HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-1999 AO
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
August 4, 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. July 7, 1999
5. Planning Case No. 566-99
Property Involved: 2809 Woodale Drive
Discussion regarding a conditional use permit request to construct a 1,296 square-foot
garage.
Applicant: Tim Skeate
6. Planning Case No. 559-99
Property Involved: 2670 County Road I
Discussion concerning application to rezone property and for a conditional use
• permit for an assisted living senior residential facility
Applicant: MSP Real Estate
7. Planning Case No. 565-99
Property Involved: Lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square (Pinewood Circle)
Discussion concerning a request to vacate a portion of a drainage easement and
request to allow for the construction of two single family homes via a wetland
alteration permit
Applicant: Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land Development
7. Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99
ConsiderationConsiei—d—trior—Tof 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.
8. Staff Reports/Items of Information
a. Previous Council Action
9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
10. 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
August 4, 1999 S
AGENDA SESSION
AGENDA
1. Review Minutes --July 21, 1999
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1999\8-4-99.REG
•
•
4
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Meeting Date: August 4, 1999
Staff Report by: James Ericson,Planning Associate
Planning Case No.: 566-99
Request: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a
576 square-foot addition to his existing 720 square-foot garage.
Petitioner: Tim Skeate
Location: 2809 Woodale Drive
PIN No. 07-30-23-31-0019
Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential
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.
111 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. 1 e: 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
Background:
2809 Woodale Drive is located south of Highway 10, two properties west of Silver Lake Road.
• The area of the subject property--an interior lot--is approximately 16,200 square feet. The house
and garage are set back approximately 60 feet from the street, with the detached garage situated
alongside the house to the east. The house, at approximately 400 square feet, is much smaller
I
Skeate CUP Request
2809 Woodale Drive
August 4, 1999
Page 2 •
than the existing two-stall garage, which is 720 square feet. The applicant proposes to construct
a 576 square-foot addition to the rear of the garage, maintaining the same width and roofline of
the existing garage.
Analysis:
A Conditional Use Permit is required due to the size of the proposed garage. The size of the
proposed garage would be 1,296 square feet, which would be three times the size of the house.
The Planning Commission and City Council have in the past been very concerned about this type
of imbalance. A garage is intended to be an accessory structure to service the principal dwelling,
not the dominating feature of the property. A garage of this size, were it to be built, would appear
out of place and obtrusive, in staff's opinion.
Dimensional Criteria
While the size of the garage with respect to the home appears to be excessive, 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 garage after the proposed addition would be about 53 feet from the rear
property line and 5.5 feet from the east property line. The total square footage of the garage and
proposed addition is 1,296 square feet, which would comprise about 16 percent of the rear yard •
area. The maximum coverage allowed is 20 percent.
Adverse Effects
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, 2809
Woodale Drive, as high-density residential. The existing use is not compatible with the
land use designation, yet this will be corrected with the updated comprehensive plan.
Garages and other types of accessory structures like sheds and tool buildings are allowed
and expected in this district, yet a garage that is triple the size of the house may be
inconsistent with the second residential goal, which states: "Preserve the identity and
improve the quality and appearance of existing residential neighborhoods." Staff feels that
this proposal would not improve the quality and appearance of the neighborhood.
2. The Geographical Area Involved.
4. The Character of the Surrounding Area •
Skeate CUP Request
2809 Woodale Drive
August 4, 1999
Page 3
In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are as large or larger than the subject
property. There is a good mix of architecture present in the neighborhood, with some of
the houses being older and some newer. The subject home, however, is much smaller than
those in the immediate area. Many homes in this area have large garages yet they do not
appear out of place because the houses are larger as well. While a larger garage could be
accommodated on the subject property, it would not be proportionally consistent with the
house.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
It can be generally assumed that adding to the existing garage would have a positive
impact on the value of the subject property. It is not known whether a garage three times
larger than the home would have a negative monetary impact upon the neighborhood,
even though it may be visually obtrusive.
5. The demonstrated need for such a use.
The existing garage--at 720 square feet-- is considered fairly typical by today's standards.
While it does not have access for three vehicles, there is ample work area and supplemental
• storage space beyond that space needed for the vehicles. However with multi-car families
being the norm rather than the exception, demonstrating the need for additional garage space
becomes less of an issue.
In staff's opinion, this proposal does not satisfy the adverse effects criteria.
General CUP 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 the existing 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.
ar CITY CIF
MOM] * COIVIMITNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
• DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
"•,, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55I12
��$''I_'Parme41Qt 612-717-4020
612-784-3462 -FAX
Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form
Applicant Information ,-
Name of Applicant /Inp Skect7COTelephone , - 7/7%92v2)
Address 2d� (1)00),Ve. 13/. Fax
thais4PS `r€;,J ,4i 53 'z
Interest in Property(check appropriate box)
❑ Owner of Property Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase
❑ Other(explain)
Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the
property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The
property owner must sign thisapplication for it to be accepted.
• Property Description/Proposal
Address or General Location . .,07 tx p J4){ or.
Legal Description i-!II i 1 eAlee j'r Afo Y c'0 t
Property Identification#(PIN#) 6 7-7,0 -21- 37 i 6 tl Y.-9
#of Acres )4.
• Current Zoning at-jiae f4t- � �- -1
Type of Application
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250
❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500
❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit*
❑ Minor Subdivision $200
❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) •Refer to rezoning fees
❑ PUD Amendment $350
Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-til all others$250 .
•
❑ Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250
❑ Code Appeal $100
❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750
❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200
❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100
❑ Floodplain Permit $200
❑ Other
• *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review,
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 IIII
❑ Undeveloped/Vacant X. Single Family Dwelling
❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling 0 Multi-family Dwelling n O
O Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment I`, `,,
❑ Other(explain) ,I(.2.-,f.
7.
Property Classification ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens
Desai id=of Propos��al �rCJit 1P �.,•+/j�e .To ���
r- J 4PPf Th', 4 C •2-.. ,
-A." • -,- C; ♦ -e' a a+' i 10' ( /V ./r ' .i-�
S lo fel. r toc..1 ..c.ae_ pJ e/-'lam.v Ai t 11f.+� y,{111 A•l C_ i/T tp,e Z-� I7'�.a..J
)
• 1i/ //3 Q /.41L/J 4/S0 - 'e #"br in .
1
BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE ACCURATE.
•
Signature of Applicant e •
n/
Name of Applicant(typed/printed) //i"'t •Leedri—C—
Signature of Property Owner •1:1i- III
.....
Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) 7774-1 S/e.‘t T-e-
Address of Owner
Phone Number of Owner
************************************************************************************************
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Submittal 7- 9 f
Date of Acceptance 7—A l. q 7' Assigned to:
Planning Case No. 60-day Limit 120-day limit
Fees Pad: <Account# Check2# Receipt# •
Application: J5 00 /04 3:1 1 Je qg zQX'493
Park Dedication:
Deposits:
Other: III
•
• Total:
1/98
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORIvtS\D EVAPP.FOR
/'FVJ
jI_
IIso
._ _. ... _ _ _.,..- - . .. - 74001 ;tt1ffiif
a 73817382- 7395 .ry_ _ 7390 N <
>5 7350 7365 1 7360 7375 t ----
-----1 7378 H'DG .LN c
".........._._.r_.,.._..,,t....,.-...r.._ _ f 7350 737• (X N 1 n
1 I173'• 7347 AJ 34• 7373 \2 _._ / •
7370 d 735 0 �
• 5' ` 7344 n 7
13.26 3Z; .� M� 736§, -_
33 o n rn 325! N N V.-8,,,,,j-- .7.„,,/ 7338 01, 7:
u) ! 811 o M N r 0 0 7317 Ufa .....__,. A., h)2 N • • 1
0 0 0 1 o€ o ! 0 0 0 o, m ,0 1 ,. '^"? M ''� t
M M M M M t Ni N N N N 315Ncv:Ncv N( Ni
o C RD R-2
PO
O g fi M N 2 Q S N i tr0 ! O T et 7295 M N
"� 1 N o w E 038; ; B_1 N Cy-
( mirror"
M i M M ` ►� N N N t N N , N N coN Ni CON N N , N
t SI i s.
1_,...„ I i j ` -17'x 18 185
. . _ p 51785177
_ �.". -- a
7234 7237 p
i 7226 7225 5170 5175
1 " 7200 7215719.: 517 517
f 1 , i 7188 7191 R-4 517 5171
7172 7180
7151 w5175169 •
o) i I 7150 S I
If) ^ 5 5167
16
O O - ._M. M N Co" O Z
N c o al rn S 7111! N N N U N 00 5166 5165
0 M "' WOODALE DR g 516415163
M o,) . O I N d' N 1 di 1 tD 1 8
o d �h ' `'� N 7 i 00 ''' N 0 I 5 1 62151 61
• , co 0 N 4,4
N N 709 N o N N 1709• i
_ ,1•1 (o t S S ? 7094 W p " WOODALE I
N; t �' i r'-- ._.-."..... �.._0 708 € s •
7092 Q "1 " JJ 7090 — _" _ iii 5143
7082 l �- 707 I .a......
7095 f5139
t 7074 0- _ r !
r)6. 1• 7072 7069 �.- ."`"" " Y 70631 7060 -- ,.> 0 n 0to ,5133
7054 7057 �� --- -� 7031 N N . N °D 0 CREST ..12g
7034 70
Zii2
` WOODCREST PARK 5116
-".. - - _ • I M N I `rD , N ,N 5113
` 000 N N N N N • Pr N 5107
7006 »701 1 N ~ _..T sCO
v�
6986 69.1 2940El 0 509 5091 5092 ,N►-_`".. N 5969 '."" --- -.l 5086 5085c) 5086, 508; .
6970 697 2932Timyari� r
Z __ L� • 6960 50E 5079 5080 507f
6952 6953 _ N 'It! 2 695• 6951 1 5075071 507 5071
1 N N N 6940 506 5065 5066 506;
6942 6939 _ 6945 T 06:
50608 5060 505
6928_ 6929 N I k co , ! N 1 r. o 0 50545053 O 505411505:
6900 O lIllJ 1 •p N N N N; N # N_11 CO 1 N N N 5046 5045 5046!504:
• —1b_` . . _H .
Zoning Map Planning Case 566-99
Applicant: Skeates Conditional Use Permit
Location: 2809 Woodale Drive N4
i
City of Mounds View
Location Map S
iik/
I , 11 H %► ‘ -_ iN
•
_ I imam
ii• II
Iaj_ ,,.III ..
, _ 111111 .. ..:
111111111ln ----- 71 fflThTiI
—�soIMIM MC
I I I moo
I , I IIJJ
�■� III4g4• ; v
Nwirwitcik 1,4 �- IN
or
_ —
iv
■ — —� - --OM ____
/—' _ NM
MIME I—( I. 1 I —
II. __
_ ,
_ _
• i=--- F:•=1=L= Air ill
i i zi-: Sig k
._..
;;T........ n----..- , ll, Tim Skeate
' MR /1i/ =_=1
==I " 2809 Woodale Drive
.mi
'1111/111=- 0
41 :,._ _ 1 111,. •2• •• _ se Permit
a/IIIII� ��I/■ IMI���•y=:" 11111111
,Il;7„7.11,c;_,_ .1;.-111 1 Planning Case No. 566-99
NmEam � L
311111331
■-I--_ 1- 1� .''11111111 111111111111
_ •• . iilniuunnn�nuuuuu
1■r■/ ' ,v iiiiiiii1n1U111u11111uumi
■�•: . , , 4111''1 1111111111111111
■ ..... 11..713{""'Sump,u 1111111111111111
111111111111
-- 'Mai'ILT&N 10'1'' - - 0 - 2809 Woodale Drive
III, � 11.1:: er=
a 'm Icy-, ,.� - -�a�/_
.1„_. ';- ►••;••�i�l ��==_uullmmml Properties Within 350'
ii ; � _ :M1u11mn1
c.
IIIITIHIM,-..p.:77 7:::= •_ =mmmmlil
rail 7''''Ir=laniii '...7;p
111 E ii Mn
pill::11111 ®FH ' - <s?\)Al
III kl:5111; b> . 1I -AMM @ .:
0
•
Pirda
r..:
•
•
Customer: Application:
Job: By: Date:
• • ' . , . , , . . . _ , , .�., :
- . _ .. ..
.
2 - . . .. , a , . , r F •- -• e r T , {, ...,,-,,. . . -t ,#.,. : . , rJM. ' i
+ '' r G, , • • ' t •• ti a '• ,%.?L . e • . • . Y i' F i . f i . i 1; t i .,
.r. # , , .. , 9 . . 4. 1 . i • 1,. . I t .. .- .i.t i .. ., .. ...„
, - , 1,, , t , . 1 , : ' _ . i i a 1' _ 1-a 1" ,'•, t. i •r F 1 . . , ; • f � a .,i.. .4
•
,
{ , I 1 T ' s f- ; i ri •• • i • 1 .. fr iia .2 1'iJ- a .
t _ , , • : i ., i '` • . ., t • t . ;• t, f 4 - w 4 11--.----.....9....,--.•-•,:-.4.......r...;•••;.........
/ ' . .. . ,. i. i . i• '. . 1 ^i•:5'I, -; r.
.
+. uw, i..,?....,,.,5�www..w..... S _ u --.- ,..?+.r.n.w,.....w<.-.. r ....u, v'
' 1 _ .
3
•
rwrP..^..w,.w.,..»nv ,..vern,......*-ax...- ', • ..L•.wu„-,u.w. t.. uv a.,.. .. t ' .,w..a•R .,t,..-.. :a1./...Y„,,k1 w.w,:vro•,u.,%.,•••Lt...,
0 •Y . ... : , Y. „ • . . i
4 ,` > ' GARDE- i
:,.,....:..,, ' . ...X71: .,..K...:...;,v,..�,„ t • ..:. _... ,M „i., j" ,• 1 :�w»
•
z t • I
..n.: ,y" • .„.....,µ......a..r.,,,,.vw•yn.asrw t ..,•!..4.0..'.k..wr»rLtT-+aL.w , .A..»,�+r+,wr,w...-'.h...t.,Wdw.mw..o'..t, e.y--,r'•{. N ,
I . ' '. ' , , , r _ «.w,.r....,,3 i . ' i ! , t} • t.5,64 .h �m.,•.wr.var...v.,�...w. i.:'....,M.y.w'.,.•
jj4# 7 t'.
4. 1 .L.•♦ i , , ' . , . . 4 • L . , A _ . , i : 7 , , i. : • 4 , , .. .4 • i `.f ;' , t t t I. t. . • , ' ,
•, 1 • , r i , . t, , , a .. i- 1 , a t. ;. i ht--, { : 5 ; Y i • r , i .
-i• t - 1 , , . i. , ; 4. . 1 , , s .j. ..i & , .i..L v......;;)4.....::47
_ ;e��. • i' f •t
. e
: f
.1 • r i ( . - ' - 1 • - k 't • yi- 1 1 ti C ' t . f i
• t . ,
} , 1.. x , _. . q • . .. , • iL ; ia : - i. } : q4 . 1. i : , iii Lii , _ , , i . , " i . - , ,
,
., 5 , - , i r t •'it , i11'44
•i t. Y._ 1 .1.1 , f • ! e ,• i. , I , ,f _ . 1
-- .. -
..„..u..r.w,'.,.,..r,,,..-r,wewn ...+r
.,.+ ,..,. w.wv. ww. ,.
L'• .m..,;41 .lrw.iwR` i 1 a ,»'_'". ..,-,-.tu.t.•...ww.'nw.a.,,M,.W+,---i-u.T-T,,,•,4e-rM+ .... '+ ^
•., „ '..
, .. 4..•i. i . i. . '- , - •. L ; . . , a 1 i 1 t .$..i. .{ Y d- , i i ' w is .F , . 4 _ -
.i .i .i 1- • ; r - r ., T i - i.{. 1 yY , ' 1 r , '; : . ._rT.1- , , ,
y t„f. r 4 i i. i i : .1 ;..i ;. 11,-; i- 1. '. 2 : 1. 1, 1. ,. �. t + i i• ..4._1. +..t,L.4 < , . : ,
i • .t.. ' .i ; .t : . 1 i'_i . j 1. .t : i 4 i' x .f. , ,' j . . r.�...�..1...i--5:. ... , , •
.1 . { : r • i , i ,. i i. : L i t 1. i _ 4 1. i i 1 , . ,• 1 .• 's a ' .7.._l...1,. i v , t _ , . _ . , .- ,
1. . , t• ? t i. , t. 1 f. r t :.• i. , .i t F r 1. .is . i , i t'_j_..1,_ .•-•i,. _ _ - i
• ,' ,. L ! i
1 f i i i•,i 4 7 .J .: ; j _Z ,,. 8 . ._ aw .,,a3n,q-
a ' 1 r t ; t _i • 1 y- 1 1 t f t
ii . H j ,t..L f i t, i.- • L 6 u - t • 1 1 • • e , 'i L ;
,.
f i if .• i L 4 • , . 1 i s i. i t t , _ 4 , , . , • i r ,
• .
7 .. • L , t .. . • i F 4. .. ., , , . 4 .
•
W , ' -
,•, i f • , f 1. , i i. •1 , - . , i- _ f F i• - a i . . . . - . • . . - 7 . ' i ,
$ -, • i f $ ` t - . 1 t s i .. ', , J F,1. { i 1 t - i . . S -' ,. t
.• t • 'F i - , . r ... . . „ . _ ' , , ? } t , . j I + _ ? . , , , ' . t . , , , ' ' . ' ' ,
SPEC SHEET of UNISTP;UT NORTHERNi
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
• To: Mounds View Planning Commission,
From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
Subject: Planning Case No. 559-99: MSP Request for Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit at
2670 County Road I
Date: July 29, 1999
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission has discussed the proposed rezoning and conditional use permit at
2670 County Road Ito allow an assisted living senior residential facility at the last two meetings.
The Planning Commission has asked the developer to provide additional information about the
type of facility it will be,parking requirements and staffing levels. Attached are copies of
additional information that staff has received from the developer since-the last meeting as well as
the previous staff report on this matter. Staff will be attempting to contact other cities and report
our findings to the Planning Commission at the August 4th meeting.
REQUESTED ACTION:
• 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 18, 1999.
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\7-29-99.MEM
•
WAVJUL, 28. 1999;; 2;23P F&L 319 7193 AfilmN0. .16)9.:-. �P. 2/6 tF;';.
MSP
real estate incorporated •
FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER
TO: tCu. , f5Ike DATE: 2. S J L't 149.1
COMPANY; ► TIME: 2 : 6 S--
FAX #: j2/Z• ` / . 3142 PHONE#:
RE; ad�S c-r,n PAGES: Se— -iktutpING COVER
r, q Qc.w.J d G 14-17+
FROM: M t Y. (A1-1&(
PHONE*: (612) 337-5144, ext. 7-•*
MSP REAL ESTATE&CONSTRUCTION,INC. FAX#: (612) 336-4565
DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
tEAS REQUESTED U FOR REVIEW / COMMENT
O FOR YOUR INFORMATION U REVISION OF DOCUMENT/LETTER
U OTHER •
HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA:
U U.S. MAIL ❑ MESSENGER VIA
U OVERNIGHT VIA ❑ OTHER
Fb NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW
REMARIR:
1 ctL,
c--
RA
R.I 4 : • s 4, C w
mar
e 45TP C e /40,10-h d(, AI. At s'1.o Lt v1.3 El e t o-rn
Ht ��R�ry �NCc.ari.1) SrtS .t.1G Ar 3
4.oa.-m_ —moo fes.e.i i..,i Z r S y 4 LJ l re4 is J 7QrC r (., 17 (S
„A S2a ,$o-r titarjJ i q- f rr i) 1)Pr r . #77- l-'I
"T1 11, r r-NLLot_i �t7.
401 North Third Street • Suite 440 • Minneapolis. MN 55401
Phone: 612.337.5144 ' Fax 612.336.4565
•
m7 * C) cn > 0cn mocn > o xNm zNCo -
O > Com - Corn 0 rn 23 QED rn >
z > C 0Z - ;0z z :t7Z ao _
_ c<ncnQ o
• C7 o z m 0 m m p o m p Tc. . mrr ca , .
a m - 0 7 -I
0 c _ * rrnx mzm
o
ZG
Y m 0 ? 0 O �
c ` � F m = n o x cn
n I— c n � o � _ m � c= On -<* p pg Q oZm � Czmm - Dz z z z 0 K
cn cn cn > cn
m z0 c
0) m
m
a
> > > > ~- r.. > > > 1-
r-
r- cn r. Ci) r• rn r. cn rrcn 1- cn I- (pc') D � <
� < � < � < � < 5 < � < - n - z
cn cn cn cn cn co — m 0
O m Om Gz) m Om Om Gz) m Om HQ -
o a o a a a 0 m 7J
0
L
* m
0 0 o 0 � CD C 0
z m
m
2 _ 4,
Z 0 AWG) COD
c -ix
ao cn o o � p u O - x r- �
zD -I -n > rZ
G) 11 m rnm � �
= m
• y 01 cn Z z I
cn 01 0 0 N
o o D c -1
O
o m
o x
-' o 0 0 O w rn m p
m
N —I
Z - 01Q - 010 -0 cnQ - - - Z70
O > 0071 00X 0o73 Tl 23 2] G)
Q Q n O C� O (7
Z
ZczZ � � z � � � nz z 1-
ZD
� > Z > ZZ > cQCco
D > > > Cl)
co
mn � 71 � mi -i
--1-I0J 000 000J 000 M 73 m m
- D W z D x z D x z D a a T ?i 0
� m cn _I (I) _1 �' -im CO E
zm mm mm mm = = o
rn
0x -m-1Z -mid -m-I z z -
Oxi Ox o ? � co
z z
m zom zom z 0 0
-1 G) -1 G) -I G) -i = I
0 0
rn rn
0
JUL. 28. 1999 2:23PM F&L 319 7193 NO. 1699 P. 4/6
HSR.Associates
ffil
I232 Fourier Drive
Madison,Wisconsin 53717
III
608.662.I341 fax 608.662.1342
nl.CiII'PEcru1y
rNC:INEEEING
TNTETCICINIESIL N
July 27, 1999
MSP REAL ESTATE SERVICES
401 N. THIRD STREET, SUITE 440 ` "` '
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
ATTENTION: Milo Pinkerton
REFERENCE: Mounds View Assisted Cara :r
Dear Mr. Pinkerton:
I have attached a list of assisted care facilities we have designed over the past 5 years.
The parking ratio of your Mounds View project of 1 stall per every 2+ units is consistent
with what our assisted care operations and communities are experiencing as meeting the
needs of parking at an assisted care project.
Unfortunately for the residents they do not receive many visitors and don't drive •
themselves. The parking is for the staff and for visitors, One stall per every 3 units has
worked successfully on past projects. 1 stall per every 2 units will provide overflow
parking.
Attached is a list of operators of facilities. Please feel free to have the City call them or
• the communities they have built in to review parking needs.
Sincerely,
I.--
0,1K,
.
iiiJ-14,urquin, • A
"ill, Vice 'resid• nt
Attachment: List of facilities
Ill
Celebrating 25 years of service in Madison • 1974-1999
JUL. 28. 1999 2:24PM F&L 319 7193 NO. 1699 P. 5/6
•
Senior Care
Matt Collins
5325 Wall Street,
Suite 1500
•
•
Madison, WI 53718 Phone: 243-8000
Encore Sr. Living
Joel Moyer
7617 Mineral Point Road
•
Madison, WI 53717 Phone: 829-0909 ext. 227 . :
Unicare Health Facilities, inc. .
Steve-Sirkis
3816 W. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53208 Phone: 414-271-9696
Our House
Julie Heil
• 328 S. Walker Way
Sun Prairie, WI 53590 Phone: 837-5795
Bonnie Amdt
504 S. University Ave.
Beaver Dam, WI 53916 Phone: 920-887-2717
ABC Construction
Doug Frakes
6502 Grand Teton Plaza
Madison, WI 53719 Phone: 833-0900
•
JUL. 28. 1999 2:24PM F&L 319 7193 NO. 1699 P. 6/6
` ears. III
2. Past project erpertence over the past five(5)y
________
HSR Associates, Inc. experience includes the following: • •
Type: Space: Cost: Date:
Alzheimer's Design:
•Encore/Elderhaus Prototypes plus.. :_
-Madison Three 16-units $525,000 1997
-Monroe 8 units $271,300 1997
Rib Mountain(Wausau) 16 units $525,000 1997
-Eau Claire 16 units $519,000 1997
. -Fond du Lac , 16 units $521,400 1997
-Manitowoc 8 units $269,700 1997
• -Sheboygan 8 units $271,400 1997
-Kenosha • 19 units $572,900 1997
Prairie du Sac 8 units $275,600 1997
Community-Based Residential Facilities(CBRF):
•SeniorCare of Wisconsin
-New prototype(24 units)
▪Madison 24 units $764,400 1997 •
-Manitowoc 24 units $764,400 1997
-Two Rivers 24 units $764,400 1997
-Kenosha 32 units $1,321,900 1997
-Madison 24 units $764,000 1997
-Sheboygan 24 units $764,000 1997
-Stoughton 24 units $764,000 1998
-Racine 24 units $764,0b0 1998
• Derby Enterprises/Precision
-Fond du Lac 30 units $2,076,743 1997
-Madison 8 units $291,000 1997
• Unicare(Extendicare Health Facility
-Altoona 40 units $1,843,381 1998
-Whitefish Bay 48 units $2,600,000 1999
Skilled Nursing Facilities(SNF):
•Morrow Memorial Nursing Home,
remodeling/rehabilitation 25-30 beds $1.5 Million 1994
'Morrow Memorial Nursing Home
Independent Living Facility addition 25 apartments $900,000 1994
-Veterans Administration Skilled Nursing
Facility,2 Phases remodeling of two stories $4.5 Million 1994-1995
(Phased)
'Rolling Hills Nursing Home, Sparta $20,000 1995
Misc. Remodeling in Dementia Care
1111
• 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,aJ ezoning and Conditional use permit
for an assisted living seniorresidential 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, I-Iigh-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
zonmg requiremen s as ou me. m ec ion I. 14, u.•ivision , pe ammg o "ursmg omes
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.
11"'"1110
3 .s4� € wpm
»€ i i_ pi1� , i # € #�� € x1££; .y > li g #41 _.'s } } k „ ;; � r130; # ; y3 wimp
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 1 space per 5 beds, plus 2
center,geriatric center and the like 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, 1 space per 4 beds, plus 1
sanitariums, convalescent homes or space per two employees and
institutions for the aged 1 space per doctor
Montrose, CO Nursing Homes 1 space per every 3 beds
Plainview, TX Sanitarium, convalescent home, 1 space for every 6 beds
home for the aged or similar
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
p 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 le 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 '- - e - e ' • ' 6, - e• : cam me_a tha`if it is the Commission's desire
to limit the type of group he - -ing~to tl—ie elderly;....ti at the code should be amended to reflect that.
The amendment would •e simple, changing the first'line of Subdivision 1109.04 (2)to read,
"Nursing homes and 'ether elderly congregate housi ...." This would effectively eliminate any
possible reuse of the 'rope to anything of an 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.
tt/Yv+.,k
James Ericson, Planning Associate • ,
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV6EVCASES1559-99\MSP.PC2
. .
. •
City of Mounds View
Ill Location Map
. .
_ .
. . .... _ I / *SAN/ 10‘14
h---11•011. 1...
IIIMNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111.. ma
MIN IMMI ,
AIM Milli –__ I I
IIIIEffp..--1111 MIMI
•,,,,w,,,,,,,,,,,,,LE,n,o, .A.,,„•,,,,...
-- -• •-,,J's•,k,..,•<•,iiq•,;',',,,..'i,':.-:`':.4.,',. .1
111111111 _ \–__ ;Sgi? ,,>''''InTes'A'' C•I''- f‘:''''
. Ill
TN',.; •.r•-• .
1
-— • .-.,-,,y. •A,,,,I, , . A•;',-,
NI •10f..4,..,
. - 2670 County Road I , ,,,,,,,, ..,...,„.,..,..,4,-,:,u,..,,x, -.K,,01:',,„,
_4_j __ •,,.,,-:, ,.,,- ,•,;71,:z.,7,1, 4;;;';',,w•,•.w.. p
;1 :,,,,<••;...-',,-;:, •',Y,-..'/,',-•,',. ,t o••,:,••••;•••',;,.:,
, •,•..„.s.,„,•,„,,,,,,,;,,,,,..sm,;•,,w ,,,,,•,-,,o,&,,
. J,n, ,'', 4I:'''$•'';%'"f';•,',4;";,;>%-',L'i•4‘ , ', "'P`O sl"' eil
,'1'',''''';,::,-,::>>..,',,''''.'..`;:•-,Y4' '' 'q,'••,' •4",', '''''V'''1,
, ,, ,„...,,,,,es,,,,,;,,,.,' 44......3,',•.1 •.,..;.`„,,,,,, ,,14,
'',;1 X•,..,,,,,,,,,2,,,s,..,:,,,,.--,,/,.•#--,:?,' z.,•;4,',--.`,: s'ss',''',kre` ''''''
. ,,, ,..,;•••,)•,''{i..,,s,,,.:",,,1 ,',.I's,y$ 1....,-.••,•,
.... 'ft:IM.1,,g::'04''''•''l''4V's;' 144,'';'4:';> 41
• ;‘,..,..d,,,,,,.,,,,,4,..4 .,,:).1,,,-- 1,40 lir
. , . , „.„.. ..
_,,,,,,,...„....,„:,,,„,..,„.4„,„„,•,. .....
. 1 1 h 1
, p,„.•:,,;..,,,...„„,,,,,,,?:,vizroloomogr.tio „„ .
L, golliimmisgr___,:..TY4.040W;,41,4A.'Ak".V.'-'4WSPONntg t
......k J11.7RiaikiiliipiTagrig W.i:APP44$4,*
_ , , III mow ALIIVIRDK;RAiPiMA4,1M11104•,gc-Aix
,,44--'--- '
171 11111,APIIV:q
NM iir5Pir ,•1",
• NI ' i 4Z:Z"‘;k3N 1
ill
— _
.....
=
iss.,,,,,,,,,:,.„,,, ,,,,,,,
ir...4Am :Lvx.„. ,
.
„.„..„,, ,i,...,.:
__ _
••••• um — nucinzorratttiamata ma II
—I
_
— yozw —iiiliiiiIiiiiat -wig
_ .....
' 3 111 .
—=to= =E-. •=_..r.====.---
MSP Real Estate
•'..:'.-11Ei"-!- :..a gig 01=-4---,----41-k==IIMIkEttb.: 2670 County Road I
. '-17:171-.;allilliaArilirial aE-:=:-.1.' I iill'' Conditional Use Permit and Rezoning
Planning Case No. 559-99 and 560-99
A .................:::::::::::
1
.
„11...,..-i 67,w,g4:,4:1:1:11:11::1::1
,.i,,,'t'.._....
‘I,,.,..
s-• 'I‘I 1.;: 11:.1.,a,,i,I::F,,i.,i...
• 2670 County Road I
E1.1E1
ii=1
<, ,...N.,
I(., ,•1•-• 4.-4
..1”railZ::. (11111011.:4 InIIIIIIIIIII 'S '.t ', Properties Within 350'
HIM ling.7,:iria i.7::-'•I .-,..,,
••:::.iii:11111111111111:
L Iffr! L-----.imigNI-11 -.NL-- '
iii–
mil.::::::.,., (......A1,N,--,
ig.mo.
.1.117:1111i III
MiriMUMMIIIIII
ilk •-I
,... •
410
,
1
1-7 I A
s
+
• ,
. .
• . .
•z .
,> • .. 0
v,
s 4 .
• r. .3 Fa r .•
L.--. .
. t
..- •...----
_ 2> . ...•
... ...
I A I .."....
.. ..
.•
.•
e
.0 . . .
//
„
• - . ...---.- - ,
/ .....-0' - *.- I •1: - r---
I
/ .4 '........
‘316'' .....•••
• 1 # :...,"
, . .
/ 0..y•.., ....
- ——
/ ....-
/ is,' / ... I 43,'
" 0 440 I', I .
1 .
. . cb I I D 1
, 1 1 r:.• „. I
,
, Jig / I- .
, / v i
fir / • . I
- II.pi• .
I Or
i // eV / • • t
t if
1 1 i 5v9 1
t
• 1
t
1
. I ,
. fib, . t M • %
%
i
t . \
' 1 It %
% t• :i•- 1
• 1 raI , . 4, -, \ , '4,
I .1, \
\
it
\ ,
11114P \
\
\ 0
. %
. 1
7.1 i\ • \ **•.$
( .
• '.7E / "\)\#%
A (...:„...„,
I ) • 4, .scgite, / u- .\\". ,,-/"\ ‘,""- .
• e
1 • 1 i ...•1\41‘ / 1 \\>./ .t.i. ,
1 , \ • ;se ,
1
I
s111:pp
I •
2,. i i ....../ \ . • c --).4111,4.41e-
r ....; . i
r
,ti ! 1 \ ..... • -.. ...- /*• to •. . . -
...
1 ! • /
i;
. --.1.. —v---I .•• .
• ,............./ „ 111
.- .
, filk ime
tift r- a: 44‘1%
• 0 t ‘ . 4)
•
c. cs..., . .
...._ ..,
,,,,, 0 • t 0% at Ts \03k
• r, 0
0
7 (--• ... • am — sk 00
C- ru 40
• V., ..•,. A v• 0 T.
..._.i c„. v. -:,. 0 , 0 Iii •
Vab +
' 0........
73: 1:I•Z;;LrEE :!:.: e.g. PF.c.,,,E;- tP.SP ASSI:itt, :ARE •
-• -• ; • • 1: :' t. . •
E h :. Is Z t r• 1. Z.si- 1.4:•,...!•47/s .4.1-.A. kv..
_, :4Cti.r a maLvi:r. a. 1
--1.
rtSF irliolox300..
1!-T-TIT ....I
......., , .
•
. .. • .
+ . .
. ,
. . •
. . .
• le
.
• . .. . . .
c 7,-
1
. A 's
r- ; r. . . L... .
1 E n .
... z at ... ..
„ -
i A I ,-- ..
..-
„
, •
, .
,
e .
e • •
. ...__ ______
/ .
/ . --e.-112141104.,,,.41.1f-,..- .. 1-•-••.-
e „,...--•
'06:4,.... ......
• /. 0,• ...CO
/ g.\
. / .:*/. , •••i
/ - ..• ..
I . •
i ...•
‘1:. /
• i • • / . 0 II) I
° . 1 I 1 . 1 •
4v • 40 AL.
w, - 1
/ - 1 1 i 1::. 1
, C. 0 /
7
.1
.
,
i
, fir / 1 P. A .
\I& .
. .1 el i • i
i
i • • It1 1
0 t 411111011W i 1
. I 7.1, 1
I , X: • . 1
I. fp Adi i''A 1 t , 1
1
. i l tz (..•
. •It , I Vt . % ‘...
•
.tiI ......•
•
•
I411. 4, % ‘ !,•1
. g
• ,
\
\
)
. • ,
:...., 1
f.,
A .1/” 1 "•.
tai . P÷..N If'.:i5?:) 7/.3 1111P\•• (
• / a- , \as,‘ ,r,,,\ ‘ 'I.,• ',
. .
, ' 1 , .. 1/4 \ • •
1)1 1 ( .• 1 • .' i .`.. .)••• • -.0' ‘
k . . . ••1, ‘
• 1 Di 1
t 1 . - • \.\.?'
\• • ;se %
E , . \ \,i .• ,
iikk\.,/ •
• - i •
1. •
. 31. illIllims- '7, wre,
• •
/
•
11 1 . .....i.-....r...:-
gi I I I
, z i ...4...
\ A49,tit,
I i ••• \ • ../e4'.'
E.,: ! !
'Z.
..
......;
4.-.
.••;„. .1,
•
• • • /
.1r)..
. .
• . Air
. .
IIP
digh
• 4.103" . tO •
. . : .
. ' ' IL ep 0 7
/..
• td% •• ', 1%
•
•
1, V 0 T cii ir- r o
.._ os. ..
?At - 116 R 4 rik •t„, 414 .
0 .... 4 It
c • t% lot 5
111 p,1 NI 1 •
•
iiik 0 ..
It • .
4.
-.,..7: .. .
:-.: • ..,-..1 .„. .. : , zsc.JE:" MSF ASSIZiEt. CARE •
-
• •
il. ": IsZt: .1. 11: MS.:N:11 AEA. M.- . .
ow 4 :ht:at • ,
. . • 1J.BP #M.,.%):0,X i 1 f
......, . 1
What is Assisted Living? http://vvww.alfa.org/WhatsAL.In
ttp: g/WhatsAL.In
41" What is Assisted Living?
046*
g
•
ALF . . 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 ..F4 ..w....nn 111 re
What is Assisted Living?
http://www.alfa.org/WhatsAL.hU
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:
a. Three meals.a day served in a common dining.area
a Housekeeping services
• Transportation
a 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
IPa 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
a •111 111111 - - = a- -'- '- ed Living fee m
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 familiesgenerally 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 12:55:11
What is Assisted Living?
httpJ/www.alfa.org/WhatsAL
pay for Assisted Living services.
How to find an Assisted Living residence? •
■ Consumers interested in locating Assisted POWERED ay:
Living facilities should visit the searchable p;� £t; i -
" C �tlii et
ALFA Online Directory of Assisted Living �� :
providers at CareGuide. The site is
�►ww.� .e �tere.�ret
searchable by state, county, city or metropolitan area. •
a Call the national Eldercare locator servio at (800) 677-1116. Calls are
accepted between 9 am - 5pm Monday"`'through Friday.
a 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.
a Or for a state listing of Assisted Living residences contact Gloria Lewis,
Consumer Referral Manager, ol(alfa.ora
For more information about Assisted Living contact Whitney Redding,
Director of Media & PR wr@alfa.orq.
Send mail to lcaalfa:org with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright®1998,1999 Assisted Living Federation of America
Last modified:March 31,1999
•
d
• REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Meeting Date: August 4, 1999
Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Planning Case No.: 565-99
Request: Wetland Alteration Permit, Easement Vacation
Petitioner: Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land Development
Location: Lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square (Pinewood Circle)
PIN Nos. 05-30-23-34-0076
05-30-23-34-0077
Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential/Vacant Land
Applicable Regulations:
• Section 1010.08 --Requires that any work done within a wetland (or within 100
feet of a wetland) as shown on the City's Wetland Zoning Map shall require a
• permit.
Attachments: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Location Map
Grading Plan
Purchase Agreement Letter, dated 2/11/99
RCWD Permit, expires 10/16/99
City Council Minutes, 12/8/97
Letter from SEH, dated 8/12/81
Letter from the MN SWCD, dated 6/28/99
• Letter from the MN SWCD, dated 7/27/99
Background:
Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land Development, has requested that the City vacate a
portion of a drainage easement that covers Lots 17 & 18 of Edgewood Square which had been
dedicated to the City as a result of the initial platting in 1982. Even though wetlands are present
over parts of Lots 17 & 18 and all of Lot 19, drainage easements were dedicated for the entirety of
the three lots. This was done to satisfy Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation District concerns
and City concerns about the potential for flooding and runoff in this area. In addition to the
easement vacation, to build on the two lots, a wetland alteration permit would need to be obtained
because work would be done within the wetland as shown on the City's official Wetland Zoning
• Map. Approval is also needed from the Rice Creek Watershed District.
The applicant made a similar request with regard to these two lots on September 9, 1997, however
the request was denied by the Council on 12/8/97 because it was felt that the easements were
granted in good faith and that the lots were never intended to be built upon.
Oakwood Vacation Request
Lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square
August 4, 1999 •
Page 2
Ordinarily, the Planning Commission would not review these types of requests, however because of
the underlying land use element associated with this proposal and the work being done to update
the City's Comprehensive Plan, staff felt a recommendation from the Commission would be in
order.
Analysis:
According to Section 12.06 of the City Charter relating to Vacation of Streets, the Council may by
ordinance vacate any street or alley or other public grounds or part thereof within the City.
Minnesota Statutes and the City Charter require that vacations require a public hearing. Such
vacations may be made only after published notice in the official City newspaper and for providing
the affected property owners and public to be heard. This action shall be recorded with Ramsey
County to take effect. The City Attorney has advised staff that the vacation of an easements may
be appropriate in the event the easement area no longer serves a public benefit, however the City is
under no obligation to do so in any event. The process for vacating a drainage easement is the
same as for vacating a street.
When originally platted, these two lots and a third were placed in a drainage easement as they were
deemed to be unbuildable due to the presence of wetlands. The City since that point has adopted •
its Local Water Management Plan which comprehensively deals with all aspects of drainage,
stormwater runoff and wetlands within the City. Along with the Wetland Zoning Ordinance, which
was adopted by the City in 1992 and revised in 1997, certain types of development under certain
conditions are allowed within and alongside wetlands. Vacating a portion of the original easement
over and across Lots 17 and 18 would not necessarily be inconsistent with either the Local Water
Management Plan or the Wetland Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant had the wetland on these lots delineated in 1997 and the delineation was forwarded
to the Rice Creek Watershed District, who verified the delineation to be valid. The new
delineation, which is shown on the site plan as a heavy dashed line, indicates that almost all of Lot
17 is outside of the wetland, save for a small encroachment toward the back of the lot. SEH, the
City's engineer, reported that the grading and drainage proposal provided by the applicant was
acceptable from an engineering standpoint, and recommended that if it was the City's intent to
grant such a vacation to allow development on the two lots, that an additional ten-foot easement
area around the wetland be dedicated to ensure a natural vegetation strip beyond the delineated
boundary of the wetland.
The central focus of this request then can be narrowed down to two issues. First, do these lots
continue to serve any hydrological purpose within the City's local water management plan, and if
not, would a partial easement vacation be in the best interest of the public? Secondly, should the
City continue to protect the existing open space?
If the City was to determine that the lots should be developed, and that the drainage easements •
Oakwood Vacation Request
Lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square
August 4, 1999
• Page 3
intended to be vacated did not serve a hydrological purpose and that an easement vacation would
be in the best interest of the City, a wetland alteration permit would be required for any
development to occur on the sites. According to Chapter 1010 of the Municipal Code relating to
the Wetland Zoning District, any work occurring within a wetland or the 100-foot buffer
surrounding a wetland, a wetland alteration or wetland buffer permit is required. The scope of the
proposed work as presented involves the filling and excavation of a previously identified wetland
area. In order for the City Council to approve a wetland alteration permit request, the proposed
development shall comply with the requirements as specified in Section 1010.08, Subd. 4. It
appears that these requirements can be met in the event the City does approve of the easement
vacation.
Recommendation:
Staff is seeking the Commission's input with regard to this request. Specifically, (1) do these lots
continue to serve a hydrological purpose within the City's water management system, and, if not,
would a partial easement vacation be in the best interest of the public; or should the City continue
to protect and preserve the open space? Staff will draft a resolution indicating the Commission's
position and have this ready for action at your meeting on August 18.
•
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\565-99\VALUE-PC.RPT
•
ii
OWDO rs� �r,�
�� %=% CO DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENlik
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIO
?a ; , 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112
°��'�•partnets*'4' 612-717-4020
• 612-784-3462 -FAX
Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form
Applicant Information 01-76-6—
Name of Applicant C R 6-6— - OA tc uvoa L,\,10 62c,P, phone 1 ASO-'{`t`t b
Address 14 tt H.)1,, ,.., to Fax 1 8'o - rs- 1
ssw3z
Interest in Property(check appropriate box)
❑ Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager 111 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 ( S / f I$ E d71 w�o<< $tJ(.re_
Property Identification#(PIN#) ()J� ;30-�� — �- 00-7 c 4- acY7
#of Acres
Current Zoning (2-
Type
2-Type of Application
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250
❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500
❑ Major Subdivision $250-÷-$250 deposit*
❑ Minor Subdivision 5200
❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) • Refer to rezoning fees
❑ PUD Amendment $350
❑ Conditional Use Permit R-I, R-2$75;all others$250
❑ Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250
❑ Code Appeal $100
❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acr • t.• $125 max$750
Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R $150• all others$200
❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R- 25;all others$100
❑ Floodplain Permit $200
Other Y._500
C a.c •
*Deposits shall be paid to coverall costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review,
research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable
incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded
to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed.
Please complete the reverse side of this application.
... -:..,,.,..�_?: .d:.:'•.e><.,Si...: ?a�.:r.._ .:_..h.x•.rc....h,.>..X. .._.>.a?�.t.:i=.. r.e..,.'.` '3.n��k:.= `�F' re.* S.,u,_. ,:aaeaasw.:' _ Y. `�`r. 'z+-3!�; ...
• City of Mounds View,MN Page 2
Development Application
41, Present Use of Property
41 Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling
O Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment
o Other(explain) •
Property Classification 41 Abstract 0 Torrens
Description of Proposal 'EG2uecr,.,✓c 1 Ft tic- Trte- EgvvsENr o"ea L n d- le or
FGewv-,, S&vAae i vk( O
BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.
Si ature of Applicant ��/—
gn
6-'11,e6- 1'.7EaSLY'Ai — (,f11Lw�.'a0 LhNa til-oPMF�-'t
Name of Applicant(typed/printed)
PL- -----
• Signature of Property Owner
Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) 0/1-K,.,i vo I A1.wr, Dain-°Pi'^Erb
`,� L4kt P, s c -3 z
Address of Owner /,II 1.)l'�-� 10 r`
Phone Number of Owner ,Es-o—k 4`t
• a FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Submittal "2' - 9 /
4 . ',1 c Assigned to:
Date of Acc lance t
Planning Case No. ,411,75--q 1 60-day Limit 120-day limit
Fees Paid:
Account# Check# pt i
c� .21/64P
Application: I�o•d
Park Dedication: oZ��`�1 - p$(P
Deposits: SCO'0 U 'G � 1
: .Other.
‘..'04.t-4,:: Total: 115-6-°° •
* :. . 1/98
_ N:DATA\GROUPS�COMDEV\FORMS\DEVIPP.FOR x
s � �
;u3 ‘,J T• n-f a:' . i 3....Y-Y I 6 _ '.'8 t
,-- -- /.7J1 , ._ N , .o\."-C4'. .---;.‘.r� N� N€
7989 7988 7929 i 7928 ' �i M e O? �c' ,> `�` c'� N N
7984 w .._ 7927 sf, N=�► �. A ( ,6c"*" cJch
_._.. _._.�...�.........,...�..,..�..._. 7925 7924 d' �,1Q�' ac ,,, s'd�'`yec� �c
D 7923 :_ \ e� e IA ` cotit
7980 7971 7968
7-921-'-17920�; 7919 �1 M '��'�t' �cc'�� ar°1 N N NI •
79131-7914%---�--- - r�s cv��-���.-`�' c*ca \r , yo .,r,.-.�
7944 7953 7948 7808 N r*a'\ c*' , f'`
_.�.... ......_,...__.._ _ _ ____ 79137910 7909 M l ►n l M PI \cc',c� 06.\\cc' '
793 7931 7930 7909 06 c. 79 N N 1 NRN� N cCCX>
LJ O \ M
0 F T 7905 790, uta,\NIE•, Q N •d rn ?�o t u�
7900 N .4.
I N E N 7901 I r of) N N N N N N 0 d• re) N 1,,r) \le) \ N i N' N
O \ VC4 N _ I
* N �t t0 00 d, \ s �d M N O O �D' O iF, t0! '
G 788. d M N 1 O M s - rr'] M M Mf i M M co 1 a0 ; n (0 i in;
N 7889 7888 N N N N .-"'�� 01144 N N N 1 N N N f N € N; N 09'
-- OAKWOOD DR ---.--
7878 7875!7868 78697660 in' n °f "N, 'n
7855 N N N, N,N:in c
_.....,�i_..--•---- r-- 5619 561 5619 5618 N N
7870 .7861 7854 Q 7857 1 785 1 ••--.* - ---- N N N: N N;N i i
Z`"" 7845 784 784 5613 u~i 561 5613-1-- 5612 OA
7836 3 I—_ 1 ____ --.N ao O v 03
g7847;7840 ------•-I---' 5607 560 5607 5606 °"•00 n IR, i iii j/
' `_840 78371783' W 782 1 �....,,_•._ ....._.. N i N N �N.r N t N.i
7820 0 7833;7832 `"' ? 5601 560 5601 5600 33 N
_ 0__�.....-.,._....� 7827 78211X • _ _._ _ in;N n 1 n d co rn
µ781 3 7815:7814 r 4 5562 N 1 N ' NEN N i
-780- -- 7817 �°' 5563 J 5562 5563 N;N s N j N N N l
7800 7801 7800 �__., _ 55571
55595557 W 5556 N
7778 _774917750 7807 n 5551 U 5550_5551 a 5550 N N j N 'N N ,� f
7768 7739�� 77510 E 1 N N, '� 5545 5 5545 N 5544 N 'N {'N---'- -N•
'y . _ , ,n'ice a,! In to. o) ,:
-7741177' ' PINEWOOD CIR 'L ? '"i co n" n (0 0
[7748 7729_177730, '_ ,o o N d �„ ,� '5539 55 5539 5538 N t N• ° N N N i
7728
77147720 7731 77 M M M M Nese 5533 553 T 5532 N PINEWOOD
_ 4,._. -.s�. ., N N 5533
7710 770917710 g7721t772. - �- t' ! 1
-----1-.-�M-•-m ~-:wan N 7715 ria ao n I# ca 5527 552 5527 N 5526 4 ' 1011'7070 1 ct�•t `, ', •
to N' 7701 s 7700 770' C1 7701 N N 1 N i N N 5521 5520155-2T 5520 N N 1 N 1 N E N N I c
CO RD
ttO0 in 1 1 N O OMR. n N O2 O OD j L"° ..-
N N N N . N N N N N ^N N N NN N
8-1: 766C PUD "o o "in 5497
766 -3 ,766 7643 7658 N N N N �A9�1
—t R-4 'l: "` .. - 7661
66 76417656 GR B G ST
MilE 76347644 7651 5480 1 5479
7635 • .4'765I877630'_; ,
w
I+tiE'lEilEi�l'i1�1 4) 761 7610 • R-4 MI R -^4 5462 5463 -,
7631 v ,� 5445 5454 5455 N
• � I 1 m.+ c2c .;761=W 759 7594 M 1 .___55 02".
co n n n n 763 `"" � 5446 5447-4 ;
R_2- w 7581 7580 7531
7565.7564 "'` CI o 11-`-' 5440 5441a
v ¢ d _7551 7550 .+c 7521 . tO
5434 5433
N N N 4; 5426 5425
7535 7534 W 7511 '�"�'""" 5420 _5421 !
N N 7521 7520�` 5414 5415
750517504 7501
- 5401
5406 I 54051 !
PP BRONSON
Zoning Map Planning Case 565-99
Applicant: Oakwood Land Development
Lotsd Square N4 7
Location: 17 & 18, Edgewoo
• •
City of Mounds View
0 Location Map
1011111111
- ------ MN lira* i latualw . ....
= = I I I L I I r �II1/1# 111E1111 I lis x11111
- I — 1I T 1J MIS. :1111111t
.0 -■ _ I � f � Il �L�I
A
z = 111115/////
11
I �__ 1411
, - :�, l 1177 -7- _ •
ME Mr. 1Mom
: C.
rill AlNE MUNIMIMI III
._II. __ III
si MI. II INN
awl MN
, Nillij 0111111111AN
vr lIil1V'
lb ie •Ni 1111111111116.
_111111_ 1111111 NI
og.
CCC ' I �� CC •41 MI /11 MIME IMI MINI
_ :_ , C; -C
INIII I/ III= I IIIIIIM IMO
��� 1 11111111111NI IIIII
�� C
4bvg LJ _I:-LQ ir IN.
raT El.ff.:4.1 E411 i
ii, -=w` ooh �Ic�..
-_;x,_••_1111. 11��°=,� � Greg Peterson, Oakwood Land Development
gOli„�ij;r . :r=®iVilluillinll. 11.& Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation
1� ��:_= e.
:j I____— _ _ _ ,,,,.,osVi�' i Planning Case No. 565-99 �
illin1
•
kg Eliva sc „nuuw uuanuuua
111A a `mak ,,,,1,11111,111111111111
.1. _.i t- _83er 2 QIt(ITIIIIT�111111111111111111
Bill `�T ,���f1 ■�='i= �. Edgewood Square, Lots 17 and 1�8
1 0111 , ..• 1.M ,:_ ' h
iiim
�� ► �. 1 x° l, Properties Within 350
_��I,,��_r ;, •.Ir �/ _. IIIIIItIU11L �-.�:;,,�, n;, p
all Ilr..._„ ■IIIIIIIII. 1
III
,4. 1111111111111
T�11ICIIIIINIIIIL'� _I-F ' miu= i
__ idlllil � .
yell, I.E. c.>
-i MP MIRIMOMi11.14A1)III Ilk
-1c„€°I.11®®111®'=MI5di. � ''
Ira
I
Eli
i
�:
, ,
, 1
i
I rJ
f
1 f
I I
'
Z \ I 1 i
1I I
ii 1h I I
9Q7.8
l)1H4Jó1I �`},,, -9�oA r�I �� I II . , 1 �'� , �R�kiM
nil,
Z i ' , I I.I ti\ 2 .q)k M
!i ' I II III lo "". G.. \
—i 1 Cf' 1 i:- II I,‘ II 'WO ‘141,?),_
En
• r c • j
iv t7 lit . I
en
1
G.10
1 I r. rimr,, , , . ..N I D \\
r 1 CZ I it I m \
ns
z I •
z 1
o •
\ � ;II 1 iss,I I ,\ x �
::F
F.-C.
1 ;'' 1 , Ie 11 v-Y
C / I I I 7.�
D / 1 "Ill
r
f/ i o 11CO ••it:: `t." t`• 1.: _:11: %
'-trifl / l ,,, * '''' ''
i . \
-1 .. ..:. *:'1 H 1 : 'I:.i. .: :.1:•', 1100 .
CO 1 -\_ I wilommion---- 1
to
— r �\ /`r.- Crl
% ______
\\ i\ 1 ; IOC _____.,....,...z4\, 1
I
\ �0 CD I rm0 cco
a
ss
R\ 1 /
__aO 1
N N �_�-
V
/ \
•J
(...)s:i"\
1
ig 0
0
D •
Sent By: Oakwood Land Development, Inc; 612 780 8591 ; Jul-26-99 9:04AM; Page 2/2
•
OAKWOOD LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC.
1611 Highway 10 • Spring Lake Park,MN 55432
w Phone:612-780-4996 • Fax:612-780-8591
February 11, 1999
Peggy Haselius
2381 County Road I
...,, Moundsview, MN 55112
Re: Your lots on Pinewood Circle
Dear Peggy,
This letter is to summarize the discussions we had today regarding your lots
• Pinewood circle. We will pay you $17,500 per lot for Lots 17 and 18
�••- Edgewood Square if we are able to get the City of Moundsview to vacate the
drainage and utility easements which currently encumbers these two lots.
I have decided that it will be necessary to hire an attorney to help us work
toward approval of our vacation request. All costs associated with
development, including attorneys fees, will be paid by us.
Tk ,i -.1 .1' -- - . 14 - .14-; # s is lei • 4r,• i - • ..
then I will begin to work towards our objective.
Srely, •
•
Jost ' Peterson
Presi; tc71/0-.jvdeA-I,
a412-14.6442-H.
•
•
•
Sent By: Oakwood Land Development Inc; 812 780 8591 •
,
, Jul-23-99 7 19AM$• Page 2/2
,,- ,,, ,, . -,.., e , .,...`•,1 1...., • , Mjl.V .,, i 1•:'-,4•"grosvivrny 4., 1
'''' :'''''''...":".;:'1 ;' : ' ':...'.'''...1:%.::::4"•.;'••' .....;:`,,4k*,.,;...4,i‘ •' '''''.,:r-10`';:%,''' -At,.: V-1:0:7/,.,..:,..i,w,.:114.41 ":"Wii?..4-70:',4,...i.i-444.1,4,Klic.4114K4.,g,i.i.,,Z,,••71.44,,,:,:,;124
;,,::-i..,•::,:;,'' ,'..i..: :—.• .\'„;;;E•:;,;!•,!!::•'.:::, ,.:7',P;IVA,-tef'• ,Y441A--, :..r,,..'... ,..4,AP ,'!•.4::-1..1';''"%f:'':""•ti:•,,,:0"'''':::-..:kiMIT• .• PO4•4•;1',44'.ity•ci.itilim„,,•,44.4i.O.l''.'-'CV,214'.,';'•?,%1
'';':-':','S'*•''i.:,^,••• •"'''':i.'''':-...!•'••'''''''.'i,2 ,-;•••', ,,','S,'.'" ,R*'.,„,,;.,1';,••••]:..4,..:trivi,..torfo,V07,4'S,re•i'.-••,At0.4..:'••••''''P''''.'i"?Ift .'ie?',?;.0,ii,,,,, ,,,ti.k, .,,,,,;.•„%ll.'„:••;',,v4;.:!3•;$•Ar4g4-:,,,,,:itii,
'le4g4'%'..ts?.',.:'2,,',';'1;7'%,,,....47,7',12:111;.-4/1 -s2a,„iii,4^;•7,,-V•',;!.; ' .**,,,,WA.,!,,''''4,VrAP,9,6 •14,...r.;/,,iti'l•Irglry'.110*.t.;134g.,,•••' '..."..:.•';''.:-.":'.',.s:FN';::;•t,,Yre'n.Nq'.,17.^.7i'7!:;•,':''..,•:..::,:•,;:.,;•:::•:".:,•:?t,•:,',..7:Li::,•.:••••-•,'....q.'.'s„:•.•:',;:'
. ' ..!"'4:-.1. .:- , ,•,••••... ,..-...,•,:,,•.;.. ..,...„;..,...,..„...,,,,,........,:,,,,,,„‹,,..,,,.,•,,,:,..„5„,,,,,,:.........„..:"..........,...„,.„ ..,.....,...„,„0„..2„,,,,;,..„:„.,,,..„,:..,..,.,.„...........::.....,„......„,.,..,,.0„4.,,,...;.:::„„i ,,
.. ...,,,,,, .., ,,,p4._..,••If ,, ;,,!1•:,;(1.0\10i.":,,;,.,:;;„:::::.:::',.:....,VA:,"fr...„!, ....:::.,:::' .....::.;:••••••::;•.•...': " ''..••• , :•:,:.::.'..:•;•-,;",.iir:;.:IT',"',;•;.'";•...•`;",::;.:.....?...'-,:i•,,S.4.,:,::,.••:•17.;:,I....7:,:,;"..'!:
IA'' '• . • 4641i-1":P°444'1.4el•-:••:.•:•-:....*:-..::::'::..;,...;:':,,....;.:;.••:::..1.,,..•........... :4.
$I.
'.." E, '''.07';,41- ••••W .4.*J.`Zt'it';4(''''g41:1,.7,4..,:;•,:,1:••,?.....r,';',..c.:;••.•••••:',..:4"27,,.,;.•:,..:::,‘„',,.....,,,.. .•.. •..•. . • . ... .. ..........• • .. .
5eZe. ' ,* .,Q,.,*. V..".. ...:::15'.. '''''/•••• ' ',7-- 1... l",4,2114 '• ' ' • •'"••' •• '... "
IIII
....m..„...4s....:.?„.0.::;,...•::.5:::......,.. ...:::::::::„. ..:..• •..• . Ii—i
.,i.,...c"l's••••lqi• ••••••••T:','izir:.*.",•_:••, :LI,. •" .'' • . .... •
r
—- • . • •
•:•' ...LI Irlaier1.0.'::•••,::::•"%. , -,'..=I../.' . CO .... rs - ...
.,,'.....*24.2A.:......:. ......;_.,' ..:::.:. , .. ...• • .
71 .
...•...„.. .....,...,,..,... . .
-....CIIV....,...:.......,..........Cla.:•..':i.:.' • . •
. ..
'..-19'"...".:"'.".."-rri...i:,,,i •
. * •
:1111:111 ' . mion II
1111
....PC.....:.::,:::..... ::,...... .........:.......: (1)
• 1..1 n
ico
goo..-4,...,••. c) emj 1...a. 2 (11:11
3 ,
.. ....1
• 0 . . gio3 0 •
..... .....
.... al 2 .
, ... . .....
co ...,
q en p. bp
• .
os
Ca • 421 I)
1 16k cc' a
CM
itib a
. Cif)
Illr ,
gi US z p t v
444 pap
m,
1_4
is geo.
c:LI •
... (1% III
t _II
. a •
sp.
.• 41 co CC, =
1 CD
CA2mal 8 444:1441.11b gicil c• "CP
_Ii . . ....:.
2
,gs a ....•
a VII =
to
= V/ cr•
•
E mill ICh M :.• .•
• rr. ..4. . ...:: :. .
,..... : .::
ao
K. 11:11,
. . • •
1:1
.E ....
•
2) III
. •
at : : • C11
..
CD • :,
• .
. .. •.: • . • • • . . . , I •
• .
1:
• .
. . .
, . • • i
Page APPROVED
December 8, 1997
Mounds View City Council
Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. There were no questions or comments from the
public on this issue and Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve the renewal of the 3.2 off-sale malt liquor license for
Tom Thumb Food Markets,2408 County Road I.
• VOTE:. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
c. To consider the transfer of the 3.2%off-sale malt liquor license for Super America to Retail
Joint Venture,2640 County Road I. •
Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m. There were no questions or comments from the public
on this issue and Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 7:14 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Koopmeiners to approve the transfer of the 3.2%off-sale malt liquor license for
Super America to Retail Joint Venture,2640 County Road L
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
2. Consideration of Resolution No.5194,Approving the Mounds View Matters Newsletter Bid Award
to Nystrom Publishing for the year 1998.
: MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve Resolution No.5194,Approving the Mounds View
Matters Newsletter Bid Award to Nystrom Publishing for the year 1998.
: VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
•
Mayor McCarty asked that Item 4 under Council Business be considered prior to Item 3,as the Council's action
on Item 4 would affect their decisions on Item 3. •
4. First Reading of Ordinance No.608,an Ordinance Vacating a Portion of a Drainage Easement over
anac a ss vs an :, t , gewquare, 't a I • s ' " ' ' • -Oil z, tic.
•
a. Public Hearing: Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:19 p.m. There were no
comments or questions from the public and Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 7:20
p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/McCarty to deny the request for Ordinance No.608,an Ordinance Vacating a
Portion of a Drainage Easement over and across Lots 17 and 18,Block 1,Edgewood Square,requested by
Good Value Homes,Inc.
Mr.Bob Long,City Attorney,stated he had reviewed all correspondence in the records including a letter dated
June 28, 1981 from the Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation District In this letter,they recommended that
Lots 17, 18 and 19 remain undeveloped for drainage and wetland purposes. This is one of the reasons the
drainage easement was granted across those lines. He also reviewed a letter dated August 12, 1981 from the
Short-Elliott-Hendrickson Engineering firm which concurred that leaving those lots undeveloped would be of
benefit to the city for wetlands and drainage.
APPROVED
Page 4 -•
December 8, 1997
Mounds View City Council
Mr.John Peterson, representing Good Value Homes,Inc.,explained that the two reasons the city acquired a
drainage easement in the 1980's were for storm water detention and because it was believed to be wetland.
Neither of those conditions exist today and the plan they propose would actually improve the storm water
detention in the area by increasing the capability of the ponding area in terms of storage. They have also gone
to great lengths to determine that this land is not a part of the wetlands,as originally determined. He
proceeded to clarify the details regarding ownership of the property,noting that they have a purchase
agreement with the current owner for the purchase of the land.
Mayor McCarty asked if this purchase agreement contained any contingencies. Mr.Peterson noted that the
agreement was contingent upon the approval of Ordinance 608 by the City of Mounds View.
Mayor McCarty noted that the Consulting Engineers had already determined that the lots were within the 904
Contour elevation which at that time was determined to be wetland through the Soil and Water Conservation
Districts. He does not know what would have changed physically to make that determination any different
He believes the drainage easement was given in good faith that these lots would not be buildable.
ROLL CALL VOTE: (To deny Ordinance 608)
Mayor McCarty aye
Council member Quick nay •
: Council member Stigney aye
: Council member Gunn aye
Council member Koopmeiners nay
Motion carried(3-2)
3. Consideration of Resolution No.5173,a Resolution Approving a Wetland Alteration Permit for Lots
17& 18,Block 1,Edgewood Square,requested by Good Value Homes,Inc.
MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Stigney to table indefinitely Resolution No.5173,a Resolution Approving a
Wetland Alteration Permit for Lots 17 and 18,Block 1,Edgewood Square,requested by Good Value Homes,
Inc.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
5. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution NO.5183,a Resolution Approving the Silverview
Estates Preliminary Plat and
•
6. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No.5184,a Resolution Approving the Development
Stage Review for the Silverview Estates PUD.
Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearings at 7:30 p.m.
Mr.Patrick Peters,Planning Consultant,explained that the applicant,Silverview Estates,is requesting
approval for a Preliminary Plat and Development Plan for a convenience market,two office buildings and a •
senior residential facility at the corner of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road. He went over the events that
14` have occurred since May when the City Council approved the ordinance for the rezoning of the property and
the resolution approving the general concept plan for the PUD. The Planning Commission reviewed the plat
e SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, INC..
�® CONSULTING ENGINEERS
• ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISCONSIN
August 12, 1981 RE: MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA
MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE
(ROBERT EIGENHEER PROPERTY)
OUR FILE NO. 77039
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway #10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
Attn: Mr. Steven A. Rose
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the revised grading plan for this
August 4, 1981. We find that the storm water storageo�ond dated
d
proposed to be constructed adjacent to the wetland meets the
requirements of City Resolution No. 983. We would recommend that
the outlet pipe from the pond be a 12" reinforced concrete pipe as
: is dictated by the drainage calculations applied by the developers
engineer. We understand that it has been determined that the
• existin• wetlands extend up to the 904 contour elevation. The.
•ro•osed •ond site lies partially within this area, but if t e
three lots west of the proposed pond site are reserve. o 0 - and
ur oses, the additional benefit of preserving the wooded area
above the 904 contour elevation immediately west of the -OE- site
will be realized.
•
Summarizing our previous comments on the preliminary
that the 6" sanitary sewer shown on the preliminaryplat, we feel
changed to an 8" sanitary sewer, and the class 5 graveltlat ll bebase
should be increased from 4" to 6" in thickness. The develo•e
•ro•os- • . .
. s ree in the Edgewood Drive
right-of-way with extruded bituminous curbs.
t
extended to proper MSA street width in the futures iftiteiscould be
determined that Edgewood Drive is to be constructed to Hillview
Road.
We recommend approval of the preliminary plat from an engineering
standpoint subject to the foregoing.
Sincerely,
9owL1f.
• iel R. Boxrud
cc: Keith Nelson
DRB/Cih
200 GOPHER BUILDING • 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 • PHnwF igen ACA r11.1,
RAMSEY SOIL AND Vw1TER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Mid-America Bank Building
1827 North Saint Paul Roe
_ Maplewood,Minneso<oAte, 5
Telephone (612r 777•3127
MINNESOTA
• SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
July 27, 1981
TO: Mr. Don Fauly, .City Administrator
Subject: Development of Inventoried Wetland 1-19.
•
Field observations of Wetland 1-19 show that vegetative habitats betwt
the 902 and 904 contours form a continuum of Types 1, 2 and 6 wetlands.
It is difficult or impossible to delineate exactly each of the a for-
mentioned habitats. Itis apparent that this landscape is saturated or
seasonally flooded for same duration to support any wetland habitats at
all. If the City is in a position to negotiate drainage easement rights
for Lots 17-19, I feel little if any impact would result fruit the develop- •
merit of Pinewood Circle. Conversely, any development on Lots 17-19 iculd
definitely jeopardize the integrity of wetland 1-19. During the development
of Pinewood Circle disturbance to wetland habitats north of the indicated
roadway should be minimized and erosion control measures implemented to
minimize impacts to the wetland.
Sincerely,
Tan Fetersa
Conservation Specialist
•
• .
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I 1 RAMSEY SOIL AND ' .TER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
• Mid-America Bank Building
5 .,
INV 1827 North Saint Paul Road
Moolewood.Minnesota 5.;1C9
Telephone ;612; 777.0127
MINNESOTA rth .
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
ra.%31ii 23gS
June 28, 1981 �`�J �,+
�,� JULvL: 1!i co
iv ECEiVED c
7-3 Mr. Robert Eigenbeer C T'f OF J
12015 Central Avenue N.E. �;c� '�U °�1S VIEW ��`
Blaine, Minnesota 55434 "-�='
•
Dear Mr. Eigenbeer:
. Mr. Thomas Petersen presented his review of the preliminary plat of Mounds View Square
Development to the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisors for their
consideration. We accept his report.
The bulk of the soils in this plat are suitable for development with minor limitations,
i.e., Zimmerman and the Lino Urban complex. Major problems are sidewall caving of
trenches for foundations, low fertility when reestablishing vegetation, and wind
erosion during development. All these limitations can be easily overcome.
However, the policy of the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisors
is not to recommend development of wetlands better suited for storm water retention.
We recommend that lots 17, 18 and 19 remain undeveloped. If these lots are
developed all organic soils should be removed, replaced with suitable fill, and
allowed to settle for an appropriate time (about one year) before development
begins. .
Sincerely,
r
;IL.-54t
Russell S. Adams, Jr.
Plat Review Committee
c.c.: Mr. Thomas Petersen
Mounds View City Council
Rice Creek Watershed District
•
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
• To: Mounds View Planning Commission,
From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
Subject: Signage Requirements in PF and CRP Zoning Districts
Date: July 29, 1999
BACKGROUND:
As I previously indicated to you the City Council has asked that the staff and Planning
Commission continue to look into and make recommendations concerning ordinance
amendments to the sign ordinance to allow billboards in certain areas of the community and to
allow signs in the PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy,Recreational and Preservation
zoning districts.
I am still waiting for an opinion from the City Attorney's office concerning the proposed
billboard ordinance. Based on the direction of the Planning Commission at the July 21, 1999
meeting staff is bringing the ordinance amendment allowing and setting standards for signs in PF
and CRP zoning districts forward for Planning Commission action separately from the billboard
ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
•
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.
Signage allowed would include 100 square feet of signs on the building and a 340 square foot
pedestal sign for each street frontage. If the site has more than 100 feet of frontage an additional
100 square foot pedestal sign would be allowed. Any pedestal sign which is within 100 feet of a
single family residence cannot exceed 40 square feet, however. This is open for discussion. The
amount of signage allowed may be more than necessary.
The existing signage at parks in a neighborhood setting appears to range from 18 to 20 square
feet total sign area while the main City Hall sign is approximately 128 square feet in area. The
total freestanding signage at the Community Center appears to be approximately 90 square feet.
Signage at the golf course has been at times as much as 130 square feet.
REQUESTED ACTION:
It is requested that the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution No. 592-99
recommending City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 637.
• N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\7-29-99.MEM •
A
ORDINANCE NO.637
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 PERMITTED SIGNAGE IN PF
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND CRP CONSERVANCY,RECREATION,PRESERVATION ZONING
DISTRICTS;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 struck out and italicized,respectively,to read as follows:
m. PF Public Facilities District:Signs not exceeding 100 square feet total per building. In
addition pedestal signs are allowed in accordance with Section 1008.01. Subdivision 6 except
that no permit shall be granted for any pedestal sign of more than forty(40)square feet within
one hundred feet(1009 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(1009 of any single family residence. •
SECTION 3. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty(30)days after its publication in the
official City newspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of
1999.
Dan Coughlin,Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles S.Whiting,City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
•
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\637.ORD
RESOLUTION NO. 592-99
• CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO.
637; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPTER 1008 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PERMITTED SIGNAGE IN PF PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND CRP CONSERVANCY,RECREATION,PRESERVATION ZONING
DISTRICTS;'PLANNING CASE NO. SP073-99.
WHEREAS, Section 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code sets standards for signs and
billboards in the City; and
WHEREAS, Section 1008, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code does not list
any permitted signage in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy,Recreation, and Preservation
zoning districts; and.
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that signage is necessary
and desirable in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy,Recreation,and Preservation zoning
districts; and
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed Ordinance No. 637, an
• ordinance amendment pertaining to permitted signage in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy,
Recreation, Preservation zoning districts.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends City Council approval of Ordinance No. 637, an ordinance amending Chapter 1008,
Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to permitted signage in PF Public
Facilities and CRP Conservancy,Recreation,Preservation zoning districts.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this
resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopte• is • •ay o •ugus , ''1.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Attest:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP073-99\ORD637.RES
S
•
1 1008.0•
008.01
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 subdivisio
a sign advertising a public telephone may be located in the area ahead of the buildin
g)
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 includea
in the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe each letter, figure or symbol
displayed thereon.
City of Mounds View
• PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
July 21, 1999
Moundsew City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds:, `ew, MN 55112
allber
alk1. Call to Order s`<<, <: ;;..., .`<:;::<..': r
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterso 7:00 p. I
` tuly 2111p .;t
titit‘z,„,,e' 1162104
2. Roll Calla
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke;= :::A.,Hegland, Johnson, Kaden,
Laube, Miller, and Stevenson (Commissioner Stevenson_>joined t eet g.at 7:12 p.m.).
„gosh VINIO ,
Awawask VMS"
Members Absent: None. <�«<A .- "" _.,
Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community3e It pment Director Rick Jopke,
Council Member Roger Stigney, and Recorder Trish'Pearson.
0 Atto Af
M x_ AW
zV ta.
Index to Minutes141 Page
g
.k4. IAN AMittnaL-rm
Planning a`' 562-99,562-9•00fighwaylLOAROformerly known as
Quik Lam" s sideration` .=Resolution 586-99 a resolution recommending
ondi i y<rmit```o erate an automobile rental agency.
approval o�< _, �tllttt �aal use permit g Y.
X3 3"Y. .tr.'. fG+k; +':::. .,.•*
A Macfrugal Ce '..:>' hrift C tical• Applicant 2
�;� ..`",�\ ^gym`. .,,,__...
Planning o. 53 Red Oak Drive, Consideration of Resolution
: :-•• 9 - • '. • - `w'•�`�• e •• . •• • .1 •f. conditional use •ermit for an
OP
over:4ed garage. Allen ad> Dick, Applicant 4
Y
P = . :ng Case No. 569, 2732 Highway 10, Consideration of Resolution
: , a resolution r ommending approval of aconditional use permit
MP:. • •r a .,. ut oor produce stand at the Holiday Stationstore.
• 'T':':.':10: h67-0.
pplicant. 5
Planning Case No. 559-99, 2670 County.Road I, Discussion concerning
Application to rezone property and for a conditional use permit for an assisted
living senior residential facility. MSP Real Estate, Applicant. 7
0
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 2
Special Planning Case No. SP-07199, Consideration of a proposed ordinance
III
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. 15
Staff Reports/Items of Information " 15
Ap
Chairperson and PlanningCommissioners Reports * _,, :. 16
p a
3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items N,', n the Ag ;w ' : ek.
There were no citizen requests or comments on items namhe. ;genda. �.->.
. e.
4. Approval of Minutes `"
A. June 16, 1999 -0$tiv ,.y,: ...::.`
(41;1100k INSMO'
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Laube to approve t: ° u:;`w 01299 meefi " minutes as corrected.
.r. 040%litilatmar
Ayes— 8 4k<� Nays:�` -�-ite .::»:_::� '>�t�T'he motion carried.
RMY
0,$u"`'7 T' mak"',
5. Planning Case No. 562-99S:
Property I volved: 2975 High `<10 (siteitA1,0#10hown as Quik Lube)
Considera..: 4$410.Rti 6-g9: recommending approval of a conditional use permit
to operate m
t obile rental gen€ .y.
Applicant: A ac al Comp4Mtifty Car Rental)
The app, "`ant was pres'iflgek
Pla a: g Associate Ericsfqi gave the staff report as follows:
rc a 4pplicant, Thriftyl,ar Rental, is seeking a conditional use permit to operate an auto rental
4,,,.,,,,,:-.; at the proktif most recently utilized by Spots Quik Lube. As an accessory to the principal
4`=*o" . on. the applicant requests that they be allowed to sell rental vehicles from the site as
f "g 1icant indi44
cates that the proposed hours of business would be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. M i `•ay through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and from 10:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m. on Sundays.
Ericson stated that 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 date-stamped 7/15/99 was presented which showed the area for expansion as well as an area set
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 3
• aside for 18-20 vehicles. With the vehicle parking in front of the bays and along side of the building,
there is room for 23 vehicles at the site. Also discussed at that meeting was the need for landscaping
improvements,which the applicant had indicated would be acceptable, though other than the removal
of some of the plantings that are sickly or dying, no specific plans have been submitted for this. Staff
will discuss this matter with the applicant and the City Forester and will make specific
recommendations in this regard.
40,
Ericson stated that there was discussion of the general criteria, which apptio..:afs, conditional use
permit and the specific criteria which applies to this type of use,*0 that all o s`.. criteria were met.
G ..:.: �y�Ac.C`'�t��':
He stated that this location has a long history of automotivese, and t t #> ofthe property4<
commercial although the comprehensive plan indicates a to -density residential dei tr tion. Ericson
stated that due to the long-standing commercial history ,:.,.this location and the<ii pen ing re ision
<: ,k, sta FIs that
to the comprehensive plan, which could re-designate this rotiq as 'commercial us `'
the inconsistency with the comprehensive plan could be st,Ortagy. He added that'sta `believes a
residential use would not be appropriate at this property propertAiitakhIpcated at the intersection of
Highway 10 and Spring Lake Road. = '
4.97 ftek
Ericson reviewed the stipulations of the conditional s ;permit as tiltlin in the resolution. He
stated the resolution also addresses conditional s { ,,pertaini`n tro previous uses at this
location. He stated that the first paragrapht t"Page of t e r soluti n provided that all previous
property conditional use permits on file with this would'become > ' coked rescinded and considered
null and void", and that this language h "been approved by the ity Attorney.
fx
• Commissioner Miller noted a discre anc in r :and to the ours that the applicant had proposed, a
s.. � Y PP P P
7:00 a.m. start time, and the conditional use permit. which indicates an 8:00 a.m. start time. Ericson
stated the ho,,,listed in the:;:re mutton for the co di iot al use permit were more permissive than the
hours the ::=:licant had r `ue ed: _.He stater ` at the could be listed exactlyas the applicant had
..;13:.,.:_:::<..: Vit.,:.,.<>�.. w-t.. Y
the d Commission.
requested�tt �i sii' �i �the�
Chair Peterson st :,eft at it wase e consensus of the Commission to direct staff to amend the
resolution t9,...ogritat.ittiammencettOfit of business to be 7:00 a.m.
Co ioner Kaden ast '::< . ` `'":' -- : : I . : ..:. : , •.•.- . •a . - '-. • .'•. • -
consiations, if a busiosskii` homeowner desired to expand their impervious surface. •Ericson
stat 'yes. He explainedthat typically, the Public Works Department or the City Engineer would be
` "`ted. He added tbit in this case, he had forwarded the site plan to SEH who analyzed how the
al impervious rface would impact the site, and it was believed that there would not be a
6t:4101 that the drainage, accomplished with two catch basins in the parkinglot area,
..� :>; :;m romised.
MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Johnson. To Approve Resolution No. 586-99, a 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,
with stipulations.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 4
Ayes– 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried.
III
6. Planning Case No. 563-99
Property Involved: 8059 Red Oak Drive :,
Consideration of Resolution 588-99, a resolution recommending approval of a cond' oral use permit
for an oversized garage.
r:`.f-..:.:r`: s.
Applicant: Allen and Joy Dick ti
The applicant was present. ' > .Met, Ninow ow
.. .<><l _k=
II_•` :mac :'' �;�
egfr
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows ;ad :l :
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to constru` ` `` >sized garage at 8059 Red
»ate �;.;<:� >. <r;<.�<,.
Oak Drive,which is located north of Highway 10, between Hillview Shei ood Roads. The area
'' `�'' 142 s ar '` The house is set back
of the subject property—an interior lot—is approxi � �.:' � q ,. �:
approximate l 68 feet from the street, with the< t" ``:`ti e situated behind the house. The
house, at approximately 960 square feet, is presently la = ek.e ting two-stall garage, which
is 480 square feet. The applicant proposed l construct a X20 sq foot addition to the rear of the
garage, maintaining the same width ofthe existin __�garage.„ire roofline of the addition will tie in
`z <> •
perpendicularly to the existing garag���l >will ever be of tl� 'same height or a foot or so lower. In
addition to the garage, there is alta 130 sgae-foot shed in the backyard, which will be moved
further back to allow for t4.,,g„ar. e expansio v rie.. _: ;stated that the size of the proposed garage
would be 1,000M square feet, h e;gas comparable to th size of the home. While it would be larger,
there w n ist an F3 ' c e between o e and garage.
'1041,116„ '4.011119tu,
o + `�� � ba1 �
Ericson stated t t sta had reviewed` e,adverse affects, the criteria present with any conditional
use permit application, 0lad deters <>�that the proposed expansion would not adversely impact
n '`4 "' `x era` ' ate that the property is well screened from the neighbors bythe
neighbors g� �;�per � e st ed" p P Y g
garage itself'as well asshrubs iid a fence. He added that this is a deep lot, and the property to the
rear d':: not even see the g r>which is set back from the street a significant distance. He stated
tha.:=°n terms of screening; the criteria were met. He added that in consideration of multi-vehicle
f. es, boats, and recreational vehicles, the need for additional space is clearly demonstrated. He
s <`A that the general teria of the conditional use permit all appear to be met, and provided the
>: i :° : sion withoverview of the stipulations. He stated that the use is not in conflict with the
Oilialglio: :::r, atr and is in keeping with the City Code.
Chair'`"Peterson requested clarification in regard to the staff report, which indicated the addition was
perpendicular to the roofline. Ericson explained that the roof of the garage sloped forward instead
of peaking at the front, and that the expansion would tie into the existing garage, with a gable end
on the back. He stated that this would not be apparent from the frontal view of the property.
0
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
• Regular Meeting Page 5
• Commissioner Braathen stated that he had driven by the subject property, and found this to be a
beautiful, well-maintained home. He added that the expansion would not be very apparent.
MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Stevenson. To Approve Resolution No. 588-99, a Resolution
Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for an Oversized Garage at 8059 Red
Oak Drive; Mounds View Planning Case No. 563-99. :..
LYt:V $ is.
Ayes—9 Nays— 0 'h motion carried.
Ericson stated that this item would come before the City Council"for co i 'a � at their meeting
on July 26. :141..,M .: ...-.:14.,*
gih
. t:�:."�:�..� ''NW�,,�:'
dry:::,
7. Planning Case No. 564-99 '.. ; F
Property Involved: 2732 Highway 10. dr :....:;:;.;.; .
Consideration of Resolution 589-99, a resolution recommending approval conditional use permit
to allow for an outdoor produce stand at the Holi.d .� t:onstore. Y x� < '
Applicant: Chuck Durand 11 $ I `°''
ly:
:. rt*`S :... a f.i;:4:4 yylj:
gi
The applicant was present. Ait .i$` '°w:;:... ..,
AP
Planning Associate Ericson gave.the staff rept: as follows:
ado
Ralph Dura*.representin ,t rHoliday Stat t :r requesting a conditional use permit to operate
an outdoo > :r ;ce stand=int .e:: ting lot ofthe Holiday Stationstore at 2732 Highway 10, which
is located .` utheas� ' W Ii hwa 10 and Silver Lake Road. The proposed operation
r..:......tR.� 4:::... ccs ...:,::..::.::...::::::::.....g Y P P P
would be fro „ '. t rou h Oct m It s::. ear and years thereafter. The produce stand is planned
to be open fro At,) <.:.><.t dusk s v n<c ays a week. He noted an inconsistency in the staff report
paw
regarding th It r � o Brat n `and stated that this would be corrected in the resolution as well, if
necessa ':,he stand o s (: ; sproposed to be 12 feet square and would be located in the .
•.
it 'd not take up an Sithe parking spots required for the store. The Holiday store has more
pa: .0g than actually is muired, which will accommodate any additional parking needed. Ericson
gf
st'. - .that it was antic fated that many of the customers of the produce stand would be from those
ry,.,i: ..;,-1!.,,.,.at Holidaye "
• . :�0'at the resolution is drafted in such a way as to not expire. If there are no problems
with't-e operation, the applicant would like the opportunity to operate in subsequent years as was
done with Linder's and Merryville Farm Market. He stated that one of the stipulations required that
information be supplied to the Director of Community Development in the form of site plans and a
letter of intent from the owner on an annual basis. Other requirements are that the dates of operation
are listed within the resolution, and the hours of operation are only between dawn and dusk. He
• noted stipulations which require that signage shall only be allowed as affixed to the stand itself,
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 6
lighting for the stand would be supplied by the existing lighting, and the conditional use permit would •
be recorded with Ramsey County.
Ericson stated that the specific requirements pertaining to outdoor sales in this district appear to be
addressed satisfactorily, and that there does not appear to be any adverse impacts from this use. He
added that there were no problems associated with abutting residential properties.
Commissioner Stevenson asked if the stand location shown on the site plmly4klecatedplan within the
City's right-of-way or the Highway 10 right-of-way. Ericson«stated that=t*-Mposed stand would
be on theapplicant's ro ert , not in the City's easement' r'ea"or the MnDOT>i .ht-of-way. I e
the parkinglot was set back 30 feet from the ;1 pert line:>and th t the e'..: as suffict'er t
stated that P,.:.::.:p Y .::..::::,�:. .:.::
�:> `� ���:;<:<�>u<:::��, sir'
room for the produce stand. Commissioner Stevensoxplaineat, at ontt : x , the
location designated for the Mounds View monument typkaktifirAd if they weriii#006a with
that project in the future, they probably would not want a`prod stand located on thetack side of
the monument marker. Ericson stated that, as the conditic a use=permit was reconsidered on an
annual basis, if the Council and Commission's determined h t the< o tand should be eliminated
or moved elsewhere, they could bring it back before both bodiett011iPthOgedbodies at that time.
46.11,16k. votReop,
Chair Peterson noted a diagonal line in the nortn4>n_ ofe.lot as indicated on the site plan, and
requested the clarification of the notation a ::string toigefotlpps,,,44.tOvay area easement. Ericson
stated that during the planning of the Holiday Stati9ptotelmMIFilverviewStat Estates planned unit
development, one of the requirements;othe development agreement was that the owners dedicate
to the City of Mounds View thatular potion at theorth corner of Silver Lake Road and •
Highway 10. He stated that it w s on that oe of land 'that the City would, at some time in the
future, construct a gateway monu ent. He t t d easement has been filed with the County
dedicatingth land to the Cit:::a or fiat ur c i t`a•rtha Peterson stated that it appeared from the site
plan, that .;i. .:as appro :a.:e1 „5 feet cloitiiir the highway than the proposed location of the
produce stiAgiettson statAiWiliikwas somewhat correct, noting however, that the line was not
to scale, and'wift0100te,wouldIT,4Mpipately and25 feet between the stand and the City's easement
Nog007
area. .....'....,::;,.... ,;:::><�__;:`k:,
}
Council ' tuber Stigne f i} the proposed stand would be removed in October. Ralph Durand,
the ap.�, ant, stated that*
C e. <'eterson requestedlarification regarding the design of the structure. Mr. Durand stated that
"r 6 ld be a tempora ..ri<;ent, approximately 12 feet square, tied down on four sides. He stated that
7; •uld be table;;;rider the tent, and a few bushel baskets with produce off to the side. He stated
uY would be operating the stand, and he operated such stands within the Big Lake
a..,•;:i'40,,otatMat they would be specializing in competitively priced, home grown produce, and
that°"e«•'eheved it would be Of benefit to the community.
Chair Peterson asked if stakes would be required to sustain this type of a structure, and if so, would
they interfere with the underground tanks. Mr. Durand stated that the tanks were not located in the
grassy area. He added that the tanks are covered with a one-foot concrete slab. •
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 7
Mr. Durand stated that they were very anxious to see the Mounds View monument marker erected,
• and added that when that happens, they have other locations that would be appropriate for the
produce stand, which would not interfere with the project.
Commissioner Miller requested a correction to the Page 3, Item 5, second italicized sentence, to
indicate "It would not be inconsistent with the intent..." She requested that Page >' Item 8, first
italicized sentence indicate"outside the Holiday Stationstore," and the last italicized.; ;"-ence indicate
"...will be needed to accommodate this use." an*: :,< '
MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Stevenson. To Approve Rigel utionf . , ' ' 9, a Resolutic
Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit $or Outdoor< ro`e *Ams s at Holiday
Stationstore, Requested by Chuck Durand; Planning Case;=N o. 564-99 with stip ati ;.'; YL
vmmAyes—9 Na*Name > The motion carried.
Ericson stated that this item would also be considered bTie city 'ouncil at their July 26 meeting.
NY vialow,
401:1114,. .0.4 z»sem=;
8. PlanningCase No. 559-99 f z�4` `'''' ,.:.._.__>
Property ,x
involved: 2670 County Road I 'ir' '' ViSir
- Discussion concerning application to rezone property and forla conditional use permit for an assisted
0 living senior residential facility. z>ix* '>A"
Applicant: MSP Real Estate 40to < x
;end.. 'WO
;<.
The app 9::t . present..= A;F '> :>.
Planningt.
®
As ' '"`ate` on gav"`' " i t eport as follows:
n
' 'MSP Real Est made i'applicati ni to rezone the property located at 2670 County Road I from
B-2, Limited`Business co :er` i ,:to R-4, High-Density Residential, and for a conditional use permit
o con: . • • : ,- . ...0.4g:.
::: :: :: • -0 '•' • . -_ i ` : : -' •. . : : . 'II
direct behind SuperAmica at the crossing of Mounds View Drive and County Road I. Ericson
r7g73� �4kt,.\
sta: this was a forts unit facility, which would cater primarily to senior citizens who are not
. tut:ioilive independent;but do not require round-the-clock care. He stated that this use would fall
en indepe nt senior living facilities and nursing homes. He stated that he had compiled
Weill,: >. +�pMire Internet, which would provide a background into assisted living facilities.
ric"en t
Eated that parking issues were discussed at the prior meeting, in regard to the Code
requirements pertaining to this type of use and the demands it would create. He stated that staff had
researched the parking requirements for similar facilities in different cities within the Twin City area
and outside the state, and had determined that the City's requirements, (one space for every three
beds) falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of required parking ratios. He stated that
IIIdiscussion with cities requiring less parking indicated that the parking did not appear to be an issue,
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 8
however, the parking demand might be higher with this specific type of use. Ericson stated that
during periods of increased demand, other cities utilized on-street parking to accommodate overflow.
He stated that the City of Mounds View prohibits on-street parking to meet on-site parking
requirements, however, if there is a demand for on-street parking beyond City Code requirements
which cannot be met on-site, there is enough room on Mounds View Drive to accommodate some
extra vehicles. He stated that staff believes the parking concerns can be satisfactorily;addressed.
Ericson stated that another concern raised at the previous meeting was in regard to delivery vehicles,
specifically semi tractor-trailers, and whether or not they worleibe ableertrm a safe entry and
exit from the site. He explained that as currently proposed, the is only ons; ' band one way o::;_
of the parkinglot, and no room is available for a large truc.: i turn aro ' it hat although
fin;::: t;< °� �� ,x;..;2'7
such a vehicle might only be servicing the location once ateek, the v hicle wou o b.. out
onto County Road I, one of the busiest streets in thet and s would posei ii o s safety
concern. Ericson stated that staff had instructed theapplicant to initiate discussions with
SuperAmerica to see if it would be possible to tie into their real';ac si onto Mounds View Drive. He
stated that another, possibly preferable option was available, which>would be to provide an access
onto Mounds View Drive, eliminating any concerns or safety issu ' i e and to the trucks going in
and out of theproperty. He stated that this could also -provide access` r timer g enc vehicles, which
might need to enter and exit the facility. Ericson' d dvthat:::,the issuei` 'throu h-traffic could be
addressed in the site plan review, with a requirement thalt,061Weis,bethatposted "no exit," "emergency
exit," or"truck exit only. : -mi'' i
is •
Ericson stated that with regard to Wig anotheFissue is tl� `median located between the east and
t" '`"` ro osed entrance to the property. He
west lanes of County Road I which:<eIends ju><� ��ieyond tt� "p p p p y.
stated that staff had suggested lte applicant>contact ii he Ramsey County Traffic Engineer to
determine if itwould bepossible:to mnove the° e t ;ack. He stated it is not yet known whether the
county would .unit the taintdb cut bac allow safe access, but that staff would require that
some alteration b'e ade to% ( is ss more convenient. He explained that it might be premature
to begin inqur:: _g i t Athis matter an that<these issues could be addressed in the future with the site
plan review. `j "" w
Ericson sated that the ques't1 < ftaxes was brought forward at the Commission meeting, pertaining
�
to theis erences in tax generation between the proposed use and an unspecified commercial use. He
state:.:;that, in speaking fictiTilmsey 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
up to the first $$:50,000 in valuation. From thatpoint on, commercial uses are taxed at the
<i.� ° .4 percent. e stated that there is a provision in the tax code that allows for"elderly living
at `,.:``' y tn'the 2.4 percent rate at valuations after $150,000 as well, thus the proposed use
"I i.. < atthe 2.4 percent for its total valuation. He stated that while a commercial use may
be taxed'at a higher rate after the initial $150,000, it would not be unrealistic to assume that the
proposed use would be"valued" significantly higher than a retail or commercial use. He added that
it is not currently known what assessed valuation the County Assessor would establish for this use,
and there are no known similar facilities with which to compare. He stated that, as best as staff can
determine with the information available, the proposed facility would likely generate an equal or •
greater amount of taxes than many, but not all, commercial uses.
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 9
• Ericson stated that another issue discussed at the prior Planning Commission meeting was the
proposed rezoning of the property, and concerns expressed regarding the potential re-uses of the
property should the assisted living facility fail or be sold to another developer. He noted the
conditional use permit provides that the assisted living facility is the only type of use allowed. He
stated that there are other types of"group housing," however, after closer review of the City Code,
staff had determined that this could only be permitted in a residential or"home" type:structure. He
cited the exact language of the Code which indicates "...group housing, which is onlyallowed if the
use is in a family dwelling and be limited to no more than 12 children." 1- ed 1 at the possibility
�.�: P Y
of the use being altered to some other type of"group housi g would.» Wr if someone were
to change the structure itself to a house or dwelling,andthtstaff did no,x<A. ;..114 was feasible
r 1 ::
likely.
.:...
or -siowitto
Ericson stated that the other possible option would be to pro e some type of multi-family ousing
on the site: He explained that if the proposal as presente4110104,could not be re-u'sed for multi-
family housing, as it would not meet building or housin$;04,14e stated that if there were a
proposal to change this to some type of multi-family dwelling rtments or town-homes, the
developer would have to clear the building from the site. :He stateda > ::ugh this could happen,
the economic factors would make it veryunlike,,pl: , `ie d:ded that="'"' ��"e setback and parking
requirements for multi-family dwellings, probablyv o >,twelve u it "could be constructed at
that site. le" ;' t
ee Wiliam*
Ericson stated that the Code in Section 19.04 Sudivision > is somewhat unclear in its definition
of what would be considered a simila r .up housing use. He stated that as the subdivision heading
• n ` . fig``
is Nursing Homes, staff could cot d that stttiilar type_sf f group housing would pertain only to
elderly group housing. He explained, however,l at because this is not explicitly stated, staff would
recommend h t if the Commissiondesired to if ithet` `e of housing to the elderly, the code should
be amendeftqcefleet thttelugated that agent be accomplished by amending the first line of
Subdivist>::: 109= :4(2) to4 d <h rsing homes and other elderly congregate housing..." which
would eliminate '4t stion6t-Ag`".:.:. k:other similar uses would be.
WIMP
Commissionapplicant had provided the number of staff they would be utilizing
at the faces' ity. Ericson state`< e applicant had indicated that the busiest shift would require 8-9
•
«.>:.:.;.»»::»>.;..-
the ;g:
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 10
He added that if the parking demand was greater than the Code anticipated, the resolution could •
require the developer to provide those additional spaces.
Commissioner Laube suggested that the applicant confer with the businesses across the street, which
generally did not fill their parking lots to capacity, to assist in accommodating overflow parking.
Ericson stated that this could be explored, but that he would be concerned with people crossing
County Road I. Commissioner Laube stated that Mounds View Drive was already utilized by a great
deal of pedestrian traffic, and with the addition of vehicles parked on the sides,of#:the street, it would
pose a serious safety
concern.
Iingage .F4i'...
<4'iliNitimuCommissionerc
inlying u� �.:..:::...:::.:::.:.,,�<.,::,.para
to it on their own property, and just expand that entrance. iso stated that this could e one and
that there would be room to shift their access away fli .uperAmerica access,to prevent
interference with their driveway. Commissioner Berke statas would align the access with
the residential streets, which would not be proper planning. r 'on ted that this would not be a
commercial exit, and would not generate a large amount of traffic:.Com ssioner Berke stated that
believed businesses should not impact reside.: <H;e added fa `felt the applicant was
he p u:<..:...�x:�::.::::::.
misleading the Commission regarding the amount> * .arking e would` '` uire.
40,
PRIONabote
Council Member Stigney stated that he was wOr concerned wit: h ; ' in issues. He explained that
both his son and daughter-in-law wer mployedN at care fseiiiaies, and he often visited friends in
t : 'z •
different nursing homes. He stated tha .alway�Yiticed a lOr of sufficient parking. He suggested
that they attempt make a comparison to the retirements with those of the Milwaukee
facility, if similar in use. He stater that the issue of.e equate parking should be stressed.
Commissioner> e,ke statdttaqtfitws is assist d living care, the staff requirements would be lower,
os
but thepossibilityten existittlipTesidents would be able to drive and have vehicles. He added
• that if therelatbeimer"k§ifieftpe residents would not be able to drive, but there would
be more staff reiedwhich would al o m act theparking Ericson noted that at this point, the m_ .
applicant was applying forr,ezoningand conditional use permit. He asked if the Commission felt
• .::40; i location, and if the request for rezoning could be
recommended for approViiite lded that, after these matters were determined, and when the type
of c tentele at the facility>and the parking requirements were established, it would be up to the
applicant to meet those r tiirements. He stated that the result of these determinations might indicate
wryer number of units>at the facility.
IV - : �.,.:.;l, stated that the applicant had indicated they were considering allowing spouses
to>;:si e a , ;->-facility, and noted that a spouse might have a vehicle. In addition, he stated that if
the pros `rty`is.rezoned, and the project fails or is withdrawn, he was concerned that the result might
be the restriction of other types of businesses in the future.
Ericson stated that at times in the past, zoning has been contingent upon certain conditions. He stated
he had discussed this matter with the City Attorney, and explained that although zoning is not •
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 11
110 typically conditional, there were ways to draft an ordinance to reflect that the subject property would
revert to its original zoning if the plan does not work out.
Commissioner Stevenson stated that he would like to see that type of"conditional zoning." Chair
Peterson stated that he agreed, and that this should be done in consideration of consistency with the
comprehensive plan. Commissioner Johnson stated that he agreed, adding that he thought that a B-2
business would be more appropriate at this location, and that this proposal would rate a large
impact on the residents. He stated that he believed the applicant required` t least twice the amount
of parking he was suggesting. AMOint
AtO
Commissioner Hegland asked what prevented them from le ng the zoning of ex Hs erty B-22,pd
why they could not adjust the Code if necessary to allow thistype of04h 4n a B-2 D i ? .ym rlcson
explained that the Code could be amended to allow a certa` e.in4,tlt district, and f 'particular use
appears to be a good fit for this location, however he explAteeilikiwy not be appropriate in another
location, which was the danger in amending the Code. 111111116,
Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding signage at the location. Eli ' at:ed that to some degree
all of the high-density residential uses have some, psignage, w < permitted by the City
Code. He stated if this matter proceeds to thata i nte=of i It addressee with the site plan review.
He stated in consideration of the expense c raftin 4 i l:an otl e developer requires some
assurance that the City would like to see thistype offacility OilitS4troopption, and that the zoning was
attainable. 1 :
w °°_'
Mike Lewis, representative of MShileal Estate,providedfe Commission with a revised site plan,
which indicated a drive-through from CougtlitRadijrMoundsCounty View Drive. He stated that he
believed this addressed the»m:o c 'ns regarding regar4Olomory vehicle ingress and egress. He stated that
they had,,calLqii$1,the representative of SupOdiffidica regarding utilizing their access for delivery,
and that fhe es ant to provide ordtdott,Opement, and would probably only give a permit or some type
of license fortllis.<Pur ose, which:=wo l<dNommo:<be revocable.
NftjemirkMr. g Lewis s:.. > t i in regara.rd to *staffing staffing requirements, and in terms of the type of clientele x
residin <: e facilit , , : consulted with Senior Solutions, in Madison, Wisconsin, and the
Fairvie . and Beckland a l l s.v" e stated they had determined that the Alzheimer's residents, in
app, , mately 24 units, would woulatgquire six staff members (for every four residents there would be one
staff ember), and the other 24 assisted care residents would require an additional six. He stated that
Aso
dnv,f, peak operation tyre would be a maximum of 12. He stated that this was the consensus of the
, ;'0s health care they had contacted.
"
t , ;representative of MSP Real Estate, stated that all of the parties they had contacted
stateda they had more than sufficient parking. He stated that assisted living facility residents
generally require 24-hour care, and would not likely be driving. He added that the price point they
would be asking of their residents would provide that they would not be in this facility if they did not
require true assisted living, and that all 48 rooms would require full 24-hour care. Mr. Pinkerton
• stated that the City staff had surveyed several assisted living facilities, the architects had designed 40,
and their care provider had worked in approximately 30 facilities. Commissioner Berke stated that
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 12
the St. Anthony facility indicated they were constantly receiving calls from the residents regarding •
insufficient parking. He added, although they met the parking requirements, there was overflow onto
the streets. He added that he resided in the neighborhood of the proposed development, and did not
want parking on the side streets.
Mr. Pinkerton stated that he did not want the residents or their guests parking on the side streets
either. He stated that they had contacted the ALS, a national provider of assisted ea'e who utilized
the ratio they were using as a guideline, which is 12 stalls for 24 beds, and t at they were proposing
more than one and one half times that amount. He stated that this ratio is54 t , e industry requires.
He requested that the Commission direct him as to how m arking would e squired.
.„"11:1011a.'`'....k:.. `Z
Council Member Stigney asked how many stalls the applicant had.:<„.1 r. Pinkert < t,ilei vith
proof of parking for an additional nine, there were 3 ittikkinggialls. He sta dif it tj< t ff had
VOW
conducted their research at 22 and felt that was adequate:>lo
211111,
Chair Peterson stated that one of the parking issues was whether wathalphetesidents would have their own
cars, and asked if it would be possible to restrict the `residents3 having their own cars. Mr.
Pinkerton stated that they could possibly restrict a ;erc a ":e of those ' t``p'not think their lender
would want to restrict the residents from havingvehicles,:<<.:: dded that i "did not anticipate a large
percentage of the residents having vehicles,,l t would prof toth e a deed restriction limiting
it. He stated that they had proof of parking,possiblt38`ote :iles if necessary. He added that
he believed that the parking should accommodate all parties at` ll times, and that this was their goal.
Anit
Carol Golden, 2749 Lake Court'` rive, ask `if the applicant would be providing some type of
transportation for the residents. M Pinkertonstated the<”'<had considered the matter, but this was to
be determi t by the provider ti Mrs. Golden GcOagleif the entire facility would be secure. Mr.
Pinkerto. . ;ghat it would 3 ih a controlled access on both floors, monitoring of the residents
at all time�>"
, Al `additional=j ``.«of the fenced back yard area. Mrs. Golden asked if the access
to the property �:. : :oin to be �_>° �' >: y Road I. Mr. Pinkerton stated that this was what was
mak, "�� A�..;:.:.:'.:.:
currently proposed
Commiser T,auhe ask i
s o could make County Road I an entrance only. Mr. Pinkerton stated
that he°."ought this would woubkoptikcellent idea. Commissioner Stevenson noted the center median,
whi,:< ould prevent any<<`etrns. Chair Peterson stated he had noticed the median had been cut
b.a in the revised siteVin . Mr. Pinkerton stated that this was what they were proposing.
sioner He .. d.asked if utilizing an access from the SuperAmerica driveway would reduce
< ` a °o.. : of ing space available at the proposed site. Mr. Pinkerton stated that at most, it
m '' 's. e two parking spaces which could be picked up on the other side of the access,
how= e , e did not think it would eliminate any.
Chair Peterson asked the applicant for his opinion regarding the language amendment to the
ordinance which would revert the property to its original zoning, should the proposal be withdrawn.
Mr. Pinkerton stated, in his opinion, the current owner of the property would be in favor of that if •
they did not go forward, and that he thought this was a good idea.
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 13
IIIChair Peterson requested that the Commissioners state their views regarding the matter.
Commissioner Hegland stated, in regard to rezoning, he was still weighing the idea of whether this
was a business or residence, but did not have a strong opinion one way or the other. He stated that
he would like to have the parking requirements established, and if that was done, he thought the
proposal would be acceptable. He stated that he hadn't heard any resident's objections to this type
of use. AP
Commissioner Kaden stated that he did not object to this type b ,..dri
yp o4� ,'e or th1a �ange. He stated
that he was in favor of amending the ordinance to revert Ape original »: the project was
withdrawn. He stated that the applicant should resolve t parking issues;°acrete number
should be established, particularly in consideration of prevgliting a negative impact imattidiffikfe0tutial
area. >::< 4, :> ,<::>...»*, :.
Ne
Commissioner Laube stated that he felt rezoning with the resat yeause was appropriate, and that
the language indicatingelderlycongregate was 'essa` tated that he was a resident
housing �. �::::...
in this area, and that the proposed idea fit very well with That they=w ' ; 1e;to see at this location.
He stated that he was concerned in regard to the •..:>1 ;.nd had manyi e calls from residents
expressing their concerns in this regard as well '' Ar
,
Commissioner Stevenson stated that he concurred With COtimatolter Laube, adding that this was
a preliminary stage in the process, and thatshould ge rd
they shout for <vvith the conditional zoning at this
III time. :.. xw
Chair Peterson stated he thougar
ht tis was,ow in. eradif
), a g Ud use for the property. He stated that in
inion <<�':. was a co eivato eratio``>i thou '"more residential in nature and that he could
his op � � �� p g
not think a c.that wo l = 'l e a ro r ; f `r this site. He stated that he believed this would
pp p
.•: >; 3` :_.=:rco' r ial uses addingthat the majorityof the traffic would be
be a love*04g4se than ca ptie e c
r ""T' tail t `:'' _.-. . .on might have customers comingin and out all daylong.
for visitors, � :��� �:� YP ' j�s� � :A<a g
idea toproceed with the zoningand the conditional use
He stated that 1z"""' �pE �?, it was` :.
permit, and tka l i :'on of the*'* king issues was required.
www
the ing issues, she w ul'dw 'e i
! ' n favor of it.
' 'ssioner Johnsonated that he was completely against the project, and not in favor of"down-
17
. �o: A9' P Y g p j
,,
0: in He stated tJ at if he was a business owner, with a business located next to the subject
400-
ttl;i.::: ::. A d had intended to see other businesses locate in that area, he would be very upset. He
st'9`t `'a`t>: <ad`dition to this they did not have enough information regarding the issues.
Commissioner Berke stated that he would have to be satisfied-with the parking prior to moving
forward, and that he would require clarification regarding what type of usage would be applied to the
facility. He stated that the matter was still too vague, and needed clarification regarding the staff
requirements. He stated that if he were satisfied with the outcome of these matters, he would be in
favor of the proposal.
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 14
Commissioner Braathen stated that he did not object to proposal. He remarked that the applicant had 110
presented an attractive facility. He stated that the specific use required clarification. He stated that
persons with Alzheimer's disease do require extensive care, and that as this disease progresses, these
people generally do not remain at this type of facility. He stated that he felt strongly about the layout
of the parking and the traffic pattern considerations, but believed the applicant was working diligently
to resolve these issues. He stated, in regard to the rezoning, he was of the opinion that they should
not rush to develop all the land in the area, however he was not against the)proposa end would wait
to gain more information prior to making his determination in the matter . 4;2
111„. latiMION
Mr. Pinkerton stated that he would attempt to engage one ofOr potentia ` re providers to address
the Commission and provide more information regarding theperation of the fa ht < tthe following
meeting. '4E:4.241*
«.:: : . :
woommi
9. Special PlanningCase No. SP-071-99 _ ''�a0m3
Consideration of a proposed ordinances amending Chapter 100`8 jl ' ounds View Municipal
Code pertaining to Billboards and amending the co.0011ihipg to signage the PF and CRP.zoning
districts. ator_s x >.>. :.. <`. .
fifoldalb,„, :dr
VINSINEW
Alt Vilitir
Community Development Director Jopke stated thatt he legal Watters pertaining to the billboard issue
: .:::i •
were presently being reviewed by 0 � �ty At,ney's opt. He stated that one of these issues
related to the deed restrictions, whichay prohibit billboards on the golf course, based upon the way
this property was dedicated and< eceived Ibitk,c0,01e noted this issue might raise some spot
zoning quest s, and thathe> ity Attorneaoffi t rxias attempting to locate the deeds pertaining
to this property. He explained4 that this information was necessary prior to proceeding with the
a=a
potential ordinance, .;lie statedaha head discovered through discussion with Mike Cronin, that if
the matter goes ;..044,they WtAgdagilfa,wouldconsider the possibility of a monumental type billboard,
in which the billboards°would be‘644tileted side to side, and at an angle greater than 35 degrees.
He stated thatn'"" te ma visual impact on the community, which is the intent of the
\Y 3
industrytut offered man terms of a landscaping base, and the opportunity for some type
of aument betweenA ti which could be quite nice. He stated that the other issue was the
potential spacing of the billol`ds, and that John Hammerschmidt had indicated, in order to maximize
t of billboardn the golf course, a 1000-foot spacing would be preferable to 1500 feet.
,:. -;:° ated that theirdinance relating to signage at PF or CRP zoned districts had been drafted and
:, ,,4,holetiriimission for consideration. He stated that these two ordinances were not tied
could move forward independently, if the Commission so desired.
Commissioner Stevenson stated that he did not want the citizens of Mounds View to think that this
process was to allow billboards on Highway 118. He explained that the process they were
undertaking was due to the necessity to clarify the City Code in regard to signage. He stated that he
would like to proceed in the matter. •
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 15
0 Chair Peterson stated it was consensus of the Commission to proceed with the ordinance pertaining
to PF and CRP Districts, and directed staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at the next
Planning Commission meeting.
10. Staff Reports /Items of Information
A. Previous Council Action 4A'NE244.-01:43.
4" •1(...S-g$,Istk_
Community Development Director Jopke reported on CitygOintil action from the on NO
7. He stated they had moved forward with the public hearing and First imiotirgilian ordinance
changing allowed uses within the B-2 Zoning District. lie stated that the langu'alligrattorilad
been amended to indicate"educational or instructional facilities," in order to more broadly the
viss 'MOP'
use.
Noweink,
.,Animmisk
Planning Associate Ericson reported that the upcomingl!pfahrmtgipoivould include a conditional
use permit for an oversized garage, discussion regarding the vgiiitiflos,drainage easement at
Pinewood Circle, and the MSP Real Estate proposal for assisted living development.
4.1115W"At„ NW
4.000mqp.VItgigh, Ale
11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports .0
Ar 0 'V at0.01V
Commissioner Stevenson stated that he attended a tour of proposed asphalt trail around
• ii" 0?
Silverview Pond, with the on-site and general properties managers of Scotland Green. He stated that
r4,,mm. 44t
they were very anxious to Proceed with the project, and had requested the City of Mounds View
mir ...wk Af V
assist them in determining where their proppglitiglpolocated. He stated that the City's property
and easements,are very utWifklifle state,A40040 this is determined they indicated they could
proceed 4fifithe projectalfe'Oted thatifaittilin of the trail would be on the Scotland Green
4.aq,
property,IstankCitYlawir:",with the trees and the removal of an old running track from
the propert Ptl*ragation feitfiqjgokct. He added that he believed they would dedicate an
easement to theeggiptupssarystottiP-
},eiotook. 'Oar
Commissit$:.er IleglanclUdtthey had drafted an easement for this purpose, adding that, if the City
. •,: , • : • -, • 1r: • s -- • ••- y, he thought it would be appropriate. Ericson
stataihat staff would look into the matter.
„so
lr:V Adjournment#0
ew
liOttiVn#,Roilafther business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the
ri *
Wret.:%44,1k.rgr
vAt,.ga!vo Pp.m.
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
•
Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 16
Rick Jopke •
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Trish Pearson t;
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc f< �
sk
4 ,--
0,........:„. .4,
N:\DATA\USERS\BARBB\SHARE\KEEP-IT\WPDOCS\1 T UTES ' 07-21-99.WPD
amp,:WV' IngegigMk 4,.b
NM AV "`:moi. 'n,,*::
MFAW
3;'?Y ,jam •:Y*44....' XI 3
kar
, 0
• ....:1!..1:....
z 's k'�'"��
>q :„„.. ,, .m
•
. NMIS”
ti z za:.�tAs''-':'::;oma`.-^K.c .,�':t.S_az?a,:`��
R` .::':3 ::E '`£_v�.<.,...,::OY'f:.:”;,^......�. J
%
0460,.
'i 41 :s i, ..;:�`.k,3'.;�7.'x.'';":Ss,)
4gabni- 4,1. `:sri'< 4s:< its
may;.Y +fi":. T{.`q\.� :b
'tom ��� >
fa
•