Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION March 2, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: None 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Planning Case IU05-001 Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Structure (Tent) at The Mermaid Located at 2200 County Road 10 6. Review Applications for the Vacant Planning Commission Seat APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: March 16, 2005 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: February 2, 2005 and February 16, 2005 2. Staff Reports A. Review Upcoming Hotel Expansion B. Update on County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Item No: 5 Meeting Date: March 2, 2005 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Interim use Application for an Temporary Outdoor Membrane Structure Introduction: Upon completion of the AmericInn Hotel construction and renovation of the existing facility, the Mermaid erected a temporary outdoor membrane structure within which banquets, receptions and other events have been held. At the time of erection, there were no zoning regulations to address such a structure, and is typically the case in Zoning Codes, the absence of an allowance constitutes a disallowance. Staff communicated with Mr. Hall and explained that the City would need to consider new zoning regulations specific to temporary outdoor uses such as what was erected at the Mermaid. In 2004, the City completed its review and adopted new provisions with the passing of Ordinance 735. The ordinance is attached for your reference and the requirements form the basis of this review process. Discussion: The process for reviewing an interim use permit for a temporary outdoor membrane structure is the same as if it were a conditional use permit. That means that a public hearing will be scheduled and notices sent to property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel. The specific requirements of the approval process are as follows: 1. The tent or membrane structure shall comply with all provisions of the Fire Code and receive an annual fire permit issued by the Fire Marshal. A fire permit will be required for this installation, procured on an annual basis. At the time of fire permit application, the fire marshal will review the application and conduct an inspection post erection. 2. The property owner shall annually apply for a Zoning Permit, the duration of which cannot exceed 180 days. He Applicant will need to apply for this permit annually along with the fire permit, to ensure there are no changes or issues with setbacks, spacing, distances, etc. The Mermaid structure is anchored to the concrete pad so it is not likely to violate any setbacks. 3. Adequate parking to accommodate the occupancy shall be provided at a ratio of one parking space per 40 square feet of tent area. (The City Council may waive the parking requirement if it can be shown that the site has sufficient existing parking capacity.) Mermaid Tent Report March 2, 2005 Page 2 The Mermaid has eliminated the nightclub in the lower level of the facility thus freeing up a substantial amount of parking during evening hours. The Mermaid’s parking demands overall are satisfied with what is available and thus no additional parking should be required. 4. The structure may not be located in or on a parking lot displacing parking stalls, unless it can be shown that an adequate amount of parking remains. The tent is and has been located in a courtyard area that had been planned for outdoor events. 5. The tent or membrane structure shall be subject to same building setbacks as the principal building on the lot. No tent or membrane structure shall be allowed instead of or without a principal building. The tent does not encroach into any required setback area. 6. The tent or membrane structure shall be limited in size to 5,000 square feet or 10 percent of the principal buildings’ square footage, whichever is less. The tent is 4,200 square feet and is much less than ten percent of the Mermaid floor area. 7. The membrane or cover shall be constructed of a durable reinforced material to withstand wind and snowloads. There have been no problems with the tent’s reinforced membrane cover to date. The membrane is removed during winter months. 8. The structure shall be anchored to the ground. The tent structure is anchored to the ground as required. 9. The tent or membrane structure shall be maintained in a good condition. Deficiencies shall be corrected as soon as practicable. This condition will be added to the resolution recommending approval. 10. The IUP can be reviewed at any time by the City if problems arise which would necessitate revision or termination of the IUP. This condition also has been added to the resolution. 11. The IUP would become null and void if the property owner fails to comply with the provisions of the permit or if the structure is removed for more than a one-year period, or if the property undergoes a change of ownership. Again, this condition has been added to the resolution. Mermaid Tent Report March 2, 2005 Page 3 Chapter 1125 Considerations: Ordinance 735 indicates that a tent IUP application be reviewed similarly to a conditional use permit as articulated in Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code. The chapter 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 listed below along with responses. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal to maintain an outdoor temporary membrane structure would not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, which guides this parcel as regional commercial planned unit development. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicant’s property is a nine-acre site with multiple land uses associated. The general topography of the site is gently sloping to the south with little variation. The stormwater from the site is routed to a regional stormwater pond west of the Mermaid on the north side of County Road H. Depreciation. No depreciation to the subject property or surrounding properties as a result of the tent’s existence. The Character of the Surrounding Area. The site is prominently located at the corner of County Road 10 and County Road H. The tent however is located within a courtyard area and is screened from all sides but the front by the Mermaid buildings. All of the uses in the general area are commercial or retail with the exception of the Rice Creek Corridor and County open space to the south. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant has indicated that the need is because he is better able to serve his clientele and attract different types of events. Summary: By virtue of the adoption of Ordinance 735, the Zoning Code now allows by interim use permit temporary structures in commercial districts. The tent has been erected in previous years without any issue from a zoning perspective and all of the ordinance requirements are satisfied. The applicant has indicated that it would be his preference to have the approval be for an indefinite time period so long as the annual conditions remain satisfied. Given the positive history up to this point and the fact that the resolution will contain a provision that allows for review of the IUP at any point, staff feels comfortable in recommending an open- ended approval. Recommendation: Review the request for the Interim Use Permit to allow an outdoor temporary membrane structure in the courtyard area at the Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center. Mermaid Tent Report March 2, 2005 Page 4 Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 787-05, which is attached for your consideration. The resolution would recommend approval to the City Council with stipulations as noted. If more information is needed before action can be taken, the Commission may table the request pending receipt of the information. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director This is a photo of the tent framework without the membrane cover Zoning Map THE MERMAID The Mermaid Site Plan Membrane Structure ORDINANCE 735 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO PERMIT TEMPORARY TENTS AND MEMBRANE STRUCTURES IN COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, WITH AN INTERIM USE PERMIT The City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: SECTION 1: This section shall represent a summary of Ordinance 735, adopted by the Mounds View City Council on May 10, 2004, and shall be published along with the ordinance title in lieu of the whole ordinance, consistent with the provisions of Mounds View City Charter Section 3.07: SUMMARY Ordinance 735 adopts amendments to the Zoning Code to allow temporary tents and membrane structures in the commercial and industrial zoning districts of the City. Such uses shall be allowed by approval of an Interim Use Permit (IUP), Fire Permit and Zoning Permit. The IUP may be approved for multiple years, however the Fire and Zoning requirements limit such uses to 180 days in duration in a given year. Tents and membrane structures are limited to 5,000 square feet or ten percent of the principal building area, whichever is less. Tents shall not displace parking needed for the principal use unless it can be shown that an adequate number of parking stalls remain for the temporary and principal uses. Tents and similar structures erected for periods not exceeding one week shall not require an IUP, however Zoning and Fire Permits are still required. Ordinance 735, in its entirety, is available for public viewing at Mounds View City Hall and on the City’s website at http://www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/ords/735.pdf. SECTION 2. Chapter 1112 of the Mounds View Zoning Code has been amended with additions underlined and deletions stricken: CHAPTER 1112 B-1, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION: 1112.01: Purpose 1112.02: Permitted Uses 1112.03: Accessory Uses 1112.04: Conditional Uses 1112.05: Interim Uses 1112.05: INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in a B-1 District requiring an Interim Use Permit. An interim use permit must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Interim Use Permits may be approved for a determined or undetermined period of time at the sole discretion of the City Council. Subd. 1. Temporary Tents and/or Membrane Structures, under the following conditions: a. The tent or membrane structure shall comply with all provisions of the Fire Code and receive an annual fire permit issued by the Fire Marshal. b. The property owner shall annually apply for a Zoning Permit, the duration of which cannot exceed 180 days. c. Adequate parking to accommodate the occupancy shall be provided at a ratio of one parking space per 40 square feet of tent area. (The City Council may waive the parking requirement if it can be shown that the site has sufficient existing parking capacity.) d. The structure may not be located in or on a parking lot displacing parking stalls, unless it can be shown that an adequate amount of parking remains. e. The tent or membrane structure shall be subject to same building setbacks as the principal building on the lot. No tent or membrane structure shall be allowed instead of or without a principal building. f. The tent or membrane structure shall be limited in size to 5,000 square feet or 10 percent of the principal buildings’ square footage, whichever is less. g. The membrane or cover shall be constructed of a durable reinforced material to withstand wind and snowloads. h. The structure shall be anchored to the ground. i. The tent or membrane structure shall be maintained in a good condition. Deficiencies shall be corrected as soon as practicable. j. The IUP can be reviewed at any time by the City if problems arise which would necessitate revision or termination of the IUP. k. The IUP would become null and void if the property owner fails to comply with the provisions of the permit or if the structure is removed for more than a one-year period, or if the property undergoes a change of ownership. l. Exceptions: (1) Tents or Membrane structures erected for periods that do not exceed one week shall not require an interim use permit, however a zoning permit and fire permit are required regardless of the time frame. (2) To eliminate duplication of review, when a use (e.g., outdoor sales or storage) would otherwise require a conditional use permit, an interim use permit shall not be required if a tent or membrane structure is involved and is addressed as part of the CUP. SECTION 3. Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code has been amended with additions underlined and deletions stricken: CHAPTER 1113 B-2, LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION: 1113.01: Purpose 1113.02: Permitted Uses 1113.03: Accessory Uses 1113.04: Conditional Uses 1113.05: Interim Uses 1113.05: INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in a B-2 District requiring an Interim Use Permit. An interim use permit must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Interim Use Permits may be approved for a determined or undetermined period of time at the sole discretion of the City Council. Subd. 1. All permitted interim uses as allowed in a B-1 District. SECTION 4. Chapter 1114 of the Mounds View Zoning Code has been amended with additions underlined and deletions stricken: CHAPTER 1114 B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION: 1114.01: Purpose 1114.02: Permitted Uses 1114.03: Accessory Uses 1114.04: Conditional Uses 1114.05: Interim Uses 1114.05: INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in a B-3 District requiring an Interim Use Permit. An interim use permit must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Interim Use Permits may be approved for a determined or undetermined period of time at the sole discretion of the City Council. Subd. 1. All permitted interim uses as allowed in a B-2 District. SECTION 5. Chapter 1115 of the Mounds View Zoning Code has been amended with additions underlined and deletions stricken: CHAPTER 1115 B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION: 1115.01: Purpose 1115.02: Permitted Uses 1115.03: Accessory Uses 1115.04: Conditional Uses 1115.05: Interim Uses 1115.05: INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in a B-4 District requiring an Interim Use Permit. An interim use permit must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Interim Use Permits may be approved for a determined or undetermined period of time at the sole discretion of the City Council. Subd. 1. All permitted interim uses as allowed in a B-3 District. SECTION 6. Chapter 1114 of the Mounds View Zoning Code has been amended with additions underlined and deletions stricken: CHAPTER 1116 I-1, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT SECTION: 1116.01: Purpose 1116.02: Permitted Uses 1116.03: Accessory Uses 1116.04: Conditional Uses 1116.05: Compliance with Other Provisions 1116.06: Interim Uses 1116.06: INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in an I-1 District requiring an Interim Use Permit. An interim use permit must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Interim Use Permits may be approved for a determined or undetermined period of time at the sole discretion of the City Council. Subd. 1. All permitted interim uses as allowed in a B-4 District. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its publication in the official City newspaper. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 26th day of April, 2004. PUBLIC HEARING, SECOND READING and ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 10th day of May, 2004. Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) Approved as to form: ______________________ Mounds View City Attorney MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 787-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY OUTDOOR MEMBRANE STRUCTURE AT THE MERMAID LOCATED AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10; PLANNING CASE NO. IU05-001 WHEREAS, Dan Hall has applied for an interim use permit for a temporary outdoor membrane structure at the Mermaid, located at 2200 County Road 10; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned PUD, Planned unit Development, and has a Comprehensive Plan future Land Use Map designation of Regional Commercial PUD; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows temporary outdoor membrane structures in commercial districts by interim use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the zoning requirements associated with temporary tents in commercial districts and finds that all conditions are satisfied by this request. 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 request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Zoning Code. 3. The size of the structure is within permitted allowances and complies with setback provisions. 4. There have been no complaints filed regarding the use of the tent in the previous year. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the temporary outdoor structure. 6. The site has adequate parking area available to satisfy the demands of the temporary structure. Resolution 787-05 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the interim use permit for an outdoor temporary membrane structure with conditions as follows: 1. The tent or membrane structure shall comply with all provisions of the Fire Code and the applicant shall apply for and receive annual fire permits issued by the Fire Marshal and receive a satisfactory inspection. 2. The property owner shall annually apply for a Zoning Permit, the duration of which cannot exceed 180 days in a calendar year. 3. The tent framework and membrane covering shall be maintained in a good condition. Deficiencies shall be corrected as soon as practicable. 4. The interim use permit can be reviewed at any time by the City if problems arise which would necessitate revision or termination of the permit. 5. The interim use permit will become null and void if the property owner fails to comply with the provisions of the permit or if the structure is removed for more than a one-year period, or if the property undergoes a change of ownership. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends that the permit approval shall remain in force indefinitely so long as the conditions above and those of the Zoning Code remain satisfied. 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 3rd day of March, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6 Meeting Date: March 2, 2005 Type of Business: Review City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review Applications for the Vacant Planning Commission Seat Introduction: The City Council adopted Ordinance 741 in 2004 which clarified the process by which applications for boards and commissions are reviewed and appointed. The Council recognized the value of having the specific board or commission review the applications and forward its recommendation on to the Council for their action as a whole. In previous years, the Mayor has made the appointments with the approval of the Council. Discussion: There has been a vacancy on the Planning Commission as a result of the resignation of former Planning Commissioner Liz Song last year. Staff has announced the vacancy at Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the announcement has been posted on the City’s website and has been scrolled on Cable Channel 16. During the two elections, it was pointed out on more than one occasion that unsuccessful candidates could apply for vacant positions. We have received two applications for the vacant seat from Michael Marrone and Al Hull. Mr. Marrone ran for a Council seat during the general election. Mr. Hull ran for mayor during the general election and as a councilmember during the special election. Both have indicated a desire to serve on the Planning Commission. Their applications are attached for the Commission’s review. The Commission reviewed the applications submitted by both candidates at the February 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. It was determined that it would be advantageous to meet and hear from the candidates before making a recommendation to the City Council. Both Mr. Hull and Mr. Marrone have been informed of the Commission’s desire to meet them and have been invited to attend the Planning Commission meeting. The candidates have been told that they can make a statement as to the desire to serve on the Planning Commission and that the Commission may respond with questions of their own. Recommendation: Review the applications and consider the candidates’ statements as to their desire to serve on the Planning Commission. Questions may be directed to the candidates if additional information is needed. The Commission may recommend one of the two candidates to the City Council or it may recommend both candidates if it is determined that both would be good candidates. No resolution is attached, a simple motion is all that would be needed. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 2, 2005 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. February 2, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Meehlhause, and Stevenson Members Absent: Hegland and Scotch Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planning Associate Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 783-05, Recommending 2 Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Which Would Change the Land Use Designation of the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course from Outdoor Sport Recreation and Passive Open Space to Office Park. Consider Resolution 782-05, Recommending Acquisition of 2394 County 4 Road 10, Donut Connection _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Marcy Winkler, 2372 Laport Drive, stated she was concerned about building another multiple dwelling complex in the Laport Meadows neighborhood. She explained that there are already Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ five trailer courts, many apartment buildings, and many townhouses in Mounds View. She expressed her concern regarding her property value going down if another townhouse development would be put in. She added that she has seen owner-occupied townhouses become rentals later on in other areas. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 783-05, Recommending Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Which Would Change the Land Use Designation of the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course from Outdoor Sport/Recreation and Passive Open Space to Office Park. Community Development Director Ericson reminded the Commission that this issue was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on January 19th. He explained the Zoning Code had been recently amended to designate this site as Industrial, consistent with the adjoining properties in the surrounding area. He informed the Commission that Minnesota law requires that the zoning be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, so the next step is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the designated zoning which was recently amended. He further explained that at this point the land use has a split designation of OSP and SRO, and the proposed amendment would reflect an OFC designation. He noted that other potential designations had been discussed at the last meeting. Director Ericson informed the Commission that the City Council directed staff to move forward with this amendment, and after the Planning Commission reviews the matter; it will be forwarded onto the Metropolitan Council for their consideration. Once the Metropolitan Council makes their determination, it would come back to the City Council for final review and approval. He stated that the Planning Commission had been provided with an updated Community Profile and Background, which is essentially the application and package that goes to the Metropolitan Council. He noted that if something were constructed at the site other than a golf course, some changes would need to be made to the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Stevenson mentioned that the reason this would not be designated Light Industrial is because something in the line of a truck terminal could be a potential use, and that might send the wrong message, which was discussed at the January 19th meeting. John Dietrich from RLK explained that on Question No. 5, they had streamlined the list agencies that would be reviewing the application. He continued by indicating those agencies would include the City of Blaine, Ramsey County, Anoka County, Rice Creek Watershed, the FAA, MnDOT, and the City of Shoreview. He indicated that they would be submitting this application on February 3rd. He stated that the changes they had made to the Community Profile and Background were in italics. He added that the Met Council has seen the AUAR, and they did send a letter back to the City stating that the AUAR is complete. He also added that this review would probably take the full 60-days. He passed out a tentative schedule of projected dates regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process, with April 20, 2005 being the target date for Comprehensive Plan Approval at the Met Council. Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller noted that on page 1 at the very bottom it says, “parking ramps”. She asked whether it should be “parking ramps” or “parking ramp”. Mr. Dietrich agreed that it should be “parking ramp”, and that he would make that change. Commissioner Miller also noted that the box for “not applicable” was not checked on page 2, Item 6, and she inquired as to whether it should be. Mr. Dietrich confirmed that the box should be checked. Chair Stevenson asked when public input would be taken on this item. Director Ericson replied that this evening’s meeting is a public hearing, and the public had been invited. He noted that he did not receive any phone calls or letters. He informed the Commission that he had a conversation with Sysco, and their only issue was that the transportation system be adequate to handle additional traffic. Mr. Ericson pointed out that there would be another City Council meeting following the Met Council’s approval where the public would have an opportunity for input. Mr. Dietrich mentioned that they anticipate that the Met Council will look at the transportation issue, and that there has been a very thorough transportation study done. He added that other issues of focus are storm water and storm water management. He stated that the Code is very clear on what needs to be done. He added that there is a sanitary sewer interceptor that already bisects a portion of the site, so they have looked at those capacities. Commissioner Miller asked what “Hybrid I” meant on Table 3. Mr. Dietrich explained that there is a plan in the works where Lake Drive, 35W,and County Road J all come together, and that is one of the major elements of the study of the Stakeholders meeting with MnDOT and the regional transportation engineers. He continued by saying that Hybrid talks about possibly building a bridge so that Lake Drive could fly over 35W and then come down for the southbound connection. Director Ericson clarified that the “I” part of that is from I-35W. Mr. Dietrich reassured the Commission that he would put that all on one line to eliminate the confusion. Director Ericson stated that Resolution 783-05 was before them if the Commission felt comfortable with the amendment application. Commissioner Zwirn asked for clarification regarding the definition of Institutional as it applies to this parcel. Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson explained that Institutional would be for a school or government type building as opposed to something that would be privately held or an office campus setting. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Stevenson. To Approve Resolution 783-05, Resolution Recommending Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment From Outdoor Sport Recreation (SRO) and Passive Open Space (OSP) to Office (OFC) for the Bridges Redevelopment Site; Special Planning Case SP-134-05. Ayes –4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Consider Resolution 782-05, Recommending Acquisition of 2394 County Road 10, Donut Connection Community Development Director Ericson stated that the City Council had asked the Planning Commission to look at the option available to the City to acquire the Donut Connection, which is located at the intersection of County Road H2 and County Road 10. He indicated that the Donut Connection had originally approached the City in regards to selling the property because they understood that the City had a possible desire to redevelop the intersection. He also mentioned that that there are intersection realignment plans already on file from the 2002 Corridor Improvement Plan prepared by URS. Director Ericson affirmed that the acquisition would be consistent with the City’s desire to improve the function of the corridor and to also improve land uses on the corridor. He mentioned that the City Council had discussed this possible acquisition at their last work session and they believe this opportunity to have potential. He acknowledged that there is a drawback in that the parcel is only 20,000 square feet and, as a stand-alone building, probably does not allow for much redevelopment. He added, however, that the adjacent gas station might be willing to sell and that the City could explore that possibility. He stated that the asking price for the Donut Connection is less than the Ramsey County assessed value so the City would be interested from a redevelopment standpoint. He added that the dollars that would be used to purchase the site would be TIF dollars. He informed the Planning Commission that his item would be at the City Council’s next work session and that the Council would like the Planning Commission’s input. Chair Stevenson pointed out that the future land use map shows the address as 2386 rather than 2394. Director Ericson confirmed that it is 2394, and he would make that change. Commissioner Miller expressed that there are some people who think the City should not be in the business of buying property and asked where the money for this comes from. Director Ericson responded that if it were not for governmental involvement, some projects simply would not happen, and that sometimes you must utilize tax increment dollars to help the process along. He added that this is the one redevelopment tool that the State provides to cities to help with redeveloping properties. He explained there are three TIF Districts in the City, and Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ that those will expire in 2012, 2013, and 2014, after which time all of those properties within the TIF Districts will come back onto the property tax rolls, and hopefully at that time they would have addressed all of the City’s priorities in terms of redevelopment. He explained that they would rather be involved in this redevelopment instead of letting nature take its course because sometimes you end up with uses you rather not have. Chair Stevenson affirmed that this is exactly what TIF was set up to do. Commissioner Miller added that she didn’t have any problem with it. Chair Stevenson pointed out that this is right along the County Road 10 corridor, and right where they want to develop, and he is very much for this. Director Ericson reiterated that this is a situation where the property owners had approached the City, and they had not been pursuing them. Commissioner Meehlhause stated that he supported the City buying the property. He expressed that his concern would be whether the present owners would not want to lease it back. He added that he did not want to see an empty building standing there, and hopefully the City would decide to take it down. Director Ericson responded that the City does not want an empty building on the corridor either and that removal of the building would be their recommendation. He added that if the present owner does not wish to lease it back, they probably would not be interested in trying to lease it out for another use. He added that it might be more conducive to level the site. Commissioner Zwirn stated that he does not feel that the community should be involved in purchasing real estate. He added however that this is a prime situation where the community should be involved. He expressed that he does not support TIF, but he thought this may a good use of the funds because the corridor needs to be redeveloped. MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Miller. To Approve Resolution 782-05, Resolution Recommending Approval of the Acquisition of the Donut Connection Parcel Located at 2394 County Road 10. Ayes –4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: February 16, 2005 Director Ericson mentioned that at the next Planning Commission meeting they would be considering new applications for the Planning Commission vacancy and that they would need to make a recommendation to the City Council. He added that the City Council would make the appointment on February 28th. Director Ericson announced that the public is welcome to submit an application for this vacancy. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Sheree Theobald TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 16, 2005 Mounds View City H2ll 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. February 16, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Meehlhause, Hegland, Scotch, and Stevenson Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson Planning Associate Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Number of Required Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 7635 Greenfield Avenue. 2 Consideration of a Lot Line Adjustment (Minor Subdivision) Request 5 between 3008 and 3016 County Road J. Consideration of a Re-approval of a Minor Subdivision at 7630 Woodlawn 6 Avenue and 7618 Edgewood Drive. _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes January 5, 2005 and January 19, 2005. MOTION/SECOND. Zwirn/Miller. To approve the January 5 and January 19, 2005 Minutes as presented. Ayes-6 Nays-0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR05-002. Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Number of Required Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 7635 Greenfield Avenue. Planning Associate Prososki stated that the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing garages and construct 78 new garage stalls in a drive through style. The Zoning Code requires one covered parking space per unit. Greenfield Estates has 125 units and would be required to have 125 covered parking spaces, so the variance is requesting 47 less than the amount required. There would be 247 uncovered parking stalls. She stated that the applicant, Mr. Menning explained in a letter that there have been three fires in the past few years due to juveniles breaking into the garages due to the fact that half the garages are not visible from the rest of the property. She stated that the residents have to manually open and close their garage doors, and the proposed garages would be fully enclosed with two vehicle access points, and there would be an electronic garage door opener provided to residents renting a garage stall. She stated there is currently a high vacancy rate for the garages, and over the last seven years only 58% of the garages have been rented. She stated that no residents have called to object to this proposal. She stated if the Planning Commission decides to deny this request, a new resolution could be prepared for the next meeting. Chair Stevenson suggested the possible reason that the garages have been underutilized is due to the fact that it has been a burden to manually open and close the garage doors, the lack of security, and the amount of damage. He remarked that perhaps with the new facility, more residents would choose to have a garage. Alan Menning from Greenfield Estates indicated that they have ten properties located in the metropolitan area, and anytime their garage ratio to individual units exceeds 50 percent, they always have vacancies. He explained the vacancy rate at the various apartment buildings. He stated at some buildings sometimes they force people to rent a garage with their apartment. He remarked that some tenants only want to rent garages for the winter months. Commissioner Hegland asked what the problem was with renting the apartments to include the garage. Mr. Menning explained that they can’t because of the competition, and the other buildings in Mounds View don’t do that. Commissioner Hegland stated he felt most people would appreciate indoor parking. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Menning stated that the extra $35 per month for a garage is a lot of money to many people, and it could cause him to lose tenants to other complexes. He noted that there are presently a lot of vacancies in the area. Commissioner Scotch remarked that there have been more vacancies in the last two to three years. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if renting garages as part of the apartment was standard procedure. Mr. Menning stated that none of his competition does it. He stated that the $35 per month for a garage requires another $100 of income per month to qualify for the apartment, and many people are on the borderline already. He said it was standard procedure to ask them if they want a garage, but it isn’t standard procedure to make them rent a garage. Commissioner Meehlhause asked why they couldn’t provide the garage with the apartment without charging extra for it. Mr. Menning explained that they wouldn’t make any money that way, and he would rather rent 50 percent of the garages for $35 per month apiece. Commissioner Scotch stated that she felt the problem they are having is that the variance request is to large, and she asked whether the plans could be adjusted for more covered parking. She stated that this would improve the property aesthetically. Chair Stevenson said he felt the percentage of garages that would be rented would rise when the new garages are built. Mr. Menning reported he is only renting 44 percent right now, so they would be increasing it by 16 percent from what they are currently renting. Commissioner Hegland stated that they are reducing the number of garage stalls that they will have available. Commissioner Zwirn noted that they are not here to discuss how Mr. Menning could better manage his apartment buildings, and they have to look at the practicality of what he was asking them to do. He stated that Greenfield could spend half of the money by revamping the old garages and putting more lighting in. He felt more creativity could be used to rent the garages for storage to people not living at the apartment complex. Mr. Menning explained that the present garages aren’t large enough to store a boat in, and they are not in the storage business. Mr. Menning further stated that the problem is that it is difficult to control 125 individual garage doors. He stated that some residents leave the garage doors open. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn noted that they might not leave them open if they had a garage door opener. Commissioner Hegland commented that he was failing to see a hardship. Commissioner Zwirn agreed that there is none. Commissioner Miller noted that in 2001 the rental rate was 70.8 percent, and in 2004 it was 44.79, and she asked why there was such a difference. Mr. Menning remarked that back in 2001 the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent, and as such, they could require that new residents also take a garage. He also stated that the owner of the building wants to make these improvements to the property to make it more aesthetically pleasing to potential renters. Commissioner Scotch asked what the percentage of rented apartments was. Mr. Menning reported it is at 94-96%. Commissioner Scotch stated she felt they should have a few more garages than what they are requesting. Planning Associate Prososki suggested that the Planning Commission might want to consider 100 covered parking spaces, which would be 80 percent of what is required, rather than the proposed 78 stalls. Commissioner Scotch agreed that was a better idea. Mr. Menning stated that they could add six stalls to each proposed garage building. Commissioner Hegland stated that the hardship they are claiming is that they don’t think they can rent all the garages, but it seemed to him that part of the rent is based on the condition of the property, and they are improving the property and would have an advantage in that regard. Mr. Menning explained that their competition is Woodlawn Estates, and they are renting an apartment for $650 a month without a garage, so he also needs to rent his for $650 without a garage because there is no difference in the apartments as they were both built by the same builder. Commissioner Hegland stated that that just means they would be renting to a different type of person. Mr. Menning remarked that there aren’t that many different kinds of people around. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland said he was having a hard time finding a hardship. Chair Stevenson stated that going from 100 percent to 62 percent of required garages is more than they would be willing to allow, but 80 percent would make him more comfortable, along with the fact that they would be improving the property. Commissioner Zwirn asked how they were going to handle garages being rented for the storage of property because the new garages would not be individual stalls. Mr. Menning stated that garages rented for storing of property was not allowed. Commissioner Scott indicated she would prefer to go with 80 percent. Chair Stevenson indicated that the resolution could be amended to require 100 covered parking stalls, and that the variance is for 25 stalls less than what would be required. Planning Associate Prososki noted the resolution should also be changed to show the applicant as being Greenfield Properties, Limited Partnership. MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Miller. To approve Resolution 784-05 as amended, approving the request for a Variance for a Reduced Number of Required Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 7635 Greenfield Avenue in Planning Case VR05-002. Ayes –3 Nays – 3 Motion failed. (Nay-Commissioners Hegland, Zwirn, and Meehlhause.) Chair Stevenson asked whether anybody wished to comment on their vote. Commissioner Zwirn stated that there hadn’t been a clear demonstration of hardship, and he felt the proposal lacked creativity regarding a marketing plan. Commissioner Hegland stated that the difference between the costs of what they are proposing to build and what they are required to build is minimal, and the economic return on the investment should be realized. He stated that the applicant was not showing a hardship. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case M105-001. Consideration of a Lot Line Adjustment (Minor Subdivision) Request between 3008 and 3016 County Road J. Planning Associate Prososki stated that the applicant, Joseph Holmberg, is requesting a lot line adjustment be3cause the driveway to his property of 3008 Co. Rd J is actually located on the adjacent property at 3016 Co. Rd. J the previous owners had an understanding about the driveway situation. Joseph Holmberg now wishes to sell and needs to bring the property into Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ compliance, by moving the property line 15’ to the west. Planning Associate Prososki explained that even with the additional lot area, the driveway does not meet the 5’ setback. She stated that Staff is recommending that the City require the driveway meet the 5’ setback requirement by May 1 of 2005 and that money be held in escrow in case the new owner of 3008 County Road J doesn’t follow through. She stated that bringing it into conformance would mean placing grass or sod in the setback area. Chair Stevenson voiced a concern over the date of May 1, 2005. Planning Associate Prososki stated that she could extend it to June 1, 2005. Chair Stevenson indicated he would be more comfortable with May 15th. Commissioner Hegland asked if the property has been sold. Planning Associate Prososki answered that there is a closing contingent upon the minor subdivision. Commissioner Miller asked whether a hard surface driveway was required. Planning Associate Prososki answered that the Resolution does not require a permanent driveway, but the Planning Commissioner could make that request. She explained that the Resolution only approves the minor subdivision and requires that they make the driveway meet the setback. Community Development Director Ericson explained that Ordinance 752 that had recently been adopted would not require a hard surface driveway. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if the curb cut needed to be adjusted. Planning Associate Prososki said the width of the curb cub was satisfactory. Commissioner Miller reiterated it would be nice if the driveway were of a hard surface. Commissioner Hegland stated he didn’t think they should require it. Chair Stevenson stated that they wouldn’t require it, but it’s the Commission’s preference that the driveway be made permanent. MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Scotch. To Approve Resolution 785-05, the Lot Line Adjustment (Minor Subdivision) Request between 3008 and 3016 County Road J, but to change the date to be May 15th. Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case M105-002. Consideration of a Re-approval of a Minor Subdivision at 7630 Woodlawn Avenue and 7618 Edgewood Drive. Community Development Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission had already approved this application in 2001, but there were some issues with the easement documents and the mortgage company, so the deeds had never been record with Ramsey County. He stated that the purpose of the land transfer is to create more space on the Edgewood Drive lot, improved with a four-plex, upon which to build garages and supplemental parking space. He stated the four-plex currently does not provide any garage space, which is required under the Zoning Code. He stated both lots would comply with the area and setback requirements of the Zoning Code after the subdivision. Commissioner Miller asked if where they were putting the lot line would allow enough space for proper garages on both lots. Community Development Director Ericson answered that it would. Chair Stevenson remarked that he remembered this case well, and he didn’t see any changes. He said there had been a lot of discussion regarding this item previously, and he didn’t see any problem with approving it again. MOTION/SECOND. Stevenson/Miller. To approve Resolution 786-05, the Re-approval of a Minor Subdivision at 7630 Woodlawn Avenue and 7618 Edgewood Drive. Ayes-6 Nays-0 Motion carried. Community Development Director noted that this item would be on the City Council agenda on February 28th. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review of Planning Commission Applications. Community Development Director Ericson explained that the two applicants, Michael Marrone and Al Hull, were unable to attend the meeting this evening. He stated that Mr. Marrone had run for a City Council seat during the general election, and Mr. Hull had run for mayor during the general election and the council seat during the special election. Chair Stevenson suggested recommending both candidates, indicating either would be good commissioners. Commissioner Miller said Mr. Hull had given a better description of why he wanted to serve on the Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn voiced a preference for seeing the candidates in person rather than simply making a recommendation. Chair Stevenson announced they would hold off on the decision until the March 2nd meeting so that the candidates could attend. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: March 2, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Sheree Theobald TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.