Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-2007 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 2, 2007 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. April 4, 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. None 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Housing Replacement Program Guidelines and Criteria B. Discuss Expanding the Allowed Food/Restaurant Uses in a B-2 Zoning District 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 16, 2007 B. June 6, 2007 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. April 18, 2007 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 18, 2007 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order Chair Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. April 18, 2007. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson, Commissioners Cramblit, Gunn, Lang, Meehlhause, and Walsh-Kaczmarek. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Miller Also Present: Planning Associate Heller. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case DE2007-002: Application for a Development Review for an 2 11,000 square foot Manufacturing/Production Building 3. Approve Minutes A. March 21, 2007 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/Commissioner Lang, to approve the March 21, 2007 Meeting Minutes of the 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. DRAFT Mounds View Planning Commission April 18, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. Planning Case DE2007-002: Application for a Development Review for an 11,000 square foot Manufacturing/Production Building Planning Associate Heller reported Central Sandblasting, 2299 County Road H, would like to build a new approximately 11,000 square foot building on the west side of their property. She stated the expansion would increase the total building square footage by approximately 60 percent and several new employees would be added. She stated the look of the building would be similar to the current building. She commented clean up of the yard space has begun and would continue in preparation for construction. Planning Associate Heller stated the property is almost entirely either a gravel or asphalt surface, which allows ample available parking space. The new building will have some additional asphalt around it, with several additional designated parking spaces in the front. She reported staff is confident that the site could support the building expansion in regards to parking, since parking is available almost anywhere on site. Planning Associate Heller stated setback requirements are met and a 30-foot easement currently exists along the west property line. She commented Central Sandblasting proposes building a driveway over the easement, which was approved by Public Works on the condition that the applicant is aware the City is not responsible for repairs or replacement if for some reason it would need to be accessed by the City. Planning Associate Heller reported the applicant submitted an application to Rice Creek Watershed District for the expansion, grading, and drainage plans. She stated the applicant has received conditional approval from Rice Creek. She commented an acceptable storm water drainage plan is a condition of the approval. She explained that a storm water pond built by the City exists next to the building and Central Sandblasting had the foresight to buy into the pond a few years ago. Planning Associate Heller reported staff recommends approval. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek commented on point one of the resolution, which states the applicant shall asphalt, sod, and landscape all disturbed areas. She asked if this applies to the entire lot. Planning Associate Heller stated the plan is to put some asphalt around the new building; however, Rice Creek likes the pervious surface, so they will not be paving the entire site. Commissioner Gunn stated she is happy Central Sandblasting wants to stay and add to the community tax base. Planning Associate Heller commented there have been several commercial expansions in the last two years. Mounds View Planning Commission April 18, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson stated he hoped everything had been covered, as the resolution seems short. Planning Associate Heller replied this is a fairly straightforward application. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stated it says the applicant shall install asphalt. She asked if makes it possible to construct a more pervious material later. Commissioner Cramblit stated the only problem with pervious surfaces is the weight limits. He stated it is good for parking but not driving on with heavy trucks or equipment. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek, to approve Resolution 865-07, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Development Review for an Additional 11,000 Square Foot Building at 2299 County Road H; Mounds View Planning Case DE2007-002. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 2, 2007 B. May 16, 2007 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Mounds View Planning Commission April 18, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 6A Meeting Date: May 2, 2007 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review Housing Replacement Program Guidelines and Criteria Introduction: The Mounds View Economic Development Authority (EDA) provides the funding for the City’s Housing Replacement Program. The Mounds View EDA reviewed the program guidelines at their meeting on April 9, 2007 and suggested the Planning Commission also conduct a review and recommend any changes which may be considered appropriate. Created in 1995, the Housing Replacement Program is a voluntary program that allows the City to purchase blighted residential properties from willing sellers. A secondary component of the program involves providing demolition assistance for property owners who would like to remain in the community rather than building new elsewhere. Due to concerns raised by the Office of the State Auditor (which were resolved in 2004) the program had seen little use until recently. This report will serve as an opportunity to review the program guidelines and funding criteria. Any suggested changes would be forwarded back to the EDA for their consideration. Discussion: Purpose: The purpose of the Housing Replacement Program, as stated in the attached program summary, is to reduce the social costs of blight, improve residential neighborhoods and increase the tax base. Objectives: There are three stated objectives for this program—replace deteriorated lower value housing with larger, higher valued housing; eliminate blight; and increase the availability of quality housing for families. Criteria: The home will likely be substandard in some way or exhibit some level of blight. This is defined as follows: 1. Substandard as to condition, property value, size or usage. 2. Obsolete and having a faulty design for block and area in which it is located. 3. Deterioration which has caused blight to other adjoining properties 4. Detrimental to the safety or health of abutting properties in the block. Participation in the program is voluntary! To acquire a property for demolition and resale, the parcel must be represented on the list created in 2004 to satisfy concerns raised by the Office of the State Auditor. The City is under no obligation whatsoever to acquire a property, and the mere presence of a property on the list should not be construed as the City’s intent to acquire. HRP Report May 2, 2007 Page 2 Demolition: The program has a second funding option for property owners who desire to remain in the community by providing demolition assistance. (See attached article from the Dec 14, 2000 edition of the Focus.) The house must still satisfy the “blight” criteria but there is no requirement that it be represented on “the List”. There are no criteria that apply to the demolition assistance, thus anyone—regardless of income, need, years in the community—could be eligible. That said, while all funding requests are approved at the discretion of the EDA, the EDA feels there should be some criteria to ensure program dollars are being spent appropriately. Potential Criteria: It would seem to make sense that there should be some funding guidelines associated with the demolition component of the program, aside from property eligibility. The following are a few potential criteria the Planning Commission could consider for inclusion in the program: • Financial status of applicant (funding could be based on “need”) • Residency requirement (applicant must be a resident for certain number of years) • Ownership requirement (applicant shall have owned and lived in the property) • Neighborhood analysis (city may want to target a specific neighborhood) • Maximum Award (Cap the total award to a maximum amount) • Deferred Loan (Require residency to receive full benefit of the grant) Financial Status: It is somewhat difficult to determine financial need and it may even be problematic to require that the applicant demonstrate financial hardship in this regard. The City would NOT want to provide such assistance to an individual who might be financially unable to complete the rebuild of the home, thus it may be the case that the applicant demonstrate that funding has been secured for the new home construction to be eligible for the demolition assistance. On the other hand, if an applicant is wealthy and is applying for the assistance because he or she can, the City may want criteria that guards against providing assistance to those without a need. Residency Requirement: Funding could be prioritized to benefit residents who have lived in the community for a certain number of years. This potential requirement however may preclude demolition of certain abandoned or vacant “distressed” homes whose owners have defaulted or walked away from the property. If applications are reviewed and “pointed”, perhaps bonus points could be applied to resident applications. Ownership Requirement: The program requirements could be revised to ONLY apply to applicants who have lived in the subject property for a minimum number of years. Adopting such a provision again would preclude demolition of abandoned or vacant “distressed” homes whose owners have defaulted or walked away from the property. While such a requirement makes sense, it might be advisable to build some discretion into the requirement as it might be in the City’s best interest to encourage a demolition rather than see a piece-meal rehab of a blighted property. HRP Report May 2, 2007 Page 3 Neighborhood Analysis: The program guidelines already state the following--Properties should be equally distributed by location and value throughout the City when possible, and provide a viable financial mix of properties to support Program financial requirements. Maximum Award: The guidelines presently do not “cap” the amount of the demolition assistance. The last grant approved by the EDA through the Housing Replacement Program (approved on March 12, 2007) limited the assistance to no more than $8,000 which almost covered the full cost of the demolition. A previous demolition grant on Fairchild Avenue exceeded $10,000. Establishing a cap, or a “not to exceed” amount, may make sense if adjusted from time to time to account for inflation. Deferred Loan: The EDA felt that tying the demolition assistance to the property in the form of a forgivable loan made sense as a means to protect against someone using the assistance and then selling the new home for a substantial profit. Ramsey County and the Housing Resource Center both offer some types of assistance which appears as a lien or second mortgage on the home, with the amount of the loan forgiven in total after so many years in the house. If the property owner sells the home after one year, perhaps 20% of the loan is forgiven, after two years, perhaps 40% is forgiven, and so on. Certainly other criteria could be added beyond these mentioned above. Ultimately, the desired outcome in any event is to encourage neighborhood revitalization and reinvestment; eliminate blighted housing and enhance the tax base. Recommendation: Review the attached program guidelines. The EDA would like the Planning Commission to discuss potential criteria to assist with the demolition assistance component of the Housing Replacement Program. Based on the Commission’s suggestions, staff will prepare the requested modifications and a resolution recommending approval of the program guidelines. _____________________ Jim Ericson Community Development Director Item No: 6B Meeting Date: May 2, 2007 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss the Consideration of Expanding the Allowable Food/Restaurant Uses in a B-2 Zoning District Introduction: In November 2005, Kraus Anderson, the property management company for Silver View Plaza, requested a rezoning of the property from a B-2, Limited Business, to B-3, Highway Business. When the Planning Commission heard this request in 2005, they wanted to be able to help Kraus Anderson find tenants, but yet not in favor of intensifying the zoning for the property due to parking and circulation issues. The idea of expanding some of the uses allowed in a B-2 zoning district was discussed, particularly restaurants, and the Commissioners seemed open to this idea. The mall is currently over 50% vacant and Kraus Anderson is again asking for help with the types of businesses allowed on this property. Background: Silverview Plaza opened in 1988, and later that same year, a rezoning was requested from B-2 to B-3, which was denied due to concerns regarding inadequate parking availability. Despite this, for many years after opening, the facility experienced full or nearly full occupancy. The current zoning designation, B-2, allows for less intense commercial and service oriented businesses such as laundromats, locksmiths, delicatessens, financial offices, florists, sporting goods and hardware to name a few. The property owner again requested to rezone the property to B-3 in November 2005 due to the increase in vacancy, which would allow for all uses within the B-2 district plus more intense commercial uses such as restaurants, auto parts and auto repair, motel or hotels and gas stations. That request, like the one in 1988, was also denied due to concerns with parking availability and circulation. The present tenant mix at Silverview Plaza include a niche fruit arrangement vendor, a pizza delivery service, a chiropractic office, a florist, a women’s exercise gym, a hair salon and hardware/specialty tool store. Discussion: The current allowable uses for food in a B-2 zoning district include bakery goods and baking of foods for retail sales on the premises; candy or ice cream type store; a delicatessen where the only cooking onsite would be limited to an oven/pizza oven; frozen food store but not including a locker plant; or a meat market, not including processing for a locker plant. All of these businesses only need a few parking spaces for very short-term parking. There are a few different ways of expanding the scope of food/restaurant businesses that could be allowed in a B-2 district; by square footage of the floor space, by the number of seats allowed in the restaurant, or by adding descriptions for additional restaurant types. B-2 Restaurant Uses discussion Page 2 Another topic to consider with allowing more types of restaurants, is liquor sales. Currently the code allows off-sale liquor sales in a B-2 district, and on-sale liquor sales only in a B-3 district. A liquor license must be approved by the City Council for any establishment to sell liquor, either off-sale or on-sale, but there is also an “on-sale wine license” in which the business is limited to only wine sales. With on-sale liquor licenses, if the business does not have at least 60% of their sales from food, there is a minimum setback of 500 feet from a school or church. There are no schools or churches currently within 500 feet, but that would have to be taken into consideration by the property managers for new tenants, as there was a school leasing space in the mall at one time. Comparisons: Staff reviewed five other cities zoning codes to determine how others regulate restaurants. The five cities were Fridley, Arden Hills, Maplewood, Roseville and New Brighton. New Brighton’s code pertaining to restaurants is similar to Mounds View, and the rest all allow restaurants in a B-2 or lower zoning district. All the cities do require restaurants with a drive up/drive thru to be in a higher zoning district and/or have a conditional or special use permit. Recommendation: Review staff report and discuss increasing the allowable restaurant uses in business zoning districts. ________________________ Heidi Heller Planning Associate Comparisons for food and restaurants allowed in business/commercial zoning districts in other cities Fridley: - Defines three “class” levels of restaurants - Allows a Class I restaurant in a Commercial 1, C-1 zoning district - Allows a Class II restaurant in a C-1 district with a Special Use Permit - Allows Classes I, II and III restaurants in C-2 and higher zoning districts - Allows “drive-in: restaurants and bars and taverns with a Special Use Permit in a C-2 district o A Class I restaurant is any restaurant or cafeteria, where food is served to, or selected by, a customer for consumption primarily on the premises, and which do not sell or serve liquor. o A Class II restaurant is any restaurant which has 25% or more of their sales taken away from the premises for consumption and which may serve beer and/or wine for consumption on the premises. Class II restaurants include, but are not limited to, take-out pizza parlors and fast food establishments. o A Class III restaurant is any sit down restaurant which serves food and intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises. o A Drive-in restaurant is any restaurant which sells, serves or offers goods or services directly to customers who are either waiting in parked vehicles or who return to their vehicles to consume or use the goods or services while on the premises. Arden Hills: - Allow restaurants under 3,000 square feet in the Neighborhood Business NB zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit, but not any restaurant which exceeds 40% liquor sales. - Allows restaurants in B-2 and higher zoning district, fast food restaurant requires a Conditional Use Permit - Allows restaurants with a Conditional Use Permit in the Civic Center CC District. Maplewood: - Allows restaurants with a Conditional Use Permit in the Neighborhood Commercial NC zoning district that do not exceed 8,000 square feet; no drive-up order windows or serving food to patrons in their automobiles. - Allows restaurants in Commercial Office CO zoning district; no drive-in or “fast food type” restaurants or where a sizeable portion of the total activity is takeout orders. - Allows restaurants and on-sale liquor businesses in Business Commercial BC zoning district - Allows restaurants with a Conditional Use Permit in Business Commercial Modified BC(M) district; no drive-in restaurant or ones with drive-up food windows - Allows restaurants and on-sale liquor businesses in the Shopping Center SC district Roseville: - Allows all classes of restaurants in Limited Retail B1-B and higher zoning districts, with Class II, IV and V restaurants requiring a Conditional Use Permit - Class II and IV restaurants not allowed in Retail Office Service B-4 zoning districts. o Restaurant Class I Traditional – no liquor and drive-thru allowed, including café, buffet, coffee shop, deli o Restaurant Class II Fast Food Convenience – without drive-thru, including café, coffee shop, deli o Restaurant Class II Fast Food Convenience – the same with drive-thru facilities o Restaurant Class III Traditional – with intoxicating/non-intoxicating liquor (3.2 beer, wine & strong beer) o Restaurant IV Traditional – the same with live entertainment or dancing o Restaurant V Drive-in – convenience served primarily at vehicle o Restaurant Class VI Take-Out & Delivery – prepared food picked-up or delivered to customers New Brighton: - Allows the sale and manufacture of baked goods and the sale of confectionary, dairy products, delicatessen, fruits, vegetables, groceries and meats in permanent buildings only in a Neighborhood Business B-2 zoning district - Allows eating places, lunchrooms, restaurants, and cafeterias when housed and used in conjunction with other businesses permitted in the B-2 District - Allows the sale of food and beverages of all kinds including the sale for consumption on the premises in a General Business B-3 or higher zoning district - Allows eating places of all types in a General Business B-3 or higher zoning district