Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-1999 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1999 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. Approve Minutes: a. May 19, 1999 b. June 2, 1999 5. Planning Case No.562-99 PropertyInvolved: 2975 Highway 10 (site formerly known as Quik Lube) Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate an automobile rental agency Applicant: A Macfrugal Company (Thrifty Car Rental) 6. Planning Case No.561-99 Property Involved: 2801 Woodale Drive Consideration of Resolution 587-99, a resolution approving a variance for a reduced frontyard setback. Applicant: Michael&Christine Gregory • 7. Planning Case Nos.559-99,560-99 Property Involved: 2670 County Road I Discussion concerning application to rezone property and for a conditional use permit for an assisted living senior residential facility Applicant: MSP Real Estate 8. Special Planning Case No. SP-072-99 Consideration of Resolution 585-99 a resolution recommending adoption of proposed Ordinance 632, an ordinance amending Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, pertaining to permitted uses within the B-2, Limited Business commercial zoning district. 9. Special Plannin' Case No. SP-071-99 - II: Municipal Code pertaining to Billboards and amending the Code pertaining to signage in the PF and CRP zoning districts. 10. Staff Reports/Items of Information a. Previous Council Action b. Meiho Lee Subdivision update c. Upcoming Planning Cases/Public Hearings 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 12. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. Review Minutes --June 16, 1999 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1999\7-7-99.REG • • • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: July 6, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 562-99 Request: Conditional Use Permit to operate an auto rental operation Petitioner: Thrifty Car Rental (A Macfrugal Company) Location: 2975 Highway 10 (Former location of Quik Lube) PIN No. 06-30-23-23-0045 Zoning/Land Use: B-3, Highway Business/Former Quik Lube Business Applicable Regulations: • Section 1114.04, Subd. 5. Open or outdoor service, sale and rental as a principal or accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers or wagons requires a Conditional Use Permit. • • Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b, criteria for granting a conditional use permit. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Site Plan Background: The applicant, Thrifty Car Rental, is seeking a conditional use permit to operate an auto rental business at the property most recently utilized by Spots Quik Lube. As an accessory to the principal rental operation, the applicant requests that they be allowed to sell rental vehicles from the site as well. The applicant anticipates that there would be no more than ten cars on the premises at any time, whether they be for rent or sale. The applicant indicates that the proposed hours of business would be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The business would not operate on Sundays. Other than repainting the building and installing company signage, there are no plans to alter the building or make any improvements to the landscaping. Analysis: • Section 1114.04, Subd. 5 of the City Code requires that a conditional use permit be issued for uses such as that proposed by the applicant . Specifically, it states that"Open or outdoor service, sale and rental as a principal or accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers Thrifty Car Rental 2975 Highway 10 July 7, 1999 411 Page 2 or wagons requires a Conditional Use Permit." The primary function of the proposed business is the renting of automobiles, with an accessory use of sale of said rental vehicles. Because of the restrictions placed upon auto sales operations, the extent of Thrifty's auto sales may not exceed 30 percent of its business, or in other words, no more than three out of every ten vehicles may be for sale. This location has a long history of automotive uses, and the proposed use would not be inconsistent with the previous uses. The zoning of the property is commercial although the comprehensive plan indicates a low density residential designation. Because of the long-standing commercial history at this location and the impending revision to the comprehensive plan which could redesignate this parcel to a commercial use, staff feels that the inconsistency with the comprehensive plan could be temporary. The conditions placed upon rental businesses, as stated in Section 1114.04, Subd. 5 of the City Code, are listed as follows with comments as to the relationship with the proposed use: a. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent(30%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. This condition applies to those businesses having rental or sales as an accessory to another type of use. Because auto rental is the principal use, the 30 percent restriction is not applicable. The sales aspect of this business does need to comply with the 30 percent restriction. The building's gross • floor area comprise 1,500 square feet, thus 450 square feet could be put towards the sale of vehicles. This would translate into three compact or mid-sized vehicles. A condition would be added to the resolution limiting the business to three cars for sale at any time. b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring identical uses or an abuttingR District in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(l) through (5) of this Title. The abutting residential properties are screened from any of the outdoor storage as the building itself presents a screen, as well as the six-foot wood privacy fence around the rear and sides of the property. This requirement 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 1103.08, Section 1103.09 of this Title. The existing parking lot lights are mounted on standards 16 feet tall with the fixtures hooded to prevent glare and light spillage onto adjoining properties. There are no plans to alter the lighting in the parking lot and there have been no complaints about lighting when the previous business was in operation. This requirement is met. d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. • Thrifty Car Rental 2975 Highway 10 July 7, 1999 1110 Page 3 The grounds of this property have been sodded with the remaining area being impervious surface. This requirement is met. e. The open or outdoor service, sale or rental use does not take up parking space as required for conformity of this Title. Section 1121.13 of the City Code outlines the parking specifications by use within the City. Because auto rental is not listed as a use within this section of the Code, staff consulted the American Planning Association's Off-Street Parking Requirements publication, which indicated that one space per every 400 square-feet (or fraction thereof) of gross floor area would be acceptable. Using that ratio, a total of four spaces would need to be set aside for employees and customers, separate from any vehicles on display for rental or sales purposes. A diagram of the site and parking lot layout is included for your reference. This requirement can be met. f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Section 1125.01 of the City Code relates to adverse affects resulting from the proposed use. There are five items listed for consideration: • (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. A stated above, this use or any commercial use would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan as currently drafted. A commercial use has been present at this location for the last 15 years and it is staff's position that the comprehensive plan should be amended to reflect this type of use. This comp plan change could occur as part of the current comp plan update process or could be done in conjunction with the applicant's request. The area surrounding the parcel is dominated by residential uses. There are commercial uses and higher density residential uses across Highway 10. While the property is the only commercial use in the immediate area, its location at the intersection of Spring Lake Road and Highway 10 makes it undesirable for a residential use. Addressing the issue of neighborhood depreciation, it is much more desirable to have a successfully operating business at this location than to have an abandoned, run-down property. As for the need for such a use, there are currently no businesses in the City that provide a car rental service. In addition to the CUP conditions and the adverse affects requirements, the Code also requires that certain findings of fact be addressed in the granting of any conditional use permit. These criteria as they appear in Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b of the City Code are listed 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. Thrifty Car Rental 2975 Highway 10 July 7, 1999 Page 4 • (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. (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. (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. These criteria will be addressed in conjunction with the drafting of a resolution recommending • approval or denial of this proposal. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission discuss this proposal and provide guidance to Staff as to the acceptability of this use, and if found to be acceptable, what if any additional conditions (such as potential alterations to the present landscaping) should be placed upon the operation. A resolution reflecting the Commission's desires will be drafted and brought before you or approva - u y - -- ing. 3 CCTV , James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE V CASES\5 62-99\THRIFTY.PC 1 • ,n, .w �s , .(i? ,i_.,,,,,,-. < >j l> _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT III ... DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION "_"` 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 °14'4•PartntrS4' 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant �_ � , Telephone (la- ,S -ib) Address ((,4 —fl -,('1 T ( Q t Ti41 . Fax to I2— '&54-, 3t-'' G/t-rol r : 1 grit- <<iri3EF-r ALOorn1Ni( a►.), mNJ 55Gtg5 • Interest in Property(check appropriate box) ❑ Owner of Property \ ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager "Cl 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. 410 Property Description/Proposal � ' I Address or General Location ; C1. Z° .5 -�L t,J& 1(; , (Y\Cj u.N1S \J`Ed Legal Description Property Identification#(P1N#) e", Lt 3,o-; ?3 ( -- 0-raq_.`j #of Acres Current Zoning 6 Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 a Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 o Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* o Minor Subdivision . $200 ❑ Planned Unit Developmet(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees \❑ PUD Amendment $350 Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 a Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 a Code Appeal $100 o Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 a Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 a Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other • *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. M i t-1. E f E P4 - iiZ E P ..T Y .cy of Mounds Ylrewr.MN f► uot use{tf) ot:wi y a ;:ipgi�C Family at 0 • • Uat c1QROd •rant r;, (vluiti•fttogy p„Orel u C7 t laWtwb r t'y i welling L„duyti�ia� ,ttu6,lis at► O EWairt Cottkr4ercial$.gtIbuovnent 0i"..0 to K�pl1,11y hbeiraot o Tarr= Prosy�Ciiotiiliettloe i .' r. fdat�of Pt - '" i, IdirA ............-...�« .44..---. ,p..IrMa..w.w..._..-'.mow.. — w�...nw�.ww�w��__- eM—...uw nwW..�..�'.►w'. .....•111.__-'x' 8'Y MY(atR)SiGNA1"UM ON'K D Arr.;GA` tc.)14, t leMBY DECLARE T.TO'NZ BEST OF M? K OW-WM THE INFO TUN PROVTDED 13 TRUE AM ACcv' AT2. %peturn orApplrtra+ r t A A Name of Applicant(typed/0E04M,. 41/17 Signature of Fropm'tY Qwrtter , r4i�' - Nam of Property QwoY( `"4[ >E;xt) „� a rn. ...-.- - AddsVu4 orate ,,.., ,r +010 / +C, ...iaan..—eC4.14 -de-ip,..e/Z44/4 0 Monet Islunlaer of Owner 6// � �G ^r g 7+ ^.+" . ._' rA**fl'Kip4•40*****Aldi** * ******IstA44maiA*ArwMA'**ow************}04't FOR Drina';in army 0aka OrSubmittal Date of Acceptance ....w...r.Nw....w.w..vw.wrw.w.r+.'r""'-".n"{rt'..•'._��-w.r'�.�..�w.�n..-n.lit..orwherIFWAMNI•OVIPP t�'.Y*i�f�V Li�tFt w U Account , Cheat* Receipt It Applica FOS Ped' -..._..,. ....... tion __ , ,.�,.�»�•�--•----.-a. ,...M.... ..._,.�.,..-. Park dot ....,...^,..,.«�.. _... .... ..-......-.�_-....,,........-.—. 'Of0111 m; .—ww....... — ....V.0.1. .,�. Vtot: ar. . r .._.....�...._.,........�...w.» AM. . .....•.... r,—.- —.—. .. ....*Om I..*. -r .........—..,•••• . . . . +.— . OMMOAR --- t0t: NINCINTWOROVIVICOMIZI4VIORA M04.Y,tt+r MR "' Pp�si 'I.r • Post�tt"Fax Note 7871 J'__ From ee, pu 4,0, Lar ina F.M N (r(�' /5'4(.1Cl + FAX it � t .24,*' � �.� /96 CO 39b'd `II�t rlcPr''1C) 10i z. ' `( .'y"r► • tsitib \087 ti391 8406 - - i -'--GROW_LAN ') 337" 8380 8391 83$8 q 8365 83 t 8380 8385 �_ 6387 8382 8381 8378 8373 M ' 8366 11 837 8374 8383 8372 8371 8368 8369 00 8360 8355 83 • 0 8371 8368 r - 8371 8368 8351 I 8346f 5355 8354 8345 8` (1/ 8360 8360 Y8359 8360 8344 8351 8346 8335 83 f ( I 8350 8355 83405 8347 8358 8341 8343 8342 8325 83 8340 8345 8335 8334 0 8339 8334 8335 8332 6315 8330 8336 8325 8333 83 8335 8330 3 8330 5333 8322 8305 82 8320 8315 8322 0 8321 ('1 8325 8316 8325 8300 8285 521 IJ_ 8310 8315 8311 8308 Y 831 e" = 8275 82:. • 8300 8305 8312 5297 8298 8301 GROVELAND 4 8265 821 8289 8280 8285 PARK 8255 82 8284 f8285 8290 8281 8250 8261 N r PF •"' ^ a, 82 18280 8275 "' ��i N Co t . n W 8270 8230 8241 8270 Q 8265 8265 r--- N N N N N N 82; V5 ARDAN l8260 6 8255 8248 G0 0 0 0 •: : N d• "' 00 0 co O� Z o N o N N N N 824• oMo °0 Co 00o N N N N 82 1.8250 0 8245!-- a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 82 • 8240 PLEA 8233 8228 N 8245 8206 8227 _ 8202 ccoo ii o) �: Z 8213 8210 8217 8198 5205 N N N N 8201 81s1 81s2 0 8203 n t 8208DRore.,: cm.< Z Y] N [O to 67 N • �Y M n r 3 81 8160 W N N N 8200 N N N N N F 4;. -t 8180 R-2 ;1..1` 8160 ^ 8148 p LAPORT • 811 c., ,,-,,, , 0p31::7,1 8: 8161 N .: 8138 6 N N NNNN 09 1 8 \. oo HERW00N, PLACE - 81328127 \ 8141 ° :::... j • 0 Q • 28rn 8 56 n �n r- rn in n rn 0, mos N N N N NN NN N \� co 8111 N 8100 Z \ • \ • 808. N N N N co N N N V8( \\ \ N tD 8060 8065 8084 808 -1 8( -- ....__ \ 1 7 1 ) 80 75 81 N : 8040 ~- � 8046 � � I I ` •\ J. R-0`, 8030 8045 8036 8045 8( CL1#-1 � 8025 - \N 8020 8025 8026 8t \ 8016 8015 \ 8005 8( \ 7980 8005 8000 7985 8C Q ( 7990 B 7980 i 7975 7c `t ^I co 7965 7, '(� 7960 I I N s 0 7950 7955 7 I I 1 N °0 7934 00 NIR 4,,, co 7933 7 cal 1 7932 , N• Zoning Map Planning Case 562-99 Applicant: Thrifty Car Rental N 4 Location: 2975 Highway 10 City of Mounds View Location Map 0 �I 1 , II ll = s I tn� ____.3 lb. I- .. A\____ IIlilI � � I - 1III [ I H � titi5 IuIflI1 -Y 1 Ill -�: — 2975 Highway 10 — RI _ _____ Y (� �Wiwi 'I I I I I I I I I L LLI 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 LIM _ �' ts, , �� --� 1 I I I -= I I 1 ► ► _i I l _ .11� gird_ - - t • " I I I I J-1— _LU LL I I I � 1 y NMI S_ __L_ — H I1 LI U so mai aim mom . E. ..- �h�o IOI1L1I1re4J ■ _____ _ .__ _ • ___. _____,.. ....._ -- . _ 1 ___ _ iii - . - .... ..1, vi .... , ' = , ,, I ( _ 411-7-I .111=1- , �___E '=a \CA ,_, Thrifty Car Rental =_gm tl ll'. 4.111. I` ,-_ = 1, • 1.1111-- = °=may®- 2975 Highway 10 .V7 ;,::,„ _- , : - - - IIIII:l;,_ ,lii 1:, r - . im11m11. Conditional Use Permit ! -� Ml1111 ,1111. ..�„" : , PlanningCase No. 562-99 ,..,;,,,,,11111 ti ..1. 1►i111111111 111111111111 - _ Q � 1i111i1111111111 1,111111111111 I 6., ■-1- �= •o �. Iv� . 11111;,;�111ii_ 2975 Highway 10 'V''' Properties Within 350' '1' �� i�, IIIIIIIIIIIIII °� \ ,.. ;.-i=- -;n.•‘ ;_ X1111111111 friMMMritta®' .4•'.=111111111111111 YI��I' IIIII LIII.tiiii 111111- 6, IL O.i7 IAlrinuni-,7„.....,7Td IMIllJ 'tuiiMit...1m in AlaEh b9V'i: iim1®=ECh 0roki Imin r■.: , 0 N89131'47"E 166.001 I I _ r:.. . . i 1 IA CP a I 1 :•:" I r N is 0 8 4 4. ! 7 N :_l'i-2 - -.,-.. :•,--/ ... 41 I \ . -11. ,. -74.2. -• -: . ' ( . ca\x'4- -A - • 1 I I N 21.541— .. - . BIT .- \ ...-i \s\c,_ c-\\ -., -4-.41 .... rrt 1 1 //?• .6.. .‘'('" I ) /' ' . \ 'I. //..7.....›.....r''' • -> 1 > I I '•.' 1 ' • I i ! ,...• 1 I . i 1 . i i ! 1 ! I 1 , +11:04: \NA 1 i BT. 11 1 I I I 3C).0II I \ 0 H N N .. .. 1 \ cret_ 1 I N\ \\ 'V I . 1 1 . ' 1 \ , \ I I I , 1 N\ \ 1 1 I . .t. m I ! i N :.•:... - I I i N 1 N N ; 1 ! I N \ . 'N N I 1 N N N \ 41111 N. N ‘-‘ N N I I I . I . 1 N 1 ii N.\ N . • . ...: \ Ns. I I I i I 1 N N. X. ! I . , I \'\ \‘,. . -, . N I • ' ! 1 -,„N N\... \N N.. i • • • • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: July 7, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 561-99 Applicant: Michael& Christine Gregory Request: The applicant is requesting a variance for reduced front yard setback • Location: 2801 Woodale Drive PIN No. 07-30-23-31-0020 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential/ Single Family Dwelling Applicable Regulations: • Section 1104.01, Subd. 4, regarding Setbacks: All accessory structures shall maintain a thirty foot setback from any lot line abutting a public street. • • Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used byPlanning the Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Letter from the Applicants, dated 6-14-99 Site Plan, dated 6-16-99 Resolution 587-99 Background: The applicants, Michael and Christine Gregory, who live at 2801 Woodale Drive which is located at the northwest corner of Woodale Dive and Silver Lake Road, are requesting a variance from the required thirty-foot setback established for accessory building from public streets. They would like to replace their old, single stall garage with a two car, 672 square-foot garage. The existing garage, which was built with the house in 1952, sits 15 feet too close to Silver Lake Road. Its construction predates the City's first zoning code, which was adopted in 1960. Analysis: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property which makes a literal • interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its Gregory Variance July 7, 1999 Page 2 • decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: 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. The Gregory's house and garage, located at 2801 Woodale Drive, was built before there was a code requirement concerning minimum setbacks. In addition, Silver Lake Road at that time was not as wide, though staff is unaware if the County obtained any additional right of way in the intervening years that would have exacerbated the setback nonconformity. Either way, this is a situation over which the applicants have had not control. 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. Single-stall garages, once a common feature in this area, have become functionally • obsolete in today's age of dual wage earners and children with their own vehicles. In addition, the emergence of boat and other recreational vehicle ownership has further rendered the single-stall garage obsolete. Simply put, a single-stall garage in itself could be viewed as a hardship. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. As stated in response to the first criteria, the house and garage were constructed in advance of any setback requirements, well before the applicants took ownership of this property. 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. Granting a variance to allow a 672 square-foot garage would not confer upon the applicants any special privileges, especially considering residents are allowed garages in most cases unconditionally up to 952 square feet. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. 1111 Gregory Variance July 7, 1999 Page 3 As the applicants have shown in the site plan, the extent of the setback non-conformity would increase by four feet. If the garage was constructed to be in compliance with setback requirements, it would need to be relocated to the back yard behind the house and take access from Silver Lake Road, options unacceptable to the applicant for obvious reasons. In terms of whether the variance requested is the minimum to alleviate the hardship, staff would recommend that the garage be reconstructed using the established 15-foot setback, which would cause the garage to shift four feet to the west. From the site plan, it appears that there is sufficient room on the lot to accomplish this without causing any access issues to the garage itself. From Staff's perspective, 15 feet--not 19 feet, is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for additional garage space 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 within the neighborhood A 672 square foot garage at the reduced side yard setback would notimpair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a valiance. It appears to staff that in this case a hardship does exist, and as such, if the Planning Commission were to concur, a variance could be granted to allow the applicants to construct a new garage fifteen feet from the property line abutting Silver Lake Road. Recommendation: If it is the Commission's desire to approve a variance for Michael and Christine Gregory to allow a fifteen-foot setback for a 672 square-foot garage at 2801 Woodale Drive, staff has prepared Resolution No. 579-99 to accomplish this. C-'+�.4,G1 ►" tiles. James Ericson, Planning Associate • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\561-99\GREGORY.PC1 `,77 Cf ©QM De COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN -2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATI i ? 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 5511 f°`.1.$1•Partner$`1' 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information '. Name of Applicant �IIC��G4-n.f' d C -i%4 i /�Grl ok Telephone 60-a — Address a`.60( 9 oci,(� 11- Fax WOU►NQS f MA) SSf(a. Interest in Property(check appropriate box) Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator,Manager a 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 /� �'n Address or General Location a 8 0( io�,di~cte k_ O v t t--Q • Legal Description Lai U `LYc'e/4 e?Sn -pt `FLawe of ((461(r,, Q Pavk Property Identification#(PIN#) k x"331 n C) #of Acres Current Zoning Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 ❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* ❑ Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 • Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 ❑ anance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 • Code ppeal • $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 a Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 ❑ 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, II 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 after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. 100 — 3C((e 5 City of Mounds View,MN Development Application Page 2 • Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant ti Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling 0 Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification 0 Abstract '6C Torrens 6.,0ft-1-1 r s o.?iso 044 b`` CC cP`"P(4 tc 1e ) Description of Proposal k;ids A.t.W S U,vc.V Ute, `o t e 4 of C.i..I.Alt... -I BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND .CCURATE. , Signature of P '► teerrt y Name of A t(typed/printed) CW,i 5r-i av Ale,*1.. Signature of Property Owner 444114j .&-tert-A-: . • Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) N1 i Ck&c1 6 reo.. Address of Owner iSO I w o ackl2 ''J k" Mouods VieLtil gra Phone Number of Owner ( (a - 7$610-75%6 ************ *********************************************************************************** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 6-I? - 9 9 Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. St /— 9 el 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# Check# rR�eiSI� Application: / 0 0 . 0 0 /O D —:4t 7P 7 g 3 Park Dedication: Deposits: 0 Other: Total: N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 City of Mounds View Location Map 411 - r--+ 1...1._L_L., P. ----„.4_1_,..-- ...__J N I 111 1,- lik most91 — IS nR1?11 IN !Pi -__ -_ :_ - -- - - - 1 mei u11-111411111 11 _ 091711 = E : 1 imilto UN - mio % ! N2801 Woodale Drive- - r.iswm.msmti.o.o i 1.1.1111.6. MIMI 'MY:I' '''' ''‘kl Pi - ''- r 7,,,,,,„,,f.,.i ;.„,,,, . now itirlA .. ',) um .0.11 111111111111110 MIMI ,...,..:..,.s..-4 ,,..,,,1 ',; MEI MG MI 1 e llkik _ — e...ATA,,, „,,,„,4 •••• .. 111111111111 nei •• r 1. NE 1111111P t)3,3 II. lin Elm ow .1 NE nom Elm im NE im------ Im NM mum NE mu - INIIN - IIIIII - • EN .1. , I 11 - ,-- wo -I I I _ ___ _______ ----= =-- 111211 III „iiihi M II N 1 • ,........„.: __.7.7..... Michael & Christine Gregori • ..e EN Em-'- _ .-.4r_T,mom -:'.. INIIL-4,:igliiilliE--11169 mukatb: Drive 2801 Woodale ve rwtz. nt '''i F.1122"AvaitworiF-iffit;inn of..le.11■••.-- - _• _= •• - • _ •- _ roEon oe1.11 .' It:1;1114 IMINFITIPM Planning Case No. 561-99 gi 1•1-,=72_ "'AO,,,mati.. • 11111TrIll 1 ,'UM"11111111Mill 1 to.s7(.411E rq.Et.'llitig 11,,,,,,,,,,, 1 u! .1.. •; •,,„,,,44174-.. nip, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,1111111111111111111 -i -‘11".1•11.Oki iii1 ITI it' ilk. )•- ieliw.l. aII2801 Woodale Drive E.---a.--- mom ci,. .„,,„ .• „, , aa.,,•10, ;4 - .29,19,1AL,F ..4_ ,UlliblillighTigi ithumin 4`., ,.., Properties Within 350' ------v-=,- es.: . •eil munimg num ...-,,. 511115 71P417q] OW 1=1-FE;ki'lu iii limm km . ev, — Tamp =diainiMMMMIMMIIIIIimmiiItitos- III ICI-li:) 1 i Milial ray a PLOT PLAN • Address ;$0( WOOACt,l,p f) - Date 616 `C1`t fi Builder VvI'\c-kJ (ivy ,,, Owner /V‘,C L 1 Ga t'jw i Brief Description of Proposed Construction I-&c« 6,0,v,-. 00 C 0,,w a j l, &'l0 AQc) (tvk 4� Building Permit No. - Show all existing buildings/structures located on the property. - Show all proposed construction and label"proposed" - Indicated distance from proposed structures to all property lines. - Indicated distance of proposed structure(s) to existing structures. - Show street location(s) and name(s). - Show directional symbols (north,south, east west). �'4 1 t 4. N )4 IIII • ,0'"5•4 ,( QC--33 ---, 4 r r y� );40‘ wanita,14 Or j S . City of Mounds View Community Development Department*2401 Highway 10,Mounds View,MN 55112 (612)717-4020,Fax(612)784-3462 June 14, 1999 Community DevelopmentP Department • 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Planning Commission: We are requesting a variance for a garage we plan to build on our lot. We will tear down our old garage and build a new one in the same area. We are requesting this variance because the Code now imposes undue hardship and practical difficulties for us to use the land. 1.) The garage now sits 17' from the rear of the property and 15'from the side. The current set backs are 5'on rear and 30'on the side along Silver Lake Road. The garage was built before the Code was enforced, and it does not follow Code now. We had no control of the garage location. Other lots in our neighborhood enjoy 2 and 3 car garages. 2.) If we follow Code the garage will be located in our backyard. The garage will also have the door facing Silver Lake Road and be on a hill, which would make it precarious to use. 3.) We moved into this home several years ago and we had no control over the lay out of the dwelling. • 4.) The granting of the variance doesn't give us any special privileges that any of the neighbors don't have. 5.) The garage size that we are requesting is the minimum variance that will relieve us of the hardship. We are requesting a 2 car garage, with enough room for bikes, motorcycle, mower, snowblower and other garage items. 6.)The variance will not be detrimental to the purpose of the Code. There are houses and garages along Silver Lake Road that are now closer to the road than the variance that we are requesting puts our garage. 7.) The variance will not impair any supply of light or air to any properties. The variance will not create any public safety issues, and it will increase the values of the houses in the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, I ' • MP Michael & Christine G -ri • 2801 Woodale Drive Mounds View, MN 55112 S PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 587-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1104.01, SUBD. 4, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SETBACKS TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED SETBACK FOR A GARAGE AT 2801 WOODALE DRIVE ; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 561-99 WHEREAS, Michael and Christine Gregory of 2801 Woodale Drive have applied for a 410 variance to permit garage eleven feet from their east side lot line abutting Silver Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, 2801 Woodale Drive is property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lot 11, Except the North 250 Feet Thereof, Knollwood Park Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Letter from Applicants WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, • WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, July 7, 1999 with regard to this variance request; and, Resolution 587-99 Gregory Variance • July 7, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied,in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 2801 Woodale Drive to warrant the approval of a variance to Michael and Christine Gregory for the construction of a 672 square-foot garage fifteen feet from the property line, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 2801 Woodale Drive which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the house and garage were built in 1953, predating the City's zoning code by seven years. 2. 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 in that multiple car garages are common features in this district and serve as a physical improvement to properties. • 3. The variance request is the result of factors over which the applicants had no control. The house and garage were constructed in such a way that made the garage non-conforming with the advent of the City's Zoning Code. 4. Granting a variance to allow a two-car garage in the same location as the existing single- stall garage, without further encroaching into the setback, would not be a special privilege. Multiple-car garages are standard residential features while single stall-garages are becoming functionally obsolete. 5. The variance requested is not the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The Planning Commission finds that a fifteen-foot setback, as opposed to the requested eleven-foot setback, would alleviate the applicant's hardship. 6. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for a two-car garage utilizing the same setback as the existing garage would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 7. A 672 square-foot garage at a fifteen foot setback from Silver Lake Road would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or • endanger the public safety or diminish property values. Resolution 587-99 • Gregory Variance July 7, 1999 Page 3 Adopted this 7th day of July, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: • Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DE VCASES\561-99\587-99PC.RES • • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: July 7, 1999 Staff Report by: " James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 559-99, 560-99 Request: The applicant is requesting a Rezoning and Conditional use permit • for an assisted living senior residential facility on vacant land behind Super America. Petitioner: MSP Real Estate Location: 2670 County Road I(Vacant lot behind Super America) PIN No. 07-30-23-11-0040 Present Zoning/Land Use: B-2, Limited Business Commercial/Vacant land Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Site Plan Comp Plan Land Use Map,District 1 Background: MSP Real Estate has made application to rezone the vacant Krause-Anderson property located at 2670 County Road I from B-2, Limited Business Commercial to R-4, High-Density Residential and for a conditional use permit to construct and operate an assisted living senior residential facility. According to the applicant, the residents are elderly and unable to care for themselves, many of whom may have Alzheimer's Disease or other forms of elderly dementia. The proposal would fall under the zoning requirements as outlined in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2, pertaining to • a _ - • I • - -f • • •u. ousing . ac ea is a s a emen o in en - om e applicant along with a proposed site plan for the development for your review. Discussion Rezoning: The existing Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds View designates the subject property as an area intended for mixed-use planned-unit development. The comp plan is in the process of being updated, although the proposed land use designation for this area would remain the same. Either the present B-2 zoning or the R-4 zoning would be consistent with this designation. The present zoning would allow a commercial use with related traffic flows to operate on this property, which is across the street from Silver View Park and the Silver Lake Woods townhome development. • The types of commercial uses that would be allowable in the B-2 district would be retail establishments such as a liquor store, a music.or record store, video rental, drug store, or a bakery/deli, among other uses. From a land use planning perspective, it might be more desirable to have a residential type facility in this location for a number of reasons, which may include: MSP Rezoning & CUP July 7, 1999 Page 2 • • 1. Would involve minimal on site activity 2. Would maintain a separation between the existing residential and commercial uses 3. Would not increase traffic on Mounds View Drive 4. Would not require intensive lighting 5. Would be aesthetically pleasing from an architectural perspective The rezoning would also be consistent with the comprehensive plan in that it addresses Goal#3 of the Residential goals and policies section of the plan, which addresses the provision of housing to meet the needs of all segments of the population, notably groups with specialized housing needs, such as the elderly. CUP Discussion: The proposed use addresses a specialized and unique niche in the elderly and infirm care industry, the likes of which are not evident in this immediate area. The conditions of the use, according to Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2, are as follows: a. Side yards double the minimum requirements established for this District and are screened in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. b. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord 590, 11-29-96) c. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational area. Said area shall be1111111 fenced and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. d The site shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic which will be generated e. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code f All State laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to, and all required operating permits are secured g. One off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title is provided h. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and • satisfactorily met. (Ord 590, 11-25-96) The applicant has been apprised of these conditions and has indicated to staff that they can be satisfied. The last condition, Item H, pertains to the adverse effects associate or resulting from this use. The Planning Commission and Council are to consider any possible adverse effects in its decision. Those listed in the referenced code are included as follows: (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. MSP Rezoning & CUP July 7, 1999 • Page 3 Staff feels that the impacts of this proposed use are minimal, at least in comparison to the impacts of a potential commercial use that could developed. The use would generally not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan;the property is adjacent yet behind commercial uses, separated from the park and the residential area by Mounds View Drive. It does not seem probably that this project would depreciate the area in any way as it would seem to be a good fit for the area. As stated above, the apparent need for such a use exists and as such would not adversely affect other similar uses as there are none. Recommendation: Discuss this application for rezoning and conditional use permit and provide staff with any comments and concerns that you may have. A public hearing with the Council will be set for July 26, 7:05 and 7:10 for the rezoning and conditional use permit, respectively. This allows the Planning Commission to discuss at great length this proposal at both your July 7 and July 21 meetings. Based upon your discussion and direction, staff will prepare a resolution (and draft ordinance) for July 21 meeting. James Ericson, Planning Associate • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\MSP.PC1 • CITY CF aU! '[r:' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN -2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION '• 4All 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 4'11-tyrrner+ 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information h�n 2EAL �� �Name of Applicant L• Telephone (D LZ- 33?. S/cfci 401Address OI Novi ^ C ttg.Q S-tRfr i, ,TE q t( Fax 4(s. 31C. yrG c/ I'II N, i kva.c c, M tJ sc'I o t Ani•J : MIL() `PiAVER-o' Interest in Property(check appropriate box) O Owner of Property a . Contract for Deed Owner o 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 Cru r}i r_A' T : iu. 4 V cw I,1Rty i, Legal Description I Rws_r /dl �ZEG��r•re tter C ANo S..R v c 1 t.&c . Ll i aI Property Identification#(PIN#) — to S o f 2 eel i s 4 r ar e (e S r Atc:64-1 Zak Ce #of Acres I. Go Current Zoning Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 X Rezoning $250/acre; nun$250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250 4-$250 deposit* ❑ Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees a PUD Amendment $350 pC Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 a Variance R-l, R-2$100 all others$250 a Code Appeal $100 O Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 o Wetland Alteration Permit R-1.R-2$150;all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-I,R-2$25;all others$100 o Floodplain Permit $200 O 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 after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN • Development Application Page 2 4110 Present Use of Property Undeveloped/Vacant o Single Family Dwelling Duplex/Two Family Dwelling C Multi-family Dwelling o. Business/Commercial Establishment o Industrial Establishment o Other(explain) Property Classification ct Abstract , Torrens Description of Proposal CoetS•-rod-f io✓t 0r a 49,- Uni4. A( 2kei,Mcr-s '-Segl;�- ftezorte a �ss4- : l2- 'I. 1-1 104r C orig.4-1.o.tal OS 4 Se.eAqibit 1 'llOct. 014Sukd, 2 „ N ti e- t_e S-1 n/kegs1 R S I.,l L Ar (oro �p .to t t . . . BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TR ►. • • CCURATE. Signature of Applicant .10 J Name of Applicant(typed/printed) M t L O lc FR-ra • Signature of Property Owner Name of PropertyOwner(typed/printed) M 1 E `tZEAcrI C . . • Address of Owner S Z 3 5 eu-rm 8 ET toti4EAPoLis e MAI - Phone Number of Owner (4 t x) 3 o s — 2 q 21 A•'tr+s : i3 ttu c t .l. E/4 GE L'S M A r*****••••••••••••••#Mr••••+k••••••••••••••••i****•**F***•••••••••••••••************ ****r****itis* FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. ,cam—e 4 60-day Limit 120-day limit • Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt Application: ;i:i/' .0%--) ��-.3u�°/)4n-S�.--q 1 -�� Zl Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: • N:1DAfAiOROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/9s `• .. .. .vIN. '•.. C 7876 Z>" 7885 7866 7867 7870 7869 7858 7853 N 0 0-2 g 7877 7854 7851 7860 7865 7852 w B rt: ,7870 7863 WS 7841 7850 7855 7846 78 '�O 7830 7840 7835 7840 7829 ffd10,* . -3 ^: 7851 7820 7815 7790 7815 7800 7817 R-4750 `v �d • �, ,000, 7805 7780 7809 `�! t6 7809 7770 ort 7801 7760 7797 �• 1/441:B-3c 2 h R-4 7800 7801 Z 7751 7750 7787 1^ ry6� 6�1 7767 7760 7741 7777787744860000" 740 7767 - in 1, 7761 7750 7731 7730 7753 a: 2 0 7801 7755 7730 7721 7720 IX 773• B-2 NN 7745 7710 7711 • 72• r, 771i 7715 m r00 � 7700 ' 770• - N N 7,! c ..... .......... ....... .... R-2 i? 4. 7692 I d• '"1� rR r 2 c'`o m 2 f i 2553 7690 PUD M _ in in in in in in in in� O 27:3 7)B 3 NNNN M NNNNN 255110 768E n t 'co N uoi 2549:Z 68• Y N 2547: 768 2545 5 / B-3 1,4? 2539 B-4 2541 2539 : 2537 SILVER VIEW N � � N in N al N . 41 �.. 0-2 PARK N0N ^ o �" N +' N `In M W _rf -.11:-.14 ge,.r0i r0 B 552 ro in M ! c 550 fn. N N N N M �� NN '542 PF CO� N N *' d' '540 '6 n_ N n niN oi COl 40 N�(0 �N1 �532 O _,L OroOi SOCDN N 522• ''Nte/1/� , N,1„ O . O 2•gyN • d• n 0 0 0M N LII ... • .... .... 00co N � NN O CO N •s+N S O0 M rO �NN NN N ...... ., •\IFMN '''..i:::::':*:::%:::.::';:•::::::::;:fi:i::::::ff:::::::::;:::::V:'”......v.,,,:1::::::;:::::::::::::::::::§::::::.Z"..7i,„N,.......:-..,..„„v',F,:,:::.:.7.7,2•::/;K:r:%::.:GY,:•::::•:-Vi,.... 03 O 7444 , o O ek. 9 N 7442 7401 :ii.::::::::::::::.::::':' •• •. •- N itt Zgalitrli J 01 DRJo PF ..• 7w 7408 7390r d g ^ 740• of ........ .... N. n N. _ 7400 730" n i0 0' 7329 . - • - +F in 7390 N N N�r. � m ro in l0 CO co t0 r EC H0DG N N N ,.... 7350Ert N I IRT €r'r' r � �3 N tN0 !7 �` 735• n �, p m ro N . 7144 -•scc n 7313 .. .....7:X• n N N • Zoning Map Planning Case 559-99 Applicant: MSP Real Estate 1V Location: 2670 County Road I City of Mounds View 0 Location Map 66.'4411.11... I " �'. '4 =r ■man v _ I IIIA ■■ H1111MrAMEN am , _ 2670 County Road I , n#,f,. ,x _ F0 I "',0 s £ s;,,,,A„,,4,s 1 ;s» € 4 __________ _____ s �5 s ,} f _ , , , _ rss 4 5< 5 S ,011111#411411 1 H 1 ____I___ 1 ____L_ --- mi i',0`-.•>z`, ';'''l V k A*O.44ft ra # ; #t # , s III .1 rs, ,n .s: as',. MI MEM Nil '��titi, ,10 eM rill 0 - ___ - - - LIN a ea avow IIIe.IIIMmnm _� — 111111111121 - 71' 1111111111t1 1INN� T in F. : : __ _,_, • MSP Real Estate ® 2670 County Road I _G—®®� — —'�� Conditional Use Permit and Rezoning I r,T�rd1111 i�n�.. : :mllnw: `gTi � mi1.,,,ar''''siss:,i7:1::::. Planning Case No. 559-99 and 560-9 11,:MA M rt"Il� ���----N I nununu " ° I munuuum •\11� ........................uuuunnnu =l. r. ■IUB � m �\-_ . uunuumm jai:—•r!. . u - uu-mmwn "1.5 `il , ■' — 2670 County Road SII!' ''T,m — 0== :■= £ .-•"4• _ i :I-1 -__ - Ilk Properties Within 350' ..,u.;;._eE := ..ir•;.�/ := IIIIIIIIIIIII' . P 11'�".. 1-#,1� �. a ■annul, 10 ;tt .F< _-11111111111 11��i-,0 F ®` '' • tII11111111111a IEEE111111- 1 ■ i7 ��iillllii ►�— (11113:1 Ei. E As. miw • ,--.--...tiiiiiiimmi .. -- 01M (i[k) iI district 1 12 JI NIIHILLVIEW II II II ROAD II lI / C__��� li=� Of AKW000 D cr c V' % .tr) I- 1. z as C'�� o z _,,_f W z C 2 O Z p W W (n 41 cr p V N U �r�Tiu,v 3 i g N o pt-ge c y COUNTY m ROAD NI O r Ir; ‘, rez N r 0= RG , ......,. .... ,a, _ d ,\,,, Fi, !fithDR 41414. PUD rI- 4Civic • � MD �' �y �N Center • BRONSON ,4=• �•n ..,.. ......:,A 116L, , . MD...._.--:::,..:...:11:..:�"'. ..'-♦lim, -.r ftiA \\ to L-4 _,..__ , , PP ' --: • II '-•'-' N - 0 - o 1 ® g I ( HC ,- , proposed land use natural features* Flood plain/metro area LD Low density residential designated wetlands M D Medium density residential ill Steep slopes M.D/T Medium density - trailer park WV Tree massing H D High density residential *Approximate locations - subject to detailed review at time of proposed NC Neighborhood commercial development HC Highway commercial IND Industrial III S School C Church P Park/public facility 171 0. • , /, \\ . ilk / . &� 4 ...a /, N\N % I? , t I. .,.. , 0 '1".--I . N AA*. - I ' • N r‘/ ... itt t N. - lc..._ �' , r' N V •. ', ....N. „, N r „al 1----,./. iivs . .. .. 7,,, . , 1\-. ' I L 0 P- .' .. .yam. • r\ . 6 0 ' (.), IN1 ' ,- - ' let Ok D r. 0 .)fF i .s 0 ! -...,, I ; ' -71$ i . 1 . •..,k \Is! B <N. 1 v 0 To; - _agidgie '. • ; 101 . i8 )'-3.--)/ ' ‘ i \ 0110 4 "4 ' - • :IV' .0*1.*°'l •= ./ • • 7.i. 46, ,,.- / ,,..., - ) Q.3//' i 0 . N . . 1 . y . • 'nnrhi fnm «•- :T�Ff AVm_N/fff f..r• ... .. .. 06/17/1999 17:24 6123364565 MSP REAL ESTATE, INC PAGE 02 S STATEMENT OF INTENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASSISTED LIVING SENIOR FACILITY COUNTY ROAD I & MOUNDS VIEW DRIVE MSP Real Estate, Inc. proposes to develop a newly constructed Assisted Living Senior Facility on a 1.6-acre site situated on the southeast corner formed by County Road I and Mounds View Drive. The two-story building will be wood-frame construction over slab-on-grade foundation; gross building area will be approximately 31,860 square feet. The exterior will be maintenance-free vinyl lap exterior with brick trim below a pitched asphalt shingle roof. The property will have 23 surface parking stalls. The facility is designed to care for elderly individuals who are unable to live alone and • do not require skilled medical care. Many of our potential residents may have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease or other forms of elderly dementia. The facility will be comprised of 40 units and will accommodate up to 50 residents. The finishes include carpeting/vinyl flooring; window coverings; and cable TV hookups. The pleasant homelike setting with parlors and private resident rooms provide a relaxed environment for both resident and family to enjoy. Residents will be encouraged to furnish their rooms with cherished mementos. Development amenities include a dining room, kitchen, community room, beauty/barber shop. activity room,whirlpool room, laundry rooms and fenced in green space with walking paths and gardens. The facility will be a Minnesota-licensed facility and will be staffed 24 hours daily. Services will include: Special Programs; Daily Activities to encourage and stimulate mental activity; attentive, highly trained and awake staff 24 hours a day....every day; careful staff attention to residents personal hygiene, health and medication needs; individualized care plans; daily home-cooked meals, and, extraordinary safety and security measures. The facility is well-located to service the aging—in-place needs of the two recently- completed senior buildings along Highway 10 and the to-be built senior co-op. • • • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: July 7, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: SP-072-99 Request: Amend Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to permitted uses within the B-2, Limited Business zoning district. Background: Staff has issued a building permit to Kraus Anderson to do interior remodeling work within Silver View Plaza, located at 2540 Highway 10, for a private educational institution--Calvin Academy. The subject property is zoned B-2, Limited Business, which does not specifically permit such a use. Attached is some information regarding Calvin Academy for your reference. Discussion: As we are aware, one of the problems with our Zoning Code is its rigidity. Each district has a specific set of uses, sometimes referred to as a"laundry list" of uses, yet since it is impossible to include every possible appropriate use, there is often the need to make interpretations. • According to Section 1113.01 of the Code, "The purpose of the B-2, Limited Business District is to provide for low intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this District are to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts." A small-scale educational facility such as that proposed seems to meet with the purpose and intent of the Code, which was the basis for staff's interpretation. To eliminate any subsequent questions regarding this type of use, staff proposes that it be added to the list of permitted uses within the B-2 district. If no action is taken, Calvin Academy would operate and function by virtue of an administrative Code interpretation rather than by an explicit reference in the Code. Recommendation: Staff requests that the Planning Commission review the attached proposed Ordinance 632 and provide any feedback or suggestions that can be incorporated prior to the first reading of the ordinance. If the proposed ordinance is acceptable, staff would further recommend that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 585-99, a resolution which recommends to the City Council adoption of said ordinance. • James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP072-99\ORD632.PC1 JUN. 22. 1999 12: 16PM KRAUS-ANDERSON NO. 5171 P. 3 • S _ J . , O Mom sum ,:' 1 b 4024 IF + '11- , QPal 0 '''' f 1.120 7F M I , L Q �fV \ * Z.400;F Ia Loa as . (^ '` CI o j�I y ; a 1/ c 6 ; ;:::: : 1' 1— rn _I:. i 1.000 OF . 1..._ Z e ',I�a :A00 aF a 4 1- • _ = ri" MI ir' Ni 0 . ton m .• �•, . a O S = L:e tst:}`1 M S- , 1.41, '''?:::--- 01,1, -ir • I NE 133 X d. 1!.II 141, L 0 1101 ag a ..IR i ,,,, . ierjoi-.- . a . . ___::\L"' 7 ,‘ .. .--IF .\ - k- A/1'41k i ; = I kip. _ „„,,,........._ ir _. =. , . , , , 1r 0 - lk.90111116Homill - i0 _45* \ °43.4 lo , 0, • A e ki; ‘IIPA . r j. ' ec s s g roe ( a _- b. a° § m I_.Mase a=� g .6. m i Z 1 P as a 3' „_,I,,-Lii;;;._,,-7,12 i !Aim a• F til m ,Lii / m i 31. '''' Mor,',..'"7.AMEN ni2 ••;‘,-)4 . . , P ( A m � m - �aIJd 'M , a eam 4.. =ig iii ,) r 1e e r Illringifie ` V t. ./ to M '11 '11 II .-- 1 ( i ib 03/JUN. 22. 1999. 9: 17AM5T639KRAUS-ANDERSON CALVIN ACADEMY NO, 5154 PSP, 2 ee 0 .. • .. we Lcome . ' TO THE CALVIN ACADEMY DAY SCHOOL, The Calvin Academy i, ii totally different educational opportunity.Even student WAS to their full potential. Every student receives the finest possible education. We are not a long term replacement for a craditional� imea sof tOol. s poss possible.The majority of ourr mission istudent students success in a school or your choice in as short a pe are here for one year.some students are here for shorter or longer periods-Each student has different needs and program,at a different rate. . p e a When youy first ste into the school,you will be aware that it is unlike any other schc ol.Wnoff oy in safe, ' secure anti peaceful environment. There is a feeling of excitement in the air. It is learning successfully. We are devoted to the !►access of each student.Every stud leisir ourstuone most student gent ts student! Our one to one reaching allows our teachers to bo positive reinft=ement. Everything about the Calvin Academy is different from any other school. S • 'I•he most comprehensive evaluation • An extensive curriculum at all levels , • The most effective instruction technology • One to one student/teacher ratio • Peaceful nurturing environment • Thinking skills instruction • Learning style development Wellen limited our enrollment to 36 students.This allows me, our principal, and counselor to be closely involved with each student's education and development.Twice a month we meet with each student's teachers to review their progress. I have selected iminfor 'rion about our school that I thought would be appropriate for your student based upon your phone call. l might have missed something,so feel free to call for more information. Sincerely yours, e . . /e4 411#1.."#1 Stafford Calvin. President _ • secular• accredited iR CALVI .`o \ ! ' i ' , 2500 North Cleveland Ave.,Roseville,MN 5511.3 (651) 6391342 83/JUN, 22. 1999: 9: 17AM51639KRAUS-ANDERSON `AL 1N ACAU .MY NO. 5154 ' 'P. 3 i" • INSTRucTIONMETHOD • TECHNIQUE • TECHNOLOGY Many millions of dollars hove been spent on research to develop the most effective methods to teach all academic subjects.Stafford ord Calvin spent years researching the mos:effective methods.techniques and Technology in the field of,education. Research has proven what works! At the Calvin,Acaderrty,Mr.Calvin has combined and integrated the research proven techniques into one unified technology. Reading, Writingand Mathematics How We Teach �e g, • "SMALL BYTES" Each individual skill to he taught is broken down into the smallest possible component or"byte"of informs. tion. Each fact of information is taught to absolute mastery before the student moves onto the next"byte". We directly teach the skill ni he taught.We don't just assume the student will" figure it out"unlike holistic • instruction and instruction that focuses on just abstract concepts.The student can never"miss"something or become overwhelmed. • SYSTEMATIC Each fact is naught incrementally step by step.Extensive research ffield testing have determined the most effective sequence to introduce the " and i� � nn of s that are more difficult to master are repeated in a scientific pattern to assuremastery. • • • MULTI SENSORY Four senses are utilized simultaneously.This develops the weaker sasses and maximizes the stronger senses. The instruction it interactiVe.The teacher says the fact out loud (auditory). the student repeats it (oral), the students sec it (visual) and writes the fact (kinetic). Taught to Mastery Small progress tests arc consistent through the rext.A student is repeatedly tested.We immediately reteach the skill not mastered. One to One Teaching Research has proven chi.is the most effective teacher/student ratio.This enables the Academy to teach the exact skills in the way that hot meets each student's needs.We are the only school to have only private one to one teaching. How We Teach the Electives Wa use less srructtared instruction for social studies, science, literature,etc.We combine the systematic • instruction that we use for basic skills with the development of critical thinking skills.The students engage in open discussion with riii teachers, which give the teacher the opportunity to stimulate the student for in-depth critics) chinking and analysis. ' g3'JUN, 22. 1999'1 9: 18A51639:KRAUS-ANDERSQN `'`a'vin ML4LOWIY NO. 5154 ' -P. 4 ENROLLMENT • ; OPEN ENROLLMENT Students may enroll or :uw rime;.Our one to one Instruction enables a student to start during the year and not be behind. TUITION:Cost fora school year is 529,500 a year.The school year starts the first week of September and ends approximately the firer week of June. We try to follow the public school schedules,We pro rate the case for the students who enroll during the yeas PAYMENT:Payment i sloe monthly.The first and lase monthly payments are due prior to starring. TAX DEDUCTIBLE. Misr parents are able to deduct the full tuition from both state and federal taxes. MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES:Tuition includes all cost for books and supplies.The only extra charge is admission charges for fieri trips. • LUNCH: Students roily brine their lunch.We have a refrigerator,freezer,microwave,snack and soda machines. PHYSICAL EDUCATION_Gym is twice a week.We have the use of the Roseville Community Gym and Playground. ACCREDITED:The Calvin Academy is fully accredited with the North Central Association.This is the most widely recagriwci :u rediration agency.Our credits transfer to any other school or college. HOURS: Day school hnnr';arc 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.Students may be dropped of as early as 7:00 a.m. Students may weir until 5:00 p.m. PUBLIC SCHOOL PAYMENT OF TUITION:About 30%dour students are placed in our school by the students local school district. secular• accredited S.R.CALVIN \� . t t .1 2500 North Cleveland Ave., Roseville, MN 55113 (651) 639.1342 e31,JUN. 22. 1999E 9: 18AMa6391.KRAUS-ANDERSON CALVIN ACADEMY NO. 5154 `�"P. 5" • THE BEsT is .MORE IMPORTA.NT • For Your Student The Twin,Cities Etre s;uuratt.d with many franchised general tutoring centers.When choosing the educator for your child,choose a specialist to meet your child's needs. We are Specialists. - '- - "..1 TEACHERS: spewial inuring in techniques to catch up - THE \_-- 411 student; who have fallen hehind. - g E S T • CURRICUUJM: ;trrriol ton,hooks written to catch up students in the shone it ro4siblc time. The hooks are completely Jit�fcren, f'om the hooks used in school classrooms � /- _r \., or the other tutoring centers. • INSTRUCTION: ititetlunl:; created to he most effective to catch up students tic wkly. • ONE TO ONE INSTltt'c'l'lc)N:we can use special text books and methods beenuAe we have only one to one • instruction-forl-hotit The franchised nnrional challis of learning centers are general educators who use the tune trot: of looks and instructions that schools use in the general c I;is rooms, , Demand The Best... and Only The Best It might only take a few more minutes to get to the Calvin Academy for the best education.We solve school problems the quickest and most effectwe:ly 410 • e3/1JUN, 22. 1999E 9: 18AM;16391KRAUS-ANDERSON CALVIN ACADEMY NO. 5154 '1A1:1. 614 • • UNCIIEFIACHIEVING • • Students develop an "inner sense"of their potential as early as three years old.It is a positive feeling to work to full potential. It is a negative feeling to do badly and have a"failing"feeling.It is human nature to do what "feels good".Thar is why we have found that there usually is a good reason why students are iunderaehieving. Often they are told they au not trying hard enough and lack modvatton.Quite the opposite could be true. They might have a problem that must be solved, and unlock their full potential. Underdeveloped Skills A student can have "gaps' in their education.They didn'tmaster certain segments of the basic skills.Perhaps they had an ineffective reacher, health problems,or family stress.They"fall through the cracks"until they have significant problems that can't be ignored.We know how to pinpoint exactly what skills they are missing. We then teach those skills to mastery. The Hidden Learning Problems There are over 40 differenr cognitive"thinking"skills that all students use to acquire new information and iobuild knowledge. One or more of the cognitive skills might not develop appropriately,even for intelligent students. This becomes an undetected learning problem.The students feel Iike there is a"glass wall"in front of them,They just don't seem to be able to learn what appears relatively easy to others.Instead of getting the help they need, they get tho blame for the low marks.Soon they stop trying and often develop a feeling they are"dumb". The Solution is to Find the Problem Our affiliated Calvin Clinic has a unique comprehensive evaluation. Our clinicians do not rest to label a student or for placement. We test to diagnose the problem and prescribe the training. There is no cost for .. . .. vious evaluations to ve us additional information. It,is ail FREE. We Have the Instruction to Help Cognitive Problems Once a problem is detected, we know how to solve it,These cognitive skills include visual and auditory information processing, short and long term memory,reasoning, thinking,login,oral language.processing speed,concept formation. spatial relations, and many more.We specialize in very unique instruction that improves these skills so thur they don't stand in the students way of success.We have the expertise to administer the effective intervention.The Calvin Academy is the only Minnesota school to offer cognitive instruction. • ORDINANCE NO. 632 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1113 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING CODE)PERTAINING TO PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE 13-2, LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-070-99 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1113.02 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended by alphabetically inserting the following commercial business use shown underlined and italicized: 1113.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-2 District: Subd. 1. Service Oriented Businesses: Service oriented businesses which serve the Mounds View community: Medical and dental offices and clinics. Private educational facilities. 1111 Public utility collection offices. SECTION 2. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty (30) days after its publication in the official City newspaper. First reading by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on the 12th day of July, 1999. Second reading and adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on the 26th day of July, 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: • City Attorney N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP071-99\632.ORD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 585-99 • I CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 632,AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1113 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE B-2,LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE NO. SP-082-99 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed proposed Ordinance 632, an ordinance amending Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertains to the B-2, Limited Business district; and, WHEREAS,the purpose of the B-2 zoning district, as stated in Section 1113.01, is to provide for low intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished; and, WHEREAS, the list of allowed uses as presented in Section 1113.02, Subdivisions 1 and • 2, does not include"Private educational facilities;" and, WHEREAS, it is the finding of the Mounds View Planning Commission that this use is sufficiently similar to other listed uses and is considered to be an appropriate use for this district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that proposed Ordinance 632 be adopted to permit private educational facilities within the B-2, Limited Business commercial zoning district. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward - o u '• " • + -•I • • .• • . 1 5 Ili. • Adopted this 7th day of July, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP072-99\5 85-99 PC.RES PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Billboards Date: July 1, 1999 • As I previously indicated to you the City Council has asked that the staff and Planning Commission continue to look into and make recommendations concerning ordinance amendments to the sign ordinance to allow billboards in certain areas of the community and to allow signs in the PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreational and Preservation zoning districts. I have drafted the two attached ordinances to facilitate Planning Commission discussion of these matters. The first ordinance deals with billboards. This ordinance was drafted after discussions with a representative from the billboard industry, and after reviewing state rules and ordinances from the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The draft ordinance amendment does the following: • 1. Removes billboard provisions from Section 1008.08 Subdivisions 1 and 5 and puts all billboard requirements in Section 1008.08 Subdivision 10. Commentary: This is proposed to allow for easier administration. 2. Adds a new requirement that a conditional use permit be obtained for any new billboard. Such conditional use permit will expire when the billboard lease expires and will be null-and-void if any required state permits are not obtained. Commentary:An alternative would be to not require a conditional use permit and rely on the standards in the ordinance to ensure that billboards are properly installed and maintained No sign permit would be issued unless all of the standards in the ordinance are met. 3. Sets location standards including being on city-owned property located along or north of 118. Billboards must be orientated to 118 or 35W and be at least 250 feet from residentially zoned property. Billboards can be located with a zero setback from streets but may not overhang the right-of-way. Commentary: The standard for location on or north of 118 is based on City Council II/ direction. The separation from residentially zoned property is open for discussion. The setback standard isfrexisting om theordinance in Section 1008.08 Subdivision 1 • Paragraph 5. 4. Sets minimum spacing of billboards at 1500 feet measured along the same side of the same roadway. Commentary: Spacing is open to discussion. In my review of other ordinances I have seen spacing requirements from 500 feet to 1000 feet. The representative from the billboard company indicated that the City could consider spacing requirements up to 2000 feet. I have asked John Hammerschmidt to review the spacing of potential sites to determine if the 1500 foot spacing requirement would work 5. Sets maximum sign area at 700 square feet but allows temporary extensions over and above that as long as they do not exceed 25 percent of the sign area and as long as they do not exceed certain dimensions. Commentary: The proposed requirements reflect standard billboard sizes and practices. 6. Requires that billboards have no more than two faces that are back to back and angled no more than 35 degrees. • Commentary: This standard is suggested for aesthetic reasons to limit the visual impact of these signs. 7. Sets the maximum sign height at 35 feet. Commentary: This consistent with the code requirements for other signs. The St. Paul code allows signs up to 371/2 feet. The point of measurement standards are based on other codes and state requirements. 8. Requires that billboards not obstruct traffic signs of obstruct drivers vision. Commentary: This is important for safety reasons especially if billboards are allowed right up to the right-of-way lines. 9. Indicates that existing billboards can be maintained and the message changed as long as they are not expanded. Commentary: This requirement is intended to clarify the status of non-conforming billboards. I have sent a copy of the draft ordinance to the City.Attorney's office for review and comment. • • 10. The title of Section 1008.11 is changed to reflect what is actually discussed in the section. I have sent a copy of the draft ordinance to the City Attorney's office for review and comment. At the request of the Commission I have also asked the City attorney to suggest some"sunset" language which would allow the code to revert back to its present form if the state does not allow any billboards. The second ordinance amendment allows and sets standards for signs in PF and CRP zoning districts. The current code does not list any permitted signage or standards in either of these districts. The draft ordinance allows signs consistent with neighborhood business districts and with the pedestal sign requirements in Section 1008.01 Subdivision 6 in the PF and CRP districts. This is open for discussion. The amount of signage allowed may be more than necessary. The existing signage at parks in a neighborhood setting appears to range from 18 to 20 square feet total sign area while the main City Hall sign is approximately 128 square feet in area. The total freestanding signage at the Community Center appears to be approximately 90 square feet. I have asked John Hammerschmidt to inventory the signage at the golf course. REQUESTED ACTION: It is requested that the Planning Commission discuss the attached draft ordinances and suggest any changes that may be necessary. The Commission should also discuss what kind of public input process should be utilized. At a future meeting the Planning • Commission will be asked to make a formal recommendation of ordinances to the City Council. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\7-1-99BB.MEM • ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS; PLANNING CASE SP-07 -99 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1008.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions struck out and italicized, respectively, to read as follows: Subd. 1. General Standards; Paragraph I(1):No ground sign(except temporary signs, portable signs or banners), or signboard or-bill-board shall approach at any point nearer than three feet(3')to any building unless such sign is placed parallel to the side of the building, nor shall any such sign be placed within six feet(6') of the side of any lot nor nearer than fifteen feet(15')to any street line where there is no established or customary building line nor within twenty five feet(25') of any street corner right-of-way. Whenever the established or customary uniform building line upon the street where such ground sign is to be erected is more than fifteen feet(15') from the street or property line,then • such sign shall not approach nearer to the street than the established or customary uniform building line. Subd. 5. Signs Along Freeways: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, signs located on property adjacent to any freeway within the Municipality (including Interstate Highway 35W) shall be business signs advertising businesses being conducted on the premises on which the signs are located.No "traveling" or changing-message signs shall be located so as to face any freeway or be visible from the freeway. The provisions of this subdivision,however, shall not be construed to render illegal or nonconforming any signs which are legally located along any such fr = • - • - - - - -- '•- . - ::: . r i . Subd. 10. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard or-advertising • .., ' ;:: : : - - - --. unless it complies with the following requirements: a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:A conditional use permit(CUP) must be obtained in accordance the procedures found in Section 1125.01 • Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any conditional use permit • issued for a billboard shall automatically expire when the lease agreement for the billboard expires. Such CUP shall be null-and-void if the applicant fails to obtain • any required permit from the State of Minnesota. b. LOCATION: The billboard must be located along or north of 118 and must be located on City-owned property. The applicant must have an approved lease agreement with the City. The billboard shall be oriented towards 118 and/or I35W Billboards must be located at least 250 feet from residentially zoned property. Billboards may be located adjacent to the right-of-way of a street or highway. but no part thereof shall extend over such right-of-way. c. MINIMUM SPACING: Billboards must be at least 1500 feet apart. Spacing between signs shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to the property line of the right-of-way from which they are intended to be read and measuring the distance in a straight line between the projected points. Required spacing shall apply only to billboards on the same side of the same roadway. d. MAXIMUM SIGN AREA: The maximum gross surface display area of the sign cannot exceed 700 square feet per side except that any rectangular billboard may contain temporary extensions, cutouts, or top lettering which occupy a total area not in excess of twenty-five (25)percent of the area of the basic billboard and form an integral part of the design thereof No such temporary extension, cut out, or top lettering may project more than six (6)feet from the top, eighteen (18) inches from either side or fifteen (15) inches from the bottom of the basic • rectangular advertising message. The area of an extension. cutout. or top lettering shall be deemed to be the area of the smallest rectangle into which such extension. cutout. or top lettering will fit. e. ORIENTATION OF SIGN FACES: Billboards may have no more than two (2) sign faces. Sign faces must be back-to-back with sign faces parallel or angled. All billboards with their faces back-to-back and parallel shall have no greater distance than eight(8)feet between the faces. All billboards with faces at an angle shall have no greater angle than thirty-five (35) degrees. f MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT: The maximum allowable height of billboards shall be thirty-five (35)feet. The height shall be measured from the grade at the base of the sign or from the surface of the roadway whichever is higher. g. OBSTRUCTION:No billboard may be located in such a manner as to obscure or otherwise interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign. signal. or device. or obstruct or interfere with a driver's view of approaching. merging, or intersecting tragic. Any billboard legally existing on the effective date of this ordinance may continue to be maintained in its present form and size but not expanded. This does not preclude the • periodic change of the message or advertisement presented on the billboard. Any billboard destroyed by an act of God may be rebuilt within thirty(30) days if the construction of same would comply with this subdivision. SECTION 2: The title of Section 1008.11 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby • amended with the proposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions struek-ems italicized, respectively,to read as follows: 1008.11: SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS: SIGN VARIANCES: SECTION 3. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty(30) days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator • (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\6XX.ORD ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW . COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS)OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS; PLANNING CASE SP-073-99 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1008.08, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraphs m and n. The proposed additions are underlined and italicized and deletions ,respectively,to read as follows: m. PF Public Facilities District:Signs not exceeding 100 square feet total per building. In addition pedestal signs are allowed in accordance with Section 1008.01. Subdivision 6 except that no permit shall be granted for any pedestal sign of more than forty (40) square feet within one hundred feet(100) of any single family residence. n. CRP Conservancy. Recreation. Preservation:Signs not exceeding 100 square feet total per building. In addition pedestal signs are allowed in accordance with Section 1008.01. Subdivision 6 except that no permit shall be granted for any pedestal sign of more than forty(40) square feet within one hundred feet(100) of any single family residence. • SECTION 3. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty(30)days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of 1999. Dan Coughlin,Mayor ATI ES'1: Charles S.Whiting,City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attorney Ci ty • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\6AA.ORD 1008.01 1008.010 Subd. 6. PEDESTAL SIGN: A ground sign erected upon a single post or shaft or upon two (2) posts or shafts that merge or touch at the base or which are not more than fifteen feet (15') apart, center of shaft to center of shaft, with the display portion mounted on top thereof at least seven feet (7') above the surface of the street adjacent to the property on which the sign is located. No such sign shall have a sign area of more than three hundred forty (340) square feet on each side. Such sign may advertise only businesses located on the premises. No business property shall have more than one pedestal sign adjacent to each street upon which such business property abuts;provided,that on each street frontage of more than one hundred feet(100'),one additional pedestal sign may be established and maintained on such street frontage if such additional pedestal sign a) is located on a single pole, b) does not exceed twenty eight(28) square feet in an area on any side and does not have more than two (2) sides, c) is not more than four feet(4') in width or seven feet(7') in height on the sign face, d) is located at least seven feet (7') above the surface of the street. In lieu of one additional pedestal sign, two (2) separate signs may be located on the same pole, but such two (2) signs combined shall not exceed, in area or dimensions, the limitations applicable to a single additional pedestal sign. No pedestal sign shall be so designed as to have both a) moving parts, and b) moving or blinking lights. In addition to the pedestal signs permitted by the foregoing provisions of this subdivision, a sign advertising a public telephone may be located in the area ahead of the building. setback line on the structure in which such public telephone is located. Subd. 7. PORTABLE SIGN: A back-to-back, mobile advertising device which may be mounted on wheels and used for commercial as well as civic promotions. Subd. 8. PROJECTING SIGN: A sign other than a wall sign suspended from or supported by a building or structure and projecting out therefrom. Subd. 9. ROOF SIGN: A sign erected upon or above the roof or parapet wall of a building or structure. Subd. 10. SIGN: A sign, the primary function of which is to direct attention to a product, service or activity that is sold or offered either elsewhere or upon the premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed. Subd. 11. SIGN, ADVERTISING: A sign,the primary function of which is to direct attention to a product, service or activity that is sold or offered either elsewhere or upon the premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed. Subd. 12. . SIGN AREA: That area of a sign within the marginal lines of the surface, which bears the announcement, name, advertisement or other message or, in the case of letters, figures or symbols attached directly to any part of a building, the area which is include in the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe each letter, figure or symbo l, displayed thereon. City of Mounds View a' i u • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 16, 1999 Mounds `` w City Hall 2401 Highway 10, @finds w, MN 55112 A-, iinv'IMi 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson <: 7:00 "ni., June 16, 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterso Commissioners 'erke, m, nd :,,den, Laube, and Miller. n, ;$ �: Members Absent: Commissioners Braathen, J•;. `'' •:n,z.z :. , evenson, h prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Eri : •n, Corn int : „1, ;i ‘O Also ent Director Rick Jopke, and 41° Recorders Carla Wirth and Trish Pears: ,y . Index to Minutes .- Page Planning <3, '•. 554-,SAM ighway �'ndsview Square) Craig J. . g ` «'• ille 0. t), Applicant Considerati• . i ditiona',04101.:.. �1.to operate a produce stand 2 Planning Cas x 0., e 90/7.".< ilver Lake Road Meiho L- a plicae .;: 't ` 4 Consi , :tion of a ming g, ....ti•n Pl.} ng Case No. 561-c , 7613-7619 Woodlawn Drive P; oup (Mike Jua' , Applicant �- l t eration of a e -\ opment review request for a four-unit 4t - : . - tiling te.:� , �; �` Sta. < • /Items of Information Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9 • +k Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. May 19, 1999 �u. Planning Associate Ericson stated that he had spoken wit :. recordin :=A'-ifej,, es regarding t, ed - meeting minutes, and that it was agreed that a more summar versionA-•-• ia:42, :,: presenta ;�n to the Commission. He stated that there had been cork . ns amort ,some o "$�:+ regarding the length of the minutes. He stated that staff h ::avis the May 19 lvl<`- i• •rtes to more generally reflect the intent of the Commissioners,:F •. copy would be OVA ed to the Commissioners for review. 11131431, g y ::. as Chair Peterson stated that although a verbatim renderiig of th-A'" not required, it was`. '`:`'`� important to properly convey the intent of the Co :: +ers. INFPMOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden to table t ay 10 ®® $..'=: ting 7"utes until the next Meeting of the Planning Commission. �. Ayes—6 Nit_0 The motion carried.5. Pla g Case No e:9 4040a6 WW:A Propert``ma523 m L Moundsview Square) Considerati• V. < +itiona + oto operate a produce stand Applicant: Crai_' « + erryvi +::` arket) The a+:• (cant was not p tr 1 Pub:ng Associate Erics3'n gave the staff report as follows: +licant, Craigilb, representing Merryville Farm Market, is requesting a conditional use Off( ff , .m+:..,s outdoor produce stand in the parking lot of Moundsview Square Shopping 11 `' 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999. The produce stand would be open seven days a wee i ;;`. =10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and would be selling produce home-grown in Waverly, Minnesota. The stand is a five-sided gazebo-like structure with a canvas roof, and is 14 feet wide at its widest point and 9 feet high at the peak. The stand requires no utility hook-ups. The produce stand was granted a conditional use permit the last three years at this same location. Staff is not aware of any problems associated with this operation. • Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 • Ericson presented staff's analysis, noting this will be the same operation that was approved last year for this location and no changes have been proposed. The dates of operation for the farm market, if approved as requested, could possibly overlap by 10 days with Linder's Greenhouses, which was granted an outdoor sales conditional use permit through July 15, 1999. In the occurrence of an overlap of uses,there should be little impact to parking, as the produce stand would occupy only 110 square feet of the parking lot. Signage for the produce stand will be accomp ished with small banners affixed to the gazebo base and lettering on the canvas roof. Ericson noted the conditional use permit for Merryville fled ins • ;:< ay so that futu appearances before the Planning Commission and City Coua: are not re_, l r•:i>:•, nditional gse permit will remain in effect indefinitely so long as there=`" no chat 4rto th- .: >.t .. I' : •n! "ere have been no problems or reasons which would warrant thi. :,.v.janni.'itCommissio' i,V ) ouncil to re-examine the conditional use permit. WtiterktoiriN, AWN, AMONIPbEricson reviewed the conditional use permit requirement '.s` t.::: '.n Municipal Code Section 1115.04, Subd. 2, and indicated that all required criteria have been et t :j recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit. f AggaV 1047 Ericson stated that staff had drafted a resolution to a '0!- . ao diti a1 usepermit for Merryville �h<< p f> � � rryv Farm Market to operate and outdoor prod c stand yout4SyMtittareat.. Shopping Center annually from July 1, 1999 to September 15, 1996., with st:i13lationwv MA' k7 Commissioner Miller requested Ottie first;:®;age, sec.:t` paragraph of Resolution 581-99, be corrected to indicate Mounds\re:" moklioNow wok n? Ericson n04,110t incons', een th-'. ,eport and the resolution, explaining that the staff report in• :.i.. < ours o perati $ ,of the produce stand to be from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and that the reso tt ' gds for operationween the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. He added that Merryville Farm< _ d reque ;.operate within the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., noting that staff coul0 •in;<: 1. ution tt eflect the period that the produce stand would be operating. Chary, `eterson noted t � o er daylight hours during the dates of the proposed operation. He e •dned that if an amelli ment was to be made to the resolution, it should be done at the present ,<;:4 *yng. Ericson expl� `ed that the Commission could approve the resolution as drafted, and the e stand co `till operate within the requested hours of 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 0 •r.'e•- equested that the resolution indicate the operating hours to be from 8:00 a.m. Chair Peterson stated that he believed that Merryville Farm Market was an asset to the City, and was not aware of any problems associated with the produce stand. He asked if the stipulations therein included the contingency of the property owner's annual approval. Ericson stated that Item 5a of the • resolution provides for this stipulation. Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 Regular.Meeting Page 4 MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Peterson to adopt Resolution 581-99, a Resolution Recommending • Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Produce Sales at Moundsview Square, Requested by Merryville Farm Market; Planning Case No. 554-99, as corrected and amended. Ayes—6 Nays—0 The motion carred. } 6. Planning Case No. 557-99 Ail' -41.0;.7,-,A,, Property Involved: 7690 /7692 Silver Lake Road '` Consideration of a minor subdivision01 .,:. oft t,. Applicant: Meiho Lee .. mr The applicant was not present. .. ,,: Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report a ` Actirt The applicant,Meiho Lee, is requesting City atoval •1 ° bd: ` ion to create two lots from her property located at 7690/ 7692 Silver4 ke Roa< Th "rk4altbaivision regulations allow for approval of a surveyor's certificate in the situatio ><<however ore complex and detailed full plat may be substituted. This property, los: at the thwest corner of County Road I and Silver Lake Road, currently has 202 feet of nage on::..€aunty Ro ;< and 116 feet along Silver Lake Road. There is a twin home existin. oe lot the t :.es ags from Silver Lake Road. The applicant proposes to •t off an irre& ,ion of 1.Lq. "West half of the existing lot to create a new, 12,500 sN:01.�t lot wi t ;A of fronts t t ounty Road I. The dimension of both of these s. lots, as s `. ��:e surve V : eet the City's minimum requirements as specified in Chapter 1104 of the' m R .. ..e. Ericson pres- $ >!.t4,i"ei:4V, sis, noig that the lot is 25,450 square feet in area, which is enough land area., oe subdivide.<i . at to the City Code requirement of 12,500 square feet per R-2 lot. 1,'' mai :°'n the setbacks ani „* 00 foot lot width requirements, the proposed subdivision is rather irr 'lar in shape, whic oes not lend itself well to an easy legal description. He stated that the ..i” .ant, under advi ` ent of her surveyor, has proposed to replat the property which would o e the needa confusing legal description, and result in a more simple lot and block agr 4 5 s. .. / iroposed subdivision. Ericson noted that the Land Development section of the • ._biiVirk°'lan discourages the approval of any subdivision creating"flag lots" or other irregular lots. . • 'ed that the proposed subdivision, while it is irregular, is not a flag lot. Ericson noted that there were drainage issues. He stated that a pond exists, as indicated on the Certificate of Survey, which remains throughout the year, and that at times of rain, the pond tends to spread and cover a significant area of the backyards, as well as a property with an existing twin • home to the south. He stated that the property owner to the south has been pumping water out onto Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 IIIICountyRoad Ito relieve the floodingwhich has been a longstandingproblem. He indicated that staff was concerned about the possibility of flooding, not only in the backyards, but the possibility of water damage occurring to the structures themselves because there is no drainage from the area. He stated that a wetland exists two properties to the south that could theoretically accommodate any runoff from the area,but noted that there was no way to divert the water to the wetland, at is point, due ' g to changes in elevation. He explained that it was believed that by constructa ch , `et, one to two feet deep, directionally toward the wetlands to the south, the a '' ss anage could be accommodated. He noted that this would be contingent uc•n the <.•:•;r: .lon of the adjacent property owners. He stated that the Certificate of Survey h6.e-n forA6'''.V.14. e City Engineer who agreed that the drainage issues would have to be ads:ressed befog tl a '. >a: of a buil. g permit. He stated that the matter before the Comm. 'ion was .. _>nsidera< .::` . a: t V the �:, �. . ;►-�_-, �Iry . Subdivision, and that the drainage considerations would:of rec_ude this. He e p : : h .q0 ever, that the applicant should be aware that the granting of the .division would not necessarily mean that a building permit could be issued. }:> "' Ericson stated that the Certificate of Survey would require r iii':''": ::...a form that would be acceptable to the County, and there were also issues ;e� $;'nn_ highway=l`: 'k :dway easements. He stated that those would need to be shown on the 1=':: .'. _ way, asbposed to easement areas, .x:�tyagy which would affect the way the plat was draft . He .at dx at taff a not provided a resolution at this time, as they would require more inf 'ation redr din p p r on of the final draft. Ericson stated that when the application was: st submitted, thread been discussion regarding the possibility of a variance for a non-r n rming ht and thal e applicant had chosen to avoid that process at that time. He stated thaas pos § e that a variance might be a better approach to the situation, noting that a hardship *y exist =..: .:.e Co. thad taken some of the subject property along Coun 'oad I, for i : � ti nts. He at :`:-!Chad this not been done, the applicant would have bee ...flsubdivi a :, erty in a 1eonventional fashion. Ericson requested that the Commis` f aff on i. .; :ceed with the matter in regard to drafting the resolution, and what other : '<"x..i. woul• . -. to be submitted with the application. "WNNOft, Alger Commission- : , : :pf if the ion of the wetland was lower than that of the property. Ericson st, `that the s ::,: l vat -vation was 899, while the lowest elevation of the subject property was 90 ... --0 : --i :; :'';.*area was 906. Commissioner Hegland noted that he had seen the water ccumulation at th;- toltion, and was aware that the property required pumping. He noted th,4,',:lie addition of anoth e twin home would make the flooding worse, impacting the property owner t!lial,south. He asked" at type of drainage plan and implementation would be required to resolve lett, cson stated is according to the City Engineer, grading a swale along the back side of the �it • 4 _~ and would provide a workable solution. He stated that this would require the a�$ : o :�:djacent property owners, and if that was not possible, there was the option of in PO t .y"`orm sewer or catch basin along County Road I or Silver Lake Road. He stated that this would be a costly solution,but reiterated that without properly addressing the drainage issues, there would be no possibility of the issuance of a building permit. • Commissioner Hegland asked for clarification regarding the legal issues of denying or accepting the subdivision prior to the proposed construction. Ericson stated that granting the subdivision may Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 indicate to the applicant, who's intention it was to develop the property, that she could obtain a building permit, which was not necessarily the case in this situation. Commissioner Berke asked if there had been any input from the neighboring property owners, and if it was required that they be notified. Ericson stated that he had not received any ire.ut regarding the matter from the property owners, and that it was not required that they be no ' +. He stated, however, that staff was attempting to communicate with the property ow : ,,to south regarding the proposed subdivision. 41, Commissioner Laube stated the adjacent neighbor to the wes on Count. .:Road; .. :: ld be noti. : , as he or she may be impacted by the proposed subdivi :n. He sta e' his c i _`r">>ero. the possible necessityof a retainingwall between the adjacent o.:� rtie tiRd whether i 'ement would be required for that purpose. Ericson stated thatt .`x' '®,:uld notify the adr.tetif property owners, and ask for their input on the proposed developm` = `ri4<aY- Commissioner Berke asked if the drainage area to the south wasi:$tlt's .A: private land. Ericson said it was and stated that there were two intervening pr �:;,sties, in ad t " :,the twin home located to the south. He stated that there was a througioroTkAcpt lot adjacent to Silver Lake Road, which he believed was not buildable due to 'e wetl n n: ;pro y and a wetland easement covers most of that property. He stated t:'- staff believe: :a t x . gh they could work with the applicant in notifying the adjacent properly owner it was tx '3 cant's responsibility to come to an agreement with the property owt. A Commissioner Berke asked if the'area wou.e>.:;<com tate the additional runoff, if the developer of the hoar located furt4 '. t he south l o build. Ericson stated that it should be sufficient; <.at it is#:*:110f, with the =`; ?ation of 899. He added that there was an also an outlet u t ake Ro :d' t t with the drainage. ate. Commissioner vtlott4,ested tkYT-Zirplicant should work on this aspect of the drainage plan, prior to the 4!%.04: , .: a: upo' ,< .e subdivision . Chair ' u d be uncomfortable until all aspects of thepossible impact to the rson stated th l%;.x- p p othe '#`�.roperty owners solved. He stated that he was uncertain that the various drainage is . `�` ��'could be ro erl solved, and that bygrantingthe subdivision, the Citymaybe faced with p p Y ," v ial problems. H-',`dded that, although the subdivision was a legal possibility, it might not be solution for. 4i neighborhood. w i,i*. w sen stated that he concurred with the other Commissioners regarding the drainage issu-• as concerned regarding the impact to the two properties to the west. Ericson stated that staff would contact the applicant and ask him to come forward with evidence the drainage issues could be resolved. He stated that staff was aware of the sixty day deadline, and with this in mind, would continue to gather information regarding the issues to present to the Commission at a future meeting. He added that staff could obtain an extension of the deadline, if necessary. 110 Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 7. Planning Case No. 561-99 Property Involved: 7613-7619 Woodlawn Drive Consideration of a development review request for a four-unit residential rental dwelling Applicant: PMJ Group (Mike Juaire) The applicant's representative, Phil Juaire, was present. •. NOME NIMMERK Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follo .r The applicant has requested approval of a developmerr ew the fourple • ted at 7613-7619 Woodlawn Drive, currently vacant property. T ;eap•, nt has purchased "' `et through the Ramsey County tax-forfeit auction and is also the owner t<: !_.: :ent lot to the west, for which the Planning Commission already recommended approv bf' 1 SS;c i development review. He stated that the City Council has approved the first Development Rei :'' g<< at construction on the project has commenced. He stated that all of th$_ ® - i 'ng Com'� : st; : :: .nd staffs requested modifications had been accomplished. He app agreedsign�.: ; _. :�t!�tt ;< �,.: thet had to a statement indicating that he would dedicate '.sem pevide< he Commissioners with the updated and revised landscape plan, with :r modifttione: : : ere recommended by the City Forester. He stated that the property ok':�'� er to thy_ north h: .:.d dated that she would dedicate an easement to the County Road I st . wer .f.Ch basin. e explained that this was the City's preferred option to the address drq:' e issu Ie statediat the encroachments from Woodlawn Terrace would be removed. f Ericson • <l ®:.:$ the C. !,.4.41, 4 .!:;is with tgoeplan and floor plan for the second development, which s'ilfaSiztory s .0:10t at grade level (no basements) with the four dwelling units p lined in a ro >: stated:; . . `ti fourplex would consist of three 3-bedroom units and one ., � � �4�..ry:pry�,. 2-bedroom unit: . nits, kception of the 2-bedroom unit, will have a two-car tuck- under garage. e i'4:0unitvvr�1 tilt'have a one-car garage, but will have two parking spaces in front o $e unit. setbacks, lot width and area, and all dimensional requirements .v- 1,€ - • •ees : :;;. •• • a • • ••• . • - . ..- . .. his time. He stat-4 at Housing Insp; t, teve Dorgan had indicated that, although this was not the optimum Si IVon, there was not!.:' g in the Housing Code to prevent this.. OW gave a bri• :_; verview of the stipulations, which were identical to those included in the Afi• : :�:I :.£ He stated that they were in the process of being met, and that staff would r ` accomplished prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Miller asked if the encroachments referred to in Item 3 of the resolution should be identified. Ericson stated that the stipulation could be re-written to refer to the site plan for identification of the encroachments. • Chair Peterson asked if the lower level of the 2-bedroom unit would be finished. Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 , Regular Meeting Page 8 • Phil Juaire, applicant, stated that it would, and that they believed the variety provided by the two bedroom unit would be a positive marketing asset. Chair Peterson asked if the portion of the foyer that was visible upon entering the four-plex would be finished. Mr. Juaire stated that it would. Chair Peterson asked if there would be a partition wall around the utility room. Mr. Juaire stated that there would be. ffr Commissioner Hegland noted that there was only one exit provided for e <":"7 nd inquired about fire considerations. Mr. Juaire stated that the fire requiremen< .a been 'ili.:fifjpit they would kg installing additional fire extinguishers for safety purposes. ``'e stated that ` . 4:nsiderin: #e additional utilization of a double layer of 5/8 inch sheet <®;.. betwe . t-e uni s�, ;. q Commissioner Kaden asked if the tree represented on the '9;:• =;.a;� g plan was an existi _':ree. Mr. Juaire stated that it was a cottonwood, approximately 20 inc � : t tketer, which would remain at the site. 4 `::*41501N, MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Berke to adopt Mpg Comn s..i.>... OResolution 583-99, RecommendingApproval of a Development Review:f °+F;our-Um cel"tile FamilyResidential pP p :` p Dwelling Located at 7613 -7619 Woodlawn.Drive; Pl�a ni w•<x ` e No 558-99, with stipulations, as amended. 1 0 Ayes—6 Aar Nays—0 r� The motion carried. 8. Sta k'eports/Items1 formation ; • °.x,4,, ous o '!:91Action Community De o 10'rector t sported on the previous City Council Work Session where discussion • ` 6.. t • ., .regar>:.d the billboard issue. He stated that the Council was still interest •;: #'ursuing` ,. > • had directed staff to prepare an ordinance for discussion with the Pl. *!,,:g'commission ans .an:13:040,ithunity, which would allow for billboards along the Highway 118 co ^ and at the golf c . =r He stated that staff was drafting the ordinance, which would allow fo i,tboards by Conditi '"al Use Permit, for presentation to the Planning Commission at their first i°:- g in July. He st. '• that staff had also been directed to investigate the existing zoning at the i rse, and to • ;vide their recommendations regarding the matter, as well as amendment of the i a A > :" fication of the requirements. He stated that the Council had discussed the I ' it iff o iew for the initial four-plex on Woodlawn Drive, the amendment to the Building Co• ''''o:'1.' ance of Contractors Licenses, as well as an amendment of the language of the Code to provide for consistency with State requirements. He stated that discussion took place in regard to the potential issuance of an additional gas franchise requested by Reliant Energy/Minnegasco, to operate within the City of Mounds View. Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 • Jopke reported that at the City Council meeting on June 14, the Council approved first reading of the ordinance amending the Building Code for contractor's licenses. He stated that the Council voted to accept the public improvements at the theater project, and had approved a resolution requesting an additional six month extension to the Comprehensive Plan update. He stated that the Council had approved the Development Review for the initial four-plex located on Woodlawn Drive. 0•57' Ericson stated that staff had received over one thousand responses to the In :ane urvey. He stated that one of the questions posed in the survey was in reg. !. to why >;�,e, ,:of information the community would like to keep abreast of. He stated that they '-ceived k - hundred E-m addresses from people who were interested in being kept ` firmed reg ;eine;;° • _ ;`•. nings wi I n the City. He stated that he felt the Internet was an exci: mediu ich t € $ °''•; iter communication between the City and the community. He '<. tha 4 i the future, h. :a$4,eivable that many City processes could be accomplished over th' Imit Commissioner Laube asked if staff had received any coeun 'cm the State regarding the billboard issue. Jopke stated that he had spoken with tviState R p '" ayes, who indicated that Commercial or Industrial zoning requirements wer a stated ��" 4 ;:council's reaction was that the City could get its 'house in order', and if, %, :• as unab ;..btain a permit from the State, it would be their problem. Commissio - :ube . : <e t.>:'k. nsevplause could be added to the billboard ordinance to allow the ordinan. o be n `>a • 1 :: *`State denies permits. Jopke 0 stated that the language of the ordinance`ould b F eviewe.Mir* Jopke updated the Commission ^ ding >€Mermaiproject. He noted that they are still negotiating with the adjacent prc erty owns =viand.h,a4ieached tentative agreement with two of them. He sTe d, however4. ;ambert site::: t°willing to cooperate. He stated they had prelimin. " " `%.ation fr�""`.>` : •to that t ' t obtain a redevelopment grant. He noted that s- the deve a9 ply die."i .. ,,e the project back, and that there were a number of different options avai"` _, tated .:•.:.a..:R:v •oken to a developer who was working to acquire a site for the develop ; algree > :':.� '. M, . < tore. 9. C f: person .' ;. i;';ging Commissioners Report No ._ er reports were c `•' ed. 1i Adjournment in . .•. Wier business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the E.Y 8 IP15m . (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, • Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 , Regular Meeting Page 10 • Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ..',A..",;,,i4..,... •y:: 4 : :,. a_. " z .. * 1110 Ate'" f ,k4 ** .:. ,. gc Aiow .3.' 'moo " r-a, w:3i k: ' :y. cA, iso}k—` %;:: 4110 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 19, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., May 19, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Braathen, Hegland, Kaden, and Miller. Members Absent: Commissioners Johnson, Laube and Stevenson with prior notice. • Also Present: Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Planning Associate Jim Ericson, and Recorders Carla Wirth and Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 553-99, 7386 Parkview Terrace, Mike& Sandy Leon, 2 Property Owner, Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side yard setback for a three-season porch Staff Reports/Items of Information 7 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda No citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda were considered. 4. Approval of Minutes A. April 21, 1999 • Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting - Page 2 Commissioner Miller stated that the minutes had been reviewed at the last meeting, and a few very minor corrections had been made. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hegland to approve the April 21, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes—6 Nays—0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 553-99 [Public Hearing] Property Involved: 7386 Parkview Terrace Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side yard setback for a three-season porch Applicant: Mike& Sandy Leon The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: • The applicants,Mike and Sandy Leon, are requesting a variance from the required ten-foot side yard setback established for principal buildings and living space therein. They would like to replace an existing 10 x 12 square foot deck with a three-season porch of the same size in the same location. The deck,which has existed since the construction of the house, is five feet from the north side of the property. Decks require a minimum two foot side yard setback. The subject property is located in the Silver Lake Woods single family home development at the northeast corner of County Road H2 and Silver Lake Road. The home, which faces east, is one of many in this development that have a street at the front (Parkview Terrace) and back(Silver Lake Road) of the property. The lot size of this property is only 9,150 square feet. Ericson noted for the Planning Commission to act favorably on a variance application, the Planning Commission must find a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property which makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or even restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria as set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. He noted the Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. Ericson noted this lot was approved in 1985 as part of the Silver Lake Woods Second Addition subdivision and in conjunction with the Silver Lake Woods Planned Unit Development (PUD) • agreement. While density bonuses and reductions in frontage requirements were given to the Mounds View Planning Commission • Regular Meeting May 19, 1999• Page 3 development to allow for substandard lots, no mention is made in the documentation about allowance for reduced setbacks. Ericson reviewed the seven criteria which must be considered and stated that after much analysis, it appears to staff that in this case there is no hardship, unless the Planning Commission were to take into consideration that the lot area is substandard. (The lot is 75 feet wide by 122 feet deep, for an area of 9,150 square feet, substantially less than the required 11,000 square feet required.) Yet the width of the property, at 75 feet, does comply with the Code, and it is a matter of property width, not depth or area, which is basis for this variance. Ericson outlined the criteria as follows: 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. • Ericson stated that he could not discern any exceptional circumstances applicable to this property. 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. Ericson stated that although literal interpretation of the Code would not prohibit the property owner from constructing a porch, it could only be 7 feet in depth. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Ericson stated that the variance request is the result of the applicant's desire to construct a three-season porch. 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. Ericson stated that three-season porches are allowed in this district, but not all property owners have room to accommodate them. He stated that this is a desirable improvement, and that in the past, the Planning Commission has approved variances to allow for living space conditions. He stated that staff should determine whether or not this particular property met the same criteria as past properties. • Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Ericson stated that this would be the minimum variance required to alleviate this hardship. He reiterated that if the porch were constructed observing the proper setbacks, it would only be 7 feet in depth, which, he stated, would not be enough area for a porch. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Ericson stated that the purpose of the Code was to maintain a `separation of uses.' He stated that the existing deck has a setback of 5 feet and that the applicant wishes to construct the three-season porch at the same setback. He noted, however, that a three-season porch could be viewed as a more intensive use of the space. 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 Ericson stated that he did not believe that a porch at the reduced side yard setback would deprive other residents of the right to air and sunlight. Ericson stated that the criteria lend themselves to subjective thought and requested the Planning Commission review them to determine whether or not a hardship exists. Ericson stated that staff had directed the required mailing to all residents within 350 feet of the subject property, and had received no response. He stated that he had received a letter from a neighbor with adjacent property directly north of the applicant, who stated that they approved the proposed construction. Chair Peterson opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. Peter Murlowski, a representative of TimberCraft Remodeling the applicant's contractor, stated that the applicant had planned on constructing a porch on the property since purchasing it in 1981. He stated that since the deck was already there, the applicant had assumed he could build a porch in the same area. Murlowski stated that when he and the applicant discovered that the proposed porch would not be in compliance with the City Code, they looked at other options for placement of the porch. He stated that placing the porch at the rear of the home would require the elimination of one of the two bedrooms located there. Due to inadequate front yard setback, as well as aesthetics, the • 4110 Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 porch could not be constructed on the front of the property, and a garage is located on the opposite side of the structure which would prohibit placement there. Mr. Murlowski stated that in 1996 a variance had been granted for the same purpose to a neighbor located directly across the street from the applicant's property. Commissioner Braathen stated that he had driven by the applicant's property and could see that the placement of the original deck lent itself to the construction of a porch. He stated that he had no objection to approving the request for a variance. Commissioner Miller asked if the proposed deck would be trellised. Mr. Murlowski stated that the applicant had planned on siding the porch in continuum with the rest of the structure. Commissioner Hegland asked if the subject property was zoned R2. Community Development Director Jopke stated that some of the homes in this district were zoned R2, although they are single family homes, and the requirements to meet the criteria are the same as those in R1 zoned properties. He stated that originally, all the properties were zoned R2, but in 1985 there was a re-subdivision of • some of the properties in order to accommodate more single family homes. Commissioner Hegland stated that the property in question was zoned R1, and that the variance which was previously granted pertained to R2 zoned property. He asked if there were changes in the Code regarding setbacks for twin-homes. He asked for clarification regarding the difference between single family homes and twin-homes. Ericson stated that a twin-home is defined as two dwelling units as opposed to a single family home. He stated that the side, front, and rear setbacks remain the same in either case. Commissioner Hegland asked if the lot size was substandard. Ericson stated that the lot size was substandard. He stated the PUD document pertaining to the Silver Lake Woods development had addressed the changes in the Code requirements, and had provided for a 5 percent increase in structure density, but he was unable to find any documentation supporting reduced setbacks. Chair Peterson noted that a property owner was granted a variance for a three-season porch on a side-yard on the east side of the development in the early 1990's. Commissioner Miller stated that the lot size is less than the 11,000 square feet normally required, and asked if this had been reviewed to determine if it could be considered an `exceptional circumstance' as set forth in the first criteria. Ericson stated that they were really only looking at the width of the lot which meets the requirement, but he had examined the matter of lot size and believed it could be considered an applicable hardship. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 . Regular Meeting Page 6 Chair Peterson stated that the Surveyor's Certificate indicated there was space behind the garage on the west side and asked what was located there. Ericson stated that there was a bedroom and laundry room in back of the garage which would make that area inaccessible. He reiterated that the south side of the home was also inaccessible and the front did not have the required setback. Chair Peterson stated that this situation would apply to other houses, and they would require the same consideration. Mr. Murlowski stated that this was true, however, the precedent had been set with the first variance that was granted. Commissioner Miller asked from what point the setback was determined when the porch was to be constructed above ground level. Mr. Murlowski stated that it would be measured from the outside wall. Commissioner Kaden asked in regard to the criteria, if the special circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Murlowski stated that at this time it was the desire of the homeowner, not a necessity, but that it may be necessary from the standpoint that they may require expansion to remain in the residence. He stated that the house was already 100 percent finished, and if they could not expand, they may have to move. Mike Leon, the applicant, added that his children were now teenagers and they had waited for this opportunity to add on to their home. He stated that they needed more room to accommodate their growing family and that they did not wish to move. Commissioner Braathen stated that the hardship was created in 1985 when the City allowed re- • • . •' •••• • . • 1 • 2' . r. 1 Commissioner Hegland agreed. He stated, however, that he had concerns about setting a precedent and the possibility of creating a situation that may impose upon the neighbors. Chair Peterson stated that the matter was just up for consideration and there was no clear direction for staff. He stated that he did not believe there would be a negative impact on the neighbors to the north or otherwise, and added that he thought this would be a desirable improvement. He stated that the placement of the structure on the lot did not allow for expansion, and that this lot was not unique within this neighborhood. Mr. Murlowski stated that a typical twin-home has a split entry with a patio door and deck off the back. 0 • Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mr. Leon explained that he believed his property was unique in that all the other homes in the neighborhood had a patio slab in the back which allowed for further expansion. Chair Peterson stated that he had driven by the property and had noticed the fence. He asked if it would be removed. Mr. Leon stated that his fence located in the sideyard would be removed. Commissioner Miller asked how they would address Item"c" of the criteria 'the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.' Ericson stated that they could maintain a hardship in this case based solely upon the fact that the house was situated on the lot creating a 10 foot setback for the garage. He stated that the garage required only a 5 foot setback, which would have provided the required space for expansion. He stated that the placement of the structure on the lot was not the fault of the applicant. Commissioner Miller stated that if all the criteria were met, she would support a resolution granting approval of the variance. Chair Peterson stated that they had recently approved a 5 foot variance on a smaller home, but viewed that differently as that was for a bedroom which is considered living space. Commissioner Hegland stated that the applicant had purchased the home the way that it was. He stated, however, that home buyers are not always aware of the City's requirements regarding variances and setbacks, etc. Mr. Murlowski reiterated that the applicant assumed that since the deck was in place when he purchased the home, he could construct a porch in the same area. Chair Peterson stated that he was thankful the applicant had come before the Commission before constructing the porch. He stated that they needed to formally address the hardship issues that satisfied the criteria. He suggested staff be directed to conduct further research and submit a resolution for consideration at the next meeting scheduled for June 2, 1999. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. Consensus was reached to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a variance for a reduced side- yard setback to allow for the construction of a three-season porch five feet from the side property line. • 6. Staff Reports /Items of Information Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 Regular Meeting • Page 8 A. Billboard Update Community Development Director Jopke gave an update regarding the issue of billboards in the community. He stated that he believed that a Code amendment was the most appropriate way to approach the issue. He stated that he had been directed by the Planning Commission to conduct further research into the State requirements for a permit and had learned that the State would only grant a permit in commercial or industrial zoning districts and that they would not issue a permit in a situation where re-zoning was done strictly for the purpose of allowing billboards. He stated that the State also requires permits for billboards along State and Federal highways. He stated that he had spoken to a consultant who informed him that a permit had been previously granted in the Twin Cities to allow for a billboard on a golf course within an institutional type of zoning. He stated that this indicated a precedent had been set. Jopke stated he spoke to Mike Cronin who suggested there were several issues to be considered, one being whether or not CRP is the proper zoning for the golf course. Secondly, that the Code issues regarding signage in a CRP or PF districts need to be reviewed. He stated that at the present time, no signage is permitted in these districts but they do exist, and this matter should be addressed as part of the overall discussion. Jopke stated that other questions regarding revenue projections were discussed with Mike Hammerschmidt who believed that the first time revenue would be approximately $12-24,000 per year per billboard, depending upon the provider as well as factors such as the location of the billboard. Chair Peterson stated that he had observed vacant billboards and asked if they generated revenue. Jopke stated that he was uncertain. He confirmed that any revenue generated from the signs would have to be used to retire the bonds of the golf course and could not be directed to the General Fund. cities of Shoreview and Arden Hills who informed him that their requirements prohibited construction of new billboards. He stated that, at this point, he had not been able to determine when the Ordinance had been put into effect, and he could find no discussion which addressed the billboard issue in the Focus 2000 meeting materials. Commissioner Braathen stated that the issues should be defined and resolved before further discussion and requested that the Commission not"shut the door" on the billboard issue. He stated that he had observed very few vacant billboards, and if they are vacant, it was because they were in poor locations. He stated that Mr. Hammerschmidt was researching locations that would be appropriate for billboards. He requested that the Work Sessions be rescheduled to meet on Wednesday so that he would have the opportunity to attend. He suggested the first direction would be to change the current CRP zoning to make the golf course in compliance. • Mounds View Planning Commission • Regular Meeting May 19, 1999Page 9 • Commissioner Hegland stated that the Planning Commission should determine if there would be enough revenue generated from the billboards to justify further consideration. Chair Peterson stated that they should address the issues of desirability versus economics. He stated that the type of signs that should be allowed in a PF district are identification signs, and billboards might not be appropriate. He stated that he had received only negative response from the community regarding billboards. He stated that there were a number of roadblocks to overcome regarding the State requirements, and asked if there was a way around the State's stance regarding re-zoning. Jopke stated that he believed this could be overcome, but whether to approach the issue from the standpoint of usage or re-zoning need further discussion in order to draw a conclusion. He stated that he would continue to investigate the State requirements, and conduct further research. B. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Jopke stated that the Council gave second reading and adopted Ordinance 629 which provides consistent language and an appointment policy for expired and un- expired terms of the Planning Commission. Jopke stated that the theater is open and the Council had discussed a number of items that remained incomplete. He stated a temporary Certificate of Occupancy had been issued since there are still some minor issues and landscaping which need to be completed. Jopke reported that Building N is moving forward but he is uncertain whether or not they have signed tenants yet. Jopke reported that the Realife Cooperative is under way. He stated that Anthony Properties Management, Inc. is currently going through the bidding process, and hope to have the first office building along County Road H2 under construction in July. He stated that they are confident that they will find tenants once the building is constructed, and they are considering construction of a retail/restaurant project next to the theater. Planning Associate Ericson stated that Saturday, May 22, is the Mounds View Spring Clean-Up Day and informed the community that they could drop off items of discard at the Public Works garage. Ericson reported that he had taken an extended tour of the theater. He stated that it was a"first class viewing situation," and remarked that the sound quality was excellent. 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports • Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 10 Commissioner Kaden reported that he had attended the basic zoning workshop on April 29, 1999, found it to be informative, and thought it was a worthwhile seminar. Kaden stated that he attended the meeting at the State Capital along with City Administrator Whiting and Mayor Coughlin. He stated that there were currently two Bills being considered. One Bill prohibited the airport from constructing longer runways than it currently has without legislative approval. He stated that currently only MAC approval is required. He stated that if that Bill failed, the second Bill would cease construction of the runway for up to one year. He stated that the airport could still go through the planning process until the Legislature had time to consider it. He stated that he had learned that the Governor would pass the Bills, which were sponsored by Senator Steve Novak and House Representative Barb Haake. - Chair Peterson stated that the City has had a problem with airport noise for many years, and considered this an opportunity to control the airport's further expansion. He stated that he had received much negative input from the community of Mounds View in regard to the problem of airport noise. Kaden stated that the official position of the City Council is that they are against extended runways, but there was nothing in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the airport. Chair Peterson stated that in one of the previous updates Council had indicated that the City was to remain aware of the situation at the airport, but that there was little language regarding it in the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if there was any language in the current draft which addressed the airport. Jopke stated that there was not. He agreed, however, that in light of current litigation, there should be. He stated that he had not drafted anything at this point but plans to after conferring with the City Attorney regarding the appropriate language. Kaden stated that the Metropolitan Airports Commission was in favor of expanding three minor airports in the State, including the airport located in Blaine. He stated they may not wish to expand the smaller airports if they consider the possibility of future construction of an airport 60 to 100 miles from the Twin City Airport to accommodate UPS and freight deliveries. Kaden stated that it had been suggested that he meet with the State Planning Commissioner to attempt to gain his support, and requested input from the Mounds View Planning Commission to be put forward during that meeting. Chair Peterson stated that at one time he had lived next to the airport in Blaine, prior to jet travel there, and at that time there was a problem with excessive noise. He stated that expansion would 41) worsen the situation for the residents and asked if the City of Blaine was in favor of airport expansion. • Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 Kaden stated that they had not sent a representative to the meeting, but he believed that the Blaine City Council was in favor of expansion. Chair Peterson stated that residents north of the golf course would suffer a negative impact from expansion of the airport, and suggested that they may wish to become more vocal in regard to the issue. He stated that there were prior considerations for looking at the North Metro area for airport expansion since the Crystal airport was landlocked which prohibited expansion, and the St. Paul airport was subject to flooding problems. He stated that he could understand the viewpoint of expanding a cargo type airport in the northern suburbs because there was nothing else available. Kaden stated that a requirement for larger aircraft is 5000 feet of runway. He stated that once the runway is 5000 feet, planes of the next larger class could not be excluded. Commissioner Hegland expressed concern that the airport may turn into a UPS airport. He asked if there were any strategies in place to unite the surrounding cities in opposing the expansion. Jopke stated that City Administrator Whiting and City Attorney Long had been meeting with other • City Administrators to discuss the issue, and that efforts were being made. Chair Peterson stated that several years ago, a representative of the Metropolitan Council had attended a Council meeting and gave an overview of their role in these types of issues. He stated that it would be a good idea to invite a representative of the Metropolitan Council to participate in the discussion. Hegland asked what the official stance of the other cities was. Jopke stated that Circle Pines attended the meeting in support of expansion but the other cities had no official stand at this point. Chair Peterson suggested that Duane McCarty may be interested in participating in the discussion, but had a limited role at this point. He stated that Mayor Coughlin had taken a leadership role and it was suggested that the community of Mounds View may be interested in organizing a committee to address the issue. He invited members of the community to come forward. Kaden stated that it appeared the City of Mounds View had taken a leadership role regarding the airport expansion. He stated that he would be pleased to participate in the committee. He added that five representatives of the Metropolitan Airport Commission were being considered for re- appointment, and that may be beneficial. Hegland requested an update on the planned construction of a warehouse project on the Onan property. He asked if the adjacent Mounds View residents had been properly notified. • Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting • Page 12 Ericson stated that there was a failure to notify the residents which was due to an honest oversight on the part of the City of Fridley, and that they would be notified in the future. He stated that they had held an open house at the Onan property for the residents along Parkview Drive and the residents that are south on County Road H in Fridley, where they had been shown the plans for the proposed construction of a 4,000 square foot office project. He stated that there is a concern regarding the • possible generation of truck traffic at the access drive on County Road H. He stated that Onan indicated they will take steps to direct traffic onto Old Central Road. He stated that the architects are working on a landscaping plan to provide a buffer, and are considering the options of fencing or possibly an evergreen screen. He stated that as soon as the plan is presented to the City of Fridley, the City of Mounds View and the residents would be notified. No other reports were considered. 8. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Triol Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCMIN\1999\05-19-99.WPD 110