Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-2006 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 21, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. May 17, 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. ZC2006-001: Continuation – Consideration for a Rezoning of 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the West Half of 8060 Groveland Road. Applicant: Integra Homes Address: 12721 Overlook Road, Dayton, MN 55327 B. PA2006-001: Consideration of a PUD Amendment for 2442 Highway 10 Applicant: LandCor Companies Address: 9325 Upland Lane North, Suite 300, Maple Grove, MN 55369 C. VR2006-004: Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a Billboard and a Variance IU2006-001: for Height at the Mermaid, 2200 County Road 10 Applicant: Clear Channel Outdoor Address: 3225 Spring Street NE, Mpls, MN 55413 6. Other Planning Activity A. SP-146-05 Consideration of an Ordinance Amending the Procedures and Regulations Relating to Dog Kennels B. Continuation – Review TIF Policies, TIF Scenarios and Economic Development Funding Priorities 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. July 5, 2006 B. July 19, 2006 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. June 7, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases b. June 12, 2006 Council Meeting Update c. County Road J Reconstruction update 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 7, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 _______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Acting Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. June 7, 2006. _______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Zwirn, Hegland, Scotch, Miller, and Hull. Absent and Excused: Chair Stevenson and Commissioner Meehlhause Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Planning Associate Heller _______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case ZC2006-001. Continuation – Consideration for a Rezoning 2 of 2901 & 2925 County Road 10 and West Half of 8060 Groveland Road. Integra Homes; 12721 Overlook Road, Dayton, MN 55327 Planning Case VR2006-002. Consideration of a Variance requested for 6 a garage setback. Jim and Amy Wilson; 7025 Pleasant View Drive, Mounds View, MN 55112. Planning Case VR2006-003. Consideration of a Variance request for over 8 1,800 square feet of accessory buildings. David Slabiak and Maria Merabella; 8135 Long Lake Road, Mounds View, MN 55112. Planning Case CU2006-005. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit 14 for a motor freight terminal at 2169 Mustang Drive, Mounds View, MN55112; Joe Greenstein, Midwest Motor Express. Planning Case DE2006-002. Development Review for an expansion to 16 Midwest Motor Express building at 2169 Mustang Drive, Mounds View, MN 55112; Joe Greenstein, Midwest Motor Express. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes May 17, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To approve the Minutes of the May 17, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. ZC 2006-001. Continuation – Consideration for a Rezoning of 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and West Half of 8060 Groveland Road. Community Development Director Ericson presented the continuation of the discussion on May17, 2006 for consideration for a rezoning of 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3 Medium Density Residential. In 2005, Integra Homes, applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Planning Commission reviewed the general concept plan for 21 owner-occupied townhome units on a lot of less than three acres. Concern was expressed by the Panning Commission and adjacent property owners that the proposed development was too intensive, intrusive and out of place given the adjacent single-family residential properties. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 796- 05 in July 2005, recommending denial of the PUD based on the excessive development density and other adverse impacts. Rather than pursue action at the City Council level, Integra chose to re- evaluate their plan based on the feedback received. Integra completed their evaluation and re- submitted an application as a simple rezoning rather than a PUD. Currently, the 3.01-acre development site located on County Road 10 has a mixed zoning designation. The property at 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business and is currently vacant. The properties at 2925 County Road 10 and the back of 8060 Groveland Road are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. It also has an existing single family home that would be demolished if the development were to move forward. Integra Homes is requesting a rezoning of the identified parcels to an R-3, Medium Density designation. Integra proposed development of a 19-unit owner-occupied townhome development to provide minimum intrusion of bordering properties rather than the original 21 units proposed in 2005. Director Ericson stressed this is not contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson asked the Planning Commission to review and discuss the request and consider the merits of rezoning the subject parcels from R-1 and B-3 to R-3 to allow for a 19-unit owner- occupied townhome development. Two resolutions were prepared – one for approval and one for denial. Both resolutions are available for the Commission’s recommended action, which will then be presented to the City Council for consideration at the June 26, 2006 meeting. Director Ericson encouraged questions and comments from the Commission and the audience. Acting Chair Miller stated that no action was taken on this issue at the last meeting due to the absence of Commissioners. There are two Commissioners absent at this meeting also. Director Ericson stressed that Minnesota law states a response within 60 days to a planning application is required. This can be extended out another 60 days. Having two members absent does not preclude the Planning Commission from taking action, however if the decision is to be delayed, a letter must go out to the applicant. Commissioner Zwirn asked if Integra has requested urgency of action on this. Director Ericson indicated nothing has been brought to the staff. Acting Chair Miller asked if anyone in the audience would like to make comments. Mr. Duane Waldoch, 2935 County Road 10, appeared before the Commission. When he found out about PUD plan, he was initially upset. His concern now is if the property owner bought the property intending to build townhomes. If so, Mr. Waldoch stated, he did not do his homework and questions if the Planning Commission is now obligated to help fix his problem. Mr. Waldoch feels this property has potential for other opportunities. There are other townhomes being built in the area, so why does Mounds View need more built on this site. He indicated that residents of the proposed Integra townhomes would have to make a right-hand turn out of the complex, thus taking them away from Mounds View rather than into the City. Mr. Waldoch pointed out that there are nine acres in the PUD and he believes feelers should go out to other developers for building businesses more beneficial to Mounds View. He is also concerned that these townhomes will become rental properties rather than owner-occupied. Commissioner Scotch asked Mr. Waldoch what he would like to see built on this lot. He responded by saying that is tough to answer and believes the whole PUD area should be looked at and all opportunities explored. If this area is not Zoned R-3, the developer has the option to sell it. With the potential of the Vikings Stadium being built in the area, he believes more businesses such as restaurants and hotels are viable options. He reasoned that if this area is held up for townhomes, Mounds View is cutting their throats. He stressed that he is not against townhomes; he is against not exploring all options for this area. He asked how building townhomes would benefit Mounds View. Mr. Waldoch hopes the Planning Commission does not rush to approve rezoning to R-3. Mrs. Cindy Johnson, 2865 NE County Road 10, addressed the Commission. She believes the building of townhomes is not following the established Comprehensive Plan and is not part of the vision for Mounds View. She pointed out that $12,000 was spent to remove buildings and clean Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ this lot to make it appealing to business. In her opinion, rezoning this area to R-3 breaks up her property and makes it less valuable. Mrs. Johnson also believes the additional traffic and one way in and out of the townhome development will cause safety and traffic issues. She is in favor of using this area for business development. Mr. Mark Schnor, 2949 County Road 10, appeared before the Planning Commission and asked what the Commissioners would like to see in this area. Mr. Schnor said he loves where he is at and asked the Commission how they would feel about townhomes in their back yards. Mr. Schnor indicated that the plan last year was for 21 homes on less than three acres, now the plan is for 19 townhomes with the required three acres. He sees no real major change other than the tax base created for Mounds View. He also indicated the drainage ditch, previously in the back, will be moved to the front of the development and questioned what type of aesthetic view this will create for Mounds View. If townhomes are built, he questions what can be built to the west, if there would there be enough acreage for additional housing units, and what safety factors will be created. Mr. Schnor does not want to see County Road 10 become chopped up. He also brought up potential safety issues with a townhome development and access for fire vehicles and also garbage trucks within the development. Commissioner Hegland asked Mr. Schnor if he has a preference for what is built on this property. Mr. Schnor questioned if the townhomes are the right way to go or should businesses be built. Commissioner Hegland shared that when the Comprehensive Plan was developed, the B-3 zoning was in hopes of that having the option to not doing a PUD would encourage more business development along County Road 10. He also stated that affordable housing and rental property was discussed. At that time Mounds View was at a higher rate than in adjacent cities. He believes the idea behind the Comprehensive Plan is to develop more business along County Road 10. Commissioner Scotch stressed she does not feel traffic will be an issue. She also feels the vision for the Comprehensive Plan was for more business and is in favor of that option. Commissioner Scotch would like to see the whole strip purchased to enhance the City. Commissioner Hegland contends that Mounds View has a limited amount of space for business development. Acting Chair Miller expressed her understanding of the Comprehensive Plan. She also believes it is for business development and townhomes are not part of the plan. Director Ericson stated that development of the corridor is continually being worked on. Mounds View has vacant buildings in the area but this could change in time with the Medtronic project, the Viking Stadium, or other developers could renew their interest in the County Road 10 corridor. Commissioner Zwirn pointed out he hears lots of discussion on the corridor development. This discussion leads to the question of what to develop – residential or business. He expressed the problems of having a business near a residential area include vandalism, lighting issues, property maintenance, congregation of youth and others. He feels the Commission should look at which Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ permitted use is the lesser of two evils. Commissioner Zwirn stressed that Integra has an impeccable reputation regarding maintenance and communication with residents. To accommodate requirements of space and workability features, Integra is willing to work with residents on their concerns and recommendations. He stressed that once the City Council passes this, it is done. If there are problems later, there is not much that can be done. Individuals will need to bring individual issues or problems to the Council or Commission as they happen. Commissioner Zwirn is confused as to what the public wants to do with the corridor. If the public does not want commercial development, or doesn’t want residential, what does public really want? Mr. Waldoch again addressed the Commission and stated he has no problem with townhouses. He has issue with the proposed location and breaking up the PUD. He indicated there are no residential accommodations or services at that end of town. He questions why townhouses should be built on both sides of County Road 10. He believes traffic will become an issue on Spring Lake Road with the right hand turn out of the townhome development, which will not help Mounds View businesses. Mr. Waldoch believes there is a better way to look at this. He pointed out the townhomes going up along Long Lake Road and questions how many are needed in Mounds View. He restated his feeling that Integra did not do its homework and believes the PUD was developed for a reason. Mr. Waldoch would like to see townhouses kept at the end of town where sidewalks and stop and go lights already exist. He believes it is time for more business and the PUD makes more sense now than it did when originally developed. Commissioner Scotch maintains that most business owners take pride in their businesses. Director Ericson called the Commissions attention to the issue of traffic. It is his observation that the 19-unit townhome development would not create a traffic concern. Commercial business generally creates more traffic. In a conversation with the Fire Marshall, adequate space for safety and emergency vehicles and garbage trucks will exist. Secondly, trail ways and pedestrian friendly areas are planned along County Road 10 to Silver Lake Road and Spring Lake Road to the northwest. Director Ericson believes when the PUD was created in 2001/2002 they were looking at the future and what could go in this area. The challenge is to look at what would most benefit Mounds View. The B-3 zoning has been in place for many years. The R-1 has been inconsistent, therefore the City maintains control as to what goes in and the PUD will be broken up either way. Commissioner Hegland reiterated the reason for the PUD was based on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Schnor again addressed the Commission. He stated that if the townhome project was important, why is a representative from Integra not present at this meeting. He wonders if this is reflective of how the project will go. Acting Chair Miller reiterated the Comprehensive Plan is in place and emphasized it is for a mixed-use PUD. There are two resolutions before the Commission; one to deny and one to approve the rezoning request to an R-3. She asked Director Ericson if the Comprehensive Plan would have to be changed. Director Ericson explained this is a mixed-use PUD with an emphasis on housing. A townhome development would satisfy the housing component of the PUD. If the intent were for a commercial PUD it would have been designated as such. A townhome Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ development is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He reminded the Commission that the third option is to table this until next meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hull. To table until the June 21, 2006 meeting, Resolution 835-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Rezoning of 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and West Half of 8060 Groveland Road. Integra Homes; Planning Case No. ZC 2006-001. Ayes – 3 Nays – 0 2 Abstain (Scotch, Zwirn) Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. VR2006-002. Consideration of a Variance request for a 2 foot garage setback at 7025 Pleasant View Drive. Planning Associate Heller presented a variance request to allow a reduced side-yard setback for a garage at 7025 Pleasant View Drive. The owners (Jim and Amy Wilson) previously had a one-car garage and would like to remodel their home and build a two-car attached garage. The house was built in 1947 and placed approximately centered between the side property lines. Mounds View zoning codes require the living area of a home be ten feet from the side property line. A garage may be five feet from the side property line. The requested variance of three feet would put the garage two feet from the side property line. This home is located in an R-1, Single Family Residential district. The applicants wish to construct a new, larger attached garage to their home. Until recently, there was a single-car, 13’x32’ detached garage on the property that was 8.5’ from the side property line. The applicants indicated this was a very old and ugly garage and has been torn down. The property owners would also remove a shed on the property when they build the new garage. The roofline on the new garage will follow the one on the house, which slopes to the front and back yards. Water runoff would not be running towards the neighboring house. The house to the south is 14.5 feet off the property line. A four-foot privacy fence separates the two houses. The garage would be 3 feet from the fence and the fence is one foot off the neighboring property line. Planning Associate Heller explained that for a variance to be approved, the applicants must demonstrate that a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require the governing body (the Planning Commission in this case) to review a set of seven specific criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. Planning Associate Heller addressed exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property. She noted that even though the property is just over one acre in size, it is not much wider than many other lots in the city. The lot size is approximately 100 feet wide and 448 feet deep, with nearly the entire lot being designated wetland and wetland buffer area. The City imposes development restrictions in or near wetlands. This prevents the applicants from building the garage behind the house. The deep slope of the lot directly behind the house prevents easy Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ access to the backyard and limits how the garage can be constructed and makes it difficult to build a garage that would be two cars deep rather than two cars wide. When the house was built, it was placed 30 feet from the north side property line and 24 feet from the south side property line, which is where the side entrance and previous garage were placed. This leaves limited space for more than a one-car garage. Most of the other homes in the area were placed off center on the lot allowing more room for garages. Planning Associate Heller then addressed the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Title and explained that while the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by the other properties in the same zone, the placement of the home on the lot and the slope of the back yard precludes the applicant from having more than a one-car garage. This in itself may be considered a hardship. She noted the applicants are not the original owners of the property and had no choice in the placement of the home or the slope of the rear yard. With regard to special privilege, Planning Associate Heller noted that granting the variance would not confer upon the property owners a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. Setback issues are the most common source of variance requests. Planning Associate Heller stated the applicant is requesting a three-foot variance, which is the minimum amount that would allow the proposed garage to be wide enough for two cars. Granting a variance to allow the addition to encroach three feet into the side setback would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. The previous detached garage was 8.5 feet from the property line. The proposed addition should not have any impact on the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, nor would it impact congestion on the street. The proposed garage will not increase the danger of fire, endanger pubic safety or decrease property values in the neighborhood. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that after holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and the affected neighbors, the Commission can approve, deny or table actions related to the request. If the Commission chooses to deny the requested variance, it should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. Should the Commission choose to table the request because they require additional information before a decision can be made or more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information is provided. Because of the 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Mr. Jim Wilson, 7025 Pleasant View Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Wilson stated his intention is to get both cars in a garage. Their son just turned 16 so there will be a third car in the driveway. Mr. and Mrs. Wilson also want to clean up their lot and keep pace with the upgrades to other houses in area. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioners Hegland and Scotch stated they think this is great and are very supportive of his actions. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Scotch. To approve Resolution 836-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to Allow for a Three-Foot Side-yard Setback for a Garage at 7025 Pleasant View Drive; Planning Case No. VR2006-002. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ C. VR2006-003. Consideration of a Variance request for over 1,800 square feet of accessory buildings at 8135 Long Lake Road. Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the applicants, David Slabiak and Maria Merabella, seek a variance to allow more accessory storage space than permitted in an R-1 Single Family Zoning District. The applicants propose constructing a new 1,620 square foot accessory building at the rear of their 29,620 square foot lot. There is presently 868 square feet of accessory space on the lot. Their request would be for an additional 868 square feet of storage space over the 1,800 square foot maximum, or 37 percent more than what is currently allowed. The applicants have indicted a desire to store arcade games in the new building. Director Ericson explained the amount of allowed accessory space on a lot is presently 1,800 square feet, an amount that exceeds many if not most first and second tier suburban communities. The present allowance was established in 2002, increasing the previous maximum from 1,400. For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. According to Minnesota statutes, the Planning Commission is required to review a set of specific criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the City Zoning Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all the criteria are met. A summary of the findings based on the statutes are as follows: Director Ericson advised there are no extraordinary circumstances relating to the lot or the usage of the property, which would warrant consideration of a variance for more than 37 percent of the maximum allowed square footage. While it may be true that the lot, at 2/3 of an acre, could support the additional garage without exceeding the 20 percent rear-yard coverage ratio and the garage would be reasonably hidden from public view, these facts do not support a finding of extraordinary circumstances. The applicants freely admit that the basis for the request is to resolve a storage space deficiency caused by their own doing. Director Ericson explained the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code allows for a maximum accessory storage space of 1,800 square feet. Many property owners, given the size of their lots and limited backyard depth, do not have the ability to construct anything close to Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ 1,800 square feet. Thus the Code does not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others. With regard to special conditions or circumstances, Director Ericson stated the applicants indicate they have exceeded their available on-site storage capacity and thus would like to construct a new 1,620 square foot accessory building in the backyard to house their arcade games rather than store their machines off-site. The request for this variance is necessitated by the applicant’s hobby and not due to property or other limitations over which they have no control. Director Ericson advised that granting the variance would confer upon the applicants a special privilege in that no single-family residential property owner is allowed more than 1,800 square feet of accessory storage space. The applicants have indicated that the requested 2,468 square feet of accessory storage space is the minimum amount necessary to alleviate their self-created hardship. Granting such a variance would set an unusual standard and would be contrary to the purposes of the Zoning Code. While each request is reviewed on its own merit, approving such a variance request would set a precedent leading to ramifications of this action. Director Ericson stated the proposed addition would not likely have any impact on the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, nor would it likely impact congestion of the streets. The proposed garage would not likely increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or decrease property values in the neighborhood. Director Ericson summarized by explaining that for a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all criteria are met. In review of the above criteria, it is clear that not all criteria can be reasonably met. Given that, it would not appear that a variance in this case would be justified. Director Ericson stated that after a public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owners and affected neighbors, the Commission they can decide to approve, deny or table the request. Director Ericson acknowledged that staff does not support this action as the review of the hardship criteria does not appear to warrant approval. If the Commission believes hardship is evident, it would need to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval, which clearly outlines the basis of hardship. Director Ericson indicated that staff has prepared a resolution of denial based on its review of the hardship criteria which does not appear to justify approval. If additional information is needed before a decision is made or if more discussion is required, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Director Ericson reminded the Commission that because of the 60-day requirements, it would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Acting Chair Miller asked Director Ericson if this is a garage and he stated it was indeed a garage. Her calculations indicate this building would be larger than the current house and garage together. At this time, Acting Chair Miller called the applicant forward. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Slabiak, 8135 Long Lake Road, addressed the Planning Commission and gave a quick background on their family. He explained they out grew their current space because of a growing family and his hobby of collecting pinball machines. Mr. Slabiak would like to enjoy his personal collection of pinball machines rather than pack them away. He is not planning to run a business from this garage; this is for relaxation only. At this time Mr. Slabiak deferred to his friend Michael Kaluziak. Acting Chair Miller asked about the supplemental information and Mr. Slabiak referred her to Mr. Kaluziak. Mr. Kaluziak presented justification to the Planning Commission for granting a Minor Area Variance. In determining the hardship criteria, Mr. Kaluziak and Mr. Slabiak use the definition of “undue hardship” as “requiring a showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance.” Mr. Kaluziak made reference to Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Moorehead, 445 N. W. 2nd 917 (Minn. Ct. App., 1989). This interpretation of hardship definition was affirmed in Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W. 2d488 (Minn. Ct. App., 1995) and Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W. 2d 697 (Minn. Ct. Appl., 2000). Mr. Kaluziak restated that Mr. Slabiak collects, owns and maintains a substantial collection of electronic amusement devices, primarily pinball machines and video games that are a historical display of Americana. This activity is a permitted use according to local ordinances. Mr. Slabiak is an avid collector but does not engage in commercial activities beyond trading of his own collection. The proposed building is necessary to protect the collection from the elements, theft or vandalism. Mr. Kaluziak maintained that to authorize the variance is not contrary to the public interest and because of the special conditions of the property; a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. By granting the proposed variance, the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice done. It is Mr. Slabiak’s belief that unnecessary hardship exists in part because the ordinance interferes with his right to use the property as he see fit. The extraordinary or exceptional conditions of their residence include an oversized lot, a private setting and a lack of neighbors to the east. According to Mr. Kaluziak’s and Mr. Slabiak’s research, the application of the existing zoning ordinance would unreasonably prevent the Slabiak’s from using the property for a permitted purpose and would render conformity with the existing ordinances unnecessarily burdensome. For example, the Slabiaks could propose the construction of this accessory structure using conforming foundations with a second story or basement and still meet the existing requirements. However, this would increase hazards in terms of fires, personal safety, building expense and inconvenience. In addition, underground storage of electrical components would be in an environment with higher relative humidity, which decreases usable life. These adverse effects are serious practical difficulties that pose more than a mere inconvenience. Approval of this variance would not confer additional rights on others owing to the exceptional, if not unique, conditions of this property. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Kaluziak stated granting the variance would have no effect upon the public. Approval of this variance does not conflict with any state regulations. Courts have found that an area variance poses a lesser threat to the integrity of the zoning scheme than those of use variances. Mr. Kaluziak pointed out the primary objectives of area zoning are to promote uniformity of development, lot size, building configuration and building size. Mr. Slabiak’s property has special conditions and uniqueness that distinguish it from others in the area including oversized lot area, the underdeveloped area to the east, existing vegetative cover and unusual lot dimensions. The property has a unique setting in its environment. In October, 2005, the City rezoned the nearby 72- acre Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course land from “Recreational” to “Business” without prior inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The sale of this land was done to allow Medtronic, Inc. to construct a 1,200,000 square foot campus. The City determined this rezoning created no adverse effect and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed variance is not inconsistent with the spirit of the ordinance, as it would provide a more uniform density within the R-1 zones in Mounds View. Also, the Planning Commission stated the intent of the 1,800 square foot limit on accessory structures was intended to prohibit commercial vehicle maintenance in residential areas. The proposed structure will not have a driveway and will not be used for vehicle maintenance. Mr. Kaluziak affirmed, in this case, there may not be a clear relationship between the purpose of the existing zoning ordinance and the specific regulation. He notes that the Slabiak lot is 2.7 times the minimum lot sized required by local zoning ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed structure would actually provide a more uniform density of R-1 zoned lots within the city as described by the Comprehensive Plan and the majority of other R-1 residences in the City. Mr. Kaluziak pointed out that zoning ordinances must be reasonable, not arbitrary and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the regulations. The proposed building would meet the maximum 20 percent area of rear yard provisions. The Commission has agreed that the “combined square footage requirements in the Code do not take into consideration larger yards such as the Slabiaks’. Twenty percent of the Slabiaks’ back yard is approximately 3900 square feet. Commissioner Hegland asked Mr. Kaluziak if this request is not approved, would a two-story building be built to meet the existing footprint? Mr. Kaluziak said this is not an option, as a two- story building would create structural and access issues. Acting Chair Miller asked a question on the supplemental information under paragraph 3 – “the proposed structure will conform to all existing codes with the exception of its width” and “additionally there are several covenants proposed which would prevent any future incompatible uses.” Mr. Kaluziak referred the Commissioners to paragraph 8, identifying proposed measures to minimize any potential adverse effects. These include, but are not limited to: Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ -Ten foot property boundary setbacks on all sides of the building to lessen any visual impact to the surrounding area. - Exterior of this accessory building will closely match the existing primary residence. - The accessory building will not be connected by a driveway, ensuring no vehicle maintenance will be performed. -No impact upon existing trees and additional landscaping will be done. - No windows other than those required for safety and will be insulated to abate noise from the facility. -Building will be accessible to emergency and public safety vehicles. -Construction will include any necessary grading or drainage modification necessary. -This structure will be shielded from view by existing vegetation. Director Ericson reminded the Commission that while he appreciates the nostalgia of the collection, this is not what the variance is for; it is for accessory building space. The Commission must also consider the future and long-term impacts of their decision. When looking at a variance, some hardship based on the property or the area in which this is located must be evident. If the property is sold, what happens then? When a variance is approved, it is forever. Mr. Kaluziak is asking the Commission to look at the reasonableness of the request. The Commission must consider the reasonableness; 1,800 is reasonable but 2400 is excessive. Commissioner Hegland asked how one can defend that this does not grant him a special privilege that no one else has. Mr. Kaluziak stated they did consider future impacts. He showed a diagram of the footprint on the lot. Similar properties were also pointed out. They do not believe this is a special right, that they do have precedence by this Commission that hardship is created by the smallness of a lot size, and the reverse should also be considered. They are consistent with existing guidelines within the Minnesota Planning Act, to allow different designations within districts themselves. In summary Mr. Slabiak’s application is for a permitted use and is not unreasonable. He believes the variance process exists for a reason and the remedy is more compliant with the planning ordinance than a two-story structure or alternatives would be. He also restated that there is a question as to whether the seven criteria within 1125 are legally sufficient tests to look at hardship. Acting Chair Miller asked Director Ericson if Minnesota statues require the Planning Commission to review a specified set of criteria; are the criteria in 1125 something the City determined or are they based on State of Minnesota statues. Director Ericson believes it is the language the City adopted and it is consistent with Minnesota statutes. There has not been a case, to his knowledge, where these have been challenged. There are opportunities to find hardship and the Planning Commission has done so on numerous occasions. There are numerous justifiable variances and hardship justifications. He does not, nor does City Attorney, believe that the criteria the City of Mounds View has, is in any way stricter or not conducive in finding fair and reasonable review of applications. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ Acting Chair Miller asked Director Ericson if Mr. Slabiak can take his request for a variance on appeal to the City Council if the Planning Commission denies this application. Director Ericson stated it is the right of any applicant to take a denied request on appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Zwirn asked Mr. Slabiak if this facility is only for the collection or will meetings or exchange of machines for value be conducted here also. Mr. Slabiak said this is only for maintaining and working on his collection to pass on later. No meetings or sales will be held from this building. There will be no storage of chemicals or paint supplies, only cleaning supplies. He restores and dismantles these machines. The chemicals he uses are the same type one would use on cars. He restores these machines to a point they look like they have been used, not to make them flawless. Commissioner Scotch asked where these pinball machines are stored now. Mr. Slabiak stated they are in their home, garage and a rental storage unit. Commissioner Scotch commented that the backyard is totally buffered by trees and the lot is lengthy. Mr. Slabiak commented he would like to place the building in back so as not to disturb neighbors or his family. He talked to neighbors and there does not seem to be a problem with the construction of this building. Commissioner Scotch asked if adding on to the home would accomplish the same goal. Mr. Slabiak restated he wants the machines removed from the home and out of reach of his children and his wife does not want them in the home. Mr. James Lund, 14035 Hillsboro Court, Savage, MN, addressed the Commission, stating he owns property to the back of Mr. Slabiak’s lot. Mr. Lund said he would like to develop the land behind into single-family housing in the future. He has waited because other developers are trying to develop to the north. He does not want to alienate his neighbor if he decides to develop his property. Mr. Lund indicted that he believes Mr. Slabiak’s intention to have the building 60 feet from the north line is plenty. His major concern is that the building will not look like a pole barn type building. He also wants to save the tree buffer. Mr. Lund is also glad Mr. Slabiak is not putting in a driveway to this building. Mr. Lund would like the plans to be approved before he begins construction. He wants to be sure the footprint is 10 feet or more from the back lot and at least 15 feet from the north line. Commissioner Hegland does not see how this can be approved, given the criteria they must follow. The only way it will fit the criteria is to increase the criteria to 2,400 square feet. He is not suggesting that be done. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Hull. To approve Resolution 839-06, a Resolution Recommending Denial of a variance request for 2,468 Square Feet of Accessory Storage Space at 8135 Long Lake Road; Planning Case No.VR2006-003. Commissioner Zwirn commented this was an eloquent argument pointing out that 1125 is a guideline rather than a document cut in stone. He believes there are extenuating circumstances for individuals with large lots when they need outbuildings that would normally be construed as a large outbuilding, but on a large lot it meets the liberal criteria that could be established for this. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ Nothing can be construed to be beneficial for a person with a lot of this size. He does not believe the Planning Commission needs to change the criteria, but should be able to liberally interpret 1125. Commissioner Zwirn is inclined to permit the usage. Commissioner Hegland indicated he believes this is not the only solution to this problem. Other options could be considered. Acting Chair Miller affirmed the Code sets the limit for accessory space and this goes way beyond the standards. She appreciates what Commissioner Zwirn said and what the applicant says, but given what they have to work with right now she does not see how this can be approved. Commissioner Scotch informed the applicant he can feel free to take this to the City Council. Director Ericson will let them know the process to do this. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Zwirn) Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ D. CU2006-005. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Freight Terminal at 2169 Mustang Drive, Midwest Motor Express. Planning Associate Heller presented the Commission with a request for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a motor freight terminal at 2169 Mustang Drive. This property was developed in 1974 as a trucking terminal and has continued to operate as such for the past 32 years. For unknown reasons, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) has never been issued to this property. The applicant, Mr. Joe Greenstein, recently applied to the City for a development review of an expansion to their building. While doing research, staff discovered that a CUP was never approved for this property. Planning Associate Heller explained that with every Conditional Use Permit application, Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to review and address any potential adverse effects which include but are not limited to: relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area, traffic, adequate utilities and access roads and the demonstrated need for such a use. Planning Associate Heller stated the Comprehensive Plan encourages expansion of existing businesses and introduction of new businesses within Mounds View. The site of 2169 Mustang Drive and surrounding properties in the industrial park are designed as light or heavy industrial on the Future Land Use Map and this trucking terminal would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This property is designated as “Heavy Industrial” on the Comprehensive Plan maps. Planning Associate Heller noted this business is located at Mustang Drive in the Mounds View Industrial Park. The trucking terminal would continue to not be out of place for this industrial area. Since the property has operated as a trucking terminal for the past 32 years and plans to continue operating as such, there would be no change to the value of this or any surrounding Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ properties. This site is in an industrial area and these types of businesses are what industrial areas are designed and zoned for. Staff does not feel there would be any depreciation of the subject property or the surrounding properties. Planning Associate Heller stated this part of the City is mostly an industrial area. There is a manufactured home community on the north end of the property; however, a natural vegetative buffer separates the properties. All other properties surrounding the subject property are zoned industrial. There are two other large trucking companies in this industrial park, so the character in this area is largely transportation based. With regard to traffic, Planning Associate Heller noted that Mustang Drive exits onto Old Highway 8 where traffic counts are 6,800 vehicles per day. Traffic would not change by approving this conditional use permit. The applicant is proposing an expansion to the building but does not anticipate an increase in traffic. There would be no change to the existing business. It would continue operating as it has for many years. All utilities and access roads are adequate for this business. The site is located on Mustang Drive, which has good access to nearby highways and freeways. Planning Associate Heller advised that Midwest Motor Express has operated this business in Mounds View since 1994, and this site has been operating as a trucking terminal since it was developed over 30 years ago with no problems. Midwest Motor Express is very happy being located here and would like to continue to operate and expand in Mounds View. Planning Associate Heller stated that public hearing notices were mailed out to all property owners within 350 feet of 2169 Mustang Drive, including the specific manufactured homes within the radius area. No comments have been received. Planning Associate Heller summarized by stating Midwest Motor Express is requesting approval of a conditional use permit which is required to operate a trucking terminal on an industrial zoned property. By no fault of Midwest Motor Express, a Conditional Use Permit was never issued for the property even though it has been operating as a trucking terminal since 1974. There have been no problems with this property as a trucking terminal. Based on the stated criteria, staff feels the proposed adequately satisfies the conditional use criteria and would not adversely affect the surrounding area. Mr. Greenstein addressed the Planning Commission. He was shocked to discover there was no Conditional Use Permit and is requesting the Planning Commission grant the CUP. Director Ericson stated this is a housekeeping item. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Zwirn. To approve Resolution 837-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a Motor Freight Terminal at 2169 Mustang Drive; Planning Case No. CU2006-005. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 ________________________________________________________________________ E. DE2006-002. Development Review for an Expansion to Midwest Motor Express building, Midwest Motor Express. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the applicant and property owner of Midwest Motor Express is requesting a development review for a proposed 10,500 square foot building addition to be added onto the north side of the existing building at 2169 Mustang Drive. This expansion would help the company continue to be competitive in their market and streamline their current processes. Midwest Motor Express provides direct trucking services to 13 states in the Midwest and western United States. The Midwest Motor Express property is zoned Industrial with motor freight terminals being allowed as a conditional use. With the expansion, they expect to hire about eight to ten new employees consisting of drivers, dockworkers and office personnel. The building was constructed in 1974 as a trucking terminal, and was expanded once in 1994 by 3,500 square feet along with surfacing approximately 90,000 square feet. The building is currently 19,000 square feet and the site also includes a 3-bay repair garage on the west side of the building. Midwest Motor Express would like to add a 70’x150’ expansion to the north end of the building. This expansion would consist of warehouse space and an additional 24- dock doors (12 on each side of the building). They are not expanding the building in anticipation of additional business, instead, they want to perform their dock operations more efficiently and productively. Additional truck traffic after the expansion is not anticipated. This property is zoned Industrial and is just over eight acres in size. The Comprehensive Plan designates the current and future land use specifically as “Heavy Industrial.” According to the City’s parking code requirements, this facility would be required to provide parking according to the following schedule: at least eight spaces plus one space for each two employees on each shift based on maximum planned employment; or at a minimum, at least eight spaces plus one space for each five hundred square feet of floor space. At maximum expansion, this would result in the need to provide a total of 67 parking stalls when based on the total square footage of the building. There are currently about 40 marked parking spaces in the front of the building. More than enough space for parking exists at this facility since much of the site is paved. Staff is confident the site can support any parking needed. Planning Associate Heller advised that none of the setbacks would be changing except the rear of the building would be moved to within 225 feet of the north property line. This setback is much greater than the minimum requirement in an industrial district of 40 feet when abutting a residential area. Townsedge Manufactured Home Park abuts Midwest Motor Express on the north side. There is a grassy area with a berm and trees at the north end of the property separating Midwest Motor Express’ property from Townsedge. Staff feels that a building setback of 225 feet plus the vegetative separation between the properties should be an adequate buffer for the residential area. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 ________________________________________________________________________ With regard to traffic, Planning Associate Heller explained that even with the proposed expansion of 24 more dock doors, no increase in traffic is anticipated. This added space is needed to load and stage freight more efficiently, not for more business. This property is located in the Mounds View Industrial Park along Old Highway 8, which is a fairly high traffic road due to the amount of businesses on Mustang Drive and in the nearby area. Planning Assistant Heller requests the Planning Commission review and consider approval of the plans submitted by Midwest Motor Express proposing a 10,500 square foot addition to the north end of the existing building. Acting Chair Miller asked how long this may take. Mr. Greenstein said they would like to start as soon as possible. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To approve Resolution 838-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review for a 10,500 square foot addition to the Midwest Motor Express Building; Planning Case No. DE2006-002. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. __________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: June 21, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: June 21, 2006 Type of Business: PC Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Request to Rezone Properties at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west 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 west 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 June 21, 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 Single family dwellings, twinhomes and townhomes. Schools, churches, day care centers and multiple family developments would require a conditional use permit (CUP) in an R-3 district. 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. 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. Integra Homes Request June 21, 2006 Page 3 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. 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. 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 regarding the May 17, 2006 public hearing. Only one written comment has been received to date, 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. At the public hearing which was held on May 17, 2006, residents Duane Waldoch, Mark Schnor and Cindy Johnson spoke to the request, each expressing varying degrees of opposition to the request. Only one individual spoke in favor of the request, a resident residing in the townhome development across the street in Spring Lake Park. The same Mounds View residents expressed their same concerns at the June 7, 2006 meeting. Integra Homes Request June 21, 2006 Page 4 The residents have expressed concern regarding traffic and access onto County Road 10, limitation of future development, opposition to residential development and inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Traffic. According to Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), a 19-unit townhome development would generate on average 112 vehicle trips per day. An office building would generate much more traffic, though without knowing the potential area of the office development, it would be difficult to arrive at a suitable comparative figure. For the sake of discussion only, if a 15,000 square foot office building were constructed on the site, depending upon the type of office usage, the trips generated would range from 174 to 542 vehicle trips per day. (Medical and dental offices tend to generate the highest traffic levels among the “office” uses.) Access. The site would be served by a single right-in right-out access point onto County Road 10. The number of vehicle trips per day generated by a 19-unit townhome project would not exceed the capacity of the access point. There are other examples of commercial and residential development on County Road 10 served only by a single right-in right-out access, a customary and typical characteristic of mid-block development. While perhaps less convenient than developments at signalized intersections or those served by a cross street or service road, such mid-block developments do not pose a safety hazard. Limitation of Future Development. The project is in the middle of a Mixed Use (MU) Planned Unit Development (PUD) district as designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. While it is true if the Integra project is allowed to proceed as requested neither the area to the southeast or northwest could be developed as a PUD, either area could be developed either in conjunction with the Integra project or as a stand-alone project. The Integra project does not preclude or hinder redevelopment of either area. Comprehensive Plan Inconsistency. As stated earlier in this report, the site is designated as Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development. This designation was established to encourage and provide maximum flexibility for future redevelopment in this area. A mixed use development implies a mix of uses and defined by the Comp Plan to include a significant amount of residential development. For that reason, staff would assert the proposed project is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While staff appreciates the concerns expressed by the residents, it appears that project as proposed would not adversely affect the neighborhood, would generate comparatively less traffic than would an office or commercial development, would not preclude or prevent adjacent redevelopment and would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Summary The only question that remains at this point is whether the Planning Commission and neighbors believe an alternative land use would be more appropriate than the proposed medium density, owner-occupied townhome development. If that is the case, the “preferred” land use should be articulated, and if warranted, consideration be given to an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Finally, if the proposed rezoning and townhome project is not the preferred development opportunity for this site, the request should be denied. Integra Homes Request June 21, 2006 Page 5 Recommendation: Review and discuss the request and consider 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. Both resolutions of approval and denial are available for your action either as presented or subject to your modification. The Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at their meeting on June 26, 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 Site Site Plan MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 835-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST TO R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AT 2901 AND 2925 COUNTY ROAD 10 AND THE WEST HALF OF 8060 GROVELAND ROAD; PLANNING CASE ZC06-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Integra Homes, has applied for a rezoning request of the properties at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road to r- 3, Medium Density residential. The properties are legally described as: Lot 8, Block 3, Sherwood Estates; and, Subject To Highway; The Following; Part Of Lot 32 Description Beginning On Easterly Lot 32 100 Feet South Of Northwest Corner Lot 50 Thence South On Said Line To Northeast Line Of Highway Thence Northwest On Highway 32 Feet Thence Northeast To Beginning Also, Except Northwesterly Triangular Part Measured 7 Feet On Northerly & 100 Feet On Easterly Line Said Triangle; All Of Lot 50, and the West 271.10 Feet of the South 135 Feet of Lot 47, all in Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89. WHEREAS, 2925 County Road 10 and 8060 Groveland Road are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the official City newspaper on May 3, 2006, and notices mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on Wednesday, May 17, 2006; and, Option A DENIAL Resolution 835-06 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Chapters 1108 and 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to the R-3 zoning district and Rezoning process, respectively; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan relative to this request; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the site plans associated with this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the possible adverse effects of this proposed rezoning request as required by the Mounds View Zoning Code: 1. The current zoning of the lots is R-1, Single Family Residential and B-3, Highway Business. The requested zoning of the lots is R-3, Medium Density Residential. 2. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the parcels proposed to be included in the development are designated Mixed-Use PUD on the Future Land Use map. 3. The rezoning and associated development plan as proposed would adversely affect adjacent property owners by compromising privacy and substantially increasing area densities. 4. The proposed density, while not inconsistent with the Code requirements for a 3-acre parcel, is too intense given the surrounding single family dwellings and does not fit the character of the existing neighborhood. 5. The residential rezoning is not consistent with the redevelopment expectations of the City for this area. 6. No compelling basis to justify the requested rezoning has been presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, the information and documents regarding the proposed rezoning, the report drafted by staff and the testimony of the applicant, and in consideration of the public testimony given at the public hearing, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of the rezoning request made by Integra Homes. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Resolution 835-06 Page 3 Adopted this 21st day of June, 2006. _________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: _________________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (Seal) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 835-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST TO R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AT 2901 AND 2925 COUNTY ROAD 10 AND THE WEST HALF OF 8060 GROVELAND ROAD; PLANNING CASE ZC06-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Integra Homes, has applied for a rezoning request of the properties at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road to r- 3, Medium Density residential. The properties are legally described as: Lot 8, Block 3, Sherwood Estates; and, Subject To Highway; The Following; Part Of Lot 32 Description Beginning On Easterly Lot 32 100 Feet South Of Northwest Corner Lot 50 Thence South On Said Line To Northeast Line Of Highway Thence Northwest On Highway 32 Feet Thence Northeast To Beginning Also, Except Northwesterly Triangular Part Measured 7 Feet On Northerly & 100 Feet On Easterly Line Said Triangle; All Of Lot 50, and the West 271.10 Feet of the South 135 Feet of Lot 47, all in Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89. WHEREAS, 2925 County Road 10 and 8060 Groveland Road are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the official City newspaper on May 3, 2006, and notices mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on Wednesday, May 17, 2006; and, Option B APPROVAL Resolution 835-06 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Chapters 1108 and 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to the R-3 zoning district and Rezoning process, respectively; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan relative to this request; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the site plans associated with this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the possible adverse effects of this proposed rezoning request as required by the Mounds View Zoning Code: 1. The current zoning of the lots is R-1, Single Family Residential and B-3, Highway Business. The requested zoning of the lots is R-3, Medium Density Residential. 2. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the parcels proposed to be included in the rezoning are designated Mixed-Use PUD on the Future Land Use map. The proposed rezoning would not be inconsistent with the anticipated future land use for this area. 3. The rezoning and associated development plan as proposed would not adversely affect adjacent property owners and would not be out of place on the County Road 10 corridor, the City’s most intensely developed thoroughfare. 4. The proposed density is not inconsistent with the Code requirements for a 3-acre parcel. 5. The proposed rezoning to allow for an owner-occupied residential townhome development would help satisfy an under-represented housing choice in the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, the information and documents regarding the proposed rezoning, the report drafted by staff and the testimony of the applicant, and in consideration of the public testimony given at the public hearing, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend APPROVAL of the rezoning request made by Integra Homes. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Resolution 835-06 Page 3 Adopted this 7th day of June, 2006. _________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: _________________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (Seal) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: June 21, 2006 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate of a Proposed ed Unit Development troduction: representing LandCor Construction, has applied for an amendment to the ’Neil property Planned Unit Development (PUD). This 26 acre PUD bounded by County iscussion: ally approved the O’Neil property PUD in May 1998. The original land use esignated for 2442 County Road 10 (Parcel A) was a restaurant. In May of 2003, the City nstruct an attached garage on the outhwest side of the building. They would also need to relocate the garbage enclosure that ned Unit Developments is processed as would an amendment to an pproved Conditional Use Permit, which is to say that the procedural requirements of Section . Relationship to Comprehensive Plan Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration Amendment to the “O’Neil” Plann (PUD) to Allow for Accessory buildings. Planning Case PA2006-001 In John Brickley, O Road 10, County Road H2 and Long Lake Road allows for a movie theater, parking, office buildings and a retail building. Mr. Brickley is requesting an amendment to the PUD to permit an accessory building at 2442 County Road 10, the triangular parcel identified at Parcel A in the PUD document. According to the PUD document, accessory buildings are not permitted within the PUD, except trash enclosures. LandCor is seeking the amendment to satisfy the needs of a prospective tenant. D The City origin d Council approved a PUD amendment to allow an office building to be constructed on the subject parcel, which was then constructed in 2004. With the requested amendment, LandCor would co s is currently on the site. They would probably move it slightly to the east and in turn would lose about two parking spaces. When this building was constructed, it was determined that 60 parking spaces were required based on the building square footage, and 64 spaces were provided. Even with losing two, or possibly three spaces, LandCor would still exceed the required number of parking stalls. Amendment Process: An amendment to a Plan a 1125 of the Zoning Code would be followed. Section 1125 requires that the Planning Commission and City Council review the request, taking into consideration any and all potential adverse effects of the proposed amendment. 1 . Mounds View’s adopted Comprehensive Plan identifies the O’Neil property PUD site as a Regional Commercial PUD. The proposed phical area involved accessory building as an addition to the existing office building would be consistent with the Comp Plan. 2. The geogra . The parcel is a triangle shape lot bordered by County Road 0 and Long Lake Road on two sides, and to the south, a wooded wetland area separates the 1 movie theater and Subway mall from this building. Rice Creek Watershed District approved the inititial development and stormwater ponds were constructed to handle full site build out, which includes the subject parcel. 3. Neighborhood Impact. The neighborhood would not be impacted by adding a garage to the ffice building. At this time, the plan is that only one business would lease the entire building so rounding area o traffic would be minimum. 4. The character of the sur . The proposed attached garage may not be out of lace as the design would blend in with the current structure, even though it is typically not p common for office or commercial buildings to have garages. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. LandCor has finally found a tenant that would lease e entire building but they require garage space. Since the PUD also states that parking on the ssory building would have no adverse pacts and would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the ecommendation: ission may take one of the following actions related to the PUD mendment request: Amendment as requested. Resolution 840-06 is attached for your consideration if you should choose this option. 2. Commission will need to direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact to support the denial recommendation. 3. nning Commission should need additional information or more input before a decision can be Respectfully submitted, th site is only allowed during business hours, any tenant that had company vehicles would not be able to leave them outside at the building overnight. It appears that amending the PUD to allow for an acce im amendment to allow for one attached garage on the site. R The Planning Comm A 1. Approve the PUD Deny the request. To consider this option, the Table action on the request. This option would be appropriate if the Pla made. Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: n 2. Letter from Applicant ic Documentation PUD Document 1. Applicatio 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Aerial Views 6. Photograph 7. Original O’Neil 8. Resolution 840-06 Zoning Map Proposed Site Plan Long Lake Road County Road 10 Staff has recommended to LandCor that the garage be pushed back and be flush with the front of the office building. A retaining wall would probably need to be put behind the garage due to the wetland area directly behind the building. Although by moving the garage back, the garbage enclosure may not need to be moved. Aerial View (2003 Aerial photo) Approximate location of office building on the site, with proposed attached garage shown Subway mall Movie Theater Photographic Documentation 2442 County Road 10 Location of proposed garage Garbage enclosure MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 840-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE O’NEIL PROPERTY PUD AGREEMENT TO ALLOW AN “ACCESSORY BUILDING” AT 2442 HIGHWAY 10 (Parcel A); MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE PA2006-001 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council approved the O’Neil Property Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement on May 11, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the O’Neil Property PUD currently does not allow accessory buildings; and, WHEREAS, the lot located at 2442 County Road 10, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Anthony Properties Addition; was approved by the Council for an Office use; and, WHEREAS, the developer wishes to amend the PUD Agreement by adding “accessory building” as an allowed use for the site in order provide an indoor storage need for a potential tenant; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and has examined the potential adverse effects that could result from such an amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of fact related to this request: 1. The lot in question, 2442 County Road 10, described by the PUD Agreement as Parcel “A,” is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). 2. The office building at 2442 County Road 10 remains vacant and as such the developer has requested an amendment to the PUD to allow for an attached garage to be constructed on the site. 3. The Future Land Use Map from the City’s Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a Regional Commercial Planned Unit Development. 4. The property at 2442 County Road 10 is within the City’s primary commercial corridor and as such, vacant buildings are not desirable. 5. The property is a triangle shaped lot, surrounded by Wildwood Manor senior housing apartments to the northwest, Snyder’s and the City Hall property across County Road 10 to the northeast, and the movie theater and retail mall to the south with a wooded wetland in between. The construction of an attached garage would have no depreciatory affects upon the surrounding area. Resolution 840-06 Page 2 6. The same architectural requirements would prevail for this lot, and any accessory buildings must be constructed using the same materials and design as the primary structure. 7. There do not appear to be any adverse effects associated with this proposed amendment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings of fact, does hereby recommend that the O’Neil Property Planned Unit Development (PUD) be amended such that one accessory building be expressly permitted at 2442 Highway 10, Lot 1, Block 2, Anthony Properties Addition (Parcel A), subject to the following: 1. Applicant shall obtain Rice Creek Watershed District approval before a building permit will be issued for this development. 2. The accessory building shall be of a similar design and constructed of the same materials as the primary structure. 3. The accessory building shall be attached to the primary structure, and be located on the southwest side of the building. 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 21st day of June, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5C Meeting Date: June 21, 2006 Type of Business: PC Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of an Interim Use Permit and a Variance for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 Introduction: Consistent with the recently adopted Ordinance 769, Clear Channel Outdoors has submitted a request for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to site a billboard at the Mermaid, property located at 2200 County Road at the southeast corner of the City. In addition to the IUP application, Clear Channel has also requested approval of a variance to extend the height of the billboard ten additional feet from 35 feet to 45 feet. The basis of the variance request is to not obstruct the adjoining property and to not be obstructed by the Mermaid’s own ground sign. Discussion: The City of Mounds View and Clear Channel entered into an agreement in 2005 in which Clear Channel agreed to relocate four of its billboards from the former golf course site on Highway 10 to make way for the Medtronic development. Clear Channel was provided two years in which to find suitable locations elsewhere in the City to site billboard. The City’s role was to amend its codes and regulations to allow reasonable opportunity for the signs to be relocated in elsewhere in the community. On May 8th of this year, after multiple meetings were held by the City Council, Ordinance 769 was adopted which expanded the locations for billboards to properly zoned parcels (B2, B3, I1, PUD and CRP) along Highway 10, Interstate 35W, Old Highway 8 and the south side of County Road 10 south of the Woodale Drive intersection. In addition to identifying locations, the ordinance also amended the spacing and height requirements for billboards. The 250 foot setback from residential land uses remained unchanged. The relocated billboards and the two billboards remaining at the former golf course site were provided 30 year lease rights. The following table identifies the various code requirements pertaining to billboards and whether the requirements are satisfied with this request. Required Proposed Satisfied? Minimum Spacing 1,500 Feet + 1,500 Feet Yes Maximum Height 35 Feet 45 Feet No * Setback from Residential 250 Feet + 1,000 Feet Yes Property Line Setback 15 Feet 15 Feet Yes Maximum Sign Area 700 Sq. Feet 700 Sq. Feet Yes Appropriate Location US 10, 35W, Old Hwy 8 or CR10 CR 10 Yes Appropriate Zoning B2, B3, I1, PUD, CRP PUD Yes * Clear Channel has applied for a variance to allow for the 45-foott all sign. Clear Channel IUP Report June 21, 2006 Page 2 Interim Use Permit Approval Process The City Code indicates that an IUP be processed in a fashion identical to that of a conditional use permit. Section 1125.01 articulates the process for approving a conditional use permit (CUP) which is initiated by the Planning Commission’s review of the possible and potential for adverse effects of the proposed interim use. After reviewing the possible adverse impacts of the interim use, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council which holds a public hearing to consider the request. Adverse Effects Criteria: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not address or contemplate the issue of billboards. (2) The geographical area involved. The Mermaid property is located at the southwest corner of the City at the intersection of County Road 10 and County Road H. County Road 10 is considered the City’s primary commercial corridor and in this general area, commercial and office land uses dominate the landscape. The closest residential property is located more than 1,000 feet north on County Road 10 and the billboard would not be readily visible from any residential property. The billboard would be located at the north corner of the nine-acre Mermaid property with the nearest affected property being the Abbey Carpet building. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. It is not believed that the placement and installation of the billboard on the Mermaid property would have a negative or depreciatory effect upon the subject property or adjoining properties. It can be argued however that in a more comprehensive sense, the placement of the billboard on County Road 10 would depreciate the ongoing efforts of the City to improve the appearance and aesthetics of the corridor and would be contrary to the goals of the County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program. (4) The character of the surrounding area. The area south of Woodale Drive and north of County Road H is strictly developed as Commercial or office type usage. The Abbey Carpet building is newer than other buildings in this location however the area as a whole is well maintained. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. Based on the requirement that Clear Channel has had to remove and relocate four billboards from the former golf course property, it can be stated that the proposed location is one of only a few locations designated at which Clear Channel is able to site a billboard. Clear Channel IUP Report June 21, 2006 Page 3 In addition to the adverse effects criteria, the City is to also consider the General Conditional Use Permit criteria found in Section 1125.01 Subd. 3 as part of the consideration: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities that serve or are proposed to serve the area. The Installation of a billboard will not create or cause a burden to public facilities. (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. It is believed that the billboard would not be visible from any residentially zoned property in the City and that the installation of the billboard would not have a detrimental effect on the development of vacant land in the area. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. There are no residential properties adjacent to the Mermaid and as such this requirement does not necessarily apply. (4) The use, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. It is assumed that the need for the proposed billboards is reasonably related to the economic situation of the property owner and is reasonably related to the need to relocate four billboards from the former golf course property.. (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. With the adoption of Ordinance 769, the proposed billboard is consistent with the purposes of the City Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which they are to be located. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate or address the issue of billboards. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Studies commissioned by highway safety and transportation groups and federal agencies find no correlation between billboards and accidents. Even so, it cannot be disputed that the main premise of a billboard is to attract or divert a driver’s attention, if only for a brief moment. Diverting one’s attention from the act of driving could result in an accident. In that respect however, a billboard is no different than any thing else within a driver’s field of vision. Clear Channel IUP Report June 21, 2006 Page 4 (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Access to the billboards will be gained via the Mermaid’s parking lot. Variance Considerations: For a variance request to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in Mounds View) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: (1) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. Clear Channel is requesting a variance from the 35 foot height requirement to permit the billboard be constructed at a height of 45 feet. The basis for their request is to avoid visibility conflicts with the Mermaid’s ground sign and the Abbey Carpet building signage. In the eyes of the outdoor advertising industry, visibility is everything and the lack thereof presents a hardship. (2) The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would not, in and of itself, deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties. The ordinance was adopted after specific discussion concerning this very issue, in that the City Council expressed a desire to limit the height of billboards on County Road 10, differentiating it from US 10, 35W and Old Highway 8. (3) That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant only desires to preserve visibility to the existing ground and building signage while at the same time eliminate any visibility conflicts with the billboard. (4) That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Clear Channel IUP Report June 21, 2006 Page 5 By virtue of the applicant’s leases at the former golf course site and the agreement with the City to relocate four of these billboards elsewhere in the City, the applicant would assert that the situation is already quite unique and thus a variance would not confer upon them any special privilege denied to others. (5) That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. According to the applicant, the ten-foot height increase to 45 feet is the minimum variance to ensure the billboard faces will not obscure adjoining properties and adjoining ground signs and be clearly visible from County Road 10. The applicant suggests that the additional height will not be easily perceptible yet would ensure visibility for their sign as well as adjacent signage. To demonstrate this, the applicant has provided a computer- generated rendering of both a 35 foot tall sign and a 45 foot tall sign on the Mermaid property. (6) The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The City Council explicitly established the maximum height for a billboard on County Road 10 to be 35 feet in recognition of the fact that the roadway is a community corridor as opposed to a regional corridor. (7) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Based on the review of the hardship criteria, it is not readily apparent to staff that a hardship exists, despite the fact that the lack of visibility from the perspective of the outdoor advertising industry and any potential outdoor advertiser is clearly considered a hardship. Clear Channel has clearly not caused the situation which necessitates the additional ten feet, they were asked to vacate their prime locations at the former golf course to make way for a new development and were provided limited opportunities within the City in which to relocate. The City needs to make a good faith effort to assist in the relocation yet a balance must be struck between what is considered a good faith effort and what is considered excessive. Public Notice: Staff sent notices to property owners within 350 feet of the Mermaid property and published a copy of the notice in the June 7, 2006 edition of the Bulletin. Three residents have contacted me expressing their opposition to granting the variance for additional height, one such correspondence is included on the next page. The owner of the Pettibone site on County Road H also contacted me regarding the notice but did not express any concern regarding the placement of the billboard. Clear Channel IUP Report June 21, 2006 Page 6 Please forward this letter to the members of the Planning Commission. Thank you. I am writing to express my opposition to Clear Channel's request for a variance to increase the billboard height on the Mermaid property. It was very difficult for me to understand the city council's action to allow another billboard in our cities' main corridor, please don't compound the problem by allowing a billboard of 45 feet in height. Whatever happened to the idea of improving and beautifying our city? Thank you for your considerations. Gary French 8310 Sunnyside Road Mounds View Summary: With the exception of the issue necessitating the variance, the requested Interim Use Permit appears to satisfy all Code requirements and would not appear to cause any appreciable adverse impacts to the area in which the billboard is located. While it can be argued (as Mr. French does) that a billboard on the County Road 10 corridor is contrary to the City’s goal of improving and enhancing the image and appeal of the County Road 10 corridor, this site has been identified by the City Council as a potential location for a billboard. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and take testimony from residents, staff and the applicant regarding the Interim Use Permit and variance applications. After considering all of the information presented at the meeting and prior via the report of staff, the Planning Commission will need to direct staff to prepare resolutions relating to the IUP request and the Variance request. The resolutions would be presented for the Commission’s action on July 5, 2006. If additional information is needed to before a recommendation is possible, please let me know and I will do my best to provide it to you. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Zoning Map The Mermaid Co Rd 10 ● Proposed Billboard Location Proposed Billboard Design Height Renderings Billboard Height at 35 Feet Billboard Height at 45 Feet Survey Snapshot ORDINANCE NO. 769 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 RELATING TO SIGNS THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1008.01 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Purpose of Sign Regulation” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: h. commercial signs are generally incompatible with residential uses and should be strictly limited in residential zoning districts; and i. the right to express noncommercial opinions in any zoning district must be protected, subject to reasonable restrictions on size, height, location and number. SECTION 2. Section 1008.02 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Definitions” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: INCIDENTAL SIGN: A sign, generally informational, that has a purpose secondary to the uses on the property on which it is located. Such signs might include, but are not limited to, “No Parking,” "Entrance," "Exit," "ATM," or "Payphone." No sign with a commercial message legible off the premises shall be considered incidental. NONCONFORMING SIGN: Any sign that does not comply with the requirements of this Section is considered nonconforming. A sign which was erected legally but does not comply with subsequently enacted sign restrictions or regulations is considered legal nonconforming. TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign displaying a commercial or non-commercial message erected or maintained for a limited specific period of time and not of a permanent nature. Such signs shall include banners, inflatable devices, sandwich boards, portable changeable copy signs or any other device intended to attract attention. Ordinance 769 Page 2 SECTION 3. Section 1008.03, Subd f of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Sign Permit Exemptions” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: f. National, state, regional, local, non-commercial institutional or cultural flags. SECTION 4. Section 1008.05, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Sign Permit Fees” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: Subd. 2. Waiver: The Council, if so requested in writing, may waive the fee required by this Section where the signs are to be erected by civic or religious organizations. Temporary sign permit fees shall be waived for civic or religious organizations. SECTION 5. Section 1008.07, Subd 5 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “License Provisions” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: Subd. 5. Revocation: A license may be terminated and renewal thereof may be denied by the Council for violations of this Chapter or other applicable ordinances. cause after notice to the licensee and reasonable opportunity for the licensee to be heard on the question of such termination. Cause shall include any repeated or persistent violation of the requirements of this Chapter. SECTION 6. Section 1008.09, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to Signs allowed by District, is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: Sign Type R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 I-1 PF CRP PUD Ground No No 32 32 32 200 200 200 200 100 100 * Wall No No 64 64 No 100 100 100 100 100 100 * Projection No No No No No 32 100 8 24 24 24 24 No * Window No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No * Identification 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 4 4 * Temporary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Real Estate 10 10 32 32 10 32 32 32 32 32 64 32 32 32 Home Occupation 1 1 No No 1 No No No No No No No No No Campaign Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Billboards No No No No No No No No 700 No 700 No No 700 700 700 700 Directional No No 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 Construction 8 8 8 8 8 8 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 Incidental 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ordinance 769 Page 3 SECTION 7. Section 1008.09, Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to Ground Sign Height by District, is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 I-1 PF CRP PUD (1) (1) 8 8 8 8 20 20 (3)35 (3)35 35 (3)35 35 (3) (2), (3) (1) No ground sign, other than home occupation, campaign, real estate, incidental and temporary signs shall be allowed in these districts. (2) Signage requirements within a PUD shall be as indicated by the PUD Narrative document. If no such document exists, signage shall be as allowed for a B-3 zoning District. (3) Maximum billboard sign height in some locations is 45 feet. Refer to Section 1008.10 Subd 6 of this Code. SECTION 8. Section 1008.10, Subd 1f of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to Ground Sign Requirements is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: f. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subd 6 of this Section, No more than one (1) pole or pylon sign shall be allowed per lot. However, the ground sign area allowance may be divided between one (1) pole or pylon sign and a monument sign or between multiple monument signs, subject to the requirements herein, provided that one (1) or more of the following conditions are applicable: SECTION 9. Section 1008.10, Subd 4(a) of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Temporary Signs” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: (4) The Director of Community Development may waive the permit fee for a temporary sign requested by a charitable, municipal or religious institution or for other just cause. SECTION 10. Section 1008.10, Subd 6 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to Billboards is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: Subd. 6. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard unless it complies with the following interim use requirements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3597: (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00; Ord. 679, 5-29-01) Ordinance 769 Page 4 a. Interim Use Permit: An interim use permit (IUP) must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any IUP interim use permit issued for an interim use billboard shall automatically expire no later than December 31, 2023 July 1, 2037 or earlier if so indicated in the resolution approving the IUP or when the lease agreement for the billboard expires whichever date is earlier. An Such IUP shall be null-and-void if the applicant fails to obtain any required permit from the State of Minnesota. (Ord. 644, 12- 13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00; Ord. 679, 5-29-01; Ord. 708, 12-30-02) b. Location: The billboard must be located along and north of State US Highway 10 (old 118), Interstate 35W, Old Highway 8 or the south side of County Road 10, south of the intersection with Woodale Drive. The applicant must have an approved lease agreement with the property owner. The billboard shall be oriented towards the indicated rights of way. State Highway 10 (old 118), and/or I35W. Billboards must be located at least two hundred fifty feet (250') from residentially zoned property. Billboards may be located adjacent to the right-of-way of a street or highway, but no part thereof shall extend over such right-of-way. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01) c. Minimum Spacing: The minimum spacing between Billboards must be at least seven hundred fifty feet (750’) apart five hundred feet (500’), except on County Road 10, which shall be at least fifteen hundred feet (1,500’). Spacing between signs shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to the property line of the right-of-way from which they are intended to be read and measuring the distance in a straight line between the projected points. Required spacing shall apply only to billboards on the same side of the same roadway. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01; Ord. 708, 12-30-02) d. Maximum Sign Area: The maximum gross surface display area of the sign cannot exceed seven hundred (700) square feet per side except that any rectangular billboard may contain temporary extensions, cutouts, or top lettering which occupy a total area not in excess of twenty five percent (25%) of the area of the basic billboard and form an integral part of the design thereof. No such temporary extension, cut out, or top lettering may project more than six feet (6') from the top, eighteen inches (18") from either side or fifteen inches (15") from the bottom of the basic rectangular advertising message. The area of an extension, cutout, or top lettering shall be deemed to be the area of the smallest rectangle into which such extension, cutout, or top lettering will fit. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01) e. Orientation of Sign Faces: Billboards may have no more than two (2) sign faces. Sign faces must be back-to-back with sign faces parallel or angled. All billboards with their faces back-to-back and parallel shall have no greater distance than eight feet (8') between the faces. All billboards with faces at an angle shall have no greater angle than thirty-five degrees (35°). (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01) Ordinance 769 Page 5 f. Maximum Sign Height: The maximum allowable height of billboards shall be thirty forty-five feet (35 45'), except for billboards located on County Road 10 or on Interstate 35W between County Road H2 and County Road I, in which cases the height shall be limited to thirty-five feet (35’). The height shall be measured from the grade at the base of the sign or from the surface of the roadway whichever is higher. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01) g. Obstruction: No billboard may be located in such a manner as to obscure or otherwise interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, signal, or device, or obstruct or interfere with a driver's view of approaching, merging, or intersecting traffic. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01) h. Existing Billboards: Any billboard legally existing as of December 13, 1999, may continue to be maintained in its present form and size but shall not be expanded. This does not preclude the periodic changing of the message or advertisement presented on the billboard. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01) h. Maximum Number. The maximum number of billboards that may be located within the City at any one time shall be limited to ten (10). Any billboard legally existing or permitted at the time that this ordinance is adopted may be removed and relocated consistent with the provisions of this Code. Any billboard in the process of being relocated at the time that this ordinance is adopted shall be counted among the maximum number allowed and shall be allowed to complete its relocation. i. Destruction: Any billboard destroyed by an act of nature shall be allowed to be rebuilt provided said billboard complies with or is capable of complying with all requirements of this subdivision. Nonconforming billboards shall not be allowed to be rebuilt. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01) i. Design Guidelines. Any new or relocated billboard to be erected in the City shall incorporate design features consistent with the billboard design as approved by the City Council. SECTION 11. Section 1008.11, Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to Garage Sale Signs is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: Subd. 3. RESERVED. Garage Sale, Estate Sale and Open House Signs: Garage sale, estate sale and open house signs and similar signs may be allowed to be located within a public right of way provided: Ordinance 769 Page 6 a. The duration of the display of such sign shall not exceed three (3) days. b. No part of such sign shall extend within five feet (5') of a traveled roadway. c. Such sign shall relate to or direct people to a residential property within the City. d. Such sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area and shall not obscure pedestrian or vehicle visibility or any traffic control sign or violate any other provision of this Code, specifically subdivision 2 hereof. SECTION 12. Section 1008.12, Subd 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Prohibited Signs” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: Subd. 4. Temporary or permanent advertising signs posted within public right-of-ways, excluding directional signs and signs expressly allowed herein and by other governmental agencies. SECTION 13. Section 1008.13, Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to Nonconforming Signs is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: Subd. 3. Roof signs, unless integrally incorporated into the roof design, then such sign shall be considered a wall sign. Roof signs in existence as of the date of enactment of this Code revision may be allowed to continue and may be repaired or maintained as needed, but may not be replaced except by variance. SECTION 14. Section 1008.13 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to Nonconforming Signs is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: 1008.13 NONCONFORMING SIGNS: Any sign, including a billboard, legally existing at the time of the passage of this ordinance that does not conform in use, location, height or size with the regulations of the zone in which such sign is located to the provisions of this Ordinance shall be considered a legal nonconforming use or structure sign and may be continued in such status until such time as it is either abandoned or removed by its owner, subject to the following limitations: including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but not including expansion. “Expansion” shall be defined as any structural alteration, change or addition that is made outside of the original sign structure or design. Ordinance 769 Page 7 Subd. 1. Structural alterations, enlargement, or re-erection are permissible only where such alterations would not increase the degree of the nonconformity of the sign. Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the return of a sign structure that has been declared unsafe by the Building Official to a safe condition. Subd. 2. Any legal, nonconforming sign shall be removed or rebuilt without increasing the extent of the sign’s nonconformity if it is damaged. When any lawful nonconforming sign is discontinued for a period of more than one (1) year, or is changed to a conforming sign, any future sign shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance. Subd. 3. Any legal, nonconforming sign shall be removed and shall not be repaired, replaced, restored, or rebuilt if it is allowed to deteriorate to the extent that the cost of repair or restoration exceeds fifty (50%) of the replacement cost of the sign as determined by the City’s Building Official. damaged by fire or other similar peril to the extent of greater than fifty percent (50%) of its market value at the time of destruction and no sign permit or building permit (if applicable) has been applied for within 180 days of the date of destruction. The City’s Building Official shall be responsible for making the determination whether a nonconforming sign has been destroyed greater than fifty percent (50%) of its market value at the time of destruction. In making this determination, the Building Official shall consider the market value of the entire sign at the time prior to the destruction and the replacement value of the existing sign. In the event a building permit is applied for within 180 days of the date of destruction and the sign did not withstand damage greater than fifty percent (50%) of its market value at the time of destruction, the City may impose reasonable conditions upon the building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent properties. Subd. 4. A lawful nonconforming sign shall not be changed to a similar nonconforming sign or to a more restrictive nonconforming sign. SECTION 15. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its publication. First reading by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 13th day of March, 2006 Second reading by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 27th day of March, 2006. Ordinance 769 Page 8 Adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 8th day of May, 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (SEAL) Approved as to form: Mounds View City Attorney ` Billboard Overlay Zones – Existing and Proposed Existing Frontage Allowed: Proposed Frontage BILLBOARDS PERMITTED ONLY in B-2, B-3, I-1, CRP and PUD Zoning Districts in accordance with this map. Item No: 6A Meeting Date: June 21, 2006 Type of Business: PC Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of an Ordinance Amending the Procedures and Regulations Pertaining to Dog Kennels Introduction: Staff is seeking Planning Commission review of a proposed ordinance that would eliminate residential dog / cat Kennels as a conditional use. The Planning Commission has review oversight due to the one line of text stricken from the Zoning Code. Discussion: The basis for this proposed amendment is that presently any property owner with three or four dogs has to go through a conditional use permit (CUP) process with the planning commission and city council subject to redundant public hearing and notification requirement. The problem with the process is that a CUP runs with the land, not the property owner, which means if the resident gets a CUP then moves, the CUP stays at the former property, which is not the intent. The other rationale behind the amendment is that having three or four dogs is *really* not a land-use issue as is an oversized garage or reduced setback. The licensing requirement remains essentially the same, the primary change is to simply drop the CUP requirement from the process. Outcome: Residents would still need to present a petition bearing the signatures of at least 50% of their neighbors within 500 feet if they would like to have three or four dogs however they would no longer be required to wait six weeks to go through the CUP process. The proposed amendment would add language regarding persons ineligible for a kennel license and would clarify the justification for license revocation. Recommendation: Review the proposed Code amendment and if found acceptable, approve Resolution 842-06. There are no time constraints associated with this request so if the Commission would like additional information or would prefer to continue discussion to your next meeting, that is fine as well. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 842-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS 701 AND 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DOG KENNELS WHEREAS, City Staff has identified sections of Code relating to Dog Kennels which is in need of amendment; and, WHEREAS, presently the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a resident apply for a kennel license AND conditional use permit (CUP) to own three or four dogs in the City; and, WHEREAS, the approval process and requirements for a residential dog kennel are redundant, excessive, time consuming and costly for residents and in need of modification; and, WHEREAS, owning three or four dogs is not a land-use issue nor a planning issue that would warrant approval of a Conditional Use Permit but rather a matter of licensure; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code as represented 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 21st day of June, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. 774 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE CHAPTERS 701 AND 1106 RELATING TO “DOG KENNELS” THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Section 701.04, Subd. 8 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to Kennels is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out to read as follows: Subd. 8. Kennels: a. Licensing requirements: All dog kennels must first obtain a special use permit as required in Title 1100 of this Code. The zoning classifications as required under Chapter 1103 and Section 1104.02 of this Code must be conformed with. Regardless of any provision in Title 1100 of this Code, the The owner of a proposed dog kennel shall submit a license application and present a petition to the Clerk / Administrator Council signed by more than fifty percent (50%) of all registered landowners or those occupying land within five hundred feet (500’) of the proposed kennel who agree to the establishment of the kennel. The petition shall contain, among other items of information, the number and species of dogs intended to be kept on the premises, whether the yard or kennel area is or will be fenced and whether the dogs would be raised for breeding purposes. Upon the receipt of the petition and license application, the Clerk / Administrator shall present such said petition and application to the City Council for their consideration. Council will then set a hearing for a special use permit, as provided for in Title 1100 of this Code. The petition shall contain, among other items of information, how many dogs the petitioner intends to keep on the premises. (Ord. 696, 4-22-02) b. License fee: The annual license fee for dog kennels shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The license fees are due September 1 of each year. (Ord. 696, 4-22-02) c. Cleanliness and order; nuisance declared: Kennels and the premises around the kennel shall be kept in a clean, quiet, orderly and sanitary condition so as not to constitute a nuisance as defined in Chapter 607 of this Code and in Minnesota Statutes, Section 561.01. In determining whether a nuisance exists, consideration shall be given to the kennel’s location, location of other residences, and general character of the neighborhood. d. Revocation: A kennel license may be revoked by action of the Council for just cause after providing the license holder with an opportunity to be heard. Just cause shall include any violations of this Code reasonably related to the operation of the dog kennel and/or treatment of animals. Exhibit A Ordinance 774 Page 2 e. Persons Ineligible. No license shall be granted to an applicant who has in the past been convicted for animal cruelty offenses. SECTION 2. Section 1106.04, Subd. 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to conditional uses within the R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out to read as follows: Subd. 4. Residential Dog/Cat Kennels. (Reserved.) SECTION 3. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _____ day of __________, 2006. PUBLIC HEARING, SECOND READING AND ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ___ day of _________, 2006. _______________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________ Scott Riggs, City Attorney How the language would read incorporating the proposed changes: Subd. 8. Kennels: a. Licensing requirements: The owner of a proposed dog kennel shall submit a license application and present a petition to the Clerk / Administrator signed by more than fifty percent (50%) of all registered landowners or those occupying land within five hundred feet (500’) of the proposed kennel who agree to the establishment of the kennel. The petition shall contain, among other items of information, the number and species of dogs intended to be kept on the premises, whether the yard or kennel area is or will be fenced and whether the dogs would be raised for breeding purposes. Upon the receipt of the petition and license application, the Clerk / Administrator shall present such said petition and application to the City Council for their consideration. b. License fee: The annual license fee for dog kennels shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The license fees are due September 1 of each year. (Ord. 696, 4-22-02) c. Cleanliness and order; nuisance declared: Kennels and the premises around the kennel shall be kept in a clean, quiet, orderly and sanitary condition so as not to constitute a nuisance as defined in Chapter 607 of this Code and in Minnesota Statutes, Section 561.01. In determining whether a nuisance exists, consideration shall be given to the kennel’s location, location of other residences, and general character of the neighborhood. d. Revocation: A kennel license may be revoked by action of the Council for just cause after providing the license holder with an opportunity to be heard. Just cause shall include any violations of this Code reasonably related to the operation of the dog kennel and/or treatment of animals. e. Persons Ineligible. No license shall be granted to an applicant who has in the past been convicted for animal cruelty offenses.