HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-02-03 PC
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
February 3, 2021 - 7:00 P.M.
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81016177566?pwd=Um83LzJ3VGJlb1ZROEVJT1JYVThJQT09
Passcode: 673205
Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +13017158592,,81016177566# or +13126266799,,81016177566#
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346
248 7799 or +1 669 900 9128 or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 833 548
0276 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0282 (Toll Free)
Webinar ID: 810 1617 7566
International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kctA2NOuMX
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Special Order of Business
A. (none
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address
for the record.)
5. Planning Cases
A. Resolution 1129-21, Recommending Approval of a Development Review of
Midwest Motor Express, 2169 Mustang Drive
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Annual Review of Planning Commission Bylaws
B. Discussion – Tulien v. City of Minneapolis (case law)
7. Reports
A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity
B. Staff Updates
C. Council Updates
D. Planning Commissioner Reports
8. Approval of Minutes: January 6, 2020
9. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. Wednesday, February 17, 2021
B. Wednesday, March 3, 2021
10. Meeting Conclusion
Item No: 5A
Meeting Date: Feb 3, 2021
Type of Business: Planning Case
Planning Case: DE2021-001
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Planning Commission
From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 1129-21, Recommending Approval of a Development
Review of Midwest Motor Express, 2169 Mustang Drive
Introduction:
Midwest Motor Express (MME) is requesting approval of a Development Review for a 9,000 sq
ft building addition and parking lot expansion, located at 2169 Mustang Drive.
Discussion:
MME is a regional “Less Than truck-Load” (LTL) freight operator serving the northwest quadrant
of the U.S. Freight arrives on partially filled semi-trailers, is unloaded inside the terminal, sorted,
and re-loaded. The Mounds View terminal was established in 1974, and has been expanded a
number of times by different owners. The property includes a freight terminal with offices, and a
repair shop with fuel pumps.
A Development Review is required for new primary buildings, and building expansions of 10,000
sq ft, or 10%, and compares plans to requirements in the City Code.1 The proposed addition to
the truck terminal (25 dock doors) will expand the buildings’ footprint from 23,841 sq ft, to
32,841 sq ft (9,000 sq ft addition, or 38%), and shift semi-trailer parking stalls north.
Planning Case History:
Resolution (none) Feb 25, 1974 Special Use Permit; Motor Freight Terminal, and Site Plan
Resolution 4640 Sep 26, 1994 Development Review; 3,500 sq ft building addition
Resolution 6857 Jun 26, 2006 Development Review; 10,500 sq ft building addition, and
CUP for a Motor Freight Terminal
Resolution 7202 Jan 14, 2008 Development Review; 4,840 sq ft building addition
Analysis:
Building Setbacks
Min Req Existing Proposed
Front (south) 40’ 85’ 85’
Side (west) 20’ 237’ 237’
Rear (north) 40’ 374’ 251’
Side (east) 20’ 156’ 156’
Parking Setbacks
Min Req Existing Proposed
Front (south) 40’ 40’ 40’
Side (west) 5’ 5’ 5’
Rear (north) 30’ 169’ 57’
Side (east) 5’ 4’(?) 5’
1 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1006.06 (Development Codes)
Item 05A
Page 2 of 12
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
Utility service No change. The City has a 30’ utility easement along the north
property line, which served a former water tower.
Surface water drainage The applicant has applied for permits from RCWD. A storm water
infiltration basin will be added in the NW corner of the property.
Streets, driveways No changes.
Trails None.
Parking
Req Existing Proposed
Passenger 51 42(?) 42(?)
ADA stalls 2 0 0
Loading 2 100+ 100+
No changes are proposed to the parking lot. This property is 8.15
acres in size, thus, has space to convert semi-truck parking into
passenger vehicle parking, if needed. Staff is recommending that
the passenger vehicle parking lots be re-striped, as a condition of
approval, including re-striping for two ADA stalls.
The building addition will push semi-trailer parking north (28 stalls
shown along north property line).
Screening and buffering MME is adjacent to Towns Edge Mobile Home Park. There is a 5’
high berm and treed buffer along MME’s north property line. Most
of these trees are located within the City’s 30’ easement, and
would be removed, if utility work is needed. During leaf-off, the
top of parked semi-trailers are viewable from the mobile home
park. There is a chain-link fence along the perimeter of the MME
property.
Staff is recommending that that the applicant be required to plant
two alternating rows of evergreen trees, 8’ in height, as screening
between the 30’ easement and the trailer parking area.
Landscaping
Type Qty Required Qty; Minus
15% (I-1 Dist)
Existing Proposed
addition
Over-story deciduous tree
(2.5” caliper)
1 per 2,000 sf bldg
foot print
16 13(?) +3
Coniferous tree
(6’ height)
1 per 2,000 sf bldg.
footprint, or 200’ site
perimeter (2,506’)
16 18(?) +8
Understory shrub
(24” pot)
1 per 300 sf bldg.
footprint, or 200’ site
perimeter (2,506’)
107 25 +0
Ornamental tree
(2” caliper)
1 per 2,000 sf bldg.
footprint, or 200’ site
perimeter (2,506’)
16 0 +12
Item 05A
Page 3 of 12
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
The proposed landscaping is deficient in understory shrubs, and
ornamental trees. If coniferous (evergreen) trees are added on
top of the berm, the additional trees and shrubs should be located
along Mustang Drive (front yard), outside of the project area.
Alternatively, these can be located around the storm water
infiltration basin, but no one will see them.
Lighting 2 No lighting is shown, but will be added. All exterior lighting must
be hooded or downcast. The maximum light glare is 0.4 foot
candles measured at residential property lines, and 1.0 foot
candles measured from the centerline of a street.
Exterior design & materials The building addition will match the existing building. The building
façade is dominated by garage doors.
Trash disposal No change. Existing dumpsters are not viewable from the street,
nor the mobile home park.
Construction timetable Mid-April 2021 – September, 1, 2021.
Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal:
Continue BR&E program, maximize utilization of development space and current list of available
sites, encourage land owners to maintain their properties, & consider residential redevelopment.
Financial Impact:
N/A
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following
options:
1. Approve Resolution 1129-21, Recommending Approval of a Development Review.
2. Recommend Denial of the Resolution, with Findings.
3. Table the Request, if additional information is needed before a Recommendation can be
made.
Application Accepted: Jan 14, 2021
60-Day deadline for Action: Mar 12, 2021
A Public Hearing is not required. Because of the proximity of the site to the Towns Edge Mobile
Home Park, a notice of the Planning Commission meeting was mailed to adjacent residential
neighbors.
Respectfully,
Jon Sevald, AICP
Community Development Director
2 Mounds View City Code, Section 1103.09 (Glare)
Item 05A
Page 4 of 12
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
ATTACHMENTS
Zoning Map
Aerial Photos
Site Photos
Resolution 1129-21
Application materials
Item 05A
Page 5 of 12
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
Zoning Map
Item 05A
Page 6 of 12
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
Aerial Photo
Item 05A
Page 7 of 12
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
SITE PHOTOS
2169 Mustang Drive. Panoramic view of front yard, looking north. Offices and truck terminal are in center. Mechanic’s shop is
to left (the second floor was formerly a bunkhouse, and currently used as offices) (Photo Jan 25, 2021)
2169 Mustang Drive. View of interior of truck terminal, looking south (photo Jan 25, 2021)
2169 Mustang Drive. View of NW corner of truck terminal, looking SE. Planned building expansion to extend rear of building,
72’ X 123' (photo Jan 25, 2021)
Item 05A
Page 8 of 12
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
2169 Mustang Drive. View of NW corner of truck terminal, looking NE. Berm (red arrow) can be seen behind the back row of
trailers (photo Jan 25, 2021)
2169 Mustang Drive. Panoramic view of parking expansion area from NE corner of proposed Stormwater infiltration basin,
looking east. The front half of the berm would be altered, and would be the north edge of the trailer parking area
21XX Dickins Lane (Towns Edge Mobile Home Park). View looking south towards MME semi-trailer parking lot. Tops of semi-
trailers (red arrow) are seen above the berm (photo Jan 25, 2021).
Item 05A
Page 9 of 12
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOULTUION 1129-21
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR
MIDWEST MOTOR EXPRESS, 2169 MUSTANG DRIVE (Planning Case DE2021-001)
WHEREAS, the applicant; Tyler Johnson, Midwest Motor Express (MME), is
requesting approval of a Development Review for a 9,000 square foot building addition, and
parking lot addition, on property located at 2169 Mustang Drive, legally described as:
PID: 17-30-23-14-0007
The East 464.815 feet of Lot 3, Block 1,
Mounds View Industrial Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1006.06, Subd 2 (Application
of Development Controls) states that: [A]ll new construction and expansions of existing
construction shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the
City Council as conforming to this Section, except as follows:
c. Construction activity that increases the gross square footage of the principal building
by less than ten percent (10%), provided the area of expansion does not exceed ten
thousand (10,000) square feet.
WHEREAS, the proposed building addition is 9,000 square feet, expanding the primary
building from 23,841 sq ft, to 32,841 sq ft (38% addition), requiring a Development Review;
and,
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted plans including;
Survey, dated Nov 11, 2020
Site Plan, dated Jan 14, 2021
Landscape plan, dated Jan 14, 2021
Building Foundation, and Elevation plans, dated Jan 3, 2021
Such plans were distributed to applicable City Staff and agencies for review; and,
Item 05A
Page 10 of 12
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the
Applicant’s request for a Development Review, the Staff Report, and in consideration of public
testimony, makes the following Findings (italics):
1. The property is zoned I-1 Industrial. Motor Freight Terminals are a Conditional Use in
the I-1 district. The property received a Special Use Permit for a Motor Freight Terminal
in 1974 (no Resolution #), and a Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Freight Terminal in
2006 (Resolution 6857).
FINDINGS: The proposed building and parking lot expansion are consistent with
conditionally permitted uses in the I-1 zoning district, and are consistent with the 2006
Conditional Use Permit.
2. The property is guided “Heavy Industrial” in the Comprehensive Plan (2010), and
“Industrial” in the DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The application relates to the following in the current 2010 Comprehensive Plan:
General Land Use
Goal 1: Maintain a cohesive land use pattern that ensures compatibility and
functional relationships between activities and uses.
Policy h. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not
create a negative economic, social, or physical impact on adjoining
developments.
Policy k. Require and maintain buffering and visual separation between differing
land uses, when possible.
FINDINGS: The transition between land uses (from mobile home park to truck
terminal) will be 57’ of green space, including two offset rows of
evergreen trees, a minimum of 8’ in height at planting, for the purposes of
screening residents’ views of semi-trailers.
Industrial
Goal 1: Consider new industrial development in order to provide a broad tax base
and an expanded employment base in the city.
Policy b. Cooperate with industrial developers and property owners to ensure that
industrial land uses are an asset to the City and that such uses meet city
standards.
Policy c. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential land uses by industrial
land uses.
Goal 2: The City will ensure that industrial development is compatible with
adjacent land uses and that any such projects preserve desirable
environmental features and natural amenities.
Policy a. Industrial development must adequately provide for storm water drainage
and surface water management.
Policy b. The City will require buffering to protect adjacent and nearby residential
neighborhoods from industrial land uses.
Item 05A
Page 11 of 12
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
Policy c. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential land uses by industrial
land uses.
Policy e. Industrial uses shall be located on or near arterial streets as to provide easy
traffic access and to minimize traffic impacts on local streets.
FINDINGS: The proposed building and parking lot expansion is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan (2010). The addition of evergreen trees along the
north berm will adequately (at maturity) screen neighboring residents’
view of parked semi-trailers. MME has adequate access onto Mustang
Drive (no changes to access). The applicant must comply with Rice Creek
Watershed District’s permitting requirements.
3. The Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1006.06, Subd 3 (Development Plan)
prescribes those items to be reviewed.
FINDINGS: Applicable items relating to the proposed building and parking lot addition
have been reviewed, and found to be consistent with requirements of the City Code, with
the Conditions of Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission,
based upon the above Findings, the Staff Report, and in consideration of public testimony,
hereby recommends Approval of the Development Review, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall install two off-set rows of evergreen trees, 8’ in height, along the
north property line, and outside of the 30’ drainage & utility easement.
2. Prior to the February 22, 2021 City Council meeting, the applicant shall revise the
Landscape Plan, to include ornamental trees and shrubs to be located in the front yard.
The minimum number and size shall meet the minimum standards of the Zoning Code.
3. The applicant shall submit a Landscape Escrow of $______, equal to 150% of the
estimated cost of materials and labor for landscaping, prior to the City issuing a building
permit. The City will inspect landscaping on or about one-year after installation. If
100% of landscaping is found to have survived, 100% of the escrow will be refunded. If
landscaping is found to be dead or dying, the applicant will replace, and the City will
retain a proportionate amount of the escrow, to be inspected one year after re-installation,
and the remaining escrow refunded.
4. The applicant shall submit a photo metric plan with the building permit application, to be
compliant with the City Code’s standards for light glare.
5. The applicant shall re-stripe the parking lots (passenger vehicles) near the office and
mechanic’s building, and comply with ADA parking standards.
6. The applicant shall obtain permits from Rice Creek Watershed District, (RCWD) and
comply with all RCWD’s requirements.
Item 05A
Page 12 of 12
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Mounds View
Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to
approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 3rd day of February, 2021
Gary Rundle, Chair
Attest:
Jon Sevald, Community Development Director
Item No: 06A
Meeting Date: Feb 3, 2021
Type of Business: Other
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Annual Review of Planning Commission Bylaws
Introduction
The Planning & Zoning Commission Bylaws establish the rules for the Planning Commission.
Section II(B) requires that the Bylaws be reviewed annually at the Commission’s first meeting in
February.
Discussion
The Bylaws were last amended on February 5, 2020. Staff is not proposing any changes to the
Bylaws at this time.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission is requested to review the Bylaws. If changes are needed, Staff will
prepare a report and resolution for a future Commission meeting.
Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal
N/A
Financial Impact
N/A
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Jon Sevald, AICP
Community Development Director
Attachments
Planning & Zoning Commission Bylaws
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS
(Revised February 5, 2020)
I. AUTHORITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission
(Bylaws) are established in accordance with the Mounds View Municipal Code
Section 401.06. Subd. 7 “The Commission shall adopt bylaws for its governance and
for the transaction of its business.” Where there is a conflict between the provisions
of the Bylaws and the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code, the
provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code shall govern. (For purposes of
simplicity, the Planning and Zoning Commission may hereinafter be referred to as the
Planning Commission or the Commission.)
II. ADOPTION OF BYLAWS; REVIEW AND AMENDMENT:
A. ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT: The Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution by
an affirmative vote of the majority of members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission appointed as voting members, and shall be placed on file with the
City Administrator and the Community Development Department. A copy of the
bylaws shall be forwarded to the City Council for its information. Any
amendments to the Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution in the same manner
as the original Bylaws.
B. ANNUAL REVIEW: The Bylaws shall be reviewed on an annual basis at the first
regular meeting of the Commission in February.
III. MEMBERSHIP AND VACANCIES. Vacancies on the Planning Commission shall be
filled in accordance with the Municipal Code, Sections 401.02 and 401.03.
IV. OFFICERS
A. OFFICERS NAMED: The officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of
a chairperson and vice-chairperson. The Commission may create and fill such
other offices from its members, as it may determine, to transact Commission
business. In addition, the City Administrator, or his or her designee, shall act as
the recording secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeting
minutes.
B. ELECTIONS; TERMS
1. Chairperson: At the first meeting in January, the Commission shall conduct
an election in order to make its recommendation for the chairperson,
following the procedure in Section IV.B.3. The name of the person
recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council for
action at its next meeting in January. Based upon the recommendation of
2
the Planning Commission, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council,
shall appoint the chairperson of the Commission each year.
2. Vice-Chairperson: The Planning Commission shall elect a vice-chairperson
each year at its first meeting in January, following the procedure in Section
IV.B.3.
3. Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson shall invite nominations
from Planning Commission members. After nominations have been
received, the chairperson shall entertain a motion to close nominations. If
such motion is made and passed, and more than one nomination has been
made, the chairperson shall distribute ballots to the Commission members
and each member shall write his or her selection on the ballot. The
recording secretary shall tally the ballots and announce the nominee
receiving the most votes. In the event of a tie, the recording secretary shall
announce the nominees tied in the voting and balloting shall be repeated
until an election occurs. If only one nomination has been received, the
chairperson may conduct the voting by voice vote. If a majority of the
members present vote in the affirmative for the nominee, the nominee shall
be elected.
4. Assumption of Duties: The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall assume
office at the first meeting in February of each year.
5. Term of Office: The chairperson and vice chairperson shall serve one year
terms, and may be re-elected to additional terms in accordance with this
Section IV.B.
C. DUTIES OF OFFICERS: The chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the
Planning Commission, and shall have the authority to add or cancel regular
meetings and to call special meetings as provided in Section VI. The Chair
shall have the authority to redirect public comment unrelated to the
Commission’s business to the most appropriate City commission or to the City
Council. The vice chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson, in
the absence of the chairperson. In the event of the absence of both the
chairperson and vice-chairperson, those members present shall elect a
temporary chairperson to preside over the meeting.
V. COUNCIL LIAISON: The City Council may appoint from among its members a
Liaison to the Commission on an annual basis. It is expected that the Council Liaison
will attend the Commission meetings on a regular basis. In the event of the absence
of the Council Liaison at a Commission meeting, a Commission member may be
appointed by the chairperson to represent the Planning Commission at the next
regular City Council meeting or at the meeting where the City Council will be
considering the planning cases acted upon by the Planning Commission in the
absence of the Council Liaison.
VI. MEETINGS
A. TYPES OF MEETINGS; SCHEDULE: The annual meeting schedule of the
3
Commission shall be adopted by Resolution at the first regular meeting in
December for the following year.
1. Regular Meetings: Subject to the adopted meeting schedule, the
Commission’s regular meetings will occur on the first and third Wednesdays
of each month for the purpose of convening public hearings, making
recommendations to the City Council, conducting business which requires a
vote of the Commission, convening as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals,
conducting long-range planning functions and other official business.
2. Special Meetings: From time to time, special meetings may be called in
order to process significant caseloads, to review works in progress such as
comprehensive plan updates or municipal code revisions, or to undertake a
retreat or strategic planning session, either amongst itself or in the company
of the City Council or other commissions. Special meetings can be proposed
by any Commission member or at the request of the City Administrator, or
designated staff liaison, yet must be approved by a majority vote of the
Commission.
3. Emergency Special Meetings. Emergency special meetings can be called
via written notice to the City Administrator, or designated staff liaison, by the
Chairperson or two Commission members, or by the City Administrator, or
designated staff liaison. (Emergency special meetings are those in which
the subject matter is of such an immediate concern that it cannot be
delayed until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.) The
City Administrator, or designated staff liaison, shall post and mail a notice of
any special meeting in accordance with State Statutes. Planning
Commission members shall be notified by telephone and in writing, if
possible, at least seven days prior to a special meeting.
4. Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may be canceled by
the chairperson or City Administrator, or designated staff liaison, in the event
that there are no items of business requiring the attention of the
Commission, or for lack of a quorum, or in response to inclement weather or
for any other good and sufficient reason. Members of the Commission shall
be notified by telephone and/or other means of communications, of any
meeting cancellation. A notice of the meeting cancellation shall be posted as
required by State Statutes.
B. QUORUM: A majority of the number of voting members appointed to the
Commission shall constitute a quorum.
C. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS; ADJOURNMENT
1. Meeting Chairperson: If neither the chairperson nor the vice chairperson is
present to conduct a meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning
Commission may elect a meeting chair from among those members present
prior to the commencement of business. The election shall follow the
procedures set forth in Section IV.B.3, except that the Community
Development Director, or his or her designee, shall conduct the election.
2. Open Meeting Law: Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the
4
State of Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minn. Statutes 471.705).
3. Adjournment: Meetings shall adjourn at or before 11:00 p.m. unless a two-
thirds majority of the members present agree to extend the time of
adjournment. If there is no objection, the Chairperson may declare the
meeting adjourned without the necessity of a motion or vote by the
Commission.
D. MINUTES: Minutes shall be recorded for regular meetings and each
commission member shall receive a copy of the unapproved minutes for review
and approval at a succeeding meeting. Minutes shall be approved by motion.
Approved minutes shall be the official record of the business conducted and
actions taken by the Planning Commission. Commission members may request
copies of approved minutes after they have been corrected, if necessary, and
signed as approved. Copies of the approved minutes shall be filed with the
Community Development Department. Unapproved minutes shall be clearly
marked “DRAFT”; approved minutes shall be marked “APPROVED”. A policy
statement regarding the content and format of the minutes shall be on file with
the Community Development Department which may be reviewed from time to
time as needed.
VII. INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans
and additional information, as appropriate, for each item placed on the agenda for
any regular or special meeting. The Commission packet should be delivered at least
four days prior to the meeting. Each Commissioner is responsible for reviewing the
material within the packet prior to the meeting.
VIII. PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS: Advice from, consultation with, and/or requests
for review by the City Attorney, City Engineer, City Planning Agency, or other paid
consultants shall be in accordance with the Municipal Code, Section 401.07.
IX. SUPPLEMENTARY PUBLICATIONS: All Commission members shall receive a copy
of the Mounds View Municipal Code and a copy of the Municipal Comprehensive
Plan as well as other materials provided by the City Council or City Staff. These
materials shall be retained by each commission member and returned to the City
Administrator, or designated staff liaison upon the member’s resignation or
termination of appointment.
X. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS
A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated Staff
member or the Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Any member absent from
three consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or more than six regularly
scheduled meetings per year without the consent of the Commission shall be
deemed to have vacated the office, and such vacancy shall be filled by the City
Council pursuant to Section 401.03, Subd. 1. A leave of absence may be
granted by the consent of the Commission.
5
B. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
1. General Standard: No Commissioner shall be appointed with private or
personal interests likely to conflict with the general public interest. If any
person appointed to the Commission shall find that their private or personal
interests are involved in any matter coming before the Commission, they
shall disqualify themselves from taking part in any discussion or action on the
matter; alternatively, they may be disqualified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority
vote of the Commissioners in attendance.
2. Conflict Due to Economic Interests: A Commissioner has a conflict of
interest if, in his or her discharge of official duties, would be required to take
an action or make a decision that would substantially affect the
Commissioner’s financial interests or those of an associated business,
unless the effect on the Commissioner is no greater than on other members
of the Commissioner’s business classification, profession, or occupation. In
the event a conflict of interest exists with respect to a particular matter before
the Commission, the Commissioner shall disqualify himself or herself from
taking part in any discussion or action on the matter.
C. EX PARTE CONTACTS: Ex parte contacts are contacts between individuals
seeking to influence the decisions of the Planning Commission and individual
Commission members outside the meeting forum. Such contacts may include
communications with project applicants, supporters and opponents.
When the Planning Commission is involved in a matter which is to be heard
and decided by the Commission (e.g. variances), Planning Commissioners shall
indicate to the person contacting them that such communication and all
testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to ensure a fair hearing for all
parties. The intent is for Planning Commissioners to make their decisions
based on the same information provided to all Planning Commissioners.
Planning Commissioners should avoid expressing any opinion as to the merits
of the case outside of Commission meetings. When ex parte contacts occur,
the Planning Commissioner is responsible for notifying appropriate City staff
and for conveying the substance of any ex parte communication to other
Commission members at the next commission meeting at which the matter
discussed is under consideration.
___________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
___________________________
Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator
Revision History:
February 5, 2020
April 5, 2017
March 16, 2016
January 24, 2007
September 1, 2004
February 21, 2001
February 2, 2000
March 5, 1997
February 3, 1993
October 1990
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
Item No: 06D
Meeting Date: Feb 3, 2021
Type of Business: Other
Planning Case: N/A
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Planning Commission
From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Discussion – Tulien v. City of Minneapolis (case law)
Discussion:
In January, 2021, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled
against the City of Minneapolis in its approval 1 of a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variances for an
apartment building. The Court’s decision hinged on the
Planning Commission’s lack of Findings in support of the
project. Attached, is a memo from the City Attorney with
more details, but Staff would like to emphasis a couple of
points: In the Court’s opinion, the City erred on two items:
1. Variances are to be approved when the City makes
Findings of “practical difficulties” that are unique to the
property, and not created by the property owner. In this
case, the Planning Commission’s Findings were that the
City Code is the Practical Difficulty, which is not unique
to the property, but applies city-wide.
2. Conditional Use Permits (CUP) are to be approved
when the City makes Findings based on a list of criteria.
The CUP was to allow a building taller than four stories.
During the Public Hearing, a neighbor objected to the
proposed six stories (would cast shadow on their yard).
The Findings for approval included a generic statement,
similar to; The conditional use will not be injurious to the
use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity. The
Appeals Court found no record in the Findings, nor in
the meeting minutes, that the Commission considered
the neighbor’s objections, thus the Finding was not
supported.
Points that Staff would like to make:
• Make good Findings. If there is a good project which is not supported by the City Code, it
would be more appropriate to change the Code, than to grant a Variance with poor Findings.
• When there is public opposition, the PC should acknowledge the public’s concerns, whether
that be in the minutes, or in its Findings.
1 Applications: (1) Rezoning from R5 Multi-Family to OR2 High Density Office Residence; (2) CUP to increase building height
from four stories (56’), to six stories (73’); (3) Variance to increase the maximum floor area ratio from 3.0 to 4.0; (4) Variance
to increase the maximum impervious surface coverage from 85% to 87%; (5) Variance to increase the maximum lot coverage
from 70% to 82 percent%; (6) Variance to reduce the minimum loading requirement from one small space to zero; (7)
Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback abutting 26th Street W from 19.7’ to 1’; Variance to reduce the minimum
front yard setback abutting Blaisdell Avenue from 33.5’ to 1’; (8) Variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback along the
west property line from 15’ to 5’; (9) Site Plan review for a new mixed-use building with 146 dwelling units and a ground-
floor office space of approximately 600 square feet.
PC FINDING for Variance to minimum
loading setback: “As it relates to practical
difficulty, these [variances] relate to the
intensity of development, location of the
building. There are practical difficulties
associated with the current zoning code. I
think whether it's the R5 or OR2 district, it's
difficult to fit a contemporary building on
a site like this or elsewhere in the city and
meet all of those [zoning] standards.”
1
Kennedy Fifth Street Towers
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
&
Graven (612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
C H A R T E R E D
MEMORANDUM
To: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director
From: Scott Riggs, City Attorney
Sam Ketchum, Attorney
Date: January 25, 2021
Re: Land Use Applications and Tulien v. City of Minneapolis Case
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum discusses land use applications in light of the Minnesota Court of
Appeals recent decision this January in the Tulien case.1 The case is “non-precedential,” which
means it is not binding authority but can be persuasive authority for future cases. The decision
nonetheless provides a good case study and set of take-aways related to Mounds View’s review of
land use applications, specifically variance and conditional use permit (“CUP”) applications.
II. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS OF DECISION
A developer originally requested several variances and a CUP. Minneapolis city planners
recommended that the Planning Commission deny the variances because they were "driven solely
by economic considerations" and deny the CUP application because it "risked injuring the use and
enjoyment of surrounding property." However, the Planning Commission granted the variances
and the CUP. A neighbor, Tulien, appealed the Planning Commission decision but the City
Council approved the applications. Tulien appealed the City's decision to district court, which
ruled in favor of the City and developer. Tulien then appealed the district court decision to the
Court of Appeals. In its decision, the Court of Appeals found that the district court erred and that
the City should not have granted the variances and CUP.
On the variances issue, the decision is about a city making legally insufficient practical
difficulty findings. Minneapolis made findings that "a practical difficulty exists due to the current
zoning code" in granting minimum loading, maximum lot coverage, and multiple setback
variances. Minn. Stat. 462.357, Subd. 6(2) requires that practical difficulties must be "due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner." A line of case law requires
1 Tulien v. City of Minneapolis, No. A20-0542, 2021 WL 79526 (Minn. Ct. App. 2021) (link to decision:
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2021/OPa200542-011121.pdf)
2
that these "circumstances unique to the property" must be features or characteristics of the property
or its surroundings, not the operation of the zoning code on the property. The Court of Appeals
determined that the City's findings did not comply with these requirements because it incorrectly
cited the zoning code and city policy as a practical difficulty.
On the CUP issue, the decision is about a city not adequately considering evidence contrary
to its findings. Minneapolis City Code requires that the City make a finding on CUP applications
about the use and enjoyment of surrounding property. Mounds View requires similar findings in
their Zoning Code at Section 1125.01, Subd. 3(b). The Court of Appeals found that the City was
aware of, but did not consider, neighbors' complaints about the building height and shadow.
Because the City concluded that the CUP would not injure the use and enjoyment of surrounding
properties without considering and rejecting contrary evidence, the Court determined that the CUP
approval was unreasonable.
III. TAKE-AWAYS
Below are the take-aways from Tulien, as well as a well-established line of statutory and
case law on land use applications:
Take-away #1: Make good findings on the specific circumstances that are unique to
the property so that a variance from the normal zoning regulation is warranted.
In the Tulien decision, the Court examined and rejected the City's findings on the variances
because they were not "circumstances unique to the property."
Take-away #2: Make good findings and expand on reasoning to demonstrate that the
City considered evidence contrary to the City's finding.
In the Tulien decision, the Court found that the CUP approval was unreasonable because
the City concluded that the CUP would not injure the use and enjoyment of surrounding
properties despite evidence that it would.
Take-away #3: Do not cite the zoning code or city policies as a practical difficulty.
State law and case law specifically require that the City not consider the zoning code as a
practical difficulty. Instead, practical difficulties must be "due to circumstances unique to
the property not created by the landowner" and must be features or characteristics of the
property or its surroundings. A decision on a variance that cites the zoning code or city
policy as a practical difficulty is suspect and may be challenged.
DRAFT
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
January 6, 2021
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Mounds View Boulevard, Mounds View, MN 55112
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for January 6, 2021. Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic this meeting was held virtually.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Farmer, French, Monn, Munson, Nelson, Rundle, and
Stevenson.
Absent and Excused: None.
Also Present: Community Development Director Jon Sevald, City Administrator Nyle
Zikmund, and Council Member Gary Meehlhause, Mark Krogh.
______________________________________________________________________________
Index to Minutes Page
Oath of Office 1
Recommending Appointment of a Chairperson and Appointment 2
Of Vice-Chairperson
Recommending Approval of an Amendment to the PUD Narrative 2
for the O’Neil Property at 2430 Mounds View Boulevard
Approval of Minutes 5
3. Special Order of Business
A. Oath of Office for Commissioner Dennis Farmer, Commissioner Miranda
Munson and Commission Gary Stevenson
Community Development Director Sevald administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner
Farmer, Commissioner Munson and Commissioner Stevenson.
Mounds View Planning Commission January 6, 2021
Regular Meeting Page 2
________________________________________________________________________
B. Resolution 1127-21, a Resolution Recommending Appointment of a
Chairperson and Appointment of a Vice-Chairperson
Community Development Director Sevald requested the Commission recommend a Chairperson
and Vice-Chairperson for the Planning Commission for 2021.
Chair Stevenson nominated Commissioner Gary Rundle as Chair of the Planning Commission.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Stevenson/Commissioner Farmer. To Recommend the
City Council Appoint Gary Rundle as Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 2021.
A roll call vote was taken.
Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Chair Stevenson nominated Commissioner Dennis Farmer as Vice-Chair of the Planning
Commission.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Stevenson/Commissioner Monn. To appoint Dennis
Farmer as Vice-Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 2021.
A roll call vote was taken.
Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
______________________________________________________________________________
5. Planning Cases
A. VR2021-001 Variance Request for a Reduced Driveway Setback
Community Development Director Sevald stated Anthony Properties, owner of the movie
theater, is requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Narrative, to allow
a drive-thru restaurant as an Allowed Use. The owners are working with a developer, Java
Group, to subdivide part of the theater’s parking lot for development of a drive-thru coffee shop.
It was noted the theater development was approved in 1998 as a Planned Unit Development
(PUD). PUD’s are intended to result in a higher standard of development, in return for
concessions on other requirements. The PUD Narrative lists specific uses for each lot. Allowable
Uses include sit-down restaurants, and specifically excludes fast-food restaurants and bars with
less than 60% of its revenue from food sales (Moe’s is not part of this PUD). New Vision
Theater closed in March 2020 due to the COVID Pandemic, and filed bankruptcy in July. The
Mounds View Planning Commission January 6, 2021
Regular Meeting Page 3
________________________________________________________________________
theater owner; Anthony Properties (AP Mounds View LP), has been in negotiations with another
operator to assume the theater’s lease. The theater industry has been hit hard by the pandemic,
thus, there is no time-table as to if or when Mounds View’s theater will re-open. Prior to New
Vision’s bankruptcy, New Vision intended to remodel the theater to include stadium style
seating, which would reduce the seating capacity and parking needs by 50%. Assuming that a
new theater operator will pursue a similar renovation plan, this frees up a portion of the parking
lot for other uses, such as a drive thru coffee shop. Staff recommended the Planning Commission
recommend approval of an amendment to the PUD Narrative as requested.
Commissioner Nelson stated he loved the idea of a drive-thru coffee use at this location, but did
not support a drive-thru restaurant. Community Development Director Sevald discussed the
City’s drive-thru zoning requirements for other zoning districts.
Commissioner Monn explained she liked the idea of using the property. She questioned if the
coffee shop would have inside seating or if it was only a drive-thru. Community Development
Director Sevald stated this could be a restaurant or a restaurant with a drive-thru.
Mark Krough, representative for the applicant, reported the purpose of this meeting was to
amend the PUD to allow for a drive-thru use. He explained he would then be able to apply for
site plan approval with the City. He indicated he was proposing a drive-thru only coffee shop.
He commented on the other drive-thru coffee shops that he had completed in the metro area.
Commissioner Nelson commented the proposed amendment would allow for drive-thru
restaurants within the parking lot. Community Development Director Sevald reported this was
the case.
Commissioner Munson recalled there were a number of residents that wanted another coffee
shop in Mound View. She believed the City had enough drive-thru restaurants.
Chair Stevenson explained the applicant was proposing to build a drive-thru coffee shop. Mr.
Krough stated if the PUD amendment was approved, he would be coming back to the City with
full architectural plans for the drive-thru coffee shop.
Commissioner Farmer commented if this amendment were approved, any drive-thru use would
be allowed on the site. Community Development Director Sevald explained a drive-thru use
would be allowed in the parking lot only.
Commissioner Farmer stated there could feasibly be another drive-thru restaurant within the
parking lot, along with the coffee shop. Community Development Director Sevald reported this
was the case. He commented further on the review and input that would be provided by the
Planning Commission if drive-thru request was made.
Commissioner Farmer questioned how the City would address the parking requirements for the
PUD. Community Development Director Sevald stated these requirements would have to be
changed at a later date. He estimated the coffee shop would take out ten to twenty parking stalls.
Mounds View Planning Commission January 6, 2021
Regular Meeting Page 4
________________________________________________________________________
He believed the movie theater had an excessive amount of parking and he has only ever seen the
parking lot two-thirds full. He reported if another drive-thru use came along, the parking at the
movie theater would have to be further evaluated.
Commissioner Monn asked if the O’Neill Property owns all of the asphalt, would the applicant
be leasing from O’Neill. Community Development Director Sevald explained O’Neill was the
property owner prior to the Anthony Properties. He reported Anthony Properties would be
subdividing the parcel in order to create a lot for the Java Group. Mr. Krough indicated he
would own the land, build the building and would have a 20 year lease with the corporate tenant
(coffee use). He stated all access easements and maintenance agreements would be in place for
the coffee shop.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Nelson/Commissioner Munson. To approve Resolution
1128-21, a Resolution Recommending Approval to Amend the PUD Narrative, to allow Drive-
Thru Restaurants as an Allowed Use on Lot 3, Block 1 of Anthony Properties (e.g. Theater
parking lot).
A roll call vote was taken.
Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
_____________________________________________________________________________
6. Other Planning Activity
None.
7. Reports
A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity
Community Development Director Sevald stated he had no upcoming planning cases but
expected a formal case for February.
B. Staff Updates
Community Development Director Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff.
He reported on December 23, 2020 the Met Council reviewed and recommended approval of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. He explained the local water management plan still has to be
approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District.
C. Council Updates
Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City
Council. He explained the Council recently approved the 2021 budget and tax levy. He noted the
Mounds View Planning Commission January 6, 2021
Regular Meeting Page 5
________________________________________________________________________
Council also approved the sale of $5,830,000 of General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds to
pay for the maintenance upgrades at the City’s water treatment plants. He discussed the recent
hires that have occurred in order to get the new Park and Recreation Department fully staffed. He
reported the Council held a special meeting on Monday, January 4, 2021 where the new City
Council member was sworn in. It was noted the Council discussed a snow and ice policy at its
recent worksession meeting and was hoping to hold a future meeting with the newly elected
Ramsey County Commissioner Nicole Frethem. He updated the Commission on the renaming of
Mounds View Boulevard.
D. Planning Commissioner Reports
Commissioner Monn questioned if the Commission should have a discussion about signage.
Community Development Director Sevald reported the Sign Ordinance was fairly complicated
and there were parts he wanted to change. He explained the City was currently in the process of
codifying the City Code. He indicated he was working to get all of the recent amendments into
one document and through this process he would be reviewing the Sign Ordinance. Further
discussion ensued regarding the City’s sign code.
8. Approval of Minutes
December 2, 2020.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Monn/Commissioner Farmer. To approve the Minutes of
the December 2, 2020 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented.
A roll call vote was taken.
Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
9. Next Planning Commission Meeting:
A. Wednesday, February 5, 2021
B. Wednesday, February 19, 2021
______________________________________________________________________________
10. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 7:56 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________________
Respectfully submitted,
Mounds View Planning Commission January 6, 2021
Regular Meeting Page 6
________________________________________________________________________
Jon Sevald
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Heidi Guenther
Minute Maker Secretarial