Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-2007 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 5, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. June 7, 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. VR2006-005 Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Front Yard Setback at 2764 Laport Drive Applicant: Lawrence & Mari Okoro Address: 2764 Laport Drive B. VR2006-004: Continuation Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a Billboard IU2006-001: and a Variance to Increase Height at 2200 County Road 10 Applicant: Clear Channel Outdoor Address: 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413 C. VR2006-004: Public Hearing and Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a IU2006-002: Billboard and a Variance to Reduce Setback at 5201 Program Ave Applicant: Clear Channel Outdoor Address: 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413 D. MA2006-002: Consideration of a Major Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road Applicant: Matthew Hofmann Address: 15472 Fillmore Street NW, Elk River, MN 55330 6. Other Planning Activity A. Continuation – Review TIF Policies, TIF Scenarios and Economic Development Funding Priorities B. Continuation – Review Amendments to Chapters 701 and 1106 Regarding Dog Kennels 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. July 19, 2006 B. August 2, 2006 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 21, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Chair Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. June 21, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Jim Ericson Planning Associate Heidi Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case ZC2006-001: Continuation – Consideration for a Rezoning 2 of 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and West Half of 8060 Groveland Road Applicant: Integra Homes Address: 12721 Overlook Road, Dayton, MN 55327 Planning Case PA2006-001: Consideration of a PUD Amendment for 2442 8 County Road 10. Applicant: LandCor Companies Address: 9325 Upland Lane North, Suite 300, Maple Grove, MN 55369 Planning Case VR2006-004: Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a 12 Billboard and a Variance IU2006-001: for Height at the Mermaid, 2200 County Road 10. Applicant: Clear Channel Outdoor Address: 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413 Planning Case SP-146-05: Consideration of an Ordinance Amending 17 the Procedures and Regulations relating to Dog Kennels Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes A. May 17, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Scotch. To approve the Minutes of the May 17, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 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. Integra Homes Community Development Director Ericson addressed the Planning Commission clarifying the continuation of the consideration for a rezoning of 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road to an R-3 Medium Density Residential to allow for a townhome development of 19 owner-occupied units. Director Ericson relayed an apology from Integra Homes, as there was a mix up in their scheduling. Director Ericson explained that a resolution of a recommendation of approval or denial is available for action. The recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at their meeting on June 26, 2006. Director Ericson provided background to the Planning Commission and listeners on the rezoning consideration. Integra Homes applied for a Planned Unit Development in 2005. The Planning Commission reviewed the general concept plan, which involved the development of 21 owner- occupied townhome units. There was some concern expressed at that time by the 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 2005, 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 completed the evaluation and have resubmitted an application as a simple rezoning rather than a PUD. 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 Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Road are currently zoned R-3, Single Family Residential. 2925 County Road 10 has an existing single family home that would be demolished if the development were to be moved forward. 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 (PUD) in an R-3 district. Director Ericson clarified that when the Commission looks at a rezoning they are looking at the same factors as a Conditional Use Permit. The Commission must decide if rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Commission’s vision of what should be on the property. The Commission also considers the potential adverse effects of the development. Director Ericson stated the relationship to the comprehensive plan indicates it is consistent with the future land use of a mixed-use planned unit development. Regarding the geographical area, Director Ericson pointed out the townhome development across the street, commercial development to the southeast, and housing to the northeast and the north. There has been some discussion on depreciation as to whether or not the townhome development would depreciate the adjoining areas. Studies indicate there is little correlation between a townhome or mixed use and depreciation. The townhome development will bring additional tax base to the community. 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. Depreciation can also be measured as something other than monetary, such as privacy. The character of the surrounding area consists of a variety of commercial and residential uses. The City has a sufficient volume of multi-family properties. The residential uses include single- family residential, owner-occupied townhomes and multi-family rental dwellings. Single-family residential is predominant in the immediate area. Even with the 66-townhome units going up along County Road H2, the City is under represented in our housing demographics. Director Ericson did receive one comment from a resident along Groveland Road. It is included in the Commission’s packet. Residents have previously come before the Commission to expressed concern regarding traffic and access to County Road 10, limitation of future development, opposition to residential development and inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. These and other residents are encouraged to speak again at this meeting. Director Ericson believes their comments and concerns remain the same as those expressed previously. Director Ericson reported that according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), a 19-unit townhome development would generate an average of 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. A single right-in right-out access point onto County Road 10 would serve the site. The number of vehicle trips per day generated by a 19-unt townhome project would not exceed the capacity of the access point. There are other examples of commercial and residential development on County Road 10. While perhaps less convenient than other developments at a signalized intersection or Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ those served by a cross street or service road, such mid-block developments do not pose a safety hazard. Director Ericson indicated the project is in the middle of a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development district as designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. If the Integra project is allowed to proceed as requested, neither the area to the southeast or the northwest could be developed as a PUD. However it does not preclude either area from being developed in conjunction with the Integra project or as a stand-alone project. The Integra project does not preclude or hinder redevelopment of either area. As stated earlier, the site is designated as Mixed-Use Planned Development (PUD). Staff would submit that the Integra development would not be inconsistent with that designation. Director Ericson and Staff appreciate comments and concerns expressed by the residents. They also believe the 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. 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 is given to an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Finally, if the proposed zoning and townhome project is not the preferred development opportunity for this site, the request should be denied. Director Ericson recommends the Commission 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. The resolutions of approval and denial have merit and there is sufficient basis for both. These are available for action by the Commission as presented or subject to modification. The Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the June 26, 2006 meeting. Commissioner Miller asked if the townhomes across from this location are owner-occupied. Director Ericson replied yes. Chair Stevenson asked Director Ericson what the ratio is of owner-occupied townhomes versus rental units including the new units about to open along H2. Ericson stated, to his understanding, all townhomes in Mounds View are owner-operated except the ten units in Silver Lake Commons located north of County Road I. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there is anything in this proposal that precludes it from becoming rental property. Ericson responded there is nothing that precludes them from doing this. A CUP would need to be applied for to allow for a multi-family dwelling. Townhomes are a permitted use explicitly. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked if the townhomes did not sell as owner-occupied, could it be turned into a rental unit and would the Commission look at a CUP before it could be turned into a rental unit. Director Ericson will need to do research on this. He indicated some legal considerations would need to be made. If Integra owned each of the units and decided to rent them out, there is nothing technically that would preclude this. Director Ericson said they would have to come before the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Meehlhause asked what the approximate selling price would be for the units. Director Ericson believes they would be somewhere between $225,000 and $275,000. Commissioner Scotch asked what business could go in here. Director Ericson stated it could be pretty much anything such as office or retail but as a stand-along development it has limitations because of setbacks and parking requirements. Commissioner Miller thought she had read about a previous consideration for advertising this property for business. Director Ericson stated he does not know if this is the case. He would have to inquire from the previous owners what their efforts had been in terms of marketing the property. Commissioner Hegland asked if there is an under representation of townhomes in Mounds View. He asked where the City is relative to the percentage of townhomes and what the plan is for this. Director Ericson said there is no benchmark and no plan at this time. The most predominant choice is single-family with multi-family and modular homes following. In terms of townhome units, the City is under represented. Mounds View is percentage points below the metro area region relative to townhomes. There are a number of quad homes located in the northeast section of the City. These are all multi-family properties. Blaine and Coon Rapids have individual owner-occupied condos or townhomes with the same look and feel of the quad homes. From a percentage standpoint, Mounds View is less. With the 66 units coming on line, the percentage will change. Chair Stevenson complemented the Staff on the two resolutions. They are both so well written that he cannot make up his mind and needs help from everyone. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. and invited comments from the audience. Mrs. Cindy Johnson, 2865 NE County Road 10 and 7980 Groveland Road, stated this has been going on for some time. Her husband has been gone for two years and she believes he was fighting the same developer for two or three years before that. She does not feel it follows the Comprehensive Plan. This development will break up the PUD and would decrease her property value. She restated that $12,000 was spent to make this property look appealing to businesses. She does not like the one access to the development because this will make getting in and out of her driveway more difficult. She asked how likely it is for the remaining PUD to be developed for business. She believes this is not a good idea for the City. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked Mrs. Johnson what her picture of the Comprehensive Plan was. It is Mrs. Johnson’s belief that the properties would be developed together. She feels this will hurt the City’s tax base. The Comprehensive Plan was to combine the properties and make it into a commercial property. Mr. Duane Waldoch, 2935 County Road 10, stated he is not against Townhomes. Using the property on County Road 10 and breaking up the PUD is not a good idea. He feels there is not much land available on County Road 10 for business development. He believes that in the future, businesses will expand here. He wants to see it developed as motels, restaurants, and small businesses. With County Road 10 connected to Highway 65, people could be redirected into Mounds View. He believes County Road 10 is already chopped up and more chopping is not needed. Commissioner Zwirn asked how many people are participating in the ownership of the PUD. Commissioner Scotch believes there are five. Mr. Waldoch restated that once the Commission decides to build the townhouses, it eliminates the decisions of property owners to put businesses in. He reiterated that the property was bought and now the owner is trying to force townhomes onto it. Mr. Waldoch said that one year ago, this developer did not meet the requirements to build townhomes until more property was purchased. Now with the additional property, the developer meets the requirements for townhomes. There are townhomes going up along H2. To make a hasty decision now is not a good idea. Commissioner Scotch stated she thinks an elderly housing unit could be build here. Director Ericson stated this would be an R-3 zoning also. Mr. Waldoch would like to see the PUD and for the Planning Commission to ask the residents want they want to see on the property. This is for the City, not just for a developer to profit from. Mr. Richard Sonterre, 5060 Red Oak Drive, asked Director Ericson question on the discussion of rental versus owner-occupied. There has been a trend in the City where people have invested in single-family and later turned them into rental properties. He asked if someone in an owner- occupied scenario could purchase it and turn into rental. Director Ericson said yes, any property owner in the City could rent out their home. Mr. Mark Schnor, 2949 County Road 10, brought up the safety factor. If an emergency occurs on County Road 10 and the emergency vehicle cannot access into the driveway to the townhomes. Director Ericson stated the Fire Marshall has no concerns for access. Brian Bourassa, MFRA Engineering, apologized for missing the last meeting. He displayed the plan and referred to the staff report. He stated that last year they listened to the concerns of staff and residents and brought forth a new plan addressing these concerns. Integra did meet with Mrs. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Johnson to put a project together, but this did not work out. With respect to developing retail or commercial projects, this consolidation was not able to occur on the parcel. In reference to the right-in and right-out traffic issue, there is more impact from a business than from a residential development. The impact is diminished on residential project. Chair Stevenson asked, in reading minutes and comments from residents in the past, they stated they were not approached to purchase their property. Mr. Ron Lillestrand, Integra Homes, addressed the Planning Commission to answer this question. He did ask Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Schnor if they would be willing to sell and they said no. About a month ago he met with Mrs. Johnson where she stated she was interested and was supposed to get back to them. Mrs. Johnson suggested a selling price that Mr. Lillestrand said would preclude them from developing anything viable. Mr. Bourassa addressed Mrs. Johnson’s access concerns. They would have to work with the City and County to make sure not to detract from her property. In reference to Mr. Waldoch’s concern about breaking up a PUD, Integra did consolidation with the three properties. Integra plans to market the townhomes as owner-occupied units. Integra did meet with the Fire Marshall to address safety concerns. In conclusion, Mr. Bourassa stressed that everyone has been patient and have been here a lot. They are trying to listen to the concerns of everyone. He does not feel the project precludes or hinders redevelopment of the area. They are providing utility connections for looping and street access that would allow potential development access to the west and the east. Hopefully as the project moves forward they will work with and meet with everyone to eliminate the concerns. Their market research indicates townhomes would be good for this area. Commissioner Scotch asked Mr. Bourassa what type of businesses he feels cannot go into this area. She still believes a Senior Citizen facility could go here. Mr. Lillestrand stated he did not think about this before but was talking with a company building assisted living units in Forest Lake. He thought this would be wonderful for this site and would be interested in this option. He did not know how the City would feel about this or how this works. He has not done any research on this option as he thought they were too far into the townhome project. Commissioner Scotch is very interested in this, feeling it would stay consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Director Ericson stated this type of development is either an R-3 or R-4 but in a business type operation. A discussion between the Commissioners ensued. Mr. Waldoch pointed out this is what he is referring to when looking at different options for this property. He believes Integra did not do their homework. This is why the whole project needs to be re-looked at. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch replied there are always new ideas. She wants it to remain dedicated to business development. Mr. Schnor clarified that he was approached right after the first meeting before all the plans were developed. He believes Integra should go to the front door and let people know what is going on. Mrs. Johnson said the first time she was approached was less than a year after husband died and she was not ready to make any decisions at that time. Chair Stevenson expressed his appreciation for the clarifications. Commissioner Hegland voiced his understanding of a PUD as that of a mixed use, but there needs to be a plan. He believes the Comprehensive Plan intended for business to be developed in this area because it is one of the few areas available to commercial development in the City. Because the townhomes are an acceptable use for this property does not mean it is the intended use. The reason this is a problem is because it is difficult to see the property as a commercially viable option without the other properties. By putting the townhomes in the middle of the property it precludes ever using the property for commercial use. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Hegland/Commissioner Hull. To approve the denial of Resolution 835-06, a Resolution recommending the Rezoning of 2901 and 2925 County Highway 10 and West Half of 8060 Groveland Highway to an R-3. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1 (Commissioner Zwirn) Motion carried. Director Ericson asked if the Planning Commission is willing to forward a recommendation to the City Council that a study be done on the block between Groveland Road and Spring Lake Road as to what the commercial marketability is or what the best use of this area would be. Chair Stevenson says this is very appropriate. Commissioner Scotch asked if there is any way the Planning Commission or the City could help the developer with this. Ericson stated yes something could be worked out to coordinate a meeting with the developer and the residents. __________________________________________________________________________ B. Planning Case PA2006-001: Consideration of a PUD Amendment for 2442 County Road 10. Applicant: LandCor Companies Address: 9325 Upland Lane North, Suite 300, Maple Grove, MN 55369 Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Planning Associate Heller presented the proposal for an amendment for the 2442 County Road 10 Planned Unit Development. This 26-acre PUD bounded by County Highway 10, County Highway 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 as Parcel A in the PUD document. According to the PUD document, accessory buildings, with the exception of trash enclosures, are not permitted within the PUD. The City originally approved the O’Neil property PUD in May 1998. The original land use designated for 2442 County Highway 10 (Parcel A) was for a restaurant. In May of 2003, the City 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 construct an attached garage on the southwest side of the building. They would need to relocate the garbage enclosure that is currently on the site slightly to the east and in turn would lose two parking spaces. When this building was constructed, it was determined that 60 parking spaces were required based on the building square footage; 64 spaces were provided. Even with losing two or three spaces, LandCor would still exceed the required number of parking stalls. Ms. Heller stated an amendment to a Planned Unit Development is processed the same as a Conditional Use Permit. The procedural requirements of Section 1125 of the Zoning Code would be followed. Section 1125 requires that the Planning Commission and the City Council review the request, taking into consideration any and all potential adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Relative to the Comprehensive Plan, the O’Neil property PUD site is identified as a Regional Commercial PUD. The proposed accessory building as an addition to the existing office building would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is a triangle shaped lot bordered by County Road 10 and Long Lake Road on two sides and a wooded wetland area to the south that separates the movie theater and the Subway mall from this building. Rice Creek Watershed District approved the initial development and storm water ponds were constructed to handle full-site build out, which includes the subject parcel. Adding a garage to the office building would not impact the neighborhood. At this time, the plan is that only one business would lease the entire building, keeping traffic to a minimum. The proposed attached garage would not be out of place, as the design would blend in with the current structure. There are a variety of buildings in the area, for example the movie theater, a senior housing building and a retail building. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ LandCor has finally found a tenant that would lease the entire building but they require a garage space. Since the PUD also states that parking on the site is only allowed during business hours, any tenant that had company vehicles would not be able to leave them outside at the building over night. Ms. Heller commented that it appears amending the PUD to allow for an accessory building would have no adverse impacts and would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the amendment to allow for one attached garage on the site. The site drawings propose that the garage will extend about 30 feet from the front of the building. This is due to the wetlands in the back of the property. The garage is the size they need to support the company that will occupy it. It is 25 feet wide and 80 feet long on the side attached to the building. The square footage is 1,864 feet. Chair Stevenson noted the square footage does not appear in the staff report or on the resolution. Ms. Heller stated that she did not know the size at the time. She only received the information on Friday. Chair Stevenson asked about the loading area reference. Ms. Heller deferred to LandCor to address the question. Mr. John Brickley, LandCor, indicated that the proposed tenant regularly receives deliveries of large cylinders of sign materials, up to 24 feet long, that are then cut on the laser machines. The loading area is actually a scissor lift that comes out of the ground to pull materials off the delivery trucks. The company also does vehicle signage wrapping and the length and width of the garage enables vehicles up to a semi truck size to pull all the way into the garage. The garage is necessary for working on the vehicles all year round. This is a significant part of the business. This building has not leased, as they would have liked. They plan to build the garage to have the same look and feel as the current building. The docking door on the front of the building will be the only thing identifying it as a garage. The rest of the garagee will have the same look and feel as the rest of the building so that it will not look like a garage. They are taking the extra steps to keep it looking like a professional office building. Commissioner Hegland asked what the business does. Mr. Brickley said advertising signage and graphics is the business that will occupy the building. Mr. Bob Fields, Mounds View Offices, LandCor, is the owner of the property and the retail building adjacent to the movie theater. He stated they tried developing the property many years ago working with Louise O’Neil. Mrs. O’Neil passed away recently and they will be buying it from her estate in about 12 months. It is currently under ground lease. They have had difficulty attracting a serious client for that building. Many people have approached him for the building, but he was unable to accommodate their ownership requirements. This particular business is willing to lease for a number of years and then purchase it after the Louise O’Neil estate is settled. He reiterated that materials would be used to match up with the building that is currently Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ there. The building cannot be slid to the east because of the drainage easement, utility power lines and a natural gas line. Staff did a good job of giving him direction. The company is called Let’s Get Graphic. They are a local couple that applies unique laser graphics to a wide variety of applications. Mr. Fields has used them for numerous projects. In the future they plan to have a company vehicle and understand that it must be parked inside per their lease. Commissioner Hegland asked if there are any size requirements or restrictions relating to an accessory building. Director Ericson said there is not in commercial or industrial districts. Commissioner Hegland asked for the proposed height of the garage in relation to the building. Mr. Fields stated he did not know the exact height but said there is an upper band of windows with the roof line just below so the second floor offices will have visibility. Commissioner Scotch asked if some of the pavement would be changed. Mr. Fields said they would only cut out a portion between the trash area and the office building. There is a platform buried in the floor that will rise up to the level of the truck to off load materials inside the building. The door will not be left open, as they require the building to be environmentally controlled to apply applications to vehicles. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if he will be leasing both floors or will the second floor be unoccupied. Mr. Fields stated the business would occupy the entire second floor. An accountant may also lease a portion of the second floor. The first floor will store all the computerized cutting equipment. Commissioner Meehlhause asked how many people they employ. Mr. Fields said there are at least 30 employees. Commissioner Miller said this does not look like a garage. In the resolution they must say the same design as the building in item two. Mr. Fields is agreeable to this. Commissioner Miller would like to add in order “to” provide, on next to the last “whereas” on the document. Chair Stevenson requested they add the 1864 square footage. Ms. Heller indicated she will add that as number four under “to be it further resolved”. Commissioner Zwirn asked if they would lose parking spaces. Ms. Heller said they would lose two spaces when the garbage container is moved but with the current 64 spaces they still have enough to meet the requirements. Commissioner Miller does not like calling it a garage. The Commissioners agreed to call it a parking bay. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Chair Stevenson. To approve Resolution 840- 06, Recommending Approval of an Amendment to the O’Neil property PUD Agreement to allow for an accessory building at 2442 County Highway 10. Planning Case No. PA2006-001. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ C. Planning Case 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, Minneapolis, MN 55413 Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Community Development Director Ericson presented a request for consideration of an Interim Use Permit (IUP) and a Variance for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 otherwise known as the Mermaid Entertainment Center, to the Planning Commission. In addition to the IUP application, Clear Channel has also requested approval for a variance to extend the height of the billboard ten additional feet from 35 feet to 45 feet. The basis of the variance requested is to not obstruct the adjoining property and to not be obstructed by the Mermaid’s own ground sign. 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 given two years to find suitable locations elsewhere in the City for the billboards. The City’s role was to amend its codes and regulations to allow reasonable opportunity for the signs to be relocated elsewhere in the community. On May 8, 2006, after multiple meetings held by the City Council, Ordinance 769 was adopted which expanded the locations for billboards to properly zoned parcels along County 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 City Council indicated that the height limitation would be 35 feet along the south side of County Road 10 south of the Woodale Drive Intersection in recognition that this is the community’s corridor. Clear Channel submitted a plan showing where the billboard would be in relation to the adjoining properties and signage at 35 feet. They made a determination that at 35 feet visibility is a problem for them and the adjoining properties and signs. They have requested a variance for 45 feet, ten feet higher than what is allowed. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ There are two issues before the Commission, the Interim Use Permit and the Variance Application for the billboard. There are no resolutions attached to the staff report, as this is a discussion item. Staff is seeking guidance and direction from the Planning Commission so they can come back with something that they Commission is comfortable with at the July 5th meeting. There are requirements for an IUP that need to be reviewed similar to conditional use permits and the rezoning process. The adverse effects, geographical area involved, depreciation, character of the surrounding area and a demonstrated need for such use. The Comprehensive Plan does not address or contemplate the issue of billboards. The Mermaid property is located 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 of County Road 10 and the billboard would not be readily visible from any residential property. The billboard would be located in the north corner of the nine-acre Mermaid property with the nearest affected property being the Abbey Carpet building. 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. Residents do not see it as depreciation. Depending on the height of the sign, there could be some adverse effects in terms of construction, visibility to the Mermaid sign and the Abbey Carpet sign. Based on the new ordinance adopted by the City, all code requirements are satisfied with the exception of the height. 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. Clear Channel has clearly not caused the situation that 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 Planning Commission must determine if a hardship exists. In this case the variance is based strictly on height and visibility. Anyone in advertising will tell you the lack of visibility is in fact a hardship. The additional ten feet would satisfy the hardship requirement. Three residents have called in an opposition of the variance request. The residents were from Eastwood Road, one from Sherwood and a resident from Sunnyside, who expressed his opposition in writing. The owner of Pettibone on County Road H contacted Director Ericson and indicated they have no concern with the placement of the billboard. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ 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 where the billboard is located. While it can be argued 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 corridor, this site has been identified by the City Council as a potential location for a billboard. Staff is looking for direction to bring something back to the Planning Commission meeting on July 5, 2006 that can then be forwarded on to the City Council. Chair Stevenson asked for clarification. As a Commission they voted unanimously to not have billboards along County Road 10. The City Council overruled it for monetary reasons years ago. We are now back to approve something that the Council again has said this is where billboards will go. The Planning Commission does not have an option to make recommendations for billboards when the Council has said there will be billboards at specific locations. Director Ericson stated this is correct. Chair Stevenson stated he is not in favor of billboards. Chair Stevenson stated that since the Commission is not here to discuss whether they want the billboards, there are several things they can do a better job on. On page three he believes one 45- foot billboard should be allowed because if the drawings are accurate, it will definitely impact the Abbey Carpet and Mermaid signs. With this writing, he directed the Commission to look at section 7, number 3 and requests striking “ …. the maximum billboard sign height is 45 feet” and say “35 feet except as allowed in section 108.10.” Director Ericson asked Chair Stevenson if he is suggesting the ordinance be modified. The ordinance is adopted and unless he is recommending that an adoption or revision for amendment be proposed, the ordinance is in effect. Chair Stevenson said he is. With this writing, he does not see how they are limiting it to the billboard they are discussing. Looking at subsection 10.16 (f) on page 5, “the maximum allowable height the billboard shall be … except for billboards located on CR 10…..” Director Ericson explained the existing code allowed for not more than 35-foot high billboards in the City of Mounds View. Clear Channel provided information that there are some locations where they will need additional height. There was a concession made to extend billboards up to 45 feet, with the exception of any potential billboards along County Road 10 to preserve the look and feel of a community corridor. They very consciously struck the 45-foot provision from County Road 10 and made it 35 feet. The issue with the “except between County Road H2 and County Road I” is an existing billboard in the Townsedge Terrace Manufactured Home Park that is presently a nonconforming use in a residential area. The Council did not want to inadvertently allow for the billboard to be placed at 45 feet in that area. There was an expressed desire to limit the height of that billboard and the height of any billboard along County Road 10. The spacing was increased from 1000 feet to 1500 feet between billboards. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson stated that what this is saying is, wherever we put the sign we can put it at 45 feet except along County Road 10, and now the applicant is asking for this billboard to be 45 feet. Director Ericson rephrased by saying what the ordinance allowed for is 45-foot billboards wherever billboards are permitted with the exception of County Road 10 and the except for the billboard on 35W. Chair Stevenson asked where other locations are that the code allows 45-foot billboards. Director Ericson stated anywhere on Interstate 35W, US Highway 10, and Old Highway 8 that would have consistent zoning of B-2, B-3, a PUD designation, a CRP designation and an industrial designation including a 250-foot set back from residential areas. Along County Road 10, only the area between Woodale to County Road H, have the 35-foot height and the 1500-foot separation. Commissioner Scotch asked why Clear Channel is not looking for a spot along 35W. Director Ericson stated they are looking at the 35W and an application will be before the Commission at the next meeting. Chair Stevenson asked if the Mermaid would be compensated for the sign on their property. Director Ericson indicated the Mermaid has signed a lease agreement for this site. Commissioner Miller has a problem granting a variance because if the Mermaid did not want this billboard there would not be a problem. Commissioner Scotch stated the Mermaid would make revenue off this, therefore helping their business. Commissioner Miller stressed this should not be one of the reasons to grant a variance. Director Ericson said Chair Stevenson summed it up when he said the Planning Commission perhaps does not support billboards and that may be the case, but the City Council has adopted various locations within the City where billboards can be located. In terms of the Interim Use Permit and whether a billboard can be located at this location, if this were a 35-foot billboard, the Planning Commission’s hands may be tied. The fact that a variance application is in front of the Planning Commission gives you the opportunity to decide if a hardship exists to warrant the variance. Mr. John Kopas - Abbey Carpet at 2222 County Road 10 stated he came tonight to find out where the billboard will be placed and how it will impact his building signage. He stated that no one has had the curtsey to come to him or tell him. Looking at the picture he sees before him, he feels that at 35 feet the billboard would impact the view of his building significantly. He asked if Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 ________________________________________________________________________ it could be moved to the south end of the Mermaid property where it would not impact any of the businesses. Mr. Kopas would like them to talk to him and see what they can work out. He noticed the large post would for the billboard will block the view of the Fastenal sign also. A discussion on optional locations continued between the Planning Commission, Director Ericson and Mr. Kopas. Mr. Rich Sonterre, Clear Channel Outdoor 3225 Spring Street, Minneapolis, approached the Commission and stated this process is not one Clear Channel wanted to undertake. They wanted the signs to remain at the golf course. Clear Channel entered into the negotiations process with the City to help facilitate the Medtronic development and to encourage good community relations. Throughout the negotiations it has been a partnership with the community. Clear Channel negotiated with the City in good faith. They were a participant in the process and worked closely with the Community Development Department to create an ordinance that closed all loopholes that might lead to future billboard development in the City. Mr. Sonterre emphasized he specifically worked on putting together language known as cap and replace, a policy in which a community can reclaim a maximum number of billboards and no more. He worked on a process by which billboards can be relocated within the City to appropriately zoned and designated areas, therefore causing no additional billboard inventory. In reference to the 1500-foot distance that was added when the ordinance was passed, this was his doing. Mr. Sonterre stressed he wants what is best for everyone. He entered into an agreement to move the signs from the former golf course and replace them, in many cases, in less profitable areas. This has not been an adversarial process. Mr. Sonterre explained how and where the pictures presented were taken and how the reality of the actual view is somewhat askew. The column for the billboard is slightly larger than a power pole and there is a short-term obstruction as you drive down County Road 10. The overall size of the pole is increased slightly to create the square effect to meet code requirements. If the sign were located on the south side of the Mermaid, a variance would still be required because of the obstruction to the Mermaid from the other direction. Commissioner Hegland asked if the position for the sign support could be anywhere else. Mr. Sonterre indicated he would have to check with the engineers. Commissioner Meehlhause asked Mr. Sonterre if there would be opposition to moving the sign to the south. Mr. Sonterre said the location is at the owner’s request. Commissioner Scotch does not like the location because it still blocks Fastenal. She emphasized these businesses have the right to have full visibility to the signage on their building. Something else could be worked out. She does not agree with Mr. Sonterre’s statement. Several Commissioners expressed their inability to support the placement of the sign. Mr. Sonterre stated that he is within his rights to build the sign at this location at 35 feet without applying for anything but an IUP. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch said the Planning Commission is looking for another option so there is full view of the signs of other businesses. Director Ericson stated that when he indicated the requirements of the Interim Use Permit application have been satisfied, there is some slight subjectivity with this as well. He indicated that the use would not depreciate the area in which it was proposed and has received feedback from adjacent property owners expressing some concern with the location. When looking at an interim use permit and if the Commission feels the location does pose a depreciatory effect or hardship for adjoining property owners, the Commission can make that statement and make a recommendation to the City Council based on that. Commissioner Hegland would like to see Clear Channel make an effort to talk to Abbey Carpet and work this out. Mr. Sonterre stated he is happy to speak with him. Chair Stevenson gave Director Ericson the recommendation to City Council that this is not a good location for the sign. It is not in consideration of the property owners of Mounds View. Whether it is 35 feet or 55 feet it is not a good location for the sign. Mr. Charlie Hall, owner of Mermaid, addressed the Commission. He has owned the Mermaid for 33 years. He stated they have grown, and all of his money, wife’s money is in this business. His son is also very involved in the business. There is a hardship for him. They are happy to have the money from the sign because they need it. The sign is crucial to them. Mr. Hall listed things that have happen to him from a business perspective that has added to their hardship. Chair Stevenson stopped the discussion and directed Clear Channel to find out if a new location on the Mermaid property is possible. If the best decision is the location currently recommended, what is the minimum height to eliminate interference with other businesses. Chair Stevenson would like this by the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Stevenson directed staff to determine the correct location and height for the billboard. Commissioner Hegland requests to see if there is any way to redesign the support structure so it is no larger than it has to be. Mr. Sonterre explained that each structure is designed to meet the requirements of the customer. He said they strive to make billboards the least intrusive as possible. This particular design was approved by the City Council. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. No motion. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 18 ________________________________________________________________________ A. SP-146-05: Consideration of an Ordinance Amending the Procedures and Regulations relating to Dog Kennels Director Ericson presented a proposed ordinance that would eliminate residential dog/cat kennels as a conditional use for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has review oversight due to one line of text stricken from the Zoning Code. The amendment before the Commission is to amend the code to strike the requirement for landowners go through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process if they want three or more dogs. The basis for this proposed amendment is that any property owner with three or more dogs must currently go through the CUP process with the Planning Commission and City Council and be subjected to redundant public hearings and notification requirements. The problem with the process is that a CUP is attached to the property, not the property owner. If the resident receives a CUP and later moves, the CUP stays with the property. Having three or more dogs is really not a land-use issue. Director Ericson stressed that licensing requirements would remain essentially the same. The primary change is to drop the CUP requirement from the process. If a resident wants three or more dogs, a petition bearing the signatures of at least 50% of their neighbors within 500 feet, still must be presented. Property owners would no longer have to wait six weeks to complete the CUP process. The proposed amendment would add language regarding persons ineligible for a kennel license and would clarify the justification for license revocation. Director Ericson asked the Planning Commission to review the proposed code amendment and if found acceptable, approve Resolution 842-06. No time constraints are associated with this request. The Commission may request further discussion at the next meeting or ask for additional information. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Commissioner Miller asked Director Ericson what represents 500 feet. Director Ericson replied it is approximately five houses in any direction of the property owner. Commissioner Zwirn asked about the “persons convicted” statement in the code. He would like to strengthen the language to include something like “If ever any charges are brought forth” it would become open to review. In view of the recent problems of cruelty in St. Paul, he would also like to see something referring to cruelty to animals. Director Ericson will look into this. He asked the Commission to keep in mind there is nothing about cruelty currently in the Code. He will discuss the cruelty issue and strengthening the “persons convicted” statement to include charges brought forth with the City attorney. Chair Stevenson recommended no action on this item until Director Ericson comes back with recommended changes to the amendment. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 19 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. No motion. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. Continuation: Review TIF Policies, TIF Scenarios and Economic Development Funding Priorities. Chair Stevenson recommends tabling this item until the next meeting. No motion. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 5, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:20 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. Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. June 21, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 5, 2006 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request for a Variance to Encroach into the Front Yard Setback to Allow for the Construction of a Front Entry and Porch Addition at 2764 Laport Drive; Planning Case VR2006-005 Introduction: The applicants, Lawrence and Mari Okoro, are requesting variance approval to construct a front entry and covered porch addition to the front of their home at 2764 Laport Drive. A variance is needed in this case as the addition would extend into the prevailing front yard setback, which is identified on this block as approximately 52 feet - 22 feet more than the minimum front setback. The addition would encroach approximately nine feet into the prevailing setback. The Okoros would like to expand the inside front entry space and add a covered front porch instead of the current small concrete steps. The Okoros have elderly family members who stay with them for extended periods of time, and due to their physical difficulties, entering the home with the small front step and entry has proven to be very difficult for them. This split- entry style of home typically has very limited entry space both inside and outside the front door. Discussion: Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning district is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R-1, Single Family Residential district, the typical building setbacks are as follows: Front, thirty (30) feet; Side, ten (10) feet; and Rear, thirty (30) feet. The Code also addresses the issue of “prevailing setbacks,” which is applicable for the home at 2764 Laport Drive. The Code states that, “Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (30').” The prevailing setback for homes on this block of Laport Drive has been determined to be approximately 52 feet. The applicants would like to add a 10’x14’ front entry and porch to the part of their home that is currently set back approximately 57 feet from the property line (the property line is 15 feet in from the edge of the street). This addition would bring the building up to 43 feet from the property line, an encroachment of nine feet. Variance Considerations: 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. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in the case of 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: a. 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. The subject property is a typical rectangular shaped lot with no unusual characteristics or conditions. The only extraordinary condition present at the property is the prevailing setback of 52 feet, 22 feet more than what would otherwise be required. b. 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 Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that most homes in Mounds View maintain consistent setbacks, whether at 30 feet or 52 feet. Because of this, porch additions or any additions to the front of a home are usually problematic. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The home, constructed in 1970, was situated on the lot to be of a similar front setback as the home on the opposite end of the block, which was constructed in 1940. The two homes in between are of similar setbacks, which have placed all of them in about the middle of the lots. The homes on this block all have much larger front setbacks than the 30 foot minimum, but they are all setback a similar distance from each other which effectively eliminates the possibility of a front expansion. d. 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. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district in that the Commission has granted front setback variances for additions in the past. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. A ten foot front entry and 4 foot porch which encroaches nine feet into the front setback would be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the Okoros perceived hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to the adjoining properties. Given how far back from the street the homes on this block are, a nine foot encroachment may not be overly discernable or disruptive to the setback pattern for the block. g. 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 front entry and porch addition would not result in any of the above adverse effects. Public Input Staff has not received any comments regarding this property. Summary: As stated above, the City Code indicates that for a hardship to be considered, each of the seven criteria needs to be satisfied. The Commission will need to determine whether the existence of a deeper than typical prevailing setback is justification enough to warrant variance approval. Front setback variances for additions have been granted in the past, and one of the last two approvals brought the home closer than 30 feet to the front lot line. The Okoro’s house, if the variance were approved, would still have a 43 foot front setback from the property line, or 58 feet to the street. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Staff has prepared a resolution for the Commission’s action if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Deny the request given the apparent lack of demonstrated hardship. Staff has prepared a resolution of denial which can be adopted if the Commission feels the hardship criteria have not been adequately satisfied. 3. Table the request if more information is needed before a decision can be made. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Building Plans 6. Resolution of Denial 7. Resolution of Approval Properties not identified with a zoning designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning Map Aerial View Photographic Documentation 2764 Laport Drive 2764 Laport (right) and neighbors house that is approximately 5 feet closer to street, setting the prevailing front setback for this street 2764 LaportNeighbor’s house that is approximately 5 feet closer to the street Plot Plan * DENIAL * MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 841-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH NINE FEET INTO THE PREVAILING FRONT SETBACK AT 2764 LAPORT DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2006-005 WHEREAS, the applicants, Lawrence and Mari Okoro, have applied for a variance to encroach nine feet into the prevailing front setback at 2764 Laport Drive; and, WHEREAS, 2764 Laport Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is legally described as: Mid-States Estates, Lot 4, Block 2 WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front yard setback for buildings in Single Family Residential districts is thirty (30) feet; and, WHEREAS, the prevailing setback for the 2700 block of Laport Drive is fifty-two (52) feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance to construct a front entry and porch addition nine (9) feet into the prevailing setback; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the following materials relating to this request: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Building Plans WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, Resolution 841-06 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this variance on Wednesday, July 5, 2006; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. 2. The prevailing front yard setback for the 2700 block of Laport Drive is fifty- two (52) feet. 3. The applicant is requesting to reduce the front yard setback to forty-three (43) feet. 4. The property is neither exceptional nor extraordinary in regards to shape or size. 5. Granting a variance in this case would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 6. The variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 7. The hardship criteria as identified in Section 1125.02 have not been satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby deny the request for a nine foot variance from the prevailing front setback of fifty-two feet at 2764 Laport Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the applicant shall be notified of the right to appeal this denial to the City Council. The appeal shall be submitted in writing within 10 business days of the adoption of this Resolution. Adopted this 5th day of July, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) * APPROVAL * MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 841-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH NINE FEET INTO THE PREVAILING FRONT SETBACK AT 2764 LAPORT DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2006-005 WHEREAS, the applicants, Lawrence and Mari Okoro, have applied for a variance to encroach nine feet into the prevailing front setback at 2764 Laport Drive; and, WHEREAS, 2764 Laport Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is legally described as: Mid-States Estates, Lot 4, Block 2 WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front yard setback for buildings in Single Family Residential districts is thirty (30) feet; and, WHEREAS, the prevailing setback for the 2700 block of Laport Drive is fifty-two (52) feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance to construct a front entry and porch addition nine (9) feet into the prevailing setback; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the following materials relating to this request: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Building Plans WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, Resolution 841-06 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this variance on Wednesday, July 5, 2006; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The prevailing front yard setback for the 2700 block of Laport Drive is fifty-two (52) feet, much greater than what is required. 2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would restrict the property owner’s ability to expand and improve upon the layout and functionality of the home. 3. The applicant has not caused the configuration of the lot and seeks to expand the home to improve its function and livability. 4. Granting a variance in this case would not confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners. 5. The nine (9) foot variance is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicants’ hardship. 6. The building expansion would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other surrounding properties as this property is the corner lot of a very short block with large front setbacks. Encroaching nine feet into the front setback may not be disruptive to the setback pattern for the block. 7. The proposed variance would not impair supply of light and air to adjacent properties 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby approve the request for a nine-foot variance from the prevailing front setback of fifty-two feet at 2764 Laport Drive. Adopted this 5th day of July, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: July 5, 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 July 5, 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 July 5, 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 July 5, 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 those on 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 July 5, 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. The applicant will argue that NOT granting the variance would cause a detriment to both the host property as well as the adjoining property owned by Mr. John Kopas. (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. On the other hand, 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 overly accommodating. The question that remains at this point is whether the billboard at the requested location would be detrimental to the adjoining property. While Mr. Kopas would desire the billboard in a different location on the Mermaid property, staff has confirmed that the billboard as sited, if erected at 45 feet, would not be considered objectionable to Mr. Kopas. Clear Channel IUP Report July 5, 2006 Page 6 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 (addressed on Sherwood Road, Eastwood Road and Sunnyside Road) have contacted me expressing their opposition to granting the variance for additional height; one such correspondence was included in the Planning Commission’s staff report from June 21. The owner of the Pettibone site on County Road H also contacted staff regarding the notice but did not express any concern regarding the placement of the billboard. 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 some argue that any billboard on County Road 10 is contrary to the City’s goal of improving and enhancing the image and appeal of the corridor, this site has been identified by the City Council as a potential location for a billboard. Recommendation: Continue discussion regarding the IUP and variance requests and determine whether a recommendation of approval or denial should be forwarded on to the City Council for their consideration. Attached to this report are separate resolutions of approval and denial for the variance and the IUP. The variance request should be considered first with the IUP considered immediately thereafter. The resolutions would be presented for the City Council’s consideration on July 10, 2006. _____________________________________ 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 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 844-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A 45 -FOOT TALL BILLBOARD AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10, PLANNING CASE VR2006-004 WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of a variance to exceed the maximum sign height by ten feet for a billboard to be located at 2200 County Road 10, the site of the Mermaid Entertainment Center and AmericInn Hotel; and, WHEREAS, the Mermaid site is zoned Planned unit Development (PUD) and is legally described as follows: MERMAID HOTEL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY PLAT RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 769 which amended the City Code to permit billboards as an interim use on properties adjacent to the south side of County Road 10 south of its intersection with Woodale Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on June 21, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code establishes the review criteria against which all variance applications shall be judged and satisfied for a variance to be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor application for a variance to exceed by ten feet the maximum established height provision for a billboard on County Road 10: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which result from circumstances over which the Applicant has had no control, in that the maximum height was recently established by the Mounds View City Council without the benefit of a sight-line analysis or computer generated billboard rendering. The additional ten feet from 35 feet to 45 feet will provide the necessary clearance above existing signs and buildings. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the Applicant of unobstructed visibility to its proposed billboard and would obscure to some extent existing ground and building signs. APPROVAL Resolution 844-06 Page 2 3. The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the Applicant which is attempting to relocate a billboard consistent with the terms of the approved relocation agreement. 4. Granting the variance 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, in that the Applicant is uniquely affected by Ordinance 769 and the Relocation Agreement. 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship which has been graphically illustrated by the Applicant. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above finding of fact, testimony provided at the public hearing and in consideration of the staff report, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby approve the requested variance for a 45 foot tall billboard (ten feet in excess of the maximum allowed height of 35 feet) at 2200 County Road 10 consistent with the Zoning Code and Ordinance 769, with conditions as follows: 1. The Applicant shall secure an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for the proposed billboard. 2. The Applicant shall have completed the construction of the billboard by July 4, 2007 or the variance shall be considered null and void, unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the City Clerk-Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original variance or appeal. Adopted this 5th day of July, 2006. __________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST __________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 844-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A 45-FOOT TALL BILLBOARD AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10, PLANNING CASE VR2006-004 WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of a variance to exceed the maximum sign height by ten feet for a billboard to be located at 2200 County Road 10, the site of the Mermaid Entertainment Center and AmericInn Hotel; and, WHEREAS, the Mermaid site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is legally described as follows: WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 769 which amended the City Code to permit billboards as an interim use on properties adjacent to the south side of County Road 10 south of its intersection with Woodale Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on June 21, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code establishes the review criteria against which all variance applications shall be judged and satisfied for a variance to be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor application for a variance to exceed by ten feet the maximum established height provision for a billboard on County Road 10: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not apply to this property which would warrant approval of the requested variance. There are other potential locations within the County Road 10 corridor at which a billboard could potentially be sited without obstruction from or obstruction to existing buildings or signs. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would not deprive the Applicant the ability to site a billboard within the County Road 10 corridor. 3. Granting the variance would confer upon the Applicant a special privilege that would not be extended to other property owners on the County Road 10 corridor. 4. The variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the corridor in that the City desires lower height signs within the County Road 10 corridor. Denial Resolution 844-06 Page 2 5 The proposed variance and resulting 45-foot tall billboard could substantially diminish or impair property values within the corridor and negatively impact the community’s vision for the corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above finding of fact, testimony provided at the public hearing and in consideration of the staff report, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby deny the requested variance for a 45- foot tall billboard (ten feet in excess of the maximum allowed height of 35 feet) at 2200 County Road 10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the applicant shall be informed in writing as to the decision of the Planning Commission and the Applicant’s right to appeal said decision to the City Council. The Applicant shall have ten business days from the date of this action by which to submit its written request to appeal the decision to the City Council. Adopted this 5th day of July, 2006. __________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST __________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 845-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP) FOR A BILLBOARD AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10, PLANNING CASE IU2006-001 WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of an Interim Use Permit to locate a billboard at 2200 County Road 10, the site of the Mermaid Entertainment Center and AmericInn Hotel; and, WHEREAS, the Mermaid site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is legally described as follows: MERMAID HOTEL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY PLAT RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 769 which amended the City Code to permit billboards as an interim use on properties adjacent to the south side of County Road 10 south of its intersection with Woodale Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a survey depicting the location and setback of the proposed billboard; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on June 21, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code requires that requires that any billboard Interim Use Permit (IUP) application be reviewed and considered in accordance with Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor application for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a billboard at 2200 County Road 10: 1. The Installation of a billboard at 2200 County Road 10 would 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. 2. The billboard at the proposed location would not be readily visible from nearby residentially zoned properties and would not have a detrimental effect on the development of vacant land in the area. 3. The structure and site will not have an appearance that would adversely effect adjacent residential properties in that there are no residential properties adjacent to the Mermaid. APPROVAL Resolution 845-06 Page 2 4. The requested IUP is reasonably related to the requirement placed upon the Applicant to relocate four of six billboards from the former golf course property. 5. The use is consistent with the recently adopted amendments to the Sign Code Chapter 1008 as effectuated by Ordinance 769. 6. The proposed billboard would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City in that the Comprehensive Plan does not address billboards. 7. The proposed billboard would not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access, drainage and other necessary facilities are available to the proposed billboard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the Comprehensive Plan, the geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use, has determined that the potential adverse effects of the proposed billboard would be negligible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above finding of fact, testimony provided at the public hearing and in consideration of the staff report, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the requested Interim Use Permit for a billboard at 2200 County Road 10 consistent with the Zoning Code and Ordinance 769, in accordance with the property survey and rendering attached as Exhibits A and B respectively, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall have completed the construction of the billboard by July 4, 2007 or the Interim Use Permit shall be considered null and void, unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the City Clerk-Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original variance or appeal. 2. As shown on the survey, the billboard support column will be sited in the parking lot. No more than one parking stall shall be impacted as a result of the construction. The parking lot shall be restored and repaired as soon as practical with concrete curb and gutter installed around the billboard island and sod planted within the billboard island. Resolution 845-06 Page 3 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to the approval of the minutes. Adopted this 5th day of July, 2006. __________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST __________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Exhibit A. Property Survey Exhibit B. Billboard Depiction MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 845-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP) FOR A BILLBOARD AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10, PLANNING CASE IU2006-001 WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of an Interim Use Permit to locate a billboard at 2200 County Road 10, the site of the Mermaid Entertainment Center and AmericInn Hotel; and, WHEREAS, the Mermaid site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is legally described as follows: MERMAID HOTEL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY PLAT RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 769 which amended the City Code to permit billboards as an interim use on properties adjacent to the south side of County Road 10 south of its intersection with Woodale Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a survey depicting the location and setback of the proposed billboard; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on June 21, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code requires that requires that any billboard Interim Use Permit (IUP) application be reviewed and considered in accordance with Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor application for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a billboard at 2200 County Road 10: 1. The billboard at the proposed location would detrimentally affect the adjoining property due to obstruction from the column and potentially from the sign faces. 2. The billboard could potentially be located elsewhere on County Road 10 causing less impact and obstruction to the subject and adjacent properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings of fact and potential adverse effects of the proposed billboard, testimony from the public hearing and the staff report, does hereby recommend denial of the requested Interim Use Permit. Denial Resolution 8 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to the approval of the minutes. Adopted this 5th day of July, 2006. __________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST __________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5C Meeting Date: July 5, 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 5201 Program Avenue Introduction: Consistent with the recently adopted Ordinance 769, Clear Channel Outdoor has submitted a request for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to site a billboard at the southwest corner of Program Avenue and Woodale Drive (Building “A” site) which gains visibility from Interstate 35W. In addition to the IUP application, Clear Channel has also requested approval of a variance to reduce the setback of the billboard from fifteen (15) feet to five (5) feet. The basis of the variance request is to avoid siting the billboard within the existing stormwater pond which would require reconfiguration of the pond and pond easement, actions opposed by the property owner RREEF American REIT II. (REEFF, a division of Deutsche Bank Group, is an international Real Estate Investment Trust with offices worldwide.) 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 the billboards. 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 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 500 Feet 850 Feet Yes Maximum Height 45 Feet 45 Feet Yes Setback from Residential 250 Feet 820 Feet Yes Property Line Setback 15 Feet 5 Feet * No Maximum Sign Area 700 Sq. Feet 700 Sq. Feet Yes Appropriate Location US 10, 35W, Old Hwy 8 or CR10 Program Ave Yes Appropriate Zoning B2, B3, I1, PUD, CRP PUD Yes * Clear Channel has applied for a variance to allow for the 5-foot setback. Clear Channel IUP Report July 5, 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 Building “A” property is located at the southwest corner of the Program Avenue and Woodale Drive. At the northwest corner of this intersection is another building owned by RREEF, Building “G”. Both buildings house office and industrial businesses such as Owens and Minor, Jonco Die, Alpers Organics, Trend and Liberty Enterprises. South of the site is a building owned by CG Hill and Sons and the Bethlehem Baptist Church facility formerly known as Building “N”. (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 Building “A” property would have a negative or depreciatory effect upon the subject property or adjoining properties. (4) The character of the surrounding area. This area of Mounds View is dominated by office / warehouse and industrial uses. There is not adjacent residential property and the closest residentially zoned lots are north of County Road H2 at the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park, which has its own billboard on site. (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. 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: Clear Channel IUP Report July 5, 2006 Page 3 (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 not likely that the billboard would 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 Building “A” property 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 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. The proposed billboard would not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Access to the billboards will be gained via Woodale Drive and Program Avenue.. Clear Channel IUP Report July 5, 2006 Page 4 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 15 foot setback requirement to allow the billboard be constructed at a setback of five (5) feet. The basis for their request is due to the presence of a stormwater management pond at this corner of the property which was installed with very little setback to the right of way. The billboard column would be located 30 feet from Program Avenue and 15 feet from Woodale Drive. (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 relocation agreement however indicates that the City could potentially make concessions to allow billboards to be relocated within the community. Because of the presence of the pond, the billboard cannot be setback any further from the property lines. (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 has been asked to remove four billboards from the former golf course property and the Building “A” site is one of the sites identified by the City which could potentially support a relocated 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. 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 and the presence of the pond adjacent to the right of way, 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. Clear Channel IUP Report July 5, 2006 Page 5 (5) That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. (6) The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. It does not appear that, given the circumstances, the requested variance would be detrimental to the Code or to other properties in the PUD district. (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 appears to staff that a case could be made for hardship. Clear Channel has clearly not caused the situation which necessitates the additional ten foot reduction in setback; 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 overly accommodating. 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 21, 2006 edition of the Bulletin. No residents or property owners have contacted staff regarding the request. Summary: With the exception of the setback 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 would be located. This site has been identified by the City Council as a potential location for a billboard. Clear Channel IUP Report July 5, 2006 Page 6 Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and discuss the request for the IUP and variance. Based on staff’s review, a resolution approving the variance application and recommending approval of the IUP have been prepared and are available for the Planning Commission’s action. If approved, the request would go before the City Council on July 10, 2006. If additional information is necessary before action can occur, a tabling motion would be in order. Finally, if the Planning Commission does not believe the applicant has satisfied the hardship threshold, staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial for the variance and a recommendation of denial for the IUP request. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Looking south at location (Woodale Drive and Program Avenue) of Proposed Billboard Lease Agreement Zoning Map ` > Proposed Billboard Location Survey Snapshot Proposed Billboard Design MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 846-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCED SETBACK FOR A BILLBOARD AT 5201 PROGRAM AVE, PLANNING CASE VR2006-005 WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of a variance to reduce the minimum property line setback by ten feet for a billboard to be located at 5201 Program Avenue (the Building “A” site), property owned by RREEF America REIT II; and, WHEREAS, the Building “A” site is zoned Planned unit Development (PUD) and is legally described as follows: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 769 which amended the City Code to permit billboards as an interim use on properties adjacent to and visible from Interstate 35W ; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on July 5, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code establishes the review criteria against which all variance applications shall be judged and satisfied for a variance to be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor application for a variance to exceed by ten feet the maximum established height provision for a billboard on County Road 10: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which result from circumstances over which the Applicant has had no control, in that a stormwater management pond was constructed feet from both Woodale Drive and Program Avenue rights of way. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the Applicant the ability to site a billboard at this location without major modification to the area’s stormwater management system. Resolution 846-06 Page 2 3. The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the Applicant which is attempting to relocate a billboard consistent with the terms of the approved relocation agreement. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the Applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district, in that the Applicant is uniquely affected by Ordinance 769 and the Relocation Agreement. 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship which has been graphically illustrated by the Applicant. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above finding of fact, testimony provided at the public hearing and in consideration of the staff report, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby approve the requested variance for a five foot property line setback for a billboard to be located at 5201 Program Avenue consistent with the Zoning Code and Ordinance 769, with conditions as follows: 1. The Applicant shall secure an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for the proposed billboard. 2. The Applicant shall have completed the construction of the billboard by July 4, 2007 or the variance shall be considered null and void, unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the City Clerk-Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original variance or appeal. Adopted this 5th day of July, 2006. __________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST __________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 847-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP) FOR A BILLBOARD AT 5201 PROGRAM AVENUE, PLANNING CASE IU2006-002 WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of an Interim Use Permit to locate a billboard at 5201 Program Avenue, the site of Building “A” within the Mounds View Business Park; and, WHEREAS, the Building “A” site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is legally described as follows: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 769 which amended the City Code to permit billboards as an interim use on properties adjacent to and visible from Interstate 35W ; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a survey depicting the location and setback of the proposed billboard; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on July 5, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code requires that requires that any billboard Interim Use Permit (IUP) application be reviewed and considered in accordance with Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor application for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a billboard at 5201 Program Avenue: 1. The Installation of a billboard at 5201 Program Avenue would 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. 2. The billboard at the proposed location would not be readily visible from nearby residentially zoned properties and would not have a detrimental effect on the development of vacant land in the area. Resolution 847-06 Page 2 3. The structure and site will not have an appearance that would adversely effect adjacent residential properties in that there are no residential properties adjacent to Building “A”. 4. The requested IUP is reasonably related to the requirement placed upon the Applicant to relocate four of six billboards from the former golf course property. 5. The use is consistent with the recently adopted amendments to the Sign Code Chapter 1008 as effectuated by Ordinance 769. 6. The proposed billboard would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City in that the Comprehensive Plan does not address billboards. 7. The proposed billboard would not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access, drainage and other necessary facilities are available to the proposed billboard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the Comprehensive Plan, the geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use, has determined that the potential adverse effects of the proposed billboard would be negligible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above finding of fact, testimony provided at the public hearing and in consideration of the staff report, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the requested Interim Use Permit for a billboard at 5201 Program Avenue consistent with the Zoning Code and Ordinance 769, in accordance with the property survey and rendering attached as Exhibits A and B respectively, subject to the following condition: 1. The Applicant shall have completed the construction of the billboard by July 4, 2007 or the Interim Use Permit shall be considered null and void, unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the City Clerk-Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original variance or appeal. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to the approval of the minutes. Resolution 847-06 Page 3 Adopted this 5th day of July, 2006. __________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST __________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Exhibit A. Property Survey Exhibit B. Billboard Depiction Item No: 5D Meeting Date: July 5, 2006 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate for a proposed Major e Road; Planning Case Introduction: nn has submitted an application for a major subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road. his parcel is towards the northern end of Long Lake Road, across from Ardan Park. The tified as 8360 Long Lake Road is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. he proposed subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property. All of the Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Subdivision at 8360 Long Lak MA2006-002 Matthew Hofma T proposed 1.55 acre subdivision would create 3 buildable lots from the existing one lot. Matthew Hofmann currently has a purchase agreement with the landowner. Even though 8360 Long Lake Road is less than two acres in size, this is a major subdivision due to the fact that more than one additional lot is being created Discussion: The area iden T lots shown on the preliminary plat satisfy the minimum requirements of 75 feet lot width and 11,000 square foot lot area. All three lots will be almost identical in size; approximately 22,520 square feet (83’ x 270’ or approximately 0.51 acre). There is currently a house on the lot, which will be demolished, and three new single family homes would be built. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates 8360 Long ake Road and the surrounding area as single family detached housing. The proposed L subdivision would be consistent with that designation and consistent with the residential goals and policies as articulated in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would also be consistent with specific housing goals and policies articulated in the Comp Plan. Local Water Management Plan: Also known as the City’s Surface Water Management Plan, is planning document guides the City in regards to drainage and stormwater management. th The project is located in the Judicial Ditch No. 1 minor watershed, AA-1 and AA-5 sub- watersheds. The boundary between these two sub-watersheds appears to run approximately through the middle of this lot. The minimum recommended building elevation for the AA-1 sub- watershed is set at 905.4 feet and AA-5 is 904.0 feet. Easements: The City’s Subdivision Code requires that plats dedicate perimeter drainage and tility easements for each lot in the subdivision. This plat does dedicate the necessary perimeter u easements. There is a 45 foot drainage and utility easement along the west property line that would remain. There are no wetlands associated with this property. Streets: The three new lots will have access onto Long Lake Road, which is a county owned ad. This street is adequate to handle the small amount of added traffic that two additional ro homes would create. Any work to the boulevard would require a permit from the county, and any alterations to the existing sidewalk would require a permit from the city. Park Dedication Requirements: The Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is ubject to a park dedication fee. The dedication imposed is intended to mitigate public costs to s the parks system associated with land development. The fee shall be reasonable and based on the extent of the development. In this case, the fee should be equal to 10% of the market value of the land. To establish the market value, staff uses Ramsey County assessed values as the basis for dedication computation. Since there is already one existing house on the property, the park dedication fee will be based on 2/3 of the land value. The 2006 Ramsey County total land value is $159,600 (2/3 = $106,400). The dedication amount then would be $10,640. This amount has been communicated to the developer. Utilities: All utilities on the site would need to be installed underground, per Section 1203.10. ater and sanitary sewer lines are easily accessible. W Traffic: The amount of daily vehicle trips on the proposed road will be minimal since only two dditional housing units are proposed. There is currently one house on the property. On a average, single-family homes generate about 10 vehicle trips per day, thus one could expect an additional 20 movements along Long Lake Road or as a result of this subdivision. Vegetation: The 1.55 acre site is mostly tree covered. The City Forester has been asked to isit the site and assess if there are any trees in the front part of the property that are significant v with efforts made to save them during the construction of the new homes. The applicant has indicated that having the lots so wooded will be a great selling point for the homes. Staff recommends that upon each lot’s completion (after the house has been constructed) the yard areas shall be sodded and a minimum of two trees shall be in the front yard – whether they are existing trees or new ones planted if the existing trees must be removed. The new tree species shall be from a list provided by the City Forester. Wetlands: The National Wetlands Inventory Map and the City’s official Wetland Zoning Map o not identify a wetland within the property boundary. Since the property is over one acre in d size, the applicant will need to apply for a general stormwater permit from the MPCA, and contact Rice Creek Watershed District to find out if they will require a permit also. Public Input: While a public hearing is not required for the planning commission’s action, staff did send notices to property owners within 350 feet of the project area. discuss the proposed preliminary plat. Additional public input could be sked for at this time since notices were sent out. Staff review and a brief review by the county Recommendation: Review the plans and a surveyor revealed no deficiencies at this time and thus Resolution 843-06 recommending approval of the preliminary plat has been drafted for your action if the Commission so desires. Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: Application Plat ture Land Use Map 25-06 1. Planning 2. Preliminary 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Comp Plan Fu 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Planning Commission Resolution 8 Zoning Map Aerial View Proposed 3 lots Ardan Park Photographic Documentation View of house currently on property – house is placed approximately in the middle of the 250 foot wide lot Current house View of south half of 8360 Long Lake Road Current house View of north half of 8360 Long Lake Road MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 843-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 8360 LONG LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2006-002 WHEREAS, Matthew Hofmann has requested approval of a preliminary plat for the major subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road, legally-described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Charles Hermann Addition WHEREAS, The above-described land is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential and are designated as Single-Family Detached on the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, Matthew Hofmann has submitted a Preliminary Plat for the major subdivision which creates 3 buildable lots; and, WHEREAS, the community development, public works staff, and city attorney have all reviewed the preliminary plat and finds that it satisfies the minimum subdivision requirements as articulated in Titles 1100 and 1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code and complies with county platting requirements; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee which would be equivalent to 10% of the assessed value of the project land area, which been determined to be $10,640.00; and, WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is not within a designated wetland area; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Planning Application 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Zoning Map 5. Aerial View 6. Site Plan NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary Plat submitted by Matthew Hofmann subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall arrange to have an acceptable title commitment provided to the City Attorney for review prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council. 2. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in an amount to be determined by the Mounds View City Council. 3. The applicant shall take all steps to save any trees possible during the construction and shall make arrangements to have a minimum of two trees in each front yard upon project completion and sod all yard areas. 4. The applicant shall obtain permits, if required, from Rice Creek Watershed District and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before construction activity commences. 5. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites shall be located underground. 6. The applicant shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than 6 months after the date of approval of the preliminary plat, or the Preliminary Plat approval will become null and void. BE IT FURTHER 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 5th day of July, 2006. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) 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 proposed to be 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. The only change from the version presented and considered at the June 21 meeting is the addition of the words “who has mistreated animals” to the section concerning persons ineligible. 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 5th day of July, 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 the 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 mistreated animals or has 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