HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 Planning Commission Packets����� 3�'w ��
,u}�,.
,,�� ; '. .� ( �i "�. : � i � --, �*� ',�: '_
�� r ... . r �� �� i ' _
REGUL,AR MEETING
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2, Ro31 Ca.11
3, Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
�ITIZENS: BEFORE SPEA.ICING, JPLEASE COME TO'IT�E PODNNI,
�ND GIV� YoUR FUJ.T� NAM[E AN� ADDRESS F022 THE MIlVUTES
4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes:
a. December b, 200Q
.. 5. P�an�i�� Case Noe DE00-002.
Property Invoived: 7664 Greenf�eld Avenue
Review and Discuss Site Plans far a 3,500 Square-Foot O�ice Building
Applicant: Tony Mezzenga
6. �pecea� Plan�ang Case I�oo SP-0�2�00
Continuation of 5ign Code Review - Definitions
7. Election of Plannir�g Commission Officers
8. Staff Reports / Items of Information
9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
10. Adjournment to A�enda Session
(Immediately Following Regular Meeting)
APPLICEINTS: �'OUR AT"�.'E10�1�NCE AT THIS M�E'I'�IG IS gtEQiT�STED. �I,�ASE 1oI0'�'II'Y THE
CONIlVdUNIT�.' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTNIEI+�T AT 763-717-4021 IF YOU ARE UN�9.BLE TO �TTENN➢.
� ��� ��, � ��': '���,
AGENDA
1. Review the Minutes from the December 20, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting.
N:IDATA1GROi3PS\C�MDEVII'LANCOMMIPCAGENDA120011Tanuary 3, 2000 PC Ageudadoc
,
� . � � �:
IVi � 1i61 � � �v v �
�O: P�1.Tlllillg (,O2T11121SS1011�iS
from: Jim Ericson, Corrzmuniiy Development l�irector
re: Eiection of �fficers
da4e: January 3, 2001
Accordi�g to the Planning Commission bylaws (which will be reviewed next month) �he Planning
Commission annually elects its chair and vice chair at the first meeting of each year. The name of
the person recor��mended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council for action at its next
meeting in January. Based upon the recommendation af the Planning Comrnission, the Mayar, with the
approval o£the City Council, sha11 appoint the chairperson of the Corrunission each year.
The election process to be used is as follows:
For each office, tl�e chairperson shail invite nominaiions from Pianning Commission members.
``,� After nominations have been raceived, the chairperson sha11 entertain a motion to close
nominations. If such motion is made and passed, and more than one nomina�ion has been
made, the chairperson shali distributa ballots to the Commission members and each member
shail write his or her selection on the ballot. The recording secretary sha11 tally the ballots and
announce the nominee receiving the most votes. In ths event af a tie, the recording secretary
sha11 announce the nominees tied in the voting and balloting shall be repeated un�il an election
occurs. Ti only one nomination has been received, the chairperson may conduct the votin.g by
voice voie. If a majoriiy of the merx�bers present vate in the affirmative for the nominee, the
nominee shall be elected.
Because Chaizperson Peterson has chosen not to seek reappointment to the Planning Commission, Vice
Chair Stevenson shail chair the meeting and coordinate the election of officers. The new officers do not
take office until the first meeting in February.
From the desk af...
James �ricson
Community Development Director
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 5511Z
763-717-4021
Fax; 763-784-3462
e-mail: iime�rcmnet.orq
http://tcfreenet. org/o rglmou ndsview
Item # 5
.�,�.��, �.� �.� .�_:, _., _����,�,:�.�:.�.
...� .�_ ._ �� W ,�.�., �,__,_.� � _., 7 �:.. .,�. .-� �..:: _., �.�w� .... �,
� / �'I �� �f'� ,
� � 1 �SSI � �°�
Meeting Date: .Ianua�°y 3, 2001
....:. �......, c .,_ ... :: .... . .. :��, �. . _�. _ , ..._,: .;
s...;:� ..,;;��. ���..�. . ...� -,.. � ._,� ,.,�...�� �� _
T'�ile: DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST OF
T�NY MEZZENGA TO C4IVSTRUCT AI�T OFFICE BUILDING AT i664
GREENFIELD A'�IENUE. {PLANNINC CASE NO. DE00-002)
I�ta°odr�ctio�to
Tony Mezzenga, representing the property ownet Ei°nest Gustafson, is requesting approv�l of a
Development Review to constr�ct an office building with a 1,740 sqt�are foot footprint on the
properiy consistent with the setback variance that was approved by the Planning Commission on
�eptember 13, 2000. Staff sent notices to the property owners within 350 feet of 7664 Greenfield
Avenue regarding this meeting to promote neighborhood awareness and to soiicit suggestion� and
input from those residents most affected by this development.
j The purpose of a development review is to allow the Planning Commission to review proposed
development in terms of their consistency with City Codes, in the context of the adjoining
developments and to ascertain and mitigate any potential impacts to the community. The Planning
Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council which then acts upon the request.
;; , , , ►'
This 13,068 square-foot propet-ty is zoned B-3, Highvaay Business. The size of the lot and
corner-lot seti�acks present practical difficulties in terms of what can be developed, which was
the basis for the variance approved for the lot in 2000. This lot harders commercial property to
the west (Tom Thumb and a Laundromat), high density residential to the east, and low density
residenYiai ia Yhe south and north. The proposed office use is consistent with the B-3 zoning
designation and is a less intensive use which would fit �veil.into the predominately residential
surroundings.
In its review of this request, the Planning Commission will want to recall and consider the many
issues b�°ought up by residents du�ing the Sepiember public hearings. Same of ttaese concerns
that can be addressed to some extent with this developmeni review include pedestrian traffic,
lighting, landsca�ing and fencing, and �vehicular traffic circulaiion. Other issues that the
Planning Commission can help control and influence concern the appearance of the building,
exterior maierials and buildin� signage.
Mezzenga Development Revzew
January 3, 2001
Page 2
Dimensional Reguirements:
�uilding Setbacics:
� Front {Co. Rd. I.):
� Front {Greenfield):
� Side (Wesi):
• Side �South}:
Parking Lot Setbacks:
� Froni {Co. Itd. I.):
� Front (Greenfield):
• Side {West):
� Side (South}:
Parking Requirements:
• Allowed:
• Proposed:
• Maximurn office space:
Re u9 ired Pro op sed: Met ?
30 feet 21 feet No
30 feet 92 feet i'es
10 feet'� 5 feet No
10 feet* 20 feet Yes
10 feet*
10 feet�
5 feet
15 feet�"
16 feet
29 fe�t
50 feet
20 feet
Yes
Yes
Xes
Yes
1 per 200 square feet of leasable office space area*
14 spaces
2,800 Square Feet
�` 'I'hese reqairements are as ailowed by Resolu�ion 633-00, a resolution approving a variance for reduced
baiIding and parking (ot setbactcs.
i
The site plan submitted for review, as indicated in the dimensional requirements above, is not ="
campletely consistent with the approved variance or with applicable City Code. The buiidin� is set
back 21 feet from County Raad I—it should be no less than 30 feet. In addition, the buzlding is
shown to be set back 5 feet from the west property iine—it should be 10 feet. The site plan will
need to be revised accordingly.
Parkin�:
The approved variance ailows for a reduced �arking ratio--one space per every 200 square feet of
leaseabie office space or fraction thereof. The si�e plan indicates 14 stalls which wauld translate
into a maximum Ieaseable office area of 2,8Q0 square feet. Because the submitted floor plans do
not indicate a scale or show interc�al room dimensions, staff was unable to determine if the parking
spaces were adequate for the building. The floor plans.will.need to be revised to show scaie,
dimensions, and a computation for the totalleaseable office area. In addition, the site plan shall be
revised to be complian� with ADA parking requirement�. The City Code requires that a perimeter
curh be installed for parking areas in a business dista-ict. This wi11 need �o be shown on the plans.
Li�htin�
The site plan does not indicate that any exterior lighting wil� be used with this development. Staff
suspects thati this is probably noY the case and will ask the appiica�afi to personally speak ta this
issue at the meeting. Staff wauld recommend that if parking lot lighting is to be utilized, that it be
accomplished by mountin� low-intensity flood lights upon the building to shine downward upon
the loi consisteni vt�ith ihe City Code pertaining to lighting and glare (Chapter 1103 of the Zoning
Cade.)
Mezzenga Development Review
January 3, 2001
Page 3
D� aina�e:
The lot at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, and tiiose that surround the subject properi:y, are essentiaily flat
with little if any change in elevation. The proposed developmez�t will add a relatively minimat area
of impervious surface. Because of that, the lack of elevatior� change, and the requiremeni of
perimeter curbing, staff does not consid�r sto�nvvater runoff to be an issue for the adjoining
praperties or the City's stormsewer system. Even so, staff would suggest thai the parking lot be
constructed with a slight slope to drain stog-mwater toward the north and east, away from the
building, into areas of perviou§ greenspace. This is a technique encauraged by Rice Creek
Watershed Districi and consistent with its "best management practices" philosophy. The
perimeter curbing shalt be constructed with breaks or surmountable points to allow for the
sionnwater to pass through, thus allowing water to i�filtrate and recharge the aquifers rather than
being discharging untreated directly into City stai°nzsewers. {Riee Creek Watershed District does
not need to review this developmeni as it falls well below the minimum acreage threshald.)
Landscapir��:
No landscaping plans were submitted with this proposal, though because of the small scale of the
development, staff would recommend that any required landscaping be shown on the site plan,
along with any required fencing. Because of the close proximity of the home to the south on
Greenf�eld Avenue, the need to provide for screening and buffering is important. This can be
accamplished vvith a row of planiix�gs, such as lilacs or evergreens, or with the construction of a
fence. Whiie staff would prefer a more naturral buffer, the drawback is that it would take years to
fitlly screen the building when a fence wouid provide for immediate screening. In this case, inpu�
from the affected neighbor would be helpful.
The greenspace between the parking lot and building and the strset frontages (boulevards) should
be improved with a series of iandscaped areas, set back a sufficient distance from tl�e paricing lot to
allaw for winter snow storage. The landscaped areas should include a mixture of shrubs and other
1ow-growth vegetation. (While trees would be a significant addition, none should be planted
within 50 feet of County Road I to preserve unobstructed motorist visibility.) The landscaped areas
will function both as a visual amenity as well an entry point for stortnwater runoff. The area
immediateiy surrounding the boulevard landscaping should be graded sarnewhat lower to allow far
stormwater re�ention during periodic heavy rains. Staff wiii provide the applican� and the
Commission with a sketch as ta how the landscaping areas can be configured. In addition, the
applicant will need to indicate the specific names and numbers of plantings to be utilized on the
site. ihe City Forest�r will review the plantings to ensure corr�patibility" with Mounds View soils
and make recomtxiendations if necessary. All non-landscaped pervious axeas shall be sodded.
Buildin Exterior:
The front buiiding elevation indicat�s a one and a half story building with a hipped roof and
covered entryway. The building exhibits an aesthet�caliy pleasing, cont�xt-sensiiive residential
appearance. 5�aff is nat aware what materials will be utilized for the building ex�erior but would
re�omm��nd that brick or stone be used for ihe base and anaintenance free or treated cedar siding be
utilized on the upper half. The brick treatment and an� other archiiectural features shall b�
exhibited at a minirnum on both building frant elevations.
Mezzenga Development Review
January 3, 2001
Page 4
Gradin�:
If it is anticipated that the consYruction will alter the existing land elevations, a grading plan shall be
submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer. If existing elevations will remain sub�tantially
unchanged, ihe site plan shall be revised �o generally show elevations for the purpose oF zilusirating
the direction of stormwater runoff and those areas where runoff can collect during heavy rain.
Si�a�e;
Because the proposed deveiopment is located within a predominately residential area, special
consideration shall be given toward the types and size of signage permitted. To further strengthen
the residential a�pearance of the building, staff would discourage the use of any wall-mounted
building signage. I€, however, such signage is imperative, that it be accomplished in a decorative,
unobirusive manner. Ground mounted signage shall be allowed only if desi�ed as a masanry
monument sign, not to exceed eight feet in height or 1 QO square feet in area. The loeation of such a
graund sign shall be consistent with Chapier 1008 in that it b� located at least 15 %et fram a
properiy line and 25 feet fro�n the lot corner formed by the Green�eld Avenue and County Road I
right of ways.
Summary:
This meeting will allow staff, the ap�licant, the Planning Commission and neighboring residents
to wark through sorne of the concerns raised at previous meetings, as well as to gain additional ';
information to be con�idered with this request. The foliowing is a lisi identifying the revisions to --
the plans that are necessary before the Planning Commission can niake its recommendation to the
City Council:
��uilding shall be set back 30 feet from Co. Rd. I and 10 feet from the west property line
� Parking lot shail have perimeter curbing with breaks or cuts identified
• Addition of handicap accessible spaces per ADA requirements
� Identif caiion of building ar�d parking lot lighting to be utilized—if any
• Floor plans shall show a scale and indicate roam dimensions
� Computation of the total leaseable office area
• Grading Plan, if necessary, or general elevations shown on site plan
• Direction of stormwater rrxnoff indicated on site plan with azrows
e Landscaping areas shown, schedule of plantings to be used
• Elevation plan to indica#e building height and specific material�, as suggested herein
� Location ancl detailed description of proposed signage if available
I�ecornmer�tl�tiono
If the Pianning Comrnission believes it has received sufficient information from staff, residents
and the applicant, ii can direci staff to prepare a resolutian for action ai i�s next meeting. If not,
discussio�l and review will continue to the next meeting.
�
3ames Ericson, Community Developmeni Director
Mezzenga Development Review
January 3, 2001
Page 5
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map
2. Location Map
3. Landscape Sketch
4. Site Plans, date stamped 12/8/00
�.
Zoning 1VIa�
� ` r � .. F, . ... 7 � /YUS¢`�n'[�'y,//{,.� � c+ �'^
� CJ�� '� LY `L" ���' p N � l� / � r•'f h
7300 � d Q o -�r :} 79D t{1l.lc.' �� � v n �—.� m /�% N v� d n K.
Pe , N N N P3 i9�1 = % O � P� ✓'v r'7 pl �`? hf J (/ N N n c�v . ni
� � 1�1 Cl� . C�J �"+ C`7 C.� N
� ,`r � -� 'o �� �_.-.' ° � M r� `= o o L H!l1Vfk�1
° 7$8 y�� ra p�' ' c� .�' �' i�, r� r, r� �n n r�
o -r �n m o •r �
�: %$$� 78� � �l •f' d. f1 C1 N CI f-! C`I C1 fJ N CJ � N N Ci N N
N' M (V N fV '�' OFV�TiOOD pR N N (`! c`! N N N (�l
7$78 7875 786 7859 78b0 � �n n� r� in �
7874 7357 785 � 7�J�� 5F,1_ S�tE 5bl 555�_ �°+ �+ �J i N � �-'�'i r�
78fi{ 7954 � iv �v N ra c ri
z � :>c� n 5s:z sr�_ �.. 5G1+ a
7936 � 78d5 784 � �84 U, OAKµ�ppD
g 7847 �84 � 550 5506 5GD- 550G °' c`� °°e cO o�i o
� U 78.}7 783 7825 cv c.� 00 r'� �n n��
78�0 � 78J3-7832 Sfi01 SGOG S6U1 5G00 cd � N�`y � �i N iv
7814 � 79I S 7827 7�2 I �� h n� a> .-
7806 7874 7817 y 556- � 5562 556 5562 �; ri n`�i �; `c.i N �i �»
7800 7A01 780 f—�� ��� 555 � 5556 5557 w 555t �� `" `�
7��s »as ��s �soK� �.� �— �r�. c� a �� a � ,� rfR�
a� r-. � � 5551 — 5550 SS5 ) d 55` � N � � N o � � .�- ,p
7740 ��-�+.'� o Y ra �� r� c� �� °'�
7768 7739 i7��/ °O !-� ��' 4�' �.�a Sa54. � 55445545�j 55d4 Q " �i N�, � t°�'+
774E �74t 774 �1i��W�p CIR '�' ` °a �n r rn "� � rn
77?9:7730 r� m m � F` 'D .+� v� y�. n
p rv � 1. ��3g 553g 553. 553 c•i ca tv N� t`i c�a N M
a� a� co r io �.r� N �i �r N N r� a
7726 77E9 772 Q 7731 77J' � N N �i n `"�` 5533 �(532 5533 5`_�3'% QI�����Q ��R
7710 7709 771 Q 7721772 W� 7715 �
/ p� � n � iA rn t� 5527 5�26 552 � 5526 � o� n a w �p o
q CS .- � � i0,�4 ✓m' r' tbi M . - N o�y0 � N D N � i �* � t�v �
'n �i ���t 77�� �7fl � � 7701 c� c i cv rr r+ 5521 55 5521 55'?0 r� �i <v oi � N c,
(`� w i
--_ ... d "� ��Z _ f1D �
i�
�
��
' �h
���p �� q, �Q� �p�
1 �—�
�-------�-�� R-2
` al ^ ° � � �tr `�' , ,,,� ° �
, s2�. h �
5
5472 �
5
5
f� — 2 `�
S�s68 � 5
��•-_=
5464 g
SA56
� ` ��
/,p v
s FR
9��
54��
5�ra s�
,�
540�i N
lVl N N �� N N N N �
� H 'f' �'1
�v �� rr cv
N cv �> sv
N r` rn � 1'1 �A D� N) p
m a> r n � w, v a
N <'� N C�I CO N t�F N �
N <V N C� C3 N N fY �
i
�
- ,�
;
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
�
G�
�
�
�
6C
�
�
� ':.,;
� 1
Q
� -
�
�
�
�
�
i
Item # 6
� � - �,;,.
- ✓l �� � ' �' .i,._ . ..U; /" ...,. '. .i, h.
.:-�.%:.. .. ::__ ,.._...i_. ... � ...,i::.... .l . _.�_. _. ,.. ,., .�:.. .. ,�:.,.^N �...... ... ....,.
. � � � I - � / - ,
�'. �� . �. . � � x .
, . :' '> 1 .:; ` 1 ;: 1 ;
Meeting Date: ,Ianuary 3, 2001
T'iPle: CONTIlVIJATION O�' SIGN CODE REVIEW— "DEFINITIONS"— SECTION 1008.01.
SPECIAL PLA�NG CASE N�. SP-082-00
19ntacrpated 7'irnelzneo
Da,�cussion:
Based on the above timeline, at this meeting the Planning Commission will be reviewing the
defmitions contained witkun �ection 1008.01 af the Sign Code and comparing them fio definitions
present in other sign codes. Staff has rrzade an attempt io merge the best examples into one
comprehensive hybrid glossary of terms. Where possible, a notation will be made to designate the
source of the definition
dtec��zmendataon:
Please review the attached list of definitions, which represents staf� s first draft, and make
a •
whatever changes that may be appropriate. "
���� ������
James Ericson, Community Develapment Director
C:UIMS1Mounds View\Sign Codet - Jan 3, 2000.doc
1)E�+`II�I'I'IOI9�So The £ollowing terms have the meani�igs as�ribed to them in this Seciion;
ABAND�NEI� SIGN: A sign that becomes vacant, unoccupied or unused; or a sign promoting a
business or activity no longer in operaiion or iracorrecily or inaccurately conveying a message for a
period in excess af si�c months. [New]
ANIMATED SIGN: A sign that has any moving or roiating part; or uses movement or change of
lighting to depict action or create a special effect or scene. Refer also to electronzc scrolling
rrzessage or marq�ee signs. [New]
AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN: A freestanding sign which identifies the name of a community,
neighborl�ood, a residentiai subdivzsion, a multi-iamily residential complex cansisting of three {3) or
more structures, a planned unit development, or any combination of the above located on
contiguous properties. [Andover, Oakdale]
AWNING �IGN: A sign displayed on or attached flat against the sur�ace or surfaces of an awning
attached to or e�ending from a building. [U�SCF]
BANNER: Any sign of lightweight, fle�ble material affv�ed to a building, poies, vehicle or other
supporting stzuctures upon which a message, slogan, design or logo is displayed. National, siate, or
municipal flags shall not be considered a baz�rzer. [Changed]
BEAC�N: Any light with one or mare beams directed into the atmosphere or directed at one or
more points not on the same lot as the light source; also, any light with one ar more beams tha,i
rotate or move. [Burnsville, APA�
BENCH SIGNS : A sign which is a,ffixed to a bench or shelter at a bus stop. [Oakdale�
BILLBOARD: A lazge, outdoor advertising structure typically mounted on one or more poles,
Iocated offthe premi5es where the advertised product is sald or offered. [Changed]
BUSINESS �IGN: A sign that states the proper name of the business, organization oz- institution
located on the premises on which tha sign is located. [No Change]
CAMP�IGN SIGN: A tempo�ary sign promoting the candidacy of a person running far a
government office, or promoting an issue to be voted on �t the. next election. [Bumsville�
CANOPY �IGN: A sign affixed to the visible surfa�e of an attached or freestanding canopy
stzuciure, often backiit to pravide internal illumination. (New]
CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN: A sign or portion thereof with characters, letters or illustrations that
can be changed or rearranged electrozucally or manually vvithout altering the face or the surface of
the sign. A sign on which the rrressage changes more than eight times a day shall be considered an
animated sign for the purposes of tius ordinance. That portion of a sign on which the only copy that
changes is an indicafion of the time and temperature shall be considered a public ir�ozxxzational sign.
[Bun�sville, APA]
_ CONSTRUCTION SIGN:
of the architect, engineers,
project. [Burnsville]
A sign p�aced at a construction site identifying the praject and/or names
developers, contractors or oiher individuals or firms associated with the
DIlZECTIONAL �IGN: A sign for the purpose of making specific commercial, industrial or public
and sezazi-public locations lcnown and to assist in finding these locations on the property which the
sign is located. [Na Change]
FLASHING �IGN: Animated signs, or animated portions of signs whose illumination is
characterized by a repeiitive cycle in which the period of illuminatian is either the same or as or less
than the peziod of non-illumination. For ihe purposes of this ordinance, flashing will not be defined
as occurring if the cyclieat period between on-off phases of illumination exceeds four (4) seconds.
[USSCF]
FREESTANDING SIGN: A sign principaldy supported by a structure aff�ed to the ground, and not
supported by a building, including signs supported by one or more columns, poles or braces placed
in or upon the ground. [LJ�SCF]
GOVERNMENT OR REGIJLATORY SIGN: A sign vvhich is erected by a governmental unit for
identificatZOn, trafiic control or other regulatory purposes. Such signs are often iocated within street
right of ways. [Bumsville]
HOME OCCUPATION SIGN: A sign erected upon a resideniial property to advertise a home
based business or occupation taking place at that location, �Tew]
IDENTIFICATION SIGN: A sign, the primary function o� which is to identify a residential,
commercial., industrial or pubfic or semi-public use located upon the premises where such sign is
located or to which such sign is affixed. Signs identifying commercial uses may cali attention to the
product, service or activity that is sold or � offered upon the premises. Signs identifying industrial
uses may call attention ta the product, goods or material which is produced, processed, assembled or
stored upon the premises. [No C�ange]
II.,LEGAL SIGN: A sign erected without a pezmit or in violation of this ordinance. Suckz signs
shall be subject to removal upon written notice by the City. [New]
INCIDENTAL SIGN: A sign, generally informational, thai has a purpose secondary to the uses on
the property on which it is located. Such signs might ir�clude, but are nat limited to, "No Parking,"
"Entrazlce," "Exit," "ATM," or "Payphone." No sign with a commercial message legible off the
premise5 shall be considered incidental. [APA] "
MONUMEN'T SIGN: A freestanding sign attached to the ground be means of a freestanding
support structure, solid from grade to the top of the sign str�acture, typically encased or supported by
masonry materials. [New]
NUI�ANCE SIGN: A sign in a s�ate of disrepair, deterioration or damage whereupon one fourth
(1/4) or rnore of the sign s�rface is iio longer clearly legible or recognizable at a distance of foriy
(4�') feet. [New]
NONCONFORlV�NG SIGN, Any sign that does not comply with the requirements of this
ordinance is considered nonconfornvng. A sign which was erected legally but does not corz�ply
with subsequentiy enacted sign resirictions or regulations is considered legal nonconforming. [New]
P�RTABLE �IGN: Any sign not permanentiy attached to the ground or other permaneni siructure,
or a sign designed ta be transported, including, but not Iimi�ed to, signs on wheels, signs converted
to "A" or "T" frames, �nenu and sandwich boards, inflatable devises, advertising umbrellas, and
signs attached to or painied on vehicles parked and visible from the public right of way, unless said
vehicle is used in the normal day-to-day operations of the business. [Burnsville, APA]
PRO3ECTING STGN: A sign other than. a wall sign which is perpendicuiar to and projects more
than eighteen (18) inches from a building face or wall or fram a strucfure whose primary purpose is
other than the support of the sign. [USSCF]
PYLON SIGN: A freestanding sign supported by or erected upon one or more narrow columns,
shafts or pales. Also referred to as a poie sign. [New]
REAL ESTATE ,�IGN: A sign advertising the sale, lease or rental of the property or pre�nises upon
vvhich the sign is Iocated. [USSCF]
ROOF SIGN: A sign erected, constructed or attached wholly or in part upon any roof or over the
highesi roofline of a building. [Burnsville, APA]
SECURITY SIGN: A sma11 sign identifying the presence of a security system. [Burnsville]
SIGN: A sign, the primary function of which is to direct attention to a product, service or activity
that is sold or offered either elsewhere or upon the premises where such sign is located or to which
it is affixed. [No Change]
SIGN AREA: That area of a sign within the marginal lines of the surface, which bears the
announcement, name, advertisement or other message or, in the case of letters, figures or symbols
attached directly to any part af a building, the area which is included in the smallest rectangle which
can be made to circumscribe all letters, figures or symbols displayed thereon. [No Change]
SIGN C�PY: The letters, numbers, figures, symbols, logos, and graphical elements comprising the
content or message ofthe sign. [I.TSSCF]
X '
TEMPORAIt.Y SIGN: Any sign displaying a commercial or non-commercial message erected or
maintained for a specific period of time and not of a permanent nature, [Bu'rnsville]
WALL �IGN: [� sign attached to or erected against the exterior watl of a building or structure with
the e�osed face of the sign in a plane approximately parallei to ihe face of said wall, not to project
more than t�vvelve inches (12"} from the surface to which it is attached. [Changed]
WINDOW �IGN: A sign affixed to the intezior or ea�terior of a window or inside the building
withzn three feet of the window with its message intended to be visible to and readable from the
public. [USSCF]
;
�
�
, . .�; �_ . ; i�; .� ;: . � �� : ' : ; : �� . ,; i1 �; ., �' ' F ��. _ :� s . �; . �: �..
`-- -i� ` ; .�: �: ". ;� � , . �i "`. � ..
.� ��; ��� ;�; ._
2401 I�6���vay I0,
1. Ca11 to O�°de�°
The meeting was calied to order by Chairperson Pe�erson
2. Ro11 Call
Mernbers Present: Chairperson Peterson, Co �`�ssioi�ei
and Cerny.
- �z �
,,zj��: ,
Members Excused: Kaden and Bei1cP, '-. ���
,.,�'�
Also Present: Community Develo��n�nt Directt�Y�ricsor
I�ade� ��'''�'�'
I'la��.��� �
Property In�
Public Heari
A Zera-�.�;�
�,,.
Appli,�aa�"t':�
ar I1/�eetirt�
�� 20, 2000
��r ���� �all
��� �T ��,� 12
, ;(7ec�z�ber 20, 2000.
;,,
Johnst5r�; Miller, Stevenson,
Request to Allow a Garage Addition with
�, . :
;,,�sideration af Resolut��n ��3�00, a Resolution Recommending
�� :� .
�i�y Council Approvalp.�:Revised Ordinance 672 Regarding Home Occupations
� ��� �
�i�nsideration of R���iiution 644-00, a Resolution Se#ting tlie Meeting
t3
��y,�
�`a��:� for ihe �'��,ti�i�g Commission in 2041 t ,
�'t�i�'R��c�i�ts / items ofInfort�ation
_ __ _
__ _
_
Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports
Page
2
6
7
7
S
Ii'Tounc3s `liew Pla�az�ing Cornrraission
i)ecember Z0, Z000
I�eg�ala� 1l�ee�ing
3. Cit�zen'� Requesis anc3 Co►nmenis oa� Items 1Voi on ihe,Ager�d�
�' -
There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on
4. Approval of Ilxinutes
A. l�To�Tembea° 15, 2000
MOTION/SECOND: �tevenson/Miller. To approve th� No�
presented.
Ayes — 6
5. Planaa��g C�se I�oo
Property Involved:
Pubiic Hearing and C
wifih a Zero-foot �ide
permii: a� g�at•K
line. Tl�e sti-
issue in May
the proper���,r�
not be��i;<!��it.
��
Mr
77
3ol�n
i- 1S, ;�C)�3�"I�!1
IVlotion �a�ri
,.:
.:;.z.��:
P�ge 2
Minut�s as
to Allow a Garage Addition
��
,
n explaizied Mr. Wilson has requested a variance to
to the side of his garage up to the north side property
�a�ted without a permit. Staff became aware of this
��1ain abo�afi the lean-to. The Building Inspector visited
«i on June 8, 2000 indicating that a building permit had
n was in vioIation of Code requiz�ements.
5.,
- fnunity Developme�� �'3z ectar Ericson further explained Mr. Wilson contacted Staff a.fter
;�
�iving the Iefiter and �v�ts told tliat he would either need to rernove the garage addition or apply
a va.riance. Staff di�i}not hear back from Mr. Wiison and leflt additional voice mail messages
��.:�
liim. Staff heare����im Mr. Wilson on September 5, 2040. Community Development Director
san sent Njr ���on a letter that day indicating a variance would be necessary in order to be
�Y��d �ts t��� ��te stntcture. �'
_ _
Twc� tncirlths later Staffhad not yet received an application and sent a letter to Mr. Wilson
indieating that unless the variance applicatior� was received by December 1, 2000 a Ramsey
County Court Citation would be issued in his name. Staf�'received the application on November
20, 2000.
Community Developrnent D�rector Ericsorz indicated ihat in arder for the Planning Commission to
grani a variance the appiicant must meet seven criteria, which he listed as follows:
r
)
l�ounds V�ew Plaa�ning Cor�rna�sio�
�iecembea° 20, 2000
l�egular l�eeting
The first criteria is ihat exceptional or e�raordinary circumstances �vauld
property which do not apply generalty to other properties in t e same zo�j
%!: l.l
result froix� lot size or shape, topography or other circumsta :,����ver v�i
� ��,� ;,,
property since the effective date hereof have had no contrc�I;a;>;''�aff deterrr
r,.
extraordinary circumstances which apply to this propert� ' ,'.
, .
The second criteria is that the literal interpretation of tl�
deprive ihe applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by ot
under the terms oFthis Title. Staf� does not believe t��e
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoye�
The third criteria is that ihe special conditions or
of the applicant. Staf�believes the applicant is ��
have prompted him to apply for a variance. ��
prior io doizlg the work, he would have b;�°���olc
Zoning Code. ��
:�:�
The fourth criieria is that gran
special privilege that is denied
the same district. Staff believ�
special privilege due ta th� fa�
build �tittiin the five-fac��; ��il�<
The �f�I7 �ii1.�r��� is that tl�� ���
the l�ards��iE�. � canomic co�t�
because the s#�u��ure ;i� alreac3
�4�,�°sixth criteria is �
le or ta other pro
strongly tl�at grantin
this Title. In additi�
�
message to reside��
i�ea�.�iremez�ts ��'��'eJ
Page 3
isioxf�<�of this Tiile wo
>���ii�s in the same di
and
�s of the
ere no ��,
�;�
�� �
F �
li,::%
i
a� i��tes'p�'e�aiion of the Code
otli�a-s ii� th� district.
�ces da ��€�t r�st�l� �Z<c�m the actions
tisible fo�� tlic �onditians which
��t,a�plied fo�` z��building permit
violation of the
,�
�riance�� quested v��` not co�ifer on the applicant any
tie to �wi3ers of ot�r lands, struetures or buildings in
ntit��: ti�is varfA <�`e would confer upon the applicant a.
�r.�3t'c���c�•1�, c�'�� z�s would no� have been allowed to
aested is the minimum variance which would alleviate
�e shall not be considered a l�ardship. Staf�indieated
; the variance requested is the minimum that would be
- - _.:::��:.
tl�e ����z-i<�nce would not be znaterially detrimental to the purpose of this
ty i� the same zone. Staff, having considered tl�e circumstances, feels
1e'�ar'tance request would be materially deirimental to the purpose of
�; granting the variance would set a dangerous precedent, sending a
that it is acceptable to disregard the buildirng code and zoning code
ing approval throu�h the variance process.
�" . � .,
�he'la�t �ri�cria identified 'zs that the proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply
c��`li�}rt and air to adjacent property or substantially inci-ease the coiigestion of the public
sireets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or
impair values within the neighborhood. Comtnunity Development Director Ericson indicated
that while staff does not believe the structure impairs an adequate supply of lighi or air to the
adjoining property, if left in place, stormwater runoff could become a problem to the adjoining
property. It could also be argued, he stated, that the adjoining property's value could be
impacted by the structure located up to the property line.
I!/�o�areds �I�ew Pt�nning Comnaission
�ieee�aber 209 2000
l�egular 1!/Ieeting
Community Development Director Ericson indicated after reviewing the
deiails of this variance request that �taff'has determined the cr�teria llavc
and recommended the Planning Commission deny the varian��`���.c�uest '
Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:14
Mr. Wilson, 7764 Greenwood Drive, the applicant, adcir�
for not obtaining the proper permit before commencin� �
indicated he does have a need �or storage and would Iike
possible.
Commissioner Milier inquired as to whether the
Mr. Wilson indicated it had a roof and
Jim Bucldey, 7770 Greenwood Drive, �.�e�res
Wzlson's next door neighbor whose ��perty
Mr, Wilson spol�e concerning the,���ture a�
�;�
to remain. He indicated he dae,�,;�,�;�'�elieve; �
addressed the comment of sto�mtwater run��
indicati g the elevat�oz� o��s property wa� 17
be an rs�u'� with ntna�T: :
Mi-: Bt�c���y t�}en told t�:
claimi��g �o'�r�r� �c�r the
told his wi#'e �h�; C`ity l�a�
was thex� �p l�c�� �n�c� i�:
go%���e�. �Ie thcn i��d
tac��son should be aUle to'
Pa�e 4
-�:>.
��':��
f,<
crii,�r�� and the
eeri\>satisfied
>,:�
.;.�
�f::•:
� tli� �ommission and a�
��r�� ��tl�e struciure. He
���� tl�e s�nzcture if a� al�
sides.
r<;:
Com�zlissi'��a a�Ld indicated he is Mr.
; struct�z�� is «p to. He indicated he and
he l�a� x�t� �roblem allowing the structure
;ts fro� � his property in any way. He also
he "� c�ure falling onto l�is pz-operty
����hat of Mr. Wilson so there would not
>mrp�iy�ion he was i�oi pleased that an unidentif°ied woman
�:ulle:d i�to lus driveway to look at the stnzcture. Tkus woman
eiv�d �z� ���c�nymous complaint concerning the structure and she
. Bu�k��y said he was sure that this was how the whole process
d he did not appreciate tlie an.onymous complaint staiing "a
��eir accuser."
�ii �;
Chairperson lohnsor� iziquirec� as to how close to the property line s#ructures on Mr. Buckley's
�; ;>.
property were. ��,��`
/�"����5.
�mmunity DF����opment Director Ericson deferred to Mr, Bucldey who indicated his garage
t haG1� �:�,���S�n the property and was approximately 25 feet offthe.,property Iine.
.. .... ,r . ,....i'n
�, �r1"son noted he believed the lean-to to be one foo� off the property line not right up to
the pxoperty line.
Chairperson Petersan explained the Planning Commission is bound by state statute to strictly
apply the criteria listed for granting a variance. Unless an extraordinary reason can be shown
to allow for the variance the Planning Commission is not allowed by state law to grant the
variance. While the opinion of the next door neighbor does play a role, it is a minor role as
state law governs the process.
1Vl�unds �1iev°v Pia�e��ng Com�r►iss�o�
�ieeembe�� 2,0, 2d00
Re�ular 1V€eet�ng
Commissioner Hegland noted the reason behind requiring permiis is to
of issues. ,;.
Commissioner Stevenson indicated he loaked at the variar�:��;;:��quesfi as
requested prior to having the structure in place. He doe����it beliave t1�
;�� , f
criteria and finds no way the Pianraing Commission can �r���� the var��.�iE
Page 5
___
Commissioner Johnson stated he does not remember a t��� d�t�'��� his term on the
Commission whan a zero setback variance has been grai�t�d,
Commissioner Mi11er stated if the applicant had come r�:�'or a pe��mit �xe �vc}«lc� have been told
such a stn�cture would not be ailowed by code unle�s �hc applic��nf. ��p�t�d f��x a variance. At
that time, the criteria vvould have been iooked a� ��i a� thcre is na t���i-��l�i� ��iermit would
not have been granted. ��`� �
.��`�� .
Mr. Wilson inquired as to whom he co�
compiiance wit� City Code. =��'�3
:����;;;:;;,<<,
.;°<:�:�.;,:�:,..
Chairperson Peterson indicated*,����'e�xs
Council for appraval o� the v'�,��ce.
�%� `
Mr, �'��`ilsor� indicated hc.ha�1 �i��ISidered
_ __ _ _
____ __ __ ___
_ _ _ _ _ __
_ _ _
pra�;lx�ci�, ;
Cami7iissioncr �icz�enson ii�1t�ilct� ��!�n
was.
�;;���
Mr. �;'�`���son indicat�
' . ��,
;:.: �.
�hazrperson Peters
�'lanning Commissi
cannot be granted. ,
1��spea�c tQ,��n aii
��
,:��;
an ap�c�al proce:
the st�-ucture into
would allow him to appeal to
but decided a lean�to was more
close to the property line the wall of ihe garage
was approximately 10 to 12 feet from the property line.
the sentiment of the other Commissioners indicating if the
find a practical way to meet the requirements then a variance
J '
noted a typographical errar in tlie Resolution and requested it be
�o�ti���issiaa�er Stevenson recommended that Mr. Wilson should bring pictures of the structure
to th� Council meeting if he in#ends to appeal io Council for granting ihe variance.
MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Miller. To Approve Resoiution 645-00, a Resalutian l)enyan�
the Variance Request of John Wilson to Allow a Garage Addition up to the Properiy Line and
Requiring that the Addition be Removed withzn Thirty (3 0} Days.
Ayes — 6
Nays — 0 Moiion Carried.
1Vlou�ad� 'Vie�er Pla�rning Co:nmis�ion
�eCe�a�e� �o, z000
Regular� l�/Iee�rng
Chairperson Peterson toid Mr, Wilson he would be abie to appeal the
Council if he wished.
Community Development Director Ericson asked 1V1r. Vi1i
wished to appear before Council on January 8, 200i so t;�
�b notiiy
could be.
,%i�`
6. Consider�tion af Iaesoluteo� 543-00, a Itesolt����n �.e�
Arloption of �tevised Ordin��ce 672 Regarding �mE��€x ����
Community Development Director Ericson addressed the ��annzng L'
ordinance had beem discussed at previous meetings ar�� ��econan�enc
approval_ Council sent the Ordinance bacic to tt�c�;-i'l�ni7it�� ;C;orn�
whether the City should a1low non-resident emp�c�yc�s at ��cizn����;�ed
After considerable public input and
determined that the City should not
Therefore, the only significant, no �,�
���.
disaliow on-street parking for l���z��
provided vehicles are parlced in ��c�rc
be allowed .r...
��
nnpact
Page 6
,.,
,>�,
.
-e�,��:"st" to
:^�, ,.
� wh��l�er he � i�
ending C�ty �€��ag�cil
��ns
s�i��; and indicated tkis
� �ent c��:to Cauncil for
Fii fc�3- discussion as to
ssion anat�ngst t.�� Gc}rx�t�lissior� members it was
non re��.dent aFnplc��r��� at k�ome-based husznesses.
;epi��;-`change ta ,.Ordinance 672 is the change to
b��inesses. �� street parlcing wil� be unlimited
�i�� a lica �,'� �odes. On-street arkin would not
�� �?:�,,,� P g
er tlie parl:irag change to the ordinance would negatively
ihe City's mobile home parks.
Community De�u����in��ti.I�irectoz �:ricsoz� indicated he did not believe the change in parking to
the ordina �� �c�u�e� ne�;ati�Tc�ay im�a�t apartment dwellers or residents of the City's mobile home
parks ��w�i� lease wi€h ����sid��t's la�zdlord would govern allowed parking and the streets in the
rnob�'�y,��home parks are pri�r�,�� �zn�i::�vould fall under ihe requirements for off-street parl�ing.
�TION/SECOND: ;<;��1u�saz�/�tevenson. To Approve Resolution 643-00, a Resolutio�n
�commending City C,�'ancil Adoption of Revised Ordinance 672 Regarding Home Occupations.
�����
,
A�. , j=fi�6 Nays — 0 ✓ Motion carried.
, :�
,:�
,; �:
,.,
�~i)?�S1CICi°�$AOHI O� ��SOI11ti0ri 644m00, a Resoluiion Settin� the l��I�etia�g I)�tes �°or ti�e
Pl�r�nang Com�nission in 2001.e
Community I�eveiopment Director Ericson indicated tha.t at the end of each year Staff presents to
fihe Planning Commission a Resolution setting the meeting dates for the coz�ning year. The
meeting dates will be the firsi and third Wednesdays of the month with the exception of �uly as
the 4"' af J�uly is the first Wednesday. Community Development Director Ericson inquired as to
whether the Commission wanted to set anoiher meeting date for 7uly or wait to see if workload
would permit having just the one meeting in July.
,a
j
}
.'�j
11�Iou�ds Viee�v Planning Comani�sio�
���e���� �.o, �ooa
���u�a�° ���t��g
Consent was reached by the Planning Cominission to waii to see if
just one meeting in July. f:��
Commissioner Stevenson noted November 21, 2001
expressed concern for having a meeting on that day.
Consent was reached by ihe Planning Commission not to rn
be only one meeting in November unless workload rec�uires
MOT�ON/SECOND: Mi11er/Cerny. To Approve ]
Meeting Dates for the Planning Commission in 20�1.
8.
Ayes — 6
St�ff 12eparts/�tem� of g�fo��aa
A. li�ezzen�a App�ic��
Siaff has received an
Sta� has ihe applieat
C
the S
the
Nays
iVi
::t. �: :
���e �
befor� `�'1�a��1�
��„ :;
�/
���'"���
�ber 21, 200I
;etin� be schec
, � ;lZesolution
having
ng and %' �
�r' .
rrc ��Tii� '
Setting the
carried.
concerning the Greenfield property.
i is welcome to review it during the
__
enf T�i�-eeta� YEricson told the Cominission the City learned the
eF�t} «a�;;i�i foreclosure. The banlc holding the Sheri�s Certificate
tl3e �ertificate to the City and the EDA has authorized Staff to
°���.�i�icate irom the bank.
�`%'� The property ov��er is pravided a redemption period to repay the arnounts due including
Y��t:
S'i � 1�'i�3
interesi. In th� ��eni the property owner is able to pay the amounts due including interest
` prior to the ,,.�iration of ihe redemption peripd, the City will not lose rnoney as it will
�.��
e��rn i�it�r� � In the event the property owner is not able to pay the amounts due including
,� �^ -
��tc��-e:s� 11���City would receive title to the propeYty. ��
9a Chairp�r°son and Pla�n�ng Commiss�oners' lte�oris
Chairperson Peterson reported his term on the Planning Commission expires at the end of the year
and he will not be reapplyirng to serve on the Commission. He stated he has enjoyed serving tlle
City for the past ten years but has decided to devote rnore time to lnis family.
Cornmunity Development Director Ericson thanked Chairperson Peterson for his contributions to
the City over the last ten years saying the City would miss him.
11�o��ds VYeva� Plann�ng Comrrii�sion
Dec�mber 20, 2000
Reg�ular I�Ieet�n�
l.Uo �id,gor�rnrra��at to Agenda �e�sian
There being no further Uusiness before the Pla.nning
the meeiing at 7:54 p,m.
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the
Respectfully submitted,
� y , ;,
�djourned
�
,.•i
I
'';.
�� � ��� ������ ����I�����
Januar� 11, 2001 -- 7:00 P.NI.
REGUI,AR MEETING
ACrENDt1
1. Call io Order
2. Roll Ca.11
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
CITiZENS: BEFORE �SP]EAIiING, PLEASE C011� TO T�iE P�IDIUi6hL,
AIVD GIVE YOUIB FCJ:E.T. IVAI� AND �DRESS FoR TTdIE �UT�S
4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes:
a. December 20, 2�Ofl
5. 1'l�nn�ng Case I�To. I9E00-Q02
Property Involved: 7664 Greenfield Avenue
- Review and Discuss 5ite Plans for a 3,500 Square-Foot Off°ice 73uilding, Consideration of
�' Resolution 646-01, a Resolution Recommending City Cauncil Approval.
Applicant: Tony Mezzenga
6. Special Planning Case I�o. SP-0�2-00
Contir�uation of Sign Code Review — Ground Signs
7. Sta�Reports / Items of Information
S. Cha.iiperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
9. Adjournment
c�PPLICr�TS: �'�Ult ATT�+ I�ANCE [�T TffiS li�IEETING �S IiEQUESTEID.
PLEASE �IOTI%'Y i`� CO I)��LL�PIO'I.ENT ID���T11'I�N'I' t�`I'
763-717-a1421 I�'+' �'OU � TJIaT��.E TO ATTEI�.
N:1DA'tA\GROLJPS\COMDEVIPI,ANCOMMIPCAGENDA12001Uanuary 17, 2000 PC Agend�do�
j
�
C`Z� Of M02i32G�S �181N
� . � 1 ,I.. �1 ~� ' -1 -i �I
_.
Meeting Date: January 17, 2001
= = ,
7'rtled
�� �
item # 5
BISCUSSION CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEVGT 12EQUEST OF
TONY MEZZENGA TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 76b4
GREENF'TELD AVENUE AND CONSIDERATION OF PL.A,NNiNG
COMIvIISSION RES�LUTION 645�OJ ,(PLANNING CASE NO. DE00-002)
Tony M[ezzenga is requesting approvat of a Development Review to construcl: an office building
wiih a 2,004 square foot footprint on the property consistent with the sefibacic variance that was
approved by the Planning Co�nmission on September 13, 2000. Staff sent notices to the property
owners within 3S0 feet of 7664 Greenfield Avenue regarding this meeting to promote neighborhood
awareness and to solicit suggestions and input from those residents most af�ected by this
development, �
The purpos� of a development review is to allow the Planning Commission to review proposed
development in ierms of iheir consistency vaith City Codes, in the context of the adjoining
developments and to ascertain and mitigate any potential impacts to the community. The Planning
Cornmission makes a recommendation to the City Council which then acts upon the request.
i' � � � �`
The Planning Commission met regarding this request on January 3, 2001, and determined that a
number of revisions were required to be made to the siie plan before it cauld consider a
recommendation to the City Council. Those revisions were as follows:
• Building shall be sei back 30 feet from Co. Rd. I and 10 feet from the west property line
• Parking lot shall have perimeter curbing with brealcs or cuts identified
� Addition of handicap accessible spaces per ADA requirements
� Identification of building and parking iot lighting to be utilized—if any
� Floor plans shall show a scale and indicate room dimensions
� Camputation of the totalleaseable of�ice area
� Grading Plan, if necessary, or general elevations shown on site plan
• Direction of siormwater z-unoi�indicated on site plan with arrows
� Landscaping areas sho�n, schedule oiplantings to be �sed
� Elevation plan to indicate building height and specific materials as suggest�d hez�ein
� Location and detailed description of proposed signage if available
Mezzenga DeveIopment Review
January 17, 2001
Page 2
These issues were reviewed wi�h Mr, Mezzenga, who was unable to attend �he last meeting. He
indicated that ail of the issues could or would be resolved and would be happy to woric with ihe
Coznm.ission toward that end.
A new siie plan was submitted which addresses most of the issues. Staff exa.r�nined the dimensional
requir�ments based on the new site plan and summarized the results as follows:
Dimensianal Requirements:
Building Seibacics:
� Fro�t (Co. Rd. I,}:
� Front (Greenfield}:
• Side {V�lest):
� Side (�outh):
Parking Lat Setbacks:
� Front (Co. Rd. T.):
� Front (Greenfield):
• Side (V�Iest):
� Side (�outh):
Parking Requirements:
Required
30 feet
30 feei
10 %et*
10 feet*
10 feei*
10 feet*
5 feet
1 S feet*
Propos�d:
34 feet
87 �Feet
10 feet
20 feet
12 feet
I8 feef
49 feet
] 5 feet
Met ?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
• Allowed: 1 per 200 square feet af' leasable of�ice space area*
• Praposed: 15 spaces
� Max. leaseable office space: 3,�00 5qua.re Feet
� Proposed leaseable of�'ice space: 2,56� ,�yuare Feet
* These requirements are as allowed by Resolution 633-00, a resolution approving a variance for reduced
building and parking lot setbacks.
The site plan submitted for review, as indicated in the dimensional requirements above, is consistent
with the approved variance and with the applicable City Codes.
Parkin�:
The approved variance allows for a reduced parking ratio—one space per every 200 square feet of
leaseable of�ice space or fraction thereof. The sifie plan indicates 15 stalls which wouid translate
into a ma�mum leaseable office area of 3,000 square feet. The submitted floor pians show a
combined 2,89� square �eet of pot�ntial office space, yet Mr. Mezzenga has indicated that one of
the rooms ozz the lower level would be set aside for storage; thus the amount of leaseable office
space is reduced to 2,574 square feet. The Americans With I�isabilities Act (,ADA) parking
requirements are met by the provision of the one van-accessible spoi. �taff has indicaied to Mr.
Mezzenga ihai the Ciiy Code requires a perimeter curb be installed for this developr�neni.
Li�htin�
The si#e plan does not indicate ihat any exterior lighting wi11 be used with this development. StaflF
7
;
Mezzenga Devetopment Review
January 17, 2001
Page 3
addressed this issue with Mr. Mezzenga, who indicated that the only lighiing to be us�d for the
parl�ing iot would be provided by huildir�g-mounted floodlights. These lighis will need io comply
with ihe Zoning Code pertaining to lighiing and glare. {Chapter 11�3 of the Zoning Code.)
Draina�e:
The lot at ib64 Greenfield Avenue, and those that surround the subject property, are essentially flat
with litile if any change in elevation. The proposed development witl add a relatively minimal area
of irnpervious surface, Because of that, the lack of elevation change, and the requirement of
perimeter curbing, staf�does not consider stormwater runof�to be an issue for the adjoining
properties or the City's stormsewer system. Even so, the parking loti shall be constructed with a
slight slope to drain stormwater toward the north and east (away from the building) into areas of
pervious greenspace. This is a fiechnique encouraged hy Rice Creek Watershed District ar�d
cansistent with its "best management practices" philosophy. The perimeter curbing shall be
consiructed with breaks or surmountable points io allow for the stormwater to pass through, thus
allowing water to infiltrate and recharge the aquifers rather ihan being discharging untreated directly
into City stormsewers. (Rice Creelc Watershed District does not need to review this development
as it falls well below the minimum acreage threshold.}
Landscaping;
Staff explained to Mr. Mezzenga ihe need to provide for landscaping and to revise the plans to
show areas of landscaping and the species and quantities used. He has consented and agrees that
landscaping �vill be needed on the site. Staf�would suggest that if the Planning Commission has no
other issues concerning tl�is proposal, that a recommendation of approval could be forwarded to the
City Council with a stipulation that the Iandscaping issue be resolved prior to Council approval.
The City Forester will review the plantings to ensure compatibility with 1Viounds View soils az�d
make recommenda�ions if necessary. All non�landscaped pervious areas shali be sodded.
Because of the ciose proximity of the home ta the south an Greenfield Avenue, the need to pravide
for screening and buffering is importazzt. Tl�is can be accomplished with a row of plantings, such as
lilacs ar evergreens, or with the construction of a fence. While stafiwould prefer a more natural
buffer, the drawback is that it would take years to fully screen the building when a fence would
provide for immediate screening. �taff has been in contact with Mr. Zwirn, the resident to the
south, and Mr. Zwirn has revxewed the site plans. Staff has not, however, received any comments
from Mr, Zwirn regarding his preference far screening, if any, between the two lots.
The Commission discussed at length the potential need for fencing between ihe proposed building
and the Iot to the west (Tom Thumb.) Staf�would again discourage the requirernent of a privacy
fence between the two lots for safety and aesthetic considerations. If the pritnary desire is fio
demarcate the property lines with secondaty effect of itnpeding pass-through pedestrian tra#�ic, staff
would suggest a four-foot tall split rail fence or something simiiar which would be more visually
appealing, less imposing and less likely io attract vandalism.
Buildin� Exterior;
The front building elevation indicates a one and a half story building wiih a hipped roof and covered
entr-yway. The building exhibits an aesthetically pleasing, conte�-sensitive residential appeaxance,
Mezzenga Development Reviaw
January 17, 200 t
Page 4
The base of the buiiding wiil be of masonry or stone material and the iop half sided with a wood-
grained maintenance-free e�erior. The masonry or stone base and any other architectural features
shall be exhibited at a minimum on both buiIding front elevations.
Gradin�:
It is not anticipated that ihe construction will alter the existing land elevations, and as such, a grading
pian does not need to be submitted. If existing elevations wiil remain substantiatly unchanged as
expected, the site plan shalI be revised to generally show elevations for the purpose of illustrating the
direction of stormwaier runoi� and those areas where runaff can collect during heavy rain. Arrows
shall be used to indicate the direciion of water flow.
Si na e:
Because the proposed development is located within a predominately residential area, special
consideration shall be given toward the iypes and size of signage permitted. To further strengthen
the residential appearance of the building, staff would discourage the use of any wall-mounted
building signage. If, however, such signage is imperative, that it be accomplished in a decorative,
unobtrusive manner. Ground mounted signage sha11 be aliowed only if designed as a masonry
manument sign, not to exceed eight feet in height or 104 square feet in area. The location of such a
graund sign shall be consistent with Chapter 1008 in that zi be located at leasi 15 feet from a
property Iine and 25 feet from the lot corner formed by the Greenfield Avenue and Coun�y Road I
right of ways. The site plan does not indicate a location for such a sign as no sign is curreniiy '�
proposed. - � � '
I�ecom�cer�dation:
If the Planning Commission beiieves it has received sufficient information frozz� staff, residents and
the applicant, staff has provided Resalution 64b-01 for t�e Corninission's action, a resolution
recommending to the City Council approval af this development review request by Tony
Mezzenga to construct a 2,000 square foot offtce building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, subject to
stipulations.
1
' ��!� '�� ���l�4? ��GsO.
4e
James Ericson, Community Development Director
Attachments;
1. Zoning Map
2. Location Map
3. Resolution 646-01
4. Site Plans, date stamped 1/I i/O1
Zoning Map
� � <<���� �- �..-.y�---- RU - ,, �� � �-
�F ". -,----`�-� _ —"' +ti= r�� r . c> r'
�e N in «r�rr �,� )9D5 7o�U� ." N11.�- - c i -f w � �r+ c+ � �/�� �D vi �f r°, ��
:Y�a(I� f �P q y ,A � . c"' �� 7 r� r�1 ,� t! ��+ ri i r N<.
..__ .. _ {�! �., �,� � < � 7 �O 1, _ : � ��, ( � ,, ,, �„ ��� �,� �i ��.� ���.V..�— °J c � � i r-i ��
- .. .- - . �� � i r�i ��J r� i i ... . . .
i �. 1.
__ --.._.____. '�� �`r� Cj,^.. 1'.,. �•�, ,�� �. �, _. _ � H1tLVIE1�l
7 _ _. w. ' t-I _ .. t� ..m i` rt-� �t •t r-, f�J .- p r', � q: n -{� <j, m �ii +P �p
�° 7FI9 K'F� cv PF � r in r�) r• r� r�� r7 r, ,7 ch r- �v �� �1 j ii
7USQ 7�3�� �r y-t 3 �_� ri ��� ri r-� < i < r c� cv r� c+ �,+ Pa � �
ri �.i r-i �r r�;-- � OAl(WOOp DR r� ra r� �•+ r�� c�� ��� c��
7878 787� 786 7$59 7f1G9 � 78a5 � ` r r-��°7 rn �-, ��� °, ;� v� r
.�G 1_ :61 E.�fi I. ,,f; I-� �i �i !w �i <i r� rr �� C�
7s�7t1 7461 7354 7857 785C � � r+ c,i , ��
� � � �t�n r>r,► � r>s�? �r>�. � s��. a 00l�KA D..
�x3s 7$45 7�1d
� 7H•t7 78a T w =�C�l, ��G06 Sc,Q � SfioG n �. w� � � 7 W
7f320 � 7�133 7832 7837 78-' 7825 5Ep1 SGQQ 5601 5f,0o �' � a�� i c� �� cNi i�
� 78�� 7 II2 ? �n r, �rr r� �n o,
7F31 3 7tt15 7$14 556 5�625�6_ 55G� �± r`Oi cw �i ci°v �� v:;
7fiQ6 7817 � � c� N rr �� r� �r �i N ��
7844 7801 780 ��r �' + � j � S55 � 555�i 5557 � '5�' � � �J
77 %0 775 . 7$07 �...i �°� iroo � U 2 G G co � n t�n u� �
7779 �F1 � a551 — 5550 S55! ��S�' C^ '° �` �� o
�' 1 / a i`� M� � V% rl C.� N f�l <-.� N V7 p �'l
77(iF5 7739 7740 7751� r�:, �+ nt � 5 55�#-0 SJ$J �"j�j 5544 U c� _� r� r� c� �� �� �+ c�
-�_ _._�� i `� .;',, Se 4
%1 774 I��NEW(��CIR�9' > � v� �- a� i-� n,°'
794& 7)?9.7739 � —rzY`--� n-..'• �:,r 1,Y_ � !i!'r38 553E 553� 5E�. � m �+ ,,.� n� c'�-� ci � r�`i
772i3 7719 772C � 77;1 y7�, � �; � �r`> � �3�5 � � nt�c, c-� n� c+ �i t�-I �i
�.F �., � �, ,� �- ,�3 ��:�a� ss33 553:: PINE`4/00Q Q�
n�a ��os ��s ���z� ��z � t�i: ``' � v� 1—
B m r .-. in rn r� �527 5�2b F,;;Z Vi 552Ca � ao . o �,p p(} p �, ,
� � W 00 I� �D [D � � �� W a0 I-^ �P �tl tfl �� M i
N cV N N N [�t C� N
�n �� 7701 770D 770 � d 7701 N C� v M r+ 5521 55 � 55"L1 5520 c� rr nf r+ ri �� ro �� �;
� C� ^� �� �
, �,
_i
\�
r V
�1•�
o- �
c�Q r` �}�� �, ¢�" �
1 �'
R-2
� s2i. fi ° w � ° K .';,.. ::
5
547Z 5
5
5
�-2
5468 `5
54fi4 5
Sd �i5
-/ sr
s7 v
Sr?. �F
�
5420
5A14 �
in
5406 c�v
c�, w �v � w ��
M N N(�t N N N ry �
�1 T •h M
(V N N nl
hl r� f'1 C�l
vi r oi r r1 �n m r� u
rn a� n n�o �n M��'
M �'+ CJ N c �[ i N�
; ;i` ;1; .. . I; ; � - .�� � ���� : . .. ���. . ; . ;�; �
�� 1 , � , .: ,#; , , ,�. ,�, ;
`_ F ? � ii � `, 1. '-'
I
�' : , �: �' ., . ;D
� 1'� -;f:�.
. ��� � ' � � 'i � - ': ; . ,�- � � 1 � "�, 1 1 : ; ' .�, � � �� :� �, .. : �, �� .. _ �; ��. �. � ��; � � . :: �_
• �° �• �" ' _ "1' 1 : � ;" �' �' � � °�: .1. . :�. ; . �; � -_ �. .� _ � �l�;
�' I '' ' 1' �' 1 •. : � ;, �' ; ': 1 �. ;1; .
r , � � � �; ���;
;�`.
�II��ItEA�, Tony Nlezzenga, representing property owner Ear��est Gustafson, has
applied for � development review �o construct a 2,OOQ square foot office building at 7654
Greenfield Avenue; and,
WI��A�, the subject property is zoned B-3, �-Iighway Business, is designated as a
"1Veighborhood Commercial" use on the Comprehensive Plan and is legally described as
follows:
Lot 30, Block 3, Greenfield Plat 2, Subject to Road Easement
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
1tE�.S, according io Section 10�6.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, any
new construction or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval of a development
review; and,
ih1I�REA,S, according to Section 1114.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code,
commercial o�fices are a permztted use wifih the B-3 zoning district; and,
'�VI�E12E[�S, the Planning Cammission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. �ite Plan, date-stamped 1/12/OI
e. Floor Pian and Elevaiions, date-stamped 1/12/01
f. Variance Resolution 633-00, ap�roved 9/13/00
g. Staff Report
ItEAS, ihe proposed development saiisfies the requirements of Zoning Code as
weli as the variance approved on September 13, 2000; and,
�FIE A.�, the site plans date-stamped 1/11/Ol indicate that the proposed office
building will be 34 feet by 59 with a fooiprint of 2,006 square fe�t; and,
Mezzenga Resolution 646-01
January 17, 200 i
Page 2
i
�I��AS, the number of parking stalls provid�d (14 reguiax, 1 handicapped, 15
total) satisfies the requirements af the Americans With Disabilities Act and the requirements in
the variance approved September 13, 2000; and,
N��I '�'I�EEItEF'OItE �E IT 1�S�L�D that the Mounds View Planning
Commission, finding that all o� the requirements have been met, does hereby recammend that
the City Council approve the development review request fQr the construction of a 2,006
square foat, two-level office building with 2,568 square feet of Ieaseable office space at 76b4
Greenfield Avenue, subject to the follawing stipulations:
Barrier curbing (B 6-12} shall be installed around the perimeter of the parking 1ot and
access drzve. At points where storrnwater will coilect, cuts sha11 be made to a11ow
water to pass through into gervious areas.
2. Ail utilities to the building shall be installed underground.
3. One monument sign shall be aliowed not to exceed eight (8) feet in height or one
hundred (100) square feet in area. The base of such sign shall be constructed of
masonry or sto�ne znaterials to match the building. A pole or pylon type sign is
prohibited. IVo more than 60 square feet of comb'vned building mounied signage shall
be allowed. �
4. The masonry or stone building siding and any other architectural design characteristics
shall be consistent aiong the narth and east buiIding elevations.
5. There shall be no outside garbage storage or dwnpster allowed on this site, all garbage
and refuse shall be stored within the b�ailding.
6. There shall be no parking lot Iighting other than supplemental flood lights mounted
upon the buiiding. Such lights shall be down cast and stueided or hooded to eliminate
glare or light spillage onto adjoining properties in accordance with Chapter 1103 of the
Mounds View �oning Code.
7. Elevation contours and drainage arrows sha11 b� added to the site plan to indicate
direciion of storn�water runoff.
8. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan indicating the locations, numbers and
species of fihe plantings to be used on the site. The City Forester shall review the
landscape plans and make re�ammendations as to the specific species used.
9. The applicant shall insiati any fancing, screening or buf�ering as required by the
Pla�uling Commission or City Council.
Mezzenga Resolution b46-01
Ianuary 17, 2001
Page 3
�E IT' 'TI��.d. �SOL�I3 that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs
Staff ta forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this l.7tta day of January, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Vice Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Community Deveiopment Director
(SEAL)
N:IDATAIGROUPSIC�MDEVIDBVCA5E5\DE00-002 (MEZZENGA}\RESOLUTION 646-01.DOC
Item # 6
-�:;c.>,,, .., . �, � �. , >.:.. ; �� :. z;., . ,i ,F;��,. . ,... ::.::. ..... . :,.. .., , ,.,;`:: .:r. ./:,: �:r ., „ _
- �`l$� 0�11/107,lYlGd��' VZ�'W
� �s��
Meeting Daie: Janua�y 17, 2001
,.� .. .._ � .. , . . .. ,,
�,., _ , � �
T'itlea
CONTINiJATION OF PL�lNN1NG COMI��ISSION 1ZEVIEW OF CHAPTER 1008 OF THE
MOUNI�S VIEW MiJNICIPAL COBE, "SIGNS."
.lntt°oductron:
At the last meeting of the Planning Comnnission, the def�nitions were reviewed. At this meeiing,
the Planning Commission will discuss ground sigrns, which is io mean,
"A sign principally supported by a structut°e affixed to the ground, and not supporCed by a building,
including signs supported by one or more columns, poles or braces placed in or upon the ground"
Ground signs would include monurneni signs, which a�re defined as,
"A freestcrnding sign attached to ihe ground be means of a freestanding support structure, solyd fram grade to
the top of the sign structure, typically encased or supported by masonry mate�ials. "
,�ascu�sion:
The discusszon should focus on what is currently allowed in our code, namely, the height, �he sign
area, the number of such signs allowed per 1ot, sethacks, etc.
As ths Commission is aware, freestanding signs are allowed in Mounds View as follows:
Zoning District Area �eight �iilbaaa-cis?
R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O Not A licable Not A licable NO
B-1, B-2 Not A Iicable Not A licable NO
B-3, B-4, i-1 340 s uare feet 35 feet NO
PF, CRP 340 s uare feet 35 feet YES
PUD Undefin�d Undefined YES
As has been discussed, the Cade does not address frees�anding signage for apartment complexes,
churches and other institutional uses. Tkus should be examined and remedied. StaflEbelieves that
disallowing freestanding signs in a�W 1 or B-2 district to be too restrictive and perhaps this should
be reviewed as well. Last, according to 5eciion 1008.08, Subd. 2k, regarding pedestal signs, it
staies tha� only one pedestal sign is allowed per property. This conflicis with the definiiion of a
pedestal sign in Sectiorn 1008.01, which does allow for nnultiple signs under certain conditions.
Sign Code Review
January I7, 2001
Page 2
"'�. i ri .�r
Examine and discuss all of the issues related to ground signs {AKA freestanding, monument,
pedestal, pylon and pole signs) ar�d direct staffto make the relevant necessary changes to the
Cade.
�;,��f.,,,r1�.c.�� `��•�...
3ames Ericson
Community Developm�nt Directoz
`1
0:1DATA\GROUPS1COIvII�EV1SPECPROJ1Sp0&2-00 (Sign Code)1Sign Code Report - Jan I7 2000.doc
�� �.��� �� ��� ����������
� Fe��ua�y 7, 2001 -- 7:00 i'.M.
;
REGULAR NIEETING
AGENDA
1. Cail to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on ihe Agenda
CITIZEN�: BEFOR� SPEAI�IG, PLEASE CO��E T� Tf� PODIUNi,
ANI� GI�IE YOUR F`�TLL NAIViE AND ADD1tESS FOR TII3E 1�fIlVi7TES
4. �pecial Pl�nny�ag Ca�e 1Vm. SP�082-00
Coniinuatian of Sign Code Review
5. Review Planning Commission B�laws
6. Review Planning Commission "Overview"
7. �taff3teports
a. Previous Council Action
b. Upcoming Planning Cases
c. Zoning News
:�
0
1.
z.
Chairperson a,tad Plat�ning Commissioners' Reports
Adjournment to Agenda Session
t�PPLICAl�ITS: YoUR ATTENI3ANCE A'� TffiSS 1VIEE'TIliTG IS xE(��TES'1'EI).
PI.Et�SE NOTII+�' TJ�E CO ➢E'�EY,�PNiE�T I)EP�TN�A1T AT
763-717-402111� YO SJ EiR�+ YJN�LE 'TO L�'i"�'EIVD.
�.� -\11` :��iJ,��c��.�
AGENDA
Review the Minutes from the January 3, 2001, Planniilg Commission Meeting.
Review the Minutes from the January 17, 2001, Planning Comrnission Meeting.
AI:IDATAIGROI3PS\COtviDEV1PLANCO2vfM1PCAGENDA\ZOO1�F'ebrary 7, 2001 PC Agenda.doc
Item # 4
City of �lounds View
' 1 iSS� � �
Meeting Date: Feb�ua�°y 7, 2001
_ <.. , y .. ..;:: �.. , .� .,a� ,_ r 4: .»,r."s . -ii�.
�'l$ZC'.
C�NTIN[JATION OF PLANNING COMMISSI�N REVIEV�7 OF CHAPTER 1008 OF THE
MOUNDS VIEW MUNiCIPAL CODE, "SIGNS."
Intr°oductaono
Ati its last meeting, the Planning Commission discussed ali aspects of ground signs. A report to
tk�e Planning Commission dated November 15, 2000 was referenced. For �his meeting, the
Planning Comtnission wiil review the first comprehensive redraft of the ordinance, building on the
discussions from the last meeting. According to the review schedule, the Planning Comrnission is
to discuss wall signage requirements at this meeting.
.Da�cussiono
In general, it appears as though many changes ha.ve been made to the ordizzance. �li�ile that is
true, ihe changes are not as numerous as one would imagine as many seciions of the Code were
- simply reorganized and replaced into different sections. For the benefit of the Corrunission, the
foliawing represents a summary of most of the changes:
Page 1. A"Purpose" section was added. This was shown on the 11/15/00 draft revision. The section is
numbered 1008.00, hut wiIl probably have to be renurr�bered as I 008.01, thus requuing each
subse uent section to be renumbered.
Page 2. Canopy Sign defuiition. Te� added which states canopy signs shall be considered the same as a wa11
(1008.01) si for oses of area com utations.
Page 2. Direction Sign defuution. A line was added thai stafes that such signs may be located witltin a straet
(1008.01) ri ht of wa .
Page 7. Subd. 2, regarding "Exceptions" to building permits. Sale, rental or lease signs do not require a
(100�.02) permit. Any szgn less than 8 square feet does not need a pernut. Signs for churches, public or
charitable institutions now would require a pernvt. (Before, if under ten square feet, no permit was
required. Net effeci of change is that 9 or i 0 square foot signs require a pernut whereas before they
did not.) Home occu ation si s and incidental si s do not re uire a ermit.
Page 9. Subd. 2 has been deFeted. This section gave the Cauncil authority to zssue a pemut for a sign that did
(1008.05) nat comply with these subdivisions. Is that not what the variance provision was for? Rather than
maintain the inconsistene , this was subdivision was eliminated,
Page 10. Subd. 1 f has been deieted, Subds. lh, 1 i and 1 j have been added from another part of the Code.
(I008,08)
Page 11. As was adriressed in the Nov. 15 revision, old Subd. 1 i is deleted with its subparts reorganized and
(1008.08 re laced into new Section 1008.09, Subd. 1.
Page 12. Subd. 2 is now reorganized into an easy to read Tabte. The requirements by dist�•ict that follaw the
(1008.08) tabl� are all deleted. Subd. 3 is a new table relatin to si hei hts.
Page 14. Old Subd. 3 is now in new section 1008.10, Miscelianeous Sigr►age Requirements and Provisions.
I008.08 Old Subd. 4 relating to clearance of signs from conductors is relocated fo 1008.08, Subd, lh under
eneral si re uirements,
Sign Code Review
January t 7, 2fl0I
Page 2
Page I5. Old Subd. 5 relocated to 1008.08, Subd li under general sign requirements. Oid Subd. 6 relocated to
( I 008.08) new Section 1008.09, Specific Sign Type Standards. Old Subd. 7 has been eIuninated, as roof signs
are now considered rohibited.
1'age 16. Old Subds. 8 and 9, Wall Signs and Temp Signs, respectively, are relocated to ne�� Section I008.09,
(1008.08) S ecific Si T e Standards.
Page 17. Old Subd. 10, BilIboards, is relocated to new Section 1008.09, Speci�c Sign Type Standards.
(]008.08)
Page 18. Otd Subd, 1 l, Campaign Signs, is relocated to new Section ]008.09, Specific Sign Type Standards.
taa8.os�
Fage 19. ,5ection 1008.09, Specific Sign Type Standards, is new, created from other code passages. Subd. 1
(1008.09} relates to Ground Signs. Crround signs need to be set back 15 feet. (Is this too much?) Subd, lf
altows for more than one ound si . Please review these new re uirements
Page 20. Subd. 2. addresses wail signs. For the most part, the Ianguage is the same yet Subds. 2c, 2d and 2e
(1008,09) address wali si altowances as the differ b zonin district.
Page 2fl. Subd. 3. relates to Projection signs. Again, for the most part, the language is the same yet Subd. 3f is
(1008.09} new, rohibitin swin in or swa in ro'ection si s.
Page 21 Subd. 4 Relates to Temporary signs. Only minor changes have been made: Increase of xnax sign
(1008.09) area frorn 32 to 48 square feet and a recalculation of hanner area ailowance in Subd, 4b. Subd. 5 is
new and relates to Window si ns. Is a 25% max covera e er window ane too restrictive?
Page 23. Subd. 6 is Billboards. No changes here except withir► Subd, 6i, Destruction, where an"act of God"
1008.09) has been re laced with "an act of nature."
Page 23. Subd. 7 is Campai� signs. Minneso#a statutes indicate municipalities may not restrict size and
(1Qfl8.09) location of such si s. Should we eliminate this section or maintain it unchan ed?
Page 23. This is a new section regarding miscellaneous reqnirements, Subd. 1 relates to allowing signs for
(1008.10) Churches and other non-��esidential uses in a residential district.
Page 24. Subd. 2 is relocated from Old Section 1008.08 Subd. 3. Subd. 3 is new and relates to Garage Sale
(1008.10) szgns and the Iike. What do you think? Subd 4 is also new, allows for area identification signs.
{Refer to the definition.) Look ok?
Page 25 Subd. 5 is new and refers to Prohibited Signs. FIaslung signs are now prohibited, as are roof signs.
(1008. I0) Tem or "lose wei ht" and "work from home" si s are now ex licitl rohibited.
Page 25 This section is "Sig�z Variances." Rather than individually listing the variance cziteria, the
1008.13) subdivision sim 1 refers to Cha ter 1125 of the Zonin Code.
Communication & Notification; On January 24, 2001, Sta#3F seni out more than 125 le�ters tco
Mounds View businesses alerting ihem to the fact that the Planning Commission was reviewing
the Sign Code. A copy of this letter is attached for your reference. Also, the Chamber of
Commerce sent out a notification io its membership base indicating the Commission's revie�v of
the Sign Code. The City's website has been updated to include a page relating to the proposed
sign code revision which can be viewed at http://tcfreenet.or /�or�/nnoundsview/signcode.htm.
Last, staff has requesfied that information be scrolled on the City's cabie channei, Channei 16.
5chedule: According io the review schedule, the Planning Commission is to review tlze temporary
sign requirements at its next meeiing on February 17, 2001. While if is anticipated �hat a final
drafl: of the Si�n Code could be ready for presentation at the first meeting in March, staflFwill
schedule the public hearing for the second March rzxeeting. Assuming no further changes are
needed, the Sign Code would be placed on ihe Council's Apri12°� worksession agenda, with first
and second readings scheduled for April 9�' and Apri123`a
A:1Sign Code Report - Feb 7, 2000.doc
Sign Code Review
January i 7, 2401
Page 3
�eC0172Yi2eYLl�Q�lf1 P2:
Review and discuss the proposed �ign Code revisions and the issues retated to wall signs and
direct staff to �ake any necessary changes to �he Code.
;
�,,�Ci.�'�,� `����,.,
Ja.mes Ericson
Community Development Director
Attaclunents:
l. Sign Code revision
2. Letter to Mounds View businesses
A:\Sign Cade Report - Feb 7, 2000.doc
Draft 5ign Code Revision
Fehruary 7, 2001
uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs which are con�monly
located within or adjacent to public right-of-way or are located at driveway/street
intersections, resuit in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of oncoming traffic.
This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also adversely impacts a logicai
flow of information;
� cornmerciai signs ar� generally incompatible with residential uses and should be
strictly limited in residentiai zoning districts; and
� ihe right to express noncommercial opinions in any zaning district must be protected,
subject io reasonable restrictions on size, height, locaiion and number.
1008.01: DEFIIotIT`�OI�1�: The following terms have the meanings ascribed to them in this
Section:
AB.ANDONED SIGN: A sign that becomes vacant, unoccupied or urzused; or a sign prornoting a
business or activity no Ionger in operation or incorrectly or inaccurately conveying a message for a
period in excess of six months. [New]
AI�]IMATED SIGN: A sign that has any moving or rotating part; or uses movement or change of
lighting ta depict action or create a special effect or scene. Refer also to elechonic scrolling message -
or marquee signs. [New] = �
.AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN: A freestanding sigi which idenhfies the name of a comrnunity,
neighbarhoad, a residential subdivisiQn, a mlzlti-family residentiai compiex consisting of three (3) or
more structures, a planned unit development, or any combination of the above located on contiguous
properties. �Andover, Oakdale]
AtiVI�TING SIGN: A sign displayed on or attached flat against the surface or surfaces of an awiung
attached to or exiending from a building. (USSCF]
BANNER: Any sign of tightweight, flexible material affixed to a building, pales, vehzcle or other
supporting structures upon which a message, slogan, design or logo is displayed. Nationai, state, or
municipal flags sha11 not be considered a baauier. [Changed]
BEACON: Any Iight with one or xnore beams directed into the atrnosphere or directed at one or
more points not on the same lot as ihe light source; aiso, any light wzth one or more beams that rotate
or move. [Burnsville, APA)
BENCH SIGNS: A sign which is affixed to a bench or shelter at a bus stop. [Oakdale]
BiI,LBOA�tD: A large, outdoor advertising structur� typically n:�ounted on one or more poles,
located off the p�emises where the advertised product is sold or offered. jChanged]
BUSINESS SIGN: A sign that states the proper narne of ihe bnsiness, organization ar institution
located on the premises on which the sign is located. jNo Change]
Page 2
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 7, 200I
CAMPAIGN SIGN: A temporary sign promoting the candidacy of a person running for a
government office, or promoting an issue to be voted on at the next election. [Burnsville]
CANOPY SIGN: A sign affixed ta the visible surface of an attached or freestanding canopy
structure, often backli.t to provide internal illuminaiion. For the �ur�oses of si�n area computation,
canopy signs shall be treated as a wall si�1 [New]
CHANGEA.BLE COPY STGN: A sign or portion thereof with characters, letters or illustrations that
can be changed or rearranged electronically or znanually without altering the face or the surface of the
sign. A sign on which the message changes more than eight times a day shall be considered an
animated sign for the purposes of this ordinance. That portion of a sign on which the only copy that
changes is an indication of the time and temperature shall be considered a public informational sign.
[Burnsviile, APA]
CONSTRUCTION SIGN: A sign placed at a constructian site identifying the project and/or names
of the a�chiiect, engineers, developers, contractors or other individuais or firms associated with the
project. [Burnsville]
DIRECTIONAL SiGN: A sign for the purpose of malcing specific commercial, industrial or public
and semi-public locatiflns known and to assist in finding these locations on the property where the
sign is located. Such si s mav be located within street ri�t of wavs subject to a�proval of the
- ap�zopriate �overnmental a eg ncv. [Change]
';
FLASHING SIGN: Ai�itnated signs, or animated portions of signs whose illumination is
characterized by a repetitive cycle in which the period of illumination is either the same or as or less
than the period of nan-ilhunitiahon. For the purposes of this ordinance, flashing will not be defined
as occurring if the cyciical period between on-off phases of iliumination exceeds four (4) seconds.
[USSCF]
FREESTANDING SIGN: A sign principaliy supported by a struciw'e affixed to the ground, and not
supported by a building, including signs supported by one or more columns, poles or braces piaced in
or upon the ground. Also referred to as a Ground Sign. [USSCF]
GOVERNMEN'I` OR REGULATORY SIGN: A sign which is erected by a governmental unit for
identification, traffic control or other regulatory purposes. Such signs are often located within sfireet
right of ways. [Burnsvilie]
GROUND SIGN: A sign principally supported by a structure affixed to the ground, ax�d no�
supported by a building, including signs supported by one or more caluir�ns, poles or braces placed in
or upon the ground. Also referred to as a Freestandir�g Sign. (USSCF]
HOME OCCUPATION SIGN: A sign erected upon a residential property to advertise a home based
business or occupation talcing place ai tha,� location. [New]
IDENTIFICATION SICCN: A sign, the primary func�ion of which is to identify a residential,
commercial, industrial or public or semi-public use iocated upon the premises where such sign is
located or to which such sign is affixed. Signs identi#�ying commercial uses may call attenrion to �he
Page 3
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 7, 2001
product, service or activity that is sold or affered upon the premises. Signs identifying industrial uses
may call attention ta the product, goods or material which is produced, processed, assembled or
stared upon the premises. [Na Change]
INFLATABLE SIGN: A portable device inflated wifh air or hetium used to draw attention to an
activity or business upon which ihe device is attached. Such contrivance rnay or may not display
advertising copy. For the purposes of this Code, such inflatable devices are also considered a
temporary sign.
ILLEGAI, SIGN: A sign erected without a pernut or in violation of this ordinance. Such signs shall
be subject ta removal upon written notice by the City. [New]
INCIDENTAL SIGN: A sign, generally informational, that has a purpose secondary to the uses on
the property on whicl� it is located. Such. signs rnight in.clude, but are not Iimited to, "No Parlcing,"
`Bntrance," "Exit," "ATM," or "Payphone." No sign with a commercial message legible off the
prernises shail be considered ir�cidentaL [APA]
MONUMENT SIGN: A freestanding sign attached to the ground by means of a freestanding support
structure, solid from grade to the top of tbe sign structure, typically encased or supported by masonry
materials. [New)
NUISANCE SIGN: A sign ixz a staie of disrepair, dete�ioration or damage whereupon one fourth
(1/4) or more af the sign surface is no longer clearly legible or recognizable at a distance of forty -,.,,
(�0') feek [New] ; J
NONCONFQRMIlVG SIGN: Any sign that daes not comply with the requirements of this ordinance
is coz�sidered nonconforming. A sign which was erected legaliy but does noi comply with
subsequently enacted sign restrictions or regulations is considered legal nonconforming. [New]
POLE SIGN: A freestanding sign supported by or erected upon ane or �xzore narrow coluriuis, shafts
or poles. Also referred to as a Pylon sign. (New]
PORTA.BLE SIGN: Any sign not permanently attached to the �ound or other permanent structure,
or a sign designed to be transported, including, but not limited to, signs on wheels, signs canverted to
66A" or "T" frames, menu and sandwich boards, inflatable devises, advertising umbrellas, and signs
attached to or pa.inted on vehicles parked and visibie from the public right of way, unless sazd vehicle
is used in the normal day-to-day operations of the business. [Burnsville, ,APA]
PROJECTING SIGN: A sign other than a wall sign which is perpendicular to and prajects miore than
eighteen (1�} inches from a building face or wall or from a structure whase priinaay purpose is oiher
than the support of the sign. [USSCF]
P�'LON SIGN: A freestanding sign supported by or erected upon one or more narraw columns,
shafts or poles. Also re%rred to as a Pole sign. [New]
REAL ESTATE SIGN: A si� advertising the sale, lease or rental of the properiy or premises upon ' ''
which the sign is located. [US�CF] -
Page 4
Draft Sigii Code Revision
Februaiy 7, 2�01
ROOF �IGN: A sign erected, consh-ucted or attached wholly or in pat�i upon any roof or over the
! lughest roofline of a building. [Burnsville, APA]
SECURI'I'Y SIGN: A smail, incidental sign idenfiifying the presence af a security system.
[Buxnsville]
SIGN: A sign, the primary functian af which is to direct attention to a product, service or activity that
is sold or offered either elsewhere or upon the premises whare such sign is located or io which it zs
affixed. [No Change]
SIGN AREA: That area of a sign within the marginal lines of the surface, which bears the
announcement, name, advertisement or other message or, in the case of letters, figures or sy�nbols
attached directly to any park of a building, ihe area which is included in the smallest rectangle which
can be rriade to circumscribe all letters, fig�.ues or symbols displayed thereon. [No Change]
SIGN COPY: The letiars, numbers, figures, symbols, logos, and graphical elements comprising the
content or m.essage of the sign. [USSCF]
TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign displaying a commercial or non-commercial message erected or
maintained for a specific period of time and not of a permanent nature. [Burnsville]
WA.LL SIGN: A sign attached to or erecied agaiz�.st the exterior wall of a building or strueture with
the exposed face of the sign in a plane approxiynately parallel to the face of said wall, no# to project
more than twelve inches {12") from the surface to which it is attached. [Changed]
WIl�TDQW SIGN: A sign affzxed ta the interior or exterior of a window or inside the building
within tkiree feet af the window wiih its message intended to be visible to and readable from the
public. [USSCF�
•�,,�_. .. - -
- - � - �.r
. � �. �� � :. �. � �!'-\. a � . . .. r . . •.. . ' ' � � ' .. ' ' - _
' ' C
r . !� �_ , 1 l� � � Y + .
E � � � � \. � _ � . . \ i •.. . � _ � � ' � .. � � ' • ' —
. . � _ � . w . •.. •
� � ]\. �� � . . \ � �... _
" ' � . _ �. �.W. ♦._... `. .- 1... 1 . � • . !• _ ��..i -..� . . C. w �
+ ' " '
�a�e �
Draff Sign Code Revision
February i, 2001
- - .. _. _. _ - _ _ _ . _. _ _.� . .�_ �_
, _ . ,... , , _ --- - .. ,. .� �.
: . . - - , . . �.. . . . - ..- - o -- - - • - - _ � �
_ _ . � . . . � ., . .,- • - - - - - - -
-, -- - • -- - --- - - -- - -- - -- - - �
- C '
. .. -.. -.. �� .� .. " :."` y. • '.'
�
- - ' . -. . . �. . . . � ' . ... r. .. -
-� ,.,. , � . . ' ' " " "' •'� • "
'". " -"' - ' ' :.. -- i . .�. . .. -.� �� . � �. _
� ' � - ' ' ' ' • - ' " , - • - ' - ' - ^. -' " ' "
' G' - '
C' " "' y. �_�. .-..-.. ...
' r Q ° - -
' ^ - '_. ' ' '_ . �... � ' .
�� �.� � . .. . a '. • . ' . - � . • . v ' ' � ' .. . � . . . ' ' � ' ' ' '
' ' � �. � ���' _ ., l. ♦ ' � . .. . � . . ' � ' • � _ "
� . � � � � � -� �• � � •. r � ., . . . . . ' ' " ' ' '. . � .
� �
� • � ! � _ �� -�. . \ [ •.. . .
` _ '
! R �. �. - l i ' _ ' ' '
� � C
� � t
. . . . �- - -.. - •- - ' . ' . -.. .- . -.. -
- �
1 � ! � _ • 6 . ` a - -
s3'!fl7: � i � _ � -
- - - �: - } -
- - - y..� .. � _ -
. . . . . . � A� �� _ � � . � : �. . ,. . . . . - -
' '.. ' ' ' . .-. .. �' ' ' ' ' .. .. .,... � . - -
�. .�. -. . ...�r. ..'. .�..�' ' ' �. .� � .. ." '. �... � '�'
:,?.L% �`i�7�
. o G � • _ . _�e. . _
Page 6
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 7, 2001
`, i._, f_ . a. , - ;� -
-:: - -
- G^' . C"' - ' ' ^ ' ' "' . - ' "
_ � -
� :C - -
\ � l� �1�■ i _ � � -
_ i.�1�. � ! a � � � - - - " "
—�����I��I�I���i � y���lR�l`n�iit��:w�a-R�e��`��SRS�1 — �--- _� _�_ � � - ��J�
• i � � - C
-• - - .- ... . - - - e -- - , -
- - - - - . : ..
. .� - . . .r ... .. . . . . .
cc . . . � ...
�•• • i
11: 1 � � : i) ; '� ; ; r . : :, ��. �; : �� '. : ' . 1i ; � �; .. -,,, .
Subd. l. Pern-ut Required: It is unlawful to install, construct, erect, alter, revise, reconstruct or
relocate any outdoor sign or structure, as defined in Section 1008.01 of this Chapter, in the
Municipality without first obtaining a permit therefor as required by this Chapter, except as
provided in subdivision 2 of this Section. (1988 Code §39.02)
Subd. 2. Exceptions: Permits need not be obtained, but the other provisions of this Chapter shall be
abserved, for an si less than or e uaI to ei t 8 s uare feet in area and the following
types of signs:
a. A si *_. �' 4°" �, n' "M„�"" �°+ ;" "'" " pertaining only to the sale rental or iease
�---- - .� �. ���� �� �° , �
of the premises upon vvhich displayed.
b. A sign on residential properiy stating oniy the name or identi of the occupant, ���—�_�__
. 9 �
a 6f �'�-Y1 1lP
µru�iv) va .,. vab.a ..« ...»_.__ y._,.t...__� _____ _! ____ . . . _
L. 71 f .�� a,�1] m.. „ F o+ ;,�
-- --- - ---- - - — - --= � . .,� � �::..,. d �.,". ,.. ... .,....
c Construction si�n or si�n belon�in� to a contractor �erforming work u�on a propertv. Said
si sha11 be removed immediatel u on com letian of the work.
d. A campaign sign as provided for in subdivision lOQ8.08(11) of tl�is Chapter. (1988 Code
§39.a3; 1993 Code; �rd. 607, 5-11-9�)
e Home occupation si��s and incidental residential siQns.
Page 7
Draft Sign Code Revision
Februa�y 7, 2001
'",
1008.03: �P�I,�C`ATIOI�1 I'�I� PEI�iI'T: Applicaiion for permits shall be made upon forms
provided by the Clerlc-Adn�inistrator and shall include the following infon�x�.ation:
Subd. 1. The name, address and telephone numbex of the applicant.
Subd. 2. The location of the building, structure or Iot to which or upon which the sign is io be
placed.
Subd. 3. The position of the sign or other advertising shuchu-e iz� reiation to nearby buildings,
striachu-es and streets or highvva�s, if necessary.
Subd. 4. Two (2} blueprints or ink drawiilgs of the plans and speczfications and meihod of
construction and attachmen# to the building gxound.
Subd. 5. A copy of the stress sheets and calculations may be required by the Inspector, on laxger
signs, showing that the struciure is design�d for dead load and wind pressure in any direction
in the amount required by this Chapter and any other applicable Iaw.
Subd. b. The name of the person erecfing the structure, if not the applicant, ar ihe name of the
person on whose property the structure is to be located, if not the applicant.
Subd. 7. The written consent of the owner of the property, if not ihe applicant.
Subd. 8. A staiement as to whether the sign will be illuxninated or not.
Subd. 9. A statement as to whether any electric iighis on the sign will be "moving" oz blinking.
Subd, 10. A statement as to whether #he sign will be singie-faced, double�faced or multi-faced.
Subd. I 1. A statement as to whether or not the copy on the sign will be changeable.
Subd. 12. A statement as to whether or not the copy on the sign vvill relate only to the business or
activity conducted on the premises on which fihe sign is to be iocated. (1988 Cade §39.09)
ioo�.o4: ���� ���s; ��v��:
Subd. 1. Fee: The appiicatzon for a permit shall be accompanied by the required permit fee. The
permii %e shail be established by resaluiion of the City Council. (1988 Code §39.10}
Subd. 2. Waiver: The Council may, ' at its discretion, waive the fee required by this
Section where the signs are to be erected by civic or religious organizations. (1988 Code
§39.11)
11: 1 �;. "'� � ; � :� : ,�� �, , , ,� .._ � ; ; ' �. �._ ., .
Page 8
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 7, 2001
Subd, L Issuance: Upon presentation of application, permit fee, plans and specifications and other
' required information, the sign construction permit shall be issued by the Community
Development Director, , except as provided in subdivision 2 of this
Section.
Subd. 2. ' Variances: In the event an application is made for a si�n
which does not conform to the requiremez�ts of this section tlne applicant shall either modify
the a lication or a 1 for a variance accordin to the rovisions established in Cha ter 1125
of the Zonin� Code No permit for a non-conforming.sign shall be issued wi�out evidence of
an at�praved variance. � r , • +• � ,;,;"n ° u"°�.�w' .' =::�� �°' ,: ,''-=�?=
Y ` t'"
zti�Fi�--�� �i nimzxarc oca--0�8-n�6�8��i L,� ,7on;n„ .-.t-�A „t:,,,, +1,0
� ��'J]T'��µ bl Vl 1VLU41V11� LAlb
�iC�%.,,, o� ,-,�e.i :ii�i�-`'s`'.r�kLE� �41, + f' + L+ ' ' +hv " .,..,.1 �,�' +1-•� ��....����.
> > ��z "YY� � x ...� .. ,
(198$ Code §39.14)
1008.06: SIG1�I II�S'I'��ER'� �IC�T�SE PItO�TI�I4I�d�a
Subd. l. License Required: No person shall engage in the bt�siness of installing signs nor shall be
entitled to receive a permit to install a sign in conzaection with such business unless first
licensed by the Municipality to do so. {1988 Code §34.04}
5ubd. 2. Applicaiion and Fee: A license may be granted by the Council upon wz-�tten application to
ihe Clerlc-Adxninistratar on such form as required by the Clerk-Administrator and
accompanied by an annual license fee as established by resolution of the City Council. (1988
- Code �34.05}
Subd. 3. Liability Insurance: Any person holding a licensee shall file with the Clerk-Adminisirator
palicies of public liability and property darnage insurance which shail remain and be in force
and effect during the entire term of said lieense and which shall contain a provision that they
shall not be cancelled without ten (10} days' written notice to the Municipality. Public
liability insurance should not be less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for
injuries, including accidental death to any one (1) person and subject to the same lunit for
each person in ax� amount not less than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) on
accaur�t of any one (1} accident, and property insurance in the amount of not less than fifly
thousand dollars ($50,000.00). (1988 Code §39.07)
Subd. 4. Expirarion: Licenses shall be issued on an annual basis, with the license year ru�nung fiom
Janu �1 through the following December 31 �9. {1988 Cade §39.08)
Subd. 5. Revocation: A license may be tertninated and renewal tk►ereof n�.ay be denied by the
Council for canse after notice to the licensee and reasonable opportunity for the licensee to be
heard on the question of such termination. Cause shall include any repeated or persistent
violation of the requirements of this Chapter. {1988 Code §34.06)
�008.07: IVIAIi�d'I'Eli��10E �F' Pl�I�II�E�o Premises on which ground signs are located
shall be maintained free of weeds and debris, ar�d where landscapi�g was part of ih� original sign
permit, such landscaping shall b� maintained an the manner provided in such pelrrnit. {i988 Code
§39.12)
Fage 9
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 7, 200I
� � • � • . : l c_ : .�: i r; . . ,�i �:. �, [ ;. . ' _�- r .�, '. ; R- i ' : :�- `�„ _ ``, ,�: 4 �� _�i �--� �
Subd. 1. General Standards: Every sign shall conform to the standards of this Section whether or
noi a permit #��� is required, and nothing contained herein shall be construed as
modifying or repealing any of the provisions of this Code relating to zoning� , No sign shall
be so located as to obscure or tend to obscure any existing sign. The following additional
requirements are to be observed:
a. Each � sign shall be securely built, cons�i-ucted and erected on the buildin�or
ground. Temporary sigr�s shall be so designed that they are not readily overturned.
b. No sign structure shall be attached or placed upon any building in such a manner as to
obstruct any fire escape or any window or door nor shall any sign structure be attached to a
fire escape.
c. No sign erected before the effective date hereof shall be rebuilt, altered or removed to a
new iocatian withaut being brought into compliance with the requirements hereof.
d. No swinging sign shall hereafter be erected or h�.u�g on or attached to any building within
the Municipality, and every such sign so erected, hung or attached prior to the effective date
hereof which is deerned unsafe by the Building Inspector shall be imrnediately removed by
the awner thereof or changed to conform with the requireznents of this Chapter when so -
ordered by the Building Inspector. )
e. Where poriions of a sign are subject to a different classification, each portion shall meet
t1�e requirements of its classification.
- -G ' - -
. .. . . . .._ . �- .. .. . .- - - ' ' '
• � � " � •• � • • � • .� y• �r� a e �
f. g: Aii signs and sign stnzctures sha11 be xnaintained in a safe condition and in a state of
good repair at all tirnes. No sign shall display matter that has beei� deemed obscene by a court
of competent jurisdiction.
�#: Each sign shall be used and maintained only in the manner permitted and subject to the
conditions imposed at the tirne the pern�it therefore was granted.
h. Clearance of �i s from Conductors: The minimum clearance of an si from
unprotected electrical conductors (whether �oles or other installations) shall not be less than
tl�irty szx inches (36") for conductors earrying not over six hundred (600) volts and fortv eia t
inches (4�") for conductors carr� m�ore than six hundred (600) volts.
� See Title 1100 of this Code,
Page 10
i
,
Dra€t Sign Code Revision
February 7, 2001
i. Si s Alon Freewa s: Exce t as otherwise rovided in this Cha ter si located on
propertv adjacent to anv freewav wiilnin the Munici ali (includin� Interstate Hi.�hwav 35W)
sha11 be business si s advertisin businesses being conducted on the premises on which the
si s are located No "�aveling" or chan�in�-messa�e si�ns shall be located so as to face any
freewav or be visible from the freewav The�rovisions of this subdivision however, shall not
ba construed to render ille al or nonconforn�in an si s which are le all located alon an
such freeway at the effective date herein. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99)
'. The illuminaiion of an si located neax a residential disirict shall be defused or in.direct
and Iocated so as not to direct li ht on residences}.
• _�,
_ _ s, -
.. _ .. � _ ._: : _ . . .. ._ .; -„ -..--
,._._ , .- - z --- - --- - .
, _ . .. ^ _ �,. - - - ,. , _ . .. . _ - -
- �. . _�, ..
i'
� -- - - .,. . - - - � ... _ . . . . . -
. - :e -
- • - • - -- -• - •- - - - -- . _.. - -
.. _ ..<. - -
.. _..._ . _. ,. . .• . . .. , , .,
i ��- .. �� � �. r .. . y '.
. .. . . . . � ' ' ' ' ' ' '
�'�' . •'� �.� . � . .. � .� ��
/ � - - �
_ r�,. I j. � - _ � �
� . �.. _ 1 /
y� C" � �
rr. � � ' � n • • � . � � � � �
�. \. � •.. � � � . � r� , � .. . .� .. � � .� .� � I
1 See Section 1103.09 of this Code.
� c rr•+i � � nn �.t,:.. r„a�
�., . ..... ...... ... ..�.. ____-.
Page 11
Draf� Sign Code Revision
February 7, 2001
Subd. 2. Signs A1lowed by Dist�ict: The foilowin table r resents the allowable si a e and area
re uzremenis b zorun dzstrict: -rh° �„�.-,.rn r�^,,;r�,,..��+� � r�-� �"�.,,��-,-- �- +,.
�... �.,«� .. �n�.��.x,,.�..,���� � �.,� u�.� �� ao�� a;��--�-
�5i�n Type R-1 R_2 R-3 R� R-5 R_0 B_i B=2 B�3 B-4 I_i PF CRP PUD
Ground No No 32 32 32 200 200 200 200 100 100 *
Wall No No 64 64 Na 32 10� 100 100 100 140 100 106 *
Projecfion No No No No No 8 24 24 24 24 No *
Window No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No *
Identification 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 4 4 *
Tem o� Yes '4'es Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Real Estate i0 10 24 24 10 24 24 24 32 32 64 No No 32
H�me � 1 No No 1 No No No No No No No No No
Occupation — —
Cami�ai�n Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Billboards No No No No No No No No Na No No 740 700 704
Directional No No 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8
Consiruction 8 8 8 8 8 8 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Incidental 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1
* S_____i� e requiremenYs within a PUD shall be as allowed by the PUD Narratzve document If na such document exists
signa�e shali be as pemutted for a B-3 zoning district. `t
Subd. 3. Ground Si�nn Heights by District: The following table represents the xnaximiun hei�ht
allowed for �round si�ns in each zonin� dist�ict. .
R�l R-2 R=3 R-4 R�,S R=0 B=1 B=2 B=3 B� I-1 PF CRP PUD
� u 8 8 8 8 20 20 35 35 35 35 3S u
�l� No ground si�n other than home occu�ation campai�n real estate incidental and temporary si�s
shall be allowed in these districts.
�z} Si�na�e requirements within a PUD shall be as indicated by the PUD Nartative document. If no
such document exists, signa�e sha11 be as allowed for a B-3 zonin� District.
' �.� :._ ..__.,::..__..m.�o,_.:.,..,_D....,..R�,
. �- -
.._ - -- . . ._ . _
.�.���:.-.��:,.:.•��•.•.o..� �y, . .
� -• -- - --- -• -- � . ,. __ . � ....
- - •, -
� • ,
eEE�
Page 12
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 7, 2001
p��—,��rgiz�mzv�db`e--�--Fcesi�°^-zn'^-r��sa= .,ll,,.,,o.a , R„1-,.�;<,<c;,,,-, 7�
�T$6�
: :: '.�r..�C��i��waas'�.�Ci.x:��ii��.e��.�.1�G.�..� f•'i ��:ns.v�i�y���.:
�•..r�..rr��r�0�� C:.����a�'n.i�.s�Cae��r�\ ....�:.�.-
- ��C�. --��n��0�i�.-i.�ii�,��y
►v ' � �
l��cc�i6rrsi�#3rs-�$�-6� rl 1 .-fr.� 4., of,. ll.n.�4;.� + n.l' 4" (Cl
> > > •� � � i
s;����
_ r � ! _ _.- • _ -. :R . . ... _ .. . .. .. - - -
�
�
� O.rC�:-.:�C.s�..a��Sc�..,r����..�
' ' � � ' '
� .... .......-.� - .�. ��• �. • - 'r
_ �. _
� _ - - -_-----_-_ _--- - - — - - --
. . �
... .. _ r-. ., -.- • -- -- �� . - -. -- - •-
. -
._ _ _ .. .. ,,.. .,. .- .�. . . _.
y:. s.�. _ aa�
• ,. -
. _ . _ � _
. , . . _ ■ - -
� -
� . . � ' - �. - � _ � .
, . a ■ - - -
�� - - _
- -
� ' ... . A. � � .. _ ' . �. . � " " . . "'
. e. . . �. . � . ...
. -- . . - ..� � , .� �..�. . �
y . . � .. . ..• . � .
r � .. . .�. .. . . .. �� �
.. � - . . � . � .
• n e. �
. . �r
� � I ' ' ' �.. -. .. �. � . .� . , .-...� . . . . . • �� . •: �
_ R. � • �-
C " . � � _
r_ � _ _ _ ■ � .._ .. , �,. .. ... . � -. ■� -
. . � . � �
� �
. .., .' -�^ , `: - ' -� - ' • ' �.
��` �
p- - " r' '
�
. ..� l�.. . ..� -
_ . - . .
' - _'
I . � - - - . � . .e ...' � ' .. . .. . s' •
.a �� �. � . � .
Page 13
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 7, 2001
� � � r � � � � � � • � : � • y� � � • � � �
� � . . . _ ... . - .. - .... /•'. � . . - ... . .� � � � - r. � � ' n e • _
� � • � � � n. � � � � • • � ff. � � � � w • • � � �
_ _ aa.
-- - � _ - ^- - - -- - -;- �� .. . ._ •
i _ . ��
- " -- ^ - '- - . . , _ _. ..
. ' ,.� � . . . ^ --G. ' �'f . .. -.
• � �. t. � � � � • � • � � � i I� � � 1�. �
� � • � v . � � • • � �• - Y • � • � � ' • • � . • . � .. •
�, �. aa� � .. -- - - - •o- ;----
--- ^ - - - -. '! :.., - ^- --^ -;, -. -- aa. : ..•
- -: ... : .�,. ,. . . ... .. . �- - - :� • - -^ -
- - - � ----- - - .. .- , ! _. . .-_. -- - �,
_ - fa.
.s: •. _ a ., -. . . _ . . ,.- �, .-- : . . .- - - �- �
a . . ��
_ • i� . .�.-. . �-._ :: ^- . ::. - -._._ .,. . ■�• �•
.. _. • , - -- - ---. - ..� �; ..- .,
-.. . . . . _ •. . . .. . .. . � ,. , - .. _ �
� - . i�
�Sf!f r � _ � . „
.�zi i4�-�...�+::,..,.:, �..�.�: .
' � - -- �
• r' '
I. A . •. .- •- •..-. � .� _ ., w •-• . -
. �� . �� . �. . . -� � .: . . .. . . . . ... . � ._ ' ' � ... ,. ' ' ' +
C
a:i:.i�n�a:�:�.r�n:i �e..d■:��ti.�:i�:�.�.,.�' - -
' " ' �j � _ '
' ' •. .. - .-. . \ . i . .• ..' ' " ' .' '
- - � -
�. . • _ •
�3'l1fi�=ir�'�!�!'�'��' � ••- - - -- : - : . _ . _ •.
" - o - -
� - - _�i
�
' ' °. ./ ! ' C ' ' .��� .... . . - •. ,,. . . . . � - - � . � �
�1� .� .ai. �
-_ - � �� . �...-
s: -�. �
Page 14�
Draft Sign Code Revision
Febi�ary 7, 2001
, _ _ _ _ - -
� r
_ ,. „ - - - , �
- ' :C C. C'
� _ - - - p
� - -
�. ... -. � - •' -. ' .." " .�.. . . ... .. � -
. . . . � � �
.. .- �. - - .. . - -- - • � � pL!, l•
� - .
� - -
:��� '
�
� e.. . .. _ . . � -. .. -. . �. { -
.. ••- ' ' ' C .. ' . : . .
" ' i - '.. .. .
.. .- ' '- ' ' . •� ' "•
. . . •'
.�-.,.r .-.�.�. .. .� - ...-r.
.. . � . . . - . - ' ' ' . ' ' � ^ • i : "
_ � � � _ ' ' __
� •. �_. • i... .- - . -.
" : r. �
... - w � ' ' ' _ . . . . � . .
-�� '�. �. � • � • . • •
' ' ' ' ' � ' ' r . .' . • '• . . � . . . .
. r- •' •�� ��. -. •'
_ . "
�' .
�.i..i�.•� .'�.i�.s�tin���'•[v�C���:�a'i.:r�.fa..ii:.� a:�.�.1: . :�vi��.�a�ti�..:.R:v�� ��.���a:����as�'
�. . . . .. . ' � '. ' ' ' '. ' ' ' - ^ ' ' ' " " ' -
. ' ., . � . .
, .,, �. . -. '., � ., . � c . �. .. . �.� . . .�. .
- „ ' " -' . - ,..�. . '� ' .^' ' ^.' " ^ '
� . . ' ' ' '
. .. . �.. . � .. * �� - . . . , .. �.� . .... � . . � . �� .
-. - . .. .. �_-. -'-' C G:. -� -
�
.. .�.� . ... . � . �.
�. _ �
�
.. . . . . . . � � - . C. " ' -
. � . .. .... ' .
. . . . . ..: - . .� . ,�.. � � �. .� , �
: C . . . . . . .. . � '• , . G •• . �
� ' ' - ' ' �. ' '
"' . ' ' ' <' � ' - - .. , � .
�-
:C '�.
._ - , � � � , .
�' ' ' " ' - ^' ' " ' ' C. �
.. .. ... -,.-� -' "
. ,. ' Q
_�.. � _l. a � i -
Pag� 15
Draf� Sign Code Revision
Febivary 7, 2�OI
�es�s� . - - - - - { ��:r� ��f. . , :�rr;r:�res�;Ti
� - p�- - - -��� p--
. . _ . u. . � . . �.� . . .. - � ' - � '. .," • ' ' ' '
r.
. � . � Q � � �. . � . .�. • " � . ' .� �, .. . ^ n �. � � �. -. . �. . . � �f� - - . .�i5.
�. - . - . � . � - ' �' � ' ' '. ' ' ' . e. � . • � . . . • . . \ .
� �� •.� - --... .. � - . ... � ' �" . / " " _ ' '
��
� . +
i C i� �
���l11LL11 �L�67�V�G�1�II��-- J
���� •4TY•
� � � � � � r _ � • + � � A � +
� �� �� �.� �� � '� • •��i�•�.
� � �lR�l��l���ilit�li/����/�'�'�'I\p��p�i���i' '� • �� �� � � � •. � • •
� � � � C
� � � �
S. �� • - • - �� � � •�� • • " � � • � � � � � �
� '� w. • • ... � . i •• �. w. �
� ���� I�� � • � •��. . � �' '• - •• •�� r ' �� � �i . �
i
:- -. -
i - - p - - G;- ' -
� � � � w � � � � � " �lr 1� • • • � � �.. � � ♦ � �
� � � � n. � � � � � � � � � � �. • + �
r'
-. \ ^ ' � . � � r •• � � � � '.' � � r � e �� � —
� h. � . ° � �' � � �� � �f
es '
. _ . .- _.... .- : � ' -- .- . -' -- .
t.
Page 16
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 7, 2001
� � . • • r R.. � . • - • � " i �
� w � � � � � •
� �
� \ � -_
� - ri
K�
� . �' � �. ��.�.��.�..�-�..���i ti��w���i:��[����eiYi�7`t;�ty i�ar1Q��S��l���lR i��i��l���J��l���^�JI
C
• \ •�� ' � �� � � � � •.�� � n. � A � -. � . �. �
� C � r � �
� �•. �
� � � • • y � _
l - -
ri � . - r. � � C.:. �; � � . = . . � r � � �.. �. .� �
� � � . ♦ l . .� � . • . • �. . .n. - • � � • � . ... � .
_ � _ 1 I � � I ' � �
� I l � � � � �
_ � l _ 1 �� y ± � �
_ � " {- ' -
� 1 ! � l i - a
_ ' .M' �.
_ 1 1�
" • ' ' '. " . ' " .. ,. _ -
.
�
� i " . ' . � :. - .1.. t, • • � ' � :. . 1 i
I. ' _ - � •
.. " ' . ' ' �.• - ' •• -'""' ' '- ►
� • � �
:. � _ - � -
i �
� � t I • �
' .. � � .. �' '�.. �. .� • w �
_ e � � � . .
ll . . .. .. � .._. �..- .�• �.. .
� � � � . . ...`. . � � .. . � . �+ '. . � • : .•. � - � L. - _
� `
�
� � .. . � . � � � �. . � � �. . .
� � . � �
� •. - � ' . _ � . . . �. ... .. .� , . . . � r .. � • '�
� �
_ . . • . . .. - . . i. � .. �. A /, �, �
_ �
. : i .. ��.. � �.. ..� . � ' ' ' . - ." ...' '..: 0 . .. .. . ' C. - .. ' . : �..
. _. . -� �� . - -. �_ �� y .� ., ,, , -. .,'
- - - '- - -_-• . ' - ' _
.. .. �
-.... - -- � . .. • . _ , ,� , � _
._ „� � , �., � �� . � . .
- - � - -• � - .- . . - _ -' L . -,. -^' _
-- - ... . o .s°: _ .
, , �- � � ,� , _ .. � ._-• , , � .. . -
.. - .. - - - -'- -
-- -_ ` - --� - - _,... ..
. ,,.. - ,. -^- - ^ � - - . .. -
_ . ._ , .. . ..
-- - • ` -'� �� .�: - r- �� ..�y . �. � -.-�. • •�
� _ �'/ �. .. ..� ... . • � '
Page 17
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 7, 2001
- :o- - -
- -- -- - - - -•-- ., , . � _ �.. ��
� _ _ . ..
_ _ t. _ ,
-� - - - ^ -- •-- - - - , - ..
-- • -. ..-- •-
_ . ,.
• . c - . . . ., . . . . � . . .,- ..• - - •
' - -- - . - . . - . . - .. .. „ . .. - --
• _it �!
i i �" " •,�. _. - . . �. - . .. .. . �_ � +. . �. . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ' .. . .
�.. . . . .- ' ' ' '- - • • - � ' '/.I ••
a ' -
� ��i
.� . �
�� � � �
[ �� . .• w.. .� � w w� �- � - . c . - � n ..
- - - - w _�� •.
. _ �
� ' I E � a
�.. . r.. - � -
..el .,f' 1,,,,.a
- -- ' ••- •.- - ' - - - ' ' - - - - - - - _ • _ - - - -
. _ . .
. . . . .� , � _ , . _ . . ..
• - • n. � � �. � - •. �� � � - -..='. . � �. . y• � �
� : { - _ C " '
. . ' . -'- .. .. � . .. .' - - '
. _ ... _ . . . ' .. �:t:•. .�.�ei : ��a..,...0�..0.-e.�:.'.,r�—i .,.��:�
!*!*:F�!f � �. .� . t
.�eff ' -
_ ,.. �•' .' - _ • _ - - _ ' _ . m
... _. �
_ . .,- . . � . : = - .. c . . . . .,. . . . . . .
�: -- .,�. - _ :. �. : -. ..,,, • : • , . .-: -
-e
. . _ . •
. . � . � . . . , _ . . . ���t =- �.._ � : _� �:.^�
_' i
�age Y$
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 7, 2001
�oas.o9 ���ci�c sl��r ��� sx���s �� ��vi������
, .� —
Subd 1 Ground Si�ns� The followin� staradards shall be n�aintained for a11 ground si�ns,
excludin� incidental, temporarv home occupation cam a}��i,gn identification and real estate si n�s�.
a No part of a grotu�d si�nn shall be nearer ihan three feet to any building unless such si�n
is plac�d �arallel to the side of the buildin�.
b. No art of a ound si sha11 be nearer than 15 feet 15' to an erimeter lat line nor
located within t' e feet�30', of two pro�ertv lines abuttin� intersectin� street ri t of ways.
(Refer to the r�aphic below.)
[Ixxsert Graphic to Illustrate]
c The owner lessee or occut�ant of the land on which the �round siQn is lacated and the
owner of the sign shall keep the pro�erty on which the si�n is located free of lon� �xass,
weeds ar other rank owth, rubbish or debris.
d. All arts of ound si s sha11 be desi ed for vaind ressure of not iess than thirt 30
pounds per square faot and �round si�ns of wood canstruction shall have all members which
extend inta the ound rotected fram deca b treatment with a reservative a roved b the
Buildin� Inspector.
e. No ermit shall be anted for the location of an ound si havin a si area of
more ihan fortv 40) sc�uare feet within one hundred feet (100' of anv sin�le-familv
residence.
f While no more than one pale or � ly on si�n shall be allowed �►er lot, the �'ound si�n area
allowance may be divided between one pole or pylon si�n and a monument si�n or between
multiple monument sims subject to the requirements herein, provided that:
�1 The lot abuts multiple street right of ways in which case a sig�may be located
along each fronta�e.
2. There are multi le curb cuts or drivewa s accessin the ro e in which case a
si ma be iocaied near each access oint or drivewa rovided the si s are se arated
bv no less than �wo hundred feet (200'�
{3) The width of the lot as measured alon� its long.est street fronta e exceeds two
hundred and fift feet 250' in which case multi le si s ma be located alon tl�e lon
fronta e provided such si�ns are se araied b�no less than twa hundred feet (200').
(4) The propertv or proper�ies are within an a�roved Planned Unit Development
CAiJD)
Page 19
Draft Sign Code Revisior�
February 7, 2001
Subd. 2._ Wall Sip�ls: The followin� standards shall be maintained for ail vc�al� signs•
a. No wall si shall have a ro'ection over a rivate sidewallc or an established buildin line
of more than twelve inches (12"�
b. The materials, construction and attachment of an such sig,�i sliall, meet the same standards
and requiremen#s as roof si ng�s.
c. The wall si�n area allowances as indicated in Section 1008.08, Subd. 2 for B-2 B-3 B-4
and I-1 zoxun� districts are per buildin.� occupant. �
d. The wail si� area allowances as indicaied in Sect�on 1008 08 Subd 2 for the R-3 R-4
PF and CRP zonin� distxicts are per building
e. In the R-O and B-1 zonin districts the aiea allowance as indicated in Section 1008.08
Subd. 2 reflects the combined area for all wall ound and ro'ection si a e on that lot.
Subd. 3. Pro'ection Si s: The fol�owin standards shall be maintained for all ro'ection si s:
a. All ortions of ro'ection si s shall be desi ed for a wind ressure of not less tl�an th'
�30 ounds per square foot�
b. Such si�ns shall not proiect over public sfireet ri�t of way but may�roject over private �
sidewallcs. No such si shall be less than twelve feet 12' above the level of the sidewalk•
exce t that such si s which do not exceed four 4 s uaxe feet and which do nat ro'ect more
than two feet (2') over the sidewallc may be ei t feet 8') or mare above the sidewallc No
ro'ection si ig�shall praject more ihan ei t fee� (8') over any�rivate sidewallc
c. There shall be no more than two feet 2' of space between the inner ed e� of any such si�
and the face of tlae wa11 from which it �rojects nor shall the outer edge of the sign be more
than ei ht feet 8' from the face of the wal1.
d. The buildin� or siructure from which any such si�n projects a�id ali attachments or
fastenin�s must be so constructed as to safel ��st the dead load and the wind load added by
the attached si�n.
e. Ali such signs shall be of noncombustible materials or of not less than one hour
fire-resistive const�-uction.
f. Such si s shall be sec�arel fixed in Iace and shall not be able to swin or swa .
Subd. 4. Banners Temporarv or Portable �i ng�s� ,. Tem orarv signs as defined herein, shall camply
with the provisions of this Code. The followin� standards shall be mainiained for all banners
tem or or ortable si
Page 20
Draft Sigzt Code Revision
February 7, 2001
a Temporary si�ns and banners shall be stron�lv constructed and sha11 be securel attached
to their su orts. The shall be re aired or removed includin alI frameworlc and su orts
as soon as dama ed or toin and 'unmediatel u on ex iration of the ermit.
b. Banners shall nat exceed twen ercent 20% of the surface area of the buildin
elevation u�on which the banner is attached.
c. No banner or tem ar si shall ro'ect over ublic ro e or ri t of wa but ina
extend a maximiun of six inches 6" from the face of the buildin .
d. Banners and tem�orarv si�ns shall not be hun� or installed so as to coyer, either �artiallv
or com letel an door window or o enin re uired for ventilation.
e No tem�orarv� banner or partable �i�n shall be located on any rnulti�le residence,
commercial or industrial propertv iz� the Ci without first obtaining a permit from the Citv. Tf
the Citv determines to �ant an at��lication for a permit for anv such temporarv si�n, banner
or ortable si it ma im ose conditions u on the antiai thereof and it shall be unlawful
to locate or maintauz any such si or banner for a lon�ex period or in a different manner than
that s ecified in the ermit. No such ermit shall be anted however where such tem or
si s banners or ortable sz s are rohibited b other rovisions of this Code.
f No �ortat��e si�m or tem o� sign shali exceed forty-eigh�48) square feet on each side
an d the entire of the si co shali be maintained within the fort -ei t s uare foot area.
g. No portable si�n, temporary_si�n or banner shall be located on any property in the City for
more than twen one 21 da s at one time or far more than three 3 twen one 21 da
�eriods on any one 1) Year. .
h. The Director of Con�muni Develo ment at his or her own discretian ma waive the
permit fee for a temparary sign rec�uested by a charitable municipal or religious institution or
for other iust cause.
Suhd. 5. Window Si s: In the interest of ublic safe the Ci re uires that connmercial or retail
businesses o eratin within a zoned business dislrict -x shall adhere to and com 1 with
the foliowin� re lgu� atians and requirements �overning signs placed upon window interiors.
a. No business shall obscure more than twen -five ercent 25% of an window section or
pane.
b. �uch window si a e shall not obscure or blocic from view an window or door area
above a�oint four feet (4') frozn the interior floor lev_el.
a Atl window si s a.ilowed herein shall be affixed or adhered within the buildin and not an
anv window exterior.
Page 2l
Draft Sign Code Revision
Febi�zary 7, 2�01
Subd. 6, �iliboards: A ermit shall not be issued for an new billboard unless it com lies with the
followin interim use re uiremenis ursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 462.3597: Qrd. ,'
644, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00)
a. Inierim Use Pern�it: An interim use ermit (ICTP) niust be obtained in accordance with
rp ocedures id�ntical in form and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in
Section 1125.01 subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Munici a1 Code. An interim use erxnii
issued for an interim use billboard shall automatically ex�ire no later than July 1 2015 or
when the lease a eement for the billboard ex ires whichever date is earizer. Such TUP shall
be null-and-void if the a�plicant fails to obtain anv required permit from ihe State of
Minnesota, (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 65b, 3-27-00)
b. Location: The billboard must be located alon and north of State Hz hwa 10 old 1 I8 .
The anplicant musi have an a�proved iease agreement with the propertv owner The billboard
shall be oriented towards State Hi wav 10 old 1181 andlor I35W Billboards mus# be
located at least two hundred fift feet 250' from residentiall zoned ro e. Billboards
may be located adjacent to the right-of-way, of a street or hi�hway but no part ihereof shall
extend over such right-of-way^(Ord. 644 12-13-99�
c. IVlinimum 5pacing: Billboaxds rr�usi be at least one thousand feet �1 400'�part Spacing
between si�ns shall be measured bv �rojecting the nearest �oints of the signs to the prop�
line of the ri�ht-of-wav from which they are intended io be read and measuriug the distance in
a sixai t line between the projected.points. Re uired spacin�shall� l�� v onlv to billboards ;
on the same side of the same roadway. (4rd 644 12-13-99� �
d. Maximum Si Area: The maximum oss surface dis la area of ihe si cannot exceed
seven hundred 700 s uare feet er side exce t that an rectan lar billboard ma contain
tern or extensions cutouts or to lettefin which occu a total area not in excess of
twentv-five ercent (25% of the area of the basic billboard and farm an integral part of the
desi thereof, No such tem ar extension cut out oi° to letterin ma ro'ect more than
six feet (b') from the top, ei�hteen inches (18") from either side or fifteen inches (15"} from
the bottom of the basic rectan�lar advertisin��e The area of an,,extension, cutout or
top letterin� shall be deemed to be the area of the smallest rectan�le into which such
extension, cutout, or top let�erin� will fit. (Ord 644 12-13-99�
e. Orientation of Si�n Faces: Billboards mav have no n�ore than two ��gn faces Si�n
faces must be bacic-to-back with si�n faces parallel or an�led. All billboards with their faces
back-to-bacic and arallel shall have no eater disiance than ei ht feet 8' beiween the faces.
AIl biilboards with faces at an an lg e shall have no greater an le�than, ,tl�rtv-five de�rees (35°�
Ord. 644 12-13-99
f. Maximum Si Hei t: The maxirnum allowable hei t of billboaxds shall be thi -five
feet (35�. The hei�ht shall be measuxed from th� �rade at the base of the si�n or from the
surface of the roadwav whichever is hi er. Ord. 644 12-13-99,�
�. Obstruction: No billboard may be located in such a manner as to obscure or otherwise '
interfere with the effectiveness of an of#"icial t�affic sign signal or device or obstruct or
Page 22
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 7, 2001
inte�fere with a driver's view of a i-oachin mer 'n or intersectin traffic. Ord. 644 12-
13-99
h. Existin Billboards: An billboard le all existin as of December 13 1999 ma continue
to be maintained in its present form asld size but sl-�all not expanded. This daes not preclude
the eriodic chan in of the messa e or advertisement resented on the billboard. Ord. 644
12-13-99
i. Destruction. An billboard destro ed b an act of nature shall be allowed to be rebuilt
provided said biliboard complies vviih or is capable of com�lvin� with all rectuzrements of this
subdivision. Nonconfoxxnin billboards shall nat be allowed to be rebuilt. Ord. 644 12-13-
99
Subd. 7. Cam ai �i s: The followin re latians shall a 1 ta all cam ai i si s for oliticai
candidates or issues:
a. No more than one si shall be erected er candidate or issue alon each street froi�ta e of
an arcel af land.
b. Cam ai si s shall noi exceed twelve 12 s uare feet and not exceed four %et 4' in
hei ht above tile �ound• exce t where such si s are located no closer than one hundred
fi feet 150' to the ro e line of a residential dwellin the inaximum size shali be thi
two 32 s uare feet and the maximum hei t above the ozuid shall be six feet 5' .
c. Caix��ai�n si�s mav be displaved from the last day of candidacv filin� or thiriy (30) davs
before an election whichever is earlier.
d. All carn ai si s must be removed no later than five 5 da s after an election• exc t
that after a riin election si s for the winnin rim candidates need not be removed
unnl after the ensuin eneral election. 1988 Code 39.14• 1993 Code
Subd. 8. Home �ccu ation Si s. In the R-1 R-2 and R-5 residen#ial zanin districts a si not to
exceed one 11 square foot is allowed to be displaved provided such si is attached to the
house or �ara�e of the propertv on which the home occupation talces place.
11: 1 1: . ,: ! �, . ,i ; ; . :. ,: _ �, � , , '. -
,.�,�,,.�.,,.�
Subd. 1. Si a e Allowances far S ecific Land Uses: Public or semi ublic recreational buiidin s
and nei hborhood and communi centers• ublic and rivate education institutions limited to
element middle and senior hi schools• reli 'ous instztutions such as chu.rches cha els
tem Ies s a o es• nursin homes senior assisted livin facilities and commerciai da care
facilities� ma be allowed the follo�in si a e:
a. Wall si a e not to exceed 100 s uare feet er rinci al buildin .
b. Ground si a e not to exceed 100 s uare feet sub'ect to Section 1008.09 Subd. Ie.
Page 23
Draft Sign Code Revision
FebF�zary 7, Z001
Subd. 2. Traffic-Control Relaied Si Re lations: Com liance with ihe foliowin� re�t2lations ' '
relatiye to traffic control is required:
a. No movin� or flashin� siQn shall be Jocaied or mainiained within fi feet 50') flf an
intersectian at which traffic semaphores are located.
b. No si�shall be desi�ned, located or maintained so as to be lilcelv �o obscure or conceal or
cause confusion as to any traffic-control siQn or device.
c. No si�n shall be located or maintained on or over a�-►y public street ar lu�hwav ri hg t of wav
unless specificallv �erniitted herein.
d. There shall be no use of revolving beacons, zip flashers sflashin� si�ns or similar devices
that would di�tract automoUile tt°affic as to constitute a safety hazard.
or maintained so as not to interfere with the abilitv of dri
C�. ��
Subd. 3. Gara�e Sale, Estate Saie and Open House Si�ns: Non-commercial �arage sale estate sale
and o en house si s and sunilar si s ma be allowed to be located within a ublic r� ht af
wav provided:
. �1
a. The duration of the display of such sie�� shall not exceed three davs.
b. No pat�Y of such si� shall extend within five feet (S') of a haveled roadwav.
c. Such sign shall relate to or direct peopie to a residential propertv within the CitX
d. Such si�n shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area and shall not obscure pedestrian or
vehicle visibilitv or anv traffic contral szgn or violate anv other provision of this Code
specifically Subd. 2 hereof
Subd. 4. Area Identificaiion Sigi�s: The Ciiy Council at i�s discretion rnav allow for the placement
of an Area Identification Si to define a nei borhood communi develo ment
subdivision or multi-family complex and may require that:
a. The a�plicant is a duly noted re rt� esentative of the appropriate�oup or orgaanization.
b. The land upon which the si�n is located has been dedzcated for such a use by easement
Iat or othei- le al and recardable ins�runient unless.
c. A maintenance agreement be recorded wlv.ch amon� other thin�s provides for the long
term rest?onsibilit� care az�d maintenance of such sig -�i. ',�
' See also 5ection 64.03 Subd, 3 of this Code re ardin ublic nuisances affectin eace and safe .
Page 24
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 7, 2001
Subd. 5. Prohibited Signs• The followin�gns and si�n tXpes are p,rohibited:
a Flasl-�ng sip�s as defined herein.
b. Roof si s unless inte all inco orated into the roof desi then sucb si shall be
considered a wall si .
c. Tem ora or ermar�ent advertisin si s asted within ublic ri t of wa s excludin
direciional si�ns and si�ns expresslv allowed herein and by other �overnmental a e�ncies.
1 QOS.11 �A8�1: A�ROGAi`ION G1�A�'El� I��'���T���° �ere the conditions
imposed by any provisions of this Chapter are either more or less than comparable conditioi2s
iinposed by any other code, rrul� or regulaiion of tbe City, the code, rule or regulation which imposes
the more restrictive condition, standard or requirement shall prevail. (1988 Code §39.14}
1008.12 �89��: ��I-A'I'IO1V O� P1ZO�TI�IOI�TS e Any person found violating any of' the
pravisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanoz. (1988 Code �39.15)
1008.13 �98��-: �IGlmd i��I�C�S:
�� ';
Subd. l. A variance to the provisions of Section 1008 may be considered bv the Board of Ad�justment
and A eais to rovide relief to the laz�downer in those cases where ihe Code im oses undue
hardship ar�ractical difficulnes to the property owner A�plications shall be submitted and
reviewed in the same manner as andicated in Cha ter 1125 of the Mounds View Zonin Code.
lOrd. 644, 12-13-99)
_ .• - -
.: � _ _ _ _ - -
�:
_ - - �- -
Page 25
�
Draft Sign Code Revision
February i, 2001
. -- - . - . - - - - - - _ -- - - - - . : . : ; .� „ ..
- - e '• c
� ..,�.:...� � -
Subd. 2. Variance Requesis; Fees: All requests shall be made in writing on the form provided by
the City and the request shall include the fee specified in the Ciiy's Fee Charges. AlI
information required when applying for a sign permit, as outlined in Sectian 1008.03, shall be
required before the request for a variance is considered. (Ord. 585, 7-15-96)
:`i
F:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�.SPECPROJ�Sp082-00 (Sign Code)\Draft Revision Il- Feb i, 200I .doc
Page 26
C17Y OF
�DS
�
a n2�}��j
"m ll LS UV
°Or
S
dDr@ss ° parmerSr�Q
January �4, 2041
TO:
��
Mounds V�iew �usiness Owners and Operators
Proposed Changes to the City's Sign Code Requirements
I3ear Mounds �l�ew Business �wner or Operator:
Phone: (763) 717-4000
Fax: (7fi3) 784-3462
The Mounds �1iew Planning Commission is currently re�ewix�g Chapter 1008 of the Municipal
Code, oiherwis� known as the City's Sign Code.
The purpose of the review is io clarify fihe Code by addressin� confusing and incornsistent passages
as well as to revise some requirements thought to be too restrictive or not restrictive enough, One
companent that ihe Planning Comrr�ssion will pay particular att�ntion to is ihe temporary and
portable sign requirements,
It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will review the temporary sign arequirements at its
meeting on Febnxary 2 t, 2001 and as such ihe Commission has. requested sta.ff not�fy all
businesses in the City of this meeting. Yota are encouraged to submit written camYrients Qr
suggestions concerning the current requirements or if possible, appear in person before the
Commission ai their meetin�, which takes place at the Mounds View City �-Iall, 24Q1 �3ighway I4,
at 7:00 p.m.
A copy oithe current Sign Code and meeting schedule zs available for review on the City's
website, located a� htt��//tcfreenet.or org/moundsview/siens.htm.
We hope you can iake advantage of this opportunity to help draft fihe �ign Code update. If you
have any questions about ihis, please contact me at 763-7I7-402i or you may fa7c your cominenis
to rne at i63-7�4-3�62. Thank you!
Sincerely,
� ,�: � .:.+�.: ..��..
�,.� _ .
Jarnes Er�cson -
Comrriuruty Development D�recior
City of �!/iounds View
E:IDATAIGROUPS�COMDHVISPECPR07VSp082A0 (Sip{t Code}1l,ettec to Businesses -]en 24, 200Ldns
2401 Highway 10 � Mounds View, MN 551 i 2-1499
PRINTED W{TN Websiie address: http://tcfreenet.org/org/moundsview
S{��ii�K �
. Equa! OpporPUnity Employ�r
recycted paper
Iiern # 5
� �,., .._
�._ -� _,. �:: .,. � � � � � .�.... , ,..r �. .. .a�,�, � _ �., _ � _,�,.�.�.. . � ;,�r _
_ �� ,>.F,..�;,.,. .�..� ._.. ,_,_�__ �.,_ ......,,.�
� • �
� � � 1 1
,
. ___. , , � _ , .
_ _ __ _
_
� .,� �;:
Meeting Date: Feb�uaYy 7, 2001
,:�- . �;..,,�_„ . ,..._:;}, ;,..,.., ,,�,......,. �. ....__..... ,,,. ,..,
T`itle:
ANiVCJAL REVIEVEI OF THE PL�INNING A.ND ZONII�TG COMNIISSION BYLAWS
IiaP�arlucti�n:
The Planning Coznmission's Bytaws state thai they [the Bylaws] shall be reviewed on an annual
basis, at the first regular meeting in February.
Dascussaot�a
The Bylaws were last reviewed in �ebruary, 2000, and some minor changes were made to inake
the bylaws consistent �vith ihe City Code requirements
liecommenclataon:
Review the attached Bylaws. If the Bylaws do not require any amendmez�ts or modifications,
simply readopt by �notion the existing Bylaws.
�,.>��1�'��: �����;«
James Ericsan
Community Development Director
Attachments:
I, Plaxining and Zoning Commission Bylaws, last revised 2/2/00
N:�DATA\CrROUPSIC�MDEV�PLANCOMMIBYLAWS1By[aws Report -- 2001.doc
C�T'�' OF MOLT�T35 VIEW
PLAN1iiIN� AI�1� ZONING �(�I�I�/iISS€ON �YL,A�S
(Revised February 2, 2000)
I. A�T'I'I-�OIaITi': Tha Bylaws of the Mounds View Platining and Zoning Commission (Bylaws)
are established in accordance with the Mounds �Iiew Municipal Code Section 401.Q6. Subd. 7
"The Commission shall adopi bylaws for its govemance and for the firansactian of its business."
Where there is a conflici between the provisions of the Bylaws and ihe provisions of ihe City
Charter and the Municipal Code, the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code sha11
govem. (Por purposes of simplicity, the Planning and Zaning Comcnissian may hereinafter be
re%rred to as the Planning Commission or the Commission.)
II. ADO�TIQI� O�' �I'I,A�41S; ��EW ANI? AI�EI�DI�EI�T:
A. AD4PTIDNAND AMENDML+'1VI': The Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution b� an
affirmative vote of the m.ajority of inembers of the Pla.nning and Zoning Commission
appointed as vating members, and sha11 be placed on fle with the Ciiy Clerlc-
Administrator and the Community Development Department. A copy of the bylaws shall
be forwarded to the Cily Council for its information. Any amendments to the Bylaws shall
be adopted by Resolution in the same manner as t�ze original Bylaws.
B. ANNUAL REVIEW: The Bylaws shall be reviewed on an annual basis at ihe first regular
meeting of the Commission in February.
TII. 1l�El��RSHIP AN� VA.CAI�TCIE�
Vacancies on the Planning Commission shall be filled in accordance with the IVlunicipal Code,
Sectians 401, 02 and 401.03.
TV. OFFICEIB�
A. �FFICERS N�4MED: The officers of the Planni�ig Commission shall consist of a
chairperson and vice-chairperson. The Cozzamission may create and fill such other offices
from its members, as it may determine, to iransact Commission business. In addition, the
Director of Community Development, or his or her designee, sha11 act as the recording
secretary for the Commission far purpose of preparing maeting minutes.
B. ELL'CTIONS,• TE,RMS
Chairperson: At the first rneeting in January, the Commission shall conduci an election
in order to make its recommendation for the chairperson, following the procedure in
Section N.B.3. The name of the person recommended for chairperson sha11 be
forwarded to the City Council %r action at its next meeting in January. Based upon th�
recommendation of tlz� P(anning Commission, the Mayor, witki the approval of the City
Council, shall appoint the chairperson af the Comrnission each year.
2. Vice-Chairperson: The Planning Corr�riission shall elect a vice-chairperson each year at
its first meeting in January, following the procedure in Sectian IV.B.3.
City of Mounds View
Plauning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 2
Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson sha11 invite nominations from
Planning Commission rnembers. Afier nominations have been received, the
chairperson shali entertain a motion to close nominatzons. If such motion is made and
passed, and more than one nomination has been made, the chairperson shall distribute
ballots to the Cormmission members and each member shall writa his or her selection
on the ballot. The recording secretary sha1l tally the ballots and announce the nominee
receiving the most votes. In the event of a tie, the recarding secretary shall annour�ce
the nominees tied iva the voting and baltoting shatl 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 of%ce at
the f�rst 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 tlus Section TV.B.
C. DUTIES OF �FFICERS: The chairperson shail preside ovar the meetings of the Planning
Commission, and sliall have the authority to add or cancel regulax meetings and to ca11
special meetings as provided in Section VI. The vice chairperson shall assume the duties
of the chairperson, in the absence of the chairperson. In the event of the absence af both
� ihe chairpersan and vice-chairperson, those members present shall elect a temporary
chairperson to preside over the meeting.
V. LIAISON `I'O COUI�ICIL: The City Council shall appoint from among its naembers a Liaison to
the Commission on an annual basis. It is expected that the Council Liaison wiil attend the
Comrnission meetings on a regular basis. In the event of the absence of the Councii Liaison at a
Commission rneeting, a Commission member may be appointed by the chairpersan to represent
the Plannuzg Commission at the next regular City Council meeting or at the meeting where the
City Council will be cansidering tk�e planning cases acted upon by the Planning Commission in
the absence of the Council Liaison.
VI. Il�EE'I'I1�GS
A. TYPES OFMEETINGS; SCHEDULE: The annual meeting scheduie of the Comrnission
sha11 be adopted by Resolution at tkze first regular meeting in December for the £ollowing
year.
Regular Meetings: Subject to the adopted meeting scheduie, the Cammission's regular
meetings will occur on the first and third �Iednesdays of each month for the purpose of
conveni�ag public hearings, making recommendations to the City Council, conducting
business which requires a vota of the Commission, convening as the Board of
Adj�asiirient and Appeals, conducting long-range pIanning fur�ciions and other official
business.
CiYy of Mounds View
P1Tmiin and Zotting Commission - B lavvs Page 3
2. Agenda Sessions: An Agenda Session is an informal session of the Pla.tziiing
Commission, typically held immediately %llowirrg adjournment of a Regular or Special
meeiing, at which time the Planning Commission n�ay review minutes, informally
review proposed oz pending planning cases or ordinance amendments, discuss previous
actions of the City Cotu�cil or other Commissions, and to perform other znatters not
requiring a vote of fihe Commission.
Special Meetings: From iime fio time, special zneetings may be called in oxder to
process significa.nt caseloads, to review warks in progress such as comprehensive plan
updates or municipa.l code revisions, or to undertake a retreat or strategic planning
session, eitkter amongst itself or in the company of the City Council ar other
commissions. Special meetings can be proposed by any Commission member or at the
request of the Director of Community Development, yet m�asi be approved by a
majoriiy vote of the Commission. Emergency special meeiings can be c�lled via
written notice to the Director of Comr�aunity Develop�x�ent by ihe Chairpersan or two
Cammission members, or by the Director of Community Development. {Emergency
speciai meetings are those in which ihe subject matter is of such an z�nmediate concern
that it cannot be delayed uniil the next reguiar meeting of the P�anning Commission.)
The Director of Community Development shall post and mail a notice of any special
meeting in accordance with State Statutes. Planning Commission mernbers shall be
notified by telephone and in writing, if possible, at least seven days prior to a special f
rnaeting. -
4. Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may he canceled by the
chairperson or Community Development Director in the evant that there are no items of
b'usiness requiring the atten�ion of fihe Commission, or for Iack of a quorum, or in
response to inclemeni weather or for any other good and sufiicienfi reason. Members
of the Commission shail be natified by teiephone of any rneeting cancellation. A notice
of the meeting cancellation shall be posted as required hy State Statutes.
B. QUORUNL A majoriiy of the number ofvoting members appointed to the Commission
shall constitute a quorurn.
C. CONDUCT OFMEETINGS; AD.IOURNMENT
Meeting Chairperson: If neither the chairperson nor the vice chairperson is present to
conduct a meeting of the Planning Commissivn, the Planning Commission may elect a
zneeiing chair from among those membexs present prior to the commencement of
business. The election shall follow ihe procedures set forth in Section N.B,3, except
that the Cotnmunity Development Directox, or his or her designee, shall conduct the
eiectian.
2. 4pen Meeting Law: Meetings shall be canducted in accordance with the State af
Minnesota Open Meetuig Law (Minn. Statutes 471.705). :,y
City of Mour►ds View
Plamling and Zoning Comrnission - Bylaws Page 4
3. Adjournmrent: Meetings shali adjouin at or before 11:00 p.m. unless a two-thirds
majority of the members present agree to extend the time of adjournmant. If there is no
objection, the Chairperson may declare the meeting adjourned without the nacessiiy of
a rnotion or vote by the Commission.
D. MI'NLITES: Minutes shall be recorded for regulaar meetings and each commzssion member
sha11 receive a copy of the unapproved minutes for review and approval at a succeeding
meeiing. Minuies shall be approved by motion. Approved minutes shall be the official
record af the business conducted and actions taken by tlae Planning Commission.
Comxnission members may request copies of approved rminutes after tl�ey hava been
corrected, if necessary, and signed as approved. Copies o£the approved minutes shall be
filed with the Community Development Department. Unapproved minutes shall be clearly
marked ADR.AFT-; approved minuies shail be maxked AAPPROVED-. A policy
statement regarding the content and format of the minuies shall be on file vvith the Director
of Community Davelopment which may be raviewed from time to time as needed.
VI. II+1�0 TIOI\TAII P1�C�T3: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans and
additionai informarion, 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
zxxeefing. �ach Comrzussioner is responsible for reviewing the material within the packet prior to
'f the meeting-
VI�. ]PitOFESS�ONAL COI�SIII�'I`,�41�dTS: Advice from, consultaiion with, arid/or requests for
review by tha City Attotney, City Engineer, City Plannulg Agency, or other paid consultants shall
be in accordance with the Municipal Code, Section 401.07.
VIIi. �UP�I�EME�I'TAI2�I PU��,IC1-�`TIOI��: All Commission members shall receive a copy of the
Mounds View Municipal Code and a copy of tlaa Municipal Comprehensive Plan as well as other
mai:eriaJs provided by the City Council or City Staff. These materia.ls shall be retained by each
commission member and xetumed to the Communiiy Development Director upon the member=s
rasignation or termination of appointment.
: ci '�,' { ; ;�' .
A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated Staff inember or the
Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting. Any member attending less than 20 meetings per year without fhe
consent of the Commission shall be deemed to have vacated the affice, and such vacancy
shall be fi11ed by the City Council pursuant to Section 40i.03, Subd. 1. A leava of absence
may be granted by the consent of the Commission.
B. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.�
1. Generaf 5tandard: No Commissioner sha.11 be appointed vvith private or personal
interests Iikely to conflict with the general public interest. If any person appointed to
the Commission shall find that their pzivate or personal uaterests are involved in any
City of Mounds View
Planning and Zoning C�mmission - Bylaws _ Page 5
matter coming before the Comrnission, t1�ey sh�ll disqualify themselves from taking
part in any discussion or action on the matter; altemativeiy, they may be disqualified by
a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Commissioners iz� aitendance.
2. Conflict I3ue to Economic Interests: A Commissioner has a conflzct of inierest if, in his
or har discharge of official duties, would be required to ta.lce an action or make a
decision that would substantially affect ihe Commissioner's financial interests or those
of an associated business, unless the effect on the Comrnissioner is no greater thata on
other members of the Cornmissiozaer's business ciassification, profession, or
occupation. In the event a conflict of interest exists with respect to a particulax matter
before the Coznmission, ihe Commissioner sha11 disqualify l�imself or herself fronn
taking part in any discussion or action on the rnatter.
C. EX P.4RTE CONTACTS: E� parte contacts ara contacts between individuals seeking to
influence the decisions af the Planning Commission and individual Commission members
outside the meeting forum. Such contacts include meetings with project proponents,
residents, properly ov✓ners, and citizens separate from Cornmission meetings,
communication between Commission members outside the meeting fozum, telephone ca11s
or letters which aitempt to in�luence a Commissioner's opinion on a matter which will he
subject to the Comrnissioner's vote. When the Planning Commission is involved in a
rz�atter which is to be heaxd and decided by the Commission {e.g. variances), Planning -
Commissioners shail indicate ta the person contacting them that such contact is ?
inappropriate and all testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to ensure a fair hearing -"
for ail parties. In all other cases, �'laru�ing Commissioners should discourage such contacts
and should avoid expressing arry opinion as to the merits of the case. V6�hen ex parte
contacts occur, the Planning Commissioner is responsible for notifying the Communi-ry
Deveiopment Director, and for conveying the substance of ihe communication at the next
comnnission meeiing at which the tnatter discussed is under consideration.
ATTEST:
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Rick Jopke, Community Development Diracior
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMllEV1PLANCOMMISYLAWS\BYLAWS -- 2000.DOC
1
Item # 6
,;� �. a �s, -�-;' ' , , ,._ �� . � ,,. ,. , � � . �.� ���
_ �W �w , .__ ,,.. . ,. _,. _ ..�._ „_.. . , _ �. ., �;�r. _. _.-, � . ,,�
i: i i �.
1 i o Is�i� e�rt
Meeting Date: Feb�°ua�°y 7, 2001
,_ � :. . �__ � , _ ::. _. _ ,,,, .,� ,.,. .._ �� ,� . �. � � � ,,,.. . ,� �. . , .
7'ftie:
CONSII�ERATION OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLA.NNING
AND ZONiNG COMIV�ISSION
Iratr°odtscPdona
At a recent meeting of the City Council, staff was directed to create one-page overviews for each
of the City's boards, commissions and committees. Tke overview would serve as a brief summary
of the activities and responsibilities £or each group. The overviews would also clarify to
prospective applicants what to expect in terrns of �. tinle commitment and other requirements to
serve on such a body.
Das�us�ion o
Staff has drafted the attached overview of the Planning Commission.
It�c�maraer�dcatiasa:
Piease review the overview and suggest any changes wluch would make the summary more
applicable to the actions and responsibilities of the Planning Commission.
s.m���lt:t:�.,.� �:���
3ames Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Draft �verview
N:�DATAIGROUPS1CaMBEV1PLANCOMM�Miscellaneous PC Ivlemos\PC Overview Report - Feb 7, 2001.doc
�1
��� � V ���
�� ��� �
�
R�
�o ����;
�
p°krP�.s o Partn4xs��Q`'
>:;, ;z � ��� � �`"` � , \ � "� � � 9,Gf �i� ���� s. �: � r,; z � ' ��i � 5 � ��.� i�
.. �,n�m� �..:. �.. �„ .,�, „�;�: ., �.. , ,
J-.�. .. .[ . ..:.��'� .�. �.:.:i .. . �9' 7?. � �' �.�." . ...:-� ` .. ,�,�,Y . -::�...
Time Comrrii�mer�i: 10 - 12 Hours Per Month filleefang Da$es: First and #hird Vllednesdays
of �very Month
�ta�f Liaison: Jim Ericson
Community Deveiopmenfi Director
763-717-4{}21
O�enview:
fi�eeting T@me: 7:00 F'.M.
The Planning Commission is a va{unteer board of CounciE-appointed Mounds View residen#s charged with
studying and recommending to the City Council ways in which to adminis#er the �oning Cacie and refafed
regulations. 1n this capacity, the Commission has the res}�onsibility fio maii�tain and updaie fhe comprehensive
plan; to ac# upon variance requests; fo conduct public hearings and make recommendations fio the City Council
on zoning classifications, rezonings, plafs, lo# splits, planned unit development and conditional use permiis.
The Commission receives citizen inpui, solicits ail available informaiion on an issue and recommends
appropriate action to fhe City Council for final action.
,4ffer�dance:
Commission members are expected to at#end every regularly scheduled meefing of the Planning Commission.
l� a member is unable to attend a meefiing, the member shail advise the designa#ed Staff Liaison or the
Comrnission chairperson in advance of any of an anticipatsd absence. Any member aftending less fihan 20
meetings per year without the consent of the Commission shall be deemed ta have vacated the office, and
such vacancy shal( be filled by the City Council.
Con�lic# of fnierest:
Planning Commissioners shall not be appointed with private or persanal interests likely to canflict with the
general public interesi. lfi any person appointed to the Commission shalf find thai their private or personal
interests are inv�lved in any matter coming before the Commission, they shafl disqualify themselves from
taking part in any discussion or actio�l on the matter.
Typi�a! Activifies:
The mosfi common activity o� fhe Planning Commission is #o act upon resident's variance requests. Minnesota
Statutes require fhai variances be approved ONLY in the event that the literaE interpretation of the Ciiy Cade is
overly burdensome which causes a praciical difficulfiy in the use oi the property. There are seven crifieria,
referred io as the hardship standard, which need #o be satisfied in order for a variance to be granted.
N:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV\PI.ANCONIM\Miscellaneous PC MemoslPlanning Cosnmission Overview.doc
P1tOClEEDI1�IGS O�' THE li/10t71V1)S VIEW PI��tI�II�dG COIVIIVII�SIOl�T :
CIT�' O�'+' IVIOUl�S '6�IEW
�.6� .H Y.� 4J 1� J. 9.' 1rARl'i 1'� Y�` S� % L-L
lteguia�°, Meeting
` ��nuary 3, 2001
,1VYounds Viev�.Ci�y "Hall > ; ,
2401 �Iighway 10,1VIo€ands Vievv;
l.' Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson
2e laoll C�II
Members Present: Commissioners Hegland, Johnson
1V�einbers Excused: None.
Also Present: Community Development Director-`Eri�
_
Pi�nning Case: ��o. ,DI
Properiy Involved: 76�
Review and Discuss Siie.
Applicani � � ��� � To
Speciai Planning Case`r
at 7:
1� "_
;erifield Averiue
for a 3;500 �quare-Foot Office Building
Coritinuation of Sign Cade Review - Definitions
El"ection of Plamm�g Commission Officers
Siaff Reports / Items of Infonnation
Chaupersan and Planning Commission Reports
3. C�tizen's lteque�is and Co'n�aaents on �terr�s IVot on th� Age�da
There were no citizen requests or comrnents on items not on the agenda.
3, 2001.
and Cerny.
Page
2
3
7
7
7
Mounds Vfevv PIanning Commission
Regalar Mleefing
4. Ap�aroval of I�Iinutes
A. 1)ece�ber b, 2000
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Cerny. To approve the
presented.
Ayes — 6 Nays - 0
5. PIans�ing Case l�io. DE00-002
Property Involved: 7664 Greenfzeld Avenue
Review and Discuss �ite Plans for a 3,500 Square-Foo.
Applicant: Tony Mezzenga
Community Development Director Ericsan
build a 3,500 square-foot, one and a half stc
property is zoned B-3 Highway Business;:�li
setbacics there are practical difficiilties'�n vv
before the Planning Commission i�1 Septem
6, 2000
ed.
Bui
January 3, 2001
Page 2
;
;:;1yJ.ixluTes as
�lained the appl�cazit has r.eguested permission to
office i�ullding at 7664 Greenfield Avenue. This
ever. due to the size of t11e lot and corner 1ot
;III�
borders commercial property to the;�west a Toui�'Thum
east. Staff has reviewed the s�te plan and City �ode �E
concern in the, staff report IVIr Mezzenga is not able °
14 stalls which�;iransia�te into a�i�
applicant anticipates a total of 2,
need to Ue re�iised to oo�nnlv wit
cto� Ericson addre"ssf
cating that s#aff spokf
se the plan to include.
ts would need to bee:-i
�:
r�eighborhood
[opeci which is why this matter was
. a variance was granted. This lot
re�` and zesidential properties to the
:ments and outlined items of issue or
present at this maeting.
;parking lot requirements have been met. The site plan shows
Kimuin leaseable office area of 2,800 square feet. The
)0 sq�are feet of leaseable office space. The plan wili however
AT�A parking requirements.
�ci that the site plan does not show any parking lot lighting,
Mezzenga regardin� this issue and Mr. Mezzenga has agreed to
e of lights on the building to illuminate the p.arlcing lot. The
or shielded to prevent glare and be downcast so as not to disturb
�irector Erieson p�inied out that the lot is relatively flat with little if any change in elevation.
There n�ay he a slight build up at the site of the building pad. Staff has suggested a slight
elevation slope to allaw stormwater zunoff to flow to the green space area to be filtered befare
ent�nng the stormwater systern. If thera are any changes in elevation it will be required to be
reflected on the siie plan. The site plan will need to be amended to reflect the direction of
stormwater nanoff.
Director E�icson indicated that the applicant had not yet submitted a landscaping plan. He
referred to a site plan inciuded with the Commission's report which could provide the basis for a
landscaping plan, yet cautioned that the staff-drawn plan was simple and would need to be
considered further by Mr. Mezzenga and the City Forester before a final plan is approved.
��
;
, :i
Mounds V�ew Planning Commission
Regular Mteetir�g
Director Ericson reported that the building exterior would be constructed of bri
the botiom half—story of the building and a wood-gained type of maintenance
top of the building. He indicated that staff wonld like #o see the sair�e type.of e
construction carried over to the side of the building facing County Road I as w�
four sides. At a minin2um, he expiained, the frontages need to:be dressed up. `
,�anuary 3, Zoai
Page 3
: or cut stone on
;e si�ding on the
eriar
, if not on all
Addressing signage, Director Ericson said he had spolcen with Mr. Mezzenga who indicaied he
would lilce to leave signage up to the tenants af the building.; D�rector Erzcson explained that he
informed Mr. Mezzenga that due to the buildiz�g being locatecl in. a predominately residential
area, a monument type of sign would be prefe;rred over a pylon type of sign..
Director Ericson further stated that he had addressed all of the outstanding issues and site plan
defzciencies with Mr. Mezzenga, and informed Mr. -Mezzenga he would be requi,red to amend tlie
plans accordingly, Director Ericson summarized that tl�e sxte plari needs to, be "revised to allow
far a building setbacic of 30 feet from County Road I and ten �'eet from tbe t�vest property line,
that the par%ing lot needs to have perimeter`curbing wzth bre�ks or cuts identified for drainage,
that a van-accessible handicapped sfall would need t� be shown on'the`plan, and identificatian of
building and parlcing lot lighting, if any: He indicated that the floar plans would need to identify
the scale and show office square footage and room dimensions�'and a computation of the total
Ieaseable ofiice area. In addition,.he reported that a grading;plan would need to be submitted if
subs#antial grading is to occur or' general elevations sllown on the site plan with arrows to
indicate the elirection of storinwater runoff. Directa� Ericson xestated that a landscaping plan
Director
concernmg tnrs ,�
2000 meetin� if
locat�ons, a��d guantities of the planimgs to be used would need to be
a detailed descriptiorz of any proposed signage if lcnown at this point.
logized to residents �or not being able to provide more notice of the meeting
�;building. He stated that this matter would be discussed at the January 17,
lents were unable to attend this meeting.
Vice'Chairperson Steven�ozi �reguested the parlcing lot spaces be drawn to scale on the site plan
map when it is brought back before the Pianning Commission.
Gommissioner Miller_-inquired as to how many handicapped parking stalls were requi�-ed for this
building.
Commu�uty Deveiopment Director Ericsan indicated there is a ratio that starts with 1 to 25 and
goes dowri after that. One handicapped accessible spot would be required for this building.
Vice Chairperson Stevenson requested the Commission address the concerns raised at the
meeting in September 2400 for faot traffic across the lot.
Mr. Gustafsan, the property owner, suggested using shrubbery or some type of landscaping to
discourage foot �raffic and force ii down to County Road I.
Vice Chairperson Stevenson inquired as to what the plan was to discourage foot traffic on the
11�Sounds View Pian�ing Conamission
Itegular l�Ieeting
west side or Tom Thumb side af the property.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated Mr. Mezzenga would
mafiter.
Mr. Gustafson, the property a�wner, �uggested a redwood or some type of fe
property and Tom Thumb.
It was the consent of the Planning Commission that mem�ers w
fencing along the property line to the west on the final site plan.
Cammissianer Kaden re�x�inded the Planning Commi
had atiended the rneeting in September and aslced the
type of screening sa he would not have to look at the;:
Commissioner Kaden recommended Mr. .
discuss the type of screening the property
fhe
,Tanuaxy 3, 2001
Page 4
';
to speak to that
e�w�en the ,,
d like to see some type of '''
properiyov�7�er to the south
to cozisider requiring some
�perty:owner to the south to
�e�een l�im and the building.
Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted the property awrier to the south had also complained of
having ia remove trash from along hts fence that comes from.pedestrians leaving Tom Thumb.
Dawn Little of 7658 Greenfield Avenue eaplained ihe property owner to the south and Tom
Thumb share a common Woodei� fence and tl�at is wh�re the trash accumulates. She then aslced
the Plan.iiing Commissiori to require some type;oF screening so the residents would not have to
laok af ihe buiidiaig.
Commissioner �Miller noted that �he proposed building was an aesth�tically pleasing building.
She further nated a house aould be built otl that properiy which residents wouid have to loolc at
fram wluch the City �uould not require any screening.
Johnson
be blacicing the
.. ' -:�V1211AA1t111i,' 1/bY �
pedestrian issues
v_�__��.
front of the building faces Greenfield so any type of screen
the front of the building.
Director Ericson indicated that while the City is sensitive to the
zenga is the one that should be concerned for trespassing an his
Conceming the screening issue, Community Development Director Ericson stated that the City
would not require screening for a house but this is a commercial prope��fy and the Ci�y can
require screening if it is determined to be neeessary.
Coinmissioner Johnsan stated if a fence were to be put between the property and Torn Thumb
foot traffic would find another way around.
Cammunity Develvpment Direcior Ericson noted having a fence between the property and Tom
`;
`< ,
1Vlounds �Iiew Planning Commission
Regular 1Vleeti�xg
�Tanuary 3, 2001
Page 5
Thumb would creaie an area not clearly visible from the street which may cause a problem with
Ioitering and vandalism. A fence on filie other side of the property xr�ay warlc better.
Ms. Little inquired as to where trafiic would exit the property.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated
Commissioner Hegland stated he believed developing the �
on it would tal�e care af the foot txaffic issue. He then indi
needed to be screened as it appears to be an aesthetically p.
Greenfield Avenue. This would make it hard to screer� fro
without blocking the view of the front of the building.
Cornmissioner Kaden stated he had brought up the
up at the meeting in September of 2000. The bu�lc
residential in nature and, in his opinion, shouid;noi
Community D�velaprnent Dir�ctor
the property owner to the sauth to c
staied
flow out orito County Road
and having the office liiiildiiig `'
was not sure the building .`
uilding with the front facing
�iderits`'on Greenfield Avenue
irig pr�sented at this
need to be screened
� �ave Mr. Mezzenga contact
building.
3`been brought
is miuch more
Commissioner Hegland stated he would like to :have a signage agreement in writing that indicates
the City intends to be rnore restric€ive with this;affice.bu�lding due to the fact i� is located in a
mostly resideutial neighbarliood s �'�� -
.<,
Comrnuruty Development Ulrector Ericson stated the City would not ailow a pylon sign and
would insist on a inon�inent type sigri not to exceed eight feet in height. NIr. Mezzenga has been
made aware of the City'� requirements for signage.
�r inquired as to
the trash bins wauld be located on the property.
rnunity Develop�neni Director Ericson indicated he believed they would come out the front
as this is an office building and daes not require an outside firash dun�pster. Staff will
rm the trash bin lo'cation to he sure.
: � �� �Li V ll�lll ll �1
as io where the snow from the parking lot would be removed to.
Community Developrnent Director Ericson indicated there was plenty of green space on the
nronerizr for'snow to be accumulated.
Cornmunity Develapment Director Ericson stated he would spealc to Mr. Mezzenga concerning
the issues raised by the Pianning Conunission and aslc Mr. Mezzenga to provide a revised site
- pian at a future meeting.
I�Iounds Vaew �lanning Corramfssio�
It�gular li�eeting
b. �pecial Planning Case l�Io. �P-0�2-00
C'on�inuatio� of Si�n Cocle laevievv — I)efini�ions
Community Development Director explained to the Planning
to pravide the best example of definitions from several differ�
glossary af definitions far review at this meeting.
Vice Chairparson Stevenson complimented Community
January 3, 20Q1.
�age b
and combirie them into a
�rector Ericsan on his _ _..
efforts to provide clear, accurate and concise def nitions for the City's sign code.
Commur�ity Developmeni Director Ericson axplained he had deleted sonie definitions that were
either outdated, addressed somewhere else in ihe Code, or repetitiv� if� nature n�aking them
unnecessary.
Commissioner Miller inquired as to why an abaniioned sign:ca.rried the six xnozith time
requirement.
Community Development Director
required by state statute,
the s�x_ lnorith time requirement was
Commissioner HegIand inquired as to which defriition wo�;l� cover garage sale signs.
Commu�uty:Development Dircctor, Ericson cxplained garage sale signs are not ctt�7-ently
addressed by �he code so t}�ey were i�ot added in this set of definitions.
Commissioner Johnson stated if a pxoperty o�vvner has a problem with having garage sale signs
Iocated on their pro�erty it is up to� fihem:to remove the sign.
Commissioner Kad�n: quesiioned whethe� the City needed to add a definition for the temporary
lawn �are chemical waniuig si��s since the Cifiy is defining the small security system signs.
Community Developmer�t Directar Ericsan explained he had not defined Iawn care chemical
�varning signs since they`'are usually only there for 24 to 48 hours, but felt this to be an incidentai
sign, which is defined=i '�
Director ,Encson rndicated that as the process of revising the sign ordinance moves along there
mighi need �o � be changas or additioms to the definition list. I�e stated that the Planning
Cominission would discuss ground signage at the January 17, 2001 meeting. He toid the
Commissioners that staf:F is in the process of obtaining a list of businesses in the cornrnunity in
order to send a letter informing area businesses of the discussions concerning xevzsions io the
sign code. He explained that ihe letter would be sent out in time to notice for the discussion
concerning temporary signage on February 21, 2001.
' ;
i
,
;;
i
;
�
v :
Nlounds View �lannfng Comr��ssron
Regular I�Ieeti�g
"io Elec�ion oi Plann�ng Co�mission Offjcersa
Cammunity Development Director Ericson explained that each
holds an election to elect the Chairperson and Vice Chairpe;
reported to Council for approval.
MQTION/SECOND: Miller/Johnson. To Nominate
the Planning Commisszon.
Ayes — 6
Nays — 0
MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden. To T
Chairperson of the Planning Comxnission.
Ayes — 6 Nays ���i
Community Development Director Ericson noted he
approval and the new Chairperson would take over a'
�a ��aif Reports/Iteans of
�Y'��'IO(IS
firsi
�,v
the
J�anuary 3, 2Q01
Page 7
inm.g ;Comrr�ission
lection results are
for Cliairperson of ; `
Motion carried.
Milier for Vice
carried.
iorr�inations to Councii for
in February.
Commun�ty Developuient Director Ericson reported that the Council held its first meeting
af tlieyear�fQ. swear in the new mayor, hear departing words from the outgoing mayor and
declare its �dep;osi�ory bank: � It was determined �o suspend having Council rnembers act as
liarsoris' at the varioits conuiiittee meetings as the Council has confidence that staff can
aciequately acf as the liaisa�i between the commissions and the Cauncii. �irector Ericson
reported that Co�nmissioner Hegland was reappointed to the Planning Commission for a
tl�ree year ierm. He:,�dded that there are still three seats avaiiable on the Planning
Coinmission if anyone is interested in applying.
Planning Commissioners' IZeports
l0a Eldjour�rne�i to Agea�e�a �e�s��n
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairperson Stevenson
adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
(The rneeting inunediately adjourned to the Agenda. �esszon}
1Vlounds V$ev� Plannfng Cognz�aission
Re�ular 1Vleeting
Respectfully submitted,
January 3, �001
P�ge �
PI�OC�EIiIl�GS OF'TI�E 1VI0[TI�I)S VIE�I PLAI�TVII�G COIlZI1�II5SION
C�T"�' O� 1VIOiJI�IDS �IIE�I
F\ti1V1��� i.�G.il`9��y 1:'1A1V1�f���l�
�
al i
` ll�imunds
2401 FIighway 10;1V1flunds �
1. C�II io Orcie�°
The meeting vvas called to order by Vice Cl�airperson S
2001.
2. I�o11 Ca11
Members Present: Vice Chairperson S
Miller, Kaden, and Ce�rny.
Members Absent: None.
Also Present: Comm�znity
t1%lg
'A01 i
Fiall
i112 - _
, January 17,
Johnson,
I�dex to l�i��u�es � Pag�
Plannang ��se.�Ta: - ])E00-002 2
Property Involved:. � 7664 Greenfield Averiue
Review and Discuss 5ite Plans for a 3,500 Square-Foot Ofiice Building, Consideration of
Resolution 64b-Ol, a Resolution Recommending City Council Appraval.
Applicant: Tony Mezzex�ga
�pecial Planning �ase 1�To. SP-{i82-00 9
Continuation of Sign CQde Review — Ground Signs
f Reports / Items of Information
irpersoii a.nd Planning Commission Reports
3. Caiize�'s Requests a�d Comtnents on It�r�as N'ot oz► the 1��enda
There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda.
13
14
1►/gounds Vievv PlannYng Commission
Reg�lar I�eeting
4. Appro�al of 1Vlinutes
�i. Iiecember 209 2000
MOTIQN/SECOND: Miiler/T�aden. To apprave #he D
Minutes as presented.
Ayes — 6 Nays - 0
5. Pla�nr�ag Case i�a. �3E00-002
Properry in�volved: 766� Greenfield A�
Review and Discuss Site Plans for a 3,500 , Squa
Consideration of Resolution 646-01, a Resoluti�
Council Appraval.
Applicant: Tony Mezzeuga ;
Community Development Director Erics
develapment review io construct an offic
of office space. This matter was before,i
review. .
Staff spolce to ihe applicant,
concerning;;severai issues tlz
fihe chan�es"� aud has subznitt
tliis is a, r
.Taniaary 17, 2001
Page 2
er 20, 2004.IVIeetii�g
�
MOtiOXi CaTrie(�
ue.
Eoot . Office Building,
Recofninending City
ec�uest for: approval oi a
mately`2,Ofl0 square feet
�n on January 3, 2001 for
on January 3, 2001
VIr. Mezzenga agreed to
; Comznission for
Community D.�velopment Director.Ericson;noted there were still a few zssues that needed
to be addressed by tfie Pl�anning Cozninissiozi bafore it would consider a recommendation
to Council, such as ihe direction of storrri water runoff indicated on the site plan vvith
arrows,.the'landscaping areas shown and the schedule ofplantings to be used, and the
identification of the screeiung and`fencing to be utilized. The landscape plan shall be
reviewed by the City Forester. :
; I?irector Ericson
city code require:
Cit}i would requi
bein� located zn'�
:, .
c�teci that he did not believe signage to be an issue provided it meeis
ts He stated he had spol�en to Mr. Mezzenga and notified him the
monument type sign rather than a pole type sign due to the building
idential neighborhood.
Cornrnissioner 3ohnson uiquired as to what the setback for the parlcing lot to County
Road I was.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated the setback was originally shown to
be 26 feet, but was revised to show a 13-foot setback, j
1VIouncis View Plan�i�� Comrriission
l�egular IVi�etfn�
January 17, 2001
Pa�e 3
Director Ericson noted that tha siie plan does not indicated the presence of any exterior
lighting, however, Mr. Mezzenga confirmed that there may be one or two flood lights
mounted on the building to provide Iighting in the parking lot.
Director Ericson indicated that the lot is relatively flat and, as
an issue as to drainage. Staff has proposed the lot slope slight
runoff to the green space to aliow it to be filtered before it flo:
systam.
Mr. Mezzenga indicated he will provide a landscaping
12, 2001 City Council meeting.
Direcior Ericson described the proposed struchare as a one arid a ha;
a hipped roof and covered ent-�-yway. The building's exterior appea�
with the residential feel of the area. He noted tha� he asl�ecl that the
be carried around to the Counfiy Road I side of the.building ancl; indi
it to be a nice looking building.
there should riot be �
irect storm �water ` '
� the storm water
prior to the I'ebruary '
.I�'�ii�7
that he believes
Director Ericson indicated that the issue of fencing was stili uYiresolved; and that he had
spoken with the property owner to the south, Mr. Zwxrn, about ihis: The building is to be
built to the bacic of the lot. and would Xook intv Zva�'s backyard. Dixector Ei-icson
indicated that Mr. Zwirn had requested that an eig�ii-foot pnv�cy fence he erected two or
three feet off the lot line. The fence would not iieed to run ilie full lengtli of Mr. Zwirn's
property as he is just loolcing for screening fram the back end of his house toward the
back of the:o�fice building for a total of approxiniately 6�0 feet.
Director��ricson�i�iention�d that"Mr. Zwirn is also concerned about cut-through
pedestrian traffic on the lot which causes 11im a problerr� with loitering and littering.
Director Ericson�siated �that in 3�s api�o����f1ie development of this property would lceep
the littering; and foot iraffic tr�; a mix�muni, however the addition of a short section of
fence in tlie froni or back of the buildirig to conneci to ihe existing fence would further
IVIr �Herbert Zwirn, 766Q �reenfield Avenue, adciressed ihe Coininission and reiterated
}�s' concerns as Commuiuty Development Director Ericson had previously explained.
: N1�, Zwirn indicated he has had problems with juveniles congregating in the Tom Thumb
parking lot late at,nigl'it drinlcing, smol�ing and playing footbali. He expressed concern
; tliat.those satne j�iveniles may move the after hours activities ta the parking iot of the
office buildin� once it is built. Mr. Zwin1 expressed a concern that if the parking lot was
not'well lit`and lcind of secluded the juveniles would congregate outside his frant room
window.
Mr. Zwirn asked for a privacy fence io block off foot traffic along the fence line on the
Tom Thumb side and sufficient lighting from the building to light the parl�ing lot to
discourage juveniles from loitering in the parlcing lot.
Nlot�nds �ie� P�a�nu�g Corntnission .Tanuary 17, 2001
�te�niax R�ieetit►� Page 4
Mr. Zwirn explained from the bacic af his house to the property line is all windows
looking onto what will be the parlcing lot. He would like some type of slu-ubbery to loolc
at rather than the parking lot, Mr. Zwirn noted the building is now ten feet away;from`the
properiy line instead of 15 feet but by using fencing and shrubbery he believes rt should "
be able to be worlced out.
Commissioner Hegland inquired as to whether Mr. Zwirri had�a fence Mz `Zwzrn
indicated he currently has a four-foot chain link fence.
Conlmissioner Hegland clarified there would be a space betw�en Mr. Zwim's fence and
the proposed privacy fence with limited visibility that may pose a loitering or vandalism
issue.
Commissianer Johnson stated the issue is really the Tom Tl�umb side wY
proposed a split rail fence to keep people frorn going around tlie back of
Vice Chairperson Stevenson si�ggested closing off the a.rea with a ten-fo�
fence from the corner of the building to the sauth properiy to eliminaie,ii
back oithe building and the property to �e south. ,
�g section of
betweei� the
Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted the �'lamm�g �ommission" always has concems when
there are two fences bac% to bacic as it provides an area of llinited visibility where vandals
couid htde..�; 4
�
Mr. Zwirn,stat�'d he currenfly has a;problem wi�h"a group of juvaniles loitering behind the
fence oz� ihe Tom Th�unb property .=
Vice Chaizperson,'Steverison indicated due fo the fact this is an office buiiding there will
not be empioyecs �.fter 5:00 or 6:00 p''�.m'.;'�He fiu-ther indicafed that the site pIan did not
indicate i�th"ere were doors ox w�ndows on tke side of the building facing the property to
#he
nissioner Hegland noted�that building elevatiozzs, other than the front elevation,
not provided, so it �isvas not known if there would be windows on the south-facing
Vice' Chai�-person Stevenson indicated an eight-foot pi7vacy fence lends itself to hiding
belunii it whereas shi°ubbery and the use of berms in the landscaping do not. There are
shrubs tliat are prickly to discourage people from being near them.
Commissioner Cerny indicated a chain linlc fence is not suitable for privacy so it may be
more practical to remove the chain link fence and install ar� eight-foot privacy fence.
,'�
1Vloatr�d� Vie� Plan�i�g Co�massiot�
Regul��° I�eet�n�
Ja�uary 179 2001
P�ge 5
Community Development Director Ericson indicated this is a comn�ercial building which
gives the City an opportui�ity to deal with the privacy issue rather than to have the
property owner deal wi�ii it.
Commissioner Miller noted her agreement with the rest of the
bacic fences typicaily leads to other negative issues for propert
Miller also noted tiie bacic-to-bacic fences may provide an area where vandais could
Ioiter.
Commissioner Kaden inquired as to whether Mr. Zwirn would be taki�ig down his ch
linlc fence if the privacy fence were to be approved and built as a part`"of this project.
Mr. Zwirn expfained the chain linlc fence has concrete around �he eni7re perirrxeter
underneath it to discourage weed growth that is an attractive look azad n3akes mai�ten
,cl�.to
r: .
�.
easy. Mr. Zwirn stated he doesn't have a problem wi,th two fences located back ,to bacic
as long as the area between and along the %nces is maintaaned:' If the City approves this
plan for the bu.ilding he suggested he needs saine privacy iri his bacicyard. Mr. Zwirn
explained the use of evergreen trees would damage his concrete as t1�e xoots would push
it up and he aslced the Giiy not to use them '; "
Commissioner Hegland inquired as io �vhether it would be feasi�ile to extend some of Mr.
Zwirn's posts to raise the fence and instead of chain linlc use. either wood or vinyl.
Vice Ch
window
Mr. Zwirr
evergreen
Vice
He a
�erson Stevenson asked'Mr. Zwirn what type:'of screen he wanted on the
le of his house t7aat �a�es the parking lot
indicatecl ta11 shrubbe,ry such as lilacs or tall evergreen shrubbery not
rees would be nice. '
�erso�i'Stev�nson;nofied a�eed to screen Mr. Zwirn's view of the parking lot.
ed a double fence would be`a potential probiem unless fences are close
ether to discourage loitering but to allow for maintenance of the fence and
;en tl�e fences. He fiiirther suggested the fences be no more than twa feet apart
fence is ailowed �
�issioner 7ohnsori asked Mr. Mezzenga if there would be windows in the top floor
building looking south.
there vvould be wfndows in the top floor of the building looking
Comix�issioner Jolulson noted if a twa-story house were built on the lot in question the
neighbors would have windows looking into Mr. Zwirn's backyard.
IYiounds �lievv Planning Commission
l�e�u�ar I�Ieeting
�a�uary 17, 2001
Page 6
Community Development Director Ericson stated tl�e fences could be right together but
noted doing so wouid raise a. maintenance issue.
Community Development Direcfor Ericson suggested using a one-foot setback for the
fence which doesn't leave enough room for vandals to loiter and tQ put rock or;wood
chips under the fence to prevent grass from grawing up under,;the fe�ice and bet�een the
fences.
Commissioner Kaden aclrnowledged the need for a privacy fence but said one foot rnight
be lcind of tight to allow for maintenance of the fence. Commissioner'I�aden suggested '
allowing 18 inches between the fences.
Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated he has expe�-ience witb �ainizng;fences.:�nd it is
passible to spray the fence with a one-foat space between the fences.' Ho�ever; ,
pennission would need to be obtained from �he property'owner to the south'to ente
his property to perfoi°m the painting or maintenance. ,
Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Zwirn to clarifv the
Mr. Zwirn expiained the privacy fenc
backyard by screening Y►is l�ackyard;fi
Mr. Mezzenga stated that a six-foot;�
would an eight-foot fence. NIr.1VTez�
may not be'entirely necessary. ��He��fit
Zwirn's e�isfiilg fance and �iustall a p
caused by placing';two fences back-to
to collect.
Mr.
:zenga stated a riice six -i
has aslced for anci.shoiila
fence. ��',.
�or a s
lot and
fence.
-ivacy in his
onto
zce would accompl�sh` the same level of privacy as
nga indicated ari eight-foot fence is quite high and,
her stated'it: slioitld be possible ta connect to Mr.
vacy fenice rather than dealing with the issues
�ack.
wo :fer�ces back to bacic provides a place far debris
high privacy fence could accomplish what the
able to mount on the concreie block of ihe resident's
Commissioner Hegiax�d:`aslced if Mr. Zwirn and Mr. Mezzenga were interested in worlcing
o�t the privacy fence'issues amongst themselves. Mr. Zwirn said he would be willing to
c��s�uss ihe fen�ingissue with Mr. Mezzenga.
Vice ,Chairperson �tevenson n.oted either the east or west corner of the building needed to
iie into �he fence fio prevent foot traffic.
Mr. Mezzenga indicated he could tie the southeast corner to the building also.
)
I�ound� '�iew Planni�g Comn�ission January 17, 2001
Reg€�lai-1�Iee�ing Page 7
Vice Chairperson Stevenson explained the six (6) foot pri��acy %1�ce wouid need to start
even with Mr. Zwirn's house not in front of it.
Con�rnunity Development Director Ericson indicated Staff had drafted a resolutian
recommending to Council approval of the develapment review requesfi witli stipulations,
assuming the Commission had no other concerns. He read the stipulations as lfsied m the
resolution to the Cammission. _ .
Can�missioner Miller inquired as to vvhether• the axchi
consistent alolig the west elevation of the building.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated it was
Cammission to decide whether it wanted to require the archi
on all four sides9 the sides fronting the streets, or just the sicl
Avenue. , .
Corrunissioner Johnson aslced Commissianer
be briciced.
Coznmissioner Miller indicated the
brick would be nicer to look at than
Vice Chairperson Stevenson
said bricic was not needed o.n
Consent.was i-eae�ied by`the;
the buildzng ta %e. liriciced, in
MOTION/SEC�ND: Cerny
for
of
west
side c
siding
l:features wouid be
�p" to tlie Planning
.ectural %atures ;be the same
; fronting Greenfield
felt tlae west side needs to
is also exposed to traffic and
�d and should be bricl� but
n�issiori to require the north and west sides of
the front facing Greenfield Avenue.
o To Approve Resolution No. 646-01, a Resolution
'ttional Use Permit and Development Review Request
Located at 76b4 Greenf eld Avenue.
Nays — 4 Motion carried.
iity Developm�rit Direcior Ericson indicated this inatter would be heard by
on February 12� 2041.
d �igns
Case I�To. �1'�082-{�0 — Continuaiion of Sign Code fl2evi��v —
Community Development Director Ericson aslced ihe Pianning Commission to consider
what is cunently allowed by code for height of sign, the sign area, the number of sucli
signs ailowed per lot and the se�backs required.
IViouncts �iew P�annnt�g Caasimi�sio�
12egular IVleeting
Ja�uary 4i, 2001
Page �
Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted the docuxnent received from Staff on November 15,
2000 contained a table stating gxouxad signs in R3, R4, and RS vvere to be no taller than
six feet from grade. Vice Chairperson Stevenson inquired as to wheiher ihe primary
reason for that was ta address apartments for rent.
Communiiy Development Direcior Ericson explained that
the code but was added by Staff for consideratian. There �
allowance because signs are not currently allowed, yet if s
there should be a height limitation.
Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted Staif would need to note`1;
that pedestal signs and freestaz�ding signs are now referred to
clarification.
Community Development Director Ericson
terms Staif believed to be duplicative and u
Vice Chairperson Stevenson asked if the
maj ority o£ tk�e sign code.
Community Development Director Encson inc
table was currently in the sign code. ,'The table
ent was
ly isn't s
is allow
t pecies�al an.d fre�
ry as ground sign
15, 2000 drait do�
in the sign code
�i�;ns for
both.
covered the
cl everything with the exception of the
Staffls addition for consideration.
Community,Development Director Ericson stated.it was'Staf�s mistalce not to be
,�.
consiste�t with the rewrite by i�aidcrizning what was r�ew and crossing off anything Staff
felt couid be deieied. Tlie dociunent is z�ot a true�reflection of what is in the code but
what could �ossib�y. be done to' c�ean it up.
Community Developxi�ent Director Ericson inquired as to whether the Planning
Commissio� was happy with the listed heigY�ts for signs and the areas the various height
ninissioner Hegland inquired as to whether it was possible to put togethez a sign code
t'is progressiveiy m.ore resinctive based on zoning that would simplify this discussion,
then aslced if Staff eould put together a chart based on that information.
' Goi�nunity Develop�rient Director Ericson indicated that is basically what �taff has done
v�th �he November'`15, 2000 document refei�red ta by Vice Chairperson Stevenson,
�.
The Planiziiaig Commission took a brief brealc to allow Comnlunity Deveiopment Director
Ericson to malce some copies of tl�e November 15, 2000 document ta be reviewed.
Vice Chairperson Stevensan suggested a statemen� be added to the definitions indica�ing
that fhe definition of freesianding and pedestal signs are now referred to as ground signs.
1
1
il�Iou�ads Vievv Plannin� Cotri�rt�ssion
R.egular i�//Iee�i�g
.�anuary 17, 2001
Fage 9
Commux�ity Development Director Ericson gave a copy of the November 15, 2��0 draft
revision of the Sign Code to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Miller stated there was not a provision concerning caring for the sign
Community Development Director Ericson indicated care of
other parts of the code uncier nuisance or nonconforming sigr
signs section covering a sign not being maintained.
Commissioner Kaden refened to a line on Page 7 that had
whether it should be left in the code.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated th
not really needed as the building code requirements gov
Communiry I�evelopment Director Ericson su
the table on Page 8 of the November 15, 2000
Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated he
xnalce the sign code more clear.
Commissioner Mi11er inquired as to �vhat an
;n is �
there
and inquired as
e siateinent could be left i.n but is
ern those types af isSues,
e Pla�u�ing Comanission °review
f the chart as $e felt it would
Community Development Directorr'Ericson indicated uXcidental signs were signs lilce an
ATM sig�;�`address signs-ar riameplate signs, exft'szgns;��and signs far public telephones.
Cammissioner Jalinson indicaied tllat ground signs, if allowed in R-3, R-4 and R-S
districts, shou�d i�at exceed eigh# feet,an.height.
CammunityDe�elopineiit Ijirector Er�oson suggested allowing 32 square feet of signage
for R-3, R=4 and R-5 di'stricts. ,.
Ericson indicated there is no allowance for signage in
zoning districts.
Chairpersan Ste�enson indicated the signage allowed for R-O should be tha same as
�3.
1Vlou�ds �l�evv Planning Cosramis�ion Janua�y 17, 2001
l�egular IVieet�ng p�gQ �p
Coinmunity Development Directar Ericson asked how the Plaruling Commission felt
about wall signage for commercial property. Currently commercial properties are :
allowed to have 100 square feet of wail space in additian to a freestandu�g sign. , He
aslced if the wall signage should be limited by indicating a total number of square fee"t for
both the wall sign and the freestanding sign.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated the!; Woodlawn: Terraca and
Scotland Green multi-famiiy carnplexes have signage on their buildings'in addrtzon.to �.
their ground signs. He questioned whether 64 square feet was ;needed or if in R-3 district
the maximiun should be 32 square feet. ,
Commi ssioner J'ohnson inquired as to whether in R-5 dzstricts there needed to be an
atlowance for wall signage if a trailer park with an office wanted� to have:'a. sign or i� an
aliowance was needed for wall signage in an R-O zoning di'strict.
Connnaunity Development Director Ericson indicated he did�not believe:R.S and R-O
properties would need wall signage.
Vice Chai erson Stevenson stated mosti ; lar e ho�sin coiii lexes would have non-
� g g l� .
conforming signs ii the ground signage maximum was any less thari 32 square feet.
Commissioner Miller inquired
signage currently exists for each
Commuruty ]Development Direci
Commu�iity Development 17irec
feet is that niost signs, wera four
won't be in confoi-n?ance:
Vice C�airperson Stev.enscin st�
allowed``to the size of the.n�oberi
Ericson
pful to lrnow how much
has this information.
indicated the i-eason he suggested 32 square
►at size. There are some signs, hawever, that
it "might be bene�cial ta relate the size of the sign
Coxrunissioner Johnson :stated`he would like to approve 64 square feet of ground signage
for the R-4 zoning distncts.
Coii�unissioner Hegland suggested relating signage allowed to the size of the property.
,,
Co�nx���nity Development Directox Ericson indicated ther� may be a way to tie the size of
`the si�'allowed into the size of the project but indicated he didn't want to break it down
too far or it would become difficuit ta adminster.
Commissioner Hegland suggested opening up #he signage requirement to 100 square feet
and hope common sense would lceep sznaller properties from putting up a large sign.
li�iouncis View Plan�ing Cornrrgis��o�
I�egula�° 1�I�etin�
.ranu��y �7, zaoz
Page 11
Community Development Director Ericson suggesied instead of basing the allowed sign
area on acreage of the property, to allow sigxiage by the number of units.
Vice Chairperson Stevenson suggested parameters that would give larger
capability to have a larger sign. _
Community Development Director Ericson indicated th
sign in a B-i district. He suggested that this district be
restrict total sign area fo a l OQ-square foot maximum.
Community Development Direcfior Ericson indicated B-2 i
sign currently ax�d suggested allowing 200 square feet of gr
Community Development Dzrector noted the City Council°vv
on Ordinance 672 per-taining to home occupations and asl�ed.
needed to address allowing signs attached to maiiboxes-to r�
Vice Chairpersan Stevenson indicated he did not believe; the
needed to be addressed since a mailbox is in`the rigl�t-of way
allowed.
Cor�sent was reached by the
previausly approved.
��� �ommissioi� to let
}irector Ericson
�Ie witl� the 35-f
no provzsiax� z�
to have. a pale
t�iit alloi�ed to have a ground
izit� sigii.
ould be ta.ktng fiiial. action
the Commission if i� felt it
main. I
issue .of signs' on mailbaxes
and the!si�n would not be
672 go to Council as
s'to whether the Planning
restriction for signs.
Vice Chairperson �Stevenson suggeste�i�Staff add a row to the tabla in the report dated
November 15 to acidress .height of sign by zoning district.
Community Develapinec�ti Director Encson noted there was discussion to change signage
allowed based on units for R-3 and R�4 zaning and asked what the consensus af the
Co.minission was.
,,
, ,;,,
,.
Cansent was reached by_the Planning Commission to leave the signage allowed at eight
square feet.
Coznrtlunity Development Director Ericson inquired as to vvhether the Planning
Commisszon feTt` it was appropriate to encourage monument signs over pylon signs by
providi�lg a sinall area bonus to businesses choosing monument over pylon signs. The
City would still allow for pylon type si�s.
Vice Chairperson Stevenson inquired as to whether a 20-foot heigh� allowance for
businesse� zoned B-3 along Highway 10 was enough.
1V[oumds Vie�� �Iannang Cornmfssion
Re�ular 1Vleeting
�an�aary 17, 2001
��ge IZ
Commissioner Miller aslced if Staff could dete�-mine how tall fast foad signs typically are.
Vice Chairperson Stevenson suggested leaving the height requirement at 35 feei far B-3
and B-4� zoning.
Consent was reached by the Planning Commission to lea�e
feet far B-3 and B-4 zoning.
Community Iievelopment Dixector Ericson indicated
for R-O zoning.
Vice Chairperson Stevenson indicated eight feet should be
Consent was reached by the Planning Commission to pla
the agenda for the next meeting.
7o Staff Repo�°is/Item� of
Community Development Director
Planning Cornsnission and invited j
Community Develapment Director Ericso
January 22,,20d1 and wi11 revieW Qrdinan
occupations` �ode and Or�dirxarice G74 conc
recomrrieiida�ior� to have Coinmissioner �
Commzsston will b`e on the cansexl� agerid
to
not a
are tli
L�Y�Ysjil
positions on the
reported the ,City Cauncil wiil meet on
� b72 concernirig changES ta the home
rtung,chaz�ges to the housing code. The
venson serve as Chairperson of the Planning
ai that meeting.
8. C�airpers�n �i�e� P��n�i�g Cvin�issaoners' Repor�s.
Cominissioner Jol�nsan indicted he would not be present at the March 7, 200I meeting
and 3iiay not be presei�t at tl�e.Ivtarch 21, 2001 meeting.
' ; 9 `.. l�djo�r�a�ent ;
' Thcrc being`no �urther business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairperson
Stevenson. adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m.
There was no agencia session at this mee#ing.
;,
Respectfully submitted, - �
IVlounds Vie� Plan�ing Co�missior�
i2egular Ii�eeting
Jizn Ericson
.-a ' _ r� ____1 _.'___ ___i T_�__4��_
.ia�auary 17, 2001
Pa�e l3
�'��� ��+, '� m �� ��
� ^��r�� ', o� �r�.� �� �v ����
�,�`5 cY _.� a .-+.'� � '. 'f '= .�.F-.i.`C
� �� .: X .;_.�`�" - �fr„tl ' �' �� ' - ".�'�°h�
�.�..y...�.� � � f �% �: { E � -` :
_.y.�t•�, S' .,=.'`i ,� � ,x�� .t._: -"• � � _
r_ .
DECEMBER 2000
aMe�rcarv ��� ��
PLAtJNIiJG
ASSOCIATION
:���c;,��;.Y- = F � - ��. ...... �:� y,��...�.. ...., -
-.�m:ti��"S�Y3R'x�..`r�i:°'-'�x'.� :A_5.. ..... . � �,3:c',7�G°'R�.4Y�.`+r«'�......:.� ;i?.k;rnrk
s. ;"^-'�.n.". , �tY"'c'.,.e..— _
R 1 ^� Y• �
. G ?.:� ab � ,r S :� ;: ;H .(i9 � f
�
s n m.� � � r � ..'� � a�--� 's'?�
By Jim Schwab, AICP
ecember may not always be the coldest month, but it is rhe
darkest, and the darkness is moze pervasive the Eurther
north one goes. In this season of short days and long shadows,
Zoning Neuis offers a brief overview of regu(atory attemprs to
make the urban winter more livable by controlling the height
and buik of buildings. These controls let adequace sunlight
reach public spaces and help to ceduce wind acceleration.
Skyscrapers often have besn built with
lifitle regard For the liice(y affect an the
external urban climate
����eea� ���������� �� ������ ���sa��
The idea of achieving greater human corzzfort through urban and
architectival design dates to the beginning of civilization.
Archaeolagists have long noted the variety of human adaptations to
l'unatic circucnstarzces. Ancient civilizatians often used narrow
,assageways between buildings to provide shade and protection
from the hot sun. In colder climates, rhe wind-inducing, shadow-
producing effects of taller buildings azose as a concern only after
advances in building technoiogy permitted the erection of such
structures, Prior to rhe Indus�rial Revolution, commeccial and
industrial interests found litrle utility in huge buildings—the callest
building in zz�ost norrhern cit�es was a cathedral. Tn rhe twentieth
century, however, sicyscrapers often have been buik with little
zegard Eor the li[�efy afFecc on the ex�ernal urban climate, even as
technology has allowed us to aclueve neazly complete control of the
indoor climate.
Even sa, as Marc A. Weiss notes (see "Skyscraper Zonittg,"
,%urnal of the 14merican PlanningAssociatian, 5pring 1992), from
the� 1890s on, che increasing density of modern city cenrers
spurred zonit�g efforts to regulate the height and bullc of tall
buildings, particula�ly in Nev✓ York City, where access to light
and air surfaced early as a primary concern. These issnes also
helped spur regulation of the design of the ciry's residentia[
tenements. In Manhattan's commercial districts, the new
regulations tziggered a wave of commercza( design that
emphasized the use of setbacics to scep back the bulk of
buildings at higher elevations, allowing adequate sunlighr to
zeach Iower levels and �he street. This "wedding-cake" design
was one of the primary features of the Empire Srate Building in
1931, which, despite its elevacion, met the ciry's height and
bulk regulations,
Tn more recent years, pioneezing microciimate smdies have
prompted a new wave o£ building regulations by examining in
detai( the impacr of ta11 buildings on shading, sunlight, and
wind speed in downtown streeES and parks. To a lesser extent,
issues of solar access for neigfiboring buildings also have
motivated some oE these technical studies. These issues affect
suburbs and smaller cities as well as Iarge city central business
districts because they touch rhe essence of conteactual zoning:
Wfiat is tolerabte in a dense downtown may be very differenc
fzom what is tolerable in a less dense residential or
neighborhood commercial area. �
One Final note is also in order. Most older cities have an
abundance oF tall buildings developed under standards (or even
without standards) that predare current zoning regulations.
Inevitably, these affect the degzee of sunlight reaching streets,
parks, or surrounding properties in ways that vary from current
or proposed guidelines, and for which they must be accounted.
for, Zoning codes that seek to pzotect sunlight for opea areas in
densely buift neighborhoods generally malce some allowance for
new buildings whose projected shadows mezely overlay rhose oF
eristing structures so as not to penalize new development
unnecessarily, while also preventing or mitigating new
encroachments where possible.
Pioneering microclimate rtudies have prompted a
new wave ofbuilding regulutionr by exctnaining in
detail the impact of tdll buildings, surb as Citicorp
Center, on shading, sunlight, and wind .rpeed in
downtown .rtreetr and park.c.
������ ��I�� �a�� ������ ���h�
Maximum allowa6le he[ghts for street walls form an
important dimension influcncing the urban experience
because none of us, as pedestrians, can relate much to those
parts of buildings rhat exceed a certain human scale, Above
perhaps 50 feet, it is not only hard to notice what is
happening in a building, but the building itseif may produce a
feeling of alienation from the built environment. For this
reason alone, cities commonly have assumed that the heig'nt of
street walls should not be greater than I.5 times the width of
the street. Tn order to maintain a sense of proportion, the
step-back should continue che direcr line 6etween the
opposiee side of the street and the top of the street wall to the
6uilding's upper levels. For instance, a 1989 Doauntown
Hefght Study for Portland, Maine, suggested stepping back 15
feet above the seteet wall for downtown buildings that mostly
were ranging in height from 45 to 9Q feet, a[though a few
along the core business district rose higher than 100 feet.
Ideal Street Wall Proportions
�
�
engineer's assessment that testing wind impacts on building
cladding and structure is essential when a building's •13eight
exceeds its width by a ratio oF5 ra 1. On the orher hand,
bu'cldings up to four stories high along streets about 66 feet wide
tend to produce shelter from wirzds, as noted in an acticle orz
Toronto's efEorts to znod'zfy wind velocities {see "Urban Form
and Climate," journad oftheAmeriean PlanningAssociution,
Spring 1995). Of course, such a pattern stays well within the
I.5 to 1 design proportion of height to sereet ��vidth cited earlier.
While weather patterns vary among cities, the fact rema€ns
that when the temperature is freezing and the wind is guscing,
urban wind tunnels can more than increase thcse speeds by half.
Wind speeds above about 40 miles per hour become a serious
hazard for pedestrians. Thus, mitigating wind patterns through
effective design regufation becomes a signiFicant prioeity. At the
same time, stepping bacEc upper levels of the building reduces
the size and volume of the resulting building shadow, thus
mitigating another k�actox e}zat can make winter streets uncom-
Tower Envefope
`, �\
�
� �� �
.,,,owFn _.��, � �
� `, ` �
�
,' ��, ' � �
P' �
.�:' \\\�. \ � �
\' .
y�,' \��\ � g �
� �� � ` -
x� `�'�1�� ������� ����\���\\ �;�
� �� \�����\ �
� ���� \\\�\\ \\�\���\
� � �� � �� \� �� � `�: �
, \ \ �\
, . � �� �����\ `� �\�
s= �� �\V���� � ��\ �
/ 1� .��;;\\���`��\�\,�� ���
� ., �� \\.��������\\����\��. i
At street level, of course, blank wails of any size can be
alienating. Probabiy about half of the wall space should consist
of openings in the fotm of doors ar windows; and this also can
be created through building design regulations, including
various types of incentives.
Stepping bacic the upper floots instead of allowiug a sheer wali
serves another purpose that aids pedestrians and thus increases
street traff'ic. The scep-bacic at highet levels breaks wind patterns
and reduces the propensiry for tall buildings to pour powerful
downdraEts to srreet 1eve1, creating the infamous wind tunnels that
plague some high-rise districts. In fact, the wedding-cake design is
one way to blunt the impact of swirling winds. New Yorlc City,
however, for a variery of reasons completely revised its zoning in
1961 to incorporate a"slcy exposure plane" concept that replaced
height districrs as a means of goveming building setbacks, This
device became a means oF measuring the sunlight penetration to
street 1eve1 allowed by a proposed building design. The same zoning
revision also introcluced fioor area raxios, which have since gained
wide acceptance etsewhere, as well as providing floor area bonuses
for plazas and other open space around new buildings.
Currendy, New Yoriz is again undertaking a revision of its
height and bullc regulations. Scheduled far January 31 is a third
City Planning Commission on a proposed Unified Butic Ordinance
(see "The Big Apple Gets a i,ittle Smaller," March 2000).
The wind issue, hocvever, is iinpartant to building owners as
� well as planners and pedestrians because of legat issues invoiving
]rabiliry for wind-related injuries induced by questionable
building design. In an article in Urb�n Lancl ("Testing the
Winds," October 2987), Terry Jill Lassar notes a Colorado wind
Alternative Tower Envelo
fortable, Needless to say, corzzbining long shadows, which
reduce microclimate temperature, with how[ing winds can make
some streetscapes almost completely inhospicable.
������i��a �� ��a��� L���t�
Context matters in regulating building heights. Achieviag some degree
of consistency in building height is important not only wit(un a
district, but between neighboring districts. The rule oE thumb seen�s to
be that a wise gradatian of allowable building heights between adjacent
zoning districts is about 50 percent. In other words, a distt'rct that
allows a maxirnum height of 80 feec could safely adjoia another,
presumably closet to the center, that allows I20 Feet, w6ich in turn
could yield to another that allowed up to 18Q feet. Cieatly, there is
room foz compromise uader special circumstances, but rhe ovecall idea
is to ratchet up the allowable height gradua[1y. Lilce step-backs above
saeet waI(s, this affects wind patterns because a 300-foot bui(ding ne�cr
to chree-story apattment buildings is bound to introduce disruprions ia
wind patterns that a more fine[y graded urban pattern might mitigate.
In addition, the shadowing effect on neighboring tall buildings is Iess
than t[Ie effecr produced when tk�ere is a sharp diffexential.
Cities often use more elaborate means of regulating height
and bulk than simply imposing height limits. F1oor area ratios
(FAR) are commonly used co permit greater flexibility in
build'tng design and to encourage both the trimming of bnik at
higher levels and the greater preservation of ground-level open
space. These measures also can increase real estate vafues by
�roviding more views at higher elevations. Although the use of
FAR regulations intraduces grearer pocential variation in actual
building height, the zoning ordinance can still apply much the
�
�
i
—_ ,
same principle in graduating a(lowable height and bullc from
one disrricc to another by graduatzng tkxe FAR between
neighboring districts in che same way, with znuch the sazne
impact.
��g����6�� ������ �a ���9��h�
Modeling a building's impact on wind and sunlight in the
surrouading area is a more discrete, sire-specific way of handling
potential problems with major proposed developcnents before they
are permitted. Taking advantage of mode[ing roo[s generally
involves requiring some sort oFspecial review for certain categories
of developmenc proposals. For instance, Fort Collins, Colorado,
requires specific information in a preliminary plan for planned unit
developments with buiidings higher than 40 �eet. This infortnation
inc(udes not only the building's impact on certain desirable views,
but an, assessment of its "negative impact on the distribution of
natvral and artiftcial light on adjacenc public and private pxoperty."
One reason involves basic public safety consideraaons; "Cast
Maximum Bui�ding Envelope for Towers
Source: Parunrd, ivlaine, Uorvnm�va Hcighc Smdy, Pebru�ry 1989.
shadows also contribute.to rhe accumufation o£snow and ice
during the winter orz adjacent property, partiadarly on public
tights=of-ways." Repositioning the building is the usual remedy.
Denver tackled problems of sunlight preservation along its
famous 16`�' Street Mall by creating an overlay district for the
purpbse. The district defines a"zone of influence" for buildings
as Y�at
portion of the public right-of-way oF the 16'h Street pedestrian
and transit mall lying between two lines eactended due north
from the easternmost and westernmost poincs of a zone lot
located between 15`�' and 16'" Streets, regardless of whether or
not such zone Iot exrends across a Qublic alley. IF a zone lot
extends across a public street right-of-way, then a separate zone
of influence shali be esrablished for each part of the property
separated by a public street righ€-of-way.
The mall is 80 feet wide.
The regulations require rhe ma[ntenance of a minimum amount
of sunlighc within the zone of influence for any new project: three-
tenths of the zone for projects exceeding 15,000 square feet oizone
lot, and two-tenths for projecrs on zone lors of 15,000 sguaze feet
or less. The test time fot measuring this impact is I:00 p.m.,
Mountain Daylight Time, on September 21–in other words, the
autumnal equinox. The provisions also desccibe an overlapping
zone of influence, which is basically one related to an existing
; project aiready casting a shadow that overlaps thar of the proposed
-.... roject. In that case, a second test applies in which projects "shall
�e designed so that at least the m'snimum required amount of each
overlapping zone oF influence that extends fierther west arid/or
further east than the project zone o£i�fluence shall remain in
sunlight at the tes[ time."
Denver's overlay district–although intended to protect
sunlight in a popular downtown shopping area, an objective
with obvious economic development objectives–is a
technique tlxat also can be used to protec[ sunlight in public
�arks and open spaces. In fact, The Parks Council, a
nonproitt advocacy group in New York, raised similar issues
in a 1992 proposal aimed at preserving rhe comfort level of
rhe city's parks during the fall and winter. UnsurprisingSy,
Central Parlc has been a pers�stent focus of concerns about
high-rise shadow impacrs. But many other cities have their
own open space shrines worthy of protection from
surrounding development, and many have taken steps to
accomplish precisely that objective.
� y; r � y' ✓- �^ � e w� Ye,c �r.
S F �
M���a�� ����� ���°�e�� ��� ���o��
Ftederick Counry, Maryland, now has what many
environmentalists and agricultural experts consider one of the
toughest zoning ordinances in tlae nation regardiz�g the
regulation of concenrrated swine feeding operations. Pollowing
an 1$-month inaratorium on permitting for new and expanded
operations, and a one-year study by an Intensive Swine Advisory
Committee appointed by the county commission, the �ve-
member boatd passed 'the measure with one disser�ting vote, It
took effect an September 25.
Two existing operations provided the impet�s for the
ordinance, wirh ane operation toraiing 4,000 hags provolcing a
neighborhood movemenc to push hard For the ne�v regulacions.
The David Harbaugh farm near Rocicy Ridge, formerly a smal(-
scale dairy operation, was tu�•ned into a hog finishing operation
for che Purina Corporatiott in t6e sumtzxer o� J 998. Complain ts
frotza neighbors soon followecE, mostly centering on odors from
the facility's two 500,000-gallon manure p1ts. Harbaugh now
has only 2,000 pigs afcer being oxdered by ehe Maryland
Depaxtznent of the Environment to scale back his operation to
comply with clean-water standards. Mike Thompson, chief of
developitnent review fot the Fcedetick Counry plann[ng
department, said that even some other fartners suggested that
rhe 57-acre Harbaugh farm was in a parricularly bad locarion
for the purpose, as it was situated near a stream and close to
residentia[ neighbors.
The ordinance contains some noteworthy provisions:
� A"swine feeding operatian" is defined as one with at Ieast �
1,000 hogs "stabled, confined, fed, ot maintained" for 90 �
days or more in any 12-month period. ?
� To deter petsistent polluters from locating in the county,
appIicants must provide a three-year environmental history from
any previous operations they have esta6lished elsewhere.
� Applicants must submit a nutrient management pfan, a soil
and water conservat'son plan, a waste management plan, and
an odor abatement ar control pian.
� Operators must provide quarterly reports to the zoning
administrator on the condition of ti�eir waste storage and
disposa€.
� Operators tnust maintain 50-foot-wide woody vegetated buffer
strips along streams and may not apply swine waste to iand
within 3{i0 feet of e�sting pubiic or private drinking wells.
3
t.`,';_";:'
i_,.:.:_,- _;:
3�..'.� ;..,:: �.
�'= �-�:.k :�
��''=�.;:i `:
_ �
f `-': :`, �,
i �i.i- "?: .
� Feeding opezations are 6anned witfun one mile of parks, wildlife
refuges, natural resource management azeas, or wildland areas.
� Qpen pit or lagoon waste facilities are banned.
Sa far, Thompson noted, there have been no appIications for
large swine facilities under the new ordinance.
Jim Scbwab, ,�rcP
������� �� ����
Several Colorado communiries I�ave recently passed ordinances
limiting the number of sex offenders per household to just one
individual. In 1991, the state of Colozado passed a law requiring
Ioca1 sex offenders to register with law enforcement agencies.
The law makes it easier for communiry ofEczals to find the
addresses of offenders.
A year ago, I,aleewood officials discovered f�ve unreIated sex
offenders living together in a rental home. In response, the city
passed an emergency amendment to its zoning ordinance banning
households with more than one registered sex offender, The men
then moved to a nearby communiry only ta 6ave a similar
ordinance passed. Locat planners figure moce than a dozen
communities in rk�e Front Range of Colorado have modified their
zoning codes to restrict the number of se�c offenders per household.
Denver planning consultant, Don Eliiott, says this is not a group
home issue. He noces rhat while se,Y offenders may live in rhe same
household, the facilities are not owned and operated as group
homes. Because of rhis, municipalities must regulate sex offenders
through the definiriom of family,
Communities in Colorado have updated their codes to snclude
pcoviszons thac change the defuution of family. Broomfie4d's zoning
ardinance states, "A family shall not ir�clude more rhan one person
required to register as a sex offender." Longmont has included a
similar provision in its ordinance, limiting a fatnily household to
orily one member who is an offender.
Littleton, Colorado, citizens discovered that several sex
offenders had lived 'an three of the community's facilities for
juveniles in 1997. This discovery led to countywide restrictions
of sex offenders in residential ateas. The existing facilities were
not exclusively designed For juvenile offenders.
In an efforr to deal with the problem, jefferson County
proposed that a new, much lazger facility for approximately 100
juvenile sex of�enders be located away from residential
neighborhoods. One o:f tl�e proposed sites was on 15i acres in
GoFden, Colorado, 6ut ciry officials and local residents argued that
they already had a faciliry for juvenile offenders. Cou�ty
commissioners chose arAOther site for the campus—Iocated on 1,120
acres rzear Pine, Colorado. Prediaably, however, residenrs there also
oppose the new site. The question remains; if not in Pine, then
where? As one Jeffezson County planner says, "[The] Denver (area]
is goi�zg to more ar less end up being a test case in this issue."
Since 1996, the federa( government has required al! states to
adopt sex-offender registration laws similar to those in
Colorado. Angela Nlesaros
- C�r�������� ����o�� 6��a��a����a����
For the first time, Zoning Newr is sponsoring its own sessian at
APA's National Planning Conference in New Or�eans. "Zoning for
Effective Floodplain Management" is scheduled for Tuesday,
March 13, from 2:30 to 3:45 p.m. (location to be determined).
Zoning News Editor Jim Schwab will moderate a panel including.
Universiry of Norti-i Carolina Professor Ray Burby, $aton Rouge
floodplain mana�ement consultant Rodney Emmer, and Dennis
Lee of the Federal �mergency l�anagement Agency's Region 6
office in Denton, Texas. See you there!
4
�'y3�j's1:� `�€s°s.?�a�� �°`�;a � �g'--
Plecue note: The january i.rsue consirted solely ofa curraailative index
of Z,oning News fiom 1984 to 1999.
Administration
Plorida Streamlines Permit Process
Agriculttire
Marytand Counry Tazgets Hog Odors
Central Business Districts
Using Zoning Bonuses for Smart Growth
and Development
Commercial Uses
On the Firing Lane: Zoning fat Gur►�Related Uses
Big Box Big Issue in California
Zoning Medical Marijuana, Califoznia Sryle
Group Homes
Give a Shelter a Home
Height and Bu[k
The Big Apple Gets a Litde Smaller
Sun, Wind, and Bu'slding Design
Tmpact Fees
Ohio High Couzt Backs Impact Pees
Industrial Districts
Planning for Industrial Survival
The Industrial Zoning Crisis
Manufactured Honsing
Manufactuted Housing Statutes
Mixed-Use Zoning
This House Is an Office: Residential-0ffice Districts
Nuisances
Odor Restrictions Upheld
Residentiaf Zoning
Nowhere to Hide (Colorado)
Telecommunications
Los Angeles and Michigan Propose
Tough Cell Tower Restrictions
Urban Design
"Living First" in Downtown Vancouver
Zoning Enforcezixent
Ponca City Turns to the Judge
What's Wrong with This Pianre?
Zoning Ordinances
The Purpose of Purpose Statemenzs in
Zoning Ordinances .
February
December
July
February
Pebruary
Marc�t
May
March
De�ember
September
September
November
June
Octo be
October J
December
Angusx
April
April
AuguSt
March
ZoningNcu: is a monchly newslerrer published by nc� American i'IanningAssodacioa.
Subscrip�ions are available for $55 (U.S.) and .�78 (Foreign). Frank S. So, Execueive Direcror,
Wiiliam R. IClcin, Dimcror oFRescarch. °
Zoni�g Newr is produced ac APA, f im Sehwab and hfichael Davidson, @dicoes; Shannon
Armscrong, Barry 8ain, )eromc Cieland, Fay Dolnsck, Naec Huecheson, Sanjay jeer, Mcgan
Lcwis, tinge(a Mesaros, Marya Monis, Aepocccrs; Sherrie Pvfacrhews, Assiscan� Edicor; Lisa
Barron, Design and P�oduc�ion.
Copyrighc �02000 by American Planning Associacion, 122 5. 7vficitigan Ave„ Suiie I600,
Chicago, IL 60603. The Amerfcan Planning A3sociacion also has ofi'ices ar 177G Masiachusetcs
Ave., N.W., WasFcingmn, DC 20036; www,planning.org
All righ�s reserv�d. i�Io part of chis publicacion may be repmduced or utilized in xny Foem or by
any mnns, elecrronic or roechanical, incEuding phococopying, recording, or by any informaciar
smrage and rerrievai syscem, wirhour permission in wriring Ftom [he American Planning '
Associacion.
Pcin�cd an recycicd paper, induding SO-70% recy�c�ed fibcr
and IO % poscconsumenvasre.
``'� i1-Y�.�___ �J"'V C./ �°_s
1YY� �-_1 9��s.d Y'I H H.fl YL `i \YA { V 'V�lYYlY1A�����
February 21, 2001 -- 7:00 P. M.
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
1. Call io Oxder
2. Roll CaII
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
CITTZ�N s: BEFORE SPE�G, PLEASE CoME TO TI�L PODIUIVI,
�1�]D GIV� YOU�B �T,L NIiME AND ADDRESS �OR TTHE IIIINUT�S
4. Speciai Planning Case No. Sl'-082-00
Continuatian of Sign Code Review
Invitation io Business Owners to Comment on Pz-oposed Revisions
5, Piann�ai� Case I�os. �i�01-001, �41-001 �i CIT01-001
Applicant: I�D # 621
Location; 5500 Quincy Streei
Review of Pinewood Elementary E�ansion Pians, Va.riance and Conditional Use Perix�ii
Request
� 6. Planning Case Nos. �E01-001 t& �1801�001
-= Applicant: Minnesota Institute of Public Health
Loeaiion: 2720 Highway 10
Review Develapment Plans for a 13,912 Squa.re Foot Single-Story Office Building Within
the Silverview Estates Planned Unit Devetopmei2t
7. Consideration of Resolution 647-01, a Resolution Amending the Mounds View
Plaruvng and Zoning Commission Bylaws
8. �taffReports
a. Previous Council Action
b. Clarification o:f JFence Issue at 7664 Greenfield Avenue
c. Planning Commissioner's Journal
9. Chairperson and Planning Connrnissioners' Reports
10. Adjournment to Agenda �ession
,AIPA'LICAN'I'S: I'OLTRl�'I'T�ND�i�TCE AT �'ffiS 1V�E�TII�TG I,S REQ�S�'E'EI).
PLEt�E l�d()i'�'Y �'H� CO 3�' �D�'�LOPN�I�T I)EP.AR�`I1'�S�P'g" A�`
7G3-71'1-�4021 IIs' �'OU ARL �ABI.� T� ATT�1'�T�i.
Pfanning Commission Agenda
Februaru 21, 2001
Page 2
L��E�L� ��+ ��I(�N
AGENDA
1. Review the Minutes from the �ebnFary 7, 2001, Planning Corrruunission Meeting.
N:IDATAIGRQUPS\COIv1DEV�PLANGOMM�PCA.GBNDA120o1�F'e6rary 7, 20Q 1 PC Agenda,doc
`: �3
. E
f%�.i , l . :-: �.. .. ..�.� i, .. ,. �r ... �.. e:�e,. ,. . . .,:�. � , i n� _.,, . ;�.f:i... i'.,.
/..:' !..... ._,-,�ii . .. _l/_�.L.. i.... , -..... , i�l...... . �. _/, ,,. .:. .; ,..w:.. T?X'2%-:
City of Mounds View
�. 1 �sSio e o�t
Meeting Date: Feb�ucrry 21, 2�0,1
i .. / l . .-�l J /'- l n.. ......... .., . . ,....
�ltlBo
CONTINUATI�N OF PLA.NNING COMIVIIS�ION REVIEEW OF CHAPTER ]008 OF THE
MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIP.AL CODE, "SIGNS."
Introcltcctaon:
At its last raaeeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a second comprehensive draft revi�sion to
the Sign Code. Based upon the discussions of thai meeting, staffwas provided fizrther input and
directian and has compiled the third comprehensive draft revision io the Code. This report will
address the changes made betvveen the second and third drafts and ask questions pertaining to
potential problem areas or deficiencies in the code.
I)zscus�zon:
Pa e 2. The defirution for Beacon has been chan ed to add a reference to fem or 'si s.
Pa e 3. Definition added for Fla or Pennant strin ers. The Commission will need to discuss this issue,
Pa e 5. Definition added for si ht trian le, This zzzatches with the new a hic added on Pa e 20.
Pa e 5. Deiinition added for Transit enclosure si .
Page 7. Buiiding Permit Required; Exceptions. In addition to the five exceptions listed in the previous
(1008.02 revision, three more added: fla s, transit advertisin and officiai notices. An 'n else?
Page 9. Issuance of Perrnits; Conditions: Community Development Department replaces Community
{1008.05} Develo ment Director.
Page 11. Subd, lf is added to refer to Maintenance, repair and removal of signs. May neect to coordinate ail
(1008.08) enforcement and violation rovisions into one secUion. Ci Attorne wi1l review.
Page 1 I. Subd. 1 g refers to obscene language.., this is an existing clause whieh rnay not be constitutional.
( I 008.08) Staff will re uest o inion of Ci Attome .
Page 11. A new Subd. Ih is added whicl�c refers to obsolete sign copy.
(1008.08)
Page 13. Subd. 2, Signs allowed by district. The table was revzsed per discussions at the last meeting.
(1008.08) Specifically, the reat estate sign area ailowances were increased in some districts and a footnote was
added to the direc#ional si re uirements in RI and R2 resideniiai districts,
Page 2�. Graphic added to show sign setbaeks and to illustrate the "sight triangle."
(1008.09}
Page 20. Subd. lf. It was pointed out at the lasi meeting ttaat the previous Ian.guage was unclear. It now states
(1008.09) that no more than one pole af pylon szgn may be pemutted per lot.
Page 21. Subd 2b from the previous version has been eliminated. Tktis was the clause that referred to roof
(10�8A9 si s, which are rohibited under this revision.
Page 22. Subd. 4 refers to temporary signs and is complefely rewritten from the previous versiott to eliminate
(1008.fl9) ANY confizsion. The provisions �,vhich cfluld be further refined znay zelate to atlowable sizes, pernut
fees, permit durations, and ma�imum permits per properry per year. Should beacons be allowed at
ali? Should beacons only be approved by the City Council? What about infiatablc objects and flag or
pennant stringers77 (13urnsville prohibits inflatable objects, beacons, pennant stringers and strings of
light bulbs,)
Sign Code Review
February 21, 2041
Page 2
Page 24. Subd, S.refers to window signs. This subdivision remains unchan�;ed from the last draf� revision.
(I008.09) BurnsviIle's Code and the USSCF also restsicts window signage #0 25%. Refer ta the attached e-
mail from ttte Ci of Mounds View Chief of olice re ardin this issue. Chan es 77
Page 25. Subd. 7. Regulaiion of Campaign signs in this regard may violate Minnesota Statutes. Will Check
(1008.09) witta Ci Attorne for o inion.
Page 27 Subd, 4, regarding azea Ident�cation Signs. In fhe previous revision, Subd. 4b ended with "unless."
(I OOS.I O) The followin has been added: unless ".., such si would otherv✓ise be erniitted hereizz,"
Page 27, Subd. 5 was prohibited signs. Prohibited signs �vas elevated to its own section and replaced with off-
(1008.10) site directional signs. Tlte lan a e added is similar to the footnote in Section 1008.08 Subd. 2.
Page 27. New section pertaining to prohibited signs. Tn addit�on to flashing signs, roof signs and temp
(I 008.11) advertising in right of ways, a new Subd 2 prohibiis signs mimicking or having an appearance of
emer enc vehicle it hts and a new Subd. 5 relatin to vehicles used as advertisin .
Non-Conformin��ns: Currently, the Sign Code addresses non-conforming signs in a very
restrictive fashion. Section 100�.08, Subd.lc states, "No sign erected 6efore ihe effective date
herea� shall be rebuilt, altered or removed to a new location without being brought into
compliance with the requirements hereof." The intent of this clause is ciear—a non-conforming
signs are to be brought znto compliance if they are to be rebuilt, aliered or moved. Most sign
codes do aitow for normai rnaintenance, repair and replacement so long as the extent of the non-
conformity is not expanded. Disallowing a sign owner the ability to maintain the si�n could be
viewed as a"taking" without compensation. Staff wi11 seek an opinion from the City Atiorney if
the Planning Commissian would like to retain this restrictive language.
Schedule:
According to the scheduie above, we are anticipating a review of the final draft on March 7, 2001
with a public hearing seheduled for March 21, 2001, Because stai� {nrze) will be out of town the
weelc before our March 21 meeting, I would recommend scheduling the public hearing irnstead for
the Planning Commission's April 5, 2001 meeting.
;i
Co�nzrzunication & Notification: As indicated at the last meeting, staf� sent out rnore than 125
Ietters to Mounds View businesses alerting them to ihe fact thai the Planning Commission was
reviewing the Sign Code and inviting ihem to attend this meeting. The Chamber of Commerce also
sent out a brief notification to its members indicating the Commission's review of the Sign Code.
B�cause of �hese notices and messages broadcast on the City's Cable channel 16, staff is hopeful
that business owners and other interested parties will be in attendance to provide inpui, StaflE'will
have on hand e�ra copies of both the existing sign code and the latest revision attached to this
report. Last, the City's website has again been updaied to include information reiating io the '
proposed revisions which can be viewed at http://tcfreenet,or�/or�/moundsview/si�ncode.htm,
Sign Code Review
Febzuary 21, 2001
Page 3
1�e�onttnendataon:
Review and discuss the proposed Sign Code revisions and the issues related to temporary and
non-conforming signs and direct staffta make any neeessary changes to the Code. If feedback is
availahle from the City Attorney regarding obscene lan�uage, caFnpaign signs, non-conforming
signs and any other issue of legal concern, staff will present it orally at the meeting.
c�CL��, ��f��...
3ames Ericson
Comnrzunity Develop�nent Director
Attachments:
1. Sign Code Revision III
2. E-mail fiom Police Chief Bill Clark
G:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�SP�CPROJ�Sp082-00 {Sign Code)ISign Code Report - Peb 21, 2001.doc
;
��'iCSf)Il, Ji�i1 '
From: Clark, Bill --
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 3:15 PM ;'
io: Ericson, Jim
�ubject: RE: Visibility
,lim,
I am in totaE agreement with the clear vision requirement. in some states it is law. Mosf major (7-91, High's, efc) aEl night
fast t/a's have internal regs fhaY state the same, lt gives us access visualiy on just a drive by and helps to defer robberies
and ofiher activities, Thanks for asking.
Bill Clark
-----Origina[ Message-----
Frorn; Ericson, ]im
sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 2:12 PM
To: Clark, Biif
Subject; Visibiliry
Chief:
The Planning Commission is reviewing its sign cade ordinance and has a specific question regarding window signs.
Currently the Code does not regula4e signage aFfixed fo a window ofi a commercial establishment. The Commission
would like 4o regulate such signage for aesthetic reasons and possibly far reasons coneerning public safety. Would
you feel it impaprfanfi if possibEe to leave an area of a business' window free from signs sd as to not obscure ar hide
fihe activity within the s#ore? I�, if there was a rabbery in progress at a liquor store, perhaps someone outside or an
officer would be betfer able to observe this were it not for fhe proiiieration of window signage. ihe Commission is
suggesting that na signage be aflowed upon a window if between an elevation of 4-6 feet off the fioor. What are your
thoughts on thaf?
Jim
',
SECTION:
1008.00:
1008.01:
1008.02:
1008.03:
1008.04:
1008.05:
CHAPTER 1008
► _: �I:1 :- J'. ` : ! =. ; 1; ..;
Purpose
Definitions
Building Permit Required; Exceptions
Application for Permit
Pernut Fees; Waiver
Issuance of Permit; Conditions
l 008.06; Sign Installer's License Provisions
1008.07: Maintenance of Premises
1008.08: General Location, Design and Construction Standaxds
1008.09 �t�ecific Sign Ty�e Standards And Requirements
10a8.10 Miscellaneous 5igriage Requirements And Provisions
1008.11 Prohibited 5i�ns
1008.12 93: Abrogation and Greater Itestriction
1008.13 �-9: Violation of Provisions
i008.14 �: Sign Variances (Ord. G44, 12-13-99)
1008.00: Pur ose. The sign ordinance is iniended to establish a comprel�ensive and balanced
`:1 system of sign control that accommodates the need for a well-maintained, safe, and attractive
� community, and the need for effective coznrnunications including business ideniification. The
City of Mounds view finds it is necessary for the promotion and preservation of tha public health,
safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community that the constzuction, location, size and
maintenance of signs be controlied. Further, ihe city finds that:
� pez-manent and temporary signs have a direct impact on and relationship to the image of
the community;
� the manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects #he public health,
safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community;
• an opportunity for viabie identification of community businesses and institutians rnust
be established;
� the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and
property is affected by the number; size, location and appearance of signs that unduly
divert the attention of drivers;
� installation of signs suspe�ded from, projecting over, ar placed on the tops of
buildings, walks or other structures may canstitute a hazard during periods of k�igh
winds and an obstacle to effective iYre-fighting and other emergency service;
;
� uncontrolled and unlimited sigz�s adversely impact the image and aestheiic
attractiveness of the community and thereby undermine economic value and growth;
Draft Sign Code Revision
Febzuary 2i, 2001
'�
,
� uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs which are commonly
located within or adjaeent to public right-of-way or are Iocated at driveway/street
intersections, resuit in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of oncoming traf�c.
This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and aiso adversely i;npacts a logical
flow of information;
� commercial signs are generaliy incornpatible with residential uses and should be
strictly limited in residential zoning districts; and
� the right to express noncommerciai opinions in any zoning district must be protected,
subjeet to reasonabie restrictions on size, height, location and number.
1008.0 i: DE �Ol��e The following terms have the mearaings ascribed to them in this
5ection;
ABANDONED SIGN: A sign that becomes vacant, unoccupied or unused; or a sign promoting a
business or activity no longer in operation or incozrectly or inaccurately conveying a message, or a
sign prornoting an obsolete message or sign copy, for a period in e�cess of one month, [New]
ANIMATED SIGN; A sign that has any moving or roiating part; or uses movemeni or change of
lighting to depici action or create a special effeci or scene. Refer also to electronic scrolling message �
or marquee signs. (New)
AREA IDENTIFICATIQN SIGN: A freestanding sign which identifies the name of a communiry,
neighborhood, a residential subdivision, a multi-family residential complex consisting of three {3) or
more structures, a planned unit development, ar any combination of the above located on contiguous
properties. [Andover, Oakdale]
AWNII�TG ,�IGN: A sign displayed on or attached flat against the surface or surfaces of an awning
attached to or e�ending from a bui�ding. [USSCF]
BANNER: Any sign of lightweight, flexible material a�xed to a building, poles, vehicle or other
supporting structures upon which a message, slogan, design or lago is displayed. Nationai, state, or
municipal flags shali not be considered a banner. [Changed]
BEACOI�: Ar�y lighi with ane or more beams directed iz�to the attnasphere or directed at one or
more points not on the same lot as the light source; also, any light with one or more beams that rotate
or move. Otherwise known as searchlights. For the u oses of this Section inflatable devices
shatl b� considered a tempor . si�n. [Burnsville, APA]
BENCH SIGNS: A sign vvhich is a.ffixed to a bench or sheiter at a hus stop. [Oakdale]
BII.,LBO,ARD: A large, outdoor adveriising structure typically mounted on one or more poles,
iocated o�"r the premises where the advertised product is sold or offered. [Changed]
Page 2
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 21, 2001
- BUSIlVE55 SIGN: A sign that states the proper na.me of the business, organization or institution
located on the premises on wk�ich the sign is located. �No Charzge]
CAMPAIGN �IGN: A temporary sign promoting fihe candidacy of a person running for a
government office, or promofiing an issue to be voted on at the ne�t election. [Burnsville]
CANOPY SIGN: A sign affixed to ihe visible surface of an attached or freestanding canopy
struct-ure, often backlit to provide internal iliuznination. For the purposes of sign area computation,
canopy signs shall be treated as a wall sign [New]
CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN: A sign or portion thereof with characters, Ietters or illustrations that
can be changed or rearranged electronically or manuaily without altering the face or the surface of the
sign. A sign on which the message changes more than eight tirnes a day shall be considered an
animated sign for the purposes of this ordinance. That portion of a sign on which the only copy that
changes is an indication of the time and temperature shall be considered a public informational sign.
Portabie or non-permanent chan�eable cop��ns shall, for the purposes of this �ection, be
considered terr��orary si�ns. [Bumsville, APA�
CONSTRUCTION SIGN: A sign placed at a construction site identiiying the project and/ar names
af the architect, engineers, developers, contractors or other individuals or firms associated with ihe
project. [Burnsville]
DTRECTIONAL SIGN: A sign for the purpose of making specific commercial, industrial or public
;i and semi-public loeations known and to assist in fnding these locations on the property where the
` sign is Iocated. Such signs mav be located within street ri�ht of vvays subject to a�provai of the
at�t�ropriate govemmental a enc� [Change�
FLAG OR PENNANT STRINGERS: A series of fla�s or �ennants connecied by a strin or a rope.
National, state or �oca1 flags, or decorative flags bearing no commercial or advertisin messa eg sha11
not be considered signs for the pur�ose of this Section.
FLA,�HING �IGN: A sign or portion thereof whose illumination is characterized by a repetitive
cycle in which the period of illumination is either the same or as or less than the period of non-
illuminaiion. For the purposes of this ordinance, flashing wilt not be defined as occurring if the
cyclical period between on-offphases of illumination exceeds four (4) seconds. [USSCF]
FREESTANDING �IGN: A sign principally suppo�ted by a structure af�xed to the ground, and not
supported by a buiiding, including signs supported by one or more columns, poles or braces placed in
or upon the ground. Also referred to as a Crround Sign. [USSCF]
GOVERNMENT OR REGULATORY SIGN: A sign which is erected by a governmental urut for
identification, traffic control or ofiher regulatory purposes. SucU sigt�s are often located within street
right of ways. [�urnsville]
GROUND �IG1V: A sign principaily supported by a structure af�iixed to the ground, ar�d not
'� supported by a buiiding, including signs supported by one or more coiumns, pol�s or braces placed in
or upon the ground. Aiso referred to as a Freestanding Si�n. [US�CF]
Page 3
Draft Sign Code Revision
Febzuary 21, 2Q01
HOME OCCUPATION SIGN: A sign erecied upon a residential property to advertise a home based -
business or occupation talcing place at that location. [New] `�'
IDENTIFICATION SIGN: A sign, the primary function of which is to identi�y a residential,
commercial, industrzal or pubiic or semi-public use located upoi� the premises wlaere such sign is
located or to wlvch such sign is a�ed. Signs identifying commercial uses may call attention to the
product, service or activity that is sold or offered upon the premises. Signs identifying industrial uses
may cail atiention to the product, goods or material which is produced, processed, assembled or
stored upon the premises. [No Change]
INFLATABLE SIGN: A portable device inflated with air or heiium used to draw attention to an
activity or business upoz� which the device is attached. Such contrivance may or may not display
advertising copy. For the purposes of this �ection, inflatable devices shall be considered a temporary
SF�il.
ILL,EGAL SIGN: A sign erected without a permit or in violation of this ordinance. Such signs shall
he subject to removal upon written notice by the City. [New]
INCIDEIVTAL SIGN: A sign, generally infonmational, that has a purpose secandary to ihe uses on
the property on which it is located. Such signs might include, but are not Iimited to, "No Parking,"
"Entrance," "E�t," "ATM," or "Payphone." No sign with a commercial message legible of� the
premises shail be considered incidental, [APA]
MONiJMENT SIGN: A freestanding sign attached to the ground by means of a freestanding support �i
stnzcture, soiid from grade to the top of the sign structure, typically eneased or supported by masonry
materials. [New]
NCJTSANGE STGN: A sign in a state of disrepair, deterioration or damage whereupon one fourth
(I/4) or more of the sign surface is no Ionger clearly legible or recognizabie at a distance of foriy
(40') feet. [New]
NONCONFORMII�TG SIGN: Any sign that does not comply with the requirements of this ordinance
is considered nonconforming. A sign which was erected Iega,lly but does not comply with
subsequentiy enacted sign restrictions or regulations is considered iegal nonconforming. [New]
POLE SIGN: A freestanding sign supported by or erected upon one or more narrow columns, shafts
or poles, Also referred to as a Pylon sign. [New]
PORTABLE SIGN: Any sign not permanently attached to the ground or other pennanent structure,
or a sign designed to be transported, including, but noi limited to, signs on wheeis, signs converted to
"A" or "T" frames, menu and sandwich boards, inflatable devises, advertising umbreilas, and signs
attached to or pa.irited on vehicles parked arid visible from the public right of way, unless said vehicle
zs used in the rzormal day-to-day operations of the business. [Burnsvilte, APA]
PROJECTING SICrN: A sign other than a wall sign which is perpendzcular to ar�d projects znore than
eighteen (1S) inches from a building face or wall or from a structure whose primary purpose is other
than �he support of the sign. �TJSSCF] -
Page 4
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 21, 2001
- PYLON SIGN: A freestanding sign supported by or erected upon one or more narrow calumns,
shafts or poles. ,Also referred to as a Pole sign, [New]
REAL ESTATE 5IGN: A sign advertising the sale, lease or rental of the properiy or premises upon
which the sign is located. [IJSSCF] �
ROOF SIGN: A sign erected, consiructed or at�ached wholly or in part upon any roof or over the
highesi roofline of a building. [Burnsville, APA]
SECURITY SIGN: A sma11, incidental sign identifying the presence of a security system.
[Burnsvilie]
SIGHT TRIAIVGLE: A triangle fozmed at a propert c�r abuttin� two street ri�ht of ways where
two trian ln� e le�s are 30 feet long with the third le traversin�the property corinect the other two legs.
(Refer to tlxe �raphic in Section I008.09, Subd, lb.}
SIGN: A sign, the primary function of wlnich is to direct attention to a product, service or activiiy �hat
is sold or offered either elsewhere or upon the premises where such sign is located or to which it is
affixed. [No Change]
SIGN AREA: That area of a sign within the marginal lines of the surface, which bears the
annauncement, name, advertisement or other message or, in the case of letters, figures or symbois
attached directly to any part of a building, the area which is zncluded in the smallest rectangle which
'; can be made to circumscribe ail letters, figures or symbols tiisplayed thereon. [No Change]
SIGN COPY: The letters, numbers, figures, symbols, logos, and graphical elements comprising the
content or message of the sign. [USSCF]
TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign dispiaying a commercial or non-commercial message erected ar
maintained for a specific period of time and not of a permanent nature. Such si�ns sl�alt inclu�e
banners inflatable devices, sandwich boards portable chan�eable co�v si�ns or anv other device
intended to attract attention.
TRANSIT ENCLOSiJRE SIGN: Commercial advertisin�located wiihin a transii enciosure or
shelter Such si�na�e shall not include route schedules service announcements or other sim.ilar
notices.
V{IAI,L SIGN: A sign attached to or erected against the exterior wall ofr a building or structure wiih
the exposed face of the sign in a plane appro�mately parallel to the face of said wall, not to project
more than twelve inches (12") from the surface io which it is attached. [Chang�d]
WINDOW SIGN: A sign a�xed to the interior or exterior of a window.or inside the building
within three feet of the window with i�s message intend.ed to be visible to and readable from the
public. [USSCF]
� �;
_ ._ Q L.rl ,. � "x�- ��: n., .,++o„+:,, ti.�-:" 'a°... +L. + 1 � L,• l� :.:.��.�+ �F ,.t�+l, �� �€
�. ..b .. � � . t.�.t.::� .... .... . .,�
4v[�'.°y"^T^'T'_ ..����_ __ nFo__.s�n � � ��r�_n�-^__ _r'__ ___ _.. _ �,
r.r. i..�
Fage 5
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 2I, 2001
• > >
��E����A�S�--0 .
�
. . . ,
„+«,,,,z.,a,a ,-„ ., „�,,,;,,�;,,n
qr�cccrn.
1 �_ �. _ ' • . �. � •
'v C � p •
p • � il
W y � l.
•. : - : �
� � ` _ � �
• � j • �
• `
� ` �
v ��
i � — � ' -
r� .ii .i
,' i - i
i. - ' - v
�
��� i• i•
�i ��1-
� � • �� � � � . �. _ . . � a � � � . ' ' . � ' ' '
� � '� Y •
� �
� �" � :e �_ � �\ .. \ 1
`I • � � � �
� �' a..�. \ L
� �. i �. . � - �..- \.� �. � '� � �. � � �• � • � � � � � � .� •
� �� � Y Y Y � � �r "
Page 6
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 21, 2001
"_� . . � t_ � �. . T�'!!�'!.'!!'!!. !E1S!��f
_ .
,
.iL���i ! _iTN��ill�i :E[�l=G��`�!!�.l�!!f[ilFP.�i�!l:Efi!!! .R.�.E',+�- -�.�R!!�.'!'.�!!S!�.
. . • .
- - :
. � � r • . � . �:!L'f!R!*�!�!I�F.'
- :. �:: : :-
:- , L L-
• �/"!' �
� a !i ♦ _!�� � �' � . •'n' C ' - ' 0
�.eO�Q.a..��.ianis..���..�.:.�i— i�•
� i\ _ ► �_ a 1 ► � 41'P.�Sl��i'L75:t1s:li'��fP�!S!F
� Y ��I
� �. v "�'
i � i
v •` � � -
� i i . i i� i
_ � 1 MI� �It� � Y_ \ ♦ �..
.' 3
_ i,i�3 A! ��� a i _
v '
i -
� l i -
� i • • : �' i
�r�' i . i i
�!! • �
� � i � i �'�� � `� ,, r � , � � � ,�s. �� � ���. '�
Subd. 1. Permit Required: It is unlawful to install, construct, erect, alter, revise, reconstnzct or
relocate any outdoor sign or structure, as defined in Section 1008.OX of this Chapter, in the
Municipality without first obtaining a pernut therefor as required by this Chapter, except as
provided in subdivision 2 of this Section. (19�8 Cade §39.02)
Subd. 2. Exceptions: Pernuts need not be obtained for any si�n less than or equal to ei h� t(8�
s uare feet in area excludin tem ora si s or for the s ecific si r�s addressed below
�rovided all other requiren�ents of this Section are satisfied: ���+��n�-a*��p�^T°°;°�� ��+'';°
r��,.,�+�.. rt,.,ii t.o „t,�o.�.o,� � ,- ¢t,� � i��,s r • •
, 'Y':,� o� : ��,�J.
- a. A sign , pertaining only to the salle, rental or lease
of the premises upon which displayed.
Pa�e 7
Draft Sign Code Revision
�'ebruary 2I, 2001
b. A sign on residential property stating only the name or identi of the occupant�c��
��,.,ia �,,,- „ �o,a ,�,>,, i�� � � � „+ ;
�wx�.a�aa aav � �iavv�u a, vv V`/d f JIiUClA 4 llivZ lIl Zij'1ijl,
� �
�� . ; _
� 1��� • � • r
: .
• � • � � � Y i �w i
A
c. Construction sign�ge� belonging to a coniractor perfornung_work u�on a property
Such si shall be removed immediatel u on com letion of the work.
d. A campaign sign as provided for in subdivision 1008.08(1I) of this Chapter. (1988 Code
§39.03; 1993 Code; Ord. 607, 5-1 i-98)
e. Home occupation si�ns and incidental residentiat si ns.
f. National, state, re io�rzal_ Iocal, non-comrnercial institutionai or cultural fla�s
� Advertising on a transit bench or wiihin a transit shelter or er�closure
h. Official notices authorized bv a court,�ublic bodv or public safety official
;�
100�.03: APPI.,�C�iT�ON F�R P�12I�i�: Applicatior� for pernuts sha11 be made upon forms '
provided by ihe Clerk-Administrator and shall include the following informa�ion:
Subd. 1. The name, address and telephone numher of the appIicant,
Subd. 2. The lacation of the building, struciure or lot to which or upon wkzich tha sign is to be
placed.
Subd. 3. The position of the sign or other advertising structure in relation to nearhy buildings,
structures and streets or highways, if necassary.
Subd. 4. Two (2) Ulueprints or ink drawings of the plans and specifications and method of
constnxction and aitachment to ihe building ground.
Subd. 5. A copy of the stress sheets and calcuiations may be required by the Inspector, on Iarger
signs, showing ti�at the siructure is designed for dead load and wind pressure in any direction
in the arnouni required by this Chapter and any other applicable law.
Subd. 6. The rname of the persan erecting the str�cture, if not the applicant, or the name of the
person on whose properiy the structure is to be located, if not the applicant.
�ubd. 7, The written consent of the owner o�the praperty, iinot the applicant.
Subd. S. A stateznent as to whether th� sign will be illuminated or noi.
Page S
Draft Sign Code Revision
Febz�zary 21, 2001
5ubd. 9. A statement as to whether any electzic lights on the sign will be "moving" or blinking.
5ubd. i 0. A statement as to whether the sign will be single�faced, double-faced or multi-faced.
Subd. 11. A statemeni as to whether or not the copy on the sign will be changeable.
Subd. 12. A statement as to whether or not the copy on the sign will reiate oniy to the business or
activity conducted on the premises on which the sign is to be located. {1988 Code §39.09)
��i 1t � s' •, ,� s
Suhd. 1. Fee: The application for a permit sha11 be accompanied by the required permit fee. The
permit fee shall be established by resaiution of the City Council. (1988 Code §39.10)
Subd. 2. Waiver: The Council, ,' if so requested in writing, ma� waive the fee
required by this Section where the signs are to be erected by civic or religious organizations.
(1988 Code §39.11)
11: 1 �° ` �� � '' � ' �� i ��" � ?i' '� -1 . ! ! .�� "��,, �.
_ ; Subd. l. Issuar�ce: Upon presentation af appiication, pernut fee, plans and specifications and other
-' required information, the sign construction pernvt shail be issued by the Community
Development De�artment, �''°�t> n,�m:r:R4��+�r, except as provided in subdivi�sior� 2 of tlus
Section.
Subd. 2. c„°�;°' n„-�r���^' �^m �'^.,�^:' Variances: In the event an appiication is made for a sign
which does not conform to the requirements of this section, the applicant shall either modifv
the ap�Iication or ap�iv for a variance accordin ti�o the provisions established in Cha�ier 1125
of the Zoning Code, No permit for a non-confomung sign shall be issued without evidence of
an a�proved variance. � � ��' ^ ��';^�"^„ � �- ��^:°' ��.-.v.:+ ^ ,_,'�;^�
, , ,
, � •
(1988 Code §39.14)
11: 1. f . ..� . . .. � . ;� �. , ..
Subd. 1. License Required: No person shall engage in the business of installing signs nor sliali be
entitled to receive a pernut to install a sign in connection wi�th such business unless first
licensed by the Municipality to do so. (1988 Code §34.04)
5ubd. 2. Application and Fee: A license may be granted by the Council upon written application to
- the Clerk-Adnninistrator on such form as required by the Clerk-Administrator and
Page 9
Draf# Sign Code Revision
February 21, 2001
accompanied by an annual license fee as established by resolution of the City Council. (1988
Code §34.05)
Subd. 3. Liability Insurance: Any person holding a licensee shall file with the Clerlc-Administrator
policies of public liability and property damage insurance which shall remain and be in force
and effect during the entire ten�ai of said license and which shall contain a provision that they
shall not be cancelled without ten (10) days' written notzce to the 1Vlunicipality. Public
liability insurance should not be less tharx one hundred thousand dollars ($i00,000.00) for
injuries, including accidental death to any one (1) person and suhject to the same lunit far
each person in an amount not less than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) on
account of any one (1) �ccident, and property insurance in the amount of not less than fifly
thousand dollars ($SQ,000.00). (1988 Code §39.07}
Subd. 4. Expiration: Licenses shall be issued on an annual basis, with tl�e license year running from
Janu �-1 through the follawing December 31 �u�e-�9. (198$ Code §39,08)
Subd. 5. Revocation: A license may be terminated and renewa.l thereof znay be denied by the
Council for cause af�er notice to the licensee and reasonable opportunity for the licensee to be
heard on the question of such termination. Cause shall include any repeated or persistent
violation ofthe z-equire�nents ofthis Chapter. (1988 Code §34.06)
1�08.07: 'I`�l��CE �F ��.EllriI�E�: Premises on which ground signs are located
shall be maintained free of weeds and debris, and where landscaping was part of the original sign
permit, such landscaping shall be ma.intained in the manner provided in such permit. (19�8 Code , j
§39.12)
11: 1. , ; � - .. �, ... 1 :, . .�: , :� . .. ; � � ,. , � ,.; , ,�, ,,
Subd. i. General 5tandards: Every sign shall conform to the sta.tidards af this Section whether or
not a permit #�3e�'efe�e is required, and nothing contained herein shall be construed as
nnodifying or repealing any of the provisions of this Code relating to zaningi. No sign shall
be so lacated as to obscure or tend to obscure any existing sign. The following additional
requirements are to be observed:
a. Each �� sign shall be securely built, constructed and erected on the building or
ground. Temporary signs shall be so designed that they are not readily overturned.
b. No sign structure shall be attached or placed upon any building in such a manner as to
obstruct any fire escape or any window or door nor shall any sign structure be attached to a
fire escape.
c. No sign erected before ihe ef%ctive date hereof shall be rebuilt, altered or removed to a
new location without being brought into compliance with the requirements he�eof.
1 See Title 1100 of this Code.
Page 10
Dzaft 5ign Code Revision
February 21, 2001
d. No swinging sign shall hereafter be erected or hung on or attached �o any building within
the Municipality, and every such sign so erected, hung or attached prior to the effective date
hereof which is deemed unsafe by the Building Inspector shall be immediately removed by
the owner thereof or changed to conform with the requirements of this Chapter when so
ordered by the Buitding Inspector.
e. Where portions of a sign are subject to a different classification, each portion shall meet
the requirements of its classification.
- ;-
: -
f_ _ 1Vlaintenance, Reuair or Removal: Ever�sign_permitted by this ordinance shall be
maintaiiled in �?ood condi�ion and repair. When an��n becomes insecure in dan er�of
fallin�, or is oiherwise deemed unsafe or a nuisance bv a City Inspector or if any si�
have been unlawCuliv installed, erected or �naintained in viola�ion of anv o� the provisions of
ihis ordinance, the awner or firm usin� such si�n shall, upon written notice bv the Cit�
Inspector, make such si�n canform to the provisions of ihis ordinance,or sha.1l remove it
vvithin ten (l0i davs. If such violaiion has not been corrected within ten (10) days The Citv
Inspectar mav remove or cause such si�n to be removed at tlle expense of �he owner or user
of the si�n.
', g.
- s- No szgn shall display matter that has been deemed obscene by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
h. Obsolete Sign Copv. Anv si i�co�y that no lon�er advertises or iden�fies a use
conducted on the property on which the sign_is located must have the si�n co�y covered or
removed within tlurtv (30�ys after written notification from the Citv Inspector. Failure to
complv with such notice mav result in the removal of said si�n at t1�e expense of the owner or
user af the si�n.
i. � Each sign shall be used and maintained only in the manner permitted arzd subject to the
condirions imposed at the tune the permit tharefore was granted. '
j. Clearance of Si ns from Conductors: The �x�iniznun�z cleaxance of an si n fi-om
unprotected eiectrical conductors �whether poles or other installations) shall not be less tnan
thirtv six inches (36") for conductors carrving not over six hundre�600) volts and foriv eight
inches 48" for conducfiors ca 'n more than six hundred 600 volts.
k. Sigr►s Along Freewavs: Except as otherwise providsd in this Cha�ter, si�,ns located on
property_ adiacent to anv freewav within the Municipality�includin�; Interstate Highwa� 35�
shall be business signs advertisin� businesses bein� conduc�ed on the premises on which ihe
si�ns are located. No "traveling" or chang� -m�essa_�e sig,ns shall be located so as to face a�
freewa.v or be visible from the freewa�. The �rovisions of this subdivision, however, shail not
be consfrued to render illega.l or nonconfornvn�; anv signs which are le�v located along anX
such freeway at the effective date herein. (,Ord. 644. 12-I3-99�
Page 11
Draft Sign Code Revision
Febz�ary 21, 2001
l. Tke illumination o£ an�si�n Iocated near a residentiai district shall be defused or indirect ''
and Iocated so as not to direci li�ht on residencesl.
i i • � �•�:ii....:�:..._� : Cn�.�ic•n�'u.�0i ri:s�•�:�.�
\ : Y � �
t • � � � �
v - i •
i
_ �
� � I I � �
� �
� _ �
��� i. i- v. -
i
: ::• :•
.
:: .• -
s �
� Y � � Y r V � ' -
� 'C
r� a�
- 0 0
�- 1i
:' `�' C '�'
� •• • �
` See Section 1103.09 of this Code.
1 cee m;.t„ i�nn „�.t,:., r„�
P�.gO I Z
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 2I, 2001
Subd. 2. Signs Allowed by District: The_ followizag table represents the allowable signage a.rzd area
requirements by zoning district:
�o,+.,;� �„ ..o,� a,nf,�,.�r.
r •
Sign� �'ype R_1 R_2 R-3 R�4 R-5 R-0 B_l B=2 B-3 B-4 I-1 PF CRP PUD
Ground No No 32 32 32 200 200 200 200 100 100 *
Wall No No 64 64 No 32 100 100 100 100 IOQ 100 100 *
Projection No No No No No S 24 24 24 24 No *
Window No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No �
Identification 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 4 4 '�
Temporaiy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Real Estate 10 10 32 32 10 32 32 32 32 32 64 32 32 32
Home I I No No 1 No No Na No No No No No No
Occu ap tion — – — — —
Campaig� Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Biliboards No No No No No No No No No No No 740 700 700
Directional No** Na** 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 S 8 8 8
Construciion 8 8 8 8 8 8 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Jncidental 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
*_ Sipna�e requiremenis within a PIJD s1�21I be as allowed bv the PUD Narrative document. ff no suc1� document exists si n�aQe shall be
as emulted for a B-3 zonin district
-__ ** Directzonal si�ns mav be allowed within ri�ltt of ways upon written approval of the Citv the appropriate �ovenunentat a�encv havinQ
--� 'urisdiction over the road wa if not the Ci and the owner af fhe r directi abu � said si .
,Subd. 3. Ground Sign Hei h�ts by District: The follourin� table represents the maximum hei�ht
allowed for �round si�ns in each zonin� district.
R_1 R-2 R=3 R�4 R�5 R O B=1 B_2 B=3 B=4 I-1 PF CRP PLTI3
u � 8 8 8 8 20 20 35 35 35 35 35 �
�;� No ground sign, other than hame oceupation campai�xl, real estate incidental and tempora.rv si�ns
sha11 be allowed in these districts.
�2� Si�nage requirements within a PULi shall be as indicated bv the PUD Narrative document. If no
such document e�sts si a e sha.11 be as allowed for a B-3 zonin District.
. . .
i.�� ��rr�air��v..�.rii��r•r��:n>�:a:n..e...� �.m�'.a�w.
� v
� 1 ' _ �
� L � � �
Page 13
Draft Sign Code Reviszon
February 21, 2001
�^s��r�.�:a�v�i:�.i�o.�i�:•r nr•:i:� ..�ei�n�.i�i�eiv�w
y � - � �.
� 1l�.� .. �. . � � .... w.e � . ."
� '
• 4 l. �. ;
rrr�-.rr:!:�.srr_er�r_�:
l��s�l��i1����s����'�J�' �R� �i�l! 1� �•II�f��l���1�i1�l��rl lN
� �' _ �
� � �� ��- ��..
\�1��v���a\�AJI�i�I�e�i��Yl�lii a�1��1 �11�'IO�I:IO��I�� �1�f�/4Yl���\�IL'�rli��i wi��ili� ��i��i��i �+�i� i����t�iwl
� � � . ',
�!�l�1�11111�J�1�J1l�_1!f�ll�\:I�1�1 Jnl��\:l�
� �. .
�
� `.�. � � � a
%r%1 ToM'�NAt'nv"[f n1lTVln n��l�tl>Cfa �9l �11.a����n�l1N nrl !1�}�„1n G'�1���l1N.
��.J i v...�� � '
�
� � ') T :..-.:�r �D, o Tl'�4.•;..+. ..
a• — — -------- — --------- — -------•
- f � � '�
��• ■
� •.
� � �
1�\�-�1�����1'�Il�l'/J1Sf�l��lTP1 JI�I��\�lA�.�1�1�At�r��R�li�'�'1�1�����l�i I�l�•IA)l�l��w��l�l\�1t/w
■ � ►' r �
�
_ � *
e�. TTf�R� T����� S � � �' � I
� � �' �
� �
_ �- y
I � � . � �
�+. : i i i
� i�� _ �
� • . i : � -' ' �
.- .- . �. . . �. .. "
� . . .� • � • ' �tL:�.�r�:.•�i .:..�..r='iiiii�7��`�..:�.:..��.����'
1 _ t; _ �-, . + ! i -
v' �. �:. �� �� �
_ � � �
Page 14
Draft Sign Code Revision
Febzuary 21, 2001
� i � � - '.. - -
: � .- . .
• ��+ �
: - :.. :-
.. . :, � - _ -. ^ • ---- - •-- '.'.: -- � �- •
a . . ��
V'�!= � � � � �
- - - :'
��• � -
-; _ ;
i� �� _
- : : •
� - � � • � •
' �'
� ii _ �� �
L A i�
� 1•�. ) !. ■ � ]�! �!
� � � � � • b
a � � E � !
r � '
� � f � �
1 �
\ i _ • _ �
� � , � lE9iiT7:R'��7�i �
:- :�
� .
� ��• � � � •�1�11 r '
\
v � -
1!
e i
- .. :-
_ . a .� .
- :r :-
e
� � �. .Y ia � �
� . � �
I � ! ♦. t
i:i��n�:i::�RG(���i�.ia..e•�.�aaO�in� . s � v
. _� �'o T:s7., 7 1!1!1 ..l�t,:� ('..dn. �_c�an nlnn_c�.l..�i�,:�i�... �nn n�i��„ .�F*F,;�. l�.,.io
_� coo Co,.t:,,., i �n� n� ,.F�ti;�.yr„a,. . .
�' c .,� aa:�.;...,.,, �nn n�i��t. „�+t,<.. n,,.�o
Page 15
Draft Sign Code Revision
Febzuary 21, 2001
- - - : --.•. _ a � ; _
� � • v ' � ��t
, �e ' v
� � � ��. .•
i i � — -
_ i - � '
� ' _
�� i
A _ii •!
' � - .C. C
�• Oi�' C' � - S .r " �
�
i� i� i� �� i v
� � 4
+ � OC
� 0 : �
:�
r
r.' �� ������' �
w -
Q i
�
F�—Ci :*��.�l,�F�i►.' �. _
-�.- - ; ..�.
...
:'
: :'
r
. .' C � L
� � �..
- . r : ,•
+� -
- i � .� �
i.
�i _ _ �
/
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • . - • �' ' ' ' '
"' " " ' ' ' ' . ..
.. . •.-. �. '. �... • �r� �•• . . .. �. "..' •--. . -• •
_ ! � � _ � . 1 . 1 � �
Page 16
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 21, 2001
, �
; - -
�::: .:; : :. � ,,• -
., � �
-:
:
:.
; .. :
:
.,� .; -
- `. :
;; _ 'e � :.
v �
� • � � v � . i � -
S. TL..� .,4
o:�inrm �
•.�: � � � !' . ,� ' � - ��• i
• � �'
.u�' ' i i
:. �' i
� v � -
_ ' . `.
� .
• �
– iv '
Q � i C " - . �
Y � -
, � _
, ,• 1.
� � �
_ • V _ � •
\. � ��• � C � - �
�--�� �� �__-- �I���\i��rl���� � � . . -�a .�_.: . � � . �.��.�.�...�..�._ � �
�na��.��(+��.:�cNLa a���. _--� __ — ' __ - �i��.z-
Page 17
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 21, 2001
. - : -
i . - ' i s . i �i ' ' �
•
� .� � ' '
, � � ' �
�.�' '
IY��'���:1 J�EI��JI�I�)�1l��/�K: J��RYI i.�i���a=ii�.�i�.na�i �nRR:r�i��.s•�w.�..�..����.�.��:�r�:i�i�iiaR.�.�i�n:��
�
• i
. =
v �
:��.
t
�• �- f . —
. : : •••.-, ••,
:
.
- ��• �
.0 OCs
� � : .C. ` _ •. ..:0.
. . .. ' "" ' .. -"' - : ��.'�" . ,•,: i_ • �
_ i � • • � _ ! !
� s. . �. .� 1 1�
1 � � � Y �
;�' � � 1 I� l/ �
.�
� •�� �
i � � ���� �
�� OGs .�� " i
i� - • _�� •• • ��
v r i � • - _ � �
i v f �
.� - � � �
• � �
`. �,.� •.-0 ^� ..., -- '�" ' .'• ."' ' . _
..•
� C
� • _� �. ••
i� . � .�. .�� ��� _
•� �
L'
. " ,:
.' � —
� :' - w�. � t i • •
1 / i
..v��� ' i
�
' '.' ' '� .. ..�� ' -' "- '� ' ' '.. . ' ' "' '
. � . .. � � f . �
' � � • . :�- �. � � ' � • '� �• - • ♦ ' � •' •: • '� f • • � � � • �
IR.:J•J��1V�(4�'=�li\RTl n IV�A')t.:1��A�l�ST1t�R Ji�I:J��I�I���t��'1'I��\�l�t�J�l�l!\:1' / C ��
� !
Page 1 �
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 2i, 2001
�
`: •:: .. : :: : .:
. �.
:-
^.:
- . -
� _.. ..
�- : - ' - .
:- :. -
.
.. •e - - :^
• - -
� - -�� ••
.
�; � - :
• _.f •.
- - .. . „ . .. . . . . .
. . : .....,. .. . • .- _ . _.
�. � .,: :- :
" . . .
L � �Y - �
' r _
� � I I
� �
� �
i •• v.
I i i Y . • : �
� / I � �
w
i ii. �� ,
��� � • � t �\
_ _ r • Y �
�l!!l\iil:l!i�iT �'�
1 _
- • : I
e
� ,� i
' -
► •• • � •�
Page 19
Draft Sign Code Revision
�ebruary 21, 200I
11: 1 • . , � � : �, . , � , ;�: :1� � �� `'. 1: :' ; :1. 1;'' li `..,
Subd. 1. Ground Si�ns: The foilowin� standards shali be maintained for a1i �,round si ns
excludin incidental tem ora home occu atio cam ai n identification and real estate si ns:
a. No part of a�rounci si�n sha.11 be nearer than three feet to anv buiiding unless such si�n
is placed parallel to the side of the buildin�
b. No nart of a�round si�r� shall be nearer than 1 S feet 15'1 io anv perimeter lat line nor
located within a 3�-foot si ht trian e oi� an ro ert abuttin two intersectin street ri ht of
wavs. (Refer to the gz-aphic below.�
C�u�ty Road X
3Q ft
� � � � � � ��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� Sight Triangle'" ��
lo
� ��
� �
� � '�
Sigr� is set back �
9� f�et fr�m �
both iront and 1
side property lines f
I
1
Property �
Lines �
1
� '
Sigr� can�o9; €�e ' �
loca�ed withirt � s
sight triangle. I rt
�c
1 �
I �°
1 �
-C
�
9
° The sight triangle is focmed by connecting the two end points of 30-ioo4 lines extending in both
directions from fhe inEersection o( two property lines abutting a street or highway.
c. The owner, lessee or occupant of the land on wluch the ground si�n is located and the
owner of the si shall kee the ro e on which the si is located free of lon ass
weeds or other rank grovv�h,_rubbish or dehris.
d. All parts of �round signs shall be designed for wind pressure of not less than tk�uii,�(30�
ounds er s uare fbot and ound si s af wood construction shall have ail mernbers which
e�end into the ound rotected frorri deca b treaiment with a reservafiive a roved b the
Buildin.�Inspector.
e. No �ermii shall be �ranted for the location of any �round si n havin� a si�n area of
more than fort 40 s uare feet within one hundred feet 100' of an sin le-famil
residence.
f No more than one aoie or �p;tilon si�n sl�all be allowed per lot. However, tl�e �round si�n
area allowance may be divided between one pole or vlp On Sl�and a monument si�or
Page 20
r
Draft Sign Code Revision
�'ebruary 21, 2001
- between multi le monument si s sub'ect to the re uirements herein rovided that one or
more of the fallowin� conditions are a,p�licable:
1. The Iot abuts muiti le street ri ht o;F wa s in which case a si n ma be located
alon� each frantage.
�2). Tkzere are muItiple curb cuts or drivewavs accessin� the property, in which case a
sign may be located near each access poin� or driveway provided the s�ns ara separated
by no less than two hundred feei (20�'�
�3). The width of the lot, as measwed alon ii� s longest street frontage. exceeds iwo
hundred and fiftv feet 250'), in which case multiple signs may be located alon the Ian�
frontage urovided such si�ns are separated bv no less than two hundred feet (200'�
4. The ro e or ro erties are witl�in art a roved Planned Unit Develo ment
(PUD}.
Subd. 2. Wall Signs: The followin� standards shall be maintained for all wall si m�s,�
a. No wa11 si�n shall have a pro�eciion over a private sidewalk or an established buildin�line
of more than twelve inches (12"�
b. The wall sign area ailowances as i�dicated in Section 1008.08, Subd. 2 for B-2. B-3, B-4
- and I-1 zoning dis�ricts are per buildin o�ccupertzt.
c. The wall sign area allowances as indicated in Section 1008.08, Subd. 2 for the R=3, R 4,
PF and CRP zoning districts are per buildrn�
d. In the R O and B-1 zoning districts, the area allowance, as indicated in Section 1008.08.
Subd. 2, reflects the combined area for a!� wali, �round and projection si�na�e on that lot.
Subd. 3. Projection Si�ns: The follawin� standards shall be maintained for all projection si n�s�.
a. Al3 portions of prajection si�ns shali be designed for a wind �ressure of not less than ihirtv
{30}�ounds per square foot.
b. Such si�,ns shall not project over pubfic sireet ri�ht of way bui ma,v t?roject over private
sidewalks. No such si�n shall be iess than twelve feet (12') above the level of the sidewalk;
except that such si n�s �a,rhich do not exceed four (4) square feet and which do not project more
than two feet (2') over the sidewalk n�ay be eighi feet S' or xnore above the sidewalk. No
proiection si n shall project more than ei�ht feet (,8') over any_private sidewalk.
c. There shall be no more than two feet (2') of space between the inner ed e�; of anv such sign
and the face of ihe wail from which it projects, nor shali the outer ed�e ofF the si� be more
- than ei ht %et �') frorra the face of the wail.
Page 21
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 21, 20� 1
d. The building or stzucture from which any such si�n �rojeets and all attacl�ments or ,"-
fastenin�s must be so constructed as to safel�resist the dead load and the wind load added b�
the attached siQn.
e. All such signs sha11 be of noncombustible materials or of noi less than one hour
fire-resistive construction.
£ Such signs shall be securelv fixed in place and shall nat be abie to swin or�swa�
Subd. 4. Temporaty Si�ns: Alt temporary signs shall comulv with the provisions of this Section
The foliowin� �eneral and specific standards shall„be observed_for a.11 ty_pes of tempora�and
portabie si�ns:
a. General Provisians:
Except as provided herein, no temporaiv �n shall be lacated on anv properiy in
the Citv without first obtainin� a pernlit from the Citv. If the Cii,�deternvnes to
ap�rove a perniit for anv such temporarv si in t�ma,�pose conditions u�on the
ra�nt�in� thereof, and it sha�l be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign for a
lon e�r period or in a different manner than that specified in the pernzit. No �ermit
for a iemporazv si�n shall be issued if prohibited bv other provisions of this Code,
2. Tem�orary signs shall not be hun� or installed so as to cover, either partiaily or '�
completel�anv door, window or openin� rec�uired for ventilation.
3. Na temporarv si�n for which a permit is required shall be located on any_propertX
in the Citv for more than twenty one 21) davs at o�e tizne or for more than three
(3) twentv-one (21�v periods on any ane ll) vear. Pernut periods mav run
consecutivelv without interruption if so approved. Only one temporary si n�shall
be allowed on a properiv at time.
4. The Director of Communitv Development mav waive the permit fee for a
temporarv sign requested bv a charitable, znunici�al or reli�ious institution or for
other�ust cause.
b. Banners:
1. Banners shall be strong-lv constnacted and shall _ be securely attached ta their
su�oorts. Thev shall be repaired or removed (including ali framework and
su�ortsl as soon as damaged or tarn and immediately upon ex�iration of the
nermit.
2. Banners shall not exceed twentv �ercent (20%} of the surface area of the buildin�
face or front upon which the banner is attached.
Page 22
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 21, 200 i
c. Beacons:
1. Beacons and searchli�hts mav be allowed on a restricted basis with a Citv pemiit
and express, written permission from the Metropolitan Air�orts Comnussion or
other a�ropriaie agency_.
2. No beacon or searc_hlight shall become a public nuisance or shall disturb the
peace, safetv, comfort and well-bein�of moforists and residents.
c. Changeable Co�y Signs:
1. Portable and tempara.ry changeable copy signs shall not exceed forty-ei h,� t(48�
square feet on each side and the entiretv of the si��v shall be maintained
within the forty-ei�ht square foot area.
2. No part of such si�n shall exiend into or encroach onto public ri h�t of_rvav.
3. Such si�ri shall not obscure motorist or pedestrian vision and shall not block or
otherwise interfere with a public or private sidewalk or trailway_.
4. Such si�y be li h�ted pr�vided said lightin� is not a nuisance io motorists or
- to adjoinin�braperties. Flashin�liglats, strobe lights or lights which could be
:-f otherwise be confused for that of an emerg;ency vehicle shall be prohibited.
d. Inflatable Devices:
1. Inflatabie devices sha11 be secureiv tetl�ered and attached to the buildin�.
2. No such inflatable device shall e�end more than thirtv feet (30') abave the roof of
the building to which it is tethered.
3. Balloons less than two feet in diameter are excluded from the permit provisions of
this Section.
4. No Mvlar or metallic balloons shall be permitted to be displayed or flown outside
e. Fla� or Pennant Stringers:
1. Fla� or pennant strin�ers sha11 only be allowed if thev do not displav anX
commercial or advertising infomlation.
2. �uch fla�or pennant strin�ers are excluded from the perniit provisions of this
section only if the indiv�dual flags or pennants are Iess ihan two square feet in
area.
Page 23
Draft Sign Coda Revision
February 21, 2001
Subd S Window Sigr�s� In the interest of public safety the Ci requiY-es thai commercial or retail
businesses operating within a zoned business district (B-xl shal! adhere to and com lv with
the follovvin� re�ulations and requiremenis governin�gns placed upon window interiors
a. No business shall obscure more than twen -five percent 25%) of anv window sectian or
pane.
b. Such windaw signa e sha11 not obscure or block from view anv window_ or door area
above a�oint four feet (4'} from the interior floor level.
e. Window si�ns as allowed herein affixed or adhered within the buildin� interior sha.11 be
exem�t from any permit requirements.
d. A temporarv sign permit shall be rec�uired of anv window sign affixed to_ the exterior of
an� window surface. Suc� si�i shaIl otherwise com�lv with the requiremen�s of this
subdivision.
Subd. 6. Billboards: A�ermit shall not be zssued for any new billboard unless it complies with the
followin�interim use requirements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.3597: (Ord.
644, 12-13-99: Ord. 656, 3-27-00)
a. Interim Use Permit: An interinn use permit (IiJP) must be obtained in accordance with -
procedures identical in form and substance to tlie conditional use permit procedures found in ''
Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any intez�nn use permit
issued %r an interim use billboard shall automaticallv expire no later than July I, 2015 or
when the lease agreement for the billboa.rd expires whichever date is earlier. Such ICTP shall
be null-and-void if the applicant fails to obtain any required permit from the State of
Minnesota, (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 655, 3-27-00�
b. Location: The billboard must be located alon� and ilorth of ,State Hi�hwav 10 (ald 118�
The_applicant must have an approved lease agreement with the properiy owner. The billboard
shall be oriented towards �iate Highwav 10 old ll�) and/or I35W. Biltboards must be
located at Ieast two hundred fift. f�(250') from residentially zoned propert,y. Billboards
maX be located adjacent to tkze ri�ht-of-wav of a street or highway, but no part thereof shall
extend over such ri�ht-of-way�Ord. 644, 12-13-99�
c. Minimum Spacing: Billboards must be at least one thousand feet (1 000') apart. Spacing
between signs sha11 be measured b,�projectin� the neares� points of ihe signs ta the praperty
line of the riglat-of wav from which tl�ey are intended to be read and measuring the distance in
a straight line between the projected poirzts. Re�uired spacin s� hall ap�lv onlv to billboards
on the same side ofthe same roadway. (Ord. 644� 12-13-99�
d. Maximum Si�n Area: The m�imum gross surface displav area of the sign cannot exceed
seven hundred (700,�square feet per side except that any rectan�ular biIlboard may contain
temporary extensions, cutouts, or top lettering which occut?v a total area not in excess af
twentv-five percent (25%) of ihe area of the basic billboard and form an integral part of the
design thereo£ No such temporary extension, cut out, or top lettering may nroject more than
Page 24
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 21, 200i
six feet (b' fram the top, ei�hteen inches (18") fram eiiher side or fifteen inches (15") from
the hottom of the basic rectang;ular advertising message. The area of an extension, cutout or
top lettering shail be deemed ta be the area of the smallest rectan�le into which such
e�ension, cutout, or top lettering wi�l fit. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99)
e Orientation of Sign Faces: Billbaards may have no more than two (2 sign faces. 5i�n
faces must be back-to-back with si�,n faces parallel or an�led All billboards with their faces
back-to-back and parallel sha(i have no �-eaier distance than eight feei (�') between the faces.
Ail billboards with faces at an angle shali have no greater angle than thirtv-fve de ees 35°2
{Ord. 644. 12-13-991
F Maximum Si n�He'�ght: The ma�rimum allowable hei�ht af billboards shall be thirtv-five
feet (35'1 The hei�ht shall be measured from the �rade at the base of the si n o�r from ihe
surface of the roadwav whichever is hi��Ord. 644, 12-13-99)
� Obstruction� No billboard mav be locaied in such a manner as to obscure or otherwise
interfere with the effectiveness of an off�cial tra�'ic sign, signal, or device, or obstruct or
interfere with a driver's vi�ew of a�roaching, mer ig n� or intersectin tra.ffic, Qrd. 544, 12-
13-99
h Existing Billboards' An.� billbaard legaily existin as�of December 13, 1999, mav continue
to be maintained in its present form and size but shall not be e�anded. This does not
preclude the periodic changin� of the message or advertisement presenied on the billboard.
; ) (Ord. 644, 12-13-99}
i Destruction Anv biilboard des�royed � an act of nature shall be allowed to be rebuilt
provided said billboard complies with or is capable of com�l n�n�with ail requirements of this
subdivision Noncar�ormin� biliboards shall not be allowed to be rebuilt. (Ord. 644, 12-13-
99
Subd 7 Campaign Si�ns' The following re�ulations shall apply to ail carnpai�n signs %r political
candidates or issues:
a. No more than one si shall be erected er candidate or issue alon each street franta e of
any�arcel of land Campai n�signs shall not be allowed on public propert�
b Campai n si s shall not exceed twelve (12,�sc�uare feet and nat exceed four feet (4') in
hei ht above the �round: except where such si�ns are located no closer than one hundred
fift,��y feei�150') to the property line of a residential dwellin�ihe maximum size shall be tivriv
two 32 s uare fee and the maximum hei ht above the round sha11 be six feet 6' .
c Campaign si n��be displa�ed from ihe last dav of candidacv filin or ihiriv (30) davs
before an election, whichever is earlier.
d. All cam ai si s must be renloved no later thax� flve 5 da s a.fier an elec�ion• exce t
that after a rima election si ns for the winnin rima candidaies need not be removed
until after the ensuin enaral election. 1488 Cade 39.14� 1993 Code
Page 25
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 21, 200i
`';
�
5ubd. 8, Home Occupation Signs In the R-1, R-2 and R-5 residential zonin� districts, _a si n not ta
exceed one 1 s uare foot is allowed to be dis la ed rovided such si n is attached to the
house or � e of the property on which the home occupation takes place
� � : � �, �_ R ;�. �,� ; �., �. .� , �, � �. �
�ubd. l. Si�na�e Allowances for Specific Land Uses• Public or semi public recreatzonal buiidin�s
and nei hborhood and communi centers• ublic and rivate education institutions limited to
etementary, middle and senior hi h schools' religious institutions,_such as churches, cha els,
tem les s a o es� nursin homes senior assisted livin faciiities and commercial da care
facilities; mav be allowed the following signa�e�.
a. Wall signage not to exceed 100 square feet per principal buildin�
b. Grourid signa�e not to exceed 100 square feet subject to Section 1008 09, ,�ubd le
Subd. 2. Traffic-Control Related Si Re lations: Com liance with �he followin re Iations
relative to traffic control is required:
a. No movin� or flashing sig,n shall be located or maintained within fifty feet (50') of an ;
intersection ai which traffic sema�hores are located. "
b. No si�n shall be designed, located or maintained so as to be likely to obscure or conceal or
cause confusion as to an� tra_ffio-contro� sign or device.
c. No si�;n shall be Iocated or maintained on or over any public street ar highway right of way
unless specificallv pernaitted herein.
d. There shali be no use of revolvin� beacons, zip flashers, flashin� si�ns or similar devices
that would distract automabile traffic so as to constitute a safetv hazard.
�.3�
r•��
�ubd. 3, Gaz-a�e �ale, Estaie Sa1e and Open House Signs: IVon-conr�mercial �ara e sa1e, estate sale
and open house si r�s and similar si�rzlav be atlowed to be located within a public right of
wa�provided:
a. The duration of the displav of such sign shall not exceed three davs.
b. No part of such sign shall extend within five feet (5') of a traveled roadwa�
= See also Section 60.03 Subd. 3 of this Code re�arding �ublic nuisances affectingpeace and safetv.
Page 26
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 21, 2001
`' c. Such si�n shall relate to or direct people to a residential property within the Cit�.
d. Such si�l shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area and shall_ not obscure pedestrian or
vehicle visibilii-� or any traffic control sign or violate any other_provision of this Code,
st�ecificallv Subd. 2 hereof.
5ubd. 4 Area Identification Signs: The City Council at its discretian mav allow for the placement
of an Area Identification Sign to define a nei�hborhood, community. develo�ment,
subdivision or multi-famil�plex and ma� require that:
a The a�licant is a duly noted representative of the appropriate group or or�anization.
b The Iand upon which ihe si�n is located has been dedicated for such a use by easement,
plat or other legal and recordable instrument unless such si�n would otherwise be pernlitted
herein,
c A maintenance a�reement be recorded which a�on�her ihings wouid provide for the
lon� term responsibility, care and maintenance of such sie,n.
Subd 5 Off-Site Directional Si�ns: Off-Site Directional si�ns may be permiited within a public zight
of wav subject to ap�roval of the Cit�, written approval of the appropriate �overnmental
a�ency havin� iurisdiction over the roadwaY(i�not the Citv) and the written approval of the
-'� owner of the propertv to which the sign may be adjacent if appficahle.
1008.11: PROT�TI�D S�GI�IS: The foltowin si ns and si t es are rohibited in the
Cit,�Mounds View: - .
Subd. 1. Flashing si sr�, as defined herein.
�ubd. 2. Si s or li hts attached to si s which mimic or have an a earance similar to those on an
enrzer enc vehicle.
�ubd 3 Roof si�ns unless integrally incorporated into the roof design then such si�n shall be
considered a wall sign Roof si�ns in e�stence as of the date of enaciment of this Code
revision ma�be allowed ta continue and nnav be repaired or maintained as needed, but mav not
be replaced except b v�ance.
Subd 4 Temporary or permanent advertisin� si�ns posted within public ri�ht of wavs, excludin�
directional si�ns and signs expressl�allowed herein and by other governmental a e� ncies•
�ubd. 5. Vehicles used as Si s. Vehicles or trailers that dis la advertisin and are arked in such a
way to attract public attention sha�l be �rohibited, except for si�ns on vehicles or trailers
� which are mao.�,netic, decats ar �ermanentiv �ainted �on the surface of the vehicle
- without obscuring an� vehicle window area �uch sig,-n shall not alter the profile or
silhouette of the vehicle.
Page 27
Draft Sign Code Revision
February 21, 2001
1008.12 �-89�:-99: A�ROGA'I`IOl�I AlV� GI�A'�Ela 1ZE�T�C'y"�Ol�o VVhere the condifiions
imposed by any provisions o� tk�s Chapter are aither ri10FE or less than comparable conditions
imposed by any other code, rule or regulation of the City, the code, rule or regulation which imposes
the more restrictive condition, standard or requirement shall preva.il. {1988 Code §39.14)
1008.13 �98�.�A: �IIOI,A'I'I01�1 OF P1tO�SIO�t�: Any person found violating any of tha
provisions ofthis Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (1988 Code §39.15)
�[IZI�:�C�����Ti��.`�i' : \ ', _", :' _, \ " '
Subd. 1, A variance to the provisions of Section 1008 mav be considered bv the Board ofr Adjustment
and Appeals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code im�oses undue
hardship ar practical di{�iculties to the propertv owner. A�lications shall be submitted and
reviewed in the same manner as indicated in Chapier 1125 of the Mounds View Zonin Cg�ode
(Ord. 644, 12-13 �99�
: : : - .•. • .,• : ;
v i ir�_ i. � � '
� . i v � i
a' i
i� i' 'i i �'
.� .
'v• �ii
— i' i '� —
�: • • �
�
5ubd. 2. Variance Requests; Fees: All requests shall be made in writing on the fonn provided by
the City and ihe request shali include the fee specified in the City's Fee Charges. All
information required when applying for a sign permit, as outlined in Section 1408.03, shall be
required befor� the requesi for a variance is considered. (Ord. 5�5, 7-15-96)
F:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV\SPECPROJ1Sp682-00 (Sigrt Code)1Braft Revision III - Feb 2I, 2001.doc
Page 28
Sign Code Update Page http://tcfreenet.org/org/moundsview/signs.htm
C`�t� o� I�ound� View
i e te
5 .'�
'I'he Caiy �f IVioe��ds Vi�w �s currentl� revievvin� it� Sign �ode and is seekir�g input froin residents
ar�ci 1�usiness owners ��a �he cort�mrrnity.
Click �ERE to view t�e 5iga� Code (Chapt�w 1008) gn its cu�°�°ent sfate.
Click �E�E to waevv #he proposed sigr► code rev�s�ans as of i+ebruae°y 21, 2001.
Th� foIlow��g �-�pre�e�ts the a�nticipaied �eheduIe and t�mel�n� for I'l�nnflng Coa�ar��ssion a�af Ci�
Counc�l �e�iewe
:. : :e: � :r:
Itevie�av �a�ildi�g �igaa��e
ite�iew' 'I'err�pora� �nd Partable S�gr�a�e (�C)
I�e�ie�r �+'i��l I)r�fi (PC)
Public l�e�ri�� (�'C}
App�°ove RevisYOn (PC)
Council Worksession Revievv (CC�
I�'�rst Read'►ng, Public �eae�i�g {CC)
Second �te�ding, Adoption (C�)
,�'
Febrt�ar� 7, 200i
F�bruary 21, 2001
1�Yarch 7, 2001
flpril4, 2001
.�pril � �, 2001
l�ay 7, 2001
li�la;y 149 200i
��g' Z�y ZOOi
A►nya�e vv�shing to co�ment regardin� the proposed r�wisions cnay do so by sendin� an e-en�il,
wri�ing or faxing a letter or by calliz�g Jima Ericson at 763w717-4021. �e would aRso encourage
anyone �vith an interest in the Crty's Sign Cod� fo attend a Planaeerag Commissian or Ciiy Council
meetia�g on a�y of the abo�e ident�feeci dat�s. 'I"lie Planning Coraamission rtaeets the f►rst ae�d i}e��°�i
We��e�e�ays of e�ch �nont&a at 7:00 p.rr�. �nd the Co�ncil �neets the #irst IVionc�ay oi the inont� at
6:00 p�ra, �nd the secoa�d and fourth IV1oi�days of the month at 7:00 p.�x.lVieetie�gs take p�ace at
IVlounds �liew Ci� �all, loc�.ied at 2401 Higl�way i0.
.�ti;, . „_. T'.. 3.;ih .,r. �.�i: , t,. ��.. ? . .•,... .�, u..,,F �.,. - v 1..�,/.a.��: . �'k,.� 1�.. ,A, .#` ../ ,./�
� .,�;. : i ., c._::_ , . .:, �i ,�:,i$�;
x �
I+'or more info�rm�tion, call 76��717�40�1 or send an e-mail to,
inounds�a�vv rcmnet.or
; °1: —.
1 of I 2/19/O1 1.'OS AM
Item # 5
a , ,., ,,. . � .r � ; �
r_..,., ..-�.... ,- . .�,�, ...,:-,.,,__ ,,.�: .,,. �.z._ ,,_;M
,�-.
City of Mounds View
�� .. • � � � ", i' �
' .�
Meeting Date: Feb�ua�y 21, 200I
Tiilea
DISCUS�ION AND REVIEW OF DEVELQPMENT PLANS �'OR THE PINEWOOD
ELEMENTARY SC�IOOL BUILDING AND PARKING LOT EXPANSION
�rttt°oduciaon:
Perkins � Will has been contracted hy I�dependent School District 621 to coordinate a facility
expansion at Pinewood Elementary, located at the southeast corner of Couniy Road I and Quincy
Street. In addiiion to the develapment review, a variance and conditional use permit will be
required for this project.
There are three areas of buildi�g expansion:
� The west seciion of the building is to include a new vestibule and zeznodeled iFoyer.
Adjacent to the foyer would be 633 square feet of new conference and workroom space.
� The north side of the building will include a new e�t corridor, a general storage roorn,
chiller room, suta�mer boiler room and a new 1.,800 square fooi multi-use roam.
s The south side of the building will inciude a new entrance plus 2,490 squaxe feet of new
space for storage, kindergarten, kiln, work area and art room space.
The parking Iot and eirculation aisles will be reconstructed and includes the following highlights
(Refer to Page C2):
� The parl�ing lot alongside Quincy Street will be expanded to the south, following the
existing s��back of the current parking Iot.
� The bituminous piayground area souih of the school wili be reconstructed far parking.
• The northernmost access onto Quincy �vill be removed, diverting atl vehicle tra.ffic directly
onto County T�oad I.
� A.dditional parlcing wi1l be created north of the schoal and the two ea�isting areas wi11 be
;
canriected for through access.
Pinewoad
I'ebruary 21, 2001
Page 2
.Developrnent Ret�iew Da�cus�iane
Setbacks: There will be no change ta the building setbacks as a result of this expansion. The
parlcing lot setbacks wi11 not increase as a resuit of the expansion either, however they currently
do not comply with City Code. The parking lot aIoxzg Quincy Street actually goes beyond the
property line and into City right of way by approximafiely 6 feet. The School District wouid tike
to maintain ihis "negative setback" for the parking to be expanded southward along the same line.
To do so, this will require approval of a varian�e.
Draina�e and Utilit� The applicant has applied for a Rice Creek Watershed I3is�rict permit,
which is required due to the size of the lot and the extent of impervious surface area being
mat�ipulated. S�aff will defer to RCWD a11 issues related to drainage and ponding. The Public
�lorks department wiil also review the plans.
Landscapin� 5ome of the landscaping and plantings will be removed and relocated as a result of
the building and parlcing lot expansion. It is not known if any additiar�al plantings will be
provided. This wili need to be clarified.
Li�hting�: It is not lalown if there will be additional lighting installed as a result of this project.
Given that the school is bordered by residential properties, the City's requirements for lighting
and glare will need to be saiisfied.
Access: Wkule one of its four access points will be eliminated with tt�is proposal, staffwill seek i
comment from l�amsey County and the City's Public Works Director, The diversion of all
traffic—busses and cars—onto County Road I may be of some coneern to the County.
i�ariance: As indicated above, the parking lot along Quincy Street already encroaches onto City
right of way. The plans are to expand this parking area to the south using the same setback line.
To allow this, a variance will need to be approved as well as approval of a linnited use agreement
of some kind to formalize the arrange�nent.
Canditional Use Perfnit: Schools and religious izzsiitutions located within a residential district
require a conditional use permit. Because most of these types of facilities in Mounds Visw
predate the current Zoning Code, most do not have a CUP. It has been ihe City's policy to
require a CTJP in the event of any expansions so as to bring the facility into compliance with the
Code. While CiJP approval is typically assured, it does provide the opportunity to review such
issues as parlcing, traf�'ic, lighting and other faciors which may impact the residential
neighborhood.
Co�acla��i�n:
Review the site plans date stamped 2-1 -01. Representatives from the applicani, Perlcins aiid Will,
may be in attendance for the meeting to answer any specific questions the Connmission may have
regarding this project. No action wi11 be talcen at ihis meeting.
; �.
Pinewood
February 2I , 2001
Page 3
�.,;;��,;i`r�c:�r� t�.-�'��,���
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
N:IDATA\GROITPS\CONIDEV�DEVCASES�DE01-0011Pinewood (PC) � Feb 2l, 200I.doc
a�i' ��
?1:.11���is ���
�
p �+�,�7
•� ��.� ,
rn���'� ''Partfletsti�4�
C�2 D�+ �L�P I�'7.' ��+ � � � - �
I)E�IJOP�NT APPIJICA'�O� �
2401 I�iighway 10, Mour�ds �Ii�w I�rIN 55112
Pte�se �'ype or Pr�� In�oa°�atiora - C'ornp�ete �oih Sides of `I'bis F'oe°r�
612-71 i-4020
612-7�4-3462 - FAX
Applicant Informafeo�s
Name of Appiicaaat �%�w t�1 c� � (�8 � �% l�e � /G .�u�'o0 [.�;' Telephone (Q�"`/ • lp�q • �
Address 2i6 D a ��s e�d� � Fax
�� �iP�f !� /`7/� `°�i / / c�
�t��st �n Proper�y (check appropr�ate box)
Owner of°Property ❑ Con�act for Deed Owner
� Lessee, Operator, Managcr . e7 A�eement to Purchas�
o Other (explain) _
.,�plic�s��� �ust provgde evideace of snterest io p�aperr@ty. �t Qhe tdme af agplECation, anci if° �ou a�e �aat tl�e o�nea° of tiae
prope�°°ty, yos� �easi �rovade a le8ter of permiss°soe� from the ownee° givas�g coeasee�t io the �Itng of thea applicatio�. �'he
�ll'O(9B1`t3' OW[1CP° It4�d3$ 31�IA �IlA3 :1�7j1I9C1t90&! �O� I� t0 U0 RCCCii$B�e � �
Pe°opea°�y I2escrsgiio�roposal
Address or General Location
Lega! Description
'" _ . . . . J:` . r.� � > � .
� • ,;
�_ � ., ��
Property Identification # (PIN #) ° • � 3 � /� � D oO 2
# ofAcres �. � /����5
Current Zarvng � - ` p
Type of Applic�tion
o Comprehensive Plan Amendmenc
o Rezoning
❑ Major Subdivision �
o , Minor Subdivision
o Planned Unit �eveiapment (I'LTL))
❑ PUD Amendment
� ConditionaUlnterim Us� Permit
�$ Variance
� . Code Appeai
� Develop Review/Site Plan
o VVetland Alt�ration Fermit
� 'Wetland Bu�er Permit
❑ Floodplain Pemut
o Other
$250
$2Sfl/acre; min $250 max $1500
�250 + $250 de�osit*
$zao
Refer to rezoning fees
$35Q
R� I, R-2 $7S; alf othees $250
R-1, R-2 � 1 fl� ali others $250
$100
$125/acra; mirt $125 max �750
it4t, R-2 $150; all others �200
R-1,12-� $2S; �11 others $100
5240
*Deposits shall be paid to cover at1 costs of public r�otices, materials and sta� or consuitant time spent in 4he review, 's
research ar preparation of materials flssociated wsth this application. The applicant shall be responsible for sIl reasonable =
incuned costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any poriion of th� deposit not sgent or encumbered shall be refundad
to the apgiicant within ihirCy (30) days after consideration of the appiication is completed.
Please �m�r�pBet� 4he �°����°�� sid� af this applic�tione
i..
�
Caty af Moured� `lig�9 �
I➢e�elopettettt App���a#io� Pa�e 2
Present Use of Property
o UndevelopedNa�ant ❑ Single Family Dweiling
o Duplex/Two Family Dwelling , a Ivlulti-family Dweliing
❑ Business/Commerciat Esiabiishment o industrial Establishment
� OPher {explain)
� �B.�M � �u���..
`�
-;: , ,
,;,
Property Class�cation
Description of I'roposal
o Absfract ❑
BY MY (OCJ12) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLTCA
KNOWLLDGE, TI�E INFORMATION PROVIDE]
Si�aiure of Applic�nt
Name of Appiicant (typed/prinfed)
Signature of Properiy Owr�er
I�Tame ofProperty Owner (tyge�i/printed)
Address of Owner
Torrens
I HEREHY DECL�'F2�'I�f�AT9 TO T�IE BEST OF MY
•.:1' ' : �
,: ,
_ � :,,,..: �
;; � � �� _ - _
� .
�
� ;_, � .
�
. � � � � •_, ._� . , �� .
� �, ,� _
1��� ,� � � � —
, � , ;
�-
� i; �� � N� . ' , t
� �' �'.�4 �l `�`�"3 -
Phone Numbex of Owner ��� . ��� ` ���
�a�����������x���*����������*�����*����*�*���������#���a�**�*��������������a•x�*�������x*�*��*���**���
FOit ORF'ICE USIE ONLY
Date of Submittat � � '�i - �'1 __— —
i7ate of Acceptance Assigned to:
Planning Case No. '�� �2 �.� �-� o) GO-duy Limit 120-day limit
� , 'l,t � 1 ° C3 . O � j l� �,c."7 ) -- ta � � -
Fees Faid: AccounE # Check # Receipt #
A�plicatzon: � � � �'3 1 F�n �; u („ u � ) '�'°, � l.� I `�_ � � +-f ( P
Park Dedic�tion: �__ � v�`� � t �,��
ileposits: _ _ -
OFheC:
Total:
N:IDATA\G120UPS\COMDBVIFORMSIDEVAPP.FOR
1l98
.�. :.;,.
02115/2681 14e52
��
65Z�766-4296
�
,.. �` i '�
_ � �
Y •
� �� �i1��� N9� ��1������� �
��� {���� �����7 g�s ( ��� ���m����
e: City of psund� �'ie�
pb! i��e 6.1$
� Ii18p�Cto� �P'OtI�IY
. �CW�' �
r' .
RICE CREEK W DISi
FA�� 9i
(i°�R ��ICE �T�E d}�ft,Y}
P L,ICAZT�I� �i�. � �— � 7 }
d�itsB�d O�d�+ b���,LJ.6 �:r'aV �b\V� �I LO/O1 ,
NOTiC� S�° �� I S/ O 1 A�EI+�,� _ 21 Z 8/ O 1
p� ��� �i5bo00 Z/15/41 f�a Mouaads�i� Publ.�c
` �,, - .� �
;, , _. ' _
�_- . - �::�, ���
. .. _ .� .
� :�.,., � ���.�. . . .. �. � .._.��...�.+.,. ,i. ��. �;;� _.._
,.,, ' _ � ' ; . . . -�
: .- r. .. . _ : _ _ ._�. '
� <_ .
, �'. ,__ . � 11• � . �i�. * � . • .'.
i, . _...
� :., . ,:
_ �_�__.� !._. ; ��. �.� ' " •
�,. �__ . _F ro.+....,._
Addr'e�s �29�9 Nor°th Wa�t ��� Av��u�
,� J1 :Fy • .
� ��Ci�y//�ip. ''St. P��1 �4N 55I1�
., '• � �'; � ,,�:r,�� t .��o # ��;.; ;'.t. ;.. , • 1.
- "•����9��5����E4 „"°'°"'�
. �;,(No•��t�•�avl� � �. (PrI�4 ei�rtde 's e
• '•le�r�f'mnthcaR°ity', }� p{�p pp �
�'�:��'�'ri'a.{5+=i4.i:' �•Vl�� �. '',' �i6� �Nidl6�iYd�
�•':Y . �4. af'� . F'L.:I.rr,A j)�{��S � � � ' �
1 '
..' • . ,'' �''•;.��17� ��e1�piZSC'IIi ���
, ��inal Sfie �ina�e �1� '
' '�, �� �S�et�'�d U�il�tica �lan
� , �� �rid� a�d/or Cutvcrt P1�
• . ' �;', �e��d p►Ii�ati� �Iaa
. �� � . � Q Sh�l�d AIt6ratior� P�
' � , Publ'as�rsv�te i�a�� �� �taxt
, ; �y��� 't7�ic�(�xpI�� in %�)
� `;�a.�� �;;�; . „ ' . � � .
nui appwr �aaie.)
.�, � � . � �
� -::��,�, . � ;���
,� �,
r. '., � � ��� r' �, �; ): r.
• � ��1'
�@�f �Il��a���' �OY6�6�:
N'�ra� Qn��ohnsa� Ass�ciata�. Tnc
e�,ddx�s�575 GQld2t1 Va1 Te Ro�d �2�0 M� ;�554e'i
pho�� 4 ; ; ;�.�.° I
F� ' m
E�a�ion Co�troll�r�dl�� �oai�ct f�r oz�e T�espect4r:
2��aa� 5��� as ab�ve
�. P�an�
Cell Ph��e
�
..:pINE�0a0 �CEMENTRRY"SC�OOL m ZQQ1 A'ddit�a�slAlterat����: Wo�k i�eTud�s
„ , ,;,,;;,, , , , , , �
•� '��cl�ass�room �nd admfin�st�°a�ion additions ark�n drive �x �nsio� a�d ��d���ik
�"_� _�const����ion. T�tai imv�rviou� �dd�d Yo t��„�R9 �cr� sit� 0 ap�rox_ �_073. s__,�'.
. � (�r� �a19 acres� " . —� -- �
. , s " j���x �o .
' ��ct �se: � i �i a�d �1 terati e�s �
� �jr��Loc�taono o��ti� S'tr°e�t �nd �o�at�t �o�d z
, • t��,,;�t`�+':�oi �"��'ii: _ �H� �n�� ` �' � �� � �iN � �oua�► ���s�
. S • „' �Pa.1�. ' . JI`7 �� ���� ������ F'9 �� W
::1•'..fv� . ,•. '..,' ' 1
' ' '"If $pp�eved;'s�e p�rmi� �1 � ^val,id �'or 18 ���tk,s �d ffia3► be e��d�d �t �o �haY�� ii�qu�s�ed. Call �65 i) 765�4192 for ass�sgaace�in
•• co�le�� �. . pl�a�� �t�� ���i� of �sa�gsy glaris �d oi��r d�ffi as auYLa��d ia "�icc Cr�ek Wat�x�hed D���-acc Pez�it
Iufox�atida Bx�c�uss� (P�),� ��i1��ie up�,�qr�e�� Ad�il �r deliv�a° t� fe� al�� �ith the ap�praprs�ge %� accozda�$ t� scb�dra�e on
Pa$� •9� of �� ��, ��id � ,�� of �p�r��ate ��'�a� �� " � a s�eet 1�c��o� �p� Q� tc�e �b�ve �d�ss. APPtY�� �'�r c�iis per�e
from�R �o�s �at ��l�d� ��� appi3�a� f�a �y ��c�s�aa� p '� c�aY � bt �eq`aire� f�oz�a � �eve �at�l a�e�ci�s,
" F'�rr� A�di�o R�a� ���.� , � ,
Zoning Map
jr�� ii�I r�� rq� rV-�� rtir'
�, -, i N� cY f N i[y j N I N I
�KWOaO bR
1 561 3b1 561
�,.�.-.-..,.
1� �n �g� 561 563
�, � ...,..-....�.
� 560f� 560 560&
st = ss�o� ss�
_._ � ..__....�._._ .
�5ao�55z�
RD
�
'�
� ` 55i 1 5512 i.. ,551 t,-
. . ........_. ,..; 5805
5�2 ;�'5503_� b5D4.. i 5499
� ; 5493 5494 � 5493
�.,..... __,... .�....__.. _..,-..._.... _._
b�48� 5486 � 5485
�
2 _.��...__... ..._,..._...f....�........_..
5474 }_ 5�473 5 8 54i5 5478� 5475
5a68 ; 5a67 '-_..�._ ___,. j�_�,.
_.__%_....__.__,.. 5 64 I 5463 Sgss !_.. 5467.
5462 5463 ._...1. �_. �..� ... : 5459
.,.,
� ... ,..,....,__....,.._.
5464 . 6455 N 5�544 �QC�S``�Sy ! y54S� �
.5446 _� ..___.�_...� � . .._.. � . y�n '', { 54�k7
0 543 �G ,� '
s�-ao._�:.._.'�%4i Q �,�' �,
..,_ �:_...�M,..�.,. :
5434 % 5433 , S'�� i
.,._.�....�....�.... �se�T��;
5�a2S , 5425 •s�,�`., ��
5420 ; �5421 542� �' `
_ ��..... .,..__ .....M.���_..✓�,,...
5� i 4 5415 5�7 4= n��
5405 5445 S4Q6 ��i c`�•s
,a�,m�e�e:�o� �c,o�cv��aia+��.�c�o
vcM� M:N w�.-?d�Q7 i BII O��t� [.
QAKWOOD NjN�NiN�N'NjNINfN�N;M�r�i
PARK ---I.....-,----�..�.,�..._ _.��_.� � l.._; �
�...i.-..-, -...�._.
p.., rJrJ�� f� O��s'��hi01'r{��hi.- �iA;h�w
PF �r � M.N:r 9:�;m m,���.
r. �r r�.-�r,r-o,o'o:oo
cV�NiN�N�cV+tV�N�NENIN�NN
�;�)ap cv �n`; ro N�.� �o ao • o rv �a � o a�� Io
F�iwtN{N V��Ki M/�.N �I�-�•- O W� on� T
NiNrM�N NtM N�NiNI��N�N N��'�iN
� '
� ( � ! , I f
_ 1 J i....'�....J�_.." , �
i , � 3 �•,......--�._...,.�,.�...,.�......_.
vs n! o+ > t� r ai � r� I n s a> >^ r-r i r� i � i � ,
� s�, �.�, �,•. e±sv �r�� I o, oi , a> ��' n
N N�tV N (NI��N �*t ��wN� (`ijN�N �N;N?N '�,
o� '
at(Cd� W�M W 9b N�cU {W Q' ? �,o d-{�6
1� <(O ef� j U7 tl° NY M � N i{r� I � �!'��7 • KI �. h
V N i CV 4�} N� N� N N�(V j N N j N i N (� i��! ��.J �N
� ' ' � � �� � ,f. ��
2 ,.,.a.,_�,.,...> -.I._,. � ' .. _,._ .,_ .
� i r...,..f.� .! . ' .�.._.,, ;... �._,.
� �njr'rn?e��Rjrn,e� h jo� ��Mf�.S�fu1i�.��'°
1� W �� u'3 ; SA �4' : M ( M �(Y � � �` �:•'.. O ' Ol ' Of 00
a-,r�r r r < !Oi0 �O>O�Q
N;NiN�(y fd;(V•NIN�4N�N;N+N�N�N'.NZ�,
I
I,
I
��
'
� � �
� �
�
� I d
F— �
��F-1
�
�
� {
Item # 6
-� ,,:,. . ,.;
, _,,.., . , ..
,..�� .. �...�..
c ✓: .,., .�.:- ,:r�. ..,,,»:m;� W . � „�,„.
��.,-,: i. .,, ,,,:.r .,_.�;,.., ..�.....::.
City of Mounds i�iew
;i � ; :.-• : i` _:� �'��
�
Meeting Date: FebYUary 21, 2001
7'itlee
DISCUSSION �ND REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 13,912 SQUARE-FOOT
�INGLE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITHIN THE SIL�TERVIEW ESTATES PUD.
Int�°oductaon:
Minnesota Institute of Public Health (MTPH} a subsidiary of Blue Cross Blue Shield, has appIied
for a developme�t review ta construct a 13,912 square-foot of�ce building on the vacant lot
southeast of the Holiday 5tationstore. The lot was originally envisioned to support a 25,000
square foot two-story office building, which is what the 5ilverview Estates allows for in the PIJD
Document. �hile the use and square foot�ges are consistent with the PUJ�, because the footprint
and configuration from what was approved, the site plans need to be reviewed and reapproved.
This office building would be used to provide office space for MIPH staff. No clinic, outpatient,
class room or medical procedures would take place at this facility.
I�evelopment I�evaew Discu�sron:
The development site pians date-stamped February 2, 200i, have been reviewed by myseif, the
public works d'zrector, the City's engineering technician, the water vvorks foreman, the City
Forester and the fire marshal. For the most part, other than same changes to the Landscape plan,
the submitted pians satisfy City zoning requirements and the requirements of the Silverview
Estates PiJD.
Dimensional Rec�aciYements:
Front Setback (Highway 10)
Sideyard Setback {Holiday)
Sideyard Setback (Winiecl�i}
Parking lot Setback (Highway 10)
Parking lot Setback (Holiday)
Parking lot Setbacic (Winiecki)
Parkin�:
Required
3 0 feet
20 feet
20 feei
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Existing or
Proposed
30 feet
140 feet
24 feet
10 feet
i 0 feet
i25 feet
Met?
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
The Silverview Estates PLTI3 established ihe parking reyuirermenis for ihe office component to be
_ one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The building is shown to be 13,192 square feet,
which would result in the provisioii of 56 spaces. The site plan shows 70 spaces. The plans
however anticipate tvvo expansions to the l�uilding which would increase the number of stalis
MII'H
T'ebruary 21, 200i
Page 2
z'equired. The first e�pansion would add 3,000 square Feet to the office and would require an
additionai 12 stalls. The second expansion wouid be a second story addition of 6,000 square feet
which would require an additional 24 spaces. Th� site plans do indicate an adequate number of
stails for fult build-out, yet 22 of ihese spaces are indicaied as proof of pai•king, to be constnacted
if and when the second-story expansion is completed. The parking plan is consistent with the
PUD and also complies �vith the ADA requirements for handicapped accessible stalls.
Wetland Bu�e��:
Staff reviewed ihe 5ilverview Estates case file and associated documents and did not find any
evidence of a buffer permit approved far ihis site. While the Planning Commission does not
review buffer permits, stafffelt it important to address the issue, iionly briefty, to assure the
Commission that this would be resolved. As can be seen on Page Al, l, the proposed building
only slightly encroaches into the wetiand buffer (the dashed line representing a 100-foot distance
from ihe delineated wetland.) The City approved the Silverview Estates PUD with full
knowledge thai there would be buffer encroachment, but determined the extent of encroachment
would be minimal, as is the case on this lot. The appficant will provide detailed drainage
calculations to ensure that the stormwater pond which has already been constructed and sized to
accommodate this development, will be adequate.
Lcrndsca�ing:
The appiicant has provided a deiailed landscape plan which has been reviewed by the Ricic
�7Vriskey, the City Forester. Mr. Wriskey recommends that some of the species be changed to
comparable species maxe eonducive to Mounds View soils and clinnate.
Proposed
Fali Gold Ash
White Spire Birch
Cranberry Cotoneasters
Spreading Yews
Day Lily
Service Berry
Broadmore Juniper
Li�htin�
Replace With:
---> I'afmore Ash (Patmore provides for a
fuEler crown and is iess disease prone)
---> River Birch Clumps (White Spire is
Prone to disease)
___> Dwarf Korean Lilacs or Gofd Flame
Spirea (Cranberry Cotoneasters not suitable
for MN)
--�> ??? (the berries are highly foxic!}
--�> Only 3 each? This wiil be changed.
The applicant has sub�x�itted a photometric analysis of the siie (Page E1.2) based on the foat-
candle readings af the proposed lighting. According to the photometi°ic analysis, there are three
parlcing lot pole lights, three building mounted wa11 packs, and three lights recessed into the
�anderside of the front entry canopy. The parking lot poles will be 24 feet tall and the bulbs
-: ;
MIPH
February 21, 2001
Fage 3
wouid be completely encased within a one-piece aiuminunr� housing. The provided foot-candle
readings a.re all within the Code requirements.
Access:
Access to this parcel can be achieved from the east-bound lane of Highway 10 or fram Silver
Lake Road. The Highway 10 access is a right-in right-out access only and does not provide for
access from ihe west-bound lanes. The access from Silver Lake Road is shared with the Holiday
store and documents are on file which grants permanenily access to Holiday, This was a
condition of the �ilverview estates PUD. The driveway and access drive widths, turning radii and
parking lot aisle widths have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal who found the plans consistent
with fire department requirements.
,f�CCeSS01y ,�tYUCtuYes:
The plans indicate a trash enclosure on the lot behind the buildi�g. The PUD aliows for a trash
enclosura but no other accessory buildings. The enclosure shall be constructed of a�nasonry
rnaterial to match the building and shall have locking ar latching gates which when closed do not
offer any visibility of the dumpsters or refuse within the enclosure.
Draina�e and Utilitv:
The applicar�t has consulted with Rice Creek Watershed District to determine if iheir review was
necessary. Because the siie area is iess than 2.5 acres, their review is n�t needed. The a�plicants
will however provide detailed stormwater runoff date to ensure that the previousiy constructed
pond is sufficiently sized to acco�odate the runoff. The Grading, Utility and Erosion Control
Pian (I'age C2.0} indicate four catch basins will be installed and the stormsewer wi11 connect to
the e�sting sewer than presently drains into the pond. The n�noff from the roof will drain into the
pond via a burxed 10-inch pipe. The proposed first floor elevation (FFE) is 912.3, which is four
feet above the City's recommended miniz�raurzi huilding elevation for this site.
Trailyvav and Lightzng.•
As has been the ca.se with previous Highvaay 10 development projects, the City requires provision
of a 9-faot wide bituminous trailway and decorative lights. Rather than requiring the developer to
install a trailway along the front of this property ihat connects with no other trailway, staff is
negotiating with the developer to install a trailway thai begins at the corner of Highway 10 and
Silver Lake IZoad and terminates ai the coz°ner of Highway 10 and Couniy Road T. In re�urn for
the complete trail installation, stai� suggested that the City might be willing to be responsible for
the installation of the decorative lights, which Iast year cost $5,000 each. �taff has contacted Mr.
George Winiecki, the property owner of the lot immediately southeast of the NLQ'H lot about a
possible easement dedication to aliow the trailway to cross his property. He seemed receptive to
the passibility. Staff wiIi contact the owners of the Fioliday store and seek their input regarding
tius issue and 1;he development as a whole.
IvIIPH
February 21, 2001
Page 4
Signa�e.
The applicant has provided informaiion r�garding the proposed signage for the huiiding, There
would be a 32 square foot internally illuminate sign near the Highway 10 access drive built upon a
masonry base with nnaierials io match the building. The signage on the building would be
individually mounted letters to read "Minnesota Institute of Public Health." The area of the
building mounted signage would be approximately 24 square feet. Altogether, there would be
approximately Sb square feet of signage for this development.
�onclu,�fosz:
Representatives from Minnesota Institute of Public HeaIih, Pope Assaciates, and McGough
Construction may be in attendance for the meeting to answer any specific questions the
Commission may have regarding this project. No action will be taken at this meeting.
� ����� ������
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021 �
;
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES1De01-002 - IvIIPI-I�MII'H (PC) - Feb 21, 200I.doc
l
� �; .
�
°3•
�� � �
��'�� � �����
App t o ���e
I�Teffi� of �pplic.��
� .. `t _. �, : . � � , <� ;. , `:� •; ;; • �;, .. ,
1 �' ;' � � �- '
,_, �
� - � . � ��� -
• : : : ... . ;: � .. �.
. �-
�,
Y� e or Pe�t Tnfo�en�t�� � Co�p1�� tb Sid� of �°��e
,i�? r n n-e,��a�-�,, i h,5-� �' ,��. � �f'
��,�-b � � e, J-� -� I �--�. .
� �� �,�'rLdl.�. l �- � � �—
� d k e�- ; /�1 li-� S.`�� �3 G�
TeYephone���`�� � - 5 � l Ci
�� 7t� �- � � 7 � 7� ����
I�� i� P�pe� (�h�k eppr�ps�at,� bax) .
� Omvn�'of � � Gon�°�ei for Owe�er .
o , r, I�ager .� �nt to �tarcbas�
❑ Oiher (�cp3aan)
Applie�� �uat p�t�ide �vid�n� olinte�t t� pr�upet%y �t @6c �t�e of �ppl��ti�n, a�d ity�n� �t+� �mt ��e �r ot8h�
P�P��' Ya� ��a8 pr�via�e � l�tter o� pe�aia�im� trora� 8�e o�e� givi�� co�sesat 40 !he t613�a� of t6I� ���I�ca4iona 'l7�0
p�oper� o�er �eust �e�� �1�3� �pplae�f�o� 4or it fES be ac��ttede �
� ' :�r �7� i� �_...i f,;..,�,,.1? • � `l�
Prmpc�ty ��ct�pi�o�ropo��l . 0 •
� Addr� or General Loc�taon S1l�v�t, l�w ---�_ _ - SI L�� t�D ��`l 1�
' a - - - - - . ,..... �
L,egai Description 4�"� �- .`�`• � c'J�. J_ S j l.-V �Ll)! � t,� �5i�� 5
�+opeity Id��ca�iae � {PIl�I #� - UAIA$iAlc.,�gt� � S��g
- - P� wt �i .
# oiAcc�s 1 • `� c�,�� � ce�ss YLv r��t� (�2. ! �/ � .
t�on�ng - �vi� �t�tX€�.. Vs� ) �
�'ype of Applacatioaa
� Coa�prehensivc P1aA Ainaendm�rst •
� lZ�onang
a � Major Subd'avision
Ci Minor Subdivision
o Pl�ed Unit £�v�lopra�eaat (PUD)
a PUD A�endment
a ' Conditaonal Us� P�nnit
a �Ieraance •
n Codc Ap�p�al
I?�velop lt�vfew/Sit� Pl�
a Wetieg�d �i4eration Peamie
VJetland �u�sr P�xnit
❑ � �Qi�plalli ��%ffi1f .
. o Oe�es ' .
�250 .
�T.SOI861�p t111I1 ��50 ER87C � i s�
$25U + $250 deposit*
S2�
Itefer to rezonin� fees
�35U
R-€, R-2 575; sll othecs �250
R-!, R-2 � 100 all otlzers $250
Sio�o
S i 25/acre9 min S 125 mex �75(} .
RPI, �.-2 �15�; all ot5ers �200
id° l y bl°db �Zdy W d�41� �9 S �/�/
ffi20� �
�Deposi4s sha}1 be �aid to ��v� all �sts ofp�blic �ot�ces, sn�ter►als and �oe,constalt�t �u�ae sp�uuk in Uxe �viewr,
��°ch or pr�p�r�doa2 af �atea�nls as�ci�ted r��it th[s applic$tiac'. 1'�ie �ppli�nt sball be responsibl� foa� all i�a��n�ble
" �ct�r�d costs in exc�ss af tl�e inatial deposit aanoun4. Any portioa of tbe d�posii not speni or �ncuanbered shali be refua►deai
4o the applicanY within thirt�r (30) days af�-i conside.�ation of ik�e applic�tion as completeci.
�lease ��piete the �v�s°�e s�d� o� tt�E� ��aplfca�ao�o
�iy �f M�ia�e� �a��,
elop�ent A��iic�Yion p� � �
..:�� . .,:�._
3:G " ,i,... ,�;_t, . �:.:.t�t�. � -....r °• "i.-a_ . l.,.-,.�� 1,t'
M � �� . �� ; �I � ��.: "i'�' • � � :it�_� � * �„ �,"
+� � '�, � :, � �a � r_ ��: :� �� � r �_' �i ; �i � � �_ � � i ' ; � � � n ,� :
ln', i �j�'� ti � �'i
t:l�cBtdOl] L� 14bStI8C$ � . °TOir�s
• � ,.� ., , � - _
_. ..
� :.��, � . � . . � .� ._. � � .,
�'Y 2�if (OZJR} SIG2dAii?� OI�T T�S P.PPLICAiiOAT, I I}E� '1C�iAT�I'� THE BEST O� A/!�i
�io�GE, Ti� IfPI�ORNi�►'iiQI1 PR,��IID� I-iit C ,`•% .
� .�c-a...t°-+'t' �° . _ c:C�.r--�t
Signatur� of Appli�t --.� . ''�
I�tame ofApplicant (typedlpriated) • �- �Z-Y' ��t 1 r;j �' . �/ C� � &- 6-�'
5i��ttme of Properly Osvner � -�i-� ��• �d�'. I�
� ` '';�j
• I�Ia�e of Prropetiy OvNner {ty�dlprint,ed} � -
•a.:�::..� r'! �w
Phoae IJumb�r of O�er
��������������*����������*��$$������������*��*����**������*��***�*�*��������*����������������*��
' �'OR OF�ICE T7SE O�.I'
Dat� of Subx�ittaR ��- 5'� U �
Date of Acc�ptauce .� — S� CJ � ' �SSi�xed to:
Pla�nir�� Case I�IO. �J� O�- O o� b0-day I.imit l 20�day li�it '
t�:�^r�J-�al
Fees �sid: Aaco�t # Check � Rer,�apc #
,�ppYicasio�: .� t� � • S � t7 3 `� t4 � �4� �
Par�c Dedlca�o�: - . .
sfts: .
. � : .,� �
f�C�A
.� �- � ' 1� �.., �� � �`
�3:�AT�a1CiROL'�1l'S1COR�ID1Ei/1FORMS�E��P.FOI� Y/9�
�
January 31, 2001
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
City of Mounds View
2409 Nighway 10
l�ounds View, MN 56112-1499
R�: Minr�esata Irnstitute af Public Fteatih � Propose� Office �u�Iding
Site F'lan Revie�nr �ubr�iital
�ilvenriern� Estat�� r �UD
M�ur�ds View, IUiinnesota
��4� �roject#57301-OOi48
Dear Jim,
A S S O C I A T� S
On behalf of fhe Minnesota Institute of Public Health, i'ope Associates is submitting for
your review and approval, site plan revisw documents for a proposed Office building io
be locafed on a 1.9 acre site wifhin the Silverview Estates PUD, near the intersection of
,_j Silver Lake Road and Hwy 10.
�reaject Descrip�ion
The proposed buiiding is a 93,992 gross square foo�single story strucfiure. It has been
planned to accommodate a future single story horizonfal expansion of 3,000 5F, and a
possible fufure second story expansian of C,0�0 Sf..
The construction materials will be a combination of face brick piers, concrete siEica
masonry unit base, a(uminum windows w/ bronze #inted insulat�d glass, horizontal
exterior insulation fnish system (�IFS) above the windows, and a sloped asphait shingle
roof.
Aboufi th� 11�innesoia ln�titute ofi �ublic F��alth
Since its inception in 9972 the Minnesoia lnstitute of Public Heafth (M1PH) has engaged
in deve(oping research-tesfed, powerfully communicaied advice on how people can take
be#ter care of themselves.
A 509 c.3 nonprofft tax-exempt organization based in Anoka, Minnesota, MlPH has been
part of healih and safefiy prograrn and policy development in our state, and more recently
throughout the country. Prevention is the key and messages, training, communify
consulietion and prograrn deveEopment is what MIPH with its staff of 37 and consulting
contrac#ors numbering over 900 do.
Architects
fnterior Designers
Visible exampies of the work of MIPH include yellow bumper stickers thaf say "SiARi 1255 Energy ParEc Drive
SEEING MOTORCYCL�S", staffing the Minnesota Gambling Problems Helpline, St. Paul, Mhl 55108-5718
Phone: (65'f } 642-9200
Fax: (651) 642-'I 101
many tabacco use prevention curricula, posiers and media campaigns, among other
efforts usuaEly on contract with the Sta4e of Minnesofa, the Federal govemment, or a
variefy of Foundations and organizaiion fee-for-service arrangements.
In 1998 MIPH negoiiated a formal affiliatian with Slue Cross and Bfue Shield of
Minnesota. The two organizations hav� complemenfied each other's missions sinc� that
time.
Staberfission
Included herewith as part of this submission are copies of the follawing documents:
Develapment Application (including fees), (12) sets of large scale drawings (24" x 36" and
(1) set of reductions {8-1/2" x 11 ")
-issued wiih submittal review da#e of 1131/2001
• A0.1 Title sheet
� A0.2 Partifiion Types, Cade �ata, Abbreviatians
• Site survey
� A1.1 5ite Plan
• A2.1 �irst Fioor F�ian
• A3.1 Exterior Elevations
• A5.1 Building and Wa{E Sections
• C1.0 Civi! Title Sheet
� C2.0 Grading, EJtility & Erosion Control Plan
• C3.(3 Details
• L1 Landscape Pian
� E1.2 prefiminary Site Photametric
We will p[an on Ehis praject being presented at the February 21 S� Planning Commission
meeting, with action being iaken af . the March- 'it�' Pfanning Commission Meeting. �
Assuming approval and recommendation at fhat meeting, we will assume that final
approval for fhe project wil! occur at the March 26�h Cifiy Council Meeting. We are
scheduled to issue Construction Documents for permit application on March 21st, 2004.
Jim, please feel free to ca!! with any questions regarding this submitta(.
Sincerely,
AQP� AS50CIA7ES,INC.
Steven R. Doughty
, Architect/Project Manager
cc: Jerry Jaker, Minnesota institute of P�ablic Health
Jeanne Krzmar�ick, Blue Cross BEue Shield
JeFF Dzuril<, McGough Cansfrucfion
Brian iVlundstock, Sunde Engineering
G:1513071009 48\corrlciiy013120Q1,doc
�
,01i29/�1 16:48 U�1iTEB PRl�'ERTIES � 96516�356?3
J��ro���m�l �4 a ��P r��l�s B��°st��
�,}
0
0
' � �, "+,',
� � � �.,.,;°
� �f� i� �
� i
i i�' �
♦,� j
�
�e -�������2
� ��
�
:�
r
� � q�
� �i �
� � .�
`if � ' :? i ' ��. �
��, � t � r--� �
' - :e': , . ,,;. ,._ :
r._
i, y� �
. ... ..,. . . _ ..
1, : �
��: ) � �-': .'...f%
�
.. _, ,. � �t .
t ` .= 1 i>
�: /. � r .:',. ' � � }
Y_ . . �_•.. , ? Y; � i �.- � �
�'� "'l , .:..� .
� , .. . . _� � „ . � �'' � r '=. ! :� . ^,
i
� - . . .. ,�; .' ,�
� ,� ��, :
r � rr; .
6:�i�c
, �, r
�1. .. �. �, .
A
�a + �
-�� :� _
ri k 1 :
��:L . -'l".li;. '1 a-,�
r.
0
i..:�
`-�
f�0 D 452 CJ�2 :
P_��
.�� i
�
�
�
� .. . . .
�� ry . ..
� �
� - - - - -- - - -
�+���k ��a��� A`q �� �°p���A`'� �o�"{w�1po �ay��
o ra� p g��qp��� D� "S ahi�'o pKO�
P.-.o �� �� � �pQ e �O �p �� 4�0°0�
.p �p,� v� N.-." V �+�r�p� �.. N� m� � y� "� �'" ..
t' 7. �p s W ��6 p `C ki
� v �� A p O N � � p �
C �' -- � --� ° ��
�� .- �"�ro�. m
� b- p' .i y� g c� m e e
����� ����� ����� �y�b� p���.�, ��rp�
�o °��p � P��'� � �'°C `-Oea�' awm °w
�� �� ��� � @ � �
. N
-�� m
� � ��
�
O
�
.
.
►;
�
a
[ �
�
$
s���
ra q
$��s
nod�
� a�
1
�,
ii
�
G`
,L'
��
,,.
ri •
r..
.
� .o��
� �� / .:
� � �
.;;, � �
m � ��
� ��
�. , ��
�
� �
� �
� �
� O -
� �
� �
,
.
�
_
,
.
�� H
� � S N
� f � ` ✓° � K O
� ^
� , � ,�� 90,� o� d
.. �� s��q �� N J
�
Zoning Map
8n�� UVYV
��?� i� $���
30�0 8025 8026
.. i30 t 6
79�t0 8005 . 800d
7990
� -� 798D
,9� �
' !/� � 79B0�
�
' � 7950
� 79�4
� 7932
��� ��
? d
CO
79 i __ i" cw
7$60
7$5a
�786
778C
7771�
776$
7i2P
771�
7710
7670
7660
i644
76�4
7820
7&b0
759 �
7588
7�84
7572
758Q
8C�45 8040 g042 8445 �U�G 8D51
803a 8032
8�025 8�33 804a 80�5
so2s �
8� 15 p� 8Q25 8C? 1� $�1 i 800D 8t�L 1
$005 So� �049 ' 8�06 Sb1t
7985 BOQ4 7981 i990 s, 7581 �990 t] 7989
: , ... . a � .
7975 7�70 7979 I980 7$69 7880 7979
_. . „ ...... . _.. _.... _ . .
7965 7964 7959 i370 7965
7969
7�55 7956 � 7949 7954 7959 7966
7�40 7945 7946 '��27
7933 795�
;g,3� 7935 7930 3s�7
, 79tJ0 . _
u� u'� rn _ � �
r
; ; � ' � � � � 79D0 790 i � ' cp
N , N �'`1 .��� ��Q1 l�i N N � N; N
���V��� r
W p�
�� h°���'� a '� �,� 7886 � 7891 N� 78�0 7895 N�
' ��
`` � 7885 7868 78fi7
�'��a�s �
��� `��` � 7877 7854 i651
,�� 7870 �va
�,0� `�.� ,� `� 78F�3 7$42 7$41
����� Y$57 783Q Q
�
�� -°�Q.�� � << 7820 � 7815
i1`1 `Y� ? ��r�� 7$1 �
�� �Jf . j 78f1� � 7$49 -
ryQ ' �° i
ti�t 6�2 �c, � �_4 �84�
i�'�� ��d� `�� �4,'�1 ��'` 7767
co `� i�' 776 i
� �
, 7735 � ,�� �,`°� �-' � 7755
� .. . % � ��� 7745 r
� , �. 7715 v
�
�
� � �o��
�°�� �'�N �
ra
Item # 7
- Cliy Of MoZd7ZG�S T�ieW
� �� °
��
MeetingDate: Tebrua�°y 21, 20�.1
T'itle:
C�NSIDERA.TI�N OF RESOLUTION 647-01, A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND
APPROVING THE PLANNING AND ZONTNG COMMISSION BYLAWS
dntro�uctaono
The Planning Connmission's Bylaws staie that they [the Bylaws] shall be reviewed on an annual
basis, at the first regular meeting in February.
I3ascu��ion:
The Planning Commissian discussed the Bylaws at their meeting on February 7, 2001 and
;�) determined that minor corrections were required. The first correction results from a City Councii
- decision to eliminate Commission liaisons. The second correction is less a correction than it is a
reformatting of the information so that Emergency Special Meeiings became a separate
�aragraph.
Recomartetadataon:
Approve attached Resolution 647-01, a resolution amending and approving the Planning and
Zoning Commission Bylaws.
�,,;,�°�.�it�#.�° ����`�
Jaznes Ericson
Community I)evelopment Director
Atiachments:
1. Resolution 647-01
2. Planning and Zoning Comznission Bylaws, revised 2/21/Ol
N:IDATA1GI20iJPS\COIvIDEV�PLANCOMMIBI'LAWS1Bylaws Report -- �'eb 2I, 2001.doc
I; ?1= '' �{ t� ��?
• .1 !�,.. ,,� �,;. �
`�_ ��� � ��i .�� � ��. �1 : '� � =�1 `, `,
�' �; �'�= i � •' � .
1��� 1. ,,. �,.
. . . �. - ��� �: ���, �, � � �` � , ' � �; ;. '� ,�� ' ' ;�� ' ; ,: ;
� .� ''��: 1,�, ��. _I �': � : � ����.. � , • ':�� ,- � �.. ���., ; . ; �� �, ` ;� � ; -��; �,
WHEREAS, Seciion 401,06, Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires the
1'lanning and Zoning Commission to adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its
business, and %r annual review of these bylaws; and,
W�IEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted its year 2001 review of
its bylaws and has determined that minor revisions are needed.
NOW, TI�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the bylaws for the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be revised as shown in "Exhibit A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this ref�rence, and that the bylaws as shown in "Exhibit A" supersede previous adopted versions
of the bylaws.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these revised bylaws shall be kept on file with the
City Clerk-Administrator and the Community Development Department, and shall be forwarded
to the City Council for its acceptance.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staf� io forward this
resalution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Attest:
Adopted tl�us 21st day ofJFebruary, 2001.
Gary Peierson, Chairperson
James Ericson, Community T�evelopment Director
N:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDEVIPLANCOMM�BYLAWS�PC RBSOLUTION 647-01.DOC
�xtai�ar A
Resolutian 647-�1
�' ' ,, • ° !- ,....
PI�1l�IllTG .A►�l� �OI�ITNG �Ol'�MI�S��I�T ���t�S
(Revised February 21, 2001}
I. AiJTHO1tITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission (Bylaws)
are established in accordance with the Mounds View Municipal Code �ection 401.06. Subd. 7
"The Commission shall adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its business."
Where t�zere 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 Mur►icipal Code shali
govern. (For purposes of simplicity, ihe Plaxaning and Zoning Cornmission may hereinafter be
refarred to as the Plaruiing Commission or the Commission.)
Ii. L',AJ�� AY�A� �A` ID 1L A..L''� Y9" �Sg � O' 1L` VV 1''l�iJ �1@'lE1�Il.91V1%`!1'i�:
A. ADOPTIONAIVDAMENDMENT: The Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolut�on by an
affirmative vote of the majority of inembers of the Plan�ling and Zoning Commission
appointed as voiing mambers, and sha11 be placed on file with the Ci�y Clerk-
Administxator and the Community Development De�artment. A copy of the bylaws shall
be forwarded to the City Council for its information. Any amendments to the Bylaws shall
be adapted by Resolution in the saane manner as the orzgznai Bylaws.
Ii. ANNUAL REVIEW; The By�aws s�aali be reviewed on an annual basis at the first regulax
meeiing of the Commission in February.
III. I�IE1VI�iEItSI�IP Ali'I) 'V1�C�tCIES
Vacancies on the Platining Commission shall be filled in accordance with the Municipal Code,
Sectians 401.02 and 401.03.
IV. OFFICEI�
A. OFFICERS NAMED; The officers of the Plaivning Commission shall consist of a
chairperson and vice-chairperson. Tkze Commission may create and fiil such other offices
from its members, as it may determine, to t�•ansact Commission business. Tn addition, the
Director of Communiiy Development, or his or her designee, shall act as the recarding
secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeting minutes.
B. ELECTIONS; TERMS
Chairperson: At the first meeting in January, the Commission sha.il coi�duct an election
in order to make its recommendafion for the chairpersan, foilowing the procedure in
�ection N.B.3. The name of the person reconnrrzended for chairpers�n sha11 be
forwarded to the City Council for action at its next nneeting in Jazauary. Based upon the
recommendation of the Pla�lning Commission, the Mayor, with the approval of the City
Council, sha.il appoint the cha.irperson of the Commission each year.
2. Vice-Chairperson: The Plannii�g Commission shali eiect a vice-claa.irpersoz� each year at
its first meeiing in January, following the procedure in �ection IV.B.3.
,,
'}
City of Mounds View
Planning and Zoning Cominission - Bylaws Page 2
Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson shall invite nominations from
Planning Commission mernbers. After nominations have been received, the
chairperson sha11 entertain a motion to close nominaiions. If such motion is made and
passed, and more than one nominatian has been made, the chairperson sha11 distribute
ballots to the Commission members and each member shall write his or her selection
on the ballot, The recording secre#ary shall tally 1:he ballots and announce the nominee
receiving the most votes, In the even# of a tie, the recording secretary shall announce
the nominees tied in the voti�ag and balloting sha11 be xepeated 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 �enabers present vote in the affirrnative for the
nominee, ihe nominee shall be elected.
4. Assumption of Duties: The Chairperson and �Iice Chairperson sha11 assume office at
the first meeting in February of each year.
5. Term of Office: The cha.irperson and vice chairperson shall serve one year terms, and
may be re-elected to additional terms in accordance.with this �ection N.B.
C. D UTIES OF OFFICERS: The chairperson sha11 preside over the meetings of the Planning
Coxntxussion, and sha11 have the authorify to add or cancel reguiar meetings and to call
special meetings as provided in 5ecrion VI. The vice chairperson shall assume the duties
of the chairperson, in the absenca of the chairperson. In the event of the absence af bath
the chairperson and vice-chairperson, those meznbers present shall elect a temporary
chairperson to preszde ovar the meeting.
��z��.;, �;s
V. L�SOI�T T� C��JI�CTL: The City Council ���: Y° <;� appoint from arnong its members a
Liaison to the Commission on an annual basis. It is expected that the Council Liaison ��vill attend
the Commission meeiings on a regular basis. In the event of ihe absence of the Council Liaison
at a Commission meeting, a Commission rnember may be appointed by the chairperson to
represent the Planning Commission at the next regular City Council meeting or at the ineeting
where the City Council wiil be considering the planr�ing cases acted upon by the Planning
Commission in the absence of the Council Liaison.
VI. 11��E'�'iI���
A. TYPES OFMEETINGS; SCHEDULE: The annual meeting schedule of the Co�nm�ission
shall be adopted by Resolution at the first regular tneeting in December for ilae following
year.
l. Regular Meetings: Subject to the adopted meeting scheduie, the Commission's regular
meetings will occur on the first ancl third Wednesdays of each month for the purpose of
convening public hearings, making recommendations to the Ciiy Council, conducting
business which requires a vote o;f the Commission, convening as the Board of
Adjustment and App�als, conducting long-range planning functions and other official
business.
City of Mounds View
Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 3
2. Agenda. Sessions; An Agenda Session is an informal session of the Platining
Commission, typically held immediately following adjournment of a Regular or Special
meeting, at which time the Planning Gommission may review nninutes, informally
review proposed or pending planning cases or ordinance amendxnenis, discuss previous
actions of the City Council or ofiher Comrrussions, and to perform other matters not
requiring a vote of the Commission.
3. Special Meetings: From time to time, special meeiings may be called in order to
process significarzt caseloads, to review works in progress such as comprehensive plan
updates or xnunicipal code revisions, or to undertaka a retreat or strategic planning
session, either amongst itself or in the company of the City Cour�cil or other
commissions. Special meetings can be proposed by any Commission member or at the
request of the Director of Comrnunity Development, yet must be approved by a
majoriiy vote of the Commission.
�S ss3� * -'�s£*�c '£ .���� �,�:.-•.,,;,.:.,
!��� ����n�������>�"������ Emergency special meetings can be called via written
notice to the Director of Community Development by the Chairperson or two
Commission members, or by the Director of Community Development. (Emergency
special meetings are thase in which the subject matter is of such an immediate concern
that it cannat be delayed untii the next regular meering of the Planning Commission.)
The Director of Community Development shall post and rnail a notice of any special
meeting in accordance with State Statutes. Planning Commission members shaIl be
no�ified by telephone and rn writing, if possibie, at Ieast seven days prior to a special
meeting.
5. 4 Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may be canceled by the
chairperson or Community Developznent Director in the event that there are no items of
business requiring the attention of the Commission, or for Iack of a quorurn, or in
response to inclement weather or for any other good and sufficient reason. Members of
the Commission shall be notified by teIephone of any meeting cancellation. A notice oF
the meeting cancellation shall be posted as required by State Statutes.
B. QUORUM: E1 majoriiy of the number of vating members appointed to the Commission
shall consiitute a quorum,
C. CONDUCT OFMEETINGS; ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Chairpersan: If neither the chairperson nor the vice chaixpexson is present to
conduct a meeting of the Plannii�g Coznmission, tt�e Plaruiing Commission may elect a
rneetir�g chair from among those members present prior to the commencement of
business. The election shall follow the procedures set forth in Sec�ion N.B.3, except
that the Community Developmant Director, or his or her designee, shail conduct the
eiection.
2. Open Meeiing Law: Meetings sha11 be conducted in accardance with ihe State of
Minnesota Open Meeting Law {Minn. �tatutes �71.705}.
City of Mounds View
Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 4
3. Adjoumment: Meetings sha11 adjourn at or before 11:00 p.m. unless a two-thirds
majority of fhe members present agree to extend the time of adjournment. If there is no
objection, the Chairperson may declare the meeting adjownned without the necessity of
a motion or vote by the Comrnission.
D. MINLITES: Minutes shall be recorded for regular meetings and each commission member
shall receive a copy af the unapproved minutes for review and approva� at a succeeding
meeiing. Minutes shall be approved by motion. Approved zaainutes shall be the official
record of the businass condncted and actians taken by the P1�Zning Commission.
Coznrnission members may request copies of approved minutes after they have been
corrected, if necessary, and signed as ap.proved. Copies of the approved rninutes shall be
filed with the Community Developinent Department. Unapproved minutes sha11 be clearly
marlced "DRAFT"; approved minutes shali be marked "APPROVED". A policy statemen#
regarding the content and format af the minutes shall be on file with tk�e Director of
Community Development which may be reviewed from time ta time as needed.
VI. �tI+�RIVi�'I`IOI��,I., PACI�'T�: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans and
additional informafion, as appropriate, for each item placed on the agenda for any regular or
speciat meeting. The Commission packet should be delivered at least four days prior to the
meeting. Each Cormmisszoner is responsible for reviewing the material wiihin the packet prior to
'' fihe meeting.
VII, PI�OFESSI�I�TAI, COI�dSCJ�.'�'AI�1TS; Advice from, consultation with, and/or requests for
review by the City Attorney, City Engineer, City Planning Agency, or other paid consultazrts shall
be in accordance with the Municipal Code, 5ection 401.07.
VIII. S�JI'P�EIVIEl�`TAItI' PiJBI,�CA'I'�QI�1S: All Cammission members shall receive a copy of the
Mounds Vie�v Municipal Code and a copy of the Municipai Comprehensive Plan as well as other
materials provided by tlae Czty Council or City Sta.ff. These materials shall be retained by each
commission rnember and returned to the Community I�evelopment Director upon the member's
resignation or termination of appointment.
IX. CO1�tI)�JCT OF I1�IEIdi�Elt3
A. ATTENDANCE: Commission rnembers shall advise the designated Staff inember or the
Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Planning
Commission tneeting. Any member attending less than 20 meetings per year without the
consent of the Commission sha11 ba deemed to have vacated the affice, and such vacancy
shall be filled by the City Council pursuani to Section 401,03, Subd. 1. A leave of absence
may be granted by the consent of the Commission.
�. C4NFLICT OFINTEREST.�
i. General Standard; No Commissioner sha11 be appoint�d with private or personal
interests likely to conflict with the general public interest. If any person appointed to
the Commission shall find tha# their private or personal interests are involved in any
City of Mo�u�ds View
Plannui,�aud Zoiung Comnussion - Bylaws Page 5
matter coming before the Commission, fihey sha11 disqualify themselves from talcing
�art in any discussion or action on the mafter; alternatively, they may ba disquatified by
a two-thirds (2/3) majoriiy vote of the Commissioners in attendance.
2. Conflict Due to Economic Interests: A Comix�issioner has a conffict of interest if, in his
or her discharge of off'icial duties, would be required 10 take an action or n�alce a
decisian that would substantially affect the Commissioner's finaneial interests or those
of an associated business, unless the effect on the Commissioner is no greater than on
ofii�er members of the Commissioner's business classification, profession, or
occupation. In the e`Tent a conf(ict of interest e�rists with respect to a particular matter
before tha Commission, the Connmissioner shail disqualify himself or hersetf from
talcing part in any discussion or action oiz the matter.
C. EXPARTE CONTACTS: Ex parte contacts are coniacts between individuals seeking to
influence the decisions of the Planning Corninissian and individual Commission members
outside the meeting forum. Such contacts include meetings with project proponents,
residents, property owners, and citizens separate from Cornmission meetings,
communication beiween Commission members outside the me�iing farurn, telephane calls
or letters which attempt to ir�fluence a Commissioner's opinion on a matter which will be
subject to the Commissioner's vote. Whei� the Pianni�ig Comxnission is invalved in a
znat�er which is io be heard and decided by the Coz�nmission (e.g. variances}, Planning �
Cor�amissioners shall indicate to the person contacting them that such contact is _
inappropriata and a11 testimony needs io be offared at the heas-ing to ensure a fair hearing
for all parties. In all other cases, Planning Commissioners should di�courage such contacts
and should avoid expressing any opinion as #o the merits of the case. When ex parte
contacts occur, the Planning Commissioner is respansibla for notifying the Community
Development Director, and for con��e�ing the substance of the communication at the next
commission meeting at which the matter discussed is under consideration.
ATTEST:
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
James Ericson, Community Develo�ment Director
N:�DATAIGROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMMIBYLAWS1BYLt1W5 2001 -- WI'PH CHANGES.DOC
-'
PItOCE�DII`iGS �F'TI�E IVIOUIVIDS VIEi�I PI.�11�TIl�IG COI�/IIi�IISSION
CTTY �F I�OIII�II)� V�EW
. . .. �L` % �OVL\A A9 �ALV.EV��OB� �
Ite�ut�atr-l�/Ieet�ng
Feb�uary 'i, 2001.
<. 1VIo�nd� '�ievv City,Hall
2401 �Iigbway 10;1!/Iounds View, TViI� 551J;2 �
.�
lo �all to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:OQ;�
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Cornmissioners
Cerny.
Members Absent: None.
Also 1'resent: Community Developm
5pecial Pla�i
Continuation
Review Plarii
Planning
se I�To. ';
Code Re
iiniission
f Reports/Items of Information
, I,`'
,,,,: �
irperson and Planriing Cornmission Reports
2001.
en, Miller and
Page
1
6
6
6
7
3. Spec'ial Pla�nyng C`ase I�oa SP-0�2-00
Community Development Directar Ericson explained to the Cammission he had gone
through and loolced ai the whole code and built upon the draft from November to provide
this revision of the sign code.
Mounds View Planning Commission
12eg�la� li�iee���g
February 7, 2001
Page 2
Director Ericson explained there was a table in the staff report that shows what changes
were made to the code.
Director Ericson explained staff revised the way baruier size is determzned based on a
20% ratio of the frontage. There is also a new definition for window signage. > , I
Director Ericson asked the Cozxznnission how they felt about "tKe proposed structure of the
ordinance or any changes made by Staff.
Commissianer Johnson questioned whether the real estate
changed to thirty-two (32) square feet.
Director Ericson indicated he would make the requested
allow a thirty-two (32) square foot real esta#e sign,
Director Ericson read the wall sign definition
should be re-worded to disallow roof signs ur
Chair Stevenson suggested changing
proposed Subd. 4b of Section 1008.0
Commissioner Miller asked
Chair St
whether
Commissioner:`T
get a permit and
indi
irector Ericson expla�
�rmits and by default,
e allowed to have fre
ant to restrict that. :.:, �
on P
�utld�ng elevation to bu
� on'Page 21'; for clarity
the sign `code the use of
_
ns �llowed in B 1 was
ge to tHe s�gn ordinance to
ts and suggested the section
.ntegral, feature of the roof.
lding face or side in
purposes.
pennants was covered. ;° ;�
here in the sign code pennants were covered ar
�reviously that would govern pennants.
under {e) if only businesses were required to
�mmercia�, industrial or multi-family residential would need
nd R-2 properties would not need a permit. Homeowners
of expression signs per Minnesota Statutes and Staff did not
aden ques#ioned whether flags on private property was an issue the
ssion needed to regulate.
Directar Ericso�i said the code could exempt governmental or national flags or any type
of non-conlxrkercial flags.
Commissioner Miller said she did not understand subpart 5(b) under window signs.
Mounds View Planning Commissian
17e�ular IV€eeti�g
Februaiy 7, 2001
Page �
Director Ericson explained the point was meant to be if there is a ground to ceiling
window the business would be allowed to have signage no further than four feet off the `:
ground. If a business has a window four (4) feet hzgh and three (3) feet off the;ground far
a total of seven (7) feet off the ground then the business would be allowed one {1} foot af
signage area. The Icey is to maintain an area for visibility for public'"safety concerns. The
ianguage in the ordinance allows 25% of the window fio be covered provided the four (4}.
foot requirement is �net.
Commissioner Johnson stated he had a comment from an iri�
concerning public safety with window signa�e. This person
section of the window available for visibility for the public �
at a gas station
f�e station left a
>ue:; ;
Director Ericson said the cade could define what portion of the window
left clear of signs for visibility issues. He stated he would.look at ather
see how they regulaie window signage for pubiic,safety,issues.;;;,
Chair Stevenson indicated he felt ihe Commission had
window signs for public safety concerns
Director Ericson indicated on Page
off tha language allowing Council,
<_,� meet the sign code requirements ,°7
=__ applicatian for anything nat allowe
Chair Stevenson xequesfe
Development Director be
CommissionerMi�ler ask
,
Director Ericson indicatei
Commissioner Miiler qiie
vuould fall under the code
to be
to
the
under Issuaiice of PermiY'Conditions Staff crossed
issue special'approval for a pennit thai does not
�is section �ivas re-worded io require a variance
by code
n stating a permit will be granted by the Corrimunity
state tl�e Community Development Department.
the fi�ues on Page 10 Section (H}.
came out of the current code.
where signs referring to where a chureh is located
r Erieson explairied it would fall under directional signs and directional signs are
located in, the right of way.
''pointed out the code does not allow directional signs in R1 and R2
Director Ericson indicated the code could be changed to allow no direciional signs on a
residential property.
Chair Sievenson suggested adding a notaiion allowing for directional sigms in the right of
vvay only in Rl and R2 districts with approval of the appropriate governmentai agency.
'
Mounds View Pla�ning Commission
Reguiar I�Ieeting
February 7, 2001
Page 4
Commissioner Kaden questioned whether allowing direciional signs in the public right of
way may be a problem because the first iive feei of resideniial property is right,of way:'
Director Ericson explained there may be more than f ve feet of;right of way on resideritial
property and that any sign in the right of way would need to be`approved by the ','
appropriate goveinmental agency either way,
Com�nissioner I�aden asked if the code could be
xight of way in residential disiricts.
Director Ericson stated he did not believe it would be an issue' as
be obtained from the proper governmental agency eifher way.
Director Ericson indicated Council had app�
without allowing the four (�} square foot of
(S} feet of the right of way.
Commissioner Miller stated she did
signs.
Director Ericson agreed that the �
the lan�ua�e.
sign issue.
Commissioner Gerri�
Director.Ericson saic
regulating inflatable
Director Ericson que
from "act of God" to
It was #he consent of
woraing was contusin
a sign in the
;ion wi11 need to
3 not allowing s�gns;within five
;tion I dQ8 09, Subd. 1 f, ground
g and indicated he would revise
wanted to address the inflatable
to limit height and width.
other cities' sign codes for inform�,tion oz�
�d whether the Commission was comfortable with the change
of nature" in the billboard section on Page 23.
Cornmission the change to "act of nature" was appropriate.
r`I�aden asked Director Ericson to review a sentence on Page 24
4(b) as it seemed to end prematurely.
Director Ericson indicated the sentence was incomplete and said he would research the
issue and edit the sentence for the next meeting.
;�
Directorr Ericsori aslced whether the Planning Commission r�vanted to prohibit flashing
signs in areas other than just areas visible from the freeway. `�'
Mounds Vzew Planning Commission
12egut�r I�✓ieeting
February 7, 2001
Page 5
The Planning Commission decided to discuss flashing signs at the next meeting.
Chair Stevenson indicated that according to the definition of flashing signs fhe City lias
flashing signs within the City.
Dit•ector Ericson said the Mermaid sign has the capability
flashing. The City Hall sign does flash.
Director Ericson explained he had tal�en out all language ori
seven criteria, as he did not feel it was necessary io have the
Chair Stevenson noted most non-complying signs are
Director Ericson indicated the changes being proposed
of the signs into compliance. Any sign not allawed �iy'
allowed to continue until destroyed by an act of nature
more.
Director Ericson indicated the �niscellaneous signage rf
drafted section and inquired as to whether the Planning
with the language. He indicated he did noi believe this
make any of the covered esiablzsliments non complyin�
The F
Staff.
Director
the City.
5 '' Iteviev✓
his
it was
�ylaws
1 but he has not seen
25 "spelling out the
�uaee in :that section.
�ated in R4 ar�d RS;�istricts.
� the. ardinance would 3iring 9d%
hanges to the ordinance would be
� cliai�ged by more than 50% or
�uireinents on Page 23 is a newiy
�omrriission was comfortable
rew provision of the code would
with the language as drafted by
a slide show of various signs tluoughout
�r Ericson explained the bylaws of the Commission require that the Commission
the bylaws during the first meeting in February. The Iast revision was last year
re were only riiinor changes made. Council eliminated the council liaison
is>;and that' is referenced in fhe bylaws so Staff suggests the Ianguage be changed
to make''it more generic to allow for appointing oi a liaison at Council discretion.
Commissioner Miller asked if special meetings and ernergency special meetings could be
separated to clean up the language.
The Commission pointed out a few typographical errors in the bylaws and aslced that they
be cleaned up.
i
Mounds View Plaruling Commission
I�egular I�deet�ng
Febniary 7, 2001
Page b
Comn�issioner Millar asked that the new chair, vice chair and cornrnunity development
director be added oz� the back page of the bylaws.
6. Review PIannia�g Commission Overview
Director Ericson explained this item was a request of
one-page handout outlining the responsibilities of the
City.
Commissioner Miller questioned whether acting on code
changing zoning codes as needed should be added to the
Directar Ericson indicated Staff would edit the
to the Commission for #heir records.
Commissianer Johnson left the rneeting at
7. S�aff R�poris
a. Prev�ous
►+.•�i
inte�net and'`f
approvedthe
p.m.
Council hacl requested a�,
�mmissioiis within the .
and
cop�es
ported Cauncil`had approved Ordinance No. 672, Home Qccupations,
uare foot arid right of way provisions. He also reported the Plaizning
ie asked to.look at :the ordinance again to address issues with the
mer�e that Council feels:this redraft did not address. Council also
mg Code Ordinance at the meeting on 7anuary 22, 2001.
At the last work session Staff brought to Council's attention the possibility of purchasing
7890;;Groveland Road, wh�ch is, at.the intersecfiion of Highway 10 and Groveland and
owned by Greg Johnson: � There are f�ur properties back to back being mariceted together.
The'City's Cornprehensive Plan denotes a mixed use and the City would like to see
redevelopment in that area. Mr. Johnson has an offer to purchase his property ai�d rather
than split off from the other three parcels being offered foz sale he brought this matter to
St�ff to deterrnine.yvhether Council would lilce to purchase the parcel for redevelopment.
icson explained Councii had requested Sfaff oxder an appraisal of the
taff has done so and will make recommendations io Co�ancii based on the
Director Ericson explained he had asked Mr. Johnson to leave the roam vvhile Staff vvas
tallcing about this ta guard against any potential eliminate a conflict of interest issues as
was advised by the City Attorney.
: ',
;
� �_'�i
! r:i
';
Mounds View Planning Commission
Itegula�° IVieetin�
February 7, 2041
Pa�e 7
Directar Ericson indzcated Council had discussed the golf course feasibility siudy,
Northwest Youth and Family Services, and there was discussion on assessments ar�d
street renovation and consti-uction.
�a LTpcomin� P�anning Cases
Commissioner Johnson returned to the meeting at 8:55 p
Director Ericson explained there is an upcoming planning
of Pinewood Elementary as well as a planning case for an
View Estates Iocation.
ce Zonin� News
Director Ericson explained Staff would con#iz�ue
informational purposes.
Direc�or Ericsan noted there is a Sensible La
handed out a brochure with infrormation conc
any Commissioners wishing to attend ,
Director Ericson indicated he mayb,e attendi
February 28, 20Q1 from 11 30. a m>'to 2:40 p
I�irectflr Ericsori;:nassed`o�t a conv'of Ordin�
Director Ericson
deny Mr. Wilson
attached to hts ga
the Crty to"indica
Coun;cil passed a
structiire into cor.
Ericson
l the noi
Use Coaliti
ise involving the expansion
:fice buiildin� at the Silver
coming up and
City will pay for
said the meeting is on
that was approved by Council.
ted Counc�l reaffirined the Planning Commission's decision to
�eal for a variance for a zero-foot setback for a lean-to siructure
Prior,to Caiuicil actuaiiy hearing the appeal Mr. Wilson contacted
would be bringing the s#ructure into compliance with City Code.
utio�z"denying the appeal and requiring Mr. Wilson to bring the
;�ce w�tkiin thirty (30} days of the date of the resolution.
welcomed Chair Stevenson and Vice Chair Miller as Council
at its last mee�ing.
amc� Planre�n� Comm�sszoner•s' lteports
There were no reports.
9. Adjourn�eni to A�enda Sessoo�
1
i
Mounds View Planning Commission
I�eg�lar P/ieeting
February 7, 2001
Page �
There Uezng no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair 5tevenson
adjourned the meeting at 8:5� p,m.
(The meeting immediately adjour�ed to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
3im Ericson
Community Development Director
;
Transcribed by;
Joan Lenzmeier
°,
Item # 6
���_ ,�:,��_,. , �. �,�._. , . , _,.;. r.. �:_,_� ...... ... ....� �. ���,., �_���� .,._. _ � �� �.... �. ��_�� . - - - -
,_ ... � � _ ,_r _.� .��c�E�,.. ._-r._�.m �.u_�
City of Mounds View
� , ,+ ,1, 1. `� ` :�: 1
_� -
Meeting Date: March 7, 2001
, _.� . ,,.::. == - � , . -
. .,.. .,. , .... .a
�_.., . ,.
„_..?,r,r�'�.._..- ,�__':�.. �...��.i... ,.,..:.��. ..... _ ra.:, ,..,,,..<.... ..,..:..
1'1�r6.
CONTINUATION �F PLANNING CONlMIS�ION REVIEW OF CHAPTER 1008 OF THE
MOUNDS VIEW MUI�]ICIPAL CODE, "SIGNS."
Irairodttctiona
At its iast meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a third comprehensive draft revision to
the 5ign Code. Based upon the discussions of that meeting, staff was provided further input and
direction ar�d has compiled the fourth con�prehensive draft revisian to the Code. This report will
address the changes made between the third and fourth drafts as well as to address issues raised
by tl�e City Attorney.
I)�scus�aorie
The following changes and /or comments were made with regard to the latest draft of the
ordinance, The changes in the Code are hi.ghlighted in gray for ease of reference. The shading
will be removed upon finai approvaL
Page 2.
Page 3.
Fage 7.
(1008.03
Page 8.
(1008.03
Page 10.
1008.07
Page l2
(i0�8.09)
Page 11.
10�•bS
Page 12.
1008.05
Page 22.
1008.iC
Page 23.
1008.1 t
Page 23.
1008.1(
Page 23.
(1008.I (
Accarding to Scott Riggs (SR), the "abandoned sign" defulition could be vaguely interpreted. Did
not however recommend a chan e.
Based on discussion from last meeting, definition for "flag or pesviant sixingers" was revised Eo
elimuiate xeference to national , state or local flags.
Updated Section reference from 1008.01 to 100�.02.
Updated Section reference from 1008.08(11) to 1008.10, Subd. 7.
SR had a question about tlie required liability insurance amounts and whether the limits have
increased since this Code was drafted. Staff will investi ate this ossibilz .
Subd. 1 g refers to sign content deemed obscene by a court of compe#ent yurisdiction. 5R was
nnaware of any such "obscene words list" hut would check into it. Either way, the language is
ambi ous enou h so that it would nat be a violation of #he FirsY Amendment free s eech.
Subd. lh refers to obsolete sign copy. SR feels this is somewhat subjective though not enough to
warrant changing He did suggest adding language relating to "nuisance signs."
Subd lk refers to signs along freeways. SR feels the added language would eliminate any
otential inconsis#encies with state or federal stahztes.
SR considers Subd. 4a{4) to he vague and open to challenge, yet admitted the likelihood of this
actualty happening woutd be remote, (Disczetionary waiver.}
Added Couucii approval for beacons in Subd. 4c.
Allows for inflatable signs to be attached to the ground in addiiion to a building.
Subd. 4f notes that individual flags, strearners or pennants shail nat exceed one square foot.
Sign Code Review
March 7, 2fl01
Page 2
Page 23. Subd 4g is new and altows grand opening and ather event type signage if approved by Council.
(1008.10} SR Fel# this cauid be problematic in that there are no standards and so is somewhat subjective.
Whiie I thinlc it is a good idea, I wony about the amount of time it would take to get the request
before the Council. Could this be addressed adrninistrativeiy if it did not include beacons?
Fridle has some ood lan ua e on this to ic, which I have attached to this re ort.
Page 24. Subd. 5 refers to Window signs. The text was changed to allow signage above seven feet as was
I008.10 discussed at the meetin .
Page 25. Subd. 7 refers to Campaign signs. While Minnesota Statutes addresses tkzis in Section 211B.045,
(lOQ8.10 SR felt that the lan ua e in our Code could remain sub'ect to additional Ian ua e as noted.
Page 28. This is a new section regarding nonconforming signs. SR reviewed the ianguage and thought it
1008,13 Iooked ood.
With regard to Fridley's temporary outdoor display, sales or promotion of inerchandise cade,
condition, staff feels this is one approach that might better serve Mounds View's needs. Rather
than addressing "G�and Opening & Similar Events" within the Sign Cade, perhaps ihey would be
better addressed in the Zoning Code as an accessory use within business and industriai dish-icts.
Staff wiil look into this further and will attempt to review ather codes as well.
Schedule: Our schedule for the Sign Code review is as follows: (The raw in bold represents #he
next scheduled meeting.)
Action ' Dai�
Review Definitions January 3, 2001
Review Ground Signage Januaay 17, 2001
Review Building Signage February 7, 2001
Review Tem ora Signs Februa 21, 2001
Review of Final Draft March 7, 2001
�'urihex Review of FB�aI l�rafi IVla�ch 21, 2001
Public Hearing A ril 4, 2001
Approve Revision, Forward to Council A ril 1 S, 2001
If we do plan to meet on March 21, Z001, it would be to review one last time the praposed final
draft of the Sign Code revisioi-�.
Cornxnunication & Notification: The Planning Coznmission will recali that for the last meeting, staff
sent out more than 125 letters to Mounds View businesses alerting then� to the proposed revisions and
inviting them to attend the meeting. The Chambar of Commerce also sent out a brief notification to
its members indicating the Commission's review of the Sign Code. No ona attended the meeting nor
did anyone offer any written, telephone or e-mail comments regarding the revisions. As has been done
for each previous revision, the City's website has been updaied to include the proposed draft which
can be viewed at http://tcfreenet.org/org/moui�dsview/si�ncode.htm.
Recomrnendcatio'�r
Review and discuss the proposed Sign Code revisions and direct staff to malce any necessary changes '',
to the proposed Code. If additionai information is anade availabie from the City Attorney regarding
obscene language or any other related issue, staff wi11 pass it on to the Commission.
$ign Code Review
March 7, 2001
Page 3
<JLU� (�C4�"6�
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
I. Sign Code Revision IV
2. Pridley Ordinance 1 t38
G:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SPECPROJ�Sp082-00 {Sign Code)\Sign Code Report - Feb 21, 2601.doc
MAR-01-20�1 11a32 FROM CIiY OF FRIDLEY Td 7843462 P.01»7
,�
��� ��� i ��
� _ � ::.
;► °
�
�39 li�iv��� A�� �� ��idS��, �� � 2
�H��E � (�63) S�� 0
FA� # (P�3) ST�-12ai
� � �f,. � : � _ .►� �=--
, � � � �� 4 - �d � �
_ �� �
� o �3s�—v(
� �
t� u � �� � � �e � �i �
���
0
� �: �;
MAR-81-200i 11�32 FROM CTTY 0� �RIDLEY TO 784346� P.02/07
C�IY'��Ii�� ��= 1 �3�
�� C) i�AI�1C� � I%tC S�C�`I�NS 205.139205014,205.1�,
SECTIOI� 2�5.16 C3� ��RIDL,�4.' C� C�D� PE�T I�3G.�'�
A���SS��� CTS�S ��D ��C�IO� 1 I.10 �ER°T� C'r i'O F��S
_
_ _.
_ , � �-. - - i , � �- � „� - � � . ���� � � �� �� r. � -. �� ; ���� � �r ��� ,��
5���
_ .
�, _ � ,.- .- �,_ - - -. .�
: � �. ;_ =- ��
.-; .. � � -. ' � _ ; . :
...�:- .� a�. r..�
� _. -
ia � �- .��� ����= ��� � �
1. !
�. �CBP� �S�S
�. ACC�SSaY� Y.TS�S
5� Tern �r Qutdo�r I)i 1� S�l�s ar Pr�oxm��io� oiMerchandisc sub°e�t
t� 4h� f�llor�rir� eond'a4ae�s:
a'�e ro o��r shatl �btain a`�'em o �ido�r Di la Lice�s�
�_` frt�m the C� at least Qn� �eek rio te s t�e e�a i. Z1xe ra
�v�mce shati s►gbrr�it the ir�fo�rnat'on r� ui�ed a� the Iic�ns� a� licatiar�.
ihe Citv shall a��rave th� license�r t� cotnm�neert�eat o�the even�.
A Tem o Clutdo�r Ai la License is r� uired whether ch��se
is sold far rofit �r xven aw� as axt of a romatior�.
c� OnI items asseciated rvith the r�r►ci al use ma be di la �d.
L,d iiuee e�+�nts ��r �ar �r� �e�rni�ted and sha€1 occur nQ closcc thar� 2Q
davs a�art.
(e) Six evefxes t�er vear �o� are tiea�ni�ted for rr�ulti-tenant de�etovt��nts. and
shail occur no close� than 20 d�. s a� .
The duratiot� o�each �verBt sh�ll be no Io�x �r th�.n►14 eonsecu�ae� �a s.
'�e �xercha.ridise shat� be di ia �d in a a�nner ti7at does no� irn ede
vehicuIar �affc oY oehe�rise cause unsafe c eonditions.
'�� trae�chandis� shali not be dis la ed �n the b�ulevaar��d or or� �x
l�ndsc� eri area.
���°a tent is te be used th��t��rtY �w'n�r �t�li obt�frt a b�i18i� °t
a�d carn i vv�th �� re �air ents �f �cc iltxi orm �u�ldir� �od� rel�ted
to tents_ �ees f�r tents shall �e as es�ablished b the LJaa� o �t�ildin
ode.
, fi1 °i�e �r�� ��►�r si�all �a �he fees as �stablishec� in �ha�t�r � t of
� gh� �i��ode.
(k) Si �� for tern �ra romo4i�ns m�st rr��et the te� � si
de�Fii�l�Td �1��1 L�1� �XC� ti�r� that tf�� �� b� dis la ed �nl d�rc �
ten-dav �vene 2I4�
MAR-01-20�1 11�32 FRQ� CITY OF FRIDLEY i0 �SQ3462 P.�3i07
�' �e i��. 1 t3� P��r 2
S�ci��. 20�. i 3 C-1 i.���. �i1S SS �IS �"T �i.T��iiQ�S is h�rcby �nded �y
�ha��r�g 31a� f�l%��ng Iart�ua��: %
� _ . _
� ,.
. . ;
_ �� �� �. . , _ � ..
� ;
�;
:
. - . -
.. :,,. �; �
. �- . -- _ ,; _ . , . . . _ .
�7) IV1�tae vehicle fu�i and �iI disp�nsxt�g s��vi�� as � a��e�s�ry ets� �a a
canrrerai��ce stor�.
_ 1 �:` •"a" -:,l:� .��,_. .. .. ,� �_,�`.s.!'•: �-;i " ,"s r ��::.
.,._: ..... . - :. ., .... .
� � . � .. � � r ��. " =� 7l.. , b . . .� � . � � .- . . � � .:i '
i� ._ _. . . . . . � . r. - .
► ,. , � . �� �, ♦. ' . .. .:,- . ,-.. ._ :�. � . '..
� _ � � .. _ . .. , ��' .
� - - _ � f �.�� - �:f ' ' w. 1`
�� � � - .. . �; . ' �.. '- . ,: �' � • s -. ; : .� ��. 1 � i� �.. �. � ,, . ,� _ ...... . . �I '- c.
. .. • -' • ;:�, )� - t ': � ' 1� �. . ' a '� ' :� � +, � -
�� •� � � ��, � •� — -;� y a'�, ;f��
.. � , _ -_ - � k'-� ' a: t " � " s .. ' l-. i ' .f � -
• i � . *� - � a � "- f �� r'.R . r �. '�� � i ` �. �i �-..
���i1QI1. Z
• � 1 , •.. ' � : �, l' ' . " _., � _ : . _ 'r , .r � - �:
l� .4 � �R�, �
��. _.'. , l .; .f.' .. �. : -,. . . .�r.
` � . 'r." :::
r - � - ^!
- s • +� • • • � � s • -:. . • °. i � • - *. . . #�� : r -
"� � s • .r- -� �- � � y..°.
a`�e re e ��m�r sha11 obtai� a T'ern � Ot�tdaor �is la I.icerrse
from the Citv at 1�ast one v���k �riar t� startira�, thc �e�xxat. �'h� pro��r
awnee sh�11 submit th� uxf�rrr�ai��� r�u�re� �� t%� I$�eras� a,��Iicatior�.
a
T`ht �it� sh�Il ��rov� �e lt�et�se g�or to corn�s�c�€n�r�t of thc e��n�.
�b A'T�rn�orar� �utdeea� I)is�lay Lic�xs� �s re�c t�ired v�rh�h�� tz�erchaa�di��
is soid far pro�it ar �iv�s awa� as �� �f ��r�rr�otisan.
�c) Onlm it�ms associat�d �+ith t�a� �rarx�i�a� us� rnav be dis,�l�ved.
d) �°hre� events �rer Yeax ar��erxt�i�t�d, �rtd �hait vecu� no closef t�'�a� 20
davs � arx.
�e) S�� �vents ��r ��ar fvr ar� p atted for tnuiti�g��a� d���id en�n��. �d
shall �c�� �o cl�ser thart 20 da�rs ��art.
�'Tt�� duratio� �f ��ct� �ven¢ shall b� no lan�ce ihara le ��ns��t�t��� d�vs.
�
�
MAR—@T-2001 11a�3 �R�M CITY OF FRI�LEY
�rd��� l�m_ t 83�
�a
�e�3a�2 P.e��O�
, f _" �"
'Th� rc and�s s�� t b� d°a ta ed in a rr� �t that d�� �o� ��ci�
vehicaz$a.� ��c or oth��'is� c�.us� tar�s�fe �f�c condi�on�.
T°he rr�erch�dise sl�a�t not � dis I� �'sit t�ie � tal�� �� �� �
1 dsca �d a�e�
i If � ieni is te be tts�d eh� r��crtv �.�er s1�ll obtaiaa a btaild�� � it
and e�m 1�,�,"th t#�c re ���m�nts �f th� IJ�forera �uildi�Cod� r�lat�d
to t�n�s �°e�s �'or tents shall b� �s �s�abtis_ � b�� L7asf��m �uiT 'n�
C�de.
`i)���g,o��� shali �a� th� fee� as estabpish� Pn C�a�t�ter l. l�f �h�
�a Cade_ �
(�j S�a,g,� fo� t�rr��o� �rorr�oc��r�s r�ust mcee the t��or� si�
definiiiara r�rith the �xc�n4ion that kh�v rr�a'� be dis�laved o�alv ri�in� Eh�
t�r�-da�,c���t 21� °
_ . _. � „ ` _ .�. � = � � ` : ' ` . �- � . :��. a ,. ��r�• �r �Y
� '' R
� � �� �
-.._ . - -
�.. �� jJ Y � , .�, • �� • � '
� I ' ., .: _ � ....., .. . , : _ _ • � �..
�' �,...,� .. `�...
�... � � -
' � _
� - � _< �. 7 � -� ' , . . • :.. .�... .
(S} Aucamob�le ��r�ca st��ia�s and �oto� vehicle f�acl �d �sl
disgensin� set�rices.
(a) The Sp�c��l LJse Perrcait foC atk at�tomobil� ��✓icc stat�ora is ��y
f�t uses �oted s�a khe ���is%tioa.
Cb) 1iz� us� �h�i� r�oe pr�vide �°or �� ou#d�or oper��ion of
lu�ricaiiea eq�aiprr�es�t, hydraialac tifts �r se�ice pi�s; �� i�i�
outdaor �spiay of rr�ercha�xdis�.
. 7�e dis�Ia�r ef m�rcha�adise �icF�in fo€� ��4) feet
of the fr�nt af th� st��ion buildin�,ts pe�zttit��d _�o �tor���
�f a�y t�e sha.11 b� �erm��ced uril�ss 't i� wittu� fo_ur �} -
£eet iz� �ont ���c sta�ion b�iidin�. C��es faY
exchan��abl� �ro�ane tar�k� �oi tar�e� �.h�.n a 2fl ��car�d
c�l�z�der zzxa� be �o�ateei in confor�n�ce ��h��licable
Fire Cod�s and Ci � ro�a1 �i�r to �z�stalIati�ra.
S�ct�or� 3
_ . ,.
_ . _ � . _ i., _ ; � , r. _, � �+ ` � � �.
� � � �' � � -
_ . - _ , , ' <.
�, .
` �� ��� a : . . _. -. . � �. - °"�
. , , . . . �. . _ . . ._ - , . . �. .
� i� 'i� � . i �; - r � .,e �.. -
MRR-01-2001 11�33 FRqM CITY QF FRI�LEY TO 7843462 P.05�07
�� P3o. t 13�
E��F��"�:' ` : ►t1' , �
i
�. � .
��e�
($i_ T�oe�rv �u4d�oP L)is�tave Sa[�s�, �r Preta�oei�t� �f �ferc�aa�d'zse su�i��i
to YFie follo�n� ccar�dit��ns:
al `The prover�e_o�n�r shatl obtairz a T�rn�ar�+ �atda�r �is�lav iic�e .
from the Cf�at I��st or�c �ee��rior to �i�iin� the �e�t. ihe�ro,pertb
a�eP shall.subrrait the i�farination req,taiz�ed on the lice�sc a��lica�i�n.
The i sha[I a rov� thc ficet�s� t�or ta to ene ent oith� ���t_
fb� A �°enz�oraa� �ucdaar �is�ta�Li�ct�s� �s r�a�ired ��eth�r r��r�har�dise
is sold for rof�c �r 'ven av�a �s art o�a a�n�t'��.
(cl Or�lv iYe�s associated with thc r�r�cr,pai tis� srna b� di taveei.
(di e� �v�nts �e� vcar �c��smi�t�d, and �hall occua rao eimse� tha� �0
davs apa�i. '
(e) Six ev�nts �e� �ear for at� ��r�ited for rnulti-t�n�nt ���e1��rr���so aad
shail oe��a: �xo �l�s�r tharY �Q �a s a art,
( 1°�xe du�tion of �act� cven� shail bc n�._l�rtge� ��i� � 4�on��c��v� ��s..
[�) T`�� rnercha�dis� shali be dis�laved i� � rr��nrt�r that do� no� inl�ed�
��hict�tar.�'�£�ac or other�ris� �ausc ures�f� �°ra£�x� �ondit�� �
(h� 1�e mer�handis� si�all ra�t b� dr�layed_�ra the bout��ra� oe on aa�v
landsc�ved ar��. - -
C� .I�a t�nt rs c� be �asede the �roaertv o�ex sh�i$ o�.rx a buiIding,� �t
atid �om�lv wi#h thc reaui�ements �ithe U�f�r� Builda�a,_,�Code retat�
�o tents. �ees for tents shall s as �stabl�shed b��he 'C.J'r�aform $usldin�
�ode.
�) The �ro�ertv o�rner shall�a taX he fe�s as es4ablished in Cha�tee
I 1 af th��Ci �ode.
(k) 3i���e fer �em„�porarv �romotioras must �eet_ch.e tem,�aa�af.v si�
d�fir�ition with th� ex��tior� that thev rnav be c�is�laved onlv dw�¢ �ti�
ten-d�y ��erat (214).
-.. � � ,,�.._,. _..;: = •., �--,:
.; .
• ,�,
. �. � . : . . -
,� �_ , , : �.�i, ; � „ , ► � •. �'� , �
I a �JS�S PE�1IT�°ED
�. �x��gpal iJs�.s
�q ����ssor}► LJsgs
C. �s�s Pe�n�tt�d with a Spe���l LTse P�rmit
�5) A�at�rr��bil� ser�xc� sea�iot�� a�d rn�t�r ��t�icl� f��l �d ait
- dispe�sin� se�ices.
�s, .°� e� `�: .. �,, ��.�".c:. -�•. �° �. "� �,,:`-
_� � _,..- ��� � .. ��. , -,__, - R� ��, _ �,�:'�.. � i : ,. : �,�
_ ..e : . - - .r�. —
''�
,
�AR-01-20�1 Sio34
?i - .�: � �.
'�
FRO� CiTY OF FRIDLEY
70
7843462 P.06i07
- Pa�� S
�_ s ,_ _. . _ _4. -d.,.0 � ..,�_
,
,,, .. - r :
, �,. . ..� _ ; . . _ . . _ _ , _ , r. _
�� . � � :: � �.. .. _ ,
r: . _' � . �_ . ��, r:� s� �� �-*�->"� ► _`.
� _.__'�� � ......... �. •
,� . .� . . __ .. �: . . _ _ . . : , •:- . ,. _ � � ,. ! :. .. . „ . .
_. _. .. ... __ - - ,..... .. �
-. . . -, ' � ,. , : : . � , � ,:.'.
�� . - . -.s - ► �. •
�... �. _, r � � �.-_. _. . - . _ : '►� � . r - . , ,. °, � � ., °' a_ ,;
. • •.� .
:�i s,"�. )' t� �: ,. �_.
_ � �r ; .� ' - , � .. . . -, � - - _ �. .`
- - ,= '. .� _ _.. � , . .
�.:s i,_ . ��i .. ���_
:.
� . . .. � � .. . ,. . ; _:
+ - -
I ' : : u 1����
�o �tIY1C��J�1 �SC5
�. a �6CCS5�I� �St;S
_ ';,
:�- . .., ... : � �i.� 1 � r �. : ,� . • -a� .' c "- i'
y . .,.
�� _. �._. � _ . ..� �
* " � ' a ., � � � � �c�
a°�e ra o�rner shali ob�ain a Tcm � ut�ov � la I.'� �
fror� sh� i at least on� w�ek �or to st�rti� t�h� ��eni. 'T�i� r�
_ ,. a . _ . m .. • v .a. - '�----� ---9`_���_
,: �,b} A iem�a , CAafdoor Dis�tav L°ac�n.se is re�„ui��d whether �n�ch�dis�
� is sold fa� �rofit �r �iveta ��a� as ar� ef � romotiom.
c Onl item� associaee� �ith ifi� rin�i al use rr�� b� di la ee�.
, d� 1'hre� �d�nt� ner vea� are �emnit�e and �haIi accur ao clos�r tha� 24
da s a art.
e Six even�s �°r ear for �re ermitted fc�r r�ulti-tertant d�vel� ��nt� and
shall occur no eIoseY t�a,r�_2€l da�s �p�rt.
ihe duratiar� of �aeh �v�nt siia.11 be v lon er �aari iQ co�sec�ati�e da s.
�'he rr�e�chandise shatl be di 1� ed in ��nar�t� th�t do�s r��Y iraz ed�
wehicula� �affic o� otherwise cause +u�safe i�f�i� canditietys_
{h) �'lie me chaaidise shall �ot be dis�laved in �h� �oul�vard or on�
landsca��d azea.
�i) If a tent is ta be use�. th� ro��riv o�me� sh�1 abtain � b�iidan� �_ "t
ar►d eom l with the reauirerne�ats c��`the LJni%rrri �uildin� Code r�lai�d
tc� cer�ts. ��es for tenis shall be as es�ablis��d b th� i]'nf%rm �u�idir�
�od�.
` Th� � ro e a�er shait a�e fe�s as e�t��ished az� Ch� t�r I 1 of
the Cit� C�d�.
(k} a i a e for terrroorarv �rorr�ations must r�eet the �em or _ s��
definitiv�► ��th the ��ce ti�r� ih�i th� m� b� d�s l� ed onl dt�ri #h�
t��,�dav �ve�t �214�.
MRR-01--2001 11�34 FR�M CTiY OF FRIDLEY
O�di�sace t�io_ 1 I��
�ect�c� 5 �
�ice�s� �ees sh�it b� ��aed a� folto�s:
�-
,.
TO 7843462 Pe07i07
P��� 6
_ ,� _ .. � �... , . . �� � � .. _: ., �. .. . ' � . �. . :f,. �. +► :� "� , ..: � "" �; `-: , • . ?��. `� ; ,.-' y ' i � � . � �..,i . : _
� �-
� ..: . .� _ �. .i � .: . . . ..� ' �, � � , � � � � . . � ._.. . ., � _ ::,' a. ' � �
' , ��. .. _ . ? '. � � '� . . _ . .. . . ., _ .N. , . , .,:-, . .
� , r- ti� . � / . . � ��� _ � �� :' ;�. ._ .. . �: �� ;
': _l.� `'= i :�
!� � i =,_.�: ��,:� `�_y'�. R����'.
_ _ �'/: . � 1 f % i :
�._..� .. . __, .� _.�_ ._
R , _� �
�
- ,� i 'f 1 i
= - . . � .,, � ; �: . 1 ' 1 1 /
_ � � . � ' . ; � 1 1;1 1,
r . ,�, � . � � � E �:
�! �.- �:::,
;.
r,� _
�... � , ��..--..�
_ � - :r� ' � :� . � .� _ �� '
�
T�TAL P,07
SECTION:
1008.01: Purpose
i008.02 �-: Definitions
1008.03 9�:
1008.44 9�:
1008.05 84:
1008.�6 9�:
1008.07 9b:
1048.08 9�:
1008.a9 8�:
1008.10:
1008.11:
1408.12
1008.13
1008.14 83:
1008.15 �-9:
1008.16 -�-�:
CHAPTER 1008
� � �� '����, :� : .�. �. ;�, ��. �
Buildii�g Perniit Required; Exceptions
Application for Penrnit
Permit Fees; Waiver
Issuance of Permit; Conditions
Sign Installer's License Provisions
Maintenance of Premises
General Location, Design and Conshliction Standards
Specific 5i�n Type Standards And Requirements
Miscellaneous 5i�na�e Re�uirements And Provisions
Prolubited Signs
Nonconforniing Signs
Abrogation and Greater Restriction
Violation af Provisions
Sign Variances (Ord. 644, 12-13-99)
1008.01: Purpose The si _ ordir�ance is intended to establish a comprehensive and balanced
�stein of siQn control that accommodates the need for a well-maintained, safe, and attractive
communit and the need for effective comrrzunications inciudin business identification. The
City of Mounds view finds it is necessarv for the proinotion and pzeservaiion of the public health,
safet welfare and aesthetics of the communit ihat the construction location size and
maintenance of si�,ns be controlled. Further the citv fmds that:
� permanent and temporary si�r�.s have a direct impact on and relationshit� to the ima�e of
the communitv;
� the manner of installation, location and maintenance of si�ns affects the public health,
saFei welfare and aesthetics of the communit •
� an onportunity for viable identification of communifv businesses and institutions must
be established;
� the safety of motarists, cyclists �edestrians and other users of public streets and
ro e is affected b the number size laca�ion and a earance of si s that undul
divert ihe attention of drivers;
� installation of signs su�pended fronl projectin� over or�placad on the tops of
buildin s walks ox other struciures rnav constitute a hazard durin� periods oFhi�h
winds and an obstacle to effective fize-fi htin and otkzer emer�encv service;
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
� uncontrolled and nnlimited signs adversely impact ihe in�a�e and aesthetic
a�tractiveness of �he communitv and thereby undermine economic value and g�rowth;
� uncoi�irolled and unlimited signs, particularl�emporary si�ns whzch are cornmonlv
located v✓ithin or adjacent to public ri�ht-of-way or are located at drivewav/street
int_erseciions, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of oncomin� traffic.
This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also adversely impacts a logical
flow of infarmation;
A cammercial signs are generally incompatible with residentiai uses and should be
strictly limited in residential zot�ing districts; and
� the ri ht� to expxess noncoxnxz�ercial opinions in any zonin� district must be protected,
subject to reasonable restrictions on size, hei h� t, location and number.
1008.02 9�: I)EFII�IITI0�1�: The following ternras have the meanings ascribed ta them in ihis
Section:
ABANDONED SIGN: A sign that becomes vacant, unoccupied or unused; or a si�n promoting a
business or activitv no longer in operation or ineorrectly or inaccurately convevin� a messa�e, or a
si�n �romotin� an obsolete messa e� or sign co� ,y for a�e�-iod in excess of one montl�.
ANIMATED STGN: A si�n that has anv movin� or roiatin�part; ar uses movement or cllanga of i
lightin� to depict action or create a speciai effect oa' scene. Refer also to electronic scrollin� messa�
or nlarquee signs.
AREA IDENTIFICATI4N SIGN: A freestanding sign which identifies the name of a communit�
neighborhood, a residenhal subdivision, a multi-familv residential camplex consistin of three 3) or
more structures, a�lanned unit development, or anv combinaiion of the above located on contiQuous
properties.
AWNING SIGN: _ A_sign dist�layed on or attached flat a�ainst the surface or surfaces of an awnin�
attached to ar extendin� from a building_
BANNER: Arzv szgn of li twei �i, flexible material affixed to a buildin�, poles, vehicle or other
supporting structures upon which a messa�e, slo ag n, design or lo o� is displavad. National, state, or
munici�al fla�s shall not be considered a bailner.
BEAC�N: An ��li�ht with one or more beams dir.ected into the atmosphere or directed at one or
more points not on the same lot as the li�ht source; also, any light with one or mare beams that rotate
or move. Otherwise known as searchii�hts. For the �urposes of this Section, beacons or
searchli�hts shall be considered temporar� n�s.
BENCH SIGNS: A sig,�i wwhich is affixed to a bench or shelter at a bus sto�
BILLBOARD: A Iar�e, outdoor advertisin� structure ty�zY ,cally mounted on one or more �oles,
located off the premises where the advertised product is sold or of%red.
Page 2
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
BUSINESS SIGN• A si�m that states tl�e proper name of ihe business or�anizatioia or institution
located on the remises on which the si is Iocated.
CAMPAIGN STGN; A tem ora si roinotin the candidac of a erson nu�nin for a
overnment office or roznotin an issue to be voted on at the next election.
CANOPY SIGN� A si,�n affxed to the visible surface of an attached or freestandin� canopv
structure often bacl{lit to provide internal illumination. For the �wposes of sign area computation,
canopy siQns shall be treated as a wall si .
CIIANGEABLE COPY SIGN: A sigi or portion thereof with characters, letters or illustrations that
can be chan ed or rearran ed electronicall or manuall v✓ithotFt alte�i�i the face oa- the surface of the
sign A si�n on which the message changes more than ei�ht tirries a dav shall be considere� an
animated sign for the purposes of this ordinance That portion of a sign on which th� onlv couv that
chan es is an indication of the tiine and tem erature shall ba considered a ublic inforn�ational si .
Partable or non-permanent chan�eable copy si�ns shall for the ,purposes of tlus Seciion be
considered temporary si��s.
CONSTRUCTION SIGN: A si laced at a const�uction site identi 'n the ro'ect and/or names
of the architect, en�ineers, developers cont�actors or other individuals or f rms associated with the
i� •o�ect•
DIRECTIONAL SIGN' A si�n for fihe pumose of makin�specific commercial, iiidustrial or public
= and semi-public locations lrnown and to assist in findin�these iocations on the propertv where the
- si�n is located Such si�ns rr�ay be located within street right of wavs subiect to ap�roval of the Citv
and �prapriate overnmental a�encv.
FLAG OR PENNANT STRINGERS: A series of fla s ennants or streazners connected b a strin
or a ro�e Such slrin ers shall be considered temporarv signs for the purpose of this Section.
FLASHING SIGN• A si�n or portion ihereof whose illu�nination is characterized b a re et�tive
c cle in which the eriod of illumination is either the same as or less than the eriod of non-
illumination. For the oses of this ordinance flashin will not be defined as occurrin if the
c clical eriod between on-off hases of illumination exceeds four 4 seconds.
FREESTANDING SIGN: A si rinci ail su orted b a structure affixed to the ound and not
su orted b a buildin includin si is su orted b one or mare columns oles or braces iaced in
or upon the �round. Also referred to as a Ground Si�n.
GOVERNNIENT OR REGULATORY SIGN: A si which is erected b a overnmentai unit for
identifieation, traffic control or other reQulatorv purposes Such si�ns are often located within street
ri�ht of wa ��s.
GROUI�]D SIGN• A si�n principally su�ported bv a structure af�ixed to the ez'ound, and not
su orted b a bl�ildin includin si s su orted b one or znore columns oles or braces laced in
or u on the ound. Also referred to as a Freestandin �i z.
Page 3
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
HOME OCCUPATION SIGN: A sign erected upon a residenfiial propertv to advertise a home based _�,
business or occupation takin�place at that Iocation �
IDENTTFICATION SIGN; A si the rima function of which is to identi a resideniial
commercial, industrial or public or semi-public use located �pon the premises where such si�n is
located or to which such si is affixed. SiQns identi an c�__nercial uses may call attention to the
product, service ar activitv that is sofd or offered upon the premises Si�ns identifyin� industrial uses
ma call attention to the roduct oods or material which is raduced rocessed assembled or
stored u op n the premises.
INFLATABLE SIGN: A portable device inflated, with air or helzum used to draw attention to an
activitv or business upon which the device is attached ,Such object may or , mav �1ot dis�lay
advertising co�v. For the �ur�oses of this Section, inflatable devices sl�all be considered a tempo�
si�n•
ILLEGAL SIGN: A si erected without a peimit or in vio�at�on of this ordinance Such si s shall
be sub'ect to removal u on writtei� notice b the Cit .
INCIDENT,AL SIGN: A si�,n, �enerallv i��formational, that has a putpose secondar�to the t�ses on
the ro ert on which it is located. Such si s might.,include but are not limited to, "No Parlan�
"Entrance," "Exit," "ATM" or "Payphone" No si�n with a commercial messa�e le �b�le_off the
remises shall be considered incidental,
MONUMENT SIGN: A freestandin�gn attached to the r�d by means of a freestanding support ' �
structure, solid from g,rade to the top of the sign structure,_ icallv encased or su�parted bv masonry
materials.
NUISANCE SIGN: A si n�state of disrepair deterioration or dama�e whereupon one fourth
�l/4 or more of the si�n surface is no longer clearly le�ible or reco 'ug�zable at a distance of forty
40' feet.
NONCONFORMING SIGN: An�gn that does not com�lv with the rec�uirements of this ordinance
is considered nonconformin . A si which was erected le ail but does not com 1 with
subsequentiv enacted si�n restrictions or re�ulation� is considered le�al nonconformin�
POLE SIGN: A freestandin si su orted b or erected u on one or more narrow columns shafts
or poles. Also referred to as a P. l�sig�n
PORTABLE SIGN: An si not perrrianentiv attached to the ground or other permanent structure
or a si desi ed to be trans orted includin�, but not limited to, signs on wheels si�ns converted to
"A" ar"T" frames, menu and sandwich boards inflatable devises advei�tising umbrellas a�id signs
attached to ar painted on vehicles parked and visii�le from the public riglrt of wav untess said vehicle
is used in the normal dav-to-dav operations of the business.
PROJECTING ��GN: A si�n other than a wall si�i which is �erpendicular to and proiec#s more than
ei�hteen (18) inches from a building face or wall or from a structure whose primarv �u�ose is other '
than the sup�ort of the si�n. -
Page 4
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
PYLON SIGN: A freestandin� si supported by or erected upon one or more narrow column�
shafts o�oles Also refened to as a Pole si_ .
REAL ESTATE SIGN: A si advertisin the sale lease or renfal of the ro e or remises u on
which ihe siQn is located.
ROOF SIGN• A siQn erected, constructed or attached whollv ar in part upon anv raof or over the
hig�hest roofline of a buildin�•
SECURITY SIGN• A small incidental si� identifying tlie presence of a securitv system.
SIGHT TRIANGLE: A�z-ian le formed at a ro e comer abuttin two street � ht of wa s where
two triangle legs are 30 feet lon� with the third leg traversin.� the �ro�ertv to connect the other two
� le s�(Re%r to the ,�r_a.phic in Section 1008.09, Subd. lb.)
SIGN' A si�n the primarv fimction of which is to direct attention to a product, service or activitv that
is sold ar offered either elsewk�ere or upon ihe premises where such sign is located or to which it is
affixed.
SIGN AREA: That area of a. si within the mar inal lines of the surface vvhich bears the
announcement name advertisement or other messa e or in the case of letters fi es ar s bols
attached directl to an art of a bualdin the area which is included in the smailest rectan le which
can be made to circumscribe all letters fi ru� es or s rt�ibols displaved thereon.
SIGN COPY• The letters numbers fi�ures s�ri b�ols lo�os and g�raphical elements comprisin� the
content or messa�e of the si�n.
TEMPORARY SIGN: Anv si�rz displavin� a commercial or non-commercial message erected or
maintained for a specific period of time and nat of a permanent nature. Such siQns shall include
barzners inflatable devices sandwich boards artable chan eable co si s or an other device
intended to attract attention,
TRANSIT ENCLOSURE SIGN: Comrnercial advertisin loeated within a transit enclosuY•e or
shelter. Such si a e shall not include route schedules service announcements ar other similar
notices.
WALL SIGN• A si�n attached to or erected a�ainst the exterior wall of a buildin� or structure with
the exposed face of the sign in a plane approximatel arallel to the face of said wall, not to uro�ect
rnore than twelve inches �12") from the surface to which zt is attached.
WINDOW SIGN: A si affixed to the interior or exterior of a windaw or inside the buildin
within three feet of the window with its messa e intended to be visible to and readable from the
u�
Page 5
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
�..n1-' `. - - ..° e
�� ��.•� .- - - -- - -
o - -
� �.i_ s n.: .
- e• - -
�R'![. � � u l_ . , - - -
- :,�:�:.....e�.�:,.�.a..�.� -
,� � � �.0 . . - _ _
� s..� Q.��r".
1il6!*: ■ _ ■ _ t . � - : t
- ' .C: ° _ - - '
�. -. � � ,. . . - � . �. - . - .. .. - � �
-- - �
- - - �.
'...:. �� ... �� ... .. .. �...- ... .. �_ .T
- - ' -- - ��- -
. . . . .. . - ' " I . . . . R . .. . . _ . . . . . -
- :i• - - -
� • e
. . - - . - . . . - ' ' „ ' ' '
. - .... � .r . .� . . � ` : . i ._ � � . . ..
� ! � � • \ �
� • � � � �� . l I - '
� ♦ �
�, { ' '
� � . �. � 1 ! _ � . l. [ �.� . � � � . . . " ^ " .
�_'' � � � � . � G .C� � . ' ' 'e . ' . '
�. ,
� l � _
C '
Page 6
Dra£t Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
. .. _. i. . -
. , • _. � - o-
r „ . -••-- - - -- • - •- - -
.. _ . . __ . .� - . ..-- -- -. • -•- ••••- = '�
� . . i• _ � . � , _ -
e - '
}.. w - i _ �a 4 ' �� �
� EI _ � �_ � � \. � C'� ����
, . � .. .. - . . . � � . � - . . - ' . _ • � -
" ' " • .
- . . . ' ' . . . . .. . D . . . . . . .
s �
� � I t� � 1� � R � "
�
_�tR�t� � � � � - -
.� - �
• i a � -
• � • � �
� � i � � i- [ .:i. . -.` ' , � �. ..,. ��. .'' :. .� :��, . �_. ; 1 ;�; -�., �..� .
Subd. 1. Permit Required: It is unlawful to install, consfiruct, erect, alter, revise, reconstruct or
relocate any outdoor sign or structure, as defined in Section 1008.9� 02 of this Chapter, in the
Municipality without first obtaining a permit therefor as required by this Chapter, except as
provided in subdivision 2 of this Section. (1988 Code §39.02)
Subd. 2. Excepfions: Permits need not be obtained for any sign less than or ec�al to ei ng t(8i
square feet in area {excludin� teni�orarv si�ns) or for the specific si�s addressed below,
rovided all other re uirements of this Section are satisfied:
rl, f ,- 1, 1a t, „L.,, °a � ,-sk„ � �t,-, „,-..., ,.��
.. � �....t..d � „o r a �. .
Page 1
Dra$ Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2a01
a. A sign �^+ o,��,�;r�. +„n r, n� � ���+ ; ��, pertaining only ta the sale, rental ar lease
of fhe premises upon which dispiayed. `�'
b. A sign on residential property stating only the name or identitv of the occupant,—�=r����.���i�
r�,�t1 ,,,,� e o,a +.� „ ��� ,. � � of ;
.
- :.
�
c. Construction sign or si�,n belon i�ng to a contractor performin� work upon a property.
Such si n�shall be removed immediately upon completion of the work. •
d. A campaign sign as provided for in subdivision 1008 nQ� 10, Subd. 7 of this Chapter.
(1988 Code §39.Q3; 1993 Code; Ord. 60i, 5-11-98)
e. Homa occu ation signs and incidental residential s;gns.
f_. National, stata, regional, local, non-commexczal institutional or cultural fla 7s.
� Advertising on a transit bench or wi�hin a transit shelter or enclosure,
h. Official natices authorized by a coi�rt, public bodv or public safetv official. ?
1008.04 9�: AI'PL�CA,�'�O1�T FOR PERIVIIT': Application for perniits shall be made upon fornls
provided by the Clerk-Administratar and shall include the following information:
Subd. L The narne; adclress and telephone number of the applicant.
Subd. 2. The location of the building, stracture or lot to which or upon which tl�e sign is to be
placed.
Subd. 3. The position of the sign or othei• advertising structure in relation to nearby buildings,
structures and stree�s or highways, if necessary.
Subd. 4. Two (2) bluaprints or inlc drawings af the plans and specifications and method of
construction and attachment to the building ground.
Subd. 5. A copy of the stress sheets and calculatians may be required by the Inspector, on larger
signs, showing that the siructure is designed for dead load and wind pressure in any direction
in the amount required by this Chapter and any other applicable law.
Subd. 6. The name of the person erec�ing ihe structure, if not the appiicant, or the name of the
person on whose property the strciciure is to be located, if n.ot the applicant. +
Subd. 7, The written consent of the owner of the property, if not the applicant.
Page �
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
Subd. 8. A statement as ta whether the sign will be illuminated or not.
Subd. 9. A statemei�t as to r�hether any electi-ic lzghts on the sign will be "moving" or blinking.
Subd. 10. A statement as to whether the sign will be single-faeed, double-faced or nnulti-faced.
Subd. 11. A statement as to whether or not the copy on the sign will be changeable.
5ubd. 12. A statement as to whether or not the copy on the sign will relate oniy to the business or
activity conducted on the premises on which the sign is to be located. {1988 Code §39.09)
11: 1 �` �. . i: •
Subd. 1. Fee: The application for a per�nit shall be accompanied by the required permit fee. The
permit fee sh.all be esiablished by resolution of the City Council. (1.988 Code §39,10)
Subd. 2. Waiver: The Council, ���•, �N �+� �;r°v'� if so requested in vvriting ma waive the fee
required by this Section where ihe signs are to be erected by eivic or religious organizations.
(1988 Code §39.11)
� 11: 1. � � �� .-. �-_ : _; .� �� �� . _ �: � �, , 1: : ;: � "�-. ,- �
Subd. 1. Issuance: Upon presez�tation of application, permit fee, plans and specifications and other
required information, the sign construction permit shail be issued by the Communi�
Development De�artment, , except as prflvided in subdivision 2 of this
Section.
Subd. 2. �� ' Variances: In the event an�plication is made for a si�n
which does not conform to the reQUirements of this section, the applicant shall either modifv
the application or ap�iv for a variance accordin� to the pro�visions established in Chauter 1125
of the Zonin Code. No ermi# for a non-conformin si shall be issued without evidence of
an a�,proved variance. °^' " ���"u� �i �:`'-== �=
7 7 9
) > .
(1988 Code §39.14)
11:1 '- ' '.',�. ;:�,°,..
�ubd. 1. License Required: No person shall engage in the business of installing signs nor shall be
entitled to receive a permit to install a sign in connection with such business unless first
licensed by the Municipality to do so. (1988 Code §34.04)
Page 9
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
Subd. 2. Appiication ar�d Fee: A license may be granted by the Council upon written application to
the Clerk-Administrator on such form as required by the Clerlc-Administrator and j
accompanied by an annual iicense fee as established by resolution of the C�ty Council. (1988
Code �34.05} -
Subd. 3. Liability Insurance: Any person holding a licensee shall file with the Clerk-Administrator
policies of public liability and property damage insurance which shall remain and be in force
and effect during the eniire term a� said license and which shall contain a provision that they
shall nat be cancelled wi�hout ten (10) days' written notice to the Miu�icipality. Public
liability insurance should not be less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for
injuries, including accidental death to any one (1) person and subjeci to the same limit fo�-
each person in an amount not less than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) on
account of any one (1) accident, and property insurance in the amount of not less than fifty
thousand dollaxs ($50,000.00). (1988 Code §39.07)
Subd. 4. Expiration: Licenses shall be issued on an annual basis, with the license year r�3nning from
Januarv 3�1 through the following December 31 �-�A. {1988 Code §39.08}
Subd, 5. Revocation: A license may be terminated and z-enewal thereof may be denied by the
Council for cause after notice to the licensee aa-�d reasonable opportzuiity for the licensee to be
heard on the question of such termination. Cause shall include any repeated ar persistent
violation of the requirements of this Chapter. (1988 Code §34.Ob)
1008.08 9�: 1VI��1�'I'EI�AIVCE OF P�tENtISES: Premises on which ground signs are located
shall be maintained free of weeds and debris, and where landscaping was part of the original sign
permit, such landscaping shail be maintained in the manner provided in such permit. (1988 Code
§39.12}
11: 1' ! . : ' ° � ; ,.. ; :�, ', �; � ; ,� , . , �, . . � . ;■ :f
Subd. i. General Standards; Every sign sha11 conform to the standards of this Section whether or
not a permit �#erefe�e is required, and nothing contained herein shall be constnxed as
modifying or repealing any of the provisians of th�is Code relating to zoning� . Na sign sha.11
be so located as to obscure or tend to obscure any existing sig11. The foliowing additional
requirements are to be observed:
a. Each � sign shali be securely built, constructed and erected on the buildin�, or
ground. Temporary signs shall be so designed thai they are not readily overturned.
b. No sign structure shall be attached or placed upoz� any building in such a manner as to
obstruct any iire escape or any window or daor nor shall any sign structure be attached to a
f�re escape.
1 See Title 1100 of this Code.
Page 10
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
�
c The illumination of any si� located near a residential district shall ba defiised or indirect
and located so as not to direct light on residences'.
d. No swinging sign shall hereafter be erected or hung on or attached to any building within
the Muzucipality, and every such sign sa erecied, hung ar atiached prior to the effective date
hereof which is deemed unsafe by the Buildzng Inspector shall be imnlediately removed by
the ov�mer thereof or changed to conform with the requirements of ihis Chapter when so
ordered by the Building �nspector.
e. Where portions of a sign are subject to a different classification, each portion shall meet
the requirements of its classification.
����er,
f Maintenance R�air or Removal• Evez-y_sigti permitted bv this ordinance shall be
maintained in �ood condition and re�air. When an� becomes insecure, in dan�er of
fallin or is otherwise deemed unsafe or a nuisance b a Ci Ins ector or if an si shall
have been unlawfull installed erected or maintained in violation of an of the rovisions of
this ordinance the owner ar fii�rn usin such si shall u on written notice b the Ci
Inspector nnalce such si conform to the rovisions o� this ordinance or shall remove it
witl�in ten (10) days If such violation has not been corrected within ten (10) davs, The Citv
Ins ector ma remove or cause such si � to be removed at #1ie ex ense of the awner or usez
of the si�n.
g . . .
. No sign shall display matter that has been deemed obscene by a court of
competent jurisdiciion.
h. Obsolete Si Co . An si co that no lon er advertises or identifies a usa
conducted on the propertv on which the si�n is located must have �lie siQn copv cavered or
removed witlun tl�irt 3Q da s after written notification from the Ci Ins ector. Such si'"'
shall be cons'iderea�'a nuisance si�zi:
i. �: Each sign shall be used and maintained only in the manner pennitted and subject to the
conditions imposed at the time the pernut therefore was �anted.
j Ciearance of Signs from Conductors: The minimum clearance of anv si�n from
un rotected electrical coz�ductors whether oles or other installations shall not be less than
thirty six inches (36") for conductors carrvin not over six hundred (600) volts and fortv ei�ht
inches 48" for conductors ca 'n more than six hundred 600 volts. �
1 See Section 11 Q3.09 of this Code.
Page 11
Draft Sign Code Revision
Marclz 7, 2001
lc. Si�ns Alon�Free_ways: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter and subject to
State and federal :laws, signs located on propert�adjacent to any freeway within the
Munici alifiy (inchidin� Interstate Highway 35W} shall be business signs advertisin�
businesses being conducted an the premises on which the si�ns are loca�ed. No "traveling"
or chan�in�-message signs shall be located so as to face any freewav or be viszbie from the
freewav. The provisions of this subdivision, however, sha11 not be construed, �o render
i11e�aI or nonconforming any signs wllich are le�Iy located aiong any such freeway at the
effective date herein. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99�
�. ..:.�<,:s:,.,.:.:..,�,:...:,.,.:.:,...,:.,,._...::.:...�__�_..
. _ _ �:
-- � - - •- - - - --
. -
�, a _.� ��
. . . . ._ ... . __ ._ . .. . . _ ..
-. . - -
..
� - -
� .e - -
.
'- �• ,- - - ��
- - e - -
�.r-..{���r�r� ..,._-,._ - - - - , . . .. ,
R�+.C��:...�'.��..•�'is�.a��• �•c�r�i����a:i.��i �:�'s=w� r�
-- ��
Page 12
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
- Sl�bd. 2. Signs Allowed by District: The followin� table represents the aliowable signage and a�•ea
re uirexnents b zonin district:
Sl'� R-1 R`2 R_3 R-4 Ri5 R=0 B-1 B-2 B-3 B�4 I-1 PF CRP PUD
Ground No No 32 32 32 200 200 200 200 100 100 *
Wall No No 64 b4 No 32 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 *
Pro�ecl tion No No No No No 8 24 24 24 24 No *
Window No No No No No Na Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No *
Identification 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 4 4 *
Temporary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Real Estate 10 10 32 32 10 32 32 32 32 32 64 �2 32 32
Home � 1 No No 1 No No No No No No No No No
Occupation —
Catnpai�n Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 'Yes No No Yes
Billboa'rds No No No No No No No No No No No 700 700 700
Directional No** Na** 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 S
Construction 8 8 S 8 8 8 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Incidental 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
* SiQnaFe requirements wifhin a PUD shalt be as allowed b rL#he PUD Narrative document. If no such document exists, si�na�e shall be
as permitted for a B-3 zoninQ district. ,
** Directioaal si�,'ns may be allowed within right of wavs uvon written approvai of the City, the aUprovrsate governmentat a�encv havine
jurisdiction over the road wav fif not the Cit}� and the owner of the pro�ertv directiv abuttin� said si�n.
Subd. 3. Ground Si�n Heiglit bv District• The following table represents the maximuxr� hei�ht
allowed for ound si s in each zonu� ciistrict.
����� ��• e : : :� �� .. . �
����� � ��������
�1} No ground sign other than home occupation canlpai�nLreal estate, incidental and temporarv si�ns
shall be allowed in these districts.
�2� Si a e re uirements within a PUD shall be as indicated b the PUD Narrative docttriaent. If no
such dacument exists si r��age shall be as allowed for a B-3 zonin� District.
. , .
� _ - -
� _ . - -
- - S
-- �l A ' 17 .a ' L,a' �� . , .,.,..,..,��� ..� � s Y a
Es��s�a�ie�
Page 13
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
�.:,.�_�.y�• - e . .� •
' . - �� R
. ,;_ ■_ ._ _ �
° .::
� � ._ .. ■
, � �.� .�: ��. �.�,,, .:...R; �, : �. ..... s.: �.�. �:.�.�:..,
� .. .. .._ . _ .._._ _ ... _ . . . .. _
. : -._. .. _
, � . � ■
. , . ■
fw� �. . ' "• . :'� .'t.'G �� . . .�
r. - �l 1
�' '^ '. � '�.... '"' "' .' '.. ' .' . ' . '
' ' '
•
■ i �
���J�IA��I����Yt�i:���. � i�4�w
_ •'
• �
� L
- - j � � �
� �
F� � � � t
� - �- ���lTl�f/�Al��i�3�l��l��i�A J'���i����l�1�SiIi��'IAl\�/��+1
r I � �. �� � � � � � �
- _ • _ �'� � re�f�s�n1�41� �'�'�R ��lt�l!��i����A] �l���l� •.. . �
�
i����f��l���\�l� 9��1�r�1�f�1�f�����1'���ifI��YIM11R1�1���'IA)l�l��'/1y1�\�l\R�JYY
����.�.. i i \ � � \ � i
w' _ _ _ ' _
�
� ' • . . ! ' ' \ � . . a . � � .. \ . .
' ' ' " � ' '
� � . � -� �. � . �� �� .. . � . . �. - . �. ' . . . .� ... � " . ..'. C.� ... �.
�� ' - -- •" .' " ' . .. . ..- .-.- -.
. -. . . .. � . - ' � ' • ' . . . . - . . �' ' ' .,. . .. . . . ..
�
-- .I� - -' �' -
! 11�� . _ .�..- � �.. �....' ' ^' " " ' ' '..
-. � .� �.. . � .. - ��. .. ..•. . . � _ .�' .-. � � �
" � _ � .. \ _ . . .. . � - . . - - . . .� � . - . . . � f . i l . - '
�� - - - ��.• �
." . ' - -• ' � -.-.." ' " '• •�'. " �"
... ... . . ... �. . . ' ' ' ..
Page 14
Draft S'sgn Code Revision
March 7, 2061
. E . . -_ - --- _. -; ,f a� . . _ , .. -
• ,:,,..• . �. .. - L . . - . ... ,. �- �l'�,
�• - _ � i � - . �..
..
� . / ��
�
� • � . � .� . � - _ .. . �. ... � - ,.. � �
..- . . .. �1
��• � - ' - - - -
i 1 -- « _ `
. . � . . ." '' ''. '
� . . .
- ^ �. .' - ' ' '. . �., � ., � , . . . . . . , �
• ' ' . ' ' �
.' ' - • . ". �' ' " �". - ! '. ' --.�.. ... �. ��! !!
. . . . . . . . .
� . =0 , ' ' -.�. ! -. �.. . - ' . • I : . �
. . . . - • - - , � ' - �.� . . • . • . -
� ' i l�
� ■ � • � •
. � �\ � .-. . R.,< .... - ' -�.�.. ._. -,. �.
�
. � • . . ,. +.� �.. '�" - �.'. t.,� ' -
.. - . . - � �.. � i � . . • .
� ' I a �
� � -
� � a
. _ _ - - -
- .;�:;:�,:s:::.� _ - —=
� _ � - -
- - e- -
_ . e
- � -
-- o �.. �
. ,.
� `.
�ai7::...•C�.i :,R.��i:+�civ.:�e,�se,:.�.a,.�R,c..rs.a�...�,;i+z�'. : e . . . .e. . � - ---- �.:..,.�..:.�:.-�.b. _ --
� l _ _ 1 a 1
� �\
_� 1 -
Page l5
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
-- . �.,- ���
- � - ..�. �` _
�L'i�: . - -
"• -
: ::'.`• .: . -. � ,.. �....,. .. . . .- �,�.• - - -
... r ' -• . - . . .. ' '• • --- .- .. . -_ .
� � _
. . . - . . - .� - . � . �,� �•
� _
- �
. _
�
+ • " C -
. - . � .. _ � . . ... . . t. . . . , ' ' "
. � . . . . . - . . ... . G ' . . - .. . . . 1 . -
, , . . . . . . � . . . �. _ . ' ' ' C '
- ` - - - - -
�
'- ' ' •- -' ' ' ^ • ' -- ' ' ' .' '-• -
_ , , � . ..' . � . .. �_.,,_� - .•� • -:. : .•. . ' S:
� • -- � - - � �
F�ii�Tf- -
' :.�.,,,.,�:.:,:�..,.�.
. _
�F ..
lSSil�1���1����i��aeX�n)���l��l�)�\ �1i��fy�1R���\���fl�tir����e��ia ���ii��+�i������\�l��l�J��1��lL�l�lf�
\ �
- `. ` � • . � r. � _ � � � �� � � ^ ' - � � � w • • n � _ -
�' � C � � �
� �' ' � '� � � � w �.. T 11. • � • � - / � A w � �
- �n� . - �/ 1 . �/ a � � �
Page 16
Draft Sign Code Revision
Maxch 7, 2001
_ - - ', -
- -' - - - -
- - C -
� . . .. . - ' ' �' - . . - '. • ' ' ". ' " " -
C - �
_�
� _ _ - -
_ •
. �., -.4. 4 � - ' ' �. - . - ..
. • , . ... - .,. ' ' ' ' '-__"e��.e""—e.^�5.......... � .•�.�.�.— ;G�ii.�
� - - �fl��
. �
�� ti� ^v�ibax.�i.
� � _ �.. - �. - - i1. �
• - - {' - � _
_ ■ -
. � � C !
� - - •o- e
- - ^
� p -
_ - � -
_ � -: '
� � ' r �
- C " _ ' C -
Pa.ge 17
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
aKTiieLiTr�!!!!1= - -
.. ._- - -. . .- _-_. . _ _._.. . .- ., . -. .. - -
. . .: . . . . . . . . . . . - .�
" . C ' : ' C
R i:i'
a . . . � ' - ••' ' � � " " ... ' " ' - ' ' - - -
��. .. .. . .-. .."� . ..� .'nr., ,. - � . ��.
♦ -
�:� �i e:o�:�ir�.si �=iil' e
- � "
" " � '
C' �. ��• �
� � � - - -
' ' " • '.. " ' '.` ' '• • ...•. � 1� .- � . - - i� �� � •
�ii \� � ��
�, • 1 H
„ ' - -
C' -
- � ��. �� �
�
'-' '- - - .•" .-. .. - . .. . - _ - . .. 1�
-, , . � � . . . - . . 1
C - � p - - - -
l � - � . / / � � � � �
_ � •
�
` _ ' ' iC.
--. .. -. -. . , _ . � • � . � • - -
" ' :.'7 ' �-- � "" ' :'. ..-. . �.... �
- � „ �
_ t �E/ ��
i i �' ' ' . !. ... .. .. '- ^ ". .. " '. S�� .. . . ..
� �.. ... � . .... � . �.� . . �. .. �., �. .�. ... �••
�-. --.� .. . .- " " ' ' ^ e •' - - - - -
.�. „.... . . �-.-.....� �� _�,� :C . � . .. y. .� .. ' "...
� ^ - - - - �
' - - � �.tJ •�
. i i _. .. ... � - . � . . .. .,. � - -
- �f - -- - -
Page 18
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
+ o -
_
. ;
-- - ---• •- -- - .. ,.. . .. + ... . _. ._ _ .
..
_. �-- -- • - -
-
- - -- - - -- - - .. � . _ . ••
- � - - - . -. _ ' . . . .. ..: _ . .
_ .:
- - -- - - - . ... - - - + -• • - ::.
. . . .. _ .. •. . .. . . . _ - - • •: ' _ • a
-
i• - -- •• - - - • - - - -- ' --- - -
. - -
a ;�.� .�
;,,, . .. � .... -- - -- .. ..- . ;...: - -- � : : ::. e
- a _,�. •�
• . - e o: -
_ �
. . . . . . - - - - - - -• -.- .... - - - -• _..
+�
. _ -
- - - � -�.- �•
. - - - !
� _i� ••
-e -
���r��l°e€�
.. _ ... ... . _. _ ... . - - • - -- - • -- -
. _ -
: . .. � � , _ , _... . : •: - --.
. - -
�, _ _ .
, _ _ _ e. -
_ _.
��• a � �•
Page 19
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
1008.14: SPECI�IC S�Gi�d'I'�'PE ��`AI�T13 S �ID �ZE�i1IRE�I�T�:
Subd, 1. Ground Si s: The followin standards shall be maintained for all ound si s
excludin incidental tem ar home occu ation cam ai identification and real estate si s:
a. No part of a gxound sign shall be nearer than three feet to any buildin� unless such si�.n
is placed parailel to the side of the buildin�
b. No �art of a oiu�d sign shall be nearer than 15 feet (15', to an�perinieter lot line nor
located withiu a 30-foof si ng t ti-ian�le on an�properiv abuttin�fwo intersectin� street right of
ways. (Refer to the �raphic below.�
Coun�y Rcoac� X
Right of Way ' 30 �t
m�
� � � � .� � � _ � � � — � Sighi iriangEe* — �'.�� � �
I !�
I .i
� 1 i
5ign is set back I
15 f�et from �
both front and �
side proper�y iines 8
I
Property _�
Lines
1
� 1
5ign �annot be ! �
located wiihin � � �
sigh� 4riangfe. � � �
o �
I � �
�
O "C
1
° The sight triangle is formed by connecting the two end poin#s of 30-foot lines extending in both
ciirections from the iniersection of two ptoperty I'snes abutfing a street or highway.
c. _The owner, lessee or occupant of the land on which the �round si�n is located and the
owner of the si�n shall_keep the property on which the sign is located free of long��rass
weeds or other rank growth, rubbish or debris.
d. A11 parts of ground si ��hall be designed for wind pressure of not less than thiriy (30�
op unds per square foo�, and ground si�ns of wood construction shall have all members which
extend inio the Qround Urotected from deca�v treatment with a preservative a�proved bv the
Building Ins ep ctor•
e. No permit shall be granted for the location of an�ground sie,n havin�a si�n area of
more than fortv (40) sc�uare feet within one hundred feet �100'� of anv sin�le-famiiy
residence.
Page 20
,.
,
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
f. No more than oi�e pale or pylan sign shall be allowed per lot. Hovvever, the �rotu�d si�1
area allowance mav be divided between one pale or p l��n aa�d a monument si Zg_or
between mult�le mo�luinent si�ns, subject to the requirements herein, pravided that ane or
more of the followin conditians are a licable:
(1). The Iot abuts znult�le stteet ri�ht of ways, in which case a sigi mav be located
alon� each fronta�e.
(2). There are multiple curb cuts or driveways accessing the �roperty, in which case a
si�n mav be located near each access point or driveway, provided tlie si�ns are separated
bv no iess than rivo hundred feet (200').
(3). The width of the lot as measured along its longest street frozzta�e, exceeds two
hundred and fifly feet �250') in which case multiple si�ns mav be located aion th� e long
frontage provided such signs are separated b no less than two hundred feet (200').
{4). The prope . or properties are within an approved Planned Unit Development
PUD .
Subd. 2. Wa1l SiQns: The followin� standards shai] be maintained for aIl wall si ng_s�.
a. No wa11 sign shall have a�raiection over a private sidewalk or an established buildin� line
oirriore than twelve inches �12")_
b The wall si�n area aliowances as indicated in Section 10Q8.08 Subd. 2 for B-2, B-3,_ B-4
and I-1 zonin� districts are per buildin occupant•
c The wall si�n area allowances as indicated in Section 1008.08 Subd. 2 for the R-3, R-4,
PF and CRP zoning districts are per buildin�.
d In the R-� and B-1 zoning districts the area aliowance as indicated in Section 1008.08,
Subd 2 reflects the co�nnbine� area far all wall �round and �rojection. signa eg on that lot.
Subd. 3. Pro�ection Si s: The followin standards shall be maintained far all ro'ection si s:
a. All ortions of ro'ection si s shall be desi ed for a wind ressure of not less than thi
�34� pounds per square foot.
b. Such si�s sha11 not project over public street ri�ht of way but rr�a�project over �rivate
sidewallcs No such si�,n shall be less than twelve feet {12') above the level of the sidewalk,
exce t that such si�ns whieh do not exceed faur (4} square feet and which do not project more
than two feet (2') over the sidewallc mav be ei t feet (8') ar more above ihe sidewallc. No
projection sign shall project more than ei�hi feet (8') over any private sidewallc.
Page 21
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
c. There shall be no more than two feet (2') of space between the inner ed e o�f any such si�n
and the face of the wall from which it proiects, nor shall the outer edge of the siQn be more `'
than ei ht� feet (8') from the face of fhe wall.
d. The buildin� ar structure from which anv such si�n proiects and all attacl�ments or
fastenin�s must be so constructed as to safelv resist the dead load and the wind load added by
the attached si�m.
e. All such signs shall be of noncombustible materials or of not less tban one hour
fire-resisfive construct�on. .
_f. 5uch signs shall be sec�.u•elv fixed in place and shall not be able to swing ar swax
St�bd. 4. Temporar;v Signs: All temporary signs shall com�Iy with the provisions oi this Section.
The foliowin� �eneral and specifzc standards shall be observed far all types of temporarv and
portable signs:
a. General Provisions:
�1J Except as provided herein, no temporarv si�n shall be located on anv properiy in
the Citv without first obtaix�ix��a permit from the City. If the Czty determines to a rove a
pez-mit for anv such temporary si�n it may impose conditions upon the g,ranting thereofti and it
,�
shall be unlawiul to locate or maintain any such sign for a longer �eriod or in a different %
manner than that specified in the permit: No pemnit far a temporarv si�n shall be issued if
prohibited by other provisions of this Code.
(2 Temporary si�ns shall not Ue hun� or installed so as to cover, either partially or
com lp etely, any door, window or o�eninb required for ventilation.
�3) No tempor . szgn for whic� a permit is required shalI be located vn any �ro�eriy
in the City for more than twenty-one (21�days at one time ar for more than three {3) twent�-
one�21 day periods in anv calendar vear. Permit periods may ran consecutivelv withot�t
inierruption if so a�proved. Only one texrxporary si� shall be allowed on a propertv at time.
(41 The Director of Communitv Development may waive the �ermit fee for a
temporary siQn requested hv a charitable, municipal or reli�ious institution ar for other iust
cause.
b. Banners:
�1) Banners shall be strongh� constxucted and shall be securely attached to their
supports. They shali be repaired or removed (including alI framework and supports) as soon
as daznaged or tom and immediately upon expiraiion oi the permit.
�2).Banners shall not exceed twentv percent (20%3 of the surface area of the building
face or front upon which the bax�er is attached.
1°age 22
Drai 5ign Code Revision
March 7, 200I
c. Beacons:
�) Beacons and searchli�hts mav be allowed on a resiricfied basis with a City_permit,
written permission from the Metropolitan Airports Commission or other appropriate a�ency,
{2} No beacon or searchli�ht shall become a public nuisance or shall disttu-b the �eace,
safetv comfort and well-bein� of motorists and residents.
d. Chan eabie Co Si s:
{1) Portable and temporarv changeable co�v signs shall not exceed forty-ei�ht (48)
sauare feet an each side and the entirety of the sign copy shall be maintained within the forty-
ei�ht square foot area.
(2) No part of such si�n shall extezzd into or encroach anto public ri t of way.
(3) Such si�n shall not obscure moiorist or pedestz-ian visian and shall not block or
otherwise interfere with a public or �rivate sidewalk or trailwa�
4 Such si ma be 1i hted rovided said li htin is not a nuisance to motonsts or to
- adioinin��raperties Flashin� li�hts strobe iights or li htg s which could be confused for that
of an emer�ency vehicle shall be prohibited.
e. Inflatable Devices:
(1) Inflatable devices shall be securely tethered and attached to the grouiid orbuildin�
�2) No such inflatable device sllall extend more than thirty feet (30'1 above ihe roaf of
the buildzng to which it is attached or adjacent.
�3) Balloons less than tvvo feet in diameter are excluded from the penmit provisions of
this Section.
4 No M lar or metallic balloons shali be ermitted to be dis ia ed ar flown outside
Page 23
Draf� Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
Subd. 5. Window SiQns: In the interest of public safety, the City requires that commercial or retail
businesses operatin� within a zoned business district (B-x) shali adhere to and com�ly with ,?
the followin�regulations and requirements �ovenun� si�ns t�laced ut�on window interiors.
a. No business shall ohscure more than twen -five percent 25% of anv window section or
pane.
Such window siena�e shail not
c. Wuidow si�ns as allowed herein affixed or adhered within the buildin� in�erior shail be
exempt from any permit requirernents.
f. A temporarv sign �ermit shall he required of any window si� affixed to the exterior of
anv window surface. Such siQn shall otherwise com�lv with the requirements oi this
subdivision.
Subd. 6. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new biliboard unless it complies with the
following infierim use requireznentszpursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.3597: (Ord.
G44, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00)
a. Jxzterizn Use Permit: Aa� interim use pemlit (IUP) must be obtained in accordance with
procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in �%
Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any interim use �ermit
issued for an interim use billbaard shall automatically expire no later than Julv l, 2015 or
when the lease aQreement for the billboaxd expires whichever date is earlier. Such TUP shall
be null-and-void if the a�plicant fails to obtain anv required pezxnit from the Staie of
Minnesota. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00)
b. Location: The billboard must be located aio�,and north of Sta#e Hi h�wa 10 old 118).
The applicant must have an approved lease agreemEnt with the propertv owner. The billboard
shali„ be oriented towards State Highwav 10 (old 118) and/or I35W. Billboards must be
located at least two hundred fiftv feet (250') fram residentiallv zoned �roperty. Billboards
may be located adjacent to the rigl�t-of-way of a street ar hig,hway, but no part thereof shall
ex#end over such right-of-way�Ord. 644, 12-13-99)
c. Minimum S�acin�: Billboards must be at least one thousand feei (1,000'} apart. 5pacin�
between siQns shall be measured b�pro,jecting the nearest points of the si�s to the property
line of the right-of-wav from whicl� thev are intended to be read and measw�n� the distance in
a strai�ht line between the �rolected points. Required spacing shall applv onlv to billboards
on the same side of the same roadwav. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99�
d. Maximum Sign Area: The zx�aximum gross surface display area of the si�n cannoi exceed
seven hundred (700) sQuare feet per side except that an i• °�gular billboard may contain
tem�orary extensions cutou�,s� ar tot� lettering which occu�v a total area not in excess of '
twentv-five percent (25%) of the area oi the basic billboard and form an integr'al part of the
desi�n thereof. Na such tem ���ary extez�sion, cut out, or top letterin� mav project more than
Page 24
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 200I
six feet 6' from. tk�e to ei teen inches 18" from either side or fifteen inciles 15" from
the bottom of the basic rectan�ular advei-�isin� message. The area of an extension, cutout, or
top letteri�t shall be deemed to be the area of the snzallest xectan�le into which such
extension cutout or top letterin� will fit. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99}
e 4rientation of Si�n Faces• Billboards mav have iio nnore than two (2 si�n faces. Si�,n
faces must be back-to-back with sign faces t�arallel or angled. All billboards with their faces
back-to-back and parallel shall have no�reater distance than eight feet (8'} between the faces.
All Uillboards witl� faces a# an an�le shall have no Qreater angle tl�an thirtv-five de r� ees i35°}.
{Ord. 644, 12-13-94)
f Ma�cimum Si�,n Hei�ht• The maximuri� allowable hei�ht of billboards shall be thirty-five
feet ,35') The hei�ht shali be measured frazxz the �rade at the base of the sign or from the
surface of the roadwav whichever is higher. (Ord. 644, 12-13-9�
g Obsi�ruction� No biliboard may be located in such a manner as to obscure or otherwise
interfere with the effectiveness of an of%cial traffic si sz al or device or obstruct or
interfere with a driver's view of ap roachin n�ergin� or intersectin traffic. (Ord. 644, 12-
13-99
, h. Existin Billboards: An .billboard le all existin as of Deceinber 13 1999 ma continue
to be rnaintained in its present form and size but shall nof be exnanded. This does not
reclude the eriodic chan in of the messa e or adver�isement resented on the billboard.
(Ord. 644, 12-13-99i
i Destruction Anv billboard destroyed by an act of nature shall be allowed to be rebuilt
rovided said billboard com lies vvith or is ca able of com 1'n with a11 re uirements of this
subdivision Nonconforming,_billboards shall not be allowed to be rebuilt. Ord. 644, 12-13-
99
Subd 7 Cam ai�n Si�ns• Sub�ect to"Mu�nesota Statutes; the followin re lations shall a 1 to all
campaign signs far palitical candidates or issues:
a No more than ane si�,m shall be erected per candidate or issue alon� each street frontage o_f
any�arcel of land Caxn�aign signs shall not be allowed on public �rop�
b Campaign szgns sha11 not exceed twelve (12) s�uare feet and not exceed four feet (4') in
hei t above the �round; except where such signs are located no closer than one hundred
fift feet 150' to the ro ert lir�e af a residential dwell'u� the maximum size shall be thi
two 32 s uare feet and the xnaximiun hei t above ihe ound shall be six feet 6' .
c Campai�gns may be displaved frorn the last dav of candidacy filin� or thirtv (301 da�
before an election, whichever is earlier.
d Ali campai�n si�ns must be remaved no Iater than five (�davs after an election• exc t
that after a rima election si s for the winnin x-ima candidates need not be removed
until after the ensuin eneral election. 1988 Code 39.14• 1993 Gode
Page 25
Drsft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
Subd. 8. Home Occupation Si�ns. In the R-1, R-2 and R-5 residential zoning districts a si � not to
exceed one {1) squar� fflot is allowed to be displaved provided such si�n is attached to the
house or �ara�e of the property on which the home occu�ation takes lp ace•
11: r, . �� � � � �� `. < 1 �; � '� 1 ' ;•-_;�� ` � � � ��, .�
Subd. 1. Sig_nage Allowances for Snecific Land Uses: Public or semi. vublic recreational buildings
and neighborhood and communitvi centers; public and private education institutions liri�ited to
�lementarv, middle and senior hi�h schools; reli�ious institutians, such as churches, chapels
teznples, syna�o�ues; nursin� homes, senior assisted living facilities and commercial day care
faciiities; mav be allowed the foilowin� -�ia�e�.
a, Watl signage not to exceed 100 square feet per vlinci�al building_
b. Ground si na�e not to exceed 100 square feet, subiect to Sec�ion 1008.10, Subd. le.
Subd. 2. Traffic-Control Related Sign Regulations: Compliance with the following reguiations
relative to traffic control is required:
a. No anunated or movin�sig� shall be located or maintained wi�hin fiftv feet (50� oF an "1
intersection at which traffic semaphores are located.
b. No si�n shall be desi�ned, located or mainfiained so as to be likely to obscure or conceal or
cause confiision as to anv traffic-con�rol si�n or device.
c. No si shall be located or maintained on ar ovar an ublic street or hi wa ri t of wa
unless s�ecificallv permitted herein.
d. There shall be no use of revolvin� beacons, zip flashers, flashin� si�ns ar similar devices
that would dis�ract autonlobile traffic so as to constitute a safetv hazard.
hall be located or main
Subd. 3. Gara�e Sale, Estate Sale and Open House �igns: Non-cominercial gara�e sale, estate sale
and open house si�ns and similar si�ns may be allowed to be located within a public ri h�t o�
wav �rovided:
a. The duration of the displav of such sign shall not exceed three davs.
b. No part of sucn sign shall extend within five feet (5') o£a traveled roadwa�
1 See alsa Section 60.03 Subd. 3 of this Code re ag rding�ublic nuisances affecfiing_peace and safetv,
Page 26
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 200I
c. Such si shall relate to or direct eo le to a residential ro ei within the Cit .
d Such si� shall not exceed four {4 s uare feet in area and shall not obscure t�edestrian or
vehicle visibilit or an traffic control si or violate an other rovision of this Code
s ecificall Subd. 2 hereof.
Subd. 4. Area Identificatian Si s: The Cit Council at i�s discretion ma allow for the lacement
of an Area Identificatian Sign. to define a nei�hborhood, comrr�unitv, development,
subdivision or multi-famil com lex and ma re uire ihat:
a. The a licant is a dul noted r resentative of the a ro riate �roup or or�ani.zation.
b. The land i� on wluch the si is located has been dedicated for such a use b easeinent
plat or other le�al and recordable instrument unless such si�n would otherwise be permitted
herein,
c A maintenance a eeznent be recorded which amon� other thin�s would brovide for the
lon tenn responsibility care and maintenance of such si�n.
Subd 5 Off Site Directional Si�ns• Off-Site Directional siQns rnav be pe��rnitted within a public ri�ht
� of wa sub'ect to a roval of the Ci written a roval of the a xo riate overnmental
a enc havin 'urisdzction over the roadwa if not the Ci and the written a roval of the
1 owner of the pro�erty to which ihe siQn ma� adjacent if apt�licahle.
1008.12: P�OH�BITEI) SIGN�: The followin si s and si t es are rohibited in the
City of Mounds View:
Subd 1 Flashin� si�s as defined herein.
Subd. 2. Si s or li ts attached to si s which mimic or have an a earan.ce similar to those on an
emer�encv velucle.
Subd. 3. Roof si s unless inte all inco orated into the roof desi then such si shall be
considered a wall si�n Roof si�s in existence as af the date of enacfiment of this Code
revision mav be allowed to continue and mav be repaired or maintained as needed bu# ma not
be repiaced except b v�ance.
Subd. 4. Tem or or ernaanent advertzsin si s osted within ublic ri t of wa s excludin
directianal signs and si�ns expresslv allawed herein and bv other �ovemmental a�encies.
Subd. S. Vehicles used as �i s. Vehicies or trailers that dis la advertisin and are arked in such a
wa a� to attract ublic attention shall be rohihited exce t far si s on vehicles ar trailers
� which are ma etic decals or ermanentl ainted u on the surface of the vehicle without
- obscuiin an vehicle window area. Such si shall not alter the rofile or silhouette of the
vehicle.
Page 27
Draft Sign Cade Revisian
Maxch 7, 2061
e
_ _ _, _
1008.13 �TOI`iCOil�FO I�G S�G1V�o Az�Y sign le�allv existing at ihe tinrie, of the uassa�e
�f il�is ordinance that does iiot conform in use; location �iei�hi or size with the regulations of the zone
in which such `sig� is located shall be considered a legal nonconforrrurig use or stracture and ma�
----_- - -- - --', � . ,;; , . , ., , , . , , .. . .
1008.14 -1-98�8-9: �1tOGA'�'I�I� A.� G12EA'I'E�3 IgES`I'1tIC'�'I01�1: Whea-e ihe conditions
unposed by any pravisions of this Chapter are either mare or less than comparabie conditions
imposed by any other code, nzle or regulation of ihe City, the code, rule or regulation which imposes
the more restrictive condition, standard or requirement shall prevail. (1988 Code §39.14)
1008.15 �88�18: �OL.A,TIOI�I OF PR0�II�IOI�S: Any person found violating any of the
provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (1988 Code §39.15)
1008.16 �.-08�: SIGI� V�BI�CE�o
Subd. 1. A variance to the proviszons of Section 1008 mav be considered by the Board of Adjustment
and At�peals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code im�oses undue
hardship or practical difficulties ta ti�e property owner. A�plicaiions shall be subrnitted and
reviewed in the same manner as indieated in Chapter 1125 of the Mounds View Zonin� Code•
(Ord. 644, 12-13-99�
.. . . . , . . _ _ . _ ,�...
. . _ . ..�� _ . ..- - - -- . .
.• -
:s:•� .:. _ �. .,. -- - - ^ - - -- - -
� �. � . .. . _.. .,�. •. - - ^ :. , . - .p - - - .,. . . . _ ,.
. sn:.it5��
� • """ . .. . C. " ' ' ' - " -. . - � - ' - •
. . . . . . ... ... i..r. ... .. ... ... .� . .� �. '
v•'�L ¢�Rl'�i � . ..
11
Page 2�
` ci
Draft Sign Code Revision
March 7, 2001
_ _ - � -_
i-' l, 1.� 11 .,4.� 41-�0 1,.,,..aRl-,;
.. .......�� .. ., »_.� .... _ . ---- ---° ----_ __ _ i
- ' • ' ' ' .. .� . .. .- ..-. . - '
,. . . . - ...
, , ,... � . . • • � ' ' " " ' ' . . .
Ili'J'
� _ _ ._ C
t �
Subd. 2. Variance Requests; Fees: A11 requesis shall be made in wriiing on the form provided by
the City and the request shall include the fee specified in the City's Fee Charges. All
information required when applying for a sign permit, as autiined in Section 1008.03, shall be
required before the request for a variance is considered. {Ord. 585, 7-15-9b}
F:�DATA\GROUP3\COMDEV�5PECPRO.i�Sp082-UO (Sign Code)\Drafl Revision N- Mar 7, 200i .doc
Page 29
�
Pl$OCEEDII�'GS OF �`�iE Il�O�Tl�I3� VI�+ � PL�I1�1Il�IG COI�IIVIISSIOI�1
CITY O�' 1VVIOiJI�DS VIE�
SEY COiJI�IT�.',11�IIl�II�tESOT'A
2401 Hfghway �0,
lo Call to �rdea°
The meeting was called to arder by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m.,
2. 12�1I Call
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Comrz�issioners
None.
Also Present: Comrn�.uiity
J
ar IVleefing
�r;y 21, 2001
w �ity Hall
: IVIN'S5112
2041.
Millei- and Cerny.
Spec$�1 Plar�n�n� Case �Toe 5P-0�2-00
Cantinuation of �ig� Code Review
Planuing Case Nos. DEiDl-401y'�1�01-001 �z C�10I-001
Applieant: ISD #621 �
Lcication: 5500 Quin.cy,Street "
Re�view oiPinewood Elementary Expansion Plans, Variance and Conditional Use
Pernnit Request
Pla�inin� Case Nos. DE01-OQ1 �i �V�O1-001
A�plicant: Minriesota Institute of P�blic Health
� Location; 2720 Highway 10
Re�view Developmeni Plans for a 13,912 Square Foot Single-Story
Office Building Within the Silverview Estates Planned Unit Development
Consideration of Resolution 647-01, a Resolution Amending the Mounds
View Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws
Page
0
�
S
m
, . ,
; � . ;
I�Ioe��ds View Piannia�g Coarim'rssion
ltegulax P/P/.[�eiing
Staff Reports/Items of Information
Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports
3. Citizen� Itequests aa�d Corr►ments on Items l�oi o� the Agenc�a
There were no resiaent comments on items not on the
Feb��ary 21, 2001
Page 2
4. Special Pianni�g Ca�e l�io. SP-082-00
Contin�aiiaa� of �iga� Code Rev�e�v '
Invitatgot� to ��a�ia�ess Ow�r�ee-s to Coanment o� Proposeil Revisic�z
Community Development Director Ericson ex�
before the Commission. Staff took the inform�
into this updated draft of the Code. Staff sent c
owners in the City to this zneeting and providei
with a copy of the staff report. I� is possil?le`1�i
the Code and determined there weren't aiiy ch�
issue for them which could be why none are in
11
12
ained:this is the third compreliensive revision
ion discussecl ai the iast meetirig and rolled it
xt in excess of 12S -,lettezs znvit�ing the business
a copy of the existing Gode on the website along
iness, owners reviewed the proposed changes to
�ges, they deemed restrictive enough to cause an
Director Ericson stated his staff report showed: fihe changes from the last revision of the Code and
asked if the Commission wanted to go througti the revisions to the Code.
Directox Encson revzewed'tlie. changes with the''Coinmission.
Chair Stevenson siated,he had an;issue vc�ith allowing a two square foot pennant.
Director Encson s"tated �i could be changed to ona square fooi but questioned whether the
Commission wanted `to .allovtr them at a11 ar limit them as a temporary sign.
Chair'Stevenson stated he was not opposed to the temporary pennants allowed for 21 days
. .; , .
ati�ertising a company or product. In his opinion the more permanent pennants should be limited
to'�a solid colar.
Cointnissioner Hegland stated he finds the pennants noisy when the wind is blowing and they
become an eye 5ore if they are allowed to deteriorate in t�e wind.
Commissiorier I�[egland suggested lzmiting all pennants to 21 days as they are really meani to be
a temporary sign.
Carmnissioner Johnson staied h� feels ihe issue is how to prevent the abuse of the use of
pennants.
;,;
't
<l
1Vlot�nds V�evv Pla�ning Commfssio�.
Reg�tlar Ii�leeting
Februar°y 21, �Q01
Page 3
Chair Stevenson stated he felt the need to revise the part of the code to allow advertising
information and suggested eliminating the first provision in that section.
Director Ericson asked how the Cammission wanted to measure the sigh� triangle noting same
cities measure from the curb lizze rather than the property line so this allows the;sign to be
brought in n�uch closer. He indicated Mounds View's Code does state from tli� property line.
Commissioner Kaden suggested adding a statement for a
property owners take the rislc and may have to move the
Director Ericson stated that would pose a problem in that o
is widened the sigti becomes non-confoz-�ning and would cc
Director Ericson statad he would rather Ieave the Code the:
Director Ericson staied he would review the Code
goveming the control of signs with obscene langu
Commissioner Kaden questioned how the
Director Ericson stated ihe City
construction.
Director Ericson explained an obsolete sign
that goes along with the abai�zdai�ed sign lan
to remove a sign that is no longer �alid.
Director`Ericson asked what the Commissic
would be allowed.
of
the streets are ever
has a sign and the str�
allowed the way it is.
attorney to see if the language
i or prol�il�ited by law.
the size and type of
be removed or covered indicating
age gives the City the opportunity
thought of the graphic illustraiing where signage
It was the consent of•the Corz�mission �hat the graphic praperly illustrated the restnictions fo�
,
Corrvmissioner Hegland asked Dlrector Ericson to add righY-of-way information to the grraphic to
ciarify.
Director Ericson stated the temporary sign section has been completely rewritten from the
previous Code and stated he was hoping for business community input at this meeting. He noted
this was an attempt `to section out the types af signage far individual requirements.
DiirectorEricsan questioned whether the Commission wished to iimit the time for allowing a
searclalight.
It was the Consent ofthe Commission to require a permit issued by Council for beacons and
searchlights.
1Vlounds Viee�v Pl�n.z�ing Corrr�n�iss�o�
Regu�a�° Meeting
Feb�-uar� 21, 2001 �
Page 4
Commissioner Johnson asked staff to check with the City of Fridley to see how it regulates.
beacons and searchlights.
Commissioner Kaden aslced how the City would determine how fast the Iight is;flashing.
Director Ericson stated the Code defines a flashing sign and
Director Ericso� stated the Code has increased signage all
signs to accammodate �he square signs with wheels and n+
would require that the sigx� copy stay within the 48 square
Commissioner Hegland asked Staff to verify the sign di;
He then aslced how the Code would handle an inflatable
Director Ericson stated a permit is required to put
Direc#or Ezicson stated he had received con
temporary signs to three times a year for 21
signage for businesses.
Con�missioner Hegland asked if
issue is the number of occurrenc�
Director
or the nt
ga befoze
Director
in favor,
stated he wa`s not'Sure if
occurrences, or the fact 1
�linson stated h.e b'elieved
1 to i�eceive authorizatio'r
at a
;�ect for a
a
to 48 square feet for
:ters. Tkus provision
xea of the sign.
ign rentai companies.
dYertisin� on it.
�nity that limiting
enaugh temporary
sign is the issue or if the
�mmunity fiakes issue with the duration
even required.
the business communi#y was concerned far having to
for a permit for a temporary sign.
e-mail fro�n the Chief of Police stating he was 100%
signage in the interest of public safety.
�iz Stevenson stated he is coricerned far allowing signs above seven {7) feet noting he thinlcs
Code should allow for.`sigris above seven (7) feet but no signage between foux (4) and seven
feei. It was the consent of the Commission io direct Staff to change the Code to require no
iage between four'(4) and seven {7} feet but allow signage above seven (7) feet.
he would malce the changes.
Director;Ericson stated the Code does not address maintenance of non-conforming signs. As
drafted it is a statement that says if anything is done to the sign it needs to be brought into
compliance. He then questioned if the Commission wished to change the language in the Code.
, ,;
Chair Stevenson suggested Staff provide an example of model language io cover the .,
maintenance of non-conforming signs. '
1VT�u�td� Vieev Planning Cognm�ssion �'eb�-�ary 21, 2001
Iteguta�-1Vleeta�cg I'age 5
Commissioner Hegland aslced if variances transfer with the transfer of property.
Director Ericson stated variances typically run with the land so wouid transfer with a transfer of
ownership.
Director Ericson stated he wauld go through #he Code
then ask the city attorney for comments.
5. Plana�ing Case Nos. DE01-O01, VR01-001, �
Pinevvood E1�mentary School Expansion
any n
Community Development Director Ericson explained this `is a request.by;,the school district for
approval of developxr�ent plans for the Pinewood Ele�nentary:,School buildi�g and`parking lot
expansion. The first page of the pians shows the bituminous areas io be remo�ed. The second
page shows the expansion of the parking lot and the paving plan and the last pages show the
intenior floor plan wzth the new or expanded areas higlilighted
Director Ericson explained this proj
The access off of Quincy for the pa�
right�of-way by six or seven feet an
need to approve a variance.
He stated tliere may also bE
he would cheok wittl the ci
conditional use;permit will
whenever these types of in,
condit'ional use �ermit be i�
Direcior Ericson nated:thea
use perrriit. He noted C�ty,
between the City and the si
will'�be published for public
cl"a conditional use permit.
erty line and onto the City
of setback ihe City would
a limited use agreement for Iiability purposes. He stated
;oncerning tlie need for a limited use apreement, A
as the school is in an R1 district. He then explained that
e before Cauncil for approval the City requires a
ld not be a problem with granting the variance and conditional
�d same research to loolc through files for an original agreement
istrict and found na documentation. He then noted this mattex
�g on the variance for March 7, 2001.
Director Ericson revi,ewed his siaff report noting there were no changes to the building that
would increase the setback to County Road I or Quincy Street. The parking lot will be
� maintained with no additional encroachment or expansion. The parking lot along County Road I,
however; is toa''close to the right-of-way and that will be addressed at the next meeting also.
There may also be a problem with the second access north on Q�iincy Street and that access may
be removed and czrculation wauld be such that all traffic would flow out onto County Road I.
The County may have a problexn wzth that proposal as the buses may have a problem negotiating
the intersection. The Ramsey County Traific Engineer has been sent a copy of the plans for
input,
IV�ounds ijie�v Plannin� Co�x�xission
Regul�r l�eetin�
F'ebr°uafl y 21, 2001
Page 6
Director Ericson indicated drainage and utzlity has been reviewed by the Director of Public
Worics who cycled the plans through �he water dept and has provided some comments. He noted
as this is a large property and there is a large amount of area being repaved this,is something
Rice Creek will need to review and approve.
Director Ericson stated it appears from the plan ihat many of
stated he is not sure if there is a need for additional landscapi
Director Ericson noted there may be additional lighting in
Commissioner Miller asked why ihe access onto Quincy
Director Ericson stated he thought it was due to the
certain times of the day.
Chair Stevenson pointed out that having sent two
the access onto Quincy Street is very difficult io'i
Com�nissioner Hegland noted i#'the
to the south they are actually adding
parlcing.
Director Ericson agreed that the
much of the parlcing lot is out oi
�t the
Director
capacity
felt
iS
out of
des will be relocated;and
parking lot area.
ald;be removed.
thng .outAn Quincy Street at
school; he personally knows
non=conforming parking lat
iance with the setbacics for
the setbacic bui is increasing how
are needed to accommodate parking needs
for a parlcing analysis noting he was not sure the
ed stalls.
Sandra Gay, tl�e architect forthe project, addressed the Commission and showed on the plan that
the school district intends to; add 12 parking spots to the south. The school currently has 68
spaces and there are 50 proposed spaces for a total of 115 spaces when the expansion is
completed. The existing parking is comprised of parking to fhe south and alang County Road I.
The parking to the soutl� on the plan is new and will replace the playground currently located in
,:.
the;area. That playgroiznd will be relocated on the site. She then pointed out the expansions to
tY�e school on the drawing notirig there will be a new mechanical systern for air quality and
ducting on ihe roof.
Ms. Gay addressed the question of watershed off of the parlcing lot to the south by explaining
that a bermed pianting area would be added and water would sheet off the impervious surfaces
and iniiltrate into that iandscaped area. The rest of the watershed will flow into the current street
system. She then explained the lalrger circles on the plan denoted new landscape plantings.
5
;:: ;;
11�I�a�nds Vievv Plan��ng C`oarx�xssio�
Re�ulaar I�ieeting
�eb��ary z�, �ooi
Page 7
Ms. Gay showed a lighting calculation drawing indicating there will be new lighting in the new
parking iot areas but the lighting plan shows there will not be any light spillage onto adjoining
property. She also noted there should not be any Iight pollution into the surrounding
neighbarhood.
Ms. Gay showed a floar plan for the school showing the remodeled and new areas as proposed,
She also noted there is a plan to paint, u�grade floorirzg and
Ms. Gay showed an elevation plan for the school showing
plan also showed the mechanical screening for the roof mf
Director Ericsan stated this inaiter will be befora the Com�
public hearing and noied Staff wouid have a resolution for
variance and to recommend approval of the development :
6. Planni�g Case I�Tos. I3E01-001 &
IYlinnes��a ��stit�te of Publi� �Ie
Cannmunity Development Director Ericson expl
site plan for an offiee building approxlmately 13
expansion. The lot was originally,;slated for an t
`:' '�ilverview Estates Planned Unit i�evelopment 1_'
been submitted to the Commissio� for review aii
providing,su.ch detailed pli
Director Er�cson reviewed
satisfied, a11 city code reqi
(1) space for 25� sqitare fE
the 3000 sauare feet of exx
�rs, and refinisli wood coat racics
ype of exterior to be used The ;'
�
,. :. ,
ucals.:
oii �.gain�o� March 7, 2001 far a
�ideration'a�d,approval of the
to Council
`fihe applicarit has requested approval for a
square feef with 3,000 square feet far future
type use in conjunction with the
;ncson noted a thorough set of plans has
nmerided the developer on his worlc in
and noted all seibacks as determined by the PUD are.
:merits are,`satisfied, parking requirements were appraved to be one
of gross #loar area equaling a need for 56 spaces. When you add in
�sion there is a need for 70 spaces.
�r Ericson explamed.i;he building is located next to a wetland and would require a�c�vetland
permit. The imperr�iqus surface area of the proposed bui�ding encroaches 1Q% or less into
tland buffer area -The original Planned Unit Develo�ment orig7nally showed a maximum
nce of 45% impervious surface within the buffer area making the development
�antiv below the inaximum number.
ited the landscaping plan has been revised by the city forester and those
worlced into the plans Uefare the Commission. The city forester has taliced
s staff and has approved the revised sife plan.
Director Ericson explained the lighting pIan shows a photorx�etric analysis for the site and
indicates there will be t�ree (3} light standards twenty-four (2�} feet tall housed in aluminum
housing units to prevent glare.
MOtttl(IS VI�V4' PI�IlIlIYI� �:OriliT3ISSI011 Febz°uary 219 2001
Regula� I�eeting Page �
Director Ericson explained there would be two accesses to the site. One located on Silver Lalce
Road and one on Highway 10 which would be a right in and right out access. He then explained
when the piat was approved 'ui 1997, MNDOT had jurisdiction and had approved the access
onto Highway 10 but that wi11 need to be confirmed with Ramsey County.
Directar Ericson explained the garbage dumpster enclosure meets'ihe requirements of ihe
previously approved planned unit development and there will be�no other accessory structures on
the property.
Director Ericson explained the drainage and utiiity issues �
Watershed but the developer will not need official approv�
acres. The pond is designed to handle more drainage than
Director Ericson explained he and the developer have di
and Staff has asked for an extended trailway to connect;-°
the way down to County Road I. He also noted ihe City
agrees to the extended trailway.
Director Erieson explained the signage would be re:
Institute for Public Health and used at tl�i.s site. Thi
is within City requiren�ents. '
Director Ericsoxz summarized ihat tliis is a�
look at the plans provided and proyide inpu
tonight. . , , . .
set ihe bui
concemed
buiit as nr�
issioner Milier
lic Heaith is.
a
for
i with Riee Creelc ° `
�rty is smaller than 2.5
vili require.
Highway 10
�ake Road all
developer
location of Minnesota
; feet of signage which
l discussion for the Comrxxission to
is no action required on this
he has been in contact with the property owner to the south who is
ii of ilie proposed building on the lat. The applicant is proposing to
from `CountyHighway l0. The property owner to the south is
building wouid block the view of his building if the building were
could tell the Commission what the Minnesota Insiitute
Jerry Jalcer, Direet+?r af the Minnesota Institute of Public Health explained the Minnesota
tute of Publ�c Health is a nan-profit organization that has been in busin�ss for 28 years in the
of Anoka."The reason they are seeking to build a building in Mounds View is due io the
that they liave outgrovvn their current location and Mounds View seems to be a ce�itral
hari.for their employees.
1
Mr. 7aker handed out materials to the Commission giving information an the Minnesota Instituie
of Pubiic Health. He pointed out they are not an agency of governnlent bui are a freestanding
5013C non-profit organization that offers research-tested and powerfully cammunicated advice
on how to talce better care of yaurself. They are not a clinic, do not see patients, and do not _'
Il�Io�ands View Planning Coa�ramission
12egular 1VIeetang
Febraary 21, 2Q01
Page 9
- provide a direct counseling service. Mr. Jalcer then outlined a few things his organization does
%r the state of Minnesota as a client.
Steve Doughty, the architect on the proj ect, showed a color drawing of the proposed building.
The architect stated the building is currentiy in the design developinent stages and is on schedule
to have construction docuxnents completed soxnetime around the fizst of April. He indicated they
are hoping to break ground as soon as road restrictions are lifted.
Mr. Doughty explained this is a single story affice building with a possible expansion'to the
sou#hwest on the lot which is a horizontal expansion of the�bui�ding arid a third phase would be a
�vertical expansion of the building of approximately 6000 square feet over the original portion of
the building.
Mr. Doughty pointed out they are trying to maintain the residential
design far the building but noted the verti�cal expansion will go up ;
the ridge line of �he shingled roof `. " ;...
Mr. Doughiy explained the materials to be used for the
pre-cast base beiow the windows and a type" of commei
< . ,:;
to the roof eaves. '`
Mr. Doughty stated he was rece�
_' the setback issue. Ir� an effort to
the buildin� bacic 50 feet. There
past the
aiternat�ve pian �n an eiror
record, his clieilt ��vould be
located an the"pro�erCy..
Commissioner;Mill�r aske
building; � � >
Mr: Dau�htv stafed the pa�
then explainec
and the expan;
s
the
; area with the
2 feet above
�.ck material with a
head of the vvindows
ide aware of the concerns of the property owner �egarding
good faith he pravided another site plan ihat would pull
t stiIl be ari �:dd1tioiia120 feet of the proposed building out
<, .. :.
cild�ng but he stated ius client would agree to this
the other property awner. Mr. Doughty noted, for the
lditional costs to bring in more fill due to the wetland
ive site plan would itnpact the parking lot for the
{u�g lot would be the same with the building in either location. 1VIr.
;y°`intend to buzld, grade and provide enough parking fo� the c�arrent
with this first phase.
Johnson inquired as tfl how much additional fill would be required if the building
►ck on the site.
estimated the additional cost for fi11 to be between �4,000 a�id $10,000.
Commissioner Kaden inquired as to whether moving the building would affect the holdzng pond.
;
Mr. Doughty stated the holding pond would not be affected i�y moving the buiiding back.
„. ;.
, ,
l�iIounds Vievv Planning Com�ission
IZegular li�Ieetin�
February 21, 2001
Page 10
Directar Ez�cson stated the building was moved up on the site in an effort to be sensitive to the
fact that the building would be partially in the 100-foat buffer for the wetland. He then noted
there is room to pull the building back without af%cting the wetla.nd buffer or storm water pond.
Commissioner Hegland aslced how moving the building would affect ihe expansion.
Mr. Doughty stated he did not beiieve there would be any significant impact to the expansion by
moving the building aside from slightly increased constructiori costs.
Coinmissioner Miller aslced the architect what the onientation ofthe picture he was showing'ihe `
Commission was. _
Mr. Doughty indicated the building as presented in the
Chair Stevenson thanlced the architect and Mr, Jaker
Director Ericson aslced for direction from the
Chair Steven.son noted it was the consent
back the 50 feet to better accommodate tl
Cornrnissioner Miller inquired as
Director Ericson stated thai.w
stated a�ooii t�lace fflr snow ti
Director
i!�
,,�
noted there were
south.
buiiding be pushed
to
Uvhere the snow removed'from parking lots would be placed. ;,
addressed yet,but mdlcated that Rice Creek Watershed has
be the starrn water pond ar they cauld also plow snow up
ion for review at the next meeting.
tion 647-01, a 12esolutiom A'reending the 11�Iounds V'iew
►nimission Byiavvs
)irector Ericson stated the Bylaws were reviewed at the last meeting
changes, none of any substance.
a change io the Bylaws to read "council liaisan” rather than
Director!�Ericson noied he would change the language for clarification.
MOTION/SECOND: I�aden/Hegland. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 647-01,
a Resolution Amending the Mouncls View Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws.
;
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
� ;:;
'a
_;
Ii�ounds �liedv Plan�ing Co��nissao�
Itegul�r li�eetrng
�o St�ff laepori�
�. Previou� Cous�cil.Act�ou
Community Development Director Ericson reported aY the last C�
discussed the site plan approval for Mr. Mezzenga and tableci;act
resident to the south and Mr. Mezzenga time to resolve the fenci�
matter noting it wzll only be tabled once before Council will talte
an eight (8) foot fence and Mr. Mezzenga is proposing a six`(� f
Director Ericson reported that Council had asked Sta�f to r�equest
the issue of whether to Yequire an eight (8j foot fence or a six (6}
Commissioner Kaden aslced if there was a cost differex�ce betwef
eight (8) faot fence.
on
a six
�'eb�uary 21, 2001
Page �1
eetu�g Council :
�e matter to allow the.
Council tabled the
Mr. Zwirn is propqsing
:,.
�m the Cammission on
and an
Director Ericson sta#ed there was a difference, but could not guess,;what'that might be.
Commissioner Johnson stated he belie�ed the cost; difference coitld be as much as double.
It was the consent af the Commission that a six' (6} foot fence should be adequate to provide
screening for privacy.
Di
9:(
b.
. to 3:00 p.m. a
rnts. He stated
improvements
for its input and noted he would forward the
lissioner?� Journal
� Hame and Garden Show is scheduled for March 3, 2001 from
�riimunity Center. City Staff will be available to answer q�iestions
�ves this will be a good show providing information on all types
as iandscaping and encouraged residents ta attend.
Plaaa�ing Commissione�s' lteport�
l0e Adjou�°nrrient to Agenda 3ession
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 9:27 p.rn.
I�/Iounds View Pl�n��ng Cort�mission Februaa-y �1, 2001
Rege�lar Ii�Ieetin� Page 12
(The meeting immediaiely adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfullv submitted,
:; _„•:�
'.:.1
,�'
f
I�O � �TIE� PL �1�G CONil�IISSI�I�
N(arch 21, 20d1 -- 7:00 P.i1�.
REGUL,AR MEETING
AGE�T?A
I . Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3 . Approval of Minutes:
a. Februa.ty 21, 2001
b. February 7, 2001
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
CTi`IZENS: BEI+O� SPEAI�PiG, PI,EA� CO1�E TO TfiE PODNNi,
A1VD GIVJE 'SCOUR FULL 1'7�ME AND A13DRES3 FOR TH� P/IIN[7'lES
5. �'lanrain� Ca�e I�dos. IDE0��002 � �01-001
Applicant: Minnesoia lnstitute of Public Health
Location: 2720 Highway 14
Further Review of Office Building Development Plans, Consideration af Resolution
Recommending Approval of the Development Review.
6. Pla��a�t� Case �tos. I�E01-QO1, �01-001 & CU01-001
` Applicant: ISD # 621
Location: 5504 Quincy Street
Further Review of Finewood Elementary Expansion Plans, Cansideration of Variance
Resolution and 1Zesolution for Conditional Use Permit and Deveiopment Review Request
7. StaffReports
a. Highway 10 Proj�ct Update
8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
9. Adjournment to Agenda Session
1�PPLICr�t�'�: YOUR,A'rTEIi�DAivCE AT'TI�IS NI�ETiNG IS RE�UESTED.
PLEASE N�T'IFY '��E C�MIVIUNiTI' l)E'VELOPIVIENT DEi'ART1Vi�1�T AT
763-717-4021 i�' �O�J AItE LTT�ABLE TO ATT�NID.
. �-, .; �; ��
AGEND�1
1. Review the Minutes from the March 7, 2001, Planning Com�nission Meeting.
N:IDATA\GR�UPSICOMDEV�PLAi�1COMMIPCAGENBA�2001�farch 21, 2001 PC Agendadoc
�. ; _
_
--� �i ': � 1>,, � � �. ; ;_ ; � ���,;; ��; ��-:
�r �� �
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
1. Ca11 to Order
2. Roll Cai111
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
CI'['X7.LN5: BEFORE SPE�CING, PL�,ASE COME 7E'O T€� PODIUI�
r�ND GNE YOUR +g`iJLL NAME AND ADDRESS F�iZ T� MINUTES
4. Planndng Case I�os. �E01-001 �a ��01�001
Applicant: Minnesota I�lstitute of Public Hea.lth
Location: 2720 Highway 10
Further Review of Office Building Development Plans, �onsideratian of Resolution
Recommending Approval of the DevelopmenY Review.
5, Pl�r�ni�g C�se l�os. DE01-001, �O1-001 �i CiT01-40�.
Applicant: ISD # 621
Location: 5500 Quincy Sireet
Further Review of Pinewood Elementary Expansion Plans, Consideration of Variance
Resolution and Resolution for Conditional Use Permii and Development Review Request
6. Special Planning Case I�To. SP-0�2-00
Continuation of Sign Code Review
7. StaffReports
a. Previous Council Action
b. Highway 10 Praject Update, Steering Committee
c. Cancellation of the March 21, 2001 meeting?
_ g
0
Chairperson and Planning Comtnissioners' Reports
Adjournment to A.genda Session
�P�,ICANTS: YOUR ATTEP]I)AIVCE AT THIS 11��TiNG LS ItEQUEST�i).
PI,�ASE I�t�'TII� X T�E CO D��+ LOP19�1VT �9�P�T�l�IT A�'
7G3-717-4021 II' �O�iT �2E UI�Tl�BI� TO �TT'�EIVI).
. �= :; r�
AGENDA
1. Review the Minutes from the Febnaary 21, 2001, Planning Comtnission Meeting.
N:IDATAIGROLJPS\COivIDEV�PLANCOMM�PCAGENDA�20D l�ivfarclt 7, 2001 PC Agenda.doc
;
Item # 4
.,:� . .,.:��:.._ , ,�..�;:., r . i�. .,�.�;- ,>,_,� ..�„ ..,., ��r_ _;.r,. _r
_�_�.,,�... :.;..,..., „r ... _: . .. ,- '- -;:._ ... _��:_ _..�...�-��_ ..c.,.�..r
Crty of Mounds Yiew
�' � ; , , , • =,. ' , � . � - :�; :�; ;
�
Meeting.Date: Mar ch S, 2001
, : ,. ,
;.;�„ ,. , _.� __ . ,.:,- ,.,. .., �:�. .. .. ..... ..... . ..: . . ... .�,�,. , . . :.�� . .,,., .. _ „r
7'Ctre.
DISGUSSION AND REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN� F4R A 1b,912 SQUARE-FOOT
S1NGLE-STQRY OFFICE BUILDING WITHN THE �ILVERVIEW ESTATES PUD.
Introductao�:
Minnesota Institute of Public Health (MIl'H} a subsidiary of Blue Cross Blue �hieid, has applied for
a developrnernt review to construct a Ib,9i2 square-foot office building on the vacant lot southeast
of the Holiday Stationstore. The lot was originally envisioned to support a 25,000 square foot two-
story office huilding, which is what the Silverview Estates allows for in the PUD Document. MIPH
would also like approval for a second expansion which would potentially add 6,000 square feet of
second-story offzce space. �Ihile the use and square footages are consistent with the PUD, because
the footprint and configuration are differeni from what was approved, the site plans need to be
reviewed and reapproved. All together, the ma�mum proposed office space would be 22,912
square feet. As MEr. Jerry Jaker, NID?H Director, indicated at the last meeting of the Planning
Commission, the of�ice building would be used to provide of�'ice space �or 1VIIPH s�aff. No clinic,
outpatieni, classroom or znedical procedures would take place at this facility.
13ev�lopment Revie�vv Da�cussa�rz:
As addressed at the Iast meeting, the proposal, even with the proposed b,000 square foot upper
story expansion, satisfies all City �oning requirements and the requirements of the Silverview
Estates PUD. One change has been made to the site plan regarding the placement of the building.
On the plans date-stamped 2//2/01, the building was shown set back thirty feet (30'} from
Highway 10. In response to Mr. Winiecici's concerns about obscured visibility fo his building, the
deveiopers pulled the building back an additional twenty feet (20') resulting ir� a fif�y foot setback.
The developers hava indicated ihat it would be cost prohibitive to pull the buitding back an.y
further. Staff will have a graphic available that shows the sight lines to Mr. Winiecki's building
and ground sign. Attached to this report is a copy of correspondence sent recently to Mr.
Winiecici regarding the setback issue. _
Dimensional Requirements:
Front Setback (I�ighway 10}
Sideyardl Setback (Holiday)
Sideyard Setback (�Iiniecki)
Parking lot Setback (Highway 10)
Par�cing lat Seibacic (Holiday)
Parking lot Setbacic (Winiecki)
Required
30 feei
20 feet
20 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Existing or
Proposed
50 feet
i 40 feet
24 feet
10 feei
10 feet
I25 feet
Met?
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
MIPH
March 7, 2001
Page 2
Parkin :
The Siiverview Estates PUD established the parking requirements for the office componeni to be
one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The building is shown to be 16,912 square feet
(13,912 square feet plus another 3,00� square foot first floor expansion), which would result in
the provision of 68 spaces. The site plan shows 70 spaces. The second expansion wauld be a
upper story addition of 6,000 square feet which would require an additiona124 spaces and a totat
of 92 spaces at full build-out. In addition to the 70 stalls provided, 22 spaces are indicated as
proof of parking, to be constructed if and when the second-story expansion is completed. The
parking plan is consistent with the PUI� and also con�plies with the ADA requirements for
handicapped accessible stalis.
Wetland Bu� er:
With the increased setback from Highway 10, more of the building and impervious surface is
situaied �within the 100-foot wetland buffer. Even so, the amount of impervious surface coverage
within the buf�er is still approximately 10 percent. The Silverview Esiates PIJI� ailows for a 45
percent buffer coverage.
Landscapin�:
The applicant has provided a revised iandscape plan which has been reviewed and approved by
` Rick Wrislcey, the City Forester.
Lt�drtin�:
The applicant has submitted a photometric analyszs of the site (Page E1.2) based on the foot-
candle readings of the proposed iighting. According to the photometric analysis, there are three
parking lot pole lights, three building mounted wail packs, and three lights recessed into the
underside of the fron� entry canopy. The parking lot poles will be 24 feet tall ax�zd the bulbs
would be completely encased within a one-piece aluminum lxousing. The provided fooi-candle
readings are all within the Code requirements.
Acces.�:
Access #o this parcel can be achieved from the east-bound lane of Highway 10 or from �ilver
Lake Road. The Fiighway 10 access is a right-in righi-out access oniy and does not provide for
access from the west-bound lanes. The access from Silver Lake Road is shared with #he Holiday
store and documents are on file which grants permanently access to Holiday. This was a
candition of the Silverview estates PUD. The driveway and access drive widtihs, turning radii and
parking lot aisle widths have beeri reviewed by the Fire Marshal who found the plans cansistent
with fire department requirernents. As of the date �his report was wri�ien, staffhad yet to discuss
this issue with the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer. Any commenis received from the County
regarding ihi.s proposal will be forwarded to the Commission either in wril:ing or verbally at the
night of the meeting.
M1PH
March 7, 2001
Page 3
Accessorv Structures:
The plans indicate a trash enclosure on the lot behind the building. The PUD allows for a trash
enclosure but no other accessory buildings. The enclosure sha11 be constructed of a masonry
material io match the buiiding and shaIl have locicing or latching gaies which when closed do not
offer any visibility of the dumpsters or refuse within the enclosure.
Drainage and UtiliPv:
The applicant has consulted with Rice Creelc Watershed District io determine if their review was
necessary. Because the site area is less ihan 2,5 acres, their review is not needed. The applicants
have provided detailed stozrnwater runoff data which indica�es the amount of impervious suirfcae
on the site is less than what was originally proposed, and as such, will contribute less runofit thai�:
was originaily expected. The proposed first floor eievation (FFE) is 912.3, which is four feet
above ihe City's recommended mimimum building elevation for this site.
CoYridoY Im�YOVemenis:
As has been the case with previaus Highway 10 developrr�ent prajects, the City requires pravision
of a 9-foot wide bituminous traiiway and decorative lights. At your last meeting, staii indicated
that there have been some preliminary discussions with the developer regarding the trailway and
decorative lighting. Rather �han reguiring the developer to install a traiiway along the front of this
-- property that connects with no other trailway, staffproposed that the developer install a trailway
fihat begins at the corner of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road and terminates at the corner of
Highway 10 and Coun�y Road I. In return far the complete trail installation, staff suggesied tkzat
the City would be responsible for the instailation of the decorative iights, which last year cost
$5,0�0 each. In furiher consideration of this project and the Highway 10 Corridor study, sta.ff
would suggest perhaps delaying the installation of both trailway and decorative iighting until the
Corridor siudy has been completed, In return, staff would suggest that a cash payment be made
rn lieu� of the installation of the improvements equivalent to the cost af two lights ($10,000) and
2751ineal feet of 9-foot wide bituminous trailway a# $15 per lineal foat ($4,125.) Altogether, the
improvement dedication would amoun# to $14, �25. Staff would further suggest that if the
improvements {ar similar improvements io beneftt the properiy) are not made within five year's
time, the znoney could be refunded to the property owner.
Si�na�e.-
As discussed at the last rneeting, ihere would be � 32 square foot internally illuminate sign near
the Highway 10 access drive built upon a masonry base with materials to match the buildizz�. The
signage on the building would be individually mounted letters to read "Minnesota Institute of
Public i�[ealth." The area of the building mounted signage wauld be approximately 24 square feet.
f�ltogether, there would be appro�mately 56 square feet of signage for this development.
M1PH
March 7, 2001
Page 4
- l�eco�raxer��l�ttort:
Ailow for additionai discussion re�arding this proposal and consider all of the information and
testimony that has been presented to the Commission. Assuming there are no unresoived issues
related to this request, staf�would recommend approval of Resolution 6S0-01, a resolution
recommending approval of the development review request made by the Minnesota Institute for
Public Health.
� v
���,.,t°'t��.� �..�d-C.�:'�.,"�.o
James Ericson
Community Develop�nent Director
763-717-402i
N:IDATAIGROUPS1COIvIDBV1DEVCASES�De�1-002 - MII'H\MI�'H (PC) - Feb 21, 2001.doc
, �'�
�oning Map
8�34�j c�v-rv ,
3U�0 8�3b
5020 8025 8oz�
. $016
79$� 80�5 : �ODO
7990
� ;� 79�D
�
�o � 7980°
�
' � 7950'
� N 7534
Z-'S o �� �
�
�
7s� N �
��� �
�
%�i� � � ,,
_.... �*i 4
786� 7835 �I � �
7850 7821 . `V
- .
; B�•�
� ,
7$0 78b1 i�
� 7791,i
�•r`-� ���
77$fi 778irr 7750
- r
778 i
r C
777Q i ' �
�
7768 776� -
Q 7729', � — � w
-r
7i2$ � 7723 '�` �
� � . �i�30 �
7718 7715 , � 772 LC
- .;`p� 771' �
7710 ��� "� 7i�
..r.__ ---� --°__..�.. , (n
7s92
7692 7685 c•.1 ��gp
7fi70 i$63 � 78�2
&8
7sso
7b44 ��53
7834 � 7fi35
7620 �
��� �so�
7594 7575
7�88
7S$4 C3 7565
7672 � �—�
t� 7a55 7552
7560 Q 7'_550,
� � �r� 7542
. _ '7 wan
BU45 8�40 8U42 8045 �����
8�733 803`L 8rJ33 8G4�
�025 ��,�� �
8os5 � 8025 &018 gp�� sDOO
8005 Ba3 804� � aoos
79$5 8�04 7981 ?990 � 7981 7930
7975 - 7�70 7979 798C1 7969 7980
.. . . . .: :........ .
7985 79fi0 Q 7359 7970 i365
7966
7�55 7g�6 a��4� 795d 7959
7940 7945 7946
7933 795a i935 793p
7930
� _ .�. � � � � ,.-
N N LV ; 7s�O %9�1 %9CJQ N N N� 7$pD
a���v��
____ _ � � �
SpSi
8Q��5
8021
9D17
7989
7979
7��g
7927
7917
_ -,n ' r
N � *-
7901 ; N ; N
ss � �
� N
s7
�5 t
�41
�15
43
Q1
67
61
55
4�
r
]5 u
c
�
�- �-
� � oa��
`o Q `v cv �' N /
N
�
��
—._ �
' �- �.►'r,
i.y
� � � � -- � :���
'�;� d urF¢���»�;������������
to:
fax #:
re:
Geor�e Winiecki
763-780-046�
Gontacts for the Office Building Project
d�te: Feb 2�, 2001
pages: 4
Attached are ihe phone numbers and add��esses %r the two individuais I've been dealing with
concerning the o�ice building proposed by the Minnesota Institute for Public Health on the lot
northwesi of ydu on Highway 1.0.
Here's some help in reviewing the Code. Open the first of the Lhree files, "TITLE I 100 ZONING
CODE – T," and take a Iook at Section 1104.01, relating to setbacks. In the R-1 and R-2 zoning
districts (Single family and twa-family districts, respectively) there is a Footnoted provision
indicating that the setback �or any new principal buiiding shall be the minimun� setback in
existence on that hiack. There is however no sirniiar provision in the higher density residential or
commercial zoning districts. The minimum setbacl� in a connmercial disirict is 30 feet.
As you know, however, the lot in question is zoned PUD, for which the taUle refers you to Chapter
1120. This ca�i be found in the third fiie on the CD, "TITLE 1100 ZONING CODE – III." This
Chapter goes into some detail as to the zoning intricacies related to Planned Unit Developments. In
te.rms of setbacks, see 1120.04, Subd. 2d, under "Special Renuirements and Standards" –
"Commercial or Industriai Planned Unii DeveIopment:" This only reyuires that a building be sel;back
at least 50 feet from a side ar rear �roperty line abutting a residential district. The front setbacic is
not addressed. Either ��ay, your propezty is zoned B--2, Limited Business commercial az�d as such
that provision woutd not apply. The setbacks are liowevez addressed in the Silvezview Estates PUD
agreetnent, which indicates 34 feet. Even though the ariginai buitding is shown on the cancept plan
to be set bacic as far as yours is, it was not a requirement.
Piease cail me if there is any additionai information I can provide for yau.
� d/G't�i
Fram the desk of...
.3ames Ericsora
Carnmunity Development Director
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 90
Mounds� View, MN 55172
763-717-4�21
Fax: 763-784-3462
e-mail: lime�rcmnet.orq
http:/ltcf reen ei. o rg/org/mo u ndsview
t� � �
m
t� '� t1�, w �l � U± ='
Z q� �y "� �� l� � ci3 C
�` 01 _Jt�- � � � p � � �
_ � `� J � �S � � � � � � � � �
� U � � � �
� � .� � � ���
+" 1�jg � O Vtl8 t61 � �
� � � � � U U �
� e�tl � � � � � � u�D U �
d d � � r N � � � i61 � V J.� � � � � N
� w w.a-+ +.. �+ w Q+ w. .m� o� � w w d m.+ Q U� Q, T°' t� �
� � � � � � � Q� � Q) � � � �l 'C �8 � t� �- tq � �iD
v�-�w�v.�� w wwae�-��� w�v�- �w�- N Ul ip ��t\A
tA
��10�0 O �9`mO00d �00 NN ¢ C p.� C O 4D
C�a �° O c�7 �-° N N�- L� � N(�! S*s M N v1 u1 u� � �
� �
� e�u��c��E�
u�i v�i u�i °� v�a G�
� � � � tC1 �° N T- � .�
� O p
� � N
` � � U E
�� C
gg^ � AB w
C
� C > Q � o v '� � �
� � n' O
e6 � U� � 8� � y.' O �7 C N �D
� � � � � � � � . � �� � '� G
C , d„ . =19'
� m � � � � � � � � � � � C •7 � c � •7
� �! T� O � b1 A� � �� C7 � � oL O �i.�o—L � ' O
� � �$�°�`�° U$L���°�`7° ��3a � ���> L
� -� s � '�= .: � � a� � r� � '4- �.. a � ca -° c�i
�.�., i.�•c��.� aa�.,�.a���.o-: �c�ae�-a�� c�v�c`ao a=i �
_� �s v��a ��cn �scn � C�rn �C7�eno �C�c.�U era o
w
:p
� H
�' � L t x
� � °' � ° � c u m � E cXa �
�� ��� sas�aCi en E E ,�;� �
� �
� —°`a�i �"�'��� � � oe°� u�i
,.a a � '°- E � ° � � � a� � rn �° • - v► � p
p, "- � aa � o a•— �y � cn v, o u� �! °� � cs cs v ca v o p�
a� ��- a) Q� O l� c� t� e�f tII �
.�+n�tE-���c�s o 0 ooc� c*a u�
+r ,�, 7 oJ X� Q� (� •- O O �O d 7� •� . Q QD M Cfl �
L p �.w l0 +%, .� '- C � � � � � (� � � M tD Op QCi t0 1`° �
� � w � �� � C� � (O M Nat2GOr� a 8�[7OCD � � �
� � O � � � � tq �• � (�
C E aD-� w� l� U c� � w
��-Q.n�i��'���� � �
E �•r•. �� �" N � o �
o cu�i� A�n>+�e`o �Z e�vc�ae�a� �o �
cE�°�����$�^ � e�cPaoor � �
. � Xh.n �'� � t�o ��� � ��o.� �� {3
u�ca�,�cUC...c��� c!!
��sa�s�a���-euC � �
�� o.� � ��� `° c°� � � a�i �
��L�o���'°'��d�. � �esaoaC � �
� sa as c o r � a� .o-. � c• .«.
Ci '� � Q� � ;�, � � �' �.�+ � U C/) � -p � � U Q1
� � � `D � � � 'w�— C�0 0 � � C � � � 8 L C Q �
. U � t6 Q1 v �� � � � � � v1 � � � U � p a% pry °�°
�% c°� c a�i d t�u� eVOCn�cl} � cNO o���� ¢�i � � �
a� �:o°°°'ri o� c.�•— C7 vUC��OUJ �-� it �
a�e a� -� ve � .. o .-. °� � ,� m �
��vi��b..p�����'� �e���� a`a is
� a► � ... C � � ,� � � c 'vi � e
`
°� o �► ,� a� � � � a � � � � '�
�r p c� ' c$ � , �
a a o �. � a-� p � �� v � c�te�� � � ���� � �
s� a►�.o�c°v��� � �. �
� �, a�i � � � ,'�� a v a? � � U � � � g°p� � e� e� � m � �
Q,fl°��c� �e��ea'� m ��co c� ��� o° �
� c� d � � � °c' .� co co � c� � [L: � tL � �P C� � O cA F-° � �
r� � ee
� � �
e � �
� V'1 .—e
`p� � �
z p� W
� � �
� W
U
W � Q
� � �
� d
� � �
a,j o :..�
� � �.-�-�
� � C,3
� �
Qz � U
O �
� �
�
Q
�
�
�
�
W
O
�
a�
�
� �
,
� .
M'' .
�
�
� �
�
�
: �
� �
i. '� -r
R. ..
Ii � �> -. �: . ., ,� ; �_, i�-; :. ; �J . J; �
1\ . _�''�% . . : �;-1 ` ''.. '.� . �1� �?: i,t' i�- i
.,..: �" �-. ; � ��. `:�, ' i�.' `, �`,.
�;_ ; �. �
. � �., .., ,_ ;�, �,
�. �� � -�� .� � °� � ���. �, �. ; � �� ;� ., � �, �: � ,�, �, ., ; ��, � , � � °, �. •� �, �� � ���. � • � . � ��-���,
., ; � � �.. .; .,-. :�. , � :' ? 1` �� . . : �� ��, � 1 �., � .. ._ �I �.
�'� •�� �.. ���, � -, ��:. . ; ,� ;� . �I�'�� �1� . I 1 �_ .
�TI�I�AS, The 1Vlir�nesota Instztute of Public Health has applied for a development
review to construct a 1C,912 square foat office building at 2i20 Highway 10; and,
�IIIEItEA,S, the subject properry is zoned PUD, Planed Unit Developtnent, is
designated as a"Niixed Use PUD" use on the Comprehensive Plan and is legally described as
follows:
Lot 2, Blocic 1, Silverview Estates
Rant.sey County, Siate of Minnesota
i�iEIREE��, according to Section 1006.Q6 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, any
new construciion or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval of a developrnent
review; and,
W�iE1ZEA�9 accordi�g fo the adopted Development Agreement pertaini�g the
�ilverview Estates Planned Unit Development, a maximum 25,OQ0 square feet of commercial
office is a permitted on this lot; and,
W�T�A3, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Planning Appiication
b. Zoning Map
c. Revised Site Plan, date-stamped 3/2/Ql
d. Landscape Plan, date-stamped 2/2/Ol
e. Floor �'1an and Elevations, date-stamped 2/2/01
f. Photometric Analysis, date-stamped 2/2/01
g. Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan, date-stampeci 2/2/O1
h. Letter from George �iVi.niecki, 2704 Highway 10
i. Original Concept Site Plan %r Lot 2
j . Staff Repo�
���A�9 the proposed development saiisfies the requirements of Zoning Code as
well as the adopted Flanned Unit Development Document agreement executed on Apri120,
1998; and,
MIPH Resolution 646-01
March 7, 2001
Page 2
�1�1t�A�, the site plans date-stamped 3/2/O1 indicate that the �roposed office
building will be set back 50 feet irom the property line fronting Highway 10, will be 13,912
square feet with a 3,Q00 square foot first Ievel expansion and a 6,000 square foot second story
expansion; and,
WI�I�AS, the number of parking stalls required for full buiid out (22,912 square
feet) is 92 s#alls, of which 70 will be constructed itnrnediateiy, �he remaining 22 marlced as
�roof af parking to be consirructed in conjunciion with the second building expansion; and,
�iI�1tEAS, the City Forester has reviewed and agproved ihe Landscape Plan; and,
W�ItEAS, the Fire Marshal has reviewed and approved the site pians in terms of
access, drive aisie width and other Fire Department requirements and considerations; and,
WHEI�t�S, the photometric analysis, date stamped 2/21�1, complies with the Cify
Code �ection 1103.09 pertaining to lighting and glare.
1�0�1 T�I�EFO� �E IT I2E���,�IED that the Mounds �1iew Planning
Commission, finding that a1I of the requirements of the Zoning Cade and PUD Document have
been met, does hereby recommend ihat the City Council approve the development review
request for the construction of a 13,912 square foot office building with a possible first-story
expansion of 3,000 square feet and a possiUle b,000 square foot second story expa�sion at
2720 Highway 10, subject ta the following stipulations:
Barrier curbing (B 6-12) shall be installed around the perimeter of the parking lot,
islands and access drive.
2. AIi utzlities to the building shall be installed underground.
One monument sign shall be allowed not to exceed eighi (8} feet in height or ane
hundred (100) square feet in area. The base of such sign shall be constnxcted of
masox�ry or sione materials to match �the building. A pole or pylon type sign is
prohibited.
4. AlI architectural features and building treatments shali be consistent along all elevations
of the building.
5. The site plan shall be revised to show detail for the proposed garbage dnmpster
enclosure. The enciosure shall be solidly constructed and shall be finished with
masonry materials to match the building. The gate to the enclosure shali have a
latching or locking mechanism and shall completely shield from view the interior
contents of the enclosure.
6. The Gradin�, Drainage and Utility Plan shali be revised to show a swaie running
between the building and the southeast property line to ensuge that stormwater runaff
does not flow onto the adjoining property.
M1PH Resolution 64b-O l
March 7, 200I
Page 3
7. The applicant shall submit to the City a cash payment of �14,125 in Iieu af constructing
and instaliing required trailway and lzghting corridor improvements.
8. A development agreernent which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements,
guarantees and plans for the orderly development of the land shall be executed and
recorded wi�h Ramsey County as required by Section 1006.06, Subd. 4 of the City Code.
9. The Silverview Estates Development Agreement shall be amended to make reference to
ihe Minnesota Institute of Public Healih, execuied and recorded with Ramsey County.
10, The applicant shall execute and record with Ramsey County a �atility easement document
which conveys to Five D Limited (the Holiday �tationstore) a non-exclusive right to
maintain and repair if necessary the water and saniiary li�aes servicing their property. A
copy of this recorded dacument shali be lcept on file with the City.
1 l. The applicant shall obtain a permit from Ramsey County for any and all work to be
performed within the �-€ighway 10 right of way, including but not limited to the proposed
access drive onto Highway 10.
�3E IT T�lt It�SOL�D that the Mounds View Planning Co;nmission directs
Staff to forward this Resolution to the Citq Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 7th day of March, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
3ames Ericson, Communi�y Development I)irector
(�EAL)
N:\DATA\GR�UPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES1DH01-062 - MIPH\RESOLUTION 650-01.DOC
i .:'.
Ttem # 5
r.;, ,,.. ; . _. ,.,, . �,, V:_ � x y,.,... � ., 7 . � .__ ..., , +�. �-��, � ,� ���� : �. -�--��, ;
City of Mo�cnd� Uiew
. - °
�',: • !" 1 �."i°� :.
`
1Lleeting Date: March 7, 2001
.x,. .w..--. _._..:�.,..,,.��: ,,.,.�.,... .�F.: „...., __ �,.���. ...�- ,�.r. ., _ ,�, ��i
%� . _. . �,� . . . ._. ��� �, �.;..�. . _ �� �<
7`itleo PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF VARIANCE
REQUE,ST, CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT AND DEVEL�PMENT PLANS
FOR THE PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHO�L FACILITY EXPANSION;
PLANNING CASE NOS DE01-001, VROl-OQ1 & CU01-001
Int�°oduction:
Perkins & Will has been contracted by Independent School District 621 to coordinate a facility
expansion at Pinewood Elementary, located at the southeast corner of County Road I and Quincy
�treet. In addition to the development review, a variance and conditional use pernnit will be
required for this project.
Tn review, �here are three areas of building expansion:
� The west section of the building is to inciude a new vestibule and remodeied foyer.
%' Adjacent to the foyer would be new office, conference and workroom space. 3,500 sf
� The north side of the building will include a new general storage room, chiller room,
summer boiler room and a new multi-use room. 3,000 sf
� The south side of the building will include a new entrance plus space for expanded
kindergarten and art room space. 3,500 sf
All together, the building expansion wili include 10,000 square feet o�new area.
In review, the parking lat and circulation aisles will be reconstructed and includes the following
highlights (Refer to Page C2): .
� The parking lot alongside Quincy Street will be expanded to� ihe south, following the
existing setback of �he current parlcing loi.
• The bituminous playgraund area south of the school will be reconstructed for parking.
� Add'ztional parking will be created north of the school and the �wo exisiing areas will be
connected for tl� ough access.
* In my last stai�' �•eporty I ine���a�ed t�a� ��e �ortla�e-n Qe�eney Ste°e�t acc�ss vvm��a� be
rer�tovede ,A elo�er i���ection of the plans �ndicates ihat boil� ��incy acc�s�es will r�rr��in.
_ ;. ..: ;:
.
:: .
;; - .: .,.:. _ , :. . - -
.. . . ;;: , :.
Pinewood
March 7, 2001
Fage 2
De�elopme�t l�evaew d)a�cr��si��:
Setbacks: Other tl�an the building expansion on the west szde, there will be no change to the
building or parking lot setbacks as a result of this expansion. (The expansion on the west side will
bring the expanded area 20 feet closer io Quincy Sireet, yet still within Code requirements.) The
parking lot setbacks vvill not increase on the north or west as a result of the expansion, however
the setback on Quincy Street currently does not comply vvith City Code. The parking lat along
Quincy Street actually goes beyond the praperty line and into City right of way by approximately
7 feet. The �chool District would lilce to maintain this "negaiive setback" for the parking io be
expanded southward along the same line. To do so, this will require approval of a variance.
The proposed parking lot to the south is set back 20 feet frorri the property lir�e. To compl� with
City Code, the seiback will need to be 30 feet. The applicant shall either revise the site plan to
show a thirty foot setback or provide a hardship siatement that wauld support approval of a
variance to the Code,
Parkin�: There are currenily 68 parking stalls available at Pinewood Elementary. It has become
evideni that either due to poor oi�-site circula�ion or limited parking availabiliiy, parking spills
onto Quincy Street, a situation which has generated complaints from neighboring residents, The
expansion would increase the available parking on the site to 115 stalls, which should alleviate
most of the parking problems. The Code requires that a school shail provide one stall per
classroom and one stall per fi$y students. Given 32 classroonns and 660 students, our Code
would only require 46 stalls. Clearly this wauld not be sufficien� for Pinewood Elementary, which
employs a staffof 95. (Once the Sign Code review has been completed, perhaps the parking
requirements should be neart?)
Drainage and Utilitv: The applicant has applied for a Rice Creek Watershed Disirict (RCWD)
permit, which is required due to the size of the lot and the extent of impervious surface area being
manipulated. Attached is a menno from RCWD which indicates that the application will be
approved pending the payment of a$1,500 cash surety #o the District.
Landscaping: Some of the iandscaping and plantings will be removed and relocated as a result of
the bt�ilding and parking lot expansion. Given the amount of existing mature Iandscaping, no
other landscaping should be required, other than to restore any disturbed pervious areas.
Lighting_ A photometric analysis has been submitted and appears to be in conformance with City
glare and light spiliage standards. The applicant will need to indicate which fi�ures are new an
the pian, submit the specifications for the new individual fixtures and indicate the height of the
new light standards.
��
Access: '6�ehicle traffic entering the property can exit onto Quincy Street or continue on to
County Road I. The drive aisle along Quincy wiil be restricted to one-way traffic whiie the
accesses and drive aisle adjaceni to Co�nty Road I will allow two-way traffic. Staff sent a letter .
to l�amsey County traf�ic engineer Dan Soler for comtnent. (Letter attached.) V+lhen this report
was drafted, staff had not yet received comment from Mr. Soler. i
Pinewaod
March 7, 2001
Page 3
Vas°�ance Discussaon:
As indicaied above, the parking lot along Quincy 5treet already encroaches onto City right of
way. The plans are to expand this parking area to the south using the same setback line. To
allow this, a variance wilt need to be approved as well as approval of a limited use agreement of
some kind ta formalize the arrangement.
For the Planning Commission io aci �avorably, there must he a demonstrated hardship or practical
difficulty associated with the property that makes a literai interpretation of the Code overly
burdenso�ze or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that tl�e governing body
review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with
these criteria. These criieria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code.
The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when aZl of the criteria are met. The individuai
criteria, with responses, are as follows:
a. Exceptional or extrccordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result fronl lot size or
shape, topography or other circunastances oveY which the owners of the property since
the effective date hereof have had no contr�ol.
The parking Iot alongside Quincy �treet has existed in this £asluon for many years. The
drive aisle and parking cannot be made to conforrn. to the code-required setback withouY
'''� substantial reconstruction which would be prohibitively difficult.
b. The lrte�al inteYpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
Title.
While the liierai interpretatzon would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly
enjoyed by other propezties within ihe disirict, the strict interpretation oithe Code could
cause the loss of 27 parlring spaces at a facility already experiencing a parl�ing shortage.
c. That the special conditions or ciNCUmsiances do not result, fYOm the acizons of the
applicant.
Staff was unable to determine if any agreements were filed with regard to the current
arrangement. It is possible that the school district had received some Ievel of approval from
tkae City in order to construct the parl�ing lat where it exists now. Ta that end, the special
conditions could resuli by the City's previous approval.
d. That g�anting the variance �equested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to otivneYS of other lcrnds, st�uctut�es or buildings in
the same dzstrict.
This use is unique for the district in which it is locat�d in that it is a school wiihin a single-
family residential distric�. The school is inherently different from a house in many ways
and thus tlze variance, if granted, could not be construed as a special privilege.
Pinewood
March 7, 20Q1
Page 4
-.�
That ihe va��iance requested rs the mininaum varia��ce which would allevicrte the hardship.
Economic conditions alone sdrall not be considered a hardshrp.
The variance to allow a zero-foot parking lot setback along the west property line is ihe
minimum variance to alleviate the hardship, especially considering the parking lot
encroaches over the property line and into City right of way by seven feet.
f. The 1�ariance would not be mate�ially a'etrimental to the purpose of this Trtle or to other
property in the sa»ze zone.
Given the circumstances, staz�' does noi feel the variance request would be materially
detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Extending
the parlcing lot to the south does not increase the exteni of the non-conformity
g. The proposed variance will not impair crn adequate supply of lrght and air to adjcrcent
pYOperty oY substantially zncrease ihe congestion of Phe public streets or zncrease the
dangeY of fire or endange� the public safety or substantially di�ninish or ir�rparr p��ope�ty
values tivithin the neighbo��hood.
The praposed variance would not im�air a supply of'light or air to adjacent properties or
substantiaily increase congestion on streets. rn fact, it would seem to be the case that the
expanded parking area would ease congestion and lessen the demand for on-street parking �
at the schooi, a problem whicll has generaied complaints from adjacent residents.
Based upon review of the above criteria, it would seem that a hardship does indeed exist and that
a variance could be granted to maintain the non-conforming parking iot setback along Quincy
Street.
Conditional U�e Pea°mii Iliscaassfoh:
�chools and religious institutions located within a residential district require a conditional use
perznit. Because most of these types of facilities in Mounds View predate the current Zoning
Code, most do not have a CUP. It has been the City's policy to require a CUP in the event of any
expansions so as to bring the facifity into compliance with the Code. While CLTP approval is
typically assured, it does provide the opportunity to review such issues as parking, traffic, lighting
and other faciors which may impact the residential neighborhood.
From ��ction i 106. Q4, Subd.1 of the Zoning Code relating to conditionai uses within the R-1
district, the following requirements shall be met in order to approve a CUP:
Pinewood
March 7, 2001
Page 5
Section 1125,01, Subd.le af the Zoning Code indicates that the Planning Commissian shall
consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The Planning Coznmission's
judgment shadl be based upon (but not limited to} the following factors:
(1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan,
(2) The geographical area irivolved.
�'� {3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surraunding area.
(5} The demonstrated need for such use.
The Comprehenszve Plan for th� Ciiy of Mounds View identifies this land as "School", which
would be appropriaie given its current use. The school is Iocated at the corner of Quincy Street
and County Road I and is bordered to the north, south and west by single famiiy residential
properties. Interstate 35W is located to the east of the schooi. %eographically speaking, the
school is ideally located. I don't thinlc ii would be the case that ihe school has had any
depreciative effect upon the neighborhood or on property values, but that is oniy an assumption.
I do know that some neighbors on Quincy Street frequently deal with paxking problems in front of
their homes, so they may have a different take on the depreciative effec� of the school. Last, I
would assert that there is a need for a school at that location given thai 660 children congregate
there on a daily basis.
Talcing all this into consideration, staffwould recommend that a CUP be issued to the school to
bring the use into compliance v�rith the CiCy's Zo�rung Code.
. ; ,..
, , ...
Pinewood
March 7, 2001
Page 6
.Recomra�tendataon:
Open the pubiic hearing and allow residents and any other interested parties to comment on the
variance, conditional use permit and development review requesf. After consideration of all the
information and testimoiry that has been presented and assuming no additionai information is
necessary, the Plannir�g Commission shouid act upon the two resolutions attached to this report
approving the variance and recommending approvai of the conditional use permit and
development review or it shauld direct staff to draft alternate versions of these resolution for
future action.
�,:,�C�.�'�-�:�, ����`�'�
James Ericson
Coznmunity Deveiopment Director
763 -717-4021
N:�DATA\GROiTPS1COMDEV�DEVCASES�DEOi-0011Pinewood (PC} - Mar 7, 2001.doc
�oning Map
�M i M� M� M� M� 0:: aD..hi <D: �� �t7:�d: i7 cW�';Ni �,�„ u�f G�.Nt<P �D'•LOIC�t W I� �10`O�YiO'�f'.IO�Q
� 1 N f CV : Ni N: NI cV � C� i �y 'cv� N�` N�N' N N�.N: n}'NiO[.��� 00 �!.ery�x7:CV •°,� � i4f,b�0'O�C>
' - r � N. SV N Ni�'N:N1 N N;cV�CV �IiN.LV�C.f QAKW000 t�tiN�N�NicV�NlfJ�.N. !cy.ry N
�KWOOd DR _,: ;_�.. . � ��.._�.,... : ; ; : PA 1 ' �� F
� ''m � ,�_ ; -.1_._.,..._.x . ' � R .-- � _.. ��._;....1 . i. $
� u� , h r� v) ; � � r I . ^ .. {._.,.._ ... , . ..� ...
a> • co( h n i� � �+'y ` r 7a� !.- i u� � ! { t � � i S ; f i 1 I
� �J�����1 5�� N�N IN'� NiN.:N�U�y7�d i M1(V !.j � iI�S�'MtN �.�5�� M1;..tn=M �h 1� �•° 1N� � Itii ��A 1t�l�'
_ . CV'Nf.NiN�N;N'CVINi.N�NfN �yjbt �Oi�N� �)t7�f7.;N���� G:Cni[n OJIi��h
_..-Jv_..,..... -,..-,-. N N I N� N j S4 PF
I N j r;r�w:P �P'b:O O�OO
SG� o�K�� �,N;N''NGY N�NiH�NSN!N N N;c`t N+NN
1� � s&s � 5st � �� ' � I
_._ .�..�.... �. �y _--__. ; w t� i �o r a0
� 550 ' 560 5606 � , 1 � 1 t� �n 90 ; ° ` �' � ,
_ ._.,.�.,....__. ....._. -. �� � i M' ,�.�. �;���ty M t H��! r. p' p�� � d: tfl 1 OQ � tV �D � OD i N t cD � QO ' O N tD ! Q{` d' Ip O
• N i N �y
t N nl'M fy N t�! �"�! !:N m n;tfll�n�tn �-fT M--N �� OIW'p1 pJ�n.�f�
3'! Sfi0C1 �601 5600 ----l-�-� i----�� I"'..1....� i`�; �e �] � N; N I c� !cv f� ; i .- i r- i'�- � o o f o o�o
...........»_..,_,,. ._,�. sn ' i 4f Ir i__,�`... _„ � t I � N N � N N i N I N� N� N: N i�; N� N N � N f N: Pt jN
.._ . , �:
6f�W h. ,
� � `J5fi2 (� N I cl � M I � i�A i `�' ;,`�d. ;f� !O� i '...._.�'•'(._._ �__ ;.__ ...,.�._.�-'-' �.._..,�_ _;__..�.�._�-"-s.,_...� A.._.' i � i 1`
S ,� °J�J6�: SrJB N •. N ; N i �V � N ( � N � N rM � � . .,n ` r � "'� , � �...- . ,�.-.....�, f_.... �...,.'�..
.W_.,-...�-���-^- --"' n'7N'NlN�N�;Vi��O�f'M�1n �A�1�',Q+'.Mih�rn!r� n>rn'rir>fr}� u�?n;.-
j 555fa5557� 555 cvjcyfc��Ni �on ro �• u,�rs:�,;�i�: cvi,- �^ o,rn:rn�ro:n=n
... � .....__ � ._.-'- ltl "'---' . 7E p,, N . N f � P .�w � .- t .- j � r � : b � O b S O }Q
i �°.00 D�d'jt0; �,v�C N N�f.f N�NiN1NIN��'cc�N;N;N�NiN;N:N
51�5556;5553t1_ 555 Ni�IN'N�N;�1�°nl� �`°;coe � . .
__ �--�...�.------ 4J -._._.... N:[V � tV : CV lV ;� i N f �•�j f M ��y r O a. . DR
5544# 5545 �° 554 —; -�. L--� N f. N.i N' �" (V . N ��o o � co : w; c� �+a -
� y �_ .,�:, .,y.c...,.i_�+N' 1o! rn�� r.:co•�n u� a.�mi rnti�lD �°��¢!n rn�.�,°i`r'`°It`
_..- ..,� ,_n; ��� k0� ' � i __ N; 1�; cV f � r- . f,r r � � � r I N ) O a O� h O
�9 •�,�.,_....�. ...,� �� Qo; n! r i� f� � f� 1!` 1 i'.._i,�� NI N i r 7 � f t � �, � �«- i P �o
5538;553 553 c�.�N� ` iN�NjNf�yjM��;r7 +�-},.� � �N () N CV4fVtNl(V�N N;N� N�N�N�N�N, NiN
.,- ,__... ��_.,._. ,.._.._. , % I cv ' ry , tv � f f � � � I � f, i f I `
� w ,..�.... _. .�. ....f.._.,�...�.:�..�--�-�-----�- .,. �._....;..� _ ;
f3 553 553 Pi43�WOQD , N'� :u� � � ; � 1 ; � �; ._�.,._...� : � _r� �'-
r �`i 6533 � bJ3 a o i , � y { ' , �....
_�._��_.. _._v. a ; � i ( ��N��fl7 (J uT•t�;0iit7 f���.P'�Int�of fr'iMihi� N; �`'
Z7 552&' S52 � 5526 Q ? up •`. Q m 100 o v- � o cv ��� m n!<o ; u� ` v� � v� ro ; c+� i P s� r�.- o� o( 4 Q� o
�. � �� N, � � �;� i; � fi�o
- N<�:� � N tp �� N� � d' 1 � 1`1 �`� N tV f N 1 N� N I N 1 N+ N � N 1 tN ., cV � CV ? CV S CV � CV '• CV �� C
5s2o�..._,_. N
'�j 5521 5520 N:N��:NsNiN,N�'IVi�#nNi��l,N �
r i
PU C7
,1
�u
- �,
u�i
E
0
0
d
in
M M c°0v ��f �`� �_._.�. A j 551 1 5512 �.. 551 t '�
ra cv �. r�.,� cv ,_.�.____..,- ._.-_�_. ; 5505
� • --,n - ..............�. 5497 ' 5�43 � 5504 j.._..----- ----
� � � � � __...._.__ � 5�ia t ._...,..__.. � __... � 5499 PINEWOOD
�_.._..
n+ N c�',� ` ncvi g} j � 5493 5494 5493 SCH�OL
T� _....._�_._ _------� --�--`•-..A_-
_,..___._.._._ ' ' .. 6 ; 5485 55QD
5485 548
548�.. . � 5479, � .�....__. �.:.,.�....... __�_
.5474 ,- ;�,.-5473 5�BB b�475 5478 I 5475
�--- �-.:.-...---
�—� 548a .1 .5A67. 5 64 ..� 5463 5466 ;...5467
5462 t 5463 ---_,..,_�..,.�.�� s_�.. A 5459 i ; � I ;
5445 5454 ' 5455 � 5_.,'i 544 ���_ �sp, ' S453 p � � ; j t i
O
5a40 y�`rr54�� Q�A3 ��G���s�s� ��;,--��_._.5a�7 ��, � u�� N��i4 �' j r_
s � `. ,, , 5439 " € � € �"�'> , M f
.r_ .-5433 ,�'�.��s'�. �f � 5933 cv �<v : N; a cv ! c.� N' ' c�nv
5434,..,.�._ s sQ� 1"_' BELI.E LN ^;
: --,.
5426 �,_, 5425 � rr��.,� ''.� , `s. 5425 � t � ' � : o ; e�e r
�..._..._ .
,...._.....,........ 542b � ;
5421 5420� �Y � � � 5419 �'f `O � � � N : � ;M
._.t._...„«,...__. f._..,....-°- N i N 3 H _....���.�.(V.
, . �t�..,.....�.�...-'--- �.....�_�.-_� -
541� 5455 54'14 n� M � 5413 "�_� � 1�.;..� 4� i�.�
5401 .�..,.. _s r� n i c� � N,�' I �c>y t,_._..�_... � P: �
rJ�fi � 5405 5406 j N� N-NiNjN� i1� �J���J - N� N. N>;N� N� N N
ONSON C3RI E� �
sF !�D ; o� � 4 N, tD y � N� �' ��`{ E�� o i�' ; �o � e°°
__ B 4; fi33 rn i m� n� r• �o ;�n ,�'i i� r> I � fc � w, o0 5392� 5� 1 53921 5391
.,. Z I� f N� N� l� N i i N g a � ..�. -... _ . -� _..._...
5387 5386 I rJ�$% Q� j�� N� � I"� f N j� i N� �{ N � N; N E N i N 5386) 538 538fii 538
__._._�...._„___ � ,
5381 � �380 �I 5381 v ;
5373 5372 r 537 � u.� _
) 53fi5 ,^ 6g�.5367
S3
`' � 5366
5357 �3S8 �,..5359 ,_,�,
. 5351 _ 5352 �; 5353
� ,... � - -'_'- -._ ., J35A
� �
_ � �.
3S 5336 ! 5337
—�,------_._ _
' �.5330 5331
Q ,s�?s ��f:. _M 5323
S�s•�y; `,� �'!�_�.�, ° 5309
�8'352�5248! 53U1
n�a
! ; t ;--. _._...�-°...._... � -
� � i � � � ' � ! ` 5380' b37 � 5380i 537�,
� � � i � ,..__.i._..._..i.�.....�... 't._�; 5i77 �5364!... �__. _.,.�.._,._.,.....
I �� . ._ �.
� � � 537 5372� 537
.�,._.(__ � __.,�._._ : .._.� . � I I...,. i �•--� . _..,.. _Y_.__,
� ' � � i , 535 5364�53&
� � ! r � ; ; s ? 5E357 _...,,._.1—�._ - --�...._...
I t � € i l i 's. !. , 5358 535 53581535
. � � , 1 r _ � . w,_.
YJ�ff� t MjN �O�}�-�u)�01i riM ful
..�_. _..,.
If � � v� ;y•t ;� f�; cv � cv , cr.�; o: o rn oa 5352; 5351 5352� 535
I t � i, N t N( nNi f N i C�`i } N� N j N 1 C�V � N <1 -......... �...�_.. ..�.,.,-. �.��-_.
LAfvt6 �2 AVE 53�4 534 534d�534.
o��r a i o' c� � v 5338� 533 533$t 533
LAMB�RI� 't'� �" ! M : <v f a � � I o: o I � � �...�,_.�--_. .__._�.,......_.
� i c�',a f cc'•i ; c� i j�� c`�v ��; c`�•t i N N? 5330! 5:i2 5330; 532
� , f � ..._ ....c..._�.._. ,_.._w _......
�A�K i i i , i � f! � 5324; 532 z 5324; 532
_, p _.._...,�.,,_.�
p�' � i ' � �' l i � 531@;.531 �i 5318� 531
: , i ! i : : ; .._._.._�_._._.. — _-----i--•-
n i w i 4- ; c�' ui i w E r� ; ul ji rn i M' �! a� � ;� 52
�ry N i N� N� N N � N�{ N 3 C��( i N� M+� N� r� I`� i � --..
N N I N f cV N N � N( N i N' N� N N, N I N E N �i
1
t d o
� N N K�7S
5294t
52365
Y
. �7
� .
N
I
�
`°s
W
�
�
�
�
O
�
I
�
4
i�
�
�I 9
�' �
M
�
W `
Q ? �
5-�-
�.�
��
�� ,
�
�:> �+t �
� � • .� ;;s.-.
� -- .. •.,. ■ . .�.
� �;� �� ��:. � ■i■�
� ��. � ii �� � �■ �i�
� �� �� � � �i�
� �� �� � � �i�
.��... ..:.
.�: . �■ � i� �� ����•i ii�
� �� �� �■ �� �i�
� �� :: i: i�■�r�. ■i.
II� ��� �■ �� ��1�■/� �i:
�
��
.���� �/
i�� ��
�� i� ��
��■ �� ..
I���r�i ��
� ==
� ii
� �������r�� ����� �������#��������
� ����������111l1111111lillllllilll
' �f����j��<<111!! 11111111!IIIli111
'• iiiiii:ii''�<<�� e11111��111i11i1
� i!l1111/1������� ����11��111�1111
�1� � ����s � � ' �
� � �
�. � .
�;,�. ��� � � ti� �� �
, �� _}..� r..:_ � ,i,
I��� �� �� .�,�;�c:,;:;.,>::_�::,y.�:,
.�� ��.;�.,::;,:. .,t.w
I�� �■ � �:w-wu;��s'�``�>�;
� ��'
I� � �
�� �, � �
E� � ♦ ��' �
i� == `�� = � n���
�'i� � .r� �IIIII��.�. i����/
' i �� ��I��II����"t���� 'sC �C
� �� �I�t�i������������� C� �C
�`��� Illlllilllll�IIII :� -=
���:���� !IIIlllllll'11111f11!�! == �=
�� �� ■�i���n�i�■�����ii�i�� �� .��
ISD #621 (Pinewood Schoof}
Property lnvo(ved: 5500 C�uincy S�reet
Plan�ing Case Nos. VR01-�01, CUa1-001,
D�01-001
Property Involved: 5500 Quincy St.
,
, �� i 1, y�:,,
,���,!-�j��- ��b` Prop�rties Within 350'
,o< �};�:�.�,.
'''2
�1
s
b'S` n �
�� �� �4 -�+ �� ���' ,�`�"'<�
7 .� 1 � x j
x� 4� 3 � � � !v�
� � "4 � '
y ,: i i. �
� 1 � 3 ' ' � �
�-x�}� �� �F.i .j%
\ -.";'. ,•.,� ... .a..
� �� �� � ��i
� � � �
r
3� �� � � "��� ,.,� ��,-°y'^�a;
y �.. � ,� :�- y 9 d
��n ,7 4 � y r�. �
t
� ¢ � � � ��� � �. �
� � 'r„�� '��'� �,.� a<ti ��. '.
-�z � ��
�r
-•�: . � :.•' �-. , '�. ��..
� ;� ,� � • �
; �: � ..
�
i ,� r
S
h �
v �"� �
� �� ' � y � � 3 �",ar� r1� ��
a' �
�: -"`� �, ^�� � ,t' 3
�(( 7
,� �/ ^7 a
r r A
� �� i � �
�.N 3 �
rv� '
NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that the Mounds View Planning Commission will hold a public hearing
on Wednesday, March 7, 2001, 7:00 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Ivlaunds View,
Miruiesota, 55112, to cansider a variance request by Independent School District #621 to allow the existing
Pinewood Elementary School parking lot and propased parking lot expansion on Quincy Street to encroach into
City right-of-way. Pinewood Etementary School, 5500 Quincy Sireet, is located at the southeast corner of County
Road I and Quincy Street in ihe City of Mounds �Iiew. The legal description of this unplatted property is known
as:
Subject to road and highway easements,
The East 625. bl Feet of the West 65&.61 Feet of the North Half of the
Northeast'/a of the Northeast'/ ofSection 8, Township 30, Range 23
County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heald at this meeting. If you are unable
to attend the meeting but wish to comnlent, you may submit a letter to James Ericson, 2401 Highway 14, Maunds
View, MN 551 i2. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
If you have any questions regarding this meeting or if you want to malce an appointrnent to review the
plans, please contact me at (763) 717-4021.
�Q.�Q C�(�.C�-CSlta
James Ericson
Community Development Director
This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet af subject properEy,
This notice published in the Focus Newspaper Februaty 22, 2001
C1TY OF
D�
-a
:•
`�• ���
.��
s
d'r@ss ` PartneQS`n�Q
February 20, 2001
]�an Soler
Itamsey County Traffic Engineer
3377 North Rice �treet
�horeview, MN 55126
RE: Pinewood Elementary School Expansion
Dear Dan:
Phone: (612) 717-40` :"`. '',
Fax: {�12) 7$4-346�
Please review the attached i•e}�ort and pIans for the proposed expansion of Pinewood El�m�ntary
School, locaied at the southeast corner of County Road I and Quincy Sire�t.
The one issue which may be of interest to you, and perhaps you've already been appraached by
the schaol district, is tha� a.li bus and vehicle traffic would be exiting onto County Road I, whereas
currently this traffic exits onto Quincy almost at the intersection o�the two streets.
The Planning Commisszon will be reviewing these plans at their meeting on February 21, 2001 but
will not be taking any action until March 7, 2001. If you have any concerns about what is being
proposed, please contact ma at your earliest convenience. Thanit you.
Sincerely,
���,'��!� �C`f',t�;�c��'
James Ericson
Community Development Director
City af Mounds View
Enc1.
PPINiEO WkTN
sovae�K �,,
2401 Highway 10 0 Maunds View, MN 551�2-1499
Website address: http://tcfreenef.org/ip/city/moundsview
Equa! Opportunity Employer
,
recyc4ed paper
03f6212601 a9:23 651-7&6-4196 RICE CREEK W DIST PAGE 01
�t-!4'� br��d fax ir�ns�ittai rn�ma 7�71 �� ea p�o�� >
�
���• �wn�n��iv� 9�`7L�t�- 41��.
. _
, �
� %.
� � �;
- <:
3585 id. L&X�NGTON AV�NUE , SUJiE 330
�4RDEN HILLS, MlNP3E50TA 55126•8Q56
PHOhdE (55ij 766-419T � F�X (651) 766-4146
Board ca( N;�n.lge�
��t�: ��r�p1 2, ���'� � Regul8r MNNtEn�;s:
To: Mound� �li�w P�blic Schaoi� P�� �1 v1 i zrtd incf dth Wednes�ioy>
d�R Shornvipvd (;i1y P�lail
��� �' ��'� d�3�-�zO� KATE t7ttEWRY, Uis�eiet Admin.
�ONI7n T��pE, Admin. nstiist.
i �� �8 �� � �
r. _ . .. � . _ .. . .. . _
- .. . , �i :� .. . .; • -
. .._:_-:� � . ... ::.> >:- , ., ...
, � ; .. b . - .
- . . : �� .;: ► , . ,� ,. �� . _P� -�
i �: � -,. 'S -_ .., ,_ .. � - . � ' �; � ,, : .. -�. � _ . . ,.. , . -
_ , .. • :� ' f: ._ • :,' . ! -i f i . + " R — •' , _-:
_ ;• �
�T6: - ;C. " . . . . . . - - �
,. ,
,. ., ^. - �= �� `s � .'.v a' ...- � :: �. :. • >.. .. � i �� . . - . ` = � .. ,. _, _, � . , . . ;. .. . .: - ,. �..
� ... . ' : � . . . , � . ., � ' • . �� � �t: . � �-
.: � �. : l- : �' f� r �'. - • . :�: . � � :_ ,. '. -... � ... .. " ;1 ° �!.
_ ; . . , -... _ - s`. . : �: � � . � �. • f_ � � f �. �� . � c. - � `° � . ' .i i �. ! �� �. � • 2 f
• � _ -- � � � _ • � • 3'. . ' ' �: � � ' � _ �s: _` �� ' . �'� �' } . _ �
_ _. _ y - _
• _ �s : • •: . - r • _ ' _. ..."^ . . - ... . e.:; . .
.; ;�, � ;: , :; _ , _., . i�
_. e�. . � ; ,, `_ _'. :,.. , . .:
_,
. . ,. � , ... , � � �
-. . . . . .
- • ��� - .! - i - • � • � :+. - �,
., . , .. � -_ _ � : : � .; - ,
�-� - , .. . - °�.- . � . ��. �!� � • .�... .f=" '�` �� -
� ,. �
.i � � � -' � y • ' 1, •� � ; � .
. : • . �� � :' � _ . _ � . •� � ; : �
- :. .
1 � • = s..-
, - .: •_ .: • : - �' �. _ a: _- . • , . :
.•� � . . .s:- ° . �a=;
,, '� . ° ` . . _ ,° . ., . _
�= . { ._�- :
�.1--. � _ .. .:_
• •. _ �� , ■ � � _ : .�� ��� � . � � �s. �. �°
., . � - � . . ._ _ , � . . <. � _ _ _ .
_ ;�>.,._ _: �
- �. .;
r� • �° . - �i s� � � �. % : , ���� "
�: T��n/��ty of �o��d� Vi�w
Applic�r�t'� E�gi���r— And�t�o�aJohnso� A��oc., I�c.. —Fax: 76�-�44-A539
Corr��po�d�n�
R�WD �il� �01-17
JA�
�o��� oF t�,�rv�ac�a�
A.). CARDINrai�, 5R. TC�M 4VADp�LL �AMfS A. LEROIix OROEEN�, BRAiaT4�EtV EU<eE,NE i., PEikf�St)�a1
AwnKn t'C)UN Y R,�MSEY COUNrv ASIiIWciiON COUNiY KAh1S Y�QUN7Y n�� �K� � � �� �idrV
6AaMCrsS � OAI�IER �E50URC,FS Consulting �n81Y�rs 651.i7P84�a� • CmCourov,�l: 4aa��LD 3�. 9HEFF 84 a.73Z-9UUO. MICMELI.E j. UI,f(if:H 651-6���R4U�5
6316212601 09:23 651-766-4196 RICE CR�EK W DIST P�GE 02
�ce C��e� W�ttr�b �istr°gct ���r�ait App�ac�tio� i���b�t° 0� �1'i
Applic�t: Motz�.ds View Public Sc�oois A,gcrat: �dersonLJ�atu�sor� ,�ssoc., �nc.
�9�9 I�Ioeih �artxlir�� �p,ve. 757,� Colder� valley �d. #200
St. ��ul, �d 55113 Mir�neap�lis9 M1�1 554z7
b51-636-60Q4� (p�,��ei 763-544�7I29 (�hor�c)
65I.-639-62p3 (fa�t} 763�544-0531 (f�)
• __., -
• ,
Fir��l Site Draiaa�� Plan %� zmprave��nts to tk�e Pine�raod Elerner�ta�}r
S�h�ol.
Sout,� of �ounty Road I��s� ar�d east c��'Qa�incy Streei, l�ou�zds View.
� . . :.:
�$ecorr�er�datiot�;
�xhibi�s:
�`i�di�gs:
�.
�'�bl� w�th �u��ot-az�tio.� for �drn�ist��iave ��Qia� �e�din�
r�c�ipt o�
1. C�� �urety in 4k�� ara�o�zt of $1,54a
�crmit ,�pplication, da�ed F'�br� I4, 2ppl, rece�ved F�6zuary
15, 20U1. �
2. R�mov�ts Plan, Sii� �,�youf �nd Pa�ing P��n, Grading arid
D�raiaage plan, and Site Dctai�s prepat�ed by Az�derso�-lahnsara
A�sociates (A,TA.)9 Inc,, dated �ebruax� 14, 2001, �received
�'ebruaTy 15, 200 � .
<= � .;. , . -
.,-•. , c: -. . -
. ,
. : . -. ;.
��� ���'
�• ��aposed praj�t eretaa�s cot�structia� of �t�r�c b�aa�dzn� additions
(�,5'15 s� �), bus queui�g are� e�tensz��a ar�d exit rr�odi�cations,
�d p�r��ra� lot ex�ansions. '
2. ��os�d �rojcct t�i�1 �esu�t irt a 0.2 ac�� n�t x�crease an impervic��s
st�fa��s. i he�efore, th� Das�ict x�t� co�t�al r�q�airer��nt is axo€ art
i�su�,
pa��d ��op�� ad��u�tcly .�ddr�ss tih� �is�rict w�tez� quali�y
���t��i ����emer�ts �ox p�rkin� �xpar�sian� ! driv�
tnadifxc�taorts a�on� Cour��r Read Z(cor�sad�ring space tiPnitatao�s)
b� ��� ��cltt��x� �vr� arad �uet�r �10�� �orth edg� of ti�� parPcir�� lot
�xp�sion. T'his �1laws rt�ioff t� be dir�ct�d �o ih�e existing
depr�ss� (3�6°') ��sp��.
Z/23l� 1
;j
0310212001 69:23 651-766-4196
���nrtit A li�ati�� N�. p�-17
.
,�� . : � �; � �� � �� �.
3.
4.
.
RICE CREEK W DIST
��.�: i.-., ' a. ���.+�-
PAGE 03
�Y°oj�t �I�� izic2udes a d���ssedn�re��ta�ed buti`�� st�ip �ast of ehe
h �`�.c� area ton��ricd �o p�r�Cing �located �outh oi tI�e
�cho�fl).
r�aps do �04 ix�dica�e ti�e �re�e�ce of vd�ti�ds az� site.
Pmpos�d �lan adequa��ly addres�es �co�ora��e� �#' infiltratisa�
�I�Ps vi� routi�a� o� ru�oi�° tv d�ressed �eenspacc anci buffcr
stz��.
'rhe� i� no l�eal �P rc�iozaaJ. fl�dplair� oz� sitc.
Axi �'osie� �d sedir��i �oatrol plaxA h�s beet� submi�eEa
specifyin� si1� f�xc� dmvvnst��a� of �raded axe�s9 revege�atiort
spe�ifi.c�t�c�ns9 �rn,d ari irc�p���ent�t�on s�h�d�ale.
2123I0 i
i �. �� ,�: � � �� � �� ��� � ��� . � � � ; � - . �; ..
. �; , � . �, ,,, ; i
� � � . �_
� � ;.
� , � � :,
. , ... .� , �, , » 1 . ;�, ', A, :►. ., . � �. . �, . I � J .' ;I' , � �
1� ` _: � '. ` �.1 � �� J1 i1_ �.� ' � '� .!� _ �f_= �1 .. , " 1 �1`,, � , . ��' ' i.
'� •� ' ��I`� <�' � �� �� �' ' �: '� <:�> 1 �4 � "'� �� �'� �1`� �
: . ; :� � : : � :� �. �: .r ; , � ► : :� � ;
�_ i� ��_ ��� .. �t° � ��_ �� ���, �, ��. �� r : � , �. . i � 1 �� ��,
VV�E�AS, The applicant, Pinewood Elementary School (Independent School District
621}, has applied fbr a variance to aliow for the expansion of their nanconforming parkit�g lot
fronttng Quincy Street; and,
�IFIE�tEAS, Pinewood Elementary School is located at 5500 Quincy Street, property
which is zo�ed R-1, Single Family Residential and is legally-described as follows:
Subject to f�oad and highway ettsements,
The East 625.61 Feet of the West b58.61 Feet of the North Half of the
Noj�theast %4 of the Northeast !/� of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23,
County ofRamsey, State ofMrnnesota
(PW # 08-30-23-11-0002)
��1tE1-�S, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed ihe following
documents regarding this praposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Site Plan, date stamped 2/1/OI
5. Letter to Dan Soler, dated 2/20/O I
6. Staff Report
J
Resolution 648-01
Pinewood Variance
March 7, 2001
Page 2
`��E�A�, the purpose af the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give reiief to
property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requireinents imposes a hardslaip
thereby restricting the impravement of property due to p�-actical difficulties brought about by
unique or extraordinaYy features of ihe physical property that are beyond the property owner's
control; azzd,
W�E�t�S, a public hearing was held Wednesday, March 7, 2001, with regard to this
varzance request; asid, �
��E�AS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of ihe Mounds View Municipal
Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which aIl must be
satisfied, in order to grani a vaziance to the Zoning Code.
NO�JV, 'I'��+ ii�F01�, �E TT I2ES�I.�I), the Mounds �/iew Planning Commission
has reviewed the criteria identified in Section 1125.Q2, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code and malces the following findings of fact:
Exceptianal or extraordinary circumstances apply io 5500 Quincy Street v�rhich do not
apply generally io other propex-ties in the same zone ar vicinity and result from
circumstances over which the owners of the property have had no control, in that the
non-conforming parking Iot alongside Quincy Street has existed in this fashion for
many years presumably with the City's knowiedge and permission.
2. Wlule the literai interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive
the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties witlnin the district, the
sirict interpretation of the Code could cause the loss of 27 parking spaces at a facility
already experiencing a parking shortage.
3. Staff was unable to de#ermine if any agreements were filed with regard to the parking
lot configuration. It is possible that the school district had received same level of
approval from the City in ordar to construct the parlcing lot where it exists now.
4. Granting the vaziance requested wiil not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by the Zoning Code to owners of other lands, stru.ctures or buildings in
the R-ldistrict. Pinewood Elementary is unique for the district in which it is located in
that it is a school within a single-family residential district. The school is inherently
different from a. house in many ways az�d thus the variance, if granted, couid not be
construed as a special privilege.
5. The variance to allow a zero-foot pa,rking lot setback along the west property line is
ihe minimum variance to alleviate the hardship, especially considering the parking lot
encroaches aver the property line and into City righfi of vvay by seven feet.
Resaiution �48-01
F'inewood Variance
March 7, 2p01
Page 3
6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or `!
to other property in the same zone in that extending the parking lot to the south does
not increase the extent of ihe non-conformiiy.
7. The proposed variance would not impair a supply of light or air to adjacent properties
nor would it increase congestion on streets. The variance to allow the expanded
parl�ing area should ease congestion and iessen the demand for on-street parlcing at the
school, a problem which has generated cornplaints from adjacent residenis.
I�O�I, 'I'�E�F012E, �E �'T i+UI�T$EZ2 ��OY,�D, ihe Mounds View Planning
Commission finds there to he sufFicient hardship with regard to the request made by Pinewood
Elemen#ary School for a variance to permii a zero-fooi parking lot sefibacic along Quincy Street as
indicated on E�ibii A attached to this resolution, contingent upon the following:
The applicant shall arrange to have recorded with Ramsey County this resolution of
approval and provide proof of such recordation to the City within 60 days of the date of
approval.
Adopted this 7`�' day of March, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:\DATAIGR�UPSICOMDEVIDEVCASES1DE01-OOI�RESOLiTI'IOIV G48-01.D�C
�XF;IE31T A
Sife Plan
t ,
i � s � �
�i i
?0�- �"�
_� r =; J
o. r
_%
�--f t= ----'I
!�J ` 'r �,' ,
� i�I � �'°m�°ux
�� I �
� � I
� � _y_ �
� � i � �' .
i' � !�
� � �� �
_,�_ _ . _ . _..._ _,..._. � .__.__ - - .. . _ ..._.._ 1�, ,�, - _
%�� ... ... ...-- --.. ... _ r .�_�� � i 1 `._ A 1- �- \� / -- � " O A :� , rr,� f; T` �ti; � r_�� _,. __, -r ` _._.__.-
V 1V T
� � P� C: h . t. � ;i v-� '� i
—N89 S � ��5 �,-xnc
' i oi. . - ° 'ds.%�e '£ E ;;^ `. � . � 239. B9� - � \ , � , ( uq�ui
! r ��' \ Ile � ncir : !'-p--�{ _.-f _� --_ _.�—_ _4 -%:�II �t G � -\r�,�-�-+�-�-- -��- �
,y .Nl (f'�yW� 1F� _ -.e':a�:_,....t " � .� � � l L� A .• k
r j\` . ._ �.. ._ v�tLl '. . . � �_.' �J_ �I � � r 'G. . �. ` --t.,.t E. _. _._. __ :. _.._�,_ - , �- -- � y�t
��,`,, :� i �j
i. �.``��,,� L✓7 �i� � �. c � ;�-•'� _ ��' �I L � '" , � � � f i � � 1'1 � ,.�' I t 1W
� •--f''' •,tol ' �' ��i -��`yJ�,�, z .�r�ir, 4� r � ..,�^ xrnvcr�r.am am
I r 1 1 PAVLLp' tl ~
� `.f 1 " �1� � �� G �Z�F�� %� � . �I / RlPLACQC
,� > � � � �S� s� r��-�� l .. \ �v°o�°a�^i��_�' ��'
. I � . I `} �� �� '
_ ta '.�,� 1�7�`: y / `� ��� ' t�. � �%���Jr /
r:�- o6pbrnuFr�� �.g�,pa�_ t: ��,y���n . ovarsUr[u**wa�crwusiSY�f�!it��'r F�!:�c-.;--%-.l
�{ �•4Y �^�3 �i:�' 1., ,'¢�f . 1 �. � ��- l f A'j r°�. .') �', '� I� tD' � I ' � � 1 � �� �
i �
i �?.. IJ , � : � � { { u, � i
r�'��CF(��`. tit. e�r�` � � � . � �"t -.'� } �r
�� . � - ` '' ' �
, !t . , . -i..'; -� � . -� � .�..-- , —'
i � � � / � t�i �'
N�rrl �, '�v 4 i! / i' _ �� ,� \ i �' .i, f f ' `':�` �'� _ �_ �i� �/
� t��-: � —____, , �. r- � , �;.;:,
/..fj,�E C . 7 / t coxnuxrnuv �` ,, n � �
. +�.t � �.b i-. �1�.,• / caucnerewax ��.cavemuc.rnuur�
�� �,; - ,, .,, �� � ,�p..��p� �.,.t � ,..,�r`'` -- � .
, , Property Line � ;r: � ....�,���� � - ' �„
f;:�� ; 8 � � � f
_ w,�, � • ,� �� �
A�;t ::�i`r:{'.R � � '; � � f.! � i // . me --
i � �� lr/
�ar�ceu �I 'ar•l' ; r'i� . �/., ///�� ���/�'�� �//�/ � _' .
, ,, ;, ;,, ,;; � ,, �
!�, /i,• � �'i: �i, � /.'%.�.
,} /; .-•�•,:' �;' ,�/ `�",��� �' .�'/ . I a
i oa. `i,iq.'7•' ��r ' ' fj�,�,
' � ' � �� ;; f�in�wood Elernentary School i;; ` �
;.
i
� � p �.; �-- % j� 5500 Quincy Street 'i%i%��f -
; I - — i�� -� � h - ,, - l"Y,-`f1 :� i; ;' %�i . . ,� •,, . � �
�.'.` .. j _ I
�� �f! ; ~ IlebB �i.. J /�' ,�'�f'`�" --;i� j i �- : � %'/� �
r ^ I � � I; �, �; �16 � i � �;.�,���� :, � ,, , ., � �:
� '� " � ,; < :�
n! F u � an►rtzx�xcaoffia�r � / �
�G� � � �� "kl j �/% zx� ���_. W,'w� -'i � ;;i;� \.�� }�„' r !
� � . . , � . ' ae,ou,e.oan 1 �
' ( � �� 1 � � .'��� G -T j�� /� . � �-'._�..___. _-rr:i :.n'. � ' .; i / . .�ram�esws� ',.%
.�� i #�`� ,-� + ; /. �i � wa �f'
��-- _ - � EXIS�ItI� i; ;i . _� � �
I j'• j�,r �,� � 5 /�,_
� ; 1 -���' Edge of -,; ,�. .-i - '�= ��� � � �' ,� ,;� ��.� ;�-, �%';%» _.ti �/ /
I j ( - ��� Parking Lot ',� c.:.,� ^ _�I���._ z � . :; ; . ._ .,: i;.. � I_ , ,;. �� �., ,�%
u] I I r . . .'iC t� .;1..�:'�1.. �i .i f ��. � E /, % ('
,J�� `_ I; � • �(f,,C', i.• ,�1�4`�I\,)' i%;'; ;l•:, f;,f ;,L�j:�,`�> � �/�, ��
i�`i I � � '` - � � � - I �� vaovmerwmereuowarcata /��-
`L � I !'� � �l� � .` ' I u' aP �� , : . . ! . ,. : ` !
r v � ; � R `� j�.� ��..T �i i ; % .l, i� /.�;�". iti ��/
� � 1 ! a� � s' w `k'.. ? /�wrxarenerreo �/ `i,�// /: i /
" ' � � �. M '° .: .. .er,wrN+a �.vro�n� ; %'- ; � `� �' /
�i.r'f � -� U - Li g "� ,,'� / . . _ . . _ . . . - _ ' _ . .
r7 . [ we wr ' j / � %
t �.lt (f: „ 'S.K `�✓ �� �� . ' � '�, r� ':N.��'l �
� .
:.� �. �
. n :
.
',in ? � ��� �' 3 �'� __ %�i� �'',• -.
�� � ,� 'ff•.. . . _.. ... . — -_.. _. --- ._ '- �1 -..- --- --.
�. � i ��--� — �� , �— -- - - �'ii' ��- ; ,, .i.
O
�I
,
UI
zi
r �
i j
!'� ]
,, ;s
i�Y ��a p r�1_^
� rtORdmfsOLL�L
�. `°"'
� i ��1111 tli�
� Proper�y Line :�,-;;; ;;,.:,;, ,.,;;,,;;: : ;,;;.� .^I�,� ,�
� /� !� % l ' � . ' r`i �i/ � o j �.,.
.�l / / / 1 . / �� td
.1 i '�� i • ': .��'.��'!� � / / . � , ✓
L! .t�.lj���_�`i'�/ i%, l� �)� /t �.11 �
�'� �. .', _ r- ,T�. !
. ��;ai�� - - -
! �(t;;'i: ( uarrJl
;`` �. � �_ � � __ ..___._.. ._.. . '
�;,�.�; L '
T i { lfQ
����� ! � `�� ----._- � i1
� � ,� „
To�� ,v�.-.�J,-, �` ' Edge of Proposed
��, � ��_��.:�:� Parking Lot to Match
� �: � �'�^r�:� Edge of Existir�g
1 4V?:: .
� ' �
�� < � ��,���;'� Parkin� Lot
I�
i
1�(f
I
I �
f �
r
i
�,
I
1
�� 3,�. s�- � �,j } � r� � f '_ , ..<
- � �� ����� ,�Y, .�t' - — -. _��
�` r --�� �,���,,,���,.a ._J � »�.�
(t �^{-� � i���. ��VTBl6ATIBatFD[LG4 �Oe11euCE
i' 1�� 1�' . -- � _�
f
�.. �' __ P _"'�." .__, q
---- � ��e.ar. ��..—.
�� �� v .. 1D __.��'.
_..... % "'
T - '_"— W'[%A�TSSGTfN0A6NYLLY I
�@IVb10"D8OTp2�-' "_" '
1 `---' ----L---�--- _ _._I` '
,�, . ,:.<<.
�E � f- � e .__...._i �
«,. �� G ..... � ...-----,-"`_... -'�,. '�
J / 1
� 4
I f
I
i�'i V 1t .� •: � ;l
� J��i;l ' wl ' �
�'y..t.4c �C7 ,^ .-.'
�_. �'�
LU��ca-�
i• �
MO�TI�11�S �TI��I PLA1�II�G C�TV�IVI�S�IOI�
�SOIaiJ'T'IOI�d 1�TOo 649-01
`;
C'I'I'I' OI' 1l��i7l�i)S ��I
COiT�I'�Y OF 1�M�EY
y I` ! ; :,.
i �: �� �� , �; � , , , r> � , � :i� i � � . � �� �R: � � , ; � ; << i: � ��� � � ;� ; � . ; � � �.
:� .i; f,. � .. ��: �� �i� � � ;��
, � � , � . �. � , i� r; ,i ��
�I�1�AS, The applicant, Pinewood Elementary School {Independent �chool District
621), has applied for a developmeni review io construct a 10,000 square %ot building expansion
and parking lot expansion; and,
W�E13�AS, Pinewood Elementary School is located at 5500 Quincy Street, property
which is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is legally-described as �ollows:
Subject to road and highway easernents,
The East 625.61 Feet of the DYest 658.61 Teet of the North Half of the
Northeast I/Q of the Northeast %q of Sectiora 8, Township 3D, Range 23,
County ofRamsey, State ofMinnesota
(PIN # 08-30-23-11-0002) ,
Wi3E�AS9 according to Section 1006.06 of the Maunds'View Municipal Cade, any
new canstruction or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval of a development
review; and,
�'�E1�AS, the applicant submitted a set of plans pertaining to the expansion which
included a Site Plan, Removals Pian, Site Layout and Paving Plan, Grading and Drainage Plan,
Site Betail Plan, Ea�terior Elevations, Interior Floor Plan and a Photometric Analysis, a.11 of which
shall collectively be referred to as the "Site Plans;" and;
iVV�ER�A�, the expansion will add 10,000 square feet of multi-purpose space,
classrooms, offices and new entiyways to the schooi as shown on the reduced site plan attached
as Exhibit A; and,
Vb'�I�^.�A�, the expansion will add 50 parking stalls to the e�sting 65 stalls for a total of
1 i5 parking sialIs, which satisfies the City's parkzng code requirements for a schooi with 32
classrooms and 660 students; and,
W���AS, The Public Worlcs Director, Community Development Director, Engineering
Technician, Fire Marshal and Water Works Supervisor have reviewed the submitted site plans; and,
�1�E12�A�, Rice Creelc Waiershed District has reviewed the submitted grading and
drainage plans and tabled action on a required watershed permit with authorization for
administrative approval pending the r�ceipt of a$1,500 cash surety to be paid to the watershed
district; and,
Resolutior� 649-01
March 7, 2001
Page 2
��EI2�A5, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer has been forwarded a set of Site Plans
for the proposed facility expansion; and,
Wk�E�A�, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Pubiic Hevring Notice
5. Site Plans, date siamped 2/1/O1
b. Letter io Dan Soler, dated Z/20/Ol
7. Memo from Rice Creek Watershed District re: Permit Application:
8. Staff Report
Wl���A�, in the course of reviewing the documents associaied with ihis property, it
was determined that the school was operating without a conditiona( use permit, a requirement for
schoois, churches a.nd other institutional uses located within a residential district; and,
�I3EI�AS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Nlounds View Zaning
Code, the Planning Commission is to consider the possible adverse effecfis of the proposed
conditional use.
l�t�W, T�EI��'013�, �E I'T 13ESOL�I2, as required by the Section 1125.01 af the
Mounds View Zaning Code, the Mounds View Plantiing Commission makes the follawing
findings of fact related to the development review and conditional use permit request:
1. The Pinewood School property is zoned R-1, sing�e family residential, within wkuch
district schooIs are conditionally allowed.
2. The Pinewood school property is designated as a"�chool" in the City Comprehensive
Plan.
Given its location at the corner of County Road I and Quincy 5treet, the school is
conveniently located and has access to primary corrzdors through the City.
4. The setback and zoning requirements as indicated in Sections 110�.02 and 110b,04 of
the Mounds View Zoning Code and allowed by variance are satisfied with this
expansion,
5. The parking requirement for a school with 32 classrooms and 660 students is 46 stalls.
The e�pansion plans indicate a total of 115 stalls being provided.
6. The Photom�tric Analysis has been reviewed and has been determined to be in
connpliance with Section 1103.09 of the Zoning Code.
Resolution 649-01
March 7, 2001
Page 3
7. Given the amount of mature landscaping present on the site ar�d the relocation of
existing plantings to make way for the parlcing lot expansions, no additional
landscaping should be required.
�. Permitting the expansion will not depreciate the neighborhood nor will it cause
addiiional traf�ic congestion or reduce airflow or light to adjaining properties.
9. There is a demonstrated need for the expansion given the number of students and
expressed conditions of overcrowding and limiied parking availability.
10. The building expansions wi11 match to whatever e�ent possible the existing brick
architecture, style and colors.
11. All roof top mechanical equipment wi11 be screened fram public view.
NOW, TIIE�F��, �E i'T FUIbT�ER I2�SO�,VED, the Mou��ds View Planning
Commission, based upon its abave-stated findings of fact, does hereby recommend to the City
Council approval of the deveiopment review and conditional use permit request for the Pinewood
Elementary School, located at 550� Quincy Street, subject �o ihe following:
The Site Plan shall be revised prior �o City Council review to clearly indicate building and
parking Iot setbacks. :
2. The Site Plan shall be further revised to show a thirty-foot setback for the proposed
parlcing lot near the souih property line.
3, The applicant shall provide detailed specifications regarding the lighi fixtures to be used
with the expansion and so mark an the Photometric Anaiysis which fi�rtures are proposed
and which are existing.
4. The applicant shall obtain a permit from Ramsey County prior to per�orrning any work
wi�hin the County Road I right of way.
5. If' so suggested by the City Attorney, the applicant shall execute and record with Rannsey
County a I;imited Use Agreement to allow for the parking lot encroachment onio City
right of way.
6. The applicant shall provide proof of obtaining a RCV�ID Permit prior to any City permits
being issued.
7. All disturbed pervious areas shall be restored with sod or landscaping materials.
�. The applicant shall arrange to record the Ci�y Council resotution of approval with Ramsey
County.
Resolution 649-01
March 7, 2001
Page 4
Adopted this 7"� day of March, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Community Developinent Director
(SEA.L)
N:�DATA\G120UPS1COMDEV�DEVCASESIDE�1-DD 11RESOLU'I'ION 649-01,DOC
- .;
, ., ; ;.
` i _. �i s��.i.
I:�D.`a'� EXI6TING BUILOING
"sH�� . NEW PAVED PANKING SUAFACH
EX16'IiNG pAVEp PpRKiNG 6l1RFACE
NEW CONSTRUCiION
:£����i NEW SIDEWALWRAM�6
NEW TREES
PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SCALE: 1" ; 30'-0"
SITE PLAN
MARCH 2 200'I
� ,.� , �:, .��....., i
P�OCEEI�II�iG� OF"I'�IE 11�f0�J1�11)�5 VIE� P]LAI�dl�II�G C��✓IIVIISSIOl�t
CI'I'Y OF IVdOiT��S VIE�
�EI' COLTI\'I'�', I�III�II�IESOTA
Itegular IV�e��ing
March 7, 2001
l�Iounds View City �IaII
2401 Hfghwa� 10, I@�Iou�ds ij�evcr;�197i�d �5112
1. Caii to Order �
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevensan at 7:00; p m; N[arch`7, 2001.
2. Itoll Cail
Members Present: Commissioners H
Members Absent: Commissioner Jo�
Also Present: Commuz�ity Deve'
�ndex io Il�inntes
Planning �ase l�fios. DEO
Applicant: - Nii�uiesota
Location; '2720 High�
Planning Case Nos. IiE{1
Applica�it: ISD #621 '
� � �301-001
tute of Public Health
10 � �:
1 � �TR01=001 �i CIJ01-001
i: 5500 Quincy Streef
Planni�g Case No. �P-0�2-00
ation of �ign Code Review
ports/Items of Informatian
rsori arid Planning Commission Reports
Erieson.
;r� and Cerny.
Page
z
6
11
11
12
II�//Iounds Vievv Pla�nang C`oax�mission
12egt�lar �Vieeiing
3> Cit�zens Requests anc� Comnie��s on Itezz�s IVot on the Age�da
There were no resident colnments on item.s not on the agenda.
4. Pl�t�n�u� Case l�to�. I)�+ 01�001 �c W�01-001
Community Development Director Ericson reported Minne
has recently become a subsidiary of Blue Crass Blue Shiel�
revzew to construct a 16,912 square-foot office building on
Holiday �tore. The Silverview Estates PUD indicates the 1�
square foot twa-story office building. There is also a reque
expansion that would potentially add S,OOQ square feet of s�
the maximum praposed office space would be 22,912 squa�
has indicated that there will ba no clinic, outpatient; elass.ro
place at the facility. This facility wouid funetion as'the ceri
Director Ericson expiained that the proposE
requirements of the Silverview Es#ates PUI
the building. The originai site plan submitl
building would be setback 30 feet off of Hi
Winiecki, expressed concern for tFie.locatio
his building. Minnesota �-►stitute of Health
effort to appease Mr. Winie�k�, agreed to se
developers have indicatecl �t would be cost
for anr
IViarch 7, 2001
�age 2
rte of Public Health,. wlvch
ed foz- a deveiopment.'
lot ta the southeast oi the
nded to suppart a 25,000
�val for a second
� office space. All together
nriesota,�tistitute of Health
ical procedures talcing
ias-ters for the organization.
►uilding iTieets a11 City zoning �-equirements and the
There :is one issue witli regard �o the placement af
by Minnesota Institute of Health indicated the
�vay 1 Q: The property owner to the south, Mr.
�f tlie proposect'`buiiding as it blociced the view of
�. zts developer, and architect have, in. a good faith
ie buildirig back at 50 feet from Highway 10. The
lubitive ta pull the building back any fu�-ther.
D�rector Ericsoia explai�led the �ilverview�.PUD established the parlcing requirements for the
of�ce building to be one space per 250'square %et of gross floor area. That means this building,
at full buildout of 22,'000 square feet; �ivould require 92 spaces. The site plan indicates there wiil
be 7� stalls built to cover the first phase of the building and the first expansion. The site plan
also sl�ows 22 spaces as proof of,parking for the finai expansion phase should that ialce place.
Director Ericson ex
buildi��g is situated
� �mpervious surface
for a 45 percent bu�
[ that with the increased setback from Highway 10 more of the
the 100-foot wetland buffer noting that the amount of building and
the buffer is still onty 10% and the Silverview Estates PUD allowed
coverage.
Director Encson noted the landscape plan has been reviewed aud ap�roved by the City Forester,
Director Ericson noted the lighting is within City requirements.
Director Ericson explained there would be accass off of Highway 1Q and �ilver La1ce Road.
Staff has spoken to the Ramsey County Traifzc Engineer who has indicated he would lilce to see
a 30-foot wide access that is more in lceeping with uses of this type. The Traffic Engzneer also
�
:: `:'1
l�oa�nds ijiev�v Plana�ing CommYS��on
Re�ular 1l�e��iag
IYtaY�h 7, 2001
Page 3
znentioned a turn lane on Highway 10 indicating it may be possible to use part of the shoulder to
incorporate the tur� ia�e.
Director Ericson explained the only accessory structure on the property would be the trasl�
enclosure located behind the building.
Director Ericson noted tkce drainage plan has been reviewed and approved:by the public worl{s
department. He also noted the site will provide less i-unoff to the storm water management.pond .`
than originally estimated and stated there will need to be a drainage swale between Mr
Winiecki's property and the proposed buiiding.
Director Ericson noted that rather than requiring the develc
decorative lighting it may be more appropriate to escrow a
City to build the trailway after the Highway 10 redevelap�
the amoun# of the improvement dedzcatioi� would be $1,4,_I
Director Ericson noted Minnesota Institute tor °Publ
its Arkoka location to the site and that ihe sign is 32.
sign will be set on a masonry base with matei-ials tk�
Director Ericson noted there is a
so.
Mr. Geo�ge Winiecki o:
not being able to attend
of how`he �arrived at his
piece in the Silverview
Commission, which is:t
not setback even withh
up location when he"sc
but macle up for losing
to btiild,traiiways and provide
a�n doliar amouzzt to allow the
plan is developed. ' Staff estimates
�p,
ocate the sign fro�n
�v illuminated. The
the Commission chooses to do
04,"N.E. Highway 10 addressed the Commission and apologized for
pirevious meeting concerning this issue. He then gave a brief I�istory
rent business location noting he owned the corner lot that was the key
�tes PUD planniug process. Mr. Winiecki then made his point to the
his business would be negatively impacted if the proposed building is
uilding. Mr: Winiecki tald the Commission that he felt that he gave
ie corner lof which allowed the Silverview Es#ates PUD to go forward
,tion with curb appeal as the building he moved into is a very nice
Winiecki noted the'';City had led hini to believe the only way to develop the lot he owned was
ugh a PUD and so he agreed to the deal to make ifi work. He explained to the Commission
�ne concern and request during tlie Silverview Estates PUD plani3ing process was for the
tiQn,of the;building that would someday be built on the lot in question. He then explained to
�`ommissiori that he thought he had an agreement with the City on the matter.
Mr. Winiecki noted he would like the Commission to tell the developer there is a concept plan
that is good and require thein to follow it. He then stated he feels betrayed on this issue as fihe
other people involved in the transaction have gotten what they wanted and he has noi.
Mr. Winiecki provided copies of the 5pring Lalce Parlc, Nevv Brighton, Axden Hills and
Shoreview zoning codes as well as Mounds View's code to show that his request to require the
I�Iortnds �lierv �lan�a�ng Cornrniss�o�
Regular 1l�ee�ing
���Ch �, zoo�
Page 4
building to be setbacl� even vvith his building is a nonmal and customary practice in surrounding
communities.
Mr. Jaker, Dzrector of the Minnesota Institute of �Iealth, told tkze Gommissic
Winiecki and stated he and his company want to be a good neighbor in Ma�
his company is sensitive to enviroxunental issues as it is part of-their busine:
environmental issues. He then introduced Mr. Dzurik of McGou�h Constria
Mr. Dzurik explained he and his company like to tailor a b
which is why they did not canform to the original PUD rec
for horizontal e�pansion in the near future, He then expiai
costs to move the building back the additiona120 feet. Mr
Winiecki's building to view it far line of sight and statad h
attention firsi and then the buildi�ig. I�� his opinian, you rii
the intersection but by the tzme you reach the access for.th�
see Mr, Winiecki's buiiding.
Chair ,Stevenson asked zf the developer had'.explored the po
�he car wash.
Mr. Dzurilc noted they have not
would lose an entire entrance if
Chair Stevenson note� this i
as Mr: j?V�iiiecld is.
Mr. Win�ecki rioted the devf
developer is incurririg additi
problem and, thai he should i
Chau Stevenson queshonei�`
traveling on Highway iC� ��,;
Director Ericson gave a line
to see Mr. Winiecki's buildi.
have
�fically explored that
did that. . ; . :
felt Mr. i
� not be a
�ronosed
met Mr.
�. He stated
�e peo.pie on
zr client and the site,
ting they needed to allow
wouid incur additional
� he drove by Mr.
niecki's, sign draws the
; io see tha builcling from
�,ilding;tfie eye begins #o
the office toward
but certainly could noting they
with employees'not a business relying on a customer base
�d four feet of fill onto the lot wluch is why the
rrect the soil. He stated he did not feel this was his
for it.
t point Mr. Winiecki's building becomes visible when
of sight drawing to Chair Stevenson showing a persan wouid be able
Zg from the Holiday store.
Mr. Winiecki how far back his building is setback frozn Highway 14.
stated his building was setbacic approximately 7S feet.
Commissioner Hegiand questioned whether there was an agreement in the original concept plan
requiring the building to be setbacic even with Mr. Winiecki's building.
�
':1
1VIaund� `laer� PIa��Yng Co�nm��sion
Regular IVIeef��g
l�areh 7, 200�
Pag� �
Direc�or Ericson indicated the original concept plan calls for an office building but does not have
a specific setback require�nent. He further explained the PUD determines minimuzn setbacks but
staied the PUD allows for flexibility.
Commissioner Miller aslced if Mr. Winiecki had seen the line of sight drawirig.>
Director Ericson noted it is a line of sight to the corner of
full effect of what the line of sight is. He then noted the v
once the proposed office building is built.
Commissioner Kaden explained he had driven by the area
atiracts enough attention ta then direct the eye to the build
Mr. Wir�iecici stated every one had worked on the
wanted the office building to be IQCated as he had
Chair Stavenson noted he would need more
Director Er�cson noted he would gefi
Commis�ioner Miller pointed to
asked if it wauld also be followi
Mr. Dzurik expiained it �
around the exnansion as
Mr. Dzurilc pointed out the
Mr. Winiecici noted�he has';
Commissiori to require �he'.
Mr D'zurilc stated it comes'
tlie<side of Mr. Winiecici's
7
as
zilding so; it is difficult �o get the ,
building would not be �isible
and he
and feels that the sign
here he
at the next meeting.
pez�meter of the building and
Ein�.
fire code and explained it wauld go
on the drawing.
in busin.ess in Mounds View for 22 years and aslced the
,oper to set the building back.
to visibility and no matter what a person will not be able to see
ig as you can now.
she sees ihe sign first and then the building,
issioner I�aden commented he would feel better in asking the developer to rnove the
g'back if`there was something in writing promising ihe setbacic. He then pointed out the
ices Mr. Winiecki had provided copies of outlined a requirement for flexibiiity. He tl�en
in his opinion, the deveioper has made a good faith effort to move the building back.
Commissioner Hegland noted he would like to see the minutes before making any decisions.
MOTI�N/SECOND: Hegland/Cerny. To Table Resolution 650-01 to the next Planning
°'� Comrnission Meeting to Allow 5taff Time to Research the Nlatter.
Mounds V�e�vv Plan��ng Corramassion
Regular� li'�eet��ag
Ayes — 5
Nays — 0
5. Plann�ng Case 1Voso D�O1�00�, �1�01-001 �i Cg301
Community Development Director Ericson explained the Pi
approximately 10,000 square feet of new area. The plan als
overhaul of the parking situation as well. There are parking
expansion would create 50 additional stalls on the site. A p
and parking would be extended ia the south along Quincy S
repxesentative from the architect's office was present to ans�
also noted he had spoken to ihe Ramsey County Traffic En€
plans.
Director Ericson noted the Planning Comrni
completed by Staff. Per City Code the scho
and one stall for each SO students which tot�
school employs a siaff of 96. The expansiot
Direcfior Ericson noted Rice C.
required as the site will utilize
imperviaus surface being adde
Director :Ericson noted t]
parlcing'T�� on Quincy is
occurred but can anly ir�
situation to occur ___._ ' . '':
Director.Ericson noted t]
24-foot setbacic. The co;
ar�d the bituminous is sei
or will need to puil back
� into
site.
rvr��-C� 7, Zaoz
Page 6
Motion carried.
�od expansion encompasses .�
icates fhere wili be a complete
�s on'the site right now ancl the '
ea will be converted to paricing
Du ector Ericson noted a
�iiestions about the plan. He
- who has no problem wzth the
siori had asked for a:parlcing aaialysis that was
i, is requixed to'provide one°stall for each classroom
s 46 stal�s.'� This noses a iiroblem on the site as the
would allovv for
total.
`stated no ponding would be
•eas and thare really is very iittle
an issue on the site and would require a variance as the
zen (7} feet into the right-of way. Staff is not sure how it
�nd the school district agreed at some point to aliow the
ssue is the proposed parking lot to the south is indicated at a
use permit requires a 34-foot setback from residential property
5 feet. The scl�ool distrzct will either need a variance for that
ng lot to comply with the setback requirements.
•ector Ericson noted;�he Pianning Commissioz� needed to review the requirexnents of the
�ditional use permit but noted ali of them appeared to be satisfied with the exception of the
par�ng �ot setpae�cs.
Directox;Ericson explained the expa.r�.sion will match the architecture and design of the existing
building and the nrzechanical equipment on the roof of the building wi11 be screened. He then
noted Staff feels this is a good proposal and is hopefiil it will resolve some of the issues for the
neighbors on Quincy Street. Director Ericson also noted he has talked vvith the police
department and asked them to increase patrol in that area at the congested times of day and ticket
those vehicles in vioiatian,
�/to�nds �iev�v P���n�g Commissiot�
l�e�ular 1VIeeting
I@�iarch 7, 2001
Page 7
Commissioner Hegland aslced if it was the intent of the south pa�king Iot to use �he one-way
method.
Director Ericson explained the south access could go in and out but.was design�d so that vehicles
would not have to circulate the whole site to get out.
Ms. Gay of Perlcins & WiIl showed the site plan for the school and explained where things were
locaied on the site.
Ms. Gay noted the administration had requested they be able to see the.buses lined up for safety
reasons which is why they will board on Quincy Street. The school district is aware that this wi11
temporariiy hlock parlcing spaces during bus boarding but those spaces could be designated for
use by Staff.
Ms. Gay pointed out the mechanicals on the roof
painted #o match the color of the roof so it will,n�
Ms. Gay reviewed the interior plan for
Ms. Gay noted there would also be
- Ms. Gay noted they had planned
- interfere with the parking lot, .Sk
the parlci;ng lat;be movad back. :'
Ms Gay noted'she. would send. a:
Ms. Gay noted'they uitended to r
Ms. Gay;revie�ved aii analysis,of
site
ir Stevenson asked i
board. He then ask�
Stevenson
�it1i the
upgrades in the
and the ducivvork vvill be
and residents.
for finishes and floorings.
able to expand classroom space to tl�e south and not
;d she would need to go to the district if the City z-equires
in writing for the variance for the 20-foot setbacic.
or bzick as ciosely as they can.
the lighting for the site that indicated light would not leave the
ze'school would be requiring staff to parlc in the area where the buses
that the stalls be rnariced to reflect staff and visitor parlcing.
the public hearing at 8:33 p.m.
of 5459 Quincy Street aslced for cla�ification on the sidewalks along Quincy.
why there is a setback issue on Quincy.
Ms. Gay explained the existing parlcing is encroaching into the city �ight of way and, in ordar ta
line up the expansion paricing io keep it in line with the existing parlcing, tlle school wouid need a
variance.
Mr. Nelson expressed a concern for how many crossing guards would be needed.
l�/Iounds Viev� Pla�nis�g �oanmission
ltegula� I!/Ieefin�
Il��rch 79 2001
Page �
Ms. Gay said she could not spealc to that but stated the school is very concerned for student
safety, which is why they want to have the buses board on Quincy.
Mr. Nelsoi� indicated he did nat thinlc it was appropriate to expand into the bouievard, as the kids
need a space to wallc.
Director Ericson stated he thought it would ha�e been i�ice to k
the meeting to address the safety issues. He then noted the scl�
designated pick up and drop off area and suggested the school
that issue to parents teiling thenl to stay off of Quincy. He the:
someone from the school administration present at the next me
neighborhood that this expansion will fix the parking problem
safety issues raised.
Ms. Gay apologized that there was not a school district represe
one was available but someone will come to the next meetirig �
safety and parlcing issues. ,
Director Ericson then clariiied the
continue to the south following thf
Mr. Dennis Hames of 5511
school arid asked vvhere tki�
crosswallc'bacl� iro.
that there is no �'�wlif
He stated he.goes c
worry about his chi
Quincy wants side`
addressed.as parf o
for tlie kids f
r to the scho�
try'tng to cro:
ks added but
on
at the
neone from the district a� `,
'kids attend has a
may need to communicate
tfi'af Ms. Gay have
� .give �ssurance to the
chool ancl to speak to the
�iive at
stating no
for the
would not change but the parlcing lot will
;etting any closer to Quincy.
" Street state�. tlie City has no idea what goes on over at the
crossing will be located. He stated it was fine to move the
�n where the child was hit but no one took into consideratian
� w�llc in the winter when there are cars parked on the street.
I every;day and picics his child up so that he does i�ot have to
s Quincy at the busy time af day. He then stated no one on
stateci he is very concerned and feels thzs issne should be
FIames suggested tllere be parking restrictions placed on Quincy to allow no parking during
�usy tirne in the morning and in the ai�ernoon. He then noted he has seen the police drive by
� there is a vehicle parked in front of his driveway noting when he called to eomplain the
answer he gets is, the officer was answering a call. He also nofed the police do not ticket for
ing violations because it takes 20 to 40 minutes to get them to respond to a parking violation
noted that the crosswalk would need ta be marked.
Mr. Harnes suggested fold down stop signs posted in the area that the crossing guards would use
to help get children acrosa the street may help in this situation as it would require aIl cars to stop
in the area during school release times.
�
�
I�Iounc�s Vx�vv Pia�ning Cogn�rt�ss�os�
ltegtalar 1VIeetgng
�areh �, zoo�
Page 9
Chair Stevez�son noted the City and the school would �ieed to address the safety and crosswalic
issues at the next meeting.
Commissioner Kaden aslced that the residents present come ta the next meeting to tell their
concerns to Council as Council will do something about it if they are made aware of the .
situation. �
Mr. Hames stated he has taliced to the principai but, in his opinioi
operating under the "ignore the situation and it will go away" tlie�
complimented Director Ericson on his atiention to and the liandlii
residents called.
Ms. Vera Olson of 5499 Quincy Sireet noted fihe parking was a pro
not see how the drawing presex�ted will help it as it is very conveni
is why they do it. � ;'
Comzxaissioner Hegland aslced if the issue
Ms. Olson stated there is a parlcing
Commissioner Hegland noted
staff parking issue.
��
and
to n
giand
s drop off parlcing.;
n all day;noting sl�e
be a.lot'of narkin� �i
�rincipal seexns to be
1VIr. Hames then
':the siivation when '
uincy and she does
on Quincy, which
it is staff.
so that should address the
fio paric in the lot.
#o parking but few cars park out there.
Hegland:indicated that staff parking shouid be addressed by adding more spaces
when the scho.ol administrator is at the ineeting that the school should have a plan
ernirig staff parking and student �rop off and pick up traffic along with the safety
aslced if it was` feasibie to gat parking res�rictzons during drop off and picic up times.
• Ericson noted;a nuinber of residents have been tall�ing about parking problems on
and that when he saw the Police Chief walk by he asked him to spealc to the zssues as to
Citv can control the situation.
Cknef Clarlc noted parking along Quincy has been issue since he started with the City. He noted
the folks at Pinewood have been receptive to his suggestions concerning alleviating the parking
and did open the basketball court for parl�ing. He noted as a part of the expansion the plan is to
reraute traffic to the county I side of the building for drop off and pick'up.
Chief Clark then expiained hovv the police departrnent responds to parl�ing complaint calls noting
that if officers are already involved in another matter the parlting complaint call drops in priority
1VlouncEs `�iew Plannfng Coma�2ssion
�egu�aa° IVIeeting
T�IarcI� 79 2001
Page 20
and as soon as the ofiacer is free he/she will be sent over to do the parlcing compiaint. He noted '
this does not help the residents on Quincy with their parlcing concerns but stated calls must be
handied this way in the interest of public safety. He then noted he went over to Quincy Street
and obsez-ved during drop off picic up time and feels this is mainly the issue. He stated he is
hopeful tke plan to move the clrop off and picic up to the County I side of the bu�ldirig wi11
alleviate the traffic issue on Quincy.
Mr. Jacic Lasota of 5467 Quincy Street asked if vel�icles could exit onto.'Q�incy from the n,ewly ',
expanded parking lot to the south.
, ..
� _ . _ '_
Ms. Gay explained it is a one-way loop noting cars couid
Chair Stevenson stated he would like to see the cturent bi
the property line the proposal of 20 feet is.
Director Ericson stated the information was in
Chair Stevenson asked how many
feei.
Ms. Gay noted she would look i
Director Ericsc
Chair Sfevenso
Chair Stevenso
Director Ericso
administ�a'tor b
Coriunissioner
before going to
said in iooking at;the
stated he would pxefe
closed the public' hea�
asked if tlie Commis�
ore tiassine tliis on to
Hegland
Mi
but could not exit.
how close to
was changed to 25
plan he thought if may require dropping one of the stalls
r to stay within the existing bituminous area.
7iig,at 9:02 p.m.
ion wanted to act on the Resolution or hear from the
:felt the Coznmission should resolve some mare of the issues
she did not see why the Commission couldn't approve the
noted the Commission would table the matter for two wee%s.
Director Ericson stated the Commission could table the matter to its next meeting as the Council
meeting is after the next Pianning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Kaden again asked that rasidents corne to the meeting with the achool
adminzsfirator to tell them what happens and explain the parlcing and safety issues.
I1�[o�ands Vrevv Pl�nni�g Cornmi�sioz�
l�e�t��a�° IVleetin�
I�arc� 7, 2001
Page 11
Director Ericson also asked the residents to come to the neYt meeting.
6o Spec�a� Plan�ing Case l�o. SP-082-00
Community Development Director Ericson explained this is the fourth comprehensive revision
of the sign code. He then reviewed the changes made to this zevision of the�code with the '.
Commission to make sure the changes accuraiely reflected what was discussed. He also .".
discussed the various changes to the code the City Attorney had recornmended.
It was the consent of the Commission to change the la�
an inflatable device be no more than 30 feet above ihe
It was the consent of tha Commisszon to hold a public;
changas to ihe sign code.
7o Staff 12eports
a. Preeious Council
Comrr�unity Development Dir�
Pinewood Elernentary, the bui
to setbacks, and notentiallonQ
vay 1
Community
various firm
be intervzew
proj ect: `` He then notec
before it to award that
�Fthe code slightly to require that
to whicli it �s;.attached.
on April 4, 2(}01` to'discuss
ir Ericson z�ofied'Council ciiscussed at the worlc session
ig on Highway 1 � and,the concerns raised by Mr. Winiecici as
ige redeveloprnent on Highway 10.
Steeriug Cotnmittee
Director Er.icson reported the City has receivecl six (6) proposals from
�vay l 0 redevelopment project. Three of those firms were selected to
trrowed the list down to one firm that staff feels is best suited for the
� w�ll be a year long process and that Cauncil will have a Resolution
at the next meeting.
� Ericson stated;;he is looking fox three people for ihe Highway 10 Redevelopment
; Committee stating Commissioners Johnson and Stevensan had expressed an interest in
on the Comniittee. He then noted there is one meeting a month on a Wednesday and that
li be three representatives from each conunittee along with some members of the
� cominunity, and the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer.
c. Cancellatao� of the IV1ar�h 21, 2001 �Vleeiang
Commnnity Developxnent Director Ericson noted that, as there is unfinished business for the
March 21, 2001 meeting it will not be cancelied. He then noted he vvi11 be out of tawn and, as
TVlounds View Pla���ng Cornmissi�n
I�eguiar 1Vleeting
���C� �9 Zoal
Page 12
such, there will not be much information available ahead of the mee�ing for Commissioners to
review.
Director Ericson aslced the Commission to let him lrnow if any of them were interested in
attending aa�y of ihe GTSI training sessions that are available
8. Chairperson and Planni�g Commissioners'
Commissioner Miiler noted at the intersection of Long Lak
View banner flopping in the breeze upside dawn. She also
two meetings.
Comtnunity Development Director Ericson a
has placed an advertisement for a planning a�
the Commission can start getting the pacicets
the weelcends.
Director Ericson noted there are three vacancies on
interested.
9. �djo�arnrnent to
TimeSaveY Off Szte Secretarial, Inc.
the
there is a Mounds
be gone for the next
; for'the late packets noting he
t withm a couple of months
not have"�o assemble them on
sion if anyone is
sion, Chair Stevenson adj ourned the
diately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
� _ � �
_
• � �= ' '` -._, __ . .�.nfi : ��-_.-."" `' — _ '_"'�� '�' _"... .—_ _ '_' i._.."'_._ .w .__.:.� k-:'= .. .- t
� ---- --_ _ : ... .
�i�o �
�
Z
%/\
�`
� � _rt ,,,�� .
���
��.....r�
�����u
i� ���nii ��;�� �
�������r� ��� � ��� .��- ` —
������r ii���i� ,�, _
��� �_ � � J � �
� �1-� Ik
= _ � '� Li�
�
� ��� - -_ , �' i
i �
1,
ti
� . C , �
� ,. � � r ��
� ..�_�; . _.
�- -�� I��: ,�._��� ; -
t� ��
�C �� ��
�����i1
,,i,,` �„",
�„'`�,,,.
Iv
��� .
j�
,�, }_� �.
� ��� d
a �
� a
.
�
�� ,�
�:a Q�
4
I� �
2� 4M�ee
� V' pV � � U�'1 ti O N N c0
N M d' O cM � O O N �--
N
� � 11 c�0 � N O) O � M ��p
� � � (O d' � '� � O �P �� ei'
C
O U�
C - N U
O m � � Q.
e7 � � Q d1
C �y � R' C C�CI �
� •c a � �'o, °- �
N N Ul O Q c9
C.i V C �p fA � > Q � C
N � � ,6 p > 'N� � �',.�� � U fJ
� _ �
'� � � � � z � a�>>�
� T'� O ' z e. � � � U ro
r,; T?� u�i O O� c>>�
� ,I� �
w I�
�
i
m uNi, � v r°� �O � u`ni o o° c�o
� ri ri o� o 0 0 0�
0
� d � ll� N h � � �Y O N
V= O cV O 1� O �-- �' c- O [0
O �S' 61 O) (n N r- N
(J
a
V �
C V � N •V U�
a � � ., � �' � �
.� A �� a U o� � O
, w T� (� E c m
� � � LL O L � U U N �N
el � � v � � � � � � � a
N a-.c E o � a 5
� c c�- :o rn E� s'- X:J
� � � � � Z U C � O � �
(S � r � � � J
� � _ � i
� � U) � � Z :� K T- Q �G J
•� i �,
� �
U
.N G� �' O U ,��u_
c
�> o;�=i o 0
� a� o 0 0
z-= = ,��`� u � � �, �'�= c� tv
k_ � �
Q� O N 7 c C II
� :?'U r�s � � '-' o ��
O (J 2 P. ,c
� � � �
m
�i
m
N
2
E
U
U
�
L�
7
Q
�
O
�
Cq
�
m
a
C
0
��
U
J
�
N
�O
�
a�
rn
a�
U
'u
E
m
�
O
J
J
�: . __ _ -
_ _ .
f f : : ': .. :.. _....� �___:._ ; : +, .-- — . ---_ _ -- ----� _
• --- — ---- - - -- ll
�
�
�� �
>°�
��
�
�
�__��
�
<, �
:��,_,
�
- �-�
�-�
;-=
�
�
��,
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
� �.�
���
�" !�tl =i
.._
�
�
l�?
�:r
�
�
�
�
�
�a
�
�
�
� � �i
� °� �
o� � �
,� �
� � ee�
� �
�� �
�
�
�a
Y
- - ,.=C�xI
G-
,
,i�i � � �='"
�� � ��
��__;
_ _. _�� � C =�
�. - —
G �
:� � — 9E � � ii� �
_ --== � � � � 1 :;� � 11�1;
� , ,�
, `� o T � ��
�� i= C� ��1
- . ■�:_� ���ie
1 �� �� C C�: �������n��:
• `o:::C:C�:::� �
1 � � °� � ; � �����■����•
,� ■� � ,
� � t����� • : ���,�
� �',n`�.' �� � �i ������ � : 'il '�'»0�
i,i„�n,n �� ■■
� � `���� n�� ��iii�w��n�� C
; . ■ C� ��.��� �r� � ■
■ � :i7111 IIIE iiiiir�iiiiii • �-
1 �1111�lC ' . 11: :��I II � CI � �
' � s sY� 1, ��ii i 11: :1:�1 II �II '
I I I 1 I= ��'/;
J /,'
� //il, /
J \�
� �
: " _�.._� �._� k ;. ---�-- L. , s , r. . _ . _._ -.. _.. I, _ __
c ._ __. ._: �.v�.���_ __ __ . - --- ' ' � , . �� --�...�—`." ---- - . - . _ _ . �
�
C� � �
� �
S � p
� � �
� � �
� �
e� �
w � ��,,,
p � - :,
,r 'C1 u � ,� ,
i.��� o
� �, ;;
� � Qn`>
. 4�a�
�
I /
�
I��
� �
Q; ;� �I I
I O \ I,� --��v�L iil ��_ I�.. --
� � ��`',
�?.°- �"' —
�' �_
�" �' - -�
U - ?
��� i
. 4;d:� � � \ u�
�e = ,�
� ,�
— -- "� _ .� :n ` % �/'�
0 0 � �; �«� —
� � � � —
�n � - �n a •,
��; $ I
��---_j ' L I~ �- -
__ r i
� - N;;,; � �
0
LL
:; `l=� ,
�
�f / -
, _/l�� �
�n
�'-'L•
�
/ ^ � '/ __
� �
J� i
ti ;U,,
�`.7 _
� -
�G �
� � �
�. �
� � �� �
_� �
�CiCi ��,
�g x ii��� �
� •
�"�� ���11 ;� �
"p���ll 1�•11
� :: � ��:� , Ci,�,L,�
��n�����
�������U ���I
����
�, �___�;
_ __ _, _.
_ ;,;�
� �' ' z
/ .' 'i
� `-� �
;
� ����� �; ��
, . ,; _ -
: _ : . , . . 1 . . . . . " _ " . . .
' , _ 'I ` . _. ... - __ . _ --
/ ,
....... � ...,_.. ...._ _ ' __ _
,.n _. - _ _ . _ !E� n _ , . a' �
- � i- . .. . � Y
_ - . . ��� � " J
'� � �0
Q
� . � .. ... . � � _
� J
. J . �u� / _-___— _--
U O '
/ ' \\\ �'
�) (� �
V 0 -
. 1- / � � \,` / � \ I 1'` ❑ -J —
. � j � j'�� � . I
1
_' . j a ` '' -' �
-c'� - -
-� ' � / � � ! I �I
1 J J
� �II
N - , -'�.� . .. il _--. _ / �-\I -- -�- — — —_
1 , 7- '� �' � ��.�.�• t . � � �.�
�1��.: :C C:I :�����ii �n�
��. � �:� �� � ���■
=� �� � �.� �� �•�CC
C�C �� �C ������� ��
������� n� ��� ���� ����,�I�
�1'��'f�1��� ��:� � �'s �
' � � �1� �
-, � �� �1� �1���t ���� ♦♦r�i
� f� ii ���������� I�/l7���
_ _ �� � ��1��'����t ���L'��n
:. :: �� .a::��C::: �CCt�� �
iii�iiiiii��iiiiiiirii ii� r�n
1 " ,
�
�
�
C
� i Q,
Q�
�
�
�
�
�°
� N � d�' V�", � O N ti O N �
� o` N N M �i' O N M N O O �
N r aN- tMO. M (~O� V � O O N �
U O � � S � � l�(I W ti � � �t
d � � �
0 O N
� - N U
� c ����a
o � � � � �
� � � � a
� r� �, o � � �, ,�
� �. Q�Q°��
.N � C � (� Q 0 0 N
l0 d O �
� � � C O � N � .Z L >, �
P1 C J 7+ � � °�' N � � �
ry � �
a L ly6 � Q C z Q. � � � �
rn a e� � � � a
J � E � � «�.
� a , C � O O K K 7 �
� J J - ? (n (!J
� I ., �
�
7 i j
I W :-.. � .. ' . ..
� ln l�(I O � W N O P') U7 .�- O
o � ri Fi o 0 0 0 0 � ci o�
N (O d�' W O � � � O �W � (�O (`M')
� M � Om1 � � N In O M ��-- M N
� Q
= o
a �
m a
� � �
� U
a
r � a� � � � m
U V � d !0 E V
o�„u - E E U � o w
_ � � � o � � U ��
C T T T � � � j E � C O
•N E E � E °o �. E �j o ° �
v� � L = � •� c rn � co
� � � n � L � V o � m �
U "O
j C C j 0 m � � �OI � � `�= u
� � � � � z U � 'L�i � 2 �i Z
e , a � a � �
,�j � I.�L �= = U U U U U U �U'-- �
� rn ul �� Z U U[r � 2 O�
�� �,1`��
a
�
� C J O w�
fn N � J � �
O
UcU� N �
- 0_ o � rn ai -
z-`�-�-� m •- � �
�S N(n il
O o N � -i v
��c � .
2J
Q
l0
N
M
C
N
2
Q
�
�
�
a
�
�r
C
U
�
N
m
c
C
O
H7
N
O
J
.�
a`
ti
X
�
LV
ai
�
@
Z
3
O
T
J
Mov�vns v�w rLa�nvG colvnvIISSrorr
- July 18, 2001 -- 7:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAIQNG, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,
AND GIVE YOUR F`ULL NAM� AND ADDRESS FOR THE 1VIINiJTES
4, P�anning Case VROl-007
Consideration of a Variance Request for a Second Curb Cut at 8081 Red Oak Drive
Applicant: Jennifer �sterlund
5. Planning Case CU01-003
Considera.tion of a Conditional Use Reques� for an Over-Sized Garage at 8368 Groveland Road
Applicant: �ack Clasen
5. Planning Case VROl-008 and CU01-002
Consideration of a Variance Request far Reduced Setbacks and a Conditional Use Permit
_� raquest to Operate a Veterinary Clinic at 2625 County Highway 10
-_. Applicant: Mounds View Animal Hospital
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING vS REQUESTED.
PLEASE NOTIFY THE CONIlVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT
763-717�021 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
7, Staff Reports
a. Previous Council Action: June 25, 2001, July 9, 2001
b. Highway 10 Meetings
8. Chairpersan and Planning Commissioners' Reports
9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 1, 2001
10. Adjourninent to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
' 1. Review Minutes from June 20, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
Tf:�DATA\GROUPS\COMi�EV�Planning Commission�PCAGENDA�2001Uu1y 18, 2001 PC Agenda.doc
.
, . . -__. -:: _ ,_ : � : r
,�1
� ..-
. ..
, ,
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLAN1vING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, NIINNESOTA
'Regular Meeting
June 20, 2401
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., Jane,20, ,2Q01.
- r •;
k -
. y�
2. Roll Call .
:�i ,
� �
�r �.:.
Members Present:
Members Excused:
Also Present:
j
3v:
Index,.to M�nutes
,: .r���:�,
Commissioners Hegland, Stevenson,`Johnson; ]
°�ra
�',�l ..:,,�' qEP .:A `;�..
Miller (excused} i�Cerny (unexcused)
� .,, � �� �£
Community Developmeiit Director Encson.
�'� �� � � �
s.�.,� � s , �.
Planning`�ase No::vR01
_.#;
A 1' t• ``,Ar1en Baun
PPican . u,..,,u.,,� x�.-
Location: 553��St Stephen Streef;;
�
Planning Case No. VR01'-006 :
App�icant: David VandenEinde
Location; 2832 Ardan;Avenue
,�
Planning Case No. VR0�1-007
Applicant: Jennife� Osterlund
Locaiion 808`1 °�Red Oak Drive
��, r« �,: �
,� -:.
Planning Case No. DE00-002
Applicant: Tony Mezzenga
Location: 7664 Greenfield Avenue
Staff Reports/Items of Information
Zwirn, and Scotch.
Page
2
4
6
13
14
Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 14
. �
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
3. Approval of Minutes
a. May lb, 2001
MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Hegland.
Presented.
Ayes — 6
June 2Q, 2001
Page 2
To Approve the May 16; 2001, Meeting Minutes as
, ::``
Nays =`;0,.: Motion carried. :'
;:
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on .t�
There were no resident comments on items not on the agerida.
5. Planning Case No. VROl-005
Planner Atkinson noted that this matter
for
� � ;;
�
, �=.
<"` i
�� t
S: �; ,,
Y,E�i..
:`�. t_ �,N ... . .
,j.....: . p-
Planner Atkinson noted that the applicant had requested a variarice to build an accessory
structure on the property line and nofed that City �Code require"s that accessory structures be
located at least five (5) feet off the:property line.
Planner Atkinson noted thaY there��vere seven cnter.�a;that must be rnet in order for the Planning
Commission to� grant a variauce -` �' �"`
Planner Atkinson noted that the fi�st criteria_ is that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
apply to the property,ywhtch do not apply;generally to the other properties in the same zone or
vicini#y and result fi-om 1ot ;size or sliape;' topography or other circumstances over which the
owners o� ltlie property hay�1 bad.;no control. He then noted tl�at the property is located at 5532
St. Stephen Street and i�"ia"t�ough lot with street frontage on both St. Stephen Street and Jackson
Drive. He further noted the;�lot is relatively flat and free from any significant circumstance that
co.uld be considered exc.ep'tioiial or extraordinary.
u�ner Atkinson noted'that the second criteria is that the literal interpretation of the provisions
this Title would,.�eprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the
ne disinct under'fhe terms of this Title. He then noted that the setback requirements for
esSory structures are the same for all residentially zoned lots within the City and no different
m:those imposed on the subject property.
Plannez Atkinson noted that the third criteria is that the special conditions or circumstances do
not result from the actions of the appiicant. He then noted that there appears to be no special
conditions ar circums�ances on this property.
,
;
,'
Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001
` Regular Meetrng Page 3
Planner Atkinson noied that the fourth criieria is that granting the variance requested will not
confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owriers of other lands,
structures or buildings in the same district. He then noted that Staff feels that granting the
variance requested would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by:other property .owners.
Planner Atkinson noted that the £ifth criteria is that the variance"requested is the Xninimum
variance which would alleviate the hardship noting econom�c conditions;alone shall not be
considered a hardship. He then noted that without a demon'strated special condition any.variance
granted would exceed the minimum necessary to alieviate a hardship:
Planner Atkinson noted the sixth criteria is that the minimum variauce.would not be materially
detrimental to the purpose of this Title ar to otller property;:in the same zone.; He then noted that
granting a variance in this situation would be detrimental fo the purpose, of the Title by allowing
an accessory structure to be located within a required,•setback while there i"s ample space to
construct the accessory structure in a location that meets the: setback requiremerits established in
;,,, �
the Code. ` ' ' ,���.
y
Planner Atkinson noted the seventh criteria is that the �proposed vananCe`will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to ad�acerif property:' He then noted that the requested variance
would not impair an adequate supply o��li'ght and'aii to adjacent property.
� �
Planner Atkinson indicated that Sfaff does not �feel the sltuation warrants a variance and
� �3���
` �� recommended denial of the.�anarice request� y�e th,eri no�ed that Staff had drafted a Resolution
for consideratlon at tlus mee�n�rthat wou1d �.enyfi ��� �ariance request.
; �, �� _ � w;`�
� : ���t ; ,��� �
Chair Stevenson,�ked why�li� City does not allow structures within five (5) feet of the property
�.
f {�
line. �� ��
"�,�,:
��. ��°�� £`
Community:Development�Director Encson explained that for fire code reasons maintaining
adequate space between buildings is important. He also noted that due to the intensity of use
keepirig' stxuctures five (5):fee� off of the property lines keeps neighbors a distance from each
other'to keep them from i,nfru�guiig on each other's space. He further noted that if the structure
were located on the property�line, maintenance of the structure would be an issue as the applicant
xwould need to be in his neighbor's yard to do the maintenance.
_� `,�h�atir Stevenson noted�that it is also a good idea to be on your own property so that the run off
,.fi'om the,structu���does not fall into a neighbor's yard.
�`.'� ��� � t: ��='�
�, .� � �� ,:'.
Arlen Bautnhoefner, the applicant, nated that the structure is not being built on the property line
but one foot off the property line so water runoff should run on his property and not be an issue.
He handed out pictures to the Commissioners to show where the shed would be located. He
noted the structure would be backed up to his neighbor's garden and hidden by the existing
fence. He further noted that the shed is more like a small camiage house than a shed.
. _ . . . : ... ._... . I.. . . . . . . . _ . ..
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
June 20, 2001
Page 4
Mr. Baumhoefner noted that he felt leaving #he fve {5} foot space behind the shed would Ieave
an area to draw yaxd clutter.
Mr. Baumhoefner noted ihat, in an effort to protect future property owriers, the shed would be
constructed on 12 cement pads to allow the building to be moved in either direction.�`
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. .
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m
Cammissioner Kaden noted that, as has been stated at many meetings, everybody likes to see
owners improve their properties. He then noted that, unfortunately, he did not see how the
requested variance meets the criteria required. ''''£� � � � ��� � `s ���
F
'.'� �
Commissioner Johnson indicated he felt that there is.not a l�ardship and that the variance could
not be granted. ,�'"�: ' •� ' "`��'
xz� -
,
. � , ,..
�� =r�>�xi���� �
MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To Approve Resolution 6b0=01, a Resolution Denying a
Variance From the Minimum Setback�tequirement;foT Accessory�Structures to Allow for a
Zero-Foot Setback for a Storage Shecl�ozi the Property Located'at 5532 St. Stephen Street.
2 ,..
Ayes b , NaXs ,=`0 Motion carried.
.�`�
Chair Stevenson noted the applicant could go before fhe City Council as Council can overrule a
denial;by the Planning Commission if it finds just cause.
Community D�'velopment Dzrector Encson also noted that, if the applicant chooses to appeal the
decision, he v�iould need';something in wnting within two weeks to get the matter on the City
Council agenda fi ' � ' '
;- �� ,� ,
6. ` Planning Case No `�1Z01�-006
�.K T::
�. �
Planner Atkinson noted�that the applicant from 2832 Ardan Avenue has requested a variance to
•be':allowed to place a six (6) foot tall fence in his front yard as defined by City Cade.
� $
�<�.�
Planrier Atkinson noted that there were two issues with the case. Planner Atkinson noted the
"fir�t issue is that it is a corner lot and the Commission must consider if that is enough of a
"hardship to grant the variance. He then noted the second issue is the grade change from
Groveland to the house. He further explained there is a two-foot grade change and noted that
needed to be considered.
Chair Stevensan asked for clarification of where the six (5) foot fence would be located.
:,
.:)
: , �
Mounds View Planning Commissio� June 20, 2001
` Regular Meeting Page 5
Planner Atkinson noted the six (6) foot fence would be located around the entire property and
indicated the bracketed area on the drawing is where the four (4) foot requirement is located.
Chair Stevenson noted there are several instances where corner lots do have s.ix "(b7 foot fences to
the side of the residence which fronts on one o#'the streets. He tYien noted that the circumstances
af the corner lot are difficult, as it appears there is street frontage as defined by Crty Code but the
resident treats it as a sideyard.
Commissioner John.son indicated he would call it the sideyard:of:the residence. He then �noted: �
that the Silver Lake Raad development has six (6) foot fences
,:.
Planner Atkinson noted the City is dealing with a technicality, as it is a front yard based on City
code.
Cornmissioner Kaden asked what type of fence Mr VandenEinde intended to use.
Mr. VandenEinde noted the fence would be located around:the property lie considers to be his
side and backyards. He noted the reason for the request is that the four (4} foot height is not
sufficient to contain his twin daughters due to the tw`o'foot grade"change on the Groveland side.
, �.
�,_ , .; -=
Chair Stevenson noted he could sit at his kitchen-counter and see into Mr. VandenEinde's
backyard and noted there is defvutely a grad��change. ,_'�``
�,� .., � r_.... ,
• � � �-s°.
Mr. VandenEinde noted .there is a�line of tri
roots cati be :avoided wheri ;�ansti�u�ting the
property lme v�nth:his fence 1ocaC�on E� :
�r.a; _. , -,�:
Mr. Vand
neighbor.
sra
fence would need to be inside of so the
then noted that he should be well off the
cedar boards to match the fence of his
,,� :_�
Chair'Stevenson inquired:as to t1ie;:Groveland right of way requirement and noted that the fence
wouTd need to be located inside of that.
1V1x. VandenEinde indicated he was told that his property line would be located thirty (30) feet
':;'from the center of the road.
Y' '�;
G1�aYr:Stevenso� opened the puhlic hearing at 7:33 p.m.
Chair Stevenson ciosed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
Chair Stevenson indicated he feels there is a hardship due to the difference in grade and noted he
had no problem granting the variance requesied.
Comrnissioner Johnson indicated he would like to direct Staff to draft a Resolution of approval
for action at the next meeting.
Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 6
Chair Stevenson directed staff to draft a Resolution for approval at the next meeting.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated the next meeting would not be until July
18, 2001.
Mr. VandenEinde asked if there was anyway he could be allowed to construct the fence earlier
than the July 18, 2001 meeting, as he is concerned for the safety of his daughters. He then noted
he realized he was asking for something extraordinary and outside of>the normal procedures `
Community Development Director Ericson noted it was rather_,unusual-but offered to ask Planner
Atkinson to draft a Resolution of approval to be voted upon later fn the �neeting.
t��
Chair Stevenson reviewed the conditions upon �
in order to give enough information for Planner
Commissioner Kaden indicated there have
similar situations.
MOTION/SECOND:
Meeting.
�val for the vanance would be granted
� ckaft the Resoluhon:
�:
iP:;
.�� ��
Kaden/Scotch "To:'Table Planning Case'No
��;��
!; ,�, s.,�''r�
Ayes. b A; ; f Nays '::0 �
7. Plan�ing Case No.� VR01-007 ..
;;� �.:
Community Developi�ent,Director E�csorinoted this was a Public Hearing, Discussion and
Consideration of�a vananc�`�#'or a second curb cut at 8081 Red Oak Drive. He noted the property
owner, �ennifer Osterlund`has requested the second curb cnt to provide additional access to the
property: He further noted _tha$,'"iri' speaking with Ms. Qsterlund, she indicated the second curb
cut is'mainly in response to�#Jie':Heavy traffic on Red Oak Drive as they are having difficulty
getting out of their driveway and onto the street.
Director Ericson noted that City code states that single family zoning is limited to one curb cut
uriless the Planning �ommission feels that there is an issue as to public safety that could be used
tow$rd:the hardship requirement.
,
, � `:;�.,
Director Ericson noted there is a question as to whether the corner lot provides an exceptional or
exiraordinary circumstance that would warrant granting the variance. He then noted theze are
close to 400 corner lots in the City that may be able to argue the same circumstatice.
ted for properties in
VRO 1-006 Until Later in the
Motion carried.
Director Ericson noted he did not feel the literal interpretation of the code would deprive the
property owner of something others in a similar situation are allowed as other property owners
are not allowed to have two curb cuts.
:�
: _;
_,�
,. ,
;. ;
,:. -. .:.:.
Mounds View Plaaning Commission June 20, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 7
Director Ericson noted that the condition exists due to actions by the praperty owner. He then
noted there was a similar case but clarified that the second curb cut in that instance was a pre-
existing condition not one created by that property owner.
Director Ericson noted he had received a letter from the neigh`boring property owner indicating
they were in favor of gran�ing the variance due to the safety issues involved. He then noted,there
are other neighbors who are opposed ta the second curb cuY; ,:
Director Ericson noted that it is Staff s opinion that the variancE requested does not meet the
hardship requirements and has drafted Resolution 661-01, a Resolution denying the variance
a
request.
Commissioner Kaden indicated he had called Planner Atkinson and asked him for: traffic counts
for Red Oak Drive and other comparable roads in��he;area �'� '
Director Ericson provided copies of information with traffic numbers to the Commission for
review. He then indicated that based on the.�traffic study done }n 1997 somewhere between 1000
and 1050 cars travel Red Oak Drive on a daily basis:
Commissioner Johnson indicated tUat, if the house were built to today's standards, ihe driveway
< ;,, t:;;.
would need to be farther from the stop sign ���;� ?;:;
w ��, �K
� °:�� ' 'i � .
Director Ericson indicated:that�t£the vanance were to be Iapproved the driveway may need a
' � �� ..,.T �
variance as rt may be too clo�se tQ the=stop s�gii:
Z . f,,.�
Chair Stevenson mdicated that lustori
.E,
noted there are soirie:properties in t�ie
� ,,
„!� second curb cut request has been denied. He then
but noted those were pre-existing before the new code
was passea����`��, � u ���„;� �� , ,�_ ��;,��
. �.:
Chair'Stievenson openedtlie pu�ilic hearing at 8:00 p.m. �
Mr 40sterlund indicated he was unaware of the requirement to obtain a permit before
eommencing work on th� project. He then apologized to the Commission for the oversight.
� NIr::.Osterlund explained that the main issue they are having is �iiat their driveway is located only
� 25 `fe.et from the stop sign which causes them to have to wait to get out onto the road.
1VIr Osterlund�provided pictures of the property and driveway to the Commission for review.
Chair Stevenson asked for clarification as to what Mr. Osterlund meant when he said they have
to wait to get oufi of the driveway.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
June 20, 2001
Page 8
�
Mr. Osterlund indicated that they have to wait to get in or out of the driveway because there are
cars lined up at the stop sign. He further indicated that even if there are only two cars in line the
end of their driveway is blocked.
Commissioner Scotch asked how long the property owner had lived in the hom�.
Ms. Osterlund indicated she had purchased the home one arid `a half (1 %z) years ago and
indicated that prior to that the house sat vacant for two and a'half (2 %z) years.
;.
Chair Stevenson asked how far the second driveway was located from the stop sign.
Mr. Osterlund indicated the second driveway is approximately fifi:y five (55). feet from the stop
sign.
,4 j
" 3
Chair Stevenson inquired as to whether the property owner :�ould accass��their�garage from
Sherwood Road. ` &''
.��= � • �
d:- y
� � f �
� ;.�: ��3 jj��p 1 � i� ;� .
Mr. Osterlund indicated they could not but noted that�they plan ta �ove�the garage in the fuhire
to face Sherwood Road. � `�' �`���� � � � '` � � � � � �
�:, :� ` _ �
�>
Mr. Osterltixid indicated he feels tkat being located on a comer` lot they need to spruce up their
yard and intend to do some landscapmg. He then'noted that��the driveway meets all the
requirements for curb cuts except it is the secorid curb cut on his property. He further noted that
according to the infozmatiori�he had obtainedtfrom the' City one curb cut per 125 feet of property
is allowed � � ��,:"�'��°:�
� _,
Mr. Osterlund state� he did not lcnow he needed a permit for the second curb cut.
� �� ��. �.
h' ' p ,
Claude Wetterling of 2716 Sherwood Road indicated he had received a letter from Community
Development D�rector $ncson which indicated the driveway was illegal and the property owner
was to; stop using it immediately and not use it unnl the matter was resolved. He then indicated
thafi:it is an illegal driveway:'that they have continued to use and that was finished after being told
to stop and he feels the variarice should not be allowed.
Mr. Osterlund indicated it was not his fault the project was finished as he went to work and the
cU�i`,tractar arrived and finished the project before he could be told not to.
4 1�..
'' £ i� i '. p %kf� i'' ;i"��
Ch��r Stev�nson asked Community Development Director Ericson to comment on the staternent
"�"�one ctir�i`=cut per 125 feet of property."
Director Ericson clarified that the reference made is referring to the properiy elevation of a
parldng area which states that the property owner shall be allowed one parking access for every
125 feet of property. He then noted that this reference is intended to govern commercial
development as single family uses are allowed only one curb cut per City code.
1
;3
- ,
;. ,
Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
Director Ericson indicated that the other issue involved is that the driveway needs to he located
50 feet from the intersection of two street rights of way.
Commissioner Johnson further clarified that the reference to the 125 feet of frontage is for
commercial usage and noted that the City typically does not give; �ommercial �developments that
many curb cuts.
Harold Vierkant of 8071 Red Oak Drive stated he feels the i��f,fic coun� is higher now than.in
1997 and stated he feels the property owner needs the new�'dnvewa� as the current driveway'is
unsafe. He fuxther commented he felt it would be safer to p�i°1`1 �'o�ward, out of the new driveway
�
rather than to back out of the existing driveway. � ,��5a�� �� � a
,;,n � � � � ,;
, � �
Chair Stevenson indicated that there are other residents in'the City who back into their driveways
in order to be able to pull out when they leave as they do nq#.;feel it is saf� to back into the
�; .,
roadway from their driveway.
; . . � �, _:- z 4�;e„
Mr. Irken indicated that traffic on Red Oak Dnve wilt not aliow tYiern to back into their
driveway. He then indicated he is in favor of the secoiid curb cut .as there are six other properties
with second curb cuts on Red Oak Drive: ' i �
Jerry Moylin of 2708 Sherwood Raad indicated that to his kriowledge there have been no
changes in traffic flows by the City or Countyain this particular location in the 23. years he has
- lived there.-, ,He noted the number,of cars has iiicreased l�u# stated he goes through the
intersection in ,question three or. fotu times a� day and lias not waited very long which makes him
skeptical�of the;need of the�property,owner to�wait to get into line to get on the highway.
�, ,�;��
` , `'�h��� ������ �
Mr. Moylm noted the�previous fioine owners managed quite well with the driveway they had.
He then indicated thaf;`as.far as tfie safetySissue is concerned, the existing driveway on that
property comes;�ust b�f�re'people ar�,�lowing down to stop at the stop sign and the temporary or
proposed'..new drive'vvay wilJ, b� in the acceleration path of people coming through the
intersection which he f��l��i� much more dangerous.
P
, }�� ..,=x ;-,,,;
Coitimissioner Kaden indicated the traffic count number on the handout received looks like 1900
cars not 1000 cars as earlier indicated.
Chair Stevenson confirmed that the traffic count at Red Oak Drive and Hillview appeared on the
map to �be L900.
Commissioner Hegland asked how the traffic numbers were determined.
Dizector Ericson indicated a cable was strung across the road to count vehicles.
Commissioner Hegland questioned whether every axle was recorded or if the 1900 was an actual
vehicle count.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
June 20, 2001
Page 10
Director Ericson indicated it was an actual vehicie count as the cable is computerized and is
aware of what type of vehicle passes over it.
Alice Wetterling of 2716 Sherwood Road indicated she is concerned that the driveway is a safety
hazard as Mounds View has lots of kids on bikes, roller blades and scooters who will not be
aware of the driveway onto Sherwood. She then noted that she has seen two close ca'il car
accidents since the driveway was put in.
Ms. Osterlund indicated she was unaware of any alleged close call accidents so she is not sure
what Ms. Wetterling is referring to. She then indicated that'the.piev,ious owner had lived in the
house for 30 years and never had an issue with the driveway buC�oted that traffic was a lot
different 30 years ago as compared to today.
Mr. Osterlund indicated that neither of the gentlemen.wl�� �commented'have lived on Red Oak
Drive and have not tried to back out of his driveway. � He n6ted.there is plenty of sight line ta see
kids coming. He noted tha� he had spoken to the neighbors ���cross� the street`��and they have said
they have never noticed him tearing out of tl�e:`driveway I3e fiirth����nd�,c�ted that he drives very
cautiously and feels that as a futuxe parent,-it'�is his job�b look �ut;for: other peoples' kids on the
streets as he expects other residents will:;one day do �for him. H���lso� commented that the
driveway is Class 5 which would be c�splaced if he"were to teat`out of the driveway which ends
up costing hiln money to repair or,repl�a�ce. �`� ����
; ,r;; r.
� �,
R ; �,��.
Chair Stevenson asked if tl�e property owners H{a�l,�ansidered an area to back up where the
second dnveway was put '
„�
Mr Osterlund indicated he liad c4nsi�ered a back up lane but noted there is a tree in the way
which he wot�ld really need to maneuuer his truck around to get into position.
�'B f�;�„
Chair Stevenson a'sked Mr:� Osterluntl if he had driven out of his driveway forward before.
Mr Osterlund indicated that he had but not from the angle Chair Stevenson had suggested.
�:
3-�
Gommissioner Scotch asked'how much property there is between Red Oak Drive and the
property line.
Commissioner Kaden questianed whether the contractor had suggested that the property owner
might need a,permit or that there might be setbacks to be considered
�ommissioner Zwirn asked if the cont�actor was licensed, bonded and insured.
Mr. Osterlund indicated he was not sure whether the contractor was licensed as he had not
checked it out. He then indicated the contractor did not tell him a permit may be required.
Commissioner Kaden indicated that, in most cases, the contractor will offer to get the pernut as
part of the quote.
�
; , . _ ,
Mounds View Planning Commissiou
Regular Meeting
June 20, 2041
Page 11
Chair Stevenson asked the Commission if they felt the hardship requizements have been met.
Commissioner Hegland indicated he feels the safety issue is pzetty serious and it would appear to
him that pulling out onto the street would be safer than backing ouf of the driveway: He noted he
feels the second curb cut appears to ium to be a reasonable solution to the problem. .`-
Commissioner Kaden commented that if the variance for the"second curb�cut is granfed that it ..
may set a precedent for the City and there could be many other requ:ests for second curb cuts. He
then noted that the current driveway is a safety issue and not�d he untlerstands that traffic won't
let you back into your driveway as he has the same problem �this-hou$e.>
�:.=
Chair Stevenson indicated he feels the real safety issue ts with the new dilvev�ay being in the
acceleration path on Sherwood Road. He then noted he vva.s;not sure tliat the safe�y issue would
be alleviated or if a new one would be creaied by creatmg a;second curb cut ori Sherwood Road.
., .,,. , � xY �,,
Chair Stevenson indicated he would like to see'the applicant attempt to frid a way to find a turn
around in the driveway and drive out of the current driv'eway rather th�n to allow the second curb
cut.
Commissioner Johnson noted he felt. tliere were other altematives to granting the variance and
expressed concern for setting a precedent in the City.
��Y
Commissioner Kaden lndicated there is a safety is`sue{'tiecause traffic will not allow them to stop
and back mto the driveway in order to be able tio "p�ill out when they Ieave.
::
Commissioner:I3eeland stated
CommissioneX;K�en:
that
was zanique and would not set a precedent.
e Commission weze iooking at a variance one block
away on,��nerwooa tc�au anc►,,�u�u�ys�uc he would not feel the need as Sunnyside does not have
the sa.�te amount of tra�fic ;- '':,�t
; �>
r'�rv � � �`: � . �
Commissioner Johnson �ioted'he had an issue with someone not wanting to wait five (5} minutes
���get out of their drive�v�y as he has to wait for ten (10} minutes or more to get out of his in the
� . ��k#
: `moming. r�n,
0.Y'C'
i .nK�
, Commissioner Kaden indicated that the situation is unique in this case as it is dangerous to
a�tempf �o.back up into your driveway and have cars pull up behind and not allow it or swerve
around you.
Commissioner Scotch indicated there would be a better sight line if the resident were to pull out
of the driveway rather than back out. She then stated she feels the resident should further
investigate whether a tumaround could be placed in the driveway to allow the resident to be able
to pull out onto Red Oak Drive.
;_ _ ___ __ .
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Chair Stevenson closed the pnblic hearing at 8:45 p.m.
June 20, 2001
Page 12
�
MOTTON/SECOND: Stevenson/Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 661-01, a Resolution Denying
a Request for a Variance to Allow a Second Curb Cut at 8081 Red:Oak Drive:
Community Development Director Ericson noted the Resolu�i�in, if approved;� will rec�uire a
further stipulation that the right of way and boulevard area needs to be restored.
� �;- � � .
Commissioner Johnson asked if the proposed alriveway was�Class S:or asphalt.
Director Ericson indicated that Class 5 driveways are no longer allowed by City code but noted a
parking area of 300 square feet or less of Class 5 is allowed. �:
Commissioner Johnson clarified that the grass on the bou�eVard would need to be`restored but
noted the Class 5 eould be left in place for a parkmg area '; �;�;,
�-�
�;w ,,� �
,;�_� , ;�
Director Ericson indicated a permit would be 'required bltt noted th�e area could be used for a
parking area ` ' � f ;
;�� ,� �;
��
Chair Stevenson clarified that five (5} feet of the boulevard and the curb cut would need to be
replaced if the Class 5 were used for a�`�iarking,ar��a.
Director Ericson noted the Resolution would be arne�i�ecl to require that a permit be obtained and
all City codes complied w�tf��� '��' �:> � " �� ''��'°� �
ra ' � � � � �`�'t �
� '�'' ` Xk ' �a(� :: .. �
, �q
'`` Ayes = 2 '.`i�� .Nays — 4(Hegland/Kaden/Scotch/Johnson} Motion failed,
E� ,
Chair Stevenson asked �he Comminssiori if�it'wanted to direct Staff to bring a Resolution for
approvai o£the,:�aria�ce b�fare the Coinrilission at the next meeting.
Director Ericson noted the ,next Planning Commission meeting would be held on July 18, 2001.
Coinmissioner Kaden asked Director Ericson to comment on the pubiic safety aspect of the
�ardship requirement. ��
Director Ericson noted that the Planning Commission could give added weight to the safety issue
and can add,,thatt� to the hardship but no#ed the Cominission still needed to establish that there is a
hardship:; �
Commissioner Kaden asked if the Planning Commission should make a change to the City code
for future situations.
Director Ericson noted that the Planning Commission can suggest changes to the Code at any
time it feels it is appropriate.
=='�
= -�
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
June 20, 2001
Page 13
Commissioner Johnson noted the new curb cut would need to be in compliance with City code.
A resident asked if the driveway could be used prior to resolution of the matter.
Chair Stevenson clarified that the residents were not to use the,driveway until the variance is
approved.
Chair Stevenson noted if the variance is approved at the next meeting the matter would nat be
going before the City Council.
� �; '
Community Development Director Ericson informed the
663-01 regarding the Vanden Einde variance request was
Planner Atkinson presented the resolution and
were necessary. Chairman Stevenson indicatec
_,�,,,
�
MOTION/SECOND: / . To approve ResoluYion G63�.
variance to allow a six-foot tall fence to, lie located ,i�'°the front y
2832 Ardan Avenue.
Ayes — 6 � ` ' Nays-O �
�':
��-�.
,
w, ��';rrnnn nn�
8. � Plamm�g Case
��
,, � ;
Commututy Developin�
that the building need'ei
noted that the matteX w�
the building needed to;.l
,; ,
,,�.
Director Ericson noted
no`bay or projecting wi
�� �-:.,
�e adjoining property �
;;ap�roval on June 25, 2�
e� �;e .
oirimission that Resolution
md ready;for their review.
any changes
a'resolution approving a
of the property located at
Motion carried.
�:
Director Encson_explained that the building official had deterniined
� be mod�fi�ed-in oider to meet state accessibiiity requirements. He
iiscussed a� lerigth at the previous meeting and it was determined that
i fii11. two stories to meet the accessibility requirements.
1.
�ere"were to be no windows on the upper story south elevation and
s�on the east side elevation to mizumize #he peripheral site lines for
. He then noted this matter would be before the City Council for
:.I?E �� :`.:;
1VIOTIQN/SECOND: Hegland/Stevenson. To Approve Resolution 662-01, a Resolution
Recommending Approval of an Increased Building Height for a Proposed Office Building at
7664 Greenfield Avenue.
Commissioner Hegland noted that this is not a design the City is requiring and noted that the
design is a result of the requirements of the State Accessibility Code.
Director Ericson noted the Resolution indicated the design had heen changed to comply with the
State Accessibility Code.
Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 14
Commissioner Zwirn indicated he would abstain from voting as he is the neighboring property
owner.
Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 '.� 1Vlotion cai ned. _,..
..
�
Commissioner Zwirn abstained fronl voting.
9. Staff Reports � , .
�=3r:
a. Previous Council Action
�F�e
Community Development Director Ericson noted that there was a discussion on li#'ecycle
housing geared toward the Highway 10 Corridor redevelop�ent efforts at9the Iast City Council.
��
meeting. x, , .r,� ,
N � �,�
�
r �;
Director Ericson noted there would be a meeting of the Highway LO Oversight Committee on
July 11, 2001. He then noted there would,be a public open house ori July 1 b, 2001 to seek
community input.
:���`
Director Ericson noted he was in:need of
Committee �if anyone was interested. He
nights at:7 Oa:p.m. ' � �� ''
� . �-�"��`�' ��'�.
hearing for
'. I ;, +.�.4 �;
n noted that �o
�:9, 2001 where
�;��.
;ioner to sit on the Oversight
meetings are on the off Wednesday
t the Comprehensive Plan and set a public
will be presented.
Director Encs�i�� �oted that,�at the last Pl'anning Commission meeting there was a public hearing
and discussion conceining �;proposed major subdivision for Long View Estates by Mr. Harstadt.
He then`noted that the matter is still under review and stated it may be back on the calendar at the
July � 1� 8, 2001 meeting. ,�p
<�;�
f Commissioner Kaden no�ed that he would like to have an expert on storm water management
come and explain how i�vetlands work and the differences between the different classifications of
, wetlands.
� � � �: `'
Director ;Enc'son noted he would attempt to set up a half hour seminar for the next Planning
Commission meeting.
Commissioner Hegland tharilced Planner Atkinson for drafting the Resolution on the
VandenEinde variance during the meeting.
Director Ericson stated that Planner Atkinson has only been with the City for a couple of weeks
and is a�ready contributing.
,
:,
1
,. :
Mounds View Planning Commission�
Regular Meetrng
10.
Chairperson and Plauuing Commissioners' Reports
June 20, 2001
Page l.5
None.
11. Next Planning Commission Meeting: Jufy 18, 240�
12. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the Planning Cammission, ,Cha.ir' Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 9:16 p.m. �= U$`
�� ��: � �
ir'� ,�, �
{The meeting immediately adjourned tozthe Agenda Session) �
F , ` £ Y s .' ..
k' '' Y,z�d j�{ ��
Respectfully submitted, ,�,• , , .
�
�> � ,�
ra (� F ,`#,�Fi
15
�li m}�
�;:.:'
Jim Ericson
Community Development Directox
. 4,:
Transcribed by:
Joan Lenzmeier }� ,
TameSaver Off Sate Secretaraal, Inc: :
�� ;Y
,.
� ,, ,,;
�.3 , : � �
- ';' �
...<::.
"' � �,
,;; :,;i'
;�;i;
''d`
� �, aztlR Y:;-� $.�'.
e
;
�=;::::-:�
i
Item # 4
City of Mounds View
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: July I8, 2001
Title: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A SECOND
CURB CUT AT 8081 RED OAK DRIVE, PLANNING CASE VRO1-007
Introduction:
The property owner of 8081 Red Oak Drive, Jennifer Osterlund, has requested a variance to
allow a second curb cut on her property. The property is a corner loi and fronts on both Red Oak
Drive and Sherwood Road. The primary driveway accesses Red Oak Drive. A new driveway has
already been graded and hard-packed into place to access Sherwood Road. No asphalt or
concrete has been installed at this time.
Background:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request at its June 20�' meeting and
is aware of the background concerning this request. Much discussion and public testimony was
; given pertaining to the requested second curb cut, with the end result being a majority of the
-� Comrnission d'uecting staffto prepare a resolution approving the variance, based on the location
of the exis�ing driveway, the corner lot, and the amount of traffic on Red Dak Drive.
Discussion:
The Planning Commission reviewed the seven criteria as outlined in the City Code, all of which
need to be satisfied in order to warrant the approval of a variance. These criteria with responses
are as follows:
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 lat size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the
effective date hereof have had no control.
The extraordinary circumstances pertaining to this property are the location of the
driveway, the fact ihat the lot is docated on a corner, and the amount of traffic on Red
Oak Drive, none of tivhich are the applrcant can control.
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. �
In this case, the literal interpretation would deprive the applicant an opportunity to
safely enter and exit her property.
Osterlund Curb Cut Variance
July 18, 2001
Page 2
3. Special conditions or circumstances do not resuIt from the actions of the applicant.
As mentioned above, the applicant has no control over the level of traffic on Red Oak
Drive, the docation of the drrveway or fact that her property is a corner lot.
4. Granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege thai
is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district,
The Planning Commission does not feel that granting a variance in this situation would
be a special privilege as the circumstances are unique to this particular lot.
5. The vaz'iance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviafie the hardship.
Adding the second curb cut is the minimum variance possible to alleviate the hardship of
living on a corner lot and dealing with the traffic volume..
b. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this TitIe or to other
properties in the same zone.
The Planning Commission believes that because of the public safety consideratiotas,
grantzng the variance would not be detrfinental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to
other properties in the same zone. -
a
:��
7. The variance would not impair an adequate suppiy 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 ditninish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
Allawing for a variance to maintain the two curb cuts would not increase arry congestion
or impair an adequate supply of dight or air to adjacent properties. .
According to �he City Code in Section 1125,02, Subdivision 2, all of the above criteria need to be
satisfied in order to grant a variance. Based on the direction of the Planning Commission, it
appears that the request does satisfy the outlined criteria.
Recommendation:
Staff has prepared a resolution for the Commission's action which approves the variance request
based upon the responses to the seven criteria outlined in this report.
v�:u�� �.,w�v�
James Ericson
Community Development Director
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMUEV1Developme�t Cases1VR01-007 {Osterlund)1Regort — July 2 S, 2601.doc
�
ZON(NG MAP
� �.. �r : w
�* . a� � �-
� � �: � _����
�: w � � � "; .
�� � � � � � � �����.
�£��� � �: �.. r
f � �'���
�w��� , �. , � , � � � '. � ��"
�;� � �
� s __. _
�
i� �3>1�"°.K� �"'��.
�� ��
: t ry"� t�3 ?!' d�'
: .� , . .,, _
�� �_ :.� �
; .z t`�� .; �! "CW �1 J
- _._.... ...M. : ..
� � ��: : 3
�� ...._ _.. . . � . �
� '� � �: cvl C� � � �� � . ',��4 .
_° �,} - :t� � „� .�.` � �
� ��� .
� � k + f�. �.�: � �d _ � . ��
�a � c� ��,�� ,� �'��~ � � � � 1 �� '
�� . ..
�'
�:
�. :
� i.. ' _ _ _ . ,�^� �, �
- � �1�� �'.���� ��,��' �� � i
r �. ��
♦ � . �. �:
/ ���'�� ��. ♦� ���� ,
�1?'� ��.�C� .� ��,�'1 � � . I
/ .� � ... . ..
� : .... :
� / C�; , a�? �y. ,y�/� ; t�W�y . � p� ; � .A.
�R � � .'�i, i� s�. L `+ � �.4 :. ' � �'fi'g . � � `',�l.F . �aln�:� - . �y' .
r �xb }•
/ �-... .� �. � � �^ �'� � t..� � � � � : � a�
,
� . �`� . � .. �..... ---. ....... �_:� � �._
_._........_
si? � ._ '
� ��,` � � ���� : ;��. ��� � �s� :
�tV' d:`�F� C� ,
.. � .
���� ���� :
�� : , : ° ���`� �St�� �1
.. .,
,. . �'��; �� .:. ��� _ ���€�
�
. . . ...,. .. ........._. -.. __ ....... �..
��! ����` eR'��i .
� ���3�� � :. /
...
�� _ ���� ��� ;:
`: ...
�� �� ' �..� ��� � / �
� � � � ���� � � � $ :
��1:�:
s. ... �. _ ..:.:..
.
_
����.�
��: �� ��� ��:��
......_.. �
� �� ��. i�� T �� �
� ...... . �
.....M::. ... .
.� ����, ���� ���� ����
- ���. � ���� ���r�
� °�� � ......... _.....
........
�: � ���� _ . j �,��
���� ����
���
� ����: � � ��� _ .. ..
�� .. ,..,v .... . .... ........ . .......... ;..w .. � ��>
� . �a ""
• � � � �
�':. � ; !`� ° ��� ��.Q � �'�� °
. � �. �
�
�����
���
���
���?
���
���
�1�
���
�� �
���:���,�'v'4:�' '
� ,
+�r. � ' :
� �! ,
.�� . ,,� �` �'�`
i_
� t`�i
��� ���� `���
. .-
�� �E� .: �
. ... .. : ... ...,,„ .,v.,. F
����:� � �� �'' ' ��47•�
,. --- yy,y �py�y` +!�
k�Y�K� t �M 1'�� .. .- V4+4C�
�� � � . �� . ��..
� ��1-
��� ��� :� ��
���� ��:��. ����
����
... ��� ��:
����
.. __
��4� ���� ���-
_ ......... .
.���� ��� ��'
� _ �"r. `,� _,_ . ......
:....._
� < � � ' ;y'��: ����
. . _ _ ��. . -
�
� ` :
�� � . � ��� � �8� i � � � . .�'`d�� ��3��
�_�� .
_. _ ..
_.
,. . - ����
:. . . �:���i ..: ��� _ . - .... . �`��s�
��`�. _
'� �ei�r� Z�f.�s+� 7t��:�
# Parcels are zoned R-1, Single Family residential, unless otherwise noted.
,'
�
i�
MOUNDS V�W PLANNING C4MNIISSION
RESOLUTTON NO. 661-01
CITY OF MOUNDS V1E�'V
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A VARiANCE TO ALLOW A
SECOND CURB CUT AT 8081 RED OAK DRIVE;
MOUNDS V�W PLANNING CASE VRO1-007
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jennifer Osterlund, has applied for a variance to allow a
; second curb cut at 8081 Red Oak Drive to access Sherwood Road; and,
WHEREAS, 8081 Red Oak Drive, a corner lot, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential,
and is legally described as follows:
Lot 120,Spring Lake Park Hillview, except the East 90 Feet thereof
Ramsey County, Mrnnesota
WHEREAS, Section 112I.09, Subdivision Se of the Zoning Code states that single-
family dwellings shail be limited to one curb cut access per property; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to
property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship
thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by
unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's
control; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
- 4. Site Pian
5. Staff Report
Resolution 660-01
July I8, 2001
Page 2
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, June 20, 2001, with regard to this
variance request; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be
satisfied, in order to grant a Variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request:
1. 8081 Red Oak Drive is a corner lot and is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential.
2, Red Oak Drive, at the intersection with Sherwood Road, carries a substantial volume of
traffic, which at times causes significant delay in exiting or entering the property.
3. The existing driveway accesses Red Oak Drive, yet is located only 20 feet from the
intersection of Red Oak Drive and Sherwood Road
4. Granting the variance for two curb cuts at the property would not confer upon the applicant a
special privilege because of the unique circumstances associated with the property.
5. The literal interpretation of the code would deprive the applicant a right to safe ingress and
egress to and from the property. ��
;• �
6. Granting a variance for a second curb cut would not be detrimental to the purpose of this
Title since the variance provision is intended to provide relief to property owners in uniyue
situations or when a hardship exists.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FL]RTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public
hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby approve the variance request for a second
curb cut at 8081 Red Oak Drive to access Sherwood Road, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit for the work already performed and
for any subsequent work related to the improvement of the new driveway.
2. The new driveway shall be improved with a pertnanent surface material such as asphalt
or concrete within three months of the variance approval. A one-time, three-month
exfension to this requirement shall be permitted if requested in writing and for good
cause. Failure to comply with this provision within the prescribed time frame wilt
result in the variance being considered null and void.
3. The applicant shall arrange to have recorded with Ramsey County this resolution of
approval and provide proof of such recordation to the City within 60 days of the date
of approval, or this variance shali be rendered nuIl and void.
;
:
Resolution 66Q-01
July 18, 2001
Page 3
Adopted this 18th day of July, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
� ;
N:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�DEVELOPMENT CASE51VR01-007 (OSTERLUND)�RESOLUTION 661-01(ADOPTED VERSIOI�.DOC
1
�l
,
Item #5
City of Mounds View
Planning Commiss�on Report
Meeting Date: July I8, 2001
Title CONSIDERATION OF A�ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED
GARAGE CONSISTING OF 1,218 SQUARE-FEET LOCATED AT 83b8
GROVELAND ROAD; PLANNIlVG CASE NO. CU01-003.
Introduction
The subject property is an interior lot located at 8368 Groveland Road. The applicant, Mr. Jack
Clasen, is requesting a conditional use permit to construct an addition to his existing garage. With
the addition, the total garage area would exceed the maximum size allowed for garages withoui a
conditional use permit.
Discussion
According to Section 1106.4, Subdivision 7 of the City Code, attached garages are classified as
accessory structures and shall not exceed 952 square feet in area, except by conditional use pen�nit. As
shown on the attached site plan, the proposed addition would be 598 square feet. When combined with
`;--� the existing portion of the garage (620 square feet), the total garage area would be 1,218 square feet,
26b square feet grea�er than allowed in the City Code.
The City Code also requires that attached garages comply with front and rear setbacks esta.blished in R-
1 zoning districts, and must be at least five (5) feet fram side property Iines. The proposed addition
meets these requirements.
Adverse Effects
According to the City Code, the Planning Commission must consider the possible adverse effects of
the proposed conditional use. The findings of the Planning Commission shall be based upon, but not
Iimited to, the following factors:
• Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
� The Geographical Area Involved
• Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
• The Character of the Surrounding Area
• The demonstrated need for such a use.
The addition proposed by Mr. Clasen is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive
Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to irnprove the quality,
appearance, and attractiveness of housing units and residential property, wiuch includes proj ects such
as what Mr. Clasen is proposing.
Clasen CUP
July 18, 260I
Page 2
There is a variety of housing styles and sizes in the immediate area of �1ze subject property. Lots to
the north are generally similar in size, while lots to the immediate south are Iarger. The property
owner to the north will be most affected by the proposal. The garage addition will be located on the
north side of the property, six (6) feet from the property line. There is virtually no screening along
�his property line. The property to the north does have a detached shed in the southwest portion of the
properiy that may screen a portion of the addition. The proposed addition will be sepazated &om the
western property Iine by 52 feet, which should not affect the neighbor directly behind Mr. Clasen's
property in a negative manner. AIl properiies within 350 feet have been notified ofthe request, and at
this time, staff has not received any correspondence from any neighbor.
Recommendation:
After holding the public hearing and discussing this request with the property owner, staff would
recommend that the Planning Commission review the testimony and any adverse affects that would
be caused by this request to determine if there is a legitimate basis for recommending approval of the
conditional use permit to the City Council. Staff has prepared a Resolution that �he Planning
Commission may choose to act on if they feel that approval of the conditional use permit is the
appropriate course of action. I#'the Commission feels that adverse affects on the neighborhood would
be too great to warrant approval, they should direct staff to draft the appropriate Resolu�ion for action
at the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 1, 2001,
f
. �' �V V�...
Jim Atkinson, Planner
(763)717-4022
Attachments:
1. Development Application
2. Location Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Site Plan
5. Resolution 666-01
+;; . ;j
��rY oF
��UV��
� �
:•
� ��UV
:o
� ,S
��rera • Partne�S� �
COMMUNIZY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING APRLICATTQN
2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
(7fi3) 717-4020
Fax (651} 7fi5-1660
Please Type or Print Informatioe - Camplete Soth Sides of This Form
Applicant Information f � ,(� /' / /�.SE'� Tel�phone ��D.3 - �� .� /��%
Name of Applicant � �',_ «r
Address c�-� � � �'� �: /9h � %���� _ Fax ln 5 1' �3f - .
yy� �,�,� ��
. . ��,.
Interest in Property {check appropriate box)
Owner of Property
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager
❑ Other (explain)
0 Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Agreement to Purchase
Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and �f you are not
j the owner of the property, yau must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to
- the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted.
Properly Description/Proposal
Address or General Location
Legal Description
Property Identiflcation # (PIN #)
# of Acres
Current Zoning
�' 36� � ��� ��7 c/ ��
c�(� 3va��J � 5 ..
Type of Applicafion
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
0 Rezoning
❑ Majar Subdivision �
❑ Minor Subdivision
� Planned Unit Development (PUD)
❑ PUD Amendment
�I Conditional/Interim Use Permit
� O Variance
❑ Code Appeal
❑ Develap Review/Site Plan
O Wetland Alteration Permit
❑ Wetland Buffer Permit
❑ Floodplain Perinit
� Other
$250
$250/acre {Min $250 max $15U0)
$250/acre (min. $500)
$200 �
$500 plus $500/acre
$350
R-1, R-2 $104; all others $300
R-i, R-2 $100 al� others $300
$100
$125/acre; min $i25 max $750
R-1, R-2 $150; all othe�s $Z00
R-1, R-2 $25; all others $10U
$200
A depos9t may be requfred to cover costs of public notices, mate�ials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or
preparation of materlals assodated with thls appiicadon. The appllcant shall be responsible for all reasanable incurred costs in excess of
the initial deposit amount, Any porUon af the deposlt not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the appllcant within 30 days aRer
considera4on of the appllcatlon is completed.
Planning Application
Present Use of Properly
❑ Undeveloped/Vacant �
D Duplex/Two Famfly Dwelling ❑
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑
❑ Other (explain) �
Single Family Dwelling
Multi-family Dwelling
Industrial Establishment
Property Classification ❑ Abstract j� / Torrens
Page 2
BY MY (0�1R) SIGNATURE ON iNIS AFPLTCATION, I
KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATI4N PROVIDED I5 TR1
Signature of Appiicant
Name af Appllcant (typed/printed}
Signature of Property Owner
Name of Property Owner (ty�
Adclress of Owner
Phone Number of Owner
Y'
� /
c� `G'
TNAT, TO THE BEST OF MY
�J J C) � lL' ��li vd� ��Cr
.�� �� � �S-�
******x�****************************************************************************�******
FOFt OFFICE USE QNLY
Date of Submittal !-��~ o �
Date of Acceptance L� ��- �� � Assigned to:
Planning Case No. C.1a �� � o o� 60-day Limit 120-day limit
Fees Paidc Account # Che�k #
#
Application: ) d� �°� D d 3�'i q (4 (p
Park Dedication:
Depasits:
Other:
Total:
Receipt
-- ��q �
1/98
, )
City af M aunds Vie�nr - Locati on M ap
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
J
�
C
.`
Q
�
���" �.=�� �� �
^���r �!
� ♦��ir ��� �
■I�a �11� �� ��� � �
����■ � �� �1� �
City oi New B�ighton
Jack H. Clasen
Property Invofved: 8368 Groveland Road
Conditiona! Use Permit �Oversized Garage�
Planning Case No. CU01-003
- 8368 Grovelar�d Road
��:rY:' Properties 1Nithin 350'
Zoning Map
8�,3�
$���
. _ ,. ����
_.._ __ +��'��
Subj ect Property —
R-1 Zoning District
���V
.. .-.. ,,. . . ..�V. . .h . r.
��;�� : � ���
��F�� ..8�3�
�8��,� ; �4���'
,. .. . .... _. ,. _.. r,.. . , „k ,. �, .._ r
� � � � � $�2�
m��r. _.-. ,. .� - ...�,r_,.�.,.__
����� � ' � � �
. ._. ,� , . . _ . � . -e...�,
�
� ���� �.��
I...� �...�.,,., _., .: . . . �. . -,Y. ,
I ��V l '.: . """ ��u„�
; .�: ,-_.,.�,•,-�-_., ,.�.,.._ :--.•--�-
��� � � $��
�...�.._....., wr. �r ,�.,..�...-.r�.. ...
��$'� �?�$
$�� � �68�
, _. ._ ,, . .
�V�+ ; '���' �.
���
���� ����_ . .. . ...__.._. ..._
�: .. ��� ' - � ��.�'� ����
� .mi�. .�..�1<... �� . .,,e. . .. �..r�� \rr..iL.� j ...
���� � ���V
. . , � __u. _. � � .. ... � , ����
�y�q q -s r-��- •�r•�,�vn,-
_ . ..���i4.� � 4J'fJ� � .
h �Y ;
-4!'��� -+R+ ��� {
-4�• yti...w-+t�•;v.�� i.. ' ' .s.�
��L�� �" - ������
.M. , v�vrt, vr .,_. ..' .�L'�, ... . _
J.. .Q���'V I . �LV� 1
V
I
J_....t.�.1. �..� i-t ,.i -. .., dw i•. 1in� y 45�4'.....-.
Y/
��� ��� � �
. . i �-- �
. ._.$2�[� � % � r �
���� : � � �
Areas not labeled are R-1 Districts
��� �
. ._ � .,.. . t.�,. . ����4
���� ,.. ......,.,,
. _.�__. , . ,.... � 8���
$��D9 , .... . _.
�,3�2
.........,�.,.�.,,. r,�.,..� . � . � .+
�`"r�• :�� `��5�
r_,� � !
: _ ...�,.
T � � � � : � `�,����
i � 1 ��I _ .- ....
� �,����� �� ���^
,r' ti.,•.,.._
�7� �': ��c► .
-� .,, r� ;� _�,��..
:��6��� � � ���
. .�.,.._... . ,. ..�...� . ,.. .r.-, ....
���� ����
��� � � �����
1._v. d..� u...�.. ._ .. .`Y^'.. .�L.,���i. . - �1
����� ���� ,
y,� �1»�:...�...� � ' S .
�V�� ���
���� � �,���
L.�x•.,.l..,s-r._�ur.•a•. „�'
���� �
. �
: .����
Y�����
. ����
�� �
r
�
�
���
�,
�
;
i
�
2
s
�
f 'i
, PLOT PLAN .
.3 � � . -
Aa�� �. �Rovr ���,� 20 �� — J � --01
Dntt �
�--
Bn�der l P Owner ~ �� (�, —r ;;
. , , ,� � ;
Bxief De�rriptl�n af Proposad Coastivction_ ,�D - o!1J ,-lU � ri,� p� � �J,q'/z ��k�
;i
. , ::
r,
--� ��9�1 0 � �vi /!�i n . . I i
c �, A�Pc " �'� r� � Bu�ding Permit No.
�- Show all eiisting bu�d�ag�lstractures located on the P�P�Y• -
- � Show all proposed wn�trnction and Iabe� "proposed"
- Indicated distance �rom prapo�ed �ctura ta all property liae,s.
'-. ' Indieated distanc� of propased strvc�ra(a) to �istiag sixnchsra. . �
. - _ Sbow street location{�j and Qamt(e). • J� � . .
Show directioaa! symboLs (north, sonth, e:tst w�at}. d� �a��X _
� � . � . t�c.� p
� ' �
' I -
I '
. • : • ', ! a3 ,
�cE
� ' � �Q�'Q�'�,��,� �'�'
�, _,� X��,iq = A Pno k�a 0 S� �� � 1; n� S � ' p�x �� a�
;- .l , � �QaS • : '
�p��� � �v��,� ��8 �� ��- � = � a3 � ..
. � r - �� .
� � — t,� I� 5 � ��- To-�� � � , ,�,;c�
. � �a k, �Aa�aB fi' �
4�� s�D� T� ou�si�,� . . � � ' '� .,, � .
,
r � � ;_ �' ao'
�
._ . - , �t�e�`'� ` . ���` �. ' � . N.
. f— � ;�k � r �' ( .�a
1 �--a0,---� � uS� ab ' � ; , i
. . � �x 3y �' � . .
' • . f !'� � � � . �
, . • . / '
. � l 6 '� 1 /� .
' f. . �,`.
. . . . . r . �� .
• . ' . , r . $y,���� �� 1
• � ' � . � � I . �� ,
., • � �
. : , . �/. , �• � .
. - , . �u�g j . � �
RvvE ��� �
� Cit�► o#Mound� Vew Commtnsity DevelopmentDepa�tment �' Z40I Highway 10, Mourids Vie�►', MN 55IIZ �
l�Sl'71 yl?rd11�11 TinY i�Sl217l2�'�d�,�
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 666-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW FOR A 1,218 SQUARE-FOOT OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 8368
GROVELAND ROAD; MOUNDS VTEW PLANNING CASE NO. CU01-003
WHEREAS, Jack Clasen has applied for a conditional use permit to construct an addition
to an existing garage that would tota11,218 square feet on his property located at 83b8 Groveland
Road, which is legally described as follows:
Except west 241. 6 feet; the south 75 feet of Lot 42
Auditor's Subdivisio� No. 89
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of
952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,400 square feet;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding --
this proposal:
a. Development Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. Proposed Site Plan
e. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the
dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code; and,
WI3EREAS,�the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with
the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development
and rnaintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attraciiveness of
housing units and residential properiy in generaI; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission f nds that the proposed garage would
not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved in that other
homes in the area have similar sized garages and that there is sufficient room on the subject property
to accommodate such a struciure; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed garage would _
not depreciate the neighborhood in that the proposed garage would replace an older, functionally
obsolete garage; and,
� i
Resolution 666-01
July 18, 2001
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Plarming Commission finds that the applicant has sufficiently
demonstrated that a need exists for the praposed oversized garage; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the conditional use pernut with the following stipulations:
1. The applicant shall arrange to record the City Council resolution approving the conditional
use permit with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to ti�e City within
sixty days of Council approval or this pernut shall be considered null and void.
2. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not
allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should
the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall be
considered null and void.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff
to forward this resolution to the City Council priar to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 18`" day of Juiy, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES1CUOl-0031RESOLUTION 666-01.DOC
Item # 6
City of 1Vfounds View
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: July I8, 2001
Title: PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE
REQUEST AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FQR THE
MOUNDS VIEW ANIMAL HQSPITAL, 2625 HIGHWAY 10, AND A TEXT
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW ANIMAL BOARDING;
PLANNING CASE NOS. VRO1-008 & CU01-002.
INTRODUCTION
The subject property is an irregular shaped corner lot located at 2625 County Highway 10, at the
northeast Corner of CountyRoad I. The applicants, Dr. Bruce Schnabel and Dr. Kevin Barcus ofthe
Mounds View Animal Hospital, have applied for:
1. A variance from the front yard seiback requirement of 30 feet for the parking lot of their
proposed facility,
`: =>-= �% 2. A conditional use permit to allow an animal hospital in a B-2 zoning district, and
� 3. An amendment to the City Code to allow animal boarding in B-2 zoning districts as a
conditional use.
BACKGROUND
The City of Mounds View purchased the parcel located at 2625 Highway 10 in 1995 as a means to
remove a blighted and nuisance structure. Since that time, it has been marketed for development by
the City as a commercial use. While there have been lwo proposals submitted which would
incorporate this parcel, neither were approved.
The Mounds View Animal Hospital has been operating at the Silverview Plaza since 1988. They
were issued a Conditional Use Pernut as required by City Code for veterinary clinics in the B-2
district. The Animal Hospital currently leases 2,000 square feet and they need substantially more
room to effectively operate their business and meet the needs of �lieir customers.
The applicants appeared before the Planning Commission on June 6, 2001 and again on 3une 20,
2001 requesting a rezoning of the subj ect parcel. The Planning Commission passed Resolution 657-
� 1 recommending approval of the rezoning and was sent to the City Council for their consideration.
On July 9, 2001, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 684 on second reading to rezone the
subject properiy.
Mounds View Animal Hospital
July 18, 2009
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Variance Request
According to the 1Vlunicipal Code, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4(c)(2), parking areas in a B-2
zoning district must be located at least 30 feet from front property lines. As shown on the attached
site plan, the proposed parking area would be located 15 feet frorn the right-of-way of County
Highway 10 and 5 feet from the right-of-way of Eastwood Road. Both sfireet frontages require a 30-
foot setback for parking areas.
For this Variance to be approved, as with any Variance request, there needs to be demonstrated
substantial hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal
interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes
require that the governing body {the Planning Commission) 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 individual criteria are as follows:
a. Exceptional ar extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or
shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since
the effective date hereof have had no controL
The properry located at 2625 County Highway 10 is an irregular shaped comer lot with street
frontage on both County Highway 10 and Eastwood Road. The size of the lot, the shape of
the lot, and that the lot has two street frontages are exceptional and extraordinary
circumstances that is not generally similar to other properties in the same zoning district.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this Title.
The shape and size of the Iot may make commercial development prohibitively difficult on
this lot if the provisions in the City Code were sixictly adhered to.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applican�.
Neither the orientation of the lot (two street frontages) nor the irregular shape of the lot were
created by the applicant.
d. That granting the variance requested wilI not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other tands, structures or buildings in
the same district.
Granting a Variance in tttis case would not confer a special privilege on the applicant. The
Mounds View Animal Hospital
July 18, 2001
Page 3
size, shape, and street orientation make this property different than others in the same zoning
district. Nearly all properties in B-2 zoning districts are able to comply with the setback
requirements established in the City Code.
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
This is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship given other requirements that
the applicant must adhere to, such as the number of requized parking spaces and the
minimum required driveway width.
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to
other property in �he same zone.
The City Code states that there must be "demonstrated substantial hardship or practical
difficulties associated with the property..." to warrant consideration of a variance. Those
conditions exist in this case and therefore would not be det�rimental to the purpose of the
Code.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or subsiantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the
daager of �re or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair
-:::�.) property values within the neigl�borhood.
The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Jn addition
to the setback from property lines, there is additional open space in the right of way between
the property line and the actual pavement of the adjacent roadways, which will act as an
additional buffer.
RECOMMENDATIUN FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
Based on staff s review of the request and the code requirements, it appears that there is sufficient
unique hardship and practical difficulties associated with this property to warrant approval of the
requested variance. The property, given its shape, size, and street orientatian, maybe undevelopable
without a variance from the setback requirement. Staff has prepared Resalution No. 6b5-01 which is
a resolution approving the requested variance. The Planning Commission may act on this resolution
if they feel that the seven criteria have been satisfied. If the Planning Commission feels that the
seven criteria have not been satisfied, they shouid direct staff to draft the appropriate resolution to be
acted on at the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 1, 2001.
Conditional Use Permit Re uest
According to the City Code, animal clinics are allowed in B-2 zoning districts as a conditional use.
The Code also states that the Planning Commission is required to consider the possible adverse
Mounds View Animal Hospital
July 18, 2001
Page 4
effects of alI proposed conditional uses. The findings of the Planning Commission shall be based
upon, but not Iimited to, the following factors:
• Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
• The Geographical Area Involved
• Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
• The Character of the Surrounding Area
• The demonstrated need for such a use.
The future Iand use aspect of the Comprehensive P1an identifies this property as cornmunity
commerciai. A veterinary clinic would be consistent with the community commercial designation.
This use is also consistent with the City's plans for the property, as the City has been marketing this
property for a commercial use.
A veterinary clinic may be new for this specific property, but the Mounds View Animal Hospital has
been operating with a conditional use permit in the area for many years. The issue that must be
discussed is the impact upon those properties immediately surrounding the site. Some concerns have
been raised by neighbors regarding access to the site, noise of animals, and additionai traffic. The
applicants have addressed these concerns at previous Planning Commission meetings and have
indicated that animal noise would be controlIed and traffic would be minimal given the limited
niunber of appointments scheduled at one time. Access to the site would be considered during the
development review process at a later date, unless the Planning Commission wishes to add a
condition to the condi�ional use permit that would limit the number of access points. These concems
raised by residents are also addressed in the City Code. Section 1113.04, Subdivision 4, lists the
specific conditional use permit requirements for veterinary and animal clinics. T'hese requirements
are as follows:
a. Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter 6 of this
Municipal Code, Nuisances.
b. The boarding of animals is not provided for beyond hospitalization for surgery, illness or
injury.
c. A mechanical ventiladon or exhaust system shaIl be installed to conixol, 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
Buiiding CodeMechanical Systems, chapter 1345�. {Ord. 441, 5-23-88)
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
After holding the public hearing and discussing this request with the property owner, staff would
recommend that the Planning Commission review the testimony and any adverse affects that would
be caused by this request to determine if there is a legitiunate basis for recommending approval of the
Mounds View Anima! Haspital
July 18, 2001
Page 5
conditional use permit to the City Council. Staffhas prepared Resolution 664-01 that the Planning
Commission may choose to act on if they feel that appraval of the conditional use permit is the
appropriate course of action. If the Commission feels that adverse affects on the neighborhood would
be too great to warrant approval, they should direct staff to draft the appropriate Resolution for action
at the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 1, 2001.
Code Amendment Re uest
The applicants have indicated their desire to board animals at their proposed new facility. The City
Code, however, currently does not allow the boarding of animals within the City except for short
periods of time and only when associated with surgery, illness, or injury. Therefore, an amendment
to the Code is necessary to allow this service.
The City Code treats amendments in a similar fasluon to condi#ional use permits. As with conditional
use permits, the Planning Commissionmust considerpossible adverse affects of the amendment. The
findings of the Planning Commission sha11 be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors:
• Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
• The Geographical Area Involved
• Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
•?'he Character of the Surrounding Area
'=''--�f The demonstrated need for such a use
.
The sp.ecific text amendment as described below would only apply to B-2 zoning districts. With
many B-2 districts in the City, the adverse affects relating to the geographical area and surrounding
area as listed above is difficult to measure generally. It can be said, however, that all B-2 zoning
districts are located along County Highway 10. Therefare, when considering adverse affects to an
area, the Planning Commission must look at what negative affects would be created if an animal
boarding facility were present along County Highway 10. Alsa, since the amendment is proposed as
a conditional use, any proposed animal boarding facility must be approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council, at which time further conditions may be placed on the approval if the
specific location warrants them.
Chapter 1113.04 5ubdivision 4 of the City Code allows veterinary and animal clinics as a conditional
use in B-2 zoning districts but prohibits animal boarding except for when associated with surgery,
illness, or injury. This section can be amended to allow animal boarding if the Planning Commission
feels animal boarding is an appropriate use. The following change would allow animal boarding as a
conditional use in B-2 zoning districts:
Chapter 1113.04
Subd. 4. Veierinary clinics, � animal clinics, and animal boardirxg facilities; provided, that:
a. Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter 607 of
this Municipal Code, Nuisances.
Mounds View Animal Hospital
July 18, 2001
Page 6
!��!�. _ _
b. E 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 Mechaanical Systems, chapter 13452. (Ord. 441, 5-23-88}
The Planning Commission should determine whether these requirements are adequate for animal
boarding faciIities or if more are needed. Staff has prepared an Ordinance for yaur review that
includes the changes listed above. The ordinance can be modified before forwarding it to the City
Council if the Planning Commission feels changes are necessary.
�taff also recommends that Chapter 1102.02, DEFINTfIONS, be amended to remove language in the
definition for VETERINARY OR ANIMAL CLINIC that prohibits animal boarding, and a that a
definition of animal boarding he added in order to specify what `animal boarding' should include..
The foIiowing existing defuution could be amended as follows:
VETERINARY OR ANIMAL CLIl�TIC: A structure intended for providing medical
examinations and treatment to animals. Services would be iimited to small animals
and �e� mav include boarding of animals. (Ord. 441, 5-23-88) ;- '%
The following are some related definitions taken from The New Illustrated Book of Development
Definitions, by Harvey Moskowitz and Carl Lindbloom. These definitions should be made more
specific, possibly regarding types of animals and size of animals, depending on what the
Commission feels appropriate. The Planning Commission should also consider that the definition
would apply to animal boarding within the City, not just for the Mounds View Animal Hospital.
ANIMAL KENNEL: Any structure or premises in which animals are boarded,
groomed, bred, or lrained for comrnercial gain.
KENNEL: A commercial establishment in which dogs or domesticated animals are
housed, groomed, bred, boarded, trained, or sold, alI for a fee or compensation.
RECOMMENDATION FOR TEXT AMENDMENT
A recommendation to the City Council regarding Ordinance 685 is included in Resolution 667-01.
The Planning Commission should review the text change as described in the Ordinance and provide
input relating to the change as well as discuss what the def nition of animal boarding should include.
If the Planning Commission feels that animal boarding is not appropriate for B-2 zoning districts,
they should direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution to act on at the next regularly scheduled
meeting on August 1, 2001.
Mounds V9ew Animal Hospital
July 18, 2001
Page 7
f� .
C. �-�-
Jim Atkinson, Planner
Attachments:
i . Development Applicatian
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
5. Proposed Site Plan
6. Resolurion 664-01
7. Resolution 665-Q1
8. Resolution 667-01
9. Proposed Ordinance 685
;.: _ ,l
- -:�.::�
��� o�
�u�ua
-a ' ♦
R' I � � ��1
.��
S
d'r��,s - Partne'�Sr��
Appiicant Informa#ion
Name of Applicant rr� ouwn r✓, E�+� A"" "'?'-- k�?v ,� �-,- Telephone `?G3 �- �''�'.� -��s"I
2 S a'� �� / U /✓� FdX '� `'�D C� c7 5"3
�'d oyr�✓os �c � m w S"5-1 � Z -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -
PLANNING APPLICATION
2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
(7fi3} 717-4020
Fax (65i) 765-].660
Please Type ar Print Informatian - Complete Both Sides of 7his Form
Address
Interest in Property (check appropriate box)
❑ �wner of Property
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager
❑ Other {explain)
❑ Contract for Deed Owner
� Agreement to Purchase
Applicants nzust provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not
the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to `--�-
the filing af this application. The property owner must sign #his application for it to be accepted.
Property Description/Proposal
Address or General Lo�ation
Legal Description
Property identification # (PIN #)
# of Acres
Current Zoning
Type of Application
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ Rezoning
❑ Major Subdivision
❑ Minor Subdivision
0 planned Unit Development (PUD}
O PUD Amendment
� Conditional/Interim Use Permit
variance
❑ Code Appeal
,� Develop Review/Site Plan
0 Wetland Alteration Permit
O Wetland Buffer Permit
❑ Floodplain Permit
� Other
LTY ��'� � a- C7�1 /� � �•
Z�zr �N �o �v�, -
i 6 /
$250
$Z50/acre {Min $250 max $1500)
$250/acre (mfn. $500)
$200
$500 plus $500/aere
$350
R-1, R-2 $1Q0; all others $3�0
R-1, R-2 $100 all athers $300
�iao
$125/acre; min $125 max $750
R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200
R-i, R-2 $z5; all others $100
$200
A deposit may be required to cover costs of public rto�ces, materlals and staff or consultant tlme spent in the review, research or
preparatlon of materials associated with thls appUcatlon. The applicant shall be responslble for all reasonable Incurred costs fn excess of
• the Inftial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the appUcant within 30 days after
consEderatlon of the applicatlon is mmpleted.
Planning Application
Present Use of Properly
�J Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling
' � Duplex%Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelfing
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment CJ Industrial Establishment
O Other (explain) •
'i. _
Property Classification ❑ Abstrac�
Description of Proposal -
� Torrens
Page 2
BY MY (OUEt) SIGNATURE OiV THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.
Signature of Applicant
� � � l��i--
Name of Applicant (typed/printed) �R- • �z`�'f� An °°" J�
Signature of Properly Owner � `
Name of Property Owner {typed/printed} � �5�
Address of Owner -Z�c ��
,� �.�/� z
Phone Number of �wner ��Za ��'- � 7-
********************************************************�***�x*****************�***********
�OR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Submittal � Y �� � 4
Date of Acceptance Assigned to:
Planning Case No. C�� �- o o a 6Q-day Limit 120-day iimit
Y12o+ —oo�
�`zo�—��3
Fees Paid:� Account # Check # Receipt
���: � o o� o0
Park Dedicatlon:
Deposits:
\/L�' c� �?,Of'r O �
Other: �, � � ' a d
Total: � � �
i � w�
.
O 43
�v
-��• , �
�
�3S O
vsa
, _ .
, , , ,
Zoning Map
7�� � ��C�'� � � �'���
�
����,� ���� ����
�
� '�$�'r ����
� �:� Ck ;� .
���
��� ����
��� � � ���� ���� ;
� wJ �». � .d C,Ai 41' �
�� . � I
�'` �� _��� �$1 �
,
� �� i
' ��" ���
����
� ���� � � �
� �� ����
�
� � �
Subj ect Properiy — ���' �
Recently rezoned to ,�,� �
B-2, Limited �
����
Business '�'�
,� f
�
�'� ..
-_�, ���
� "'� r� ,,,, ; � �y, �
�� _ ,. . � • _ � W'..a:r
� • � �
�� ' �, �
_. . '�
� �
� �� � ���
�
�
F�'-� �
''ir i' I �'V !
��f�1 t�i.�� � ���'�"
��.�
,�,
LM"�
� ��� � �; �8� �D � ��35
�'���' 7'��i� �8��
�$�1 �k3+��► : �8��
?$� 7 ��'�� ' ����
�;� �� � �,� ��
�� � � � ��.� �� � �
. � ��G�
���i� �'7�Q � ��[� �
�� R �` �'�6�t �, '�' � � 1
����' ���� � ���i
�4�� �f /� � !' �� A
�?�� :�'��� 7�� �
� . � � ,�'� !�� ��7 �
�' � ' � 1
�'�' 1 � � ,� �, ...�
� � �
� � �.
��..�,��
�� r���+� � �,��
1�}�.�� � ��t
c�.� c'*� c�► r�^o ;� �'+i +r� �
��
�
��
�
�.
, �,... ,
'�
- - -_:,
�it� of M ounds 11ie�nr - La�ati an M ap
� � r�� �
� M�M■ �� ■�I■1 ���� �� ■�■ �■■ ■��s
� _. _,_� �--� --. .. ■ ■
;� �r��s
. � !��
� � I��.
■ � �.. ��
� �
� �i
y
�1� �•
��
r
�
�
w��
� ,�
■ =� �
M `*
, i� ■
�..
�::
��
; _=
,
. . � ;
�, r� ,
�
\ 5 .... ... .... . . �
�
I ■■
I ���
�
�� �r
■■S� �
Mounds View Animal Hospital
Kevin Barcus and Bruce Schnable
Property Involved: 2625 Highway 10
Variance
Planning Case No. VRQ1-008
- 2625 Highway 10
0 Praperties Within 350'
�
! \
�
r��
vJ
�
J
o �
� _
z �
� �
4
� �
N
=
�
vJ
�
�
�
�rssaxvi m.,or�mw�a ......_. __.._..
:759 Yl�bY 9'76fY3MiY�' 3N P AYA4O1: 0.7 Wlt
���� � I••l��S �ws �.� Ly _ �
�b � ��� � 74'11dSOH 74%N�NVM3N 90Nl10W ��a.."�°°--�
O
�
,
r
i
,' �b
�`
i
I
1
Ir
1
1'
1
1
1
\
,�1
{� l,
�
�. ' ��
��t
� sa�
�q9
� ��
� ' �
� v
v �"+;��
�
v.�
_ j
*
i
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTIDN NU. 664-Q1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALL�W AN ANIMAL HOSPITAL TO LOCATE IN A B-2, LINIITED SUSINESS
DISTRICT, AT 2625 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10; MOUNDS VIEW PIjANNING CASE NO.
CU01-002
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Animal Hospital has applied for a canditional use permit
to locate an animal hospital in a B-2, Limited Business Zoning District, specifically on the
property located at 2625 CountyRoad i0 which is legaily described as follows:
Spring Lake Park Hillview
Subject to Highway; Lot 78
Ramsey Counry, Minnesota
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows animal hospitals in B-2
zoning districis; and,
;
WHEREAS, �he Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
a. Development Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. Proposed Site Plan
e. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the
conditions outlined in Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code; and,
WHEREAS; the Mounds View Planning Commission fmds that the request is consistent with
the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Pian encaurages commercial
development along County Highway 10 to provide a broad tax base and expanded employment base;
and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed axurnal hospital
wonld not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved in that
there is other commercial development to the south of the property and to the west of County
Highway 10; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed animal hospital
would not depreciate the neighborhood; and,
Resotution 664-01
July 18, 2001
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Monnds View Planning Commission finds that the applicant has sufficiently
demonstrated that they have outgrown their current facility and a need exists for a larger facility that
can be accommodated on the subject property; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESQLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations:
�
3
The applicant shall arrange to record the City Council resolu�ion approving the condi#ional
use permit with Ramsey Connty and provide proof of such recordation to the City within
sixty days of Council approval or ihis permit shall be considered null and void.
Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter 602 of this
Municipal Code, Nuisances.
The boarding of animals is not provided far beyond hospitalization for surgery, illness or injury.
4. A mechanical ventilation or exhaust system sha.11 be installed to control, capture and remove
emissions or odors generated by such use. Such systems sha11 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 i345. (Ord. 441, 5-23-88)
�i
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 18�' day of July, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST;
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:�DATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASES\CU01-002VtE50LUT10N 664-01.DOC
_.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 665-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY QF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A REDUCED FRONT YARD
SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A PARKING LOT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2625 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VROl-008
WHEREAS, The applicant, Mounds View Animal Hospital, has applied for a variance to
construct a parking Iot within the required front yard setbacks on the property of their proposed
new facility at 2b25 County Highway 10; and
WHEREAS, 2b25 County Highway 10 is zoned B-2, Limited Business District, and is
legally described as follows:
Spring Lake Park Hillview
Subject to Highway; Lot 78
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Site Plan
5. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to
property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship
thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by
unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's
control; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, July 18, 2001, with regard to this
variance request; and,
____ __ . _ .
Resolution 665-01
July 18, 2001
Page 2
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all
must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request;
1. The property is an irregular shaped corner lot, which has two front yards as defined in the
Municipal Code, creating unavoidable and practical difficulties.
2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the
applicant of riglits commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the B-2, Limited
Business Zoning District in that property improvements are encouraged and that
variances to the requirements are o$en justified when practical difficulties present a
hardship as they do in this situation.
3. The applicant is not responsible for the conditions or circumstances that necessitate the
approval of the variance.
4. The Planning Commission has in the pas# granted variances from setback requirernents
when hardship or practical difficulties prohibit cornpliance with the City Code.
5. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege
denied to others in the same district due to the unique nature of the existing conditions
present on the site.
6. The requested variance is the minimum amount that would alleviate the applicant's
hardship.
7. The requested variance would not impair a supply of Iight or significantly increase
congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or
diminish property values. _
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public
hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby approve the variance request for a
reduced front yard setback to construct a parking lot on the property located at 2625 County
Highway 10, as depicted in the attached Exhibit, contingent upon the following:
1. The applicant shall arrange to have recorded with Ramsey County this resolution of
approval and provide proof of such recordatian to the City within 60 days of the date of
approval, or this variance shall be rendered null and void.
_ :;
Resolution 6b5-01
July 18, 2001
Page 3
Adopted this 18th day of July, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
{SEAL)
N:\DATAIGROUPS\COMDEV�DEVELOPMENT CASES\VROI-008 (MVAH)�RESOLUTION 665-OI.DOC
_)
J
�
�
�
�
J
b �
� �Z
Q �
�
� �
�
�
�+J
�
�
O
�
1avO*wiaYwnd-� uW;t��n saninow
aa� rev! sv� m.w e�su �ncia
mssrlas�nnsvsrrour�wwr sxa,�r�wmvrtx�uar
•�,�"°`�'�. rr'lr+.�r � nmd 3us —. e ti„ ..
� �~4�•'�� � 74'1/dSOH 7YW/NY M31i1 8ONl70W =��-"�'.�'"'_ _�
0
�
:
�e
.
,.
,-
,
,
,
,,
,
;
,,
,�
,
,
0
M ��
���
a, i��
��s
� ��
�
, �
�.
' ` .
. .. ti�.
�� ♦
�.
: j
+
`�
�
�
�.�
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 6b7-Ol
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CUUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPRUVAL OF A CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO
ALLOW ANIMAL BOARDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN B-2, LIMITED BUSINESS
ZONING DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, The City Code does not currently allow animal boarding within the City of
Mounds View; and,
WHEREAS, The Maunds View Animal Hospiial has expressed their desire to offer
animal boarding at their proposed new facility located at 2625 Couniy Highway 10; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
a. Proposed Ordinance No. 685
b. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment
satisfies the conditions outlined in Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Plaruiing Commission finds that the proposed amendment is
not in conflict with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that animal boarding would not
depreciate neighborhoods nor negatively affect the character of surrounding areas within the City of
Mounds View if the stipulations required as a conditional use are implemented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recornmends approval of an amendment to Section 1113.04 Subdivision 4 and Section 1102.02 of
the City Code as depicted in proposed Ordinance 685.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Plaruuiig Commission directs staff
to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
,.' ,
----:_:_:: . '--- ; :
Resolution 667-OI
July 18, 2001
Page 2
Adopted this 18t�' day of July, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Community Development Director
{SEAL)
N:IDATAIGROUPS\COMDEVIDEVCASES\CU01-0021RESOLUTTpN 667-01.DOC
;
ORDINANCE NO. 6$5
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF NIINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHA.PTER 1102 AND CHAPTER 1113 OF THE MOUNDS
VIEW ZONING C�DE PERTAiNING TO ANIMAL BOARDING IN B-2, LIMITED
BUSINESS ZOIVING DISTRICTS
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Section 1113.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with
the proposed additions underiined and the proposed deletions �� �^''�-�'�, to read as follows:
Chapter 1113.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are condiiional 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. 4, Veterinary clinics, � animal clinics, and animal boardin� facilities; provided, that:
a. Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter 607 of
_ � this Municipal Code, Nuisances.
>
�
b. E A mechanical ventilation or exhaust system sha11 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. (Ord. 441, 5-23-88)
SECTION 2: Section 1102.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with
the praposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions �, to read as follows:
1102A2: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this Code,
shall be defined as follows: (Ord. 548, 9-24-94; Ord. 620, 7-27-98)
Subd. 3.5. ADD NEW DEFINITION FOR ANIMAL BOARDING
Ordinance 685
Planning Commission Draft
Page 2
Subd. 118. VETERINARY OR ANIMAL CLINIC: A structure intended for providing medical
examinations and treatment to animals. Services would be limited to small animals and �e�
may include boarding of animals. (Ord. 441, 5-23-88}
SECTION 4. This Qrdinance becomes effective thirty {30) days after its publication in the
official City newspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this � day of _, 2001.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of �,
2001.
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen Miller, Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
�
M�UNDS VIEW PLANNING CUMMISSION
August 1, 2001 -- 7:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
GTTIZENS: BEFORE SPEAI�NNG, PLEASE COME TO THE PODNM,
AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE NID�TUTES
4. Planning Case VR01-009
Consideration of a Variance Request from the minitnum lot width requirement for a
proposed subdivision of the property located at 2525 County Road I
Applicant: Ernie Gustafson
5. Planning Case CU01-Q02
Consideration of an Amendment to the Ci�ty Code to Allow Animal Boazding as a conditional
use in B-2 Zoning Districts.
Applicant: Mounds View Animal Hospital
6. Planniung Case PD00•002
I Consideration of Resolution 669-01, a Resolution Re-approving the Preliminary Plat for
--Y the Mermaid Addition Major Subdivision.
Applicant: Dan Ha11, the Merma'sd.
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT TffiS MEETING �S REQUESTED.
PLEASE NO'i�Y THE CONIlVIUIV�TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT
763-717�021 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
b. StaffReports
a. Previous Council Action: July 23, 2401
b. 2091 Hiilview Road
7, Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
8. Next Plarnvng Commission Meeting: August 15, 2001
9, Adjoumment to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review NLnutes from July 18, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
N:�DATA\GROUPS�COIVIDEV1Planning CommistionlPCAGENDA`2QO1Wugast 1, 2001 PC Agenda.dac
i
�
item# 6
City of Mounds View
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: August 1, 20D1
Title: PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE
REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED NIINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR A
PR�POSED LOT AT 2525 COUNTY ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. VRO1-009
Introduction:
Mr. Ertue Gustafson, owner of land Iocated at the northeast corner of Long lake Road and County
Road I, is requesting approval of a variance to allow for a reduced minimum lot width for a
proposed lot within a yet-to-be-submitted rnajor subdivision. The properties Mr. Gustafson owns
are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, although the City Council on July 9 approved
tbe first reading of Ordinance b83, an ordinance which would rezone two of the proposed five lots
of the yet-to-be-submitted major subdivision from R-1 to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential.
Discussion:
; The width of the lot fronting County Road I is 296. 74 feet. The lot could be subdivided into thee
--= ` parcels as Mr. Gustafson would like without the need for a variance were it not for the fact that
Mr. Gustafson would like twa of the three lots rezoned to R-2. In addition, the location of Mr.
Gustafson's home, which was built closer to Long Lake Road than to the east property line, is an
impediment to a three-lot suhdivision To aliow for the necessary ten-foot setback from the
existing home, the proposed lot at the corner would have to be reduced to a 95-foot width rather
than the required 100-foot width. The variance request is for the reduced, 95-foot width. Refer to
the attached E�ibit A for the five-lot subdivision scenario.
Staff suggested an alternative variance possibility. Rather than approving a variance to allow a
non-confornung lot to be created, staff believed it would be more appropriate to consider a
variance for a reduced side yard setback for Mr. Gustafson's home. Mr. Gustafson responded to
this by pointing out that his utilities—water and sarutary lines�xit his house on the west side, the
side where the staff suggested five-foot setback would be. The other problem with maintaining the
required minimum 100-foot Iot width at the corner is that the lot in the middle would onIy be 96.74
feet wide, 3.2b feet less than the 100 feet required for an R-2 zoned lot. So while Sta$'would
rather not see the creation of a non-conforming lot, Mr. Gustafson's proposai would be the most
straightforward uniess Mr. Gustafson would agree to having only one of the lots rezoned R-2.
For this variance to be approved, as with any variance request, there needs to be demonstrated
substantial hardship or practicaI dif�iculties associated with the property that makes a literal
interprefation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require
that the gaverning body (the Planning Commission} review a set of specified criteria for each
application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in
Variance Request
August 1, 2001
Page 2
_. _
Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states tIaat a hardship exists when
all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria are as follows:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do nat 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.
Staff is unable to determine arry exceptaonal or extraordinary circumstances associated with
this lot. The basis for the varrance is the proposed five-lot subdivision andMr Gustafson's
desire for two of the three lots to be rezoned R-2, which requires wider lots.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by o�her properties in the sarne district under the terms of this
Title. � - - _
The literad interpretation of the Code would not deprive Mr. Gustafson of rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same dtstrrct. The Code allows for a three dot subdivision
of this dot, but not if two of the lots tivould be rezoned R-2.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of ti�e
applicant.
The special conditions are clirectly related toMr. Crustafson's desrre to divide the lot fnto three
developable parcels, two of which would be R-2 lots
d. That granting the Variance requested will not confcr on the applicarit any special
privilege that is denied by ihis Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in
tbe same district.
Granting a variance in this case woulci confer a special prividege not enjoyed by other
praperty otivners. The subdivision requirements are intended to maintain orderly and
consistent development throughout the City. Deviating from these requirements without a
demonstrated hardrhip or practical difficulty would constitute a special privilege.
e. That the Variance reqnested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship. Ecanomic conditions alone sha11 not be considered a hardship.
While the requested variance would be the minrmum necessary to allow the development as
proposed by the applicant, if the applicant tivould accept only one R-2 lot rather than two, a
variance for the proposed lot widths would not be required. In ihis case, economic conditions
seem to be the ondy hardship.
f. The Variancc would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone. -
'�
,_
Variance Request
August 1, 2001
Page 3
Staff woudd be concerned that the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the
purpose of the Code in that it would constitute a special privilege, tivould be _based on a
economic factors, afad would posszbly set a precedent for all future subdivision requests.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of l'eght and air to adjacent
property or substantialiy increase the cangestion of the public streets ar increase the
danger of fire or endanger the pablie safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhoad.
The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects.
Based on staf�s review of the request and the code requirements, it does not appear that there is
sufficient hardshig and practical dif�culty associated with this property to warrant approval of the
variance requested. The Planning Commission, however, should discuss these criteria and open the
floor to public comment before coming to any concIusions.
Final Thought:
Granted, the five-foot variance requested is minimal (representing a five-percent reduction in the width
of the lot} which is comparable to reducing a 10-foot sideyard setback to 9.5 feet. Where staff has the
-�:;
most concern, however, is thai once the variance request becomes a function of the proposed rezoning
-- and NOT the location of the house, the element of hardship is no longer apparent. Staff does believe
that there would be just cause and reasonable hardship to reduce the sideyard setback of the proposed
middle lot because it would be based upon the location of the house and not solely on economic factors.
This would result in only one of the lots (Lot 5) being able to be zoned R-2, however.
Recommendation:
Based upon the above findings and the lack of demonstrated hardship, staffrecommends denial of the
praposed variance and has drafted Resolution 668 for the Commission's action. Ifthe applicant would
consider scaiing back his rezoning request to only proposed Lot 5, s�affwould be willing to recommend
approval of a reduced-sideyard setback variance, associated with the proposed middle lot .
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map (Eachibit A)
2. Subdivision Map {Exhibit B.)
N:IDATA\GROLSPSICOMDEVIpevelopment Cases1VR01-0a9 (Gustafson)1Variance Report - August 1, 2001.doc
EXHIBIT A
ZONI;G MAP �
�_. _. _
�
cfl � : �
$�� 7$$rJ�� N N- t�iF�-�I
a7o 7�G9A _ ??��`7�
860 7865 _ �g�r
��%V ���� i I �y`f� �
.._-� ��-� i��c�;
3+�4 _ .. ,
7815 7�;��;; `
t�0 �_....._.----� .
� 78�� , �,;,;,:
. O _,_...,.. _.- _ . `�'` i
i�a � isoj---- _ ' `" `y'
�s� � �� �- � i
T � Sham-O�Jet
u�
��'� � Dog Kennel 'a`"
r� / r ti �;; �.
_ �...-.,..-.., -- - �
�3a ��� � ' � ; ��_� i
,
��Q 7��� ,
�' �p � ,
� �7 ���'r;�'i 774i:� :
���
`�? � � M *— �i h eCY
;fJ- tQ .�— i� t0 Lt7 1t 1 et'J ?� �.. i
CV CV �[V iY CV C�i CV ��`� 1
� Moundsview 2�'�f'
� Square �`'� `
��:�_,
B!� 2�4 i
?�3��
��;,
4
fd
_ �y �'
b. /
_ ... .. ,., _ � . --
--- _.: _ .. _ ,
{
'r ,
t_. _ _cw cv i�� `, , _t•! ' " _ i E,_�_E cv c*� - , N __ � � �-
i O w�� � � t� ;� cfr
I7 R s5 n. u� �:-:��� �°n ►°n ?88 -, �,. r� :� cv � F
f cv cv �:: .� rv N ' ��U 788 ¢ ; � �
• � �, M
; ..ti.: � � - , --. _ � --
� 7853 �-� 7878 �87� 786 786gT:78$Q �
�.�� _ _ ,—_- 7f
�,� ; � �874 7$�7 � 785
�-�-� � 78fi1 7$� � .: -
� I�$41 _.__:-----
- ��- = � 7836 7845 ; 784 � 72
_._3 L__ 1 � i84% 'J84 --- ---- �.!
����� i.�A.. .. ;
� , I 7820 n 7837 ,78 �;
, 817 �Y � 7833 7832 _- - - -- ---. __
�?809 . . 789 � 78�5 � 78�7.�782�
784i ' 7$06 ,81 .
_. 7817 �
��s� �so -- -- ---; ;;=::�r
�,$� . Gustafson ��5 �sa7 :. _,.....:::;�:�
���i _ .-. . ._ Properties , _ _- _ ---��, _�
7?8� - _ -- - 774t� ?751 !,`':�
�753 . .. 774$ 7729 ?73a 7a41 �774 p
.._. 7728 ��lo �72 7731�i773 r
- � � _, --._ _�.. :-.... _._,.- r
�-� i% 10 3%09 �7 i� 7721=772 #� 7-
� � .. p� ...._ _: .
�
--F �� +c� �° u_°-a_ � 7?�1 ?70� 770 � O 7_
���r
7695
7687
Sunrise
United
Methodis
Churcif
O � �.� �f?
u? : � � �
C�1 . . N N cv
:rb�
R-��
66 �i-�4
766 �
� s �ss�
7 r ����
4J j � `
''� �� —2
,-' �'
�`
�`�
;:
� g`� N
V� �`�' �
��
'- � .
�� �.� '. `-�
1(j � ' p�/} ' N r
� d � � � �
� N ��� �:
� .
� �. � _.:
�''..a��� '�76s
�= tt d� tr �'r
� . � r`�'. n � 7
�
�
fi
cJ
0
v7
�
N
� d
v r�
� �
CV N
��
761fl
764
�sz
7�62 � `'
�` �
�� ��2
3 761
�
�
N
�
N
...RF .... .
��
�
�f
��
7t
�
7
7'
i'
�
�'
7
^
r�
:".
EXHIBIT B.
Proposed Subdivision Plan
`�
� �
�
4
•i�a
� Lor 1:
�
` � 22, 255. 5 sf
� .59 acres
� ��
��
_ -�
�
n
:�.
ti
........................................�
Lot 2:
� 22,255.5 sf �
� .5� acres
'` - � _ � �
�■■■■■a■■a■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■��■�■■■■■■■■■■�
i- } � . � � ■
_ ;,
-. ■ ■
. Lot 3: Lot 4: Lot 5:
.
' 92,825 sf ■ 13,735 sf ■ �3,5�0 sf
� : ~ ��' .29 acres : .32 acres : .31 acres
, , � .
� • . ° • ■
, "' ■ � � ■
. � ■ ■
■ �y ■
. ;1� � ' r'� ■
■ ■
■ ■
��
95' : �01.74' : 100'
' �� -.� . . .,,�..
� � � �.
!I � �
�' .' . �
i '�F ''s"�.-
�
. �
� ��=' � �'
Existing Lot Lines
"""""' Proposed Lot Lines
: r � � .f
�
�� _ �
� ���� .
�
ti
MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 668-01
CITY OF MOUNDS V�W
COUNTY OF R.AMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST MADE BY ERNEST GUSTAFSON FOR A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FIVE-FOOT REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM LOT
WIDT$ REQUIREMENT FOR A PROPOSED LOT AT 2525 COUNTY ROAD I;
PLANNING CASE NU. VRO1-009
WHEREAS, Ernest Gustafson has applied for a variance to allow for a 95-foot wide
proposed lot at the northeast corner of Long Lake Road and County Road I; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed lot is iegally described as follows:
The West 95 feet of Lot 10 and the West 95 Feet of the South 25 Feet af Lot 9, Greenfield,
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, the minimum lot width for a corner lot in the R-1, Single Family Residential
} District is 100 feet; and,
- ; �
WHEREAS, �he Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
1. Planniiig Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Proposed Subdivision Plan
4. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the Pianning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on
August 1, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to
property owners when the strict enforcement of the aoning code requirements imposes a hardship
thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by
unique or ex.traordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's
control; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which ail must be
satisfied, in order to grant a Variance to the Zoning Code.
, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request:
i
Resolution b68-41
Page 2
1. The proposed Iot at the northeast corner of Long Lake Road and County Road I is
zoned R-1, Single Family Residential.
2. The minimum lot width for a corner R-1 lot is 100 feet.
3. There is nothing extraordinary or special about the applicant's land which would
create a hardship or practical difficulties.
4. The literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive Mr. Gustafson of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The Code aIlows for a
three lot subdivision of this iot, but not if two of the lots would be rezoned R-2.
5. The special conditions are directly related to Mr. Gustafson's desire to divide the lot
into three developable parcels, two of which would be R-2 lots.
6. Granting a variance in this case would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other
property owners. The subdivision requirements are intended to maintain orderly and
consistent development throughout the City. Deviating from these requirements
withaut a demonstrated hardship or practicai difficulty would constitute a special
privilege.
7. Crrantir�g the variance wouId be detrimental to the purpose of the Code in that it
would constitu�e a special privilege, would be based on a economic factors, and _�'
would possibly set a precedent for all future subdivision requests.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public
hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby deny the variance request for a reduced
minimum lot width for a proposed lot at the northeast corner of Long Lake Road and County
Road I.
Adopted this 1 st day of August, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
Attest:
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(Seal}
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV\DEVELOPMENT CASESIVROI-009 (GUSTAFSON)1RESOLUTION 668-01.DOC
.
,..
� . : _. ._. . ;.: : _
Item # 5
City of Mounds View
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: August 1, 2001
Title: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE
CITY C4DE TO ALLOW ANIMAL BOARDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN
B-2, LIMITED BUSiNESS ZONING DTSTRICTS.
INTRODUCTION
Dr. Bruce Schnabel and Dr. Kevin Barcus of the Mounds View Animal Hospital have indicated their
desire to board animals at their proposed new facility. The City Code, however, currently does not
allow the boarding of animals except when associated with surgery, illness, or injury. Therefore, an
amendment to the Code is necessary to allow this service.
DISCUSSION
The City Code treats amendments in a similar fasiuon to conditional use pemiits. As with conditional
�::--: :] use permits, the Planning Commission must consider possible adverse affects of the amendment. The
findings of the Pla.nning Commission shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors:
• Relationship with the Comprehensive Pdan.
• The Geographical Area Involved
� Y�hether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
� The Character of the Surrounding Area
• The demonstrated need for such a use
The specific text amendment as described below would only apply to B-2 zoning districts. With
many B-2 districts in the City, the adverse affects relating to the geographical area and surrounding
area as listed above is difficult to measure generally. It can be said, however, that a11 B-2 zoning
districts are located along County Highway 10. Therefore, when considering adverse affects to an
area, the Planning Commission must took at what negative affects would be created if an animal
boarding facility were present along County Highway 10. Also, since the amendment is proposed as
a conditional use, any proposed animal boarding facility must be approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council, at which time further conditions may be placed on the approval if the
specific Iocation warrants them.
Chapter 1113.04 Subdivision 4 of the City Code allows veterinary and animal clinics as a conditional
use in B-2 zoning districts but prohibits animal boarding except for when associated with surgery,
illness, or injury. The existing conditions of approval for these facilities are as follows:
Animal Boarding Code Amendment
August 1, 2001
Page 2
a. Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter b07 of
this Municipal Code, Nuisances.
b. The boarding af animals is not provided for beyond hospitalization for surgery, illness or
injtuy.
c. A mechanical ventilation or exhaust system shall be installed to control, caphue and
remove emissions ar odors generated by such use. Such systems shall be sepazate 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. (Ord. 441, 5-23-88)
This section can be amended to allow animal boarding if the Planning Commission feels animal
boarding is an appropriate use in B-2 zoning districts. As discussed at the July 18 Planning
Commission meeting, it may also be appropriate to include additional requirements for animal
boarding facilities. Staff has reviewed State Statutes and ordinances of other cities in the Twin Cities
area to determine what may be appropriate for the City of Mounds View. Surprisingly, very few
specific requirements were found, other than provisions regarding the proper caze of animals. Based
on the information found, staff recommends the following modifications and additions that the
Planning Commission may consider to include in Ordinance 685.
Chapter 1113.04
Subd. 4. Veterinary clinics, a� animal clinics, and animal boarding facilities; provided, that:
a. Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter 607 of
this Municipal Code, Nuisances.
}� T l�e �' f'.. .,1.. ..+.. .:.ao.�i � �i.airr.r�� l��ns�y*oli,�..E:.+« � :11...°.......i
ivi u..ub°vi J'� ..,..
�
b. �: A mechanical ventilation or e�aust system shall be installed to contral, capture and
remove emissions or odors generated by such use. Such systems shall be sepazate from other
ventilation sysiems in the building. Such system sha11 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. (4rd. 441, 5-23-88)
� All animal boarding activities shall be conducted indoors, eaccept for necessary outdoor
exercise. At no time shall any animal be left unattended while outdoors.
d Dutdoor exercise shall be conducted so as not to unreasonably annoy, injure or
endanger the healfh, safery, comfort, or welfare of the publiG
� All animal boarding facilities shall comply with the Nuisance Codes established for
the City of Mounds Yiew
`' )
Animal Boarding Code Amendment
August 1, 2001
Page 3
f. All a�i►nal boarding facilities shall cofnply with the Minnesota Pet and Compareion
Animal Welfare Act (Minn Statutes 346.35 -- 346.44)
The Planning Commission should deYermine whether these requirements are adequate for animal
boarding facilities or if more are needed. Staff has prepared an Ordinance for your review that
includes the changes listed above. The ordinance can be modi�ied before forwarding it to the City
Council if the Planning Commission feels changes are necessary.
Staff also recommends that Chapter 1102.02, DEFINTTIONS, be amended to remove language in the
defnition for VETERINARY OR ANIMAL CLINIC that prahibits animal boarding, and a that a
definition of anunal boarding be added in order to specify what `animal baarding' should include.
The following existing definition could be amended as follows:
VETERINARY OR ANIMAL CLINIC: A�tructure intended for providing medical
examinations and treatment to animals. Services would be limited to small animals
and �e� mav include boarding of animals. (Ord. 441, 5-23-88)
The following definition, or a variation, should be included in the City Code to specify what types of
animals would be allowed in a boarding facility. The Planning Commission should also consider
that the definition would apply to animal bbarding within the City, nat just for the Mounds View
Animal Hospital.
ANIMAL BOARDING FACILYTY: A commercial establishment in which
domesticated animals are housed for a fee or compensation. Domesticated animals
include dogs, cats, or rodents such as rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, or other
like animals that are typically confined to a cage or other enclosure.
The Minnesota Board of Animal Health distinguishes a boarding facility from a kennel. According to
the Board, a kennel covers only those uni#s that pick up, confine, or advertise for lost, unwanted,
stray, abandoned, or stolen dogs and cats. This includes humane societies, pounds, and pounds
owned and operated by any political subdivision of the state,
A definition far kennel shauld also be included in the Code so a distinction can be made betvc�een the
two types of facilities. Kennels are not specifically referenced in the Code and therefore are not
perinitted within the City.
KENNEL: A facility the houses and advertises for lost, unwanted, stray, abandoned, or
stolen dogs and cats. These include humane societies, pounds, and pounds owned and
operated by any political subdivision of the state.
RECOMMENDATION FOR TEXT AMENDMENT
A recommendation to the City Council regarding Ordinance 685 is included in Resolution 667-01.
Animal Boarding Code Amendment
August 1, 2001
Page 4
The Planning Commission should review the text change as described in the Ordinance and provzde
input relating to the change as well as discuss what the definition of animal boarding should incIude.
If the Planning Commission feels that animal boarding is not appropriate for B-2 zoning districts,
they should direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution to act on at the next regularly,_ scheduled
meeting on August 15, 2001.
Jim Atkinson, Planner
Attaohmenfs: .
1. Minnesota Pet and Companion Animal Welfare Act (Dogs and Cats)
2. Resolution 667-01 �
3. Proposed Ordinance 685
:._ �
__ __ , -..,- - - �
�
,. l
.,
Minnesota Statutes
346.39 Dogs and cats.
Subdivision 1. Food. Dogs and cats must be provided with food of sufficient quantity and
quality to allow for normal growth or the maintenance of body weight. Feed standards shall be
those recommended by the National Research Council.
Subd. 2. _ Water. Dogs and cats must be provided with clean, potable water in sufficient quantity
to satisfy the animal's needs or supplied by free choice. Snow or ice is not an adequate water
source.
Subd. 3. Transportation and shipment. When dogs or cats are transported in crates or
containers, the cra#es or containers must be constructed of nonabrasive wire or a smooth,
durable material suitable For the animals. Crates and containers must be clean, adequately
ventilated, contain sufficient space to allow the animals to turn around, and provide maximum
safety and protection to the animals. Exercise for 20 to 30 minutes and water must be provided
at least once every eight hQUrs. Food must be provided at least once every 24 hours or more
often, if necessary, to maintain the health and condition of the animals.
Subd. 4. Shelter size. A confinement area must provide sufficient space to allow each animal to
turn about freely and to easify stand, sit, and lie in a normal pasition. Each confined animal must
be provided a minimum square footage of floor space as measured from the tip of its nose to the
base of its tail, plus 25 percent, expressed in square feet. The formula for corrEputing minimum
square footage is: (length of animal plus 25 percent) times (length of animal plus 25 percent),
divided by 144. A shaded area must be provided sufficient to protect the animal from the direct
rays of the sun at all times during the months of May to October.
Subd. 5. Exercise. All dogs and cats must be provided the opportunity for periodic exercise,
either through free choice or through a forced work program, unless exercise is restricted by a
licensed veterinarian.
Subd. 6. Group housing and breeding. Animals housed together must be kept in compatible
groups. Animals must not be bred so often as to endanger their health.
Subd. 7. Temperature. Confinement areas must be maintained at a temperature suitable for
the animal involved. -
;
i
Subd. 8. Ventilation. An indoor confinement area must be ventilated. Drafts, odors, and
moisture condensation must be minimized. Auxiliary ventilation, such as exhaust fans, vents, and
air conditioning, must be used when the ambient temperature rises to a level that may endanger
the health of the animal.
Subd. 9. Lighting. An indoor confinement area must have at least eight hours of illumination
sufficient to permit routine inspection and cleaning.
Subd. 10. Confinement and exercise area surtaces. Where applicable, the interior surfaces of
confinement and exercise areas, including crates or containers, must be constructed and
maintained so that they are substantially impervious to moisture and may be readily cleaned.
They musi protect the animal from injury and be kept in good repair. _
Subd. 11. Drainage. Where applicable, a suitable method must be used to rapidly eliminate
excess fluids from confinemen# areas.
Subd. 12. Sanitation. Food and water receptacles must be accessible to each animal and
located so as to minimize contamination by excreta. Feeding and water receptacles must be kept
clean. Disposable food receptacles must be discarded when soiled. Measures must be taken to
protect animals from being contaminated with water, wastes, and harmful chemicals. Wastes
must be disposed of properEy. Where applicable, flushing methods and a disinfectant must be
used periodically. Bedding, if used, must be kept clean and dry. Outdoor enclosures must be
kept clean and base material replaced as necessary.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 667-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO
ALLOW ANIMAL BOARDING AS A CONDITI4NAL USE IN B-2, LIMITED BUSINESS
ZONING DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, The City Code does not currently allow animal boarding r�vithin the City of
Mounds View; and,
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Animal Hospital has expressed their desire to offer
anirnal boarding at their proposed new facility located at 2625 County Highway 10; and,
WAEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
a. Proposed Ordinance No. 685
b. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment
satisfies the conditions outlined in Chapter 1125 of �he Zoning Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment is
not in conflict with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that animal boarding would no#
depreciaie neighborhoods nor negatively affect the character of surrounding areas within the City of
Mounds View if the stipulations required as a conditional use are implemented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of an amendment to Section 1113.04 Subdivision 4 and Section 1102.Q2 of
the City Code as depicted in proposed Ordinance 685.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Plam�ing Commission directs staff
to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
)
Resolution 667-01
July 18, 200I
Page 2
Adopted this 1 st day of August, 2001.
ATTEST:
{SEAL)
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
James Ericson, Communifiy Developrnent Director
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDEVCASES\CU01-002UtESOLUTION 667-0 I.DOC
ORDINANCE NO. 685
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1102 AND CHAPTER 1113 OF THE MOUNDS
VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO A1vIMAL BOARDING IN B-2, LIMITED
BUSINESS ZONING DTSTRICTS
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Section 1113.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with
the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions °�, to read as follows:
Chapter 1113.Q4: 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 `� f
of this Title):
Subd. 4. Veterinary clinics, � anunal clinics, and animal boardin� facilities; provided, that:
a. Noise and odor are effectively confined to the premises in accordance with Chapter 607 of
this Municipal Code, Nuisances.
. ,
�
b. s- A mechanicai 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 #he building. Installation must comply with Minnesota
BuiIding Code Mechanical Systems, chapter 1345. {Ord. 441, 5-23-88) �
c. All animal boardinQ activities sball be conducted indoors, except for necessarv
outdoor exercise. At no time shall an animal be left unattended while outdoors.
d. Outdoor exercise shall be condacted sa as not to unreasonably annov, ialure or
endan er the he�lth safe comfort or welfare of the ublic.
�rdinance 685
Plau�iug Comnussion Draft
Page 2
e. All animal boarding facilities shall comuly with �he Nuisance Codes established for
the City of Mounds View.
f. Ali animal boarding facilities shall complY with the Minnesota Pet and Companion
Animal Welfare Act (Minn Stafates 346.35 — 346•44)
SECTION 2: Section 1102.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with
the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions �, to read as follows:
I1Q2.02: DEFIrTITI4NS: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this Code,
shall be defined as follows: (Ord. 548, 9-24-�4; Ord. 620, 7-27-98) .
Subd. 3.5. ANIlVIAL BOARDING FACILITY: A commercial estabfishment in which domesticated
animals are housed for a fee or compensaiion. Domesticated animals include do s�at5,
or rodents such as rabbits inea i s hamsters erbils or other Iike animals that are
icall confined to a ca e or other enclosure.
; Subd. 58.5 KENNEL: A facilit the houses and advertises for lost unwanted stra abandoned ar
- stolen do�s and cats These include humane sacieties poun�and pounds owned and
o erated b an olitical subdivision of the state.
Subd. 118. VETERINARY OR ANIlVIAL CLIl�IC: A structure intended for providing medicai
examinations and treatment to animals. Services wouid be limited to small animals
and �ve�e� may include boarding of animals. (Ord. 441, 5-23-88)
SECTION 4. This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (3Q) days after its publication in the
official City newspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this � day of _, 2001.
Read and passed by #he City Council of the City of Mounds View tlus _ day of _,
2001.
Rich Sonterre, Mayar
ATTEST:
Ordinance 685
Planning Commission Draft
Page 3
Kathleen Miller, Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
i
�te� # 6
City of Mounds Yiew
Planning Commission Report
MeetingDate: August 1, 200I
Title: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 669-01, A RESOLUTI�N
RECOMMENDING RE-APPR�VAL OF A PRELIlVIlNARY PLAT FOR
THE MERMAID DEVELQPMENT, 2200 HIGHWAY 10. PLANNING
CASE PD00-002
Applicant: Dan Hall, President, The Mermaid
Background:
The applicant is requesting City re-approval of the preliminary plat for xhe Mermaid Addition, a
major subdivision associated with the Mermaid PUD. The plat groups together those parcels
being utilized for Mermaid expansion, wtuch include the former Rent-All property, the Musiaoff-
10 property, the south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Park South plat as well as the
existing Mermaid parcels. Altogether, the total area involved in the plat is 9.3b acres.
The preliminary plat was originally approved by the City Council on November 13, 2000. Due to
problems working out the acquisition details with the Boston-based Cabot Group, owners of the
'�='-�� business park parcel, the approved preliminary plat expired.
Discussion:
This preliminary plat is consistent with Chapter 1202 of the Maunds View City Code regarding
subdivisions. The legal descriptions and property ownership it�ormation appear to be in order,
however a copy of the preliminary plat has been forwarded to the City Attorney for his review. A
copy of the plat has been forwarded to the County for their review as well,
Plat Highlights:
• As mentioned above, this plat combines all of the properties involved 'sn the Mermaid PUD
into one lot, Lot 1, Block 1, MERMAID ADDTTION, and one outlot, Outlot A, MERMAm
ADDrr1oN. The outlot would serve as the access drive to the business park property to
reglace the existing access drive.
• The plat dedicates 12Q feet of laterai right of way for County Road H south of the former
Rent All Parcel and 100 feet (9.5 feet deep) south of the Music Off 10 parcel. It is not
anticipated that the County will require any additional right of way.
• The plat dedicates a ten-foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter of the
` Mermaid property and also dedicates a 3 5-foot wide easement area for utilities along the
� southwestern shared property line between the Mermaid and business park property.
�_
Mermaid Preliminary Plat Report
August 1, 2009
Page 2
Park Dedication Reauirement:
Chapter I204 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that all major subdivisions and plats
pay a park dedication fee. For developments encompassing more than one acre of land, the fee
amounts to ten percent of the associated land vaIue. The table below lists the land values
associated with the Mermaid project and the amount of the park dedication required for this
project:
10:
Halls:
Rent Afl
Holding Pond
TOTAL:
PIN
083023430005
08302343000fi
083023430007
083023430408
U83023430009
Part of 083023430021
'Based on Market Value For Property Taxes Payable 2001
MV Land"
$ 26,100
$ 261,600
$ 370,500
$ 68,000
$ 79,300
$ 117,557
$ 923,057
Area (SF)
17,753 $
82, 842 $
168,555 $
40,521 $
41,854 $
57,910 $
409,435 - $
1.47
3.1fi
2.20
1.68
1.89
2.03
2.25
From this table, the fee that would be charged to the Mermaid for this plat would be $92,306.
Easements:
All of the necessary easements are indicated on this plat. The ten-foot drainage and utility �
easements along County Road H and County Highway 10 will be changed to five feet to coincide
with the approved parking lot setbacks for the development.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 63 8-00, a resolution recommending approval of the
Mermaid Addition preliminary plat, with stipulations.
�J C�l��vtx� ��� ���,
James Ericson, Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Mermaid Addilion plat, date-stamped 7/25/O1
2. Resolution 669-01
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV1Development Casea1Pd00.UO2 (Mermaid PUD)1Mermaid pre plat - August 1, 2001.doc
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N�. 669-01
CITY OF MOUNDS V�W
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF A�IINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING RE-APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FUR
THE MERMAID ADDITIDN MAJOR SUBDIVISION;
MOUNDS V�W PLANNING CASE NO. PD00-002
WH�REAS, Daniel Hall, President of The Mermaid, agplied for approval of a preliminary
plat to expand the existing Mermaid property by adding the adjoining former Rent-A!i property,
the south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Park South property, and the Music Off Ten
property; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on October 18, 2000 recommended approvai of
the original preliminary plat; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council on November 13, 2000, approved the preliminary plat; and,
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2001, the preliminary plat approval expired because the final plat
was not submitted within the required six-month period after preliminary plat approval, in
�; accordance with Section 1202.07, Subd. 1.; and,
: -. �'
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2001, Mr. Ha11 reapplied for preliminary plat approval; and,
WI�REAS, the legal descriptions for the properties to be platted aze as follows:
(See attached EXHIBIT A.)
WHEREAS, the proposed plat is named "MERMAID ADDITTON" and contemplates
reorganizir�g the above parcels into one developable lot and one outlot; and,
WI�REAS, the area of the proposed "1VIE� AnvrrloN" is 9.36 acres; a,nd,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents relative to
this proposal:
1. Preliminary Plat, date-stamped July 25, 2001
2. Staff Report.
WI�REAS, the preliminary plat is consistent with the Met-imaid Planned Unit
Development, which was approved by the City Council on October 10, 2000; and,
Resolution 669-01
Page 2
}
WI�REAS, according to Ramsey County property value assessments, the total Iand value
of the properties involved is $923,057; and,
WI-�REAS, Chapter 1204 of the Municipal Code states that a11 subdivisions and plats of
land to be used for coxnmercial or industrial purposes are subject to park dedication requirements
amounting to ten percent of the most current assessed land values; and,
WI�REAS, according to Chapter 1204 of the Municipal Code, the applicable park
dedication fee for this major subdivision is $92,306; and,
N�W, THEREF4RE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council approve the Mermaid Addition preliminary plat, suhject to the FolIowing
stipulations:
1. The developer shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the CiTy of
Mounds View the forty foot triangle at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H
as shown on the preliminary plat for a City gateway sign.
2. The developer shall submit the applicable park dedication fee of $92,30b prior to the
City signing the final plat.
BE IT FURTHER RES�LVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Sta.f� 1
to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 1 st day of August, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chauperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson,
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDEVELOPMENT CASES1PD00-002 (MERMAID PUD)1RESOLUTION 669-01.DOC
EXHIBIT A
KNOW ALL M£N BY THESE PRES£NTS, , WITHC, L.L,C., owners ond proprietors ot the following
described properfy situoted in the County of Ronsey, Stote of Minnesota, to wit:
Troet 1
A[roct of lorrd berng port of the Soufhwes! 1%4 and also port of fhe Southeost 1/4 of the
Soufheost 1/4,,of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, Ransey Counly, Minnesota, desc�ribed os
fa / lows:
Cam�ncing a! o point on the South /i�e of soid Southeos! J/4 of the Southeost 1/4 distanf
897.5 feet West of !he Soufheast corner fhereof; lhence Norfh 35 degrees 07 minutes West
(assur�d beoring of West on soid Soufh lineJ a distance of 392.7 feet to fhe extension
Norfheaste�/y of fhe centerline of Counfy Rood H; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes Wesf
alony soid center/ine a distance' of 145.00 feet to fhe point of beginning; tfrence
continuiny Soufh 54 degrees 53 minutes West 120,00 feet; fhence North 35 degrees 07
minutes West 252.00 feef; thence North 54 de�rees 53 minutes East 190.00 feef to the
Soufhweslerly right o f way line of T�unk Hrghway No. f0; fhence Soulh 35 degrees 07
minutes East along soid 5outhwesletly right af way /ine 20a.00 feel; fhence Soufh 54
degrees 53-mi�uies lNesf olong soid rlght of wpy line 70.00 feet; fhence South .i5 degrees
07 minufes Eost vlong soid right of way /ine 52.0 feet fo fhe point of beginning.
ALSO, Thot part of Lot 1, B/ock 2, Mounds View 9usiness Park South, which lies southerly
of o/ine described os follows: ccrntiencing ot the southeost cor�er of said Lof �: thence
North 0 degrees 20 minutes 34 seconds West, along the easf line of said Lot 1 o disfonce
of 351.51 feef fo the point of beginning; thence B9 degrees 31 minutes 15 seconds Wesf a
drstance of 209.Q0 feet to an ang.le pornt !n fhe south li�ne of-.said Lot l ond fhere
terminating.
Also the East f00 feet of the West 657,57 feet of the Soufh 215 feel of the Southwest
Quarler of the Southeasf Quorter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, acco�ding fo fhe
U.S. Covermaent Survey fhereof, Ronsey Counfy. Minnesofa.
AND �hat tho� Moundvisto, /nc. owners and propriefors of the fo//owing described property situated '
in ihe County of Rm�sey, State of Minnesofo, to wit:
Thot part of fhe £ost 546.75 feet. of the South 715. 1 feef of fhe 5W7/4 of the SE1/4 of
. Secfion 8, Township ,i0, Range 23 in Ransey Cou�ty, Minnesofo lying Soufhwesterly of fhe
Southwesferly rrght o f woy /ine of U.S. Hiqhwoy No. 10 ,as if is now /ord out ond
I frove/led aird /ying Norlher/y of the fol/owing described /ine. Beginning on o point on
the wesf line of the Easf 546.75 feet of said SW1/4 of the SE1/4 distanf 445.25 feef No�fh
- of fhe 5outh line of sald SW1/4 of fhe SEf/4 as meosu�ed a/ong said West line of fhe £osf
546.75 feet thereof; thence Norfh 86 Degrees 52 mrnufes Sz seconds East (ossur�d bearing
of the west line of East 546.75 feet ot said SW1/4 of fhe SE 1/4 is North 0 Oegrees 47
minules 11 seconds Wesf) and to the Soulhwester/y right of woy line of said U.S. Highwoy
No. 10 and except thaf porf of the followrng described property included rn the above
described tracf. Ccrm�encing ot a poin! on the Souih line of fhe SEJ/4 of fhe SE1/4 of
soid section 8 disfant 897.5 feet West of the Soufheost corner thereof; fhence Norfh 35
Degrees 07 minules West {ossurad bearing of Wes! on said South /ineJ a distonce of 392.7
feet to the center line of County Road H; thence Soufh 54 Degrees 53 minufes 4Yest along
said centerline, a d/sfonce of 145.0 feet to the poinf of beqinning; thence confinuing
Soufh 54 Degrees 53 minutes WesE 120.0 feel; fhence Norfh 35 Degrees 07 minufes Wes� 252.0
feef; thenc'� North 54 Degrees 53 minutes Eost, 190.0 feef to !he Southwesferly righf of
way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South .i5 Qegrees 07 minutes £ost olong said
Southwesterly riqht of way line 200.0 feef; thence Soulh 54 Degrees 53 minufes West a/ong
soid �ight of woy lrne 70.0 feef; fhence South 35 Degrees 07 minutes East a/ong said right
of woy line 52.0 fee! to the poinf of beginning.
Tr oc f B ^
Thot port of fhe Eost 546.75 feef of the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 of Seclion 8, %wnship 30,
Ronge 23 in Rorsey Courtfy, Minnesota lying Soutfrwesterly of the Southwesterly right of woy
line of U.S. highwoy No. 10 os it is now loid ouf and fravel/ed ond lying Norther/y of
fhe Center line of Counfy Road H and lyrng southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a poinf on !he Wes1 /ine of the East 546.75 feet ol soid SiS'1/4 of the S£1/4
disfont 445.25 feet NorEh of the South /ine of sald SW1/4 of the SE1/¢ vs measured along
soid wesf /ine of fhe East 546.75 fcet fhe�eof; thence North B6 Oegreas 52 minutes 57
seconds East (assunied beoring of the West llne of fhe Eost 548.75 feet of soid SWf/4 of
!he SE1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47 minutes 1lseconds WestJ ond to !he Southwesferly right of
woy /ine of U.S. Highwoy No. 10 ond soid /ine lhere ferminating and except fhat part of
!he following described property includad in the above described traci: Co�m�encing of a
point arr the Soulh llne of fhe SE1/4 of fhe SE1/4 of sard 5ection 8 distant 897,5 feet
west of fhe Southeosf eorner tfrereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07 minutes West (assemed
-beoring of West on said South LrneJ o distvnce of 392.7 feet fo the cenfer line of County
road H; thence SoLth 54 Deg�ees 53 minutes West o/orrg soid center /ine, a distance of
145.0 feef to the point of beginninq; fhence continuir�g Soufh 54 degrees 53 minufes Wes!
i 120.0 feet; fhence Norlh 35 deqrees 07 minutes Wesf 252.0 feet; thence No�th 54 degrses 53
_ minutes Eost, 190.0 feet to the SouthwesterJy �ight of way /ine of Trunk Highway No. 10;
thence South 35 degrees D7 minutes Eost olong spid southwester/y rlght of way /ine 200.0
feet; thence south 54 dagrees 5.i minutes West a/ong soid riqht of wvy line 70.0 feet;
lhence Souih 35 degrees 07 minutes Easf a/ong soid right of way line 52.0 feet fo the
point of beginning.
_ ___ __
�
- PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CUMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
' ReguIar Meeting
July 18, 2001
Mounds Yiew City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN::55112
r,
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7.0�` p.m., ��u�1� 18, �J01.
�r����
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners He
Members Excused: Kaden (excused);�
���� ; '':
Also Present: Community:�eveIc
, -
Index to �Ni�nutes
e 3:-
' �Y
Planning Cas� 1�To �, ;_
Applicant :JennYfer
Location: $•081� Re�
F �:._..: V�t-2
Planning Case No C�J
Ap,plicant: Jack Cla
Location: 8368 Gr�
� ;�,-.,
��annin� Case No. VI�
3 :'�
VRO1-007 �-�
�. ,`
{urieX�
�1-008 and CUOi-002
View Animal Hospital
unty Highway 10
Sta"ff`Reports/Items of Information
Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports
�� ��, -
�� �k , 4;�`
�, , ;; z�
, _�;
�i�, .;.' �,
v�i11Er; Johnson, Zwirn, and Scotch.
e�. �`
�.
icson, Planning Associate Atkinson
Page
2
3
3
7
S
_ i.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
3.
None.
Citizens Requests and Camments on Items Not on the Agenda
July 18, 2001
Page 2
4. Planning Case No. VRUl-007
Director of Community Development Ericson summarized �he reguest for a second curb cut at
8Q81 Red Oak Drive. The applicants are Jim and Jennifer �sterlund.; Director Ericson explained
the curb cut has already been installed. He noted that this m�ttez� was before the Commission at
the last meeting and there was significant discussion. The Planning ��''"min'ission had a
resolution before them for denial of the variance request. There are 7 criteri�a�'fbr a hardship case
and the Commission discussed them, taking special c�n�id�ation to the��afe�y„�spect.
.., �� � � ,...
Director Ericson continued s#ating that given the amoun't ni:�i��ission at last meeting, it is safe
t b Y.
to say the 7 criteria can be satisfied. The dnv�way is
causes a safety issue. Director Ericson note�'the app;
predates the ownerslup of the home.
Commission felt that granting a vari
discussion and testimony at the la�# ;
Ericson noted there are stinulatioris.�
have. Permanent surface
the applica�i�s �may not b�
extensYOn could be applif
zoning and set�ack;requi�
would
�incIud
�ust be
;na an
�n close proxunit��tti' the intersection which
cants di��o� cai�se tlus; the siivation
....:.. ze?.�'1.:
�t at the last�'rneeting, the Pianning
�,
ant a sp;�cial privilege. Based on the
g, Staff has drafted Resolution b61-01. Direc�or
,.. � �s�°�`
m���re appli�,��s must apply for a permit, and they
u����hin 3 months of approval. He indicated that
�p$a��. ca�nt�a�ctar in 3 months, in which case an
expfained that a new driveway shall comply with all
be 50 feet from corner of the lot. The width cannot
exceed the rn�.xiriium of 24 feet �'
Chair Stevenson questroned,:why a coritractor would take on the job of adding a second driveway
when the City Code c�oes not �llow it. He made the point that perhaps there are contractors that
are nof aware of the City}Code Director Ericson suggested there may be contractors that do not
knovs%'the City Code. He adde�i'that some may know the city's codes but decide to take their
�..
cfiances. °�'
Chair Stevenson inquir.ed whether those licensees are allowed to work in the city when they do
not adhere to the city code. Director Ericson stated that issue is taken into consideration when
fheir:`license is renewed,
1VI0�'IOI�T7SECOND: Johnson/Hegland. To Approve Resolution 661-01, a resolution approving
a request for a variance to allow a second curb cut at 8081 Red Oak Drive.
Ayes — 4 Nays — 2(Stevenson, Zwirn) Moiion carried.
� �����i
�..--.
_. , _ .
: _
Mounds View Planning Commission
Reguiar Meeting
July 18, 2001
Page 3
Chair Stevenson felt the safety wouldn't be improved sufficienEly to warrant the action. He
added that there are many corner lats in the city and they don't have two access.points._ :
Commissioner Zwirn stated he looked at the property, and though he is sympathetic to their
hardship, he wasn't convinced that a turnaround conldn't be deueloped, or other oppoitunities
discovered. He explained he was taken back by the fact that a contractar had.lieen'foiitid.to start
khe job. The contractor was told to stop construction and h�=didn't. _
5. Planning Case No. CU01-003
t .-•.st �4it,X,
Planning Associate Atkinson explained that the applicant, �a�k Clasen, lias ;applied for a permit
far an oversized garage. He noted that there are 5 factors to consider when the;Planning
Commission hears this type of case, which are..presented�ri;the Staff Report Nope of Mr.
Clasen's neighbors have contacted the City in re�a�d,�tQ this'�case.
a �� ,
j Ye4 � �
Planning Associate Atkinson remarked that the last paragraph on the proposed resolution is
incorrect, and he distributed a corrected copy.
Jack Clasen, 8368 Groveland Road, stated that M�tch Ford is hi� neighbor on the north, and he
doesn't have an issue with this case Mr: Clasen. said he knqws Mr. Ford very well. Mr. Ciasen
�:�.
also explained he has discussed this;:with all lus; neighbors atid none had a problem with this.
� ;: ��� � �����
� " ?=' r��r
� ;. r.
Commissioner Johnson quest�one� if Mr. Clasen'was_planning to store items that currently are
stored outsi�e: ? Mr. Clasen;an�u�e�ed he is. He��xplained that his family had considered moving
� k 3 ,
out of tlie �omrnurii:,ty to a larger�ome,,but decided they want to stay in the city and improve
their house.' Mt;�.Clasen further ezplaiiie�;he wants to add on to the garage first, then he plans to
remodel ihe
`%. f � i,�::
r ,', ,E�; ��; a� �7� . ..
�r�� � 4
M4TIO.L�i/�ECOND"����tevens�u./Zwirn. To Approve Resolution b66-01, a resolution
recomrriending approval o�a �ontiitional Use Permit to allow for a 1,218 square-foot oversized
,� ,. 4�
gara�e at 8368 Groveland �oad'Y
�, µ: r�,�
,�.
Ayes — 6" Nays — 0 Motion carried.
�- � ����;
,.� ; ,.. .
6. .Planning Case No. VR01-008 and CU01-002
Planning Associate Atkinson stated there are several requests for this item including a variance
request, a Conditional Use Pemut, and text amendment to City Code.
,. _ ,
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regulax Meeting
July 18, 2001
Page 4
Planning Associate Atkinson explained the variance is for a setback of 12 feet instead of 1-5 feet.
He mentioned this is a correction that should be made to the Staff Report. He`pointed out #hat
the proposed building is a little bigger than what is on the site plan. Because the lot shape is a
triangle, a variance of 25 feet is being sought for the front yard. There are 7 criteria'needed for a
variance, which are listed in the Staff Report. In Staff s opinion; the shape of khe lot and size of
the lot would be grounds to consider a variance. Planner Atkinson explained a resolution is
included in the Staff Report. If this is approved by the Plann�ng Commission, the item would not
go to the City Council. This is a final step.
r� -
The second issue is a Conditional Use Permit. This type of bus�ess is allowed in this zoning
district as a conditional use. This parcel has been approved as B=2 zoriirig, but it has not yet
taken effect. This item will come before the Planning Commission again for, final site plans and
the access points can be discussed then. �t
�.
Planning Associate stated that currently, animal b�ardan� is�not allowed in the �ity. This request
is to allow boarding in B-2 districts as a canditional'use only yThis is nat specific to the Mounds
View Animal Hospital; it would be applicable'�o all B 2 zoiti�g�tli'stricts. �:Planning Associate
Atkinson pointed out that there is no B-2 zoning off H�g�hway 10,,'it ,ts �a11 along Highway 10.
�E����
Planning Associate Atkinson presentec� tbe proposed resolutio�`to approve the text amendment.
Under Subclivision 4, letter b will b�'f�l�iiinated,,,w"hich states that a business cannof board except
in association with hospitalizanonwor'surgery, 'The Plannuig�Commission may recommend more
_`�. � '_ �_��.,
stipulations be added to the orci�nance. : �}
'� .- R� � jiq� 45��>s;Y .
E' f iw
9 �u d�� ' �€ � ��� � �,� t � ��G 6 .�
Comm�,�si�ner: Miller pomted out the Conditiorial� Use Pernut states there shall be no boarding.
She queshoned'�f.tY�e Planning�C�mrriission passes this resolution, would the Conditional Use
Permit have�to:be rewritten. P1a�iirtig�Associate Atkinson suggested that use be eliminated from
the text.
�;� ,
Chair Ste�!enson questioned whether the proper steps for code amendments are being followed.
Dire�tor Ericson explam�cl th�'t making a recommendation to the Council on a Conditional Use
Perri��t and code revision is �s�rriply a recommendation. One of the conditions of this Conditional
LTse Permit is that it wouid not be effective until after Ordinance 685 was adopted by the
Council. Director Ericson stated he felt the �iming and procedure was being foliowing. This
' �v4rould require 2 readings.
Coxnmissioner Hegland asked if the Commission has looked at any other animal boarding
faci�rt�+ ordinances. He noted there is nothing in the report regarding size of animals nor the size
of:the area�provided for each animal.
Planning Associate Atkinson replied that the Staff hadn't conducted research on these issues.
This would be issues that the City would research and then a public hearing wauld be held to
discuss this.
c. =,` 1
-�
;i
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 18, 2001
Page 5
Chair Stevenson mentioned the Muu�esota Statute would most likely stipulate the square footage
needed per pen. .
Commissioner Hegland offered his view that if the ordinance is going to be changed it should be
done with the research conducted.
The applicant, Dr. Barcus, stated he has not heard of an ordrriance that specifies the size of
containment facility. He understood that to be something in,;the state or•federal statutes. The
plans for �he building are to have runs that are 5 feet long by�� feet "wide with some up to 4 fee�,
z.� t.}
The rest would be standard boarding or hospitalizing type ca�es:���e exnlained thai when he
obtained the permit originally, there was never any discus
suggested there was no difference in what his business do
Dr. Barcus added that the plans for the new building call i
are separate from the hospital area. The hospital area:has_
; v�
basically 16 runs. In his current facility, the runs are' 3 t�ei
,:4
�� as t�i,sxze of runs or cages. He
iow�o� any-other,boarding facility.
16 runs u1'r"t�ae bqarding kennel that
Y
uns. Frorn �� �ize perspective, it is
4 3
�ir4 feet.
�� ,�, �� r -
; �� �� :�� �F :. <�
Chair Stevenson suggested a phrase be adde�.'to the ord�n�ance k`�iat: the.applicant will comply
,;
with all state staiutes. �,� ���` `` `�:-�
Commissioner Scotch asked if Dr. Barcus is using roughly a third of their space for boarding.
Dr. Barcus clarified it will be less ahan `10%. The actual boarding facility is 14 feet by 34.5 feet.
This would be room to potentially ri�ve 16 dogs oyermght �,��
,,
, ;-,: :,x;�°^-.r; � f '� �.�.
��i
Dr. Barcus e��lained that h� � cQ�isidering �xsing 1�5 ;square feet per dog for the runs. Some runs
are smaller�such as 24 or 28 mches :;He felt tlie~number didn't need to be in the ordinance but the
size should be appropriate for t1te, ov�rall building.
%i f G',
�� x -, =
Commissioner Zwuti inquired wh�the� �e.runs that are proposed is the maximum nwnber they
would have ,:,Dr� Bazcu�'s responded �li"ere`?is no more available space. They would have to expand
the facilityto add more,�ant� he��idn't anticipate that.
__: - .�K � j F'° ,: -
. �� �At� ? . ,'
Co Yininissioner Hegland'�u��s�i.aned if the spaces are purchased modules or constructed. Dr.
�arcus explained the spa�es could be made either way. He plans to use a block wall with
sfainless steel gates mucli like the Humane Society.
�€ Ghair Stevenson asketl if the proper public hearings have been given. Planiung Associate
�<,���i�k�nson,stated"n�ttces were sent for both the Conditional Use Permit and the variance. The teXt
� _:::
amendxnent r.equest was not. He suggested this item be held to the next meeting in order to
conduct: research.
Changes will be made to Resolution No. 665-01 as detailed by Planning Associate Atkinson, to
specifically reference "five feet" rather than "reduced front yard setback."
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 18, 2001
Page 6
Commissioner Zwirn questioned whether a berm would be constructed on the Eastwood Road
side. Planning Associate Atkinson explained that would be addressed at the development stage.
MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve Resolution'6b5-01, a r:esolution approving
a variance to allow a reduced front yard setback to construct a:parkifig lot on the property located
at 2625 Coun�y Highway 10, with changes as discussed.
Ayes — b Nays — 0 Nlotion cazried.
Plaru�ing Associate Atkinson s�ggested striking statement number.3� on Resolution 664-01
regarding the boarding of animais.
Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the mechanical ventila#ion: Dire.ctor Ericson
stated there are 2 ventilation systems. Th�y need to be s�arate in orderrto,abstain from
recirculating the air in the building. '
�'"
Commissioner Hegland stated that the boarding issue is se�a�ate from approving an animal
hospital to be built in a B-2 zone. Chair SX�venson ex�lained thaf 2s the reason for removing
statement number 3 in this resolution. `�
,:.
Director Ericson further explained tha� the City;would be allo�ving the Animal Hospital to .
transfer their current business to tlleir new locati�an and the'issue of boarding should not be '�'-)
discussed at this oint. He su e�ted that b 1�'�� Statement in the Commission would be
P gg Y g.� � .. '
sen�ng,a message to the C�un�Yl :that the Plantung �oriimission feels boarding should not be
allowed, �and sinc.e it is nat�a: dis�us�ion item, rio=inessage should be implied.
sa�
�;� a � �` € `� r �,:
Commission�r Hegland stated�I'ie was conc.erned that removing that statement it sends the
message that �e Cor�m�s�ion woifld �pprove boarding for reasons other than hospitalization for
surgery, illness -or �injury
Director Ericson explained�that:the city code still disallows boarding in the City. Therefore, by
removing statement 3 from`the:resolution an action of approval would be for the animal hospital
on1.y, not animal boardirig, facility.
I)r;, Barcus stated he felt the statement was redundant, The city aIready restricts boarding.
Ai%imals would be b�arded for fiospitalization and that does not fall under the term of boarding.
�The def'initiox�. of boarding is to house an animal other than for hospitaiization.
�ommissioner Scotch suggested that this issue be reseazched.
Commissioner Zwirn suggested that the statement be left in but add verbiage that research is
being conducted or that the City is aware that boarding will be conducted at this facility. He said
he agreed with Commissioner Hegland.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 18, 2001
Page 7
Director Ericson again mentioned that the City Code does not allow boarding and by omitting
ihis statement, it does not change the City Code. This is simply a recommendation to the
Council. �
MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To Approve Resolutian' 664-Oi, a resolution'
recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit ta allow aii animal hospifal to locate in a B-
2, limited business district, at 2625 County Highway 10, with'the change of striking statement #3_ �
and renumbering the items.
'` :;�-� . .
Ayes — 5 Nays —1 (Zwim) : Motion carried.
r�;
�� ,
_., . "it..f..� ---�--
Commissioner Zwirn stated he voted nay due to the
Planning Associate Atkinson suggested tabling
�;�����
z�
. No motion;n�eded.
�� f . ,. � ;,�k .
7. Staff Reports �' m '` �; �'
�e
�_�` � — ' �.� s
:_� °
a. Previous Council Action �.June 25,� 2001, July 9,; -20'Ol
;,,¢
Director Ericson reviewed actionsataken'at the June 25 City,,,Council meeting. The Council took
�� action on the first reading of the ozdinance on the��Mounds �iew Animal Hospital. The second
reading was on July 9 and Was appioved. It is:not in'effect yet.
�,,� ,.. ;.;
�� ,�'.
The dev�Ioprrient review for IVIx,��Iezzenga wa°�' approved. The building permit has not yet been
ob#ained. � r � `f �'
� < '.•
Director Encson�i
He indicated that=
approved:. The fv
roved, predicating
;tafson's house is :
a fifth lot with a re
fifth lot. The Cou
ild not hold the se�
division was appli
� r . �,��` ,' hi-`
l,that at the Tuly ���ouncil meeting, Mr. Gustafson presented his case.
3 of.his lots we�e rezoned, he would be sarisfied, as long as he had S lots
ing of �e ordinance rezoning 2 of the 31ots fronting County Road I was
ii;`�Vir -�ustafson would apply for a variance for the setback. Mr.
ie at :off center, and a variance for 5 feet will be needed. He applied
�.
ced 'vv�dth. There will be a variance request for a reduced lot width foz
I` indicated they would approve the first reading of the ordinance, but
id reading until such time that a variance was granted and the major
for and approved.
�ornr�i�sio�ier{>1Vliller clarified whether the lot that should be 100 feet would now be 95 feet.
Director Ericson confirmed. Commissior�er Miller asked if Mr. Gustafson would need to meet
the 7 criteria for hardship and Director Ericson confirmed that Mr. Gustafson would.
Direc�or Ericson stated an appeal for a shed on Mr. Baumhoefner's property was tabled. The
City Attorney informed Staff that the appeal would need to be noticed as would any variance
application. This item will need to be re-notified.
i- __ . ' _.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 18, 2001
Page 8
Commissioner Scotch questioned how many sheds are currently on the property. Planner
Atkinson responded there are 2, and if this one is added, there will be 3. Director Ericson stated
3 sheds are not allowed and he would be contacted to remove one. '
�
�;
Director Ericson reported that Buildzng G requested an expansion yof their par6king lof: �his was
originally approved by the Council, subject to some requirements. One,requirement was to enter
into a development agreement with city. Theze is a different'owner no�v: Director Ericson
suggested a resolution be adopted to amend the resolution that amencied the agreement with
developer.
b. Highway 10 Meetings .;�.
Director Ericson communicated the last meeting for i�tgliway 10 was a`pt�srtive meeting. The
consultant was present and went over the differer�t �lans and maps. The pub�ic meeting and open
house recently on this topic was not very well attended, �ough ;tfiere was sorne good discussion.
}:: .
Channel9 broadcasted live from the meeting as their lea� piec� '� T1�is should help raise the level
of awareness. Director Ericson stated that because there was a�srria�l.tum out, the City sent a
survey to residents the City had email addiesses for':which `
� �.
indicated that within a couple hours o�sending it oui, he got
;.
�,§,�,.
.. 4 .,
Duector Ericson informed the
Comprehensive Plan. This is'=�
, .:,Po�
it is stalle�, �a
the property t�
350. Azron Parrish
Council had a meeting on the
allv revisited.
'� 's` ��'?�� ° �.> �� '���'�;.t.
ind inqiiix�d What the sta�s of the Mermaid is. Director Ericson responded
in part'is due=in�t�e.Iegislatuxe and waiting to see what wouId happen with
gna#ion. 1�`o�'r, �hat Ehose numbers are in, there will likely be more activity.
�5�� �
�'���''
: ` �� ��� , .
Director Enes�in st���d t��`;Edgewood 1Vli�ddle School pond was approved.
Chau Stevenson questioned what the status is with Donatelle's. Director Ericson explained there
is a, pending liquor license appli�ation. The City is working on resolving issues with Ramsey
Co�nty. ,: °
Duector Ericson also;stated the Carmike Theatres parking issue is continuing. Since Dona#elle's
has�:closed, that has 1�een a benefit to the residents since patrons park there instead of the street.
,The theatre.is in negotiations to acquire one or more undeveloped parcels near by, Adequate
parking;is anticipated by winter.
Commissioner Miller asked if the Theatre has gone over its expectations or whether the amount
of parking provided was not sufficient. Director Ericson replied the parking is adequate
according to code. He suggested that sufficient parking for ticket prepurchasing wasn't
anticipated.
_. l
��
�l
Moands View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 18, 2001
Page 9
S. Chairperson and Planniug Commissioners' Reports _
Chairperson Stevenson suggested an ideal restaurant for the restaurant parcel;would be Panera's.
Director Ericson stated a proposal for the corner of Long Lalce Road and Higliway l0;has been
received and could be brought before the Planning Commission this summer. '
9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 1, 200��
, �,�,.,
�
10. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the-Planning:C�
rneeting at 8:33 p.m.
�.� ,
t
,���
ion, Chair:�te�enson adjourned the .
X, '�.::.. � :ju: � tiy , .,. :
(The meeting immediately adjoumedto °t�,ie Agenda,Session)
' :. i?? cA � .
2
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director : `
s'��: .� ;
�. �.
Transcribed;by: � ~� � '
, . � ,.
Chnstine N�"oksnes
TimeSaver Off Site Secretaraal, ,Inc
4�
K
i.'Y '� � � t'Tf''�'.
. _. t...:' j �
r�, y�
�t �� P„
��' V � ,�
,� ' ��'.,
�, �;.'.:
.;���:
,. „ . ...
$Y
_
—
_.._. _
- ---- — _ ,
f.. ,_ ,;
a
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING C4iVIlVIISSION
,
August 15, 2001 — 7:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
� AGENDA
I. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
GTITZENS: BEFORE SPEEiidNNG, PLEASE COME TO TAE PODIUM,
AND GNE YOUR FULI. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE NIINUTES
4. Appmve Minutes from Juiy 18, 2001 Planning Commissian Meeting
5. Planning Case DEQl-003
Consideration of a Deveiopment Review for the Mounds View Animal Hospital lacated at
2625 County Highway 10
Applicant: Dr. Bruce Schnabel and Dr. Kevin Barcus
APPLiCANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING I5 REQUESTED.
PLEASE NOTIF'Y THE COMMi11�iITi' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT
'�
763-717-4021 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
1'
(). S�RepOYtS
a. Previous Counci� Action: August 13, 2001
7. Chairperson and Planning Conunissioners' Reports
8. Next P1aTUiing Cornmission Meeting: September 5, 2001
9. Adjouminent
�' N:�DATA\GROUPS�COMDEV�YIanningCortmussion�PCAGENDA�2001Wugusti52001PCAgenda.doc
I
_ i:.. .
r 1
.i
�
_
-. -.
, , .._ , _ _ _
-- - � -- - __.. --
��
Item 5
City of Mounds Tjiew
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: August 1 S, 2001
Title: DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT REViEW REQUEST
OF DR. BRUCE SCHNABEL AND DR. KEVIN BARCUS �F THE MOUNDS
VIEW ANIMAL HOSPITAL T� CONSTRUCT AN ANIMAL HOSPITAL AT
2625 COUNTY HiGHWAY 10 (pLANN1NG CASE NO. DE01-003}
introduction
The applicants, Dr. Bruce Schnabel and Dr. Kevin Barcus of the Mounds View Anima!
Hospital, have requested a development review to construct an animal hospital consisting
of 5,OSS gross square #eet. The purpose of a development review is to aHow the Planning
Commission to evaluate proposed development in ferms of its consistency with City Codes
and to ascertain and mitigate any potential impacts to fihe adjoining properties and the
� community as a whole. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City
`' �. � Council, who then acts upon the request.
Background
The City of Mounds View purchased the parcel located at 2625 Highway 10 in 1995 as a
means to remove a blighted and nuisance structure. Since that time, it has been marketed
for development by the City as a commercial use. While there have been two proposals
submitted which would incorporate this parcel, neither were approved.
The Mounds View Animal Hospital has been operating at the Silverview Plaza since 1988.
They were issued a Conditional Use Permit as required by City Code for veterinary clinics
in the B-2 district. The Animal Hospital currently leases 2,000 square feet and they need
substantially more room to effectively operate their business and meet the needs of their
customers. Their new facility will provide the needed space while allowing them to remain
in the community.
Discussion
The proposed site for the new facility is an irregularly shaped fot recently rezoneci B-2,
Limited Business. The prope�ty is adjacent to the Sifver Lake Commons apartments to
#he narth, a residential neighborhood to the east, and the Mounds View Square shopping
center to the south. County Highway 1 a borders the property to the west.
i_ _ _ _ __ _
t =:: •�
�
,.: .- ..
�;
Mounds View Animal Hospital Dev. Review
August 15, 2001
Page 2
Dimensional ReQUirements
Building Setbacks:
Front (Co. Hwy. 10):
Front (Eastwood}:
Side (NW):
Parking Lot Setbacks:
Front (Co. Rd. I.):
Front (Eastwood}:
Side {NW):
Required
30 feet
30 feet
20 feet
12 feet*
5 feet*
5 feet
Proposed:
57 feet
35 feet
20 feet
12 feet
5.5 feet
5.5 feet
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
" These requirements are as allowetl by Resolution 665-01, a resolution approving a variance for reduced
parking lot setbacks.
Parkin
According the City Code, Section 1121.13, animal hospitals require three (3} spaces plus
one (1 } space for each one hundred seventy five (175} square feet of floor area. The
applicant's proposed facility would be 5,086 gross square feet, and 4,317 square feet of
usable space, which is typically useci for calculating parking spaces. This calculation
eliminates the width of exterior walls and mechanical areas within the structure. The
required parking, based on usable square feet, is twenty=seven {27} spaces. As shown on
the site plan, twenty-seven (27) spaces would be provided.
Access
As shown on the site plan, two {2) access points to the site are proposed. One is located
on Eastwood Road and the other on County Highway 10. At a previous Planning
Commission hearing, residents indicated that the additional traffic entering and exiting the
site on Eas#wood Road would negatively affect the neighborhood. Their desire was to
eliminate the access point on Eastwood Road and only allow access from County Highway
10. The applicants have addressed this issue by indicating that a mi�imal amount of
appointments can be made at one time, thus limiting the amount of traffic to the site at a
given time.
Staff feels that the access point on Eastwood Road is important since the access point on
County Highway 10 would only allow right-inl right-out traffic. The Eastwood Road entrance
would ailow customers to use the traffic light at County Road i for safe access to and from
the site. The only concern staff has iu e� f�omeone to fhefo he wh ch may e cour�age c�ut
to each other. There is a straight ro
through traffic from Eastwood Road to County Highway 10. A more indirect route through
the parking lot may discourage cut-through traffic or at least minimize the speed of this type
of traffic.
Mounds View Animal Hospital Dev. Review
August 15, 2001
Page 3
Li�c hti�Cn .
The build'+ng elevation drawings depict the location of light fixtures on the exterior of #he
proposed building. The site plan, however, does not show any other lighting on the site.
The City Code does not require lighting in parking areas, but may be beneficial if the
proposeci lighting on the structure does not adequatefy provide light for the parking areas.
Staff would recommend that if parking lot lighting is utilized, either through the proposed
building lights or additional parking lot lights, that it be consistent with the City Code
pertaining to lighting and glare (Chapter 1103.49 of the Zoning Code).
Draina e �
The site currently has a iow-lying area that catches runoff from adjacent properties, mainly
from the southern portion of the Silver Lake Commons apartments. Development of the
site wilf alter the current flow of water, so it is imperative that a proper drainage system be
put in place to handle additional water runoff from the increased impervious surFaces as
weEl as existing runoff from adjacent properties.
According to #he grading plan, the site wiH continue to provide a water detention pond at
the southernmost portion of the property. The parlcing Iot is shown to be constructed with a
slight slope to drain stormwater away from the building and into areas of pervious
greenspace and the pond on the site. This is a technique encouraged by Rice Creek
Watershed District and consistent with its best management practices" philosophy. The
' arkin lot is equipped with a spiliway to'a11ow water to flow to the pond without being
P 9
impeded by the curb along the perimeter af the parking area. Water from the Silver Lake
Commons wip likely run along the common property line ta areas of pervious greenspace
along Highway 10, given the grading of the area immeciiately north of the proposed
building. Rice Creek Watershed District does not need to review this development as it fa11s
we11 below the minimum acreage threshold.
Landscaainq
According to the proposed site plan, several mature trees will be removed. The applicants,
however, have indicated that they will save alf remaining trees that are not located in the
proposed parking areas or building footprint, which would be approximately sixteen {16)
mature trees. The applicants wi11 also be adding ten (10} potentialla shrubs around the
perimeter of the structure and six (6) Hosta shrubs around the base of the proposed sign
located along County Highway 10. The City Forester will review the plantings to ensure
compatibility with Mouncls View soils and make recommendations if necessary. All non-
landscaped pervious areas shall be sodded.
According to Chapter 1121.09, Subd.12 of the Zoning Code, "al1 open, non-residential, off-
street �arking areas of five (5) or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from
abutting or surrounding residential districts in compliance with Subdivision 1103.08(6) of
this Ti#le." The property line adjacent to the Silver Lake Commons is proposed to contain
six {6) parking spaces, which would require compliance with this provision. The City Code
allows two {2} options for screening. (1 } a fence, which must comply with the provisions
established in Section 1103.a8, or (2) a greenbelt planting strip, which must comply with
;
Mounds View Animal Hospital Dev. Review
August 15, 2001
Page 4
Seciion 1103.08 Subd. 6(a). While staffwould prefer a more natural buffer, the drawback is
that it would take years to fully screen the parking area when a fence would provide for
immediate screening. In this case, input from adjacent residents would be helpful.
Buildinq Exterior
The building exhibits an aesthetically pleasing, context-sensitive residential appearance.
Materials to be used include brick on the lower portion of the walls, vinyl siding on the
remainder of the wall, and steel panel roofing. Elevation drawings wil{ be available #or
viewing at the meeting on August 15.
Sinae
The applicants are proposing two wal! signs and one ground sign for their facility. The
ground sign will consist of 200 square feet and be located on the southern portion of the
property, approximately twenty (20) feet from the property line. The sign meets the
maximum allowed sign area of 200 square feet and meets the setback requirement of
fifteen (15} feet. �
The two wall signs will be located on the southwest and southeast sides of the building,
respectively. The efevation drawings show the location of the signs, but do not show the
size of fhe signs. Each sign may be a maximum of 1 QD square feet in area. The applicants
,� should address the sign area at the meeting. _
Recommendation
The Planning Commission should review the issues presented in this report and consider
the impacts to adjoining properties and the community as a whole. If the Planning
Commission believes it has received sufficient information from staff, residents and the
applicant, it may act on Resolution 670-01, a resolution recommending approval of the
development review for the Mounds View Animal Hospital. If the Planning Commission
feels that the applicants have not adequately addressed these issues, they should table
the review until the next meeting to allow the ap{�licants time to provide more information to
satisfy the Commission. �
Jim Atkinson
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan with Landscape Features
3. Site and Utility Plan
4. Grading Pfan
5. Resolution 670-�1
i
� ; _ �
City of II� ounds Vi�v� - Lo�ati on 1�1 ap
� �����
`� M�M■ �� ■�M�i s�r� �s ■■■ �■■ ■��s�
� _. _�_� _--- --- -. ■■ ■
� r�r �� �I
�� � � �
. � ��� .�
+ � ���4
r } �._ �����
�
� 1
� ��
�� �
�■1� }
��
�
�r
�
��
A�� �
■ �� �
■ f� �
5 Hiqhw
�
, .. .
�..
�::
� s
�ii
�
�i
1 ■■
� ���
`i� �
■��� �
Maunds Uiew Animal Hospital
Kevin Barcus and Bruce Schnable
Property Involved: 2625 Highway 10
Variance
Rlanning Case Na. VRQ1-008
- 262� Highway 10
,� �"; Praperties 1Nithin 350'
i
M�UNDS V1EW PLANNING COMMISSION
� RESOLUTION NO. 670-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REQUEST FOR AN ANIMAL HOSPITAL LOCATED AT 2625 COUNTY HEGHWAY 10;
PLANNING CASE NO. DE01-003.
WHEREAS, Dr. Bruce Schnabel and Dr. Kevin Barcus of the Mounds View Animal
Hospitak, have applied for a development review to construct a 5,�86 square foot animal
hospi#al at2625 County Highway �0; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned B-2, Limited Business, and is legally
described as folfows;
Spring l.ake Park Hr!lview
Subjecf to Highway; Lot T8
_:; h WHEREAS, according to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code,
-� . any new construction or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval af a
development review; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1114.02 0# the Mounds View Zoning Code,
animal hospitals are a conditional use within the B-2 zoning districts; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed #he following documen#s
regarding this proposal:
a. Planning A�plication
b. Location Map
d. Site Plan with Landscape Features
e. Site and Utility Plan
f. Grading Plan
g. Elevation Drawings
h. {nterior F1oor Plan
i. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the proposed development satisfies the requirements of Zoning
Code as welk as the variance approved on July 18, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, the site plans date-stamped August 2, 2001 indicate that the
proposed office building will be 93 feet by 54 with a footprint of 5,086 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the number of parking stalis provided (25 regular, 2 handicapped,
27 total} satisfies the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the
°. __ _
,
, ,
i >�,.�
. ... _ � .- : : :: .-_...
. .,.,- . . ... . . .. .
... . ; . . .: ' ' _'�',". ',_-:; ' . . _. .-..
.. . ._ t . .."_"' .. .
.. . ..., ' '"__. .- ......'__'
MVAH Resolution 670-01
August 15, 2001
Page 2
_ __. .. . . . ...,...
. . . . ± . . .. _ .
reguirements in the Zoning Cocie; and,
NOW THEREF�RE BE fT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission, finding tF�a# all of the requirements have been met, does hereby
recommend tha# the City Council approve the development review request for the
construc#ion of a 5,086 square foot animal hospital located at 2625 County H+ghway 10,
subject to the following stipulations:
1. The applicant shail obtain a permit from Ramsey County for any and all work to
be performed within the Highway 10 right of way, including but not limited to the
proposed access drive onto Highway 10. �
2. All utilities to the building shall be installed underground
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that ihe Mounds View Planning Commission
directs Staff to forward this Resoiufion to the City Council prior to approval of the
minutes.
Adopted this 15th day of August, 2001.
.=-� ; ,
ATTEST:
(SEAL}
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
James Ericson, Community Development Director
i
�
;
____
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMI��SSION
September 5, 2001 -- 7:�0 P.M.
REGULAR MEETIl�TG
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAI�NG, PLEASE COME TO TI� PODIUM,
AND GNE YOUR FULL NAME AND A.DDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
4. Planning Case VR�1-009
Consideration of a Variance Request from the minimum lot width requirement for a
proposed subdivision of the property located at 2525 County Road I
Applicant: Neal Zinser/Emie Gustafson
5. Planning Case DE01-004
Discussion regarding a development review request to expand ti�e existing biliboard
located on City-owned property north of County Highway 10, south of Walgreen's.
Applicant: Clear Channel Qutdoor
6. Discussion and review of Section 1006A6 of the Mounds View City Code pertaining to
r-::
development controls
7. Consideration of a Resolution removing Travis Cerny from the Planning Commission due
to non-attendance
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED.
PLEASE NOTIFY THE CONIlVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT
7b3-717-0Q21 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
8. Staff Reports
a. Previous Council Action: August 27, 2001
b. Brian Kaden
9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
10. Next Planning Commission Meeting: September 19, 2001
11. Adjoumment to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1 1. Review Minutes from June b, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
2. Review Minutes from August 1, 2001 Planning Cornmission Meeting
N:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�Planning Cormnission�PCAGENDA12001\September 5, 2001 PC Agenda.doc
,. - _
, _ ,
�5. �
�
Item# 4
City of Mounds View
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: September S, 2001
Title: PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A
VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED MINIMUM LOT
WIDTH FOR A PROP4SED LOT AT 2525 COUNTY ROAD I;
PLANNING CASE NO. VRO1-009
Introduction:
Mr. Ernie Gustafson, owner of land located at the northeast corner of Long lake Road and County
Road I, has requested approval of a variance to allow for a reduced minimum lot width for a proposed
lot within a yet-to-be-submitted major subdivision. Neal Zinser of Hamilton Creek Companies has
entered into a purchase agreement for the land and now will be handling the request. The properties
are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, although the City Council on July 9 approved the
first reading of Ordinance 683, an ordinance which would rezone two of the proposed five lots of the
yet-to-be-submitted major subdivision from R-1 to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential.
- Discussion:
The Planning Commission discussed this request at the August 1, 2001 meeting. One of the main
concems articulated at the meeting was ihe lack of a clear understanding of what the applicani was
proposing. A good site plan was not provided, thus making it difficult to determine a hardship and
grant the requested variance., The Planning Commission directed Staff to work with the applicant to
either better define the request or fmd an alternative to the requested variance.
The City Code requires that corner lots have a minimum width of l OQ feet. As shown on the site plan,
proposed lot #3 wauld have 95 feet of frontage along County Road I, five (5) feet less than the
minimum required. The reason for the variance request is due to the location of the existing house on
the property. If the proper lot width were maintained for the proposed lot #3, the existing house would
not comply with the required side yard setback. Mr. Zinser, however, has informed staff that a survey
of the property shows that the existing house would still be located within the side yard setback even
with the requested five {5} foot variance. Therefore, Mr: Zinser has modified the request from a five
(5) foot variance to a six (6) foot variance, even though the site plan shows the original request.
Although the request is the same, the applicant's approach to the proposed subdivision has changed
slightly. The original reason for the variance was so lot #4 would meet the rr�imum lot width
requirements for an R-2 zoning designation, thus creating more value for the land and greater profit
for the applicant. This reason directly conflicted with the criteria for granting a variance, specifically
that economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Now, the zoning of Iot#4 is not an
issue. Since entering into a purchase agreement for the land, (minus ihe parcel for Mr. Gustafson) Mr.
Zinser has indicated that the zorung for lot #4 would not affect this proposal. Instead, both Mr. Zinser
Variance Request
September 5, 2001
Page 2
and Mr. Gustafson feel that since Mr. Gustafson wilI remain in his existing house, it is important to
maintain the proper side-yard setback for the house.
A detailed site plan has been prepared so the Planning Commission can have a clear understanding of �
what is being proposed. Included on the site plan are building footprints that demonstrate that a house
will fit comfortably on the proposed lot #3 with the reduction in frontage along County Road I.
For this variance to be approved, as with any variance request, there needs to be demonstrated
substantial hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal
interpretatian of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require
that the governing body {the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria for each
apglication and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in
Section 1125,Q2, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when
all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria are as follows:
a. Ezcepiional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and resutt from lot size or
shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since
the effective date hereof have had no control.
The location af Mr. Gustafson's house creates a unique situation by preventing the proposed -
lot #3 from complying with the minimum lot width requirement established in the City Code. ''�
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly en joyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
Title.
If the house did not exist in its current Iocation, the applicant would be able to subdivide the
properiy without need for a variance. The location of the house, however, prevents a
subdivision of the property without a variance.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applrcant.
The house was built long before the subdivision was considered and the location was not
chosen by the applicant.
d. That granting the Variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other Iands, structures or buildings in
the same district.
If the house were located slightly to the east, the subdivision would not require a variance for
the corner lot and could be completed in compliance with City Codes. The location of the
house creates a unique situation that would not normaliy be present on other properties. _.
,.- .
Variance Request
September 5, 2001
Page 3
,
e. Tk�at the Variance requested is the minimum variance which would allev�ate the
hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
The variance requested is the minimum amount ta maintain the minimum setback requirement
for the existing house. Economic reasons are no Ionger the primary reason for the requested
vanance.
f. The Variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
Since a unique situation is present on the property, the variance would not be detrimental to
the purpose of the Title or to other property in the same zone.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the cangestion of the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
valaes within the neighborhood.
The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects.
_='� f Recommendation:
Based on new information from the applicant, including detailed site plans with building footprints, it
appears there may be sufficient hardship and praciical difficulty associated with the location of the
house to warrant approval of the variance requested. The applicant has also demonstrated that a house
would fit on the proposed, lot #3 and comply with all setback reqnirements. The Planning
Commission, however, should discuss these criteria and allow the applicant to comment on the
proposal befoze coming to any conclusions. Staff has prepared Resolutian 672-01, a resolution
approving the requested variance. If the Planning Commission feels that ihe new information has
satisfied the criteria for granting the variance, then they may act on the resolution.
Jim Atkinson
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map
2. Subdivision Map
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV1Development Cases\VRO1-009 (Gustafson)1Variance Report - September 5, 2001,doc
-
EXHIBIT A
ZONING MAP
� f� — �` �' . � I _ . ._ c� . cv �'� ` t*y , � - - - � � �y t., �- tv �. � 1..�
�
i
� : +� ; ,� ,� . . _, � �
S90 ?885 � � 78f� 78�5 ,�r`�' u�, �'."� ,�°a : r�n �88
re . c�,� , . _ �,,, c�,;�, � � ,� 7889 :' 7$8�
, ._ .... _. _ ,.
, . _. ... ... . .
-I
�7U� 7869 ,. 78�� � ! �$78 7$75 . �8$�
8�6�' . ; - 7�55
� �852 � �. _,.. ,
E�5{� 7$� . . .. .., f,,,� _ _. .. ,F�. . r 7�7(3 7$81 785�
5 78tE� � 7$�#1 � ; � • _. -- =
p r _._
..._._ ... . . ..... .. .. ' .. :.... � ...m.::.. .. '. L '." t. . . .. �4J��ST - ,
3�0 7835 7���i ��29 , � .�..� .. _ . 7��F7 7��C
_......_ . .
. . . _ _ ._ . . . . _ .. _ _..
,
78�� i817 �:.i 7�2d � �833 ?$3�
781 � :_ . . __ �L.. .
_ .. , . .. __.,
7�C? ._
_.
� . .. .. ,_
,
� 78Q5 7 7${� 7� 01.. . . , . '_784 .. � �815 , 781 �
.__ . _: _ ,., .._.
- - .. .__ , ...
770 � 78[3� 77f�0 7�'9�' � _.,_ . V7$�C
. . � . .. . _. _ .. � ��s� . . , . . � Gustafson .
rs�. � ��o .._ .. ;���c
� Sham-o�et A^ Y���� � .� Properties ,-... ....�.
,�� �� . . � :. _. �i��a
�
. Dog Kennel __ . 7T�7 :_. . ,.._�.__ _�..:, .
.� : �. e ,4 ,__..._.._� , .F .. _ .,_
F�' 7 _ � 77�3 : ; �7�8 '�72�'i7,��
. _ . .:. :..._..�.,
�3�} 7�27 � 7?�0 --..�_.�. __ .,.. 7��8 i714 772�0
----��- ----
'1� 7�17 � 7'��4? 7��9:7i��
� � ,�,� � us � .., _
�,- ,�-
� .._ .,.�._- _ ..... .._: _ �
� � ���, �7d30 �n �; `� � 774� ;,77{?�
� _ � .�, ..� : 'n�, �
�
_.._ cv _ , ___. �
�� �' �c'�au�'i�?� 2����
c�� � ��.vc��c�v 2�5�1
� Moundsview ����
Square ��''��
25��
�"'"'�` ���i
25,��
25��'
; c*a �t : u>
� � � ►� : N �F'
� �.�
�- �- �
7$G� ;7i3fiQ �
� �#
' 78.�7 7��
� � .._.
7845 �7$_4 � 7t
7837 ;7$3 � .7�
�8�7 7�2
T81 T ° F :�:: .
. _.._. �_.
�
�so� �-.. . ....�
,�?�3 � . s: '��
_ , . . ., �_�
7?4� '3�� -� �
7�317'�`3 �
7?�'� �7�2^ � �-
770 � '�L�3 7:
�� �� __
�
1
;::;_ =:.::;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANIVING COMMISSION
RESOLUTI�N NO. 672-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST' MADE BY ERNEST GUSTAFSON AND
NEAL ZINSER FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIX-FOOT REDUCTION IN TI3E
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQiJI1tEMENT FOR A PROPOSED LOT AT 2525 COUNTY
ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. VROl-009
WHEREAS, Neal Zinser, on behalf of the property owner Ernest Gustafson, has applied
for a variance to allflw for a 94-foot wide proposed lot at the northeast corner of Long Lake Road
and County Road I; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed lot is legally described as follows:
The West 95 feet of Lot 10 and the West 95 Feet of the South 25 Feet of Lot 9, Greenfield,
Ramsey County, State ofMinnesota
WHEREAS, the minimum lot width for a comer lot in the R-1, Single Family
Residential District is 100 feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Planriing Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
1. Zoning Map
2. Proposed Subdivision Plan
3. Staff Report
WHEREA5, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on
August 1, 2001; and,
WAEREAS, the purpose of the Variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to
property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship
thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by
unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's
control; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all
must be satisfied, in order to grant a Variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request:
Resolution 672-OI
Page 2
1.
2.
3.
The proposed lot at the northeast comer of Long Lake Road and County Road I is
zoned R-1, Single Family Residential.
The minimum lot wid�h for a corner R-1 lot is 100 feet.
The location of the existing house on the property creates an extraordinary or special
condition on the property, which would create a hardship or practical difficulty.
4. The literal interpretation of the Code would deprive Mr. Gusiafson of rights
commonly enj oyed by other properties in the same district. If not for the location of
the house, the applicant could subdivide the property in compliance with City Codes.
��
0
Granting a variance in this case would not confer a speczal privilege not enjoyed by
other property owners.
Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public
hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby approve khe variance request for a ,. �
reduced minimum lot width for a proposed lot at the northeast corner of Long Lake Road and -- -
County Road I.
Adopted tl�is Sfih day of September, 20Q1.
Attest:
(Seal)
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
James Ericson, Community Development Director
N:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDEVIDEVELOPMENT CASES1VR01-009 (GUSTAFSO]V)1RE3pLUTION 672�O1,DOC
I
��z.�L��vt�.�v�.��,y ��.��
L_
�
�
1
�
�
� l
y `1
�
�
1
1
L� _
�
I
I
�
I
- — — J
3—�---
I
�
g
�
t �
�
�
�
/
�
1 ��
,
r
1 i
�
TYPICAL EASEMENTS�
TYPlCAL ORAIfVAGE dc U7ILITY EASEMENi
i STREET t
` 10.�0 J � � + ` 10.00
��
s.oa�
� s. o0
to.00 � � to.00
___�_J L-- �--
t REAR LINE i
BEING 10 fEET IN `M�7H AOJOINING STREET
LINES AND NEAR !OT IJNES. AND 5 FEET
ADJOINING SIOE LOT LINES UNLESS
OTNEFNnSE SHOKN ON THE PLAT.
� _
/ ,
NORTH
GRAPHIC 3CALE
y w
( DI !af )
1 ICeh + YO Il
•r----�
LBCAL DESCR/PTION: (PROVIDED BY CLISNT}
I '�'0"K LoG 8 and 10, a�nd tha SoutA Aal,f aj Lo! 8,
4` —� GRb'ENFfELD ADDfTlON, Ra»vey Cou�raty, Xinnaao ia
� rrrK `��--i
� I i �'al�i{
I I I1
1
�-812 i � _
V �� W
�
' � �\, ` �4.729 aq.11. w 1.95 ocrea
V
S1 �� � IiB76 aq.lt. ar 0.29 aaea
+ ` � 2i.409 a4.ft, or 0.51 ac�s
4\ II t �
\�
1 �DENT7AL) YROPOSED L0T5 1 7NRt/ 4
`� � yy,,'' TIAL) PFQPOS£D LOT 5 NO FlELD WORN HAS BEEN DONE PflIOR TO
r Sp�{- PREPARA710N OF 7HI5 PAFJ.f1IINARY PU7.
S�a +
ENpAfEEqJMG
yrny, plan or ropo� �as prapar•d
wp�rvi+ian and Mot I om a AWy
Ir Ihe lar� ol M� alal� af 4lnneeeYa.
',r zao�
I
j :una� ++o. t77a5 URAIW 97: .Y9 ,ps Nm �se.00i o��e a e�ai
� ancu er. nr� owe uv. 7aami sktFr- e e� r
�- SW COflNFA SFC 4 1MV b, RNO tl
/
un o�� ucsrnw� er
—r----'—��� �ois 30 �i
.o Ft�r
( � � EASEM£NTS N1U- 8E PAOVIDEP AS = T�O
1 JJJ
`� _ � -. IAIm 9URYSYR�1(3
' � — � . R FN04�II'14
�i.ti.�\� ', 412 P�al Couni� Re�d 0. lJUla C�nadti IW 35117
Y T�I.pha�u:(e6l)7eE-D112 Res(��)76E-0612
�` �, i.� rrmelY � rnl�m�lro�.eom
_
.. _ . .. : . _
_ _ �: ,; � ..
_._ . _
- =----. -_, ,=-.. .:. .:
_ __.. .-- - -- -: -.. r: . -- --
�
-. , ,
, .. ,
;..:. . � -------- --
.... , �,. ;:._------ -- _: -- -
4`
Item # 5
City of Mounds Vietiv
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date; September 5, 2001
Title:
DISCUSSION REGARDING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST BY CLEAR
CHANNEL �UTDOOR TO EXPAND THE EXISTING BILLBOARD LOCATED ON CITY-
OWNED PROPERTY; PLANN[NG CASE DE01-004 -
Introduction:
Chris McCarver, representing Clear Channel Outdoor, owner of the billboard ]ocated on city-
owned land on the north side of County Highway 10, is requesting approval of a development
review to permit an expansion of the billboard from 300 square feet to G72 square feet. Clear
Channel owns a permanent lease far the 40-square feet upon which the sign is located. To
expand the sign, an additional easernent or lease area would need to be negotiated. The property
is the former Midland Videen land that the City acquired through its land swap with TOLD
Development Company. The property on which the sign is located is zoned PF, Public Facilities.
Discussion:
According to the City's recently adopted Sign Code, the billbaard is a legal, nonconforming sign.
Section lOQ8.13, Subd. 1 of tl�e Code states the following:
"Structural alterations, enlargement or re-erection are permissible only where such
alterations would not increase the degree of the nonconformity of the sign."
City staff, supported in opinion by the City Attorney, interprets this to indicate that the sign can
be enlarged because the degree of nonconformity remains unchanged with an expansion. The
nonconformity is based not on the size of the sign or its setback, but rather its location. It is
nonconforming ONLY because it is not located north of new Highway 10. The zoning is proper
and the size would be in compliance. (Billboards are only permitted in a PF or PUD zoning
district, up to 700 square feet.)
As part of the expansion, Clear Channel proposes significant 3andscape irnprovements arounci the
site and would bury the electric service, thus allowing for the removal of a utility pole. The
expansion would include the construction of a rock and brick base to add an aes�hetic
enhancement to the corridor, in a fashion similar to the base of the new Walgreens sign and that
of Wynnsong Cinema.
_ i
Billboard Expansion Request
September 5, 2001
Page 2
Recommendation:
At this point, City staff is simply requesting that the Planning Commission discuss this request to
determine whether the proposed expansion would be consistent with the City's long range
corridor pZans and whether the benefits of the aesthetic improvements would outweigh the
imposition ofthe expansion.
Tf it is determined that an expansion would be consistent with the City's long term corridor plans
and would he in the City's best interest, three issues would need to be addressed:
1. Wetland Alteration Pennit would be required.
2. An easement or lease agreement would need to be approved for expansion area.
3. A development agreement or lease contract would need to be executed.
Staff would anticipate that formal consideration by the Planning Commission regarding this
request will occur on Septe►nber 5, 2001.
�JQ.�4g C-f�.C-C�.Gn.
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Applicant Staiement
3. Zoning Map
4. Site Plan (Separate Attachment)
5. Sign Elevation (Separate Attachment)
C:IWINN'I1ProfilesUime\Favorites\Cnmm Dev Sluf7lClear ChanneE Report - Sepl 5, 2001.doc
, ; ,
;.
,_-- _:: . .,.. :
Z4N I N G MAP
S �( � V
, (� r`�
et r ��
� ��
t'�J �:� !
/
���
��
��
I ���
�� f.
�I . . _
! ����
��{J' i
I
��
��1�Y ��'� � �
��c��
- - ��
��
1
����' �cJJ�
�5�� � `r ���
��f�� �54�
F
�J��FJ '
�F ��� �
����
Community Center ��� U��
� —�_ s��� �
f :.� _ �__ � .
` � , ��fi5
�� � � � ;
r� ���F
��vy r
. . C � � � , f� ✓�� 1 4'� .
� Walgreens �� Clear Channel ,1 - � .
�
��
���
� � C� � d tiI7 � �1 ``� �
*,� � $ -t °' ' �
4V N fil r J �'�� � �`"`
�iJ
J�s,�
r �^�
+���� .�: �
Biilboard �'� � �
Location '� ,��� �, ti �
. � �~+ �f� �� �J1
�
y ��� � � ���� .
, � �i�, � ��
v-�.�_ s � f � ��
� ' ��� ����,
�`3-, "$,��� 52�1:
:���_ ,;/�,t. ��� _
'`,� J � �� . �, 52�5 G�
�� �
� W;
� �
�� �
- - _.. --- -- -
08/08/01 1b:34 FAX 612 784 3462 CITY OF MV
�ITY OFj
A
;•
P
.
��'
'r i��
.s
o�r�s'�' Farrne���4
_ i _
�1002/005 ,
COMMUNITY DEVE�OPMENT DEPARTMEI�
PLANNING qppLiCATlON
2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55i12
{7b3) 717�OZp
Fax (b51} 765-i6fi0
Pltase 7ype or Fri�t In�orrnadon - Complebe goth 9ides of This �orm
Appllcant Intormativn �/
Name vf Appllcant w� Teleahone �'Z �I—`G�
Address • •
� Fax �� L �'o�r�
. � t3
interes'� in Prop�Ky (che�k aPproP�� box)
� owner of property t�s�
0 Lessee, Opp,rdto�, Manager
4 Other (explain)
O ContTact for Deed 4wner
❑ Agreement to Pnrchase
Applirants rt�ust pravlde evidence of ir�er�est i� property at the time of applicatian, and if you are not J
the owner of tlse praperly, you must prvvide a letter of permissioe from the owner givinq consent to "
the filing of this appllca4oa. The property owner mu�t sign this appliwbon for it to be acoepted,
PrvRer�Y �es�ipiion/Propasal
Addrpss or General Lnr,�tion
L.egal Descrlptlon
Property Identifimbon # (PIN #)
# of AQes
Current Zoning
�
�'YPe of Appliotion
O Camprehensive Ptan Amendment
❑ Rpzoning
❑ Major 5ubdivision
❑ Minor Subdivision
❑ planned U�it Development (PUD}
O PUD Amendment
❑ Conditional/Interim Use Permit
� Varlanoe °
❑ Cade Appeal
❑ Develop Review/Site Plan
O Wetland Alberation Permit
❑ wetland Buffer Permit
C7 Floodplain Permit
❑ Other
�250
�250/ave (Min $Z50 max $15�0)
�?SO/aQe (min. $500)
$208
�500 plus $500/acre
�350
R i, R-z $100; all othe�s
R-1, R-2 $I08 all ers $300
;100
#!25/aQe; min $i75 max �750
R-1, R z$150; all okhers �200
R-1, R-Z $25; a1! others $].00
$ZAO
A deposle may be required to oover cost•, o� public no��es, ma�nais and �ff or consultant Gme spent in U�e rtview, RSeard� ar
Dreparadon oF inaterlals asoda6ed wlth qtls appliotion. The applimnt s�al! be responstble for all reasqnable inwrred tosts in �ess oF
the lnitlef deppsit amount My portlon or tl�e Qeposit not spent or �alrrtibered shall be refLinded Go tl1e appllcant witfiln 30 �ays al�r
conslderadan of the applicatlan Is completed.
_
,.-.-,.- ' 09/98/O1 ._. .15:3' --
4 FA% 812 784 3462 CITX OF MV '
Planning Applica#ion
Present Use of Property
OUndeveloped/V�cant ❑
Duplex/Two Fami�y Dwelling p
❑ 8usiness/Commerclal Establishment O
CI Other (explainj •
Page 2
Singte Family owelling
Multl-famiiy Dwelfing
Industrial Fstabllshment
Property GassifiotJon ❑ Abstract O Torrens
Descipt3on of Propasal - �
BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON TtiIS APPLICATION, I
�avow�o�E, THF INFORMATION PROVIDFD-�S TR�
Signature of Applicant
Name of Ap�l[cant (typed/printPd)
Signatur�e of Properly Owner
Name oF Property Owner {type4/p�int,ed)
Address af Qwner
Phone Number of Owner
THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY
��(;.t �a-{r
� 00�/005
*�:****��......�****��«*����******�*��*��****�***�***���*:��*******�
oR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date oP Submittal , '1 - � �
Date af AmeptanCe Assigned to:
planning �se No. 60-day Limit 120-day Ilmit •
Fees Paid:
#
AppliC3tion: � 1 � �• � �
Park Dedica#ion:
Deposits: _
Other:
Totai: _ i �,;�r1'o��
Aac+ount #
Check #
Recelpt
ir�s
ATTACHMENT TO THE APPLICATION 4F
CLEAR CHANNEL QUTDOOR, INC.
HWY 10 AND EDGEW04D
A. Descriptipn
Clear Channel Outdaor pr�pases to replace its present 12 ft x 25 ft poster panel bilIboard at this
lc�cation ���ith a 14 ft x 4S Ft painted bulletin t��pe billboard, The ne��� billboard wouId be the same
height above �racie a�s the present billboard, but �vould extend an adciit�onal 2� ft to the rear, a�tiay
from Hwy 10. As part of this proposal, Clear Channel proposes significant enhancements to the
structure, improvements an its site and landscaping of acijacent Ciry owned propei-ty. The changes
are proposed tu respond to the changed enrzronment as viewed from the roadw�ay and along the t�•ail
khat has been created by the recent private and especiaily the public improvements, the trail itselF, the
decorati�•e lighting and pond and open space, in the vicinity.
The replacement si;n faces would con�inue to be supported b}i a single pole. Vie�ved fiom the
roadv��ay they �s�ill be si�ruficantly° more horizontai in format. In addition, the sign �vil� be � isually
anchared by a"V" shaped, 5 ft t�ll, brick wall directly beneath each sign face, see Che proposecl
sign elevation and proposed site plan. A brick walI, articulated by the rock face base, soldier couise
and masonry cap, was ehosen to respond to the more formal and more constrained sense of space
that is found aiong Hwy 1Q Ehan, fo�• e:�ample, alang H4vy 610 at the Bridges GoIf� Course site. The
use of bz�ick atso recalls the base of the adjacent Wall�reens fi-eestanding sign, and the bas� of the
. , '1
Wynnsong Cinemas freestanding sign directly across H�vv 10_ __.
The area surrounding the wall, and extending to the path, wiIl be planted and maintained by an
upland �vetland wild flo«er mix. Service to the sign `�•ill be via an installed "Turf Grid"
stabilization systern which �vill also be planted and maintained with the t���ild flower mi�. The
appearance of the site will be'improt�ed by burying the elect�•ical seivice to the sign, allo�z�ing the
removal of at least one utility pole and tu��o segments of overhead ��ire. The pianting of a four to six
ft tall buffer of wetland shrubs along the back of the site �i�ill provide interest for trail usei� and
provide a tiansition to the present poplar t�ee backdr�p of the site. Clear Channel Outdoor has
made a request to the City to expand its easement and for permission to extend the proposed
landscaping to the acljacent City property.
B. Cai�ditions that peimit approval
1. Since Clear Channel Outdoor obtained its easement and conshvcted the present sign, significant
new private improvements and especially� public improvements, over which Clear Channel Outdoor
had no cnntrul, have changed the en��ironment of the �7cinity, especially the establishment oi' the trail
and decoratir•e lighting that enhances its use, and �t�hich invites more pedestrian traffic near the base
of the sign.
_. .
Clea�- Channel autdocx-, Inc. -
H�vy 10 and Edget�ood
Page T��o
?. Absent the rec�uested vaiianc:e to permit the extension of the sign faces, Clear Channel Outcloor
will be unable to impra��e its sri�cture and its site to respond to nerv environment that has been
estaUlished by° the recent public and private investments.
3. While we are initiating the proposed changes and impravements, they are initiated in response to
the recent public and private improvements surrounding the site.
4. We believe this is the only presently existing billtx�ard in a Public Facilities dist�•ict.
5. Billboards are standardized, and dimensions of these replacement faces must be consistent «-ith
the standard 14 ft � 48 ft dimension af all other face,s in our system. The requestecl variance is the
minimum that v��ill allo�v the installation of the more hoiizontal format and the pmposed
complementary' site irr►pror�ements. The alternative is ettending the present condition over the veiy
long term.
6. The requested variance, and the site impro��ements it will permit, will create a new and more
, compatible relationship for the use and enjoyment of the surrounding properties.
7. The repla.cement billboard, like the gresent billboard, has no impact on Ehese conditions.
August 17, 2001 ;
�
: ._ . . . _ .__ _. .. . i. . .. ;. . . __ _ ____ _______ ____ . . .. .. . . �. .
i' .. . �
_
_
Item # 6
City of Mounds View
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: September S, 2001
Title: DISCUSSIONAND REVIEW OFSECTIDN 1006.06 OF THEMDUNDS VCEW
CITY CODE PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
Introduction:
Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the section of City Code that relates to
development controls. This section of City Code is outdated and poses some potential problems
concerning the requirements for entering into a development contract.
Discussion:
The questions that should be addressed include but are not limited to the following:
1. What type and e�ent of development should be reviewed by the City?
2. What about major subdivisions with separate builders?
3, What should trigger a development contract?
, 4. Should a public hearing be required?
Sta.i�'s primary concem rests in the requirement for a development review associa.ted with a major
subdivision. Keith Haratad has submitted an application for an eleven-lot subdivision, yet he has
indicated that he would not be the builder. The lots could potentially be developed by eleven
dii�erent builders. Would eleven separate "development reviews" be necessary? Or, if a builder
only builds one lot, would a development review NOT be required? The Code is not clear.
The other concern is that the Code seems to indicate that every time a building permit is reyuired,
a development contract is required. While certainly not the intent of the Code, this requirement
should be clarified to etiminate any potential confusion
Recommendation:
Discuss the requirements and provide direction to staff for a possible Code amendment.
��� ����"h..
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attactiments:
1. Section i 006.06
C:1WII�INT�Pro5lesUime�FavoriteslComm Dev StufflChapter1006 Review - Sept 5, 2001.doc
1006.Ob:
DEVELOPMENT CQNTROLS:
Subd.1. Purpose: It is the intent and purpose of this Section to provide for orderly development of land to
safeguard life, health, safety, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling aII development
within the City. This Section shall be in addition to the requirements of any other provisions of the
Municipal Code regulating such development.
Subd.2. Applicadon of Development Controls: All proposed industrial, commercia� and residential
developments and e�ansions of existing facilities, except developments where public utilities and streets
have previously been insta]Ied and the erection of no more than two (2) detached single-fa.mily dwellings
are planned, must be reviewed by the City Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the City
Council as conformzng to this Section. The term "development", as used hereit� shall mean all
. construction, public and private improvement, expansion or alteration offacilities and land within the City.
Subd. 3. Development Plan:
a. The owner or developer shall submit for review a development plan which sets forth plans for utility
service, surface water draina.ge consistent with the Local Water Management Plan dated February 12,
19901, subject to subsequent revisions, erosion and sediment controI consistent with the Ramsey County
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (1989) prepared by the Ramsey County Soil and Water
Conservation District and subsequent revisions thereto, streets, parking landscaping, screening and
buffering, lighting, setbacks, exterior construction design and materials, trash disposal, constxuction
timetable and such other matters as the Council may requue.
b. The owner or developer shall submit with the developmerrt plan an abstract of title, registered property
report or such supporting affidavits or documents that establish ownership or any other parties ofinterest in
the property involved.
Svbd. 4. Development Contract:
a. A development contract which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements, agreements,
guarantees and plans for the orderly development of said land shall be entered into between the developer
and the Municipality prior to the final approval of any subdivision, rezoning, specia� use pemvtsz, license or
any building permits required for the construction, alteratioq expansion or improvement of said land.
b. Before execution of the development contract, the ovvner or developer shall submit certification from
Ramsey County Department of Taxation �hat all taxes and special assessments due on the property
involved have been paid in full.
c. Said development contract sha1l include provisions for supervision of details of construction by the City
and grant to the City authority to inspect all work performed pursuant to said contract to assure
satisfactory perfo�ce and completion of the work. (Ord. 508, 4-27-92)
1 See Chapter 1302 of this Gode.
Z See Titles 1100 and 1200 of this Code for zoning and subdivision regulations.
�
r
,
;, ,
Item # 7
City of Mounds Iliew
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: September S, 2001
Title: CONSIDERATION OFA RES�LUTIDNREMOVING TRAVIS CERNY
AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER D UE TD NQN-ATTENDANCE
Introduction:
The Planning Commission Bylaws require that commissioners attend no less than 20 meetings per
year. Since the Commission meets twice monthly and 24 times in a year, commissioners are
permitted no more than four unexcused absences in a year.
Discussion:
Mr. Cerny has not attended a Planning Commission meeting since May 2, 2001, and has missed a
total of seven meetings this year out of a total of 15 meetings held. 4nly one of the Mr. Cerny's
absences was excused {April 18, 2001 }. According to the Bylaws then, Mr. Cerny shall be
considered to have vacated his position.
Recammendation:
Approve Resolution b71-01, a resolution approving the removal of Travis Cerny from the
Mounds View Planning Commission in accordance with �he Planning and Zoning Commission
Bylaws due to non-attendance.
�C1l,t�#� �+.�tcC�.
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Meeting Calendar
2. Resolution 671-01
C:\WII�INT�Profdes�Time�F'avarites\Comm Dev Stuff�Commissioner Removal Report - Sept S, 2001.dac
�.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMNIISSION
RES�LUTION NO. 671-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VYEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNES4TA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF TRAVIS CERNY FROM THE
MQUNDS V�W PLANNING COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PLANNING AND ZQNING C4MMISSION BYLAWS, DUE TO NON-ATTENDANCE
WI�REAS, the Bylaws for the Planning and Zoning Commission ("Bylaws") are
reviewed and approved on an annual basis; and,
Wi�REAS, the Bylaws, in Subdivision A of Section IX, sets forth the attendance
requirements for the Commission; and,
WI�REAS, Planning and Zoning Commissioners shall not miss more than four meetings
without the consent of the Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zorzing Commission has thus far held fifteen regularty
scheduled meetings, of which Mr. Cerny has attended eight meetings; and,
WI�REAS, Mr. Cerny has to date missed seven meetings, six of which were unexcused,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that according to the Mounds View Planning
acid Zoning Commission Bylaws, due to the number of unexcused absences and lack of
attendance, Mr. Cerny shall be considered to ha.ve vacated his position on the Planning
Commission. �
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this
resolution to the City CounciI prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this Sth day of September, 2001
Attest:
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
James Ericson, Community Development Director
N:IDATAIGROUPS1COIvIDEVIPIanning CommissionlPCRESOS1Resolution 671-01 Remova! ofTravis Cemy.doc
�
�
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSI4N
CTTY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
� :Reg�lar Meeting
, ; June 6, 2401
Mounds View;Gity Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mov�ds View,;MN 55112 ,
1. Call to Order � -
.�
The mee�ing was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7 00 °p.m., ��'`ui�� �;�00:1,
��
2. Roll Call
Members Present:
Members Excused:
AISO PXeSBTlt:
3.
Commissioners Hegland, Miller',':Ka
Chairperson Stevetison.
Johnson (excused). Cerny (unexcus
C�nmmi mitv" 1 IP[lP�AY1119 PH�'^�1TPl��AY :�
�
s; � _� ; ;
pecial O�der of Bi�saini
a.
Director of Co�m
�;-t;:,,
4'�A I.Sg
��� �:
i,.Zv►�rn, �aiid Scotch and
i.
Planning Associate Atkinson.
� P,
��� . ,,
o��ction of Planuing Associate, Jim Atkinson
�,, _
uuty ISevelopment'Jim Ericson introduced the new Planning Associate, Jim
Index to Minutes ��
�
Planning Case No. ZCOl-001
App�icant: Emie- Gustafson
Lo�ation:: 2525 County Road I
Planning Case No. ZCO1-002
Applicant: Mounds View Anunal Hospital
Location: 2625 Highway 10
Page
2
5
Planning Case No. DE00-002 6
, Applicant: Tony Mezzenga
Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
Location: 7664 Greenfield Avenue
Ptanning Case No. MA01-001 8:
Applicant: Keith Harstad '
Location: Between Silver Lake Road and Longview Drive
4. Approval of Minutes
a. May 2, 2001
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden. To Approve the May:2, 2001� �Vleet�ng,;�Vlinutes as
Presented. �� `�"'
Ayes — 6
carried.
1,��: ,;e:, ,� �
�Aa�' � �#y^ ° ;"�� ��� ��°' ;
5. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items,lVot on fhe����e�d'a
��:` � '
There were no resident comments on iterris not on the agenda �'
, ; : ;,
�"�� � � � ,�a , :
6. Planning Case No. ZCO1 '001 ,�,�a s,,;,
:,
Commutufy,Development pirector�Ericson prese�ted the request to rezone three lots to R-2. He
mentiori`ed,fhe sutidivision p�lan`�hat was.submitted by Mr. Gustafson was shown at the last
meeting. Staff��also subrnitted apl�n that:�zeoriented the lots. If the Planning Coxnmission
approves the request to �ezone, rt inoyes forward to the Council and Staff would suggest that the
R-2 designation lie limited to.the two.lots fronting County Road I.
Director Ericson explamed`wh'en the Planning Commission and City Council discuss a rezoning
rec�u�st, the Comprehensi�e�Plan is taken into consideration. He noted the Compxehensive Plan
is�rfirom 1979 and is being updated.
�;�-`
���Y
Dii�ector Ericson statecl; the area north of Caunty Road I is single family residentiaL If this
zontng request wexe ���proved, and if it was limited to the two lots on County Road I, the impact
.7,:i, ��
v`!o�lc�:be minimal: �"Director Ericson noted that citizens are concerned with some Iess than
� .;�� � �;ti� ,
°p�s��ig+e;�xp��,ences they have had with the twin homes in the area.
Commissioner Hegland noted that at the last meeting, Mr. Gustafson requested that ali the lots be
rezoned. Director of Community Development Ericson explained that Mr. Gustafson is
requesting that three of the four lots be rezoned. One of the lots would not meet the minimum
requirements.
I
i ")
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. :_
� >'J
, : . .:: .. .
Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 3
Jeff Westund, 7720 Long Lake Road, asked if any property is residential, but not zoned
correctly. He added that he is concerned about maintenance. Mr. Westlund stated if the property
owner lives on the property, it seems to be taken care of better
Chair Stevenson acknowledged that maintenance can be a cor�cern and that issue wili be taken
into consideration. 6�; ��� �
Mr. Westlund inquired whether there is a method in place to�control�the maintenance issue: . `
N �
�Y € R
Chair Stevenson explained that this is discussed at the Development �tage. The developer and
the type of home that is being developed can help control the situ�.tion ��Chaiz Stevenson added
that there are nice townhomes in Mounds View.
Mr. Westlund stated there may be an issue of the "doin�o `�ffect". He questioned if apartments
�� -
may be allowed next. '
� 3
Chair Stevenson responded this Commission wouid not consider more than an R-2 designation.
Mr. Westlund questioned that if this area does become three lots, what would the Iimit be for
what could be built. � � �k'�`
Director Ericson explained tliexe are mi ��
Iat on Long L-ake Road that cbult���upp�
Erme Giis�afson, ���25 Courif�R+�ad T,':
house to the north �Ie would like'to �x
would be the sarne squ�re footage::
requirements. There will be one
as well as single-family homes.
l he made a change in his proposal concerning the
the lot to the east property line. Lots 2, 3, and 4
Mr. Gus��fson stateci�th��iie's�gned a document many years ago that allowed the dog kennel
f: , -
across'��ie street to be �the,�ares '�The owners at the time said they would be there a year, hut the
kennel is still there. Mr �ustafson added that all around him is commercial and he felt his
dup�lex should be allowed: I�e also mentioned an article in the Star Tribune of May 30 in which
the Metropolitan Caunc�l said there was an unusual demand for housing and land for developers.
�.':Tfie article also mentioned that the Metropolitan Council was strongly encouraging high-density
development on tra�sit lines.
��
D�ve�DeLaria,,�7767 Long Lake Road, stated he vvas against any duplexes on the Long Lake
Road ,side: He would be satisfied with duplexes along County Road I.
Robert Moore, 7777 Long Lake Road, stated that the Sham-O-Jet access is on County Road T,
not long Lake Road. He also stated the he felt the zoning should remain R-1 on Long Lake
Road.
... ,
; ....
._: .
. .. .. ... .. ..: ..�� k ....-.... . .., .
Mounds View Planning Comrnission June 4, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
Mr. Westlund asked if the address of Sham-O-Jet was significant. Chairman Stevenson stated
that it was not significant,
Director Ericson noted the recommendation is not to allow R-2 zoning along Long L,ake Road.
He explained the twin home would face County Road L
Mr. Westlund asked what was the timeline for approval. -
Chair Stevenson said that all decisions would be made in a'timely manner. He suggested tlie
Commission discuss the four recommenda#ions on the Staff Re ort -;,
� ,>.:
Chairman Stevenson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Miller questioned whether lot 4 could be made longer as:1V!'r: �`iuStafson had
proposed, even though it is longer than staff had originally r�commended
.�. . < ;
Direc�or Ericson stated the length could be ariioptic
on the agenda for discussion at this meetingi' Only
be split was not
at this meeting.
��r� ;�.°' i �� ; � � �
���� � � ..
Commissioner Kaden stated he did nc�'t``�ant any,�o�`the lots to l3e designated as R-2. He
mentioned he had spoken out on tlus�,issue at the,last meeting`';' �Ie clarified he came to the
conclusion that the R-2 designatiQri�would be ac�e�table to'him on County Road I, but his
viewpoint Was that he wasn't"con���inced the R 2 designation would be appropriate for lots 1 and
;v � �� ,
2 fronting Long Lake Road� ,, �� �;' ��� :
,;°gax' K�9,s�,f,§� ,i Sg�s"��
5
Mr. Gustafso�:xead:the lot dimensions and commented that they all rneet the minimum
requirements. ,;: �'�yk
��� "��.
n ��
Chair Stevenson asked Director Encso�i`=what the dimensions of lots 1 and 2 should be. Director
Ericson said they sliould be!;75,feet each. He added that the exact location of lot lines would be
discussed at a later meet�ng'and.tlie purpose of this meeting was to determine which lots could be
zon�� R-2.
�� � .
��� �
1VIr. Gustafson stated that`if all the lots were not rezoned, then he wanted none rezoned. He
exited the meeting at.7�'S0 p.m.
�
�ar.
Co�ssioner-Hegland questioned if alI these lots are one property. Director Ericson responded
1t, is all :one properiy, but split into three lots.
�_;, -
Commissioner Hegland stated the Iot lines are important since the discussion is no longer around
the same lot. He stated he felt the proposal should be supported, but the lots should not be
allowed to be longer than 135 feet. He added that lot 4 should not be allowed to be deeper for
any reason.
}
F '.-.�.-=�
� .
,.
�. , _ _
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
_
-
_, _
— — —
c:
r
June 4, 2001
Page 5
Commissioner Miller clarified that Mr. Gustafson stated if he didn't get three lots rezoned to R-
2, he would not accept any.
Director Ericson noted that until the City receives written nohfication of a withdrawal request
from Mr. Gustafson, the City must pursue this request. He explai:ned the legal implications.
MOTION: Zwirn. To table consideration of Resolution 65b-01 to rezone�the property located at
2525 Counry Road I from R-1 to R-2. '�t
Motion failed due to lack of a second. ;�� �, , v � ��
� , � �::
i '-�'_ .
' '� ..
",YJ; ..
Chair Stevenson suggested a new resolution be drafted stating that lots l: and;2 on County Road I
should be designated R-2, and lots will not exceed 135 feeY.
� � �L
:�#:;
Director Ericson suggested the Commission act on the resolution as drafted .He pointed out that
E�chibit F in the Staff Report is essentially the same'as Resoluhon:A.
Commissioner Zwirn suggested that the resolution state'that on�y properties facing County Road
I can be zoned R-2. Planner Ericson suggested adding to the third paragraph from the end on .
Resolution 65b-01, "contingent upon the;'lots to be rezoned frotit County Road I."
,:`� ':.;`
MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Zwim. To approve Resolution 656-01 to rezone the property
locaied at 2525 County Road I from R-1 to R 2`.vvrtli`chaiiges as discussed.
`Y�` �f
E�'4i
� `-�yes — 6 :� ��: Nays (7`�' ��`��'" �� Motion carried.
�:E:�;
Director Ericson commented t
25. If the applicat�oii�is.withd
discussed at the next City Council maeting on June
for discussion will be sent.
�; � �
� � �� .
7. Planning Case No ��C01�002
c� r
- ¢��'7. ir 1 {�
D�rector Ericson noted th�is re�quest is from Mounds View Anirnal Hospital to rezone property to
��. Mounds View Aniinal Hospital has entered into an agreement with the City to purchase
`pu� property and one-tif the coriditions is that it will be rezoned.
D�rectorEricson',explained the Mounds�View Animal Hospital has been in business for 13 yeaxs.
In'ord� io acc'�mmodate their growing business, ihey would like to build a larger building. The
iinpaci.::to,�t�ie surrounding neighborhoods would be minimai. Director Ericson stated the City did
receive one phone call from a resident on Eastwood Road on this issue, and it was a positive
comment.
The applicant, Dr. Barcus, stated they would like to expand their services. The size and shape of
this lot does present some difficulties and some access issues. Ramsey County has been
- -
.: .. , .., .. .
. --
,.
Moands View Planning Commission June 4, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 6
receptive to these issues so far. Dr. Barcus stated they want to make it convenient for their
customers.
Chair Stevenson asked if the access on Highway 10 wili be right,in/right out. Dr. Barcus
confirmed.
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing. �.
Sidney Brown, 7716 Eastwood Road, stated she preferred not to;have commercial across the
street from her_ Though, if the City felt that was the best use, she would be satisfied. She was
concerned with the amount of traffic a commercial business w�uld,bring and pointed out there
are small children in the area. Dr. Barcus pointed out where the access points would be and
suggested the traffic would not be increased dramatically. "
� :..
Dr. Barcus commented that his business is not a higli=densify.business. Appoiiitments are
between 9:Q0 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., and then from 3':0'd to 6:00 g:�n., The hours of operation are
8:00 am io 6:Q0 p.m. Those coming west on �ounty Road IwQU�.d prQbably like to turn into the
hospital from County Road I and not go orito Highwa��-10. He sa"id they do expect to offer
traditional services and this wouldn't severely increase the traffic iri�'�he area.
:�,;
�.
Director Ericson pointed out that the access points?;are not to�be discussed at this point. This
meeting was io discuss the zomng;��i�ssue only ��irector En�s�n also mentioned that the applicant
had requested boarding be alSowe��in a B 2 zorie Tliis issue will come before the Commission
at a Iater`dat� ' �_'§����,�� �";=>
, taz?_ ��� �:.. H .,
Chair Stevenson asked how`animal:noise would be prevented. Dr. Barcus stated the animals are
strictly insid� ti��'her����,will be a fenced iri'�'�.enclosure outside for the animals to use onIy for
��; � �.,, ,,, .
bathroom purpo�es " '-
Commissioner Hegland questioned if someone would be in attendance 24 hours. Dr. Barcus
responded there would�onlyrb,e someone present duri_ng business hours. The doctors are often
there-`uniil 9:00 p.m.
Commissioner Scotch st�:ted she would like to see the area enhanced. She thought the Mounds
Ui�w Animal Hospital,wvould enhance Mounds View on this lot, since they have been in business
for:;�3 years and axe iriterested in keeping their business in the city.
_
:�
Cli'au' Stevensori closed the public hearing.
MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Kaden. To approve Resolution G57-01 to recommend rezoning the
property at 2625 County Highway 10 from R-3 medium density residential, to B-2, limited
business.
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
; .�
-i
Mounds View PIanning Commission
Regular Meeting
8. Planning Case No. DE00-002
: _______
i: '
June 4, 2001
Page 7
Community Development Director Ericson noted that Mr. Mezzenga had applied for and
received approval to construct a one and a half story office building lot at 7664 Greenfield
Avenue. The building official reviewed the plans and determined they did not compl.y. with the
the State's Accessibility Requirements. Mr. Mezzenga's options are to either add an'elevatar or ,, �'
construct the building differently. The new proposal is to build a two-stary building and�ra�se it
four and a half feet over what was originally proposed. Dir�ct'c� ErFC�on noted that as long as -;� ��
� �,
one floor is accessible, that would meet code. He added that according to the City Code, a
building can be three stories high. Staff recommended that if�this ��plan is approved, there should
be no upper story windows on the south end. Director Encson reported the.applicant was in
�.:
agreement with this stipulation. �.�`
Director Ericson stated that notices had been sent to the resrdents, even tfiough if was not
required. � ` • _ �` y`= �
x:�. � �'��
�ar.:�
Commissioner Zwirn stated he had a conflict of interest and rernoved himself from discussion.
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing.
Herb Zwirn, 7b60 Greenfield Avenue, stated lie lives south.o#'the proposed site and has an issue
with privacy. He explained, �s off ce building {would look directly into his house. He suggested
it would have-an extremely negativ.e impact �oQlus�pr�vacy. Mr. Zwirn stated that a privacy fence
;��.�
would mot be �unctional wi�h the ��fice buildiug-being tailer. He noted that even with no
windovvs on �the �6uth of the offia� �building, the windows on the east would look into his back
yard. Mr �Wirn saaid::that he feit thts offi�e.:building would be built, and iherefoze he would be
seeking a variance to build a privacy %nce �fwo feet above code. He also expressed concern with
the upkeep, of this propezty ;�Ie remar�Ceii tiiat the grass hadn't been mowed. Some neighbors
have call�d'him, since he 7s a Gommissioner, regarding this property. Mr. Zwirn stated he has
< ; � �_ �..
picked up papers and wrappings on the prope�rty. He cantinued that it has developed into an
acnmonious situation � ':= '��` �
, � , y; .
�I'�' Zwirn reported he h�d two realtors to his home and showed them the plans for this office
b�iild.ing and explained it would be another four and a half feet higher. Both realtors told him it
v��i�ld have a negatrve` impact on his property. He requested the Planning Commissian deny this
request for an addikional four and a half feet, or allow his fence to be two feet higher.
Chair Stevenson asked if we have a precedence for a 10-foot high fence. Director Ericson
replied the City Code allows only 8 feet for a fence.
The applicant, Tony Mezzenga, stated he has no responsibility for this land; he does not own it.
He stated he did reimburse someone to cut the grass. Mr. Mezzenga explained the trajectory of
the two-story would go over a 10-foot fence. Mr. Mezzenga noted he had committed �o building
an 8-foot fence for Mr. Zwirn, though he �ew it wouldn't be much help. He stated it would not
, i.: : __ _ _
i . : - ;,..
. .����_: . �.-� � . �- r: -.�<... ...._ .. �.. �.�.::-:�- � - - � .. � � �
Mounds View Plann,ing Commission
Regular Meeting
June 4, 2001
Page $
be financially advantageous for him to construct this 8-foot fence. He said he would not build a
10-foot fence.
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing.
Chair Stevenson inquired whether there will be any changes. in the building matenal; 1VIr.
Mezzenga stated there would not he.
Directar Ericson pointed out there is no resolution attached;= Tliis'item is for discussion only �
Commissioner Kaden expressed his disappoinknent that this was such a controversial issue and
yet it came back. He noted that this proposal would most likely be: worse:from the residents'
point of view. He said he would have to agree with building the second �sto ,ry; though he was not
happy about it.
Chair Stevenson stated he reluctantly approved;;the proposal tlxe �first time ,He doesn't see many
options. He recommended approval.
ti, _, . . �� � .._
Mr. Zwirn asked if the cost factors
been explored. He felt more consi�
comply with City Code. ,{;
Director Ericson suggested
the fiQures�and submit thert
a one ari�'a half story�'arici a two-story building had
hould'�be given to.�he cost factors invoIved to
�,4� �. :.' .
d �;;'F��lf, � :'iE: "
Eh���ost:f�c�tor`simore. He stated he would research
nendarion fo the Council.
9. Pla�ining `Case; No. M�'��`=°0�0��t ���.
�., ,�,; t'� x�.:��'��
Community De�relopment Director Encson reported NIr. Harstad had submitted a request far a
�9:'[ g
subdivisibn.' The piopertyis;�zdned R-I and is appropriate for single family residential. The
propas�i is for 11 lots for` sirigle family residential. The issue is whether the lots are buildable.
The ;wetlands and drainage i�, t��� area must be considered. The Staff considered retaining some
trees adjacent to Longview Dnve. Director Ericson staied the applicant offered to save any trees
tiiat could be saved. A neighborhood meeting was held. The applicant was present at the
riieeting and stated his.��i"ntent was that 90 feet from Longview Drive would be cleared. Director
Ericson stated as Mr::`Harstad is the owner/operator of the property, he would have the option to
do.�as�e,wants: ° .
� ., -
,�, .�k
Clia� Stevenson opened the public hearing.
Martin Harstad, son of Keith Harstad, the property owner, was present. Mr. Harstad explained
his father has retired and turned this properiy over to the children. He would be speaking on
behalf of the family.
�
`<J
;
,
, � ; : � ..
, .. ., .. , :: . ,. ...
Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
Mr. Harstad explained the property is 7.14 acres. Two wetland delineations were performed by
state certified delineators. He noted that with those reports in mind, he submitted the proposal
for 11 lots.
Mr. Harstad he had considered putting lots along Silver Lake Road, but the city discouraged that
Gom a safety standpoint. He then elected to propose single-family lots along Longview Drive.
He analyzed what could be done to minimize wetland fill He pointed out on the inap .which
areas would be filled, which would be an area of .SI acres Nir. Harstad`suggested using a � �
specific area as storm water retention, though that area isn'tVclassifi��' �as such. A significant area
of trees would be maintained. He pointed out he could not co�tral w�at the county would
�z �� `� �
propose for right of ways. ;�� `� �'-%,
��.
Commissioner Miller questioned who would own the htle to the mit�gatea area: ; Mr. Harstad was
— rr s' �'s:t
not sure.
Mr. Harstad rnentioned there were 29 people �`;�attend'ance at the .�,eighborhood meeting. Many
issues were discussed including saving trees �He said he�of�ered to Iook°a't the buffering issue
and would strategically work out how they accessed the propertyfo do the work.
An unidentified resident stated he bought his horne in 1973. He' was told then that the swamp
area was protected wetland and would not be built on. He stat'ed he walked around the edge of
the property and could not see ho��i# could be'built on He would be concerned about the water
runoff. He said he realized a'tornado could cotne through and destroy the trees, hu# it has not
happened yef.= He did not uiiderstand why the trees ,should be destroyed for a building.
��; :� ;�Y
t; . �
Richard�omess, 5175 Red'`Oak Dnve�,-stated he had a water main break in his front yard last
spring. He'said a crew;came to�repa.lr it,;and the head crew member explained that the water
table was veryhigh ;The head crev�%,mg�nber was concemed about filling ihe r�vetland and that
�,
would create d�ms ,'Mr ��'ornis stated he was aware the building would affect his property v ue.
He felt it�:would affec� all the basement's of the immediate neighbors. He suggested the builder
give giCarantees on the buildrn� ;7VIr. Fornis stated the development is satisfactory in appearance,
;e. He mentioned the water table could shift in a wet spring. He
basement and he would like to see a clause in the proposal that
lent for water in the basement.
ive years later it
everyone gets w�
s there would be
3 K�i �:a.. . . .
'�#eVe or Sandra Kuhl?, 5176 Red Oak Drive, reiterated the concerns of weilands and the lu
: water table, ,
,
Chair �tevenson mentioned he was on the Park and Recreation Board for 15 years. The Park and
Recreation Board didn't allow a pazk to be there due to the soil condition. He said he is quite
aware of the situation.
Dallas Thorripson, 5178 Longview Drive, questioned ifthe filling would be put in designated
wetland. Mr. Harstad explained that a company was hired in 1986 to evaluate the soil condition
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
dune 4, 2001
Page 10
in tha# entire site. The deepest site then was 15 feet. The bulk of the site was 7 to 9 feet. That is
what would be removed and replaced with sand that would be buildable.
Mr. Thompson inquired what that filling would do to the water. -IVIr. Harstad responded that if
the water table is at a certain level, the ground is saturated no matter what is in ihe ground.
Mr. Thompson stated he was concemed with who the crtizens^`would be, i.nsCructed to;call if there
were problems with the fill. �'
An unidentified citizen in the audience pointed out the property is to be filled in four feet above
the street and would function as a dam.
Mr. Harstad stated the water table is 891.5 cuzrently. He explained hoyv;the water table reading
is taken.
Sandra Kuhl, 5176 Longview Drive, stated she had her Wate� main;.line replaced in 1976. 5he
also mentioned �hat Mr. Hazstad will not be tlie builder but i�ou�c� be the�:seller.
Mr. Harstad stated he was contacted by two builders 'He added fYi�at fie was not opposed to
adding restrictions to the type of housin'��that wou1� be allowec�`in the proposal. Mr. Harstad
reiterated that he would like to save as many tr�es'as possibl��: `However, if for example, a
cottonwood tree could only be saved'by addin���$700 retauung wall, he would rather take the
tree down, which wauld be�b�tter �or the nei�hUorhood ;H"e suggested that each homeowner take
responsibihty for their o�vur�;�a.ndsca#ping. z�},:��,,.�j�
6 � j
.. .. .3i..i-._.. - . .�.. .t. '
Dayton�`�7arfl, ��'�1�-77 -Red Oa'l��r�v�, sf�ated his basement floor cracked due to the high water
table. His pr�per�y is�he highest �ii tF�ie ai�e;a. He questioned the plans to build four feet above
;� � .f,xs. d��
the street. The'aowiier,`$ wouid theng�add b`�ack dirt and sod above that, and he questioned what that
would do to t1i�;water;table�gHe statedhe was opposed to the proposal.
Mr. Harstad explained there`wouTd be four feet of fill alang Longview Drive.
;�
f' ,: ' , `'
��:
11�Iane Thompson, 5178 Zongview Drive, stated she was concerned that no land was being left
fo�`the birds and nature �; She was also concerned that with all the land being developed there
�w�uld be no open sp��'in Mounds View for kids to play. She felt that open space enhanced
N�'ounds View as a cify.
.L,i1::Ward;;.5,177`'Red Qak Drive, repeated the concerns of the water #able. She also brought up
t1�e'�coricerris`of traffic. She felt there would be too much traffic considering it would be adding
two cars per household to the existing traffic. There would only be two accesses, which was also
a concern. Ms. York stated she has been there since 1968 and has enjoyed watching the deer.
She stated she would like to see homes built in there but questioned who would huy a home in a
swamp.
,,
___
i •
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
June 4, 2401
Page 11
Dave Tillmann, 5166 Longview Drive, stated he is across from Lot 3. He stated he walkeeo le
through the proposed properiy and his shoes were muddy from it. He didn't think many p p
would want to buy a home in 9 feet of dirt, then have it filled 5 feet higher.
Joseph Rivers, Woodale Drive, raised a concern about the quality of the roads in future years.
He stated that currently in the winter, the road resembles a wave due to the.�fill under the .,
blacktop. -' ".
;�
Mike Loregori, 28Q1 Woodale Drive, stated he shared the �Qncern�for the trees. He stated he �
understood theze was a sink hole on Woodale Drive, and that le� �iim to question what the fill
will be under the streets in this development. He stated he wqul�:l.ike to be assured it was going
to be done right. ��'` � ��� ' '
t�
Directar Ericson stated the building engineer will be invol��d; The Rice =Creek V�atershed
District will also be involved as far as deterniinin��the �tn�act to the water,table; the
neighborhood and the drainage. Their engmeex s;�vi�l
impact to drainage, it won't be approved. Tlii�s plan
Watershed to move forward. The City Council will
does not approve it.
Director Ericson further explained the Rice
.� that is responsible for the oversiglit of this �
�:.
. Creek Watershed may, however, call in oth
Director, �ncson clanfied�ther� aie neighbc
suggested th�,` City�;learn wFien the Rice{ Cre
noted the piiblic �s a1�?vays welco:'�ne a�th�v
Richard Fomess,�51F7�
covenant,should be inc
the affecied owners. T
The�?City has a right to
of;�ie lot responsible.
Ericson
lots and
plan. If there is a negative
�ed b� �he Rice Creek
'he.Rice Creek Watershed
atershed,is tbe only local governxnental unit
They are not DNR-protected wetlands. Rice
es 'at some point.
i`�d meetings to keep the public informed. He
Watershed meets, and the inform the public. He
;:. �� �'�;�� °:'.
k�d �pak Dn�e; ;suggested if the development is allowed, a restrictive
,., �
z�1ed �liat contains a performance bond to help water proof basements o
e Git�zen:stated the developer is responsible for any changes that happen.
���t_��=r.est'rictive covenant an those lots, making the develoger and owner
�d the property is zoned properly. He added that stipulations could be put
be discussed to add to the developer agreement.
''F��' t�+ �i:::.$K >1T ��;-�V
`1�It� ��`ar���d s,'tated he does not want to affect properties negatively. His goal is to have a posihve
'effect �:`.He will have engineers working with the builders throughout ihe project. He will address
any questions as they come up. He stated that if this project is not going to work, then he will
not press the issue.
Director Ericson suggested the residents let their concerns be known to the Rice Creek
Watershed District either by writing letters or attending their meetings, which are open to the
-. _ � public.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
June 4, 2001
Page 12
Commissioner Scotch stated she sympathized with the residents and with the developer. There
are a lot of positive things that can l�appen, but there is a need to be cautious °-Commissioner
Scotch remarked that she is aware of the high water table; it is high on her property.:
Commissioner Kaden stated he walked through the area and looked for a weflarid delineation
flag. He saw one surrounded by water and with 5 to 10 feet `of water on either side.. He also,;,;
reported he drove into Longview Drive and Iooked for high water levels� He did no�ice one'yard '
that was mostly wet and spongy. Cornmissioner Kaden staf�d he would be interested in learriing
Rice Creek Watershed's opinion of the area,
Commissioner Kaden questioned who spot checks the lots once tliey are developed to make sure
no one has added an extra five feet of dirt.
�
Director Ericson responded that is difficult to enforce `: The �ity does try `�o keep on top of
activities such as this. He mentioned the residents are'very �atcliful.
��
Commissioner Kaden inquired if dirt is takeri out of the� propettX; an$ put back in, whether it will
make a difference to the water level. Director Ericsoz� explained that'is one issue that wiil be
considered. Additionally, there are years� of data t�i study to determine whai kappens when
�:�
certain soils are used. � �� ����
, :R�� ,
Commissioner Hegland sta�ed h��U
�
and howjit would affect thei �ro�
be conceimed with which � �en� �c
g ,{ ,�'�
gather a� `�much'-information �as �os�
said that Mr I�arsiad,::the buildrng
findings. Thoi�,gli 7f they all came `1
more comfo�table $�Te a�lced if Mr
infozmation in the citizens'.liands.
��
�tood ��e�yone ��ezned to be concerned about the water
He e'�pla�n�ed if he was a resident in that area, he would
t in therrv��ndings. He questioned what could be done to
to be a source for the citizens. Commissioner Hegland
ieers, and Rice Creek Watershed may all have different
�sa�ie general evaluation, it would �elp citizens feel
stad would coxzsider an avenue fo put this kind of
Mrt;IIarstad stated he has put��lot of time into informing the residents thus faz. He asked if the
z : za;
Pla�ing Commission and Council could give him a general idea of whether the concept would
';be�;accepted so he could=�move forward. He added that he would like to learn the Rice Creek
Vqatershed DistricYs fiCidings before he hired the engineers.
«:
��a
Co�nmiss�on�r;Hegland stated the Planning Commission may need direction from the Rice Creek
"UVaterslied and�the building engineers to help make a decision.
An unidentified citizen suggested one of the deciding points be whether losing a pristine area of
Mounds View was worth losing:
Director Ericson explained this is a two-step process. There is the preliminary plat and then the
final plat. Approval of the preliminary plat does not give any right to develop property; it is only
approval of a concept. There are issues to discuss as fax as loss of trees and water table issues, _
��
'�
� ,
Mounds View Planning Commission ,Tune 4, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 13
and they will be taken into consideration. He stated the Planning Cominission does not need to
wait for Rice Creek Watershed's evaluation. Minnesota Statutes dictate the timeframe for
projects, and this project must keep moving forward.
Mr. Harstad stated the application was sent to Rice Creek Watershed Distnct within #he last two
days.
IQ. Chairperson and Plauning Commissioners' Reports.,, � � �
Director Ericson discussed the following:
�
(1} Sign Code ,'>
(2) Fire Code zi F : ...
(3) Vacation of Redfieid Subdivision `¢ � �.
y
{4} 3016 County Road H2; and ,,, a,,` ��� �-�q� k,.�
(5) Comprehensive Plan. �. ; � .:: .
� � ��
11. Next Planning Commissian
12.
� ' :' �;�, . _�,; ;:
,�,: : � .
(ng: June 20, 2001 � -
Adjournment to Agenda�Session ;` ,,:,,
,.
- ` d' ed the
There beuig.iio further bt�siness b
meetirig at 10:44, p.m. �.
��;=
The meetm `i;
� g
,;�;; .
,,�,; :
�.
`Jiin Ericson
�`ommunity D
�;:.;-�]
bmitted, ;
f �::�
;velopment Director
,:`� ;';
�nn,�video by:
�nes
Site Secretarial, Inc.
t
the P1an�ung:Commission, Chair Stevenson a �ourn
adjourned to the Agenda Session)
� _
- =<'::i
: :;
, , i _
- - '.--._._. :.. - --- - ----
; ;_ .. ,,. -: - - - __. .
, s _. <_ . : -
....
-.;. _-
� � '� � �---- f �.� ._— _-- . . _
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
: RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
' Regular Meeting -
August 1, 2001
Mounds:�iew`:City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
;.
�;:` , '
.,i ,s,r,
1. Call to Order -
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7 OO p.m., August, l,`2Q01:
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Miller, Kaden, 'Zwirn;. and Scotch.
Members Excused: Commissioners Hegland and Johnson (excused). Commissioner Cerny
�•.
(unexcused) -
Also Present: Plamm�g Associate Atlanson ��; "�
- . � 44 �l^;, t; ..
� �;.8
. ; `` �' .. .�- r�
Iudex to 1!'�inu�es;
,`
Page
, �` 2
Planning Case No" V`�01-009 "��, �54, �
��
Applicant > Erme`��i�tafson ' �>' �?���
Location 6 ' 25�.5.:;�ow�;`ty��oad I `�`+
:; ,;
f�, _
Plan�ning Case No. CUO1ti00�� ��� �
Applicant: Mounds'�iew �'Animal Hospital
Consideration of an Ame`ndment to the City Code to Allow An�mal Boarding
as�a conditional use in B=2 Zoning Districts.
�lanning Case No. PD00-002 1�
' Applicant Dan Hall, the Mermaid
C�nsiderahon'of Resolution 6b9-Ol, a Resolution Re-approving the Pzeliminary
Prat �or the Mermaid Addition Major Subdivision.
Staff Reports/Items of Information
11
Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 12
,.:
�
i .. ; :.:.': ;: _
Mounds View
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Nof on the Agenda
There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda.
4. Plaaning Case No. VRO1-009
Planning Associate Atkinson explained that Ernie Gustafson� owner;of the land located at the
northeast corner of Long lalce Road and County Road I, is requeSting approval of a variance to
allow far a reduced minimum lot width for a proposed lot ,�ithin�a,:yet �to�-b�;-submitted majox
subdivision. The properties Mr. Gustafson owns are curreritly zonecl R-1, SYngle Family
Residential, although the Ciry Council on July 9 approved the first reading of,Qrdinance 683, an
ordinance which would rezone two of the proposedjfi�e lofis�of.;the yet-to-�ie-s,iibmitted majaz
subdivision from R-1 to R-2, Single and Two F��i�l'y�Resid'enfial: ,�
j;:_. ,:. � .
Planning Associate Atldnson noted the widtli of the loi fronting �ounty Road I is 296.74 feet.
The lot could be subdivided into three parcels as Mr: Gustafson. would like without the need for a
var�ance were it not for the fact that Mr.,Gustafson would like,tvuo of the three Iots rezoned to R-
2. In addition, the location of Mr. .�Gustafson's,home, which was built closer to Long Lake Road
than to the east property line, xs an,:impedimenf to: a three lot subdivision To allow for the
necessary ten-foot setback from the existing.home, th.e proposed lot at the corner would have to
be reduced to ;a 95-foat width rather than the required'1�0-foot width. The variance request is
for the reduced;,95-foot w�d�fh
Planning A.�socia�e,�itkinson presented StafPs suggested alternative variance possibility. Rather
than approving a varianc.e to aIlow: a n���conforming lo# to be created, Staff believed it would be
more appropriafe to consid�r a variance .for a reduced side yard setback for Mr. Gustafson's
home Mr: `Gustafson ��sp��ided to this by pointing out that his water and sanitary lines exit his
house"on�the west side, th�,�f�e �,�ere the Staff suggested five-foot setback would be. The other
prQb�'em with maintaimng�tlie �required minimum 100-foot 1ot width at the comer is that the Iot in
the'iniddle would only be`96:74 feet wide, 3.2b feet less than ttze 100 feet required far an R-2
. zoned lot. So while Staff would rather not see the creadon of a non-conforming lot, Mr.
�'rustafson's proposal. would be the most straightforward unless Mr. Gustafson would agree to
� hav� only one of tt�e=�ots rezoned R-2.
,En. .
i'.
Piaririing :Associate Atkinson indicated that for this variance to be approved, there needs to be
demonstrated substantial haxdship or practical difficulties associated with the property that
makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner.
He indicated that the City Code mentions seven specific criteria that must be met in order for a
variance to meet the hardship requirement.
August 1, 2001
Page 2
Platining Associate Atkinson stated that based on Staff's review of the request and tha Code
requirements, it cioes not appear that there is sufficient hardship and practical difficulty
l
�
� -
Mounds View
Planuing Commission
Regular Meeting
. .. . :
-.. . . . , , ;
August 1, 2001
Page 3
associated with this property to warrant approval of the variance requested. The Pianning
Commission, however, should discuss these cr�tenia and open the floor to pulilic commen# before
coming to any conclusions.
Planning Associate Atkinson agreed that the five-foot variarice requested is iriinimal .{representing
a five-percent reduction in ihe width of the lot), which is comparable to reducing a LO-foot,side
yard setback to 9.5 feet. Where Staff has the most concern; ,howeyer, 'is that once the variance `
request becomes a function of the proposed rezoning arid uot the� location of the house; the
element of hardship is no longer apparent, Staff does belie'.ve that there would be just cause and
reasonable hardship to reduce #he side yard setback of the propased middle lot because it would
be based upon the location of the house and not solely on. economic •factors. This would result in
only ane of the lots (Lot 5) being ahle to be zoned R-2, however.
s���.
Planning Associate Atkinson advised that, based up'o� the findings as presenied and the lack of
demonstrated hardship, Staff recommends derii�al �of, ��e = proposed variance and has drafted
Resolution b68 for the Commission's action. ��If the applicant, w�uld consider scaling back his
rezoning request to only proposed Lot 5,: Staff wouTd be willin� to `recommend approval of a
reduced-side yard setback variance, associated with;tlie �
>�,::
Chaarperson Stevenson suggested° that if Mr. �Gstafs�
- easement be provided on the
was not sufficient space on
extend intp :the adjacent lo�;�l
;, } ,
Planning
Commissioner Miller:stat�
order -for the variance r`Eq
were met in this case and'
�de of t�
dIe lot.
were reduced as suggested, an
. He also suggested that if there
��vest side of=1Vlr' Gt���fson's property, the easement should
,:_
�>;.�
gh a lease agreeme��` He stated that �e would prefer that Lot 3
�b0 feet anc�¢'`"he��`��agreed that there is not sufficieni hardship
E'�a�'rant-approval of the variance request for Lot 3.
:;��
ecI thaf au `'easement along the property line may be possible.
she read the criteria listed in the staff report that must be met in
be approved. She stated that she did not feel any of the criteria
would prefer a minimum lot width of 100 feet for Lot 3.
Cfiairperson Stevenson i�vited the applicant and the public in attendance io address the Planning
Gommission. ��� _
'7 �
Ei�ue �G-ustafson, 2525 County Road I, stated that he was shocked by Staffls recommendation for
denial ,of;hi�s, variance request since he could see no reason to not be granted a small five-foot
varian�e .on a 95-foot wide lot. He noted in June the City Council had approved the rezoning of
the lots, providing the Planning Commission approved of the five-foot setback variance.
Mr. Gustafson stated earlier this summer he had begun advertising the sale of his property and
indicated that one interested party had wanted to conshuct townhouses, however, he was not
willing to agree to this type of development. He stated a young couple from Afton, Minnesota
had been interested in constructing a single-family home on Lot 3, however, because this process
: . . _ . _ !. .. _ . . .. . . . ..
� � .. �. �_ ,.., . .. .- . . � -
. -.�,��:� - � _ � � :: . , .... - :_ �..�.�......�.
:..::. . ...-... ...
. . . . . . ..�.
.. - .. . . � _�. . ,.. .. { . . . .� .
Mounds View
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Aagast 1, 2001
Page 4
has taken so long, he felt he has lost this prospect. He felt that this loss ,of sale should be
considered a hardship.
Mr. Gustafson noted in a prior request to the Planning Commission he had proposed the
construction of duplexes along Long Lake Road but the Planing Commission had"'strongly
opposed this proposal. He stated that his new plan proposed three single-family homes along .
Long Lake Raad, not duplexes.
Mr. Gustafson felt that, without performing an actual measuremeni, a,person would not be able
to discern whether Lot 3 was 95 feet wide or 100 feet wide.
� }
�.: �
Mr. Gustafson noted thaf Community Developmen� Director Ericsonliazi aecommended that his
lot, Lot 4, be reduced in width by five feet on the west si�e'�f the propertpto allow Lot 3 to meet
the i00-foot width requirement. He stated that thts would be;problemati� d�e'to the location of
�.�� }R
his sewer and water lines and the minimal dis��nc� "tlus�would allow for working on the service
, �: � � ,
lines. � � �«
Jeff Westlund, 7720 Long Lake Road, stated he supported the comments and recommendations
of City Staff He questioned whether �T�ot 3 could be rezoned��to R-2 if it met the minimum lot
width requirement. Chairperson Stevenson stated that this was�a possibility.
�, i,�,,
Mr. Westlund asked what :the minimum lot: s�ze ;:requirement is for the R-2 zoning district.
Chairperson • Stevenson stated that a lot in the R 2;-zoning district must rneet a minimum size
requizemerit of 12,500 sqlaar's feet'=� . -
Mr. Westlund: expressed concem that if:.Lot 3 could he rezoned to R-2, then a duplex may be
constructed. Chaiip,erson Sfievenson noted that the Planning Commission had previously
required that ariy .�uplexes"pwithin this development face County Road I and that none sha11 face
Long Lake� Road. "T'lier��'oie,,any duplex structure on Lot 3, a comer lot, would have to face
County Road T. He no'te�,; hov�e�er, an actual subdivision plan has not yet been submitted for
any proposed development`o�'=t}ie snbj ect property.
�
.��i
of
Westlund requested';confirmation that an applicaiion could be made to rezone Lot 3 to R-2.
irperson Stevenson stated this was correct. Commissioner Miller noted the lot would hawe to
t the criteria of tfi� R-Z zoning district.
Hk��...�... _
�nzssi�ner :Kaden noted in June the City Council approved the first reading far the rezoning
.e property to R-2.
Mr. Westlund believed that the City Council had only approved the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2. He
reiterated concern about the possible construction of a duplex on Lot 3, regardless of which
direction the building would face.
Planning Associate Atkinson noted the approval by the City Council in June was far only four
' _,
-. f
.. ,
�. .
Mounds View
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
August 1, 2001
Page 5
lots that had been proposed at that time. Since that time, the applicant has changed the proposal
to include five lots with the understanding that only two of the five lots would be rezoned to R-2.
Chairperson Stevenson agreed that the concept approved by the City Council was for a different
configuration than being presented this evening.
Commissioner Miller noted Mr. Gustafson felt that because He has been unable to sell his lots he
was losing money and tlus should be considered a hardsliip ':, She stated this was defiriitely an ;
economic consideration, which could not be considered a hardship. .'
Chairperson Stevenson stated he would like for the applicant to work with City Staff to develop a
plan that would not require a new application for variance. He was concerned that if the
planning Commission voted to deny this variance request, and Mr. =Gustafson was willing to
consider staff s recommendations regarding the reduction , in the width his lot, he would be
requized to submit a new application and pay another fee
>>
Planning Associate Atkinson did not belieue a new appl�catton and; additional fee would be
required. He believed that the subdivision'of the prbperty coulti work with some changes and
agreed that the applicant should work with City Staf� on a new��la.n.' �
Chairperson Stevenson stated,
property, he was not com£ortabl
�l �;
Comznissioner Miller asked 1�
Gustafson s#ated this was. not t]
the constructiori . of any dup�ex
single-family
current home
could be cgn
could nat:be 1
ises, on Long �I
Counf�: Road I
he did ,:not want Fo hold up the development of the
in� ac`�'ion on the;�urrent request.
�on i���e nitended to construct a duplex on Lot 3. Mr.
He reiterated that the Planning Commission had denied
Long Lake Road and his new plan would be for three
ad�.and two duplexes on County Road I. He noted his
n ezpanded and, with the addition of a second enirance,
�"r, if he agreed to only rezone Lot 5 to R-2, his home
. _. �� ��� �
Cominissioner Scotch reque�te��� confirmation from Mr. Gustafson that be would propose to
rezone Lots 4 and 5 to R-2. 1VIr. Gustafson stated this was correct.
��ommissioner Scotch requested confirmation that with the current praposal the zoning of Lot 3
.. w�uld remain R-�, 1VIr. Gustafson stated this was correct. He reiterated that a duplex would not
4�'be constructed-on Lot 3, even if Lot 3 was 100 feet wide.
Comrriissioner Kaden reiterated the City Council had approved the first reading of rezoning the
properties along Long Lake Road to R-2. Commissioner Scotch noted at that time the property
had not been divided as currently proposed.
planning Associate Atkinson stated that a subdivision plan would still need to be submitted to
the City before any type of development could be considered.
_..
� ..
Mounds View
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
August 1, 2001
Page 6
Coznmissioner Miller suggested that tl�is request be tabled until a subdivision plan is suhmitted
with any necessary vanance request.
Planning Associate Atkinson stated there is a 60-day time limit for acdon on a variance request
and, if a decision is not made before the expiration of tbe time limit, the reguest would
automatically be approved. Therefore, a decision would �ave to be made within';the next two
months.
Chairperson Stevenson stated he would prefer to table tliis request ;to allow the applicant to
present a subdivision plan at the next Planning Comrnission ,m�e�ing.;;, He stated he was not
comfortable with the proposed variance at this time, hovyever, 'He fel�;�ii�s opinion may change
once the subdivision plan is reviewed. � ti�;, ,
, 'a �
Commissioner Scotch agreed that the plan was worka��e �uith a.few changes `.
. �
-� � �� , r
��
Planning Associate Aikinson stated the Planning G�oYrimissi�n w could table the propased
Resolution and act on it at their next meeting. ;;:� - `� � �
�t � ,�
Commissioner Miller noted that seven specific cnteria must be met in order for a variance to be
granted, which she felt were not met .in this case =:`
Commissioner Zwirn felt that any�ardshtp m tlus,case would be caused by the manner in which '
the property ,was proposed to be tlivided Therefoze;'-he did not see any hardship criteria being
r�
met with: tius'applicatzon rHe stated that the PZariziing Commission wanted to da what they can
for the applicant, however,� c�ertain` standards must be followed so fihat a development does not
have a negative°impact on the neighborhood.
� :ad � �
Commissioner Zwun`; not'ed, that N& °Gustafson had been before the City on a number of
occasions; with plans��that c�o riot follow the City's guidelines. He suggested that Mr. Gustafson
work with City Staff t� de�log;3a plan that will meet the City's guidelines and criteria, while
ma�cimizing the use o� tliu,;property, and provides definitive intentions that the Plaruiing
Commission can make a'�ecision on.
t
Chairperson Stevenson `stated Mr. Gustafson should not have been shocked that his requested
�` �va�iance would no#��fie �easily passed. He stated that there would be very few situations in which
��� fl�e�G'�ty�,would pass�this type of request with such an apparent absence of hardship,
� -
.,�
�Co�untssioner Miller agreed with the suggestion that Mr, Gustafson meei with City Staf'f to
develop an acceptable plan.
MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Zwim. To not take action on Resolution 668, and to table the
request made by Ernie Gustafson for a variance to pernut a f ve-foot reduction in the minimum
lot width requirement for a proposed lot at 2525 County Road I; Planning Case No. VRO1-009,
to the Wednesday, August 15, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.
;: �
•.,
i.
Mounds View
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
August 1, 2001
Page 7
Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. -=
5. Planning Case No. CU01-002
Planning Associate Atkinson explained that Dr. Bruce Schnabel and Dr. Kevin Barcus of t3ie
Mounds View Animal Hospital have indicated their desire to'board a.aimals at their proposed,
new facility. The City Code, however, currently does not allow the-boa�rding of animals except
when associated with surgery, illness, or injury. Therefore, an,a�nendment to the Code is
necessary to allow this service.
Planning Associate Atkinson explained that the City Code;'treats amendrnents in °a similar fashion
to conditional use permits. As with conditional use pernvts; the Planrung: Commission must
consider possible adverse affects of the amendrr�ent�"H� a�vised=that the findings of the Planning
Commission shall be based upon, but not l�rriited to, the .fo�lov�zng factors: relationship with the
Comprehensive Plan; geographical area involved; whether such use'will tend to or actually
depreciate the area in which it is proposed; character'' of the surrounding area; and, demonstrated
need for such a use
Planning Associate Aticinson noted the specifi�e text amendment would only apply to B-2 zoning
districts. With many B-2 distncts;in the Crtya.�he adv.erse=�ffects relating to the geographical area
ar�d surrounding area as li�ted a�ove is diffi��l��t�,xneasure generally. It can be said, however,
that all;$ 2 zqning distnct's,are�l���ted along�Coiliity Highway 10. Therefore, wben considering
F d �3y, -�- --
adverse�a�e��s t��,an area, t;i� Pl�nnin� _Commission must look ai what negative affects woul e
created if an��a�nX�il' b�ardmg'faci�ty��r�rde present along County Highway 10. Also, since the .
amendment is' �proposet� ;as a cond�'��ot�al use, any proposed animal boarding facility must be
approved byf�he Fl `antu� �<�ommiss�`o'n>�nd City Council, at which time further conditions may
be placed;on the apprava�-�f t�ie specific location warrants them.
. � '.:�j�:��
Planning Associate Atkmson reviewed Chapter ll 13.04 Subdivision 4 of the City Code which
allows veterinary and animal' clinics as a conditional use in B-2 zoning districts but prohibits
ariimal boarding except;;for when associated with surgery, illness, or injury. He advised of the
>existing conditions of approval for these facilities and explained that this section can be amended
;to allow animal boar�'ing if the Planning Commission feels animal boarding is an appropriate use
in,,B' ;2 zonin� tl�stricts.
`Planning Associate Atkinson stated it was discussed at the July 18 Planning Commission
meeting that it may also be appropriate to include additional requirements for animal boarding
facilities. Staff has reviewed State Statutes and ordinances of other cities in the Twin Cities area
to determine what may be appropriate for the City of Mounds View. Surprisingly, very few
specific requirements were found, other than provisions regarding the proper care of animals.
Based on the information found, Staff recoxnmends modifications and additions to Ordinance
685.
Mounds View
Planning Commission
Regular Meeiing
, -
,:
. .-..... ::: ... ; _. - = -
....... � := -:: =: .:..�
,.; ,. . -. . .. . .. .
August 1, 2001
Page 8
Planning Associate Atkinson stated the Planning Commission should deterniine whether these
requirements are adequate for animal boarding facilities or if more are needed. He noted an
Ordinance had been prepared for the Commission's review t,tiat` includes the changes reviewed,
He advised that the ordinance can be modifed before forwarding it to the'City Cauncil if the
Planning Corrunission feels changes are necessary.
Planning Associate Atkinson stated Staff also recommends tl�at Chapter 11 �2.02,
DEFINITIONS, be amended to remove language in the defi�tion for VETERINARY OR
ANIMAL CLINIC that prohibits animal boarding, and a that a definition of animal boarding be
added in order to specify what `animaI boarding' should include He �,si�ggested the following
existing definition could be amended as follows:
���
VETERINARY OR ANIMAL CLINIG 1�4 stru�;�ure intende� For providing
medical examinations and treatment tQ ariitri'als �,?Servi`e�s would��be limited to
sma11 animals and �e� ae# may ynclude boarchng,�o�'axumals «(Ord. 441, 5-23-
88) ' ���
5 s,_.
ri '
Planning Associate Atkinson recommerided the-fallowing defii�ition, or a variation, should be
included in the City Code to specrfy''what types of anima�s would be aIlowed in a boarding
facility: ' �a
�
,�"�� -�
� ; �, �,
ANIlViAL BOARDING FACILITY A c�ommercial establishment in which
domesticated animals are�?`.housed for a� fee or compensation. Domesticated
anunais' �nclude dogs, 'cat's, o�, rodents such as rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters,
gerbils or other Iike animals fhat are typically conf ned to a cage or other
enclosiue. ��°� �"
;.;,�� �
Planning Associate `Atk�son ;stated fhe Planning Commission should also consider that the
definitron would apply to all ariimal boarding within the City, not just for the Mounds View
Animal Hospital.
��:x.a
Planning Associate Atltiiison advised that the Minnesota Board of Animal Health distinguishes a
boarding facility frorn;;.a kennel. According to the Boazd, a kennel covers onIy those units that pick
up� �confine, or ad�ertise for lost, unwanted, stray, abandoned, or stolen dogs and cats. This
�ricludes:humart�`s�icieties, pounds, and pottnds owned and operated by any political subdivision of
.' ^� �5:�' :
,�;��ie'st�te ��, ,�v
Planning Associate Atkinson stated the following definition for kennel should also be included in
the Code so a distinction can be made between the two types of facilities:
KENNEL: A facility that houses and advertises for Iost, unwanted, stray,
abandoned, or stolen dags and cats. These include humane societies, pounds, and
pounds owned and operated by any political subdivision of the State.
`f I: i
,
.:
Mounds View
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
August 1, 2001
Page 9
Planning Associate Atkinson noted kennels axe not specifically referenced in the Cade and
therefore are not permitted within the City. J
Planning Associate Atkinson stated a recommendation to ,the City Council regarding Ordinance
685 is included in Resoluiion 667-01. He suggested the,>Planning Commission xeview the text
change as described in the Ordinance and provide input relating to the change as well as discnss
what the definition of animal boarding should include. ;If the9�Planning Commission . feels tliat
animal boarding is not appropriate for B-2 zoning districts;' they shauld direct Staff to prepare the
appropriate resolution to act on at the next regulazly scheduled mee�g on August 15, 2001.
Commissioner Miller asked what type of business was currently operating at the intersection of
Long Lake Road and County Road I. She noted the business calls itself a`kannel. Planning
Associate Atkinson stated it was his understanding `thafi,this bus�iness is <ari` animal boarding
facility as defined in the staff report.
Planning Associate Atkinson stated most ordinances' interchange the terms animal boarding
facility and kennel. He stated if both definitions were included� in the City Code, the two types of
facilities would be distinguished by de�i�ition.
Chairperson Sievenson noted the City Code"currently��mentions a requirement for a kennel
license for. any resident wishmg��to keep thzee or �noz`e,.�ogs. He stated that, according to the
proposed definition, this wo'ttld not be consid�rec� a:kennel. He questioned whether adding the
propos�d leennel ;defimtio�ci�;wd�ld�require other `�mendments to the City Code.
_ � �`��� �� ����,
� M�11er•_ asked i� ��he proposed Code amendments would apply to breeders.
iate Aflcuison stated the ;Gotle currently does not mention breeders and he was not
. t}IP.YP. Ai�'ariv.hreeders"located within the City. �
Commissi
Planning E
certain wb
Comrnissioner Kaden aske���� �lie list of small animals in the proposed definition for anunal
boa.rding facility would uiciu�e,`other types of caged pets such as birds or snakes.
� �
3: 3'I :
Elanning Associate Atlanson( �stated the defmition could be open to interpretation. He suggested
_: that the last line in the' proposed definition could be amended to state, "...or other animals...",
iather than, "...or other like animals..."
��ommissioner Miller suggested the last iine in the animal boarding facility definition be
`amended to state, "or other small animals..."
Chairperson Stevenson stated he supported the addition of a def nition for animal boarding
facilities, but not the addition of a defnition far kennels. Commissioner Miller agreed that if the
proposed definition for kennels was added to the City Code this may cause other problems.
Planning Associate Atkinson stated the proposed Resolution would recommend approval of
�
Mounds Vzew
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
August 1, 2001
Page 10
Ordinance 685. He stated the proposed Ordinance could be brought back to the Planning
Commission with changes, or the PIanning Commission could recommend approval of the
Ordinance with changes. - -
Chairperson Stevenson felt it would be necessary to bring the Ordinance back to the Planing
Commission only if the requested changes affected items tliat the public may take iss�xe with: He
felt the proposed change to the animal boarding facility defrnition and the removal of the;kennel :"
defini�on could be made by City Staff prior to review by the�.City. Council. Other than these
changes, he supported the proposed Resolution. � `
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden. To approve Resolution I�o:: 667-01, a Resolution
recommending approval of a City Code amendment to al•low animal boardirig as a Conditional
Use in B-2, Limited Business Zoning Districts, with changes as discussed. ...
S
��".��.'� t � ryji
� �
A es — 5 ` �='�` �
Y Nays� �0 °� �_�� ��,Motion.c�rried.
6. Planning Case No. PD00-002_ •��`
Planning Associate Atkinson explained that ;Dan Hall, the = Mermaid, has requested City re-
approval of the preliminary plat �+���the Mer4naid Addrtion'����a major subdivision associated with
r�,�,.,
the Mermaid PUD. The piat groups together those parcels`being utilized for Mermaid expansion,
which include the former. Rent �All property, �h'e�1VIiisic=off-10 property, the south 351 feet of the
Maunds View Business Patk South plat, as well as "the existing Mermaid parcels. Aliogether, the
total area invol�ed� in the plat is � 36 aeres.
b f� b .�4�t-
Planning Associate„Atkinson explau�ed tihaf the preliminary plat was originally approved by the
City Council on Novemlier. 13, 2000 °However, the approved preiiminary plat expired.
Plannirig Associate Atlar�s�on noted this preliminary plat is consistent with Chapter 1202 of the
Mounds View City Code regarding subdivisions. The legal descriptions and property ownership
uifonnation appear to be;u� order, however a copy of the preliminary plat has been forwarded to
the City Attorney for hi�'review. A capy of the plat has been forwarded to the County for their
�eview as well.
z;
,.`�';, �
����,
F�aiming Associate'Atkinson stated Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 638-00, a
resolutio�i reco�nmending approval of the Mermaid Addition preliminary plat, with stipulations.
Commissioner Zwirn questioned why the original approval of the preliminary plat had been
alIowed to expire. Commissioner Kaden believed one reason was due to the fact that if certain
Legislative changes regarding t� increment financing had been approved, the Mermaid Addition
would not move forward.
Commissioner Zwirn requested confirmation that a new application had been submitted and
�
;
_ i. _
Mounds View
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
August 1, 2001
Page 11
another fee paid for the application. Planning Associate Atkinson stated this was correct.
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch. To approve Resolution 638-00, a Resolution
recornmending approval of the Mermaid Addition preliminary plat; with stipulat�ons:
Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried:
7. Staff Reports ` � ' � �
r
a, Previous Council Action: Jaly 23, 2001 �
Planning Associate Atkinson reviewed actions taken. at the. July 23, 2�001 City Council meeting.
He indicated the Council approved the parking lot expansion for the Mounds View Business
Park on their consent agenda. He stated the parking lo� expansion had originally been approved
by the City in 1996 but was never bui lt. He :indicated ;tlie .new. owner of the property wished to
move farward with the parking lot expansion at this time but the:original development agreement
had been in the previous owner's name.° -�Te indicat�d in order.:to -add the new property ownez's
name to the development agreement, several other documents would have to be amended, which
would cost a considerable amount of'additional;'money andr:rime. He stated the City Council
adopted a Resolution to amend the development agreementrwith the new property owner's name.
�
Plannin Associate Atkinson announced that the£ City Council approved the Comprehensive
g:.
Plan. He carigratulated �fhe Planriing Comm'tssion on this accomplishment and indicated that
copies of.the new Comprehens�i�e Plan-will be made available.
� 3 i i- .�`..
. : . �- � � #Tr.y {
. . .;, § � :. 5 . �� _.. .
b. �09�'�iillv.iew Roa�, "
R%
planning �ssociate�''Atkinson ,�ndicated that located at 2091 Hillview Road was a boarded-up
four-�Iex that the Crty h�;s beeti; attempting to purchase. He stated that HiJD has accepted the
City's offer to purchase�:tlie:,pro�erty and he was not certain what the City intends to do with the
property at this time.
�Planning Associate Atkinson stated that the new Walgreens store will open the week of August
13x�,.
;: .;
8 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
Chairperson Stevenson asked if there was any potentiai for new restaurants opening within the
City. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the sign at the Donatelli's Restaurant indicates that
they will be opening soon.
Cornmissioner Scotch asked if the restaurant will still be a Donatelli's. Planning Associate
,._ - -.
: : . :. : i. . ; . .
Monnds View
Planning Commission
Regvlar Meeting
Atkinson was not certain.
9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 15, 2001
Augnst 1, 2001
Page 12
10. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the Planning Commissiori; Chair Stevenson adjoumed the
meeting at 8:05 p.m.
��`:� � .
(The meeiing immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) '��
Respectfully submitted, `'"
E .
� ' �,
w �.
�,
:, ,
� ,.
�;A� �
' �
�� � f�`t ... .
Jim Ericson '" �
� �Y
CommunityDevelopment Directorf "� �� �
,�,;, :�
t�;:�:� t , �"�` .
, 2;�`, � .
Transcribed by: °; ;
LoriRolfson: ' `�' , ;-�' .
TimeSaver O.ff: Site Secretarial Inc: -,;
F
•�t S'f :
;1�-:
;'�.".:' .... .
�ia�}
i:
�
;
, ;
�
,
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CONIlVIISSION
September 19, 2001 -- 7:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETIlVG
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
a. June b, 2001
b. August 1, 2aa1
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
CTTIZENS: BEFORE SPEAHING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,
AND GNE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR TI� MIlViITF,S
5. Planning Case DE01-QQ4
Consideration of a development review request to expand the e�sting billboard located on
City-owned property north of County Highway 10, south of Walgreen's.
Applicant: Clear Channel Olrtdoor
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED.
PLEASE NOTIF'Y TI� COMMUIVITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT
7b3-7I7�021 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
b. Staff Reports
a Previaus Council Action: September 10, 2001
b. Highway 10 Project Meetings Oct 10 & Oct 15
7
:
Chairperson and Plar�ning Commissioners' Reports
Next Planning Commission Meeting: October 3, 2001
9. Adjoumment
N:IDATAIGROLTPS�COMDEV\Planning Commission�PCAGENDA�20a11September 19, 2005 PC Agenda.doc
- ._.J
- ....�
_ _?L:j
-:>il
��
; :7�
i
,
i , ,
Item # 5
City of Mounds View
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: September 19, 2001
Title:
DISCUSSI4N REGA.RDING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST BY CLEAR CHANNEL
OUTDOOR TQ EXPAND THE EXISTING BILLBOARD LOCATED 4N CITY-OWNED
PROPERTY; PLANNING CASE DE01-004
Introduction:
This request was first heard before the PIanning Commission on September 5, 2001. The applicant,
in response to a request from the Planning Commission at that meeting, has submitted colored
renditions of the proposal (both overhead and side perspective) which should provide a better visual
image of the proposal, For the most part, the information presented in this report remains
unchanged from the report given to the Planning Commission on September 5, 2001.
Introduetion:
Chris McCarver, representing Clear Channel Outdoor, owner of the billboard located on city-owned
land on the north side of County Highway 10, is requesting approval of a development review to
pernut an expansion of the billboard from 300 square feet to 672 square feet. Clear Channel owns a
permanent lease for the 40-square feet upon which the sign is located. To expand the sign, an
additional easement or lease area may need to be negotiated. It would be the City's position that
even if additional easement area from the City is not needed for the expansion, that the applicant
would be required to enter into an agreement with the City pertaining to the expansion of the
billboard. The property is the former Midland Videen land that the City acquired through its land
swap with TOLD Company. The property on which the sign is located is zoned PF, Public Facilities.
Diseussion:
According to the City's recently adopted Sign Code, the billboard is a legal, nonconforming sign.
Section 1008.13, Subd. 1 of the Code states the following:
"Structural alterations, erilargement or re-erection are permissible only where such
alterations would not increase the degree of the noncanformity of the sign."
City sta�F, supported in opinion by the City Attorney, interprets this to indicate that the sign can be
enlarged because the degree of nonconformity remains unchanged with an expansion. The
nonconfornvty is based not on the size of the sign or its setback, but rather its location. It is
nonconforming QNLY because it is not located north of new Highway 10. The zoning is proper
and the size would be in compIiance. (Billboards are only permitted in a PF or PUD zoning district,
up to 700 square feet.)
_ .. ,
-
Billboard Expansion Request
September 19, 2001
Page 2
As part of the expansion, Clear Channel proposes significant landscape improvements around the
site and would bury the electric service, fhus allowing for the rennoval of a utility pole. The
expansion wouid include the construction of a rock and brick base to add an aesthetic enhancement
to the corridor, in a fashion similar to the base of the new Walgreens sign and that of Wynnsong
Cinema.
Recommendation:
Based on the interpretation of the Code wkuch would indicate that the sign can be expanded, staf�
recommends approval of a development review to allow the expansion of the existing Clear Channel
� billboard, located at 23 73 County Highway 10 (former Midland Videen wetland and open space
parcel) contingent upon the following:
1. Wetland Alteration Permit would be required.
2. An easement or lease agreement would need to be approved for the expanded billboard, to
be negotiated in the best interest of the City.
3. The tan accent brick base and cap shall be of a rock-face or rough-cut masonry material
rather than a simple brick.
4. The wall of the base shall be a darker earth-tone rather than a red brick hue.
5. A landscape glan shall be submitted which clearly identifies the plantings and seed mix to be
used. The landscape plan shall be reviewed by the City Forester. -;;_�_; _a
If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, Resolution 673-01 is available
for Commission action. If the Commission does not feel a recommendation of approval is
appropriate, staff should be directed to draft a resolution recommending denial, inclusive of
findings, which would then be acted on October 3, 2001.
,
4,;���� !�-�C:S�:�'1�..
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Color Site Plan {Sepazate Attachment)
2. Color Sign Elevation (Separate Attachment)
C:IWINN'I1ProfilesUimelFavorites\Comm Dev StufflClear Chuu►el Report - Sept 5, 2001.doc
� ZONING MAP
� � �:.� �
��°� �
� F�'i
�r �
�r� .��;
�'�'.
� �'�� ��:�.�
�
i
i:;._;>' _
���
���`.
.. - ... _ __ � .n.��r..�
� � �a � �
' �� � � �� . �
�, �.
��. - . � �. � ;� �
�:: .
` ��•� ��: �a � �
���
' ��'��s
����
� ���
,
,
���� ���� : ����
��`�"�� ���� ::. . . .. ,, -,_ ..
�'��5� : �'��� ���'�
��
��� �
Community Center
�K��� : �
��.�� ' ��
�. � . .: �
��� ; ��
,�
� ":. .
� `�..m . � ��'�� ' � �
�� .;�,�.�:�,.;;a«<��_ . ��
.; �,
��,.,� ���� _ ��
_�.�
�� �°
Walgreens
�
�a���
���`�
����
��� �``� ����` ���
� �
�
� ���� ��
Clear Channel � "
Billboard r��` � ' �_�`�`�° . �'�'��
Location � �� �, , ` �,,���
�' � �,., .�s� � _ � .
.4�`' � � �� '�'� � � '��
�.. � .
8•.. � a� - 3� � . . � .
'����° �'�� : ,�,� . �,�'��
' r:.: �r: ° .. �°
. ����� �� °' >.. ���� ',
�., �
��. �� �����
' a..�"�_ '. �>
�° '"��'� � � � ����:
°� . � � '�� �
��, ,�.� � �� .
� �� � �� ���:� �. .
�`��� _..,. a
��
. ..
�; ::�-:)
�
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 673-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL �F A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR AN EXPANDED BILLBOARD AT 2373 HIGHWAY 10, REQUESTED BY CLEAR
CHANNEL OUTDOOR; PLANNING CASE N0. DE09-004.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Chris McCarver of Clear Channel Outdoor, has
requested a development review to allow for an expansion of the existing billboard on
Community Center open space, 2373 County Highway 10 as shown on the attached
Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the existing billboard is approximately 25 feefi tall and 300 square feet
in area, and is located on a perpetual easement owned by the applicant; and,
WHEREAS, the applicar�t is requesting to expand the exis#ing billboard to 672
square feet at the same 25-foot height; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned PF, Public Facilities and is considered
a legal, nonconforming sign, and;
WHEREAS, according to Section 1008.13, Sub�. 1. of the Sign Code, "Structural
alterations, enlargement or re-erection are permissible onlywliere such alterations would
not increase the degree of the nanconformity of the sign;" and,
WHEREAS, expansion of the sign is permissible because the alteration does na#
increase the degree of nanconformity; and,
WHEREAS, according to Chapter 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipa! Code,
any new cons#ruction or expansion of existing facilities or uses requires the approval of a
development review; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. Site Plan with Landscape Features
e. Billboard Elevation
f. Staff Report
Clear Channel Resolution 670-01
September I9, 2001
Page 2
WHEREAS, the proposed development satisfies the requirements of the Zoning
Code and building code; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Pianning Commission believes that the expanded
billboard will resuft in an improved aesthetic appearance for the billboard and also the
County Highway 10 Corridor.
NOW THEREFORE BE !T RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission, finding that all of the zoning and building code requirements have been
satisfied, does hereby recommend approval of the development review request for a
672-square foot expanded billboard located at 2373 Caunty, subject to #he folfowing
stipulations:
1. All utilities to the billboard shall be reinstalled underground
2. A landscape pfan shall be submi#ted which identifies the species and numbers of
planting and the type and mixture of wildflower and/or wetland seed to be used
and said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Forester.
3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a City Wetland Alteration
Permit anc! RCWD watershed permit if one is required.
4. An easement or lease agreement shall be approved for the expanded billboard,
to be negotiated in the best interest of the City.
5. The billbaard's tan accent brick base and cap shall be of a rock-face or rough-
cut masonry material rather than a simple brick, and, wall of the base shall be of
a darker earth-ton� rather than a red brick hue.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the
minutes.
Adopted this 19th day of September, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
C:IWINNT1ProfilesUlmelFavoriteslComm Dev SL�fflClear Channel — Resolution 873-09.doc
-
-
---
.. . ,
_. � , ; ;
. :.. ; ; _.----- -- _.
....
_ _ _ _, _ - ; -. . ., --
- _ -. ... - -.
_ _ ,:. - -
_.-- { .- ----
�: -'
a
.. �v. __
�,-:
� -
" * -
_., - :,
��;:; .,::
; ,.; ,.. ,::,.
_ � k ,.
- e;, i':°' . _
o ♦� 'n �
__ �j � b _ .':
° -i °
O �
I
i'
_ �y o-. -
f, ` �;:; r ���t��
-z:-� � _
�� .
� Y ;fi� ��l,i ,w�
-� -
._,�. , _ _
-�� - _
��.° ,;v �; = x:
` �.� -
x A
,.-�r. -,_ -- -
- =. - �r
yv � _
�� ,
� {'
/-..
; '`�
J t
� � �
i� � � �
1 , += 1 J r
� 1.JJ -
� � � �� v Vi/: ° �-V�.�` �''�. :
�� ` _ r
��
� r ��
� . � � � �;'
�%„ '1 _
:/r i_v — ---
a ��
.. _ ' . � �...'
��
{
- ,
' ^ �
- � '.
� - �
��
x�.� '
. . ' - �"� -.rv
_. -�: � , ���
.. . -.. .__ .,_. .,. �'- ],�?=,.__..-
,; -
�� � - --
✓ U�/ f!. i'i� ).¢ -``� I ` . �.,- i .,.:'.. �' ..M' _Y _.. J�� / i d � � .`, . ' .. C�.. - �. .
�`ti'° ?`+�`�.�'._ �"�'f �v - ��� y .. -� _ . ��
, � .. �`� __ _ : ^+� . . . � . .-. . . .- � . : ' � -r:
r� ..� il`jf �� V 2� +� i� ., `�' � �'L�3
. . V, f �'-, f� G -.: � l� �! � �
... � ' � "--� `j� / 11`%,� � /.�� � � .
.. � ._. _ . � �. .. _ /�v� - ._:-1J� Jyp�,�. �" '� � �. �pi ��, - - � � .
. - . � ��� � � � - .,: :';° ;��
f � �r / � r )�
_ _ _ _ - �� ` / � i �;
� '� J J �:
- � � �s`�i�i� .lf� t .
- �-.. ✓� �y r. v . . . : ' . . i � �`\ �� �,� F ' - 1/' . y ��\% .
� J:��.-.�, � ��'_ �����v � -
_- � •
, 1 � � , f .1 i . � ! � � � � Y " . �
. .�. I... . ) � ; L- ' �1 , � .
r� � �V � ,L L / �
,,�j _, � � , - i = ` , . . � . ' f�� . `�_. �
�� � �,� , ' !.� i� � � �
d- ���)/, z- �
_ J1.V..J � �, 1 .
� � �
'�,; � � + ---- _ �
�� , �`—_`" - _ ,����-�
l 1 y
L� " / � I
Z�
. ��
0
F �
� m
'a � �
... $
�
�
� �
K 9
� 9
�i r
a
w
��' y �
�� � w
� • q �
� ,rb I
�I � : _w
�r �
����•�'
�'�• ^ ,
� �
����
�
y J
U .
il � �
PQy .
I [w O O �
� o��
I � �
Ca
� W � -
� �� �
I 5 ;
i° �n
i�� s
��� �
� _
I � �
I i 3 _
� ��
�
_.. , _ _
�.
_ : ---. .,_ . l .; .
�
��� �
�f
_ �' ��`:
�f� n� ,� �
�
r,
��5
•�, :! ,; . •
� �.. �
,. ^ .
.��,� ..
. ;:-
.-_.�. .
.. ...
..._`�._ : •�` �
R_�� ��
; �._:-
w,:_; � .
�
��
;
�� � ���
I�`--�b � (-�i' �1r�rVb �x�
C� Cat�v'
�
,
;:
, - -
, . -- - i:
�.
� ,.
: a -
r � ,
m� a F
j ��a -.
# . . . $ '
t
� . :
!� _
- ;::
�
� -_
� � � n
�
b
� 2
'a�
� ti
y
�f/' .�' : a
I � � �� �
� ::� .
I ��. �:� :
I L ��� �
I �� :=' -
i �o �� -
�°�� �� .
d.
���:
, -
I -
i `
� -
i :
i '
�� �
► .
� aE ;
; �� a
���
� W�
i �� :
, o�
� �� o
i ��o
� �� _
�
I � 9
I • •
' �A
i
i. _ ;
-. ; .. -- -
;:, -. . _ . :
:._
_-_ --- --.-... _: ..:..
-- ,-:_ _ .. ..
- � ..
_ �
>: _ . ' .; .. -----
...._.:. , :;. --
, - _ . _ _ __ --- � _:
= - -- . - __ - .._. _. --- _ ;
Q
;
\
/ / \
��`
I
�
�o
�
� \\ . � " ,
� � . l.
'-' J" / i
,_ � �
�� � ,
_ -_ : � f
- _ .
_ . � - :
. : _ :- - _
_ ;
.Lr -
x, ,.. - _ � ,� ;
� i .-f'' .. , . . a �
� � �
�� S�. �-'�� . . - - - � �� �.
��• .. . . -�r.
° , _ ���
_ . -
�f.� .:�.
r� ' '- .
� .;-. 4:.�.• �-- . .. _ _ . .. ..... . �
�' � r.,
� • • �
_ f � �
~ � f I
= N
• �
_ � • �-. ]��;c, I1tjR b�oct,�
_ - _ ::, _
., ���
.
_ , �_:
_ , : . -_ -
- - - ,�. • - _ �--}�
'�oc�'Fl� a+�! = .� �,
. .� ..
��ucc� (,t►� -� _ - . •. . �.
.
.. �. �
I� r�.w�o�d,- - - ��. -
�no� Me� -
��ce. �1�u� U1��-Id-� 11�t:iX _
(_,Yo - ��c� -�
U1� Tv� � ` .
`�v �4�x ��' �f (1r,�ard - -
U�� �a��� ��
�K �,,� �
"/ �+ • " •/� . .
+ �
I
�
�OpOSEn SIT� IMp�O��MENT pLAN
SCALE- 1'-0"= 30'-0��
�
..
- -� - - '- -- - -- - .. -- --- -_- _ __ . __
�
Moulvns v�w PLa�G Co�ssioN �
October 3, 2001 -- 7:00 P.M.
-::.;
REGULAR MEETIl�TG
AGENDA
1. Ca11 to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
CTI7ZENS: BEFORE SPEAI�NNG, PLEA5E COME TO THE PODIUM,
AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR TI� NIIMI'T�S
4. Pianning Case SP091-01
Discussian and review of Section 1006.Ob of the Mounds View City Code pertaining to
development controls
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEET]NG IS REQUESTED.
PLEASE NOTIFY TFIE COMMUIVITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT
763-717-0021 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
5. StaffReports
b.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
a. Previous Council Action: September 24, 2001
b. Upcoming planning cases
Chaitperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
Next Planning Commission Meeting: October 17, 2001
Adjournment to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
Review Minutes from August 15, 2001 Plannvig Commission Meeting
Review Minutes from September 5, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
Review Minutes from September 19, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEU�Planning Commission�PCAGFNDA�2001\October 3, 2001 PC Agenda.doc
,. _.
; - � , ,
<. .
---. . .. : ,- .. -::----- . ,:,, . .. .: :
;._.. ...., . _..: . -. ;
--- .. _ ... ... ....
---=-- _. �._ -
l 1
, . � . ,
Item # 4
City of Mounds I�iew
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: October 3, 2001
Title: DISCUSSION AND REVIEW �F SECTION 1006.06 OF THE MOUNDS
VIEW CITY CODE PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
Background
Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the section of the City Code that relates to
development controls. This section of the Code is outdated and could pose problems concerning the
requirements for entering into a development contract. Requirements of other cities have been
reviewed and included in this report.
Discassion
The questions that should be addressed by the Planning Commission include:
1. What type and extent of development should be reviewed by the City?
The Code currently requires that a development review should occur far ail industrial,
commercial, and residential development including all "construction, public and private
improvement, expansion or alteration of facilities and Iand within the city." The exception is
for those properties where public utilities and streets exist and no more than two (2} detached
single-faxnily dwellings are planned.
This is a broad requirement that makes aIl development, including proj ects such as sheds and
small additions, eligible for development review, Given the time and cost involved in
securing Conncil approval for a development review, many of these smaller proj ects would
not be realized if the existing requirements were strictly adhered to. Currently, these proj ects
are reviewed by the apprapriate Community Development staff to ensure compliance with
applicable building and zoning codes.
The City of Roseville requires a development review for any construction in all zoning
districts except R-1 and R-2, thus eliminating the need for review of single-family or twin-
family housing:
A. New Construction: For all new construction in all zoning districts exceptR-1
and R-2, a site plan must be submitted for review by the Development Revrew
committee. The required plans submissions and level ofdetail shall be in accordance
with the city's Developrnent Review procedures manual.
B. Repairs, RemodelingAnd Additions: A site plan review is also required for all
� ; .: _
Planning Cominission Report
October 3, 2001
Page 2
;::.. .:._ ;. : _ . .
- ;
repairs, remadeling and additions if the construction involved increases the overall
size of the building by ten percent (10%) or in the event that the construction
increases the assessor's market value by over twenty percent (20%). (Roseville)
The City of Vadnais Heights has similar provisions, but the focus is placed on the type of
development instead of the zoning district in which the developznent is located. It does not,
however, specifically require a development review for expansions of existing developments
as Roseville's code does:
The City Council declares it necessary and appropriate to require site plan approval
of development in certain dist�icts to preserve and promote attractive, well planned
stable urban conditions. This includes all proposed multiple family dwellings (3 or
more units), commercial and industrial developments, and all proposed
developments in the WaterManagement OverlayDistrict. Site Plan Approval by the
City Council must be obtained before a BuildingPermit is issued (Yadnais Heights).
The City of Brooklyn Park provides criteria for an administrarive review process. Projects
that meet the criteria are not required to proceed through the formal Site Plan Approval
process, which requires Council approval:
Administrative Site Plan Review.
(1) Qualification. Site and building plans for projects may qualify for �
administrative Site Plan Review and be approved by the City Manage� in lieu of
City Council approval when they meet the following criteria, except as oiherwise
expressly provided by this chapter:
(a) Residential properties with one dwelling unit per parcel, including
those residential properties within the Planned Community Development
District, the Planned Unft Development District or a Special Zoning
4verly that have already been approved through another procedure and
are in compliance with the approved plan.
(b) Site and building plans that do not require any variances from this
chapter or any other city code provided that.�
The site and building are designed to accommodate a permitted
use in the zoning district the property is located in.
2. The use is not a nonresidential use in a residential district.
3. The use does not provide drive through service.
,}
(� > _t
; _ _
;: ; .: . ..
..:. -- ---
..__. s. .
Planning Commission Report
October 3, 2001
Page 3
r_;_; 1
;
,.
9. The structure is in a non-residential zoning district and is not
adjacent to any property zoned or guided for residential
development other than prope�ty in the Urbc�n Resen�e District
(R-1),
5.
G�
The use is not in the Public Institution District (PI).
The use is not for a religious institution.
7. Expansions for projects classrfied conditional or that originally
needed Planning Comrnission f nal site plan approval, or are
located in a PUD or PCDD district, or a Special Zoning Overlay
and are no more than ten percent of the floor area of the existing
building, and/or affect no more than ten percent of the affected
site. They may include, but are not limited to, changing parking
and circulation routes, changes in buffering or landscaping against
abutting adjacent residential, etc.
8. Uses that have already received a Conditional Use Permit or
approval of a General Plan of Development for a project in the
PCDD, provided that the site and building plans are in
compliance with the approved permit or plan and the
requirements and conditions of the permit or plan have been
fulfilled (Brooklyn Park).
2. What should trigger a development contract?
The code currently requires that a development contract be executed between the developer
and the City prior to final approval of any subdivision, rezoning, conditional use permit,
license, or any building permits required for the construction, alteration, expansion, or
improvement of land. Development contracts take time for the City Attorney to draft and the
City Council to review and approve. As with development review requirements, those with
smaller projects could not afford the time nor expense to execute a development contract.
The City of Brooklyn Park requires a development contract or financial guarantee prior to the
issuance of a building permit for faciiities and amenities as shown on the approved site plan.
This indicates that only those projects that went through the process would require a contract:
In order to guarantee completion of all private exterior facilities and amenities as
shown on the approved site plan or any conditions imposed as part of any
application granted under this chapter applicants must provide a financial
guarantee and/or a development contract before the issuance of a building permit
(Brooklyn Park).
i. _ _ ,
Planning Comrnission Report
October 3, 2001
Page 4
The City of Vadnais Heights specifically refers to only those projects that qualify for the site
plan approval process as requiring a development contract:
Prior to issuing a Buildzng Permit, the City Council may require the developers to
sign an agreement with the City which assures that particular elements of the Site
Plan Approval application, eitherproposed by the applicant or imposed by the Cily,
shall be carried out (Yadnais Heights}.
Roseville only refers to new subdivisions as requiring a development contract:
Contract for Development: Prior to the acceptance of the final plat, the owner or
subdivider shall enter into a contract for development of new subdivisions with the
City (Roseville).
Recommendation:
Discuss the existing requirements and those of other municipalities and provide direction to staff
for a possible code amendment.
/l �� � � --
�J_ I� 'ZJ �-�.__
Jim Atkinson
Planning Associate
Attachments
• Section 1006.06 of the City Code
'`�
,-:
100b.06
10�6.06: DEVEL4PMENT CONTROLS:
1006.06
Subd. 1� Purpose: It is the intent and purpose of this Section to provide for orderly
development of land to safeguard life, health, safety, property and public weSfaze by
regulati.ng and controlling all development within �the City. This Section shall be in
addition to the requirements of any other provisions of tt�e Municipal Code regulating
such developrnent.
Subd. 2. Application of Development Controls: All proposed industrial, cornmercial and
residential deve3opments and expansians of existing facilities, except developments where
public utilities and streets have previously been installed and the erection of no more than
two (2} detached single-family dwellings are planned, must be reviewed by the City
Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the City Council as conforming to this
Sect�on. The term "development", as used herein, shall mean all conshvction, public and
private improvement, expansion or alteration of facilities and land within the City.
Subd. 3. Development Plan:
a. The owner or developer shall submit for review a deveIopment plan which sets forth
i__::= �plans for utility service, surface water drainage consistent with the Local Water
Management Plan dated February 12, 199d`, subject to subsequent revisions, erosion and
sediment controt consistent with the Ratnsey County Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook (1989) prepazed by the Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation Distr�ct
and subsequent revisioris thereto, s�treets, pazking, landscaping, screening and buffering,
lighting, setbaeks, exterior eonstruction design and materials, trash disposal, construction
timetable and�seich other matters as the Council may require.
b. The owner or developer shall submit with the development plan an abstract o£ title,
registered property report or such supporting affidavits or docurnents that establish
ownership or any other parti�s of interest in the property involved.
� � Subd. 4. Developmen# Contract:
a. A development contract which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requixernents,
agreements, guarantees and plans for the orderly development of said land shall be entered
into between the developer and ihe Muticipality prior to the final approval of any
subdivisian, rezoniag, special use permits�, iicense or any building permits required for
the conshvction, alteration, expansioa or improvement af said iand.
�
� See Chapter i3U2 of this Code.
See Titles 1100 and 1200 of this Code for zoning and subdiv'ssion regulations.
Ciry of Movrrds V;ew
,
,. ,
�
�
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MUUNDS VIEW '
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA ' ,
Regular Mee�ing
August 15, 2001
Mounds view City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
,r {
� �.'
��::� .
1. Call to Order
;; �
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:OOjp.m.,
2. Roll Call
Members Present:
Members Excused:
Also Present:
�-
Index to Min�ttes.
� �:
;ust 15; 2001.
�� �
. �� �
�
Commissioners Hegiand, Stevenson,'Johnson, IVIiller, and Scotch.
Cerny {unexcused): Kaden arid Zwirn (excused).
Community Development Dizector Ericson.
Planning Associate Jim Atlanson .
,}:
J Page
� .
Planning Case No yDE01-;Q03 � ;�`���''
Applicant. �Dr. Bru�e S�hnabel and�r. Kevin Barcus
Consideration of a Developmen���eview for the Mounds View
Animal Hospitallocated atR262�,�Cbunty Highway 10
�..
;; �� � ��:�.-
,! :..
,., :
Staif Reports/Items of I�formation -
�liairperson and Pl�iin'ing Comrnission Reports
3. �`�Citiz�ns Reqnests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
There were no resident comments on iiems not on the agenda.
2
6
S
�
Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
4. Approve Minutes from July 1$, 2401 Planning Commission Meeting 'i
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch io approve the Ju1y 18, 2001 meeting minutes as corrected.
Ayes — 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. _
5. Planning Case No. DE01-003
Planning Associate Atkinson explained the applicants, Dr. Bruce Schnabel and Dr. Kevin Barcus
of the Mounds View Animal Hospital, have requested a development review to construct ,an
, animal hospital consisting of 5,086 gross square feet. He advised the. Planning Commission that
these applicants appeared previously for a rezoning to B-2 anc�, conditional use permit which was
tabled by the Council. He further explained the purpose of a development.review is to allow the
Pla�uiing Commission to evaluate proposed development in terms of its consistency with City
Codes and ta ascertain and mitigate any potential im act.s, to the adjoining �properties and the
community as a whole. The Planning Commissio� ,�akes a recammendation to the City
Council, who then acts upon the request. �� � a 5 L' �
� �;
Planning Associate Atkinson noted the proposed site for the neW,facflrty is an irregularly shaped
lot recently rezoned B-2, Limited Bu��ness. The:- property is adjacent to the Silver Lake
Commons apartments to the north, a res��ential neighhorhood�fo the east, and the Mouttds View
�, t� _� _�
Square shopping center to the south, Cozinty Hig�i�vay 10 borders the property to the west. ,� 1
�' r' ; � ;c.d .
k�.; '
Mr. Atkinson reviewed the dimensional requireinents as -detailed in the staff report. He then
s;.
presented �.the parking issues, nQ�ing that a�c,brdirig ::tlie City Code, Section 1121.13, animal
;,�-
hospital�:requixe three �3) spaces!�plus one (T)`sp�ce for each one hundred seventy five {175)
square f.eet offloor area. Tlie�applicant's proposed facility would be 5,086 gross square feet, and
4,317 square:feet of:usable spac�, wliich.is typically used for calcuIating parking spaces. This
calculation eliminates the width of exterio'r;walls and mechanical areas within the structure. The
required parkingx based on usable square feet, is twenty-seven (27) spaces which would be
provided: -
Planning Associate Atktns5on explained that as shown on the site plan, two {2) access points to
the; site are proposed. Qiie �is;located on Eastwood Road and the other on Gounty Highway 1Q.
He reviewed that at a' previous Planning Commission hearing, residents indicated that the
additional traffic entering and exiting the site on Eastwood Road would negatively affect tne
neighborhood. Their desire was to eliminate the access point on Eastwood Road and only allow
access from Counfy Highway 10. The applicants have addressed this issue by indicating that a
mimmal amount of appointments can be made at one time, thus limiting the arnount of traffic to
t�e s1"te at a given time.
Planning Associate Atkinson advised that Staff feels the access point on Eastwood Road is
important since the access point on County Highway 10 would only allow right-in/right-out
traffic. The Eastwood Road entrance would allow custorners to use the firaffic light at County
Road i for safe access to and from the site. He stated the only concern staff has is witl� the =
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
August 15, 2001
Page 3
location of the two access poin#s in relation to each other. There is a straight route from one to
the other which may encourage cut-through traffic from Eastwood Road to County Highway 1 Q.
A mare indirect route through the parking lot may discourage cut-through traffic or at least
rninimize the speed of this type of traffic.
Platming Associate Atkinsan noted the building elevation drawings depict tlie Iocation of light
fixtures on the exterior of the proposed building. The site plan, however, :does not show any
other lighting on the site. He advised the City Code does nof: require lighting in parking areas,
but it may be beneficial if the proposed Zighting on the stcvcture does not adequately provide
light for the parking areas. Piaru�ing Associate Atkinson;sta:ted Staff.would recommerid that if,=
parking lot lighting is utilized, either through the proposed burld�ng 'lights or additional ;paiking
lot lights, that it be consistent with the City Code pertainirig to h`gh�ing and glare. He suggested
the applicant be asked to address the issue of lighting. '`�'�:
�
.��.�� � �
Planning Associate Atkinson explained the site currently'lias a low ly�ig ar�a that catches runoff
from adjacent properties, mainly , from the southern portion of the'',Sil�er .Lake Commons
apartments. Development of the site will alter the curre�t flow of water; so �t;.�s imperative that a
proper drainage system be put in place to handle =ad�t�na� water runaff. from the increased
impervious surfaces as well as existing runoff from ad�acent pxoperties. ,;; �-'
�
Planning Associate Atkinson advised that.according;to the grading plan, the site will continue to
provide a water detention pond at the southernmost portion of;the property. The parking lot is
shown to be constructed with a slight slope to drain stormwater away from the building and into
areas of pervious green space and the pond; ori the srte which is encouraged by Rice Creek
Watershed District and consistenf�yvith its "best management practices" philosophy. The parking
lot is equip�ed with a spillway ta,allow wate��o flow�,tb �the pond without being impeded by the
curb along, tTie:perimeter of �the parking area: ``��ater from the Silver Lake Commons will likely
run along�the `:common prop�q�;�mezto areas of pervious green space along Highway 10, given
the gradirig of the tarea unmediakely north of the proposed building. Rice Creek Watershed
District does not rieed',`to rev�ew�`t�lits �evelopment as it falls well below the minimum acreage
threshold , t � 5 °� �'���
. � �;`
- - £.. #.vc %Sa,;
M P
Plannirig Associate At�nson�po�ted out that according to the proposed site plan, several mature
���
trees�will be removed Tlie ��pTicants, however, have indicated that they will save aIl remaining
txees that are not located'��irr :t�lie proposed parking areas or building footprint, which would be
j ap�iroximately sixteen ��=fi) mature trees, The applicants will also be addin�g ten (10) potentialla
.shr:ubs around the pen�neter of the structure and six (6) Hosta shrubs around the base of the
.� ;-,,.,
proposed sign located along County Highway 10.
, :..
�Planning A"ssociate Atkinson reviewed Chapter 1121.09, Subd. 12 of the Zoning Code, which
addresses fiiie screening of parking lots that abut residential property. He noted the property line
adjacent to the Silver Lake Commons is proposed to conta.in six (6} parking spaces, which would
require compliance with this provision. He explained the City Code allows two (2) options for
screening: a fence, which must comply with the provisions established in Section 1103.08; or, a
greenbelt planting strip, which must comply with Section 1103.48 Subd. 6{a). He noted that the
apartments do have a fence along the property which meets Code requirements. While staff
Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
would prefer a more natural buffer, the drawback is that it would take years to fi.�lly screen the j
parking area when a fence would provide for immediate screening. In this case, input from
adjacent residents would be helpful.
Planning Associate Atkinson noted the building exhibits an aesthetically pleasing, context-
sensitive residential appearance. Materials to be used include brick on the lawer`.portion of the
wal�s, vinyl siding on the remainder of the wall, and steel panel'roofing. He',preserited elevation
drawings and indicated Staff feels it will blend in well with the neighborhood. i
Planning Associate Atkinson stated the applicants are propo'sing two wall signs and one ground
sign far their facility. The ground sign will be located on the southern portion of the property,
, approximately twenty (20) feet from the property line. The sign rrieets the setback requirement of
fifteen (15) feet. The two wall signs will be located on the southwest and sontheast sides of the
building, respectively. The elevation drawings show the Iocatiori-of the signs, but do not show
the size of the signs. The ground signs may be a maxunutn�of 100 square feet;in total area for all
ground signs.
- .;�f0. i'kL ���'„�}.� t .;.
� 3��
Planning Associate Atkinson stated if tYie Planrifng Corniiiission beheves it has received
sufficient information from staff, residents a.rid the appl�cant, �ti may act on Resolution 670-01, a
�„ � �
resoIution recommending approval of the �: developmerit review �for �ie Mounds View Animal
HospitaL If the Planning Commission feels that the:�applican.ts�'�ave not adequately addressed
these issues, they should table the re�iew ezntil the �next meeting to allow the applicants time to
provide more information to satisfyst�ie �Commission. � P� ,"'�
;n�� , , , , . ,
: �� :�'"�;5� _
Commissioner Johnson asked if •;a condihori can �be �a���ed to the development agreement to
require a fence to be erected�shoul�l the fence�o�v�r`ied b j��the apartments be removed at some point
, , ,. �,�, �� �;.s
in t�me ;�Plarirung Associat�`Atklrnson stated th�� coi�dition could be added.
.;�;; 4 y � �,y
i - � � �.rs
`:�.J r ��' ����.�r�t
Communrty D�velopment Director Encson clarified that the fence on Silver Lake Commans was
constructed as part of a development re�iew and is required for their development so it cannot be
removed.
Commissioner Miller asked'how large the staff will be at any one time.
. 5+ ..
Dr;Kevin Barcus, applicant; estimated eight to ten. -
y,.
`' Commissioner Miller asked if proof of parking is an option since their staff level is low and there
would be adequate parking spaces. She suggested requiring additional green space and proof of
pazking rather than 27 parking spaces.
Flannirig; Associate Atkinson stated the revision to require additional landscaping and green
space with proof of parking in lieu of parking could be done.
Dr. Barcus stated he would also support more green space but is unsure how the site can be
reconfigured to create more green space. He noted that the refuse area could be moved closer to
the building to provide additional green space. -
_
_
_... .. ; .. .. - - -
.. . _. ; -.
,. ,. .. _ -----�--- -----
- -. - < ----- _. :..:. _. ..... .
--._. _---- ,
�; ,i
Mounds View P3anning Commission
Regular Meeting
August 15, 2U01
Page 5
Community Development Director Ericson advised that an accessory structure cannot be located
in the front yard but it could be relocated. He pointed out the new location that would satisfy the
setback requirements and advised that Dr. Barcus has indicated that location is acceptable.
Commissioner Miller stated if pass through traffic becornes a problem, "no through traffic" signs
could be posted. She asked who will maintain the pond.
Dr. Barcus stated it will be their responsibility but it is his understanding that the pond will not
hold much water, if any. '
Commissioner Miller asked where the animals will be exerci"sed-if;�
used the site map to identify the location of the fence line alon;� �the;
E�, ,
area that will be fenced. '�
.!Y`'�
are boazded. Dr.' B�arcus
�rtments and the exercise
Chair Stevenson suggested the plans be revised to idenhfy:that locatiori'and<the relocated refuse
area prior to Council consideration. � � ��� = �- �' -� ,
iF'� �
K g:.M
. f . � ��=� . ..��,��
Planning Associate Atkinson suggested the resoiution be `revised to add several conditions as
follows: '�'
• The ground sign shall be of a monument style with a masonry base. No pole or pylon
si�s shall be permitted.
• The garbage enclosure sha11 be set back thi,rty (30) �feet from Eastwood Road and shall
conform to City design,staiidards
� �;.� °�
• The site pTan shall be re�ised to;show the location of the proposed dog run at the rear of
the facihty °�
,a
; ` ',.• � � �` i:
� • The laiidscape plan,.shall be re�+i�wed by the City Forester.
�, 5 F �:i_�•M . .
Planning� Associate A�klnso���,siated Dr. Barcus has agreed to these revisions and staff will
reseaYCh the option of providing�iroof of parking to add green space.
.�ommissioner Hegland suggested eliminating #he parking spaces along the building; next to the
A�trash area to assure iY�is accessible. Dr. Barcus stated that rear parking azea would be used by
staff,and they wili assure it is open on trash day.
' � f�
'�Dr B�rcus'.stated there is a lot of green space in the area of the pond a.ud he is unsure where
more green� space can be added since tbe two access points must be maintained.
Commissioner Scotch asked if the clinic will have additional space. Dr. Barcus stated it is fully
built-out with no additional space.
� ; ,: .
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
August 15, 2001
Page 6
Discussion occurred regarding the parking configuration and door entrances in an attempt to
eliminate some parking spaces and increase green space. It was indicated that the parking spaces
are arranged appropriately.
Chair Stevenson asked why the handicapped stall is located around the camer. `Dr. Barcus
pointed out the location of the handicapped parking stall and -explained i�' provides a closer
location to the door and a more direct route into the building
Chair Stevenson asked if the resolution needs to address :'the boarding aspect. Commissioner
Miller pointed out that tlie boarding aspect has not yet been appraved.
Community Developrnent Director Eri.cson noted that during development review, the Planning
Commission has not usually addressed what goes on inside tiie building beyond reviewing the
floor plan and function of the building. He noted that during the .conditional use permit
consideration, considerable discussion occurred relative to the boarding aspeet:,
Coxnmissioner Miller requested a correction to the resolution; which Planivng Associate Atkinson
indicated would be made. -
Commissioner Hegland expressed concem with the parking `calculation"being based on excluding
some of the square footage rather than�,`:.on buildirig footprint;:, He stated he would be more
inclined to support a proof of park�ng option. Community Deyelopment Director Ericson stated
staff will research that option. He eXplained,, staff typxcally utilizes the useable space to f`'�
s :��
determine parking requirements and; in past��orisiderahon's�; spaces such as mechanical rooms �
have been excluded. Commututy Development,,Direct.Q�,��ncson stated staff will review the Code
�� . � q.:A :;�
to assure.it is done consistenfly s x;�� r
y`� „� -.
���:_:;� .
at 2625 Countv
J
�ay 10; Plarin
Ayes -: S
,t. To Adopt Resolution 670-01, a Resolution
`��opment Review Request for an Animal Hospital Located
;,;Case No. DE01-003, As Revised.
Nays — 0 Motion carried.
7. , Staff Reports �{�
� R�signation of PIanning Commissioner Brian Kaden
Community Develbpment Director Ericson advised that Brian Kaden had submitted his
resignatiori. frarri'the Planning Commission. He stated staff will present the Bylaws at the next
meeting:to,review the Cornmissioner's responsibility for meeting attendance.
Chair Stevenson asked that this discussion be placed on the next meeting agenda.
Previous Council Action: August 13, 2001 -
�
, : .:
-----�
--
: _...
.. . _: , . --
-:- � .. -- - _ -
i�
i,
Mounds View Planning Commission Augusf 15, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 7
Community Development Director Ericson reviewed actions taken at the August 13, 2001 City
Council meeting. He advised the conditional use permit for the animal hospital was reviewed
and staff recommended it be tabled so 4rdinance 685 could have first reading, second reading,
and adoption. He noted that amendment will conditionally allow animal boarding so once
adopted, the animal hospital boarding request can be considered as a conditional use permit.
Community Development Director Ericson stated the Walgreen'sproject is near comgletion and
Council has accepted the improvements on that site conditioned on Rice Creek Watershed
District approval (which was received today}, and the pathway being striped in the.driveway. He
advised the City Forester reviewed the landscaping and ,ViWalgreen'.s �agreed to maintain the;
landscaping to the point the City main#ains the highway ditch to create'a manicured appearauce.
Community Development Director Ericson stated the Council approv�ed a liquor and restaurant
license for t]�e Knotty Pines Tavem and Grill (formerly Dox�atell�!_"s) and;1t, is expected to open in
;
several days. �
���.: `' r'_�:�ia��' n'�r�� . .
Community Development Dizector Ericson reported th� conditional use permit for the oversize
garage was approved by the Council. • v -°� � t " w '
,
,�. , ���
;�. �� �, � , �- :
Chair Stevenson stated the variance criteria for hardahips carne mto''question at the Council
meeting. Community Development Direetor Encson explained`,t�at 1VIr. Baurnhofner appealed
the Planning Commission denial whicli �esulted in, a lot of discussion. He explained that while
the Council may have supported consideration; � they realized they are bound by the same
rationale for granting a variance as�.is the Planniiig Comm�s'sion. In additian, the City Attorney
advised that they would have to' draft findirigs of fact and address each of �he seven variance
criteria. The: Council unanimously upheld tlie Planning Cornniission recommendation of denial.
.�
Commuruty Development � Direcfor Ericson advised that Neal Zinser is working with Ernie
Gustafson on-� subdivision pro�ect r�hic� would be considered by the Planning Commission at
its next meeting H� noted if the"mtddTe.,1Qt° on County Road I was zoned R-2, it would xesult in
setbacks that would� �ecessitate a vanan'.ce. The application indicates they are no longer looking
for an R-2, .designation so,; it :would be R-1. However, the corner lot would not meet the R-1
,
requirements. He e�
gettir�g any closer to
up is based on the location of Mr. Gustafson s house since
result in the need for an additional variance.
I�T�aI Zinser, Hamilton��Creek Companies, introduced himself and stated he has entered into a
': contract with Mr. Gus�ta`fson to purchase the land and also entered into contracts with buyers o£
{ ..: .- �s.
_ the;:homes that woul� be constructed. He stated there are currently interested buyers for a ots
��except Lot 2 vyh�re'they intend to construct a house that is complimentary to the other homes.
I3e adui5ed tliey'`will meet with the buyer of Lot 5 tomonow subject to receiving the variances.
`Mr ' Zuiser stated they are ready to comply with City requirements and will measure the area to
assure`they meet the setbacks from Long Lake Road. He stated the only remaining issue is with
Lot 3. Mr. Zinser stated they want to be a compliment to Mounds View.
Commissioner Miller asked if the St. Paul Wafierworks will impact the project. Mr. Zinser stated
their surveyor has been in contact with them to determine the exact location.
Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 200I
Regular MeeEing Page g '
�.
Chair Stevenson asked if a variance would still be needed on Lot 3. Comznunity Development
Director Ericson answered in the affirmative.
Chair Stevenson stated that variance was to have been addressed at tfie meeting tonight.
Community Development Director Ericson explained that Mr. Zinser wanted ta' provide the
Planning Commission with additional information, as distributet�:tonight. "Hovt�ever; staff did not
receive that new information in time for inclusion in the meeting packefs: He advised the
variance request remains tabled until the Planning Commission takes it off the table which will
occur at the next meeting. .;
!: _ : .
�;
Commissioner Miller asked how many lots were being considered on County Road I.
Commtinity Development Directar Ericson stated four lots were being cansidered and now it is a
five lot plan with Lot 5 being rezoned to R-2. Once the subdivisiori plan'is in place, the Zoning
Ordinance would be back before the Council for secorid readirig and . a more accnrate lot
description would be in place. ,
Chair Stevensan asked if Mr. Gustafson's property shauld also be rezoned to R-2 so in the future
it could be used for a duplex. ,
Ernie Gustafson stated his house is almost a duplex 'now since he �added a second story after the
tornado.
�`� � ' �
Community Development Directox Ericson statied �that zs pqssible to �o.
; �
Mr. Zznser stated Mr. Gustafson�s house fas;es✓ Caunty''Road I and everything else is currently
zoned R 2 H�•��agreed a��zbiung`to R-2 would��elp'Mr. Gustafson with a future sale.
� 1z;�
: : �� �' g
Mr. Zznser asked af. the P�ar�nitig Coi�imission would like to see building renderings. The
Plaxuung Commissibr��ind2cated the� would:�-
_ . ��r, � ,
� t��
8. Chairperson and Plann
No 'ne.
Commissioners' Reports
. 9��, Next Planning Commission Meeting:
10.:' Adjournment to Agenda Session
September 5, 2001
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 8:10 p.m.
( - _�
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) _-
I y
�' ..
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Resgectfully submitted,
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Carla Wirth
, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
R h
,�,..
}�H::
X �'
4 .
f � i! 5 $ � f'":
J
� '
.3p
.�: "�
.%,��eY `;wi?
- ;:i�.:
_= I.
.','; .i : ' ,
�, -
i: ;
; � .:.
'� �;s
S-'1 r
_ �''-'p ...... �
.. �
August 15, 2001
Page 9
t� .
� {' : �
.:.y.,... �..
ii
t %�.'' '
.. ., _�£r, .
:,.�;;ti
'..:�p ��;;,:
i ,.
�.
_ `,1
1
i- - _ i
; - - - -- - -
;
,,
PRUCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANIVING CUMMTSSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COL]NTY, MINNESOTA
` Regular Meeting
Septiember 5, 2001
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 1.0, Mounds View, MN 55112
;..:'.�
1. CaII to Order �F ��
�
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., �Sep�ember 5.,, 2001.
� , ,;
.�,._� � . _..
2. Rol1 Call
Members Present:
Members Excused:
� �
E;
. ..f �..... . .. .� . e .
Commissioners
Stevenson. , ,
Kaden {ex+
CominuniS
. �::
��,
.�.-
Index to NLn�i�es .�Y:' '
. ;�,;::
,
t r�
Planning Casie rTo..VR01 00�,;:
Applicant: Neal Zinst�r%�r�ue'Gustafson
Location: 2525 Cou�tyRoadl
�_:
P�anning Case No. DE�,�-Q04
�1p�plicant: Clear C�i�nel Qutdoor
;.L�cation: :�`�
F ����;
Discusssop of Section 1006.06
Y� �v��i� i -
ro2:•�
Cotrsideiation of Resolution 67i-Ol
Staff Reports/Items of Inforrnation
�1
;. m,�� r . -
,. {�
����
,, ,:
,,, { r,;
son, Zwun,lVTillei, Scotch and Chairperson
���
Chairperson and Planning Coznmission Reports
Ericson and Planner Atkinson.
Page
2
3
7
8
10
10
, _ _. ._
.
_ _ E . � . . _ _ . . . . � . . � . - .. . ... . - .. . ' . -
Maunds View Planning Co
mmission September 5, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
3. Citezens Requests and Comments on Items Not an the Agenda
There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda
£ '4
4. Planning Case No. VROl-009 `��' �.
Planner Atkinsan addressed the Commission and explamed`t�ie"circumstances surrounding fhe
request for the variance. He noted that Staff feels it is important to mai�ntain Yhe 10-foot sideyard
setback from the existing house due to the location of the l�ouse ori the lo�� �;�lanner Atkinson
also explained that Mr. Zinser has joined Mr. Gustafson ui'developmg tfie property and noted he
was in attendance to answer any questions the Commission may have `�
Chairperson Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7 03 p:m„ ,
Mr. Zinsar told the Commission the only change to previously sulimitted plans was the request
for the variance for the 94-foot frontage;.on County Road I. `_ �"''
Commissioner Miller questioned where fhe garage on Lot 3.:would be located.
Mr. Zinser:indicated he had :planned to locat�
Long Lake �oad adjacent'to� Courity Road I.
of the:Commissi
• ,':s :
reference the
�ards the street and it would face
t;_,
he would comply with any request
e`rni�g the;location of th�e garage.
�ti_
noted he fe�t �he �esolution should refer to Lot 3 for clarification and
ir the loca"�ion bf�#he�house on Lot 4.
���:�.,.� � ��'
� � -,- �-��,�.:
� r�re�°�s to the purpose of the 100-foot frontage requireinent.
� �.
�� �' �
; � ; � � �;a:
Planner Atkinson indicated �h�i on corner lots it is better to have the larger frontage due to the
t�?Va front yards and the 3�'-foot setback requirement.
Commissioner Mille�;questioned how the Commission could grant a variance when the property
has; not been officially subdivided.
{
si
� Pianner Atkinson�indicated that the variance would aliow the subdivision to proceed.
Commissioner Miller indicated she was still concerned about granting a variance.
Community Development Director Ericson suggested adding a stipulation to the Resolution
requiring that the variance be subject to the application and approval of a major subdivision for
the property.
,
� ' _ . .._. _ _._
�
I I
Mounds View Planning Co
mmission
Regular Meeting
, -- . -
_ _ ,
September 5, 2001
Page 3
Chairperson Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Stevenson: To Approve Resolution 672-01, a Resolution
Approving a Variance to Pernut a Six-Foot Reduction in the Minimum Lot Width Requirement
for a Proposed Lot at 2525 County Road I.
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 �^,. Motion carried.
,,
5. Planning Case No. DEOl.-U04
Community Development Director Ericson indicated.tlus is a request far: d.iscussion on a
potential expansion of the billboard located on crty o,,v�m�d l�.n�i. on the nor� si�e� of Counry
. � , ��, e
Highway 10. ,;� t��� � ;
���- a �� ,:; �.'. ��:�. �
��,' � �I � �' x� f?1:';
Community Development Director Ericson;explained'that Clear Chanr�el Outdoor has a
e etual lease easement on the ro ert �"�anted b`tiie revious��o�r`iers, Midland Videen. He
P� p p,�X�.�' Y�,, P
then indicated Cleaz Channel Outdoor_`�s�roposing, to expand,the billboard to double the size of
the current billboard. He indicatedthat``the billi���d would.;a,lso be upgraded to a masonry or
�� ��
stone type base similar to the Wa�greens and �ynnsong,The'atre si�s.
. _.��J..� 'r!�i'H i .
Ericson
and th� Walgre�ns and Wyrinsong;xl'h
billboard ,, - ,
a
, Q ��{
Community Deyelop�
expansion of �tfie bill�
meets all;`o'�her requir
Cominunity Develop�
f�ct that the sign will
u%order to abtain the
Ghannel Outdoor inte
� iri �ddition to what1Yt:
��._ . _,. . .. �.
..^°} i:::.
�z�ed�`a'gaphic showing the existing billboard
as an example of possibilities for the new
�r�' indicated that the Sign Code does allow for
the billboard is nonconforming due to its location and
nt }Duec�`or Ericson indicated that the Commission needed to consider the
;,!t�iere� forever and, as such, it may be a good idea to allow the expansion
i�`rovements in appearance for the sign. He then indicated that Clear
!s to landscape around the sign and may need to obtain a small easement
ready has. He fiuther indicated that, if Clear Channel Outdoor needs
be some negotiation as to the terms of the easement and terms of the
-��-i?�!,G�U,V ^:uL� Y'.;y�ML�K�v uw�v.
y ' �'
�a. 8. � �8 .:�..
� _ a � }•,...
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that because the applicant intends to alter a
wetland, the proposal must go before Council for approvaL
Commissioner Hegland questioned why the applicant would need to alter the wetland.
Mounds View Planning Co
rr�mission
Regular Meeting
. . - '� � . �.. _., �� -�.�: .� .�. ..: -�..: `..: � � � .: ". -.'
September 5, 2001 �
Page 4
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that right now only the pole is in the
wetland, but an expansion and design change would put tlie whole sign in the wetland: He then
noted that the improvements to the sign, including the new sign base, will rnake the sign more
appealing, but there will be an impact to the wetland that should be looked af. -
Chris McCarver of Clear Channel Outdoor thanked Community Develo�ment Du-ector Ericson
for his accurate portrayal of the wishes of his company in regards to its sign. He then<�oted that 1
when the company first looked at improving the sign at this lbcatian,`it` decided it wanted to'
improve the aesthetics of the sign. He further stated that his comp' anyis interested in enhancing
the area by making the si� match the common design theme,.�or. ihe area. Mr. McCarver also
indicated that the power pole and overhead power would be`e�iminated ;w]iich should improve
the aesthetics of the sign. }
Mr. McCarver explained that the current dispiays are'"the po`-s`ter�type and�the �ie�v sign will be
printed or painted vinyl that Iooks cleaner aud will not "flag'! as the older gosters had a tendency
to do.
Mr. McCarver provided pictuzes of the billboard for tlie Commission to review.
Commissioner Miller asked if the sign would be lit 24 hours per day.
,,,
h, , ,
Mr. McCaryer explained that lus company has. a practzce;of turning the lights off at midnight.
He then stateti that they could lea�i� the sign ht.2� h�ku=s per day but said it is not something they
have ddn� in tlie�past or pYaii fo, do `in the future": T��`� }
,=�;� � �-� � � �'. � -
� =�. , z_. �� ���. __ r' ����,
an expansion.
does not wanl
�sfe�i the City be certain that the sign is permanent before approving
that �i�Ct''tiyTh�s tried to eliminate billboards from that area and he
expansion i�there is a possibility of eliminating the sign.
�
Commuriity Development D.iir�e,ctQZ>Ericson indicated that the Code allows for the nonconforming
sig� �ito remain indefinitel� `�'4 cL said the easement makes it a permanent sign. He further
in2�cated that Staff had c�refiilly considered the request to deternune if it was good for the City
�nd had determined tha,�',ry-since the sign will be there farevsr, the City should take the opportunity
to- improve the look of��e sign.
s:��.
Coinmwuty Dev�eIopment Director Ericson explained that he had spoken to Mr. McCarver
earl�er in;�lie. day and was told that he had intended to provide a color graphic of the proposed
sign ��r the meeting bnt did not have time due to confusion as to what date the matter was on the
Flanning Coinmission agenda.
Commissioner Miller questioned whether the City could control what went on the billboard.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated what goes on the billboard is up to Clear
Channel Outdoor because it owns the sign.
�,
,
- -.. . . - :;: .. .., .
..- � - .
_:
-- _.
::
:..,
,.
,. _. _- __ , . --
_ _
:._ .
, . . _ _. ---
,
Mounds View Planning Co
' mmission
Regular Meeting
September 5, 2001
Page 5
Mr. McCarver explained that his company has an internal approval process that deterniines
whether a sign would be objectionable to a reasonable and prudent person. He;then indicated
that in the past his company has turned away adult entertainment a�vertising as they feel it would
be objectionable and they intend to continue to do so.
Commissioner Johnson asked how high the brick face was on,�the Wynnsong Theater sxgn.
Community Development Director Ericson approximated the height to be four feet.
Commissioner Hegland asked if the City is obligated to allow �the� applicant to expand its sign as
it is fairly large already and, if made larger, it will dominate that stretc� of �ounty Highway 10.
Community Development D'uector Er�cson explained. khat �the sign is nari±canforming only in the
sense that i# is located in the wrong spot. He then m�icated that he interprefs the code to mean
that tl�e City is obligated to allaw tYie sign to be_expaiided �Ie further indioa��ed #hat if, in order
<,,�
to expand, the applicant would need to enlarge�'its easemen��he Cz'ty �voul"d not be obligated to
agree to that. s a�:" �:a' �� J��`��.;=i ..t.
Commissioner Hegland indicated
e�pansion of the sign.
\a Community;Developme:
,
City Attozney.�who agref
�
° �;�,.
Commiss�orier 1Vlxller nc
Commwruty Developme
discussion if the�Clty all
does notsthirile the anblic
��
that the`City is obligated to allow the
ie had discussed the matter with the
situation.
only billboard without a sunset clause.
�,, Directoi��ncs�on=noted that may be �-ue but said it could be a topic of
Ns:for the u�e of its land to expand the sign. He further stated that he
u�:would be in favor of a sunset clause but said the matter could be
addre5sed. d �-�
rk N
s {� '� �
C.oinmissioner Hegland q�estioned
the applicant.
�° h-"
whether the City had discussed making the sign smaller with
"�oii�munity�Develo�ment Director Ericsan indicated that he and the applicant had discussed, at
l�iigt�;.the size-o��e sign and have determined that there are standazd sizes to billboards and the
r.equested szgn�:is the next size up from the size of the existing billboard.
-e} ;v
Mr. McCarver explained that there are a couple of different standard sizes and the next size up
from the one requested is 20 x 60, which his company felt was too large for the area.
Chairperson Stevenson asked how the size of the billboard would compare to the proposed golf
course signs.
, _ _____ .
. . .. ..
.. - . , .. : . ... . .
. , ., , , ;. .. ,.
Mounds View Planning Co
mmission
Regular Meeting
September 5, 2401
Page 6
Mr. McCarver indica#ed that the proposed billboard would be the same as what is proposed foz
the golf course, He then noted that his comgany is not increasing the height of the sign just the
width of the sign.
Commissioner MilIer questioned who received the income fr�m the billboard.
Mr. McCarver ciarified that Clear Channel Outdoor receives the income because it owns; the
billboard. '�$,,,1 �' .
E
R '�
Commissioner Scotch asked how the lighting would be affixed to the billboard.
_ E < �. ,.�` ;
Mr. McCarver indicated that the light fixture would be attached to the aatwalk and would shine
upward on fihe sign. .� �� �. � �
: {.
����., -� { � ;
� b � ti ,., � y ,
� .: �
Mr. McCarver no#ed that his company is one o��e;larger companies in the Twin Cities area and
it struggles with taking too much liberty wrth existing easieii�.en����ii�.ordinances. He then said if
the sign were in a different location perhaps'the company would need to m� out the size of the
sign but not in this location.
Mr. McCarver commented that this type of sign is' �an extremely new concept for the area and
said his company is attempting to �f t more into tlie look and feel of the community. He also said
i� '
his company would like to becom� more of a�paztner:with the City.
§'�`v E £ : ���:q
. f t i� k�.L,r ,' � '.k3'„���
: ( t '
Com�niss�oner=lVliller mt�tured as x� the siatus of the golf course billboards.
,..�
-
Mr. McCarver indicated he knew, th� mi
and the Commissioner Qf Tr�nsport�t�oi
Transportat�on;had recently;,demed tYie�
therefore: riot able fo�e�laiY���eXactiv w7�
;r was under review by an administrative law judge
ric� he had heard that the Commissioner of
Enit reqnest. He then noted he is not an attorney and,
is happening with the situation.
ssioner Zwim as�e�-i�#here were plans far continued maintenance for tbe plantings
the sign. �' � ��`
>.;"'�Ir: McCarver indicat�� that his company has a crew dedicated all summer long to maintaining a
n�iber of properties the company owns. He then indicated that part of the agreement would be
�oz` t�ie company to'maintain the landscaping, do grass cutting and keep the property looking neat
arid orderly. , ;
Commissioner Zwirn indicated the appeaxance of the brick frontage must also be maintained.
Mr. McCarver indicated he could work out an agreement with Community Development
Director Ericson concerning maintenance of the property.
,, Mounds View Planning Co
mmission
Regular Meeting
{ . � 'a
September 5, 2001.
Page 7
Commissioner Scotch indicated that if the City did not allow tfie expansion and upgrade of the
billboard the company could potentially have a side by side sign in that locataon.with four
advertisements an the sign rather than two.
Mr. McCarver indicated that the upgraded billboard would be one display per side� and would be
changed out approximately every 60 days.
Commissioner Hegland inquired as to what the company's ,pohcy ,was on graffiti.
Mr. McCarver indicated that the company would take care of graffitz immediately as his
company is obligated to reimburse its client for the amount of tixne the graffiti remains on the
sign. He then explained that this is something the company wants to avoid so there are full time
people on staff to immediately deal with graffiti should it occur.
��,� . �
Chairperson Stevenson asked if Red McCombs;,is a rr`ia�or���a}�er in Clear Channel Outdoor.
���; s�,� � t; ,�
- ;,���� , �; ��£ .,,- �
Mr. McCarver indicated that Red MeCombsis the second Iargest s'hare°holder in the company.
� �e.:
;,, � , r
Commissioner Johnson asked how thebillboard fi�`'into the Highway 10 comdor theme.
; �;;=
� �i � � ��4� �
Community Development Director Encson uidicated tha� it �s too early to know what theme will
����. :•� t �
be used far� the Highway 1Q apm�lnr. He tbeln noted�that��here would be a Highway 10 Steering
� �� u� � �.�
c �,»,,,ittee �1Vleetin� on Oc�ober��,l'0, 2001 and�a�p�blic`open house to discuss the project on
the City could use the brick face of the sign base for
community sign;a.�e, „i e g$ `.`_Welcoine to -1Vlounds View."
,�._
, .; , � >_>'
Mr. McCarver indicatec� the company would consider allowing the City to use the brick face of
the sigri base. � "��
Community Developme�� Di�ector Ericson indicated he would draft a Resolution for approval at
�the next meeting. -
. Gommissioner Heglarid requested that Mr. McCarver bring drawings of the proposed sign to the
ne�t meetir�g that'�sliow the same views as the pictures provided at this meeting.
l�ij'r Nic�arver indicated he would ask representatives at his company to do so.
6. Discussion and review of Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View City Code pertaining
to development controls.
Mounds View Planning Co
mmission
Regular Meeting
September S, 2001
Page 8
Community Development Director Ericson explained that Staff is bringing this matter before the
Commission because it feels distressed at the potential implications for what this chapter of tt�e
Code means. He then indicated that the issue is at what point the development contract is
required. He further indicated that Subd. 4 could mean that for every building,perniit issued
there would need to be a development contract and that concems Staff.
Communi#y Development Director Ericson indicated there is an issue as to what would require
development review. He then indicated that presently any expansion of a commercial ar
industrial property or any subdivision of more than 2 Iots, e�cept a d�velopment where public
uiilities were previonsly installed would require review by the PYatu�g�Commission and
Council. He further indicated that since there are currently tvVo riiaJo�:�subdivisions in process he
felt this would be a good time to review this chapter of the'code. `:�� `,�,�.'- :
Commissioner Johnson indicated he felt that the c
process but not each zndividual lot. �;-��;�
t���
ommisstoner Hegland agreed that the re�i�Vv pro
go througli the review
s}gi�
9
for the subdivision not the
individual lots within the development ;������:�� �'�,�� �`��
� ,T:-
Chairperson Stevenson inquired as to how the Code has been interpreted in the past.
Community,Development Director`Ericson uidicated,;he is not sure how the Code was interpreted
in the past because this i� the first major subdivision since he has been working for the City.
�g
�.
, °_ > � ;. , �± .'
Commissioner �egland in�cated � felt the intent of the Code is to review t12e subdivisian not
the individual,buildiri�s. �` . ._.� � �,:.
,- , >
� ., �
review. , �;�;�.,✓`
the surrounding a
and bring it bacle;
t � r
other cities to see what they do for development
�tor Ericson commented that anything that has the potential to
�uld need to be reviewed. He then stated he would research the
the Commission for review.
�, `�C;onsid.era�ion of a Resolution removing Travis Cerny from the Planning
� - Co.mmission due to non-attendance.
Community Development Director Ericson expIained that this Resolution is before the
Commission as a housekeeping matter to fmalize the vacation of Travis Cerny's position on the
Planning Commission. He further explained that Mr. Cemy had not attended a meeting since
May 2, 2001.
.�
� .
Mounds View Planning Co
mmission
Regular Meeting
September 5, 2001
Page 9
MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Johnson. To Approve Resolution 671-01, a Resolution
Removing Travis Cerny from the Planning Commission. �
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 �` Motion carried .:; .
8. Staif Reports ;';. - ,
a. Previous Council Action
Community Development Director Ericson reported on actions arid discussions that had taken
place at the Council's meeting on September 4th and August 27th, including the;proposed sale of
2625 County Highway 10 to the Mounds View Animal Hospital, approval of tfie Mermaid
preliminary plat and the approval of the CUP and developrrierit review for t1�e,Mounds View
Animal Hospital. � � v �
t,;,,
�<
b. Brian Kaden ; $'� ¢ }
:�;;�•
Community Development Director Er�csQn indicatec� that Mr, Kaden had originally sent a letter
to the Commission indicating he v�ouldlike to r,�sign but sin�e then Staff has talked to him and
he has rescinded his resignation auc��requested; 3a�leave of ab�'ence. Ae then noted that Mr. Kadett
is sti11 very�interested m serv��g �n the Com�issto� b�t:�s unable to attend meetings through the
.� ; � �,� � � � �. �. -�a � ;� r
end of the year. _. �z -��: � � �, r �-.
z .�,;;. ::.. ;.� k = � r: ��.,
� �� To Grant a Leave of Absence from the Planning
� �
MOTI(7�/S�CON1�: Miller�eglarldf�:
r�,.,...,,...,;�r,..,; .'Thrn„Q}i 11PCPmh�"r-'��{ 2�i�1 _:to Brian Kaden.
' Motion carried.
p - -0 l. �.: . � i �
, ,�'37��V s �#< M � 'Na.yS — 0
F
�'�c .'. �y+��� ,
u. � ,
t � N �+�,
� Y�'�:� =,�. �;:
, b. Other �ssues � r -�
r � 4
f� ��
�ommunity Developme�it Duector Ericson reiterated that he had received word that the
�ommissioner of Transportation had denied the permit request for the billboards at the golf
course. The next step ;would be left to the City Council.
. ,! � ,.
°Dxrec'tor. Ericson al`so reported that the City closed on the property located at 2091 Hillview and
.will m`�ke p�aus to assess the properiy to determine what wauld be neede� to bring the property
iuto;compliavice with City Code. He further indicated that it may be feasible for the City to make
the repairs itself and place the property back on the market. If not, the property will be offered
for sale as is with the stipulation that all repairs must be made.
D'uector Ericson reported that Aaron Parrish had taken a position with the City of Arden Hills as
its Planner, leaving a vacancy for his position. He then noted the City would be running an
advertisement for the position in Sunday's paper.
; : _
�
Mounds View Planning Co
mmission
Regular Meeting
September 5, 2001
Page 10
Finally, Community Development Director Ericson welcomed back Joan Lenzmeier, the City's
recording secretary, from her leave of absence.
9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports -.
None.
10. Next PIanning Commission Meeting: September
11. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the P
meeting at.8:35 p.m.
(The meeting immediateZ"
Respectfully submitted,
,�` ��
:5,:.
�£ r z.
Jim Encson '
CommunityDe�elopment Director: ''-:
;:k
} �:;..
Transcribed by. , ,
Joan Lenzme�er N =
TimeSaver Off Szte Secretariql, Znc. X
� : :; x.
�g ��
�,
} � ; �,
�` ='�
:�;r, :s#.;;; .
iS
;�Pt.
s,'arj.•'�>� ,4::�'�f .•.:
rr;�;?��. '
i� '
'it k }t � �ti `"
�. ^; � �
' �'�.
��, .:: ��� ; ��
�... � r: �
4��, �
y� adj ourned°to the .�
��� :
,.-�
�,�.:
�'_
x:;:
,:�.
x �;
J :`iY
k. »
2001 '
� � :��'.
��.
,;
-��� _
in, Chair Ste�r�rison adjourned the
�Y: � �°
�� � z
.gencia'Session)
-�.
- :;
„:. ; � _
,
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
September 19, 2001
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 7:0�"p.m., September 19, 2001.
t ;:; .,
2. Roll CaII �'
�:
Members Present: Commissioners Hegland, Stevenson, Johns'on, Zwim, Miller, and Scotch.
Members Excused: Kaden (on lea�e}; . �
Also Present: Communiiy Development Director Ericson and Planner Atkinson.
Index to:Minutes Page
Planning Case No.:DE01-004 2
� Applicant: ClearyChannelOutdoo`r :
Location:
Staff Reports/Items of Information 5
Chairperson and Plamm�grCommission Reports S
� � ; ; ; Approval af Minutes:
���;'�a. . . :� ��June G, 2001 �
b ` August 1, 2001
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch. To Approve the Minutes for June 6, 2001 and August 1,
2001 as pxesented.
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
i.
Mounds View Planning Commission September 19, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
4. Citizens Requests and Comments an Items Not on ihe Agenda
There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda.
5. Planning Case No. DE01-004
Communiry Development Director Ericson explained that this is a request to expand'the existing
billboard on the north side of County Highway 10. He noted that, as it sits currently, the
, billhoard is 300 square feet. He then noted that the applicant lias requested approval to expand
the billboard to the next standardized size which is 672 square feet': 'pirector Ericson further
noted that the billboard is nonconforming due to its location'and said that allowing expansion of
the billboard will not increase the nonconformity.
Director Ericson explained that staff has reviewed the matter and feels that improving the sign's
aesthetics is in the best interest of the City and the irnprov�d apgearance of:the Highway 10
corridor.
Director Ericson reviewed the Resolution drafted by Staff witli the Commission and outlined the
conditions under which the expansian of.the biliboard would be allowed. He further noted that
the applicant would be required to place the utilities under ground, identify the species to be
planted and have that reviewed by.,the City Forester, obtain the necessary wetland alteration
permits from the City and, if necessary, Rice Creek Watershed District, and negotiate an
acceptab�e�easement with the Ci�y`�, ��� �a ' �
g . i���, , _<ti_ ,�,,
Director Ericsori.rioted that Mr 1VIcCarver and Mr. Cronin from Clear Channel Outdoor were in
attendance if the rGominission had any questions.
s��' .,.
Chair Stevenson indicated that the Plarining Commission does not want the billboard located on
the property but noted' that the applicant has an easement in perpetuity that will allow the
billboard to remain on the'location indefinitely. He then said, in light of the easement in
perpetuity, the Planning;Cornmission feels it is in the best interest of the City to allow for the
expansion and improvement of the billboard to improve the aesthetics of the sign.
.Chair Stevenson requested that the actual dimensions of the sign be added to #he Resolution.
Director Ericson iridicated that he would include in the Resolution a condition that the height of
the sign;will nof'be increased nor wili the sign encroach any closer to the property line thar� it is
now.
Commissioner Scotch inquired as to whether trees would be removed in order to lengthen the
billboard.
'l
�
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 19, 2001
Page 3
Mr. Cronin explained that some trees would need to be removed to make rooin for the sign but
noted the trees to be removed are poplar trees and not significant trees. He then explained that
there would be wildflowers, shrubs that are beiween six and eight feet tall, and the existing trees
behind the billboard.
Commissioner Scotch indicated she feels the sign is large enough as it stands and then asked the
applicant if it were possible to improve the appearance of the sign and raduce the expansion
amount.
Mr. Cronin indicated that the Company is stuck because the:signs come in standard sizes and
said that any special or custom sized billboard would be very costly He then indicated that he
feels the Company has done everything it can do to improve the appearance of the sign and make
the sign as unobtrusive as a billboard can be.
Commissioner Scotch indicated she thoughi the Company�had Ehree sizes' o£ signs.
kY -.�- I' :, ..� .�
ia � �1r �a � �
Mr. Cronin indicated the Company used to have a 1�:5 x 36�1gn but indicated that size is being
phased out. , � `'' `�
Commissioner Scotch questioned whether�the vinyl wrap type sign�was new, as that was hez
impression from the previous meetmg ;;`
Mr. McCarver from Clear Channel Outdoor indicated that the rnonument type base for the sign is
new for the Company, not the viriyl wrap signs:
Commissioner Scotch indicated.tliat she was aware of how much the Company makes off of its
biliboards and:indicated that, ,even if the sign were smaller, the Company would still do very
well.
� ,. f :
Mr. McCarver agreed with.Commisszoner Scotch that it makes sense for the Company to expand
and improv� the sign. He t�en indicated that the i.mproved aesthetics are costly and said the
Company is counting ori:the expaiided billboard to offset the costs of the improved aesthetics.
Commissioner Johnson asked if Walgreens was notified and then questioned whether the
`expanded sign would affect the line of sight for Walgreens.
5 4 '; : . _ y},.
Cotnmissioner Scotch indicated she did not feel the sign would obstruct the Iine of sight for
Walgreens but said" she felt the sign is very large and could be smaller.
Con�missioner Johnson indicated that billboards are big and said he feels it is better to have a
nice looking big billboard than an ugly big billboard.
Director Ericson indicated that Walgreens was not notified and indicated that there was no
requirement to do so. He then indicated that he did not feel the sign would negatively impact
Walgreens.
_
, . . , ;: , .: .
Mounds View Planning Commission September 19, 2QOI
Regular Meeting Page 4
Mr. McCarver indicated the sign base is five feet high from grade to the top of the cap.
Mr. Cronin expressed appreciation for the opportunity to improve the sign and indicafed that the
Company understood the conditions that staff has recommended and fully accepts those. He
then respectfully requested that the Planning Commission move fo adopt the Resolution
recommending approval to the City Council. �.}} �
Commissioner Hegland expressed concern that allowing tHis„ex�ansion of the billboard would �
set the City up to be required to allow an expansion at some:point;in the future.
� �
Mr. McCarver indicated that the sign structure is 55 feet wide but noted the copy is only 48 feet
Iong. He further explainea that due to QSHA requirements`:there'needs to be a three-foot catwalk
around the perimeter of the sign. He then suggested that tlie Resolution be amended to reflect
that the Company is limited to a copy size of 48 feet for clari.fication.
Mr. McCarver then indicated that the Company could not bui�d a°20 x 60 sign anymore because
the state only allows 1000 square feet for billboards. -
Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like the Resolutiori to indicate the maximum copy
size of 48 feet.
�
Director Ericson indicated that the maximum.'square footage for billboards in the City is 700
square feet eluninating the possibaYlity for fizture expansion'of the sign.
�;�: ;:;
, �r, � _. ;
Commissioner"Scotch asked�hat=v�!as be}und the trees.
�` ', . : , `�- ,� ��-�`a
�ef .
Director Ericson mdicated that the�e �vas'a;trail that cuts along and adj acent to the new storm
water pond and'.dir��tl�"behind the trees'are more trees and a wetland area.
; � ��.
Commissioner MillerJ.asketl;�vhether a Rice Creek Watershed Permit was required.
__,
Director Ericson indicated he �y�as not sure whether a Rice Creek Watershed permit would be
required and noted it wa`s' �the=�esponsibility of the applicant to find out. He then indicated that a
'Czty wetland alteration permit is required.
Commissioner Zwim pointed to an open area on the drawing of the billboard and questioned
how fhe apglieant intended to prevent people from congega�ing in the hidden area.
Mr.�Cronin`indicated that the Company's landscaper suggested that gooseberry bushes be
planted there because they are very thorny.
MOTION/SECQND: Johnson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 673-01, a Resolution
Recommending Approval to Council of the Development Review to Expand the Existing
Billboard on City-owned Property North of County Highway 10. -.
`I
Mounds View Plaaning Commission
Regular Meeting
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0
September 19, 2001
Page 5
Motion carried.
Chair Stevenson commended Clear Channel Outdoor on its efforts to start a relief fund for the
victims of the terrorist attack out east. He then said the contribution the Company made and the
ongoing effort to raise funds for the relief effort should be commended.
6. Staff Reports
�
a. Previous Couacil Actiott
Communi#y Development Director Ericson reported that Council held a public hearing io discuss
the County H2 impzovements. He then noted that Council had determiried that more resident
input was required.
Director Ericson indicated that the City is holding a Highway 10 `corridor project team meeting at
City Hall on October 10, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. I�:e also not�d 't`k�at t�ie,r`e vyou,ld be a public meeting
held on �ctober 15, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at the Communxty Center ','D��ctor Ericson indicated that
the City is hoping to have a design for the :corridor to present to Ramsey County by the end of
the year.
7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
�:� �.
None. _ .
8. Next Planning: C;ommission Meeting: October 3, 2001
9. , Adjournment
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
:Tun E�,icson :
Carn�n�xnity Development Director
Transcribed by:
Joan Lenzmeier
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
� ,
1.
2.
3.
4.
,
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
October 17, 2001 -- 7:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETIl�IG
AGENDA
Ca1i to Order
Roll Call
Citizens Requests and Commen�s on Items Not on the Agenda
Approval of Minutes
a. August 15, 2401
b. September 5, 2001
c. September 19, 2001
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO TH� PODIUM,
Al\TD GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS BOR THE MINUTES
5. Planning Case VROl-010
Public hearing and discussion of a variance request to allow a reduced lot width and
reduced wetland setback for a proposed major subdivision of land located between
Longview Drive and Silver Lake Road, south of County Road H2.
Applicant: Marty Harstad
6, Planning Case MA01-003
Public hearing and review of a proposed major subdivision of land located on the north
east comer of County Road I and Long Lake Road;
Applicant: Gustafson / Zinser
7. Planning Case VR�I.-011
Public heazing and discussion of a variance request to allow a fence of six (6) feet in
height to be constructed in the front yard of'the property located at 5150 Irondale Road;
Applicant: Steve Srimmler ,
8. Planning Case NII01-002
Discussion and review of a proposed minor subdivision of the property located at 7841
Spring Lake Road.
Applicant: Brian Diehl
4. Planning Case DE00-002
Discussion and review of a proposed change to an approved development review for the
properiy located at the south west corner of County Road I and Gre�nfield Avenue.
Applicant: Tony Mezzenga
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQLTESTED.
PLEASE NOTIF'Y THE CUNIMUNITl' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT
7G3-717�021 IF YOU ARE
UNABLE
TO ATTEND.
_.
,. . . _
_ �.
Planning Commission Agenda
Ocfober 17, 2001
Page 2
10. Staff Reports
a. Previous Council Action: October 8, 2001
b. Highway 14 Improvement Project Open House: October 15, 2001
11. Chazrperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
12. Next Planning Commission Meeting: November 7, 2001
13. Adjoumment to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSIQN
1. Review Minutes from October 3, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting -
N:\DATAIGROUPSICOMDEV1Planning CommissionlPCAGENDA1200110ctober 17, 20�1 PC Agenda.doc
i
- : :,
- -1
�; ; i
:
Item # 6
City of Mounds View
Planning Commission Repo�-t
Meeting Date: October 17, 2Q01
Title: PUBLTC HEARING AND REVIEW OF A PROPOSED MA3�R SUBDNISION
OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF COUNTY RO.AD I
AND LONG LAKE ROAD; PLANNING CASE MA01-004
Applicants: Ernie Gustaf'son / Neal Zinser
Introduction
Mr. Emie Gustafson, owner of land located at the northeast comer of �,ong Lake Road and County
Road I, along with Mr. Neal Zinser of Hamilton Creek Companies, have requested approval of a
major subdivision to create six (6) lots out of the existing three (3} lots. The properties are currently
zoned R-1, Single Family Residential.
Discussion
The applicani has appeared before the Platuung Commission regarding a rezoning of a portion of the
property from R-1 to R-2. The City Council approved the rezoning an fizst reading and has tabled the
second reading until the subdivision application is approved. The applicant also requested a variance
from the minimum lot width requirement of 100 feet for proposed Lot #3, which the Planning
Commission granted on September 5, 2001.
Section 1203 of the City Code establishes requirements for subdivision design. Staff has reviewed all
applicable provisions and has concluded that these requirements have been satisfied. The following
is additional information for the Planning Commission to consider.
Utilities
Utikities currently extend to the existing house on proposed lot #4 from Long Lake Road. Mr. Zinser
has contacted St Paul Water Works and inquired about future utility connections from County Road I
to proposed housing on lots #5 and #6. St. Paul Water Works indicated that no connections could be
made to County Road I, thus making it necessary for all utility connections to be made to Long Lake
Road. As shown on the site plan, the applicants are proposing to create an easement along the
northem portion of lots #3 -#6 for utilities.
Traffic
Traffic will increase as a result of this plat, but the effect on surrounding roads will be negiigible.
The main issue will be adciitional access points to County Road I from lots #5 and #6. Because the
proposed subdivision borders on a County road, a copy of the plat will be sent to the Ramsey County
engineer who will evaluate the effect of the new access points.
Park Dedication
Park dedication fees would be applicable for this development, in an amount equivalent to ten
percent of the market value of the 1and being developed. According to the Ramsey County Tax
Assessor, the total value of the land is $66,800, or $.79 per square foot. Lot #4, because of the
,:
Gustafson's Fifth Addition
October 17, 2001
Page 2
existing house, will be excluded from the park dedication fee calculation, as allowed by the City
Code. The total vaI�e, excluding lot #4, is $55,943, making the park dedication fee $5,590.
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Sq• Fta
Lot #4"*
Pa�k Dedication Fee Calculatiorz
Land Value*
$ 14,60Q
$ 23,800
$ 28,400
$ 66,600
$ 0.79
$ 10,897
Area s . ft.
98,188
34,218
31,796
84,202
13,736
Total, less proposed Lot #4 $ 55,903 70,466
Park Dedication Fee $ 5,590
10% of iotal Value, not includin Lot #4
" Source: Ramsey County Tax Assessor
'"Value derived from proposed lot equaling 13,73fi square feet multiplied by $.79 per acre.
Recommendation:
Hold the public hearing and discuss the proposed subdivision. Resolntion 675, a resolution
recornrnending approval of the preliminary plat, is included with this report for the Planning
Commission to act on if they feel approval of the subdivision is warranted
Jim Atkinson
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Preliminary Plat (Sepazate Attachment)
t`` i ` 1
_'
!
MOUNDS VIEW PLAN1vING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 675-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTTON RECOMMENDING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A
MAJOR SUBDIVISION OF 2525 COUNTY ROAD I; MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING CASE NO. MA00-004
WHEREAS, Neal Zinser of Hamilton Creek Companies, representing property owner
Emie Gustafson, has requested approval of a Major subdivision of 2525 County Road I, property
zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally-described as follows:
Greenfaeld
South % Lot 8, Lot 9,Lot 10, Block 1
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to subdivide the property to create six (6)
lots as depicted in attached Exhibit "A"; and,
, WHEREAS, the Planning Cornmission has reviewed the applicant's request for a major
+ subdivision and has detemuned that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of
the Municipal Code; and
VVHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
1. Planning Applicatfon
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Survey fflr the above described property; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, a park dedication fee in the
amount of $5,590 is applicable with this proposed major subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the major subdivision of 2525 County Road I, subject to the following
stipulations:
1. Prior to the City Council approving this subdivision, the applicant shall submit the
required park dedication fee in the amount of $5,590.
�. ,:
,;: ,...; .. _.:;....._ . - ....
_ - - . . ; : . ;
----- _, . _ ; .
:.. -...
---.., ...
--- _ -.: ...
� - - ----
Resolution 675-01
Page 2
2. The appIicant shail be responsible far obtaining an access permit from Ramsey County
for any and a11 work occurring within the County right of way.
3. The applicant shall apply far Final P1at approval within six (6) months or the
Preliminary Plat approval will expire.
4. An access permit for driveways from St. Paul Water Works is necessary,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff
to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 17th day of October, 2000.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
James Ericson, Community Development Director -\j
.
,. :
;.; ; .
.: . _ .. r._.._ ..:
�
,,� _ ��
` �Y U ll V�
�MG����
�� V �n�
,
`'• �1��U1�1
�
�p�'rP'�S � partn�'���QS
._._., .._._........,-�_,.-----�
�.
� ��F��, !A�t S��i;`t��if i��� :l'2; �� 7r.y�;s'f1+9�'� �t �r,�f'�.�
_ x i �"— ---- ''�ai ro�i �_
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING APPLICATION
2401 County Road i0, Mounds View, MN 55112
(763) 717-4020
Fax (fi5�} 765-1660
Please Type or Print Informatian - Complete Both 5ides of This Form
Applicant Information , %„� c ��l)''• C-�� !ti (,fJ• �ju� �% ��Z� ��i�
Name of Applicant f°�/ Telephone
Address � - �' �7d� Fax
`• ,� � �/f?n �,y'�1 �% . E-mail
Ieterest in Property (check apprapriate box)
p Owner of Property Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager Agreement to Purchase
❑ Other (explain)
Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of appticatian, and if you are not
the owner of the properEy, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to
] the f�ing of tf�is app[ication. The properly owner must sign this application for it to be accepted.
; :;
Property DescriptionJProposal
Address or General Location
Legal Description
Property Identification # (PIN #) ,
# of Acres
Current Zoning
�-� r '
%. �S .
Type af Application.
O Comprehensive Plan Amendment •
\ ❑ _ Rezoning
Major Subdivisian
O Minor Subdivision
❑ Planned Unit Development {PUD)
❑ PUD Amendment •
❑ Canditional/Interim Use Permit
❑ Variance
p Code Appeal
� Develop Review/Site Plan
❑ Wetland Alteration Permit
❑ Wetland Buffer Permit
❑ Floadplaln Pemnit
O Other
$z�a
$250Jacre (Min $250 max $1500)
$250/acre (min. $SOU)
$200
$500 plus $500/acre
$350
R-1, R-2 $lOQ; all others $300
R-1, R-2 $100 alf others $300
$lOQ '
$125Jacre; min $125 max $750
R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200
R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100
$200
A deposlt may be required t� cover costs of public notices, mateNals and stafF or consultant time spent tn the review, researdi or
preparatlon of materials assocla0ed wltli this appllcadon. The appltc�nt shall be responslble fnr all reasonable lncurred casts In excess of
the iniqal deposit amount MY Portion of the deposft not spent or entumbered shall be refunded to the appllcant wlthtn 30 days after
canslderatlon of tt�e appllcaFaon Is completed.
-�.. __
-- --- - - `_°:l�
;
Pianning Application r`: _ _ _. __ -� Pa e 2
9
Present Use of Property
O Undeveloped/Vacant � Single Family Dwefling
❑ Duplex/Two Family Dweliing ❑ Multl-family Dwelling
❑ BusEness/Commercial Establlshment [7 Industrfal EstabEishment
❑ Other (expiain} '
Property Classifcation ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens
Description of Proposal -
BY MY {OUR} SIGNATURE QN THIS APPLiCA710iV, I HER�BY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST 0� MY
KNOWLEDGE, Zi-IE INFORMATION PRO ED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.
Signature of Applicant • � �� ��
Name of Applicant (typed/printed) __ �• • �nS'.��
Stgnature of Praperty Owner �
Name of Property Owner (typed/printed)_
Address of Owner
Phone Number of Owner
E-mail
� CL�s�
ti... � , .
�szs L� �. �..
j/�l4r�r•r„� �u-v �ln � r r�
���- 7 �� - 3 ��f�
���' • .
,
****�*****************x�**********************************:�********************************
F,pR OF�YCE USE ONl.Y •
Date of Submlttal �� I�7 - c� %�
Date of Aoceptance Assigned to:
Planning Case No. q 1- � 50-day Umit i20-day lirntt
Fees Paid:
# �• o0
Application: �-5�rra
Paric Dedication:
Deposits: �p
Other:
Total:
Account #
Check #
.
.
.�—
„s ��
Receipt
��1 �
�
2/96 .
- "' �
. - ..
, ..
Itern # 7
City of Mounds View
Planning Comm�ssion Report
Meeting Date: October 17, 2001
Title: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION OF A VARTANCE REQUEST TO
ALLOW A FENCE OF SIX (6) FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN
THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5150 IltONDALE
RQAD; PLANNING CASE VRO1-01 b
Introduction
The subject property is a corner lot Iocated at 5150 Irondaie Road. The applicant, Steve Stimmler, is
proposing to construct a fence six (6) feet in height in the front yard of the property.
Discussion
According to the Municipal Code, Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3, fences of a height greater than 48
inches (4 feet) are not allowed in the front yard of a property. The City Code defines a front yard as
`:.�� the azea of a lot that extends beyond the front face of the principal structure and is adjacent to a
-- ' street. Therefore, corner lots, such as in this case, have two (2) front yards. As shown on the attached
site plan, the proposed fence wouid be located beyond the northern building line of the principal
structure.
According to the applicant, there is a need for a fence due to the amount of activity conducted in
their back yard. A fence would greatly reduce the impact on neighboring properties as well as protect
the privacy of the applicant's family. The applicant has �lso indicated that they would like to install a
pool in the rear yard. The Building Cade, however, requires that. at Ieast a five (5} foot fence be
placed around swimming pools. If the applicant were to comply with the building code and the
zoning code, there would not be adequate space for a swirruning paol.
For this Variance to be approved, as with any Variance request, there needs to be demonstrated
substantial hazdship or prac�ical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal
interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes
require �hat the governing body (the Planning Commission) 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 individual criteria are as follows:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circamstances apply to the property which do no� apply
- generaUy to other proQerties 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.
_.. i
The property located at 5150 Irondale Road is a corner lot, which has iwo (2) front yards and
differentiates the property from the maj ority of lots within the City of Mounds View. A six-
foot privacy fence could be constructed at the northern building line of the house, but would
significantly reduce the usable yard space in the rear of the house.
b. The literaI interpretation of the provisions of �his Title would deprive the appiicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district ander the terms of
�his Title.
No fence greater than four (4) feet in height can be located in any front yard within the City.
The applicant, owning a corner lot, is at a disadvantage to improve the property as other
homeowners might because the property has two {2) front yards.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
The orientation of the lot (two street frontages) was not crea�ed by the applicant. .
d. Ti�at granting the Variance requested wilI not confer ou the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures ar buildings in
the same district.
The applicant is at a disadvantage because of the orientation of the lot (two front yards).
Therefore, granting a Variance in this case would not confer a special privilege to the
applicant. �'"' ` ?',
e. That the Variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship. Economic conditions alone shall aot be considered a hardship.
The fence would be located along a Iine of exist�ing shn�bs. If the fence were placed further
from Woodale Road, thus reducing the amount of variance, an area of unusable space would
be created between the fence and the line of shrubs. If the height of the fence were
minimized to five (5) feet to comply with the building code for swimming pool enclosures,
the fence would not match the existing six {6} foot fence that is currently located along the
perimeter of the rear yard, creating an awkward transition between the two sections of fence.
Therefore, staff believes that this is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship.
f. The Variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to
other property in the same zone.
The request would not be detrimental to surrounding properties or the functioning .of the
intersection of Irondale Road and Woodale Road since the sight triangle would remain intact.
If the orientation of the lot were deemed a unique situation, then granting a variance wouId
not be detrimental to the purpose of the Title.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adeqvate 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 pubiic safety or sabstanfialiy diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood.
.. ,
.. . .. . � ' . -
The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects.
`' Based on staffls review of the request and the code requirements, it appears that there is sufficieilt
unique hardship and practical difficuities associated with this property to warrant approval of the
variance requested. The Planning Commission, however, should discuss the issues presented in the
report and any other information presented by the applicant oz other property owners and determine
if approval of the variance is warranted.
Recommendation
Af�er holding the public hearing and discussing this reqtaest with the properiy owner, staff would
recommend that the Planning Commission review the testimony and the seven criteria to determine
if there is a legitimate basis for granring this Variance request. Resolution No. 674-01, a resolution
approving the variance, has been included with this report for the Planning Commission to act upon
if they feel approval af the variance is warranted.
Jim Atkinson
�' ` � Planning Assaciate
- 763-717-4022
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Site Plan
3. Resolution No. 674-01
i
�
MOUNDS VIEW PLANIVING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 674-41
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTIQN APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FENCE OF SIX FEET IN
HEIGHT TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY �
LOCATED AT 5150IRONDALE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VRO1-01� ;
WHEREAS, The applicant, Steve Stimmler, has applied for a variance to allow for a six-
foot tall fence in the front yard of the property located at 5150 Irondale Road; and,
WHEREAS, 5 i50 Irondale Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legal(y
described as follows:
Bona Addition
Lot I4, Block 1
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regazding this proposal:
1. Planning Applicafiion
2. Si#e Plan
3. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in ti�e Zoning Code is to give relief to
property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship
thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by
unique or extraordinary featuxes of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's
control; and,
r_>1
_. ,
Resoluiion 654-01
May 2, 2001
Page 2
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, October 17, 2001, with regard to tlus
variance request; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to zeview 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 Pianning Commisszon
hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request:
1. The property is a corner iot, which has two frant yards as defined in the Municipal Code,
creating unavoidable and practical difficulties.
2. The literal interpreiation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the R-1, Single-Family
residential zoning district in that property improvements are encouraged and that
variances to the requirements are often justified when practical difficulties present a
hardship as they do in this situation.
3. The applicant is not responsible for the conditions or circutnstances that n�cessitate the
� �1 approval of the variance.
4. The Planning Commission has in the past granted variances for fences in the front yard of
corner lots that exceed four {4} feet in heigl�t when hardship or practical difficulties
prohibit compliance with the City Code.
5. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege
denied to others in the same district due to the unique nature of the existing conditions
present on the site.
6. The additional two (2) feet in heighf is the minimum amount that would alleviate the
applicant's hardship.
7. The additional two (2) feet in height would not impair a supply of light or increase
congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or
diminish property values.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public
hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby approve the variance request for an six-
foot tall fence to be constructed in the front yard of the property located af 5150 Irondale Road,
... � as depicted in the attached Exhibit "A", contingent upon the following:
: ...- . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . : - . : . . . _ .: _ . .. . I . . . .. . . . . . -. . .
Resolution 674-Q1
October 17, 2001
Page 3
1. The applicant shall arrange to have recorded with Ramsey County this resoiution of
approval and provide proof of such recordation to the City within b0 days of the date of
approval, or this variance shalI be rendered null and void.
Adopted this 17th day of October, 20Q1.
ATTEST:
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL) ; : :.}
.
-
PLOT PLAN
� Address , 1 ` � � Ci a . � G Date � ••c�C��� �
Builder Owner �� L7Q.c�� �'Y�lY1 - ,�
Brief Description uf Proposed Constcuction r� �!� C�.c � r�Cf�� `" �... ��� �
- ':;�
Buildiag Permit No.
Show aII exisiing buildingslstractures located on the property.
Show all pr.oposed construction. , _
Indicated distance from proposed strucfures to all property lines.
Indicated distance af proposed structnre(s) to existing shvctures.
Show street location(s) and name{s).
Show directional symbvls (north, suuth, east west).
' t .�
S � �
'� a
� �
..
r
w.
�
4 �'�
� f�
'F�k'1C�
��
1 r��. � �e
City of Mouads View Community Development Department * 2401 Aighway 10, Mouncls View, MN 55112
(612) 717�020, Fax {b12) 784-3462
�Q� o�
�MC��D�
� r
:�
" �1f��
.or
S
d'r�,sS � partneKSh�Q
COMMUNI?Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN?'
PLANNING APPLICATIC
2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 5511Z
(753) 717-4020
Fax (6S1) 7b5-1560
Please Type or Print Information - Complete Bath Sides of ihis Form
Applicant information � - ,
Name of Applicant � �. Telephone � �' � � �5
Address G � Fax
� E-mail
. �l �
interest in Property {check appropriate box)
�l: Owner of Property
�� Lessee, Qperator, Manager
0 Other (explain}
� Contract for Deed Owner
O Agreement to Purchase
Applicants must provide evldence of infierest in properly at the time of application, and if you are not ..
the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent t(�:` a
the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. '
ProperLy Description/Proposai
Address or General Location
Legal Description
Property Identificatlan # (PIN #)
# of Acres
Current Zoning
Type of Application
O Comprehensive Plan Amendment
O Rezoning
❑ Major_ Subdivision
O Minar Subdfvision
❑ Planned Unit Development {PUD)
❑ PUD Amendment
� � Conditfonal/Interim Use Permit
� Variance
❑ Code Appeal
� Develop Review/Site Plan
C7 Wetland Alteration Permit
❑ Wetland Buffer Permit
❑ Ffoodplaln Permit
❑ Other
$25Q
$250/acre (Min $250 max $1500)
$250/acre (min. $500)
$200
$500 plus $500Jacre
$350
R-1, R-2 $i00; all others $300
R-1, R-2 $100 all others $300
$100
$125/acre; min $325 max $750
R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200
R-1, R-2 $25; a!1 others $100
�2oa
A deposft may be requlred to cover cnsts of publfc notices, materiafs and staff or consuf�nt tlme spent in the review, research or
preparadon of materials assoGated wlth thfs appllcatlon. The appllcant shall be responsible for all reasonable Incurred costs In excess of
the lnitial depaslt arr�ount. Any portlon oi the deposlt not spent or encumbere� shaq be refunded to the appllcant withln 30 days after
conslderatlon of the appllcadon Is completed. •
;- -)
II
Planning Applicat9on
Present Use of Property
O UndevelopedJVacant ❑ Single Famiiy DweEling
p Dupiex/Two Family Dweliing ❑ Mulki-famify Dwel{ing
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment O Industrial Establishment
p Other (explain) .
Property Classification O Abstract ❑ Torrens
Deseription of Proposal -
Page 2
BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON Tl-!IS APPLFCATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, T4 THE BEST 0� MY
KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE CCURATE. �
c
Signature of Applicant
_ �
Name of Applicant (typed/printed} y �
�� '
�
Signature of Properly Owner .
Name of Praperly Owner (typed/printed}
Address of Owner
Phone Number of Owner
E-mail
;
*********�x**x�**************************�******�*******************�*�***�*****************
� � FOR OFFICE USE ONl.Y
Date of Submittal � �� � � `' J '
Date of Acoeptance Assigned to:
Planning Case No. � �� 60-day Limit 120-day limit
Fees Paid:
#.
Appiication: 1Op� 60
Park Dedication: �
Deposits:
Accaunt #
1,Dc7� . ��G' �� _
Check #
�o'O q
Other: ) AO- o _ 1 d�- !(�� U �° ��
Tatal:
Receipt
��
�
1/98
; ;: ,
..... , . ,, --- _..__ _
_. ;:,
,
, :. --- _•_ _... : .-- -- ..
--
.. __ - - -- -
- -- �--� 1
Item # 8 I
— ;.
. �:
City of Mounds View
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: October 17, 2001
Title: CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDNISION OF THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 7841 SPRING LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNTNG
CASE MI01-002.
Introduction
The applicant, Brian Diehl, is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to split off the rear 260 feet
of his property to create a 33,773 square-foot buildable lot. Minor subdivisions are those divisions
of land less khan two acres in size in which only one additional lot is created,
The area of the proposed subdivision is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. The minimum lot
size in this district is 11,000 square feet for an interior lot and 12,500 square feet For a comer lot. The
proposed lot vvould not be located on a comer. The comprehensive plan designates this area as
"single-family detached" and the surrounding lots are improved with single-family dwellings. The
applicant has submitted a survey that describes the proposed subdivision.
Discussion
-_= The proposed lot would canform to lot size requirements established in the zoning code. The
remaining lot after the subdivision wili exceed the minimum required in the Code. Both lots would
comply with the minimum front arid rear setbacks of thirty feet. Easements are provided in a
narrative included on the survey, but are not graphically depicted on the survey. The easements are
proposed to be ten (10) feet on the east and west sides of each lo#, and five (5) feet on the north and
west sides of each lot. A separate easement document will need to be recorded to actually dedicate
the easements to the City.
The main issue with this application is access. The proposed lot would have frontage on an
unimproved section of Knollwaod Drive. According to the City Code, all lots must abut a publicly
dedicated street that has received legal status as such. Curren#ly, this portion of Knollwood Drive is
used as an additional access point for the Knollwood Green Town homes, which front on Caunty
Highway 10. The access drive has a gate that restricts access to the drive and is not improved as the
Code requires for City streets.
The Public Works Foreman for the City has indicated that without an improved street, it would not
be feasible to allow access to the property. City staff would not be able to remove snow from the end
of the street without a cul-de-sac or a regulation width street. As shown on the site plan, Oakwood
Drive is essentially a dead end.
Diehl Minor Subdivision
October 17, 2001
Page 2
i
The Planning Cor►�mission should discuss what type of improvements could be made to satisfy the
Code requirements. Options may include impzoving the access drive to comply with the Code, or
create a cul-de-sac at the end of Oakwood Drive.
Park Dedication
This subdivision is subj ect to a park dedication fee requirement. The City's Subdivision Regulations
reqUire that a paxk dedication fee be paid wliich is squaI to ten percent (10%) of the assessed value of
the subdivided Iand (because the lot is greater than one acre), less that area already improved with a
single family home. In this case, the fee would apply to the 33,773 square feet of land for parcel "B".
The assessed land value for the lots are 77 cents per squa.re foot, which would transiate into a value
of $26,086. The appropriate fee is $2,609.
Park Dedication Fee Calculation
_ Land Value" Area (sq ft )
Existing Lot $ 48,9Q0 53,310
Total value per sq. ft.
Proposed Parcel B
$ 0.77
$ 26,086 33,773
Park Dedication Fee $ 2,fi09
10°/a of Parcel "B" vafue
" Source: Ramsey County Tax Assessor
Recommendation
A.fter seeking any public input and discussing this request with the properiy owner, staff woul�
recommend that the Planning Commission direct staff to draft a Resolution to be acted on at the next
Planning Commission meeting.
Jim Atkinson
Planning Associate
763-717-4022
Attachments:
i '=:}
I. I,ocation Map ,
2. Site Plan
3. Detailed Site Plan
,, . . :,.: ,. :
..
. .. —
_
.. � - -- -----
-- ----_-_ ... _ --
- _ :— - - , \ eosa ao
j �� N N l eoso eoss eo�o eo��
1 „ eo�s soea ansa
� I N�°a"�'.�°` 8040 8046 a045 ,..
, S± , j� ` �, � o�C — Q 8030 �S 8036 8040 8D39
'„_�,� � .y o, 8425 8026 �
� \ N ' i 8 0 2 0 8 0 2 5 e02B B 0 1 S p BOZS
+ � � �;� 8016
op �� 8016 8009
j �� �\ N=7980 8005 SOOD � 8004 7981
�� 1 � � �seo �sas
' � � 798 7G75 7970 7979
�� � � � •y �e m� 7980 7965 796U 0 7959
a � � � N � � 795 7955 7956 ��A9
` �
� I� j N 7934 7933 7950
� � � � � 7932
,� 3 ,^� � �
� R-3 �p n N n 7900 �soi
� . i-._....�_ _. a � �-...., c ���
I
I ,` - '
�`:
1
�
�'.
�� 76'
�
��p 7S'
I 75
��
I 75
� _ 75'
j' c
� "
I� o
I <
�
1� 74
I�
4 �4
I
j 74
�I
, � 7�
�
4 ��
� r.
I:
�r "
t
;;��1 �� �� �� �� �� � � � N �
N
, �i M N �° ,$1�1g � � a � �
8056 807i
8050 9055
8042 8045 _
g�J2 8033
8018 801t
8006 _
7990 � 7981
7480 7968
soaa a���
8060 8065
8052 g051
8040 8035
8006 Boz, ��
8071 � �
7990 � 7989
79B0 7979
7966 7969
7946 �4z�
7930 7917 '
u� ;
7800 7904 m 11
_. __ ... ._. ----
�. f. � . � I � ` �
1 1rt�
•� ` . � � � ,��I �
1 \ " I �� � ` I • .
�i • � i � � �: I . ��•
• �
� i �.
�r `J `+ � � ;�� ,
�� : � Y
_�6f Fr. � � � �� �
��__ -�_ _ ; � -_ __ - �
, ___ _
�_�: � �
� � LOT L/NE AS MONUMENTE'D
. �__._ -
��_ I I
;.; 1
I . � '
�
I
�I
. . ,.'="' - -i
�.. -
E ��
� �. LOT LlNE PER AfJ0/ TOR S SUB ND. 89 '��� �
.
� i
1 �r•
, �rs� �r. ,' � � � , � I ,,a '
�' � ,�»-- "` � ;
_��,��-- f .
' � LOT LINE AS MONl1MENlFD . � ��� -
. I �" � • �`�
.� � `:
-16f FT. ��� LOT LINE PER AIJDITOR S SUB NO. 89 ' '�.i •.� {
i/ —�' --"~ �•�~ � 1 I
'"� �"�-�� + ' 1
� � �OT LINE AS MONUMENTFD
` I i_
��� y16f FT. ;�� � i LOT LlNE PER AUO/TpR S SU9 NO. 89 •�� �'
, �� � ;
i � � , � , , , � — -- � LOT LlNE PER AUDI TQR'5 ;
��`^ NORTN t!lVE. LOT 25, `�LOT LIN£ AS MONUMENTED� ` Sl19 N0. 89 ANQ AS . j
�� A(1DlTOR 5 SUBDINS/ON N0. 89 i M O N U M E N I E D _( ';
� FOUND MONUMENT � � ' ' .
. � � � * � �- �r � �.
--------- --�� 25i i i _ � �
� � �� NQRTH tlNE, LOT 25. �" � i ti � f
� r!
��6f FT. �AUDITOR'$ SUBOIVISYON NO. 89 � a j 1 � �'"
� I PER EXlST1NG MONUMENTATION � i ; � : � ;% i I
NRRTH OF PROPfRTY �: � '' i i � �
- —8 ao SEE � DETAIL �:: ��" � � ; ; ; � ; i
• ( :•, :�:I' . + � --- '--- '.
` 25+____-------i-a-------i_ -i�.
r
�l�ARY SEM£R �_� .• • � • � • • •• • ••
� o
:.'��: ~. :':� :i :: �:
4 -----��-_-_�, �i"------___"_I _ I
r � � � -, �
, , ��� ;�
. , � ; � �; ,_;�._-,
. I ; � � ,, . �' i ;
, F ' ^ r�_ ;
\ . ----_-- f -_ ^-----
i i f, . i
• LOT l.lNE PER AUDITOR S - � � �`! , ~ � �-
.
\' SUB ND. 89 AND AS ^-- i �. i;, `� i I
� MONUMENTED � � • a � •- �
. ' �� — .: ' � '; � : % r
. � � � i i
to� � � �
\ \ �.� ---------- ' �a- ' -------'-'__�`_
.�
LOT LINE PER AUDlTOR S _� _- � i
\ `.; SUB NO. 89 AND AS � `�' � + E.� � ,
\ •�� � � MONUMENTFD r `,� � � •� � ,,:
� � . i �� , �
� �� � � .: � � •.� ' -
\ . ' , :
� i �
i -
� _� � �� �
'�..- '-`.
-Y- --� �� � i i_: i ' -
. � �� i :_; � ; i
. i � �' �
� . 1 � — --- - � --•--..._ 1 � i :-% � � : `-' i • .
i. :., -
� � - _ _
��. ,` ': ��
�
„ � � � ■�k
� ,
, �
; ,
,
�
0
�
�
�
O
�
�
`�.
�
O
ca
�
ti.,
O
�
b
,�
y
v
a
d
W
a a
� C
`1
N�
r�.. a1
zw
�b
O
O
�N
a�
b�
� �
��
,� o
O�
Z �
y
V �
� �
w �
.�
b
�'w
b�
�O
�t C
� �
'�d A
68 'ON NOIS1ilIQ8l1S S,N011OI?t/�
'SL 107 3NJ7 I Sb3 '•,
_.� LF'Z£'L 3„LZ,S'�o00S �.
� i i
� f
; r
�
� ,
, ,
; � '� �
� � �
.' - , �
. , �
, �
,' a �
ti ao � ;
�2it O �
� � Z i
N
�
O I� O �
� � O V`s � � .
s �
�w m - - 00'0�1 --�-
O� h — -----------;— -------�
�
�
�
0
� !� ; �
x� � e
z� o ^ o
� � � , ^ N
� m \
� �► N
`. ..
•� � � ,
, N ; J �
; W �`
� V a
, N
l ' � �^
' a �.
,
� �
� . o �,,,
; �
� ; �
N � �. W
� � � �
, e
� ` �
, -
, ,
� ; �
_ ti ; '�
tD � ��
� � i �
' � � r � �
���+���
W �'LZl M,.LZ,S'i.00N "''
_
N �
�
��
Z
' �
f���
`� J �
� ;�.� l ;
� �
�
H� � i
� _ r.l
O � �1��,' �
'� p • 'r ��� 1
4ai h� �}' "`� I
�3 ��
��2 �� i�1 i
� � �� � � I
Z � ,�� �Q_ � ,����
� �
, � ._
•e'az - �a � � �
� ,r
k o � .
� f: _ :
.. ��
� •
�
i
,
i
�
�
�
0
0
�
�
i
1
1
1
�
1
1
W
V
�
h
� \
W �
� y
4�
N
�
�ei.1
�
----.� -,.�,.-,
I 1 1% `�1 I� �� /�I � �
�I � ♦J
N
�
O�
�z
0
�o
2S
��
�
O
y
zo
�,
��
�
.
N
N
�
�
�
i�
N
N
��
0
�' o
2
�Z
3 5 �' � .
�j � z
�
O� N�
2° °�
�� 4;m
�� �y.
� y
��
; �iO
�
' 4
�� � �
r �
i i
i 1
1
��M �
:.����� ��.
��.�,�..,-
..�.�...�.:
� �
�'.
+ � ;I-
Ii,
� �,
� �.
.
�
� �
��
�
�� ;.
� �_
i"�-.. .'.__;� .
. ,.-.:-___ _
Gity of Mounds View
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: October 17, 2001
Item # 9
Title: DISCUSSION REGARDING A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR THE OFFICE BUII,DING
UNDER CONSTRUCTI4N AT 7664 GREENFIELD AVENUE, REAPPROVAL
REQUESTED BY TONY MEZZENGA (PLANNING CASE DE00-002)
Inhoduction:
As was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeiing, a snag has developed concerning the
construction of the office building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue. Specifically, upon seeldng an access
pernut from Ramsey County, Mr. Mezzenga was told the driveway could not be located where the
plans indicated due to the presence of an LP4 Manhole Curb Box Inlet. That's county-speak for a
storm sewcr catch basin. At last communication with the County, we were told that the catch basin
cannot be moved or altered, so the driveway must move to either side, or to Greenfield Avenue.
Discussion:
�' ,} As a resul� of this new development, it is quite obvious that something has to be resolved as to the
` r. ' location of the driveway. There are three five di�erent options, three of which involve a relocation,
one which would iavolve the reconstruction of the storm sewer (which has not been completely
ruled out) or the last option, which would be to not approve a change in the location of the
driveway. I would caution the Planning Commission that wtule the last option is an option, it is not
an advisable option. �i •
O t_ ip on 1• Move the access driveway to the west, toward Tom Thumb. If this is the chosen option,
the access would take out two parking spots and would result in a very unconventional entrance
configuration. (Refer to the example.} A variant of this option would be to take access from Tom
Thumb, though this would not improve the geometrics of the entrance and would cause the
driveway to be located only three to four feet away from the County Road I right of way.
Ontion 2. Move the access to the east, toward Greenfield Avenue. The impact of this option
would result in the parking lot only 7 feet from Greenfield Avenue. Unfortunately, the variance
approved by the Planning Commission only allows for a I O-foot parking Iot setback. In addition,
the curb cut would only be 25 feet from the corner where a SO-foot setback is required. That would
mean another variance.
Oation 3. Reconstruct the catch basin. This is the best option as it would not involve
reconfiguring the access, the parlang lot or anything else. Having aiready spoken to the Ramsey
County Traffic Engineer, i can relate that tlus option will be highly unlikely, though one that will
necessitate additional consultation with the County.
�
Mezzenga Access Issues
October 17, 2001
Page 2
Option 4. Do not aldow access onto Greenfield Avenue and reject Options 1 and ,2 due to
circulation and traffic considerations. This option would basically require that the catch basin be
reconstructed because no other location for the driveway would be appropriate. And if the
reconstruction is not possible as we have been told, option 5 would effectively prohibit access to
Mr. Mezzenga's property. I don't believe the City has the righi to prohibit access to a property.
�ption 5, Move the access onto Green�eldAvenue. This option wilI also result in the loss of two
parking spots. If the entire alIowed setback is utilized, the access could only be 20 feet wide unless
a third parking stall is Iost. If the driveway were located at the southeast corner of the lot, the
access could be a standard 24-foot width and only result in two spots being lost because a driveway
can be five feet from a property Iine. The obvious drawback to that would be that the driveway
would be that close to the adjoining property. A variant of this option would be to take access from
Greenfield, although at the minimum 50 feet from the corner, This is however ONLY possible if
the parking lot could be shifted to the south by ten feet. The approved variance oniy allows for a
15-foot parking lot setback. The benefit of this variant is that whiie two parking spots would be
lost on the east bank, an additional spot could be added on the west side (assuming an approved 5-
foot setback) resulting in provision of 14 parking staIls.
The other drawback ta this option is that the Planning Commission ha� indicated that access to
Greenfield had been discussed and that it would not be apprapriate. T have reviewed the minutes of
September 6, 2000, September 13, 2001, January 3, 2001 and January 17, 2001, and while they are :-: �
very deta.iled, they do not indicate that any discussion had taken place prohibiting access from� -:l
Greenfield Avenue. In fact, the only mention made about access was attributed to Commissioner
Thomas, when she asked if they considered placing the ctub cut on Greenfield Avenue rather than
County Road I. My response, as indicated in fihe minutes, was as follows: "The problem with placing
the curb cut on Crreenfield Avenue is it redaces the amount of azea that can be used for parkir�g. If
the buiIding is left in the same orientation there is just bazely enough room to squeeze the driveway
back along the adjoining property and then into the parking lot which would eliminate two parking
spaces so you lose either part of the parking Iot or part of the building."
Other comments were raised at the meetirtgs raising concern about the safety of taking access on
County Road I, the City's second most traveled roadway behind County Highway 10, and also
because of how close the access would be to the Tom Thumb access. From an access management
perspective, a driveway on Greenfield would be much more preferable, and Ramsey County has
indicated that access from Greenfield would be their recommendation.
Recommendation:
Review and discuss the op�ions and provide direction to staff.
C��i�,�Q °���'3��:.
James Ericson, Community Development Director
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV1Development Cases1De00-002 {Meaenga)1Me�enga Report - Oct 17, 2001.doc
�
+
- �
t.' '
.
, ..
Zoning Map
( � ,._ � c. � ' ��^��P,.�— ��"',"`<"y � ',^i �.. , . ,..
� ;.,. ._ k,
�
e r� ]:� 'i'4� �- ♦ .. �� v i Gz
+. _ r � 9_ r� ��L W � �..., � ,., t � ;
_, .� ( + '- . �n 5� a . !fs . � �n f ; v «r k � a w: ` i F � ' ca i r:
e� 3s .. r. � . �
r?FiP�d� I .'"!i : � a iV tV J �,7;�:.1 �.. , , � fi cJ � -- � s ; . r). .1 `�i a � � � • r t`3 -*� xs � ,�
............... L_.� �V _.,�.-..«......>............ ....-. _,n- �,.a' . t.^ I Y 2- iV ('1 f � � � � .. C:`�. .....,......,.....�... h: .
1 -a -x
� w.�,.,, �. ,.,,.....M..... � nx _� :. � r';`"y �• ���......>,;: �.�, � i u� e. �. f �z:. ...,w,.�. „�: `_ �1 � ���
� � 3 . �.. 'Y
t:a >��g i < ^�V� 3 z-rl�' ' � � �F �' ; ��,. ' ; '�i N= �..� `� 'r• �: �i � .•a�
�
�> � ^f f:3?3 :��3: '�- ^� -!r c y;?yn_�A i.i ra :ti s� :4 f r Y S"�'e , r t� r� � a �z �^<
: �f � .I . . :°x <+s rs ..�,'� ' c� , �� ; �� i•� � N r t S�i �;i
�-�k ti;�,r,�" g
$.R•�.._.,-�...-�bl�t�,,rk.��,..�„-.�-- r�14� l
a�'s�€ s'fxi ' ?3W �� : uf t' '�i}� �4 �y#:Y ; � ! —'""""'";I j }�� n��s � . � . ' �� �, �i w
f .. . - ' 2���'�"� JIi�S� tStSl� J� ��L £r� k� �� 'i � i�`2 �Y j'R C� � ; �`
: �'i'' j �b � 72 i� s'F, r � -�` � ,�s^' � �' -. ,.... r ^�i c .
� xr! ro
,�,� 1 S 1''!4 ���,- f S.£� ' vGSyi!? �?017 °•f �,: F,�, 5f 9(t...'..
k�a(: ��'7si�'� iR�-lii�d! 1,�'.$1�3 i S.ii f j",�'"� '� n. _�.""' �}�i�xz°�,;'�.
. . . �,� .l�y�? A�s � . , . . f#'�-�•�� ..1 I . � t.�.y � .iv�'� ir' i'��?;�'i t , i c� :ri 54 e-i �3 �• Vs u`t
;?�;�� ^z ;��: ?'`3�4.� ir�ia3 £ £} � : < <'t [ sa � r^s � `4 i �
; � � ��.��r 7$ ��:� 5 1 �' _ . � f . ✓:i�i �F �l'Ci� � fzl%-� R ��i � � . n: :: Cs: i�i
�yr��,,i�� �- i 7i3":� 's�� .� .� �� �.� � n' ��c' ` r a� r.
ar -fi'"-s ��f 7� c yE �..., .... 5�0'. ��.,; a,�F,� .KCC; s v�ri,,� � s � :v � �� , x -ti i c . ;. f '�
. .,#v 4 !L; Y 1 . - �. C.i , i ,.:
? � ��t�:?9 7r�� - .�.:...�..��. ,. ,,..� a9:��".>���:�r}r�roj���i};`i.�xr� . ....................._.M...,.,..��u_.—....:..„,.3:�.r
;i� r . a 7$i�� . M : � .. '�,/+. - -. a�P^3 �� �rl-° mm- i:z ! rtll� �.-. �+:.Ftt�
: i�'7T�; } . �:r y. . < . i e{ ~�E� e:, r i� r'�:�3 ;a _. ta N. G ^6q� •:
. . . Z �� L �1' � . �. � �., �1�' . �.d�; :..i� � "�, �i � . � - � _ � 4 # �i �� � �
� >,.�.' «i. n5 � .... ...: t - �X.f t'z �,q' .N ;Y �`t. r S3. °�.
.:i� t.F' .. . , �'�� �r -��F` `• :� : i�,w � .' � �' � � iE4 � �� 4� , -, nt �t St�
� �1 �Y �� � ..
.� � .��"-.�.`.,. - �• '1... > � '� u'� J.t -};-s,-k ... .. l�:
�.......__.--. �!�>
:i�� n w�7yt ,�°4'1<�i�� ��C,�tf��k`� t:?� �� .rrX`t^ � 4���`P�i-6G:��.� :r�:`^t �[�i ='' ).
i l:,�t -.�� ' � a� ..s ,"a�9, aac x ��a, rd r-i N
� '�'"""">s 'r•: �' ..� " �'i
. .. .... . �. .. i � _ � { . In •�7,._ . � f v� ...
r .�i � �;+r� r7 / °utt i;S:.'� �� "� iY v ir> �7 :>i> ���z:3 ��- ��� � ���� � .
.
, /, , - �3 ,�„ • ... ,_s'�}�
ri��� ?-r?„�377"�7`' ��`�g'�"��� *ii= '.���- ,i.5;Z7��:�;?5;�;�::. �j35�v �s°t„aµr,.:a•:wy � ~d�:a�
�`�` . .....Ii '. a, r '�:Yi ( � �,� �o;:a7;�:-;.v �°�.�.�
t v��..,- c� � �i a
;:� �fs `7 4 '!�?;4 33f� �. .� K t � rs a . �. �.$� �-�`�' � *`w1 4 .C•} i�s �i . "�i i: t2 r,t 'rt
� �_� {....1 ...... '"I � iJ� s:a��a�a .......��� ��_�, � ,.
._�... ���� ��� ��.� �
�
,' r��
��,
4 � nJ
�
N f,�J
��
�f �
r.r cu
��>
r „. f
���r �
# v��'�
S
1
}S ..
� �eC io
�4
��;'
rits`� "�'�w ik�� � ',�a
� �
��� {•� a;_ � .� �....'yWi, �_..- �&::
i ~ s.i �� l �� : [tl rA ' Cl` a : �:R r .. .
�
�:
�.g'�'w
�. a
r.
��� ,.
�-�°� `:
��, • -
F36��4 . �;
���� .
rS�rsL :'f9ii i s� '' .{�.
- �..° -y
>:,�� �e�;; i� ' � �
. :..... . . . ... . v
)$ti�f.. .. r>�r.!i� ' �����r .
;ai¢�9 �,`.:6: �:�'!'}
;rk'i� �i'i� �sia . fi
v�i�6 e!-i?i��� '39�G*.._.��.,'
m' t� r� i� <g ' cv
� �. ri.r�'r�-�€ca tv�: � <
�� r� oz � r� r� �; a cv �v <
S i!1�2
� p. - M'I: �R
%i : N !"f
., .�� ,y
i
¢ dl �+P ��� r:
�6'� l�i . ,
iY
t+� N4 �
� ::i a; 3•: � � �o �
�.� ^ i r� ,.i �j , f tV h;'.
:�' Cs i'�J� i'F (v 4�4 N Cv. r
�� . . . � . �! • ' ' 4, a� ' �' . . • � • • • • ' ' ' ' • `
�b .•O ` ` ' • I` '�, . • � ` - . • � ' , 'i
� � � • . . � � . . ' � � • • . ! . � ' ���'{ � _ 1 i
• ,� , ~ ` , ' '\\� i�• .� �
• , / • . . . • • ' ' • � �f J �
, , � ,. . . . . . 3 , . �
. � . : : ,�' ; � r • � . .� • .
' ' . i` / � ` � r �,,� . ' • � . • � .• • ' , '. ' '' �. . � '� ' .
/ � �% r r;' � � a
.o; o/ o / i / �'� � } ' �.°� _ • ' . ' F.,
'� .' '�' � f� r ' � , / r' � -.p .�' o�e►
� 1 . : /' ,� � ' . 4� ��� •.' . ' ' . '' M ' ; , •. ,
-• r' . • � , t. �� . •
, :' r �r . . : f , . t , , • , ! �, .
. . F— �/'� . . • , ; . . . . � , •. � . �� , • . . ` � • � ul
•'� . f . • • . • ' �
�'�'��� . . - ' f . . '1 ' . . . �
� ` r ' , ~} %
�� ,••'. . • •°t , r � • . � �, `.
• � • F~ ' , � ` � .. .
. �` , -�J . �� ♦ � � r � ,
. .^^�� .4
�:o . f']'h' '. �. �1 "�'�� e� �: `_,�� . . • .
0 • ' - ' N �, / � �. � �. • . �.�,.y�1 � • I
� � . 1 `� , � ' .. � `\\'`� .• . '.
. � ' / . . . . . \ .. . _ • . .
� � ' - •r • � . � . � • � � ' 4
1 f ' � : ' � . . � `� , � ' , ' • . � /
�� -'.' r � � . :�` l
. . ,� � . , , __ .
�� � � ' ' � • � � � � �� :s
� . � , . ' . . � �� �y � �. � . � ,`
ro . • , . • � � .� l� s� ' `� � a . .
, . � . . • ~ � �. �' � U. . . �;.
� :�. ; . . �. � � � � � � �' . -� �.
. � � � � � � '� `� . �� ��
c� ' � , �S �-� � � [�$- , . � /��i
a r . � � � � � . •� • '�i `�f
.� . • •
. 4 �� , .
q . • .
� . •
.� ,gs/ , � , ,
�, � . . � ' ' ' . . . --- � '
. • • . ' • • • . , ' . i
�1r . '. � 6 . o. ;; � -,., � r. d . ea;s � o •.f . v.1 v.,6 • ; • ,
�
� • . � � ,�.�. ;�� -. . . - �� - �,� -
. ' . . . � �y .
� . � ,. os'i • ' , o,•2C
.o � � � . � �
� �. � � � . - � .
o. . - . � � � � �
n� . � . .�;. �.
• ` � • , • , '` ' •
• . � • - � ��a; 2/ _
---y. . _
. ,
•. ' :�«•• l _ � � ' • • , �.' ' �,
�� . . . . . �� ' � O :a� ,��; . ' . ` . . • � �
r� -o '�e . . ..� , � .
s , o � �%' �%� ./ �� � , N
� _ ° � � � ` J / ,r • 71
� . . . • ' S � � + �
' .�• �" • ' � •- . . . f � . S � ' I
r �• ,r �'• 1 ' �, /, ' �'�,`' �,' • �• • � �` '
' . � • �� � � � } � ' " ' . � � � ' � �
. / , f' // J�` . • , : ' r�`• f . . � �y 'I
,.Oi O% /- ' f / 7 % . � • • . . f:' . C: P�-�
�? ,�. �/'� .f ��1, � ' • �f � r• • ,: .Q . ` I
M � �% • , � ,ql� � . , sn i` � ,
. , ,.��f• �'/ / � � � �� � • / •'rf ' t ,I
' ' �'_ - • � • • .i �
� fr , . i . . . ' , � , . •,, � . � L�;
'�r �+/� f.,• �r , ' ' • ' � , ' . . ' •' f, , � • � . � , i
• �. .� � . , ,a� • f , rr ' ' �� ,� . I
�? ' . " ' � �
. � . t� ' ��% ' • ��i
�a . � 1.���i' , yt 4��' q�C� [;!; .f:4 �;O' � .
. . '�. ' �
. ' . � � f ' '
� N .., � . •
. \ �_ , . � . I � � � . .� � • g �'/ ,
/ , . . . .
, • z ' .� r � _ _.�� �. ' � -� . � .
M � ' . �• - � , J ._. _ • . . 'ti.
�•i
�,' ' �r , . . '• . . '•' . , • 1 . �
- - � - - . , ' . c� �'".
o� . . � • . . � �.
N • � • . . . . ' ''. ' �'.
. • • �
, � . . � . .'. � .�A . �� : . .� . � . � �� .
}' .�- :�,.-. �� � . . .,,� � .
� . . - � , � . . . �. � . . .
. . ., _ .
� . . .� . .
A�. � �Q .�-= . . . . -
� �° � � � � � � . - �. � '' � � .
.� • . - . .
. � .°�s' � . . . . . . -- �
� :. ' '.Q-6 -�d . .,s_cr ; '�.d• .o� � �< �°6 v;� ' ',� '
. �
� . • . ' �
. . �1 / ,� , �,, .�,. y. � _ .
� _� ' � . . , 0:2�
� ` , vi�j �- , . a'Zli . ^ �Y ''
._ . • . � . � , . �+J ' .
i , . ' . �
/ , -
' � , • , � • , ' _ ' ' ,
0. ' • � . • • . O� �• � . • ' , .
� � �
_ i _
��� � . � ,..`�'. ,;: � + • , . : _ . � ;
�� � � �c ' �� , i�", � � ` . ' . �
��' . .� �. . �� �.� � '��� j � Y
. � . `� �. � N
. , 'v1 G;
• .' f, • . /.. r ` . . f , . . • i, � � �t � � �
., r . /, `����f� f� f� ,r.,.. r � • '. � 1 • • , .
• � / / • j •' .. . . . `.
'�'�� ` ,� " / �Ir ,, , rffi � � , �`';
:? i� • J • � ' . f� � � ' .=� ,r,,-o,�n
� ''.� ,� ' , ii � v' r. , ' • . ,' .�1 `, . ,
� i ! /� � �� - M � • .
, ' ' 'r!. . . , a . 1 ' • . ' '� •i ' � �� .
• / fff /'� ^r.� . . • i , j• � •.� • � � • . • -
F—�• f �� . . i . . . .. . ' ' � . . �-.
• '\ . . / f/ f� f � • . . r • ' .' ' . •, � ` J . ' •' � , , �� . . !
.Y. . , � •• .��JS f f r ��' �, ' .
' � • F� • , � �y/ . \/C . .. .. .
�` '.,,,,�' " . �~ .4 '
��.� , +'1��� �. L; 1, e�'�: (i /l .y ' � �:
q . . , . , � + , , =1' � • V �
. � �.�. , � , y' � • + • ' , � ;�" ; _
'. , � .. . . • , � -gPi X� -
� _.� :� L f�' - ' ' ' ' •. . " -
. � . • �
` , i I• , % ' J r r. �• -�M ''�..' � ' . � !
. '�� ' ,.� • .��� ' \�� i
, ,� � . , � � . � ' � i'.
N � �- � . . ' d�C ' ` . cC � i
. w ` , '� , ;; . � �w' . ,
' . . • `� . ;
t - --. . , ' � . � - _ � �r , �r.� '..�_ W .
. , . . . • � . �+� � � • � � ' . ;
E^ ; � - , . .J � v • : ;
� � � S�7 � d�.$ � � W�'� . . . . �
� . , .S% � � � � ,:
; � �, � . � . .. .+ .. . � ��. � . � i
. . 4 �-f- . . .. . . . . � `' � �, . f =
. . = . � . . , � �,� _ � -
-. ,¢s, � . � • . . � � i :
. � �
� � . . '""� • • . � , • • ; ;
� �' ' a 6 � o. '� ' ',s-� �'. � . �, d c; � . o,� � . � • '� �
' � r �r
� � . ,� / - ;� � . . . `
:� ' � . ' ' . f � � ', +' , , `� � .
� � ,, aS'i • ' , o,•2C . o; 2/ N )
, o �_ _` ._ _ � - .� . .
- -�..r �.-- � ;,._ �.. . �
.. . . . ,.. .
� � '�l� ��'1„�� �•O:'� �� � . ' . ,f; ; .
�/ ,
� . . . ' � �, � ,' • . �
o� - � . �� . ..o;.�. � � � . � � - �� � . . ;
. � : ;�
. ..__ -F' . f . . , . �
�, �.� , . . �_ . .Q :cr, ��: . - . ` . , • ' �;
y •o <� ...' ..r . u
�b 0 � 1 . +.� . �'� � N
� � : � � � �� _ , . ;�
. . � � �.
. . . ; �.
. , . . . . , -� ,
. ,� . . - .. . . - . . f . , �1
f f •,r /�. f,' �! ; .'''.,.. 'r ! + '. r. 1 \ ,y , - • �:
� ! • �.
, - . , r` i .� / I��. ,� f,� � • �� � , . w
r . f� . . . .
. . .
F
/ . . ., .
, . .
..o; o/ / f �' � /` ' . • 'r . r' , c: p�n ;
,� �'• '�• i/ � ,, b I � f; � ' ' �f M •'� � -'!
� i` /� ! , . I. . . � � �
v f r: ' . . • � . . ' . ! �. ' " I,
• , J ,%` % , , ^ f: % ., . '. + ' ��/� '. • � • ` . ' . ur
�, I /�` f f f ' `' • f , � . • • ' ' f • . , - ,, ' -� ;
.� � �: � i , �
j. ' • . ,OT � . ! • r' i . S• • I
� • F , . , . � . ._
. a �_ Ta� , `� '
�fl .. . �� . .�aS ' .4 � , � I
q�.� I. . I�1�• . ' �1 1� '��v f� f� '.�'.4 I n;o . ,
� -� j �
. . . � � / . �. . • ,
Q` �1 �� • ' ' , �
• � �— . • , i: , . • . . . • . -gi'i ,
1 .. . • . . .
. , , . • .
� ' ' ` '�': _ . _ • , - - -. �` , , • . • ,
i . ;, r �
, ��J �. �►J .�.�� .�� ' �
. � � �� y � : .�
� - � � �p n �� ai� �.�. .
N . . �, ,�►� .i► b�, . . . .;:
t , _ .�. �r o� .� ���� . . . �:
:�-.- : � � . �'Q ��. � . . .
�.'� . � ...
� - � � '� w�, � � � c� . . . . .
�� '� �. �� � �.� �.� .. - . . .
� �4 �-- . � � .
�o , . , . . . . , f .
., . . . . • • • .
. •4f/ , , —
`. , � • • • ' , . , " .
-, � •, 0-6 •.0,;4 . .p: � ''.� .c1� o-.� .� � n,•� • ��' . .
. ►
. �
. ' ,� , �/ ' ,� : , � � f ' y ' J �' . ' ` • .
M� ..as, — � ,� � . � o.z . .� . d:z;
�s . �— - � �. �-
_ 1 . ' ' '�� � . ��� � - . ' . ,
r„ .
iQ • ' • . , . � � .
�s . .
� � . . � o, � .
� ([� � .
�
_.
�
��� , _ . • , �_ . . ;�, ' �' , i • ' ' , ' • ,'
�- 'o �c--- �c
y � . a � � . '��r�, , � ` � •
�� � . .�- �. . � �� r . � � f , �
,� � � , , ,`� .�. �r
. 'V1 ' [
, . • � . ' s
J " , r 1 ��
. r • � •r �, �•' �f� f � r' J'•,f • ' ` � +, �
. � . �� �� ; / ,i�. � .• . ' ,� . � ,��' � �� ,; - �. a
.o,-o� o �.� i� / % � �� . • � � , ; / ,✓'.� : I . • \ , , . �
:,, � �%, `/�� ,i . ` f �r' , � • �' .�, ' c'_v,.� W
� , �; � j f � � • � ��� . "� . . `+ M � . � � , .
, . y }', �', • . . t , � • , J , ' `• �� • �C
• I r•, / , • , . .�% .
. . . • /r � . _ f: � ' . ' , ' � •�' � • ` , • . �
E-- , �, �� : . . � � ` . � . . � � . . . � � • � �
\ ' f � `r ��� , • � , ' . . � �% : • , '\ + �} . .
�' i. , �aJ�$ f f_ ,� 'f; ` ,
• �" . .s- � ' . ��''� ' _ -
t— ., _y 4� . '~ .�. �<
. , °��° - I'1'�`� •. '� ' � � �';: ��•,� .,,� ' .. i:
o � ..�• �• • . ' �.D �
` E_ . M i f : -
• . � . . . • . . • , - a P� ,
� � � I' , , � ` '_' ' ' - -- -. , ... • . . �
. � I '',/ ' l . • . . -_ _
_' � , • •. . ' , - . � �
� , �"
o . � � ' rn�
N I . .- - � � ' : . �c: � � , _ � t� �-�
. : � � . . �- � . .. . � �, � - -,-
� �� �. � �. �n � � �: � .� . � �.
.�---� : � .- �. . . m . . . . . . .�
� ��-I . . �.. -� � . � � .� � � . �.... r.
.; � . . . . . . _
. , , . . . ., .
• �4 . " � � ,
� . .
� . •
., � . :
' `°S� , � ' ' •� . . �, •- ��� �
� . . . , , . .. '
� . .Q-6 _.o- •�r-� �c.b, .�,s c?•t .o� �� . , � -.
, '� �
� . � j! � � . . �� � �
. . �- ,� . . , � , �
� • . i . . . �►. •,i • .
Q • � ..a ._ • o • f _ � , ` `� _
� ' . �- • • •�C • . ` • ,0,-2/
'' i�
� ' � � ' , . -`�_� ' � - -
� . • , . ,"
� ' • . .
• �� ' • ' • . .
. . o� � � .
. :
;.. ,
� .. . .._ � :..
�� - ' . .�� . 4.�w1. t'. ' • 1 , � • ' • ' ' , �j
�
�� � . . . �� .Q�� '� . , . . S j
�b � {� - � �� . :.r � • � ',
N O ` ` ' , • ` . ♦ �
� \ �}{ J� ��
� �' � ' '� �/ / , �� �,5�'j fyl
• . . • • � " 1 � �v � ui
. �
' •� ' � � .. , -. J . .f , • i � :. . . y, --� , `I
. � � /� r� � •'` , . �r � , , . , `' - ' . � '` • . � �!`:
� � ' r` I I � � f � . � , � ,�.' � � � � ' J . E., I
,o; oi / �/ �'Jr i i f � . • . r' . c- p�� �
° ,� � � � . � f %. • Q �. �
�� ' � � '/ �� . � L `a�� •' ,; • . • . �� M �: `, � ' i
1 y� �% J /f . • � � ' . . �,
- f��%' , :� , . � ., . / . r' ` I
. . � , � • � f ' : '. � � , , ' �±
. •�C"� f,/! f �' ` • ' r .. � , • • ' , ' � f , , ' \ + ��, ' ' �
��, .�,,��: ' • •�� , �' /. •� � �. �r , s• ,� ' • . �
S? ' . • ' VC .
• � t— � �s! � , i� �
. in . . . � . ,�..J ... . .
. . � �,o �.21� � ,' � �� �'. r� ra ;�:, � �;p �
. . � 1. . .
� . • .
O N .. , .
� � . ' . I'' � � ,. � � - -�rEY ,
, / - • •
� � �i ' , _ . _ • . — — , —. .�� • . .
~ � � � • J (�}
i�, �
_�� '� ' , . . �, .� 2. . . � N
;� V ' .� � �.
o:��. � . .-�. . .o ��1�.
N 3'��� . . . . ._ . � � . � ' . � ' -;.
� , O• . � -
�. � . . . . � � _ 1A � ;�'. - � . . . .
- . � � . �
� ^. � � � . � ?�' �� ,�: � � . .
s o.W ...
;`, � ? , . � . . w � .
: � f! � • ' ' � �
' �0 j�— ' � - � �. � . - . � � . , , .
1 , � .OS� ♦ . ��. . � . . �.�� ,' , �
; -� . � � . .. � . . � , �
� i •. '.Q-6 �o,d ' '�°: cr 4'. , .�� �;•� .o,,j �� • ��' . .
_ . �
j � • � . _ � �
V1 . . . � , i . ,� , . ; � . �, � f� , - y .� . . :.� . .
I� � =� _—� ' . ' . � . ,�: zi
. r � ,,4�'i .� ' , '. p'�C , . — �� ��
'
�' �� � � �"� � � �. —7� ! �� � - . �
� � .
~� �_r, ' � � ...r� • . , �,�—'� J �� .
. ' . � . � _ •
. ��.
' . � � • . .. o; �• r. � , ' . • -
A
... .:-.�:. - � ' .�. ��� � .� �- f.-..: �� .�� �:,:.- . . - .. � . .
( :.._.`
I
�
_.✓
_. ..
M4UNDS VIEW PLANNING COMNIISSION
November 7, 2001 -- 7:00 P.M.
r- 'i
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
L Call to Order
2, Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comrnents on Items Not on the Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
a. October 3, 2041
CITIZENS: BEFORE 5PEAIQNG, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,
AND GIVE YOUR F[JLL NAME A1�TD ADDRESS FOR TI� NiINUTES
S. Planning Case VRO1-010
Public hearing and discussion of a variance request to allow a reduced lot width and
reduced wetland setback for a proposed major subdivision of land located between
Longview Drive and Silver Lake Road, south of County Road H2.
Applicant: Marty Harstad
6. Planning Case MI01-002
Discussion and review of a proposed minor subditrision af the property located at 7841
Spring Lake Road.
Applicant: Brian Dieh1
7, Planning Case DE00-002
Discussion and review of a proposed change to an approved development review for the
property located at the southwest corner of County Road I and Crreenfield Avenue.
Applicant: Tony Mezzenga
$. Planning Case SP091-01
Discussion and review of Section 1006A6 of the Mounds View City Code pertaining to
development controls
9.
,,
;
10.
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED.
PLEASE NOTIF`Y THE COMMCJNITX DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT
763-717�021 IF YOU ARE UNABLE T� ATTEND.
Staff Reports
• Previous Council Action: October 22, 2001
Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
i
Planning Commission Agenda
November 7, 2009
Page 2
i
11. Next Pla�ining Comrriission Meeting: November 21, 2001
12. Adjournment to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes from Octobei 17, 2001 Planning Commission Meating
IJ:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV1PIanrvng Commission�PCAGENDA�20011November 7, 2001 PC Agenda.doc
r __-
t=
1
i _ ;
� _ :, . , i ,. ..:
Item # 5
City of Mounds View
'° Planning Commission Report
MeetingDate: November 7, 2001
Title: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM
SUPPLEMNTAL PLATTING REQUIREMENTS ARTICULATED IN CHAPTER
1014 OF THE MOUNDS V�W CITY C�DE
Background:
On May 15, 2001, Marty Harstad, representing his father, Keith Harstad, applied for a major
subdivision to subdivide the undeveloped property south of County Road H2 between Silver Lake
Road and Longview Drive. The parcel, which is slightly larger than seven acres, lies completely
within the wetland zoning district and about half of �he parcel has been delineated as wetland. As
such, the requirements of Chapter 1010 apply to this proposed development.
The standard platting requirements contained within Chapter1202 of the City Code require a
minimunn lot size of 11,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. The Preliminary Plat
originally submitted by Mr. Harstad conformed to and exceeded these standards. The wetland
-='� zoning district regulations contained in Chap�er 1010 regarding subdivisions of land require a
_ minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a minimum iot width of 125 feet, As a result of these
requirements, the preliminary plat was redrawn to show all of the lots 'sn excess of ihe 20,000
square foot minimum. Orily one of the �ots, however, can satisfy the 125-foot width requirement
which has prompted the variance request.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 17, 2001 and took testimony from the
residents and the applicant. After closing the public hearing, the Commission discussed the
request at great length yet did not arrive at any consensus regarding the applicability of the
hardship standards.
Discussion:
As was indicated on October 17, for this variance to be approved, the applicant must demonstrate
that a substantial hardship or practica.l difficulties exist which make a literal interpretation ofthe Code
overly burdensome or restrictive to the property owner. State statutes require that the governing
body (the Planning Commission) 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 individual criteria, with sta.�s original responses, are as follows:
�
Harstad Variance Report
November 7, 2001
Page 2
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not �
apply generally to oiher properties i� the same zone or vicinity and result from lot
size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the
property since the effective date hereof have had no control.
The property proposed for residential replatting was originally platted in 1963 as part of the Mueller
Addition. Considered marginal property because of the wetlands, it was never developed. The vast
acreages of available land made its development cost prohibitive, Even so, sanitary and water utility
stubs were installed during the road's constructions in anticipation of eventual development on the
west side of the road. To not use the preinstalled utilities would cause a hardship upon the applicant
and would take away to some extent a preexisting development expectation. The plat was approved
and the utilities installed prior to the City's adoption of the more restrictive wetland zoning
regulations in 1992.
b. The literal interpretation of the pravisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties under the terms of this Title.
If the code requirements in Sectzon 1010 are taken literally, the applica.nt would lose the potential to
develop three lots. Other groperty owners within this wetland zotung district would face similar
requirements. However few if any other property owners would have a preexisting vested interest in
their undeveloped property as in this case.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions oi the
applicant.
The land was originally platted in 1963 and the utilities were installed not too long thereafter. The
utilities were installed with the expectations of future development. While the applicant was fulIy
awaze of the development constraints of the site, the applicant did not cause the special conditions or
circumstances (the wetlands and the wetlands ordinance of 1992.)
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Titie to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in
the same district.
The parcel is zoned R-1, sirngIe family residential. The applicant is proposing a development
consisting of single-family homes. Granting a variance in this case would not confer a special
privilege denied to other property owners. All other platting requirements would be met by this
proposal.
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
=--�
The variance requested would be considered the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship if one
were to make the assumption that the subdivision less the wetland zoning district overlay ' f
requirements would constitute the standard by which the hardship was measured.
}
i i. - . i
Harstad Variance Report
November 7, 200I
Page 3
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to
other property in the same zone.
The intent of the wetlands ordinance and the resulting subdivision requirements is to protect the
integrity of the hydrological system and the City's surface water management system. In addition,
weilands preservation and sensible land use management are critical to the present and future healih,
safety and general welfare of the land, ani�mals and people within the Ciiy. That being said, such
preservation and conservation efforts need to be balanced with the right and allowance to deveiop one's
property. Because Rice Creek Watershed District, the local regulatory agency governing wetlands
development, has approved the plat and alteration plarxs, and because the lots all exceed 20,000 square
feet with significant dedication of easements, staff believes the variance for the reduced lot widths would
not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Wetlands Zoning Regulations.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adeguate 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 ncighborhood.
It is no� expected �hat the proposed variance for reduced iot widths would not result in any of the
above-cited adverse effects.
Staff Interpre�aiion:
As stated on October 17, it appears as though there is sufficient hardship associated with this property
to warrant approval of the variance requested. However, because the interpretation of these criteria
can be and often is a subjeciive consideration, the Planning Commission will need to once again
review the criteria and previous testimony to determine if in fact a hardship does e�st. As a result of
the discussion generated at the last meeting, staff has drafted two resolutions—a resolution of
approval based upon sta�s in�erpretation, and a resolution of denial, based on comments made by
some of the Commissioners.
Recommendation:
After continued discussion concerning this request, the Planning Commission should act upon one of
the two presented resolutions.
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
- : ;': �
--- N;IDATAIGROUPS\CONIDEV1Development Cases\VROi-010 (Harstad Varianee)1Harstad Report- Oct 17, 2001.doc
EXHIBIT A.
Zoning Map
• Not to scale
• Lot lines may not be
accurate
Proposed
.......... Property
Lines
�
���
,�
`�:���,.
�
�.
��
��
�k- �
���
�
�
E ��
�.
�_
�
��� .�
�'�,� .
�`�� �
�n
�
_ _____ _
�y." ��..:.�
� � , __, �y
... `;
�����
°: �x � �. :
��:� �
�� �� �
����:
�°���
>
��:��
� :� . �..
� = y;
. �
� :......,��. �� �� �� � ��.�� `
. �
.
�. . _ ,: , ����';
.: ,
� �. :
�......... �� ��
. � �I �� � ,�
. ,. . .: ��:.�
� - �
� :
; :_
� : ......... ; � � �� � � � � s ;}
� ;
, . _ _ : ,.;_ .w. ��:� � : .
. a
:........., �� �� a°�.� `'
' ����`
. � : ..
� . '
°i ��ri���r��r.L' � [��x�,J;.� � ����`
■ ,�" ,� ,
` � . ,
� �� �� ����,� �
� ■u�����r�� � a'
• ���.
.. . ,.. �.��
. . . _ . '������ . � .. . .
� � .. '� �--���
� ��_�'� . �� ,�
� ,�,,� � �;'�'�
4 � �� .. �_ . . ' .
����� ����;
��� ���R
�. , �
�� . ����
��. _�:� . �� ��
� � � � � �� � t�:
����� ������.
,� ° .
,� � .. . � �: '� �r ' ._
�: .���� �� �����
� �. �����
�: � � � � .�.:� �
r -
� ����
� .
;
,.�...
_ . .. �
... �.......
_
, � .. ,�,�.;.
_ •
,.. _ . ,
-:-.. . , . „ ,., _. -
, _ ,. - .;,
' _ '----=-- , ._._
�I
,: :
MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 678-41
CITY OF MOUNDS 'VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTI�N DENYING A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED LOT WIDTHS WITHIN A
WETLAND ZONING DISTRiCT; PLANNING CASE NO. VR01-010
WHEREAS, Keith Harstad has applied for a variance to allow for reduced lot widths
within a wetland zoning district on ten of eleven proposed lots in the Longview Estates major
subdivision south of County Road H2 and east of Silver Lake Road; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed parcel is Iegally described as follows:
Lot 4, Block 1, Mueller Addrtion
Ramsey Couniy, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the adopted
Comprehensive Plan designates the parcel for low-density residential development; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed lots are within a Wetland Zoning District; and,
WHEREAS, the minimum lot width for single-family residential lots within a wetland
zozung district is 125 feet; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing six lots of 100-foot widths, one 95-foot wide lot,
one 90-foot wide lot and two 80-foot wide lots; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
1. Zoning Map
2. Proposed Subdivision Plan, date stamped Sept 21, 2001
3. Rice Creek Watershed District Report
-- _ 4. Staff Report
Resolution 678-01
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and received resident input
regarding this request on October 17, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to
properiy owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship
thereby restricting #he improvement of properiy due to practical difficulties brought about by
unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's
control; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be
satisfied, in order to grant a varia.nce to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings of fact related to the hardship criferza ideniif"ied in Section
1125.02 of the Maunds View Zonuzg Code:
The proposed Iots are located within a wetland zoning district.
2. While the proposed Iots comply with the subdivision requirements of Chapter I202,
the lots DO NOT comply with the requirements of Chapter 1010 which regulate
subdivisions within a wetland zoning district.
3
�
The ininimum lot width for within a wetland zoning district is 125 feet.
The parcel is substantially covered by delineated wetlands which is neither exceptional
nor extraordinary given the number of wetlands within the City.
The literal interpretation of the Code would N�T deprive Mr. Harstac� of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the parcel could
support a subdivision of up to eight parcels which complies with aIl subdivision
requirements.
b. Granting a variance in this case WOLTLD confer a special privilege not enjoyed by
other property owners in that there does not appear to be a sufficient ha.rdship to
warrant approval of the variance.
7. The variance requested is N�T the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship in that a ten-lot subdivision would appear to be the minimum variance to
satisfy the perceived hardship based upon the number of utility stubs already installed.
8. The variance WOULD be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that the
sole purpose of the requirements is preserve natural wetlands, promote wildIife habitat
and to protect the integrity of the City's surface water management system.
9. The hardsiup criteria as identified in Section 1125.02 have NOT been satisfied.
__-__-.
_. -: 7
• ,:.. . � .
s :::
Resolution b78-01
Page 3
' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER R�SOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon its review of the hardship criteria, testimony presented at the public
hearing and the identified findings of fact, does hereby deny the varjance request for ten reduced
width lots associated with the proposed Longview Estates major subdivision
Adopted this 5th day o£November, 2001.
Gary Sievenson, Chairperson
Attest:
7ames Ericson, Community Development Director
(Seal}
I•I:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�DEVELOPMENT CASES\VROl-010 (HARSTAD VARIANCE)1RESOLUTION 67B-01 (DENIAL).DOC
,. :
MQUNDS V�W PLANNING COMIV,IISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 678-01
CITY OF MQUNDS VI�W
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE QF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VA.RIANCE FOR REDUCED LOT WIDT`HS WITHIlV A
WETLAND ZONING DTSTRICT; PLANNING CASE NO. VR01.-010
WHEREAS, Keith Harstad has applied for a variance fo allow for reduced lot widths
within a wetland zoning district on ten of eleven proposed lots in the Longview Estates major
subdivision south of County Road H2 and east of Silver Lake Road; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed parcel is legally described as foliows:
Lot 4; Block 1, Mueller Addition
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the adopted
Comprehensive Plan designates the paxcel for low-density residential development; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed lots are within a Wetland Zoning District; and,
WHEREAS, the minimum lot width for single-family residential lots within a wetland
zoning district is 125 feet; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing six Iots of 100-foot widths, one 95-foot wide lot,
one 90-foot wide lot and two 80-foot wide lots; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
1. Zoning Map
2. Proposed Subdivision Plan, date stamped Sept 21, 2001
3. Rice Creek Watershed District Report
4. StaffReport
-- -:>,
=-_=J
. , .. , � - . - .
Resolution 678-01
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and received resident input
regarding this request on October 17, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to
property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship
thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by
unique or e�raordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's
control; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Mt�nicipal
Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be
satisfied, in order to grant a Variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings of fact related fo this zequest:
The proposed lots as depicted on the subdivision plan comply with the subdivision
requirements of Chapter 1202. The lots are located within a wetland zoning district,
however, which has more restrictive lot width requirements than Chapter 1202.
2. The minimum lot width for within a wetland zoning district is 125 feet.
3. Exceptional or e�raordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in that the property proposed for residential replatting
was originally platted in 1963 and that sanitary and water utility stubs were installed
� during the road's constructions in anticipation of eventual development on the west
side of the road.
4. The Iiteral interpretation of the Code would deprive Mr. Harstad of rights coznmonly
enjoyed by other groperties in the same district in that while other properiy owners
wittun this wetland zoning district would face similar requirements, few if any other
property owners would have a pree�usting vested interest in their undeveloped
property as in this case.
5. The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant
in that the land was originally platted in 1963 and the utilities were installed not too
long thereafter. The utilities were installed with the expectations of future
development. While the applicant was fully aware of the development constraints
instituted in 1992, the applicant did not cause the special conditions or circumstances.
6. Crranting a variance in this case would not confer a special privilege not enjoyed by
other property owners in �hat the app�icant is proposing single family homes in a
single family home district on lots that exceed the minimum standard subdivision
requirements.
,
Resolution 678-01
Page 3
7. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alieviate the hardship if
one were to make the assumption that the subdivision less the wetland zoning district
overlay requirements would constitute the standard by which the hardship was
measured. The varzance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this
Title or to other property in the same zone.
8. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to
other property in the same zone. While the intent of the wetlands ordinance and the
resulting subdivision requirements is to protect the integrity of the hydrological
system and ihe City's surface water management systern, such preservation and
conservation efforts need to be balanced with the riglzt and allowance to develop one's
property, especially in light of the support of Rice Creek Watershed District.
9. It is the beiief of the Pianning Commission that the proposed variance wouid 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 pub�ic sa.fety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFQRE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Ptanning
Commission, based upon its review of the hardship criteria, testimony presented at the public
hearing and the identified findings of fact, does hereby approve the variance request for reduced
minimum lot widths for proposed Longview Estates lots 2— 11, as depicted on the preliminary
plat, date-stamped Sept 9, 2001, subject to �he following;
1. The applicant shall receive final approval of a major subdivision as generally depicted
in the proposed preliminary plat date stamped Sept. 9, 2001, within one year from this
date.
2. The applicant shall arrange to record this resolution with Ramsey County within 60
days of this date or the approval shall be considered null and void.
Adopted this Sth day of November, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
Attest:
James Ericson; Community Development Director
(Seal)
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV\DEVELOPMENT CASES1VR01-009 (GUSTAFSON)1RESOLUTION 672-01.DOC
;;=: _ '�
,
.. , .. . _,
..-- --_= =- -- --•.- - :-... _ _
_
__. .. _... - ----- _.
' i
Item # 6
City of Mounds View
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: November 7, 2401
Title: CONSIDERATION �F A MINOR SUBDNISION OF THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 7841 SPRING LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING
CASE MI01-002.
Introduction
The applicant, Brian Diehl, is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to split off the rear 260 feet
of his property to create a 30,474 square-foot buildable lot. Minor subdivisions are those divisions
of land less than two acres in size in which only one additional lot is created.
The area of the proposed subdivision is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. The minimum lot
size in this district is 11,000 square feet for an interior lot. The coxnprehensive plan designates tlus
area as "single-family detached" and the majority of surrounding lots are improved with single-
family dwellings. The Knollwood Green Townhomes are located to the north east of the subject
property. The applicant has submitted a survey that describes the proposed subdivision.
Discussion
�. 1
- The two (2) proposed lots after the subdivision would conform to the lot size and setback
requirements established in the zoning code. The proposed easements are described on the survey
and are proposed to be ten (10) feet on the east and west sides of each lot, and five (5} feet on the
north and south sides of each lot. A separate easement document will need to be recorded with
Ramsey County upon approval of the subdivision.
The main issue with this application is access, because the proposed lot would only have frontage on
an unimproved section of Knollwood Drive. According to the City Code, all lots must abut a publicly
dedicated street that has received legal status as such. Currently, ihis portion of Knollwood Drive is
used as an additional access point for the Knollwood Green Townhomes, which front on County
Highway 1 Q. The access drive has a gate that restricts access to the drive and is not improved as the
Code requ�res for City streets.
The applicani appeared before the Planning Commission on October 17, 2001. The Planning
Commission was uncomfortable with allowing a lot to have the only access point on an unimproved
driveway. They did, however, feel that the applicant could dedicate a portion of the lot for a future
cul-de-sac at the end of Oakwood Drive. The cul-de-sac would provide access to the subject
property as well as to the property to the south. The applicant has revised the Certificate of Survey to
show a right-of-way dedication that meets City Code requirements regarding turning radius. Staff
recommends that the cul-de-sac not be improved until such time as the property to the south is
subdivided.
_ _
,.. . .
Diehl Minor Subdivision
November 7, 2001
Page 2
Park Dedication
This subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee requirement. The City's Subdivision Regulatzons
require that a park dedication fee be paid which is equal to ten percent (10%) of the assessed value of
the subdivided land (because the iot is geater than one acre), less that axea akeady improved with a
single family home. In this case, the fee would apply to the 30�474 square feet of Iand far parcel "B".
The assessed land valne for the lots are 77 cents per square foot, which would translate into a value
of $23,465. The appropriate fee is $2,346.
Park Dedication Fee Calculation
Existing Lot
Total value per sq. ft.
Proposed Parcel B
Park Dedication Fee
(90% of Parcel "B" value
* Source: Ramsey County Tax Assessor
Recommendation
Land Value* Area s. ft.
$ 48,900 63,310
$ 0.77
$ 23,4fi5
$ 2,346
30,474
The Planning Coznmission should review the revised Certificate of Survey and consider any public
input regarding this request. Resolution 677-01, a resolution recornmending approval of the request,
is included with this report and may be acted on if the Planning Commission feels that approval is
the appropriate action.
!, � � .
C �---
Jim Atkinson
Planning Associate
763-717-4022
Attachments:
1. Site Plan
2. Legal Descrip#ion for proposed Parcel "B"
3. Resolution 677-01
== - .l
.
_
_ . _ . -- - - - �. - _ I - . _ _:I: _._....... _ - - I i.
� � �., �,, �. i .
.,� ,`= ;�' � �.' � � I.
I �� t.
_ } -__ , � `� � .
� F� I .�: `�" �.i �'' �' :
„ �� �
�;, •._ �is� FT � '
: . � l� � � � f � � � ' ^ .
. . r j / / -�� � � � � r � I .
�}�_ � LOT L1NE AS MONtJMENTED j }
:_; ' `
_� � -+ :�� � I
f.� i•�c_ i•r r;:i:%i: � ��� 1
` I.
i. -r �� r� •i
1 f 1 � � �
\/ � L� �
� O O � �
�
�T UNE PER AUDJTOR 5� • �
UB NO. 89 AND A5 5Q �
MONUMEN.TED � ,
4 , L07 LJNE PER AUDITORS 5UB N0. 89 �
/ � �
.
--1bf: FT. �'
EDGEOF %• �' ��----�``�
, , � � E,,
8l TUMINOLlS � � � !� — � l
� � �- L07 L1NE AS MOfVUMEhITE� 1 (`�
!Nf PfR AL1DlTOR'S " I �
�T L � . ,
iU8 N0. 89 AND AS �*� i LOT LINE PER AUDITOR S SUB N0. 89 ��
MOIVUMFN7FD - sJ6f FT �� r�' � l I
�� '�. I %� —�� �----�'`� �i
�- —T � � f i
T LINE PER AUDI TOR 5 � F���' � LQT LlNF AS MO/VfIMENTED
``� ' 1 ��
JB IVQ. 89 AfVO AS " � L07 LlNE AER AUDJTOR'S SU8 ND. 89
MONUMEfY7FD -•16f FT. -�„ . � � � �
� i % ��. , �
. i 1r —��
�- ' ������r"---�`'�
NORTH L1NE, LOT 25, �LOT tINE AS MONUMENTED
O T L1NE PER AUD1 TOR'S '� q UDlTOR S SUBDIVlS10lV (V 0. B9 �
su(? ."�. 89 AND A5 � FOUND MONUMENT �,�
UMENT�D � � -----r - � f�� .
� I
` , --�� ?Jr'� I
� `, � r I
� NORTH L1NE, LOT 25, ii � i
��J6� FT.` � � ��AUDJTORS SUBDIVISl�IV N0. 89 �
� / �
� ( PER EXISTlNG MONUMENTATlON �a � , ,
LOT LINE PER AUDlTOR S NORTH OF PROPERTY s� � �
� _. � �
SUB Na. 89 AND AS SEE � DETA/L �� ; '
MONUMEN7FD� -8.a0 / � 1 •� � '
� I �,` � \ 25� • -
- +� � i----------
�
4 -- -------I
�.. I � ��� ; �
.. � i
��� � � � �
�
, � �
.`+ i
\ _-----___---�
�\ LOT L1NE PER AUDITOR S � �
\ SLIB lVO. 89 AND AS � �
' 1 \ , 1 `
- MONUMENTED i
� � _:
. i
ro� �- � .
\ \ �'� LOT LlNf PfR AUDITOR S _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - � `
� ��+ SU8 ND. B9 AND AS � ,
\ \ ,� ; . MONUMEN7ED I �
„ . t
� / � „ `
� \ � '
`` � i
,
� �� ��
� � i
� � �
-- J � ~r � \ ` ^ ;
`LOT L�NE PER AUDITOR'S � �
_ _ _ _ . . -. . . _
,
h
� �. � �ri
w
� /,4
,� , �
. ,�
/ 'I
, ,
. _ ,
,
;• �
, �
. �
ti, � �
� z
N
O F. O I
� O S
Q Z j
� `J � I
� �n
°zo
J I
q
.�
.
,` -
J I�
� ��
Q la
� ��
�o
o ��
�
O
N
� �
I^
2
sa �oN Nors�n�aens s,�ol�and,
�9z 107 3N/7 lSb'3 `.
,.- Zi�'6Zl 3„LZ,S�o00S
i '
� ; � I
, ,
�
i W ; o � � �, Q
� � ° .�.�/ h°� % ``
, z_
Q� � �� d` 0�' ��- a�
� � � �
� � � �� �
O � � ° 03 ,
o ; ; � ro �� �� � �. ,
m \ � -----z�ao'j���� , ;,
� p�M p 4 � �'� �
W � � m��4 oc , ►u �'
+ � i O� � �
� � , �\ �� ' �p d
� CS', O O
� � � � yJ\,�•� ' o �
�� � � W o
D �
!I O � 2 ' 4�i O
� � N �0 � ��z .
� q � q � � �,
N � ------ Eu 4.i
'_"'_^_"_�'__ OO'Ot�l __________-- � �
� U
' z `�
, �; -.� ..
�
� O N
� J
� �
� � °�
� o N �o
' � � o�
; � �r
' ' � ~�
� �
, ,
� � 2s
' 1 �
` _�� �m°
,
_��� _
_ " �'LiL M„LL.S'i.00N ---'' 3 � �
� -•BZL-' Fg\ \
. � �!
,
� � E x ° �
� � a � �• x
�� � � �
i
I
hZ � � i
�o � I_�� ± .
� �
s � „-' ,
OO ��.� F �
m � �� � �
W � � � �` �l I e
��na °z� ;� � �
O�Z ��++ �; � �
U� ,' ��� 1� I i
� I r
3 Q ,�� m' Q j`�� � �
Z J `. i ,� �
� +,� � � � ��.. L i
� � . ._..
, ,_, ,. , . -, , .
::� �.� :: :� •� , � � ;� �;
- V 1
s � Sn
� zo
y � �, o`
W �
V � �e
Q N � «�
�. �� ��.
lf? `' O
e � �2
� mo
W `` 3 S � �
� y �� � �
h �
� w � � {� O
� � 0 O �
N ?o `�O`
11 �J Wj
Q � � J �
� W ��
Q ' �o
,
� �
, ,
+ 'j
�
, �
i ��
i �
, ; ,
r � i
�
� O �
� � N �.
„. ,.;,
��;�:; ,.;=
♦/ aJ �J .�
. �
� �
��
. ���
�
. �- '
R��
���
�
� g�
�
f:_=':`; 1
i
_- :'I
`�'�:
�
�
I
�
ll
� 1
�
{
1����
I '
:�
i�
.
I
�
`=:
�
��-
`•-
I
� �" I
� y+ �
I; ��
I I
I .: I
, ... - -
- -- -- - - _
0 f00 � 2L
SCALE /N I FEET
1 lNCN = f0� �FEET
�
\
_.
,
i.
�_.-,.
- _.____.
-- -- C s :
. 1i
a� , �
R;
PROPOSED PARCEL B
The easf 260 feet of the north 140 fee't af Lof 25, AUDITOR'S SUBD/VlS10N NQ. 89.
Romsey Counl'y. MiRnesofo /ying soufherly of the following described line:
Commencinq at the narthwest comer ofj soid Lof 25; thence South 00 degrees 49
minutes 41 seconds Easf, assumed beoring, along � the west line af said Lot 25 a
distance of 16.41 feet to the poinf of beginning of the line fo be described; thence
North 87 degrees 04 minufes 20 secon�s Eost a dist'ance of 46Q.64 feei to the easf
Ilne of said Lot 25 and there ferminating. Except thot part of the above described
property /y/ng wlthln the clrcumference ' f a clrc% hov/ng a radlus of 60.00 feef.
The cenfer of s�id circ/e is the point of�lntersecfion of fhe westerly extension of the
center line of Ookwood Drive as dedicate�d In fhe recorded plat of HALUPTZOK'S
TFRRACE with a line 55.D0 feet westerly� of, as me[rsured ot a� rfght ong/e fo, and
parolle! wlth, the easterly Ilna of s�ld Loi 25.
PROPOSED PARCEL B EASEMENT
An eosemenf for drolnage and ut!llty pu'�poses over, under, ond across the
westerly 10 feet, n.ortherly 5 feet, east�y 10 feet, and the soufherly 5 feef, all
es meosured qt right ang/es fo said westerly, �arfherly, easteriy, and soufherly
lines of the follawing described property.i
The east 260 feet of the north 140 feet af Laf 25, AUD/TOR`S SUBDIVISION N0. 89.
Romsey Counfy, Minnesota lyir►g southenf of the following described line:
Commencing ot the northwest comer of�sold 4of 25; fhence South QQ degrees 49
minutes 41 seconds Easf, assurned bear`ng, along fhe west line of said Lot 25 a
distonce � of �6.41 feer #o fhe point of beginning of fhe line to be descrlbed; thence
Narfh 87 degrees �4 . minutes 20 secon�s Eost a disfonce of 460.64 feet io the east
line of safd Lof 25 and there terminafln�g Excepr thoi` pe�t of ihe abotne described.
property /ying wlfhln the clrcumference qf a clre/e havlRg a, radlus of 60.00 feef.
The cerrier of sald c/rcle (here/noftec referred to as "Polnt A'} !s the polnt of
infersecfion of the westerly extension of� !he cenfer line of Qakwood Driv+e os
dedicoted ln fhe recorded plat of HALUP, TZOK'S TFRRACE wtth a line 55. 00 feef
westerly of, os meosured at o right angle to, and para/lel wlth, the easterly line af
said Lot 25. �
And
An eoosement for dnoinoge and ufillfy purposes over, under, and across fhat part af
#he oba�e descrlbed property /ying wlthJn the circumference of a ci�c/e hoving a
radius of 70.00 feet. The cenfer of said circ/e is said "Point A':
�
F�Fn�n
A��
a�k
!rI ;
Tl; �
Cc �
fh �
Cc
di, �
Nc
lin '
N�Y CDRNER, LOT 25,
� AUDITRR�3 So 80lIRSlONG
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 677-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF NIINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISiON
OF 7841 SPRING LAKE RQAD, REQUESTED SY BRIAN DIEHL, MOUNDS VIEW
PLANIVING CASE NO. MI01-002
WHEREAS, Brian Diehi has requested approval of a minor subdivision oi 7841 Spring
Lake Road, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally-described as follows:
That part of the north 140 feet of lot 25, AUDITOR "S SUBDIVISION NO. 89,
Ramsey County, Minnesota lying east of the west 8 feet thereof ancl southerly of the
following described line: Commencing at the northu�est corne� of said Lot ZS; thence
south 00 degrees49 minutes 41 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the west line of
said Lot 25 a distance of 16.41 feet to the point of beginning of the line to described;
thence North 87 degrees 04 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 460.64 feet to the
east line of said Lot 25 and there terminating.
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to split off the rear 260 feet of the property to create
an 30,474 square foot buildable lot fronting Qakwood Drive and legally described as shown on
attached exhibit "A"; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to dedicate right-of-way to the City for the future
construction of a cul-de-sac as shown on attached exhibit "A"; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a rninor
subdivision and has deternuned that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of
the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant's request for a minor
snbdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive PIan; and,
1
_-_-_ �,
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey for the above described '__
property; and,
___ _____ _ ________ _ , . . ..
i
�; �
�
i
i
Resolution 677-61
Page 2
. ..____ __.,. .
I.
WHEREAS, the Engineering Technician and Public Works Director for the City of
Mounds View have reviewed the proposed minor subdivision and has found it acceptable; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Certificate of Survey has been forwarded to the City Atton�ey
for review; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, a park dedication fee in the
amount of $2,346 is applicable with this proposed minor subdivision; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 7841 Spring Lake Road requested by Brian
Diehl, subject to the following:
1. Prior ta recording of this subdivision with Ramsey County, the applicaait shall submit
the required parlc dedication fee in the amount of $2,346.
2. The applicant shall record the City Council resolution of approval, the Certificate of
Survey and the easement documents with Ramsey County within sixty {60} days of
final adoption, and present proof of such recording to the City of Mounds View.
Failure to record these documents or provide proof of such recordation shall cause
this approval to be null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff
to forward this resolution to the City Council prior ta approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 7th day of November, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Community Development Directoz
(SEAL)
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDEVELOPMENT CASES�IvII01-002, (brian diehl)�2ES. 677-01.DOC
f�_ _ `1
City of Mounds View
Planning Commission Report Item # 7
Meet.ing Dc�te: Novembe� 7, 2001
Title: DISCUSSIQN REGARDING A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR THE OFFICE BUII.,DING
UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT 7664 GREENFIELD AVENUE, REAPPROVAL
REQUESTED BY TONY MEZZENGA (PLAIVNING CASE DE00-002}
Introduction:
This item was discussed at the October 17th meeting of the Planning Commission. To summarize
the development, upon seeking an access pernut from Ramsey County for the driveway onto
County Road I, Mr. Mezzenga was told the driveway could not be located where the plans
indicated due to the presence of an LP4 Manhole Curb Box Inlet. The County has denied a11
requests to relocate or reconstruct the stormsewer.
It was proposed that perhaps the stormsewer could be located in an island of the drive aisle, with a
lane of traffic on either side. After some engineering review and feedback from the County, this
option has been determined to be unworkable due to the separation needed from either side of the
catch basin and the potential confusion which may arise from the drive aisles separated by as much
as 21 feet. As a resutt, the applicant has had the site plan redrawn to show the access onto
Greenfield Avenue and the parking lot reoriented so that there would not be any loss of parking
stalls. The re�vised site plan, date stamped Oct 29, 2001, is included for your reference.
Discussion:
Ths problem with this solution is that the Commission had i�dicated a reluctance to have the access
on Greenfield. As I remarked at the last meeting, I reviewed the minutes from the previous meetings
and found little documentation with regard to the location of the access. That is not surprising,
however, because it was always planned that the driveway would access County Road I. It should be
noted that there were concerns raised at the meetings about the sa£ety of takuzg access directly onto
County Road I, the City's second most traveled roadway, and also because of how close the access
would be to the Tom Thumb access. From an access management point of view, relocating the
driveway onto Greenfield Avenue would be safer and would be the recommendation of Ra�nsey
County. The amount of projected vehicle trips generated from this development would be minimal
and as such would have little impact upon the neighborhood
Recommendation:
Review and discuss the amended site plan. Tf found acceptable, given the circumstances, staff has
drafted Resolution 679 which recommends approval of the revised site plan.
t �� ���.�
James Ericson, Community Development Director
N:\DA7AIGROUPS\COMDEV1Development Cases1De00-002 (Meuenga)1Mezzenga Report - Oct 17, 2001.doc
Zoning Map
::: .
, ,,
� y.. � L' s �� .� f � t-:-`- � � . 3 �,lc� • A°�% _ �...-..H . �/,' ( Y c ..
� ,^ -
_...., l_._ .. . - . � j -�— . .
k
'_ .. " '
1 J . t ` i ] .�! . � G 4) f : : r a C .
-• '✓ t Yl ri .�� ! il i.....� 'f 3� : 4
. .............. ..................: i..�..... ' :� ... .. . .,...�.-. ._.,.�.. .�._
... ................ � �� ''� ; v, f f sa £?, � M.�,�»,'"Fj� a�3� 8�F
:\ ,� ' - i xL rw - � � ; _.. . - . .; :.- --- y £ . .. .'- .. ( ,
`��� !3�"'3 '";:�ir. j �' �, z e � � � � r ' }ti_� � �d c :,�,..,� [ r_� ' S'.a � - i � i +i " ...
t S „
� � f f K V [ 1 T {v
... .. ... 5 , Ti_£F. � -'sF- . � f f C� - � ....... ..
r: c r+ � r a=
��3 z'" �vz��' L �« �
� j£`; � . � .. '' � t�F� �� '. � .. � �
� 3���". .� . s �'3.' 3.. a.
� ,_,I � � A.� , �; ;r � �y s� �,I # F � t 4 ?
, � � r S0£ `.�sYZ§ K.� '.�' � sf �� :' ¢ � ni _ <= f_l,
�;�. '�o- �� ,z3�lx��'f�£ ` 'rytL�a^�� p ; ��51 �F,,; if 3 +3#��� � ��q c�
h E{ 1 ,?a4'1 3 � �' 1..j�' . F
. .. 1�F /�J' �%` k.-.. . . � . £: . #i�- �K � � . Y � .��-1 s�u�`�.
�Y �� � k � u xF��.�y�{ ;St' . N�� . . . � ; ` �} � f � .
� � Lt � '.�y. ` � ' E .. � . ' e ti ^� f.� i V .•y
� �c {, k £ _ _ � ' � f<
_ i
i�� r`3.,. � � f���� � kl�:'� 3r�t J„ f 3I �56C�� i £' �<ti
A I
��,�� � Y{1`` .'v!d � � .. { .�G.:x �{.... .. . ! ��f;:�. , � � �� � `� ^.
S. , rr� , �� � f ' , � ,, � :`c ••x
�y� _ _.. ,,� .. 1 I ,
���' # . � � .. �'�"°! � ' � ' � .. _ � . � `.?v�i� 4.X`j-.�.��5 F`-,F' 4Fyds:.'��. �...... . >. .
' � f � t4'J : � � /� � . ' � • �- �„"..::...,.,., z w t y .�� .
T�;. 7?A;.�g . � � ' G1 " . y;
1' f: .} �„�. r ii GY-
� ? 3 f / �, � r `�:� � ` yr�S3i��c;isy1_ � ��`3£ i.i, �'�ATFE� ;, . � t� iv : § u_ ,y� �d: i .
F.� i -- -,} s '�'° �.l� �k.*, . - _ ; 4 r�. . ..� - ��2� lr. c �.t .�.•p .r r�t S-. ��
, , _ � � / 'n ��j �p(i i �( � � . r�1�. �.?: ��'i: � r, t �r9 '�� s . . . .t e� �' ( S �,
..g,C � )ti ��l� 3 �� �S'���BYl�)3� 4:,f� �{S� �� � � �i ��j'.'. AT. P` C%i f? �.T '.1)
f i f - '-,i I """L;C",."" `�- -. et \. .i'r'?a- ��,x.;:9\ ' �� •� f 7' d � i '`yfb 4.�.t ! � - Er{ ,t F� C� � �! E x
�e r « . -. __ �� 4`�s : i< sss - a . � . � , .-.. >d -,,, .. . ..,
..6 . . " '
E� ��� � � ��,5i �' .�i�,� M� r , f- s�4 . `'Y �x rr �
� . . . i §`d . . �-e _. �A �, _.,,
- x<
7�'3:1�t � �� � ,�P ,,, ! � f� y � ��� .Y� F � �
� � . ° Ui 7f�" �. � ')}
� ,�,,o,-iig � _ . .. � f�'� . £ , . � � �s3 t's a `;� f ' ,. -- -;� .�� �,,;�s
-ti�� z "�' � e T^r ! �n. ? W c
� (-5 , c
.
- c�' � Z � � i � � i � - �:1 � - u �X . `'r E ES e-��.� . � � °''�Gi
. ...?.
���,��; . ._._....._� .. ....--- �. ;� ,:.M.��.....�.�,.�....._....w�,._.�..M. _.......
,
,-, _� A,� M; �
.�..,.�...._.. _ 1 �,.�s.; " � �
�h
;::
Cd
y�.F;
w�: (,?-
�,�
ti�
� ��.._
j � ...
'.,,'+�' N ` `a "
�w, L:� �� F� t� �
•"F �` '>" �.�'±:mv: A
��a,h�w�at+,cx�ca-yw�xx�v�aas'�n
.-�.,.....�.: �-� iF,� -..�I _.»�.., .Yt, ..� u f.; � �'� � . ... . , �c�
ix.;..". %.`. < S `. : �i' ,%c' �t' x� : "� fi o ro � 's;z,
� �`�� i+ � ��� ' J.): ?.
,' �S ,fl��Ff'��:J.�;�„ - . ...:).Y.> i
;: ���..=;r _r
'�2�' J .;, J
`� . ��t�
��: �.5 J 5:3'f :'
,z, �5
/ S . . � Sj � '�.J��
r. •y � ��:}y� . .
��i�'rE�... f�..,:7.'�s`v. :'3,��3i
� +.t? - <' v � 3 ��.
:�i.`Zi e� U � f) �v �r1 �
�� £a
.`...��..,.,,,..., ri . ..�
i
r,
s;
�`�S-i.. . ..
�
r
��+•:aA��� � a
zrox�,�s:.��: �:.:
'.i4 �A
�;.:{ at:;�
��°s''� �..^�r �'`'`
. .. ;�l'yi� �'�i•���.;�.
..�
�J"4a. .��i.�v.r
c,�rs.; `}k}.. '�h,:.
�i�Sfi„� v4`�}fl �:
t.:, ,
ro' :> r.t i c�i c� '•v
r:,:-i'«;ta <v',%v
S"y' +`d - S'+S � C3 �i ': ?�3 <
vi ;�� i�, n
Y3 . °q' ' ,� ; !"1
Ca � "YS � C � F
i` . -. . , <
'ry i h, 4i � ti% 'T; ti -»
4� 7 .1' _
Cw ;`�1 r E ,;, f ry j�...; Cv
;.i .. s'{' Z'4 !"i i�f i',3 CS .
i
m
MOUNDS V�W PLANNING C�MMISSION
RES�LUTION NO. 679-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A RELOCATED DRIVEWAY
ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPRQVED DEVELOPMENT AT 76b4 GREENFIELD
AVENUE; PLANNING CASE NO. DE00-002.
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned B-3, Highway Business, is designated as a
"Neighborhood Commercial" use on the Comprehensive Plan and is legally described as follows;
Lot 30, Block 3, Greenfreld Plat 2, Subject to Road Easement
Ramsey Coun.ty, State ofMrnnesota
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2001, the City Council approved Resolution 5527, a
resolution approving a development review to construct a 2,OOb square-foot of�ice building at 7664
Greenfield Avenue, as requested by the applicant, Tony Mezzenga; and,
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution 5536 which
amended Resolution 5527 with regard oniy to the fencing and screening requirements; and,
WHEREAS, on 7une 25, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution 5572 which further
amended Resolution 5527 by allowing the building to be two stories in height rather than one and a
half stories; and,
WHEREAS, Ramsey County denied a driveway access permit onto County Road I due to
the presence of a county integrated stormsewer catch basin and plans to reroute the access around
the catch basin were deemed unacceptable; and,
WHEREAS, as a result, the applicant has submitted revised plans date-stamped October
29, 2001 which relocate the access onto Greenfield Avenue in full compliance with the approved
setback requirements; and,
WHEREAS, all other requirements, conditions and stipulations addressed in Resolution
5527 (as amended by Resolutions 553b and 5772) shall remain in force.
NOW THEREFQRE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the request to relocate the access driveway onto Greenfield Avenue,
subject to the following stipulation:
1. Additional plantings and landscaping shall be installed on the north side of the lot,
between the parking lot and the County Road I sidewalk.
Resotution 679-01
Page 2
SE IT FiJRTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs
Staff to forward this Resalution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 7th day of November, 2001.
ATTEST:
Gary Stevenson, Chauperson
James Ericson, Community Development Director
� ;
N:IDATA\GRO[TPSICOMDEV1Development Cases1De00-002 (Mezzenga)1Resolukon 679-01.doc
Item # 8
City of Mounds View
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: Nove�nber 7, 2001
Title: DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF SECTION 1406.06 OF THE MOiJNDS
VIEW CITY CODE PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRQLS
Background
Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the section of the City Code that relates to
development controls. This section of the Code is outdated and unclear, which could pose problems
concerning the types of proj ects required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved
by the City Council and which projects require a development contract. The Planning Commission
previously reviewed this section of the Code and has directed staff to draft an Ordinance reflecting
their comments.
Discassion
Type of Development to be Reviewed
The City Code, Section 1Q06.06, Subd. 2, currently reads as follows:
Application of Development Controls: All proposed industrial, commercial and residential
developments and expansions of existing facilities, except developments where public utilities
and streets have previously been installed and the erection of no more than iwo (2) detached
single-family dwellings are planned, must be reviewed by the City Planning and Zoning
Cominission and approved by tl�e City Council as conforming to this Section. The term
"development", as used herein, shall mean all construction, public and private improvement,
expansion ar alteration of facilities and land within the City.
Based on comments by the Planning Commission and research by staff, the following text could
replace the existing section to simplify the requirements for development review. Since the last
Planning Commission meeting, additional research regarding past development cases in tlie City
revealed that some projects maynot need a development review, such as accessory structures and
minor modifications to existing structures. Therefare, the following Code amendrnent reflects
Planning Commission comments as well as additional language regarding minor improvements.
All new construction excep� Single-Family or Two-Family dwelling units shall be
reviewed by the Plannrng and Zoning Commission and approved by the City Council as
conforming to this Section.
, Exceptions:
-� l) Accessory structures that meet the requirements of the applicable zoning district .
Planning Commission Report
November 7, 2001
Page 2
2) If the construction involved increases the overall size of the principal building by
less than ten percent (10%).
Required Development Contract
Section 1006.06 Subd. 4 currently reads as follows:
A development contract which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements, agreements,
guarantees and plans for the orderly development of said land shall be entered into between the
developer and the Municipality prior to the final approval of any subdivision, rezoning, special
use permits, Iicense or any building permits required for the construction, alteration, expansion
or improvement of said land.
The main concern with this section is that it is unciear as to which types of projects require a
development contract. Do aIl develapment projects listed in the section require a contract, or only
those that have completed ihe development review process? Staff's interpretation is that only those
proj ects that qualify for development review should require a development contract. The following
text could replace the existing section to rnore clearly define the intent of the Code:
A development contract which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements,
agreements, guarantees and plans for the orderly development of said land shall be ��
entered into between the deveioper and the MunicipaliLy prior to the final approval of �
any project that qualifies for a Development Review, as determined by Section 100b.06
Subd. 2 of this Code.
Recommendation:
Discuss the existing requirements and those presented in this report. Resolution 676-01, a resolution
recom�mending approval of the atiached Ordinance, is attached to ihis report. The Planning
Commission may act on the resolution if they feel that the proposed Code amendments are
appropriate.
.%'"-� _
!
� . /'_"--
Jun A kinson
Planning Associate
Attachments
Section 1006.06 of the City Code
Proposed Ordinance
Resolution 676-OI
� 1006.06
I Q06.05:
DEYELOPMENT CONTROLS:
l 006.Ob
Subd. I� Purpose: It is the intent and purpose of this Section to provide for order]y
development of land to safeguazd life, health, safety, property and public welfare by
regulating and controlling aIl development within �the City. This Section shall be in
addition Eo the requirements of any other provisions of tt�e Mwucipal Code regulating
such development.
Subd. 2, Application of Development Controls: AIl proposed indastrial, cammercial and
residential developments and expansions of existing faciiiiies, except developments where
public utilities and streets have previously been installed and the erection of no more #han
two (2) detached single-family dwellings are planned, must be reviewed by the City
Plaz�ning and Zoning Commission and approved by the Ci#y Council as confornzing to this
Section. The term "development", as used herein, shal] mean aI! constrnction, public and
private improvement, expansion or alteration of facilities and land within the City.
Subd. 3. Development Pian:
_ a. The owner or developer shaIl submit for review a deveIopment plan which sets forth
__; Plans for utility service, sarface water drainage consistent with the Local Water
-- Management Plan dated February l2, 1990', subject to subsequent revisions, erosion and
sediment control consistent with the Rarasey County Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook (1989) prepazed by #he Ramsey County Soii and Water Conservation District
and subsequent revisions thereto, s�eets, parking, landscaping, screening and bnffering,
lighting, setbacks, exterior construction design and materials, trash disposal, construction
timetable and such other matters as the Council may require.
b. The owner or developer shall submit with the development plan an abstract of title,
registered property report- or such supporting affidavits or documents that establish
ownership or any other parties of interest in the property involved.
� � Subd. 4. Development Contract:
a. A development contract which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements,
agreements, guarantees and plans for the orderly development of said land shall be entered
into between the developer and the MunicipaIity prior to the f na! approval of any
subdivision, rezoning, special use pernutsZ, license or any bnilding permits required for
the construction, alteration, expansion ar improvement of said land. �
�
� See Chapter 1302 of this Code.
2 See Titles 1 I00 and 1200 of this Code for zoning and subdivision regulations.
City oj Mounds Yiew
1
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 100fi.U6 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE
PERTAINING DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
THE CkTY �F MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Section 1006.06 0# the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby
amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions �-e�,
to read as follows:
1006.06, Subd. 2
. ■_ � -
,_ -
_ . _ _ _ - --
- - • ' - -�� -
. -
All new construction exce t Sin le-Famil or Two-Famil dwellin units shall be
reviewed b the Plannin and Zonin Comrnission and a roved b the Ci
Council as conformin� to this Section.
Excep#ions•
1) Accesso structures that meet the re uiremeats of the a licable zonen
district.
2) If the canstruction involved increases the overall size of the rinci al buildin
bv less than ten percent �10°�
i
Ordinance
Page 2 `
� oos.os, Subd 4:
� , ,
;�vr�.,,o.,+n ,..,.,,-.,..�ee., .,ra ,.,.,.,� � r ft�� ,,..a r�,.,_� t�,,,�,o„+ „f �.,;,� ,.,.,,� �t,.,,, t.
c-----°---� a------^-,. ..,,. r.__._., _.._ �.._- .,a.��.z7 ..�.':mo
> > e
> > •
A development contract which sets forth all of the terms, conditions,
requirementsta�reements, �uarantees and plans for the orderlv development of
said land shall be entered into between the develo er aud the Munici alit rior
to the final a roval of an ro'ect that ualefes for a Develo ment Review as
determined bv Section 1006.Ob Subd. 2 of this Code.
SECTI�N 2. This �rdinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its
publication in the official City newspaper.
Read by #he Ci#y Council of the City of Mounds View on this _ day of �, 2001.
Read and passed by the City Counci! of the Ci#y of Mounds View this _ day of
�, 2001.
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen Miller, Clerk / Administra�or
(SEAL)
Ordinance
Page 3 �
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Motion:
Second:
Sonterre:
Stigney:
Quick:
Marty:
Thomas:
MOUNDS VIEW PLANIVING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 676-01
CITY �F MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 1d06.06 REGARDING DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS.
WHEREAS, The City Code is vague regarding what types of proj ects require development
review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, The City Code is vague regarding what types of projects require a
development contract; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
a. Section 1006.Ob of the City Code
b. Proposed Ordinance
c. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment
satisfies the conditions outlined in Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Comrnission finds that the proposed amendment is
not in conflict with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RES�LVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approvai of an amendment to Section 1Q06.06 Subdivision 2 and Subdivision 4 of
the City Code as depicted in the attached proposed Qrdinance.
Resolution b76-01
November 7, 2001
Page 2
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Plaruung Commission directs staff
to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 7th day of November, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
i
:______ . ..
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MQUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNE50TA
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2dp1
Mflands View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN SS1I2
L Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., October 17, 2001.
2. Roll Ca❑
Members Present: Commissioners, Stevenson, Johnson, Zwirri, Miller, and Scotch.
Members Excused: Kaden (on leave), Hegiand (excused}.
Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planner Atkinson.
Index to Minutes
Planning Case Na VRO1-410
Locahon: Silver Lake Road/County Road H2
Applicanf: Marty Harstad , -
Plauning Case No. MA01-003
Location: County Road ULong Lake Road
. Appl.icant: Gustafson/Zinser
Piabning Case No: VR01-011
Location: 5150 Irondale Road
Applicant: Steve Stimnnler
Pianning Case No. MI01-002
Location: 7841 Spring Lake Road
Applicant: Brian Diehl
Page
�
11
12
13
Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 ,
Regular Meeting Page 2
Planning Case No. DEOQ-002 18
Location: County Road UGreenfield Avenue
Applicant: Tony Mezzenga ,
Staff Reports/Items of Information 2a
Chairpexson and Planning Commiss�on Reporis
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
20
There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda.
4. Approval of Minutes:
a. August 15, 2001
b. SeQtember 5, 2001
c. September 19, 2001 .
M�TION/SECOND: Johnson/Zwim: To Approve the Mitiutes for August 15, 2001, September
5, 2001, and September 19, 2001 as presented: �.
Ayes 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
5. Planning Case No. VROl" O10
Community Developmerit Director Ericson explained that this case was a variance request from
the Harstads for reduced lot widths for a proposed major subdivision of land located between
Longview Drive and Silver I,ake Road. He then noted there was a public hearing in June and the
matter was referred to Rice Creek Watershed District for approval. He further explained that
Staff has suice learned that part of the Code requires minimum lot widths of 125 feet and a
minimum of 20,OOQ square feet for properties located within a wetland zoning district.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Harstad was given the new
information and had submitted a new plat resulting in a variance request for 10 lots of less than
125. feet in width.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff had asked the applicant to
consider the hardship requirements prior to applying for the variance. He then reviewed the
variance requirements far the Commission and those in attendance.
Community Development Director Ericson noted that the first requirement was that an
exceptional or extraordinary cizcumstance must apply to the property which does not apply _
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 3
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity over which the applicant has no control.
Community Development Director Ericson then explained that the property ii� questioii was
originally platted in 1963 as part of the Mueller Addition and noted that even thoi�gh the property
was not developed due to the costs involved with altering the wetland at that time, sanitary sevver
and water stubs were installed in a�Iticipation of future development.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the second requirement was that the
literal interpretation of the provisions of the Title would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by others, Community Development Director Ericson then indicated that if
the Code were iiterally intezpreted the Harstads wonld lose the ability to develop three of'the
lots, which would apply to other property owners in the same distzict. He then said, however,
other property owners in a similar district probably would not have a vested interest in the
undevelopad property as is the case here because the sewer and water stubs are already installed.
Commuriity Development Director Ericson indicated that the third reqnirernent is that the special
conditions or circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. He then indicated that
the sewer and water stubs were installed shortly after the land was originally platted in 1963
indicating that it was always the intention to develop the property. He further indicated that even
though the applicant was aware of the constz-aints involved with developing the site, the applicant
did not cause the special conditions or circumstances.
Community Developrnent Director Ericson indicated that the fourth reyuirement is that granting
__% the variance requested wouId vot confer on the applicant any special privilege denied to others in
the same district. He then indicated that granting a variance in this case would not confer special
przvileges to the applicant as all other platting requirements would be met by the proposaI.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the fifth requirement was that the
variance requested is the minimum.uaria�ce which would alleviate the hardship, He then
indicated that the variance requested �vould be considered the minimum necessary to alleviate
the hardship if you made the. assumption that the subdivisian, less the wetland zoning district
overlay requirements, would eonstitute the standard by which the hardship was measured.
�
Community Development Director Ericson indicaied that the sixtl� requirernent was that the
�ariance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code or to other properties in
the same zone. He tt�en indicated that the purpose of this part of the Code was to protect the
wetIands. He fizrther:indicated ihat all the lots exceed the minimum square footage of 20,000
' square feet and Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the plat and wetland alteration
plans. He then sfated that in light of those facts, Staff is satisfied that reduced Iot widths would
riot be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Wetlands Zoning ReguIations.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the seventh requirement was that the
proposed variance would not impair an adequate suppIy of light and air to the adjacent property
or substantially increase the congestion on public streets. He then indicated that Staff did not
feel that gran�ing the variance would have any real impact on the light, air or traffic congestion.
_
� .
Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff had Ioolced at the requirements he
just reviewed and had taken inio consideration the hardship sta�ement submitted by the Harstads
while drafting its report for the Commission. He then recommended holding tlie public hearing
and hearing resident input before coming to a conclusion on the �ariance request.
Commissioner Millez asked how many utility stubs were put in at the property.
Community Development Director Ericson indicatad that tliere were ten stubs in place at the
property.
Chair Stevenson asked Mr. Ericson to point out the wetlands on the drawing.
Community Development Director Ericson explained the drawing for the proposed development
indicating the wetland was shown in blue and the open space was shown in green. He then
indicated the open space would be an outlot and said ownership of the outlot had not yet been
determined. He further indicated that the proposed development was basically the same
configuration as the development across the street.
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:16 p,m.
Steve Feldner of S1.68 Longview Drive clarified that the proposed development was not the same
configuration as ihe development aaross the street because there are only eight lots across the
street and they are alI the same width. He then indicat�d �ie feels that allowing the development
would devalue the lots across the'street because there would be 11 lots in a space that should
contain eight.
Mr. Feldner asked if the applicant would be willing to pay to put tt�e utilities in the ground as it is
not possible to put the utilities behind the houses and he does not want to be looking at utility
poles in his front yard. .He then asked if the homeowners in the new development would be
willing to apply for wetland pezmits to cu� their grass as a permit is required by law to mow grass
in a wetland area. He also asked if residents would be forbidden to use pesticides or weed killers
on their lawns because there is a steep grade at the back of the lots and all the pesticides and
weed killers would run into the wetland. He then commented that, if that were allowed to
happen, the wetland would become a stagnant pond within a year.
Mr. Feldner indicated he did not see a viable way to develop the land as he can walk across the
street ten feet and be standing in mud. He then indicated that anyone who says the wetland is
only the blue area is lying because the whole thing is wet most of the time and if the developer
fills it in it will not only ruin the wetland but will create a slope that will cause things to run into
the wetland and it will turn it into a quagmire of rotting plants because nothing will be left alive
in there.
Community Developrnent Director Ericson clarified �at Mr. Feldner was correct as the blue
areas on the map are replacement areas for fill that would be occurring. He then indicated that
Mounds View Planuing Commission
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 5
' the dark shaded area on the other map is the delineated wetland. He further stated that Mr.
Feldner is correct in that there is a lot of wetland there.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff was also concen�ed for tl�e
delineation as it seems awfully wet but said that there are very stringent rules under the
discretion of Rice Creek Watershed District and the delineations were received from Rice Creek
Watershed District.
Mr. Severson of 5172 Longvzew Drive indicated that the area is an established wetland that has
been there for 100s of years and to take away tl�e wetlands and make up others makes them
standing water ponds not wetlands that take rain water and disperse or filter it. He then noted
that the same thing was done in Woodcrest Park and he feels it is a shame thev were allowed to
do it.
Chair Stevenson asked if more mitigation wauld be required as the lots are larger and extend
more into the delineated wetlands.
Community Development Directar Ericsonindicated that the change ii� lot size does not change
the amount of wetland that would need t� be filled., He indicated that a Wetland Alteration
Permit would be required and said each lot would have covenants indicating that the area beyond
the flagged line is desigiated wetland `and cannot be cut. He further indicated that the City does
not have requirements governing the use of fertilizers and said the City typically makes a
requirement that when there is a subdivision, a 10-foot natural buffer is maintained between the
wetland and the sodded yard.
Chair Stevenson:asked how a house could be built and not be located in the wetland.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Harstad is proposing to fill an area
to create a buildable site which does not leave a lot of usable back yard but the person building
the home would be aware o:f that. He then indicated that Rice Creek Watershed District typically
requires a two to one mitigation for filled wetland and said that Mr. Harstad has proposed
leaving a lot of the wooded area and will receive an upland credit so his mitigation ratio would
be one to one.
1V1r. Feldner asked if NIr. Harstad was asking for a variance on the two to one ratio as well.
Community Deveiopment Director Ericson indicated that R.ice Creek Watershed Distxict has
fairly sfxingenkrequirements for wetlands and indicated that a developer can fill up to 400 square
feet and beyond that the requirement is to create a two to one mitigation on the same site ar set
aside other Iand for conservation never to be developed. He then indicated ihat Rice Creek
Watershed District has approved the proposal, pending receipt of a couple of paperwork items.
Chair Stevenson asked if Rice Creek had taken soil borings.
Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001
Regular 1Vleeting Page 6
Coimntulity Developnnent Director Ericson indicated that the soil borings would need to be done
and submitted to the City before the City would issue a building pei-mit and those soil borings
need to demonstrate that the soils can support a house. He then indicated that the developer
would need to dig out the peat and bring in fill that is suitable to support a house.
Mr. Feldner indicated that the developer could level all the trees before finding out that houses
cannot be built there.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the Gity has made a request to preserve
trees up to the setback line and has asked for a tree inventory. He then indicated that trees would
not come down before the soil borings were completed. He further indicated that the
neighborhood would not be left with an open patch of land that wouTd riot support houses.
Pete Severson of 5172 Longview Drive indicated that there is a solid batch of trees that runs the
entire lengih of Longview Drive and shades all the houses on the east of Longview Drive. He
indicated that in order to put houses in the developer would have to take out the trees and put
�ake ponds behind the houses. He then indicated he is not impressed witfi what happened at
Woodcrest and said he feels this development wili destroy the wetland: He further indicated that
there is a lot of wildlife in the area and said he has enjoyed the natural area for the 15 years he
has lived there. He then asked the Commission not to allow the developer #o wreck the vvetland.
Barbara Kosiak of 5173 Red Oak Drive indicated she has lived in the City for 30 years and said
she is not sure she likes the deer that are in the wetland area as they eat her garden. She then
indicated that her main concern is with the removal of the peat that holds water and replacing it
with f 11 suitable. for building liouses. on. She further indicated that doing so changes the water
management;in'fhe area and she is concerned that neighborhood residents would have wet
basements.
Dave Tillman'of $166 Lorigview Dn�e'.asked if the buffer zone was enacted prior to the Harstads
purchasing the land. He then.stated that, "if you buy a swamp, you buy a swa�np, if you buy bad
stock you lose money." He further stated that he feels the development would impact the light
and air of the surrounding properties because the solid line of mature trees shades the houses
across the street and means that those residents only have to run their air conditioners on the very
hot days of summer.
Mr. Tillrnan indicated that the wetland buffer zone extends to his front yard and said he had to
adhere: to the building Codes when he built his addition and he feels the developer should be held
to the same `requirernents.
Commissioner Scotch asked if the City had a requirernent for the amount of wetlands it required.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated there was no requirement for minimum
amount of wetland acreage. He then indicated that some cities have no wetlands but said the
City of Mounds View has a great water management system. He then commented that a lot of
residents feel strongly about wetlands as they do offer an amenity to residents and they bring in
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 7
habitat and wildlife meaning any time there is an alteration it is a big deal. He further
commented that the City is very aware of the impact and the loss of the wetland.
Community Development Director Ericson spoke to the comment made by a reside��t that they
could not believe the City would want to allow the development of a natural area by saying that
the City would lilce the wetland to be left as it is but said the land is not owned by the City and
the City cannot afford to purchase these types of properties to keep them from being developed.
He further noted that, until a couple of months ago, this proposal was proceeding according to
Code bnt said the City does have quite a few weilands and has a part of the Code specifically
designed to protect those wetlands. He then said that if Rice Creek Watershed District felt it was
not a good idea they would not approve the proposaL
Chair Stevenson asked the rationale behind Chapter 1010 and the 125-foot minimum lot width
requirement.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated he could only interpret that the City
intended to fizrther protect the wetland areas with more stringent"requirements in a wetland
district.
Chair Stevenson indicated he knew the answer but asked for a-reason. He then indicated that the
City was concerned for the pressuresplaced on tlie wetlands by allowing too many houses to be
� built on thern. He further indicated that he is concerned that ihis development would create more
water pressure for the neighhorhood for water runoff._
Mr. Feldner uidicated there are no storm sewers in that entire loop and said that two thirds {2/3)
of the way up the road it breaks and goes in either direction. He then indicated that, at tha# point,
water runs off toward ihe corner and the`rest runs dovsm the whole street and it is all being
absorbed by the wetlands. He further indicated that if a house is located there it would
necessitate the need for storm sewers and curb and gutter: He further commented that right now
runoff is handled the natural way but said that, if the wetland is allowed to develop, the City
would need to make arrangements for doing things the mechanical way with curb and gutter and
storm sewers.
Mr. Severson stated that if the law is 125 feet for frontage then the developer should have to
stick to that because he has seen no information presented that would justify changing the rules.
Vemon Larson,of 2760 Woodale Drive indicated that when the hole was dug to install hzs
utilities'a pump was used to pump aIl the water out of the ground before tney could be
coztnected. He then indicated that, when the area dried out, his driveway sank a half an inch and
had to be replaced which cost him $2,500.
Mr. Harstad said he was torn as to how to respond to some of the residents' comments. He then
said his family has awned the property for many years and in 1992 the City of Mounds View
enacted the new wetland buffer ordinance. He further indicated that other cities have enacted
similar ordinances and said that government regulation was created and a local governing unit is
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 8
used to make sure that everyone is treated the same. He then commented that Rice Creelc
Watershed District is the local goveming unit in this case and said it has indicated no problem
with approval of the proposed development.
Mr. Harstad stated that his father has paid taxes for years on the property and has paid the
assessments for utilities to the property. He then stated that his father has allowed storm water to
be dumped onto his property that contributes water to the wetland. :
Mr. Harstad indicated that, prior to 1992 when the buffer came:in to play, they would have been
able to develop the property and he said he is here to ask for something that is fair. He then
indicated that he could have followed the Rice Creek Watershed District requirements for two to
one replacement of wetlands but noted even rnore trees would have: to be cut down. Mr. Harstad
indicated that the trees would act as a buffer for the houses from Silver Lake Road.
Mr..Harstad indicated that at the neighbarhood meetings residents had asked ihat the proposed
development blend into the neighborhood arid stated he feels it will do sa.
Mr. Harstad indicated that ihe sewer and water stuhs were installed and paid for at the property.
He then said he understands residents' concerns for losing the natural area across the street from
their houses but said they own the property and are:asking for a fair shake in developing it.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the average square footage of the houses to be built would
be.
Mr. Harstad indicated that`the footprint for the houses was listed as 2500 square feet.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the�square footage of the houses in the development across
the street was:� . � �� '
Mr, Harstad indicated the square footages in the existing development were 1000 or 1500 square
feet.
Commissioner Scotch indica�ed she felt residents are most concerned for what filling the wetland
would do to their property with runoff. She then stated she has seen developments go in that sit
on a wetland and the neighbors are hindered by the alteration of the property and do have water
in theix basements.
' The residents zn attendance indicated that the wetland was the lowest spot in the area and said
they feel a couple of small ponds would not replace the holding capacity of the wetland.
Mr. Harstad indicated that, as part of Rice Creek Watershed requirements, he was required to
submit calculations on how much ponding capacity exists prior to the development and how
much ponding capacity exists after the development.
)
i ,, _'f
Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
Commissioner Scotch indicated that she has seen Rice Creek approve things that are detrimental
to the residents in the past and that is hez concern.
Mr. Harstad indicated he would be before the City Engineers on the matter and said he could
only assure the Commission that if something goes wrong it does come back to the developer
and he does not want to deal with it any more than the City does.
Mr. Severson asked if the property was swamp land when his dad bought the land as he
understood there was more water there when the land was purchased.
Mr. Haxstad disagreed saying that with the development in the area the City has directed water to
the property due to the City's lack of storm sewer in the area.
Mr. Severson indicated he was there when the drainage area on the south end of the land was
built and said that there was more water in the swamp than #here is now. He then commented
that the ground is always saturated ax�d murky..
Mr. 5everson indicated that his house is buffered from Silver Lake Raad by the trees located on
the property along Longview Drive and said removing those trees subjects him to the noise of
Silver La1ce Road. He then asked if Mr: Harstad uvould be building the houses.
Mr. Harstad indicated they would be selecting one builder to build all the houses in the
development. He then indicated that he would be creating house pads that will permit a certain
~ size home and the builder needs'to build within that'constraint.
Mr. Severson asked if ihe houses would have basements.
Mr. Harstad indicated that most houses in the existing neighborhood are split entry. He then
indicaied his plan calls for five split entry lots, five walkout iots and one look out lot.
Mr. Severson indicated that one house in the area does not have a basement because of the water
table.
1VIr. Harstad i�idicated that the south end af the property is the lowest and said the lots toward the
north would be the wallcout lots.
1V1r.. Larson indicated he wanted to have a split-level house but the builder said he would have to
haul in° a lot of dirt and as he and his wife did not want to walk up a lot of steps they decided to
eliminate the basement.
Commissioner Miller asked when the City would hear from Rice Creek Watershed District on
final approval.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the City had recently received
notification from Rice Creek Watershed District that the matter has been tabled for more
Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2U01
Regular Meeting Page 10
�
infornnation with the authority for administrative approval should the required documentation be
received.
Commissioner Miller questioned whether the matter should be held pending Rice Creek
Watershed District's final determination on the matter.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that whenever the City processes a Wetland
Alteration Permit one of the stipulations is that the applicant have the approval of Rice Creek
Watershed District. He then said the Commission could wait on the znatter but suggested that the
approvai of the variance would be contingent upon receiving the Rice Creeic Watershed Disirict
permit. .
Chair Stevenson indicated he did not want to deny a builder the right to build on,property that he
owns but said he feels the Commission needs to follow.the requirements of:the Code as they
were put into place to protect the wetlands. He then indicated the effect of having property less
than 125 feet wide could be very significant to the neighboihood: He further indicated that he is
not convinced that the land would sustain hornes but said that is for the deveioper to determiYZe.
Commissioner Miller agreed wiih Chair Stevenson.
Commissioner Johnson indicated that the developer had changed his plans from 14 lots down to
11 lots and has done a lot for the community. He then indicated that, if Rice Creek Watershed -
District does not see a problem vv�th the development, �ie�could support granting the variance. .'
Commissioner Zwirn indicated he had used a Frank:lin table to list positives and negatives and
said that he had many negatives aiid not many positives. He then commented that Mr. Harstad
had asked for fairriess and said that he feels it would not be fair to the existing neighborhood to
significantly alter the wetland because.he �eels it would have a negative impact on surrounding
properties.
Commissioner Scotch stat "ed she has seen some of Mr. Harstad's work in other developments and
said he does nice developments:' She commented that there is so much developrnent going on so
quickly that has hindered=the�community which is why she is torn on a deczsion on the matter.
She then stated she would lean toward granting the variance.
; Commissioner Miller indicated she did not feel the applicant has met the criteria for granting the
variance.
Chair Stevenson indicated it appeared that the Commission was three to two against granting the
variance.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated Staff would draft a resolution and have it
on the November 7, 20Q1 agenda. He then indicated that one Commissioner was not in
attendance at the meeting and said he would provide a resolution for approval and for denial for
consideration.
Mounds View Pianning Cammission
Regular Meeting
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:1.7 p.m.
G. Planning Case MA01-Q03
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:19 p.m.
October 17, 2001
Page 11
Planner Atkinson indicated this was a public hearing to consider the applicant's request to create
six lots from the existing three. He then indicated there had been a previous rezoning request
and noted Council had tabled the second reading until the subdivision is approved. He also
noted that there had been a variance granted for Lat 3 for a lot width of 94 feet.
Planner Atkinson indicated that the Iots all conform to the requirements of the zoning Code. He
noted that there would need to be an easement for utilities over the backs of lots 3, 4, 5 and 6.
He then reviewed the requirements for approval of a major subdivision and indicated that the
subdivision would have little impact on the streeis and noted there would be a 10% park
dedication fee required which is calculated on the value of the newiy created lots. He further
indicated that the park dedication fees far this subdivision would be approxirnately $5,590.
Commissioner Miller asked where the iiriveway access for Lot`3 would be located.
�.. :1 Planner Atkinson indicated the driveway for Lot 3 would be located along Long Lake
- Road.
Mr. Zinser indicated that Mr C�ustafson is making arrangements ta turn his residence into an up
and down duplex based on approval of multi-family housing far the lot.
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:23 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Miller. To Approve Resolution b75-01, a Resolution
Recommending Preliminary Plat Approval of a Major Subdivzsion of 2525 County Raad I.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
7. Planning Case VR41-411
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
Planner Atkinson indicated that the applicant has requested a variance to be allowed to construct
a fence in the front yard of S 15Q Irondale Road. He then indicated that the applicant is
considered by City Code to ha�e two front yards as it is a corner lot.
Mounds View Plauning Commission October 17, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 12
Planner Atkinson indicated the applicant has a row of shrubs and is aslcing to add a six foot fence �
along that row of bushes. He then indicated he had a few calls about this matter, rnost of which
stemmed from the confusing language concerning the two front yards. He did indicate, however,
that one neighbor felt the fence would compromise the open feel of the neighborhood.
Flanner Atkinson indicated that this is a corner lot making it different from most other lots in the
City. He then indicated that the applicant has said he would like to have a pool and noted the
Code requires a fence of at least five feet in height and requiring the applicant to adhere to the
strict lan�guage of the Code for corner lots would mean ihere would not be room for a poo1.
Commissioner Zwirn asked if the existing fence in the backyard'vVas chain link.
Planner Atkinson indicated it is a wooden fence. He then indicated that the applicant recently
installed fencing where City Code would allow and noted-the area that he wishes to fence used to
have chain link.
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Commissioner Miller indicated she had gone to the area to get a visual of the situation and said
that she did not feel the fence would obstruct anything because the house is set back on the lot.
Planner Aticinson indicated there was a four-foot chain linlc fence already and the request is to
replace it with a six-foot wood fence. -''
Commissioner Miller indicated she was aware t.�ie Code says the applicant has two front yards
but said she.had a hard time seeing that in this instance.
Chair Stevenson indicated he felt the Commission should consider the definition of corner lots
and their front yards �t'some point. He, then indicated he did not have a problem with this
request, _
, f ,.
MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Stevenson. To Approve Resoiution 674-01, a Resolut�on
Approving a Variance to Allow a Fence of Six Feet in Height to be Constructed in the Front
Yard of the Property Located at 5150 Irondale Road.
. .; .
Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
8. �Planning Case MI01-002
Planner Atkinson indicated the applicant had requested a m�nor subdivision of 7841 Spring Lalce
Road as the applicant wants to split off the back 260 feet of the lot to form a new lot to build a
house on. He then indicated that the newly created lot would front on Oakwood Road and the
private driveway to the Knollwood Green Townhomes.
Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001.
Regular Meeting Page 13
Planner Atkinso�a indicated the major issue is with the access point as the major frontage is on
the access drive and not a full width street. He then indicated the property does, however, have a
short distance fronting on Oakwaod Road and the applicant is proposing that his driveway attach
to the access drive and then out to Oakwood Road.
Planner Atkinson indicated he had been in ongoing discussionswith the public works forernan
who had indicated it would be possible to �ant the applicant permission to use the access drive
provided the applicant agree to maintain the access drive. He then asked the Commission to
consider the request noting that there is an existing gate that would need to be moved back to
accommodate the applicant's request.
Planner Atkinson noted that the park dedication fee for this subdivision would be approximately
$2,609.00 and said there was no resolution for approval as the matter needs to be discussed.
Commissioner Miller asked if it would be possible to open up any other lots for development in
the area. :
Planner Atkinson indicated that ihe neighbor #o the north had`'expressed an interest in developing
her property until she was informed of the cost of the required roadway.
Planner Atkinson indicated he had spoken to a property owner a little farther north on Spring
Lake Road who was concerned that if this were done with the private access road it would
prohibit further development.up Spring Lake�Road .,He;then indicated that it would be difficult
, �.� ,r .
to extend that private road ii�to a� real road because tfie townhornes are loca#ed so close to the
access drive. :
Chair Stevenson indicated he user� to live in the area and noted that the City had assured
residents at the tirne ttiat Knollwood Green was approved that the access drive was for
emergency purposes only and would never be converted to a standard roadway. He then
indicated that he would never vote to approve anything that would ever convert the private drive
to a standard xaadway. ,
Commissioner Johnson indicated that the access drive was for emergency access only.
Chair Stevenson indicated if the access drive were opened up everyone in #he area would be up
in arms because it was a contested issue at the time. He then indicated he did not have a problem
with allowing access onto the Oakwood Road extension. He further indicated that the City
would need to cliange how it plows that s�reet,
Planner Atkinson indicated he would discuss snow removal with Mr. Pittman.
Commissioner Johnson asked if there was enough frontage on Oakwood Road for a driveway.
Mouuds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 14
Planner Atkinson indicated that there was enough frontage on Oakwood Road for a driveway but }
said there is still a question as to whether the driveway would come out exactiy onto Oalcwood
Road as it may be on the access drive.
Chair Stevenson indicated he thinks the Commission could allow the subdivision with access
onto Oakwood Road.
Commissioner Mi11er indicated that the access drive was only for use at Knollwood Green. She
then questioned whether the applicant would be using that access: for His driveway.
Chair Stevenson indicated that the gate may move back a few feet but said the function of the
gate would not change.
Janet Schuliz of 7887 Spring Lake Road indicated she had' lived in Mounds View for 40 years
and said that when Knollwaod Green was put in was tt�e time to get a road in to develap the bacic
of their lots but, when Knollwood Green was approved as it is; the City landlocked the
homeowners to the north making it impossible to develop their lots.
Chair Stevenson indicated he was opposed to Knollwood Green wfien it was put in.
Ms. Schultz asked if the access drive was City property.
Chair Stevensan indicated that the access drive is City property.
Ms. Schultz asked if the City would ever allow''it to become a real road.
Chair Stevenson indicated that he wouid not personally vote to approve it as a roadway.
Jim Gould of 7879 Spring Lake Road indicated that by opening up the requested lot the City
would be. opening a cari of worms because the rest of those lots are landlocked and cannot be
developed.
Brian Diehl of 7841 Spring Lake Road clarified that he and his wife are building a house on the
land and would be removing as few trees as possible to build the house.
Chair Stevenson asked where Mr. Diehl's preferred access would be.
Mx Dielil indicated that he would like to move the southern most gate 20 feet to put in his
driveway and run it out on ihe southern part of the access road. He then indicated he had been
working with the City since February and also with Knollwood Green and had reached an
agreement that would make hun responsible for snow removal and require that his actions not
lessen the condition of the access drive.
Cornmissioner Zwirn asked how fax the driveway would overlap into the access drive.
Monnds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 15
Mr. Die111 indicated that he would not have any property on the paved surface af Qalcwood Road.
Ms. Schultz asked how the applicant intended to get to the house.
Mr. Diehl indicated he intended to use the access drive to access Oakwood Road.
Commissioner Miller clarified that as Ms. Schultz had indicated the lots further north would still
be landlocked if the City granted this request.
Commissioner Johnson indicated the only tiiing the applicant would get is an easement onto
Knollwood Drive.
Commissioner Zwirn asiced how wide the easement would be.
Mr. Diehl indicated he needed a single driveway and said tliey are building a 1500 or 1 b00
square foot rambler.
Commissioner Miller asked who could apprbve the drivewayonto'the access drive.
Mr. Diehl indicated the City would neec� to approve access to the access drive as it is City-owned
property.
Coriimunity Development Director Ericson indicated tlie question of whether to allow access is
Y an issue the City has been discussing with Mr, Diehl. He then indicated that it is a matter of
policy whether the City wants to allow the lot`to have access on the City right of way and noted
there is`not a Public Works Director on staff currently to give direction on this type of policy
question.
Chair Stevensan said he did.not have a:problem with the request.
Ann Lube of 2892 Highway;IO: indicated she had lived in Mounds View for two years and
moved to her location because it was a quiet area and she walks through the area a lot. She then
asked if there was the potential for rnore development in the area in the future.
Chair Stevenson indicated he did not see it happening but said there is always the possibility of
development.
Ms. Schultz indicated the only potential for development is if the City allows residents to build a
road with a cul-de-sac.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that, in discussing the matter with Mr.
Diehl, the cost to put the roadway in is too costly. He then noted that theoretically it could
happen but said it was not practical.
Ms. Schultz indicated the City saw to that when it allowed Knollwood Green to be constructed.
Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 16
Commissioner Zwirn indicated he felt the City needed to be consistent and, since the City gave
assurances that the access road wo�ld not be used for anything other than emergency access, he
feels the City should stand by that statement.
Planner Atkinson asked the Commission to make its direction clear.
Commissioner Zwirn indicated he felt granting ihe variance could open up a can of worms.
Commissioner Miller asked Commissioner Zwirn to elaborate.
Commissioner Zwirn indicated the past position of the Commission has been to indicate that the
access drive would not be used for anything other than exnergency purposes. He then indicated
that allowing the applicant to use it for a dr�veway goes against what was previously promised to
the residents. _
Conunissioner Scotch asked if it was possible #o gain access off of Spring Lake Road.
Mr. Diehl indicated he was not sure but said it would require tearing down at least 20 mature
trees.
Community Deveiopment Director Ericson indicated thai_tlie City's Code requires a minimum of
75 feet of fr.ontage. He then indicated that, in previous discussions with the applicant, it was
explained that access was not possible without some kind of cul-de-sac being installed. He then
indicated that, if Mr. Dieh1 were wilIing to put in the cul-de-sac, the City would not be able to
deny the request io subdivide the property. He further indicated that whether or not to allow
access onto the City right of way is a policy decision.
Corrimunity Developmer�t D.irector Ericson indicated that he felt there should be some type of .
real access by way of a street improvement but said, in the past, the City has allowed access onto
City right of way.
Commissioner Zwirn asked if 1VIr. Diehl had attempted to purchase enough property from the
property owner to the south to put in the czxl-de-sac.
IVIr: Diehl indicated he had not actually gotten into a monetary discussion with the property
owner to the south but said she was not interested in discussing the matter with him.
Gommissioner Johnson clarified that Knollwood Drive is not actually a street but a City right of
way.
Chair Stevenson indicated that installing a cul-de- sac would be the best solution.
Chair Stevenson indicated he was not sure how to give direction on this matter as the
Commission does not want to change the accessibility of the access drive.
Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 17
Corrununity Development Director Ericson indicated the Commission needed to decide if it
should recommend denial of the request based on the requirement for access onto an approved
street or approve the request and allow the use of the City's access drive.
Commissioner Johnson asked if Knollwood Drive could be improved for the length of the
easement.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the access drive stops at the back of
Knollwood Green and said the units are pretty close to the property line and does not leave
enough room without deviating the street onto the adjacent praperty: He then indicated that ihe
access drive was not meant to be extended. -
Chair Stevenson indicated the access drive is not a standard'City street width.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated it is 25 feet wide and a typical street right-
of-way is 66 feet wide.
Chair Stevenson expressed concern for allowing the resident to make a turn onto a narrow access
drive.
- Mr. Diehl indicated tha# the access drive was designed for emergency vehicles and said that 25
� feet is wide enougii for a driveway:
Chair Steverison indicated that reTatively little would have ta be done to the access drive other
than movirig'the'gate. '
Chair Stevenson suggested the property owner to the south mzght be concerned with headlightis.
Commissioner Jol�nson commented that he gets all tiie headlights from Knollwood Green.
A resident in attendance aslced what is to stop others from asking for access if this is granted.
Chair Stevenson noted tYie next property north back ups to Knollwoad Grean making it
landlocked. He then sa'id that granting this usage would not entitle anybody else to usage of the
access drive.
Cornmissioner Zwirn reminded the Commission that the resident at 7851 was considering
developing her property until the costs of widening the street entered into it.
Commissioner Miller asked how the City could satisfy the requirament of the Code for abutting a
publicly dedicated street.
Commissioner Johnson suggested requiring that a piece of land be dedicated for a cul-de-sac to
be put in at a later date to allow for future development.
Mouncls View Planning Commission October 17, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 18
Cornmunity DeveIopment Director Enicson indicated he would include language for dedication
for a right of way for a cul-de-sac for future development of the other lot.
Conunissioner Miller indicated she had a problem with the publicly dedicated street requirement
and could not support the request.
Community Development Directar Ericson indicated that Mr. Diehl could dedicate himself a
street and meet that requirement.
Chair Stevenson said there is not a way to allovv owners to the north to develop because of the
vvay Knollwood Green was allowed to be built.
9. Planning Case DE00-002
Comrnunity Development Director Ericson apologized that this rrmatter was before the
Commission because he had said last time the Commission would`not see it again. He then
explained that Mr. Mezzenga had been told by Ramsey County tHat"there is a catch basin in the
location for the driveway thaf cannot be moved. He further explained that Mr. Mezzenga had
suggested cutting drains in the catch basin but Ramsey County would not permit that.
� ;
Community Development Director Ericson outlined several choices for providing access to the '
development for the Commissiori to discuss.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated #hat Commissioner Johnson had said at the
last meeting that he thought there was significant discussion concerning no access onto
Greenfield. He then explained he fiad reviewed the minutes from that meeting and found that
access onto Greenf�eld was not discussed at any length which leads him to believe that the
Commission did not give i# mueh consideration because it preferred access onto County Road I.
Comrnunity Developmenf Director Ericson indicated that option one would move the driveway
closer to Tom Thumb which would take out two parkzng stalls and make the entrance
cumbezsome. He indicated that option two would mean the access to the parking lot would be
qnly seven (7) feet from Greenfield Avenue. He indicated that option three would be to
reconstruct the catch basin but said that Ramsey County has said it wiil not allow that. He
indicated that the:last option is to move the access on#o Greenfield Avenue which would zesult in
the loss of two parking stalls and make the parking lot setback five feet from the property to the
south:
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the City has to give Mr. Mezzenga
access and said the matter is nobody's fault but was simply not caught by Ramsey County in the
planning stages for the development.
Cornmissioner Miller questioned why the catch basin could not be reconstructed.
Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001
Regular Mee�ing Page 19
Community Develapment Director Ericson indicated that Ramsey County had explained that it is
a one piece catch basin that can only be reconstructed if it is dug up and moved. He then
indicated that Ramsey County has said they are unwilling to do so even if Mr. Mezzenga were to
pay for it.
Commissioner Scotch said the catch basin works well and should not be moved.
Comrnunity Development Director Ericson indicated that, if it is the intent to keep access onto
County Road I, the Commission would almost have to use the option where the driveway is
closest to Greenfield Avenue because the Tom Thumb option does not work.
Chair Stevenson indicated there is a safety concern for moving the access too close to Greenfield
Avenue and said he would not approve of something less; than 50 feet.
Commissioner Miller questioned whether it was possibie to drive over the catch basin.
Community Developrnent Director Ericson explained that the catch basin was built into the curb.
Commissioner Zwirn asked the size of the catch basin.
- Community Development Director Ericson indicated it was; approximately four feet by five feet.
;,
Commissioner Zwirn asked:if it would be possible fo create an island to allow the catch basin to
remain where it is and s#il� use tliat area for the access to the development.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that it could be done but said the building
loses two parking stalls: : .
Commissioner Zwirn then indicated he did not feel that the access should be on Greerif'i01d
Avenue'because there are a- lot of;children that play on Greenfield Avenue and the bus stop is
right there.
4' ::::
The Commission asked'�VIr. Ericsan to investigate whether Ramsey County would allow an
island around the catch basin.
10. Staff Reports
a. Previous Council Action
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the EDA had approved the
authorization of the issuance of taxable tax increment bonds so that the Mermaid project could
move forward in an amount not to exceed $832,000. He then indicated thai the bonds would he
Mounds View Planning Commission Octaber 17, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 20
paid out of captured tax increment from the properiy noting the City had no risk as the bonds are
personally guaranteed by the Hall family.
b. Highway 10 Improvements Project Open House — October 15, 2001
Coxnmunity Development Directoz Ericson indicated that the public meeting for the Highway 10
improvements project was held on October 15, 2QOI and noted that it was not very well attended
by the public. He then indicated that the consultants provided a range of choices for the corridor
ranging from a full reconstruct to a mill and overlay and improvement of safety at the
intersections.
Commissioner Milier indicated that the consultants had indicated tiiat fhe median would be
dressed up with wildflowers,
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that. sorne people had expressed concern
that not enough was actually being done and said that this is a window dressing for the corridor.
He tI�en indicated that the plans will be presented to Council for discussion.
Chair Stevenson noted he was out of town on business or would have been in attendance at the
public open house.
I1. Chaerperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
None.
12. Next Planning Commission Meeting: November 7, 2001
13. Adjournment
There being no further busiriess before the Planning Cornmission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 9:45 p.m.
(Th� meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
�
,
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
December 19, 2001 -- 7:00 P.M.
`i
REGULAR MEETTI�TG
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
a. October 17, 2001
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKlNG, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,
AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
5. Planning Case NII01-005
Consideration of a minor subdivision for the property located at 7618 Edgewood Drive.
Applicant: Marshall Mills
5. Planning Case DE01-005 & CU01-004
Discussion and review of a development review and a conditional use permit for an
�'' i expansion to Edgewood Middle Schoollocated at 5100 Edgewood Drive.
� " Applicant: John Gannon, ATS&R
'1. Planning Case DE40-OU2
Discussion and review of an amendment to an approved variance for the properiy located
at 7664 Greenfield Avenue.
Applicant: Tony Mezzenga
S. Approyal of 2002 meeting schedule.
APPLlCANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED.
PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT
763-717-4021 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
9. S taff Reports
10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
11. Next Plannuig Commission Meeting: January 2, 2001
12. Adjournment to Agenda Session
Planning Commission Agenda
December 19, 2001
Page 2
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes from November 7, 2001 Plaiuung Commission Meeting
N:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�Planning Comimssion�PCAGENDA�2001�December 19, 2001 PC Agenda:doc
Title:
Introduction
Cily of Mounds iliew
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: December 19, 2001
Item # 5
CONSIDERATI�N OF A MINOR SUBDIVISIQN OF THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT7618 EDGEWOOD DRIVE �ND 7630 WOODLAWN DRIVE;
MOUNDS V�W PLANNING CASE MI�1-005.
The applicant, Marshall Mills, is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to split offthe rear 2,204
square feet of 7630 Woodlawn Drive and combine the split 2,204 square feet with his property at
7618 Edgewood Drive. (Mr. Mills is the property owner for both of the subject properties.) The
resulting area of the Woodlawn lot, zoned R-2 and improved with a duplex, would be 12,500 square
feet, the minimum required for a duplex lot. The purpose of the Iand transfer is to create more space
on the Edgewood Drive lot, zoned R-3, and improved with a four-plex, upon which to build garages
and supplemental parking space. Currently the four plex does not provide any garage space, which is
required under the provisions of Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Zoning Code.
Background
The City Code defines a subdivision as, "The division of a parcel(s) of land into two (2) or more lots or
} parcels. The term includes re-subdivision and, when appropriate to the conte�, shaIl relate to the process
of subdividing or to the land subdivided. Any change in properEy lines which necessitates City approval
before new deeds can be filed at the Register of Deeds office constitutes a subdivision." While not a true
minor subdivision because no additionallots are being crea,ted, by virtue of the last line of the dei�nitior� it
is still considered a subdivision due to requested change in property lines.
Discussion
After the subdivisioq both lots would comply with the area and setback requirements of their
respective zoning districts. The land subdivided from the duplex lot (heretofore referred to as Lot 12)
is of little use to that lot due to its configuration. Combining this area with the Edgewood Drive lot
(heretofore referred to as Lot 20) would allow greater flexibility for the property owner who would
like to construct garages in the future.
Current Easements: Cunently there is an easement dedicated over the westernmost 10 feet of Lot
20, which protects an existing stormsewer. The subdivision would not a.lter this easement, as the
stormsewer would not be impacted. Tlus easement should hawever be shown on the Certificate of
Survey to eliminate any future confusion regarding its existence. The applicant intends at some point
in the future to construct garages to service the four plex. The garages shall not be located witlun any
current or proposed easement area. In addition, the applicant sha.11 be required to execute a limited
use agreement which would allow him to utilize the land within the easement area in the event he
chooses to install a parking area as shown on the draft Lot 20 future site plan, on the condition that
the City not be liable for any damage done to the parking area or for any restoration in the event the
parking lot is disturbed to service or repair the stormsewer.
Mills Minor 5ubdivision
December 19, 2001
Page 2
Proposed Easements: The subdivision will need to dedicate the typical front and sideyard drainage
and utility easements for both Lots 12 and 20. Ten feet shall be dedicated for that part of Lot 12
fronting Woodlawn Drive and ten feet shall also be dedicated over those parts of Lot 20 fronting
Edgewood and Bronson Drives. Five feet shall be dedicated along all other property lines, as shown
on the attached Easement Exhibit, prepared by staff.
Two easement documents are required with this subdivision (one for each property) and they shall be
recorded at Raznsey County atong with the Certifrcate of Snrvey, the revised deeds and the City's
resolution of approval. City staffworking in conjunction with the City Attorney shall prepare these
twa documents. The Certificate of Suzvey shall include language that states: "Separate drainage
and utflrty easement documents are to be recorded with Ra»asey County covering those areas so
indicated in this Certificate and Plat of Sur-vey."
ParkDedacation: No park dedication fees will be levied upon this subdivision as no new "additional"
lots are being crea�ed.
Zo� Lot 12 (the duplex Iot) is zoned R-2, Single & Two Family Residential; and Lot 20 (the
four-plex lot) is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential. While no changes are necessitated by
this subdivision, the zoning designafion of the land divided from Lot 12 and added to Lot 20
should be rezoned at some point to be consistent with the iand use. Since there is no urgency to
do this, staf�would recommend including this piece of land with a future comprehensive rezoning
ordinance that would likely be processed sometime in 2002. �--
Com rehensive Plan: The same issue arises with the City's Comprehensive Plan existing and
future Iand use maps. The parcels have dif�erent designations, yet the subdivision will not change
the associated land uses, so again there is no urgency to make the correction. Staffrecommends
deiaying any change untiI the next regularly scheduled round of map updates.
Access and Tra�ic: There a.re no changes groposed with regard to access or the extent of vehicle
trips made on a daily basis as a result of this subdivision. Mr. MiIIs would, however, like to
con.struct garages for Lot 20, which would require relocating the Edgewood Drive access to the
north side of Lot 20. The existing bituminous driveway along the south side of the property
would be removed at the same time. In so doing, Mr. Mills would be eliminating a non-
conforming driveway (non-conforming due to the limited setback from the intersection of
Bronson and Edgewood Drives.)
Recommendation
This proposed subdivision of land is merely a redrawing of one common lot iine between two
parceIs to afford the property owner greater flexibility to make unprovements to Lot 20. The
associated uses will not be changing as a result of the subdivision. There will not be any impacts
to traf�ic or congestion and the subdivision would not be inconsistent with either �he
Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code. Sta.ff recommends approval of
Resolution 683, subject to the following stipulations:
Mills Minor Subdivision
December 19, 2001
Page 3
� 1. The Certificate and Plat of Survey shall be revised by adding the following language:
"Separate drainage and utility easement docurnents are to be recorded
with Ramsey County co��ering those areas so indicated in this Certificate
of Plat and Survey."
2. The Certificate and Plat af Survey shail be revised to show all existing easements and alI
proposed easements, as shown in staf�'s Easement Exhibit, attached as Exhibit A,
3. The Certificate and Plat of Survey shall be revised to indicate the original square footages
for Lots 12 and 20, under the heading "Original Descriptions."
,
4. The applicant shali execute and record two easement documents (one for each lot) which
dedicate to the public for public use the proposed additional easement areas,
5. No structures shall be a.11owed in any easernent area.
b. Prior to the issuance of any building or zoning permits related to construction activity that
would encroach or approach the existing storm sewer easement; the Director of
Community Development shall review the pIans to ensure the requirements of this minor
subdivision resolution are adhered to.
7. The applicant shall execute a limited use agreement in the event he would iike to utilize
area within the easement for parking. Izi no event shall the City be Iiable for any damage
caused to any improvements within the easement or for restoration of same resulting from
normal or necessary service or repair to existing or future utilities installations.
The applicant shalI be responsible for recording the Councii's resolution of approval, the
certificate and plat of survey and the revised deeds with Ramsey County within b0 days of
Council approval. Failure to do so within the prescribed timeframe (excIuding
unavoidable delays determined by the Community Development Director) shall render this
minor subdivision and this resolution null and void.
� �:�w�A ���,
James Ericson
Cornmunity Development Director
7b3-717-4022
Attaclunents:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Certificate and Plat of Survey, date stamped Dec 15, 2001 (separate attachcnent}
4. Proposed Lot 20 Future Site Plan
5. Exhibit A— Proposed Easement Exhibit
6. Resolution 683
ITY Q�
V �3U L�i'N�
A ' �
� f�nn�
` � 1� UV
�
r �
agr�ss ' Parc�er5�`Q
Applicant Information
Name of Applicant _
Address
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT --.
PLANNING APPLICATIO� ��
2401 County Road 1Q, Maunds View, MN 55112
(7fi3) 7�17-4QZ0
� Fax (651) 765-1660
Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form
%-�� ��/�i�
Interest in Property (check appropri te box)_ J
�- Owner of Property ��r� y�%�' /=��'"�'c°/ p Contract for Deed Owner
0 l.essee, Operator, Manager ��'���� �-��'`'°���`""� O Agreement to Purchase
❑ Other (expEain)
Applicants musfi provide evidence of interest in properly at the time of application, and if yoa are not
the owner of the property, yau must provide a le#ter of permission frorn the owner giving consent #o i::.., :
ti�e filing of this app[ication. The property owner must sign this applicat�on for. it to be accepted. `' ='
Property Description/Proposal . ����r2�� ��`�L�
Address or General l.oc�tion ���� ��''S���+���/�i���°' %��4 G..�� ���� �.✓ /�% �C
Lega! Descrlptlon
Property Identification # (PIN �#) ,
# of Acres
Current Zoning
- � �--- �2. -
Type of Application
. ❑ Comprehensive P1an Amendment
❑ Rezoning
❑ Major Subdivision
� Minor Subdivision
❑ Planned Unit Deve�opment (PUD)
❑ PUD Amendment
� Conditianel/Interim Use Perrnit
� Variance
D Code Appeal
❑ Develop Review/Site Plan
❑ Wetland Alteration Permit
❑ Wetland Buffer Permit
� Floodplain Permit
U other _ _ _ _
$254
$250/acre (Min $250 max $150Q)
$Z5Q/acre (min. $500)
$240, _
$500 plus $500/acre
$350 .
R-1, R-2 $100; all others $300
R-1, R-2 $100 all others $300 .
�ioa �
$125/acre; min $125 max $75Q
R-1, R-z $150; all others $20Q
R-i, R-2 $25; ali others $100
$200
A deposit may be requEred to cover costs of publlc notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the revfew, research or
preparadon of materlals assodated with this appllcatlon. The appllcant shall be responslble for all reasonable Incurred cosi�s In excess af
the init�al deposit amount. Any portlon of the deposlt not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within 30 days after
conslderatlon oF the appllcation Is tompleted.
Planning A�plication
Present Use of Properly
❑ Undeveloped/Vacant �� r L O Single Family Dwelling
;6� Duplex/Twa Family Dwelling�' �7 Multi-family Dwelling �oT 2d
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment
O Other (explain) �
Property Ciassification J�(
Descripfiian of
Abstrac� �� y�'
��/�.G'
e
�' Torren '`/�
� ���
Page 2
_�f�ir� /`cs.,l� pAc>�r/c//t/ fa ��?�.vl�,-�/ S'7l�lls _�hC_ Pr.�fi:V� ci/Y� .`�.��'`
� /.Z Q�% 5t �'r �!'/�j� 6' �i �� .Gr'1S /'/ �✓��✓ !f `,�'�2'`�L��,� e%P f�':/rYY��'/
SY MY (OUR) SIGNAIURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST" OF MY
lCIVOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TR AND ACCLiRATE.
Signature af Applicant �
Name of Applicant (typed/printed) /�/fr� 4�/ � i'�/��.f
Signature of Property Owner
Name of Property Owner (typed/pri
Address of Cwne:
Phone Number of Owner
E-mail
�s� ��,�'�,����.
i!�% C� !� �c''G✓ i�� ��/L
aG��! � r �
��s --���`����' -
0
*�x************************�***************x�**:�*********x�***********�x***�x*****x�:�***********
� POR �FFICE'U5� ONLY
Date of Submittal r3��s f o l
Date of Aaeptance � Assigned to:
Planning Case No. - 60-day Limit 120-day limit
.tf�.�l-6 ��
Fees Paid; Account # Check # Receipt
# � ��
Application: � .3 �`�!� . ' "' __ `��.��,n 1 c� a -�3+��p ( � ! � � 5
Park Dedication: � i�� 3 a..�
Deposits:
Other:
TotaE:
1/98
�.
i�
Zoning _Map
' ����' �`��� ��'� � ����� ���;� � __
_ .
- �. ,,,. . �: ... ��
� �'�' �,� � � -
�� �
�, �` � �: r �.
�.��, �
,.
��.. �� ; �`��� :���� : ��� � �::, �� � � ��
r t.: � � � ; : � �'� �� �`��.
. _ ... .
,,
�� :
COUNTY R�AD I `�"�
- _ . -; . ., i b , �j�u�a _. _ ,� � .. ..�� _- .....4`
.
..
, , x
'� � : . ��.6 � _ � '�" [� � �« .,� _.._....
� Z ° �ii:` ��' :� �� --'7� E �• � : �' '� �> :�6
�,� r ,:. � i� . : ' � � � .� �.°`� �'+� �.;� °�
� k �
� �� �?'''�` � ,� _� ��
� � `
..
������ � � b� �� ,'.'� ::
�:� � _ ` �.. . �� .
.. a �
: �. : �. sy g
. x : � �f i�Ce
,�;w .,��� ,' �.� �: w'' � ,� ; ��� � ��
r ,� .
� �:�� ���� � � �
r � ��� A
�� .. �K,�,� . ��..q
: .
� �.. � �'�� � �'��. � y. �, �
;
�� �. ' `���� / ��� �. � �- �`��� �:� ` ...
.a:
,,�.,
�
�
� , � �`' � �°': � �. .
� � � .� � � � �� �� �
� � : � �. � . � �`�� ..
� -�",` -- :...... x . ` .
ONSON DRiVE � ������ � � �
v.�..�..�.�.�.�..�._... ° � :::..'`
�
��
:�.
�
♦ � .�
♦ � �
`��� �Y��...
`� �
� �.
� �
� � � � �
��
�:�� ����
�'
y
����
��
}
� ��'����'��� _.
, ....:.. : .
: . � ;v... : .. .�,
�. ��� �`° ���
,�; �"���. �;�� :
� �� .��. � ���
�
� ���;� ��� :�
� ' mmf �
. ����; � �
� ��V� a�
� ���.� _
�'�,��..�
; ? �"'�!��.;..�:�
�}f
�:�.
-0
���
� l
���
-�.�_
:
�'� .
�>
� .��
���.�
COMMUNITY
CENTER
��
_��_.
�
�� ;.
.:�
,��
�
b
�
r-�
C
V .O
l� . N
L ,�..� ,
� � �
��\ � v!
C � �
N � �
. �y
W�..m
�
��.�tifTV;:�„Q`i*,':
R
ani�a poonna�p3
a�
>
._
L
0
c
0
c
0
L
W
��ia� ��ann��a�
-�.�� �
! �
'� .Afi ,"bC .C7 S
i �5vaw 3��`1d �'d'i�i � , .�
/ �
. �
� %�
_. ��!�,
� i�
�
�� � �� �
� J
t ` 'y
�'
�'�\ /, �
� � �
�€ ,i% � �.�,:� -;r
r '
Ilt 1 f � i� %� �
f . � f%� ' � f�.�` �
;, �' '
� � �_.� . -...._<.._..z' . _i'.. �_..�'�... �:,�
�I �
� �
a �
a I �� � �
� �� �.
� ��
o � _,
N------�- �
� �
��
�
�
� ... �
,F � �
'�� � '�, `�
� � -�S `��
I �e
� `
�
! �
' � ��D "'_` ��:
� � �
� �
�
� �
� � �
�a�
N �;�
O j
L �
� �+�
�.�..
</
�
L1.i
��r
�.Yi.
�
�
E
�
.�
F,-
� Y
� J `7
a
� �
� p �l
� �
�.
��
.•Ft
�'C r
�
�
a
0
�
��` ``�
Y �_.
�, �
.�w
��y��
��.. -�
�����.
w
`, .,��
�"',.. � �'a.
�
��
� y � i�
�^ ,.� '�
1� ����;.�
.h
.. ,ti
--�.�� f�t �+��!`.�... ..,.a� f Q' , r # ` \i
�f� /,;' � �/ : E' �%��'i� , � �
if`/%�%� : � �I,�. %'I%�% f�:
:%�; ',;� i ,{�', ,"�`. l`/�, f/� �����/
�; �'J'•' �'r_; �+`��:�`�%r ��� f� �
;� ��s f i f f f' � � r i, -. i� f
i. ;,f, � , , . �; , f
i, ; , ,
_ �f �� '�� + < < /
• • •'! , ff ;r` / ` �', � : 1 �` i f ,,
% '�; " r � ' i , � 'r,,' ' ! �' ', / i �" ;'
�_�r�� �,l'%�� J�� �.''� '} ��`;f� � .l;.
� '' + ``%' , f/!/ /" � l �� � �' � J ` �s � L � !' .
. .. ,
i� .'� ,. i r i F' ; i » r I� i
' f ��,t'jf '�.- ,.� � .� j' ..�.....� J�.•' JF!i l� /
. f � �f ` I =>-
` :,•� � f , �; ; ��:
�*--� �+'� x r?'t�S �nr]I p:1,5�.. ' ( i' ,
' � ` ! / J
[;1:}.:1.'ni,3i�?Q"�'�fl, � r' f i
� :���
, !
, ;� `f_,
�` �7'� i ' , �
, .' .
3.. °�% t-' �.`4 �y ' � • f r 1 I � r
�• , • ,�` � /.� �� • � . ��� .'�' / ,,,�jFr . � , r�;��
11._.,....�I �..v,.....�...�� ...1i.�.E...�...r' F .�t
��� �� � ' � ' � J
.� ,� ,' // Q '� : f
1,L r� / iti � ��' 1I� , �
r l��
�, 5•^ ,
�
C?
J
� � f f F; � , f: �-
`�,y�' \. t ' ' `T /,,' %` � rf ! � iy J
I . �"�/ .:- � � �' • `� ,fj !` ri J,
, �•�,�,,R�,` �` r;'�/f�' y�
r��, �s , / + i
. , _,.���'`� :, r '`
1s` ,��, �% ' - ha
� �� ��. ,�,- ,��•
z �
C.}.�� �0,�.- ,
�
_ .,.,, ,.� I
� �
. ��
�' 4
W Q
� •�
�
t
/
r
/
�'1.
� E
ti%
°� ts
l�z
5.:...�
�
A
� �
��: .
•'��y'
.. �
�
�` o
� �
� �
� �
�
� � �
� ��m ,� �
�
T Itl .
..�1
�.✓
�
�
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N�. 683-41
CITY UF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF 1VIINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR MARSHALL MILLS, PR�PERTY OWNER OF 7b18 EDGEWOOD DRIVE AND
7630 WOODLAWN DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE N0. MI01-005
Wi�REAS, the Applicant, Marshall Mills, has requested approval for a minor subdivision
to divide approximately 2,060 square feet from the back of 7630 Woodlawn Drive, property
zoned R-2, and concurrently attaching it to 761$ Edgewood Drive, praperty zoned R-3; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate and Plat of Survey (the
"Certificate") for the identified properties, date-stamped December 14, 2001; and,
VV��REAS, both propertiss are owned by the Applicant and are legally described as
follows:
WI�REAS, the 2,060 square feet of land being detached from Lot 12 and attached to Lot
20 is legally described as follows:
That part of Lot 12, Block 2, Park View Terrace lying southeasteriy of #he following
described line:
Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 2D, Block 2, satd Park View
Terrace, thence South D degrees 34 minutes 30 secondsEast, alongthe
West line of said Lot 20 a distance of 13.98 feet; thence south 34
degrees 38 minutes 22 seconds west a distance of 75.97 feet to the
southwesterly line of saad Lot 12 and there terminating
WI�REAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor
subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of
the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, �he Planning Commission finds that the applicant's request for a minor
subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and,
Resolution 683-01
Page 2
W�REAS, the Engineering Technician and Community Development Director for the '
City of 1Vlounds View have reviewed the Certificate for the proposed minor subdivision and have
found it acceptable, subject to minor revisions as noted herein; and,
Wf�REAS, a copy of the Certificate and Plat of Survey has been forwarded to the City
Attorney for his review; and,
WHEREAS, no park dedication fees shall be required with this subdivision due to the re
being no new additionaI lots created by this subdivision.
NOW, THEREFQRE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the minor subdivision request made by Marshall Mills, owner of 7630
Woodlawn Drive and 7618 Edgewood Drive, subject to the following:
1. The Certificate and Plat of Survey shall be revised to show all existing easements and all
proposed easements, as shown in staff's Easement Exhibit, attached as Exhibit A.
2. The Certificate and Plat of Survey shall be revised by adding the following language:
"Separate drainage and utility easement documents cme to be recorded
with Ramsey County covering those areas so indicated rn this Certificate
of Plat and Survey."
The Certificate and Plat of Survey shall be revised to indicate the original square footages -_ �
for Lots 12 and 20, under the heading "Original Descriptions."
4. The applicant shall execute and record two easement documents (one for each lot} which
dedicate to the public for public use the proposed additional easement areas.
5. No structures shall be allowed in any easement area.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building or zoning pernuts related to construction activity that
would encroach or approach the existing s�orm sewer easement, the Director of
Community Development shall review the plans to ensure the requirements af this minor
subdivision resolution are adhered �o.
7. The applicant sha11 execute a limited use agreement in the event he would like to utilize
area within the easement for parking. In no event shall the City be liable for any damage
caused to any improvements within the easement or for restoration of same resulting from
normal or necessary service or repair to existing or future utilities insta�iations.
8. The applicant shall he responsible for recording the Council's resolution of approval, the
certificate and plat of survey and the revised deeds with Ramsey County within 60 days of
Council approval. Failure to do so within the prescribed timeframe (excluding
unavoidable delays as determined by the Community Development Director) sha11 render
this minor subdivision and this resolution null and void.
Resolution 683-01
Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESQLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff
to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 19th day of December, 2001.
7ean Miller, Acting Chaizperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�DEVELOPMENT CASES�IvII01-OOS�IiESOLUTION 683-01.DOC
A�,
W
LL
�r
1�
W
W
Q
❑
W
Q �
� �
� �-'
X Lr
W �
. _._
3Af4i❑ Q04M��Ja3
� _Qf :b� .a s � .
�.. . '3'�zM�1°.Id �o�'1Q1 :� � �
1.
i--------- 9--�_�
i � , � �
i � � � � �
tti6 I L
' i � d
� � � 3
1� � �
r� + , � {j
. li I %[ ~ ' 4 f
� u � � � t
� `Ir E� M -� J a` I.� a,
� ,�,� � W p � a � � j � .i
C A
ai Qi � e � J ,� a � o i
�- - � V- � � �v +r � ,°� �
/�� y/ Q N �
IA 'WA . u+'—..+�.»« V.. 2^[r 'e��� .
•v, Y, ~ m
W W _ E � �. .
� �.._ �. �.�. �
� � � �
� ; � i
. � � � N �
� _ ��---- —_e� �� �
� � _�''� `'
� � yam:s wuai� `�
- �N .oC:tr+c.b� y .� L'a •er8w�'.kTld rJe.•le�i '
- -- .�.� ''ro�w�2 �i'Dfd oa'sL� .. ,�. � ..o�,wr .09 �— _ . )
�� 'I V1 � . �.
�YI � . ,y�''^ Y
0 � �. � � r� �w � � � � I � �� �` ` ` � � r �� ^� � � � � * �
� �
� � � ,',� � `�; 2x. 'N 7
� � `
A - 2`'T. ;.. ' "\c �ie � .
1-` � � f
T ' }�il % P ` SB� `
Ar,. �: }u� `a.Q. �` � ' '6-' . � � :
A� � �� � `�` ` � i4+�,_ � ?
✓
J: : ' G
' �ry �� n � ` � � � . i �
O
� � �, � ♦
�.0. � . . a_�/ '�a� 1P � ' t
� � ! � a;�. i+� h p . / .
,;. � ?� �.yti � � ;
� � I 3�3� � I .��
T I � 4FSJ
' t
1 . - � 9'�/ � ' � fr, ' (
� M-
� - / y�� � . a4`p
. r LJ N� 'e yo. �
� °L � � �_°�
✓ * a± r
I � �/� j � „� �`�` � li
/ � /�/ b � 7 .A
� f� Y � ��rF a �r � �r
-J�6S.p.f� � � . Q/��, �'
�+ �'�3: � ` ' I l y/ . �
f °.y.
/ �xny �� e�'1 �' ' .
�-
�/ . _ .
6'p. �
H��>�p��t }I ��i
�
d
E,L
O
r
�
�
�..� i
�.
d
1L
O
�
�. �
o ♦,
N =.. 1
� �..,_..'. ;,
�� �
N �,w
• �/,
W LLI
d
�,+
V{A
v/
��
O
�
`
�
N
t
�
�
C
�
�
�_.
W
�
Item # 6
City of Mounds View
Planning Commi.ssion Report
Meeting Date: Decembe� 19, 2001
Title: PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION, AND REVIEW OF A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE EDGEW��D
MIDDLE SCHOOL FACILITY EXPANSION; PLANNING CASE NOS
DE01-005 & CU01-004
Introduction
John Gannon of ATS&R is requesting approval of a develapment review and conditional use permit
on behalf of Independent School District 621 for an expansion of Edgewood Middle School located
at 5100 Edgewood Road.
There are five (5} areas of building expansion as depicted on the first page of the packet submitted by
the applicant. The improvements to the facility include new classrooms, an addition to the existing
media center, an addition to the existing cafeteria, and an alteration to the parking lot. All together,
the building expansion will include 15,669 square feet of new area.
Development Review
Setbacks
The facility currently complies with the setback requirements established in the City Code. The
additions to the facility would not encroach into any setback.
Parkin
According to the City Code, junior high schools are required to pzovide one (1} parking space per
classroom and one (1) space for each 50 students. Given the number of classrooms {28) and number
of students (approximately 600} at Edgewood, the site is required to provide 40 parking spaces.
There are two parking lots on the Edgewood property. In the northern parking lot, which is being
altered, there are currently 1Q1 parking spaces. The proposed site plan would eliminate twenty (23}
spaces, leaving seventy-eight (78}. This number is still much greater than what is required, and does
not include the spaces pzovided in the parking lot located to the east of the structure, which is
approximately the same size as the northern parking lot.
Access
In addition to expanding the building, the applicant is proposing to alter the parking lot by adding a
new access point to the property as shown on Page 2 of the packet. The new access point would be
the northernmost driveway on the property and would be used for vehicular traffic only. The other
two driveways along Edgewood Drive would be used by busses only. This new system would keep
cars and busses separate, which is a much safez alternative.
Edgewood Middle School
December 19, 2001
Page 2
Drainage and Utility
The applicant has applied for a Rice Creek Watexshed District (RCWD) permit, which is required
due to the size of the lot and the extent of impervious surface area being manipulated. Final approval
of the proj ect by the City would requzre RCWD approval.
Landscaping .
As depicted on Page 1 of the packet submitted by the applicant, some of the landscaping and
plantings will be removed as a resuli of the building expansion and parking lot alteration. New
landscaping, however, will be provided as shown on Page 4 of the packet. A portion of the new
landscaping will provide screening for the loading docks located at the north side of the bnilding,
which is required by the zoning code. Staff believes that the new la.ndscaping is sufficient and that no
addiiional landscaping be required. The plans, however, will be reviewed by the City Forrester prior
to City Council approval.
Conditional Use Permit Discussion
Schools and zeligious institutions loca#ed within a residential district require a conditional use pernlit
(CUP). Since most of these types of facilities in Mounds View predate the current Zoning Code,
most do not have a CUP. It has been the City's policy to require a CUP in the event of any
expansions so as to bring the facility into compliance with the Code. While CUP approval is
typically assured, it does provide the opportunity to review such issues as parking, traffic, and other '_'
factors that may impact surrounding properties.
According to Section 1106.04, Subd.1 of the Zoning Code relating to conditional uses within the
R-1 district, the following requirements shall be met in order to approve a CUP:
Edgewood Middle School
December 19, 2001
Page 3
Seciion 1125.01, Subd.le of the Zoning Code indicates that the Planning Cornmission shall consider
possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The Planning Commission's judgment shall
be based upon {but not limited to) the following factors:
(1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The geographical area involved.
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need for such use.
The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds View identifies this land as "School", which would
be appropriate given its current use. The school is located at the corner .of County Road H and
Edgewood Drive and is bardered to the north and west by single-family residential properties. Rice
Creek borders the site to the south and tl�e Mounds View Business Parlc borders the site to the east.
The school has existed at this locatian for many years and has not negatively affected the
surrounding area to the extent that would warrant discontinuing this use.
Taking all this into consideration, staff would recommend tY►at a CUP be issued to the school to bring
the use into compliance with the City's Zoning Code.
Recommendation
, Open the public hearing and allow residents and any other interested parties to comment on the
conditional use permit and.development review request. After consideration of all the information
and testimony that has been presented and assuming no additional information is necessary, the
Plaruiing Commission shauld act upon the two resolutions attached to this report recommending
approval of the conditional use pernut and development review or it should direct staff to draft
alternate versions of these resolutions for future action.
rf �
�,__ L�L,-• fc...y�___,
Jim tkinson
Planning Associate
763-717-4022
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Location Map
3. Site Plans, ate stamped 1 i/30/O1
4. Summary of Geotechnical Report
5. Resolution 682-01
N:IDATA\GRpUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASLS1DE01-005 & CU01-0041Edgewood (PC) - Dec 19, 200I.doc
��� ��
��U��U�
A ' /
"' � � i
��,p , ���
t
S
gre�.s � partners��4
COMMUNI7Y DEVELOPMENT DEpARTMENT
PLANNING APPLICATIQ�'
2401 County Raad 10,
Mounds View, MN 55112
(763} 717-4020
F�x {651) 765-166a
Please Type or Pr+et Ynformatlon - Complete Both Sides af This Form
Applicant Information
Name of Applicant R c Telephone 763-545-3731
Address _$501 Golden Valle� Road , , Fax 763-525-32$9
. Su'te 00 E-mail .7Gannon@atsr.com
Minneanolis. MN 55427
Interest ln Property (check appropriate �ox)
O Owner of Property ❑' Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager O Agreement to Purchase
fl Other (explain)
Architect Re resentin Owner
Applicants m�st provide evidence of interest in preperty at the time of application, and if you are not
the owner of the property, you must provide a letEer af permission from the owner giving consent to � j
the f+ling of this appficat�on. The property owner must sign this application far it to be accepted. _
ProperEy Description/Proposal
Address or Generai Location
Legal. Description
Edgewood Middle School
5100 Edgewood Drive
SEE SURVEY ATTACHED
Property Identification # (PIN #) �
# of Acres , 34 . 5
Current Zoning 1t-i
Type of Application .
0 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ Rezoning ,
� Major Subdivision �
O Minor Subdlvlsion
� Planned Unit Development (PiJD)
O PUD Amendment .
� Conditional/Interfm Use Permit
❑ Variance
❑ Code Appeal
� Devefop Review/Site Plan
� Wetland Alteration Permit
❑ Wetland Buffer Permit
O Floodplain Permit
❑ Other
$250
$250/acre (Min $z50 max $150Q)
$250/acre {min. $500}
$200
$500 plus $5Q0/acre
$350
R-1, R-2 $100; all others $3Q0
R-1, R-2 $100 all others $300
$100
$12S/acre; min $125 max $750
R-1, R-2 $15Q; all others $2p0
Et-1, R-2 $25; ail others $100
$200
A deposit may be required M cover �osts of public notices, materials and statf or consultant tlme spent In the revlew, research or
preparadon oF inaterials associated wlth trils applicatian. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of
the initlal deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to Ehe applicant within 30 days after
considerarion of the applicetlon is completed. '
Planning Application
Present Use of Property
O Undeveloped/Vacant ❑
O Duplex/Two Family Dwe[ling ❑
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑
C� 4ther (explain)
Property Classification ❑ Abstract
Single Family Dwefling
Multi-family Dwelling
Industrial Estabiishment
� Torrens
Page 2
DescriptionofProposal - Additions and Alterations gp*nlon�t MirlcilP Srhnnl��nrliirling
Additional Curb Cut Access to North Parkin
Media Center and Classroom Ex ansion• In u 'on,
S eci.al Services Music Art F.A.C.S. an
BY MY (OUR) SIGiVATURE ON THIS APPEICATION, I�IEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED I TRUE AND A CURATE.
Signature of Appli�ant
Name of Applicant {typed/printed) ohn W. Gannon . A,�I . A.
5ignature of Properly �wner �- /�l- ���
Name ef Property Owner (typed/printed) Carl Colmark - Executive Directo�_
� Address of Owner
Phone Number of Owner
E-maii
Mounds View School District 4�621
2959 Hamline Avenue N. St. Paul, MN 55113
651-639-6d06
Carl.Colmark@Moundsviewschools,org
r
*********************�x**********�*x�**********x�*************�:**�**x�************x�***********
� FO OFFiCE USE ONLY
Date af Submittal `� � c�-� � a '
Qate of Acceptance Assigned ta:
Planning Case No. - � 60-day Limit 120-day limit
��..D I -�C�S
Fees Paid: Aaount # Check #
#
Application : ! D 0 ° h �,i,i.� � aR .� a � j� (� �-11 I • y �
n: `)Sn��r� �- Do3� � 1Zrc'�I _
Deposits:
Other:
Total:
Receipt
t�98
City of I�lounds View - Lo�ation Map
• ..
= � : �F� �� �
;,,�; =� :� ����i��l :�
�������� �� �;r wi�
"'„��� �'� ��� I1L1�1�1 :�
���li'■ �'r s'i �IIIII�L �C
����■ �!1���,� �IIII��d � �
1l��� � � 1111���1 �i�
� s� M � � �w �i■
` � �a �t�a
r wr �----� ii ��
■ �■ ■���L�� �� ��
� �� r�l���� =_ ��
� �� ��
� w� _
� �.. ='�i�11�1:. � ::
ewood Middle School
�� ��
_� ,
;,,. �-= -�-
,�==i=�: '�
''�. _
CAy ol New 9�igh
ATS&R, Inc. - Edgewood Middle School
Property Involved: �100 Edgewood Drive
CUP & Developrr�ent Review
Planning Case Nos. CU01-004 & DE01-005
� 5100 Edg�n+aod Drive
0 Properties Within 350'
;_: � ' �
; ;. �r:: � �
� ��- �';�
.�.
�° -
-,. _. :�.�__^. �._� �,_. � -1__. _:.��
ENGINEERING CORPORAil6N
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
MEMo
Mounds View Planning Commission
Tim Olson �� �
Clark Engineering Corporation
John Gannon — ATSR
Clark - file
November 29, 2001
RE: Summary of Geotechnical Report
Edgewood Middle School Additions
Mounds View, Minnesota
. Clark Projeci No. SOQ047
621 Lilac Dri�re l�brth
l�Iinneapolis, A'Iuuiesota 55422-4609
{763}545-9196
Stnictural Faa: {763} 5�1-0056
Civil Fax; (763} 525-1666
��=.clark-eng.com
_ As requested, we have stunmarized the findings and recommendations given in
; the geotechnical report submitted by Braun Intertec for the referenced report.
Please reference the report for detailed information.
The field work consisted of performing 14 soil borings at the site. Eight of the
borings were performed within the proposed addition areas. The remaining
borings were advanced in parlflng and drive areas. The borings encountered the
following existing fills depths:
Cafeteria/Loading Dock Addition 0— 2' Fill
IT Addition 4' Fill
Media Center Addition 11' Fill
Southeast Classroom Addition 13' Fill
Southwest Classroom Addition No Fill
The report states the floor slab and footings of the additions located in the
shallower areas af fill(Cafeteria/Loading Dock and IT Additions) may be
supported on the fill. However, the addition areas Iocated in the deep fill
areas(Media Center and Southeast Classroom Additions) must be overexcavated
and refilled. The removed fill soils can most likely be reused for building
support.
Please call with any questions.
Muuieapolis Aberdeen Rapid Gity Sioua Falls Fort Myers
Minnesota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota Florida
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTYON NO. 682-01
�
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EDGEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASES DE01-001 AND CUQl-001.
WHEREAS, The applicant, Edgewood Middle School (Tndependent School District
621), has applied for a development zeview to construct a 15,669 square foot building expansion
and parking lot alteration; and,
WHEREAS, Edgewood Middle School is located at 5100 Edgewood Drive, property
zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is legally-described as follows:
Subject to road and highway easements,
640 feet of south 190 feet, the southeast '/ of
southwest'/ of Section 8, Totivnship 30, Range 23
WHEREAS, according to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, any new
construction or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval of a development review; and, ,
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a set of plans, date stamped 11/28/O1, pertaining to
the expansion which included a Site Plan, Demolition Plan, Site LayouE Plan, Grading and
Drainage Plan, Site Detail Plan, Exterior Elevations, and Interior F1oor Plan, all of which shall
collectively be referred to as the "Site Plans;" and,
WHEREAS, the expansion will add 15,669 square feet of space to the school as shown
on the attached Site Plans; and,
WHEREAS, the expansion will remove 23 parking stalls from the existing 101 stalls in
the parking lot located on the north side of the building, which still satisfies the City's parking
code requirements for a school with 28 classrooms and 600 students; and,
WHEREAS, The Public Works Foreman, Community Development Director, Engineering
Technician, and Fire Mazshal have reviewed the submitted site plans; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Comrnission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Site Plans, date stamped 11/30/O1
5. Staff Report
Resolution 682-01
Qecember 19, 2Q01
Page 2
� WHEREAS, in the course of reviewing the documents associated with this properiy, it
was detennined that the school was operating without a conditional use permit, a requirement for
schools, churches and other institutional uses located within a residential district; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Zoning
Code, the Planning Commission is to consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed
conditional nse.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as required by the Section 1125.01 of the
Mounds View Zoning Code, the Mounds View Plauning Commission makes the following
findings of fact related to the development review and conditional use permit request:
L The Edgewood Middle School property is zoned R-1, single family residantiai, within
which district schools are conditionally allowed.
2. The Edgewood Middle School property is designated as a"School" in the City
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Given its location at the corner of County Road H and Edgewood Drive, the school is
conveniently located and has access to pri_mary corridors through the City.
4. The setback and zoning requirements as indicated in Sections 1104.02 and 1106.04 of
the Mounds View Zoning Code are satisfied with this expaz�sion.
5. Pernutting the expansio� will not depreciate the neighborhood nor will it cause
additional traffic congestion or reduce airflow or light to adjoining properties.
6. There is a demonstrated need for the expansion given the number of students and
expressed condi�ions of overcrowding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTAER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon its above-stated findings of fact, does hereby recommend to the City
Council approval of the development review and conditional use permit request for Edgewood
Middle School, located at 5100 Edgewood Drive, subject to the following:
1. The building expansions shall match to whatever extent possible the existing brick
architecture, style and colors.
2. The applicant shall provide proof of obtaining a RCWD Perrriit prior to any City permits
being issued.
3. All disturbed pervious areas shall be restored with sod or Iandscaping materials.
4. The applicant shall arrange to recozd the City Council resolution of approval with
Ramsey County.
Resolution 682-09
December 19, 2001
Page 3
5. The landscaping Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Farester.
Adopted this 19th day of December, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
� _
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASE5ICUPOI-0�4 & DE01-0OSUtESOLUTION 682-01.DOC
City of Mounds Vie�v Ite�, #?
� Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: Dece�aaber 19, 2001
Title:
PUBLIC HE�IRING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 681-01, A
RESOLUTION AMENDING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESOLUTION 633-00, A
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARi.ANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
7664 GREENFIELD AVENUE, REQUESTED BY MR. TONY MEZZENGA; MOUNDS
VIEW PLANNING CASE # VR00-007
Introduct�on:
On September 13, 2000, the Mounds View Plamung Commission adopted Resolution
633-00, a resolution approving a variance for the property located at 7b64 Greenfield
Avenue for reduced front and side-yaxd parking lot setbacks, reduced side and rear yard
Uuilding setbacks, reduced parking 1ot width and reduced off-sireet parking requirements.
The approved variance allowed Mr. Mezzenga to proceed with development plans for ihe
property. The plans ini�ially indicated a one and one-hal£ story office building with a
footprint o£ 2,404 square feet. Because of accessibility issues, ihe plans were revised and
approved for a two-story building with the same footprint and same overall square
footage. Upon application to Ramsey County for a right of way pernut to install the
driveway onto County Road I, the applicant was told the driveway could not be installed
there due to the presence of a couniy integrated storm sewer catch basin. The catch basin
could not be moved or reconstructed, and the driveway could not be safely relocated onto
County Road I, so the applicant request a further change to the site plan to allow for
access onto Greenfield Avenue instead of County Road I. This revision was approved by
the City Council ori November 13, 2001.
Discussion:
It was learned during the last plan revision that the �riveway, as originally approved last year by
the Planning Commission and City Council, did not meet proper setback requirements from the
intersection of Greenf eld and County Road I. Oz-iginally the pIans showed the driveway set back
37 feet from the intersecting right of ways. The required setback is 50 feet. The final revised
plans indicate the driveway to be set back 39 feet from the intersection, a two-foot improvement.
Staff recommends that the resolution approving the variance be amended to reflect the driveway
setback from the intersection of the County Road I and Greenfield Avenue right of ways. While
the basis of the hardship associaied with the property has already been articulated, staffwould
assert the following be identified as additional justification for the proposed amendment.
Mezzenga Report
December 19, 2001
Page 2
1. The resolution approving the variance for the reduced building and parking lot setbacks,
the reduced parking lot width and the reduced off-street parking ratio for this deveioprnent
should have included the reduced driveway setback.
2. The original location of the driveway onto County Road I was set back as far as possible
(37 feet) from the intersection given the Iocation of the building, and as far as possible
from the adjacent Tom Thumb driveway.
3, The relocated driveway onto Greenfield avenue was set back as far as possible (39 feet)
from the intersection while maintaining an adequate setback from the adjacent property to
the south, in an effort to conserve green-space on the subject property as well as to
reorient the parking lot so as to avoid any loss of approved parking stalls.
4. The relocated driveway is two feet further away from the intersection than the original
plans indica�ed.
The relocatian onto Greenfield Avenue is a safer alternative rather than taking direct
access onto County Road I.
6. The reorientation of the parking lot eliminates the need for a variance for the parking lot
width, originally shown to be 61 feet where 63 feet is required. The revised site plan
shows a parking lot width of 64 feet, which complies with City Code.
Recotn�nendation:
Approve Resolution 681-01, a resolution approving an amendment to Resolution 633-00 hy
allowing for a 39-foot setback for the driveway from the intersection of the County Road I and
Greenfield Avenue right of ways.
� �rn.�o ��P..t,t.D�7�
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Resolution 633-00
2. Resolu�ion 681-01
N:�DATAIGROUPS1COIvIDEVIDevelopment Cases\Vr00-007 (Mezzenga)UVIezzenga Report - December 19, 200I.doc
MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COIVIlVIISSION
RESOLUTION NO. b33-00
CITY 4F MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF NIINNESOTA
RESOLUTT4N APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTIONS i104.01, SUBD. 4
(PERTAINING TO SETBACKS}, SECTION 1121.09, SUBD. 4(PERTAINING TO
PARKING LOT WIDTHS} AND SECTION 1121.13 (PERTAINING TO OFF-STREET
PARKING REQUIREMENTS) OF THE MOUNDS V�W ZONING CODE, FOR AN
OFFICE BUII.DING AT 7664 GREENFIELD AVENUE; MUUNDS V�W PLANNING
CASE VR00-007.
WHEREAS, The applicant, Tony Mezzenga, representing the property owner Ernest
Gustafson, has applied for a variance to allow for the construction of a 3,480 square-foot, split-
Zeve[ office building at 7b64 Cxreenfield Avenue, property zoned B-3, .Highway Business, and
legaIly-described as follows:
Lot 30, Block 3, GreenfieldPlat 2,Farcept the North 10 Feet thereof,• Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal: �
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Site Plaa "
5. Letter from the Applicant
6. Off-Street Parking Requirements
7. Staff Report
WHEREAS, a public hearing was heid regarding this variance request on Wednesday,
Septemher 6, 2000, and discussion was continued to Wednesday, September 13, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to
property owners when the strict eruforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardshig
thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by
unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's
control; and,
Resolution 633-00
September 13, 2000
Page 2
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 oithe Mounds View Municipal
Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be
satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zaning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Plarining Commission
finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property
located at 7664 Greenfield Drive to warrant the approvaI of a variance for a 10-foot front yard
and 15-foot side yard parking lot setback, a 10-foot side and rear yard building setback, a 61-foot
parking lot width, and a"one space per 200 square feet" off-street parking requirement; and
makes the following findings of fact reIated to its decision:
1. Exceptianal or extraordinary circumstances apply to 7664 Greenfield Avenue which do not
apply generatly to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the development
potential of the lot is restricted by its size, by the County's previous acquisition of additional
right of way for County Road I and by corner lot setback requirements: .
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.
3. The variance request is the resuit of factors over which the appiicant has had no controL �__ _
4. Granting the variances would allow the applicant to convert the vacant lot to a viable
commercial development. Approval would not confer upon the property owner a special
privilege denied to others in the same district in that this situation is very unique and not
applicable ta other properties in this district.
5. The Planning Commission finds that the requested variances to be the minimum variances
that would alleviake the applicant's hardship.
6. Granting a variance for the proposed o�ce building and parking lot would not be
materia�ly detrimental to the purpose of this Title or ta other property in the same zone.
7. The variances wouId not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it
increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values.
NOW, THEREFQRE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission approves the variance request for a 10-foot front yard and 15-foot side yard parking
lot setback, a 10-foot side and rear yard building setback, a 61-foot parking lot width, and a"one
space per 200 square feet" off-street parking requirement for the proposed ofi'ice building at 7664
Greenfield Avenue, as shown on the site plan attached as Exhibit A, and contingent upon the
following: -
Resolution b33-00
September 13, 2000
Page 3
; �
,
1. The applicant shall arrange to have this resolution of approval recorded with Ramsey
County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within b0 days of the date of
approval, or this variance shall be rendered nult and void.
2. The applicant shall apply for and receive approva� of a development review for the
proposed office building consistent with and similar to E�chibit A within ttiree months of
the approval of this resolution. Failure to apply for and receive apgroval of the
development review within the prescribed time-frame will render ttus variance nuII and
void.
Adopted this 13th day of September, 2000.
���
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
7 �
i � ' ,
Rick Jopke, Co unity Development Director
(SFAL)
X:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDEVCASES1VR00-0071RESOLUTIQN 633-OO,bOC
EXHIBIT A.
Resolution 633-00
� o'
7664 Greenfield Avenue
Approved Setbacks
� o�
'I 5'
25'
Greenfield Avenue
Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet
�
� o�
.`.v;'a �%5?� �
i:, j"r���'y,:� Q .
n:i_ �.� I
n ,�t� � I,
:�?��"`:�,� O�/
W
� _ `.�..:: .
� � ��-:�:v: �
:�. :..r, ��:, rt_ �.
%;rh°,;� �, .
, �.:
�`:�`:�';; `<{; z
V:'.�j�Y:YI _�� ,:.
.:'�:: Ew 1 ,
'`t '.4'�=' �,� J
����:: � �x O
�:::�'w v
.�fr;....�:�: �
f '�`�'fi����� � _
�
MOUNDS V1EW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 681-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VJEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE QF MINNES�TA
RESOLUTION AMENDING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED RES�LUTIDN 633-00, A
RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM THE MOUNDS V�W ZONING
CODE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT �F AN OFFICE BUII,DING AT 7664
GREENFIELD AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR00-007.
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a variance from
the Zoning Code requirements for the property located at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, property
_ zoned B-3, Highway Business, and legally-described as follows:
Lot 30, Block 3, Greenfield Plat 2,Except the North 10 Feet thereof,' Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, after the site plan for the development located on the subject property had
been approved, it was discovered that the setback of tiie driveway onto County Road I did not
meet the minimum requirement of 50 feet; and,
WHEREAS, as originally proposed, the setback af the driveway was 37 feet from the
intersection; and,
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2001 the City Council approved a revision of the site plan
which relocated the access from County Road I to Greenfield Avenue; and, .
WHEREAS, the setback of the relocated access onto Greenfield Avenue is 39 feet from
the intersec�ion, two feet further away than originally proposed yet still inconsistent with City
Code requirements; and,
WHEREAS, a public heazing was held regarding this variance amendment on
Wednesday, December 13, 2001; and,
N�W, THEREFORE, BE IT RES�LVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
- finds that the hardship criteria articulated in Resolution 633-00 (included herein by reference)
apply to this amendment in addition to the following:
Resolution 681-01
pecember 19, 2001
Page 2
1. The iesolution approving the variance for the reduced building and parking lot setbacks, _�
the reduced parking lot width and the reduced off-street parking ratio for this development
should have included the reduced driveway setback.
2. The original location of the driveway onto County Road I was set back as far as possible
(37 feet) from the intersection given the location of the building, and as far as possible
from the adjacent Tom Thumb driveway.
The relocated driveway onto Crreenfield avenue was set back as far as possible (39 feet)
from the intersection while znaintaining an adequate setback from the adjacent property to
the south, in an effort to prevent any loss of approved parking stalls.
4. The relocated driveway is two feet further away from the intersection than the original
plans indicatec3.
5. The relocation onto Greenfield Avenue is a safer alternative rather than taking direct
access onto County Road I.
b. The reorientation of the parking lot elizninates ihe need for a variance for the parking lot
width, originally shown to be 61 feet where 63 feet is required. The revised site plan
shows a parking lot width of 64 feet, which complies with City Code.
,- .
;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning �
Commission amends Resolution 633-00 by removing the allowa.nce for a bl-foot wzde parking lot
and by allowing a 39-foot driveway setback from the in�ersection of County Road I and
Greenfield Avenue related to the office building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that all other provisions and
allowances articulated in Resolution 633-00 shall remain in effect and in force.
Adopted this 19`" day of December, 2001
Jean Miller, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Community Development D'uector
(SEAL)
I�S:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEV4DEVELOPMENT CASES\VR00-007 (MEZZENGA)\RESOLUTION 681-OO.DOC
'1
Item # 8
City of Mounds View
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: December 19, 2001
Title:
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTTON 681-01, A RESOLUTION SETTING THE PLANNIl�IG
COMMISSION'S 2002 MEETIlVG SCHEDUI,E.
IntYOduction:
The Planning Commission establishes its meeting schedule each year by resolution.
Discussio�::
The meeting schedule proposed for 2002 represents the usual every first and third Wednesday. There
are two meetings with potential conflicts that the Plaiuvng Commission should discuss: (1 } the first
meeting in July would fall on the day before the 4`h of July holiday; and, (2) the second meeting in
November would fall on the day before Thanksgiving. These meetings are currently listed on #he
schedule, but can be removed if the Commission so chooses.
The proposed meeting schedule is consistent with the Municipal Code as well as the Commission's
own Bylaws.
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution 681-01, a resolution establishing the 2002 meeting schedule of the Planning
Commission.
Jim Atkinson
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Resoiution 681-Oi
Y:�DATAIGROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM120U2 Meeting Dates Report.doe
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 681-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY �F RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTIDN ESTABLISHING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES
AND APPLICANT SUBMISSI�N SCHEDULE DATES FOR YEAR 2002
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission will be holding two
business meetings per month during the year 2002; and,
WHEREAS, developers, citizens or other interested parties should be advised of
deadlines for materials used by staff to prepare reports used by the Planning
Commissioners to decide on a particular developmeni issue; and,
WHEREAS, a display of ineeting dates and submission deadline dates should be
established to provide an orderly system for use by the Planning Commission, staff and
general public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Comrnission of
the City of Mounds View establishes meeting and submission timetable dates setting
deadlines for submission of materiais for agenda sessions of the Planning Commission.
BE IT FURTHER RES�LVED that Exhibit A, attached hereto, becomes an
integral part of this resolution.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that if the Planning Commission is required to or
desires to hold special or emergency meetings, they will do so in accordance with State
law, Code requirements and its Bylaws.
Adopted this 19t� day of December, 2001.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
O:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�Res. 681-01 - 20�2 Meeting bates.doc
,
i
�
/
�
, �) _
�
�
�-
�
V
a
'F-
�m
_
�
W
�
W
V
�
C�
C
�.+
d
�
�
.N
N
.�
�
U
C
.0
�
�
�
�
�
i
� � � � ..tC�l � � � �F � 'r" � �r�. �1
�' � Rl C37' LD i� J�. [;[7 R� �7 � t'�7 ;� 1�
� T �,I � �f Ex3 � �t'�,! C�!
r.., s� r` `�? � F,. �� � � � � � G� �
� �
� � � � � �o� �
� � � ���. � ��
�- �, �' c� � r�a y�� r-� 'p� c��, �° a-�� '/...*�� �..�y
T '��'YI � � M1 "v �V � � '� } vl ti ' J
:� r� �.� y d' ♦� }tl1 �/�� �. �, 7 � �� 4/��� 1� �, � �� �r �/�yry
�� 4� �R �1 1 l� 1li�i . .. L 'Y � . `� �l � J :
+ r 7�' •�
d y3 ' Yr� �. ' ` '4 V • 'Y � �2 IM� �, .� � T�� �' '� C��i L �1 '.�
V 1 � �' �
� �� �
._. ..._.. . ... '
V
� Y f � ��� � � �� �. � � � 4 Y +f �i'.�� � �+i %��i
! � �— �' .� 4 �D k V � �� �� �� � T~ � R.� � b �i
�!^ iwac �' �"rr � �" � 'N+
� � � f r� � . � � �, � � T�. �� �
�� � ��; o�� �� � o� �
.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
�.� �.��� ��,� :E r-��
� � r r-- ['�' T � t�-� L;'�J '{`�i ; � '� � � �i
� ��w ,
�'E"��t� � �"' �"„� �c� � c*�c���
T �
� � ��
i
,
' � €�1! C73 � C� J `o' �p' � � � � �� � �
� r- r�a a.r� � � r- r� ' � ea �ri
� � �'' � N c�i � �- � �*1
i-- I� "�. +�' �} � i'�3 � 1"� � � I� d- �-•
T t�l �[ � l� t�I 'r 'r �'�M C�}�
� � �.� o�� .� ����
r� �'�i �- .�- � c� �
� � ��,.��� b' �..�-� ,� �`'�'�-��
�, ' � �- "' � i�s ,�;.y e� � �t �' �, �- ,r-� cxa ;
. � r � a�a : � � � � :�t3 ,�- c*�! e+�
�5 . � � � � �' � � r�i' � � �' � �' � � �.
W. �--� �
i
�a� +� �c�
� �:��� ���c,� �`"'��ac�
� � � � � � � � � �
'-'� 'ar �. � cv '� .�. � � � �' ..- � �.
.,.
;� �,,� � r� � ,-.. ,�,� �, � s�-�i � �y c�a � t�a
r-- �-- c� � � r� � � � �+,i
� ( '�'j r � � � O'D� � e�v � �" r- c�
�'"` � J � r� 4 � �`` � 4� � '�' � ' 4"��
._-� .�- .--�
� � �� �€�� � ���'.
'�� � � � c�t �' � �+,r �a � � '°� � t�+.�. rr� `
� � ca � � � � � ,� '�' � � � vc� ;�' � ��*1
� � �
�
Q
rn
� �
� N
C�
Q O �
���
�oo
w�a
W
� O W O
� O � O
�
� � �
c� � � �
��om
�,.���
� �, ti
a���
�o�.�,
C � V C
�+ "� � N
��o�
E � V �
� � � �
U ��
N L7'1— ,,_,
Q � Q �
c����
o E � o
� � � >
��.� a�
�
�°�°
� �� � a
�Y��
� � � o
���,U
�
v�
c
�
a�
N N
� �
� �
� �
�
N
�
0