The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-07-1999 PC PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., July 7, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Braathen, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Miller, and Stevenson (Commissioner Stevenson joined the meeting at 7:26 p.m.). Members Absent: Commissioner Laube, with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Member Roger Stigney and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 562-99, 2975 Highway 10 (site formerly known as Quik Lube) Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate an automobile rental agency. A Macfrugal Company (Thrifty Car Rental), Applicant 3 Planning Case No. 561-99, 2801 Woodale Drive. Consideration of a resolution approving a variance for a reduced front yard setback Michael and Christine Gregori, Applicant 9 Planning Case No. 559-99, 560-99, 2670 County Road I, Discussion concerning application to rezone property and for a conditional use permit for an assisted living senior residential facility 12 Special Planning Case No. SP-072-99, Consideration of Resolution 585-99, A resolution recommending adoption of proposed Ordinance 632, an ordinance amending Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, 111) pertaining to permitted uses within the B-2, Limited Business commercial zoning district 21 Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99, Consideration of a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to billboards and amending the Code pertaining to signage in to PF and CRP zoning districts. 23 Staff Reports/Items of Information 26 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 27 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes • A. May 19, 1999 Commissioner Braathen requested a correction to Page 8, last paragraph, fourth sentence to indicate "He requested that the Work Sessions be rescheduled to not meet on Wednesday..." MOTION/SECOND: Braathen/Miller to approve the May 19, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes— 7 Nays— 0 The motion carried. B. June 2, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Braathen/Miller to approve the June 2, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes— 7 Nays— 0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 562-99 Property Involved: 2975 Highway 10 (site formerly known as Quik Lube) Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate an automobile rental agency. Applicant: A Macfrugal Company (Thrifty Car Rental) Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Thrifty Car Rental, is seeking a conditional use permit to operate an auto rental business at the property most recently utilized by Spots Quik Lube. The applicant anticipates that there would be no more than ten cars on the premises at any time, whether they are for rent or sale. The applicant indicates that the proposed hours of business would be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The business would not operate on Sundays. Other than repainting the building and installing signage, there are no plans to alter the building or make any improvements to the landscaping. Ericson stated that the primary function of the proposed business is the renting of automobiles, with an accessory use of sale of said rental vehicles. He stated that the City has a two-acre lot size requirement for the purpose of sales and that this lot does not meet that requirement. Because of the restrictions placed upon auto sales operations, the extent of Thrifty's auto sales may not exceed 30 percent of the building's gross floor area, which would translate into three vehicles. This would imply • that if there were 30 cars on the lot, 10 could be for sale. Ericson reviewed the conditions placed upon rental businesses, as stated in Section 1114.04, Subdivision 5 of the City Code, and commented on their relationship with the proposed use. He stated that the first condition requiring that an accessory use be limited to thirty percent of the gross floor area of the principal use would apply to the sales aspect of this business. He stated that after calculating the floor area of the building, staff determined the amount of space that could be put towards the sale of vehicles would allow no more than three vehicles to be for sale at any one time. Ericson noted the requirement that outside sales areas be fenced or screened from view. He stated that, with the exception of the residential property across the street, all of the abutting residential properties are effectively screened. He stated that there was no effective way of screening the properties across the street, but that the building itself provides a screen, as well as the six-foot wood privacy fence, to the properties around the rear and sides of the building. Ericson stated that the third condition requires that all lighting be hooded and directed so as not to shine on neighboring properties. He stated this criteria had been addressed by the previous owner, and that the lighting does meet this requirement. Ericson stated that the fifth criteria provides the requirement that "open or outdoor service, sale or rental use does not take up parking space as required for conformity of this Title." He stated that, according to staffs interpretation of the Code, this type of use would require four parking spaces for on-site workers and customers. He explained that this condition does not apply to the rental vehicles parked on the lot. It does, however, require that a minimum of four parking spaces be marked and designated for employees and customers. Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 Ericson stated that Section 1125.01 of the City Code, relating to adverse effects resulting from the proposed use, provides criteria which are present for any conditional use. He listed the criteria, and stated that all of these have been addressed and met. Ericson stated that there has been a longstanding automotive use at this location, and in staff's opinion, other types of use of the property would not be appropriate. He added that its location at the intersection of Spring Lake Road and Highway 10 makes it undesirable for a residential use. He noted, however, that the Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as low density residential, and that one means of addressing this would be during the Comprehensive Plan updating process, where it could be changed so as not to conflict with the zoning and the use. He stated that this could also be addressed separately, and the Commission could determine whether or not it would be appropriate to consider it at this time, or within the context of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Ericson stated that, in addition to the Conditional Use Permit conditions and the adverse affects requirements, the Code also requires that certain findings of fact be addressed in the granting of any conditional use permit, as indicated in Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3b of the City Code. He stated that these criteria would be addressed in conjunction with the drafting of a resolution recommending Sapproval or denial of the proposal. Ericson stated that staffs recommendation was to allow the proposal at this location, but that staff believed further discussion was necessary regarding the acceptability of this use and any additional conditions which should be placed upon the operation, prior to drafting a resolution. He noted that this could be a potentially intensive use for this corner location, and added that there was sufficient time for further discussion and preparation of a resolution prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Mike Winslow, the applicant representing Thrifty Car Rental, stated that their business has been in operation at the Montgomery Wards store location in Blaine for eight years. He explained that, in light of the recent closings of many of the Montgomery Wards stores, they were searching for a new location in which to conduct their business. He stated that the balance of their intent was not to open an automobile sales lot, noting that seventy percent of their fleet of automobiles is leased and that these cars are returned to the manufacturer for auction. He stated that their fleet was comprised of thirty-percent ownership of those automobiles. He explained the process of the automobile sales aspect of their business, noting that generally, a customer would inquire about a specific automobile that is for sale, at which time the vehicle is brought to the location for viewing purposes. Mr. Winslow stated that on the Fourth of July weekend, typically their busiest weekend of the year, they had 35 rentals, with three or four cars remaining on the lot. He stated that the rental cars are brought up from the main location in Bloomington by reservation, adding that this is generally S accomplished within a one hour turnover window, to minimize the number of cars on the lot at any given time Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 5 Commissioner Kaden asked if the applicant planned on expanding the parking area, noting that the site plan indicates only nine parking spaces. Mr. Winslow stated that they did not plan to expand. He stated that they intended to utilize the spaces that were provided. He explained that in the car rental business,there might be ten to fifteen cars on site for twenty minutes, until the runners drive them off the lot. Commissioner Hegland asked if the applicant would agree to indicate a maximum number of vehicles that could be parked on the lot at one time. Mr. Winslow stated that he would like the opportunity to examine the lot prior to committing to a maximum number, but that he would be agreeable to providing that. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant's business included truck rentals. Mr. Winslow stated that the largest truck in their fleet is a fifteen-foot Isuzu box truck, which does not take up much more room than a normal parking space. He noted that during a large "move weekend," typically at the end of the month, they may have three of these trucks on the lot. Chair Peterson stated that the pavement area of the proposed operation had been previously utilized • for the oil changing business. He stated that less parking space was required than that of a prior use, which had led to random parking of vehicles on the lot, on the median and in the right-of-way. Mr. Winslow stated that they attempted to avoid this type of problem, adding that in the event of late arrivals, there were two additional storage spaces within the building that could be utilized for parking. Ericson stated that there was ample room for parking at the location. He stated that staff would suggest that the applicant indicate on the site plan where the vehicles would be parked, as well as provide the maximum number of vehicles which would be parked on the lot for a period of time. He added that some of the spaces presently represented storage spaces, but the applicant could park on these as well. He stated that there was no requirement to maintain a drive-through at the location, as with the previous use, and the applicant could double-park their vehicles in that area if the need arose. He noted the additional possibility of parking two cars in front of the stall doors, as long as there was adequate ingress and egress. Chair Peterson stated that it was important to determine the maximum number of automobiles that could fit on the lot, as street overflow parking would not be possible. He stated that the City of Mounds View prohibits overnight parking on City streets, and added that if a vehicle was left on the street, it could potentially be towed away. He stated that the parking restrictions were posted at all entrances to the City. Mr. Winslow stated that they could post signs at the location as well, to prevent the drop off of vehicles on the street. Ericson stated the requirement that the applicant post signs to indicate no parking or dropping off vehicles on the street at any time could be added to the resolution. 111 Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Miller asked what plans the applicant had for snow removal. Mr. Winslow stated that they had four-by-four trucks and a plow in their fleet. He stated that they could dedicate a truck for the purpose of snow removal and do the maintenance themselves. Commissioner Miller asked where the snow would be placed. Ericson stated that previous owners of the site had designated areas on the property for snow storage, and added that the applicant could indicate the snow storage location on the site plan. Commissioner Hegland asked if the applicant had any intention of expanding the paved area to increase the parking capacity in the back of the property, noting that it appeared that there was room to expand in that area, and that this would be the time to address that issue. Mr. Winslow stated that both he and co-applicant Dave Besonen had concentrated on the site and location, without examining the details of the parking situation, but that he was agreeable to looking into the issue at this time. Chair Peterson requested clarification to the location of a fence in back of the parking lot, in relationship to the property lines. Ericson as stated that the fence was located a good distance from the property line. He stated that there was some treed area behind the building, and the fence was located closer to the building so as not to interfere with the trees. Mr. Winslow stated that this might provide an option to the parking requirements, and that they would look into it further. Commissioner Kaden stated that he would like to see some additional landscaping at the location. Chair Peterson stated that the evergreen trees originally planted by the previous applicant were smaller in size than the City had requested. Ericson stated that the trees were not only small, but they had not been well attended, and appeared to be in poor health. Commissioner Kaden suggested that the applicant consult with the City Forester regarding which type of plantings do well in this area. Chair Peterson explained that the City Forester has provided assistance with hardiness issues, and low maintenance types of plantings that are also attractive in the past. He stated that the applicant could discuss the landscaping issues with staff and the City Forester to determine an economical and attractive landscaping plan. Dave Besonen, co-applicant representing Thrifty Car Rental, stated that he was the manager of the business' off-airport locations. He stated that he managed a lot in downtown Minneapolis which had only four parking spaces, and that he had no trouble keeping cars off of that lot. He stated that they would be servicing some of the automobiles on site, for minor repairs such as oil changes, fixing headlights, and replacing windshield wipers. He stated that this would only be for their automobiles, and not the public's. Mr. Besonen asked what would be allowable in terms of indicating that they had cars for sale. Ericson stated that any type of permanent signage advertising the sale of automobiles should not be allowed. He stated that sales was considered strictly an accessory use, and to allow signage might categorize it as part of the principal use, which could cause concern among other parties who had wanted to utilize the property for an auto sales operation. He also addressed the issue of fairness and legality, and the possibility of violation of the City Zoning Code. 111 Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 Commissioner Miller asked if it would be possible to indicate that cars were for sale inside of the building, to prevent the problem of the public driving by and seeing a sign from the roadway. Mr. Besonen stated yes. Council Member Stigney stated that this was a rental business, and that the applicant would be bringing a car to the lot for a specific customer. He stated that he did not want to see any signage advertising automobiles for sale at the location. Chair Peterson stated that he concurred with Ericson's remarks, in that any external permanent signage would be unacceptable. He noted that Commissioner Miller's suggestion of indoor signage would certainly be acceptable, but that the issues of signs in the windows or other forms of advertising would have to be addressed further. He requested clarification of the City Code, in regard to other businesses or the public parking their cars on a lot with "For Sale" signs in the windows. Ericson explained that if a person or property owner were to park a vehicle for sale on the pavement of their lot it would be allowed. He stated that in dealing with a Conditional Use Permit and the use itself, the Commission was provided the opportunity to place additional restrictions upon the signage. He stated that if the Commission felt strongly that no signage whatsoever should be allowed, a • requirement could be added to the resolution to reflect that. He explained that the Council could also consider the issue on its own. Commissioner Stevenson stated that, although the Commission could not rule on the matter of signage, he believed there should be a rule limiting this. He stated that if this was a Council action, the Commission should be certain that the Council address the issue. He stated that without limitations, the matter could get out of hand. Commissioner Johnson stated that the applicant was already limited to three cars for sale at one time. Ericson stated that the concern was more in regard to the sign itself, noting that although a window sign might be allowable, without limitations, it might translate into a four by eight sheet of plywood, which would be unacceptable. Commissioner Stevenson stated that he thought the issue should be addressed and clarified prior to agreeing to allow signage advertising the sale of even three cars. Commissioner Kaden asked what type of signage was utilized at the applicant's current business location. Mr. Besonen stated that there was none, and that one of the reasons they desired street visibility was to inform the public that they had vehicles for sale. Chair Peterson stated that often times the public associated a rental car facility with the purchase of vehicles, and that many people would simply inquire. Commissioner Kaden noted that automobiles had been sold from the former fire station located in Spring Lake Park, and that the largest signage he had seen there was paint or a sign in the window. He stated that he did not find that type of signage objectionable. Mr. Besonen stated that he had noticed the Enterprise car lot in Spring Lake Park, and believed that their signage indicated sales and rentals. Council Member Stigney stated that the sales were not on site at that location. Mr. Besonen stated that their car sales would not necessarily be on site either, as the majority of time, the cars would be rented. He suggested the possibility of signs in the cars on 11110 Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 the lot indicating the customers inquire within. Chair Peterson asked if all of the thirty percent of the applicant's vehicles could potentially be sold. Mr. Besonen stated that was correct. Chair Peterson stated that he believed Ericson's points were valid, in regard to the legal issues, and that something should be provided in the language of the Conditional Use Permit to address the issue. Commissioner Stevenson stated that no exterior signage promoting the sale of vehicles should be permitted, with the exception of signage in the windows of the vehicles. Chair Peterson stated that interior signage would be acceptable. Commissioner Braathen asked how the Saturn Dealership dealt with the issue of signage. Commissioner Stevenson stated that the sale of automobiles was an allowed usage at that property. He added that the City had placed a moratorium on that type of use along Highway 10. Chair Peterson explained that, due to problems in that area of the City, the moratorium had been established to provide a workable compromise. He stated that this was a different situation, but reiterated that auto sales was not the primary use of this proposal. Mr. Besonen stated that they would be satisfied with signs in the windows of the automobiles. • Ericson asked if the Commission would have any concerns in regard to allowing the business to operate for limited hours on Sundays. Mr. Winslow stated that this would only be through the summer months, possibly from April 15 through November 15. Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding Sunday operation of the other two car rental facilities in the area. Mr. Winslow stated that he thought they were not open on Sundays. He stated that their business had never been open on Sundays in the Blaine location, and added that customers still returned vehicles on Sunday, but were still charged for the day. Commissioner Stevenson stated that Sunday operation would be a benefit for customers in that regard. He asked what the proposed hours of operation would be. Mr. Winslow stated that they were considering hours of 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. during the peak season. Commissioner Miller asked if the applicant would be selling cars on Sunday. Mr. Winslow stated that they would not. He stated that any potential sales customers would have to purchase the vehicles in Eagan or Bloomington, where the paperwork is generated, and if a customer inquired about a specific vehicle, they would direct him to those locations. Commissioner Hegland asked if the applicant permitted after-hour drop-offs. Mr. Winslow stated that they did not have to, with the exception of Sunday evening drop-offs, when the return process might interfere with a possessive work schedule. He stated that he would be agreeable to the addition of a statement to the resolution regarding drop-offs, requiring that the vehicles would not be left on the street, and that they would inform customers that cars must be parked on the lot. Ericson stated that staff would continue to gain information from the applicant regarding the parking, and that the issue of landscaping improvements could be indicated in the resolution, as a requirement Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 that the applicant provide a landscaping plan which would satisfy the City Forester, staff, and the City Council. He stated that staff had enough information to proceed with the resolution, and that any additional changes or recommendations could be added prior to the final draft. 6. Planning Case No. 561-99 Property Involved: 2801 Woodale Drive Consideration of Resolution 587-99, a resolution approving a variance for a reduced front yard setback. Applicant: Michael and Christine Gregori The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicants, Michael and Christine Gregori, who live at 2801 Woodale Drive which is located at the northwest corner of Woodale Drive and Silver Lake Road, are requesting a variance from the required thirty-foot setback established for accessory building from public streets. They would like to replace their old, single stall garage with a two car, 672 square-foot garage. The existing garage, which was built with the house in 1952, sits 15 feet too close to Silver Lake Road. Its construction predates the City's first Zoning code, which was adopted in 1960. He stated that, in consideration of the expansion of the garage, the applicant was proposing the reduction of the present setback to eleven feet. Ericson presented staff's analysis, noting that, as with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property which makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application, and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. Ericson outlined the seven criteria, and provided responses to each. Ericson stated that the applicant has some hardship presented in the lot, in that the house and garage were constructed prior to any zoning requirements. He stated that this was a single car garage, outdated by today's standards, and that there was no room or alternative for expansion without maintaining some encroachment into the setback. He stated that staff had examined the criteria for 11111 satisfying the hardship requirements, and found that all are met with the exception of one, which is that the variance requested is the minimum setback required to alleviate the hardship. He stated that 4110 Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 staff was suggesting that the garage could be constructed in such a way so as to maintain the existing fifteen foot setback. He stated that this would mean that the garage would be pushed toward the house, and slightly toward the back yard. He explained that staff was not certain that this would be possible, and added that the applicant could address the feasibility of that suggestion with the Commission. Ericson stated that staff had drafted a resolution that would grant a variance for the applicant to construct a garage at a maximum fifteen feet from the property line, adding that the resolution could be amended according to the Commission's direction. He stated that the Commission could determine whether or not a greater setback was warranted in this case. Michael Gregori, 2801 Woodale Drive, the applicant, presented the Commission with pictures indicating the garage as it was currently situated on his property. He stated that if the garage were expanded to the fifteen-foot setback, it would be aligned with the sidewalk, which would create a hardship, as they would have to drive around the sidewalk to enter the garage. Commissioner Hegland asked if the steps on the east side of the applicant's home were a • consideration. Mr. Gregori stated yes, that he was requesting that the far east side of the garage be moved so as not to interfere with the house. He added that the driveway offsets the garage by five feet. Chair Peterson asked if the garage was to be twenty-four feet wide. Mr. Gregori stated yes. Chair Peterson asked if there was a slope on the property toward Silver Lake Road. Mr. Gregori stated yes, and that the garage was approximately one foot from that slope. Chair Peterson stated if the current distance from the right-of-way was less than fifteen feet, the applicant would have to go further into the slope. The applicant stated that it was, but that the garage could be situated so that it would not affect the slope. He explained that there was a level spot on the east side of the garage, where the expansion could be constructed. He stated that, of that five foot area, he was only requesting that the garage be moved over four feet, which would create enough of an offset to prevent interference with the slope. Commissioner Stevenson asked if the proposed garage was to remain ten feet behind the house. Mr. Gregori stated yes, and added that he might be able to move it back a foot or two at the most, but was not proposing to do so at this time. Commissioner Hegland asked if the existing setback requirement for reconstruction was thirty feet, and if so, was that requirement intended for the positioning of a driveway that enters onto a street. He noted that this garage did not enter onto the street in the same manner which the Code may have intended. Ericson stated the property did not take access from Silver Lake Road, but explained that the Zoning Code does specifically stipulate that there should be no accessory buildings, or any 1111 building within thirty feet of the front property line. He explained that the front property line is defined as that property line abutting the street, and added that corner lots present a unique circumstance in that there are effectively two front property lines that are required to maintain a thirty Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 foot setback from the street. He stated that, at the time this property was constructed, this was not a consideration. Chair Peterson noted that the lot appeared to be substandard by current corner lot requirements. Commissioner Hegland asked what was located to the north of the applicant's property. Mr. Gregori stated that there was an apartment complex to the north. Commissioner Hegland stated that this was a good proposal, and that he understood what the applicant was trying to accomplish. He stated his support for the proposal. Commissioner Kaden stated that he did not think eleven feet would be much worse than fifteen feet, noting that he had seen many garages offset behind houses. He offered however, that in his opinion, and for aesthetic purposes, it would look better if it was not. Mr. Gregori stated that, instead of eleven feet, a twelve-foot setback would place the end of the garage along the side of the existing sidewalk. He stated that this would require less concrete work for the sidewalk and driveway, and added that the edge of the garage would align with the edge of the sidewalk, where it intersects with the driveway. He stated that he had originally wanted the additional foot for clearance purposes, so that the garage would not be so close to the house and steps. Chair Peterson stated that this seemed • to be a reasonable compromise. He stated that there was an apparent hardship in regard to the placement of the house on the lot, as well as the probability of the lot being undersized by current corner lot standards. Commissioner Johnson requested that the applicant clarify if he was requesting an eleven or twelve foot setback. Mr. Gregori stated that a twelve-foot setback would be acceptable, but eleven feet would be ideal for his purposes. Commissioner Braathen stated that he had seen the property, and could see the logic in the applicant's proposal. Commissioners Berke and Johnson concurred and indicated their support as well. Commissioner Miller stated that she had also seen the property, and wondered how a two-car garage could fit in that area. Mr. Gregori explained that by aligning the garage with the driveway it would go further west. He added that most of the garage area to the west would not be for parking, but that there would be a service door for ingress and egress, which would face south. Mr. Gregori stated that he had not anticipated these complications when he purchased the property. He stated that his intention was to build the garage to match the existing structure, and added that the pitch of the roof would be the same as that of the house, and that it would be sided with the same material. Chair Peterson stated that it appeared that the consensus of the Commission was to allow an eleven- foot setback. Chair Peterson opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. Hearing no comments from the floor, Chair Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 8:11 p.m. • Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 Commissioner Hegland stated that he thought they should go ahead with the approval. He noted that Item 5 of the resolution should be re-worded. Ericson stated that staff could amend Item 5 to indicate that the variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship, and that the Planning Commission finds that an eleven-foot setback would accomplish this. He stated that the second paragraph of the second page of the Resolution should be amended to indicate "...for the construction of a 672 square-foot garage eleven feet from the property line," as well. Commissioner Miller requested a correction to the first page of the Resolution, first paragraph, to indicate "a garage eleven feet from their east side lot line..." Chair Peterson stated that Item 7 contained a reference to fifteen feet. He stated the distance from the garage to the house would be ten feet wide and would not conflict with the fire code, which would normally require a six-foot distance. MOTION/SECOND: HeglandBraathen. To Adopt Resolution 587-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for Michael and Christine Gregori to Allow an Eleven -Foot Setback for a 672 Square-Foot Garage at 2801 Woodale Drive, Planning Case No. 561-99, as revised. • Ayes— 7 Nays — 0 Abstain — 1 (Kaden) The motion carried. Commissioner Kaden stated that the reason for his abstention was that he did not agree with the eleven-foot setback, although he did agree that a variance was needed. 7. Planning Case Nos. 559-99, 560-99 Property Involved: 2670 County Road I (Vacant lot behind Super America) Discussion concerning application to rezone property and for a conditional use permit for an assisted living senior residential facility Applicant: MSP Real Estate The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: MSP Real Estate has made an application to rezone the vacant Kraus-Anderson property located at 2670 County Road I from B-2, Limited Business Commercial to R-4, High-Density Residential and for a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a forty-eight room, assisted living senior residential facility. According to the applicant, the residents are elderly and unable to care for themselves, some of whom may have Alzheimer's Disease or other forms of elderly dementia. The • Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 proposal would fall under the zoning requirements as outlined in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2, pertaining to "Nursing homes and other similar group housing". Ericson provided a statement of intent from the applicant along with a proposed site plan for the development for the Commission's review. Ericson stated that staff feels the impacts of the proposed use are minimal, at least in comparison to the impacts of a potential commercial use that could develop. He stated the use would generally not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the property is adjacent yet behind commercial uses, separated from the park and the residential area by Mounds View Drive. He noted it does not seem probable that this project would depreciate the area in any way, as it would seem to be a good fit for the area. He stated that the apparent need for such a use exists and as such would not adversely affect other similar uses, as there are none. Ericson stated that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as a mixed-use planned unit development. He stated that staff's interpretation was that this type of use would not be inconsistent with the land use designation. He stated that staff was also researching the construction possibilities for this site if the zoning was left commercial. He stated that those types of businesses that would • fit with the B-2 Zoning District would be, among other things, a grocery store, liquor store, drug store or video store, all uses which would generate substantial traffic. He stated that the applicant was proposing re-zoning to a residential type of use, and the specific use would generate little traffic. He stated that the access would be taken off of County Road I. He stated that there would be parking situated adjacent to the SuperAmerica store, and there would be no access on to Mounds View Drive. Ericson stated that, in addition to the typical criteria addressed for a conditional use, there were additional criteria for this specific use. He stated that one of the criteria was that the side yard setback would need to be double the minimum requirement. He stated that instead of twenty feet, the Code requires a forty-foot setback. He stated that the minimum lot area requirement is one acre, noting that this property met the criteria with approximately 1.7 acres. Ericson reviewed the five criteria that are present with all Conditional Use Permits. He stated that staff feels this type of use would appear to fit in well with this property as a business/commercial type of site. He stated that the subject property is presently vacant, noting that, given its setback from Highway 10, the demand for the property is minimal. He stated that staff feels this type of higher density use would be a good buffer between the commercial area and the adjacent housing. Commissioner Berke requested clarification of "other group housing" as defined by the Code. Community Development Director Jopke stated that the Code was not specific and therefore left this somewhat to the interpretation of the Planning Commission and the City Council as particular types • of housing are presented. He stated that other forms of group housing could be considered under this provision. Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 Commissioner Berke asked if the property could be utilized for a halfway house or some other type of group home without any real changes, if the project was developed, and did not fare well. Jopke stated that this could happen if a conditional use permit amendment was approved by the City. He stated that anything that was different would have to be reconsidered by the Planning Commission and the City Council as an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Berke asked if it would be difficult to disallow another permit, if this Conditional Use Permit was already approved. Jopke stated that they would have the opportunity to look at the differences in the housing and what the specific impacts might be. He stated that they could determine that different types of housing could have more impact on the community and therefore would not be appropriate. Commissioner Kaden asked if the project could be turned into apartments without having to come before the Council, if the housing project failed. Jopke stated that it could. He noted that an issue in that type of situation would be parking. He stated that the parking requirements for an apartment building would be different than those of an assisted living facility. He stated that more parking would be required to meet the Code requirements for an apartment building, but the use itself would be consistent. Milo Pinkerton, the applicant representing MSP Real Estate, stated that in light of the growing demand for senior apartments, their company was branching out, and would be building four similar facilities this year. He stated that they had no interest in group homes or apartments for the general population. He stated that they had employed a market study that determined the need for up to fifty units of housing in the Mounds View area. He stated that the housing would be assisted living, and/or Alzheimer's dementia housing, which requires twenty-four hour care, meal preparation, and medical dispensation. He stated that this facility also requires state licensure. He stated that the market was strictly for seniors, with the average age of 75 to 80 years. He stated that this was a replacement option for seniors who would otherwise go into nursing homes. He explained that the emphasis on this type of home was to provide the opportunity to be independent, with the availability of intensive service and care. Mr. Pinkerton stated that through discussion with staff they had concluded that it was best to take access to the property off of County Road I. He stated the back area of the building would be fenced in and terraced, with a trellis overlooking the baseball field that the seniors could enjoy. He noted that there would be a drop-off area and handicapped parking stalls in the front, with additional parking for staff on the side and rear of the building. Mr. Pinkerton described the building. He stated that there would be a living room with a two-story fireplace, and a dining room with a kitchen in the front of the building. He stated that a number of seniors with dementia enjoy walking in loops, and that the design of the floor plan would allow for this type of activity. He stated that the studio apartments would be located on the outside perimeter • of the building to provide sunlight and exposure. He stated that there would be a private dining area, an activity center, soda bar, separate pantry for storage, and a separate area for medical prescription dispensation. He provided a brief description of the elevations and general design of the building. • Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 Commissioner Berke stated that the site plan indicated 22 parking stalls, and asked how many employees the applicant would be anticipating. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they would be working rotating shifts, but that there would probably be 12-14 at peak times, with an average of 8-10. Commissioner Berke stated that this type of facility would likely require a larger number of employees, but noted that even with that many employees, and 48 residents with visiting family members, the available parking would be inadequate. He added that with snow, the parking space would also be reduced. He stated that given the amount of space indicated, the vehicles would overflow into the street and asked if there was room to provide more parking. Mr. Pinkerton stated that there was room for the addition of 6-8 more stalls, but that they did not believe that would be necessary. Ericson stated that the parking space provided does meet the City Code requirement for this type of use. Commissioner Berke stated that his understanding was that there was a much higher ratio of care for senior residential housing, and that at least half of the stalls would be taken up by the staff, which would leave very few stalls for visitors. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they had developed twenty- four unit facilities with 10-11 parking stalls, and thirty-six unit facilities with 15-16 parking stalls. He stated that these numbers were based upon other facilities of the same size and their usage. Ericson • stated that staff could research what other cities and other facilities in the area utilize, to be certain that what the Code requires is in line with the expected demand. He stated that if assisted living facilities have a greater demand for parking than that indicated by the Code requirements for nursing homes and similar types of facilities, they could require more parking space and amend the Code to reflect that. Carol Golden, 2749 Lake Court Drive, stated that she was employed by a nursing/assisted living home. She stated that they have 150 residents in that facility, and 215 to 250 employees. She stated that staff was required for all aspects of that business, and added that the applicant would require more employees than they anticipated. She asked what type of payment provider the facility would be utilizing. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they were researching the matter, but did not have all of the answers at this time. He stated, however, that they were attempting to keep the price range at a rate that would be eligible for Medicare. Mrs. Golden stated that the parking at her place of employment was very problematic for the employees and the family members who visited the residents. Mrs. Golden asked if the facility would have private rooms. Mr. Pinkerton stated that, at present it was designed to have all private rooms, adding that they may consider some duplex-style rooms, which would include the sharing of some of the corner units. Mrs. Golden asked if they would be considering married couples as residents. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they would. Mrs. Golden stated that she lived directly across the street and could see the project from her front door. She stated her support for the project. Mike Grommesh, 2698 Lake Court Drive, stated that a residential facility of some sort in that lot was far preferable to anything else he could think of He stated that his main concern was the parking issue. He stated that he had three family members in nursing homes, and that parking always seemed . Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 to be an issue because there was never enough provided in the original plan. He asked how many square feet the lot and the footprint of the building were comprised of. Mike Lewis, Development Director for MSP Real Estate, stated that the lot area was slightly more than 70,000 square feet, and the footprint of the building was 16,000 square feet in area. Mr. Grommesh asked how much of this space would be devoted to parking. Mr. Lewis stated that there were 23 car stalls, but was uncertain as to the square foot area. Mr. Grommesh inquired regarding the size of the individual apartments. Mr. Lewis stated that they would range between 290 and 420 square feet in area. Mr. Grommesh stated that the entrance was another concern, noting that the intersection of Mounds View Drive and County Road I was a very dangerous one. He stated that the traffic concerns should be researched very carefully. He asked if there were other similar facilities in Minnesota that are comparable in parking that they could look at. Mr. Pinkerton stated no, this was their first project of this type in the State of Minnesota. He stated that they were constructing a facility in Greenville, Wisconsin, which was not yet completed. Mr. Grommesh asked if the facility would be privately funded or if Tax Increment Funds or other funding would be utilized. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the facility was completely privately funded. Mr. Grommesh asked the applicant if he could describe how the facility would appear from the neighboring residents' view. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the patio itself would be a half-oval shape lined with a decorative fence approximately five feet in height. He stated that there would be a trellis that would provide shade to the living room. Mr. Grommesh asked how far the patio was from the street. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the shortest distance was approximately 30 feet. He added that they did not plan the addition of a sidewalk in the rear of the building. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the rear view of the building would be similar to that of the front. Mr. Grommesh asked if this would be classified as a skilled nursing facility. Mr. Pinkerton stated that this would probably be one level less than a skilled facility, but added that with the Alzheimer's residents, it may qualify. He stated that the target market had not been fully determined at this time, but it would be a 24-hour care facility. Council Member Stigney requested clarification regarding the skilled facility level. Mr. Pinkerton stated that it depended on their market, but it would be considered an assisted living facility, not a skilled nursing facility. He stated that there would be a part-time nurse on staff, rather than a full-time nurse as a skilled nursing facility might have. Commissioner Stevenson asked if the exterior would be consistent with the senior home located across the street. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the brick would be toned down a bit, and the building would be cream and beige in color with a green roof. Commissioner Stevenson stated that he was . concerned that, in light of the senior home located less than a block away, they would have too many incongruent building types in that area. Mr. Pinkerton stated that he would look into that matter. Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 Commissioner Hegland asked if the residents of the facility would be able to leave the premises. He stated that he was concerned for the safety of the type of residents who would be occupying the facility, in regard to the busy traffic area. Mr. Pinkerton stated that there would be controlled access entering and exiting the building and the residents could not leave the premises without assistance. Commissioner Berke inquired about the time frame for completion of the building. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they planned to commence in the fall, and hoped to open the facility in the spring. He estimated that the project would take seven months to complete. Commissioner Berke asked if they were the developers of Silver Lake Commons, adding that this project was not yet complete, and was quite unsightly. Mr. Pinkerton stated that this was correct and agreed, adding that they had had problems with the development of that location. Commissioner Berke reiterated that the appearance of the area was very unsightly, and that if it were any indication of how the applicant builds, he would be very concerned. Mr. Grommesh asked if there was room for the ingress and egress of delivery trucks at the proposed location and the access at County Road I. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the delivery trucks would have to turn around to exit the location. Mr. Grommesh noted that turning around would take up parking . space as well. Mr. Pinkerton stated that typically they would have one delivery truck a week. Commissioner Miller asked if there would be any facilities, such as a microwave or refrigerator in the residents' rooms. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they are presently considering having all of these facilities in a central location. He stated that at least two and probably three of the meals would be prepared, and the residents could snack in the centralized area. He added that activities would be organized on a daily basis. Mrs. Golden stated that the applicant should be aware if the special diets that might be required, and the numerous issues that should be investigated. She added that some residents do manage to leave the premises on their own, noting that it does occur at the facility on Silver Lake Road. She stated that a similar facility in the area had started out as an assisted living facility and did not succeed. She stated that they now operated as a nursing home type of facility and added that the residents' rent had increased dramatically. She stated that she hoped the applicant could succeed with the home-like atmosphere, and that there was a definite need in the City for this type of facility. Council Member Stigney asked if the applicant, as a developer, was in partnership with anyone, national or otherwise, and what their protection was as a developer. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they would be the Builder/Owner, and would be partnering with a professional care provider, who they have not yet determined. He stated that this will be a party who understands this type of business, and can have their employees run the facility. • Mr. Pinkerton stated that within the next two weeks he would like to conduct more research on the parking ratios, and bring that information back to the Commission. He stated that he would attempt to learn more about what the ReaLife Cooperative was planning for their color scheme through • Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 18 consultation with staff, and continue to dialogue with their providers to determine the direction of the level of service for the facility. He stated that he believed this facility met the requirements for setbacks. He added that the use would be appropriate for many different reasons. He stated that he would like to know if there were any other issues which he should research. Commissioner Kaden asked for clarification of the landscaping plan as indicated on the site plan. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the site plan did not provide a detailed landscape plan, but indicated only what was to remain on the property as a buffer. Ericson stated that the first step in this process was the consideration of the rezoning and Conditional Use Permit. He stated that the applicant was aware that they would still have to come before the City for a Development Review, which would provide a more in-depth look at the site plan, landscaping, and parking requirements. He stated that the Council and Commission would have the opportunity to provide greater input, and that there would be ample time for more detailed discussion. Ruth Berke, 2683 Lake Court Circle, asked if the residents would have any assurance that the subject property would remain a senior building, if the zoning was changed to allow the Conditional 4110 Use Permit. She stated that she was concerned that it might become a shelter or a halfway house in the future due to the changed zoning. Ericson stated that the Conditional Use Permit would be specific to this use. He stated that if the use was changed in the future, and was sufficiently dissimilar to the approved use, it would need to be reviewed. He stated, however, that if an apartment building was proposed, it could be allowed, and added that the concern was valid. He explained that the Conditional Use Permit would apply to this type of use, and another permitted use would not come back before the Council. He stated, however, that if a halfway house or other types of use were proposed, it would require a different Conditional Use Permit. He stated that this was the protection provided to the City and the residents. He added that the only allowable use without a Conditional Use Permit is a multi-family dwelling. Chair Peterson stated that for other residential uses there would be different parking ratios and other requirements, which would call for a review of the permit. Ms. Berke stated that she lived in close proximity to the proposed development, and therefore, she was concerned about what could happen in the future. She asked if any of the Commissioners had gone to the Silver Lake Commons site. She stated that she believed this property was setting a precedent, and urged the Commissioners to go to the location to see what could be expected from that developer. Commissioner Stevenson stated that he agreed with Ms. Berke in that this property needed to be cleaned up. He requested that she also consider that this was the same party who developed Silver Lake Pointe, the 83 unit senior facility directly across the street from her residence. Ms. Berke stated that this facility was very nice. • Chair Peterson stated that they should address the proposal to change the property from a commercial to a residential use. He stated that the property had been vacant for quite some time and asked if a • Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 19 commercial enterprise at that location would be viable and desirable for the City and immediate neighborhood. Ericson stated that the owner of the property has been actively seeking a developer for this site over the years, and that the parcel has not yet been sold. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was a member of the Mounds View and New Brighton Chamber of Commerce, and that a great amount of discussion has taken place regarding the subject property. He stated that no developers would consider the property until the Comprehensive Plan Update was completed. He stated that there have been a lot of proposals for that property, and added that he is not in favor of `down-zoning' at all. Ericson stated that he was not certain that this proposal could be considered `down-zoning' but agreed that this was an issue that should be taken into consideration. Commissioner Hegland inquired about any liability that the City might incur as a result of rezoning for this type of usage, because of the safety considerations in regard to traffic and the residents. He stated he would like further examination of the safety issues. Commissioner Berke asked about the difference in the tax base in terms of this building as opposed to a commercial type business. Ericson stated that at this point, the tax generated from the property was fairly insignificant. He added that they would look into the difference that a commercial endeavor would generate. Commissioner Berke stated that he assumed the tax base of the proposed development would generate considerably more that a video store. Commissioner Kaden stated that, in his opinion, the City of Mounds View already had a large amount of high-density residential development, and although this current proposal for this property was not an apartment building, it could possibly become that in the future as a result of changing the zoning. He stated that he had reservations about adding any more R-4 zoning to the City. Chair Peterson stated that he was not totally convinced that a commercial use was not an option at that location, but that something less intense would be more desirable. He stated that if this location was in an area that provided destination traffic, it might be viable for a commercial venture. He requested clarification regarding the suggestion that the Comprehensive Plan update had deterred development, noting that spontaneous Comprehensive Plan revisions have occurred in response to specific development requests in certain areas. Commissioner Johnson stated that the uncertainty associated with the process was a deterrent to developers. Chair Peterson stated that if there is an ambiguity between the current and proposed Comprehensive Plan, and the current zoning, this should not stand in the way of a particular development proposal from progressing. Commissioner Johnson agreed, but stated that the proposals for commercial development were not progressing. Ericson stated that staff required specific direction on how to proceed. He stated that the date of the 411 public hearing had not been set yet, although it was planned for the July 26 Council meeting. He stated that staff needed to know if the Commission felt that a recommendation could be made at the next Planning Commission meeting, or if the public hearing should be set for the first Council meeting • Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 in August. He stated that if there was a consensus among the Commissioners, staff could draft a resolution, which could be completely re-drafted at their next meeting if necessary. Commissioner Stevenson requested information on the difference between the tax base for an R-4 versus a B-2 development. Ericson stated that staff could provide that information. Chair Peterson stated that another issue is the intensity of the use, and added that, in his opinion, a less intensive use than B-2 commercial would be more desirable at this location. Commissioners Miller and Stevenson stated that they agreed. Chair Peterson requested clarification from Commissioner Kaden regarding his view on R-4 zoning. Commissioner Kaden stated that his view was not specific to this proposal, but a general observation. He added however, that this proposal did seem like a lower intensity use of the property than a commercial use in regard to traffic, and that at this point he was undecided. Commissioner Stevenson asked what percentage of R-4 property in the City is non-rental. He stated that this proposal would not be the same as an apartment building, noting that primarily, what they have in Mounds View R-4 districts are rental units, which are what they were trying to avoid. • Commissioner Stevenson stated that he did not think the subject property would be very conducive to that type of change. Ericson stated that it would not meet any of the Building or Fire Code requirements. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would like to see a list of businesses that would be acceptable at that location, noting that there were a number of low-density businesses that could work at that location as well. Chair Peterson stated that it appeared they had only a general consensus among the Commissioners. Ericson asked if he should delay setting the public hearing for the July 26 Council Meeting. Commissioner Miller stated yes. Mr. Pinkerton asked when the public hearing could be set. Ericson stated that it was a matter of sending proper notification to the public, and having enough time to send the notice to the newspaper, which requires a seven-day advance in addition to the legal requirement of ten days. He stated that he could set the public hearing for the August 9th City Council meeting, and that staff would continue to research the issues, and bring them forward at the next Planning Commission meeting. 8. Special Planning Case No. SP-072-99 Consideration of Resolution 585-99, a resolution recommending adoption of proposed Ordinance 632, an ordinance amending Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, pertaining to permitted uses within the B-2, Limited Business commercial zoning district • Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 21 Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Staff has issued a building permit to Kraus Anderson to do interior remodeling work within Silver View Plaza, located at 2540 Highway 10, for private educational institution—Calvin Academy. The subject property is zoned B-2, Limited Business, which does not specifically permit such a use. Ericson stated that, as the Planning Commission was aware, one of the problems with the City's Zoning Code is its rigidity. He stated that each district has a specific set of uses, sometimes referred to as a"laundry list" of uses, yet since it is impossible to include every possible appropriate use, there is often the need to make interpretations. Ericson stated that, to eliminate any subsequent questions regarding this type of use, staff proposes that it be added to the list of permitted uses within the B-2 district. If no action is taken, Calvin Academy would operate and function by virtue of an administrative Code interpretation rather than by an explicit reference in the Code. He stated that staff felt it would be more appropriate to amend the Zoning Code. He stated that if the Commission concurs, staff recommends that they approve Resolution 585-99, a resolution which recommends to the City Council that they adopt Ordinance 632. Ericson stated that the Calvin Academy planned to open their facility in the fall of 1999. He explained that this is an accredited institution in which the students are taught on an individual basis. He stated that these may be exceptional or gifted students, special needs students, or students who require additional tutorage. He stated that the school is not proposing to have any more than thirty-six students. Commissioner Berke inquired regarding the age range of the students. Ericson stated that the students would range from the kindergarten through the twelfth grade levels. Commissioner Miller stated that the phrase "private educational facilities" indicated that the amendment to the Code would not be limited to this particular school. Ericson stated that this was correct. Commissioner Kaden asked if this would apply to a school of dance. Ericson stated that it would, and added that it would also apply to businesses such as the karate studio at Moundsview Square, Community Education and others educational facilities. Commissioner Hegland asked where they were proposing to have physical education. Ericson stated that, at this time, it was proposed to be off site. He stated that they had an agreement with Roseville to utilize their community gym and playground, and that there would be some type of van to transport the students to that location. Commissioner Hegland asked where the students would have their lunch, and if they would be permitted to leave the premises. He noted that children of this age group would require recreation. Ericson stated that he assumed the students would have their lunch on-site, and that there were presently no plans for a recreational area at the facility. • Commissioner Miller asked about businesses that would be displaced by this particular school. Ericson stated that through discussion with representatives of Kraus-Anderson, this particular spot Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 22 in the building had encountered some difficulty being leased, due to its limited visibility. He stated that he was not aware of any businesses that would be displaced, adding however, that staff would research the matter. Chair Peterson stated that the Commission should determine whether or not the ordinance amendment was the proper way to proceed. He inquired regarding the administrative interpretation of the Code, which would allow the matter to proceed without amending the Code. Ericson stated that staff interpreted that this use was sufficiently similar with the purpose and intent of this zoning district, and had issued a building permit to Kraus-Anderson to perform the interior work for this lease. Chair Peterson asked about the current language of the Code, and its relativity to the types of businesses that Ericson had indicated. Ericson stated, although the proposed amendment was the result of this particular use, it would also apply to instructional and educational types of uses which the Code had not previously addressed. Chair Peterson noted that B-2 zoning is intended for low intensity retail or service. He stated that presently he could not think of any higher type of impact resulting from a private educational facility than that intended by B-2 requirements. He stated that he was in favor of cleaning up the Code to allow additional uses which are reasonable and logical. Commissioner Hegland asked if there were any additional requirements on educational facilities in regard to play areas, and parking lots, that the Commission was not aware of. Commissioners Miller and Johnson stated that they did not believe these issues should be the Commission's concern. Commissioner Johnson added that, in his opinion, this would be the school's responsibility. Commissioner Miller stated that the amendment was intended for private facilities, not public, and that the responsibility was with the school. Commissioner Hegland stated that he did not agree, adding that the neighboring business would generate large amounts of traffic at this type of location, at times when young children would be present. He stated that he was concerned in regard to the safety issues. Commissioner Braathen stated that this proposal provides businesses the opportunity to run their own facilities, and that the Commission should not attempt to run these businesses. He added that these matters are the responsibility of the school. Chair Peterson added that the responsibility would also be shared by the lessor. Commissioner Hegland stated that he did not agree, and that he was not in favor of allowing schools in B-2 designated areas. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 585-99, a Resolution which Recommends Adoption of Ordinance 632, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to Permitted Uses within the B-2, Limited Business Zoning District, Special Planning Case No. SP-072-99. . Ayes — 7 Nays — 1 (Hegland) The motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 23 9. Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99 Consideration of a proposed ordinances amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to Billboards and amending the Code pertaining to signage in the PF and CRP zoning districts. Community Development Director Jopke stated that the City Council had requested staff and the Planning Commission continue to look into and make recommendations concerning amendments to the sign ordinance. He stated that these amendment were to allow limited billboards in certain areas of the community, and to allow signs in the PF (Public Facilities) and CRP (Conservancy, Recreational and Preservation) zoning districts. Jopke stated that he had drafted two ordinances to facilitate Planning Commission discussion of these matters. He stated that the first ordinance deals with billboards. This ordinance was drafted after discussions with a representative from the billboard industry, and after reviewing state rules and • ordinances from the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. He stated that he had discussed the issues with Mike Cronin, a consultant representing the billboard industry, and had considered his suggestions when drafting the ordinance. He provided the Commission with a copy of the draft ordinance, and reviewed its components. Jopke stated that the ordinance attempts to provide all of the billboard standards and regulation in one space to provide ease of administration. He stated that the Conditional Use Permit for billboards, if granted, would expire when the billboard lease expired, and would be null and void if any required state permits were not obtained. Jopke stated that the location requirements, pursuant to Council direction, were defined as the City owned property along or north of Highway 118. He stated that billboards should be oriented to Highways 118 or 35W and be at least 250 feet from residentially zoned property. He added that billboards could be located with zero setback from streets, but may not overhang the right-of-way. Jopke stated that one of the suggestions for the spacing of billboards was 1500 feet measured along side of the same roadway. He stated that he had discussed the matter with John Hammerschmidt who had indicated that 1000-foot separation would be preferable to maximize the number of potential billboard sites. He stated that the maximum area of signs should be 700 square feet, but that temporary extensions would be allowed, as long as they don't exceed 25 percent of the sign area or certain dimensions. He stated that these requirements are based on standard billboard sizes and practice, and consistent with requirements in other communities. • Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 24 Commissioner Miller stated that if something projected six feet above the top, it would be almost as high as the billboard itself. She asked what might project six feet from the top of the billboard. Chair Peterson stated that he had most commonly seen a face, with the top of the head projecting above the main area of the billboard, noting that generally this projection was not as wide as the body of the billboard itself. Jopke noted the requirement that billboards have no more than two faces that are back to back and parallel, or angled no more than 35 degrees. He stated that staff had reviewed the maximum height requirements for billboards, and that staff suggested the maximum height be set at 35 feet which is consistent with the maximum height limits for other types of signs. Jopke stated that staff had indicated a requirement that billboards not obstruct traffic signs or drivers vision. He stated that they included a provision to clarify the status of non-conforming billboards, indicating that any billboard in existence can continue, and the message can change, but the billboard cannot be expanded. Jopke stated that the final ordinance provision was in regard to Section 1008.11 that is labeled as • signs and billboards, but the section deals strictly with sign variances. He stated that staff had amended the title to reflect the ordinance issues. He stated that a copy of the draft ordinance had been forwarded to the City Attorney's office for review and comment. He added that, as requested by the Commission, he had asked the City Attorney to suggest some "sunset" language that would allow the code to revert back to its present form if the state does not allow any billboards. Jopke stated that the second ordinance amendment allows and sets standards for signs in PF and CRP zoning districts. He noted that the current code does not list any permitted signage or standards in either of these districts. The draft ordinance allows signs consistent with neighborhood business districts and with the pedestal sign requirements in Section 1008.01, Subdivision 6 in the PF and CRP districts. Jopke stated that this was open for discussion. He stated that the amount of signage allowed might be more than necessary. He noted that existing signage at parks in a neighborhood setting appears to range from 18 to 20 square feet total sign area, while the main City Hall sign is approximately 128 square feet in area. He stated that the total freestanding signage in at the Community Center appears to be approximately 90 square feet. Jopke stated that he had requested John Hammerschmidt to inventory the signage at the golf course, and added that the issue of the proper zoning of the golf course required further investigation. Jopke stated that formal action on this matter would be premature at this point, but requested that the Planning Commission discuss the draft ordinances, and suggest any changes that may be necessary. He added that the Commission should also discuss what kind of public input process should be utilized. He stated that the Planning Commission would be requested to make a formal 111 recommendation on the ordinances to the City Council at a future meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 25 Chair Peterson stated that PF and CRP designations indicate the purpose of the signage as they relate to the specific use of the property and allow no signage that relates to anything else. He stated that he thought this would apply to the City parks and other City owned properties. He suggested that language be added to indicate this purpose for the signs. Commissioner Miller noted the requirement for PF and CRP designations of 100 total square feet, and that the current signage at City Hall already exceeds that amount. She requested clarification. Jopke referred to Section 1008.01, Subdivision 6, which allows additional free- standing pedestal type signs, which would cover the additional amount of signage. He suggested that the initial effort was to attempt to keep the regulation of signs simple and consistent in certain areas, but that they could consider different signage regulations for other situations, such as City Hall and City parks. Commissioner Miller stated that staff had indicated that the state would only grant a permit in commercial or industrial zoned properties, and asked how this affected the proposal. Jopke stated that this was an issue that the billboard companies would need to address. He stated that the philosophy of the City was that they would amend the ordinances to reflect what they feel is appropriate, and that the billboard companies would have to comply with those standards. He added • that the billboard companies would have to obtain the necessary permits to meet the state requirements, and that there was no guarantee that this could be done. Council Member Stigney noted Item 9, which indicates that billboards can be maintained and the message changed as long as they are not expanded. He stated that he had heard that the city of St. Paul had proposed an ordinance to eliminate all billboards within five years, and asked how this might affect the proposal. Jopke stated that staff could research the matter, adding that a recent court case had ruled that cities could not amortize uses in that manner. Commissioner Miller asked, in light of the present proposal, how the billboard was allowed at the Rent-All building. Jopke stated that this billboard had been in place for some time, and he was uncertain of the ordinance requirements at the time it was constructed. He stated that staff had a copy of the lease and could research the matter. Commissioner Braathen asked if billboard projects were required to come before the Planning Commission, prior to construction. Jopke stated no, that they are not permitted at this point in time. He stated that staff could review the matter to determine the status of all existing billboards in the City. Council Member Stigney noted Item 4, which indicated the spacing of billboards to be at 1500 feet along the same roadway. He asked if this meant that there could be one billboard immediately across a roadway from another billboard. Jopke stated that this was a possibility. Chair Peterson asked if the language could be amended to indicate that both sides of the roadway would be taken into consideration. Commissioner Johnson suggested that the language could indicate "on either side of the roadway" and "1500 feet from any other sign." • Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 26 Jopke stated that, as the billboards would have to be on City owned property, the City would ultimately have control over their location. He stated that staff would continue to work with the City Attorney, and report back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. 10. Staff Reports /Items of Information A. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Jopke reported on City Council actions from their meeting on June 28 and July 6. B. Meiho Lee Subdivision Update Planning Associate Ericson reported that staff was continuing to research the drainage issues relating to the Meiho Lee Subdivision. He stated that the property owners south of the subject property do not appear to support this proposal, due to the possible impact to the drainage, and the possibility of • flooding in this area. He stated that one of the property owners to the south of the applicant's property who owns a through-lot, indicated that he would not be agreeable to giving consent to allow for a drainage way through his property to direct the run-off to the wetland. Ericson stated that he had spoken with the applicant who is aware that this matter might take some time to resolve. He added that when further information comes before the Planning Commission, staff would notify the property owners who indicated that they would like to attend the discussion. C. Upcoming Planning Cases /Public Hearings Planning Associate Ericson reported that there would be many planning cases coming before the Planning Commission for consideration in the future. He stated that there were currently two Conditional Use Permit requests for oversize garages, and a request from Holiday Station Stores wetland alteration permit request and vacation of a drainage and utility easement, which were pending. 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports No other reports were considered. 12. Adjournment • There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m. 0 Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 27 (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, r ... ,LC/IL - t i / Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • III 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 585-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 632,AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1113 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE B-2, LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE NO. SP-082-99 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed proposed Ordinance 632, an ordinance amending Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertains to the B-2, Limited Business district; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the B-2 zoning district, as stated in Section 1113.01, is to provide for low intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished; and, IIIWHEREAS, the list of allowed uses as presented in Section 1113.02, Subdivisions 1 and 2, does not include "Private educational facilities;" and, WHEREAS, it is the finding of the Mounds View Planning Commission that this use is sufficiently similar to other listed uses and is considered to be an appropriate use for this district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that proposed Ordinance 632 be adopted to permit private educational facilities within the B-2, Limited Business commercial zoning district. 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 7th day of July, 1999. *N-v.--- Jerry Pete n, hairperson ATTEST: ___Ct-A/ 3---CY ),ej____----------- Rick'Jopke, Commu ty Development Director 1110 (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\SPECPROJ\SP072-99\5 85-99PC.RES • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 587-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1104.01, SUBD. 4, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SETBACKS TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED SETBACK FOR A GARAGE AT 2801 WOODALE DRIVE ; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 561-99 • WHEREAS, Michael and Christine Gregori of 2801 Woodale Drive have applied for a variance to permit a garage eleven feet from their east side lot line abutting Silver Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, 2801 Woodale Drive is property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lot 11, Except the North 250 Feet Thereof Knollwood Park Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3.Location Map 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Letter from Applicants WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by 0 unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, July 7, 1999 with regard to this variance request; and, Resolution 587-99 Gregori Variance July 7, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 Of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 2801 Woodale Drive to warrant the approval of a variance to Michael and Christine Gregory for the construction of a 672 square-foot garage eleven feet from the property line, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 2801 Woodale Drive which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the house and garage were built in 1953, predating the City's zoning code by seven years. 2. 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 in that multiple car garages are common features in this district and serve as a physical improvement to properties. 3. The variance request is the result of factors over which the applicants had no control. The house and garage were constructed in such a way that made the garage non-conforming with the advent of the City's Zoning Code. 4. Granting a variance to allow a two-car garage in the same location as the existing single- stall garage, without further encroaching into the setback, would not be a special privilege. Multiple-car garages are standard residential features while single stall-garages are becoming functionally obsolete. 5. The Planning Commission finds that an eleven-foot setback is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicant's hardship. 6. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for a two-car garage utilizing the same setback as the existing garage would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. • 7. A 672 square-foot garage set back eleven feet from the Silver Lake Road right of way would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. Resolution 587-99 0 Gregori Variance July 7, 1999 Page 3 Adopted this 7th day of July, 1999. • )41 \P±A-v....--- Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: 64/16-1 Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES1561-99\587-99PC.RES .