Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-20-1998
411/ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1998 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. 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 4. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 1998 5. Planning Case No. 524-98 Property Involved: 2824 Woodale Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 547-98 Approving a Variance for a Reduced Front Yard Setback Applicant: Ron and Jan Overton 6. Planning Case No. 526-98 Property Involved: 8400 Coral Sea Street Consideration of Resolution No. 548-98 Approving a Variance for Reduced Parking Ratios Applicant: Bridges Leasing Company II, LLC 7. Planning Case No. 528-98 Property Involved: 2359 Pinewood Circle Consideration of Resolution No. 550-98 Approving a Conditional Use Permit For a Residential Dog Kennel Applicant: Monica& Scott Dumonceaux 8. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Update on Comprehensive Plan 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 10. Adjournment * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: May 20, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 524-97 Applicant: Ron and Jan Overton Request: The applicant is requesting a 16.6-foot variance from the established 54-foot front setback requirement to allow construction of a foyer. Location: 2824 Woodale Drive PIN No. 07-23-30-31-0042 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential/ single family home Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01, Subd. 3., requires a 30 foot front yard setback. Where principle • buildings in existence on one side of a block are set back more than 30 feet, the minimum setback shall be the minimum setback in existence for any one lot. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Planning Application• Zoning Map Site Plan,date-stamped 4/23/98 (Separate Attachment) Letter from Applicant,dated 4/22/98 - Letter from JoAnn Valley,dated 5/12/98 Encroachment Map Resolution No. 547-98 Background: The applicant is requesting a 16.6 foot variance from the established front yard setback to build a finished entryway/foyer onto the house located at 2824 Woodale Drive. The property is located in an established, mature neighborhood consisting of older, single family homes on over-sized lots. The property is 126 feet wide and 290 feet deep and covers 0.84 acres. The foundation area of the existing home is approximately 1,000 square feet. The Overtons plan on reconfiguring the interior 411 room layout to gain additional living space. In order to do this, an entryway/foyer will need to be added to the front of the home, within which the access to the lower level would be relocated. Due to practical difficulties, the expansion cannot be located in any other part of the house. Overton Variance Planning Case No. 524-98 May 14, 1998 • Page 2 Analysis: The section of the City Code relating to setbacks was amended in 1996 by Ordinance 590. One of the provisions of this ordinance was to establish greater than customary front setbacks for existing homes on a block that are set back further than the typical 30 to 35 feet. Because of the larger lots common in some areas of the City, many homes were built significantly further back than was required. The ordinance was drafted to protect the uniformity of the block from being disrupted by a new home built closer to the street than those already in existence. Thus, the minimum setback in an area like this was changed to become the setback of the home on the block closest to the front property line. On this block of Woodale Drive, the minimum setback then becomes 54 feet. In comparison, the Overton's house is 56 feet from the front property line. The Overtons are not proposing a new home, but rather an addition to their existing home. For the Planning Commission to grant a variance, it must examine the criteria established in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the City Code, which relate to hardships. Specifically, a variance may only be granted in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties 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 of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. While staff has not researched this to any great extent, the applicable setback on this short block of Woodale Drive is not typical. Only four homes are on this block. On other streets where homes are set back greater than the minimum 30 feet, there is more of a random pattern to their placement which results in a setback fairly close to the 30-foot minimum. Were this block any longer, it could be assumed that the applicable setback would be much less. 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. Because a great majority of the homes in the City are built at or close to the minimum front setback, most homeowners would not have the opportunity to construct such an addition to the front of their house. However, for many homes located 56 feet from the front property line, this type of addition would be allowable, if and only if one or more homes on the same block were situated closer to the street than the subject property. Because only four homes make up this particular block, the homeowner is deprived of this ability. Overton Variance Planning Case No. 524-98 • May 14, 1998 Page 3 c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The change in the Zoning Code which established the new provision relating to greater than typical front setbacks was adopted in November of 1996. Prior to that point, the Overtons would not have needed a variance to construct the addition they have proposed. 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. The granting of this variance will not confer upon the homeowner any special privilege that would be denied to other landowners having a home set back 56 feet from their front property line, given that there would be other homes on their block situated closer to the street than their own. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. • In order to reconfigure the internal layout of the home and better use the space available, the stairs accessing the lower level would need to be moved and the only practical location where this can be done is in the addition as proposed by the homeowner. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting this variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other properties in the neighborhood. The homes across the street from the Overtons are located at or near the minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. The addition proposed will add approximately 250 square feet of space to the home, which is quite small in proportion to the size of the lot. 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 within the neighborhood. The variance will not impair any neighboring properties' supply of light or air, it will not create any additional traffic impact nor will it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. The impact to property values in the immediate area would be positive, • especially in the case of the subject property. Overton Variance Planning Case No. 524-98 May 14, 1998 • Page 4 Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 547-98 approving a variance for Ron and Jan Overton at 2824 Woodale Drive to allow for a reduced front setback of 37.4 feet, with stipulations. J0jrL /12A;AC. CI\ James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DE VCASES\524-98\VAR-PC.RPT sa spa,aha �J v �d r DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT III =... ..,_, �. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION •, 1' • "'! 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 oi",1•11 -p.„,,e, 4. 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information �— Name of Applicant l'SCP t' J CA) -1=t-013 Telephone *SG (=g 4e3 Address 1_024 \J J b Fax • ” -jt.}N1 tiF. t tiln3 it Z Interest in Property(check appropriate box) XOwner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) • Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. _ ._. - Property Description/Proposal „.;.• • Address or General Location Set 244 k-a P,- zj e. jv,.,Ds� z i�� 1 t Z Legal Description_ o u.-,..:3 cob :' '5 • . Property Identification#(PIN#) ©•74-- 3o 2...3 - 3 I o o 4z #of Acres 0 • 84 Current Zoning R j Type of Application - ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment S250 Q Rezoning S250/acre; min 5250 max 51500 ❑ Major Subdivision 5250+5250 deposit* ❑ Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment S350 ❑ Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 X Variance R-1, R-2 S I00 all others$250 ❑ Code Appeal 5100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan - 5125/acre;min$125 max$750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2 5150;all others$200 ❑ Weiland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2 S25;all others 5100 0 Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other • *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days atter consideration of the application is completed Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property a Undeveloped/Vacant X' Single Family Dwelling • ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling a Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment a Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification a Abstract a Torrens Description of Proposal ¶t.Q Dir Tot, ©R- Qom. tom)E ..) Arr ��z •. '114 r• 1�?t=� ►-1'A..n P •�hS ice- LtT t,�j t„1 V- i- %._ Gt 12.4.w3rS* Tim la, f�i►-Z�S�f7. BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner . Name of Property Owner(typed/printed). 1?,n s — 7004.3 D V eilari ohz • Address of Owner__ „_ 'moa¢ • - t..N.z \jte,) R cN `5S'1 I Z Phone Number of Owner — (. 27 b o • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 14-A 3_q • Date of Acceptance Planning Case No. y Assigned to: �7 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid Account# Check# Receipt# Application: ) OO. 00 Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: • Total: N:\DATA\GROUPS1COMDEVTORIAS\DEVAPP.FOR 1198 ' ++• ^ -- 79.0 1 I -mI I` .n n ge 73°. N 75 r . NN N J 7532 BRONSON DRIVEy{• N a 21 I 0 ' N _ O •••el n n ��7474 7489 y n l 7490 (7485 I nZ - • I3 l • • a _ • 74.57 7463 7474 7471 747 4 n I lel r i5 -, 7494 BRONSON .........................- _ I I 7447 74.x8 7445 R—1 7452 7451 7436 7444 _ -- INI N N I ...-. �• - 7425 7430• 7433 74.54 > 7413 7442 Hhct. • 13 1 :Merl I 7415 D 7409 iii7440 ( - ,-- . . NA OR 0 7406 .7405 7412 01, 7405 7408 . . RIM; �� .. K� 7383 7380 7361 7382 7395 1111 7444 i-. .7- o2y -_- I 7375 - 7390 M U 7363 7350 N 7385 7380 7375 H 7347 7340373 09. .iigo 16 734Q 3 w n 7344Ea 7 ���T� W = N A /W n ifs a 7O 124 E&frj. N N �ry - o n N .. 7336 IICIW7309 1 I n R R & 11 :4:4 N N fV N N M► 1EEI 73.10 .1 ir, to n n• ;151 V.Ift:ffit7 _.1 m N r. m Ki -9 R-2 n n n r� n N a` $ Lig 0 7293 .. Q li N n N N N n N r 8-1 w n 5278 -- Mil Winp 0 5 5 — . Q 5260 5281 7234 • O< 5176 51 MC.* ___ o— 1 7226 , 517e 51kuucr" "L— — 7200MEM 719• 5174131 OG 524 52 7188 R-4 5172 517 5238 • 52 71'72 — 5230 523 abh.: • 170 5167150gg 5224 '� 8 g • n I i n h i�5168151 322 PI o n �4 0 0 0 CO N' 3166131. :5252202016082 321nn WOOOALE •- sa o m516451• ' 3211 3n - SNasCCp! n a Yii37621518/ 3 8 Elf!!! L cap O64.0....• - 520 �� p 0 0 ' st 3 • 7062 a 7093 � � r 3113 3140 3141 3 7x72707 i�;(� I Fhi:.ILa iliiila ili aA EMI• f. �' i��CLI • 311�W. IAJI urn I 7028 70 NKr 8 e n N e2 PARK N - 5108.5109 s El N � 7006 701 ' a. o,�� n n n n PF �^� l<u'Is 3100 $101 5 N N co ; _ 4111 6988 69-fiu 2910r� �, 5097 5091 50921 ,^r 509 '' 2 6970 8971111.11 293IL ...-.a.,:,,,,..—.. 5086)5085 G 5088)5085 5086 508 51 6960 5•- • 6952 6933 _ ��� 50 5079 5080 5079 5080 Sl ®-+ a a 50 5071 3 5072 5071 50 • & a 6939 \ ` - - 6945 6940 506515065Z 5066 506,b 5066'5°' 5 �� 6929 I. 506 50 5059 Z 5060 5059 50 • o 16900 oN i c a s a a - n n Ts a a• 50541505310 5054+5053 503 305 5( N N OI O m m O m m N N N N N N N N - 504615045 504615045 • • 5 rill Zoning Map Planning Case 524-98 Applicant: Ronald Overton Location: 2824 Woodale Drive N 4 t ` • tot Q C2-4 \.),-) N t►.�(7 CD Mµ..tSPO C ) J os k) r ' V -Ctai0 e• -0,1/_ \f,(2,,,c2_ . -LAL-Q__r. 7. 10 122LA 714- iTc -� 4 - 15 p -I- 19-e0 lc . ±4-d•-•L .Q4.4�$c.:...1 • eS)C4-,,. 41-A)a--te-4._ I/Z 4-J.J - a t • lQ t� Q \J-cL) ,-4-cJZ_ ‘i) Qjtr-czazti-\0-) Sv,•-e-1:A.LA j' 1 • • May 11, 1998 James Ericsson Planning Associate City of Mounds View 2401 Hwy 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Re: Overton Variance Request Dear James: I am writing in support of the variance requested by the Overton's for their home on Woodale. I believe this improvement will increase the property values and appearance of the neighborhood. These are both goals which residents of Mounds View believe in and support. • Sincerely, c ://f/M.76 David J. Rudnik • . • May 12, 1998 James Ericson Planning Associate City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Mr. Ericson: Regarding the variance request by Ronald Overton to the front of his home at 2824 Woodale Drive. I do have a few concerns. How would an 18 foot by 14 foot addition be considered a foyer? As stated in the letter it will be added to the front of the house and would not line up with existing homes. Would this addition be an asset to the neighborhood? III If this kind of an addition improves the neighborhood I would have no problem with it. Due to another committment I will not be able to attend the meeting on May 20. Would it be possible to keep me updated on this issue Thank you. Sincerely, CI , a j,t7/ t JoAnn Valley 2808 Woodale Drive 784-1968 . - 1 - i I Z • i A a) 6 poet el aan�is .Xill CL ct: to ICCD ca x iii- E et. Eli al - NI o n 04 . a) s c Y 24 T.") `4. t� In co si • 1 )Oe ` n O O d) °p Y O > o v.coon . 4.!.,i,. •� oc \y^1 :` Oi zT C73 >I bod- 0 CI 0 1 CO liftia •-lig. G 1111 -1,-; k Iw . -0 E i' IiNill a al Ilill `� aniaa poonn11ou� I GO 1— in Ell INit III NM 11111 MP III. ■ . — ► 1 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 547-98 1110 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A REDUCTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM 54 FEET TO 37.4 FEET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FOYER/ENTRYWAY AT 2824 WOODALE DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. 524-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Ron and Jan Overton to allow a 37.4-foot front setback where 54 feet is required, for the construction of a finished entryway/foyer at 2824 Woodale Drive; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: Lot 93, Knollwood Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: • 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Letter from the Applicant 5. Letter from JoAnn Valley 6. Letter from David Rudnik 7. Encroachment Map WHEREAS, the applicable front setback for this property is 54 feet, which is based upon the house that is closest to the street on this particular block of four homes; and, WHEREAS, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3 of the City Code was amended in 1996 by Ordinance 590 to protect the uniformity and continuity of homes set back further than the required minimum 30-foot front yard setback; and, WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of Ordinance 590, the minimum setback for this property would have been 30 feet; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other owners of homes in the same district that are set back further than the required 30 feet, so long as there is a property within that same block that sits closer to the street; and, • WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the Planning Commission Resolution 547-98 Overton Variance May 20, 1998 • Page 2 applicant in that the Code amendment enacted by Ordinance 590 removed the right of the property owner to build up to the minimum setback line; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that house additions are typical improvements for single family residences; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that architectural considerations and practical difficulties preclude other arrangements for the addition; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that the proposed front entryway/foyer would be an asset to the subject property and positively enhance the neighborhood as a whole; and, WHEREAS, 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 within the neighborhood in that the height of the addition would be limited to the height of the • home and would not be responsible for generating additional traffic or be a fire or safety hazard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Ron and Jan Overton for a 16.6-foot reduction in the front yard setback to build a finished entryway/foyer, subject to the following stipulation: 1. Before any building permits will be issued for this expansion, the applicant shall submit architectural renderings of the north, east and west building elevations to, and be approved by, the director of community development to ensure a high degree of aesthetic quality and neighborhood compatibility. Adopted this 20th day of May, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director • SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DE VCASES\524-98\547-98.RES � y REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION • Meeting Date: May 20, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 526-98 Request: Variance in Parking Ratios for Office/Warehouse Building Petitioner: Bridges Leasing Company, LLC Location: 8400 Coral Sea Street PIN Nos. 05-30-23-21-0003, 0004 Zoning/Land Use: I-1, Industrial District/Vacant Land Applicable Regulations: • Parking Requirements: Section 1121.13 requires that 200 parking spaces be provided for a use with 48,267 square feet of warehouse and 16,089 square feet of office. • Parking Variance: Section 1125.02 establishes the process and criteria for the granting 1111 of a variance. Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plan (Separate Attachment) 4. Resolution No. 548-98 Background: On April 27, 1998, the City Council approved Resolution 5219, a resolution approving a development review for the Bridges Technology Park Phase II expansion to the existing building located at 8400 Coral Sea Street subject to the applicant obtaining a parking variance from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, at their meeting on April 15, 1998, voted unanimously to recommend approval to the City Council subject to the same stipulation. Analysis: The approved addition to the Bridges Technology Park will create a need for 200 stalls covering both the existing building and the expansion. There will be 16,089 square feet of total office space and 48,267 square feet of manufacturing and warehouse space, for a combined total area of 64,356. With the ratio of office and warehouse/manufacturing, 200 parking stalls would need to be provided. There is sufficient room on site to construct all 200 stalls, yet a small number would be t Bridges Parking Variance • Resolution No. 548-98 May 15, 1998 Page 2 located in environmentally sensitive areas alongside a wetland. Given that and the assumption that the applicant does not need 200 parking stalls, the Planning Commission and City Council recommended that some of the stalls be set aside as future parking, or"proof of parking." In order to do this, however, a variance to the standard parking ratios would need to be approved. According to present parking criteria, the ratios used to determine sufficient parking are as follows: Warehouse and manufacturing: 8 spaces plus 1 space per every 500 sq. ft. of floor area* Office area: 3 spaces plus 1 space per every 175 sq. ft. of floor area* *Each fraction ofV2 or more shall constitute another space(Section 1121.08. Subd. 1) Staff proposes that the following parking ratios be used in determining the parking requirements for the Bridges Technology Park: Office Space: 3 spaces plus 1 per 175 sq. ft. of floor area= 3 + 92 = 95 Warehouse and Manufacturing: 8 spaces plus 1 per 750 sq. ft. of floor area= 8 + 65 = 73 168 • Only the parking ratio for warehouse and manufacturing is changed, the office requirement is the same. Thus, with the new ratio for warehouse and manufacturing, a minimum total of 168 stalls would need to be built. The applicant is proposing to provide 171 stalls, with the remaining 29 stalls identified on the site plan dated 5/4/98 as proof of parking. The resolution includes a condition that the applicant is obligated to supply the remaining 29 stalls in the event of a change of use which would warrant additional parking or if additional parking spaces are deemed necessary by the City. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 548-98 approving a parking ratio variance for Bridges Leasing Company, located at 8400 Coral Sea Street, subject to stipulations. N:\DATA\G ROUPS\CGMDE V\DE VCAS ES\526-98\PARKING.RPT • VJ' VI, 00 11.JV r.-Li. oi.: 1a4 S4t31 CiTY OF NV G4004 �. t OUCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAR DEVELOPMENT APPIJCATIOlik j'.�r 2401 I-Eghway 10, ,✓founds View MN 55 "'r=-ISrtner+we' 612-717-4020 612-784-3462-FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant Bridges Leasing Co . II ,LLC Telephone 612-890-1500 Address 8 4n Coral Sea St . N.E . Suite 100 Fax 612-890-0420 Blaine, MN 55449 • Interest in Property(check appropriate box) • Xl Owner of Property a Contract for Decd Cacao in Lessee,Operator,Manager a Agreement to Ptir base a Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property se the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal '. Address or General Location a N Blaine MN 55449 • Legal Description Lot 2 , Block 1 North Star Industrial Park 2nd Add t �paty f .(PINS n s 1 n 919 l o o m • (Rams e c *of Acres 9 . 59 Acres - Carrot Zoning s ria l Type of Application • a Comprehensive Plan Amt $250 ' o ming $250/at min 5250 max$1500 a Major Subdivision 5250.3.5250 deposit* 0 Minor Subdiivi ion $200 a Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning Ecce a PUD Amendment $350 a Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others 5250 • R Variance ' R-1. R-2 S I OO all others 5250 (Paid $250) a Code Appy _ $100 a Develop Review/Site Plan S125/act min$125 max$750 a Wedand Alteration Pamir It 1,R-2 5150;all others$200 a Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 a . Floodplain Permit $200 c Other •.. ... .- *Deposits shall be paid to cover ail costs of public notices•materials sad sta$'or consultant time spent in the review, r scotch or preparation ofmaterials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for ail reasonable incurred costs in e:tce'ss of the initial deposit amotau Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refanded to the applicant within thirty(30)days atter consideration of the application is completed. •Please complete the reverse side of ths appfcstion. us/u•1• 96 11:J6 FAX 612 784 3462 CITY OF MV 2005 City of Mounds View, MN Development A lication PIRG 2 Present Use of Property • Undeveloped/Vacant a Single Family Dwelling e D�ie:c/Two Family Dwelling 0 Multi-famtiy Dwelling a Business/Commercial Establishment a Industrial Establishment 0 Other(explain) Property Classification 4; Abstract 0 Totems DescriptionotProposal Addition to existing building and additional parking . • BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION I -:a'a_y r d •• i THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS r;;Iir- • . • Signature of Applicant // • Name of Applicant(typ�P t " A 4 - V Signature ofProper'tyrOwner .— Spme as above • Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) -._ sing Co . II z LL C Address of Owner . „Y-- . _. .840D Coral..S esg,.St�_.lY. _._ . - - - .. .._ • . .Blaine,.. MN 55449.. . Phone Number of Owner 612-780-1500 .4.0.4.8.0*** .******,t****ss .*aa.aanuns.e ssss..m.*****......•**ss.w.s .. FOR OFFICE1ISE ONLY • Data of Submittal Date of Acceptance Assigned to: _ Planing Case No. 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Aaoount 0 Checkt# Application: • Par1c Dedication_ Deposit= Other: Total: • N:tDATAQROUPSWOMDEVUFORMSIDEVAPP1OR mmolmIMM _ _ — . • ___ 7D _ _ . ___ . :....a...... ___ . . . . : r • .....................,....._....x:..i:.i.::.::.:.::.§:.:.:..._:::t::..:..: rP11.14F. ::•.:::•:. AMP. 1—E.x1i.s..•tin\g 88 \440900 /14 \\N \ N3450( Poposec\ ;, i c6Zn 0 . 1::•:•::::::': : ...._. . ..::::::!•::" -.7.-::::::•:GY o : 7.7.- c.) v:G7 . .:• azgo ., . 82ND LANE a I in ..v. • co . cs4 I I 0 •.-••4::-••--------.-:iiii.k I ... •.-- ---4141111111111114:Y/MMEPIA '.. ...... • --.--.-:1 NMI/ -.. 111mmic- :::: p.n. ammo "1°Gcs ... Co/ •-.K:Ns ... ... -.-.---: ...... ... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ... --..... 'N., .......".-: LAPORT OR I: .7. '1111r 1 'LI CO 0 C•I '''' 45 .... CI 0 h /2 In ,P MI 04 •••• 0 (2 ... ..... ;140 ..-: (.4 " C4 CI c.i N C4 C*4 04 Cs4 04--el—m. 8133 I ca 0 8141 8134 • .. 8130 0 a. 8123 Eti2a a alz and's' CAPY pq in I r. co .- Frt in r••• ces-,-E0-4 .- CC WI 4.1 ...• 0 0 C N. 03 41 -40 .4P MI C4 "" a 0 cv (N4 • Zoning Map Planning Case 514-98 Applicant: Bridges Technology Park (Phase II) Location: 8400 Coral Sea Street MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 548-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE IN PARKING RATIOS FOR BRIDGES LEASING COMPANY, LLC, LOCATED AT 8400 CORAL SEA STREET; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 526-98 WHEREAS, Larry Lindberg, representing Bridges Leasing Company, has applied for a variance of parking ratios associated with the expansion of an existing office/warehouse building at 8400 Coral Sea Street, property zoned I-1, Light Industrial District, legally described as follows: LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, NORTH STAR INDUSTRIAL PARK, 2ND ADDITION RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Zoning Code establishes the parking ratios by specific use; which, as they relate to this project, are as follows: • Warehouse: 8 spaces plus 1 space for every 500 square feet of warehouse floor area Office: 3 spaces plus 1 space for each 175 square feet of office floor area WHEREAS, according to the Zoning Code, the number of parking spaces that would be required using the square-footages provided by the applicant are as follows: Warehouse: (48,267 square feet) Required spaces= 105 (8 spaces plus 97) Office: (16,089 square feet) Required spaces= 95 (3 spaces plus 92) Total: (25,275 square feet) Required spaces= 200 WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed parking ratios used by other municipalities and parking guidelines as developed by the American Planning Association and recommended the following ratios: Warehouse: 1 space per 750 square feet warehouse floor area Office: 1 space per 175 square feet of office area(unchanged) WHEREAS, utilizing the adjusted parking ratios, the number of parking spaces required for this development would be 168 spaces; and, WHEREAS, according to the site plan dated 5/4/98, 171 parking stalls would be • provided; and, WHEREAS, there is sufficient room on the property to provide the remaining 29 spaces as required by the Zoning Code; and, Resolution No. 548-98 Bridges Parking Variance May 20, 1998 • Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this request for a variance in parking ratios: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Revised Parking Plan, dated 5/4/98 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact regarding the requirements for granting 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 or 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. This site is heavily wooded, a portion of which lies in wetland. While there is ample room • to provide the full amount of parking required by the Zoning Code, the applicant would prefer to retain more of the tree cover and to not intrude into environmentally sensitive area adjacent to the wetland. Research has shown that the Mounds View parking requirements are much higher in comparison to neighboring communities and communities across the country. The applicant is not responsible for the City's parking requirements. It is advantageous to retain natural areas as opposed to paving them for parking lots, if the parking provided will be adequate for the use proposed. 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. The higher-than-normal parking requirements for office and warehouse square footage creates an undue burden on the applicant, and similar consideration would be given to other requests from developers who are proposing to build similar facilities. The development to the north, ZEP Manufacturing, was granted a similar parking variance in 1997. • Resolution No. 548-98 Bridges Parking Variance • May 20, 1998 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 ratios proposed for the project are as follows: one space per 750 square feet of warehouse area(73 spaces) and one space per 175 square feet of office space (95 spaces). These ratios are consistent with surveys of other jurisdictions and information from the American Planning Association, and represent a suitable adjustment. The conditions on this resolution require that all 200 spaces be shown on the site plan. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title or to other property in the same zone. The granting of this variance will not conflict with the purpose of this Title in that parking will be provided using accepted parking ratios for office and warehouse uses. Sufficient room is available to build the additional parking required by the ratios in the City Code, if it becomes evident that parking is needed in the future or if a different use locates in this facility. The 5,994 square-foot reduction of impervious surface is an environmental and aesthetic benefit. • ,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 within the neighborhood. The granting of this variance will be a benefit to neighboring properties by preserving an extensive growth of trees. These trees serve as an additional buffer between the proposed building and adjacent parcels. There are plans in the future to create nature trails and hiking paths in the open area behind the site. Retention of this wooded area will allow for a more opaque screen while retaining the natural character of the site. Traffic will not increase on the adjacent streets as a result of this variance WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the criteria for granting 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 proposed addition to the Bridges Technology Park with the following stipulation: 1. No permits shall be issued for the expansion of the Bridges Technology Park until the parking plan has been revised to add the following text: • "A variance in required parking ratios was approved for this property by Planning Commission Resolution No. 548-98, adopted on May 20, 1998. The parking ratios approved for this property are as follows: Resolution No. 548-98 Bridges Parking Variance May 20, 1998 • Page 4 8 spaces plus 1 space per 750 square feet of warehouse/manufacturing space 3 spaces plus 1 space per 175 square feet of office space The property owner is obligated to build up to an additional 29 parking spaces, which would meet the parking ratios required by the Zoning Code, if deemed necessary by the City based on future parking patterns, use of the building, and evidence that parking needs cannot be satisfied on site. The property owner shall be notified in writing that additional parking must be built, and upon such notice, shall construct the additional parking within 3 months, with consideration for weather conditions " Adopted this 20th day of May, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director • (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMD E V\DE VCAS ES\526-98\PARKING.RES 110 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: May 20, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 528-98 Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Dog Kennel Petitioner: Scott& Marcia Dumonceaux Location: 2359 Pinewood Circle PIN Nos. 05-23-30-34-0073 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single-Family Residential/ Single Family Home Applicable Regulations: • Municipal Code Section 701.03, Subdivisions 1, 3, and 15, regarding the licensing of dogs and operation of kennels. • • Municipal Code Section 1106.04, Subdivision 3, which requires a conditional use permit for residential dog kennels in an R-1, Single Family Residential district. • Municipal Code Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3b, which identifies the criteria to be used for granting a conditional use permit. Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. 500 Foot Map 4. Petition 5. Resolution No. 550-98 Background: The applicants, Scott and Marcia Dumonceaux of 2359 Pinewood Circle, are applying for a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel, a Code requirement for property owners with three or four dogs. One of the licensing requirements is that the property owner shall obtain signatures of approval from more than 50 percent of the residents within 500 feet of the property proposing the kennel. The applicants were sent a map showing those properties within 500 feet along with a corresponding list of property owners/taxpayers. Analysis: • On the map the staff sent to the applicants, 56 properties were highlighted, which means that 29 of the property owners would need to sign the petition, which was also provided by staff. The applicants collected 30 signatures approving of the kennel request. All of the properties adjacent to 2359 Pinewood Circle, of which there are five, have indicated their approval of the application. Planning Commission report Dumonceaux Kennel CUP • May 20, 1998 Page 2 CUP Criteria: 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 in that dog ownership does not impose any burden to public facilities. 2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land in that the subject property's yard is fenced in and dog ownership is a common facet of any residential neighborhood.. 3. The structure and site will does not have an appearance that will have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 4. The use is reasonably related to the existing land use in that dogs are common feature in residential neighborhoods. 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 in that dog kennels are a conditional use within the R-1 zoning district.. 6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 550-98, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for a dog kennel for Scott and Marcia Dumonceaux, located at 2359 Pinewood Circle. James Ericson, Planning Associate • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCAS ES\528-98\KENNEL.PC 1 1 i `�'ED COMMTJNITy DEVELOPMENT DEPA.R'TNIENT �, ;n, • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • I "'' 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 o��=f-P"t"e.M' 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX (Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information 1 ' f`-�� Name of Applicant C Q'+ ► 4. me c C.AAA_ Telephone 1"t D— 9 Address c ck .. .;.n-.0 a o. C-'f<_-`42---' Fax ((`f\r,‘A,,..cl.s \1tci, N.),()_ -- 5.. 11 „2_..... Interest in Property(check appropriate box X. Owner of Property a Contract for Deed Owner C Lessee,Operator,Manager _ a o Purchase a Other(explain) .. _Agreement t Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property,at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application.. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted_ :: . Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Ost woir� _ y. .. -T M �r}.. 1NPP 1 •-- • Y ,rJy F, 3Lglestpon - Property Identification#(PIN#)#ofAcres Current Zoning - _ Type of Application '.. a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5250 . C Rezoning 5250/act,e o min 5250 max S 1500 Major Subdivision • 5250+$250 deposit* a Minor Subdivision ,.i • Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees a PUD Amendment M50 _ Conditional Use Permit R-I, R--t11 others$250 Q Variance R-1, R-2 S re all others$250 . Code Appeal 5100 a Develop Review/Site Plan 5125/acre;min$125 max 5750 0 Wetland Alteration Permit 0 Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2 5150;all others 5200 • • R-I,R-2 525;all others S100 a Floodplain Permit $200 a Other • *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices.materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days atter consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. '.S F b7(.2(.e • • City of Mounds View,MN Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property a Undeveloped/Vacant Single Family Dwelling • c:1 Duplex/Two Family Dwelling Multi-family Dwelling a Business/Commercial Establishment a Industrial Establishment a Other(explain) .. . Property Classification a Abstract a Torrens Description of Proposal ..e_< ,4...c7 (.0 . _ -.....-. .,.:. ......:..,.-•.! . , =;• --—BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO OF MY - . _ . .. .:.::.KNOWLEDGE.THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE ------------- • • , . .., • ...• ) :,.........,.. •-. 0 Signature of Applicant ' - ' --'' ' •- • . _. Name of Applicant(typed/printed)• IC\4.1- ` .. c..4.L._..c..._ -, -- - "7-:..7F•'" Cl•n•Nez•r\c...e.cc -- -. .,... fir Signature of Property Owner . ' . -: ; t. : '' <' .k:S.Ni..-,.........zyv....4_1Le„,....„'"f.:- ,: 4"..."....Z..-,,,,.. :.5.7:'....;-...,.--,._-.4%,-• ,...%.- . 1f.'W Name of Property Owner(tvnedinrintern ...ii-,......,- i\-\ :;7... :•,.-. ';':IZE.;'. ::-..:;..:.,•- ..-:-,.'''.....".,..,;-,,,-:',--,:;--'''.3'''rfiii: F'T-I.7.-='*" -- ..,,------, .7'1— - ek c-:,F-..: •!. !...,...!!-5--!--‘ ..-. .5-- j,......'-',74 ;;•;;;;;;;--,..L..:;:'.•.... .. __: -'''--- - L ,_..:: ,-.;-: . .1-:.:' -...,,::'r .....,___.— "--::••••:•:.C.-:::.--;;;-. x"4%—'''::=-.1...-:-.:::7-=2;1.7,47“.4,4"Ariot:::: ..- -. Addr0114 ofOwn _ • ..........:;:,.:-.....-...d-Kmq.:.,_--:t-_-. -,--:, >31:-..:;...' -:,-,•et:-- -tr,,i4.-,_,..-,-..-...,-,.:-,,,,.7.,.---:,--..,,'`e7 ..-_.-.-,....-..4.---.ze--7,--;•:-,:,--,34,,,,,,...:,-..,i.7.4;:,-- rrvevoa . cr../ -4..i4 --.er,7-A;'•F_'',f'!"' , . _ '% t‘eiLf•;- " fk .c..,c 1 k•-z.....•;-; • . ---: .-.-.-......:,;,-_.il..-.........-.:-.:-..:,::.-,.. - ...... .- ,... . . _ Phone Number of Owner - -TrfOD --< L ' ç* , .. . .. . ... . . .. ............................................ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal .S'--) _ q q Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. S--",q '",.,:' - 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# Cliecic* :__ :..---Receipt# - Application: 1 Park Dedication: Deposits: - Other III Total: N:1DATA1GROUPSCOMDVAFORMS1 DEVAPP.FOR U98 • /929 7926 n N N • O�-,-4 c- r0 `Dc+ N NI N 7927 7925 7924Q 7923. tee- NNCND �'���`� 71 7968 7921 7920 j ® 'n • 791' ®Gj N eNv N 353 7917 79145 ® O\ r 7948 W 79131 �110 7913 <' ��7910 W7909 : 1:' `4G. 931 7930 7909 �t � 7906 li ca Cn r j M 7905 790 �O RD _ N N N N N 7901 It-0.1..\11•=7"oill v MI N .®�' c- i N N N N ml In rn P1 N O N Qf ^ C7! HI 'aria gig PF �' .� _Hugg " � ® N N N ig N N N N N N N N • 000 DR N N N N N N r575 El-• 7869 7860 7855 'n N. °1 '^ '� If la r a 8.o ^ ^ OZ H 7861 7857 7850 �iJ� N N N N N un N N N N N N 7847ix 7845 7840 784" cm E3 3:11 N �. N OAK 7833 78.37 7830 MI / �ra •• Asa -';n N N c4 , 7815 7827 78 Q viii{ 56QS.1 S6O1 .. • ^ N N N r 7817 ,� or ---Me N N HENIG 7901 :1• • I NNN 7807 , l�/ iii �? 555: 7749 r,l t,�- 5550 5551± 555• m 211 aco go n g 0 7739 RE 775 4" N � � W NNN NNN N N N .'+5 53 N 7729 • 7741 77 •• INEWOOD CIR N 55 ,n ,. cry in u� N —�� ... rI usi 4.1 u k. 553. os 8.o N 1.4. � 77317730 �_ N N N N N N N 7719 • N N N --`�-- �' =I Es momf, 553 . P}NEW00 1 7709 R •g 7721 7720 ,� m 771 � 5526L . m ago ^ co 8.o 0 7701 •• 770 . o ! 5520 5521 5520 N N N N N CON N • N N J ri 132 R D icy] I N N -gime N N. N N N N� ,�U WI .limpl • �_ u� MU!. 5497 6, 764.3 7658 C" ,.3 N N 541 R-4 „ga .r N • N iiirl 7641 7656 7661 N. r 7639 7644 78 • � 7651 5480 5479 R7635 7638. 5474 54737645 7625 767641 R-45468 5467I- C.7 761' 761p • .� 5462 5 — r`O. 763 61: z9 7�q 7631 . N �j 5454 545' in5 � 5# L 7581 7580 R-2 - 7531 x 5446 5447 G 54 7565 7564 C c 5440 ( 5441' co o 43 N N N 7551.7550 7521 a 5434 5433 u 753517534 7511 5426 5425, 7521 7520 5420 I 5421 5, 7505 7504 7501 5401 5414 5415 5' PF - '. 5406 5405 s, B-ONSON CITY HALL fism �. : a N 1 5387 53861 5.3- ? N I Nm I ,+N . N I N I N 7 Zoning Map Planning Case 528-98 Applicant: Scott & Marcia Dumonceaux 2359 Pinewood Circle Location: N .., a)v0Z Cla 0 CCD = 0a' N au) No2 all • • MI 1.1 111111111/ .. . lh- . .- .... in., .. . ,. iiiii, aim.... .... . .• . . . _ • . . ® . . . . . . . .. . ,. ...... _ •. . .. • . . . ...„ . ..... ......... ...,.. . .. •.... . ®® _. . . . _ . . . . ... . . . . . • ..• . . • , .. ,,.. ...„ ... 416. -- - ----:.-- - - .--- ,•••• •• • • - - . . •- -1- - --: - - . ,_,,i, . ... ... : . . , ,.., , , OO p in O usels lS04011 -. . - . .- - II • L;-J1 . . s!Gew Is a_o O . • o U • ianuany p!apaw° co) in • 'ItyM m . i .. c . - Slit anus poome6P3 O ®® .*64 . . , . 11/11 mg . . peolieuog ®1/. •I II III 1 r---1 I I I MIL O O O . 1,7 PETITE N FOR DOG/CAT KENNEL Ir.7ENSE As outlined in Chapter 701.03,Subd. 1S.a.b of the Mounds View Municipal Code,applicants applying for a Kennel license must present a petition to the City Council signed by over fifty percent(50%)of all registered land owners or those occupying land within 500 feet of the property to be affected. Ilie following applicant(s)Scott Dumonceaux located at 2359 Pinewood Circle,Mounds View,has applied for a kennel license. The number of dogs located at this property will be 4 dogs: If you are in support of the kennel license please complete the following information. Date Name(Please Print) Address Signature 5/3 Iqs-, (3ctio t_fkX3(7 B QAC . Cf_t-(,4 gag,. . 131‘1? eocrile ll e altgAld,11 '8/3 Iqs-, ( &(' 9 ,I 5/3/?f 'SPY (ot i 231° ein oil Ci coke, 4 . / .5/3/ & 15414 - HAJCM.j 77/S p La% .;ter VC1—C1 /93-- 72 ', ,_ t, . C L u.,,e Ni , 7-20 /Eii?L„le71 ---20,4,..g .f.)-_ '. S/i/90 1/ / A6E-2 ,2 32 7 c,,..44% 7" i"=- 3-737,71. 77P, /-f A P (',1.( 5 03 ) ca k i T 77,,,,,..epi,,,,, S-/3 /9 3' Ge Ali it r 14+4"je 2.3 ‘3 Ca Rd I / ' - 3 Al 6106Ii i 1 .� ea 1 e. . idgieN . 1 , . ` , I�- /3 /?g Ys0 id:''' '' , 4'''-;53? "T p/i. X " % I�/I14 5/3 /5' VENN' •i-Gt_OM)9 5R3 Sr S7 A) 4114 RIAA.3.0 i Lt',rr w. 5/31 18 `,6\01/4-c \ ,...)A ' '-' s*, '- 40--\51.1„,_^-,,, ‘ `14,44_,--„4..' 5I3 �'� cut c5'! /' ' C.-- vJtiw. ' C4it 3 S- "' -'" rt' I P )18 dJtom- ) "s d/ -s - 1 3 ; , i , , T7,— -EL-ILI-7 - ,--J-S��� L 6-L.6-) �-(M;eL nr -'- Ye ( / 4 ,)P 4 A z---," .f ? bi-/vc'4,4 _ `Z ,44 - 5 ' -- %i&.. ,« .. 7 , 61'- 967 ,i—//1/0V71 _ ., 3,6 9 - f-1' ek : // 6464 ,/C- "--ci2 npre_oLa 6c-A-D , -Z z-(.0 Sit- A I t tchia ( % r_,( ' "-`� f 1 4 r7 ��d p v 5/-(� I ITC/ 95 , 7I/`ch/g e,-- Ild., 74, ,,ILkii,,,,L, - s-----4 7 k J 4c.v 6 5-0,, 1 S S-(23 Sr /1 i<1kc-e J 5 --S q g IZar bay a o l k 5, o 3t h-l;c_h cuL 6-' L - PETIT DN FOR DOG/CAT KENNEL 'CENSE As outlined in Chapter 701.03,Subd. 15.a.b of the Mounds View Municipal Code,applicants applying for a Kennel license must present a petition to the City Council signed byover 500 feet of the property to be affected, percent(50%)of all registered land owners or those occupying land within •The following applicant(s)Scott Dumonceaux located at 2359 Pinewood Circle,Mounds View,has applied for a kennel license. The number of dogs located at this property will be 4 dogs. If you are in support of the kennel Iicense please complete the following information. Date Na•'e(Please Print) Address Sign.hire ' �- �/t� af C e'LA-/L I) S ST /�,M 4 I c-7?' 46, Z3S-21 ,--,„„e c,4 _11) • • • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 550-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A DOG KENNEL FOR SCOTT AND MARCIA DUMONCEAUX, 2359 PINEWOOD CIRCLE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 528-98 WHEREAS, Scott and Marcia Dumonceaux have applied for a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel at their property located at 2359 Pinewood Circle, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: LOT 14 BLOCK 1, EDGEWOOD SQUARE RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, three to four dogs at a single-family residence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding • this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. 500 Foot Radius Map d. Petition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the signatures on the submitted petition are valid and meet the licensing requirement for residential dog kennels; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Owning dogs, as many as four,will not have an impact to public facilities,nor generate additional traffic or cause congestion. • (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. Resolution 550-98 Dumonceaux Kennel CUP May 20, 1998 • Page 2 (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The dogs will be separated from the adjoining properties by a fence,which will prevent the dogs from running loose through the neighborhood. (4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Having dogs as pets is a common part of the suburban residential experience,an activity which does not conflict with the zoning code nor the comprehensive plan. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. 1111 Adopted this 20th day of May, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\528-98\550-98PC.RES • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1998 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. 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 4. Approval of Minutes: No Minutes for Consideration 5. Planning Case No. 529-98 Property Involved: 2085 Oakwood Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 551-98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized (280 square feet) Accessory Building Applicant: Leonard Medrud& Arthur Jordan 6. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Discussion of the Community Background Section of the Comprehensive Plan Update 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 8. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. May 6, 1998 (Regular) 2. Meeting Adjournment • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: June 3, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 529-98 • Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow for an oversized shed Petitioner: Leonard Medrud & Arthur Jordan Location: 2085 Oalcwood Drive PIN No. 05-30-23-44-0025 Zoning/Land Use: R-1 / Single Family Residential Applicable Regulations: 1106.03. Subd. i g: No accessory building other than a garage shall exceed 216 square feet except by CUP. • 1106.03. Subd. lh: The combined square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 25% of the rear yard. 1106.04. Subd.6: The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed 1,264 square feet; if the garage square footage is greater than 1,000 square feet, no other accessory building shall be allowed. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Area Map with Structures Site Plan Resolution 551-98 Background: The applicants, Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jordan, have applied for a conditional use permit to convert an existing, single-car garage to an accessory building on their property located at 2085 Oakwood Drive. The dimensions of the existing garage are 14 feet by 20 feet for an area of 280 square feet. In its place, the applicant would be constructing a new two-car garage and breezeway area attached to the house. The area of the parcel on which the house and garage are situated is approximately 12,630 square feet, or 0.29 acres. The backyard area comprises more than half of the lot at 7,650 square feet. • Planning Case No. 529-98 Medrud&Jordan CUP June 3, 1998 Page 2 • Analysis: Dimensional Requirements: Required Proposed Met? Shed Setbacks (Side) 5 feet 27 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet 40 feet Met Percent of Rear Yard < 25% 3.6% Met Area of all Accessory Buildings*: 1,264 sf. 764 sf. Met *Includes proposed garage CUP requirements: Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code states that no accessory building other than a garage shall exceed 216 square feet except by conditional use permit. With a CUP, the maximum area for all accessory buildings is 1,264 square feet. Section 1125.01 gives a list of criteria that must be satisfied in order for conditional use permits to be approved. These criteria are as follows: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas • so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2085 Oakwood Drive, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area Almost every lot in this area of Mounds Vicw is the same size as the subject property. Most of the homes in the immediate area are larger, with more building coverage. There appears to be an even split between homes with attached garages and homes with detached garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to their garages . 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The conversion of the existing garage will serve to increase the subject property's value without negatively impacting the values of the neighboring properties. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage is small, even for a single car garage. The applicants desire a garage big 4110 enough to park more than one vehicle inside at a time. The structure, however, is in solid repair, and could be retained as a storage shed, which the applicants currently do not have. Planning Case No. 529-98 Medrud&Jordan CUP June 3, 1998 • Page 3 This proposal satisfies the conditional use permit criteria. Also in Section 1125.01, the Planning Commission is to examine the possible adverse affects of the oversized shed, which are as follows: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The conversion of the garage to a storage shed will not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. There will be no increase in runoff from the shed above which is currently generated. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. • The location of the garage/shed behind the home will hide it from general public view. The structure will be in full view of the adjoining properties, although this is already the case. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Sheds and out-buildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of yard and garden equipment . Having this shed will allow for the property owners to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected structure. Staff believes that the adverse affects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out- weighed by the overall benefits. Recommendation: • Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 540-98, recommending to the City Council approval of a conditional use permit for Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jordan, allowing a 280 square-foot oversized shed at 2085 Oakwood Drive, with stipulations. I1 aiiii1C41. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :12771.Y(/ 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 'Pt=•hrtne<s"'e' 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant Leonard Medrud & Arthur Jordan Telephone 612-784-4275 Address 2085 Oakwood Drive Fax • Mounds View, MN 33112 - - - - - Interest in Property(check appropriate box) ❑x Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager : -- t7 Agreement to Purchase 0 Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal - • Address or General Location 20 8 5 Oakwood Dr. , Mounds View, MN 55112 - r tl Legal Description Lot 29,ThlOck 1`,.Pinewood Terrace. —, Property Identification#-(PIN#) --'-'3 8 3 2 0 5 =&` 83206 - #of Acres _--- :2 9 ._ V Current Zoning Residential Type of Application O Comprehensive Plan Amendment S250 • Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max S1500 O Major Subdivision S250+$250 deposit* O Minor Subdivision $200 O Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees O PUD Amendment S350 iSt Conditional Use Permit �R-1, R-2$73)all others$250 ❑ Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 O Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2 S150;all others$200 O Wetland Buffer Permit .. R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 ❑ " Floodplain Permit S200 ❑ Other • • *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices.materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days atter consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Development Application Page 2 • Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant x❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain). Property Classification 0 Abstract Torrens Description of Proposal 7 foot addition to west wall of hryriqp nti 22 x 22 foot attached garage; existing garage of 14 by 20 (280 square foot) to be used as storage • _ BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. // - Signature of Applicant _ _ r• _/ � -•• Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Leonard Medrud Arthur -L.. Jo ' •lran • • Signature of Property Owner o! ' ..,.1� yr - . � .• Name of Property Owner(typed/printed)._;.:_Leonard = Arthur L:''Jordan . y L :7.)3 . ��1 �i-�i-i�i:�i- ave -,c, 7 r Address of Owner k .� 2085 .Oakwood..Drive • Mounds View, MN 55112 . PhoneNumberofOwner 784-4275 -(h) 879-5332 (w) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 5--/3 - °� Q Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. Sa g - O1�6 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid_ Account# Check# Receipt# Application: 2.5—• o�.. = - - - a 7 3 '3 Park Dedication: Deposits: • • Other: . Total: Y:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDEV\FORMSIDEVAPP.FOR 1/98 1 1 .1.4.1.\:2, `' V ' N 5721 DR 2245 • te 5711 c ir—\\ . • Alit N ,� CV Z23 N h 5701 i I 141 ILo c, 2200 a o `~ N 2233 ��� N 2 5691 — k . v. �o R 5 c' n o N �D� �0 A 5681 �w� C�7� N U) CV N N - tcu11NJ LAR! N N N N N :�� N®• N N N N N 567i :1 p TSN 5661. �YRNFtI T�iR • • COLONIAL VILLAGE I . S. •- MOBILE HOME PARK LI s i . / _ N N N N N ®® 0 0 O O O ! 0 CO r • 0 . N N N N N N N r O O 0 -0 • O N N �.:....:..... N N N � N N N HILLVIEW K 1 CZ CO N tO U] 0 d• M N N d CO 0 N . - - CO Co N to m • tO O ' co O 0N N CV CV C7 .- Co v r) M N O to 0) c0 r N N N N N N N N CV N N N CV N N N AVW 0 N0 N0 N0 0 N N N N N � OAKWOOD j N N N N N N N N N N N O nagion ,_ ro PARK - I N N N N N O 0)i CO ' S59O N.V M M •0111'' .- O Ori r, N N PF OAKWOOD N N N N ' CV N N N N N N N • DR N N IMEINEENtranCOr c0 to LO Q3 cN v M M oa N - O Qf O O n r•r N N N N N O O O O O ap r N N N N N N N N N N N N ggangintaarl N N "801116181 ng A cil n co M n CA M r O) M N N t0 d L0 �'�) M N •- �, O � � a0 r` t\ F,), m _ TERf�� O Q. O O O I '"SCE N N N N N N N N N N N CU N N N N • N N ® N N N N N N�� DR R kV HIMEN3,2. r c0 V• .- O CO rN N } N N N N N O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N PINEWOO,EgRanigittay DR d r Q7 M r O) M r to M N . U, N R CO O •d' t0 CO O d N co 4.3 to a' r,) M N .- O co rn CO N r . CO CO r CO c0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 N N to to * M M N NNNN N N N N N N N N N N NN/ N N N N N N N N N N N I . N N N N N N N O 7 5472 m 5515503 �-1 55125504 550 55151 ll' v 549iv 5499 PINEWOOD )�EG 5493 5494 5493 SCHOOL I 0 5479 5485 5486 5485 5500 45473 5475 5478 5475 ,# 1 1 3 5467 5464 5467 F— Z 5463 5466 Q 5463 S 5459 I-- • L 5455 5456 Q O� AS 5453 t1) 3 5447 `Q SSS Q N �• 54. C I 1 0 5435 �G Sr on ill 0 rn LO co 5447 ���: 5441 -"- 4 tS 5439 r to to u) M ,.,,,i----n J1. _ Z . SdZ L S )7), 5433 N N N N N N 3 • Zoning Map Planning Case 529-98 Applicant: L. Medrud & A. Jordan Location: 2085 Oakwood Drive . I _f.; ,7 ! i..\, 2085 Oakwood Drive �Erg.Mum =le Leonard Medrud & � 3.II:pia ��`=r IIUUIprt : miL _5 x_,112 ifi r1;..1a..11 =..att111111U7 _ Arthur Jordan -==- C==? —=__i ■:..;:,.,,,,,1....,. Existing Site Plan .14 iif -.. J- s1O1111.. nnuo ...Donn,��'_ �_l_ � up,lUll•IlUilllllll�_ - .. �I u111 1111.111111111, .�= _ � ,..,.I.....,,I ..._ CUP Application for --iz 8 / .a._—= _n..c �rtrmm,,"mum :e `�T► tat; _ —-0 _■ Area of NIL ME _ \\ ; _ - Inset Oversized Shed p=:a : I i- ,AE-IIIIII4 .;:III. 1il►a 0 fir IIIIIIIMIIt \ ur �:•5 _X1111111111 -`�(1�-if1 MO .r. °•e••€IIIIIIIIIIIIIL'I NJ `111111llll Illi ' : Eiji 111 l \ Emma:Illr. QIIIIIMI _'r 01111' _ '15 MMI „1. -::, ue _III. ��' lulel�l�u�®������=11t'n® ■S1Itp al bitAkI mem ii- . \..' Hillview Road •I El Bp ir a i im 41 II ■ ii1:3 i I o a) cn 2085 INI1 in co IIIII -lit 1111 IIIIII III 11111 111111 Oakwood Drive °I1 . t I I -I -I L I . I I I ' I i- . - - , I , . , - - . I / , 25 ] ; i . . . , , . • , . • . . _ ,______ I : . i , It . • . . . . i I , • ! . . I . , I j . . 51-ort9j e , . . .< . . . A7, . . --- 1 . . EXI3TINO - . , : , • : , • .. . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . • • , . . t ! : • I • i I i 1 I I I I i . • I i : . , . • . . • ; • • 1 ' 0 i i i I 1 i i .• . . I I t. I • t ' . . . . , . . ; fk . t . . . • licrfro-7" Trarok Arc to .•/ . - e EJed:s Ti'Al . .• ----4 -5? L . ' jio cAS e i . . 1 • : I . . , .•• . ' d 9. , Io- , . tam r,IC Uia iU .. . , . , -r • . . . . . : . . ! . • . . , • - . I • . . . . ,' . . , . . ' • . : -. .Ne14_0-10.11.).57-CUCrfOnit ' ...-.m..-..--.... . MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 551-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED STORAGE SHED FOR LEONARD MEDRUD AND ARTHUR JORDAN AT 2085 OAKWOOD DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 529-98 Whereas, Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jordan have applied for a conditional use permit to convert an existing 280 square-foot garage into a back yard storage shed on property located at 2085 Oakwood Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: LOT 29, BLOCK 1, PINEWOOD TERRACE RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,264 square feet of garage/accessory building on one lot; and • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Area Map with Building Footprints WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property,2085 Oakwood Drive, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. • 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area Planning Commission Resolution 551-98 June 3, 1998 • Page 2 Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. Most of the homes in the immediate area are larger,with more building coverage. There appears to be an even split between homes with attached garages and homes with detached garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to their garages. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The conversion of the existing garage will serve to increase the subject property's value without negatively impacting the values of the neighboring properties. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage is small,even fora single car garage. The applicants desire a garage big enough to park more than one vehicle inside at a time. The structure,however, appears to be in good repair,and could be retained as a storage shed,which the applicants currently do not have. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. • (8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The conversion of the garage to a storage shed will not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services,on utilities or access roads,nor will it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. There will be no increase in runoff from the shed above which is currently generated. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The location of the garage/shed behind the home will hide it from general public view. The structure will be in full view of the adjoining properties,although this is already the case. (4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Sheds and out-buildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of yard and garden equipment. Having this shed will allow for the property owners to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected structure. Planning Commission Resolution 551-98 June 3, 1998 • Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The shed shall be kept in good repair and maintained into the future so as to provide a uniform and consistent building appearance with the existing house. 3. The shed shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 4. No other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the garage currently under construction, shall be allowed on this lot. 5. There shall be no vehicle access to this shed, nor shall any vehicle be stored within said structure. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this • resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 3rd day of June, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDENADEVCASES\520-98\540-98PC.RES • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 6, 1998 Mounds:; w City Hall 2410 Highway 10, Mounds$ Yew, MN 55112 air::: ,, Age At TAFFR:L; 1. Call to Orderff The meetingwas called to order at byChai erso > ,eterso at 7:00 m:'Ma. 'i:_4 :®8. : :: p — ;NCA:AW 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Co ssionere ;le, Brooks, Miller, Obert, and Stevenson. . ?: :. IlJNON6,,: Members absent: Commissioner Johnston ' '_`'= : :'m thq.lp anning Commission). ,,eciAlemtisie Also present: Community Development Df 'ctor ak ; anning Associate Ericson, • Council Liaison Koopmeiner _":.d Recor er Dave 34,3c 3 3. Citizens' Requests and:..' `mnmentsaTItems ezlit on the Agenda. These ere no cit en gotkpsts of ce r :ent. on items not on the agenda. 111 MI% .16141NIPik SWY1,EyS j k` "2 , ' ' Index to Minutes. . , Page Planningse'No. 5/ :0.Highway 10, Consideration of Resolution 2 o. •,<;; ' F: • pprovmg *0,4!ig opment Review Request for a Bowling 47 Alley xInc.,ansion, Merman (Dan Hall) * Ping Case No. SP0 -98, Consideration of Resolution No. 546-98 4 Regarding a Zoning;: de Amendment to Allow Community Centers Within :B-3 districtt(Ordinance no. 617) <4%:;Y::,WW .::$:3::Ti>':zrY. _.waw' 4. Approval of Minutes Chairperson Peterson asked for discussion on the March 18, 1998 meeting minutes and IIthe April 1, 1998 meeting minutes. ' Mounds View Planning Commission May 6, 1998 • Regular Meeting Page 2 No discussion was held. Motion/Second: StevensonBrasaemle to approve the March 18, 1998 (Special) meeting minutes and the April 1, 1998 (Regular) meeting minutes as corrected. ik AV Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 ' The motion carried. , Chairperson Peterson directed the Commissions tentio_.,.:to Commissro . s h '-on s letter of resignation from the Mounds View Pla ;::aim E7imission. _ Planning Case No. 523-98 `, `: .S1. f"`"�.. 2200 Highway 10 ,' ` ' IF Applicant: Mermaid Inc., (Dan Hall) ;` k.-"9-'_'`" Consideration of Resolution No. 546-98 Aprovin .: ,': : .: $`equest for a Bowlingalley g :.... ::..: q 4a war Expansion. _° ' v. I,,,,,, .:,!,,,," ., ,,,.."" III .., ..e.,, :,„:,,, ::,..,,.•., „„,,,,,,, The applicant, Mermaid Iii. (Dan Wirk. was •:, nt. as sr c �Assiate Ericso > ` is presen ion ollows: Thew6. ;:� •<? '.the Meng: ing Alley is requesting permission to add eight new bowling n s lathe north ;: a existing facility at 2200 Highway 10. The site is currently. t'o riate v. ztlned B-3. 0,400'-'1111184N The addition wdilikOijit wouldof 7,825 square eet w c wou s necessitate t e construction oiV= 'of 40 additional ` eking spaces. y la There is no additional runoff expected from the development, although the Rice Creek Re 11111. Watershed Di tact will need to review the development proposal and issue a watershed kfilipapArmit,bggreconstruction can begin. '' ere are 505 parking spaces proposed by the developer. The required number, including the new addition, would be 482, thus parking requirements will be met. One problem that was discussed was the parking stalls, as shown on the proposal drawings, were dimensioned at 9'x18' instead of the required 9'x20'. The shorter 9'x18' parking stalls have been allowed only for perimeter parking where an overhang of the car into greenspace • may occur. These allowances, however, have been allowed as part of a PUD. • Mounds View Planning Commission May 6, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 3 There was a problem in that the parking areas were shown to be at the property line instead of set back by the required ten feet. The existing parking lot setback along the western property line is five feet. There is a potential problem in that vehicles parking near the property line would extend to far over the property line encroachir. nto the neighboring property. Staff recommended redrawing the site plan to show egree<; ::: ..."king around the proposed addition, which would allow for the co .#: :cation of th , 0,.rking lot setback from the property lines and the addition Oa five-foo:: dewalk}- c > :d>the sir perimeter of the building and show concrete cure,>, d gutt •long the riff" z z Zrlot. v.h B Staff recommended the Planning Commission appy4. .' ng Commission Resolution No. 545-98, a resolution recommending to the C'.> ° .. ; w 0.:.roval of the development review as requested by Mermaid Inc., with stiptilations:-Qiiialk3. Commissioner Miller questioned the fa ::la pity had al d "the bowling alley to operate in the B-3 zone. Director oke told the Commis :>on the . at art y- .eriod of time, allowed, • without discussion and consi®l `;"tion of:, 'a nging thcode, the bowling alley to operate. He added it would not be a1 %nate s time^.`deny the expansion because it has existed there with no pro ins. St. 1 'a reco sending the Code be amended to allow a bowling alley in that¢ artt>. lar zon ;. " 4,41174: 4.0,Mw t t s oner St e :,ated his main concern is the parking issue. The fact that all of tl ; ng wo' • ie perimeter of the lot, would make it necessary for the bowling.11 .x.< irons to .: ; i er to get to the bowling facility. ChO r ersom t s4state•'the five-foot parking setback from the property lines should r Commissioner Hiller questioned snow storage. < Dan Hall, foraMermaid Inc., told the Commission he does the snow plowing for the ry .acility,az d fere is room available on the existing site for snow storage. Meimmissioner Miller stated because of the allowed use of amusement centers in a B-3 zone it made sense to reconsider allowing a bowling alley as one of the permitted uses in a B-3 zone. • Commissioner Miller questioned the outdoor lighting requirements for the building. Mounds View Planning Commission May 6, 1998 0 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mr. Hall told the Commission his facility has adequate lighting and that all City requirements for lighting would be adhered to. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Miller to approve Resolution 547-98 recommending t y .€- ity Council approve Ordinance No. 618, which allows bowling alleys as a permittedAp in,94#13 zone. Ayes - 6 .;.!Aft Nays - 0 0 ilf, •'VIN44., .2r' ‘41tottik, 4* ,w, The motion carries. ,,, f-Pi A it- 4,-:;" In: 4k Motion/Second: Obert/Brasaemle to approve Resolutio!,, vt,,.4,recommending akt40 by the City Council for a development review for the expansio.n"6,j ::!::kii:7tai d Entertainment Center, 2200 Highway 10; Planning Case No. 5232-98, with sta.' Ayes - 6Y - 0 ,ANAS :::'"agrik4 The motion carried. L,:r. 'Ir IAFRfte,, A A 6. i ....m.$ .00§:w Planning Case No. SP062-98 of Al j 1 Applicant: The City of Mounds ,r' Consideration of Resolutiow494,4;'46-98 R;t,:': ..'r11. ro g nin Code Amendment to Allow CommunitlIthters Wi00:,tigbla::10 strict(040 ' o. 617) 404,1,.!.!iiittlik z'ZFa4gyt.:;,1,, v‘INIERM,. '447.1/4:*,-, .k: • '44, ;:'ONv v The aPpkgprahP City 0!,:: PR.,i,.„,.. , n P iew was present. . . . .,,,, :iC.E.:4,.:1:.•:0"': ;:1:* . '''';'. Diri‘Eltrr JOPletilialk.4. reP on as follows: - „*z,!,t,.. 447 vagrop rile Community 0:'01197is currently zoned B-3 Highway Business. At present the City's Aliff zoning code doeevioCpemu't a community center as either a permitted use or a conditional awa use. WEtil giip AP Amem AV . Te C4y,,4",brney had drafted two alternative code amendments for the Commission to `461i'af.,Insi1471„pb'Cegarding the issue. Alternative one is to make a community center a permitted Ntsa40.-0Alternative two is to make community centers a conditional use and to set standard for the issuance of conditional use permits. The Attorney's draft ordinances also include other similar uses such as public or semi-public recreational buildings, schools, and churches. 0 • Mounds View Planning Commission May 6, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 5 A code amendment, it was stated, is necessary prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for the new Mounds View Community Center which is under renovation/construction on the site of the former Bel Rae Ballroom. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission pass ResolutioNo. 54:698, a Resolution recommendingthat CityCouncil approve ..rdinanc fi `', an ordinance Pp �;. : x t, relating to zoning, the B-3 Highway Business District ai d their :e <uses thereof, and amending Title 1114, Section 1114.02 in the Mou View City "'de e ning Case N _ ;d SP062-98. Commissioner Brasaemle stated he viewed the `,:.a . �ppty center use as ``4sitrittnsive than the uses already allowed under the B-3 zonir _ ;,��r >;•! e of this, he said he would prefer to deal with the rezoning on a permitted-u.:,.: ai4•i" Commissioner Stevenson agreed with Brasaeule's viewpo oath ;:'ssue. Chairperson Peterson stated there w'0:: .e„ , , . trol of to:development with the permitted use. ,:' 0_ . Commissioner Miller and Bata>.. s state:in favor lthe permitted-use approach. F:;?' :o.' Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Mill:x.A .• appro: :° esoluti'o.': 46-98, a Resolution recommending that the City,Council approv :Uw� � ance N;�.,, dinance relating to zoning, B-3 Highway Business Di is and the_P d Uses Th,`, : :-<;and amending Title 1114, Section 1114.02 in .`isyk"4<3?�::':� MfFf�: �-:.;Ff`} �. (�.,f:r,<<r'•<., . <: 062-98. the Mod `�' iCode; �'a.� �: �:_R. se No. S'�. k.;: 115*.es 6` a:< '. y 411kilikitik, lair The motioncarried: <No-Mc 7. <; Staff Reports/Inormational Items lit 1 i " A. Com ehensive Plan Discussion migrol,UNE ec.,o r opke directed the Commission's attention to the attached summary of the ' eliahunity Forum meetings recently held in regard to the Comprehensive Plan Update process. He asked each Commissioner to review the report, gather any comments/additions/corrections/recommendations and bring that information forth at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. • Mounds View Planning Commission May 6, 1998 • Regular Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Stevenson asked Jopke to report to the Commission on the City Council's reaction to the Community Forum Summary Report. Director Jopke told the Commission that the City Council had expressed NOe concerns about the inclusion of all of the communityThe 'in the process. y, ve sursted a community survey of some sort to be done in conjunction with : 'Jotfiration gathered in the Community Forums. p' ,;.:..bathe ,.!ines Commissioner Brasaemle stated he agreed witl )~t �cr e City C� l. Irrt.. ,z...:..,:. opi:. expressed by the citizens at the Community Fo were eery vocal . : .. Commissioner Stevenson stated he questioned •oj7Cte e: us 2000 type of survey. He said it would be just as effective to go forward witt.a ` a ,tion that has been gathered. 4ff AkigaWu —MOW iggP~ Chairperson Peterson stated he didn't. :_w ;,.v ae City coAA1: . i o to get total involvement from the citizens. It wa y : .pi n:"*,e City.Would move forward with 2 6.� ti the information that has been gathe•. Thep t a 4' o finish the Comprehensive :rte' ' t Plan Update process by the end. uahe year.a nd tha a approaching quickly. Commissioner Miller stat ,. it mart:Rif the iss the citizens had mentioned in the Community Forums havl° eady be-;5g Efddress-.a She stated that one more survey, one more. hone call, or;etl i. •re meet meet.'xig#Wil get the City any more accurate info: t on than: as. ti q46 !teZ, Co iTAI Stevens t3; w aested using Director Jopke's experience with these issues, along wutside expertiser:deemed necessary, to move forward and get the job accom liaA 110-, -104.0" w, '""`#'" '` `..R. to have the Comprehensive Plan Update process completNrawing near. at Sz& B. Resignlion of Commissioner Johnston 11111 w::.4:.... Wiliteen's Project amiermuyearnw s "late Ericson told the Commission that the City Council had voted to deny the Walgreen's project. According to TOLD Development, Inc., Walgreens is still interested in developing within the City of Mounds View. So plans could again be before the Commission in the near future. 111 D. The Theater Project. Mounds View Planning Commission May 6, 1998 • Regular Meeting Page 7 Director Jopke told the Commission that the City Council had passed a resolution approving the development stage plan, wetland buffer permit and another resolution relating to certain improvements on Edgewood and the signalized intersection relating to the theater project. Negotiations continue with MnDOT staff regarding the iiht-in/right- out to the site. Three of the City Council members have indicate eir»support for access to either or H2 and/or Long Lake Road or both. The.develope ' -: ; : g at plans to achieve this alternate access. AA* '44rtiirtai„. `:.. ' n::P. hour¢,>: The City Attorney has indicate the City Council c a rove,..: revis'` `a .4 i returning before the Planning Commission. .. � r . P.fi 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Re'74, " M No Chairperson or Planning Commissioners' Reports wety;:0:tr•dgred. 9. Adjournment to the Agenda Meetin. 7:aorargl,k44 .,.:;t:;,:,,,,i),„0:,,,,:. There being no further business befit-'�e the Raiz•,..-.:Ig the PlanningCommission, Chairperson Peterson adjournedui e meetin t 8:1 . • (The Regular Meet :'»$.i edia.: adjourn to the Agenda Session) , ,:.01, ,,:Aili,,,,, •;1;71','''s, Slt8;:titliffr" matted f`2 RespectIv %` , Rick Jopke, ` `"Aoy Commtty Developmeti . ' w 'swam:A. <��: �`�,. .:yam •