Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-1999 PC • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 21, 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 21, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Braathen, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube,Miller, and Stevenson (Commissioner Stevenson joined the meeting at 7:12 p.m.). Members Absent: None. 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 Resolution 586-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit to operate an automobile rental agency. A Macfrugal Company(Thrifty Car Rental), Applicant 2 Planning Case No. 563-99, 8059 Red Oak Drive, Consideration of Resolution 588-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for an oversized gars• - Allen and Joy Dick, Applicant 4 Planning Case No. 564-99, 2732 Highway 10, Consideration of Resolution 589-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor produce stand at the Holiday Stationstore. Chuck Durand, Applicant. 5 Planning Case No. 559-99, 2670 County Road I, Discussion concerning Application to rezone property and for a conditional use permit for an assisted living senior residential facility. MSP Real Estate, Applicant. 7 . Special Planning Case No. SP-07199, Consideration of a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 4110 Billboards and amending the Code pertaining to signage in to PF and CRP zoning districts. 15 Staff Reports/Items of Information 15 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 16 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. June 16, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Laube to approve the June 16, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes— 8 Nays—0 The motion carried. III5. Planning Case No. 562-99 Property Involved: 2975 Highway 10 (site formerly known as Quik Lube) Consideration of Resolution 586-99,a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit to operate an automobile rental agency. Applicant: A Macfrugal Company (Thrifty Car Rental) 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. As an accessory to the principal rental operation,the applicant requests that they be allowed to sell rental vehicles from the site as well. 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, and from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sundays. Ericson stated that this item was discussed at the Commission's meeting on July 7, and the applicant indicated that they would like to expand the parking lot to accommodate additional vehicles. A site plan date-stamped 7/15/99 was presented which showed the area for expansion as well as an area set III aside for 18-20 vehicles. With the vehicle parking in front of the bays and along side of the building, there is room for 23 vehicles at the site. Also discussed at that meeting was the need for landscaping improvements, which the applicant had indicated would be acceptable, though other than the removal Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 10 of some of the plantings that are sickly or dying, no specific plans have been submitted for this. Staff will discuss this matter with the applicant and the City Forester and will make specific recommendations in this regard. Ericson stated that there was discussion of the general criteria, which applies to any conditional use permit and the specific criteria which applies to this type of use, and that all of these criteria were met. He stated that this location has a long history of automotive uses, and the zoning of the property is commercial although the comprehensive plan indicates a low-density residential designation. Ericson stated that due to the long-standing commercial history at this location and the impending revision to the comprehensive plan, which could re-designate this parcel to a commercial use, staff feels that the inconsistency with the comprehensive plan could be temporary. He added that staff believes a residential use would not be appropriate at this property which is located at the intersection of Highway 10 and Spring Lake Road. Ericson reviewed the stipulations of the conditional use permit as outlined in the resolution. He stated the resolution also addresses conditional use permits pertaining to previous uses at this location. He stated that the first paragraph of Page 5 of the resolution provided that all previous conditional use permits on file with this property would become"revoked, rescinded and considered null and void", and that this language had been approved by the City Attorney. Commissioner Miller noted a discrepancy in regard to the hours that the applicant had proposed, a 7:00 a.m. start time, and the conditional use permit, which indicates an 8:00 a.m. start time. Ericson asked the Commission if a 7:00 a.m. weekday start time would be acceptable. Chair Peterson stated that it was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to amend the resolution to indicate the commencement of business to be 7:00 a.m. Commissioner Kaden asked if the Director of Public Works would examine and verify the drainage considerations, if a business or homeowner desired to expand their impervious surface. Ericson stated yes. He explained that typically, the Public Works Department or the City Engineer would be consulted. He added that, in this case, he had forwarded the site plan to SEH who analyzed how the additional impervious surface would impact the site, and it was believed that there would not be a problem. He stated that the drainage, accomplished with two catch basins in the parking lot area, would not be compromised. MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Johnson. To Approve Resolution No. 586-99, a Resolution Recommending to City Council Approval of a Conditional use Permit Request From Thrifty Car Rental to Operate an Outdoor Rental Operation at 2975 Highway 10; Planning Case No. 562-99, with stipulations. Ayes— 8 Nays— 0 The motion carried. • Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 III6. Planning Case No. 563-99 Property Involved: 8059 Red Oak Drive Consideration of Resolution 588-99,a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for an oversized garage. Applicant: Allen and Joy Dick The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct an oversized garage at 8059 Red Oak Drive,which is located north of Highway 10,between Hillview and Sherwood Roads. The area of the subject property—an interior lot—is approximately 16,142 square feet. The house is set back approximately 68 feet from the street,with the detached garage situated behind the house. The house, at approximately 960 square feet, is presently larger than the existing two-stall garage, which is 480 square feet. The applicant proposed to construct a 520 square-foot addition to the rear of the garage, maintaining the same width of the existing garage. The roofline of the addition will tie in perpendicularly to the existing garage and will either be of the same height or a foot or so lower. In addition to the garage, there is also a 130 square-foot shed in the backyard, which will be moved III further back to allow for the garage expansion. Ericson stated that the size of the proposed garage would be 1,000 square feet, which is comparable to the size of the home. While it would be larger, there would not exist any imbalance between the home and garage. Ericson stated that staff had reviewed the adverse affects, the criteria present with any conditional use permit application, and had determined that the proposed expansion would not adversely impact neighboring property owners. He stated that the property is well screened from the neighbors by the garage itself,as well as shrubs and a fence. He added that this is a deep lot, and the property to the rear does not even see the garage, which is set back from the street a significant distance. He stated that in terms of screening,the criteria were met. He added that in consideration of multi-vehicle families, boats,and recreational vehicles, the need for additional space is clearly demonstrated. He stated that the general criteria of the conditional use permit all appear to be met, and provided the Commission with an overview of the stipulations. He stated that the use is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan, and is in keeping with the City Code. Chair Peterson requested clarification in regard to the staff report, which indicated the addition was perpendicular to the roofline. Ericson explained that the roof of the garage sloped forward instead of peaking at the front,and that the expansion would tie into the existing garage, with a gable end on the back. He stated that this would not be apparent from the frontal view of the property. Commissioner Braathen stated that he had driven by the subject property, and found this to be a beautiful, well-maintained home. He added that the expansion would not be very apparent. • Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 • MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Stevenson. To Approve Resolution No. 588-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for an Oversized Garage at 8059 Red Oak Drive; Mounds View Planning Case No. 563-99. Ayes—9 Nays—0 The motion carried. Ericson stated that this item would come before the City Council for consideration at their meeting on July 26. 7. Planning Case No. 564-99 Property Involved: 2732 Highway 10. Consideration of Resolution 589-99,a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor produce stand at the Holiday Stationstore. Applicant: Chuck Durand The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: . Ralph Durand,representing the Holiday Stationstore, is requesting a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor produce stand in the parking lot of the Holiday Stationstore at 2732 Highway 10, which is located at the southeast corner of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road. The proposed operation would be from July through October of this year and years thereafter. The produce stand is planned to be open from dawn to dusk seven days a week. He noted an inconsistency in the staff report regarding the hours of operation, and stated that this would be corrected in the resolution as well, if necessary. The stand or sales tent is proposed to be 12 feet square and would be located in the grassy area immediately adjacent to the bank of parking stalls at the north corner of the lot. He added that it would not take up any of the parking spots required for the store. The Holiday store has more parking than actually is required,which will accommodate any additional parking needed. Ericson stated that it was anticipated that many of the customers of the produce stand would be from those already at o i•ay. Ericson stated that the resolution is drafted in such a way as to not expire. If there are no problems with the operation, the applicant would like the opportunity to operate in subsequent years as was done with Linder's and Merryville Farm Market. He stated that one of the stipulations required that information be supplied to the Director of Community Development in the form of site plans and a letter of intent from the owner on an annual basis. Other requirements are that the dates of operation are listed within the resolution,and the hours of operation are only between dawn and dusk. He noted stipulations which require that signage shall only be allowed as affixed to the stand itself, lighting for the stand would be supplied by the existing lighting,and the conditional use permit would be recorded with Ramsey County. • Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 • Ericson stated that the specific requirements pertaining to outdoor sales in this district appear to be addressed satisfactorily, and that there does not appear to be any adverse impacts from this use. He added that there were no problems associated with abutting residential properties. Commissioner Stevenson asked if the stand location shown on the site plan was located within the City's right-of-way or the Highway 10 right-of-way. Ericson stated that the proposed stand would be on the applicant's property, not in the City's easement area or the MnDOT right-of-way. He stated that the parking lot was set back 30 feet from the property line, and that there was sufficient room for the produce stand. Commissioner Stevenson explained that, at one time this was the location designated for the Mounds View monument type marker, and if they were to proceed with that project in the future, they probably would not want a produce stand located on the back side of the monument marker. Ericson stated that, as the conditional use permit was reconsidered on an annual basis, if the Council and Planning Commission determined that the produce stand should be eliminated or moved elsewhere, they could bring it back before both bodies and addressed at that time. Chair Peterson noted a diagonal line in the north corner of the lot as indicated on the site plan, and requested the clarification of the notation appearing to refer to the gateway area easement. Ericson stated that during the planning of the Holiday Stationstore and the Silverview Estates planned unit development, one of the requirements of the development agreement was that the owners dedicate to the City of Mounds View that triangular portion at the north corner of Silver Lake Road and Highway • 10. He stated that it was on that piece of land, that the City would, at some time in the future, construct a gateway monument. He stated that an easement has been filed with the County dedicating the land to the City for that purpose. Chair Peterson stated that it appeared from the site plan, that line was approximately 15 feet closer to the highway than the proposed location of the produce stand. Ericson stated that this was somewhat correct, noting however, that the line was not to scale, and that there would be approximately 25 feet between the stand and the City's easement area. Council Member Stigney asked if the proposed stand would be removed in October. Ralph Durand, representing the applicant, stated that it would. Chair Peterson requested clarification regarding the design of the structure. Mr. Durand stated that it would be a temporary tent, approximately 12 feet square, tied down on four sides. He stated that there would be tables under the tent,and a few bushel baskets with produce off to the side. He stated that Darcy Ewing,would be operating the stand,and he operated such stands within the Big Lake area. He stated that they would be specializing in competitively priced, home grown produce, and that he believed it would be of benefit to the community. Chair Peterson asked if stakes would be required to sustain this type of a structure, and if so, would they interfere with the underground tanks. Mr. Durand stated that the tanks were not located in the grassy area. He added that the tanks are covered with a one-foot concrete slab. Mr. Durand stated that they were very anxious to see the Mounds View monument marker erected, and added that when that happens, they have other locations that would be appropriate for the produce stand, which would not interfere with the project. Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 . Commissioner Miller requested a correction to the Page 3, Item 5, second italicized sentence, to indicate "It would not be inconsistent with the intent..." She requested that Page 3, Item 8, first italicized sentence indicate"outside the Holiday Stationstore,"and the last italicized sentence indicate "...will be needed to accommodate this use." MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Stevenson. To Approve Resolution No. 589-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Produce Sales at Holiday Stationstore,Requested by Chuck Durand; Planning Case No. 564-99, with stipulations. Ayes —9 Nays — 0 The motion carried. Ericson stated that this item would also be considered by the City Council at their July 26 meeting. 8. Planning Case No. 559-99 Property involved: 2670 County Road I 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 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 an assisted living senior residential facility. This is a vacant lot located directly behind SuperAmerica, at the crossing of Mounds View Drive and County Road I. Ericson stated this was a forty-eight unit facility, which would cater primarily to senior citizens who are not able to live independently, but do not require round-the-clock care. He stated that this use would fall in between independent senior living facilities and nursing homes. He stated that he had compiled information off of the Internet, which would provide a background into assisted living facilities. Ericson stated that parking issues were discussed at the prior meeting, in regard to the Code requirements pertaining to this type of use and the demands it would create. He stated that staff had researched the parking requirements for similar facilities in different cities within the Twin City area and outside the state,and had determined that the City's requirements, (one space for every three beds) falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of required parking ratios. He stated that discussion with cities requiring less parking indicated that the parking did not appear to be an issue, however, the parking demand might be higher with this specific type of use. Ericson stated that during periods of increased demand, other cities utilized on-street parking to accommodate overflow. He stated that the 11111 City of Mounds View prohibits on-street parking to meet on-site parking requirements, however, if there is a demand for on-street parking beyond City Code requirements which cannot be met on-site, Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 there is enough room on Mounds View Drive to accommodate some extra vehicles. He stated that staff believes the parking concerns can be satisfactorily addressed. Ericson stated that another concern raised at the previous meeting was in regard to delivery vehicles, specifically semi tractor-trailers, and whether or not they would be able to perform a safe entry and exit from the site. He explained that as currently proposed, there is only one way in and one way out of the parking lot, and no room is available for a large truck to turn around. He stated that although such a vehicle might only be servicing the location once a week, the vehicle would have to back out onto County Road I, one of the busiest streets in the City, and this would pose a serious safety concern. Ericson stated that staff had instructed the applicant to initiate discussions with SuperAmerica to see if it would be possible to tie into their rear access onto Mounds View Drive. He stated that another, possibly preferable option was available, which would be to provide an access onto Mounds View Drive, eliminating any concerns or safety issues in regard to the trucks going in and out of the property. He stated that this could also provide access for emergency vehicles, which might need to enter and exit the facility. Ericson added that the issue of through-traffic could be addressed in the site plan review, with a requirement that the access be posted "no exit," "emergency exit," or "truck exit only." Ericson stated that with regard to access another issue is the median located between the east and west lanes of County Road I which extends just beyond the proposed entrance to the property. He stated that staff had suggested the applicant contact the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer to determine if it would be possible to move the median back. He stated it is not yet known whether the county would permit the median to be cut back to allow safe access, but that staff would require that some alteration be made to make access more convenient. He explained that it might be premature to begin inquiring into this matter, and that these issues could be addressed in the future with the site plan review. Ericson stated that the question of taxes was brought forward at the Commission meeting, pertaining to the differences in tax generation between the proposed use and an unspecified commercial use. He stated that, in speaking with Ramsey County Tax Department, staff learned that a use such as the proposed assisted living facility would be taxed at the same rate as any other commercial use, 2.4 percent up to the first$150,000 in valuation. From that point on, commercial uses are taxed at the rate of 3.4 percent. He stated that there is a provision in the tax code that allows for "elderly living facilities"to maintain the 2.4 percent rate at valuations after$150,000 as well, thus the proposed use ..� . : •_ .: • _. . _ •- - . . • . •. • . - . -• ,, - . • - u - m.y be taxed at a higher rate after the initial $150,000, it would not be unrealistic to assume that the proposed use would be"valued" significantly higher than a retail or commercial use. He added that it is not currently known what assessed valuation the County Assessor would establish for this use, and there are no known similar facilities with which to compare. He stated that, as best as staff can determine with the information available, the proposed facility would likely generate an equal or greater amount of taxes than many, but not all, commercial uses. Ericson stated that another issue discussed at the prior Planning Commission meeting was the proposed rezoning of the property, and concerns expressed regarding the potential re-uses of the property should the assisted living facility fail or be sold to another developer. He noted the • conditional use permit provides that the assisted living facility is the only type of use allowed. He stated that there are other types of"group housing," however, after closer review of the City Code, Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 staff had determined that this could only be permitted in a residential or"home" type structure. He cited the exact language of the Code which indicates"...group housing, which is only allowed if the use is in a family dwelling and be limited to no more than 12 children." He stated that the possibility of the use being altered to some other type of"group housing" would only occur if someone were to change the structure itself to a house or dwelling, and that staff did not feel this was feasible or likely. Ericson stated that the other possible option would be to provide some type of multi-family housing on the site. He explained that if the proposal as presented is built, it could not be re-used for multi- family housing, as it would not meet building or housing Codes. He stated that if there were a proposal to change this to some type of multi-family dwelling, i.e., apartments or town-homes, the developer would have to clear the building from the site. He stated that although this could happen, the economic factors would make it very unlikely. He added that, given the setback and parking requirements for multi-family dwellings, probably no more than twelve units could be constructed at that site. Ericson stated that the Code in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2, is somewhat unclear in its definition of what would be considered a similar group housing use. He stated that as the subdivision heading is Nursing Homes, staff could contend that similar types of group housing would pertain only to elderly group housing. He explained, however, that because this is not explicitly stated, staff would recommend that if the Commission desired to limit the type of housing to the elderly, the code should • be amended to reflect that. He stated that this could be accomplished by amending the first line of Subdivision 1109.04 (2) to read, "Nursing homes and other elderly congregate housing..." which would eliminate any question of what the other similar uses would be. Commissioner Berke inquired if the applicant had provided the number of staff they would be utilizing at the facility. Ericson stated that the applicant had indicated that the busiest shift would require 8-9 employees. Commissioner Berke stated that it was necessary to learn the exact type of assisted living they would provide,adding that if it includes Alzheimer's care, there is a tremendous difference in the amount of staff required than simply assisted living. Ericson stated the applicant was in the process of negotiating with national providers who would be operating this facility, and that this would assist in determining the type of clientele they would have in that facility. Commissioner Hegland stated that the question at hand was to determine whether or not they would require parking beyond the current one space for every three beds requirement, and whether the City Code would require an amendment for this specific type of use. Ericson stated that he had attempted to research other cities parking requirements, which pertain to this specific type of use but found, as it is relatively new, it has not been properly addressed. He stated that there was room for 12 parking spots to be constructed on the premises, in addition to the 22 parking stalls, which currently exist. He added that if the parking demand was greater than the Code anticipated, the resolution could require the developer to provide those additional spaces. Commissioner Laube suggested that the applicant confer with the businesses across the street, which • generally did not fill their parking lots to capacity, to assist in accommodating overflow parking. Ericson stated that this could be explored, but that he would be concerned with people crossing County Road I. Commissioner Laube stated that Mounds View Drive was already utilized by a great Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 110 deal of pedestrian traffic, and with the addition of vehicles parked on the sides of the street, it would pose a serious safety concern. Commissioner Hegland stated that the Commission's responsibility was to define how much parking this type of use would require. He asked if they would, in tying into SuperAmerica's exit, run parallel to it on their own property,and just expand that entrance. Ericson stated that this could be done, and that there would be room to shift their access away from the SuperAmerica access, to prevent interference with their driveway. Commissioner Berke stated that this would align the access with the residential streets, which would not be proper planning. Ericson stated that this would not be a commercial exit, and would not generate a large amount of traffic. Commissioner Berke stated that he believed businesses should not impact residences. He added that he felt the applicant was misleading the Commission regarding the amount of parking he would require. Council Member Stigney stated that he was concerned with the parking issues. He explained that both his son and daughter-in-law were employed at care facilities, and he often visited friends in different nursing homes. He stated that he always noticed a lack of sufficient parking. He suggested that they attempt to make a comparison to the parking requirements with those of the Milwaukee facility, if similar in use. He stated that the issue of adequate parking should be stressed. Commissioner Berke stated that if this is assisted living care, the staff requirements would be lower, but the possibility then exists that the residents would be able to drive and have vehicles. He added . that if there was an Alzheimer's clientele, the residents would not be able to drive, but there would be more staff required, which would also impact the parking. Ericson noted that at this point, the applicant was applying for a rezoning and conditional use permit. He asked if the Commission felt this type of use was appropriate at this location,and if the request for rezoning could be recommended for approval. He added that,after these matters were determined, and when the type of clientele at the facility and the parking requirements were established, it would be up to the applicant to meet those requirements. He stated that the result of these determinations might indicate a lesser number of units at the facility. Commissioner Laube stated that the applicant had indicated they were considering allowing spouses to reside at the facility,and noted that a spouse might have a vehicle. In addition, he stated that if the property is rezoned, and the project fails or is withdrawn, he was concerned that the result might be the restriction of other types of businesses in the future. Ericson stated that at times in the past, zoning has been contingent upon certain conditions. He stated he had discussed this matter with the City Attorney, and explained that although zoning is not typically conditional,there were ways to draft an ordinance to reflect that the subject property would revert to its original zoning if the plan does not work out. Commissioner Stevenson stated that he would like to see that type of"conditional zoning." Chair Peterson stated that he agreed, and that this should be done in consideration of consistency with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Johnson stated that he agreed, adding that he thought that a B-2 business would be more appropriate at this location, and that this proposal would generate a large impact on the residents. He stated that he believed the applicant required at least twice the amount of parking he was suggesting. Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 410 Commissioner Hegland asked what prevented them from leaving the zoning of the property B-2, and why they could not adjust the Code if necessary to allow this type of use in a B-2 District. Ericson explained that the Code could be amended to allow a certain use in the district, and this particular use appears to be a good fit for this location, however he explained, it may not be appropriate in another location, which was the danger in amending the Code. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding signage at the location. Ericson stated that to some degree all of the high-density residential uses have some type of signage, which is permitted by the City Code. He stated if this matter proceeds to that point, it will be addressed with the site plan review. He stated in consideration of the expense of drafting the site plans, the developer requires some assurance that the City would like to see this type of facility at this location, and that the zoning was attainable. Mike Lewis, representative of MSP Real Estate, provided the Commission with a revised site plan, which indicated a drive-through from County Road I to Mounds View Drive. He stated that he believed this addressed the concerns regarding delivery vehicle ingress and egress. He stated that they had contacted the representative of SuperAmerica regarding utilizing their access for delivery, and that he was hesitant to provide an easement, and would probably only give a permit or some type of license for this purpose, which would be revocable. Mr. Lewis stated that, in regard to the staffing requirements, and in terms of the type of clientele residing at the facility, they had consulted with Senior Solutions, in Madison, Wisconsin, and the Fairview and Beckland facilities. He stated they had determined that the Alzheimer's residents, in approximately 24 units,would require six staff members (for every four residents there would be one staff member),and the other 24 assisted care residents would require an additional six. He stated that during peak operation there would be a maximum of 12. He stated that this was the consensus of the various health care providers they had contacted. Milo Pinkerton, representative of MSP Real Estate, stated that all of the parties they had contacted stated that they had more than sufficient parking. He stated that assisted living facility residents generally require 24-hour care, and would not likely be driving. He added that the price point they would be asking of their residents would provide that they would not be in this facility if they did not require true assisted living,and that all 48 rooms would require full 24-hour care. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the City staff had surveyed several assisted living facilities, the architects had designed 40, and their care provider had worked in approximately 30 facilities. Commissioner Berke stated that the St. Anthony facility indicated they were constantly receiving calls from the residents regarding insufficient parking. He added,although they met the parking requirements, there was overflow onto the streets. He added that he resided in the neighborhood of the proposed development, and did not want parking on the side streets. Mr. Pinkerton stated that he did not want the residents or their guests parking on the side streets either. He stated that they had contacted the ALS, a national provider of assisted care who utilized the ratio they were using as a guideline, which is 12 stalls for 24 beds, and that they were proposing more than one and one half times that amount. He stated that this ratio is what the industry requires. He requested that the Commission direct him as to how much parking would be required. • Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 ' • Council Member Stigney asked how many stalls the applicant had. Mr. Pinkerton stated that with proof of parking for an additional nine,there were 31 parking stalls. He stated that staff had conducted their research at 22 and felt that was adequate. Chair Peterson stated that one of the parking issues was whether the residents would have their own cars, and asked if it would be possible to restrict the residents from having their own cars. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they could possibly restrict a percentage of those, but did not think their lender would want to restrict the residents from having vehicles. He added that he did not anticipate a large percentage of the residents having vehicles, but would prefer not to have a deed restriction limiting it. He stated that they had proof of parking for possibly 38 or 40 vehicles if necessary. He added that he believed that the parking should accommodate all parties at all times, and that this was their goal. Carol Golden, 2749 Lake Court Drive, asked if the applicant would be providing some type of transportation for the residents. Mr. Pinkerton stated they had considered the matter, but this was to be determined by the provider. Mrs. Golden asked if the entire facility would be secure. Mr. Pinkerton stated that it would be,with a controlled access on both floors, monitoring of the residents at all times, and the additional security of the fenced back yard area. Mrs. Golden asked if the access to the property was going to be off of County Road I. Mr. Pinkerton stated that this was what was currently proposed. Commissioner Laube asked if they could make County Road I an entrance only. Mr. Pinkerton stated • that he thought this would be an excellent idea. Commissioner Stevenson noted the center median, which would prevent any left turns. Chair Peterson stated he had noticed the median had been cut back in the revised site plan. Mr. Pinkerton stated that this was what they were proposing. Commissioner Hegland asked if utilizing an access from the SuperAmerica driveway would reduce the amount of parking space available at the proposed site. Mr. Pinkerton stated that at most, it might eliminate two parking spaces which could be picked up on the other side of the access, however, he did not think it would eliminate any. Chair Peterson asked the applicant for his opinion regarding the language amendment to the ordinance which would revert the property to its original zoning, should the proposal be withdrawn. Mr. Pinkerton stated, in his opinion,the current owner of the property would be in favor of that if they did not go forward, and that he thought this was a good idea. Chair Peterson requested that the Commissioners state their views regarding the matter. Commissioner Hegland stated, in regard to rezoning, he was still weighing the idea of whether this was a business or residence, but did not have a strong opinion one way or the other. He stated that he would like to have the parking requirements established,and if that was done, he thought the proposal would be acceptable. He stated that he hadn't heard any resident's objections to this type of use. Commissioner Kaden stated that he did not object to this type of use or the zoning change. He stated • that he was in favor of amending the ordinance to revert to the original zoning, if the project was withdrawn. He stated that the applicant should resolve the parking issues, and a concrete number Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 1110 should be established,particularly in consideration of preventing a negative impact to the residential area. Commissioner Laube stated that he felt rezoning with the reversion clause was appropriate, and that the language indicating elderly congregate housing was necessary. He stated that he was a resident in this area,and that the proposed idea fit very well with what they would like to see at this location. He stated that he was concerned in regard to the parking, and had many phone calls from residents expressing their concerns in this regard as well. Commissioner Stevenson stated that he concurred with Commissioner Laube, adding that this was a preliminary stage in the process, and that they should go forward with the conditional zoning at this time. Chair Peterson stated he thought this was, in general, a good use for the property. He stated that in his opinion this was a commercial operation,although more residential in nature and that he could not think of a use that would be more appropriate for this site. He stated that he believed this would be a lower impact use than some commercial uses, adding that the majority of the traffic would be for visitors,whereas a retail type of operation might have customers coming in and out all day long. He stated that he thought it was a good idea to proceed with the zoning and the conditional use permit, and that clarification of the parking issues was required. • Commissioner Miller stated that in general she felt this was a good proposal, and if they could resolve the parking issues, she would be in favor of it. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was completely against the project, and not in favor of"down- zoning." He stated that if he was a business owner, with a business located next to the subject property, and had intended to see other businesses locate in that area, he would be very upset. He stated that in addition to this they did not have enough information regarding the issues. Commissioner Berke stated that he would have to be satisfied with the parking prior to moving forward,and that he would require clarification regarding what type of usage would be applied to the facility. He stated that the matter was still too vague, and needed clarification regarding the staff requirements. He stated that if he were satisfied with the outcome of these matters, he would be in : - - elle. . . Commissioner Braathen stated that he did not object to the proposal. He remarked that the applicant had presented an attractive facility. He stated that the specific use required clarification. He stated that persons with Alzheimer's disease do require extensive care, and that as this disease progresses, these people generally do not remain at this type of facility. He stated that he felt strongly about the layout of the parking and the traffic pattern considerations, but believed the applicant was working diligently to resolve these issues. He stated, in regard to the rezoning, he was of the opinion that they should not rush to develop all the land in the area, however he was not against the proposal and would wait to gain more information prior to making his determination in the matter. • Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 ill Mr. Pinkerton stated that he would attempt to engage one of their potential care providers to address the Commission and provide more information regarding the operation of the facility at the following meeting. 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 legal matters pertaining to the billboard issue were presently being reviewed by the City Attorney's office. He stated that one of these issues related to the deed restrictions, which may prohibit billboards on the golf course, based upon the way this property was dedicated and received by the City. He noted this issue might raise some spot zoning questions, and that the City Attorney's office was attempting to locate the deeds pertaining to this property. He explained that this information was necessary prior to proceeding with the potential ordinance. He stated that he had discovered through discussion with Mike Cronin, that if the matter goes forward,they would like to consider the possibility of a monumental type billboard, in which the billboards would be constructed side to side, and at an angle greater than 35 degrees. He stated that III this would create more visual impact on the community,which is the intent of the industry, but offered many things in terms of a landscaping base,and the opportunity for some type of a monument between the signs which could be quite nice. He stated that the other issue was the potential spacing of the billboards, and that John Hammerschmidt had indicated, in order to maximize the locations of billboards on the golf course, a 1000-foot spacing would be preferable to 1500 feet. Jopke stated that the ordinance relating to signage at PF or CRP zoned districts had been drafted and was before the Commission for consideration. He stated that these two ordinances were not tied together, and could move forward independently, if the Commission so desired. Commissioner Stevenson stated that he did not want the citizens of Mounds View to think that this process was to allow billboards on Highway 118. He explained that the process they were undertaking was due to the necessity to clarify the City Code in regard to signage. He stated that he would like to proceed in the matter. Chair Peterson stated it was the consensus of the Commission to proceed with the ordinance pertaining to PF and CRP Districts, and directed staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting. 10. Staff Reports /Items of Information • A. Previous Council Action Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 • Community Development Director Jopke reported on City Council action from the meeting on July 7. He stated they had moved forward with the public hearing and First Reading of an ordinance changing allowed uses within the B-2 Zoning District. He stated that the language of the ordinance had been amended to indicate"educational or instructional facilities," in order to more broadly define the use. Planning Associate Ericson reported that the upcoming planning cases would include a conditional use permit for an oversized garage, discussion regarding the vacation of a drainage easement at Pinewood Circle, and the MSP Real Estate proposal for an assisted living facility development. 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Commissioner Stevenson stated that he had attended a tour of the proposed asphalt trail around Silverview Pond,with the on-site and general properties' managers of Scotland Green. He stated that they were very anxious to proceed with the project,and had requested the City of Mounds View assist them in determining where their property lines are located. He stated that the City's property and easements are very unclear. He stated that once this is determined they indicated they could proceed with the project. He stated that a portion of the trail would be on the Scotland Green property, and that the City would assist with the trees and the removal of an old running track from the property, in preparation for the project. He added that he believed they would dedicate an easement to the City, if necessary. . Commissioner Hegland asked if they had drafted an easement for this purose adding that, if the City was spending money on the Scotland Green property, he thought it would be appropriate. Ericson stated that staff would look into the matter. 12. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson 111 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCO \ MM PCMIN\1999\07-21-99.WPD Flannin Comm. Mfg g Date: 7 2 r 99 Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: .11 I R_A, 4c ( 7w7(),(1(9 57-e3 ?F • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 586-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FROM THRIFTY CAR RENTAL TO OPERATE AN OUTDOOR RENTAL OPERATION AT 2975 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 562-99 WHEREAS, Tim Moe, representing Thrifty Car Rental, has applied for a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor automobile rental facility at 2975 Highway 10, property zoned B-3, Highway Business Commercial, legally described as follows: Lot 13 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Subject to Highway 10 and Spring Lake Road Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows outdoor automobile rental facilities • in the B-3 Highway Business District with the approval of a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Existing Site Plan 4. Proposed Site Plan, Date-stamped 7/15/99 5. Letter from Applicant 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the criteria for approval for automobile rental facilities in Section 1114.04, Subd. 5 have been met: a. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. The principal use for this location will be automobile rental and is not subject to the thirty percent limitation. The operation may be allowed to market for sale rental vehicles as an accessory use which would be subject to the thirty percent limitation. This limitation translates into no more than three vehicles on the property markedfor sale at any one time. b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring identical uses or an abutting R District in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title. Thrifty Auto Rental Resolution 586-99 • July 21, 1999 Page 2 There will be no officially designated sales area on this property as the principal use will be auto rental. The use is currently screened from abutting residential properties by virtue of a wood privacy fence. The residential properties across the street are sufficiently separated by the width of the Spring Lake Road right of way and the respective setbacks of the business and houses. 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 1103.08, Section 1103.09 of this Title. There are no changes proposed with regard to the external lighting of this property, which is currently in compliance with the indicated section of City Code. d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The area on which the rental vehicles and those vehicles parked,for sale is bituminously • paved. Vehicles will not be allowed to be parked upon any unpaved area of the property. e. The open or outdoor service, sale or rental use does not take up parking space as required for conformity of this Title. According to the Chapter 1121 of the City Code, this operation will need to provide a minimum of four parking spaces for employees and customers. Any remaining parking spaces may be utilized for rental vehicles. f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. These provisions are addressed in detail in the following "whereas" clause. WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been taken into consideration in its recommendation according to Section 1125.01, Subdivision 1.e: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. • (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. Thrifty Auto Rental Resolution 586-99 • July 21, 1999 Page 3 This proposed use or any commercial use would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan as currently drafted A commercial use has been present at this location for the last 30 years and it is staff's position that the comprehensive plan should be amended to reflect this type of use. This comp plan change could occur as part of the current comp plan update process or could be done in conjunction with the applicant's request. The area surrounding the parcel is dominated by residential uses. There are commercial uses and higher density residential uses across Highway 10. While the property is the only commercial use in the immediate area, its location at the intersection of Spring Lake Road and Highway 10 makes it undesirable for a residential use. Addressing the issue of neighborhood depreciation, it is much more desirable to have a successfully operating business at this location than to have an abandoned, run-down property. As for the need for such a use, there are currently no businesses in the City that provide a car rental service. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings • relative to the criteria stated in Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b. of the Mounds View Municipal Code: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. The use will be a service-oriented business, rather than residential development, and therefore is not expected to create a burden on parks or schools. The proposed use will utilize the existing building and is not expected to increase the demands on public facilities and utilities. (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 use is currently screened from abutting residential properties by virtue of a wood privacy fence. The residential properties across the street are sufficiently separated by the width of the Spring Lake Road right of way and the respective setbacks of the business and houses. (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. iThe applicant will be replacing a closed and untended business site with a new business and site improvements. There are currently no other similar uses in the City. Thrifty Auto Rental Resolution 586-99 • July 21, 1999 Page 4 (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The Zoning Code allows for automobile rental businesses in this zoning district, with approval of a conditional use permit. The property is located on Highway 10, which is the City's primary business corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. Hours of operation shall not exceed 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Sundays. 2. Service of vehicles shall only be performed inside the building and shall be limited to only those vehicles on site for rent or sale. There shall not be any service of • vehicles allowed for the general public. 3. The applicant shall revise the site plan to show two posted "No Parking" signs along the Spring Lake Road right of way. 4. Other than the vehicles for rent or sale, there shall be no outside storage allowed without the prior approval of an amendment to this conditional use permit. 5. Automobile sales will be limited to a maximum of three vehicles at one time. 6. Other than any interior signage, there shall be no signage allowed pertaining to the sale of vehicles. Cars may display"for sale" signs only if said signage is restricted to the interior of the vehicles. 7. No more than 23 vehicles shall be allowed to be parked outside on the premises at any one time, and only in accordance with the site plan date-stamped 7/15/99. 8. No vehicle shall be allowed to be parked on unimproved surface on the premises at any time. 9. The applicant shall make landscaping improvements to the property consistent with Commission and Council desires, to be more fully addressed prior to City Council . action. 10. The applicant shall record the conditional use permit with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval or this permit shall become null and void. Thrifty Auto Rental Resolution 586-99 July 21, 1999 Page 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other Conditional Use Permits on file with this property pertaining to previous uses shall hereby be revoked, rescinded and considered null and void because the provisions pertaining to those uses are no longer being observed BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 21st day of July, 1999. Jerry Pete on, Chairperson • Attest: 3— )114-'2- Rick Jopke, Community D velopment Director (Seal) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCASES\562-99\586-99PC.RES • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 588-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY . STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 8059 RED OAK DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 552-99 iWhereas, Allen and Joy Dick have applied for a conditional use permit to allow for a 1,000 square-foot garage on property located at 8059 Red Oak Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: The South 70.00 Feet of Lot 119, Spring Lake Park Hillview, County of Ramsey WHEREAS, there is currently a 480 square-foot garage and a 130 square-foot shed on this lot; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,400 square feet of garage/accessory building space 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. Location Map e. Staff Report • WHEREAS, the PlanningCommission finds that the dimensional requirements as stated q in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, Planning Commission Resolution 588-99 July 21, 1999 • Page 2 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.: 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, 8059 Red Oak Drive, as low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2, 4. The Geographical Area Involved & the Character of the Surrounding Area. In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are larger than the subject property. The homes are generally of a similar style architecture and were built around the same time, although the subject home is newer and is larger than those in the immediate area. Many of the homes in the immediate area have larger garages, most of which are detached as in this proposal. A larger garage on the subject property would not appear out of place. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. • Adding to the existing garage will have an immediate positive impact on the value of the subject property. At 1,000 square,feet, set back from the street as far as it is, this garage addition probably would not depreciate the surrounding area in any way. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage--while a two stalls--is considered fairly small by today's standards. The applicants both have vehicles as do their children. In addition, the applicants own a boat which they would like to have stored within the garage. Clearly the need for additional garage space has been demonstrated. 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. Adding on to a small garage would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities, parks. schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. • 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 Planning Commission Resolution 588-99 July 21, 1999 • Page 3 adjacent residential properties. Because the house is set back further than is typical, and because the garage is situated behind the house, there would be substantial public screening from this accessory structure. In terms of its relationship with the two adjoining properties, the backyard of the subject property is well shielded by privacy fencing and tall trees and bushes on either side and is separated by distance from the property to the rear. In staff's opinion, all properties are completely screened from the proposed garage addition. 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 and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow for a 1,000 square-foot garage with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall 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 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. 3. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building appearance with the existing garage and house, which is to mean the garage shall at a minimum be painted with the same color-scheme as the home. 4. All vehicles parked at the property shall be parked either upon the driveway's improved surface or within the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be allowed to park upon the grass or off of the improved surface. 5. The existing shed on the lot shall be moved to maintain a minimum six-foot setback from the garage and five feet from the rear or side lot lines. 111) BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. . Planning Commission Resolution 588-99 July 21, 1999 • Page 4 Adopted this 21st day of July, 1999. Jerry Peterso , Chairperson ATTEST: 4 _. ,... U Rick Jopke, Communit Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCAS ES\563-99\588-99 PC.RES • • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 589-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR PRODUCE SALES AT HOLIDAY STATIONSTORE, REQUESTED BY CHUCK DURAND; PLANNING CASE NO. 564-99 WHEREAS, Chuck Durand, representing the Holiday Stationstore, has applied for a conditional use permit to conduct open and outdoor sales at his business located at 2732 Highway 10, property zoned PUD, legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Silverview Estates, County of Ramsey WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Letter from Property Owner WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the specific criteria for approval in Section 1114.04, 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 Holiday Stationstore building contains approximately 6,500 square feet of building space. The proposed produce stand would occupy 144 square feet of the property, which is about 2% of the building square footage on the site. 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) -(5)of this Title. The produce stand would be screened from the neighboring yet-to-be completed Realife Cooperative senior residential complex by the Holiday building. 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. Holiday Produce Cup Resolution 589-99 • July 21, 1999 Page 2 d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The applicant is proposing to use the lawn area adjacent to the north bank of parking stalls instead of taking up space in the parking lot. e. The open or outdoor service,sale or rental use does not take up parking spaces as required for conformity of this Title. The produce stand would not be located in the parking lot and it is expected that the majority of the customers would be drawn from those already on the premises for gas or convenience products. 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. (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 Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use PUD, which coincides with the zoning of this site. Such an accessory use would not be inconsistent with the Plan. The store is at the corner of two major transportation arteries and is screened from adjacent residential uses. 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. WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the general criteria for CUP approval in Subdivision 1125.01 (2) have been met: (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. It is not expected that this use will have any impact on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (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. The produce stand would be screened from the neighboring yet-to-be completed Realife Cooperative senior residential complex by the Holiday building and by distance. Holiday Produce Cup Resolution 589-99 • July 21, 1999 Page 3 (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. While staff has no plans to show the design or construction of this structure, it is not expected that the 12 foot square stand would have an adverse appearance, nor would it be adjacent to any residential property. (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. The City already has given approval for one produce stand to be located at Moundsview Square. This type of business, however, depends upon existing traffic for the majority of its business, which means it will draw primarily from those people already at the Holiday store. Having two such businesses separated by a third of a mile on opposite sides of Highway 10 would satisfy a need and provide for additional convenience. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The Zoning Code allows for thistype ofuse with a conditional use permit. It would not be inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Code for such a business to operate at this location. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, which indicates an anticipation for a variety of uses. A produce stand to be located at a gas and convenience store would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. It is not expected that this use will draw significant customers on its own. The majority of its customer base will be those people already at the Holiday store for gas or other conveniences. As such, it would not be expected that this use would cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. 41) The use would be located adjacent to the parking lot of the Holiday Stationstore which is served by Highway 10 and Silver lake Road. All of the infrastructure serving this site are installed and provided--no additional infrastructure will be needed to accommodate this use. Holiday Produce Cup Resolution 589-99 • July 21, 1999 Page 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of a conditional use permit for a produce stand at the Holdiay Stationstore located at 2732 Highway 10, with the following stipulations: 1. The facility shall be allowed to operate from July 1 to October 31 of each year. 2. The produce stand shall operate only between dawn and dusk hours. 3. Signage shall be allowed only as affixed to the stand and/or roof. 4. Lighting for the use shall be supplied by existing parking lot standards. 5. The applicant shall provide the following on an annual basis to the Director of Community Development: a. Letter of permission from property owner. b. Complete set of site plans c. Narrative description of the proposal. • 6. This Conditional Use Permit may be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council if any problems develop or if there are any changes to the operation deemed substantial enough to warrant such review, in the estimation of the Director of Community Development or the City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Conditional Use Permit shall have no expiration date and shall remain in force so long as the conditions agreed upon herein are observed. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 21st day of July, 1999. Jerry Petesolif Chairperson Attest: Rick Jopke, Community evelopment Director (Seal)