Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-2006 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 17, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. April 19, 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. CU2006-003: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversize garage at 8382 Knollwood Drive Applicant: Robert & Lisa Horbul Address: 8382 Knollwood Drive B. CU2006-004: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversize garage at 5308 St. Stephen Street Applicant: Mark McKay Address: 5308 St. Stephen Street C. ZC2006-001: Consideration and Public Hearing for a Rezoning of 2901 & 2925 County Road 10 and west half of 8060 Groveland Road Applicant: Integra Homes Address: 12721 Overlook Road, Dayton, MN 55327 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review additional city code language for retaining walls 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. June 7, 2006 meetings return to Mounds View City Hall B. June 21, 2006 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session *NOTE LOCATION* NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL 803 Old Highway 8 NW Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. April 19, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. City Council Meeting Updates b. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 17, 2006 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 8382 Knollwood Drive; Planning Case No. CU2006-003 Introduction: The applicants, Robert & Lisa Horbul, are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct an oversized garage on their property at 8382 Knollwood Drive. The current garage size is 34’x26’ (884 square feet). The applicants would like to build a 24’x30’ addition onto the rear of the current three stall garage. The plot plan submitted indicates a garage area in excess of what is allowed without a conditional use permit. Accessory buildings, attached or detached, are limited to 952 square feet. Anything beyond 952 square feet must go through a conditional use permit application process. The garage proposed for 8382 Knollwood Drive would be 1,604 square feet. The applicants indicate that they would like the additional garage space for indoor storage of recreational vehicles. The applicant’s large backyard is approximately 145 feet deep with one shed near the back property line. After adding this garage addition, the applicants would have 1,796 square feet of accessory buildings, almost reaching the maximum allowable (1,800 square feet). Requirements: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the number of accessory buildings and the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages exceeding 952 square feet, which are that the garage be permanent, be uniform in appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory building area on the lot. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Discussion: The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,604 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. All setback and dimensional requirements would be satisfied with this request. The backyard coverage ratio will be approximately 6.9%, well below the maximum 20%. Horbul CUP Request May 17, 2006 Page 2 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, 8382 Knollwood Drive, as low-density residential. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is addressed below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, 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. By having a larger garage the applicants would be able to store their recreational vehicles inside, which would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The Geographical Area Involved. The home is located on Knollwood Drive, near the northern end of the city. Since the additional space for the garage will be in the back, the building will still appear to be a normal three car size garage from the street. In this case, the proposed oversized garage would not be out of place in this neighborhood that has large, deep backyards. Although, it would somewhat block the view across the backyards from the adjoining neighbor’s property. Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage, as well as in an economic sense, as the construction would increase the “value” of the property. Increased property values are of course a benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. Knollwood Drive is strictly a residential neighborhood. All of the homes on this street were constructed in the mid-1970’s. The proposed garage would not be out of character in this area since the addition would not be easily visible from the street. The front appearance of the garage would not change with this addition. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicants are proposing a 24’x30’ garage addition which would allow for more indoor parking and storage space. The applicants would like to be able to park their recreational vehicles inside the garage (boat, motorcycle, ATV, and trailer) . Summary: All zoning and code issues are satisfied with this request. Horbul CUP Request May 17, 2006 Page 3 Recommendations: After taking testimony from staff and the property owner, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments 1. Planning Application 2. Plot Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 832-06 Plot Plan Zoning Map Aerial View Photographic Documentation Photographic Documentation Rear of property behind garage MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 833-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,604 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 8382 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO CU2006-003 WHEREAS, property owners Robert and Lisa Horbul have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,604 square foot garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8382 Knollwood Drive, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 7, Block 2, Gustafson’s 2nd Addition 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 proposed garage would be 1,604 square feet, thus necessitating application of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Plot Plan c. Zoning Map d. Aerial View e. Photographic Documentation f. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The proposed oversized 1,604 square foot garage satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 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. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,604 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district 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. 2. The garage expansion shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the existing house. 3. No additional sheds or accessory buildings shall be allowed on the property. 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 17th day of May 2006. ________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: May 17, 2006 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 5308 St. Stephen Street; Planning Case No. CU2006-004 Introduction: The applicant, Mark McKay, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct an oversized garage on his property at 5308 St. Stephen Street. The current garage will be demolished and a new larger attached garage would be constructed. The current garage size is 24’x22’ (528 square feet). The applicant would like to build a new garage that would be the same width but would be 46 feet deep. The plot plan submitted indicate a garage area in excess of what is allowed without a conditional use permit. Accessory buildings, attached or detached, are limited to 952 square feet. Anything beyond 952 square feet must go through a conditional use permit application process. The garage proposed for 5308 St. Stephen Street would be 1,104 square feet. The applicant indicates that he would like the extra depth in order to park a third vehicle in the garage and for storage. The applicant’s lot is not wide enough to add another garage stall on the side. Requirements: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the number of accessory buildings and the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages exceeding 952 square feet, which are that the garage be permanent, be uniform in appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory building area on the lot. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Discussion: The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,104 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. All setback and dimensional requirements would be satisfied with this request. With the garage addition, the backyard coverage ratio would be 10.6%. McKay CUP Request May 17, 2006 Page 2 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, 5308 St. Stephen Street, as low-density residential. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is addressed below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, 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. An entirely new garage will be constructed and will be a benefit to the neighborhood. The Geographical Area Involved. The home is located on St. Stephen Street. Since the additional space for the garage will be in the back, the building will still appear to be a regular two car size garage from the street. In this case, the proposed oversized garage would not be noticeable or out of place in the neighborhood. This garage should not affect the neighboring properties much. It would block the view across the backyards from the neighbor to the north, but it isn’t much different than how the neighbor to the south has their garage setback behind the house. The homes in Pinewood Court behind 5308 St. Stephen should not be affected since they are offset and angled from the St. Stephen homes. Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage, as well as in an economic sense, as the construction would increase the “value” of the property. Increased property values are of course a benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. Although St. Stephen Street is strictly residential, 5308 is near the end of the street where it meets County Road 10. All of the homes on this street were constructed in the early 1950’s. The proposed garage would not be out of character in this area since the bulk of the garage will be hidden from view of the street. The new garage width would be the same as it is now, so it would not change the current front look of the house. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a 24’x46’ garage which would allow for parking more than two vehicles inside and/or storage space since there are no other accessory buildings on the property. The applicant would like to park a third vehicle inside and can only do that by making the garage deeper since his lot is not wide enough to add an additional garage stall on the side. Due to the depth required for a vehicle, the garage requires a conditional use permit. Summary: All zoning and code issues are satisfied with this request. McKay CUP Request May 17, 2006 Page 3 Recommendations: After taking testimony from staff and the property owner, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Plot Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 832-06 Plot Plan Zoning Map Aerial View Photographic Documentation MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 832-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,104 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 5308 ST. STEPHEN STREET; PLANNING CASE NO CU2006-004 WHEREAS, property owner Mark McKay has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,104 square foot garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 5308 St. Stephen Street, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Pinewood Terrace No.2, Lot 24, Block 4 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 proposed garage would be 1,104 square feet, thus necessitating application of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Plot Plan c. Zoning Map d. Aerial View e. Photographic Documentation f. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The proposed oversized 1,104 square foot garage satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 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 design of the garage and the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,104 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district 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. 2. The garage expansion shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the existing house. 3. 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 17th day of May 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5C Meeting Date: May 17, 2006 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request to Rezone Properties at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the back half of 8060 Groveland Road; Planning Case ZC06-001 Introduction: Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, is requesting City approval to rezone properties located at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the back half of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3, Medium Density Residential, to allow for a townhome development on the site which would involve nineteen individual owner-occupied units. The development site is presently zoned B-3, Highway Business, and R-1, Single Family Residential. The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that this site is within a mixed use planned unit development area. Such a designation is intended to allow for some flexibility in redevelopment however with an anticipation that there be a component of both housing and commercial on the site and be master planned for a comprehensive, integrated development looking beyond the project boundaries. Background: Integra Homes applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 2005 and the Planning Commission reviewed the general concept plan which involved the development of 21 owner- occupied townhome units. There was some concern expressed from Commission members and adjacent property owners that the extent of the proposed development was too intensive and the orientation of the proposed units intrusive and out of place given the adjacent single family residential properties. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 796-05 in July of last year which recommended denial of the PUD based on excessive development density and other adverse impacts. Rather than pursue action at the Council level, Integra chose to re-evaluate their plan based on the feedback received. They have concluded their evaluation and have resubmitted their application not as a PUD but as a simple rezoning. Presently: The development site has an area of 3.01 acres and is located on County Road 10 and currently has a mixed zoning designation. The property at 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B- 3, Highway Business and is currently vacant. 2925 County Road 10 and the rear yard of 8060 Groveland Road are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. 2925 County Road 10 has an existing single family home that would be demolished if the development were to move forward. Integra Homes Request May 17, 2006 Page 2 Integra Homes is requesting a rezoning of the identified parcels to reflect an R-3, Medium Density designation. The R-3 zoning designation would explicitly permit the following uses: o Single Family Detached Dwellings o Essential Services o Public parks and Playgrounds o Two-Family Dwelling Units o Townhome Units (up to six units per building) o Boarding Houses o Group Homes o Family Foster Care The following uses would be “conditionally” permitted in the R-3 District such that a Conditional Use Permit would be required: o Public or Semi Public Recreational Buildings o Religious Institutions (Churches) o Educational Institutions (Schools) o Government or Public Utility Buildings o Day care center, Group Nursery o Multi-family Dwelling Structures (up to six units per building) While all of the above uses are allowed or conditionally permitted under the R-3 zoning designation, Integra has proposed development of a nineteen unit owner-occupied townhome development. Rezoning Criteria: Chapter 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code addresses rezoning requests. The procedure and conditions of approval are the same as for conditional use permits, which means the Planning Commission is to consider possible and potential adverse effects of the requested rezoning. The Planning Commission shall make a finding of fact and make a recommendation to the City Council based upon the review of potential adverse effects and finding of fact. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the site is designated as a mixed-use planned unit development. This is defined as land containing a building or buildings with significant amounts of residential uses in combination with commercial and/or office uses. Sites with this designation should be developed as planned unit developments (PUDs) to ensure that efficient, integrated and well-planned development occurs. One of the key components of the Comprehensive Plan, the Housing Element is geared toward maintaining and improving the quality and diversity of the existing housing stock and providing infill housing opportunities where both possible and practical. The proposed rezoning would help promote a greater diversity of housing choices in the community, based on the applicant’s concept townhome development proposal. Rental housing or multi-family units would not be considered an improvement to the City’s housing stock diversity. Integra Homes Request May 17, 2006 Page 3 Geographical Area. The subject area proposed for redevelopment currently consists of a vacant commercial property (formerly operated as a small gas station), a single family residential home and the subdivided back half of another single-family residential property. (The applicants subdivided the property at 8060 Groveland Road in 2005.) Adjacent to the northwest on County Road 10 is a residential property which already bears the R-3 designation. To the southeast is a residential office property operating as “Johnson’s Trailer Hitches.” The properties to the rear of the subject parcels are zoned R-1, single family residential, and are developed as such. Properties on County Road 10 tend to be developed to a greater intensity, whether commercial or residential, than in other parts of the community. Directly south of the project area across County Road 10 are two townhome developments—Knollwood Green and Northridge Villas. Depreciation. The question of depreciation is a difficult one to answer with any quantifiable certainty. Most studies which examine property value impacts of development generally find there to be little correlation between a project and subsequent property values. While property values may not depreciate as a result of the development, one can argue that quality of life for the existing residents that would be adjacent to the project could be negatively impacted. Strictly from the perspective of tax base and market values, the rezoning would promote a substantial increase in market value at the site, increasing from the present approximate valuation of $460,000 to an estimated $4,750,000—a ten-fold increase in value. Character of the Surrounding Area. The project area is located on County Road 10, the City’s primary commercial corridor. Within two blocks of the site, one can find a variety of commercial and residential uses. The residential uses include single family residential, owner-occupied townhomes and multi-family rental dwellings. In the immediate area however, the predominating land use is single-family residential. Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant desires to rezone the property to allow for owner-occupied townhomes. This type of housing is under-represented in the City’s housing demographic. The primary housing option in the City is single family detached with higher-density rental housing and manufactured homes second and third respectively. Owner-occupied townhomes and senior housing (independent or assisted) units are less prevalent. Adverse Effects Summary The requested rezoning to R-3, Medium density residential, would not be out of character for the County Road 10 corridor and would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which anticipated a mix of housing and commercial / office development in this area. The proposed development that would be permitted via the requested rezoning would increase the market values of the subject area by a factor of ten—from $460,000 to $4,750,000. While enhanced market value is desirable, the Commission needs to determine if the potential density allowed would be too intensive for the subject area, which is primarily lower density residential. The applicant feel this type of housing is in demand and would be a positive complement to the City’s housing stock. Integra Homes Request May 17, 2006 Page 4 Public Comment: Staff sent notices to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and published a copy of the notice in the New Brighton Bulletin. At the time this report was prepared (May 12, 2006) only one comment had been received, that being from the residents at 8080 Groveland Road. They write: Because we are bordering your proposed project on two sides, we want to give you our input. We are not able to attend the meeting due to a handicap. Our opinion is that a multi unit building will be available to least desirable neighbors. Individual houses would mean a class of people that can afford to own property, keeping the area safe and property appearance acceptable. Please consider these issues in your planning. Thank you. Mr. & Mrs. Roy Droel, 8080 Groveland Road. No other member of the public has contacted staff regarding the requested rezoning. Even though the applicant has reduced the density of the project from 21 units to 19 units, staff would suspect that adjacent property owners will remain concerned regarding the proposal. While neighborhood input is critical to help address and mitigate potential impacts, expressed neighborhood support (or expressed opposition) cannot be the sole determining factor when considering a requested rezoning. The Commission’s recommendation of approval or denial should take into consideration all of the facts, testimony and information relevant to the request Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and discuss the merits of the requested rezoning of the subject parcels from R-1 and B-3 to R-3 to allow for a 19-unit owner-occupied townhome development. After holding the public hearing and considering all of the information presented, the Planning Commission can then direct Staff to draft either a resolution recommending approval or denial, which would be presented and acted upon at the Planning Commission’s following meeting scheduled for June 7, 2006. Respectfully submitted, James Ericson Community Development Director 763-717-4021 Zoning Map Photographic Documentation Subject parcel (2901 Co. Rd. 10) viewed from the south side of County Road 10 looking northeast. Subject parcel (2925 Co. Rd. 10) viewed from the south side of County Road 10 looking north. Comprehensive Plan Map Integra Homes Project Area Item No: 6A Meeting Date: May 17, 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: Consider Code Amendment Relating to Retaining Walls Introduction: 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. On April 19, 2006, Staff provided the Commission with detailed information and examples of how other communities define fences, retaining walls and terraces and provided the Commission with a variety of Code excerpts, handouts and requirements from our neighboring nearby communities for reference. Also included for information purposes were photos depicting fences, retaining walls and terraces. The Planning Commission reviewed the sections of Mounds View’s code relating to fences, terraces and retaining walls. As a result of that discussion, staff was directed to prepare an amendment to the Code to define retaining walls and to provide for language that would clarify retaining wall setbacks. At this same meeting, the Commission chose to leave the language pertaining to fences and terraces unchanged. Discussion: Based upon the direction at the April 19th meeting, staff has prepared language that would amend Chapters 1102 and 1103 of the Zoning Code. In addition to adding a definition for Retaining Walls, staff proposes adding a definition for Landscaping, which is an undefined requirement in Chapter 1103. A final change is the addition of a new subdivision articulating “Prohibited Materials” such as barbed wire, razor wire, fences wired or designed to conduct and emit electrical charges. The proposed changes are shown below with additions underlined and deletions stricken. 1102.02: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this Code, shall be defined as follows: Subd. 58.5. LANDSCAPING: The aesthetic and physical 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. Subd. 100.5. RETANING WALL: A w all or structure constructed of stone, concrete, wood, or other materials, used to retain soil, as a slope transition, or edge of a planting area. Retaining Wall Report May 17, 2006 Page 2 1103.08: FENCING, RETAINING WALLS, 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 or retaining wall shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence or retaining wall 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. Subd. 6. Required Screening: The fencing and screening required by this Title shall be subject to subdivisions 1 through 5 hereof and shall consist of either a fence or a green belt planting strip the height of which shall be sufficient to adequately shield the activity from the abutting properties. a. A green belt planting strip shall consist of evergreen ground cover and shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an effective screen. This planting strip shall contain no structures or other use. Such planting strips shall not be less than eight feet (8') in height. Earth mounding or berms may be used but shall be limited to an average of five feet (5') of the height of the required screen. The planting plan and type of shrub shall require the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission based upon a recommendation of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Building Inspector. Retaining Wall Report May 17, 2006 Page 3 b. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight feet (8') in height or be less than six feet (6') in height. The design and materials used in constructing a required screening fence shall be subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission based upon a recommendation by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Building Inspector. c. Ground cover shall be established within one (1) year following issuance of the building permit. Ground cover material shall be of such type as to control erosion. (1988 Code §40.04) Subd. 7. Prohibited Materials: a. Barbed wire, razor wire or other materials which could cause bodily harm shall be prohibited and no fence or property shall be wired and designed to conduct and emit an electrical charge, except as allowed for below . b. Exceptions: Facilities providing essential services or municipal and governmental services may erect barbed wire or other materials having a similar deterrence, upon notice to properties within 350 feet and upon approval of the City Council. Conclusion: Please review the proposed amendments relating to retaining walls and fences. If the language reflects the position of the Planning Commission, staff has prepared a resolution for action that would recommend approval to the City Council of a Code amendment incorporating the suggested language. If the language needs further refinement, the resolution can be modified at the meeting or redrafted for action at a subsequent meeting. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachment: 1. Resolution 834-06 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 834-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS 1102 AND 1103 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE RELATING TO FENCES AND RETAINING WALLS WHEREAS, the City Council has asked the Mounds View Planning Commission to review the Zoning Code relating to fences and retaining walls and consider whether an amendment is necessary to clarify requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the pertinent sections of Code and has reviewed examples of regulations and requirements from adjacent cities and other communities in the metro area; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that amendments are necessary to chapters 1102 and 1103 to reduce confusion and clarify requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments are not in conflict with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Chapters 1102 and 1103 of the Mounds View Zoning Code as depicted in the attached Exhibit A. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 17th day of May, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Exhibit A The proposed amendments are shown below with additions underlined: 1102.02: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this Code, shall be defined as follows: Subd. 58.5. LANDSCAPING: The aesthetic and physical 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. Subd. 100.5. RETANING WALL: 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. 1103.08: FENCING, RETAINING WALLS, 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 or retaining wall shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence or retaining wall 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. Exhibit A Page 2 Subd. 6. Required Screening: The fencing and screening required by this Title shall be subject to subdivisions 1 through 5 hereof and shall consist of either a fence or a green belt planting strip the height of which shall be sufficient to adequately shield the activity from the abutting properties. a. A green belt planting strip shall consist of evergreen ground cover and shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an effective screen. This planting strip shall contain no structures or other use. Such planting strips shall not be less than eight feet (8') in height. Earth mounding or berms may be used but shall be limited to an average of five feet (5') of the height of the required screen. The planting plan and type of shrub shall require the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission based upon a recommendation of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Building Inspector. b. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight feet (8') in height or be less than six feet (6') in height. The design and materials used in constructing a required screening fence shall be subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission based upon a recommendation by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Building Inspector. c. Ground cover shall be established within one (1) year following issuance of the building permit. Ground cover material shall be of such type as to control erosion. (1988 Code §40.04) Subd. 7. Prohibited Materials: c. Barbed wire, razor wire or other materials which could cause bodily harm shall be prohibited and no fence or property shall be wired and designed to conduct and emit an electrical charge, except as allowed for below. d. Exceptions: Facilities providing essential services or municipal and governmental services may erect barbed wire or other materials having a similar deterrence, upon notice to properties within 350 feet and upon approval of the City Council. to: Mounds View Planning Commission from: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director re: Tax Increment Financing date: May 17, 2006 I wanted to take a brief moment to update the Commission on the status of the TIF analyses and request for information from the April 19, 2006 meeting. The Commission expressed a desire to see the financial consequence of the identified scenarios upon the average property owner; in other words, what impact would a decertification or other action intended to reduce the captured tax capacity have on the property tax statement for a median valued home in the City. We now have the updated and revised TIF scenarios calculated by Ehlers and Associates, the City’s TIF advisors, however due to the move back into City Hall and the ongoing 2005 financial audit, the Finance Director has been unable to translate each scenario into a “dollar value impact” to individual property owners. As soon as this analysis has been conducted, staff will bring the matter back before you for your information. Commissioner Hegland has expressed a desire to learn more about the intricacies of tax increment financing and has found some web resources to help explain the process. With the next report, I will provide the Commission with a supplemental report that attempts to explain TIF in a manner clear and understandable to most non-finance professionals. The ultimate goal of having the Planning Commission review the TIF options and future scenarios is to simply provide the City Council with additional feedback as to the future status of TIF in Mounds View. When it comes time to make relevant decisions, the City Council will consider the Planning Commission’s comments along with feedback received from the Economic Development Commission, the City’s financial advisors, City staff and of course Mounds View property owners. Feel free to call if you have any questions in the meantime. Inter-office M E M O