Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-2006 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA April 19, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. February 15, 2006 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. CU2006-002: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for an Over-size garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road Applicant: Don & Diane Balk Address: 8478 Long Lake Road B. CU2000-004: Reconsideration of an Expired Conditional Use Permit for an Over-size Garage Applicant: Tom Stampfle Address: 2832 Woodale Drive 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review City Code related to retaining walls and fences B. Discuss Economic Development funding priorities and philosophy 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 3, 2006 – location to be determined B. May 17, 2006 at New Brighton City Hall 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session *NOTE LOCATION* NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL 803 Old Highway 8 NW PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 15, 2006 New Brighton City Hall 803 Old Highway 8 NW, New Brighton, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. March 15, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planning Associate Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case CU2006-001. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit For an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8 02 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes February 1, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Miller. To approve the Minutes of the February 1, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes –7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Val and Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated they have an in-ground pool in their backyard with a six-foot high fence around it. City code requires a five foot fence and their insurance company requires a six foot fence for liability. Last year their neighbor to the east, with a permit, constructed a two-foot retaining wall adjacent to their fence. The Amundsens feel this wall causes the fence to not meet the six-foot requirement, as well as is a liability if someone climbs over the fence with wall assistance, uses the pool, and there is an injury or death. They Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ contacted Community Development staff about their concerns and Community Development Director Ericson responded to them with a letter. He suggested that an option would be to raise their fence, but the Amundsens feel offended since their fence has been there for 15 years and the retaining wall has only been there since last year, so why should they have to bear the cost of a new fence. Chair Stevenson stated that he and his neighbor have this exact same situation and they have never had a problem, although he agreed that someone could go over the fence with retaining wall assistance and asked what the distance from the wall to the fence is. Ms. Amundsen replied two to three inches. Commissioner Miller asked what the purpose of the retaining wall is. She also asked what the fence is made out of. Ms. Amundsen replied the neighbor wants to put a car between his garage and the fence. She added their fence is green treated pine. Commissioner Hegland asked if the landscaping has changed. He also asked if the retaining wall is complete. Ms. Amundsen replied the landscaping has changed but she is unsure if the wall is complete. She added they are also concerned that the neighbor has created a three-inch, two-foot gully that constantly fills with debris and will probably start deteriorating their fence over time. They tried speaking with their neighbor but got nowhere, so they contacted Director Ericson. Commissioner Zwirn asked if their neighbor discussed putting up the wall before it was erected and if so, did the Amundsens address the liability issue at that time. Ms. Amundsen replied they tried to dissuade him from putting up the wall but he was not willing to discuss it. She added they did not discuss liability at that time since it just occurred to them when they received their insurance statement. Mr. Amundsen stated they are here tonight in hopes that the Commission would give direction to the building department to contact the neighbor and have them remove the wall. The wall runs about 30 feet along the entire side of the neighbors garage next to the property line. Director Ericson replied the neighbor cannot concrete the area, but changing the grading is allowed. Commissioner Zwirn asked what the wall is made of and, if wood, is it treated. Mr. Amundsen replied old treated 2 x 6 pieces against 4 x 4 posts, which were removed from the house’s wheelchair access. Fill was brought in from a new home constructed on Pleasant View Drive in order to bring the grade level with the driveway. Commissioner Hegland asked if, as an option, their neighbor were required to construct a six- foot fence along with the retaining wall, would it solve their problem. He also asked if, as another option, they would be interested in the neighbors paying for them to extend their fence. Mr. Amundsen replied the neighbor constructing a fence would solve their problem. He added they are trying to avoid any additional expenses. Ms. Amundsen noted her concern would be that the neighbor uses whatever materials he can find. Commissioner Hull asked if their insurance premiums increased or will increase. Mr. Amundsen replied they have not; however, they have not brought the issue to the insurance company yet because they were hoping to work it out with the City. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn noted any audit by the insurance company would show the footage difference. He asked how far away the fence is from the pool. Mr. Amundsen replied if there is an incident and/or someone is injured, the insurance company would do an audit. He added the distance from the pool to the fence is 50 to 60 feet. Mr. Amundsen referenced a letter they received letter from Director Ericson stating the situation will be left as is. Director Ericson replied he appreciates the concerns the Amundsens are raising and previously asked the City attorney to review the issue from a legal standpoint. The City attorney’s position is that the fence, in its present condition with the retaining wall, is in compliance with code. It is still a six foot fence. The attorney added that the actions from one neighbor cannot restrict or prohibit another from doing something that is legal. A letter was sent to the Amundsens stating that their fence is in compliance with City code and indicated they could increase the height of their fence if they so desired, but did not suggest that they had to do this. He added the City cannot make their neighbor remove the retaining wall. Ms. Amundsen stated one neighbor’s action cannot obligate or restrict use of another’s property; however, the neighbor has restricted the use of their property because they cannot use the pool now due to the retaining wall. She added the City should err on who was there first and safety of the neighborhood. Commissioner Scotch stated they could bring a forward a motion to revisit the code. Director Ericson replied he appreciates the interpretation but the retaining wall does not restrict the Amundsens from using their pool. He added he does not want to suggest the City cares less for safety or for the Amundsens, but the law states the City cannot request the wall be removed. He suggested if they would like to pursue the issue, they could address City Council at their next meeting on March 27 with the City attorney present. Commissioner Zwirn noted whatever agreement the parties come up with is fine, but unless the insurance companies are involved in this process the agreement is null and void. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case CU2006-001. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8. Planning Associate Heller reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Merlin Brisbin of Star Environmental, Inc., is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8, site of the Skyline Motel. The applicant has a signed purchase agreement with the current owners of the motel. The applicant is proposing to construct an 11,200 square foot building and a small additional accessory building. Planning Associate Heller stated the subject property is currently zoned industrial. An environmental processing center would be allowed as a conditional use in an industrial district. With every Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning Commission is required to review and address any potential adverse effects which include the 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. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller stated that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the expansion of existing businesses and introduction of new businesses within Mounds View. The area continues to be designated industrial on the Future Land Use Map so the use would not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The proposed business would be on the edge of the Mounds View Industrial Park so the proposed business would not be out of place for this industrial area. Planning Associate Heller stated that the proposed processing center would be a new, attractive building and the applicant will have invested several million dollars into this project when completed. This site is in an industrial area and the processing center would be much more appropriate than the current use of a motel. The motel has been a problem due to the amount of police calls that it generates. The proposed business would not cause any depreciation to the area. Planning Associate Heller stated that the applicant expects to have 3-4 trucks per hour from 7am – 7pm on weekdays, and from 8am – 3pm on Saturday coming into the processing center. October is the busiest month for them so traffic would increase to about 7 trucks per hour during this month. They are hoping to work with their haulers in order to not have such a rush during the one month. Traffic counts on Old Highway 8 are 6,800 vehicles per day, so even during their peak traffic time, this business would only increase traffic on Old Highway 8 by a little over one percent. This area is already a heavy truck traffic area due to the neighboring businesses, so this amount of additional traffic would not be out of place. Planning Associate Heller stated that the Metropolitan Council and Mounds View Public Works department have already determined that the water and sewer lines that currently serve this property have adequate capacity for this business. The site also has good access onto nearby highways and freeways. Planning Associate Heller stated that the applicant has owned and operated the “Sewerman” business for over 25 years and understands the need for this type of business in Minnesota now. This would be a state of the art facility and the applicant has full support from the Met Council. Staff has reviewed the potential adverse effects and feels that the proposal adequately satisfies the conditional use criteria and would not adversely affect the surrounding area. Planning Associate Heller noted that a public hearing will be held when the conditional use permit application goes to the City Council for approval, and a meeting with the neighboring manufactured home park will be held to inform them of the proposed business. She recommended the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit as requested. At this time the applicant, Mr. Merlin Brisbin was introduced so he could do a presentation about the proposed business. Mr. Brisbin stated he has been in the sewer business for 29 years. The need for this type of business in the metro area was brought to his attention when the Met Council decided to start closing their disposal sites. He provided a slide presentation detailing the general facility design, state of the art equipment, and the process, indicating there will be no hazardous materials. The separation area will be clean and odor-controlled. One to four trucks per hour will come through the plant, with seven trucks per hour at peak times during the fall. He showed an example of the end product, indicating it is a non-toxic, dry, compost like material and listed EPA suggested Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ beneficial uses, such as selling as compost. He mentioned that there are a couple similar facilities in other states, such as Washington and Michigan. Commissioner Miller asked how long it would take to unload a truck. She noted possible public concerns regarding noise and odor. Mr. Brisbin replied unloading a truck only takes 7 to 10 minutes and would happen completely inside the building. He added there would be no noise or odor. Commissioner Zwirn asked what happens to the end product. He also asked if anything is stored onsite. Mr. Brisbin replied the dry end product is shipped offsite with nothing stored onsite. Commissioner Scotch asked the location and how long the factory in Michigan has been in operation. She also asked about equipment maintenance. Mr. Brisbin replied the factory is in Traverse City and has been open for two years. He added the equipment needs to be maintained about every 10 years. Daily, sprayers wash down the equipment and workers clean the floor and polish the machines. Chair Stevenson asked if the same trucks take back the filtrated water. Mr. Brisbin replied it goes from their equipment straight into the Met Council’s line, the City sewer line. Commissioner Zwirn asked where the 5,000 gallon tanks shown on the building plan will be located and the composition. Mr. Brisbin replied the tanks will be inside the plant above ground and are made of ¼ inch steel. Commissioner Scotch asked how often they expect EPA inspections. Leo Hermes from the Met Council replied that Merlin’s business would need to get permits from the Met Council who would regulate and inspect the business in place of the EPA. Currently the program involves discharge points into the system. This processing center will eliminate a number of disposal sites and improve others; therefore, there is a need for this within the private sector. Like other companies, this business would be permitted and they would need to comply with the rules and pay the City for sewer use. Commissioner Miller asked how large of an area trucks will come from to use this facility. Mr. Hermes replied they would be able to close four of their sites in the northern suburbs; Forest Lake, Coon Rapids, Brooklyn Park and Plymouth, since trucks would come mainly from the northern metro area. Commissioner Scotch asked about toxicity and how often it would be monitored. Mr. Hermes replied the Met Council Environmental Services issues permits that stand in place of a state or federal permit. He added it is unlikely the EPA would come in unless there was an issue. There is a staff of engineers from the Met Council that inspect these facilities at least once a year, if not more. Commissioner Zwirn asked why the Met Council wants to close these outer facilities. Mr. Hermes replied the type of materials entering the system has caused problems with losing pipe capacity and corrosion. There is currently no monitoring at these sites so haulers are dumping things that shouldn’t be put in the sewer system, which is adding to the build up and corrosion of Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ their pipes. And with the expected growth over the next 30 years in the Twin Cities, the amount of septage will only be increasing. Commissioner Hegland asked how odor is controlled. Brian Oakley, MFRA, replied odor is controlled with a bio-filter. Commissioner Hegland asked what if the bio-filter becomes inadequate or ineffective and what is done to ensure there are no problems. He also asked what the time frame is to rebuild the filter if they do have a problem. Mr. Oakley replied the bio-filter is simple technology involving the air from the equipment and the building being piped into the bottom of the bio-filter and as it rises, it goes through a layer of woodchips where a biological process happens to remove the odor from the air. The bio-filter does require some maintenance in that it needs to be kept wet. He added segmenting the wood chips would help ensure odor prevention. Commissioner Hegland asked how often the wood chips need to be replaced and what is done with the old chips. Mr. Brisbin replied that the chips do deteriorate over time and about every five years they would be replaced with the old chips going to a landfill. Commissioner Miller asked the location of the bio-filter. She also asked how big the bio-filter is. Mr. Oakley replied it would be outside at ground level. Mr. Brisbin replied there would be two pieces of equipment, with the size being determined later because it needs to be designed to fit the application based on the amount of air being treated. Commissioner Scotch asked why that site was chosen. Mr. Brisbin replied the site is centrally located for all haulers in the north metro area. The center needs to be within a 15 miles radius of the four Met Council sites that they would like to close. Mounds View is within that radius for all four of the sites. Commissioner Zwirn asked what the bio-filter area looks like. Mr. Oakley replied it looks like a garden with no plants; it is all wood chips. Commissioner Miller asked about snow covering the wood chips. Mr. Brisbin replied the air is coming from the building so it is warm and will melt the snow and water will trickle through to keep the chips wet and drain below them. Commissioner Hegland asked where the water will drain to if it is excessive. Mr. Brisbin replied to the sewer. There are pipes in the bottom of the bio-filter to drain excess water out of it in case of heavy rains. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the wood chips could be walked on and, if so, would air be forced up so a person would know they were walking on it. Mr. Oakley replied the chips would be about 3-4 feet deep and could be walked on. Mr. Brisbin replied air is moving upward at only four feet per minute so it is so slow moving that it wouldn’t be noticeable, and it dissipates by the time it reaches the surface. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To table Resolution 828-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8 until the next Planning Commission Meeting so more information can be obtained; Planning Case No. CU2006-001. Ayes – 3 Nays – 4 (Miller, Meehlhause, Hull, Stevenson) Motion failed. Commissioner Miller suggested language be added regarding an annual review of the permit. Commissioner Hegland suggested language be added regarding how to deal with odor if it is an issue in the future. Director Ericson stated there is a requirement in the city code, Section 607.03, which addresses noise and odor. He added he is not sure the Commission can come up with standards because no other cities have them. He suggested something be added to the resolution that indicates the operation will be shut down if the smell is a nuisance. Commissioner Scotch noted concerns regarding odorless toxicity and asked how it is being controlled in Michigan. Mr. Brisbin replied the trucks are closed and the contents go through piping into the bio-filter. Chair Stevenson stated there must be odor monitors that can be put in place. Mr. Oakley replied there aren’t any. Chair Stevenson stated Section 607.03 of the city code allows for the facility to be shut down and asked if any other language is needed. Director Ericson replied additional information could be added. Commissioner Miller verified that language stating the permit will be reviewed annually has been added to the resolution. Director Ericson replied yes. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 828-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8; Planning Case No. CU2006-001. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1 (Zwirn) Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Issues to Bring to Joint City Council – Planning Commission Workshop Community Development Director Ericson stated City Council has requested a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to be held on March 20 at New Brighton City Hall. He added at this time he has no recommendations and although Council has no recommendations they thought it would be good to sit down and talk with all the city commissions. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch suggested the Planning Commission discuss issues such as the retaining wall, pool and fence that was discussed tonight. B. Review Planning Commission Bylaws Community Development Director Ericson stated although no changes are expected, the Planning Commission bylaws need to be reviewed annually to stay consistent with code. Chair Stevenson stated he sees no needed changes at this time. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To accept the Planning Commission Bylaws. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Director Ericson stated there are no planning cases to present on April 5, 2006. He suggested the April 5 meeting be cancelled and the next Planning Commission meeting would be April 19. Chair Stevenson asked the Commission if there were any objections to canceling the April 5 meeting and holding the next Planning Commission on April 19. Hearing none, stated the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on April 19. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: April 19, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Cheryl Felix TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. March 15, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. March 27 and April 10, 2006 City Council Meetings and April 3, 2006 Worksession b. Harstad Project Update c. Medtronic Project Update d. Premium Stop Update e. Upcoming Planning Cases f. Walkable Community Workshop on May 11, 2006 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting Date: April 19, 2006 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Over- size Garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road Introduction: The applicants, Don and Diane Balk, reside at 8478 Long Lake Road and own the vacant lot adjacent to the west at the corner of Long Lake Road (formerly County Road J) and Sunnyside Road. The Balks would like to build a new home on the vacant lot and sell their old home. A conditional use permit is required because the Balks have a recreational vehicle that they would like to park inside the garage, and in so doing, had to expand the footprint of the garage to 1,062 square feet. The maximum sized garage permissible without a CUP is 952 square feet. Without the extra depth needed for the RV (an additional nine feet) the garage would not necessitate a CUP. Discussion: Section 1106.4, Subdivision 6, lists the specific conditional use permit requirements for garages larger than 952 square feet. These requirements, such as setbacks and maximum square-footage are all satisfied with this proposal. The setback for an attached garage is five feet; the applicants are proposing to construct the garage six feet from the south side property line and 30 feet from the front lot line, matching the setback of the home to the south of the vacant lot. The Code sets an upper limit of accessory storage space on a property at 1,800 square feet. The square footage of the proposed garage is 1,062 square feet, which would still allow for a shed to be constructed at some point in the future, if the applicants so desired. Adverse Effects & CUP Requirements As is the case with every conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission is required to consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The findings of the Planning Commission shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: • Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. • The Geographical Area Involved • Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. • The Character of the Surrounding Area • The demonstrated need for such a use. Balk Report April 19, 2006 Page 2 The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8495 Sunnyside Road, as low- density residential. Most of the lots in this area of Mounds View exceed the minimum area requirements and are able to support larger garages. The proposed garage, as viewed from the street, would not appear to be an oversized garage, as the proposed two-story house dominates the view. Given that the garage is attached and designed to blend into the house façade, it is not believed that the construction of the proposed 1,062 square-foot garage would depreciate the neighborhood in any way. This proposal would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would fit with the general character of the neighborhood. The over- size garage would allow the applicants the opportunity to park their RV inside rather than outside, which is a clear demonstration of need. Staff has reviewed the building plans and visited the vacant lot and believes that the proposed garage would maintain a sense of balance and proportion on the property. There do not appear to be any adverse effects resulting from this proposal. According to Section 1125.01, Subd. 3, of the Zoning Code, the City is to consider eight general conditional use permit requirements in addition to the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission. These general criteria with responses are as follows: 1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. It is not expected that the oversized garage would have any impact on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve this area. 2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. The garage would not appear to be any larger than a standard three-car garage but for the added length of the RV stall, which will be blended into the design of the house. 3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The garage and house will be new construction and should not cause any adverse impacts to adjoining property owners. 4. The use, in the opinion of the City, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. A three stall garage is not out of the ordinary, and the added depth of the third stall will allow for the applicant’s RV to be parked inside rather than outside. Balk Report April 19, 2006 Page 3 5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The City Code conditionally allows for garages larger than 952 square feet as long as certain requirements and criteria are met. This proposal satisfies all dimensional and zoning requirements. 6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and physical improvement or residential lots as one means of protecting and enhancing property values. 7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. The proposed garage would not cause and traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The proposed garage will not necessitate any utilities above and beyond what is already provided to the site. Public Notice The City Council will hold a public hearing regarding this request on April 24, 2006. Property owners within 350 of the subject parcel have been notified of the hearing as well as a notice published in the New Brighton Bulletin. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing regarding a different matter relating to the new garage, that being a variance to allow for an increase in the height of a garage. The maximum height for a garage is 15 feet, and to fit the RV inside, the applicants show a height of 20 feet, however the garage is designed so as to blend into the rest of the two-story house, the profile which will stand taller than the attached garage. Staff has included the proposed building elevations for your information. Summary The applicants are seeking approval of a conditional use permit to permit a 1,062 square foot garage. The garage would be 110 square feet larger than the maximum allowed without a CUP yet 738 square feet smaller than the maximum with a CUP. The applicants are proposing only the minimum area required to satisfy their needs. The Conditional Use Permit may be considered separate and apart from the variance. Balk Report April 19, 2006 Page 4 Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the information relating to the CUP application and if supportive of the request, approve Resolution 830-06, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit to Don and Diane Balk for the construction of a 1,062 square foot garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plans 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Resolution 830-06 Zoning Map 8495 Sunnyside Road Photographic Documentation Looking west, through the vacant lot toward the Balk house at 8478 Long Lake Road. Looking south through the vacant lot toward 8485 Sunnyside Road MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 830-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OVER-SIZED GARAGE AT 8495 SUNNYSIDE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. CU06-002 WHEREAS, the applicants, Don and Diane Balk, have requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 1,062 square-foot attached garage associated with a new home to be built at 8495 Sunnyside Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Balk’s Addition Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Zoning Map b. Planning Application c. Proposed Floor Plan c. Proposed Building Elevations d. Photographic Documentation e. Property Survey f. Staff Report NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the reapproval request: 1. The proposal satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 of the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved in that the lot is rather large and expanded garages are commonplace residential structural improvements which help keep properties neat and orderly. Resolution 830-06 Page 2 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood in that the garage would seamlessly blend into the design of the new, two-story home. 5. The proposed oversized garage would be adequately screened by the subject home, mature trees and a garage on the adjacent property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends re-approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall arrange to record the City Council resolution approving the conditional use permit with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within sixty days of Council approval or this permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 3. The garage shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the existing dwelling. 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 City Council. 5. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit in no way infers approval of any subsequent planning request. The height of the proposed garage shall satisfy the minimum requirements unless a variance is approved to allow a greater height. 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 19th day of April, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: April 19, 2006 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Re-consideration of an Expired Conditional Use Permit for an Over-size Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive Introduction: The applicant, Thomas Stampfle, is requesting re-approval of a conditional use permit to construct a 1,248 square-foot garage on his property located at 2832 Woodale Drive. The CUP was originally approved in 2000, but because the garage was no built within a year’s time, the CUP expired. The wooded 37,000 square-foot lot is well maintained and improved with a one and a half story cape cod and a small two-car garage attached to the home by a breezeway. The existing garage will be demolished to make room for the proposed garage, which would be built in the same location attached to the breezeway in the side yard. There is a small 10 x 10 shed on the property, hidden from view in the backyard. Discussion: The City Code, in Section 1125.01, Subd 3f, indicates the following: f. Lapse of Conditional Use Permit by Nonuse: Whenever, within one year after granting a conditional use permit, the work as permitted by the permit shall not have been completed, then such permit shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. Such extension shall be requested, in writing, and filed with the City Clerk-Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original conditional use permit. There shall be no charge for the filing of such petition. The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete the work permitted in the conditional use permit. Such petition shall be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation and to the City Council for a decision. Mr. Stampfle is now prepared to move forward with the construction, however because the time elapsed from the date of approval exceeds one year, an extension would not be possible and thus a reapproval is necessary. The construction plans dropped off by Mr. Stampfle are consistent with what was approved by the City on May 22, 2000. The resolution of approval (Resolution 5441) is attached for the Commission’s reference. Section 1106.4, Subdivision 6, lists the specific conditional use permit requirements for garages larger than 952 square feet. These requirements, such as setbacks and maximum square-footage remain satisfied with this proposal. The setback for an accessory structure is five feet; the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the garage 10 feet from the side property line and 70 feet from the street. The Code sets an upper limit of accessory storage space on a property at 1,800 square feet. With the proposed garage and the shed in the rear yard, there would be 1,348 square feet of accessory buildings on this lot, well within the maximum allowed. Stampfle CUP Report April 19, 2006 Page 2 Adverse Effects & CUP Requirements As is the case with every conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission is required to consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The findings of the Planning Commission shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: • Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. • The Geographical Area Involved • Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. • The Character of the Surrounding Area • The demonstrated need for such a use. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2832 Woodale Drive, as low-density residential. Most of the lots in this area of Mounds View are exceed the minimum requirements and are able to support larger garages. There is a good mix of housing styles in the neighborhood, some of which are traditional, others, including the home adjacent to the east, are more eclectic or avant-garde. Given the size of the lot, a privacy fence along the east side property line and the wooded condition of the lot, it is not believed that the construction of the proposed 1,248 square-foot garage would depreciate the neighborhood in any way. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and would fit with the general character of the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated that the existing garage is in poor condition and needs to be replaced. Given the inconvenient location of the shed, the expanded garage area would offer additional convenient storage space. Staff inspected the property and believes that the proposed garage would not appear out of place, would be more than adequately screened from the neighbors and would maintain a sense of balance and proportion on the property. There do not appear to be any adverse effects resulting from this proposal. According to Section 1125.01, Subd. 3, of the Zoning Code, the City is to consider eight general conditional use permit requirements in addition to the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission. These general criteria with responses are as follows: 1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. It is not expected that the oversized garage would have any impact on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve this area. 2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. Stampfle CUP Report April 19, 2006 Page 2 In addition to a privacy fence alongside the existing garage, this lot is wooded which acts as a natural buffer and screen between the proposed garage and neighboring properties. It is not expected that the proposed garage would detrimentally impact either the subject property or the adjacent and neighboring properties. 3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The garage would be sided and painted to match the appearance of the breezeway and home. A stipulation to this affect is included in the resolution. 4. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. Given adequate lot size and screening, the Planning Commission and City Council have indicated that oversized garages are a positive improvement to a property and provides for additional storage space for vehicles and other things that might otherwise be stored outside. 5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The City Code conditionally allows for garages larger than 952 square feet as long as certain requirements and criteria are met. This proposal satisfies all dimensional and zoning requirements. 6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and physical improvement or residential lots as one means of protecting and enhancing property values. 7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. The proposed garage would not cause and traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The proposed garage will not necessitate any utilities above and beyond what is already provided to the site. Stampfle CUP Report April 19, 2006 Page 3 Previous Planning Commission Action: On May 17, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed the conditional use permit request to allow for the construction of the 1,248 square-foot garage. No residents appeared before the Commission to voice objection. The Commission reviewed the adverse effects criteria as outlined in Section 1125.01, Sub. 1e, of the Zoning Code and determined that the proposed use would not cause any adverse effect to the adjoining neighbors and neighborhood in general. Based on that determination, the report of staff and testimony from the applicant, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 617-00, a resolution recommending approval of the requested conditional use permit. Summary There have been no changes to the property, the plans or to the City Code which would result in or necessitate denial of this requested reconsideration. A public hearing will be held by the City Council on May 8, 2006, after which time, assuming the City Council re-approves the conditional use permit, the applicant could move forward with the planned construction. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the information relating to the CUP reconsideration and if supportive of the request, approve Resolution 829-06. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Site Plans 3. Photographic Documentation 4. City Council Resolution 5441 5. May 22, 2000 City Council Minutes Excerpt 6. Letter from Applicant 7. Resolution 829-06 Zoning Map Photographic Documentation MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 829-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OVER-SIZED GARAGE AT 2832 WOODALE DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. CU00-004 WHEREAS, Thomas Stampfle has requested re-approval of an expired Conditional Use Permit to construct a 1,248 square-foot garage in the side yard of his property located at 2832 Woodale Drive, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Lot 92, Knollwood Park Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Zoning Map b. Existing Site Plan c. Proposed Site Plan d. Photographic Documentation e. Letter from Applicant, dated 4/6/00 f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the applicant had received approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City on May 22, 2000 however the CUP expired due to non-use; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is now prepared to move forward with the construction and seeks re-approval of the CUP. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the reapproval request: 1. The proposal satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 of the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. Resolution 829-06 Page 2 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved in that the lot is rather large and expanded garages are commonplace residential structural improvements which help keep properties neat and orderly. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood in that the proposed garage would replace an older, structurally unsound garage with a sagging roof. 5. The proposed oversized garage would be adequately screened by a privacy fence, mature trees and a garage on the adjacent property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends re-approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall arrange to record the City Council resolution approving the conditional use permit with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within sixty days of Council approval or this permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 3. The garage shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the existing dwelling. 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 City Council. 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 19th day of April, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: April 19, 2006 Type of Business: Other City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review City Code Requirements Relating to Retaining Walls, Terraces and Fences Introduction: On March 15, 2006, Valerie and Brian Amundsen appeared before the Planning Commission seeking relief from what they describe as a liability issue resulting from the action of their neighbor to the east, who installed a two-foot retaining wall and graded the area alongside his garage level with the retaining wall. The Amundsens have a swimming pool in their backyard and because of the increased height on the neighbor’s property, they are concerned about additional risk and liability and sought Planning Commission direction to have the neighbor remove the wall and grading. Staff had indicated that the retaining wall and grading did not violate any City regulation, and after reviewing the situation with the City Attorney, determined that the Amundsens’ six-foot tall fence remained in compliance with the Code. The matter was referred on to the City Council, the next available meeting being March 27, 2006. The Amundsens appeared before the City Council on March 27, 2006 and again on April 3, 2006. While significant discussion on the matter occurred and research was reviewed, the Council took no action in deference to the City Attorney whose opinion was such that neither property was in violation and that the City could not prohibit the neighbor from installing a retaining wall simply because the Amundsens had a swimming pool. The Amundsens disagreed with staff’s interpretation of the Code and suggested that what had been constructed on the neighbor’s property was in fact a “terrace” rather than a retaining wall. (A terrace, similar to a ground level deck or patio, would be required to be set back 2 feet from a property line.) Staff provided the Council with photographic examples of terraces, retaining walls and terraced landscaping. The City Council agreed that the Code may be unclear and that because “terrace” was not defined, perhaps an amendment would be in order. In light of that assessment, the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review the City Code and provide recommendations relating to retaining walls, terraces and fences, not only from a definitional standpoint but also from a setback standpoint. Should fences and retaining walls be allowed up to the property line (no setback) or should there be a minimum setback requirement, such as two feet? Code Review April 19, 2006 Page 2 Discussion: In response to the City Council’s direction to have the Planning Commission examine the City Code relating to fences, retaining walls and terraces, staff has put together information from our Zoning Code as well as handouts and codes from other communities. It is interesting to note (yet not uncommon) that neither fence, retaining wall nor terrace is defined in our City Code. The requirements as stated below are fairly basic and are quite common among other municipalities. The City Code indicates the following relative to fences and retaining walls: 1103.08: FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height, and in the case of grade separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. Subd. 2. Intersections: No fences, structures or planting of trees or shrubs shall be permitted within thirty feet (30') of any corner formed by the intersection of street property lines or the right of way of a railway intersecting a street, except properly constructed chain link fences. Such chain link fences shall not exceed forty eight inches (48") in height from the grade level at the lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of not less than one and five-eighths inches (1-5/8") nor more than two and one-fourth inches (2-1/4"). Such fences may follow the lot line to the lot corner. The thirty feet (30') restriction noted above shall consist of the triangle formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines that are each thirty feet (30') from the lot corner. Subd. 3. Location: a. Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty eight inches (48") in height may be located on any part of a lot. Fences not to exceed ninety six inches (96") in height may be erected on any part of a lot behind the front line of the principal building. The City Council may require or approve fencing up to ninety six inches (96") in height in a front yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a development review or conditional use permit. (Ord. 658, 8-14-00) b. A fence shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence shall not be installed directly over the property line. Subd. 4. Landscaping Required: In all zoning districts, the lot area remaining after providing for off- street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveway, building site and/or other requirements shall be planted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used in landscaping. Subd. 5. Surface of Fences: Any fence shall be so constructed that the surface facing adjoining properties or public rights of way shall be of finished construction. The only mention of “retaining wall” in our code is in Section 1103.08, Subd 1, where it addresses grade change or separations, “such as the division of properties by a retaining wall”… This would clearly indicate that retaining walls were anticipated at lot lines similar to fences. Code Review April 19, 2006 Page 3 Staff contacted and received information from a number of communities (including all adjacent cities) and determined that none of the neighboring communities generally require a fence or retaining wall setback. Only one community for which we had obtained information—Vadnais Heights—required a setback for a fence, and only in the case of the fence being a privacy fence (100% opaque) which it classified as an accessory structure subject to the accessory structure setback of five feet. In addition, the City of Blaine, which does not typically require a setback for a fence, does require a one foot setback for any fence six feet in height. Below is a sampling of fence definitions from other communities: Arden Hills Undefined Blaine Any partition, structure, wall, or gate erected as a divider marker, barrier or enclosure and located along the boundary, or within the required yard. Circle Pines Any partition, screen, structure, wall or gate erected as a divider, marker, barrier or enclosure. Columbia Heights Any partition, structure, wall or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier, or enclosure of a permanent nature. Coon Rapids Undefined Cottage Grove Any partition, structure, wall or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier or enclosure and located along the boundary, or within the required yard. Fridley Undefined Little Canada Any partition, structure, wall or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier, or enclosure. New Brighton Undefined Shoreview Undefined Vadnais Heights A barrier constructed of materials other than evergreen shrubbery erected for the purpose of protection, confinement, enclosure, or privacy. The term "fence" shall include barriers of at least 25 percent opacity, screening walls, and opaque lines of plantings exceeding thirty inches in height. Given that there seems to be no confusion regarding what a fence is, despite the absence of a definition in the Code, it would not seem necessary that a definition be added. If the Planning Commission believes a definition would be beneficial, staff would recommend something similar to one of those listed above. More important than a definition, however, is whether the Planning Commission feels the Code should be amended to require a setback for fences in the City. There are pros and cons relating to the implementation of a fence setback. The benefits of such a setback would include virtually eliminating disputes as to whether a neighbor’s fence was on the property line or over the property line, and would provide sufficient space on one’s own property to maintain both sides of the fence. Another benefit would be the elimination of “back-to-back” fences. Concerns or detriments of a fence setback would also need careful consideration. If property owners have privacy fences set back from each other, this could result in a series of “pedestrian alleys” between the properties, attracting kids or persons with questionable intentions. While fence maintenance would be possible with setbacks, a property owner may be less motivated to maintain the lawn area on the other side of the fence, allowing weeds and tall grass to invade. This would not be a new concern, however, as there will always be residents less concerned about yard appearances, with or without a fence. The other impact of instituting a setback for fences would be to make nearly every fence in the City a non-conforming use. Code Review April 19, 2006 Page 4 Swimming Pool Fences. The exception to staff’s reluctance toward fence setbacks would be for swimming pool fences. When a fence serves a purpose other than simply demarcating a property line or providing a barrier between two properties, perhaps a setback would not be unreasonable. According to the Code, the purpose of a fence surrounding a pool area is to “prevent the unauthorized entrance into the swimming pool by any person when said fence or barrier is locked.” As the Amundsens have pointed out, adjacent property owners may utilize and improve their own property in such a way that could result in a diminished fence height as measured from the adjoining property. If such fences were set back a minimal distance (two to five feet?), the integrity of the fence from a security standpoint could not be as easily diminished by the actions of a neighbor. While such an amendment would make most existing pool fences non-conforming, pool owners could be provided a certain period of time (one to five years?) in which to bring the fence into compliance. Code Review April 19, 2006 Page 5 Retaining Wall Definitions Arden Hills Undefined Blaine Undefined Circle Pines Undefined Columbia Heights A wall or structure constructed of stone, concrete, wood, or other materials, used to retain soil, as a slope transition, or edge of a planting area. Coon Rapids Undefined Cottage Grove A structure utilized to hold a slope in a position in which it would not naturally remain. Fridley Undefined New Brighton Undefined Roseville Undefined Shoreview Undefined St. Anthony That which is erected as a permanent barrier, affixed along its entire length to the ground or some immovable structure to impede the movement or erosion of soil. Vadnais Heights Undefined As is the case with fences, no definition is articulated in the Mounds View City Code for retaining walls, probably because a retaining wall has a commonly accepted meaning. If such a definition is determined to be an important addition to our Code, staff would suggest something similar to what appears in the Columbia Heights code. Again, probably more important than the definition is whether or not such a structure would be required to be set back from a property line. Retaining Wall Setbacks As indicated on page 2 of this report, the one and only reference to a retaining wall in the Mounds View Code is in Section 1103.08, Subd 1, where it addresses grade change or separations, “such as the division of properties by a retaining wall”… which would clearly indicate that retaining walls were anticipated at lot lines similar to fences. Public Works Director Greg Lee provided feedback at a recent City Council meeting that most street projects and sidewalk projects utilize retaining walls as a means to resolve grade changes between the right of way and private property. If a retaining wall had to be set back a distance from a lot line, either the City would have to give up right of way or it would have to acquire permanent easements from the property owners adjacent to the constructed walls. Either way, adopting such a requirement would make nearly every retaining wall in the City used for leveling grades at the property line a non-conforming use. No permits are required for retaining walls less than two feet in height, as these are typically more for aesthetic appearances or for landscaping improvements than they are for function. Retaining walls from two to four feet require a zoning permit while a retaining wall in excess of four feet requires a building permit and shall be reviewed by the building official. In most cases, such walls are professionally designed with plans bearing the signature of an architect or engineer. General requirements regarding retaining walls could be added as a subdivision under the Fence section of the Code, Section 1103.08. Code Review April 19, 2006 Page 6 Terrace Definitions Arden Hills Undefined Blaine Undefined, however terraces is included in a list of encroachments attached to a house Circle Pines While undefined, the Code refers to a Terrace as a permitted encroachment similar to that of a deck or patio. Coon Rapids Undefined Cottage Grove A relatively level area bordered on one or more sides by a retaining wall Fridley Undefined Little Canada While undefined, the Code refers to a Terrace as a permitted encroachment along with steps, uncovered porches, decks, stoops, or similar features, New Brighton Undefined Shoreview Undefined St. Anthony While undefined, the Code refers to a Terrace as a permitted encroachment similar to that of a deck or patio. Vadnais Heights Undefined The Mounds View City Code, similar to the Codes for Blaine, Circle Pines, Little Canada and St. Anthony, refers to a Terrace only when addressing “encroachments” and in all cases is grouped with other uses such as decks, patios and uncovered porches. Section 1104.02 Subd 5c reads as follows: Subd. 5. Encroachments: The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements. c. Terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features; provided, they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than two feet (2') from any lot line. A terrace, while not defined in our Code, is generally regarded as an outdoor, open air seating area. Online resources define terrace as “a garden or landscape element where a raised, flat paved or graveled section overlooks a scenic view, providing a transition between the hard materials of the architecture and softer ones of the garden.” The Webster’s New World Dictionary defines terrace as “a paved area immediately adjacent to a house, usually overlooking a garden or lawn; something comparable to a veranda.” Attached to this report are photos of terraces found on the Internet. When used as in the form of an adjective, terrace can mean a type of landscaping or grading, usually associated with a series of flat, vertically elevating landscaped or paved areas, as in “a terraced hillside.” Another example as an adjective would be of terraced seating, which is a series of level rows of seats, with each ensuing row slightly elevated above the previous, such as in a sports arena or movie theater offering stadium seating. The practice of “terraced” farming is used along mountainsides, where a series of tillable earthen benches are carved from the hillside, serving the dual purpose of utilizing scarce land as well as retaining rainwater and preventing erosion. The usage of terrace in this context however is not contemplated in our Code. Code Review April 19, 2006 Page 7 In Conclusion The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to examine the Zoning Code relative to fences, retaining walls and terraces, and to provide a recommendation as to potential Code amendments if any are deemed appropriate. Staff has provided the Commission with detailed information and examples of how other communities define fences, retaining walls and terraces and have provided the Commission with a variety of Code excerpts, handouts and requirements from our neighboring nearby communities for your reference. Also included for your information are photos which depict fences, retaining walls and terraces. Please review the materials provided and discuss whether code amendments are potentially warranted, and if so, in what form they should take. If a commission member should have any prior to the meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me or Heidi beforehand. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Examples of Landscape Definitions Columbia Heights defines Landscaping as site amenities, including trees, shrubs, ground covers, flowers, fencing, berms, retaining walls, and other outdoor finishings. Fridley defines “Landscaping” as the improvement of land by the addition of berms, trees, shrubs, ground cover, crushed rock, wood chips, retaining walls and other functional, ornamental or decorative features. New Brighton defines Landscaping as the development of a lot or plot of land in a manner which produces the best functional and aesthetic effect through the arrangement of natural plantings and/or decorative constructions such as fences, walls, etc. St. Anthony defines landscaping as the aesthetic improvement of land by the arrangement of plantings and/or decorative features such as fences and walls. Vadnais Heights defines Landscaping as Planting such as trees, grass, and shrubs and grading of land. Photographic Documentation - Terraces Photographic Documentation – Retaining Walls Photographic Documentation – Fences Item No: 6B Meeting Date: April 19, 2006 Type of Business: Other City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Discuss Economic Development Funding Priorities and Philosophy Background: The Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Economic Development Authority (EDA) have determined that it would be in the City’s best interest to review all Economic Development related policies and to formalize an economic development strategy in support of the City Council’s articulated goals and vision. Presently, no such “comprehensive” economic development strategy or philosophy exists. On March 29, 2006, the City Council reviewed the existing economic development policies and the present status of the TIF revenues. While the Council discussed potential TIF- supported expenditures, it became clear that additional feedback was desired from the Planning Commission and the Economic Development Commission. The Council is asking for input from the Commissioners regarding desired outcomes and funding prioritization. Discussion: In an effort to move forward with the preparation of a comprehensive business subsidy philosophy and economic development strategy, the City needs to ascertain and determine the desired outcomes of its economic development policies. While some outcomes may be difficult to quantify, there should be some benchmark or other means by which success can be measured. Other outcomes may be more easily quantified, such as “the reduction of tax capacity captured with TIF Districts.” Such a goal could be measured simply by comparing the percent of tax value captured from one year to the next. Regardless of the ease of quantification, action steps would need to be formulated to achieve the desired outcome. The following represents a sampling of potential desirable outcomes (broad as they may be) that the City could consider. 1. Maximize the flow of Increment for articulated ED purposes (status quo.) 2. Reduce the amount of increment collected for ED purposes 3. Reduce the % of tax capacity captured in TIF Districts 4. Reduce the geographic area (acres) contained within TIF districts 5. Reduce the financial burden of TIF districts upon non-TIF properties While perhaps obvious, it should be noted that any reduction to the amount of TIF collected will have a correspondingly negative impact on the scale or scope of projects that could be funded via increment. ED Report April 19, 2006 Page 2 1. Maximize the Increment. If no changes are made to TIF policies, the City anticipates collecting approximately $14.6 million in non-obligated TIF increment over the course of the next ten years from the three original TIF districts, which expire in 2013 (District 1), 2015, (District 2) and 2014 (District 3.) These three original districts were set up as 25-year districts. The collected increment from these three districts represent “pooled” increment which can be spent on a variety of TIF eligible items anywhere in the “development district.” The development district, according to the TIF plans, represents the entirety of the City. Thus, the pooled increment (totaling $14.6 million) may be spent anywhere in the City so long as the expenditure is deemed TIF eligible. (Later in this report the Commission will find a list of potential expenditures.) There are presently three TIF obligations remaining in the City, one from each district: The Mermaid TIF note (pays off in 2013) from District 1, the Silver Lake Pointe project (pays off in 2011) from District 2, and the recently authorized SYSCO TIF note (pays off in 2008) from District 3. A fourth obligation from District 1 is inactive, that being the TIF note for Building N, which presently generates no property taxes as it is owned by Bethlehem Baptist Church (BBC) and is tax exempt. If no changes are made to our existing TIF districts, the amount of Market Value Tax capacity captured in Mounds View TIF districts is 16.29 percent. Factoring in the Medtronic development and its projected $96 million market value, the amount of the City’s tax capacity captured in TIF districts will rise to 22.32 percent. 2. Reduce the Increment. The City could act to reduce the amount of increment collected by a fixed amount or by a percentage. This could be accomplished in a number of ways, such as: a. Decertify a district early. District 3 would be the best candidate for this action. If done, the amount of tax capacity captured in TIF districts would decrease from 22.32 percent to 19.51 percent. b. Selectively decertify parcels within districts. The City did this in 2004 when it decertified approximately 81 parcels representing 10% of the captured tax value. c. Change the fiscal disparities election for the existing districts. This option would decrease the amount of tax capacity captured in TIF districts from 22.32 percent to 16.52 percent d. Turn back a set amount of non-obligated pooled increment to the appropriate taxing authorities. This option retains flexibility for future increments collected. On an annual basis, the City could elect to “turn back” any budgeted yet unexpended non-obligated increment to the proper taxing jurisdictions. There may be other mechanisms by which increment may be reduced, however the four noted above are the most obvious. Options A and B would be permanent solutions, while Option C and D could be reversed or scaled back as needed. ED Report April 19, 2006 Page 3 3. Reduce the Percent of Captured Tax Capacity. Many residents have taken issue with the percent of tax capacity captured in Mounds View TIF districts in comparison to other municipalities. While “percent” is a straightforward method for comparison purposes, it does not take into consideration the age of districts, the geographical area, or the overall levels of commercial / industrial tax base in a community. Prior to Medtronic even being considered, the City’s “percent” of tax capacity captured in TIF Districts was the highest in Ramsey County at 16.29%. The dollar value of the same tax capacity would rank the City fifth in the County with Shoreview a close sixth: City Total Tax Capacity Tax Increment Tax capacity Percent Captured St. Paul $225,841,494 $19,641,518 8.70 % New Brighton $ 22,011,649 $ 2,795,195 12.70 % Roseville $ 51,588,231 $ 2,524,051 4.89 % Vadnais Heights $ 17,006,853 $ 1,861,727 10.95 % Mounds View $ 10,280,030 $ 1,674,780 16.29 % Shoreview $ 32,218,881 $ 1,665,131 5.17 % The City could reduce the percent of tax capacity captured in TIF districts in one (or a combination) of two ways, either by reducing the market value within a TIF district or by increasing the market value outside of TIF districts. To reduce the amount of captured tax capacity, three of the options identified in “Reduce the Increment” section addressed above would apply here as well—Decertify a district, selective decertification of parcels or modify the fiscal disparities option. The alternative to any of these would be to grow and expand the market value outside of the TIF districts. An example of this approach might include a redeveloped Mounds View Square, reinvestment in the Mustang Drive Industrial Park, redeveloped Skyline Motel or infill residential developments like Hidden Hollow. Assuming property values increase across the board, any increase in value outside of the TIF districts will result in a decreased percent of captured tax capacity without decreasing the amount of increment collected. Implemented in conjunction with actions directed at the TIF districts would have an even greater impact to the percent of captured tax capacity. 4. Reduce the geographic area contained within TIF districts. This approach would reduce the amount of increment collected as well as reduce the percent of tax capacity captured in TIF. This can be done in one of two ways—a wholesale District decertification or a selective decertification of specific parcels. The City has used both approaches and either would be an option if this were the desired outcome. 5. Reduce the financial burden of TIF districts upon non-TIF properties. Any of the actions identified above would have the positive effect of reducing the financial burden to property owners outside of TIF districts. Every dollar of tax capacity removed from a TIF district would be returned to the general fund tax rolls and the other taxing jurisdictions. (The City’s share of every tax dollar is approximately 30%.) Assuming there would be no offsetting levy increase, the amount levied would be spread among a greater base of market value, thus the share paid by non-TIF properties would decrease as a result. ED Report April 19, 2006 Page 4 After the City determines the future of its TIF districts (the desired outcome) the financial advisors would prepare a spreadsheet which would project the amount of increment generated by the TIF districts. From this spreadsheet, the City would then need to make a determination as to the desired expenditures, realizing that the identified project expenditures already exceed the projected non-obligated increment of $14.6 million. Some of the projects already having been identified for potential funding (with potential funding levels) include the following: • Commercial / Industrial acquisition or assistance: $6,000,000 ___ 1. Skyline Motel redevelopment ___ 2. Pak Building redevelopment ___ 3. Moundsview Square / Silverview Plaza redevelopment ___ 4. Premium Stop redevelopment ___ 5. County Rd. 10 / Woodale redevelopment ___ 6. Business Improvement Loans • Residential Development & Redevelopment: $4,000,000 ___ 1. Housing Replacement Program ___ 2. Housing Resource Center ___ 3. Infill Redevelopment Assistance ___ 4. Rental Housing Improvement Programs • Infrastructure Rehabilitation: $25,000,000 ___ 1. County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program ___ 2. Street and Utility Replacement ___ 3. Wetlands Preservation and Reforestation • General Economic Development Activity: $2,000,000 ___ 1. Personnel costs ___ 2. Consultant fees ___ 3. TIF and Financial Advisors ___ 4. Advertising, Operating and Equipment Costs The amount of expenditures that have been identified for potential funding via collected tax increment revenues totals approximately $37,000,000, which far exceeds the projected $14.6 million of non-obligated pooled increment to be collected through 2015. As a result, the City must make value-judgments regarding the potential expenditures and determine which of the programs identified should be supported and to what extent. To help make this determination, the City Council would like the Planning Commission’s feedback and provide them with as specific or as generic a recommendation as the Commission—either as a group or individually—feels comfortable making. Infrastructure Rehabilitation 68% Commercial Industrial Acquisition / Assistance 16% General Economic Development Activity 5 % ED Report April 19, 2006 Page 5 The pie chart below represents the breakdown of potential expenditures based on the totals as identified on the previous page. This chart provides a helpful representation of funding levels which can be considered regardless of the amount of funds available. One of the last pages of this report includes is a blank pie chart which can be divided according to your individual spending prioritization. (The pie chart exercise will be useful regardless of the determination made on desired outcomes for the TIF revenues.) The “pieces” can be the four categories identified above or may be more specific to address individual line items within each category. If there are specific line items within the categories which you would not rank as a funding priority, you may fill out and return the last page of the report which staff will forward on to the City Council. Also on this page is room for specific funding priorities which may not have been specifically identified. Please include these additional items for Council consideration. Residential Development / Redevelopment 11 % ED Report April 19, 2006 Page 6 In Conclusion: The City Council desires feedback from the Planning Commission and the Economic Development Commission relating to the future of Tax Increment Financing in Mounds View. If the Commission is able to take a position with regard to one or more of the desired outcomes identified on Page 1, a motion of recommendation would be welcomed. If the Planning Commission does not have a majority opinion upon which to make such a motion, staff will simply communicate to the Council your individual opinions and provide (regardless) any pie charts and funding priority checklists turned in. Finally, while not part of the discussion or requested consideration, we have attached a summary of the policy documents which govern the use of business subsidies in Mounds View and the guidelines for the Housing Replacement Program and the Business Improvement Partnership program along with the summary of the Economic Development element from the Comprehensive Plan. If any of the Commission members would like to have a full-text copy of the Business Subsidy policy, the TIF policy or the Tax Rebate policy, please give Heidi or myself a call and we will make copies for you. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director 763-717-4021 SUMMARIES A. Business Subsidy Policies and Procedures. Last updated in 2005, the Subsidies Policy is intended to be the over-arching policy document for the use of business subsidies, which may include tax increment financing, tax rebate financing, grants, business improvement loans, etc. The overall purpose, as stated on the first page of the document, is as follows: The fundamental purpose of business subsidies in the City is to encourage desirable development or redevelopment that would not otherwise occur “but for” the assistance provided through business subsidies. It is the intent of the City to provide a minimum amount of business subsidies, as well as other incentives that the City may deem appropriate, at the shortest term required for the project to proceed. The City has granted a variety of business subsidies over the years, most recently with the Medtronic project. Before Medtronic, the City authorized a TIF note for SYSCO Foods in the amount of $250,000. The City has covered demolition expenses at the former Perkins Site as well as stormwater management improvements at the former Amoco site. B. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Policy. This document reviews in detail the policy for use of tax increment financing. Re-adopted in 2000, the policy works in conjunction with the Subsidies Policy and sets forth the conditions under which TIF will be used. Included with the policy document is the application packet for TIF financing. Mounds View established its first of three initial TIF districts in 1986, with the second and third districts in 1988. TIF District 1 supported the creation and development of the Mounds View Office and Business Park in the southeast corner of the City, while District 2, identified as the Highway 10 Development District, included parcels in the northwest quadrant of the City on the south side of County 10 north of County Road I. The third of the original three districts was created in 1988 to support the SYSCO Foods project. A fourth district was created in 1997 to support the planned renovation and commercial component of the Community Center. The commercial partner backed out and the City decertified the district without ever having collected increment. The final district (TIF District 5) was created last year in support of the Medtronic project. At this time, there are only four outstanding TIF obligations in the City: The Silver Lake Pointe senior residential project on County Road I, The Mermaid, SYSCO and Medtronic. Silver Lake Point will pay off in 2011, the mermaid in 2013 and SYSCO in 2008. The Medtronic note will pay off (at the latest) in 2033. C. Tax Rebate (Abatement) Program. In 1997, the Legislature authorized the use of an additional tool for development projects called Tax Abatement. Tax abatement allows a local government to refund all or a portion of the taxes paid on most properties for a period of up to 10 years. Unlike TIF, the use of tax abatement is voluntary for each separate unit of government. For example, a city and county may decide to refund its portion of property taxes generated to attract a new development, and the school district could continue to collect its portion. Mounds View adopted a Tax Abatement policy in 2000 with revisions in 2003. The fundamental policy for tax abatement, which is consistent with the TIF and Business Subsidy policies, is to encourage desirable development or redevelopment that would not otherwise occur but for the assistance provided. To date, Mounds View has not considered or approved an application for a tax rebate. D. The Housing Replacement Program. Initiated in the 1990s, the Housing Replacement Program utilized pooled TIF dollars to purchase and redevelop blighted home sites from willing sellers. The program was successful and made an impact on the neighborhoods in which the blighted home was located by replacing the blighted house with a new, larger home. It was often the case that these individual redevelopments helped motivate adjoining and nearby owners to also make improvements. Two examples of HRP properties can be found at 6991 Pleasant View Drive and at 8265 Spring Lake Road. The other component of the program reimburses a property owner for demolition expenses in the event the existing owner would like to rebuild. A good example of this aspect of the program occurred at 8300 Fairchild Avenue. The program was put on hold in the early 2000s in response to a notice of noncompliance from the Office of the State Auditor. The OSA ruled that the City could not acquire real estate using TIF dollars because it had not in advance identified where such acquisition would occur in the TIF plan. The City argued that it would be nearly impossible to update the TIF plan any time a potential HRP property became available, so staff drove through the City conducting a windshield survey of residential properties to compile a list of “potentially” blighted homes and other properties for redevelopment. This survey resulted in a list of 210 parcels added to the TIF plan in 2004 for possible acquisition. The HRP program however is absolutely and completely voluntary; no one would ever be forced out of their homes, contrary to what some residents believed. While no homes have been considered for acquisition under the HRP program since 2004, the budget reflects a line item for such acquisitions. (The list and map is attached to the HRP program guidelines in Exhibit D.) E. Business Improvement Partnership Program. This program has been inactive for the last ten years, probably for a variety or reasons. The program’s stated purpose is to partner with the local business community by offering improvement loans at 2% rate of interest. Feedback from some business owners interested in this program cited reluctance to disclose so much personal and financial interest in a public setting. Such information, if provided to a financial institution, would be private and confidential. Also stated as a concern was that the interest “buy down” was not all that impressive, as the buy down would apply to half of the loan amount; the other half would be at market rate, up to a maximum of $50,000. If the business could garner a loan rate at 4%, combined with the City’s portion the net loan rate would decrease to 3%. Staff feels this program could be re-evaluated by the EDC to determine whether changes are necessary. F. Comp Plan Economic Development Element. The Metropolitan Council approved the City’s Comprehensive Plan in November of 2000 with the City Council following suit in July of 2001. One of the required elements of the Comp Plan is an economic development component. The EDC reviewed the Economic Development component in 1999 and 2000 and supported the final version which was included in the Comp Plan. This element is reproduced herein as Exhibit F. Seven priorities for economic development were identified (on Page 90) with resources to accomplish those priorities identified on the subsequent pages. The section concludes with a list of challenges the City will face regarding economic development activity. It is interesting to note that the first goal listed under the ED section states that, “the redevelopment or expansion of an existing business, new commercial or industrial development, or residential housing will be considered even if it involves the possible acquisition, demolition or relocation of an existing business or residential homes. (Emphasis added.) It is apparent that the ED section of the Comp Plan could be revised in accordance with the outcome of this visioning exercise with the City Council. Funding Priority Checklist Commercial / Industrial Acquisition or Assistance Yes / No Activity If yes, Funding Level Skyline Motel redevelopment Pak Building redevelopment Moundsview Square Redevelopment Silverview Plaza Redevelopment Premium Stop redevelopment County Rd. 10 / Woodale redevelopment Business Improvement Loans ? ? Residential Development & Redevelopment Housing Replacement Program Housing Resource Center Infill Redevelopment Assistance Rental Housing Improvement Programs Senior Housing Development ? ? Infrastructure Rehabilitation County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program Street and Utility Replacement Wetlands Preservation and Reforestation ? ? General Economic Development Activity Personnel and Professional Development TIF and Financial Advisors, Consultants Advertising, Operating and Equipment Costs ? ? Economic Development Funding Level Pie Chart Funding Priority Percent Commercial / Industrial Acquisition / Assistance Residential Development & Redevelopment Infrastructure Rehabilitation General Economic Development Activity ? ? ? ? ? ?