Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-1996 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 1996 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Review and Approval of Minutes 4. 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 5. Planning Case No.461-96,462-96,and 463-96 2535-2585 Highway 10 Applicant: Paster Enterprises(dba: Mounds View Assoc. LLP) Public Hearing Item: Request for approval of variances in parking ratios,and in sign height and sign area. • Recommendation:Approval of variance in parking ratios; Conditional approval of variance in sign height and sign area. 6. Planning Case No.464-96 2375-2395 Highway 10 Applicant: Saturn Development Public Informational Meeting Item: 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. Recommendation: Approval 7. Staff Reports/Information Items • a. • Planning Case No. 460-96:Auto Central; put on hold by applicant b. Items for Planning Commission Agenda on November 20 c. City Council Actions d. Memorandum to City Council on Improving Communication e. Planning Commissioners Journal 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports • 9. Adjournment * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 UNAPPROVED PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting October 9, 1996 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. Call to Order called to order by Acting Chair Stevenson at 7:03 p.m. on October 9, 1996. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners 2. Roll Call Johnston, Miller, Brooks, Obert, Brasaemle and Acting Chair Stevenson. (Chair Peterson had an excused absence.) • ALSO PRESENT: Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson and Recording Secretary Benesch. • This meeting was called to order to discuss 3. Consideration of Special Project Case No. SP-008-96. Director Resolution No. 474-96 Sheldon began the discussion by explaining Recommending to the this case concerns a request by a property City Council Adoption of owner in Mounds View for an ordinance Ordinance No. 590, amendment. The applicant, Dan Moon, was Amending the Zoning present. Director Sheldon noted that this item Code, Title 1100 had been discussed by the Planning Commission on several occasions. She stated that this item related to setbacks between parking lots that serve churches and other non- residential uses and adjacent residential property. The original request by Mr. Moon was 15 feet; the City's current requirement is 5 feet. Director Sheldon continued by saying that an ordinance had been drafted which not only addressed that issue but additional items as well. She stated that Staff is recommending, based in part by the Planning Commission's UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 9, 1996 Special Meeting Page 2 411 conversation at the last meeting, that the dimensions for the parking lot setbacks be 20 feet for site of 2.5 acres or less and 30 feet for sites over 2.5 acres. She continued by stating that the other major item in the ordinance had to do with site sizes for non-residential uses in residential districts and that Staff is recommending site sizes be increased to one acre. Director Sheldon noted that after Planning Commission's review of the proposed ordinance, Staff is recommending that this ordinance be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval to keep within the 120 day time frame for action on this item. The Planning Commission then reviewed the proposed ordinance and made some minor • changes. Commissioner Miller was concerned with Item (b) on Page two, noting that there are usually two side yards, and (b) says not less than 30 feet from the lot line if the lot if on the corner. Commission Miller inquired if we needed to identify what side yard we are taking about? Director Sheldon noted that (b) does refer back to the chart, but that it is the same side yard that abuts the street. The Planning Commission discussed minimum setbacks for accessory structures such as sheds, fences and garbage enclosures on through lots in residential districts and it was a consensus that the City would, for the time being, continue with its current practice of not requiring them to have a front yard setback off the street in the rear of the lot. They were also concerned if the ordinance was changed to the thirty foot setback, would the existing structures in Mounds View be considered legal non- • conforming uses? They also discussed accessory buildings in non-residential districts. UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting October 9, 1996 Page 3 The ordinance proposes prohibiting accessory buildings in front of the principal building and a ten foot minimum from the rear property line for building of 864 square feet or less. The Planning Commission directed that the size of the building be reduced to 400 square feet. It was decided, under Parking Areas, to place the R-1 and R-2 districts separate from the remaining residential districts. Commissioner Miller noted on Page three, item (b), should read, of five feet (5') from any eil lot lines...". Director Sheldon went on to Page 4 noting that the only correction is adding the 15 foot parking setback from the street in all zoning districts 111, over B-1 and it was noted that there would be several non-conforming uses with the proposed 15 foot setback. The Planning Commission decided to remove this addition from the proposed ordinance. It was also discussed whether this setback should be added if it is a parking lot for a multiple family building (currently there is a five foot setback). The Commissioners were concerned with some of the fourplexes located in the City that would be in non-compliance. It was decided that they would leave it at 5 feet for now and may address this issue at a later time. On Page 6, in the table, R-3 Townhouses, was moved down to be included with the R-4 section. It was also discussed whether or not to add"twin home" to the section with duplexes. On Pages 7 and 8, in Section 6, minimum lot area of not less than one acres was added for non-residential uses as conditional uses in certain districts of not less than one acre was added. UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 9, 1996page 4 Special Meeting 410 Page 9, Section 11, concerns parking areas for - - non-residential uses. Director Sheldon noted that this is the section where they are trying to work out something for the non-conforming parking lots and would like residents to be able to use their existing parking lots unless when they go to remove the driveway or reconstruct it, if they can move the driveway to meet the new requirement and not lose their required parking, they would need to do so. Some corrections were noted to the proposed resolution as follows: on Page 1, the second to last line met should read "meet", the paragraph above that should end with an ";and" and in the 4th whereas replace the word "improvements" with "changes". Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve • Resolution No. 474-96 recommending to the City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 590, an ordinance amending the Mounds View Zoning Code, Title 1100, as amended. It was also noted that the wording, "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be forwarded to the City Council prior to approval • _ __• - " e- , 111•-• Commissioner Johnston inquired as to how Ms. Sheldon came up with the 2-1/2 acre figure for lot area and Director Sheldon replied that it was based on the City's existing church sites. 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There being no further business before the 4. Adjournment Planning Commission, Acting Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. 411 UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 9, 1996 41111 Special Meeting Page 5 Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director Item #5A • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: November 6, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case 461-96, 463-96 File No.: Request: The original request from the applicant, Mounds View Assoc. LLP, was for a conditional use permit for the joint use of parking facilities and driveways as is allowed by Section 1121.15 of the Zoning Code, and for a variance in the required parking ratios for the Mounds View Shopping Center. After the Planning • Commission's meeting on October 9, 1996, the applicant is now requesting a variance in the required parking ratios only, and the request for joint use of parking facilities has been dropped. 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 Background: This report serves as a supplement to the staff report prepared for your October 9, 1996 meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission indicated that their preferred way of handling the parking situation at Mounds View Square was through a variance in the parking ratios. This report has been prepared based on that direction. (A copy of the previous staff report will be available at your November 6 meeting for the Planning Commission's reference.) • As is noted in our earlier staff report, the applicant is proposing to add 5,000 additional Planning Commission • Case No. 461-96:Mounds View Square November 6, 1996 Page 2 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 on site when compared with the gross square footage in the shopping center, provides a ratio of one space per 246 square feet or 4.06 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of shopping center. Analysis! Recommendation: Our previous report calculated the parking requirements for Mounds View Square using several different methods and ratios for retail square footage and restaurants. The current proposal is to work from the existing base of 477 parking spaces as the requirement for the existing square footage in the shopping center. The square footage includes the . following: Existing Existing+Expansion Use Square Footage Square Footage Retail: 62,005 66,005 (+4,000) Storage: 16,645 17,645 (+1,000) Dining: 8,050 11,290(+3240 net) Kitchen: 6,060 7,320 (+1260 net) Mall/Maintenance/Restrooms 9,275 9,275 Total 102,035 111,535 The expansion of the shopping center would remove 4,800 square feet in dining space and 2,700 square feet in kitchen space, and add 4,000 square feet in retail, 1,000 square feet in storage, 8,040 square feet in dining, and 3,960 square feet in kitchen space. The total square footage in the center with the changes and additions would 111,535 square feet. The addition of building square footage would remove parking spaces so the total on the site would be reduced from 477 to 454. The applicant is requesting a variance in the parking ratio used for retail space, from 10 parking spaces per 1000 square feet to 4.5 per 1000 square feet, and in the ratios for restaurants. The current ratio required for restaurants is 1 parking space per 40 square feet of dining area, and 1 space per 80 square feet of kitchen area. The proposed ratio is 1 space per 80 square feet for both dining and kitchen space for dinner house type restaurants, and the current ratio for fast food restaurants. No parking would be required • Planning Commission Case No. 461-96: Mounds View Square November 6, 1996 Page 3 for square footage in storage areas, maintenance, restrooms, or the mall space. If these ratios are applied to the square footage being removed and being added, a total of 492 spaces would be required as follows: Base 477 spaces Retail +4,000 sq.ft. x 4.5/1000 sq.ft.= +18 Storage +1,000 sq.ft. N/A Dining -4,800 sq.ft. in fast food x 1/40 sq.ft. = -120 +8040 in dinner house x 1/80 sq.ft. = +101 Kitchen -2700 sq.ft. in fast food x 1/80 sq.ft.= - 34 +3960 sq.ft. in dinner house x 1/80 sq.ft. = + 50 492 The difference between the number of parking spaces remaining on the site (454) and the number required by these ratios(492) is 38 spaces. The staff report for your October 9 meeting showed that the number required was 457 spaces, which meant the difference was three spaces. However, we discovered a mathematical error in our calculations. The square footage in kitchen area for Hardee's and Bridgeman's which was being • deducted was overstated and so the difference was lower in the October 9 report The direction from the Planning Commission at that meeting was to add the three spaces by restriping a portion of the parking lot and using compact spaces. Fifty one spaces would have to be converted from standard to compact size to gain three compact spaces. There is a limit of 10% on the number of spaces which can be compact size. The 54 compact spaces would exceed this limit. Therefore, even if the difference were only three spaces, restriping to compact size would not gain the three spaces needed. The number of spaces needed, based on the ratios, however, is 492 spaces. Staff has concluded that it is still necessary to consider both the variance in parking ratios and the conditional use permit for joint use of parking in determining if 454 parking spaces is sufficient for this site. Variance in Parking Ratios (Planning Case No. 463-96) The criteria for granting of variances are stated in Section 1125.02 Subd. 2. Staff has prepared a resolution recommending approval of the variance in parking ratios, and has included findings of fact which the Planning Commission may want to consider. (Please see attached resolution.) Staff Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution allowing a variance in the • parking ratios applicable to Mounds View Square Shopping Center. Planning Commission • Case No. 461-96: Mounds View Square November 6, 1996 Page 4 Conditional Use Permit (Planning Case No. 461-96) Section 1121.15 allows parking requirements to be adjusted, wit 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 up to 50% of the off-street parking facilities needed for nighttime . and Sunday uses to be provided by the parking provided for daytime uses, and up to 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 which would be approved under the variance requested by the applicant. These calculations are shown in the chart below. The chart shows that an 8% reduction in parking for daytime and for nighttime uses would result in the requirement being 454 spaces as is proposed by the applicant. • • Planning Commission Case No. 461-96:Mounds View Square November 6, 1996 Page 5 Parking Required Using Parking Ratios (as per Variance Application) Parking from Parking from Total Daytime Uses Nighttime Uses #of Spaces 297(52%) 274(48%) 571 (100%) Required (from scratch) #of Spaces 256(52%) 236(48%) 492(100%) Required (using 477 as base,and 492 as cap #of Spaces 128 128 256 Required if Maximum Reduction Allowed (50%) • By what percentage does total 8% required(492)need to be reduced to 256 x.08=21 reach#proposed to be provided by 236 x.08= 18 applicant: 454 spaces Total =39 Reduction needed=38 spaces The criteria for granting of conditional use permits for joint use of parking are stated in Section 1125.02 Subd. 2. Staff has prepared a resolution recommending approval of this conditional use permit, and has included findings of fact which the Planning Commission may want to consider. (Please see attached resolution.) The Planning Commission's action on the conditional use permit would be a recommendation to City Council, and the case would be forwarded to them for action. Staff Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for joint use of parking for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center. cc: John Streeter, Paster Enterprises, 2227 University Avenue, St. Paul MN 551141677 FAX: 646-1389 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION . RESOLUTION NO. 485-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST IN THE PARKING RATIOS APPLICABLE TO THE MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER AT 2535-2585 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 463-96. WHEREAS, Mounds View Square Assoc. LLP has applied for a variance in the parking ratios applicable to the Mounds View Square Shopping Center at 2535-2585 Highway 10, which property is described as follows: Part lying northeasterly of the centerline of State Trunk Highway 10 of NE 1/4 of N 1/4 (Subject to Roads and Highways) in Section 7, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Square Shopping Center is located in the B-3 zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the site plan for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center was approved in • 1989 which the provision of 503 parking spaces; and, WHEREAS, the property owner obtained approval of a variance in parking requirements to allow the use of 26 parking spaces for construction of trash dumpster enclosures, which resulted in the reduction of parking on the site from 503 to 477 spaces; and, WHEREAS, the City has determined by previous decisions that the 477 parking spaces are sufficient to provide parking for the square footages and uses approved for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center; and, WHEREAS, the property owner is proposing to make the following changes in square footages and uses on the site at some time in the future: Existing Existing+Expansion Use Square Footage Square Footage Retail: 62,005 66,005 (+4,000) Storage: 16,645 17,645 (+1,000) Dining: 8,050 11,290(+3240 net) Kitchen: 6,060 7,320 (+1260 net) Mall/Maintenance/Restrooms 9,275 9,275 Total 102,035 111,535 . . Planning Commission Resolution No. 485-96 November 6, 1996 Page 2 WHEREAS, the change in the square footages result from the removal of the Hardee's and Bridgeman's Restaurants (4,800 sq.ft. in dining and 2,700 sq.ft. in kitchen) and the addition of two larger dinner house style restaurants, and the addition of 4,000 square feet of retail space and 1,000 square feet of storage space in the main retail building; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Mounds View Square Assoc. LLP to allow a variance in the parking ratios applicable to the Mounds View Square Shopping Center, as follows: Retail Space 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet Dinner House Style Restaurants 1 space per 80 square feet of dining or kitchen area Storage,Etc no parking requirement for areas in storage,maintenance, restrooms or the enclosed mall area WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact regarding the requirements for granting of variances as set forth in Section 1125.02 Subd. 2 of the Mounds View Zoning Code: • 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 other 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 '. . - •. ' S. '. • J '. . 1 .. - .- 111 . _ .. '. . .- ... .g 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 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 dinner house • restaurants are one space for every 80 square feet of gross square footage, to recognize the slower turnover of customers. Planning Commission Resolution No. 485-96 • November 6, 1996 Page 3 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 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 ill Planning Commission Resolution No. 485-96 November 6, 1996 Page 4 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. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the criteria for granting of a variance in this case have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby approve a variance in the parking ratios applicable to the Mounds View Square Shopping Center as follows: 1. The parking ratios applicable to the addition and deletion of square footage proposed by the applicant in Planning Case No. 461-96 and 463-96, and as shown in#2 below, shall be as follows: Retail Space 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet Dinner House Style Restaurants 1 space per 80 square feet of dining or kitchen area • Storage,.Etc no parking requirement for areas in storage,maintenance, restrooms or the enclosed mall area 2. The existing 477 parking spaces on the property are deemed adequate to serve the square footage and uses in place as of this date, which include the following: Existing Existing+Expansion Use Square Footage Square Footage Retail: 62,005 66,005 (+4,000) Storage: 16,645 17,645 (+1,000) Dining: 8,050 11,290(+3240 net) Kitchen: 6,060 7,320 (+1260 net) Mall/Maintenance/Restrooms 9,275 9,275 Total 102,035 111,535 i Planning Commission Resolution No.485-96 • November 6, 1996 Page 5 3. Prior to issuance of any building permits for changes in square footage at the Mounds View Square Shopping Center, other than interior remodeling, the property owner shall obtain approval for development review as provided in Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Adopted this 6th day of November, 1996. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director • i . MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 486-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE JOINT USE OF PARKING FACILITIES AT MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER AT 2535-2585 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 461-96. WHEREAS, Mounds View Square Assoc. LLP has applied for a conditional use permit to allow joint use of parking facilities at Mounds View Square Shopping Center at 25352585 Highway 10, which property is described as follows: Part lying northeasterly of the centerline of State Trunk Highway 10 of NE 1/4 of N 1/4 (Subject to Roads and Highways) in Section 7, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Square Shopping Center is located in the B-3 zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the site plan for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center was approved in • 1989 which the provision of 503 parking spaces; and, WHEREAS, the property owner obtained approval of a variance in parking requirements to allow the use of 26 parking spaces for construction of trash dumpster enclosures, which resulted in the reduction of parking on the site from 503 to 477 spaces; and, WHEREAS, the City has determined by previous decisions that the 477 parking spaces are sufficient to provide parking for the square footages and uses approved for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center; and, • ■ footages and uses on the site at some time in the future: Existing Existing+Expansion Use Square Footage Square Footage Retail: 62,005 66,005 (+4,000) Storage: 16,645 17,645 (+1,000) Dining: 8,050 11,290(+3240 net) Kitchen: 6,060 7,320 (+1260 net) Mall/Maintenance/Restrooms 9,275 9,275 Total 102,035 111,535 Planning Commission Resolution No. 486-96 • November 6, 1996 Page 2 WHEREAS, the changes in square footages result from the removal of the Hardee's and Bridgeman's Restaurants (4,800 sq.ft. in dining and 2,700 sq.ft. in kitchen) and the addition of two larger dinner house style restaurants, and the addition of 4,000 square feet of retail space and 1,000 square feet of storage space in the main retail building; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that a variance be granted in the parking ratios applicable to this property such that the parking required for the expanded shopping center would be 492 spaces; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows for a conditional use permit to be granted for joint use of parking where there are offsetting daytime and nighttime uses; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact regarding the requirements for granting of a conditional use permit for joint use of parking as set forth in Section 1121.15 of the Mounds View Zoning Code: (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. 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. A condition has been included in this recommendation of approval that 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. • Planning Commission Resolution No. 486-96 November 6, 1996 Page 3 (c) A properly drawn legal instrument,executed by the parties concerned for joint use of off- street ffstreet 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. A condition has been included in this recommendation of approval 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. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the criteria for granting of a conditional use permit for joint use of parking have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Mounds View City Council approval of a conditional use permit for joint use of parking for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center with the following conditions: 1. The parking ratios applicable to the addition and deletion of square footage proposed by 1110 the applicant in Planning Case No. 461-96 and 463-96, and as shown in#2 below, shall be as follows: Retail Space 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet Dinner House Style Restaurants 1 space per 80 square feet of dining or kitchen area Storage,Etc no parking requirement for areas in storage,maintenance, restrooms or the enclosed mall area 2. The existing 477 parking spaces on the property are deemed adequate to serve the square footage and uses in place as of this date, which include the following: Existing Existing+Expansion Use Square Footage Square Footage Retail: 62,005 66,005 (+4,000) Storage: 16,645 17,645 (+1,000) Dining: 8,050 11,290(+3240 net) Kitchen: 6,060 7,320 (+1260 net) Ma1UMaintenance/Restrooms 9,275 9,275 Total 102,035 111,535 1110 Planning Commission Resolution No. 486-96 • November 6, 1996 Page 4 3. Prior to issuance of any building permits for changes in square footage at the Mounds View Square Shopping Center, other than interior remodeling, the property owner shall obtain approval for development review as provided in Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. 4. The reduction in parking spaces required shall be from 492 spaces to 454 spaces or 38 spaces, which represents an 8% reduction in the parking requirement each for daytime uses (256 x .08 =21) and for nighttime uses (236 x .08 = 18). 5. The property owner shall require of its tenants that employees park in the parking spaces behind the main retail building to the extent parking is available, to assure that the maximum parking is available for customers. The property owner shall supply a copy of a notice to the tenants of this requirement. 6. The property owner shall submit a joint parking and access easement, allowing for use of the parking area and access drives by all of the tenants in the shopping center, for approval by the Community Development Director. The easement shall be recorded against the property for the benefit of all tenants concurrent with any development reviews being approved and prior to any building permits being issued for the proposed expansion or the dinner house restaurants. 7. The granting of the conditional use permit is contingent upon the granting of a variance in the parking ratios applicable to the Mounds View Square Shopping Center(Planning Case No. 463-96.) This conditional use permit shall be deemed null and void, and the applicant must request reconsideration of a request for joint use of parking, if the variance in parking ratios is not approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of November, 1996. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Pamela Sheldon • Community Development Director Item #5B • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: November 6, 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 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. 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 the shopping center which might be created by the bridge. Staff suggested to the applicant that they apply for a variance based on a visual simulation of the bridge and its relation to the shopping center identification sign. The applicant has provided a photograph showing the bridge as it would appear from Highway 10 southeast of the intersection with Long Lake Road. This photograph showed that the existing Mounds View Square pylon sign would be obscured. At your meeting on • Planning Commission • Planning Case No. 462-96: Mounds View Square Shopping Center November 6, 1996 Page 2 October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission requested more information on how the proposed pedestrian bridge would affect the sight lines from Highway 10 to the shopping center. This report serves as a supplement to the staff report prepared for your October 9, 1996 meeting. (A copy of the previous staff report will be available at your November 6 meeting for the Planning Commission's reference.) Analysis/ Recommendation: Staff has obtained a diagram of the sight lines from the City Engineer. The City Engineer has estimated that 10 sections are needed for a motorist to see the shopping center pylon sign and react in sufficient time to turn at the Mounds View Square, based on the 50 m.p.h.. speed limit on Highway 10. In this amount of time, the car will travel 765 feet. This distance was measured from the intersection of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road, which puts the car at 919 feet from the base of the bridge and approximately 1550 feet from the proposed location of the sign. At this distance, the bridge appears to be 52 feet • high from the ground to the top of the railing, given the angle of view. (A copy of the City Engineer's study will be available at your meeting.) The applicant's original proposal was for a sign 75 feet in height and having a sign area of 800 square feet. At this height, 23 feet will show above the bridge. The panel identifying the center would be visible but not the tenant names. Staff would note that most of the traffic passing Mounds View Square is commute traffic so motorists would see the tenant names when traveling east. The applicant is concerned, however, with both the actual and perceived obstruction created by the bridge for visibility of the center, and how it may affect their ability to lease space. Keeping the shopping center leased is in the best interests of both the applicant and the City. Staff has toured four of the other centers owned by the applicant to look at signage, and took pictures which will be available at the meeting. We asked the applicant for the measurements of the signs for Mendota Plaza, Crystal Center and Northway Center which are as follows: Shopping Center Sign Height Sign Area Mendota Plaza 50 feet 430 sq.ft. Crystal Center 36 feet 7 inches 297 sq.ft. Northway Center 36 feet 301 sq.ft. • 41, Planning Commission Planning Case No.462-96: Mounds View Square Shopping Center November 6, 1996 Page 3 The staff also observed that there are monument style signs at driveway entrances in the Crystal Center with the name of the shopping center. Such signage would provide a visual indicator at eye level for motorists driving on Highway 10 where to turn to enter the shopping center. An opportunity may also exist at the corner of Long Lake Road and Highway 10 for a monument style sign to be built at the base of the ramp for the bridge, stating the name of the shopping center. Such a sign would be visible before motorists pass under the bridge and before reaching the driveway entrances, giving them time to prepare to turn. After discussion with the applicant, they want to modify the signage package they are proposing to the following: • monument signage at the driveway entrances on Highway 10 and at the corner of Long Lake Road and Highway 10, similar to those used in the Crystal Center • a pylon sign having the same height and sign area as the sign for Mendota Plaza i.e. 50 feet in height and 430 square feet in area • Staff does not have dimensions for the monument signage in the Crystal Center. Analysis/ Recommendation: The City Sign Code allows a pylon sign which is 35 feet in height and 340 square feet in area. The applicant's proposal exceeds these allows by 15 feet in height and 90 square feet in area. The signs at the Crystal Center and Northway Center are closer to the Mounds View ordinance in height, and within the Code requirements on sign area. If h- .r... -• • 1.n i• i reduced in hei•ht from 75 feet to 50 feet it will no lon•er show above the bridge from the vantage point used in the City Engineer's calculations (1550 feet to the east). Staff does not see a justification for a variance to allow the increased height and size of the sign based on the bridge. Staff feels there is a justification for the monument signage at the corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road, and at the driveway entrances based on the bridge. Staff also feels that there is a need to revise the City's Sign Code as it relates to larger sized shopping centers such as Mounds View Square. One approach would be to revise the type, sizes and heights of signs allowed to recognize the need for a center identification sign, entry monuments, tenant signage, signs for freestanding businesses (such as restaurants) and directional signs. The size of the center identification sign could relate to the square footage on the site or the site size. When a site is larger, it is able to absorb a larger sized sign and still be attractive and pleasant. Planning Commission 110 Planning Case No. 462-96: Mounds View Square Shopping Center November 6, 1996 Page 4 Another approach is to allow the approval of sign programs for larger-scale shopping centers such as Mounds View Square. Staff is familiar with this approach from other cities. The Sign Code would allow for shopping centers of a certain size to file a customized set of sign regulations, which would show the location and dimensions of all of the signage proposed, the design theme, and the colors and letter styles proposed. The usual regulations for the zoning districts are used as a reference point for evaluating the sign program, but not as requirements. Sign programs allow flexibility as long as the overall design approach and amount of signage is acceptable to the City. In some cities, such sign programs are approved by the Planning Commission; in others, sign programs are reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. The applicant feels that the sign package they are proposing will address the impact of the bridge. Both staff and the applicant agree that the 50 foot sign now proposed is preferable to the 75 foot sign proposed earlier. As noted above, however, staff is concerned about the justification for a variance for the pylon sign but not the monument signs. The applicant is trying to address the impact of the bridge on the perceived desirability of the shopping center for tenants, and to offer better signage as an antidote. Staff does not see how the City could tell Silver Lake Plaza that their signage must be no higher than 35 feet, • and no larger than 340 feet high, if across the street, Mounds View Square is given a variance for a sign 50 feet in height and 430 square feet, when the sign will not be seen above the bridge. We feel the best way to address the pylon sign is either: • reducing it to fit within the City's current regulations (and closer to the size of the signs at the Crystal Center and Northway Center, or • amend the Sign Code to change the amount of signage allowed for larger-sized shopping centers • amend the Sign Code to allow for sign programs Staff Recommendation: We recommend that this item be discussed at your November 6 meeting, but a decision be deferred until your November 20 meeting. We need more information from the applicant on the following: 1. A specific proposal for Mounds View Square Shopping Center showing the dimensions of the pylon sign and the monument signage at the driveway entrances and on the corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road. • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 462-96: Mounds View Square Shopping Center November 6, 1996 Page 5 2. Input as to the applicant's willingness to reduce the pylon sign to fit within the City's current allowances (35 feet in height and 340 square feet in area) We need to know from the Planning Commission if you are receptive to amending the Sign Code as we have suggested in this report, and/or to approving a variance for the monument signage at the driveway entrances and at the corner of Long Lake Road and Highway 10. Finally, one other option the Planning Commission could consider is granting a variance for the 75 foot sign, based on the City Engineer's study, but placing conditions on the variance that it cannot be used until both of the following occur: 1. The bridge is approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for construction, and the bridge is under construction. 2. The applicant affords the City a period of at least six months in which to consider 1111 and adopt an amendment to the Sign Code to address signage for larger sized shopping centers. If the amendment would allow a center identification sign of at least 400 square feet in area and 45 feet in height, the variance allowing for a 75 foot sign having an area of 800 square feet would become null and void. Without this additional information, staff is not prepared to make a recommendation. cc: John Streeter, Paster Enterprises, 2227 University Avenue, St. Paul MN 55114-1677 FAX: 646-1389 • Item #6 111 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: November 6, 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. Chapter 1006 requires approval of a development review for any construction project other than two single family detached homes on improved lots. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Letter from Coyle, Gilman& Stengle RE: permission from property owner for application to be filed Resolution 4195: Approval of CUP for Saturn 2/24/92 Resolution 4611: Approval of parking lot expansion 8/8/94 Resolution 483-96: Recommending Approval for Amended CUP and Development Review Blueline Package: - Site Plan - Landscape Plan i Planning Commission • Planning Case No. 464-96:2375 Highway 10 November 6, 1996 Page 2 Background: This report serves as a supplement to the staff report prepared for your October 9, 1996 meeting. At that meeting, it was clarified that the amendment to the conditional use permit pertains only to the land at 2395 Highway 10 being added to the Saturn site, and therefore the criteria regarding the square footage in building area in comparison to the square footage in outdoor storage for inventory should be applied to that portion of the site. It was also clarified how the requirement for 10% of the site in landscaped greenspace is calculated. These issues are discussed below. (A copy of the previous staff report will be available at your November 6 meeting for the Planning Commission's reference. The applicant has prepared a revised site plan and landscaping plan which show an additional monument sign on County Road H, and clarifies the dimensions of the three monument signs on the site. A notice has been sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the site advertising this meeting as a public information meeting on the application. A public hearing will be held • on this item when it is considered by the City Council. The tentative date for the City Council hearing is November 25. Analysis/ Recommendation Building and Site Design; Landscaping Section 1114.04, Subd. 8.1. requires"a minimum 10% of the property, excluding setback requirements, is required for landscaped gr- - s .. - - . . 1 _ . . a ._.. . . shrubbery shall require approval of the Planning Commission based upon a recommendation of City Forester. Our staff report for your October 9, 1996 meeting raised a question whether the Saturn proposal met this criteria. It was clarified at the meeting that the 10% requirement is to be applied to the land area in the site minus the land area in the required setbacks. The total site contains 3.276 acres or 142,703 square feet. The area in the required setbacks is 38,250 square feet. The net area to be used in calculating the 10% requirement is 104,453 square feet; 10% equals 10,445 square feet. The applicant is proposing to provide 33,606 square feet in landscaped greenspace, which is more than three times the requirement. This requirement is met. • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 464-96: 2375 Highway 10 November 6, 1996 Page 3 Signage The existing signage includes the following: • existing pylon 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 two additional monument signs: one at the northernmost driveway on Highway 10 and one at the easternmost driveway on County Road H2. Both of these signs would have the same dimensions as the existing monument sign on Highway 10 (42.7 square feet). The applicant's reason for the additional signage is to better identify driveway entrances and direct customer traffic. The total signage on the site including the new signage would be: • existing pylon 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. • two new ground mounted 8' 6-1/2" x 5'= 85.4 sq.ft. • miscellaneous small directional signs Total Signage= 278.9 sq. ft. Total Permitted = 100 sq. ft. of signage per tenant; 340 sq. ft. pylon sign=440 sq.ft. The signage on the site is well within the total signage area allowed. Square footage has been redistributed to the monument signs from the allowances for tenant and pylon signs. Staff feels that this approach is acceptable and makes the signage package more functional. Staff also feels that this redistribution requires approval of a variance which would have to be scheduled for the Planning Commission's December 4 meeting, due to notice requirements: I Planning Commission • Planning Case No. 464-96: 2375 Highway 10 November 6, 1996 Page 4 Miscellaneous. The applicant has provided the following additional items requested at your last 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 Items still needed include: 3. Comments from the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District (staff to do referral) 4. Provide copy of map dated 2/19/92 showing test drive routes. 5. Show three handicapped parking spaces, and convert two inventory spaces to customer spaces, to comply with parking requirements. 6. Add note to plans that customer and employee parking will be clearly marked and kept free of use for inventory. 7. Provide detail on plan as to how trash enclosure will be constructed. Show S concrete pad. These items have been addressed in the attached resolution recommending approval. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the attached Resolution No. 483-96 recommending approval of the amended conditional use permit and development review for the expansion of the Saturn dealership. cc: Jim Price, Saturn Development, P.O. Box 10813, White Bear-Lake, MN 55110;_FAX 790-9416 Darwin Lindahl, Darwin Lindahl Architects, P.A. 5701 Shingle Creek Parkway, Suite #130, Minneapolis, MN 55430; FAX 560-0441 Francis J. Coyle, Jr., Coyle, Gilman& Stengel, 305 First of America Bank Building, 100 Seventeenth Street, Rock Island, IL 61201; FAX 788-0480 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW . 0 . PLANNING APPLICATION APPLICANT: -lruic + .) .v,e..Ar¢ •4:, p e �'�" Phone 7 5 -3S g t4 ill ADDRESS: 34 ov Q i I1 a.., L I (k31 n r- .(1\(.0., �i1� SS( ( Street Address, City, Stat, and Zip Code Interest in Property (check appropriate box): _ - • . . ❑ Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner -- - ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager Agreement to Purchase - - ❑ Other (explain) .- Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final City action of this request • PROPERTY INVOLVED: Address/General Location a 3 7 S iri 1 LOch I 0 _ . _ -- - Legal Description or Property Identification Number Legal Owner: Name/Address (3 • C .43 2y:-.) t I 112 Stree..-1- -7c1cV --r .) i 1 L; C_ _ , too Present Use (check appropriate box): - - - UndevelopedNacant __ - -:- ❑ ' Single Family Dwelling 0 ..... Duplex/Two Family Dwelling..,.__r. -------- - Multi-Family (No. of Units ) Business/Commercial Establishment - ❑ - • Industrial Establishment '... --. - . ❑ Other (explain) -- _Property Cass i cation: [ Abstract 0 Torrens RE�DUE3T: • • . ., , ' ra V.► Al . ' • . r, • Q 0- .. r♦ T s e � e CalOce 1 r - rt it c_.-7e....1 *Pleas note: Applicant may be responsible for acsitional fees associates with the revi of this request. • I HERE3Y DECLARE THAT Ti-;E ABOVE STA i i M1ENT ARE MU •"S ..;�= xY !' w_ Y7.,,....f.Yat.:l......m______________ �]f...-.i. - a .,*....__+.*:!:lZ; Rezoning S200/acre.minimum S200.maximum$1,000 Park - ._• _-.;on Fee Variance R-1 ti R-2-575.aril others=00 Date Paid Conditional Use Permit rR-i to R-2-S75.aA others$200 Receipt Number Code Appeal S•;5 Oeveiop.isite Plan Review S100/acre.minimum 100.maximum $500 Total Fees Paid Minor Subdivision 5150 r�Gb,C C Oats Paid vi. Maior Subdivision S250 pias$250 deoosrt Receipt Number0 oVfC.mo. Plan Amendment $200 " Wetland Alteration Permit $50 plus deposrt determined by Staff Additional Fee Paid Wetland Surfer Permit SI 0 Cate Paid Panning Sign S50 i )� PUO Receipt Number PUO Amendment S150 Oar.of 5nal aeon APPROVED R DENIED 77 TAELM Oats /0- 7-96, Planning Case No. y-q(.P Admin.Act~urn No. 'VI / - 4166E--,: 61•' 7539 7644 5485 5486 5485 o�uu 7651 5480 5479 _ 76 764•p 763 7630 5474 5473 58458 5475 5478 :4457: • 7655 ._ O 7643 - 7625762 7641 w ,..., ,� R-4 5468 5467 5464 46 i4�i�1�J�:\4/C U D 5463 . B6 '�a / v �O 761 7610 5462 m m w 7595 7594` 7631 U N 3 5445 55554544:24066 454 5455 N® ped JTs, 5453 F 1�? n r 7581 7580 7531 u�� 5446 5447 ���'� ,_{j 5447 N 8-3 v m o m 7565 7564 c c 5440 5441 �� 34 n 5�' N N N N 7551 755C 7521 g .4. 4 5434 5433 s 54 8E� ti 111, v 7535 753a 5426 5425 >�a 5425 7521 7520 7511 5420 5421 542• 5419r N . 7501 5401 5414 5415 5414 N 19181 N N COV N 5413 n 7505 7504 5406 5405 5406 N N N I N I N I N 5405 N I C ..5. PF BRONSON DRIVE CITY HALL 5394 5395 Z N N N N N N N N n N °J n 33 m 5392 Ems 5386 5387 O " N N N 5386 LEM5380 5381'1 — 538C tike ® 53721 5373 5372 lit �� X66/ 5367 5364 I ea •YQ " !� 5359 5368 5357 I 5358 ttpuril 5353 u'ni v � r'�i r N � o o �_ �_ 5358 5354 N N N N N N N N N 5345 N N N N N N N N N N N 5344 LAMBERT AVE 5337 7 o N v m N o o m U 533E \ ��, LAMBERT N N N N �, N N N Z J \ �lir � 5331 N N N N N N N N N N Z 5330 �+�4�4ittp 5323 Z4 PARK v 5324 5317 PF 531E 5309 530E 4410:4,./0'5299 '.kanditi21.... ��5y"p9 r ' 53"2 5308 � 5295 1 n m - n 0 o n 0 o. n ,n a - ,n 529L m r n 0 0 n N N ..a o. 0 m8_ ZN N N N N N N N N N N N 5291 5287 • N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 525E R-2 8- C k` '01 w N Nngig N N N N N N • N - M - H N 5275 5260 5297 ry41 '9 . EOM 5287 8-3 ± rt. j 5250 525' 5250® 5260 5277® 111111111\ n 529215309 1131222 Mil=° o F "3n : PI nnm n 529015299 111" airw • N 04 Y CLEARVIEW N N AVE 5284 5289 5280 �1 . c 522 4 N N o c c m o N n 5270 5279 527• �& N _ +- Fyr4,,� n o n r n N •�v :• 260 . WOOOAL!_ _ N I N N N N N N 5260 5269 525 522 T� t . ry' N n 121 m '21 A n1 P. 52501 5259 525q 525• cN 52C le - N N N N N N N N 5244 5249,;524015249 •M 5240 5209 Ny. LANE523015235 523G5239limm 5230 523• V N Ji o If.r. o-N ,c Z Z IN o z n n m iA v n N W 5,2 `N` N N I N I 521.. N I N I N 1 N N N N W 522015229 it 522d 5 z w3 522a 5z2' EC �`.• 1 Q 52061 5207cam n n 5210(5219° 52101!521• 52101521-2521• ,1h 520q _ _ 5201 N N 1 n N I N N N I NI N O 52001 5209 5200 52051 520015209 5200 rt. ^�'i 515C 5:441 ;.: • :;:: 515; W000ALE DR Wm. 5138.1.:-:x;::.= :•: 5149 515015155 o18m1 Al 184 °o°� O � ' f—�:::_�:::::'.:: T N� E NNN N N 51321 ;` ': 5141 • NNN N N 51261 :::::•:-:.:-.:.:::.:-:-:-.3:•:•:•:-: ; S1 SiBsd 517015176 EDGEWOOD titi`97 5133 5140 5175 Cr 51601 5169 Try` t • 51201 ::=�: ``::: JR. HIGH Z St25 w 513615165 5150 5159 0 511 : : .=: .: 5117a 512815155 SCHOOL -, 51081 ':^:: .. l 5109 z • 51401 5149 • n: -: „1 O 51201 5145 51301 5139 1 � NI o PUD :IIL• Nt N1 N N 3101 — 510ti5135 ' ^ OR ` 510CI 5101 8 I 50921 n = o I o 50901 5091 3 • 5093 5090+` v a ++J SQ8 N N N 5080 50750 Z 5080-15081 5100 .63 I 5071 m 50701 5071 8-3 50745070 5071 1 5069 506015061 = 1.‘ 5064 50601 5067 50544 I 506815061 505015051 5066+5051 504015041 504n r N n 50641 < 503015031 • a 1- N 04 n ;m n ../PL - n _ Vicinity Map: 464-96 _ 2375-2395 Highway 10 CRP • Applicant: Saturn Development LAW OFFICES OF COYLE, GILMAN & STENGEL AN ASSOCIATION OF A PARTNERSHIP ANO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 305 FIRST OF AMERICA BANK BUILDING 100 SEVENTEENTH STREET FRANCIS J.COYLE(1899-1987) ROCK ISLAND,ILLINOIS 61201-8781 AREA CODE 309 SAMUEL M.GILMAN, P.C. TELEPHONE 788-0471 FRANCIS J.COYLE,JR.' FACSIMILE 788-0480 WILLIAM R.STENGEL,JR.' MICHELE R. MCCANN' October 7, 1996 'ALSO AOMITTEO TO PRACTICE IN IOWA VIA FACSIMILE (612) 784-3462 Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director City of Mound View 2401 Highway 10 Mound View, MN 55112 Dear Ms . Sheldon: Per our conversation of this date, our firm represents Q.C. Energy II, L. C. which is currently occupied by CITGO outlet in Mound View, Minnesota. Q.C. Energy II, L. C. has entered into a Sales Agreement with Saturn Development Company, LLC as purchaser of subject real estate. Saturn Development Company has Q.C. Energy II 's permission to file an Application for Conditional Use permit. The contract calls for a closing and transfer of title on or about December 1 , 1996 . If you have any concerns or wish further assistance please advise. Very truly yours, COYLE, GILMAN & STENGEL Irse, 714T By Francis J. oyle, Jr. FJC/pl pc: Jon Hoganson 4 (7'T 1996 Received City of Mounds' ie, f '- RESOLUTION NO. 4195 410 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 - 411 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 • . . - 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 !II 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 . 111 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 lar•er. numbe • .. - ._ - _ _ - - _- made available. • Adopted this 24th day of February, 1992 . ATTEST: 4111111r ."4411111 1 . -or (SEAL) • • ,,� y Admini tratar RESOLUTION NO. 4611 • 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; and411 . / 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: • c--7411011111 - Mayor (SEAL) 411 )4 (6644 ,.Acting Clerk-Administrator r MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 483-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF THE SATURN DEALERSHIP AT 2375 AND 2395 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 464-96. WHEREAS, Saturn Development has requested City approval to expand its dealership at 2375 Highway 10 to include the property at 2395 Highway 10, to expand building square footage and add a car wash, and to expand the types of repair services available; and WHEREAS, the property is in the B-3 Highway Business District, which requires approval of a conditional use permit for motor vehicle and recreation equipment sales and garages accessory thereto, and for car washes; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of conditional use permits is "to provide the City with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety; and, • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application dated 10-7-96 2. Zoning Map 3. Staff Report dated October 9, 1996 4. Staff Report dated November 6, 1996 5. Letter from Francis J. Coyle dated 10/7/96 6. City Council Resolution 4195 7. City Council Resolution 4611 8. Site Plan dated 10/30/96 9. Landscape Plan dated 10/30/96 10. Floorplan&Building Elevations received 10/4/96 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact regarding the requirements set forth in Sections 1114.04, Subd. 8, 1114.04, Subd. 3, 1114.04, Subd. 2, and Section 1125.01 Subd. 3: A. Dimensional Requirements & Hours of Operation • Minimum Required Provided Met? Lot Area 87,120 sq.ft. and 142,703 sq.ft. yes Lot Width 150 feet 764 feet yes Planning Commission Resolution No. 483-96 • November 6, 1996 Page 2 Number of Lots Single or Contiguous yes yes Setbacks Front 30 feet 76 feet yes - Side 10 feet 184 feet(east side) yes 232 feet(west side) yes Rear 20 feet 36 feet yes Landscaped Greenspace 10%or 10,445 sq.ft. 33,606 sq.ft. yes Parking 22 spaces(service) 20 spaces(service) no' 27 spaces(employees) 35 spaces(employees) yes 126 spaces(inventory)2 Hours of Operation 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. yes B. Building and Site Design; Landscaping (Section 1114.04, Subd. 2.a., 3.b., 2.f., 3.c., 8.e., 3.f., 2.c., 3.i., 8.1., 8.m.) The proposal is 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 along all of the property lines. The landscape plan shows a row 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 sodded as is the existing site. C. Lighting and Signage (Section 1114.04, Subd. 2.h., 3.g., 8.h., 2.d., 3.j. 2.j., 3.m., 8.k.) The applicant is proposing 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 are shielded in compliance with the ordinance. The light standards will be in landscaped areas and not in the parking lot. 1 With compliance with conditions,the proposal will meet the requirement for 22 spaces for customers. 2 The Zoning Code does not have any specific requirement for parking spaces for inventory or • display. 0 Planning Commission Resolution No. 483-96 • November 6, 1996 Page 3 The applicant is proposing two additional monument signs on the site: one at the northernmost driveway on Highway 10 and one at the easternmost driveway on County Road H2. Both of these signs would have the same dimensions as the existing monument sign on Highway 10 (42.7 square feet). The applicant's reason for the additional signage is to better identify driveway entrances and direct customer traffic. The total signage on the site including the new signage would be: • existing pylon 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. • two new ground mounted 8' 6-1/2" x 5' = 85.4 sq.ft. • miscellaneous small directional signs Total Signage=278.9 sq. ft. Total Permitted= 100 sq. ft. of signage per tenant; 340 sq. ft. pylon sign=440 sq.ft. The signage on the site is well within the total signage area allowed. Square footage has been redistributed to the monument signs from the allowances for tenant and pylon signs. The allowance for the two additional monument signs requires approval of a variance by the Planning Commission, which is noted in the conditions on this recommendation of approval. D. Drainage (Section 1114.04 Subd. 2.g., 3.e., 8.f.) This conditional use permit combines two existing, developed commercial sites. Changes in drainage patterns are not anticipated. A condition on this recommendation of approval requires favorable review by the City Engineer prior to forwarding the application to City Council. E. Outdoor Storage, Sales and Service (Section 1114.04 Subd. 3.k., 3.o., 3.p., 8.i.) 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. F. Accessory Building(Section 1114.04 Subd. 8.j.) The accessory buildings are proposed. i • 4 A Planning Commission Resolution No. 483-96 . November 6, 1996 Page 4 G. Noise (Section 1114.04 Subd. 2.k., 3.n., 8.p., 8.q.) The original approval including a condition regarding the use of outside loudspeakers, which has been added to the list of conditions on this recommendation of approval. The Planning Commission is not aware of any problems regarding noise on this site. H. Access/Test Drive Routes (Section 1114.04 Subd. 2.i. 3.1., 8.o.) The applicant is proposing two driveway entrances on Highway 10 and two on County Road H2, and removal of two of the driveway entrances on the Citgo property. The driveways to be removed are closest to the Highway 10/County Road H2 intersection. This will improve traffic patterns in the area and remove a conflict point. The original approval including a condition regarding test drive routes, which has been added to the list of conditions on this recommendation of approval. Stacking Space (Car Wash) (Section 1114.04 Subd. 2.b., 2.e.) The car wash proposed for this site is for customer cars only and not for the general • public. 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 open to the public. The site does not abut residential districts. The area behind the car wash faces a business, and will be screened by Black Hills Spruce. J. Fuel Pumps (Section 1114.04 Subd 3.h.) No fuel pumps are proposed at this facility; this criteria does not apply. K 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. • • Planning Commission Resolution No. 483-96 November 6, 1996 Page 5 (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 by roadways, and abuts 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 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 busines a wi r . .. • . . . . ..' .•a. - . 888 . • .. ' . . ' . . .._al 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 • Planning Commission Resolution No. 483-96 November 6, 1996 • Page 6 cooperative spirit between the government and citizens,whether residential or business, when setting regulations into code. Environmental and aesthetic consciousness 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. (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 Highway 10 and County Road H2 will reduce traffic hazards and conflict points. (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. This recommendation of • approval includes a condition that a favorable review be received from MnDOT and the Rice Creek Watershed District. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the conditional use permit request as submitted by Saturn Development, and with compliance with the conditions stated in this resolution, meets the criteria set forth in Sections 1114.04, Subd. 2, 3, and 8 and Section 1125.01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Cou - •-• : • :. . • - ,• . - : '. .4 I - permit be granted, and the request for development review be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the property owner shall obtain approval from the Mounds View City Council for a replat of the property to remove the lot line between 2375 and 2395 Highway 10. 2. Outside signage shall be limited to that allowed by the Municipal Code, or as allowed in any variance approved by the City. Prior to installation of the two additional monument signs shown at the westernmost driveway on Highway 10 and the easternmost driveway on County Road 112, the property owner shall 0 • Planning Commission Resolution No.483-96 November 6, 1996 Page 7 obtain approval for a variance for sign area allowed on the site, in signs other than the pylon sign, or for a code revisions which would allow this additional sign area. 3. Prior to this case being forwarded to the City Council for action, the applicant shall revise the plans to include the following: a. A detail on the site plan of the lighting fixtures, showing style of luminare and dimensions of lighting standards b. A note on the site plan stating"Signage shown on this plan is subject to separate permit. The monument signs shown at the westernmost entrance on Highway 10 and the easternmost entrance on County Road H2 exceed the standard sign allowances for sign area in the Mounds View Municipal Code and are not approved as part of this plan. These signs may be allowed if approval of a variance is obtained from the City of Mounds View." .c. Revision to the distribution of parking spaces so there are 22 spaces for • service customers and at least 27 spaces for employees. A detail shall be added to the plan showing how the spaces or areas of the parking are to be signed to make it clear where customer and employee parking are located. 4. Prior to this case being forwarded to the City Council for action, the applicant shall obtain written comments from the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District indicating that the plan will provide adequate site drainage. 5. Prior to this case being forwarded to the City Council for action, the applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the test drive route described in the map dated 2/19/92 and referred to in Resolution 4195. 6. Vehicle repair, servicing and maintenance are permitted on this site, excluding body work, welding and painting. All car repairs shall be conducted within the indoor service bays and not outside the service building. 7. A vehicle wash bay is permitted on this site. The use of this bay shall be for customers of the dealership only and not the general public. The stacking of vehicles waiting for washing shall be confined to this site and shall not infer with vehicle circulation on the site. 8. Any cars taken on trade and not intended for resale shall not remain on the site for • a period of time exceeding 72 hours. Planning Commission Resolution No.483-96 • November 6, 1996 Page 8 9. No outside merchandizing of accessories shall be allowed. 10. MI transport truck deliveries and pick-up shall be conducted on site during regular business hours. 11. Outside loudspeakers shall be utilized for paging purpose only. 12. The hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Where the conditions contained in this resolution differ from those stated in Resolution 4195 and 4611, the conditions stated in this resolution shall prevail. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of November, 1996 • Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director devcases1464-961reso483.pc • October 29, 1996 • City of Mounds View Planning Commission Attention: Pam Sheldon Community Development Director • 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Subject: Saturn Development Request for Expansion Dear Ms. Sheldon: As property owners adjacent to the Saturn Dealership, we feel we are in an excellent position to agree with the request for development of the addition of a car wash and expansion of the repair services. Other reasons for agreement to the proposal are: • The land that Saturn wants to develop is undeveloped land that needs to be added to • our tax base. • It will clean up the neighborhood. • It will get rid of weeds and varmits. • Land values will rise. • There will be increased jobs to the community. Please approve the request of the Saturn Development. Sincerely, J • Clifford Brat 5287 Jackson Drive • Moundsview,MN 55112 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 111CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA • Regular Meeting November 6, 1996 Mounds VON City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Motnds Vi v MN 55112 is'i'::•`::>•:�:%�.ry�: The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. '` l ; Order called to order byChair '` ``}' Peterson at 7:03 p.m. :<x' on November 6, 1996. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Miller, <>.:.,, Roll Call Brooks, Stevenson, Obert, Johnston °f Brasaemle and Chair Peterson. ALSO SO P ENT•RE S Community mmunit Dev elo m Director Sheldon, Planning Associate E'`cson <» and Recording Secre to rYBe nes ch . or tiYyj.... • inow The Planning Commission reviewed theApt 3. Approval of Minutes: minutes of the special meetir p of October9 ::;<> October 9, 1996 1996. The € lIowing cc tavas were `t ) r` • Page 1.><€ 1 "by" h xdd ad on age 2, third (in: `W.i10 :shoul&ii§ es 3) Second page, third'`R j h, lines'' d 7 should read " if the !Of i ili#`:and>:"Commissi should read Comt l f '"i ``< > age 3'i ne 3, should read "...:line.for a..","5x_,paragraph 6, line 2<should read acriw???:04.' acres" and line 4 sho 'd read "...than one acre. was-added." Mot n/Second: Bra emle/Stevenson to ONOve the minutes of October 9, 1996, as 7 ayes:```:•••:-.0 nays Motion Carried There were no resident requests or comments from the floor. • • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 •Regular Meeting Page 2 Mr. John Streeter and Mr. Edward Paster, 4. RPuebglaicrdHinegaring Variance ' representing Paster Enterprises, were present. Request,y9m Paster E . Community Development Director Sheldon nterp0 , .! Enterprises View And. uare ..iiiL,:.,ewiii __, Mounds ra Center, AiiiiiiiisAppin_ explained the request from. Paster Enterp m ., . ..::iiik aggiCase Nos AIM NOltionfilg. for approval of a variance in parking ratios, a „..1: vitgoi1462_96 and variance in sign height and sign area and a at ; ,.):. ..,:iiid:•-, ...iiii ::,:0::::::*:::::::m... conditional use permit for joint use of parking Al Aiiii:::- Mounds View Square Shopping Center, 2535- 4634i. ms:,... *NNW, 2585 Highway 10 Director 0 Director Sheldon explained ined that she would be ..:411x.„viansiN presenting the req t from Mounds View Square in two partus!sThe first part included Planning Cases 461-96 and 463-96, whicl?...4111111514„ involved the joint use of parking and a v5MOCOillimik ...„,„. i .:iiirmiliiillw in the required parking ratios for Mounds view Square Shopping Center. She explained thatp. Imp III the second part is Planning Case 462-96 .„.:igir regarding a variance in the signtoketo veia center identification sign rnforattasuhr* mand_, center which exceeds the Db. arqRM .,,,iiiigii, -----„,„ height allowed by CityCgts. „_. .:::mi:.:.......,... ..... .. . -----........., ,.... 4. has to do ikiimii• The first request .mi17 ..i:the amount unt of parking requf11 , shoPltbmOg: expands, addirigmi4upleof 4Wtggps on the properyvlithe:§b,aleilecietttingfor an additional squqr2atfrailspace w ic Au • .ea••eym „ e buil41.A. g near Marios Video (4,000 square feet of iSiail and 1,000 square feet of storage area). She added that it is the applicant's desire, at IitAime in thpi:ire, to remove the existing Briliii . .c...,,atidifiardees Restaurants and kal07051larni :A7 replace them itAiitith two dinner house style ....1.,... -mi:Aiiiii:ii;iiiw• reitkirtrits. With respect to the first item (Cases 461-96 and 463-96), Director Sheldon noted that the • Planning Commission discussed at length at their last meeting what parking would be Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 io Regular Meeting Page 3 • required under the City's existing Code and what parking is in place on the site. She explained that there is a specific request from the applicant for a variance in the parking ratios that apply to the property and a request for joint use of parking under a conditional use permit. ::< < She continued by explaining that joint use of parking recognizes that some uses are night time uses and some are day time uses and they v` " °off-set each other. She added that thenumber : < ' of parkingspaces on the site atpresent is 477, } P �':::s, and if the new restaurants and retail space were added, somearkin spaces would be P 9 P eliminated so that the number of the spaces on site would be 454. Commissioner Miller inquired775 if 111, square feet Page of the staff re ) and 2 1st o P.....: she was informed that it shouldea : r d<:�:1,535.0r Niggimmor • Director Sheldon explained thatis Staff's understanding from the Planni Commis on .» >�' at their last meeting that theye willin.giook `' at the existing exi§gho parkingi 'as bei ` <` adequate:>r 3rt> e existtr€ iii1 ;a ,•and exla€ted that the`i pjat dlid get >; revti€ s variance to allow for thece to`t € e for the existing square o € +, She r'r n ed by asking whatr to 'be appli d against the new footage'? She`egtaaq.:that the proposal is for.; -1/2 spaces pe t square feet and t_ thaur current code 00.40fits 10 spaces but added that our code#friuch higher than other jurisdictions. She cotinued by explaining that ratio proposed or fast food restaurants is at Oar<r ular.feq cement (1 space for every 40 si ` odining and 1 space for every 80 squat*efeet of kitchen) but the dinner house restaurants are proposed at 1 space for every 80 square feet of dining and 1 space for every 80 square feet of kitchen, which she explained . is a more typical ratio for larger restaurants where you have less customer turn-over. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 4 • Director Sheldon explained to the Commission that Resolution No. 485-96 is for the new ratios to be used for the proposal, and added that it was Staffs conclusion that the variance `` was justified and approval was recommended. She noted that if the Planning Commission can } grant a variance, it would not go on to Council unless the a licant a Baled the '` PP PP Commission's decision. n. Director Sheldon addressed the other issue which had to do with joint use of parking. At the last meeting, staff had reported that the number of parking s aces on the site, after the P 9 P buildingadditions, would be 457 and that the:>:: < �:::>. number which would be required usingthe` ` << < > > :.. q ratios would be 454 TheCommission,-v=":<:.... indicated at that time that the a lic : shout a� d: }r' PP provide the additional three s p ac P es... y 0 restriping some of the standard;:si stalls..to be compact size. Director Sheld :tett en indicated to the Commission that Staff: de an a in its reviommi ort to th !"iin Co s:'«<' <"`` Instead::c s s aces 681: '`<i~eeded using usInglifie new rat i 92 s::aceswereneeded, or 38 spaces mor l l e numb i t1 e.site. She advised the C..gorsion that t' set t Possible to.:at ehr:::a threllhace reduction or a 38 space speoftre#491ion using restriping from stanlda`d : stalls to compact sizetails. (It would r du 51 standard spaces to be restripe `to compact size to create three additional spaces, which was more n 10% of the.p rking on the site. The prrodt 's compact spaces to 10% of the r' ovided.) It was staff's recoistie`ndation that the Commission consider a conditional use permit for joint use of parking facilities to address the situation, and reported that it would require a 8% reduction in the parking required for daytime and nighttime uses • to reduce the parking required on the site to the Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 5 454 spaces being provided. Resolution No. 486-96 was prepared which lays out the AN- findings that support allowing joint use of parking at 8 percent. Commissioner Brasaemle inquired if the variance in ratios would result in a requirement __v..- variance of 492 spaces and wanted to verify if the } :>. P conditional use permit was needed to et the '>imi .Ys. xqmiliix.N11;iiiiime-o. number down to the 454 spaces, which the Viiiwy applicant is proposing. He also asked if the maximum allowable cross-over between night and day use is 50 p ercent and if Staff was proposing only 8 percent. Commissioner Stevensononer S inquired uir ed if t hers i onSinil`i` ,; anyalternative ternative to the s aces the cent e:: p losing for the storage area and w g y#5,000.40. square feet is needed and for what. .se? >` >Nagar 4.10. MY Mr. Streeter explained that the: Ttitially a' proposed to expand the centeurther ttedsouth. Indisussioniswi Saff it wastt •that ex : onn ths=Ot " o would ca> > more than one w of pai ( r ` be lost so they reduced the a ion to savet one row of parking. Chair Peterson br•ow ht a signage at Mario and how it wojdifffected by the add€ ton. Mr. Streeter€ fined that he presumed that whoever rents the. new area €d want to have: ffor their advertising and it t cplained that Marios could possibly move ? ^(€ :tf1e tenant be put in between. Cit r Obertinquired if the new parking comptietfons included the elimination of the 23 spaces on the south side of the building? Director Sheldon explained that yes, she looked at the spaces that were in the expansion area and that is why the parking count was reduced from 477 to 454. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 6 • Commissioner Miller referenced Page 2, part C, of Resolution No. 485-96, and feels that adding 5000 square feet to the building does result in actions from the applicant and wondered how do we came up with 6000 square feet for new restaurants. Director Sheldon explained that .. o : the ratios of our Codea create a hardshi for a >:< > P sho in center nt r of this size PP 9 iz and that the applicant id d not choose s the ratio which she PP t h feel causes. an extrao rdinaparkingdema nd. rY The hardshp is coming from the ratio rather than from the footage proposed by the applicant. She noted that the 6000 square feet :: q for the restaurants came from their plan.P ngiaRiiiiigiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiik, ,,,,op. Commissioner Brasae I m e suggested leav' 9g theparking hcount for cur • the cu rent sho PP:> �; center as is and use the ratios from. 'g�Code to calculate the amount of parking needew. d for the expansion. He asked what:percentager i' reduction would be needed using'''.he allowance for daytime and nighttime us to get tp de,454»`<i spaces bet . .provided.; e indicated his' `'' to addresstparking ' tt€ with e t e a variance n.a lowance•for`daytime and nighttime ug 'p €t of both< bl::e. r. Director Sheld d rt ;some`c l tions in order to answer Comm aner B .• saemle's ques#fiord came ..percent. Directo "Sheldon expl` Etat she believes it is a ver to show thatwith<the ratios that there is a roblem and that iiRa are fixing it rather than up the day time/right time calculation. Dire for Sheldon.explained that if you apply the • tr l <t ilos<sti the square footage this is c'p t r would be 614 spaces required budge f;d that there may be a problem with how the 614 spaces were calculated. Commissioner Stevenson inquired as to which time would be the busiest for the shopping center? He is concerned that if the ratios are Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 • 0 Regular Meeting Page 7 not changed and instead a reduction for daytime and-nighttime uses is used, there would not be enough parking at peak times. Commissioner Brasaemle inquired what would ::>> be the total number of parking spaces that '"}` _::> would be needed for the entire center including > < ?Y.2. the expansion. Director Sheldon replied that it Y••k` would be 1,035 spaces. Commissioner Johnston expressed that he feels that this proposal would be good for Mounds View and is forrantin this request 9 9 but it is a matter of how to do it. Chair Peterson expressed that he had similar A <>> feelings and thinks th i at the Plann n 9 Commission needs to lay a more sta-kite`.fr •.i;•- ground-work for any other cases tha `�'may come • up and he feels more comfortabjaMith the ii resolution as prepared which i; ided the:::;,. variance in ratios. ,A„ itr finality -:, Commis; Obert said„he i :comfortae'e>€>� with the staff has ri tired the resolution, but shares't € i *. ns tha ' fssioner Stevenson ra.510 ` '�� rdin t ; `� tf'me/ni ht time mix. ..mg,„.--.-.4„„,,%001w4::..tl ght nowil :e does not see a problem, but e on future tenant such as a hig - Mc store, there could be `:`concern. Commissioner Brasaemle noted that he feels mi,m€:advantage to. ranting a variance is that it • doesn t: sta i i�a precedent if the Council re t t#'h i nditional use permit and retracted his`` rtosal to eliminate the variance. Commissioner Miller has concerns with losing the 23 spaces bymaking the building 5,000 • square feet larger when there are already . vacant retail area and wondered if that might Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 8Ilk change if there were more traffic. Director Sheldon explained that by adding the restaurants you may get more interest in the center. She also added that if people do go out :....:r to dinner and then run errands to the other `} businesses onespace.in the Center, they are still only >` < .: usingace. is ?}}v > Y•• IV oar Earl Hamilton, Sunrise Methodist Church ..x<..>.>...>...: LakeRoad, inquired if traffic from 7687 Longi q the Center could accidentally overflow into their church parking lot across the street? He did note that theyhave not hada roblem as of yet. He is also concerned with the dumping of r into the wetland ad'acent to the a baeit 9 9 1 church. Commissioner Miller suggted es ii%l « i signage, "Sunrise Church parkingonly":::::culd >`> , > �: : alleviatethis concern. ...1.71iWiEg Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Bro .k.::: o a retie Resolution No. 485-96, as amisd, regarding :: • approving a variance request to the part .,., ,:.,; ` = y, ratios applble to the Viewq € ;_`> Shopping" ter, Plart g se No. 46 9v":: Commission t i;ller:..noted`' me on ections to proposed Rest( i r i <I .o.. 485`- `:lea e 2, line 1, "result"st € d.;result 2) third wherea em a, line 2 o should read of. 7 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried I Ition/Second: Braemle/Stevenson to approve Resolutiot `No. 486-96, as amended,` i 'e:< rending (this word was added tieslon) approving a conditional use perrrfiit�f' r`the joint use of parking facilities at Mounds View Square Shopping Center, Planning Case No. 461-96. Commissioner Miller recommended that item 7 of the resolution may not be necessary. 411 Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 9 Director Sheldo• n stated this item indicates that the variance cannot stand by itself. It was then recommended that item 7 be added as a ftv "whereas" instead. :: v}.y 7 ayes 0 nays "`'?; �>{�����~�IQt��.n Carried Director Sheldon ex lain zy >< > :>:z < ; p d that the second :� art of ti tit • the r e uest pert'''. to the si na :::b e for p ..+, the site. She noted that there have been some =<>r' changes in the proposal since the last Planning '`ti�'>� �`�� ��k'-ii Commission meeting. (At this time Director ' <'< '' `{>{>:.; niiiiiiiiiMitik .0 Sheldon distributed pictures of four other `.:<: centers owned by the applicant showing exam les \NI `} p of signage). She ex lained that th <>'<' " ., "`z ':::<:::::: ::} P last time this ite m was before the Pl anni n� Commission thea licant was ro osi:`''`'a Pp P p �� .,..,4"- sign n 75 f eet h' i hand 80 Osquare fe �:are 9 9 q el.� a which they felt was needed so the shopping '`"::'"`' ` • center name and tenant names. ld appear } above the bridge. She explain `that the PlanningCommission requested information regarding ti w much of:the s.i'.{``Yc would' ow above the'1 ' a and<�t ow the ridge w `" `> ''- look to e` l r t::.travel ng or I : :hwa 10. Director explainedP le City sgin.17...d a study on how` ti h 'sign wet ' ve to be to appear ovt 'It~:a distance which a motorist: c uld travel i'n 10 econds at 50 mph. (Tenear t. r...nds was con Bred the amount of time<tt would take a m o It to decide to slow and'turn into the shopping center.) The study 'ued that if you are`765 feet back from Long Lake Road and theisign is placed in the area . : _by the.pplicant, then the bridge will ciit .`feet of the sign and the sign will shote above the bridge railing from 52 feet upwards. She went on to explained that on a 75 foot high sign, 23 feet would show above the bridge railing and you would only see the center identification part of the sign. She informed the Commission that the applicant is Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 10 III now proposing monument signage and a 50' high, 430 square foot identification sign. Signs existing at the Mendota and Crystal centers were reviewed and were noted to be similar to the request being made by the applicant. Director Sheldon went explaince o on to that n you lower the sign, even to 50 feet, you cannot Ar doi.:r Y 9 i `' see it over the bridge, so from Staffs you have started to lose the perspective, v k....v connection between the bridge and the need luesiiitik for a variance. She expressed a concern that tin a variance for a sign of this size would :>: granting set aP recedent, and lead to other shopping whe .: n<iiil;. centers requesting this type of signage tl igni.:;.;;;il ornot. She suggested a <> < «`>« >, there is a bridge n gg ::ssue: '1 „:0- couple ofpossible ways to address ti.-11 Y amend our signre u a t `ns to one beingto m ��n 9 ..7:!:::::!:.;ri:::,, recognize that a shopping center,ofiis size may need more signage than we` €llow, the -' i other being, the applicant coutd> equest::;a variance for the monument sftage at tot;,:..~~` .. . drivewaya ttcances basedt < he impa t f the`>. bride .a d have a 'ons :.n of a sizeithat li"'" meets thei t F :code. 'g e=tamed that another potbhtuld be# " > .d our Code to allow for a " tpeage" wppuld allow the shoppingim tt r ust mizecf`'sign . regulations�'which wou'd feed to be approved by the fanning Comrml e€si" <>`She further explained that anotheta 'ibility would be to grf a "floating box" f"signage from the top of the railing up to the; .feet, with a condition on iiiiiiikiance that. e bridge must be built and t t ave i < nonths in which to update our st` €tiis. If the Sign Code is changed to afinw'tf`e signage, the "floating box" could not be used. Director Sheldon suggested that perhaps the Planning Commission could table this item until a firmer proposal is made and more information is obtained from the applicant. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 11 Commissioner Brasaemle wanted to make it clear that this variance request is contingent upon the bridge being built and that whatever .;>. variance the Planning Commission passes : , A "' needs to have this clause in it. > .. ;` * JoAnn Colleen, 2617 County Road Iinquired AP' as to whyis the parkingand the sign is a ;:P 9 concern now if we don't even know of the bridge or the dinner houser estaurants will be VEL\� AY built? It was explained that before the wing applicant even considers building the restaurants, they would need to know if adequate parkingis available to inform future q tenants and it is only the sign request that related to the construction of the e. brid :It w << ` -<> ><:: 9 was easierto added, that it to comethe:::.:' Planning Commission with both of t r it em at once. She also expressed her c¢. cern ... about the construction of a lightedti gn and .4 with a tall sign being seen from her wind. She also expressed concern< th other <... businessesbusinesseggossibly wa�n�.�.}ingitaller siganaler Earl Hamilton,Haing1WMAynrisetlefflaffigt Church, 7687 Long`ioNtAoad, exptd n dr <signage situation that..hexperienced.i ' dent of the City of BitiliewittAbOtstrie business was required fo reduce is i na a so that it did not take astray from the suiiou Ti g businesses andi( omes or they wopd 't get a building pogo. tth s:.,time, Johr ,. treeter, addressed the Kiiiiiilibc.orreitigion showing drawings of ofig'centers and explaining their propos '`sign size and location of the pylon sign in respect to Mounds View Square. He • explained that the request for Mounds View Square is very similar to the sign and its • location as it currently exists at the Mendota Shopping Center. He pointed out that the signs Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 12 >� are sized by traffic engineers and engineering firms that are in the field of sign design and when they are told the approximate location of the sign, they statistically figure the size of the sign and letters to attract the attention of passing traffic. He did note that the engineers case have not yet been brought into this yet 9 and that theinformation that is applied in this particular case is basedis 1111. signage on past si na a and approximate. Discussion continued between the applicant and the PlanningCommission regarding the 9 9 similarities of the Mendota sign and the proposedsi9nf r Mounds View Square. re. Commissioner Johnston expressed hisfic r n;;;.;isonMin :::,;...,.; with the possibility of other Mounds.)40/w Square tenants requesting separatesign age ' for their businesses. He asked,::f `more • information on how a sign progratri'woul.dwork. Director Sheldon explained that shoppk>^€g ;,.,.:... .; < i ofa e ta ggp e:: centers of.; �s s zet r�..� com re si n popmeollyypich individual' ' ttsi na dNoolg a.for the pad sites in theVggiftivt, entry entrylgtoggo an overall center::Wattligion sign. So a cities allow the pgpiiiitagmbgstA:poles.sighs and some monument signs.Some allow restaurants or other bun es on pad sites to havewall signs. A sign sigliNICkage or program aligns some control over design, letter style and Colors so you g tl'bn overall, coordinated appearance A comment was made that a sign gialet:A§jmaPio a PUD for signs. Commissioner Brasaemle inquired about the signage for the other pads sites at Mounds View Square, specifically the proposed dinner house restaurants. The applicant responded • by saying that tenants can be very demanding Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 ill Regular Meeting Page 13 and usually request a pylon sign, but if the pad is too good to pass up they may go with the monument sign. Commissioner Brasaemle explained that possibly a monument sign, ., especially for the Bridgeman's site, may be more suitable and easier to see in this case because of theproposed bridge. He explained <.:.:* that we should address all the signs, not just ` y` the one sign, because if we deal with each of » '>> ' «,,..,..::.,..,,... 111, ,iie 111NaP- the other signs individually we could end up <... ::x l tiy.,. with something we don't really want. Commissioner Obert expressed his concern P that if we approved some type of sign package, ' w' lat o down the road it maynot fit ith the .»: r<< <>>>> er n n ire picture of what we are lookingat far the < € :. e t pic u rHighway10 corridor. 0 osed P p Director Sheldon informed the Corrssion `' t ..- • at the last Council work session, re was<i discussion on hiring a consultttrm on :1 looking at a section of Highway'10 thatkm„Edirfurther tothe northofIV 'View Sq€t t`t ttttt<t '' The Pla in tc:i. ommis i " red if, i f€ :"' that secfHighway 10,t nsultant will be looking..3: 01111,,some design' i , d added if they are they tg pictu Should be a suitable:them ithat l 1 be e t:end further along Highway 10. `` %r t'Sheldon believes that if.t "e Planning Coti" tton sets a good standard on this site, 'vrtf be okay on other shaping center site -,. �iat propose different et age. 1` .i: etiw ert again expressed some c 'Vamilisali'tnks the Planning Commission need 'to make sure that these standards are set high enough. Commissioner Brasaemle inquired as to what 0the applicant's general sense of what dinner house restaurant tenant feelings are on pylon Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 14 versus monument signage. Mr. Edward Paster replied that usually the tenant wants an identification sign that separates them from everyone else and that monument signage may .,, not always be accepted as the desired signage for'their site. He also indicated that promoting 4.4. ..aiiiimaiiilion.. the name of the tenants seems to now be the Amu, trend. He thinks that if we have the monument sign near the area where the and and the p proposed bridgee will be located, as Staff as indicated, it would be innovative and a 11.1111111L. somewhat different approach. He added that it maytake some convincingthe restaurant that it .::`''"'t `illlll`i`ll'`lh would be adequate, but he would make a real hard sell for goingto the monument sign wit . thetenant's name on it and eliminatingthe < < <<> '«< ><::>, i , pylon sign for the tenant. He a er ll » k s ' INIMMIS the concept wuld work but may be `re ry hard sell. „AN .,,,i,iiiiiii, .:igi • Chair Peterson inquired if the; 'anning . Commission had everything they neededtta.i mi - give this case further cane `ation. Dfet ii<r Sheldon et' :;time i :: di '#khat she sheil6are from the tAgg t.a diagram dianfithgtshows the locations w &e they wantifit§Igagge and also a drawing of the thggtOttOge itself to what the package i§. 0:10 tiog*imoilktbe variance. She suggested en thatitalkEtAnning Comm sion is in agr p that shopping centers need to be looed' t again in terms of hopg signage is handled, especially centers this large:, a provision cat�be worked on that would atlow for sign packages. She indicated that gold!.>.comiack with the proposal for the centerdorgitigtgdiption signs which the applicant feels ' t&r ceded because of the bridge and can then get working on the overall signage. Commissioner Stevenson suggested that the Commission explore what the signage is of • other similar centers along Highway 10, such Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 4p Regular Meeting Page 15 as Northtown Commons and on the other side near Rainbow Foods and others in the area. JoAnn Colleen, 2617 County Road I, inquired as to whether the requested monument signage would also be located at the entrance on the north side of the shopping center and Mr. par' ,:mimilimmiks Streeter replied that they had not considered it. Motion/Second: Miller/Johnston to table the discussion of the signage for Mounds View Square until their next agenda meeting for discussion. 7 ayes 0 nays litleMotion Carried Director Sheldon requested that the Planning Aix smommaikaa, Commission consider calling to order at their meeting on November 20 to take action on ttlii • item and it was the Planning Cotiii*sion'er 40. consensus that it would be a possibility that they would call to order contingent upgama, receiving thiasadequate.inforrnation reOdogigir:‘ Anim mummin this case,. mai, Mr. Jim Price.: rd ri5iwin LindOtint§tifesenting 6. Information Meeting the applicant Saturn were Regarding the -• present oi:F Request from Saturn •Warggi, Development to Community DevelopmWarrector Sheldon Amend a Conditional reviewed the case from Saturn Development Use Permit, 2375 and Company for the expansion of the existing 2395 Highway 10, death-ship in Mounds View located at 2375 • Planning Case No. Higive..y:4,0,:: Direbtor Sheldon explained that 464-96 Saturn is to develop the property that is nowoccdpied by the CITGO gas station at 2395 Highway 10. She reminded the Commission that they did receive a detailed site plan at their last meeting. She informed the Commission that the applicant, after review of the Staff report, has revised their drawing to Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 16 • add the trash enclosure. She continued by saying there were two issues of concern; the first had to do with the amount of landscaping required on the site, and she indicated that they ```' do have sufficient landscaping to meet the ten :.< Aim," percent requirement, and the other item had to `'` ..ti} tdo with signage. She explained that the existing site has a Ion- t Ie sign that n identifies the dealePrsYhi and a monument sig. xii se sand that Saturn is the u d car that i to add two monument signs at the proposing entrances to the dealership, one on County Road H2 and the other alongHi hwa 10 that . .,g_way would be the same size as the one existing (8.5 "+ feet high by5 feet wide for a total of 9 ) square feet. Staff does not have any i.:.,:.:.::., "i.:,.::::::.::.:::::::::;;.. rvelew to the sign from an aesthetic standpointarid thyi '< i'<::..: :>: ordinance indicates that theyare within the area allowed, but the Code does no 'allow foot this number or the proposed placement of< `` S signs. She informed the Commission thathe Ay total area of signage permittton the a <r>:,..4 allows 104:::::. uare feet of wall si na e.ti i >; €iii>ii<i` : 9 9 9 foot:: �'`:oni si n wh E tat is 440 s' <rei,v :::. 340 :.: ! 1 "!:.;:.;:..,9 g�'- feet. Slinformed thagiiiit e::::existin Ion 9 pylon sign is 100' i e eet, the ting wall sign in 50 square feet 'arthe monument i n for used cars:is; et for notal of 200 square feet'which lee es 240 square feet. The additional monument'` t9f'i are 85 square feet. She`ited that the Code toes not address monument signs at entrances and asked for direction from the Planning Commission on h er signageticould be redistributed through ance b use it is less than the signage allowed*§§dit Improves how the site functions. Commissioner Miller asked if Saturn's request was actually more of a directional type signage and Director Sheldon indicated that Saturn's request is for signage a slightly larger than . what is accepted as directional signage. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 17 Separate from the signage, Director Sheldon stated that all aspects of the plan for the site are fine and was recommending that the conditional use permit that allows them to expand the site and add the additional repair :w services and car wash be approved. `. Elaine Johnson, 2287C ouY nt Road H2, expexpressed her conce rn wit h the existi n li htin 9 9 9 imil of the dealership. She also indicated that when >:: •m:::<:;::>- Saturn was built, theysaid theywere goingto ``'`'`` "" have only oil change services and they were told that there would not be any other facilities for repair work. Concern with noise se fro m the trucks comm.•> .................. and111,...0A.linchk. ..,.:;:ipiiii;:e going to the business park was al 9 9 expressed and that they have calledtl City numerous times but nothing is everone.dr ... ill The Commission inquired as tfat ligfg was causing the concern (.e.g,the service:boot. . >'" being opet l)" ms..Johnson ndicate €i <=>'i���`' was the eneraJ li htr` :::'::inj bri ht a d at�`at times the l € < s on a'll night ::: 6. Thea applicantindicated that th 111.ts`are on timers anstRei l ` ity lighting"is on all night. I-lailalso indicated:> t:::the Police have requested that they keep `pr of their lighting on all night but they in is ted that they would na He added that th 'lights go off automatically at 11:.00 p.m. r Jtm P:t c.�....•.t:€ Saturn Development, p t d etch showing the lighting staritiais for the site and further discussion took place regarding this issue. Chair Peterson suggested that in future, in the 4) public hearing notice that are sent to residents, perhaps we can inform the residents that they Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 18 • can stop by City Hall if they desire to examine the maps for each case. Brian Kraft, 5290 Pinewood Court, requested r}' that perhaps the lighting can be turned off an hour earlier and suggested that perhaps they 9 ;», e indicated off around 10:00 m. H ::F be turned to I trees in his and that he does have man I Y Y :v,,T kvv e block much of the lighting' however, that dos He is okay 9 with adding additional service area and lighting, ` but is requesting that it be turned off earlier and that ossibl the service door be kept closed .4... ,Niiiiiiiiiiinakiiii*. P Y p by 10:00 p.m. s co ern wi < <> << >< `< ::.. Chair Peterson expressed his nct €;,r,,:::.:..::..:.......:...:::,:::::. iii the hours of o eration and Commission`Miller:< <`< > >>> '.: :: P the `al eminded the om mission that o.: `in r Cr.�' conditional use permit indicates that hoot`s of operation shall be from 7:00 <to 10: 30' i< y • p.m. Director Sheldon wanted to make G ear understanding to the applicar Kiat if th <> .. {;.. ..,:gip:' condition ding ermit states:`#this that"f ">< > '` p , em to eeshould note bt < 'a&� past mission p.m. M iii: : Informer` s mission that there was`a>' I : f time where e:service department w 'i.` g past 't4 'm. because of;tow' pacity, but< dicated that with additional servicea x: t should eliminate this pro lem. Iiiiiiiiiiiiiialiv Et a Johnson, 2287 County Road H2, again expressed her:disappointment because : a_(t she was,:promised by the City Council <it ....:...4400' e oil changes and that is why iti p ed She also expressed concern thglii with fie Traffic on the County Road H2 entrance to the service area and with the speakers and paging system. Mr. Price indicated that the original permit allows for paging system, but does not allow playing music and they have not II done that. • Commission Planning Mounds View Meeting Regular Page eemlb9er 6, 1996 is pleased ., .........., ....., ......, operation and u . plaints Chair Peterson expressed thathe with Saturn's any complaints. had not heard of ethis evening : ..::0:z:iks IiiigNiaisiiik::i...k. ::::iliiii-• .:::igii.:i.:iiiiiii• viliki§iii.mimilm, due to ....., Mr. Price again the expressed that the reason they expansion are requesting is ......... ......„,..,...,....,.............:„...." mili.: • .4.•V customer demano. the expansion ';i:imigiiiii.:•::::imft„. Commissioner Stevenson inquiredasto what the applicant'sTha applicant indicated Spring but that AeNNININft, expansion. time frame take place in the because there 4?would probably isregarding that it ••::isiftiniiiiii::-. ••::,iiiiiIii:" CITGO property want to rernovatalaii, they need to the ese on the land . are tanks on they want t04.00011111111/4„....„,gif These tanks b e4spi,' ANNUNIMEnir as possible possible A.::- .iiii, •""ii.igimommiiiP, are not leaking now, than as soon butlthseoy on the the property as soon as .„igIP• .::, IiiiIiiiiiitp:$• sr a- Commission Brasaemle exprestdattaetnht;Pt e.:I;-inod for 0.-iit.P.w- .m this developme:14 • understandskthe concerns of the. ...m•i:- he does thin and that Sat-191 es haY:tiCwier jinn and good MoundsrePtir View;:F: the enY,EligutIP l'a I c otanksnha. ail gifillcis1ic:in:Ili csilhetti.7rn121:4ei 1 i tJelni*ostiVP station arkcitki . .4 i,lidamprobabiNgliiiiiimmo, upgratI4.egtanderd -liMil:' been curtF:.i]:,kiliiiii:.ft, upgraded to to (Commissioner Brodwvai„rafat,i.%q vi i n.m) 1.aiii;imiii" • if it is not Chati)beterson applicantaskegda‘lppeinips not to have that normal stores because fkifity? Mr- ...lany of their at the Saturn they do indicated . 1i4°19a .1With tanks. s pumpsPric11#fiiiiiititcoffi$ gAi:mi, ftimiAip. IIIMMItio"-r Miller inquired da.sactoenhtopwrowpeerty CoThilittsvoneon adjacent thei0 C uncil that promise of address the concerns owner and withbe tcheernsof the only?that applicant would thereDthireector Sheldon responded• has the right to expansion.pdclhybayfnosgreethyseing • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 20 • Commissioner Brasaemle recommended that the Council address this issue since they made the promise and because they will take final ::<:. action on this request. '"::.• Chair Peterson reminded the Commission that .A. Amiiililiiiiiiiiiimii.iii,.. a couple of years ago there was s an application tion made for another service facility in Mounds View and as part of the process, a model set of alt .41,1y Nlitimmimi,,ii,m, guidelines was put together for services and hours of operation and perhaps we could review these guidelines. Commissioner Brasaemle asked the resident at 2287 CountyRoad H2 what it was like whe Loose Ends was on the site as far asparking €<<'m n ::. and lighting? The resident indicated t . ��i�the 9 9 fit in wasnot as brightbut arkin "`'nd hours lightingP 9.:: of operation were a problem. .40.341F IF Air i Commissioner Miller indicated at in the `'€ original conditional use perm4E was sti.that»> onlyminor..( airs and mant ance shat €`"ii ` :P allowed::€ ' l It >:excluding >;< engine�< < I v=j"::; overha tlr m"':::''''' sion'rep'acem nt, and body work. Direcftzltdon ind e <tat this has been re laced s ` ew coned i "Which is P noted on Page:€ >`cResolution No 483-96. Director Sheldon rerni d`t e Commission thatts item is in front:>ofie Commission for action this evening and indicated that the fge issue is nocluded in the proposed resolution, and*"need to be addressed at r7€><latert`t a >pir ctor Sheldon noted that the Commission€seeded to take action this evening in orde>"t`ir this case to be heard at the City Council on November 25. It was concluded that the concerns with the lighting brought before the Planning • Commission this evening were with the original Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 ill Regular Meeting Page 21 lighting. Director Sheldon at this time recited the section on "glare" in. the Zoning Code which indicates that any lighting used to illuminate off- street parking shall be arranged to deflect light :1 `' away from adjoining residential property and ...}.Y that the source of the lighting shall be hooded .. leShe indicated that the Code or controlled. ;.::, Ives a measurement of how much light is to be z>'lt v v` these at the property line and that measurements will tell ou if direct rays are <>. :; :} <<}> •<.<•::<::•<.>_ going off the site. She indicated that the 9 9 measurements of the Saturn facility show that 9 P Y the li ht levels at the ro ert line are within dr NIERM.. the limits in the Code P arlthou h you may still be able to see the point of light and our Coded��. < . not control this. <wA o :that wgir it Commissioner Stevensonpointed ut. h "` the expansion, it will not increase tke`existin <``.>i "Y .: ;. • amount of light. >_ Elaine Johnson, 2287 Coun `Road .�_. ._.,::_ < ' expressed:: .ncern with::> :the were<< >` i`< t` notified;c to work session eting. O4iiiwed& Sheldon "i; ii'ed that he P an t ng Commission s not pprovir g s , and that •• they are only t 1 ; recom ton to the City Counot l i Cher explair ed that the City is nil`tequired ft< y notice at the Planning Commission eat my of the City Co ncil public hearing a d'`that we have recently added notic4ilat the Planning Commission level 5:311.pake sure residents are informed earliere process. She added that to oti earlier.. sidents of the work session area>etatted that the City mainly wants to makeisure people are here for the meeting where the decision is made. Chair Peterson asked Director Sheldon to • review the conditions contained in proposed Resolution No. 483-96. Director Sheldon noted Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 RMeeting Page 22 • that some of the items were brought in from the original conditional use permit and some were 4. new. Commissioner Stevenson requested that in :>' item 1 of the conditions that a Park Fund <, Dedication fee requirement be added. There was brief discussion on procedures f .iiii :<;y oced s o is ` . yty re lattin of the ro ert orPerhaps vacatin ::. P 9 P P Y9 ::.> the lot line and also requiring arkdedi on uir n a cats yr q 9 P fee.. Director Sheldon indicated the Staffs > reason for the condition is that we need to deal Motion Carried Nelilillik with the BuildingCodethequestion of .: and q setbacks because this ro ert includes three P P Y lots but it was not tafP intent to raise the ..;::»>> > > :::.. S s 0 ue iss ofpark dedicatio dicated tk� �'��is�<�>������<�<��� >€ '�:::.. n. She in .. Ittlipp she would onsult withA r c our Cityf ne.:; re ardin theProper procedures for ::`movin :> 9 9 e g:::::>=: the lot line and with the Building Of€ ial v II regarding Building Code requirrts. Shy' suggested that the condition hitrewoanw rded o say prior to the issuance of a€ `grading °>..:x `..:::; i'` building peE`t its, the property' 5wner shall ;;,.:.:::.>,.::: 7iii . Staff Reports/ vacate thei 'tine bet sand 2385<> 1" Information Items Highwaydeemed n essary:b the Cit Attorney. Commissioner b > ``q ested l` t t the conditi4 <regarding`jthd welding on the site bremoved from`` ttution. } Mcg#inn/Second: MillePeterson approved Resolution No. 483; 6 recommending approval of an amended conditional use permit t 31.. t review for the expansion of tfE ` € elership at 2375 and 2395 gi.Hignw'cv f0; Plaiim nning Case No. 464-96. 5 ayes 0 nays 1 abstention • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 23 (Commissioner Stevenson's abstained due to his son being employed at the Saturn Dealership.) ..„4" Chair Peterson informed the applicant that this AMM:•,:nr item will be heard by the City Council on November 25. 4...1.1r1M1,04, Planning Associate Ericson provided an update #.8 .,„., on Planning Case No. 460-96: Auto Center .ionionv VW' which was heard at the October 7, 1996 meeting. He explained that he contacted the applicants to inform them of the Commission's concerns with the site and Staffs recommendations, and the applicants indicateddlik. that there were problems with the lease artinEnink, therefore, they asked for the case to be put on hold and so it was removed from the November • 6 agenda. Mr. Ericson added that this week • the applicants indicated that thqt§iii0 a possibility that it may now go through ary.;fi$o requested a meeting with §taffio go over ibp„...411r Planning Commission's requirements Coincid9nt1y AR had with WA*Air Bank, NAibritiO§11,the site, and buyers that had a very gtipr propdgal gglo. same location. He'afgemk.that the tolfrOffered the propertAptitigNIKafte'rseeing that the property had a lbtarftniintrest, they pulled Oack their offer tlAtedicated that Cathy Bennett, our EconomiONVelopment C.0.0inator, was preparing a resolution for the City Council to authorize Staff to negotiate purchase of the property if the bank change its mingiiimovippotogain, offers it to the Corriffitrifty Development Director Sheldon informed the Planning Commission of items that are scheduled to be heard at their next meeting; the variances on the signs for Paster Enterprises and for Saturn Development, a lot split request from Larry Beach, and a draft Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 24 • ordinance regarding the telecommunications issue. Director Sheldon informed the Commission that she had learned from church officials that the .., New Apostolic Church's purchase contract for <{« the property located t d at 3025CountyRoad P P Y ad H <�}�y was no longer valid and the application for Atir >.. >ii:>::::::.:.::��} building a church at that location was denied by lik `i':iY0 y the Council based on the fact that there was no .40..„..,..,:. �`'��: purchase agreement in place. She alsoovitor Ay"`y indicated that there is a rumor that the property ->.. Chairperson and has been sold to a person who Flans to fix up :;: Plannin P : . g the house, then eventually tear it down to build > ' ommissioners a new house on the site but that there is so ''':, ? .:`: orts nae { .:::....... . p confusion as to who actually as the righlgloginiiiiimiiia, 211" sell thero ert P P Y• AgY The ordinance on revised site sizesnd liiiii .... setbacks for churches.and otheei -residential • uses will be on Councl agendafor first r iling Adif and public hearing at their.,m g �etin on :: November. 1 She asked h Commi e` .w anyof themould liket err.: the me ng to represent t i ening " i' e on. Commission c r e .indicated thatt a would be there. It was r''noted that th ommissi aloners ObertiOrid Miller atter 'r Council work session on Novemberlt <represent the 9. Adjournment Planning Commission regarding communication ben commissionsCommissioner Obert 4 ented that.Commissioner Miller made a ariabdimptation but that the Council was ns ve and expressed his concern with thectrtunication problem. Director Sheldon suggested that this item be discussed at the retreat that will be scheduled between Staff and the City Council. i Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 il Regular Meeting Page 25 Director Sheldon stated that she had included the latest issue of the "Planning Commissioners Journal" in their packet. 46 nf Chair Peterson noted the members present at _« : the October 23, 1996 special meeting, which A. :<z..ttt<t'V ' ' y included Commissioners Miller, Obert, Brooks Anis= '} i'< : . Stevenson, andChair � "`y y r•`` "r Peterson. <:}:. ::::�:::::::::y�� (Commissioners Johnston and Brasaemle had :< 3 <>;:<.,> :'>...'•t>,::.. > v' gior excused absences). Planning Associate Mita. ><. m > �>.'«>�»::;;;<:< v,;yti:tiyytyHy;:i ;;til' Ericson was also present. <f'»r`': ah::, Commissioner Johnston brought up a concern regarding conditional use permit that was ::::::.. approved ro ed for Colonial Village Mobile Home minPark approximately one < `> > :><>>y pP Y year ago which a(� �..:>::.y..yy::>y::•.::>.. them to sell homes. He indicated that 't s? .."iimmiamigo permit should be coming upi for rev e*soonh informed the Commission that he h $ receive lipinv 1110 complaints regarding the Park and dded; t :iiiiinthere are people in the park tta're unhappy about it. «> . �..ky;:yY.: •r{}moi Tt}y iyiiiiiiS There bet ` ;furthe € s beforehe Planning C : erson adjourned the' ting at 1�i < k , Respectfullysubmitted, .'yf; Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director EMBROW:;ili:::::011016i: IMMEMPROF II Item #5 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: November 20, 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, and monument signs at the driveway entrances on Highway 10 and at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10. 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: Diagram of pylon sign Diagram of monument signs Background: The City of •oun s s •iew is pursuing t e construction o a pedestrian bride over Highway 10. It will span the highway just west of Long Lake Road. 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 the shopping center which might be created by the bridge. Staff suggested to the applicant that they apply for a variance based on a visual simulation of the bridge and its relation to the shopping center identification sign. This report serves as a supplement to the staff report prepared for your October 9, 1996 and November 6 meeting. (A copy of the previous staff report will be available at your • November 20 meeting for the Planning Commission's reference.) Planning Commission 462-96: Mounds View Square Signage II/ November 20, 1996 Page 2 Analysis/ Recommendation: Staff obtained a diagram of the sight lines from the City Engineer. The City Engineer has estimated that 10 seconds are needed for a motorist to see the shopping center pylon sign and react in sufficient time to turn at the Mounds View Square, based on the 50 m.p.h.. speed limit on Highway 10. In this amount of time, the car will travel 765 feet. This distance was measured from the intersection of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road, which puts the car at 919 feet from the base of the bridge and approximately 1550 feet from the proposed location of the sign. At this distance, the bridge would cover the lower 52 feet of the sign, given the angle of view. (A copy of the City Engineer's study was presented at your last meeting.) The applicant's original proposal was for a sign 75 feet in height and having a sign area of 800 square feet. At this height, 23 feet will show above the bridge. The panel identifying the center would be visible but not the tenant names. The applicant has submitted a revised proposal which consists of the following: • a center identification sign 35 feet high by 14 feet wide, with a sign area of 322 • square feet • two monument signs, measuring 12 feet high by 18 feet wide, to be placed at the driveway entrances onto Highway 10; each sign has an area of 216 square feet; the area with words is approximately 100 square feet. • a monument sign at the intersection of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road, to be determined when the bridge is completed Diagrams are enclosed which illustrate the first two types of signs. At your last meeting, the Planning Commission requested more information on the type of signage along Highway 10 and pictures of the signs at Mendota Plaza. These pictures will be available at your meeting on November 20. A brief summary follows: Northcourt Commons: Signs use brick columns with tenant names spanning between these supports and the shopping center's name across the top. The tenant names are approximately 2 feet wide. The sign is approximately 26 feet tall, 15.5 feet wide. The area with words is approximately 130 square feet. Northtown Mall: Entry signs are approximately 10-12 feet tall, and triangular in shape which helps cut mass. Signs are constructed of stone and carry only the name of the shopping center. Unable to measure or estimate center identification sign but have • pictures. • Planning Commission 462-96:Mounds View Square Signage November 20, 1996 Page 3 Northtown Village: Center identification sign is approximately 62 feet high and 21 feet wide. Tenant names are 5-6 feet wide. The area with words is approximately 613 square feet. Sign constructed of split face block and brick. Birch Run Station (across from Maplewood Mall): Has a monument sign at the entrance from Beam Avenue which is approximately 25 feet tall and 14 feet wide, with a sign area of 280 square feet. Mendota Plaza: There are two signs, one facing Highway 110 and one facing Dodd Road. The larger one is on Highway 110 and is set back approximately 150 feet from the edge of the roadway. (This sign measures 50 feet tall and has a sign area of 430 sq.ft.) It does not appear large in context. Analysis/ Recommendation: The center identification sign proposed for Mounds View Square fits within the Sign Code • requirements which allow for a pylon sign that is 35 feet high with a sign area of 340 square feet. This sign does not require a variance. Staff would recommend that supports be brick to match the center's architecture and the proposed materials for the monument signs at the entrances. The monument signs at the driveway entrances and at the intersection of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road would require a variance. The applicant is proposing that they be constructed of brick. We do not have information on the color scheme or how the signs will be lighted. We are unclear if the signs will be double-sided. If the monument sign at Long Lake Road and Highway 10 is similar in size to the two proposed at the driveway entrances, the three signs would add approximately 300 feet of signage (100 square feet per sign) on structures measuring 216 square feet each. The applicant feels that this signage is needed to alert motorists to the shopping center and the driveway entrances, since the pedestrian bridge will obscure the view of the retail building from Highway 10 until motorists travel under the bridge. The applicant has indicated that the evening commute is most important to them in terms of capturing shoppers, and it is this east to west direction that is blocked by the bridge. Two issues need to be addressed before dealing with the signs themselves. It appears that the signs at the driveway entrances are in the highway right-of-way,,and they will also cause a sight distance problem for motorists exiting the shopping center. The signs need to be relocated far enough back to allow motorists' safety. If they will be in highway • right-of-way, the applicant would need to provide the City with evidence of permission from MnDOT. Planning Commission . 462-96: Mounds View Square Signage November 20, 1996 Page 4 intended to overcome the blocking effect of the bridge, not only of signage but of the shopping center building also. (It should be noted that because of the shape of the center, only about 1/4 of the front face--from Budget Liquors to the Hypnosis Center--is visible to Highway 10 when traveling west without the bridge in place, until you drive past the point where the bridge will be located.) We have estimated that the sign for Minnesota Center(shown in a picture submitted by the applicant) is approximately 10-12 feet high. The entrance signs at Northtown are approximately 10-12 feet high. The proposed sign for Mounds View Square will look more massive than a sign such as the one at Northcourt Commons because it is a solid wall. We would recommend that the signage at Mounds View Square only be allowed at 12 feet if a shorter wall is extended the base of the sign or either side, earth is bermed up behind the shorter wall and tied into landscaping to soften the effect. Trees should also be planted behind the larger part of the wall. The Planning Commission will have to use its judgement as to whether the dimensions requested are the minimum necessary to overcome the blocking effect of the bridge. A ten foot by 15 foot sign may be sufficient. Staff would also note that the size of the monument sign at Long Lake Road and Highway 10 may need to be adjusted in height and size so it coordinates with the design of the bridge. The criteria for approval of variances to the Sign Code are stated below with comments from staff as to how this proposal meets the criteria. 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 or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners or the property since the effective date hereof had no control. c. �•. .. .. .. _ .. . : . :: The property is developed with a retail building that is L-shaped and set back from Highway 10. The City is proposing to construct a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 at Long Lake Road which will block the view of a portion of the front face of the shopping center and its center identification sign until motorists travel under the bridge. The monument signs proposed at the two driveway entrances will alert motorists to where to turn in the most efficient way possible, since they will be at the roadway edge and more at eye level. They will compensate for the lack of visibility of the center. At present it is very difficult to find the driveway entrances into Mounds View Square at night. The monument sign at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10 will provide signage in advance of the bridge structure for motorists traveling west, which is needed 111 since the bridge will block the view of the center identification sign. • Planning Commission 462-96: Mounds View Square Signage November 20, 1996 Page 5 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. g. Circumstances under which the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title create an undue hardship on the applicant. Economic hardship may be a circumstance for issuance of a variance. The Sign Code allows for tenant identification signs and one pylon sign to identify the overall shopping center. The construction of a pedestrian bridge will block the visibility of both the tenant signage and the pylon sign for Mounds View Square until motorists have traveled under the bridge. The visibility of other shopping centers in Mounds View will not be impacted by the bridge construction. All other properties which abut Highway 10 have clear visibility from the highway and are not obscured by overhead structures. The impact on Mounds View Square will be the most significant due to the angle of the highway, the layout of the shopping center and the position of the bridge. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. • f. The variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The applicant has requested three monument signs, measuring 12 feet tall and 18 feet wide. One is proposed to be located at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10, in advance of the bridge structure to alert motorists to the upcoming shopping center, and two at the driveway entrances from.Highway 10. The signs are needed because the center identification sign will be blocked by the bridge from motorists' view when they travel from east to west on Highway 10. The size of the signs is approximately half the height of monument style signs along Highway 10 and elsewhere used as the sole identification for shopping centers. The signs at the driveway entrances are needed to provide a unmistakable visual signal at the roadside, close to eye level, of the presence of the shopping center since motorists will have less reaction time than if they had an unimpeded view of the center identification sign traveling toward Mounds View Square on Highway 10. With the design requirements in the conditions attached to this variance, the signs will be tied into the landscape and be less intrusive. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the attached resolution granting a variance in sign requirements for Mounds View Square, to allow three monument signs measuring with conditions. iocc: John Streeter,Paster Enterprises,2227 University Avenue, St. Paul MN 55114-1677 FAX: 646-1389 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 484-96 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE IN THE MOUNDS VIEW SIGN CODE TO ALLOW THREE MONUMENT SIGNS AT THE MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, 2535-2585 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 462-96. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request from Mounds View Assoc. LLP for the construction of three monument signs at the Mounds View Square Shopping Center, with two of these signs to be placed at the driveway entrances from Highway 10 and one of these signs to be placed at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed these monument signs to each be 12 feet in height and 18 feet in width, for an area of 216 square feet; and, WHEREAS, this property is in the B-4 zoning district, which allows 100 square feet of signage for each tenant, and a 340 square foot pylon sign; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is proposing to construct a pedestrian bridge • across Highway 10 just west of Long Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, the position of the bridge will block the view of a portion of the shopping center's face and its center identification sign from view by motorists traveling on Highway 10, from east to west; and WHEREAS, the heaviest traffic in the east to west direction is evening, homebound commute traffic, which motorists are more likely to stop to shop than motorists traveling to work; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the criteria used to evaluate variances from the Sign Code as stated in Section 1008.11 and does hereby make the following findings: 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 or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners or the property since the effective date hereof had no control. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The property is developed with a retail building that is L-shaped and set back from 111 Highway 10. The City is proposing to construct a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 at • Planning Commission Resolution No.484-96 November 20, 1996 Page 2 Long Lake Road which will block the view of a portion of the front face of the shopping center and its center identification sign until motorists travel under the bridge. The monument signs proposed at the two driveway entrances will alert motorists to where to turn in the most efficient way possible, since they will be at the roadway edge and more at eye level. They will compensate for the lack of visibility of the center. At present it is very difficult to find the driveway entrances into Mounds View Square at night. The monument sign at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10 will provide signage in advance of the bridge structure for motorists traveling west, which is needed since the bridge will block the view of the center identification sign. 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. g. Circumstances under which the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title create an • undue hardship on the applicant. Economic hardship may be a circumstance for issuance of a variance. The Sign Code allows for tenant identification signs and one pylon sign to identify the overall shopping center. The construction of a pedestrian bridge will block the visibility of both the tenant signage and the pylon sign for Mounds View Square until motorists have traveled under the bridge. The visibility of other shopping centers in Mounds View will not be impacted by the bridge construction. All other properties which abut Highway 10 have clear visibility from the highway and are not obscured by overhead structures. The impact on Mounds View Square will be the most significant due to the angle of the highway, the layout of the shopping center and the position of the bridge. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. f. The variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The applicant has requested three monument signs, measuring 12 feet tall and 18 feet wide. One is proposed to be located at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10, in advance of the bridge structure to alert motorists to the upcoming shopping center, and two at the driveway entrances from Highway 10. The signs are needed because the center identification sign will be blocked by the bridge from motorists' view when they • travel from east to west on Highway 10. The size of the signs is approximately half the height of monument style signs along Highway 10 and elsewhere used as the sole Planning Commission Resolution No. 484-96 • November 20, 1996 Page 3 identification for shopping centers. The signs at the driveway entrances are needed to provide a unmistakable visual signal at the roadside, close to eye level, of the presence of the shopping center since motorists will have less reaction time than if they had an unimpeded view of the center identification sign traveling toward Mounds View Square on Highway 10. With the design requirements in the conditions attached to this variance, the signs will be tied into the landscape and be less intrusive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals does hereby approve the variance request of Mounds View Assoc. LLP for three monument signs, with one sign to be placed at each of the two driveway entrances from Highway 10, and one sign to be placed at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is being granted in recognition of the anticipated construction of a pedestrian bridge using a spiral ramp design at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10. The signs permitted by this variance shall only be constructed after commencement of construction of the pedestrian bridge, and only if the bridge uses the spiral ramp design. The applicant is responsible for obtaining sign permits from the City prior to construction of the signs. 2. The two signs at the driveway entrances shall consist of a monument style sign or "sign wall" constructed of brick and measuring 12 feet in height and 18 feet in width. This"sign wall" shall have an added wall extension on either side approximately four feet in height and 8 feet in length, finished with a capstone as is shown for the sign. The sign wall and wall extensions shall be curved, to reduce the appearance of its mass and to approximate the curvature of the driveways. Earth shall be bermed against the backside of the sign wall and the wall extensions to approximately 3 feet from grade. Landscaping shall be planted behind the sign, to include at least three trees in a cluster, and also in front of the sign. The landscaping may be designed to remain low in front of that portion sign having wording. The final design of the sign wall and sign extensions, and the landscaping plan shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development prior sign permits being issued and landscaping being installed. The brick shall be the same color as is used for the retail building, unless the color creates too dark of a background for the signage to be seen. The applicant may propose a different color compatible with the existing brick used in the shopping center, subject to approval by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of sign permits. 3. The sign at each driveway entrance shall be located on the northwest side of the driveway more or less as shown in the diagram submitted with this application. Prior to issuance of any sign permits, however, these signs at the driveway • Planning Commission Resolution No. 484-96 November 20, 1996 Page 4 entrances shall be relocated further to the north to allow sufficient sight distance for motorists exiting from the shopping center onto Highway 10. The applicant shall provide evidence of permission from MnDOT to locate the signs in the highway right-of-way, or relocate the signs so they are the shopping center's property. 4. For the signs at the driveway entrances, no more than 2/3 of the sign wall may be used for wording(i.e. that portion of the wall face which is 12 feet x 18 feet) as measured using rectangles around each business's name and the shopping center's name. Letters shall not exceed 1 foot 6 inches in height. No wording may appear on the wall extensions. All lettering for tenants names shall be uniform color; the lettering for the name of the shopping center may be the same color or a contrasting color. Lettering may be internally illuminated or the sign may have indirect illumination from ground lighting. Any ground lighting shall be shielded so light rays are directed to the sign, but the light source is not visible to the street or parking area. 5. Signage shall be limited to the name of individual businesses and the name of the S shopping center. At least half of the sign face shall be used for the shopping center name. 6. The design of the sign to be installed at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10 shall be coordinated with the design of the bridge. This variance allows for 145 square feet of sign area to be used for wording, of which 1/2 must be used for the name of the shopping center as part of a wall which would be built east of the bridge. The City shall determine the height and length of the wall and its placement, in consultation with the applicant, as long as the sign area allowed by this variance is accommodated. If the applicant desires to display signage on the wall, the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of constructing up to 280 square feet of wall at this location, unless an alternative funding arrangement with the City is approved by the City Council. Adopted this 20th day of November, 1996. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST: Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director • (SEAL) c:\wpdocs\devcases\462-96pc.res Item #6 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: November 20, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case 467-96 File No.: Request: Warren Schorer, of Land Patterns Landscaping is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for outdoor sale of Christmas trees in the parking area by Bridgeman's Restaurant at Mounds View Square, beginning November 29. Petitioner: Land Patterns Landscaping Location: 2535 Highway 10 PIN No. 07-30-23-11-0079 • Zoning/Land Use: B-4 Mounds View Square Shopping Center • Applicable Regulations: The B-4 Regional Business District allows for open or outdoor service, sale and rental as an accessory use with approval of a conditional use permit (Section 1115.04. Subd. 2) The criteria which apply are discussed under the Analysis section of this report, and in the attached resolution of approval. Attachments: Zoning Map Planning Application Letter of Request Diagram illustrating proposed layout Certificate of Insurance Lease Agreement with Paster Enterprises Background: Staff has received a request on November 12 for outdoor Christmas tree sales in the parking lot adjacent to the Bridgeman's Restaurant. The applicant desires to begin sales on November 29, the day after the Thanksgiving holiday, and was unaware that a conditional use permit is required for such sales. In order to have the permit before City Council for action prior to November 29, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission discuss and then make its recommendation on the permit at your meeting on November 20. We realize that this is not your usual procedure. Staff felt that since this request is for • temporary sales for a very limited time, is not too complicated and is tied to the holiday season (which cannot be rescheduled), it would be appropriate to request the Planning Planning Commission 467-96: Christmas Tree Sales at Mounds View Square November 20, 1996 Page 2 Commission to act on November 20. The permit will be heard by City Council on November 25. There is sufficient time to do the notices to surrounding property owners and the newspaper for this date. With respect to the issue itself, there have been outdoor sales in the parking lot at Mounds View Square in the summertime. On June 24, 1996, the City Council granted a conditional use permit to Merryville Farm Market to operate a produce stand from July 15 to September 2, 1996. On February 26, 1996, Linder's Greenhouses was granted a conditional use permit to operate a temporary greenhouse facility from March 20 to July 15, 1996. A similar permit was issued to Linder's Greenhouses in 1995. Staff is not aware of any problems caused by these uses. Analysis/ Recommendation: The applicant is proposing to use a portion of the Bridgeman's Restaurant parking lot for Christmas tree sales (see attached diagram). The area is approximately 8 parking stalls or 1600 square feet. The remainder of this part of the parking lot has 52 spaces, which staff feels is sufficient to serve the customers of the tree lot. Bridgeman's Restaurant is vacant • at this time. The applicant is proposing to have lighting around the perimeter of the lot and one 4 foot x 8 foot sign located as is shown on the diagram. He has permission from the property owner for operating the tree lot. He has also provided a certificate of insurance for an aggregate amount of$1,000,000. The B-4 Regional Business District allows for open or outdoor service, sale and rental as an accessory use with approval of a conditional use permit. The criteria for approval are stated in Section 1115.04. Subd. 2 are noted below with comments from staff as to how this proposal meets the criteria. a. Outdoor service,sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent(30%)of the gross floor area of the principal use. The shopping center contains 102,035 square feet of building area. The applicant proposes to occupy 1600 square feet in the parking lot, which is 1.6% in comparison to the building square footage on the site. This criteria is met. • Planning Commission 467-96: Christmas Tree Sales at Mounds View Square November 20, 1996 Page 3 b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(1)through(5)of this Title. The parking lot by Bridgeman's Restaurant is does not abut any residential properties, and is bordered on the east by Long Lake Road, south by Highway 10 and north and east by the remainder of the Mounds View Square Shopping Center. The property directly across Long Lake Road is zoned R-1 but is part of the Sunrise Methodist Church property. The area closest to Bridgeman's is forested and contains a large wetland. The property to the south is zoned B-2 and R-4, and is developed as Silver View Plaza, a shopping center, and Wildwood Manor, an apartment building for senior citizens. Mounds View Shopping Center is screened from view from the apartments by a stand of trees between Wildwood Manor and Highway 10. The Bridgeman's site is approximately 450 feet from Wildwood Manor because of the intervening highway right-of-way. Staff considers this criteria to be met. c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section • • 1103.0 of this Title. The applicant is proposing lighting around the perimeter of the lot, as is noted in his letter. The typical lighting used in these situations in a string of light bulbs which are not shielded. Staff will attempt to get additional information from the applicant prior to your meeting. If the light strings are low enough (both in height and wattage), staff does not anticipate problems with light spillage onto other properties. d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The applicant is proposing to use an existing parking lot whi ' i . -• asphalt. This criteria is met. e. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Adverse Effects: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon(but not limited to)the following factors: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. • (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. Planning Commission 467-96: Christmas Tree Sales at Mounds View Square • November 20, 1996 Page 4 (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The proposal is for a temporary Christmas tree lot in the parking lot of an existing shopping center. The shopping center is surrounded by roadways, and the lot itself is at least 450 feet from the nearest residential property. The short duration of the use will result in it having little if any effect on the surrounding area. The sale of Christmas trees is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View, and serves a community need. This criteria is met. Staff Recommendations Adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council approve a conditional use permit for the temporary sale of Christmas trees at Mounds View Square Shopping Center. • • 6 Z 7852 7 r 8-2 7877 = 7860 7885 -7870 N _ 7870 •"-7854 7851 W Z 7861 7 9 ry^� ) '_- rn 7863 ` �'.'� 7850 7855 •" 7846 �.•:ti - ---rte ex0 7830 D 7841 ..- „,40. 7840 7835 7840 •0 7847 784(7 �.;. 7g3j fo, 7817 :�O 78331783 +:-30k. 7815 M1 7790 C 7815 7800 7809 781 3 7815 7814 7827 78: A% MI 7805 7801 780. --- 7817 • 77770 7801 7760 7797 7800 7801 7800 7800 z 7787 7778 7807 O.. 9-2 ' R_4 7801 Ap w 7751 7750 7777 7749 7751 L `til eotP 1 7767 7760 C47 7741 7740 7767 7768 -I-77773299 739 7740 7751 0. ti� 7761 7750 7731 7730 7753 -ME 7727730 7741 n O” 7801411r 7755 7730 7721 7720 7728 7719 7720Q 773177 z` 77 .. 8-2 7745 7710 7711 •• 7710 7709 7710 772177 . • 7715 NIN 77007'701 7700 0]770 eiceE1753, — en 7fi9 �I : CO :d — rnrna n—rnrui o o m i „tO e v 7690 PUD c o B-3 i i vi n o N DI DI uni 2553 7695 N N N n N NIN r NNNN t0 NNNNN 2551 Z .z. 768768, W N N N 2547 2549 0 7687 7669 -317E 22545 R-4 R-4 ,1, a B-3 1!) B-4 2541" -a N. 2539 N 2537giVir 7 r[�Y 7E O 7655...‘Wilt fj -_ ', ti : - 7645 ,- • ii19•141t..L'i1C r. i SILVER VIEW ��' P �, ,d+`7E / ..,,,. . .„,..,...,. B-Z • 11 n n. n N 763. 7F PARK ^ 4 .JN 0 '0— R-3 r N =Y7 nor.� "� B-3 ' a o-2 27 n z N o r ,�`L5N w vv7552 " 111mtiN N• 550 !!1 N N N N�OI OO 0 7542 Pr r 3 2N N N v 7540 n N r N O 43 J:' 7532 m IN N N N I� m p"'N •��. 7522 Y N Yn•�:•j-40' `co o 'g '14/r CITY HALL O El N 0� CO m M r N N O • - - . i ,:. _ N N - k0 7-- ritt 7444 __ _ _ • _ _ P- .- alio • t_ - O 7442nist - - - - 1§1:‘,...240310 r 7440 '1 ViE'11m .: 7408 ��.-.-��v •. 4 7400 �:;' •.�� _ n 7390 :��" = i, m m . . i "=. H•OGIt/ N N r 7350 737 1,::::::::::,:.:1::-:--; m �IIlJ.15 0U1:��..• a 737•. , 'tiEr ,qiian _ = N n co 0 m m co 7344 = - m 722 frAir A _ - N .. R-2 -141h1 ^ • ..-... 7310 1 � .. • N N to • R. R-2 H2 R PNOmfO� of N N N !0 r N1- um,0,n�nln �n r •c ro e 6 52761 5279 5276 1CtOtO�O��I �O N N N N N N N Nr NNNNNN N 1 5272 5273 5272 a ,n - r -n( a N ;;I :::1 '218 o JNM 5260 8 5266 5267 526 N N Fell N I RI N 1 N ?'41 N 2112"1. N 52561526 5256 5261 I 5260 5261 LOUISA AVE n 5250 52 - 5250 5260 Q �'S1• 7�5177 -'�C N p v N co n M NI n 2 ' o ®� 7250 Q 0 1 5254 525.4.Q N N N N I N. N. N I N, N N N N OIILM 52 Q 3 524 n n n a n 1:: -- aW 5249 -e a n �,�1 a :NINE' -' �° ,, Z0 .ca 5238 n �c m a r� t 517E1517„> 5248 �n < < i n 211 N N N N c W W 52' N N N N N N I C 72 (>: �I Df �i ` �I OI �� ��NI NI NIN Lal Y 51741517'� 5242215243 N N N N N N N N C' g. IT2 6 CLCARvi, Es 7190 CLEARVIEW AVEE o o a _, 5236 5237 I n i e n n n r n =1 ��'�SJ 5226 r u n v v '�-4 51725171 5231 523Q N�N `N IN N I N N N I N I N I N� N� CiyL•7.52 • 5231 N N�N N NI-c - Mrii�il In a n In r' al- a 1 77 1 — r n a 4 — r 1-, a ,n r r� a I r� r 'c m �n a•1 77 7180 522 :0 I 1D 1 (OW W I '0 'G 0 I l' �O( "31'9181 04 0 104 xN N N N N N NIN • 5170 5169 52241 5225 " + n N N N 1 12! P T T. C rl PI N N1 N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N LANE 05 516815167 52181 5221 I °� O15166�5165 521 i RIDGE m ° o N m T o r N' "i r ° o < o o,c, SZ17 .�{1 ( i 12 0 0 'n 2 n no INI4'4t N 5213 IN N("4 elm vl< . e ( 2152131 1 c0 15211 (5212. ql 01'D l yl 2I NI 212 N N N N N N N N NLN N C Vicinity Map: 467-96 ,. 2535 Highway 10 _ Applicant: Land Patterns Landscaping CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW _ PLANNING APPLICATION APPLICANT: I i) i� '•" -Sc._.1 I-)�;£ ` Fhone ./� 'NV/ l YY53 ADDRESS: .. "--)7 of t ?kJi J . 4 J. A).£ . i. cA-J4 At\ij . 75-Sc`"/o • Street Address, City, State, and Zp Cade Interest in Property (check appropriate box): ❑ Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner O Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase R • ❑ Other (explain) f',-.J.-; t . ,,dc, 4-L A.�z \ .mo . Documentary evidence of appiican{s interest in tie property may be required before final City con of this request PROPERTY INVOLVED: Address/General Location IA, ti.,IA / 1 0 -- I n ir- r! Legal Description or Property Identification Number Legal Owner: Name/Address. S-t 2 . .J-i . ,L?..a7 (AT J. Al, NS7-. g J i rn� . 1;-.S-V I LI Present Use (check appropriate box): ❑ UndevelopedNacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling • ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling . .- . . .._.. - .. --- --.---------• -- -- -., ❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units ) a Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Ciassmcatio/n: ❑ Abstra ❑ Torrens L, RECUEST: /c'5.,1C1. -/D S ' /L )/inn- S' fC �� S *Please note: Applicant may be responsible for adcitional fees associated with the review of this request I HERESY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE. .-trwirgres-Rwitirvirtriewrirsrgrairivirtrgrimwririrarirstir.rwrirmirmmIrartrervirartritimirerstvrortirstireVtlIfIRMMIfirlirlit11!VW Signature Rezoning 5200/acre.minimum S200.maximum S1.000 Paris Fund Dedication Fse V R-1 to R-2 Y,ail others=00 Dana Paid itionai Use Perm R-1 to R-2rlo;ail others 5200 Receipt Number Cxe p S75 Deveiop./Site Ran Review St00/ace.minimum 100.maximum 5500 Total Fees Paid Minor Sucaivision • 5150 S Dara Paid i /// /�� Mak r Subaivision S250 pias S250 deposit Receipt Number C:.mp. Pian Amendment 5200 5-3 io Wetland Alteration Permit S50 plus depositcetarmineo by Start Additional Fee Paid • Wetland Surfer Permit 510 Cate Paid Planning Sign S50 Receipt Number PUO 5350 PU0 Amendment 5150 Data of anal acoon _cl,^ APPROVED E DENIED — TA L-7 — Data 11 l� 111 Pi (Di — 9 to arming Case No. 4 Admin.Ac,runt No. .. . 0 \NN • N 00Z Pil ii001- 0990 Z „x N ....„..... J.33A NI TIVOS ..., %-.....)`- 1 M4 .-- 9 6 W•ift ---4.- ' Look N' ')C.0 4:1 15- fr 3 9 S .,. , . • \\`‘ . 1 0 -\\„.. , s,i. (7,•,,. -- -* * * * * . - - l' ; / 'N' 4 0_ ,_. N.N Oz. N I 1 , . \ • r- 1-11\ 0 ., ' ' ' ' u ni11 ' 1 ' ;'• / '' , , , ,,. ' ' H ' ' --\ ' I ; ; . ' ; \\;„ . N. '24, •>... 4 .. ' r > n ' NN • x m PZ smvsOlZrn J17,— -... -- ,.. 31 t i o ' 6016 r•i0lAd 'N. > —m (..; '-\\\. tA, \ •• 1 u- i I . N CE , . „ NN\NN N\ : , r I 1 1 , 1 — S0189VA VIOS3NNWI •:A• ' 'q,'•:, ' • • ' • ' ' ' ' ,11 % 1 i:, '•••, / % 000NN. 1! do* - . I - — 8 TS 00/1. 6 00 .. 'a t•L'zi. E t. 01. 91. 91. LI-181- 16lin • `-',`,'‘ Z,-1!• .L. >.. i „1 4 :. E. ;., 2 1 50 1 — 61100011 908 ,1 i/-1------''-- 8 ____ — oraia 830A9S = •,, 0 • >* 7, , P 71- - , ; ---- -' 'ONIMMIEM.M. ,- --. —..- -, .._; 7 1 E . . . . , , - ,.. ‘,.,, . , ,,..- • , 1 _ . , • , , 7 ' .. . , 'N"/ , (6961.)'CI'd'A 009S I CIVO8 AIN1100 ,-- --\ (-- , LAND = z _ AT' ERIS = Nursery and Landscape Contractors Route •4• Box 374 • Isanti, Minnesota 5504 2 I cf AiC -d 5��� = J� s _�es /7l ikJC4as,„.3 ~� tp o r ,�/icl �<ss � - _ Nc dg ,Sozn . w -- - - - - 13 7/IO Lo � ► G� J4-„ 4 _� m J 7tii c--- 1 -, A)0(A)_- V,I c#1,j ,1---. . - _ __ _ _- - __ __ - , - i ..,-- .- I �& 946f fo �> 6,ilt5 .1 :lvo"uc r.� W/ t%I c 4C'M/ c>a Cr . . Sv12C C W c� X't5y>-2G • e 4-o-.J-) (s, ) Pe e c /,‘) f I ‘,AJ G . Lo 1 ,.,J' 1 G✓o vt..0 Cosls 9- 0-j_ '9 �/X t 5,6J -11A1 Aib C/4 O 6 A)1 t-A 1 - ) • ,q4'. ") p,'-- (T i<,.6 /n /9 ROC dP—fA)IL X r4 S S �a R -fl i< Si' t S' A'J, �1 .i__-331 1q k-'o cd ) /9,.)D 1-1,e) ‹ t/g.5 740 --gf S , 171 /777) J fS ✓tc., ./ l-c i 6 . .gil) , ,..,fi,) -�/ ,..) A K' --i-g4 i -15 /1101A-) c 6 X i/I &s "5', �Gj� c, 4-C/ '\J 74 '-' '14Vc:r”) Isanti (612)444-9453 ' J. �''"`� inic. f.iE�L /n /' / - _> _ - DATE tMMlDO/YYI . ACORD,h: CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE 41026 31-OCT-96 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION F ORISTS' MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE ST LOUIS STREET. HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW, wardsvi l le, IL 62025 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE I • COMPANY I A FLORISTS' MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY INSURED COMPANY Warren Schorer B Land Patterns COMPANY 27701 University Avenue NE • C Isanti, MN 55040 COMPANY I D COVERAGES: < ..... ::....: • .. .. • I THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE USTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD IINDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. UMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. ' COI POUCY EFFECTIVE POUCY EXPIRATION LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE(MM/DD/YY) DATE(MM/DDMf) UMITS GENERAL UABILITY I GENERAL AGGREGATE 3 1,000,000 X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 1PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG 13 1,000,000 A •. % CLAIMS MADE X OCCUR BP 04806 05/05/96 05/05/97 PERSONAL&ADV INJURY 13 500,000 11•OWNERS&CONT PROT 6660' EACH OCCURRENCE i$ 500,000 FIRE DAMAGE(Any one fire) 13 100,000 • MED EXP(Any one person) 3 2,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY I — ANY AUTO COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT I a ALL OWNED AUTOS ( BODILY INJURY SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per personl $ HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY _ $ — NON-OWNED AUTOS (Per accident)PROPERTY DAMAGE 1 s i GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY-EA ACCIDENT 13 —^ ANY AUTO OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT I$ . AGGREGATE I$ EXCESS UABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE I S UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGATE 1$ i i OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM 3 WORKERS COMPENSATION AND I STAMORY uMns I` '' A i EMPLOYERS'UABILITY WCN 11948 05/05/96 05/05/97 $ 500,000 EACH ACCIDENT THE PROPRIETOR! INCL 6660 DISEASE-POUCY LIMIT I $ 50U,U00 PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE — OFFICERS ARE: EXCL DISEASE-EACH EMPLOYEE i $ SOD,OOO OTHER • 'FreIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS - - - --. • Wfikifig et a / A4t, DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTERS 2227 University Ave.•St.Paul,MN 55114-1677•612-646-7901 • Fax 612-646-1389 October 30, 1996 S CENTRAL PLAZA 45th&Central Ave.N.E. Mr. Warren Schorer Minneapolis,Minnesota Land Patterns 27701 University Avenue North East Isanti, MN 55403 CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER Bass Lake Road&West Broadway Re: Christmas Tree Stand Crystal,Minnesota Bridgeman Lot/Moundsview Square Shopping Center Moundsview, MN 55112 Dear Mr. Schorer: DODDWAY SHOPPING CENTER Smith&Dodd Road West St.Paul,Minnesota Enclosed, please find a fully executed copy of the Lease Agreement for your Christmas Trees Operation in the Moundsview Square Shopping Center. LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES As you are aware, it will be up to you to get the necessary peddler's Lexington&Larpenteur Roseville,Minnesota license from the City of Moundsview. I talked to Mr. Jim Erickson, 784-3055, who advises me that in all probability, the license will be issued without going before the council. I, however, do urge that you get that license soon, so if they do insist on going before the counci' MENDOTA PLAZA there will be ample time. State Hwy. 110&Dodd Road Mendota Heights,Minnesota I trust you have made arrangements for the necessary insurance as called for in this Letter of Agreement, and if we can assist you in any way, please let us know. MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE Hwy. 10&Long Lake Road Best regards. Mounds View,Minnesota Very truly yours, NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER PASTER ENTERPRISES State Hwy.23 &Woodland Circle Pines,Minnesota tio W. Banet SIBLEY PLAZA Vice President West 7th Street&Davern Real Estate St.Paul,Minnesota WRB/cew SOUTHVIEW SHOPPING CENTER • Southview Blvd. & 13th Ave. S South St.Paul,Minnesota • ti lip,it.4 ej, DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTERS 2227 University Ave.•St.Paul,MN 55114-1677•612-646-7901 • Fax 612-646-1389 • October 22, 1996 CENTRAL PLAZA Mr. Warren Schorer 45th&Central Ave.N.E. Land Patterns Minneapolis,Minnesota 27701 University Avenue North East Isanti, MN 55403 CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER Re: Christmas Tree Stand . Bass Lake Road&West Broadway Bridgeman Lot/Moundsview Square Shopping Center Crystal,Minnesota Moundsview, MN 55112 • Dear Mr. Schorer: DODDWAY SHOPPINGCENTER This letter will constitute our Rental Agreement for the above captioned SmithRoad&Dodd g p West St.Paul,Minnesota premises. PARTIES: Warren Schorer d/b/a Land Patterns; (Tenant), and Mounds- view Square Associates, LLP; (Landlord). LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES Lexington&Larpenteur Roseville,Minnesota TERM: Premises (the Bridgeman Parking Lot) are rented for a period commencing November 29, 1996 and expiring on December 24, 1996. • Tenant shall be granted the right to commence setting up the Christmas Tree Stands on November 25, 1996, and removing all trees and MENDOTA PLAZA structures no later than December 31, 1996. However, selling of State Hwy. 110&Dodd Road Mendota Heights,.Minnesota products can only be done between November 29, 1996 and December 24, 1996. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES: Premises are leased in an "as is" MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE condition with no obligation on the part of the Landlord for any Hwy. 10&Long Lake Road or construction, remodelling, repairs. Mounds View, Minnesota RENTAL: Rental for this period is One Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($1 ,000.00), due and payable with the execution of this Lease Agree- NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER ment. State Hwy.23 &Woodland Circle Pines,Minnesota UTILITIES: Landlord will allow Tenant to hook up to electricity for the Tenant's use during this period. Tenant shall be responsible for and pay promptly for all electricity consumed within the premises during the SIBLEY PLAZA Tenant's occupancy. West 7th Street&Davem St.Paui.Minnesota SALES: It is agreed by Tenant that within ten (10) days following the last day of occupancy, Tenant will supply Moundsview Square Associates with the total number of Christmas Trees sold during the term of occupancy. 'THVIEW SHOPPING CENTER �� Southview Blvd. & 13th Ave.S South St.Paul.Minnesota • INClT 1 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 487-96 110 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR SALES OF CHRISTMAS TREES AT MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, 2535 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 467-96. WHEREAS, Warren Schroer of Land Patterns Landscaping has applied for a conditional use permit to allow outdoor sale of Christmas trees from November 29 to December 25 in the parking lot for the Mounds View Shopping Center at 2535 Highway 10, which property is zoned B-4 and is described as follows: Part lying northeasterly of the centerline of State Trunk Highway 10 of NE 1/4 of N1/4 (Subject to Roads and Highways) in Section, 7, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows open and outdoor sales in the B-4 Regional Business Zoning District with the approval of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding • this proposal: a. Zoning Map b. Planning Application c. Diagram illustrating proposed layout d. Letter of Request e. Certificate of Insurance f. Lease Agreement with Paster Enterprises -•• : - , - . 1 ; • • e •; es-the-fallowing-fist-the-criteria-for approval in Section 1115.04. Subd. 2 has been met: a. Outdoor service,sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent(30%)of the gross floor area of the principal use. The shopping center contains 102,035 square feet of building area. The applicant proposes to occupy 1600 square feet in the parking lot, which is 1.6% in comparison to the building square footage on the site. This criteria is met. b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(1)through(5)of this • Title. • The parking lot by Bridgeman's Restaurant is does not abut any residential properties, and is bordered on the east by Long Lake Road, south by Highway 10 and north and east by the remainder of the Mounds View Square Shopping Center. The property directly across Long Lake Road is zoned R-1 but is part of the Sunrise Methodist Church property. The area closest to Bridgeman's is forested and contains a large wetland. The property to the south is zoned B-2 and R-4, and is developed as Silver View Plaza, a shopping center, and Wildwood Manor, an apartment building for senior citizens. Mounds View Shopping Center is screened from view from the apartments by a stand of trees between Wildwood Manor and Highway 10. The Bridgeman's site is approximately 450 feet from Wildwood Manor because of the intervening highway right-of-way. This criteria is met. c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.0 of this Title. The applicant is proposing lighting around the perimeter of the lot. (Pending further information from applicant.) d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The applicant is proposing to use an existing parking lot which is surfaced with asphalt. This criteria is met. • e. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Adverse Effects: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon(but not limited to)the following factors: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The proposal is for a temporary Christmas tree lot in the parking lot of an existing shopping center. The shopping center is surrounded by roadways, and the lot itself is at least 450 feet from the nearest residential property. The short duration of the use will result in it having little if any effect on the surrounding area. The sale of Christmas trees is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View, and serves a community need. This criteria is met. • Planning Commission Resolution 487-96 • November 20, 1996 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends that the Mounds View City Council approve the conditional use permit for Christmas tree sales at Mounds View Square Shopping Center with the following conditions: 1. The facility shall be allowed to operate from November 29, .1996 to December 25, 1996, with an allowance for site cleanup from December 25 to December 29. The applicant shall remove all evidence of the Christmas tree lot, and return the parking lot to its current condition, by December 29. 2. The hours of operation shall be 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM. 3. The Christmas tree lot shall be located in the Bridgeman's Restaurant parking lot as shown on the diagram submitted with the application. 4. One 4 x 8 foot sign shall be allowed, to be placed as shown on the diagram submitted with the application. The sign may have ground-mounted, indirect lighting. 5. String lighting along the perimeter of the Christmas tree lot shall be permitted, as long as the supports are no taller than 10 feet, and the bulbs do not exceed 100 111 watts. (Pending further information from applicant) 6. The applicant shall carry general liability insurance in an amount of$1,000,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to the approval of the minutes. Adopted this 20th day of November, 1996. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director • (SEAL) Item #7 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION • Meeting Date: November 20, 1996 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case File No.: 466-96 Request: The applicant is requesting a minor subdivision to move 12.5 feet from 7532 Silver Lake Road to 7540 Silver Lake Road. Petitioner: Larry Beach, on behalf of Richard Edin (7532 Silver Lake Road) and William Culbert (7540 Silver Lake Road). Location: 7532 and 7540 Silver Lake Road PIN No. 7532 Silver Lake Road: Pending 7540 Silver Lake Road: 07-30-23-21-0069 Zoning/Land Use: The properties are currently zoned R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential and are improved with two twin-homes. Total acreage of existing property is 46,935 square feet (1.08 acres.) • Applicable Regulations: Section 1201.03, Subd. 11, defines a minor subdivision as"A subdivision of a parcel or parcels or property less than two acres in size in which no more than one additional parcel or lot is created. Section 1202.01, Subd. 1, states"Minor subdivision requests shall require at least a surveyor's certificate for approval." Section 1104.02, Subd. 2, requires a minimum lot width for R-2 lots of 100 feet. Section 1104.02, Subd. 3, requires . • • :: square feet for R-2 lots. Section 1204.02, Subd. 6, requires an additional park dedication fee for re-subdivided parcels. This applies only when park dedication fees have not already been paid for the property or if the gross density per acre increases as a result of the re-subdivision. Park dedication fees have been paid for the property to the north, but no fees have been collected for the subdivision to the south. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map • Certificate of Survey (reduction) Descriptions of Easements PLANNING CASE NO. 466-96 November 14, 1996 • Page 2 Background: This minor subdivision does not create an additional lot but instead takes a 12 '/2 foot wide strip of land from one lot and adds it to the adjoining lot to the north. This action would formalize a previous agreement made with the property owner to the north and Mr. Beach. The property owner to the south was informed of this impending action prior to the purchase of 7532 Silver Lake Road. Because drainage and utility easements have already been recorded for the existing configuration of the two lots, they will need to be amended in such a way that vacates the old side lot easement between the two properties and creates a new ten(10) foot wide easement centered on the revised side lot property lines. Documents describing the vacated and new easements shall be provided by the applicant and verified by the City Attorney and staff prior to your meeting on December 4. Analysis: The minimum square footage for lot area required by the Code is 12,500 feet. The properties currently well exceed that requirement with 20,853 square feet for the property to the north and 26,075 square feet for the property to the south. After the re-subdivision, the properties will remain in compliance with this requirement with 23,460 square feet for the property to the north and 23,468 square feet for the property to the south. Currently, IP the properties meet or exceed the minimum lot width requirement (100 feet for the northerly property and 125 feet for the southerly property.) After the re-subdivision, the width of the properties will be 112.5 feet for both. The applicant has provided a revised Certificate of Survey for the properties located at 7540 and 7532 Silver Lake Road. This revised Certificate of Survey shows the property lines and easements as revised with the former property lines and easements in the background. The revised lots have been labeled as Parcel X(7540 Silver Lake Road) and Parcel Y (7532 Silver Lake Road.) The Certificate of Survey includes the revised legal descriptions for both parcels, as well as their former descriptions. Recommendation: Staff is favorable toward the approval of this minor subdivision if the following requirements are met: 1. The applicant shall submit the signed, revised easements prior to the City Council's action on this item. The easements are expected for your meeting on December 4. 2. The applicant shall provide the City with a park dedication fee in the amount of $100 per Code requirements in Section 1204.02. 3. The applicant shall provide the City with notarized letters of permission from • William Culpert and Richard Edin, owners of 7532 and 7540 Silver Lake Road, respectively. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION APPL!CAN IT: kR2 •/ EM.k Phone 9 F0 -SZar 0 ADDRESS: ( 9 7 Kii0 C J (1. 1'Ll U Street Address, City, State, and Zp Code Interest in Property (check appropriate box): ❑ Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner -- O Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase • ❑ Other (explain) Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in lie property may be required before Spa! Cay aeon of tits request PROPERTY INVOLVED: Address/General Location 1153 2 - '15410 .51lver 2.4-ke. /2e4, cl Legal Description or Property Identification Number Legal Owner: Name/Address 10;c E:d;N '7532. 511aer- 2..a We. ?);II Co_ be r•-{- rl 5L o z r/ler 2_,...k . 'C.. Present Use (check appropriate box): <. ❑ UndevelopedNacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling • Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ./_❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units ) „ ❑ Business'Cammercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification: 0 Abstract Z Torrens RECUEST: -1-7\-4I , 6' / Fro►,., rl 5 3a ai.) J ax:18 4 `151-1t S; luer Lam,ke_ 2ac.,1. 'Pease note: Apeiicant may be resconsibie for accitional fees associated with e review cf:his request. I HERESY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STAT.ME.VT ARE TRUE. a 6)-421 Signa ire mleas=iexairivareir:+favi+fritsiri:weirs ei = iem=,►::tt..s,.m*,.ye,. y+tineYtrr:srr,rseine:xze Rezoning Z2C0/acre.minimum=CO—maximum Si.000 Paris Ftind Dedication Fee Variance r'i-1 to a-2•S75.sil.cittiers=CO Date Paid Conditional Use Permit P-1 n-2.575. ail Others S200 prompt Number Code Appeal 575 Deveioo Site Plan Review Si CO/acre.minimum 100.maximum S5CC Total Fees Paid /50. a ° 'Wor Sucgivision) si so Date Fe d a,cr Surbarviswn S250 pius 5250 decosit Receipt Numcer C.;mo. P!an Amendment S2C0 3 `rte / • Wetland Alteration Permrt S50 pus cecosct determined by Staff Additional Fee Paid Wetiana 3ufer Permrt SIO Cate Psd panning Sign $50 n'eceiat Number P'JO 5:350 PUD Amendment Si 50 Cate of 5nai =ton � APPSCVEO i_ DENIED' _ TAc��. Gate I O ^J 7-q (0 Panning Case No. `kLidnO — 't.r,0 Admin.Account No. AA, ''417' ` Ico iv .o.,., ry0fi D: ixy /604 /909 o EMI 7950 N 7933 7940 7945 7946 792 N. 7930 7935 7930 791 °' I 6.. .._._ a n OD 4� N CO N 7900 Iso - -�t —J 7897 N Vii, c 70 N N N 17900 7901 7900 [ •- N°3 vr. HILLVIEW EirN 7830 Tern 7890 7887 n `o c° • m _ 0 7891 N 7880 7820 ' 7880 7879 • 7861 N ��+'„ to N • - 7835 m 7876 Z 7885 7866 786: 781• 7813 7870 7865 ' ,� m N co 8-2 Z — 'II - =�' 860 7851 7850 7821 644111i110. �'` 7870 N 7877 7854 785' 7850 - [MU! 1n 78417801 �' 6� 78637842784'O 0x •ld.�"Z�li=�- 7761 +:-3 7851 7830 O 3 ^0. 782a 781 IIt2igH4;;; • 440, La ®7770 9. . . 777s �`� 8_2 ', 7600 ® p R-4 760• :': ::::::-:{;.�':: :e ;:::: :: ` 7749 7768 7767 MI �ill :llkib LSO 1 776; .::;;..:::.::: ::::_ .:': :. .::. = 773 7729 G ti� 77s milli- _'77294 772= 7801 775.. �grI -�• 7719 771: 7715 1114 774° __............ N 7710 7709 77co 10 7711 .. :::_::?; c:;ERP':; 771. 7686 : 1 ,' 7685 N 7690 R• N ::: = PUD o :.M— m m �O 7675 N 7680 cn p 7669 7670 7663 ' N.Ngr .. : no 0,1 B-3 '�a.tL W N /r•N N In O 7870 7665 7660 PI PI 768C 7655 7666 7847 7644 7653 B-3 v6� 7630 7633 7664 7629 7634 7635 Nil .. 7624 7629 7820 7625 7620 7614 7627 7600 7619 7600 7601 : 7fiO4 7580 7585 7594 7575 ` SILVER VIEW 7584 758111111111-. N a o 7579 7588 N N• N• ,�% 7564 7565 755q 0 7565 7584 D 75 PARK N°n 1111 N 0 N° 7546 7355 3 7555 7572 s c°N 755d 0 7545 > ��_?J .. 3 'e n 4.N N 754,5 Z 7560 • N «N °n co 11 o 42 7538 Y 7546 Y 7515 >iLf PF N `� N N N rn m o C n n q ^ ^ m - I n '• \� :Ji 1 .. Q .1.-”,„,9,,,,,43 ,cam n O �.1 •r P II 74 O •lnV.on n nr�NN co M h 750 N N l 7500 N m C9 11113; m O• N N!� O N DRIVE N SON 'Ci M, N O N .- 7474 7489 73 n 7490 7485 m v ���' O a n n n . N moto n no N m 7465 7474 7471 747 7499 z _ .. N Y N N. N N O N N 7462 7454• 7456 PBRONSON 7 .. /'::::: 744 7451 o - - 7aa8 5 -1 7452 • co" 2 7444at, %::::::,..:::.;•:•Y:, = - _ ` _ 44 7415 7 2 7430 7433 7 Wct. +' n n� 4yt_> N 744 n � :•:•:;:.:., 7409 7440 I t DR `417 - tiPF::. 7406 7405 I 7412 n cc - . 7405 7408 .�_ �� .• „,t,.-...,,: ....... 7380 a7381 7382 7395 7400 Ct. i ll 7390 •-t 7350 7365 7360 7375 MIH•pG n N 7340 7347 7340 7373 7350 �; + a� ZSgEf:_ ....- ca (Ca N 7320 7327 r n 7344 - _ .7325 CO °D m cry n Of a 7337 N o 0 317 N N _ 7338 7309 _ _ N 0 0 0 o rn a� m rn w 30 n m m M ”) r) n N N N N N 315 m. • ••• N� r 310 ®® • - m m N N Rs R-2� H2 I -NOOm I~ m 0 = ONv m O 01 I O I [4 I W I c I [ I n I N I NI I N I iI N 1� 4111 N N "Ill 152781 mmmNh mmmmm NNNNN II VicinityMap Mp Case No. 466-96 I 7532 and 7540 Silver Lake Road l Y 4III Applicant: Larry Beach NOV-14-1996 18:23 FROM E.G. RUD & SONS TO 7843462 P.82 sicsarcii PLAN! S'' . . For. LARRY BEACH 6951 Knollwood Dr. Mound's Wave, MN 55112 • Tele: 750-5608 F r 4 n NORTH r ....1 ,. i r 1., •, 1 deck 1 ; ';' I 3° ! 7542 D Y08.19 Townhouse Gar. • 4 r i y South line of the '' iL `� 30 I N 50 ft. of Lot 3 `L. ; 7540 c cs ;----; �,, PARCEL X o b a € South lime of Lot 3. 1 seal ; 13.032 sq. ft. �o111 e DAILE'I KNOLLS --..,,,, m9d�,,DETAIL j 1 w aseants to be vacated �L - — ——Yr-1:-.77--4 W ens of Lot 10 =rth line of Lot 11 ,0 1 " 1 - �Pti.. !-- _a -,:; .RIG LACE PARK KNOLLS r `i REVISED DIVISION UNE--' NJ I \ r I (•-South lime of-the N 12.5 ft. of�Lots 10 and l l l-, S. eo � ,er . 1 1� 1 � � I » deck t. $, ; _ 1 0 38 f 7532 -- e1 r &I I ..i I ' ' PARCEL Y , `w I ,a CO eg . I 15,64$ sq. ft. Car. e /"j, + t r 208:6 Townhouse] 1 I ( 1 Gar. I 7530 L I DETAIL I �- _ I 1 No Sadie O iii ,i (:) 1 .... //g ,, i L L in ____j_jlo ,(:.• 208.53 1 208.6 e 3 , ;: FORMER PROPERTY DE3CRlP710VVS Zifip AN toot part of Lot 3 B/oo+t 1, DALEY KNOLLS Ramsey C aunty, Mthneeot44 lyer9 south of the north 50 feet thereof Subpet to ahvinage and utWty easements over the west JO fret and the south 5 frit thereof 211,'t fie north 75 feet of Lots 10 and 11, SPRANG'LAKE PARK KNOLLS Ramsey C untg _..- Minnesota .2thlsct to adws oge and utf7lty sasanents over the north 5 4.1. east 10 feet out west 30 feet thersoL REUSED PROPERTY DESCRIPTION$ PARCEL 4 Al that part of Lot 3 Block 1, DALEY KNOLLS Ramsey Count; ifinnesota Oing south of the north 50 fret threot together with the north 125 fret of Lots 10 and 71, BERING LAKE'PARK KNOLL$ Ramsey Cavnt}g MLvnesota • pARCEt 1~ The south 625 lest of the north 75 fist of Lots 10 and 11, SPRANG LAKE PARK KJWOLL.$ Ramsey Coun1j Minnesota • 'ewsfd 11/T4/95 (easements updated) >coler l e=30' .. 1-.: Drown By JCB ( Book Poe. ! Disk: 1 Job No. aSS3av r7 lento), certify that * 1NC. h` of thls plan, survey or repave: was prepared by me or node my L1+ND it�tvn� set supersisha and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the lows Ire Stye lKOpna�ta. Dated this /I^rday of /1iu ,19_A. 1111k10 LIDONCITC141 AMC 740•. ---.. -�a.. NOV-14-1996 16:18 FROM E.G. RUD & SONS TO 7843462 P.02 • .Matd cfc. Yow.d, 5no. • tAP3D SURVgYORS 9180 LEXINGTON AVE. N.E. CIRCLE PINES(LEXINGTON), MINNESOTA 55014 • (612).786-5556 FAX.#(612)786-6607 November 12, 1996 Proposed Descriptions for Easements to be Vacated The south 5 feet of Lot 3, Block 1, Dailey Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota, except the west 30 feet thereof The north 5 feet of Lot 11, Spring Lake Park Knolls,Ramsey County,Minnesota, except the west.38 feet thereof and the north 12.5 feet of the east 8 feet of the west 38 feet of said Lot 11. The north 5 feet of Lot 10 and the south 7.5 feet of the north 12.5 feet of the east 10 feet of said Lot 10, all in Spring Lake Park Knolls,Ramsey County,Minnesota. Proposed Easement Descriptions for Parcel X and Parcel Y • Parcel X: The south 5 feet of the north 12.5 feet of Lot 11 except the west 30 feet thereof and the south 5 feet of the north 12.5 feet of Lot 10, all in Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel Y: The south 5 feet of the north 17.5feet of Lot 11, except the west 38 feet thereof and the south 5 feet of the north 17.5 feet of Lot 10, all in Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Item #8 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: November 20, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case File No.: 468-96 Request: The applicant is requesting a variance in the Sign Code to allow the installation of a monument-style directional sign at one driveway entrance on Highway 10 and one on County Road H2. Petitioner: Saturn Development Location: 2375-2395 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 regulations applicable to this request are stated and discussed under the analysis section of this report. Attachments: Diagram of sign Background: The Saturn dealership intends to purchase the Citgo gasoline station, and use this property for an expansion. At your meeting on November 6, the Planning Commission considered and recommended in favor of a conditional use permit which would allow for this expansion. The Saturn proposal included the addition of two monument signs, measuring 5 feet high by 8 foot 6.5 inches wide (42.7 sq.ft.), which would be located at the westernmost driveway on Highway 10 and the easternmost driveway on County Road H2. The signs would assist in directing customer traffic. The existing signage includes the following: • existing pylon 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 approvedp ermits. The B-3 district allows for 100 square feet per business occupant, and one general 4f Planning Commission • Planning Case No. 468-96: Saturn Development November 20, 1996 Page 2 pedestal sign not exceeding 340 square feet, for a total sign area of 440 square feet. If the two additional monument signs were added to the existing signage on the site, the total signage on the site would be 278.9 square feet, which is well within the total square footage allowed. The way the signage is proposed to be distributed and the types of signs proposed, however, are not anticipated by the Sign Code. In effect, signage would be redistributed from the pylon sign to two monument signs. Staff feels that this approach is acceptable and makes the signage package more functional, but it does require approval of a variance. This item is being scheduled on your November 20 meeting for discussion, and has been noticed for action on December 4. The criteria for approval of variances to the Sign Code are stated below with comments from staff as to how this proposal meets the criteria. 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 or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners or the property since the effective date hereof had no control. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. • The Saturn dealership has 764 feet of frontage along Highway 10 and 580 feet of frontage along County Road H2, and two driveways on each frontage. This amount of frontage is longer than most properties along the commercial corridor on Highway 10. The City's Sign Code limits properties in the B-3 district to two types of signage: one 340 square foot pylon sign and business occupant signage not to exceed 100 square feet. The Sign Code does not anticipate the provision of directional signage on properties in the B-3 district. Due to the long frontages and the types of activities on this site, directional signage is needed to insure customer safety and smooth traffic flow. The applicant's proposal-does-not-increase the-total-square-footage of signage above the amount allowed by the Sign Code, but redistributes sign area from what would have been displayed on the pylon sign to two monument-style directional signs. 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. g. Circumstances under which the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title create an undue hardship on the applicant. Economic hardship may be a circumstance for issuance of • a variance. • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 468-96: Saturn Development November 20, 1996 Page 3 The amount of signage allowed on this site will not be increased by the granting of this variance. The total sign area on the site will be 279 square feet, where 440 square feet are allowed. Redistribution of sign area from what would be allowed for a pylon sign to monument-style directional signs will reduce the visual impact of signage on the site. The applicant will be unable to provide adequate directional signage to customers without approval of this variance. Such signage is needed to improve safety and smooth traffic flow. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. f. The variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The amount of signage requested, when added to the existing signage on the site, is 161 square feet less than the sign area permitted to the site. The size of the directional signs in modest in comparison to the scale of the site and the length of the frontages. The use of directional signage, as opposed to a larger pylon sign, will make the signage on the site more functional. • Staff Recommendation: Favorable to granting the variance based on the fact that the total amount of signage on the site is less than allowed by the Code, and the size of and activities on the site require additional directional signage for customers to insure safety and smooth traffic flow. cc: Jim Price, Saturn Development, P.O. Box 10813, White Bear Lake, MN 55110; FAX 790-9416 Darwin Lindahl, Darwin Lindahl Architects, P.A. 5701 Shingle Creek Parkway, Suite#130, Minneapolis, MN 55430; FAX 560-0441 Francis J. Coyle, Mr., Coyle, Gilman& Stengel, 305 First of America Bank Building, 100 Seventeenth Street, Rock Island, IL 61201; FAX 788-0480 c:\wpdocs\devcases\468-96\468-96.sr • 110 . . Ns, - • IS 1110 FS 5 A" in I MONUMENT siGN NOT TO SCALE - 1 • PLANNING COMMISSiON MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Subject: Proposed Schedule for Planning Commission Meetings in 1997 Date: November 20, 1996 As we approach the end of the year, we need to set the schedule for Planning Commission meetings in 1997. I have attached a calendar with suggested dates circled for your review. The meetings in January and July are on the second and fourth Wednesdays because of the New Year's Day and Fourth of July holidays. We would also like to discuss with Planning Commission the current practice of having every case go to an agenda meeting and then an action meeting, and having the agenda and action meetings separate. The present time line for bringing cases to Planning Commission is as follows: • Deadline for submittal: Friday three weeks prior to agenda meeting (usually last Friday of month) Agenda meeting Third Wednesday of month Action meeting First Wednesday of following month Most of the cases handled by Planning Commission must also be forwarded to City Council for final action. If an applicant submits on the deadline, it is 33 days from when a recommendation will be made by Planning Commission and 52 days from when City Council takes action. If the applicant submits somewhere in between deadlines, we are usually up against the 60 day rule. If an applicant misses the deadline for submittal, they must waitup to one month before they can submit again to get on the Planning Commission agenda for discussion. Many applicants are not aware of the lead time necessary to submit, and so miss the deadlines. Staff would like to propose that the Planning Commission agendas be divided into discussion and action items so that the longest delay, if an applicant misses a submittal deadline, is approximately two weeks. We would also like to suggest that certain items such as conditional use permits for oversized garages and for temporary outdoor sales, lot splits, simpler variances be discussed and decided in the same meeting, if possible. If Planning Commission felt that the case was not ready for decision, then it could be continued to the next meeting two weeks later. • We felt that this was an appropriate time to bring up these issues, since we need to set the meeting schedule for next year. N toNP (1,3 cr) NP '° N ( cr) ,p ("1pt� N N Q CON LL ^ CtO NN u. it) NO"O • N J~ � 0 N CO~ ^ .- NCV LU r"" .q - 4oN CO 3 QN �N � 03 O�®N U (7 t-7") r-. ^ cotONCPV <,__ ,0NP •O LLl� NP '0c', O N 0 N 2 n 'CT NFs: 2 Q ^ coN 2 - t toNCPV CD h. NN N c*, O ^.37 Cn h. "4-_ CO LU J N P co - � NN cr) tnNaN Cn ^ catoNP 0 N N W LL � QNN = L.L. �T '= t° N u. t� 4 � (N.- N 0 m Q ONON 53 NO:°®O uj 2 ON�N C _ co f-- L r- v N t— c° N N ZO Q - c0 N lU C � O ^ cNN C � O r. N Z CO O CO NP ��2 CO .p - CV CV N CO NP •O Q. n Q 0 (> tO N frt °- • r-- N `r' ^ ANN Q = `° N u. h.. ..1 NN u_ 'O � ONN LL el Q — CN � Q C~ ,43 co N H. NPN �►-- NP N LU cl U N Z3 Q •- a to Q — � N P C7 m O--�N -ON O �N N Z • Lu U- Q � N F- c+) O � N Q� � Q — aD Z N N Z 2 cncDh. N 2 N0. •oNcO 2 .Oc"� Ot� CV N co NP N „) ..... gotn � N co toNP iO QN N n. - coN cn t") o � � - cr) Ot) O ^ . N N LL ,,, 0 N. Nel LL NP 'CI Nr LL 0NP •O N C~ NP .0N (9 f- t1� g C ^ � NN m~ Q � N z ,_811.20g1 <3 OQCN 23��ON <~ � Q NN H • .p c70N cW1- NP 'ON c„)) • 2 „o ^) NN 2 tt7NO. N 2 ^ co toNN co t[) NPN tri C ^ coN N N. v - co N N 0 , • Forum on the First Ring A Working Conference of the Community Connections Project 1 << t• Design Center for American Urban Landscape fel December 11 - 12, 1996 Earle Brown Continuing Education Center „ University of Minnesota, St. Paul , UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA WHY A FORUM? QDesign Center for American ' Urban Landscape First-ring suburban communities have long been mainstays of stability. Home to thousands of post-war families,these communities offered the promise of an attrac- The Design Center forAnterican Ur- tive, secure, and comfortable lifestyle: a rural setting, new homes in low-density ban Landscape is a research unit residential developments, accessible clusters of goods and services, high-quality within the College of Architecture schools. They were the wave of the future,the norm to which many aspired. and Landscape Architecture at the Forty years ter the first ring's initial surge of growth,however,the reality is slightly University of Minnesota. It was es- different. ' tese are communities in transition,and transition has brought with it a tablished with a grant from the Day- - ton Hudson Foundation, support set of corn lex and dynamic challenges: from federal,state and local govern- •reno rating and revitalizing an aging housing stock; ment agencies,and grants front non- • worl ing with outdated land-use'and transportation policies; profit organizations. Its mission is •addr ssing escalating human development needs;and to educate public and private deci- •recoi nizing environmental concerns and neglected natural resources. ' sion makers,professionals and citi- These chal °nges have not only given rise to a sense of urgency, but created the zens about the value of design as a opportunity to assess the tools the first ring will need as it moves into the next strategic partner with economic and century—to determine what it will take to maintain"livable communities.” human interests in the making of This task will fall to the full spectrum of community leadership within the first ring. community-based development The Design Center's "Forum on the First Ring" is intended to bring together elected strategies and sustainable urban; officials,city staff,and other civic leaders from more than thirty first-ring commu- landscapes. nities to discuss what strategies of promise are in place and what strategies we will The Community Connections Project need to create to move the region forward. and this conference are funded through a grant from the McKnight What We Hope to Accomplish Foundation. The forum is intended to accomplish four things: 1.Setting the Stage—exploring the public policy and physical planning context within which discussions about strategy must occur; 2. Identifying Models—sharing emerging municipal approaches to transit cor- ridors,natural systems,housing,and human services that might be replicated; 3.Evaluating Implementation Strategies—examining the obstacles and oppor- tunities to move promising strategies forward; and 410 For further information,call the 4.Adding It Up—developing areas of consensus about what to do next. Design Center: 627-1850 ext.313 We hope the forum will both take stock and set a course. The Design Center is eager to explore ways to support the efforts of first-ring communities to share infor- Photo:Richfield, 1954.Minneapolis Star& mation,create new development and policy tools, and work in concert for legisla- Tribune,Minnesota Historical Society tive and regulatory changes at the state and regional level. The Work Groups: _ We have divided the working sessions into two parts. Part A will crystallize some of the key issues facing first-ring commu- nities and define the component parts of those issues.Part B will examine implementation—what tools are available,where gaps exist, and what obstacles must be overcome. Each Part will open with a panel presentation of case studies, followed by an audience discussion. The groups will then break into small working sessions to pursue issues more intensively. k Corridors Work Group__ Natural Systems Work Group , ' When communities search for development and redevelop- Natural systems form the:underiying physical base on which ment sites and opportunities,the corridor frequently emerges each of our communities sits. But past land-use decisions that as a'flexible resource and valuable asset.Typically corridors failed to take environmental considerations into account have are found along trunk highways or county roads, and their led to such problems as decreased water quality and stormwater development patterns vary widely in scale,capacity,and land- capacity, the loss of urban forest, or a dearth of urban wilds. use. Making the transition from a trunk highway to a multi- The premise for this session is that the natural systems of these , purpose community corridor, however, requires creative communities are part of a uniquely public realm — the civic thinking, flexible tools and policies, and seasoned negotia- infrastructure—and that cities need to integrate these systems tion skills. The discussion will focus on issues surrounding: into the municipal planning process in order to enhance their • long-term economic, social, and environmental health. The • mixed-use redevelopment on transportation corridors; , • integration of transit into small scale development; discussion will highlight three themes that represent different and aspects of an environmental agenda: • diverse approaches to neighborhood nodes. • a focus on environmental quality; Some of the anticipated policy questions are: • the conflicting values of open space;and • natural systems as public infrastructure. , • What is the best balance between community needs and regional/federal systems and standards? Some of the anticipated policy questions are: • What is the city's role in creating a sense of commu- • What are distinct environmental issues in the first-ring? . nity and connection along the corridor? s., • How effective are current approaches? • How might cities rethink policies and working' • What structural changes are needed for natural systems strategies to encourage mixed-use development? to become an integral part of city and regional planning? Housing and Neighborhoods Work Group Human Services & Civic Capacity Work Group The wave of new housing development in outer-ring sub- Social needs in the first ring have historically been addressed urbs has set a metro standard for measuring the growth and through traditional anchoring institutions: schools, churches stability of cities. Yet,first-ring suburbs do not have the raw and civic organizations.As these needs have changed, those land necessary to meet this narrow definition of growth. To institutions have been supplemented by an emerging social address their changing and diverse demographics,these corn- infrastructure of human development and social service pro- munities_must instead_designer-uuique_development_model , viders.Cities have also explored new models that involve citi- that takes advantage of their existing stock,creates linkages zens more directly in responding to the community's Chang- to services and amenities,and intensifies neighborhood iden- ing socio/economic profile. The discussion will focus on three tity. The discussion will focus on issues surrounding: elements of the human development landscape: • alternative models for renovation of existing housing; • providing a social safety net in the first ring; • defining what affordable housing means in the first • coping with limited resources and cultivating public/ ring;and private partnerships;and • integrating low-income housing issues into overall • creating a greater civic capacity by involving citizens in housing policies. city planning and priority-setting. Some of the anticipated policy questions are: Some of the anticipated policy questions are: • How do individual rehab and renovation projects add • What are the roles of the county, United Way,and cities up to a package marketable to the private sector? in providing human services within the first ring? • • How does housing policy address neighborhoods as a • What are possible funding sources for the soft costs of whole—including neighborhood services and ameni- , human services? ties—not just build units? • How can human development and civic capacity be s integrated into community development?