Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-1999MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 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. June 16, 1999 5. Planning Case No. 562-99 Property Involved: 2975 Highway 10 (site formerly known as Quik Lube) Consideration of Resolution 586-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit to operate an automobile rental agency Applicant: A Macfrugal Company (Thrifty Car Rental) 6, Planning Case No. 563-99 Property Involved: 8059 Red Oak Drive Consideration of Resolution 588-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for an oversized garage Applicant: Allen & Joy Dick 7, Planning Case No. 564-99 Property Involved: 2732 Highway 10 Consideration of Resolution 589-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor produce stand at the Holiday Stationstore Applicant: Chuck Durand 8. Planning Case No. 559-99 Property Involved: 2670 County Road I Discussion concerning application to rezone prope for an assisted living senior residential facility Applicant: MSP Real Estate and for a conditional use permi 9. Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99 Consideration of proposed ordinances amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View 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 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 -- July 7, 1999 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\ 1999\7-21-99. REG • • • • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Request: Petitioner: Location: PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: Attachments: July 21, 1999 James Ericson, Planning Associate 562-99 Conditional Use Permit to operate an auto rental operation Thrifty Car Rental (A Macfrugal Company) 2975 Highway 10 (Former location of Quik Lube) 06-30-23-23-0045 B-3, Highway Business / Former Quik Lube Business Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan, date -stamped 7/15/99 Resolution 586-99 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, and from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Sundays. Other than repainting the building and installing company signage, there are no plans to alter the building • This item was discussed at the Commission's meeting on July 7, and the applicant indicated that they would like to expand the parking lot to accommodate additional vehicles. A site plan is attached date -stamped 7/15/99 which shows the area for expansion as well as an area set aside for snow storage. Also discussed at that meeting was the need for landscaping improvements, which the applicant had indicated would be acceptable, though no specific plans have been submitted for this. Staffwill visit the property prior to the meeting on July 21 and will make specific recommendations in this regard. Last, because of the parking lot expansion, staff sent a copy of the proposal to the City Engineer to review possible impacts of the additional run off. Currently there are two catch basins that divert stormwater run off to the Highway 10 drainage ditch. It is expected that the additional impervious surface will increase the flow, but not in any significant volume to warrant further improvements. Staff will orally present the City Engineer's opinion at the meeting. Thrifty Car Rental 2975 Highway 10 July 21, 1999 Page 2 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 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 gross floor area which translates into no more than three vehicles. 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. Criteria: The conditions placed upon rental businesses, as stated in Section 1114.04, Subd. 5 of the City Code, were listed in the previous staff report and are now present in the proposed resolution of approval. In addition to the addressed CUP conditions and the adverse affects requirements, the Code also requires that certain findings of fact be addressed in the grantingof any conditional use permit. These criteria appeared in the previous staff report as well and are now listed in the resolution of approval. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission discuss this proposal and take action on Resolution 586-99, a resolution recommending approval of an auto rental operation at 2975 Highway 10 for Thrifty Car Rental, with stipulations and any amendments the Commission feels • • necessary. Nia- A.24 � e� James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\562-99\THRIFTY.PC2 LP • CM; OF MJ A If ill Par toes.° Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address COMMLTNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form A: lml4r'F L L._ &rn.Pieb/Jy DM /A-714410.1'4 OtIg AP>Mell 44D1 r-. lclos rirReFr a$coom t J6 r J, m 'J 551-106 Telephone 112 — Fax (ail— '&5 L - 4C0 -33' Interest in Property (check appropriate box) ❑ Owner of Property \ ❑ Contract for Deed Owner- ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager `gyp Agreement to Purchase O 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 ,-Z")171- 5 4-6C i , (/-"‘ 3 VATS \ A Ed Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning .'� -p- :a- .3 a- q-S Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning • ❑ Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (P \ a PUD Amendment Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit ❑ Floodplain Permit ❑ Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $ I St $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R- I, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded . to the applicant within thirty (30) days alter consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. 0-99 TMU l T: pS I1MI S MXLL.ER ZN' . i'RE*? TY .cy of Muu►ids view. MN OfveIo q t t Appl icn .. ...... . ?meet Use oFProperty • UndeuelQpctiNatant • Dup1e.Ngw0 ritzily Dwcllir% • Sti inetasrommeteiel Est* d K Qcicplaitt) Pula • Skips Fatuity Dwelling u Munk's oily belling • Industrial )establishment HY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON T$ APAti.IGATLUN, I laPseEY DECLARE mA T. TO TF'!E EEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, ME INTORI ATION PROVIDED i`i; TRUE AND ACCLIUVIE, Steuentra of Applicant Name of Applicant (typ pnntati) Sipeihre of Properly Qw ,r Nam of Property Owaa' (typ°4/priNg 1 Mara:, Of Owbrr Item Number of Owner Nei *Ma44f s..4aailIa#.ti*aal'M«** *w• Mara bf Submittal Date taf Acceptance unie�va. ApplicatiaL Park Dedication: I:Aponte Olson Yet al FOR MICR USE ONLY ..,.,...r.�,.�....,. +� o.�n it.�.. Fcss Pnid' Account 0 .. .w...w.......MM.W". 0,40..MW 110.11101.1.1.140.0. •11104 .... •..w_hwr....YM..r•....... 1•14, .. N ADATiwZmovPS CSJMbev,R lithni It.vArr Ff1 ,LNG VW.) X 1 Eel 39tiel "IQ ?Ib!`V" CI Egd___5_53494 • +hr+ir+vMVwnrgr►w*+M*• } rttr r * • A Teed kr, D-day lilteit •. >iieveipe • • 8284 ( ' 8285 8280 j 8275 8270 Q 8265 8260 6 8255 1.8250 d 8245 8240 p�,EA Zoning Map Applicant: Location: w 834C 8230 8391 8388 8381 8378 8371 8368 8351 8346 8344 8341 8339 8334 8333 8330 8321 831 8301 :is4c. 8285 8261 r 8241 N CC N 1 Planning Case 562-99 Thrifty Car Rental 2975 Highway 10 8132 8114 8106 8360 8355 8365 I 8354 8351 18346 833 82 821 82: 821 82 82' N 82; 8046 > 7990 7980 7960 7950 7934 �V 4 City of Mounds View Location Map 2975 Highway 10 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 11 11 H. 1 Kis g.N '1 t-itil "ill eilli MM. lir 2: .1=11.1 .4 4 I 11:1 ill ill l 1 11 i 11;1: 1: 4.;;. 4 F. n't.: ii 11111::::: .• llllllll mil 1111111111:131 mmismiiiii immimuni milimmuli mimiimm, : Nunn: 1111 4;1"1110 1 . _ ,I . I . r— -- - --- - -- - ),;.7' I ; , 4,, a _• el :A. 1 Illml iF., IN m Eiliii :I lllll : • Vi4•4% Prop* r. al I r A b : IF 0....E. .... == g!Irg- UNE L'Hic Mu; 111111 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Thrifty Car Rental 1 li Conditional Use Permit Planning Case No. 562-99 2975 Highway 10 Properties Within 350' • N Existing Site Plan N891311471E 186. N • BIT N 4.41 30 .0 07/15/99 08:39 FAX CAR RENT 07/14/09 15:as pAA DIA t64 J404 T%THRilIFtTY I1 A* Proposed Site Plan ioM f) JUL 15 1999 SOU WW2 zzartu 1 ci c • �Vd o6:sT •0/et/&,0 1 1 i • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 586-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FROM THRIFTY CAR RENTAL TO OPERATE AN OUTDOOR RENTAL OPERATION AT 2975 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 562-99 WHEREAS, Tim Moe, representing Thrifty Car Rental, has applied for a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor automobile rental facility at 2975 Highway 10, property zoned B-3, Highway Business Commercial, legally described as follows: Lot 13 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Subject to Highway 10 and Spring Lake Road Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows outdoor automobile rental facilities in the B-3 Highway Business District with the approval of a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Existing Site Plan 4. Proposed Site Plan, Date -stamped 7/15/99 5. Letter from Applicant 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the criteria for approval for automobile rental facilities in Section 1114.04, Subd. 5 have been met: 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. The principal use for this location will be automobile rental and is not subject to the thirty percent limitation. The operation may be allowed to market for sale rental vehicles as an accessory use which would be subject to the thirty percent limitation. This limitation translates into no more than three vehicles on the property marked for sale at any one time. b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring identical uses or an abutting R District in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title. Thrifty Auto Rental Resolution 586-99 July 21, 1999 Page 2 There will be no officially designated sales area on this property as the principal use will be auto rental. The use is currently screened from abutting residential properties by virtue of a wood privacy fence. The residential properties across the street are sufficiently separated by the width of the Spring Lake Road right of way and the respective setbacks of the business and houses. 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. There are no changes proposed with regard to the external lighting of this property, which is currently in compliance with the indicated section of City Code. d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The area on which the rental vehicles and those vehicles parked for sale is bituminously paved. Vehicles will not be allowed to be parked upon any unpaved area of the property. e. The open or outdoor service, sale or rental use does not take up parking space as required for conformity of this Title. According to the Chapter 1121 of the City Code, this operation will need to provide a minimum of four parking spaces for employees and customers. Any remaining parking spaces may be utilized for rental vehicles. f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. These proviszons are addressed in detail in the following "whereas" clause. WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been taken into consideration in its recommendation according to Section 1125.01, Subdivision 1.e: (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. • Thrifty Auto Rental Resolution 586-99 July 21, 1999 Page 3 This proposed 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 30 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. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings relative to the criteria stated in Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b. of the Mounds View Municipal Code: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. The use will be a service -oriented business, rather than residential development, and therefore is not expected to create a burden on parks or schools. The proposed use will utilize the existing building and is not expected to increase the demands on public facilities and utilities. (2) (3) 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. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent -residential -properties. The use is currently screened from abutting residential properties by virtue of a wood privacy fence. The residential properties across the street are sufficiently separated by the width of the Spring Lake Road right of way and the respective setbacks of the business and houses. (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. The applicant will be replacing a closed and untended business site with a new business and site improvements. There are currently no other similar uses in the City. Thrifty Auto Rental Resolution 586-99 July 21, 1999 Page 4 (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The Zoning Code allows for automobile rental businesses in this zoning district, with approval of a conditional use permit. The property is located on Highway 10, which is the City's primary business corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. Hours of operation shall not exceed 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Sundays. 2. Service of vehicles shall only be performed inside the building and shall be limited to only those vehicles on site for rent or sale. There shall not be any service of vehicles allowed for the general public. 3. The applicant shall revise the site plan to show two posted "No Parking" signs along the Spring Lake Road right of way. 4. Other than the vehicles for rent or sale, there shall be no outside storage allowed without the prior approval of an amendment to this conditional use permit. 5. Automobile sales will be limited to a maximum of three vehicles at one time. 6. Other than any interior signage, there shall be no signage allowed pertaining to the sale of vehicles. Cars may display "for sale" signs only if said signage is restricted to the interior of the vehicles. 7. No more than 23 vehicles shall be allowed to be parked outside on the premises at any one time, and only in accordance with the site plan date -stamped 7/15/99. 8. No vehicle shall be allowed to be parked on unimproved surface on the premises at any time. 9. The applicant shall make landscaping improvements to the property consistent with Commission and Council desires, to be more fully addressed prior to City Council action. 10. The applicant shall record the conditional use permit with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval or this permit shall become null and void. • • • Thrifty Auto Rental Resolution 586-99 July 21, 1999 Page 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other Conditional Use Permits on file with this property pertaining to previous uses shall hereby be revoked, rescinded and considered null and void because the provisions pertaining to those uses are no longer being observed . BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this - resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 21st day of July, 1999. Attest: (Seal) Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\562-99\586-99PC.RES • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Request: Petitioner: Location: PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: July 21, 1999 James Ericson, Planning Associate 563-99 Conditional Use Permit for a 1,000 Square -Foot Garage Allen & Joy Dick 8059 Red Oak Drive 06-3 0-23-420-003 8 R-1, Single Family Residential / Single Family Dwelling Applicable Regulations: 1104.01, Subd. 4: Accessory buildings detached from principal building shall have a setback of 5 feet. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the front yard. 1106.03, Subd. 1.: No garage shall exceed 952 square feet except by CUP; the combined square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 20% of the rear yard. 1106.04. Subd.6: The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed 1,400 square feet, the garage width cannot exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than three vehicle accesses. 1125.01, Sub. le: This section lists possible adverse effects that the Planning Commission shall consider in making its recommendation. 1125.01, Sub. 3b: This section lists possible additional criteria by CUP requests shall be judged. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Site Plan Resolution 588-99 Background: 8059 Red Oak Drive is located north of Highway 10, between Hillview and Sherwood Roads. The area of the subject property --an interior lot --is approximately 16,142 square feet. The house is set back approximately 68 feet from the street, with the detached garage situated behind the house. The house, at approximately 960 square feet, is presently larger than the existing two -stall garage, which is 480 square feet. The applicant proposes to construct a 520 square -foot addition to the rear of the garage, maintaining the same width of the existing garage. The roof line of the addition will tie in perpendicularly to the existing garage and will either be of the same height or a foot or so lower. In addition to the garage, there is also a 130 square -foot shed in the backyard, which will be moved further back to allow for the garage expansion. Allen & Joy Dick CUP Request 8059 Red Oak Drive July 21, 1999 Page 2 Analysis: A Conditional Use Permit is required due to the size of the proposed garage. The size of the proposed garage would be 1,000 square feet, which is comparable to the size of the home. While it would be larger, there would not exist any imbalance between the home and garage. The proposed addition to and location of the garage would not interfere with any future expansion plans. Dimensional Criteria All of the dimensional criteria associated with this request --setbacks, spacing between buildings, width of proposed garage, and the numbers of doors --satisfy the requirements as stated in Chapter 1104 of the Zoning Code. The proposed garage would be about 100 feet from both front and rear property lines and is setback from the side of the property by five feet. The total square footage of the garage, garage addition and shed is 1,130 square feet, which would comprise about 12.5 percent of the rear yard area. The maximum coverage allowed is 20 percent. Adverse Effects and CUP riteria The City Code, in Section 1125.01, Subd. 1 states that the Planning Commission shall examine the possible adverse effects of a conditional use permit request prior to making a recommendation. The following represent those items explicitly stated in the Code: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8059 Red Oak Drive, as low -density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are larger than the subject property. The homes are generally of a similar style architecture and were built around the same time, although the subject home is newer and is larger than those in the immediate area. Many of the homes in the immediate area have larger garages, most of which are detached as in this proposal. A larger garage on the subject property would not appear out of place. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Allen & Joy Dick CUP Request 8059 Red Oak Drive July 21, 1999 Page 3 Adding to the existing garage will have an immediate positive impact on the value of the subject property. At 1,000 square feet, set back from the street as far as it is, this garage addition probably would not depreciate the surrounding area in any way. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage --while a two stall garage-- is considered fairly small by today's standards. With multi -car families being the norm rather than the exception, the need for more garage space becomes an issue. This is the case with the applicants --both of whom have vehicles as do their children, in addition to a boat. Clearly the need is evident. This proposal appears to satisfy the adverse effects criteria. Also in Section 1125.01, the Planning Commission is to examine the criteria for granting a conditional use permit, which are outlined in Section 1125.01, Sub 3b: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Adding on to a small garage would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities, parks, schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. (4) (5) 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. The structure-anccite-shall-have-an-appearance tha —will- not havc an adverse erect -upon adjacent residential properties. Because the house is set back further than is typical, and because the garage is situated behind the house, there would be substantial public screening from this accessory structure. In terms of its relationship with the two adjoining properties, the backyard of the subject property is well shielded by privacy fencing and tall trees and bushes on either side and is separated by distance from the property to the rear. In staffs opinion, all properties are completely screened from the proposed garage addition. 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. 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. Allen & Joy Dick CUP Request 8059 Red Oak Drive July 21, 1999 Page 4 (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment. Staff believes that the adverse affects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out- weighed by the benefits. Staff also believes that it is desirable from a community perspective to have property owners improve their properties with building expansions since the properties are then usually kept in better order and may trigger other properties to do the same. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 588-99, a resolution recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,000 square foot garage at 8059 Red Oak Drive, requested by Allen and Joy Dick. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\563-99\DICK.PC1 • CITY f� OF A w�,n� J r/ •[ ��i Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form � Iles, -t s'OY mAR/e Dick f S i Re& 0,4k De. /3iow'4J 010.0 !'Litt. Telephone (%Z Vy-7 0(19 Fax 4 cid rr Interest in Property (check appropriate box) X. Owner of Property at Contract for Deed Owner a 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 Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning ROsi Red . pA-k Ltrei`u-f r f r L.®c.tt_. i°etAir,AG I/ °i dCn 30A.3 tpa 063k Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minor Subdivision Planned Unit Development (PUD) PUD Amendment Conditional Use Pemut Variane Code Appeal Develop Review/Site Plan Wetland Alteration Permit Wetland Buffer Permit Floodplain Permit Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees So--- , all others $250 R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 *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 Present Use of Property O UndevelopedNacant k' Single Family Dwelling O Duplex/Two Family Dwelling CI Multi -family Dwelling 0 Business/Commercial Establishment o Industrial Establishment O Other (explain) Property Classification Description of Proposal Abstract Torrens BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner mnozA-c:R ZicK A/K1s-ct-:0 )arte.A> V iniieieJifck ar? Pe& Ocii< 6fa ?Pi 4099 ************************************************ ** ** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal - 9 Date of Acceptance - -9 9 Assigned to: Y. Planning Case No. -ct. q 60-day Limit i 22-19 9 120-day limit i0(2-1/V( Fees Paid: Account # Chelic Application: 3 ri I ti ,';1 0 9 Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: NADATA\GROUPSICOMDENVORMS\DEVAPP.FOR Receipt # 1/98 78 6 7854 7842 8 9 (0 N Q :7) N 8071 8072 8065 8050 5 8044 8032 28022 8011 8000 7989 7996 7979 7980 7960 7969 7950 7927 7917 7940 7901 co 7900 -cr csc 7895( ce,,, cu — (4) N.. 7890 7870 7867 7851 7860 7841 7840 7815 7790 7809 7770 7801 7764 7767 7760 7761 7750 7755 7730 7745 7710 uc 7715C14 0 • co cv NO 8198 8205 8192 CZ 82031 01 \ 8208 8160 04 oi 8200 8148 co LAP9R1:. 8138 03 03 81 2 8127 811•tr) it> 1•••• 8106 co to c•I co 778 7780 7770 7768 8046 8036 8026 8000 5 7990 7960 cc) 7950 oo Cl r- 7934 :81 -9 8080 8085 8070 8075 8060 8045 8040 8025 8028 8015 8005 8016 7985 8004 7975 7970 7965 7960 7955 7956 7933 7950 IN oc to Li' rc-si isi . ,* iNc 7900 8175 8811565 — 4\ 8145 c9j4 8135 TO 8125 8130 8131 1.1 1r-• 8 2 ;12 CV N co co 8O81 8088 N N 8066 8059 8050 8042 8039 8032 8025 8018 8009 8006 7981 7990 7979 7980 7959 7970 7949 7954 7940 7930 7901 7900 7870 Zoning Map Planning Case 568-99 Applicant: Allen & Joy Dick Location: 8059 Red Oak Drive 8180 8 8075 co 0 N o N 8071 8071 8068 8055 8060 8045 _.....-- 803 8052 8040 8011 8000 7981 7990 7969 7980 7965 7966 7959 7945 7946 7935 7930 so co 1E1 2 C4 _ j 7900 7891 7 85 7863 7851 N 8-7 City of Mounds View Location Map 8059 Red Oak Drive IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII mnWuur ■1111111111 1111111111111111 Allen.& Joy Dick 8059 Red Oak Drive Conditional Use Permit Planning Case No. 563-99 8059 Red Oak Drive Properties Within 350' 1 1;X157/r10r aARAa6 GARANE 4 prrioi1 0 -4 4 41 FRANZEN CONSTRUCTION CO, 4260 5TH STREET N.E. WNNEAPOUS, MN 55421 7854071 /Jo1 -ro SCAI-� MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 588-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 8059 RED OAK DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 552-99 Whereas, Allen and Joy Dick have applied for a conditional use permit to allow for a 1,000 square -foot garage on property located at 8059 Red Oak Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: The South 70.00 Feet of Lot 119, Spring Lake Park Hillview, County of Ramsey WHEREAS, there is currently a 480 square -foot garage and a 130 square -foot shed on this lot; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to • 1,400 square feet of garage/accessory building space on one lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Location Map e. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements as stated in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, • • • • Planning Commission Resolution 588-99 July 21, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8059 Red Oak Drive, as low -density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2, 4. The Geographical Area Involved & the Character of the Surrounding Area. In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are larger than the subject property. The homes are generally of a similar style architecture and were built around the same time, although the subject home is newer and is larger than those in the immediate area. Many of the homes in the immediate area have larger garages, most of which are detached as in this proposal. A larger garage on the subject property would not appear out of place. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Adding to the existing garage will have an immediate positive impact on the value of the subject property. At 1,000 square feet, set back from the street as far as it is, this garage addition probably would not depreciate the surrounding area in any way. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage --while a two stalls-- is considered fairly small by today's standards. The applicants both have vehicles as do their children. In addition, the applicants own a boat which they would like to have stored within the garage. Clearly the need for additional garage space has been demonstrated. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use_permit,as required by Section 1125 01 Subd 1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. 7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Adding on to a small garage would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities, parks, schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. 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 Planning Commission Resolution 588-99 July 21, 1999 Page 3 adjacent residential properties: Because the house is set back further than is typical, and because the garage is situated behind the house, there would be substantial public screening from this accessory structure. In terms of its relationship with the two adjoining properties, the backyard of the subject property is well shielded by privacy fencing and tall trees and bushes on either side and is separated by distance from the property to the rear. In staff's opinion, all properties are completely screened from the proposed garage addition. 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. Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow for a 1,000 square -foot garage with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. • • 3. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building appearance with the existing garage and house, which is to mean the garage shall at a minimum be painted with the same color -scheme as the home. 4. All vehicles parked at the property shall be parked either upon the driveway's improved surface or within the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be allowed to park upon the grass or off of the improved surface. 5. The existing shed on the lot shall be moved to maintain a minimum six-foot setback from the garage and five feet from the rear or side lot lines. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. • • • Planning Commission Resolution 588-99 July 21, 1999 Page 4 Adopted this 21 st day of July, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DE VCASES\563-99\588-99PC.RES • • • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: July 21, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 564-99 Request: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate an outdoor sales produce stand at the Holiday Stationstore Applicant: Holiday Stationstore Location: 2744 Highway 10 PIN No. 06-3 -23 -43 -003 8 Zoning/Land Use: PUD Planned Unit Development / Convenience and Gas Station Applicable Regulations: • Section 1114.04, Subd. 5, which allows for open or outdoor service, sales and rental as an accessory use with a conditional use permit. • Section 1125.01, Subd. le, which states that the Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of proposed conditional uses. • Section 1125.01, Subd. lg, which states that the Planning Commission shall make findings of fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as it deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and forward such findings to the City Council. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Letter from Chuck Durand, 5/26/99 Resolution 589-99 Background: Chuck Durand, representing the Holiday Stationstore, is requesting a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor produce stand in the parking lot of the Holiday Stationstore, located at the southeast corner of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road from July through October of this year and years thereafter. The produce is planned to be open from dusk to dawn seven days a week. The stand would be operated by Darcy Ewing of Big Lake, Minnesota. The stand or sales tent is proposed to be 12 feet square and would be located in the grassy area immediately adjacent to the bank of parking stalls at the north corner of the lot. If there are no problems with the operation, the applicant would like the opportunity to operate in subsequent years as was done with Linder's and Merryville farm market. Holiday Produce Cup Planning Case 564-99 July 21, 1999 Page 2 Analysis: This produce stand would be similar to the Merryville operation at Moundsview Square. Signage for the produce stand will be accomplished with small banners affixed to the stand and covering. As was done for the Linder's and Merryville, the conditional use permit for Holiday is drafted in such a way so that future appearances before the Planning Commission and City Council are not required. This allowance is conditioned on many factors, not the least of which is that there be no problems associated with the operation this year. The CUP would then remain in effect indefinitely so long as there are no changes to the operation and the applicant resubmit a letter of intent and site plan each year in advance. CUP Requirements: The criteria for approval of a conditional use permit appear in Section 1114.04, Subd. 5 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. They are as follows: a. Outdoor service, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. The Holiday Stationstore building contains approximately 6,500 square feet of building area. The proposed produce stand would occupy 144 square feet of the property, which is about 2% of the building square footage on the site. b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Subdivisions 1103.08(1) - (5) of this Title. The produce stand would be screened from the neighboring yet -to -be completed Realife Cooperative senior residential complex by the Holiday building. c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of the Code. • The applicant will not have any lighting associated with the produce stand as it will be operating during daylight hours. d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The applicant is proposing to use the lawn area adjacent to the north bank of parking stalls instead of taking up space in the parking lot. e. The open or outdoor service, sale or rental use does not take up parking spaces as required for conformity of this Title. The produce stand would not be located in the parking lot and it is expected that the majority of the customers would be drawn from those already on the premises for gas or convenience products. • • • • Holiday Produce Cup Planning Case 564-99 July 21, 1999 Page 3 f. The provisions of Subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The proposal is for a temporary produce stand adjacent to the parking lot of an existing Holiday Stationstore. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use PUD, which coincides with the zoning of this site. Such an accessory use would not be inconsistent with the Plan. The store is at the corner of two major transportation arteries and is screened from adjacent residential uses. The sale of produce is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a community need. The short duration of the use will result in little, if any, adverse effect upon the surrounding area. In addition to the specific criteria addressed in Section 1114.04 and the adverse effects considerations in Subdivision 1125.01 (1)e, there are generic CUP criteria that appear in Subdivision 1125.01 (3)b that need to be addressed by the Planning Commission. They are as follows: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. It is not expected that this use will have any impact on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (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. The produce stand would be screened from the neighboring yet -to -be completed Realife Cooperative senior residential complex by the Holiday building and by distance. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. While staff has no plans to show the design or construction of this structure, it is not expected that the 12-foot square stand would have an adverse appearance, nor would it be adjacent to any residential property. (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. The City already has given approval for one produce stand to be located at Moundsview Square. This type of business, however, depends upon existing traffic for the majority of its business, which means it will draw primarily from those people already at the Holiday store. Having two such businesses separated by a third of a mile on opposite sides of Highway 10 would satisfy a need and provide for additional convenience. Holiday Produce Cup Planning Case 564-99 July 21, 1999 Page 4 (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The Zoning Code allows for this type of use with a conditional use permit. It would not inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Code for such a business to operate at this location. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, which indicates an anticipation for a variety of uses. A produce stand to be located at a gas and convenience store would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. It is not expected that this use will draw significant customers on its own. The majority of its customer base will be those people already at the Holiday store for gas or other conveniences. As such, it would not be expected that this use would cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The use would be located in the parking lot of the Holiday Stationstore which is served by Highway 10 and Silver lake Road All of the infrastructure serving this site are installed and provided --no additional infrastructure will be needed top accommodate this use. In the estimation of staff, it appears as though the specific CUP requirements in Subdivision 1114.04(1)e, the adverse effects criteria in Subdivision 1125.01(1)e, and the general CUP requirements in Subdivision 1125.01 (3)b are all satisfied. • Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 589-99 recommending to the City Council approval of a conditional use permit for the Holiday Stationstore located at 2732 Highway 10 to annually operate an outdoor produce stand from July 1 to October 31, with stipulations. i James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\56499\HOLIDAY.PC1 • A .*eel. ' Pacmers*e' Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form /7I o 4/nt y S//1--7f o w S %OK E Telephone 6 (Z - 7'z --/u U Z. (Clow BPS /%/Lw a73 Z Nwy /o /`10 u ti /2J v (F c-v / V/J 3 37 I z Fax to (2.— 7?2 — lhf 7 Interest in Property (check appropriate box) Owner of Property ❑ 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 Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning ()0 v fr /b d- f Lv/=.e �Ji�G�r /Cc Lk. i , 5 X I / �c tcx,✓uuw �S i-t-%-�S ✓C, ao a-3- 43 001,' Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit ❑ Floodplain Permit ❑ Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others.$250. R-1, R-2 $100 all others $25O- $100 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 *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 Present Use of Property O Undeveloped/Vacant 0 Single Family Dwelling III O Duplex/Two Family Dwelling 0 Multi -family Dwelling )cr Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment O Other (explain) Property Classification 0 Abstract Description of Proposal Torrens De-‹ irc) "f-X./eiv Ago 6-1/z,c)c-e. ek- - e -C e 77J7 -ro c 2 S /2, BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, IJEY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PRO Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Planning Case No. cAliM 24 rj-ek, ********** ******* FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Assigned to: S — 01 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account # Check # Receipt # Application: .r5 0 °° )00 I ) 14;7 'LP f tc* Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: NADATAAGROUPS\COMDEV\FORMSZEVAPP.FOR 1/98 131J00 8050 8042 7970 7954 7940 8055 8060 8045 8052 8033 8040 8011 8000 7981 7990 7969 7980 7965 7959 7966 7945 7946 7935 7930 in co co to to to o) * o3 7900 c•4 C.4 Cs1 7854 7842 7830 7820 7810 7800 NO 7664 7620 8060 8040 o Pi ▪ I781 oA 0ct DR 7748 7738 7728 7718 7710 7665 7647 7629 7625 7619 7585 o3 7769 7759 7749 7786 7780 7670 7660 7644 7634 7620 7594 7588 75 3 8065 8084 5981 80461--88:7455 8045 8036 8025 8025 8026 8016 8015 800T: 8005 8005 799-0 E 7985 -r; 7980 7979 7950 7955 7934 7933 7932 8004 7970 7960 8009 7981 7979 7959 7949 L VI est SILVER VIEW PARK Zoning Map Planning Case 568-99 Applicant: Holiday Produce CUP Location: 2744 Highway 10 MOUNDS VIEW VILLAGE CENTER GATEWAY AREA EASEMENT 30' X 30' Proposed stand location R10'-0" i' • • Memo Date: 6/30/99 To: Jim Erickson, City of Mounds View From: Chuck Durand, Holiday Stationstore eT) RE: Conditional Use Permit for produce stand 1 am writing you in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit, which we recently submitted to provide for the sale of fresh produce on the exterior of our premise. We anticipate that the sales tent/stand will be approximately 12 feet square and be located in an area as shown on the site plan I submitted. We plan on a sales period of the months of July, August, September and October (this year we will start as soon as the permit is granted). We do not think parking will be a problem as we already have ample spaces and most of our sales will be to customers already purchasing gas or merchandise. The operator of the stand is expected to be Darcey Ewing from Big Lake who has other stands of this nature in the area. The stand will specialize in Homegrown produce of many types including corn, potatoes, Tomatoes etc... We feel that a fresh produce stand of this nature will offer the area welcomed source of fresh quality produce at a very competitive price. Please start the process for the conditional use permit as soon as possible and let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration. • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 589-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR PRODUCE SALES AT HOLIDAY STATIONSTORE, REQUESTED BY CHUCK DURAND; PLANNING CASE NO. 564-99 WHEREAS, Chuck Durand, representing the Holiday Stationstore, has applied for a conditional use permit to conduct open and outdoor sales at his business located at 2732 Highway 10, property zoned PUD, legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Silverview Estates, County of Ramsey WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Letter from Property Owner WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the specific criteria for approval in Section 1114.04, Subd. 2 have been met: a. Outdoor service, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. The Holiday Stationstore building contains approximately 6,500 square feet of building space. The proposed produce stand would occupy 144 square feet of the property, which is about 2% of the building square footage on the site. b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Subdivisions 1103.08(1) - (5) of this Title. The produce stand would be screened from the neighboring yet -to -be completed Realife Cooperative senior residential complex by the Holiday building. c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of the Code. The applicant will not have any lighting associated with the produce stand as it will be operating during daylight hours. Holiday Produce Cup Resolution 589-99 July 21, 1999 Page 2 d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The applicant is proposing to use the lawn area adjacent to the north bank of parking stalls instead of taking up space in the parking lot. e. The open or outdoor service, sale or rental use does not take up parking spaces as required for conformity of this Title. The produce stand would not be located in the parking lot and it is expected that the majority of the customers would be drawn from those already on the premises for gas or convenience products. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the provisions from Section 1125.01(1)e of the Zoning Code regarding possible adverse effects of the proposed use and makes the following findings: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use PUD, which coincides with the zoning of this site. Such an accessory use would not be inconsistent with the Plan. The store is at the corner of two major transportation arteries and is screened from adjacent residential uses. The sale of produce is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a community need. The short duration of the use will result in little, if any, adverse effect upon the surrounding area. WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the general criteria for CUP approval in Subdivision 1125.01 (2) have been met: (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. It is not expected that this use will have any impact on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (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. The produce stand would be screened from the neighboring yet -to -be completed Realife Cooperative senior residential complex by the Holiday building and by distance. Holiday Produce Cup Resolution 589-99 July 21, 1999 Page 3 (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. While staff has no plans to show the design or construction of this structure, it is not expected that the 12-foot square stand would have an adverse appearance, nor would it be adjacent to any residential property. (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. The City already has given approval for one produce stand to be located at Moundsview Square. This type of business, however, depends upon existing traffic for the majority of its business, which means it will draw primarily from those people already at the Holiday store. Having two such businesses separated by a third of a mile on opposite sides of Highway 10 would satisfy a need and provide for additional convenience. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The Zoning Code allows for this type of use with a conditional use permit. It would not inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Code for such a business to operate at this location. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, which indicates an anticipation for a variety of uses. A produce stand to be located at a gas and convenience store would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • • (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. It is not expected that this use will draw significant customers on its own. The majority of its customer base will be those people already at the Holiday store for gas or other conveniences. As such, it would not be expected that this use would cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The use would be located in the parking lot of the Holiday Stationstore which is served by Highway 10 and Silver lake Road. All of the infrastructure serving this site are installed and provided --no additional infrastructure will be needed top accommodate this use. • Holiday Produce Cup Resolution 589-99 July 21, 1999 Page 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of a conditional use permit for a produce stand at the Holdiay Stationstore located at 2732 Highway 10, with the following stipulations: 1. The facility shall be allowed to operate from July 1 to October 31 of each year. 2. The produce stand shall operate only between dawn and dusk hours. 3. Signage shall be allowed only as affixed to the stand and/or roof. 4. Lighting for the use shall be supplied by existing parking lot standards. 5. The applicant shall provide the following on an annual basis to the Director of Community Development: a. Letter of permission from property owner. b. Complete set of site plans c. Narrative description of the proposal. 6. This Conditional Use Permit may be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council if any problems develop or if there are any changes to the operation deemed substantial enough to warrant such review, in the estimation of the Director of Community Development or the City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Conditional Use Permit shall have no expiration date and shall remain in force so long as the conditions agreed upon herein are observed. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. • Attest: (Seal) Adopted this 21 st day of July, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: July 21, 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: Location Map Site Plan, Option 1 Site Plan, Option 2 Assisted Living Background Information Background: MSP Real Estate has made application to rezone the vacant 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 would be elderly and unable to care for themselves, some 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 "Nursing homes and other similar group housing". This request was discussed at the Planning Commission's last meeting on July 7, 1999, at which time many issues were raised related to this application. Many of these issues will be addressed in this report and others will be addressed orally at the Commission meeting. Discussion Based on the discussions at the last Planning Commission meeting, there are four main issues of concern with regard to this project. The first two, parking and access, are issues that pertain more to the site plan than the use itself, and as such, may be less relevant to the request at hand than the other two items for discussion --tax generation and rezoning impacts. Staff believes that all of the issues can be addressed to the satisfaction of all involved parties --the Planning Commission, the neighboring residents, and the applicant. MSP Assisted Living Proposal Planning Case 559-99 July 21, 1999 Page 2 Parking: It was brought up at the meeting that the parking as shown on the draft site plan may not be enough to accommodate the actual demand that the facility would generate, even if the parking provided met the City's requirements. The site plan shows 22 spaces, which is two more than what is required, based on the need to provide four spaces plus one space for every three beds. Staff researched what other facilities provide and what other City's require. The following table represents examples of parking code requirements for this type of use. s333z. >:3.: r .,.,,...n,.:;,«;:::,:„.:;,-:;-:w:;;•;:.s,::::,:;.,::.:::::n333vs3#">';3#;#l;:#iEi';zz;:'%#3##z#3s3, yy� {] Saint Anthony, MN Convalescent or nursing homes 1 space per 5 beds, plus 1 space for every employee on the largest shift Gurnee, IL Nursing homes, convalescent center, geriatric center and the like 1 space per 5 beds, plus 2 spaces for every 3 employees, plus 1 space per doctor Maplewood; MN Multi -family residential 2 spaces per room Ellington, CT Convalescent and rest homes 1 space per 4 beds, plus 1 space per employee St. Paul, MN Nursing Home 1 space per 3 beds and 1 space per each 2 employees Belmont, CA Rest homes, nursing homes, sanitariums, convalescent homes or institutions for the aged 1 space per 4 beds, plus 1 space per two employees and 1 space per doctor Montrose, CO Nursing Homes 1 space per every 3 beds Plainview, TX Sanitarium, convalescent home, home for the aged or similar 1 space for every 6 beds Kenyon, MN Congregate housing for the elderly 1 space per room Jordan, MN Nursing Home 5 spaces plus 1 space per 5 beds As can be seen, the city's requirements fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of required parking ratios. The highest ratio is Maplewood's, yet this is misleading in that they do not have a specific requirement for assisted living or nursing homes. In speaking with Maplewood's planner, he indicated that the City's two assisted living facilities were granted variances from the parking requirement. The lowest requirements were from Jordan and Plainview, Texas, which require 5 and 6 spaces per bed, respectively. MSP Assisted Living Proposal Planning Case 559-99 July 21, 1999 Page 3 Staff spoke with a representative from Chandler Place, an assisted living facility in St. Anthony, Minnesota. The city requires one space per every five beds and one space per employee on the largest shift. The representative indicated that there is often a parking shortage at the facility, which shares the parking lot with a nursing home. During these periods, however, there is on - street parking available to accommodate overflow, an option that is also available in Mounds View. Mounds View's code requires that all required parking for a use be accommodated on -site, yet does not prohibit vehicle parking on streets where parking is allowed. Given this and the availability of additional spaces on site, parking should not be an issue of significant concern at this point. Access: This use as proposed would take sole access from County Road I. A concern was raised at the Commission meeting about how delivery vehicles --semi tractor trailers in particular --would be able to perform a safe entry and exit from the site. As currently proposed, there is only one way in and one way out of the parking lot and no room is available for a large truck to turn around. Given the number of times such a vehicle would be servicing this location --perhaps once a week, it might not be completely unacceptable to have a truck backing out from the facility. On the other hand, any time a vehicle, especially a large truck, has to back out onto a busy street is one time too many. For this reason, staff instructed the applicant to initiate discussions with SuperAmerica to see if it would be possible to tie into their rear access onto Mounds View Drive as shown on the attached site plan, indicated with Option 1. A better alternative to this option, shown as Option 2, is to reconfigure the parking lot and add an exit onto Mounds View Drive. This would eliminate the need for any cross -access easements or agreements between the subject property and the SuperAmerica property, as well as preserve the overgrowth of vegetation that acts as a screen between the two properties. The other issue with regard to access is that there is a median between the east and west lanes of County Road I which extends just beyond the proposed entrance to the property. Because the vast majority of traffic destined for this property would be coming from Highway 10, the median would cause vehicles to either cut in front of the median into oncoming traffic or perform a u-turn at Mounds View Drive and County Road I, neither of which would be a safe maneuver. It is not yet known whether the county would permit the median to be cut back to allow safe access, but staff would require that some alteration be made to make access more convenient. Tax Capacity: The question of taxes was brought up at the Commission meeting, pertaining to the differences in tax generation between the proposed use and an unspecified commercial use. Because of the number of unknown variables involved, it would be difficult to provide any substantial response other than the tax rates that would be used. In speaking with Ramsey County Tax Department, staff learned that a use such as the proposed assisted living facility would be taxed at the same rate as any other commercial use--2.4 percent up to the first $150,000 in valuation. From that point on, commercial uses are taxed at the rate of 3.4 percent. There is a provision in the tax code that allows for "elderly living facilities" to maintain the 2.4 percent rate at valuations after $150,000 as well, thus the proposed use would be taxed at the 2.4 percent for its total valuation. While a commercial use may be taxed at a higher rate after the initial $150,000, it would not be unrealistic to assume that the proposed use would be "valued" significantly higher than a retail or commercial MSP Assisted Living Proposal Planning Case 559-99 July 21, 1999 Page 4 use, which might have 75 percent of its space open for display or sales, and the balance for storage. It is not currently known what assessed valuation the County assessor would establish for this use and there are no known similar facilities with which to compare. Similarly, there are no new commercial uses in the area that would be appropriate to use as a commercial comparison in terms of tax generation. As best as staff can determine with the information it has, the proposed facility would be likely to generate an equal or greater amount of taxes than many, but not all, commercial uses. Rezoning: Some members of the community who were in attendance at the Planning Commissions's last meeting expressed concern over the potential re -uses of the property should the assisted living facility fail or be sold to another developer. The permitted uses in an R-4 district are multiple family residential, townhomes, boarding home or day care home (both of which are restricted to a family dwelling). Nursing homes and similar group housing is permitted conditionally within this district. Because of the configuration of the building and the rooms, none of which would have private kitchens, utilities, or entrances; this building could not be reused for multiple family housing --not only would it not meet housing and building code requirements, the lot could not accommodate the required parking of 2.5 stalls per unit. From a practical standpoint, this building could only be reused for what is being proposed --assisted living. If a developer at some point in the future intended to raze the structure and start from scratch, this would be allowed yet would probably not be economical feasible given the expected value of the facility. But even if this were a realistic consideration, the re -uses without a CUP would be limited to multi family housing. Because of the size of the lot and the parking requirements, probably no more than 12 units could be built. The other possible use that was of some concern was "group housing," which is allowed only if the use is in a family dwelling and be limited to no more than 12 children. The Code in Section 1109.04, Subd 2 is somewhat unclear in its definition of what would be considered a similar group housing use. Because the subdivision heading is Nursing Homes, staff would contend that similar types of group housing would pertain only to elderly group housing. But because this is not explicitly stated, staff would recommend that if it is the Commission's desire to limit the type of group housing to the elderly, that the code should be amended to reflect that. The amendment would be simple, changing the first line of Subdivision 1109.04 (2) to read, "Nursing homes and other elderly congregate housing...." This would effectively eliminate any possible reuse of the property to anything other than a multi -family structure of a limited size. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Commission discuss this request in the context of whether or not it would be an appropriate use for this location given the information that has been presented and direct staff to prepare a resolution for action at your next meeting on August 4, 1999. gam, James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\MSP.PC2 City of Mounds View Location Map llllll , --u.tt_. i IT 741: Ale 1111 �111� � aui i°,euu uunuunuu 111 ram 1111012 1111111E 11111111111111 :■1111111111 N1111111111 ;1111111111111;1 MSP Real Estate 2670 County Road I Conditional U Planning Case No. 559-99 and 560-9? 2670 County Road I Properties Within 350' 74 la 0 dt c'Sr A!_PP A.E; TEE :4F£ I✓::'! D riEA. Ali' HSF jim.oxosx -07 Itt �L 16 • •. M.Mr wn ru sP: • • t.TE i!C t+ ! t... I. Nt„$:+. DV � ro a1.343/ L .116 00, N.SP ASS!: iE' :A 'AC A. P*. • W\ What is Assisted Living? http://www.alfa.org/WhatsAL.htm What is Assisted Living? Assisted Living The new housing and health care alternative combining independence with personal care in a warm, dignified, community setting. What is Assisted Living? The Assisted Living Federation of America (ALFA) defines an Assisted Living residence as a special combination of housing, personalized supportive services and health care designed to meet the needs —both scheduled and unscheduled --of those who need help with activities of daily living. What is the philosophy of Assisted Living? ALFA members subscribe to a 10-point philosophy of care: 1. Offering cost-effective quality care that is personalized for individual needs 2. Fostering independence for each resident 3. Treating each resident with dignity and respect 4. Promoting the individuality of each resident 5. Allowing each resident choice of care and lifestyle 6. Protecting each resident's right to privacy 7. Nurturing the spirit of each resident 8. Involving family and friends, as appropriate, in care planning and implementation 9. Providing a safe, residential environment 10. Making the Assisted Living residence a valuable community asset Who lives in Assisted Living residences? • Currently, more than a million Americans live in an estimated"30,000 Assisted Living residences. Assisted Living residents can be young or old, affluent or low income, frail or disabled. Atypical resident is age 83 or older, is female, and is either widowed or single. Residents may suffer from Alzheimer's disease or other memory disorders. Residents may also need help with incontinence or mobility. What does an Assisted Living residence look like? Assisted Living residences can range from a high-rise apartment complex to a converted Victorian home to a renovated school. Residences may be free standing or housed with other residential options, such as independent living or nursing care. They may be operated by non-profit or for -profit companies. Most facilities have between 25 and 120 units. There is no single blueprint, because consumers' preferences and needs vary widely. Units may vary in • 1 of 3 07/14/99 12:55:14 What is Assisted Living? http://www.alfa.org/WhatsAL.htm size from one room to a full apartment. How is Assisted Living regulated? Regulations and licensing regulations vary from state to state contributing to the wide range of senior housing models considered Assisted Living. Most providers and their staff have special training as a result either of state requirements or company policy. Some states require special staff certification and training. Residences must comply with local building codes and fire safety regulations. ALFA believes the most successful regulations are consumer drive, balancing the safety concerns we all share with the consumers' desires to retain their independence and freedom of choice. What types of services are offered in Assisted Living residences? Services provided in Assisted Living residences usually include: ■ Three meals a day served in a common dining area • Housekeeping services • Transportation ■ Assistance with eating, bathing, dressing, toileting and walking • 24-hour security and staff availability • Emergency call systems for each resident's unit • Health promotion and exercise programs • Medication management ■ Personal laundry services • Social and recreational activities What about costs? Costs vary with the residence, room size, and the types of services needed by the residents. Across the nation, daily basic fees range from approximately $20 to $100 -- generally less than the cost of home health services and nursing home care. A basic Assisted Living fee may cover all services or there may be additional charges for special services. Most Assisted Living residences charge month -to -month rates, but a few residences require long-term arrangements. Who pays the bill for an Assisted Living residence? Residents or their families generally pay the cost of care from their own financial resources. Depending on the nature of an individual's health insurance program or long-term care insurance policy, costs may be reimbursed. In addition, some residences have their own financial assistance programs. Government payments for Assisted Living residences has been limited. Some state and local governments offer subsidies for rent or services for low income elders. Others may provide subsidies in the form of an additional payment for those who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Medicaid. Some states also utilize Medicaid waiver programs to help 2 of 3 07/14/99 12:55:14 What is Assisted Living? http://www.alfa.org/WhatsAL.htm pay for Assisted Living services. How to find an Assisted Living residence? it Consumers interested in locating Assisted Living facilities should visit the searchable ALFA Online Directory of Assisted Living providers at CareGuide. The site is searchable by state, county, city or metropolitan area. POW RED gr: careguide WwW.ccf/39:ttLt.'.^E t • Call the national Eldercare locator service at (800) 677-1116. Calls are accepted between 9 am - 5pm Monday through Friday. • Contact your local area agency on aging. These agencies are generally listed in the blue pages of your telephone directory. ■ Check your library for the National Directory of Retirement Facilities. ■ Or for a state listing of Assisted Living residences contact Gloria Lewis, Consumer Referral Manager, pl@u.alfa.orq For more information about Assisted Living contact Whitney Redding, Director of Media & PR wralfa.orq. Send mail to 1cAalfa.org with questions or comments about this web site. Copyright © 1998,1999 Assisted Living Federation of America Last modified: March 31, 1999 • • 3 of 3 07/14/99 12:55:14 � PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO • • To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Billboards Date: July 15, 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. At the July 7, 1999 Planning Commission meeting I presented to you two draft ordinances for Planning Commission discussion. The first ordinance dealt 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 proposed 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 t direction. The separation from residentially zoned property is open for discussion. The setback standard is from the existing ordinance 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 o er co es an sae requirem s. 8. Requires that billboards not obstruct traffic signs or 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. • T • • 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. As I indicated to the Planning Commission on July 7th, the City Attorney's office is reviewing two related matters. These include whether there are deed restrictions which would preclude billboards on the golf course property and whether are not there would be spot zoning issues. I have not yet received any further information from the City Attorney concerning these issues. I also sent a copy of the proposed ordinance to a consultant to the billboard industry and received comments back subsequent to the July 7th meeting. Mr. Cronin commented that he felt it was a reasonable ordinance but requested that the City consider one change. The change was to allow signs that would have an angle greater than 35 degrees to allow sign faces side by side. I have attached his comments which include an illustration of the type of sign he would like allowed. I also indicated to the Planning Commission on July 7th that, in terms of maximizing potential sites on the golf course, the proposed minimum spacing could be reduced from 1500 feet to 1000 feet. 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 Wit. Signage at the golf course has been at times as much as 130 square feet. REQUESTED ACTION: It is requested that the Planning Commission continue its discussion of 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\7-15-99B.MEM e 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-bilibeetrd 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 freeway at the effective date herein. -any Subd. 10. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard or a rtising 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 traffic. 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 st elk eu and 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. PFPublic 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 (1002 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. 1999. 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 Dan Coughlin, Mayor AI LEST: (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\6AA.ORD 1008.01 1008.01• Subd. 6. PEDESTAL SIGN: A ground sign erected upon a single post or shaft or upon two (2) posts or shafts that merge or touch at the base or which are not more than fifteen feet (15') apart, center of shaft to center of shaft, with the display portion mounted on top thereof at least seven feet (7') above the surface of the street adjacent to the property on which the sign is located. No such sign shall have a sign area of more than three hundred forty (340) square feet on each side. Such sign may advertise only businesses located on the premises. No business property shall have more than one pedestal sign adjacent to each street upon which such business property abuts; provided, that on each street frontage of more than one hundred feet (100'), one additional pedestal sign may be 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 includeldh in the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe each letter, figure or symbo displayed thereon. City of Mounds View 7-13-1999 2:38PM FROM M CRONIN 612 941 2645 P. 1 MICHAEL CRONIN & ASSOCIATES 8809 WEST BUSH LAKE ROAD MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55438 PHONE 612 941-7487 email mcroniu@mm.com :1�-rlcP� RE: Qa,+>SS • Rick - Billboards FAX 612 941-2645 DATE PAGES TO FOLLOW Rather than all typical "V' type billboard structures on steel poles (the industry's answer to "less is more") Eller may propose one or more traditional structures that as an object may better fit In the setting along 35 or 118 for either an on or off premise sign. Following is an example of this type (none have been built for fifty years). This type of structure could not meet the proposed 35 degree angle standard. Please call if.you have any questions or comment. Thanks 7-13-1999 2:39PM • ••• FROM M CRONIN 612 941 2645 • , •'• • •• • ‹i \.\ frit v., • , • 7•^11 • •••••••••••.• ••••••••••••••• • • • 1 • •• e••••• e•••• •• • • • • • • m••••••1 • • • • • a 11•••••=1=1•1•11•1 ..r i• • 4 • • p. 2. *7—.1 3—'2 1999 : 381*1 • • CROIsil. 612 96,1 646 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 Highway 10, 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Petersa 2. Roll Call Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Mounds Ifrew City Hall nds lew, MN 55112 fn., July 7, Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, CommissionersBrke $' o "._land Johnson, Kaden, Miller, and Stevenson (Commissioner Stevenson jo' :fie meeting's ` %pm.). Members Absent: Commissioner Laube, wit Also Present: Planning Associate Ji Council Member Roger Stigney and..f Index to M. utes mmunt( < elopment Director Rick Jopke, Pearso' Plannin_ o . 62-99, ` ': ``> ``:.. way 10 (site formerly known as uik Luber y ion ofY4' tip;. Ql use permit to operate an automobile ren A Ma > <:: `::r 'man Thrift Car Rental),A licant �� P Y (Thrifty pp Planning e o. - `' `m t Woodale Drive. Consideration of a Applicant 560-99, 2670 County Road I, Discussion o rezone property and for a conditional use permit senior residential facility Sp arming 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 Page 3 9 12 21 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99, Consideration of a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to billboards and amending the Code pertaining to signage in to PF and CRP zoning districts. July 7, 1999 Page 2 23 Staff Reports / Items of Information 26 r@. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items N There were no citizen requests or comments on items nOron 4. Approval of Minutes A. May 19, 1999 genda Commissioner Braathen requested aection age 8, laparagraph, fourth sentence to indicate "He requested that the Work Sesitips be rescheduled toa4 of meet on Wednesday..." MOTION/ . E ND: Br .,. ller to a rovet May 19, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. B. Nays-0 The motion carried. iller to approve the June 2, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. es — 7 Nays — 0 The motion carried. Case No. 562-99 Property Involved: 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) • • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Thrifty Car Rental, is seeking a conditional use perm business at the property most recently utilized by Spots Quik be. there would be no more than ten cars on the premises at a ::: < rne, wheth The applicant indicates that the proposed hours of busin.,' would bki Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 4:00 peon Saturdays. The operate on Sundays. Other than repainting the building rig si na e, thee alter the building or make any improvements to the lands Ericson stated that the primary function of the asinessit an accessory use of sale of said rental vehicles. He stated that .N ` c '''' requirement for the purpose of sales and that this I : �':_ �:_: meet till restrictions placed upon auto sales operationsx e>'e..< } }' hrifty s percent of the building's gross floor area, whip}" that if there were 30 cars on the lot, 10 9: 1 Ericson reviewed the conditions?iwd upo xental bu.sfesses, as stated in Section 1114.04, Subdivision 5 of the City Code, comme'ted on th` relationship with the proposed use. He stated that the first condition requ ` g that a...:. sa :>:... 'se be limited to thirty percent of the gross Id applyttk<es aspect of this business. He stated that after ding, sta + ermined the amount of space that could be put w no more than three vehicles to be for sale at any one time. e sales areas be fenced or screened from view. He stated reside fial property across the street, all of the abutting residential ed. He stated that there was no effective way of screening the t e •ui ding itself provides a screen, as well as the six-foot wood July 7, 1999 Page 3 to an auto rental Ant anticipates that e,sor rent or sal. o 7:00 m. not plans to n ing of automobiles, with s a two -acre lot size xrement. Because of the i sales may not exceed 30 vehicles. This would imply floor area calculat towards t e principal .pr are vehicless wi Ericson noted t that, with propert around the rear and sides of the building. laird condition requires that all lighting be hooded and directed so as not to roperties. He stated this criteria had been addressed by the previous owner, fg does meet this requirement. Ericson stated that the fifth criteria provides the requirement that "open or outdoor service, sale or rental use does not take up parking space as required for conformity of this Title." He stated that, according to staffs interpretation of the Code, this type of use would require four parking spaces for on -site workers and customers. He explained that this condition does not apply to the rental vehicles parked on the lot. It does, however, require that a minimum of four parking spaces be marked and designated for employees and customers. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 • Page 4 Ericson stated that Section 1125.01 of the City Code, relating to adverse effects resulting from the proposed use, provides criteria which are present for any conditional use. He listed the criteria, and stated that all of these have been addressed and met. Ericson stated that there has been a longstanding automotive use at opinion, other types of use of the property would not be appropriate. the intersection of Spring Lake Road and Highway 10 ma noted, however, that the Comprehensive Plan designate that one means of addressing this would be during the Cow it could be changed so as not to conflict with the zoning be addressed separately, and the Commission could determ to consider it at this time, or within the context of the Co Ericson stated that, in addition to the Conditional U requirements, the Code also requires that certain file conditional use permit, as indicated in Section that these criteria would be addressed in conjunction w approval or denial of the proposal. ndesirab is parcel ow ehensiv>'lan updati ere se. He stated tha uld also or not it would be appropriate Plan Update. ermit cod; y (fact be ion 3b on, and in star s ;that its location at ential use. I identiand d the adverse affects in the granting of any t. e City Code. He stated a resolution recommending Ericson stated that staff's recommendation waif") allow thproposal at this location, but that staff believed further discussion was n c.essary re ding the acceptability of this use and any additional conditions which should be p ace € on the operation knor to drafting a resolution. He noted that otentially4. j i use for s><rerlocation, and added that there was sufficient ussion: > :._;: e ation cif*fisolution prior to the next meeting of the Planning this could b time for Commissi Mike Winslow operation . t locati an t which to cond °mobile sales lot, cars are returned t percent owners] their bus' t repreat' Thrifty Car Rental, stated that their business has been in ards'store location in Blaine for eight years. He explained that, in r hin • f. r . new usiness. He stated that the balance of their intent was not to open hag that seventy percent of their fleet of automobiles is leased and that the manufacturer for auction. He stated that their fleet was comprised of p of those automobiles. He explained the process of the automobile sales noting that generally, a customer would inquire about a specific automobile ich time the vehicle is brought to the location for viewing purposes. Mr. ins ow stated that on the Fourth of July weekend, typically their busiest weekend of the year, they had 35 rentals, with three or four cars remaining on the lot. He stated that the rental cars are brought up from the main location in Bloomington by reservation, adding that this is generally accomplished within a one hour turnover window, to minimize the number of cars on the lot at any given time • • • • ber of vehic oppo ity :hat he wcii l' = i e to rentals. Mr. Winslow stated h does not take up much weekend," typically at ad been previously utilized Tess par lg spa 'equired than that of a prior use, es on tt ot, on them dean and in the right-of-way. Mr. void gig type of.Ia oblem, adding that in the event of late torage, ices wit* the building that could be utilized for �u45 room fo parking at the location. He stated that staff would the site plan where the vehicles would be parked, as well as h, ch would be parked on the lot for a period of time. He es preserl.: ;presented storage spaces, but the applicant could park on kere w ' no requirement to maintain a drive -through at the location, 1pplicant could double-park their vehicles in that area if the need ;possibility of parking two cars in front o till doors, as long as Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Page 5 Commissioner Kaden asked if the applicant planned on expanding the parking area, noting that the site plan indicates only nine parking spaces. Mr. Winslow stated that they did not plan to expand. He stated that they intended to utilize the spaces that were provided. He explained that e car rental business, there might be ten to fifteen cars on site for twenty minutes, until lie run drive them off the lot. Commissioner Hegland asked if the applicant would agree tq that could be parked on the lot at one time. Mr. Winslov to examine the lot prior to committing to a maximum providing that. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant's business inc that the largest truck in their fleet is a fifteen -foot Isu>box more room than a normal parking space. He noted tha . ring a lar, the end of the month, they may have three of the c n the lot: Chair Peterson stated that the pavement are for the oil changing business. He stated th which had led to random parking of v Winslow stated that they attempt arrivals, there were two additio parking. Ericso suggest t provide the m added that some these as wel as with arose the - as adequate ingr es and egress. btA eterson stated at it was important to determine the maximum number of automobiles that on the 1•s street overflow parking would not be possible. He stated that the City of 'hits overnight parking on City streets, and added that if a vehicle was left on the st otentially be towed away. He stated that the parking restrictions were posted at all entrances to the City. Mr. Winslow stated that they could post signs at the location as well, to prevent the drop off of vehicles on the street. Ericson stated the requirement that the applicant post signs to indicate no parking or dropping off vehicles on the street at any time could be added to the resolution. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 • Page 6 Commissioner Miller asked what plans the applicant had for snow removal. Mr. Winslow stated that they had four-by-four trucks and a plow in their fleet. He stated that they could dedicate a truck for the purpose of snow removal and do the maintenance themselves. Commissioner Milltasked where the snow would be placed. Ericson stated that previous owners of the sit ad detnated areas on the property for snow storage, and added that the applicant could indicat >>t t storage location on the site plan. Commissioner Hegland asked if the applicant had any increase the parking capacity in the back of the property, n to expand in that area, and that this would be the time to a both he and co -applicant Dave Besonen had concentrated o the details of the parking situation, but that he was agree Chair Peterson requested clarification to the locati relationship to the property lines. Ericson stated t property line. He stated that there was some tr closer to the building so as not to interinterfe oWith thee; provide an option to the parking requiretents, an Ani Commissioner Kaden stated that hlpuld like see somadditional landscaping at the location. originallyIV » planted by the previous applicant were at the trees were not only small, but they :"health. Commissioner Kaden suggested that orester `rang which type of plantings do well in this area. orester has provided assistance with heartiness issues, and also attractive in the past. He stated that the applicant !ff and the City Forester to determine an economical and ntion of .pancpaved at o g thatappeared t t oom €t issue. Mr. Wir ated that nd location, without examining into the issue at this time. had not bee the app Chair Pete low maintena could discuss th attractive 1. en Chair Peterson stated that the eiWtgreen tr smaller in size than the City hacl retested. l p eared to t 1- attended: plt wit dined th f planti ss_;s , issues f the parking lot, in Hof a fenciy«�':: �:<. e was loci < v.od distance from the buildin;a.nd the fence was located tislow stated that this might look into it further. Dave :§esonen co-applick i•usenting Thrifty Car Rental, stated that he was the manager of the bu ss off -airport locat`ons.4-le stated that he managed a lot in downtown Minneapolis which had o ':: � our parking spaces nd that he had no trouble keeping cars off of that lot. He stated that they be servicing tie of the automobiles on site, for minor repairs such as oil changes, fixing ts, and re frig windshield wipers. He stated that this would only be for their automobiles, Mr. esonen asked what would be allowable in terms of indicating that they had cars for sale. Ericson stated that any type of permanent signage advertising the sale of automobiles should not be allowed. He stated that sales was considered strictly an accessory use, and to allow signage might categorize it as part of the principal use, which could cause concern among other parties who had wanted to utilize the property for an auto sales operation. He also addressed issued of fairness and legality, and the possibility of violation of the City Zoning Code. • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Page 7 Commissioner Miller asked if it would be possible to indicate that cars were for sale inside of the building, to prevent the problem of the public driving by and seeing a sign from the roadway. Mr. Besonen stated yes. Council Member Stigney stated that this was a rental business, and t bringing a car to the lot for a specific customer. He stated advertising automobiles for sale at the location. Chair Peterson stated that he concurred with Ericson' signage would be unacceptable. He noted that Commissi would certainly be acceptable, but that the issues of st advertising would have to be addressed further. He requeste to other businesses or the public parking their cars on Ericson explained that ifa person or property owner w of their lot it would be allowed. He stated that in itself, the Commission was provided the opportu He stated that if the Commission felt strly that requirement could be added to the resolution to reflethat. consider the issue on its own. Commissioner Stevenson stat signage, he believed there sh the Com ':=.n should .. limitati tter c I already 1 ;:# cars to the sign itsel _'<. < > :': at alth translate into ar*..i..ht Stevenson signage vertising the's utilizeda the applicant's on the reasons they d eterson stated t and that ed`at althou a rule li nthat tit. of han pplicant would be to see any signage s,IPThat any e anent s suggestion of in or signage e windows or other forms of n of the City Code, in regard le" signs in the windows. park a ' i :.ttk sale on the pavement a Con '':dal. se Permit and the use itional re' =notions upon the signage. oever should be allowed, a fined that the Council could also the Co t ission could not rule on the matter of Ie stated that if this was a Council action, ''!it address the issue. He stated that without mmissioner Johnson stated that the applicant was e time. Ericson stated that the concern was more in regard Ow sign might be allowable, without limitations, it might shee ywood, which would be unacceptable. Commissioner the ise should be addressed and clarified prior to agreeing to allow three cars. Commissioner Kaden asked what type of signage was siness location. Mr. Besonen stated that there was none, and that eitPstreet visibility was to inform the public that they had vehicles for sale. often times the public associated a rental car facility with the purchase of ,ny people would simply inquire. Commissioner Kaden noted that automobiles he former fire station located in Spring Lake Park, and that the largest signage ere was paint or a sign in the window. He stated that he did not find that type of signage o .jectionable. Mr. Besonen stated that he had noticed the Enterprise car lot in Spring Lake Park, and believed that their signage indicated sales and rentals. Council Member Stigney stated that the sales were not on site at that location. Mr. Besonen stated that their car sales would not necessarily be on site either, as the majority of time, the cars would be rented. He suggested the possibility of signs in the cars on Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 411 Page 8 the lot indicating the customers inquire within. Chair Peterson asked if all of the thirty percent of the applicant's vehicles could potentially be sold. Mr. Besonen stated that was correct. Chair Peterson stated that he believed Ericson's points were valid, in reg that something should be provided in the language of the Conditional Use Commissioner Stevenson stated that no exterior signage pro . Ming tl permitted, with the exception of signage in the windows oft; € vehicles. interior signage would be acceptable. to tha! egal issues, and �e ``0-address the issue. :vehicles should be rson stated thfit Commissioner Braathen asked how the Saturn Deal dealt with the is, s<_ <. , ignage. Commissioner Stevenson stated that the sale of automobile wallowed usage at that property. - He added that the City had placed a moratorium on that ': se along Highway 10. Chair Peterson explained that, due to problems in that area oft*ity, I rat rium had been established to provide a workable compromise. He stated that thi.k.. as a differ on, but reiterated that auto sales was not the primary use of this proposaLA t•nen state they would be satisfied with signs in the windows of the automobiles, Ericson asked if the Commission woulave any ;. ncern» and to allowing the business to vlr. W w state t t i'a this would only be through the summer months, possibly from Ap Ihrou 7Tovember„`l5.in operate for limited hours on Sunday Commissioner Stevenson incl in the area. <:'::;:Winslow 4:"': busines .> §-r beelt>t>`c returned ve unday, e a bermvgk Wf: Winslo<i Sunday operati of operation wo p.m. durin:i Co the Toner Miler ask ould not. He state an or Bloomington, e, they would d irexeardin ltdavt. ration of the other two car rental facilities re not open on Sundays. He stated that their undaysIn e Blaine location, and added that customers still ill charged for the day. Commissioner Stevenson stated that tpmers in that regard. He asked what the proposed hours €atd that they were considering hours of 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 1pplicant would be selling cars on Sunday. Mr. Winslow stated that any potential sales customers would have to purchase the vehicles in ere the paperwork is generated, and if a customer inquired about a specific 'ct him to those locations. ' gland asked if the applicant permitted after -hour drop-offs. Mr. Winslow stated thy . $ have to, with the exception of Sunday evening drop-offs, when the return process might 'interfere with a customers work schedule. He stated that he would be agreeable to the addition of a statement to the resolution regarding drop-offs, requiring that the vehicles would not be left on the street, and that they would inform customers that cars must parked on the lot. Ericson stated that staff would continue to gain information from the applicant regarding the parking, and that the issue of landscaping improvements could be indicated in the resolution, as a requirement • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Page 9 that the applicant provide a landscaping plan which would satisfy the City Forester, staff, and the City Council. He stated that staff had enough information to proceed with the resolution, and that any additional changes or recommendations could be added prior to the final draft. 6. Planning Case No. 561-99 Property Involved: 2801 Woodale Drive Consideration of Resolution 587-99, a resolution appr setback. Applicant: Michael and Christine Gregori The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staffre The applicants, Michael and Christine Greori, whaI've at tdale Drive which is located at the northwest corner of Woodale D iy.And Silver Lake Road, are requesting a variance from the required thirty-foot setback establish'r accoltry build* from public streets. They would like to replace their old, single stall garage ith a t car, 6740quare-foot garage. The existing garage, which was builthu 11 ith the housein 192 sits 15 eet 100 close to Silver Lake Road. Its construction predates the it 's first Zonin.t code hich as adopted in 1960. He stated that, in consideration of the ex oposing the reduction of the present setback to eleven fee Ericson presente Commissiond with th9jroperty which to a Diiertv owner. Stat. or h application, and,. $e* p alysis notmg that, as with any variance application, for the Planning re must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated iteral interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive s require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria ak its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set n Section 1125.0' Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship hen all of the ria are met. Ericson outlined the seven criteria, and provided responses to at the applicant has some hardship presented in the lot, in that the house and garage were constructed prior to any zoning requirements. He stated that this was a single car garage, outdated by today's standards, and that there was no room or alternative for expansion without maintaining some encroachment into the setback. He stated that staff had examined the criteria for satisfying the hardship requirements, and found that all are met with the exception of one, which is that the variance requested is the minimum setback required to alleviate the hardship. He stated that Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 • Page 10 staff was suggesting that the garage could be constructed in such a way so as to maintain the existing fifteen foot setback. He stated that this would mean that the garage would be pushed toward the house, and slightly toward the back yard. He explained that staff was not certain this would be possible, and added that the applicant could address the feasibility of that sugestion with the Commission. Ericson stated that staff had drafted a resolution that wo : grant a variance; he applicant construct a garage at a maximum fifteen feet from the pro x y line, ad i g tli`al the a ution cob d be amended according to the Commissions direction. He "d that the Commisst`mme whether or not a greater setback was warranted in this c Michael Gregori, 2801 Woodale Drive, the applicant., p e indicatingthe garage as it was currentlysituated on his=: o e g g u�. p expanded to the fifteen -foot setback, it would be ali ed with th hardship, as they would have to drive around the st , o enter t Commissioner Hegland asked if the ste::;ron the consideration. Mr. Gregori stated yes, thatthathe was r uestin moved so as not to interfere with theo se. He.a 'ded that feet. Chair Peterson asked if the g was t Ib'e twenty ytoward Silver Lake Road. Mr. Gregori oot from that slope. Chair Peterson stated if s than fifteen feet, the applicant would have to go Chair Peterson asked if ther stated yes at the curre further into it would not a where the expa requestin at the gar, efromt The a • ssioner Stevenson ri stated yes, and of proposing to: slope c approxirtlat way wa ed that it was, but that the garage could be situated so that Commission with pictures d that if the garage were which would create a e. e applicant's home were a he far east side of the garage be 6rdriveway offsets the garage by five ur feet wide. Mr. Gregori stated yes. ghat there was a level spot on the east side of the garage, ;ed. He stated that, of that five foot area, he was only „moved- ver four feet, which would create enough of an offset to if the proposed garage was to remain ten feet behind the house. Mr. ded that he might be able to move it back a foot or two at the most, but so at this time. and asked if the existing setback requirement for reconstruction was thirty feet, a at requirement intended for the positioning of a driveway that enters onto a street. He note• that this garage did not enter onto the street in the same manner which the Code may have intended. Ericson stated the property did not take access from Silver Lake Road, but explained that the Zoning Code does specifically stipulate that there should be no accessory buildings, or any building within thirty feet of the front property line. He explained that the front property line is defined as that property line abutting the street, and added that corner lots present a unique circumstance in that there are effectively two front property lines that are required to maintain a thirty • • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Page 11 foot setback from the street. He stated that, at the time this property was constructed, this was not a consideration. Chair Peterson noted that the lot appeared to be substandard by current corner lot requirements. Commissioner Hegland asked what was located to the north of the applica stated that there was an apartment complex to the north. Commissioners::: a good proposal, and that he understood what the applicant strying to;u.: ,. support for the proposal. Commissioner Kaden stated that he did not think eleven f noting that he had seen many garages offset behind houses. and for aesthetic purposes, it would look better if it wash eleven feet, a twelve -foot setback would place the end:lt sidewalk. He stated that this would require less concr tee work fo added that the edge of the garage would align with f the sid the driveway. He stated that he had originally that the garage would not be so close to the l use an to be a reasonable compromise. He staid that the w placement of the house on the lot, as:1 as the<;obability*ftlhe lot being undersized by current corner lot standards. erty. Mr. Gregori ated that this was He stated lz Commissioner Johnson reques. e foot setba vIr. Grego would bx`tt t',. his pu use; Commissione proposal. Com Commi Tier Miller sta • at the a that a tv:'£* tated th ` 3;erke an > e much worse t en feet, ed however, that in his opinion, .egori stated that, instead of the side of the existing lk and driveway, and here it intersects with . . tonal footTfor clearance purposes, so rson stated that this seemed :agent hardship in regard to the if he was requesting an eleven or twelve setback would be acceptable, but eleven feet en the property, and could see the logic in the applicant's tson concurred and indicated their support as well. had also seen the property, and wondered how a two -car garage could ''m that area. Mr ri explained that by a igning the garage with the driveway it would go .her west. He added:hat most of the garage area to the west would not be for parking, but that t would be a serviceoor for ingress and egress, which would face south. Mr. Gregori stated t :, had not anticipated these complications when he purchased the property. He stated that his was to bu:0lie garage to match the existing structure, and added that the pitch of the roof as that of the house, and that it would be sided with the same material. Chair ' e erson stated that it appeared that the consensus of the Commission was to allow an eleven - foot setback. Chair Peterson opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. Hearing no comments from the floor, Chair Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 8:11 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Page 12 Commissioner Hegland stated that he thought they should go ahead with the approval. He noted that Item 5 of the resolution should be re -worded. Ericson stated that staff could amend Item 5 to indicate that the variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hards and that the Planning Commission finds that an eleven -foot setback would accomplish this. -"stated that the second paragraph of the second page of the Resolution should be amex<t<: dicate "...for the construction of a 672 square -foot garage eleven feet from tloperttr:: well. Commissioner Miller requested a correction to the first 0.ge of the fly indicate "a garage eleven feet from their east side lot lin :':' Chair Peterson stated that Item 7 contained a reference t6 the garage to the house would be ten feet wide and wont would normally require a six-foot distance. aragra . .pto bet. He stated the distance from 'ct with the fire code, which vo MOTION/SECOND: HeglandBraathen. To Ado iesokito n 587-99Slution Recommending Approval of a Variance for Michael and Christin > r et flow ar : 1even -Foot Setback for a 672 Square -Foot Garage at 2801 Woodalerve, P1aztz61-99, as revised. AY Ayes — 7 Nays :Q Abtn — 1 IFden The motion carried. Commissioner Kaden stated that; reasont' his abktrition was that he did not agree with the eleven -foot setback, althougk,he d agree at tide was needed. 7. Ph Property Invo1 Discussion livin> tr r identia Applt: MSP Real Es plicant was prjjnt. 'Guar,:,.`.,: �':"•"' 0-99 Vacant lot behind Super America) on to rezone property and for a conditional use permit for an assisted Ericson gave the staff report as follows: MSP Real Estate has made an application to rezone the vacant Kraus -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 a forty-eight room, assisted living senior residential facility. According to the applicant, the residents are elderly and unable to care for themselves, some of whom may have Alzheimer's Disease or other forms of elderly dementia. The • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Page 13 proposal would fall under the zoning requirements as outlined in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2, pertaining to "Nursing homes and other similar group housing". Ericson provided a statement of intent from the applicant along with a proposed site plan for the development for theommission's review. Ericson stated that staff feels the impacts of the proposed userminin°is in comparison to the impacts of a potential commercial use that could develo e stated twould generally n ;1 be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the property is adjacei yt be1u ' ° iercial .: es, ..f separated from the park and the residential area by Moun uAView Drive. He note :t seem probable that this project would depreciate the area in anyh_... ; t would seem to d fit for the area. He stated that the apparent need for such a use d as such would not adversely affect other similar uses, as there are none. Ericson stated that the Comprehensive Plan identife� this areal 1xed-use planned unit development. He stated that staffs interpretation w `t t> I s type of">would not be inconsistent with the land use designation. He stated that st'wvas>l:earching the"construction possibilities for this site if the zoning was left commercial` He sty# t ,' t zse;>t es of businesses that would fit with the B-2 Zoning District would beg among%` ether thin' grocery store, liquor store, drug store or video store, all uses which ygp. d generate substant` "traffic. He stated that the applicant fix:: y was proposing re -zoning to a residential pe of , and the;s ecific use would generate little traffic. He stated that the access would<'i'taken alof County Road I. He stated that there would be Ace parking situated adjacent to the perAme for rid there would be no access on to Mounds View Driv Ericson s additional cri would need to be requires a that thi : F.perty m in additi_'3< ,specific minimi et t pical criteria addressed for a conditional use, there were sated that one of the criteria was that the side yard setback rirement. He stated that instead of twenty feet, the Code e staed that the minimum lot area requirement is one acre, noting with approximately 1.7 acres. n reviewed the fiv Sri eeria that are present with all Conditional Use Permits. He stated that s <i eels this type of us ;would appear to fit in well with this property as a business/commercial type He stated th :> e subject property is presently vacant, noting that, given its setback from 10, thedemand for the property is minimal. He stated that staff feels this type of higher e a good buffer between the commercial area and the adjacent housing. Commissioner Berke requested clarification of "other group housing" as defined by the Code. Community Development Director Jopke stated that the Code was not specific and therefore left this somewhat to the interpretation of the Planning Commission and the City Council as particular types of housing are presented. He stated that other forms of group housing could be considered under this provision. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 • Page 14 Commissioner Berke asked if the property could be utilized for a halfway house or some other type of group home -without any real changes, if the project was developed, and did not fare well. Jopke stated that this could happen if a conditional use permit amendment was approvedll?,.. he City. He stated that anything that was different would have to be reconsidered by�.e Pla g Commission dx;{f?S, and the City Council as an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Cc nisi ner Berke asked if it would be difficult to disallow another permit, if this Conditit i;;:TJse P. :..already approved. Jopke stated that they would have the opportunity to look as differences 7 ? sing and w 1p the specific impacts might be. He stated that they could�\��Etermine tldifft . of hog t could have more impact on the community and thereforecould n p'e approprta Commissioner Kaden asked if the project could be turned? before the Council, if the housing project failed. Jopke sty in that type of situation would be parking. He stated tha building would be different than those of an assisted,. would be required to meet the Code requirements be consistent. rtments without having to come uld. He noted that an issue la*httrements for an apartment lied that more parking ut the use itself would Milo Pinkerton, the applicant re rese i' MSPyeal >✓t ` :ted that in light of the growing pp p �:: g demand for senior apartments, their co.: : ny was ....'Inching out 'and would be building four similar facilities this year. He stated that th h I no inie -est in gr Fu'p homes or apartments for the general population. He stated that they ha toployedoiarket stud: that determined the need for up to fifty units of housing in the Moulds View area ,that the housing would be assisted living, twenty-four hour care, meal preparation, and at this ability ty also requires state licensure. He stated that the average age of 75 to 80 years. He stated that this was a ,otherwise go into nursing homes. He explained that the e the opportunity to be independent, -with the availability and/or r s dementftg, whic:. medical ..ion." - =,` market wasF ::fir seni replacement o emphasis on this of intensiv Mr. acc i erton stated tha to the property off, terraced, with a ere would be$� sfor staff o-. niors e was to 40, ph discussion with staff they had concluded that it was best to take aunty Road I. He stated the back area of the building would be fenced lis overlooking the baseball field that the seniors could enjoy. He noted drop-off area and handicapped parking stalls in the front, with additional e side and rear of the building. escribed the building. He stated that there would be a living room with a two-story fireplace, and a dining room with a kitchen in the front of the building. He stated that a number of seniors with dementia enjoy walking in loops, and that the design of the floor plan would allow for this type of activity. He stated that the studio apartments would be located on the outside perimeter of the building to provide sunlight and exposure. He stated that there would be a private dining area, an activity center, soda bar, separate pantry for storage, and a separate area for medical prescription dispensation. He provided a brief description of the elevations and general design of the building. • • • • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Berke stated that this type of facility would likely re employees, but noted that even with that many employees, and 48 re members, the available parking would be inadequate. He added that would also be reduced. He stated that given the amours >°fpace indicat overflow into the street and asked if there was room to pr..de more that there was room for the addition of 6-8 more stalls, that theid not be necessary. July 7, 1999 Page 15 Commissioner Berke stated that the site plan indicated 22 parking stalls, and asked how many employees the applicant would be anticipating. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they would be working rotating shifts, but that there would probably be 12-14 at peak times, with an avge of 8-10. 2Rt�V er number of th visiting family the parking space vehicles wou erton Ericson stated that the parking space provided does meet th use. Commissioner Berke stated that his understanding was thai care for senior residential housing, and that at least hay pf the stalls: which would leave very few stalls for visitors. Mr. Pk stated th four unit facilities with 10-11 parking stalls, andi inys st nit facilities w 1�it�.:>�. stated that these numbers were based upon Oiler facilts stated that staff could research what other cities and ither that what the Code requires is in line„,?th the expected de* g than bat indicat to facilities have a greater demand for pr r homes and similar types of facilitie; they coul reflect that. Carol home. Sh that staff wa more employee be utilizin answer that wa s : s time. Hey "..eeigi. e ry problematic foi ire a d be erequirement for this type of as a much higher ratio of ,taken up by the staff, -ad developed twenty- 15-16 parking stalls. He size and their usage. Ericson &in the area utilize, to be certain He stated that if assisted living by the Code requirements for nursing require more parking space and amend the Code to 49 La.:: ive, statedrthat she was employed by a nursing/assisted living II they v*dents in that facility, and 215 to 250 employees. She stated ,W or all a41�.�� t business, and added that the applicant would require ticipateie asked what type of payment provider the facility would ed thathey were researching the matter, but did not have all of the ever, that they were attempting to keep the price range at a rate Mrs. Holden stated that the parking at her place of employment e employees and the family members who visited the residents. olden asked if 11.1, facility would have private rooms. Mr. Pinkerton stated that, at present it gned to .. all private rooms, adding that they may consider some duplex -style rooms, t l e the sharing of some of the corner units. Mrs. Holden asked if they would be c. m ed couples as residents. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they would. Mrs. Holden stated that she ved directly across the street and could see the project from her front door. She stated her support for the project. Mike Grommesh, 2698 Lake Court Drive, stated that a residential facility of some sort in that lot was far preferable to anything else he could think of. He stated that his main concern was the parking issue. He stated that he had three family members in nursing homes, and that parking always seemed Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 • Page 16 to be an issue because there was never enough provided in the original plan. He asked how many square feet the lot and the footprint of the building were comprised of. Mike Lewis, Development Director for MSP Real Estate, stated that the l:t area slightly more than 70,000 square feet, and the footprint of the building was-16,00. #'eet in area. Mr. Grommesh asked how much of this space would be devoted t ,a <;:; king. x> :::. s stated that there M `�Y'a.+ 4, ate. ?f were 23 car stalls, but was uncertain as to the square foot Mr. Gro <tn:quired regardi.zg the size of the individual apartments. Mr. Lewis stated that t ey would `angt :2.90 an20 square feet in area. aa4 Q "' "''``' Mr. Grommesh stated that the entrance was another concer�;3ztr �•,that the intersection of Mounds View Drive and County Road I was a very dangerous one. yY tj be researched very carefully. He asked if there were oeer su comparable in parking that they could look at. Mr. Perton statev of this type in the State of Minnesota. He stated kr v, .re constr Wisconsin, which was not yet completed. Mr. Grommesh asked if the facility would be private y fund tat the traffic concerns should es in Minnesota that are was their first project -a facility in Greenville, ax Increment Funds or other funding would be utilized. Mr. Pinkgtdif stated at the fao4it was completely privately funded. Mr. Grommesh asked the applicapy if he cc neighboring residents' view Mr Pinkertox' imately S room. lined with that wo street. Mr` did not plan t view of the buil Mr this res b rative fen Id probably be s, it may qualify. ould be a 24-hou facility level. ed an assist ow the facility would appear from the the patio itself would be a half -oval shape eight. He stated that there would be a trellis g Grommesh asked how far the patio was from the est distance was approximately 30 feet. He added that they e rear of the building. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the rear at of the front. be classified as a skilled nursing facility. Mr. Pinkerton stated that el less than a skilled facility, but added that with the Alzheimer's stied that the target market had not been fully determined at this time, care facility. Council Member Stigney requested clarification regarding the r. Pinkerton stated that it depended on their market, but it would be living facility, not a skilled nursing facility. He stated that there would be a 'staff, rather than a full-time nurse as a skilled nursing facility might have. Commissioner Stevenson asked if the exterior would be consistent with the senior home located across the street. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the brick would be toned down a bit, and the building would be cream and beige in color with a green roof. Commissioner Stevenson stated that he was concerned that, in light of the senior home located less than a block away, they would have too many incongruent building types in that area. Mr. Pinkerton stated that he would look into that matter. • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Page 17 Commissioner Hegland asked if the residents of the facility would be able to leave the premises. He stated that he was concerned for the safety of the type of residents who would be occupying the facility, in regard to the busy traffic area. Mr. Pinkerton stated that there would be ccfolled access entering and exiting the building and the residents could not leave the pr ises ``but assistance. Commissioner Berke inquired about the time frame for cor tLon of. stated that they planned to commence in the fall, and hope eo open the estimated that the project would take seven months to corlte. Co were the developers of Silver Lake Commons, adding that ifiiis projecas not ye 'greed, adding t quite unsightly. Mr. Pinkerton stated that this was core problems with the development of that location. Commissit of the area was very unsightly, and that if it were any indicate' be very concerned. Mr. Grommesh asked if there was room for the in location and the access at County Road I. Mr,_< to turn around to exit the location. Mr. Grotraith not space as well. Mr. Pinkerton stated thatpically thlOy wou • • Commissioner Miller asked if there residents' rooms. Mr. Pinkerton s in a central location. He statedt and the ret is could sna on a dai Mrs. Holden the numerous iss, the premise that a sib ` a facility in th state . :: ; at t ey now oper inc. '. sed dramatically. a phere, and that t pg. Mr. Pinkerton 0-the spring. sked i ad had e reiterated that the appearance e applicant builds, he would ress of ail i:: rucks at the proposed that the'telivery trucks would have pg'ound would take up parking ne delivery truck a week. be an cilities, sukh as a microwave or refrigerator in the that there prese :ty'considering having all of these facilities a 1 three of the meals would be prepared, At least tzup�€�' Y e centra °'_'t'a He added that activities would be organized applrcant auld be it :L,.be aware if the special diets that might be required, and :04gated. She added that some residents do manage to leave that `t`does occur at the facility on Silver Lake Road. She stated ;#,;;started out as an assisted living facility and did not succeed. She 'nursing home type o act y an a e a e resi entsrent had ated that she hoped the applicant could succeed with the home -like was a definite need in the City for this type of facility. V ' . Member .' ey asked if the applicant, as a developer, was in partnership with anyone, 6 ' , and what their protection was as a developer. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they g'. $;Builder/Owner, and would be partnering with a professional care provider, who they have no 'yet determined. He stated that this will be a party who understands this type of business, and can have their employees run the facility. Mr. Pinkerton stated that within the next two weeks he would like to conduct more research on the parking ratios, and bring that information back to the Commission. He stated that he would attempt to learn more about what the ReaLife Cooperative was planning for their color scheme through Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 • Page 18 consultation with staff, and continue to dialogue with their providers to determine the direction of the level of service for the facility. He stated that he believed this facility met the requirements for setbacks. He added that the use would be appropriate for many different reasons. Hesitated that he would like to know if there were any other issues which he should resear. Commissioner Kaden asked for clarification of the landscaping$ Pinkerton stated that the site plan did not provide a detailed`,; zf.. was to remain on the property as a buffer. Ericson stated that the first step in this process was the cor Use Permit. He stated that the applicant was aware that th ?t iai t x ta11 for a Development Review, which would provide a more in, and parking requirements. He stated that the Council a : ' >omrti to provide greater input, and that there would be amptetitime for Ruth Berke, 2683 Lake Court Circle, aske subject property would remain a senior building, if then Use Permit. She stated that she was conceged that the future due to the changed zonings Ericson stated that the Conditional:="Permit,>ti was changed in the future, and Was sufficien reviewed. <> ated, howet£ if an ap ma's -. .: o ,.;;: added tlt< on ern wasie explain type of us , _ ® r permitt Aw- that if a halfw Use Permit. He that the out."' Peterso ` ated that requi.: ;dents, which wo alas indica. scape pl the site plan. Mr. cated only w at&cl`of the rezoningnnditional have to come before the City t the site plan, landscaping, uld have the opportunity i1ed discussion. e any assurance that the ed to allow the Conditional shelter or a halfway house in 'bid be spOft to this use. He stated that if the use f " similar to the approved use, it would need to be tiding was proposed, it could be allowed, and t the Conditional Use Permit would apply to this puld not come back before the Council. He stated, however, were proposed, it would require a different Conditional ;election provided to the City and the residents. He added jthouti°a Conditional Use Permit is a multi -family dwelling. Chair 4,4tdential uses there would be different parking ratios and other Eftir a review of the permit. erke stated that she -lived in close proximity to the proposed development, and therefore, she ncerned about,at could happen in the future. She asked if any of the Commissioners had the Silv;:,ke Commons site. She stated that she believed this property was setting a d the Commissioners to go to the location to see what could be expected from the y >�Commissioner Stevenson stated that he agreed with Ms. Berke in that this property neede• to be cleaned up. He requested that she also consider that this was the same party who developed Silver Lake Pointe, the 83 unit senior facility directly across the street from her residence. Ms. Berke stated that this facility was very nice. Chair Peterson stated that they should address the proposal to change the property from a commercial to a residential use. He stated that the property had been vacant for quite some time and asked if a • • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Page 19 commercial enterprise at that location would be viable and desirable for the City and immediate neighborhood. Ericson stated that the owner of the property has been actively seeking a developer for this site over the years, and that the parcel has not yet been sold. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was a member of the Mounds# t d New Brighton Chamber of Commerce, and that a great amount of discussio s taken p c y arding the subject ' ' '» property. He stated that no developers would consider the � pert y un it Update �`;tr` ` * ` A P rehensive P Update was completed. He stated that there have been a lo: of proposal-s that : and that he is not in favor of 'down -zoning' at all. Ericson; tated thathe was n :: <; a :.; at this Air proposal could be considered down -zoning but agreediu 'vas an issue tha lice taken into consideration. Commissioner Hegland inquired about any liability thate Cit for this type of usage, because of the safety considerations in regal' stated he would like further examination of the sa ety isstt . the � x' r> `>:i s of this buildingas opposed Commissioner Berke asked about the differ..bee in th��a�:`>.;�ry�tez.. pp to a commercial type business. Ericson st ed that a < :his po e4ax generated from the property was fairly insignificant. He added tl•t they viftild lookterthe difference that a commercial endeavor would generate. Commist Berke4 tated that ` assumed the tax base of the proposed development would generate cons] erably m, that a v :.: eo store. Commission' •: aden stated : n: his opini t tie<.=>t %of Mounds View already had a large amount of high- Sz:::. i lential de I pwept, and a ttitfgh this current proposal for this property was not an apartapartm it could I t ecome that in the future as a result of changing the zoning. �{ �...."` '`` -ding any more R-4 zoning to the City. He stated tha'� ��'t'servatio 1?1~;��. Chair Peter ; `e` >' `'e as notttotally convinced that a commercial use was not an option at that loc.:: but that so :.::_: intense would be more desirable. He stated that if this location was : n area t a prodestination traffic, it might be viable for a commercial venture. He re s: ;.�Mted clarification r rding the suggestion that the Comprehensive Plan update had deterred d :6 opment, noting th, spontaneous Comprehensive Plan revisions have occurred in response to c development quests in certain areas. • Commissioner Johnson stated that the uncertainty ed with t elrocess was a deterrent to developers. Chair Peterson stated that if there is an ie current and proposed Comprehensive Plan, and the current zoning, this should ay of a particular development proposal from progressing. Commissioner Johnson agree , ut stated that the proposals for commercial development were not progressing. Ericson stated that staff required specific direction on how to proceed. He stated that the date of the public hearing had not been set yet, although it was planned for the July 26 Council meeting. He stated that staff needed to know if the Commission felt that a recommendation could be made at the next Planning Commission meeting, or if the public hearing should be set for the first Council meeting • Or as a result of rezoning fi and the residents. He Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 • Page 20 in August. He stated that if there was a consensus among the Commissioners, staff could draft a resolution, which could be completely re -drafted at their next meeting if necessary. Commissioner Stevenson requested information on the difference betwee_: the versus a B-2 development. Ericson stated that staff could provide that): t "Woon. ` ase for an R-4 Chair Peterson stated that another issue is the intensity of t ei`use, and a ; t p his opinions. less intensive use than B-2 commercial would be more curable at t lot : t mmissio t rs Miller and Stevenson stated that they agreed. Cha< 'eterscz:: 'requested t?': > rom Commissioner Kaden regarding his view on R-4 zoning.'. ner Kaden staftdllis vie w was not specific to this proposal, but a general observation. llkt however, that this proposal did seem like a lower intensity use of the property than a comercomme A regard to traffic, and that at this point he was undecided. Commissioner Stevenson asked what percentage oft:> .`rgay in the it is non-i nta1 He stated that this proposal would not be the same as an al) _. < e t ng nottn that primarily, what they ' l i h a h t they were trying to avoid. have in Mounds View R-4 districts are r�#al units t:��'.;.;::. Commissioner Stevenson stated that he did not think the sub tperty would be very conducive to that type of change. Ericson statedthat it wuid not meet°"any of the Building or Fire Code requirements. Commissioner Johnson Ated that would 1c to see a List of businesses that would be acceptable at that location, noting;that the e were a n er of low -density businesses that could work at that location as well Chair P :. <'::ted that _ nnea t they had only a general consensus among the Commissioners. Ericsonli ea. should raig 1 n the public hearing July for the 26 Council Meeting. Commissione t' 1 ted yes*. Mr. Pinkerta: ublicgearing could be set. Ericson stated that it was a matter of et blic and havingtime to send the notice to the newspaper, sending per notificatr`ai��?,� enough g whit .:e uires a seven-da:: _ :: ', "ce in addition to the legal requirement of ten days. He stated that he d set the public henggf"or the August 9th City Council meeting, and that staff would continue t• earch the issues, a4.4...h44.,4.i bring them forward at the next Planning Commission meeting. inning Case No. SP-072-99 Consi eration 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 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: July 7, 1999 Page 21 Staff has issued a building permit to Kraus Anderson to do interior remodeling worvithin Silver View Plaza, located at 2540 Highway 10, for private educational institution Caly subject property is zoned B-2, Limited Business, which does not speci j cademy. The it such a use. Ericson stated that, as the Planning Commission was awa; one of the `" ;with the Cit Zoning Code is its rigidity. He stated that each district ha ▪ pecific s .i fuse me : es re - >ed to as a "laundry list" of uses, yet since it is impossible to include eve .; _possible app op t ; there is often the need to make interpretations. Ericson stated th minate any subseq „_ uestions regarding this type of use, staff proposes that it be added t"' f permitted uses within the B-2 district. If no action is taken, Calvin Academy would -0 function by virtue of an administrative Code interpretation rather than by an ex cit refs f the Code. He.stated that stafffelt it would be more -appropriate to amend the ZoningCode. He stated at if the Commission concurs, staff recommends that they approve Resolution99, a resolutionwhi▪ ch recommends to the City Council that they adopt Ordinance 6 Ericson stated that the Calvin Academy pl ed to open their, ;:aciI ffy the fall of 1999. He explained that this is an accredited institution in h the students are taught on an individual basis. He stated that these may be exceptional or . stude specialneeds students, or students who require additional tutorage. He stated th ct . e schools not p,rc posing to have any more than thirty-six students. Commis t4 ke in�q students . from t girding the aeY'range of the students. Ericson stated that the rten through the twelfth grade levels. Commissioner `> %a.d that"erase "private educational facilities" indicated that the amendment t `' _" <; :anot b h sited to this particular school. Ericson stated that this was correct. . �mmissioner : sd =°eked if this would apply to a school of dance: Ericson stated that it wou g . n . a• . e s t at i <<: <: a so app y o businesses sucha-s-th-e-karat Sq , Community Edukftion and others educational facilities. ssioner Hegland ed where they were proposing to have physical education. Ericson stated s time, i I proposed to be off site. He stated that they had an agreement with Roseville ''unity gym and playground, and that there would be some type of van to transport that_ location. Commissioner Hegland asked where the students would have their lunch, anif they would be permitted to leave the premises. He noted that children of this age group would require recreation. Ericson stated that he assumed the students would have their lunch on -site, and that there were presently no plans for a recreational area at the facility. Commissioner Miller asked about businesses that would be displaced by this particular school. Ericson stated that through discussion with representatives of Kraus -Anderson, this particular spot Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 • Page 22 in the building had encountered some difficulty being leased, due to its limited visibility. He stated that he was not aware of any businesses that would be displaced, adding however, that staff would research the matter. Chair Peterson stated that the Commission should determine whetl:> ot the ordinance amendment was the proper way to proceed. He inquired regg the ""`f s five interpretation FS' of the Code, which would allow the matter to proceed witl st amendin :•< Ericson stag that staff interpreted that this use was sufficiently similar nth the pur ". _ ::. :t.f this z g district, and had issued a building permit to Kraus -Andy . n to perform the intelr;: this lease. Chair Peterson asked about the current language oft ; and its relativil >pes of businesses that Ericson had indicated. Ericson stated, a e proposed amendment was the result of this particular use, it would also apply to instructsop >`ucational types of uses which the Code had not previously addressed. 4; Chair Peterson noted that B-2 zoning is intended.::; presently he could not think of any higher type :el` than that intended by B-2 requirements. ated thi allow additional uses which are reasonabl >and logical Commissioner Hegland asked if th. ;ere an regard to play areas, and parking 1 1:that the and Johnson stated that they dot beliq Commissio& Johnson d"ti3at, in h Commis:::.: yy:... er state that the was adding that th at times when safety issue Co faci Toner Braathen s s, and that the Cos s are the responsil} red by the lessor allowing ar, x,v ntensity re i =service. He stated that from ; $ ivate educational facility 'r of cleaning up the Code to additionaliyquirements on educational facilities in ►lnmissioatwas not aware of. Commissioners Miller sues should be the Commission's concern. #''this would be the school's responsibility. amendmen w s intended for private facilities, not public, and ool. Commissioner Hegland stated that he did not agree, :generate large amounts of traffic at this type of location, resent. He stated that he was concerned in regard to the this proposal provides businesses the opportunity to run their own lion should not attempt to run these businesses. He added that these sty of the school. Chair Peterson added that the responsibility would also ommissioner Hegland stated that he did not agree, and that he was not in viols in B-2 designated areas. ND: Stevenson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 585-99, a Resolution which Recommends Adoption of Ordinance 632, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to Permitted Uses within the B-2, Limited Business Zoning District, Special Planning Case No. SP-072-99. Ayes-7 Nays — 1 (Hegland) The motion carried. • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Page 23 9. Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99 Consideration of a proposed ordinances amending Chapter 1008 of the Code pertaining to Billboards and amending the Code pertaining to signag districts. Community Development Director Jopke stated that thp, Planning Commission continue to look into and make redq, the sign ordinance. He stated that these amendment were of the community, and to allow signs in the PF (P Recreational and Preservation) zoning districts. Jopke stated that he had drafted two ordinances to matters. He stated that the first ordinance de; discussions with a representative from thiliboard�. {` ordinances from the Cities of Minneapoll'_ `and St. ,ul. Hj #hat he had discussed the issues with Mike Cronin, a consultant r..::tsenting }<t'e billboZ1 industry, and had considered his suggestions when drafting the or d i e. Hero` vided **Commission *Commission with ' copy of the draft ordinance, and reviewed its com ounds ew Municipal 4 and CRP zoning N7 ty Coucil had requ a the cations concernin <drnents to united billboards in certain areas and CRP (Conservancy, Jopke stat.. x R . t the ord na one spa ::::;; <;`1 e ease if granted, c1e when state permits tve €1 obtained nning C ion discussion of these his_t rdinance was drafted after n. er reviewing state rules and empts to%p" `all of the billboard standards and regulation in ;ration. ated that the Conditional Use Permit for billboards, 54, gig! lease expired, and would be null and void if any required Jopke stated l tl ,quire Tents, pursuant to Council direction, were defined as the City along>'of Highway 118. He stated that billboards should be oriented to ys 118 or 35W jIItieast 250 feet from residentially zoned property. He adde tat rds could be locat with zero setback from streets, but may not overhang the right-of-way. stated that one a suggestions for the spacing of billboards was 1500 feet measured along e same r,: ay. He stated that he had discussed the matter with John Hammerschmidt who 1000-foot separation would be preferable to maximize the number of potential bil He stated that the maximum area of signs should be 700 square feet, but that temporary extensions would be allowed, as long as they don't exceed 25 percent of the sign area or certain dimensions. He stated that these requirements are based on standard billboard sizes and practice, and consistent with requirements in other communities. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 • Page 24 Commissioner Miller stated that if something projected six feet above the top, it would be almost as high as the billboard itself. She asked what might project six feet from the top of the billboard. Chair Peterson stated that he had most commonly seen a face, with the top of the head prpjpcting above the main area of the billboard, noting that generally this projection was not wide 4 ie body of the billboard itself. Jopke noted the requirement that billboards have no more :.aiftwo face parallel, or angled no more than 35 degrees. He stated that; staff had re'ewe' requirements for billboards, and that staff suggested the Aximu height be se consistent with the maximum height limits for other types rpig ck to back a um h ch is Jopke stated that staff had indicated a requirement that billbc obstruct traffic signs or drivers vision. He stated that they included a provision to clar.,:k the st�s;;:'t�n-conforming billboards, indicating that any billboard in existence can continue, dd the messy nge, but the billboard cannot be expanded." Jopke stated that the final ordinance prov'Yt n was 1r" `ton 1008.11 that is labeled as signs and billboards, but the section d s strictly si a ances. He stated that staff had amended the title to reflect the ordinan :x .:<? sues. H : Mated that copy of the draft ordinance had been forwarded to the City Attorney's offtr `` nd comrnt. He added that, as requested by the :<:revie.... Commission, he had asked the Q ttorney ;' sugges f ;.'me "sunset" language that would allow the code to revert back to its#present form takies not allow any billboards. Jopke s' s e seco t,An ' `" ';j ac ee amend lt ent allows and sets standards for signs in PF and CRP zoning dis ;`` e oted th I e 1 1'.ent code does not list .any permitted signage or standards in;_ either of thee'» "` tq t =The r - i r :..=ce allows signs consistent with neighborhood business districts and wit... 1 sign r urments in Section 1008.01, Subdivision 6 in the PF and CRP ar districts. J. :: sty<.::t is was2acipen for discussion. He stated that the amount of signage `;' a He Hated that exist' allowe „::tip.>��s � mg signage at parks in a neighborhood setti .*Appears to range`iirxti ""to 20 square feet total sign area, while the main City Hall sign is ap N;imately 128 squ fi✓et in area. He stated that the total freestanding signage in at the C ` unity Center appe:s to be approximately 90 square feet. Jopke stated that he had requested J: �;° ammerschmidt o inventory the signage at the golf course, and added that the issue of the oning of . if course required further investigation. J•p;°: s > ` .t formal action on this matter would be premature at this point, but requested that the Panning Commission discuss the draft ordinances, and suggest any changes that may be necessary. He added that the Commission should also discuss what kind of public input process should be utilized. He stated that the Planning Commission would be requested to make a formal recommendation on the ordinances to the City Council at a future meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Page 25 Chair Peterson stated that PF and CRP designations indicate the purpose of the signage as they relate to the specific use of the property and allow no signage that relates to anything else. He stated that he thought this would apply to the City parks and other City owned properties. Heggested that language be added to indicate this purpose for the signs. Commissioner Miller noted the requirement for PF and CRPASignati.:...::t total square feet, and that the current signage at City Hall already exceeds rmount. 'ye.ted clarificati Jopke referred to Section 1008.01 Subdivision 6 which allcrs addition:: ee-desta,. pe signs, which would cover the additional amount of signag He suggested that t':> ': was to attempt to keep the regulation of signs simple and col* Otertain areas, b ey could consider different signage regulations for other situations` ity Hall and City parks. Commissioner Miller stated that staff had indicated tlt commercial or industrial zoned properties, and asked 1.w that this was an issue that the billboard compa°• philosophy of the City was that they woulclr appropriate, and that the billboard companiestfould has; ; � that the billboard companies would hre to obtin requirements, and that there was no grantee t}t>"this coup Council Member Stigney noted message changed as long as Paul had prr affect t had ruled t' d an ordin... Jopke could no em 9, whi e not ex liminate ,staff coi only grant a permit in ['poposal. Jopke stated s. He stated that the `reflect what they feel is those standards. He added ry permits to meet the state e "done. ndicatestat billboards can be maintained and the hated that he had heard that the city of St. Sat s within five years, and asked how this might esearch the matter, adding that a recent court case le uses in that manner. Commissioners'"J, in ligl4t'le present proposal, how the billboard was allowed at the Rent -All b 4i s3 y :ed that this billboard had been in place for some time, and he was ��;t:..»::»:; Er: t. .0 � . L , off.. , uncerta; f the ordina Ct gments at the time it was constructed. He stated that staff had a copy The lease and coup wer `- quired to come be e not permitted at tus of all existi eh the matter. Commissioner Braathen asked ifbillboard projects teIe Planning Commission, prior to construction. Jopke stated no, that s point in time. He stated that staff could review the matter to determine A;billboards in the City. igney noted Item 4, which indicated the spacing of billboards to be at 1500 feet roadway. He asked if this meant that there could be one billboard immediately across a roaway from another billboard. Jopke stated that this was a possibility. Chair Peterson asked if the language could be amended to indicate that both sides of the roadway would be taken into consideration. Commissioner Johnson suggested that the language could indicate "on either side of the roadway" and "1500 feet from any other sign." • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 • Page 26 Jopke stated that, as the billboards would have to be on City owned property, the City would ultimately have control over their location. He stated that staff would continue to work with the City Attorney, and report back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. 10. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Jopke reported on June 28 and July 6. B. Meiho Lee Subdivision Update Planning Associate Ericson reported that staffwas c3 into research<> drainage issues relating to the Meiho Lee Subdivision. He stated that, the rQ ' rs south of the subject property do not appear to support this proposal, due to thop possible ffinage, and the possibility of flooding in this area. He stated that ores of the propertyryt4fo the south of the applicant's property who owns a through -lot, indicated that h� would note agreeable to giving consent to allow .�ram'. for a drainage way through his pro �.fit .to directhe run -onto the wetland. Ericson stated that he Agiv had spoken with the applicant w :..4s aware" at this matter might take some time to resolve. He added that when further infor nat :n comes . € <lanning Commission, staff would notify the property o t`r who indi ,at they vv t yl t eato attend the discussion. ell actions from their eting on Planning Assoc' Planning C.„_ Conditi..:l1.Jse Perini tses / Public Hearings in reported!that there would be many planning cases coming before the s'deratIbn in the future. He stated that there were currently two. or oversize garages, and a request from Holiday Station. Stores for a nditional Use P:;:: ;1operate an outdoor produce stand. He added that there was a we d alteration permi :eqnest and vacation of a drainage and utility easement, which were P ` g- Chairper wand Planning Commissioners Reports its were considered. 12. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m. • • • July 7,1999 Page 27 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.