Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-1996 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ` OCTOBER 9, 1996 7:00 P.M. • AGENDA SESSION ". 1. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda • CITIZENS:BEFORE SPEAKING,PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION: Call to Order Items for Decision 2. Call to Order 3. Roll Call 4. Planning Case No. SP-008-96 Revision of parking lot setbacks between residential and non-residential uses. Revision of lot area requirements for conditional uses in residential districts. Applicant:Danny D.Moon/City of Mounds View • Staff Recommendation:Approve PLANNING COMMISSION:Adjourn to AGENDA SESSION Items for Discussion 5. Planning Case No. 460-96 2975 Highway 10 Applicant: Ron Ostrander and Bruce MacDonald Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow minor automobile repair. :_ . . ii 2535-2585 Highway 10 Applicant: Paster Enterprises(dba:Mounds View Assoc.LLP) . Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow joint use of parking facilities,and approval for variances in sign height and sign area for the shopping center identification sign,and in parking ratios. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. Agenda Continued Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 1996 Page 2 7. Planning Case No.464-96 2375-2395 Highway 10 Applicant: Saturn Development Request for approval of an amended conditional use permit to allow expansion of an existing auto dealership,the addition of a car wash and expansion of available repair services. 8. Planning Case No. SP-001-96 Discussion of Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Towers and Antennas in preparation for development of an ordinance addressing this issue in the City of Mounds View(Ordinance No. 588) 9. Review of Letter from Planning Commission to City Council regarding improving communication between Council and commissions • 10. Staff Reports . • 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 12. Adjournment • item g-L PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director • Subject: Setbacks for Parking Lots, and Lot Area Requirement for Non-Residential Uses . Planning Case No. SP-008-96 Date: October 7, 1996 Meeting of October 9, 1996 Issue Mr. Danny D. Moon, a property owner in Mounds View, has requested that the Zoning Code be amended to require a minimum 15 foot setback between parking lots and property lines, when the parking lots are for churches or any commercial uses, and these uses abut residential uses. At your meetings on September 18 and October 2, the Planning Commission reviewed draft ordinances which would address this request, as well as establish a minimum lot size for non • - residential uses in residential districts and clarify some ambiguous provisions in the Zoning Code. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 474-96 recommending to the City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 590 amending the Mounds View Zoning Code, Title 1100, Sections 1102.01, 1104.01, 1104.02, 1106.04, 1107.05, 1109.04, 1110.04, 1121.09, 1121.11, and 1123.02. • Discussion The proposed ordinance shows changes from the existing Zoning Code by underlinging(new wording) and strikeouts (wording to be deleted). To aid the Planning Commission in its review, wording which is new from your meeting on October 2 meeting is shaded. This is the only wording you need to review if you want to see the changes since our last discussion. Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the ordinance are also new but have just been added so the minimum lot size requirement of one acre tracks through the districts. The proposed ordinance would: • • add a definition of"principal building" • clarify that the setbacks in the table in 1104.01 Subd. 3 pertain to principal buildings • clarify when and how front setbacks for new residences in the R-1 and R-2 districts shall be adjusted based on the setbacks of existing residences in the same block Mounds View Planning Commission Page 2 October 8, 1996 • • clarify that garages, which are part of a residence and have a side setback of five feet, • cannlivifive feet and ten feet of the side lot line • create abe section onconverted setbacksinto forng accessoryspacebetween buildings, and clarify setback provisions such that no accessory buildings may be located in front of a residence in the residential districts, and side setbacks from streets on corner lots shall be the same as the residence (30 feet). It also would allow accessory buildings of 864 square feet or less to be placed within ten feet of the side or rearproperty line in the business and industrial districts. • create a section on setbacks for parking areas and driveways: * establishes a minimum parking lot setback of 20 feet, for sites having 2.5 acres or less, and 30 feet, for sites having more than 2.5 acres, where the parking lot serves a non-residential use and abuts property in a residential district * establishes a 15 foot setback for parking lots from streetside (whether front, side or rear) for any multiple family residential (three or more attached units) and larger) and non-residential use in any district * retains existing setbacks for parking areas from front property lines in business (30') and industrial(40') * retains existing setbacks for parking areas from side and rear property lines in business and industrial districts (5') except when abutting residential (20', 30') or streets (15') s • clarifies setbacks requirements from"second" front on through lots • establish a requirement that a property owner obtain an encroachment permit for driveways or parking areas in easements, if required by the City • establish a minimum lot size of one acre for non-residential uses located in residential districts, except for governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community • allows existing parking areas which do not conform to the new setback requirements to be considered legal, non-conforming uses, and allows them to be resurfaced, restriped, repaired and replaced in compliance with the original setback requirements, except that if they are being reconstructed or replaced and it is possible to meet the new setback requirements with losing required parking spaces, they shall be made conforming to the new setback requirements • a number of cross-references have been added to help readers navigate the Code The proposed ordinance establishes a stricter requirement for setbacks for parking lots which abut residential property, when the lots are for non-residential uses, than was requested by Mr. Moon. His request was for 15 feet. The ordinance establishes the requirement at 20feet (for 2.5 acre or smaller sites) and 30 (for sites larger than 2.5 acres). (Staff has checked the site plan approved for Cross of Glory, as was requested by the Planning Commission, and they could proceed under the new ordinance with the construction of the • expanded parking lot. The setback to County Road I is 23 feet, and to the east property line is 25 feet. The new requirements would be 20 feet and 20 feet, respectively.) • 41, Mounds View Planning Commission Page 3 October 8, 1996 The only provision which the Planning Commission did not have an opportunity to discuss in prior meetings is the setback for parking lots for multiple family residential and non-residential uses from streets. Staff is recommending that a setback of at least 15 feet be required to allow room for landscaping. cc: Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, Mounds View MN 55112 by FAX: 783-1853 • i • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 474-96 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 590,AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE, TITLE 1100, SECTIONS 1102.01, 1104.01, 1104.02, 1106.04, 1107.05, 1109.04, 1110.04, 1121.09, 1121.11, and 1123.02; PLANNING CASENO. SP-008- 96. WHEREAS, residential districts allow for certain non-residential uses such as schools, day care centers, community centers, churches, and nursing homes as conditional uses, and additional buffering is needed between the parking lots associated with these uses and adjacent residential uses; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Danny D. Moon for an amendment to the Mounds View Zoning Code to require a setback of fifteen feet for parking lots for churches and commercial uses, where such parking lots abut property in a ioresidential district; and, WHEREAS, in reviewing this request, the Planning Commission has concluded that setbacks of twenty feet, for parking lots on sites of 2.5 acres or less, and thirty feet, for parking lots on sites of more than 2.5 acres, where such parking lots serve non-residential uses and abut property in a residential district, is advisable to allow sufficient landscaping and buffering between residential properties and non-residential uses; and, WHEREAS, in reviewing this request, the Planning Commission has identified additional improvements needed in the Zoning Code including establishing a minimum lot size for non- residential uses in residential districts, clarifying when and how front setbacks for new residences in the R-1 and R-2 districts shall be adjusted based on the setbacks of existing residences in the same block, clarifying and establishing setback requirements for accessory buildings, clarifying setback requirements from"second fronts" on through lots, increasing parking lot setbacks from streets for multiple family residential, commercial and industrial uses, and adding cross-references; and, WHEREAS, with the adoption of increased setbacks for parking lots abutting residential properties, it is advisable to address the continued use of existing parking lots which do not conform to the revised setback requirements, and the ability to repair and resurface them. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends provision be made for existing ill parking lots which would not met the new setback requirements to be treated as legal non- conforming uses. Planning Commission Resolution No. 474-96 October 9, 1996 • Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption of Ordinance No. 590 as shown in Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part of this resolution by this reference. Adopted this 9th day of October, 1996. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST: • Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director 1111 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 474-96: EXHIBIT "A" ORDINANCE NO. 590 • • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SETBACKS FOR PARKING LOTS, -— DRIVEWAYS,AND PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; - MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES LISTED AS • CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; ThE CONTINUED USE OF NONCONFORMING PARKING LOTS; AND AMENDING 1Ti'LE 1100, SECTIONS 1102.01 1104.01 1104.02 1106.04 1 O10S, .0 >1110R4 1121.09 • 1121.11,AND 1123. 02 • THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: -Section 1. Section 1102.01 is hereby amended to add a new Subd. 88. "Principal Building" as stated below, and the subsequent subdivisions in this section are to be renumbered accordingly. Subd. 88. Principal Building: The main or primary building containing the principal use of II/ a property as distinguished from an accessory building. • Section 2. Section 1104.01 Subd. 3. Is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Setbacks for Principal Buildings: The setback distances listed in the table below • -apply to principal buildings, except as otherwise provided for conditional uses in specific zoning districts. All setback distances shown, , shall be measured from the appropriate lot line. The lettered footnotes correspond to Section 1104.01 Subd. 3. a., b., c., and d. Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard District' Minimum Minimum When Abuts Minimum When Abuts Residential Residential R-1 30 a.d. •10 b. 30d. R-2 30 a.d. 10 b. 30d. R-3 30 10 c. 20 c. 30 40 R-4 30 20 c. 20 c. 30 50 RR_5 --As required under Chapter 1110.05 of this Title-- R-O 30 20 c. 20 c. 30 50 B-1 30 d- 10 c. 20 c. 20 30 B-2 30 d- 10 c. 20 c. 20 30 'Lettered footnotes in this table correspond to Section 1104.01 Subd. 3. a.,b.,c.,and d. Ordinance No. 590 Page 2 111 Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard District2 Minimum Minimum When Abuts Minimum When Abuts Residential Residential B-3 30é 10 c. 20 c. 20 40 B-4 30 eb 10 c 30 30 40 I-1 40é 20 c. 40 . 40 40 PUD --As required under Chapter 1120 of this Title-- a. Where adjacentstructuresprincipal buildings tivelosten on lots within the same block on the same.side of the street have froncyard„setbacks„different,froin those required, the inininnini front yard setback fotarirnomptinoipatistructure$shall be •• .1 • • I• • •1 • . the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. . • • • •• • g . . • . • •.1 • . •1 •• •11 • • IP 4 • • 11 • (30') and the setback of the adjacent stiacture. In no case shall the front yard • setback be less than thirty feet(30'). For purposes of this subsection a., a block shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than fourteen hundred (1400) feet, the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fay.(650) feet on either side of the lot in question. or to itittneetint:street4vb er, esai: b. Not less than thirty feet (30') from the lot line if lot is on corner. Tand-otrintericr lines rfive foot (5') setback m the aiac side ful the sal a6e-btracture-is-allowed: The side setback may be reduced to five feet (5') between an interior side lot line and that side of a pnncipal building which is constructed as 4 g4174P.,,Vheiriii attached garage is placed between five feet(5')and the tival ten foot(10)sde yard setback, that portion of the garage at tea feet(LOt)or less.to the side lot line gialthOttetnnettedlritOlVittgAidCt or atidthertige.: • • c. Not less than thirty feet (30') from lot line if lot is on corner. . . U. • t ••4 II • • •• • 11• .1 • • • • •• 11 11 U , , • setback; • Mgtglg!9P1§4:g.g.9P841..491kTrig,M1P.Mtunkscupacacaol.W.PAQP#P911.1*PlIggArz.rik,M9, lot: theldiafiltbettiiiiiiiikiiiiiiiefai • sètbáck Section 3. Section 1104.01 Subd. 4. Is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 4. Location tu-Di ivewa.y. Di iveway-surfaces shall be nut less than five feet(5')- fiont any lut line, except where said driveway provides access to a public street. • 1 • • •• • • • • • •• IP• .1 • IS.1 • • 7 IP• • •11 • •• I • •1 • • 11 The coulbiaed-width of telaporary parking and driveway surfaces shall tot exceed 2Lettered footnotes in this table correspond to Section 1104.01 Subd. 3. a.,b.,c.,and d. ' n a Ordinance No. 590 Page 3 • thirty five feet(34. Subd. 4. Minimum Setbacks for Accessory Buildings, Driveways and Parking Areas a. Accessory Buildings (detached from a principal building): al R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-O: 01 front: no accessory building shall be located between the front line of the principal building and the front lot line al side: five feet (5') except the minimum setback shall be 30'from any lot line abutting a public street tc,) rear: five feet (5') .the for:acce ...o:: ::>buil<din`.. fro :thie lot li.•e<+: :.�:,.t_ing t. .;S r_e}e..;,>. }:e r�r . :::: ::.g�.:: :::::...: ;� Qt 1"rne.�b�zt�ng.the.street..at..the real.of:the.lr t;shi ll e u r feet>(30`) 0. All other districts: > : on o ac ssopht:4 din <; l tedibetweenii e fo.:...... .. ::...th of t`itig .idin and ix frc t kit luxe ...................... • iiagilliiiirigNIETREENI 8 di ;:; `:�`e>f et o lesi a d nol::abu g:: .:o ;>m::. :. a:rid": , >.,..«•.:..::<:.,:•::i ..>:.:.:> lt ;::std: - a�:hare..a.minimum.rear...setl�ack,cxf.ten.:feet :10' • b. Driveways: Driveway surfaces shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5') from all lot lines, except driveways shall be permitted to cross a required setback area in order to establish access between the lot and a public street. Where a driveway . would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior to construction o t e •nveway. Drive aisles and driveways which are within the boundaries of a parking area shall conform to the setbacks required for parking areas. c. Parking Areas: - GI R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O: fgl residential uses: five feet (5'), except temporary parking areas shall be permitted with a setback of one foot (1') provided the owner(s) of the abutting lot(s) indicates his/her permission on a form acceptable to the City. Where a temporary parking area would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an • encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior to construction of the drivewa . The combined width of Barkin• and driveway surfaces shall not exceed thirty five feet (35'). (Ord. • Ordinance No. 590 Page 4 524. 2-22-93) Surfacing of temporary parking areas shall be in • accordance with Section 1121.09 Subd. 7. non-residential uses: five feet (5') except where non-residential uses abut property in a residential district, the setback for parking_areas from the common property line shall be as follows: . 11]. for sites having two and one-half (2.5 ) acres or less: - twenty feet (20') 121. for sites having more than two and one-half(2.5) acres: thirty feet(30') Parking areas in existence as (date of ordinances and which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue subject to the provisions of Section 1123.02 Subd. 1(b). . B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 (parking areas and loading docks): fa,) front: 30 feet 0_1 side and rear: 5 feet, except as follows: L where a non-residential use abuts a property in a residential . district, the setback for parking areas from the common s. property line shall be as stated in Section 1104.04 Subd. 4.c.1.b. : where<>a:parking.area:abuts a.street...15::feet I-1 (parking areas and loading docks): 0a) front: 40 feet b� side and rear: 5 feet, except as follows: LU whey e a non-residential use abuts a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from the common . property line shall be as stated in Section 1104.04 Subd. • 4.c.1.b. :>y,i"Siki:::i:<:ii:::�::i:>:�i::'•v:::.v..::i'...�i:i'..^.::::::••.i::.i.ry• ..v::. here'a'�parl�rs�at-ea�:>al*iut�::a::>sti�eer::»1> ::feet Section 4. Section 1104.02 Subd. 2. is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd.2. Lot Arcab Dimensions: Lot dimensions width and area shall not be less than the following: a. Width • (1) R-1 interior lot 75 feet Ordinance No. 590 Page 5 • (2) R-1 corner lot,R-2, R-3, R-4, R-0 100 feet b. Square Feet Minimum Lot Area • (1) Computations for lot area shall not include land beyond a depth of one hundred fifty feet (150') on lots having less than one hundred foot (100') frontage. (2) Lots as ag"equal to<'ox greater than one hundred foot (100') frontage may use depths not exceeding one and one-half(1-1/2) times the frontage in computing lot area. (3) Minimum lot size area requirement shall be as stated in the table below. The lot area per dwelling unit requirements for townhouses, condominiums, planned unit developments and multiple family developments shall be calculated on the basis of the total area in the project and as controlled by an individual and/or joint ownership: ` • • • Ordinance No. 590 Page 6 110 District/Type of Lot3 Minimum Lot Size ' Minimum Lot Area (in square feet) Per Dwelling Unit(3) (in square feet) R-1 Interior 11,000 11,000(no more than one unit per lot regardless of lot size) R-1 Corner Lot 12,500 12,500(no more than one unit per lot regardless of lot size) R-1,R-2,R-3,R-4,R-5 43,560(1 acre) Non-residential uses listed as conditional uses,except for • governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health,safety and general welfare of the community R-2 R-3 -12,500 for lot developed with single- I25011forgingleflititNAttgaidd Duplexes,Townhouses family detached dwelling; diVattiOffidttitiiiihimoridifitit -.444.0 for each half of divided lot ktIraggillitoiMAI developed with two-family dwelling; 6 250 for each unit ui a two. - 12300 for undivided lot developed with family dwelling(no more than two-family dwelling hymn/1wperlotregardless of lot re R-4 single family detached: 11,000 Townhouses,Condominiums, two-family: 6,250 Planned Unit Developments, townhouse: 6,500 Multiple Family(4) multiple family: 2,500 • I-1 43,560(1 acre) B-1, B-2,B-3, B-4 no minimum:must allow for setbacks and parking requirements to be met (a) R-1 interior lot 11,000 square feet (I)) R-1 camel lot, R-2, R-3 12,500 squarc fcct (4) Lot arca pr do‘clling-unit. (The lot arca per dwelling wilt . • " I •• • l• III •1 • 11 •II • • 11 • • •I/ Alf IP el • • • •• • • *lel • the prk.rjcct aud CL.) cuntiollcd Lyan individual and joint o*ncrship.) (a) Singlc Fanlily iteee-square-feet • (1.) Tho-rainily 6,250 square feet (c) To wahousc G,500 jua.ic fcct (d) 2,500 square fcct 3 Numbered footnotes in this table correspond to Section 1104.02 Subd.2.b.(3)and(4). Ordinance No. 590 • Page 7 (5)� Usable Open Space: Each multiple-family dwelling site shall contain at least six hundred twenty five (625) square feet of usable open space as defined by subdivision 1102.02(109) of this Code for each • dwelling unit contained therein. Section 6. Section 1106.04 Subd. 1 and Section 1110.04 Subd. 2 are hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 1. in Section 1106.04 Subd. 2. in Section 1110.04 . Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary,junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues; • provided, that: a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet(30'). Minimumlotr sll noles charrftd acre`orasrovide n . • • • o f 15T- =I. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08(6) of this Title. the. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on.the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08(6)of this Title. cf. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title. fa. The provisions of Subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Section 7. Section 1107.05 Subd. 2 and Section 1110.04 Subd. 7 are hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 2 in Section 1107.05. Subd. 7 in Section 1110.04. Day care, group nursery, provided, that, a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. . b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty feet (30'). • Ordinance No. 590 Page 8 �.:: : r. :•! :. r::r}:•„ :::::. '::.:�::{.:: i•::.i:bi:..:.!::.... .{:.:::i'.... .... • .:nnu::ilotarashadbeno:lessthan%oneC acree asprit .dern • cd. No less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child shall be provided and that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions as may be specified by the City Council. d-:e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title. e:f. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title. fig, The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial of collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. Th. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1).e. of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. (1988 Code §40.11) Section 8. Section 1109.04 Subd 2. and Section 1110.04 Subd. 8 are hereby amended to read as follows: • Subd. 2. in Section 1109.04 Subd. 8. in Section 1110.04 • Nursing homes and similar group housing but not including hospitals, sanitariums or similar institutions; provided, that: a. Side yards double the minimum requirements established for this District and are screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 1103.08(6) 1103.08 of this Title. • b-c. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational area. Said area shall be fenced and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 1103.08(6) 1103.08 of this Title. • cd. The site shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic which will be generated. d-e. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. • e:f. All State laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to, and all required operating permits are secured. S A Ordinance No. 590 • Page 9 fg;, On off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title is provided. • g:h. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. • • Section 9. Section 1121.09 Subd. 11 is hereby amended to read as follows: • Subd. 11. Curbing and Landscaping: Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses(in developments of six units or less), all open off-street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot,,—said-curb-trainer shall • • • • • • • I . The location of this curb barrier shall comply with the setback requirements for parking areas stated in Section 1104.01 Subd:4. Grass, plantings or surfacing materials shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. • Section 10. Section 1121.11 Subd. 3 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Accessory off-street parking . . el • • ;$ shall comply with the required minimum setbacks as stated in Section 1104.01 • Subd. 4. Section 11. -Section 1123.02 Subd. 1 is hereby amended to read as follows: • Subd. 1. Continuance of Use: General: Any structure or use lawfully existing prior to a zoning-nse revision to this Code or a change in a zoning district desi �gnation which makes the structure or use nonconforming shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing upon such date, except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended. • (21 Parking Areas for Non-Residential Uses. Allowed by Conditional Use Permit, in the R-1. R-2. R-3. R-4 and R-5 Districts: Parking areas in existence as of , and having setbacks which are non-conforming with respect to setback requirements stated in Section 1104.01 Subd. 4}may contnue:in use and max:be.resurfaced and restrtped and nra be reeQnatructed yr reglaee�i setbacks.rWhich.t;vnft� > o':t��ord��ce tn.effect at the>tr �t�i•orfg��� .::::::::. constr € n,exceptatxag Io ;beri recnsed;or'xsplacd shank made c t g it cunei t setbaei requ%rezne a i- ati t e hrne of.:...... r..ecanst vc it3i pr:>Fe ein in i e sibl t oifi eclu. ::>`:tl 'Aumber.of r . u re l p:ang spaeesr ' he feasrblty of£neeg tea tesetback requ ements:shalt be.°determtrted..b�:>the:>D�reetor.'vfG�mmiu�tty�:velc�pment • • Ordinance No. 590 Page 10 • Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1996. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1996. Jerry Linke, Mayor • A1•'1'hST: Chuck Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert Long, City Attorney • Item #5 • • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: October 9, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case 460-96 File No.: Request: Approval of a conditional use permit to allow auto repair. Petitioner: Ron Ostrander and Bruce MacDonald Location: 2975 Highway 10 PIN No. 06-30-23-23-0005 Zoning/Land Use: B-3 The property has an existing structure which was used by Auto Central for used car sales. Applicable Regulations: The B-3 district allows for minor auto repair provided the criteria • stated in Section 1114.04. Subd 3 are met. These criteria are listed and discussed in the analysis section of this report. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Diagram of Buildings on Property(from aerial photos) Excerpt from Mounds View 2000 Background: The applicants, Ron Ostrander and Bruce MacDonald have applied for a conditional use permit to allow an auto repair business to be established at 2975 Highway 10. This property is in the B-3 district which allows minor auto repair with approval of a conditional use permit. The property is more-or-less triangular in shape, contains .63 acres and is bordered on the south side by Highway 10 and the east side by Spring Lake Road. The properties to the north and west are zoned R-2 and are developed with duplexes. There is a fence along part of the east and north property line which is in poor repair. There are three light standards in the parking lot, and a pylon sign. Mr. Ostrander has described the types of services proposed to be offered as including the following: oil changes, tune-ups, muffler and brake repair, replacement of parts, engine repair, and general servicing of vehicles. They do not intend to pull or rebuild engines, do • body work or painting. The types of services will be similar to Amoco Insta-Lube. Planning Commission • Planning Case No.460-96: 2975 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 2 The applicants are proposing to use the existing building and parking lot on the property. No building expansion is planned. There are two service bays and a waiting area in the existing building. They intend to paint the building, seal coat the parking lot, fix the fences and lighting standards. No additional landscaping is proposed other than planters in the parking lot. The applicant has not provided a site plan since they did not anticipate any changes in either the site layout or landscaping. In 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of, and the City Council granted a conditional use permit to Auto Central for minor auto repair at this location. (Planning Case No. 379-94) Analysis/ Recommendation: The Zoning Code defines minor automobile repair as: • "Minor repairs, including body and fender work, minor painting and upholstering service, replacement of parts and engine service to passenger vehicles and trucks not exceeding a one ton chassis design." (1102.02 Subd. 6) The description of services proposed by the applicant fits this definition and would be allowed under the B-3 district with approval of a conditional use permit. There are two sets of criteria which are to be used in evaluating this application The first set are listed in the B-3 district and apply to minor auto repair businesses(Section 1114.04 • Subd. 3). The criteria for granting of conditional use permits are listed in Section 1125.01 Subd. 3. These criteria are discussed below, and have been grouped by issue where appropriate. Lot Area d. A minimum lot area of twenty two thousand five hundred(22,500)square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty feet by one hundred thirty feet(150'x 130')be provided. The lot has 27,442.8 square feet, and has lot dimensions as follows: • North: 158 feet East: 371 feet South: 213 feet West: 90 feet • Planning Commission Planning Case No.460-96: 2975 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 3 Building and Site Design b. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. c. The entire site,other than that taken up by a building,structure or plantings,shall be surfaced with a material to control dust,drainage and erosion which is subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. f. A curb not less than six inches(6")above grade shall separate the public sidewalk from motor vehicle service areas. i. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than ten feet(10')shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08 (1)through(5)of this Title. • The applicants are proposing to use the existing building, and to upgrade the condition of • the building and the site. The current state of the property is somewhat blighted and the proposed changes will be an improvement. The site area which is not occupied by the building or by vegetation is in an asphalt parking lot which the applicants are proposing to seal coat. The current condition of the parking lot is poor. There is no curbing around the perimeter of the parking lot. Chapter 1121 of the Zoning Code requires a perimeter curb barrier around parking lots which serve uses other than single-family and two-family residences and townhouses. Staff is recommending a contingency that curbing be installed on this site to better define the parking area, improve the site, and bring the site into compliance with the Code. There are no public sidewalks along Highway 10 or Spring Lake Road, and therefore item f. above does not apply. The site is bordered on the north and west by property in the R-2 district. There are two single family homes across Spring Lake Road to the east. There is an existing fence, which is in very poor repair along the west property line and a portion of the north and east property lines. Staff is recommending that this fence repaired and repainted, or replaced and that it be extended along the entire property line bordering the properties in the R-2 district. The fence is needed in order for the site to comply with the requirement for screening from residential properties. The area in vegetation along the north property line varies from approximately 15 feet to 25 feet, along the rear of the building. The land area in vegetation along the remainder of the north property line and the west property line is extensive. The site is not landscaped • beyond mown grass. The City does not have a specific requirement for a certain amount of trees or shrubs in landscaped areas. The Planning Commission may want to Planning Commission • Planning Case No.460-96: 2975 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 4 • recommend the planting of trees and/or shrubs as a requirement of the conditional use permit. Lighting and Signage g. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of this Title. • lighting arranged to deflect light away from adjoining residential zone or from public streets • hooded or controlled so as not to light adjacent property • light cast on public street shall not exceed 1 foot-candle;on residential property shall not exceed 0.4 foot candle. j. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. m. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. • There are three existing light standards in the parking lot which are in poor repair, and two of them are located in the parking lot rather than in landscaped islands. Because they are not in use, staff was unable to tell if they create glare onto adjacent properties. Given that this is an existing site with light standards in place, staff is seeking guidance from the Planning Commission as to how much the applicant is expected to do to meet these criteria. In order to meet the criteria, the luminaires on the light standards may need to be replaced and landscaped islands created . Staff needs photometric readings for the existing lightstandards to determine if they meet the limits on foot candles noted above. The applicant is proposing to use a sign package provided by the"parent" company. Staff is recommending the applicant provide information on signage prior to the Planning Commission's next meeting. Signage is limited to a total area of 100 square feet, including any ground or wall signs. Drainage e. A drainage system,subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, shall be installed. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has noted that the drainage will go to the ditch along the Highway 10 right-of-way. They have advised that the case be referred • to MnDOT and the Rice Creek Watershed District to verify that they do not have any • • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 460-96:2975 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 5 special conditions. Staff will make these referrals prior to the Planning Commission's next meeting. The City Engineer has also noted that this site was a gas station, and it would be advisable to get information on whether the underground tanks have been properly removed. Outdoor Storage, Sales and Service k. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08 (1)through(5)of this Title. o. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with subdivision 4 of this Section shall exist. • area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring uses; if abutting a residential district,fencing and screening in accordance with Section 1103.08 • storage is screened from view from public right of way • storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust • all lighting hooded,directed so light source shall not be visible from the public right • • of way or from neighboring residences shall not take up required parking spaces P. No outside sale or service except as allowed in compliance with subdivision 5 of this Section shall exist. • limited to thirty percent(30%)of gross floor area of principal use • fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or any abutting residential district; fencing and screening in accordance with Section 1103.08 • same as o. above The applicant has not indicated whether they expect to have outdoor storage on the site, and more information is needed on this item Staff would recommend that, if outdoor storage is permitted, that it be limited to the area behind the building and that it be enclosed with a solid fence or wall. A location for a trash dumpster and enclosure needs to be specified for the site. Staff recommends a requirement that any repair work be done within the building, not outside, and cars not permitted to be parked outside in a dismantled state. Noise n. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. . The building is made of concrete block, and solid walls face the properties in the residential district to the east, north and west. The bay doors face Highway 10. The orientation of the building will direct any noise toward the highway and away from the Planning Commission • Planning Case No. 460-96: 2975 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 6 residences. The types of repairs will not create excessive noise. The applicant expects business hours will be 8:00 to 6:00 Monday through Saturday. They will be closed on Sundays. Access 1. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, shall comply with Chapter 1121 of this Title and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. At present, there is a wide swath of asphalt where the parking lot on the site meets Spring Lake Road, with no defined driveway entrance. There is a driveway from the parking lot onto Highway 10. The Zoning Code limits the width of curb cuts to 30 feet for properties in the B-3 district. Staff recommends that the driveway onto Highway 10 be eliminated, and a defined driveway entrance from Spring Lake Road, no more than 30 feet in width,. be created. As is noted earlier, we are also recommending that curbing be installed along the edge of the parking lot. When this curbing is done, it could also be used to define the driveway entrance and the excess asphalt removed. The grass border around the site should be extended along Spring Lake Road on either side of the defined driveway entrance. Parking requirements for this use are at least 4 off-street parking spaces plus 2 off-street parking spaces for each service stall. This site would require eight spaces. More than adequate room is available for these eight spaces. Provisions Not Applicable to This Proposal h. Whenever fuel pumps are to be installed,pump islands shall be installed. Criteria for Approval of Conditional Use Permits (Section 1125.01 Subd. 3) (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. The site has been used for a commercial business in the past and is served by an existing arterial highway and collector street, such that traffic can access the site without going through the adjacent residential neighborhood. The site is served by utilities. Because the proposal is for a business, no burden on parks or schools is anticipated. (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 not deterrence to development of vacant land. • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 460-96: 2975 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 7 • The site needs to be bordered on the east, north and west by a fence and a buffer strip of landscaping at least 10 feet in width to meet this requirement. The existing fence needs to be repaired and repainted, or replaced and gaps filled to be adequate. There is adequate room to provide the required buffer strip. (3) The structure and site will have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The current state of this site has an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties, and the improvements proposed by the applicant will reverse this situation. Staff recommends that conditions be included on the conditional use permit which assure that these improvements are made. (4) • The use,in the opinion of the[Planning Commission],is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The reopening of this business, and the improvements to the site, will help in strengthening • the vitality and enhancing the appearance of the Highway 10 corridor. This corridor is very important to the long run economic health of the City. (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 purpose of the B-3 district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. It allows for auto repair businesses with approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant's proposal fits within the limits envisioned by the ordinance for the B-3 district, and its location along Highway 10 is logical and appropriate. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The most recent discussion of comprehensive goals for the City was the Mounds View 2000 project in 1994. The Vision Statement from the Growth, Development and Business Issue Project Team stated: "The City of Mounds View will be known as a city with a balance between business and residential concerns. There will be a positive business climate as shown by public-private collaboration to recruit,encourage,and retain successful,community-based enterprises with emphasis on job expansion,increase in tax base,and quality of life. There will be a • cooperative spirit between the government and citizens,whether residential or business, when setting regulations into code. Environmental and aesthetic consciousness will be Planning Commission • Planning Case No. 460-96: 2975 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page8 demonstrated by a redesigned Highway 10,a network of inter-connected trails,parks,and wetland spaces,and active citizen participation in ecological activities." Two goals relative to Highway 10 were adopted and are included in an attachment to this report. The applicant's proposal presents the challenge of balancing between attracting a new business willing to take a somewhat blighted site and improve it, with the chance to use this opportunity to meet goals for the Highway 10 corridor. The City does have a loan program for businesses to make site improvements but it is only available to businesses which have been in Mounds View at least two years. The Planning Commission could consider establishing a list of improvements which need to be made with approval of the conditional use permit, and a list of improvements to be done in two to three years from the date of approval. The phasing of the improvements would allow the applicants to apply for assistance from the City. At minimum, staff is recommending that the following be done now: . • parking lot be defined with curbing • a driveway entrance be defined from Spring Lake Road and excess asphalt removed; the driveway entrance to Highway 10 be removed • • landscaped areas at least 10'wide be created and cleaned up along the perimeter of the site • fencing be repaired and painted, posts reset and gaps closed; if the fencing is too deteriorated, that it be replaced • the building be painted and signage from the windows removed • Phase 1 of a landscaping plan be implemented which would create a cluster of trees and shrubs at corner of Spring Lake Road and Highway 10, coordinated with new monument-style signage Phase 2 of the improvements would be additional landscaping and new lighting, to be installed no later than three years from approval. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. . The site has adequate access from an arterial highway. The types of services being offered will result in frequent customer turnover, but volumes will be low because there are only two service bays on the property. No added traffic congestion is expected. Eliminating the driveway on to Highway 10 will reduce traffic hazards. • Planning Commission Planning Case No.460-96: 2975 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 9 (8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The proposal will use a previously developed site which is served by existing utilities and roads. There is an existing drainage ditch along Highway 10. Staff will be referring the proposal to MnDOT and the Rice Creek Watershed District to determine if there are any concerns with the site drainage continuing as it has in the past. Staff Recommendation: Our preliminary response to the proposal is favorable if certain conditions are met. Staff would recommend that the following additional information from the applicant or referral agencies is needed prior to the next Planning Commission meeting: 1. Evidence of ownership or a notarized letter from the owner giving permission for the filing of the application. 2. A site plan showing the parking lot defined with curbing and a driveway entrance • no more than 30 feet in width onto Spring Lake Road; excess asphalt removed; the driveway onto Highway 10 removed, striping for parking stalls. Landscaped buffer area of at least 10 feet along perimeter of site be shown. The plan should also show where fencing will be installed, a location for a dumpster enclosure and a detail showing how the fencing and dumpster enclosure will be constructed. Fencing along Spring Lake Road should be at the inside(or western) edge of the 10 foot wide landscape buffer along this street so it is visible to the houses across the street. If the applicants intend to have outdoor storage, the site plan should show where this area is to be located and that it will be enclosed by a solid fence or wall. 3. A landscaping and signage plan showing a clustering of landscaping at the intersection of Highway 10 and Spring Lake Road coordinated with new monument-style signage. Details showing sign package. • 4. Response from MnDOT and Rice Creek Watershed District on drainage (staff to send referral). 5. Photometrics on parking lot lighting, or opportunity for field check. 6. Applicants' plans for outdoor storage, if any. • 7. Information on underground storage tanks. Planning Commission Planning Case No.460-96: 2975 Highway 10 • • October 9, 1996 Page 10 Staff would recommend that the following requirements be made: 1. parking lot be seal coated and striped; curbing be installed 2. changes to driveway entrances as noted above 3. building be painted and signage on windows be removed 4. fencing be repaired and painted, post reset and gaps filled; replaced if too deteriorated 5. parking lot lighting be replaced no later than three years from date of approval; lighting to be placed in landscaped islands or at perimeter of parking lot 6. additional landscaping be installed along Spring Lake Road and Highway 10 within three years from date of approval 7. hours limited to weekdays and Saturdays; no repair work done earlier than 8:00 AM or later than 6:00 PM(office may be open during additional hours) 8. no fuel pumps allowed without approval of amended CUP 9. no expansion of number of service bays or building square footage without approval of amended CUP 10. no body work or painting permitted . 11. all repair work to be done inside the building; no cars parked outside in a dismantled state . 12. must meet performance standards in Sections 1103.09 - 1103.15 in particular 13. must meet Federal and State laws regarding underground storage tanks; must meet Section 1103.17 on storage tank removal cc: Ron Ostrander, 695 E. 79th Street, Apt 2, Bloomington MN 55420 • 1%✓`ra-cir ,7 . ! 7Ods 7 CITY OF MOUNDS YIE�V � W _:. '�q i -n 8 t PLANNING APPLICATION APPLICANT: kp � �t5C8'Y. he t 0 - >.r:i ;hone 6-Z=2_170 . • ADDRESS: l$q,D �jtirp s4 *Ftl : T�1 '' rr�rQ y - -. 550 7 ' Street Address, City, State, and Zp Code Iv CI �, 1 a tihrcGI- I- z S .91102 �j119�YYw11 - ` Interest in Property (c. eck appropriate box): MN _:(� Zp Owner of Pro e _ o Contract for Deed Owner - = JR Lessee, Operator, Mane er ; • ❑ Agreement to Purchase _ , ___-_ _ 0 - Other (explain) .Documentary evidence at applicant's irxtereet in ttte property may be requued _ _._ before fine!�l action of this request PROPERTY INVOLVED: ,- - - -- - N I-D ,� Address/Genera! Location a�Q 7S Mg . w t 1 LL. ILt4J - Legal Description or Property Identification Number' P. 1.b ,# 063 02:12.100:55 Legal Owner Name/Address N niz_w ez-[" t%N k Nt.y4 , Oto-9/0 -I1, - .1.72 -000 . _ Present Usecheck appropriate ppropriate bax): -. _ Undeveico-• acant - Q Single Family Dwelling 0 aDupfex/Two Family OwelGn - ❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units '- ' --. ❑ . Business/Cammerc.ai Establishment ❑ -_.Industrial Establishment . _ _ Q -= Other (explain) -- - __ . - Property ssrtication: ($ Abstra _ Cta REQUEST: - - _ C'- - - -111. -"jir. ► a rrA...•. 6-?X'.. • GCS. -PUA *Pease note: Applicant may be responsible for accitforsal fees associated wi the =,_. .• request. ,r. l I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE rte = Signa r��`_ iefrit Rezoning 5200/acre.minimum 3200.maximum 31.000 Park Fund Dedication Fee Variance R-1 to R-2-S:5-ail others$200 Date Paid :titianal Use; 1,1-1 to R-2-S75.all callers 5200 Receipt Number a,loped $75 Ceveica.lSite Plan Review S100/acre.minimum 100.maximum 5500 Total Fees PaidD Minor Succivision S15 �� ' _Data Paid 9-// - 4, Mawr Succivision $250 pius=SOdeocait Q(p Camp. ?tan,amendment 5200 Receipt Number '5.3 p •WeVand ermitplus deccat determined y Stf Additional Fee Paid Surfer Permit SI0 cane Paid ?fanning Sign S50 Receipt Number PUO 3350 PUO Amendment S150 Dene of final ac-;on APPROVED Q DENIED [ TASL7 1_ Oats `'? -(% - c. t(i Planning Case No. w ° 9 Admin.Accum No. f 144 BLAINE Fo 'er �`� -c75 . _ - �/--`J _ . . —NORTH Nad8 n i COUNTY -Z— SINE— ) 0 849 N co 349C 8499 8490 v w m 8491 n n 8494 3496.4V-:.' 0 8494 8495 In 848 8485 8484 8489 8480 N 8481 N N 8484 N N N 8490 848° N 8480 8480 8477 8480 8479 8471 8485 8484 8475 8470 8462 8468 8470 8474 8461 _ 8469 8474 8469 8460 8465 8470 846 8475 8474 8471 8466 - 145: 8457 0 , 8454—Fpl- 8481 8470 8463 8456 8461 84601 8451 8460 8465 8464 8465 8454 841+ AVE N 8455 8460 8459 8450 - 8456 C 8450 8450 8455 8440 8441 8455 8454 8455 1 84.44 8441 8442 84498440 8445 8444 ec • 84 8431 8436 tai 8439 8438 8431 8432 4 8431 8444 8443 8444 8445 8444 842• 8421 84.30 8425 8430 Z 8424 8435 8434 8433 8432 et 8429 8432 8425 8434 8412 8411 8421 ep 8423 8426 8419 8400 8415 8420 8425 8424 8425 8428 8418 8419 8409 8415 8414 • 8402 d 8401 ( 8419 8420 8392 8401 8406 8405 8404 8415 8408 • 8392 8391 8406 8407 8410 8415 8414 = i 1 ,., 8384 8390 8405 8400 1 I 8390 8389 8394 8403 8408 8409 8408 2 m 8378 8389 8400 8379 8384 95 8360 • 8388 8387 8380 8391 8406 6401 8398G_I'3 X 337"e 8379 8380 8373 8370 8385 8370 8391 8388 I 8380 8385 /-- 8387 8382 n m 8365_ 8372 8360 8375 8360 8381 8378 ^ m 8368 8370 8371 8374 8383 8372 8371 8368 F 8369,mn' 8360 8355 , 8368 8350 8355 8350 8368 8371 8388 8351 ' 8348 8365 8354 8345• 8364 8345 83401 8345 8340 r1/ 8360 8.360 Y 8359 8360 8335 8 0 1 8344 8351 8346 8aa5 8340 8331 8330 8325 8320 8350 8347 8355 8340 6358 8341 8.343 8342 8325 8312 8315 8320 8315 8318 8335 8334 Q 8340 8345 8334 Q 8339 8335 8332 8315 8300 8303 ( 8310 w 8305 8310 pk 83.30 8335 8336 8325 8330 3 8333 8330 8333 83228291 8290 O 8.305 8290 8295 8290 n 8320 8325 8315 8322 8321 8325 8287 828°Z 8281 8280 N L.L 8318 8.300 0 8285 8280 8310 8315 8311 8308 Y 831 ...7. ky 8275 8270 c 8281 82701r=i 8271ta� 8300 8305 8312 8297 8298 8301 GROVELAND 8265 8260 et 8273 8260 8261 8284 8285 8290 8289 8280 8285 PARK 8255 8250 8267 8250 8251 8250 8281 8250 82611 PF �, 6280 8275 1 44'^ in N to co �• 8240 8261 8240• ^ o 8270 8265 8230 8241 N n "' N N N N n N N N N N LL 1 •8270 8265 ARDAN N N N N 8230 8255 N 8260 8255 cn ' AVE `�// 18250 1 8248 N I N I N N •.• N I N I N 8244 m m� m I co n n n ^ 8220 ' y8245/ N N N N N N N N • 8240 PL • 8233 8228 VV)8245 8206 8210 y 8227 /21 6213 — 8202 m ,^. cs -- 520c 8184 r. 823'_, 82 3 8210 8217 8198 8205 N N N N 8180 ' y 879:5 8191 8192 8103 8208+ • DR 1a J 6177 _ •• — Z ,..r. ^ • ,a CO Na 1 8175 — \ N CO O �.�I^ ( `a .�\ 8160 C1 F� 8180 8160 co N N 8200 N N N NN 814ti 8165 �\ �-— i WAWA.y ;1_ 8148 fY LA- ORT 8155 9 8150 8161 N n d' C.4 N ^ o $ 6142 8145 dj J� � �. N N : 6136 m m m a0 ♦ d. (� s 1i _ N .... N N N N N 8135 ���® 8140 \ 8741 0 PLACE 284 8132 8127 812518130 ' �\ \ 7 o o. • f q — v W \ • N ' 871 4) In 1.2*- a In r...-, a1 uT In n In ^ a 8131 ; N N N N m m "m` P, m n n n n 812 '12 :,:o•-' N N ~ 01 6106 N N N IN N N N N N c',. N Nl N N N N N C \N 71 8111 or I , N # 81001 SHERWOOD \ • Q: MI N',p N` m 0 to co 0 Z \\\ ,�� 6080 N I N n—°:/ �� N 8080 ce 8067 N N 8088 8075 N N \ • N 1 N 8060 8065 8084 8085< 8070 8071— 8066 8071 8068 t3 it N _LI 6040 8075 8060 8059 5050 8055 8060 N 8-31 R-O 8030 �� sas 8040 8042 8045 8052 y_' \ • N 8036 8039 8032 '41 \\ 8026 8025 80 28Y 8033 8040 \\• 8020 8025 8016 8015 0 8025 8018 8011 8000 I ( \\ • 7980 8005 80001'8005 8016 8009 8006, 1 Q I 7990;r:7985 8004 7981 7990 7961 7 i I ' 7980+7975 7970 7979 7980 7969 7CC9 ' I 7960 7965 Paso 7959 7970 7965 i I �� I i `� N O 7950 7955 7956 7949 7954 7959 7966 ` N 7'" " 7933 W ii� 7940 7945 7946 I Vicinity Map: 460-96 7950 7930 7935 7930 1 '� • 7932 2975 Highway 10 � n �, ( U) W Applicant: Ostrander/MacDonald J 7� ^to ^ ^ I 7s A 7s°° I m IPs°° L N N N 7900 01 N N N I -_. __ _ __ _ _ JI 17007 3 B ) N... ,...,.n,i C,30 AC,1 co 7 0630 323000 , O • (2, 1 00 S0 C158,10'l 52,- I 1 y 1 0 „ I I co .� CU u 8 06 ;S 30006 0 oC33' u u . 063023230018 C 15 8' o a_ C.6.� A� i r • • 1-1 . . cv 0630 ' 30005 CO 213 O u .• i . co f< N co 0 Scale: 1" = 50 feet I Approximate location of buildings from aerial photographs. • 2975 Highway 10 HIGHWAY 10 GOAL #1 Improve the aesthetic appearance of Highway I0 in order to _ maintain a fully developed and occupied highway business corridor. • HIGHWAY 10 GOAL #1 ACTION STATEMENTS • Work cooperatively with the landscape unit of MN/DOT to coordinate and use their Com- munity Roadside Enhancement Program. • Coordinate with and make use of the knowledge of the Mounds View City Forester. • Solicit a design firm to develop a plan using lighting,flowers and grassy areas to beautify the Highway 10 corridor. • Make use of service groups(i.e.Lions,Scouts)to volunteer time and/or money for aesthetic improvement of the Highway 10 corridor. • Develop incentives for local businesses to improve sites by adding greenspace,flowers, etc. • Work with the Parks Department to implement their plan to connect bicycle and walking trails throughout the City to Highway 10. • HIGHWAY 10 GOAL #2 Increase vehicle and pedestrian accessibility to businesses along Highway I 0 HIGHWAY 10 GOAL #2 ACTION STEPS • Consider amending portions of the City sign code to allow for increased directional signage along Highway 10. •" • Take an active role in the planning of exits, entrances, and turn-arounds in and around Highway 10. • Develop methods for connecting the northern and southern sections of town across Highway 10, such as by building a pedestrian and bicycle bridge at Long Lake Road or County Road I. 30 ITEM #6A • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: October 9, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case 461-96, 463-96 -File No.: Request: The applicant, Mounds View Assoc. LLP, is requesting a . ' conditional use permit for the joint use of parking facilities and driveways as is allowed by Section 1121.15 of the Zoning Code. The applicant is also requesting a variance in the required parking ratios for the Mounds View Shopping Center. Petitioner: Mounds View Assoc. LLP Location: 2535-2585 Highway 10 PIN No. 07-30-23-11-0079 Zoning/Land Use: B-4 Mounds View Square Shopping Center • Applicable Regulations: The regulations applicable to these requests are stated and discussed under the analysis section of this report. Attachments: Zoning Map Planning Application Letter from Paster Enterprises dated October 3, 1996 Site Plan(blueline print) Background: The property where Mounds View Square Shopping Center is located was rezoned from B-1 to B-3 in April, 1973 and the shopping center was built in 1974. In 1989, the property owner obtained approval for a rezoning from B-3 to B-4 and a conditional use permit allowing the development of the Hardee's Restaurant as a drive-thru convenience food restaurant. As part of this action, the City Council approved the site plan with the provision of 503 parking spaces rather than the 537 parking spaces required by the Zoning Code. In 1991, the property owner obtained a variance to reduce parking requirements by 26 spaces to allow the construction of trash dumpster enclosures. Present day staff is assuming that there are 477 parking spaces on the property at this time. Counting from the site plan, there are 505 parking spaces not accounting for the 26 parking spaces lost • when the trash dumpster enclosures were built. If they are taken into account, there are 479 parking spaces in the shopping center. Planning Commission • Planning Case No. 461-96:Mounds View Square October 8, 1996 Page 2 • According to the site plan provided by the applicant, Mounds View Square has 102,275 square feet. The applicant is proposing to add 5,000 additional square feet to the main shopping center building,just south of Mario's Video, and to replace the two existing, freestanding restaurants with larger dinner house style restaurants each having up to 6,000 square feet. The existing Hardee's contains 3,750 square feet; the existing Bridgeman's Ice Cream Restaurant also contains 3,750 square feet. The net increase in square footage on the site would be 9,500 square feet. Expansion of the restaurants and the retail building would eliminate 23 parking spaces. The end result would be a shopping center with 111,775 square feet and 454 parking spaces. The parking ratio provided, using the gross square footage in the shopping center, would be one space per 246 square feet or 4.06 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of shopping center. Analysis: The first issue which needs to be addressed is what the parking requirements are for Mounds View Square, before discussing how they might be modified either through a variance in parking ratios or use of joint parking facilities. • The Zoning Code includes a schedule of off-street parking requirements based on types of uses. The chart below shows the amount of parking required if these ratios are applied to the uses in Mounds View Square. It also shows two other ways of calculating parking requirements: • using alternative parking ratios obtained from surveying other jurisdictions • accepting the existing parking count of 477 as covering the existing square footage and calculating the additional parking spaces needed for only the net additional square footage Space#/User Retail Storage Dining Kitchen Mall/ Total Maintenance/ Restrooms 1:Bridgeman's 2400 1350 3750 2:Marios 7150 600 7750 3:Vacant 11500 2800 14300 4:Com Credit 475 450 925 5:Minn Fabrics 8150 1400 9550 • 6:Nails 840 120 960 • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 461-96: Mounds View Square October 8, 1996 Page 3 Space#/User Retail Storage Dining Kitchen Mall/ Total Maintenance/ Restrooms 7:Tanning 2370 500 2870 8:Snyders 8400 1735 10135 9:Vacant 1800 400 2200 10:Steakhouse 1800 800 2600 • 11:Karate 1750 400 2150 { 12:MaintJRR 575 13:Cityside 1580 340 1920 14:Cost Cutters 770 640 1410 15:Pink Flower 1050 1330 2380 •impie 400 1230 1630 • 17:Vacant 1600 . 1000 2600 18:Vacant 1500 400 1900 19:Vacant 800 200 1000 20:Vacant 3820 1060 4880 21:Budget 9500 4600 14100 22:Hardees 2400 1350 3750 Mall 8700 Existing Total 62005 16,645 8050 6060 9275 102,035 Revised Sq.Ft. with Expansion Subtract 4800 2700 Exist. Rest. Add New Rest. 4000 1000 8040 3960 &Retail • • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 461-96:Mounds View Square October 8, 1996 Page 4 v. ... ... n ... .:.... ..v.r......f. ........v...r......:..•:. •... v.•.v.v............::•.v:?i{i?•:: ::•:}•::}}}}:.• :i•:•'F.•}:?•}:i•:•:h:••r}} ....................r..:.....{.. .....J .v...l.:........... .:.:.:•v,:.n.r$.:...n}.:..:,•.. .:.:......:. r.\:..v ................ .!..........................:....... ... ....:.::::;.••::{•}:::}i::{:;:r Y:; y. :ti}:::r':}�i}::+................. :::F•.::.•::::. •:F•:::::.. ..... v.:... :.:•. .:.... .v,.•....... +i?{?fi;.;.;.}:.?}'•}}:•:..: ..........:.:::. • ...... ....i:...:....... •::�:fi::::S+;:::::.::::.vnv::;,..• :'::::::{::;:;:;:?}r.h...,.•::::w::::... • :.v:.•:Y:.•x.:..:::::... •::.•��. •� ?•::::•::::•:}:•:.:••::::��'.• .::.�'.•.�il�# .�:r:•::}:•:i:?•::}:.:::.:::::..:. .�.Axl::::,.:::::•::.::::::;;::: � • .}h? .•.:::• ..,..h•..:::..,:•:::.: _: ::::::5::>•::'`••.::•'::�:;�2:si:}x<f�S':::�}:: •:3.'•:::s:::::: :?:ss:i}2}::}`.+'G:�:Ss::}:::::}:::::>::<>: :•.•.'•x•................ •::.:::.•.::• ::::::::::.•::r:..:•:.}:+?<•»•:.;:.}... ..........{.v.....v..v.....v.:..n....x.... ...•..•..•.. .............. .. ..rh.... .n.....:.......::••-:•;••w:::::::�1y•.•.•.•.•:.:ivv:hv:::.•:......;..;..::x:.v.•:w:::n'?{•:{x{•}:.:;.:r:}•:n}:`}:•:v:{•,+•Y.•:•:•}%:$::.•.+:.••::?w::v'•.r•:....:::.•.•:::v:r.•.•::.••.•::••.•.•.•:+.r:•.•. ::::::::::::::::::::::::.v:•:.:.{•.::•.•::::.•.v ..::..:..: w:::.•x.•::.. �'`:...:..: w:.•.•::.:::v.•.:.. •:•v v. :w:::•vw:::,v,v. .•::••:•.v ::v::.>x:::::::.v,.:: }:Y..:•:v..;...;.::::..•.v:::::}:.•::.. :!•.v:•}.•.vv:hi•.v. J' .;' .:•�:::::}:::<�::i:::i i.,, •.•:}}�Y;.}•..$;:::S:E:::::::::i;: ::::",��+ }}y��;;�� 2::,:•r'�i'::i:ii::::::::��,4YWi��iJ:i:{:i:i?i':............�� ��11rr ........ • :•: •'•+ .......... aF:•:A ............. .. .'i:iRii':: .. �it�Ki ;::.:•ti:;:::};•,+•: >;:.•y{:,:+ }.,•i::::::::::•i i:::?:it:.} b:::v::•}v::{{.}'..•.:v:•Y•}}'rti4:•}}:•%•:r^}i:•:;:?:}::}:•:•},::.}:::;.}v:::.•.}'+.:?•}:•}:•}:•}:•v}}:•}:i?v}:?•}:•}�:vii}:+•}}:•:ti:?:•}:•}:•}....;..::v v:::•ir::.}:::}'+'•}:•}:•}v•:•}}}:•.;,}....;..?;.;...;. ....:.:::::.:... •{:.v::•:.•:.+.v:::?v::.:.•:x::::..:::.•.v:: • .:?.v::n::::.•;{'v}}}:•}::•w.•xv:::.:v::::...:. .v::.:.:::..:::::•, v........v .........v.....:.....f....... •::. ...........:: 4::::?w:•........... ......................... • • •:•:.;v.;:.}::}:?{.}:.1v::.v:•?• .v::::::::::::x: • Planning Commission • Planning Case No. 461-96: Mounds View Square October 8, 1996 • Page 5 v:?:::..•}:3;:.,v.::.::{•::3:.::•}:. x}:}}: }: Y4:K+:..:.`�::>.:• ::•v:$;::}}.v.:::.:\:;•; •fi• }:: : •}:.•::::i:v•v:::::x::}.}:.: ..vr.....} F :nr.:-::.::. ?•::r :: i;w3•: w:,v : :: '{. :v }3;:::;rr?i••::n..� ....r..:::w:FF }3 ••. : k :::: :5?.;Y • .: ::,:vq . •/4y $ Fxv vv3 lll }y' :k?: r }, },.. x > ..Ffi}ti !+'$$: . . F :+i• r: •vF•• 3$F+ } :::.:.,•...,...:.,...,...,.; •:•:. .:......... .:•x..F.v. }$kh.,x.•,•.n;,.:}r..}: . •....., .r.;,. • n•."•: •,ti: � F/: :::: v ..x,v}.::•,..};v: YR:.� . {:, :.vv: }..:..:::. m ?e�►• x. . r :+. . .. : ..nw .;vi:•.;,>}x-:n:.}.:r.}$:•}?.:,:+:•}?•ti.ffry::: : . : m:i g;;v: ., ? u.,,t ::�:? {:: v :.'.� 4;:Fr1f...-:{:... :•n}. . „,v•,::::,... .. 4 .. v : }:: . . . ::..... ..w.:::x,•:::::•::?:::,4.+:fF:3:,*F/ :• :G :i:•}:•:•'?.3.. :T-.. ....a' : .? • ,,r:. . 5 ; 3: :•:•:}:v}i}••3:,,3.}.:•},.',S..... ,,::.:.• ^::ti,>:{Yr{3:'•:•}}.:•':::•:}:::::3•. v ::i$$$.•!{:i).:$!{2:is$.•:;$!i }: nx . : :: .}{ .'''''''..'"'w”• ::nA... ..:....... •:}::.{•:: :.+}3• ..✓ ..;} :::: .:.:• •:.. }? .r. .rv.:.:{,?:{{.} { ... . . w.:4........:..r}., ,,..., . ...-.• . .,..r .::....,..:... $..•.:.........v ..... ..:. : : v.: 3 .v. f .:i '}:i ::$i;:$'i:::r:$: ::+:{{::;•::?:.$$$$x:•ix $•:$..;:.r•}.:?.kh:x.;v:...}::'.x3:4 'x:ry ;.3 : . ; . w } : : • •: v :.3}:}. •. %}.};$::}:.} i3}$v:?:4$:!ti?43: v$4.rv+}.ti:}:•.:>\.:iY: ::4:{3•..,{::{..�.::.:nY.:.v.:r :•::}v::kf: .?v '}3.H4iti:•:}:%G:. r. r . .: .:� ...... : 43 :} : ....:.x:::;:::.:•m• v:::{:% y.::$v:::.•. vv v3.•:::}• v : .. : : .' . . v :r:}'•l: {:{30YCv?}.,rr..:r . ..•.:..•r..... ?r.........}}:3:'4:3}}}::}i}}:4>:•':.. .:.. r ::f �d::i r::::.^}: :3: :}O ..•.3 : v::•.4:.:.x....::ti;?... v:..v :.ti.:v.:.4.v. v..: 3::.. . •}�:, : �� .� � •...... ...} :•.} :�:. . .. .� { 3:v3{} ti .v :::::::::::::::::::::::•:::',,...:•':•:•:•:•:••••••••"4- .• :. : :n : ::•••:::-:•-•—•::••••••••••:,•••••••••••••••••••:•••••••:•••,: . � . . ^si. ,. . . . ....................:::r ... : :..•: ::: } i },.h.;h.:}:h•:}:. :$: {vim. .{;.n;;: :Se::i:i�:� f:�:�� :�>�: :::::::�:'+.�'r:�:�:�:�:�i't{•:�:� :•i.:� :.h..:?:}>h.:r.:h„t:t�:�:;:••;::�:�i::'•r:�i�:�i ....,c•}:{, Ci::i::ti:::::ti:::$:}.:;:ti::$$'ti$::r ti$•;i:$$$!•$$............................................ v:?••:•.•:.•:•}:}:•�.3>$�}}:•:::.:>' •:!3!?{{:!�::h•:•hi•}• '• ......:•::}:}:::•}:T:::x.•::.•:v:.•::;:::.:x.•.:;n;:::?:.•.•::v;?.•}:::F3:•. :::.•...+}} ..........................:}:}'•.•.........:r.::r.:v.•:::......+.•.4Q....r.r.•$....f•.....:....... •:: :::.•:::::::?v::::!:�w::.v}v:v::v. •.•:v::v:v:hv:::v.:v::::.v. ....✓y... .........:.r............... .n:........... ,f,F.... ]�; :A•.•.4iii..{....... ?.•'{r{;r{.',.. rrFi:}i.y.}., r•..h.:....r.0 vi>i:rv: ••.4v:.{•::•}::titi3}:•}}:??!?{•:3:•:::x:.-}.........a{. .x2.{::::;::{?.}:{r,},.;:{r,2r•:?•. :w:::•}:?{?????3}:4>}'}•:.:•$:::.: .:......•.;..•......:....r...:.... :r..•..........:4h•ro.•:. ... :..: : ... .r?:3}':::i{::: ::•.k::::•r:.v::^.v: :?•::}x:.•:•. .y:h••:.:.+.•.v:•:rr::::.v?•i•::..}...?.:.v. .}. .:.•v}r.:.:•:::+.v:•:?i...v? f:::::::..::. •.•::.. :r•::•:}. •:.•:+:3... ,..... b� •. ':•: .r. "}•'•.} L::r:+i::r}}}:4$}>•:•}:.r.::.......... .:..........vf}Y?>{3:r,.}v}y$.$•. - :•}:•:•:4. .•.•::•>.•:::.•........... .fn.:..::.:. '::.•:•.:{.;:.:.${•�?r`'+••.3$:fi{:3:?i::?r? r...... .......{..... +?•:} ••:.•.:.v>.::::}...rn?•:.•:::.:.•{:T::: ::::F•.v:}:f..•{•;•,{v:::x.•x::+w::::.v?::4:::•}�$::?•:vrr:?•:i:•:?'.}:3>}}:3: :::?••:?,:?-::::•:.••:+:.••.;::::::•h•:::: .v.v:•:.vfi,,v,+.:f,,.,...., }::>::•.:v::.:x:v:: ,•.+:'•✓>•.•:;.•F?•,x?f.::::g {..v::::::::::.Y•:.::v+:{:::{+.::-:.•x+:-•:{..T.:•:+::;-v�v::;3::.•:v:+..;..:....... :..-..,:......:.-......... :::.:...... ..........::....•::::.•:::.v v :::. •.•:.. ::.. ..... r.....f}.::{•s::r:.v;v;v::.•.•?.v.•.:•::::::::.:.• .: •.•:::::.•:.•:::::.:.:?:•;::.•.•.•::. ..... :.....>.v: ::::....., .......r.......:.:...h:?3};ai* v}n.}}}:..•.•.•::.}:;•.y:.n•::. ff{:: ••::ti .n..v}::n.?.:??w:+.•.w::.•:{4}:........{,.:........•:::.•::•:•.v:::3:T::.•.:v;•:::.}:?•:•:•}:•}:+:ti??•}Nh?n:•}}:•v? ..............x:v:.:•,:.•:•?.:xf:.:.::... ..:.:.... :,.::.h.}•::.;:.$•..:n....,.. :.•r.}............;....v::::•::•.•.w:::::::::::v.?•hv::•.??•Y.•:•:4}:3:•}:?3}:4:3}:i3:0}}}}}r.; #of Spaces 299 dinner house: +150 573 Required fast food: +124 Alternative (+4000 sq.ft.) dinner house: +150 457 Ratios Applied +18 fast food: -188 Assuming Base ] of 477 . Range of 573-581 Re uirements 1g Spaces 454 Proposed The preceding chart shows that, if the ratios in the Zoning Code were applied to each of the current uses in Mounds View Square, the parking requirement would be 1035 parking spaces. Previous approvals have allowed the shopping center to operate with 477 parking spaces in place. If it is assumed that the existing shopping center has adequate parking with 477 spaces, and parking requirements are calculated only for the new square footage, the total number of parking spaces needed would be 614 spaces. Staff considers the ratios required by the Zoning Code to be much higher than has been our past experience. Typical ratios for retail space in municipal parking codes are between 4.0 and 5.0 spaces per 1000 square feet; and for storage space 1.0 spaces per 1000 square feet. Restaurants are between 80-100 square feet for dinner house style restaurants. 1 Staff considers the ratios required by the Zoning Code to be much higher than has been our past experience. Please see the discussion in the staff report on page 5-6. • 2 Staff has omitted a ratio for storage,since we have used 4.5 parking spaces per 1000 for retail space. If 4.0 parking spaces per 1000 were used,we would recommend 1 space per 1000 square feet of storage. Planning Commission • Planning Case No.461-96: Mounds View Square October 8, 1996 Page 6 4.0 and 5.0 spaces per 1000 square feet; and for storage space 1.0 spaces per 1000 square feet. Restaurants are between 80-100 square feet for dinner house style restaurants. Staff conducted a survey of some suburban communities in the Twin City area. These included : Crystal, Roseville, Mendota Heights, Maplewood, Woodbury and Coon Rapids. Typical ratios for retail space are 4.5 to 5.0 per 1000. No one has ratios as high as 10 to 1000 as does Mounds View. The one city using a square footage ratio for restaurants, Crystal, uses one space per 60 square feet without dividing between kitchen and dining. The chart above shows how the parking requirement would change if these ratios were applied to Mounds View Square. The number of parking spaces required would be range between 573 and 581, depending on whether the ratios are applied to all of the square footage or only to the new square footage. The applicant is proposing 454 spaces. The applicant has applied for a variance in the schedule of off-street parking requirements which would be applied to this shopping center, and for a conditional use permit to allow the joint use of parking facilities and driveways as is allowed by Section 1121.15 of the Zoning Code. The remainder of this report analyzes these two requests to determine if adequate parking is available to allow the additional square footage requested by the • applicant. Variance in Parking Ratios (Planning Case No. 463-96) The criteria for granting of variances are stated in Section 1125.02 Subd. 2 and noted below along with staff comments. a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size of shape, topography or othcr circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mounds View Square is the largest shopping center in Mounds View, and it is in this shopping center that the effect of a higher-than-typical parking ratio, established by the City, has its greatest effect. The shopping center has been operating successfully at a much lower ratio (4.67 spaces per 1000 gross square feet)than is required for retail space in the City's parking regulations (10 spaces per 1000 square feet). A parking demand study completed in 1989 by Benshoof and Associates reported that the Urban Land Institute performed in-depth research on a combined total of approximately 170 shopping centers. (This study is a part of the file on the rezoning for Hardee's Restaurant.) This • research showed that a parking ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1000 square feet is adequate for all Planning Commission Planning Case No. 461-96: Mounds View Square October 8, 1996 Page 7 but the busiest 19 hours of the year. The applicant has not caused the multiplier effect of a higher-than-typical parking ratio on the size of his shopping center. The development of dinner house style restaurants is not anticipated by the parking regulations which require one parking space for every 40 square feet of dining area and one parking space for every 80 square feet of kitchen. Typical ratios for dinnerhouse restaurants are one space for every 80 square feet of gross square footage, to recognize the slower turnover of customers. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The parking ratios for retail square footage in the Mounds View Zoning Code create an excessive requirement for shopping centers of this size. The City's parking ratio at one space per 100 feet is more than twice the ratio used in other nearby jurisdictions, and when applied to a shopping center of over 100,000 square feet, creates a burdensome requirement. The more typical requirement is 4.0 - 5.0 spaces per 1000 square feet. • Allowing the use of 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet for retail space is the minimum variance needed to address the hardship. The parking ratios for restaurants also create an excessive requirement for dinner house style restaurants, since these restaurants have a slower turnover of customers. The minimum adjustment needed in parking ratios for dinner house style restaurants is to require one parking space for each 80 square feet of gross floor area. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands,structures or buildings in the same district. Owners of shopping centers similar in size to Mounds View Square and of dinner house style restaurants would face the same difficulty that the applicant is experiencing due to the higher-than-typical parking ratio for these uses in the Zoning Code. Using a ratio of 10 spaces per 1000 square feet for retail space, and 1 space per 40 square feet for dining space requires an excessive investment in parking which is especially acute with the shopping center of this size. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other • property in the same zone. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent Planning Commission i Planning Case No. 461-96: Mounds View Square October 8, 1996 Page 8 property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values. The existing shopping center contains 102,035 square feet and has 477 parking spaces, or a ratio of 4.67 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. The applicant has nine shopping centers, of which four are in the same size range as Mounds View Square. The average parking ratio for these four centers is 4.72 parking spaces per 1000 gross square feet regardless of use. The successful operation of these centers illustrates the fact that using a ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet for retail space is an appropriate ratio and will not be detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Code. Use of a ratio of 10 spaces per 1000 square feet is burdensome. The parking lot for Mounds View Square is of sufficient size, and the shopping center contains nighttime and daytime uses with offsetting parking demands that no overflow parking or adverse effect on adjacent properties is anticipated. The shopping center is separated from surrounding uses by streets. Staff Recommendation: Favorable to allowing a ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of net retail space in Mounds View Square, with space in storage, mechanical rooms, rest rooms and the enclosed mall excluded from parking calculations. Favorable to allowing a , ratio of 1 space per 80 feet of gross floor area in dinner house style restaurants. The parking ratio for fast food restaurants would remain at 1 space per 40 square feet in dining area and 1 space per 80 square feet in kitchen space. If these ratios were applied to the proposed square footage in Mounds View Square, the parking requirement would be: If calculated If assuming from scratch a base of 477 • retail 299 • dinner house restaurants 150 • fast food 124 • new retail 18 • new sq.ft. in dinner house restaurants 150 • reduction in fast food 188 • base 477 total 573 457 spaces to be provided 454 454 If parking requirements are calculated using 477 as a base, then the applicant is within three spaces of having sufficient parking for the new uses added if credit is given for the square footage • in restaurants being removed. • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 461-96: Mounds View Square October 8, 1996 Page 9 Staff Recommendation on Parking Variance: Favorable, with findings as noted above. In particular, the City's parking ratios create a hardship for shopping centers of this size, and the shopping center contains both nighttime and daytime uses which cause the parking demands to be offset. Conditional Use Permit (Planning Case No. 461-96) Section 1121.15 allows parking requirements to be adjusted, with approval of a conditional use permit, where there are two or more uses located on the same property which have offsetting parking demands, i.e. certain uses are primarily daytime uses and other uses are primarily nighttime or Sunday uses. Uses listed as primarily daytime uses are: • banks, business offices, retail stores, personal service shops, household equipment or furniture shops, clothing or shoe repair or service shops, manufacturing, wholesale and similar uses. . Uses listed as primarily nighttime or Sunday uses include: • auditoriums incidental to a public or parochial school, churches, bowling alley, dance hall, theaters, bar or restaurant. Section 1121.15 allows 50% of the off-street parking facilities needed for nighttime and Sunday uses to be provided by the parking provided for daytime uses, and 50% of the off street parking facilities needed for daytime uses to be provided by the parking provided for nighttime and Sunday uses. Mounds View Square includes both types of uses. Staff has calculated how the use of joint parking would affect the parking spaces required, using the parking ratios from the Mounds View Zoning Code and also the more typical ratios noted in the earlier chart. The result is as follows: Planning Commission • Planning Case No. 461-96: Mounds View Square October 8, 1996 Page 10 Mounds View Parking Ratios Alternative Parking Ratios Parking from Parking from Parking from Parking from Daytime Uses Nighttime Uses Daytime Uses Nighttime Uses #of Spaces 660 375 299 274 Required (from scratch) Less 50%of 330 188 150 137 Requirement (maximum reduction as per 1121.15) Total Parking Required 518 411 with Reduction By what percentage N/A;cannot reach 454 through 20.8% . does total required reduction for joint parking facilities need to be reduced to if parking ratios in Zoning Code are reach#proposed to be used and variance is not granted. provided by applicant: 454 spaces The chart indicates that, if the parking ratios in the Zoning Code are used, the applicant has not provided enough parking even if the maximum reduction allowed by the ordinance is given for joint use of parking facilities. However, if a more realistic ratio is used for retail space and dinner house style restaurants, then a 21% reduction if parking requirements for nighttime and daytime uses, because the parking demand will be offset will be enough to match the parking proposed to be provided by the applicant. When the net square footage in the shopping center, less the mall, the mechanical room and rest rooms, is compared to the parking count provided, the overall ratio is 4.44 parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. The Zoning Code includes conditions required for joint use of parking facilities (see Section 1121.15 Subd. 1.b.(6)(a) - (c). These are noted below with staff's comments. (a) The building or use for which application is being made to utilize the off-street parking facilities provided by another building or use shall be located within three hundred feet (300')of such parking facilities and not separated by a public way. • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 461-96: Mounds View Square October 8, 1996 Page 11 All of the uses proposed as part of this joint parking arrangement are also part of a coordinated shopping center. Because of the distribution of retail space and the parking, it is feasible for customers to find parking within 300 feet of their destination. Staff would suggest that a condition be included in any approval which would require employees to park in spaces behind the main retail building, to assure that the maximum parking is available for customers. (b) The applicant shall show that there is not substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the two(2)buildings or uses for which joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed. The Zoning Code acknowledges that restaurants are primarily nighttime uses, and retail businesses are primarily daytime uses. It should also be noted that, because of its size and the variety of tenants, customers at Mounds View Square would be expected to combine trips and use several different businesses. An allowance for some overlap in parking requirements is logical in a shopping center of this size. • (c) A properly drawn legal instrument,executed by the parties concerned for joint use of off- street parking facilities,duly approved as to form and manner of execution by the City Attorney,shall be filed with the City Clerk-Administrator and recorded with the Register of Deeds,Ramsey County. Staff would recommend that joint parking and access easements be recorded against the property for the benefit of all tenants prior to any development reviews being approved or building permits being issued for the proposed expansion or the dinner house restaurants, as a condition of approval. Staff Recommendation on Conditional Use Permit: Favorable, allowing for joint use of parking facilities betwee- • -- - • :. : - - • • •:. -• _ . .- . .. spaces required is 454. cc: John Streeter, Paster Enterprises, 2227 University Avenue, St. Paul MN 55114-1677 FAX: 646-1389 • KVA �1I 'N 788718 7891 17880 7895 I (cf.: D 7890 7885 7864 h is • ` 7889 7888 + w +N• 'c:31��+ N N N N N N N;: N N N N 01 D NC 7876 z 7885 7866 7867 7870 7869 7858 7853 7875 7868 7868 7860 7877 5619 - 7854 7851 7860 7865 7852 W -�.� 7857 7850 7855 7970 rn 78s1 7554 p �� 7863 7842 7850 7855 7846 ,'1 3 7847 784Q 7845 7840 784 5613t~it 7841 AO 7830 O 7840 7835 7840 �-:MEM 0 7830 W 7825 = - 5 7851 7817 • p 7833 78321 7837 > -3��• 7820 7815 7790 Co7815 7800 7809 781 3 7815 7814 7827 7820 o - '1. tool, 781 C( 7805 7760 7801 780. 7817 +�� 5563 6 3 7760 7797 7800 7801 78001 5557 W 7809 7770 7801 7800 n m 5551 QU 3-2 4i7801 w 7701 7750 7787 7778 7749 7750 7807 m n S. R-4 W 7777 op� 1 7757 7760 7741 7740 7767n55 7738n40 775 .' : o, N yy9 5545 y� 7761 7750 7731 1 7730 = 7729 7730 7741 7740 PINEWOOD CIR `t' 5539 - - 7755 CD Cil 10 N 7730 7721 j 7720 7719 7720 Q nit 7730 N N N c"�i �J� 5533 nil, 7745 7710 7711 1 7710 7709 771C p 7721 7720 7715 7715 (, m ft umi In 7700mumnumlia m r, n n I M 5527 N N I 7701 7700 770 d• ( 7701 N N N N N 5521 R-2 R-2 CO - m a o , Im o vv I P Nm om 41. -. . P • MI N O • to B-30� •'i. 0 7695 N N N N N NN N NN . ` -1 7660 a �• }N N � - 7687 766 -31786 - 76431765a R-4 R-4 millpr • 0fe G�,1,766 764178561 7661 B-3 '`I) 78397644` 7651 88: O7• j='76401 p # 7655 .-418 p 763517630 -4-7'7: 76451. p 7625 7628 7841 IlkillUMMOMNIk �• - s L _th "--- 7611x7610 z n n •r► B-2 ' �"a y�?•- P. m a 761 1 A ilik,r4 76 ;epa.I 75951 7594 763 i � Ni n n n n • R 0 N .•I a 0101 / �, - _ 758117580 7531 •-� 2 N — N z U, B-3 N ((O 0 N 756517564 �' �- a 0 o 01 N n a� go...rn N N �i n� n v 04 C4 75511 755 7521 v nh N N N N 1f ii 4 2' N _ 7535 7534 N N IV CM m o 0., - 7511 N co-'N _ 752117520''' p 9N a N N 1.,,,,- O N '�� - 7505 7504 7501 1, rn 2 -°ca 1D - i' . - PF- N m NrN ~•J�. � N U N ��N ��d�A m 0 In N 0; N CITY HALL 5 °m la N N T. N rN O N 5 N YO,m A O f, m 0 Pr 0yS3IJjI1I1 , � *mom 1Q� S h � S®N �^ N N- mN N N N B— -+ 8-2 R-2 N<NO4 ,a' O nn I N N O 5279 n °,IN lm r Ne cZ0 Nmcoin NIw) 1 781a27• 52781 11:11/31/31.01042, 1, V N N N N NNNNN040104010101 527• 529` 5260 5262 0,2152 327. nnnn = o 8-3 -^• 4,-526, I , c, ao © m m I 2 qs 68 526 5260 N N, mN N Nm N N Ni N'N N 52 61526 5256 528 15261 5 2 9 6015261 LOUISAvu u4Ta1AV..E1 � 5250152 5250 525505260 15277 0 N n m T' IMI72NIN ,+ -I cO541 525-Q1 - 1» m ERSTE 52 Q 7 • cr, 1^inp N ,y N N N N N N I N NN N3cc 1524• o n - N m PI 11� 1 �t IC►5383pP v1v :,-.1 P I PI 529015299 d0! �4a524• Ta nel ! Aln N hINI _ 1) DQ Z Q 524 N 04 041 04 011 N I N I N5280 529• 52nfh524 N I I .cgi N / N1NN(NN q mg 52CLEARVIEW AVE "'CLEARVIEW AVE c2 --- I o I 1101m1 01041m1 5270152 • 52701--tee h gl • Vicinity Map - Planning Case Nos 461-96, 463-96 - Mounds View Square Parking Ratios CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION • APPLICANT: Paster Enterprises dbaMounds View Assoc, LLP 648-7901 Phone • ADDRESS: 2227 University Avenue, St. Paul MN 55114-1677 FAX: 646-1389 • Street Address, City, State, and Zip Cade Interest in Property (check appropriate box): Owner of Property ❑ Contract for. Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase • •Q Other (explain) • Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final C;ty action of this request. • PROPERTY INVOLVED: - Address/General Location 2535-2585 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 Legal Description or Property Identification Number Legal Owner: Name/Address Present Use (check appropriate box): Current Zoning: B-4 . UndevelopedNacant • Q Single Family Dwelling Q _ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling -- . :. •- • Q Multi-Family (No. of Units ) Ir Business/Commercial Establishment - ❑ Industria! Establishment • Q Other(explain) Property Cassffcation: [ Abstract Q Torrens RE•IUE3T: 1) Conditional Use Permit to allow joint use of parking (Section 1121.15) 2) Variance in number of parking spaces required based on revised parking ratios •• - • ection 21.13) 3) Variance in sign regulations for shopping center identification sign (Section 1008.08) *Pease nate: Applicant may be resconsibfe for aacitionat fees associates with the rev.ew at this request I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATE4tEN T ARE TRUE //z.12/4-e_24).'. Signature Irtergrarwrirw Rezoning S2CO/acre.minimum$200.maximum 51.000 Parc r4.3nd Dedication t=ee • Vanance R-1 to R-2-S7 S.ail caters 52200 Daae Paid $400.00 Conditional Use Permit R-1 to R-2•$75. ori others$200 Receiat Number Cade Appeal 575 $200.00 Oeveioo4Site Pian Review Si 00/acre.minimum 100.maximum=0 Total Fees Paid Minor Subaivision 5150 Oats Paid Major Subdivision =SO plus$250 deposit Oa. Plan Amendment Psceiot Number elS200 and Alteration Permit $50 plus deocsrt determined by Staff Additional Fee Paid Weiland Surfer Permit S10 Oats Paid Planning Sign $50 PUO Receipt Number 5350 PUO Amendment $150 Data at anal ac-'.,on Q Y�, ' _ jatta r_ APPROVED C;; DENIED f'-'• TA L-D Data / a Dia........ fo —�/�n /.n GA k t 3:70",iti(oil eb DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTERS 2227 University Ave.•St.Paul,MN 55114-1677•612-646-7901 • Fax 612-646-13 October 3, 1996 CENTRAL PLAZA 45th&Central Ave.N.E. Minneapolis,Minnesota Ms. Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director City of Mounds View CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER 2401 Highway 10 Bass Lake Road&West Broadway Mounds View,Minnesota MN. 55112 Re: Parking Variance Request for Restaurant and shopping center additions at Moundsview Square Shopping DODDWAY SHOPPING CENTER Center. Smith&Dodd Road West St.Paul,Minnesota Dear Ms. Sheldon, LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES We are requesting from the City of Mounds View a parking Lexington&Larpenteur variance of 4.25 parkingspacesper 1000 Square feet of Roseville,Minnesota p q shopping center and free-standing buildings. This will allow for the expansion of the free-standing restaurants (2535 & • 2585 Highway 10), and a 5,000 square foot addition to the MENDOTA PLAZA shopping center. The attached plan shows the location and State Hwy. 110&Dodd Road size of the expansion areas. Mendota Heights,Minnesota p A. Moundsview Square feels that the current parking code for a shopping center district is to restrictive. In our MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE experience of shopping center development a 4.25 ratio Hwy. 10&Long Lake Road will be sufficient for a communitycenter of this size. Mounds View,Minnesota Paster Enterprises manages nine shopping centers in the metropolitan area. In these centers the parking ratio per NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER one thousand square feet ranges from 3.63 to 6.16 State Hwy.23 &Woodland with an average of 4.8. The 4.25 ratio that is Circle Pines.Minnesota requested falls within this range. The shopping center's shared parking among a number SIBLEY PLAZA of tenants reduces the effective parking ratio. For West 7th Street&Davern instance, a single use site must meet the peak parking St.Paul,Minnesota demand of that individual business. In a shopping center with multiple uses the peak demands of the tenants come at different times, thus lowering the • SOUTHVIEW SHOPPING CENTER overall parking requirement of the center. Southview Blvd.& 13th Ave. S South St.Paul,Minnesota , to 370,teitfri it• DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTERS 2227 University Ave.•St.Paul,MN 55114-1677•612-646-7901 • Fax 612-646-1389 • The addition of the pedestrian bridge will block the CENTRAL PLAZA visibility and damage the identity of the shopping center 45th&Central Ave.N.E. Minneapolis,Minnesota tenants. The expansion of the free-standing locations and the shopping center will allow this obstructed site to have a greater visual impact and a stronger commercial position at this location. CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER Bass Lake Road&West Broadway B. The addition of the pedestrian bridge is depriving the Crystal,Minnesota applicant of visibility and identity which are very important in a commercial site of this size. Other commercial locations in the City of Mounds View will DODDWAY SHOPPING CENTER not be directly effected. Smith&Dodd Road West St.Paul,Minnesota C. The addition of the Highway 10 obstruction has not been caused by the activity of the Mounds View Square Shopping Center. LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES Lexington&Larpenteur Roseville,Minnesota D. The granting a parking rantin of arkin variance that will allow for the building expansions will not effect other commercial • properties in the City of Mounds View. The parking spaces of the free-standing restaurants and the MENDOTA PLAZA shopping center are shared parking as a combined site. State Hwy. 110&Dodd Road The free-standingbuildings cannot be limited to the Mendota Heights,Minnesota g immediate adjacent parking as in a single use commercial location. MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE E. The parking variance itself will have a small impact on Hwy. 10&Long Lake Road the overall parkingin the shopping center. However, Mounds View,Minnesota PP g the ability to expand the free-standing restaurants will enable the shopping center to attract larger and more stable tenants that will be less concerned with a NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER highway obstruction. State Hwv.23 &Woodland Circle Pines,Minnesota F. A parking variance will not be detrimental to other commercial tenants or residents in the City of Mounds View. SIBLEY PLAZA West 7th Street&Davern G. The parkingvariance will not change the traffic flow or St.Paul,Minnesota the traffic patterns in the shopping center. All of the access, egress, and drive isles will remain the same. The variance will not change traffic or effect the air or 4DOUTHVIEW SHOPPING CENTER light in any adjacent properties. Southview Blvd.& 13th Ave. S South St.Paul.Minnesota Ate DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTERS 2227 University Ave.•St.Paul,MN 55114-1677•612-646-7901 • Fax 612-646-1389 • CENTRAL PLAZA Sincerely yours, 45th&Central Ave.N.E. Minneapolis,Minnesota MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LLP CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER .� 1tteiZ Bass Lake Road&West Broadway Crystal,Minnesota John H. Streeter Construction Manager DODDWAY SHOPPING CENTER JHS/jre Smith&Dodd Road West St.Paul,Minnesota Enclosure • LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES Lexington&Larpenteur Roseville,Minnesota • MENDOTA PLAZA State Hwy. 110&Dodd Road Mendota Heights,Minnesota MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE Hwy. 10&Long Lake Road Mounds View,Minnesota NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER State Hwy.23 &Woodland Circle Pines,Minnesota SIBLEY PLAZA West 7th Street&Davern St.Paul,Minnesota SOUTHVIEW SHOPPING CENTER • Southview Blvd.& 13th Ave. S South St.Paul,Minnesota • Item #6B • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: October 9, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case 462-96 File No.: Request: The applicant, Mounds View Assoc. LLP, is requesting a.variance in the City Sign Code to allow a center identification sign for Mounds View Square which exceeds the area and height requirements. Petitioner: Mounds View Assoc. LLP Location: 2535-2585 Highway 10 PIN No. 07-30-23-11-0079 Zoning/Land Use: B-4 Mounds View Square Shopping Center • Applicable Regulations: The regulations applicable to this request are stated and discussed under the analysis section of this report. Attachments: Zoning Map Planning Application Letter from Paster Enterprises dated October 3, 1996 Diagram showing Bridge Design Visual Simulation showing Sign& Pedestrian Bridge Concept Drawing of Center Identification Sign Background: The City of Mounds View is pursuing the construction of a pedestrian bride over Highway 10. It will span the highway just west of Long Lake Road. A preliminary design for the bridge has been prepared and submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. A diagram showing the layout of the bridge is attached. The ramp from the north end of the bridge is proposed to be located on property owned by the applicant and developed as the Mounds View Square Shopping Center. The applicant is concerned that the bridge will obscure the identification sign for the shopping center. The City is endeavoring to obtain an easement from the applicant for the ramp. The applicant is reluctant to grant such an easement without the City addressing the possible obstruction to the visibility of 41 the shopping center which might be created by the bridge. Staff suggested to the applicant Planning Commission • Planning Case No. 462-96: Mounds View Square Shopping Center October 9, 1996 Page 2 that they apply for a variance based on a visual simulation of the bridge and its relation to the shopping center identification sign. Analysis/ Recommendation: According to the visual simulation diagram, the applicant is proposing a center identification sign (or pedestal) sign which is 75 feet in height and has a sign area of 800 square feet. The width is approximately 21 feet, based on scaling the diagram. So the sign face would be 21 feet x 38 feet. The diagram does not provide a full view of the sign in terms of whether there is sign area to the ground. The actual sign area may be less than 800 square feet, or may be divided between two sides. It appears that the posts supporting the sign are 11 feet apart. More information is needed from the applicant on the actual sign itself. A concept drawing was provided to staff some time ago, and is included in with this report for your reference. It shows a sign face 17 feet wide and 35 feet high, for a total area of 595 square feet. The Mounds View Sign Code, Section 1008.08 Subd. 2.g., i., and k., Section 1008.08 • Subd.1.i. (6), and the definition of PEDESTAL sign in Section 1008.01 Subd. 6 include the following regulations concerning signs for the B-4 district, where this property is located. Section 1008.08 Subd. 2 i. B-4 Regional Business District: signs as allowed in subdivisions 2.g. hereof. g. (1) Signs no exceeding one hundred(100)square feet per business occupant. This includes all types of permanent signs, as defined in Section 1008.01 of this Chapter. k. Other Signs Allowed in Certain Districts: B-3 Highway Business District,B-4 Regional Business District and L 1 Light Industrial District may have,besides the one hunch edG00) square feet signage per business occupant,one general pedestal sign not exceeding three hundred forty(340) square feet. Only one pedestal sign is allowed per property. Section 1008.08 Subd. 1.i.(6) No sign shall exceed thirty five feet(35')in height. Section 1008.01 Subd. 6 PEDESTAL SIGN: A ground sign erected upon a single post or shaft or upon two(2)posts or shafts that merge or touch at the base or which are not more than fifteen feet(15')apart,center of shaft to center of shaft,with the display portion mounted on top thereof at least seven feet(7') above the surface of the street adjacent to the property on which the sign is located. No such sign shall have a sign area of more than three hundred forty(340)square feet on each side. Such sign may advertise only businesses located on the premises. No business property shall have more than one pedestal sign adjacent to each street upon which such business property abuts;provided,that on each street frontage of more than one hundred feet(100'),one additional pedestal sign may be establish and • • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 462-96: Mounds View Square Shopping Center October 9, 1996 Page 3 maintained on such street frontage if such additional pedestal sign a) is located on a single pole b) does not exceed twenty eight(28)square feet in an area on any side and does not have more than two(2)sides c) is not more than four feet(4')in width and seven feet(7')in height on the sign face, d) is located at least seven feet(7')above the surface of the street. In lieu of one additional pedestal sign,two(2)separate signs may be located on the same pole,but such two(2)signs combined shall not exceed,in area or dimensions,the limitations applicable to a single additional pedestal sign. No pedestal sign shall e so designed as to have both moving parts, and moving or blinking lights. In addition to the pedestal The proposal exceeds the height allowance of 35 feet by 40 feet, and the area allowance of 340 square by 460 square feet. The main concern of the applicant is that the sign be large enough and high enough to be seen over the bridge. Staff would suggest the applicant consider proposing a structure which would be integrated with or better relate to the bridge ramp, and could be located on the east side of • the bridge. More discussion would be needed but a"bell tower" type structure is a possibility. This would allow the structure to be lower and more visible to people traveling on Highway 10. Another possible location could be between what appears to be a flagpole and the telephone pole in the photograph used for the visual simulation, or integrated into the new restaurant building which will replace Bridgeman's. Staff questions whether it is necessary for the sign to be tall enough to display the tenants names over the bridge, when they do not now have this type of signage, and motorists cannot see the signs on the store fronts until you pass Bridgeman's now. If only the name of the shopping center were visible over the bridge, the sign could be reduced in height to approximately 55 feet, and require only a 20 foot variance. The applicant has an obvious hardship, and staff feels there is justification for a variance to allow better visibility of signage for motorists traveling west on Highway 10. Staff is not convinced, however, that the applicant's proposal is the only solution and would suggest that some additional ideas be explored. In addition, the Planning Commission may want to obtain some expertise in whether drivers could react to a sign seen after they pass the bridge in sufficient time to turn into the shopping center. At a minimum, the sign needs to be constructed of materials that relate better to the bridge structure or to the architecture of the center and placed so it is not sitting like an island. Staff Recommendation: Favorable to some adjustment in sign allowances to address the possible visual obstruction created by the construction of the bridge. The discussion session with the Planning Commission, however, will provide a good opportunity to explore some alternatives to the applicant's proposal. The sign needs to better relate to Planning Commission • Planning Case No. 462-96: Mounds View Square Shopping Center October 9, 1996 Page 4 its surroundings, and may not need to be as high as is proposed to gain visibility for the shopping center or may need to be placed in a better location. If a variance were granted, staff is suggesting that it be made contingent on the construction of the bridge and field verification that the bridge has close to the same appearance as is shown in the visual simulation. Staff would also suggest that the sign have a brick base which would tie it to the architecture of the center. cc: John Streeter, Paster Enterprises, 2227 University Avenue, St. Paul MN 55114-1677 FAX: 646-1389 • • .. � . O m - Io 10 0 41o .O I N m � N :0 ' r.- ti 7887 p 78917 N N 2 to 17880 78951 N N 7890 78851 N N 7864 7865 N NI:.:; N N x686 7889 7888 N N N 44. 41 C4PF N N! r NI CT) OAKWC 7867 7870 7869 7853 1876 Z 7585 7866 7858 17878 7875 7868 7869 7860 7855 = 7877 7854 7851 7860 7885 7852 w 78707657 783• 5619 7870(/) 7861 7854 p F- 7846 7841 7863 7842 7850 7855 7836 3 7845 78 • 784 5613tH 7841 �V0 7830 p 7840 7835 7840 7829 • 7847 7840 • -• 5607 7820 p 7833 7832 7837 7�' 7825 7851 7817 ..:::::.----::.:F.,..:•:::::• '- 4-3• 7820 7815 7790 7815 7800 7809 7814 O 7815 7827 782'o 5601 ^+ 7810 N p 7805 7780 7814 4 O 7801 7806 7817��-{"` 5563,W O 7801 7760 7797 7800 7801 7500 5557¢ • 7800 7809 7770 7807. —2. 9-2 R-4 7801 w 7751 7750 7787 7778 7749 775d n 5551-(7-) tp 7777 M M m ^� CO' 7767 7760 7741 7740 7767 7768 7739 7740 775 �r—� N N �9 5545 `t 7761 7750 7731 7730 7753 7748 7729 7730 7741 PINEW000 C1R 7720 7728 Q ' r 5539 7755 7730 7721 7719 77201Q17731�i N N N N M �JS9 5533 '1,,' 7745 1 7710 7711 7710 770917710 p 7721• 7715 N ^6 . co I� .. in rn M 5527 N O CO t0 0 O O 04 W O f\ s0 tO 7715 I I� 7700 �, 41 41 1 N N N f�,�� 7701 7700 770 1 7701 N N N N n 5521 R-2• _.�.�23 Q CO •aG �..40," - 11 Q 0 <0 1n 1n v M N o n — 0 0 8-3 4►� _�O 7695 N N N N N N 1 N N N" N • {{ r :ti •r r' O 7687 766: 31766• —t R-46 R-4 76431765: A 6IIC 76411765• 7661 • 8-3 b° ( • 7639176 7651 C 86: 7. 76 •'p • ,0 4 ; 7:.• 7655 .— O 76351763* - �� — —_ 7645 °0, 7625t1762: 7641 7 7.111.911611MAIR 0 761i 761• z • N o 3-2 ` :� 11�?'—2 . ,C72. n n I n .'7318 W 75951 759 7631 N iNi y N r N� N �fr X74 _ 7581175:* 7531 In N ... N u1 „� 756517564 �' 14- p T N ,.,,0 9-3 Nco co 3 O 01 n M N , ^yw N , w N 7551 755• 7521 LI Z. or":" o^ 0`•' rz°n 2-t - 7535 753 7511 N N N N N::01 10 0010 _ — o �°N <a"'01 75211752•" 0 N N r NMN N v. O N trlp. 750517504 7501 • 01 r .O..N o N / o N m y PF yN q � `° t' N �S� �•I�svab ,0 Q 1n N4 0M N CITY HALL 5 10 2,0 m N N (O N N ,0 5 N N N.0.m ,0 .O.N ........ 1 2 .:2... 220 5.394 y N N N e - to O IA _ _ _ - by N 5. ,•7401 _ _ - It t1 3-3 5: PF - _ 5 _ ' - 9-1 53� 533: ; g SJ 0 N IS 1 :__.• ^ N SS N 4,(71.6.It,Ot 3° — 0,0 N R-4 R-2 ,,,p� CO 0 N v 8=3 47 N N H2 R-2 8-2 M N .-f Q 01 100 N 140 s 1 c. T ,-.-2,22,%312:1 2 N a. N 1 in 5279 n 110 10 1[7 u] r, 53 o -..731 527 527a ,nmlolo�oN N N N O1 i NNNN NN N N N N N N 121527 5272♦ 527v. a l n N. .1J a 1 In I -- n, n I rn ,n I 5260 5262 5297 7a r Y T M �^I N N N ^1 'Gig' O 1 526 a-3 .r(" .3Ol 361 526 52661 .I c`Ov I N 1 N I °4I N I N I N N I N N 1 52561526 5256 5287 G y .5015261 LOUISA AVE 52501525- 52901 5267 5260 I 5277 7" •.,I 1 m 1 7 I 'I 1 N ^, iii 5255 0 I i _ 52921530- C+ 'n l7 r '4.1"11 M M M 1111 N 1 41 525 < a o c o c o mI a o DI ,7:11(19 52 Q N N (co.. N N N I N 1 N I N N I N 1 N �j 1 524' 4'! f' 10 T 1.17 '�) n , ^'• '24 1�r n 1 .v' n _I*_ 1 1 s Z D Blitfflffz n m 1rtg m! n r v M N 5290)5299 �I�I�!►f�, 431 t7 .?..'1 rl r M M N N It N O L''' u W. 5238 r r <I r v e r X11 07 ,0 1101 ,0110 110110 101 IiI g 110( 10 I " L, y- 524 NIN pN� �N1uNI NINN C 5280 a10 b"cl 524 • N N I N N N N 1 N 1 N N N N I N 4. 523 SZ3 CLEARVIEW AVE 728a ..28 411vv CLEARVIEW AVE I 010..41.31 52701 52 - 52701--•. y, Vicinity Map Planning Case No. 462-96 Mounds View Square Sign Variance CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION APPLICANT: Paster Enterprises dba Mounds View Assoc, LLP648"-7901 Phone III ADDRESS: 2227 University Avenue, St. Paul MN 55114-1677 FAX: 646-1389 Street Address, City, State, and Zp Cade Interest in Property (check appropriate box): 1-2 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 5nal C:iy ac3on of this request PROPERTY INVOLVED: Address/Genera! Location 2535-2585 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 Legal Description or Property Identification Number Legal Owner: Name/Address Present Use (check appropriate box): Current Zoning: B-4 ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant • ❑ Single Family Dwelling . O Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units ) . . . - . Ec Business/Commerdal Establishment • ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property C:assincation: [ Abstract (2 Torrens RECUEST: 1) Conditional Use Permit to allow joint use of parking (Section 1121. 15) 2) Variance in number of parkin: s•aces re.u' -. .. .. _ _ rom those in Zoning Code. (Section 1121.13) r • 3) Variance in sign regulations for shopping center identification sign (Section 1008.08) ''ease note: Applicant may be resaonsibie For acai Tonal fees associated with the rev.ew at this request. / I HE:;tEBY DECLARE THAT THE ABCVE STATalEV T ARE TRUE. ,.1 A"3 �� ,. ,.,.,, /Signature - Rezoning 5200/acre.minimum$200.maximum 31,000 Park Fund 0edicffiion Fee Variance R-t to R-2-S75.ad others=CO Dam Paid $400.00 Conaiyonal Use Permit R-t R-2-375.ad others$200 Receipt Number ' Cade Appeal 375 $70().00 0eveioe.iSite Plan Review 5100/ac:e.minimum 100.maximum 3500 Tata! Fees paid Minor Sucaivision 3150 Oars Paid Maior Subaivision S2:0 pius 32_0 deposit • Co . ?Ian Amendment $200 Receipt Number ma Weiland Alteration Permrt S50 pius deacsrt determined by Start 'Netiana Surfer Parma Additicnai Fee Paid 210 Planning Sign S50 Cate Paid PUOzo Receipt Number sz PUO Amendment 5150 Data of final ac-.;on 4. 7 i - 1W APPROVED _ DENIED 7aol Oats Q-a U' -ei cc ar..,. .,. -,�. . . il-(O -61/, /.,, A.4 .4 p, 11,4 4,114 , DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTERS 2227 University Ave.•St.Paul,MN 551 14-1 677•612-646-7901 • Fax 612-646-(3S9 • October 2, 1996 CENTRAL PLAZA 45th&Central Ave. N.E. Minneapolis,Minnesota Ms. Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director City of Mounds View CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER 2401 Highway 10 Bass Lake Road&West Broadway Mounds View, MN. 55112 Crystal,Minnesota Re: Pylon Sign Variance and Relocation Request for Moundsview Square Shopping Center. DODDWAY SHOPPING CENTER Smith&Dodd Road West St.Paul,Minnesota Dear Ms. Sheldon, • A proposed pedestrian bridge is in the planning stages to cross LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES Highway 10 in the vicinity of Highway 10 and County Road I. Lexington&Larpentcur When this bridge is constructed it will block the view of our Roseville,Minnesota pylon sign from traffic traveling, west on Highway 10 and north on county Road I. • MENDOTA PLAZA But for a relocation of the pylon sign site and increasing the State Hwy. 110&Dodd Road pylon sign size an undue hardship will be created on the Mendota Heights,Minnesota identification of the shopping center from passing traffic. Please find attached, a drawing indicating the proposed MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE location of the pedestrian bridge and the additional sign size Hwy. 10&Lone Lake Road that would be required because the sign would have to be Mounds View,Minnesota located further to the west of the existing location. Also please find an elevation of the shopping center site indicating the area that is requested for the new pylon sign location. At NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER the present time it is impossible to determine the exact State Hwy. 23 &Woodland relocation of the pylon sign. The relocation site would be Circle Pines.Minnesota determined after the bridge is constructed so that the best site can be selected. SIBLEY PLAZA Thank you for your time and effort concerning this issue and West 7th Street&Davern if you have any questions, please contact the writer. Sr.Paul.Minnesota OUTHVIEW SHOPPING CENTER Southview Blvd.& 13th Ave. S South St.Paul.Minnesota • • efik DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTERS 2227 University Ave.•St.Paul,MN 55114-1677•612-646-7901 • Fax 612-646-1389 • CENTRAL PLAZA 45th&Central Ave.N.E. Minneapolis,Minnesota Sincerely yours, MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LLP CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER Bass Lake Road&West Broadway auk / � > Crystal,Minnesota • 'John H. Streeter Construction Manager DODDWAY SHOPPING CENTER Smith&Dodd Road JHS/'re West St.Paul,Minnesota Enclosures LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES Lexington&Larpenteur Roseville,Minnesota • MENDOTA PLAZA State Hwy. 110&Dodd Road Mendota Heights,Minnesota MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE Hwy. 10&Long Lake Road Mounds View,Minnesota NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER State Hwy.23 &Woodland Circle Pines,Minnesota SIBLEY PLAZA West 7th Street&Davern St.Paul.Minnesota • SOUTHVIEW SHOPPING CENTER Southview Blvd.& 13th Ave. S South St.Paul,Minnesota Q'- r.M1 Q 0U',m 1mlm�ml I I I 4 I! p NQN ^ W S W _° = oo � m ZII ii , , c, 0 x -i 2 e VAI—1 pi 01 . .44'4' Q NN .aI NSE ,= r� �3 N IL's) DA =, r U �a'ao ,n Q. om NVo 9 4110 W g g X W 0 i W pV� Q V¢ r-w 9 N W_Q Zg0Q $8 Q e eWQa LZZ 'iU w Q �._ -._ J J W U F- ~g Ili ee f,/ r 0 LWW g 4UUF �_ � r W _6 _U' rc o oQ N N �� 0 • Q r3 Q O U -a� uto' Ed Qom[ ' 0 U 4W W q'W ?o$ �$ mm Jz $$ O 1-1�� F� nv Z (4 m X N R! PI 0 1iJ CI) Z / / / O N V ¢v,¢ S ~W / / Wcz �� u8wI$ �x y...� 9 / / / =OW _� Q Mflfl /' Ii z! V7j:-1 / W / x 1 It Tsg 1 d avow Zafirl VNOI A/ / � ] . � @ / // r— 0, � 0x I \ / 7a — iiiql ,:fl: o a 2 di 1 O ° / i� `.A0° I� u x //_(4 .., z/ . ----T v c,i .K ,/- • /in ' —'''.' elg O n r fib 8x nn _ a" .. B L HL F I • d Ni 33 • Ci . I Z'CA CI � W!ii . I 0 m a 0 1 43 Y 7•• O� p w r N ' N C U) �• 9- ry 0. w�-n p) 9 .pm I 1'I X u.O.: C� �r w 0 1 d3Nw p,9 P) CC-19.Z m m� ,w g • . U> I\ e e.4 ct� d3Nw u w9n — y�'. i.,., SCI C Ca •N w O `A �� G a s — 4 a d z 1'!i`�!�'�_ m N r 00 II N N 1- 1 �� z I a ig- do L_. — iiY z /' '1. iu� I I. o 6 to ,` p ,\ d3aw .6 , w a ' f� a. `� SESISES �.. m ...,,,,..... / EIOIb4�01 Y18'1'd .A 6 / , . E I a- \ /I; ;i z -1} to da '�I 43 •c. 80.b8L'93 r Y 43 2W dl m .110, ' ,` N `P v 0001E5+01'b'16'ln'd W 'i 0 � , (nK9m ` W zQ LI i� '' a � Ill Z Q w WO, Ohl-el 4_ "r Y UU JJ K d3mw v I CV .. i a0. h z m 41 N 0. N ,':T A�p W W Mt. g+ - it - w. �pem U ` Q Yaps Z da.3�nw p-4ed-� .. �{ " y1 I YQY g 4 Q daNW r �1� > 4 rt1 W p u. Z:79Z I z a �a _ m 1901 �! t N L' Q E g . IL 0 d OJ p O d3 mw I La I m� . . .4 2'd' m � Y� il 01 9� .kid 1,..: g 9 I, Q 90a Y Y ` 00 —`T\ a I t r t Q mhtrid, _m III .I �•• NFWm'e ,' LI" W • O no 9 z3 zz �I aW 0 A Qg. g W Z0 t� m mu W 0 3y d m . 'b 0 2 T N —g�L7ii �I —� W ^ o . rc• sg Al W Y--ry 0E81 0E81 w d1.3Nw W Z 0W W 1 N ��qa a. am d w. 6 'nl '11'""/ rm- >E8'b8L'73 o d'iuQ c m w Q. W, m ^E1 N • .4QJ I -`l --1 L - N `Vi- )� d3mW CI 23aw•, w' . to it IC Sbl'b5b•01'7'1S'7"d i / in • .-41% , \ id w 2 a ' ------ Mi!il, Ct WSin I W a. W.f.' 2 t{P) m N I. W PIER opG• w Q m uu e • .:_.,, ..:„:„.-. 0: . .- .. ;, . ., , • ._,„ :,. . . . . t .,. , .. , 1 � ,, , . , .. . ,i 1 ' , , . . . , w ,r, : , , ,, ., .,. .,- \\\\ . - ,,_,_... II 1 , , CyJ .;,d.I •. . . ,,, . . n t{, („ r I, � " = • j r f , IllWI _ >',k4 la t SIR f}� r ±I�� ,} Fa t_ a --,R=.4 jj � p 1 i C �, ,, f., /.. ,,,_,:.:.,: ,Y ., �,C+USI ! +lI { ,,.r,� I4 ,, Zati'�T�T -_, ,yr�fir• r tt- �; _ If.."'!.."'. r 666i h0 i a w �.r tkJ 1._. a• : " ��,� r,,,.1 a , ;,111f,.1'.'-::,'�� ; ;� Ont 0 7 y 1 ;`(jam ft,,r , ;= e ; I� '�z 1 �L d - r: 0 N 6, i I Ill' 1,, ` ' I i.7.4 i 1111 �I,.. t�_ 4) , � l! , '11 `.!t J iii 11:1:' !1 1 II j ., ' 4..'.1 -i, ; ; \ ' ' :' ; • ,: I , MINDt. 7 !... ii •• • .,. I - • . r. • ••. E . . . • • . . (7 . ,......... . , .. 0 . . . .. . . _ . _.: ••• • •!.. .,.:..;.„. ,.,....„,,...• „.....t'-1.",- ;.. MOUNDS VIEW : 0 . . . . , ' • ' ''X....", .. . '."'...VIONIIIIMIRO -Millinallinningnialarigh •. . . 1 1 i M. Fabrics nnesota Y% . . . . • ' ' • : l'..,'t! f I '1 i... ;h..t • it•.X..;. t 2 i .: I '....\. . 4Y1111111116111"1111.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.11171 .•• I .,i S • ii w macv iv - 0 • Ili 1 i 1 '-'7IllijrIPIIIIII"Ill""nilinllNilli"IMIIMMIMIIIIIII.lOnly' DEALS 1 : .w 2 FOR 1 SALE AT SNYDER 7 I-7 1-..• ,1\ ---' ' F • -- ',.. .,-- • - '"- .71 !!!EBEEEOMMIMIIIIIR I ..-: Item #7 111/ REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: October 9, 1996 Staff Report by: • Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case 464-96 File No.: Request: Approval of an amended conditional use permit and development • review to allow the expansion of an existing auto dealership, the addition of a car wash and expansion of available repair services. Petitioner: Saturn Development Location: 2375 and 2395 Highway 10 PIN No. 08-30-23-31-0001, 2, 3 Zoning/Land Use: B-3 The property at 2375 Highway 10 is being used for the existing Saturn dealership, and at 2395 Highway 10 for an existing Citgo • gasoline station Applicable Regulations: The B-3 district allows for new and used automobile dealerships, minor auto repair and car washes with approval of a conditional use permit. Attachments: Planning Application(being prepared) Zoning Map Resolution 4195: Original Conditional Use Permit • Resolution 4611: Amended Conditional Use Permit Excerpts from Mounds View 2000 Blueline Package: - Site Plan -Landscape Plan -Building Elevations Background: A subdivision and conditional use permit to allow development of the now existing Saturn dealership at 2375 Highway 10 were approved in 1992 (Planning Case No. 335-92). The conditional use was amended in 1994 to allow the addition of 45 car-for-sale parking stalls, and associated lighting and landscaping on the site (Planning Case No. 389-94). • Resolutions 4195, approving the original request, and 4611, approving the parking lot expansion, are attached. Planning Commission Planning Case No. 464-96: 2375 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 2 The applicant is in negotiations with the owner of the Citgo gas station property at 2395 Highway 10,just west of the Saturn dealership. They are submitting an application to amend their conditional use permit to expand their project site to include the property at 2395 Highway 10, to add additional service bays and a car wash for customers' cars, and to expand the range of repair services. The current conditional use permit states"only minor repairs and maintenance will be allowed on site excluding major engine overhauls, transmission replacement, and body work." The applicant is requesting that the conditional use permit allow for all types of car repair excluding body work, welding and painting. Analysis/ Recommendation: The applicant has provided a site plan, landscape plan and building elevations to show how they propose to expand the Saturn dealership so it will include both 2375 and 2395 Highway 10. A comparison of the existing site layout and the proposed site layout is noted below. 1994 Approved Plan Proposed Plan Site Area 2.488 acres,or 3.276 acres,or 108,377 sq.ft. 142,703 sq.ft. • Building Area 5440 sq.ft. 11,600 sq.ft. Parking Area Total Impervious Area 84,327 77.8% 109,097 sq.ft. 76.5% Landscaped Area 24,050 22.2% 33,606 sq.ft. 23.5% Parking Spaces - display/inventory 126 - employee/service 35 - employee/inventory 154 - customer 14 20 Total 168 183 Number of Service Bays 5 10 Car Wash N/A one bay * * * * * There are four sets of criteria which are to be used in evaluating this application. The first three are from the B-3 district and relate to motor vehicle and recreation equipment sales • (Section 1114.04, Subd. 8), minor auto repair(Section 1114.04, Subd 3), and car washes Planning Commission Planning Case No. 464-96: 2375 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 3 (Section 1114.04, Subd. 2). The criteria for granting of conditional use permits are listed in Section 1125.01 Subd. 3. These criteria are discussed below, and have been grouped by issue where appropriate. Lot Area • Subd. 3 d. A minimum lot area of twenty two thousand five hundred(22,500)square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty feet by one hundred thirty feet(150'x 130')be provided. Subd. 8 a. Motor vehicle sales shall be on one lot or contiguous lots not separated by a public street, alley or other use. • Subd. 8 b. The minimum lot width shall be 150 feet at the minimum required front yard. Subd. 8 c. A minimum lot are of two(2)acres is required. The site area consists of two contiguous lots containing 142,703 square feet or 3.276 acres, and has lot dimensions as follows: • North: 580 feet East: 493 feet South: 764 feet The front yard is on Highway 10, and exceeds the 150 foot minimum width requirement. Items 3d, 8a, 8b, and 8c have been met. Setbacks Subd. 8 d. Setbacks shall be as required in the B-3 district. Required Proposed Met? Front 30 ' 76 feet yes Side 10 184 feet(east) yes 232 feet(west) yes Rear 20 36 feet yes Building and Site Design; Landscaping Subd. 2 a. Subd. 3 b. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so • dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. Planning Commission • Planning Case No.464-96: 2375 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 4 Subd. 2 f. Subd. 3 c. Subd. 8 e. The entire site,other than that taken up by a building,structure or plantings,shall be surfaced with a material to control dust,drainage and erosion which is subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Subd. 3 f. A curb not less than six inches(6")above grade shall separate the public sidewalk from motor vehicle service areas. Subd 2 c. Subd 3 i. At the boundaries of a residential district,a strip of not less than ten feet(10')shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08 (1)through(5)of this Title. Subd 81. A minimum of 10%of the property,excluding setback requirements,is required for landscaped greenspace. The plan(t)ing plan and type of shrubbery shall require approval of the Planning Commission based upon a recommendation of City Forester. Subd 8 m. A natural screen shall be erected and maintained along all property lines separating the site from any residential district. The screening shall include landscaping(trees,shrubs,grass, • etc.)of a type(layout,species,height,size and density)in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08 of the Title. The proposal represents an extension of the existing Saturn dealership. The applicant is maintaining the same architectural character in the building expansion as is in the original, and will be landscaping the added site area so the effect will be one seamless development. All areas which are not in building or landscaping will be paved and the parking area will be bordered by a concrete curb. The site does not border property in a residential district and therefore screening and buffering is not required. A landscaped area at least 10 feet in width is shown al••• • •- • • •-•• ' -s. The 1 -raw of Black Hills Spruce along the north property line of the added site area which matches the existing site. The frontage along Highway 10 will be sod as is the existing site. The criteria from Section 1114.04 Subd 8.1. was added in 1996 and creates a problem for the Saturn site. It states that the area in required setbacks shall be excluded from calculating if 10% of the site is in landscaping. The expanded Saturn site would have 142,703 sq.ft. of land; 10%would be 14,703 sq.ft. The proposed landscaped area is, 33,606 sq.ft. or 23.5%, which is more than twice the requirement based on percentage. Almost of all this area, however, is in the required front, side and rear setbacks. Present day staff is not certain what the intent of the ordinance amendment was. It is a very common practice for the landscaped area on a commercial site to be along the perimeter. In fact, the Zoning Code specifically prohibits the placement of parking and loading in the front setback, so the most logical use for the setback area is landscaping. The Saturn site Planning Commission Planning Case No. 464-96: 2375 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 5 is very attractive, and the proposed expansion continues the placement of landscaping along the perimeter. The ordinance amendment has the effect of requiring"extra" landscaping which becomes a hardship on a large site with long perimeters fronting on streets. It appears to us that there may be an inadvertent impact created by the recent Code amendment. Lighting and Signage Subd 2 h. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right of way or from an abutting residence and shall be incompliance with Section 1103.09 of this Title. • Subd 3 g. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of this Title. • lighting arranged to deflect light away from adjoining residential zone or from public streets • hooded or controlled so as not to light adjacent property • • light cast on public street shall not exceed 1 foot-candle;on residential property shall not exceed 0.4 foot candle. Subd 8 h. All outdoor illumination on sales lots shall be provided with lenses,reflectors or shades which will concentrate the light upon the premises so as to prevent glare or direct rays and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of the Municipal Code. Subd 2 d. Subd 3 j. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. Subd 2 j. Subd 3 m. Subd 8 k. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with the Chapter 1008.08 of the Sign Code Regulations. The applicant intends to install additional light standards on the expanded site area which are the same style as the existing light standards, and they will be located in a similar pattern. The original plans submitted.for this development included a detail of the light fixtures which appear to be shielded in compliance with the ordinance. Staff is not aware of any complaints concerning light spillage onto adjacent properties. The light standards will be in landscaped areas and not in the parking lot. i Planning Commission • Planning Case No.464-96: 2375 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 6 The existing signage includes the following: • existing monument sign 10'x 10' on 26'high supports; area= 100 sq.ft. • existing wall sign 23" x 26.5'; area= 50.8 sq.ft. • used car sign, ground mounted 8' 6-1/2" x 5'=42.7 sq.ft. • miscellaneous small directional signs The total signage on the site is 193.5 square feet. All of the signage has approved permits. The B-3 district allows for 100 square feet per business occupant, and one general pedestal sign not exceeding 340 square feet. Only one pedestal sign is allowed per property. The current signage is within the allowances in the Code. The applicant is proposing a second monument sign at the northernmost driveway onto the site to match the existing sign(100 square feet). The total signage area would comply with the Code but the use of two pedestal signs would not comply. There may be justification for a variance given the length of the street frontage along Highway 10 and the size of the site. Parking Subd 8 g. The following parking requirements shall be met: . (1) All customer and employee parking spaces shall be permanently and clearly marked. (2) For every three(3)employees,a minimum of two(2)employee parking spaces shall be provided. (3) A minimum of two(2)off-street parking spaces for each service stall are required. The foregoing required parking spaces shall be shown and designated on the site plan. The existing site now has 168 spaces, of which 14 are for customers and 154 are for employee or cars in inventory. The proposed plan shows a total of 183 spaces, with 20 for customers,3- • • • , . in inventory. The Saturn dealership has 28 employees currently, with 12 more projected, for a total of 40. The sales office contains approximately 3808 square feet. The parking requirement noted above was added to the Zoning Code in 1996. Based on the requirement, the proposed development needs 20 spaces for service and 27 spaces for employees. Using the parking requirements in the Chapter 1121 of the Zoning Code, 22 spaces are needed for customers.' The applicant's proposal meets the City's parking requirements, except that two additional customer spaces are needed, three handicapped spaces need to be 'The parking ratios in Chapter 1121 state 1 space per 100 sq.ft. of retail space and 1 space per 500 sq.ft.of storage of warehouse space. Staff arrived at the requirement of 22 spaces for customers based on • applying the retail ratio to half of the space in the sales building(1904 sq.ft.),and applying the warehouse ratio to the other half since the product being sold requires significant area for display. Planning Commission Planning Case No. 464-96:2375 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Pagel designated on the plan, and the customer and employee spaces need to be clearly marked. These adjustments would result in 121 spaces being available for display or inventory. With these adjustments, the parking count would comply with the ordinance. Drainage Subd 2 g. Subd 3 e. A drainage system(for the entire area),subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer,shall be installed. Subd 8 f. A drainage system,subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, shall be installed and maintained. All provisions shall apply as included in Chapters 1103, 1010 and 1302 relating to Surface Water Management. Staff has not had an opportunity to refer this proposal to the City Engineer as of the date of this report, but will obtain comments prior to your November 6 meeting. Outdoor Storage, Sales and Service Subd 3 k. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08 (1)through(5)of this Title. Subd 3 o. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with subdivision 4 of this Section shall exist. • area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring uses; if abutting a residential district,fencing and screening in accordance with Section 1103.08 • storage is screened from view from public right of way • storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust • all lighting hooded,directed so light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or froni ncighboiing residences • shall not take up required parking spaces Subd 3 p. No outside sale or service except as allowed in compliance with subdivision 5 of this Section shall exist. • limited to thirty percent(30%)of gross floor area of principal use • fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or any abutting residential district;fencing and screening in accordance with Section 1103.08 • same as o. above Subd 8 i. The maximum areas permitted for outside storage of motor vehicles can not exceed two(2) square feet of outside storage to each one(1)square foot of enclosed ground floor area. Not • more than one(1) automobile shall be stored on each 40 square feet of outside storage. No rooftop parking shall be permitted. • Planning Commission • Planning Case No. 464-96: 2375 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 8 No outdoor sales or servicing is conducted on this site, other than customers viewing cars in inventory in the parking lot. There are no abutting residential districts, and therefore, the screening requirements do not apply. Sufficient space for car inventory has been provided so it will not infringe on required customer, service and employee parking. The last criteria(Section 1104.04 Subd. 8.i.) was added in 1996, and raises a problem. The total enclosed square footage on the Saturn site with the building addition is 11,600 square feet. The criteria would seem to say that only 23,200 square feet of site area could be used for outdoor storage of inventory. The net area occupied by inventory on the site is approximately 25,285 square feet. (No drive aisles have been included in this estimate, only the outline of the parking spaces to be used for inventory.) Staff does not believe criteria is practical for a new car dealership, and it would have precluded the development of the original Saturn dealership. Staff needs some assistance in understanding the purpose of the requirement. We would suggest that as part of the conditional use permit, the area proposed by Saturn for inventory be approved. Accessory Buildings Sub 8 j. Accessory buildings to be used solely for sales offices shall not be permitted. Such • accessory buildings as are permitted shall be constructed of the same materials as the main structure. The proposed building includes both a sales office and service bays. No accessory buildings are proposed. Noise Subd 2 k. Subd 3 n. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. Subd 8 p. No music or advertisements will be allowed over paging system. Subd 8 q. All provisions shall apply as included in Section 1103.01 relating to noise within the City Code. Current staff is not aware of any noise problems on the existing Saturn site. The original conditional use permit includes a contingency that"outside loudspeakers shall be utilized for paging purposes only." Staff would recommend that this contingency be carried forward. • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 464-96: 2375 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 9 Access/Test Drive Routes Subd 2. i. Subd 3 1. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, shall comply with Chapter 1121 of this Title and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Subd 8 o. Test driving routes and patterns must be submitted and approved prior to operation of an automobile sales lot. The applicant is proposing two driveway entrances on Highway 10 and two on County Road H2, and removal of one of the driveway entrances on the Citgo property. The driveway to be removed is close to the Highway 10/County Road H2 intersection. This will improve traffic patterns in the area and remove a conflict point. The original conditional use permit for Saturn states "A good faith effort shall be made to ensure that test driving of vehicles from the site follow the route highlighted and described on the attached map dated 2/19/92." There is no copy of the map in the file or in the book 4110 of City Council resolutions. Staff is not aware of any problems with test drives. We would recommend that the applicant supply a copy of the map dated 2/19/92 and that this contingency be carried forward, with the map put on file in both the Community Development Department and the book of City Council resolutions. Stacking Space (Car Wash) Subd 2 b. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that number of vehicles which can be washed during a maximum thirty(30)minute period and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Subd 2 e. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08 (1)through(5)of this Title. The car wash proposed for this site is for customer cars only and not for the general public. Staff feels that the issues noted above do not apply in this case, because the business owner has the ability to control the flow of cars, and the volume of cars is expected to be less than would be the case with a stand alone car wash business. The site does not abut residential districts. The area behind the car wash faces a business, but will be screened by Black Hills Spruce. • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 464-96: 2375 Highway 10 • October 9, 1996 Page 10 Hours of Operation Subd 8 n. The hours of operation of the facility shall not exceed 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The original conditional use permit states"The hours of operation of the facility shall be , 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m."which conforms to this criteria. Provisions Not Applicable to This Proposal h. Whenever fuel pumps are to be installed,pump islands shall be installed. Criteria for Approval of Conditional Use Permits (Section 1125.01 Subd. 3) (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. The proposal represents an expansion of an existing business. The site is served by an existing arterial highway and a County road, such that traffic can access the site without going through the residential neighborhoods. The site is served by utilities. Because the proposal is for a business, no burden on parks or schools is anticipated. (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 not deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site will have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The site is bordered on the north-and-south-b buts a business-and industrial park on the east side. The existing site and proposed expansion shows a attractive combination of buffering and landscaping around the entire perimeter, and this business helps in creating an appealing gateway to Mounds View and to the residential neighborhoods north of Highway 10. It serves as an example of high quality development for potential developers of property in the area. (4) The use,in the opinion of the [Planning Commission],is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The expansion of the Saturn dealership to take in the Citgo property will help unify this corner, and allow an attractive and successful business additional room. Providing more room for inventory and expanding the range of services available to Saturn's customers may translate into more tax revenue to the City. Expansion of the Saturn dealership will • Planning Commission Planning Case No.464-96: 2375 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 11 also help in strengthening the vitality and enhancing the appearance of the Highway 10 corridor. This corridor is very important to the long run economic health of the City. (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 purpose of the B-3 district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. It allows for auto repair businesses with approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant's proposal fits within the limits envisioned by the ordinance for the B-3 district, and its location along Highway 10 is logical and appropriate. • (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The most recent discussion of comprehensive goals for the City was the Mounds View 2000 project in 1994. The Vision Statement from the Growth, Development and Business Issue Project Team stated: "The City of Mounds View will be known as a city with a balance between business and residential concerns. There will be a positive business climate as shown by public-private collaboration to recruit,encourage,and retain successful,community-based enterprises with emphasis on job expansion,increase in tax base,and quality of life. There will be a cooperative spirit between the government and citizens,whether residential or business, when setting regulations into code. Environmental and aestheticconsciousness will be demonstrated by a redesigned Highway 10,a network of inter-connected trails,parks,and wetland spaces,and active citizen participation in ecological activities." Two goals relative to Highway 10, and a goal on business climate, were adopted and are included in an attachment to this report. The expansion of the Saturn dealership furthers these goals, and is supported. Staff's only suggestion is that the applicant could add landscaping, including flowers, to the Highway 10 frontage to help beautify it. Staff recognizes that it is the applicant's desire to keep the Highway 10 frontage in lawn so it does not distract from attention to the cars on display. Clustering landscaping at the entrances would achieve both purposes. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. The site has adequate access from an arterial highway. No added traffic congestion is expected. Eliminating one of the driveways on to County Road H2 will reduce traffic hazards and conflict points. • • Planning Commission Planning Case No.464-96: 2375 Highway 10 • October 9, 1996 Page 12 (8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The proposal will use a previously developed site which is served by existing utilities and roads. There is an existing drainage ditch along Highway 10. Staff will be referring the proposal to MnDOT and the Rice Creek Watershed District to determine if there are any concerns with the site drainage-continuing as it has in the past. Staff Recommendation: Our preliminary response to the proposal is very favorable. There are two key issues which need to be addressed which arise from the adoption of new criteria for conditional use permits for auto sales in 1996. These are the amount of landscaping required and the comparison between the enclosed building square footage and square footage in outdoor storage of inventory. We would be concerned if the new criteria meant that the proposal could not go forward. The criteria may have been meant for smaller sites, and represent a hardship on a site of this size. Also it is our impression that the ratio between square footage in building and in outdoor storage was to prevent the use of small kiosk type buildings for sales offices. The Saturn dealership is proposing a substantial building of 11,600 square feet, housing both the sales office and service bays. • Staff would recommend that the following additional information from the applicant or referral agencies is needed prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. 1. Planning application and fees 2. Proof of ownership and letter from owner of Citgo parcel giving permission for application to be filed on this parcel 3. Photometrics for light standards 4. Comments from the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District (staff to do referral) 5. Provide copy of map dated 2/19/92 showing test drive routes. Staff would recommend that the following requirements or changes in the plans be made: 1. Bring forward contingencies from Resolution 4195 and 4611, if appropriate. 2. Same lighting standards be used on both sites. 3. Eliminate the request for second monument sign, unless variance in number of pylon signs allowed is approved. 4. Show three handicapped parking spaces, and convert two inventory spaces to customer spaces, to comply with parking requirements. 5. Add note to plans that customer and employee parking will be clearly marked and kept free of use for inventory. • . Planning Commission Planning Case No. 464-96: 2375 Highway 10 October 9, 1996 Page 13 6. Provide detail on plan as to how trash enclosure will be constructed. Show concrete pad. Staff would further recommend that the applicant submit variance requests for: 1. How the landscaping requirement is calculated, allowing for credit for landscaping in the setbacks, due to the long street frontages bordering this property and the size of the site. 2. A reduction in the requirement for one foot of enclosed building square footage for every two feet of outdoor storage space, giving consideration to the size of the site and that a substantial building of 11,600 square feet is proposed for the site 3. An allowance for two pylon signs due to the long highway frontage, and that the total sign area displayed on the pylon signs is 200 square feet rather than the 340 allowed. cc: Jim Price, Saturn Development, P.O. Box 10813, White Bear Lake, MN 55110; FAX • 790-9416 • • �� .�.. •• 76417656 7661 lait G-4 I 04%) 0.ra+ -5493 5485 5486 5485 5500 786 6 0: 7639 7644 7651 5480 5479 R-2 r 76 •Y 764* p 7 •• 7655 762 _- p 7635 7630 5474 5473 5468 5475 5478 5475 -4 7. 7645 7625 7628 7641 - ` 5468 5467 5464 5463 546 _ 5487 1_1 . is i armiS1 `- C5 7611 7610 .'f. r 5482 5463 6 5459 -2 v v v a' , 78 w 7595 7631 i-- r 5454 5455 N 5456 • JA 454,543. 10 N 0 N 761: 7594 p `rx �Q .► N n n n 763 r r `tx -DZ ;_ 7581 7580 7531 i2 5446 5447 p 543 ��r. `�L7585 7564 .. =1 " $ ` 1< �. CO ^ 5433 8-3 v v w 7551 755C 7521 1 1 5434 5433 �Ei N N N N R� • 5425 �' 7535 7534 7511 5420 5421 542.8 5419 _n v 7521 7520" N r 7501 5401 5414 5415 • 5414 N N N N N N 5413 7505 7504 5406 5405 5406 N N N N N N 5405 N c Ty PF :-•N • DRIVE • CITY HALL ® � � oNoNN N o 5394 539' „:311- N N N N N N N N N N N � � 5392 5386 536 Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 5386 ill5380 5381 V 5380 5372 537'Q 1. / EMI 5372 iv, Isz 5366 536 5364 �O " ® 5356 5359 5366 5357 5358 1 5352 5353 M N N o o m m 5357 ,� 5354 N N N N N N N N N 5,3 5 N N N N N N N N N N N 5344 6 LAMBERT AVE 5337 o N v ao N a a o0 m V 533E In Yr M N J Z 5 5331 LAMBERT N N N N N Of N N N N N ? $S3O . o ��Q 5323 24 PARK CY 5324 • �� 5317 PF 531E 1,19 IIAIIEMII �� 5299 5309 — 5308 Ur anl ?p n m — n m m � n a r� n Of 5294 ti T 14:12:2 N N N N N N N &41 N N N N W c CO LLJ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 526E R-2 B- 0 °wail= N N N N N N N • N,0 0 0 01 N N N 5275 $260 Viren 5297 -..klii� 5287 B-3 ` 5!I .I 250� SHyt_.®Q 5260 5277 5292•' MEV i N p N II LEAtEWn ti,N N• n m u1 V N 525• 525 525• x' 1 N N 52C In Mr N N N N N N N N 52 1'r W 52 •5249 CLi•:1� 5240 5205 N )- • - N ,a,, OL Y.ANE (0 0 .+' f0 CO 0 N ro 5230 OE 523•�� 5230 Z i :No ,n ;n ,n 5213 n ° n v v ^ N 522• w 522•��y�,w� • • L� �'�ry N N N N N N N N N N N W 5229 m �+�'""�� �� ry O o - 5206 5207 in a, ,,, ,n n .- n ,n a 52101 521•C7 521• airtl:1� ___ nN co to :n w v M N G ryry . 515C 5200 520 - - , _.Mr ••MINIM • •• .• ,•r••nii��� ' 5144 :: :;�7 it 5157 W000ALE DR O Q< Q A 5131 5.::::::t:::'::;::::::;1::::::.;; 5149 5150 5155 X160 N 518a NNNNN tiT 5132 '}`.;_- :"i 5141 5144 5185 • NNNNN X19 5126 :•.:.........-.•:•:•:•:::::•:: p 5,70 5179 EDGEWOOD ti .,'S5133 5140 5175 (11' 5120 ::,:.:.::•::.f5160 5169 JR. HIGH U _ 5125 La 5136 5165 OZ 5114 • • :} 5117Q 5150 5159 SCHOOL 4.7 p 5128 5155 5140 5149 5108 5109 Z 5720 5145 N n - o m 5130 5139 PUD •��; n n r n 5101 - 5108 5135 " OR 1 5100 0 5090 5091 � 5092 :: 509::5090 v 5084 0 5075 5080 5081 n 5100 2ti0° _ q 5077 m 5070 5071 W B-3 O 5074 5060 5067 I:‘CP 5064 8 5061 1 5060 5050 5051 -� 6 5051 5040 5041 r, as n -,n '�` 5054 rnrn m. /e.t4 v 5030 5031 N N cN1 N 5046 N N N N N Z Vicinity Map: 464-96 .. 2375-2395 Highway 10 CRP Applicant: Saturn Development RESOLUTION NO. 4195 ( Ask CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY. STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY SATURN OF ST. PAUL, 2375 HIGHWAY 10, PLANNING CASE NO. 335-91 WHEREAS, Saturn of St. Paul has requested City approval to operate an automobile sales dealership at 2375 Highway 10; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance allows automobile sales dealerships in a B-3, Highway Commercial District; and WHEREAS, the development, as proposed, requires a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a) Site plan dated 11/91 b) Lighting plan dated and revised 1/30/92 "-� c) Landscape plan dated 11/91 d) Parking plan dated 11/91; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposal is in conformance with the requirements of the Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 40; and WHEREAS, the storm water controls for this site were originally approved as part of the Mounds View Business Park project and have been reviewed and are considered adequate by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the Planning Co GGion ed approval of the conditional use permit request to the City Council in Resolution No. 330-92 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View approves the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. Outside loudspeakers shall be utilized for paging purposes only. 2 . Only minor repairs and maintenance will be allowed on site excluding major engine overhauls, transmission replacement, and body work. RESOLUTION NO. 4195 PAGE TWO OF TWO 3 . The hours of operation of the facility shall be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 4. Any fully mechanized method of washing cars shall require a conditional use permit per Chapter 40. 18, Subdivision D(2) . 5 . Any cars taken on trade and not intended for resale shall not remain on the site for a period of time exceeding 72 hours . 6. No outside merchandizing of accessories shall be allowed. 7. A good faith effort shall be made to ensure that test driving of vehicles from the site follow the route highlighted and described on the attached map dated 2/19/92 . 8 . All transport truck deliveries and pick-up shall be conducted on site during regular business hours . 9 . The conditional use permit shall be reviewed at six months and each year thereafter at the time of licensing to ensure that applicable conditions imposed on the site are being met. 10. Outside advertising shall be limited to that allowed by Municipal Code. 11. Provide adequate on-site parking for number of customers expected. For special occasions, a larger number ! - - 0. = =- - - - .0-Id--be made available. • Adopted this 24th day of February, 1992 . ATTEST: 9- (SEAL) y Admini tratoF RESOLUTION NO. 4611 111 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY • STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT REQUEST OF SATURN OF ST. PAUL, 2375 HIGHWAY 10, PLANNING CASE NO. 389-94 WHEREAS, Saturn of St. Paul has requested City approval to construct an addition to their existing automobile sales facility at 2375 Highway 10; and WHEREAS, the proposal would allow the addition of approximately 45 car-for-sale stalls and associated lighting and landscaping on the site; and WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for this and similar proposals; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this development proposal: 1. Planning Application dated June 24, 1994 2. Site Plan dated June 24, 1994 3 . Submittal Narrative; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposal is in conformance with all applicable requirements of Chapter 1100. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the development review request subject to the following condition: 1. The facility shall, following the completion of the addition, be subject to the conditions stipulated in the original—City Council Resolution authorizing the use (City Council Resolution No. 4195, dated February 24, 1992) . Adopted this 8th day of August, 1994. ATTEST: 440_,JPA- - Mayor (SEAL) � (104/0mh _. .>Acting Clerk-Administrator GOALS AND ACTION STATEMENTS • BUSINESS CLIMATE GOAL Mounds View will keep and improve its reputation as a city with a cooperative attitude toward business. BUSINESS CLIMATE ACTION STATEMENTS to determine whether to continue position funding. - — The City will establish an Economic Development Commission comprised of busi- ness leaders and citizens to serve in an advisory capacity to the EDA and the City Council. — The EDA will develop a business plan, including goals for business retention, re- cruitment of new businesses, and increasing self-sustaining and high quality jobs. — The EDA (or the City)will develop a public information plan to publicize the business plan. — The EDA will include environmental concerns in all of its plans. • The City Council will adopt a policy of incentives which will not only support and facili- • tate the expansion of existing businesses,but will also atttact new businesses to the area,with emphasis on filling current vacancies as well as developing new sites. Such incentives will include: — Developing packages on how the City can help businesses (new and existing) succeed. — Reviewing business regulations in the City to simplify and improve where possible. — Offering businesses financial assistance and introductions to local banks. — Encouraging and working cooperatively with local business organizations. — Passing resolutions of support to local businesses when appropriate. — Reviewing restrictions on businesses in residential areas. — Providing special opportunities for environmentally conscious businesses. • The City will survey businesses located on Highway 10 to identify concerns (if any)with the highway and/or the City of Mounds View. • The City will publish a brochure showing favorable comparisons to surrounding com- munities, illustrating life in Mounds View, including: 1) low crime rates;2) utility rates; 3) property taxes; 4) commercial and real estate prices; 5) distance to airports and arterial highways. • • The Planning Commission and the City Council will review current zoning and land use codes for compatibility with contemporary business and community needs,with an emphasis on maintaining a balance between business and residential concerns. 28 • . • Identifying unmet consumer needs through research, focus groups,surveys, etc., the City will prepare a list of businesses which could meet these needs, and recruit such businesses. Identification of the types of businesses that stakeholders do not want to • encourage could also be included. • The City will prepare a quarterly newsletter to notify businesses of new incentives by government agencies and other business opportunities. • The City will establish an Information Center for Mounds View. '4 • 0.. - Itt 21E141626- ,.•�. ..tea•- :• --4-••••4`•"*.' ` BVI WESTERN BAtil .`- _"°' '-- - `'- MOtArD3 VIEW OFFICE {.' r ,� I 3 -- a -= ..• r s:+ _ - i w,n.n.can r • 0 . • .'•r'.-, i t. 4 t 4. „ig r _ f, ! i;_ ", .-bra r•,, - < ,_ski-+cx- -..01 F .,rte.• i uffi� _ ++�•r 3�+ •'• � _ �` .. �r •""." - f 0 ..,c-;;--1,------ 7-10,-.7rJp! -t �` -'--z4'-" r.7cf' �2 .s.,,, 3.s'_. 3-.' ". -,-„'�' I-+. .it i- ,: i`e '`-a•-.'-,t,7-t s .,.w.:. ..-C, '...a,•Y"T+T.}-... t3 .r.c -2.aa. ' 2-rA. ---- Rz:°.i�i,.'e' s -_ "S • __ r M - a'4i?, • '�ttYz�.•. -.ay.:�s.,... 3iw ,,•<fi ,•-• - -.wi.i w+Tida - `s.r- • --*--.<-'- ' _ ,•••••---A•: .`a3...< '."'a _ -`''r;, t Y•*'f'� '-'ss---- 29 HIGHWAY 10 GOAL #1 Improve the aesthetic appearance of Highway 10 in order to maintain a fully developed and occupied highway business corridor. HIGHWAY 10 GOAL #1 ACTION STATEMENTS • Work cooperatively with the landscape unit of MN/DOT to coordinate and use their Com- munity Roadside Enhancement Program. • Coordinate with and make use of the knowledge of the Mounds View City Forester. • Solicit a design firm to develop a plan using lighting,flowers and grassy areas to beautify the Highway 10 corridor. • Make use of service groups(i.e.Lions,Scouts)to volunteer time and/or money for aesthetic improvement of the Highway 10 corridor. • Develop incentives for local businesses to improve sites by adding greenspace,flowers, etc. • Work with the Parks Department to implement their plan to connect bicycle and walking trails throughout the City to Highway 10. HIGHWAY 10 GOAL #2 Increase vehicle and pedestrian accessibility to businesses along Highway 10 HIGHWAY—ry G`r o n AL# N2 CTIOSTEPS O • Consider amending portions.of the City sign code to allow for increased directional signage along Highway 10. • ,. • Take an active role in the planning of exits, entrances, and turn-arounds in and around Highway 10. • Develop methods for connecting the northern and southern sections of town across Highway 10, such as by building a pedestrian and bicycle bridge at Long Lake Road or County Road I. 30 Item #8 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Planning Case No. SP-001-96 Date: October 4, 1996 Meeting of October 9, 1996 Issue This item was scheduled for discussion at your September 18 meeting. Because of the length of the agenda, the Planning Commission deferred this discussion to your next agenda session which will be October 9, 1996. Attached is the report which was sent to you for the September 18 meeting. We have omitted the attachments other than the chart in the interest of saving copying • costs. Recommendation It is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission review the list of questions in this report and indicate for each question listed whether 1) there is a consensus on how the issue should be handled or 2) more information is desired prior to reaching a consensus. • • Item #11 • 9/18/96 • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission • From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (1 • Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Planning Case No. SP-001-96 Date: September 12, 1996 Meeting of September 18, 1996 Issue The City Council has enacted a 180-day moratorium on new used, development or construction of commercial wireless telecommunication towers and antennas within the City of Mounds View. This action allows the City approximately six months in which to develop regulations for these facilities. The Planning Commission conducted its initial discussion session on this issue on August 21 and directed staff to prepare a list of questions which need to be answered before an • ordinance can be drafted. Recommendation It is staff's recommendation that Planning Commission review the list of questions in this report and indicate for each question listed whether 1)there is a consensus on how the issue should be handled or 2) more information is desired prior to reaching a consensus. Background/Analysis The Planning Commission has received considerable background information on this issue prior to this meeting, as well as receiving information from industry representatives and the Cable Commission. At your meeting on August 21, you asked staff to assemble a list of questions which need to be answered before an ordinance on wireless telecommunications towers and antennas could be drafted. This list is noted below. You have also received a chart summarizing provisions from ordinances adopted by other jurisdictions in the area which we are including again. This chart shows how some of the other jurisdictions in our area have answered most of the questions listed in this report. • • • Mounds View Planning Commission • SP-001-96: Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Page 2 September 12, 1996 Definitions 1. What terms need to be defined? Location; Type of Use 2. Where should towers and antennas be allowed? Which zoning districts? 3. Should they be listed as allowed or conditional uses? 4. Should the City require co-location of equipment on a limited number of towers? 5. Should applicants be required to provide room on their tower for other companies' equipment? 6. Should the City specify where on the property the tower must be located? 7. What should the setback requirements be? 8. Should the City specify that the tower must go on a municipal site, owned by the City? Lighting/Signage/Color/Design/Landscaping&Screening 9. What allowance or limits should be put on lighting a tower? 10. What allowance or limits should be put on signage on a tower? 11. Should the City specify the color(s) allowed to be used for the tower? 12. Should the City specify the type of tower? What tower design is permitted? . 13. Should separate accessory buildings be permitted? 14. What design standards should be established for accessory buildings? 15. What landscaping and/or screening requirements should be established? Height Limits 16. What should the height limit be? 17. Should a bonus be given for towers holding two or more companies' equipment? Miscellaneous 18. What provisions should be made for non-conforming towers? 19. Should specific provisions for abating towers in violation of the Code be stated? 20. Should the City require removal of obsolete or unused towers? What time limit should be • used? 21. Should the City require documentation that emissions from these antennas will not affect other wireless communications? 22. Should the City require proof of need? search for alternative sites based on certain criteria? • Mounds View Planning Commission SP-001-96: Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Page 3 September 12, 1996 Additional Information Matt Danielson, representing SBA, Inc., has provided copies of two items which discuss whether there is a potential health hazard from personal communication systems. We also have received a staff report and sample ordinance from Richfield, which is in the process of updating its regulations regarding telecommunications facilities. These items are attached. cc: Coralie Wilson,Executive Director,North Suburban Cable Commission,950 Woodhill Drive, Roseville,MN 55113;FAX 482-1262 Chantell Kadin,Zoning Manager,CB Commercial Telecommunications,2550 University Ave.West, Suite 159S,St.Paul MN 55114;FAX 645-1526 Matt Danielson, SBA,Inc.,7625 Metro Blvd,Suite 235,Edina MN 55439; FAX 830-1924 Attachments: Comparison of Ordinances on Wireless Telecommunications Facilities(chart) Staff Report and Proposed Ordinance,City of Richfield . "What is PCS?" "Radio Frequency Exposure Considerations Applicable to Personal Communications Systems" specproj\telecom.pc2 • > 9 .S 12.'0 _ e i_ __ s$5a h - i' = 015g0 7 . g ',g ts4 0.5 Qv ▪ �• � g 3 E l . . . E > ! i 84.21 a'�1 c e c e 3 m S g d . O y 4 = C 2 3 c 1 e s c � yrq ...4 § § 0231-o § 187011i.5 §.01 X ` 1sTy ` . ... a 5 _ "m 3 ° o o gad 3 v$ c'a 3 8 u 3 s C = y n C '•s . of g gT. v 001. C =7 U G y ^ Sb r o - 3 C7 . - a 88= d m m v 1': .lit4 .. U' ` yya O yG y • 0Esc.yO• ^ E ^ 7c9O l aE` 2 C m3 ^ uc c 0 .:4 = e .09 m —.. mu y t ' .. `7 i0 .y m. m m mT) ",63= . 3 .11 =1; 2.1 > m. 0 0 3 ,yi Oy' Ta V c a �] g e $ i. E oo c c y s E • 2 E-" r vQ 74. y 3Ns y $ i.v0V U Y S 9 � V .9 y jj O . Q j = ;I g . O 8 7 . O C a N v . ^ y F.4 ar Z .2 „1 ,1,9,,^ u ^ 3 w 3 ° O- y 0 7 00 _.7, 0 _ y ^ 1330 72522 v o , c o 3 Cy _o-E-Itio of r G ^7 v y^F 0 ,--a a g = 1 O p g . C myz=.1 n ' a = gyv `' O 3 ' ' s u- spe .. O 1 Jt. a•s O C 7 9 7 pC wOL NO •. 2 . E m 3 x i. ? n c'2 .. .m 5 = m = a s a .a. 'o 7 a y 3 0 a a 'o I .y O : t 3_ y JI,2 = 7 • 7 y 0 - a 8 A .23 U i 0. 7.; 2 4 a R : o C no . 0 •.°.O V B. V 3 A G G 5Z•Gr s E e u 3 `a S. roa. o 'm E20 04 y 3 .1A a c•^ _ 3 9 ` u'T mo vo m n. ° a.3 2 aey £ E ca °w a A a. A S. y e.,. _•� a •g m u G 5 `.4 n 3 .. o'. 3 E 0 3 i t v '- u . q oo m .00 u u3 y 3•2. o` o 1 v 0 U J 3 .L a N a t a 1a = G A 3 • 4 y m •a m•= T O t 2 J d G 3 = 3 c G.J 3 p T • `o v 3 ^'� u a A s 3 a 3 a _- G u m V C g 3 ^ V . G a 33 �o.o - G _ T_ = a 0 0 >... _ a j V 7 7 .�E.--8 =. V i v = 3ua.3.-u 70 y o ° m A ^ 3aeA 5 , ' VA ? Gu A � 4o Z - u V ? 2V 3 2 v.:L* o c c = a ? 3 v 1. u o'u„ A 3 2 a 3 1 o x _ o oe= U _ ' 0.. 3 ; 540.11 o _ v o o u $ ° u 3= o.u . aS3 - u ? 3 3 = A p a2. Z i - 3 0 T 8 G. 0.0. u JZ.7' 0-,' y `m n - _ A ° G•=7 = _ O A 3 ` a 6 7 Y u n A .2. _7 S 7 -- a a o a S O A 3 = T aO ° O ` 3 *:3. ` ` 7 4..).C °N G x J ° ° V 2 1. g '3 •P V 3 V J 2 Q . G C • .0 . o . L> '3 . Z 8 O v L n •T C 8. O i 0 o .2 1 m v Z '0 45.E C C t8s st u'3 Cp 1 t 411 s s •. CO y' >,a oma'' Es • eS m u I. U a 3 v e 3 v3 ° bm 'gg C4 a E oo X a a 3 a� o 0 k-3 a.. a . y W u $ a c2 m3 12 � = • • C OC UU 0me . ,t ` : m 'C q °o_ uo u.auqea .2c• 3 e7ao _ E E m.8 m ° p I? t. E a oo s u •• • . - C cad °e °ea 8 8 2 N a >. o ° 8 c rug ° :: my 3 c 11-5 `o o a . Q a fl u m Q' a a= a opt m �eaO- s ii q i •O C O G7 a E m it a v = 53 ... S v ,a ° o o..^ a C 0 3 e •> g2 ,11 CO 'j y '• C t" n m 0 - e a .0 u 9 y m v 2 2P 0 a a O •E a4 E1 X4 u m a •'� T m , .E m A m'3. u` =e" a.Q 1 m S m - 08� aU 2 e = c+ . a 8 '3 = g 8 0 3 0 3 e.s °• Fg a a a EE n J s z 3- E `aa _ii U c .1.2. z41 §-2 O a U�•`•• 3 3 1a -7 a_ = a tri -7_ a o.- " 3 233 w 93749 -. 6; 0 E3 3,3 e30 - e `a ;fqo � n^ 5 - a ° U 3 a ^ TaU 0 F t 7 x L " ^ ° y 00 00 o o _ _ u 0 0 - 3 u - g 3 3 0 5 ma = 3 `° ^ e3R•33e g 'o °,8 = o� 'b >.0 m '7..0 E v u -0 ,2 0 5 5 m o• as o._ v x E y a u.•, g ° `a o0 3 2 x-e 3 = 3 o a u 'o 5 Q a o c 2 0 r _ 3' aau� u _ =U� -§. -,5 2. aaa9gco U ° U 3 s U .1 C e y.E a a u c 3 m u•° E V u U o u -„b y .0 a a U.eo a .3 ° _ v v. 7 . 9•I,s a O S v LI J • . o . `s hi 's ° ti o U ',y a \ . . . y -.4. ea \ \\/\ ; a i i Isf22 . . 2 `e -a% . § � 8 ))) fes . § 30 tel • 3 2 �= 7.� \ • ....t,., \\ � f37 \ f ° $]/"37 } _ . . . . ) 2sI ; \\ ) r)\] e .... .. .... . \ {k .- ƒ!�.0 - a ««/ 2 . ;�2e ) . . . ] £ j )§ ' ƒ SI k\ (f k $ §\)}k ) • * /i8]\ § / k,\ kl - I Q }7 ) -a .=._ !))]e= 111111 1 § (k \ _« i . .41 f]# ƒ. () \ / ki) )\] ƒƒ§ e & - • \\ \ ._ 7 i.± 2 . |. • ) \ in = 2]EE . e ? 3 § \ � = � §)\) } r•3 \H \]9 ;2 | / . • 2i\ 2 ' — ; ; ! - \)§/ • ) \/kk/ ]} s \ \ ¢ ) ƒ}}a _ ) \ }� 0 4 k § e .] . .•§ . @ ) J Q) a , ] \ @ , , P. @ ,2 22 . ] « ) \ \ \\ ) Sa Z }) Item #9 I PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View City Council From: Mounds View Planning Commission Subject: Improving Communications Between City Council and the Commissions Date: October 9, 1996 DRAFT We understand that the City Council is interested in feedback on how communication could be improved between the City Council and City Commissions, prompted by discussions with the Dan Nelson, chairman of the Economic Development Commission at your September 30 work session. Part of this discussion concerned the role and responsibilities of the liaison who is appointed by City Council to each Commission. There was also a list of suggestions made by the Economic dot Development Commission on other ways to improve communications. We have discussed this issue at our October 2 meeting and would like to offer the following comments and recommendations. Role of the Liaison: The Planning Commission feels it is very important that the liaison appointed to the Planning Commission attend our meetings. If it is a question of time, we would recommend that the liaison give first priority to attending the agenda or discussion meetings which occur on the third Wednesday of the month. The work of the Planning Commission is concerned with the future fabric of the cmmuni _,and weJnvest considerable time andihoughtful deliberation on each case presented to us. We feel it is very important that a Council member be present to be aware of the issues explored and points of view expressed, so this information can be conveyed to the remainder of the City Council when a case is before you for decision. Without a Council liaison, we feel the Council may not fully appreciate all aspects of a case and that this understanding is important in making decisions on these matters. At the very least, we want each of the Commissions to be treated the same in the level of commitment given by the liaison to coming to Commission meetings. This commitment has been somewhat uneven, depending on who was serving as the liaison. • Mounds View City Council Communication between Council and Commissions October 4, 1996 Page 2 Other Ideas for Improving Communication: 1. We think that it would be advantageous for a Planning Commissioner to be present at those City Council meetings where a.planning case or variance appeal will be heard. The Planning Commissioner should be invited to offer a summary of the Planning Commission's position on the case as part of the presentation of information to the City Council. The reasons for this suggestion are similar to those discussed above. Our ability to present the Commission's basis for our recommendation would assist the Council in your decision making role, and we would be present to answer questions from City Council about how we arrived at this recommendation. We have been concerned in the past that applicants have sometimes misrepresented what happened at the Planning Commission meeting in their comments to the City Council. 2. We agree that an annual or biannual joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council would aid in the communication of goals and objectives. One of these meetings could include a tour of the city, during which significant development sites could be viewed as well as the physical results of previous Commission and Council decisions. The tour may not be necessary every year and could be planned as development dictates. 4 It has been the Council's practice in the past to hold a discussion of goals and issues each year with the Commissions, and we would urge that this be continued. 3. We see a lot of potential in the idea of joint meetings between the Planning Commission and the Economic Development Commission when a project needs to be reviewed by both bodies. We would like to meet with the EDC to develop this idea further. 4. We would appreciate receiving the minutes from the EDC as a way to stay informed about potential development projects. Sincerely, MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION Jerry Peterson, Chairman • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Subject: Planning Case Nos. 461-96, 462-96, and 463-96 Mounds View Square Date: October 8, 1996 Meeting of October 9, 1996 Issue Mounds View Associates is requesting three types of approval for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center. Their overall proposal involves adding two dinner house style restaurants, expanding retail square footage and improving signage for Mounds View Square. The applications include: • • Case No. 461-96: a conditional use permit to allow joint parking facilities and driveways • Case No. 462-96: a variance request for the size and height of the shopping center identification sign • Case No. 463-96: a variance request in the parking ratios used for the shopping center Staff has prepared two reports to cover these three cases: one report regarding joint parking facilities and driveways, and the variance in parking ratios; and a second report for the variance in sign regulations. These reports are attached. Overview Mounds View Square is located on Highway 10 and is the largest shopping center in the City. It is a critical element in the Highway 10 corridor and to the City's economy. It is important that this shopping center remain healthy. The applicant is proposing a plan for the future expansion of the shopping center, closer to its ultimate configuration. This expansion includes removing the existing Bridgeman's Ice Cream Restaurant and the Hardee's Restaurant, and replacing them with larger dinner house style restaurants. The two existing restaurants occupy 7500 square feet. The proposed restaurants would occupy 12,000 square feet, or an increase of 6300 square feet. The expansion also involves adding approximately 5,000 square feet of retail space next to Mario's Video. Mounds View Planning Commission • Page 2 October 9, 1996 The obvious question raised by this proposal is whether there is sufficient parking on the site. Planning Case Nos. 461-96 and 463-96 are concerned with this issue, and involve a request to use joint parking facilities between the restaurants and the retail uses on the property, and also a request for a variance in parking ratios. The staff report labeled Item#6A concerns these two cases. The sign variance is being requested due to the City's plans to build a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10. The bridge is proposed to be located just north of the Highway 10/Long Lake Road intersection with a circular ramp in the area now occupied by a detention pond at the southeast corner of the Mounds View Square property. The staff report labeled Item#6B reviews and comments on the variance request, Planning Case No. 462-96. Our recommendations are this point are summarized below: Staff Recommendation on Conditional Use Permit: Favorable, allowing for joint use of parking facilities between uses in Mounds View Square such that the number of parking spaces required is 454. Staff Recommendation on Parking Variance: Favorable, with findings as noted above. In • particular, the City's parking ratios create a hardship for shopping centers of this size, and the shopping center contains both nighttime and daytime uses which cause the parking demands to be offset. Staff Recommendation on Sign Variance: Favorable to some adjustment in sign allowances to address the possible visual obstruction created by the construction of the bridge. The discussion session with the Planning Commission, however, will provide a good opportunity to explore some alternatives to the applicant's proposal. The sign needs to better relate to its surroundings, and may not need to be as high as is proposed to gain visibility for the shopping center or may need to be placed-in-abetter location. If a variance were granted, staff is suggesting that it be made contingent on the construction of the bridge and field verification that the bridge has close to the same appearance as is shown in the visual simulation. Staff would also suggest that the sign have a brick base which would tie it to the architecture of the center. •