Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-02-2014 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 2, 2014 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: May 21, 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. MA2014-002 & CP2014-001 Consideration of a 5 lot Major Subdivision at 8211 Red Oak Drive and a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments Applicant: Kayak Remodeling & Redevelopment Address: 951 Hillwind Road, Fridley 6. Other Planning Activity A. County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District Discussion 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, July 16, 2014 B. Wednesday, August 6, 2014 8. Review Minutes: A. June 4, 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 June 4, 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 June 4, 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 VR2014-004 Consideration of Variance for a Second Curb Cut - Revote 2 VR2011-002 Consideration of Variance Extension for Reduced 3 Driveway Setbacks VR2014-005 Consideration of Variance for a 6 foot Fence in Second 4 Front Yard of a Corner Lot _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes July 24, 2014. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Carvelli-Yu/Commissioner Elofson. To approve the Minutes of the May 7, 2014 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2014-004 Consideration of Variance for a Second Curb Cut - Revote Applicant: Frands Jensen Address: 7800 Groveland Road Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicant, Frands Jensen, property owner of 7800 Groveland Road, is requesting a variance to allow a second curb cut and driveway on his property. The City Code allows one curb cut on each R-1, Single Family Residential zoned property without a variance. Associate Heller explained this case was discussed at the May 21, 2014 Planning Commission meeting and a vote was taken to act on a resolution which denied the variance. There were six Commissioners in attendance and the vote was 3-3, so the motion to deny the variance did not pass. The case was tabled until the June 4, 2014 meeting for another vote. For any variance to be approved there must be a majority 2/3 vote (at least 5 of 7 votes are needed to approve a variance). Staff did not recommend approval of the case as the City does not agree with adding second curb cuts to residential lots. Chair Stevenson indicated he reviewed the information from staff and the minutes from the previous meeting noting he was prepared to take a vote. He reported that if the Commission does not approve the second curb cut, the applicant can appeal this decision to the City Council. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Birken. To approve Resolution 1005-14, a Resolution Recommending Denial of a Variance for a Second Curb Cut; Planning Case No. VR2014-004. Commissioner Love commented she has given this request some consideration and after reviewing the variance criteria, she believed the variance was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as the resident preserved three mature trees through the placement of their new garage. In addition, the City had an urban design goal to improve the appearance of the community. She believed that the applicant’s second garage improved the curb appeal of the neighborhood. It was her opinion that the current code was behind the times. Commissioner Love further discussed the actions of the applicant noting that Mr. Jensen was made aware that a second curb cut was not allowed. However, she proposed that the Commission consider that trees had been saved and therefore, the variance should be allowed. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson reviewed the variance criteria as well noting he did not believe the application met the criteria listed. Commissioner Schiltgen noted this was a corner lot and did not believe it was unreasonable for the applicant to request a second curb cut. However, he understood that the request did not meet each of the variance criteria. Judith Jensen, 7800 Groveland Road, stated if she had been told she would not receive a second curb cut she would not have placed the garage where she had. She recalled being told that in order to receive a second curb cut, she had to go through the variance process. Frands Jensen, 7800 Groveland Road, commented he would not have purchased the property if he had known the variance would not be approved. He stated he built the garage where he had space and did not have to lose mature trees. Commissioner Birken believed this was an unfortunate case of putting the cart before the horse. She stated the applicants were clearly informed that a second curb cut was not allowed and noted residents have created their own hardship. She recommended the Commission vote on this request. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1 (Love) Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ B. VR2011-002 & VR2011-005 Consideration of Variance Extension for Reduced Driveway Setbacks Applicant: Mike Kinyon, property owner Address: 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue & 5380-5382 Raymond Avenue Planning Associate Heller stated in June 2011, property owner, Michael Kinyon, was granted variances to permit the new driveways at five of his side-by-side duplexes to have one and three foot setbacks from the north and south property lines. Mr. Kinyon will be adding attached garages to the rest of his duplexes, one on each end of the building, along with new driveways to replace the existing gravel. The lots are all 100 feet wide so only a single car garage will fit, but the owner is installing new driveways that are wide enough for two cars to park next to each other. Many of the tenants have more than one vehicle, and with the current narrow driveways, they either park or drive off the driveway, or they have to move cars around when someone is leaving. Since there is no overnight parking on the streets in Mounds View, all vehicles must be in the driveways. Associate Heller indicated the east side of Raymond Avenue has 14 side-by-side duplexes on identical 100 foot wide lots which causes issues when owners want to add additional space or more than a one car wide driveway to these properties. Mr. Kinyon owns ten of the duplexes on Raymond Avenue and received variances in 1995 and 2008 for reduced driveway setbacks when he added garages to those duplexes on the same block. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 1006-14, Resolutions Recommending Approval of a Variance Extension for Reduced Driveway Setbacks; Planning Case No. VR2011-002. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 1007-14, Resolutions Recommending Approval of a Variance Extension for Reduced Driveway Setbacks; Planning Case No. VR2011-005. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ C. VR2014-005 Consideration of Variance for 6 foot Fence in Second Front Yard of a Corner Lot Applicant: Ron O’Connell Address: 2296 Terrace Drive Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicant, Ron O’Connell, is requesting a variance to install a 6-foot tall fence in the “second front yard” of his corner lot located at 2296 Terrace Drive. The property is located at the southeast corner of Terrace Drive and Jackson Drive. Since two streets border corner lots, they have two front yards. As such, the City Code requirement for front yard applies to two sides of the property, which means that corner lots have additional limitations. The Zoning Code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building in a residential district may exceed four feet in height. The applicant was issued a permit for a 6-foot tall privacy fence in his second front yard in 1992 when he also installed a swimming pool. The fence is now damaged and needs to be replaced. The applicant has a swimming pool and his insurance company requires a 6-foot fence, thus a variance has been requested. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. James Norton, 5550 St. Stephen, requested further information on the request from Mr. O’Connell. Associate Heller explained that Mr. O’Connell was requesting to replace the 6-foot fence that was already in place. Ron O’Connell, 2296 Terrace Drive, commented his existing fence was damaged by the plow this past winter and he was simply requesting to replace this existing fence in the same location. He indicated he would be installing a maintenance free vinyl fence. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Carvelli-Yu/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1008-14, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for a 6 foot Fence in Second Front Yard of a Corner Lot; Planning Case No. VR2014-005 Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. June 18, 2014 B. July 2, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. May 21, 2014 The Commission discussed the May 21, 2014 meeting minutes. 9. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She explained the Abiding Savior subdivision would be reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 18th. It was noted the overlay district language would also be discussed. She provided comment on the recent joint worksession meeting held with the City Council. She commented Apple Tree Dental would be open for business on Friday. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports None. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 2, 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 Preliminary Plat for the Subdivision of the East Two Acres of the Abiding Savior Church Property at 8211 Red Oak Drive and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Planning Cases MA2014-002 & CP2014-001 Introduction: Terry Buchanan, representing Kayak Remodeling & Redevelopment has submitted an application for a major subdivision of the east two acres of 8211 Red Oak Drive and a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. The proposed subdivision would create 5 additional lots from the existing one lot and change the land use designation of the two acres from church (CH) to single family detached (SFD). Discussion: Abiding Savior Church owns the property at 8211 Red Oak Drive, which is a 7-acre parcel with a church building and large parking lot. This property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, but the Comprehensive Plan Existing and Future Land Use Maps designate the property as “church.” The proposed subdivision would create five new single family buildable lots which would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property, but not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. All of the lots shown on the preliminary plat meet the minimum lot size requirements: 11,000 square feet and 75 feet wide for interior lots, and 12,500 square feet and 100 feet wide for corner lots. Major Subdivision: Local Water Management Plan: Also known as the City’s Surface Water Management Plan, this planning document guides the City in regards to drainage and stormwater management. The project area is located in the AA-5 sub-watershed. The minimum recommended building elevation for the AA-5 sub-watershed is set at 904 feet. The elevations are confirmed by City Staff with each permit for new construction. Easements: The City’s Subdivision Code requires that plats dedicate perimeter drainage and utility easements for each lot in the subdivision; ten feet wide in the front and rear, and five feet wide on the sides. This plat does dedicate the necessary perimeter easements. Streets: Two of the new lots will access Ardan Avenue, two lots will access Eastwood Road, and the corner lot could access either street. Both Ardan and Eastwood will be reconstructed in 2014 and are adequate to handle the amount of added traffic that five additional homes would create. Kayak Major Subdivision July 2, 2014 Page 2 Park Dedication Requirements: The Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is subject to a park dedication fee. The dedication imposed is intended to mitigate public costs to the parks system associated with land development. The fee shall be reasonable and based on the extent of the development. For major subdivisions, the park dedication fee is typically equal to 10% of the market value of the land. To establish the market value, staff uses Ramsey County assessed values as the basis for dedication computation. 2013 is the most recent year that Ramsey County has available for market values. In this case, Ramsey County has the church’s land valued at commercial property prices ($1,803,400), and since the church doesn’t pay property taxes, the county’s value of their property is not a concern. The 2013 Ramsey County determined land market value for 8211 Red Oak Drive is $5.82 per square foot. The average 2013 land value for the 20 single family properties surrounding the church is $2.11 per square foot. Staff recommends that the land value of $2.11 per square foot is used to determine the park dedication fee instead of the county’s much higher value. This amount is more accurate for low density residential land use and it’s comparable to the surrounding neighborhood values. The project area is 91,412 square feet x $2.11/sq. foot = $192,879 land value. The dedication amount then would be 10% of the determined land value which would equal $19,288, or $3,857 per lot. In 2007, Abiding Savior purchased the adjacent home at 8184 Eastwood Road, and completed a major subdivision to add the rear 34,940 square feet of the 8184 parcel to the church’s lot in anticipation of a senior housing development on the east side of their property. The City required Abiding Savior to pay a $3,984 park dedication fee for the square footage that was added to their parcel. The church did not develop this area of land, but it is now part of the Anna Place subdivision. The City Council could consider giving credit for the $3,984 park dedication fee that has already paid. Utilities: All utilities on the site must be installed underground, per Section 1203.10. Water and sanitary sewer connections will be installed during the 2014 street reconstruction project. Traffic: The amount of daily vehicle trips on the proposed road will increase since five additional housing units are proposed, although there is already a lot of traffic from the site since it is a church. On average, single-family homes generate about 10 vehicle trips per day, thus one could expect an additional 50 movements along Ardan Avenue and Eastwood Road as a result of this subdivision. Vegetation: The 7 acre site is primarily building and asphalt parking lot with only a small amount of green space. The amount of green space will increase with the homes versus the parking lot. Staff recommends that after each house has been constructed, at least one tree shall be planted in the front yard. The new tree species must be approved by the City. Wetlands: The National Wetlands Inventory Map and the City’s official Wetland Zoning Map identify no wetlands within the property boundary. The applicant has submitted their application to Rice Creek Watershed District. Kayak Major Subdivision July 2, 2014 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the Abiding Savior parcel as “church” and most of the surrounding area as single family detached housing. The proposed subdivision and new housing would not be consistent with the map designations, but is consistent with the residential goals and policies as articulated in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. A community’s Comprehensive Plan is its principal guiding document which is adopted to provide goals and policies dealing with land usage, housing, infrastructure, public facilities, transportation, economic development and intergovernmental coordination. The existing land use map (ELU Map) and future land use map (FLU Map) are two of the many maps, tables and exhibits in the Comp Plan which together help determine and control how a community grows and develops. The Comp Plan is a fluid document, in other words it is not intended to be rigid and static. As the community grows and develops, so too should the Comp Plan. As such, there is an amendment process to make such periodic updates as may be necessary to keep the Comp Plan fresh and relevant based on changing desires and expectations. Mr. Buchanan has applied for such a Comp Plan amendment which requests a redesignation of the two-acre parcel proposed for residential housing from Church (CH) to Single Family Detached (SFD.) The redesignation would seem appropriate as it would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood designated Single Family Detached (SFD). The Planning Commission needs to review potential adverse effects of proposed or requested amendments. In this case, the property would change from a parking lot to five single family homes which is certainly different, but not necessarily a negative impact. Staff will prepare the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application package that will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council upon approval by the City. Staff believes the proposed Comp Plan amendment is reasonable and supports a recommendation of approval. Recommendation: Review the plans and discuss the proposed preliminary plat and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments. Staff review revealed no deficiencies at this time and thus Resolution 1010-14 recommending approval of the preliminary plat and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments has been drafted for your action if the Commission so desires. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Comp Plan Existing Land Use Map 5. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 6. Resolution 1010-14 Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N Red Oak Dr Eastwood Rd Ardan Ave Abiding Savior bldg Redevelopment area Aerial View Preliminary Plat Comprehensive Plan Existing Land Use Map Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1010-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ANNA PLACE, SUBDIVIDING 8211 RED OAK DRIVE INTO 5 LOTS AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM CHURCH (CH) TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED (SFD); MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2014-002 WHEREAS , Terry Buchanan, representing Kayak Remodeling & Redevelopment, has requested approval of a preliminary plat for the major subdivision of 8211 Red Oak Drive and a Comprehensive Plan amendment; and, WHEREAS, the above-described land is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential, and legally- described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Abiding Savior Addition PIN 06-30-23-13-0077 WHEREAS, Terry Buchanan, representing Kayak Remodeling & Redevelopment has submitted a Preliminary Plat for the major subdivision which creates 5 buildable lots; and, WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is not within a designated wetland area; and, WHEREAS, the community development and public works staff have reviewed the preliminary plat and finds that it satisfies the minimum subdivision requirements as articulated in Titles 1100 and 1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code and complies with county platting requirements; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to redesignate the 2-acre parcel from Church (CH) to Single-Family Detached (SFD) in the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee to be determined by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Comprehensive Plan Existing and Future Land Use Maps Resolution 1010-14 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing for the subdivision and Comprehensive Plan amendment on July 2, 2014; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Anna Place and Comprehensive Plan amendments submitted by Terry Buchanan, Kayak Remodeling & Redevelopment, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Comprehensive Plan amendment will only be effective upon completion of the subdivision. 2. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in an amount to be determined by the City Council. 3. The applicant shall obtain permits, if required, from Rice Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the City of Mounds View before construction activity commences. 4. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites shall be located underground. 5. The applicant shall enter into various agreements with the City including (but not limited to) a Developers Agreement. 6. The applicant shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than 6 months after the date of approval of the preliminary plat, or the Preliminary Plat approval will become null and void. 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 2nd day of July, 2014. __________________________________________ Acting Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: July 2, 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. An updated draft of the overlay district language is attached and a resolution is available for action if the Commission is ready to move forward with this new overlay district. Staff has made four changes since the discussion at the Council Worksession meeting. A new chapter 1128 in the City Code was created for this overlay district instead of inserting the new language into an existing chapter, so the numbering is now completely different. The section about the City having the option to not require a development area to comply with the overlay district was removed because in 1128.05 the zoning districts that would be applicable are listed. I added zoning districts R-3 and R-4 to the listed zoning districts. There is also a new addition of 1128.04, OTHER REQUIREMENTS, which specifies that any deviation from the overlay district chapter must comply with Chapter 1125.02 of the City Code, which is about variances. Recommendation Review the updated draft of the proposed language for the district. Resolution 1009-14 is available for action by the Commission if so desired. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachment: 1. Resolution 1009-14 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1009-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE TITLE 1100 CREATING A COUNTY ROAD 10 CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 187-13 WHEREAS, one of the City’s primary focus areas is County Road 10 which is the main commercial corridor; and, WHEREAS, the City desires high quality projects and wants to help attract more development to the City; and, WHEREAS, City Staff has recommended that definitions and regulations for an County Road 10 corridor overlay district be added to the City Code; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to add a County Road 10 corridor overlay district; and, WHEREAS, City staff has ameded Chapter 1128 of the Mounds View Zoning Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: CHAPTER 1128 COUNTY ROAD 10 CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT SECTION: 1128.01 Purpose 1128.02 Permitted Uses 1128.03 District Area Defined 1128.04 Other Requirements 1128.05 Standards 1128.06 Existing Uses and Structures Resolution 1009-14 Page 2 1128.01 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 will make the final determination in the compatibility and consistency with all provisions in this and related sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 1128.02.1 PERMITTED USES: The overlay district provisions apply to any base zoning district set forth in this Title that exists within the defined overlay area. 1128.03 DISTRICT AREA DEFINED: The following area is hereby established as being within the County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District: All parcels having frontage on County Road 10. All parcels that are within 200 feet of the County Road 10 right-of-way. 1128.04 OTHER REQUIREMENTS: Any deviation from the requirements in this chapter shall comply with the procedures and criteria provided in Chapter 1125.02 of the City Code. 1128.05 STANDARDS: For development of properties within the County Road 10 overlay district, the following standards will be applied where these standards supersede requirements set forth in the B-1 (Neighborhood Business), B-2 (Limited Business), B-3 (Highway Business), B-4 (Regional Business), PUD (Planned Unit Development), R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and R-4 (High Density Residential) zoning districts. All other standards and requirements of the above-mentioned zoning districts shall continue to apply. Subd. 1. Construction Materials: a. At least fifty (50) percent of all exterior wall finishes on any building will be comprised of a combination of at least two of the following materials: Resolution 1009-14 Page 3 (1) Brick (2) Natural stone or cultured stone (3) Glass (4) Masonry stucco (5) Other comparable or superior material as approved by the City b. The remaining fifty (50) percent of all exterior wall finishes must 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. 1a, if the design exceeds the intent of the ordinance and is approved by the City. 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. Subd. 2 Architectural Design: Each building design will be reviewed for at least the following considerations: a. Appropriate location of structures on the site considering the 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 must 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 must 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. Resolution 1009-14 Page 4 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. Subd. 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. Subd. 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. Subd. 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. Subd. 6. Signs: In accordance with Chapter 1010. Subd. 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. Resolution 1009-14 Page 5 1128.06 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. Subd. 1. 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: a. Be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction, and, b. Be designed in a manner conforming to the original structure’s architectural design and appearance, and, c. Meet all other standards set forth in this ordinance. WHEREAS, amending the City Code to add definitions and regulations for cargo containers would better serve the public and would clarify the zoning requirements; and, 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 Chapters 1102, 1103 and 1106 of the Mounds View City Code to add regulations 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 18th day of June, 2014. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)