HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-1999 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
August 18, 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 21, 1999
5. Planning Case No.566-99
Property Involved: 2809 Woodale Drive
Consideration of Resolution 590-99, a resolution recommending denial of a conditional
use permit for a garage expansion.
Applicant: Tim Skeate
6. Planning Case No.559-99
IP Property Involved: 2670 County Road I
Consideration of Resolution 584-99, a resolution recommending approval of a
conditional use permit for an assisted living senior residential facility; a rezoning
ordinance(Ord. 631); and an ordinance amending the Zoning Code pertaining to
conditional uses within the R-4 zoning district.
Applicant: MSP Real Estate
7. Staff Reports/Items of Information
a. Previous Council Action
b. Upcoming Planning Cases
c. Planning Commissioners Journal
8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
9. 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
11111 AGENDA SESSION
AGENDA
1. Review Minutes -- August 4, 1999
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1999\8-4-99.REG
•
• REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Meeting Date: August 18, 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
Attachments: Planning Application
Zoning Map
• Location Map
Site Plan
Resolution 590-99
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
1. 1 l ".. 1• . •— . •. . • ' . 1' 1 ' I 1 . - -- 1 - . •8 . , • • ,s - • • . •
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.
Skeate CUP Request
2809 Woodale Drive
August 18, 1999
Page 2410
Adverse Effects
Staff and the Planning Commission reviewed the adverse effects that would be associated with
this request, and have determined that for reasons that include inconsistency with the
comprehensive plan, the proportional imbalance, lack of screening, and impact to the appearance
of the neighborhood, such an expansion would not be beneficial to the neighborhood.
General CUP Criteria:
Also reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission were the general criteria for approving a
conditional use permit. Because of issues concerning a lack of screening, the magnitude and scale
of the garage in comparison to the house, and inconsistency with the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Code, granting a conditional use permit would not be in the best interest of the City.
Previous Planning Commission Action:
Given the findings associated with the adverse effects and general conditional use permit criteria,
the Planning Commission, at its last meeting on August 4, 1999, directed staff to prepare
Resolution 590-99, a resolution recommending denial of an over-sized garage conditional use
permit for Tim Skeate of 2809 Woodale Drive. •
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution 590-99, a resolution recommending denial of a conditional use permit
requested by Tim Skeate, 2809 Woodale Drive.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DE VCASES\566-99\SKEATES.PC1
•
•
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 590-99
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 2809 WOODALE DRIVE;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 552-99
Whereas, Tim Skeate has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a 1,296 square-
• foot garage on property located at 2809 Woodale Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential,
legally described as follows:
Lot 12, Except the North 250 Feet, Knollwood Park
County of Ramsey
WHEREAS, there is currently an existing 720 square-foot garage on this property and a
400 square-foot home on this lot; and,
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plan
d. Location Map
e. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings in
• relation to Section 1125.01 Subdivision. 1.e, of the Mounds View Zoning Code, regarding the
possible adverse effects of this proposal:
Planning Commission Resolution 590-99
August 18, 1999
Page 2
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 even expected in this district,yet a garage that is triple the size of the house
would be inconsistent with the second residential goal, which states: "Preserve the identity
and improve the quality and appearance of residential neighborhoods. " Allowing a
garage that is three times as large as the house would create an obtrusive structural
imbalance and could likely detract from the aesthetic appearances of the neighborhood
This proposal does conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Geographical Area Involved.
4. The Character of the Surrounding Area
In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are 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 significantly
smaller than those in the immediate area. While many homes in this area have large
garages, they do not appear out of place because the houses are larger as well. While a •
larger garage could be physically 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 physically obtrusive.
5. The demolish cited i►eed fur 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.
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the general criteria of
approval for conditional use permits, as stated in Section 1125.01 Subdivision 3.b. of the Mounds
View Zoning Code, can not fully be satisfied. These criteria and responses are as follows:
1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other •
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
Planning Commission Resolution 590-99
August 18, 1999
• Page 3
8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided.
Adding on to a small garage would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities,parks,
schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on
adjacent streets.
2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
Because the house to the east is set back further from the street than the house and garage
at 2809 Woodale Drive, any expansion to the subject garage would be fully visible to
people on both Woodale Drive and Silver Lake Road, in addition to the abutting property
owners. There would be little if any screening of the proposed 54 foot long garage, the
appearance of which would likely have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential
properties.
4. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
•
5. City and to the existing land use.
The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and
allow for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment. A garage expansion in
and of itself would be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code, although the Code
stipulates that any time a proposed garage or garage expansion becomes larger than the
house, City review in the form of a conditional use permit is required. The intent of this
provision is grounded in the concern that a garage should not excessively dominate the
property or create a proportional imbalance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission,
after reviewing the documents associated with this proposal, the possible adverse effects and
criteria for CUP approval, does hereby recommend denial of the conditional use permit for a 1,296
square-foot garage due to the existence of adverse effects resulting from the expanded garage and
the finding that the general criteria for approval cannot be satisfied.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this
resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Planning Commission Resolution 590-99
August 18, 1999
Page 4 •
Adopted this 18th day of August, 1999.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\563-99\588-99PC.RES
•
4110
• PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Subject: Conditional Use Permit request for an Assisted Living Senior Residential
Facility and to Rezone property located at 2670 County Road I
Planning Case: 559-99
Date: Meeting of August 18, 1999
Discussion:
The Planning Commission, at its last meeting on August 4, 1999, after having been presented with
parking requirement research tabulations and after having heard additional testimony from the
applicant and comments from staff and residents, moved to direct staff to draft a resolution that
would recommend to the City Council three things:
1. That a Conditional Use Permit for an assited living facility be approved;
2. That an ordinance be adopted to rezone the property located at 2670 County Road I from
B-2, Limited Business District to R-4, High Density Residential; and
3. That an ordinance be adopted to clarify language concerning"Nursing Homes and similar
group housing"
• Staff would add that the ordinance drafted to clarify the language concerning nursing homes and
similar group housing include a clause which would require that the base parking requirement of
one stall per three beds be increased as appropriate depending upon the intensity of the care
provided and the number of employees and or service providers needed.
The Planning Commission also requested two things of the applicant before it would act upon the
requests, namely that a letter from the property owner be submitted which indicates a desire to
retain the original B-2 zoning designation in the event that this project does not come to fruition,
and also that a site plan be submitted that shows in better detail the footprint of the building, the
parking areas and numbers of stalls, and accesses to the property. Staff is forwarding to the
Commission these two items, which have been submitted as requested
Recommendations:
Approve Resolution 584-99, a resolution recommending (1) approval of a Conditional Use Permit
as requested by MSP Real Estate for an assisted living senior residential facility, (2) adoption of
Ordinance 631, an ordinance rezoning 2670 County Road I from B-2 to R-4, and, (3) adoption of
Ordinance 639, and ordinance clarifying langauge in Section 1109.04 of the City Code.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
•
08/05/1999 13:04 6123364565 MSP REAL ESTATE, INC PAGE 02 '
•
May 24, 1999
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Re: Application for Rezoning of Tract A,
Registered Land Survey No.414,
By MSP Real Estate,Inc. ("MSP")
Dear Sir/Madam:
M&E Realty Co., as the owner of the above-described property("Property"),has
entered into a purchase agreement with MSP for the sale and purchase of the Property.
MSP's obligation to purchase this Property is contingent upon obtaining rezoning to
allow for their development of an assisted-living facility. In order to allow MSP to •
obtain the rezoning of the Property,we have executed the application for rezoning. This
letter is submitted in compliance with the City's requirement that a letter of permission
from the owner of the Property be submitted with the application for rezoning.
If MSP does not subsequently acquire title to this Property, we would prefer that the
current B-2 zoning be maintained. Therefore,we request that if the City approves this
application for rezoning,such approval be conditioned upon MSP acquiring fee title to
the Property.
Sincerely,
M& E REALTY CO.
13y: .hien... „cL.
Bruce W. Engelsma esident
cr 110
— w
sc 199
• 1,7th. -
(..::::
1 ER - .
, „,---
1 it
II
ISI rem
�•�
ee
--_ pi
1 . ,_
/ :
...,
+ I., _t
hro i 1/ is" _
• iips
•
I 1
,1
,
1 ; r 4
t / lip:
i ` 1
� I
, ' ' r
kw .11
I �I /
l s i • i s 4 , 1
1 ` A \ \
•
1
r, ,i )
I. ii `\
Ili, /
iice
1 .
r) C30
1 1 1 ri . ,i, .
1 3 -±
i+ � iI w `i`� �
1 1 r • 60
i li .-y ,����%/
1 r------------*---............_..........._
0 _ ;
' 11 A cT I,1 A E W, PROJECT MSP ASSISTED CARE
1N CIN ER1NG . MOUNDS NEW, 1AI
J1 i___
A XH5R itiMXXXXXX
row sin rtwr
red Amusr lin 11E— (2
our.rr K
ORDINANCE NO. 631 •
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF 2670 COUNTY ROAD I
FROM B-2, LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL, TO R-4, HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, TO ALLOW FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING SENIOR RESIDENTIAL
FACILITY AND AMENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP;
PLANNING CASE NO. 559-99
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Recitals
Section 1.01: MSP Real Estate has applied for a rezoning of the property located at
2670 County Road I, currently zoned B-2, to be rezoned as R-4, High Density Residential, said
property legally described as follows:
Tract "A", Registered Land Survey 414
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
Section 1.02: The use proposed byMSP Real Estate is an assisted livingsenior residential •
P p
facility; and,
Section 1.03: The Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. Site Plan
e. Staff Report
f. Staff Parking Analysis Memo, dated 8/3/99
g. Letter from M&E Realty, Property Owner, dated 5/24/99
h. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
I. Planning Commission Resolution 584-99
Section 1.04: The Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of approval
from the Mounds View Planning Commission as stated in Planning Commission Resolution No.
584-99; and,
Section 1.05: The Mounds View City Council does hereby find that this proposal meets
the general requirements and standards for Rezonings as follows:
111
• Ownership: The application for approval of this rezoning has been filed by MSP Real
Estate, who holds a purchase agreement for the property, and has been executed by the
owner of the property, M&E Realty Company.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency: The comprehensive plan designation for this property
is Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. The proposal is consistent with this designation.
Geographic Area Involved: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of
Mounds View Drive and County Road I. Nearby uses include a SuperAmerica and the
Silver View Plaza to the west, a high density residential development and Silver View
Park to the south, and a Burger King, Bicycle shop and a senior high rise to the north.
Impact to Adjoining Properties: It is believed that the impact of this proposed
development would be minimal. The use would act as a transition between the present
commercial and residential uses.
SECTION 2: The Mounds View City Council hereby amends Appendix A of the Mounds
View Municipal Code entitled"Specific Rezonings" and amends the Official Zoning Map for the
City of Mounds View to change the zoning designation on the property described above from B-2
to R-4.
SECTION 3. The Mounds View City Council does hereby stipulate that in the event the
• development being proposed by MSP Real Estate does not come to fruition within one year of
this ordinance's adoption (or sooner, upon written notification of the applicant), the Council will
act to reinstate the property's original B-2 zoning classification.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication.
First Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this_ day of , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1999.
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
• N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\MSP631.ORD
ORDINANCE NO. 639
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW •
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1109.04 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO CONDITIONAL USES WITHIN THE R-4,
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE 559-99
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is
hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions struck cut
and-i-talicized, respectively, to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Nursing homes and other senior congregate housing but not
including hospitals, sanitariums or similar institutions; provided, that:
a. Side yards double the minimum requirements established for this District and are
screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title.
b. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one(1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, •
subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-29-96)
c. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational area. Said area shall be fenced
and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. (Ord. 590,
11-29-96)
d. The site shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to
accommodate traffic which will be generated.
e. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance
with the Mounds View Sign Code.'
f. All State laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to, and all required
operating permits are secured.
g. One off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title is provided.
h. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and
satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
I. The parking requirement of one (1) space per every three(3)beds or fractions thereof
shall be increased as appropriate depending upon the intensity of the care provided and the •
number of employees and or service providers on site at the Council's discretion.
•
Ordinance 639
• Page 2
SECTION 2. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty (30) days after its publication in the
official City newspaper.
First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on the 23th day of August,
1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on the 13th day of
September, 1999.
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
•
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
•
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\639.oRD
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 584-99 •
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, REZONING REQUEST AND CODE AMENDMENT ASSOCIATED WITH A
PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING SENIOR RESIDENTIAL FACILITY TO BE
LOCATED AT 2670 COUNTY ROAD I;
PLANNING CASE NO. 559-99.
WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for an
assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I; and,
WHEREAS, such a facility would necessitate a rezoning of the property from Limited
Business Commercial (B-2) to High Density Residential (R-4), a request for which has been made
by the applicant; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: •
Tract 'A', Registered Land Survey 414
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
a.. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. Site Plan
e. Staff Report
f. Staff Parking Analysis Memo, dated 8/3/99
g. Letter from M & E Realty, Property Owner, dated 5/24/99
h. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
WHEREAS,the rezoning request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, which
identifies this land as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development; and,
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has considered the specific criteria
for assisted living facilities as they appear in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2 and find that they are •
met; and,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99
• August 18, 1999
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has considered the provisions from
Section 1125.01(1)e of the Zoning Code regarding possible adverse effects of the proposed use and
makes the following findings:
(1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The geographical area involved.
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need for such use.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use PUD, which would be consistent
with the proposed R-4 zoning of this site. Such a facility would help meet the housing needs
of a particular segment of the community. The property is located between commercial sites
to the north and a high density residential development and park to the south. The proposed
use would act as a buffer between the existing land uses. The proposed style and architectural
design of the proposed facility would blend into and add character to this area.
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the
general criteria for CUP approval in Subdivision 1125.01 (2) have been met:
• (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public
facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
It is not expected that this use will have any impact on parks, schools, streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be
no deterrence to development of vacant land.
This development, while not abutting any residential property, would be sufficiently
compatible with the existing land uses and would not cause any foreseeable depreciation in
neighboring property values.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent
residential properties.
The architectural renderings presented to the Planning Commission and public show a well
designed and aesthetically pleasing building.
(4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and
to the existing land use.
• The demand for assisted living facilities such as the one proposed is growing to
accommodate an aging population.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99 •
August 18, 1999
Page 3
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district
in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The use would be consistent with the R-4 zoning district, which allows for assisted living
facilities with a conditional use permit.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development, which indicates an anticipation for a variety of uses. An assisted living
facility would be consistent with this designation and would also address a goal to offer a
wide range of housing alternatives to a variety of population segments.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
It is not expected that this use would create or generate substantial levels of traffic. As such,
it would not be expected that this use would cause traffic hazards or congestion.
(8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be •
provided.
All of the infrastructure serving this site are installed and provided--no additional
infrastructure will be needed to accommodate this use.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby recommend that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Approve a Conditional Use Permit for an assisted living senior residential facility at 2670
County Road I, with stipulations.
2. Adopt Ordinance 631, an ordinance rezoning the property located at 2670 County Road
I from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential, with a clause
indicating that in the event this project does not go forward, the previous zoning will be
reinstated by means of a subsequent rezoning action.
3. Adopt Ordinance 639, an ordinance amending and clarifying Section 1109.04, Subdivision
2 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to pertaining to conditional uses within the R-4, High
Density Residential zoning district.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99
• August 18, 1999
Page 4
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff
to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 18th day of August, 1999.
Gary Stevenson, Acting Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke,
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
•
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCAS ES\559-99\584-99PC.RES
•
a
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
ID
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
August 4, 1999
Moundsew City Hall
2401 Highway 10, ounds i'
1ew,MN 55112
1. Call . :.*NMIAI
to Order '' we "` .2
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson �: .enso : t 7:00 p.m.,`_;'g t 1 , 0
2. Roll Call ' ` > H; w.
Members Present: Acting Chairperson Stevenson, Cossionetrao
rrinAV egland, Johnson,Kaden,
Laube,and Miller. ° .«;. < .,
,w'.'LJ:ti. :�:93'A.C,'+*: A`?t ;ii�':XS<'
.;i':A4 Vii :;;
Members Absent: Chairperson Peterson andaPfitiPtataathen,AIM prior notice.
AV mrWOMONK.:.0eY
Also Present: Planning Associate Jim,=Ericson, community e elopment Director Rick Jopke,
Council Member Roger Stigney, Economic Development C rdinator Kevin Carroll, and Recorder
IDTrish Pearson. �k
:gIndex to Mtn .s ddli m . Page
Planning ee66-99, 20 ::�:: idale Drive. Discussion regarding a
conditional u ._ef ; request to"ia 1,296 square-foot garage.
Tim Skeate, A,:•.l `141111 2
Planning .se No. 559vAgkagount Road I. Discussion concerning
apple a ion to rezone pro.,etand for a conditional use permit for an
ass d living senior res enTIM facility. MSP Real Estate, Applicant. 5
1 9.:_ 'n Case No. 5.>`'3 9,Lots 17 & 18,Edgewood Square(Pinewood
:,;; g � g q
Discussi.' .ncerning a request to vacate a portion of a drainage
ernes;= allow or the construction of two single family homes via a
e':grAlint41015n permit. Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land
Deve opment, Applicant. 13
Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99, Consideration of proposed ordinances
amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
• Billboards and amending the Code pertaining to signage in the PF and CRP
zoning districts. 21
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 2
II
Staff Reports/Items of Information 23
Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 23
r'otafes __._.
3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda°, : rc
�'rte'"" VIM*
...::::<z�..
x'"
There were no citizen requests or comments on items 1w, on he agenda. ''
eh .Nvi
4. Approval of Minutes 011., fid' :x � . .
IMPiiiiiit, 'MO'
Weak,
A. July 7, , aligalb
.
vuMmat
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hegland. To approve the May 19, I 3'Y s minutes as corrected.
Ayes–7 Na <x
. T
motion carried.
*gym:_a\�N'�zk ,,.
5. Planning Case No. 566-99 'let<..1.
.. uy
"kW lir
Property Involved: 3809 Woodalev 6,s1
Discussion regarding a conditionaluse pernut> construct'a 1,296 square-foot garage.
ir
Applicant: Tim Skeate . . >z s < 5
`,��� is �� kCJ.':' .:.:_ ._t€
-.':>:ih\ :.,k.. 33�a>:y'::'�` o,`.' o: Y>'>X <i'l:N'. �.::R.
�> •it
The applicaiVoggiAgtpresent
Planning Assoc."'''' ;::. krt 0.0 µave thereport as follows:
;f:'kkr : .: "'uestin a conditional usepermit to construct a 576 square-foot
The a•.;�.xcant, Tim Ski ;. g q
addi � to his existing 720 q re-foot garage. The property, 2809 Woodale Drive, is located south
of ' way 10,two.propes west of Silver Lake Road. The area of the subject property—an interior
1045s approximately 16,200 square feet. The house and garage are set back approximately 60 feet
woo
0. e street, witty," detached garage situated alongside the house to the east. The house, at
ately 400 s are feet, is much smaller than the existing two-stall garage, which is 720 square
-. : , •:. ;nt proposed to construct a 476 square-foot addition to the rear of the garage,
m•`f. ig the same width and roofline of the existing garage.
Ericson stated a conditional use permit is required due to the size of the proposed garage, which, at
1,296 square feet,would be three times the size of the house. He stated 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 0
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 3
1111
property. A garage this size, were it to be built, would appear out of place and obtrusive, in staffs
opinion.
Ericson stated the size of the garage, with respect to the home, appears to be excessive however, all
of the dimensional criteria associated with this request, in regard to setbacks, *Wing between
buildings, width of the proposed garage, and the numbers of doors, satin tge q irements of the
Zoning Code. The total square footage of the garage and proposed ast$94 -471,296 square feet,
which would comprise about 16 percent of the rear yard ar `s
uhe ma = erage allowed,0
,..
twenty percent. , >*<:::mo
AO IMP.Maii:D?
'' e
MO ,4Ericson stated that the City Code states the Planning Com itssion shall'examine the pos adverse
effects of a conditional use permit request, prior to makingty; ecommendation. He noted the
possibility of adverse affects with this type of conditio4omi ,regard to its impact upon the
neighborhood, in terms of aesthetics and general appearance appearaoebtAltitsk,He stated that garages and
other types of accessory structures like sheds and tool uildingu` `a toed and expected in this
district,yeta garage that is triple the size of the houseay be incorssttth the intent and spirit
of the Code. He provided the Commission with thesit = .,_of the pros Ma for their review.
Ericson stated staff notified all residents with 350 feet.t f�fsubject >ro e , and had received two
negative comments from residents who indicated the did nNaifiliiiis would be a good addition to
AV the neighborhood. He stated there wasoncern in regard to` he possible operation of some type of
IPbusiness within the garage. He statectt'�hpplicsit indicate4iihere would be no business, and he did
not intent to utilize the garage for> y purpo inther that Tae storage of vehicles, snowmobiles, and
a boat. yz, ' "'''
h
'Acting :j..: t '-nsono npubli
c
heatingat 7:05 p.m.
fi. \ £ V :inh
There was no b .n ut. X � kr
Cyt..;otb alit
Acting Chairi tevensott lo's d the public hearing at 7:06 p.m.
ive
„„,....4,
.,,,,:,:„:„:5..,...
Acti hair Stevenson inqu•If staff could provide the Commission with copies of the resident's
contents. Ericson stated:4that the comments were in the form of anonymous voice mail messages,
. e had not had the ortunity to transcribe them, however, the Commission could refer to them
4111:r-'r consideratio fthe matter.
elOhnson inquired how many persons resided at the property. Ericson stated the
asp, . .t
e ated only himself, and that he had no need to expand the house, however, required
additions garage space. Commissioner Johnson stated he might consider the need for additional
space if more people lived at the house, however, in this case, he felt the proportion of the garage to
the house was excessive.
II
Commissioner Kaden stated that he had driven through the neighborhood of the proposed project, and
saw two very oddly built houses,with new construction. He stated one was an older 1 '/z-story house,
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 4
•
with a one-story addition and a flat roof, and connected to that house, was a three-story addition with
a garage on the first floor, a full basement, and a high pitched roof. Commissioner Kaden stated the
other property, located on the same block as the applicant's, was an older one-story stucco rambler,
with a 1 '/z-story addition. He stated the addition was sided, and did not match the stucco. He stated
that the garage had a pitched roof, unlike the other structures on that property,. ' it was very
noticeable. He inquired, in light of these structures, what the logic was inythis request. He
suggested the Commissioners drive byand examine thin :
ese ro .,erties, adc 'i t` e did not know if
this would apply in terms of disallowing further construction ": is°type,44tifrias.of approving the
applicant's request.
'""600606..:.:.:. .: ..
Commissioner Miller stated that she had driven by the subject pro,: rty, however, h id;n t_ drive
through the neighborhood. She stated, as she drove downs ilver ke Road, she noticedtth a existing
garage is already much larger than the house, and she was: €:o in fti ur of allowing the proposal to
construct it further out of proportion. Neggalm
Atilt
Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the calls recei_ ed by staigiiilikpecific objections they
raised. Ericson stated that one caller expressed concerni' : iing a business occurring in the garage,
and the other caller was concerned in regard to the dtspi'orte size c the garage. Commissioner
Hegland stated that the business operation issue had been-a 1 d, and was not allowed. He stated
that one of the problems with the interpretation of the City Code at they only consider the square
footage of the foundation. He explained that mo .t f the homesA in the City of Mounds View are 1'/2
_:> •
stories or more. He stated that the.: � �=cant s:ts�a smaller_i�ime, and it appears that the home itself
could be expanded at some pointtin the futu Hes stater, from his perspective, he did not see the
property as something that could' of be improved is :nd the garage, and that this could provide a
different r=ti. i the fut A :' =Mated he` � d o` feel this was a great problem. Commissioner
Heglantede ity encourage people to clean up their lots through ordinances,
and adde•�: % `w_rth ali � t wuld probably require additional storage. space for lawn
equipment arMialia,. He staff::klyg410 favor of the proposal.
Commissiolar *a secondary building could be constructed on the property,
a ¢:' fated that the maximum size would be 1400 square feet, with a
cond'ti r'nal use permit. Commissioner Laube stated, in his opinion, the City had Codes in place, and
alt �: ,:<''.
` gh they are not al�?sys�right or proper, they take into consideration the square footage of the
opt' versus the square f�'otage of the garage. He stated this garage would be considerably larger than
l •.use, in terms of foundation size, and does not meet the criteria. He stated he was not in favor
4,.. & �• oposa.l. :
f '
. . r•:erke agreed, stating that the Codes were in place for a reason, and should not be
consistently changed. He stated that if the applicant was expanding the house and requesting to
increase the garage size in conjunction with that, he.c.ould envision some leniency. He stated,
however,the garage would overwhelm the house with this proposal. Acting Chair Stevenson stated
that it would be 54 feet deep, large enough to garage a greyhound bus.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 5
•
MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Miller. To Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Denying a Conditional
Use Permit to Construct a 576 Square-foot Addition to the Existing 720 Square-foot Garage at 2809
Woodale Drive.
Ayes— 5 Nays—2 (Hegland, Kaden) Motionirried.
Ail
559-99 <i ::.. __
6. Planning Case No. r _w
Property Involved: 2670 CountyRoad Ix:' 4: N n is
Discussion concerning application to rezone property and o
40'a conditional use`p r ° )rxan ass ed
living senior residential facility. "" '4..;t.>.
Applicant:MSP Real Estate ` :VA ". "
,
Theapplicant was present. '°.::°''"' A%F"
s
PlanningAssociate Ericson gave the staff e ortt Amod,2,4 :_... :;.
Alv j:f..;c';+.'w+ "-
The re st'11,840$140 Estate for and a
The Planning Commission has discussel�t qu�,�u rezoning
conditional use permit at 2670 County RoadI, to allowan assistdrliving senior residential facility at
• the last two meetings. The Planning ; mmiss on had asked the developer to provide additional
IWO 41,
ilit
information regarding the type of� �tl'�ty it v�tl�be, park/i0 requirements, and staffing levels. He
stated Commissioner Berke and:,ss.'j ff had conducted f Irther research in regard to assisted living
facilities in fits Twin Cities go,raid providAlttgpirrnssionprovided with copies of this research, as well
as additio ai zlformationtsl :rdrreceivedrzte developer since the last meeting.
:' ;fie ,r;>�;� �^��...
Economic : .e op: ent c646.0 r Carroll provided the Commission with a summary of the
information heh 1 : tajr ed as a resultNc ntacting various assisted living facilities within the Twin
Cities area. ��ltyi�gtei light of issues raised by the Planning Commission regarding the
adequacy h proposedNear ing, he`thought it would be useful to contact a variety of facilities to
deerm:: ° :: �W=;:.. ; :>v
t �eir .current �� s}uirements.
z .
Hey: ,>
ed that part of the . .`bl'em in determining these issues, is that there does not seem to be a clear
d44tion of assisted livid'''. He noted a discrepancy in the number of these facilities within Ramsey
.j "_pnnepin Counts listed on different websites, adding that one website included the Ramsey
t I'.. ,:'etox Centerand Eden House in Minneapolis, a drug rehabilitation center, as assisted living
'7,r:i'r:1,:-.*,::Illi?oatectlhat the website he utilized for his research was somewhat more restrictive in its
. ,t' Vis` < e had focused upon the communities nearest to Mounds View, thinking their parking
requirements would be similar.
Commissioner Berke stated that he had contacted the State of Minnesota during his research, and had
spoken with several different departments,ultimately contacting the Director of Licensing for assisted
• living and Alzheimer's care in the state. He stated this contact indicated there are presently no set
requirements regarding the percentage of staff members to residents. He stated that, of the seven
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 6
•
directors he had spoken with, all considered a staff of 14 to be somewhat light, depending upon the
Alzheimer's factor and the degree of the care provided.
Mr. Carroll stated he had determined some of his information regarding state licensing requirements
from talking to the managers and executive directors of the facilities themselves. -le:stfed that there
is a wide range of services offered by facilities that refer to themselves assistedsiving. He stated
some facilities at the lower end of the assistance spectrum basically prose ` rtment in which to
re;::...,m re abled and the
live. He stated the other end of the spectrum involves peel��vho arsll 'iv�: is. s
facilities provide all meals,housekeeping services, h sicalt`'"era on si.:e `":'=`w : ans ortat•. .
counseling,and assistance with medications. He stated thee<facilitiesh ave staffing , at £l igher
ratio. He stated that it would be useful to gain as much information infli....AqionAgitrossible, regarding cafe the
proposed facility would provide, as this directly relates tri;:;..;„eing requirements
Commissioner Berke stated this was his conclusion as wel '`H iliallat, in preparing his survey,
he had attempted to eliminate the Detox Center type of faotl ties. F e employee to bed ratios
were considerably higher,even for the lighter care,than::what,was originallyrt used by the applicant.
dmiattVOW
Commissioner Berke stated he had attempted to determine h u✓,many parking spaces the facilities
actually had, and a large number of the faei>ties did:s o•' . '>a ded that some of those who
indicated no problems with parking weree fared fa,`il ties at '`had access to overflow parking. Mr.
Carroll stated that he also had difficulty identifying;< e parking;trough the institutions. He stated that 0
the site Commissioner Berke had co t cted waltinwas exampli4raexample continuous care, where the residents
start out with independent living~”progress ` :assisted ,living and then nursing home care. He
explained they provide theti ti range of `cs; `�:d share the same parking, which makes it
difficult to.d Ale:nine the actual:v arking attributableto assisted living. He stated that he had found a
facilityt ed arkin with a col1e a located across the street, and another with an adjacent
grocerystore w' €`;:''.p..rkin `l 'they s ared.
Commissioner :_. s :te hat the` "`<>o etermining the parking requirements was to determine the
staff,as the.:: :.o 1i.„a > equire parking facilities, then adding an adequate percentage of visitors. Mr.
Carroll ed the staffii �` t? ,a complicated analysis. He explained that the facilities had full-
time d part-time emlWa different shifts, different staffing levels per shift, and outside
co t l..,ti
He stated that be used his determination upon the most people on site, during any shift.
C.Vmissioner Berke staid' he had gained a general consensus of what most minimum health care
�m�
ct.:. ” isted living care! cilities require in regard to staffing, which is 17 support people, in addition
the"-'>number of n ar e s or staff required per bed. Mr. Carroll inquired if this represented 17 people
peri. .<;�:. :, r sinner Berke stated that these were categories,with a combination of people in each
ca '�,t!, t` e tfie facilities. Mr. Carroll stated that he would not dispute that amount. He added that
he ha• a so received some high staffing levels, until he began questioning what they were comprised
of He stated some facilities indicated they had 40 employees, but actually had 6 or 7 on site at any
given time. He stated, of the 40 employees, two-thirds might be full-time, one-third part-time, and
of the full-time staff, not all are on site all of the time..
•
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 7
•
Commissioner Hegland inquired if Mr. Carroll could provide his recommendation regarding what he
determined was adequate parking. Mr. Carroll stated that his personal assessment took into
consideration the proposed 22 parking spaces at the facility, which would not necessarily be
inadequate under certain circumstances. He stated one of those circumstances would be a higher
level of care type of facility, that would be related to a fewer number of people driving,or where ten
percent or less of the residents have cars. He stated another factor wo ibeAD `typical internal
staffing level of no more than five employees per shift. He stated:that higtferithis indicated that this
niEvitem
would be the typical staffing level, on site, at this size facility at:'•any one _; e stated another
factor would be relatively few independent providers, and pically, for a fac l his size, no Ott
than 3 to 4 outside consultants coming onto the property: er shift. :stated"t "at tm ant,
was the availability of occasional off-site parking. He e plained..with 48 residents,' arty per
year, and each resident having two family members visna, tAi;tee same time, youwould greatly
exceed the 22 parking space capacity. He stated the facile`tar aanage this successfully either
have an agreement with the local municipality, that upon„g"fitatifigiraopeyupon can obtain permission
to provide parkingalongthe street, and the residents' are notifi `t e rdingly, or they have an
a nearbybusiness or educational facility to share th _`` on such occasions.
agreement with ,,::>.>. :: 13A%�:: g
`'ifolbl n with th '';`:�arkin . He stated, in his
He stated that, in the absence of this, there could �? ��,h�ob �. !�:.p g
opinion, if these four factors were met, the p,: posed p ng ouldhe sufficient.
Commissioner Berke stated that he would4ave to diI"`Ninglillgiir
sagree in" d1°•to the staffing levels, explaining
• that his statistics indicate an average oty percent ratio of employees to beds, and the Alzheimer's
care is almost one hundred perce ,> e statgin light this, thirty parking stalls would not be
sufficient. He stated that a parking rrangememight be'possible with the shopping center located
adjacent to the,. ro osed site,; e... t ted he woAttillWent of the Homeowner's Association for the
surrounding`nei' borhoo, `d >taken a 'o l ..which indicated the residents would not be agreeable
to arki ; :: ..=: .ds Vietre.;=4.
p i :- � �.
'• At:� - -.':c+',. ' i�:µ 1t3i aim*
Mr. Carroll stat-s't : thenranges at lbalierview Highland facility in St. Paul indicate 54 units, with
two full-time -.;,.:.t a m.,....?osltions to malt age the assisted living. He stated, however, he agreed that
other faci',,= °a e aR -' o, an even higher. He stated that they needed to determine what
the st 'of the propose: fait would be. Commissioner Berke stated he agreed. He stated this
.�....ts in
was,�F�> ncern of the resic�n�tit-the neighborhood, in that there is no off-street parking. He stated
tha 'ere are a numerous:problems in the facilities that did not share parking. He stated that the
i. `_ _ should be resolve'before they become a problem.
Ar
: ':; e„ re:s:tentative of MSP Real Estate and President of Senior Solutions, stated their
o g> :";' ..> ..: aged 100 units of assisted living in Wisconsin, and that he had been in the assisted
liv n ,gin`- gess for six years. He stated the typical resident of the proposed facility would be 83 to 86
years old, a widowed or single female who requires assistance with at least three activities of daily
living every day. He explained that activities of daily living include bathing, dressing, toileting,
medication reminders, and mobility:
•
Mounds View Planning Commission • June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 8
•
Mr.Meier stated that the residents typically come to this type of facility directly from the hospital or
after recuperating at a nursing home. He stated they don't require nursing home services at that point,
but are no longer able to live at home. He stated that they are afraid for their safety, they can't keep
their homes as they did before, and they don't socialize as much as they previously did.Be stated they
seek socialization,assistance with medications, and their family is concerned for theartherefore they
come to this type of facility for assistance, and to maintain as much indepe>< ence> possible, before
they have to go into a nursing home. He stated that, in Wisconsin, whet':;; e ps are similar, they
discharge their residents,at some point in time, to nursing hone ,pas the cares person requires are
beyond the ability of the facility to provide. Any
**•' ..41P'WatSgS. xie
btv
Mr. Meier stated that typically, their residents do not drive.. Hani `tion
e,4tated his orgresently
FONkmanages 108 units, and none of the residents have vehicles:::<i>s`';x >£" '.#. <><;>`'< '
Mr.Meier stated they have a 20-unit building, with 30 emploe-641fit` plained that these people are
not all onsite daily for 24 hours. He stated that typically,` 'ey woHrne person to 12 residents,
24 hours per day, which translates to two full-titxcare givers He stated they also have an
administrator, cook and housekeeper on site,from E f .m, to 3.00 p.m. Y <>stated after this time, the
administrator remains,the cook remains until wow.to x ..and fr °mn 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
they utilize two care givers. He stated they equire two care i er' f ikOWOMMAllii , `the night shift.
vomosp
Mr. Meier stated, in a 48-unit buildigg ith the :ipstairs comprised of Alzheimer's residents, they
.u» •
would staff one care giver to four rests;whicitanslates tib"six care givers onsite 24 hours per day
for 24 residents. He stated the lower'level ofitresideiftwould require two care givers. He stated
there would be a total of eightillare givelfabillottia daytime hours, in addition to the cook,
housekee ;���: <� adm n st� t `:r..�.
.... "3':Ai+' § ,N£2:- law
=
ELVA. "'Veiniest,
Mr. Meier state:£ ey do not r ti physical therapy, so there would not be a physical therapist
onsite. He stag utilized to nk sal worker,and the care givers also assist the residents with
•bed making andls, ;,.:_ ent cleaniri64 assist with meal service. He stated the housekeeper cleans
the common nt; eas an 'l tl ms. He''stated they contract with a registered nurse and pharmacy to
oversee:r'edication, ark ''1 the building approximately one half a day per week. He stated
medi". ecords are kept b and the administrator, and bookkeeping is done via computer to the
coW ate office.
eier stated there, ould be an activity director in the building approximately twice a week, who
:oul: .:c..ordinate . ttivities every day through the universal worker and the care givers. He stated
worked with the county,and the social workers are not on their staff, and would
no : lAS
ding. He stated that dishwashing is performed by the cook.
Mr.Meier stated they would require approximately 12 parking stalls for staff during the busiest times,
and during the late evenings and nights they would require eight. He stated that they did encourage
family members to participate. He stated that they do try to plan a couple of events every year where
the families come in. He explained, however, families typically take the residents home for the •
holidays, such as Easter and Christmas. He stated they have a Staff /Resident Christmas party
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 9
•
annually, which can cause some problems with parking. He stated Mr. Pinkerton's staff has been
discussing the matter with adjacent businesses to determine if they could share parking for those
events. He stated,in driving by the site,he realizes that street parking would not work at this location,
and does not intend to pursue it.
Mr.Meier stated the residents of these facilities do not generally go outsibibut,rather look outside,
as their mobility is greatly decreased. He stated, when examining possible ca ons for the assisted
which ro : n a vieW'O � tivit in addition.
living facilities,they typically look for buffer sites, p vt �..� Y>
h proposed site ac myplishes ba rf't 'factors.
to residential surroundings. He stated the p p p ;"::: ,.;:;..;�,. :.
Commissioner Laube inquired if there were anysituations were kt ere were mor€ n one person
bet
q .. ,��, :
residingin a unit. Mr. Meier stated yes. He stated theyh.;�:; g 'nd and wife, and t=:.,a ist rs who
"3`"''uni ` cilit theycurrentlyhave two
reside together in a different facility. He explained, in aE �� �t �, y
couples, which is a very rare and unique situation in the indu tr _; stated that people want to be
independent,and avoid coming to these facilities, howewthere e:tt when one of the spouses
ISSM14
requires extra assistance in caring for the other. ,a <.. >=4> ?"y
;»me? akax. ....v, .
Stevenson inquired if there; 'vere`''fo `> : er rooms per floor, which would
Commissionerq
Mr. Pinkerton stated that the's c >f t oR 'com
accommodate two persons. ,.ycomprised of all single units.P
Mr. Meier stated that the generation the `care fo,:g ow is.: t fted with what they have, and the
1111 upcoming generation requires more"room. He,Atited thati e square footage of these units have
increased greatly in the past ten years$061added ymgle female who desired extra room occupies one
of their two-bedroom units. tir
Commissi.. aden inqu`' d t r. Meier esti at d''a maximum of 12 staff at any one time, in the
48-unit >� 1 ';. r. Meier: . t his was '66frect. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the
custodial seigta*,Meie?t#ti.,647hhttheservices. housekeeper would perform the custodial function, and
an offsite corpora urkwho would con =<to the facility on an as needed basis.
Mr. Meier :.:tate'd, t'n regard tt eliveries, they would have one drop-shipment per week from a food
vendor., stated the re s e dii` rse consultant would be onsite one half to one day per week, and
the rest of the people at toi piping would be visitors. He stated some residents do not have any
,and some have residents have family members who stop by daily. He stated, however, visitors
ty illy come at non-p:': C times, such as evenings or mid-afternoons.
oftet
agekM' hair Steveuan inquired if the maximum staffing level of 12 was the staffing level utilized
or the proposed 48-unit facility. Mr. Meier stated that he was referring to the
facility. He stated, in their 20-unit facility, they have two people on at night, and
during a daytime they have two care givers, an administrator, housekeeper and cook. He stated that
this number is subject to change if the acuity of the facility changes. He stated that as the acuity of the
resident changes, they sometimes become isolated from the rest of the residents, and consideration
is given to how they fit in that atmosphere. He stated if the change is permanent, the resident is
transferred to a nursing home or facility with a higher level of care. He stated their residents tend to
• be very independent, and the philosophy was to provide care if and when needed. He stated that the
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 10
•
design of the building takes this into account, and they encourage independence and mobility as long
as possible.
Acting Chair Stevenson opened floor for public input at 7:50 p.m.
Air
Carol Golden,2749 Lake Court Drive, inquired if oneperson would cook an serve:48 residents three
meals per day. Mr. Meier stated that there would be one cook hand the u ' workers assist with
meal service. Mr. Golden inquired what other functions the wi,tersal wi r s per::.:form. Mr. Meier
stated that theyhelpwith the cares and activities. Mr. Goldenrequested obi t Vin;:._s to how maty
of these workers the facility would utilize. Mr. Meier stated the first floor vou.b .ve
two, and the upper floor would have six who would assist°;with food service and``a i es,;
Mr. Golden stated that she was concerned regarding the Alzftvident s activities, and thought
the facility should have someone on hand at all the timesl 'rii: lld .y to provide activities. Mr.
Meier stated, during the daytime hours the administrator rs very a.4100 this regard, and there is an
activitydirector who is in and out. He stated that the;;t: ;::ieal day includes a orning activity, lunch,
:�<:�«<;. ,,ter>,»s.': ���<>�� "
and,after 3:00 p.m., there are more activities. He d n r lly the residents are in bed by 7:30 to
:>> ''«�;<:::�<:k:::::oul;: �.. <> rstaff than theywere
8:00 p.m. Mrs. Golden stated, in her opinion',' thetld1require£ no e t a e e
contemplating for the Alzheimer's resident. . She is qui =i }i he existingfacilities included an
Alzheimer's clientele. Mr.Meier stated they did. Mrs,'Golden:; td she found it hard to believe that
someone would be able to cook the meals,<serve the.ood, mak> the beds and do the dishes. Mr. Meier
stated she was welcome to tour thciiiikeklity, aloadded that thgiit works well.
att
Mrs. Golden 'nquired regardingth process 0110#4016.Meier stated they utilized an admission
agreementreementAfelbe famkaiipatitily physidtgaigirvolved in the process. Mrs. Golden inquired
if the sari=:p s.. was util €yj determining discharge. Mr. Meier stated this was correct, the
family or" <_ ; eltas involtrenerally at the time of discharge, the facility has had much
involvement with Miliiithrnily p6sApopAlars. Golden inquired if the care level at the facility would
be increased, s e i <> tef pplicant lz jthe residents required more care than they had previously
) '
consideredMeier t piically"int that point,the resident would be transferred to a higher care
facility,.,; c i as a nursingi W s. Golden stated that persons with Alzheimer's disease required
a pres:i ble routine,and s.' % l' f.of be subjected to being"bounced around." Mr. Meier stated this
,OEKwa,.- :rrect. He stated that<the issues arise when the disease progresses to the point of violent
b• MI fors, as a result of<.ementia. He stated, at this time, the facility would probably no longer be
.`� '• care for these idents, and they would be transferred to a locked-in type of facility. Mrs.
y
� .equested,rltfication of the security features of the proposed facility. Mr. Meier explained
t " would be alarmed and locked, and the downstairs would utilize a buzzer at the
e i, , ` > : stated this addressed the issues of wandering, as residents would have to get through
three sets of security in order to exit the building.
Acting Chair Stevenson closed the floor for public input at 8:00 p.m.
Ericson stated he believed they had gained some clear estimates of the staffing levels anticipated at •
the facility. He stated that, if they were to have a maximum of 12 staff at the facility, and 22 spaces
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 11
•
of parking as proposed,there would be ten parking spaces for visitors. He stated that this exceeds the
City Code parking requirements, which are one space for every three beds. He stated the question at
hand is whether or not this amount of parking is adequate. He stated the applicant has indicated there
is room to provide additional parking, and if, at some point in the future it was determined that 22
spaces were not adequate,they could show proof of additional parking on the site plaricson noted
that there were some time constraints to be considered in regard to this proal. esnquired if there
was sufficient consensus among the Commissioners to direct staff to brito'e them a resolution
recommending approval or denial to the City Council at the:=gin t meetin'g,j
>$ A;..d.. «. , ;.
Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding an amendment writhe Code to c1arifythetypo„uset>'t e
facility as "Nursing homes or other elderly congregate h ng, Aa .d'if this could=be a of plashed
�
in conjunction with their recommendation to the City to Ericson stated that l>in addition to
recommending the approval of the rezoning request, they'vastirtgkpa recommendation to amend
the City Code to clarify the allowed use, in terms of assisted<l'i r > rsing homes, or other types of
group living. He stated this could be done at the sari e'time, h eVe as two separate actions:
Kaden stated that he would like to see«>t is::,lan ua e'itt<i NENe.
Commissioner ..,
Iter
Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the rogress flee tic flow,tssue at the facility. Ericson
stated,at this time,he was not aware of any agreements;betwee ad Hacent property owners and the
applicant for joint access,however, there were option"to apt is matter, as well as the median
on County Road I, at the time of thesteplan review. _>
AMP
Mr. Pinkerton stated, at this tin €5uperA erica is nol interested in agreeing to a joint access.
Commissioner Laube clarified.,tli the applicant' d previously indicated that they would consider
an entrance `l y. on Mounds `Le .Drive with: he:exit on CountyRoad I. Mr. Pinkerton stated he
4ffitemvq040
thought:'`;.is would be a g o i ,,Acting Chair Stevenson inquired if they would then keep the
median. IV : rton statedt<> el <median could stay as it is, with a right out only exit.
Acting Chair Stevensona ; ' d that is parking issues could also be addressed on the site plan review.
He stated .. ".: .
1��� bmrrtls� �, fluid require the additional parking spaces be classified as possible
overflow kin_,and w ul cessarily have to designate them as additional parking at this time.
Ericson stated this was citzt
•
lig Chair Stevensontated that the zoning change was the preliminary step, and would have to
r €.sit that the prop,"reverts to its original zoning if the proposal does not go forward. Ericson
<s.. " i t after researching this matter, staff determined this technically could not be accomplished
;pre � :: . :t= dicated. He explained that the resolution could state "if the project does not go
fo:;<9J4 oning would take place,” however, some action would be required of the Council in
order to reinstate the original zoning of the property: He stated that the property owner had indicated
he was agreeable to this. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that a statement to this effect should be
included in the resolution. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the property owner could also be
requested to provide his signature indicating his acceptance of this procedure. Ericson stated that this
• could be requested.
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 12
Ill
Commissioner Hegland stated there should be language in the resolution to indicate an agreed upon
parking ratio for this type of use. Ericson stated,from the information presented, they had determined
there really was no way create a parking ratio which would apply specifically to assisted living, as
there are different intensities of assistance that can be provided, He stated that the Code presently
required a 1 to 3 ratio. Commissioner Hegland stated this was a specialized situati:oria.nd inquired
if anything could be included in the resolution to cover it. Ericson stated that:this:c ld be done. He
stated, if the Commission desires, a code amendment could betput in ppecifically address
assisted living,and possibly apply the parking ratios determine for this facility .' e the requirement
movattwalion% Or
for assisted facilities in general. , .«< i" > to `_`
Air ;00;0:,. >K_ ,.
lip. Alr
Acting ChairStevenson explained that an amendment ' e Code would have 'o`b :> s dered
separately,with additional readings and so forth. He state1`f Hold just be specifichis site, as
a requirement of the conditional use permit. He asked the'commission if they would direct staff to
provide a resolution the next meeting to recommend approval it e de amendment to change the
B-2 to R-4 zoning, and the conditional use permit. < s< ;3...
MOTION/SECOND;Miller/Stevenson to Direct Staffo are a Resolution and Draft ordinance for
approval of the Rezoning of Property and a Conditional<; se;;' rmit, to llow for an Assisted Living
om- x :o-���>,�� : ; , -
Senior Residential Facility to be Located at 2670 County<'Roa ing Case Nos. 559-99, 560-99.
Ayes–6romor
<' NW— 1 (Joh on) The motion carried.
dew
Alir
..3ff.'�:'�+ Ill
.,:,:„, ar
`aka
i3:`.tt.qtr.
Commissioner Johnson stated that,` evas notiavor oftt4e down zoning of commercial properties.
isit,„,
t .
`Commissniller in `di� moresmil >fifiplan would be provided at the next meeting.
Ericson s`i ttaff couldjd s she
matter with the applicant, explaining that it is not required
at this point to<process. 1tiair Stevenson stated that prior to approval, the Commission
would request<'`la `c t on of the a l and parking ratios, and would appreciate a more definite
layout of the p41400.004prflo\
. 44'4 *411111111k, 441'
7. .` lanning Case No. 65x'99
P ; '.rty Involved: Lots '7 & 18, Edgewood Square (Pinewood Circle)
AW
. sion concernimo requestconcerning to vacate a portion of a drainage easement and request to allow for
ilf04 truction;406 single family homes via a wetland alteration permit.
', t,y.. '� e = eterson, representing Oakwood Land Development.
The applicant was present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows:
0
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 13
•
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< `ncerns about
the potential for flooding and runoff in this area. In addition to the easement ,acation, to build on the
two lots, a wetland alteration permit is also being requested atlt would t e d to be obtained because
work would be done within the wetland as shown on theiy's off` jand Zoning Map
Approval is also needed from the Rice Creek Watershed Di 'trict. . €` :: '3.:;, As
6v VilliilkNew
Ericson stated theapplicant made a similar request wit(1='lr and tr '4these two lotsion pt ber 9,
1997. He stated,however,the request was denied by the Councilo December 8, 1 4710 if was felt
that the easements were granted in good faith and that the lots'w r ° ever intended to be built upon,
due to the possibilityof detriment to tho wetland.
:::ski:
i time, applicantin me ctio _='"' ' '` '°re were no changes in
Ericson stated,at this the is request �.tkt�;s� a na»,s'l, ;, 7�r
regard to the plans submitted. He provided the.:::.. " t cion with a 614 'f the delineation of the
wetland upon Lots 17 and 18, which was mad% =199i7,:ipfurther verifi..ed by Rice Creek Watershed
District to be accurate. He stated, however,the delineation<" oe ne a ree with the City's official
Wetland Zoning Map,explaining that at the time ofsi,i'nakitiggfillOilands were not delineated, but
defined to fall within a certain elevatiro =`<He stated>the area that is proposed to be filled, falls within
• the 904-foot elevation, which has bs 1>deeme hood storage capacity. He stated that the applicant
has proposed to create an additi :":' °holding`; nd on t e back half of Lot 17, to replace the flood
storage capacity. He stated..thisould alleva,ean::.� ies in regard to lessening the flood storage
capacity, a 'aaultimaecre�te additional floQd storage.
�� h � .v. F:i " ;
Ericson stat`threal issr
ether or not the easements serve a public purpose, and if not,
should they be e stated a:;MAgoe ti
to , me, consideration should be given to whether or not
the preservationf' Rile e.:vironnient should continue as it is, a buffer between the existing
. as'r?�� <: <A<:.� <:v:<235�:„a:�;f �,ni::i>i:>Y�
neighborhoo ,the worms r�o`adway, and the lots to the north of the wetland. He stated the issue is
in regard? the appropriat ess eating the drainage easement to allow for two`more homes in the
area. e stated that the $tr y.is zoned appropriately for the proposal, however, there would be
so .etdisruption to the nei bdrhood and to the natural area. He stated that it is not-indicated that the
w::aid would be impacted, although the construction would occur on the perimeter and outside of
$ _'l lineated area. •
to: :`,,to.'!6-ttikTrOdirfbritall residents within 350 feet of the proposal were notified by staff, and had
p - 4:> merous comments, unfavorable to the proosal, and indicating concerns regarding the
detriment to the neighborhood and drainage system, with the exception of one resident who was in
favor of the proposal. He provided the Commission with a letter from a resident who was not able to
attend the meeting, however, indicated that the residents were not in favor of the proposal.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 14
•
Ericson stated that staff was seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission in regard to
the granting of this easement vacation to allow for the two additional building sites, or if the drainage
easements should stand, as was the original intent of the subdivision.
Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the current owner of Lots 17 and 18, and they had been
.
compensated for granting the drainage easements. Ericson stated that the Wner he property was
PeggyHaselius, and he was not certain if she had been compensated. Heys a d flat he believed Mrs.
Haselius owned all of the surrounding property at that tim.:Ohd the e s ment*w as granted as Al
condition of the approval of the subdivision. He stated tat"the subdivision;� ould .of have been
approved,were it not for the grantingof these easements, •::::tt was believed at that=te 1. t:s'>' ere
� 4��4`��<; <�;� k,�
located within the wetland, and that in providing the ease ents, themripact to the` d ould be
minimal.
NIMPIPPIN
John Peterson, applicant and owner of Oakwood Land Dettpxtej stated his company develops
properties throughout the metropolitan area, primarily in Slaine a ej ort ern suburbs. He stated
that he was also speaking on behalf of Peggy Haselius. o has resided.111kOme house in Mounds
h manner in wh'_ i cot n beca volved in this issue was
View for 51 years. He stated the �ei������j..,:.:��y ,...,..
rather unique. He explained that another developer'had i e 'he roces ears ago, ran into financial
difficulties,and his company bailed that developer out nd % p t lithe process. He stated that his
""' w ::er..: in 1997 theydetermined the lots
company believed they owned these lotsri�r many ears, hovi��<:::
were owned by Mrs. Haselius. He stat ' at it wat1d have be easy for them to walk away from the Aiik
matter at that point, however, it became soy vhat of a,personal cause for him. He stated Mrs. lip
Haselius retired 11 years prior, Olives ort i xed in ne. He stated, in his opinion, she has the
good faith rim t to developthe;dots, and to r' e €° F:'.00 dollars from his company for them.
40•11vmoner-
,''<:-,,h-Fez;`<'.? ��:. 4 "�'''
Mr.Pet > t n n �•.,the Cit ttorn Thad previously determined that the City had the easements, and
could keep t e ift ey so'desired ` ;e stated that, due to the expense to his company and Mrs.
Haselius, he d. `<" '.::.esire to resoiet matter through the court system. He added that it would
NNgritail
not be worth itf :1 t:.:::; lots. H`estted, however, many things have changed since the 1980's.
Aangetwi
He explained'�tha thesnprtation` f wetland has been clearly defined and agreed upon by the
.
-. a a ��-. . ... .11 1 .:'� <w�>. > �� .I ni the legislators and the .oliticians who now all
agre lo'n what a wetland wetlandiSine stated this was not the case in 1981 when this plat went through
. ®eterson stated theyi ired an expert to go to the site and tell them where the wetland was. He
..r :athey then contacted Rice Creek Watershed District and requested they confirm these findings,
o l .id. He staff that their proposal to develop Mrs. Haselius' lots will not touch any wetland.
ettipSaila:rp oposal fills 11,850 cubic feet of flood storage in that area, however, it creates
3 , t . ; 'feet of flood storage. He stated that these lots have already been platted, and the street
is already in. He stated that the net effect of vacating this easement, and allowing Mrs. Haselius to sell
the land to his company so that he can prepare it for houses, is almost a 30,000 cubic foot gain in flood
storage capacity in that basin. He stated that the Watershed District will confirm this.
Mr.Peterson stated that they have obtained the Rice Creek Watershed District permit. He stated that •
water is not the issue. He stated the issue is open space, and the development of the property. He
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 15
III
stated the issue is the neighbors, who do not want two more houses in the area, because they use the
lots almost every day all summer long, and their children play onr the lots. He stated that it is Mrs.
Haselius who is held liable if those children are injured on that property.
Mr.Peterson stated, in good faith,Mrs. Haselius and the developer granted the eases 4nts, which are
no longer necessary. He stated that the reason for the easements was not.open space. He explained
the City did not state they wanted the easements for open space. He s..taf< < uCity requested the
easements for water storage, and to prevent interference with t e..wetland nd t at neither of the .
reasons apply any longer. He stated, if the Commission is to l'i ten to theneighbors" n :.leave the of
as open space,it will not be in keeping with the original intent He stated that $ '"::,000 p•.o ':tax
has been paid for the subject lots, through 1997. to st id;.the property taxes tliowtn paid
following the denial of the City Council, on a three-to-two ote i 1997, and may well o elinquent.
He stated the $10,000 in property tax was paid because theyifh ei ason to believe that the wetland
delineation and the reason for the easements were changing. e stat d that these have changed, the
wetlands are not located as previously believed, and tl e flood ra apacity issues have been
resolved. He inquired how they could be required to a< $10,000r n to i
qand not be allowed to
developthe lots. He stated this was not fair or r::1 >..<,x '-..��,.
Illidelk 40,-
Mr.Peterson stated the neighbors do not want>two more'ho se ,alt o gh, basically the same type as
those already in the area,possibly more expensive, bause th4t to use Mrs. Haselius' land. He
stated they wanted to look at it, drive b it, and literally use:i `wl e stated this proposal presented no
• negative impact to the neighbors. I , ted thatrs. Haselius,having lived in Mounds View for 51
years, and being retired on a fixed income, iso cpatly impacted by not being allowed to develop the
two lots. H . stated that she'i<s V acted itutheamount of$37,000. He inquired how much this
proposal would hurt the neighbors He stat d h to Mrs' Haselius had acted in good faith. He stated
that the>.> t 1" arrowly Nfaihisproposal"'in 1997. He requested the Planning Commission
recomment itoCit.. Council` l e::. vacate the easements.
Acting Chair Stevensona t,re• d whynatter was coming before the Planning Commission, with
virtually no angel izl t ;9 ,and not going directly before the City Council. Ericson stated staff
felt tha, the land u 41.44 tions, and in light of the comprehensive plan revision, it might be
useful' 'sir the City Coun tt Iiear a recommendation of the Planning Commission.
k
Ca.Onissioner Kaden inquired if the map presented to the Commissioners upon their membership to
tlx : �nnmg Commission was still accurate. Ericson stated that this zoning map does not accurately
` t any wetly s within the City.
Ac:°<i;0. =atevenson opened the floor for public input at 8:21 p.m.
Tony Miskowiec, 2396 Pinewood Circle, stated he was a new resident to the area. He stated he had
moved to the area from northeast Minneapolis, where they are about to spend hundreds of millions
of dollars reclaiming nature along the river. He stated he started a neighborhood organization, which
III
purchased lots, and took down the houses to develop open spaces. He stated that this kept the
property values up. He stated that open areas have been proven to keep the property values high.
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 16
He stated when he selected his house he had been shown properties within a certain range. He stated
that he had seen bigger, newer, nicer houses, but chose his home because of the clear view of the
swamp. He stated the realtor'secured a higher price because of the swamp. He stated that he would
not be greatly impacted by the proposal due to the location of his house, however, the rest of his
neighbors would suffer a negative impact. < ;n
4rati"
Barb Liukkonen, 2367 Pinewood Circle, stated that she understands thattroposed houses will
be outside of the 904-foot flood storage level, however,they wat fbe wit .:fhe,.;[.Q �. oot buffer area,
which although not required, is recommended for the preservation of wetlrid °ip.spaces. Sire
g
stated that Lot 17,andprobably18 as well, would require e removal c fall of`t ` t"> oak trees
for the construction. She stated that this is one of the few t ainin stands of Sea `' l a much
of the other oak in the area has been lost to oak blight ovetg*pil ten years. She st t '�#`is a stand
approximately 40 years old, and isolated from other oak treesiby etland and the retention of the
flood storage located behind it. She stated that she thoughttswte,a real loss, not only for the
neighborhood, but for the community as well. She stated that the:< `located adjacent tot Lot 17
and 16,has a floodwater storage basin in the back and:. til e .is a it tenet ` . She stated that this
was an undesirable situation, and provided no:.:l <' hildren to play She stated this house sat
vacant for 2%years,and has since been sold,hd ever,iif ash to construct another house under
the same conditions, it would not be highly:=saleable.tither-:..:S",he_ tated the vacant properties could
become nuisance houses. She stated that t. i°s plan ma compensatefor flood storage, however in her
opinion, it is not a productive and viab `z fernativ or flood torage, and will remove valuable green
space and natural habitat, and doesh tithe po 'ntial to 0
lim impact the wetland.
Lisa Gilpin,;:2358 Pinewoodtcle requested`'t e ommission drive past the subject site, and
tell h `"'"` "`t''e wetlan4 'start Ad where theystop. She stated that it was not
challenge• • ' _to ervhr c �tN< r�-
possible :>>:::<•: .e>st ted that::she:>>had t hildren, and worked with Pinewood Elementary, and spent
a roximate ::;:. t .,eight'`ho <;:: r>;week, talking to the children about the protecting the
environment and wetland, and tits importance. She stated that this indicates, iftthe developer can
make some,49- it�i acceptabl to build a house there. She stated that she found this very
confusingdishearteninghe children. She stated, in the wetland area, they have seen red fox,
w`cefi• s s"t:
why `twould be acceptable to eliminate the area for development. She stated that lot 16 was not
o �.::iJlly intended for dey': opment either. She stated she could not see any purpose for this except
4iK;::: ,:khan,2 Pinewood Circle, stated he had was a resident of the area for over 15 years. He
attended the meetings concerning this issue for a number of years. He stated that Mrs.
" w` amity was previously opposed to this development, until she found out that she owned the
land,and Mr.Peterson's group offered to purchase it from her. He stated he was personally opposed
to the development. He stated that Mr. Peterson had indicated that in the 1980's they did not know
very much about wetlands. He stated they now know much more about wetlands, and their
importance. He stated that the Lake Calhoun reclamation project is buying back houses and
businesses, to restore the wetlands, as the water quality has suffered so dramatically due to the 0
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 17
0
development. He stated that he was not in favor of the loss of habitat for deer pheasant, birds, and
raccoons. He added that he believed the majority of the residents were overwhelmingly opposed to
this.
.&.,
Cathy Gryzmala, 2374 Pinewood Circle, stated that she lived directly across the stgot from one of
the proposed sites. She stated that she moved into her house in 1991, anslOppke,Otii her neighbor,
Mrs. Haselius, about constructing a stationary playground on the sOjtElg. She stated she
petitioned the Rice Creek Watershed District in 1995 in this regard She stated informed h.x
the Watershed that the entire lot was subject to drainage egloment, and no or structufrs
could be placed upon it. She stated that, with a proposal that might generate stitolipospAithey
appear to have changed their mind. She provided the "wmiss401t•with a copy010iiiitp for
Edgewood Square. She stated Mrs.Haselius' signed this document,•Which states, "...'iratlitUsed the
same to be surveyed,platted, and known as Edgewood Square,and dedicate to the public,
for the public use forever, the drainage and utility easements., drive the roads to be shown
on the plat." She stated that this map was dated April of 103. She stated she believed that Mrs.
Haselius learned she could make some money woRthsproperObtlitipged her mind about
dedicating it to the public. She stated that she hadalgOttcyy of the map after her initial proposal
to purchase her home,and was told by the RicopeA4,0010,Distri4 that those lots would never
be built upon.Mr. Meehan stated that he ha,,also been told wigiktealibr, these lots would never be
developed.
5 Ar a
Gary Collis,2390 Pinewood Circle, he had attended the meeting on this matter, the prior year.
He stated the Mayor had asked the City Attorno4the City could keep the drainage ditch, and the City
Attorney stated they could., #90ted, at that time, reviewed all of the agreements made
at the tim-z:,ilt development of 114410'
4...: 016,.. NISEIllk. moo,-
Mr. CollistMtowarea was a plot, considered wetland by the State of Minnesota. He
stated that if arNiiiiiittittaken awAilif WON mitigated. He added it appeared that Mounds View had •
laTOWV*,.. INNESS0 -
no other wetla0401040411is. Flelopd he was not in favor of damaging the wetland any further.
He statedSTIV410041.1tO it for drainage ponds on the north end of the wetland, and have
develos.7;:i'.1 street and al!,1416IS;Aturn around, which are within the wetland. He stated that this area
was 41;4 er replaced. He stated houses have been built with backyards encroaching upon the
wetlands. He stated that be brought this to the attention of staff, who stated this should have been
n
•:•:•: closely monitored, should not have been done. He stated that the proposed development
k.,
41in''. encroach uportee wetland as well. He stated that the purpose of the wetland is to act as a
WM.. . . thatiplainmthe polluted water is filtered through the wetland to wells, which the residents
,s., vg„,-
- : ::::::......... stated he is prepared to go to the State of Minnesota if the wetlands are not
riiit.„..,:::.:.f.i.L1A.4: :,!..,...:N.fi..,
Acting Chair Stevenson stated that he did not disagree, and that they did not want to lose any wetland
either. He stated the development of the homes, cul-de-sac,and Edgewood spur, was mitigated by the
dredging and deepening of the wetland, which created a pond. He stated this was reviewed by the
5 Corps of Engineers.
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 18
III
Mr. Collis stated that he had contacted the Department of Natural Resources, who stated that digging
holes was not considered mitigation. He stated, when 100 feet of wetland is taken, it must be replaced
with 100 feet of wetland. He added that if the area is more than two acres, it must be replaced to 100
percent. He stated that if the City had contacted the Department of Natural Resources, they might not
have been allowed to do this. Acting Chair Stevenson stated the Department of Natural Resources
was contacted,and there are records regarding this. He added they were corrneas a Commission
as they did not desire to lose any wetlands either, and they were�y� satisfied'a 'atommission that the
development was indeed properly mitigated, and allowance was made nr,r: e reclamation of tl e
wetland. A:<t AMP n:: w. .:t:; .
aff •k
Lindsey Little, 5389 St. Michael Street, stated he andhis,famil had resided ui `17e `»lr,„„ ,e-since
development from his home:41.6=stated that
he had an airplane and he enjoyed flying, and would like to's < h; Commission the area from that
stated that it was remarkable and noted th` 'di ' re iiice from one month to the next.
perspective. He ,
He inquired,aside from the money, would they be in favor of this'ipo'pesa *He stated he had grown
up in the southwestern portion of the state and liked the cex spaces. He`sate ` e would like this area
to remain natural, and did not want to see it devel >:el :tNf< . vor
Commissioner Berke inquired regarding occasions wheret e= t i t rhood purchases the land from
the developer or property owner, and creates an association rillvsr l 'all the neighbors own the land,
and if anything had been III investigated<ihis regal''` EIR
Ms. Gryzmala stated she had spokei pith the original devel..„. .,,:,",
oper in that regard, who indicated that she
would haveo come up with tl back taxes<w kth 3roperty. She stated that, at that time, the
delinquent: s 'e were$1 4',Atioia'Ed that shettol' b the developer to wait, as the property would
come upff i auction=tt' A > she stated'`that, once they got the information that they could not
build upon ' ` < " > . tided sh ' � orhood, not to proceed. She stated, at that time, the property
<���� �:::a� .gin =:;�:::< a�k�:,.
was determined tc < buildable: <:< missioner Berke inquired if that was not what they desired.
,sta 110.1 at<ti
Mrs. Gryzmalame,the ;u e'e considering the construction of a playground. She stated
that it could:F'ot be`b l .sand a "playground could not be constructed there, and therefore, she
qnigNIVMnever d:- ried that the almsld homes upon it. 1
111110W ,
Co.>':'missioner Laube asked Commissioner Miller, in light of her membership with the Charter
ission, if they had started the Charter in regard to storm sewer drainage issues, and that the
.'':. ens wanted to leave the wetlands as the drainage areas within Mounds View. Commissioner
>;W > tated that>nth%s was correct. She explained the citizens did not want all of the water to be
IffViz:
O - l i ..... 4. d,and to provide places above ground for storage and drainage. Commissioner
"" clarified this was the reason that theystarted the Charter, which was voted upon bythe;; p
,,k,..„:::::„:„""
citizens.
Commissioner Laube inquired if staff had requested an engineering firm review the proposal in regard
to the construction of a holding pond. Ericson stated that the City's Engineer, SEH, Inc.. was
consulted in 1997. He stated the plans were reviewed and found to be acceptable, in that there would •
not be an issue of impact to the wetland, as the filling would occur outside the delineated area, and
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 19
III
the proposal to create additional flood storage capacity would more than compensate for the proposed
fill. He stated these same plans were provided to the City Engineers, the prior month, and staff
received the same response,which was that there would be no impact to the wetland in regard to flood
storage. He added that, from a land use perspective, the depression at the rear of the lot for flood
storage would probably not work very well. ;' "`
Mr. Collis stated that three homes located on the corner of the Edgewood i i '
s dion, pumped water
out 24 hours per day, in order to pass ins ection,and obtain a b ilding pe'`t < tated that all three
of these houses have sump pumps running, and one prope„*;..:owner has,his��r4 r i teadily to k5 p
K ham._..xv- ✓'Q�.Y'tE:.::...:`:t:`t`.T:b K<>:.d:
water from the house. He stated the storm sewer drains i cy the wetly at th t loc t a . H l i`ted
they should keep all of the drainage easements they have, and::. onsid lr that the prop j s cl ons uction
Nridir
might suffer the same problems. <>,< :>'t '''""
Terry Lulf, 2375 Pinewood Circle, stated he was a new re t l n_” th property adjacent to the
proposed buildingsite. He stated that .e had looked at many prop s<p'i!or to selecting his house,
and chose his propertybecause of the neighborhood,adding that peopler w<t i ' eighborhood take care
with the earn`e<=d ear ro ertii s`. 6 stated that he was the
of their yards, and are concernedpp zi::::.:.:.:::.::::::::::::...... p p
i in his backyard. He explain d't at. e' this ropert in spite of the pit, as it
person with the pit y : P ..p Y P
was the last house on the cul-de-sac, surrounded by „><.ods cl a pon . He stated that the proposed
construction would alter these qualities obis property, yet,tl e 't would remain.
Mit)• :�y'.'f�'', .:*'">;,��,.
IIIMr. Peterson stated that there was ut question that Mrs. H se'lius and the other parties agreed that
there should be drainage and utilityl' sement under the rules were in effect at that time. He stated
there are diff-rent rules at this time, Mrs. H It s o s the property, and the taxes have been paid
until recent! ._f.:<:e stated, in`l isit inion, it would ot_be in good faith for the City to deny her variance,
because.4lWfater issues_**only been"resolved, but also improved. He reiterated that there
would be nb:1 a tto.the wetland,. dsdditional storage would be provided for the community. He
stated he was'prep ired> o pay .r H s lius $37,000 for the roperty, and if the neighbors were
�_-:< >y===�>>�x><:. ��`< <><>>::°� p
willing to pay h rr `t a ount of mo he would remove himself from the equation.
Mr.Pet- stated the o ' *t,..'%,: .0:#1,," e would 'a that amount of money was that he could sell the lots,
howe: :;'r, he would notppointed if the people in attendance purchased the land from Mrs.
Ha Iius, and owned theropen space themselves. He stated their children could then play on their
A`kS
1. ` of hers. He stateditt was a matter of fundamental fairness, and good faith.
011,1N. AV
r ,. han inqu;i 4N <"[egarding the average price of a lot in Mounds View. Mr. Peterson stated that
i.:,-.r �..{ s' tial grading required on this site, impacted by the sewer and water, and a lot of costs
in. e:.;t engineering that have already been invested, as well as the taxes. He estimated that
the value of these lots was approximately$4.0,000. He stated, however, he was not an appraiser. Mr.
Miskowiec stated that these lots were unbuildable, and therefore, this was an unreasonable price. Mr.
Peterson stated, if the City was willing to vacate the easement, it would be a fair price, but agreed, in
their current condition the lots are worth nothing to Mrs. Haselius.
ID
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 20
•
Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the proposal's infringement upon the wetland buffer. Mr.
Peterson referred to the site plan, which indicated it was substantially within the 100-foot buffer. He
stated that he could provide many examples of similar development, which have been allowed in this
buffer,as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council on many occasions.Acting Chair
Stevenson stated that the factors of this proposal are different, explaining that welds have been
developed and mitigated, however, the signing off of City easements has n t beet a commonplace
occurrence. ''°'::. V
Actingin Chair Stevenson closedth floor for public
input 11
55
p.m.
ynffzj::r T<.
Commissioner Kaden stated, originally,Mrs. Haselius signaAhe do. ent indicaf ` ` t: A were
permanent easements, and, in light of this, he assumed that:< t he and the developef.., re of the
understanding that the lots could never be developed by ane, inquired if this was an official
document. Mr.Peterson stated that there was no question: atryelius signed this document,
however,it is also true that it is not uncommon for permaifint eases 1 t e vacated. He stated the
City has the right to vacate a permanent easement. He:;ttat d, at the ti the .;,a.sements were granted,
and under those conditions, it was viewed to 1.)4fit a <m perpetuityy< e stated that has since
changed. He reiterated that the vacation of easements Themeriftgoogituncornatin process.
Aar 4"101,119&A,00:'
r^ €1,11:&:: ><.:<
Acting Chair Stevenson inquired if staff rerequired a res iiutiorr`r tnding to the Council that they
approve or deny the vacation of the eas mnents. E`icson stated that their recommendation could be
put forward in that manner, how r, it w4ifigt requireti and the Planning Commission could III
indicate their position by motion*" °`>i
� :.. yam
aii Lti
6000%10 INOW,V4g.:
Acting Chvenson inquiredH`egardingt hCommissioners opinions on the matter, and asked
if theyv re dtt it e.cit:: ci"that
men .Counthey not vacate the drainage easements on those
two lots. :s' E1.000.
. :f kx t... ;...
MOTION/SECOND en/MillerxttRecommend to the City Council they Not Vacate the
DrainageTtility erne ts`on Lots 17 and 18, Edgewood Square (Pinewood Circle).
A:.7Z,OarNays—0 The motion carried.
two
Ate
<` Special Plant ng Case No. SP-071-99
ate . t�;::�`�"�>proposed ordinances amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code
peva .g'°. .* Billboards and amending the Code pertaining to signage in the PF and CRP zoning
districts.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 21
Community Director Jopke stated the City Council has requested staff and the Planning Commission
continue to discuss the sign requirements in PF and CRP zoning districts. He stated the current code
does not list any permitted signage or standards in either of these districts. He stated that staff has
prepared a draft ordinance, which allows signs consistent with neighborhood business districts, and
with the pedestal sign requirements in Section 1008.01 Subdivision 6, in the PF and RP districts.
Signage allowed would include 100 square feet of signs on the building and a34s:0 e foot pedestal
sign for each street frontage. If the site has more than 100 feet‘frontailiiiiVational 100 square
foot pedestal sign would be allowed. Any pedestal sign, w1J is'within:'11 t eet f a single-famil..y.
residence, cannot exceed 40 square feet, however. Jopke< ' ted this •is o p o ussion and;te
amount of signage allowed may be reduced if the CommitSIon so desires. \''411W101.14‘.
< f
Jopke stated the existing signage in City parks feet of sig adthe Community Center has 90
square feet. He stated signage at the golf urse
has varied`egigittimes, been as much as 130
square feet. He stated that these amounts all appear>fo wo`i'T '« rrr;4the proposed ordinance
requirements.
4,-00101%.
C ` :
Jopke stated that staff has drafted Resolutio ' "* <1 �commerzlst
to City Council approval
of the amendment and adoption of Ordinance'637. ``'"
kk .k._.£E
ir
Commissioner Kaden inquired• regardi : ie properties within>'th`e'CRP zoning district. Jopke stated that these included the golf coursertion oand across<`Highway 118 from the golf course, and
the strip of land located next to SpringLake. Ce.ttissionerr+aden stated he believed the piece of land
next to Sprit Lake was ov, ed <�'- Ramsey t ; d St. Paul Waterworks. He inquired if they
might be atilt tQ.construct. s1:g .: :t:.th.his loca oix i nt ting that it would not be an appropriate location
o.:.:rr,.t:k`ri�::SiEi"ttA
for si na�: Jo> stated th ;tt::=:�:: u,e,,ave to b'e`aisig n relatingto whatever activitytook place at that
location. H s :: .d that a si `h=thatgi not relate to the usage of the property would not be allowed.
He stated if the roe its a park,ttl ; i nor Ramsey County could place a sign in that regard.
11111110,
Commissiutr Fif this matter was covered in the ordinance, or if they should be more
specifi .kioner�l egla-nd.in.
th the k\k
allowed ag in the ordinance revision. Jopke stated that they could be more
....:y.:: :.
specifi:!, however, he dit t €t k it was necessary, as it was already covered under the provisions
of =;'ordinance. Com,Mer ssioner Hegland stated that the intention would be to include language
i ; rating the only signage allowed in these two areas would be, that which identifies and describes
and how to utilize it. Jopke stated that this provision could be added if it was the desire of
>i . mission
''AMPOW:fw 404.
'it«;:Z.AY.'JA§:wLtiiiOMiller stated that Section 1008.01 refers to these types of signs. Commissioner Kaden
states that subdivision 10 states "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." Commissioner Hegland stated that this appeared to relate to
all signage and that the intent was to not have business signs included at all. Commissioner Kaden
• inquired if the intent was to cover-the signage already in place at the golf course and City Hall. Jopke
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 22 -
411
stated that it relates to all existing signs within the City that are technically not in conformance with
the ordinance.
Commissioner Kaden inquired if Ramsey County were to allow people to place advertising signs at
this location,would this be permitted under the ordinance. Jopke stated that he did ebelieve they
could,but reiterated if it was the desire of the Commission to include morei$limiti` :g'language to the
code amendment, it could be done.
<Ff.*
hi :h tothe
��}'<"h�^ e w iz �<`:`",telqty.
Commissioner Laube stated that they could indicate that<��g ag �h:p .,, � `
Commissioner Kaden stated that he did not think this was necessary ,He stated,;f`y� ns.ey.ci pnty
desired to erect a sin such as park identification, he would :e agree able to that, 'owe :t r, �:i`nitely
not advertising. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that thelanguage should refer to' l f"the non-
conforming signs of this type. He inquired if this might befog<lim ting, and result in having to be
more specific with all other types of non-conforming sign siNghittlitat§kkhe did not believe so. He
stated what they were attempting to do with this particular'ttdinancEst .ne what are appropriate
signs in these two specific districts. He stated he thought they couldiutf t l pecific requirements in
the use regulations. He suggested they include,;l u ; ':i the end of>-04 subdivision, to indicate
"the signs shall identify and relate to the activity, whicxkk sykin:te ded uponthe site.
r
MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Berke. To A Ative Resp tion N t99, a Resoluti nRe
commen
in
g
Approval of Ordinance No. 637; as Amended to Include the language Following Each Subdivision
to Indicate the Signs Shall Identify and Relate t the Activity Which is Intended upon the Site, an
Ordinance Amending the Chapter `S of the Minds Vie r Municipal Code Pertaining to Permitted
Signage in PF Public Facilities and CRP ConservancyRecreation, Preservation Zoning Districts;
SP073. :�
Planning :< :<: o. 101
`..k u: ..:,,_. Ayes= Y a*:. Nays—0 The motion carried.
w4Atilve"f% y.Ui�StYt9 Staff Regori :ms > i
of Infp ation
Previou .ound l ction
tamp
Co a .."unity Development Developmentpirdttor Jopke reported on City Council action from their meeting on July
2 e stated there w ' approval of the oversized garage at 8059 Red Oak Drive. He stated the
<('C<
1 approved the conditional use permit for Thrifty Car Rental located at 2975 Highway 10, with
Hes,_tathe applicant would come before the Council and request reconsideration of
0/7
to truck,trailer and recreation vehicle rentals.
•
Jopke stated there was approval of the conditional use permit for the outdoor produce stand at the
,Holiday Stationstore. He stated neighboring residents appeared at the meeting and indicated their
concerns in regard to existing noise problems with the station, and the property owner was currently
working with the residents to resolve these issues. He stated they had the second reading and approval
of the ordinance pertaining to the permitted uses within the B-2 Limited Business District, which •
relates to educational and instructional facilities.
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 23
•
Jopke reported at the Work Session on Monday evening, the Council was informed regarding the
conditional use permit request for the Skeate oversized garage. He stated the Council had indicated
some concerns, but were awaiting the Planning Commission's recommendation on the matter.
10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports y<`::>
Commissioner Miller stated that the Planning Commission had approved o d t tonal use permit for
the outdoor produce stand at the Holiday Stationstore. She s..:t ed`she h ilE.R e, observed many
rugs displayed for sale at the location, and this was not incompliance wiPti ;t:.Acting Chair .
added the display of these rugs was not within th >'2 x 12 s.rise footf ` '«.rov •for
Stevenson p Y g <..mi <. k: ;m ? :_;<,
" wy>:xW
the produce stand. s=F PRIEwmar . _�?: .:3:�r .?,?,,.:.
No other reports were considered. ' '" `"''£'
11. d'
A ul
'Ilme11 t
Jo
gq
There being no further business before the Planning ` z fission,+chair adjourned the
Alt•gekmeeting at 9.30 p.m. ,or �.Ef 3F £ x
adr
:
41Y 0 ' , fir
(The meeting immediate<Yd�ourndto theg dSe
ssion
)
110 Ay i€i>`>
Respectfully submitted,
psF
...4, 41k 11 sgsmogogr
:::::::
mossur
mippr-
, i
Rick JopkerW`= ' `n
>
r ?.
. iCommunitY Dee� ft Drector* `VROMMWep.
oAlillank
Itir
Transcribe """- ° _ ` '
Trish P- `:s.on s ;::::_<_.-. :..
Time er Off Site Secretar nc.
off IN ler
>:° TA\USERS\BA RB\SHARE\KEEP-IT\WPDOCS\MINUTES\1999\08-04-99.WPD
Ailik air
4111