Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-2016MOUNDISIVfEw PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 6, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1053-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1113, 1114, 1115, and 1116 relating to breweries, brewpubs, micro -distilleries, taprooms, and cocktail rooms. B. Consider Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. 6. Other Planning Activity A. (none) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: June 1, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, July 20, 2016 Wednesday, August 6, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 6, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -194-15 MUU-NDS VIEW MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Re: Consider Resolution 1053-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1113, 1114, 1115, and 1116 relating to breweries, brew pubs, micro -distilleries, taprooms, and cocktail rooms. Date: July 6, 2016 Introduction In recent years, a number of taprooms have opened in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and more locally in Lino Lakes and Anoka. There are plans for taprooms in Blaine and Coon Rapids as well. In order for one to open in Mounds View, the Zoning Code must be amended to allow the location; and the City's Liquor Licensing Code must be amended to regulate on -sale and off -sale of beer and alcohol. This proposed amendment only addresses the zoning part. The City Council will act on the liquor licensing separately. Discussion State laws were changed in 2011 (Surley Bill) to allow small breweries to sell alcohol to consumers, on and off the premises. Since then, a number of micro -breweries with taprooms have sprung up around the Twin Cities. A "brew pub" is a restaurant that manufactures their own beer. A "micro -brewery" or "micro -distillery" is a manufacturer of a limited quantity of alcohol, and may have a taproom or cocktail room on or adjunct to the manufacturing that acts as a bar. Over the past year, Mounds View has received inquiries about allowing a micro -brewery with a taproom. The City Code does not specifically permit this use, and therefore it is prohibited. The Planning Commission previously discussed this topic on April 15, 2015, and June 1, 2016, indicating a preference to allow brew pubs (brewery & restaurant), and micro -breweries with a taproom (bar) in the B-3 and B-4 districts. Amending the City Code to allow this type of use involves an amendment to the City's zoning regulations, and City liquor licensing regulations. The licensing ordinance is much more complex. Once Staff drafts the licensing requirements, this and the zoning amendment will be brought to the City Council. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 6, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -194-15 Bold highlight = proposed P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use (CUP) Summary The proposed City Code amendment would allow brew pubs to be located in any district that a restaurant is allowed, and a micro -brewery or micro -distillery (with taproom/cocktail room) to be located anywhere a bar is allowed. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1053-16, a Resolution recommending approval of an amendment to City Code, Chapters 1102 (Definitions); 1113 (B-2 Limited Business District); 1114 (B-3 Highway Business District); 1115 (B-4 Regional Business District); and 1116 (1-1 Industrial District), to allow breweries, brew pubs, micro -distilleries, and taprooms/cocktail rooms. W Ln E c Q o N m N UlN W W � > o Ln cn 'E o Ln :3 =5 m : m 4.1 N 0 o 4L N C W rH D m m CO m a- Brewery, Micro P P P C Brewery, National P C Brewery, Regional P C Brew Pub P P P C Liquor, off -sale P P P C Manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging or C C treatment of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food products Microdistillery P P P C Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, on -sale and off- P P C sale liquor Restaurant (max 24 seats & 2,000sf. No drive-thru) P P P C Restaurant (more than 24 seats or 2,000sf. No drive- C C thru). Drive-in and convenience food establishments C C Taproom/Cocktail Room P P P C P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use (CUP) Summary The proposed City Code amendment would allow brew pubs to be located in any district that a restaurant is allowed, and a micro -brewery or micro -distillery (with taproom/cocktail room) to be located anywhere a bar is allowed. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1053-16, a Resolution recommending approval of an amendment to City Code, Chapters 1102 (Definitions); 1113 (B-2 Limited Business District); 1114 (B-3 Highway Business District); 1115 (B-4 Regional Business District); and 1116 (1-1 Industrial District), to allow breweries, brew pubs, micro -distilleries, and taprooms/cocktail rooms. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 6, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -194-15 Respectfully, Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments Resolution 1053-16 Zoning Map MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1053-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1100 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE PERTAINING TO BREWERIES, BREWPUBS, MICRODISTILLERIES, TAPROOMS, AND COCKTAIL ROOMS; PLANNING CASE: SP -194-15 WHEREAS, City Staff has recommended that amendments be made to the zoning code related to malt liquor manufacturing; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to allow breweries, brew pubs, microdistilleries, taprooms, and cocktailrooms. WHEREAS, City Staff has amended Chapter 1102; 1113; 1114; 1115; and 1116 of the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding the underlined material and deleting the stfieke material as follows (footnotes are for reference, and not for publication): Chapter 1102: Zoning Rules and Definitions Section1102.02: Definitions Subd. Brewery, Micro: A facility with a capacity to manufacture less than 15,000 barrels of alcoholic and nonalcoholic malt liquor a year. This definition does not include a brew pub.1 Subd. Brewery, National: A facility with a capacity to manufacture over 250,000 barrels of alcoholic and nonalcoholic malt liquor a year. This definition does not include a brew Dub.2 Subd. Brewery, Regional: A facility with a capacity to manufacture between 15,000 and 249,999 barrels of alcoholic and nonalcoholic malt liquor a year. This definition does not include a brew pub.3 Subd Brew pub: A brewer who also holds one or more retail on -sale licenses and who manufactures fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year, at any one licensed premises, the entire production of which is solely for ' City of Anoka, Chapter 74; Article 1. Section 74-2 (Brewery, Micro) 2 City of Anoka, Chapter 74; Article 1. Section 74-2 (Brewery, National) 3 City of Anoka, Chapter 74; Article 1. Section 74-2 (Brewery, Regional) consumption on tap on any licensed premises owned by the brewer, or for off -sale from those licensed premises as permitted.4 Subd. Distilled Spirits: Ethyl alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl, spirits of wine, whiskey, rum, brandy, gin, and other distilled spirts, including all dilutions and mixtures thereof, for non -industrial use.5 Subd. Micro -distillery: A distillery operated within the state producing premium, distilled spirts in total quantity not to exceed 40,000 proof gallons in a calendar year.6 Subd. Taproom: An area on the premises of or adjacent to one brewery location owned by the brewer that allows the on -sale of malt liquor produced by the brewer for consumption. Such use shall be accessory to the primary use of a national, regional or micro -brewery and may be a restaurant.7 Chapter 1113: B-2, Limited Business District Section 1113.02: Permitted Uses Subd 2. Restaurants, cafesand tea rooms, and brew pubs with a maximum of twenty four (24) seats and two thousand (2,000) square feet in floor area. The restaurant shall not include drivethru and/or window pick-up services or the serving of food to patrons in their vehicles. Section 1113.04 Conditional Uses Subd 10. Restaurants, cafes. and tea rooms, and brew pubs with more than twenty four (24) seats and/or two thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area. The restaurant shall not include drive-thru and/or window pick-up services or the serving of food to patrons in their vehicles. Chapter 1114: B-3, Highway Business District Section1114.02: Permitted Uses All permitted uses as allowed in a B-2 Limited Business District. Micro -Brewery with Taproom Micro -distillery with tasting room/cocktail room 4 MN Stat §340A.101, Subd 3a (Brew pub). 5 City Code Section 502.01, Subd 7 (Distilled Spirits). City of Anoka, Chapter 74; Article 1. Section 74-2 (Distilled spirits) 6 MN Stat §340A.101, Subd 17a (Micro distillery) City of Anoka, Chapter 74; Article 1. Section 74-2 (Taproom) Chapter 1115: B-4, Regional Business District Section1115.02: Permitted Uses All permitted uses as allowed in a B-3 District. Chapter 1116: I-1, Industrial District Section 1116.02: Permitted Uses: The following are permitted uses in an I-1 District: Micro Brewery, Regional Brewery, National Brewery, Micro -distillery, (with Taproom, Tasting Room, and/or Cocktail Room) WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 1100 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. BE IT FINALLY 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 6t' day of July, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 513 Meeting Date: July 6, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 MOUN-DS VIEW MEM® To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Re: Consider Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. Date: July 6, 2016 Introduction Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are similar to an apartment on the same lot as a single-family home. An ADU may be attached to, or detached from the home. Examples include a basement apartment, an apartment above a garage, or a standalone building in the backyard. This topic was discussed by the City Council on May 9, 2016, and by the Planning Commission on June 1, 2016. Discussion Currently, Accessory Dwelling Units are prohibited in all districts. Staff has occasionally received inquiries if ADU's are permitted, specifically above garages and as temporary structures. It is not uncommon for a bedroom of a single-family home to be rented, as long as all occupants have open -access to all areas of the home. In this example, it is still a single-family dwelling. There is little difference between an ADU and a duplex or twin -home, except by name. As drafted, ADU's would be a permitted use in the R-1 District as an accessory use, whereas a two-family dwelling is not permitted in the R-1 District. If permitted, the intention is that ADU's would be subordinate in appearance to the single-family home. A means to accomplish this is by limiting the ADU's size (e.g. maximum of 800 sq ft). However, if the ADU is located in a basement or a 2n floor, then limiting the size of the ADU does not serve a purpose. The ADU could be the same size as the floor area above or below it (i.e. 1/2 the size of the house). A number of cities allow ADU's as a permitted use, or as a CUP. There are differences in the minimum lot size, and in the minimum and maximum ADU size. Some cities limit the number of occupants of an ADU, although this can be difficult to enforce. Many cities prohibit detached ADU's. Item No: 5B Meeting Date: July 6, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 Summary Accessory Dwelling Units are one solution to providing housing diversity in neighborhoods. ADU occupants are likely to include adult children, elderly parents, college students, personal caretakers, and other residents. ADU's may provide extra income to property owners, and allow multi -generational families to live separately under one roof. However, the only difference between an ADU and a duplex is its appearance. Appearance can be subjectively interpreted. If the ordinance is amended, consideration must be given as to how the City will administer and enforce ADU requirements. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the draft ordinance amendment, and provide Staff with direction if to proceed as -is, or to amend as needed. Respectfully, 40., 4Q� Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments Summary of other ADU Ordinances ADU Example Floorplans Article: St. Paul considers `granny flats' as affordable housing option along Green Line Resolution 1054-16 Item No: 5B Meeting Date: July 6, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 SUMMARY OF OTHER ADU ORDINANCES AARP Model: (Includes optimal, favorable, and minimal provisions. Provisions listed below are in no particular preference). Permitted use or Interim Use (IUP). If permitted use, then notify neighbors. If neighbors object, then require administrative hearing. If still objection, then require IUP. IUP expires after 5 -years, or if ADU no longer in compliance. One ADU per residential lot. If detached ADU, then lot must meet minimum lot size for that zoning district. Homeowner must live in either the primary home or ADU. Require a deed restriction that ADU must comply with ordinance. Minimum ADU size: 300 sq ft. Maximum size: 800 sq ft, or 40% of the primary home, whichever is less. Maximum of two bedrooms. ADU, or entrance shall not be in front of the home, or face the front street. The ADU cannot be subdivided from the lot. Require one additional parking space for ADU. Apple Valley CUP. Minimum lot size: 40,000 sq ft (about 1 -acre). Property owner must live on property. Min size 300 sq ft, max size 40% of home. ADU must be attached to home. Max of 3 ADU's within mile radius. Bloomington: Permitted use. Lot must comply with minimum lot size, parking spaces for single-family home. ADU cannot have separate utilities. ADU shall be attached to the primary home, but cannot be accessible to the home (no common door). The design of the ADU must avoid the appearance of a second dwelling (must look like a part of the single-family home). Minimum size 300 sq ft, maximum size 960 sq ft, or 1/3 of the floor area of the primary home (whichever is smaller). Maximum of two bedrooms and two persons. Chanhassen: Permitted with Variance for temporary use (age, disability, financial hardship). Eagan: Permitted use. Property owner must live on property. Min size: 300 sq ft, max 960 sq ft or 1/3 of home area. ADU must be attached to home. Max 2 occupants. Farmington: CUP. Max size of 1,800 sq ft. Hugo: Permitted use. ADU in detached garage for occupation by a family member, caretaker, or employee (or similar). The ADU cannot be rented as a second dwelling unit. Item No: 5B Meeting Date: July 6, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 Inver Grove Heights Permitted. Minimum lot size: 1 -acre. Min ADU size: 250 sq ft, max: 1,000 sq ft. Long Lake: Permitted. Property owner must occupy the home. ADU shall not be rented. Minneapolis: CUP. Detached ADU: minimum size: 300 sq ft., maximum size: 676 sq ft, or 10% of lot area, and not greater than 1,000 sq ft (includes any garage stalls). Attached ADU: minimum size 300 sq ft, maximum size: 800 sq ft. ADU cannot be more than one-story. Stairways must be enclosed. Owner must occupy the home or the ADU, if not, the ADU must be converted into a non -dwelling (no kitchen or bathroom). Owner must record covenant, restricting use of the property to comply with ordinance (serves as notice to next owner). ADU does not require additional parking. Minnetonka: CUP (accessory apartments). Home or ADU must be owner occupied. Maximum size: 950 sq ft, or 35% of home's sq ft. (ADU may be larger, if approved by City Council). New Brighton: Permitted use, as "Separate living quarters for domestic servants employed on the premises provided that the premises contains a minimum area equal to two ordinary minimum sized lots in this district" , (i.e. the lot must be at least twice the size of the minimum lot size). Plymouth: Permitted use. ADU must be built at same time as house (no addition). ADU limited to above garage only. Max size: 1,000 sq ft. Richfield: Permitted use. Min size: 300 sq ft, max size: 800 sq ft, not to exceed home area. Roseville: Permitted use. Either the single-family home or the ADU must be occupied by the property owner. The ADU may have a maximum of one bedroom and two occupants. The ADU requires one additional off-street parking space. The ADU may include a Home Occupation. The ADU shall be a minimum of 300 sq ft in size, and a maximum of 650 sq ft, or 75% of the single-family home area. A rental registration and an ADU permit are required. Prior to permitting, the City notifies neighbors within 100', providing 7 days to submit comments to the City. The City may place conditions uponthe /-IVU permit. I Ill. II non-com l�-cod m I� � plia�, Ll R-5 rNuU per � � 11L I � 1d' y uC revoked, providing a 60 -day notice. Upon revocation, the ADU may only be occupied by family members. An ADU permit expires with a change in ownership. Item No: 5B Meeting Date: July 6, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 Shoreview: Permits use (referred to as an "accessory apartment"). ADU must be attached to a Home at least 850 sq ft in size. The ADU shall be 500 — 850 sq ft in size, and no larger than 30% of the building's total floor area. The ADU may have up to two bedrooms. The property must have at least three off-street parking spaces, two of which must be enclosed. The Home shall be owner occupied. The ADU may be administratively approved. St. Paul: CUP, limited to conversion of Carriage House for employees. Considering allowing ADU's as a permitted use within 1/2 mile of west University Ave, associated with the LRT Green Line. Draft ordinance: One ADU per lot. Max size: 800 sq ft. If the ADU is within a home, the home must not be less than 1,000 sq ft, then ADU may be up to 1/3 the size of the home. Total occupants of home & ADU = one "housekeeping unit" (family + 2 non -family members). Property owner must live in the home or ADU, and record a covenant enforcing ADU regulations, prior to the City issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the ADU. White Bear Lake: Permit use (home accessory apartment) with a CUP. Owner must live in the home (not ADU). Maximum size: 880 sf, or 40% of home, which ever less. ADU can be attached or detached. 7/l/2016 ADU Varieties.png (963x765) _... nor Attached ADUs Attached ADU (via Addition) hUp://streets.mn/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ADU Varieties.png 1/1 ADU, detached 342sqft OPEN TO BELOW FIRST FLOOR "mAN FLOOR 'U —�----------�--- o� SKYUQHT CLEAR SPACE [] | ION wl B9 Bice DRAWERS r OPEN TO BELOW FIRST FLOOR "mAN FLOOR 'U —�----------�--- o� ADU above Garage 800 sq ft 6/30/2016 Lennar-Delano-AnchorNextGen-floorplanl-lr.jpg (533x750) LOGGL�, NOOK PRIVY= IY-9" 10,- 77' BEDR00'-,\l 12' -3"14* -2" LIV'ING jl R00 -%l P" B I -F- IaTCFIF-NTE= -t-T E. NN TR 71 9 -BA Y GARAGE 20'-0'x 20-"-3" L P),TATE LI\T\TG ROOM COURTYARD 13'-11". 0 ir------------- I -BiW C-�--AaAGE G" — 12'-ri" gue = A-120 IVDU http://Summerlin.com/upload/properties/265/floorplans/Lennar-Delano-AnchorNextGen-floorplanl-lr.jpg 1/1 6/30/2016 0 t`ii0_NAL COMM PATIO B f F.%J.)E = ADO lennar-ravenna.jpg (609x529) 01'TFONAL DECK B Zs, -D- Cermet 1, nl Next -Gen https:Hlasvegasrealtor.larissaswany.comlwp-content/uploadsl2Ol6lO2llennar-ravenna.jpg ill 7/1/2016 St. Paul considers 'granny flats' as affordable housing option along Green Line - StarTribune.com ST. PAUL St. Paul considers 'granny flats' as affordable housing option along Green Line By Jessie Van Berkel (http://www.startribune.com/jessie-van-berkel/280701532/) Star Tribune JUNE 8, 2016 — 11:16PM Mother-in-law apartments — secondary units often built alongside, inside or in the backyard of a home — could pop up along the Green Line in St. Paul. City Council members are considering whether to allow construction of those "accessory dwelling units" within a half -mile of the light rail line. Community members and city officials said the units could create more affordable housing and provide homes for seniors who want to age in their neighborhood but not maintain a large house. "When you have a transit line, you want to have density that is supportive of transit ridership. And we have a lot of single family homes in that area, and we want to - maintain those established neighborhoods," Senior Planner Jamie Radel said, noting that accessory units balance those desires. Minneapolis approved accessory units in 2014, and many suburbs also allow them. The units appear to be growing in popularity in cities and inner -ring suburbs over the past decade, Radel said. St. Paul currently has strict rules about such units. It only allows carriage houses, defined as an accessory unit above a detached garage, in certain districts when specific conditions are met. For several years, the city has been looking into allowing various types of accessory units along the Green Line, within a half -mile of University Avenue between Emerald Street and Marion Street — essentially from the city's western edge to the Capitol area. Some community councils have expressed interest in allowing the units citywide or beyond the proposed area, Radel said. Whether to take a broader look at the issue is up to the City Council, she said. Council Member Dai Thao, whose ward includes much of the area that would be affected, said he needs more time to analyze the issue and has not decided whether he will support the ordinance, which was given a second reading this week. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the accessory dwelling plan Wednesday. Neighborhood concerns Accessory units have been particularly controversial in the St. Anthony Park neighborhood near the University of Minnesota's St. Paul campus. Some residents feared the units would change the neighborhood's character, said Phil Carlson, who led a task force that looked into the issue. The group was evenly split between supporters and opponents, he said. Linda Foster, who lives in St. Anthony Park, opposed the units. At a Planning Commission hearing on the topic, she said accessory units can be "the kiss of death for a neighborhood." The first generation of people to own the units may keep it up, but after that the accessory dwellings can deteriorate, she said. People were also concerned about the addition of renters and loss of on -street parking space, said Suyapa Miranda, executive director of the St. Anthony Park Community Council. "It's an affluent neighborhood," she said. (http://stmedia.startdbune.com/images/ows_l 45688141793D AARON LAVINSKY An eastbound Green Line train passed through St. Paul at the 10th Street Station. St. Paul City Council members are considering whether to... http://www.startri bune.com/st-paul-cons i ders-granny-fl ats-as-affordable-housi ng-opti on -al ong-green-1 i ne/382309871 / 1/2 7/1/2016 St. Paul considers 'granny flats' as affordable housing option along Green Line - StarTribune.com "And then really thinking about what the neighborhood looks like, and does it fit with the neighborhood and what the current style is? And a lot of people's understanding is no." Despite concerns, the community council voted in support of the proposed city ordinance allowing accessory units. The units could help reduce per capita energy use, make some large homes more useful and provide housing needed for seniors, Suyapa wrote in a letter to the City Council. She said the units would offer lower-cost housing to people who otherwise would not be able to afford to live in the neighborhood. Jessie.VanBerkel@startribune.com http://www.startribune.com/st-paul-considers-granny-flats-as-affordable-housing-option-along-green line/382309871/ 2/2 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1054-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1100 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS; PLANNING CASE: SP -202-16 WHEREAS, City Staff has recommended that amendments be made to the zoning code related to accessory dwelling units; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to allow Accessory Dwelling Units; and WHEREAS, City Staff has amended Chapter 1102; 1103; and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding the underlined material and deleting the stf ieken material as follows (footnotes are for reference, and not for publication): Chapter 1102: Zoning Rules and Definitions Section1102.02: Definitions: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this Code, shall be defined as follows: Subd. 42. DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY: A detached dwelling unit designed exclusively for occupancy by one (1) family. Subd. 43. DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY: A dwelling designed exclusively for occupancy by two (2) families living independently of each other, also known as double bungalow, duplex, side-by-side two (2) -family dwellings, An Accessory Dwelling Unit is not a Two -Family Dwelling. Subd. DWELLING UNIT, ACCESSORY: a dwelling unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling to which it is accessory, and that is subordinate in area to the principal dwelling.1 1103.02: DWELLING UNIT RESTRICTIONS: Subd. 1. No cellar, garage, tent, recreational vehicle, travel trailer or accessory building shall at any time be used as an independent residence or dwelling unit, temporarily or 1 City of Minneapolis, Section 520.160 (Defmitions, Accessory Dwelling Unit) permanently, except as permitted pursuant to Section 1106.03, Subd 2 (Accessory Dwelling Units). Chapter 1106: R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Section 1106.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an R-1 District: Subd. 1. Single-family detached dwellings. a. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any principle dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking spaces for at least two (2) automobiles per family in addition to any garage spaces to be used. Section 1106.03: Accessory Uses: The following are permitted accessory uses in an R-1 District. Subd 2. Accessory Dwelling Unit: In addition to the minimum standards of Accessory Buildings, the followingshall apply: a. One Accessory Dwelling Unit may be located on a lot occupied by a single-family home. The lot must comply with minimum dimensional standards. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not be subdivided from the single-family home. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be located on a permanent foundation. b. The Single -Family Home or the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be occupied by the property owner. The property shall be homesteaded .2 C. The Accessory Dwelling Unit may be attached to the single-family home, or be part of a detached accessory building_ d. An Accessory Dwellina Unit shall have a minimum area of 300 so ft. If an Accessory Dwelling Unit is added onto the single-family home or is within an Accessory Building(_ i.e. garage loft), then the maximum area shall be 800 sq ft. If an Accessory Dwelling Unit is to be located within the single-family home (i.e. basement or 2nd floor), then the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall have a maximum area equal to the floor area above or below it. e. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall have a separate exterior entrance than that of the single-family home. All stairways shall be enclosed. The exterior design of the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be incorporated into the character of the single - If "Relative Homestead", the property owner would not live on the property. If the intent is to require the property owner to live on the property, Chapter 1012 (Rental Dwelling License) will need to be amended to require the owner to sign an affidavit stating that they live on the property a minimum of 183 days per year (more than 6 months). family home, and shall not have the appearance of two separate dwellings. Appearance shall be interpreted by the Zoning Administrator. f. A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for the Accessory Dwelling Unit. g. Accessory Dwelling Units shall be licensed as a rental dwelling, and comply with Chapter 1012 (Rental Dwelling License). h. Each dwelling shall maintain a unique address (e.g. 2401A & 2401B Mounds View Blvd..' WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 1100 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. BE IT FINALLY 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 6'' day of July, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) 3 This should be removed from Chapter 1100 (Zoning), and added to Chapter 1012 (Rental Dwelling License). - DRAFT - CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 1, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for June 1, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Klebsch. Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page Consider a Resolution recommending approval of an amendment of City 2 Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b), relating to colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs Consider a Resolution approving/denying a Variance for use of non -amber 2 colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display at 2848 County Road H2 Presentation; Craig Swalchick, Housing & Code Enforcement Inspector 3 Discussion; Accessory Dwelling Units 4 Discussion; Brew Pubs 6 Discussion; Demographics 7 Approval of Minutes 8 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1052-16, a Resolution recommending approval of an amendment of City Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b), relating to colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs Planner Sevald explained the Commission reviewed a request for a full-color dynamic display sign for Messiah Lutheran Church at their last meeting. Rather than'denying the request or approving a variance, direction was given to staff to draft a City Code amendment to allow full- color dynamic display signs for schools, churches and institutions in the R-1 zoning district through the conditional use permit process. Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the amendment to City Code as requested. Chair Stevenson asked if a public hearing was required for this request. Planner Sevald reported this portion of the City Code did not require a public hearing. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1052-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to City Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b), relating to colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs. Ayes — 5 Nays — 1 (French) Motion carried. B. PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Consider Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution approving/denying a Variance for use of non -amber colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display, to be located at 2848 County Road 112; Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-003) Planner Sevald requested the Planning Commission consider a variance for a non -amber colored ground sign with dynamic display at 2848 County Road H2 for the Messiah Lutheran Church. He discussed the Ordinance process that would be followed for the Code amendment regarding dynamic display signs in the R-1 zoning district noting the Ordinance would not be in effect until the end of July. Staff recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and deny the variance request due to the fact the applicant had no practical difficulty. He understood that the denial would delay the sign installation, but supported this action as it would allow the Code amendment to be enacted prior to the sign being constructed. Commissioner Schiltgen requested further information on how staff defines practical difficulty. Planner Sevald defined practical difficulty for the Commission. - DRAFT - Commissioner Klander understood the application was received on April 15th. He asked how much the applicant paid for their request. Planner Sevald reported this was the case and noted that the applicant paid $200 for each conditional use permit and each of the variance requests. Commissioner Love believed the new sign would improve the aesthetics of the property and would eliminate the need for banners. She wondered if this spoke to the practicality of the issue. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Schiltgen asked if a 30 -day delay would make a difference in the sign construction. Kurt Klaus, Pastor of Messiah Lutheran Church, reported the sign vendor has been very patient with the church and has locked in a price. He stated the only hardship was that his parishioners were very excited for it to be completed. Commissioner Schiltgen supported staff's recommendation to deny the variance request. He was in favor of the church waiting for 3 0 days to construct the sign after the City Code amendment was in place. Commissioner Klander wanted to see the $200 variance fee refunded to the church given the fact the City Code amendment nullified the variance request. Commissioner Rundle supported the variance as requested. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution Approving of a Variance for use of non -amber colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display, to be located at 2848 County Road H2; Planning Case No. VR2016- 003. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Presentation; Craig Swalchick, Housing & Code Enforcement Inspector Planner Sevald explained the Commission had requested an update from staff on how the City manages code enforcement issues. He reported he invited Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector Craig Swalchick to the meeting in order to provide the Commission with further information on this topic. Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector Swalchick introduced himself to the Commission and discussed the work he does on behalf of the City of Mounds View noting he began his work with the City in 2010. He commented on the positive impacts that were being made over the past six - DRAFT - years. He indicated the City has 1,776 rental units which he oversaw along with housing and code enforcement issues. Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector Swalchick reported he spent three days a week conducting rental inspections and the other two days of each week addressing code enforcement issues. He indicated the City had both a proactive and reactive code enforcement policy, which assisted in keeping properties in compliance with City Code while reducing neighborhood tensions. He further discussion the benefits of proactive code enforcement. Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector Swalchick reviewed the steps followed by staff for code enforcements issues. He provided further comment on the process for conducting City Code nuisance and abatements. He stated staff would rather work with the community and its residents on code enforcement issues rather than writing an administrative citation. He thanked the Commission for their time and asked if they had any comments or questions. Chair Stevenson thanked Mr. Swalchick for his thorough report. B. Discussion; Accessory Dwelling Units Planner Sevald stated in May the Council discussed a request to allow a resident to have an accessory dwelling unit/apartment above their garage. He noted the Zoning Code currently does not allow for accessory dwelling units in the R-1 zoning district. He reviewed zoning information from neighboring communities and noted this issue was growing in popularity. He requested the Commission discuss this topic and provide feedback to staff on how to proceed. Chair Stevenson thanked staff for all of the supplementary information regarding accessory dwelling units. He questioned what a temporary variance was, as was allowed in the City of Chanhassen. Planner Sevald was uncertain and guessed this was something specific to Chanhassen City Code. He anticipated that a temporary variance was similar to an interim use permit. Chair Stevenson questioned where the City of Mounds View fit into all of this. Planner Sevald reported Mounds View does not allow accessory dwelling units, but the City Council was requesting the Planning Commission to consider it. Chair Stevenson suggested the Commission discuss if these types of living units should be allowed, and if they could have a full kitchen. He understood there was a concern with these units having a separate entrance as well. He believed both of these issues should be further discussed by the Commission. Planner Sevald believed it was fairly common for a home to have something that resembled a second kitchen, perhaps in a basement. He discussed how separate entrances and limited access to the entire building created concerns. Commissioner Schiltgen asked what cities did not allow accessory dwelling units. Planner Sevald stated Fridley, Blaine, Coon Rapids, and Spring Lake Park do not allow ADU's. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned the cost difference between a CUP and a temporary CUP. Planner Sevald reported the cost for a permit was based on the amount of staff time needed to administer the permit. Commissioner Schiltgen inquired if ADU's would be permitted more readily by communities in the metro area in the future given the fact the population was aging. Planner Sevald anticipated this could change, however, he was uncertain as to how many communities would jump on board. Chair Stevenson asked if ADU's were mother-in-law units or were they separate units for rent. Planner Sevald explained that ADU's would be considered both. Further discussion ensued regarding ADU's versus mother-in-law suites, along with how entrance was gained to each of these units. Commissioner Rundle requested further information on how the City would enforce ADU's. Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector Swalchick stated there were issues with duplexes and single family units with renting to non -familial members. He explained another concern with these units was that fire and police had to be able to respond to these units and needed to have a proper address. Chair Stevenson asked if it would be easier to allow ADU's versus people renting out their basements/garage space to non -familial members. Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector Swalchick believed that owner -occupied properties were better maintained than rental units. He was not against ADU's but believed the main issue came down to who was maintaining and looking after the property. He was in favor of the ADU's needing a license and inspection. Commissioner Klander questioned if the tiny homes would fall within the ADU requirements. Planner Sevald provided further comment on the new legislation that would allow tiny homes/ health care dwellings for six months to one year on a residential property. He reported the City Council would be opting out of this legislation and was not interested in allowing tiny houses. Planner Sevald requested direction from the Planning Commission on how to proceed. Chair Stevenson was in favor of the ADU's being owner occupied. He believed that Mounds View lots sizes were sufficient to allow for an ADU. Commissioner Schiltgen supported the ADU language from Minnetonka and White Bear Lake, requiring the units to be owner occupied. Chair Stevenson requested staff draft an ADU code amendment and bring this back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. OAINWAy" C. Discussion; Brew Pubs Planner Sevald explained this topic was discussed by the Commission a year ago. He commented on the Surley bill noting microbreweries now were allowed to sell beer onsite. He indicated if the Commission was interested in allowing brew pubs in Mounds View, a zoning code and licensing procedure would have to be approved by the City. He requested feedback from the Commission on brew pubs and if this use should be allowed in Mounds View. Commissioner Love stated she recently visited her son in San Diego where she had the pleasure to visit Liberty Station. She did not believe it would be necessary to limit brew pubs to the Highway 10 corridor. Chair Stevenson questioned where other communities were allowing brew pubs. Planner Sevald stated this varies from community to community. He reported they were commonly allowed in small downtown areas and industrial parks. He explained that brew pubs were mostly viewed to be retail, but also had some manufacturing. Chair Stevenson asked if brew pubs most closely aligned with the B-2, B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. Planner Sevald commented smaller restaurants (24 seats) were allowed in the B-2 zoning district as a conditional use, but were a permitted use in the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. Further discussion ensued regarding the amount of beer that a microbrewery could brew on a monthly basis. Chair Stevenson believed that a brewery would want to be located in a space that would allow for success and not be too restrictive on the number of seats or parking. Commissioner Love questioned if food would be allowed for the brew pubs. She supported the City allowing food at brew pubs. Planner Sevald stated this could be allowed if the brew pub had a commercial kitchen and proper licensing through the State. Commissioner Klander was in favor of allowing brew pubs in the B-2, B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. He inquired if the City would have to require microbreweries to have food. Planner Sevald indicated there were numerous types of brew pubs and microbrewery licenses with the State, some allowed for food, while others did not. He recommended that the City of Mounds View not require food, but that this decision be made by the license holder. Commissioner Klander agreed with staff's recommendation and wanted the Zoning Code language to be broad enough that food would be allowed, but not required by the City. Commissioner Rundle supported brew pubs being located in the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. Commissioner French agreed with this suggestion. Chair Stevenson requested the Commission review a City zoning map. Planner Sevald reviewed the City zoning map with the Commission noting the B-2, B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. - DRAFT - Chair Stevenson was in favor of allowing brew pubs in the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. The Planning Commission recommended staff draft a zoning text amendment that would allow brew pubs in the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. D. Discussion; Demographics Planner Sevald discussed the changing demographics within the City of Mounds View. He reviewed several tables of migration information with the Commission from the State of Minnesota. Chair Stevenson thanked Planner Sevald for bringing this information forward to the Commission. He was pleased that the State of Minnesota was still growing as a State and was investigating its demographic future. Commissioner Love was intrigued by the conclusion from the report and wondered how Mounds View could work to attract young adults and young families. Chair Stevenson believed this could be accomplished by offering more amenities to residents, along with having a great school system. Commissioner Love agreed that the City's school district had a good reputation for drawing families to the community. 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He reported the County Road H bridge would be demolished this weekend, which would lead to the closure of I -35W. He then provided the Commission with a legislative update regarding temporary healthcare dwellings and the fence law. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He noted the Council approved a liquor license for the site formerly known as Sam's Market. He provided further comment on the City's moratorium on new liquor licenses. He noted the Council recently dissolved the Streets and Utility Commission. He thanked all of the - DRAFT - City residents that served with this group. He briefly described the contract that was signed with Xcel Energy for the solar panels on City Hall and the Community Center. Lastly, he was pleased to report that the Council adopted the first reading of an Ordinance that would rename County Highway 10 to Mounds View Boulevard. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes May 18, 2016. Chair Stevenson requested a change on Page 5, noting Commission Schiltgen opposed the motion and not Commission French. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Love. To approve the Minutes of the May 18, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, June 15, 2016 B. Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald, Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.