Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-2007 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA March 7, 2007 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. January 10, 2007 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. MI2007-001; ZC2007-002; CU2007-002; CP2007-001: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Comp Plan Amendment Applicant: Moundsview Fina: Leon Theis & Tom Manke - “The Station” Address: 2280 County Road I 6. Other Planning Activity A. Proposed Tree Preservation & Landscaping Ordinance B. Review proposed Health & Beauty Services” definition 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. March 21, 2007 B. April 4, 2007 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. January 24, 2007 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion DRAFT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 24, 2007 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. on January 24, 2007. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Gary Stevenson; Commissioners: Keith Cramblit, Sherry Gunn, Gary Meehlhause, Jean Miller, Todd Lang, and Mary Kay Walsh-Kaczmarek Absent and Excused: None Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Continuation: MI2006-002; Consideration of Minor Subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road 2 Consideration of Resolution 859-07; Amendment to Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws 6 Review Potential Timeline and Process for Updating Comprehensive Plan 7 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes December 20, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/Commissioner Cramblit, to approve the minutes of the December 20, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. Continuation: MI2006-002; Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road; Applicant: Abiding Savior Lutheran Church; Location: 8211 Red Oak Drive. Community Development Director Ericson reported the Planning Commission considered a minor subdivision split request from Abiding Savior Lutheran Church at the January 10, 2007 meeting. He indicated the minor subdivision would include a split of the home and 16,000 square feet creating a flag-shaped parcel that would be absorbed into the Church’s property at the corner of Red Oak Drive and Ardan Avenue. Director Ericson explained a minor subdivision is a division of less than two acres in an area where no more than one additional lot is created. Director Ericson reported the Church wishes to develop the property for senior co-op housing in the future. He explained a letter was received from the Church indicating its desire to join the flag shaped lot to the existing church property. He stated the Church would sell the lot with the house some time in the future. Director Ericson explained the Church indicated the only reason the lot was not split cleanly into two lots was to preserve the row of mature pine trees. Director Ericson explained park dedication fees would be waived unless further intensification or development of the property transpired in the future. Director Ericson stated all setbacks and minimum requirements are satisfied with this request. He indicated that as with every subdivision of land, the City requires drainage and utility easements be dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. He stated that if the subdivision is approved, easements would be required for Parcel B with a five foot easement on the north and south sides and ten feet on the east and west sides of the parcel. Director Ericson explained easements could not be recorded via a Certificate of Survey, however, staff would request the easement as described be added to the Certificate of Survey with a notation that the easements as shown would be dedicated separately by the property owner. Director Ericson explained this is not a public hearing as one is not required for a minor subdivision; however, notices were sent to the property owners who signed in at the previous Planning Commission meeting as a courtesy. Director Ericson stated the application was accepted on December 26, 2006 and in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes, a decision must be made within 60 days of acceptance of the application. He indicated the deadline for action is February 24, 2007. He stated, assuming the Planning Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commission makes a recommendation on January 24, 2007; the request would then go before the City Council on February 12, 2007. Director Ericson summarized the proposed minor subdivision for 8184 Eastwood Road is requested to create additional land that would be combined with the Abiding Savior property at 8211 Red Oak Drive. He stated the remaining single family lot with home on Eastwood Road would be consistent with all setbacks and subdivision code requirements. Director Ericson explained that if the Commission felt it had all the information necessary to proceed with a recommendation to the City Council, it could recommend approval, request staff to draft a resolution to deny the subdivision if just cause exists, or table the resolution to acquire additional information. He stated the Commission should act upon this as soon as possible prior to the 60-day time limit. Director Ericson indicated the 60 days could be extended. Director Ericson pointed out the letter submitted by Mr. Kunz, the application, zoning map, aerial map, photos of the home, and the Certificate of Survey showing the lot division are included in the Commission packets. He stated the conditions included on the resolution are: the applicant shall arrange to have the Certificate of Survey revised to illustrate the proposed drainage and utility easement areas; the applicant shall arrange to bring the existing shed from 8418 Eastwood Road into compliance with setback and zoning requirements based on the proposed new lot line; and the applicant shall arrange to immediately combine Parcel A with the existing Church property at 8211 Red Oak Drive with Ramsey County within 60 days per City Code. Director Ericson stated he spoke to the City Attorney who indicated this could move forward. Director Ericson read the letter from Mr. Kunz to clarify the intent of the Church. He mentioned the Church intends to combine Parcel A with the existing Church property as soon as possible and that Parcel B, including the house, would be put up for sale in the near future. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek referenced to the last paragraph of the letter relating to future development and commented this is not in compliance regardless of the fact they intend to make it compliant. She indicated regarding it separately would have a detrimental effect on the character of the neighborhood which is zoned low density family residential housing. Commissioner Walsh- Kaczmarek stated Mounds View already has an aging housing infrastructure. She stressed that by cutting the lot down, a less desirable house and lot is what is left to be sold. Chair Stevenson remarked Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek made a good point, however, it is a null and void issue if Parcel A is not adjoined to the Church property within 60 days. He stressed Parcel A is a nonconforming lot and there would be no consideration by the Planning Commission to make it a buildable lot. He pointed out Parcel B would have 90 feet plus of frontage and consist of 16,000 square feet, which meets the requirements and is a very sellable lot. Chair Stevenson stressed this is not a public hearing, however, residents were invited to speak on behalf of the separation of Parcel A and B, with the stipulation that Parcel A must be recorded as part of the Church property in 60 days. Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Randy Heltzer, 8180 Eastwood Road, stated he received a letter from the Church indicating they want to put some of this property back on the tax role. He stated the City would lose ten feet of road frontage to the Church. He indicated the reason is not to save the trees, but for the future easement along the tree line. Chair Stevenson asked Director Ericson if the tax issue should be addressed. Director Ericson replied there are legal issues that preclude the City from taking into consideration the loss of tax value as a reason for denial of the resolution. Chair Stevenson asked about the current tax situation with 8184 Eastwood and the Church property. Director Ericson replied, for tax exempt, the paperwork must be in place by June 30 of the previous year for the following year to be tax exempt. He stated the property is currently taxed. Mr. Bob Sherry, 8160 Eastwood Road, commented the frontage on Eastwood that does not conform to code would set precedence. He stated he did not believe a potential buyer for Parcel B would be in favor of an apartment complex next to their property. He stated he would like to see the current proposal rejected or tabled until a new proposal for a minor subdivision minus the staff portion of the lot is submitted. Mr. Jim Sikorski, 8340 Sunnyside Road, emphasized that he believed the reason for the subdivision was so the Church could combine a piece of property they could later sell as one parcel. He stated the intention of the Church is to develop a 32 unit development, which is something the neighborhood does not want or need. Mr. Ken Fletcher, 8330 Sunnyside Road, stated he agreed the ten feet is for more than saving the trees. He indicated that if this is approved and recognized as a tacit approval of what would surely follow, it needs to be noted in the minutes, that it in no way forces the Planning Commission to approve the second part of this. Mr. Fletcher indicated the Abiding Savior Lutheran Church is not well thought of in the neighborhood. Chair Stevenson thanked Mr. Fletcher for his comments and replied there is no reason the Planning Commission could not put forth, beyond the approval or denial that this is not an endorsement for the development. Commissioner Meehlhause stated this resolution must be considered on the basis of what is presented and not on what future plans might be. Chair Stevenson replied that was true, however, he believes the statement could be made to go along with the resolution. Commissioner Gunn stated this goes back to viewing it as the separate item discussed before and what everyone should concentrate on is the application to rezone the area. She stated this is what Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ would need to be scrutinized and not the current resolution on the table. She stated there are many steps to go through for development requests. Chair Stevenson stated a major rezoning would come before the Planning Commission for the development and that would be considered at that time. Director Ericson explained the proposal by the Church would be to subdivide the 34,900 square feet from the house lot and, at the same time, combine it with the Church parcel. He indicated it would be adding acreage to the Church lot and not creating a separate lot. Commissioner Miller stated the issue on the table is for the minor subdivision and the Planning Commission could not speculate as to what may or may not happen. Director Ericson pointed out the suggested wording in the resolution by Mr. Fletcher could be utilized and easy to add. He suggested the wording: now therefore be it further resolved that approval of this subdivision in no way shall be construed as tacit or implicit approval of subsequent applications. He stated any subsequent application must stand on its own merit. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked Director Ericson if the Church could decide to change their request because of the recommended changes. Director Ericson replied any applicant has the ability to withdraw or modify an application. He stated it is an intermediate step and often times there are modifications to requests. He indicated that in this case the Planning Commission could ask the Church to consider the recommendations. Commissioner Miller stated this should be taken as it is and not muddied up with anything else. Commissioner Gunn stated she liked Director Ericson’s suggested amendment to the resolution. Mr. Heltzer asked why the Church was going through a minor subdivision only to go after a major subdivision later. He indicated he objects to the way the Church is going about this. Commissioner Cramblit explained the Church could not do the major subdivision until the minor subdivision was approved. Director Ericson further explained the County wanted a clean subdivision to create new lot lines, rather than having lots outside of the subdivision as a result of the major subdivision. He indicated this could be done at the same time concurrently, however, this was not the choice made by the Church. Mr. Sikorski commented if the minor subdivision were not approved, there would not be enough property for the 32-unit development. He stated there is no benefit to approving this subdivision other than to assist the Church in moving forward with the major subdivision. Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson replied he would hesitate to say the major subdivision could not move forward if this resolution were not approved. Mr. Fletcher clarified that what the church wants to do is flip this property. He stated they would have no interest in what is built on the property. He stated it would be sold to a developer who would develop it. He stated the only thing this does for the Church is give them several hundred thousand dollars. Chair Stevenson asked Director Ericson to clarify specific items in the resolution regarding the park dedication fee. Director Ericson explained a park dedication fee would only apply if further development was made on the property. He recommended changes to the park dedication wording. Chair Stevenson agreed to Director Ericson’s recommendations. Commissioner Lang pointed out the address correction in stipulation number two. Chair Stevenson asked for consensus on Director Ericson’s recommended wording regarding any subsequent applications on the property. Consensus was reached by the Commission members. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/ Commissioner Lang, to approve Resolution 858-07, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road Requested by Abiding Savior Church; Mounds View Planning Case No. MI06-002, with additions and conditions. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1 Motion carried. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stressed she opposes this resolution because she believes it is not in compliance and would have a detrimental effect on the property and the character of the neighborhood. Director Ericson stated the resolution would go to the City Council on February 12, 2007. ____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Consideration of Resolution 859-07, a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws. Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission reviewed the bylaws at the January 10, 2007 meeting and suggested changing the number of absences a Commissioner could have in a given year. He stated that based on the suggested change, the bylaws have been amended to read: Any member absent from three or more consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or more than six regularly schedule meetings per year without the consent of the Commission shall be deemed to have vacated the office. Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek/Commissioner Miller, to Approve Resolution 859-07, a Resolution Recommending Adopting Revisions to the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Review Potential Timeline and Process for Updating the Comprehensive Plan Director Ericson stated it is time to move forward on updating the Comprehensive Plan. He stressed it is never too early to start given the magnitude of the task. He asked the Planning Commission to consider options for reviewing the Plan. He stated the Comp Plan is a guide for the City to lay out future development. He stated neighborhood meetings would be held to engage the community as much as possible. Director Ericson believes Mounds View is on solid ground with the Comp Plan. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek addressed the actual City Index and Benchmarks for the City in the Comprehensive Plan, asking if the City Index meant 67 percent owner occupied and 33 percent rental occupied and the Benchmark 75/25. She asked if this meant Mounds View was more rental occupied than recommended by the Metropolitan Council. Director Ericson replied the benchmarks are the Metropolitan Council’s goals for Mounds View. He explained the Met Council would like to see a minimum of 25 percent of the housing in Mounds View in rental property. He stated Mounds View met or exceeded all the benchmarks and goals identified by Met Council on affordable housing. He stated that looking forward; a number of affordable housing units should be added. He stated this would be addressed on a demographic basis. He indicated that with housing fluctuations, the City still meets or exceeds the expectations. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stated the Mayor indicated at the City Council meeting that Mounds View is virtually fully developed. She asked what this means for Mounds View if it is outside the guidelines of the Met Council. Director Ericson responded these are guidelines. He indicated that as the Metropolitan area expands, communities share their fair share of the burden of affordable housing. Commissioner Miller stated she has trouble with the term affordable. Director Ericson replied it is based on the median income for the area and differs from community to community. He indicated Mounds View has a fairly good mix of housing. Chair Stevenson commented the Planning Commission, Director Ericson, and Planning Associate Heller should spend time reviewing the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, the terms, the thought process that went into it, and why it is set up the way it is before it is open to the public. Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek agreed and commented she would like the Commission to be forward thinking regarding plans for the future. Mr. Sikorski commented this is a good idea now with new members on the Planning Commission. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings A. February 7, 2007 B. February 21, 2007 _____________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: March 7, 2007 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of requests for the Property located at 2280 07-002; he applicant, Moundsview Fina, LTD, represented by owners Leon Theis and Tom Manke, he Station was built in 1959 as “Gulf” and currently exists as a legal nonconforming use. 1996, the owners requested a variance to install two canopies over the four existing fuel urrently The Station is located in a B-2 zoning district on a 9,562 square foot lot (134.67’ x County Rd I: Minor Subdivision; Rezoning; Conditional Use Permit; and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Cases: MI2007-001; ZC2007-002; CU20 PA2007-001 Introduction: T own the property and gas station at 2280 County Road I, commonly known as “The Station.” They have submitted four planning requests in order to bring the current gas station into conformance with the City Code: a minor subdivision to combine adjacent properties with 2280 County Road I, to rezone the property from B-2 Limited Business, to B-3 Highway Business, a Conditional Use Permit in order to allow a gas station in a B-3 district, and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Highway Commercial (HC). Background: T The property owners would like to add two additional fuel pumps to the site and expand the current canopy to cover both sets of pumps. By doing this, the nonconforming use would be expanded. The City Code allows the existing nonconformance to continue, but not be expanded upon. This application involves planning requests, which if approved, would bring the gas station into total code compliance and allow them to add the additional fuel pumps. In pumps. Both variance requests were denied, as they constituted an enlargement of a nonconforming use. Subsequent to the variance denial, the owners requested and the Council approved an amendment to the City Code which excluded canopies from the enlargement restrictions, thus enabling the owners to install the canopy as desired. During the time of canopy construction, two of the original four pumps were removed. In 2004, the applicants wanted to reinstall the two fuel pumps and applied for a conditional use permit as the first step toward making the fuel station a conforming use. The CUP was denied due to not meeting the minimum CUP requirements for a gas station and the nonconforming status. C 71’), there is no record of a Conditional Use Permit and the property has a comprehensive plan land use designation of “Neighborhood Commercial.” In order for a gas station to be a conforming use, it must meet the following requirements: zoned B-3 with a Conditional Use Permit to allow a gas station, a minimum lot size of 22,500 The Station Staff Report quare feet with lot dimensions of at least 130’ x 150’ and a Comprehensive Plan land use inor Subdivision Discussion: The Station currently owns one 9,562 square foot parcel ( 0.22 acres) at the northeast corner Page 2 s designation of “Highway Commercial.” The Station owners have signed a purchase agreement to buy neighboring property to the south which would bring their lot size to 24,395 square feet with dimensions of approximately 134’ x 187’. M of the site, and the neighboring Alanon Society’s property is made up of four small parcels surrounding The Station. This subdivision action would create two parcels, rather than five (see diagrams below). The Station owners have a purchase agreement with the Alanon Society to purchase an additional 14,833 square feet to be added to their property in order to meet the minimum lot size requirements for a gas station. A minor subdivision of this lot would be consistent with the Zoning Code, subdivision regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. The resulting area of the proposed parcels is as follows: Parcel Proposed Use Area (Sq Ft / Acres) A The Station 24,395 / 0.56 B Remainder of New Brighton Alanon property 15,195 / 0.35 Existing parcel conditions – the Alano Society owns the 4 small parcels surrounding The Station. The lines are indicating that the 4 parcels are linked together for county tax purposes. The Station The Station Staff Report Page 3 Proposed conditions – the new north-south line dividing the properties jogs over because there a garage in the southwest corner that will remain. New l BParce is New l AParce garage Zoning Requirements he new lot to be created for The Station (Parcel A) with this subdivision/lot combination Park Dedication Requirements T would exceed the minimum 22,500 square foot area and 130’ x 150’ lot size dimension requirements for a gas station, which is the goal of the applicants. very subdivision of land is subject to park dedication requirements. The City Code in asements E Chapter 1202 indicates that up to 10 percent of the land value be dedicated to the City to help offset future park impacts associated with the development of land. This subdivision will not result in any additional dwelling units, however there would be an intensification of the usage with an additional two fuel pumps. A park dedication fee may be appropriate in this case. E ith every subdivision of land, the City requires that drainage and utility easements be W dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. Easements should be taken around the periphery of both Parcels A and B. Because easements may not be dedicated on Certificates of Survey or registered land surveys, dedication is accomplished by a separate document recorded at the same time the new deeds are recorded. The Certificate of Survey shows the location of these easements and bears text stating that the property is subject to the easements. The resolution states that they will be recorded with Ramsey County by a separate document. Staff will prepare these documents with descriptions provided by the applicant’s surveyor. The Station Staff Report Page 4 Technical Issues he Certificate of Survey and Title Commitment have been sent to the City Attorney’s office ezoning Discussion: ccording to the City Code, in order to approve a rezoning request, it must be determined egarding the first criteria, the request would currently be inconsistent with the dverse Effects Test T for review. The City’s Public Works Department has reviewed the site plans and does not have any issues with what is proposed. They indicated that any driveway access changes could be made when the street reconstruction project happens in this area. Staff has also sent the site plans to Ramsey County Public Works due to The Station being located on County Road I. R A that the requested zoning designation would (1) be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and (2) not be detrimental to the neighborhood or adversely affect any adjoining properties. R Comprehensive Plan land use map, which designates this area as “Neighborhood Commercial”. The existing B-2 zoning designation is consistent within a Neighborhood Commercial guided area, although the existing gas station does not fit either of the current zoning or Comp Plan designations. A gas station requires a higher intensity zoning and comp plan designation, both which have been requested. As to the second criteria, however, the request may conform to the subjective adverse effects test, which will be explored in greater detail below. A o assess whether a proposed rezoning is appropriate or not, many factors should be the present case, The Station is bordered on two sides by roadways so properties beyond T considered, some of which are explicitly articulated in the Code. The first benchmark may be the area in which the subject property is located and the zoning designations of surrounding uses. A rezoning to a more intensive designation may not be inappropriate if the surrounding uses already bear a more intense designation. In those adjacent to the site will be examined. To the north of The Station, across County Road I, is primarily R-1 single family residential housing. The Station building is attached to two other spaces which are used as office and commercial. The west side is owned by the New Brighton Alano Society, and the south side has been leased by a manufacturing company, and Fedor’s Market is the property to the south. This small commercial area is zoned B-2 which is appropriate for all of the current uses, except for the gas station. Cross of Glory Lutheran Church is across Adams Street to the east, and there are several R-4 multi-family rental housing buildings to the west side. From this review, a zoning amendment to B-3 may seem inappropriate due to the lack of higher intensity commercial zoning in the area, although this case is unique in that the use of the property would not change with the rezoning. The Station Staff Report ther factors to explore would include traffic impacts as well as parking requirements. Traffic Concerning parking, the proposed site plan shows that there are presently 17 parking stalls ezoning Summary Page 5 O (vehicle trips in and out) from the site do not appear to be causing problems for the neighborhood. Again, due to the use of the property not changing, a more intensive zoning designation should not cause any increase in traffic, circulation or parking problems. In fact, it may actually be the case that traffic circulation would improve as a result of the requests. The proposed addition of fuel pumps would allow more customers to pump fuel at the same and reduce the traffic back-up waiting for access to a pump, and removal of the eastern section of the building will allow a better traffic flow through the site. available to serve the facility – 13 spaces plus four under the canopy at the pumps. There is currently 1,200 square feet of retail space, and at this time, the owners are not sure if any expansion of their retail space will happen in the future. Parking requirements for a gas station are twofold: gas stations require at least four parking spaces, and the retail store requires one space for each 100 square feet of retail floor area plus one space per employee. Thus, the parking requirements for The Station would be: two spaces for two employees per shift, 12 spaces for the retail store, and four spaces for the gas pumps. A total of 18 parking spaces would be required for The Station. There is enough paved surface area on the site to easily add one more parking space. This additional space should be shown on the proposed conditions site plan. R or the Commission to support the requested rezoning, it must find that the request would onditional Use Permit Discussion: ection 1114.04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows motor fuel stations in B-3 districts. CUP Considerations: ith every Conditional Use Permit application, Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires F not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not cause or tend to cause or create adverse impacts to the surrounding properties. If the requested Comp Plan Amendment were approved, this rezoning would be consistent with the Comp Plan. If the amendment were not approved, this rezoning would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This rezoning should not change the effects of this business on the surrounding neighborhood. A rezoning request is approved by ordinance with two readings by the City Council, and the ordinance taking affect 30 days after the final reading. C S The applicant would like to add two additional fuel pumps, and is applying for a conditional use permit in order to bring the business into compliance and be allowed to expand. W 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, traffic, adequate utilities and access roads and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is reviewed and addressed on the following page. The Station Staff Report elationship with the Comprehensive Plan Page 6 R : The Comprehensive Plan encourages the he Geographical Area Involved expansion of existing businesses and introduction of new businesses within Mounds View when compatible with surrounding uses. The Station is surrounded by a variety of zoning designations and land uses, which include single family residential, high density residential, a church, office space, and a neighborhood grocery store. If the requested Comp Plan amendment is approved, this CUP would be consistent with the Comp Plan land use designation. If the Comp Plan amendment is not approved, the CUP would not be consistent with the Comp Plan. T : This business is located on County Road I, where it has epreciation operated as a gas station for almost 50 years. County Road I is the City’s only other commercial corridor aside from County Road 10. D : The Station has been a neighborhood gas station in Mounds View for many he Character of the Surrounding Area: years. The owners are happy doing business in Mounds View and would like to remain here and improve the business and property. It is unlikely that The Station is depreciating the area in which it is located and it is unlikely that its continued existence would further depreciate the area. Approving a conditional use permit will not change the current use of the property, nor should it change the neighborhood property values. T This area of the City has a variety of housing types, a raffic: church, and a few small neighborhood businesses. The Station is located on County Road I, which is a busy 4-lane road running through the city and is near Pinewood Elementary and the I-35W connections. The character of this area would not change with the approval of this CUP. T There is some traffic around The Station, particularly during the weekday rush hours, dequate utilities and access roads are available due to County Road I being a main thoroughfare of the City and the close proximity to I-35W. The Station does produce customer traffic, but it has not been a problem from a public safety standpoint. The traffic in the area would likely not change with this CUP. A : The water and sewer lines that currently he Demonstrated Need for Such a Use serve the property have adequate capacity to provide for this business. The Station is located on a corner and has ample access on to both streets, particularly onto Adams where there is no curbing and the entire parking lot blends into the street. The public works department has reviewed the proposed plans and has no issues. They stated that at the time of a street reconstruction project for Adams Street, the lack of designated access drives into this site can be addressed. T : The owners of The Station want to improve their business and must bring the property into compliance in order to do that. The City of Mounds View supports our existing businesses and wants them to remain in our community and prosper. The Station Staff Report omp Plan Amendment Process: n amendment to a Comprehensive Plan is processed according to Zoning Code Section gas station by definition in the Comp Plan may not be appropriate in a “neighborhood ypically with a Comp Plan amendment, after the City Council approves the change, the Public Feedback taff published a public hearing notice and mailed notices regarding the four planning ecommendation taff has drafted one resolution for all four actions, since these requests must work together 1 Approve all four planning actions as requested. Resolution 861-07 is attached for your . Deny the requests. To consider this option, the Commission will need to direct staff to 3. Table action on the request. This option would be appropriate if the Planning Page 7 C A 1125 requiring that the Planning Commission and City Council review the request, taking into consideration any and all potential adverse effects of the proposed amendment. The considerations and potential adverse effects to be considered are the same as previously discussed. A commercial” area, but The Station could be considered more of a neighborhood business, than for example a SuperAmerica or Holiday gas station. With only a fraction of the gas pumps, and the site being one-third the size, The Station does not draw anywhere near the amount of business the other large gas stations do. Even with the close proximity to I-35W or County Road 10, staff could speculate that travelers on these main arterials probably do not go out of their way to purchase gas at The Station, and that many of their customers are more than likely local. T request will go to the Metropolitan Council for approval. Since we will be starting the 2008 Comp Plan update, staff has contacted the Met Council requesting that we incorporate this amendment in with our update rather than go through a separate process. S requests to all property owners within 350 feet of 2280 County Road I informing them of the proposed actions and the Planning Commission meeting date. Staff received one phone call from Pastor Andrew of Cross of Glory Lutheran Church, indicating that they are supportive of these planning requests. R S in order for each individual request to be applicable. The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions related to the Minor Subdivision, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests: . consideration if you should choose this option. 2 prepare a resolution with findings of fact to support the denial recommendation. Commission should need additional information or more input before a decision can be made. The Station Staff Report espectfully Submitted By, Page 8 R ______________________ Heidi Heller Planning Associate ttachments: A 1. Planning Application e Plan Land Use Map Documentation onditions Site Plans 2. Zoning Map 3. Comprehensiv 4. Aerial Map 5. Photographic 6. Certificate of Survey 7. Existing & Proposed C 8. Resolution 861-07 ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Silverview Plaza County Road I Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Pinewood Elementary City Hall COUNTY ROAD H2 N Aerial View Fedor’s Multi-family housing Multi-family housing Cross of Glory Church Photo Documentation MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 861-07 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION, A REZONING, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2280 COUNTY ROAD I, PLANNING CASE NOS. MI2007-001, ZC2007-002, CU2007-002, PA2007-002 WHEREAS, Moundsview Fina, LTD., represented by Leon Theis and Thomas Manke, property owners of 2280 County Road I, have requested a Minor Subdivision; a Rezoning of the property from B-2 Limited Business to B-3, Highway Business; a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Motor Fuel Station; and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 4, Spring Lake Park Highlands, except the west 54 feet thereof, and also except the south 16 feet thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota And, The West 54 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Spring Lake Park Highlands, The South 16 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Spring Lake Park Highlands, except the West 54 feet thereof, Lot 2, Block 4, Spring Lake Park Highlands, The East 30 feet of the North half of Lot 4, Block 4, Spring Lake Park Highlands, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Certificate of Survey 7. Existing & Proposed Conditions Site Plans 8. Resolution 861-07 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting regarding this request on Wednesday, March 7, 2007; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, the Planning Commission is to consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed minor subdivision, rezoning, conditional use permit and comprehensive plan amendment, and shall make a finding of fact related to its review of the requests. Resolution 861-07 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact regarding the minor subdivision, rezoning, conditional use permit and comprehensive plan amendment requests for as required by the Mounds View Zoning Code: 1. A Certificate of Survey and Title Commitment have been submitted to the City, to be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to approval of the subdivision by the City Council. 2. The proposed subdivision and lot combination will increase the property size of 2280 County Road I from 9,562 square feet and lot dimensions of 134’ x 71’, to 24,395 square feet with lot dimensions of approximately 134’ x 187’, which would then exceed the minimum square foot and lot dimension requirements for a gas station. 3. The requests for a subdivision, rezoning, conditional use permit and Comprehensive Plan amendment should not negatively impact or depreciate the adjacent properties due to the use of the property not changing. 4. The Property currently has 17 parking spaces shown on the proposed conditions site plan. The site plan should be updated to show a total of 18 parking spaces as required for The Station. 5. The applicant has demonstrated a need for the minor subdivision, rezoning, conditional use permit and comprehensive plan amendment, in order to bring the property into full compliance with the City Code. 6. There do not appear to be any adverse effects associated with the proposed minor subdivision, rezoning, conditional use permit and comprehensive plan amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 2280 County Road I, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall arrange to have the deeds prepared and recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, or this approval shall be considered null and void. Extensions may be granted at the discretion of the City in the case of extraordinary unanticipated delays out of the applicant’s control. Proof of recordation shall be provided to the City of Mounds View within 10 days of recordation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings of fact, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the requested rezoning from B- 2 Limited Business, to B-3 Highway Business. Resolution 861-07 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings of fact, the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the motor fuel station, subject to the following condition: 1. Successful recording of subdivision documents with Ramsey County. The conditional use permit shall be considered null and void if not acted on within one year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings of fact, the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends that the Comprehensive Plan land use designation be amended for the property at 2280 County Road I, from “Neighborhood Commercial (NC)” to “Highway Commercial (HC),” and recommends such amendment be forwarded to the Met Council concurrent with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of March, 2007. ________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: ________________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (Seal) Item No: 06B Meeting Date: March 5, 2007 Type of Business: Planning Commission City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Desaree M. Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 860-07, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Chapter 1102 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Define “Health and Beauty Services” Staff received a phone call from a Kari Murlowski, who would like to conduct alternative wellness at Mounds View Square. Some of the therapies she would conduct include, Healing Touch and Aromatherapy. The techniques, according to Ms. Murlowski require that her clients are fully clothed. Ms Murlowski is not a massage therapist and has no training in massage therapy. Her training is in Health Healing, Aromatherapy, and Raindrop Therapy at the Center for Aromatherapy Research Education (CARE). Alternative Wellness Centers are not regulated by the State, and are not currently covered under the City Code in business licensing. Since this type of business is not State regulated, Staff was directed by City Council to see what other cities are doing to regulate this type of business to include asking the League of Minnesota Cities for information and guidance on the issue. Staff received responses from the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Coon Rapids, Blaine, Arden Hills, Roseville, and the League of Minnesota Cities. Unfortunately, these cities had no information, ordinances or anything in their code regulating this type of business. Staff also spoke to the League, and they also had no information to give us relating to this type of business or anything relating to Alternative Wellness. Since there was no information available, Staff researched the Mounds View City Code pertaining to Zoning. Mounds View Square is in the B-4 Zoning District. Permitted uses in this district include Health and Beauty Services. An argument could be made that Alternative Wellness could be allowed in our City Zoning Code under Health and Beauty Services. However, Health and Beauty Services are not defined in our City Code. Staff spoke with the City Attorney, and it was the City Attorney’s recommendation that we define Health and Beauty Services in our Zoning Code to include information on Alternative Wellness. The City Council concurred with the City Attorney. Staff, with the help and guidance of the City Attorney, drafted a definition for Health and Beauty Services. “Health and Beauty Services: Services performed for the purpose of promoting and maintaining personal health and beauty, including hair salons, fingernail salons, nutrition and diet centers, meditation and yoga clinics, Spa Treatments (such as Facials, Body Wrap Treatments, and Chemical Peels) and Alternative Wellness services (including such activities as Aromatherapy, Acupuncture and Hypnosis) and the like, excluding therapeutic massage or other businesses otherwise defined or regulated by this Code.” Item 06B Planning Commission March 5, 2007 Page 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends amending the Zoning Code to define Health and Beauty Services. This was also recommended by the City Attorney. If the Planning Commission concurs, Staff will start the process of amending Chapter 1102 of the Zoning Code. Respectfully submitted, Desaree Crane MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 860-07 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1102 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO DEFINE “HEALTH AND BEAUTY” USES WHEREAS, the City Council has directed that a definition be added to the Zoning Code to define “Health and Beauty” uses; and, WHEREAS, City staff, working in consultation with the City Attorney, has prepared a definition to be added to Chapter 1102 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, to read as follows: “Health and Beauty Services: Services performed for the purpose of promoting and maintaining personal health and beauty, including hair salons, fingernail salons, nutrition and diet centers, meditation and yoga clinics, Spa Treatments (such as Facials, Body Wrap Treatments, and Chemical Peels) and Alternative Wellness services (including such activities as Aromatherapy, Acupuncture and Hypnosis) and the like, excluding therapeutic massage or other businesses otherwise defined or regulated by this Code.” WHEREAS, amending the Zoning Code to incorporate such a definition will serve to 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 an amendment to Chapter 1102 of the Mounds View Zoning Code by incorporating the definition for Health and Beauty uses 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 7th day of March, 2007. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) CHAPTER 1127 DDDRRRAAAFFFTTT 222-- TREE PRESERVATION & LANDSCAPING SECTION: 1127.01: Purpose 1127.02: Definitions 1127.03: General Tree Protection Requirements 1127.04: Tree Removal on Lots without Construction or Grading Permits 1127.05: Landscaping 1127.06 Appeal Process 1127.07 Violation and Penalties 1127.01: PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to identify trees and woodlots which are to be preserved in general and saved when development is occurring or at any point thereafter. It is the City’s goal to ensure that development is compatible with the natural environment and is accommodated without destroying desirable environmental features and natural amenities. It is not the City’s intent, however, to preserve significant trees or woodlots where substandard subdivision design, poor drainage, excess slope in streets and driveways or inefficient utility construction will result. 1127.02: DEFINITIONS: When used in this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: DRIP LINE: The imaginary line at the outer edge of a tree or shrub, the point where water would drip to the ground from the outermost branches or leaves. HIGH VALUE TREES: Any tree from the list below, at least eight (8) inches in diameter. ƒ Birches (River & Paper) ƒ Cherry ƒ All Firs ƒ Flowering Crabapples ƒ Hackberry ƒ Ironwood ƒ Japanese Tree Lilac ƒ All Lindens ƒ All Maples ƒ All Oaks ƒ Ohio Buckeye ƒ Pines (except Jack) ƒ All Spruce ROOT ZONE: That area of effective tree rooting (out to the extent of the branches plus 5 five feet). -222888---000777 1 2 SIGNIFICANT TREE: A significant tree is defined as any live healthy tree measuring eight (8) inches in diameter or greater, measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. SPECIMEN TREE: Any species over 16 inches in diameter. TREE CROWN: The upper part of a tree, including the branches and leaves. WOODLOT: An area of trees of significant or specimen size on at least twenty-five (25) percent of the total lot area. 1127.03: GENERAL TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS: Subd. 1. Developers, landowners, and builders shall attempt to preserve the maximum amount of significant trees on lots as possible by using creative design techniques for the location of structures and other improvements within property boundaries. Subd. 2. Tree Plan Required. A Tree Plan, which would include a tree inventory, prepared by an arborist, landscape architect or forester, shall be submitted for any project in which trees will be impacted as a result of said project. Tree inventories shall identify existing healthy significant trees, specimen trees, woodlots and clumps of non-significant trees within the limits of the proposed development area. The inventory should clearly indicate which trees would be lost as a result of the development and which trees would be saved. The tree inventory shall be submitted at the same time as any other required application submittals. This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the Community Development Director. Subd. 3. Preservation standards a. Structures and other amenities shall be located in such a manner that the optimum number of trees shall be preserved. b. Prior to the granting of a permit, the person requesting the permit shall demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the removal of significant or specimen trees on the site. c. Forestation, reforestation or landscaping shall utilize a variety of tree species and shall not utilize any species presently under disease epidemic. Species planted shall be hardy under local conditions and compatible with the local landscape as approved by the City Forester. d. Development including grading and contouring shall take place in such a manner that the root zone, as defined in Section 1127.02, of existing trees shall not be affected and shall provide existing trees with a minimum watering equal to one-half the tree’s crown area. 3 Subd. 4. Replacement Standards. a. If significant trees are to be removed, the permit holder shall agree to restore the density of trees to that which existed prior to the removal, but in no case shall the permit holder be required to increase the density above ten (10) trees per acre or five (5) trees on lots of less than an acre. b. If specimen trees must be removed, the owner or permit holder shall plant five (5) trees for each specimen tree removed, up to a maximum of ten (10) trees per acre or five (5) trees on lots of less than an acre, or a lesser number deemed to be suitable by the City per existing conditions. c. Replacement tree species are to be approved by the City 1 . A twenty-five percent reduction in the number of required replacement trees may be applied to encourage the planting of High Value Trees as defined in Section 1127.02. d. Replacement trees shall be planted no later than twelve months beyond the date of tree removal. The owner or permit holder shall guarantee the survival of the replacement trees for two full growing seasons beyond the year of planting. e. Exceptions. Replacement requirements shall not apply to trees lost as a result of utility trimming or maintenance, work conducted by or on behalf of a governmental agency in pursuance of its lawful activities or functions, disease, storms or other acts of natural occurrence. Subd. 5. Trees within development areas designated for preservation shall be protected from construction damage by placing a snow fence or flags in a perimeter five feet beyond the tree’s dripline, within which area no equipment, materials, debris or fill shall be placed. Subd. 6. Additional Removals. If, through the course of a development activity, it becomes necessary to remove additional trees beyond what was previously approved in the grading plan. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to submit such request to the City in writing, explaining the reasons necessitating the additional removals, and obtain written approval of the Community Development Director or designee before proceeding. 1127.04 TREE REMOVAL ON LOTS WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION OR GRADING PERMITS: Subd. 1. No more than two significant trees shall be permitted to be removed per year on lots upon which no development or grading activity is occurring, unless an approved Tree Plan has been obtained. Trees removed because they are an obstruction to traffic or power lines, or trees removed because they pose a 1 Refer to Section 1127.05 for minimum planting specifications. 4 hazard to structures or sewer systems, or have been identified by the City Forester as diseased or hazardous, shall be excluded from these requirements. Subd. 2. Tree Plan: A Tree Plan will be required if more than two (2) significant trees per year are removed. At a minimum, the plan must include the following information: a. A scaled map designating all forested areas and existing and proposed uses of such areas. b. Location of all existing structures, roads, utilities, and driveways on the site. c. A written narrative describing specific activities and reasons for developing the plan, and how these actions and activities will affect the forest. Specific examples include, but are not limited to: better forest management (thinning or removal of dead or diseased trees), improved wildlife habitat, recreational use, outdoor education, and trails. d. Tree Replacement may also be required as part of the Tree Plan. Tree replacement, as outlined in Section 1127.03 Subd. 4, shall be required if trees are removed without obtaining an approved approval for a Tree Plan. (See also Section 1127.08 regarding violations and penalties.) e. Tree Plans may be required to be prepared by a forester, arborist, or landscape architect, and approved by the City Forester and Community Development Director. Plans may be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission. 1127.05 LANDSCAPING: Subd. 1. Applications for development in the R-3, R-4, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1 and PUD districts shall be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan. The landscape plan should be developed in accordance with the site plan submitted for approval. Subd. 2. Detailed landscape plans shall include the following information: a. General: name and address of developer/owner, name and address of architect/designer, date of plan preparation, date and description of all revisions, name of project or development, scale of plan, north point indication. b. Site analysis: Boundary lines of property line with dimensions based upon certified survey, name and alignment of proposed and existing adjacent on- site streets, location of all proposed utility easements and right-of-way, location of existing and proposed buildings, topographic contours at two (2) foot contour intervals, location of parking areas, water bodies, proposed sidewalks, and percent of site not covered by structures and impervious surfaces. 5 c. Landscape data: A planting schedule table shall include symbols, quantities, common names, botanical names, size of plant materials, root specifications, and special planting instructions. d. Typical sections and details of fences, planting boxes, retaining walls, tot-lots, picnic areas, berms and other landscape improvements. e. Typical sections of landscape islands and planter beds with identification of materials used. f. Details of planting beds and foundation plantings. g. Delineation of both sodded and seeded areas indicated in square footage. h. Where landscape or inorganic materials are used to provide required screening from adjacent and neighboring properties, a cross section shall be provided at a legible scale illustrating the prospective of the site from the neighboring property and property line elevation. Subd. 3. Number of plant materials required: In order to achieve an appropriate and complete quality landscaping of a site, the following minimum number of plant materials shall be provided as indicated below: a. One (1) overstory deciduous shade tree for every two thousand (2,000) square feet of the total building footprint. b. One (1) coniferous tree for every two (2,000) square feet of building or one (1) coniferous tree for every two hundred (200) feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. c. One (1) understory shrub for every three hundred (300) square feet of building or one (1) shrub for every thirty (30) feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. d. One (1) ornamental tree for every two thousand (2,000) square feet of building or one (1) ornamental tree for every two hundred (200) feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. e. The number of plant materials required in Subdivision 3 a-d may be reduced by fifteen percent in each category in the I-1 districts. f. In the event a site plan layout does not have adequate space to accommodate plant quantities as required herein, such quantities per species can be reduced, provided that total required height or caliper is maintained. The Community Development Director or City Forester must approve all changes. 6 Subd. 4. Minimum size of plantings: a. Overstory deciduous – 2 ½ inch caliper. b. Coniferous – 6 feet in height as measured from grade. c. Shrubs – 24 inch plant (potted). d. Ornamental trees – 2 inch caliper. Subd. 5. Method of installation: All deciduous and coniferous trees shall be ball and burlap and staked and guyed per National Nurserymen’s Standards. All shrubs shall be potted. Subd. 6. Use of Landscaping for Screening: a. Where natural materials, such as trees or hedges are approved in lieu of the required screening by means of walls or fences, density and species of planting shall be such to achieve screening year round. Subd. 7. Maintenance. Property owners shall be responsible for the upkeep of all required plantings and landscape materials. Upon written notice from the City, a property owner shall be required to trim broken or damaged tree boughs, remove fallen trees or storm damaged trees and remove diseased trees as identified by the City Forester.2 Tree stumps shall be removed or ground down below grade. 1127.06 PLAN REVIEW PROCESS All tree inventories, preservation plans, forest management plans and landscape plans shall be reviewed by the City Forester. The Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission may also review such plans at the request of the Community Development Director or the City Forester. When such plans are required as part of a development application (e.g. development review, conditional use permit, minor or major subdivision) the Planning Commission and City Council shall have approval authority. For such plans submitted when no official planning action is necessary, the Community Development Director shall retain administrative approval authority. 1127.07 APPEAL PROCESS Landowners, developers and builders may appeal administrative decisions to the City Council. An appeal shall be filed in writing no more than fourteen (14) days following the date of the administrative decision by the City. The appeal shall be scheduled for consideration by City Council at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting which is at least seven (7) days from the date of the appeal. 2 Refer to Chapter 605, Tree Disease Control. 7 1127.08 VIOLATION AND PENALTIES Except as provided herein, no significant or specimen tree shall be removed from any property in the City of Mounds View. Any violation of any provision of this Chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor offense. Property owners having been cited for illegal tree removal may be fined up to $350 for each significant or specimen tree illegally removed. In addition to the punishment specified in this section, the City may enforce this Code by any other appropriate form of action which could include withholding a Certificate of Occupancy, forfeiture of all or part of a bond, escrow or financial guarantee and stoppage of the project. Item No: 6A Meeting Date: 03/07/07 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Proposed Tree Preservation & Landscaping Ordinance Background Staff has drafted a new ordinance for tree preservation and replacement, along with landscaping requirements. Currently the City has no restrictions to prevent property owners from removing trees, or requiring them to replace any removed trees. There are currently very general landscaping requirements in Chapter 1103.08 Subd. 4 but this ordinance now includes specific requirements. The main goals of this ordinance are to: encourage tree preservation especially during development, save larger existing trees, gain replacement trees when trees are removed, specify landscaping requirements for new development, and incorporate maintenance standards for landscaping such as removal of broken, fallen or diseased branches, trees or stumps. The City realizes that in some cases it is not reasonable to keep trees or wooded areas such as in the case of new construction, but would like to be able to have some trees preserved and/or replaced. There are exceptions to the replacement requirements such as disease, storms or other acts of natural occurrence, or trees lost as a result of utility trimming or maintenance. This ordinance does not necessarily require a property owner to replace every tree taken down. In many cases, the property owner may not be required to, or may not be able to, replace any or all of the removed trees. The ordinance puts a cap on the maximum number of replacement trees that would be required, depending on the size of the property and the amount of remaining trees. There are two primary situations where trees might be removed: tree removal on a site with building or grading permits, and tree removal where there is no other action occurring that would require a permit. Some examples of tree removal scenarios and how the ordinance could be used: 1. A property owner decides to clear their entire backyard of trees because they want more open space for their kids to play. Due to there being more than two trees removed, a Tree Plan would be required. Tree replacement would also be required, depending on the number of Significant and Specimen Trees, trees over 8 inches and 16 inches in diameter that are removed. The property owner would need to replace up to 5 trees on lots less than an acre, or up to 10 trees on lots exceeding an acre. Draft Tree Ordinance Report Page 2 2. A property owner would like to remove one 20-inch in diameter tree (a Specimen tree) in order to build a new garage. The property owner would be required to replace up to 5 trees on lots less than an acre, or up to 10 trees on lots exceeding an acre. This number may be lessened if the City determines that this number is not feasible. There will be properties where there would not be enough space to plant the required number of trees, or any trees at all. 3. A property owner would like to remove four trees from the front yard that are 8-10 inches in diameter (Significant trees) because they are blocking his view of a pond across the street. Since there is no development or grading happening in conjunction with this tree removal, a Tree Plan would be required. The property owner would be required to restore the density of trees to that which existed prior to the removal, but in no case shall the owner be required to increase the density on the subject property above ten (10) trees per acre or five (5) trees on lots of less than one acre. 4. A developer plans to build 12 new homes on a three acre wooded site. A professionally prepared Tree Plan would be required, which would include a tree inventory indicating which trees will be impacted as a result of the project, along with identifying healthy significant trees, specimen trees, woodlots and clumps of non-significant trees within the site. The tree inventory would clearly indicate which trees would be lost as a result of the development and which trees would be saved. The replacement standards for Significant and Specimen Trees would be applicable, which means up to 10 trees per acre, or 30 trees could be required to be planted. Any trees on site that were to be saved shall be protected during construction activities. The last main area of the ordinance is regarding landscaping. This will now require applications for development to be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan, along with indicating specific requirements for number of plants, minimum size of plantings, method of installation, using landscaping for screening and landscaping maintenance. An appeal process is available along with a violation and penalties section. Property owners may be fined up to $350 for each significant or specimen tree illegally removed. This amount may seem excessive, but it does state up to $350, and this amount reflects the true cost of replacement for a comparable tree. Other penalties could include withholding a Certificate of Occupancy for new development, forfeiture of all or part of a bond, escrow or financial guarantee and stoppage of a project if violations are extreme. The City Council reviewed and discussed this on Monday, March 5th, and Parks & Recreation Commission will also be reviewing the ordinance in the coming weeks. Tom Hughes, prosecuting attorney and Scott Riggs, City Attorney have reviewed the ordinance and made suggestions. Staff has been working closely with City Forrester Rick Wriskey to draft this ordinance. He would be happy to answer any questions 651-638-2125 or RWRISK@ci.new-brighton.mn.us. Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and discuss this draft ordinance.