HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-2014
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
March 19, 2014 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
January 8, 2014
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.)
5. Planning Cases
A. MI2014-001 Minor Subdivision
Applicant: Rick Beyer
Address: 3033 Bronson Drive
6. Other Planning Activity
A. County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District Discussion
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. Wednesday, April 2, 2014
B. Wednesday, April 16, 2014
8. Review Minutes:
A. February 19, 2014
9. Staff Reports
A. Upcoming Planning Cases
10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner’s Reports
11. Meeting Conclusion
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
February 19, 2014
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for February 19, 2014.
______________________________________________________________________________
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Carvelli-Yu, Elofson, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen,
and Stevenson.
Absent and Excused: None.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller.
______________________________________________________________________________
Index to Minutes Page
Approval of Minutes 1
County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District Discussion 2
Review Crossroad Pointe Development Area Visioning Process 3
_____________________________________________________________________________
3. Approval of Minutes
December 4, 2013.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Carvelli-Yu. To approve the Minutes
of the December 4, 2013 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View Planning Commission February 19, 2014
Regular Meeting Page 2
________________________________________________________________________
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
______________________________________________________________________________
5. Planning Cases
None.
_____________________________________________________________________________
6. Other Planning Activity
A. County Road 10 Corridor Overlay Discussion
Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the corridor continues to be the
Council’s priority and the Commission has been reviewing the Zoning Code in order to better
promote and accommodate redevelopment along County Road 10. The City would like to
enhance the corridor in such a manner that it is promoting and supporting development. The
City has looked into mowing the median along the corridor more frequently along with
repainting the signal lights. She reported the Commission amended the City Code to change the
requirements for ground signs on properties that are on the corridor.
Associate Heller explained that this amendment lowered the allowable heights for signs and
requires higher quality design materials, along with allowing the signs to be closer to County
Road 10. Discussion on this topic began by creating a Corridor Overlay District in order to give
more flexibility to new projects on the corridor. The City would be flexible on requirements
such as setbacks, parking, density and height, but the City also wants projects that are high
quality.
Associate Heller discussed how the new Crossroad Pointe development would fit into the County
Road 10 corridor, along with the large amount of right-of-way along County Road 10. She
stated the Commission may need to consider reducing setbacks within the overlay district.
Proposed setbacks were reviewed in detail with the Commission. She further discussed the
benefits of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. She commented exterior building
materials or design criteria could be addressed within an overlay district to assist the City in
improving the look and appeal of the corridor.
Associate Heller reviewed the proposed language for the Corridor Overlay District, stating all
properties along the County Road 10 would be included, in addition to properties within 200 feet
or the roadway. She wanted the Commission to focus on architectural elements and building
materials at its next meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding County Road 96 and the vast improvements that have been made to
improve this corridor.
Mounds View Planning Commission February 19, 2014
Regular Meeting Page 3
________________________________________________________________________
Commissioner Love was in favor of additional plantings being considered along the County
Road 10 corridor. She supported tree plantings in the median as well.
Associate Heller did not believe tree plantings would be allowed.
______________________________________________________________________________
B. Review Crossroad Pointe Development Area Visioning Process
Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that on January 27, 2014 the City hosted an
open house for residents to see three concept ideas that Stantec put together for the City-owned
four-acre site known as Crossroad Pointe. The open house gave attendees a chance to comment
on the three ideas, offer suggestions and answer questions about the site. She reported that
Stantec was currently compiling the information gathered from the public and would be
developing concept plans that show the City what uses could be feasible in Mounds View, for
this site.
Commissioner Love asked if the City had an increased need for housing, based on the requests
from Met Council.
Associate Heller stated rental vacancy rates were extremely low in Mounds View. The units in
Mounds View were very affordable. She reported there was a growing need for higher-end
apartments. She discussed how the redevelopment of TCAAP would increase traffic in and
around the Mounds View area.
Commissioner Love was encouraged that the City was visioning for this property, as it would
assist in improving the overall corridor.
Commissioner Schiltgen saw the Crossroad Pointe site as being commercial space and not
residential.
Commissioner Elofson was in favor of this being developed into doctor’s offices.
Commissioner Birken wanted to see additional restaurants brought into Mounds View.
Associate Heller stated it was difficult for Mounds View to attract restaurants when competing
with Northtown, Highway 65 and the redevelopment taking place in Shoreview. She stated she
would report back to the Commission after further information had been received from Stantec.
______________________________________________________________________________
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting:
A. March 5, 2014
B. March 19, 2014
______________________________________________________________________________
Mounds View Planning Commission February 19, 2014
Regular Meeting Page 4
________________________________________________________________________
8. Review Minutes:
A. January 8, 2014
The Commission discussed the January 8, 2014 meeting minutes.
9. Staff Updates
A. Upcoming Planning Cases
Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases, noting the March 5, 2014
Planning Commission meeting would be canceled. She reported Coventry was close to closing
on their lots and anticipated work would begin this spring. She discussed the new tenants in
Silver View Plaza noting the building was almost full. She explained the Town Hall Meeting
would be held on Monday, March 31, 2014.
10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
None.
11. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 8:07 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________________
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Transcribed by:
Heidi Guenther
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Item No: 5A
Meeting Date: March 19, 2014
Type of Business: Planning Case
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision at 3033 Bronson;
Planning Case MI2014-001
Introduction:
Rick Beyer, owner of 3033 Bronson Drive, has applied for a minor subdivision to split the lot in
half. This subdivision would create one additional lot, and the applicant plans to build a house
on the new vacant lot to sell. The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey that shows
the subdivision.
Discussion:
A minor subdivision is a division of land less than two acres in which no more than one
additional lot is created. 3033 Bronson Drive currently has a house and detached garage on
the property. The house is on the west side of the lot so it can remain after the subdivision,
but the garage is in the center of the lot and will need to be removed. The applicant will move
the curb cut and driveway to the west side of the existing house.
The lot is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the Comprehensive Plan designates this
area for low density residential. Both of the new lots are interior lots. The minimum lot width
for interior residential parcels is 75 feet and the minimum lot area is 11,000 square feet, and
corner lots must be a minimum of 100 feet wide and 12,500 square feet. Below is a table
which shows the dimensions and square footage for the parcels before and as a result of the
proposed subdivision:
Before
Area Sq. Feet
After
Area Sq. feet
Parcel A 38,197 square feet
0.8769 acres
159.7’ x 240’
19,101 square feet
0.4385 acres
79.85’ x 240’
Parcel B NA 19,096 square feet
0.4384 acres
79.85’ x 240’
As this table shows, the proposed lots still exceed all city standards.
Park Dedication Requirements.
Subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication requirements consistent with Chapter 1204
of the City Code. Staff suggests the park dedication fee be based only on the land value of
the new vacant lot since there has been a house at 3033 Bronson Drive since 1947. For
minor subdivisions the park dedication fee is typically 5% of the current year market value as
determined by Ramsey County. In this case for 2013, the land value per square foot is $1.57
x 19,096 sq. feet = $29,981 x 5% = $1,499 park dedication fee. The City Council will make
the final determination on the park dedication fee amount. This fee must be paid prior to the
City giving the applicant the approved documentation for recording with Ramsey County.
3033 Bronson Subdivision Staff Report
March 19, 2014
Page 2
Easements.
With most subdivisions, the City requires the owner to dedicate drainage and utility
easements around the perimeter of the lot. These easements (10 foot front and rear, 5 foot
sides) are shown on the survey.
Public Notice.
No public notice is required for a minor subdivision but staff mailed letters to all adjoining
property owners to notify them of the subdivision request.
Summary.
The proposed subdivision will split 3033 Bronson Drive into two parcels. All minimum City
requirements are met with this request.
Recommendation:
Because the proposed subdivision satisfies all city code requirements, Staff is recommending
approval of Resolution 997-14, a resolution approving the minor subdivision of 3033 Bronson
Drive, owned by Rick Beyer.
Respectfully Submitted By,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Certificate of Survey
4. Resolution 997-14
Zoning Map
N
* Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential
County Road H2
Aerial Map
Parcel A
3033 Bronson
N
Yellow =New lot line
Parcel B
Survey
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 997-14
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 3033 BRONSON DRIVE;
PLANNING CASE NO. MI2014-001
WHEREAS, Richard Beyer, has requested approval of a minor subdivision to split
3033 Bronson Drive into two parcels; and,
WHEREAS, the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally-
described as:
The East Half of Lots 61 and 62, Spring Lake Park Knolls Addition,
Ramsey County, Minnesota
PIN 07-30-23-22-0035
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to subdivide 3033 Bronson Drive into two
lots; the west lot will include the existing house, and the east lot will be vacant; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Applicant’s request for a
minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201,
and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Applicant’s request for a minor
subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4 of the Municipal Code, a
park dedication fee will be required, with the amount to be determined by the City Council,
based on the 2013 Ramsey County assessed market land value.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Applicant shall have 6 months
from final approval to file proper documentation with Ramsey County, including new deeds
and easement documents, and furnish proof of such recording to the City. If such action is
not accomplished by the date so indicated, this minor subdivision approval shall be
considered null and void.
Resolution 997-14
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 3033 Bronson Drive subject
to the following stipulations:
1. The Applicant shall complete any and all requirements after final review of the
Certificate of Survey and title commitment by the City Attorney.
2. The Applicant shall arrange to amend the Certificate of Survey if any changes
are required by Ramsey County.
3. The Applicant shall pay to the City, a park dedication fee and all other fees
associated with this subdivision request.
NOW, THEREFORE 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 19th day of March, 2014.
__________________________________________
Paul Schiltgen, Vice Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
James Ericson, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 6A
Meeting Date: March 19, 2014
Type of Business: Other Planning Activity
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District Discussion
The corridor continues to be the City Council’s priority and the Planning Commission has
been reviewing the Zoning Code in order to better promote and accommodate
development along County Road 10.
The Commission has been discussing creating a Corridor Overlay District in order to give
more flexibility to new development projects on the corridor. The City is willing to be
flexible on requirements such as setbacks, parking, density and height, but the City also
wants projects that are high quality.
A beginning draft of the overlay district language is attached for discussion, along with a
good description of overlay district ordinances.
Recommendation
Continue the discussion about a County Road 10 Corridor District Overlay and review the
proposed language for the district.
Sincerely,
Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Attachment:
1. Description of Overlay District Ordinances
2. Proposed language for County Road 10 overlay district
OVERLAY DISTRICT ORDINANCES
Purpose of Tool:
Overlay Districts provide a means to incorporate various development regulations
across a specified area. These districts are special zones that lie on top of existing zoning
categories to supplement or supersede existing regulations. They usually provide a
higher level of regulation than that required by the existing zoning classification, but
they can also permit exceptions or require a less-restrictive guideline. In cases where
conflicting standards are given by an overlay district and the underlying zoning
category, those of the overlay district take priority. The boundaries of an overlay district
may or may not coincide with the boundaries of the underlying zone, and an overlay
district may contain parts of more than one existing zone.
Overlay districts are used to accomplish a variety of development, transportation, and
land use goals such as access management, protection of historic or natural resources,
safety, standardization of a historic district, implementation of development guidelines,
protection of the quality of surface water, and even special taxing or financing for an
area. Overlay districts often complement a jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan.
Benefits of Using Tool:
Overlay districts are particularly useful to communities and municipalities because they
allow existing zoning requirements to be superseded, when needed. Overlay districts can
be implemented by passing a law that appends existing land use regulations, without
having to go through the process of rewriting the underlying zoning
requirements/regulations. Communities can also modify overlay districts without
difficulty, should they decide to modify the requirements or coverage area.
Overlay Districts can accomplish the following elements:
• Provide design guidelines that create a particular look and feel of an area
• Protect valuable resources
• Help meet goals and objectives of the community
• Maintain certain current codes while addressing a special need of a particular area
within a zone(s)
Steps Involved to Use Tool:
To be implemented, an overlay district typically follows this process:
• A study or report is compiled that details the purpose and goals of the overlay district,
and ensures that it is tied to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan or the stated goals
of the community.
• The boundary is simply and clearly defined, which is known as “spatial definition.”
• Applicant information is compiled into a formal application to demonstrate the need
for the overlay district.
• The community’s reviewing body (typically a review board comprised of citizens
and/or planning staff, or possibly the planning commission) evaluates for compliance
with current standards.
• The local governing body (City Council) must approve the application before it is
voted on.
Special Requirements to Use Tool:
The primary requirement for using an overlay district is that there must be a zoning
ordinance in place prior to implementation. Quite simply, if there is no zoning to be
overlaid, an overlay district is not possible. Additionally, there must also be a clear and
defensible purpose for implementing the overlay district such as stated goals and
objectives from a local plan or study.
Specials Resources Needed to Use Tool:
Because of the review process necessary to implement and manage an overlay district,
this tool is best suited for communities or agencies that have an adequate professional
planning staff. Typically, interpretation of technical issues associated with the
application and overlay ordinance requirements is required; therefore an experienced
planner on staff would be beneficial.
Metrics to Use to Monitor Tool Effectiveness:
Because there is such a wide variety of the types of overlay districts that can be
implemented, the ways to measure their performance are also widespread. For example,
for districts whose purpose is to regulate a particular “look and feel” for corridors or
communities, set design standards, as well as oversight in the plan review process, are
essential in ensuring that the objectives of the overlay district are met. Quantitative
elements can also be monitored for success through implementation of the overlay
ordinance, including the following examples: lot size, building height and area, parking,
number of access points (or consolidation of access points), and types of land uses.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR COUNTY ROAD 10 OVERLAY DISTRICT
1120.03
Subd. 4. County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District
a. Purpose: The purpose of this District is to provide standards of development
for land lying on either side of the major transportation corridor along County
Road 10. The County Road 10 Corridor District is the primary gateway
through the City. The aesthetic impacts from new developments and
redevelopments must be evaluated to help ensure the long-term viability and
success of the District. Accomplishing the purpose of the County Road 10
Corridor District requires particular concern for the site layout, building
materials, site features and other related design elements. To that end, new
development and redevelopment shall conform to the standards in this and
related zoning requirements. In reviewing and approving land use
applications, the City Council shall make the final determination in the
compatibility and consistency with all provisions in this and related sections of
the Zoning Ordinance.
b. Overlay Area Defined: The following area is hereby established as being
within the County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District:
(1) All parcels that have frontage on County Road 10,
(2) All parcels that are within 200 feet of the County Road 10 right-of-way,
(3) The City may determine that a specific development area will not
benefit from the overlay district and can exclude that project area from
the district requirements.
c. Permitted Uses: The overlay district provisions apply to any base zoning
district set forth in this Title that exists within the defined overlay area.
d. Standards: For development of properties within the County Road 10 overlay
district, the following standards shall be applied where such standards
supersede requirements set forth in the B-1 (Neighborhood Business), B-2
(Limited Business), B-3 (Highway Business), and B-4 (Regional Business)
zoning districts. All other standards and requirements of the above-
mentioned zoning districts shall continue to apply.
(1) Construction Materials:
(a) At least fifty (50) percent of all exterior wall finishes on any
building shall be comprised of a combination of at least two of the
following materials:
• Brick
• Natural stone
• Glass
• Masonry stucco
• Other comparable or superior material as approved
by the City
1
(b) The remaining fifty (50) percent of all exterior wall finishes
shall be comprised of any combination of decorative or rock face
concrete block, concrete panels, metal or wood. All building
materials subject to approval of the City.
(c) Buildings may be constructed of primarily one of the
materials listed in Subd. 4d (1)(a), if the design exceeds the intent
of the ordinance.
(d) Non-decorative exposed concrete block buildings are
prohibited, as are pre-engineered metal buildings, corrugated
metal-sided buildings, and wood sided buildings unless such
metal buildings and wood sided buildings are enhanced on all
elevations by the application of brick, decorative masonry, or
decorative stucco surfaces in combination with decorative fascia
overhangs and trim.
(2) Architectural Design: Each building will be reviewed for at least the
following considerations:
(a) Appropriate location of structures on the site with
relationship to other site amenities, restrictions, adjacent land
usage, etc.
(b) General massing, roof treatments, proportion and quality of
exterior.
(c) In the design of buildings or clusters of buildings, developers
should orient projects so that the side(s) facing County Road 10
form the front of the project. Where front toward County Road 10
is not feasible due to the location of access roads and other site
constraints, the project should be oriented and designed in such a
manner so as to convey a pleasing appearance from County
Road 10.
(d) Screening of mechanical equipment, tanks, loading docks,
refuse handling, ancillary equipment, etc., whether on the roof or
on the site.
(e) Drainage pipes on exterior building walls facing a street
and/or County Road 10 must be integral to the design and non-
apparent.
(f) Exceptions to the architectural design standards set forth in
this section may be granted by the City Administrator or designee,
for structures of comparable design and building materials.
(3) Building and Parking Setback Requirements: The City requires that
buildings and/or parking lots have no more than a five (5) foot setback
from County Road 10. The required setbacks for the other sides of the
property will be determined by the City, based on the specific project
and land usage.
2
(4) Off-Street Parking: The City will use the off-street parking
requirements in Chapter 1121.13 as a guideline, and base the final
determination of required spaces on the specific project and land
usage.
(5) Landscaping:
(a) Landscaping requirements shall be in accordance with
Chapter 1127, Tree Preservation and Landscaping.
(b) A minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the total area of each lot
shall be devoted to landscaped open space.
(c) All open areas of any lot not used for parking, driveways, or
storage shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs, berms and
planted ground cover.
(6) Signs: In accordance with Chapter 1010.
(7) Outdoor Storage and Dumpster Screening:
(a) No outdoor storage shall be permitted unless such storage is
visually screened from view from County Road 10 and all
adjoining residential properties, with suitable solid fence
constructed of masonry or wood at least six (6) feet in height.
Screening shall be well maintained.
(b) No dumpsters may be located on the sides of buildings
fronting County Road 10, except if in the opinion of the City no
other suitable location is reasonably available for such purpose,
and provided the dumpster area is developed in a manner so as
to minimize it’s appearance from County Road 10.
(c) All dumpsters shall be entirely screened by a masonry or
solid wooden fence, with gate, or a comparable screening, at
least six (6) feet in height.
(8) Existing Uses and Structures: Uses and structures in this District that
were conforming prior to the effective date of this Ordinance will
remain conforming upon adoption of this Ordinance. AND …….
New standards effective upon adoption of this Ordinance per the
County Road 10 Overlay District shall be applied to building
additions/expansions and new development under building permits
issued after the effective date of this Ordinance, except as may
otherwise be provided for under the provisions of this Chapter.
OR…..
3
All subsequent additions, exterior alteration and accessory buildings
constructed after the erection of an original building after the date of
adoption of this ordinance, shall be constructed of materials
comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be
designed in a manner conforming to the original architectural design
and appearance and meet all other standards set forth in this
ordinance.
OR………
Where additions are proposed for buildings constructed prior to the
effective date of this Ordinance and such buildings do not comply with
the standards in this section, such additions need not comply with the
standards in this section as long as the addition(s) are not in excess of
fifty (50) percent of the existing floor area of the existing building. Any
additions in excess of fifty (50) percent of the existing floor area of the
existing building constructed prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance, shall comply with the standards in this Section.
4