Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION April 20, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: March 16, 2005 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 VR2005-003 Consideration of a Variance to Reduce the Front Parking Setback to Zero at 4749 Old Highway 8 Applicant: Ace Supply Company 6. Planning Case CU2005-004 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to Add Two Additional Dwelling Units to a Multifamily Residential Building at 2071 Hillview Road Applicants: Roger and Rosemary Dickhausen 7. Planning Cases DE2005-002 and VR2005-004 Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Parking Setbacks and a Development Review for a Proposed Retail Development at 2525 County Road 10 Applicants: Snyder Drug/C&H Development Inc. 8. Planning Case MI2005-003 Consideration of a Minor Subdivision at 8060 Groveland Road Applicant: Integra Homes APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: May 4, 2005 10. Adjourn to Agenda Session Planning Commission Agenda April 20, 2005 Page 2 AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: None 2. Staff Reports 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 Page 1 Item No: 5 Meeting Date: April 20, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request for a Variance to Reduce the Front Parking Setback to Zero at Ace Supply Company Located at 4749 Old Highway 8; Planning Case VR2005-003 Introduction: The applicant, Bruce Hasselbring, representing Ace Supply Company, is proposing to expand the parking area at the Ace Supply Company building located at 4749 Old Highway 8. The applicant is requesting to construct the parking lot up to the front property line, with no setback from the Old Highway 8 right-of-way. 4749 Old Highway 8 is zoned I-1, Industrial. The Zoning Code requires a forty (40) foot front setback for parking areas located in Industrial districts. Discussion: Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code. Industrially zoned properties are required to maintain a forty-foot front setback for parking areas. Industrial side and rear parking setbacks are five feet. The applicant is requesting a forty (40) foot variance from the front parking setback requirement. He is proposing to locate the parking lot directly on the lot line. If constructed as proposed, there would be no setback between the parking area and the Old Highway 8 right-of-way. As shown on the attached site plan, the applicant would like to add a one-way drive aisle and 13 angled parking spaces between the building and the front property line. Currently, that area is grass and does not contain any parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that he would like to add parking spaces due to a lack of parking provided on the rest of the site. Section 1121.13 of the Code would require that this site provide 112 parking spaces, based on the size of the building and the uses on the property. Currently, the site has 44 spaces, which is 68 spaces less than the required number. The applicant is proposing to remove 28 spaces near the back of the building and use the area for a drive aisle and then add 20 spaces that would be directly against the building, in addition to the 13 parking stalls that are being proposed at the front of the building. If constructed as proposed, the site would have 49 parking spaces, which is 5 more than are currently on the site. One Staff concern is that if approved, nearly the entire two-acre site would be covered with impervious surfaces, which would prevent water from permeating into the ground. The applicant submitted a drainage plan, which is being reviewed by the Public Works department. If the Planning Commission approves the setback variance, the approval will need to be contingent upon the Public Works department approving the drainage plan. Old Highway 8 is a County road and Staff has contacted Ramsey County to find out their opinion on allowing a parking area to directly abut the right-of-way. At the time this report was printed, Staff did not receive a reply from the County. If the variance is approved, it will also have to be contingent upon County approval. 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 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 lot is not irregularly shaped. The size of the lot is also not irregular, however, it is not large enough to accommodate the existing development on it. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that most properties have adequate parking and circulation. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. It could be argued that the current property owner did not have control of the size of the property or building when the existing building was constructed, however, it also seems as though the difficulty is self-created in that the activities occurring on site are too intense for the size of the property. 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 confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others (with similarly sized parcels) in the same district. Although there have been many variance requests for reduced parking setbacks, there are very rare cases in which there are such extraordinary circumstances that it would justify eliminating the front setback all together. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The forty (40) foot variance is the minimum amount that would allow the applicants to add 13 parking spaces and a one-way drive aisle. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The variance may be detrimental to the purpose of this Title unless it is determined that a hardship is present and justifies a zero (0) setback. 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. 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 Page 3 The proposed parking lot expansion should not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. It will need to be determined whether or not the additional asphalt would create storm water management problems. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Deny the requested variance. Resolution 793-05 is attached for the Commission’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Approve the variance as requested or approve the variance, but amend the reduced setback to an amount that the Commission feels is appropriate. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval with findings of fact appropriate to support the approval. As previously mentioned, the approval would need to be contingent upon approval from Ramsey County and approval of the drainage plan from the Public Works department. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Site Plan 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Resolution 793-05 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 Page 4 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 Page 5 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 Page 6 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 Page 7 Zoning Map 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 Page 8 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 Page 9 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 Page 10 Photographic Documentation Front View of Ace Supply Building 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 Page 11 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 793-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT PARKING SETBACK TO ZERO AT ACE SUPPLY COMPANY LOCATED AT 4749 OLD HIGHWAY 8; PLANNING CASE VR2005-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bruce Hasselbring, representing Ace Supply Company, has applied for a variance to reduce the front parking area setback to zero at Ace Supply Company, located at 4749 Old Highway; and, WHEREAS, 4749 Old Highway 8 is zoned I-1, Industrial and is legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Subject to Easements Midway Industrial, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front setback for a parking lot in Industrial districts is forty (40) feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a front parking setback variance to locate the parking area zero (0) feet from the front property line; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the following materials relating to this request: 1. Application 2. Letter from the Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Site Plan 6. Photographic Documentation 7. 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, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this variance on Wednesday, April 20, 2005; 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. 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 Page 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The property is zoned I-1, Industrial. 2. The minimum front parking area setback in Industrial districts is forty feet. 3. The applicant is requesting to reduce the front parking area setback to zero. 4. The property is neither exceptional nor extraordinary in regards to shape or size. 5. Granting a variance in this case would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 6. The variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 7. The hardship criteria as identified in Section 1125.02 have not been satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby deny the variance request to reduce the front parking area setback to zero at Ace Supply Company located at 4749 Old Highway 8. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the applicant shall be notified of the right to appeal this denial to the City Council. The appeal shall be submitted in writing within 10 business days of the adoption of this Resolution. Adopted this 20th day of April, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6 Meeting Date: April 20, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for Two Additional Dwelling Units at a Multiple Family Residential Building Located at 2071 Hillview Road; Planning Case No. CU2005-004 Introduction: The applicants, Roger and Rosemary Dickhausen, are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for two additional dwelling units at their multiple family residential building located at 2071 Hillview Road. The applicants are proposing to add two dwelling units to the basement of their existing four-unit building. The building would then have a total of six units, which is the maximum number of units allowed for a property zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential. Discussion: Section 1108.04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows multifamily dwelling structures containing six (6) or less dwelling units in Medium Density Residential districts. Although the multifamily building already exists, the proposed expansion of the number of units triggers the need for the conditional use permit. The additional dwelling units are proposed to be located in the basement of the existing building, which means that the footprint or size of the building will not be affected. Section 1104.02 of the Zoning Code requires that multiple family uses in an R-3, Medium Density Residential district have a minimum of 2,500 square feet of lot area per unit. If this property were permitted to expand to six (6) dwelling units as requested, the Code would require a minimum of 15,000 square feet. 2071 Hillview Road has an area of 16,553 square feet, which satisfies the Code requirements for lot size. Section 1121.13 of the Zoning Code requires one and a half uncovered parking stalls and one covered stall per dwelling unit. The applicants are planning to construct additional garages in order to satisfy the requirements for covered parking stalls. If the conditional use permit is granted and the building contains six (6) dwelling units, the Code would require 6 covered parking stalls and 9 uncovered parking stalls. The property already has two garage stalls and the applicants are proposing to construct four additional garage stalls in order to satisfy the Code requirements. The proposed garages would be located behind and to the west of the existing building. The garages would have a setback of five (5) feet from the west (side) lot line and approximately thirty-three (33) feet from the north (rear) property line. Section 1104.01 requires a five (5) foot setback, which the proposed garages satisfy. 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report April 20, 2005 Page 2 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 are listed below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The future land use designation for 2071 Hillview Road is multiple family. The proposed expansion to have a total of six dwelling units would not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicants’ property is located on Hillview Road. This particular section of Hillview Road has several multiple family buildings and is adjacent to single-family residential on the south side and Colonial Village Manufactured Home Park to the north side. The proposed expansion would not be out of place for this area of the City and the size of the property would accommodate the proposal. Depreciation. The two additional dwelling units and four additional garage stalls would actually increase the value of the subject property. Staff does not feel that it would cause depreciation of the surrounding properties. The Character of the Surrounding Area. This area of the City is a mixture of residential uses, including several other multifamily buildings that have between four and six dwelling units. The proposed expansion would not be out of character in this area. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicants have indicated that the need is to expand the use of their building. Recommendations: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Resolution 794-05 is attached if the Commission selects this option. 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution recommending denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the recommendation. If the Commission chooses to act on this option, Staff will provide the resolution to the Commission at the next meeting on May 4, 2005. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report April 20, 2005 Page 3 Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 794-05 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report April 20, 2005 Page 4 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report April 20, 2005 Page 5 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report April 20, 2005 Page 6 Zoning Map 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report April 20, 2005 Page 7 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report April 20, 2005 Page 8 Site Plan 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report April 20, 2005 Page 9 Photographic Documentation Front View of 2071 Hillview Road View of Rear Yard (Location of Proposed Garages) 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report April 20, 2005 Page 10 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 794-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS AT A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 2071 HILLVIEW ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2005-004 WHEREAS, Roger and Rosemary Dickhausen have applied for a conditional use permit to allow for two additional dwelling units at their multifamily building; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2071 Hillview Road, is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential, and is legally described as follows: The West 103 Feet of the East 311 Feet of the South 193 Feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (Subject to Road) in Section 5 Township 30 Range 23 Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows multifamily dwelling structures containing six or less dwelling units in Medium Density Residential districts; and, WHEREAS, the applicants are proposing to expand the existing building to six dwelling units, thus necessitating application of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. Photographic Documentation f. Staff Report WHEREAS , the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request on Wednesday, April 20, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report April 20, 2005 Page 11 1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of this property as multifamily residential. 2. The proposed expansion would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate the additional dwelling units and the required garages. 3. The proposed expansion would not depreciate the surrounding area. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed expansion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for two additional dwelling units at the multifamily residential building located at 2071 Hillview Road, with conditions as follows: 1. The garages must be constructed prior to the City issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling units. 2. The garages shall be constructed as shown on the site plan submitted on March 30, 2005 3. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 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 20th day of April, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 7 Meeting Date: April 20, 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: Public Hearing, Review and Consideration of the Snyders Variance Request and Development Review Introduction: Synders Drug Store, a fixture at Moundsview Square since it opened in 1975, has entered into an agreement to purchase the Gas For Less site at 2525 County Road 10 and replace it with a stand-alone building for their own use. Dave Leonard, the Vice President of Real Estate and Store Development for Snyders, indicates that the drug store is now at a competitive disadvantage in the city due to its location hidden within Moundsview Square after other drug stores in the community constructed new stores at prominent intersections. At only 5,975 square feet, the proposed building would be much smaller than the other drug stores yet a smaller building is more in line with the Snyders stand-alone prototype. After observing what was approved for CVS, Walgreens and other corridor developments, Snyders has requested a similar five-foot parking setback along County Road 10, Long Lake Road and Bronson Drive. On the east property line shared with the City, Snyders is requesting a zero-foot parking setback along which they propose parallel parking for their employees. These setbacks would require approval of a variance. Background: Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code. Commercially zoned properties are required to maintain a thirty-foot front setback for BOTH parking and principal building. Commercial side and rear parking and driveway setbacks are five feet. Because the Gas For Less site is bordered by three streets, only one of its lot lines would have a five foot setback—the north, west and south lines would all have to satisfy the thirty foot requirement. Staff had worked with the previous owners of Gas For Less in 2004 to coordinate a purchase and redevelopment of the site, but at the final approval step, the City Council decided to pass on the acquisition after new owners came forward with designs to purchase and operate the gas station, promising improvements to the site. No improvements were made and less than a year after acquisition, the new owners put the site back on the market. Staff had intended to coordinate a redevelopment of the site, however it was recognizing that the site—an irregularly configured triangular corner lot with three street frontages—had some inherent practical difficulties impeding redevelopment, a fact that was pointed out by the developers staff had contacted during that time. Snyders Report to the PC April 20, 2005 Page 2 Development Review Discussion: Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View City Code requires that any new commercial development project 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. Dimensional Requirements Building Setbacks Required Proposed: OK ? Front (Co. Rd. 10): 30 feet 60 feet Yes (Long Lake Rd): 30 feet 125 feet Yes (Bronson Dr): 30 feet 31 feet Yes Side (east) 10 feet 33 feet Yes Parking Lot Setbacks Front (Co. Rd. 10): 30 feet 5 feet No 1 (Long Lake Rd): 30 feet 5 feet No 1 (Bronson Dr): 30 feet 5 feet No 1 Side (east) 5 feet 0 feet No 1 Parking: The area of the proposed building is 5,975 square feet. Of that amount, 4,045 square feet would be devoted to general retail usage. The parking requirements for a general retail use is one space per every one hundred square feet of retail space plus one space per employee. Assuming there would be no more than six employees on any given shift, 41 spaces plus 6 spaces would be required, totaling 47 spaces. The site plan indicates that 48 stalls would be provided, one more than the minimum. The dimensions of the individual stalls, including the parallel stalls along the east property line, satisfy City Code requirements. The number of “accessible” stalls shown on the plan complies with ADA requirements. Access & Circulation: There are presently two access points to the site—one from County Road 10 and another from Bronson Drive. Both access points would remain with the proposed Snyders redevelopment in the same general location. The existing County Road 10 access drive is 30 feet wide at the property line and will remain that width. From this point, customers are directed toward the front of the building. If the customer intends only to use the pharmacy drive-through, vehicles would be directed to the right by internal directional signage. Internal circulation would function adequately and all drive aisles satisfy minimum requirements. Building Materials: The proposed 5,975 square foot building would be one story in height with approximately 4,045 square feet of internal public retail area. The exterior would be comprised of rock-face block and EIFS, a stucco like material used in other projects here in Mounds View. Colored renderings of the building will be unveiled at the meeting. 1 The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow for the setbacks as indicated. Snyders Report to the PC April 20, 2005 Page 3 Lighting: The applicants have submitted cut sheets and specs for the proposed site lighting. A photometric analysis has not yet been submitted to confirm that glare and light spillage will not be an issue. The site plan indicates that there would be five typical thirty foot light standards, upon four of which would be mounted a single light source, the fifth light standard would have two light sources. The light fixtures would be square, dark bronze aluminum housings as illustrated by the graphic to the right. On the building would be mounted six standard design wall-paks to provide a consistent level of site illumination. Staff has communicated with the applicant that a photometric analysis will need to be submitted to confirm code compliance prior to Council action on the development review. Landscaping Plan: City Forester Rick Wriskey has received a copy of the landscaping plan and does not have any issues with species, numbers or locations. He suggests that the landscaper “field verify” the site prior to planting to ensure there would be no conflict with overhead wires or underground utilities. As illustrated by the plan, the applicant intends to provide substantial landscaping on the site. The various species will include the flowering Spring Snow Crab, Black Hills Spruce, Little Princess Spirea, Scandia and Sea Green Juniper, and Red-Twigged Dogwood. Refer to the exhibit at the end of the report for photographic documentation of the species to be used on the site. Snow Storage: With so much of the site developed, there is little area remaining for snow storage. The applicant could adjust the landscaping plan somewhat to allow for a “clear zone” at the southernmost corner of the site. It may also be the case that an agreement would need to be reached with the City if snow is anticipated to pile up on City-owned land to the east. Signage: Signage plans have not yet been submitted. Signage allowances for a B-3, Highway Business district include 100 square feet of building mounted exterior signage plus 200 square feet of ground signage. The plans identify the proposed location of a monument sign at the southeast corner of the lot, set back fifteen feet from the property line as required by Code. Permits are required for signage and staff will review and issue only if consistent with the terms as outlined herein. Stormwater Management: The current proposal is to accommodate stormwater by means of a series of catch basins which would direct flow to a stormsewer pond on City land to the east. There appears to be area available for such a use and the City had originally proposed the same manner of treatment had it purchased and redeveloped the site. Rice Creek Watershed District will be asked to review the flow rates to ensure the pond would be sized at a minimum to accommodate the Snyder run-off. There has been some discussion that it may make sense to over-size the pond so as to accommodate run-off from the adjacent public works area (which currently has no stormwater management controls) as well as run off associated with the County Road 10 corridor improvement program. The City Council would ultimately need to determine if this would be the best use of the land which is presently greenspace behind the baseball diamond. Snyders Report to the PC April 20, 2005 Page 4 Garbage Enclosure: A garbage enclosure is shown on the plans at the northeast corner of the property. The enclosure is located so that it will not obstruct the drive-through traffic. Specific plans for the enclosure were not submitted and staff is recommending that the enclosure be constructed of the same materials as the building. Chain link fencing is not a permitted enclosure material. Economic Development: It has been frequently noted in the past that the City has too many gas stations. Unfortunately, the City is unable to prohibit certain types of business if the zoning is proper. Thus, communities are susceptible to an over-abundance of a specific land use with few controls in place to moderate or minimize certain uses. Some may now say that the City has too many drug stores. It should be pointed out that this redevelopment would not ADD a drug store to the community—it would simply serve to level the playing field a bit for Snyders, the City’s first drug store, which feels it is at a competitive disadvantage by being tucked back within Moundsview Square. Traffic: The proposed redevelopment would likely decrease the amount of traffic entering and exiting the development. A typical drug store generates roughly 195 vehicle trips per day while estimated vehicle trips per day for a gasoline station are 845. County Road 10 (CR 10) Corridor Improvement Program (CIP): As the Commission is well aware, the City is in the midst of a corridor redevelopment and improvement project to improve the function, safety and appearance of County Road 10. The proposed redevelopment would bring a brand new building to an otherwise unnoteworthy corner of the City and eliminate a gas station in the process. City staff has asked that Snyders consider installing a bituminous trailway from Long Lake Road south to Edgewood Drive at their expense, in return for the siting of the stormwater feature on City land. The proposed redevelopment would be consistent with the identified goals and vision for the corridor in terms of the following: • Improve the physical appearance of the corner with a new building and landscaping. • Removal of a gas station and associated underground storage tanks in very close proximity to the City’s water supply. • Provide onsite stormwater management, rate control and filtration in an area not currently served by such a hydrological amenity. • Installation of another link of the corridor trailways system, providing pedestrians and people on bikes with a location separate and apart from the traveled roadways of County Road 10. • Promote economic redevelopment within the corridor. Development Review Summary: The proposed redevelopment of the Gas for Less site at 2525 County Road 10 to a Snyders Drugstore would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Code (subject to variance approval), Comprehensive Plan and Corridor Improvement Program. Staff has prepared a resolution in support of the redevelopment subject to conditions which include the following: Snyders Report to the PC April 20, 2005 Page 5 1. Satisfactory photometric analysis 2. Satisfactory stormwater management system and pond (water feature) creation 3. Submit plans for signage and the garbage dumpster enclosure 4. Installation of a bituminous trailway from Long Lake to Edgewood 5. Dedication of an easement at the northwest corner for additional right-of-way for turning radius at Bronson Drive and Long Lake Road—if necessary 6. Approval of variances 7. Enter into a development agreement outlining in detail the terms of the redevelopment. Variance Discussion: 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 Mounds View) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property is zoned B-3 and is proposed to be improved with a 5,975 square foot, one- story retail building. The lot is irregularly shaped and is fronted on three sides by street right of way. These can be considered exceptional circumstances. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would create a hardship for the applicant in that the applicant is facing unique redevelopment challenges not normally associated with raw land development. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is attempting to undertake a redevelopment project on a irregularly configured lot. 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. There are other similarly zoned properties in the community with the same reduced front setback. This site is even further constrained by three street frontages and non-rectangular dimensions. Granting the variance would not appear to be a special privilege. Snyders Report to the PC April 20, 2005 Page 6 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The five-foot front setback results in a 25-foot variance from what is required by the Zoning Code. While 25 feet represents a large variance in terms of percentage, it is the minimum necessary to allow for sufficient parking with a 24-foot drive aisle. The proposed zero-foot setback is the minimum necessary to allow for adequate drive aisle and employee parking on the east side. This is not the only option to resolve the setback issue however, as there is land potentially available to the east that could be acquired to meet the minimum setback without any variance. It is not known however if the property owner would sell or at what price. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. One of the prevailing goals of the zoning code is to promote positive development and redevelopment within the community. Granting a variance to allow for the utilization of the front and side setback would open the door to a positive redevelopment at this important corner in the City’s commercial corridor, eliminating a potentially hazardous land use feet from the City’s water supply. 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 variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Variance Summary: The variances requested by Snyders satisfy the hardship criteria as outlined in Section 1125.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution 792-05 which approves a variance for reduced parking lot setbacks of five feet along the north, south and west property lines and zero feet along the east property line, and recommends approval of a development review for the proposed 7,945 square foot single story retail building at 2525 County Road 10, with stipulations. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Site Plan Zoning Map COUNTY ROAD I Public Works Facility Moundsview Square COUNTY ROAD H2 Landscaping Varieties – Snyders Development Black Hills Spruce Spring Snow Crab Red-Twigged Dogwood Little Princess Spirea Sea Green Juniper Other typical Juniper Site Photographs Looking south from Bronson Drive Looking east from Long Lake Road MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 792-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A RETAIL BUILDING AND APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED PARKING LOT SETBACKS AT 2525 COUNTY ROAD 10; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASES DE05-002, VR05-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, Snyder Drug / C&H Development, Inc. (“Snyders”) has applied for a development review and a parking lot setback variance to redevelop the Gas for Less site located at 2525 County Road 10 into a 5,975 square foot retail building; and, WHEREAS, the property at 2525 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business commercial, and is legally-described as follows: All that part of the West 254 feet of the South 15 acres of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of State Trunk Highway No. 10, except the North 30 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the variance request on Wednesday, April 20, 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Site Plans 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Site Photograph 6. Landscaping Photographs 7. Staff Report WHEREAS, Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View City Code requires that commercial developments such as this proposal be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council; and, Resolution 792-05 Page 2 WHEREAS, Section 1104 of the Mounds View Zoning Code articulates the dimensional requirements and zoning standards associated with development activity; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 1125 of the Mounds Zoning City Code articulates the process by which variance requests are considered by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the seven criteria that must be satisfied if the Planning Commission is to approve a variance request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related to the variance request: 1. The lot is irregularly shaped and is fronted on three sides by street right of way which together can be considered exceptional circumstances. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would create a hardship for the applicant in that the applicant is facing unique redevelopment challenges not normally associated with raw land development. 3. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is attempting to undertake a redevelopment project on an irregularly configured lot. 4. Granting the variance would not appear to be a special privilege given the number of other similar variance requests granted by the Planning Commission. 5. It can be argued that the setback variances requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardships presented by the irregularly shaped lot and the multiple street frontages. 6. Granting a variance to allow for the utilization of the front and side setback would open the door to a positive redevelopment at this important corner in the City’s commercial corridor. 7. The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, finding that the hardship criteria have been satisfied, does hereby approve the variance requested for a five (5) foot front parking lot setback (north, west and south frontages) and a zero (0) foot parking lot setback along the east property line, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain development review approval from the Mounds View City Council. Resolution 792-05 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the zoning and dimensional standards and requirements have been adequately satisfied and recommends approval of the development review subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit and receive approval of the site photometric analysis. 2. Prepare and receive approval of a detailed stormwater management plan. 3. Prepare and submit plans for signage and the garbage dumpster enclosure. 4. Revise the site plan to show a 10-foot wide bituminous trailway from Long Lake Road to Edgewood Drive along the north side of the County Road 10 corridor right of way. 5. Revise the site plan to show an area for snow storage. 6. Consent to the dedication of an easement at the northwest corner of the site for turning radius right of way at Bronson Drive and Long Lake Road. 7. Enter into a development agreement with the City that sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements, agreements, guarantees and plans for the orderly development of the property. 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 20th day of April, 2005 ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 8 Meeting Date: April 20, 2005 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 8060 Groveland Road; Planning Case MI2005-003 Introduction: Integra Homes, represented by Ron Lillestrand, has applied for a minor subdivision of the property located at 8060 Groveland Road. The applicant is proposing to divide the east 187.02 feet from the west 271.25 feet. Minor subdivisions are those divisions of land less than two acres in size in which only one additional lot is created. Minor subdivisions do not require a public hearing and in contrast to a major subdivision, a Certificate of Survey rather than a plat is all that is needed to record the change with Ramsey County. Discussion: The property at 8060 Groveland Road is presently 61,855 square feet, or 1.42 acres. The proposed subdivision would split off the east 187.05 feet of the lot from the west 271.10 feet. The existing home would remain on the east lot (Parcel A) and the west lot (Parcel B) would eventually be joined with adjacent properties as part of a proposed redevelopment. The Planning Commission will review the plans for the proposed redevelopment in May of this year. The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey for the proposed subdivision, which identifies the lot to be created as Parcel A and the remainder lot as Parcel B. Zoning Requirements The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The minimum lot size for an interior (a lot which is not on a corner), single-family lot is 11,000 square feet. As proposed, Parcel A would have an area of 25,344 square feet and Parcel B would have an area of 36,611 square feet. The existing lot has 135 feet of frontage on Groveland Road, which is 60 feet more than the minimum requirement of 75 feet for a single-family residential property. The subdivision, as proposed, would actually land lock Parcel B (it would not have street frontage), however, the applicants are proposing to use Parcel B as part of a larger redevelopment project. Parcels A will remain zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and Parcel B will also be zoned R-1, until such time that the parcel is redeveloped and rezoned to an appropriate classification. 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 2 Park Dedication Requirements Every subdivision of land is subject to park dedication requirements, however, because this minor subdivision, in and of itself, will not cause a more intense development and because the future redevelopment of the land, including Parcel B, will be subject to a park dedication fee, Staff is recommending that the fee be waived on this subdivision, but be imposed on the larger redevelopment project. The redevelopment project, if approved, will be creating a more intense development than what currently exists and therefore, it would be more appropriate to charge the fee at that time. The park dedication fee is decided upon by the City Council and they could determine that the fee should be charged as this time. Easements With every subdivision of land, the City requires that drainage and utility easements be dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. The Certificate of Survey provided by the applicants does indicate the presence of proposed perimeter easements on Parcel A. The easements for Parcel B will be dedicated if and when the redevelopment project occurs. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission approve Resolution 795-05, a resolution recommending approval of a minor subdivision of 8060 Groveland Road, with conditions. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Certificate of Survey 5. Resolution 795-05 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 3 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 4 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 5 Zoning Map 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 6 Photographic Documentation 8060 Groveland Road Backyard of 8060 Groveland Road 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 7 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 8 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 795-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8060 GROVELAND ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI05-003 WHEREAS, applicant Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, has requested approval of a minor subdivision of 8060 Groveland Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally-described as follows: South 135 Feet of Lot 47, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89 Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to subdivide the east 187.02 feet from the west 271.1 feet of the subject property; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey for the proposed minor subdivision indicating the new lot as Parcel A and the remainder lot as Parcel B; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant’s request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant’s request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 8060 Groveland Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicants shall arrange to have a Title Commitment drafted and submitted prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council. 2. The applicant shall arrange to record new property deeds with Ramsey County within 60 days of Council approval and provide the City with proof of recordation. Failure to do shall cause the approval to become null and void. 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 9 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 20th day of April, 2005. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL)