Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-2003 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION August 20, 2003 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: July 2, 2003 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Planning Case VR03-006 Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 735-03 Approving a Variance to Allow an Increase in Wall Signage Location: 2214 - 2222 Highway 10 Applicant: Mounds View Businesses, LLC 6. Planning Case VR03-007 – THIS ITEM REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow Two Curb Cut Accesses Location: 3001 County Road H2 Applicant: ACT Asphalt Specialties (on behalf of Owner Rory LaBelle) 7. Special Planning Case SP-118-03 Consider Changes to the PF Zoning District to Correct Zoning Inconsistencies 8. Special Planning Case SP-114-03 Discuss and Consider Ordinances Relating to the Zoning and Regulation of Pawnshops in the City of Mounds View 9. Review Possible Amendments to the Zoning Code APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 10. Next Planning Commission Meeting: September 3, 2003 11. Adjournment to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: July 16, 2003 2. Staff Reports: 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports N:\Data\Groups\Comdev\Planning Commission\PC Agendas\2003\08-20-03 PC Agenda.doc Item No: 5 Meeting Date: August 20, 2003 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Increased Sign Area at 2214-2222 County Highway 10; Planning Case VR03-006 Introduction: John Kopas of Abbey Carpet has requested a variance to allow increased sign area at the newly constructed building located at 2214-2222 County Highway 10. For reference purposes, this is the building just north of the Mermaid in the same location as the former Perkins Restaurant. Mr. Kopas plans to have his business open at the site by September 1, 2003 while the 3 Seasons and 4 Sunrooms business has already opened. (Refer to the photos on Page 8.) Signage for 3 Seasons and 4 has already been installed to the front of the building however they would like to add signage to the south building elevation. Mr. Kopas would like to add signage to the north elevation in addition to the signage proposed to the front of the building facing County Highway 10. Discussion: The Sign Code alls for building mounted signage not to exceed 100 square feet per building occupant. In most cases, 100 square feet is adequate, especially for the businesses located at either Moundsview Square of Silver View Plaza. Issues have arisen regarding end spaces at either mall and for stand-alone buildings with multiple frontages. The Abbey Carpet building, referred to as the Highway 10 Business Center, has three frontages with County Highway 10 visibility. Our Code makes no exceptions for multiple building elevations, thus limiting each end user to 100 square feet. Mr. Kopas will be installing a 96 square foot sign above his entrance on the front of the building, which will appear as shown in Figure 1 at right. Kopas Variance Report August 20, 2003 Page 2 On the north elevation of the building, Mr. Kopas would like to install his existing signage from the New Brighton location. The area of that sign, as shown below in Figure 2, is 50 square feet. As already indicated, signage has been installed for 3 Seasons and 4 Sunrooms on the front elevation. They propose adding signage to the south building elevation in an amount not to exceed that proposed by Mr. Kopas—50 square feet. The graphic below shows additional signage of the word “SUNROOMS” to the south elevation. Similar Requests: Budget Liquor and Mario’s Video were both granted variances for additional signage at Moundsview Square. (Both leased space at either end of the center.) Carmike Wynnsong Cinema also received approval for signage in excess of 100 square feet. The Mermaid, through its PUD, was allowed signage in excess of the City’s requirements. Kopas Variance Report August 20, 2003 Page 3 Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. A variance for additional signage is unique among the spectrum of possible variances in that the Sign Code is not a part of the Zoning Code; rather it is a chapter within the building code. The building code however indicates that any requested deviations be handled as would a deviation from the Zoning Code. The property is zoned B-3, Highway Business Commercial. Exterior building mounted signage is limited to 100 square feet per building occupant in this and all other commercial districts, regardless of the building mass—its height and length. Some sign codes from other municipalities allow for greater sign area for multiple building fronts while others allow more based on wall area. Mounds View’s code simply limits each building occupant to 100 square feet. There does not appear to be any apparent exceptional or extraordinary circumstances involving this property or the request other than the bulk of the adjoining uses (the Mermaid and the Business Park) which may hinder and or obscure visibility to the subject location. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not necessarily deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, however denying the request would put the occupants in an unfavorable position based upon the City’s past practice of approving reasonable signage variances, especially for business with multiple building frontages. 3. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. Kopas Variance Report August 20, 2003 Page 4 4. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and viability of their business. Neither would such approval confer a special treatment as similar reasonable variances have been granted in the past. 5. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Mr. Kopas has existing signage at his New Brighton location which he would like to have installed on the north elevation. The area of this signage is 50 square feet. The area of the “Sunrooms” sign on the south elevation is less than 50 square feet. Allowing for an additional 50 feet at both building ends would be the minimum necessary to provide suitable visibility. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting a variance to allow the additional 100 square feet of building mounted signage for the corner businesses would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the building code. There have been no objections raised up to this point from any of the adjoining property owners. Given the building’s size, the additional signage would not appear excessive. 7. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The requested variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Summary: All of the criteria, as indicated above, appear to be satisfied which would allow for the granting of the variance. Kopas Variance Report August 20, 2003 Page 5 Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and affected property owners, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 735-03 is attached for the Commission’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should move to direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of the 60-day rule, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible however to avoid an inadvertent approval. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Location Map 3. Planning Application 4. Photographic Documentation Zoning Map Site Plan Shaded area represents proposed expansion 6-foot expansion necessitating the variance request Business Park Mermaid Business Park Kopas Variance Report August 20, 2003 Page 8 Photographic Documentation: Photograph of the building’s north- east elevation Area of proposed additional signage Photograph of the building’s south elevation MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 735-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR 100 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR BUILDING SIGNAGE AT 2214-2222 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. VR03-006 WHEREAS, the applicant, John Kopas, has applied for a variance from the maximum wall-mounted signage allotments for the building located at 2214-2222 County Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, Section 1008.09 of the Sign Code indicates that the maximum wall- mounted signage for a commercial building is 100 square feet per business occupant; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Kopas requests an additional 50 square feet per corner business occupant—Abbey Carpet and 3 Seasons and 4 Sunrooms; and, WHEREAS, Section 1008.16 of the Sign Code indicates that variance requests be treated as any other variance request as articulated in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The building at 2214-2222 County Highway 10 is in need of additional exterior wall-mounted signage on the north and south building elevations to provide enhanced visibility adjacent to larger developments which may obscure the subject property. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in that the City has approved similar variances in the past for reasonable sign variance requests. 3. The special conditions or circumstances necessitating the variance request do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and viability of their business. Neither would such approval confer a special treatment as similar reasonable variances have been granted in the past. Resolution 735-03 Page 2 5. Allowing for an additional 50 feet at both building ends would be the minimum variance necessary to provide suitable visibility and alleviate the hardship. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Municipal Code or to other property in the commercial zoning districts. 7. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby approve the variance requested for an additional 50 feet of signage at the north and south end of the building located at 2214-2222 County Highway 10. Adopted this 20th day of August 2003. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6 Meeting Date: August 20, 2003 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow Two Curb Cuts at 3001 County Road H2; Planning Case VR03-007 Discussion: A Public Hearing was scheduled for this variance request, however subsequent to the publication, it was determined that a variance was not needed for the two curb cuts. The Code states that curb cuts not in compliance with the code may be allowed to remain so long as they are not deemed a public hazard. Site inspections reveal no apparent hazard or danger associated with the two curb cuts, both of which access Spring Lake Road. (Neither curb cut access County Road H2.) Visibility and spacing on Spring Lake Road is sufficient. The Planning Application has been voided and the fee refunded to the applicant. James Ericson Community Development Director Site Plan Item No: 7 Meeting Date: August 20, 2003 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Discussion and Consideration of Rezoning Actions Associated with the Public Facilities Zoning Districts. Special Planning Case SP-118-03 Introduction: On July 14, 2003, the City Attorney addressed the City Council regarding the Mounds View’s PF Zoning District and recommended that the City strongly consider revising the district‘s purpose and to rezone some or all properties within the PF district to another district more logically suited. The City Attorney’s letter, dated July 14, 2003, a copy of my correspondence to the City Council and Chapter 1118 of the Mounds View Zoning Code are attached for your review. Also included for your reference is a copy of the City’s “Facility Guide.” The City Council, responding to the City Attorney’s report, directed staff to bring this issue to the Planning Commission for review and it requested that the Commission draft a proposed ordinance for the Council’s consideration. Discussion: The City Attorney highlights the recent Supreme Court decision relating to the Eller Media ‘s (now doing business as Clear Channel Outdoor) request for billboards from MnDOT. The Supreme Court’s ruling called into question the City’s zoning practices as it relates to the PF district, in that the only parcels in the district are municipally-owned while other similar uses are zoned differently. Zoning based on ownership rather than based on the nature of the use is inconsistent with conventional and practical zoning concepts. The following represents a full list of the uses that are present within the City’s PF district: 1. City parks: (Groveland, Lambert, Random, Hillview, Ardan, Greenfield, Oakwood, Silverview , Lakeside Beach and Woodcrest parks) 2. Wells & Pump houses 3. City Hall 4. Water Treatment Plant 5. Water Tower 6. The Bridges Golf Course 7. Community Center Two maps are attached to this report. The first map represents all PF zoned parcels shaded in dark blue. The second map represents the proposed rezoning of each of the PF parcels to one of three districts: Single family residential, industrial or regional commercial. Recommendation: Examine the documentation provided and discuss the City Attorney’s recommendation to rezone the parcels within the PF (Public Facilities) Zoning District. A draft ordinance will be made available the night of your meeting for your consideration. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Staff Report to Council, July 28, 2003 2. City Attorney Letter, July 14, 2003 3. Chapter 1118 of the Mounds View Zoning Code 4. Map of the PF Zoned Parcels in the City of Mounds View 5. Map of Proposed Rezoned PF parcels 6. Facilities Guide Map (Park Reference Map) Facilities Guide Map Item No: 8 Meeting Date: August 20, 2003 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Discuss Modifications to Proposed Ordinance 711, an Ordinance Relating to the Zoning of Pawnshops Introduction: The City Council adopted an Interim ordinance on February 27, 2003, which directed the Planning Commission to review the licensing and zoning implications related to pawnshops and to recommend applicable provisions. The Planning Commission discussed this issue at meetings in March, April and May of this year, reviewing State statues, ordinances from adjoining communities and ordinances from communities where pawnshops currently operate. The Commission also heard testimony from representatives of the Mounds View Police Department who did research on their own, discussing the potential impacts of a pawnshop with other police departments. After significant discussion and input from interested parties including residents and tenants from Moundsview Square, the Commission adopted a resolution forwarding two ordinances on to the City Council for their consideration. The City Council deliberated on the pawnshop zoning and licensing matters before sending the zoning component back to the Commission for additional study to consider (1) an overlay district and (2) potential additional uses to include within the overlay. Discussion: The Planning Commission discussed the two issues at length and from that discussion, many questions were raised concerning the legalities of an overlay district. The questions were generally as follows: 1. Is there a minimum amount of land that the City can identify as an overlay district without being unreasonably restrictive? 2. Would the City be at "risk" if the overlay district encompassed ONLY unavailable property? (the golf course for example?) 3. Which other cities (if any) currently have a pawn overlay? 4. Some cities explicitly limit the number of pawnshops that can be sited in the City while other communities ban them outright. Is either practice legally permissible? 5. What are the legal ramifications (outside of the scope of strict land use considerations) of identifying multiple “unwanted” land uses within one overlay? 6. While there is some element of legal risk in everything a city does, is the City at greater risk if it creates a "red light” district, especially if opposed by the property owners? Pawnshop Report August 20, 2003 Page 2 Legal Responses: 1. Is there a minimum amount to set aside? No, however the City must be reasonable. 2. Can overlay contain only unavailable land? No. “It would not be advisable for the City to set up an overlay district containing only unavailable land in order to limit or effectively prohibit these kinds of businesses. Such action could be deemed arbitrary and capricious. “ 3. Which other cities have an overlay? Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale are two such cities. 4. Can a city limit or ban pawnshops altogether? Probably not. Absent specific supporting facts and reasons, pawnshops should be treated in a manner similar to other commercial uses. “An outright ban on pawnshops would not survive a [legal] challenge.” 5. What are the ramifications of creating an overlay with multiple “unwanted” land uses? Landowners would probably argue that the creation of a “red light” overlay is simply irrational-- that is, that such a district does not promote the public welfare and is a bad idea. 6. Is the City at greater risk if it creates a "red light” district ? The creation of such a district would likely be met with opposition from landowners in and around such district. Obviously, City action that generates real opposition is more likely to result in litigation than less controversial action. Therefore, yes, creating such a district would likely increase the risk of litigation. Next Step: The City Council has asked the Commission to comment on the overlay issue as to which of the two proposed areas would be more appropriate and which properties should be included in the overlay. Also, the Council would like a response regarding the proposal to include multiple “unwanted” land uses within the overlay. The Commission should address these two issues in light of the legal opinions offered and prepare a response (in the form of a resolution) to the City Council. To assist the Commission with the potential overlay boundaries, I have revised the original overlay maps to reflect a smaller overlay area with fewer parcels. The Commission will need to determine if the area and parcel availability would satisfy the “reasonableness” test. Recommendation: Review the revised overlay map and direct staff to draft a response to the City Council. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator EXHIBIT A. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Bob Vose FROM: Mary Tietjen DATE: August 6, 2003 RE: Mounds View Pawnshop Overlay District This is in response to Mr. Ericson’s email regarding the creation of a pawnshop overlay district. Minn. Stat. § 325J, the state statute governing pawnbrokers, allows a city to regulate the business transactions of pawnbrokers. The only provision in the statute relating to the location of pawnshops is Section 325J.10 which provides that a pawnshop may not be located within 10 miles of a gambling casino and that any pawnshop lawfully operating as of April 2, 1996 does not have to relocate or close. The zoning and regulation of pawnshops involves different issues than apply to adult uses. There are no first amendment/free speech issues that would affect the city’s ability to create an overlay district for pawnshops. In other words, there is no requirement that a city provide a “reasonable opportunity” for pawnshops in the same manner that it must do for adult uses. Moreover, I cannot find any authority that either requires the City to set aside a minimum amount of land for a pawnshop overlay district, or prevents the City from limiting the number of pawnshops or prohibiting them altogether. However, as with any zoning or land-use decision, a decision to limit or ban pawnshops would need to be supported by reasons and an adequate factual basis. A ban or significant limitation on pawnshops may be difficult to justify unless the City could demonstrate a factual basis (such as detrimental impact on the community) to treat pawnshops differently than other commercial enterprises. Particularly, the establishment of a pawnshop overlay district must have some rational basis. See, e.g., Billy Graham Evangelistic Assoc. v. City of Minneapolis, 653 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (city’s designation of historic-district designation will be overturned only when it is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious). It would not be advisable for the City to set up an overlay district containing only unavailable land in order to limit or effectively prohibit these kinds of businesses. Such action could be deemed arbitrary and capricious. See id. (zoning decision is arbitrary when it is based on whim or is devoid of articulated reasons). Memo to Bob Vose August 6, 2003 Page 2 I reviewed several other city codes. Robbinsdale has a “B4p overlay district” that includes this type of use. I looked at the Hopkins code-- which was mentioned by Mr. Ericson -- and note that no license can be issued at a location that is less than 1,000 feet from any adult business, or a location that is less than 350 feet from any off-sale liquor businesses. I could not pull up Hopkins’ zoning ordinance on-line, so I do not know whether they have a special overlay district. Brooklyn Center also has an overlay district. Conclusion I believe that the City can regulate pawnshop locations, but any regulations should be reasonable and, absent specific supporting facts and reasons, should treat pawnshops in a manner similar to other commercial uses. More restrictive pawnshop requirements must have a rational basis and be supported with adequate factual findings. EXHIBIT B. Proposed Overlay Districts (Original) Overlay 1: North of Highway 10 Overlay 2 Overlay 1 OOverlay 2: Mustang Drive / Mustang Circle EXHIBIT C. Proposed Overlay Districts (Revised) Overlay 1: North of Highway 10 Overlay 2: Mustang Drive / Mustang Circle Overlay Dist. #1: Parcels: 3 Total Area: 9.2 acres Overlay Dist. #2: Parcels: 3 Total Area: 16.3 acres Item No: 9 Meeting Date: August 20, 2003 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review Council Priorities Regarding Possible Code Amendments Background: Through a series of goal-setting sessions and meetings to review priorities, the City Council identified possible amendments to the City Code, which are being presented to the Planning Commission for comment and possible action. The possible amendments are as follows: 1. Amend the City Code to increase the minimum square footage requirements for a single-family home. 2. Amend the City Code to support and encourage life-cycle housing and upper-end condominiums. 3. Amend the City Code to restrict or prohibit fast-food drive-throughs. 4. Amend Zoning Code with regard to permitted uses Discussion: The first proposed amendment is fairly straightforward—increase the minimum floor areas for new homes. Currently a one–story home is required to have at least 960 square feet of first floor area. A two-story home would need a minimum first floor area of 780 square feet. These areas do not include basements or upper stories. Should the area requirements be increased to prohibit smaller homes? The second proposed amendment is much more involved, in that there are a multitude of options that could be employed to encourage the development of life-cycle housing and upper-end condominiums. One option that was recently adopted was to eliminate the CUP requirement from townhomes. Other options might include density bonuses, fee reductions, local tax rebates, etc. Another idea would be to allow detached townhomes (single family detached dwellings with minimal setbacks on individually platted lots surrounded by common areas.) The third proposed amendment is to prohibit or restrict fast food drive-thrus. This could be done by requiring a CUP for drive-thrus so that the Commission and Council would have an opportunity to review the concept prior to allowing the development. While an outright ban is possible, I’m not sure that course of action would be advisable. Possible Code Amendments August 20, 2003 Page 2. The last proposed amendment concerns the structure of the Zoning Code and how permitted uses are identified. (Attached to this report is Chapter 1113 of the Zoning Code relating to the B-2, Limited Business district which exemplifies the City’s unwieldy zoning scheme.) In each district, uses are explicitly identified. If the use is not listed, it’s not allowed. While there is some benefit to having articulated lists of uses, the problems tend to outweigh the benefits. The difficulty magnifies with each passing year as new uses and technologies enter the commercial marketplace while outdated and outmoded uses fall by the wayside. Recommendation: Discuss the four identified possible code amendments and direct staff accordingly. James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Chapter 1113, B-2 Limited Business Zoning District 1113.01 1113.02 (Rev. 7/99) CHAPTER 1113 B-2, LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION: 1113.01: Purpose 1113.02: Permitted Uses 1113.03: Accessory Uses 1113.04: Conditional Uses 1113.01: PURPOSE: The purpose of the B-2, Limited Business District is to provide for low intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this District are to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts. (1988 Code §40.17) 1113.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-2 District: Subd. 1. Service Oriented Businesses: Service oriented businesses which serve the Mounds View community: Bank, savings and loan, savings credit unions and other financial institutions. Commercial (leased and professional offices). Copy service but not including printing press or newspaper. Dry cleaning pick-up and laundry pick-up stations, including incidental repair and assembly but not including processing. Educational or instructional facilities. (Ord. 632, 7-26-99) Employment agencies. Finance companies. Health and beauty services. Insurance sales, claims and branch offices. Locksmith. Medical and dental offices and clinics. Public utility collection offices. 1113.02 1113.02 (Rev. 5/96) Real estate sales. Shoe repair. Travel bureaus, transportation ticket offices. Subd. 2. Retail: Limited retail uses which have, as the principle use, sales with warehousing or display secondary to that use. Adult establishment as defined and regulated in Chapter 513 of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 574, 5-13-96) All permitted uses as allowed in the B-1 Neighborhood Business Districts. Antique shop. Art and school supplies. Bakery goods and baking of goods for retail sales on the premises. Bicycle sales and repair. Books or stationery stores. Camera and photographic supplies. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts and soft drinks. Coin and philatelic stores. Costume, clothes rental. Delicatessen. Drugstore. Fabric store. Florist shop. Frozen food store but not including a locker plant. Furniture showroom without warehousing. Furriers when conducted only for retail trade on premises. Gift or novelty store. Hardware store. 1113.02 1113.02 (Rev. 9/00) Hobby store, including handicraft classes but not to exceed fifteen (15) students. Ice sales with storage not to exceed five (5) tons. Jewelry stores and watch repair. Leather goods and luggage stores. Liquor, off-sale. Meat market but not including processing for a locker plant. Office supplies and equipment. Plumbing, television, radio, electrical sales and such repair as are accessory use to the retail establishments permitted within this District. Record/music shops. Rugs, carpet, tile, paint and wallpaper sales. Shoe stores. Small appliance sales and service. Sporting goods store. Tailor shops. Toy stores. Video rental, sales and service. Wearing apparel. (Ord. 452, 2-27-89; Ord. 487, 6-25-90) Subd. 3. Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting or Body Scarring Establishments, provided that: a. Any such establishment shall be separated by no less than one thousand feet (1,000') from any other such establishment located within the City of Mounds View, as measured from the property lines of the property upon which the uses are located. b. The minimum floor space for such use shall be two hundred fifty (250) square feet. c. The establishment and operators shall be licensed and be in compliance with Chapter 515 of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 663, 9-11-00) 1113.03 1113.04 1113.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-2 District: All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a B-1 District. (1988 Code §40.17) 1113.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a B-2 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community; provided, that: a. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained, and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. b. Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure with no outside storage. c. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in accordance with subdivisions 1103.08(l) through (5) of this Title. d. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Subd. 2. Commercial planned unit development as required by Chapter 1120 of this Title. Subd. 3. Solar energy and wind generator systems and solar and wind generator structures1. (1988 Code §40.17) Subd. 4. Veterinary clinics, animal clinics, and animal boarding facilities; provided, that: (Ord. 685, 8-27-01) a. Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter 6 of this Municipal Code, Nuisances. b. A mechanical ventilation or exhaust system shall be installed to control, capture and remove emissions or odors generated by such use. Such systems shall be separate from other ventilation systems in the building. Such system shall be designed to prevent the migration of emissions or odors to other parts of the building. Installation must comply with Minnesota Building Code Mechanical Systems, Chapter 1345 2. (Ord. 441, 5-23-88; Ord. 685, 8-27-01) 1 See Sections 1103.04 and 1103.05 of this Title. 2 See Section 1001.01 of this Code for adoption of State Building Code; see M.S.A. §16B.59 for State Building Code. 1113.04 1113.04 (Rev. 8/01) c. All animal boarding activities shall be conducted indoors, except for necessary outdoor exercise. At no time shall any animal be left unsupervised while outdoors. (Ord. 685, 8-27-01) d. Outdoor exercise shall be conducted so as not to unreasonably annoy, injure or endanger the health, safety, comfort, or welfare of the public. (Ord. 685, 8-27-01) e. All animal boarding facilities shall comply with the Nuisance Codes established for the City of Mounds View. (Ord. 685, 8-27-01) f. All animal boarding facilities shall comply with the Minnesota Pet and Companion Animal Welfare Act (Minnesota Statutes, 346.35 – 346.44). (Ord. 685, 8-27-01) Subd. 5. Pet stores; provided, that: a. Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter 604 of this Municipal Code, Nuisances. b. The boarding of animals is prohibited, except for the purposes of retail sales. c. A mechanical ventilation or exhaust system shall be installed to control, capture and remove emissions or odors generated by such use. Such systems shall be separate from the other ventilation systems in the building. Such system shall be designed to prevent the migration of emissions or odors to other parts of the building. Installation must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code Mechanical Systems, Chapter 1345. (Ord. 448, 9-26-88) Subd. 6. Wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1124 of the Zoning Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 7. Day care center, group nursery; provided that: (Ord. 595, 4-14-97) a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97) b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). (Ord. 595, 4-14- 97) c. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) d. Not less than forty (40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions as specified by the City Council. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97) 1113.04 1113.04 (Rev. 8/01) e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97) f. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97) g. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97) h. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97) i. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision 1e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) j. The distance between any outdoor play yard for a day care center or group nursery and the Highway 10 right-of-way line shall be a minimum of two hundred feet (200'), except as provided in Section 1123.02, subdivision 1c. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97) k. No day care center or group nursery shall be permitted where the distance from the property line for the day care center or group nursery to a premise requiring a liquor license, as provided in Section 502 of the Municipal Code, or a license for an adult establishment, as provided in Section 513 of the Municipal Code, if five hundred feet (500') or less, except that the five hundred (500) foot requirement shall not apply to any liquor establishment receiving at least sixty percent (60%) of its annual gross sales revenue from the sale of food. (Ord. 595, 4-14-97) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 16, 2003 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., July 16, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Scotch, Hegland, Song, Zwirn, and Johnson Members Absent: Miller (excused) Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case VR03-005 Location: 2229 County Road H2 Planning Case MI03-002 Location: 8430 Knollwood Drive Special Planning Case SP-114-03 Discuss Proposed Modifications to Proposed Ordinance 711, Pawnshops _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. June 18, 2003 MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Zwirn. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for June 18, 2003 as Presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Consideration of Resolution No. 733-03 Approving a Variance to Allow a Reduced Front Yard Setback to Construct an Addition. VR03-005 Community Development Director Ericson explained the applicant’s request and indicated that the homes in the area are all setback at 50 feet from the property line and are 75 feet from the street. He then indicated that he had included the letter from the applicant explaining her request and addressing the issue of hardship in this case. Director Ericson indicated that Staff reviewed the criteria and feels that sufficient hardship exists to meet the requirements and recommends approval. He then indicated that this matter was set for public hearing and there are residents in attendance for the issue. He further commented that the Planning Commission would need to determine whether it feels that the hardship requirements are met and, if so, can act on Resolution 733-03 approving the variance. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether 2191, 2185, and 2295 are set back at the 50 feet because it seems the lots are shorter there. Director Ericson indicated that he had not measured all the properties on the block but it appeared that all were at the same distance from the street. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Joan Bosard addressed the Commission and indicated that the street is at an angle to the properties and she does not think that those houses are as far back. She then said that the two- story house to the right of hers has a porch that sticks out six feet from the house. Director Ericson handed out copies of the plans for the expansion of the home for review. Christy Moore of 2234 Lambert said she feels this is a good plan to improve the property and the tax base for the City and she would hope that the Commission would approve this improvement. She then commented that she will want to expand her small home in the future and would be faced with a similar set back issue and would look to the Commission for support of a variance in the future. Commissioner Johnson asked why the City’s Code is so strict on this and said that all new developments stagger the houses rather than setting them all back at the same distance. Director Ericson indicated that the City’s Code was drafted back when it was the norm to set all the houses back the exact distance. Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Johnson indicated he would like to know if other cities are still doing this and said he thinks the City gets better housing stock out of not doing it. Director Ericson indicated that often times there are constraints with setbacks when expanding existing housing so the City may want to look at the Code to encourage reinvestment in its residential housing stock. He then indicated that once the City has a planning associate on board the City could poll neighboring communities for how they handle this type of issue. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 733-03, a Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow a Reduced Front Yard Setback to Construct an Addition. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Consideration of Resolution 734-03 Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision. MI03-002. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that this case is a request for a minor subdivision and noted that the applicants own the property at 8430 Knollwood Drive and would like to subdivide it to create one additional lot. Director Ericson indicated that the lot to be created and the remaining lot are large enough to meet the City’s Code requirements and he feels that a nice house could be built on the new lot as it is a very nicely wooded lot. He then said that there are no issues that would not warrant approving the minor subdivision and Staff is waiting for a 2003 value for the property before determining the required park dedication fee. Director Ericson indicated that Staff is waiting for the RLS or Certificate of Survey to be submitted for review by the City Attorney before this item would be brought before Council for final approval. Director Ericson reviewed the stipulations for approval listed in the Resolution. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Song. To Approve Resolution 734-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Discuss Proposed Modifications to Proposed Ordinance 711, an Ordinance Relating to the Zoning of Pawnshops. Special Planning Case SP-114-03 Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the City Council had asked that the Planning Commission discuss the issue of overlay zoning for the pawnshop and other adult oriented businesses. He then pointed out on the map the two proposed areas for the overlay district. Director Ericson asked for input as to which overlay location the Commission would prefer and what types of uses the Commission felt would be appropriately located in such an overlay district. Commissioner Johnson indicated that he did not like the second option because it is too close to too many residents. Director Ericson indicated that a lot of people have expressed a preference for option one because it is separated from any residential, churches schools, daycares and separated from the heart of the City. Director Ericson indicated that the City would have to notify the City of Blaine as they may have some comment as it is adjacent to them and the same would be true for New Brighton if the other district were selected. Commissioner Hegland said he is concerned that such a large area is being designated for the overlay district because even though right now there may not be many places to locate within that overlay district future uses of that property is unknown to the City and it opens the City up to allowing more of these types of uses because there would be room available. Director Ericson indicated the reason Council suggested a large area is to minimize legal risk for the City because creating a very small district within which it would be impossible to locate could open the City up to a legal challenge. Commissioner Hegland suggested that the area could be smaller because Mounds View is a small City overall and there should be some consideration for that in figuring the size for the district. He then said that he would like to do further research into the requirements and issues surrounding the creation of an overlay district before he is prepared to vote on it. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that he agreed with Commissioner Johnson with regard to option one because it is away from residential areas. He also noted that option two may interfere with New Brighton’s proposal to build residential and senior housing in the area. Chair Stevenson indicated he was not in favor of either one. Commissioner Scotch indicated she was not in favor of either one. She then said that she feels the proposed area is too large. Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Johnson asked how other cities do this. Director Ericson indicated that most cities have it as part of their commercial district and only Hopkins has an overlay district. Commissioner Johnson questioned why there is not a pawnshop already in New Brighton if they are not doing something like this. Director Ericson indicated that some cities prohibit pawnshops but that is against the law and opens the City up to legal action. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like to know a little more about this overlay district before making a decision because it may not be any more defendable than the approach of simply not allowing a pawnshop. Director Ericson indicated that Staff could get an opinion from the City Attorney and pull case law but the problem is anything can be challenged and there is always a level of risk and no attorney would counsel as to the spectrum of risk. Commissioner Zwirn asked the status of the Mounds View Square pawnshop. Director Ericson indicated there has been no change as far as he has heard. He then said that the City has until September to come up with language for the Ordinance but could extend that another year if the City feels it needs more time to research the matter. James Nelson of 2242 Lambert indicated he came for the addition discussion but would like to speak on this matter as well. He then said that when you allow a pawnshop a certain type of business owner runs those and it seems they are of lower class and it starts a blight in the area and soon the whole thing looks run down and low class. He further asked the City to be very careful where the pawnshop is allowed to locate to prohibit this type of problem. Commissioner Song suggested raising the fees as high as possible to ensure that only those that intend to run a serious business and can afford to do so apply. Director Ericson indicated that Council has recommended that the license fee be elevated to $10,000 and that may be high enough to deter those that are not as serious or those that do not have the funds to run an above-board facility. Commissioner Hegland questioned why the attempt to govern where pawnshops are located has grown into other adult uses. Director Ericson indicated that was the direction from Council. Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated that back in 1996 the City went through a similar process for adult uses and that was included in the Staff report. He then said that seven years later the City has not had any requests for adult uses and that may be because of the strict licensing requirements and it may make it easier to locate here if the overlay district comes in. He further commented that he is concerned with what might happen if a red light district is created but perhaps others do not mind that. Chair Stevenson indicated he did not feel it made sense to lump in adult uses when those are already addressed in the Code. He then said he would like to leave that out and address where to zone or where an overlay district for a pawnshop should be located. Commissioner Johnson indicated the only way he would want to lump adult uses into the overlay district is if it made things more restrictive than the current Code. Director Ericson indicated that the owner of the proposed pawnshop is opposed to an overlay district but he has received no update from him on the pawnshop. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether there was a legal reason to tie the adult uses to the pawnshop discussion. Director Ericson indicated that a Council Member had asked that the Planning Commission consider adult uses that may not be acceptable to the average resident at the same time as the pawnshops are being discussed. Chair Stevenson commented that at one meeting the Commission restricted the space to allow a pawnshop to 4,000 square feet and now the City is talking about an area that is several acres. Commissioner Hegland indicated that the City could no longer limit it to one pawnshop with that large area. Director Ericson indicated that Mounds View Square is approximately seven acres and the both overlay districts are much larger. Director Ericson indicated he would draft a recommendation for the Council separating out adult uses from the pawnshop and take a second look at the proposed overlay district and scale it back to something that is reasonable but not overly permissible for how much space there is. He also said he would get feedback from the City Attorney. Commissioner Scotch said that she feels 4,000 square feet is too much and she would prefer to restrict it to 2000 or even 1000 square feet and not worry about the overlay districts. Director Ericson indicated that Council is opposed to the location in Mounds View Square regardless of the size so the Commission needs to determine an overlay location. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 6, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.