Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-1996 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 6, 1996 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. Call to Order called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:03 p.m. on November 6, 1996. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Miller, 2. Roll Call Brooks, Stevenson, Obert, Johnston, Brasaemle and Chair Peterson. ALSO PRESENT: Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson and Recording Secretary Benesch. • The Planning Commission reviewed the 3. Approval of Minutes: minutes of the special meeting of October 9, October 9, 1996 1996. The following corrections were noted: 1) Page 1, last line, "by" should read n, 2) Page 2, third line, "site" should read sites, 3) Second page, third paragraph, lines 6 and 7 should read " if the lot is..." and "Commission" should read Commissioner", 4) Page 3, line 3, should read "...line for a..", 5) Page 3, paragraph 6, line 2, should read acre not "acres" and line 4 should read "...than one acre. was-added." Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Stevenson to approve the minutes of October 9, 1996, as amended. 7 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no resident requests or comments from the floor. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 . Regular Meeting Page 2 Mr. John Streeter and Mr. Edward Paster, 4. Public Hearing representing Paster Enterprises, were present. Regarding Variance Request from Paster Community Development Director Sheldon Enterprises, Mounds explained the request from Paster Enterprises View Square for approval of a variance in parking ratios, a Shopping Center, variance in sign height and sign area and a Planning Case Nos. conditional use permit for joint use of parking at 461-96, 462-96 and Mounds View Square Shopping Center, 2535- 463-96 2585 Highway 10. Director Sheldon explained that she would be presenting the request from Mounds View Square in two parts. The first part included Planning Cases 461-96 and 463-96, which involved the joint use of parking and a variance in the required parking ratios for Mounds View Square Shopping Center. She explained that . the second part is Planning Case 462-96 regarding a variance in the sign code to allow a center identification sign for the shopping center which exceeds the maximum area and height allowed by City Code. The first request has to do with the amount of parking required if the shopping center expands, adding a couple of new uses on the property with the specific request being for an additional 5,000 square feet of retail space which would be added at the end of the building near Marios Video (4,000 square feet of retail and 1,000 square feet of storage area). She added that it is the applicant's desire, at some time in the future, to remove the existing Bridgeman's and Hardees Restaurants and replace them with two dinner house style restaurants. With respect to the first item (Cases 461-96 and 463-96), Director Sheldon noted that the • Planning Commission discussed at length at their last meeting what parking would be Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page.3 required under the City's existing Code and what parking is in place on the site. She explained that there is a specific request from the applicant for a variance in the parking ratios that apply to the property and a request for joint use of parking under a conditional use permit. She continued by explaining that joint use of parking recognizes that some uses are night time uses and some are day time uses and they off-set each other. She added that the number of parking spaces on the site at present is 477, and if the new restaurants and retail space were added, some parking spaces would be eliminated so that the number of the spaces on site would be 454. Commissioner Miller inquired if 111, 775 square feet is a typo (on Page 2, 1st paragraph, of the staff report) and she was informed that it should read 111,535. Director Sheldon explained that it was Staff's understanding from the Planning Commission at their last meeting that they are willing to look at the existing parking in place as being adequate for the existing space and explained that the applicant did get a previous variance to allow for the 477 spaces to be used for the existing square footage. She continued by asking what ratios are to be applied against the new footage. She explained that the proposal is for 4-1/2 spaces per 1,000 square feet and that our current code requires 10 spaces but added that our code is much higher than other jurisdictions. She continued by explaining that the ratio proposed for fast food restaurants is at our regular requirement (1 space for every 40 square foot of dining and 1 space for every 80 square feet of kitchen) but the dinner house restaurants are proposed at 1 space for every 80 square feet of dining and 1 space for every 80 square feet of kitchen, which she explained • is a more typical ratio for larger restaurants where you have less customer turn-over. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 4 Director Sheldon explained to the Commission that Resolution No. 485-96 is for the new ratios to be used for the proposal, and added that it was Staffs conclusion that the variance was justified and approval was recommended. She noted that if the Planning Commission can grant a variance; it would not go on to Council unless the applicant appealed the Commission's decision. Director Sheldon addressed the other issue which had to do with joint use of parking. At the last meeting, staff had reported that the number of parking spaces on the site, after the building additions, would be 457 and that the number which would be required using the new ratios would be 454. The Commission indicated at that time that the applicant should . provide the additional three spaces by restriping some of the standard size stalls to be compact size. Director Sheldon then indicated to the Commission that Staff made an error in its previous report to the Planning Commission. Instead of 454 spaces being needed, using the new ratios, 492 spaces were needed, or 38 spaces more than the number on the site. She advised the Commission that it was not possible to achieve either a three space reduction or a 38 space reduction using restriping from standard size stalls to compact size stalls. (It would require 51 standard spaces to be restriped to compact size to create three additional spaces, which was more than 10% of the parking on the site. The Parking Code limits compact spaces to 10% of the parking provided.) It was staffs recommendation that the Commission consider a conditional use permit for joint use of parking facilities to address the situation, and reported that it would require a 8% reduction in the parking required for daytime and nighttime uses to reduce the parking required on the site to the • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 5 454 spaces being provided. Resolution No. 486-96 was prepared which lays out the findings that support allowing joint use of parking at 8 percent. Commissioner Brasaemle inquired if the variance in ratios would result in a requirement of 492 spaces and wanted to verify if the conditional use permit was needed to get the number down to the 454 spaces, which the applicant is proposing. He also asked if the maximum allowable cross-over between night and day use is 50 percent and if Staff was proposing only 8 percent? Commissioner Stevenson inquired if there is any alternative to the spaces the center is losing for the storage area and why the 5,000 110 square feet is needed and for what use. Mr. Streeter explained that they initially proposed to expand the center further to the south. In discussions with Staff, it was noted that expansion in this direction would cause more than one row of parking to be lost so they reduced the expansion to save all but one row of parking. Chair Peterson brought up the signage at Marios and how it would be affected by the addition. Mr. Streeter explained that he presumed that whoever rents the new area would want to have it for their advertising and it was explained that Marios could possibly move over and the new tenant be put in between. Commissioner Obert inquired if the new parking computations included the elimination of the 23 spaces on the south side of the building. Director Sheldon explained that yes, she looked at the spaces that were in the expansion area and that is why the parking count was reduced from 477 to 454. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Miller referenced Page 2, part C, of Resolution No. 485-96, and feels that adding 5000 square feet to the building does result in actions from the applicant and wondered how do we came up with 6000 square feet for new restaurants. Director Sheldon explained that the ratios of our Code create a hardship for a shopping center of this size and that the applicant did not choose the ratio, which she feel causes an extraordinary parking demand. The hardship is coming from the ratio rather than from the footage proposed by the applicant. She noted that the 6000 square feet for the restaurants came from their plan. Commissioner Brasaemle suggested leaving the parking count for the current shopping center as is, and use the ratios from the Code • to calculate the amount of parking needed for the expansion. He asked what percentage reduction would be needed using the allowance for daytime and nighttime uses to get to the 454 spaces being provided. He indicated his desire to address the parking question with either a variance or an allowance for daytime and nighttime uses, but not both if possible. Director Sheldon made some calculations in order to answer Commissioner Brasaemle's question and came up with 26 percent. Director Sheldon explained that she believes it is easier to show that with the ratios that there is a problem and that we are fixing it rather than using the day time/night time calculation. Director Sheldon explained that if you apply the current ratios to the square footage this is changing, there would be 614 spaces required but noted that there may be a problem with how the 614 spaces were calculated. Commissioner Stevenson inquired as to which time would be the busiest for the shopping center? He is concerned that if the ratios are • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 7 not changed and instead a reduction for daytime and nighttime uses is used, there would not be enough parking at peak times. Commissioner Brasaemle inquired what would be the total number of parking spaces that would be needed for the entire center including the expansion. Director Sheldon replied that it would be 1,035 spaces. Commissioner Johnston expressed that he feels that this proposal would be good for Mounds View and is for granting this request but it is a matter of how to do it. Chair Peterson expressed that he had similar feelings and thinks that the Planning Commission needs to lay a more stable S ground-work for any other cases that may come up and he feels more comfortable with the resolution as prepared which included the variance in ratios. Commissioner Obert said he is comfortable with the way staff has prepared the resolution, but shares the concerns that Commissioner Stevenson raised regarding the day time/night time mix. He feels that right now he does not see a problem, but depending on future tenants, such as a high-traffic store, there could be a concern. Commissioner Brasaemle noted that he feels one advantage to granting a variance is that it does not establish a precedent if the Council rejects the conditional use permit and retracted his proposal to eliminate the variance. Commissioner Miller has concerns with losing the 23 spaces by making the building 5,000 1111 square feet larger when there are already vacant retail area and wondered if that might Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 8 change if there were more traffic. Director Sheldon explained that by adding the restaurants you may get more interest in the center. She also added that if people do go out to dinner and then run errands to the other businesses in the Center, they are still only using one space. Earl Hamilton, Sunrise Methodist Church, 7687 Long Lake Road, inquired if traffic from the Center could accidentally overflow into their church parking lot across the street? He did note that they have not had a problem as of yet. He is also concerned with the dumping of garbage into the wetland adjacent to the church. Commissioner Miller suggested that signage, "Sunrise Church parking only" could alleviate this concern. • Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve Resolution No. 485-96, as amended, regarding approving a variance request in the parking ratios applicable to the Mounds View Square Shopping Center, Planning Case No. 463-95. Commissioner Miller noted some corrections to proposed Resolution No. 485-96: 1) Page 2, line 1, "result" should read results, 2) third whereas, item a, line 2, "or" should read of. 7 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Stevenson to approve Resolution No. 486-96, as amended, regarding recommending (this word was added to the resolution) approving a conditional use permit for the joint use of parking facilities at Mounds View Square Shopping Center, Planning Case No. 461-96. • Commissioner Miller recommended that item 7 of the resolution may not be necessary. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 9 Director Sheldon stated this item indicates that the variance cannot stand by itself. It was then recommended that item 7 be added as a "whereas" instead. 7 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Director Sheldon explained that the second part of the request pertains to the signage for the site. She noted that there have been some changes in the proposal since the last Planning Commission meeting. (At this time Director Sheldon distributed pictures of four other centers owned by the applicant showing examples of signage). She explained that the last time this item was before the Planning Commission, the applicant was proposing a sign 75 feet high and 800 square feet in area ilk which they felt was needed so the shopping center name and tenant names would appear above the bridge. She explained that the Planning Commission requested information regarding how much of the sign would show above the bridge and how the bridge would look to a motorist traveling on Highway 10. Director Sheldon explained that the City Engineer did a study on how high the sign would have to be to appear over the bridge at a distance which a motorist would travel in 10 seconds at 50 mph. (Ten seconds was considered the amount of time it would take a motorist to decide to slow and turn into the shopping center.) The study showed that if you are 765 feet back from Long Lake Road and the sign is placed in the area proposed by the applicant, then the bridge will cover up to 52 feet of the sign and the sign will show above the bridge railing from 52 feet upwards. She went on to explained that on a 75 foot high sign, 23 feet would show above the bridge railing and you would only see the center identification part of the sign. She informed the Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 ID Regular Meeting Page 10 Commission that the applicant is now proposing monument signage and a 50' high, 430 square foot identification sign. Signs existing at the Mendota and Crystal centers were reviewed and were noted to be similar to the request being made by the applicant. Director Sheldon went on to explain that once you lower the sign, even to 50 feet, you cannot see it over the bridge, so from Staffs perspective, you have started to lose the connection between the bridge and the need for a variance. She expressed a concern that granting a variance for a sign of this size would set a precedent, and lead to other shopping centers requesting this type of signage whether there is a bridge or not. She suggested a couple of possible ways to address this issue: S one being to amend our sign regulations to recognize that a shopping center of this size may need more signage than we allow; the other being, the applicant could request a variance for the monument signage at the driveway entrances based on the impact of the bridge, and have a pylon sign of a size that meets the City's code. She explained that another possibility could be to amend our Code to allow for a "sign package" which would allow the shopping center customized sign regulations which would need to be approved by the Planning Commission. She further explained that another possibility would be to grant a "floating box" of signage from the top of the railing up to the 75 feet, with a condition on the variance that the bridge must be built and the City have six months in which to update our sign regulations. If the Sign Code is changed to allow the signage, the "floating box" could not be used. Director Sheldon suggested that perhaps the Planning Commission could table • this item until a firmer proposal is made and more information is obtained from the applicant. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 11 Commissioner Brasaemle wanted to make it clear that this variance request is contingent upon the bridge being built and that whatever variance the Planning Commission passes needs to have this clause in it. JoAnn Colleen, 2617 County Road 1, inquired as to why the parking and the sign is a concern now if we don't even know if the bridge or the dinner house restaurants will be built. It was explained that before the applicant even considers building the restaurants, they would need to know if adequate parking is available to inform future tenants and it is only the sign request that is related to the construction of the bridge. It was added, that it was easier to come to the Planning Commission with both of these items at once. She also expressed her concern about the construction of a lighted sign and with a tall sign being seen from her window. She also expressed concern with other businesses possibly wanting taller signs. Earl Hamilton, Sunrise Methodist Church, 7687 Long Lake Road, explained a signage situation that he experienced as a resident of the City of Blaine and that the business was required to reduce its signage so that it did not take away from the surrounding businesses and homes or they would not get a building permit. At this time, John Streeter, addressed the Planning Commission showing drawings of other shopping centers and explaining their proposed sign size and location of the pylon sign in respect to Mounds View Square. He explained that the request for Mounds View Square is very similar to the sign and its location as it currently exists at the Mendota Shopping Center. He pointed out that the signs are sized by traffic engineers and engineering Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 11111 Regular Meeting Page 12 firms that are in the field of sign design and when they are told the approximate location of the sign, they statistically figure the size of the sign and letters to attract the attention of passing traffic. He did note that the engineers have not yet been brought into this case and that the information that is applied in this particular case is based on past signage and is approximate. Discussion continued between the applicant and the Planning Commission regarding the similarities of the Mendota sign and the proposed sign for Mounds View Square. Commissioner Johnston expressed his concern with the possibility of other Mounds View Square tenants requesting separate signage for their businesses. He asked for more information on how a sign program would work. Director Sheldon explained that shopping centers of this size often need a comprehensive sign package which includes individual tenant signage, signage for the pad sites in the parking lot, entry signs and an overall center identification sign. Some cities allow the pad sites to have pole signs and . some monument signs. Some allow restaurants or other businesses on pad sites to have wall signs. A sign package or program allows some control over design, letter style and colors so you get an overall, coordinated appearance. A comment was made that a sign program is similar to a PUD for signs. Commissioner Brasaemle inquired about the signage for the other pad sites at Mounds View Square, specifically the proposed dinner house restaurants. The applicant responded by saying that tenants can be very demanding and usually request a pylon sign, but if the pad is Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 41111 Regular Meeting Page 13 too good to pass up they may go with the monument sign. Commissioner Brasaemle explained that possibly a monument sign, especially for the Bridgeman's site, may be more suitable and easier to see in this case because of the proposed bridge. He explained that we should address all the signs, not just the one sign, because if we deal with each of the other signs individually we could end up with something we don't really want. Commissioner Obert expressed his concern that if we approved some type of sign package, later on down the road it may not fit with the entire picture of what we are looking at for the proposed Highway 10 corridor. Director Sheldon informed the Commission that at the last Council work session, there was discussion on hiring a consulting firm on looking at a section of Highway 10 that is further to the north of Mounds View Square. The Planning Commission inquired if, along that section of Highway 10, the consultant will be looking at some design theme, and added if they are thinking big picture this should be a suitable theme that could be extended further along Highway 10. Director Sheldon believes that if the Planning Commission sets a good standard on this site, we will be okay on other shopping center sites that propose different signage. Commissioner Obert again expressed some concern and thinks the Planning Commission needs to make sure that these standards are set high enough. Commissioner Brasaemle inquired as to what the applicant's general sense of what dinner house restaurant tenant feelings are on pylon versus monument signage. Mr. Edward Paster • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 14 replied that usually the tenant wants an identification sign that separates them from everyone else and that monument signage may not always be accepted as the desired signage for their site. He also indicated that promoting the name of the tenants seems to now be the trend. He thinks that if we have the monument sign near the area where the pond and the proposed bridge will be located, as Staff as indicated, it would be innovative and a somewhat different approach. He added that it may take some convincing the restaurant that it would be adequate, but he would make a real hard sell for going to the monument sign with the tenant's name on it and eliminating the pylon sign for the tenant. He generally thinks the concept would work but may be a very hard sell. Chair Peterson inquired if the Planning Commission had everything they needed to give this case further consideration. Director Sheldon at this time indicated that she needs from the applicant a diagram that shows the locations where they want the signage and also a drawing of the signage itself as to what the package is that goes with the variance. She suggested then that if the Planning Commission is in agreement that shopping centers need to be looked at again in terms of how signage is handled, especially centers this large, a provision can be worked on that would allow for sign packages. She indicated that she could come back with the proposal for the center identification signs which the applicant feels are needed because of the bridge and can then get working on the overall signage. Commissioner Stevenson suggested that the Commission explore what the signage is of • other similar centers along Highway 10, such • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 15 as Northtown Commons and on the other side near Rainbow Foods and others in the area. JoAnn Colleen, 2617 County Road I, inquired as to whether the requested monument signage would also be located at the entrance on the north side of the shopping center and Mr. Streeter replied that they had not considered it. Motion/Second: Miller/Johnston to table the discussion of the signage for Mounds View Square until their next agenda meeting. 7 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Director Sheldon requested that the Planning Commission consider calling to order at their meeting on November 20 to take action on this item and it was the Planning Commission's consensus that it would be a possibility that they would call to order contingent upon receiving the adequate information regarding this case. Mr. Jim Price and Darwin Lindahl, representing 6. Information Meeting the applicant, Saturn Development, were Regarding the present. Request from Saturn Development to Community Development Director Sheldon Amend a Conditional reviewed the case from Saturn Development Use Permit, 2375 and Company for the expansion of the existing 2395 Highway 10, dealership in Mounds View located at 2375 Planning Case No. Highway 10. Director Sheldon explained that 464-96 Saturn is proposing to develop the property that is now occupied by the CITGO gas station at 2395 Highway 10. She reminded the Commission that they did receive a detailed site plan at their last meeting. She informed the Commission that the applicant, after review • of the Staff report, has revised their drawing to add the trash enclosure. She continued by Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 11111 Regular Meeting Page 16 saying there were two issues of concern; the first had to do with the amount of landscaping required on the site, and she indicated that they do have sufficient landscaping to meet the ten percent requirement, and the other item had to do with signage. She explained that the existing site has a pylon-style sign that identifies the dealership and a monument sign that identifies the used cars and that Saturn is proposing to add two monument signs at the entrances to the dealership, one on County Road H2 and the other along Highway 10, that would be the same size as the one existing (8.5 feet high by 5 feet wide) for a total of 42.7 square feet. Staff does not have any objections to the sign from an aesthetic standpoint and the ordinance indicates that they are within the area allowed, but the Code does not allow for 4 this number or the proposed placement of signs. She informed the Commission that the total area of signage permitted on the site allows 100 square feet of wall signage and a 340 foot pylon sign which totals 440 square feet. She informed them that the existing pylon sign is 100 square feet, the existing wall sign in 50 square feet, and the monument sign for used cars is 42 square feet for a total of 200 square feet which leaves 240 square feet. The additional monument signs are 85 square feet. She noted that the Code does not address monument signs at entrances and asked for direction from the Planning Commission on whether signage could be redistributed through a variance, because it is less than the signage allowed and it improves how the site functions. Commissioner Miller asked if Saturn's request was actually more of a directional type signage and Director Sheldon indicated that Saturn's request is for signage slightly larger than what 4111 is accepted as directional signage. Separate from the signage, Director Sheldon stated that Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 41 Regular Meeting Page 17 all aspects of the plan for the site are fine and recommended that the conditional use permit that allows them to expand the site and add the additional repair services and car wash be approved. Elaine Johnson, 2287 County Road H2, expressed her concern with the existing lighting of the dealership. She also indicated that when Saturn was built, they said they were going to have only oil change services and they were told that there would not be any other facilities for repair work. Concern with noise from the trucks coming from and going to the business park was also expressed and that they have called the City numerous times but nothing is ever done. • The Commission inquired as to what lighting was causing the concern (e.g. the service door being opened). Ms. Johnson indicated that it was the general lighting being bright and that at times the lighting is on all night. The applicant indicated that the lights are on timers and only the security lighting is on all night. He also indicated that the Police have requested that they keep more of their lighting on all night but they indicated that they would not. He added that the lights go off automatically at 11:00 p.m. Mr. Jim Price, of Saturn Development, presented a sketch showing the lighting standards for the site and further discussion took place regarding this issue. Chair Peterson suggested that in the future, in the public hearing notices that are sent to residents, perhaps we can inform the residents Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 1111 Regular Meeting Page 18 that they can stop by City Hall if they desire to examine the materials for each case. Brian Kraft, 5290 Pinewood Court, requested that perhaps the lighting can be turned off an hour earlier and suggested that perhaps they be turned off around 10:00 p.m. He indicated that he does have many tall trees in his yard that does block much of the lighting, however, some does come through at night. He is okay with adding additional service area and lighting, but is requesting that it be turned off earlier and that possibly the service door be kept closed by 10:00 p.m. Chair Peterson expressed his concern with the hours of operation and Commissioner Miller reminded the Commission that the original conditional use permit indicates that the hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Director Sheldon wanted to make it clear to the applicant that if the conditional use permit states this, that the employees should not be working past 10:00 p.m. Mr. Price informed the Commission that there was a period of time where the service department was working past 10:00 p.m. because of their full capacity, but indicated that with additional service bays, it should eliminate this problem. Elaine Johnson, 2287 County Road H2, again expressed her disappointment because she felt she was promised by the City Council that it would just be oil changes and that is why it was approved. She also expressed concern with the traffic on the County Road H2 entrance to the service area and with the speakers and paging system. Mr. Price indicated that the original permit allows for a paging system, but does not allow playing music and they have not 411 done that. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 19 Chair Peterson expressed that he is pleased with Saturn's operation and until this evening had not heard of any complaints. Mr. Price again expressed that the reason they are requesting the expansion is due to customer demand. Commissioner Stevenson inquired as to what the applicant's time frame is regarding the expansion. The applicant indicated that it would probably take place in the Spring but that they need to close on the land because there are tanks on the CITGO property. These tanks are not leaking now, but they want to remove them as soon as possible so they may close on the property as soon as possible. • Commissioner Brasaemle expressed that he understands the concerns of the residents but he does think this development is good for Mounds View and that Saturn does have a good reputation, and he too is concerned with the potential environmental problems of the existing gas station and that the tanks probably have not been upgraded and probably will not be upgraded to current standards. (Commissioner Brooks left at 9:30 p.m.) Chair Peterson asked the applicant if it is normal not to have gas pumps at the Saturn facility? Mr. Price indicated that they do not install gas pumps at any of their stores because of the problems with tanks. Commissioner Miller inquired as to how we address the concerns of the adjacent property owner and with the promise of the Council that there would be oil changes only? Director Sheldon responded by saying that the applicant has the right to apply for the expansion. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 411 Regular Meeting Page 20 Commissioner Brasaemle recommended that the Council address this issue since they made the promise and because they will take final action on this request. Chair Peterson reminded the Commission that a couple of years ago there was an application made for another service facility in Mounds View and as part of the process, a model set of guidelines was put together for services and hours of operation and perhaps we could review these guidelines. Commissioner Brasaemle asked the resident at 2287 County Road H2 what it was like when Loose Ends was on the site as far as parking and lighting. The resident indicated that the lighting was not as bright but parking and hours • of operation were a problem. Commissioner Miller indicated that in the original conditional use permit it was stated that only minor repairs and maintenance shall be allowed on site excluding major engine overhaul, transmission replacement, and body work. Director Sheldon indicated that this has been replaced with a new condition which is noted on Page 7 of Resolution No. 483-96. Director Sheldon reminded the Commission that this item is in front of the Commission for action this evening and indicated that the signage issue is not included in the proposed resolution, and would need to be addressed at a later time. Director Sheldon noted that the Commission needed to take action this evening in order for this case to be heard at the City Council on November 25. It was concluded that the concerns with the • lighting brought before the Planning Commission this evening were with the original Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 21 lighting. Director Sheldon at this time recited the section on "glare" in the Zoning Code which indicates that any lighting used to illuminate off- street parking shall be arranged to deflect light away from adjoining residential property and that the source of the lighting shall be hooded or controlled. She indicated that the Code gives a measurement of how much light is to be at the property line and that these measurements will tell you if direct rays are going off the site. She indicated that the measurements of the Saturn facility show that the light levels at the property line are within the limits in the Code, although you may still be able to see the point of light and our Code does not control this. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that with • the expansion, it will not increase the existing amount of light. Elaine Johnson, 2287 County Road H2, expressed concern with why they were not notified of the work session meeting. Director Sheldon explained that the Planning Commission is not approving this item, and that they are only making a recommendation to the City Council. She further explained that the City is not required to give any notice at the Planning Commission level, only of the City Council public hearing, and that we have recently added notices at the Planning Commission level to make sure residents are informed earlier in the process. She added that we could notify residents of the work session also, but indicated that the City mainly wants to make sure people are here for the meeting where the decision is made. Chair Peterson asked Director Sheldon to review the conditions contained in proposed Resolution No. 483-96. Director Sheldon noted Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 22 that some of the items were brought in from the original conditional use permit and some were new. Commissioner Stevenson requested that in item 1 of the conditions that a Park Fund Dedication fee requirement be added. There was brief discussion on procedures of replatting of the property or perhaps vacating the lot line and also requiring a park dedication fee. Director Sheldon indicated the Staffs reason for the condition is that we need to deal with the Building Code and the question of setbacks because this property includes three lots, but it was not Staffs intent to raise the issue of park dedication. She indicated that she would consult with our City Attorney regarding the proper procedures for removing • the lot line and with the Building Official regarding Building Code requirements. She suggested that the condition be reworded to say prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the property owner shall vacate the lot line between 2375 and 2385 Highway 10 if deemed necessary by the City Attorney. Commissioner Obert requested that the condition regarding prohibiting welding on the site be removed from the resolution. Motion/Second: Miller/Peterson approved Resolution No. 483-96 recommending approval of an amended conditional use permit and a development review for the expansion of the Saturn Dealership at 2375 and 2395 Highway 10, Planning Case No. 464-96. 5 ayes 0 nays 1 abstention Motion Carried • (Commissioner Stevenson abstained due to his son being employed at the Saturn Dealership.) Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 23 Chair Peterson informed the applicant that this item will be heard by the City Council on November 25. Planning Associate Ericson provided an update 7. Staff Reports/ on Planning Case No. 460-96: Auto Central Information Items which was heard at the October 7, 1996 meeting. He explained that he contacted the applicants to inform them of the Commission's concerns with the site and Staff's recommendations, and the applicants indicated that there were problems with the lease and, therefore, they asked for the case to be put on hold and so it was removed from the November 6 agenda. Mr. Ericson added that this week the applicants indicated that there is a possibility that it may now go through and so requested a meeting with Staff to go over the • Planning Commission's requirements. Coincidently, he had a meeting with Norwest Bank, which owns the site, and possible buyers that had a very similar proposal for the same location. He also noted that the bank offered the property to the City, but after seeing that the property had a lot more interest, they pulled back their offer. He indicated that Cathy Bennett, our Economic Development Coordinator, was preparing a resolution for the City Council to authorize Staff to negotiate purchase of the property if the bank changes its mind and, once again, offers it to the City. Community Development Director Sheldon informed the Planning Commission of items that are scheduled to be heard at their next meeting; the variances on the signs for Paster Enterprises and for Saturn Development, a lot split request from Larry Beach, and a draft ordinance regarding the telecommunications issue. a Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 24 Director Sheldon informed the Commission that she had learned from church officials that the New Apostolic Church's purchase contract for the property located at 3025 County Road H was no longer valid and the application for building a church at that location was denied by the Council based on the fact that there was no purchase agreement in place. She also indicated that there is a rumor that the property has been sold to a person who plans to fix up the house, then eventually tear it down to build a new house on the site but that there is some confusion as to who actually has the rights to sell the property. The ordinance on revised site sizes and setbacks for churches and other non-residential uses will be on Council agenda for first reading • and public hearing at their meeting on November 12. She asked the Commissioners if any of them would like to attend the meeting to represent the Planning Commission. Commissioner Obert indicated that he would be there. It was also noted that both Commissioners Obert and Miller attended the Council work session on November 4 to represent the Planning Commission regarding communication between commissions. Commissioner Obert commented that Commissioner Miller made a very good presentation but that the Council was unresponsive and he expressed his concern with the communication problem. Director Sheldon suggested that this item be discussed at the retreat that will be scheduled between Staff and the City Council. Director Sheldon stated that she had included the latest issue of the "Planning Commissioners 41 Journal" in their packet. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 25 Chair Peterson noted the members present at 8. Chairperson and the October 23, 1996 special meeting, which Planning included Commissioners Miller, Obert, Brooks, Commissioners Stevenson, and Chair Peterson. Reports (Commissioners Johnston and Brasaemle had excused absences). Planning Associate Ericson was also present. Commissioner Johnston brought up a concern regarding the conditional use permit that was approved for Colonial Village Mobile Home Park approximately one year ago which allowed them to sell homes. He indicated that this permit should be coming up for review. He informed the Commission that he has received complaints regarding the Park and added that there are people in the park that are unhappy about it. • There being no further business before the 9. Adjournment Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, PkAXA-161,-- Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director • ID MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 483-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF 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 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 Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding g this proposal: 1. Planning Application dated 10-7-96 2. Zoning Map 3. Staff Report dated October 9, 1996 4. Staff Report dated November 6, 1996 5. Letter from Francis J. Coyle dated 10/7/96 6. City Council Resolution 4195 7. City Council Resolution 4611 8. Site Plan dated 10/30/96 9. Landscape Plan dated 10/30/96 10. Floorplan& Building Elevations received 10/4/96 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact regarding the requirements set forth in Sections 1114.04, Subd. 8, 1114.04, Subd. 3, 1114.04, Subd. 2, and Section 1125.01 Subd. 3: A. Dimensional Requirements & Hours of Operation • Minimum Required Provided Met? Lot Area 87,120 sq.ft. and 142,703 sq.ft. yes Lot Width 150 feet 764 feet yes Planning Commission Resolution No.483-96 November 6, 1996 Page 2 Number of Lots Single or Contiguous yes yes Setbacks Front 30 feet 76 feet yes Side 10 feet 184 feet(east side) yes 232 feet(west side) yes Rear 20 feet 36 feet yes Landscaped Greenspace 10%or 10,445 sq.ft. 33,606 sq.ft. yes Parking 22 spaces(service) 20 spaces(service) no' 27 spaces(employees) 35 spaces(employees) yes 126 spaces(inventory)2 Hours of Operation 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. yes B. Building and Site Design; Landscaping (Section 1114.04, Subd. 2.a., 3.b., 2.f., 3.c., 8.e., 3.f, 2.c., 3.i., 8.1., 8.m.) The proposal is an extension of the existing Saturn dealership. The applicant is maintaining the same architectural character in the building expansion as is in the original, . and will be landscaping the added site area so the effect will be one seamless development. All areas which are not in building or landscaping will be paved and the parking area will be bordered by a concrete curb. The site does not border property in a residential district and therefore screening and buffering is not required. A landscaped area at least 10 feet in width is shown along all of the property lines. The landscape plan shows a row of Black Hills Spruce along the north property line of the added site area 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. 1 With compliance with conditions,the proposal will meet the requirement for 22 spaces for customers. • 2 The Zoning Code does not have any specific requirement for parking spaces for inventory or display. Planning Commission Resolution No. 483-96 • November 6, 1996 Page 3 The applicant is proposing two additional monument signs on the site: one at the northernmost driveway on Highway 10 and one at the easternmost driveway on County Road H2. Both of these signs would have the same dimensions as the existing monument sign on Highway 10 (42.7 square feet). The applicant's reason for the additional signage is to better identify driveway entrances and direct customer traffic. The total signage on the site including the new signage would be: • existing pylon sign 10'x 10' on 26' high supports; area= 100 sq.ft. • existing wall sign 23" x 26.5'; area= 50.8 sq.ft. • used car sign, ground mounted 8' 6-1/2" x 5'=42.7 sq.ft. • 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. The signage on the site is well within the total signage area allowed. Square footage has been redistributed to the monument signs from the allowances for tenant and pylon signs. • The allowance for the two additional monument signs requires approval of a variance by the Planning Commission, which is noted in the conditions on this recommendation of approval. D. Drainage (Section 1114.04 Subd. 2.g., 3.e., 8.f.) This conditional use permit combines two existing, developed commercial sites. Changes in drainage patterns are not anticipated. A condition on this recommendation of approval requires favorable review by the City Engineer prior to forwarding the application to City Council. E. Outdoor Storage, Sales and Service (Section 1114.04 Subd. 3.k., 3.o., 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.) The accessory buildings are proposed. • Planning Commission Resolution No. 483-96 • November 6, 1996 Page 4 G. Noise (Section 1114.04 Subd. 2.k., 3.n., 8.p., 8.q.) The original approval including a condition regarding the use of outside loudspeakers, which has been added to the list of conditions on this recommendation of approval. The Planning Commission is not aware of any problems regarding noise on this site. H. Access/Test Drive Routes (Section 1114.04 Subd. 2.i. 3.1., 8.o.) The applicant is proposing two driveway entrances on Highway 10 and two on County Road H2, and removal of two of the driveway entrances on the Citgo property. The driveways to be removed are closest to the Highway 10/County Road H2 intersection. This will improve traffic patterns in the area and remove a conflict point. The original approval including a condition regarding test drive routes, which has been added to the list of conditions on this recommendation of approval. I. Stacking Space (Car Wash) (Section 1114.04 Subd. 2.b., 2.e.) The car wash proposed for this site is for customer cars only and not for the general public. The business owner has the ability to control the flow of cars, and the volume of cars is expected to be less than would be the case with a stand alone car wash business open to the public. The site does not abut residential districts. The area behind the car wash faces a business, and will be screened by Black Hills Spruce. J. Fuel Pumps (Section 1114.04 Subd 3.h.) No fuel pumps are proposed at this facility; this criteria does not apply. K. Criteria for Approval of Conditional Use Permits (Section 1125.01 Subd. 3) (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. The proposal represents an expansion of an existing business. The site is served by an existing arterial highway and a County road, such that traffic can access the site without going through the residential neighborhoods. The site is served by utilities. Because the proposal is for a business, no burden on parks or schools is anticipated. • Planning Commission Resolution No. 483-96 November 6, 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. There will be a Planning Commission Resolution No.483-96 November 6, 1996 Page 6 cooperative spirit between the government and citizens,whether residential or business, when setting regulations into code. Environmental and aesthetic consciousness will be demonstrated by a redesigned Highway 10,a network of inter-connected trails,parks,and wetland spaces,and active citizen participation in ecological activities." Two goals relative to Highway 10, and a goal on business climate, were adopted and are included in an attachment to this report. The expansion of the Saturn dealership furthers these goals, and is supported. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. The site has adequate access from an arterial highway. No added traffic congestion is expected. Eliminating one of the driveways on Highway 10 and County Road H2 will reduce traffic hazards and conflict points. (8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The proposal will use a previously developed site which is served by existing utilities and 111 roads. There is an existing drainage ditch along Highway 10. This recommendation of approval includes a condition that a favorable review be received from MnDOT and the Rice Creek Watershed District. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the conditional use permit request as submitted by Saturn Development, and with compliance with the conditions stated in this resolution, meets the criteria set forth in Sections 1114.04, Subd. 2, 3, and 8 and Section 1125.01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the conditional use permit be granted, and the request for development review be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the property owner shall vacate the lot line between 2375 and 2395 Highway 10, if deemed necessary by the City Attorney. 2. 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 40 Planning Commission Resolution No. 483-96 November 6, 1996 Page 7 obtain approval for a variance for sign area allowed on the site, in signs other than the pylon sign, or for a code revisions which would allow this additional sign area. 3. Prior to this case being forwarded to the City Council for action, the applicant shall revise the plans to include the following: a. A detail on the site plan of the lighting fixtures, showing style of luminare and dimensions of lighting standards b. A note on the site plan stating"Signage shown on this plan is subject to separate permit. The monument signs shown at the westernmost entrance on Highway 10 and the easternmost entrance on County Road H2 exceed the standard sign allowances for sign area in the Mounds View Municipal Code and are not approved as part of this plan. These signs may be allowed if approval of a variance is obtained from the City of Mounds View." c. Revision to the distribution of parking spaces so there are 22 spaces for • service customers and at least 27 spaces for employees. A detail shall be added to the plan showing how the spaces or areas of the parking are to be signed to make it clear where customer and employee parking are located. 4. Prior to this case being forwarded to the City Council for action, the applicant shall obtain written comments from the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District indicating that the plan will provide adequate site drainage. 5. Prior to this case being forwarded to the City Council for action, the applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the test drive route described in the map dated 2/19/92 and refcrred to in Rcsolution 4195. 6. 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. 7. A vehicle wash bay is permitted on this site. The use of this bay shall be for customers of the dealership only and not the general public. The stacking of vehicles waiting for washing shall be confined to this site and shall not interfere with vehicle circulation on the site. • 8. Any cars taken on trade and not intended for resale shall not remain on the site for a period of time exceeding 72 hours. • Planning Commission Resolution No. 483-96 November 6, 1996 Page 8 9. No outside merchandizing of accessories shall be allowed. 10. All transport truck deliveries and pick-up shall be conducted on site during regular business hours. 11. Outside loudspeakers shall be utilized for paging purpose only. 12. The hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Where the conditions contained in this resolution differ from those stated in Resolution 4195 and 4611, the conditions stated in this resolution shall prevail. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of November, 1996 • Jerry Pete on, hairperson ATTEST: TAAAAL Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director devcases\464-96\reso483.pc • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 485-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST IN TILL PARKING RATIOS APPLICABLE TO THE MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER AT 2535-2585 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 463-96. WHEREAS, Mounds View Square Assoc. LLP has applied for a variance in the parking ratios applicable to the Mounds View Square Shopping Center at 2535-2585 Highway 10, which property is described as follows: Part lying northeasterly of the centerline of State Trunk Highway 10 of NE 1/4 of N 1/4(Subject to Roads and Highways) in Section 7, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Square Shopping Center is located in the B-3 zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the site plan for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center was approved in 110 1989 which the provision of 503 parking spaces; and, WHEREAS, the property owner obtained approval of a variance in parking requirements to allow the use of 26 parking spaces for construction of trash dumpster enclosures, which resulted in the reduction of parking on the site from 503 to 477 spaces; and, WHEREAS, the City has determined by previous decisions that the 477 parking spaces are sufficient to provide parking for the square footages and uses approved for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center; and, WHEREAS, the property owner is proposing to make the following changes in square footages and uses on the site at some time in the future: Existing Existing+Expansion Use Square Footage Square Footage Retail: 62,005 66,005 (+4,000) Storage: 16,645 17,645 (+1,000) Dining: 8,050 11,290(+3240 net) Kitchen: 6,060 7,320 (+1260 net) Ma1VMaintenance/Restrooms 9,275 9,275 Total 102,035 111,535 411 Planning Commission Resolution No. 485-96 November 6, 1996 Page 2 WHEREAS, the change in the square footages results from the removal of the Hardee's and Bridgeman's Restaurants (4,800 sq.ft. in dining and 2,700 sq.ft. in kitchen) and the addition of two larger dinner house style restaurants, and the addition of 4,000 square feet of retail space and 1,000 square feet of storage space in the main retail building; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Mounds View Square Assoc. LLP to allow a variance in the parking ratios applicable to the Mounds View Square Shopping Center, as follows: Retail Space 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet Dinner House Style Restaurants 1 space per 80 square feet of dining or kitchen area Storage,Etc no parking requirement for areas in storage,maintenance, restrooms or the enclosed mall area WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact regarding the requirements for granting of variances as set forth in Section 1125.02 Subd. 2 of the Mounds View Zoning Code: . 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. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mounds View Square is the largest shopping center in Mounds View, and it is in this shopping center that the effect of a higher-than-typical parking ratio, established by the City, has its greatest effect. The shopping center has been operating successfully at a much lower ratio (4.67 spaces per 1000 gross square feet) than is required for retail space in the City's parking regulations (10 spaces per 1000 square feet). A parking demand study completed in 1989 by Benshoof and Associates reported that the Urban Land Institute performed in-depth research on a combined total of approximately 170 shopping centers. (This study is a part of the file on the rezoning for Hardee's Restaurant.) This research showed that a parking ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1000 square feet is adequate for all but the busiest 19 hours of the year. The applicant has not caused the multiplier effect of a higher-than-typical parking ratio on the size of his shopping center. The development of dinner house style restaurants is not anticipated by the parking regulations which require one parking space for every 40 square feet of dining area and one parking space for every 80 square feet of kitchen. Typical ratios for dinner house restaurants are one space for every 80 square feet of gross square footage, to recognize the slower turnover of customers. • Planning Commission Resolution No. 485-96 November 6, 1996 Page 3 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The parking ratios for retail square footage in the Mounds View Zoning Code create an excessive requirement for shopping centers of this size. The City's parking ratio at one space per 100 feet is more than twice the ratio used in other nearby jurisdictions, and when applied to a shopping center of over 100,000 square feet, creates a burdensome requirement. The more typical requirement is 4.0 - 5.0 spaces per 1000 square feet. Allowing the use of 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet for retail space is the minimum variance needed to address the hardship. The parking ratios for restaurants also create an excessive requirement for dinner house style restaurants, since these restaurants have a slower turnover of customers. The minimum adjustment needed in parking ratios for dinner house style restaurants is to require one parking space for each 80 square feet of gross floor area. 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. • 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. Owners of shopping centers similar in size to Mounds View Square and of dinner house style restaurants would face the same difficulty that the applicant is experiencing due to the higher-than-typical parking ratio for these uses in the Zoning Code. Using a ratio of 10 spaces per 1000 square feet for retail space, and 1 space per 40 square feet for dining space requires an excessive investment in parking which is especially acute with the shopping center of this size. f. 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. The existing shopping center contains 102,035 square feet and has 477 parking spaces, or a ratio of 4.67 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. The applicant has nine shopping centers, of which four are in the same size range as Mounds View Square. The average parking ratio for these four centers is 4.72 parking spaces per 1000 gross square feet • regardless of use. The successful operation of these centers illustrates the fact that using a ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet for retail space is an appropriate ratio and will not be detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Code. Use of a ratio of 10 spaces per 1000 • Planning Commission Resolution No.485-96 November 6, 1996 Page 4 square feet is burdensome. The parking lot for Mounds View Square is of sufficient size, and the shopping center contains nighttime and daytime uses with offsetting parking demands that no overflow parking or adverse effect on adjacent properties is anticipated. The shopping center is separated from surrounding uses by streets. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the criteria for granting of a variance in this case have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby approve a variance in the parking ratios applicable to the Mounds View Square Shopping Center as follows: 1. The parking ratios applicable to the addition and deletion of square footage proposed by the applicant in Planning Case No. 461-96 and 463-96, and as shown in#2 below, shall be as follows: Retail Space 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet Dinner House Style Restaurants 1 space per 80 square feet of dining or kitchen area • Storage,Etc no parking requirement for areas in storage,maintenance, restrooms or the enclosed mall area 2. The existing 477 parking spaces on the property are deemed adequate to serve the square footage and uses in place as of this date, which include the following: Existing Existing+Expansion Use Square Footage Square Footage Retail: 62,005 66,005 (+4,000) Storage: 16,645 17,645 (+1,000) Dining: 8,050 11,290(+3240 net) - . :,i.i , i " .i Mall/Maintenance/Restrooms 9,275 9,275 Total 102,035 111,535 • • Planning Commission Resolution No.485-96 November 6, 1996 Page 5 3. Prior to issuance of any building permits for changes in square footage at the Mounds View Square Shopping Center, other than interior remodeling, the property owner shall obtain approval for development review as provided in Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Adopted this 6th day of November, 1996. Jerry Peter airperson ATTEST: 011111WLOL Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director • • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 486-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE JOINT USE OF PARKING FACILI'1'1ES AT MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER AT 2535-2585 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 461-96. WHEREAS, Mounds View Square Assoc. LLP has applied for a conditional use permit to allow joint use of parking facilities at Mounds View Square Shopping Center at 2535-2585 • Highway 10, which property is described as follows: Part lying northeasterly of the centerline of State Trunk Highway 10 of NE 1/4 of N 1/4(Subject to Roads and Highways) in Section 7, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Square Shopping Center is located in the B-3 zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the site plan for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center was approved in • 1989 which the provision of 503 parking spaces; and, WHEREAS, the property owner obtained approval of a variance in parking requirements to allow the use of 26 parking spaces for construction of trash dumpster enclosures, which resulted in the reduction of parking on the site from 503 to 477 spaces; and, WHEREAS, the City has determined by previous decisions that the 477 parking spaces are sufficient to provide parking for the square footages and uses approved for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center; and, WHEREAS, the property owner is proposing to make the following changes in square footages and uses on the site at some time in the future: Existing Existing+Expansion Use Square Footage Square Footage Retail: 62,005 66,005 (+4,000) Storage: 16,645 17,645 (+1,000) Dining: 8,050 11,290(+3240 net) Kitchen: 6,060 7,320 (+1260 net) Mall/Maintenance/Restrooms 9,275 9,275 Total 102,035 111,535 • • Planning Commission Resolution No. 486-96 November 6, 1996 Page 2 WHEREAS, the changes in square footages result from the removal of the Hardee's and Bridgeman's Restaurants(4,800 sq.ft. in dining and 2,700 sq.ft. in kitchen) and the addition of • two larger dinner house style restaurants, and the addition of 4,000 square feet of retail space and 1,000 square feet of storage space in the main retail building; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows for a conditional use permit to be granted for joint use of parking where there are offsetting daytime and nighttime uses; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact regarding the requirements for granting of a conditional use permit for joint use of parking as set forth in Section 1121.15 of the Mounds View Zoning Code: (a) The building or use for which application is being made to utilize the off-street parking facilities provided by another building or use shall be located within three hundred feet (300')of such parking facilities and not separated by a public way. All of the uses proposed as part of this joint parking arrangement are also part of a coordinated shopping center. Because of the distribution of retail space and the parking, it • is feasible for customers to find parking within 300 feet of their destination. A condition has been included in this recommendation of approval that would require employees to park in spaces behind the main retail building, to assure that the maximum parking is available for customers. (b) The applicant shall show that there is not substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the two(2)buildings or uses for which joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed. The Zoning Code acknowledges that restaurants are primarily nighttime uses, and retail businesses are primarily daytime uses. It should also be noted that,because of its size and the variety of tenants, customers at Mounds View Square would be expected to combine trips and use several different businesses. An allowance for some overlap in parking requirements is logical in a shopping center of this size. (c) A properly drawn legal instrument,executed by the parties concerned for joint use of off- street parking facilities,duly approved as to form and manner of execution by the City Attorney,shall be filed with the City Clerk-Administrator and recorded with the Register of Deeds,Ramsey County. A condition has been included in this recommendation of approval that joint parking and access easements be recorded against the property for the benefit of all tenants prior to • any development reviews being approved or building permits being issued for the proposed expansion or the dinner house restaurants. . Planning Commission Resolution No.486-96 November 6, 1996 Page 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the criteria for granting of a conditional use permit for joint use of parking have been met. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has granted a variance in the parking ratios which apply to the uses in Mounds View Square such that the parking required for the expanded shopping center would be 492 spaces (Resolution No. 485-96; Planning Case No. 463-96). The Planning Commission regards the approval of revised parking ratios as a prerequisite to recommending approval of this conditional use permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Mounds View City Council approval of a conditional use permit for joint use of parking for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center with the following conditions: 1. The parking ratios applicable to the addition and deletion of square footage proposed by the applicant in Planning Case No. 461-96 and 463-96, and as shown in#2 below, shall be as follows: • Retail Space 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet Dinner House Style Restaurants 1 space per 80 square feet of dining or kitchen area Storage,Etc no parking requirement for areas in storage,maintenance, restrooms or the enclosed mall area 2. The existing 477 parking spaces on the property are deemed adequate to serve the square footage and uses in place as of this date, which include the following: Existing Existing+Expansion Use Square Footage Square Footage Retail: 62,005 66,005 (+4,000) orage: , Dining: 8,050 11,290(+3240 net) Kitchen: 6,060 7,320 (+1260 net) Mall/Maintenance/Restrooms 9,275 9,275 Total 102,035 111,535 3. Prior to issuance of any building permits for changes in square footage at the Mounds View Square Shopping Center, other than interior remodeling, the property owner shall obtain approval for development review as provided in Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. 1111/ Planning Commission Resolution No.486-96 November 6, 1996 Page 4 4. The reduction in parking spaces required shall be from 492 spaces to 454 spaces or 38 spaces, which represents an 8%reduction in the parking requirement each for daytime uses (256 x .08 =21) and for nighttime uses (236 x .08 = 18). 5. The property owner shall require of its tenants that employees park in the parking spaces behind the main retail building to the extent parking is available, to assure that the maximum parking is available for customers. The property owner shall supply a copy of a notice to the tenants of this requirement. 6. The property owner shall submit a joint parking and access easement, allowing for use of the parking area and access drives by all of the tenants in the shopping center, for approval by the Community Development Director. The easement shall be recorded against the property for the benefit of all tenants concurrent with any development reviews being approved and prior to any building permits being issued for the proposed expansion or the dinner house restaurants. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. • Adopted this 6th day of November, 1996. Jerry Peters n, Chairperson ATTEST: Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director •