Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-1999 PC • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 4, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View,MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., August 4, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Acting Chairperson Stevenson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson,Kaden, Laube, and Miller. Members Absent: Chairperson Peterson and Commissioner Braathen, with prior notice. • Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Member Roger Stigney, Economic Development Coordinator Kevin Carroll, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 566-99, 2809 Woodale Drive. Discussion regarding a conditional use permit request to construct a 1,296 square-foot garage. Tim Skeate, Applicant. 2 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. 5 Planning Case No. 565-99,Lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square (Pinewood Circle). Discussion concerning a request to vacate a portion of a drainage easement to allow for the construction of two single family homes via a wetland alteration permit. Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land Development, Applicant. 13 Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99, Consideration of 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. 21 Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 • Staff Reports/Items of Information 23 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 23 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. July 7, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hegland. To approve the May 19, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes–7 Nays–0 The motion carried. • 5. Planning Case No. 566-99 Property Involved: 3809 Woodale Drive Discussion regarding a conditional use permit to construct a 1,296 square-foot garage. Applicant: Tim Skeate The applicant was not present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Tim Skeate, is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 576 square-foot addition to his existing 720 square-foot garage. The property, 2809 Woodale Drive, is located south of Highway 10,two properties west of Silver Lake Road. The area of the subject property—an interior lot—is approximately 16,200 square feet. The house and garage are set back approximately 60 feet from the street, with the detached garage situated alongside the house to the east. The house, at approximately 400 square feet, is much smaller than the existing two-stall garage, which is 720 square feet. The applicant proposed to construct a 476 square-foot addition to the rear of the garage, maintaining the same width and roofline of the existing garage. Ericson stated a conditional use permit is required due to the size of the proposed garage, which, at 1,296 square feet,would be three times the size of the house. He stated the Planning Commission and • City Council have, in the past,been very concerned about this type of imbalance. A garage is intended to be an accessory structure to service the principal dwelling, not the dominating feature of the Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 111 property. A garage this size, were it to be built, would appear out of place and obtrusive, in staff's opinion. Ericson stated the size of the garage, with respect to the home, appears to be excessive, however, all of the dimensional criteria associated with this request, in regard to setbacks, spacing between buildings, width of the proposed garage, and the number of doors, satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Code. The total square footage of the garage and proposed addition is 1,296 square feet, which would comprise about 16 percent of the rear yard area. The maximum coverage allowed is twenty percent. Ericson stated that the City Code states the Planning Commission shall examine the possible adverse effects of a conditional use permit request, prior to making a recommendation. He noted the possibility of adverse affects with this type of conditional use, in regard to its impact upon the neighborhood, in terms of aesthetics and general appearance of the area. He stated that garages and other types of accessory structures like sheds and tool buildings are allowed and expected in this district,yet a garage that is triple the size of the house may be inconsistent with the intent and spirit of the Code. He provided the Commission with the site plan of the proposal for their review. Ericson stated staff notified all residents within 350 feet of the subject property, and had received two • negative comments from residents who indicated they did not think this would be a good addition to the neighborhood. He stated there was a concern in regard to the possible operation of some type of business within the garage. He stated that applicant indicated there would be no business, and he did not inten to utilize the garage for any purpose other than the storage of vehicles, snowmobiles, and a boat. Acting Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. There was no public input. Acting Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Acting Chair Stevenson inquired if staff could provide the Commission with copies of the resident's comments. Ericson stated that the comments were in the form of anonymous voice mail messages, and he had not had the opportunity to transcribe them, however, the Commission could refer to them in their consideration of the matter. Commissioner Johnson inquired how many persons resided at the property. Ericson stated the applicant indicated only himself, and that he had no need to expand the house, however, required additional garage space. Commissioner Johnson stated he might consider the need for additional space if more people lived at the house, however, in this case, he felt the proportion of the garage to the house was excessive. • Commissioner Kaden stated that he had driven through the neighborhood of the proposed project, and saw two very oddly built houses,with new construction. He stated one was an older 1 '/2-story house, Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 • with a one-story addition and a flat roof, and connected to that house, was a three-story addition with a garage on the first floor, a full basement, and a high pitched roof. Commissioner Kaden stated the other property, located on the same block as the applicant's, was an older one-story stucco rambler, with a 1 '/2-story addition. He stated the addition was sided, and did not match the stucco. He stated that the garage had a pitched roof, unlike the other structures on that property, and it was very noticeable. He inquired, in light of these structures, what the logic was in denying this request. He suggested the Commissioners drive by and examine these properties, adding that he did not know if this would apply in terms of disallowing further construction of this type, or in terms of approving the applicant's request. Commissioner Miller stated that she had driven by the subject property, however, she did not drive through the neighborhood. She stated, as she drove down Silver Lake Road, she noticed the existing garage is already much larger than the house, and she was not in favor of allowing the proposal to construct it further out of proportion. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the calls received by staff and the specific objections they raised. Ericson stated that one caller expressed concern regarding a business occurring in the garage, and the other caller was concerned in regard to the disproportionate size of the garage. Commissioner Hegland stated that the business operation issue had been addressed, and was not allowed. He stated that one of the problems with the interpretation of the City Code is that they only consider the square footage of the foundation. He explained that most of the homes in the City of Mounds View are 1'/2 stories or more. He stated that the applicant's is a smaller home, and it appears that the home itself could be expanded at some point in the future. He stated, from his perspective, he did not see the property as something that could not be improved beyond the garage, and that this could provide a different ratio in the future. He stated he did not feel this was a great problem. Commissioner Hegland noted the City was attempting to encourage people to clean up their lots through ordinances, and added, anyone with a large lot would probably require additional storage space for lawn equipment and vehicles. He stated he was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Laube inquired how large a secondary building could be constructed on the property, according to the Code. Ericson stated that the maximum size would be 1400 square feet, with a conditional use permit. Commissioner Laube stated, in his opinion, the City had Codes in place, and although they are not always right or proper, they take into consideration the square footage of the house versus the square footage of the garage. He stated this garage would be considerably larger than the house, in terms of foundation size, and does not meet the criteria. He stated he was not in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Berke agreed, stating that the Codes were in place for a reason, and should not be consistently changed. He stated that if the applicant was expanding the house and requesting to increase the garage size in conjunction with that, he could envision some leniency. He stated, however,the garage would overwhelm the house with this proposal. Acting Chair Stevenson stated . that it would be 54 feet deep, large enough to garage a greyhound bus. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 • MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Miller. To Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Denying a Conditional Use Permit to Construct a 576 Square-foot Addition to the Existing 720 Square-foot Garage at 2809 Woodale Drive. Ayes— 5 Nays—2 (Hegland, Kaden) Motion carried. 6. 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: The Planning Commission has discussed the request by MSP Real Estate for rezoning and a • conditional use permit at 2670 County Road I, to allow an assisted living senior residential facility at the last two meetings. The Planning Commission had asked the developer to provide additional information regarding the type of facility it will be, parking requirements, and staffing levels. He stated Commissioner Berke and staff had conducted further research in regard to assisted living facilities in the Twin Cities area, and provided the Commission with copies of this research, as well as additional information staff had received from the developer since the last meeting. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll provided the Commission with a summary of the information he had obtained as a result of contacting various assisted living facilities within the Twin Cities area. He stated, in light of the issues raised by the Planning Commission regarding the adequacy of the proposed parking, he thought it would be useful to contact a variety of facilities to determine their current parking requirements. He stated that part of the problem in determining these issues, is that there does not seem to be a clear definition of assisted living. He noted a discrepancy in the number of these facilities within Ramsey and Hennepin County as listed on different websites, adding that one website included the Ramsey County Detox Center and Eden House in Minneapolis, a drug rehabilitation center, as assisted living facilities. He stated that the website he utilized for his research was somewhat more restrictive in its analysis, and he had focused upon the communities nearest to Mounds View, thinking their parking requirements would be similar. Commissioner Berke stated that he had contacted the State of Minnesota during his research, and had • spoken with several different departments, ultimately contacting the Director of Licensing for assisted living and Alzheimer's care in the state. He stated this contact indicated there are presently no set requirements regarding the percentage of staff members to residents. He stated that, of the seven Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 • directors he had spoken with, all considered a staff of 14 to be somewhat light, depending upon the Alzheimer's factor and the degree of the care provided. Mr. Carroll stated he had determined some of his information regarding state licensing requirements from talking to the managers and executive directors of the facilities themselves. He stated that there is a wide range of services offered by facilities that refer to themselves as assisted living. He stated some facilities at the lower end of the assistance spectrum basically provide an apartment in which to live. He stated the other end of the spectrum involves people who are more disabled, and these facilities provide all meals,housekeeping services, physical therapy on site, as well as transportation, counseling,and assistance with medications. He stated these facilities have staffing levels at a higher ratio. He stated that it would be useful to gain as much information as possible, regarding the care the proposed facility would provide, as this directly relates to the staffing requirements. Commissioner Berke stated this was his conclusion as well. He stated that, in preparing his survey, he had attempted to eliminate the Detox Center type of facilities. He stated the employee to bed ratios were considerably higher, even for the lighter care,than what was originally proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Berke stated he had attempted to determine how many parking spaces the facilities actually had, and a large number of the facilities did not know. He added that some of those who indicated no problems with parking were shared facilities and had access to overflow parking. Mr. Carroll stated that he also had difficulty identifying the parking through the institutions. He stated that the site Commissioner Berke had contacted was an example of continuous care, where the residents start out with independent living, progress to assisted living and then nursing home care. He explained they provide the entire range of services, and share the same parking, which makes it difficult to determine the actual parking attributable to assisted living. He stated that he had found a facility that shared parking with a college located across the street, and another with an adjacent grocery store whose parking lot they shared. Commissioner Berke stated that the key to determining the parking requirements was to determine the staff,as they would all require parking facilities,then adding an adequate percentage for visitors. Mr. Carroll stated the staffing was also a complicated analysis. He explained that the facilities had full- time and part-time employees, different shifts, different staffing levels per shift, and outside consultants. He stated that he based his determination upon the most people on site, during any shift. Commissioner Berke stated that he had gained a general consensus of what most minimum health care or assisted living care facilities require in regard to staffing, which is 17 support people, in addition to the number of nurses or staff required per bed. Mr. Carroll inquired if this represented 17 people per shift. Commissioner Berke stated that these were categories, with a combination of people in each category to run the facilities. Mr. Carroll stated that he would not dispute that amount. He added that he had also received some high staffing levels, until he began questioning what they were comprised of. He stated some facilities indicated they had 40 employees, but actually had 6 or 7 on site at any given time. He stated, of the 40 employees, two-thirds might be full-time, one-third part-time, and • of the full-time staff, not all are on site all of the time. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 III Commissioner Hegland inquired if Mr. Carroll could provide his recommendation regarding what he determined was adequate parking. Mr. Carroll stated that his personal assessment took into consideration the proposed 22 parking spaces at the facility, which would not necessarily be inadequate under certain circumstances. He stated one of those circumstances would be a higher level of care type of facility, that would be related to a fewer number of people driving, or where ten percent or less of the residents have cars. He stated another factor would be the typical internal staffing level of no more than five employees per shift. He stated that his research indicated that this would be the typical staffing level, on site, at this size facility at any one time. He stated another factor would be relatively few independent providers, and typically, for a facility this size, no more than 3 to 4 outside consultants coming onto the property per shift. He stated that, most important, was the availability of occasional off-site parking. He explained, with 48 residents, one party per year, and each resident having two family members visiting at the same time, you would greatly exceed the 22 parking space capacity. He stated the facilities that manage this successfully either have an agreement with the local municipality, that upon advance notice, they can obtain permission to provide parking along the street, and the residents are notified accordingly, or they have an agreement with a nearby business or educational facility to share their parking on such occasions. He stated that, in the absence of this, there could be a problem with the parking. He stated, in his opinion, if these four factors were met, the proposed parking would be sufficient. • Commissioner Berke stated that he would have to disagree in regard to the staffing levels, explaining that his statistics indicate an average of a fifty percent ratio of employees to beds, and the Alzheimer's care is almost one hundred percent. He stated, in light of this, thirty parking stalls would not be sufficient. He stated that a parking arrangement might be possible with the shopping center located adjacent to the proposed site. He stated he was the president of the Homeowner's Association for the surrounding neighborhood,and had taken a poll, which indicated the residents would not be agreeable to parking on Mounds View Drive. Mr. Carroll stated that the ranges at the Riverview Highland facility in St. Paul indicate 54 units, with two full-time equivalent positions to manage the assisted living. He stated, however, he agreed that other facilities have a fifty-fifty ratio, and even higher. He stated that they needed to determine what the staffing of the proposed facility would be. Commissioner Berke stated he agreed. He stated this was a concern of the residents in the neighborhood, in that there be no on-street parking. He stated that there are numerous problems in the facilities that did not share parking. He stated that the issues should be resolved before they become a problem. Ed Meier, representative of MSP Real Estate and President of Senior Solutions, stated their organization managed 100 units of assisted living in Wisconsin, and that he had been in the assisted living business for six years. He stated the typical resident of the proposed facility would be 83 to 86 years old, a widowed or single female who requires assistance with at least three activities of daily living every day. He explained that activities of daily living include bathing, dressing, toileting, IIImedication reminders, and mobility. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 I Mr.Meier stated that the residents typically come to this type of facility directly from the hospital or after recuperating at a nursing home. He stated they don't require nursing home services at that point, but are no longer able to live at home. He stated that they are afraid for their safety, they can't keep their homes as they did before,and they don't socialize as much as they previously did. He stated they seek socialization,assistance with medications, and their family is concerned for them, therefore they come to this type of facility for assistance, and to maintain as much independence as possible, before they have to go into a nursing home. He stated that, in Wisconsin, where the laws are similar, they discharge their residents,at some point in time, to nursing homes, as the cares the person requires are beyond the ability of the facility to provide. Mr. Meier stated that typically, their residents do not drive. He stated his organization presently manages 108 units, and none of the residents have vehicles. Mr.Meier stated they have a 20-unit building, with 30 employees. He explained that these people are not all onsite daily for 24 hours. He stated that typically, they would staff one person to 12 residents, 24 hours per day, which translates to two full-time care givers. He stated they also have an administrator, cook and housekeeper on site, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. He stated after this time, the administrator remains,the cook remains until 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.,and from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., they utilize two care givers. He stated they require two care givers for the night shift. • Mr. Meier stated, in a 48-unit building, with the upstairs comprised of Alzheimer's residents, they would staff one care giver to four residents, which translates to six care givers onsite 24 hours per day for 24 residents. He stated the lower level of 24 residents would require two care givers. He stated there would be a total of eight care givers during the daytime hours, in addition to the cook, housekeeper and administrator. Mr. Meier stated they do not provide physical therapy, so there would not be a physical therapist onsite. He stated that they utilized a universal worker,and the care givers also assist the residents with bed making and apartment cleaning, and assist with meal service. He stated the housekeeper cleans the common areas and bathrooms. He stated they contract with a registered nurse and pharmacy to oversee medication, and they are in the building approximately one half a day per week. He stated medical records are kept by staff and the administrator, and bookkeeping is done via computer to the corporate office. Mr.Meier stated there would be an activity director in the building approximately twice a week, who would coordinate the activities every day through the universal worker and the care givers. He stated that their organization worked with the county,and the social workers are not on their staff, and would not be in the building. He stated that dishwashing is performed by the cook. Mr.Meier stated they would require approximately 12 parking stalls for staff during the busiest times, and during the late evenings and nights they would require eight. He stated that they did encourage family members to participate. He stated that they do try to plan a couple of events every year where the families come in. He explained, however, families typically take the residents home for the holidays, such as Easter and Christmas. He stated they have a Staff /Resident Christmas party Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 annually, which can cause some problems with parking. He stated Mr. Pinkerton's staff has been discussing the matter with adjacent businesses to determine if they could share parking for those events. He stated, in driving by the site, he realizes that street parking would not work at this location, and does not intend to pursue it. Mr.Meier stated the residents of these facilities do not generally go outside, but rather look outside, as their mobility is greatly decreased. He stated, when examining possible locations for the assisted living facilities,they typically look for buffer sites, which provide a view of some activity, in addition to residential surroundings. He stated the proposed site accomplishes both of these factors. Commissioner Laube inquired if there were any situations where there were more than one person residing in a unit. Mr. Meier stated yes. He stated they have husband and wife, and also two sisters who reside together in a different facility. He explained, in a 30-unit facility they currently have two couples, which is a very rare and unique situation in the industry. He stated that people want to be independent,and avoid coming to these facilities, however, there are times, when one of the spouses requires extra assistance in caring for the other. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if there were four corner rooms per floor, which would accommodate two persons. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the second floor is comprised of all single units. • Mr. Meier stated that the generation they care for now is satisfied with what they have, and the upcoming generation requires more room. He stated that the square footage of these units have increased greatly in the past ten years. He added a single female who desired extra room occupies one of their two-bedroom units. Commissioner Kaden inquired if Mr. Meier estimated a maximum of 12 staff at any one time, in the 48-unit facility. Mr. Meier stated this was correct. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the custodial services. Mr. Meier stated that the housekeeper would perform the custodial function, and an offsite corporate man, who would come to the facility on an as needed basis. Mr. Meier stated, in regard to deliveries, they would have one drop-shipment per week from a food vendor. He stated the registered nurse consultant would be onsite one half to one day per week, and the rest of the people at the building would be visitors. He stated some residents do not have any visitors, and some residents have family members who stop by daily. He stated, however, visitors typically come at non-peak times, such as evenings or mid-afternoons. Acting Chair Stevenson inquired if the maximum staffing level of 12 was the staffing level utilized at the 20-unit facility, or the proposed 48-unit facility. Mr. Meier stated that he was referring to the proposed 48-unit facility. He stated, in their 20-unit facility, they have two people on at night, and during the daytime they have two care givers, an administrator, housekeeper and cook. He stated that this number is subject to change if the acuity of the facility changes. He stated that as the acuity of the resident changes, they sometimes become isolated from the rest of the residents, and consideration • is given to how they fit in that atmosphere. He stated if the change is permanent, the resident is transferred to a nursing home or facility with a higher level of care. He stated their residents tend to be very independent, and the philosophy was to provide care if and when needed. He stated that the Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 design of the building takes this into account, and they encourage independence and mobility as long as possible. Acting Chair Stevenson opened floor for public input at 7:50 p.m. Carol Golden,2749 Lake Court Drive, inquired if one person would cook and serve 48 residents three meals per day. Mr. Meier stated that there would be one cook, and the universal workers assist with meal service. Ms. Golden inquired what other functions the universal workers perform. Mr. Meier stated that they help with the care and activities. Ms. Golden requested clarification as to how many of these workers the facility would utilize. Mr. Meier stated the first floor assisted living would have two, and the upper floor would have six who would assist with food service and activities. Ms. Golden stated that she was concerned regarding the Alzheimer's resident's activities, and thought the facility should have someone on hand at all the times during the day to provide activities. Mr. Meier stated, during the daytime hours the administrator is very active in this regard, and there is an activity director who is in and out. He stated that the typical day includes a morning activity, lunch, and,after 3:00 p.m., there are more activities. He stated generally the residents are in bed by 7:30 to 8:00 p.m. Mrs. Golden stated, in her opinion, they would require more staff than they were contemplating for the Alzheimer's residents. She inquired if the existing facilities included an . Alzheimer's clientele. Mr.Meier stated they did. Mrs. Golden stated she found it hard to believe that someone would be able to cook the meals, serve the food, make the beds and do the dishes. Mr. Meier stated she was welcome to tour their facility, and added that it works well. Mrs. Golden inquired regarding the process of admission. Mr. Meier stated they utilized an admission agreement,and the family and family physician were involved in the process. Mrs. Golden inquired if the same process was utilized in determining discharge. Mr. Meier stated this was correct, the family or guardian was involved, and generally at the time of discharge, the facility has had much involvement with the family physician. Ms. Golden inquired if the care level at the facility would be increased, should the applicant find the residents required more care than they had previously considered. Mr. Meier stated,typically at that point,the resident would be transferred to a higher care facility, such as a nursing home. Ms. Golden stated that persons with Alzheimer's disease required a predictable routine,and should not be subjected to being"bounced around." Mr. Meier stated this was correct. He stated that the issues arise when the disease progresses to the point of violent behaviors, as a result of dementia. He stated, at this time, the facility would probably no longer be able to care for these residents, and they would be transferred to a locked-in type of facility. Ms. Golden requested clarification of the security features of the proposed facility. Mr. Meier explained that the upstairs would be alarmed and locked, and the downstairs would utilize a buzzer at the entrances. He stated this addressed the issues of wandering, as residents would have to get through three sets of security in order to exit the building. Acting Chair Stevenson closed the floor for public input at 8:00 p.m. • Ericson stated he believed they had gained some clear estimates of the staffing levels anticipated at the facility. He stated that, if they were to have a maximum of 12 staff at the facility, and 22 spaces Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 of parking as proposed,there would be ten parking spaces for visitors. He stated that this exceeds the City Code parking requirements, which are one space for every three beds. He stated the question at hand is whether or not this amount of parking is adequate. He stated the applicant has indicated there is room to provide additional parking, and if, at some point in the future it was determined that 22 spaces were not adequate,they could show proof of additional parking on the site plan. Ericson noted that there were some time constraints to be considered in regard to this proposal. He inquired if there was sufficient consensus among the Commissioners to direct staff to bring before them a resolution recommending approval or denial to the City Council at the next meeting. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding an amendment to the Code to clarify the type of use at the facility as "Nursing homes or other elderly congregate housing," and if this could be accomplished in conjunction with their recommendation to the City Council. Ericson stated that, in addition to recommending the approval of the rezoning request, they would make a recommendation to amend the City Code to clarify the allowed use, in terms of assisted living, nursing homes, or other types of group living. He stated this could be done at the same time, however, as two separate actions. Commissioner Kaden stated that he would like to see this language in the Code. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the progress of the traffic flow issue at the facility. Ericson stated,at this time, he was not aware of any agreements between the adjacent property owners and the 111 applicant for joint access, however, there were options to approach this matter, as well as the median on County Road I, at the time of the site plan review. Mr. Pinkerton stated, at this time, SuperAmerica is not interested in agreeing to a joint access. Commissioner Laube clarified that the applicant had previously indicated that they would consider an entrance only on Mounds View Drive, with the exit on County Road I. Mr. Pinkerton stated he thought this would be a good idea. Acting Chair Stevenson inquired if they would then keep the median. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the median could stay as it is, with a right out only exit. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that the parking issues could also be addressed on the site plan review. He stated the Commission could require the additional parking spaces be classified as possible overflow parking,and would not necessarily have to designate them as additional parking at this time. Ericson stated this was correct. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that the zoning change was the preliminary step, and would have to reflect that the property reverts to its original zoning if the proposal does not go forward. Ericson stated that after researching this matter, staff determined this technically could not be accomplished as previously indicated. He explained that the resolution could state "if the project does not go forward,a rezoning could take place," however, some action would be required of the Council in order to reinstate the original zoning of the property. He stated that the property owner had indicated he was agreeable to this. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that a statement to this effect should be included in the resolution. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the property owner could also be requested to 41110 provide his signature indicating his acceptance of this procedure. Ericson stated that this could be requested. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 Commissioner Hegland stated there should be language in the resolution to indicate an agreed upon parking ratio for this type of use. Ericson stated,from the information presented, they had determined there really was no way to create a parking ratio which would apply specifically to assisted living, as there are different intensities of assistance that can be provided, He stated that the Code presently required a 1 to 3 ratio. Commissioner Hegland stated this was a specialized situation, and inquired if anything could be included in the resolution to cover it. Ericson stated that this could be done. He stated, if the Commission desires, a code amendment could be put in place to specifically address assisted living,and possibly apply the parking ratios determined for this facility to be the requirement for assisted facilities in general. Acting Chair Stevenson explained that an amendment to the Code would have to be considered separately,with additional readings and so forth. He stated they could just be specific to this site, as a requirement of the conditional use permit. He asked the Commission if they would direct staff to provide a resolution for the next meeting to recommend approval of the Code amendment to change the B-2 to R-4 zoning, and the conditional use permit. MOTION/SECOND:Miller/Stevenson to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution and Draft ordinance for approval of the Rezoning of Property and a Conditional Use Permit, to allow for an Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility to be Located at 2670 County Road I, Planning Case Nos. 559-99, 560-99. • Ayes—6 Nays— 1 (Johnson) The motion carried. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was not in favor of the down zoning of commercial properties. Commissioner Miller inquired if a more specific site plan would be provided at the next meeting. Ericson stated that staff could discuss the matter with the applicant, explaining that it is not required at this point in the process. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that prior to approval, the Commission would request clarification of the parking, and parking ratios, and would appreciate a more definite layout of the parking and overflow. 7. Planning Case No. 565-99 Property Involved: Lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square(Pinewood Circle) Discussion concerning a request to vacate a portion of a drainage easement and request to allow for the construction of two single family homes via a wetland alteration permit. Applicant: Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land Development. The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 • Greg Peterson,representing Oakwood Land Development, has requested that the City vacate a portion of a drainage easement that covers Lots 17 & 18 of Edgewood Square, which had been dedicated to the City as a result of the initial platting in 1982. Even though wetlands are present over parts of Lots 17& 18 and all of Lot 19, drainage easements were dedicated for the entirety of the three lots. This was done to satisfy Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation District concerns and City concerns about the potential for flooding and runoff in this area. In addition to the easement vacation,to build on the two lots, a wetland alteration permit is also being requested and would need to be obtained because work would be done within the wetland as shown on the City's official Wetland Zoning Map. Approval is also needed from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Ericson stated the applicant made a similar request with regard to these two lots on September 9, 1997. He stated,however,the request was denied by the Council on December 8, 1997, as it was felt that the easements were granted in good faith and that the lots were never intended to be built upon, due to the possibility of detriment to the wetland. Ericson stated,at this time, the applicant is requesting the same action, and there were no changes in regard to the plans submitted. He provided the Commission with a copy of the delineation of the wetland upon Lots 17 and 18,which was made in 1997,and further verified by Rice Creek Watershed District to be accurate. He stated, however, the delineation does not agree with the City's official • Wetland Zoning Map, explaining that at the time of its making, the wetlands were not delineated, but defined to fall within a certain elevation. He stated the area that is proposed to be filled, falls within the 904-foot elevation, which has been deemed flood storage capacity. He stated that the applicant has proposed to create an additional holding pond on the back half of Lot 17, to replace the flood storage capacity. He stated this would alleviate any issues in regard to lessening the flood storage capacity, and may ultimately create additional flood storage. Ericson stated that the real issue is whether or not the easements serve a public purpose, and if not, should they be vacated. He stated, at the same time, consideration should be given to whether or not the preservation of the environment should continue as it is, a buffer between the existing neighborhood, the wetland, roadway, and the lots to the north of the wetland. He stated the issue is in regard to the appropriateness of vacating the drainage easement to allow for two more homes in the area. He stated that the property is zoned appropriately for the proposal, however, there would be some disruption to the neighborhood and to the natural area. He stated that it is not indicated that the wetland would be impacted, although the construction would occur on the perimeter and outside of the delineated area. Ericson stated that all residents within 350 feet of the proposal were notified by staff, and had presented numerous comments, unfavorable to the proposal, and indicating concerns regarding the detriment to the neighborhood and drainage system, with the exception of one resident who was in favor of the proposal. He provided the Commission with a letter from a resident who was not able to attend the meeting, however, indicated that the residents were not in favor of the proposal. • Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 • Ericson stated that staff was seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission in regard to the granting of this easement vacation to allow for the two additional building sites, or if the drainage easements should stand, as was the original intent of the subdivision. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the current owner of Lots 17 and 18, and if they had been compensated for granting the drainage easements. Ericson stated that the owner of the property was Peggy Haselius, and he was not certain if she had been compensated. He stated that he believed Ms. Haselius owned all of the surrounding property at that time, and the easement was granted as a condition of the approval of the subdivision. He stated that the subdivision would not have been approved, were it not for the granting of these easements, as it was believed at that time, the lots were located within the wetland, and that in providing the easements, the impact to the wetland would be minimal. John Peterson, applicant and owner of Oakwood Land Development, stated his company develops properties throughout the metropolitan area, primarily in Blaine and the northern suburbs. He stated that he was also speaking on behalf of Peggy Haselius, who has resided in the same house in Mounds View for 51 years. He stated the manner in which his company became involved in this issue was rather unique. He explained that another developer had begun the process years ago, ran into financial • difficulties,and his company bailed that developer out and completed the process. He stated that his company believed they owned these lots for many years, however, in 1997 they determined the lots were owned by Ms. Haselius. He stated that it would have been easy for them to walk away from the matter at that point,however, it became somewhat of a personal cause for him. He stated Ms. Haselius retired 11 years prior, and lives on a fixed income. He stated, in his opinion, she has the good faith right to develop the lots, and to receive 37,000 dollars from his company for them. Mr. Peterson stated the City Attorney had previously determined that the City had the easements, and could keep them if they so desired. He stated that, due to the expense to his company and Ms. Haselius, he does not desire to resolve the matter through the court system. He added that it would not be worth it for these two lots. He stated, however, many things have changed since the 1980's. He explained that the interpretation of wetland has been clearly defined and agreed upon by the • .. ... -. • . II • . . . i. - .. . . .. I . I. .. . .11 agree upon what a wetland is. He stated this was not the case in 1981 when this plat went through Mr. Peterson stated they hired an expert to go to the site and tell them where the wetland was. He stated they then contacted Rice Creek Watershed District and requested they confirm these findings, and they did. He stated that their proposal to develop Ms. Haselius' lots will not touch any wetland. He stated that the proposal fills 11,850 cubic feet of flood storage in that area, however, it creates 39,500 cubic feet of flood storage. He stated that these lots have already been platted, and the street is already in. He stated that the net effect of vacating this easement, and allowing Ms. Haselius to sell the land to his company so that he can prepare it for houses, is almost a 30,000 cubic foot gain in flood storage capacity in that basin. He stated that the Watershed District will confirm this. have obtained the Rice Creek Watershed District permit. He stated that Mr. Peterson stated that they a water is not the issue. He stated the issue is open space, and the development of the property. He Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 1111 stated the issue is the neighbors, who do not want two more houses in the area, because they use the lots almost every day all summer long, and their children play on the lots. He stated that it is Ms. Haselius who is held liable if those children are injured on that property. Mr.Peterson stated, in good faith, Ms. Haselius and the developer granted the easements, which are no longer necessary. He stated that the reason for the easements was not open space. He explained the City did not state they wanted the easements for open space. He stated the City requested the easements for water storage, and to prevent interference with the wetland, and that neither of these reasons apply any longer. He stated, if the Commission is to listen to the neighbors and leave the lots as open space, it will not be in keeping with the original intent. He stated that $10,000 in property tax has been paid for the subject lots, through 1997. He stated the property taxes have not been paid following the denial of the City Council, on a three-to-two vote, in 1997, and may well go delinquent. He stated the $10,000 in property tax was paid because they had reason to believe that the wetland delineation and the reason for the easements were changing. He stated that these have changed, the wetlands are not located as previously believed, and the flood storage capacity issues have been resolved. He inquired how they could be required to pay $10,000 in taxes, and not be allowed to develop the lots. He stated this was not fair or right. Mr.Peterson stated the neighbors do not want two more houses, although, basically the same type as 11) those already in the area, possibly more expensive, because they want to use Ms. Haselius' land. He stated they wanted to look at it, drive by it, and literally use it. He stated this proposal presented no negative impact to the neighbors. He stated that Ms. Haselius, having lived in Mounds View for 51 years, and being retired on a fixed income, is greatly impacted by not being allowed to develop the two lots. He stated that she is impacted in the amount of$37,000. He inquired how much this proposal would hurt the neighbors. He stated that Ms. Haselius had acted in good faith. He stated that the Council narrowly denied this proposal in 1997. He requested the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they vacate the easements. Acting Chair Stevenson inquired why the matter was coming before the Planning Commission, with virtually no changes since 1997, and not going directly before the City Council. Ericson stated staff felt that with the land use implications, and in light of the comprehensive plan revision, it might be useful for the City Council to hear a recommendation of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the map presented to the Commissioners upon their membership to the Planning Commission was still accurate. Ericson stated that this zoning map does not accurately represent any wetlands within the City. Acting Chair Stevenson opened the floor for public input at 8:21 p.m. Tony Miskowiec, 2396 Pinewood Circle, stated he was a new resident to the area. He stated he had moved to the area from northeast Minneapolis, where they are about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars reclaiming nature along the river. He stated he started a neighborhood organization, which purchased lots, and took down the houses to develop open spaces. He stated that this kept the property values up. He stated that open areas have been proven to keep the property values high. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 He stated when he selected his house he had been shown properties within a certain range. He stated that he had seen bigger, newer, nicer houses, but chose his home because of the clear view of the swamp. He stated the realtor secured a higher price because of the swamp. He stated that he would not be greatly impacted by the proposal due to the location of his house, however, the rest of his neighbors would suffer a negative impact. Barb Liukkonen, 2367 Pinewood Circle, stated that she understands that the proposed houses will be outside of the 904-foot flood storage level,however,they would be within the 100-foot buffer area, which although not required, is recommended for the preservation of wetlands and open spaces. She stated that Lot 17,and probably 18 as well, would require the removal of all of the existing oak trees for the construction. She stated that this is one of the few remaining stands of oak, noting that much of the other oak in the area has been lost to oak blight over the last ten years. She stated it is a stand approximately 40 years old, and isolated from other oak trees by the wetland and the retention of the flood storage located behind it. She stated that she thought this would be a real loss, not only for the neighborhood, but for the community as well. She stated that the house located adjacent to Lot 17 and 16,has a floodwater storage basin in the back yard, which is a pit ten feet deep. She stated that this was an undesirable situation, and provided no place for children to play. She stated this house sat vacant for 2V2 years,and has since been sold, however, if they wish to construct another house under the same conditions, it would not be highly saleable either. She stated the vacant properties could become nuisance houses. She stated that this plan may compensate for flood storage, however in her opinion,it is not a productive and viable alternative for flood storage, and will remove valuable green space and natural habitat, and does have the potential to impact the wetland. Lisa Gilpin, 2358 Pinewood Circle, requested the Commission drive past the subject site, and challenged them to tell her where the wetlands start and where they stop. She stated that it was not possible. She stated that she had children, and worked with Pinewood Elementary, and spent approximately six to eight hours per week, talking to the children about protecting the environment and the wetland, and its importance. She stated that this indicates, if the developer can make some money, it is acceptable to build a house there. She stated that she found this very confusing and disheartening for the children. She stated, in the wetland area, they have seen red fox, and a variety of birds and animals which live in that space, and found it hard to explain to her child why it would be acceptable to eliminate the area for development. She stated that lot 16 was not originally intended for development either. She stated she could not see any purpose for this except money. Tim Meehan,2382 Pinewood Circle,stated he had been a resident of the area for over 15 years. He stated he had attended the meetings concerning this issue for a number of years. He stated that Ms. Haselius' family was previously opposed to this development, until she found out that she owned the land,and Mr. Peterson's group offered to purchase it from her. He stated he was personally opposed to the development. He stated that Mr. Peterson had indicated that in the 1980's they did not know very much about wetlands. He stated they now know much more about wetlands, and their importance. He stated that the Lake Calhoun reclamation project is buying back houses and • businesses, to restore the wetlands, as the water quality has suffered so dramatically due to the development. He stated that he was not in favor of the loss of habitat for deer, pheasant, birds, and Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 110 raccoons. He added that he believed the majority of the residents were overwhelmingly opposed to this. Cathy Gryzmala, 2374 Pinewood Circle, stated that she lived directly across the street from one of the proposed sites. She stated that she moved into her house in 1991, and spoke with her neighbor, Ms.Haselius,about constructing a stationary playground on the subject site. She stated she petitioned the Rice Creek Watershed District in 1995 in this regard. She stated she was informed by the Watershed that the entire lot was subject to drainage easement, and no fill material or structures could be placed upon it. She stated that, with a proposal that might generate some tax income, they appear to have changed their mind. She provided the Commission with a copy of a plat map for Edgewood Square. She stated Ms.Haselius' signed this document, which states, "...have caused the same to be surveyed, platted, and known as Edgewood Square, and do hereby dedicate to the public, for the public use forever, the drainage and utility easements, drive circle, and the roads to be shown on the plat." She stated that this map was dated April of 1983. She stated that she believed that Ms. Haselius learned she could make some money with the property, and changed her mind about dedicating it to the public. She stated that she had received a copy of the map after her initial proposal to purchase her home, and was told by the Rice Creek Watershed District that those lots would never be built upon. Mr. Meehan stated that he had also been told by his realtor, these lots would never be developed. • Gary C ollis 2390 Pinewood Circle,stated he had attended the meeting on this matter, the prior year. He stated the Mayor had asked the City Attorney if the City could keep the drainage ditch, and the City Attorney stated they could. He stated, at that time, the Mayor reviewed all of the agreements made at the time of development of the parcel. Mr. Collis stated this area was a ten-acre plot, considered wetland by the State of Minnesota. He stated that if any of it is taken away, it must be mitigated. He added it appeared that Mounds View had no other wetland to replace this. He stated he was not in favor of damaging the wetland any further. He stated they have dug holes in it for drainage ponds on the north end of the wetland, and have developed a street,and a cul-de-sac turn around,which are within the wetland. He stated that this area was never replaced. He stated that houses have been built with backyards encroaching upon the wetlands. He stated that he brought this to the attention of staff, who stated this should have been more closely monitored, and should not have been done. He stated that the proposed development would encroach upon the wetland as well. He stated that the purpose of the wetland is to act as a sponge,explaining that the polluted water is filtered through the wetland to wells, which the residents take water from. He stated he is prepared to go to the State of Minnesota if the wetlands are not replaced. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that he did not disagree, and that they did not want to lose any wetland either. He stated the development of the homes,cul-de-sac,and Edgewood spur, was mitigated by the dredging and deepening of the wetland, which created a pond. He stated this was reviewed by the • Corps of Engineers. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 18 Mr. Collis stated that he had contacted the Department of Natural Resources, who stated that digging holes was not considered mitigation. He stated,when 100 feet of wetland is taken, it must be replaced with 100 feet of wetland. He added that if the area is more than two acres, it must be replaced to 100 percent. He stated that if the City had contacted the Department of Natural Resources, they might not have been allowed to do this. Acting Chair Stevenson stated the Department of Natural Resources was contacted,and there are records regarding this. He added they were concerned as a Commission as they did not desire to lose any wetlands either, and they were satisfied as a Commission that the development was indeed properly mitigated, and allowance was made for the reclamation of the wetland. Lindsey Little, 5389 St. Michael Street, stated he and his family had resided in their house since 1982. He stated he would not be able to see the proposed development from his home. He stated that he had an airplane and he enjoyed flying, and would like to show the Commission the area from that perspective. He stated that it was remarkable, and noted the difference from one month to the next. He inquired,aside from the money, would they be in favor of this proposal. He stated he had grown up in the southwestern portion of the state and liked the open spaces. He stated he would like this area to remain natural, and did not want to see it developed. Commissioner Berke inquired regarding occasions where the neighborhood purchases the land from • the developer or property owner, and creates an association in which all the neighbors own the land, and if anything had been investigated in this regard. Ms. Gryzmala stated she had spoken with the original developer in that regard, who indicated that she would have to come up with the back taxes on the property. She stated that, at that time, the delinquent taxes were$1,699.49, and that she was told by the developer to wait, as the property would come up for public auction in 1998. She stated that, once they got the information that they could not build upon it,they decided, as a neighborhood, not to proceed. She stated, at that time, the property was determined to be unbuildable. Commissioner Berke inquired if that was not what they desired. Ms. Gryzmala stated,at that time,they were considering the construction of a playground. She stated that it could not be built upon, and a playground could not be constructed there, and therefore, she never dreamed that they could build homes upon it. Commissioner Laube asked Commissioner Miller, in light of her membership with the Charter Commission, if they had started the Charter in regard to storm sewer drainage issues, and that the citizen's wanted to leave the wetlands as the drainage areas within Mounds View. Commissioner Miller stated that this was correct. She explained the citizens did not want all of the water to be confined underground, and to provide places above ground for storage and drainage. Commissioner Laube further clarified this was the reason that they started the Charter, which was voted upon by the citizens. Commissioner Laube inquired if staff had requested an engineering firm review the proposal in regard • to the construction of a holding pond. Ericson stated that the City's Engineer, SEH, Inc.. was consulted in 1997. He stated the plans were reviewed and found to be acceptable, in that there would not be an issue of impact to the wetland, as the filling would occur outside the delineated area, and Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 19 the proposal to create additional flood storage capacity would more than compensate for the proposed fill. He stated these same plans were provided to the City Engineers, the prior month, and staff received the same response,which was that there would be no impact to the wetland in regard to flood storage. He added that, from a land use perspective, the depression at the rear of the lot for flood storage would probably not work very well. Mr. Collis stated that three homes located on the corner of the Edgewood subdivision, pumped water out 24 hours per day, in order to pass inspection,and obtain a building permit. He stated that all three of these houses have sump pumps running, and one property owner has his running steadily to keep water from the house. He stated the storm sewer drains into the wetland at that location. He stated they should keep all of the drainage easements they have, and consider that the proposed construction might suffer the same problems. Terry Lulf, 2375 Pinewood Circle, stated he was a new resident with property adjacent to the proposed building site. He stated that he had looked at many properties prior to selecting his house, and chose his property because of the neighborhood, adding that people in this neighborhood take care of their yards, and are concerned with the appearance of their properties. He stated that he was the person with the pit in his backyard. He explained that he chose this property in spite of the pit, as it was the last house on the cul-de-sac, surrounded by woods and a pond. He stated that the proposed • construction would alter these qualities of his property, yet, the pit would remain. Mr.Peterson stated that there was no question that Ms. Haselius and the other parties agreed that there should be drainage and utility easement under the rules that were in effect at that time. He stated there are different rules at this time, Ms. Haselius owns the property, and the taxes have been paid until recently. He stated, in his opinion, it would not be in good faith for the City to deny her variance, because all of the water issues have not only been resolved, but also improved. He reiterated that there would be no impact to the wetland, and additional storage would be provided for the community. He stated he was prepared to pay Ms. Haselius $37,000 for the property, and if the neighbors were willing to pay her that amount of money he would remove himself from the equation. Mr.Peterson stated the only reason he would pay that amount of money was that he could sell the lots, however, he would not be disappointed if the people in attendance purchased the land from Ms. Haselius, and owned the open space themselves. He stated their children could then play on their land, not hers. He stated it was a matter of fundamental fairness, and good faith. Mr. Meehan inquired regarding the average price of a lot in Mounds View. Mr. Peterson stated that there was substantial grading required on this site, impacted by the sewer and water, and a lot of costs in surveying,the engineering that have already been invested, as well as the taxes. He estimated that the value of these lots was approximately $40,000. He stated, however, he was not an appraiser. Mr. Miskowiec stated that these lots were unbuildable, and therefore, this was an unreasonable price. Mr. Peterson stated,if the City was willing to vacate the easement, it would be a fair price, but agreed, in • their current condition the lots are worth nothing to Ms. Haselius. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 • Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the proposal's infringement upon the wetland buffer. Mr. Peterson referred to the site plan, which indicated it was substantially within the 100-foot buffer. He stated that he could provide many examples of similar development, which have been allowed in this buffer,as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council on many occasions. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that the factors of this proposal are different, explaining that wetlands have been developed and mitigated, however, the signing off of City easements has not been a commonplace occurrence. Acting Chair Stevenson closed the floor for public input at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Kaden stated, originally,Ms. Haselius signed the document indicating that these were permanent easements, and, in light of this, he assumed that both she and the developer were of the understanding that the lots could never be developed by anyone. He inquired if this was an official document. Mr. Peterson stated that there was no question that Ms. Haselius signed this document, however, it is also true that it is not uncommon for permanent easements to be vacated. He stated the City has the right to vacate a permanent easement. He stated, at the time the easements were granted, and under those conditions, it was viewed to be necessary in perpetuity. He stated that has since changed. He reiterated that the vacation of easements is not an uncommon process. . Acting Chair Stevenson inquired if staff required a resolution recommending to the Council that they approve or deny the vacation of the easements. Ericson stated that their recommendation could be put forward in that manner, however, it was not required, and the Planning Commission could indicate their position by motion. Acting Chair Stevenson inquired regarding the Commissioners' opinions on the matter, and asked if they would recommend to the City Council that they not vacate the drainage easements on those two lots. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Miller to Recommend to the City Council they Not Vacate the Drainage and Utility Easements on Lots 17 and 18, Edgewood Square (Pinewood Circle). Ayes—7 Nays—0 The motion carried. 8. 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 the PF and CRP zoning districts. • Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 21 • Community Director Jopke stated the City Council has requested staff and the Planning Commission continue to discuss the sign requirements in PF and CRP zoning districts. He stated the current code does not list any permitted signage or standards in either of these districts. He stated that staff has prepared a draft ordinance, which 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. Signage allowed would include 100 square feet of signs on the building and a 340 square foot pedestal sign for each street frontage. If the site has more than 100 feet of frontage, an additional 100 square foot pedestal sign would be allowed. Any pedestal sign, which is within 100 feet of a single-family residence, cannot exceed 40 square feet, however. Jopke stated this is open for discussion, and the amount of signage allowed may be reduced if the Commission so desires. Jopke stated the existing signage in City parks is typically 18 to 20 square feet total sign area. He stated City Hall has approximately 128 square feet of signage, and the Community Center has 90 square feet. He stated signage at the golf course has varied, and has at times, been as much as 130 square feet. He stated that these amounts all appear to work within the proposed ordinance requirements. Jopke stated that staff has drafted Resolution 592-99, which recommends to City Council approval of the amendment and adoption of Ordinance 637. • Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the properties within the CRP zoning district. Jopke stated that these included the golf course, a portion of land across Highway 118 from the golf course, and the strip of land located next to Spring Lake. Commissioner Kaden stated he believed the piece of land next to Spring Lake was owned by Ramsey County and St. Paul Waterworks. He inquired if they might be able to construct a sign at this location, noting that it would not be an appropriate location for signage. Jopke stated that it would have to be a sign relating to whatever activity took place at that location. He stated that a sign that did not relate to the usage of the property would not be allowed. He stated if the property is a park, the City or Ramsey County could place a sign in that regard. Commissioner Hegland inquired if this matter was covered in the ordinance, or if they should be more specific with the allowed gi• age in the ordinance revision. Jopke stated that they could be more specific, however, he did not think it was necessary, as it was already covered under the provisions of the ordinance. Commissioner Hegland stated that the intention would be to include language indicating the only signage allowed in these two areas would be, that which identifies and describes the area, and how to utilize it. Jopke stated that this provision could be added if it was the desire of the Commission. Commissioner Miller stated that Section 1008.01 refers to these types of signs. Commissioner Kaden stated that subdivision 10 states "A sign, the primary function of which is to direct attention to a product, service or activity that is sold or offered either elsewhere or upon the premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed." Commissioner Hegland stated that this appeared to relate to • all signage and that the intent was to not have business signs included at all. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the intent was to cover the signage already in place at the golf course and City Hall. Jopke Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 22 stated that it relates to all existing signs within the City that are technically not in conformance with the ordinance. Commissioner Kaden inquired if Ramsey County were to allow people to place advertising signs at this location,would this be permitted under the ordinance. Jopke stated that he did not believe they could,but reiterated if it was the desire of the Commission to include more limiting language to the code amendment, it could be done. Commissioner Laube stated that they could indicate that signage which pertains only to the City. Commissioner Kaden stated that he did not think this was necessary. He stated, if Ramsey County desired to erect a sign, such as park identification, he would be agreeable to that, however, definitely not advertising. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that the language should refer to all of the non- conforming signs of this type. He inquired if this might be too limiting, and result in having to be more specific with all other types of non-conforming sign. Jopke stated he did not believe so. He stated what they were attempting to do with this particular ordinance, is to define what are appropriate signs in these two specific districts. He stated he thought they could outline specific requirements in the use regulations. He suggested they include language at the end of each subdivision, to indicate "the signs shall identify and relate to the activity, which is intended upon the site." MOTION/SECOND:Laube/Berke. To Approve Resolution No. 592-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Ordinance No. 637; as Amended to Include the Language Following Each Subdivision to Indicate the Signs Shall Identify and Relate to the Activity Which is Intended upon the Site, an Ordinance Amending the Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to Permitted Signage in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreation, Preservation Zoning Districts; Planning Case No. SP073-99. Ayes—7 Nays—0 The motion carried. 9. Staff Reports /Items of Information A. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Jopke reported on City Council action from their meeting on July 26. He stated there was approval of the oversized garage at 8059 Red Oak Drive. He stated the Council approved the conditional use permit for Thrifty Car Rental located at 2975 Highway 10, with stipulations. He stated the applicant would come before the Council and request reconsideration of a stipulation relating to truck, trailer and recreation vehicle rentals. Jopke stated there was approval of the conditional use permit for the outdoor produce stand at the Holiday Stationstore. He stated neighboring residents appeared at the meeting and indicated their concerns in regard to existing noise problems with the station, and the property owner was currently working with the residents to resolve these issues. He stated they had the second reading and approval of the ordinance pertaining to the permitted uses within the B-2 Limited Business District, which relates to educational and instructional facilities. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 23 • Jopke reported at the Work Session on Monday evening, the Council was informed regarding the conditional use permit request for the Skeate oversized garage. He stated the Council had indicated some concerns, but were awaiting the Planning Commission's recommendation on the matter. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Commissioner Miller stated that the Planning Commission had approved a conditional use permit for the outdoor produce stand at the Holiday Stationstore. She stated she had, that date, observed many rugs displayed for sale at the location, and this was not in compliance with the permit. Acting Chair Stevenson added the display of these rugs was not within the 12 x 12 square foot area, as approved for the produce stand. No other reports were considered. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9.30 p.m. 111 (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, I • Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. N:\DATA\USERS\BARBB\SHARE\KEEP-IT\WPDOCS\MI UTES\I 999\08-04-99.WPD • II1Planning Comm. Mfg Date: 7 —e1C( Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: ZYYJU L>(� � l.Cl�-IC 1 ik S L► l�/�/r(�� 3Io Poo.4o �� l`� /16, D / �- �--(4.1_ ne,,,✓y„ , (4 6/oz.? O 21 k C ft P' ca35 8 P(14e-G5-6 ,---9 e b(10 m (,,s(u(mce( c)- 3Y6 f(NP cur) Ce;� `? 7.E. Ea) e i"1-61 ,� c � el,Cr Cc l( (t < ` L( , A 5 ` \ 1 1 V ott z. 5 1/l t� ritx�f" ✓1<. 3 0 cr ��(� G Ti'L�� iV� MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMIVIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 584-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, REZONING REQUEST AND CODE AMENDMENT ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING SENIOR RESIDENTIAL FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT 2670 COUNTY ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. 559-99. WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for an assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I; and, WHEREAS, such a facility would necessitate a rezoning of the property from Limited Business Commercial(B-2) to High Density Residential (R-4), a request for which has been made by the applicant; and, iWHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: Tract 'An, Registered Land Survey 414 Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WIIEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. Staff Report f. Staff Parking Analysis Memo, dated 8/3/99 g. Letter from M & E Realty, Property Owner, dated 5/24/99 h. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map WHEREAS,the rezoning request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, which identifies this land as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has considered the specific criteria for assisted living facilities as they appear in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2 and find that they are met; and, Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99 i August 18, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View 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 would be consistent with the proposed R-4 zoning of this site. Such a facility would help meet the housing needs of a particular segment of the community. The property is located between commercial sites to the north and a high density residential development and park to the south. The proposed use would act as a buffer between the existing land uses. The proposed style and architectural design of the proposed facility would blend into and add character to this 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. This development, while not abutting any residential property, would be sufficiently compatible with the existing land uses and would not cause any foreseeable depreciation in neighboring property values. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The architectural renderings presented to the Planning Commission and public show a well designed and aesthetically pleasing building. . (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 demand for assisted living facilities such as the one proposed is growing to accommodate an aging population. Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99 • August 18, 1999 Page 3 (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 use would be consistent with the R-4 zoning district, which allows for assisted living facilities with a conditional use permit. (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. An assisted living facility would be consistent with this designation and would also address a goal to offer a wide range of housing alternatives to a variety of population segments. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. It is not expected that this use would create or generate substantial levels of traffic. 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. All of the infrastructure serving this site are installed and provided--no additional infrastructure will be needed to accommodate this use. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City.Council take the following actions: 1. Approve a Conditional Use Permit for an assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I, with stipulations. 2. Adopt Ordinance 631, an ordinance rezoning the property located at 2670 County Road I from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential, with a clause indicating that in the event this project does not go forward, the previous zoning will be reinstated by means of a subsequent rezoning action. 3. Adopt Ordinance 639, an ordinance amending and clarifying Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to conditional uses within the R-4, High Density Residential zoning district. Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99 • August 18, 1999 Page 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby stipulate that the applicant shall submit a revised site plan prior to Council action which shows an access on County Road I and parking for 31 vehicles. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18th day of August, 1999. Miller, Acting Chairperson ATTEST: • Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEV CASES\559-99\584-99PC.RES RESOLUTION NO. 592-99 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 637; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPTER 1008 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PERMITTED SIGNAGE IN PF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND CRP CONSERVANCY,RECREATION,PRESERVATION ZONING DISTRICTS; PLANNING CASE NO. SP073-99. WHEREAS, Section 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code sets standards for signs and billboards in the City; and WHEREAS, Section 1008, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code does not list any permitted signage in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy,Recreation, and Preservation zoning districts; and. WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that signage is necessary and desirable in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreation, and Preservation zoning districts; and iWHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed Ordinance No. 637, an ordinance amendment pertaining to permitted signage in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreation,Preservation zoning districts. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of Ordinance No. 637, an ordinance amending Chapter 1008, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to permitted signage in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreation, Preservation zoning districts. 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 4th day of August, 1999. Jerry Pet son, Chairperson Attest: Rick Jopke, Commu 'ty Development Director N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP069-99\ORD629.RES Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 • Staff Reports/Items of Information • 23 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 23 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. July 7, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hegland. To approve the May 19, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes–7 Nays–0 The motion carried. • 5. Planning Case No.566-99 Property Involved: 3809 Woodale Drive Discussion regarding a conditional use permit to construct a 1,296 square-foot garage. Applicant: Tim Skeate The applicant was not present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Tim Skeate, is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 576 square-foot addition to his existing 720 square-foot garage. The property, 2809 Woodale Drive, is located south of Highway 10,two properties west of Silver Lake Road. The area of the subject property—an interior lot—is approximately 16,200 square feet. The house and garage are set back approximately 60 feet from the street, with the detached garage situated alongside the house to the east. The house, at approximately 400 square feet, is much smaller than the existing two-stall garage, which is 720 square feet. The applicant proposed to construct a 476 square-foot addition to the rear of the garage, maintaining the same width and roofline of the existing garage. Ericson stated a conditional use permit is required due to the size of the proposed garage, which, at 1,296 square feet, would be three times the size of the house. He stated the Planning Commission and City Council have, in the past, been very concerned about this type of imbalance. A garage is intended to be an accessory structure to service the principal dwelling, not the dominating feature of the s ' Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 property. A garage this size, were it to be built, would appear out of place and obtrusive, in staff's opinion. Ericson stated the size of the garage, with respect to the home, appears to be excessive, however,all of the dimensional criteria associated with this request, in regard to setbacks, spacing between buildings, width of the proposed garage, and the number of doors, satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Code. The total square footage of the garage and proposed addition is 1,296 square feet, which would comprise about 16 percent of the rear yard area. The.maximum coverage allowed is twenty percent. Ericson stated that the City Code states the Planning Commission shall examine the possible adverse effects of a conditional use permit request, prior to making a recommendation. He noted the possibility of adverse affects with this type of conditional use, in regard to its impact upon the neighborhood, in terms of aesthetics and general appearance of the area. He stated that garages and other types of accessory structures like sheds and tool buildings are allowed and expected in this district,yet a garage that is triple the size of the house may be inconsistent with the intent and spirit of the Code. He provided the Commission with the site plan of the proposal for their review. • Ericson stated staff notified all residents within 350 feet of the subject property, and had received two negative comments from residents who indicated they did not think this would be a good addition to the neighborhood. He stated there was a concern in regard to the possible operation of some type of business within the garage. He stated that applicant indicated there would be no business, and he did not inten to utilize the garage for any purpose other than the storage of vehicles, snowmobiles, and a boat. Acting Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. There was no public input. Acting Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Acting Chair Stevenson inquired if staff could provide the Commission with copies of the resident's comments. Ericson stated that the comments were in the form of anonymous voice mail messages: and he had not had the opportunity to transcribe them, however, the Commission could refer to them in their consideration of the matter. Commissioner Johnson inquired how many persons resided at the property. Ericson stated the applicant indicated only himself, and that he had no need to expand the house, however, required additional garage space. Commissioner Johnson stated he might consider the need for additional space if more people lived at the house, however, in this case, he felt the proportion of the garage to the house was excessive. i Commissioner Kaden stated that he had driven through the neighborhood of the proposed project, and saw two very oddly built houses,with new construction. He stated one was an older 1 '/-story house, Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 111 with a one-story addition and a flat roof, and connected to that house, was a three-story addition with a garage on the first floor,a full basement, and a high pitched roof.•Commissioner Kaden stated the other property, located on the same block as the applicant's, was an older one-story stucco rambler, with a 1 '/story addition. He stated the addition was sided, and did not match the stucco. He stated that the garage had a pitched roof, unlike the other structures on that property, and it was very noticeable. He inquired, in light of these structures, what the logic was in denying this request. He suggested the Commissioners drive by and examine these properties, adding that he did not know if this would apply in terms of disallowing further construction of this type, or in terms of approving the applicant's request. Commissioner Miller stated that she had driven by the subject property, however, she did not drive through the neighborhood. She stated, as she drove down Silver Lake Road, she noticed the existing garage is already much larger than the house, and she was not in favor of allowing the proposal to construct it further out of proportion. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the calls received by staff and the specific objections they raised. Ericson stated that one caller expressed concern regarding a business occurring in the garage, and the other caller was concerned in regard to the disproportionate size of the garage. Commissioner • Hegland stated that the business operation issue had been addressed, and was not allowed. He stated that one of the problems with the interpretation of the City Code is that they only consider the square footage of the foundation. He explained that most of the homes in the City of Mounds View are I''/z stories or more. He stated that the applicant's is a smaller home, and it appears that the home itself could be expanded at some point in the future. He stated, from his perspective, he did not see the property as something that could not be improved beyond the garage, and that this could provide a different ratio in the future. He stated he did not feel this was a great problem. Commissioner Hegland noted the City was attempting to encourage people to clean up their lots through ordinances, and added, anyone with a large lot would probably require additional storage space for lawn equipment and vehicles. He stated he was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Laube inquired how large a secondary building could be constructed on the property, according to the Code. Ericson stated that the maximum size would be 1400 square feet, with a conditional use permit. Commissioner Laube stated, in his opinion, the City had Codes in place, and although they are not always right or proper, they take into consideration the square footage of the house versus the square footage of the garage. He stated this garage would be considerably larger than the house, in terms of foundation size, and does not meet the criteria. He stated he was not in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Berke agreed, stating that the Codes were in place for a reason, and should not be consistently changed. He stated that if the applicant was expanding the house and requesting to increase the garage size in conjunction with that, he could envision some leniency. He stated, • however,the garage would overwhelm the house with this proposal. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that it would be 54 feet deep, large enough to garage a greyhound bus. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 40 MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Miller. To Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Denying a Conditional Use Permit to Construct a 576 Square-foot Addition to the Existing 720 Square-foot Garage at 2809 Woodale Drive. Ayes—5 Nays—2 (Hegland,Kaden) Motion carried. 6. 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: The Planning Commission has discussed the request by MSP Real Estate for rezoning and a . conditional use permit at 2670 County Road I, to allow an assisted living senior residential facility at the last two meetings. The Planning Commission had asked the developer to provide additional information regarding the type of facility it will be, parking requirements, and staffing levels. He stated Commissioner Berke and staff had conducted further research in regard to assisted living facilities in the Twin Cities area, and provided the Commission with copies of this research, as well as additional information staff had received from the developer since the last meeting. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll provided the Commission with a summary of the information he had obtained as a result of contacting various assisted living facilities within the Twin Cities area. He stated, in light of the issues raised by the Planning Commission regarding the adequacy of the proposed parking, he thought it would be useful to contact a variety of facilities to determine their current parking requirements. He stated that part of the problem in determining these issues, is that there does not seem to be a clear definition of assisted living. He noted a discrepancy in the number of these facilities within Ramsey and Hennepin County as listed on different websites, adding that one website included the Ramsey County Detox Center and Eden House in Minneapolis, a drug rehabilitation center, as assisted living facilities. He stated that the website he utilized for his research was somewhat more restrictive in its analysis,and he had focused upon the communities nearest to Mounds View, thinking their parking requirements would be similar. Commissioner Berke stated that he had contacted the State of Minnesota during his research, and had spoken with several different departments, ultimately contacting the Director of Licensing for assisted living and Alzheimer's care in the state. He stated this contact indicated there are presently no set requirements regarding the percentage of staff members to residents. He stated that, of the seven