Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-06-2006 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA December 6, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. October 18, 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. Continuation: DE2006-005 and MA2006-003: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for the “Knollwood Place” townhouse development Applicant: Integra Homes Address: 12721 Overlook Drive, Dayton, MN B. VR2006-010: Consideration of a Variance to Allow Additional Wall Signage Applicant: C.G. Hill Address: 5150 Quincy Street C. CU2006-010 and VR2006-00: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage and a Variance for a 2 Foot Garage Setback Applicant: Gregory Busch Address: 8410 Knollwood Drive 6. Other Planning Activity A. Set 2007 Meeting Dates 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. December 20, 2006 B. January 10, 2007 – *NOTE DATE CHANGE 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. November 15, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No:5A Meeting Date: December 6, 2006 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Review and Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for the proposed “Knollwood Place” Townhouse Development; Planning Cases DE2006-005 and MA2006-003 Introduction: Integra Homes has submitted a preliminary plat for a 19-unit townhouse development at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road. This is a two part planning request: a Development Review and a Major Subdivision, since the three individual properties will be combined and platted for the townhomes. Background: The City preliminarily approved Integra Home’s request for a rezoning of their three lots to R-3, Medium Density Residential, holding a first reading of the rezoning ordinance in July 2006. The second and final reading of the ordinance will be done after the site plans final plat have been approved. The combined parcels equal approximately three acres with street frontage and access only onto County Road 10. The project area is completely surrounded by single family residential homes, although the property directly to the southeast is also a business, and the house directly to the northwest is used as higher density residential and also zoned R-3. The plans submitted are consistent with what was shown to the Planning Commission and City Council in July. Development Review Discussion: Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View City Code requires that any new development project larger than one or two family dwelling units must obtain approval of a development review. The purpose of a development review is to allow the Planning Commission to evaluate proposed development in terms of its consistency with City Codes and other requirements and to ascertain and mitigate any potential impacts to the adjoining properties and the community as a whole. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, which then acts upon the request. Parking: The parking requirements for a townhouse use are three stalls per unit, two of which shall be garage spaces. The applicant is proposing to build units with two car garages and the driveways will have space for two cars. There are also nine additional spaces for guest parking on the site. Setbacks: The proposed development meets the required building setbacks of 30 feet for the front yard, 20 feet for side yards, and 40 feet for the rear. All parking areas meet the required five foot setbacks. Integra Homes Report December 6, 2006 Page 2 Access and fire prevention: There is only one access in and out of the development, which is onto County Road 10. The roads within the development are private roads named Knollwood Court and Knollwood Way, and will be privately maintained. The 22 feet and 25 feet road widths are acceptable to the Fire Marshall, and four fire hydrants will be located throughout the site. Although because fire access completely around a few of the buildings is limited, sprinkler systems will be required in buildings 2,3 and 5, Building Design and Materials: The plans indicate that the units will be two-story with tuck-under two car garages. The builder has not yet finalized the floor plans, but the interior finished square footage would be at least 1800 square feet per unit. The building elevations show a mix of siding styles with stone and/or brick accents on the exterior of the buildings. Snow Storage: There is limited space on the site in which snow may be plowed and piled in the winter. If the plowed snow reduces parking on the site or detracts from the general appearance of the site, the property owner will be responsible for off-site snow removal. Landscaping Plan: This site is mostly tree covered, but will be cleared for grading and construction. The City Forester has walked the property and determined that there were no trees with significant value worth saving. The Forester has reviewed the landscape plan, and is generally satisfied with what is proposed. The plan includes vegetation around the entire site, along with a six-foot privacy fence along part of the west side of the property in order to offer some additional screening for the neighboring home. The entire site will be sodded and landscaped after construction is completed. The following species have been proposed for the site, although the City Forester has recommended some plant changes: • Frontyard Linden • Black Hills Spruce • Scotch Pine • Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry • Prairiefire Crab • Miss Kim Lilac • Green Mountain Maple • River Birch • Autumn Purple Ash • Quaking Aspen • Swamp White Oak • Japanese Tree Lilac Signage: According to Chapter 1008 of the City Code, this development is permitted a maximum 32 square feet of ground monument signage (excluding the sign base) plus an additional 64 square feet of building mounted signage. Staff will review all signage permits to ensure consistency with the City Code relating to signage. Integra Homes Report December 6, 2006 Page 3 Lighting: Since the plan shows only one streetlight in the middle of the street circle, a lighting plan will not be required. The applicant has been informed of the City’s minimum requirements regarding glare, light spillage and foot-candle readings. Stormwater Management: The entire site will be graded during construction with three infiltration basins being installed; two along the front of the site, and one north of building three. The applicant plans to tie into the storm sewer as shown on the grading, erosion and sediment control plans. The runoff from the entire site will flow into the various storm sewers, which ultimately flow to the infiltration basins. The Public Works Department is currently reviewing the grading and utility plans. Trails: For all new development along County Road 10, the City requires the property owner to contribute funds for the future trail system. The plans show the planned future trail section along County Road 10. This development area has 278 feet of County Road 10 frontage with a contribution amount to be determined. Public Notice: The Planning Commission meeting is not a published public hearing, but staff did send a letter about the project moving forward with site plans and information about tonight’s meeting to all property owners within 350 feet of the property. Development Review Summary: With the new zoning change, the proposed medium density residential use on these parcels would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Code and Comp Plan, and would bring new development and tax base to the site. The traffic impact to the area may not be overly excessive from 19 new residential units, especially since the new additional traffic will only be on County Road 10. A development agreement will need to be executed with the applicant to ensure all of the specific requirements and conditions of development are satisfied and adhered to. Major Subdivision Discussion: Integra Homes has submitted an application for a major subdivision of parcels abutting the north side of County Road 10; 2901 and 2925 County Road 10, and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road. The proposed 3.07 acre subdivision would create 19 townhome lots and one outlot from the existing three lots, all of which are owned by Integra Homes. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the block on the north side of County Road 10, between Spring Lake Road and Groveland Road as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, intending for a combination of housing and commercial uses. The proposed development would be consistent with that designation and also with the residential goals and policies as articulated in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. Integra Homes Report December 6, 2006 Page 4 Local Water Management Plan: Also known as the City’s Surface Water Management Plan, this planning document guides the City in regards to drainage and storm water management. The development area is located in two watersheds; AA-5 and SL-1. The minimum recommended building elevation for the AA-5 sub- watershed is 904.0 feet, while the SL-1 sub-watershed does not have a recommended building elevation. The garage floor elevations will be at 912.0 to 913.0, well above the minimum. Public Works is still reviewing the plans. Drainage Plan: The grading plan illustrates in detail the grading, drainage and erosion control of the development. Because the street will have curb and gutter, there are stormsewer catch basins that would accept all runoff from streets and driveways, and whatever stormwater that does not infiltrate into the ground, piping the runoff to the infiltration basins on the site. All of the runoff generated from the development will be contained within the site. Park Dedication Requirements: The Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is subject to a park dedication fee. The dedication imposed is intended to mitigate public costs to the parks system associated with land development. The fee shall be reasonable and based on the extent of the development. Due to the increased intensity of the new development by adding 19 new residential units, the recommended fee amount would be equal to 10% of the market value of the land. To establish the market value, staff uses Ramsey County assessed land values as the basis for dedication computation. In this case, the value for Integra Homes’ properties was determined by the per square foot land value of a comparable R-3 zoned property at 2935 County Road 10. The development area comprises 131,136 square feet (3.07 acres) with a per square foot value of $4.17. The 2006 total land value would be $546,837. The dedication amount then would be $54,683. This amount has been communicated to the developer. Section 1204.02, Subd. 6 of the Mounds View City Code allows the applicant the right to appeal the dedication fee. Utilities: All utilities on the site would need to be installed underground, per Section 1203.10. Water and sanitary sewer lines are already present in the right of way. The plans show the storm sewer piping that would be constructed on the site, along with four fire hydrants. The utilities and street would be installed and paid for by the developer. Wetlands: MFRA Engineers have determined that there are no wetlands on the property and have submitted this information to Rice Creek Watershed District. The applicant will be responsible for receiving approval from RCWD for this development. Easements: The easements on site will be dedicated by plat. All areas within the development that are not a building are platted as “Outlot A”, which are designed to be access, drainage and utility easements. Each residential unit will be platted as an individual lot. Integra Homes Report December 6, 2006 Page 5 Major Subdivision Summary: A current title commitment is still needed from the property owner, and the plat will go through a legal review by the City Attorney. The park dedication fees and trail contribution amount will be required before the City signs the final plat for recording with Ramsey County. This major subdivision request meets City Code requirements. Updates since November 15 Planning Commission meeting: ‰ Integra Homes has agreed to install two additional small yard lights at the street bends between buildings 2 and 3, and buildings 4 and 5. These lights would be much smaller than a regular street light and should not extend light onto the neighboring properties, but will offer some additional lighting throughout the site. ‰ Staff spoke to a Ramsey County traffic engineer about the traffic concerns with only having one access point into the development. The County has no rules or regulations determining how many access points a development needs. They leave that decision up to the fire department. The County would always rather see access consolidation than adding additional driveways. The engineer also looked at the layout of the lots and site plan and said that the access driveway is located exactly where the County would like to have it. ‰ A stop sign will be required at the driveway for traffic exiting the development onto County Road 10. ‰ Engineering report: Bonestroo, the City’s engineer consultant has reviewed the plans and submitted a letter indicating their recommendations. This information was passed on to MFRA, Integra’s engineering firm, and is included with this report. A response letter from MFRA, Brian Bourassa, is also included. ‰ Staff received a call from a neighbor on Sherwood Place who requested that the privacy fence already shown on the west side of the site, be extended along the entire north end of the development. There is currently a chain-link fence on at least part of the 2925 County Road 10 lot, which at minimum, the neighbors would like this to remain. Integra Homes had included quite a bit of landscape buffering around the site. They have agreed to extend the privacy fence, but would then need to remove some of the landscaping in order to fit in a fence. ‰ Integra Homes has built other developments that have created homeowner associations. They already have bylaws prepared that have been used for other housing projects, but will customize them to the City’s requirements. Deadline for Action: This application was accepted on November 2, 2006 and in accordance with MN Statutes §15.99, a decision shall be made within 60 days of application acceptance. The deadline for action on this request is January 1, 2007. Integra Homes Report December 6, 2006 Page 6 Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff and the applicant, and any public comments, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the preliminary plat as requested. Resolution 857-06 is attached if the Commissioners choose this action. 2. Deny the preliminary plat. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map 5. Preliminary Plat 6. Site Plans 7. Resolution 857-06 Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View S p r I n g L a k e R d G r o v e l a n d R d Comp Plan Future Land Use Map MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 857-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE “KNOLLWOOD PLACE” PRELIMINARY PLAT, MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NUMBERS DE2006-005 AND MA2006-003 WHEREAS, Integra Homes, Inc. (“Integra Homes”) has requested approval of a preliminary plat for the “Knollwood Place” major subdivision on land located north of County Road 10 legally-described as follows: Lot 8, Block 3, Sherwood Estates; And, The South 135 feet of Lot 47, Auditors Subdivision Number 89 except the East 187 feet thereof; And, The part of the Lot 50, Auditors Subdivision Number 89 lying Northeasterly of U.S. Highway No. 10, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The above-described lands are zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential and are designated as Mixed-Use on the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, Integra Homes has submitted a Preliminary Plat for the major subdivision which creates 19 townhome lots and one outlot, dedicating the proposed private street right of ways as “Knollwood Court” and “Knollwood Way”; and, WHEREAS, the community development and public works staff, and the city engineer 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, for an amount which has yet to be determined; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to a County Road 10 Trailway contribution to be based on the 278 feet of road frontage in the project area, for an amount of which has yet to be determined; and, WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is NOT within a Wetland Zoning District; and, Resolution 857-06 Page 2 WHEREAS, the preliminary plat has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer subject to revisions, and subject to receiving permits from Rice Creek Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, MN Department of Health, MN Pollution Control Agency, and Ramsey County; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View Map 4. Preliminary Plat 5. Site Plan 6. Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control, Sanitary Sewer & Watermain, and Storm Sewer Plans 7. Landscaping Plan 8. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the Knollwood Place Preliminary Plat submitted by Integra Homes subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicants shall arrange to have a current title commitment provided to the City Attorney for review prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council. 2. Integra Homes shall pay a park dedication fee in an amount yet to be determined. 3. Integra Homes shall pay a County Road 10 Trailway contribution in an amount yet to be determined. 4. Integra Homes shall enter into various agreements with the City including (but not limited to) the Developers Agreement. 5. Integra Homes shall obtain permits from Rice Creek Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, MN Department of Health, MN Pollution Control Agency, Ramsey County, and the City before construction activity commences. 6. All utilities within the development area shall be located underground. 7. No snow storage shall be allowed on the site. 8. Integra Homes shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than May 6, 2007 or the Preliminary Plat approval will become null and void. Resolution 857-06 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, 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 6th day of December, 2006. _________________________________________ _ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: December 6, 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 Variance to Allow Increased Signage Area at 5150 Quincy Street; Planning Case VR2006-010 Introduction: Tim Hill of C.G. Hill & Sons has requested a variance to allow increased sign area on the newly constructed addition to their building located at 5150 Quincy Street. For reference purposes, this building is just behind Taco Bell. C.G. Hill is currently constructing an addition onto the east side of their building, which now gives the building good visibility from 35W. Mr. Hill would like to add another “C.G. Hill & Sons” sign to the east wall facing the freeway. Discussion: The Sign Code calls for building mounted signage not to exceed 100 square feet per building occupant. In most cases, 100 square feet is adequate, although issues have arisen regarding end spaces at the retail malls and for stand-alone buildings with multiple frontages. The C.G. Hill building has three frontages with good visibility; the front of the building, the south wall facing County Road 10 and Program Avenue, and now the east side facing 35W. Our Code makes no exceptions for multiple building elevations, thus limiting each tenant to 100 square feet. Mr. Hill would like to install a 91.5 square foot sign on the east wall of the building, which will appear as shown below. C.G. Hill currently has two 50 square foot signs on the front and south walls. Similar Requests: Budget Liquor and Mario’s Video were both granted variances for additional signage at Moundsview Square. (Both leased space at either end of the center.) The Abbey Carpet building and Carmike Wynnsong Cinema also received approval for signage in excess of 100 square feet. The Mermaid, through its PUD, was allowed signage in excess of the City’s requirements. C.G. Hill Variance Report December 6, 2006 Page 2 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 this case) 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. A variance for additional signage is unique among the spectrum of possible variances in that the Sign Code is not a part of the Zoning Code; rather it is a chapter within the building code. The building code however indicates that any requested deviations be handled as would a deviation from the Zoning Code. The property is in the Mounds View Business Park which is zoned PUD. Exterior building mounted signage is limited to 100 square feet per building occupant in industrial and other commercial districts, regardless of the building mass—its height and length. Some sign codes from other municipalities allow for greater sign area for multiple building fronts while others allow more based on wall area. Mounds View’s code simply limits each building occupant to 100 square feet. There does not appear to be any apparent exceptional or extraordinary circumstances involving this property or the request other than the size of the building and the bulk of the adjoining uses (the restaurants on County Road 10, the Days Inn Hotel, and the other neighboring companies in the Business Park) which may hinder and or obscure visibility to the subject location. 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 Zoning Code would not necessarily deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, however denying the request would put the occupants in an unfavorable position based upon the City’s past practice of approving reasonable signage variances, especially for business with multiple building frontages. 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. C.G. Hill Variance Report December 6, 2006 Page 3 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. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and viability of their business. Neither would such approval confer a special treatment as similar reasonable variances have been granted in the past. 5. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Mr. Hill would like to have his business seen from the freeway and allowing for an additional 91.5 square feet on the east elevation would be the minimum necessary to provide suitable visibility. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting a variance to allow the additional 100 square feet of building mounted signage for a business with a large building and multiple visible elevations would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the building code. There have been no objections raised up to this point from any of the adjoining property owners. Given the building’s size, the additional signage would not appear excessive. 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 requested variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Deadline for Action: This application was accepted on November 16, 2006 and in accordance with MN Statutes §15.99, a decision shall be made within 60 days of application acceptance. The deadline for action on this request is January 15, 2007. Summary: Notices were sent to all property owners within 350 feet of 5150 Quincy Street. Staff received a telephone call from Bethlehem Baptist Church on November 29, 2006, indicating that they support allowing the additional signage for C.G. Hill. All of the criteria, as indicated above, appear to be satisfied which would allow for the granting of the variance. C.G. Hill Variance Report December 6, 2006 Page 4 Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and affected property owners, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 856-06 is attached for the Commission’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should move to direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. _______________________ Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Resolution 856-06 Zoning Map Site Plan Shaded area represents proposed expansion 6-foot expansion necessitating the variance request Business Park Business Park Mermaid N Aerial View Addition C.G. Hill Taco Bell & KFC Bethlehem Church Days Inn Photographic Documentation: Drawing of the building with the new addition on the back. The addition has light panels around the very top of the walls – the new lettering would go on these panels and be backlit when the interior lights are on. Area of proposed additional signage C.G. Hill East Elevation F 35W Addition Existing signage Front of building Existing Signage South Elevation MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 856-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR 91.5 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR BUILDING SIGNAGE AT 5150 QUINCY STREET; PLANNING CASE NO. VR2006-010 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mr. Tim Hill with C.G. Hills & Sons, has applied for a variance from the maximum wall-mounted signage allotments for the building located at 5150 Quincy Street; and, WHEREAS, Section 1008.09 of the Sign Code indicates that the maximum wall- mounted signage for an industrial building is 100 square feet per business occupant; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Hill requests an additional 91.5 square feet of signage; and, WHEREAS, Section 1008.16 of the Sign Code indicates that variance requests be treated as any other variance request as articulated in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, 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 building at 5150 Quincy Street is in need of additional exterior wall-mounted signage on the east building elevation to provide enhanced visibility adjacent to larger developments which may obscure the subject property. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in that the City has approved similar variances in the past for reasonable sign variance requests. 3. The special conditions or circumstances necessitating the variance request do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and viability of their business. Neither would such approval confer a special treatment as similar reasonable variances have been granted in the past. Resolution 856-06 Page 2 5. Allowing for an additional 91.5 square feet on the east side of the building would be the minimum variance necessary to provide suitable visibility and alleviate the hardship. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Municipal Code or to other property in the commercial zoning districts. 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 FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby approve the variance requested for an additional 91.5 square feet of signage on the east side of the building located at 5150 Quincy Street. Adopted this 6th day of December 2006. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5C Meeting Date: December 6, 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 Variance to Allow a Reduced Side-Yard Setback for a Garage and a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 8410 Knollwood Drive; Planning Cases VR2006-009 and CU2006-010 Introduction: The applicant, Gregory Busch, is proposing to expand his current attached garage located at 8410 Knollwood Drive. Mr. Busch has applied for both a variance for a side yard setback, and a conditional use permit for an oversize garage. Mounds View Zoning Code requires that the living area of a home is ten (10) feet from the side property line with an accessory building being allowed up to five (5) feet from the side property line. The requested variance is for three (3) feet, which would put the garage two (2) feet from the south side property line. The plot plan submitted indicates a garage area in excess of what is allowed without a conditional use permit. Accessory buildings, attached or detached, are limited to 952 square feet. Anything beyond 952 square feet must go through a conditional use permit application process. The applicant’s large backyard is approximately 131 feet deep with one shed near the back property line. After adding this garage addition, the applicants would have approximately 1,224 square feet of accessory buildings (3.75% back yard coverage), still well below the maximum allowable (1,800 square feet). Variance 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. It is noted that sheds and garages, attached or detached, can have side and rear setbacks of five (5) feet. The applicant desires to construct a larger garage for storage. He currently has a two car, 24’x24’ (576 square foot) attached garage that is 10 feet from the south side property line. The roofline on the expansion would blend in with the existing lines which slope to the front and back yards, so any water runoff would not be running towards the neighboring house. The house to the south is 22 feet off the property line with a four-foot chain link fence between the homes. Busch Variance & CUP Report December 6, 2006 Page 2 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 this case) 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 property is approximately 92 feet wide and 210 feet deep and fairly level. There is a large Red Oak tree directly behind the garage, which the applicant prefers to keep. Due to this tree, the homeowner’s ability to expand the garage to the rear is limited. 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. While 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, because of the placement of the tree in the backyard, the applicant is unable to expand the entire width of the garage to the rear. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is the original owner of the property, but had nothing to do with the placement of the tree. The tree was in this location previous to the house being built in 1976. 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 in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. Setback issues are the most common source of variance requests. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The applicant is requesting a three-foot variance, which is the minimum amount that the applicant feels is necessary for the proposed garage expansion. Busch Variance & CUP Report December 6, 2006 Page 3 f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting a variance to allow the garage addition to encroach three (3) feet into the side setback may not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code given that the applicant would like to save a large healthy tree. 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 addition should not have any impact on the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, nor would it impact congestion of streets. The proposed garage will not increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or decrease property values in the neighborhood. Conditional Use Permit Discussion: The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,124 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. All dimensional requirements would be satisfied with this request. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8410 Knollwood Drive, as low-density residential. Requirements: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the number of accessory buildings and the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages exceeding 952 square feet, which are that the garage be permanent, be uniform in appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory building area on the lot. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Busch Variance & CUP Report December 6, 2006 Page 4 CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is addressed below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. By having a larger garage the applicants would be able to have more indoor storage, which would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The Geographical Area Involved. The home is located on Knollwood Drive, near the northern end of the city. Since most of the additional space for the garage would be in the back, the building would still look like normal two or three car size garage from the street. In this case, the proposed oversized garage would not be out of place in this neighborhood that has large, deep backyards. Although, it would somewhat block the view across the backyards from the adjoining neighbor’s property. Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage, as well as in an economic sense, as the construction would increase the “value” of the property. Increased property values are of course a benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. Knollwood Drive is strictly a residential neighborhood. All of the homes on this street were constructed in the mid-1970’s. The proposed garage would not be out of character in this area since the addition would not be easily visible from the street, and there are other homes on this street that have expanded their garages. The front appearance of the garage would only change slightly with this addition. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicants are proposing an 8 foot addition to the side of the garage and a 16’x22’ addition to the rear which would allow for more indoor parking and storage space. Summary: All zoning and code issues are satisfied with this request if the variance is also approved. If the variance is not approved, the applicant would remove the large tree and expand the garage only to the rear. A public hearing notice was published and mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of 8410 Knollwood Drive. Staff has not received any comments in regards to this request. Busch Variance & CUP Report December 6, 2006 Page 5 Deadline for Action: This application was accepted on November 15, 2006 and in accordance with MN Statute 15.99, a decision shall be made within 60 days of application acceptance. The deadline for action for these two requests is January 14, 2007. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and affected neighbors, the Commission can take two of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the Variance as requested. Resolution 854-06 is attached if the Commission chooses this course of action. 2. Approve the Conditional Use Permit as requested. Resolution 855-06 is attached if the Commission chooses this course of action. 3. Deny the requested variance and/or conditional use permit. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft resolutions of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 4. Table one or both of the requests. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Plot Plan 4. Structural Drawings 5. Zoning Map 6. Aerial View 7. Photographic Documentation 8. Variance Resolution 854-06 9. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 855-06 Letter from Applicant Plot Plan 8410 Knollwood Structural Drawing Zoning Map Properties not bearing a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View N Photo Documentation View between 8410 Knollwood garage and south neighbors house – neighboring house is 22 feet from their property line Rear of house – shows the tree behind the garage that applicant would like to keep View of backyard MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 854-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A TWO-FOOT SIDE- YARD SETBACK FOR A GARAGE AT 8410 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2006-009 WHEREAS, the applicant, Gregory Busch, has applied for a variance to allow for a two-foot, side-yard setback for a proposed 1,124 square foot attached garage on his property located at 8410 Knollwood Drive; and, WHEREAS, 8410 Knollwood Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 10, Block 2, Gustafson’s Second Edition, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Plot Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Staff Report 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, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, December 6, 2006, with regard to this variance request; 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. Resolution 854-06 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request: 1. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to the variance request is that there is a large Red Oak tree behind the garage, which is limiting the area for a garage expansion. 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 garage. 3. The variance is requested due to the tree placement directly behind the garage, factors over which the applicants have had no control. 4. Granting a variance to allow for the two-foot side yard setback would allow the applicants to have a larger garage in order to park their vehicles indoors and additional indoor storage space, resulting in a better appearance for the neighborhood. 5. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owners a special privilege denied to others in the same district due to the unique nature of the existing condition present on the site. 6. The two-foot setback is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicants’ hardship. 7. The construction of a garage expansion would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property in the R-1, Single-Family Residential zoning district. 8. A two-foot setback would not impair the supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. Resolution 854-06 Page 3 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 variance request for a two-foot side yard setback for a proposed garage at 8410 Knollwood Drive, contingent upon the following: 1. The applicants shall obtain approval of a building permit for the garage prior to any work being accomplished. 2. The variance applies only to garage space and the setback on the south side of the lot. 3. The Variance shall become null and void if the work for which the Variance was granted is not completed within one year from the date of approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. Adopted this 6th day of December, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 855-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,124 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 8410 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO CU2006-010 WHEREAS, property owner Gregory Busch has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,124 square foot garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8410 Knollwood Drive, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 10, Block 2, Gustafson’s 2nd Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,124 square feet, thus necessitating application of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Plot Plan 3. Structural Drawings 4. Zoning Map 5. Aerial View 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The proposed oversized 1,124 square foot garage satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 of the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. Resolution 855-06 Page 2 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,124 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The garage expansion shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the existing house. 3. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall become null and void if the work for which the CUP was granted is not completed within one year from the date of approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of December 2006. ________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: December 6, 2006 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Subject: Consideration of Resolution 853-06, a Resolution Establishing the Planning Commission’s 2007 Meeting Schedule. Introduction: The Planning Commission establishes its meeting schedule each year by resolution. Discussion: The meeting schedule proposed for 2007 represents the usual first and third Wednesday of every month with the exception of January, which was adjusted to account for New Years Day, and July, which will need to be adjusted to account for Independence Day. The first Wednesday in July is July 4th. The two options to deal with this holiday is to (a) only hold only one meeting in July or (b) shift the meetings to the second and fourth Wednesdays of July. Because summer months tend to be busier times of the year, staff would recommend going with option B, shifting the meetings to the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays. July is not a month with five Wednesdays however, so holding a meeting on the 4th Wednesday of July would mean the Commission would meet the following week, which would be the first Wednesday of August. Staff does not have a problem with this, however August DOES have five Wednesdays so the August meetings could continue the second and fourth Wednesday schedule and be back on track in September. There do not appear to be any other conflicts with holidays that would fall midweek with the exception of November 21st, which is the day before Thanksgiving. If there are no planning cases for consideration during that time, the meeting could be cancelled. Recommendation: Discuss options for dealing with the Fourth of July and Approve Resolution 853-06, a resolution establishing the 2007 meeting schedule of the Planning Commission. The schedule attached has been drafted with the August meetings falling on the second and fourth Wednesdays. The proposed schedule may be amended based on Commission direction. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Jim Ericson Community Development Director MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 853-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2007 MEETING SCHEDULE OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission intends to hold two regular meetings per month during the year 2007; and, WHEREAS, with the exception of January, July and August, the Planning Commission will meet on the first and third Wednesdays of each month, or as amended; and, WHEREAS, the schedule of meeting dates shall be established and posted to provide an orderly system for use by the Planning Commission, staff and general public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Exhibit 1, attached hereto, is the Planning Commission’s official meeting schedule for the year 2007. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that if the Planning Commission is required to or desires to hold special or emergency meetings, such meetings will be held in accordance with State law, Code requirements and Commission Bylaws. Adopted this 6th day of December, 2006. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson Chairperson ATTEST ____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) EXHIBIT 1. 2007 MEETING SCHEDULE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 10, 2007 January 24, 2007 February 7, 2007 February 21, 2007 March 7, 2007 March 21, 2007 April 4, 2007 April 18, 2007 May 2, 2007 May 16, 2007 June 6, 2007 June 20, 2007 July 11, 2007 July 25, 2007 August 8, 2007 August 22, 2007 September 5, 2007 September 19, 2007 October 3, 2007 October 17, 2007 November 7, 2007 November 21, 2007 December 5, 2007 December 19, 2007 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 15, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. November 15, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson, Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause (arrived 7:30 p.m.), and Scotch. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Planning Associate Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case DE2006-005 and MA2006-003: Consideration of a 2 Preliminary Plat for the “Knollwood Place” Townhouse Development. Applicant: Integra Homes Address: 12721 Overlook Drive, Dayton, MN ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes A. October 4, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Miller, to approve the Minutes of the October 4, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. DRAFT Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. Planning Case DE2006-005 and MA2006-003: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for the “Knollwood Place” Townhouse Development. Planning Associate Heller presented the preliminary plat for Knollwood Place, the proposed 19- unit townhome development on County Road 10. Planning Associate Heller reported Staff received the official plans consistent with the City’s Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. She indicated the site plans and elevations are consistent with what was shown to the Planning Commission and City Council in July 2006. Planning Associate Heller stated City Council approved rezoning the three lots to an R-3, Medium Density Residential. She reported the City Council held a first reading of the rezoning ordinance in July 2006. She explained the second and final reading would be held after the Planning Commission and City Council approve the preliminary and final plats. She explained this is being done so the three parcels are not rezoned before a plan is approved. Planning Associate Heller explained this is a three acre parcel designated for 19 townhome units. She further explained this is a two-part planning request with a Development Review and a Major Subdivision. The three individual properties would be combined and platted for the townhomes and easements. Planning Associate Heller reported parking requirements for the townhomes include three stalls per unit, two of which are garage spaces. She mentioned nine additional spaces for guest parking would be available on site. She stated all parking areas meet the required five-foot setback requirement. Planning Associate Heller reported required setbacks of 30 feet for the front yard, 20 feet for side yards and 40 feet for the rear yard are met. Planning Associate Heller stated the roads would be privately owned and maintained. She stated the 22 foot and 25 foot road widths are acceptable to the fire department. Planning Associate Heller explained four fire hydrants would be located throughout the site. She explained fire access around buildings two, three, and five is limited, and consequently sprinkler systems would be required. Planning Associate Heller describe the units as two story, approximately 1800 square feet townhomes with a two car tuck under garage and a nice mix of siding styles with brick and stone accents. She stated mowing, snow removal, and maintenance would be the responsibility of the developer. She indicated snow would need to be removed from the site, as no area exists to store it. Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller reported the City Forester determined no trees with significant value or worth saving exist on the property. She stated he reviewed the landscape plan and recommended some planting changes. She explained the landscaping plan includes vegetation around the entire site and a six-foot privacy fence along the west side to offer screening for a neighboring home. She stated the entire site would be sodded and landscaped after construction is completed. Chair Stevenson asked if any trees could be saved. Planning Associate Heller replied the trees were not worth saving and the entire site would be graded and cleared. Planning Associate Heller stated one street light would be located in the center of the street circle. She explained a lighting plan would not be required; however, the applicant has been informed of requirements regarding glare, light spillage, and foot-candle readings. Commissioner Miller asked how much space exists from the light pole to the street and if landscaping was planned for around the light pole. Planning Associate Heller pointed out the location of the streetlight on the site plan and stated there would be an area about 10 or so feet out from the light pole with landscaping. Commissioner Hegland clarified the distance equaled18 feet from the curb to the light. Planning Associate Heller explained the site would be cleared and graded during construction. She stated three infiltration basins would be located on site with two along the front of the site and one at the northern most corner of the development. Planning Associate Heller indicated runoff from the entire site would flow into the various storm sewers and ultimately into the infiltration basins. She stated the Public Works Department is reviewing the grading and utility plans. Planning Associate Heller reported a future trail is planned along Highway 10. She explained the City requires the property owner to contribute funds for the future trail system. She mentioned the amount has not yet been determined. Chair Stevenson asked if the funds from the developer would be placed in escrow. Planning Associate Heller replied it would be escrowed. She explained the City would build the trails to ensure they are built to City specifications. Planning Associate Heller stated the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the block on the north side of County Road 10 between Spring Lake Road and Groveland Road as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. She stated the comp plan shows the entire block is designated mixed use where business, commercial, and housing could be built. Planning Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Associate Heller informed the Commission the proposed development would be consistent with that designation and with the Comprehensive Plan residential goals. Planning Associate Heller reported the engineers determined no wetlands exist on the site and communicated that information to the Rice Creek Watershed District. She stated minimum building elevations are well above requirements. She stated the engineers have no issues with the grading because the streets include curb and gutter that ensure storm sewer catch basins would accept all runoff from the streets and driveways. She stated that whatever stormwater did not infiltrate into the ground, would be piped into the infiltration ponds. Planning Associate Heller stated park dedication funds would be imposed to mitigate public costs to the park system associated with land development due to the increased intensity of the new development. She explained everything on the site that is not a building would be dedicated as an outlot and platted for utility and drainage easements. Planning Associate Heller indicated the meeting was not a public hearing, but all residents within 350 feet of the site were notified. Planning Associate Heller stated no resolution is included at this time. She stated the Planning Commission could direct staff to draft a resolution for the next meeting. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the park dedication fee was ten percent and who established the property value. Planning Associate Heller replied the park dedication fee is ten percent of the land’s market value. She explained Staff determined market value by using Ramsey County assessed land values. She stated the value of the Integra property was determined by the per square foot land value of a comparable neighboring R-3 zoned property at 2935 County Road 10. Chair Stevenson asked if part of the park dedication fee would be a portion of the funds placed in escrow for the trail. Planning Associate Heller replied this was a separate amount. Commissioner Zwirn asked how the single light in the turn around would affect lighting on the most northwestern part of the townhomes. Planning Associate Heller replied it was left up to the developers to decide. She stated the Commission could recommend lighting if they felt more was needed. Commissioner Zwirn stated, based on the map, it appears the light would be blocked from the northwestern area. Planning Associate Heller stated this could be discussed. Commissioner Hegland asked who would be responsible for all the common properties. Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller replied a homeowners association would be established. Commissioner Hegland asked if this association would be allowed to elect its own officials. Planning Associate Heller replied it would. Chair Stevenson expressed his concern with the comp plan and the desire to build on the entire block area from Groveland to Spring Lake Park Road. He asked if there had been discussion on whether the development would adversely affect the desirability of the property to the east or west. Planning Associate Heller replied there had been no talk about other development coming onto that block. She explained the layout of the plan was done so it could be connected to on either side if other development were to come in. She pointed out it does put something in middle of block, but there is still space to do other things. She reported it does fit into the comp plan as a piece envisioned as a mixed area. She stated that because the intersections are not signaled, it makes access more difficult and may limit the type of business that would want to go in here. Chair Stevenson said he brought it up because it is of concern and interest to the neighbors and the community. He stated yes it could be developed and yes, it is a nice development, however, the intention is to have the entire quadrant developed. Mr. Brian Bourassa, MFRA Engineering, Integra Homes, presented the proposed plan. He stated he believes Integra Homes reacted to early concepts where there were originally 21 units planned and reduced them to 19. He stated Planning Associate Heller gave a very thorough presentation of the plan. Commissioner Hegland commented on establishing an association to take care of the maintenance, asked if a cost was established, and how the fund would be maintained. Mr. Bourassa replied it had not been formalized; however, each neighbor would contribute funds managed by an elected body. He stated the funds would be used to pay for lawn mowing, snow removal, and landscape maintenance. Commissioner Hegland asked if the association would establish the fact these items are its responsibility and that it must elect a committee to take care of them and cover the costs for the maintenance. He stated the City expects the grounds be maintained to a certain level. He asked if that would be established in the association charter. Mr. Bourassa, stated he is not aware of what the City standards are, however, performance standards, could be adopted into the bylaws. Community Development Director Ericson replied that as part of the association bylaws adopted by the residents and as part of the approval and review process, the City Council would recommend a development agreement be adopted spelling out what is necessary and required in Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ the bylaws. He explained Staff, with other townhomes in the area, understands what works well. Director Ericson stated if the Planning Commission requires specifics over and above code requirements, they would need to be specified in the development agreement. He stated Staff would prepare this prior to City Council approval. Commissioner Hegland stated since the Planning Commission asked the developer to come up with the landscaping plan; he wants to ensure the association continues to maintain it. Commissioner Miller asked where the additional parking spots are located. Mr. Bourassa pointed out the two areas on the site map. He stated he read Planning Associate Heller’s report on park dedication and would like to revisit how the fee was determined. He indicated the fee was quite a bit higher than what he normally sees in the metro area. Chair Stevenson asked if anyone from the audience would like to comment. Mr. Duane Waldoch, 2935 County Highway 10, stated he agreed the development is set up nicely, however, his concern is snow removal and making sure fire trucks can access all areas. He stated he feels there should be two exits. He reported he thinks the City is shooting itself in the foot for letting this piece of property be designated for this project. He commented he is referring to the project on Long Lake Road and wonders if they are selling and questions just how many townhomes are needed in Mounds View. Mr. Waldoch stated he believes this area should be used for business and commercial development. Mr. Mark Schnor, 2949 County Highway 10, stated he talked to Mrs. Cindy Johnson who has plans to move out of Mounds View. He mentioned she called the developer but he would not buy her property. Mr. Schnor stated it looks like a nice development but the one way in and out would put more traffic on County Highway 10. He stressed the drainage issue goes to the west of his property. He stated last month there was a discussion as to whether this area should be declared a wetland; technically it is a holding pond. He mentioned this development would eliminate the only wooded area left in Mounds View and split up the property. He asked who would buy the Johnson property or his because of where this development is located. He stated he still feels this is a safety issue and asked if more multiple dwellings are needed in Mounds View. Mr. Ron Widmer, 2900 Sherwood Place, pointed out his property is at the northern section of this development. He mentioned his concerned is about the infiltration basin. He reported there are already water problems in his back yard. He stated he was told by the City that his property was on the water table when he built his home. He informed the Commission his neighbor had to replace his drain tiles because it was not pumping water out, as he is located on top of a water table. He stated he is concerned the drainage from the area would result in more water in back yards. Chair Stevenson asked if the engineers are aware of this. Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson stated the engineers would look into this. He stated the grading design and drainage would have the affect of taking more water from Mr. Widmer’s property. He explained how the runoff would be redirected towards the side of the development and towards County Highway 10. He stated it would take the storm water runoff and lessen whatever water would sit for any length of time. He stated because this is a relatively flat piece of land, Rice Creek and the City Engineer would look at it closely. Commissioner Scotch stated she would like to see another outlot and asked if there is consideration for another entrance/exit to the property. Community Development Director Ericson replied Ramsey County is opposed to this because 19 units would not create a large amount of traffic. He stated the Fire Marshal, Fire Chief, and the Ramsey County engineer have looked at this and does not believe the development needs a second access to the development. Chair Stevenson asked about access for the units across the street. Community Development Director Ericson replied they also only have one access and have about the same amount of units with 24 to 26 homes. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there had been any accidents or incidents relative to access at the development across street. Community Development Director Ericson replied there had not. Mr. Schnor stressed the developments are set up differently. He stated it is interesting how the developer acquired the one half acre needed for the three acres. He explained the developer purchased a house on Groveland, used the back yard for the required acreage, and then sold the house. Mr. Schnor stated this could have been used for another exit; instead, he sold the house. Chair Stevenson stated the Commission could make one of three recommendations. He stated that, with approval, the Commission would direct Staff to draft a resolution of approval with findings of fact appropriate to support the approval. Commissioner Zwirn mentioned he investigated how Integra deals with surrounding neighbors and how they handle their developments. He reported Integra has an impeccable history; their craftsmanship and quality is exceptional. He stated Integra has his full support. Chair Stevenson asked the Commissioners if they agree to request staff draft a resolution. Consensus for this action was indicated by all Commissioners. Commissioner Hegland asked the engineering report be available also. Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked that the concerns stated be researched and information made available. He requested the resolution include something on snow removal and the City’s recourse if snow were not removed. Commissioner Miller stated the overflow parking should not be used for piling the snow. Commissioner Scotch asked if there would be a storm shelter. Mr. Bourassa replied there is no plan for a storm shelter. Commissioner Scotch replied she is not happy about that. Community Development Director Ericson explained that typically homes built slab on grade have an interior room that could be a safe area. He stated he would work with the developer to insure residents could withstand a significant storm. Commissioner Hegland stated if special conditions on snow removal were added, he would ask it be included in the association bylaws. Commissioner Miller asked about garbage removal. Planning Associate Heller stated residents would have individual containers to put on the street on garbage day. She asked if there was any other information the Planning Commission would require such as with the lighting. Chair Stevenson said if there is too much lighting, neighborhood problems could result. Community Development Director Ericson assumes there would be garage and front ambient lighting to provide enough light for safety and security. He stated Staff would look at this and provide information at next meeting. 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. December 6, 2006. B. December 20, 2006 Community Development Director Ericson stated there are five Wednesdays in January. He mentioned the 2007 calendar has not been approved, but would like the January meeting dates changed to January 10 and 24 in order to allow the City Council time to appoint the new Planning Commissioners. Community Development Director Ericson replied this would be incorporated into the resolution that establishes the meeting dates for 2007. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.