Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-1997 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 21, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:04 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Commissioners Brooks, Johnston, Obert, Miller, Brasaemle, Stevenson and Chair Peterson. Also Present: Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson and Council Liaison Koopmeiners. • 3. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizens requests or comments from the floor. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 480-97, Conditional Use Permit for Kenneth Newcomb, 7150 Knollwood Drive 2 Planning Case No. 481-97, C•naitional Use Permit for Noel Barragan, 7765 Spring Lake Road 2 Planning Case No. 483-97, Conditional Use Permit for Merryville Farm Market, Mounds View Square Shopping Center 3 Planning Case No. 484-97, Variance for Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity 5377 Quincy Street 4 i • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 2 5. Planning Case No. 480-97 7150 Knollwood Drive Applicant: Kenneth Newcombe Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage (1,264 square feet). The applicant was not present. Planning Associate Ericson informed the Commission that the applicant has provided Staff with an updated site/drainage/landscape/sign plan since their last meeting. He added that the applicant brought in another revised lighting plan that day that addresses a couple of concerns that Staff had. Mr. Ericson distributed to the Planning Commission a copy of a photometric analysis of the site and briefly discussed the revisions to the Plan. Mr. Ericson thoroughly reviewed the Staff Report dated April 2, 1997, regarding this • item. He noted that the City Forester had made some changes to the landscape plan. Mr. Ericson informed the Commission that Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 500-97 with stipulations. Commissioner Johnston asked for clarification on the lighting that is proposed. Director Sheldon offered some background regarding the lighting and explained what the Code currently requires. She explained that some of the photometric readings they are receiving are a little high near the property line and suggested that the applicant rerun the numbers using the heights and wattages that Staff had suggested. Commissioner Miller asked if there were restrictions as to when the lights had to be turned off on the site. Director Sheldon did not recall that there were any conditions in the resolution but that it could be added. Director Sheldon indicated that a main concern was wattage and spillage of lighting into the residential areas. Ron Ostrander explained that they decided to go to the higher wattage lighting because Mr. Ericson had initially asked that they reduce the number of light standards. Mr. Ostrander indicated that he would run the numbers again if necessary. He added that he has been dealing with a couple of lighting designers on this issue to find a way to avoid spillage into the street and avoid offending any • neighbors. • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 3 Commissioner Brasaemle requested that the lighting plan be clarified since it did not coincide with the description that Mr. Ostrander was giving. Mr. Ostrander explained that he just came from the lighting designer and had not had a chance to review the plan. He explained that the light pole that Commissioner Brasaemle was referring to is intended to be a 400 watt bulb not a 1000 watt bulb as indicated on the plan. Mr. Ostrander requested that the pole sign near Highway 10 be left illuminated at all times. He also asked that the back side of his building be allowed to stay lit for security purpose. He indicated that the parking lot lights would be turned off when the business is closed. Commissioner Miller asked about the directional signs and Mr. Ostrander indicated that these signs will not be lit. Commissioner Brooks asked what types of auto repair activity would be taking place. Mr. Ostrander indicated that there would be no auto repair, only auto maintenance such as oil changes, transmission services, fluid exchanges, wiper blade changes, etc. Commissioner Johnston asked if air tools would be used. Mr. Ostrander indicated that they may be doing tire rotations on an infrequent • basis, possibly three to four rotations a day. Commissioner Miller asked what arrangements have been made to get rid of the fluid from the fluid exchanges. Mr. Ostrander explained that he has contracted with Scrap Busters who will recycle the fluids. He explained that the used oil would be piped into a tank approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and would be recycled. Commissioner Obert asked if an oil filter cruncher would be used. Mr. Ostrander explained that since Scrap Busters does not require filters to be crushed, he would prefer not to crush his own filters if possible. Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Circle, asked where Spot's Quick Lube will - - brought up the Texaco Muffler shop across the street. Mr. Ostrander explained that the demographic study done by CITCO did not even put Texaco in the same category as far as competition because Texaco's primary function is muffler changes with quick lube as a secondary use. Jim Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, expressed his concern with the architectural look of the proposed building and its "70's-type" look. Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Director, addressed the Planning Commission and explained that one of the things that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is trying to accomplish with the corridor study of Highway 10 is to tie in design standards to • develop a character for the corridor. She informed them that this study will be discussed at the April 7th City Council meeting. Chair Peterson explained to • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mr. Miller that the Planning Commission presently does not get involved with building characteristics partly because there are no standards that apply to the City as a whole. Mr. Ostrander clarified that CITGO did perform a study which indicated that the look of the proposed building is appealing to the public. Commissioner Johnston read an excerpt from the Mounds View Code regarding the criteria for approval of B-3, minor auto repair facilities, and how they pertain to architectural appearance. Chair Peterson added that property owners have certain rights to build in certain zoned districts. He continued by saying that this property is zoned B-3 which allows the current proposal. Chair Peterson asked Mr. Ericson if there were any outstanding issues remaining. Mr. Ericson explained that in addition to the lighting issue, the revised landscape plan must be addressed and easement documents must be prepared. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to approve Resolution No. 500-97 with conditions as discussed by the Planning Commission. The needed revisions of the landscaping and lighting were briefly discussed. Chair Peterson explained to the audience that the action taken by the Planning Commission that evening was a recommendation to the City Council and that various minor details could be worked out prior to Council action. Commissioner Obert expressed that he felt the applicant should be allowed to keep the wall packs in the rear of the building on all night and it was decided that a condition would be added that indicates the overhead lighting must be turned off at night which meant that turning off any other lighting would be up to the discretion of the applicant. Motion Carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays Chair Peterson informed the applicant that the next step would be City Council action on April 14th. 6. Planning Case No. 477-97 Silver Lake Road and Highway 10 Applicant: D.W. Jones, Inc. Request for a Rezoning from B-2 to Planned Unit Development to allow a gas station with fast food and car wash components; restaurant; senior housing complex; and office • building. • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 5 The applicant, D.W. Jones, Inc, was represented at the meeting. Planning Associate Ericson reviewed the Staff Report dated April 2, 1997, regarding this request. He explained that the request consists of a motor fuel station with a fast food and car wash component, restaurant, senior housing complex, and an office building. Mr. Ericson reminded the Commission that the applicant, at their last meeting, provided a tax impact report, market and traffic analyses and that the Commission had expressed some concern over the gas station and car wash components of the project indicating that the City did not need any more of these types of uses. He added that he has received a number of letters from residents bearing the same sentiment. He distributed a map showing all of the gas stations and car washes located within the City (7 car washes, 6 gas stations). He indicated that this use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Highway 10, Area 9, Study. He explained that one of the unresolved issues is whether or not there is "too much" proposed for this piece of property. He indicated that the applicant is asking that the Planning Commission take action this evening regarding this request if • possible. Chair Peterson requested that a minor change be made to the map of car washes. He pointed out that Saturn should be added to the map. Commissioner Stevenson believes that there would be at least 400 car washes a month at the Saturn Dealership. Since this is a significant amount of water usage for the City, he also believes it should be added to the list. Community Development Director Sheldon explained that the applicant is requesting that this request move forward. Director Sheldon explained that Staff felt they could not prepare a resolution because they did not know what the Planning Commission's reasoning was and what points should be included in the resolution. She explained that one possible option would be to take a straw poll of the Planning Commission regarding the general concept of the project in order to give Staff some direction and the resolution could be brought to the next meeting. The other option would be to hold the discussion and Staff would prepare the resolution without taking a vote. She explained that having a vote taken that evening would not result in the proposal getting to City Council any sooner than if it was decided at Planning Commission's next meeting. Staff's advice was to have a PUD plan developed that would include a detailed explanation of what was approved and what further issues would need to be resolved at later steps in the process (lighting, signage, traffic and access, dimensional requirements for building such as heights and setbacks, uses • allowed, drainage, etc.). • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 6 Chair Peterson felt that a straw poll would be a good idea to see what direction the members are leaning, but personally felt that it was too early to make a decision on the request. Mr. Mike Black, Land Use Planner for Royal Oak Realty in Shoreview, addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced the other representatives of D.W. Jones, Inc., that were present: George Winiecki, WIN Agency; Ralph and Chuck Durand, 5-D Limited; Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oak Realty; Brian Ross and William Smith of Biko Associates; Charles Plow, Consulting Engineer; and John Adair, Attorney of Bagly and Benson. Mr. Black presented to the Planning Commission an alternate concept plan which contains four elements: motor fuel station with fast food and car wash, family sit- down restaurant, senior housing with assisted living, and an office building on Highway 10. He pointed out that the alternate plan shows more detail of the restaurant location. He indicated that the restaurant was moved closer to the wetland to take advantage of the view and with that change came the shifting of the private road between the fuel station and restaurant. He expressed that it is their intention to present to the City of Mounds View a mixed PUD that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with the technical studies that have been done for the Highway 10 corridor. He summarized some of their concerns regarding the proposal. They consider the 100 foot buffer from the wetland to be excessive, but added that it is their intention to meet this requirement of the City's wetland ordinance and Rice Creek Watershed District. He indicated that they have provided a sidewalk along Silver Lake Road and would consider public use of the boardwalk and nature observation deck located in the southwest corner of the site. He expressed his concern with Staff's recommendation for a public trail along the north side of the wetland because of privacy and security reasons relating to the support that request without better clarification and further discussion. He indicated that they will satisfy the City's park dedication requirements in a cash contribution to the City. Mr. Black briefly summarized the market needs analysis and traffic impact report that was presented at the March 19, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting, pointing out that the existing service stations along Highway 10 failed to serve between 34 and 55 percent of the immediate traffic market and that the proposed fuel station will capture the existing void and will not redistribute the existing market. He added that the on-site circulation provided by the private loop street will assist in minimizing traffic and impact off the site. He expressed his desire to move on to the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Brooks inquired if the service station with • convenience store and fast food is negotiable. Mr. Black replied that they have • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 7 come forward with a PUD package, because of the efforts from the property owners and investors to put it together, and he expressed that it is important that each elment of the PUD is approved as a total package. He commented that the applicant is not prepared to move on with any one single item of the PUD. Commissioner Brooks also expressed her concern with the competition between the Amoco Station across the street and the new facility. Mr. Black explained that there is a market of 34-55 percent that is not yet addressed and this facility could go in without infringing on the existing market. Commissioner Stevenson expressed his concern with the number of gas stations that have closed within the last twenty years. JoAnn Myers, 2624 Lake Court Drive, asked the Planning Commission the definition of a B-2 zone and how this development would impact the homes on the south side of the project. Chair Peterson listed various uses that are allowed in a B-2 district and briefly explained that less activity will take place on the south end of the project. Mr. Black pointed out where the roads and accesses to the project are proposed to be. . Rose Nejedly, 2701 County Road I, #227, inquired if all the trees on the site would be removed. Mr. Black indicated that there would be some impact on the existing vegetation but did not have a detailed plan with him. He indicated that they would be providing a very detailed landscaping plan at the development stage. Ms. Nejedly asked if part of the wetland would be dredged out. Mr. Black indicated that their desire is to dredge it out, but that there were a number of agencies that would have to be consulted before doing so. Mr. Black added that by dredging the wetland, they would achieve on-going standing water. Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Drive, inquired about the 100 foot wetland buffer and also expressed his concern with the possibility of the oils, salts, soaps, etc., due to increased surface paving, from the gas station and car washes entering the wetland. Director Sheldon explained that the wetland ordinance sets out that the 100 foot width that must be identified around all designated wetlands but that the ordinance allows some construction within the buffer area with administrative review. She added that certain other activities would require Planning Commission and City Council review. She explained that Staff is asking to what degree the encroachment should be allowed. She explained that the City Engineer would review the plans to assure they have designed the drainage system and ponding so that the contaminants do not enter the wetland. Chair Peterson added that there has been strong public support in Mounds View for wetland preservation and the purpose of the Wetland Ordinance is to make sure • the wetlands are preserved and not degraded. He added that the wetland buffer • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 8 was put into place in order to put some controls on what happens in the wetlands. He recalled that in the past some development had been allowed in the buffer, but that it was primarily intended to be a buffer and not for intensive development. Commissioner Stevenson added that the reason for the buffer was to make sure any development proposed for the wetland was reviewed. Commissioners Miller and Johnston expressed their concern with the difference in wetland delineations shown on the maps for 1988 and 1992 and asked if 1997 would also be different. Mr. Black indicated that he believed the 1992 delineation would be acceptable to Rice Creek Watershed District because it was not more than five years old. Mr. Black asked if he could receive a copy of a letter the City received from the Army Corps of Engineers regarding this issue. He indicated that if the Army Corps of Engineers is suggesting that a new delineation be done, they would have it looked at and verified. Commissioner Brasaemle expressed that he does prefer to see buildings versus parking lots constructed in the buffer zone because of the associated problems with run-off. He also expressed some concern with the location of the proposed NURP (National Urban Run-Off Program) in the wetland and where in the upland could it be moved if needed. • Chuck Plow, Project Engineer, reported that the information he has regarding the NURP pond indicates that it is not in the wetland, yet if they were not able to use it as a NURP pond area, the other NURP pond on the site would satisfy ponding requirements. Barb McKenzy, 2463 Ridge Lane, expressed her concern with the number of gas stations and car washes in Mounds View and inquired if the senior complexes in the area were being filled. Jim Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, expressed his concern with the NURP pond _ ._ ... e .- . ... -. -. . . . .. . • Peterson replied that he believes the elevation to be similar to the ground floor elevation at Silver Lake Pointe on the south side of the project which also has underground parking. Mr. Miller also expressed his concern with the traffic flow on the corner of Silver Lake Road and Highway 10. Bill Smith, Transportation Planner for Biko Associates, addressed the traffic and stacking concerns by briefly summarizing the plan and the results of the traffic study that was conducted for this proposed project. He described the design of the loop road and driveway access to the gas station/car wash facility and indicated that the County Engineer, Dan Solar's, opinion was that the loop road is important to the project. He informed the Commission that a sign would be placed on the site • to inform car wash traffic to not block the driveway and that on-site staff for the car • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 9 wash could help regulate traffic. He added that quick turn-around modifications could be made to the driveway to widen it if necessary. Chair Peterson commented that he believes that this corner causes problems routinely and that the north driveway entrance would not be able to be used during rush hour. He was also concerned with the speed of cars near the proposed area. Mr. Smith responded by saying that because Silver Lake Road is a two-lane facility, there would be more of an opportunity to pass any southbound traffic that may be stacked up and that the northbound stacking will be at a peak of a peak period (approximately 10 minutes of the peak period) and would not occur throughout the entire peak hour. Mr. Smith pointed out that this development would narrow the envelope for motorists and slow down the speed on Silver Lake Road. Commissioner Johnston inquired if the traffic study was conducted on projected or existing traffic. Mr. Smith indicated that the study was conducted using existing traffic. Commissioner Miller expressed some concern with confusion of cross- traffic from Silver Lake Road. Mr. Smith understood her concern but alluded to the fact that Americans are accustomed to driving their cars in gas stations. He added they are aware they must be extra careful and attentive while driving at any gas station. Commissioner Obert expressed concerns with southbound stacking on • Silver Lake Road turning into the gas station. Mr. Smith assured the Planning Commission that this issue had been looked at and that it was determined that there would not be a problem. Jim Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, also expressed concern with a potential stacking problem on Silver Lake Road during peak times. Ralph Durand, 5-D Limited, advised them that both their traffic consultants and the County Engineer have examined this issue and have indicated that this project would not provide a major traffic access problem. He also mentioned that the Towle Report revealed that this corner is the most valuable corner of the whole site and that its proper use would be an impulse, not destination, type use. He added that this is exactly the use they are proposing. He also clarified that when entering the gas station, a consumer would first purchase the gas and then get into line for a car wash, and therefore, no quick decisions would need to be made at the time of entrance. Jim Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, again expressed his concern with traffic in and out of the site. Mr. Smith responded by saying that studies show that the proposed drives will work. Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Drive, inquired if the applicant wanted to • receive a decision from the Planning Commission this evening. He also inquired 4110 Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 10 about the Highway 10 study that was done for this area. Economic Development Director Bennett explained that a study was conducted, with public input, and the results of the study would be presented at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, April 7th at City Hall. She indicated that she had not seen the final draft of the study but that it did mark that corner as an impulse corner and that one of the suggestions from the consultant was that it should be packaged as a planned unit development so that design elements could be carried throughout the development versus having spot development on the site. Mr. Ruggles expressed that he did not think that the Planning Commission could make a decision without first seeing the results of the study that would be presented Monday evening. Chair Peterson concurred that it would be premature to take action this evening and commented that there are many details to be worked out. George Winiecki, WIN Agency, 2732 Highway 10, informed the Commission that, in the past, he had discussed development of this site with the City and that the City had indicated that they would like to see a planned unit development for the site. He too stated that this was what they are proposing. . Chair Peterson asked that the Planning Commissioners give their overall direction regarding this project. He started by indicating that he had some concerns with the total quantity being built on the site. He indicated that the uses are acceptable, except that he is concerned with the number of car washes and gas stations in Mounds View and hesitated to recommend that part of the project. Commissioner Obert expressed his concern with the architectural integrity of the project and believes that the issue needs further review. He added that he would like to see the results of the study presented Monday evening because he believes this would play a critical role in his decision making for the development of the corridor. He was also concerned with the local residents and the traffic problems they may experience on Silver Lake Road. He added that, as a resident of Mounds View, by making the commercial corridor pleasant and pleasing, it would increase property values and, therefore, the City Council would not have to artificially raise property taxes. Commissioner Johnston concurred with Commissioner Obert that the Commission needs to wait to hear the results of the corridor study. Commissioner Johnston is also concerned with the amount of building within the wetland buffer zone and its current delineation. He admitted that, at present, he thought the project needed to be scaled back. He realizes that there are a lot of gas stations and car washes in the area, but if that was what the study recommended, he would • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 11 have to go along with the study. He also suggested that perhaps soil testing be done in relation to the underground parking concern. Commissioner Miller also expressed concern with development within the wetland buffer and the circulation around the car wash and gas station. She also inquired as to what the objection was with the gas stations: was it the gas station itself or was it that we did not need any more in Mounds View? She added that if the study showed there was a need and business for it, would we be standing in the way of progress? She also expressed concern with gas stations going out as fast as others come in but wondered if that should be the Planning Commission's concern. She added that if the buffer issue could be resolved, she believed the project had a nice mix of things, but questioned the necessity of the fast food component of the project. Chair Peterson asked if they had contracted with any one for the gas station and fast food facilities. Mr. Smith indicated that the proposed gas station would be a Holiday Station and that they had had contact with a treat-type fast food restaurant. Commissioner Stevenson expressed his concern with the viability of the gas • station and that when one opens up another one closes. He also expressed concern with the number of car washes and the water usage generated. He remarked that in the summer the residents cannot even water their lawns because of a watering ban, but yet car washes continue to operate. He did not have a problem with the convenience store and a small restaurant component but felt 10,000 square feet was rather small for a restaurant. He had no objections with the office building or senior building. He added that Silver Lake Pointe filled up and a waiting list was created and he had no doubt that the proposed senior building would also be filled. He added that the location of the ponds could be worked out. Commissioner Brooks expressed her disagreement with the convenience store/gas station component of the project. Commissioner Brasaemle expressed that he liked the concept of the planned unit development and believed it to be clearly the direction in which the consultants had indicated for the parcels. He added that he thought there were a lot of things proposed for a fairly small site. However, conceptually, he saw no problem with three of the four uses: the senior complex, the restaurant, and the office building. He indicated that he had a problem with the gas station/convenience store/fast food proposal and was having difficulty reconciling what a portion of the Towle report indicated and the opinions of the residents of Mounds View. He thought the Commission needed to wait for the SRF report in order to make a final decision which he felt could be made on April 16th. • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 12 Chair Peterson expressed some additional concern regarding the driveways along Highway 10 and the parking requirements. Director Sheldon indicated that with the uses that the applicant has proposed, there would be enough space to meet parking requirements. She added that there was some concern with the office building and whether the building needed to be smaller to acheive adequate parking.. Chair Peterson expressed that he felt the wetland boundaries would certainly affect how much development could be done on the site and asked if a new delineation would be required. Director Sheldon indicated that the City could require it as a condition. Chair Peterson added that he was not totally opposed to the gas station facility if the market study proved it viable. Commissioner Miller inquired what kind of car wash was proposed. Ralph Durand, 5-D Limited, informed the Commission that the car wash would be a tunnel wash which would be the only one of its kind, other than the Perfect 10 in Spring Lake Park. Chuck Durand, 5-D Limited, informed the Commission that they could reclaim up to 60 percent of the water used, and other than the rinsing, recycled water would be used so the water usage wouldn't be as great as most car washes. • George Winiecki, WIN Agency, commented that the older gas stations close because they have outlived their use and the consumer today demands services that their proposed station offers. He added that there are a limited number of uses that can support the price of the property and he believed it will provide a viable service to the community. Planning Associate Ericson stated that he thought all of the unresolved issues had been addressed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Obert expressed his excitement with the residents attending the Planning Commission meetings and encouraged them to continue. Director Sheldon asked the Planning Commission what they wanted for their next meeting. She indicated that she understood the applicant's desire to move forward, and that the City had an overall limit of 120 days from when the application was submitted to when it needed to be in front of the Council. Chair Peterson inquired if the applicants would like to make any additional comments. George Winiecki recalled that at one time his lot was zoned B-3 but that a developer had it down-zoned to a B-2 for a proposed book store. He added that when the development did not occur, the zoning was left B-2. Mr. Black 10 commented that he appreciated the Planning Commission's review and • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 13 consideration of this proposal. He added that the applicant is uncomfortable with the Planning Commission's overriding concern as it relates to the gas station and the buffer. He indicated that, at the present time, the items they have proposed are not negotiable. He realized that this was only a concept review and that during the development stage there would be additional issues to be addressed in a more thorough review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. He asked that the Planning Commission, at their next meeting, make a recommendation to the Council so that they can present their proposal for the Council's comments and review so that they could either come back after Council action with a different plan or proceed with the development stage. Commissioner Brasaemle proposed that Staff prepare resolution of both approval and denial for their next meeting. He also suggested that Staff complete as much information in the PUD document as possible and the Planning Commission could fill in the blanks at their next meeting. Chair Peterson asked the applicant, since they had expressed no room for negotiation, if the Planning Commission would be looking at the same proposal at 11 their next meeting or would there be any changes made to the proposal. Mr. Black informed the Commission that as they proceeded into the development stage, they would receive further details on the architectural style of the buildings, landscaping, traffic circulation on the site, storm water quantity and quality control and NURP pond design, but added that differences between the Planning Commission and the applicant are far apart. He commented that the Planning Commission was suggesting elimination of the gas station which was something that they would not consider at this time. He advised the Commission that the issues regarding too much development on the site or the impact on the wetland could not or would not be changed before their next meeting. Commissioner Brooks left the meeting at 10:10 p.m. 7. Staff Report/Information Items a. Director Sheldon reminded the Commission that the SRF Consulting Highway 10, Area 9 Report would be presented at the City Council meeting Monday evening (April 7). b. Ms. Sheldon reported that the University of Minnesota Design Course had provided a schedule of the meeting and they are looking for Commissioners to serve as a • regular member of the design team and as an alternate member. Some of the • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 14 meetings are at the campus from 4-6:30 pm. Others would be in Mounds View from 11:30 am -3:30 pm. They would typically be on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Commissioner Brooks indicated to Ms. Sheldon earlier that she could attend the meetings from 4-6:30 pm. Commissioner Stevenson was designated as the regular member and Commissioner Brooks as the alternate. c. Commissioner Obert indicated that he could not attend the April 10th Beyond the Basics Course but could possibly attend on April 24th. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports There were no reports from the Commissioners. 9. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. A special agenda meeting to discuss the O'Neil property immediately followed the regular meeting. • Respectfully submitted, James Ericson Planning Associate • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting May 21, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:05 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Commissioners Brooks, Obert, Miller, Brasaemle, Stevenson Johnston and Chair Peterson. Also Present: Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson and Council Liaison Koopmeiners. 3. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizens requests or comments from the floor. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 480-97, Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage, 2 Kenneth Newcombe, 7150 Knollwood Drive Planning Case No. 481-97, Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage, 4 Noel Barragan, 7765 Spring Lake Road Planning Case No. 483-97, Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales of 5 Produce, Merryville Farm Market, Mounds View Square Planning Case No. 484-97, Variance for Front Yard Setback, Twin Cities 6 Habitat for Humanity, 5377 Quincy Street Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Planning Case No. 480-97 7150 Knollwood Drive Applicant: Kenneth Newcombe Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage (1,264 square feet). The applicant, Kenneth Newcombe, was present. Planning Associate Ericson briefly reviewed the request informing the Commission that the applicant is requesting to construct a 1,264 square foot garage on his property located at 7150 Knollwood Drive and that the dimensions of the garage will be 39.5 feet by 32 feet which is four percent of the rear yard. He informed the Commission that there was an attached single car garage which was converted to living space in 1994. He informed the Commission that there are two driveways currently on the property; one leading to the old location of the garage and one leading to the proposed garage. • Mr. Ericson explained that while out at the property he noticed nuisance code violations in the rear yard (pop cans, brush, buckets, etc.) which can be seen from Woodale Drive. Mr. Ericson recommended that these items be removed prior to City Council approval of the conditional use permit. Mr. Ericson stated that all dimensional requirements have been met and he noted that the lot size is 506' by 100'. He added that Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 506-97 recommending to the City Council approval of the conditional use permit allowing the 1,264 square foot garage with stipulations. Mr. Ericson read aloud the stipulations contained in the resolution. The applicant, Kenneth Newcombe, addressed the Planning Commission explaining that the cans and buckets will be moved to the proposed garage. He added that he will dispose of most of the brush but would keep some of it for recreational fires. Chair Peterson indicated that storage of wood is not prohibited as long as it is kept in an orderly manner. Commissioner Brooks inquired as to when they were planning to build the garage. The applicant responded that as soon as he receives approval he will begin construction. Commissioner Miller inquired about the old driveway. The applicant indicated that he would be willing to • remove a portion of the driveway leading to the street and plant grass in that Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 3 section. He indicated that he wants to leave a portion of the old driveway for his basketball hoop. Chair Peterson asked if the new driveway would be paved. The applicant indicated that eventually it would be, depending upon the funds available. Commissioner Brasaemle inquired about the number of entrances in the front of the garage. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that he believes this requirement applies only to the front of the garage, not the rear. Commissioner Miller inquired as to the requirement for improved surfaces when building a new garage. Mr. Ericson commented that our Code states that parking surfaces (i.e., driveways) must be improved. Community Director Sheldon added that the minimum allowed would be gravel. Mr. Newcombe again stated that the driveway would be done with concrete next year when the funds are available. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brasaemle to approve Resolution No. 506-97, "Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Oversized Garage for Kenneth Newcombe, 7150 Knollwood Drive, Mounds View Planning Case No. 480-97", as amended. • Jerry Blanski, 2933 Woodale Drive, addressed the Planning Commission stating that he borders Mr. Newcombe's property and that he has no objection to the size of the proposed garage but is concerned with the time period in which he has to complete the garage. Mr. Ericson indicated that there is a stipulation with approval of the conditional use permit that the applicant would have one year to complete the garage and if it is not completed within that time the applicant must remove the garage or apply for a new conditional use permit. Mr. Blanski also inquired about the width of the lot and where the garage would be located and wondered how close he would be to the property lines. Mr. Ericson indicated that the garage Commissioner Miller indicated that the Code does allow five feet from the property line. Mr. Blanski was concerned with the applicant having to remove another tree to build the garage. Mr. Blanski asked that the stipulations again be stated. Commissioner Miller inquired about the statement contained in the resolution that refers to "storage of larger than typical equipment" being allowed. Planning Associate Ericson responded by saying that he believes this statement refers to riding lawn mowers as opposed to a push mower, but that the statement could be changed to be more specific. • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Brasaemle questioned the height of the proposed garage and questioned the maximum height requirement of 15 feet. Director Sheldon explained that the 15 feet maximum is measured to a point halfway up the peak, based on the definition for building height. Motion Carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays The Planning Commission continued to discuss the amendments to the stipulations contained in the resolution. The applicant was informed that the City Council would be considering this case on June 9, 1997, at which time a public hearing would be held. 5. Planning Case No. 481-97 7765 Spring Lake Road Applicant: Noel Barragan . Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage (1,180 square feet). The applicants, C. R. and Noel Barragan, were present. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct an oversized garage (1,180 square feet) located at 7765 Spring Lake Road. He added that the dimensions of the garage will be 36 feet by 32 feet and would take 7.1 percent of the area of the lot (not including the property that extends across the street and under a portion of Spring Lake). The Planning Commission was concerned with the two curb cuts on the property. The applicant responded that the double curb cut is aesthetically pleasing and would rather not remove one of them. Director Sheldon added that perhaps this issue could be worked out when Spring Lake Road is reconstructed in 1998. The Code allows for homeowners to apply for a variance to keep two driveways and a possible justification in this case could be a site distance problem because the property is on a curve. The Planning Commission discussed the amendments to the stipulations contained in the resolution. • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 5 Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve Resolution No. 507-97, "Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Oversized Garage for Noel Barragan, 7765 Spring Lake Road, Mounds View Planning Case No. 481-97". Motion Carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays The applicant was informed that this case would be considered at the June 9, 1997, City Council meeting, at which time a public hearing would be held. The Planning Commission discussed the issue of revising the Code since at this time each year several applications for oversized garage are brought before the City for action. 6. Planning Case No. 483-97 Mounds View Square Shopping Center • Applicant: Merryville Farm Market Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales of Produce Kirk Olson, representing Merryville Farm Market, was present. Planning Associate Ericson reviewed this case explaining that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for outdoor sales of produce at Mounds View Square Shopping Center parking lot from July 1 to September 21, 1997, seven days a week from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Ericson reminded the Commission that the applicant was granted a conditional use permit-last year at the same location and that Staff is not aware of any problems as a result of this operation. He added that no changes have been proposed from last year, however, there may be a slight overlap in the uses at Mounds View Square Shopping Center parking lot since Linders Greenhouses' conditional use permit expires on July 15, 1997. Mr. Ericson added that the stipulations and criteria for granting a conditional use permit have been met regarding this request. Mr. Ericson stated that Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 508-97. Motion/Second: Miller/Obert to approve Resolution No. 508-97, "Resolution Recommending to City Council Approval of the Conditional Use Permit Request by • Merryville Farm Market, Mounds View Square; Planning Case No. 483-97". Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 6 Motion Carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays The applicant was informed that this item would be considered at the June 9, 1997, City Council meeting, at which time a public hearing would be held. 7. Planning Case No. 484-97 5377 Quincy Street Applicant: Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity Request for a Variance to Allow a Four Foot Encroachment into the 30-Foot Setback Bill Powell, representing Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity, was present. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to • the front yard setback to construct a six foot covered entryway to the house that is currently under construction at 5377 Quincy Street. He added that the property, which was created in 1989 as a result of a minor subdivision at 2186 Bronson Drive, conforms to the dimensional requirements for buildable lots. However, it is irregularly shaped because it is more wide than it is deep which limits where the house can be located on the property. Mr. Ericson added that the house cannot be moved back any further because of the rear setback requirement. He also added that 4 of the 6 houses located on the west side of Quincy street encroach into the front setback; two at 25 feet and two at 15 feet. The applicant is requesting a 24 foot setback. Mr. Ericson added that Staff feels the proposal meets the criteria for granting a vairance. Bill Powell, Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity, addressed the Planning Commission explaining that the entryway would be an open porch with a wood railing around three sides. He added that the entryway is proposed to be a truss- supported roof structure on concrete footings with a wood deck. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that Staff is recommending approval of amended Resolution No. 509-97. Staff was also recommending changes to the resolution to change all references to a 26 foot setback be changed to 24 feet and that all references to a 4 foot encroachment be changed to 6 feet. • Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 7 Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve Resolution No. 509-97, "Resolution Approving a Reduction in the Front Setback Requirement from 30 Feet to 26 Feet for Construction of a Covered Entryway at 5377 Quincy Street; Planning Case No. 484-97", as amended. Commissioner Brasaemle commented that he did not see this request as being a major problem in light of other setbacks along Quincy Street and the fact that the lot is shallow. Chair Peterson added that he was not familiar with the situation when the lot was platted in 1989, but that additional property may have been taken with the reconstruction and widening of Quincy Street. Motion Carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays Chair Peterson informed the applicant that this item does not require City Council action and that final approval has been granted. 8. Staff Report/Information Items • There were no Staff Reports or Information Items. 9. Chairperson and PlanningCommissioners Reports p Members present at the May 7, 1997, meeting were Commissioners Brooks, Obert, Miller, Brasaemle, and Chair Peterson. (Commissioners Stevenson and Johnston had excused absences). Also present were Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson and Council Liaison Koopmeiners. 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m. (The agenda meeting immediately followed the special meeting).Respectfully submitted, mes Ericson • Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 506-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVERSIZED GARAGE FOR KENNETH NEW COMBE, 7150 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 480-97 WHEREAS, Kenneth Newcombe has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,264 square-foot garage on his property located at 7150 Knollwood Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: LOT 22,KNOLLWOOD PARK, RAMSEY COUNTY WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,264 square feet of garage/accessory building on one lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Building Plan e. Photo Documentation WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that the dimensional requirements in the Zoning Code have been met: Required Provided Met/Not Met Garage Setbacks (Front) 110 feet 150 feet Met (Side) 5 feet 8 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet 410 feet Met Percent of Rear Yard <25% 2.5% Met Garage Width 5 35 feet 32 feet Met Area of all Accessory Buildings: 5 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,264 Sq. ft. Met WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse . effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.: Planning Commission Resolution 506-97 • May 21, 1997 Page 2 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. 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. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 7150 Knollwood Drive, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area The majority of the lots in this area exceed one acre like the subject property although some of the lots fronting nearby Woodale Drive are smaller parcels. While the proposed garage is larger than what is typical for this area, the placement of the garage behind the home hides the bulk of it from Knollwood Drive. The garage would be screened from the neighbors to the south by trees on the subject property. There will be no screening from property owners to the north. • 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Removing the existing accessory building and replacing it with a large, new garage would be a benefit to the area in the sense that it is an improvement to the property. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The applicant has indicated that they own many vehicles that currently are parked outdside. In addition to vehicles, the applicant would plan on storing a riding lawn mower and other assorted garden and yard equipment within the garage. The size requested is the minimum needed to satisfy the applicant's needs. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (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. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The construction of an oversized garage will not create a greater impact on existing public • facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system. Planning Commission Resolution 506-97 . May 21, 1997 Page 3 (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 no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The placement of the garage so that the bulk of the structure is hidden from street view will provide adequate screening, and will preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. The garage will be in full view of the adjoining property to the north. (4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (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. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for storage of vehicles and other equipment. Having this garage will allow for the property to be kept in better order. Improving neighborhoods by enclosing stored items is beneficial to the community and consistent with community goals. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building appearance with the dwelling unit. 3. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 4. No other accessory buildings shall be allowed on this lot. 5. The applicant shall remove accumulations of cans, buckets, brush and barrels from the property prior to City Council approval of this CUP request. Planning Commission Resolution 506-97 . May 21, 1997 Page 4 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 May, 1997. Jerry Peterso�'Ch.'rperson ATTEST: • Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\480-97506-97PC.RES i 1111 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 507-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVERSIZED GARAGE FOR NOEL BARRAGAN, 7765 SPRING LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 481-97 WHEREAS,Noel Barragan has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,180 square-foot garage on her property located at 7765 Spring Lake Road, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: SUM TOROAD AND EXCEPT NO25FTAND EXCEPT SO378FTOFLOT 24, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89 WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,264 square feet of garage/accessory building on one lot; and • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Building Plan e. Photo Documentation WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that the dimensional requirements in the Zoning Code have been met: Required Provided Met/Not Met Garage Setbacks (Front) 85 feet 149 feet Met (Side) 5 feet 5 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet 15 feet Met Percent of Rear Yard <25% 16.6 % Met Garage Width 5 35 feet 32 feet Met Area of all Accessory Buildings: 5 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,180 Sq. ft. Met WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.: Planning Commission Resolution 507-97 • May 21, 1997 Page 2 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. 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. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 7765 Spring Lake Road, as low-density residential. The proposal to build a garage of this size does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area The majority of the lots in this area are larger than the subject property although the lots behind the subject property fronting Knollwood Drive are much smaller. While the proposed garage is larger than what is typical for this area, the placement of the garage behind the home hides the bulk of it from Spring Lake Road. It will, however, be visible from the properties to the east and south. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The applicant will be removing an existing accessory building and replacing it with a large, new garage which would be a benefit to the area in the sense that it is an improvement to the property. 5. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. Due to the conversion of the former garage into living space, the applicant no longer has a garage. The proposed three-car garage will meet the Barragan's vehicle and storage needs. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (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. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The construction of an oversized garage will not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system. Planning Commission Resolution 507-97 40 May 21, 1997 Page 3 (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 no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The placement of the garage so that the bulk of the structure is hidden from street view will provide adequate screening, and will preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. The garage will be screened from the neighboring property to the north by a privacy fence and a change of elevation. The properties to the east and south, however, would have no such screening. (4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (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. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for storage of vehicles and other equipment. Having this garage will allow for the property to be kept in better order. • Improving neighborhoods by enclosing stored items is beneficial to the community and consistent with community goals.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. • 2. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building appearance with the dwelling unit. 3. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 4. No other accessory buildings shall be allowed on this lot. Planning Commission Resolution 507-97 • May 21, 1997 Page 4 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 May, 1997. Jerry Petersen, '` airperson ATTEST: Ok".(Adi_ 4hLbiLiri — • Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\481-97\507-97PC.RES • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 508-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY MERRYVILLE FARM MARKET, MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE; PLANNING CASE NO. 483-97 WHEREAS, Kirk Olson, representing Merryville Farm Market, has applied for a conditional use permit to conduct open and outdoor sales at Moundsview Square Shopping Center; property zoned B-4, legally described as follows: That Part Lying Northeasterly of the Centerline of State Trunk Highway 10 of NE'/. ofNE '/4 (Subject to Roads and Highways) in Section 7, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Mound View Zoning Code allows open and outdoor sales in the B-4 Regional Business District with the approval of a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding lip this proposal: a) Planning Application b) Zoning Map c) Site Plan d) Letter from Applicant e) Letter from Property Owner f) Photo Documentation WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the criteria for approval in Section 1115.04, Subd. 2 have been met: a. Outdoor service,sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent(30%)of the gross floor area of the principal use. The shopping center contains 102,035 square feet of building area. The applicant proposes to occupy 110 square feet of the parking lot, which is less than 1% of the building square footage on the site. This criterion has been met. b. 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)of this Title. The parking lot fronting Highway 10 does not abut any residential properties. The nearest residential property is Wildwood Manor, an apartment building for senior citizens, which would be well screened from the proposed use by a stand of trees. • Planning Commission Resolution 508-97 May 21, 1997 Page 2 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 the Code. The applicant will not have any lighting associated with the produce stand as it will be operating during daylight hours. d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The applicant is proposing to use an existing parking lot which is surfaced with asphalt. This criterion is met. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the provisions from Section 1125.01(1)e of the Zoning Code regarding possible adverse effects of the proposed use and makes the following findings: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. S (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The proposal is for a temporary produce stand in the parking lot of an existing shopping center. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as HC--Highway Commercial. The produce stand is an appropriate use within this designation. The shopping center is surrounded by roadways and the area where the use is to be located is 1,000 feet from the nearest residential property. The sale of produce is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a community need. The short duration of .the use will result in little, if any, adverse effect upon the surrounding area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The facility shall be allowed to operate from July 1, 1997, to September 21, 1997. 2. The hours of operation of the facility shall not exceed 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 3. Signage shall be allowed only as affixed to the gazebo base and/or canvas roof. • 4. Lighting for the use shall be supplied by existing parking lot standards. Planning Commission Resolution 508-97 111 May 21, 1997 Page 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 May, 1997. Jerry Peters•fl, Aairperson Attest: frklYik.U1A, Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (Seal) N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\S HARE\DE VCASES\483-97\MERRY-PC.RES • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 509-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A REDUCTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM 30 FEET TO 24 FEET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED ENTRYWAY AT 5377 QUINCY STREET; PLANNING CASE NO. 484-97 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity to allow a 24 foot front setback where 30 feet is required for the construction of a covered entryway at 5377 Quincy Street; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: The South 140 feet of the east 84 feet.of Lot 1, Block 1, Lambert's Addition, Ramsey County WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map • 3. Building Front Elevation 4. Letter from the Applicant 5. Encroachment Map WHEREAS, the applicant presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission stating that the lot dimensions established as a result of an earlier minor subrlivisinn prevent development anywhere on the lot other than the middle 24 feet and that, because of the front and rear setbacks, typical improvements such as porches and covered entryways are not possible on this lot without a certain level of encroachment and allowing for the entryway to be built would not be granting a special privilege; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that porches and decks are a typical improvements in this neighborhood and elsewhere in the R-1 single family residential district; and WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the • applicant in that the proposed location of the covered entryway is necessitated by the location of the house, which has been necessitated by the lot dimensions and setbacks; and, Planning Commission Resolution 509-97 . May 21, 1997 Page 2 WHEREAS, granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that porches and entryways are typical improvements for single family residences; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that the residence currently under construction is located 30 feet from the rear property line and 30 feet from the front property line and the applicant has requested a six foot variance to allow the covered entryway; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that the covered entryway will encroach less into the setback two other homes along Quincy Street that currently encroach into the front yard setback; and, WHEREAS, 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 in that there is adequate screening and distance between the entryway IPand adjacent residences. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity for a reduction in the front setback requirement from 30 feet to 24 feet for the construction of a covered entryway at 5377 Quincy Street. Adopted this 21st day of May, 1997 4. 43 Jerry Peson, Chairman ATTEST Poy\AA.4., Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director SEAL • N:\data\users\pams\share\devcases\484-97\509-97.res