Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2014 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 17, 2014 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: July 16, 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. CU2014-001 Consideration of a 150-foot Cell Tower at 4860 Mustang Circle Applicant: FAC Holdings LLC/Dell-Comm Address: 4860 Mustang Circle B. VR2014-007 Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Rear Yard Setback Applicant: Gerald & Melanie Lind Address: 2624 Ardan Avenue C. MA2014-003 Consideration of a Major Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Applicant: Multi-Tech Systems Address: 2205 Woodale Drive 6. Other Planning Activity A. None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, October 1, 2014 B. Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8. Review Minutes: A. August 20, 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 August 20, 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 August 20, 2014. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Carvelli-Yu, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Elofson. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2014-006 Consideration of Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback 2 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes July 2, 2014. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Birken. To approve the Minutes of the July 2 , 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 August 20, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2014-006 Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback Applicant: Corbin Hilgeman Address: 7851 Spring Lake Road Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicant, Corbin Hilgeman, is requesting approval of a variance for a reduced driveway setback on his property at 7851 Spring Lake Road. The applicant recently built a detached garage in the backyard and now wants to extend the existing driveway to connect to the new garage. This extended 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. Associate Heller reviewed the request in detail with the Commission and recommended approval of a variance for a reduced driveway setback at 7851 Spring Lake Road. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned what type of surface would be used for the new driveway. Corbin Hilgeman, 7851 Spring Lake Road, reported the new driveway would be colored concrete to match the existing patio. Commissioner Birken asked if the existing tree line would be interrupted. Mr. Hilgeman commented the tree line would not be impacted. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu inquired if Spring Lake Road had been recently replaced. Commissioner Rundle indicated this road was redone approximately 10 years ago. Chair Stevenson questioned if the amount of the variance could be reduced. Mr. Hilgeman responded he could have less than a 10 foot wide driveway if it made the variance approval process easier. He stated that the 10 feet would ensure his cars and the mirrors would fit beside the house. Chair Stevenson was in favor of the driveway being at least one foot from the property line. Commissioner Love thanked Mr. Hilgeman for the well-designed driveway. She questioned how this request differed from a previous variance request that was denied by the Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson explained that the previous request was for a second curb cut and not a driveway setback so the variance requests were different. Further discussion ensued regarding the difference between the two planning cases. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Carvelli-Yu. To approve Resolution 1012-14, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback, and that a one foot minimum setback be maintained at 7851 Spring Lake Road; Planning Case No. VR2014-006. Ayes – 5 Nays – 1 (Love) Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. September 3, 2014 – cancelled due to lack of quorum B. September 17, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. July 16, 2014 The Commission discussed the July 16, 2014 meeting minutes. No changes were made. 9. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She reported the Council approved the Highway 10 Overlay District. It was noted the final plat for Longview Estates would be reviewed by the Council on August 25th. She explained Apple Tree Dental would be holding a ribbon cutting ceremony on August 27th at 4:30 p.m. and the Commission was invited to attend. Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Commissioner Love noted the first free library in Mounds View was located on the corner of Hillview and Sunnyside Road. Commissioner Rundle indicated he had one in his neighborhood at the corner of Spring Lake Road and County Road H2. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: September 17, 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 Conditional Use Permit for a 150 foot Cell Tower at 4860 Mustang Circle, Dell-Comm; Planning Case CU2014-001 Introduction: The applicant and property owner, FAC Holdings (Dell-Comm is the business operating here), is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct a 150 foot cell tower on their property at 4860 Mustang Circle. Dell-Comm designs, furnishes and installs telecommunications systems, applications and services. They have been in business since 1990 and do infrastructure cabling, fiber optic cabling, outside plant cabling, security solutions and telephone systems. City Code Requirements: Section 1124.03, Subd. 2: Allows for towers and antennae as a conditional use in specific districts. Industrial districts allow towers and antennae up to 150 feet tall. Section 1124.05 Subd. 1 Setbacks: The minimum setback from any property line or public right-of-way for a wireless telecommunications tower is thirty feet (30’) unless abutting a residential district, then at least half the height of the tower. When placed on a lot improved with a principal building, the wireless telecommunications tower shall be located only in the rear yard or interior side yards not abutting streets. Wireless telecommunication towers shall not be placed between the principal building and any street abutting the property. Setbacks for accessory equipment structures associated with wireless telecommunication towers and antennae shall meet the requirements as outlined in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4 of the Zoning Code. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1e: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1g: which states that the Planning Commission shall make findings of fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as it deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and forward such findings to the City Council. Discussion: Dell-Comm is proposing to construct a 150-foot tall cell tower on their property. Telecommunication towers are allowed in all zoning districts, but the heights permitted vary by the property zoning. Industrial districts allow for the tallest towers at 150 feet. The proposed tower would be located on the southeast corner of their property in a wooded, unused area. Dell-Comm would own the tower and use it for empoyee training and certification purposes, along with leasing antenna space to other cellular phone companies. CU2014-001 Staff Report September 17, 2014 Page 2 The CUP will remain in effect indefinitely so long as there are no changes to the operation and there have been no problems or reasons, which would warrant the City Council to re-examine the CUP. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is addressed below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. Dell-Comm’s property is zoned I-1, Industrial and is surrounded by other industrial businesses and the TownsEdge Manufactured Home Park on the north side. If the requested conditional use permit were approved, this CUP would be in line with the Comp Plan “Light Industrial” land use designation for this property. The Location and Character of the Surrounding Area. Dell-Comm is located on Mustang Circle in the industrial area of the City. The tower would be located in the southeast corner of their property, in an unused, heavily wooded area. Access to the cell tower would currently only be through Dell-Comm’s parking lot. They will make a 12-foot wide gravel access drive from their parking lot, along the east side of the property going south to the tower. The site plan shows a 20-foot wide future gravel access road leading to Mustang Circle, but there are no plans to construct this road at this time. The residential manufactured home park on the north side of 4860 Mustang Circle is approximately 500 feet from where the tower will be located. There is a wooded border with tall, mature trees along the property line between the manufactured home park and the industrial properties on Mustang Drive and Mustang Circle. The tower itself will be setback 55 feet from the east and south property lines. The tower and the ground equipment are required to be surrounded by an eight foot (8’) fence for security and screening. This fenced area will have approximately 40-foot setbacks from the east and south property lines. The fence and ground equipment will be approximately 250 feet from the street and won’t be visible due to the woods. The proposed cell tower should not be out of place in this primarily industrial area. Depreciation. Since the surrounding area is primarily industrial, the proposed antenna tower should result in little, adverse effect upon the surrounding area. There is a residential neighborhood on the north side of Dell-Comm’s property, but due to their office building and the woods, the tower should not be very noticeable to these residents. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. Cell phones have become an item that most people now have, and the industry continues to expand. Due to this growth, communication companies must continue to offer better and larger coverage areas. This part of the City is in need of improved cell service, and since telecommunications is Dell-Comm’s industry, they can also use the tower for training their employees in addition to providing a tower for other cell companies to install their antennas. CU2014-001 Staff Report September 17, 2014 Page 3 Summary: All City zoning and code issues are satisfied with this request. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has reviewed the coordinates, structure type and height and determined that this structure does not need to be registered with them, and there are also no Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for this tower. Recommendations: Review the plans and discuss the proposed cell tower. Staff review revealed no deficiencies at this time and thus Resolution 1013-14 recommending approval of the conditional use permit has been drafted for your action if the Commission so desires. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Letter from Applicant 4. Photos of 4860 Mustang Circle 5. Photos of lattice-style tower and ground equipment 6. Site plan 7. Survey 8. Resolution 1013-14 Zoning Map DellComm Cty Rd 10 Approximate location of tower County Rd H Mermaid Tyson Trucking FedTech Vitran Trucking Bauer Welding Midwest Motor Express J&W Instruments N Aerial View location of cell tower Mustang Drive TownsEdge Manufactured Home Park Tyson Trucking DellComm Mustang Circle Letter from Applicant Photos of 4860 Mustang Circle Dell-Comm’s office building Heavily wooded area on south side of building – tower will be setback 250 feet from the street front Mustang Circle – facing east Midwest Motor Express garage Tower would be in this area Mustang Drive – looking northwest towards Dell- Comm wooded area Midwest Motor Express Examples of what the proposed lattice-style tower and ground equipment would look like Site Plan N Dell-Comm parking lot Tower fenced area Dell-Comm office buiding Access drive to tower Survey – southeast corner of 4860 Mustang and adjacent properties N MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1013-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FAC HOLDINGS, LLC TO CONSTRUCT A 150-FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 4860 MUSTANG CIRCLE; PLANNING CASE NO CU2014-001 WHEREAS, FAC Holdings, LLC, has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 150-foot telecommunications tower on their property; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 4860 Mustang Circle, is zoned I-1, Industrial, and is legally described as follows: Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 1, Mounds View Industrial Park No. 3, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 17-30-23-13-0011 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows telecommunication towers and antennae up to 150 feet in height in Industrial zoning districts; and, WHEREAS, the proposed telecommunications tower is not required to be registered with the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) or Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Aerial view showing proposed location c. Zoning Map 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 telecommunications tower meets the requirements as outlined in Chapter 1124 of the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that a cell tower is consistent with the Light Industrial land use designation for this area. Resolution 1013-14 Page 2 3. The proposed telecommunications tower would not be out of place given the industrial character of the surrounding area involved. 4. The proposed telecommunications tower would not depreciate the neighboring properties. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for expanded telecommunications coverage in the Mounds View area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the telecommunications tower, with conditions as follows: 1. Access to the equipment shall be protected by a secure 8-foot chain link fence. 2. No advertising signage will be allowed attached to the pole or fencing. 3. The tower shall not exceed 150 feet in height or have any lighting. 4. 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 Planning Commission. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Conditional Use Permit shall have no expiration date and shall remain in force so long as the conditions agreed upon herein are observed. 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 17th day of September 2014. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: September 17, 2014 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of Variance Request to allow for a Reduced Rear Yard Setback at 2624 Ardan Avenue; Planning Case VR2014-007 Introduction: The property owners, Gerald and Melanie Lind, are requesting a variance to permit a porch addition to their house at 2624 Ardan Avenue to encroach twelve feet into the required 30- foot rear yard setback. The Linds want to build a 14’ x 16’ porch on the back of their house where the existing deck is. Discussion: The Lind’s house is a rambler style built in 1969 on a 0.25 acre shallow lot that is only 89.5 feet deep. The applicant’s home was placed on the lot with the required minimum 30 foot front setback. Because of how shallow the lot is, the backyard setback is only 32 feet (City Code requires a 30 foot rear setback). Because of how their lot was split, the applicant’s property has a much smaller backyard than most of the homes on the block. The Lind’s like their neighborhood, but want to expanding their existing home with a new porch. They currently have a large deck on the rear of the house and want to convert half of the deck to a 3-season porch. The City Code allows decks to have a 5 foot setback, so the deck is code compliant with its 18 foot setback. But when you have a covered, enclosed space, it is considered living space and must meet the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement. The applicant’s backyard is adjacent to the rear neighbor’s shed and they have a privacy fence. Variance Criteria Review: 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: Planning Case VR2014-007 September 17, 2014 Staff Report Page 2 a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code requires minimum structure setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. Enclosing the deck will provide more separation and privacy for the owners and the neighbors than the current open deck. 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 currently has a deck on the back of the home that has an 18 foot setback from the rear property line. By changing the deck into a covered porch, it now must have a 30-foot setback. Due to the shallow depth of the lot, no living space additions would meet the 30 setback. 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 property was subdivided in such a way that created a shallow lot. The applicant’s purchased the property as-is and did not cause the unique circumstance. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new porch will have no effect on the look of the property from the street, and would only be visible to the immediate neighbors. A privacy fence surrounds the backyard. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 12-foot variance is the minimum variance needed since that is what the Zoning Code requires for living space 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. Planning Case VR2014-007 September 17, 2014 Staff Report Page 3 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, September 5, 2014. Staff has not received any comments or questions as of September 12, 2014. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 1014-14 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variance. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Proposed Site Plans 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Resolution 1014-14 N ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Abiding Savior Church Aerial View of 2624 Ardan Avenue Aerial View of 2624 Ardan Avenue Location of existing deck/new porch Site Plan for 2624 Ardan Avenue Porch Addition N Photos of 2624 Ardan Avenue The new porch would replace the deck with railings MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1014-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EIGHTEEN-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AT 2624 ARDAN AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2014-007 WHEREAS, property owners, Gerald and Melanie Lind, have applied for a variance to allow a house addition to encroach twelve feet into the required 30 foot rear yard setback at 2624 Ardan Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 2624 Ardan Avenue is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: E 120 FT of W 1859 FT OF N 119 5/10 FT S 1012 5/10 FT OF NE ¼ (subject to Rds) in Section 6, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 06-30-23-14-0025 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Proposed Site and Addition Plans 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Views 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Staff Report 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 September 17, 2014; and, 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 that 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 2624 Ardan Avenue, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 1014-14 Page 2 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding building setbacks is to give some sense of privacy and separation for the property owners and their neighbors. The proposed addition would allow for more privacy than the existing open deck. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicants are improving the property. 3. The applicants are requesting this variance because their limited rear yard depth will not allow any living space additions. 4. The unique feature of this property is that it is a small, shallow lot with very limited backyard space. The property does not even meet the current lot size square footage requirements. 5. A deck has existed on the rear of the home for more than 20 years and the enclosed porch will be in the same location. The addition will not change the existing neighborhood character or the look of the front of the property. 6. The 12-foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since the Zoning Code requires a minimum 30 foot rear yard setback. 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 Gerald and Melanie Lind, to allow a living space addition to have an 18-foot rear setback at 2624 Ardan Avenue subject to the following: If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall be come null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested by the applicant in writing, and submitted to the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the original variance. Adopted this 17th day of September, 2014. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5C Meeting Date: September 17, 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 Preliminary Plat for the Subdivision of three parcels owned by Multi-Tech Systems at 2205 Woodale Drive; Planning Case MA2014-003 Introduction: Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. has submitted an application for a major subdivision of their three parcels at 2205 Woodale Drive. The proposed subdivision would be creating three different lots from the existing three lots in order to sell the west 6.5 acres to Build to Suit, Inc. who will be constructing a new building for BioLife Plasma Services. Discussion: Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. currently owns three parcels that total 17-acres. One parcel contains their building and part of the parking lot, another has a stormwater pond, and the third has the remainder of their parking lot and about six acres of vacant land. All three properties are zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. The proposed subdivision is essentially just shifting lot lines within the same 17 acres. The new lot lines would put Multi-Tech’s building, parking lot and stormwater pond together onto one parcel, then create two new lots where the vacant land is: the south lot is for the new BioLife building, and the other lot would remain vacant until sold for further development. Build to Suit, the developer of the BioLife building, is purchasing Lot 1 and Outlot A. 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 BPN-4 sub-watershed. The minimum recommended building elevation for the BPN-4 sub-watershed is set at 901.9 feet. The actual construction 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. There is also an additional drainage and utility easement in the southeast corner of Lot 1 for the infiltration basin that is required by Rice Creek Watershed District. Streets & Traffic: Lot 1 will have right-in-only access from County Road 10, access through Multi-Tech’s parking lot to Woodale Drive, and access to County Road H2 on a driveway that will be shared with Outlot A. All streets are adequate to handle the amount of added traffic that the additional development would create. Since BioLife is currently located in the city, their traffic is already on County Road 10 and Woodale, and most of it will likely remain there. Planning Case MA2014-003 September 17, 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. The 2013 Ramsey County determined land market value for the area that is being purchased is $4.49 per square foot. The development area is 257,074 square feet x $4.49/sq. foot = $1,154,262 land value. The dedication amount then would be 10% of the determined land value which would equal $115,426. Utilities: All utilities on the site must be installed underground, per Section 1203.10. Water and sanitary sewer connections are available and will be installed during construction of the BioLife building. Vegetation: The 17 acre site contains a large office/manufacturing building, a large asphalt parking lot, a stormwater pond and 6.5 acres of vacant land with some trees, of which little to none are valuable trees. 3.69 acres of the vacant land will be developed right away. The landscaping plan for the new BioLife building is being reviewed by the City’s consultant. Wetlands: The National Wetlands Inventory Map and the City’s official Wetland Zoning Map identify no wetlands within the property boundary. The applicant has received their conditional approval from Rice Creek Watershed District. Recommendation: Review the plans and discuss the proposed preliminary plat. Staff review revealed no deficiencies at this time and thus Resolution 1015-14 recommending approval of the preliminary plat 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. Resolution 1015-14 Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N Red lines = new parcel lines (pink lines are existing parcel lines) Yellow arrows = where new access drives will be County Road H2 County Road 10 Woodale Drive Multi-Tech building Current BioLife location Aerial View Lot 1 BioLife Outlot A Lot 2 Quincy Street Preliminary Plat MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1015-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK 3RD ADDITION; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2014-003 WHEREAS, Multi-Tech Systems has requested approval of a preliminary plat for the major subdivision of their three parcels; and, WHEREAS, the above-described lands are zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and legally-described as: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter lying Northeasterly of the Northerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 10, and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, except that part lying Southwesterly of the Northerly right-of-way line of U. S. Highway 10, all in Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, according to the United States Government Survey thereof. PIN’s 08-30-23-42-0001 and 08-30-23-42-0012 Lot 2, Block 1, Mounds View Business Park 2nd Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 08-30-23-42-0011 WHEREAS, Multi-Tech Systems has submitted a Preliminary Plat for the major subdivision which creates 3 different parcels; 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, 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 1015-14 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Mounds View Business Park 3rd Addition, submitted by Multi-Tech Systems, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of $115,426, or as determined by the City Council. 2. The applicant shall satisfy all requirements made by the City Attorney as stated in the plat opinion. 3. The applicant shall pay all City costs, including those of the City Attorney. 4. 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 17th day of September, 2014. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)