The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-16-1995 t MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 1995 7:00 P.M. AGENDA SESSION 1. Review of Minutes: August 2, 1995 (Enclosed) 2. Continued Discussion of Development Review Request of Bel-Air Builders, Coral Sea Street, Planning Case No. 419-95 (NOTE: Planning Commission may call to order to take action regarding this item.) 3. Discussion of Rezoning/Conditional Use Permit Request of Gary Krig/Fran DeGross, 5497 Adams Street, Planning Case No. 422-95 11111 **************************************************************** APPLICANTS: YOUR Al 1'ENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO A1'1END. THANK YOU. **************************************************************** • /241 PROCEEDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 3, 1995 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was called to order 1. Call to Order by Chair Peterson at 7:00 p.m. on August 3, 1995. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Stevenson, Miller, 2. Roll Call Colleen, Ruggles and Chair Peterson. (Commissioners Johnston and Nelson had excused absences.) ALSO PRESENT: Community Development Coordinator Harrington and Recording Secretary Benesch. Motion/Second: Miller/Stevenson to approve the minutes of 3. Approval of July 5, 1995, as amended. Minutes: July 5, 1995 5 ayes 0 nays There were no residents requests or comments from the 4. Residents floor. Requests and Comments The applicant, Larry Beach, was present. 5. Consideration of Resolution No. Planner Harrington reviewed the variance request by Mr. 423-95 Beach and reminded the Commission that this items was Regarding discussed at the July 18 agenda meeting. It was noted that Variance this property was the old Tom Thumb site and was rezoned Request of Larry for townhouse construction. Mr. Harrington explained that Beach, 7315, the applicant is proposing to construct porches onto three of 7325, and 7327 the four town home units, however, the porches will Knollwood encroach six to seven feet into the required rear yard Drive, Planning setback. Mr. Harrington noted that Planning Associate Case No. 416-95 Joyce Pruitt was in attendance at the last agenda meeting and prepared a resolution regarding this request. • • Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 1995 Regular Meeting Page 2 Commissioner Nelson informed the Commission that he made a visit to the site and that he would not be opposed to granting this variance. Mr. Beach explained which of units would have porches and explained that the residents would like to use the porches as a buffer. He also indicated that the residents behind the proposed town home have no problems with the request. Commissioner Ruggles clarified that the applicant would have a 23 to 24 foot setback from the property line with the proposed porch construction. Mr. Beach noted that according to the covenance for the townhomes, no "out" buildings or other structures such as swing sets would be allowed on the premises. Commissioner Peterson added that the proposed construction will be a benefit to the neighborhood. The Planning Commission inquired about the one unit that would be constructing a deck onto the unit. Planner Harrington informed the Commission that decks were not considered encroachments to setback requirements. Motion/Second: Ruggles/Colleen to approve Resolution No. 423-95 regarding the variance request by Larry Beach, Planning Case No. 416-95. (It was noted that the resolution number was changed from the agenda session flout 422-95 to 423-95. Also, the addresses contained in the resolution were changed to 7315, 7325 and 7327 Knollwood Drive). 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Planning Harrington introduced an item that was not on the 6. (Item not on agenda. Agenda) Consideration of The applicant, Glen Harstad, was present. Resolution No. • 422-95 Planner Harrington reminded the Commission that the Regarding Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 1995 • Regular Meeting Page 3 conditional use permit request for the Suds & Shine car Consideration of wash, 2340 Highway 10, was discussed at the June 15th Resolution No. agenda meeting. It was noted that a mailing was sent out to 422-95 affected residents informing them of a meeting that would be Regarding held on July 5th. Mr. Harrington noted that one resident Conditional Use came in and one called to express their concerns as a result Permit of this mailing. Mr. Harrington informed the Amendment Commission that he had received a petition today that was Request for Suds signed by eight residents who were opposed to the & Shine Car modifications to the conditional use permit. Mr. Harrington Wash, 2340 distributed a copy of the petition to the Commission Highway 10, members. Planning Case No. 415-95 The applicant, Glen Harstad, addressed the Commission explaining that he had contacted the neighbors to hear the concerns. He expressed that he was in agreement with a six- month trial period. Commissioner Miller expressed concern with the gathering of people a night if the facility was open 24 hours. Mr. Harstad informed the Commission that he hasn't had a problem with "gatherings" at his other facilities. He also noted that he wants to install a pole sign for illumination. He doesn't believe that this would encroach on the neighbors. Chair Peterson expressed his main concern would be the loud music from the cars and the gathering of youth in the evening hours. - -- on a daily basis monitoring business and is willing to work with the neighbors regarding any issues they may have. Further discussion regarding the noise problems ensued. The issue of shutting the vacuums down at 10:00 p.m. to alleviate excess noise problems was discussed. Mr. Harstad expressed that December through March are the busiest months and that if he can't have the vacuums in operation between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. he needs to have the wash business open (at least during this four month period). It was noted that 75 percent of business is conducted during . • Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 1995 Regular Meeting Page 4 this four-month period but that the outdoor vacuums are not used as much during these months. Mr. Harstad noted at this time that the vacuums could be insulated to alleviate some noise. The petition that was received by Planner Harrington today was breifly discussed. Planner Harrington informed the Commission that action could be taken this evening or at the next agenda meeting since they would be calling to order on another item next meeting. The Commission expressed their concern that noise from the vacuums and the lighting issue was not as much of a concern as the loud music from the cars and the possible gathering of people. • The Commission agreed that the resolution that was drafted for the July 5th meeting seemed to address their concerns. It was noted that the six-month trial period would start from the date of Council approval unless the Planning Commission decides otherwise. Mr. Harstad feels that he will know in two to three months if he desires to keep the facility open 24 hours. The issue of installing landscaping as a sound buffer was raised. Chair Peterson stated that vegetation was a good visual buffer but not as good for sound. He added that a solid tall fence would be appropriate as a sound buffer. Mr. Harstad proposed that adding a tree berm in addition to shutting down the vacuums at 10:00 p.m. would help alleviate some of the noise problem the residents were experiencing.. The Planning Commission expressed that they would like the City Forester, Rick Wriskey, to conduct a site plan review. • Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 1995 Regular Meeting Page 5 . Planner Harrington informed the Commission and the applicant that a public hearing would be held at the council level for public input. Proposed Resolution No. 422-95 was contained in the July 5th Planning Commission packet. The following conditions were noted to be included in the resolution: 1) the vacuums be shut down between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 2) signage to make patrons aware of the Mounds View sign ordinance be installed to be located at the entrance and along the fence near the vacuums, 3) an attendant be added in the evening hours, 4) the facility would be open 24 hours, 5) plantings, by direction of the City Forester be provided on the southwest property line, and 6) the conditional use permit be reviewed after six months. It was noted that the address on the resolution be changed from 2320 to 2340 Highway 10. Motion/Second: Miller/Ruggles to approve Resolution No. • 422-95, with conditions as discussed, regarding the conditional use permit amendment request by Suds& Shine car wash, 2340 Highway 10. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Planner Harrington informed the applicant that he would contact him regarding City Council meeting dates and also that this item would be brought to a Council work session for discussion. Planner Harrington deferred from reviewing this item since 7. Consideration of he was not in attendance at the last agenda meeting. Resolution Regarding Chair Peterson stated that Commissioner Johnston has been Supporting doing some work in this area. He also noted that the Matching Funds information regarding TIF financing for the proposed for a Pedestrian Highway 10 bridge was discussed at the last meeting. It was Bridge Across agreed that the City Council was looking for affirmation Highway 10 from the Planning Commission. • • Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 1995 Regular Meeting Page 6 Chair Peterson stated that, according to the information he read, TIF financing is not openly prohibited. Commissioner Ruggles expressed his concern about safety on the bridge. The Planning Commission briefly discussed this issue. They also discussed construction design to accommodate wheel chair use. They also noted where other similar bridges are located in the metro area and it was mentioned that most major highways with pedestrian use has a bridge of this type. It was mentioned that several residents of the Silver Lake Woods townhomes and Wildwood manor have expressed their desire for the bridge. discussed this issue. They also discussed construction design to accommodate wheel chair use. They also noted where other similar bridges are located in the metro area and it was • mentioned that most major highways with It was noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission had approved a similar resolution. It was clarified that the resolution approved by the Planning Commission wouild be for supporting the matching of T.I.F. funds. It was noted that General Funds expenditures would not be made for this project. Discussion on construction features of the bridge continued. It was acknowledge that the bridge would give the City of Mounds View some identity for the scheming of Highway 10. The Planning Commission inquired as to whether or not a resolution would need to be approved or if a letter of support would be sufficient. It was the consensus of the Commission that a letter would be drafted for signature by each Planning Commission member to be presented at an upcoming City Council meeting. 1111 There was no staff report. 8. Staff Report Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 1995 Regular Meeting Page 7 • Members present at the July 19, 1995, agenda session 9. Chairman's included Commissioners Miller, Johnston, and Chair Report Peterson. Council member Trude and Planning Associate Pruitt were also present. (Commissioners Stevenson, Ruggles and Colleen had excused absences. Commissioner Nelson is on a leave of absence.) There being no further business before the Commission, 10. Adjournment Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • Paul Harrington Community Development Coordinator MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR DATE: August 15, 1995 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - BEL AIR BUILDERS PLANNING CASE NO. 419-95 Following discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting, Midwest I.V. has modified their site plan to allow for additional parking on the site. As you will recall, the parking shown on the site plan presented at the August 2 , 1995 Planning Commission meeting was considerably less than that required by Municipal Code. The modifications made by the applicant include a downsizing of the building and the inclusion of "proof of parking" on the plan. "Proof of parking" is a concept which allows for the designation of parking area but, not necessarily its development. The idea is to • have additional parking available if it is deemed necessary. In the event the parking is not immediately needed, it will be maintained as green/landscaped area. This concept has been used by the City previously in the Senior Housing Project. The applicant will be making a presentation of the new site plan at the meeting Wednesday evening. As agreed to by the Commission at the August 2 meeting, Staff will be preparing "boiler plate" resolutions for consideration. Those resolution's will be provided Wednesday evening. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR DATE: August 15, 1995 SUBJECT: REZONING/C.U.P. REQUEST - 5497 ADAMS STREET GARY KRIG/FRAN DEGROSS, PLANNING CASE NO. 422-95 Gary Krig has made application for a Rezoning of the property located at 5497 Adams Street. The property is currently zoned B-2, Limited Business - the applicant is requesting a B-3 , Highway Commercial classification in order to support his plans to sell the property to Fran Degross. As a subsequent part of this application, Mr. Degross is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a Automotive repair business on the site. The Automotive repair business is allowable in a B-3 district with the issuance of a C.U.P. Chapter 1125. 01 Subdivision 1 (e) of the Mounds View Municipal Code identifies those factors upon which the Planning Commission should • base its decision relative to any rezoning request. Those factors, and an analysis of their relevance, are as follows: 1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan this parcel and as neighborhood commercial. Neighborhood Commercial, as defined in the Municipal Code, includes services provided for the benefit of immediate neighbors and not the Community as a whole. 2) Geographical area involved The parcel is bounded on the South by Fedor's Market. To the North by a non-conforming gas station and small strip mall of shops. The West property line abuts R-4 property on which is located 8-plexes. To the East is Adams Street. 3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed Except for the aforementioned gas station, the existing land uses in the vicinity of the rezoning are consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan designation. These uses are much less of an impact on the area than the proposed repair shop would be. 4) The character of the surrounding area • Beyond the immediately adjacent properties, the overall land use in the vicinity of the subject property is overwhelmingly residential in nature. County Road I to the north of the subject property provides a barrier which reduces impact in that direction, however. 5) The demonstrated need for such use Currently, only the Saturn dealership provides automotive repair service of the type being proposed. Although a number of home repair shops do exist within the City, they are considered non- conforming and are ordered to cease operation when discovered by the City. Following discussion and direction on the rezoning request, the merits of the Automotive Repair application can be reviewed. I have included all materials received as part of this application as well as an area map detailing the subject property. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. PLANNING APPLICATION APPLICANT: r a v •� Phone ? ADDRESS: L (C) R 'c0 Oo- Cri - s �� i , lilZ� SS( (10 Street Address, City, State, and Zip Code Interest in Property_ jheck appropriate box): (�/ Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final City action of this request PROPERTY INVOLVED: Address/General Location S15'7 — S-y Legal Description or Property Identification Number C.)8 3 o -23 - 12- o b S) 6 2/44? Legal Owner:! Name/Address Gli•i K 'f &o ccQ rTak +11,\ e.L-"`Gsk4 1 L z.c� , 1£ Present Use (check appropriate box): ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units ) Er Business/Commercial Establishment • ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification: 0 Abstract CTorrens REQUEST: /i dr._.Ar�� .��.� .� — te> *Please note: Applicant may be responsible for additional fees associated with the review of this request •�- - . - • L•411,' • MENT ARE TRUE. aP-1 Signature ° $200/acre,minim • , maximum$1,000 Park Fund Dedication Fee an R-1 to R-2-$75,all others$200 Date Paid Rional Use R-1 to R-2-$75.all •. 00 Receipt Number $75 Develop./Site Plan Review $100/acre,minimum 100.maximum $500 Total Fees Paid 4400.Q'Q Minor Subdivision $150 Data Paid i - Major Subdivision $250 plus$250 deposit Receipt Number Wiffire Comp. Plan Amendment $200 / { Gj Wetland Alteration Permit $50 plus deposit determined by Staff Additional Fee Paid '/ v ` F Wetland Buffer Permit $10 Date Paid Planning Sign $50 Receipt Number PUD $150 PUD Amendment $150 Date of final action •• APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ TABLED ❑ Data - 9-5 Planning Case No. e-iota"'�� Admin-Account No. 11i��' CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CAT % - APPLICANT: • 1 '/—, L,D'-g4 - one 7, - z7/ 72 i - 0 - J . ADDRESS: , -7775t/1217410 Street Address, City, State, and Zip Code . \O Interest in Property (check appropriate box): Cierk X ❑ Owner of Property El Contract Contract for Deed Owner ®' Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) It Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final City action of this request • PROPERTY INVOLVED: Address/General Location i' 9 '7 Y 44(-4 a.�,,,T `'(1�0k.>"Q 5 O ill SS'e,..� Legal Description or Property Identification Number C) F, - 3 0 - 2 3 - 12- a 0 s 1 -9-0 z/ if Legal Owner: Name/Address 6 1.< sr S1,. 1 k (-)'ec.Q_ Oa-t'--. e' h iv .( S 1 p i ifft A ‘5—S.'-.1 -. Present Use (check appropriate box): ❑ UndevelopedNacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling • ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units ) Zy"' Business/Commercial Establishment o Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification: ❑ Abstract j2r.Torrens REQUEST: o i . — 2 - , - f r • r - - - A • „ _ • _ e► �. _ I1 I. Z ' t. ie '. I Ay //f7!esAcre, Al /Ice Aro 'APS elle' , a .. . . 0(44'1"c ease no e: p cant may be responsible for additional fees associated with the review of this r:• estp,e y.. bay / I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TRU .4 `. " w _ „„ 1r Signature ************ ********** ************************ R.zoning $200/acre,minimum$200,maximum $1,000 Park Fund Dedication Fee Van R-1 to R-2-$75.all others$200 Date Paid itional Use Permit , R-1 to R-2-$75,all others$200 Receipt Number Code $75 Deveiop./Site Plan Review $100/acre,minimum 100,maximum$500 Total Fees Paid Minor Subdivision $150 Date Paid Major Subdivision $250 plus$250 deposit Receipt Number Comp. Plan Amendment $200 Wetland Alteration Permit $50 plus deposit determined by Staff Additional Fee Paid Wetland Buffer Permit $10 Date Paid • Planning Sign $50 Receipt Number PUD $350 PUD Amendment $150 Date of final action APPROVED 0 DENIED 0 TABLED ❑ Dam 5-- N " 9 Planning Car No. 11 4- -5-Admin.Account No. %% 1PARK = - 5731 7947 GR ENFIELD#.2Aliii;:-4 NNN N 7943 �' 5721 w DR.. 2245 co Q 7939 m 2241 Q, N 5711 N ®kiNNN _ LIJ27935 � , : c"N N2237 N N � 5701 rc7931 ®� � r��® �o $ L'j 7927 ® 2233 5697 • s 4 p 7923 c� oo * _ . n_'e M.N V, 5681 w 7979 ti t c„, li• N.4,,i,F.N_ N 5671 > w 7913 }17� �a N w•--7. a cam. 5S61J 7909 I . '�� I : 94 `� �� MOBILE- HOME PARK COLONIAL VILLAGE w 790 ...RD C' _ N1 O N Y Y .:t0 O )O NI.•N 0) n' u1 n--Oi 0)- ;� — u'f .- O ( u) Y M N. M N N N Y M M N-: .O O NI O .O 0 0) CO M M N M M, N- N N N' N N N N N' N 'N.'N N O o - N N N N Q� N N N N. ,-. N N N N CA M LC) N -'rn HILLVIE V., RD d^'Y 0 (0 'SiY O .[O O+ M M rrMj M M )"O) ,h 0) OD'- n <0 u'). ) Y )`N N Y O- O ONi aYO v r"�) () N O _0 00)I O Y N O N N N_N N N •N N N- N N N N N N N. N' N N N N Of ao n n O OAKWOOD • -DR ' N N N N N,_N N N N N N N N N .N. QAKWOO® N N N N N N N N N N N N 5619 5616 5619 5618 N N N+ N N N MI in. N N N o 0 _f m F- 5590 Y _M _M _N O1 Orn rn m n n N N N N N T 5613:vi 5612 5613 5612 OA OOD Csi N N N N .N N N N N N[N N N N I N N N N y 5607 5606 5607 5606 N N N IgEINUENir DR N - YY /010N10ODN (0mONO5601 560C 5601 5600 ; °) °D n O �+ M M N o m o o `nc on0) O n N ��N N , N N N N N N N N. N N N N N N N N V / 5563 5562 5563 5562 N .N N N `Oi Raw" NNNNN �� 5557 5556 5557 d 5556 E �� m m � a n M N °i o rn - n n M M 55512 5550 5551 5550 N '.N N N „ '`r+ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w gralt,..1 �� N N ,SOj9 5545 5544 5545 5544,, . N N N N ®O O Y t0 Op N t0 cp N AOR m O N v) CIR `ti n �, rn M n N o n o n u� M M N - o rn o Y o 0 0f ® n n cN N 01 m n n 33 n .L .c.1 t, 55391 5538 5539 S53FZ N N'N N C,-,'-'1 �� N Z N N N N N N N N NNNN N N N N N 5533 5532 5533 5532 'P[A7EWOOD D ' - ^ .0 a 5527 55265527 u) 5526 0.rn CO o Y (0 R 1040:41 N v n rM) N °) = o 0) 0) o N NMMMM . NN •N':N t0 LO 11.1 Y M•co M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N 5521 5520 5521 5520 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N RD 0 N n n r"O) N ';N -.CO 5511 5512 5511 ...-.0 N_ N N - , N - N. 5505 • n n 5497. 5503 p 5504 CO N 5499 PINEWOOD 7661 N N N 5493 , 5491 5493 5494 i GRO- ""ST'-' • 5500 SCHOOL 7651 5480 5485 5486 5485 i M 5474 5473 5468 5475 5478 5475 1 7641 545.8..• 54671 54f)4. 5463 $ 5467 I,- 1.1 5462• 5463 Bg 5459 Q 7631 ] M j 5445.- 545,.4 •5455 co 545. 44 0 SASS 5453 F•- N 7531 u`�) 5446;, 5447 p 543 ;\4• ". S% 5447 N �/ '.• W Co o 5440, 5441 a 5439 N ( 0 u'")) v n co /�� Z w 7521 I �-:, . 5434 5433 S -RSB 5433 N N N N N N ,� „ W 7511 - 5426- 5425 .-irc, r 5425 BELLE0OD O Y 5424 n o n n Y M 7� 5421 542• 5419 N N N N N 5414 5415 5414 r .5• M ^ rn 54015413 n at M n n 7501 M n,N o o n CO Y n NIMP • • •• N N N N N N 'r• N N N N N II� 5380 `BRONSON-. • DRIVE. 5374 a O R fV f0 O (V .. Y N "O Y us 5395 imp . 5394 5395 a mO n $ -rn 5372 W Z N N N N N N N N ,�N N N N - 5392 5391:-. 5392 5391��'-"^' N N N (V '.N N N N N N N N NN 5366 . 5386 5387 5386 5385 5386 5385 5364 O. 5381 �j 5380 5381 X — 'IX 5360 Z- 5372 53734 5380 53790 5380 5379 Q 5358 u., eV 5372 5371 5372 5371 5354-J 5367 5366 536415363364 5363 53? 0 5359 5357 5358,5357. .5358 5357 5344 Inal /raft 5353 n a '�) N N a o rn 5352 5351 5352 5351 5438 RUT eral 5354 j 5345 N N N N N :N cN,A N N N 5344 5343:- 5344 5343 5330 : ' 5337 LAMBERT �� 33 • O ti- o 0--,r.•'o I o N m_ U 5338 5337 5338 5337 -5326 s ® 5 0 5331 LAMBERT N N N N gi PARK N N N N fY N N N N ? 5330 5329 5330 5329 5324 5323 5324 v 5324 53232 5324 5323 z 5316 53175316 53,E 2 5316 53150 5302•299. 5309 _, - - m•1•*299...4".,41147/ \--•— — 5308 53070 5308 5307 5300 a 5298 5301 5302. 5307 5300 5299 5300 5299ix Tice' Z V 4.0 (442216::: F 1 17,-., m N r: 2 2 0 e M_N N :P) o rn rn "w 5294 5293 5294 5293 5294 0 g*:, N N N N N N N N N N *El N 5290 �' V 5287 N 'N N N N N N N ..N N N 1 N N N N N 528815287 5288 5287 5288 iL .. . .co RD < H2,=. • L ^�4 N N 5275 \ ,�a ' 14 f.,15267 ati rya ''\'') • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 • 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Review and Approv- of Min tes: August 2, 1995 (received in previous packet) 4. Citizens Reque s and C. ments from the Floor: CITIZENS: EFORE "' • '�NG PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS Fe- - -`+ilii>;% TES 5. Consideration -of,Resolution No. 425-95 r-_a : ng request for Rezoning, Gary Krig/Fran-Degross, 5497 Adams Street, Plan 'ng Xte No`s 2-95. 6. Staff Report 7. Chairman's Report 8. Adjournment ***************************************** ******************** APPLICANTS: YOUR % • ` AT THIS MEETING IS RE•UESTED. ' • -5-5 P-.1k. :-- IF YOU ARE UNABLE "0 A P END. THANK YOU. ***************************** ***************************** -� i MEMORANDUM • MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barb DATE: September 5, 1995 SUBJECT: AUGUST 2, 1995, MINUTES Since there were a few changes to the August 2nd minutes, I thought you may want to review them before the meeting. However, to save on copies, instead of providing a copy of the minutes in your packet, the minutes will be available for your perusal in the council chambers wednesday evening prior to the meeting. Thanks. • e • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION '' ii FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR 0. DATE: September 5, 1995 SUBJECT: REZONING/C.U.P. REQUEST - 5497 ADAMS STREET GARY KRIG/FRAN DEGROSS, PLANNING CASE NO. 422-95 Based on discussions held at the August 16, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting, Staff has drafted the attached Resolution for consideration. FOR REVIEW: Gary Krig has made application for a Rezoning of the property located at 5497 Adams Street. The property is currently zoned B-2 , Limited Business - the applicant is requesting a B-3 , Highway Commercial classification in order to support his plans to sell the • property to Fran Degross. As a subsequent part of this application, Mr. Degross is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a Automotive repair business on the site. The Automotive repair business is allowable in a B-3 district with the issuance of a C.U. P. Chapter 1125 . 01 Subdivision 1 (e) of the Mounds View Municipal Code identifies those factors upon which the Planning Commission should base its decision relative to any rezoning request. Those factors, and an analysis of their relevance, are as follows: 1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Commercial, as defined in the Municipal Code, includes services provided for the benefit of immediate neighbors and not the Community as a whole. 2) Geographical area involved The parcel is bounded on the South by Fedor' s Market. To the North by a non-conforming gas station and small strip mall of shops. The West property line abuts R-4 property on which is located 8-plexes. To the East is Adams Street. 3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the • area in which it is proposed Except for the aforementioned gas station, the existing land uses in the vicinity of the rezoning are consistent with the intent of • the Comprehensive Plan designation. These uses are much less of an impact on the area than the proposed repair shop would be. 4) The character of the surrounding area Beyond the immediately adjacent properties, the overall land use in the vicinity of the subject property is overwhelmingly residential in nature. County Road I to the north of the subject property provides a barrier which reduces impact in that direction, however. 5) The demonstrated need for such use Currently, only the Saturn dealership provides automotive repair service of the type being proposed. Although a number of home repair shops do exist within the City, they are considered non- conforming and are ordered to cease operation when discovered by the City. If you have any questions, please give me a call. • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 425-95 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY GARY KRIG/FRAN DEGROSS, PLANNING CASE NO. 422-95 WHEREAS, Gary Krig and Fran Degross have made application to rezone the property located at 5497 Adams Street from B-2 , Limited Business to B-3 , Highway Commercial; and WHEREAS, the property is legally known as: The West 54 feet and the South 16 feet of Lot 1, Block 4 and; the East 30 feet of the North 1/2 of Lot 4 , Block 4 and; all of Lot 2 , Block 4 ; All in Spring Lake Park Highlands; and WHEREAS, Chapter 1125. 01, Subdivision 1 (e) of the Mounds View Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. It further states that judgement shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: 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; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request in relation to the aforementioned criteria; and WHEREAS, the rezoning request is inconsistent with the City' s Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation for this property which is Limited Business; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends denial of the request to rezone the property legally known as: The West 54 feet and the South 16 feet of Lot 1, Block 4 and; the East 30 feet of the North 1/2 of Lot 4 , Block 4 and; all of Lot 2 , Block 4 ; All in Spring Lake Park Highlands from B-2 , Limited Business to B-3 , Highway Commercial. • Resolution No. 425-95 Page two • • BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Panning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City "Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adapted this 6th day ;ofSeptember, 1995. ATTEST: Chairman (SEAL) :.. Community Development Coordinator • •