Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-01-1999 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION September 1, 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. August 4, 1999 5. Planning Case No.568-99 Property Involved: 8359 Red Oak Drive Consideration of a variance request to allow for a 44-foot wide driveway. Applicant: John Henning 6. Staff Reports/Items of Information • a. Discussion concerning change in location of screen fence at the Anthony Properties/O'Neil PUD (Theater Project.) b. Commissioner Deen Brathen's leave of absence request c. Previous Council Actions d. Upcoming Planning Cases 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 8. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AGENDA SESSION AGENDA • 1. Review Minutes -- August 18, 1999 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1999\9-1-99.REG REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION • Meeting Date: September 1, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 568-99 Request: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 44-foot wide driveway, nine feet wider than what the Code allows. Applicant: John Henning Location: 8359 Red Oak Drive PIN No. 06-30-23-12-0100 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential/ Single Family Dwelling Applicable Regulations: • Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4c(1)(a) states that no driveway shall exceed a width of thirty five feet. • Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 lists the criteria for granting a variance. • Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Letter from resident, dated 8/11/99 Letter from affected neighbor at 8365 Red Oak Drive, dated 8/2/99 Resolution 593-99 Background: The applicant, John Henning, s req c d hat the-Planning Commission approve a variance for a driveway nine feet wider than is allowed by Code. The maximum width for a driveway is 35 feet. The applicant wishes to add a nine-foot wide parking pad alongside the garage, which to provide access for, causes the driveway to increase to a width of 44 feet. The driveway, however, narrows to 14 feet as it approaches the street. The intent of the Code requirement which limits how wide a driveway can be is in part to prevent an excessive amount of impervious surface on a property. As stated above, the limit is not arbitrary, instead it is derived from the width of a three car garage. Analysis: • The applicant in this case was not aware of the limitation for driveway widths and had graded the lot and constructed a retaining wall at the property line to accommodate such a driveway. The adjacent property owner, Norbert Moe, has signed a statement(attached) indicating that he Henning Variance report 8359 Red Oak Drive • August 25, 1999 Page 2 approves of the driveway being located one foot from the north property line. Variance Criteria: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property which makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in thesame zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. Because of the width of the lot and the size of the house, the garage, which at 875 square feet, cannot be expanded. While there are three vehicle access doors, the applicant would • like to be able to park a boat or another vehicle outside without blocking any of the three doors. Instead of paving a perpendicular parking pad in the middle of the yard, the applicant would like to utilize the area alongside the garage, which is a common practice in this City. All of this, however, does not add up to an extraordinary circumstance, a circumstance over which the applicant had complete control. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. To staff's recollection, no other variances have been granted which have allowed for driveway widths in excess of 35 feet, nor have any been requested. While there are examples of three-car garages in the City that utilize the space alongside the garage for additional parking, that space is typically set apart from the principal driveway by means of landscaping or gravel. Interpreting the Code so as to disallow the applicant's request would not be depriving the property owner of something commonly enjoyed by other properties in this residential district, because other property owners do not have this right. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The house was constructed this year for the applicant. The survey and submitted building • plans do not indicate a parking area alongside the garage, which if it had, would have been brought to Mr. Henning's attention. i Henning Variance report • 8359 Red Oak Drive August 25, 1999 Page 3 d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The Code states that driveways shall not exceed 35 feet. Granting a variance to allow a 44-foot wide driveway would confer upon the applicant a special privilege that is denied by the Code to other property owners. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the applicant's hardship of not being able to park alongside his garage. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners • seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. The Code limits driveway widths to prevent the proliferation of impervious surface for not only the aesthetic reasons, but environmental as well. Approving this variance would be to go against the very intent of the Code. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. A 44-foot wide driveway would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. It would however ensure that vehicles would be parked upon an improved surface. According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. It appears to staff that in this case a hardship does not exist, and as such, if the Planning Commission were to concur, a variance should not be granted to allow the expanded driveway. Relevance of the Code: While there is no question as to the intent of the Code, from time to time the Codes of the City-- • its Zoning Code in particular--should be reviewed to ensure that they are in keeping with the values, needs and desires of the community, especially in light of changing standards and market demands with regard to home construction. i Henning Variance report 8359 Red Oak Drive • August 25, 1999 Page 4 Because a three-car garage is now a standard amenity with a new home, and because of the growing number of conditional use permits granted by the City for garage expansions, it may be the case that a Code requirement limiting the driveway width may in itself be an undue hardship, for no other reason than not having a place to park an extra vehicle or boat without blocking the path of one stored in the garage. This consideration (amending the Code) should perhaps be given some discussion, both as it relates to the variance request at hand, as well as on its own merit. Recommendation: There are three options available for the Planning Commission with regard to this request. A. Direct staff to draft a resolution of denial based upon the fact that there is no apparent hardship to warrant approval. B. Direct staff to draft a resolution of approval based upon hardship circumstances as discussed. C. Table the request to a date certain(keeping in mind the 120-day time limit) to • allow staff and the Commission the opportunity to discuss the merits of a Code amendment to Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4b(1)(a) relating to driveway widths in a residential district. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\568-99\HENNING I.RPT • anry Cr:: 'OU WOO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ; 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 ,n'rf':t-partners''''''' 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant Q U h t1 // f7 f'I / �'1 Telephone 2 r96 7 S c Address g3 <5/ . !ti e-4 0 cL/ Df i U e Fax i U CA ✓vI (LS V/ /0 lV Interest in Property(check appropriate box) Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager 0 Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. • Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location 3 9 R ej 0 1e 0 r J' v e Legal Description /°t10 /JO O ni es t~.«d /7c-tC?- Bic e-, l `- 104- 4 Property Identification#(PIN#) C36v 3 C .3 / 0 10 0 #of Acres JO 4- 2 9. S /r c 3 Current Zoning R -5; d' n ii ci Type of Application o Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 o Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 a Major-Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* O Minor Subdivision $200 o Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees o PUD Amendment $350 o Conditional Use Permit R-1, 2 all others$250 .-'' r`"" Variance R-1, )11 others$250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 o Develop Review/Site Plan - $125/acre;min$125 max$750 o Wetland.Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 o Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 O Floodplain Permit $200 o Other • • *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Development Application tr. Page 2 Present Use of Property a Undeveloped/VacantSingle Family Dwelling . • a Duplex/Two Family Dwelling a Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment a Other(explain) Property Classification ; Abstract a Torrens Description of Proposal e ..o.s rr 'Lc) e - .0 n'' . J i I- e c A e x - 4- 7 cl ,- r-7.4 , --,.. ,.../:)-.' 1/ f-- e°;.e C__k_3°/jci/5, t'l 7, ;-'2,/ Af-F,/,.. ' .' ts d- ! - .aci cf G J-7--) Jd7L /l av,e - cti.S` P t-a r 0 2 r.e,40-F 01ti $ w Ck_ f( d- V :-y p f cz� e ice, /c)o/c cam. . 5 c. e V c;)tca x•p1c- r‘ c .�/' C/r' - BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDE S Ty AND A' CURATE. , Signature of Applicant IAl Name of Applicant(typed/printed) ,...1 01-7 r) n , j (1 Signature of Property e ice,/ ' Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) , -j(--) 't') t/y2 Address of Owner 8 3 R e d Ori. W 01 r Phone Number of Owner 9 c c' — 7' 7L -2 ************************* * ************************************ FQR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal r rl --- Lt CI1 Date of Acceptance '7 T t'- 1 `1.qAssigned to: d IAA" Planning Case No. to --q'rt 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt# Application: 41/ 0 O ' /C 0 a '-t — S7A 3 3oura Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: • Total: 1/98 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DE VAPP.FOR • " --- • • —NORTH COUNTY ;-2— LINE • . r 8490 _V- N 84911 1'1 * 8494 - •-4 95.N 1`13 2 0 8494 84951 2 N 8480 8481 N` N- _ :,--;;L:115-4- N 8490 8485 `� 8480 8484 10 8470 �� � 8471` 485 8484 8475 8470 8465 8470 8474 8475 '"- 8475 • 8460 ---- -- 846 $ 5 -- 8474 8471 8466 8460 - �----w c _8456 8461 8460 -- 8465 ( �'�` 8467 n ! _11 845 8456 re 8464 8465 - d. ._.-, � ,,.._.. _......._...._ ....,. 1� 8450 8465 � �4 $450 8455---1 1 8440 8441 _ ----- -- p 8455 8454 8455 i ._....1.s..9._ 8444 ..~..., _......-..�.,..., ._-...�- 8431 i 8432 j i 8444 84_43 _8444ctilY 8445 j 8444 "• 8453 8464 8431 ___ t _ _ _ 8438 """" 8424 Q f 8435 8434 8433 8432 8441 8454 8432 8425 1 8434 - - -, ..w,_,....._......, - __.G_____.�-, 8419 , ____ _, --_---•----•• 8425 8424 8444 8426 i 8400 8415 f 8420 _...__,...�._,v.....- 8425 8428 8429 I 8409 8415 8414_ 8420 8392 "' 8414 84018401 8406 8405 .�. _8404 8415_Y 8408 8415 - _ --.. 0, /rn 18384 8390 8405 I 8400 { 00 ,83.78 8400 8379 _ 1 -8400- 8395 840C 8408 639 "� 8378 8389 _ �------ i 8380 00.J''4 I { 8384 $395 .._..,�,..._....,._....,_ 8398 R LAN -,yam','"'" 8379 8380 8373 " `""`" �_ 8370W 8381 8390 8388 8372 _._ 8370 8385 w __..-- I 8373E m,M j( 8365 8372 r 8360 8375 _ _ _8360 X79 8380 8378 �,�1 ao 8366 _ ....._.�f�.,. �.._ � ��� � ...... .w... $368 a 8369 °01 8360 8355 ( 8368 Or` 8350 8355 8350 8375 837E 834• 8365 � . 83 , 8364- _834_5_ 8340 8345 8340 8371 i __.._837 8354 8345 8330 8351 8346 s 8340 8331 8330 _8335 8357 8.34( 8344 1_. �. 8335 _" I "...�. _ , _. ~ t .. _~ _8325 8320 --1-- ___1_ "`"""4 8343 8342 8325 8312 8315 8320 8815 w8318 8323 832( 8334 1 _ _~... _. _.W_ - " ... . - _...w., ._.....�..__..-.._...i_ 8335 8332 � " �"'"""� t 830( -- _. .�_ w M 8315 8300 8303 L 8310 w 8305 _8310 . 8321 • 8330 8333 8322 ..�.._......._._._._,••". ,_. _�_w -1-- 829( 8305 8290 8295 8290 } 8291 8290 • 8285 0 - 8325 8300 p 8285 8280 Z 8281 8280 '� � 8287 {_8280 Z - 8273 828( V- ,= 8275 8270 82$1 # 8270 t=n 8271 8270 + " 826( GROVELAND _ p - . __.... 8265 Q 8265 f 8260 8273 8260 8261 8260 _.__. PARK 4. 8255w 82508250 8251 _..- '8255 „ 825( 8267 _ _ ?� �F w .43 � � �8240 8261 8240 n S �µ �' 8241 _ as i 824: N .��,__.�.. �O ,° (O � (O 8231 � � i 823: i ! ARDAN N 1 N N N 8230 8255 1 N N I N I N N = N ,y AVE 18244 M N ap ° .9. (o ori it 1 et 8220 <o I 8 0C -L.- N N .N N N N NHj821O •8227 8211 8205 _ .F 8184 8193 8202 --.w. _ _ u^i a 8200 8198 8205 N N N N 8180 8185 `- _ -- ..--r--.,----- _ 8192 11310_8, DR ---T-6-4--;‘,;5- _.�.._.._.,....._.,...,.. ...........-..,�..�...�., .,._..._.� _ 5c31.3821N(nI a _ 1 8175_ __ i `,° g'`/ 8160 8171 __8160 NN 1 N 8200 N i! N N NN$14E $165 M'_ _ m 0�1 _ . _. _._ 8165 8148 p LAPORT .. (_ _ _ 8155 . c9,s `� G's - _ 8150 _,-.,16 •—el if N o( 0 8142 8145 �,AO, �� 81458138 ao oo ao ao O 6,NI4N N £ 8135 I o 8�\ es t 8140 8141 f ( w 8132 8127 1 81251 8130 . 8131 - • ••',-�-- ; _ I qr j _ 1,1— •_" ms's n as i �1 r ho 811 M : N ^ o ; 1 ,9 �i � ; h ^ M~ N 14 it. rot 3 f S 8111 a 12 : 8106 N &i:' N N co N N 1 N I N , N N E812C 12 N N I N N ! Ni N !N f` Rini). .. SHERWOOD7 Zoning Map Planning Case 568-99 Applicant: John Henning Location: 8359 Red Oak Drive N. !!I 8 N-- 9 ,9 ., i d . 1 I 1 I:1 •i I , i • /2 .:I 1 1.1. "PW1a.--- ' .0 !I •II;11 C t-'-le.e ---7,,,14- . .... 71----= CA...., :i 1 !I' '1"1"\-4**X-%••--"t-- •°'"1.../ ll''''' ‘A-A.,4 -.011 ....--,4_--' s'-'4.--40 `••••-"--'- '4'.) 1 ' Otnrel yt -,..---41....4„....C.el. ,-.4.,-...v..- 11 1 I -c: • I 4, L.4.)....4.,...h., i I 3 37 ' _ T:p.,_,,f) 76. 5-4- - ,,a. . ....7. .. ii .....,"..._,_ 4, 11 4A..,e-c -eevt, ,..-4,--- ' al - 4% Lir-L..k_414-__ C) -(a-- ' 2G0 .....7.s.y.7 -.4--"&/ O 1) fir 1!! i 1 . l'106 '' -* * 0 -1/ a-r-i '''''&1-Ard- 4 ar 0 0„,_ ____,E,GAr - ; ..----- 7-\-.1-3.".- !---'"tj.-L' 0-4-0•"1"\--R----)1._.CP-7- -:--754-0--Ah. 11 , -,--, S:7 --7-y-l-4...._, Mr . I.1 • ) oe c: 1 - 1 .......--6-7...2,_...., ,/: /.... ,,, i i,, . ,.1 ' 1 •4, 4,; %-.L-2---4, ' - Or ill , / • _ , ... __ • .„,....., ..._,. -., ,,„„. __ _.„,..._..,,,.. _. __ h _ -:- /— i i i 4r te- - • • , . „...77-• ,;;;, • --e– i i i it 1 i 1.----11te i!I , i ii cc, e7.4.. ill f 'II • Al ill.o( If -.9' • - !I i H i i H 11 // _, L.... ...„ 1_ a / 0 1.., . , — 99 S t n n'2 Q ft C° e r- n ° Ala r e 19 0 e 0 LL)- A c_ c -1 - f 1Z e c� f c trpr-oper-.1--y s . oc o ' C d F— CaT- L.3 53 12 eda_l � t � eLk viLini9 a_ I /G.... e op are #3,.. ) (1 E' 0Xe A(arf l -sem c)-P // i -s • i i ' Ei 1� I � _ . I 111'1'111111 �� ;� I s,.,;;:;:: III: Ilii II1h, o :c.) iiiii � , � 010 0 0 IIII/I ,t 1 ,. 0 ZI missy 'gill 1 IIIA �m �' u ll' IIIIIII •11111 2 tiling 1f III n au I 1 1 AI lilt111 0o Orrl�rt�r 111s Z 111.1,1.1.11_: 144ht2.1 —i IIIIIIIIIII i III111411 �,1I 111 111;i IriIIIII IIIIII�,1II11�, f t= II 11/III 'II IIIII` ^! \ o� � _ III ye ��yllyyi MI /IIiiII. A MINIM iIi11 ,41111.11.11 O ' 'M a l l iii ��I�I�III�Ir11 ? I I III Lilo. • :IIII 11 .111 111111 C III illi II 1 II11111 V1iiiiiiiI1 ' IIII -II I II 11 11111 I1I li 1:111141 lllllllh IIIII11111III111111 �/ ixri'l'l'm:: 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 IIIIII1IIItl:: IIIIIIIIIII1I1l11 i' 111111:: IIIIIIif=I.I�I- II,�IIII ,1lIII;'111111,10 111111- 1.111111,111:: 1 1 IIIII • � :i:i:i:4i;i:i:i:i:$1a �����5:i:4iai 11IrIIIII 111 ^ry � �,ii1 .■■! IIIIIIII�I 1 r� �❑ 1lt�■� a_'' m i Its ■ 11111.1 1IIII � I IIIIIIIII•1111■ 1 1 1 1 1 fl Q L.� I_�l C■7 'iiit NEE 1111111111 I 1111 l 1111■1111■■■'1111111 ■1111 1111111111 11 11 1i11IIIIIIII.rIIIIII u �IIIII IIII IIIIf1I11/11I 11111 to I I '111j111l1c 1/111 IIII I111 1111111111_ WilIi' 1 1 4101 w 1.1.14.11. 111 11 111'1'1'1': 11111111 IIIIIIIIIII 111111 1111111m ■■ l■mmm 111 (IIII 'II I I ■111111 1111■■m 111 fill Ill 1111■■ I/I 11I f ■■1111 ',"'11 III . III $(�,� ' I i moms '1111■■■. II f, l ! **���i ■����i II n 111i1-1-1* II 4 ;u,u,i:,:p II a III11 1 f / i k �11�1i1i1 III S I �i�i�i�i i III1 a � I 1111111111 ;111 1.i 11111111111111 a I ! mm I■■■■■ II _ Nnp m 11111■ 1 $ "' V n 1111■■11 n n a y i iiiii� iFPgC / 2 I Im s N b I 25 o t Ir a mo,e, I Za � Sx i 1 a 0 I �, R a a •n § • • a 0 N C4 0 .... .,. .- rt\in --- OG'69--- ._ CN iN3W3S' 3 Aillllft 3DYNIVNO Jd en a.) � E 0 ` o . _ I \ c 0M "2'16 0 � � _ r to 0 M N a' W N N ` N CP M o1i.. a P.o-s' •G•o S'OI N 1 V' /. 3ON3OlS36 0., r" _ N Z a3SOdOed M c �, o o . n -- I-- r' , 4� „o-,Z£ a o o on _ 1 J a y � c fel c�N 1I 0. -1.916 / i -� W • J _; ..s Z 6 J o- E O y r I ct c > E' o W c .o g' V m La \ 0 v -o a c ii- > °.' a� R • 0.- U 0, a • n. a • a 30 0 -Q i m - v' E >• ( o , I tD • �t 1_^; 1 °i °1-v o � . � o` it ( I 0 - CA I - 1 € IA 1 \if , \ / p C o N .._._� ---0G-68--- _ .-: w s , �- = c C ( a v tea' D a- - -- E — av I i x- • v', 0 ., T a1I3QvOCIaC. ; . V' t 1. ! ',!.. S . : 'Ai a r#' j i ce/.' ./� %r — _ s_ _ ./_. S — �. .,L 0 ,----..- : 1-4 , ct , , . i,,,....., .7.:, .,...i.•- ./...„ .. , - - . . .... . . . . , . . ..,.. ‘ e • i M ' • i, :.,z ,,.:„.,:;,,•_ •,_ i _. 1 ,l . .: _ —� ° 1 - 1Imo ,, {. ' Y ec1 iv7(1':" f , i • Al4 ,i fr I rs i t .c.-is `re• 'r` °*". s_,!v,Ift., ,,,TriL`tr'k% `;:i..---r`m -�°x S S 1 r 4 el;; 1 I • L 1 .../ Ii .. — ,3 s9 :3,5. a4 x12= .i9 t \ ...,,, a - N • ; v • C — fes_ = a-•. — _ _ eAl -...,_---\. S Y } tFF- f;. it v O /4fl. - = 1 - '1 ,�. ► . PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO • To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Request to Change Screen Fence Location at the Anthony Properties/O'Neil Project Date: July 29, 1999 BACKGROUND: As part of the Anthony Properties/O'Neil PUD project (Theater Project) a screen fence was constructed along the County Road H-2 side of the project. The developers have determined that the screen fence is too close to the office building under construction. They are asking that the City approve a change in the location in the fence to deal with the problem. They originally proposed to move the fence 10 feet to the south immediately adjacent to the buildings. They have revised their request to only move the fence 6 feet instead of 10 feet. The fence will remain at its present location in the area between the buildings. The fence will be removed when the buildings are constructed. The fence will remain at its present location until the office buildings are actually constructed. Any trees that may have to be removed would be replaced. The developer has attempted to talk with all the residents on the south side of County Road H-2 • about the proposal. Six of the twelve residents have indicated that they would support the change and three residents opposed the change. They have been unable to talk to two residents. Council Member Thomason lives in the final property and the developer is attempting to discuss the proposal with her. A copy of a petition circulated and a map is attached. ANALYSIS: The proposal raises 2 questions. The first question is: Will the propose change adversely affect the project or the neighborhood. It is my opinion that the proposal would not adversely affect either the project or the neighborhood. The fence location change would not result in any additional impacts and could be done w - - ' . '-- - : --the-50-feet-buffer-area-and-minimal loss of trees. The developer is working with the City Forester to minimize tree loss and to replace trees that are lost with varieties recommended by the City Forester. The buffer area will remain and a continuous screen fence will still be in place. The second question is: What process should the City follow in reviewing the request? The project has been approved as a PUD. As such the project has to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The zoning code does not address amendments to approved PUD's. Does this mean that any changes to approved PUD plans have to go through the full PUD process again? This seems excessive for minor changes such as the current request. A code amendment may be in order to define what minor changes are and what kind of review process should be followed. 110 i 4 f In this particular case there appears to be no adverse impact of the proposed change and those • residents who could be impacted by the change have reviewed the change. It would seem that this type of change could be approved by staff. On the other hand, based on the history of the project you might want to have a hearing on the project. REQUESTED ACTION: It is requested that the Planning Commission review the above request and determine what review process and action should happen. The Planning Commission could also recommend that staff be directed to draft code amendments for future consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\9-1-99.MEM • • L fi • • s ,. ; ty Wendell R. Smith c'3 Rea,Es-o-e 0eveoo en-,Co^sJ-rg - 0-c E3raKe-cge August 19, 1999 Mr. Rick Jopke City of Mounds View 2401 Ifighwayl0 Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Revision of Theater Property PUD Dear Rick: As you know,we are under construction of our first office building. I believe that this project has gone just the way we said it would. In discussions with different neighbors on County Rd. H-2,the main complaint they had were of the trucks that continue to use the road. They did state that there were cars that screech out of Edgewood onto H-2. I believe that this will be taken care of when the intersection is completed. It has been brought to my attention by the contractor,that there IS NOT enough room between the office building and the fence to put in the condensers for the air conditioning units. These condensers will sit on a cement pad in the rear of the building. The fence will hide these condensers visually,while also blocking any sound to the neighborhood. Because the fence was part of the PUD,I am asking that we be allowed to move the fence 10 feet toward H-2. I have tried to visit with all the homes on H-2, at various times. I have been able to find nine of these residents at home. Seven of the nine signed a • "• . Li - MI . - v, 11 II • V- a. - - I ' '11 a - ..'Ill MI 111 - s-before there is any public hearing on this issue. In looking at the site,it looks as if we can move the fence without having to take down any trees. I would be happy to meet with you or one of your staff at the site. Please let me know what I need to do to have this item put before the Planning Commission. Sincerely, rtio)2,4,4, • Wendell R. Smith 1210 Josephine Rd.•Roseville,MN 55113•(351)484-5714•FAX(651)484-0699•Cell(0012)889-8230• E-mail WSMITH@ocr.org Aug 27 99 11 : 53a Wendell R. Smith 651 -484-0899 p. 2 • PETf11Cri TO MOVE FENCE Anthony Properties is in the process c:f:constructing the first of three office buildings. In order to install air conditioning units on the ground behind the buildings the existing fence needs to be moved 10 feet to th•;;.outh,into the buffer zone. Not only will the fence hide the air conditionings emits, it will also deaden the sound to the neighborhood made by these units. The moving of the fence will not came he removal of any healthy trees. There are. approximately four trees that will be t v loved due to oak wilt disease at the request of city. We the below signed neighbors,thatnt onto County Road H-2, approve of the moving of this fence. The fence will continue t I be the same height and will be replaced as it is now, only 10 feet further to the south. ADDRESS SIGNATURE OF RF S.:DENT PRINT NAME DATE 110 2520 H-2 2512 H-2 / .L���-�-� sem, r `�.� , motif 'G 2504 H-2 '7\ 2474 H-2 ' Um„;,/ • elTb-r 2468 H-2 r -$ ..)4.f e�' `—/'s -24.0,411:1yalvliCknifier - - qf 2462 H-2 t,-ILIA" 7 c.avf. 603 44/1 H-2 . ' ( 1 ` ; .�: �. Tr; ., bcu t Df srm 0/4'1 fr IIN 2456 H-2 t10 } 1`�t YY �X ��N'� .Sit CO1 l`nta z��^S4" _. g 7 ' . )5_6" 2442 H-2 f _ 1 i? c � ch. it— .Z `k • r-� , \. / Y ry6ry5 7745 7710 7711 n10 7709 77100 7721 7720 N N n \f 7715 N N • • MUNI' ring m ro N — _ 7700 7701 7700 770 N 1 I 7701 m R-2 x N R-2 CON � + m CO om. PUD .. B-2 ::;4_Y Nn81�8 mlo8t7)S 2553 n w w ~ ag:=-3; O !• Mt0 HB-3NNNN M NNNNN 2551 N N billN Nla NN' 1.N - N N 2349 Z - - wr 8-1788C N2547 0 7843 0 / 8-4 2545 P111901R-4 76417555 N rn 2539 (�� 77636491 638 7644 -.1 2537 ♦ 7635 ,.� • 8-2 « 7855 0 7635 7630 h 7645 }7625 7628 'C.1.•P1.11,X/C C� 7811,7810 LVER VIEW .�' � UU oN n. N B-2 ryh :a 7595 7594 PARK , 7581 7580 Nr IOO. Bs •- m N r N R-4:F 2 N 0 h m 7565 7564 m IA ii/ N N �v N N N cv N 7551 7550 ON M N'• 12 2t,. N a10ttO agf0 11111 gi 7535 7534 W . PF .. N m N w j 1`o N n n +' N m ! N N 7521 7520 t.9- I $'iN r N SA) cv$N ' t kiLS., 75057504rN ��JI/il�16l1. m OM N'O'N R-4N�°•bmMm N N 11 4 CITY HALL N S N N ..:.:ii'•ii::ti'^'i. 0.a,N tig 5394 CO O to .. In O m ti .. 0 M Iq r N' tifi g N R ^4 N•, O B• 2 w NIEW DR a PF .. �333 it ts. g t; 333 . co in7329 ::' oQ� v N N E. 7321 8 m• 1§ N jO DG `^ 3 n N co N N o PUD 1. S(U I I AMJ COURT ` u� 41`�55 S b N N • NNm�, N r::..'''1.: R-4 ko a el' MFA• N N - ryry /L� B-3 R-2 H2 ga _ --2 a m co .rN mm opt ;a h N n NN n5279 ,5278 00��mm Imo �,('` �� a . + N N 5278 NNNNNN N !V �3v'7 - y •' 1 s 5272 5273 5272,a, In n H n M as ,� 5260 1 1 5262 ,5273 ! N pia IMo a �o m e 5267 3W •/- EN 8-3 1 5266 5267 5288 N N N N N N N N N N N N 5256 5261 .5236 �- 5260 5261 LOUISA AVE p 5250 5255 5250 3261 5260 5178 Stn p + N a0 v. o m N ap •t pr NI mi0 m ro 52N N N N ND: ccM O 41 323llial m 517a , 5242 5243 NN N N N N N N /+ N 52.37 5232 37 CLEAKVItW AVE 5270 5279 517„ CLEARVIEW AVE gam,6 5237 n N '.M1 10� N ;5 w o m 5214.2111.52_2_1. 5231 w a 4 452 4) IC 9 1' v Al 1 5172 5171 5230'O m 2 m t6 N m m m tp tD N N N N N N N N 5260 5269 5230 5231 N N N N N N N N N N N N PF S225cr>L5220 5 N�, M IA n m m 5170 5169 5225 w w .r ^^ M c°'v N a § • o '2 ,In 1� a g %Ds .Irl. Z 7. MI, 4 5240 524• • , 15771 5224 tG m m 1 m N N N N N N N N N Z !219 5214 5219 N N N1 N N N N N 5240 5524.9 RIDGE LANE e m 0 e m o m N m 5230 5239 Z_ 5212 G G pm o 2 `, 2 2 ,N _Pi n c4 h 5213 a v :� a 5220 5229 w N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a. :: i 111 al 5208 5207csinie 14° N N N N N N N 5200 5201 N N N N N N N o 5200 520 --',.-11. -7,:;';`--0:::-.: 5148 5175 W000ALE DIS 5144 5157 W000ALE DR i1 `J 515251555150 5155 ri 5165 5138 }ii: 5149 5150 5155 0180 183 5140 :iiii:5i4r::•i:::§ N 5155 5132 :- i ::•:::5:;1: 5141 5144 5185 umittf34.6 To 1111 5142 5141 0: 514C 5143 5132 5145 0 e 5126 5133 5140 5175 a 551760°' 170 5179 Ei 5124 5132 5135 513C 313 O 5120 11,'11:i i• Li. 5125 5136 516 5160 5169 J 5116 5135 5128 5131 5120 5121 p 5114 ?: 5117 5 5150 5159 5125 J ..::,,,::•::::::::::_:::::::.4:::; },'.} 5128 5149 • 5108 5118 5115 5114 511! 5108 `n":/ .: 5109'0 5120 5145 5140 5149 5115 ,� "c3 5130 5139 to 5105 5108 5107 5106 �j 10 N N N...CM 5101 - 5108 5135 +•.�..�.n.r0 pi 0 t1 DR 5100 5101 p 5092 5091 5092 N NJ5091 5092 0 5093 50901 v5050915088 5085 5088 508545505100 5085083 5084 5071 5080 5075,0 'Z e 5080 5079 p0 5080 5079 50765075 5074 5070 50711Q 5070 5071 3072 5071 O 5072 5071 35068 3067 5064 5069 - 5060 5081 Eno& FnaA FnaC Snag Z ----..,.... ____ 5068 3061 1._-- --_ 1 • • < . . / • /// N Ne, 44 g ... 'A, ////e,' ® ®) •if-1i 0 1 / • i / M Dil 1 • // 0 / (:)®, -U • r • . (:(:)) . . 1 e / J P.,/ W ' J 0 li• Q / 0 (f) IIIII � W ' � Ini ,' xEMIX 0) i [e © 0. 0 CD I •W ' 1X LL IMO 01///111 ( ) ( - ) ( ) . a er17�`14E 9I; , 4III 11 ®T I 99 , j-rt 3AIaa aOOM3Da3 1 a r IL ( 2a - j". , .0 0 1%-x • = W W — U) t _JJ4 . Iii _ - nil _01' - CNI C./) (/) 4:1— . ON III ° •b . LCA in.__ !- r 4 II PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION_ CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 18, 1999 Mounds Vkw City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds `i w, MN 55112 Ak ,t, misetaW ,ext,.. 4oggeow 1. Call to Order 1<>: :;,>.�>::::.f.. NV Aor The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson Miller at,7:06 p.m., Aug s 1t :9. 2. Roll Call 11040110d6. 43,* AIPOSIth. Members Present: Acting Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Berke,:,< r af.n, Hegland, Kaden, and Laube. ,F4.="'4 >i-<< Y 410000111% V" Members Absent: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Con*ssionOxid1100 and: tevenson, with prior notice. AW Arnithiloh,„,4F 4r r Also Present: Planning Associate Jim : ricson, ommunit _ e elopment Director Rick Jopke, • Council Member Roger Stigney, and al:,: corderTrish Pearson. AWN AV Iinge- MO AW. Str, ANMIL . ekj`vZc.. Index to Minutes ><<a.: e�" Page N kms... Plannin "" ''�<: €£ :566-99 2: ': .odale Drive. Consideration of Resolution No. 590-99iiiiidkition recd aria :denial of a conditional use permit ... .. :.:.,•.j::.. +{,a': J.: tom``` for a garage exp €zt :Tim Ske li cant. 2 Planning". e No. 559-99, :7County Road I. Consideration of a resolution recom ending approva : 3 : x<: z i i lona use permit-for an assisted-living seniorsenisiiesidential facility;, <te oning ordinance (Ordinance 631); and an ordnance amending theoning Code pertaining to conditional uses within tli tt.4 zoning districtie` SP Real Estate, Applicant. 3 IKOW0. 0.'ofInfonnation 8 leommamtimp Cha CO::A 11 and Planning Commissioners Reports 9 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda IIIThere were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 • 4. Approval of Minutes A. July 21, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Kaden to approve the July 21, 1999 meeting minutes.>: :Icorrected. ss,�x. zF\z'zz?�\ : Ayes—6 Nays—0 A\ Th is h carried. hil 5 PlanningCase No. 566-99 =:? rAir }` _>.r h. < >. ; ? r. Property Involved: 2809 Woodale Drive .'. •" ri. 4 .z : P Y :: .a . Consideration of Resolution 590-99, a resolution recomm q. : 1a1 of a conditional use permit for a garage expansion. :. ri : Applicant: Tim Skeate. s The applicant was not present. ;�t;. ; _ I;< :, ,.SOlk, f ..'fix' .n�:ir ?�; � ...,,..A P' Planning Associate Ericson gave the sta 'report afollows: ` :t;a« ,:61iie so AN: 0 This applicant has requested a cond` inal use> rmit for.**expanded garage to be located at 2809 0 `53,4`.< Woodale Drive. The applica, t las>rpropostkincr ' `the size of the existing garage from 720 square feet t' .; 296 square:"WO. >A`'icson stat t a' >fh riast meeting, the Planning Commission and „Alstaff ha zs Fssed that l sp., at 4004 ; re feet, would be substantially smaller than the ro osec ig e:, : 0 : <-:11, p P VV., � : ,;?> i 4001115•14- Ericson im.:`..: . .Ericson stated the pip oed 1,296:.x:.;ua .:foot garage would, in fact, be three times larger than the house. He stat 1' _,Commi on and City Council have in the past, been very concerned about thi , ,Aie of imbila ::; e:;stated a _ara•e is intended to be an accessory structure to service the p •.l"opal dwelling, rigta h oininating feature of the property. He stated, while there is no req ' �z?° p ent that a garage tiller than the house, a garage of this size, were it to be built, would as:Far�r out of place and ttrusive. SR , ' stated staff>4d the Planning Commission reviewed the adverse effects associated with this :`,:s,::.d:..ha , ttermined that the proposed expansion would be substantially out of character ,:n. TIRipiliood, could cause blight upon the neighborhood, and would tend to depreciate the area' itv is it is located. Ericson stated, in light of 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 the conditional use permit request. 0 Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 iActing Chair Miller inquired if staff had discussed the resolution recommending denial of the request with the applicant. Ericson stated staff has been in contact with the applicant, who is aware that the request faces a recommendation of denial by the Planning Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Berke. To Approve Resolution No. 590-99, 4 Resolution Recommending Denial of a Conditional Use Permit For an Oversized Garage at 2809cSodale Drive; Mounds View Planning Case No. 552-99. ask -- t .4.:017:::$:,,,:::44, A es 5 Nays— 1 (Her t. motion carried. xmia Am- E !' 1 :. .::::i�'':.:::�-"',>''�.��,.� Ate: Commissioner Hegland stated he did not think the PlanningCommis ion shoo` di .urage:K ople 4.0A Ar from improving theirproperty, and he believed this to b an im rovement. "' ' . :. ° Otingle"' .4200, 6. Planning Case No. 559-99 ``` <' '"```' <,. Property Involved: 2670 County Road I <.::00>::;: Consideration of Resolution 584-99, a resolution lw 00,approva ` 'a conditional use permit for an assisted living senior residential faeil ty; a rezoning rdinan e`(Ordinance 631); and an ordinance amending the Zoning Code pertaining topriditkialliboOlthin the R-4 Zoning District. Applicant: MSP Real Estate .:: gr'Q° III gy-A,* ,.,, 4gY ow w it > >A The applicant was present. aw "" .{ Planning :''ss>':>ia-a Erics6leggillw staff report<a follows: The Planning Plannint*Ohirmssion has`il eo<athis request at several previous meetings. Ericson stated Resolution 584 },.x,.,as,the result: o ,those many meetings and their discussions, as well as the ir information d. h't;_.;:,embers of the Commission,staff and the applicant. 'Afi,a7- litigete„ Ericso:.; a ea ere were`< 'er. mponents to the resolution. He stated the resolution recommends wtr appy oval of the condition. us permit, and adoption of an ordinance approving the rezoning of the r�:;: �� prty from B-2, Limited Business, to R-4, High Density Residential. He stated another compnent of the resolution is the recommendation to adopt an ordinance that clarifies the language iffigOion 1109.04 ofhe City Code, as it pertains to nursing homes and other similar group housing he .,• distri :.: ct. He stated this ordinance includes an additional stipulation that the p=`: '' � :se; w:., ypes of uses shall be examined, and rather than basing this requirement upon that set �tnhe City Code, the requirement may be increased depending upon the level and intensity of service being provided. Ericson stated the applicant has provided a revised site plan, which indicates both entrances to the property to be located on Mounds View Drive. He stated staff has indicated to the applicant that this 0 would probably not be a good situation for people exiting the property onto Mounds View Drive, in Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 terms of the lack of visibilitydue to its close proximityto the intersection with CountyRoad I. He. • stated staff recommended the site plan be revised to provide an exit only onto County Road I, as previously discussed. He stated that this revision to the site plan might also result in additional parking spaces. Ericson stated the present site plan indicates a total of twenty-six parking stalls, which translates to slightly more than one stall for every two beds. He stated the City Code requires four stalls plus one stall per every three beds, which translates to 22 stalls for they roposed facility. He stated it was possible that additional parking spaces could be provide :nd be indicated<s roof of parki on the site plan, if necessary. He explained, however, a mere intenset`i'ri t ;-rp:arking is .: s could be addressed and duringthe Development Review'p ocess. '` ' Ericson stated the applicant had obtained a letter of permisSMOulithe owners of Silver View Plaza, indicating they would allow overflow parking onto their parking parld.:0061Wstated, upon providing a 48- hour notice, the applicant would be allowed to utilize.,,t 'e` :of their parking lot, when necessary. He stated this was a vital component tO\-1-esolvitilipAtong issues during past discussions. He provided the Commission with a letter f m resident < < i wCourt Drive who had concerns that the parkingbe ade::� at`e, int cause a '-f erflow parkingonto the expressed their .:�,::»::::<::,�::��;:::.>>.:<� <<<;«:� � : surrounding residential areas. He stated he belie ed these' er:;s yv cre: liared by all those involved. Age wilf init Ericson stated Section 3 of the proposedzoning ordinance inditf ''malo The Mounds View City Council does hereby stipulate that in the event l development being.proposed by MSP Real Estate does not • come to fruition, within one year csordinge's adoption (or sooner, upon written notification of the applicant), the Council will9t to reinseythetperty 's original B-2 zoning classification." He stated the„City Attorney» :ad ndicated p `l like the opportunity to review this section to ensure it do not force t14.011ncilthe to talk xn:; ction that it may not wish to. Ericson explained this sec`' ”'eta' remain„i ' Y`+ rance tentatively, or be amended in a manner which does not force the Council;; "take actio01010:404,ins the intent of the language. He stated the City Attorney would review this': u ge to be< i >t"is in proper legal form. Ericson st. the condi t :;forth in the City Code and Zoning Code for this type of use are all addres. :rand met satisf .k'il He stated if the Commission desired to include further conditions g the operation oftheff cility, they could be addressed at this time, and forwarded to the City C A _.Chair Miller4; ened the floor for public input. WatiVANWiiinz >40e.410 94*"```Stigney inquired if there would be any walking access provided for those people utilr4i . : : 'sverflow parking at the adjacent shopping center. Ericson stated he was uncertain, and inquired if there was a sidewalk along that side of Mounds View Drive. Commissioner Laube stated that there was not. He stated this question had come forward during a previous meeting, in terms of whether or not a sidewalk would be constructed around the building along Mounds View Drive and in the driveway for the residents who might wish to walk around the building. Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 1111 Mike Lewis, representative of MSP Real Estate, stated the only existing sidewalk was internal, along the driveway and County Road I, and they had not contemplated a sidewalk for the area along Mounds View Drive. He stated there was no existing sidewalk access to Silver View Plaza, and as they would be crossing over the SuperAmerica property to access this parking lot, they would not be able to create a sidewalk in that area. He noted they believed the overflow parking would only �. be utilized two or three times a year. `:i. Ericson stated this matter could be investigated further during the‘site p14.10104 He stated if there was sufficient room in the right-of-way, it might be possz " o creat '4 ; i n of sidewalk .p., ���k�:;. f4 traffic. He stated there could be _=sidewalk seg`ii"e t `>t ro ert accommodate the pedestrian ;;._«,. ,.,>��«.;,,,_,,,;>. =,p, P Y .. at the south end of the site, where the access of the parking lot enters Mounds<: ie :Drive He explained, however, the applicant had no control over thPt aus- 'derson proper bliti €uld not MEfiaconstruct a sidewalk at that location. €;.< ` <:> . z`h``ii:: gg `.:- „y•am,`... Commissioner Laube inquired if a sidewalk could be co struct d o ;::d the building, to provide a walking path for the residents, so they would not have to walk in lifiltilaw lot or cross the street if they desired to take a walk. Ericson stated the sitilatlindicatedNgotWbfsite sidewalk along the frontof the building, which although not circular,0ul =pori le>for some soin'6.00&ing activity. He stated these issues could be addressed, and he was i rtain pilo plic nt wo:U d not be averse to adding a sidewalk on their property, if it was ossible `Mr. Lew `statd'ths' s>correct, and that at this time, they had simply not progressed to this point with the site pl` hi>> ir 1111ARZS Ericson inquired regarding the number>of>parkin 4stalls prow ed on the original site plan. Mr. Lewis stated there were 24 parking stalls ith an ad onal nine, identified as proof of parking. He stated if they were..A utilize the original p lan, the00100.1fitiiasethey the parking spaces to 33 stalls. Omer 44-N Ericsonstated th > ommiss t €ul stipulate the applicant provide a revised site plan for Council review, which;;<'` 'i1 *indicate the thel4t.gmhOe property located on County Road I, as was originally proposed, as well;„ dic to the par ng and the proof of parking available. He stated that a clause VOWIW could be addectjtathtigMatipnal us permit that the proof of parking would be constructed at the request 01.0Y City, ifilallittriblhat there are problems meeting the demands of the parking. IwittiVW • cv. Co ssioner Laube statOstre cities required one parking stall for each member of the maximum . . ..> t of staff; in additiat 'to the three-to-one ratio, which, in this case, would be 31 parking stalls. is ��a Arted he liked this1i�dea. He stated they did not have many nursing homes in the City, and he .;-d the ordinapa include parking for both staff and residents in its requirement. He , o ould�.>prrrfer to see this requirement included in the ordinance at this time, instead of the • ®0aTd g: Commissioner Hegland stated the he agreed. He stated it would be much easier to Itpnor to the occurrence of a problem, and requested the requirement of 31 stalls be indicated in the resolution. Ericson inquired if Commissioner Laube was requesting the ordinance indicate this requirement. Commissioner Laube clarified he would like to see an amendment to the ordinance indicating the requirement for parking would be one stall for every three beds, as well as one space for each staff Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 member, on the maximum shift. Ericson stated that Item I of Ordinance 639 discusses the parking • requirements. He stated, rather than the parking requirement be subject to the Council's discretion, as presently indicated, the requested amendment could be made to this item. Ericson noted the parking requirements would be subject to review under the conditional use permit. Commissioner Laube stated if the requirement was indicated in the ordinance, it would provide a standard for these types of uses in the future. Acting Chair Miller stated this requirement did not take visitorparkingsideration. Ericson stated the visitor parking was represented within the stall t beratio. v' xv400ssiy ?or vaisak Council Liaison Stigney stated that some rooms could have more thane>ione be "`iinqui ,e:d" this Hen '>. 'r ants. ote �";` :.:,::>»>>;<>: n had had been taken into consideration in terms of the parkinrui e .: th ,�l���� t indicated some of the rooms might contain more than o4voi ricson stated thatd✓<requirement should be based upon the number of beds, as this would al e the equirement for other facilities, .. :.: which might have several beds per room. vx n;<,... WitaiEricson inquired if there were any further questi4o inc rding Ord `!>31, pertaining to the rezoning of the property. Acting Chair Millerutt . te languag "the ordinance could be amended to state "The Council may act...". mmiss ner Ka n inquired if the language could be .:.;,:` •LSA, `�:zf���'�;+::fi'y`�:::..::::r>:;,25*c.>'. amended after the Commission took action on the orcd z nc > n o <stated it could. He added the Planning Commission could indicate that Section 3' of the ordinance "may be amended prior to Council adoption," in the resolutionrecommending approval. Acting Chair Miller explained the Council might wish to make additional change > o Ordinance 631, as it was subject to their action. • Alt AtiV • Ericson statedthe resolutioncoo` ld also iimar A,a<`st pulation which states, "Now therefore, be it further res l ed t at nor<to tet, by the Cityuncil, the applicant will submit a revised site plan which sh` £`e ccess ontotalk::. : oad I, and the number of parking stalls that the Commission has indicatedaas a r s riate. : _;: _•<... wysthr Carol Golden:,o9 .:*Court Drive,inquired how the applicant would control the entering and exiting to;n `propeNO : wifstated theywould probablyutilize a sign, which indicates no entry >fnq • on CountyRoad � .. i emergency vehicles would-b-e a• - • - proy. Mr. Lewis stated`stere would be sufficient room for this, at the southwest corner of the p. ` ►g lot. tOs :$Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, inquired regarding the proposed rezoning from B-2 to R-4, and consideration to the small amount of zoned business space left within the City. 6 � ,AQ-. :'> were all aware, commercial zoning generates more tax dollars for the City, which f wo Iiivrovide relief to the property owners. He inquired regarding the difference in tax generation, in terms of an R-4 use, and a typical B-2 business. He stated they should make the City attractive for businesses to come in, operate, and be successful. He noted the impending revision to the Comprehensive Plan, and stated he considered the rezoning of property to be a very serious matter. 4110 Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 • Ericson stated the tax generation capabilities of this project, as opposed to a typical B-2 district use, had been discussed at a previous meeting of the Planning Commission. He stated it was determined, through discussion with the Ramsey County Assessor's office that a commercial use would be taxed at a rate of 2.8 percent up to $150,000 of its valuation, and after $150,000it would be taxed at 3.8 percent. He stated the County considers the proposed use to be a commercial use, however, because it caters to the needs of the elderly, and elderly housing, the tax rate would be 2.8 percent for the first $150,000 valuation, and would retain the 2.8 tax rate after that point. .. AP Ericson stated staff was unable to find many comparable exarnp;es of B-2< es in e area, howeve it was believed that the proposed project, at a 1.5 million dollar valuation > voli_prxb:bly outweigh some types of commercial uses which would probably cons` of a showroom or-VO.e;= t oed the valuation of the proposed facility would likely exceed< th r uses>`which would' tt1:='' 'a B-2 ZoningDistrict. Hee stated while it may be taxed at a lows l eyond the $150,0 `alu tion, it was likely the proposed facility could generate more tax income_n 1tl e long run, than a commercial use. s4 ' :::;<::: > >'consideration n Eris n stated that the lack of commercial space w't>'tx`i1t�>.Cit as` 't wli". a a d a concern. He stated there are, however, some sites,° l i a e.remained cant for many years,.and the Commission had taken this into considerder He.,stated.te sublNect site has been vacant for a long eriod of time. He stated the develop shas atte, ptee t� 4r _ the subject property for quite some time, and no other proposals have been brought befo ty. • ,a, Acting Chair Miller stated that anotl r ssue which had been considered was the need for this type of facility within the City. $. 3t " <:;<=k'' ' r MOTION/ 5.. ND: Berl eaath n. To ApproveResolution 584-99, a Resolution Recommending ti�. .`:�y>>:<�<.:>:rn>. . . �>::.;,:f:<�>°:'_: '���= rte.:$:. Approva>1=:ofa . tional er t,,Rezoning Request and Code Amendment Associated with a Proposed As ;st ; : SeniorSeningillti41Facility to Be Located at 2670 County Road 1; Planning Case No. 55910 *»ended to Include a Stipulation which States "Now Be It Further Resolved that Prior to Atonal e City Council,the Applicant Will Submit a Revised Site Plan which Shows the Access nto CountyRoad, and 31 Parking Stalls." 5 w. A Nays—0 The motion carried. is . P:. ng Associate Eric, t n stated the public hearing of this matter had been scheduled for the August 1999swok,, City Cout 1'Meeting. rete 7. " aurReports /Items of Information A. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Jopke provided the Planning_Commission with an update of the 0 billboard issue. He stated he was still waiting for final word and opinion from the City Attorney Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 regarding the issues previously discussed. He stated one of the issues related to whether or not there 1111 were deed restrictions. He stated he had heard there would not be any deed restrictions, however, he had not received anything in writing or directly from the City Attorney in this regard. Jopke stated another issue was the possibility that a spot-zoning situation might arise, and that he had not heard the results of that research, as yet. He stated he would bring this information forward to the Commission, as soon as he received a formal written opinion from thety ttorney. PlanningAssociate Ericson reported on City Council action ri iri"'their Aur„, 1999 meeting. If stated the City was involved in the process of selling a pl"located at0.9'9e4111, t View Dr-V. He stated the City had purchased that propertparcel for participation ''the I <101,0.1104-, Y>> ep1. cent Program. He stated the highest bidder for the property s !Iarquis Builders, ri l owever, they had lost their purchaser, and were unable to proceed. s xl the EDA had acted'to offer the property to the next highest bidder, Vista Construction, and'tapproved that item. He stated the bids were very close, and the newly proposed h1":`tif"i g er than that previously proposed by Marquis. 7 ;4 Ericson stated that Thrifty Car Rental, which,t ai receive approval`ft their busines on July 26, 1999, had requested the City Council revise conditonal::;as ;permt^:: le stated the applicant had taken issue with a stipulation prohibiting trucks ont tht,`a d ha equ rested the Council reconsider this stipulation. He stated the Council ha i enied that=re;>oequest, maintaining the prohibition of trucks, recreational vehicles, or trailers at thata'tion. 'stated th�e_ypplicant has since indicated that they would abide by this stipulation, n would 4 nmence,;.the operation of their business at 2975 • Highway 10. ° ' x :mow Ass" B. pcominvioa, := ' awning Cases <. : >A PlanningAssociate::;:_,. %cson stand• t " ` ; lic hearin for a variance request for a wider than allowed driveway on R D ve hadtlettifthiduled for the next meeting of the Planning Commission. ,44110,4404 NNW Planning> missioners Journal oc over Ph 1'ng Associate Eriggli stated the Planning Commission had been provided copies of the latest ee; , �:n of the PlanningXCommissioners Journal, which has an article about citizen surveys, p' recommend. t ns regarding what constitutes agood survey. He stated this was a ;;v,. g �' g g Y •'�: r ; ticle al.ttiagazine for informational purposes. He stated that in addition, the Planning r 1 + ,,::also been provided with a copy of the previous City Council minutes for their re r�;�.'.., ; . "Chat staff would continue to provide these minutes, in the future. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Acting Chair Miller stated Commissioner Braathen had presented the Planning Commission with a letter requesting an excused leave from the Planning Commission in order to take care of business 0 Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 Smatters. Planning Associate Ericson stated he thought this matter could be addressed at the next meeting of Planning Commission, when Chairperson Peterson would be present. No other reports were considered. • 9. Adjournment `' SSS A `t*$�. There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting ; ller adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. < ' m w 40 The meetin immediate) adjourned to th A enda Session `� <><>: a: .#< �>' ., zosimialkeir Respectfully submitted, ' moopm„,, r 41,41114% Vilitatika. Nisammy Rick Jopke j` �f:: > gi . > CommunityDevelopment Director ,:41,,,u, " . » : ` » +. Air -AY` :::?;3i+4vyk'v:�s v.: Transcribed by: # ``i`' e Trish Pearson >4 j-' 110 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, InctT: "�t. ie t.`ki{x`;:>:i; **Mak. '''s=.'::i�'"m .: .: : x."..,'o'34%a:>:k'!J<i:CYx i::ik. snowy . •