Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2014 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA April 16, 2014 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: March 19, 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. MU2014-001-CU-1 Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage MU2014-001-VR-1 Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback Applicant: Chuck Pelton Address: 8312 Red Oak Drive 6. Other Planning Activity A. County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District Discussion 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, May 7, 2014 B. Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8. Review Minutes: A. April 2, 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 April 2, 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 April 2, 2014. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Carvelli-Yu, Elofson, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Love. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District Discussion 2 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes February 19, 2014. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Birken. To approve the Minutes of the February 19, 2014 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases None. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District Discussion Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the County Road 10 Corridor continues to be a priority for the Council. For this reason, 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 along the corridor. She reviewed proposed language for an overlay district noting the City was willing to be flexible on requirements such as setbacks, parking, density and height, but also wants projects that are high quality. Staff requested questions and comments from the Commission. Chair Stevenson supported the rationale proposed by staff and the well laid out design of the overlay district. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if other communities created overlay districts. Associate Heller stated was quite common, especially for downtown or historical districts. She noted Blaine had an overlay district along Highway 65. Commissioner Birken thanked staff for pulling the overlay district language together for the Commission to review. She believed this was a great concept for the City to consider in order to move the corridor in the right direction. Commissioner Birken asked if all parcels within 200 feet of County Road 10 would be included in the overlay district. Associate Heller reported this was done to make adjoining parcels, or parcels that didn’t technically have frontage on County Road 10, but were part of the corridor. Commissioner Birken questioned if existing properties would be allowed to remain as is. Associate Heller stated this would be the case. Commissioner Birken requested further information on construction materials. Associate Heller explained this language would be further reviewed with the Building Inspector. She indicated the City was hoping to encourage improved building design and materials along the corridor. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Carvelli-Yu supported the use of manmade stone within the approved building materials list. Commissioner Birken commented that a great deal of the language within the code was subjective. Associate Heller indicated this was done intentionally to allow for some level of flexibility for future developers. Commissioner Birken discussed the landscaping requirements within the overlay district. She wondered if 15% of green space was on the low side. She questioned if the current code had green space requirements. Associate Heller reported the current code did not have a green space percentage requirement. She noted the City also had landscaping requirements in place. Chair Stevenson reviewed the revised site plan for Crossroad Pointe. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu asked if trash within Mounds View had to be picked up on the same day. Associate Heller stated this was the case for residential pickup, but commercial pick up could be any day of the week. Commissioner Birken believed the comment regarding percentages of renovation should be eliminated from the overlay district language. She expressed concern with future building additions to existing buildings and wanted to ensure that building materials would match. Further discussion ensued regarding building renovation requirements for existing buildings along the County Road 10 corridor, in addition to proposed parking requirements. Commissioner Birken recommended the language regarding granting exceptions to the overlay district be amended as it could be construed to be capricious. Associate Heller thanked the Commission for their comments and suggestions. She explained she would continue to revise the overlay district language and the Commission would discuss this item again at the next meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. April 16, 2014 B. May 7, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. March 19, 2014 The Commission discussed the March 19, 2014 meeting minutes. No changes were made. 9. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She noted that North Metro Motors had finally purchased the former Thrifty Car Rental building and would be opening within a couple weeks, and the former Minnesota Institute of Public Health building next to Holiday gas station also is being purchased. She explained that walls were being poured on the Coventry Senior Living project. She reported the City was proposing to amend residential parking restrictions to allow for larger commercial vehicles. She noted the City was close to hiring a part-time economic development coordinator. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports None. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. New Garage 30’ x 60’ N Aerial View Red Oak Drive House area after remodel Item No: 5A Meeting Date: April 16, 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: Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage & Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback at 8312 Red Oak Drive; Planning Case MU2014-001 Introduction: The applicant, Chuck Pelton, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for an oversize detached garage and a variance for a reduced driveway setback on his property at 8312 Red Oak Drive. The applicant wants to expand his house by attaching the existing detached garage and turning it into living space. He then plans to build a new 1,800 square foot garage (30’w’x 60’d) behind the house with a driveway. The applicant has submitted plans for a garage larger than what the City Code allows without a conditional use permit. The City limits the size of accessory buildings, whether attached or detached from the house, to a maximum of 952 square feet. Any single building larger than 952 square feet must get City approval of a conditional use permit. The garage the applicant is proposing would be 1,800 square feet. The applicant will also be installing a driveway that connects to the existing driveway and leads to the new garage in the backyard. This driveway will run past the house and be closer than five feet to the property line so the applicant has requested a reduced driveway setback variance. Conditional Use Permit Discussion Requirements: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the number of accessory buildings, the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings and specifies roof style and pitch. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages exceeding 952 square feet. The garage must be permanent, be uniform in appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory building area on the lot. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Discussion: The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,800 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. The proposed garage meets all City setback and accessory building coverage requirements. The City Code limits backyard building coverage to 20% of the yard area. The new 1,800 square foot garage would cover approximately 13% of the backyard area. 8312 Red Oak CUP & VR Request April 16, 2014 Page 2 CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects of a conditional use that include, but are not limited to, the relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Staff has addressed each of these potential adverse effects below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as low-density residential, as well as the surrounding area. The Comp Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. With this project, the applicant would be significantly improving the property value with the house remodel and expansion, along with a new large garage. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicant’s home is located on a large lot in a single family residential area on Red Oak Drive, at the north end of the city. Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional indoor storage, as well as in an economic sense, as the addition would increase the “value” of the property. Increased property values are a benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. The applicant’s neighborhood is entirely single-family residential. The homes in this area are a variety of styles and ages, but the immediate area properties all have larger, half-acre size lots. The look of the front of the house will be changing with the remodeling, but the new garage in the backyard will not be very visible from the street. This is a larger property at 97 feet wide and 264 feet deep (0.53 acres), so the total accessory building coverage will only be about 13% of the backyard area. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing to build a new garage in the backyard to replace the existing garage that will be attached to the house and remodeled into living space. Since the proposed 1,800 square foot garage is the maximum amount of accessory building allowed, this property will not have any additional sheds or garages. Variance Discusssion The applicant will be accessing the new garage in the backyard with vehicles on a daily basis, so he will be installing a 10 foot wide driveway from the existing driveway around the house to the garage. The existing garage/house has a 12 foot setback so the driveway would only have a two foot setback for a stretch of approximately 26 feet where it runs next to the house. The applicant has applied for a variance to allow a two foot driveway setback. 8312 Red Oak CUP & VR Request April 16, 2014 Page 3 The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner’s land. This is true for all variance requests. 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. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code requires minimum driveway setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. The required setbacks typically can be met, but in many cases, particularly for older homes, the garages are behind the house and the driveway runs next to the house which rarely has a very big setback. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not specify setback criteria, but it does support improvements to properties. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The property owners want to expand their small house, and to have enough garage space to park their vehicles inside and for storage. The Zoning Code requires an improved surface driveway for garages that are accessed regularly, and there is not enough room next to the house for a driveway to have a five foot setback. The reduced setback would not be the full length of the driveway. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. This house was originally built as a small cabin in 1948 and is a unique log building. The current owners purchased the property in 2011 and want to do a significant remodel to make it a more livable house. Expanding the house to the north makes the most sense with how the house is presently laid out, which will leave only the backyard area to put a garage. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant’s neighborhood consists of larger, half-acre sized lots. The new driveway will have very little effect on the look of the property from the street. The neighbor’s house that would be most affected by the reduced setback of the driveway, is placed fairly far away from the proposed driveway location. 8312 Red Oak CUP & VR Request April 16, 2014 Page 4 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 2 foot variance is the minimum variance needed since that is what the Zoning Code requires for a driveway setback. g. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff has no suggestions for conditions for the variance request. The Planning Commission may add conditions as they see applicable. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Friday, April 4, 2014. Staff has talked to two people who had questions about the proposal, but no formal comments have been received. Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take any of the following actions below related to the requests. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit and variance. 1. Recommend approval of the CUP as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 998-14 that approves the conditional use permit if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Approval of the Variance as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 999-14 that approves the variance if the Commission chooses this action. 3. Choose to deny the conditional use permit or variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact to support the denial. 4. Table one or both of the requests. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Site Plan 4. Photos 5. Resolution 998-14 for CUP 6. Resolution 999-14 for VR Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N New Garage 30’ x 60’ N Aerial View Red Oak Drive House area after remodel Aerial View N 8312 Red Oak Narrative from Applicant Narrative from Applicant Continued Site Plan Photos View of front of property Neighboring house on north side New driveway will run here View of backyard – approximate location of new garage Property line Current garage MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 998-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 1,800 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 8312 RED OAK DRIVE; PLANNING CASE MU2014-001-CU-1 WHEREAS, property owner Charles Pelton has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a new 1,800 square foot detached garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8312 Red Oak Drive, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Except the West 264 feet of the North 97 feet of the South 1802 feet of the West 528 feet of the NE ¼, Subject to Roadway Easements, Section 6, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 06-30-23-12-0018 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,800 square feet, thus requiring City approval of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this request on April 16, 2014; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Zoning Map b. Aerial View c. Site plan d. Photographic documentation e. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The proposed oversized 1,800 square foot garage satisfies the zoning requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code. Resolution 998-14 Page 2 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,800 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for living space or commercial purposes and other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The expanded garage area shall be designed and maintained to provide a complimentary appearance with the existing house. 3. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall become null and void if the work for which the CUP was granted is not completed within one year from the date of approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. 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 16th day of April, 2014. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 999-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A THREE (3) FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DRIVEWAY AT 8312 RED OAK DRIVE; PLANNING CASE MU2014-001-VR-1 WHEREAS, property owner Charles Pelton, has applied for a three (3) foot setback variance to allow the driveway leading around the house to the garage in the backyard to have a reduced setback; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8312 Red Oak Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Except the West 264 feet of the North 97 feet of the South 1802 feet of the West 528 feet of the NE ¼, Subject to Roadway Easements, Section 6, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 06-30-23-12-0018 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Staff Report WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 Subd. 4c(1a) of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that driveways shall be set back at least five feet (5’); and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a driveway to have a two (2) foot setback; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this request on April 16, 2014; and, Resolution 999-14 Page 2 WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 8312 Red Oak Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between driveways for aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. There is a large distance between the new driveway and the neighboring house, and the new driveway will not have the reduced setback for the entire length. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the driveway will run past the house that only has a setback of 12 feet, and in order to have a 10 foot wide drive aisle past the house, the driveway setback will be two (2) feet. 4. The unique feature of this property is the small house that the owners will be expanding, and the new garage will be in the backyard so the driveway has to run past the house in the limited space that is there. 5. There will be little change to the existing character of the neighborhood since the new driveway area won’t be very visible. 6. The 2-foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code requires for driveway setbacks. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Charles Pelton, property owner of 8312 Red Oak Drive, to allow a driveway to have a 2-foot setback. Adopted this 16th day of April, 2014. ________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: April 16, 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 second draft of the overlay district language is attached for discussion. The changes made since the last meeting have been highlighted. Subdivision 8 was only split up into a,b and c making it easier to read. The City Council will be reviewing this proposed language also, and it has been suggested that it would be valuable for the discussion to be a joint meeting with the Council and the Planning Commission. Staff has scheduled this joint discussion for the May 5, 2014 Council Worksession. Recommendation Continue the discussion about a County Road 10 Corridor District Overlay and review the second draft of the proposed language for the district. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachment: 1. Proposed language for County Road 10 overlay district 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 or cultured 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 layout, 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: Buildings and parking lots should 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. 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: (a) Constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction, and, (b) Shall be designed in a manner conforming to the original architectural design and appearance, and, (c) Meet all other standards set forth in this ordinance. 3