use
variances may be issued. A variance may be granted only in the event that the following
circumstances exist: (Amended, Ord. 725, 2-9-04)
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and resulifrom lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective
date hereof have had no control.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
Title.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
1 See also Chapter 402 of this Code.
City ofMounds View
1125.02
1125.02 (Rev. 2/04)
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same
district.
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
£ The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such
restrictions and 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 cant' out the intent of
the variance.
Subd. 3. Appeals: If the Board acts in favor of the appellant, it, thereupon, shall issue an order to
the administrative official involved setting forth the terms and conditions adopted. Said
order shall be signed by the chairman and the City Clerk -Administrator or secretary of the
Board. If the Board denies the applicant's relief, the applicant, within sixty (60) days from
the decision of the Board, may appeal to the City Council for the relief sought.
Subd. 4. Procedures:
a. Requests for a variance or appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk -Administrator on an
official application form. Such application shall be accompanied by a fee as outlined in
Section 1125.04 of this Chapter. This fee shall not be refunded. Such application shall also
be accompanied by ten (10) copies of detailed written and graphic materials necessary for
the explanation of the request.
b. Upon receiving said application, the City Clerk -Administrator shall refer the application,
along with all related information, to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and City staff.
c. After receiving the City staffs report and recommendations concerning a request for
variance or an appeal, the Planning and Zoning Commission, serving as the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals, may set a date and hold a hearing on said request. The Board shall
hear such persons as wish to be heard, either in person or by agent or attorney. Notice of
any such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of hearing to the
person who filed the appeal or request, to all owners of property, according to the City
assessment records, within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the property to which the
variance relates.
City of Mounds View
Editorial: Flexibility needed on variances I StarTribune.com
Editorial: Flexibility needed on
variances
Court ruling gives lawmakers a
chance to improve zoning rules.
Last update: September 2, 2010 - 6:58 PM
"Good fences make good neighbors" remains
the classic American land -use dictum,
although poet Robert Frost's intent was to
advance the opposite view -- that neighbors
don't really need walls to separate them
because more flexible solutions are possible.
Lorie Gildea, Minnesota's chief justice,
seemed to be of a similar mind last June. She
and the state Supreme Court overturned
lower -count rulings and took a hard line
against zoning variances, making them
almost impossible to get. Yet, in the same
ruling, Gildea invited the Legislature to revisit
the issue with an eye toward giving cities and
towns more leeway in making exceptions to
their zoning codes. She went so far as to
suggest a New Hampshire case (Simplex vs.
Newington) that lawmakers might draw upon
to add flexibility to Minnesota law.
Until then, the impact of Gildea's ruling has
been to pretty much shut down the variance
Page 1 of 2
AT-PqL'00l T _�
Point
:your
' �y, 3nolzi�eb7nwsertd.
"° � � 7aftp./fstart+iLunecQrn
business at city halls across the state. People
wanting to build decks that protrude a few
extra feet toward a neighbor's yard can
forget it, at least for now. A business wanting
a sign slightly larger than the law allows is
out of luck for the time being.
'the court's decision arose fiom the desire of
a suburban Twin Cities woman, JoAnne
Liebeler, to remodel an old garage by adding
studio space above. Her neighbor, Beat
Krununenacber, objected. Not only would a t
aller garage block his views, he argued, but
the existing structure was technically
"nonconforming" and, therefore, could not
legally be expanded. (Built in the 1940s, years
before Minnetonka's zoning code took effect,
the garage lacked the proper setback to
conform to existing law.)
Still, Minnetonka gave Liebeler a variance to
allow her addition, and the courts upheld it,
applying a standard that had been used since
1989: Without the variance, Liebeler would
suffer "undue hardship" by being unable to
use her garage in a "reasonable manner."
But Gildea said the lower courts should have
applied a stricter standard. The real legal
meaning of "undue hardship" is that without
a variance, Liebeler's garage would not have
any reasonable use, she said. Thais a
1
x k
_V
IL PREM10trAuAm STEAKHOUSE
n '
SUNDAY, WEVttiESDAY, THURSDAY
5 ta.n,. 10 P,w Y5+4 LAKE.
FRIDAY AND SATURDAY
9mtaa•Qa:anti p.a i��s'xse Nd:••.Ve. i� �e . "sun+wr PnySttCldiC@,C9nl..
Print Powered i3y Ee
http://www. staitribune.comlopinionleditorialsll 02109084.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LG... 9/27/2010
Editorial: Flexibility needed on variances I StarTribune.com
threshold she obviously couldn't reach,
because without a second floor, the garage
could still serve its original. purpose: storing
cars.
Weeks after the ruling, the League of
Minnesota Cities posted an advisory that, in
effect, stopped cities from issuing variances
until the Legislature acts. Minneapolis'
planning director, Barbara Sporlein, said the
ruling is awkward for cities but also has
pushed them to reexamine zoning
procedures. Perhaps the answer is to move
away from variances toward conditional -use
agreements, she said, and toward more
fornn-based zoning, in which design and
community context become more important
than defining a property's specific use for
residential, commercial or other purposes.
Tom G•undhoefer, the League of Cities'
general counsel, said he expects a legislative
remedy to the impasse next year, probably in
the form of more flexibility, although risks
always accompany a legislature's digging into
municipal procedure.
Take, for example, the infamous K.elo case. hi
2005, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the
city of New London, Conn., which wanted to
use eminent domain for an economic
development project. In response, outraged
Advertisement
Page 2 of 2
0olnt vour'='�
x � inotnllebrQ+n�serto
. aiFEpr{{s F�rttibune.r_orn
property rights advocates convinced state
legislatures across the country (including
Minnesota's) to severely restrict cities'
authority to condemn property. The impact
has been to discourage the revival of older
cities white pushing development to the
periphery, adding to the cost of
infrastructure and to the consumption of
energy.
Our hope is that the Legislature will repair
Minnesota's variance law in a way that adds
flexibility for cities and towns while striking a
fair balance between the rights of property
owners and the desire of communities to
rebuild and revitalize themselves.
JUST DAUB IV
FRIDAYS AND SATURDAY 11 p.m.,
MIDNIGHT AND LAST CALL
�)N`(d+^'Jl�m-314�}tFx'.glll]E�Y Et 31L':s.EiS[�.IR%$Ovl:4<eE,.�ll'i1E
PAyg+,°c AKE-
QAUM0 - HOTEL
mystitlakexann.,
forint powered €3y
http://www.stat-tribune.com/opinion/editorials/I 02109084.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LG... 9/27/2010
Metro zoning variance? Forget about it I StarTribune.com
zoning' 9�,r�..
br
Cities are struggling to deal with a
court ruling that has tied their
hands.
By NICOLE NORFLEET, Star Tribune
Last upd£rte: Septernber 18, 2010 - 9:5:3 PAA
Jon Hansen wanted to expand his driveway
to make it the width of his New Hope garage.
The job would require about $200 and a few
feet of concrete. Simple, right?
Try something closer to impossible.
Because of a recent Minnesota Supreme
Court decision that overturned the way cities
have interpreted rules for the past 20 years,
many homeowners who need a zoning
variance for a driveway, deck or other
property changes are out of luck.
In the past, applicants had a good chance of
getting a variance if their project was
reasonable. Now, they must prove that their
property would have no "reasonable use"
without it — a steep challenge.
Page 1 of 3
)'Dint }'aur
ti itiobile bro %,ser to
� � i=ttp:ff{tartribunecam'
"Generally, I would have to say that [variance
requests] were most always approved," said
Curtis Jacobsen, director of community
development for New Hope. "Applying the
new standard, they would have all been
denied."
As the impact of the court decision has sunk
in at city halls across the state, planners and
residents have resigned themselves to wait
for legislation that can untie their hands.
For Hansen, who has been living in his two-
story home on Boone Avenue N. for about 20
years, it would be hard to argue that he can't
use his house without a wider driveway.
"It pretty much screws up the whole state,"
Hansen said. "if youre living in your property
or you can get in your property, there is no
reason for them to give you a variance."
When Hansen, 53, first built a three -car
garage, he was a single parent and the lone
driver in his household. Since then, he has
remarried and his family has grown. The
steep, tear -drop -shaped driveway is difficult
to navigate, he said, and seven drivers now
use it.
IL. PREMIO dTAumi STEAKHOUSE
SUNDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY
S P.M, •- 70 PQM, KE
FRIDAY AP11D SATURDAY Y S F .,� A
[ " 9xsda-iln�"re00 '.u51nV(t¢kAnut ma.5bm: rFm?mY,% nnystt[1ake.tam.:,
Print Powered By '_
http://www.stattribune.com/local/103209639.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU 9/27/2010
Metro zoning variance? Forget about it I StarTribune.com
His decision to go before the planning
commission in August and asked for a
variance proved to be bad timing. At the
meeting, minutes before his hearing, the
commission was briefed about the June
court decision that severely limited cities'
power to grant variances.
That case was Krummenacher vs. City of
Minnetonka, in which the city was challenged
by the neighbor of an applicant who was
awarded a variance to expand a garage.
Against the neighbor's objections, the city
had found that the proposal was reasonable
and that the applicant was facing an "undue
hardship," citing the interpretation of a 1989
court case that cities had used for years to
decide such requests.
llie Supreme Court disagreed and
interpreted the law to mean that a variance
can only be granted if the property cannot be
put to a "reasonable ruse" without it.
"It was surprising that after all these years
they decided to examine that issue when it
had been decided 21 years ago and they did
not accept review of that back in 1989," said
I:)esyl Peterson, the city attorney for
Minnetonka.
Save your money
Page 2 of 3
'Ftoinkyaur'P
L�. v inobilebrowser to
lEEpjjstartrl un ecopr
As word spreads about the ruling, city
administrators have been suggesting that
people save themselves the aggravation and
hold off on variance requests altogether.
"If an applicant realizes before they apply
that it would be very, very difficult to receive
the approval ... they will save the money and
time," said Glen Markegard, acting planning
manager for Bloomington.
Bloomington's application fee for a variance
request. is $270 for single-family homes and
duplexes and $.520 for other types of
housing. Besides the cost, it takes time to
work with the city and attend meetings.
In many cases, the need for a variance arises
from unique lot characteristics, Markegard
said.
"You can never anticipate every situation or
special circumstance that might impact a
property owner," said Tom Grundhoefer,
general counsel for the League of Minnesota
Cities.
City officials and property owners aren't the
only people bristling.
JUST DAUB IT!
PRIDAYS AND SATUPDAYS 11 p.m.;
MIDNIGHT AND LASTGALL,
9 ;cac•il n;anMt .efiu�gtc "d sake soat:crnami:a
Y5+;c LAKE-
GAsIno. r+etFZr
mysticlake.com „
Print powered By
http://www.staltribune.com/local/103209639.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU 9/27/2010
Metro zoning variance? Forget about it I StarTribune.com
The decision also hurts the building industry,
said Mike Gohman, president of the Builders
Association of Minnesota. Fewer variances
mean less work for people who do home
additions and remodeling, he said.
"Now that renrodeler doesn't have a job to
do," Gohman said.
Cities are trying to figure out other ways to
make do with their limited power. One
response could be to use more flexible
planning mechanisms, such as conditional
use permits to make "variance -like"
approvals. The League of Minnesota Cities is
planning to apply pressure for a legislative
response to give cities more wiggle room.
Until then, it's make -do.
Hansen was encouraged to use concrete
pavers as a temporary fix to his driveway.
The pavers cost him more money and time
and weren't exactly what he wanted, but
they'll do for now.
"I needed to get this done before winter," he
said. "I couldn't wait around."
Nicole Norfleet ^ 612-673-4495 Staff writer
Laurie Blake contributed to this report.
Page 3 of 3
JIMMY ST#./HR
SATURDAY, OCTOBER '"alta qqk K E,
DIV SALE IVOWriCKETMASTER,com L
' (tA�INo • H6rr'f
ororoa.tln;,.rrsaye•:Sln ryae"ac�a4xma-5Dm;'s'nwiID iily-ti C id ke. Cont,.
Print Dowered By "r
http://www.startribune.com/local/103209639.html?elr=KArlcsUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU 9/27/2010
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
August 18, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. August 18, 2010.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson.
Absent and Excused: Commissioners Meehlhause, Miller and Smith.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller
Index to Minutes Page
CU2010-004 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized
Garage. Applicants: Robert & Lori Nordby, 8191 Spring Lake Road 2
3. Approval of Minutes
July 7, 2010
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the
minutes of the July 7, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes — 4 Nays — 0
Motion carried.
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
5. Planning Cases
August 18, 2010
Page 2
A. CU2010-004; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized
Garage. Applicants: Robert & Lori Nordby, 8191 Spring Lake Road
Planning Associate Heller stated the applicants, Robert and Lori Nordby, are requesting approval
of a conditional use permit to construct an oversized garage on their property at 8191 Spring
Lake Road. The applicants want to expand their current 22'x 24' detached garage (528 square
feet) with a 20`x 24' expansion onto the rear of the existing garage. The City limits the size of
accessory buildings to a maximum of 952 square feet without City approval of a conditional use
permit. The garage the Nordbys are proposing would be 1,008 square feet. She added that with
this project the applicants would be creating more indoor storage since there are no other
accessory buildings on the property, and they can store their boat inside. The expansion would
be to the rear of the building, so the garage would still appear to be a two -car garage from the
street. The addition would increase the value of the property and the expansion would not be out
of character for the area.
Chair Stevenson questioned if this would be an adequate minimum size. Mr. Robert Nordby
stated the addition would be slightly smaller in width and the peak of the roof will be lower.
Commissioner Schiltgen asked if there was going to be a garage door on the new addition. Mr.
Nordby stated there would be a walk through door and an 8 foot garage door on the backside.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen /Commissioner Rundle. Resolution 933-10
Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,008 square foot Oversized Garage
located at 8191 Spring Lake Road.
Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
6. Other Planning Activity
None.
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting:
A. September 8, 2010
B. September 22, 2010
8. Adjournment to Agenda Session
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
August 18, 2010
Page 3
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 7:13 p.m.
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Roberts
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Barbara Suciu
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Mot Ms ViEW
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
November 3, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
±fit•
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. August 1 8, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the
record.)
5. Planning Cases
None
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Review Planning Commissioner applications
B. Review Housing Action Plan for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act
C. Set 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. November 17, 2010
B. December 1, 2010
8. Adjourn to. Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. October 6, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
Item No: 6A
MT TAT Meeting Date: November 3, 2010
UUNDS IWYV 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 Expiration and New
Application Review
The term of one Planning Commission member— Gary Rundle - expires at the end of the
year. The City advertised the vacancies, with applications due on Monday, November 1,
2010. As of Friday, October 29th, Staff has only received an application from Gary Rundle
for a second term. If any other applications come in on Monday, staff will forward a copy to
the Commission members. If there is more than one application for the Commissioner
term, a ballot vote will be taken at the Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission will review the applications at the November 3, 2010 meeting,
and the City Council will make the official appointments by the end of the year.
Sincerely,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Planning Application from Gary Rundle
std All
,
MOM ll! M , Y.,1_L Y_,9
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 Pr
Work Phone:�Z � Work/Cell Phone:
Address;- K5K- f Z c W
a /lx-� Years 3
Years at this address: you have lived in Mounds View: �O
E-mail Address: (oF}2�j e G , H -
Experience and Qualifications
Skills and Interests:
Employment, Occupation or Other Relevant Experience:
Memberships, Accomplishments or Other Qualifications:
Please state your reason for wanting to serve with this group:
Date: C -ejlo
(Your lesponse 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 parsons shall have access to its programs,
facilities and employment without regard for race, ethnicity, sex, age or physical abilities.
!yt
I I Is cut
of Mounds View Staff
Item No: 6B
Meeting Date: November 3, 2010
Type of Business: Planning Activity
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Ken Roberts, Community Development Director
Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Housing Action Plan Update
Introduction:
Mounds View has been a participant in the Livable Communities Program (LCA) of the
Metropolitan Council since 1996. As part of that program, the City adopted a Housing
Action Plan. This plan is to help guide City actions and policies about housing — especially
those for housing for low and moderate -income persons in Mounds View. The Metropolitan
Council is now requiring Mounds View to update its Housing Action Plan.
Background:
On July 13, 2009, the Mounds View City Council held a public hearing to present the revised
Comprehensive Plan to the residents of the community, accepted the revised
Comprehensive Plan and authorized staff to submit the revised Comprehensive Plan to the
Metropolitan Council. This plan update included extensive revisions and additions to the
Comprehensive Plan, including the Housing Chapter.
On December 9, 2009, the Metropolitan Council approved the City's revised Comprehensive
Plan.
On February 8, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution 7571. This resolution gave final
approval to the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan update and directed City staff to make
copies of the Plan available for public viewing at Mounds View City Hall and at the Mounds
View branch of the Ramsey County Public Library.
On August 23, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution 7654. This resolution approved
the City's continued participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account program under the
Livable Communities Act for the years 2011-2020. This resolution included a range of
affordable housing units (53-81) and life -cycle housing units (80-200) the City expects that
will develop in Mounds View by the year 2020. The resolution also noted that the City would
be preparing a plan that identifies the actions the City would take to meet these housing
goals.
Discussion:
Since the City Council approved Resolution 7654 in August, staff has been working with the
Metropolitan Council on preparing an updated Housing Action Plan for Mounds View. This
plan is to identify housing goals for the city for the next 10 years (though 2020) and would
allow the City to apply to the Metropolitan Council for LCA grants. In general, the
Housing Action Plan Staff Report
November 3, 2010
Page 2
Housing Action Plan is to be a reflection of Mounds View's own housing goals. As such,
the City can and should take much of the information for the updated Housing Action Plan
from the Housing Chapter of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update.
The Housing Action Plan, according the Met Council, is to have several elements. An
important overall goal of the housing action plan is to help facilitate more affordable and
life -cycle housing in Mounds View. In addition, the Housing Action Plan should include:
1. The implementation efforts the City will be using and a general timeframe the
City expects to follow to put the actions the City outlines in the plan inplace.
2. Any new construction or housing rehabilitation efforts and programs to expand
the stock of affordable rental housing in the City.
3. A listing of the available programs and activities to address housing
maintenance, rehabilitation, and redevelopment in Mounds View.
4. A listing of the City's short and long term expectations and intentions about the
use of fiscal tools to assist development or redevelopment that would create
affordable and life -cycle housing.
5. A pledge to examine and evaluate the impact the City's local controls (including
zoning and subdivision regulations, design requirements and the City approval
process) on the cost of residential development and redevelopment.
6. What authority the City has for operating housing programs and the activities of
the organizations or entities that administer the programs.
City staff has prepared the attached Housing Action Plan based on the Housing Chapter of
the Comprehensive Plan and on the requirements of the Metropolitan Council. The City
Council will be reviewing the proposed Housing Plan Update during their Work Session on
November 1. After the Planning Commission makes a recommendation about the
proposed Housing Action Plan, City staff will submit the plan to the City Council for final
approval. The City must submit the Housing Action Plan to the Metropolitan Council (after
City Council approval) by December 1, 2010.
Recommendation:
Staff requests that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council
about the proposed Mounds View Housing Action Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Cppwmac_,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachment - Draft Housing Action Plan
al
Community Development Department
2401 highway 10
Mounds View, WIN 55112
www.ei.m ounds-view.mn.us
•
Introduction
The Minnesota Legislature created the Livable Communities Act (LCA) in 1995. The LCA is a
voluntary, incentive -based approach to address the Metropolitan Area's affordable and life cycle
housing needs while providing funds to communities to assist them in carrying out their
development plans. Mounds View has participated in the LCA since the beginning, and has
chosen to continue through the next cycle of 2011 to 2020.
Mounds View is a fully developed suburban city in the northern Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Residential land uses are and will continue to be the principal land uses in Mounds View. A
variety of forces affect housing including demographic, regional and local trends, the economic
climate the availability of land, government controls and the real estate market. A key factor in
the City's ability to provide a high quality of life has been the strong neighborhoods, which have
a variety of housing styles and types, ownership and rental options and range of housing costs.
The City has prepared this Housing Action Plan to help facilitate more affordable and life cycle
housing in Mounds View. Most of the goals and action steps in this plan are from the City's
2008 Comprehensive Plan.
Goals
Goal 1: Promote a broad and full choice of housing opportunities that provides
life -cycle and affordable housing with a mix of housing types and
values.
➢ Provide sufficient opportunities for a variety of housing sizes, types and styles to meet
the needs of all segments of the population.
➢ The City promotes development of various housing options for residents in all stages of
life.
➢ Promote the development of move up housing opportunities and more housing options
for senior citizens.
The City promotes the development and preservation of owner -occupied housing for low
and moderate -income households.
The City may consider the development of additional medium density single-family
attached homes to supplement conventional single-family detached homes, manufactured
homes, and apartments.
➢ Explore participation in state and federal housing programs as a source for life cycle and
affordable housing.
Goal 2: Maintain and upgrade the existing housing stock of the City.
The City will encourage and assist residential property owners to apply for housing
rehabilitation assistance through the Housing Resource Center, Ramsey County, or the
Metropolitan Council.
9 The City may consider establishing a revolving loan fund for citizens of Mounds View to
use for single-family housing rehabilitation.
Goal 3: Administer housing programs in an efficient and cost effective
manner.
➢ Use the city newsletter, local news median and the city website to inform residents of
housing program availability.
Continue partnerships with non -profits and government agencies such as the
Metropolitan Council and Ramsey County that administer life cycle and affordable
housing programs.
Goal 4: Encourage residential infill and redevelopment that supports the
City's housing goals and maintains residential character.
The City should encourage a mix of densities and housing types in the County Highway
10 corridor to help accommodate additional housing.
Housing Type
There are 5,267 dwelling units in Mounds View, with 1,601 units being rental housing (2008).
The majority of Mounds View's housing stock is owner -occupied single-family dwellings
(52%). Apartments make up 29% of the housing stock. Manufactured homes comprise 11% of
the total dwelling units, which exceeds the overall Ramsey County percentage of 3%. Overall,
70% of the housing in Mounds View is owner -occupied while 30% is rental.
Housing Value
According to 2008 Ramsey County Assessor's office data, the median value for all Ramsey
County single-family residential properties was $200,200 in 2007 and $195,900 in 2008. The
median value for Mounds View single-family homes was $208,350 in 2007 and $199,200 in
2008. The median value in Ramsey County suburbs was $236,200 in 2007 and $224,600 in
2008. Suburban Ramsey County median residential values dropped by an average of 4.9%,
while Mounds View values only dropped by 2.15%.
Rental Rates
The City of Mounds View requests owners of rental dwellings to supply rental rates with the
annual rental dwelling license application. The property owners voluntarily supply this
information. Table 13 shows the 1998 and 2007 average rental rates for one, two, and three
bedroom units.
Average Mounds View Rental Housing Rates vs. Met Council Affordable Housing Rates
Apartment size
1998
2007
1 bedroom
$498
$613
2 bedroom
$591
$754
3 bedroom
$768
$1030
at 50% income
at 60% income
$736
$883
$883
$1060
$1020
$1224
The 2007 average rental rates for Mounds View are less than or very close to the Metropolitan
Council affordable housing rates for at 50% of median income, and much less than at 60% of
median income levels. Most of the rental housing in Mounds View is very affordable and falls
within 60% of median income levels.
Housing Condition
The City Council has recognized that as Mounds View continues to mature, there is a need to
emphasize the maintenance of the housing stock and to protect the quality of life in the
neighborhoods. Initiatives such as an increased code enforcement effort and a rental housing
licensing ordinance are specific actions the City has implemented to help achieve this goal.
Subsidized Housing
There are currently 223 subsidized rental units in Mounds View. Subsidized units comprise 16
percent of the total rental units in the city. The following is a listing and type of the subsidized
units in Mounds View:
Housing Assistance:
Section 8 Vouchers: 57 multi and single family Metro HRA Section 8 Units (2008, city
wide)
Housing Development:
Low Income Housing Tax Credits
Silver Lake Pointe: 76 unit senior housing complex
Silver Lake Commons: 50 Apartment/Townhome units
Section 202
Wildwood Manor: 40 unit senior housing complex.
Local Housing Issues
Aging Housing Stock and Infrastructure
A characteristic of a developed city is an aging housing stock and an aging public infrastructure
system. As the housing stock ages, the importance of reinvestment and rehabilitation increases.
The majority of the homes in the city are at an age where the owners need to make significant
reinvestment in the property to maintain the structures. If the owners defer housing maintenance,
reinvestment can be a problem due to the costs involved. Furthermore, deferred housing
maintenance can negatively affect a neighborhood and deter other property owners from
investing in their properties. The City's code enforcement program helps to address maintenance
and other issues associated with an aging housing stock.
Life Cycle Housing and Affordable Housing
Changing demographics, such as an aging population, create the need for alternative housing
choices to the detached single-family home. Opportunities to develop life -cycle housing in
Mounds View are limited due to the lack of vacant land. The City will need to encourage
developers and builders to include this type of housing in redevelopment proposals.
According to the 2000 Census, 37% of the rental housing units in Mounds View are considered
affordable at 30% of median income levels (under $599/month rent). 91% of rental housing had
rent amounts of under $799/month. According to the 2002 Ramsey County Assessors' data,
91% of owner -occupied units were valued under $200,000.
The Metropolitan Council also has studied housing costs. They define affordable housing based
on monthly rental and ownership purchase price amounts that they consider affordable to low
and moderate -income families. Housing is not affordable if an individual or family is spending
more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The Metropolitan Council has determined the
affordability limit for homeownership with an income level of 80% of area median income in
2007 was $206,800 and for those that have an income that is 60% of the median income is
$152,000. Ramsey County's median estimated market value of single-family homes in Mounds
View for 2007 was $208,350 and that value dropped 4% in 2008 to $199,200.
To ensure the region has an adequate supply of affordable housing as the metropolitan area
continues to grow, the Metropolitan Council expects every city in the 7 -county metro area to
plan for additional affordable housing. To this end, the Metropolitan Council has determined
each city's share of the regional need for additional affordable housing. They determined this
allocation by studying a variety of factors including the anticipated household growth for the
region, housing vacancy rates, low-wage proximity, transit service and other factors. For
Mounds View, there is a need for 81 additional affordable housing units by the year 2020,
according to the Metropolitan Council.
Accommodating the 81 additional units of affordable housing by the year 2020 will be a
challenge for a City such as Mounds View since the City is nearly completely developed.
However, the City has designated all redevelopment areas with a land use designation of Mixed -
Use Planned Unit Development. This land use designation provides a possibility for new
housing projects that could include higher density housing. The Metropolitan Council will assist
in the effort to build more affordable housing by administering programs and resources that
encourage a more diverse housing stock and to reduce housing costs.
The City participates in the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Act (LCA) and has
affordable and life cycle housing goal ranges. Participation in this program enables the City to
participate in the LCA grant program and some State or Minnesota financial assistance
programs. The City could use funding through these programs to assist the City's redevelopment
efforts.
When considering housing policies and strategies, the City must take into consideration the
shifting demographics and changing needs of residents. The residential development pattern
primarily consists of detached single-family homes that have been generally constructed to meet
the needs of young families. The City must try to provide additional housing opportunities to
address the needs of the aging population while attracting and retaining younger households.
Life cycle housing policies help support the construction of rental and owner -occupied units that
are affordable to low and moderate income buyers and also the move -up buyer. Such policies
also support a variety of housing styles, types and densities that provide housing options for
persons as they move through the different stages of life.
Land Available for Development / Redevelopment
As a developed city, Mounds View has limited opportunities for new housing development. The
majority of the city's housing was built in the 1960's and 1970's. The remaining opportunities
for new housing are through the redevelopment of existing underused property such as large lot
single-family residential properties. The redevelopment of these parcels can be difficult due to
existing land use patterns, soil and water table constraints, storm water management
requirements, access needs and neighborhood impact. Redevelopment possibilities include
manufactured home parks and single-family lots adjacent to commercial and high-density
residential properties. Project costs, land assembly, infrastructure needs, financing and other
factors can complicate redevelopment projects.
Infill/Redevelopment
As noted earlier, new housing development may occur through the infill development of vacant
land and the redevelopment of larger parcels. Market and other forces also are driving changes
with some residents choosing to reinvest in their properties by tearing down existing structures
and rebuilding on the site with a new home or significantly remodeling the existing home. Such
changes can create conflicts between older neighborhoods, newer neighborhoods and property
owners since the newer construction is typically of a different style and size that traditionally
found in the neighborhood. It also is difficult to increase densities in infill developments thereby
affecting both life cycle and affordable housing opportunities.
r
Market Trends
A significant change in recent years that has affected housing in Mounds View is the real estate
market. Housing values in Mounds View rose in the 1970's and 1980's. This trend changed
dramatically in the later 1990's and in the early 2000's when home values around the country
increased rapidly. In some cases, home values increased 10 to 15 percent each year (well above
the inflation rate).
The real estate issues now are the recent rise of foreclosures throughout the area and the country.
The number of Sheriffs sales in Ramsey County increased 125 percent between 2005 and 2006
and the numbers continue to increase. The increase in foreclosures raises concerns about the
impact this turnover could have since these homes are vacant and the properties may not be
maintained. Foreclosures are also affecting the value of other properties and the negative market
psychology may keep older owners from moving, reducing housing opportunities for young
families. These homes, however, also provide an affordable housing option for young families
when the owners of foreclosed homes offer them for sale at discounted prices.
Future Housing Needs
Neighborhood Preservation
The older neighborhoods are seen as a key part of the City's affordable housing stock where
reinvestment is vital to keeping the neighborhood character, quality of life and housing choice.
The City should consider doing a study to prepare a more comprehensive and long-range plan to
establish housing strategies. The intent of this study would be to encourage reinvestment that
results in an improved housing stock while keeping affordability levels and preserving the
neighborhood's character. The areas of housing most likely to need study and assistance are:
® Detached and/or attached single-family residential neighborhoods
® Housing that is more than 40 years old
® Where the average assessed value is less than the average for the City
® Areas characterized by a distinct housing type that may limit reinvestment.
The City also should consider developing neighborhood preservation initiatives. To ensure that
neighborhoods in the city remain strong and vital, government housing policies need to
encourage reinvestment in the housing stock, promote affordable housing and life cycle choices.
Development Opportunities
Like many older cities, development opportunities in Mounds View are primarily limited to infill
and redevelopment. Infill development will more likely occur as the owners of larger residential
lots and the few remaining vacant parcels subdivide or redevelop their properties.
Redevelopment may occur primarily along the County Highway 10 corridor. The City
anticipates that residential development will occur at higher densities in the redevelopment areas
and could provide housing alternatives including apartments, townhomes, condominiums and
senior housing.
The City recognizes that infill and redevelopment is challenging. Land assembly will be a
fundamental challenge with some infill and redevelopment areas as the areas may include several
land parcels, may have several different property owners, businesses or unwilling sellers. Site
conditions also may present another challenge for developers as they may include contamination,
poor access, inadequate infrastructure and environmental constraints such as poor soils or
wetlands. Infill and redevelopment also can be challenging if the owner needs to retrofit the site
to meet the City's current development standards and watershed district requirements. Another
challenge is to create a development that "fits -in" with the character of the neighborhood and has
minimal impact on the adjoining land uses. The last challenge for those doing redevelopment is
financing. This type of development is generally more expensive than development of vacant
land as site preparation costs are higher. It may be difficult to redevelop properties to construct
new housing units without some public financial participation, particularly if projects include an
affordable component.
Although challenges exist, infill and redevelopment is vital to the diversification of Mounds
View's housing stock and the additional life cycle and affordable housing opportunities. The
City must enact policies and tools that promote and encourage the revitalization of
redevelopment areas and allow infill development while lessening impacts on nearby properties.
Changing Demographics
Changing demographics are an important factor in the housing market that will continue to affect
the City's housing needs. Demographic forecasts indicate that, on average, Mounds View's
population will continue to get older. As a result, there will be significant changes in the City's
housing needs as more residents age in place or decide to "downsize" to reduce their
homeownership commitments. Furthermore, a challenge the City face will be to develop
strategies that attract and ]seep younger households.
The combination of older residents aging in place and the limited supply of vacant land affects
Mounds View's ability to attract younger households. As such, the City should develop
strategies that focus on creating additional housing choices for younger households to help create
an age -balanced city.
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Program
The City participates in the Livable Communities Act program and has adopted affordable and
life cycle housing goals and continues to meet the required expenditures for local housing
programs. The City will make its best efforts, given market conditions and resource availability,
to maintain an index within benchmark ranges for affordability, life -cycle and density. Mounds
View has met or exceeded all housing goals set by the Metropolitan Council to date. It is a goal
of Mounds View to maintain its housing stock within these benchmarks while attempting to
improve the overall housing quality. It is the goal of Mounds View to continue addressing
housing and property maintenance issues before they become a bigger problem.
Mounds View expects additional senior housing units to be constructed in the City. There are
redevelopment areas that the City has designated for mixed-use development that developers and
the City could consider for higher density housing.
ill 111
• '1 lots, I
The Metropolitan Council is forecasting that Mounds View will have a minimal population
growth of about 660 people between 2000 and 2030. Between 2011 and 2020, the Metropolitan
Council has set the need for new affordable housing units in Mounds View at 81 additional units.
While the City is not required to construct and finance these units, the Metropolitan Council
requires the City to demonstrate in this plan that there is land designated to accommodate the
units. The future land use map shows 33 acres of land designated as Mixed Use -PUD. The City
has guided these parcels for future redevelopment, which could include higher density residential
uses.
Mounds View has or could use the following housing programs to address housing needs in the
city:
Affordable Housing Assistance
The following programs are offered to Mounds View residents to provide renter assistance and
below-market rate home mortgages.
Section 8 Vouchers: In 2008, 57 families received Section 8 rental assistance vouchers.
Minnesota Cities Participation Program: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA�
offers low-interest mortgage programs to assist low to moderate income families in securing a
mortgage for their first home. The City of Mounds View participated in 1995-1997, and began
again in 2000.
Rondo Community Land Trust: Homebuyer Initiated Program (HIP): program with two grants
available to low and moderate income buyers — up to $25,000 to lower the purchase price or to
reduce closing and down payment costs. There also are grants of up to $25,000 for housing
rehab — improving mechanical systems, insulation, and correcting code issues.
Housing Developments
The following are programs used in Mounds View that have expanded the city's stock of
affordable housing through new construction or rehabilitation.
Holtman Units/Low Income Housing Tax Credits: Silver Lake Commons - constructed 10
townhouse units and rehabilitated 40 apartment units. There are 10 Hollman units in this project.
Low Income Housing Tax Credits: Silver Lake Pointe, an 83 -unit senior housing complex.
Section 202: Wildwood Manor, 40 -unit senior housing complex.
Housing Maintenance, Rehabilitation and Redevelopment
Because Mounds View is a fully developed suburb with aging housing stock and lower income
levels, a major concern of the City is the maintenance, rehabilitation and redevelopment of
housing. The City is providing and promoting programs the most in these areas. The following
is a listing of the programs offered to Mounds View residents.
City of Mounds View:
Mounds View Home Improvement Loans:
. Demolition Loan
. General Home Repair Loan
. Code Enforcement Loan
• Emergency Deferred Loan
Conduit Revenue Bonds
Housing Revenue Bonds
Rental Housing Licensing (since 1970) — the City inspects 25% of rental units each year
Enforcement of the Local Housing Maintenance Code (code adopted in 1974)
CDBG Supported Rehabilitation Programs
Foreclosure Awareness & Prevention Workshops
Participation in the Livable Communities Local Housing Incentives Program to access
funding resources through the Local Housing Incentives Account, Livable Communities
Demonstration Account and the Tax Base Revitalization Account.
North Metro Housing Resource Center:
Mounds View Manufactured Housing Program loans
MHFA Fix Up Fund Loan
MHFA Rental Property Loans
MHFA Rehabilitation Loans
Neighborhood Energy Connection:
Energy Conservation Deferred Loan
Mounds View Home Energy Loans
Ramsey County:
FirstHOME Buyer Assistance
CDBG and HOME funds for multi -family housing loans
Local Initiatives
Economic Development Authority: The City created an EDA in March 1994. One of the
objectives of the EDA is to provide housing opportunities for residents. The EDA is currently in
the process of creating new home improvement loans for Mounds View residents.
Local Official Controls and Approvals: The City of Mounds View is continually reviewing
the Zoning Code and making changes as needed.
10
Item No: 6C
M®iJN7�T� T7—p Meeting Date: November 3, 2010
DS : V iL' VV Type of Business: Other Planning Activity
City of Mounds View .Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Subject: Consideration of Resolution 935-10, a Resolution Establishing
the Planning Commission's 2011 Meeting Schedule.
Introduction:
The Planning Commission establishes its meeting schedule each year by resolution.
Discussion:
The meeting schedule proposed for 2011 represents the usual first and third Wednesday of
every month. None of the regularly scheduled meetings fall on a holiday.
Recommendation:
Discuss the proposed meeting schedule and Approve Resolution 935-10, a resolution
establishing the 2011 meeting schedule of the Planning Commission. The schedule
attached has been drafted with all of the meetings falling on the first and third Wednesdays.
The proposed schedule may be amended based on Commission direction.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 935-10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2011 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 2011; 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 2011.
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 3m day of November, 2010
Gary Stevenson
Chairperson
ATTEST
Kenneth Roberts
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT 1.
2011 MEETING SCHEDULE
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
January 5
January 19
February 2
February 16
March 2
March 16
April 6
April 20
May 4
May 18
June 1
June 15
July 6
July 20
August 3
August 17
September 7
September 21
October 5
October 19
November 2
November 16
December 7
December 21
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
October 6, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. October 6, 2010.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Smith.
Absent and Excused: Commissioner Meehlhause and Stevenson.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller
Community Development Director Ken Roberts
Index to Minutes Page
VR2008-005; Re -Approval of Variances for the Select Senior Living
Development; Applicant: Joel Larson, Select Senior Living 2
Discussion about Variances 2
3. Approval of Minutes
July 21, 2010
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the
minutes of the July 21, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes — 5 Nays — 0
Motion carried.
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 2010
Regular Meeting Page 2
5. Planning Cases
A. VR2008-005; Re -Approval of Variances for the Select Senior Living
Development Applicant: Joel Larson, Select Senior Living
Planning Associate Heller stated Select Senior Living received approval for variances for a 95 -
unit senior housing project in 2008, just about the time the banking industry collapsed. The
developer has now secured financing for the project. The variance approvals have become void
due to non-use after one year. Select Senior Living has requested that the Planning Commission
reapprove the variances for their senior housing development. The resolution in front of the
Planning Commission is the same as the one approved in 2008.
Vice Chair Miller questioned the financing using housing revenue bonds and asked for
clarification.
Planning Associate Heller stated the City is not funding the project but has allowed the developer
to go through the state bond pool for financing. Also, by doing this, the City will receive a fee in
the process.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Smith. Resolution 934-10, Re -
Approving Variances to Allow for Increased Site Density, Reduced Unit Sizes, Reduced Number
of Parking Spaces and to Allow Roof Overhang and Building Setback Encroachments at the
Select Senior Living Development to be Located at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020
Groveland Road.
Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Discussion about Variances
Community Development Director Roberts stated the Supreme Court case ruling of July 21,
2010 has changed the way cities can handle variances. He provided a brief history of the court
case and clarified the new ruling. He stated the state statute is very restrictive and unless there is
no other use for the property then you cannot grant the variance. He stated Mounds View could
have difficulty with this new hardship interpretation, but added that a City can set their own
individual criteria for determining variance requests and continue with the process. There is
hope that when the legislature meets next year they may change the state law to let cities have
more control over granting variances. He felt the Planning Commission should take a harder look
at approving variances in the future.
Commissioner Schiltgen questioned the ramifications of the City approving a questionable
variance.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
October 6, 2010
Page 3
Director Roberts stated if the approval was challenged, it would need to go through the court
process.
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting:
A. October 20, 2010
B. November 3, 2010
8. Adjournment to Agenda Session
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,
Ken Roberts
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Barbara Suciu
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
E 4:S
IvICiUNDS:' VIEW
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
November 17, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. October 6, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the
record.)
5. Planning Cases
None
6. Other Planning Activity
A. B-2, Limited Business Zoning District Discussion
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. December 1, 2010
B. December 15, 2010
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. November 3, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
Mows VV EW
City of Mounds View Staff Report
Item No: 6A
Meeting Date: November 17, 2010
Type of Business: Other Planning Activitv
To: Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Discussion about Permitted Uses in a B-2, Limited
Business Zoning District
Introduction:
City staff recently received a sign permit application for a new Chinese restaurant (dine -in,
take-out and delivery) that was preparing to move into Silver View Plaza. City Staff was
unaware that a new tenant was going to be moving into this mall. After reviewing the details
about the new restaurant, determined that it would not be allowed in the mall because of the
existing B-2 zoning. This is because it would be a full operation restaurant and not a
delicatessen as allowed by the city code in a B-2 location.
Kraus Anderson continues to struggle to get tenants in Silver View Plaza and the City does
want to help where it can. City Staff decided to bring this discussion to the Planning
Commission to discuss if the Commission would be open to adding more permitted or
conditional uses to the B-2 zoning code, particularly relating to restaurants.
Discussion:
Kraus Anderson built Silver View Plaza and continues to own and manage the property. This
mall opened in 1988, and at some point that same year, a rezoning was requested from B-2
to B-3. The City denied the request due to concerns regarding inadequate parking availability.
Despite this, for many years the facility experienced full or nearly full occupancy. Kraus
Anderson requested to rezone the property again in 2005, but was denied for the same
reasons as in 1988. The current zoning designation, B-2, allows for less intense commercial
and service oriented businesses such as laundromats, locksmiths, delicatessens, financial
offices, florists, sporting goods and hardware to name a few.
The present tenant mix at Silverview Plaza includes Domino's pizza, a laundromat, Curves
(exercise facility), a specialty auto accessory store and Fantastic Sam's hair salon. Other
tenants in the past have included a private school, Subway, tool store, flower shop, and a
chiropractor. Currently, well over fifty percent of the retail area is vacant.
According to the Zoning Code, the purpose of the B-2 district is as follows:
PURPOSE: The purpose of the B-2, Limited Business District is to provide for low intensity,
�- retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services
are furnished. The uses allowed in this District are to provide goods and services on a
limited community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or
arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts.
B-2 Zoning Code Discussion
Page 2
The other properties in the city that are zoned B-2 are Simon's Sporting Goods and adjacent
ABC Liquor store, Western Bank, two small office buildings, the Mounds View Library,
Mounds View Animal Hospital, Cars Bike Shop and Vino & Stogies liquor store. The majority
of the commercial property in the city is zoned B-3, Highway Business. Mounds View Square
is the only property in the city with a B-4, Regional Business, zoning designation.
The B-2 zoning code is fairly limited with the types of restaurants allowed — delicatessens are
the only permitted type of restaurant. The definition of delicatessen is:
An establishment which serves prepared food such as cooked meats, sandwiches, or
salads or other food items which do not require kitchen facilities for preparation with
the exception of conventional and microwave ovens. The majority of the business
would be as carry -out with the maximum amount of seating allowed on premises being
24 seats.
City Staff believes there could be some instances where small or a limited number of
restaurants, along with some other types of retail that could be compatible uses in a B-2
zoning district.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the possibility of
additional permitted uses in the B-2 Zoning District.
Sincerely,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments
1. Zoning Map
2. Aerial Views
3. Ordinance 845 — updated list of permitted uses in a B-1 zoning district
4. B-2 and B-3 zoning code
1
9
LiL
.1+
LOU
n OOLZ W
�O
`s
Mz
(i'
W
I
J
J
�
Y
n
�
0[42
=
pdr
C9L
0642 9442
ni
m
091
W
6gL
994Z
y o
199
g
7i9L
s
a
m
LOU
n OOLZ W
`s
Y
(i'
W
J
CL
(n
ORDINANCE 845
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1112.02 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING
CODE TO ADD ADDITIONAL PERMITTED USES TO THE B-1, NEIGHBORHOOD
BUSINESS, ZONING DISTRICT
The City of Mounds View ordains:
SECTION 1: Chapter 1112.02 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended with
the proposed additions underlined and the deletions striek� as follows:
Chapter 1112.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-1 District:
Barbershops
Beauty parlors
Convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type)
Essential services
Laundromat, self-service washing and drying
Thrift or second-hand store
Retail business for local or neighborhood needs subject to the following limits:
- The sale of dry goods, clothing, notions and variety merchandise.
- The sale of books, magazines, newspapers, gifts, jewelry, music stationery or
office supplies.
Dry cleaning and laundry receiving and pick-up stations (with no cleaning or pressing
done on site)
Florist shop
Candy and ice cream stores (shall not include drive-through and/or window pick-up
services
Tailor shop, dress making clothing rental store
Ordinance 845
Page 2
agency, travel agency, mortgage company
Medical dental chiropractic counseling or other health-related office or clinic
Repair store that provides services for the repair of home garden yard and personal
use appliances tool or equipment (except for motorized vehicles or gas -powered
equipment) All repair work shall be done inside the building and there shall not be any
outdoor sales or storage.
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.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its
passage and publication, in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter.
Public Hearing, Introduction and First Reading by the Mounds View City Council on May
24, 2010.
Second Reading and Adoption by the Mounds View City Council on June 14, 2010.
PUBLICATION DATE: June 24, 2010
Joe Flaherty, Mayor
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Clerk -Administrator
(seal)
1113.01
CHAPTER 1113
B-2, LINUTED BUSINESS DISTRICT
SECTION:
1113.01:
Purpose
1113.02:
Permitted Uses
1113.03:
Accessory Uses
1113.04:
Conditional Uses
1113.05:
Interim Uses (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
1113.02 (Rev. 9/07)
1113.01: PURPOSE: The purpose of the B-2, Limited Business District is to provide for low
intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services
are finnished. The uses allowed in this District are to provide goods and services on a limited
community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street
facilities at the edge of residential districts. (1988 Code §40.17)
1113.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-2 District:
Subd. 1. Service Oriented Businesses: Service oriented businesses which serve the Mounds View
community:
Bank, savings and loan, savings credit unions and other financial institutions.
Commercial (leased and professional offices).
Copy service but not including printing press or newspaper.
Dry cleaning pick-up and laundry pick-up stations, including incidental repair and assembly but
not including processing.
Educational or instructional facilities. (Ord. 632, 7-26-99)
Employment agencies.
Finance companies.
Health and beauty services.
1113.02
Insurance sales, claims and branch offices.
Locksmith.
Medical and dental offices and clinics.
Public utility collection offices.
Real estate sales.
Shoe repair.
1113.02 (Rev. 9/07)
Therapeutic massage as defined and regulated in Chapter 514 of the municipal code. (Added,
Ord. 798, 9-10-07)
Travel bureaus, transportation ticket offices.
Subd. 2. Retail: Limited retail uses which have, as the principle use, sales with warehousing or
display secondary to that use.
Adult establishment as defined and regulated in Chapter 513 ofthe Municipal Code. (Ord. 574,
5-13-96)
All permitted uses as allowed in the B-1 Neighborhood Business Districts.
Antique shop.
Art and school supplies.
Bakery goods and baking of goods for retail sales on the premises.
Bicycle sales and repair.
Books or stationery stores.
Camera and photographic supplies.
Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts and soft drinks.
Coin and philatelic stores.
Costume, clothes rental.
Delicatessen.
1113.02
Drugstore.
Fabric store.
Florist shop.
Frozen food store but not including a locker plant.
Furniture showroom without warehousing.
Furriers when conducted only for retail trade on premises.
Gift or novelty store.
Hardware store.
Hobby store, including handicraft classes but not to exceed fifteen (15)
students.
Ice sales with storage not to exceed five (5) tons.
Jewelry stores and watch repair.
Leather goods and luggage stores.
Liquor, off -sale.
Meat market but not including processing for a locker plant.
Office supplies and equipment.
1113.02 (Rev. 9/07)
Plumbing, television, radio, electrical sales and such repair as are accessory use to the retail
establishments permitted within this District.
Record/music shops.
Rugs, carpet, tile, paint and wallpaper sales.
Shoe stores.
Small appliance sales and service.
Sporting goods store.
Tailor shops.
1113.02 1113.04 (Rev. 9/07)
Toy stores.
Video rental, sales and service.
Wearing apparel. (Ord. 452,2-27-89; Ord. 487, 6-25-90)
Subd. 3. Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting or Body Scarring Establishments,
provided that:
a. Any such establishment shall be separated by no less than one thousand feet (1,000') from
any other such establishment located within the City of Mounds View, as measured from the
property lines of the property upon which the uses are located.
b. The minimum floor space for such use shall be two hundred fifty (250) square feet.
c. The establishment and operators shall be licensed and be in compliance with Chapter 515
of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 663, 9-11-00)
1113.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-2 District:
All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a B-1 District. (1988 Code §40.17)
1113.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a B-2 District
(requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01
of this Title):
Subd. 1. Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and
general welfare of the community; provided, that:
a. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained, and required setbacks and
side yard requirements are met.
b. Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure with no outside storage.
c. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in accordance with
subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title.
d. The provisions of subdivision 1125.0 1 (1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
Subd. 2. Commercial planned unit development as required by Chapter 1120 of this Title.
1113.04
1113.04 (Rev. 9/07)
Subd. 3. Solar energy and wind generator systems and solar and wind generator structures 1. (1988
Code §40.17)
Subd. 4. Veterinary clinics, animal clinics, and animal boarding facilities; provided, that: (Ord. 685,
8-27-01)
a. Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter 6 of this
Municipal Code, Nuisances.
b. A mechanical ventilation or exhaust system shall be installed to control, capture and remove
emissions or odors generated by such use. Such systems shall be separate from other
ventilation systems in the building. Such system shall be designed to prevent the migration of
emissions or odors to other parts of the building. Installation must comply with Minnesota
Building Code Mechanical Systems, Chapter 13452. (Ord. 441, 5-23-88; Ord. 685, 8-27-01)
c. All animal boarding activities shall be conducted indoors, except for necessary outdoor
exercise. At no time shall any animal be left unsupervised while outdoors. (Ord. 685, 8-27-01)
d. Outdoor exercise shall be conducted so as not to unreasonably annoy, injure or endanger the
health, safety, comfort, or welfare of the public. (Ord. 685, 8-27-01)
e. All animal boarding facilities shall comply with the Nuisance Codes established for the City
of Mounds View. (Ord. 685, 8-27-01)
f. All animal boarding facilities shall comply with the Minnesota Pet and Companion Animal
Welfare Act (Minnesota Statutes, 346.35 — 346.44). (Ord. 685, 8-27-01)
Subd. 5. Pet stores; provided, that:
a. Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter 604 of
this Municipal Code, Nuisances.
b. The boarding of animals is prohibited, except for the purposes of retail sales.
1 See Sections 1103.04 and 1103.05 of this Title.
2 See Section 1001.01 of this Code for adoption of State Building Code; see M.S.A. §16B.59 for State Building Code.
1113.04
1113.04 (Rev. 9/07)
c. A mechanical ventilation or exhaust system shall be installed to control, capture and remove
emissions or odors generated by such use. Such systems shall be separate from the other
ventilation systems in the building. Such system shall be designed to prevent the migration of
emissions or odors to other parts of the building. Installation must comply with the Minnesota
State Building Code Mechanical Systems, Chapter 1345. (Ord. 448, 9-26-88)
Subd. 6. Wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in
Chapter 1124 of the Zoning Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 7. Day care center, group nursery; provided that: (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and
removed daily. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
c. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02,
subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
d` d. Not less than forty (40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such
space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions as specified by the City
Council. (Ord. 595,4-14-97)
e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this
Title. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
f. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Chapter
1122 of this Title. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
g. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or collector
street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. (Ord. 595, 4-
14-97)
h. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with
the Mounds View Sign Code. (Ord. 595,4-14-97)
i. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and
satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
j. 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 lc. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
1113.04
1113.04 (Rev. 9/07)
k. 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, if 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. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
Subd. 8. Neighborhood Motor Fuel Station; provided, that: (Added, Ord. 788, 4-9-07)
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. There shall be a maximum of four (4) motor fuel dispensing pumps on the site.
c. There shall be no automotive service, repair or rebuilding allowed on the site.
d. 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.
e. The entire site, other than that taken up by a building, structure of 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.
f. A minimum lot area oftwenty 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.
g. A drainage system, subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer,
shall be installed.
h. A curb not less than six inches (6") above grade shall separate the public sidewalk from
motor vehicle service areas.
i. 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.
j. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall be installed.
1113.04
1113.04 (Rev. 9/09)
k. 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.
1. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered.
in. 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.
n. 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 ofthe Director
of Public Works/City Engineer.
o. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall
be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code3.
p. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
q. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with subdivision 4 of this Section shall
exist.
r. No outside sale or service shall exist.
s. Sale of products other than those specifically mentioned in this Section shall be subject to
the conditional use permit.
t. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the City Council, upon
investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment
can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions.
u. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
Subd. 9. Car washes as an accessory use to a neighborhood fuel station (drive through, mechanical
and self-service); provided, that: (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
a. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so
dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to causeimpairment in property values or
constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-
09)
3 See Chapter 1008 of this Code.
1113.04
1113.04 (Rev. 9/09)
b. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that number of vehicles that
can be washed during a maximum thirty (30) minute period and shall be subject to the approval
of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
c. 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.
(Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
d. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered.
(Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
e. 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. (Added, Ord.
833,9-3-09)
f The entire area, other than occupied by the building or plantings, shall be surfaced with
material that will control dust, drainage and erosion that is subject to the approval of the
Director of Public Works/City Engineer. (Added., Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
g. The entire area shall have a drainage system that is subject to the approval ofthe Director of
Public Works/City Engineer. (Added, Ord. 533, 9-3-09)
h. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the
public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Section
1103.09 of this Title. (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
i. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through
traffic movement and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer. (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
j. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall comply with the
Mounds View Sign Code. (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
k. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
1. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
(Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
1113.05
1113.05 (Rev. 9/07)
1113.05: INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in a B-2 District requiring an Interim
Use Permit. An interim use permit must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form
and a substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 1125.0 1, subdivision 3 ofthe
Mounds View Municipal Code. Interim Use Permits may be approved for a determined or
undetermined period of time at the sole discretion of the City Council. (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
Subd. 1. All permitted interim uses as allowed in a B-1 District. (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
1114.01
CHAPTER 1114
B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT
SECTION:
1114.01:
Purpose
1114.02:
Permitted Uses
1114.03:
Accessory Uses
1114.04:
Conditional Uses
1114.05:
Interim Uses (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
1114.02 (Rev. 5/04)
1114.01: PURPOSE: The purpose of the B-3, Highway Business District is to provide for and
limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. (1988
Code §40.18)
1114.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-3 District:
All permitted uses as allowed in a B-2 Limited Business District.
Amusement centers.
Auto accessory stores.
Bowling alleys. (Ord. 617, 6-8-98)
Commercial recreational uses.
Grocery stores, supermarkets.
Motels, motor hotels and hotels; provided, that the lot area contains not less than five hundred (500)
square feet of lot area per unit.
Private clubs or lodges serving food and beverages with use being restricted to members and their
guests. Adequate dining room, kitchen and bar space must be provided according to standards imposed
upon similar unrestricted customer operations. The serving of alcoholic beverages to members and
their guests shall be allowed; provided, that such service is in compliance with applicable Federal, State
and Municipal regulations4. Offices of such use shall be limited to no more than twenty percent (20%)
of the gross floor area of the building.
4 See Chapters 501, 502 and 503 of this Code; see M.S.A. Chapter 340A.
1114.02
1114.04 (Rev. 5/04)
Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and
private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools and religious
institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues. (Ord. 617, 6-8-98)
Rental stores.
Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, on- and off -sale liquor.
Taxi terminals, stands and offices. (Ord. 452, 2-27-89; Ord. 581, 6-10-96)
1114.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-3 District:
All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a B-2, Limited Business District. (1988 Code §40.18)
1114.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a B-3 District
(requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01
of this Title):
Subd. 1. Drive-in and convenience food establishments; provided, that:
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered.
d. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance
with subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title.
e. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curbs not less than six inches
(6") high above the parking lot or driveway grade.
f Vehicular access points shall be limited, 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.
1114.04
1114.04 (Rev. 5/04)
g. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the
public right of way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Section
1103.09 of this Title.
h. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the Director
of Public Works/City Engineer.
i. The entire area, other than that occupied by buildings or structures or plantings, shall be
surfaced with a material which will control dust, drainage and erosion which is subject to the
approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
j. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with
the Mounds View Sign Code5.
k. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01 (1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
Subd. 2. Car washes (drive through, mechanical and self-service); provided, that:
a. 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.
b. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that number ofvehicles which
can be washed during a maximum thirty (30) minute period and shall be subject to the approval
of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
c. 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.
d. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered.
e. 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.
f. The entire area, other than occupied by the building or plantings, shall be surfaced with
material which will control dust, drainage and erosion which is subject to the approval of the
Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
5 See Chapter 1008 of this Code.
1114.04
It 14.04 (Rev. 5/04)
g. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the Director
of Public Works/City Engineer.
h. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the
public right of way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Section
1103.09 of this Title.
i. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through
traffic movement and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer.
j. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with
the Mounds View Sign Code6.
k. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
1. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01 (1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
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 ofthe 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.
6 See Chapter 1008 of this Code.
1114.04
1114.04 (Rev. 5/04)
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.
L 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.
1. 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 ofthe Director
of Public Works/City Engineer.
in. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and
shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code7.
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.
7 See Chapter 1008 of this Code.
1114.04
1114.04 (Rev. 5/04)
r. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the City Council, upon
investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment
can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions.
s. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
Subd. 4. Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use; provided, that:
a. The area is fenced and screened from view ofneighboring uses or if abutting an R District in
compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title.
b. Storage is screened from view from the public right of way in compliance with subdivisions
1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title.
c. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
d. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the
public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section
1103.09 of this Title.
e. The open and outdoor storage does not take up parking space as required for conformity to
this Title.
f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
Subd. 5. Open or outdoor service, sale and rental as a principal or accessory use and including sales
in or from motorized vehicles, trailers or wagons for a period greater than ten (10) days;
(Amended, Ord. 733, 5-10-04)
a. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to
thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principal use.
b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring identical uses or an
abutting R District in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title.
c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the
public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with sections
1103.08 and 1103.09 of this Title.
d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
1114.04
1114.04 (Rev. 5/04)
e. The open or outdoor service, sale or rental use does not take up parking space as required for
conformity of this Title.
f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
Subd. 6. An accessory use which is a permitted use in a B-2 District, and:
a. Such use does not constitute more than thirty percent (30%) of the lot area and not more than
fifty percent (501/o) of the gross floor area of the principal use.
b. The off-street parking and off-street loading requirements of Chapters 1121 and 1122 ofthis
Title have been met.
c. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with
the Mounds View Sign Code8.
d. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
Subd. 7. Solar energy and wind generator systems and solar and wind generator structures9. (1988
Code §40.18)
Subd. 8. Motor vehicle and recreation equipment sales and garages accessory thereto; provided that:
a. Motor vehicle sales shall be on one (1) lot or contiguous lots not separated by a public street,
alley, or other use.
b. The minimum lot width shall be one hundred fifty feet (150') at the minimum required front
yard setback, as defined in Section 1104.01, Yard Requirements for B-3 Zoning Districts.
c. A minimum lot area of two (2) acres is required.
d. Setbacks shall be as required in Section 1104.01, Yard Requirements for B-3 Zoning
Districts.
8 See Chapter 1108 of this Code.
9 See Sections 1103.04 and 1103.05 of this Title.
1114.04
1114.04 (Rev. 5/04)
e. The entire site on which motor vehicle sales is located, other than that devoted to buildings
and structures or landscaped areas shall be surfaced and maintained with a material to control
dust, drainage and erosion which is subject to the approval ofthe Director of Public Works/City
Engineer.
f A drainage system, subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer,
shall be installed and maintained. All provisions shall apply as included in Chapters 1103,
1010 and 1302 relating to Surface Water Management.
g. The following parking requirements shall be met:
(1) All customer and employee parking spaces shall be permanently and clearly
marked.
(2) For every three (3) employees, a minimum of two (2) employee parking spaces
shall be provided.
(3) A minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces for each service stall are required.
The foregoing required parking spaces shall be shown and designated on the site plan.
h. All outdoor illumination on sales lots shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or shades,
which will concentrate the light upon the premises so as to prevent glare or direct rays and shall
be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of the Municipal Code.
i. The maximum areas permitted for outside storage of motor vehicles can not exceed two (2)
square feet of outside storage to each one (1) square foot of enclosed ground floor area. Not
more than one (1) automobile shall be stored on each forty (40) square feet of outside storage.
No rooftop parking shall be permitted.
j. Accessory buildings to be used solely for sales offices shall not be permitted. Such accessory
buildings as are permitted shall be constructed of the same materials as the main structure.
k. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with
Chapter 1008.08 of the Sign Code regulations.
1. A minimum ten percent (10%) of the property, excluding setback requirements, is required
for landscaped green space. The planting plan and type of shrubbery shall require approval of
the Planning Commission based upon a recommendation of City Forester.
[BIEKIL!
1114.04 (Rev. 5/04)
in. A natural screen shall be erected and maintained along all property lines separating the site
from any Residential District. The screening shall include landscaping (trees, shrubs, grass,
etc.) of a type (layout, species, height, size and density) in compliance with Subdivision
1103.08 of the Title.
n. The hours of operation of the facility shall not exceed seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. to ten
o'clock (10:00) p.m.
o. Test driving routes and patterns must be submitted and approved prior to operation of an
automobile sales lot.
p. No music or advertisement will be allowed over paging systems.
q. All provisions shall apply as included in Section 1103.01 relating to noise within the City
Code.
r. All car lots shall be brought into conformance within seven (7) years of the date this
ordinance is effective. (Ord. 570, 1-8-96; Ord. 581, 6-10-96)
Subd. 9. Wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in
Chapter 1124 of the Zoning Code. (Ord. 588,2-10-97)
Subd. 10. Day care center, group nursery; provided that: (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and
removed daily. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35). (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
c. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02,
subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
d. Not less than forty (40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such
space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions as specified by the City
Council. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this
Title. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
f Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Chapter
1122 of this Title. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
g. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or collector
street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. (Ord. 595, 4-
14-97)
1114.04
It 14.05 (Rev. 5/04)
h. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with
the Mounds View Sign Code. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
L The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and
satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
j. 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 lc. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
k. 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. (Ord. 595,4-14-97)
1114.05: INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in a B-3 District requiring an Interim
(" Use Permit. An interim use permit must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form
and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 1125.0 1, subdivision 3 of the
Mounds View Municipal Code. Interim Use Permits may be approved for a determined or
undetermined period of time at the sole discretion of the City Council. (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
Subd. 1. All permitted interim uses as allowed in a B-2 District. (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
November 3, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit,
and Stevenson.
Absent and Excused: None.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi
Index to Minutes
Review Planning_i
Review Housitg E
Communities Act
Set 20M1anning
3.
Council Livable
2010.
Rundle, Schiltgen, Smith
Page
N
2
2
August 18, 2010
MOTION/SECOND: --Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Smith. To approve the minutes of
the August 18, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
November 3, 2010
Page 2
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
5. Planning Cases
None.
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Review Planning Commissioner
Planning Associate Heller stated the City has received=only one application
Commission and that was from Gary Rundle
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended tRW06fy Rundle be
three-year term on the Planning Commission from 2011 through 2013.
B. Review Housing Action PlafiJ
Act
Planning Associate Heller -stated --Mounds Viev
Council Livable Commumties Program (LCA)
guide City actions ag&Mcies aM housing,
Since Mounds View has opted to continue Dart
for the next cycle of 2011
we will work to sornp v
asked
for a
Communities
been a pa ipant in the Metropolitan
;e the program began in 1996. This plan is to
icially for low and moderate income persons.
atturg in the Livable Communities programs
-update its Housing Action Plan to show how
by the Metropolitan Council.
Planning Associate Heller stated the City has applied for grants and loans for projects in the past
through the Mkbpolitan Courieil Livable Communities Act.
The Planning Commission___recommends that the City Council approve the 2011-2020 Housing
Action Plan for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act.
C. Set 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule
Planning Associate Heller presented the Planning Commission's 2011 Meeting Schedule and
asked the Commission for any changes.
Chair Stevenson suggested removing the December 21, 2011 meeting.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
November 3, 2010
Page 3
Planning Associate Heller stated it would be better to keep the date on the schedule and cancel
the meeting if needed.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Meehlhause. Resolution 935-10, a
resolution establishing the 2011 meeting schedule of the Mounds View Planning Commission.
Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting:
A. November 17, 2010
B. December 1, 2010 �=
8. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 7:17 p.m. - —_
(The meeting
Respectfully
Ken
Transcribed by:
Barbara Suciu
TimeSaver Off Site
Inc.
Session)
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
December 15, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. November 3, 2010
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the
record.)
5. Planning Cases
None
6. Other Planning Activity
A. B-2, Limited Business Zoning District Amendments
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. January 5, 2011
B. January 19, 2011
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. November 17, 2010
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
Item No: 6A
Meeting Date: December 15, 2010 m—t—V
Type of Business: Other Planning Activity
City of Mounds View Staff e�
To: Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Amending Chapter 1113 by Adding More Permitted and
Conditional Uses to the B-2, Limited Business Zoning
District
City staff received a sign permit application for a new Chinese restaurant that wants to move
into Silver View Plaza. Because of this request, staff decided to discuss increasing the
allowed uses in a B-2 zoning district with the Planning Commission and City Council.
On December 6, 2010, City staff discussed with the City Council the idea of adding permitted
and conditional uses to the B-2 zoning district, including restaurants. The City Council was
supportive of the idea and directed staff to proceed with preparing a code amendment to
make the changes to the B-2 zoning district.
The current zoning designation, B-2, allows for less intense commercial and service oriented
businesses such as laundromats, locksmiths, delicatessens, financial offices, florists, sporting
goods and hardware, to name a few. The property owner, Kraus Anderson, continues to
struggle to get tenants in Silver View Plaza and the City wants to help where it can. City Staff
asked the Planning Commission if they would be open to adding more permitted or
conditional uses to the B-2 zoning code, particularly relating to restaurants. The Planning
Commission agreed that it did not make sense to limit the types of restaurants based on what
type of cooking is done. The Commission suggested amending the zoning code to allow a
"small restaurant, cafe and tea room" as a permitted use in a B-2 district. The Code would
define a small restaurant as being limited to 24 seats and no more than 2,000 square feet in
size. The Commission also suggested allowing restaurants with more than 24 seats and
more than 2,000 square feet in floor area in a B-2 zoning district as a conditional use.
As noted above, City staff brought this idea to the City Council at the December 6, 2010 Work
session. The Council was in agreement with the code changes as proposed by the Planning
Commission. Based on the discussion with the Planning Commission and City Council, staff
recommends adding the following permitted and conditional uses to the B-2 zoning code:
B-2 Zoning Code Discussion
Page 2
- Small restaurant, cafe, tearoom with a maximum of 24 seats and 2,000 square feet in
floor area. Shall not include drive-thru and/or window pick-up services or the serving of
food to patrons in their vehicles
- Auto accessory or parts store with no repairs, installations or service work done on any
motor vehicles on site, and no outside sales or storage
Added conditional use:
- Restaurants, cafes and tea rooms with more than 24 seats and/or 2,000 square feet in
floor area, provided that there are not drive-thru and/or window pick-up services or the
serving of food to patrons in their vehicles.
Staff has prepared the proposed changes to the B-2 zoning code for the Planning
Commission's review.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the draft of the proposed
amendments to the B-2 Zoning District.
Sincerely,
cy Ic CSX ,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments
1. B-2 zoning code with proposed amendments
1113.01: PURPOSE: The purpose of the B-2, Limited Business District is to provide for low
intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services
are farnished. The uses allowed in this District are to provide goods and services on a limited
community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street
facilities at the edge of residential districts. (1988 Code §40.17)
1113.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-2 District:
Subd. 1. Service Oriented Businesses: Service oriented businesses which serve the Mounds View
community:
Bank, savings and loan, savings credit unions and other financial institutions.
Commercial (leased and professional offices).
Copy service but not including printing press or newspaper.
Dry cleaning pick-up and laundry pick-up stations, including incidental repair and assembly but
not including processing.
Educational or instructional facilities. (Ord. 632, 7-26-99)
Employment agencies.
Finance companies.
Health and beauty services.
Insurance sales, claims and branch offices.
Locksmith.
Medical and dental offices and clinics.
Public utility collection offices.
Real estate sales.
Shoe repair.
Therapeutic massage as defined and regulated in Chapter 514 of the municipal code. (Added,
Ord. 798, 9-10-07)
Travel bureaus, transportation ticket offices.
Subd. 2. Retail: Limited retail uses which have, as the principle use, sales with warehousing or
display secondary to that use.
Adult establishment as defined and regulated in Chapter 513 ofthe Municipal Code. (Ord. 574,
5-13-96)
All permitted uses as allowed in the B-1 Neighborhood Business Districts.
Antique shop.
Art and school supplies.
Auto accessory or motor vehicle parts store with no repairs, installations or service work
done on any motor vehicles on site, and with no outside sales or storage.
Bakery goods and baking of goods for retail sales on the premises.
Bicycle sales and repair.
Books or stationery stores.
Camera and photographic supplies.
Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts and soft drinks.
Coin and philatelic stores.
Costume, clothes rental.
Delicatessen.
Drugstore.
Fabric store.
Florist shop.
Frozen food store but not including a locker plant.
Furniture showroom without warehousing.
Furriers when conducted only for retail trade on premises.
Gift or novelty store.
Hardware store.
Hobby store, including handicraft classes but not to exceed fifteen (15)
students.
Ice sales with storage not to exceed five (5) tons.
Jewelry stores and watch repair.
Leather goods and luggage stores.
Liquor, off -sale.
Meat market but not including processing for a locker plant.
Office supplies and equipment.
Plumbing, television, radio, electrical sales and such repair as are accessory use to the retail
establishments permitted within this District.
Record/music shops.
Small restaurant cafe and tea room with a maximum of 24 seats and 2,000 square feet in
floor area The restaurant shall not include drive-thru and/or window pick-up services or the
serving of food to patrons in their vehicles.
Rugs, carpet, tile, paint and wallpaper sales.
Shoe stores.
Small appliance sales and service.
Sporting goods store.
Tailor shops.
Toy stores.
Video rental, sales and service.
Wearing apparel. (Ord. 452,2-27-89; Ord. 487, 6-25-90)
Subd. 3. Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting or Body Scarring Establishments,
provided that:
a. Any such establishment shall be separated by no less than one thousand feet (1,000') from
any other such establishment located within the City of Mounds View, as measured from the
property lines of the property upon which the uses are located.
b. The minimum floor space for such use shall be two hundred fifty (250) square feet.
c. The establishment and operators shall be licensed and be in compliance with Chapter 515
of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 663, 9-11-00)
1113.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-2 District:
All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a B-1 District. (1988 Code §40.17)
1113.04: CONDPTIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a B-2 District
(requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01
of this Title):
Subd. 1. Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and
general welfare of the community; provided, that:
a. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained, and required setbacks and
side yard requirements are met.
b. Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure with no outside storage.
c. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in accordance with
subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title.
d. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
Subd. 2. Commercial planned unit development as required by Chapter 1120 of this Title.
Subd. 3. Solar energy and wind generator systems and solar and wind generator structures. (1988
Code §40.17)
Subd. 4. Veterinary clinics, animal clinics, and animal boarding facilities; provided, that: (Ord. 685,
8-27-01)
a. Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter 6 of this
Municipal Code, Nuisances.
b. A mechanical ventilation or exhaust system shall be installed to control, capture and remove
emissions or odors generated by such use. Such systems shall be separate from other
ventilation systems in the building. Such system shall be designed to prevent the migration of
emissions or odors to other parts of the building. Installation must comply with Minnesota
Building Code Mechanical Systems, Chapter 1345. (Ord. 441, 5-23-88; Ord. 685, 8-27-01)
c. All animal boarding activities shall be conducted indoors, except for necessary outdoor
exercise. At no time shall any animal be left unsupervised while outdoors. (Ord. 685, 8-27-01)
d. Outdoor exercise shall be conducted so as not to unreasonably annoy, injure or endanger the
health, safety, comfort, or welfare of the public. (Ord. 685, 8-27-01)
e. All animal boarding facilities shall comply with the Nuisance Codes established for the City
of Mounds View. (Ord. 685, 8-27-01)
£ All animal boarding facilities shall comply with the Minnesota Pet and Companion Animal
Welfare Act (Minnesota Statutes, 346.35 — 346.44). (Ord. 685, 8-27-01)
Subd. 5. Pet stores; provided, that:
a. Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter 604 of
this Municipal Code, Nuisances.
b. The boarding of animals is prohibited, except for the purposes of retail sales.
c. A mechanical ventilation or exhaust system shall be installed to control, capture and remove
emissions or odors generated by such use. Such systems shall be separate from the other
ventilation systems in the building. Such system shall be designed to prevent the migration of
emissions or odors to other parts of the building. Installation must comply with the Minnesota
State Building Code Mechanical Systems, Chapter 1345. (Ord. 448, 9-26-88)
Subd. 6. Wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in
Chapter 1124 of the Zoning Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 7. Day care center, group nursery; provided that: (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and
removed daily. (Ord. 595,4-14-97)
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
c. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02,
subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
d. Not less than forty (40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such
space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions as specified by the City
Council. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this
Title. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
f Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Chapter
1122 of this Title. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
g. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or collector
street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. (Ord. 595, 4-
14-97)
h. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with
the Mounds View Sign Code. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
i. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and
satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
j. 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 la (Ord. 595, 4-14-97)
k. 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, if 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. (Ord. 595,4-14-97)
Subd. 8. Neighborhood Motor Fuel Station; provided, that: (Added, Ord. 788, 4-9-07)
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. There shall be a maximum of four (4) motor fuel dispensing pumps on the site.
c. There shall be no automotive service, repair or rebuilding allowed on the site.
d. 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.
e. The entire site, other than that taken up by a building, structure of 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.
f A minimum lot area of twenty two thousand five hundred (22,500) square feet and minimum
lot dimensions of one hunched fifty feet by one hundred thirty feet (150'x 130') be provided.
g. A drainage system, subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer,
shall be installed. '
h. A curb not less than six inches (6") above grade shall separate the public sidewallc from
motor vehicle service areas.
i. 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.
j. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall be installed.
lc. 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.
1. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered.
in. 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.
n. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement,
shall comply with Chapter 1121 ofthis Title and shall be subject to the approval ofthe Duector
of Public Works/City Engineer.
o. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall
be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
p. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
q. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with subdivision 4 of this Section shall
exist.
r. No outside sale or service shall exist.
s. Sale of products other than those specifically mentioned in this Section shall be subject to
the conditional use permit.
t. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the City Council, upon
investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment
can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions.
u. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01 (I)e ofthis Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
Subd. 9. Car washes as an accessory use to a neighborhood fuel station (drive through, mechanical
and self-service); provided, that: (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
a. 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.
b. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that number of vehicles that
can be washed during a maximum thirty (3 0) minute period and shall be subject to the approval
of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. (Added, Ord. 833,9-3-09)
c. 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.
(Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
d. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered.
(Added, Ord. 833,9-3-09)
e. 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. (Added, Ord.
833,9-3-09)
f. The entire area, other than occupied by the building or plantings, shall be surfaced with
material that will control dust, drainage and erosion that is subject to the approval of the
Director of Public Works/City Engineer. (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
g. The entire area shall have a drainage system that is subject to the approval ofthe Director of
Public Works/City Engineer. (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
h. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the
public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Section
1103.09 of this Title. (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
L Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through
traffic movement and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer. (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
j. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall comply with the
Mounds View Sign Code. (Added, Ord. 833,9-3-09)
I Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. (Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
1. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met.
(Added, Ord. 833, 9-3-09)
Subd 10 Restaurants cafes and tea rooms with more than 24 seats and/or 2,000 square feet of
floor area. The restaurant shall not include drive-thru and/or window pick-up services or the
serving of food to patrons in their vehicles.
1113.05: IN TERi10'l(I JSES: The following are interim uses in a B-2 District requiring an Interim
Use Permit. An interim use permit must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form
and a substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 ofthe
Mounds View Municipal Code. Interim Use Permits may be approved for a determined or
undetermined period of time at the sole discretion of the City Council. (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
Subd. 1. All permitted interim uses as allowed in a B-1 District. (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
November 17, 2010
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. November 17, 2010.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Smith and
Stevenson.
Absent and Excused: Commissioner Cramblit.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller
Community Development Director Ken Roberts
Index to Minutes Page
B-2, Limited Business Zoning District Discussion 2
3. Approval of Minutes
October 6, 2010
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Meehlhause. To approve the
minutes of the October 6, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented.
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0
Motion carried.
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
5.- Planning Cases
None.
6. Other Planning Activity
A. B-2, Limited Business Zoning District Discussion
November 17, 2010
Page 2
Planning Associate Heller stated the City recently received a sign permit for a new restaurant at
Silver View Plaza. In reviewing the details of the new restaurant, staff determined that the City
could not allow it in the mall because of the existing B-2 zoning. This restaurant would be a full
operation restaurant and current B-2 zoning only allows delicatessens.
Planning Associate Heller stated in 1988, the owner, Kraus Anderson, applied to rezone the
property to B-3, but the City denied the request due to concerns about inadequate parking on-
site. In 2005, Kraus Anderson again applied to rezone the property to B-3, and they were again
denied for the same reasons as 1988. She added the main parking problem is that about thirty
percent of the parking spaces at Silver View Plaza are in the back of the mall where employees
would typically park, not customers.
Planning Associate Heller stated by amending the B-2 zoning code by adding a few more
allowed uses and/or conditional uses would be beneficial to this particular mall.
Chair Stevenson stated that the current definition of delicatessen states there is a maximum
seating capacity of 24. He added that by leaving the seating capacity at 24, and removing the
specific type of cooking allowed could solve this issue. He proposed amending the B-2 Zoning
Code to allow for delicatessens and small restaurants as permitted uses.
Commissioner Meehlhause agreed with Chair Stevenson's amendment, and added that with this
addition of more allowed uses, it may be beneficial to the mall.
Community Development Director Roberts asked if the Commission was receptive to Chair
Stevenson's recommendation for amending the permitted uses at Silver View. He also clarified
the maximum restaurant seating amount of 24 chairs.
Chair Stevenson stated it would be his preference to keep the maximum seating at 24 due to the
parking constraints.
Commissioner Smith asked if there would also be a square footage limitation to correspond with
the maximum seating limit.
Chair Stevenson recommended that 2,000 square feet be the maximum restaurant size allowed as
a permitted use.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
November 17, 2010
Page 3
Community Development Director Roberts stated that staff would propose code amendment with
a square footage maximum along with a maximum seating limit for restaurants.
Chair Stevenson stated that the City could allow a restaurant with more than 24 seats or 2,000
square feet in floor area with a conditional use permit.
The Commission directed staff to move forward with amending the B-2 Zoning Code to include
small restaurants with the maximum 24 seating requirement and maximum of 2000 square feet as
a permitted use, and any larger restaurants would require a conditional use permit.
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting:
A. December 1, 2010
B. December 15, 2010
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,
Ken Roberts
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Barbara Suciu
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.