HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 Planning Commission PacketsI�IOiJI�1I�S `lIE1� PI..AI�dI�II�G CO�Ii��IS�ION
� Janua�°g� b, 1999
7000 Pa�10
REC�ULAR I!�[EETIlV �
AGENDA
Call to Order
2. Roll Cal1
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the A�enda
� :' ��:':;� � ��,. f�,:; ►� � f:`�' � : "'1;1. ; `
� _r � �� . � - � � .. �;r r: :�. ; � ;�� � ;�� - � ;r� � �
4. Approval of Minutes
December 2, I948
5. Ptanni�g Cas� I�o. 540-9�
Property Involved: 8444 Greenwood Drive
;�: Cansideration of Resolution No. 567-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a
Minar Subdivision Request to Divide the Property Located at 8444 Greenwood Drive
- into twa parcels.
Appiicant: Danny Danielson
6. Plannirag Cas� No. 539-98 (Public Hearing)
Property Tnvoived: 5364 Clifton Drive
Consideration of Resolutian No. 568-99, a Resolution Approvin� a Variance Request
to Allow for a Garage which Exceeds the Ma�mum Permitted Height hy One Foot.
App�icant: Daniel Gates, Property Owner.
7. Staff Reports/Information Items
a. Review of Previous Councii Action
�. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
(Immediateiy Following Regular Meeting)
*��*���������**:�����������:���**�**�����:�
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQLTESTED. PLEASE NOTTFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
�:��������n*���*�m��������x**����*��m�����
AGENDA MEETING
AGENDA
Review of the December 16, 1998, minutes of the Planning Cominission
N:�DATAIGROUPS1COMbEV�PLAPICO(vfM1PCAG ENDA\ 1998112-2-98.AGN
i
� ��; ; ;�. ;, � . � - �; � • �, \
Ii�eetir�g i�ate:
�t�#i 72epor°i by:
Pl�r��ing Cas� IYo.
ltequest:
Applieani:
Address:
P� #:
Zonin�/I�and �Jse:
Lo� Sez�:
A�piicabie Regutations:
January 6, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
540-9�
Nlinor Subdivision {Lot Split)
Danny Danielson
�444 Greenwood Drive
06-30n23-1I-0�45
R-1, Single Family Residentiat
55,25�.4 square feet (1.27 acres}
� Sur�eyor's C�rtr�icaiea �ection i202.01, Subd. 3b requires that the applicant provide a
certificate of survey prepared by a Minnesota registered land surveyor.
� �Vlieairnurn I,ot Siz� and �idths: Section 1104.42, Subd. Zb, as amended by Ordinance
590, sets the minimum inCerior lot size at 1 I,000 square feet. The minimum width for
interior lots is i5 feet.
�
0
Provfsior� of Easements: Section I2Q;.04 requires that drainage and utility easements be
provided in the event of property subdivisions.
P�arlc I3ecfication Fee: Section 1204.02 requires that a par3c dedication fee be paid in an
amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the land vaEue of the property to be subdivided.
A,ttach�reents:
Planning Appiication
Zoning 1�Iap
Certificate of Survey (Separate Attachment)
Resolution No. 567-99
Backgrounde
The applicant, Danny Danieison, representing his parents Ernest and Marlene Danielson, is
requesting City approval of a rninor subdivision to create two lots from their property iocated at
8444 Greenwood Drive. The City's subclivision reguEations atlaw for approval of a surveyor's
certificate in these situations. A copy of the surveyor's certificate showing the praposed ]ot split
is attac�ed. This pro�er�y currently has 23�.98 feet of frontage on Greenwaod Drive and is 234
feet deep. There is a home and �ara�e on the na�-th half of this iot. The applicant proposes fo
split off the south 78.01 feet of the existinJ ]ot to create an t 8,Z5� square-foot interior lot. Both
dimensions exceed �he minimum estab�ished by the City's Zoning Code.
Danielson Minor Subdivision
8444 Greenwood Drive
Planning Case No. 540-98
January 6, 1998
Page 2
Tssuesa
Staff sent a letter to the appiicant dated 12/21/98, in which three items were pointed out with
regard to the survey which would need to be changed prior to Council approval. Those items are
(1) show ali required easement areas, (2} add a signature block for the property owners and City's
signatures, and (3) change the title to read "Certificate of Survey." In a previous letter, dated
i 1/24/98, staff requested that text be added to the survey to read "Separaie drainage and utility
easement documents consistent with those areas so noted on this Certificate af Survey have been
recorded wiih Ramsey County. "
The proposed legal descriptions and certificate of survey have been reviewed by the City's
Engineeri��g Technician, who finds them in comp[iance with City standards save for the above-
mentianed changes. Staff has sent a copy of the survey to the City Attorney for his comments and
to arrange for the drafting of easement documents to convey the drainage and utility easements as
shawn on the survey.
The only issue that e�cists with regard to this request is the paric dedication requirement as stated
in Sectian 1204.02 of the Municipal Code. Because the area to be subdivided is greaier than one
acre, the Code specifies that a ten percent (10%) park dedication fee is required to be paid before
the subdivision can be approved. According to the Ramsey County assessor's records, this land is
valued at $47,700. Ten percent of that would amount to $4,47�. Subdivision 3 of this Section,
however, allows for the exclusion of the land under the e�sting home remaining after the
subdivision. With this exclusion, the dedication requiremeni would be reduced 66 percent to
$1,475.
Recommendatioi�:
Approve Resolution 567-99, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of this
minor subdivision subject to stipulations.
James Ericson, Pianrting Associate
N;\pf1TA\GROUP5ICOI�-IDGVIDEVC.-�.SES1540 J81Dt1��itJYSON,PCI
i
aa. �cy> ,W,ry
wJ
1\�J�:A�•� �i
�
d
w ••ra,,�r.
'.o �ii:a ;'.Y!
�o��r� " Partne�st`�Q`
��1�1 D��° X.���'��� ��' �r��! �° 1�i
- L���ee��lbar.lV L tS.tia�.e�lAll�l�
2401 I�ghway 10, �iounds �ew �1' 55112
612�7Ii-4020
bI2b78493462 � FA�
Please 7'Cype �� p��yi �fae�eaeion 9�o��riete �ot� Sir3e��ef Tl�es 1�'0��-- __� _-. ..._
ripplica�t Informaifon
Name of App[ican� ,�RNE'S � qc /L%/� � I� d E Ui4lUll�`� , .
Address � _ - 5��/ Telephone ° 7 �/ �-/ � —
_ ''___'t__` .."_ _ � �O � -' i� - . ..
� .. . ... .w,�,..--..,..,��,,;.{ •[• _ �"h � ,� 5�4,_ Y� ` . �- F�C '_ _ .. "T� _ .
. . .. . ,.... . .. . . . . .._ .. . - '..... �. _ ,: ._ .e. _._. , . _•_' _.... . .. _ . _. _ _ . , ..:,� ,r q X �' � ai-. a'rd�_. �. ..� vm� .�J....`....�
_ . . _ ___�.._.. -�.�_........._....__ - - - . t...- . _. .
� ' - -__.__ .. . . ...�,...... ....-.._
. . ... . .. _ . _ .,. _.....�..M.... �
. _ . . . „_ _ -._..,.........:.... �_��....,,.�:���_.
, Irnteresi in �ropee°�y (cf�eck apgropriatc box) _ �. _ '----.-.�-..._._ -----.--.
� � Owner ofProp�ty -- _ 1 � ; Go�tracc for De�d Ocv�aer - . ` _
; -. ; ❑
_ o '_ Lessee, Opee-ator,Manffger� - -'_' _ . . ' . ... _
Q ._ Othrr (explain) -- _ ., . __ , _ ..a . -, Agre�vae�e to Purchase �. r:_ -� - - _ , .
rippdi�,ants must,pt-ovi�le eviderecs,of iatere�t i� propec°t]r��i ttse ta�xe of appGcaiion9 a�d ifyou are �xot tbe oevne�° aitlte
- P�P��Y9 Yo� m�sg pr+odide � tet�r of p��is�io� f�o� t�e o�sergivia�g co�se�e to t�� %ling of t6i� �gpis°caeioe. 'I'Fa� _
� _ � -. = P�oPe�tY oa�er �ua� aeg� chis app�ea�ioa for it eo bc $ccepeedo . LL- . _.: ;=, _
,..1: _ - --- .. -__.
_ ,.. � ,
�:... �, _, ,:. _ ;
—'Propeedy J�e9et�iptio�'roposal _ , sw.� . � ._ .. . . . . .
�s Addr�ss or�G�eneral Loca�ion �'�j --. _.(� ._ - � -= 'D z . ._
`, ,. ., � Legal Desczipaoet �. L 4 _ . _ . , � -.- _. _ t _ _ .
_. PFOpeTty Td�ti�ca on�# {PTN �� � �;`; � �'�.. �� � .: F _ f._, � . R_.. : �r� ; . _ � �
�� ,. ::l , ��'�' ,� 'R (a�oi/ _ _
'$y` _ ., : ., � _ - \ _ �} - 4f� E � __ J �f � . ' .
� ~ L f� p�..� .
. . current �oni.ng . .__ . _ -- t� � %i L - . . _ . ; , .
Typc of Application < . .
- � CampreE�e�ve Plan A�eadmene
Q Rezocung
a Major Subdivision
� Minor Subdivision .
❑ Piannc� Unit Developmeat (PUD}
Q PUi3 Am�ndment
Q Co�ditio�a! Use Permit
Q Variance _
a - Cod� App��
� o Deve(op Revietiv/Site Plan
� Weelar�d Alteratian Pet�ie
a Weeiand Buti'er Pezmie
Q Floodpiain Pemvt
� Ottt�r
$250 _
�ZSO/acre; msn 5250 max �ISOQ
$250 + �254 d�posit�'
S20p
Reter to c-ezoa.i.ng fees
S3�a
R-[. R-2 �,75; all others �250
R-1. R-2 � I00 all others �250
�I00
� 125/acre; mia � i 25 ��,�c �7�p
. R-i. R-Z � I50: atI ottzers �200 -
12-1, It-Z �25; all others $! 00
�Z00
---�•�•'; .
'�Denosits shall be paid to cov�r al! costs ot'public notices, ma«riais aaad stat�`or consutt�nc time speac in t�e revietiv,
r�s�arch or prc�aratiora of materiats assoiiated tivith this applic,aaion. Tii� applic�nc shall be resporgsible tor all c�asoIIabl�
incurred cnsts in excess ot th� inttiaE deposit amouaa� Acav portion of the �posit nat a-pent or �ncumbered sha11 be r��d�
ta th� applicant withzn thirty (;p) d�ys att�r considecation of th� app[icacion is compieced
�ie�� coe�pdete th� r�verse �id� oithe� appiicanoo.
- i
City ot' ci+loun�s View, �[�! �
)JeveIopment rlppfication �� _ Pa�e �
Present Llse o�Prope7ty
�7 Uttdevefaped/Vacant
� Duple�criwo Fanuly Dweliin�
� Business/Commercial Eseablishmertt
Q OEher {explain) -
❑ Sin�Ic Farraily Dwefiing
a Mutei-famiIy Dwelling
Q Ind�ia! EstablisEurr�nnt
-..-.-.- -_-�, . .- � __ ...-Z 7Z..�...-. .r . ..:RY.c.'. ...: r..: . .', :..- _ . . . ..
Property Class�catian �
Descriptioa ofFroposa4 �
Abstraci Q Torreas
,. , . _ . ,
_ -. L .
_,...-_-___ _.._.. ,. , , .-__..''.i:.'. ..""�..'___._ . :::.. _.. "_ '_'_
1 `� "f"n M e_ � ►� , .� -� � ! /. ,..'f° .� �. �� � �-
" 1; ,._ - �_•_�:: .� .t__i. ���. » „ _
BY 1ei�! (OUR) SIGNATLT� ON TI�IS Ai'i'LfCATION. I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY -
I�1OWI.EDGE, THE INEaF�fATIQN PROVIDFb IS iitCTE AND �4CCURATE. ��4�.-_ . .,
... ,. _ _.. . . __,_..._ ..-- _ _ - -- _ _ �:.---�- �-- - _ _ • - --. _. .. . __ _ _ _ _: __ . .
--._,. �.
Signature of Applicant ' ��
-..-- ----�- �-
.. . ,. _
. .. _ ...-- -
Name of Appiicant (typecf/p�nted) ^.: : .: .: . ., � S � � �d4 i�. j �' � C
_ _ -.., . . -- � --.
_ __ ,__. � . .. _ .
� - . _ - .. _ .. qs.��,,-�_ .. . _, . _._
_ -,
�• -- - - - - � _.....:..
Signatur� of Property Owner - - - -
Name of Praperry Owner (typed/priated) _ : - � A/E ,��'F NE � . �E �.5 D ' ° --' ' -
� _ Address o£ Owner '. _ � � � y ' C i2.: � --. � ; - .Ao-_( ) � 2. ; �. , '.-�- "- �
;� _� . � . , '- . _, . �.. .i �. _ ' Z1.:.t,
.. .�_. .. . . ,.'.- � � _.�. �,i v�.. p. .�rV _ _ `��' . '
'` �i�l �l� �+ _
.. - A_ �{-L kb,s� ��Ec.rlJ //�N� _ ..�. .. a <- - _
. .�
,. _.. , .. .
....._.. w � . • . . �,�
Phoue Number af �wuer 6 I�=% c�' y- 7 U��J :
�������**���a�ra����� �«�a����a����«*����*������e���*���+�������������*������*������a ��e��*�a�������*�ffi����:�
FaR �k�"ICE IJSE Ol�ii,Y
Date of Submittal Oy � p, � q q "
Date of Acceptanc� D EG � 4 � � g� g Assigned to: ��vR� ��1.
Ptaniung Case Ivo. 5�f 0�� 60�y Lianit �-��- 4 g I20-�fay iimit �- 1�-�i �
Fees Paid: Aecnu�[ m Check � Receipt R
Apgiication: aoG - oo '
Par�: Dedicatioa: �� � � "�� -'
Deposits: ` -
Other:
Total:
N:'DAT.�IGROUPS�COhtDEV\FOR,l1S1DEV,�PP.FOR -.'-: - . •••
1I48
� oi<c� �
49�i�ir� � Q 8494 g49�� fl I
INf�' N `� I �C°Q
8490 848
Sa85 84fl4 847 i 3d7C
8475 8475
a��� sa�s adss
Y 34b5 8464 8a65 8ab7
� Sa55 845� 8455 � 8��'' p,dFS
84�3 8444 � �4d: � 8�4-� 8453
g43� ��34 8a33 I 8432 8441
8425 8424
---�m-- — �^
°��tic
�
rt �� � �
co (�`'�
8464 p
'9�
ea5a �.
. 8� ���
S42§ 8428 8424 8425
aa� 5 sa� a � V_^ �
84�05 84a4 8415 8408 8455 8a15 8408
H374 8390 8405 8400 8400 O 8405 ��� ���
8395
8384 8395 8���
8373 8381 839Q 8395 83H8
8370 8385 8370
8379 8380 g3�5 8384
8360 8375 8,360
Q 835a 8355 83�0 �37` 83i6
8375 8378
� 8345 8340 8345 8344 83�q 8372 ��65 �350
8331 $�3� 8335 ( 8��� 8357 8344 �325
I
8325 832� 8.3z �
8J15 8320 8�15 8318 8323 ° 8320 8315 83�
930� 8310 c� 83�5 83i0 �321 8300 8305 833a
0
8295 9290 � 8291 8290 8285 �290 8295 8310
azs� 8280 � 8283 B�apcn az73� saao a az7�
Q eaaT az7Q v�i ez71 � az�a � °o a�oo
� 82i3 � 82fi5 8260 � 8267
82fia 826t 8260 Z
8250 8251 � 8250 8255 825� w 8255 828�
SZ67
8261 P 824-0 � u� �• a, 8241 8242 � � � 82fiQ
� �
SZ�rJ f N [V CV N� N N SZ31 t0 8Zt2 � N h �ZrJO
fa,%C /'°r�DA1V P9�G1`oU�
N'1 N � � Q O N v t0
� I � ,D' �` �I �, � �, :� zv
N cV M N (V (V I cV I
BLCi'r3
8193 8224
8212
8185
3206
H171 8200
d1o5 � 81�0
8145 I 81�0
0
C
N
�
�
::�.���
I
AR DAN � �:`::�:��.:;_;.:, �`
PARK
828� N �
�Z�i
. tg24% I � !��.•.�
8239 � :.: �
822d �
8217
32C5 �
�:=-; :: . :•::•::+ :•:•:•: . _ �
81a5 !
81„5 V r °' `V fl14Q 81.:5 �
@
� 8/ �`si\ 81 � 1 !
312�� 8t4Q 31� �r �'�2 812? , 8Z2E °
n h i p� 1� f� O°1 � � � .. . � ,,,•� � 1'1 h I tV py .e
�3 h (D U'S 'C` Y Q O��� dQ P� � 4°1 {n j 'L,+ �
F'1
�• ��� fl 7 2 12 �`O 1D �u � ca ca 81 l 1 in <n �a ': :�-, �nI �n u� !8 i C 810 i cv u� I�n �
C�t NI CV N CV N CY CV C`F � CV ':.' lV CV j N N I
5� �wcca
,� � � � � j
8C81 � N��' 8C88 8075 � r'�i I`,,v° 4499 �� � 8085 � c�'v � c`nv � 8086 8Q85 � �, � i 8080 8C
� , ......� �071 � .,,.�.. I Rn7� � i .,,.�. - I ry„ 1---
�r
Zonin� Map Plan�i�g Case j�0-98
f�.pplicant: I�anny Dac�i�lson
�,ocation: �444 Greenwood Driv�
—'�:.<:'�i��.
1
' ; ;�� ' � �.�,�: ., � ,��:.., , . ., \� �� . : . . :� : . ; i,�: �'..
� � .. '� '... ''. ��. `. ., .,1. ,. ��: '����.
�_. � - .. _. ;�� : \. ,F: '.., _
, ,,� ': � �`� '!. �. �� �, �
r � r���� �� ��� � .
� r � . �. :: �. . f.��. :: ,.,;�. . ; ;�; �. f<. ,; ; � ,f:.
� ,�� ;• �� .,. ���, �. . ��; : � :��� � ��: -,. ; ; E ,; . , �. �, � �,, �. .� .i; � . �
�� � ��; � �� �i � � � �, . ► �� : . f��. �, �: �� r�� � ,
WHEREAS, Danny Danielson, representing parents Ernest & Marlene Danielson, has
requested approval for a minor subdivision dividing property located ai 8444 Greenwood Drive,
property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally descrihed as foiiows:
7'he ,S'outh 234 9� F'eet of Loi 5, Bl�ck 1, Danielso�a ,4cddi�iosz,
Ru»rsey County, Siate o�'11�linnesotra
1hTHEREAS, the two lots created by ihis minor subdivision, Parcel A(the northern parcei
with the existing home} and Parcel B(the southern parcel) would be legally described as follows:
Parcel A: 7'he North 155.9i Feet ojthe,South Z34 98 �'eei ofLot �, �dock 1,
I�anielso�t Ad�lation, County of Rarrpsey, Staie of 1llirtnesotr�
Parcei B: 7'he South 7� OI l�'eet of Lot 5, Block 1� Dl8i2ICISUiI f�l�[�ItlOiB� County o�'
�4�msey, �'taie of hti�anesata
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the appticant's request far a minor
subdivisian and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1 I04, 1201, and I202 of
the Municipal Code; and
VV�IEREAS, the Plannin� Commission finds that the appticant's request for a minor
subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate and Plat of Survey for the above
described property; and,
WI�EREAS, the Engine�ring Technician for the City of Mounds View has reviewed the
proposed minor subdivision and has found it acceptab�e with stipuiations as noted herein; and,
WHEREAS, ail subdivisions of land are subject to a park dedication fee as required in
Sectio� 1204.02 of the Municipal Code
N4W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Pianning Commission
recommends approval oFthe minor subdivision request made by Danny Danieison, of 8444
Greenwoad Drive, contingent upon the foliowing;
Danielson ivlinor Subdivision
Resolution No. 567-99
�
January 6, 1999
Page 2
Prior to City Councii action on this request, the Certificate of Survey shall be
revised to show the foilowir�g:
a. Text shaU be added to the certificate which stafies; "Separate drainage and
utiiity easement documents consistent with those areas so noted on this
Certificate of Survey have been recorded with Ramsey County."
b. A signature block shail ba added which bears the names of the property
owners (Ernest & Marlene Danielson) and the Mayor and City
Clerk/Administrator (Daniei Coughlin and Charles S. Whi�ing, respective(y}
The title of the survey sha11 read "Certificate of Sut-vey. "
2. The applicant sha(1 make payment of a park dedication fee oi $1,475 according to
the �-equirements in Seciion 120G,02 of the Iviounds View Municipal Code.
3. Befare building permits can be issued, the following shall occur:
a. The applicant shall record the City Council resoiution of approval, the
Certificate of Survey and the drainage and utility easement documents with
Ramsey County within si�y (60) days of final adoption, and presen� proof
of such recording to the City of Mounds View. �'ailure to record these
documents or provide proof of such recordation shall cause this approval
� to be nuil and void.
BE IT FURTHE� RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff
to forward this resolution to the City Council prior io approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 6tii day of January, 1999,
ATTEST:
Jerry Peterson, Planning Commission Chairperson
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
i I:�DATAIGROUPSICOMDEVU7EVCASES\540-481567-99PC.RES
�o
0
�
�o �
0
J
�
o;
�
�
��
00
�a
�
�,
�
�
�
z
z
�
, . �
�
a
��
,
o�
m�
�
�
�,
�
\`
ax
c° c"
�m�
�
�M
6� _
� N
r,
W
O
(,a
�
r `
i� �\\
_ ..,__ Q � �$��a� � � TM��o.o2 a — � ,�.me� — �
� a
�� �- �
(��
�
r� ` �
u �
� I �
D O �D � ��'� �
� r �
p o i
� V i
V
�
���._.,.w��—��°�° I �
��.aa
(
�� ' ` I
� ' i
.�
���� ���
�° �,�� � °
� '�,� � I
W
�
•� I
�� _____�_____________________�
o �
�
s �� P�oPOS �
,. ��si�EN 1
� ��J`�I . � �
�
I �
�
�o � 5i.67 - ! �
� �� �
`� j o ' S
� � ' �� �
os
����b`o� i '', �o� ��
� � � 7�,01 ' 17Q.02. d5'',�
�� �� �
.° � � �' , �
��, _ — -� �
� a _ .._ �
u� cn
.o � � c� ✓1� r �.-t-� !
m
�
�:
�
�;
I 1
t
i
;. �_ ��, �, ;. ,� ; ; � ��: z � �
Ii�Ie�fiin� I}ate:
��;�if �epor°� by:
�I�nni�ig Case l�fo.
iteq aeest:
Applic�nt:
�.ddress:
PIA1 #:
�oneng/I,7nd Use:
T.o� Saze:
Ap�lAeable �tegulatio�s:
0
0
January 6, I999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
545-98
Accessory Building Height Variance
Dan Gates
5364 Clifton Drive
0�-30-23-14-Q042
R-1, �ingle Family Residential
10,449 Square �eet {.24 acres)
Section I 125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria io 6e used by the P(anning Commission in its
review of variances.
Section 1 I06.03, Subd. lc states that no accessory building shall exceed 15 feet in height.
Attachments:
Planning Appiication
Zoning Map
Resolution No. 568-99
Background:
The applicant, Dan Gates, is requesting approvai of a variance to permit his under-construction
garage ta exceed the maximum height provision of 15 feet. The proposed height af the garage is
16 teet. The basis of the request is two-fold. The applicant would like the roof-line ofthe new
garage to nnatch the roof-line of the house, which has a fair[y steep s(ope. The other reason for
the variance request, and the basis for the hardship, is that the Ciiy is requiring iv1r. Gates' work
truck to be parked within his garage or to have it removed from the property altogether. (His
work tn.ick is a commercial vehicle as defined by City Code and as such is not allowed to be
parked outside in a residential district.) Because the truck is too tall to fit within a typically sizeci
jarage, Mr. Gates needs to install an eleven-foot garage cloor, thus raising the height of the
proposed garage by one foot.
On August I3, 1998, the applicant obtained a buiidin; permit to expand his garage, which
involved movin�q the existing garage baci: approximately fourteen feet and construciin� additional
garage space with a new door in tE�e front, to match the frant line and roof line of tl�e house.
:�fter having received an anonymaus complaint about commercial vehicles parked at the
applicant's house, sta�sent a fetter dated 9/4/98 which infarmed the applicant of the City Code
requirement prohibiting commercial vehicles fram bein� pa.rked outside in a residential district.
' � � R�.
��`
----�---�� � ---� �—_�17o.Q2 � —.— � ._—
v �
� 39.0 '°
� fTl �
SX o
� �
\� � � IB.O �
`��� ♦
'�� "'� Z�6 N
� __��� °
� /
i ��6
, ,
,� ,
, ,.
� �
; ��
, � �
,, � o
, �
,
� 9�v. J
o i
� �
� �� I
�� �
U ^��
.�
�
�
� �
i�
/ .n p \ �
f � �
\
1 m \
1 `9i
t o
�
� `
+ `�
�
�
1
/
/
i
�
�
I��
1
��
i t
I �
�
I
�I
�, �
��
�
tl
o ,�
� �
, � i �
,, �
N � �
� � �
O { �
O I
I
�—°—°r—°---��A.e—�---�.�_�e��m._.�.m_.a�����-----°�
�7o.oa !
� �
� �� 1
� I
� m �
i J.
� X . �
C N �
mZ �� I
k
� ��
�
�� � ���
, �
�rboo� r
; � 170.02. - °� l�
�
�:
� , i �
_�°
I :
° 40�. Qo � -
V _,_ C(y�
�_--6a6�1 °
� �.Yt� - ��
�n �
�n a�
� ���� ;
�
�
� �: ; �: :�� �� � • �- �� _ - ,�.= �� �, `�_
IVieeiir�g Da�e:
Stst�' 12epor-i by:
1'laaanea�g Case I�o.
I�eq�eest:
.�ppCican�:
Address:
PTl� #:
Zoneng/L.a�d CJse:
Lo� Si��:
Applic�ble Reg�als�tions:
e�
�
3anuary 6, i 999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
545-98
Accessory Buiiding Height Variance
Dan Gates
5364 Clifton Drive
OS-30-23-14-0042
R-1, Single Family Residential
14,449 Square Feet (.24 acres}
Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Pianning Commission in its
review of variances.
Sectian 1(06.03, Subd. Ic siates that na accessory building shall exceed 15 feet in heigh�.
Attaclame�is:
Planning Application
Zoning Map
Resolution No. 568-99
�ackg�-ound:
The app(icant, Dan Gates, is requesting approval of a variance to permit his under-construction
�arage eo exceed the maximum heijht provision of 15 feet. The proposed height of the ;arage is
16 feet. The basis of the request is two-fold. The applicant would like the roof-line of the new
gara,�e to match the roof-line of the house, wI-iich has a fairly steep slope, The other reason for
the variance request, and the basis for the hardship, is that the City is requiring Mr. Gates' work
truck �o be parked within his garage or to have it removed from the property altogether. (His
work truck is a commerciai vehicle as defined by City Code and as sucl� is not ailowed to be
parked outside in a residential district.) Because the truck is too tall to fit within a typically sized
garaae, Mr. Gates needs to install an e[even�faot gara;e door, thu� raising the height of the
�roposed garage by ot�e foot.
On August 13, 1998, the app[icant obtained a building permit to expand his garage, which
invoived movin�,� the existing garage back approximately fourteen feet and constructing addi�ional
�araae space with a new door in the front, to matcl� the front [ine and roof line of the house.
:�fter having receivecf an anonymatas complaint abouT commercial vehicles parked at ttae
applicant's Itouse, stafi sent a leiter dated 9/4/98 which informed the applicant of the City Code
r�c�uirement prohibiting commercial vehicles from being parked autside in a residential district.
; 'r- ;:_ ; ;; ;
,
, ,.
;: ,
, ,: :' . �: -
- _ ...:' : ;_
�:: <
<
_.. _. .__... ,.
-_ -- ,
„ .,.: �
Gates Variance
Plannin� Case No. 545-98
January b, 1999
Page 2
The appEicant then approached the City Cauncil on October 12, 1998 in an effort to resolve the
situation by means of a special use permit or a"grandfathering" action. Mr. Gates related that the
truck has been there for years and his home is the only place to canveniently park the vehicle, Tn
response, the Council explained that this particular ordinance was put to a vote of the community
and the comrnunity decided that commercial vehicles were not appropriate in residential districts.
Staff is duty-bound, the Council added, to enforce the Codes of the City to the best of its ability.
As a result of this exchange, Mr. Gates resolved to alter his bui[ding plans to be able to park his
vehicle inside.
Analysis:
For the Planning Commission to grant a variance, it must examine the criteria establisiied in
Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2�f the City Code, which relate to hardships. Specifically, a
variance may orrly be granted in thase cases where t�e Code imposes undue hardship or practical
difficulties to the property owner. The individual criteria, with responses, are as foilows:
a, Exceptional or extraordirrary circumstances apply to the pYOperry which does not apply
geriercrlly to other pi•opef�ties rfr the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or
shape, topography or other circtrnrstances over tivhich the owner�s of the property since
the ef'fective date hereof have had �ao cor�trol.
The appEicant has been instructed by the City to either park his work vehicle in his garage
or remove it from the property. This is resulting from a Code requirement that restricts
commercial vehic�es from being parEced outside on a residential district. To accommodate
the truck, the building plans for the under-construction garage were revised, going from a
ten-foot door to an eleven-foot daor. The additional foot puts the height of the garaQe at
16 feet instead of ehe or�ginally-proposed 15 feet.
b. The literal rt�teYpretatio�7 of the pj•ovrsior�s of thrs Title tivozrld deprrve the applicant of
rights commvf�ly enjoyec� by olher propertres rtt the same distrrct ��nder the terms of this
Title.
The literal interpretation of the [anguage regarding accessory buiiding height, if upheld,
would require the applicant to demolish the work already cfone on the gara�e expansion
(i.e., remove footings, fou�dation, slab, walls) so as to excavate one foot deeper, repour
the floor, reinstall the footings and foundation. If the �arage floor were excavated as such
one foot deeper, no variance would be required as the height of accessory buildings is
measured from the exteriar grade, not the interior floor elevation.
4
Gates Variance
Planning Case No. 545-98
January b, 1999
Page 2
c. That the specinl condiliotts or ci��crrnastances• do ��o[ restrlt from ihe actiai�s of lhe
applrcant.
While Mr. Gates is responsible for owning a vehic3e which does not conform to City
Code, he is attempting to correct Ehe situaiion by constructing a garage with a one-foot
variance in order to park the vehicle inside.
d. That grauting the va�iance requested will not confer on the applicant a�ty special
privrlege that is denred by lhis Title to owrrers uf other lands, strucltrres or btrildings in
Phe same district.
Granting this variance wi11 not confer on the applicant any special privilege, in that siaff
wouid instnici future applicants intent upon parlcing an oversize vehicfes within a garage
how to make such arrangements without the need for a variance. Because staff told NIr.
Crates that the truck would need to be removed after construction had aEready started an
the garage addition, staff cou(d not offer Mr. Gates this advice.
Thcrt the +�ariance regirested is lhe rrrinimz�n7 variance which woirld allevrcrte the hardship.
Eco��omic co�rditio�rs aloj7e shall ftpt bc corrsidered a harc�ship.
In order to reconfigure tf�e garage to allow for the truck to be pariced inside, the garage
doar will need to be made one-foot taller. Because of the added door height, the garage
in turn would become one foot taller. This is the minimum variance possible with keeping
the garage raof in line with the roof of #he home,
£ The variance woirld r2ot be maierially detj•imerrtal to the pzrrpose of this Title or to other
pt•op�rty rjr the sante zorle.
Granting this variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Cade or to
other properties in the neighbarhood. Many attached Dara�es have taller roofs to match
the roof-line of the home. The one-foot increase will be im perceivable to the general
public.
g. 1 he propo�•ec� va�•ia�ice tivrll �lot rmpair arr adeqr�ate strpply of light a��d air 10 CZLIrJLIC2/l1
py�vperty oj� szrbslanticclly increcrs� the corrgestrarr of the pt�blic streets or increase the
c.�ange�• of frr�e or• ertdarlger the parblic safety or sirbsta�ltially drminish or impaij� property
vcrllres withij� the �teighhorhood
Tf�e rec�uested variance will not impair any neighboring properties' supply of liaht or air, it
. j will not create any additianal traf�ic impact nor wi[! it increase the danaer of fire or
endanger the public safety. There would not be any impact to property values in the
immediafie area.
� _ t
Gates Variance
Planning Case No. 545-98
January 6, 1999
Pa�e 2
Recorr►mend.��ion:
Approve Resolution 568-99, a resolution approving the variance request made by Dan Gates to
construct a sixteen-foot tali garage, one foot taller than allowed by Code, at his property located
at 5364 Clifton Road..
G �� �
James Ericson, Planning Associate
\:1llATA\GROUPS\CONIDEV�D E l'C.-�S ES�545-981GATC5. PC l
�
�
�+�N .�.�;
�
�•,;� °;;. j�,"� .
\ r/ l!l'�':�; I j:%`�;;
.�
a
N !J:� .�
�A ::�':.� .^<<
�n '
,•
�'YS 0 (�ftfltfl�Q
AppGcani I�fo�ation
Name ot'Applicant
.4dttress
i`
COl 1 DE`V�IJ�P11��Ii° DE��$'I�l�$dT
D��LO�IV��ii' ��.PPLIC'A'I'TON
2401 Hi,�hway i0, IVlounds Vie�uv MN 53112
61 Z-71 �'-�020
612-7�4�3452 - F�X
Pfease "�ype ot� pr9at Tnfo�xnaiio�a - Goc�plete ffioth Sides of i°bis F'orm
D a r� (� � �� �
� e7S C� �. T T' �'�
-�� g Y ; � �-J m �
' r'�) ) � a
Inier�st in �rop�riy (check appropnate box)
� C?wner of Property
❑ Lzssee, Operator, Manager
❑ Other (explain) —
Te(ephone ���' % �b'S%% �
Fax
� Can�acY for Deed Owner
Q Agreement tv Pt�chas�
r�ppGcants �ust provitfe evidence of intea°c,yt in Propei°ty at the ti,me af appGcatio�, and if yo�a are �ot tde ow�es° of ihe
P�'�Pe�3', Y�� ��sB prnvide a feeter of per�issioet ft°o� Yhc ow�e¢° n�g co�s��f to 2he f�ling o( tpti� appiicalloo. 'ihe
properry a�ner ffiust sign tlais appiicatioo for iC to be accepied,
Property IBe9cription/Proposal
Address or GG�neral Location
Legal Desc�igtian
Property Identificaeio� � (PIN �)
# of Acres
Cucrene Zoning
�
�-� ��-i �',1t-�'-�
Lv T�� � l 2 �/! �'uJdOcF d'�QC� ��
':�
�
Type of Applic�tion
Q Compreheusive Plan Amendmez�t
� Rezoning
Q Major Snbdivisioa
Q �Vfinor Subdivision
� P!anned Uni[ pevelop�n�nt (PL'D}
� PUD �nendment
� Conditiona! Use Pzrmit
� Variance
Q Code ApPeal
� Develop Revie�v/Site Plan
a Wecland Alteratioa Pennie
� Wedand $t�#%;rr P�rtnie
a Floodpiain Pezmic
a Other
S25Q
�250/acre; �irt �Z50 max S ] SOa
�%SQ + �Z50 deposie�
�200
Reier to rezaning tees
�350
R-[, R-2 57�; al! athers $250
R- l, R-2 � l Ofl a1I others �25d
�100
� 12j/acre: mi� � i 2� max �750
Ra I, R-2 � 1�0; all others �200
R- �. R-2 �25; aII at�ers � 100
5200
"Deposics shal] be naid to cover all casts ot pub(ic notices, materials and statY'or consulGant tiane s�penc i� th� revie�v,
researca or preparation oY matcrials �sso�;iated wich this application_ The applic�t snall b� resnonsible tor a1I re:LSOn�ble
incurrNa cas[s in c�ccess of [he ;stitia! cieposit aanotznt. ,�nv portion of the deoosit not sprnt or encumbered shalj b� refunded
to the applicane witlun thinv (;0) dnys aii�r Gonsideration of thr application is compfeteci
P9e:�e cocnpiei� ehe revers� siefe of thi� applieation,
_ i.
C7�1' Of ��OlIf3dS �%IeYd, iV��
Deveio rnene ;� lication 1'a�e 2
Pr�sent Use of Properry
a Undeveloped/Vacant � Single �'amily Dwelling
❑ Duple:clI'wo Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-iamily Dwelling
d $usiness/Commc;rciaf Eseablisl�ment o Indus�ia[ Establishment
Q O[her (�xplain)
Property C[assification
❑ Abstract ❑
Z !a7 o a-@ 1� 1 t�-E
�C� l� �1(�G
9 ,_�1,�1� z 11 �,A,
Torrens
� ��( ��ed�
' -� � M-, w^ J C'_
. l, f_ s.. L _. _.
.+
�
I1_�_�
i`c �a � k �i--1,� � a �, ,,., � ,- r s �l � � �, f�.`�'� � �- �.�. -�= � � s� - �J �, � k �. �
� � =� , .
BY �i(i' {QUR) SIG�IAiiJR� Oi�t THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO T� BEST OF MY
K:�fOWLEDGE, THE INFUftI�iA1`ION PR�VIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. �
Signamre or'APpiicane � a..-� /v
Name of Applicaut (typed/printed) � c� � ,��c � _ � . ,�"• c�. � � a� ,
Sig�ature ofProperty Owiter . ��� � ._' ' .. .
Name ofFroperey �wn�r (typed/printed) �� r� 1 � � �� �° a...��5 _ - , ;i
_:.
J� -� -
Address af Owner _ � 3 6 �T � � ; � '�' o•� �� � ✓i
.. .�; :
_. _ _ , _.. . -, .
. �..
f�% A�c-��� �:L..� d'�AV, - �
Phon� Number of Owner � � � ` � �C� � � j�� �
$������s��,���a�#�����������,�*�a���*�����#��������u����*��a���*,������#*��*����������»���������ga���a�*�
QR O�'IC� US� Ol�(L,Y
Date of Submi�[al ��- � j b° c1
Dn�e ot Acceptance Assigned to: �
Pianning Case No. e_ �' � �� b0-day C.imit � 1 v0-day limiE _
F�es Paid: Accounc � Chc:ck �
Application: I � � • � tc'��3 � 3 � lS� � .
Pari� Dedicacian_
Deposies: ---
Other:
Tocat:
Receipe T
��
N:'.DAT.a1GROUPSICOh(DEVtFOR.hES�DEV,�pp.FO[i i/98
• � � 55tt 5512 � 5511
^J j 5505
�a97 � 547Z 5503 � 5504 �
54gg
'�� , 5493 5494 � 5493
� � � Sd85 5488 5485
5�79 ��,�
54i3 �.�gg 5475 547� 5475
5467 ��64 54b7
, 5463 s466
5�63 5459
5456 S
,Sa55 � 4-�. C� AS� 54�3 �
5��� Q 5435 �G��O ��so 54�7 �
5441 ¢ �,�`�, ��s 5439
J��.�J� SQ ��� J433
5425 `s��,��� 5425
5421 54Z 5419
541 S 5414 �� N�? Q Q �413
J�OS S4O� (��b � N N CV N N �J4OJ
DRfVE
7 cv c0 O N v� N d O
;
PINE�IOOD
SCHOOL
5540
r'] u7 0� � u� o,
I� cn �] u'1 �' � p,�
N N N N iV ty � �
��i..�� �� r N
�r cD m o cv .�
r c� u7 �n � ,.,�
..- P- �
� N N N (V N
�n r rn P � � �
f> �D U°1 U7 � r°") �
� N N N N N N
� �O �' � •* "� � �, ° �' C° 5392 91 5392 5391
;v N N N N N � N N N N
C4 `y `�° `� �' `~ `y 53 538 538�i 538`
�
5 80 53%9 � 5380 5375
372 537 72 537'
� 54 535 5364 536�
�� 5 58 535 5358 5357
�°�' �� N N�' o c, o� 53 2 535 5352 5351
cV N CV N N cV N N N r �
c�r c�+ � N �+ c�+ cv c� N N N 5344 343 5344 5343
ER7 AVE
; v � i n i�- � n• cv � � 533A 5.�. �.�.�8 �
� � � � � , � v r, � �v N •— u c� o� w �
N I N N N I
N N N N N N N N I N N � 5330 532 533�� 532�
'�� � i � I j � z z
� �. I; 5324 532 0 5324 532.,
�� � � ` � � j 531 531 � 5316� 531 `_
! �?' I � 5308 530i U 5308 5307
� I (�=� 5300 5Z9 530� 5295
�z
i
—�� u7 � c� � I:� + c� �:� :n c� ' r- I:n 5234I 529 5294� 529�
� � u� � �r � � cV :v P O � � C7 , cn
�� � =" N � C'�d ! N � � � N N N N � I � � �
�'� '� i11 :�+ ,;< i c J I N I N N N CV : N j N �?B�.I S28 i FJ�EiS � SZ8 %
O O
f"7 N
N (V ��^%C
� �
Zoning Map
1�pplicant:
Location:
Planning Case 545�9�
Dan Gaies
5364 Clifton Drive
�.; -_ ;i
Y
�
538 �
53
537 �
36 �
., 6 . Q
5
53 �
535 J
535 Q]
534 � 5�
53
S z
533 t�
�-cZ �
532, iY
s�' �
531 W
53t �
53Q
5� �
53fl �
529
529. �
�LQ �
��
�
�zs�
�
�
�
� � i
/
'� �C`� � �/
� / c,� ,r�
� ! �
r / � .
\ i � l , '/
:: " /'
, ,��
� �
.� /,. \
� � f <9�
� ��: �
� ,,. ��
� /� �
� `
C1
r I
� `` / ' .
� �
� �� �' � �
� '�` ;
� �
\ ` ,
,'
�
S
�
.
�
�
�
--�
�
M
��
1�
�
�
�
� �
. �
_ �
-` �
.. �
c
_�
, �
� ����
� �
� `� /�.
�i`� 1
r
�
• � o -
u =
�
�� �1�
�
�
q � :
� '
, -.., .
_ .,...
� . ... _ .._...
�
? �'
�m�s ��.� 1 ) I
.�% �°�� ��
r '
i
'
�
i
� �
--- � // ,
� ;
; � �
�
�
ll �
--- ---- -.-- ___ ____- _- - --�-- � .
� � i:
I ;
i � i-
i' , �
� , e�
, . �' _
__ . o .
^is .. d
�
. -�
. �dy�
v
r
�
. �
��id
� \I
�
i
.. �: �
--� - �
' .. �.
! '
! ,
1
� �
� � . •m
� ..�
I d °°�
� �
�
� �I �
�
.. �.
'.,
_ ;�� , ;i'� '1; ,� , ;�� �.
'� : ;� , ; :�; , '. * : � �, ,
�- ; , � ` 1 , li `_°
�t �� � � !- . .
��� �: � � ��.�' � � ;
�' " ,- ::� < � '-, ,, �� , :.�. ��� �,, : .� '�, � �_ ��. �: ���. �� ': : : •: � �� � " :._ :'��I
:, . . , ; � •` � . , ;! . � ', ,; '. f ' i :f: :-
F 1 �' ! '; , , , ;�; �: „
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Dan
Gates to allow for a garage to be constructed at a height of 16 feet, one foot beyond the
maximum aElowed 6y Section 1106.03, Subd. Ic of the Mounds View Zoning Code, at his
�roperty located at 5364 Clifion Drive; and,
W�iEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential, and is legally described
as follows;
Lot Z�, 13lock 12, Pdnewoo�l 7'errace No. �4;
,Secti�n 8, Totivnsliap 30, Ilcartge 23
Cdty o��17ou�rds Viefv, Couraiy of lis�msey
W�IEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the foilowing documents associated
with this request:
1. Planning Applicatio❑
2. Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals,
►nay grant variances to specific dimensional requirements within the Zaning Code under unique,
exceptional or extraordina�y circumstances; and,
WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do appty to the property which
do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and resul� from lot size or
shape, topography or �ther circumstances over which the owners of the property since the
effective date hereof have had no controi, in thrrt the applicant has been instructed by the City to
either park his woric vehic{e in his garage or remove it from the property. This is resulting from a
Code requirement that restricts commercial vehicies from being packed outside on a residential
dastrict. Ta accommodate the trucfc, the building pians for the under�constnaction garage were
revised, going from a een-foot door to an eieven-foat door. The additiona! faot puts the height of
the �arage at 16 feet instead of the originalEy-proposed 15 feet; and,
. ;'. .
. ;. ,
;, .
Planning Commission RcsoEution 568-9$
Gates Variance
January fi, 1999
Page 2
WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Titie tivoulrl deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in thai the literal
interpretation of the lang�aage regarding accessory buiiding height, if upheid, would reguire the
applicant to demolish the work aiready completed on the garage expansion (i.e., remove footings,
foundation, s[ab, walls) so as to excavate one foot deeper, repour the floor, reinstall the footings
and foundation. If the garage floor were excavated as such one foot deeper, no variance wouid
be requirecE as the l�eight of accessory buildings is measured from the exterior grade, not the
interior floor elevation.; and,
'►NHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances rlo noi resuit from �he actions ogthe
app(icant in t/a�at whiie Mr. Gates is responsible for owning a vehicle which does not conform to
City Code, he is attempting to correct the situation by constructing a garage with a one-foot
va�iance in orcfer to park the vehicle inside; and,
WHEREAS, granting the variance requested wor�lrl not confer on the app(icant a special
privilege that is denied by this Titfe to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same
district in that staff would instruci future applicanfs intent upon parking an oversize vehicles
within a garage how to make such arrangements without ihe need for a variance. Because staff
told Mr. Gates that the truck would need to be removed after construction had already begun on
the garage addition, staffcouid not offes Ivlr. Gates this advice; and,
W�REAS, the variance requested as the minimutn variance which woul� alleviate the
hardship, in tdaat in order to reconfigure the garage to a(low for the truck to be parked inside, the
garage door wiI! need ta be made one-foot taller. Because of the added door height, the garage in
turn would become one foot taEter. This is the ininimum variance possible with keeping the
jarage roof in tine with the roof of the home; and,
WHEREAS, the variance ivould not be materialiy cletrimental to the purpose of this Title
or to other properties in the same zone in thr�t many attached garages have taller roofs to znatch
the roof-Iine of the home. The one-foot increase will be imperceivabfe to the general pubiic and
the public benefits from not having to see the applicant's work vehicle parked in front of the
home; and,
WHEREAS, the variance svoul�l nvt impair an adequate suppEy of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets ar increase the danger of fre
or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighbarhood in t/zat the one foot difference fram what is ailowed and what is requested wiii not
impair any neighboring properiies' suppfy of li,�ht or air, it will not create any additional traffic
impact nor will it increase the danger of fire or endanger the gubEic safety. There wouid not be
any impact to property values in the immediate area..
NQW, THEREFORE, BE IT RES�LVED, that the Mounds View Planning Cammission,
acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, approves the variance to ailow a lb-foot tall
garage at 5364 Clifton Drive, in accordanee with ihe building plans on fiIe with th� Building
Inspector.
<: ,,, , - ,
, ,:. _
,, , .
; . .. -; � , _ ;:::
Ptani�ing Commission Resotution 568-98
Gates Variance
.Tanuary 6, 1999
Page 3
i
Adopted this bth day of January, 1999.
ATTEST
SEAL
N:IDATA\GROUPS1COtviDCV�DEVCASES\545-98\5&8-98ARES
Jerry Peterson, Planning Corr►mission Chairman
Rick Jopke, Con�rr�unity Development Director
. . , :` .: � .: "
� :- � '�� . � ., .� :. '.:: � -
"" � ��- �: :1�, �i'.. � `; � .� �: ::.1. . . ;f. . .., y . ". 1.� '� : `�. '1�� � ';_ 4 �. J��_ � `: �; `'�-
", :� > ` i 1 I:! '`.`�
,
• � �� , . ���� /�: :
1. C�II to Order°
T11e meeting was called to order by Chairperson
Zo Itoll Call
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Corr
N*��ilIer, Obet-t, and Stevenson (arrived 7:05 dep
lV 1
Members Absent1 None
�lso Prs�ent: Community De�
, ' � Council Liaison Koopmeiners,
-- and Recorder Stacy Cato�.
Yndez to
Planning Case'No 5���98, �
Altemate ��te�� �l�r��
DeVelop�ent,���itc�s ����. .
0
2401 �ig�away 10,
S�ecial 1V��et�ng
I9�c�snber 16, 1995
aund� C'ity $�!1
nds;,� �ew, �t 55112
7:Q „� ., Decer�
� � '• �
A., �
•x�3, 2:'��kh�g�
';:`�`�' ����������
�;> "s:>�3 .
>i3e..
-K.�;-
. �; ` . :
h : ,.
9:20}, Ja%nson,
ung Associate Jim Ericsan,
�ity Attorney �cott Riggs;
Recommending Approval of an
�for the Proposed Building N
,.�q'�" �a 3 `'V
Specia�Ianning Case I�o ��#� -9�, consideration of an Amendment to C ap�er
112�;.� the Mounds V�eu��C��'Code (Off Street Parking Requirements) Regarding
<,,..
ivi�liz�l� Curb Cuts on �>`mer Lots within Single-Family-Residential Districts.
iar� No. 566 �, A Resalution Estahlishing Planning Commission
�ar►d Tizn�1'�ri Subrrussion I7aYes for 1999
3. C�t�ens' Iteq�aes�s �n� C'o�a�ents omm Iterns 1�Iot �r� ihe A�er�da
No citizen requests of commen�s on items �rot an ihe a�enda were considered.
4o Approv�l o#' �Ifr��ies
«
�
�
8
_
IVloe�nds �Iaew Plannin� Com�issgon
Spec��l Meet�n�
�e�ernia��° 16, 1998 -
�a�e � l
A. Nover�aber 1�, 199�
Ivfotz:o�� c n- Johnson/tviilIer to approve the November 18, 1998 meeting mi
corrected. �
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0
The motion carried.
5.
Pfann�ng Case 1�io. 543-9�
Property Involved: Si45 Program Avenue
Consideration of Resolution No. 565-98, a
�ite Plan (Development Review} for the Pr
Business Park.
Applicani: �verest I)evelopment, Ltd., R�j
The applicant was present.
Ericson gav�,, he staff
��
����
.�`�3Z r�1�
The apgli�a� �v est
Building N��te`�t�[,���'��
1`: �«�� ;
the City Counc�� �� �,��
prospecti
�
33 perc. '
the ��' ..__ ._.
��� -J, --
ilding wouid
ly or storage
�enants or €
smaIier than
�;�val of an Alternate
, ivlounds View
Detiel���n�s reques�tuig approval of an altemate site pfan for the
within �� �s�� s�iew Business Park, which was originally appeoved by
'�`�` ����z �,..
��� T'he ap���� uests tlnat either pian (the 1994 version or the plan
itted to �1�w greater flexibiIity in marketing the building to
�wzte�'�',�'I°he riew proQasal shows a b9,�82 square-faot building, which is
�e a,��� ily approved IO2,950 square�%ot building. The appearance of
iG�t� �ce/IIex building WiII match that of the Liberty Check Building.
�<�
�mada�e user needs for ofiice, taboratory, praduciion, high-tech
�. It is anticipated thai of�ZCe uses will occupy 50 to 75 percent of the
1�,11'seE�acic rec�t:�r�ments have been met. There is currentiy a ltice Creek Vdaiershed District
(RC'�Ii3�;;pe�ri7it m force for the previousIy �pproved Building N development. Staff has
for�vvarded a r�vised set of pians to the district office for their review. Revised plans have alsa
been sent to the Cit}r Er�gineer for t�eir review.
The parkin� provided, accordirag to Ciiry requir�ments, will b� adeq�aate to senre ihe buiid°u�g as
iong as o�ce uses do not exceed 75 percent of tkte usable flaor area of the building {the balance _'
i
li�ounds �Ieer� �l�t�ning Cornm��sio�
5peceaI Meetin�
�ecembe�° 15, 199�
I'�ge 3
used as warehouse, storage or manufaciuring.)
The revised landscape plan indicates all of the same species, in similar ratios, and e exceeds the
previous plan by an additional five piarstings. Staff has asked the City �'Q,� ter t.> vievw the
�. �
revised landscape plan in the eveni that any of the species hav been re ;; ,, :,�;,� �and io be
susc�ptible to disease or any other problepns.
k�
The access and drive aisles are in conformance wi�h F�rey� ; partrnen tairett�s� � � t�r� s.
Because of ihe angled Ioading bays at the rear of the bu�=#=� , iru� raf�ic will3e� '�'��t���` �4' ihe
��.��.��. R ���.;x ti <. �
north driveway and exit only from the souih driveway ��a~��� feet of irnperviQ�,,�a :ace at
r��r������.
�he r�ar of the huilding to sufficiently accommodate the i�i���'�,::<; mar�euvering af Che �r�acks.
ih� building vsrill tie into existin� waiermains and
been sent a�opy of the utility pIan to verify locati
the site and building. �
Ericson told the Planning Commission of ssue rai9
and Director of Public Works re�ardi.n�_ e south.d�
,'; suggested ihat Clifton Drive be
eiiminate a possible point of tra
twenty feet of each other and a�
Tiar� �i�lsc�������se�ti
�� �.��
tenant fdi��x�r��� ed �
��,�r��„���E��� �
accomgnoc�a.� s���`��
�"'3� i � � �
$O gIVB th� COl'i�7i1��S���
were offered th�i���v� r
��:, .. -<:;��,s;";;
. �;:�;:k'.
Peterso�clarified th� fa
an o��par�t was signed
Fire Marshall has
drants available for
by the City Engineer
qment. It was
into t_ uiId�n� �Iand �Vlounds View Inn properties to
._�;�
:t. drivewa "`�for the uss mentioned are within
ac. • . from on Drive.
��'e z� (�roup, - ommission that Everest does not have a
��
�,� '� design o � building gives Everest the flexibility ii needs ta
�'�`{3 y�a��.
es a£���tt�:' �> Several photographs of existang buildings were off�red
n idea ������� '. proposed struc�ure would look like. Several regoris
u
�panc� ir��ation for ihe type of building that is being proposed.
s interior finishes would not be completed at ihe time
concurred wit#� Pe�erson's comments.
r� said Everest is .�S�ing for approval oFthe "ptan" so that they have the tIexibility of eithee
�g �h� previou �, pgroved office/war�house building or the building that is before the
lfasiar� L�r11gi� Construction wou(d begin sprin� of 1999, IVeison added.
N`e�`sor�sa�t��ffie idea oithe ext�nsion of Clif�on and redaing th� driveway connection ai the
southwes� corner of ihe site w�as a ne� issue and wauld be addressed a�er being analyzed by
Everesi staff. Nelson did say thai the extension seemed probl�matic from the standpoini thati
Everest has spent a Iot of time develaping the altem�te building arnd compariion �ngineering plans.
Nelson said Everesi would lik� io k�ep traf�ic from the IVlounds Inn and tl�is site as far away from
�ach other as possible. P�ak hours in the mornings would see traffic coming into the Ever�st sit�
1 :. 1 ::
_ I -
I�Iounds �Ii��v Plannae�g Cornrr��ss�on
Speeia! I�/ie�#ing
��ces�bee� 16, g99�
Pag� 4
and peaic hours in the af�emoan would see traffic teaving, �hich is just the opposite of the motel
traffic pattern. Nelson said Everesi would be vviilin� io suppIy #he appropriate signing for the
streets i� order to rnirumize traffic cong�stion. T'he plai has aiready been approved� bining
four existing legai parceis into one for the proposed site. Filing has not t���€en pt ° on this yet
because of the substantial park dedication fee that �oes with d,�veloprn�i�`,��;,,,�= site.
Pe�erson noted fihat there were five main enirances for su anis. N�
designed in a fashion that would allow two doars aff oi entran
building could be di�rided down into 5,000 squ�re-faot >. •es bu
would be 10,000 square-foot. �..
mast
�►.+i�t::
Peterson asiced for clarification in regacd to the site's dri �"`�.�,�iz�.t�ig`��a with the car wash.
Nelson said the drivewa was moved to its current Ioc x;' '�
y ; n, as s���t �lft���e plan, so it matches
t:< �\ '� Yd`z,"6�A
up with ane of the driveways of the car wash rather �� ave twd' ���� This shouldn'i be a
� ���;.
��;�� � ��..
conflict. He added before the plan gets to the ����t�,'�� est wouC ��w the driveway
;� _:. �. .r �r'v <<:;<%�€�;<;��
locations and adjust any confIict thai may oc : .��^���k�a..5
� �£,
Ericson said a Iighting plan had been su ited an did rr� requirements.
Peterson asked for a description
building site and the adjac�nt C.+
product, was�described ui d���,;I
atong the �ac�z����ide of th�'pr�►p�
st '' all syst iocated between ihe proposed
sit�. .` ' son sa' < e retaining wall system, a Keystone
:he civil, �;�� ` project. ihere are also retaining walls
he ad '�,�`�� �
, ��..�..M�,, 2
�� s, Z �r
NLIIer asked �`�i� �I��cation ��,��,��Q snow storage. Neison said ihe site did not hav� a lot of
room %r snow�st�ara���ccum�itae�� �' will have to be r�moved from the site and relocated
� � ,,�.� � ,� .� ,
Nelson said �,ra�h ��� ��andIed �tl�tiumpsters located inside of the building. Picic-ups and
deliveries��t��e'iiant��c���zt u ade%vel entries located at various sites in the buiiding. This
type of,. ; uild�ng will ha�� �i�ti�t� tIy less overall semi-trtick traffic goin� to the bui�din�, Nelson
said,�� ,.;��d�;f;�:
3� �
���.
�
P K`�z�cc�ng ratios were dis�'ssed and deemed acceptable by the Cornmissian. Nelson said the
L ��
����i�g in the busine���park had been designed for �he hig�est range of tenant use and was flexibie
���,iextt� of accomtrivclating changing parking needs.
.,_ .., ; ..�. �
Iv�II'���;�sk;e�' �f`item No. 2 of the Resolution sfiipuIations wouid be eliminated. Ohert said it was
his opiruon that the stipulation should rema.in as part af the Resolution. li�il(er said th�re are
di�'erent offic� requir�ment� in regard to parkir�g. Nelson agreed that the markef will self correct
the parking needs of each individual si��. In ihis particular case, the site is engineered for 5 stalls
per thousand which is almost 100 perc�r�t af the requirement in most suburbs. Ericson said staff
wouid b� comfartable omitting stipulation iterrt No. 2 from the resoluiion.
I :
.. . .., . :. . ..
'.:: -.:� . .' '..��. . :�: :.; . - I
I'l���an�l� Vie�r Plarrni�e� Co�r�a��sion �3ecernb�r 16y fl99S
1� 5p��i�1 Mettan� Pa�e 5
Obert asked for an explanation as to vahat would happen if extra parkin� is needed for a site that
has been engineered for a certain amount of parkirtg, or if paxkin� cornplaints are ladged by
neighboring businesses. Ericson said the City has no iall-back plan %r ihis siivatio his is an
issue that is supposed to be under the control of the building owner or o���ant- s supposed to
be a self-correc�ing issue. Obert suggested that ihe surroundi ne�gl��i�it�� d��need protectiort,
not necessaril the business ark occu anis. The nvaie s; 11 t��C���'c'�'���t� ��rieir arkin
Y P P F� � ����=��f p g
probiems �rasaemle said, Obert expressed his concem t ��` e City ne�.�.�a�e�., �p�m���pe of
9 ��;Y° ��>zs;f��f`��3`C,.
enf'orcement for possibie parkin� violations. Nelson sai t e City c �lp �n�'Q���.���ra�t�te
property cights. `�"��;;- < >�
S�aff was recomme�lding that the Plaeining Commission a
recommezadin� approval of an aitern�.te site plan, with sti
acce Building IV site, Mounds �ew Business Parlcg a� t�
Motion/Second: 5tevenson/Niiller to strik� sti ,.����c
Itesolution Recommending Approval of an ��`a `�
Proposed Building N Development,lVlou iew Ii
Ayes - 5 s I (O )
Obert said he didn't agree with p` g the b< n of
Director Q��u�lic W�
ianguag� tt� t�`� �sol
happen bec�us� t����
said ii wouid r�a� 1�� f
� �ti ,�
said the issue c,ould �?,
�I10E1 S11 . � ���P28� JO�
and be �intain�d by
o. 2
tian 565-98, a resolution
development of the 6.89-
� �� Group.
�lution No. 565-9�, a
Review) for the
Th� motion carried.
the site's driveway on the developer.
opinion that there should be some type of
t that would addeess accidents that could
r« � � ?-
in� z�t� �e�;� is on the site and ihe two entrances into the site. Obert
the d���1 ���� have to maintain a shared access to fihe site. Peterson
�� . .
��sed wz�� tatement of liability in the Development Agreement.
^S� ;
gl ;v,r,o dn�eways the City woutd extend the public street into the site
orney �cott Rig '� sai� it would be very difficult to formulate language that would prevent
�oncet-ns and " w or require a develaper to come bacic some time in the future and
�re th� deve _? ment agreement. The issu�s being d�scussed shouid be handied in ihe front
he dev�lap ;�nt process Itiggs said. He recommmnended, as pari of the motion, that the
���;� ., '
�r�ts�ue�r�ule the City Caur�cil can make up its own mir�d and staf� can suggest a different
�t���h� problem, be stated as not being a problem 6ecause it is part of the approved placi.
Brasaemle suggested thai the sfiaff repor� refl�ct the Commission's opinion that the driveway issue
was not a problem. This would el°ur�in�ie ihe need to have the Reso[�fiion's langua�e reflect the
Cammission's opinion, he added.
4 ...::. " }',".�
l'
IVioeends Vacv� Planni�c� Corre�issYOra
Specia� 1`�eetin�
I)e�ember 16, i99�
Page 6
Motion/Secondu �rasaemEe/Miiler to recommend to the City Counci] approval o£Resoluiion Iiio.
565098, A Resolution Recommending Approval of an Alternate Site Ptan (Developmeni Review)
for the Proposed Building IV I?evelopment, �io�nds View �usiness Park, as amen in the
previous motian. �,
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0
LT�ch made the comment thai the City shoeald cansider
the business park in an effart to eliminate future parkin�
s�a� report written in regard #o this evening's meeting r�
report would refleci Ulrich's comments.
Spece�l Planning �as� l�io. SI'-Ob6-9� [P��9�
Properties Invo�ved: Comer Lats, Single-Famil� �
� z
Consideration of an Amendment to Chapter '� �01
Parking Requirements) Regarding Multip! urb �u
Resideniial Districts. �
No public was pr�sent
Peierson . � the pu
;�c�;� �
RigDs aveR���e �s...., <
� n€�...�: ��:�•
City Att
work or
City Cp;�
doesn't
l as a gvidelin�.
per�:ent, which
y is now in vio�
ormity is if'� i
�. If vou'r�'�"'i�nl
�
�Ii
blem�.
the
>i:`ity Code (Off-�treet
within Single-F'amily
�'.a`�� '� d come down to whether Mr, i'obias had done repa.ir
i t of his driveway. The bottom Iine is that Mounds View's
Like many city cades, they don'� cover evecything. They are
���'�'obias' case, a noncon%rming situation was destroyed by more
ul�not have been rebuilt," Riggs stated. He added, Mr. Tobias'
n of the Code and would eequire a variance. "The idea o#'
noi confocm once it reaches the end af its useful life, �hat end period,
ig a driveway because you can't overlay it, thafi sug;ests it is to th�
:d itself otat, and that's th� idea of a nonconf'orming sYatute, ar
ihe City has," Riggs said.
Petersan said the Iast time th� Comrrvssion was faced with this issue the same conclusian was
drawri. The applicani was in violation of the Code. Obert said i'obias` driver�ay was a
nonconfomiing use to l�egin with, NoY oniy was the old asphalt removed and th� bas�
undemeath, but the tree roats undemeath the base was removed, Obett said. He said the
I
:_'� Mou�ads �see�, Pf��tnin� Co��nissBOn Dece�ber �6, 199�
�pe�iall�eeti�� Pa�� 7
homeowner had signed an agreement with the coniractor that showed no driver�vay �aing out io
Sherwood Road. The Cit}r's Codes are put in place to pratect a11 of the City's residentis. Granting
of variances io skirt the Code should not be the norni, but the excepiion, Ohert sa.i he
Council's request to consider rewriting the code to accommoda�ce a�vari re .� wo�ald set an
e�remely dangerous precedent, he added.
Ericson asked Riggs how other Ciiy's view driveway
fchat a driveway ihat is "�here" can b� maint�ned, and
in,volve taking the drivevvay out and puttin� in new C
retnaving the old driveway and putting in a rrew drive
repair, Ericson asked.
Miller said in the City's other Codes thaY apply to c
percer�t, those situations have to be brought up to
non.co�ocming and you aren't brin�ing it up to ;: c
Itiggs said the easiest `vay to read the Co that
cease the nonconfotznity at that point in e. The
a littIe better definition oiwhat a"d��, �: e and �
Petersan recommended
The Commis�ion concu
Ulrich s�at� �}t����.�con
and the saf et� �s�u�,z�a�
canditions J"o�sori;s�
� rt �..
precedent it wot�d s�i
�r�; �, �
thati is not , �o�cved'l�y �
a corne >- `�he Cade sti
:
�Ie said it was
ts of the �arti
just simple
ns �na�c;,��
`�`obias' tiv
� it up.
Code
and
more tha� 50
are
�s a destguction arad would
en used for comparison have
said.
issue � ate of the driveway replacement issue.
��:� � ��. � -�-.
r� �Vtifi� �„ ias situa on is how ciose his driveway is to the intersection
��d �,r��:$ z backing out of his driveway into heavy traffic
N� a��`¢�� - favor of chan the ordinance because of the
he �oul'����, ��s: $��
�vites oi��� � sidents to request variances because of some situation
�j,:
����ersori ked if there were setback requirements %r a driveway ia
either directian of an intersection, Ulrich added.
thai the Council should decide on ihis variance request based on
r case. If'the City needs to revisit the Code, �hat should be done in a
approach rather than making the Code change based on this one case.
in all of hi� yeass working for the Police Department he had never seen an
d a two-curb-cut lo�.
i�eterson ciosed the pubtic hea�n,�.
; Moiion/��cond: Brasaerr�ie/Stevenson to inforin the City Council that after consider�ng testimony
at the public hearin�, it is the opinion of th� Planning Commission that Chapter 1121 of the
I�our�ds �1ee� pl�r�nira� Coar�rnassion Deee�axber �.6, 1995
Spe�ea� �e�irre� Page �
l�founds View City Code (Off-Street Parking Requirements) Regarding Multiple Curb Cuts on
comer L,ots within Single Family Residential Districts, shouid stand "as is."
The Comrnissian directed siaff to gather iniarmation on
constitutes replacement work in regard to residential dri
would inciude criteria for di�erent types of building and
information cari be presented io the Cosx�mission at a lati
7.
lZesolv�ior� No. 566-9�
A I'�esolution Establishing Planning
1999.
This item was added to the agenda.
Nfotio / and� ObertJJohnson
Planning Cor�mission Meeti,�, �
�.
Japke
a posi
Dav
�; .:.
,+;;,��f<<::.
a "�a`��
� ���r �
� 3 ���:,
t�a ��
;�.; �,.
rf�a <
'? i :
� �����Z
T.v
i�"tn Tampa, Fln
appreciation for
Chair°pe�°�on
�1■ 6
56b�98, A Resolutian Establishing
tes for 1999.
Th� motion carried.
a�ve�Hix has submitted his ie�er of r�signation. He has accepted
�solution of Appreciation will be drafted and forvvazded to
wiih the City.
Plannin� Com�issaonea°s° Repo�°ts
There bein� no further business before tlae Plannin� ComTrazssion, Chairpecsor� Peterson adlonmed
the meetin� at 9:40 p.m.
Respecifially submitted,
-- ������ ���� ��L������ ����Y�����
J�nua� 209 1999
7°00 P.�m
A EI�TDA IV�E�T
AGENDA
Review of Comprehensive P(an Transportation Goals 8� Policies Component
2. Review of Previous Council-Ivleetings
N:�DATAIGROLJPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�PCAGENDA\199911-20-99. SPL
_:,'I
�
_ _ - --�--..
�� � � � ✓ - ,:
�� � �
To: Mounds View Planning Commission,
Frorno Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
S�abject: Comprehensive P1anTranspoz-tation Elennent
Dat�: January 15, 1999
Attached for your review and discussion at the January 20, 1999 Planning Commission meeting
is a draft of the comprehensive plan transportation goals and policies.
�
N:\DATAIGROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCO]Vi1Vn1-20-99.MEM
'!:
` . � .. � :�. ` ; .� ' ! ,
The foilowing will be the transportation goals and policies for the City of Mounds View:
Goal_1: Develop a balanced surface transpor�ation system giving attention to all inodes and
related facilities.
Policies: a. Treat all modes of transportation and facilities related to each as one system to be
coordinated and related on a comprehe�istve basis.
b. Tlie transportation systezn wiil be %cused on activity centers within the community.
Goal 2: Tdentify needed iinprovements ta the various eIements of the transportation system ta provide
for safe and convenient movement by all modes..
Poiicies: a. Maintain transportation facilifies to function in a manner compatible with
adjacent land uses, where the funetion of a transportation faciiity has changed
over time to become incompatible with adjacent land uses, a program to elizninate t$is
compatibility should be establisl�ed.
b. Hazardous and poorly designed and controlled intersections shal� be improved on a
phased basis to increase tl�e safety of pedestrians and motorists alike.
.\
c. Street safety shall be improved #hrotagh street liglxting, visibility, sign controls, elevated �'''
pedestrian waIkways and other such facilities when economicalIy feasible and desirable.
d. Public signage shall be related to the overall system of street function and control.
e. Parlcing shall be limited or prohibited a.long przncipal �nd rninor arterial roadways.
Goa13: Provide suf�cient off-street parking to meet aormal dennands of all types of land use.
Policies: a. Parking facilities shall be developed so as to conserve land, promote joint use and
minimize conflicts with vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle h-affic.
b. Minimize and reduce the demand and resulting requirements for parking through fhe
adequate pro��ision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and through Iand use
development coordinaiion, such as the concentration and/or co�isolidation of, for
example, higher density housing with proximity to shopping, employment and
recreational activities.
c. Parking requiretx�ents imposed by tl�e City shall be constantly reviewed to insure
supply is reflective of demand.
d. Minimize parking lot access to public streets to the functional mit�itnum.
Goa14: Suppart fhe development of public transit aud para-transit systems wl�ich wi11 minitnize the need
for individual automobile travel.
Policies: a. Sufficient mobilify shall be promoted for all persons, giving speciat consideration to
tizose who must rely on modes of transportation other than the automobile.
b. Adequate transit rider conveniences, such as bus sheiters, parlc and ride lats, and free
parking areas, sl�all be incorporated into activity centers and areas of I�igh transit
usage.
c. Transit service shall be ancouraged within a reasonable wallcuig distance of every
resident of the community.
d. Additzonal transit service during off-peak Iiours io activity outside the community
should be encouraged.
e. The City will work with the Metropolitan Counci! Transit Organization (MCTO) to
provide more and better transit service for the community and to provide increased
ridership.
f. Encourage MCTO to impleinent an intra-suburban transit plan.
Goal 5: Ensure the provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities which are consisteut with the safe and
convenient circuiation needs of the pedestrian and tl�e bicyclist.
Policies:
a. Plan and in�plement a comprehensive traii systein to provide safe pedestrian and
bicycle movement fhroughoat the City.
b. Dependency on autotnobile oriented transportation will be reduced by introducing or
improving pedestrian and bicycle transit faciiities.
c. Pedestrian/bicycle corridors shall be considered on minor arteriai and collector
roadways including the Highway 10 carridor to ensure safe pedestrian travel.
d. Safe and convenient gedesirian circulation shall be promoted within and ta and irotn
activity centers, separated when feasible from vehicular circulation.
e. Accommodations will be made to facilitate safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings at
major intersections.
f. Special provisions for pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation shall be planned in
areas adjoining schools, parks, cl�urcl�es, serrvice centers and commei•cial centers.
g. When economically feasibJe, provide faciiities for pedestrians and bicyclists in
conjunction with street improvement projects.
h. Where possibie, provide hicyclists a right-of-way separated from both pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
�
�
i. Desigi�ate tl�e appropriate mode of travel in each segment of tlle systez-� (sidewalk-traii-
street) by adequate signage.
j. The commu�-�ities pedestrian a��d bicycle system shail be related to those being provided
by adjoining coznmunities and throughout tl�e metropolitan area.
lc. Ensure that pedestrian street crossings on heaviiy traveled streets are clearly marlced
and lighted.
Goal 6: Cooxdinate all City transportation planning with County, Metropolitan Council, State,
Federal, the North Me�-o T35W Co�-ridor Coalition, and other loca� transportation plans.
Policies: a. Maintain and 'zn�prove ihe exisfiing line of communication with county and state
highway officials in order to ensure that planned improvements a.re consistent
with the goais and objectives of the community.
b. The Ciiy will consider the use of its resources to assist in the resolution of
metropolitan transportation problems.
c. Coordinate pathway sysiern with adjacent neighboring communities.
Goa17: Each street in the City will be classified and deveioped according to the adopted
metropoiitan classif cations and standards.
Policies: a. Design transportation facilities to conserve resources and other existzng man- ��
x�nade facilities and minimize the total need for on-going public investment.
b. The local transpartation system should be consistent with the overall needs of
the metropal�tan area.
c. Minimize and limit vehicular access onto ail types of arterial roadways ensuring
adequate distan.ce between intersections and utilization of appropriate traffic
control methods and devices.
d. Establish and enforce standards and controls for business and advertising
signing and lighting in order to prevent driver distraction and potential hazards.
e. Local or residential streets shall be designed so as to prevent penetration by
through traffic. Traffrc calming devices should be used where appropriate.
Major traf'�c flow shalt be pxoperly channeled to coIlector and or arterial
sireets.
f. Existi�g residential streets shall be protected from classificatian to more intens�
use; e.g., collector or min.or arterial.
�
�
'' g. Land use planning along arterial roadways shail be coordinated in order to:
1. Avoid an excessive nurnber of access points to abutting land.
2. Secure adequate right-of-way for future needs.
3. Provide a basis for estimating fut�ar'e traffic demands.
4. Allow the major thoroughfare system to efficzently move large volumes
of traf£'ic.
h. Ali elements of the street system shall be planned, improved, and
:�� inaintained according to the highest standards, giving due consideration to both
land use and transportation gaals and policies.
i.Maintain streets in the City through a Pavement Management Program.
j. Develop an appropriate citizen review process to develap and implement City
street design and assessment poiicies.
Goal 8: Develop and implement a Highway l 0 design theme to present Mounds View as a an
,�' aitractive and desirable community.
Poiicies: a. Wark with state and county officials to im�lement various elements of ihe
approved plan.
b. Develop ordinance standards to require that private development that occurs
along Highway i 0 incorporates eiements of the approved theme where
possible.
c. Identify and pursue state, federal, county, and oiher funding sources to fund
implementation of the approved design theme.
"�
r ,; ..... �"'� � (��
� �•. fy°a�:�y� �,�t..J`e.,"^
I'�
�. � _ _:� � �
�f 1 �
� � �� ���
�' „'�,._,.,.�''
u,,:
�
- PIt�CEEDII�GS �F T�E M�iJI�l)S '�Vi' PI.ANl�ii[�G CO I��IO1V
` \ , CI'1'�' OF I�O�TI�dD� ��
�,.. . . ....._:�
, , �.�- � ,
�NISE'Y COi7I�T`�',1N�dI�dES01'A � _...
� February 3, 1999 ��
�_.
I�Ioe��ci"s""�i��v .�i�y: �Iali : .��
2401 �i��t��vay 10, Ii�ounds Vie�r, IVII� 55112
le Call to Order
The meeting was calied to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:01 p.m., February 3, 1999.
2. ltoll Ca11
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Coznmissioners Brasaemle, Steven, Miller,
Johnson, Obert.
Members Abs
��r �:
Aiso Present� -a .-' .
lEricsan, Col
�yF ,�-: ��
3. Citizetts'
There were
4. Appro� i `
a.
I�dex io 1Vlinutes
Planning Associate 7im
Skinner.
on fhe age�da
were not on the agenda.
Discussion of Planning Commission Bylaws. According to the City Code,
the Planning Commission's Bylaws must be reviewed annually, at the
first regular meeting.
Discussion of Televised 1Vleetings beginning March 1, 1999.
Discussion of Proposed Ordinance 62�, an Ordinance Relating to Outdoor
Produce Sales and Lawn and Garden 5a1es in a B-3, B-4, or I-1 District.
�
�,:
2
2-3
d�
...... /, ,,6 _•'�
,
I
IV�ouaeds �Iie� Plan�rng Co�remissio�
lteg�lar I�ieetia�g
Sa
�ylaw�
Discussion:
F'eb�°�ary 3, 1999
�a�e 2
All members agreed that unless otherwise stated , all meetings would be regular meetin�s
unless otherwise stated.
The need to get things on record that were discussed.
Staffwill make revisions of concerns and changes so that the By Laws and City Codes
will r�flect the same language.
bo
Televis�ci P�'Ie�tings as of 19�Iarc1� 1, 1999.
Discussion and Concerns:
To make sure to include the public in agenda issues, for feedback and to encourage the
public involvement
The need for generic Ianguage that everyone can understand.
Have a brief discussion at the beginning of each meeting about the previous meeting to get
viewers up to speed.
Have agenda on screen for viewing publics benefit
Concerns of the tedium of the meetings. All members voiced concerns of loosing
viewers and not being able to get them back
Not televising the work sessions and/or bookkeeping sessions. Citizens would not
have the same information and/or notes as commission members - it would be too
difficult to hear and understand.
Poor camera angles and sound quality
� . � .� .. , -� , ;:
Discussion
What does the state statuie say about the sale of Christmas Trees?
a How did I+/�inneapolis handle the saie of Super I3owl t�shirts, and other memorahilia?
Update the draft ordinance to include lawn and garden sales
�...... w,
_ _._ . . _ . ..
__ .. ,.
f,.
i
l�ou�ds Vie�ar P1�n�en� Cornanission
I�ege�lar I�eetira�
Fe�e°uar� 3, 1999
Pa�e �
t�ll members stated that they thought aIl outdoor sales should be included in ihis
ordinance, and i� there were any campiaints and/or prablems, the council would then
have to review their application
Concerns
Lighting and haurs of aperation
I�ake sure the proper ia�guage, ordinances, and stipuiations are adhered to.
iree sales from out of state must conform to our rules and regulations
�a
I9�ailang �u�ey
Rick Jopke presented the idea of a random open-ended survey ta gei the residents reaction
to living in Maunds View. Perhaps the item Focus 2000 should be looked at again.
Taiked about using ihe same organization ihat carried out the Focus 2000 survey.
9.
Cl��irperson and Piannrng Commissione�° Report�
There were no Chairperson or Pianning Commissioner reports.
10.
1-�clj�a�rngtaent
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
N:�DAT
,: .
< ; ' _..._.
;
������ ���� ��������a ����������
;: Feb�°uary 3, 1999
7000 �<M.
REGUL?� 1VIEET�G
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2, Roll Call
3. Citizens Requesis and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
e., - ,� , '�. � � .,, �') �: ` _ � ; , ,1 , �'. ` i ',i . , ., �" : �_ ,' '�7 ,'' � s
�� ��. '�. � ; �. , ` j: c,, ) .� '.�, ' ' ±�'; � ' ;i' ��, � ,����� ; , i� ``
4. I�isc�ss�on of Plae��ing Corn�eissio� I3ylavvs
Accarding io the City Code, The Pianning Commission shail review its Bylaws
annually, at the first regular meeting in February.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
Z
i�iscussion oi Pe°oposed Orcli�ac�ce 62�, an Ordinance Reiating to Outdoor
Praduce �a1es and Lawn and Garden 5ates in a B-3, B�4 or I-1 District.
Stai�Reports/Information Items
a, Review of Previous Council Actions
Chairperson and Plannin.g Commissioners lteports
Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
(Immediately Following Regular Meeting)
�*�����r�x**�������*****�***�*:���**�������
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTTFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT'117-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
�*���**�**����*�x��*��*m����x�:�*�*��x��:*��
AGENDA IV�EETINNG
AGEIV�A
Review of the January 6, 1999 minutes of the I�lanning Commission
Review revisions to the Transpo�tation component of the Comp Plan Update
�.
N:\DATAIGROLJPS\CaMDE VIPLANCOMMIYCAGENDA\1999�2-3-99.REG
� ; �� �
�1�
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Subject: Discussion of ihe Planning Commission Byiaws
Meeting Date: February 3, 1999
�aekgroue�d:
According to �ection 401.06, Subdivision 7 of the Municipal Code, the I'lanning Commission is
to review its Bylaws on an annual basis at the first regular meeting in February.
I�iscaasseon:
Beginning with the Bylaws las� revised in 199i, staff has made some minor changes with regard
to the Bylaws. Staffwould al�o Iike the Commission to discuss the possibility of changing the
structure of the meeting schedule such that every meeting would become a regular meeting
instead of every first Wednesday of the month, Given thai the Commission tends to take action at
each rneeting (in an effort to stay within the constricts of the sixty-day ruie), changing the Byiaws
to reflect this would serve to formalize present practice. To effectuate tl�is particular change to
the Bylaws, an amendment to the City Code wouid need to be drafted to clariiy #he difference
between Regular, Agenda and Special meetings. In addition, the Planning Commission meeting
schedule wouid need to be revised to show ali meetings as regular,
Itecommen�ation:
Discuss the staff-propased revisions and other changes to the �ylaws and direct staffto prepare a
resol�ation adopting ihe agreed-upon revisions to the Bylaws.
'�. riv� ���'_•
7ames Ericson, Plat�ning Associate
N:IDATAIGROUPS\COMDEVIPLANCOIvxM1SYLAW S�PCREPORT.99
CIT�� OF I�[OC7NI)S VIEV�
PLAIVNING AND ZONlNG COMMISSION BYLA�N�
(Revised as of February 3, 1999)
I, EiUTHORITY: The Bylaws of the 1Vlouncfs �liew Planning and Zaning Commission (Bylaws}
are established in accordance with the M[ounds View Municipal Code 5ection 401.06. Subd. 7
"The Commission sha11 adopt bylaws for its governance and for tha transac4ion of its business."
Where there is a con�lict between the provisions of the Byiaws and the provisions of the City
Charter and the Municipal Code, tk�e provisions of the City Charter and the IViunicipal Code shall
govem, {For purposes of simpiicity, flte Piannir�g and �onikag Commission may hereinafter be
referred to as the Planning Convnission or the Commissior�,}
II. �OPTIOIV OF' BYLAW�; REVIEW AND AMENUMENT:
A. ADOP�ION AND AIl�ENDMEN'�": The Bylaws shalI be adopted by Resolution by an
a�firmative vote of the majority of inembers of tl�e Pianning and Zoning Commission
appointed as voting members, and sha.11 be placed on file with the City Clerk-
Administrator and the Community Development Department. A capy o�the bylaws sha11
be forwarded to the City Council for its information. flny amendments to the ByIaws shall
be adopted by Resolution in the same manner as the original Bylaws.
B. ANNUAL REVIEW; The By(aws shall be reviewed on an annual basis at the first regular
meeiing af the Cornrriission in February. ��
III. NiEMBERSHIi' AND VACANCDES
Vacancies on the Planning Commission shail be filled in accordance with the Municipal Code,
Section 401.03. The City Council s�} may refer applications for Planning Commission
appaintments to the Planning Cammission for recommendations prior to talcing action to fill
vacancies.
N. OFFiCERS
A. OFFICERS NAMED: The officers of the Planning Commission sha11 consist of a
chairperson a�d vice-chairperson. The Commission may create and fill such other o:F1'ices
from its members, as it nnay deternune, ta transact Commission business. In addition, tl�e
Director of Community Development, or his or her desi n�ee� sha11 act as the recording
secretary for Yhe Cammission for purpose of preparing meeting mixiutes.,
B. ELECTIOI�IS; TEI�IS
1. Chairperson; �ased upon the recomnnendaiion of the Plannirig Coinmission, ihe Mayor,
with the approval of the City Council, shall appoint the chaizperson af the Commissian
each year. At the first meeting in Decembar, th� Commission shall conduci an eleciion
in order to malce its recommendation for the chairpersan, following the procedure in ,::;
�
I
City o£ Mounds View �ebrary 3, 1999
Planning and Zoning Commission � B. laws Page 2
�eciion IV.B.3. The name of the person recommended for chairpecson shali be
forwarded to the City Council for action at its first meeiing in January.
2. Vice-Chairperson: The Pianning Commissian sha11 elect a vice-chairperson eaci� year at
its first meeting in January, foliowing the procedure in Section �V.�.3.
3. Eleciion Procedure: For each office, the chairperson sha,11 invite nominations from
Planning Commission metnbers. After nonninations have been received, the
chairperson shali entertain a motion to close nominations. If such motion is rmade and
passed, and more than one nominatian has heen made, Yhe chairpersoc� sha.11 distribute
ballots to the Commission mambers and each n�ember shait write his or her selection
or� the ballot. The recording secretary shail tally the ballois and announce the nominee
receiving tha most votes. In the event of a t�e, the recording secretary sha11 annou.nce
the nominees �ied in the voting and ballating shall be repeated until an election occurs.
If only one nomination has been received, the chairperson may conduct the voting by
voice vote. If a majority of ihe mem6ers present vote in the affirmarive for the
nominee, the nominee shall be eiected.
�. Assumption af I�uties: The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson sha11 assume office at
the firsi meeting in Febraary of each year.
5. Ter�n of Office: 'The cha,irperson and vice chairperson sha11 serve one year terens, and
may be re-�elected to additional terms in accordance v�th this Section �V.B.
C. DUTIES OF �FFICERS: The chairperson sha11 preside over #he meetings of the Planning
Commission, and shall have the authority to add ar cancel
regular meetings and to call special meetings as pr�vided in Seciion VI. The vice
chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairpecson, in the absence of the chai�person
V. IIIAISON TO COUNCIL: The City Council shall appoint from among iis members a Liaison to
the Commission on an ar�nuai basis. It is e�ecied that the Councii Liaison will attend the
Commission meerings on a regular basis. in the eveni of the absence of the Counci! Liaison at a
Cofnmission meeting, a Commission member may be appointed by the chairperson to represent
the Pianning Commission at the ne� regular City Council meeting ar at the meeting where the
City Council will be considering the planning cases acted upon by the Planning Commission in
the absence of the Council Liaison.
VI. NIEE'TIlVG�
A. TYPES OF IvICETIlVGS; SCF�DULE: Tlze meetings of the Commission sha11 be held on
the first arid third Wednesday of each month, with tiae annual schedule o� meetings £or the
following year to be adopted by R.esolution at the first cneeting in December.
1, Regular I�eetings: The Commission's re ular rneetin s shall occur on the first and
third Wednesdays of the mantl� for the pc�rpose of
City of Moi,uzds View Febrary 3, 1999
Planning and Zonzng Commission - Bylaws �_ Page 3
convening public hearings, �r►aking recammendaiions to the City Council, and
conducting business which requires a vote of the Corr►mission, convening as the Board
of Adjustment and Appeals, and other official business.
2. Agenda Review Meatings: The third Wednesday of the month shall be an agenda
review meeting arid arovide for an apportunitv to informally review proposed planning
a��lications,
, , to
examinei� proposed ordinance amendments, to review Commission minutes. to
discussi� long range planning issues and studies, and to perform other matter� not
requiring a vote of the Commission, The Commission may call to order at agenda
review tneetings to take action if noticed on the agenda for the agenda review nneeiing.
3. S.�ecial Meetin�s: From time to time, special meetings mav be ca(led i� order to
process si nificant caseloads. to review works in ,�ro,�ress such as comprehensive
�lan updates or municipal code r�visior�s or to undertake a retreat or strate�ic
plannin se�ssion, either amon�st itseli or in the companv of the Citv_ Council or
other commissions. S�ecial meetines can be t�roposed bv any Commission
metnher or at the re uest of the Directar of Comrnuni� D�velo ment ei must be
approved bv a majority vote of the Commission Emergencv special meetin�
be c iled via written natice �o the Director of Communit Develo rr►ent b the >j
Chairperson or two Commission members, or bv the l�irector of Communitv _
Develo ment Emergenc�special meetin�s are those in which the subject matter
is of such an im�nediate concern that it cannot be delaved until the neXt re�u�ar
meeting of the Plannin� Commission.) The Director of Communitv Development
shall post and mail a notice of anv special meetin� ir� accordance with State
Statutes. Plannin� Commission metnbers shall be notified bv telephone and irr
writin� if�ossible,�least seven davs prior to a s�ecial meetin�
G,�:wwiif � , . . .. . . .. _ . . ...�_..,.. .. �.. . _. ..._� ... � ...,.. . . _ �t . . . , .... .... ..., d� .. .,.�
■ .�. ..�. ...�� .1 . ,. ...
. . . �..�... .'_. _. �.._:1 ....: ,.' .,... : �r. ....... '_._... ..�....�:� -- . ...�
...,��..�,.....'_. ._..�,..�� ....,..�•�...�•....... _...� ..._�_� . ,.. .�.....i.
. , .. .. .. � :A-... ... �, . .
. . .. _ .,,,.,. � �
. � . �: .1..'_,' .,.._� f.._..,_. . ._..,.. � , - .. -��1...%.. �-.. . � ,..�.... .. �...: . �e...• .1,..
Y.�. -, ... ...... . . :.. . _�,.-- „ .. .
� � .!� • • ■ � �. . • � . _ ,' ._`.. _
4. Cance(l�tion of Meetings: Regular �r agenda review or_special meetin .�s may be
canceled by the chairperson for good and suf�icient rea�ons, or in the event there are no
items of business requiring the attention of the Commission, �ack of a quoru.m, or
weather conditions by the Comm�aniiy Development Direc�or, Members of the
Coznmissian shall be notified by te(ephone of any meeting cancellation. A notice of the
meeting cancellation shall be posted as required by State Sta�utes.
�
B. QUORiJM: A znajority of the number of voting members appointed to the Commission
. ;
..
; ,
; : ; ,.:
- Ci .ty of Mor.u�ds View �ebrary 3, 1999
`� Plan�ung and Zoning Commission - Bylaws _ Pa,p�e 4
shall constitute a quorum.
C. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS; ADJOURNMENT
I. Meeting Chairperson: If neiiher the chairperson nor the vice chairperson is present io
conduct a meeting of the Planning Commission, the Pianning Commission may elect a
eneeting chair from amon� those members present prior to the commencernent of
business. The electio�i shall foilow the procedures set forth in Section N.B.3, except
that the Cvrrrmunity Development Director, or his or her desigrtee, sha11 conduct the
elechon.
2. Open Meeting Law: Meetings shaii be conducted in accordance with the �tate of
Mintaesota Open Meeting Law {Mia�n. S#atutues 471.705}.
3. Adjounnmenfi: Meetings shall adjoum at or be�are 11:00 p.m. uniess a two-thirds
majority of the metnbers praseni agree to extend the time of adjournment. If there is no
objection, the Chairperson may declare the meeiing adjourned witl�out th� necessity of
a motion or vote by tl�e Commission.
D. IVIlNUTES: Minutes shall be prepared for regular meetings and each commission member
shall receive a copy of the unapproved minutes for review and approval at a succeeding
ineeting. Minutes sha11 be approved by motion. Approved minutes shaii be the oiiicial
recard of the business conducted and actions taken by the Planning Commission.
Commission members may request copies of approved minutes after they have been
corrected, if necessary, and sigc�ed as approved. Copies of the approved minutes shall be
filed with the ' Community Development Department.
« ,� �. »
__"_ ��__ r_'�_�
. � �.,.. �.. ,.,.....� ....�.�..... ....� , .. � � �, ,....�.. . ..:..t. .ik •-.. . � ......-sY
..�:.._ . ,_.:�..� s. �.....� . __...�..._
. ... _ �_�_- :l �� � �....�._,
, . _ . . _ .. ,. .. .. . -. ..
_ { .,..�� M . .. .:,..... • ♦1.. ■.... � , . . .. ........ • •1, . . .:..�A � � • �1 �� ... ....'.
� ...,... • .. � • .1 ■ •. � f..•...� ii� r.. ;'... . ...:i,.. +,. ....�,.... ..,. ;�..' ....,. ..�. .. :.,A;. � . . . . .:+.. ,.,.
, ��_�_ � .�,.. ,. ,...'" :� i .....���...;i 7 . -_y- _...i,.. . ,� �...�,. .�._��
� .. . � . .-.. : .. � .1"ti u :. ... �:r. " �..... ...� ' .� ,... � � .
. . .. . . . � _. . - _._. _.. . .. _..... . _.., _ � �. _ _. ., . . _ . �. .. . . .. ,
. �:�:` �-.,� �-� .t ;)...� r�� � ■ •'G._ i � ••..._ ��.� ...-�_....
f1 \ . \ \l .:... . . ,.. ...� • � •�...., .A.....:...
.� .. . � .. � i�'.�.. • .�.. ._ ..� •
. f
��. �
vrL
r� itirr�[��� l�l�lil l A7I�Ti:i�1+f1
City of Mounds View �ebrary 3, 1999
Plai�ning and Zoning Commission � Bylaws Page 5
; ; _ . .� :-... : ...�. � _ . ;:. _... � � �_.
. . _ . . . . _, . . � . _ . , _ .
� . _ � . � � � ,. . ,�. . � � _ . � � � _ � .. �
_... __ . _ ... _. _
,. . , . . .� . . ,_ . .• .. :E . .. .
.. , :� . �
. ., - ,- ; � � �
,, _ . . . ; ,. - . :.� -.
: ,.. �:.. .. ;,�� ._..; � �., ,�..�_ �._ .� ,_ �..s. ,� ..._
. , _ _ _..•.
.. .. .� .
; .�� . ,, � � ..-,- .� . � �.� . , �._.
.. ,�-, .....'..� ..,.... ._ . .. ...,.. .. . .. F....� .�_:._,... � �.-.
- .. ..:. . , A,
� � ' V' •Y �'i � � � � � r1 •
. .. . . �. - - . . .,,: _..... ..
� . � .,., . .� .. . • . �:. ,.. .q- ,
__...., �: �.�.'+ . ..,_..__....
�wl�.Yl��F.�S�Il��/t�1�f5Y��1.1�.1� ���t��llll:'1�jilllill��:�:l�l�Jl�:l�fx��
VI. INFORIV�ATIONAI. PACKET�: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans and
additional information, as appropriate, for each item placed on fl�e agenda �-a
fo- r anX regular, a�enda reviaw or special meeting. The Commission
packei shall be delivered at least four days prior to the meeting. Each Commissioner is
responsihie for reviewing ihe material within the packet prior to the meeting.
VII. PROFES�IONAL CON�ULTAN�'S: Advice from, consultation with, and/or requests for
review by the City Attorney, City Engineer, City Planning Agency, or other paid consultants shall -
be in accorda��ce with the Municipal Code, Section 401.07.
VIII. SUPPLEMENTARY Pi7�3LICATIONS: Ait Commission members shal� receive a copy of fihe
Mounds View Municipa� Code and a copy of the Municipal Comprehensive Plan as weil as
other materials as provided by the City Council or City Staff. These materials sha11 be retai.ned
by each commission member and returned to the Community Development Director upon the
member's resignation or termir►aiion of appointment.
IX. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS
A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members sha11 advise the desi�ated Sta�P member or the
Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any cegularly scheduled Planni��g
Commission meeting. Any member attending less than 20 meerings per year without the
consent of the Commission shali be deemed to have vacated the office, and such vacancy
shall be filied by the City Councii purseaant to 5ection 401.03, Subd. 1. A leave of
absence may be �ranted by the consent of the Commission.
B. CONFL�CT OF INTEREST:
1. (Teneral5tandard: No Commissionee shail be ap�ointed wi�h private or persona.(
interests likely ta conflict with the generai public interest. If any person appointed to
the Commission shall find that thsir private or personal interests are involved in any
matter coming before the Commissian, they sha11 disqualify themselves from ia.king `�
part in ar�y discussion or action on Yhe mat�ter, alternatively, they may be disqualified by -
a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of th� Commissioners in attendance.
City o£Mounds View Fe6rary 3, 1999
Plai�nuig and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 6
2. Conflict Due to Ecanomic Interests; A Commissioner has a conflict of inferest if, in his
or her discharge of official duties, would be required to take an action or make a
decision that would substantially affect the CornYnissioner's financial interests or those
of an associated business, unless the effect on the Commissianer is no greater than on
other mernbers of the Commissioner's business classification, peofession, or
occupation. Tn the event a conflict of interest e�sts with respect ta a parricular matter
before the Cammission, the Commissionec shall disqualify themselves from taking part
in any discussion ar action on the mat�er.
C. EX PARTE. CONTACTS: Ex parte contacts are contacts between individuals seeking to
influence the decisions of the Planning Corrunission and individual Coznmission members
autside tl�e meeting forum, Such contacts include meetings with project proponents,
residents, prop�rty owriers, and citizens separate iSrom Commission meetings,
coi�nmunication between Comznission mennbers ouiside the meeting forum, telephone
calls or letters which atterx►pt to infiuer�ce a ComYnissioner's opinion on a matter which
will be subject to the Corrvnissioner's vote. When the Planning Commission is znvolved in
a nna�ter which is to be heard and decided by the Commission (e.g. variances), Plaruiing
Commissioners sha11 indicate to the person contacting them that such contact is
inappropriate and all testimony needs to be offered at the hea.ring to insure a fair hearing
for a1l parties. Ir► all other cases, Planning Commissioners should discourage such
contacts and should avoid expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case. When ex
parte contacts occur, the Pianning Commissioner. is responsible for notifying the
Community Development Director, and for conveying the substance of the communication
at t4ie ne� commission meeting at which the mat�er discussed is under consideration.
Approved by the Planning Commission by Resolution Na. 570-99
ATTEST:
Jerry Peterson, Chairpersor�
Dafie:
Rick Jopke, Community Developrnent I3irector
N:V�ATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOtvfAdl$YLAW SIBYLAW 5.99
i _
� : T
y a� ',
:i, z
To: Mounds View P►anning Commission
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
�ubject: Discussion of Proposed Ordinance b28
Meeting Daie: February 3, 1999
��ckg�-oeanci:
At previous meetings of both the Plannang Comtnission and City Council, the issue of requiring
Conditional Use Permits for temparary outdoor sales aperations such as Merriville ra.rm Market
and Linder's Greenhouses has been called into questio�. VVith �hat in mind, stafF has asked the
City Attorney to draft an ardinance to aliow such businesses as permitted uses within a B-3,
Highway Business; B-4, Regional Business; or I-1, Industrial District.
:'`t
D'escaassion:
The draft ordinance attached to this report addresses anly sales of produce but not lawn and
garden sales. These additions will be made as appropriate in the second draft of the ordinance.
The adoption af this ordinance wouid not, however, change the requirements for other types of
outdoor sales operations, such as Vikings Super �awi t-shirt sales or black-velvet Etvis painting
sales, which would still require a CUP. Due to issues of fairnes�, staff asks the Commission to
discuss whether or not all outdoar sales should be included in this ordinance.
lE�eco�nmendation:
Discuss ihe proposed ordinance regarding outdoor sales and direct sta.ffto make changes as
appropriate, forwarding the ordinance onto the City Co�ncil for first and second reading.
�-t:�v�/,� �.,����-
James Ericson, Planning Associaie
N:1D,4TA\GROilPS1CQMDEV�PLAI3COMMIBYLAWSIPCREPORT.94
, ,. . „ ,. _
� ,
S�p-tz-�e �3:D9pm Fra�mK€NNEDY � GRAVEN
��r�b �i �
sia337ssia
� I� C� I�O. �c> :�.5
��� �° : :°� � ; � °�:; � _. �. : , �,,,
E� <�:
�: ,�:
Tm2�4 P.�a/oe F°ia�
: �; �. -�, - ,, ... . � ;� � �; ��� : � �i� .:� • i< -. �� _ :� . . , �� ,�. .. � � �i. : � �.
�� �: � �i : � E ��
�. ,:
_. �. °�-� .� � � � � . � �::
► -: ► �_ :. , .r ,` ., :
i: ; , , .� . .�
+ �� , � . t� � i �
• r i� �:.��: __
- �� �: � � �� � �.. � �; ��, i .��. �;� �� � .,�i,� -�
S,EC'1°IO�i 1. Ticl� � 103 of ih@ �Iounds V��� �unicipa� cod� shail be ��ard�d by ihe addition of
ih� b��d �d a�aed�t-lined l�g��g� a.� follc�ws_
C�ik��� I 1 U3
�'" =� � � : "1 � , - :.. �. :� � � �� .1. . °1 .
��
I1d3.QI: pt�rpos�
11Q3.02: Dw�tlan� U�nii R�si�c[ions
1 i o3.03: F1aGted ana �Tnplacced �xgp�t�y
�. �03.�}: SQlar E�ter�y Sy�t�aras aa�d S�taci�res
1103.05= �dind Geneiaior Sys���rrs
1103.fl6: �cce�SOry $uildi��s, Uses �nd �guipra��nt[
1103.07e l3r�tan���
I �Q3.Q�: ���ang, Scree�i�g �d I.�dsc�ping
1 i 43.i?9: Ciar�
1103_ 10: S�aok�, L�tasi �.nd �dpxs
I �03.1 I: d�doase
llt�3.�2: R�fi�se
1143.13: Sr�r�gc of �quapmen� �� I��ceraals
1�03_�.�#e Liqudd or �oiad �41a���s
� ��3.15: `Toxic: or No���as Ma�P
ll0�_16: �xpios��es
-:�
,
;. �
Sce Sec�on ��6.Q5 ot'ei;a' Cod� forde�beioprraenr c:orauol�; �e� ��bdivision 100�.U8(2� o��lla�, Ccxle �'�►t s�ga ��gul�eiotas in s�ra$ir zc�n�ng disa'ac�s.
S!�-�41?15
MIJ 1 ��7
5ep-i7-e� a3:�epm �rom-KEN�IEDY � GRAVEN
1103_17; Undetgro�a�d Sior�g� Tan�s
1 Y�3.Is: $atellii� F�ish �►17���5
114}�.19. �e�t.�la�r �a�c� Sales
i
61233TA316 t�zz4 P.aa/as Fm73�
� � � � � ��_; � ;.:� �r � : _ ,. : � :
�
V`h\4 �'j�'�vJ
J, � �U'
�� `�
(�' )
,�,)
LG
u�
��
%
�a�bc�p l. ����1 It��ric�ocr�: Q�'►�ii Ol° Ail%��� �. �� �$ ���9F1�1�8�I 83�'
�cc��tv us� �d ia��le�di�� �les Bn oa� �°�at� Yn�to� v�1�sl�, ���le� ox° wa�o�as
sh�� �e ��a���c` to th� fol�owa�,� �� lati�a��o
a�, Outside �ervire�z �I�,.ro �n� ��uipm�ni ��retul ���ane�ted wfth [k�� �xa°e�ca al �a�� �
$i� e� �hart� �r��r�t (�%m� �� th� �ro� �1�� �r��, �►f th� pr� cip�� ��
b. _�es�s�d� ��l�s a�reas �r� Y�nc�d or �cr�e�ed frc�m vie� �f a���hborin� �d�n�cral
or an ��u�i��a��rg,ct� ca�pii��ee ��th s�bdiv�sio� 11�3.��(1? �hrc�t��h [�? oi ti��s
'T�ti�o
co Ail li�hrin� �h��l � h e� �tari s� �ir�c tba� tfae ly��a� ���arc� �haE� noe be �i�al�
i'rc��ra th� �ub[ic__ra�ht �f ��� �►r frr�� ne��hbor��r� r�,�idenses arad �h�ll b� ��
=J co�sapiganee vvit�a I103.�8� Se��aor� 1Yt?3.U9 of [I� �it1�.
d S�a�es ar�a���d gt° �rPaee� r.� coratrnl �lust.
�. `�dae o� �� oaatd�r ��rvi��$ sale �r �er��l ease d.c� not take up paricing sr�a�e �
�� uir�d for coraf�rraiic �f this �'et1e.
f: "�'h� rov���ns pf subdiv�s�a� 11250�1(1)� o� thys TatIe s�nstder� a�d
s�ati�fa�ril�mc��
���TIQ� ?� Ti��e 1114_Q2 of r�e R�Iot�uds �iever h�u�icipa$ �ode sh�Il be �nd�d �ay �he �dda�aon
of t�� bol� ancl ur��i�r�dneci �a�gu�ge �s foIlQws:
1 � I�_�2_ PE$ �� kl���a �'h� #'oalo�r��g � p�artli.�[e� ��a Yaa � �-3 ��sirac�_
.�i.l �rxnzt�ed �as�g a,s allow�d a� a�-2 I�ited ��si�ess 1ais�c�.
Ai�7t35e8ai�!!C CeAXe�s-
AtdTm ����sosy �iores.
Ca�er�ial rgcr�at�o��1 �ases.
s�x-aa''�s 2
��i�s��
, _
&�p-1i-9� �3;O�p� �rom-KENNE�Y � GRAVEN
C�ra�ery a�ar�s, st��Ta�a��eis.
612337931� T-2i4 P.O�/06 F°i39
�o[�ls, rr�otor bo��ls �d hat��s? p�o�ad�dy [h�c �he lc�z a��� roratai�as np� l�ss €han �iv�
h�andr�d (SQi3} s�uace f��i of �oc area p�� �ani�.
O�acdc�r �t° �ce ��les r��+ad� th�e��air����ne� af �u�divfsio� �.iQ3 I� of �as Tatle
��e sa�.asf�cr,or;l,� r�er.
I'rava�e clubs or laci�e� se�vi�g f�sad �d i�ver�ges wi�h u�e being res��ic�ed �o anem�e.�s
�an�i ch�ir gues�s. �d�qu�te dxtait�g roQr�, �iGcher� and b�r spa�e m�� be p,���ided �c�ording
�� se�ndards xtn�s� �pon si�.ilar unt�sui���d ��stornet o�ra�ions. T'he s��vin� af
a�c��olic �ve�g�s co m��b�rs ar�a �hei� gues�s sh�lt be a�low�ds prQVa�d, ch�t �tach
se�ic� is ira c�mplaanc� wi�h �pplac�ble ,�edei�i, S�a�� a�d �unic�ip�l r��ulat�csns''. �ff°ic�s
of s��h �s� shail � 1imi�ed co �a rn�r� rhan �w��ty perc�n� (20�0) �f tka� gross flaar ar�a �f
t�e bu�ld���.
�e�tg� sgorea.
Res��urFuats, cafes, tea r��s, [a��me, �n- and o#'f-'a1� liquora
Taxi ��rmina�s, st�tads �nd offace�. {Ord. 452, 2-27-89; �rd. 5�1> 6°�(;-96)
SE�iOI� 3. TitI� i I�4.Oq-, Stt�d_ � o$ the �ounds �lie�v A�Iuni�iga� Eode shali b� aznended by �he
adciiuon c�f thc b 1� atad underl�ned l�taguagg ar�d del�tion of the ']anguage �., ��liows_
i 11�_B4: CO I'f`IOI��. YT���e '�",�� �ollowing ate cond'auanal a�aes a� ��-3
.�as�c� (reqtai�ing a car�di��o�a� t�s2 pzrr�ut bas�d ugo;� praeedures s�t far[h �n and reg�lated
by SecCioa 1 I2S.tl1 of chis ��de):
�ub3. 5. �acse�i for o�¢d�r �al�„s �af ��°aduc�� �pen or ot��door servi�e, �a�.� �ad tcn[�1
as a princ�pai o� �ccessory use :usd a�ciudin� s�les it� o� frotn. anat�r�ded veia�cl�s,
Qaalers or wagans; ptovad�d, rhdt:
a�u[yide services, Sa.I�S S�i� �91�1�Iitell[ d°�r1I� CAtlIi�C[�d l�+1L�] g�l� pililCl��I I�Se IS
lXmit�d �Q [}�i�y ger��nC (3Q%} oi rh� ��s� fl�or arca of rh� prin��pa� �se.
h. �tside s�$�s �eas a,� �enc�d or �cseeer�ed fr¢m �iet�► af ���ghborang idetata�al
i�ses e�r ar� r�b�aceing R. Aas�acg ira �arnpliattc� wirh s�bc�abisio�� 1�.03.��(1) ihrotagh
(5) �f Tk�as °�iCl�_
c. �,il ughti�a$ sb�� � hoaled �nd �� dar�ced ��[ the ligbt �ot�r�e 'ha�l no� �
?�e� Chap��xs �Q�9 5�2 �d 5�3 c�� thi� C��; see I�.S_�. ���.�tgP 3�t�Ae
5aR-l�!?15 3
t✓�ub35�aq
'',
`i
5�p�17W9a a3:08p� FromaKENNEDY � GRAVEPI
`
612337�31d Tm�i4 P.05/0� FW734
vEsibl� fi'�tn �h� pub�aC �agY�� n� w�y or frdaza ��a�h��ritag s'�sad�nc�� arad �h�ll � i�
cor�giiaxac� v�ath 11�3.p�, Se�tior� � 1p3A9 �� �is Tai��-
d_ 5�1�9 �e�. is �a��ed or su�a�ed �o ���a�rol du,t_
�. The ope� ar Qu;�aor s�rvi�e, s�� ar X�nta� �s� does no� take �ap par�ang sp�e �s
r�q�ited for cot�fc�r�i�y �F iI-�s T'itl�.
f. The grod�sio�s r�f subdi�as�on 1125.p1t1� of this 'Ta�le �� co�si��g�d and
s�tisfact�ri�y meto
S�C'�I�1`� �� 'T�t�� I 11�.�2 r�i` �A� ��ur�ds �ie�a �uni��pal cod� sri�Il ��m�nd�d �y th� additio�z
of the b�ld �t�d �txder��ed l�gt�a�e �s follo�rs:
T� 15.Q'�o �� EI) �1��So T`i�� fal�c�win� �r� ��it[ed �s�� i�a ��-� Iaa���c�:
�3.t p�zzru[[�c� �as�s as allo��d in a$-3 I}iseri�;.
�m.�ss�r�z�� p��e� (stach as �ar�c� t�alis ar roiler �B�Iss).
�n�%sed hQa�z and ma�ine sa�es.
�sav✓Iir,g �lleys-
I?eeparcm�n[ �nd ci�scp�t stores.
Ar� �le�aan�� dn�lu�i�g pl�a� ac���soty ��s��ofore, pr�ssi�tg a�� xep2�'�g.
�iec�ic�i �ppiiance s�or�s, ia�ciudiai� incid�ratat rep�r a�d ass�m�ly buj n�r fabr�cacin� �r
ztaan�ia�t���g.
Fuaxaitut°e staX�s.
C�agdc�n suppiy �eores.
i����r ��cc� �a�i�s rovid.ed t�e � 11S��IYl�i1i� ��§Ilb�k�IS4�78 �.�Q�o'!� �f thi� �tl�
�I'� r�id�`cl���l� I[i@to
�Cb�1�1C ��tT���.
The�erS, �c�s of tlu ��atd�r d�v��i�a .
y��ry stor�s, 5 arad 1Q c�n[ sto��s �raci sto�°e� �� 9irrailat �aatur�_ ��rd• 452, ��27-�9�
SJl�-1�2?I5
ro��►e'�aa
�
SeRm17°89 o3:oe�m �ram-KE�NEDY � GRAV�N
612337�31� T�2�4 P.as/oa F-734
�E�'t`TOT� 5. 'Ti�le 1115.Q�, Ss�bci. 2 of ��� I�or��ads `Ii�� �funi�ipal �od� sh�il b� �rn�aa�ied by th�
�dda�ian af chc hold �nd �ta�ci�rlin�d li�nguage and ��leiic�n �f ih� �� latl�u��e �,s folJ�ws:
1!�5.04: C� ��IQ�� LIS m�h� fol�owang axe condigianal �aes in a B-4
�istricc (r�qtairir�g a condiEao��d use p��giait based tapan pr�edures s�t %x�h in and regula�ed
by S��von 112�.0�. of chis Tide):
���. �_ �X�E'�Y ��� AXHEi��[° S�I� �r��e��a n or ou�d�� s�rvac�, sal� aad rent�l
��.Tl �C��S50t�► 1�5� �jd 3t�C��}aI�1� g��S 1it OI �0171 LFl�IQII2Ed v�h.��l�s, �ra,�iets a�
wag��s; provad�d, that:
�- Outside s�rva�e, s�.�s �d �quip��nt $��`a� co�ne�ted. vvith [he prin�ip�1 use is
limited [o �h.ir�y �erce�at (3Q%) af ih� gros� fl�Dr area of the ��n�ipa.l uo�_
b. ��a[si�� s�es �as � fe�aee� or s[re�ned froraa vi�w of neighbo�ing i�sid�r��iai
tss�s or an abueting ge�id�n[�al di�[ra�i ut cortap�aar��� �i�� s�xbd�viaiQrsa 1�Q3.Q�(1)
t�xrc�u�h (5) of tb.is Ti�ig.
ce �Il �i�htin� shali be ho�i�d and so dar���d t�a�t ehg lighe sour�e ,hali nQ� t�
�isibie fx�in th� public righti of wa�+ �� f�am n�agi�b�rir�� x'�s�den�gs aiad ��,�j.l i�� in '�,
ce�plians� v�ich ��uora i��3.09 of this Ticle. -
d. S�Ies �e� as gras,ed ar au�f;gce� �o co��ro1 dt�s�.
e_ T%e pr��risao�s nf subdavision lI?5_OI(�.)� of this Ti�1e are consid��ed a,nd
satis£a�tQrily ra�ei.
�
3��`I�N 6. 'Tir1e i l I b_(3� of r�ae �oqmds View Io���ai��pal cod� shail � am�nded by th� addiuo�
of c�a� b�ld �d underla°��d la���age as fol�ows:
l. � 16_�2: F� [JS o ihe �oltowing ar� p�rrau�ted uses it� aa� Id 1 Ais�ict:
�dta16 �stabliahrn�ne� as d����d a�d ��g�11a�d i� C�aapt�r �1� of ita� �ivaai�ip$I �ode. (�lyd_
57�9 �-13-96)
��ald�n� rna��rials s�les yard�9 T�i.�il l�rrz�� yard, ��n�r�c�oX,� ��iaiprner�t �a�eg �rad ren[al',
�tor��� arad ��te of t �tad f�eI r�oc fer �e��c.
�ss�r�is�i s�rviceso
Flagxia���Ie la�xaidsn �rad�rg�ou�d bu�� �torag� oaaiy. �ot ta ex��ed Lw�r�ey five �la��sa�ad
s�-aa�z�� �
ARU t 25-�7
�� � . .. .... - --
Sep-1T�86 03:09p� Fro�°KENNEDY � GRAVEN 61Z3379310 T°2T4 P.�i/Qe F°734
�:...
-- (25,Oi�0} ��ons iY� I�aeed ncat l�ss [t�an �f�y f�i (50`) $iotx� � �'�sid�niarti di�igici_
C°3�e►�%T1IIt�riC� �� pt�bll� ld[91�Cy �tdill�al4g a81� Si�l�ilYi�eS.
Cpr��I��ou�s a�d ntt�eri�s.
1l�a�oraa�d v�i�icle or recrea�a�nal equipr��rat sa��s and ;�rvice �nd ��nial.
l�l�wspa�� �d �zner� �a�ittran�s.
�a�t�d�r �ai��� ���ea ����d� che t�ere�raer►i.� o$ s���d�a��e �10�.�� of tt`�� `��tle
ar� �a�t�f����sit �t
Vdare#���ues.
�kaol�sale �tid reta.i! �hQV�roorn� �d o�c��; p�ovidedr that ax leas� f f�y pzrc�rac �SQ�Io) of
�h� pci�tcigal buildat�g is d�vo�ed �g s`a�a�e or vmareh�tasi.�g of ��'chatad�se. (�y�� Cod�
�40.2Q)
SE��'�O� 7. Titi� i I I.4-Q4�, ��abd. 2 0� �e Id�o�t�ds 4�ier� l�iw�ic�ipal cod� sh�ll b� ��r�ded by Ehe
add�[ion o$� �he h�al� �a�c� un�e�lir�� la,�guage �n� del�uon c�f � ° ` ' ��gu��� �s �ollo�vvs:
11�.5.QQ-: C� I����I. �J�E3� The #olio�van� are condi�ioxa�i u�es a� an I�1
��sr,r�ct (res�ui.ria�� � car�d'a�io�al us� petmie 6�sed �apon pracedtures se� for�h ia� a�d re�ul•rated
by Se�uon i 12�_0� of this T�r��}:
�
Subd. 2. E�s�pt �or �t��d�r s�i� �sf�r uc�� Tl Qg �:Eg��I 9�Tlr1C�,°i s�l� and rer��al
as a prin�ip�.l �r a� �c�ss�xy �ase an�i ancltading s�1�s iti or fram motorar�d �eh.icle�, Ttail�rs
a� vva�o�; provided, that:
�. �cce�saxy aucsad� service, s�les �d ��tsigm�nY rea�al ��nnect�d v�aTh a pri�c�p� t��e as
�a�ed c� i�iT�y g�rce�[ �30°/e) �f r�� gross floa� area af rh� pr�ncap�l �se.
b, OutSade s�7�s �� are f��a��� or s�r�ened frsm �i�w af �teaghbarin� re�adea�u�l us�s ox
��abcat�g resid��tiai distri�t in c�rx�pliance cui�h subd��i.�io�a� 11�3.08(1) �'a�agh {S) of
r.his �i�l�.
S�C'TI�� $. '�a� os�iraa�c� r.�k�s �f�e�c 3� d�y� ���� i�� ��bii��caon.
51�-1�1?I5 b
R4�71�5-47
sep°iT-9� �3:Ogpm Fro�-KENN�DY � GRAV�N 61233�B310 Tm2T4 F.OB/�� Fm734
���d by �h� Ci[y C'o�ancil of �� �ity of �Qtands il���✓ [�is da� of _ , 1�9�.
R��d �.nd p�,ss�d bX t�� Cicy Cot�nc�1 a�' ih� C:i�y 0� �Oil%!d5 �iew t�ti� da.y of
y 199�.
I�u�ia� 1��Ca�y,ldlayor
�haric� S_ �kai�ing, �bcy ���r���d�auaxasY�a��r
:...�; �, ;, , �.;,
Ro�iT �. I.oii�, �it� �T6oili�y
sa�-a�g�ts �
MLitwS-a7
��
_ ,::f
� ., �> ' �:�; : - � '�:: ? i . ��: ' �' '���' ; . � . �;�'� : � � � � ;�', °��.
� � �: ;! � i1- � ;i:
� , �.. . : �. ; ::
1. Ca�l io O�°der
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson
2o Roil CaIB
Members Present' Chaiipersan Peterson, Comc
Obert
=s f
Members absent: None. �
;.E3,
Alsa Present' Community Development � irecia
Recorder Stacy Caton.
�;,.,
�
�. Ci�izens' �°eq�ce�ts and carne�: � ts o� �� �
,
«
�:. � ; :.
There we�-� nc�'`�itizens r�qt���t� ��'; comme��f �,�'�:
4. 1�pp�€��r��<[�� ��e a���n�
�.. D
�01�/Iinut�s
1�1 Case No.
Jaaxuary 6,1999
�o��d� v��� e��y ���i
2401 �igh�vay l0, li�ou�ads �°. . ; � 55112
;
January
Miller, Johrzson,
Associate Jim Ericson, and
�' o� ��ae agenda
�
that were not on the agenda.
: Consideratian af Resojution No. Sb7-99, a Resolution
of a Minor Subdivision of �444 Greenwaod Drive,
Planning Ca�e No. 539-9�: Consideration of �tesolution No. 568-99, a resolutior�
approving a variance r�quest to allow for a garage whieh exceeds by one foot the
ma�cimum permitted l�eight, requested by Daniel Caates, Property Owner of
5364 Clifton Drive.
Pa��
2
3
.
:,
_. :
_
1Vlo�unds �7ie� Planni�►� Cor�miss�on
}.Ze�ular l�Ieetia��
Jameaa� 6, 1999
Pa�e 2
Motion/Second: Brasaerrile/Stevenson to approve the December 2, 1998, meeting minutes as
corrected.
Ayes - 6 Nays - 0
The motion carried.
5.
Planniaag C��e I�oo 540-95
Property involved: 8444 Greenwood Drive
Consideration of Resolution Na. 567-99, a Resolution
5ubdivision Request to Divide the Proparty Located at
Applicant: Dan Daz�ielson a
The applicant v✓as not present.
Ericson reported that applicant, Dan Da
lot at 8444 Greenwood Drive. The lot i„
They propose to spiit offthe south 7':�
home, for which he has submitted � 4�ri
,,.
size requirements and also meet �� ont
than the homes that are in tl�� ar ''�most
The certi���,�� saf survey w�� xe'u��wed b
___�'__'_ t; �. _. _... , �w .. : ..�_:. �•
required e
the names
Ericson
park d��licatian fee , in
Co ;".:ty, the land is val�
sp` ����es that the dedic�
red�ce�5 the dedicati4:�
���; Appraval of a I`✓tinor
���d Drive into Two Parcels.
ni �ti�r►, is req�r�st;r�� d�€�r �ubdivision of his parents'
= 5 feet ��ong Cr�;���t�� Drive and ii is 234 feet deep.
t of the��t on w�5 ti�e applicant t�vouId build a new
g pla��° The par� s created meet the city's minimum lot
age r�c�uirenaey� The loi �vould be somewhat smailer
a�e �Yi��t 1�4��eet, although there are some smaller lots.
y t��e ��t�r"�igineer and public works department who
ioii o�ease�nents being dedicated. In addition Yo the
d�d for the certificate is to add a signature block baring
�;'>mayor and city administrator.
�k�at the �sther issue that needed to be discussed eoncerned park
'C�i���: this property is iarger than 1 acre, the ei�y code specifies that a
nc��ant equai to 10% of the land value, be paid. According to Ramsey
_.
.`�47,700. Ten percent of that would be $4,770, The Code also
fee applicable to land under an existing hame can waived, which
nt 66 percent, to $1,574.
�t����?�� ��ct��C��.��ed the �lanning Commission approve ResoEution 567-99, a resalution
reca����i�x��� approval of this minor subdivision request to the City Council, wi�h stzpulations.
The �if-st stipulation is that the certificate of survey be revised as indicated privr to the Council
approving it, a(so that the applicant rt►ake a park dedica.tion paym��t in the amount specifi�d,
�1475, and then before building permits would be issued the applzcant would need to record the
certificate of survey, the resolution of approval and the easement documents.
`i
,
TVlou�ds V�evv Planni�g Coe��issaot�
R�gu[ar 1!/�eeti�g
�
Ja�aeaa�°y 6, 1999
Page 3
Obert asked if he was building this house on the new lot for himsetf and Ericson stated yes.
Miller asked if the lot was narrower than the other lots, and if so, was there any speciai reasan
why. Ericson re�lied that the remaining property would be 15b feet wide, teaving .�i��rloor open
for a future resubdivision. Miller then asked how the propased setback c�xnpar Q�the existing
homes on #he black. Ericson replied that most of the houses a,�e set bac� 1[�trt}T<�� forty feet, with
the exception of the home on the subject property, wluch o'�`���;lly tot��.'����ss �ro�n Eastwoad
Road before Greenwood Drive was constructed. The pr� "`�`�e�ci setback,�c�t t�e-ti�u� l�ome wou <.
c� N���
be consistent with the other homes. t�,��' � �' °
_;<�•
Peterson inquired aboui e�sting struc�ures, and
which Ericson repiied no.
Brasaemle stated that while he wi(l support ttus rec
because he Iikes the large lots that characterize the
the proposed
to
about the subdivzsion
Peterson asked if the praposed home wouid �.�� ���r�c����- �arage anc� vvhzch side of the lot the
garage would he. Ericson responded that ��a��om;e �����se� t�t�s; �>.�ude a three-siall garage
which would be oriented to the south en�;�f the pr `erty �r�c,s��t"�e�minded the Commission that
, � ta . �.��
the footprint shown on the certificat ���,��ot bin��g and is sf�own fbr demonstration purposes
i only. _. �� �z ��',
�
�
Brasaemle/�?b
subdi
Nays - 0
�ion No. 567-99, a resoiution
Greenwood Drive, requested by Dan
The motion carried.
; C�se Alo. ��� �� ����Ii�. �eari�g)
involved: 53b4 ;�;li#�an T3rive
�tion of Reso ', on No. 568-99, a Resolution Approving a Variance Reyuest to Allow
a�e Exceed�. the Maximum Permitted �Ieight by One Foot.
property owner.
present:
Ericson stated that Dan Gates, Yhe applicant, is requesting a variance to permit his undee-
construction garage to exceed the maximum height requireenents set by ihe city cade. The city
code specifies that any accessory building cannot exce�d a height of 15 feei. The height of an
accessory building is noi measured from the floor io the peak, but rather from the floor to a point
l�a�nd� �Ie�vv Pianr�in� �ommi�si�r�
Re�ular I�/Ie�tirt�
�a�e�aiy 6, 1999
Page 4
midway on the truss. The applicant submitted a building permit appiication in Augusi that met the
height requirernent, but made a change to the plans to ailow for the parking of a commercial
vehicle inside the garage which necessitated a taller door. The increased height of the door
bumped up the height of the garage by one foot as a result. Because the appiica�t�a�� utilizing
the slab from the preexisting garage, the elevaiian of the floar could not b� chang��� If he were
building a garage from scratch, the floor of the garage could have been pc.�uz'ec� �� a iower
elevation than the outside grade elevation so as to accomm ��' the t� ��� ��t �� lceeping with the
height requirement. ���2�� ,��
Ericson explained that a case for a hardship can be mac
resotution of approval which addresses the criteria that
in order to grant a variance. Approving ihe variance re
intent of the Code.
Motion/Second: Johnson/Miller to approve Resol
variance request to allow for a garage exceedin� fi;
Ayes - 6 N;
7.
E�ec�ion of O�cers
The Plannin�, Commission
officers-�a c�ai�person a�lt
Obert norrii��
consczez�tious
Ayes - 6
nominated
�ition. ih�
----o-> > � �.�.. .
�ommission
�iot be detrir
to the
68�99, a ���=�1t�C���;approving a
����uin per��it�d'lt�ight by one foot.
,;
��t���oz� �t�.� rries.
_,
1� Corrunission is to annually elect
at
n, citing his years of inecitorious service and ever-
nominations.
Jerry Peterson as Chairperson for the Planning
Nays - 0 Motion carries.
foi- vice chairperson, citing his uniyue insights and dedication to
� "��ere no other nominations.
�:.
Obert/Johnson.
Ayes - 6, Nays - � l�/Iotion carries.
'�
v
I�I��ends Vie� Pla��i�ag Cor►a�iissEOn
I�e�u��r IO��eting
�.
���if Ite�orts
Ja�uary 6, 1999
Pa�e 5
Jopke discussed recent Ciiy Council actions with w9uch the Planning Commission �
involved or by which is affeeted, such as approvat of the Tannmie Schmrt�`�UP, e��
Tobias variance appeal and the appointment of Roger Stigney as Counc�� �3a��c�� v��
as the alternate. 3opke reported ihat the rr►ayor would like :-��rease �€� m�ny�a�r:
Planning Comznission from seven ta nine members and h s,��: ected staff�o ��e���
f ,�;.
to do this. � .
A related discussion was held regarc�ing the currei�t
seat would be filled. Jopke reported that an ad app
set a February 1, 1999 deadline for application subr
ssion of the
Gary Quick
g of the
an
Cammission a� �fl ��cn the
issue of the news[etter which
Jopke also stated that the mayor has requested an ar�nual repo�-t fr��m. �%� �1�ning Comrnission
detailing its work during the last year. After sonc�� �����.�sic�iz, the #�1�r���i� �oznmission directed
staff to draft a summary of the plai�ning case �,l��ard ��r,the �ai��rnissio,�.�s well as any other
act�vities it has been involved in 1998 and �J�ed to r��i�;v�a ��i�. �'epc�r� before being forwarded to
the Council. � ,�>�'
9.
�haerpeb
There w�
10.
Adjourn
�3.�'�-.�,'--.'��a �
The �et
and Plan�����„;,;;�;cr
was
Rick Jopke
CoYnmunity Deveiopment Director
essi�re
ing Co
p, m.
oner reports.
: i " I :. .. . . __. . ., . . . . ._.. . . -
�� � 1 r. - \�� ;
, �
'Too Mounds �Ii.ew Plaiuiing Commission,
Fro�: Rick Jopice, Community Development Director
�e�bjec�o Comprehensive PlanTransportation Element
Date: January 29, 1999
Attached for your review and discussion at the February 3, 1999 Planning Commissian meeting
is a revised draft of the comprehensive plan transportation goals and policies. The curreni draft
inciudes the changes discussed at the January 20th m.eeting.
I3:�DATA\GROLIPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMIVI�2-1-99.MEM
;:1'. •._�: ���"
The following will be the transportation goals and policies for the City of Mounds View:
Goal 1: Develop a balanced surface transportation system giving attention to all modes and
related facilities.
Policies: a. Tt'ea� all modes of transportation and facilities related to each as one system to be
coordinated and related on a comprehensive hasis.
b. The system will facilitate t�•ansnortation to
and from centers of activi within tlae communiiy.
Goal 2: Ideniify needed improvements to tl�e various elennen�s oithe fransportatian systern t0 provide
for safe and convenient movement by all modes.
Policies: a. Maintain transportation £acilities to functiozl in a manner compatible with
adjacent land usesa �+tke�'When tl�e funcfiion of a transportation facility has changed
over time to become incompatible with adjacent Iand uses, a program to eliminate this
incornpatibility should be established.
b. Hazardous and poorly designed and controlled intersections shall be improved on a
phased basis to increase the safety of pedestrians. bicXclists. and motorists alike.
c. Streat safety shall be improved through street lighting, visibility, sign controls, elevated
pedestrian walkways and other such facilities when economicatly feasible and desirable.
d. Public signa�e shall be related to tlie overall system of street function and control.
e. Parking shall be Iimited or prohibited aioi�g principal and tr�inor arterial roadways.
£ Establish and enforce standards and controls for business and advertisin�
si nin�.and li__�,_*htin�.in order to �revent driver distraction and �otential hazards.
Gaal 3: Provide sufficient off-street parking to meet normal demands of all types of land use.
Policies: a. Parking facilities shall be developed so as to conserve land, promote joint use and
minimize conflicts v✓ith vehicular., pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
b. Minimize and reduce the demand and resulting requirements for parlcing through tlae
adequate provision of pedestrian and bicycle facitities and through land use
development coordination„ ' �'''°°
•� w.... .� `. 4 � _ � i�. ._.. ,....,�
i 1 1 ,7 icii vav�a... �i .. �rr��n� Mr'�lxii.
� ag.aw ....�a.. _J __' ______v � i - ' ' _ .
c. Parking requiretnents imposed Uy tlae City sha11 be consfiantly raviewed to�e
,.. .
; . . . .: ,
. .: , -;:
ensure supply is reflective of demand.
d. Minimize parlcing lot access to pubiic streets to the functionaJ tniniinum.
Goal 4: Support tlie developinent of a��ie transit svstem � whici-► ro.��_v_ides a
broad ran e of transit service o tions to �rH minimize tl�e need for individual automobile travel.
Policies: a. Sufficient mobiiity shall be promoted far all persons, giving special consideratiott to
those wllo must rely on modes of transportation other than the automobile.
b. Adequate transit rider conveniences, such as bus shelters, park and ride lots, and free
parking areas, sha11 be incorporated into �q centers of activi and areas af high
transit usage.
c. Transit service shall6e encouraged within a reasonable waiking distance of every
resident of the coinmunity.
d. Additional transit service during off-peak hours to �i�q destinations outside the
communiiy should be encouraged.
The City will work witl� the Metropolitan Council Transit Organization (MCTO) to
provide more and better iransit service for the community and to pravide increased
ridership.
- f. Encourage MCTO to impletnent an intra-suburban transit plan.
Goal 5: • . . . . .
.. , - - .-a- --�'��--- � ' ' ' �' '-' '' �. Plan. im�lement,_,and maintain a
� � � ` � � T71411 C41A4 J
coni rehensive trail s stem to reduce de endene on automobile-oriented trans ortation to rovide safe
and convenient �edestrian and bicvcle circulation and to �rovide recreational o,�portunities for Mounds
View residents.
.� � - -;-- -:- - - - - - .::_ -
. . . . . . ... . ... ��, ; _ _,
-- . ..
�- `- --•- - :- :, : �a. - ; - -: � -;. ; . ,, ;. -- -- _
.
.. .
_ _ �, _: -,-.--- : :-c : ._.- - : . ;. .,
.
ea. Pedestrian/bicycle corridors shall be cansidered on minor arterial and collector
roadways including the Highway 10 corridor to ensure safe pedestrian tra�el.
�b. Safe and convenient bic c�le and pedestrian circulation shall be promoted within and
to and from activity centers of ac#ivitY, separated when feasible from vehicular
circulation.
c. Develo a trail svstem saitable for short distance cecreational use as well as lon�
dis#ance trail use.
�d, Accommodations will be made to facilitate safe pedestrian and bicycie crossings at
�
.
...
;; ; ; ;; , , •: .. . .
major intersections incl�idin� the timing of traffic signals.
� �e. Special provisions for pedestrian and bicycle accass aud circulation shall be planned
in areas adjoining schoois, parks, churches, service centers a�td commercial centers.
�f, Wiien economically feasible, provide facilities for pedes�-ians and bicyclisis in
coxijunction with street improvement projects.
}�g. Wliere possible, provide bicyclists a right-of-way separated from boYh pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
�1�.
. Estabiish a si na�e standard for trail use that
minimizes otential conflicts atnon users.
�i. Ensure that pedastrian street crossings on heavily traveled streets are cleariy marked
and lighted.
�. Encoura e com liance with traffic laws.
k. Connect the trail wa s stem with existi�� and future transii s stems.
=;7 1. Encoura e the develo ment of secure bic cle arkin o ortunities at existin and
fitture commercial and industrial develo ments.
m. Promote environmental and ecolo ical consideration in the develo tnent of the
trai] wa s stem.
Goal 6: Coordinate all City transportation planning with County, Metropolitan Council, State, Federal,
the North Metro I35W Corridor Coalition, and other local transportation plans.
Poiicies: a. Maintain and improve the existing line of communication with county and state
highway officials in order to ensure that planned improvements are consistent
with the goals and objectives of tlie community.
b. The Ciiy will consider the use of its resources to assist in the resolution of
rne�ropolitan transportation problems. Participate in and help impleme��t tthe
transportation objectives of the North Metro I35W Corridor Coalition.
c. Coordinate pathway system with Ramse Coun Anoka Coun and adjacent
�g}�� communities.
�
Goal 7: 1
� '�' �' -' �'�•=��°a� All elements of the street system shall be�lanned improved and
�[��LZ�ZLIILT.7LCUlUILAUJ. � �-
maintained accordin� �o the hi�hest rnost a�nro�riate standards �ivin�due cansideration to botli land ttse
and transportation �oa1s and �olicies.
Policies: a. Design transportation faciiities to conserve resources ��
�-��;� and minimize `'-- `-`�' "���' `�° on-going pubiic invest�nenf. Balar►ce
initial investment with on oin maintenance.
- --• - _..- - • - - - - - -. _ - - -- ., _
. - --- -•• -
_ , �, , � . .. . . .� ,. , ,. ,
.
- �S� '
b_Major traffic flow sl-►all be ro�erl cy i�anneled to collectar and or arterial
streets.
c. Facili#ate traffic movement on arterial streets b re ulaiin the number and Iocation
a� ' ' vehicular access�oints
J and throu h utiiization of
appropriate teaffic conh�ol methods and devices.
- - -- - _, - - : -- - : :: :� ; ; ,; � _ ;. ;�, -- -
..
-: ::.. .
. - - -_ , - -- : : : :: - -
_ . , , ,
. . .._ , _. M :- � : : , , , . .
ed. Lacal or residential streets shall be designed so as to pt•event penetration by
through traffic. Traffic caiming devices shauld be used where appropriate. �er
`; .
�e. Existing residential streets sl�all be protected from reclassification to rr►ore intense
use; e.g., collector or minor arterial.
. . - -- - - -. . ;-: :-- : :::.�: -- � :- - -
- :
-• - - --. � ;.---• .: - - : ::.-
. . . _ : : . ; , : _ . ; _ _:_.._...-_-�--=•---....:�:.��,:.:
wwi[ir�li�v:�Gri�ti.�l�l��wi�riir:�eiiF�a'�:a•�• �-�:••••'•�y:•••r:w�[in�l
� � _. . "i :._ i:'i�� ::-._ ....:' _ .� ' ' ""..... .".i..- � �
. ' ' .� � �
I . ' '. '" ..- ' ' .,_ ...' " ., .._. : _. :.��... - i -..•.i''i i: ' _. i. -s
' ' ". " ' ' . '_ .. - .... . . �. . . , " ' ' _ _ ' ' ' ' ...• �
. _ _ .. _ � . ..�' � • • i � . ! � -•. • Y � '. , _�.. .• � � . -..
• • � �
.." _ � "." ' _ ' • _ • � � �
- ..... . .. " "' � ' ` • _ ._ _ " ."' -
, � ,.... ' " � ,.. .� . � .. . � e ' 1 . • . . ... � J i � ..� ..y..�
�f. Maintain streets in the City through a Pavement Management Program.
��. Develop an appropriate citizen review process to develop and impletnent City
street design and assessment policies.
�
i i
:.: ....... _._._._ i
Goal 8: Develop and implement a Highway IO corridor design theme to presetat Mounds View as a an
attractive atad desirable community.
Policies: a. Work witli state and county of%ciais to i�nplement various eleznents of tiie
approved plan.
b. Develop ordinance standards to require that private development that occurs
along Highway 10 incorporates eiements of ihe approved therne wt�ere
possible.
c. Identify and pursue state, federal, county, and other funding sources to fund
itnplementatzon of the approved design theme.
5
,
�
4
���.,4.LW.,..✓ ...
�':- ' #, ` � � -. -- -- �, ;� ",. 1 . �? .
° ;1; :�; .:1:
� '', �
SPECIAL MEET'II�TC�
AGENDA
Call to Order
Ro[1 Call
Introduction of New PEanning Commissioners
Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
� + s. : �. ,'.; . �, . . � ; , � ; � ,,, �; �� T
�.
.�. , �: ' i� - �: ��;�� �: � - ��3 ' ii! - -� ^. .
Approval of Minutes
a. January 6, 1999
b. Plannia�g Case �io. 546-99
Property Involved: 8100 Long Lake Road
Consideration of I�esoluiion Na. 571-99, a Resolution which Recornmends
Approval of a Conditional Use Pertnii for a Garage Expansion.
Applicant: Richard Maki
7. I)iscussion of Pfa�ening Comraission �y1aw�
Review of revisions made to the Bylaws at last meeting.
Iiiseussio� of �roposed Ord'enan�e 629
This proposed ordinance would amend the language in Chapter 401 to be
consistent with the approved changes �o the Planning Commission Bylaws.
9. Staff Reports / Items of Information
a. Preseniation by Patrick Toth, regarding broadcasting of Commission
meetings.
b. Review of I'revious Council Actions
10. Chairperson and Planrung Commissioners Reports
11. Adjaurnment to Agenda Meeting
(Immediately Following Regular Meeting)
���*�:�**��***��*����*����F���x*����:��*����*
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-442�
iF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
���:����*������*���:�*�������**��*��u�������
1
AGENDA SESSIOI�
AGENDA
Review of the Febnzary 3, 1999 minutes of the P(anning Commission
2. Review revisions to the Transpor�ation Componerit of the Cotnp Plan LJpdate
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDE VIPLANGQMMIPCAGENDA11999\2-17-99.REG
'.'
,
, �,)
� �: :! ; _ i: �, ' : � ;: :1 � �� `, �; '.
li�eetin� I)ate:
�tafi' �tepor� t�yo
February 17, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
Pla�ning Case l�o.e 546-99
12eq�est: Conditional Use Permit for a 5�0 Square Eoot Garage Addition
Peti�ione�:
I,oc�t�on o
PII+I �o.
Zonin�//I�a�d Use:
Richard Maki
� 100 Long Lake Road
06-3�-23-1�-0045
R-1, 5ingle Family Residential
t�pppic�ble R�g�t�taons:
1104.01, 5ubd. 4: Accessory buildings detached from principal building shall ha�e a setback of 5 feet.
Accessory buildings shail not be allowed in the front yard.
1106.43. Subd. 1: No garage shall exceed 952 square feet except by CiJP; the combined square
footage for all accessory buiidings on a lot shall not occupy more than 25% of the rear yard.
1106.04. Subd.6: The combined square footage of alI accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed
1,400 square feet, the garage width cannot exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than tluee vahicle
accesses.
1125,01, Sub. le: This section lists possible adverse that the Planning Corrunission shall consider
in making its recommendation.
1125.01. Sub. 3b: This section lists possible additional c�'iteria by CUP requests shall be judged.
A,ftachmerets:
�ackgro�anc�:
Planning Applicatian
Zoriing Map
Site Plans
Structure Map
8100 Long Lake Road is located at the northwest corner of Long Lake and 5herwood I�oads.
The property-�a corner lot--is approximately 13,700 square feet. The house and existing detached
garage are set back toward the back of the lot and takes access from Long Lake R.oad. The
hause, at 576 square feet, is presently larger than the existing two-stall garage, which is
approximateiy 400 square feet. The applicant wouid like ta expand the size of the garage by an
additiona1580 square feet io accommodate vintage and callectar-type vehicles that are currently
being stored outside. A Conditional Use Permit is required in this case due to the s�ze of the
proposed garage.
I'
i
Maki CUP Request
810Q Long Lake Road
February 17, 1999
Page 2
A.�a[ysisa
The size of the garage after the proposed expansion would be 9�0 square feei, which is
significantiy Iarger �han the house. This type of "imbalance" has been discussed at previous
meetings of the Planning Cotninission and City Council, with the general consensus being that a
proportional relationship should be maintained between a house and garage. Even so, the City
recenily approved a similar reyuest for an oversized garage located ai 2185 Pinewood Drive--also
a corner lot. In that casa, however, the p�•oposed garage was 53 percent larger than the house. In
this case, the proposed garage at 8100 Long Lake Raad would be 70 percent larger than the
house.
Dimensional Criteria
All of the dimensional criteria associated with this requesip-setbacks, spacing between buildings,
width of proposed garage, numbers of access point--satisfy the reyuireznents as sta.ted in Chapter
1104 of ihe Zoning Code. The back of the proposed addition rraaintair►s the currentiy�e�sting
sethack. The requirement that the combined area of accessory buildings shall no� exceed twenty
percent of the rear yard does not appiy in this case, as there effectively is no backyard on this
property due ta the depth at which the home has been constructed on the lot.
Adverse E ects and CUP Criteria
The City Code, in Section 1125.01, 5ubd. 1 states that tk�e Planning Commissian shall examine
the possible adverse effects of a cond�tional use permit request prior to making a
recommendation, Tile following represent those items explicitly stated in the Code:
Reiationship with the Comprehensive PIan.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential
areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and
residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8100
Long Lake Road, as low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Geographical Area Involved.
4. The Character of the Surrounding Ar�a
`,
,
In this area of Mounds View, there is a good mix between larger tots and smaller lots.
Most of the homes in the immediate area are of the same size and age, many of which
having garages as large or larger than that of 8100 Long Lake Road. More than half of the
garages in the area are attached to the principal structure. A larger garage on �he subject
property would not appear aut of place. `::;
I '
Maki CUP Request
8100 Long Lake Road
-- February 17, 1999
% Page 3
3, Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Increasing the size of the existing garage will have an immediate positive impact �ot he
property va(ues for the subject property, and may acivally increase the perceived values of
the hornes surrounding 8100 Long Lake Road in that vehicles which were once parked ar
store outside wauld be stored inside the garage addition. It is not conceivable that this
garage addition would depreciate the surrounding area in any way.
5. The demonstrated need for such a use.
The existing garage is too small for the needs of the properiy owner. The applicant desires a
targe enough garage to park his vehicles inside, protected �rom the elements and possibie
vandaiisrr►.
This proposal appears to satisfy the adverse effects criteria. Also in 5ection 1125.01, the Planning
Commission is to examine the criteria foc granting a condiiional use permit, which are outlined in
Section 1125.01, Sub 36:
(1} The use will no� create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other
public facitities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
(7) The use wil( not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
(8} Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
Adding an addition to the garage, even one as large as is being requested, would not
create a greater impact on exisiing public faciiities, parks, schools or services, on utilities
or access roads, r�or would it create an increase in� traffic on adjacent streets.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatibie or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
(3) The structure and site sha[l have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
Because this is a sanall loti, �he expanded garage wauid have little visual screening. In
terms of its reiationship with the two adjoining properties, the garage is sepaeated fram the
property to the north by another garage, so the expansion wauld have littie impaci upon
that property. The property to the west would not be separated by much distance or any
physical screening.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related io the overall needs of
; the City and to ihe existing land use.
1 ::' i
Maki CUP Request
8100 Long Lake Road
February li, i999
Page 4
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
(b) The use is not in con�lict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and
allow for the storage of vehicies and yard and garden equipment . Having this expanded
shed would allow the property owner to store vehicles currently Ieft outside within a
secure and protectied structure.
While staffbelieves that the adverse affects of this development proposal are rninimal and are far
out-weighed by the benefits. Hawever, depending upon one's interpreiation of the request in
terms of ihe "intensity" of the proposed garage expansion in comparison to the existing home, the
propasal may be in conflict with the "appearance" criteria. Staff's only cancern with this proposal
is the proportional imbalance of the proposed garage {980 sf} in comparison to the house (576 s�.
Staff also beIieves that it �s desirable from a community perspective to have properiy owners
improve their properties with building expansions since the properties are then usually kept in
better order.
ltecomrr�e�dation:
Approve Planning Commission Reso(utian 571-98, a resoiution recommending approval of a
Conditionai Use Permit for a 580 sc�uare foot garage expansion at 810Q Long Lake Road,
requested by Richard Maki.
��,� -��s ����
James Ericson, Planning Associaie
N:�DATAIGROUPSICOMDE VIBEVCASES1546-$91MAICI-PCl . RPT
-`::=�
,,:>��_�
.. ::_. - :�... .; ': I ':: � .::: �.: I .- "
bi� N �A ��;
�.q�.�1 . •il`
?j ��;'�'<; �;;; :� CO D�+ �I,OPI�E�di' Il�+ P[��t I�T
-- -� I3EVELO�IQ�EE�T'I' APPI.,�CA�O�
p ' r:'"`� ��� 2401 Highway 10, Iviounds �iew MN 55 t 12
.A ;,,;,� :;,.f;
~Okryryj e FSh\Q4 612r717�4020
PdPtRe
51�-784�3462 - �AX
PIease'I'ype or Prinf Ta►foa°ttaataore � Cornpleie $oth Sides of `i"his FoPra
r4pplie�n� immfo�axaaeion //° . . ,
Name of Apgiicani � /�,�f,/��✓ i �/�l.C/
Address ��� �(J iU lo � �G� �� �
��lQu�r�/,�.5` � � /�� ✓t�
�%�
Inte¢°est in �rop�rty (checic appropriate box)
r� Owner of Properry
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager
❑ O[her (axpiain)
Te[ephone �� ..�-1�-� %�
Fax
❑ Contrac[ for Deed Owner
a Agreement ta Pureh�.se
Applzcants must provide evidence of inte�est in �roperty at the tiffie �f ap�siicatior�, a�ad if you are not t�e ow�er of the
propea°ky, you mast provide a letter o� per�ission frooi tt�e omner giving c�a��e�t to the fiti�g of tlxis applica�io�. �e
proper�y ow�er maast siga this appl�caiio� fo�° it fo be aecepied.
��°opet�ty I�escx°eption/Proposal 3 % �..i__' �
Address or General LocAtion %,f�L�C> GO��h A� �-a'�''J� �����'��S ���f
i ��1�3� o��� T�,r >ULV e�.S 3 3 iC`' �.
LegalDescription j �" � .S� ��-� i=.r d-�=iit�-�- � C° � %`LU'/° G- .� �3
/ �
Properiy Identification # (PIN #) 1,� -- � 3 � 6 U � � �- 3 ► � ��� Z'i 5
# of Acres � � • 7 � '� � � C, + -•'> � �
CurrentZoning f=:"♦-- 1�' . ,., _�
Type of Application
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ Rezaning
a Major Subdivision
❑ Minor Subdivision
❑ Ptanned Unit Development (PUD)
❑ PUD Aznendment
� Conditionat Use Peiuut
❑ Variance
❑ Code App�al
o Develop RevietivlSite Plari
❑ Wetland Alteration Permit
o Wei4and Buti`er Pemut
o Fioodplain PetYnit
❑ Other
�250
$250/acre; min $25fl max $ i 50Q
$250 -� $250 deposit*
$200
Refer to rezoning fees
�35� ,.--�}
R-1, R-?�$75; aIt others �250
R-1, R-2���Yt?0 all othzrs $250
�100
$125/acre; min $125 ma:c $750
R-1, R-2 $150; atl otlZers $200
R� ! , R-2 $25; aIl others $100
$zoo
*Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materals azad staff or consultant time spent in the revie�v,
research or preparakion ofmaterints associated widt dus application. 'ihe applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable
incwxed costs in excess of d�e initia! deposit amount. Any portion uf the deposiE not a-pent or encumbered shall be reiianded
to the applicant withirs ttiirry (30) days aftec consideration ot'the appEicaEion is comp3eted.
Ptedse cotnplet$ the re�verse side of 4his :��ptica�iono
;. ; , ;.. ;. _
City of i�/Iounds Vierw+, [�IN
Develo�ment Application Page 2
Present Use of Property ��/
❑ UndevelopedNacant �f' Single Family Dwe(ling `�
❑ Duple:c/Two Family Dwelling a Mutti-family Dweilin�
❑ Business/Commerciai Establisi�ment ❑ industrial Establishmeni
❑ Other (e:cplain)
Property Classification ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens
Description of Proposal C�r;���'.<<i C � . • � .��,�,:il % • � �; :,} %'� ,°; %� ' . �� �' =�-<�y ..: �<,.�.' _, . -
/�(�- �z :�-T r` � r„�r.:� d r��J (.y ,'f � G r-j;
BY MY {OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS Al'PLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO TF� BEST OF MY
KNOWL�DGE, TF� INFURMATIUN PRU VIDED IS T AND ACCU E.
Signacure of Applicant �`�
Name ot Applicant (typed/printed) rC�ff�iE'� �e�"/��i
Siguacure of Property Owner
Name o�Property Owner (typedJprinted)
Address of Owner
Phone Number of Owner
_����� �,.
4.�
"`-��
�G��,��'��a i�i�� -
�/D��D�cJ� �1-c;� dr9-r�
s����u �.�- �GZe/ f�lx�
���� ��� �
��**����#���**��*��m�**��*��*�a�:��*���m*��*�**���*�x��*�*m**x��*�m�x�x���*����x��������**�����xx�������*
FOR OFFICE USE ONL,Y
Daee of Submittal i—`7 — 9 i
Date ofAcceptanca Assigned to:
Planning Case No, 5"LI (� - �� % 60-day Lsmit 12�-day limit
Fees Paid: Account # Check #
ApplicaCion:
Park Dedication:
Deposits: —
Other:
Total:
�s! -r•,-iLt
Receipt #
�J;1Br�TA1GROUPSICOMDEV�FORlv(S1DEVr1PP.P'OR l/98
;:;;�';
- �::::-.:1
826� aLOU � o�v� i r�� �r� ,�.,,�^-
82fi0 �
aa� � ,
.......... ..................
8250 �255 82�0 � 825� 82�a .-
� .-
sz4� a2�-z � �, s2sa � aza3 N
' T LCi
;, � N N � 8�71
��v c�v ct°v 8231 c� 8232 82�Q �
!1�
�
¢
A
V
'i
Ai�De4iit A!/�N W 824-7
� � � o a ro r �� � 8239
co cn u� �n rn �n �n 23 g
cV N N C�! N N N
�2D� � 8225
8184� 8193 8224 �
8� 12 °°� �217
8180 8185 8206
....
�205 ,,,�.. :::
8rt60 6171 �200 ...........� ......................... :�:�...
. ... ................. .. .... . ...
........... ... .:
Si 50 8150
81 fi 5 p /� '�"^�
(3� �Y� faooOM
s � �-� $ � 40 �
. �1 8133
8��� 8141 '
8132 8321 8i26 �123
\�, � r.
� $1 � � � � � ,. [D t�CJ '�`'�\ � � d-
O � ,•,•, � r
� c� c� c� ... �n ►n �n ��j�Q S 1 Q 1 �n � c�
�y � N N•:: cV cV N ni
ZWOOD sHER�oo� RoP,� �
� �as9 � � aos� � � aass aoe� N � � BosQ eos�
��
72'
8Q7 �. rt
���i.�
8045 804�
W
� 8031 8038
� 8019 BII30
� 80fl1 �010
� 7993 7990
w 7985 7970
� 7961 7964
7951 7954
}�fLLVIEW
7901 ��Rr\
aa�9
�w j..�
8041
€3035
,$011
7977
�
7975 �`
7955
7945
___ �' �
Zoning Map Plar�ning ��se 546�99
Appli�ant: Richard Nlaki
Lo�a��on: � � oa Lo�g �,�� �oaa
s�-°—a 7
$07tJ� i 8C�7t
8p46 8fl51
8Q24 g�27
8000 8�05
7984 %989
798p
79
7971
79�3
7931
-I
�
�
�
�o�
�
�-
�
�
�
ti
0�
�'
�:
�.'_
�
�'
�
�
�
� p
wr^ •�;^ ,�.Y_:
� ;�
•$� � .
���� '�. .�`' :'`t�\ %.,:-••
�,� �::
>;,�<
��:;
a�y,
�`
, •�� a
»><::..,
<�;;��
�;.
�
\;� M1
'
i �?:".' � � ��«
Z �.'.
TY99LeiI'"B,9 ���i'���
s,'` .
���; '�±s� �;
�
�.
�.
.
� �
,
�
� � � ..�, ,_,
%�f!t
ryy � '-�
� � ILS�LUi.i
Sn-u�ture Ie�ap Planniiig Case 546m99
Applicant: Richard il�aki
Loca.tion: � 100 Long i�ake Road
�.,.
t:
irf°< �
�
�
' i(..Q '�'�
�
�
�
�: �
�.
5...
�;..
•-
�
4VA-'
(t
��
�� o
�
�
�
�
,;: . _ ; " ' . . ---....
__ ____----- -...__.._........._._...__.--..._...—...__.._ �._....._. __.........._.._.....�_� . _ _....�._.._.._.._. _._.. _ ... . �
—�---- -------___._.___._— i�
- �, � �_� ; �
� ��� s �
; _�.. � :
Vo �� i
_. �_ +
,fs
iI
t
c
F
..}
'' (
`' �
a� �w �q aaw � am m wa ww � wms a� .e� mro .wa� — � ,� \
� �
�
B � �
�.� � ' ���
i .� �
1 C�, �` ' y�,
t " � � ;1
� � �
� �� � � �
� � �''� �. .�,..���.�� .� .� _ _ _ _ .. � �
� '��` c.� ` ` � �
_; ;� �
, �f �
�� �'`� � 4 � �
r,� ,� �` �
.. � � � � �
�, � � � � \ � �.
� ��� �
� � �
� ,------�
_ ------ _ _ _ _ — _ . . .__.,..------ __ .__.__ .. _ .. _._ � �....� �
�
�
�l
i
��i
�� �
�� I
la �
�}
i
�
�;
�� �
..1; !
'�
�
`�' �
�� ;
��
��
I ' '� �� � '
, ,. � � �
;,
3 :r� _-
i 1� — �
�,��.,.���....—.,�=.,w�_re�—..�—_ ��� i
� . �
� vc'� � �
;
!
,
� ;
,
�
i
�
.
: _ _ _ _ ____:_
---- .�_, _ _ __ _ _.._. _ _. ---- -_____ _ ;
r � --------- �,���,a....:�.�'�'.��f��.��:�� � =i
-��_� __.��,....,�.,���,..___.�.� � �.�.��..�.. � .�.,_. n,_
�
,� ' . ,�? , �'_ ! ,_ ;� � . �; .
� . :� ��,� �; ' _ �. ��r �:
�� ; 1- = 1� � �
/ , , >�, `'. • .
i' : 1`, . �; ; :.
� �; - ,�, �� , ' ' , ��; ;. � �� ��. �: � ��. -: : �.. ,. �, , .� �, ., � .�.. ; ,; - ��; �. � _ � ;� , ., ; ��, �, ,
y �. ; �: :. ��, -, . .� �. . � .; , : : �F� .1 1�: ��; . .�. . �;
1 = 1: � . �: '. , � ; �. . ',��, : ' . ;:�. -. .; :,, � ,
Wh��'e�s, Richard Maki has applied for a canditiona( use perrrut to expand an e�sting 400
square-foot garage hy an additiona1580 square feet on praperty located at 8100 Long Lake Road,
zoned R-1, Singie Family Residentiai, iegaily described as foIlowed:
�'he �ast 133 F`�eP o�tdee,S`outh 162 Feet o,f'ihe NE Qr�a�°ler of
,�ec�ion 6, To�vnship 30, IZange �3
S.EIrCOd"IIl�TI', lillll�IeIES"OT'.4
���1�A�, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up ia
1,400 square feet of garage/accessory building an one iot; and
�
�'�E1�EA�, the Pianning Corramission has reviewed the follawing documents regarding -
this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plan
d. Area Map with Building Footprints
V6'��1�EAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements as stated
in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code far this proposal have been met; and,
W�ElZEAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings thai possible adverse
effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 5ubd. l.e.:
l. Relationskup with the Comprehensive Pian.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and matntenance of residential areas so cts
to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential pYaperty in
general. The Comprehensive Plan desig�zates this property, 8100 Long Lake Road, as low-densiry
�esidential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
2, 4. The Geographical Area Involved & the Character of the Surrounding Area.
i:, : r
In this area ofMounds l�iew, thet�e is a good mix behveen largsr lots and smaller lots. Most of the -
'i
Plamvng Cormnission Resoiution 571-99
February 17, 1999
Page 2
homes in the immea'iate area are of the same size and age, many of which having garages as large
or larger than that of 81 DO Long Lake Road. More than half of the gaj•ages rn the area aYe attached
to the principal structure. A larger garage on the subjectpraperty would not appeaY out ofplace.
Whether such use will tend to or actuaily depreciate the are� in which it is proposed.
Inc�easing the size of the existing garage tvill have an immediate positive impact tot he pYOperty
values for the subject property, and may actually increase the perceived values of the homes
surrounding 8100 Long Lake Roacl in that vehicles which were once parked or store outside woulcl
be stored inside the garage addition. It is not conceivable that this garage addition would
depreciate the surrounaiing area in any way.
5. The demonstrated need for such a use.
The existing garage is too small for the needs of the property owner. The applicant tlesires a large
enough garage to park his vehicles inside, protected from the elements and possible vandalism.
�V�EIZEA�, the Planning Commissian makes the following findings regarding the criteria
for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Sec�ion 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.:
1. The use will not create an excessive burden on e�cisting parks, schools, streets and other public
facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
'i. The use will not cause traffic hazards or cong�stion.
8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or wiil be provided.
Aclding crn addition to the garage, even one as large as is being requested, woulcl not create a
gYeater impact on exisl�ng public facilities, par'ks, schools or services, on utilities or access roads,
nor would it create an increase in traffrc on adjacent streets.
2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so tliat e�cisting homes will not be depreciated in value and there will
be no deterrence to development of vacant iand,
3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an advecse effect upon adjacent
residential properties.
4.
5
G7
Because this is a small lot, the expanded garage would have little visual screenrng. In terins of its
relationship with the two adjoinrng propertres, the garage is separated from the properry to the
north by another garage, so the expansion would have little impact upon that property. The
pYaperry to the west would not be separated by much distance or anyphysical screening.
The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to
the exisiing land use.
The use is consistent with the pueposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of tbe zoning district in
which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The use is not in confli�t with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are rypical uses in residential areas, and allotiv for
the storage of vehicles and yard and garden eguipment . Having this expanded shed would allow
the properry owner to store vehicles cur�ently left outside within a secure and protected structure.
i `:;.
' t S
Planning Commission Resolution 57i-99
February 17, i 999
Page 3
���9 1��g�.,���9 �� X'� ������ that the �/lounds View Planning Comrnission
recommends approvat of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations:
The conditional use permit shatl be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days
of City Councii approval, and a receipt of such recording shail be provided to the
City o�Mounds View.
2. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the
district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. 5hould the use change for
which the pertnit was granted, the conditional use permii shall become null and void.
The garage shail be designed and maintained io provide a uniform building
appearance with the house.
4. The driveway leading to the garage expansion shall be improved with a permarnent
surfacing material of either concreie or asphalt in conjunction with the constrruction
of the garage. If occupancy of the garage is ta occur prior to the driveway's
improvement, the applicant sha(1 submit a letier or credit or perfarmance bond in an
amount eyuivalent to the valuation of the work yet to be completed, as es#imated by
the Community Development Director,
All vehicles parked at the property shall be parked either upaz� the driveway's ;�#
improved sur,face or within the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be allowed to park
upon the grass or off of the impraved surface.
�E �'I' F�A�,L�' ItES�L�D thai the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this
resQiuiion to th� City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adapted this 17th day of February, 1999.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Rick �opke, Community Development Director
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDE VCASES1546-99\571-99PC.RES
j
i
"1 � _ >, �
To: Moui�ds View Ptanning Commission
From: James Ericson, Ptanning Associate
Subject: Review of Plannirng Coinmission Bylaws
Special Planning Case No. SP-06?-99
Date: Meeting of February 17, i999
1TE� �
Attached far your review are the revisions made to the Plannir►g Commission Bylaws, per ihe
recommendaiions made at the last meeting held February 3, 1999. Aiso attached is a proposed
supplefnent to the Bylaws which address the format and content of the munutes, as opposed ta
having this be a included explicitly within the Bylaws.
If the proposed revisions to the Bylaws are acceptable, staff will prepare a revised meeting
schedule which will show all meetings as regular and a resolution approving the Bylaws,
schedule, and minutes format.
c��-c..v�-�
James Ericson, Pianning Associate
�
�
crry oF �ovr�s vz�w
PLANNING ANI� ZON7NG C01�1Mi�SION BYLAV4IS
{Revised as of February 8, I999)
ALITHORiTY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Planning anci Zoning Commission {Byiaws)
are estabiished in accordance with the Mounds View Municipal Cade �eciion 401.06. Subd. 7
"'The Commission shall adopt byiaws for its governance and for the transacfion of its business."
Where there is a conflict between the provisions af the Bylaws and ihe provisions of the City
Charter and the Municipat Code, the provisians of the City Charter and the Municipal Code shall
govem. (For purposes of simpIicity, the Planning and Zoning Comrnission ►nay hereinafter be
referred to as the Planning Comfnission or the Commission.)
ADOP'1"SON OF BYLAW�; REVIEW ANIa AME1vD1VIEN'I';
A. ADOPTION AND ANIENDMENT: The Bylaws shall be adopted by Resoiution by an
af�irn�ative vote of the majoriiy of inembers of #he Pla�uiing and Zoning Cominission
appointed as voting merrtbers, and shall be placed on file with the Ci�y Clerk-
Administrator and the Communiiy Development Department. A copy of �he bylaws shall
be forwarded to the City Council for its information. Any amendments to the �ylaws shall
be adopted by Resolutian in the same manner as the original Bylaws.
B. ANNUAL REVIiW: The Bylaws sha.li be reviewed on an atznual basis at the first regular
meetirig of the Commission in February.
III. MEMBERSI�' AND VACANCIES
Vacancies on the Planning Commission shall be filled in accordance with the Municipal Code,
Section 401. Q3. The City Council �# shouid refer applications for Planning Commission
appointments to the Planning Commission for recommendations prior to taking action to fill
vacancies.
I'V. OFFICERS
A. OFFICERS NANIED; Th� officers of the Piarining Commission shall consist of a
chairperson and vice-chairperson. 'The Commission may create and fill such other o#�°ices
from its members, as it may determine, to transact Commission busirness. In addition, the
Director of Community Develapment, or lais or her desig,nee sha11 act as Yhe recording
secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeting minutes., �
B, ELECTiONS; TERNI,�
1. Chairperson; Based upon the recommendaiion of the Pla�u�ing Commissioi7, tihe Mayor,
with the approval of the City Council, shail appoint the chairpersan oif the Cominission
�ach year. At t,he first meeting in Decem�er, the Comr�ussion shall conduct ar� election
in order to make its recammendation far the chairperson, following ihe procedure in
;;-`i
1
City of Mounds View February 3, 1999
Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws _ Page 2
� 5ection N.B.3. The name of the person recammended for claairperson shall be
forwarded to the Ciiy Council for action at its first meeting in Janua.ry.
2. Vice-Chairperson: The Plataning Commission shall eiect a vice-chairperson each yeax at
its first meetii�g in January, following the procedure in �ection IV.B.3.
3. Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson shall inviie nominations from
Planning Gommission ►nembers. Aftar nominations have been received, the
chairperson sha11 entertain a motion to close nomunations. If such motion is made and
passed, and more than one nominaiion has been made, the chairpersan shall rlistribute
hallats to the Commission members and each member shall write his or her selection
on the ballo#. The recarding secreiary shali ially the ballots and announce the nominee
receiving the most votes. In the event of a fie, the recording secretary shall announce
the nominees tied in the vai-ing and ballofing shal( be repeated until an election occurs.
If only one nomination has been received, �he chairperson may conduet the voting by
voice vote. If a majority of the members present vota in the affirmative for the
nominee, the nominee shall be elected.
4. Aasumptian of I)uties: The Chairperson and Viee Chairperson sha11 assume office at
the first meeting in February of each year.
5. Tann of Office: The chairperson and vice chairperson sha11 serve one year terms, and
may be re-elected to additional terins in accordance with this Section IV.B.
C. DU 1�S OF OFFICER�: The chairperson sha11 preside over the meetings of the Pianning
Co�nmission, and shall have the authority to add ar cancel
regular nneetings and to cali special meetings as provided in Section VI. The vice
chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson, in the absence of the chairperson,
V. LiAISON TO COLTNCJL: The City Council shall appoint from among its members a Liaison to
the Commission on an annual basis. Xt is e�ected that the Councii LiaisQn witi attend the
Comtnission meetings on a regular basis. In the event of the absence of the Council Liaison at a
Commission meeiing, a Commissian member tnay be appointed by tt�e chairpecson ta represent
the Planning Commission at the ne�c# regular City Cauncil meeting or at the meeting where the
City Council will be considering tile pJa��ning cases acted upon by t1�e Planning Commission in
the absence of the Councii Liaison.
VI. MEETINGS
A. 'TYPES OF MEETiNGS; SCHEDULE: The annual meetings scheduie of the
Commission shail be �
adopted by Resolution at the first re ular
meeting ir► Decembe�• for the foll�wing year.
l. Reguiar Meetings: Subiect to the ado�ted meetir�� schedule, the Commission's re ular
meetin s will occur on the first and third Wednesdays of each monih �
for the purpose of conver�ing public hearings, making
City of Mounds View February 3, 1999
Ptannin and Zonin Commissioz� - B laws Pa e 3
recommenda4ioiis to th� City Council, conducting business which requires a vote of
the Cotnmission, convening as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, conductin�lon�-
range planning functions and other o�cial business.
2. Agenda Sessions : An A�enda Session is an infarmal session of Yhe
Plannin� Comiziission tvnica[lv he(d immediatelv foilowine adjoumment of a Regular
or Snacial meetin� at which time the P�anning Commission mav review minutes
inform� review proposed or pendin plannin cases or or,-dinance amendments,
discuss revious actions of the Ci Council or other Commissions and to erform
other matters not requiring a vote of the Corrtmission
,
, ,
,
r.r
3. St�ecial Meetin�s: From time to time speciai meetin�s may be called in order to
process significant caseloads, to review works in�ro,��ress such as comprehensive
plan u dp ates or municipal code revisions. or io undertake a retreat or strategic
plannin,� session, eiiher amon st� itself or in the campany of the City Council or
other eommissions Special meetin�s can be �roposed by anv Commission
member or at the re�uest of the Director of Communitv Development,.yet_must be
anproved bv a maioritv vofie of the Commission Emer�enev s�ecial meetin s can �?'�
e c iled via written notice to the Director of Communit Develo ment b the �
Chairperson or two Commission members, or b�,the Director of Communitv
Develo ment. Emer enc s ecial meetin s are those in which the sub'ect matter
is of such an immediate concern that it cannot be dela ed until the next re lar
meetin,�of'the Plannin� Commission ) The Director of Communitv Develonment
shall ost and mail a notice of an s ecial meetin in accordance with State
Statutes. Plannin Cammission members 'shall be notified b tele hone and in
writin�. if possible, ai least seven da�s prior to a soecial meetin�
,... ; ,,,._...� ;, ,, _ _.. _: ,. _. ..
.��. � �. .�. _� i_�. � _� � .—•.. �:. .r-� .e..., ..��..�i
:. � ..:. � .. . .. �..:.. � .{ .,. . . � � . , . � _. .,.. � . _. .,_ -. � . �:. .. _ :.. .. . .. .. ,
� i� ���((..... . .. .. � . �., . � ,. . .. ,. .. ,. . . . .. .. . .. _... _
. � ... , .� . . .. L i . .. _ ,.. ... . . .. .� ,. � . . . .�. � ..■ � • .t ..>. .�.� ..�..
.... . . _ ,,,.. • .. _ .. _ ..-.. ,.,._., - _. .. . ..
• : • •1�.,.. �. .. . 1..:'.... . � .1 .•, ' .,,� ..... ... , i..-:.., . ..f i ��..
. ,....-..`. :...�A. , ...,,. '��......... ....� .....-,, .... ,_.....
4. Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may be canceled
by �he chairp�rson or C�mmuni Deveio ment Direc or in the e ent fhat there are no
i ems of usiness re uirin ihe atten#ion of the Commission or for lack of a uorum or
in response to inclement weather or for any other f�r-goad and su£f'icient reason. s; ar
,
, .
Members of the Commission shall6e notified by teiephone of any raeeting cancellation.
A notice of the meetang cancellation sha.li be posted as required by State Statutes.
°i
City af Mounds View �'ebnzary 3, 1999
Ptai;nuig and Zoning Commission - B�Iaws Page 4
:
�
QUORUM: A majority of the nuinber of voting members appoinYed to the Commission
shall constitute a quorum.
CONDLICT OF MEETING�; ADJOURNMENT
l. Meeting Chairparson; If neither the chairperson nor the vice chairperson is present to
conduct a meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planmin� Commission may elect a
meeting chair from among those members present prior to the commence�nent of
business. The election shall follow the procedures sat forth in Section IV.B.3, except
that the Community Developtnent Direetor, or his ar her designee, shall conduct the
election.
2. Open Mesting Law: Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the State of
Miiinesota Open Meeting Law (Minn. Statutes 4il.�OS}.
3. Adjoumment: Meetings shall adjourn at or before 11:00 p,m, unless a two-thirds
majority of the members present agree to extend the time of adjournment. If there is no
objection, the Chairperson may declare the meeting adjourned without the necessiiy oi
a motion or vote by the Commission.
D. IVIINUTES: Minutes shall be recorded for reguiar meetings and each
commission member sha.tl receive a copy of the unapproved miriutes for review and
approval at a succeeding meeting. Minutes shail be approved by mation. Approved
minutes shall be the official record of the business conducted and actions taken by the
Planning Commission. Commission rnembers may request copies of approved minuies
af�er they have been corrected, if necessary, and signed as approved. Copies of the
approved minutes shall be filed with the ' Community
Developtnent Department, Una�proved minutes shatt be clearly marked "DRAFT";
annroved minutes shall be ma�•ked " " "APPROVED", A policy
statement regardi�the content and format of the minutes shall be on file with the Director
of Communit� Development which mav be reviewed from time to time as needed. �fre
_ _ __ ... _.. _. :� . ,, .
,, . , . :. ,. _ �, , ,, .. .�
. : _. . , .� . . : . ,. ; . . ,.
.. . � . .� -, . : ..
. _ . .. . . .,. . . � :. , ..n . R... .. �. . _ ,. _. , . _ . . .-. .... _. .
_ .. - • � ill •.. .. .. . � .. . . �....,..... .. .. .. ._ „ .. - �� 1 •..... .�1 � � "!
• . .. . • ... _ :. • �k � •�.� • � •'�! "' . . .,... ..�. r ...�. . . . ... +.: . . ,,. - . .. .... :..:.._ .. . . ..... ,.
�' • �:F.\ �,�...,.,�. ....,.. �
. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. ... .. ;A -. . • . � .. .. . . . , _ . , ,,.. _ . �. - . .. .. ,:, � . � . �
1 � ' • _.. � i II � � 1 . . .1 � 1 • .. � . _� f ' � � f
. . .. . ... . ...: - .. .. . .. _.
,� . ..� . �. � �.. �i..� � • .- /A � •. . ; �,..:....� •
� -r'li.. ...'-_... .. `._i, . ...�. . ...- _ ... ,�_ ... ..._ .._.. .._,. ....".,,.�..- ..-....- ... __.....
..� . � �1�.y 1�...M f � • �\ ft • •1
:Y`-� .���-..,,.....�_. �., i�Y....,.._F....
.. . .,,-.,.
� _ �. ,. �, .�..r,. � . �..' ' i Y:..
, - ."... � . ; . ..�. .. ., �, .. .� . ....�.. .• ., . % _.:,. , :..,
•
� ' j_"..,' ij ' �� :�-.
�_ . .. .r.... �� . ,'.._y. . .. . .'..-n.. � :.. . .. .; ;..r ` � � . , . _ _, _. .ti' . ,_. _ ' .. . � ._ . . ..., . .. . _ ,. -
".��` r�:� rY_..-1� � • . ti..
- . i ` i - ' � � - --�
.._ . .. .,_ . , ,�--._. .. . ,�..,.. �.� _�.. ,. ,...� x- -i�..._. .�_..-. i:r" • :����9_�- �-
,,.Y,..-.'_�.^A � • :..� T iY"�.. f r
i
City of Mounds View Fe6ruary 3, 1994
Plazuung_and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 5
�
. ,
.:!" �.!t�:�[�.r��.1��.,�.�r'�..r:�.aw�r.ti���:�
. _ � ,.�, .y i � _� � �. . .._� �,..
: �.. �. _�i ,,..,.� �
. _ . . . . ....
�� �� �.
• .. . . _ . . .. - � �1 f . . _ ...' ., � ..
. � . . _. . . . ... .. � . . . .' :.. . .. _ ' . . . ,1 . . . . ..
. ..,..._. . . . _. ...,..,._ .......-. . _..�_. .,.T . -...
. _ . .Y •f . .. ., . . �..�. �__ _ �.� .�' •l • i '.., � iF.�..__.. �„ ..._,..
- - .. . . _.. . . ,... . . .. . .. : � ..... ... ,. ..
� � . � .�. � . .� � :. .�.� .�
... � � . .: \ � s1 ., ..._, .... .
......�.. , ._._� , ._.._..,,,..,:_.. .- __ _.........._._... .._
.r • • ■
VI. INFORM�TIQNAL PACKETS: Each Commissioner shall reeeive a staff report, plans and
additianai information, as appropriate, for each item placed on the agenda �
for anv regular or s,�ecial meeting. The Comrr�ission packet �i hs ouid
be delivered at Ieast four days prior to the meeiing. Each Commissioner is responsible for
reviewing the material within the packet priar to the meeting.
VII. P1�OFESSIONAL C�NSLTLTANTS: Advice from, consul#ation with, and/or requests for
review by the City Attomey, City Engineer, City Planning Agency, or other paid consultants sha11 �.
be in accordance with the Municipal Code, Section 401.07.
VIII. �UPPLElVIENTARY PUBLICATIONS: All Commission members shall receive a copy of the
Mounds View Municipal Code and a copy of the Municipal Comprehensive Plan as well as
other mate�ials provided by the City Council or City Siaff. These materials sha[1 be retained by
each commission member and returned to the Community Developrr►ent Director upan the
member's resignation or termination of appointment. �
IX. CONDUCT OF MEM[BER5
A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated �ta.ff member or the
Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Plannit�g
Commission meeting. Any member attending less than 20 meetings per year without �tl�e
consent of the Commission sha11 be deemed to have vacated the office, and such vacancy
shali be filied by the City Council pursuant to Section 401,03, �ubd. 1. t� leave of
absence may be gra.tited by the consent of the Commission,
B. CONFLICi OF iNTE1�EST:
General5tandard: No Commissioner shaIl be appoinied with private or personal
interests likely to cflnflict with the general pubiic inter�st. If any person appointed to
�he Cominission shail find that their private or personal interests ace involved in any
matter coming before the Commission, they s�all disqualify themselves from taking _
part in any discussion or action on the matter; alternatively, they may be disqualified by
a two�thirds (2/3) majarity vote of the Comrnissioners in aitendance.
City o£Mounds View Febnxary 3, 1999
Platuung and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 6
; 2. Conflict Due to Ecanomic Interests: A Commissioner has a conflict of interest if, in his
or her discharge of official duties, would 6e eequired to take an action or make a
decision that would substantially a.ffect the Commissioner's financiat interests or fhose
of an associated business, unless the effect on the Commissioner is no greater fihan on
other members of the Commissioner's business classification, professian, or
occupation. In the event a conflict of interest exists with respect to a particular matter
before the Commission, the Corzxmissioner shall disqualify�hirn or herself
from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter.
C. EX PARTE CONTACTS: Ex pa.r�e contacts are con#acts between individuals seeking to
influence the decisions of the Planning Commission and individual Commission members
outside ihe meeting forum. Such contacts include meetings with projeci proponents,
residents, properiy owners, and citizens separate from Commission meetings,
communication between Commission members outside the meeting forum, telephone
calls or letters which attempt to ic�iuence a Commissioner's opinion on a mattsr which
wili be subject ta the Commissioner's vote. When the Plaiuling Commission is involved in
a matter which is to be heard and decided by the Comrnission (e.g. variances), Planning
Commissioners shall indicate to the person eontacting them that such contact is
inappropriate and all testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to e insure a fair hearing
for all parties. In all other cases, Plarnning Commissioners should discourage such
contacts and should avoid expressing any opinion as to tlae merits of the casa. When ex
parte contacts occur, the Plannii�g Commissioner is responsible for notifying �he
Communiiy Development Director, and for conveying the substance of the communication
`j a# the next commission meeting at which the matter discussed is under consideration.
* On March 3, I999, the Plai�ning Commission approved Resolution No. 570-99, a resoiution adopting
its official Bylaws (revised 2/8/99) as presented herein and a revised meeting schedule.
ATTEST:
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Rick Joplce, Comznunity Development Director
N:�DATA\GROUP3\Cd3v[�E V�PLANCOMIvI1BYLAWSIBYLAWS,94
�
; ,
, ,. _:
1-�ttachment to Planning Commissian �yla�vs
�/iinutes Forrriat �- I�e�ris�d 2/4/99
1. Type of ineeting, whether regular or special.
2. Date, titne and place of the meeting.
3. Call to order m- time the meeting was called to order.
4.
4.
5.
Roll ca.11.
a. List of inembers present.
b. List of inembees absent (note whether excused or unexcused,)
c. Lisi of others preseni {staff, liaison, recorder, etc.)
Ciiizens' requests and comments for items not on the agenda, Include residents' names and
addresses, if no residenis made camments, indicate as much.
Corrections to and approval of any previous minutes and the vote taken, except that minor
gra�nmaticai and typographical corrections need nat be notad.
6. For each ptanning case on #he agenda:
a. Case number, project name and address, brief description of the request, and name and
address of the applicaa�t.
7
t
9,
10.
11.
12.
b.
c.
d.
e.
£
Summary of the request.
Summary o£ any previous action.
Summary of the staff review.
Summary of statements made by the applicant, particularly concessions or agreements
made by the applicant.
Siunmary of commants made by each person testifying, with the name and address of
the person noted.
For any cnoiions made:
a.
b.
c.
Name of Commission members making and seconding motion.
Verbat�m (if possible) statet�nant of moiion.
Vote on each motion as to number of ayes, nays and abstentions.
d. Reasons for each nay vote or abstention.
�. Whether mation carried or failed.
�pecific concerns addressed to the chaiiperson for inclusion in the minutes.
1Zeporfs by staff.
Reports by Commission chairperson and members.
Time of adjoumment.
Signature of chairperson and recording secretary.
N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDE V�PLANCOMMIBYLAW SUvfINUTES.99
�;
-:;'1
;, . > .. _
�T�,H -�
; � �
� . ..
� ,. ,:
,
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Planning Assoeiate
Subject: Review ofProposed Ordinance 629, Draft #1
Special Planning Case No. SP-06?-99
I�ate: 1Vteeting of February 17, 1999
Attached for your review is the f rst draft of propased Ordinance 629, an ordinance which amends
Chapter 401 of the Municipai Cade pertaining io the Planning and Zarung Commission. Th�se
amendments come directly from discussion held at the Iast meeting of the Planning Comtnission
on Februaty 3, 1999.
If the proposed ordinance and revisions to the Bylaws are acceptable, staif will schedule a public
';
hearing and first and second readings with the City Council.
� ,
James Ericson, Pianning Associate
Draft #1
. ':. .
;; ,;>,
�i� " �I �I �, - ��� ��� ' `��:
`' �' �'"°�, - ! -' 1 _`
�. ' f . •
�; �. t � �!-
1: r � ����� .- - ,� ���, � , � ;� ��,. �f ,� J ;C � � . ;��, , � �,
r �, ; • t ,� ; �� i�. : �; � �, i; . �� �_
�' � , � , , ,�, , i � :, ,
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDA.IN�:
SECTION 1: Section 401,06 of the Mounds View Nuisance Code is hereby a�nended
with the praposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions
respectively, to read as follows: �
401.06: OItGAI�TIZATIOI�; l�E'TII�I�So
. : ;_. .. ,:..... _ .._.__.__ . .... ,
... - .. • - . .: ; , r . �� , � � �.� , � �..� ;. ,, �v
� _� ._ ,-, .:--� ,, :_ _ _
i' �__�ti.. � � :,� ,y,: � � ' � �..���:.,�
� _. � . ... � _ . � ��: � � �, `., . �. �. �., � � � .t � ; � � �. . . .,.
. . - - . . .... _ _
. � .� . ..`. � ,�. �.. _�, � _ _� _. � .� �, . . � .. ,_ .�.. * �..... � __ � . � .._ :_.T_ i _� ... .`, i : �.. _� ... �
.. . .. . . . .... .. _ . .. � . - . . . , _ � ,
. �._: �• . n � ��....� ..'., .�. . �..�._ ...,'.�:.....
Subd.. 3. A�enda Sessions: An A enda 3ession is an informal session of the Plannin� Commi�ssion,�
icatI hetd immediatel followin ad'oumment of a Re ular or S ecia.I mee � at which
time the Plannin� Commission rriay review minutes informallv review proposed or �ending
plannin� cases or ordinance amendments, discuss revious actions of the Cih� Council or other
Commissions. and io perform other matters not requirin�a vote of the Commission.
.: . . , . � ,: _ _ __ . -
,. , , � _ �. , . ,, .., �_ , ; „ , ..
, . �. � � _ �, : , _,,,�
. , . . �.� � ��, �_� �.. � �. . �
. _: . � � ._. , , ,, � _. � ,, . _.
, . � .�. � ; ,, � ; _ ��- ; � � � � � � ... ; _ _
, ._
,, , �_�..
� ..,
�ubd. 4. S ecial Meetin s: S ecial meetin s can be ro osed durin an re ar meetin b
any Commissian member or at the request of the I)irector of Communitv Developnnent,
ei must be a roved b a ma'orit vote of the Commission. Emer enc s ecial zneetin s
may be called via v✓ritten notice to the Director of Communitv Develo.�ment bv the
Chairperson or two Commission members�„or by the I�irector of CommunitX
Develo ment The Director of Corrimunit I�eveIo ment shall ost and mail notice of
any s�ecial meeiin� in accordance with State S#atutes
Sectiox� z. This Ordinance goes into ei�ecfi ihirty (30} days a,fter its publicatian in the
o�"icial City newspaper. ; ';
Ordinance 629
,� Page 2
i
' 'ti
':f '.f
,
Read by the City Council of the City of Moui3ds �Iiew on this ^ day of , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View an this � day of
, 1998.
ATTE�T:
(SEAL)
APPROVEI� AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
Charles S. �A1'hiting, City Clerk/.Administrator
.. -_. . ._ ...._ _ - --- -- 1-rE�'-1 ,� 3 (
�
� . :�; :: . . 1., i ,, ._ ;�; : ,, ,:� `- '1, . , 1: . y, : ;� : , : ,� , �` �
`; �� � : :�. `= ;1; � �. ;1; ,�, ..
, �; : � _ ��. :
1. �all to Orde��
ihe meeting was called to order by Chairperson
�o �2011 Calt
Members Present: Chairperson P�terson,
and Obert.
Members A.bsent: None.
Also Present: Community Davelopment €
Council Liaison Roger Stigney, and �<'i
` ,�:
3. Citizens' reques�s and coe�x� , s o�
�,;-�,.
There were r��; citi
Iradex �� I�i�a�
F'�b�-uaa-y 3, 1999
1Vlouaads Vievv Caty �a�l
240fl �ighway 10,1VI��a�d� V�"�'; l�i� 55112
J
7:01 �i'�; F
Milier, Johnson,
Associate 3im Ericson,
Ni��on the agenda
:;\ ��
r�s that were not on the agenda.
w�,: �
iscuss� yof Planning C,,C,�m���r�n By aws.
� : ,>
;,�
is�a sion of Proposed ��dr���nce b28, an Ordinance Relating to Outdoor
�d�ce Sales and Law��nd Garden Sales in a B-3, B-4, or I-1 District.
Pag�
1
2
,. _
����,����t�� ��`� a�na�� Co�raenissia� �ylaws
All Commissioners agreed that unless otherwzse staied, all meetin�s wouid be regutar meetings.
It was mentioned that there wa� a need to get things on record.
Planning Associate Ericson stated that �taff would make revisions the Bylaws according to
discussion regarding this topic and would draft an ordinance to amend the Citiy Code wit4� regard
_ _ i . I ._. _
l�ounds Vr�� Planr►in� Co�nrtorsseor�
�tegular I�I�eiang
�+ebruary 3, 1999
Pag� 2
to Chapter 401, Planning Commission, so that the Code and bylaws are consistent with one
ano�her.
r.
Director Jopke relayed to the Commission the fact that all Planning Com�issior�,� `etings would
., r=. )
soon be televised to make sure all public meetings were better co�nmun�����( ��c� more accessible
�. .
in an ef�ort ta gather feedback and to encourage public invo� #� < ent .
Various comments were made and questions posed as tc
how it could be produced in such a way to make the vie�
such as by having a brief discussian at the beginning of �
to get viewers up to speed and scrolling agendas on tha ;
Raised that some of the work the Comrmission does may
wat�hing at home. A�I members voiced concerns of lo�
back. It was thought that raot �elevising the agendas sesa
viewership. ,
5e
i)�sce�s�aon of Ordanan�e No. 62�9
lY
and �ardez� sales vv�thie� th� �-3�]
Planning
yet askin
not othe�
A11 Commissi
propased ord
:e Ericson
mmission
�°�ssociate Er�
�at�vithout an expi
period af time.
met and admin
�n would tri���
that
ang �o
��_
��dI;�
repozi, r�t�i�
fair to a�t���
,;,..: <;
{�n this s�tu�
�1�� ot ieletr���zi �ystem,���i"
Giware of wh2�� �� ��tn�; s�ri;
aboui th� pr�uxp�t �i�eting
;wing. Ther� was concern
���rn t�d�at��:,arid boring io anyone
�'vie�ue��"��ci ��c�t heing able to get them
ons �roul� �e�p;i'�t��n and expand
tempor��°y p�°oduce, �awr� ;�
.�
����`ghted the text of the proposed ordinance,
�in types of t�mporary sales operations and
be addressed?
sales should be treated equatly, either by m�ans of this
rc�n i,nd���;ted ihat eonditional use pernuts could be granted as normal,
�i�r�t� c����. With the Linders operation, the CUP typically runs for a
�tea°c� of that, the CUP couid be made to not expire subject to conditions
��
�atively reviewed each year. Any problems or complaints with an
council review.
&4
�t�f�';���o��s / Iieans oiI�fo�r�aatioea
Community Development Directar Jopke reviewed with the Comcnission a Co�ancil directive tio
perform a random open-ended survey to get the residents reaction to living in Mounds �1iew.
The basis for this idea came from the rernr�ant parcel, asking the residents what they felt should be
done wiih it, as it is publicly owr�ed.
1VIo��ds �I��w Pi��n�n� Coir►misseon
�tegetia�° l�e�ti�g
Fe��°uary 3, 1999
Pag� 3
The Commission questioned the feasibility and success of such a survey unless it was
professionally composed and executed.
Commissioner Brasaemle recalled that the Humphrey Institute at the Umx��rsity a�I'v�innesota had
��
a group thai constructed and administered different types o� surveys
, .,.
7.
Chairpersa� a�d Pl�.cra���g Coer�missioner Iteports
There were no Chairperson or Planning Commissioner
�o
Aef��earn�ne��
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p
,i
.REG
4 . . . , . . . . . _
�:�: . .�: �___ ..:�.. '. , .'. '-: .�:�. . .._:' ......: ......____ '. ..; .. .. ,,.,
..,'.. ._...'..' '._ " _ __ ." ' � /
"' "' " ! ���1 � � ~ � ':
=,
^' . . _ l � � ? �M ^'F
��
(
... ( ....... :�"/... . . "� � ��
'I'o: Moux�ds View Planning Commission,
From: Ricic Jopke, Community Development Director
�exbjecio Comprehensive Plan.Transportation Element
Date: January 29, 1999
Attached for your re�view and discussion at the February 3, 1999 Planning Commission meeting
is a revised draft of the compr�hensive pian transportatiom goals and polictes. The current draft
inclndes the changes discussed at the January 20th meeting.
N:�DATAIGROUPS\COMDEVIPLANCOMM12-1-99.MEM
: . .. :
; ;. : . . " . ' - ;
, ... ; ;::,
` �:.' .'' ! �! ,
The folIowing will be the transportation gaals and policies for the City of Mouz�ds View:
Goai 1: Develop a halanced surface transportaizon sys�em giving attention to ail modes and
related facilities.
Policies: a. T�•eat atl modes of transportation and faciIities related io each as one system to be
coordinated and reIated on a comprehensive basis.
b, The ��► system wi11 facilita#e transportation to
and from centers of activitv with�n the community.
Goa12: Identify needed improvements ta the various elements of the fransportation system t� provide
for safe and convenient movement by aIl modes.
Poiicies: a. Maintain transportation facilities to function in a manner compatible wi#h
adjacent land uses, �e�e-When the function of a transportation facility has changed
over fima to become incompatible with adjacant land uses, a program io eliminate this
incompatibzlity should be established.
b. Hazardous and pooriy designed and con�rolled intersactions shall be improved on a
phased basis to increase the safety af pedestrians, bicvclists. and motorists alike.
c. Street safety shall be improved through street lighting, visibility, sign cantrols, eleva#ed
pedestxian waik�vays and other such facilities when economicatly feasible and desirable.
d. Public signage shall be reIated to the overail system of street function and control.
e. Parking shail be limited or prohibzted aiong principaI and minor arterial roadways.
f. Establisi� and enforce standards and contro�s for business and advertisin�
si i❑ and li htin in order to revent driver distracti�n and otential hazards.
Goal 3: Pxovide snfficient of�=street parking to meet normal demands of a11 types of land use.
olicies: a. Parking facilities shall be developed so as to conserve land, promote joint use and
minimize conflicts with vehicular., pedestriar� and bicycle fraffic.
b.1Vlinimize and reduce the dernand and resulting rec�uirements for parking through fhe
adequate provision of pedestrian ar�d bicycle facilities and through land use
development coordination„ �
9 �
..6:...�..� ..4:e.:4:��
d � ,
c. Pa.�°king requirements imposed by the City shai! be consiantly reviewed to�
:;;
:�
r
I
ensure supply is reflective of demand.
d. Minitnize parking lot access to public streets to the functiona7 minimum.
Goal 4; Support the development of a�ie transi# s�tem which t�rovides a
broad ran,.�e of transit service options to �-I minimize the need for individual autoznobile travel.
Policies: a. Sufficient mobility sh,all be promoted for aIl persons, giving special consideratioi� to
those who must reiy on nnodes of #ransportation other than the automobile.
b. Adequate transit rider conveniences, such as bus shelters, park and ride Iots, and free
parking areas, shall be incorporated into a�i� centers of activi ar�d areas of liigh
fransit usage.
c. Transit service shall be encouraged within a reasonabie wallcing distance of evezy
s�esident of tha co�nmu�iity,
d. Additional transit service during off-peak hours to� destinations outside tl�e
community should 6e encouraged.
e. The City will work with the Me�•opolitan Council Transit Organization {MCTO} to
provide more and better transit service for the cominunity and to provide increased
ridership.
f. Encourrage MCTO to implement an intra-suburban transit plan.
Goai 5:
.1'ian im lement attd maintain a
comurehensive trait svstem to reduce de�endencv an autotnobila-oriented transporta#ion, t�rovide safe
atad convenient edestrian and bic cle circulation and to rovide recreational o ortunities for Mounds
View residents.
• -- - -- - -- --- --- - - --- - ---
'• - - - , : �__� , .� � , y _�_. , � .. :- -; -
. .
---- . .- --- _ . . . . . -_. -- :.=-:. - -
. .. . . . . . , . ;_ � _ .
: �-;- :- ._, � .� : :: - ;. -- -. : -�.-: :- - - --- - - -- - -
- ---- - - -- - - - - ---- .. _,
__. .� .: . - ._ � .• . • . - � � i. .. . .., � •
ea. Pedestrianlbicycle carridors shall be considered on minor arterial and callector
roadways including the Highway I Q corridor ta ensure safe pedestrian travel.
�b. Safa and convenient bic clv e and pedestrian circula#ion shall be promoted within and
to and from activity centers of activi , separated when feasibte from vehiaular
circulatiozt.
c. Develo a trai! s stem suitable for short distance recreationai use as well as lon
distance trail use.
ed. Accommodations will be made to facilitate safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings at
�
major intersecizons includin the timin of traffic si nals.
€e. Special provisiozzs for pedestrian and bicycle access aud circulation shatl be pianned
in areas adjoining schools, parks, cl�urches, service centers a�jd c�znmercial centers.
�f. When economically feasible, provzde facilzties for pedestrians and bicyclists in
conjunction with street itnprovetnent projects,
�r�. Where possible, provide bicyclists a right-of-way separated from both pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
�h.
. Establish a si na e standard for trail use that
minimizes ,�otential conflicts amon users.
�i. Ensure that pedestrian sireat crossings on heavily traveted streets are clearly marked
and liglited.
i. Encoara�,e com�liance with traffic laws.
k. Connect tl�e trail wav s�stem with axistin and future transit svstems.
l. Encoura e the develo ment of secure bic cle arkin o artuniiies at existin and �
iuture commercial and industriai develo ments.
m. Promote environmentai and ecological consideration in the.,develo�ment of the
trail wa��em.
Goal b; Coordinate all City transportation planning wit�1 Coun#y, Metropolitan Council, State, Federal,
the North Metro I35W Corridor Coalition, and other locai �rahsportation plans.
Policies: a. Maintain and improve the existing line of com�munication with county and state
highway o�cials in order to ensure that planned improvements are consistenfi
with the goals and objectives of the community.
b. The City wi11 consider the use of ifs resources to assist in the resolution of
metropoiitan transpoz°tati�n problems. Participate in and help implement ttl�e
transportation objectives of the Norih Metro I35W Corridor CoaIition.
c. Coordinate pathway system with amse Coun Anoka Coun and adjacent
�z � communities.
�
•�
Goal '7: �
. A11 eletnents of the street svstem shall be planned, improved, and
maintained accordin to the hi hest most a ro riate standards ivin due consideration �o hoth land use
and trans�artafion goats and policies.
Policies: a. Design transportation facilities to conseiwe resources .
�a `°-�'�`��� and minimize F'-� `�`°' -��a �°° on-going public investment. �alance
initia] investment with on�oin� mainfenance.
� . �-: :--.: : : -.- -- • :. : :- -�, - - -- ., - �,_. .�,_�a
- � :.: :., r-:
b Major traffic flow shaIl be properlv channeled to collector and ar arterial
streeis.
c. Facilitate ti-affic movement on arterial streets b� reeulatin� the nu�nber and Eocation
o� ' ' vehicular access noints
and throueh utilization of
appropriate traffic control methods and devices.
; - ;; -- ; ; _ ;.-- - : ::-:- ,-: ,�_ _: _ .� .;,- - :;.- -
- -- - - - - -.._ _ ,.. ._. ;. ,..; --:- - :; -
_ , , ; _ __. , , , , . ; ; , _ : ;. . .
ed. Local or residential streets shall be designed so as �o prevent penetration by
s tl�rough traffic. Traffic calming devices should be used where appropriate. �-
�e. Existing residential streets shali be protected from reclassification to more intense
use; e.g., collector or minor arterial.
• - - •- - � - - --- ..- - --.:.,� - - --
, , . , , . - , , �, , _,__.. , ,
:
. . ---- - -- .. . �----- -- - - - -- - -- -
; :_; - . . , , . .. . .., � . .
..- -- • -- - - --� -_. _._ _ .. _ �� __.�_.
. �'.'�' i •��w� • • -. •:..�. i-' . . i • • �
i. A - _ �". . �... .. ... . ;,. � � _ _ _ .. : _ _ " �...�. - i� : � _ _
� �■
� _ _ . �. . - � - �. -. .... _ _ . ,� - . .•.. . . -. � .. ." _ _ _ _
. ..., . �..-.�_ .. -....+'. . . . ..�.... .. � .. ��� • • ..�.., . � il ��1.�" � .. .�. .• ..
'J _ � . i: .._ _. : - ..._ _ _. � - » :.-. �.. i � � ::.:�. . ; " _ ' i � i ' ' " ' - _ _ _ _ " _ ' _ _
__ ��,... �'.•" . •• .� .....� :+� �- ".---���'�
_ _ .. � . . . n. - � - �. - -
. . �.- . _ . .� . ,' ..� . : � .. . .
. % :-.. � • • . • • •-• I�... • • ...�.. � _ -
�f. Maintain sireets in the CiYy through a Pavement Management'Program.
��. Develop an appropriate citizen review process to develop and implement City
streei design and assessment policies.
�
Goat 8; Develop and implememt a Highway 10 corridor design theme to present Mounds View as a an
aitractive and desirabte community.
Policies: a. Work wif1� staie and county officials to implement various elements of tl�e
approved plan.
b. Develop ordinance standards io require that private development tl�at occurs
along Highway 10 incorporates elamants of tha approved theme where
possible.
a Tdentify and pursue state, federal, couniy, and other funding sources to fund
implementation of the approved design theme.
�
- :`i
i
,� -�� �� :; �i ��` �
,,�,
� ,�, , � .
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3
4
�
�GULAIZ l�iiIEET�G
AGENDA
Citizens Requests and Camments on Items Not on the Agenda
. �; . �, � ; � - ,� , � � �: �. :
..
. � � " . ; ; .,. .� ::. . ,�. . �; ,� .- �� �. :
Approval of Minutes
a. January 6, 1999
b. February 3, 1999
Disc�assior� of Plat���ng Co�mission �yla�vs
Review of revisions made to the Bylaws at last meeting.
e_______________e-----
b. I)iscussga�a of Proposed Ordina�ce 629
This proposed ordinance would amend #he language in Chapier 401 to be
consistent with the approved changes to the Planning Comxnission Bylaws.
7.
8
9.
I0.
1.
199� E1n�ual l�epoa�t
Staff Reports / Iterzis of Tnformation
a. Review of Previous Council Actions
Chairpersan and Planning Commissioners Reports
Adjourninent to Agenda Meeting
(Immediately Following Reguiar Meeting)
�*�:��*���*�«����**����������������*������
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASB NOTIFY COMMiJNITY DEVELOPMBNT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THAI�iK YOU.
���*��������*���m��������*��*�***�*�*��
A�7�N�A SE�����
AGENDA
Comprehensive Plan Update Development and Process Review.
N:�DATA\GROOPSICOMDEV�PLANCOMMIPCAGENDA\1999\3 -3-49.REG
� . :�: : . ° �, ; . . ,., � : ; `, ; ,.� '�; .. ,, ; . -,. ,, ; � - ; i�: �
:� ;I ,.. �: . .
. ��� �; .
3anua�y 6,1999
1Vlounds �Iiew City �iall
24YJY %&l�ll'Y�1`aE� lOy iVAOUII�� �F��Vy IViI� 55112
�.o Call to Or°der
The meeting was cailed to order by Chairperso�� Peterson at 7:02 p.m., January 6, 1999.
2. l�oll Call
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle, Stevenson, Miller,
Johnson, Obert
Members absent: None.
Also Present: Community Development Director Itick Jopke, Planning Associate Jim Ericson,
and Recorder Stacy Caton.
3. Citizens' �eq�es�s and co�nmen�s on the ate�s T�O'T oz� the agenda
There were no citizens requests or comments for items that wexe not on the agenda.
4. Approaa� of the min��es
a. December 1.6, 1998
Inde� �01VIi�utes
Planning Case No. 540-98: Consideration of Resolution No. 567W99, a Resalution
Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision af �444 Greemwood Drive,
Requested hy Dan Danieison
Pianning Case No. 539-98: Co�sideratian of Resolution No. 568-99, a resolution
approving a variance request to allow for a garage which exceeds by one foot the
maximum permitted height, requested by Daivel Gates, Property Owner of
5364 C�ifton Drive.
Page
2
7
��°
Nfou�ds View Plaa��ai�� Cornynission J�uuary 6,1999
l�egula�° 1l�e�ti�� Page 2
Motion/Second: Brasaemte/Stevenson to approve the December 2, 19�8, meeting minutes as
corrected.
Ayes _ 6 Nays - 0
The mation carried.
5.
Pia�an��a� Case 1�Io. s40-98
Property involved: 8444 CYreenwood Drive
Consideraiion of Resolution No. 567-99, a Resolutian Recommending Approval of a Minor
Subdivisian Requesi to Divide the Property Located at 8444 Greenwoad Drive in�o Two Parceis.
Applicant: Dan Danielson
The applicant was not present.
Ericson reported that applicant, Dan Danielson, is requesiing a minor subdivision of k�is parents'
lot at 8444 Crreenwood Drive. The lot is 23S feet along Greenwood Drive and it is 234 feet deep.
They pxopose to split aff #he south 78 feet of the Iot on which the applicant would buiid a new
home, for wiuch he has submitted buildi�ig plans. The parcels creafied meet the city's minimum ;}
lot size requirenrxents and also meet the frontage xequirements. The lot would be somewha�
smaller than the homes #hat are in the area--most are about IQO feet, although there ax�e some
smaller lots. The certi%cate of survey was reviewed by the city engineer and public works
department who indicated it was acceptable with the addition of easements being dedicated. In
addition to the required easements, the other change needed for the certificate is to add a
signature blacic bearing the names of the property owrzers and the mayor and city
clerk/administrator.
Ericson continued by staiing that the other issue that needed to be discussed concerned park
dedication requirements. Because this property is larger than 1 acre, the city code specifies that a
park dedicat�on fee , in an amount equal ta 10% of the land value, be paid. According to Ramsey
Countq, the land is valued at $47,700. Ten percent of tha� wauld be $4,770. The Code also
specifies that the dedicafiion fee applicable ta land under an existing home can waived, which
reduces the dedication �.tnount 66 percent, to $1,574.
Ericson reco�nmended the Planning Commission approve Resolution 567-99, a resolution
recommending approval of this minor subdivision request to the City Council, wrth stipulations.
The first stipulation is that the certiiicate of survey be revised as indicated prior to the Council
approving it, also that the applicant make a park dedication payment in the amount specified,
$14i5, and then befare building permits vvouid b� issued the applicant would need to record �lie
certificate of survey, the resolution oi approval and the easement documents.
l�ot�nds Viedv Plat��ing Comgnxssi�aa .Tanua�°y G, 1999
I�e�ular� I1/![eeting Page 3
Oberi asiced if the applicant was buiiding this house on the new lot for himself and Ericson stated
that he was.
Miller asked if the lot was narrower than the other lots, and if so, was there any special reason
why. Erzcson replied that the remaining property would be 156 feet wide, leaving the door open
for a futuxe resubdivision. Miller then asked how the proposed setback compares io the existing
homes on the block. Ericson replied thai most of the houses are set bacic thirty to forty feet, with
the exception of the home on the subject property, which originaliy toolc access �rom Eastwood
Road befare Greenwood Drc�ve was canstructed. The proposed setbacic for ihe new home would
be consistent with fihe other homes.
Peterson irzquired ahout existi��g structures, and wk�ether any cross the proposed property lines, to
which Ericsan replied no.
Brasaemle stated thaf while he will support this request, he has reservations about the subdivision
because he lilces the large lots that characterize the city.
Peterson asked if the �roposed home would have a three-car garage and which side of the lot the
garage would be. Ericson responded that the home proposed does include a three-stall garage
which would be oriented io the south end of the property. Ericson reminded the Commission
-'? that the footprint shown on. the certificate is not binding and is shown for demonstration purposes
only.
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Obert to approve Resolution No. 567-99, a resolution
recommending approval of a minor subdivision of 8444 Greenwood Drzve, requesfied by Dan
Danielson, with stipulations.
Ayes a 6 Nays a 0 The motion carried.
b.
Planni�g Case l�io. 539-9� (P�ablie I�earin�)
Property involved: 5364 Cliftan Drive
Consideration of Resolution No. 56�-99, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Allow
for a Garage Exceeding the Maximum Permitted Height by One Foot.
Applicanfi: Daniel Gates, property awner.
The applicant was present:
Ericson stated that Dan Gates, the applicani, is requesting a variance to permzt his underm
constructio� garage to exceed the maximum h�ight requirements set by the city code. The city
code speci�es that any accessory building cannot exceed a l�eight of I5 feet. The height of an
;.. � ( _.; :� �.�I ' �:� ��:. �. 7 - i �:::i
Nloaand� Vaew Plammin� Co��ession Janua� 6g 1999
�2�gular° IVleetfng Pa�e 4
accessary building is not measured froni fhe floor to the peak, bu� rathex from the floor to a point
midway on the truss. The applicant submitted a building permit applicatior� �in August that met
the heighf requirement, but made a change to the plans to allow for the parlting of a cornmercial
vehicle inside the garage which necessitated a talier door. The increased height of the door
buxnped up the height of the garage by one foot as a result: Because the applicatrt was utilizing
the slab from the preexisting garag�, tbe elevation of ihe floor could not be changed. If he were
building a garage from scratch, the floor of the garage could have heen poured at a lower
elevation than the outside grade eleva#ian so as #o accommodate the truck yet in iceeping with the
height requirement. The result of the variance wi11 be to lceep the roofline of the garage in line
with the rooi of the house.
Ericson explained that a case for a hardskup can be made, and accordingly, staff draftad a
resolution of approval which addresses the criteria that the planning commission needs to loolc at
in arder to grani a variance. A�pravi�ng the variance request would not he detrinlental to the
intent of the Code.
Motion/Second: Johnson/Miller to approve Resolution 568-99, a resolution appraving a
variance request to allow for a garage exceeding the maximum permitted height by one faot.
Ayes - 6 Nays - 0. Motian carries. ;•}
,".,
i.
Ei�ction of Officers
The Planning Commission bylaws indicate that the Planning Commission is to aniivally elect
officers--a chairperson and vice-chai�pexson.
Obert nominated Jerry Peterson for Chairperson, citing his years of ineritorious service and ever-
conscientious leadership. There were no other norninations.
Motion/Second: Obert/1VIiller to re-elect Jerry Peterson as Chairperson far #he Plan�ung
Commission.
Ayes - 6 Nays � 0 Motion ca�ries.
Obert nominated Gary Stevenson for vice chairperson, citing his uzzique insights and dedieation
to the position. Ther� were no other nominations.
Motzon/Second: Obert/Jol�nson #o re-elect Gary Stevenson as V�cepChairperson for the Planning
Con�mission.
Ayes - 6. Nays - 0 Motion canies.
'1
;: �
.1
Niounds �ie�v Plan���g Com�issaan
�2egui�.r 1V�eettn�
�o
Staff IZ�pmrt�
January 6,1999
Page 5
Jopke discussed recent City Council actions of interest to the Plannzng Commission such as
approval of the Tammie Schmitt CUP, discussion of the Tobias variance appeal and the
appointment of Roger Stigney as Council liaison wi�h Gary Quick as the alternate. Jopke
reported that the mayor would like to increase the membership of the Planning Commission from
seven to nine members and has directed staff to prepare an ordinance to do this.
A related discussion was held regarding the current vacancy an the Comrnission as to when the
seat would be iilled. Joplce reported that an ad appeaxed in the last issue of the newsletter which
set a February l, 1999 deadline for application submission.
Joplce aiso stated that the tnayor has requested an annual Yeport from the Planning Cornmission
detaiiing its waric during the last year. After same discussion, the Planning Commzssion directed
s�aff to draft a summary of the planning cases heard by the Commission as well as any other
activities it has been involved in 1998 and asked to review said repart before bein� forwarded to
the Councii.
9.
Chaarperson anel Plana�i�g Co�nmissao�er lt�po�°ts
There were no Chairperson or Planning Commissioner reports.
A4.
t�ei�ournmeat
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Joplce
Commuruty Development Director
N:\DATA\USERS\BARBBISHARE\ICEEP-I'I'1WPDOCSIC4MMDEV�PLANNINGIMINUTES\O 1-06-99. W PD
i
;_<�
'�
I -
� . �;,� �. , � �. ���:. ._ ��, ; ,� _ � °,
r :�- �� ; <� �. :!� �.
.- �- � n
la Call to Orcler
The meeting was calied io order by Chairperson
2o Roll Call
Members Present: Chairpersoiz Peterson,
Jalu�son, and Obert.
Members Absent: None.
Also Present: ComYrzunity Dev�iopme �
Council Liaison Rogex Stigney, and ;�
3. Citizens' reqa��sts and coana�: ts o�
s � �;;�
� ��
_; � .
There we�e i�a:'`c�tizens req�;ests c�� commf
Index �o
2401. �Iighvv�y 10,
J
Febre�a�y 3,1999
11�ou�ds Vie�v Ci�y Hal�
[ounds V���,1VII�i 55112
7:01,p��ii:, Fe
r
Miiler,
Assaciate Jim Ericson,
m� I� � on tiae agenda
�te s that were not on the agenda.
�of PlamYin�°�rirnnl��s�on� Bylaws.
� �.
� ,. _ ,.
ion of Proposed rdinance b28, an Ordinance Relating to Outdoor
; Sales and La =�, and Garden Sales in a B-3, B-4, or I-1 District.
Pag�
1
�
� -.
����;�aa���o�i��f ��a��anng Coffi�issio� �yla�v�
All Cornmissioners agreed that unless otherwise stated, ail meetings would be regular meetings.
It was mentioned that there was a need io get things an record.
Plaru�ing Associate Ericson stated that �tafF vvould make revisions to the Bylaws according to
�
;
,.
;_ ,.
, ,
1l�I�u�c�s View Pi�a�ning Co�xrnission
I�e�ular 1VIe��in�
F�t�r�ary 3,1999
Page 2
discussion regarding this topic and would draft an ordinance to amend the City Code with regard
to Chapter 401, Planning Cozxunission, so that ihe Code and bylaws are consistent with one
another. �
�����
.iS� �'
Director Jopke relayed to the Cammission the fact that all Pia�ning Canim��s�c�ri meetings would
soon be televised to make sure all public meetings were Ue -_ =� �ommtinicatcd a��d more
accessible in an effort to gather feedback and to encourag���� �' lic involv�nle�3t;.` �� ,�
,_ � . _.
Various comments were made and questions posed as
and how it could be produced in such a way to make t
on, such as by having a brief discussion at the beginni
meeting to get viewers up to speed and scrolling agen�
concern raised that some of the work the Commissic�n
anyone watching at home. All meinbexs vaiced conce
get them bacic. It was thought that nnt televisi ���c a
�xpa.nd viewersl�ip. ,, ' , ;
5.
IBiscnssxor� of Ordinance No.
a�d garde� sales rvithim �he ]
aa� c�
I�
af
; of the`�elevised ����em
aware of ����iat;:,�s`'�oing
�g about the previous
for viewing. There was
��ic�us and boring to
�ers'�nd not being able to
c�iil'd l�elp retain and
o ailoe� temporary produce, lawn ,}
riamm�g��s�oc'�ate �rics�r�ra `ga�re �,is repor t, whi�.l'��;�iighlighted #he text of the proposed
ordinan��, y.�t a�l��g the ���nan�isSioz� if it was fair to alIorr� certain types of temparary sales
operations a�cl;�not`ci� hcrs. And �if �r�i�t, �l�ow better can this situation be addressed?
Planning As �zafe �{i�ic�qn indicat�d 1:�iat conditional use permits could be granied as normal,
except w' " t an expirat�ori date. With the Linders operation, the CUP typically runs for a
certai E riod of time. I�s�cad t��hat, the CUP could be made to not expire subject to conditions
that . met and admin�str�ti�i�ely reviewed each yeax. Any problems ar complaints with an
f,,;,; �
o ion would trigger �� :eview.
r� ��-_
� �_
�f;��� ��e�o�-�� 1�` te�s �f Iaaformation
Community Developxnent Direcior Jopke reviewed with the Commission a Council direc�ive to
pexform a random open-ended survey to get the residents reaction to living in Mounds View.
The basis for this idea cazne �rom the discussion concerning what the Czty should do with the
remnant parcel created by the Edg�wood Drive realignment and vvhat the residents of the
corsununity feel should be done with it, as it is pubiicly ovvned. -
;
,,
..
,: ;:
;, , .. ;- `
, � ,. ,. -
,, .
,:. ,;..:. _ . !.:: .
IViounds �iew Plant��ng Comnai�sio�
�tegulaa° li�e�tang
February 3,1999
Page 3
The Commission questioned the feasibility and success of such a survey unless it was
professionally camposed and executed.
Commissioner Brasaemle recalled that the Humphrey Institute at the U
had a group that constructed and administered different iypes�of su�vey
7e
Chai�°person and Plar��ang Comrnassfo�er Reports
There were no Chairperson or Planning Commissionez
�.
Adjoua°nment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30
WPDOCS\COMMDEV�PLANNINGUVtIN[JTES\02-03-99.REG
� ,: , \� +�
� ;;��:
To:
From:
Subj ect:
Meeting Date
�aclzgx�ou�de
Mounds View Planning Commission
Rick Jopke, Camrnunity Development Director
Approvai of Amended Pianning Commission Byiaws
Special Planning Case No. SP-Ob9-99
F��a�}--1�;-�999 c� aa- �-L ��, f� ��i
According to Section 401.�6, Subdivision 7 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is
to review its Bylaws on an annual basis at the first regular meeting in February. The Planning
commission has reviewed the bylaws at the February 3rd and 17th meetings and suggested
amendments. The suggested amendments have been incorporated into the attached draft bylaws.
Recom�e�adation:
Discuss the attached draft hylaws and adapt Resolution No. 570-99, a resolution adopting the
bylaws.
e �
Rick Jopke, Co unity Development Director
N:IDATA\GROiJPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM\BYLAWSIPCREPORT.99B
�e
}
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS
(Revised as ofFebruaryl7, 1999)
I. AUTH4RITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds Vievv Planning and Zoning Commission (Bylaws) are
established i�i accordance with the Motands View Municipal Code Section 401.06. Subd. 7"The
Commission shall adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its business."
Where the�•e is a conflict between the pravisions of the Bylaws and the provisions af the City
Charter and the Municipal Code, the provisions of the City Charter and the MUnicipal Code shail
govern. (Foc purposes of simplicity, the Platining and Zoning Commission may hereinaf�er be
referred to as the Planning Commission or the Commission.}
II. AD�PTION OF BYLAWS; REVIEW AND AMENDMENT:
A. ADOPTI4N AND AMENDMENT: The Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution by an
affirmative vote of the inajority of inembers of the Planning and Zoning Commission
appointed as voting metnbers, and shall be placed on �le with the City Clerlc-
Administrator and the Comenunity Developm�ent Department. A copy of the bylaws shall
be forwarded to the City Council far its infornnation. Any amendments to the Bylaws shalI
be adopted by Resolution in the same manner as the original Bylaws.
B. ANNUAL REVIEW: The Bylaws shall be reviewed on an annual basis at the first regular
meeting of the Commission in February.
III. MEMBERSHIP AND VACANCIES '�
Vacancies on the Planning Comrnission shall be filled in accordance with the Municipal Code,
Section 401.03. The Ciry Cauncil �kaH should refer applications for Planning Commission
appointments to the Planning Commission for recommendations prior ta taking actian to filt
vacancies.
IV. OFFICERS
A. OFFICERS NAMED: The oificers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a
chairperson and vice-chairperson. The Commission may create and fill such other off ces
from its members, as it may determine, to transact Commission business. In addition, the
Director of Communi#y Develapment, or his or he�� designee. shall act as the recording
secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeiing minutes.�a�-a�}�e�a
B. ELECTIONS; TERMS
Chairperson: Based upon the recommendation of the Pianning Commission, the Mayor,
with �he approval of the City Council, shall appoint the chaii•person of the Comtnission
each year. A� the first meeting in Decemb�r, the Commission shall cond�ct an election
in order to make its recomrmendation for the chaii°person, following the procedure in
Section IV.B.3. The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall be ��
foY°wwa�°ded to the City Council for aciion at its first meeting in January. - 1
I'-
City of Mounds View February 17,1999
Planning and Zoning Coinmission - Bylaws Page 2
2. Vice-Chairperson: The Pianning Commission shall elect a vice-chairperson each year
at its frst meeting in January, foltowing the procedure in Sec�ion IV.B3.
3. Election Procedure: For each of�ice, the chairperson shali invite nominations from
Planning Commission members. After nominatians have been received, the
chairperson shail entertain a moiion to close nominations. If such motion is made and
passed, and more than one nomination has heen made, the chairperson shali distribuie
ballots to the Commission me►nbers and each naember shall write his or her selection on
the ballot. The recording secretary shall taily the baliots and announce the nominee
receiving the most votes. In the event of a tie, the recording secretary shali announce
the notninees tied in the voting and balloting shalt be repeated until an election occurs.
If only one nomination has been received, fhe chairperson may conduct the voting by
voice vote. If a majority of the members present vote in the affrmative for the
nominee, the nominee shall be elected.
4. Assi.unption of Duties: The Chairperson and Vice Chair�oerson shall assume office at
the first meeting in Februaty of each year.
5. Term af Office: The chairperson and vice chairperson sha91 serve one year terms, and
may be re-elected to additional terms in accordance with this Section IV.B.
� C. DUTIES OF OFFICERS: The chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the Planning
Co�nmission, and shall have the authority to add or cancel
regular meetings and to call speciai meetings as provided in Section VZ. The vice
chairperson shali assume the duties of the chairperson, in the absence of the chairperson.
V. LIAISON TO COUNCIL: The City Council shall appoint from among its mennbers a Liaison to
the Commission on an annual basis. It is expected that the Council Liaison will attend the
Comnnission meetings on a regular basis. in the event of the absence af the Councii Liaison at a
Commission meeting, a Commission member rnay be appointed by the chairperson to represent
the Planning Commission at the next re�ular City Council mee�ing or at the meeting where the
City Council will be considering the planning cases acted upon by the Planning Commission in
the absence of the Council Liaison.
VI. MEETINGS
A. TYPE� OF MEETING�; SCHEDULE: The annual meetings schedule of the
Commission shall be � � �
adopted by Resolution at the first re ular
meeting in December for the following year.
1. Regular Meetings: Sub'ec� to the ado ted meetin schedule the Commission's re�ular
meetinQS will occur on the frst and third Wednesdays of each month
for the purpase of convening public hearings, making
recommendations to ti�e City Council, conducting business which requires a vote of
the Commission, convening as the Board of Eldjustment and Appeals, conducting l�-
City of Mounds View
Fabruary 17,1999
Planning and Zoning Comznission - Bylaws Page 3
ran�e �lanning functions and other official business.
Agenda Sessions �� : An A enda Session is an informai session ofthe
Plannin� Commission. tv icallv held immediateIv following ad�ournmenfi of a Re�uiar
or S ecial meetin at which tii�ne the Plannin Cornmission ma review minutes
informall review ro osed or endin lannin cases or ordinance amendments
discuss previaus actions of the Citv Council or otlter Commissions, and to perform
other matters not rec�uirin� a vote of the Commission.
,
, ,
�
£��sstetr.
3. S�ecial Meetin,�s: From time to titne s�ecial mee#in�s mav �ie calIed in order to
nrocess si�nificant caseIoads, to review works in pro�ress suah as comprehensive
�ian u�dates ar rnunicipal code revisions or to undertalce a reireat, or strate�c
lannin session either aman st itself or in the com an of the Cit Council or
ather commissions. Specia( meetings can be�ro�osed bv any Commission n�ember
or at ihe re uest of the Director of Communi Devela ment et must be a roved
b�majority vote of the Commission. Eme�encv special meetin�s can,be called _, j
via written no�ice to the Directar of Communitv Develo�ment bv the Chairnerson or =
two Commission members. or b t�he Director of Communitv Development
Emer ene s ecial meetin s are those in which the sub'ect matter is of such an
immediate concern that it cannot be dela ed until the nexti re ular meetin of the
Plannin�,Commission.) The Director of Communi� Develo�ment shall,�ost and
mail a notice of an� ecial meetin� in accordance with State Statu�es Plannin�
Commission rnembers shall be natified btitelenhone and in writing if nossible�t
least seven da s rio�• to a s ecial meetin .
-- - �--- .. ... . ---- --- --• -- - --
. , , . , _ ,, , ; , �, __ . � �. ,�_ a ,, ;_. -..�
-------- - ----- -� -- - • -- - •
. �. _ . - . � . r .� . � ., �.. . , . _ - . ' ' : ,.• ' ' _.... _ . ..
.e....._.._ . �..�.... ,,. � " i_ - ^'. :i�.,_. � _.� ... . . �� --_..� '" _"" _ " •.r ,�
�- - - .. . l. ' _ _ ' " " "" '. ' : :' "" ". . " � " ' ' " ' ." "
_.�..� � .._.. .. ... �....� � -.�..�_., ' ".�"..�.._...� .� "
. _ " ' ' '^, '" _.._ �.... ' "" ' . _ _ . . . _.
._.� �. ..,.. ��,.. � _.�_ .� 7 .�-....� _ .._.
4. Cancellation of Meetings: Reg�alar ' v-or s�ecial mee#in�s may be canceled
by the chaiiperson or Communi Develonment Director in the eyent that there are no
ite2ns of business re uirin the attention of the Commission or for lack of a uoram or
in res onse to inelement weather or for an other -€a� good and sufficient reason. �
�-1... «L bl.... �6..
9
f .
Members of the Commission shall be notified by telephone of any meeting
canceilation. A notice of the meeting cancellation shall be posted as reyuired by �tate -
Statutes.
City of Mounds View February i 7,1999
Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 4
B. QUORUM: A majority of the number of voting members appointed to ihe Cominission
shall aonstitute a quorum.
C. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS; ADJOURNMENT
1. Meeting Chairperson: If neiiher the chairperson nor the vice chairperson is present to
canduct a meeting of the Plan�ing Commission, the Planning Commission tnay elect a
meeting chair from among those members present prior to the commencement of
basiness. The election shall follow the proced�ues set forth in Section IV.B.3, except
that the CommUnity Development Direcior, or his or her designee, shall conduct fhe
election.
2. Open Meeting Law: Meetings shal( be conducted in accordance with the State of
Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minn. Statuies 471.705).
3. Adjournment: Meetings sha11 adjourn at or before 11:00 p.m. anless a two-thirds
majority of the members present agree to extend the time of adjournment. If there is no
objection, the Chairperson may declare the mee#ing ad}ourned without the necessity of
a motion or vote by the Cosnrrtission.
1 D. MINi1TES: Minutes shall be recorded �re�red for regutar meetings and each
commission member shali receive a copy of the unapproved minutes for review and
approval at a succeeding meeting. Minutes shall be approved by motion. Approved
minutes sha11 be the officiai record of the business conducted and actions takeii by the
Planning Commission. Commission membez•s may request copies of approved minutes
after they have been corrected, if necessary, and signed as approved. Copies of the
approved minutes shall be filed with tha ' ' Community
Development Deparhnent. Una�roved minutes shall be cIearly marked "DRAFT";
ant�roved minutes shall be marked " " "APPROVED". A policv
s#atement regardin� the contant and farmat of the minutes shall be on fi1e with the Director
of Comrnunit�� Develo�ment which may be reviewed from time to time as needed.�ke
. , , >
. ,
. �
�
. , > >
, 9
i
City of Mounds View February 17, I 999
Planning and Zoning Commissian - Byiaws Page 5
:^ -- --- - -::�.• - •.. ••r
-. �.. � .�- .-- - :.� ;. -•--� ,- ^;- -- - -- - • - -
; -- -,'_':_ -: -:
� ��; _ � � . . ;:-
� .--.:�: - ;- ::•- : - - ; _ _ ` ._� -,-
. _: __ : : - -- ;-__ ._ �. . ..; -: ;-: --•;-: -- --; -
- - - -- -:- -: :_ :- ; - • - - -- _. . ._. .
,, , , . . • • . . .:- -- ;-
; -;,: ' :. ':- ; : .; . �. ;,- -- ;-
- ,:-• -- --; ; -: _ --. : • .;
' - - - -- -- - •- - -- _. _ _
� . .�... • ..�^.--�--.-: i . : ..:'..:_ .:. ..• �.. _ _.. ,....� ..
•
_�� .- �,
� -.��.... • • , .�..... - �' ' _ '-' .-' '- • -' -' _ `...-.
. r. � ..�....�. �
' ' ' .. " " � _ ' � .. _.� . . . .. . i . ' ' " ' ... _... � � . - . _. . ... . � " " ; . :.... . - i i "
_. . ,.. ,. _..H1_��l!�l!!!f .�._ .. .. . " .. - - • -. -.
•
G ' --
■n+��c:r��r:►�.�� "a:�:.a:� �r%���G�6�:iii:�:�ia:.�a�Li:.a".�u��:ia�i+�ti��.
VI. INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff repor�, plans and
additional information, as appropriate, for each item placed on the agenda-�b
for anv reguiar or special meeting. The Corrimission packet�i should
be delivered at least faur days prior �o the meeting. Each Commissioner is responsible far ;\;i
reviewing the material within the packet prior to the meeting.
VII. PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS: Advice from, consultation with, and/or requests for review
by the City Attorney, City Engineer, City Planning Agency, or other paid consultants shall be in
accordance with the Municipal Code, Section 401.07.
VIII. SUPPLEMENTARY PUBLICATIONS: All Commission members shall receive a copy of the
Mounds View Municipal Code and a copy of the Municipal Comprehensive Plan as weli as other
materials provided by the Ciiy Council or City Staff These materials shall be retained by each
commission member and returned to #he Community Development Director upon the member's
resignation or termination of appointment.
IX. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS
A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated Staff inember or the
Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regulariy scheduled Planning
Commission meeting. Any tnetnher attending less than 20 meetings per year wiihout the
co�isent of the Commission shali be deemed to have vacated the offtce, and such vacancy
shaIl be fiiled by the City Council pursuant to Section 401.03, �ubd. 1. A leave of absence
may be gran�ed by the consent of the Commission.
B. CONFLICT O� INTEREST:
1. General 3tandard: No Commissioner sha(I be app�inted with private or personal
interests likely to conflict with the generaI public interest. If any person appointed to
City of Mounds View February t 7,1999
Plaruling and Zoning Coinmission - Bylaws Page 6
the Commissio;n shall find that their private or personai interests are invoived in any
matter coming bafore the Commission, they shall disqualify themselves fi-om talcing
part in any discussion or action on the matter; alternatively, they may be disqualified by
a two-thirds (2/3) nnajority vote of the Commissioners in attendance.
2. Conflict Due to Economic Interests: A Commissioner has a conflict of interest if, in his
or her discharge of official duties, would be reqaired to talce an action or mal:e a
decision that waald subsiantially affect the Commissioner's financial interesis or those
of an associated business, unless the effect on the Commissioner is no greater than on
other merr�bers of the Commissioner's business classification, profession, or
accupatiai�. In the event a conflict of interest exists with respect to a particular maifer
hefore the Commission, the Commissioner shall disqualifi;��i�er�rse�#�himseif or herself
from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter.
C. EX PARTE CONTACTS: Ex parte contacts are contacts between individuais seeking to
influenca the decisions ofthe Planning Commission and individuai Commission members
outside the meeting forurn. Such contacts include meetings with project proponents,
residents, property owners, and citizens separate from Commission meetings,
communication hetween Commission members outside the meeting forum, telephone
calls or letters which attempt to influence a Commissianer's opinion on a matter which
; wi(1 he subject to the Commissioner's vote. When the Planning Comtnission is involved
in a matter which is to be heard and decided by the Commission (e.g. variances), Planning
Cammissioners shail indicate to the person contacting them that such contact is
inappropriate and ail testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to e�nsure a fair hearing
for all parties. In a11 other cases, Planning Commissioners should discourage such contacts
and should avoid expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case. When ex parte
contacts occur, the Planning Commissioner is responsible for notifying the Community
Development Director, and for conveying the substance of the commue�ication at the next
connmission meeting at which the matter discussed is under consideration.
On March 3, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 570-99, a resolution adopting
its of�cial Bylaws (revised 2/17/99j as presented herein and a revised meeting sckedule.
AT"TEST:
3erry Peterson, Chairperson
Rick 3oplce, Comxnuuity Development Director
N:\DATAIGROUP5\COMDEV\PLANCOMMIBYLAWS�BXLAW 5.99
1�SOI�iJT'IOT� NO. 570-99
f- � 1
1�� 1- �' � ;� `
; � ; �, �;::.
12�SOI�tJ'I'I�N AI?OP'TII�IG I�VISEI� �I'LAW� FOI� T�IE PL,ANI@II�TG A�dIi ZOIVII�dG
COI�NiISS��Ioi; PLAI�I�1G CA�E NO. �POb9�99.
WHEREAS, Section 401.06, Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires fihe
Planning and Zoning Coinmission to adopt bylaws for its governa��ce and for tkxe transaction af
its business, and for annual review of these bylaws; and
WHEREAS, the Pianni.iag and Zoning Commission has conducted its 1999 review of its
bylaws and has determi�led that revisions are needed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED �hat ihe bylaws for the Planning and
Zoning Comn�ission shail be revised as shown in "Exhibit A", attached hereio and incorporated
herein by this reference, and tliat the bylaws as shown in `Bahibit A," supercede previous adopted
versions of the bylaws.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these revised bylaws shall be lcept on file with the �
City Clerk-Administrator and the Community Development Department, and shall be forwa�ded f
to the City Council for acce�tance.
Attest:
Adopted this 3rd day of March, 1999.
J'erty Peterson, Chairperson
Ricic Jopke, Community Developmeni Director
N:\DATAIGROUPSICOM DEVIPLANCOMM\PCRESOS\99BYLAW S.RES
:�'E
�=: � �+
:: .
� _.
,.
,
,v , � .�.
Y , v :
�� �;
To:
From:
Subject:
Meeting Date:
�ackgraund�
Mounds Vi�w Plan�azng Commission
Rick 3opke, Community Development Director
Review of Proposed Ordinance No. 629
Special Planning Case No. SP-0&9-99
��`�; i°�� M�k Fz-c:. M �, t �� �, ��
Attached for your review is the second draft of the proposed Ordinance No. b29, an ordinance
vvhich amends Chapter 401 af the municipal Code pe�taining to the Planning Cornmission. The
proposed ordinance is necessary ta make the ordinace consistei�t with the Planning Commission
Bylaws. The draft ordinance incoFporates the changes suggested at the February 3rd and 1 ith
Planning Cammission meetings.
Re�orr�rnendation:
Discuss the attached draft Ordiixance No. 629 and pass Resolution No. 572-99 recommending
City Couz�cil approvai of the ordinance.
�
Rick Joplce, Co unity Development Birector
N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOtVIM�BYLAWSIPCREPORT.99C
r
�,
. : , -� : �; ,. ,. :�. . n +.
� � ;1 ..
�:, , ' � .
�� : t: i <
��OLLT'I'IO�d RECOMIVlEI�I)ING CITY COLTNC�L APPIt0�1AL O�' ORI�II�I.AI�CE 1�0.
629, Al�t �itDIPi�CE �VIEI�]�II�TG T�iE CI�APTE12 401 OF THE T�/iOLTI�D� iIIEW
TVIiJ�TICIPAL COI;E TO �E COI�SISTEI�IT �VIT�I THE PI,�I�TIIi�G �TD ZOI�II�G
CONiIi�ISSI0�1 �i'L,AVVS; PL�11�IIVG CA5E I�T�. SP069r99.
WHEREAS, Section 401.06, Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requie•es the
Planning and Zoning Coznmission to adopt bylavvs %r its governance and for the transaction of its
business, and for annual review of these bylaws; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted its 1999 review of its
bylaws and has determined that revisions are needed; and.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has adopted changes io its bylaws; and
WHEREAS, the above mentioned byIaws changes and Section 401.06 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code are inconsistent; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed Ordinance No. 629, an
ordinance amendment tQ eliminate the ir�consistency between the bylaws and Section 410.Ob of the
Mounds View Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends City Council approval of Ordinance No. 629, an ordinance amending Chapter 401 of
the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to the Planning and Zoning Commission of Mounds
View.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this
resoIution to tl�e City Council prior to appro��ai of the minutes.
Adopted this 3rd day of March, 1999.
Attest:
Jerry Peterson, Chairpersan
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
N:IDATAIGROUPS\COMDEVIPLANCOMMIPCRES0510RD629.RE5
` : '{
Draft #2
I�: �., �; . �. : ����, , '��; y: � ' '4
, � ,� ° �. ���r
:,7 i, �`� n.
. ,��' : . !} : (,
� ORl)II�IAI�CE ANd�I�Ii)I1�dG C�PTEIt 401 OF 'THE 1l�OUI�I)� �IEW lo/IU1�IICIP,I�I�
C�I�E �I,A'T�G 'T� "�'T�E PL�Vl�iIl�tG A.l�tl) ZOI�IING C011�i1VII�S�ON OF
1�OiTiVD� VIE�', SPECIAL PLEiI�l�ING C`ASE SP-069-99
THE CTTY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION l: Section 401.06 of the Mounds View Municipai Code is hereby ame�ided
with tk�e proposed additions underlined and iialicized and deletions ,
respectively, to read as follows:
401 A6: OItG�TIZATiOl�g MEETING�:
.:--.: �.,.^- -,-;. ' -' _�� -- �-=_- � - � . �_ -. .�-� �- - �-■- - � - �-
��� - - .
_ � �, .�- i...i�,_..i. -�-."..- :�� -- i :' ^-.�-.�.- ^.�. �..�._��..�:�{�'-.:
�--'. ��_.._ ._.� . . ��- ...�. .-_..`_ ...�-..�_ ...� __:i.7 ��.._.-0 .S'_.� �. ' - - - ..�.
.,. �� I.�"::.-'-- `��-` - - - ...i: `-L 7� :
' ' ' ' ^ " " � - ... .. � - � . � ... . .. ; ...� �� - . . ..
•
� ' " ' ' " '. _. " . . � ■ � - , ' � .. . - i • , ' , .� �. '
... � � •: �: • • � ..
Subd. 3. A enda �essions: An A enda Session is an inforcnal session of the Plannin Comrnission
tv icall held immediatel foilowin ad'ou�-nment of a Re lar or S eciai meetin at
which time the Plaruain Comnnission ma review minutes inf�rmall review ro osed or
endin lannin cases or ordinance amendments and to erform aiher matters not
reauirin�a vote of fhe Commission.
-- ,,._ :, ,-- ; --- -:• - ;. ,- -; .� ,_ _ . ; ..�_ _;_ ;. �: - .:
. �: , � . . � • '�
--- - - • :-,_�_: �_� � , ; �� -- � ;, ; ,,.. -- , -- --
- - . ..
. . _..
-- � - - - - . --; --_ ��, ��� _� ; _� -- : -_ - -- -_ --.,::
. : . •� .
. ;-
•.a_ c+_�.. „ ..�..+�
�ppTLlTisrni�ti, 3ca�u�w.
Subd. 4. S ecial Meetin s: S ecial meetin s can be ro osed durin an re ular n�eetin b
an Commissi�n member or at the re uest af the Director of Communit Develo ment
et must be a roved b a ma'orit vote of the Commission. Etner enc s eciai
meetin�s ma�be called via written notice to the Director of Communi Develo ment b
the Chair�erson or two Commission members or bv the Director of Communi
Deveiopment. The Director of Community Develo�ment shall �ost and mail a notice of
an s ecial meetin in accordance vvith State Statutes.
Section 2. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty (30} days after its publication in the
official City newspaper.
1 �
Ordinance 629
Page 2
Read by the City Cauncil of the City of Mounds View on this _ day of ,
1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Maunds Vievv on this � day of
, 1998.
ATTEST:
C1erk/Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS T� F�RM:
City Attorney
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
Charles S. Whiting, City
;:�
40�.0�
sECTroN:
401.01:
401.02:
401.03:
401.04:
401.05:
401.Ob:
40I.U7:
40I .08:
401.09:
401.10:
401.11:
401.12:
I. .... ._ .....
CI�APTER 401
„ ' ` _ 1= ' ! - 1� � �� �,
Commission Establislaed
Membershipy TP.�1.liiSy Oath; Compensation
Removal iroan Offce; Vacancies
Powers and Duties
Conflict of Interest
Organization; 1V[eetings
Employment of Experts; Expenditures
Annual Report
Comprehensive Plan Adopi�d
Review of Proposed Plats
Zoning
Avaiiability of City Records
C��l_�L
401.01: C��/1r/I�SSIOI� ES�'ABLISHEII: A Planning and Zoning Commission %r
Mounds View �s hereby established. (�rd. 536, 4-25-94)
. ,�� � ,� , .� .. ,� . �, ., .�, ,� '
.� � .
Subd. l. l�embership; Terms:
a. Appointed Members: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall cons�st of not less
than seven (7) nor moxe than nine (9) members from the resident population of Mounds
�Iiew, other than persons elected to a public body, to be appo�nted by the Mayor with
appravai of ihe Ciiy Council, from applications subrnitted. The appointees shall have
three (3) yeaz staggered terms; at least two (2) of these tergns, but not more than three (3)
ierms, shall expu� each year on December 31. Based upon the recommendaiion of the
planning ax�d Zoning Commission, the Mayor, with approval of the City Councii, .shall
appo�nt a chairperson.
b. I3esignated Members: In addition #o ihe appointed membership, �o (2) nonvo�ing
members shail b� designated by the City Councii ta se�re as lia.ison �o the 1'1a�n�ng ana
�A%211ig COYtiIillSSlaY1. TYa� tEiTil O� �[l� 2��30ITl�illeil�S SYi�� OF6�lila.11l�' �7e �Oi OII� y��T;
except, tl�at ih�y �ili terminate with the office �ram which the nonvotin$ appointrx�ent is
derived. -
Crty of Mounds View
i
401.02
401.04
Subd. 2. Oath and Taking of Off ce: The appointees shall be duly sworn and take office at the
first regular meeting of the Commission in the month of January each yeaar. Both original
and successive appointees shail hold their offices until their successors are appointed and
qualif ed. .
Subd. 3. Compensat�on_ Ail members oi the Cornmission shall serve without compensation.
(Ord. 536, 4-25-94}
401.�3: �l�OVAI, �'�OIVT ���'IC�; VAC�CIES:
5ubd. 1. Removal frarn Offzce:
a. Az� appointed membez of tkie Commission may be rem.oved from office for jus� cause
and on written charges by at least four-#ifths (4/ 5) vote of the entire City Council, but
such member shall be enti#Ied to a public hearing before such vote is taken. It shall be
the duty of the chairman of the Cornmissio� to notify the City Council promptly of a�ay
vacancies occurring iz� %nembership.
b. In additio�, an appointed member may be removed by the City Councii for
nonattendance at Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, as provided in the by Iaws ';
adop#ed by the Planning and �oning Commission, or if a Commission member does z�ot
attend twenty (20) reguiariy scheduled meetings per year withont the consent of the
Commission.
c. Based upon �ie recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Mayor,
wifh approval of the City Counc�i, shali fili such vacancies for th� unexpired term of the
original appointment.
5ubd. 2. Ternunation of Appointment: Any Commission member designing �a terminate their
appointment io the Commission before the expiration of the term shal!1 give r�vritfien
notification to the Planning and Zoning Commission cha.irman of that intention. {Ord. 536,
4-25-94)
401.04: PO R� Al'� Y)'�J'�`I�Se The Cornrnission slx�.11 be the City planning agency
as authox°�zed by the Miaines�ta statut�s' and. the Cit� Charter.2 I# shaIi have the duti�s axad
powers whxch ar� assigned to it by this Cade. (Ord. 536, 4-25�94)
1 M.S.A. §4b2.354, subdivis�ore 1.
2 See Ci�arter Section 2.02.
Clty o, f' Mour�ds $�aew
401.OS
!�I��tZ.
401.05_ CO�.+LICT O�' II�dTE1�E�To No person shall be appointed with pr�vate or
personal interest likely to conflict with �e general publ�c �nfierest. If any person appoinied shall
find fhat their private or personal inxeresis are invoived in any mattex coming b�fore fhe
Commission, tl�ey shall disqualify themselves irom talcing part in action on the matter;
alteratively, they may be disqualified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority voie of �he Commissioners
in attendance. (Ord. 536, 4-25-94)
. 1 ! � � '. _ ;�:
�� Subd. 1. Officers: At the first regular meef.ing in January, the Commiss�on shall elect a vice
chairman from among its appointed members for a�ierm of one year. The Commissian'
may create a�d fill such other offices from its membexs, as it may dete�nine, to transaci
Cornmiss�on business.
Subd. 2. Regular Meetings: Regular meetings shall be held for the purposes of convening
public hearings and conductiz�g business which requires a vote of the Platuiing and Zoning
Commission. The Commissian shall hold at leasi on� reguiar meeting each month on a
day and at a time and a place wiv.ch the Co�nission sha11 fx by resolution.
Subd. 3. Agenda �ileetings: Agenda meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission may be
held for the ptupose of conducting site plan reviews, exarnination of propased
amendments to the City Code, long range Cominission planning, arid other matters not
requiring �. vote af the Commission. �lgenda, mee�ngs shall be held on a day and at a
time and a place which the Commission shail fix by resoiution.
Subd. 4. Speciai Meetings: Special meetings may be called by fihe chairpezson or by any two
(2) members of the Planning and Zoning Comnussion by a written notice filed with the
Cierk-Administrafor, who shaIl t1�en post and mail a z�otice of the meeti�g in accordance
with �iate statutes.
Subd. 5. Quoru.m: A majority of the appointed voting Commission members shaii constitute
a. quonun.
Subd. 6. Voting Privileges: Each of the appointed �members shall have equal voting privileges.
�ubd. '7. Bylaws: The Cognnussion shall adopt bylav�s for its govemarice and far tlYe
$'aT15�C�10%1 O� 1�S bi1S1%1�SS. The bylaws shall be revievved on an annual basis �.t the first
regttlar meetin� in Februaiy.
Subd. �. Records: A r�corcling secretaay, who may be reco�mrne�ded by ti;e Pla�ani.�.g and
Zongng Coanmissior� for appoint�eni, shall k�ep a record of atter�dance a� Cornxa�issio�.
�neetings and a recorc� of r�solutions, vot�s �nd absten�ions on ea.ch question requuln� �
vote. The record of the Corn�ission shall be a p�blic record. {Orci. 53d, 4�25-94)
City o,f IVfou�acls f/iew
4Q1.06
441.11
401.07: El�/[�I,O��I�''�' O�' E���T3, E�EI�i7' Sa The Cammission may
request from the City Catarzcii the employment of such siaff, technicians and experts as may be
deemed proper and may request such other fiands as may be necessary and proper for the canduct
of zts affairs. (�rd. 536, 4-25-94)
401.08: AIVI�LT�I., �POIZT': The Ciiy Co�ancil may request an annual report from the
Planning atud Zoning Cornmission of its works during the preceding year. (Qrd. 536, 4-25-94}
401.09: COMP��IErd�� PI,�" �OP�'E�o ihe City hereby adopis as its
Compr�hensive Plan for futvre development arid grovvth �within the City that certain document
hereafte� to be referred to as the COMPREHEN'SIVE PLAN I'OR THE CITY OF MOUNDS
VIEW, dated 1979, and such Comprehensive Plan is incorporated herein by reference. ,A copy
of the City's Coinprehenszve Pian is on file in Yhe office of ihe Clerk-Administrator. (Ord. 536,
4a25-94}
401.10: ��� ��' P1�OP03�D PI,A'I'�; Be%re ihe preliminary approval is given
to any proposed platting or properiy i.n the Mun�cipality, the preliminary plat shall be submiited
to the Planning and Zoning Commission for shady and recornmendaiion along with written z�eports _.. `;
ar�d recommendations on the plat from #he Director of Public Works/City Engizxeer and City
Attorney. The recommendations on and approvai of plats by the Planning and Zoning
Coxnmission shall be in accozdazxce with Title 12Q0 of this Code. (Ord. 536, 4-25-94)
401.11: ZOI�il!'Gc
Stzbd. 1. Zoning Plani: The Comrnission, upon its own motion, may, and upon instruction by
the Council shall, prepare a revised Zoning Plan for the Municipality. Before
recommending such Plan to the Council, the Cominission shall hoid at least one gublic
hea�ng thereon after a published notice oi such hearing appears in the legal newspaper
at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. The same procedure shall apply for the
preparation of an overall street plan or acquisiiion of lands for other public pnrposes_
� See Title I 100 of Yhis Code for zoning regulations.
City of �lounds V�ew
401.11
_�
;
,;
;
401.12
Subd. 2. Rezoning of Property: See Section 1125.01 of this Code for proc�dure. {Ord. 536,
4-25�94) -
401.12: A.�7�I��II.,I'I'�'' OF CITY �CO S: Upon the request of fihe Planning and
Zoning Commission, the Clerk-Aci�ninistrator or a designee shali furnish, wzthin a reasonable
time, such z'ecords or information as may be reqi.ured for the work of the Comrnission. (Ord. 536,
4tl25-94)
City of Moun�ls View
402.01
CHAPTER 402
:.� :r • �� �; �f : � � � �r . _ � ��� � :: ��� � .
SECTION:
402.01: �oard Established; Membership
402.0 i
402.01: �� EST'�L�SI�Ii; I�IE ERSF�IIP: A Board of Adjusfiments and
Appeals, consisiing of alI appoimtment members of the Planning and Zoning Cammission, is
hereby esiablished. The Baard shall function under and be godemed by the provisions of Section
1125.02 o�f this Code. (1988 Code §32.10)
';
- ;
City o,f'It�ozrncls Yiew
,� _ � _
� , � ��
�--
To:
From:
Subj ect:
Meeting Date:
Mounds View Plai�ning Commission
Rick Jopke, Comm'unitY Development Director
Planning Commission Annual Report
February 17,1999
�ackg�°a��clo
" Code in 5ection 441.08 states: "The City Council ma Toceed ng ye�'uThe City�o�
The Cxty
the Planning and Zoning Cammission of its works during the p
Counci� has requested a written report from the Planning Comm.ission. �
A�ap
revious Planning Cfl�ssion meeting this request � fo�Planni g Cohmml S a�eview•�n
direction was given to staf f to prepar e a d r a ft w r' i tt e n r e p o�
A tta c h e d i s a d r a ft r e p ort for Planning Commission consideration.
Itecaxs�rnenciaii�n o
Commission review the draft repQ�, direct staff to make any
It is recominended that the an� sgbmit it to the City Council.
changes that are necessary
Rick Jopke, C mmunit�' D�velopment Directox
I•f ;�DATA\GROUPS\C�MDEV�PLANC�M��P���ORT.99E
��
199� .A ual l�la irn� Commission Repo�:
Ia�troduetfon
The City Code in Section 401.08 staies: "The City Cauncii may request an annual report from
the Planning and Zoning Commission of its works during the proceeding year." The City
Council has requested a written report from the Planning Commission. The foilowing is a
sununary of the activities af the Planning Co�ission in 1998.
A99� 1-�ciivat��s
Plannin Cases:
The Planning Coinmission considered and acted on the following planning cases in 1998:
Comp I'lan Aznendment: 1
Rezoning: �
Code Appeal: 1
Conditional Use Permit: IO
Variance: 8
Development Review: 8
;�
Minor Subdivision: 3
Major Subdivision: 1
PUD Amendn�ent: 1
Easement Vacation: 1
Included in these cases were reviews of major projects including the A.z�thony
Properties/O'Neil PUD, TOLD/Walgreens project, and the Silverview Estates PUD.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Pla.nning Commission put forth much time and energy ioward the complete review
and update of the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan, last officially-updated in 1979. Tn
conjunc�ion with this redrafting, the Planning Co�unission staged three community
foxums held in February, March and April, designed to help Mounds View residents
understand what the Comprehensive Plan is, and most importantly, to gather input from
the resider�ts as to their views regarding the future of Mounds View. Natices of invitatzon
were mailed to each property owner and information was pasted on the website for
general reference. A summary of the resuIts of the �orurns was completed and sent io alI
ihe participants at the forums.
Subsequent to the corrununity forums the Planning Com�nission thoroughly discussed
and completed review of the initial drafts of ihe community bacicgro�and, land use,
housing, and public facilities elements of the Comprehensive Flan,
Miscellaneous:
In addition the Planning Commission participated in ihe discussions oithe following:
1. University of Minnesota Design Tea,m -- Participated in discussions regarding
possibility of 66Ring Road" system.
2. I-35 W Corridor Coaiiiion -- Provided input concerning community and
corridor issues.
3. Highway 10 Corridor Design theme -- Commission mexnbers participated in
focus groups led by the Hoisin�ton Koegler Group.
4. Code ameiadments -- Reviewed and recommended code annendments
concerning d.riveways and accessory buildings, and permifited uses in B-3
zoning districts.
5. Edge�vood Drive realignment/Remnant parcel -- Examined options and
alternate plans, provided recommendations relating to zoning and possible
future uses.
6. Code Enforcement Practices -- Discussion regarding open and pending cases,
procedural options.
1998 was a busy and productive year for the Planning Co�unission. The Plazlning Commission
;: i loolcs forward to another produetive year in 1999. The Planning Cominissian also loolcs forward
ta working with the City Council to provide the input necessary to assist in deciszons for the
bettexment of the City of Mounds View.
N:IDATA\GROUPS\CQMDEVIPLANCOM1v1�98ANNUAL.RPT
_..
__ _
---- -- _ -- .
�� a�
��: �
� '� , ;
;,_;
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
F�om: Ricic Jopke, Community Development Director
Subject: Camprehensive Plan Developmenf and Process Overview
Meeting Date: February 17, 1999
�ack�a-o�md:
Mounds Vi�w along with all the other municipalfties in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area were
required to update their comprehensive plans by the end of 1998. Mounds View along with a
majority of the cammunities were granted extensions to that deadline. Mounds View must now
have its plan submitted to ihe Meiropolitan Council by June 30, 1999.
The current Comprehensive Plan dates back to 1979. There have been a number of amendmsnts
propased and discussed since then but appear to have not been adopted. The approach which
\" staff and the T'lanning CoYnxriission have talcen is to update the existing Comprehensive Plan
rather than starting completely over. More emphasis is being placed on maintenance and
impxovement of existing land uses than oi� new development, hawever.
Cu�°r�r�t Co�nprehensive Plan �ummaryo
Each commissioner should have a copy of the J 998 Camprehensive Plan Update working
document. Thzs is a worlcing document azid I anticipate that the final document will have a
different format. The following is a listing and staius of the major elements of the dacuxnenfi:
Communi Forums: The suminary of the community forums hald earlier this year is
inciuded in the current draft. It is anticipated that an introductory chapter will be
drafted which will discuss the intent of the document and sitmmarize the citizen input
and approval process which the City used.. The community forum summary will be an
attachment to document.
2. Communit Back round: This element is optional according to Met Council
Guidelines. This element is an inventory of various �spects of the conununity including
its history, the physical environment of the community, and ihe demograpkuics of the
commuruty. Staff is working on a nuinber of maps which need to be included in the
element. We aiso hope to update some of the statistical information based on the
studies that are curren�ly undezv✓ay by the I35 W Corridor Coalition. A great deal of the
statistical information in the document is based on 1990 census data and may be out of
date. Much of this eleinent wili be incorporated into the �nal drafts af other eiements i
to avoid redundancy.
3. Land Use Element: This element is a required by Met Council Guidelines. The land
use element includes general land use, residential, commexcial, and industrial goais and
policies, a future land use pla.t�, and discussion of surface water management, historic
site preservation and solar access protection. The Planni�.g Commission has completed
its review of the drafi element. Major provisions of the current draft include:
a. A new land use classification system based on the I35W Corridor Coalition
system.
b. The existing land use pattern should be maintained with some changes. These
changes would include allowing additional commercial development to occur
along Highway 10 in �nixed use pianned unit deve�opments on the narth end of
the City and through commercial and indusirial planned �nit developments on
the south end of the City. Over the long term, the plan would allow for the
future �edevelopment of manufac�ured home parks to medium density housing
or in the case of the Tovtms Edge Terrace manufactured hame park to a light
industrial planned unit development. The other cl�ange would be to the site at
the south west corner of the intersection of Long Lake Road and County Road
H-2.This site could be developed as medium density single-family attached "-;' �
housing along County Road H-2 and law density single-family detached �_ �'
housing on the portion of the site having access to Clearview and Louisa
Avenues. The existing wetland along Long Lake Raad should be protected.
a The plan states that in areas where change is praposed that it is not the intent to
force people to move but to guide future usage when praperiy owners decide to
redevelop.
d. The plan acknowledges the need to review and update the City's storm water
management pian.
e. The pian states that there is no need for special measures tfl protect historically
significant properties.
f. The plan states that solax access protection will be reviewed as part of the
process to update the City's zaning code.
4. Housin� Element: This is a required element This element includes discussion of
po�ulation, housing supply, future housing needs, housing goals and policies, arid
programs which will be used to achieve the goals. The focus af �he plan is an
maintai�ling and improving the existing housing stock of the City. The Planxiing
Coxrunission has fi�lished review of ihe draft �lement.
��
S. Public Facilities Element: This element is required. The Planning Commission has
reviewed a draft of this eiement. This element includes a sewer and water plan, and a
_ parks and open space plan. This element could include the t�ansportation plan but staff
anticipates that transportation will be a separaie element.
6. Trar�s�ortation Element: The Planning Con�mission has reviewed and comxnented on
the goals and policies section of this element. �taff is currently woricing on compieting
the first draft af this element for presentation to the Planning Commissian at the March
10 special study session.
7. Economic Develo ment Element: This is an opiional element. Staff is currently
working with the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to produce this element.
Tl�e EDC has scheduled a special meeting on March 23, 1999 to discuss this further.
8. Inter overnmental Coordination Element: This is an optional element. The I35W
Corridor Coalition has prepared language for corridor communities to consider
including in this element.
9. Im�lem.entation Element: This element is required and has to include actions the City
will take to implement its upda�ed Comprehensive Plan. This element will be
dependeni an the final %rm of the rest of the plan and will be the last element drafted.
- 10. Introduction and Process Discussion: This will also be completed after the eompletion
�' l of the resi of the plan.
Coynplet�on Process:
Currenily my goal is to have a completed draft of the Comprehen.sive Plan by mid fo end April.
After that, I would like to present the document to other czty commissions and have at least one
comtnunily forum �o present the draft plan to citizens. Following this, the Planning Commission
could then have a formal public hearing and then recommend a Comprehensive Plan to the City
Council. The City Council would then hold a public hearing and approve the Coinprehensive Plan
subject ia Metropolitan Council review. Following Metropolitan Cfluncil review the plan would be
officially adopted.
Q
Ricic Jopke, Co unity Development Director
I�i:\DATAIGROUPS\COMDBVIPLANCOMM�BYLAWSIPCREPORT.99D
3
i
� �. � : � � -
. !c :
�:.� r;
�� �. .�
I��`r�� �ET'��T
AGENDA
1. Cali to Order
2. Roll Cal!
�. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
, :. . :� ..., �. ;, ; �. . : ; � � ..1 °' �= 1 : �, ,,
,. ,; .
� .. � �°�°°�
�, �: . �. .� : :.. 1� ��:'-�1 .i� �'; ' l` ': � :�: 1�` :
;
i..�; z�a�,ti
4. I'lannin� Case l�o. 54�p99
Property Involved: 2523 Highway 10
Cansideration of Resolution Na. 573�99, a Resolution Recommending Approval
af a Conditiona,l Use Permit for an Outdoor Flower 1Vlart at IVloundsvaew Square
�hopping Center.
Applicant: Linder's Greenhouses, Inc.
6.
7
2.
Staff Reports / Items of Information
a.
b.
c.
Set Public Hearing for Plannin Case 550-99 4-7-99, 7:OQ p.m.
Norr'ss Variance -- Reduced Si�eyard Setbac�C at 5302 Raymand Avenue.
Set Public Hearing for Planning Case 549�99, 4-7-99, 7:05 p.m.
Kindercare Variance -- Variance to Allow Pylon Sign ai 279I Highway 10.
Set �'ublic Hearing for Planning Case 551-99, 4-7-99, 7:1Q p.m.:
Deitrich Variance -- Detached Garage in Front Yard at 7805 Gloria Circle.
Chairperson and Pianning Commissioners Reports
Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
(Immediately Fotlowing Regular Meeting)
**�*�*��*x�*�*�**��**�������**�:�::��**�*���
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMiJNITY DEV�LOPMENT AT 7 i 7-4020
IF Y�U ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. TFIANK YOU.
��x�*��*��*�**�***�u�**���*�����x�*����:**�
AGENDA SESSIOIV
AGENDA
Comprehensive Plan F- Review Revisions to Transportaion Component
Review Minutes for February 17, 1999 Plat�r�ing Comm�ssion rraeeting.
Review Mirnutes for March 3, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
N :\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIPLANCOMMIPCAGENDA11999�3- i 7-99.REG
i. : ;� � ; �; : :� : °� _: f ,�
���t��� ����.
����'f' I3e�ort byo
P1ana►r�� C�se Ivo.:
March 17, 1999
James Ericsan, Planning Associate
548-99
Requ�s�: The applicant is requesting a Canditional Use Perinit �a allow for .
oufidoor plant and flower sales at Moundsview Square Shopping
Center.
Appl���nt:
y.ocatiorae
�'Il�t �To.
Zoni��/I.,a�d iTse:
Applieable �egulationse
Peter Linder, represenfiing Linder's Greenhouses, Inc.
2535-258� Highway 10 (NIoundsview �quare Shopping Center)
07-3Q-23-11-0079
B-4, Regional Business District / Shopping Center
Sec�ion 1 i 15.04, Subd. 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code states that "Open or
outdoor service, sale and rental as an accessory use" is a condiiional use in the B-4 zoning
- district, requiring a CUP to be obYained.
Section I 125.01, Subd. 3b af the Code states that "in granting a conditional use permit,
the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Ptanning and Zoning
Commis�ion and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and upo� the
healih, safety and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands."
Ai��.chrnents:
�ackgr°ound:
PIanning Application
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Cpreenhouse Design
Interior Specifications
Letter from Applicant
Letter from Property Owner
Resalution 573-99
Pei�r Linder, representing lLinder's C�reenhouses, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to
ailow the operation of an outdoor sales operation at Moundsview �quare. Linder's was previousty
;
issued CUPs for the � 995, 199b, 1997 and 1998 growing seasons. No changes are proposed in the
location, layout and operation from the previous years.
In his letter of application, Mr. Linder requests that ihe Ciiy consider allowing the operation to
I,inder's CiJ� Request
Planning Case No. 548-99
March 17, 1999
Page 2
hoolc up to a fire hydrani on the property in order to get water for the flora. This was done last
year and yeai�s pasi wiih no associated problems. The charges for permitting such water usage
include a$100 hydrant deposit, a�20 wrench deposit and a$20 adapter valve deposit. These
deposits are refundab(e, The applicant's request to connect to the fire hydrant has been approved
by the Department of Public works, subject to receiving the appropriate deposits. In addition, the
applicant will be billed $1.45 per day for water service, which will more than exceed the actual cost
of water utilized.
The difference between ihis cand�tional use permit resolution for Linders and the ones approved in
previous years is �hat tl�is resolution contains provisions which wi]] allow the applicant to return to
the MoundsviEw Square shopping center in subsequent years withou� reapplying for a CUP, so
long as certain provisions are met. Staff will adminisiratively review the case on an annual basis to
ensure all conditions are met.
A nalysr�o
Mr. Linder is expectin� to operate the Flower Mart from April 15 to July 7, but would like the
CUP to be effective fracn March 1 S to 3uly 15 to accornmodate for seasonal fluctuations and
assembl�/disassembiy, Linder's Flower Mart is a perennial Mounds 'View business, having been at -
the same location for the past five years. Staff is not aware of any problems associated with this ��'
operation and the applicant has provided a letter from the operators of 1Vloundsview Square in
which they give their permission for Linders to do business in their parking lot,
The flower rnart will be located at the edge of the IVloundsview Square parking lot, alongside the
Highway 10 �-ight of way. The closest resideniial neighbors at this paint are the homes behind the
shopping center and the Wildwood Manor senior apartments across Highway 10 to the south. The
residences, separated from the flower mart by the shopping center and the highway, should bear no
discernabie impact irom the use.
The flower mart meets the needs of the residents of Mounds View in that there are no greenhouses
within the City. The zaning for the shopping center is B-4 (Regional Business District) which
allows outdoor sales as a conditianal use. The area of Moundsview Square is identified as
Highway Commercial within the City's Comprehensive Plan, a designation consistent with the
shopping center and proposed flower mart. Traffic in the area should not increase as a resui� of this
use as it will draw much of its customer base from Moundsview Square shoppers and commuters
traveiing east and west on Highway 10. The greenhouse will not interfere with ihe internal
circulation of the shopping center and ti�e loss oithe parkirig spaces will not create a shortage o£
parking stalls on the prerruses.
P�evious Discusszons: Last year when the City Council approved the conditional use permit to
allow Linder's to operate its greenhouse at Moundview �quare, the applicant had requested that
the CUP be drafted so that it would not expire. S�aff, in an effort io save time and resources, -. _.
Linder's CUP Reyuest
Planning Case No. 548-99
March 1'i, 1999
Page 3
agreed that it would prefer to either change the code to allow such uses as permitted within that
zoning district or allow the CUP to remain in effect indefinitely. With assi�tance from the City
Attorney, Siafl'�r presented a draft ordinance to the Planning Commission on February 3, I999. As
originaily drafted, the amendment would have permitted outdoor produce sales and outdoor lawn
and garden saies as an accessory use within a B-3, B-4 or I-1 zoning disirict. After mueh
discussion, this approach was deemed discriminatory to other types of outdoor sales operaiions.
The alternative proposed was to draft the CUP resolution in such a way as to allow for perennial
non-permanent businesses--such as Linder's--to operate under the control of a non-expiring CUP.
Staff had verified with the City Attorney that this can be done. Staff also checked Minnesota
Statutes regarding the duration of CUPs, which states in Section 462.3595, Su6d. 3 tha.t "A
conditional use permit shail remain in effecC as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed."
The resolution before the Planning Commission is an example of such an instrument.
�tecommendat�oa�:
Given the pasitive history of the Linder's operation at Moundsview Square shopping center and the
fact that this business fulfills a community need with no discernable negative impacts, staff
recommends tha� the Planning Commission adopt Resotution 573�99, a resolution recommending
to the City Council approval of the conditionai use perrrut for Linder's Greenhauses with
stiputatians as to siarting and endimg daies, hours of operation, lightin� and signage.
•�l�r�-�ll �,���''(.
Jarnes Ericson, Planrzing Associate
N:IBATAIGROLIPS\COMDEV�DE VCASES\548-991LtNDERS.PC
� � �/ , �j
� � . ���������
� ' ��p�.ic��r: �,
t��2 - 3c�'�- � Ie�
Pnon� c�s - `l�o- �is
� trQ�Df�ES�: � �� \�9 . �.0. A� �1 f� t� Dd/ �-Q°— Dfe. v . � i � �. . .�..
Stre�t �ddr�ss, Ci4y, �#at�, and Zip C�d�
iniorest in P�op�tty (ch�ck �pprapr��t� box); .
❑ Owner ot Property .
❑ Cantract for De�d Qwe�er
Le�see, Op�r�ator, FJianag�r
Agreement to Purch�s�
❑ Other (�xplafn)
Documenlary �vld�ne� oP apppcen4'e In4eres9 in �e propeMcy mey b� requlrec! b�iore Rnal Clty �cNon o4 tl�is raquest.
�o�ER�v iNVO�vE��
Addre�s/Qener�i Loc�tl�
L�gal Descripiion or Property fd�nti�c�tion Number
L�galOe�r�er: Name/Addr�ss
Pr�senl Use (check �ppropriai•a box):
❑ UndevelopedJVac�nt
❑ �En�E� �e�mliy Dvvollln� .
❑ �upl�xx/Fiwo Famfly �welii��
❑ Mult!-F�mily (hla. oi Un1ts �
❑ �uslness/Commercla9 E�t�biEshment
❑ I�dustrlal Estabifshmen4 _
❑ 04her (expiain}
Property Classfflcatlone ❑ ,4bstt�ct [] .Torr�ns
' � �'� �
�..�. ' `�" ►;` ` .. " � 2 �� '�.� �. : ;�, � �I ! �.:i�1t__ �'. �ijl_.�.
__� k1 � � > � •__ � . �� - _ ' _ - - .
�Pleas� note: Applicant r�iay be responsible for m� bnel fe�a �ssoclated with th
I H�R�BY DECL�4RE THAT iN� A�OV� SiATE��Ni ARE TF1U\ �:��I
,/Slgnatur� -��-L��-c c� �`
aka��a�����rta�Aa������s������$*�Aaa����a&�����������r�������aR��*��aa*���a�.��aa���*��a+k*� �s,
Reaoning $200J�era, mfnimum $2�, maxitnum Z1,[34D �ark Fund �edicatlor► F��
Varlance R-t lo R-2 -$75, �11 oth�ce �20D bet� Peld
CondhEonal Use Perm3l A-4 to R-2 -$73, �11 ather� $260 Fiec�ipt Numbar
Cod� APPe� $73
D�v�lop./3Hg Pfdn F�vt�w �10�/scr�, minlmum f00, m�mum �,5p0 Total Fee� Pald
�Alnar 9ubdlv(sfon $130 D�t� Pa1d "
�9ajor $ubdivislon 5250 plu� $250 deposi4 R�c�lpt tdumb�r
Comp. P9an Amendment $2flD .
W�tland Alterelton P�rmtQ ' $SO ptu� deposit def�rml►�d by Staf4 ,4ddldon�l ��� �eid
W�9lend Buffer �mrmlt �10 Ds4e �'eld
Pf�,nlnQ Sl�rr $6d Ft�c�i t �Fumb�r
PUD $350 p --
F'U� Am�nden�rrt �95D ��fe of 4innt �cdon
� AF'PROVE� ❑ DENlEb � 7ABLED ❑
O�t� Planning ��� 1d�. A,dmirt. Ancourr4 No.
__
: : : ,
HILLVI�V ROAD �...°.�"°---•----------.._ _----
� w w �o o �::. �
� g� in � c� co in �y � r::. a
+` 788 p 7891 �� 7880 7895 N N 7890 7885 N N 7884 86 ,� ( �n ::. �n
� N N N N N:,-, N
�" 7885 7866 7867 7870 7$sg 7858
7878 z 7853
��� � 7877 7854 7851 7880 7865 7852 �
,�'� 7870 N
�y ? 7863 7842 7950 7855 7846 � 7$41
7941
,�2 $� 7851 7�30 � 7840 7835 i840 7829
0 7817
-�-���� 7820 � 7$i 6 778Q 7815 780(} 78�9
'b ,�8� 781 � Q 78Q5 7780 7801
1
,�� ��i �sos 7770 � 7aot ��so ��s�
�—� � 7�Q0 780i !� 775f 7750 7787
O h Rm� W i777
ti^ ry`°� �^ 7767 7780 � 7749 7740 77fi7
`��' 7761 775b 7731 7730 7753
7755 7730 7721 7720
�,� 7745 7710 7711
�6
...... .. �rs 7715 N � �ro u�°i � 77Q0 � �n i°n
G,y� R�z a��.?
.......... � :............ �
� � {� n c°'o w � � �o � ;c u"�i 2553 °
��� -- ::. r+� ,- �n �n us u� ua �n �n �n u� 7685 N
a ...cacD ���� T� NNNN M NNNt�lt�4 2551 �
N N N � ZS49 p 75Si
�f 2547 J �.
2545
r ��&� ��q ��� 2541
o ��� S�/ 2539 7E
� t� �/� 2537
��-� � � j`� h�p g��, �� 7�
��� ��
SILVER VIEW N � � ���2�� ¢° � � —�
�
o �` � d+ � �m2 >ya ryy
PARK ,� .� � �. �, o .
N N"� ��+°' � �'% W 6
� O tA � �
� N y � �� ryy
n�N �O� �o� � C
C� N NyN N�N �� � pp� . '6P
m �*°,sV �"''N .�. �q
n Q -.Y
p�p p N�� N N � N �yo''N
N �p
fD O) O O �O
N a rp '� ��+ eV CV � O
. �� � �
� o � ��N `�o�`
� � � a°. � � BC
�-,.a., � � c�! N � N N 0 Cb �� �!
_ � N N o� N"o°' N _ -- 1� w,, � �rh4J
-- ��N
- - 00 �
- - -- _ � l[7
' ' a
' �
T O tn ;'' N
° ^ 7401 ,._.... _..'t�!�.._ _ .. _ " N
�
73
\
731
0
�la.+
i
PF ---_ :,:�
_ , . .
61 �
� � N
N �
N �=
f�
�
c�
N
Zoning �ap Pl�inulg �as� �4�m99
�4pplican�: I�inder's Crreenhous�s, Inc
� Location: l�outidsvi�v✓ Sqttaa.r�
��� � �
N
� hti N
��
��1
� �. ,
i 88 7889 788
7878 7875 786
�87fl � 7861 785
783& S 7847 784
i820 � 783� '783
78'I � 78i 5 �81
7896
7800 7801 780
777fl 7749 775
7768 7739 774
7746 7725 773
7728 7719 772
7710 7709 771
N N �
�°°� -
78:
7655
7645
����
�
rn
�-
�
��
C ��
�O
'� _—�J '
s . . ::F<� :t:'" �
' . _ . . . . _ , . . ,4t - i . '
� - . . . . � . _i,-}'- . ..
'r !,a
�
.�-.. . . . i �i�f! � �i�4��. - - .�� -.i:f,� ��� ..t
�i,
COIDfdTI' ti�@ �.. e� y�,a jlea�} `
^ ,,
_ +r� �
�� ,
, , i� N �
�„— --- �}� . � , , a � �._
.. ` , { '.
>uac�e'e . . . . . . � i��i;� , a ' l��r. _ . . :. �% -?, .
� r (� (� �,
� . ; _':�� . � `rv '.^�, �r f;.
I �
� ;— _ .-_---,-1� ; �_� s
�� ,
� � , �.
�
�� �
� ` �' . � � eavoea �wua:� ,
L � ,� euoaer uouow6 � o � ', ,
�" --- `� � 9 � � ���� � ~�
� /�� i � � t t� , @ ,
IP�I.,�: a w ,
� � 10 1 ' ma' � mw "r/
eo• o "
�� . •81 ; � _ : � ,,,;1,
ii+ �'� � 9 __.. ,_ , — • I 8,��� , _ E
$�' �� � a • i . .. .0�0 �� " ;� 1
- + pt�#�_ ..6 �� �t
� . , j , �q j �� � �{
�
�` � i � I + ' j�' � ,A fi� ,1 ��
. _: � ���'T ����'��-�-r--�� � .�:o � ''� �
� _, � � � � �� °`���;,
• � i Z� G E:1i'�; �� �
� 1. . � 1.`l , _ � .
� � I (I I i p �� � �`r, � •
//��1I--}'��{;] r J a
`�� I 1 1 1� i i � . . S�-� �
/ _� i
/
i
'�YRQN BOafd .' , . . . . . f � �j. �. �.
!� g �
\ � � Q�\�� . ,. . I � i ('� � �. ,
�.._ ° 1 � �� '�� � '
�r•�•
. `��°.q� ;f+:`_� � a a � � � �f� �
� ' �`1
,�� p��� e y'c � �� (L�1LL1_! 1 I t I� I i I I( I I! I n, w, `; ,�,
�/e_ �,.'� �;S F
n/�/� 1� '�� T 1! ���i�
r �'��^ , F " \P�.� � ' �� :I f '�y . .
� +� �� i � j nt' 1h f/
, }' � f
� Y� � f h;i � �� � � '
� Y � . . , -,^, t� I.
� t
� > I. I 1
j I l ��1
PIN[Btl `�.4/,J �. '.�j' 1 , � �-���� j-�-�-�-���.. ` ;� �r' .
l ,�� „ ; i:�� � . , :
`�$�O�S �
��nr � t��¢�
Z I fc �q '
�
� � : `�! .
: t:
r� � ����:
�
, .a ,� ;r
: � �; fi�, ; ,`
,�
s;;�
��:.
�V�
,,,�
,,. .
,,;;
�:
�; i. . ,
:;,.:.
;:
i'
�.:;;
'p3,
)S
.!�__.... ',..;:
0
� l�'
' ' '
!�
, �7! �
�'
�
;
,--=--
--� � �.��-- m -
c
i�! � 4
,C � r--
� � -v
� � ) �Y'
�� C)
� _
�
N�
tn
--� � � ;
\ �"
��
C��
_�
�
:�
v}
=�
�
�
I,-
x
l.� 1
LiS
�.Y
Lt.
��
(�Y_
�
�'
�
[�
�1
-��
�
��
_.�
�;
(1)
�
�
�
J
�
raYx�es Ericson
Plarming Associate
Ciiy of 1Vlounds View
240 i NE �iwy. 10
IV[oundsview, MN 55 i 12
Dear Ivfi'. Ericson,
�o������� o�'�i��s
2i5 W. Wheelock Pkwy.
S�. I'aul, fVIN 55�i17
(G12) 488-�717
Fax: 488-5726
fVTER & �LOWER kUfARTS �:�-�-�-:��.,�';��--�L"�"='�,° "t:,�_..�` L'�.�.t
Q'�+F `aF*�'?c�'-�3' _+ ,�ra.n'.�� �'°r° rr-+'�+_g3i'i\'�r'�"� ,�.'1-� .j:'-° �. . .
, -.::<�.:�,� "�^'»+�,�3''_%�s���.�tt��;�'m..� _.�:r::r6a�,s�m'�'�-�t���4�'S � .�..�,;:i ,_k:.�L'
�'ebrciary 8, 1999
Attached to this letter is my �pplication for a Conditional Use permit for our Flower Ndari at the
Mounds View 5quare Shopping Cer►ier. I would Iike to stat� that ihe Flower Mart at this lacation
has been very successfui and we hear many cus�omers comment that ihey are happy to have us
her�. As fax as I know there have never been any problems with our being here and we feel we
are goad neigi�bors for ihe shopping center and the co�ntnunity. �Te are eager to return for our
sixth successful year in Mounds View, .
You will note that nathing has changed from lasi year and we will operaie in 1999 the same as in
199�. ,
Our electricity comes fronn the pylon in the lot near the Flower Mart. The water far our use :;
comes from the hydrant to the south of the Flower Mart. This is aiso the same �s in years past. It �
has warked out very well far us and your public works department.
Our 1999 bus�ess season is planned for April 15 thru �uly i. Vo�e need the same allaw�nces for
assembty and take down as in years past:
I have enclosed a check for $250.00 (the same as ie� the past years) as the �e� for this perr�t. I
hope this infarmation satisfies all your needs. If you have any questions please ca.�l me at _
612-3b3-4414. .
As we spoke today, I am eager to see any change made that will make tlae pernut process less
cumbersome for #he City of Mounds �lieva as well as Lindec's. Thank you for �rour attention to
this matter. -
��M Sincerely, �
`,
- '�. ? -
� 4, - . . . . . .
_�..�: ' . .. . � . � , . � . .
P er A. "d�r - i�e Presideni
Linder's i'xreenhouses, Inc. �
� � ° � �
�j ,?-- i ��
CENTRALPLAZA
45th & Central Ave. N.E.
Minxieapolis, Miiwesota
CRYSTAL S�IOPPING CENTER
Bass Lalce Road & West Broadway
Crystal, Minnesota
CRYSTAL TO\�/N CENTER
Bass Lalce Rd. & W. Broadway
C�-ystal, Minnesola
i
0
DEVELOI'MENTAND 1!/IAi�IAG�IVI[�+NT OF SEiO�'PII<1G CEl\'TERS `
2227 UniversityAve. � St. Paul, MN 55 1 14-1 677 � G12-646-790i Fax 612-64b-1389
u�ww.pasLeren leapri ses_cm�i
December 16, 1998
f�ayo� Duane f�cCarty
t�o�nds View City Council
City of �/lounds View
2401 West Hwy 10
n/(ounds View, MN 55� 12
�ie: Speci�! Use Permit
Dear Mayor h�cCarty and rouncif ��miaers:
Linder's Greanhause has r�quested permission �o sef up a�
DoD�wAYS1�oPPIrrG cE�vT�� temporary siructure in the Nloundsview S uare Sho in Center
Sa�ith & Dodd Road Q pp' 9
w�st st. Pa��, M�,,,,esofd parking lot from approximafiely the middle ofi April through late
June to sell p{ants, shrubs, flowers, etc.
L�xr�Ga�otv�LAZasxorP�s in our dealings witi� this organizatian in years past, vve have �ound
Lcxington � Larpeiiteur #h8C11 #O �� ieElal�I�, clean: and their r�putation far quality produrts
Roseville, Minnesota has exceed�d our expecta�ions. We woufd be ha
PPY �n �eic�me _
the Linder's Gr•een�iouse t�ack �o fViounds View.
ME�vpflTApLAZA It is imporfiani: thafi we wUrk togefiher on matters such as this to
starexWy. ato&DoadRoaa main#ain and in�prov� the seEectior� and qua(ity �f inerchandise
Mendota Hcights, Minncsota of�ered to fih� cQmmunity, W�'lich in turn will enhance a!I e�f our
operations.
MouNnsvlE��vsQuaxE Thank you fiar �our consideraiion to grant Linder's Greeni�ouse tt�e
Hwy. 10 & Long Lalce Road
Mounds View, Minnesota above menfic�ned speeial ;�Erm;t fio do business at the Alioundsview
5quare Shap�ing Center.
NORTHWAI' SHOI'PING CENTER
State I�wy, 23 & Woodland
Circle Pines, Minnesota
SI$LEY PLAZA
West 7t1� Strect & Davem
Sf. Paul, Mimiesota
Sincerefy,
�1/IOUNDSVI�W SQUARE ASSOCIAYES, LLP
r
�� i
T
:.�,
WRB1jla
SOUTI�VIEW SHOPPING CENTER
Southview Blvd & 113th Ave. S
South St. Paul, Mi�mesota
� x�'�� i 31'J�n ���t" fi t,):��i
J Ai.+ k
�r �'
����"�-��` � �'�,� � n'� �` �f: '��` � r`; .� �hy.,r�
� x w G' ��1. � a'� �: � F-l�4t.�s.
s � a yr" p-
� r�s�:., � �v � w�����8!<�5"�t.��� ��i„�'. i tC-6."..".e,
. � , ,�: , ; , .;� -..., ',., � ;,p .. ': 1. .�.
- ,: , � �� ' � � -
;�' � �`
�' � �'
=� ; �,. �? ; . : _ r� -, :� ; . ,�; =,. ` �. � � "`�, .� �� �- "�. �: ,�'=. ; �: : s : :� : ''. t: :�i c �, r .� �1� i �i . i :i; ' -
� ,�, . '�', - '��- ., :1, '��. �. � :�` .; �- -. , .� ' � . � �.�� � ' ;� � �: j -.
'. �,� . �, .�` .,:: �. �. �,, ."..: '. •' ,. .�. �.. t . � ; i:; . `.. ' , . .,._. . . :.p. .1:
WI�REAS, Peter Linder, representing Linder's Greenhouses, has applied for a
conditional use permit ta conduct open and outdoor sales at Moundsview Square Shopping
Center; property zoned B-4, legaliy described as fallows:
7'hat �art Lying Nortlaeasterdy of't�ae Ce�aPeYdine of ,State T'YU�ak �i�hway 10 of NE'/
of'IVE'/4 (Subjeei io Roaeis a�d Hi�hwaysj in 5ection 7, T'ow��hrp 30, lza�ra�e 23
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code aiiows open and ou#door sales in the B-4
Regional Business District with the approval of a conditional use .permit; and
�REAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the fotiowing documents regarding
this proposal:
a)
b)
c)
d}
e}
�
g)
Planning Application
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Greenhouse Design
Interior Specificatians
Letter from Applicant
Letter from Property Owner
WHEREA5, The Maunds �Iiew Pianning Commission makes ihe following findings that
the criteria %r approval in Section 1115.04, Subd. 2 have been met:
a. Outdoor service, sales and equipment rental corinected with the principal use is
limiied to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principai use.
The shopping center cantains 1Q2,035 square feet of building area. The applicant
}�roposes to occupy 2,200 square feet in the parking lot, which is 2.2% of the building
square footage on the site, This criterian has been met.
b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view oineighboring residential
uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with 5ubdivisions 1 i 03.08(1)
through {5) of this Title.
Tke parkie�g lot frantin� Highway 10 does not abut any residential properties. The nearest
Plamiuig Corrunission ResoIution 573-99
Page 2
residential property is VGIildwood Manor, an apar�ment building for senior citizens, which
would be well screened from ihe proposed use by a stand of trees and separated by the
intervening Highdvay I0. This criterion has been met.
c, Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
The appiicant is proposing to use an existing parking lot which is surFaced with asphalt.
This eriteriort is met.
d. The provisions of Section 1125.01{I}e of this Title are considered and
satisfaciorily met.
Adverse Effecis: The Planning and Zoning Commissior� shall consider possible
adverse effects of the proposed arr�endment or cor�ditiona( use. Its judgement shall
be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors:
(1} Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The geographicai area involved.
(3) Whether such use will iend 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 proposal is far a temporary greenhouse in the parking lot of ar� exasting shopping
cen�er. The shopping center is surrounded by roadways and the area whez-e the use is to
be Iocated is 1,000 feet from the nearest residential property. The short duration of the
use will result in IittIe, if any, effect �apon the surrounding area. The sale of flowers and
plants is a typical seasona( business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a
eommunity need. This criteriort is met.
NOVV, THERE�`ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the canditional use permit with the following stipulations:
The facility shall only operate from March 15 to July 15 of each year.
2. The hours of operation of the facility shall not exceed �:00 a.m. to 9;00 p.m.
Only the signage shown on the C'rreenhouse Design Plan shall be alIowed.
4. All li�hting for the use shall be supplied by existing parking lot lighting and
supplemental interior Iighting, if needed.
The applicant shall depasit fur�ds with the City each year for the use of ihe fire
hydrant in th� parking lot and for rche use of a hydran� wrench or adapter valve, if
one is needed, in amounts to be decided by the Director of Public '6�lorks.
Planning Camtnission Resoiution 573-99
Page 3
6. The applicant wili be charged the prevailing rate for 1,000 gallons of water per day
for water service, to be paid by ihe applicani before any deposits are rreturned.
7. The applicant shall provide the followin� on an annual basis to the Director of
Community Develop�nent:
a. Letter of p�rmission from property owner.
b. Compleie set af site plans
c. Narrative description of the proposal.
8. This Conditional Use Permit may be reviewed by the City Council if any problems
develop or if there ars any changes to the operation deemed substantial enough to
warrant such review, in the estimation of the Director of Community Developrrtent
or the City Councii.
BE IT FLJRTHER RESOLVED that this Conditional Use Permit shall have no expiration
date and shali remain in force so long as the canditions agreed upon herein are observed.
BE IT FINAI,LY RESOLVED� that the Ptanning Commission directs staff to forward this
resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
- °,
Adopted this 17th day oiMarch, 1999.
3erry Peterson, Chairperson
At�est:
Rick 7apke, Community I�evelopment Director
(Seal)
N:IDATA\GiZOUPS\COMDE VIDEVCASESI548-991573-99PC.RES
a
� ° . -
� �. , <
,J�
'�o: Mounds View Planning Coxnmission,
�'rogn: Rick Jopke, Commwnity Developmeni Director
Subjecte Camprehensive P1anTransportation Element
I?aie: March 11,1999
Attached for youi• revie�c�v and discuasion at the March 17, 1999 Planning Comrnission meeting is
the Iatest draft of the comprehensive pian transpartation goals and policies. The current draft
inciudes the changes discussed at the March l Oth meeting.
N:�DATAIGROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMMI3-17-99.MEM
�
.' .� .. . . ,. �_.
, � •
' ` �
� j ` .
.,:�E,. �: _. . . .
.,. . .�F .... . s�_ ..., .. ,...� . -..
.., ,. �:i<, ,, ,,,,;,, ,, , ,,,�.;�� ... : �.. , •:�, .
..... ... ,. ,:,a�, . ./..,. .: -' . ... ., .
/,.,
\\�
)
�
�'� i� . . ��, `. "�� � .+
- <- ;
The roadway system in Mounds View is in place. The syste�n consists of state
and county roads which function as principle and minor arterials and county
and city roads wliich function as collector and local roads. Highway 10 runs
diagonaily through tiie middle of Mounds View and has hisYorically been
viewed as a barrier ii� tlie community. The jurisdiction of Highway 10 will be
turned hack from the state to Ramsey County in tl�e near fuiure. The city will
develop a design theme to enhance the image of the Highway 10 corridor and
work with the county to implement it. The emphasis in the future on Iocal roads
will be on road maintenance and replacement as necessary. Emphasis will atso be
placed on minimizing traffic Ievels as necessary in residential naighborhoods.
The trail and pathway system is incomplete. The City will ��eed to identify
preferred future trail and pathway locations and cotistruct them over Yiine to
provide recreational opportunities and a safe aIternative travel mode to the
automobile.
i - � -,
�;
� !� � ���" - ._ . �'�� ,�� � �
The following will be the fransportation goals and'poiicies for ihe City of Mounds View:
Goal 1: Develap a balanced surface transportation sysiem giving attention to all modes and
related facilities.
Palicies: a. Treat all modes of #ransportation and facilities related to each as ona system to be
coordinated and rela#ed on a comprehensive basis.
b. The �ra��� system wi11 facilitate transportatian to
and from centers of activi within the comznunity.
c. The trans ortation s stem be desi ned to minimize unnecessar traffic flow in residential
nei�hborhoods.
Goal 2: Identify needed improvemen#s to the various elemen�s of the transportation systetn to provide
far safe and convenient movement by all rnodes.
Policies: a. Main#ain transportatio�i facilities to function in a manner compatible wi�h
adjacenfi land uses_ �When the function of a transportation facility has changed
over time to become incompatible with adjacent land uses, a pragram #o eliminate this -
incompatibility should be estabiished. �:'',
b. Hazardous and poorly designed and controlled intersections shall be improved on a
phased basis to increase the safety of pedestrians, bicvciists, and motorists alike.
c. Street safety shall be improved through street lighting, visibility, sign controls, elevated
pedestrian waikways and other such facilities when economically feasible and desirable
by the communitv.
d. Public signage shaIl be related to the overall system of streeY function and aoniroi.
e. Parlcing shall be Iimzted or prohibited along principal and �uinor arterzal roadways.
f. Establish and enforce standards and controls for business and advertisint
si�nin� and li�hting in arder to,�revent driver distraction and notential hazards.
,�. Encoura e com liance with traffic laws bv all modes of traffic.
Goal 3: Provide sufficient off-street parking to meet normal demands of ail types of land use.
Poticies: a. Pa1•lcing facilities shalI be developed so as to conserve land, promota joint use and
minimize conflicts with vehicular., pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
b. Minimize and redttce the demand and �•esulting requirements for parking through the
x'h
�`.. .
;
adequate provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and tl�rough Iand use
,� t• � ..• � c
development coordination„ '' `' '` `• v==uaG,vl. �l, _��
� �
..4:.�.� 7 ,.1.:..:+:....
c. Parking requirements imposed by the City shall be coi�stautly reviewed to�
ensure supply is �•eflective of demaiid.
d. Minimize parking lot access to public streets to the functional minimum.
Gaal 4: Support the development of a�ie transit svsteni which ro� vides a
broad ran�e of transit service options io � minimize the need for individual automobile travel.
Policies: a. Sufiicient mobility shail be promoted for all persons, giving special consideration to
those who must rely on modes of transportaiion other than the automobile.
b. Adequate transit rider conveniences, such as bus sljelters, park and ride lots, and free
parking a3-eas, shall be incorporated into �aet�g+ centers of activit aud areas of higi�
transit usage.
c. Transit service shall be encouraged within a reasonable walking distance of every
resident of the community.
d. Additional transit service during off-pealc hours to�� destinations outside the
community shouid be encouraged.
e. The City will work with the Metropolitan Couneil Transit Orga��ization (MCTO) to
provide more and better transit service for ti�e community and to provide increased
ridership.
f. Encourage MCTO to impletnent an int��a-suburhan transit plan.
Goal 5: zzz-��
_ _� _ , ,•,.� w.....,,. _r..,_ .�....f..:___ �_� �,_.. �_:....,.,:..� p�an. implement, a�zd maintain a
' ' � �a�,«�a., u..0 «.� „ .
com rehensive trail s stem #o reduce de endenc on aatomobile-oriented trans ortation to rovida safe
and convenient edestrian and bic cle circulation and to rovide recreational o ortunities for Mounds
View resideni:s.
�� . _ �. . _ � .-�... . � .� , - • • .- : - - -- : . :• :- -: -
:-:-� ; ;. � ; .,. - --;.---- :.= :. - °,
�___�-- . �- :. :..:: � � - -: -s -::" : -;. - .� �::.
, ., ;• --. -.. . .
: . . . � -
_ �.�, ._ �.�.,__ : ; : ; . ,- . , . �. --
ea. Pedestrian/bicycle corridors shail be considered on minor arterial and collector
raadways including the Highway 10 corridor to ensure safe pedes�rian travel.
�b. Sa�e and convenient bicvcle at►d pedestrian �irculation shali be promoted witliin and
to and from � centers of activi , separated when feasible frotn vehicular
,.�;,
��
;: . ,
; ;
;: :_ ,. :
.: �,:<..: _..
circulatian.
c. Develo a trail s stem suitable for sliort ai�d lon distance recreational use�'-rm;
a:�}°.°�� `��:` .-�- and connects with existing and future transit- svstems.
ed. Acco�nmodations will be made to facilitate safe pedestrian and bicycie crossings at
�najor intersections throu�h tl�e use of clearl� marked crosswalks, adequate
1i htin anci properti�ninp o�'traffic si�nals.
�e. Special provisions for pedestriau and bicycEe access and circuiation shall be plaruied
in areas adjoining schools, parks, churches, service centers and commercial centers.
�£ When economically feasible, provide faciiities for pedestrians and bicyclists in
conjunction with street improvement projects.
��. Wl�ere possible, provide bicyc3ists a right-of-way separated fro�n Uoth pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
}j], nc�vr=••4,� 41'F�iPPlfili'f1f-�ritSbi�ilTfTF��L1�'kt+Si.i�ir�I txi + �a.l 4 /'.! 17
D Yi Y � IIIILIIL Vl L;il .1.�SCCllI-i�l�
. Establish a signage standard for trail use that
minimizes potential conflicts amon users.
��1. . , � � _
--T--TS'7a�t+�%l�s�d' kxr�r�.r�a4re�un�t � 7 '1 1 � 4......a.. ..� _1 1
_ . ��� r�����..w. �+�.�+�� �.vvv� ��.� vcc �iva.�r i� uuyv/,y�y JLIVI,{.J U1L NILCLl,[}' II1ZIrICGC�
��U. -
i�}. Encoura e the daveto ment of secure bic cle arkin o ortunities at existin and
future commercial and industrial deveiopments.
L. Promate environmental and ecolo�ical consideration in the develop�nent of the
trail wav s s� t�em,
Goai 6: Coardinate all City transpartaiion pianning with County, Metropolitan Council, State, Federal,
the North Metro I35VJ Corridor Coalition, and other local transportation plans.
Policies: a. Maintain and improva the existing line of coinmunication with county and state
highway ofiicials in order to ensure that pianned itnprovaments are consistent
with the goais and objectives of the communi�y.
b. The City will consider the use of its resources to assist in the resolution of
metropolitan Yransportation problems. Participate in and help impiement tthe
transportation o6jectives of the Nortli Meiro I35 W Corridor Coali#iou.
�
c. Coordinate pathway system with Ra�nse�Coui�t�Anoka Countv� and adjacent
t�e-i�}rbe��g com�nunities.
Goa17:
. AlI elements of the street svstem shall be �lanned, improved, and
inaintained accordin to the ' most a ro riate standards ivin due consideration to both la��d use
and transnortation �oals and policies.
Policies: a. Design transportation facilities to conserve natural resources to mainiain iieighborhood
cllaracter and ininia�aize `'-� `�`°' '�-��' r�°' on-
going public investment. Balance initial investment with ongoin�maintenance.
_ .. - - - .,. _ . :. : .- -: - - - ,, ..;.- ; ._;, ;.
_ �_. .,.
_ .;,: - -
b. Ma'or traffic flow shall be ro erl channeled fio collector and or arterial
streets.
c. Facilitate traffic movement on at'terial sfreets b re ulatin the number and location
o�� �=--=--'--� --•-a'=---� vehicular access points
see�ierts and throu h utilization of
appropriate traffic control �nethods and devices.
- - - . - -:_ - : :- - - -
_ ; ;�- - - - - - - - ,: - - --
ed. Local or residential streets shail be designed so as to prevent penetratian by
through traffic. Traffic calming devices should be used where appropriate.-�4ajs�'
€e. Existing residentiai streets shall be protected from reclassification to more intense
use; e.g., collector or minor arterial.
-- ; - : - ::: - - - --
; -
, . - - - .... ,- -.• _� �----- ,: - : :..- : :,
r��i:iae��R:i:i�i�l•r:�+siwnti:l . ..��- .: _a -���.:-.
� .. . --. ... .... . ..'.'"'' "
. : .,.. � " i .� i ' ' . � :_ " • ..• • '� � • � • ..�. .
. ..- ' "......� .�._i•- i....'.'"" �. ..__ ..�.".� p�....,�. "
� .
' " _ " '. .' : -' ,,. -- .... .. - ... .� . �.-.. � .. _ _ _.� - �.� .'.� _i . � ' ".' -
' • •
"' . ... " ' ' ".....� ".....:ri,.y.�..� . " .i. �i'3'__.; '�' i' �' ' "
..._- �- .. . .,. .. -':�.. .. .�..' ' �..�...�y. ,.._"
�£ Maintain streets in the City through a Paverr►ent Management Program.
��
i; r
i
�g. Develop an appropriate ci�izen review process to develop and implement City
street, sidewalk, and trailwav design and assessment policias.
Goal 8: Develop and implement a Highway 10 corridor desig�� tl�eme to prese�lt Mounds View as� an
attractive and desirable community.
Policies: a. Worlc wit1� state and county officials to implement various elements of t(ie
approved pla��.
b. Develop ordinance standards to require tlzat private developme��t tl�at occurs
along Highway 10 incorporates eIements of the approved tlleme wl�era
possible.
c. Identify and pursue s#ate, federal, county, and otlier funding sources to fund
implementation of the approved design theme.
`'i
4Y
�
S��eets
A rectangulaY' grid street system has been established in Mounds View. The major exception to
this grid system is Highway 10 which cuts through the city on a diagonal from the northwest to.
the southeast. This results in angled intersections on Highway 10. No major street
expansion projects �e necessary or anticipated in the futuze. Some street extensions may occur to
allow subdivision and development of exis�ing large deep lots. Some street
recanfigurations may also occur to manage traffic. Ongoing street maintenance and
reconstruction will be required.
Functianal Classiiication:
Functional classification is a system to es#ablish the luerarchy of streets that collect a.nd dis#ribute
traffic from residentiai neighborhoods to fihe metrapolitan roadway system. The Metiopolitan
Council has established a functional classification system for the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
The classifications include principal arterials, minor arterials (A and B}, collector roadways, and
iocal sireets. The major characteristics of each of these classifications is summarized in
Table . The �xznctianal classification of roadways in Mounds View is shown in Figure _. Yn
Mounds View there are two roadways classified as principal arterials. These are Interstate 35W
and Highway 10-62 (US Trunk Highway 11 �). A- minor arterials include Highway 10 , �Id
Highway 8, and 5ilver Lalce Road. Collector roadways include County Raads H, H-2, and I,
Long Lake Road, and the portion of Red Oalc Drive north of Highway 10. The remaining roads
are classified as lacai streets.
Jurisdiciion:
Roadways are also defined by the jurisdiction which has responsibility for the raadway. Figure _
shows the current jurisdiction of the roadways in Mounds View. In recent years fianctional
jurisdiction af roadways has cl�anged as street functions have been reevaluated. Portions of
County Road H-2, County Road I, and ��ring Lake Road will change from county roads to city
streefis in 1999. In July of 1999 the jurisdictian of Highway 10 in Mounds View is scheduled to
change from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to Ramsey County.
Traffic Accident Data:
Figure _ shows the lacations af the recorded accidents during the years 1995 to 1997. During
this three-year period there were a totai of 514 accidents reparted by either state, county or local
enforcement agencies witl�ui Mounds View's municipal boundaries. Most of �hese accidents
{233, or 45 percent) occurred on U.S. Trunlc Highway 10, U.S. Trunk Highway 118 (47, or 9
percent) or along the county roads, such as County Road I(5 8, or 11.3 percent), Silver Lalce
Road {24, or 4.7 percent), or Long Lake Road (16, or 3.1 percent). The remaining 124 accidents
were spread �liroughout the City.
The majority of the accidents occurred at the intersections of roadways. The Tnte�sections having
the highest frequency of accidenis were all on Highway 10: Highway 10 and Caunty Road H
�
i';
Q
a
w
H
�
U
Z
O
Q
U
�
�
�
3
U
J
Q
�
N
Z
7
�
��
J
Q
�
e
3 3 c
�"E1 —
, � i
� � b .
! '� 5
� � �
' O 5
; o �
o �
�
��E
� °1 E
'v $
c
�
d -"
� c �
� a � N
p> y b a
s�
� E�
����
co�s$
c �
� � � �
�°cLnm
��E°m
�a��
0. � N
3,��
y N O
� a `o 'cn
c 5 '�a �
ad� m
w �
v o
� �_
� � � �
�a�o
d��
aa��
A � � �
��of.."c
6 � m d o
� c �
�3,5�@
G
N
ro C
ca(p � � c�
u1 ,p C � N
� C cQ �
�p � e 5 c
y Co���N
� �/ C •� �
G �
m d
C N �
� L� ip C
�' la° € �
6c1 C .�. �
U C
o �
��.�
� 8 � �
� d N C
.r'J C C �
� •7 � I
�°e�n
c C = �
�,� Q�,
��Em
a
�
v�
N d
C N +r°�
� � � e
� o c
��'��
� $ c �
�C�'a
Ese'�
� � tan C
� C C �
tf � f�°
Q� � c c
C O O d
m •- a
c �i E_
w
W
V
G
�
m
�
a
� t� m
�E � E
��r
� ��
id
�
Q � �
A(p d C
b y �
�' �, d
�
3�0
m �'
.EE�
vCE
m �a
� ��
� � N
V
O o �
� � n
� �a
>
8�a
�- N
M C1
N �
id fD,
{0 �
o �
N �
o �°
�
a�i a
o�
�' 9
i 0
� �
N E
w tD,
� �'
id
am
c
e o
� y
i0
m
v �
a
� N C
E a 'v�
' C .� S].
� a� E
U C p �C
E}EOrNa
a coa� E
''b+ �bN � [�
O G @ N N �
61 � � Q N
C � C � � p
��� ��eo
N d � � A �
�m�$tiQ
i �' v o` o
h U L N `o , E 9
� � � � a
p O � � C
'. U ,� U O . c C
i y N � � � � G
i d W (V �N 19 t0 %L ONJ
� 10 N � N d C N 7
b � b t0 � tp
� C � �, � 'o C N m
��o .,Naro ycm �
I�o S&o 'L10� .o
dg
< a 'G
m � o m n � �
I f�- +=a u=i J H LLE3 'o° � �
I � >,
os °1 � vi
�� G� � G N V C C
�C cE$ `-°o .'va,
vro �
w16 �'� f6°'° �
� °9 °�� �'"�
v� m
d�� v�� o�yc o
'� � N
=v�� Ec5 ' oc$ e
6.`m- � v y!�<. f°
N
VI C� v C C� L d� - s
�f0� aE�� Eaa a
�n� �Soaro °'mw m
�c—U �°>o�iw ��NQ�f�V �
'�.�7 4 U fq v vi (9 LU 1C � Il
� �
c �
ro
o'a ay� �, A' o r�' o a
C$ ' tl� �y �f N C C C �
N C� � E� R � $�' b 3 Nppy1ff
�•�O �W�spC NNC.�'�H
w � � $ �' c
�� � oi O O C� �'� U N��. t�S
� y n��� b � O 5
� N G � � N � N � � ✓ � R
� y� t L W N� C rj'�.1 C N
�� O N O a� � 0 � jq
ciu2"i _o.xn`^a� ��m� c
N C��o•V V y� N� . 01
E�$ ?ya�4� Lm¢E c�i
C� W a O N� n�� E �
f°-'am �� es � w m� c� �a
C
� N p , �
d � C O V1
n `mv� �u� �i m—
u, �a � n .d °—' 'c d c
a> � y .o u E d
� � �n� o t°� m9 �y�q
s . m` yb'"°° a �
� v '� �3 n
m N � �,�'
n O � 0 C� O' O� Cl C
E� �+c�j52' Lv,� '�c
vu �E c°o ��E moa
ro� ��,� �p d �N N� �
d � d yp ,� �o N � � .E •�
C� � y U IC � O� � y b
a �viaivc TS� �am
�c �'�yv�ypaLE ma�
� v k�- m m n.d°u�i �� h s�
v n `o
� C � q v�
N a?+yo �w
m W � � � � N
io Y
�° a�ms • �
�yvi N`a�cy N ��in
C 9 ='C q �
o � a� c
E�d ac oo � �
E �
aa �a�i.�mQu ro�a
�� q.
. �Lq pvj A � W .�.. � � r
� Ul '0 N �r � !!� E �
�� cep°=° � ��n�
� a yo�i'�ia�� �om
� w � � C o �p� ne �
s� ��Uh�Q aH�
C
U
6
�
N
�
c
�
,�.
�po �
N C�
ro�
a
y N
W y
" U
m �
L
� $
�
w !�
ro°%
L m �
C9 � m
c
m p
SQ
47 N
6 � �W
oa
E m
o 'G
��
v
mza
� %
� ��
d
N
s � �
E � m
yroa
�
m
g
8
m �,�"ir� ro
N N
W l9
m
�
m
a
m
�c
v
'w
'c
E
N;�j
m
m
ia
w
� N
�
c
, �°
c
� ,Q
��
EN
U A
c
ro�
n �
N d
�
� O
a O1
c
m�
9 N
W
E o
�•N'
� �.
rn
N n
N&
�j C �
oi
..: ��^ '
•� u
��
a
�
n
N
m
C
�
c
ro
.�
�
N
�
�
7
R
N
"2
U
d
w
�i
N
U �
�
o �
�
w
m
� c
O
� a
a
U
z
�
O
U
zd
~
�
W
�
�
O
�
.�
m
,:_
�
U
U
Z
a
�
�� �- !� :::
E
I
I
,` �
Y �
Q-' �
af�
W !
� �
Q L
�i
� i '.\ \ ' .. .�,,.,..�,,.
�{
� � �\
i ��
i n� j .
� i �
cI� t5�`
� I �I ♦
N I ��! �
' � r��
L H�EYLn
•� � oa
� a �
I �
4
�Spr'sng Lak
f �
�. �
� , i; �
i t
I� : / i� o
��)
4.1 ��:
� `8
� �
-i
�i
L!. '
i
�
B L A I N E
�
4
� UVORI D
� . MIl1 eN R�
AVE
0
� �
\ �
�� �
.;
� ��
!�
I ��
E ��
�� NO SCALE
{ � axno v�e nE
� �
�. �..�.8 L A I N E_..4i._
� w•oar ott
� �
�
� �
G �
D
o,
�� a
>o� Y � �
��� r�x �000 ox.
�
�fTY OF
; UN S
I�
,,
��V�
G
J $�g X �
RIDGE � � �
3 � �
�o
9R w
�
s a �
� Q I
oeE
sr
� �
� \ �
4
N E W B R I G H 7 0 N �
� !
�
: �, ;� ,
- ..� , ,
* � � '
SiR��T MAP ��
.�
�
�
, �,
4 �
I
I
L..�.._.._.._.._..m.._..�.._.
W
�
J
� �
0
� �
B L A I N E
I ~ NOHRf COIJN77 UNE B — —
�
( AVE.
1 R 1
y i cr
5 ° '�
� j 9 �
3
a f � u � � �
� x � �
Y I � �` �
Q � � x]� �
� Lu IAPO� D
�` � �
� ; \��\ SkEfiW 0 PL
I
Z I ```` �
I
� � +�' � �` -
d � I i l'S' �.
�
� � ��; \� �b
�� H0.1y� ��_�I�I 1
�•�.�,—��"'I �..�J � N R�� l
i
�Spring Lake 3
f �o
�
�I�
�� o
!
t °
I� � x oR �
j�=
�:
,�
;' �
� I a
� 'I �
� ' ca
� •
� I
�' �
ll j
I �� ��
•
� �;: �)
�
W � � , � �
AVE
r�,
I
— — — � �
•i
� `��
� I�
� � �N
i lo
�" �!0 SCALE
I � azMO uNC HE
'i
\ � L..L.._.6 i. A i N E_.._.._..
� VJ'ORT pq ~�
� ROID
�5 UIRE IIME
�
VAK V.
� � � Z��
� �+ HEw
� � OAKW
¢ x
� �
� wNEw000 �
� � �i
� P N 00D OR.
[o a qp � �
( s c aeE
o � �
R. G' �
� S � � ". `:
0
Np
�a`�Q � � o
°o '
�o ti '
EU
R
� A
¢ �8
� wooae� �
nroce � �
� � � �
�o
DR
a �i � _ pR�� �
NEW BRIGFlTON
�' �. � /
, _.. _. ���� �,.� ..:
. ►r a
� �. �
�� a
•
�
�
�..m..�..�..�..�.._.. ..�,.�..
LJ.�
�
J
Ltl
�
Q
�
(42}, Highway 10 and Coi,uity Road I{34), I-Iighway 10 and Long Lalce Road (21), Highway 10
- and Woodale (19) and Highway 10 and Groveland Raad (19). All of these intersection.s are fizlly
controlled, with the exception of Highway 10 and Groveland Road. Other areas of high accident
frequency occurred at the junction of Highway 118 and Interstate 35W (24) and the convergence
of the southbound exit ramp from 35W and Highway 10 (19), wluch is almost half of the
reported accidents on Highway 10 south of Caunty Road H io the southern boundary of the City.
Regarding zntersections not involving Highway 10, County Road i figured in five of the seven
interseciions having six or more reported accidents during the reparting period: County Road I
and Quincy Street (13), County Road I and Adams Street {12}, County Road I and Jacicson Drive
(9}, OId Highway � and County Road H(9), County Road I and Long Lalce Road (8), County
Road I and Silver Lalce Road (8), and County Road H2 and Long Lake Road (6). While ail
intersections and acciden# areas are of a cancern to the City in terms of public safety of both
motorists and pedest�•ians, Pinewood Elementary School is lacated at the corner of County Road
I and Quincy Street, an intersection havzng a higher than average traffic flow in all directions.
Special precaution should be taken to reduce accidents and to protect tl�e safety of children in this
area.
While most reported accidents involved some type of vehicle to vehicle coiiision, 90 accidenis--
or 18 percent--involved only one velucle. Of these, 41 involved the strilcing of a fixed object,
such as a sign post or traffic signal, 21 were roll-overs, 13 involved a deer, 8 invalved a bicycle
and 6 invoived pedestrians. Of the 514 accidents reported in Mounds View, only one was fatal,
while seven involved injuries considered incapacitating and 73 considered non-incapacitating.
Existin� Traffic Volumes:
Figures _and � show the 1991 and 1997 traffic volumes as provided by Minnesata
Department of Transportation. Table _ compares the trafiic volumes and shows the change
that has occured.
Future Traffic Volume Forcast:
t�
■�
�
�
�
�
�
—
s
�
�
�t
�; `,.>.- = . ;
1 / :' ' 1 . I � / l ;! :1
I�e�ot�ed by State and ,�ocal �r�fo�ceni�tat ,�4�ertcaes,
I/1/95 t�i�°�u�h 12/.31/9i
�
��so��eaqslllE! I�Ifpii�l116
sEia1lCfD�i11[BI �l11�l�IililE
��1°fe��� d�eifi �11t11i��1l191!
�narrao�__
�
�
a,�
�
�..
�i
(42), Highway 10 and CounYy Road I(34), Highway 1Q and Long Lake Road (21), Highway 10
and Woodale (19) and Highway 10 and Groveland Road {19}. All of these intexsections are fu11y
'\, controlled, with the exceptzon of Highway 10 and Groveland Road. Other areas of high accident
frequency occurred ai the juncYion of Highway 118 and Interstate 35W (24) �and Yhe converge��ce
ofthe southbound exit ramp from 3SV� and Highway 10 (19), which is almost half of the
reported accidents on Highway 10 south of County Road H to the southern boundary of the City,
Regarding intersectio�as not involving Highway 10, County Road i figlued in five of the seven
infiersections having six or more reported accidents during the reporting period: County Road I
and Quincy Street (13), County Road I and Adarrzs Street {12}, County Road I and Jacicson Drive
(9), Old Highway 8 and Caunty Road H(9), County Road I and Long Lalce Road (8), County
Road I and Silver Lake Road (S), and County Road H2 and Long Lalce Road (5). While all
intersections and accident areas are af a concern to the City in tez�ms of public safety of both
mofiorzsts and pedestrians, Pinewood Elementary School is located at the corner of Co�.uify Road
I and Quincy St�•eet, an intersection having a higher than average traffic flow in ali directions.
Special precaution shouid be taken to reduce accidents and to protect the safety of chiidren in this
area.
While most reported accidents involved some type of vehicle to vehicle coliision, 90 accidents__
or 18 pereent--involved only one vehicle. O�fhese, 41 involved the striking of a fixed object,
such as a sign post or traffic signal, 21 were roll-overs, 13 involved a deer, 8 involved a bicycle
and 6 invalved pedestrians. Of the 514 accidents reported in Mounds View, only one was fatal,
whiie seven involved injuries considered incapacitating and 73 considered non-incapacitaiing.
': `'a
Existin Traffic Volumes:
Figuxes _and _ show the 1991 and 1997 traffic volumes as provided by Minnesota
Deparhnent af Transporia.tion. Table _ compares the traffic volumes and shows the change
that has occurred.
Future Traffic Volume Forecast:
l°'�
�
k.e
�
y v
. ;�/] ° �0p9AlE
� � .
P=-1 =
, � SPi
� •� :: i : � �
��'-_ ; i' • ! : ��� � - .i� �._ 1 �;`
A.AD.T.' ........................................... ZS00
(AVERACE ANNUAL DAfI.Y TAAFFIG7
NOTE: T.H. EIIGHWAYS AND CDl1NTY SYSTEM
ROUPES ARE 7990 VOLUNIFS
VOLUMFS YREPARED DY INTERMODAL PROGRAMS DIV1SiON
MINNFSPTA AEPAR'i'Iv�NT OFTRAN5PORTATION
' - � , � � . '. . ' . ... .. .. - _ .�. -/t _ �3y.��'+.� '��
' , . . - -:'/� ' .:Traller�. €
' • - ° � COUI'�° z''c
• � � ' � � a u . 'r
. . . .. ._.�`�.'�.'.�. -. r--.:. ��
' . : . - ' . . ' � A . 'r9 MUSiANC ' R0. `+.
%� `�
O
, . ��� �� �� �
� f$� _
`i:� . .
;�, • .
/\;... . <
I
:. . .
;: ; : , . ;:: ;
.. ;;; '` _ � ;:
�.:
iie ycy Q � U o y /�
� � A`+ �' 32 COUN7Y R6- Ji V�
851'h . AVE. �� N.E. � ,�Q�
�D � X �HY�V�� LA.
� g � � 45 K `� v~i
J � i.1
25 a
z
4� Q w °� O � � 82nd LA. �
� � C� o a a o c o � M
� /� �y d 6•tl
Y �
� ARpAN AVf. u�� ¢pA . _�� ��1� �`�� �
u °z�
� Afl OAN AVE. " �\
� W ry /�.
= f V�pPOFiT pPy. 45 �P I IB
W � DR, F,O LAPOAT OR,
SHERwOaD e- �t� An_ Trailer
1 A�d9 a pt Z� SHERW000 67,
1t V Q COUI'�t
� g �fl ; Y.� CRE ENFSELO 4�-' �a 72.
n ,C� � 1l� � x ° a °o .a.i � °o ,�e��`'� �p. v' �n �a o F `°
I� 2 6 a u� Q °�€ � � � ri � �� cr.� RUSTA9 AVI
� � r Y'9 4 �� N � � o � j �.� o� �
�� '� �` 6�`�n w � HILL VIEW � RD, u°+ 4 HRLVIEWC /�-� R0.
�HILL Rp y C11 �[}O N OAKWO�GIf �
� e� 1 eJV � z o w� a Ofi- O
� U
? Z. OAK W0� vJ �o Q J� � W 7ERRAt ODR. �
DR. '� z►(,y o= PiNEFV00� � w
' � � 44 �y ° � � °m CIflt7 !t- r PI�EW060 T� OR. �
� o r� � V I 1 U n v� \
on COG�✓I' B � � OR. � CROBERG ST. �� 89Q0 \ \\\
V y
�o\ °o w /O� '�iOU�� G� W000 LA� o�( N ��+�. O
� \� �
x
a� �
° � � g�o 25. BRONSON OR. ''� N ,`'�ay � a BELLE F,r
n � °z p � g �.y o eRONSON °< na. �A' . STATE
o �
;'; W� sRO �bN DR. 9kF COURt �� �� w N 4 a DRIVERS
J� 4. �� g,� ��++ � 4y Q LAMBERT� = Q a rv EXAM.
� � o Q� C`� h�o° nvE. c� ° o � S TA T I ON
z IZ ° 23. .�LANO Cl� 45 yi.• 24i � �..�. r 2 �
- Q n z z. � a� � N- 2� J� fl ��° 35N
a ry O COUN t Y o RD. �
N d - 6�� � �o� ' � ��Qf�@r
� o LOUISA AVE. o L` `^ COUI�t W
a o �
3 � � a CLEARVIEW m? AVE. o IQ �,LE DR. < .
3 � N � LA. � 1 � }
� � � RIDGE a �+ �-
? ^ W p W � ? .t'
,,� W60�ALE 0 0 o y o W AL£ ¢ DR. '��' 4 z° oJ~ � �vp
o �((� ° 1700 �ao�
i �� � J. J O � ^ � p PJV� � Q
�= a wao�cR EsT "'� i°,� j o o °o °o ��
a ��� m� 3 woo ocRESr ow. � M�I.TNIDS'�7�W
`" � = 1990 POP. 12,541a� °�
�/ w w SPiiING VfEW lA. ¢ c� 4 w¢ m�., �. g O
�a �
8 ° 9 `�? ` �°
88
` �a w Ao..�� °�
rnf iu7Y �...... ..� � � � . o �, LON G LARE .r�. �` o W ��A HFSH�RF a
`'�.. < tJtE5H3 �LA. �
'U
� � xwcwar zq�A.
1•�� '� L9�I MS.A$'PR�FIC VOI.iUMEu .:,.'.1�''� -J+ 8UC1(INGHAM ,� LA. �.
°1'91° .-..'�-'`.� j,� D[CRENS tA. �
Traiier
..... ����►� � �� �� '�i � � Court
, �-�;9,;. � r`r� MiJ5SANG RQ. �
r'�t�,,� ��,��� ���\ ����
�w„� C�, .
e "�%�,�:g
,c��.R,� o�..�............� '.i:'±'�#� . .
e. �ec,.�mee .............•�7 . .
nert mrs novme.� ...............65 =
.....,,,� mar� nen e�o.�wn.......0 . _ .
� .... _
-- . _-',._ ��,.
mw+v m.s� ....................... � ,-. :.:.!�,�
. _ �crtu�e� ...............o_,._ � _'. .�rv _ ,
. . .. . �; f;'' _ - ,
ti'�
• BVi'8 _ - '
. � - - • � u.seem nm�uu wux s.rm � _ + �a -
m ne�a�+ esssaew � _ -
� aroeese n::.��, � � - . _ �
��a�a �a4�m mmn . . .
, mw mmo +u+vu � ^j ' ( � °
� ' �
�
_............. .. . ' . ' :., . .;.,' . .
..._ . . ".,�.. � " � � -
� :�_:� �':�,�- - . .
I _ I _
EXESTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Source: MnDpT M.S.A.S. Tra�c Counts
��
''(-`'i
'T�ails
In 1992, the City adapted a resolution establishing a comprehensive trailways system policy to
help promote safe bicyciing in the city and to provide a trailway systezxi which cannects
recreational opportunities within the community and provides a linlc between Ramsey and Anoka
counties and to neighboring cities' trail systems.
Im�ortant regional trailway system that Mounds View has an opportunity to Iink to include the
Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Fark Corridor. This corridor includes trailways tllrough
Centerville, Circle Pines, Shoreview, Arden Hills, Mounds View, New Brighton, Fridley, and
fnally connects to the Mississippi River Trail. The Ri.ce Creek Trail is a joint effort between
Anolca and Ramsey Counties. Mounds View lies in the middle of this corridor. Upon compietiotz
Mounds View would have access to the Cenierville chain of lalces in one direction and the
Mississippi River Trail in the other direction. The por�ion which is in Mounds View lies along
R.ice Creelc and provides a link from the TCAAP (azsenal} praperty in Arden Hilis to ihe Long
Lalce Regional Parlc in New Brighton.
Ramsey County trailway co�vlections include a route to downtown �t. Paul through the City of
Shoreview. The linlc to this #railway is on County Road I.
Mounds View also has the opportunity to connect onto trailways leading to downtown
` 1Vlinneapolis via Silver Lake Road. Mounds View connections to this trailway wouid include
'` ' Long lalce Road/County Road H or a Groveland/Knallwood/Pleasant View Dr. route.
Existi�ng or proposed connections to adjaceni connmunities include County Road I and County
Road 3 connections to Shoreview, Long Lake Road, Silver lake Road, and Old Highway 8
connections to New Brighton, and County Road H, County Road H2 and County Road i
connections ta Fridley.
Figure � shows the existing and proposed trails in Mounds View.
The proposed Mounds View trailway system cansists of a combination of arteries and
connectors. County Roads H, H2, I, and J, Silver Lake Road, Long Lalce Road, and Graveland
Road (continuing with Knollwood Rd. South of Highway 10) serve as arteries far connecting
streets and links ta other trailway systems. Connectors include Ardan Avenue, Hillview Road,
Bronson Drive, Edgewood Drive, Woodale Drive, Quincy 5treet, Mounds View I�rive, and
Pleasant View Drive. Traiiways are not provided on every s#reet. Th� traiiways system is
intended to provide accessibiiity to all areas of �lie City, making special provisions to provide
access to schools, parks, business areas and the City Hall/ Communiiy Center area.
Trailway priorities established in 1992 include:
1. Siripe and marlc one or botln sides of Ci�y roads with suffcient width to provide on�
�
1
I
I
I
Y �
� '
� �a
W!
i�
a V
�
n,
C9 �
z i
_ ;
� i
al
�!
1 `�} �
T"�o�
I
f Spring La
r,y,�.
I
....J
�
B L A I N E
r,�;
MK
i
D /
— _'_—_— � d 9
.�
E ��
� I
��
I'
� !
�
I !N
.
f�� ND SCALE
I L B2ND uaE He
� I ` �
� ' f
\\ L..�.._.e t� A r N E�..�.._..
�UPORi pq N
� ow �
�
� ,-��'f�����' �
_:�i.. .�i�. .,,w.... :,.�,.. ��, - -:�... >:vrr -, �w ,.� �
�� .
:- ��
? _
. . - . :- . t' .-
. �• ti' �� _ � t �
� n :.�TifTiG',�i ..� , . � ;'I
� �` � �R
R �
1� ' "
. .
. , ,
•��. R .- . � ��
— ':
/ • e 1 '�� �
\ �
// �\ � l '..i ,. � .:.;: .',:;� .R. :".: .':'::� . ',1A .:':�! ..Y.::; ... „�_
i' �,:� ,..-,:_„ .,.-v..' .. - _ _
� \"'< � �- ' .' . r ^ ': . � r .
_.::;. .. i :;... ..... ., ' . ,,., :., . . - r, -` ., .. ;r, .> .,._,..,';
�'
°-� �' � :
. ;
, �.
. �,
� � � '
,. � , j � �
,
`�J
u
�!//
u �
�E� � Lt!
� O
�
a
I ;;
. �
I CHESHIRE c� �
.Q
IQ NINCSWAY W�'E �
!� 9 GKINGMPk lA4 s +�r _
' DICKFNS W� �� , . i
�
' � '
j ,
I � i
L.._,._..a...�.._........._..d...._.. �
_'
; . :,. ,,.
street trails. Streets to be striped include Groveland Road {coni�ecting to Ki�ollwood
Road south of Highway l0),Hillview Road, Bronson D�•ive, Edgewaod Drive,
\i Woodcrest Drive, Quincy �treet, Woodale Drive, and County Road H2 east of
High�vay 10.
2. Provide a trailway (of%street preferably but an-street if necessary) during the
reconstruction of Ardan Avenue.
3. Pursue the possibilities of constructing an off street trailway along County Road i from
Silver Lake Road to Pleasant View Drive.
4. Pursue the possibilities of consfructi�g an off-street trailway along County Road H2
fram Highway 10 to Pleasant View Drive.
5. Pursue the possibiiities of canstructing an off-street trailway along County Road H
from Silver Lake Road to Fleasant View Drive.
6. Pursue the possibilities of constructing an off street trailway alon� the right-of-way of
the future Pleasant View Drive from County Road I to County Road H.
7. Pursue all applicable gran�s and funding souxces for the developmen� of trailways in
the City of Mounds View.
8. Advocate for the deveiopment of trailways duri�ng all street reconstruction ar�d
in�proveTments.
�° ns��
Figure _ shows the current bas routes serving Mounds View. There are express routes to
;. )
downtown St. Paul and Minneapoiis and #wo eegular bus routes which serve Iviounds View.
_ - `atl�
There currently are no rail lines within Mounds View.
.�.. �
1� 1' ; .
l
��
�
1
I
I
Y I
rx j
Q Ia
w�
Y �
Q 1/
t
�
� i` ` ` k SHEpwpp�"LJPL �
\� V
Z i \
I ��`
I �
a � � ^�`
d + � `( �� `.
N �! .
� 3�
' �I � � �b
I ' � _.I
I �'A�EN'_~ ' �o
� a
! � 3
E �
�
� Spring Lak
co �
�f �
���
;1 � �
�� � p
I L
`f y oRC� .
�I
i
� il
.J 'E
� t
� I
�;
��
i
1
B L A 1 N E
A (,J
i
co �
P
� ���
�.
RIOGE
ON
� �
WOD pq �
� ¢ L�i.
f
s��..: � :��
��' . �;
AVE
J
� �
� �
�r �
•i
� I�
� I�
�
�is
.
!,�
��" ND SCALE
E � e:no uNC Ne
I ;
. �
�,.L.._. B L A I N E�..�.._..
�IMOAf pq `�� �
� ROM
5 UIRE VNF
JF(�
U . !.
� P � ��� �
� � r�
y� L
D �
� DA �
� x
� o,��.,,�,. � � I�� N
_ � �
�. � -
�
� �
N E W B R I G H T 0 td
�
,-„� _ e.�..�. � � � �
RD J I �
U
� � BEl l c
S �
¢
ra�� o
SG
a
1
�
X� T � ' `
� �� _; �s, .:;� - . �r
j _
, , .� ,
v , . ., ;..,, : . �;���
�„ . � �; < r , ; ► ;
�, ; �, � ' �.-
,
,�
y , ;� . . ..� r.��;- �.
. _ . .. � . _. � r.�,..
�
�r
<- 1
:;
� .� ,�; � l .1.. : �� ;: �� 1 `l. a�� � : . �, . , ,.�; �-
;� �, � , .�: : ' 1- � =. ;1. ','.
• :,. � . � �; ��,° ' �`�. `� � :���� � �.
1, C`alt to Order
The meeting was called ta order by Chairperson P
2. l�ol[ Cail
Members Presen�: Chairperson Peterson, Commi,
Berke, Braathen, Laube, and Hegland. °
l:
Membet's Absent: None. ,, ., <
�; .
Also Present: Community Development; - irector
Council Liaison Roger Stigney, Cou �t�iember�
�� ��
Februae-� �i, 1999
Il�our�ds �oevv Caty �al1
2401 �igh�ay 10, 1V�ou�t�s V�' .; I!� 55112
<>��,�>�� ,��
�� '7 OO �t`�� ; Febni
ler, 7ohnson, and Kaden,
�g Associate Jim Ericson,
rder Beth Johnson.
Indez t� 1����ies '��
Plan�ing ��t�� ���. ��6-99, �t��td�t�t���a� li se Permit Request, Richard Maki,
8 � 00 i,an�' I.���� �C��t� �
Discussion . �lat�rii��; ��1r��i�ssion`�ylaws.
�y
Y ��, .. k�flG
:: 1 . 1���
SJ� ;�.. tc
Disc� �n of Proposed �;��i�i� � e b29, Amending Chapter 40I, T ie
�`,° �' '��',�
►g Commission .
orts/Items �� ormation
tat�on by��P',�� Meyer, regarding cablecasting of Commission
�a�� ;�'�
,,.. �
�::���revious CounCii Actions.
3. Int�adaeetion of 1�1edv Plann�ng Coe��a�ssi��ae�°s
Page
3
5
5
4, b
I!/iou�ds Vie�r Plannere� Cornmi�sion
Regula�° Nleeti�ag
Fet�r�aary �7, 1999
Page 2
Chaitperson Peterson weicorned new Planning Commissioners Jahnson, Kaden, Berke, Braaihen,
Laube, and ]�Iegiand. He r�ported that h� addressed ihe City Council at their last meeting
informing them thai he had a problem with the process the Mayor used to make the�;��pointments.
However, he assured the new commissioner ihat he did not have a problei�, with: ��appoin�ments
Ynade. _
Chairperson Peterson asked what was the next step in
Jopke informed the commissioners that they ati would
be entered on record, and i� was the consensus of the C
individually that they would be done in mass. Director
the Swearing in Statemet�ts.
Chairperson Peterson of�ered some introductory
Planning Cornmission. �Te cautioned the new co
terminology used regarding planning issues. �Ie
Planning Commission is actually two separa���
one that acts as a hoard of adjustment a�d ��ea
briefly znform the members thai the Plan�g Cos
one of legat authority, except in the c���of grant
regarding the Planning Commissio���`�ket" ati�
.�,
The new commissions were �lso "�;' c
�.,,
a revised Cc��xi�rehensive.���t� �n�, a
�. Ci�aze��'
��°uce
he
by
vari
�t�ng the
�
to sign v�
io
Directar
for
g�rt�ti�� �k�� r�spansihilities of the
tliat'f�i�r� r�rtJUl�i be new
tl�� 7�c.w �om��issioners that the
�t is invo]v�d in planning issues and
� �V��� ���ue5. He continued to
��r�:,;t�f an advisory board and not
;: He continued with the procedures
.�rses avaiEabie.
receive a copy of the Municipal Code,
d�������s ��� ;�he items I�OT on the ager►da
t3r �-i��ei�, ���7 �..�€��;,�,�t��`��ad, addressed the Chairperson and members of the
i n. Because �,��-: �r����mte r�as not reappointed to serve an the Planning Commission,
::.
� d to sa.y goodby��:t� ��a�"members of the Commission that he served with for three years.
� those cantinuin c��� it�e Commission that it had been a privilege and honor io serve with
He added that h elieves that they had accomplished a lot in the three years he served on
►n, HehA;� ded that he respects each of them, primarily their ability to Iook past
��. ���
;st����their abiiity to see the "big picture" and to do what is rzght and t�est for the
�;� or, .
��,� e Commission�rs for his opportunity to �earn and added that it was an honor
ty of Nlounds View as a planning commissioner. He addressed the new members
them and he hoped that they would find serving on ihe commission as challenging
and rewarding as he has. He encouraged the group to wark iagether and to a.lways put the City
before their own interests. He believes that this is what made the commission that he v,�orked on
so good and so coz►structive over the years. He f nished by saying that he wauld probably 66poke
his nos�" in every now and then to add his two cents. Chairperson Peterson thanked I!/1r.
Brasa.emle for his words to the Commission.
`t
Mor�nds �Iaew �lannin� Coa�arreissro�a
�tegtela�° I�Ie�tarag
5. Approvai of 1VIrne�tes
a. 3anuary 6, 1999
C�raia°�erson Peiersan informed the new commissioners of
acting on minutes. He noted that there were twa minor typ
a motion to approve the minutes as amended. However,
approve the minutes, and several of the new commissior�
the minutes without reviewing them, Commissioner Ste��is
made a new motion to table the minutes untii ail members ;'
P�tea°so�/�' To table approva[ of the minutes.
Ayes - 9
Motion carried.
6.
Ptanr�a�g ��se No. 546-99
8100 Long L�ke Road
Cansiderat�nti"'i�f Resolutk�it
use r�t�tti ��€_�,n:t�vers�:
Applicant. �.zGl��rt� ��aki
The
Nays - 0
Fel�r�aae°y A7, 1999
Page 3
tne proceaix�es t�x:t
��phical �}ianges:
�.
e �ive votcs u7QU�.�
were not���rnfor�t��
�:
or� wit� ew his m�
F,.�.
�ad 1��� a chance to
iewing and
tevenson made
*;:�eeded to �
1-99, a�,����zin Recommending Approval of a Conditional
Assa e Ericson revie��i ��� case informing th.e Commission that this conditional use permit
(C� request is for a��ag� expansion. Since the Code currently allovvs 9S2 square feet and
th� request for 980 squ�� feet, a CUP is required. He added that even if the garage were within
��i� allowable square ,{��tage, the garage could not be larger than the house without a C[TP. Mr.
�����z=�; z�oted t •�'s type of request is probably the most common CUP request received. He
�.
�«n���t��'�"� :��1'ning the Commission that the property in question is located on Long Lake
a.
�2a�t% a��c�,�1�'� ood Road and is 13,700 square �eet. He noied that the house is 576 square feet
and ihat ��he garage, at present, is smaller than the house. He expressed that one of the concerns
is that the expansion would �reate a garage about or�e and a haiitimes as large, close to 70
percent larger than th� house. �Ie added that the basis for this requesi was so that the properCy
owner could store vehicles inside the garage rather than having them autside,
N1oe��ds i�fl�� Plar�ning C'orn�i�saor�
It�gul�r Nl��ting
�+'e6ruar°y 17, 1999
Page 4
(Bec�zra�e Pe� Meyer, CabCe Cornmi�iee Chai��er�on, �was now preserat, the C�rrecrau�siosa ag�°eed
8o hear her pr�s�nPata�n �egardin� b�o�dcasP�ng of Pdannan� Cornrnission nieetir��s oaa cable
television). ,
�.
�ta�f` lte�o�� /�t�ms of Infora�at�on
8a.
Peg Meyer infonmed the Cornmission ihat cablecastin�
16. She added that cameras will be run in March, but �
to allow the Commission to get a feel for being on carr
on what to do a� the meetings. She inforrr►ed.them the
asked ihat if any commissianer wauld have anything to
to please call Pat Toth, Cable Producer, ahead of time,
added that the Carr►mission may want to take a 1 r��k �zt
Co�aiinuation oi' Item 6: Cored°etio�at iJs ;_��e
a��
Planning Associate Ericson contin,ue� . h ihe
should be some type of balance be '�" 'the si.;
added that it is probably not desi., to havt �
should be ihe nrimarv structure ci�i:� he nrnne�r��
common i
C� 1p.�7i�
proposed �v�s �� ��rcent 1
garage would �d�� 7Q �ersea
north is screened Uy a.rt��v
the west, ����t�� by 1�i�t
feet to � garag� may�r�t��
park ��� oui the yard wt�t
, a ber
t, at 7
A�y
siari o��pril 1 st on �'ab�� �h��el
�e�t��#"� �would not be c��l� ��fed Iive
' �i�� ��-.iefly instructed Lhe Comrrvssion
'ec���i�inc�t,, is rutuung smoothly. �he
;ent that �s�ii�d t�e oui of the ordinary,
ve hitr' ��h���,�� t�? prepare. She
web site t�tat �tai� has developed.
i CUP re�uest. Ke commented that there
<..._
��
the ga ;` e and the size of the house. He
ige d��%ing the house adding that the house
�lained that expanding a garage is a very
E'property. Mr. Ericson reviewed a similar
cwaod Drive. In that case the garage being
��r tk��� t�� house. He added that with the current proposal, the
larg�� tkt�n ihe, house. He aiso advised them that the property to the
�pine� i��s,'and is already separated by the garage. '�'he property to
��hes, atready looks out to the garage. The addition of another 15
*��,;;��at much. The benefit would be that the vehicles currentiy
in the proposed garage.
TV�� �ric�on brought io� e Commission's attention one comment he received from the neighbor
�c�ss the street wit �gard to the proposal. This neighbor was concerned that ihere might be
t
s���� t�r�ac af bus��y being initiated in the garage. Mr. Ericson indicated that this issue could be
az�ir�s�� , -�`applicant. Mr. Ericson reminded the Commission that home occupations are
atiQr�r�c� �� �t� as certain criteria are met, mast importantly that it does not detrimentally impact
:;::,;<<;;: : >..
the neig�%ors. Mr. Ericson informed the Commission that al] the criteria regarding ttzis CUP
request have been met and that Stafffelt that the 6enefit outweighs the impact of the proposal.
The main cor�cern is the significant size of the proposed garage. Mr. Ericsan noted that the
proposed resolution recomm�nds approval to the Ciiy Council, however, there are stipulations
attached ta ihe resoluiion. �/!r. �ricson addressed the concern regarding a business operating
from ihe garage and assured the Corr�missior� that the CUP could be revoked by th� City Council
in the event this occurred.
Mous�cls View Plannis�� Co�remiss�o�a
- I�ega�laa° I�Ie�tir��
;
IVIr, Maki responded by saying that he agreed with Mr. Ericson's report.
Chairperson Peterson commended Ivlr. I�/Iaki on the progress he has made with
looks of lus property in the past couple of years. �>
Mr. Maki added that he didn't think the garage would
be using the same type of roafing for the garage.
The Planning Commission continued with minor discusst
this discussion was the shed that currently e�cists on th� �
included in the tatal area that wa� proposed. Mr. Ericso
square %otage of ali accessory buildings would be 1,Q60
square feei. It was also clarified that Mr. Maki would �c
Another issue that was addressed was that the proper�� #
�
physical screening. Mr. Maki �ndicated that he s�x.�k� d��
explained that there is eight feei from the gar ���o t��,,�+
bushes which is acrepiable to h'ss neighbor���'� �
Commission Laube expressed his
'•' square faotage of the garage wot
would be allowing 980 square fe
that the resolution would be �;m�
?/? to ,
i�
l�Ta
' that i;
Mr. E�
�th an a .�i
� : ,,.
l to be: ���a
9 recamrrit
!��rd IvIaki.
�ebr�rary 17,1999
�age S
the
that he would
��,.
r r�gar �� f is propa� ���' 'm
�pe���� d whether ar rit�� i� �a� ,
.r��'t�r��t� tile Commission tfiat the total
�t� [�af tli�„city code allows %r 1,400
d on� IC £�t��'�nd one 9-faot door-.
the `��est �vuuas �,�� �eparated by any
f,ly� to thc �zt�p�riy owner and
c:� atld the f�ce is covered by lglac
not cl�n���d in the resoiutian what ti�e actual
,, .
lar��r1 that the conditional use permit
8Q;�auare feet for the shed. He indicated
apprvval to the City Council of the
son informed th� �p�I"icant that this item would be discussed at the February 22 City
meeting at whi��time a public hearing will be held.
n� Corrta�ass�o� ���avvso
Mr. Ericson reviewed the Plarining Commission Bylaws as they had 6een amended at the last
meeting. Mr. Ericson reminded the Commission that the Planning Commission in the past had
two kir►ds of ineetings: ihe ag�nda session, where items were discussed, and ihe regular meeting,
where items were acted upor►. �ut because of state-mandated time constrain�s, th� number of
cases the City Council was actually dealing with, and io accommodate the applica.nts, the
Pianning Cammission has b�en cal(ir�g to order at every meeting. The Bylaws �ave been revised
,.
,.
; _ , ,: ,
IVlounds Vrew Pl���i�ag Coanmission
Ite��alar I�Ieetira�
��bruar� 17, 1999
Pa�e 6
�o denote that bath the first and third Wednesdays of the month will be reguiar Planning
Commission meetings and that special meetings could be held as needed.
Chair Peterson adciressed the section in ihe Bylaws which refers to
vacancies and expressed his concern with its arnbiguity. Commissi
in�erpretaiion as being that upon recommandation of the Pl .:'�': i
of the City Council, if someone is rerrroved or terminates, „���� °n
interested in serving, the new appointrnent would be for � unex�
additional three years. ;;; �
Community Developmeni Director 3opke agreed with
that to be the intent of the By[aws.
Chairperson Peterson added that he believes the lan�ua�e slic�uld
ninermember Commission so that alI vacancies izll�ci �rli caincide
Review of �ylaws concluded with the C
etement of the Byiaws. Mr, Ericson sta
them for action at the next meeting. ��
Conte�s�rateon of Ifem 8; Staff
It was the nsus of ih� ���xr
«
sY�ould l�� ��� as a regt�I�� �1�
w . , .,,
„ ` ,..
Director Jopk� c��z'���'�t�d a cop`
books are availat��� �t �ti� Hall
�.< :
�;,
Mr. Jo also distribu��„����
At;� time, members
ion
he.
of
n iVYi�let 5t�t�'ii her
o�ss�on; �viih the approval
russi�r��s' rs �3ti longer ��
,� ,,
��erm �n� i1a9 ',�c�r an
J^
^,��r�� \ .;;,�;::�,
tion siating that�►e believes
�to reflect the new
expirations.
"conilict oi interest"
� changes and provide
�amrn���ic�t� fi1�at" discussion regarding past council action
a future �'Ianriing Commission Agenda?
:modeling Planbook". He informed them that the
Mounds View residenis or $15 far non-residents.
training apportunities that were avai(able.
ion took an opportunity to introduce themselves to one
d Plann�r►� Commissione�° 12e�oa°ts
There wer� no Chairperson or Planning Commissioner reports.
10,
Ad,�o�zt°�m��t
r
Nl��aads V�e�v I'la�a�ei�g C'oatarniss�on
I�egula�° I�/ie�ting
The meefiing was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Feba•�ea� 17,1999
P�ge 7
- !
,: .
, ..
� , .;�_- ':1- ,1'�� �� : : : f� �= � ) 1 '" ' 1, �:� 1, " � ��. ...
�` °�' � � `� "�" �. ��`� ! � `� �� :_. ��:.
� �,: " ��; ; ����, '� �� - ��.
1�Iarch 3, 1999
IVIou��ls i�ie� City �all
2401 �ighway 10, IVlounds V��� l� 5511�
1. Ca�1 to �rder
The meeiing was called to order by Chairperson Peters
B. Itoll Ca1i
Members Present: Chairpersan Peterson, Commission�
Berke, Laube, and Hegland.
Members Absent: Commissioners Miller anc�.�r'aat�t��
�w��''
Also Present: Community Develapmentf��rector '�k
and Council Liaison Roger Stigney. '�
��'
��
�v �,
3. Citizens' a�eqa�ests aesd comrr�,� s on tit ems 1!�
.��, 3 >:n
,:.:>. � � .
� . , ;�
There wer� n�i<:citizens re�t��s�s i��,comme�t�����' ���rr3�
indez to 1VI��
� . . ��
�,;, .
Disc��sion of Prapose
�'Ianning Corrunissio
�i��i 1Zenorts/Iter�ts��: I
7:01 ��:`; Marcli
son, and Kaden,
����' excused a��ences.
1ci��lce, �l��ing Associate Jim Ericson,
,�'lL�
������
OYl tile i1��81(�a
��
that were noi on the agenda.
i Bylaws.
629, Amending Chapier 401, "The
�w.:�
s�ty '.: sion Annual Report - 1998 H�story
�i���usiness
in� Seminar
4o A�prmval �f T/I�n�at��
_ a. January 26, 1999
Page
1
3
3
I�Ioa�nds Vie� FIanning Corn�aission
Regular I�Ieetin�
b. February 3, 1999
�teve�ason/�erke to approve the minutes of January 26, 1999 and February 3, 199,
Ayes - i Nays - 0
Motion Carried.
5.
I)fs�ussio� of Plannir�g Corn�nisszon �ylavvs.
Mr, Ericson reviewed the Planning Commission �3y
Commission's last meeting. IVIr. Ericson reviewet�
He began by stating, that to be consistent wi ����r
third 'Wednesdays of the manth, the third ��`ing o
Agenda Session was revised to say "re� �� eetin�
,�-�
certain structure for the Planning Corr�rri�ssion u
"minutes policy" wauld be on fiie �i� �hu �or 't�
reviewed on an annual basis or a� ��eded �'.�,�; ric
special meetings and that th�� cc�t��d be call�d in ad�
and that an a�enda sessio�``���Id �ie condu�c�' aftc�
that a rev�se� n�.eetin� seh�t��tec� ��d becn pI oi�ided
March 3, 1999
Page 2
amended.
�.�hs no�ing tl�� zcvisians;made at the Pianning
�a'� zz�a��x� cl�angcfi t��� were recommended.
�� �tactic� af call r���to order the first and
'�I�e n��nth ��h���` ad previously been an
" He ��st� z�a��d that the sectian requiring a
es was �•etnoved. He further explained that a
Develo`pment Departmeni ihat could be
� __�
�on� ��%iewed other revisions which included
�t���to the two regular meeting as needed
�cijournment of a regular meeting. He noied
in the packet.
Commissioner �..,,�,��b� �ras conc�a°%ieci �ritlz the section addressing election and terms.. The
Planning Comr�.tss�t�� t��s��ssed w�eth�r or not the practice of appointing the Chair in December
and the Vi ���ai� �� J�#�t��� �r�as apprapriate. It was the consensus of ihe Commission to
change��� so ihai recoi�rn�r�d�tit�n �o the City Council of the Chair would also occur in January.
��c:� `� �
Th��'ammission atsa ex�"ess�d some concern with the staiement that "the City Cauncil should
���fc� al�plications for P��ning Commission appointments to the Planning Commission for
r�ct�z��anendations prie��fo taking action to fill vacancies" and decided to remove this statement
. ,�.,
�'�rn t11� E�ylaws����'�e Planning Comnussion also recommended that Chapter 40I.02 of the
i1�l�atu�i}�� �����sf�ould be added as a reference in addition to the section already noted, 441.03.
The Coiiimission brie�y discussed videotaping of ineetings and whether or not preserving the
video tapes were required. Assaciate Ericson informed the Commission that the City is noi
required by �aw to video tape the meetings and reported that although the video tapes will be kepl
on file, the minutes of the m�eting are required to be kept on file and wouid be used in any caurt
or legal actions if necessary.
:;
_' ;
Ii�o��a1s Viewr Plasan��� Cornmis§ion
Regalae° l�eeiir��
I�Iarch 3y 1999
Pa�e 3
�#eveaison/I�aden to approv� Resolution No. 570-99, Resolution Approving Revised Bylaws
for the Plannin� and Zonin� Commission, Planning Case No. SP-069-99.
>_.�.:_- � 1
ihe report meets the intenti of what the Code requires.
Chairperson Peterson was conce�ned about the "Miscetlaneous" section, Ite�n l, where it
states that ihe P1ar�n� Commissior� participated in discussions regarding the ring road.
Chairperson Feterson recommended that a statement be added stating that the Planrung
Commission was not in favor of a rin� road, which had been proposed by the University of
Nlo�r�ai� �Iiew Pia��in� Coan�issioas
l�egular 1Vleet°sae�
IVia�eh 3, 1999
Page 4
Minnesata Design Center Team, and this was the recommendation that had been mad� to
the City Council. Commissioner Stevenson added that many people had the false
assumption that the Planning Commission was in favar of the ring road conc�pt and he
�,:�
concurred with Chairperson Peterson that he wanted to rnake fiha�' �l�rific<�i�ion.
`�,
b. Director Jopke continued 6y infonning the Commissi�;�,�hat th
;;;:::::.
Hig4�way 10 report has been received and is be�ng,r�t�ewed by
incorporated into the Comprehensive Flan, possl��'as part o��
as a separate attachment to the Comprehensive P���. ��fi
StafilZe�or�
a. Director Jopke reported that the City Council
use permit request.
b. �Ie informed the Commission ihat th
He added �hat the Developer was �
including loan information from tk�;i e
5wY<�•
he needed ta fill any gaps. ���,,
c
;
He requested that any C
to provide him with �he �
There were no
�
of the finat
�eoari will
Maka conditional
��:�
ion:��garding the 1Vlermaid.
4i1��� financial information
€i'tax increment monies woutd
sion m�tnber de �;i�rig to attend the GTS training seminar
tion �� ��tan a���ssible.
.:: . '
��a�e�' I�eports
; �ommissioner reports.
at 8;31 p.m.
Rick Jopke
Community Development I�irector
N:�DATA\USERSIBARBB\SHAREIKEBP-ITIWPDOCSICOA�IlvIDEV1PLANNING1MINi JTES103-03-99. WPD
::�
_,.�
';
, ..
;:
, : ;,
> ..--.
,. -. -> =
.. ; . ;? :
1.
2.
3.
4,
i 1 �� � :� � �:
. j . r, :�. _�_
�i,i...:
��t ri,� �E��G
AGENDA
Caii #o Order
Rol[ Call
Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
Approve Minutes:
a. February i i, 1999
b. March 3, 1999
c � -, , �°, : , ;r, : � : : � � :� : .
�: ; °. :�� � �, ; �_ .t :: r� � �;� . . � ,�, �;, e� � ;�: .
5. Plan�ci�� C'ase �do. 5�0-99 Paablac ��ar��g 7a00 p.ar�.
Property Involved: 5302 Raymond Avenue.
Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow a Five-Foot Building Setback for
:. Livin� �pace Expansion.
j Applicani: Don Norris, Praperty Owner
6. Planning Case l�o. 549-99 I'ublac �Ie�rBng 7:05 p.�n.
Property Involved: 2791 Highv�ray I0.
Consideration of a Variance Request to Instail a16-Foot Tall, 48 Square-Foot
Advertising Sign on Their Property Facing Highway 10.
Applicant: I�inderCare (Jones Sign Company, Inc.)
7. Planning Case No. 5�1-99 Public �earfng 7:10 p.gn.
Property Involved: 7805 Gloria Circle.
Consideration of a Variance Requesi to Allow a Detached, Two-Stall Garage in
the Front Yard of the Subject property.
Applicant: Dorothee Dietrich, Property Owner
�3.
9.
10
Staff Reports / Items of Information
a Reviev✓ af Council Actions -- 3/22/99 & 4/5/99
b. Recap of GTS Advanced Zoning Seminar -- 4/1/99
Chairperson and Planr�ing Commissioners Reports
Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
{Immediately Foliowing Regular Meeting}
�*:��������*�*����*���**������:��:��**��*��
APPLTCANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
- � REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY. COMMi7NITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. TI-IANK YOU.
>k�k>k%Ra�>kyF#�F#�k��k�k>k*>k�#�k�: ���: 'M�>k�:�k�k'�k#�k** �>k#�
i ..
,: ;: : _
_ , - . ,
` �. < :'- - -; . . , ;,_ :,; _ _
-: - ,_ ` ` : .':'. ..:
:; :. . .
,. !; :, , ,
AGEND� SESSiON
AGENVA
1. Review Minutes �e March 17, 1999
N :1DATAIGROUPSICOMDEV\PLAtdCOMM1PCAGENDAl199414-7-99. REG
`,
�
'�
,. � . ; -: -
IVleet►n� �ateo
��aff iteport byo
Plans�gng Ca�e I�o.o
Appleca�ie
,i - ! ,' ;. ;I <I: - I: �
April 7, 1999
James Ericson, Piae�ning Associate
550-99
Don Norris
Reqe��sta The applicant is requesiing a reduced side yard setback to allow for an
expansion oiliving space in conjunction with the construction of a new
attached garage.
�,ocati��:
?,,�.
:1,, �..,,
Z�r�i�a�/�.,�nd �Jse:
A�plicable I�egulations:
5302 Raymond Avenue
08-30-23-14-0012
R-2, Single- and Two-Famity Residential / Twin home
,: ''�� Section l 104.01, Subd. 3, regarding Setbacks: All principal structures shall have �
-� seiback from sideyard lot lines of at least ten feet. An attached garage may have a five
foot sethack.
Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its
review of variances.
Attachr�etafs:
�ackga�ou�d:
P(anning Application
Zoning Map
Site Plan
'ihe applicant, Don Norris, is requesting a variance fram the required ten-foot side yard setback
established far principal buildings and living space therein. He plans on constructing an attached,
16-foot wide garage to his twinhome, located at 5302 Raymond Avenue. (He owns both sides,
r�nting out the other unit.} In conjunction with this construction, he would litce io add a two-stoxy
living space behind the garage, which would maintain the same proposed setback--five feeto-as the
proposed garage. Currently there is no garage present, and the square footage for his haif of the
twinhame is about 540 square feet. The garage expansion, which wauld be allowed
unconditionally, is proposed at 36� square feet.
�
t I
Norris Variance
Planning Case No. 550-9
April 7, 1999
Page 2
The subject property is one of several side by side twin homes that were built in the mid-1960s on
the east side of Raymond Avenue. All of the lots are 100 feet wide which leaves little room for
expa�lsion possibilities. The applicant has already expanded out the back of the house; creating
additionai living space, and has constructed a deck and a below-ground pool, which prohibits any
further expansion in this area. �
Analys�s:
For the Planning C�mmission to grant a variar�ce, it must examine the criteria established in
Section 1 i 25.42, 5ubdivision 2, of the City Code, which relates to hardships. Specifically, a
variance may only be granted in ihose cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical
di�iculties to the �roperty owner. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows:
a. Exceptronal or extraordinary circumstances apply to the p�operly which does not apply
generally to other properties in the sa»re zone o� vicinity and result, f�om Zot size or
shape, topogr�aphy or other circumstances over which the owners of tlae p�operty since
the effective date her�eof have had no control.
The circumstance which could be construed as extraordinary relating to this request is ti�e
fact that the lot which su orts a twinhame is onl 100 feet wide--minimum width %r `��
, Pp � Y ; I;:`'
zoning requirements. Each unit, assucning the building is built centered on the lot, has fifty
feet of lot to work with. Because these buitdings were built to accomtnodate the
canstruction of a garage, the living space is limited to a maximum width of about 29 feet.
Because of a recent addition to the rear, a dec�C and a beiow-ground pooI, any further
expansion offthe rear of the home is not feasible.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprrve the applicant of
raghts comrrtonly enjoyed by other properties rn the same district under the teYms of this
Title.
If ihe minimum setback for living spac� would b� enforced, the applicani would not be
prevented from adding bedroom space 6ehind ihe garage because ihe bedroom co�ald be
constructied 11 feet wide instead of 16 feet, and lengthened an additionat by five feet #o
compensate. The resulting expansion would be the same size, a(though the back would
extend beyand ti�e current rear-line of the house.
c. ThaP the specicrl conditians or ciYCUmsBances do noZ result from the acPions of the
applicant.
While the action for which the appIicant is seelc�n� the varianc� is wholly of his own
proposing, ihe intent is to ma�cimize tlle use of the laiid io provide a much-needed living '. ,:;;
space expansion while pr�serving as much of the remaining back yard space as possible. -
_ �
-: , : ; ,
- �
Norris Variance
Planning Case Na. 550-9
April 7, 1999
Page 3
d. Thcrt grantirrg the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
pi•ivilege that is derried by this Title to owrrers of other lands, siructures or buildings in
the same district.
The granting of this variance would not con�er upon the applicant any special privilege, in
that property owners are encouraged to update and improve their property. The fact that
the subject pro�oerty presents impediments to further expansior� would be the basis for the
varlance.
That the variance requested is the mrnrmunz vcrriance which would alleviate the haYdship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
If the intent of the variance is to ailow a building expansion up to five feet of the property
iine in keeping with the setback of the proposed garage, then the variance requested is the
minimum variance which could alleviate tlie F�ardship.
f. Ttie varia�rce would not be mate�ialZy delrinrental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zo�re.
The basis for this Code provision is to promote a separation between properties.
Maintaining a greater setback for more intensive uses (living space as opposed to garage
space) is a means to accomplish this separation. In this case, the proposed addition would
be behind a proposed garage, ail of which would be buffered and separated from the
adjacent property io the north by its own garage.
g. The proposect variance wilZ not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
prope�ty or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets oY increase the
danger of fit�e or endctnger the public safety or substantially diminrsh or� impair prope�ty
values within the neighborhood.
Were the variance to be granted, it would not impair any neigkboring properties' suppiy of
Iight or air, iY would not create any additional traf�ic impa,ct nor would it increase tl�e
danger of fire or endanger the pubiic safeiy. If there wauld be any impact to property
values, the impac� is assumed to be positive.
According to the City Code, a(1 of �he precedin� criteria shall be satis�ed in ord�r to justify the
granting of a variance. As pointed out in the abav� responses, a hardship gnay e�st in ihis case.
But because the criteria. tend �o be more subjective in nature, the analysis rarely points to a clear
- response. In this situation, if the application for a reduced setback variance were denied, the
- applicant could stiil have a living space expansion, however at a potentially-reciuced square
footag�.
� � _. �
i�orris Variance
Planning C�se No. 550-9
April 7, 1999
�'age 4
Reside�t Conament: S�aff has received only one comment after having sent out the required
r�otices to properties within 350 feet of 5302 Raymond Avenue. The comment was from the
property owner across the street, who maintained that the subject property is ane of the rucest on
the black and is in favor of allowing the expansion as proposed.
�pt�ons:
A.
�'?
.
Direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a variance for a reduced side-yard setback to
allow for the construction of iiving space up to five feet of the side properiy Iine.
Direct staffto prepare a resolution denying the variance request for a reduced side yard
setback.
r
� �C`✓!�-?/1�!7 �f ��'��/� c. ��.'
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDEVCASES�.55�-94�NORRIS.RPT
,, .. ;
� � _
` ���
[ ; `;`: .f
i.. -
,..
, �.- - .
N%�'�`� �f°
�, ,;,�� ..,
i.i ��;.:,; r,;;._:
-�
a' i:t7arn^
P °� :if.� :i'S.�I
f
4
���4 ° Parenevtti`�Q
Apptic�e�t Infoe°��tioa
Name of AppIicant
Address
i0 1)E�IIJOP�VI�T�T`T` 7)EP�t�T�T
I�E�I.OP�N'T A��T���E1�'ION
2401 Highway I0, IVlaunds Vjew IviI�I 55112
612�717-4020
612-7$4-3452 - �'AX
I'lea�se °Ty�e ot° Priot Infor�a�tioee - Coax�pl�te �oi6 Sides of �i� �o�
�� l� ` t, t �1 W
> � JZ- .��. �,,, c�
D ��,�'�� � U i�.G.�
'��'�-�(�
�U�..�
l��l
Telephonel'� � Z � 6�`��!�
Fax
l � �1�� �
�TnBerest i� Prope� (check appropriate box)
Owner of Property- ❑ Coniruct for T3eed Owner
� Lessee, Operator, Mtinager � Agi°eement to Purchase
❑ Oth�r (e�cplIIin)
;�
t�pplica�ts t�ust pa°ovide e�idec�ce af io#eres� �n property at t$te te�e of appl�catEO�, aoa! �you �re not ghe o�er of tlte
pe°opert�, you tffiust provide a i�ltet° o� per�ission frora► i�re ov�raes° givua� consen� t� the %ling of this apQGcation. Ti,e
peoperiy ov�ruer must sdg� this appl�c�t�on fmr it io be �ecepteda
Property I;esc�iptio�eoposal
Address or General Location
Legal Description
Properly identification # (I'IN #)
# of Acres
Current Zoning
:7 :� L� �, fL y Nl G ev p✓� v�
L c-, °f � ? r E3 �.. !� ( � N c ;z s . : �--c ,a ,�1 1 s ¢ A � � r �r� e� ,�l
L>$ 3� L? i�d Oc: �2
� �, �' � p � � -� iU A ct�� �
�° 2 T'i,v G F/�� t a..� �.rs � a���3c t..
Type of Applicatzon
Q Comprehensive Plan Amendment
� Rezoning
❑ Major Subdivision
o Minor Subdivision
❑ Planned LTnit Devefopment (PUD)
o PUD Atnendrrtent
` ❑ Conditional Use Pemut
�p Variance
� Code �.ppeal
❑ Deveiap Review/Site Plan
a Wetland Altergtion Pe►zx�it
❑ Wetland Buf�er Pern�ic
o Floodplain Pemui
0 ozn�r
�Z50
$250/acre; rnin �ZSQ max $1500
$�50 -� $250 deposit�
$200
Refer to rezoning fees
$350
R- E 9 R-2 $75; alt others �250
R- E, R-2 � I 00 all others �250
�i00
$ t 25/ACre; min � 125 mu.�c $i50
R-1, R-2 �150; all others $200
R-1, R�2 �25; all others $100
$zoo
_ *Deposits shall be paid to eover a[1 eosts of public notices, materiais and staff or consultant time spent in ihe review,
research or preparation of materiaEs associated with t#vs applica[ion. T'he applicant shall be responsible for ali reasonable
-.. inc�erred aosts in e;ccess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion uf the deposit not spent or er►cumbered shall b� refunded
to the applicant within thirYy {30) days after consideration ot Yhe application is completed.
--�--•�: .
� ., ��� _
Plea�s� r,ompt�ee th� reverse sid� of �his applecationo
�
City oiI�/Iounds �/iew, t`/Ii�i
I3�vedopcnent Applicatia --_ Pa�� 2
PresenC Use of Property
� UndevelopedNacant �t Single Famiiy Dwelling
I3upiex/Two Faxnily Dwelling a Multi-famiiy Dweliing
c� Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishmenc
o Okher (exptain)
Property Class�cation [� Abstract ❑ Toirens
Description ofProposal � V�-�2 � �.� � � �� �-(��; ���.5
\/Aa�ran�,�� fi� ALa�oc.., Cn��- ��.n ��U�ti� s��.��� tii� ;� ;=i�;� e=�—� f'
i�� /-'r�ui7Gi�TY Lr/��
BY IvfY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY D�CLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWL�DG�, THE INFURMATIUN PRU �S "C'12UE AND ACC 'iE.
�
Signattare of Appiicant ��`"�' �� �� �f(.� ���
Name of Applicant (typed/printed) � J Y� �'L ��=� 1.� �n �� l�- ��1
Signature of Property Owner
Name of Praperty Owner (typed/printed)
Address of Owner
Phane Nuiz�ber of Owner
�('Jv'--�'•�;�t l� )'/iiJZ/2�✓ �
�jn�,�. �. z..� �ca2a��`
�� l� �� i� \ i��� �'�;.� �,� �Q ll � J
�/'�, c� v�, �,r � �.1 t`t?,v.� ZJ'�,.. �,-� '> J t�-,�
(� V��--� �� �- � �� (i�
*���*�*�***��*���:�����x�*����*���*��x��*���*����*���a*����*����������*���x��*�*����x����#������������
F�18 O]FF'ICE U5� OI�Ii.Y
Date of Submittal � °- {' `� `�
Date of Acceptaczce ?° 1- y 9 ___ _ ___ Assigned to: '��n'+�
Planning Case TTo. ��-�#-�:.:9 `1 60-�ay Limit `1- :�b - `I `f 120-dny iimit (� - �,`i - `'� �3
S 5 b- �i c� -
Fees Paid: Accoune # Check # Receipt #
Applicacion: �� G c� ., � G
Park Dedioation:
Deposits:
Oiher:
iotal:
° .,
..
, �
;!:.`j
N:�BATAIGROUPS1COhiDE VIFORMSIDEVAPP.FOR
1/48
,. �. ..
,. , _ .. ,
• �
:',
,_ :
� i .�_.i_.E..�.,�..�..��.. �..�,.�..5.°j"I"i-s
PINEWOOD
SCHOOL
5500
"X " rry u� .rn r� u�
�cs ,�, 5439 � � � �n d° r�i r�
P-m�� 543� c`� cv c.i cv i "y
N .-� In
5428 5425 `srr X�� J 5425 BELI.� LN N
`a� � � u�i u°� � d'
5420 5421 542 5419 `�
N CV N �1 N N
5414 541 S 5414 t� r+� �n w 5413 'n n� T� ��
S-O � M t7 N.— d O I� cD c(7 uS � �+7 N
5406 rj�}Q�J r'Jq-�6 N N N N N N 5405 N N (�j C�f N N tV
� DRivf
39 � oCDO r t°• m�,°n � r��i N � o° �� 5392 5391 5�92 5391
� t�t N N[V N N N N C4 N N N
�S Q c�t N N N tV N N[�d cV N N N� N
� 5386 538 53Bfi 53S
i81 Y� 5380 5379 ..�C�, 5380 537
i73 � 5372 5371 5372 537
_ f67 5364� 536 5364 5�6
�� .�9 5365 5 57
5358 535 5358 5357
�, '�3 ,�n ��d r'�s c°iv w� o o rn� 5352 5351 5352 5351
`3�rJq- N N � N N N tV N cy
f45 N N cv c� N N c� c� cv �s N 5344 5343 5344 5
LAMBERT �VE
37 � ti._ u� d- �� rv n t n+ � 5338 533 53 533.
�1 �M���� N N N N N CV N N�� Z
5�24 N N N N N LV N N N N 5330 532 0 53Z
�J �ARf� � 5324 532 � 324 5323
�� P� 531 531 539fi 531
iQ9
_. 5308 530 53a6 5307
301 53 2 30 5300 529 300 528
!95 �� o, r� u> rn r� �n �, r� u� o, �— cn 5294 529 94 529
O� Ob I� h c0 ��d d- M N CV O rn W a0
�87 N N N cN�t N N �3 N N N N CV N N N CV rJ2H� rJZB � JZS
Q O
M N
N N JZ7S
ZOilirig IVIap
Applic��t:
�o�atioa�:
I U�7
�
0
PUD
5230
Plax�nin� Cas� 550-99
Don Norris
5 � 0� l�aymond Avenue
�.
�
• '
e �.
.� '
• ` ':;
I
�
W
>
�
�
�
�
O
�
�:
.
�~'
r
5267 �
5263 �
5�51 ? �
a
I
;
I < 21 Feet
Drive
;:
Site �lan for 5302 lZaymond Avenu� {Existin�}
I�on i�orris, Properiy ��vner
1n-graund
Pool
^ 100 Feet
RAY1V10N.D AVENUE
< 21 Feet
-I-
,,�
� -
a�
w
a
M
�
Drive
�
�
-:;
,
-i
;,.;i
i
S�t� Plan for 5302 Raymond 1�venu� (Proposed)
' I�on IVorris, P�operty Own�r
, � !n-graund
Poo!
.................•---------....._
Proposed 16x 11
Upper and Lower
Bedroorns
Praposed
16x23
Attached
Garage
(3b$sq.fl•)
DiiV£
� 100 Feet
.�Y.rvxoND AvENVE
< 21 Feet
DP1V8
� <
:
�
'u
ll
4
�
�
�d
I
.-. . . .�. i _:: _:; .: �. _ .: . :.::.: . _ -:.. . .:. ; :., .. .: �: i .
- - ��� B030 ���.. .,., ,., 8Q40 ...,T6 �.. ,.. - i
8036 8Q�9 8032 8�33 8040 ;
8026 8Q25 S�2 Y �
8020 8025 $p16 8015 p B(325 8018 8013 8000 I
798D 8005 8000
8Qd5 801 8�49 BOOS I
` 7990 7985 8004 7981 7990 � 7981 799D �
�� 798 7975 797fl 7979 7380 7989 7880
� �� � � 7960 79fi5 7960 Q 7959 797a 7965 7966
`� ° "? 795 7955 7956 a 7��9 7954 7959
�
_ � � N • - 7940 7945 794&
7934 795Q
aa N � 333 7930 7935 7930
°c��', ► � 79.
@t 4a �p si � � � � �
a�o R—�7 � C�3 N N%gOtJ %9 %JOO � N � �9OQ
N 92 � NE VIEVU
m � �
N
791 � 7B9 � 7891 N� 7880
7881 N � �
788Q � 7$76 � 7885 7866
78fi0 7835 �i � �°� � 7877 7854
� 7870 �
7850 7821 �O cy�� � 7863 �$�2
o c�v N c00•� 80 . 7801 ��2��� 7851 7830 0,
779i —� ,� 7820 3 -
x 3 ��� `L � ,�o �� F�
� � 7786 7781 7750 'L� p� �' ��� �j 781 �
7768 7769 //�
7758 7759 7770
7748 7749 776$ 7767
773 7739 7729 ° Q
O 780
772 � 772s 772 7723 �—� �
� 773
771 p 7719 i71 77i5 ��2
0
7710 Y 7709 771d 7711 N 770
v U
acs 7692
7685 N 769 7885 N 7690
766� � �68
� 7669 i670 78g Y
76fi5 7660 �
���� 7653
7647
7629 76��. 7535
7625 7620:
7fi19 7fi00 76a1
7585. 7�9� 7575 ,
� 7579 i588 .
�
io 7565.. -'" I 758 � 7585
� 7555 7572 � R�� �
W 7rJJrJ %{JrJ,� , J _.
p 7545 756� p 7550 .u�
� 7515 � �4� 7542
�ry � �`�� r 7800 �
'1.^'` .o �-2 �h R�'� �
►�'
�
�
. .a
��� � ':.,. � � �
(V ., rvi N
�� � * T �� � 1�
Ri;,
�
Zonimg l�ap Planning Cas� 549-99
Applicani: Jon�s Si�n Co / I�inder�ar�
Locat�om. 2791I�[i�hway 10
�-;..T,.:..
�,
7
� -
;"':
7
�L61,h 7
7
�
� p!� r p� N �L
N
N � � p (�O p ��
N -+°' N � �r7
f0 � '�' �
c�t '
�p N � ° °tF cO b O� �
ry'�N N� N � %
� M ONL
- __
; . . ;
2` ;1
S 3 02 Raymond
Froint visw
5302 Raymond
� > >'} Rear view
5302 Raymond
Pool view
�
� - � _ � � �
, ,.: _
- , - --
. ��; � ► � � ,� �;�; � _ r; ; �, �
11�eeiin� Date:
5taff 12��orf byo
Ptann�n� Case l�o.o
?��pigcan�:
April 7, i 999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
549-99
Jones Sign Company / KinderCare
Req�est: The applicant is requesting a variance from ChapYer 1008 of the
Municipal Code (the Sign Code) to allow for an advei-iising sign at the
I{inderCare day care center on Highway 10.
I�ocati�n:
' ;I� � �
�oning/I�and �Jse:
Appl�ca61� R.e��lations:
2791 Highway 10
06-30-23�43-0033
R-3, Medium Der�sity Residential / KinderCare Day Care Facility
Section 100�,08, Subd. 2, Signage allowed by zoning district.
Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 autlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its
review of variances.
L�ttach�rents:
`: , � � �:
Planning Application
Zaning Map
Sign Speciitcations
The applicant, Jones Sign Co. Inc., representing the KinderCare Learning Center, is reyuesting a
variance from the sign code to allow for the installation of a pylon adveriising sign at KinderCare
located at 2791 Highway 10. This property, even though it supparts a commercial use, is zoned
R-3, pnedium�density residential. The basis %r this zoning is thai day care facilities such as
KinderCare were not originally ailowed in cammercial dis�ricts. This restriction was eiinunated
with the passing of Ordinar�ce 595 in 1997, which allowed as conditional uses day care facilities in
a.11 commercial and industrial zoning districts. Were the property zoned commercial, it cauld have
�ap to 100 square feet of combined permanent signage. The current proposal would add a 16-foot
tall, 48 square foot pylon sign to the existing 36 squaremfoot wail sign. Together the amount of
si�na�e would be below the maxirnum allow�d 100 square feet.
� _. ;..
' .j.=. !:::. � � >' : �:: . ;: . ..�
.... � - �: :: ... �,_ ::: .; ..
�� -��:; �i :�: :. .. .-.- . .,:: .` . .;;.
,...;�� �:,. .:. ........ ....:;�� � .?: .: ., . . . ::�� ::: , :. _
-r� � ' � .'; ..:
. :,: � .:.. -::�:-: ....,, . . : .-��. - .,..:, .--: .;. _; '.
. ,-:._ . .,._._ �
I`
KinderCa.re `Tariance
Plar�r�ing Case 549�-99
March 30, 1999
Page 2
A��lysis:
�'or the Planning Commission to grant a variance, it must examine ihe criteria established in
Section 1125.02, 5ubdivision 2, of the City Code, which relates to hardships. Specificalty, a
variance may only be granted in thase cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical
difi°iculties to the property owner. The individual criteria, with responses, are as foilows:
a, Excepiional or extraordinary circutnstcances apply to the proper�ty which does not apply
generalty to other pr•ope�tres in the sa�ie zone oY vicinity and �esult fi�ofn lot size or
shape, topography or� other circumstances over which the owners of the p�ope�ty since
the effective date hereof have had no control.
The circumstance which can be construed as extraordinary relating to this request is the
fact that the property is zoned R-3, medium density residential, which effectively does not
allaw any business signage whatsoever. To prohibi� a commercial business fronting
Highway 10 from displaying a sign would be a considerable hardship.
,
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the appliccrnt of
rights comrraonly enjoyed by other p�ope�Pies an the same drstrict under the terms af this __
Title. `-�
; ;=:i
All businesses located in a commercial district, and any day care located within a
comsnerciat district, would be allowed a minimum of 100 square feet of signage. Granting
of this variance would provide the day care center the same righis commonly enjoyed by
other businesses.
c. That the special conditions or� circumstcrnces do not Yesult f�om the actions of the
apylicant.
The City Code was amended in 1997 which allo�vvs day care centers to operate within a
business district. The fact that the subject property is zoned resident'tal prevents the
business from displaying advertising signage as any other commercially zoned business
would. This circums�ance is not a result o�the applicant's own doing.
d. Thcrt granting the va�iance �equested wiZl not confer on the applicant any s�ecial
pravilege that is denred by this Title to owneYS of other lands, stYUCtures o�- buildings in
the same drstrict.
ihis business-aa day care facility��is distinctly commercial in nature. It is located along
I�ighway 10, the City's primary commerciai corridor. It is a commercial aperatron that
operates under an approved condiYional use perrr�t. No other types of commercial uses
are allowed within a residential district a�d as such, KinderCare would not be receiving
preferential or specia[ t�eatmenY denied to others in this district.
� � -. ,..
KinderCare '�ariance
Planning Case 549-99
- March 30, 1999
Page 3
--,.`
'- l
e.
f.
_
That the variance requested is the minimum variance which woulr� alleviate tlte hardship.
Econornic conditrons alone shall not be considered a ha�cd.ship.
Having a permanent pylon sign in addition to the existing buiiding signage is the minimum
variance which would alleviate the hardship.
The vaYiance woulci not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or ta otheY
proper�ty irr the same zone.
The basis for this Code provisior� is to prevent ihe intrusion of commerc►al signage within
residential districts. This property is surrounded on all sides by s�reets, is located on
Highway 10, the City's primary commercial corridor, and is surrounded 6y comrnercial
us�s including Wesiern Bank, Amoco Gas, and the Holiday Stationstore. The proposed
sign would be located adjacent to Hi�hway 10,
g. The proposed variance wrll not ampair an adequate supply of light and air to crdjacent
pr•operty o� substantially increase the congestion of lhe public st�eeis or incyease the
danger of frre or endanger the public safety o� substantially dzminish or impair property
values wrthin the neighborhood.
Were the variance to be granted, it would not impair any neighboring properties' supply of
light or air, it would not create any additional traffic impact nor would it increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety. It is assumed that there would be no impact
to property values.
According to the City Code, all of the preceding criieria sha11 be satisfied in order to justify the
�ranting of a variance. As pointed out in the above responses, a hardship ciearly exists in this
case.
Resident Comrree�rt; As per State notification requirements, staff sent out public hearing e�otices to
ali properties within 350 feet o�'the KinderCare property. Of the 19 properties affected, only 12
are deveioped residentially. All of the others are developed cammercially with the exception of
Church on the Rock and a vacant parcel on the south side of Highway 10, Staff has not received
any comments concerning this request.
I�ecorrarree�datr��e:
Approve Planrxing Commissio« Resolution 575-99, a resalution approving a variance from
Chapter 100� of the I�unicipal Code pertaining to signage to allaw a perrnanent, freestanding
pylon sign at 2791 Highway 10, KinderCare Learning C�nter.
<� "Gv�fJJ ���U3�'�
J�ames Ericson, Planqung Assaciate
IJ:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDE V�DE VCAS ES\549-991K-CARE. RPT
� ."
� i
;
_ ;
02/24�99 i9ED 10: �7 F`1� 920494��13 .70NES 3iGN
OZI23/9g �t�:15 FA� �7.� 784 ���2 CY7C� O�' �V
0 �
��u����
�
�„ �:�
s Jim��
��
� � r�,�,@.�
[�001
t�.too�
�O �E�,��,�$� i�I'�" �7EP'�i���I�T�°
����0� 1�`�° Pl� 7'I�id
��Qi ,I�ig�,�lSj� 10, �1o�atlds �iie� 551 Y2
S ] 2d717�oZo
��2�°7���4�62 - �'A�
�le:ee � o��'s��# oe��s�a� - Co��tete �ot� �L�e� of'T� �orr�
_�... , .- �. .
_ . ..,
, �_�.. . _ ._:.-=
� .� , .. �_:. � ` �
,_._� .� � _ ' �,. . �.
_ .,,.J
�._
- __
;, _
�' � • ! 1
/ -::
�¢p�� � P�np�� (check apPr�Priai� box)
� O�un�' cf Praperty
� I.�s�, O��°$tor, ��a�. �J
� �E�ai ��X�IS1F1} � ��N
1'cl�;�lian� _ "i��- ���� (
�� � °� �9� � a3 . ,
o C��a� f�t�ecd Q�trncr
�� , 9tmI1APldre�IIS�
�p�slls��ts �tta�� pro�ad� ��l��c� ��° �set�r�at e� ���p��cy � �e @i�ee o�applisxtio�, ��d if ynu �eg �o� e�� or�m�z° uf t��
���p�l�s �a�, Y�us� �srovi�e � �..�se oi�e��eio� g�om 7�4c m��r �i�[a� ��6e�t to tlpe �� o�thir �pplec�tJo�. "►�a
pro�cr� ��er ��at �igo �iM arpt���g,o� ��r �� to b� �C��►t�a.
Pmper�+ �crcxipgaoaf�ropoea,l
.4d�ea�a ar O�rel ir3c�si�a
Y.�ga� �7os�riptioxi
�evp�xiy Identiticstic� � �PIN �
� af ��es
Cttramt �uiag
�
6/( 4
.�
�
;' =,
3
Type of.�ppli�t�aa
❑ Cac�preIsc�rsive Plan ,�ta�ckaa��t
� �oaang
� N,If�j�c° sub4i�t�
� " A�Caaea' Subd'a�oa
� Plr�na�cl UautDa`r�1o�m�at (,PiT�}
� P1JD .A,mendme�t
o Cv�iuo��ai ZJ� P�rmit
�i ��i�taca
a �adt Agpeat
� I3��tlop Jf2e�.e�r/�ite x'ltt�a
� �rettanc4 �tl�rar�or� �crPrbie
� �rA�����P��
o �1�od;sla�P�3t
�t1s� ' dr �- a�..
52s0
S250/acrc; eni� �i50 n�,�+e � 1540
cG
�25� + 5,�50 ciepagic'�
5200
it�fer to raot�g f�c�
�35�
R-1. dt-2� � ' ali o1ka�^s �ZsQ
R-1, Lt- 100 1{ ot�a� $�50
s»o
ffi � �51acr�; � � i 25 iv��x �+i50
R•i, ��a s � soo � �u��as �ac�o
�� t, R�� �as: �� a�,� � � o0
�zo�
�
i
r_ .
� :�: '
/.
�
►
r
i
�� ���
� t U'
�1
���
�� U
��e�o�its ��d b� paad eo covc� �F w� �f pubii� notice5, °aLs �d st�nr e��,lc�t lime s�t�t �x lhe r�+�ew,
r�seorch �-�r�asar�o�u ofr�, aes�"s�te� qaatia ��plicati�. "�h� appli��nt ��a1I b� s�.•�rasabi� S'�r �dl s°��nab1�
111 Cm�S IiR �yC�?�$ Of�l� �dL38I C��0.4�L �Oi�t. A$� p0:&I40 �� d�lOSl�$�BY. S�CYI� K1P �CLUBLU�F� S�IR� J�� d�d
ts m� �p�V� �i�zn t� (30) �ys ���r esynsid��ioa� o�'tbe �pp�iGat�a� is �mp��e�1.
��� �
�„ �
�t��s� ��s�F�� �h� r�v��a ��d� af ° �ppEx�at���o
� �
�� ����
�9� �` .
� �
f
_.
�:
, '�,e�
�' =��
. ;.
, , __
, _ .__.._ _ _
02/24/98 WED 10:2� FAiC 920494231� JONE� SiGN C�3j002
. o�/m3/�0 12:Y� �°L4% 6�� 7�4 ���G G�'Tl' oF � �uu�
Cg� of�ott�ds ��r,
�cv�Io ��nt � �i�a�iora �a e �
�r��dit �1� cf ProA�
0 �.1 i�lopcd/�8tcaset C3
a ��l�i�ro F`a�ily I?�e1Ii� �
�u�i�,osslC c�ial �stablisbmcn# �
❑ ��aer (exps�J
Prvp� Class�cati�ta � Abgtraet �
.�'ingle Ir`ai�ly DWclling
kttat�a-faazi)y 17wc11ing
%d�strial �b1i�Iarnant
ior�
�it' �{�%J� Si�1�AsI`t,lRF O�I THIS APP�IC�.�'101d; � I�FR�Y D�CT.A� �TAi°, Z'� i2� I3E�i �ft A�
�a4 G�,. "�"k1� II�PF� iiO�d F`R��� I� T�Ufi ��GC T�
Sa�,�t� c��placant
�daffic of �plic�t Cf�p�d/priaie�) � �' — �
'� Si�ature ofPrape�iy Otuaes
i�ia�m� �F'�'rv��ct�r O�er (ty�aodl�rristed)
� of Qv�mer
Fh� Ai�b�r ef ��aee
/ � '`
�
� .... _� �' � � _
�� .
#�#���ig�##x���t�F��41 Wf6m5��M�1¢to����ib��d��aQ4�dm��R����y&��vo��ib�pt��ffi,b�MP�ffi�mm�rtr��/�mmy�}��ii�i�64'ipqt��sA4
��� ���� �� ����
�sta Cf aa"7]b�I�l a
��� af A t�se �aened lo: _-
Pl '��e�� i�a 60_dny �iffiit l�0-da�r Yi�rag
F� �aid: � l # Ch� # �Lec�ipt #
�ppli�afio�
Y���a�: - -
I�p�sits:
�lthca�c �
�
`rat�d:
_ " R[s1�'Y`s�1�Eb�LJ��ffi��0���►�P� F�R
bP��
i r
- R�-� so3o �v�� -_ �- aa4n ,,.,T� .._ .�
8436 6039 g��� 8�3� 8040
8026 8025 802 =�
8020 BQ25 8�16 $p15 ��025 8018 gp17 8000
79$ti 8000 8005 801 80�9 8006
8005
799p %9�5 8004 %9�1 7990 � 7981 7990
�� 798 7975 �970 7979 7980 79fi9 7880
� �o N 7960 7985 7960 Q 7959 i970 7965 7966
� `� 7949 7954 7959
� . '� 795 7955 795fi �
I � c°7v - 7940 7945 7946
o N 7934 933 795Q
o°cy�,, � � 79 7930 7935 %930
K �4 0 � � �
a"�o �—� , N N N 790� %9 %9OO N N N 79QO
� 92 �' H! V(EW
�
791 � � � 786 p 7891 N
7880 7861 � }
7860 7�35 � .. 0 7fi76 � 7885
� co ���� 78i0 � 7877
7850 7821
` �O � , 7863
� o � � 80 7801 �� ��
O N N N �� O %$51
7791
� � RT� ry ��o� �
rn � 7786 7781 7750 'ti1� p� � �� ���
776 7769 778 'y�� � �1 �j
� �
7758 7759 7ii0 `y^ �O ��� rh ���'
7748 7749 7768 7767
773 7739 7729 � �
O
772 � 7729 772 7723 R-�� �
� 773
771 p 7719 77i 77t5 772
0
7710 � 7709 771a 7711 � 770
vU � 7692
7685 N 769 7s8� '� 7690
76fi3 � 768
Q 76E9 %67� 768 �
7665 7660 S
7644 ��53
7647
7629 7634, 7635
�s2s �szo;
�s�s 7sao 7603
7585. 7594 7575 .
� �5�s ��ae
�
�O 7565� '"� 758 0 75fi5
� 7555 7572 � ��55 R�� >
� 7545 7�fiq p p�, 7550 U
� 7535 � 7545 7542
�� 7
: `
_
����� �
� .,: . < .......
-
�
� ) ;.
� . � `�..
..
,. ::. �T.
SILVER V1EV�
PARK
�
Z�ning l�ap Pl�nr�ing Case S49m99
�pplica.�.t: .Ton�s Sign Co / KindexCare
I.,ocation: 2791Fii�h�ay 10
; -
�- ; .
r.
�_
786
781 �
�aao � '
�
7
� -
'':: i
� ii
rL��'� 7
7
�
N � � .
Of� �� N
�
c�y� � o ��
cv � a En
co � -°� �
N
M
-°� N � D � c�D b � ,�
N N N � � cp /
m N7 4 N .�
,: ,
02�24/99 FYED 10:�9 FA% 920494�313 JONES SIGP1
.:'r.t' ?
' 'cs� x ��° ��'� �c�� an��r�� ea��a�e ��� �.��a�� ���»
�S 111 �
��.
� reo��a^€`T PiP�
.�'rt�rswelL
�° � Cz
—°°-�°�S'f1��dT �fR�
...,�,..� .b...A,.,...
� Ob5
� �;' • ,
:
�
'�
�
3°-A° 4+_�"
��i� 3° � �' x 6' �EEP
ui z�a �° ��ac
�� fi�N�i°-6W� w� �
��� �s���� ��Eo�a� ��e ��m�e�°
6 2 t m�� �nr� A�tB�r �� �� f
ceiera� �f
�t9st��s���� � ��S ��� /C3 !�e a
��� �e � , o"�t/�a
�.
t
; < , -
0�/24/99 9FE� 1Q:30 FAX 9204942�f3 JONES SIGN _ _ f�006
.,
=�
_ I
'�
�I
�
.�'`
�
.�.
��
�,.r
� ;
�.;.:,:>.<
�._
.�
pa
R
w�
��
�f��
�VO
� � �h�
���� ��
° '� c� �. � e� �
� � � � ���
� � � � �i
a�
�
��
��
v
��
��
� G9
�.,
��
��
��
�.
- *.
, �
, �.
�.
� � � �.I
,
`�
:��:1.:"� .��::o:�,r��!..-�„��::�:a::::::�::::�
::::�-�- ������ ...............:.:...�: :�::_:��
....:::� :::::::::.:::��:::::o:_e:::::e� ��°:��:�:�;�
...- ................a..a.......... ���:
::::. ::°::�:.._:....��°:o::::::a:::: °`:�= �
:::�':::::n:�.�j�. �%� ::...........� � �t..�.�
: ` : : : : : : : : ���� �C��:� : : : : : : : : . : : . : : : : : �: f`� :� �
................__...........o._...,...... � ��:�
o;:::::::e::e::::::::::::a :::::::::::::::: �: ��:�
:::e:::::::::: ...r..e.,....� ::::::::: 9' �:�a:�
:::::::::::::: :::::::::e:::: �:::;o::�: �'�.����
:::::::::o::: :::::::::::::: �_:::::::: �=�.�:�
:::.:::::::�� :::::::::::::: ;:e:::::: �::�����
.a........... .............,.a. ........ � �
::::�:::: ._:. ::`�:':::::::: ::::::`::: �� �-��o�
... .... ..., ..........a... ........_ �. � �:o
:�::::' ,�/1i�.' . :::::::::::::: ::°,:::::. a: '��
y} • • • • . . . _ • e . . . a . s . . o . . . , e . . , r�
. . . �� � 8 . . - . . . e . . . s . . . . . ♦ . e e . . . . . e - . . . �, �
♦ . . . . . . . . . o . o . e . . . . . e . a . - . � . . - . . .
- . . . . . . . • � � . . • . . . • . . e e . o . . . . . _ . . •� . .
. • . . . � � ; . . . • . / . _ . . . , . . • . . a e . . . . . . . . . . . . � . .
• � • � • . . . . . . a s o . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . .
• • . . • . � . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • e o . . � . . . . . . . . . r . . �
: . : V e . . � . • • � � � a � � . � ' ' ° a o . . . . e . . > . . � e . . • � . �
• . . . . . _ . � • • . � . . . . . . . . . o . . � . . • . . • e . . . � o ��
. v . . . . _ � o . . . • . . . . _ e . . . o . o . a . . e v . . . . . . . • . • . . • y . ° . .
. , , . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e e . o 0 0 . . . . a . a « . . . . a . . o . . , ,
. o . . . . . . e • - a . . . . . , , e . • . o . . . . . . o . e . e a a e . . . . o . , ,
e e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a e - . e e o e e . s a . . . . o . e • e . e . e a .
� . . . . - o � . . . ♦ . . a , e s • . r . o . . . . . . . - . . e . e . .
. . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e a . . . e . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
e . � . • o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . v . . . e . e . a . . . . . _ . . . . . .
a . . e - . + . . . . e . . . _ . . . . s . . o . . o , . . . . . e . . a • . . s . . e . . e . ,
. e � . o . e e . . . . . . , , , . . . . . . s . . e . . , . . _ o a ..� . . . . . . o . . . . . .
. . _ . . . . e . . . . . - . . .� � , , . . . . a . o c � . e o > . . a o . . . . . . . . . . . . .
, o e - , . a . . . . . . . _ . a . . . . . . . . a o . a r . e e . n o o . . . . . . _ o a . e o .
. . e . . . . . e . _ e _ e . . . . o „ o . . . . . a o a o a a e e o . o . o . . o 0 0 � � a o o .
a a a a e e e e e e s.. o a. q o o e o e e 0 m. e a a O a p. v c o o � o o � o e. e O+
� : :�i ` 'C- � ' �: ; „ ;�., ;� �, ,
u :�t ;� 1 � .�, ,�, �1+
' i �. ���: ;1� � � ��i� 1; �_ �.'
��' �� ��
:,! ° ;I� ` =i,
�� �� �: � � ���; ��-. , -�. ��; <�. : 1",, , : � ` �: ;�_ . ;; % � � ' 1 I, : �, ; ;;� ;
� �, ; �.� .1, '� � �: .1 � "1��. �i; �. �� �: � .
F I I . . ;/. "- ,�, = 1 .I ! _ ' I _ '. , . .
;�l ��fI:Y �!'��i1: ►� `i►11�Cl�t7F.`1 �!►[��.�: � ' �
'WHEREA�, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Jones
Sign Company, representing KinderCare Learning Center, to allow far a permanent, freestanding
pylon sign at property located at 2i91 Highway 10; and,
VVHEREAS, this property is zoned R-3, Medium Density Reside�tial, and is legally
described as follows:
Subject to I�i�hway, Lot� l29 a�aad 130, S�r�ireg I,ake Park Hillvieav,
City nf'ld%unds TJiew, Coccraty o,f�llc�fnsey
W�REAS, the PIanning Cotnmission has reviewed the following documents associated
with this request:
i. Planning Apptieaiion
2. Zoning Map
3. Sign Plans
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals,
may grant variances to specific requirements within the Zoning Code under unique, exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances; and,
VdHEREA�, exceptional or exiraordinary circumstances do apply to the property which
do not appiy generally to other properties in the same zane or vicinity and result from lot size or
shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the properiy since the
effective date hereof have had no cantrol, in that the use is of a commercial nature and is located
within the Highway 10 commerciat corridor yet the underlying zaning is residential, a. distric# in
which advertising signage is prot�ibiicd; and,
V�II�ItEAS, ihe titeral interpretation of the provisions of this Titie fvoul�! deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in �he same district an thaP all businesses
�-including day care facilities--located in a cammercial districi are allowed {depending upon i:he
particular zoning districf} a minimum oF 100 square feet af signage. C'rranting of this variance
would provide the day c�re c�nter the same rights commonly enjoyed by other b�sinesses; and, -:'. :-�i
,:; ,
: , � � � -
, .;.
Planning Commission Resoiution 575-99
KinderCare 'Variance
Apri17, 1999
Page 2.
WHEREAS, special conditians or circumstances r% rao8 result from the actions of the
appticant in thag the City Code was amended in 1997 to conditionally allow for the operation of
day care centers within a business district. The �act that the subject property is zoned residential
,�revents the business from displaying adveriising signage as any �iher cammercially zoned
business can; and,
WII.EREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures ar buildi�gs in the same
district an that ih applicant is a business distinctly commercial in nature. It is located along
Highway 10, the City's primary commercial corridor. it is a commercial operation that operates
under an appraved canditional use permit. No other typ�s of commercial uses are aliowed wiihin
a residential district, and as such, KinderCare would not be receiving preferential or special
treatment denied to others in this district; and,
�]��REAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance wi�ich would alleviate the
hardship, in �hat ihe addition of one permanent, freestanding pylon sign is the minirr►um variance
to alleviate tl�e hardship; and,
WHEREA�, the variance woulrl not b� materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title
or to other properties in the same zane in that it is expected that a commercia.l business such as
�>� KinderCare would be permitted a permanent sign similar to other businesses along Highway 10.
The intent of this Code provision is to prevent the intrusion of commercial signage witl�in
residential districts. This property is surrounded on all sides by streets, fronts Highway 14, the
City's primary cammercial corridor, and is surrounded by other commercial uses including
Western Bank, Amoco Gas, and the Holiday Stationstore. The proposed sign would be adjacent
to Highway 10; and,
WHEREAS, the variance woa�ld not impair an adequate supply of lighi and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the co�gestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire
or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property vaiues within the
, neighborhood in ihat the construction of a freestanding sign could not conceivably impair the
supply of light and air to adjacent properties or substantially increase the congestion of the public
streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood.
NO'V�, THEREFORE, BE IT RE50LVED, that the Mounds �Iiev� Planning Commission,
acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, approves the variance to allow a permanent,
freestanding pylon sign for KinderCare, located at 27g l Highway 10.
�OW, TI�EEREFpRE, BE IT FUIZT�IER RE�OL`VLD, that the dimensional
speci�ications attribuied to this appraved perma�ent, freestanding pyion sign shall adhere to the
requirements listed in Section 100�.0�, Subd 2g, of the Sign Code.
A.dopted this 7th day of April, 1999,
� _.: _ ,
..- .-r ,..� ..:: . .-.-. .: : i
. .-. � :;: : ... . .. . _:_: .. :
Planning Commission Resolution 575-99
KindecCare Variance
April 7, 1999
Page 3
ATTEST
SEAL
?�I:IDATAIGROUPS1CaM DE V�E VCAS ES1549-99\575-9 8A. RES
Jerry Peterson, Planning Commission Chairma.n
Rick Jopk�, Community Deveiopment Directar
: � . .. . -.
�j
_-
/
� �>:: . !`:� ' `
<I � ` `'; I
I�e�tin� I)�te:
St�#�°° Igepori b�o
�lar�n�ng Case l�o,:
Appt�eant:
�equ�st:
Loeationo
PIN l�a.
ZoninglLand �Tse:
App�ecable Regulations:
Apri17, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
551-99
Dorothee Dietrich
The applicant is requesting a var�ance to construct a garage between
the front of the home and ihe street.
7805 Gloria Circle
06-30-23-33-001 �
R-1, Single-Family Residential / Single family residence
5ection 1144.01, Subd. 4a(1) states that no accessory building shall be iocated between
the front of the principal dwelling and the front Iot line.
Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its
review of variances.
A�taehmentse Plaruiing Appiication
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Letter irom Applicant
Resoluiion 576-99
�ack��ouneio
The applicant, Dorothee Dieirich, is requesting approval to build a garage within ihe established
front setback oi her property, w4uch is located at 7805 Gloria Circle. This iot is one of the few
lots in the City which border Spring Lake, the City's only naturat lake. The Zoning Code
prohibits the constnaction of a garage or any accessory buildin� in the fi'ont yard of a residential
property. The front yard, as it is defined by the Code, is that area between the frant line of the
principal struc�ure (house) and �he front property iine.
Because homes on lake lots are typically oriented toward the lake, many corrurzunities offer a
provision for allowiE�g a garage be�ween the horne and the stireet, as it would be undesirable to
construct the garage betw�en the house and the la�Ce. There are six lois in the City whece this
becomes an issue, and 7�05 Gloria Circle is one of those lots.
i , ;, ,
Dietrich Variance
Planning Case 551-99
April 7, 1999
Page 2
Ar►�tiysis:
Oiher Cities' Codes: The City of Roseville has adopted tanguage that takes into consideration the
existence of takeshore Iots, Their Code states, "Accessory buildings on through lots and
lakeshore lois may be located between the roadway and the principal stf-ucture, p�ovided said
accesso�y building meets the t�equi�ed front yard setbackfor the district in which zt is located. "
Other municipalities within the metro area have similar provisions that allow a garage in ihe front
yard provided the garage meets the required setback for a principal structure.
Tla�icrrrce Crite�zcz: For the Planning Commission to grant a variance, it must examine the criteria
established in 5ection 1125.�2, Subdivision 2, of the City Code, which relates to hardships.
Specifically, a variance may only be granted in those cases where ihe Code imposes undue
hardship or practicat dif�iculties to the property ovvr�er. The individuai criteria, with responses,
are as follows:
Exceptional o� extraordznary circumstances apply to t.he property which does not apply
generally to other propeYties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or
shape, topogj-aphy or other circumstances over which the owneYS of the property since
the effectzve date heYeof have had no control.
;l
The circumstance which can be construed as extraordinary relating to this request is the -
fact that the this is a lake�frant property, one of only six in the City. Locating a garage
between the home and the lake wouid be undesirable and would detract from the lalce-
front aesthetics, Furthermore, the area between the house and the lake is subject to
prohibitive development restrictions,
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyecd by other properties in the same district under the tepms of thrs
Title.
It is not clear that a literal interpretation af the Code would deprive the applicant oi rights
cominoniy enjoyed by other properties in this districi. There are only very few examples
of garages being locaied between the house and the str�et, and most often, this is a result
of an older home on a subdivided lot which at one time toak access from a different st�'eei.
c. That the special condrtions or circumstances a'o not t�esult fYOm Phe actions of tl�e
applicant.
The applicant is clearly causing the condition for which the variance is requested. The
basis of ihe request however is reasonable and logica( if one is to preserve and enhance the
property's most unique ass�t, that af the lake�fi-ont. Disturbing the take-firont with a -
garage wouid not be preferable and would require the approval of a wetland buffer permit.
. . ;.
f '
Dietrich Variance
Plannit�g Case 551-99
April 7, 1999
Page 3
d. That graniing the variance��es Title �o owlners of othe lat1nds�,��ru �turesnor bu'ld ngs in
p�ivilege that rs denaed by
- the sa»ze dist�ict.
The granting of this variance would in effect be a special privilege, but the property itself is
unique in its lake-front staius and prohibitive development restrictions, which might
warrant the approval.
�, Td1r�t the variance �equested rs the minimu3n vaf•iance which would alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditrons alone shcall not be considered a hards'hip•
As long as the garage can meet the setback requirements for a structure in a residential
district (typically thirty feet) staff would assert that the request is tl�e nninimum variance to
alleviate the hardship.
f. T�ie variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to othe�
pt�oper•ty in the same zo�e.
Granting this variance would not be materially detrirnental to the purpase of this Title or
J to other proper�ies surrounding 7805 Gloria Circle. Consiructing a garage between the
-_- house and the iake however may be materially detrimental io the perceived or actual value
of the s��bject properiy, in that it would take away from the property's aesthetic vaiue and
would restrict use and enjoyment of the property's primary amenity--Spring Lake.
g. The proposed a�ariance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
pf•oper-ty or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the
danget� of fire o� endanger the public safety oY substantially diminish or impair prope�ty
values within the nezghborhood.
Were the variance to be granted, it would not itnpair any neighboring property's supply of
light or air, there wauld not be any impact to traffic nor wouid it increase the danger of
fire ar endanger the puhlic safety. It is assumed that there would be no negative impact to
property values.
According to the City Code, al] of 1;he preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order io justiiy the
granting of a variance. As pointed out�in e� uestp However, becau e rti noteclear tha �ll of thef
a hardship with regard to the applicant s q
criteria can be met, the undue hardship requirement may not be satis�ied.
Resic�ent Comnaent: As per State notification requirements, staflf seni out public hearing noiices to
ali properiies within 350 feet of 7805 Gloria Circle. Of the 28 notices sent, only one phone in
comments was received. The cailer was concerned about setback issues b�at was not opposed in
theory to the requested variance.
l�ietrich 'Variance
Planning Case SS 1 �99
Aprit 7, 1999
Page 4
Wetla�rd Setback Rec�uirenzents • While there are provisions in place to permit building expansion
and location of accessory buildings within the buffer area, the intent is that this area should remain
in an undeveioped state to protect and preserve the impacted water feature.
Amencz'rn the Code: In situations where the Code does not anticipate a given situation or can
not be applied to a specific property for reasons of undue hardship or through practical
difficulties, there are usually two courses of action to remedy the situation: the property owner
can request � variance or request an amendment to the Ci�y Code. Amending the �ode should be
done only in the event that (1} a mistake was made in the Code's original cons�ruction, (2)
discovery of a situation or condition which was not originaiiy anticipated, or (3) because changing
communi�y standards over time warrant such a change. Because there are only six properties in
the City to which this condition would apply, amending the Code wouId not be appropriate.
itee�mrne�d�tior�:
Given the supporting variance criteria and wetland buffer considerations associated with this
request, staffrecommends that the Planning Corrunission apprave Resolution 576-99, a resolution
approving a variance from �ection 1104.01, Subd. 4a(1) of the City Code, to allow for t�e
construction of a garage between the house and the street at 7�05 Gloria Circle, subject io
maintaining the appropriate setbacks for a principal structure.
`�I���s:%� ���':--Z�
James Ericson, Ptanning Associate
IV:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDE V1DE V CAS BS1S 51-991D-TRICH. RPT
I. � i
;
;;
_
;:I ,
a�,p sa.�
t?3 �1;:�ii .'•::��:�i
.�
p �'��;,c�;
�P €:i.:., •
'o��'�t ° PaYMe�t�,ey
�� �L �' �`rd.J�S lYAL' l� R L�.[ 1'�d� 19 $
�33EiTEI,O��N'I' APPI.aICE1'�OI�
2401 Highway i0, Mounds View MN 55112
612-717-4420
612-784-3462 d FA�
I'Iease 'Type or k�rint Inforynatioe� - Co�aple4e �oth Sides of'i'his 1+"oc�
Appl°►cant Infot°ffi�iiop
Name of Appliaant �� �'�+� �� � I e`�'!'� �� Teleghone 6 ��. 71 7 2.� �d S`
Address �T �0 S�i Lo�-i a Cr �c�� ��
�o � als ' w �i �/ s",� 1 ! �
Ia,tee�si ara ��opex'ty (oheck appropriate box)
� Owner of i'roperty �t Contract %r Deed Own�r
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager � Agreemenc to Purch�se
o Other (exptain}
App�ican�s must �rovide evide�ce of i�terest in prope�t;� at ghe iiffie of appGcatio�, �nd if you ar� �ot t�e o�vaer o�the
prapeety9 you muat prov'sde a lettee off pece�ission fro� the o�ser giving consent to the i��� of tiais appiicai�o�. 'Tlte
p�peety o�er �us� s'ag� ti�is appiicatiom fo�° ii to t►e accepted.
Propevty �eseription/I'roposal
Acfdress or General Lacation
Legal Descripcion
Property Identifiaatian # (PIN #)
# of Acees
Currene Zoning
.
� . � ":, : i /� �-
Type of Aggtication
o Comprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ Rezoning
a Major Subdivision
Q Minor Subdivision
❑ p]anned Un,it Development {PUD)
❑ pUD Amendment
❑ Conditional Use Permit
� Variance
n Code Appeal
� Develop Review/Site Plan
❑ Wetland Alteration Permie
❑ Weeland Buffer Permit
C] Floodptain Pemut
� Other
$250
$250/acre; min $250 max $1500
$250 + $250 deposit*
$200
Refec to rezoning fees
$350
R-E, R-2 $75; aEl others $250
R- I, R-2 $100 all others $250
i ao
$125/acre; min $ l 25 max �750
R-1, R-2 � 150; all others �200
R- l, R-2 $25; all others $100
�zoo
*Deposiis shall be paid to aover all costs of public notices, rt�aterials and stuti or consultant time spent in khe review,
' research or preparation of materiaks associated with this appiication. The applicant shali be responsible for all reasonable
incutred costs in excess of ih� initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not a-pen[ or encumbered sha11 be refunded
to the appticaaat within t[zirl.y (3U} days after consideration of the application is compfeted.
�'I�as� coenpi�te ph� revers� sede o� th�� ��pl��ataoo.
�:
. �� � �
City of iVtoeands t/iew, Idi]Y
llevelopment rlpplic�fian Pa�e 2
Present Use of Property
� Undeveloped/Vacant � Single FamiIy Dwelling
Q Duple:c/Two Family Dweliing � Muiti-family Dwelling
o Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishrnent
� Othcr (explain)
Property Ctassification
I?escription of Proposal
a Abstract � '�a��
��� F , � � .. � , ��
� i - . _ ,: ;,- �� � �. =�..
BY MY (OUR) SIGNAT[JRE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HE12�BY DECLARE i°HAT, TO THE BEST OF M1' �
KNOWLEDGE, THE INFURMATIUN PRUVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.
Signature of Applicant � � Gr e
Name of Applicant {typed/printed) (� � � �j ��-�--r G� �
Signuture ofProperty Owner � .�. �� � ,�
Ntune of Property Owner (typed/prinEed) ��$�p �-� e� � � � �- ���� � -
Address of Owner ���5 ,� LOY I R G i f G��
�o�c.� s (%i e �/l% S'S 1 /
Phone Number of Owner 6�.�. %)� �� l(��"
m*����*�***��z���x��x��*�**�*�������x�****������*�a�*��x���x���*a���������x�*���*������������*�������*��m
�'Oit OF�ICE [TS� ONLY
Date of Submittal �-�u P�_ q.
Date of Acceptance Assigi°ied co:
Plan�ung Case No. -- 60-day Limit _ I20-day 1'uni[
Fees Paid: Account # Cheak #
Applicaiion: 1 lit� ° d 0w .11� ��(�' �
Park Dedic�tion: �
Deposits: _
Other:
Total:
N:IDATA1GItRiJi'SICOMDEVIFOF2IvfS1DEV�PP, F'pR
!' , _
Receipt #
l�g�
1/98
I
i
�
i
� � I - I ; i .
- f'_ .
_ . � ' iy�
� . ' _ � _ ' ''ty .=Y ;
, ,a.
., _ _
- ��?� . '� � , .
� � .
_ a . .
�
� �
�
-- �-, �
�� � L '�. �
�
�
�
� �
� a
o� �
�
1
�
. ...___ _ .__�
{ � .
�. 1 �, , .. .
.k'.
;
;
�,
■
:��e
a�
� �
.�
�..
a�
:�
. : _
< , ;
` - : . ;
,. _
.:; ,..., ... ,_ ,.; ,. .
.
Description of Proposal:
I am requesting a variance to be able fio build a garage on the par� of my lot facing Gloria circle
(please see aitached ske�tch of lot). The residence does curren�Iy have an attached single ear
garage. I am planing to turn iI�s atfiached garage inio a family roo�n. Therefore I need to build a
new garage. As explained fo me by the building inspector, Mounds View zoning requires thai
garages be either adjacent to the residence or behind the residence, away fram the stre�t.
However, as you can see on the sketch, my lot is a lake lot on Spring Lake and building a garage
between the house and the lake wauld be undesirable. In addition, thai pat`t of the lot is
inaccessible when considering the 7 feet setback rule and cansid�ring that the width of the lot is
90 feet while ihe h�.ouse takes up 65 feet, thus not ieaving enough space for a driveway to get to a
garage facing the lake.
Thus I am requestin� that I be allowed to build a garage (24 by 26 in dimension) in the area
indicated on the sketch. � ga,rage in the location would not impede with tra.ffic visibiliiy and that
pari ofxny lot i� certaiz�Iy Iarg� enough to accommadate a garage with lots of room to spare, As
you can see on fihe sketch, my iot is rather large (almost half an acre with the lot dimensiotis of 90
by 268) and a garage wauid �ot dominate that part of the Iot.
Thank you for considering my request for a variance.
� � �
r,- _:
; ,;: :
�i
>f
� -
i
� QI
Q �l
� �I
�
� !
� �
� �
� (
L_
�
�
�
f� c
I r
c
f r
1'
I
��
�� 7611
f� yaa�
� v,
� ' �
{� �a\T�v
y
� �
\ �
II ��
fi
i�
I
��
75E
Zoning IVlap Plannin� Case 551-99
Applicaai: Doraf.liiee Dietrich
Location: $705 Glox�a Circle
; -. .
�a
m 804D 9046 8
5030 �OhS
R�� 8036 a
aa2s
8020 8025 8p16 &
8Q00 8
�sao eoos
7990 7
� � �ss �
/� � 796fl 7;
o "� 795 7•
N N
� 7934 7c
N �p
� `� 7932
� � ��� � . , J�
.�
w
x
�
,., ,
I
� _:�' , 1; � - ,�; �, � : � � ��; �.
� � ... ;�; ; ,� � ; ;i . � � ti ,�
; -� : '� ; �` ; �`, -1 � _ "� :1:� '' ��-.
i ; ;�- . �: :. . � . : _.
1 ; ! , ;. �- ; �..
.� �. : " ��; :. �- ;� . �; ; .� �. r . ,,: _ . . . .� -+ • � .- �
� �! . t 1= : , �, ,
� �. .i = ' � `�, ;�`�. � ; ,� , ; : � : � � ��._ �, . ��, , ' �� ,
. �
I:.; ° ;. � ��' 1'�. i� . °• �•� .� . , � . !
`�" : " Iy .
', ' � ���� �
y 1
VVHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the variance request of
Dorothee I�ietrich, property owner of 7805 Gioria Circle; and,
WIIEREA�, this property is zoned R-1, Single FamiIy Residential, legally described as
follows:
L�t 9, Block ,1, L�kesirle Cocc�°t
City of �ounr�s Yiew, CounPy of �a�a�ey
�REAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated
with this reques�:
I- Planning Appiication
2. Zoning Map
3. Site Plans
4. Letter from Applicant
WI�REAS, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeais,
may grant variances to specific requirements within the Zoning Code under unique, exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances; and,
WHEREAS, exceptior�al or extraordinary circumstances do appty 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
ef�ective date hereof have had no controi, in that this proper�y is one of only six lake-front
praperties in the city and which property is subject to prohibitive development restrictions; and,
WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances rlo no8 result frorri the actions of the
applicant in that the presence of Spring Lake is an important aesthe�ic and enviroiuiaental feature
which needs to be protecied and preserved; and,
V�IHEREAS, granting the variance requested �ould �oP confer on the applieant a special
privile�e thai is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings ir� the same
district an tfiat the property itself is unique in its lake-iront status and associated prohibitive -
develapm�nt restrictions; and, - __=- %
.. :. ;. � .
� �
,
Planning Commission Resoiution 576-99
Dietrich Variance
April 7, 1999
Page 2
WHEREA5, the variance rec�uested rs the minimum variance which wouid alleviate the
hardship, i�. thaP the variance requested is not based upon a specific distance but rather the
physical location of the accessory structu�'e he�tween the house and street which is the minimum
variance required to alleviate the hardslup; an ,
WHEREAS, the variance woa�ld not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title
or to other properties in the same zone in tlx�t no sureounding properties will be impacted by thus
allowance as the homes are oriented to take full advantage of the lake; and,
�Ir�REAS, the variance �oul� not impair an adequate supply of iight and air to adjacent
property or substantiaily increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire
or endanger the pubiic safety or substantiaily dirninish or impair property values within the
neighborhood an Phat the canstruction of a garage would not impair the supply of light and air to
adjacent properties or possibly increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantiaily diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, B� IT �SOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission,
acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, app�'oves the variance requested by Ms. Dietrich
`' to allow for a garage to be located between the principai structure and street at 7805 Gloria
r
� Circle.
NOW, THEREF�RE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proposed garage shail
conforcn to all setback requirements as would be a�plied to a principal structure and conform to
the dimensionat requirements for accessory structures in a single-family residential district.
Adopted this 7th day of April, 1999.
Jerry Petersan, Planning Commission Chairman
ATTEST
Rick Jopke, Community Develapment Director
' <;
�EAL
�
N:�DATAIGROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\55 i-99\576-98A.RES
i
���������� �� �`�E ������ ���% �L����C`s �:�����s���
�:�� �� ������ ���
. B.itS1�1�7�5 ��Ul��y 1�'gALV1VY���1�
�, Calt ta Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson
2. Itoll C�li
Members Preseni: Chairperson Peterson, Comr
�egland,lViiller and Kaden.
Mennbers Absent: Commissioner Braathen �
.�
�1 o�Present; Community I3evelopment���rect
Ericson. ��.�,
� ���� �
3. Citi�ea�s' request� and ca�n���'�� �� ��+���
s �"���
There were ��a citizens rec}u�s�s c�r comine��s f
I�tdex to IVlang����
�;
Ptannin� �ase No S
IVrarch 17, i999
14�ounds V�ew Cn�y I�al�
2401 �i�h�vay 1091@/�ounds V�`e,�; IVii� 551�2
J
7:00 ��; Marc1�
Berke, Laube,
Associate JYm
i�Q 'on the agea�da
�..�'
;
�s that were not on the agenda.
�ional �Tse Permit Requesi, Linder's
xare Shopping Center, 2523 Highway 10.
:epo�s/Items of • ormation
I'ublic Hearin � � r:
;.
' ��'No. 550-99, 5302 Raymond Avenue, Variance
�lanrung �� ��
<�1�����,�� se �Io. 549-99, 2791 Highway 10, Varianee
�i�n�t�� Case No. 551-99, 7805 Gloria Circte, Variance
Pag�
2
2
_...
� � �. ,
i
1Vlo�ends V�ew Planning Corre�nission
Regtala�° Nleetrn�
�e
Plan�in� Cas� 1�Tae 54��99
2523 Highway 10
Consideration of Resolution No, Si3-99, a Resolution
Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Flower Mart.
Applicant: Linder's Greenhouses
The applicani was not present,
af a
IVl�rch 17,
1999
Pa��
2
Planr�ing Assoeia.te Ericson reviewed tilis case explainir�� ha� L�#�c�e�'s�h�s received a conditional
use pertnit for this use at this site for the Iast five yea� �: ��e reportet� 1�t�,� �,���e have been no
probiems associated with tius use during that t�m� �-I�; yue7�� on io sa� �T��t only two percent af
the parking is used while the City Code requ ��:�hat ��c�s�oey outdo r�ales and service uses
shall nat exceed 30 percent of gross floor � of th� ��r�i����� t� � added that Linders is
�:. � ��ysr�
about twa percent ofMounds View Sq� ,=e, takin :�p 1� st��l� ��.��ie parlcing lot. The ilo�wer
mart would operate from about Apri y�� o July He add ''<a���iat ihe water for the use is
obtained from the nearest hydrant ^,��-�� e fees:� = r the wat��and the appropriate deposits for the
needed eyuipment are paid to th��t�y accor ' gly. H��ded that there has been to impact on
the residentrai areas, He wet�t o� �o inform �f�e; �t��a�i��� n that Linder's has requested that
cor
the
not put ari ������t�� date
that if there ar� €3�}' G�1����;
before the �iiy.��� t e�'i;����
f. ,_ . ; �
same as in��v��������,�,�
perm�t���1d remain in �'�
Com�� sion that Minnes�
� b�; �p;proved a�z��i��`��ively from year to year versus going through
�;
�r�c�ss �ach time. '£�� explained that the resolution before them does
�rt t�e �pz��i�ional use permit, but added that one of the conditians state
s or r.���tx�t�fi�;related to this case, that it would be hrought back
H� adc�ed tkt�� the other conditions floted in the resolutian are the
�t�; �ae pa-o��eded to review them, He added that the conditional use
�;� li�g as the conditions are satisfactorily met. He informed the
�:`���iutes indicates that this resolution woutd be valid.
::�.;;;
ung Connmiss� made a cauple of revisions to the proposed resolution: Item 5, Page 2,
:d to "....hy: � lit wrench and adapter valve..."; Item �, Page 3, he changed by adding
ewed by� . Plannin Corr►missian and the City Council,.." (Is ing� ok�y?)
���f..���?�c�: Jmhaasoa�/�egland to approve Resolution No.573a99 as amended, Resolution
R�comrner�din� to the City Council Approvat of the Conditional Use Permit Request by Lznder's
Crreenhouses, Moundsvi�w Square; Planning Case No. 54�-99.
A.yes - S
Motion Carri�d.
1�1ays � 0
_ �
f
�o�ar��i� �Td��v Plaa��a�� Coanrnission
Reguiar i!/Ie�tin�
So
�taff' Iteports /Ite�ns o� Inforanation
Associate Ericson explained that Staff would be announc
would be heid, especially since meetings wouid now be c
would be set at a prior Planning Commission meeting, p�
informed the Commission that the foiiowing public hean°
a. Planning Case No. 550-99, 5302 Raymond �1�
b, Pianning Case No. 549-99, 2791 Highway 10
c. Planning Case No. SSl-99, 7�05 Gloria Circ��
6e >
C1�aia°p�rso� a��i P►�na�xn� C��rar�isseoner �����'�s ' '
. ''
��: ,
There were no Chairperson or Planningr >�reim�tvssic��+�r Y
�^
V� ��j>,
, �, •�
��;�� �
7. ��
.P�dj ou�°e��e�t �"�
:a:
:,;! , :':;m
TL.. ........�1-se�rY.RZY.i�e. �1f31(111iii�� ��i �� l�:J.. �.�±. .
up
�a�"C�! �i�
�999
P�ge
4
ic hearings
�:�, t�earings
r i�''�_:� _He
wouick � held o�� ����x r,, c��.�ay
>:.:
��. ��rz-is �etback `Variarice
����r��� �ign Varia�ice
;Ptr,c�}i �Y��-�t�e S�tback Variance
WPDOCS�IvIII�IUTES1I999103-17-99.WPD
� . � _... _ �
- - ,...
�'�iOM � THE BRIDGES G�LF COU�SE PHONE ND. : 612 `��2 0616
,;
j
'1
�. -'f
'i
9
; ::1: ; ' '" � �`: °`, , i' `
' : : : ! : >1`'< : ". '. : °1, ^
;;�. � .� �. ., �, �,
. .; .M
i: •_:
. .. : � �, .; �.�
Apr, 05 1999 10.�2AM P2
, �
�: -. - �, � �r � .� • ° � � , .. - • . _ °: "� � :: r. � �� � , z � �� � i�: ` s f �
, '
r.�i�• �� iF• ;::�� . �' :r �, f 4' r `�1
�r ' - i. �� a � ��, �, ��� �'�. r � �� -� = � Y �: . - . ` � . r ��' � i .' _�- ,t� � : ��, � �, , � - � _� � - e :� _ ;� � . , � �� :! �.
.
�� . � ��.,. : .:.,. r ': � .�� - ;�, 1• °��s '� �. � � � ._� ��I, ��.', • �,,.
i :tT i1 _ . � _'- . �► � _��' � i ` . � .. �� � - , .; : ,; . �, �� r , .. . . < `� � � !� . � . .� � �. :� "-
- � ., ��.-- '.' � -� � -' � "� �—
� �- :. ' aE � � !� �' 'i . �i ) � , �• � �: � � . �
�! - :y. � : ' � :t '' .. . . •' . ' . i : . • � 5 . ; . . - +., . k , '� - 1 , 7; ".
4 �;_, . � i 1 : - � � ' .�, _ �� �. ; ., 'R � 1 - 1_!, ,.. ., � , ;� ♦ �`- i
•� �:
, -.
>:; -J
i :+,;
i
i:
� � �'' � �
�'�a CrILtCIC �lltlri�
�pl�; �ohn Haxnixierschmidt
_ __; 5����'e Billboards
���; April 2, 1999
�ACKGRO
The Bridges Golf Course was built in 1994 wi�h funds raised from �he issuance of a r�venue bond
for $3,490,000. The bond repayment plus a�l other expenses have been paid �or with revenue
generated by operatir�g the golf course.
Each year the golf course has shown a profit from its operations. This Is defined. by the revenue
brought in from greens %es, prac�ice rang�, merchandis�, beverages, and rentals minizs a11
expenses, exctuding capiiai purchases and lawsuit reiated costs. The prafit has ranged fra�
�10;OOfl to $40,OQ0 �nd will be positive barring any unforseen circumstances. il�hiie aperation has
paid for quiie a few of th� course irnprovements and sor�e capital purchases; the 6u1k of th�
capital purchases and a very expensive lawsuit has used up the smali cash reserve and the bond
reserve.
°This year during ihe budget process we will research refinancin� the bond i�self an�d use an inter-
fund Ioan to keep an overall positive cash flow. This in g�self will not solve the problems of .
establishing a desirable cash reserve and establish a futad to pay impxovements that were found to
be necessary during the lawsuit.
An addiiiona.l financiai problem we face is generating enough of a revent�e increase to cover the
$35,000 b�yeariy increase u1 principal paymerzis. The goif course is already-at 145% ofwhat was
projected as the maximum n�.mber airounds and we charge at least �1.00 rnore. that� surrounding
Golf courses. Continued fee increases �will just pric� us out of the market.
The ciiy council and city admjnistrator have askeci that I brtng to thenl any ideas that would bring
in additional re�enue to the golf course. I arn currenily researching the feasibility of adding rune
holes, expanding the pra.ct�ce rang�, pu�tin� lights on the course, and adding food and bev�rage
facilities. Th�se will all generate si�nificant revenue but ihe �ash outlay is lar�e a.�d the �niti�l
reiurn ov�r expenses is not. .
. _ �, �
�IJe r�v�re gogng i�o r�place the sigr�s that w�re �nitially placed or� ihe go�f course to announce it's
og�nn�gy �1.l1 I1PiW SL�YESy to promote our practace r�ng� and golf �ourse. i7�le lookin� for
�ez�dor� to supply those signs as vvell a� a front eniry si�, severai v�ndors suggest we rese�,rch
'; -. -
the possibility of placin� their billboards on city property along 35W and �I�RlY. 1 I8 (soon to be
`� 610). These locations are primariiy non-residenti�l a.nd the billboards could be p►aced iii several of
the wooded areas so they could be screened oflE The pr�.ciical func�ion several signs cauld serve
would b� to stop balls from leaving the property in back of the 2nd greeri, ihe sauth side of the
7th hole, and tl�e south side of the �th hole. �1Je have had several citazens camplaints at�d several
cars hit in those areas.
��� I have id�ntified 9 possible sites that bi�tboards cauid bs lacated on and give vendors reasonable
access to. Obviously the city has the option of picking 0 sigr�s or any n�mber in between 1 and 9.
�e are se�king i�put from fhe Parks and Recreaiion Commissian, ihe Planning Comtnissiora, the
resideni� of IV,�ounds View before havit�g the city council discuss ihis further,
� ,� . . . � � :
�Thi.le the city wauld negatiate a percentage of gross revenue fram the s�gns to be paid, the
vendors have said they will gua.Lantee a rninimum af $1000.�0 per month per sign. `The actuai
amount could be mcach gr�aier than this. The ci�y cauid also limit the time the signs are allowed to
be in place. ( The bond issue fs paid of�in 20i4 )
Depending on the num6er of signs and where fihey a.re located the city could designate that the
revenues be used to pay down the galf course debt and also designaie a por�ion of th� revenue to
� .-
the general fuz�d for tax relief, Pa.rks and recreation for expanding trasl systems 1, or any other city
_�' �; expense.
I
� � � . � � ., � �
As a golf co�ars� superintendent I am dedicated ta be an enviroz�mentai steward, i would cather
have trees than signs as batriers and leave the nature areas untouched. I cringe at the thought of
looking at the green from a tee and see a large sign adv�rtising the circus coming fo town. At th�
same time if we have to deal wiih billboards we will use landscaping io make them as innocuous
as possible for ihe time they are here. �
As th� general mana�er who must rrfake every �ffort io make sure the operation pays for iisel� T
am faced with a�very limited a�nount of choices �or increasing revenues in the short term wFihout
any capiiai outiay. I am also ac�tely awa.re that we do not have the reserves that are necessary for
repairing conditions faund as pa.rt af the lawsuii investigatio�, nor da we'h�v� adequaie cesetves
for a bad seasora d�e to weather or disease.
P�ri of any goad b�siness plan is to �sk vvhat reso�rces will you use if the worst occurs. At this
point �n time the�r are no other pians that a.11ows �s to build up the cos�tingency fi.�nds necessa.ry
for �he previously expressed concerns. I�would have io recommend that we pu��ne a cont�act with
the billboard vendors tio reduce ihe cities potential liability a.nd facilitat� �ae rtec�ss�ry repairs �ic
th� �olf co�arse. This contract should b� for a�innited term so the clt�y can revYSii their decisxon a�nd
regnove the billboards at some poin.t in ti�n�.
- - ` ;;
, ;. -
- ;, -
F�'OM : iHE �RI�GES GOL� COURS� PHONE N0. : 612 i92 0816 Apt^. @5 1999 @9:3�AM P2
., � T
=�..
•; :', :< `; .
�
_ . �, , , „ - ---
x.� . �. .... ... .. _ � . . . � _ _a. ,
, � �
�oo c��C� vm��g
F�°oat; Rick Jopke
�ub���t: �illboa�ds and Goli Course Szg�rs
ry���a March 16, 1999
I� light o�the disct�sio� at i�.st nights City Couricii wark sessi��,1 oifer the �'vllowing
concerning �tie City �ode reqrauement� regardzn� bzllboards: '.
1. S�ct�ora 1008.��, Subd. 5. °This seciion requires that any r�ew sigizs along �freeways
{w�.ch i would. iater�ret �o iaaalude 35�1 �xad 11 �) rrsust advertise busib�esses conducted
o� the prem�ses on which the signs �re located. This �rould prohib�t bxllboards.
�xisting �illboard� can contitx�� and be replacec3 but no new biiiboazds can be �rected.
2. S�ctio� 100�.Q�9 Subd 10 that �y nevv billboa�°d �zusi be Iocated at 1�asi 300 feet �.way
frorr� �y exis�dxzg billboard. I woul.d °uitezpret t�as to appiy to biliboards �vhich are not
located along freeeways.
3. The goli cowrse property is zoned C�tP. There are technically no provisxor�s ix� the sig3n
code (Section 1008) discussing sggnage re�ula�i�ons in CRP zo�ing d�stricts which
cotz�d be uxterpreted to xneaa that there should be na s��ns allowed on t�ae golf course.
°�s does taot seem reaso�able , howev�r. Tbe Ci�l' �onix�g dis�rict regulations
(Sectio� 1117) indic�t� that a d�veloper c�,submit a•plan for Ciiy appr�eal: The plan
must b� revievved by ihe Planning amd Park a�ad Ftecreatzon Coanznissions aud appro�ed
by �h� City Council. I wouYd conclud� tbat signa�e cvuld be �ppro�ed thrQU�h this
prac�ss.
4. Th� amourzt of si�n�..g� allowed ai �� g�lf course is alnather issue. As i�idicated alsove
thex� ar� no specific st�ndaxds gn 4he si� code. Tf �0�1 u5� Y�e StBIdCI�TC�S �Qi �LLS1n�S50S
there ar� c�nfli�iirig pi°ovisions. Secfiion 100�.01, �ub�. 6 says you cauld ha�ve 100
sqi�re feei plus o�� gedes#al �agz� not exce�� 34�� squ�re f�et for �acix streei
fronts�e plias ��dditio�ta128 sq�are forsi pedestal��on each sireet fror�tag� e�ceedxng
100 fe�t. I°iot�v�e�r, �e�tio� 10Q�.0�, St�bd. 2k says you ca.� anly have o�e ped�stal
sf gYa per grop��ty. LTsix� ihc �aost liber�t �nt��x�ta�xa�, €.�e golf c�urse cs��xld
conceivably h�.ve � 340 sqr.�a� foot sign and a�� fooi squae� f�c�t si�x �ic�ng 35�19
11 �, �d �lon� Cer�i 5� �t�eet for �. iotal of 6 sggns. A��i� �r►�+ �i g� �nr�uld ha�r� �o
go t�ough �h� pracess oa��Iiried �a number 2�ba�ve. . �
:
FF:pM � THE �RtD�ES GOL� COURS� PHONE NC�. � 612 73� 0816 Apr. 05 i99� 09o35AM P3
�
;,;� �huck Whiting
P�.g� 2
March 16, 1999
-�
:,
i
5. Therc are also conflictang provasions relaf�� to sign setba�ks. Section 100$.Q8, Subd
1�1 says t��at �ro�d si�ns shall bc s�tback 15 feet &om a.�y streefi l�ne whi1� S�otgo�
100�.0�, Subd 1 i5 says sucl� sig� rnay go ri�ht u� to �� skre�t line bui nat �ver it.
c:10F�ICL�W P W INIWPDCI�SIG9LFSIC�N.�
- l
- :;..;
s �
�` � `� �
, �
T ,"
�'oo Maunds View Planning Commission,
�'ro�a: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
Sub,�ect: Camprehensive P1anTransportation Element: High�vay 10
Date: March 31, 1999
At the Aprii 14, 1999 planning commission comprehensive plan special meet�ng I would like to
continue the discussion o�the transpartation element. Specifically T would lilce to focus on
Highway 10. Tn preparation for the meeting piease thinic about what Highway 10 should look Iike
in ihe year 2020. I have attached a copy of the draft Highway 10 Design Theme fmai report for
your information. We will need to determine ho•w xnuch we want to include in the
Comprehensive pian.
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMMI4-14-99,MBM
i
.i
/
;
�
:i
1.
2.
3.
4.
i
. :� �., ', ;i, ', ° z!: . r,_ ......., : �@.,? ,_ ,�' '..':
��= �.1- _ � �I ��1 �;�
w :{'+ S)' 's. : ,
1
�`V V J--/L 91t 1V ■�•L��V
AGENDA
Call to Order
Roll Call
Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
Approve Nlinutes:
a. IVlarch 17, 1999
; ,�. � ' �
, �. ;�, �; , �. . :: : ' I '1°
� � � �, � �', � ■ �' ,i i: � �'
5, p���ning C�§e Noa 552�99 Public �eae°in� i:00 p.ana
Property Involved: 2091 Terrace Drive
Consideration of Planning Coinmission Resolution 578-99, a Resolution
k�econ�mending Approvai of a Conditional Use Permit for an 1,040 square-foot
Over-Sized Garage .
Applicant: Gerald Nliller, Properiy Owner
6. Pla��i'�g Case l�o. 551_99 P�eblic �3earing 7:05 �S.m.
Property Involved: 2�14 Bronson Drive.
Consideration of Planning Cornmission Resolution 577-99, a Resolution
Recommending Denial of a Conditional Use Permit Requesi fox a Residential Dog
Kennel.
Applicant: Andrea MacRannoids, Property Owner
7. p1�n�drag Case IVo. 550-99
P�operty Involved: 5302 Raymond Avenue.
Consicteration of a Planning Commission Resolution 574-99, a Resalution
Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Five-Foat Building Setback for Living
$pace Expansion.
Applicant: Don Norris, Property Owner
�, StaffReports / Items oflnformation
0
10
a Review of Council ,P�ctiof�s
b. Update regarding Kindercare Varianca
c. Ramsey County Tax Forfeit Auction
Chairperson and Pianning Commissioners Reports
Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
(Iminediately Following Regular Nieeting)
�:�����**�:��:*������*������:������*��*���*�
APPLICANTS; YOUR �TTENDANCE AT THIS Iv�ETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMC7NITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. "1'I-�NK YDU.
�*w����x�*��u:��:���:�*�u�:��*������x�:x����:�:x�
:: ° _
� �i
-- `-==->.
,.y
1
z
AGENDA SESSION
AGE�A
Review lVlinutes -- April 7, 1999
Disaussion regarding Comprehensiv� Plan T'ransportation Component
N: �DATA\GROUP S\CONIDE V�PLANCOMM�P CAGENDA\ 1999\4 -21-99.REG
�
:;
,__ .--- _ <; _ _ _ -
- � �-,�-�G^a.a� �z`�'J
� ,, ; �; :�` � .;, � �` �' ;�'
Mee�in� Datea
Staf�° l�epor°t by:
Plana�i�►� Case I�daa
Req�x�st:
Pe�itio�aero
Loc�tdon:
P�I Iv�s.
Zo►�dn�/L��►d �Tse:
Appi�cabie ltegula�ions:
�
.
_ __ o
-
--
_
Aprii 21, 1999
James Ericson, Plan�ing Associate
547-99
Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Dog I�ennel
Andrea. MacRannalds
2841 Bronson Drive
073023240002
R-1, Single-Family IZesid�ntial / 5ing►e Famiiy Home
I�Iunicipal Code Section 701.03, Subdivisions l, 3, and I5, regarding the licensing of dogs
and operation of kennels.
Municipal Code �ection 1106.04, Subdivision 3, which requires�a conditionai use permit
for residential dog kennels in an R-1, Single Family Residential district.
Municipai Code Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3b, which identifies the criteria to be used
£or granting a conditional use permit.
Attach�aents: � •
2,
3,
4.
6.
7.
8.
Pianning Appiication
Zoning Map
500 Foot Map
License Application Form
Petition
Letter to the Agplicant, dated 2/R/99
Letter to the Applicant, dated 3/4/99
Resolution No. 577-99
�ackground:
The applicant, Andrea MacRannolds of 2841 Bronson Drive, is applying for a conditional use
permit for a residential dog lcennel, a Code requirement far property owners with three or four
dogs. One of the licensing ret�uiremenis is that the property owner shall obtain signatures of
approval from more than 50 percent of the residents within 500 feet of the proper�y proposing the
kennel. The applicant was sent a map showing thase properties witlun 500 feet alon� with a
correspor►ding list of property owners/taxpayers.
This iiem had been scheduled for a public hearing �with the Planning Commission and City Council
earlier ihis year bui was puiled from the agenc�as when it was learned that {1) the a,pplicant was
aut of state and (2) she had not satisfied i�he minimum requirement for signatures needed for the
petition related to thi� rec�uest. Staff sent 4he applicant a. letter (attached) indicaiing its intent ta
exercise its right for an additional 60 days with which to raake a decision regarding this case.
;..
Macfdannolds CUP
Apri I 21, 1999
Page 2
As of the date ihis repari was drafted (April 15, 1999) the applicant had not yet submitted the
required signatures for this application, although she had ieft a voice mail message indicating that
she was working on getting the rest of the signatures. Because of the 120 day deadiine-_May g,
1999--the Planning Commission needs to act on this request at its April 17th meeting so that the
City Council can take final action on Apri126, 1999, the last.regular meeting before the deadline.
Anai�sis:
Lice�sin Re uirements: There are two critical requirements for a resideniial dog kennel license
to be approved, T1ne first is that the applicant shall obtain signatures of approval from at least fifty
percent of the property owners within 500 feet of ihe subject property. Tn this case, there are 57
properties that either gall within or are partially within a 500-fooi radius a�2841 Bronson Drive,
which means that at a tninimum, 29 of the property awners would need to sign a petition in favor
of ihe kennel applicaiion. The applicani has thus far collected signatures approving of the kennel
request from six (6) property owners.
The other requirement is that the City Council would need to approve a conditional use permit for
tlais request. As with any conditional use permit, there are siandards and requireme�ts that need
to be addressed that concern the possible impacts of this use io the immediate area and
community as a whole. The individuai requirements vaill be addressed in the ne� sectio� of this ��
report. ...
Public Scr e.� Revrew: Staff has inquired with the Police Department regarding any calls or
cotnplaints associated with dogs at Ms. MacRannold's hotne. Since 1992, there have been four
incidents involving dogs:
� On November 30, 1992, a male Rottweiler was removed from the property after it had
reportedly attacked someone.
� Qn Octobar 10, 1994, the applicant was issued Administrative Offenses for having two
dogs {Rottweilers} withaut a license, both of which had been running loase through the
neighborhood.
° On March 19, 1998, a dog was removed from the subject property for not having a dog
lieense.
o On December 1, 1998, the applicant was issued a Citation for having more than two dogs
ai her property.
Adverse E ects: As r�vith all variance and conditionat use permit requests, the Pianning
Commission is charged with examining the possible adverse effects of the proposal. The City
Cod�, in �ection 1125.01, Subdivision 1, identifies five factors to be addressed. They are as
follows, wi�h respons�s in italics:
_ _ _ ____
• ; ,
MacRannolds CUI'
April 21, 1999
Page 3
2
�
�
S.
�
i
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.
Sirace the Corrzpf•ehensive Plan does not add�ess o� even Yefer to dog ownet•ship, it can be
asserted ihat--in ter�rr�s of the comp plan--there is not adverse effect.
The geographical area involved.
The area surrounding Phe subject property is zoned for and supports residential uses.
Dog ownership is a common feature in reszdential districts and as such, it tivould appear
that this request would �tot be inconsrstent with ihis geographzcal area.
Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciatie the area in which it is proposed.
It is nvt incofzceivable to assume that ppoperty values may be affected by this request, in
that with dog ow�rership comes added r•esponsibilities crnd maintenance, not to mention
the possibilrty of barking dogs and dogs running loase in the neighbo�•hood. To add to
this� �ossibilrty is the fact that the�e have been problems assocrated with dogs at this
address.
The character of the surrounding area.
Most of the homes in this area of the City are located on Zar�ger, deep lots with plenty of
yard space foY accessory buildings, homes, children, and pets. The char�acte�• of the
surrvzrrr�ing a�ea would not be affected by this r�equest.
The demonstrated need �or such a use.
This factor does not necessarily appZy in this case as dog ownership cannot be construed
as a respot�se to satisfy some unmet need. While clinical studies have shown there to be
�acrny positive health effects jor� those people who own pets, in terms of a"community
need ", it is not applicable.
Public Safety
As has beera pointea' out in the peport already, Phe possible adverse effect which r�ay
cause the �zost impact to the neighborhood and suprounding cornmunity is the threcat to
�ublic safety. TheYe have been four incidents logged with the Police Depa�tme�at since
1992, one involving an attack by a Rottweiler.
CLTY" Criieria' The following are the criteria that are listed in Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3 of
the 1Vl�xnicipal Code, pertaining to Conditional Use Permits, with responses addressing each in
italics:
i. .
f1�aCRannolds CUP
April 21, 1999
Page 4
The use will not create an excessive burden on eXisting parks, schaols, streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
Do� owr�ership, in and of itself, should not inzpose any burden to public facilities
2. The use wili be suiiicientiy compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of'vacant land.
The subject property's yard is fenced i��, providing an adeq�ate separation from adjoining
properties,
The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
There are no plans to cor�struct any type of st�•ucture in conjunct`ion with this application,
Ms. MacRannolds has indicated Po staff that the dogs she has are "indoor " dogs.
4. The use is reasonabiy related to the overall needs of the City and to ihe existing land use.
Dog ownershrp is a common feature in residential developrraents, yet in ie�ms of
satrsfying a need of the City, this criteria does not readily apply.
5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoz�ing
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The zvning code allows for dog ownership by right so long cas the�e are two or fewer dogs
on the premises. Owning th�ee of• four dogs is allowed as a conditional use.
6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Dog ownership is not addressed in the comprehensive plan, yet can be considered to be
not inconsistent with the plan.
7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
Thrs cYiteria may apply in th� �vent that the dogs got free and Yan loose and caused a
traffic mishap.
8. Adequate utiiities, access a°o�.ds, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
This ct•iteria probably does noP apply in this case cas dog ownership typically does not
create Phe need foY additzonal facilities.
, . ;
;..
fViacRannolds CUP
Apri{ 21, 1999
Page 5
Iaeeomer�enc�aiaon:
Iti consideration of the lack of necessary 5ignatures and the incidents involving dogs at this
address, staffis recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 57i-99, a
resolution recommending denial of a conditional use permit for a dog kennel for Andrea
MacRannolds, locaied at 22�41 Bronson Drive.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATA\GR(?UPS\CUIvIDEVSDEVCAS ES\547-991KENNEL. PC 1
R� ��
Y
rSl ";:." �;a
tt3 s�� � r�
.J;:,� ., :,;v
.�
� ,.
pe ':f�!''��
,�P � i::: f+
A ti
��'St � f alCRE1Sh�Q
Applisane I�foe°�na�io�
Name of Applicatit
Address
CO DE�LOP NT DEP� �T _..
����,o� raT ����r���zor ; ;; .,
2401 Highway 10, Mounds t/iew MN SS I 12
�lea�e 'I'ype or ��i�t Info�mation � Co�plete Bot� uid�s oi Tfiis Foe°�
�rest � �r�per4y (check appropriate box)
Owner ofProperty
� Lessee, Operator, Manager
❑ Other (explain)
Cl
■
5i2-i17-aa2o
b12�784-3452 - FAX
rphoae �0����/ 7- �
Contract for Deed Owner
Agreement to Purchase
[��apGcaret� �s�est provide e�icleoce of iaterest in property �i ti�� t�e of application, and if yoe� as°e not t�e o�e� af the
properu�, yo�a ffiaast peovid� m tetter ot pet°eaissio� fro� fihe ow�er giviatg co�sernf io the f�ling of t�is applicatioa. Tlxs
property own�r �ust si�n thi� applica�so� for if to be acceptsd.
Propec� IDescriptianl�roposal
Address or Gen�ral Location
Legal Description
Property Id�Eification # (I'IIV #)
#� of Acres
Current Zoning
Type of Application
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
a Rezoning
❑ Major Subdivision
� Minor Subdivision
❑ PIanned Unit Development (PUD)
o PUD Amendment
Conditional Use Pemtit
d Variance
a Code Appeaf
� Develop Review/Site Plan
a Wetiand Alteration Pem�it
� WeEtand Buffer Permic
o Floodpi�in Permit
� Otlier
�
�250
$2S0%cre; inin $250 max � I 500
$254 + $Z50 deposit�
�200
Refer to rezoning fees
�350
R-i, R-2 �75; all othars $250
R- I, R-2 � 1 QO all others �250
�t00
$125/acre; mir� $ I2S max $750
R- E, R-2 $ i 50; aIl others �200
R-1. R-2 $25; all others $100
$200
\ ``;
( �
*Deposits shal] be paid to cover �ii costs o;Fpublic notices, materials and st�ffar consultant time spent in th� review,
research or preparacion of materiais associated vvith this appiication. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable
incurred costs in excess of [he initia[ deposit amount. An,v portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shatl be re1'unded
to the appEic�nt wiihiaa thirty (3U) days afCer cQnsideration of the application is completed,
�lea�� com�slere etee reve�s� �ide oig#�is applic:�t�o�o
� � ' �
,.
Cify ot' Mounds View, ll�I�
lieveloprs�ent ,A�plication __ , �� e �
Present Use of Prope�rty
4 Undeveloped/Vacant Singte Family Dwelling
❑ 17uple:c/°I'wo k'amily Dwelling ❑ Muiti-faenily Dweilin�
❑ Business/Commercial BstabEishment n Industrial Estabiishm�r►t
a Other (exglain)
Property Classification
Descrip[ion of Propossi
Q Abstract Q Torre�s
��S / /�-�GJ/�� � �
�. /,
BY MY (OUR} SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO '1� BEST OF M"Y
ICNOWLEDGE, THE 1�NF�RMATION PRUVIDED IS TRC1� ,�I�TD ACCURAiE �
Signature of Appticant
Name of Applicant (typed/pcinted)
Signature of Praperty Owner
Name of Property Owner {typed/printed)
Address of Ownc�°.
�_�
�
Phone Number af Owner
�� � ° � � �
*��x�#**�:�����m����a*��*����*�x*�x�������*�u**�*�x��*�����:���������:u��:��������*#������:��x������m�������
�'OI3 OF�'ICE US� ONLY
Date of Submittal �� � "' � '-
Date of Acceptance 1°° �— � � Assigned to: ��
Piannirig Case No. _ �; 4°1—°i� 60-day Liznit 3��i-�t�s 120-day limit 5�� �� �`�
Fees Paid: � Account #
Application: _�_ � `�'"� 3�� �
P�rk Dedication:
D�posits:
Other:
Tocal:
N:�DATAIGRQUPSICDI�iDEV��Oi21vfS�DE V �PP. FOR
Check..# Receipt #
Ll 4 � � �i �
1/98
...� _...'.: t : :•.v1_ _t'.v.'t ••
. . .. � 1 u r . ....
- _ __ --- 778
.-- - - 776 7i69
_=- - _ 7775 7758 7759 7770
-- � i
�
48 7
749
-- 7 6
776
7 7
- - - 8
-- - � - � �
-- 77fi5
_ - - � . 773 7739 7729 �
__ --- - � - Q
-- - -" � 7755 p O
_ - 772� 7729 7�2 7723 R�� �
-- - - �
- -=0" = _ � 773
-- �` 77i 771 772
- - O
7
719 7715
'`�.,' - � --
,;`•;�,';�,,';''
��.. �,>; ;,;�����;�.� o
:;��::...,,.,,, - '.:.�;,,,.. �''�`',' o, � ���
....: ..,,_.�_,,,, ___::�;';'•:�'':-:�-,� ::_r.�,:�,�::=:':;�_�. , ,, N � � �
_ __ 710 7709 7710 77aT N 77a
. --- � . ';���:. - - �
- l�
- -- - __ � 7fie5 7692
-_ �- � 7686 7685 N 769 =� 7690
. . ..... .... ...
1 � 7675 N 7680 p 7669 7670 7663 � 768 Y
I � � � a p 7670 7665 7fifi� �
I! � M Q� 7fi6 � 7fi55 7fi66 7647 7644 7653
�•
�• 763 7633 76fi4 7629 �fi34. 7635
�� 762 7629 7620 7625 7620;
� ��� 7627 76pp 76i9 76fl0 760]
� 7611
> �so .
�� 7581 7581 758 7585 7594 7575
� 758 7579
I� 7555 7564 7565 O 5.- 758 � 65
I' 7545 754fi 7555 7�5 7655 7572 g 7555 �7 �2 .�
�� 7545 755 � 7545 7560 p 7550 .�
�
�� 7525 7538 � 75 � 7515 � 5`�5 7540. ,
! a, w� T cn � o� rn
�. `"� ° M �. � 750 � N%5 N N N � 52 7532 .
753D
BRONSON 7g22
I � � � � `� �9 7474 7489 � � 7490 7485 � 501
784
� ° � r°> ° a; N 49 a°o m° 750
3 7465 74 747i 747 `y � �
��I 7457 '7462 ONSON .' 74
�> 454 � d- c�
�� 7447 74.4B 7445 � i452 0`�o a°o 7444
[V N
� 74i 5 . 7442 744
�. 7425 7430 7435 7434 > �
i � � � 7409 7440 �
7415 74Q 74D5 7492 7408 739i
7405
i �f 7381 7395 � --.. 74vu i oa
i7385 7380 � 7382
� �'� 7390 738
7375 7350 � 7365 73SD 737b 737i
I�. 7365
i ::
• /�f �
N�
/ (
� ':
��
SILVEF
PAI
�
�
�2 ^ t
v��W
n r �
N N� (
z 7350 737 ° r� r
�� 7�2 �4 7347 34 7373 2 7370 7�5 M e
�� i32 327 � ,� 7344 736 � r
�a v� r�a u� r� w 33 r� in � rn 325 c0°�t c°pv � 7338 �y6�' 4�
���- ,•� c,j o o r� cv o 0 7317 � .- '� �n �n uz
o a a o a o rn rn rn � a� m m �� °p 7310 ^� "' �"s
� r� r7 e� r� r� r� cv nj N cv c�s 315 nt cv r�
' � ���
Zoiling Map Pla�u�g Cas� 547-99
Appli�ant: .Arzdrea Mac�t�nolds
I,o�agion: 2�41 $ron.son Ijriv�
_ _
_ --
�,� � �:e ap c�§� � � .� �' ' . ` i
— � � � � �� �� T � � %� ~ � } ui ss a'` �•
( �� O � � . . , �7 °�� o eI
W • , r . � ' �} �_
. � t
'n• (roD) � iar " • : ' {'�;�).lo ' � I '
� � � r63� N _ . °.P . ' , . � 1
i0 '°'l� . � � / 1
a — — — �— -P (6tj '� � � _(�q� � . ' �,: (B} , m , -
� � C��) "� � . . . ' ' �
�
�
9
�
I�
. v.m. — �:
. . . . . .. O : ,i°e3oC.: w�%z E �a
:c� «�. �
• t. Ae
�) �� — 4y �..�� �{�3j' e `., a . �a GQs � (9) Bc0 � i
33 (s�1= ° . .
.e � . ,a __ . .. �e _.. ,�
� :. ��') ' w (2�}. �ar. r
. .. �.���� � w. � r.. aRM� �s�,Y
� .��} . �i�}..� - ; , .. � '��ari;L. ��f�
�
��. °� — ���'.�,. - � �� r , . m� ,6�. � � ` � ce�> � �,
�)�. , . � .2. 1
' � w •Ck>> :. ��} .� : e� (,3> ' s. s.
� . Y . :„ : , �
�. o.(G6) a
� �4�:- . : �;___o,�_ o - o o l�
Cr'�'� ai . . . . .' . . :, pnue�v�it.�bm1�, °. • � � r
� � � �� � � :. � � :. '. {��� � . � , �:� l�S). � � � � .
. � . C4� . ' � � W�fs� Da��: �.. Ga
� u:
. �; ', � . _ . . '" ' 0�3 � o C ) � o
�i
I w� m ; � �. r : 'a8,c�'0-4�7-�- C6�)zog. � . °`
C4�) I, :; � Gg) tt�)' � ro43 te¢3 ��o4s taa.3 �
�-7� + �9 � . m (��) ` C�). z��ai . � .� ° �� � - ��
� � �� � � m� � �.�� °����� . . �
1 3. . '.� . . � �.,.� �� __
— _ �. o. . . • �q � -
fi �i� �' �oo , � ,'�3 , [2 � � lo �
- I a y 19. ^� � , r„ . an
m
�� �6� (58) 102. �59) o '� '> l��� .�0)0 — � ; ,�i
-- - a.o, ;°� o ��*;
� " W I 1� Y�42 � .. . � ° • (45 . C3� (a) ' . l')
101 � m or i0l4 °�. m�6. r 3 lo .
a I.ZSae., _
� . (s� ` � �C2�) C�� � ��ON�� :' : D F��V��
9 �6L� �� 051 C�9-� :1�3.6 +��o �, �s�`• ,
osa o� , .`�o� ` go- � ,� a
__—_�— ,�� .1 °t � 5 , _ (5�) t.o4° . • (49) loi� i4,e)�o
' e.��ae.. � r �y�5) � .42ac. .`ti.c,b� an i5� �,Z.y�� ;
m � r1 � 2BS P- �- 1�8 "
� � � �� ' N lu� ��8Lj. • o
' � � . � . � �, 1� . .LaJ/ (�) .
gg � _ N r= ' I.zl i20 . 11� 118�
' : � 7� � �s �r �oo
�o� r--- � ° 1q. I�A �
' �° (.�) I
9 � . °� (�'f) ro . _. �° C�) I
98 " _. � ! 07 . — '� .
�,=°°��m0 h
� ` .� {?.�b � � � la.o l�.c9
(1`. r ��) �74- � e � 3i�.� ., �o •.�
, 37s:� . ,_ _ � ��i �I
— — — — � � � � O l `�,! l � .� � (4�'% �
. . .
9� �m � ' • � ,10� .. ►: , � �---_j_._�� —
„ _.
1 I�ach = 200 Feet
'i �/., Tt�r.hPC = 5(10 FEet
500-Fooi Rad�us l�ap
Appli�ant:
L,ocaiior�:
�, , , � � " i: �
. ,
: t,� -, � �. . • �:�.
:• �� 'r, i i �'
;..
'°29.� �
��. .
• � • .
� �
o . �\ .
�.. �
� : '�
.�7 ���� ,�oa
�
m
e . \�
r... 98 5 � �
•.: i � �e,s9 �
�(�)
� (a� e
� �t�1. v
7 g m.
. �. � PFY Cr K• '
a ad. s6
�at�57� 0
� . ' a�
ei.9
C � - t5�)
L�. . n 10z.a8 �
� ����
0
C17Y 0�
�,
P ���0°0r
s
gress o PartnerS�`Q
February 8, 1999
Andrea �IcRannolds
2841 �ronson Drive
IVlounds �i'iew, MN 5511�
RE: Plannin� Case IrTo. 547-99
Resider��ial I�o� �ennei Ca�aditional LTse 1'ermit
Dear Ivls. McRanz�otds:
Phone: �612) 717-4Q -
��x: (6� 2) 784-3462
I spoke vvith your son last week regarding your appl�cation for a conditional us� pernut for a
r�s�dentia[ dog ker�nel. There appears to b� some confusion as io wi�at n�e�s to be done, which is
why I a.m sending this leiter to you.
First, you wiil need to �abtain signatures of support froen at Ieast 50 percent of the residents living
within 500 feet of your property. According to the map that was provided to yau--a copy of
whi�h I am enctosing--there are 50 such properties (an earlier letter indicatzng S� properties was
in error) which means you will need at least 26 signatures on the farm yau were provided. Please
forward io me a copy of this peiition as soon as i� is completed.
.A.fter havin� received this petition of support, ihe City wil! schedule a meetin� with the Planning
Commission and then a public hearing wiih the City Council. You cannot have the c%g kennel
license tivithoui ihe City Council's appraval of the Condittoncal Use Permit.
Because of this delay in processing your request, the City is informing you of its intent to exercise
its right to an additiona( 60 days by which it can make a decisior�. Although you can expect a
decision as soon as possibie, the deadlic�e for Coun�il aciion wiil be Niay 8, 1999.
Please ca�l me wi�h any questions yo�a tnay�%ave. T cat� be reached at 612-71'7-402z,
Sir�cex�ly,
r�� � --a�
7ames E�i�son
Piannir�� Associate �
ra�p�EO w�►x
�vt�� r�
24Qi Highway � 0� Mounds Vie+ni, MN 56112a1499
�au�! Opoorrunitv �mr�Iov�r
_
, ...
� , �`�
��►
t��±.:
,
��
,
��
�� f�Da�
�
�
p ��o�
POg� ��QS
• ' ' • :� ` '� 1'� .ti.
� ` '. �
• ! l. 1
ft ° "��"`� LICENS� APPLTCA'I°IOl� FORM
l
Date of Applicatic�n � � � � � 9 � �
u ° s I�Tame �� � �%vY�-�'�-�'�-- Phone � �� -�' — / ? `� �
n .
Address
pwners/C�rporate O£ficerslAsso�iates/Partners (�e and titlee}
Have you ever had a license re�oked? �L� If yes, atia�h explar�ation.
References: Cities where previously or curren�iy li�ense for sarne activity {name of Cziy and
y��r(s) i����ea� ... . . ... .
Applicat�ons for the following licenses musi coffiplete the applicable section on the reverse side
o� this form:
Bowiing Ali�ys
Au�omobile Sales
Cigarette and Tobacco
Da�ace Halls
Ga.soline Stations
Ke�n�Is
Restaur�nts
', I hereby certify that information provided on tl�is applicaiian is #ue and hereby correct and
j utiderstand any misrepresentation made hezein ffiay be ground for denial of this appiic�tion.
�� ' �� z��mpl l5 ��'-��� �.��r�! �^� � ���- �� �'�-°�� �c� �
A I ts F'
pp ic� s
Daie af B�h
Appli�ant's Signati:
(Piease p�int)
�
������
i;
ci`1'Y OF MOUIetDS ��el
L,ICEN�E A�'pLICATTUN F0121V1
PACE T�O �
�owlzrtg All�ys O�ly:
IVumber of Laties
,
Dance Halls �nly:
�Iow Is�ng �nn ope�tion at given address
Gasoline Sta�ioris p�iy:
I�dumber af putnps
Nutnb�r �d ca�acYty of gasolin� starage �ar�cs
Cigarette a�d Tobacco Product:
Over the Caunter Sales
-�� �• � r .�: � •�. �
��SiSLIT'dII$S �I'2��:
oC�U�1iiC� LOad °
.. . Number of Hours open per day -- -� - .
I�e�els Only: - - � `�� �%j`-�.�� �
�
Check ane: Com�a�rcial 4 �,���, ��
v-� _ - f
Residen�ial '
Number of Dogs 7`� �hfL ,f� �-�y�c � �,��
N,���r ofc�� %
OF�IC� i1SE ON'Li' -�"�
Receipt Nuanber Date
F�e
New
Renewal
Council Approval
Poiic� Chzef Approval �
D�ni�d
'S
;7
_.
_ (
, � �� y,/���
r �
��� � . �
�� � �
� � ������ �
� `�� / , � � �� �' � `�
° � � �/ ,(.�.��-i�
�� �-�
.� �
� � �:�,�.� �h Lc�. c��.�
. NL.� �,4�' l
i} �
� `
`� � � �. ���.�. � ��.�.. �„�_.
�. � � >
,\
� � ���� �c1��� � ��,��
� � �..
���� � �� � ���
� ��- LE �� � " ��Q�
� ���
�� ���n
. �,�� �.� �i � 5� 3
� �
� ' � ' �J l�
: � ' � � �-`�7�' '�
��
��� s�,3.� t,��' 3.�-�� t)
`��\\�� ��
� ���-�
l-���l��- ��
¢�;,�,,��, `��,
�����
� ,� �v ��
� � � � ��
��y�
: � � 8�
� 7 �3
�7��
� � �.�
��.
CITY OF
�DS
�
� � ��
aAr
�S
gP�s�' • Partneqsh Q
Nlarch 4, 1999
Andrea McRa.rmolds
2841 Bronso� Drive
1Vlounds `View, �' S5112
RE: �LTP far Resideniial Dog �ennel and I,acens�
D�a�r Ms. NIcR.annolds:
�hone: (612) i1 i'-40C
Fax: (6i2j 78�-3462
I ha.ve received your letter dated February 28, in wiuch you raise som� quesiions re�arding your
applicatian for a residential do� kennel conditzonal use p�rirut. I will respond �o each oiyour
questians and th�n present you with two options as to how we can proceed wi#h your request.
The cot�ditional use p�rmit process is a requirernent of the dog ker�nel license. I was assured that
you were sent all oithe focros for this application and made aware of the requir�ments. For your
reference, I am enciosing a page from aur City Code regaxding kennels licenses, Wk]1C�1 111diC�ti85
ihat appiicants need to apply for a conditianal use pernut and obtair� sign�tures from more t�an
fifiy percent of all registered land-owners wit4un 500 feet of the subject property. Thus, even
though there is no "ho�tse" at the City pump staiion property, as a property within 500 feet of
yours, it was counted.
As you can see from the m�.p I crea.ted showing the 504-foot rad�us, there are 57 prop�rties withi�
or partially within the circle, Tlus means that you will need to gain a minimum of 29 signatures,
(On an earlier an�p, the nurr�ber of parcels were fewer as it did not take into account the new
tovtmhom�s or� Silver Lake Road.} T'he list of signatures you provided to us, a copy of wi�ich I
am retuming to you, indica#es only six signatures.
Your presence at public meetitngs far your comditional use pem�t is not mandatory, tho�agh i� is
certainly recam�ner�ded, especially if the Planr�ing Commission or Council has any. questlons
regardin� the reyuest. If you wiI1 be out af town and ca,nnot appear b�fore either group, your
applica�ion wili still be processed and you will be notified as ta the result.
' >;
As ta th� age and size of the dogs, as long as you have more than #vvo dags, you are requi�°ed to
have a conciitional use perinit for a residential dog kennel. . I realiz� that these �re �r�doar dogs and
that no ken�el structure vvill b� constructed outsid�, however this is imunaterial in Yhat a permi# is
requ�-ed re�ardless. If the City Couricil �votes to deny your conditional use permit request, yo�
wiil need to giv� up tr�ro of �he dogs.
PPIkTfI�T�H G°irO� I�II��We�y IO � IVIQLJI�dS VI�W� MN 551i2�1499
TM
racytletl papar
�oual pnsorfunitv EmoJover
�:
�,
Letier to Andrea NlcRannolds
Nla.rch 4, 1999
Page 2
There are two options regarding your applica.tion at this paint. iNe can proceed with it "as is" and
seek actior� frorn the Council, or you may ask--in writingm-io rNithdra,w your app�ication. If we
proceed evith the application r�ow, ii �v�11 be derued due to ihe tack of signatures �uppoiiing the
request. if yau withdraw the application, you will be forced to give �ap t�xro do�s immediately.
The $75 pemnit fee which you have already paid is not refundable, however �f you did withdraw
yaur application, I would allow you io reapply for the same requ�st at no charge if within szx
months af the request to withdraw.
The deadline for action on your request is Il�ay �th, thus th� Council will need ta act upon the
request no later ihan l�prii 26, which means the Planning �ommissiot� will n�ed to make their
recommendation to the Couz�cil no later than Aprii 21 st. iJnless you tell me otherwise, i will
publish the necess�ry notices in the newspaper for pubiic hearin�s on these referenced dates.
If you i�ave any further questions, please do not hesitate to call or write.
Sincerely,
' :�
� -
� .,
James Ericson
p}�n� �soc�aie
encl.
cc;
-,
Rick Jopke, Community Developmen� Director
. �' � �? �- - ��[ `. �, :� � c . '. ;`�'., : : :�, - ., -�-y '-,
� _�_� � : .; �� , � ,'�� :: .. _. �.1. l-
/' ' : � : -. `� ' i,'
�: : �§ ;� J, �.
��- � !'�� `'� '� =�-�� : �:
���� � �; ; . � =� : t ` ":� � � �� �:1� i��� �� , 1 ' " � :�� ; ::, : :� �,: � : ��. -: � . � �
,. ;,..
1
�� '�� 1� `'' �� <�' ` � •� 1 :'� �. ���; 1 , �
'� : , '. �',C; • ;� "�- � ��: �.. , f; • , �, � . �; , �, ._ . ;� � :_ � � � ;, �-.,� � � _�
��EItEA5, Andrea MacRannolds has applied for a conditianal use permit for a
residential dog kennet at her property located at 2841 Bronson Drive, property zaned R-1, Single -
Family Residentiai, legally described as followed:
6�'est I/ of'Lot 14
S'prang Lake Park Kiaodls Adclition
Radnsey County, Mannesota
W�E�A�, The Maunds View Zoning Code allows, with a condiiional use permit, three
to four dogs at a single-farrlily residence; and
Vi'�E1tEAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this propasal:
1. Plannrng Application
2. Zoning Map
3. 500-Foot Radius Map
4. License Ap�licatian Form
5. Petition (incomplete)
6, Letter to the Applicant, dated 2/8/99
7. Letter to the Applicant, dated 3/4/99
�. Staff Report for Planning Commission Action
�d�i�Id�A�, in oraer for the City Council to grant a conditional use pernut for a
residential dog kennei, a(1 of the licensing requirerrients shall be satisfied; and
� � •
;;;•,
; ;; ::;i
`: i''
Resolution 57'1-99
MacRannolds CUP
Apri121, 1999
Page 2
��E1�AS, the Planning Commission iinds that the required petition is insufiicient for a
Iack of signatures; and,
��jE�A,S, according to Section 1125.01, Subdivisian le, the Planning Commission is
to examine the possible advarse effects of tivs use upon the neighborhood and community; and,
�l��I�AS, a background check with the Police Department revealed four dog-related
incidents, one of which involved an attack upon a person; and
�/�E�AS, the Planning Commission �inds that there is suf�icient reason io consider that
the general health, safety, well-being and welfare of the comrnur�ity may be comprised by the
granting of this conditional use permit request.
���9 ��E��, p�9 �� �'� ��QI,�I) that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends to the City Council deniai o£this coriditionai use permit request.
�E �� �g���,I,y �50I,�I) that the Pianning Commission directs staffto forward
this resolution to the City Cauncil prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 21 st day of April, 1999.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
N:�DATAIGROLIPS\COMDEVIDEVCASES\547-99\577-99D.RES
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
' ..- ' .
4
I� : :#' . : . .,: ;,. -t ''. �.�� ? ,...,f : �:��i �" �'._ : ':�.: .
Meetr�a� Date:
�taff Iteport �sy:
Apri12l, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
Planning Case 1�10.: 552-99
R.equest:
P�i��ionero
I�aca�iona
PIIY No.
Zo�i�g/I,�►s�d �Jse:
Cor►ditional Use Permii for a 1,040 Square-Foot Garage
Gerald Mi11er
2fl91 Terrace Drive
OS-30-23-44-0054
R-1, Single Family Residential / Sin�le Family Dwelling
Ag��lieable Reg�lat�o�s:
1104.01 Subd. 4: Accessory buildings detached from principal building shall have a setbacic of 5 feet.
Accessory buildings shaii nat be allowed in the front yard.
1106,03 Subd. 1: No garage shall exceed 952 square feet except by CUP; the combined square
footage for all accessary buildings on a lot shall not occupy mare than 20% of the rear yard.
`';� 1106.04, 5ubd.6: Tlze combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one Iot cannot exceed
` 1,400 sc�uare feet, the garage widih cannat exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than three vehicle
accesses.
'�
1125.01 Sub. Ie: This section lists po�sible adverse effects that the Planning Commission shalt
consider in making its recommendation.
1125.01 5ub. 3b: This section lists possible additional criteria by CUP requests shall be judged.
At�ach�nents: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Site Plans
Structure Map
Resolution 578-99
u, `�;F r:
2091 Terrace Drive is loca#ed north of County Road I near the eastern border of the City. The
property--an interior lot--is approximately 13,050 square feet. The house is set back
appro�mately 49 feet towaed the middle of the lot, with the deiached garage situated behind the
house. The house, at approximately 926 square feet, is presently larg�r than the existing two-stall
garage, which is 505 square feet. ihe applicant will be removing the present garage to make
room for the new one. There is an eighiy square foot (8 x 10) shed behind #he e�stin� garage
which is set far enough back so as not to be in the way of the proposed garage.
;.
;
Mitler CUP Raquest
2081 Terrace Drive
April 21, 1999
Page 2
Ara�lysi�.
A Conditional Use Permit is required, in this case, due to the size of �he proposed garage. The
size of the proposed garage would be 1,040 square feet, which is not much larger than the house.
While it wouid be iarger, there would not exist the "irnbalance" which has been present in the last
few over�sized garage CUP requests. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the rear
of the house in the foilawing year which would again make the house bigger than the garage. The
proposed tocation of the garage does not interfere with the future exparnsion plans nor the
existence of a shed in the back yard.
Dzmensional Criter•ia
A11 of the dime�isional criteria associated with this request--setbacks, spacing between buildings,
width af proposed ga�•age, and giumbers of doors--satisfy the requirements as stated in Chapter
I 104 of the Zoning Code. The praposed garage is about 91 feet fram the frant property line, 43
feet from the rear property line and is setback from the side of the property by abou� seven feet.
Taking into cansideratian ihe size of the shed, the totaI amount of accessory building coverage on
the lot would be 1,120 square feet, or 14.6 percent of the rear yard area. Were the appiicant to
replace the existing shed with the largest allowable without a C[TP, the coverage would rise to
16.4 percent, which is still less than the maximum accessory building coverage of tweniy percent.
Adverse E ects and CUP C�iteria
The City Code, in Section 1125,01, Subd. 1 states that the Ptanning Comtnission shall examine
the possible adverse effects of a conditional use permit request prior to making a
recommendation, The following represent those items explicitly stated in the Code:
Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential
areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and
residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this properky, 2091
Terrace Drive, as low-density residentiaL This proposal daes not confiict with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Geographical Area Involved.
4, The Character of the Surrounding Area
In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are of a similar size. The homes are all af a
similar style archiiecture and were b�ilt around the same time. Many of the homes in the
immediate area have larger gara�es, most of which are detached as in this proposal. A
,. , .. ; .
� �
� j
;:;
Miller CUP Request
2081 Terrace Drive
Apri121, 1999
Page 3
3.
; .'' _
iarger garage on the subject property would not appear out of place.
tlVhether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Replacing the existing garage with a new, larger garage wili have an immediate positive
i�npact on the vatue o�'the subject property, and may actually increase �he perceived vaiues
of the homes surrounding 2109 Terrace Drive. At 1,040 square feet, set back from the
street as far as it is, this garage addition would not depreczate the surrounding area in any
way.
The demonstrated need for such a use.
The existing garage-�-while a two staii garage-- is considered fairly smail by today's standards.
A 22-foot deep garage cannot even accommodate many vehicle models, such as extended
minivans and SUVs.
This praposal appears to satisfy the adverse effects criteria. Also in Section 1125.01, the Plaruling
Commission is to examine the criteria for granting a conditional use permit, which are outiined in
5ection 1125,01, Sub 3b:
El)
E�)
(g)
(2)
(3)
The use wili not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, �treets and ather
pubtic �acilities and util'tties which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
The use will not cause traf�'tc hazards or congestion.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
Replacing a sma11 garage with one larger, even one as large as is being requested, would
not create a greater impact on e�sting public facilities, parks, schools or services, on
utilities ar access roads, nor would it create an increase in trai�ic on adjacent sireets.
The use will be su�ciently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that e�sting homes will not be ciepreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant iand.
The structure and siie shall have an appearance ihat will not have an adverse ef€ec� upon
adjacent residentiai properties.
Because the house is set back further than is iypical, and because the garage is situated
behind the house, there would be substantial public screening from this accessory
structure. In terms of its relation�hip with the two adjoining properties, the garage is
separated from the property to ihe east by the distance of the width of the backyard, the
p►-oper�y to the west is rteither separated by physicai distance or screening, yet it already is
accustomed to a garage in this locatian and as such may �ot be impacted by the larger
-. ; . - . .
. ..-. .: ._: - . .:.. ,; :.,. .-..-
Miller CUP Request
2081 Terrace Drive
Apri121, 1999
Page 4
gara�e.
(4} The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of
the City and to the existing land �se.
(5} The use is consistent with the ptirposes of the Zaning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends io locate ihe proposed use.
(6) The Use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive P�an of the City.
Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and
allow for ihe storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment.
Staff believes fihat the adverse ai�fects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out-
weighed by t�e benefits. Staff also believes that it is desirable from a community perspective to
have property owners improve their properties with building expansions since the properties are
tkten usually kept in better order and may tr�ggei- other properties to do t�e same,
I�eeo�inendatio�:
Staff recommenc�s that the Pianning Commission approve Resolution 578-99, a resolution
recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a I,040 square foat garage at 2091
Terrace Drive, requested by Gerald Miller.
L�(�
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATAIGROUPS1CO1v1DEV1DE VCAS ES1552-991MILLER.PC1
_ _....
_ ,
; ,..
,. ,
� �
i �
� �,.
sy;�yr'' �{;
! ;
:�Ji4�ic`'t;'%v �� � ���:I.����� �E��a� ��
- .� I)EiT�IJOP P�i'T ���.ICATI�r1
R �'°a�,,;�< 240 i i�zghway 10, �Iounds View. �155112
-,, �'t:::,'.r,i
rn��'�� ° �arcneYS"'Q° . 6IZ�717-4020
612-784-3462 — FAX
�lea�e'I'ype or Pa��f Informatiot� - Co�apl�4e �o#h Sides of Tlais For�
Applicani Trtfor�a4io� //
Name of App}icant C.��.��0 �/i/ r%�f_'.T' _ Telephone W/� "%� %'/(a��
Address Zc� I/%?7'c_Q��c° �2 . Fax
fl�L7/�/� I�! a c� d/f?°^.� .� ��/ �.
Interest iva Propeety (check appropriate bax)
� Owner of'Property ❑ Contracf for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase
o Other (explain) --
Applisanis musf peovride evieHertce af interest i� property at the tasae of ap�alicaiion, and if you are nat the o�vaaee oi tbe
ps�operty, you �usi provide a tet�er of per�aission from t6e o+�er gi�immg co�asent to abe islin� of itais application. Th�
p�opeMy o�er must sig� fhis application fo� ik io be acceptedo
�eo�erty Description/Proposal
Address or Gene�eal Loeation J C� �l //7�'���� �7� •
Legai Description
Peoperty identification # (PIN #)
# of Acres
Cuirent Zoning
��f 1��,`i�c�-(
Type of AppEication
o Comprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ Rezoning
❑ Major Subdivision .
� Minar Subdivision
[€ Planned Unic Development {PUD}
q PUD Amendment
'�' Coaditiona! Use Pemut
o Variance
❑ Code Appe�l
❑ Develop Review/Site Plan
� Wetland Alteration Pemvc
❑ Wetland Buffer Permit
❑ Floodplain Permit �
❑ �ther ?��. .
$250
$2S0/acre; ruaYt $2.5� max $ I 500
$250 + �250 deposit�
$200
Refer to rezoning fees
$350
R- I , R- $75; otiiers �25d
R-1, R-2 ali others $250
�100
$125/aare; min $125 max �75Q
R-1, R-2 $150; all othars �200
R-1, R-2 $25; all oihers $100
�200
'�Deposits shail be puid ta cover all costs of pablic notices, ina[erials and stat� or consultant time spent in Yh� review,
research or preparation ot inateriaEs associated with this �ppiication. The app[icant shall be responsible for all reasonable
incurred casts in excess of the initial deposit amount, Any portian of Lhe deposit not spent or encumbered shatl be reiiunded
to th� appiicant within thirty (30) days �er consideratior► of che appkication is completed.
Ple�se cosa�pi�te th� ree+e�sg siti� of th�s �applac�iion,
' -
City of I�ioarsds View, li�IN
Uevelo m�nt r� IIC��iO[i Pa e 2
i'resent Use of Property
❑ UndevelopedNacant
a Duple:c/°i'wo Famify Dwelling
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment
� �ther (expiain)
Property Classification ❑ Abstract
T
.
,
7
Singfe Faznily Dwelling
Mutti-famiiy I�welling
Indastrial Establishment
Torrens
Desc�iption of Propasul Jt��i.� y �(�, � A' '�C) �
B1' MY (OUR) SIGNATUI2E ON THIS APPLICATION, i HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, THE INFURMATIUN PRUVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.
Signature of Applicant _ �(' � � �._-��
Name of Applic�t (typed/printed) �j�.�Jz.� !`i t�� e(�
Signature of Property Owner
Name of Property Owner (tyged/printed)
Address of Owner
Phone Number of Owner
��_�f` `�---�� .
C;a��.o m � !�e � ��
Z.C3 1 i%L57Z r2;�"� 17r2 .
C"c�tz� � �-� -(���
m��w�u**�x�x**�*�����**�x�**�x�+x�u�����:�x��**��*��x�#�**#����x**�x���m�m�**�*�m**��x�*�***�**:���m**�**�x+��*�
FOIt O�TCL'+ US� OI�,X
Date of Submittal �- S - � �`
Date of Acceptance _ Assigned to:
Pianning Case No. �- �- �— aj � 60-day Lunit 120-duy limit
�--
Fees Paid: Account # � Check # Receip t#
Application: �i,,5' �v _ : n n 3 .�-_ � � ��L'<�G�� % 5 7 -�
Park Dedication;
Deposits: � _ �
Other;
Totai:
N:IDATAIGROUPSSCQMDE VIFORVf StiDE V;�PP. FOR
t/98
� s�= :,
��
�
a
<
"�\
�
'.: '�
,
,
HkLLVIE�I
, �.
/
� :(
� � � �, � �
N �
N N N N� N � N N� m rn� (� CAO �� d- M M' 0
d� cfl ip a rEj�{�Q�.,� � cV cV N N c N N c��f N N N'� �
I� rp � � �- �p �
N cV � N N � N N � p O d� d- iD � N c� a0 N �� c
t� it) O� � N N P � 00 I� c0 tn tIl <1' � M N
N
� N� N� �� N N N N U tV t�3 N N N N N N
�i N N � N N N c�S �^ ��
N o W
.VdO 0 b DR `� c� Q7 rn u� � uz t� m M � w� t� �
N N 0� I� [O lCl � �� M �
�� �� � �!O N N N N N N N N N N [
�1 N N N N N N N N
1. ':l --
9 I
m 5511 6512 55t1
5497 54�2 5503 � 55fl4 ��g9 PINEWOOD
�� � 5493 �494 5493 SCHQOL
S� 5485 5486 5485 ���4
5479 �m.�
5473 546B �47� 5�78 5475
i467 5464 r��63 S�� 5467
5463 �,
6 5459
�455 g 5456544 p� �, '�s� 5453 �
5 �
5441 4 5435v�\�'� s��� S� 5447 � c�o u°'i in �°i r�
5439
5433 S s�`?8 5433 N N N i� cv cv Y u�
�`�A 5425 �ELL� LN
5425 `��2� � � � ,°n � ,r�
5421 542 5419 , N N c� N�y �y
5415 5414 � ��� o' S413
P7 K7 N Q O �� trD � tCl d�- N�7 N
5405 5406 N N N N N N 5405 N C�S N N N N(V
QR�tlG
c� N cfl n N � N O O m ,,,, ___ __�_, r-..... r�n,
��
Zoning Map Planning Cas� 552-99
Applicant: Gerald Miller
L,ocation: 2091 �'�xrac�Driv�
I
. !
� �
� �
! �
. Z
. �
�..
r--
.'
�"
Y
Q
�
w �
__ _
;..
Proposed Site Plan -:
2091 Terrace Drive ` `;
Gerald 1Vliller
April 16, 1999
�
�o��
,
�'=i
�
�
�
�
_ 1; . � . , ,:
.� � �: /
� �:
a�
� �
cn
�.
�
�
.�
C�
�::, �
Oakwood Drive
Terrace Dri�e
� � � �� � � ,�
� � � ���� �
� �
�� �
� �� ��� �
Pinewood Drive
c
�
l� }` , ` .� `t �`\
,�, ! ; � �, �� , = Pir�ewood
��
��� s; � � ;� �k� Etement�ry
, �� �
t �, ; �,�,��, , �.,
�,>c��.:`:.::;:.�.....:::,>.��.::.:....,..����
R
� - � ..
'�� ,.+ -
■ !�. �• . _ . ' l
� � :x, - . ., �.
_ �
- �:� � � :,.
� � � �
��
�
� �
�� ��
ou�,ty �o�d I
,.
i
�'T :��: . �. ,, � �: _ :� ± �; ., '�. '�`,, . , :�_; � .,. ' �; .
� �; �� � ,. �. - .� r, a
` ,; 1 ' ♦ < ` 1 ° 1; , `'
�� � ` , �;f •` ; '�
� � :!` _ � i ,:
._ . �., ; �; , `, ` �, . '` . � .1 I` ; , ' ' :!; ��� . ,� ° 1 : ;� . .� �, ;�, ; � , ,
.,
# �_�. . ; :�_ ��: ���_ �. �,• �, �, :��; � . _ ��; _ , �•� ,� � � ��� � • , . � ., ,
� �; , � . , , , . �., i: , , . .
�h/hea°eas, Gerald MilIer has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,080
square-foot garage on property located at 2091 Terrace Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential, Iegally described as followed:
Lot 29, �1ock 2, Pinewood Terrace
Couraty �f'Ramsey
W�EI�EAS, there is currently a 506 square-foot garage and an SO square-faot shed on
this lot; and,
i�"HEREA,S, The Mounds View Zaning Code allows, with a cozzditional use permit, up to
1,400 square feet of garage/accessory buitding on ona lot; and
��El2EAS, the Plaelning Commission has reviewed the iFollowing documents regarding
tlus proposal:
a. Planning Applicatian
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Pian
d. A�-ea Map with �uilding Footprints
e. �taffReport
'�'�E12El�S, the Planning Commission �inds that the dimensional requirem�nts as stated
in Chapier 1 I04 the Zoning Code for this proposaI have been mei; and,
: ,..
..
;.
. : ,.
� -. �
s
�'lanning Commission Resolution Si8-99
Apri121, i999
Page 2
��EI�A�, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse
effects hav.e been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. l.e.:
1.
2, 4.
3.
5.
Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the developm.ent and maintennnce of residential areas so as
to improve the quality, appec�rance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in
general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this properry, 2091 Terrace Drive, as low-densiry
residential. This proposal does not con,Jlict with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Geographical.Area Involved & the Character o£ the Surrounding Area.
In this arecr ofMounds Yiew, most of tlze homes and lots are of the a similar clesign and size, many
of which have garages as large or larger than that of 2091 TeYrace Dr'ive. More than half of the
garages in this area are detached from the principal structure. A larger garage on the subject
property would not appear out ofplace.
Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Constructir�g a larger garage than whal is currently existing will have an rmmediate positive impact
on the pf•operry value for the subject property. It is not conceivable that this garage addition would
depreciate the surr•ounding area in any way.
The demonstrated need far such a use.
The existing garage is small by today's standard and for the needs of the properry owner.
�1��REA�, the Planning Commission makes the £allowing findings regarding the criteria
for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.:
�, The use will not create an excessive burden on e�sting parks, schools, streets and other public
facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to sezve the area.
'7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
g. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided.
Constructing a larger garage wauld not create a greater impact on existing public facilities, parks,
schools ar services, on utilities or access Yoads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on
adjacent streets.
2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that e�sting homes will not be depreciated in value and there will
be no deterrence to development of vacant Iand.
3, The structure and site shall have an appearance that will nat have an adverse effect upon adjacent
residential properties.
Becau�e the house is set back approximately SO feet from the street and because the garage tivould
be located behind the house, the garage would be substantially screened from pu6ltc vrew. The
garage would be located toward the west side of the lot, thereby providing a separation of distance
between it and the property to the east. The property to the west, with no screening, is already
accustomed ta having a ga�°age at this location.
;.
4
Q
I :.
Pianning Conunission Resolution 578-99
Aprit 21, i 999
Page 3
The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonab(y related to the overall needs of the City and io
the existii�g land use.
The use is consistent wiih the pwposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in
which tl�e appiicant intends to locate the propased use.
The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typiccrl uses in residential areas, and allow for
the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment .
���q �������9 �� ��' ���L�D that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow for a 1,�40 square-foot garage wiih
the following stipulations:
The co�ditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey Couniy witiun 60 days
of Ci�y Caurtcii approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the
City of Mounds �Iiew,
2. The garage shall not be used for living space or other use� not allowed hy the
district in wtuch it is tacated or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for
which the permii was granted, the condiLional use permit shall become null and void.
3. The garage shaii be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building
appearance witi� the house, which is to mean the garage shall at a minimum be
nainted with the same color-scheme as the home.
4. All vei�icles parked at the property shatl be parked either upan the driveway's
improved s�ariace or within the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be allowed to park
upon the grass or of� of the improved surface.
5. The e�sting shed ot� the lot shall be moved if necessary to maintair� a
minimum six-foot setback from the garage.
�E T'I' F�PIAI.,�,�' �SpL,�I�� ��at the Planning Commission directs stai�'io
forward this resolutior� to the City Council prior ta approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 21 st day oiF April, 1999.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Rick Jopke, Comtnunity Development I7irector
N:IDATAIGROUPSICdMDE V1DE VCASES1546-99157 i-99PC, RES
..
I.. ,:
... . : - ..- : .. I ::::. ..� . ..... t:�
� � .� - �
�/ / ' ' /
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Subject: Variance Request, Planning Case No. 55�-99
Applicant: l�on Noeris, 5302 Raymond Avenue
Date: Meeting of Apri121, 1999
�ac%�rots�d:
At the last regular meeting held by the Platvung Commission (April 7, 1999), staff presented a
report and requesi for a variance to be approved at 53�2 Raymond Avenue. The applicant, Don
Norris, wishes to construc� a living space additian behind a garage ihat is being built onto his
home. The living space would be constructed at the same setback as the garage.
The Planning Commission agreed that the improvement would be a benefit to the home and
would serve to make the property more l�abitable and to increase ihe value of the property, as
well as possibly prompting others nearby to invest in their own properties. Because of the narrow
lot width and the fact that the lot supports two dwellings, building expansion becomes dif�icult.
Analy��s o
Staff has examined the criteria upon which variance applicatians are to be judged and found that
zn all insYances, a case can be made which supports the granting of a variance in this eircumstance.
There do not appear to be any negative impacts resulting from this addition, the iiving space
would be located behind a planned garage addition, and would be buffered from the property to
the north by an aitached garage. The dwelting unit to �he south, attached to Mr. Norris' unit,
wouid not be impacted by this addition as it is separated by a common addition on the back side
of the building.
1S�co�ae���claieor�:
Given ihe supparting criteria, lack of negative impacts and the resulting increased livability of the
property, stafl recommends that the Planning Commission approve atiached R.esolu�ion 574-99, a
resolution appraving a variance to allow a building expansion with a five-foot setback froin the
e�orth property line of 5302 Raymond Avenue, as requested by Don Norris.
��
����--e-t'' �. /�-�--'��-��.,
James Ericsor�, P}anning Associate
N:�DATA\GROLiPS1COMDEV\DEVCASES\550-99W ORRIS.PC2
��: �'1 � 1, � � ��. -!; � � � '�� � � �� -1�� : ,_ '� ����: '��:
. � ; ; � .. °, ,�; �; , ,�.
��, �1 � "�, ' ,1 : � - ���,1. .,. °, ; f; �, =
� �� '� �� �. .1 : .�
�I: ; ' 1����. � . �. ,�_ ��� :;
I�; � ��` . : � : �, `` `: �� .� .�; ���:: �'�` ` ����. �` ' �� i �< ;:1" '� � �� _ :�:. : .�. : � i =�� � �, ;`F1��� ;
�_ .. �, � ;� :.- � :. :1. f," , ,. . . � . , ,
; .�;,; :, 1 •. : I " �, ': � ` .� .. � ; �,.. ,, ;�. � ,: �.
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Don
Norris to permit a Iiving space building expansion within the ten-foot sideyard setback at his home
located at 5302 Raymond Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential I3isirict and is
legally described as:
Lot 12, �lock �, Norseanan I�tAddition
1Zarresey Coeanty, Mana�esota
WI IEREAS, the Pianning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated
with this rec�uest:
I. Planning Application
2. Location Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Site PIans
5. Staff Report for Planning Commission Action
WHEREAS, the living space expansion for which this vaciance is sought wiil be
constructed up to within iive feet of the north property Iine af said property; and,
WHEREAS, exceptional or e7rtraordinary circumstances do apply ta the property which
do not apply generalIy �o other properties in ihe same zone or viciniiy 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 coniroi, in that ihe lot is only 100 feet wide and supports two
dwellin� units, the effect af which places restrictions on the ability to expand living space; and,
WHEREAS, ihe literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title tivould deprive the
applicant of rights commanly enjoyed by other properties in the same district ir� tha€ a building
�xpansion for living space is a common and beneficial addition to a home; and,
�hIHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do rao8 r�sult from the actions of the
app(icant an Phr�t ihe width of the lot and configuration of the home makes additiarnal expansion
di#�icuit; and,
i
,:i :.- .... .':1 �.;'- �:' .. >.� � . :.:� :i. i .
. . . . : . .:. :::: -:.:-
- .,i�,:. .. '.� . `� ,:. . ::::-: .
.: , :.._-.::, . .:�:;�.
�� � .�.::';. -... ..,. ..'.:!,-. ..
�_,
Planning Co�ruiiission Resolution 57�-99
Nonris Variance
Aprii 2 i, 1999
Page 2
'�7�I�REAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance wkuch would alleviate the
hardship, in fli�t maintaining a five-foot setback keeps the expansion flush with the proposed
garage addition; and,
}�IIIEREA�, grant'tng the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special
privilege that is denied by this Titie to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same
district pn thr�t other property owners in this district would also be encouraged to itnprove their
properties with garages and additional living space; and,
�%V�iEREAS, the variance would not be materially deirimental to the purpose af this Tit1e
or to other property in the same zone in that the addition provides for additional living space and
will serve to increase the value of the home, and possibly the values of those surrounding the
hame; and,
V4]HEREAS, the variance wmuld not 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 diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood in that the living space addition will increase the value of the home by
adding two bedrooms and allow for the expansion of the family room area on the main floor. The
bedraoms wil; serve only those people already living within the structure whach would not
increase congestion on pubtic streets or increase the danger of fire or restrict light and air to tl�e
adjacent properties.
NOW, THEIZEFOIZE, BE IT RESOL`VED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission
acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Don Norris, to
a11ow a living space expansion with a five-foot sethack from the north property line at 5302
Raymond Avenue.
Adopted this 21st day of April, 1998
ATTEST
SEAL
N:�DATA\GROUPSICOMAEV�DEV CASES\550-99\574-99 A.RES
rerry Peterson, Chairrnan
Rick Jopke,
Community Development Direcior
'i
t;:.__ ,
: i �,
� � ,��r r ',�i -�;�. � _ � ii. " ;�� ` `�, :�; v' . '� � � �. :�? ��-,
�; � i �', i 1' : '�,.. �',� .. ; ?�: t��,
1 r ,. . .� ,.,,. I�.� '.,,. s ":�i : ''•
Ite�ulat' I�e��:a��
Apr�l 7, �999
I�ou�ds V�ew Cety �all
2401 �iagl�way 109 �o�an�� V°>,r��' I1Z1� 5�112
f.�
g, Call ta Orciee�
ihe meeiing vvas called to order by Chairperson Peterso
2. Roi� Ca1l
li�[embers Present' Cha,irperson Peterson, Commissione
Laube, IVfiller, and Stevenson.
�
.�
Members Absent: Commissioner Berke with pr�, ��4��,
���;
,Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Eric ���i; Coun��� 7
Superintendent Jahn Hammerschmidt; a���ecor�,�Ca
Ia�t1e� to 1Vlinute�
a��
Planning ��� �o. 550-
Consider���� c��� �rari�
.,�;,.
for livin� sp�e e���s�
, :. :,
Planning Cas ��. ���
Consider��f a vari,
sign on��eir property f
; Case No_ 5 S 1
;ration of a vari
ihe subject ��
7:00 p.
and, Johnson, Kad�n,
, Golf
�ond`�.��n�,t�, `i�on Norris, Property Owner,
allow a five-foat building setback
;�91 I�3 ;1��ay 10, I�inderCare (3ones Sign Company, Inc.),
r�ue5t to'ir�siail a 16-foot tall, 48 square-foot advertising
���€ar�ay 10
� _
7�05 Cloria Circle, Dorothee Dietrich, Property Owner,
request to allow a detached, two-stall garage in the front
Page
�
5
�
r ,�, �� 10
; ��
�����i����,�a��;����idges Uolf Course Sign �lan
, �; <>
; <,: 14
�taff Reports / Items of Ir�formation
Chairp�rson and Plan�ing Commissioners Reports
14
i
11�o�reds V�evv Planr�a�a� Co�nrn�ssaon
Reguaar �ee�ire�
3o Citeze�s` I3eqrn�sts aeac� Corremee�ts on Iiern� 1l�ot or� tl�e Ager►da
There were no citizen requests or comr�ients on items not on the agenda.
4. A�p�°oval of I�linutes
A. �'eb�°eaary li, 1999
Miller asked what date should appear on the February 1
minutes to indicate approvaI. Ericson stated the dates h
MOTION/SECONI3: Stev�nson/Kaden to approve th� :
corrected.
�
Ayes - 8
Planngn� C��e I�oe 550-99
Property Involved: 5302 Raymond
Consideration of a Variance Requ�
Expansion �
Applicant' B�n 7�Torris, Prop�z-tj�`�'
The applicanf ��r�� �y�-�
. ,;-
Cha�r Peterson„c��e���
Ericso� ave the sta�i�
Nays -
ai 7:10 p.m.
�F
�
Apr°�17, 1999
Pa�e 2
so
1999 meeting minutes as
carried.
Setback far Living ,�pace
fi'..: s::: . ._..
p icant, Don Norr;`�; fs requesting a variance from the required ten-foot side yard setback
e�,fi�Iished for princip �uildings and living space therein. I3e plans on constructing an attached,
������t r�vide garage � s twinhome, located at 5302 Raymond Avenue. (He owns both sides,
��t��n,� t��t th� ,, �` nit.} In conjunc�ion with this construction he would like to add a two-�
st�it� �iv�t�� s�a� ehind the garage, which would maintain ihe same proposed setback--f�ve feet__
as �t�'� ���:�pc��ed garage. Currentiy there is no garage presen�, and ihe square footage for this half
of ihe twit�ome is about 540 square feet. The gai-age expansion, which would be allowed
uncondition�,lly, is proposed at 368 square feei.
ihe subjec� property is one of se�eral side�-bya�id� twin homes that were b�iIt in the rnid41960� or�
the east side of Raymond Avenu�, All of the lots are 100 feet wide wluch leaves Iittle room for
expansion passibilities. 'The applicant has already �xpanded out the back of the house, creating
; .
<;
� ;.:.- �.- , . � . �..
,. ;.: ;
1Vio�nds Vi�� P�an�aen� CoxremASSio�
Re�ulat° I�'Ieegj��
Apri[ i, 1999
Pa�e 3
-t
addi�ional livin� space, and has constructed a deck and a below-ground pooi, vvhich prohibi�s any
further expansion in ihis area.
Ericson noted the seven criteria established for considerai�ion of a variance which p�, Y:es a
hardship, nating a variance may only be granted in those cases where t%c,�ode �\, ses undue
hardship or practical difiiculties io the property owner. Erics n indicat�d ���.fi ��iardship may
exist in this case since the lot itself is 140 feet wide and sha two ��3ts ���d� by--side dupiex}
He advised the applicant has added onto the back side of ' winhome a�zci �, ��I� �.r!d pool al��
e�st. The size of the dwelling is 540 square feef which dt��s not pr��fe a lc�� �r����n�i� spac��
Thus the requesti for a side yard setback for a bedroorn ic� �?,c. cons�ted in can����Czt�rt �r���i� e
garage. Ericson explained the inten� of the Code io main�ai� g��are� separation betw��n �t��c�nse
uses. .
Ericson cited the criteria wivch needs to be met and inc4��'�
legitimate indication of hardship but wheiher suff'ici��� tc?,.�
tonight. Staffrecommended the Planning Comr���t��� c���
either draft a resolutian to grant, or draft a r ���YOi� �o d�
�
Ericson advised staffreceived only one c��'nment '�'c se��
properties wit�'tin 350 feet. The co ,+�i was fr� the pr
?� maintained that th� subject prope � e of �3 nicest o
:�
ailowing the expansion as propo U, Encso�:st�ted theY'F
staffto prepa�e a resolution ��pr`�i�ing the v�ait�a.rt��:��c�a�`e:
i
1 � : `'
Ericson
exists.
<� .
s�oner Kaden
l to the home
of feet provic
h�� ���t��ll:;st��ff believes ihere is a
a va��z�c� is'under consideration
those i5su� and then direct staffto
�e var���e request.
z�� t�u� �ite required notices to
�rty owner across the street, who
�e block and he was in favor of
�rring Commission can either direct
or denying the variance request.
noth�ng tt� add to siaf� s presentation.
ier siructure within five feet of the property line.
twinhome bui staff believes an adequate buffer
���,.ti1e site glan drawing and asked if much of the hedroom is
itYis accessible from the house. Ertcson siated l�e is unsure of the
� connection but estienated it to be four feet.
is witi be a regular bedroom and the connection area is wide enough for a
,::. �,..�
�.;..
�omtnissioner �/Iiller asked if an outdoar access will be pravid�d. 1!/�c'. Norris stated there wiil be
a sliding glass door providing access from the bedroom to the deck.
Chaic 1'eterson asked the applicant if he awns oiher uniis in this neighborhood. l�i°. Norrris stated
he does not but has talked to that tandowner who asked how much room would remain between
the garages. He advised there will be 14 feei of separation so the landlord did not object to
- ;
. :. ;.. ..-. . . i .. . _ .: -
, ':, ,:. , .. .... _:... i .. ; . _. ... ..
Mou�ecls �T��w Pianr�i�g Co�raer�issimn
�egul�r I�ieetflng
granting of the variance request.
A��it 7, 1999
P�ge 4
Chair Peterson stated he is glad to see th�se types af improvements being made to the dwellings.
Mi°. Non-is stated they hope others will follow suit and im rove their ro ert . `�
P P l� Y �n`�
I�iller stated she viewed the property and understands how t' could b�; ���,�za�i� iznprovement.
However, the Planning Commission is charged with having °' .ternur�� ���,����,,the criteria
exists to grant a variance. ,
��t,
�' �: ,
Commissioner �tevenson stated this reminds him of a pre���r�y or�;��i�erwood Ra�d't���:�� �:�°
� F�
garage wa� constructed. He agreed the Planning Corrur����rt�tx z� �harged with upl�blr�i� ��e Code
unless the seven criteria are met. He stated he reads into �t1� t,�t��;�a that it would be allowed and,
in his judgement, he believes the criteria have been met sc� �i� ���11 ���}��ri the variance request.
Commissioner' Hegland stated whenever you
exceptional and extraordinary due to the exi;
he believes that coilsideratiion is applicable ht
improvement. Hegland stated his support�
Chair Peterson asked for an indicati
approval or der�ial. ,�
Commission�z� Johnson
property.
Commissi
ports
should
isiit��; ���c,�r�y ��,t makes it
,,�.
�,yo�z nee� �� �aark within, He stated
oj�t will r�s�zlt in a definite
ed to prepare a resolution of
it will result in an improvement to the
Chair Petersan,��,���;��t��:�� also b�����s it is importan^t �o assure the seven criteria ace met and
he believe � �lus casc, ���y �te �nei �� stated he beiieves some leniency is appropriate wh�n
�y..
the con ?� �"ration is w►tla �r� ��yt�z�g development rather than a new daveloprrzent. He stated he
belie this projec� wtli ����3� ta benefit wiihaut hanmfut effects to the neighborhood.
sioner Laube s- � d he is wiling to vote for approval but questions whether the shed will
�ed. Mi-. IVo ..�advised that the shed was recently moved to the renter's side of the
Co��ts��ta��� ��aden stated h� believes the b�nef ts of tlzis project will outweigh the concerns so
he witl vote fo�- approval.
� =1
Chair Peterson explained �hat if the strict criteria are nat foilowed, it resuits in establishing a
precedent that coutd be �ited during future considerations. �� expiained th�t with ga�rage size
variances, several Code chae�ges have been enade as well so the Plar�eiing Commission has to ;,.';';
consider whether this is a rouiine situation or a uruque situation.
_ -. ,
=.j
, i
�3ou�ds �Iaew Plaa�r►in� Co�e�►assio�
R��a�laa° I����in�
Chair Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Hearing no pubic input, Chair Peterson closed the public hearing ai 7:18 p•m•
Chair Peterson stated it appears there is unanimous consent among the
prepare a resolution approving Planning Case No. 554-99, S3 .2 Raym
side yard seiback variance to al(ow for the constructian of 1', '�;space
property line.
.A`Y:
bo Plannin� Cas� �Ie. 549-99
Properties Invalved: 2i91 Highway 10
Consideration of a Variance Request to Tnstall a 16-F
o� Their Praperty �'acing Highway 10
Applicant: �inderCare {Jones Sign Company, I � � ;
=�:. ..
Planning Associate Ericson gave the
The applicant, Jones 5ign Comp
requesting a variance from the S
ai KinderCar� located at 27�� �
, :�,
use is zan��t�t. � mediutn �vi��
, � �
such as I�' t��`���"e;rn�er�
eliminated vai�l� �1�� ���ssi3
facilities in all cor���er��a
couid have upx�� ���J st��
add a 16-f ,�° ial1, 4� �qi
ihe am ,� of signa�e ��?
and i
�
c 1�[eeti�gl
Aprii 7, 1999
Page 5
�irect staff to
for a reduced
�t of the side
Advertising Sign
�, rep��nting thr; .' inderCare Learning Center, is
le �o ���w for "`nstallation of a pylon advertising sign
lp ����� ��� ,, i-ty, even though it supports a commercial
e��i��;- �'h� �asis for this zoning is that day eare facilities
allowed`in commercial districts. This restrictian was
� 595 in 1997, whieh allowed as conditional uses day care
i���ing districts. Were the property zaned commercial, it
�#��ned perma�ent signage. The current proposal would
� sign to the existing 36 square-foot wall sign. Together
the ma�mum allowed 100 square �'eet.
stated if the pro�;��" y`v�ere zoned appropriately for a day care, they would be allowed to
nage in the am, t being requested. This is the basis for staf�s determination that a
� exists. He ` each of the seven criteria established for consideration of a variance and
naa s�5 a�; `< � criteria. He noted that a variance may only be granted in ihose cases
Y.
,z� ��i� �r�inoses undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner.
VZ k
Er�cson xndicated that a hardship ciearly exists in this case. He advised that staff sent out public
hearing notices io all properties within 350 �eet of the KinderCare property. Of the i9 properti�s
affected, only 12 are developed residentially. Ali of the others are deveioped cotnmercially with
the �xception of Church on the Rock and a vacant parcel on the south side of Highway 10. Staff
has received a, call from Western Banic indicated they do nat suppart th� varianc� request.
�
�
���nd� V�ew �l��c�ea�� C'omrntsseon
l�e�ula�° Nl��ting
April 7y 1999
Pa�e 6
Ericson stated staff recommends that the Planning Comrnission approve Resoiution 575-99
approving a variance frotn Chapter 1008 of the I�unicipal Code pertaining to signage to allow a
permanent, freestanding pylon sign at 2791 Highway I0, KinderCare Learning Center.
Chair Peterson opened the publlc hearing at 7: I8 p.m.
Claarles I3ura�ad, Haliday Stationsiore, 2744 Highway 1
sign or a. sign that wil! be used to advertise other activitie
KinderCare, not other activities. �
Commissioner Stevenson noted the �ize of ihe sign is ;
Highway 10 r�ght-of-way is a total of 204 from side-tc
�inderCare fence. Ericson stated he is not sure of the
Stevenson noted if the propos�d trailways are c�
close to the fence line. Ericson stated ihe sign s
which should place the sign outside of the tr '�
�
Commissioner IVliller noted one of the ot��ction
perhaps, they do not know the actuaJ�:s�� of the
Commissioner Kader� not�d �h� r,��enti;
precedent. E�icson stated this �s t�e only
t ha t he is a����-:.o£ Frnm:�r� t�'��►;�,-�„P�,
Kaden aske�
it has always
Commi
>ioner Johnson
;ial. Ericson st
City estahlishe
'We
ii
ihey �vil�
� to 1J fi
a KinderCare
�r�ly adv�rtis�
: feet. Hc sta�.�� '�iiat the
3 be quite close to the
the praperty line.
t�be [ocated quite
the property line,
is the size of the sign so,
and a' d iithis wilt establish an adverse
c3t �� rciat operation in a residentiai district
,;�s na danger of establishing a precedent.
ime, been zoned commercial. Ericson stated he b�lieves
rezoned. Ericson stated it could be.
�j��out the tax impact should this property be rezoned as
:�e applicant did not §et out ta derive any special tax benefit and, in
zoning district.
:nquired regarding the hours the sign would be lit. Stevenson stated this
shed light and appears to be a iight from within the sign.
Cha'rr l�eterson noted the sign material is not very translucent so he doubts there would be any
illumination r�aching the ground.
Commissioner I{aden asked if any nearby residents coraimee�ted on the lighting. Lri�son stated no
comm�nts were received.
,:: _ i
1l�o��ads �1�e� Plan�rin� Cor�anaiss�on
�.te�ular I'�Ieeiing
�p�°g� '�, 1999
Pa�e 7
Chair Peterson stated he is unaware of the City setting hours of operation for such a sign.
Commissioner �tevenson sta#ed lighting times are usually only restricted if a ground� unied
spotlight iliuminates a pylon-type af sign. � `,��
,
Com�nissioner Hegiand asked why a variance was requested r�ther ihar� ����a�i�n�. Ericson
m ni n w�u[�i �c����?�_ allowed. He
stated the applicant submitted a building permit unaware th . g
expla�ned that a variance application costs less and is mor `edient il�n � r���n�r�� wiuch
znvolves the adoption of an ordinance which requires a m� mum o���`City �'i�ux��il ���e�t�r���
,.
£
, . .�:,
Hegland stated it appear� the probl�m is tlaat I�inderCar�����.�����ting to run a co�t��r�al
business on resider�tialty-zoned property. He stated it see�ras ��c��`� �.ppropriate to rezone the
property to the actuai use. 4>`
�>.
Ericson suggested this issue be addressed wl�ile the �`a��p��h�z1s1
Commissioner Miller noted a day care cas� b���'�r
thai is correct and the property would not�� eci to
Chair Peterson noted at the time of
��=� harsh to force a rezoning ai this po�
�'� rezoning dur:ng discussion of the�
�<
importance o skgnage for a�t�mn��
request ���`
�
as
considered.
�al t�rot�erty. Ericson stated
��_ �,. ,
�ruction "�iere was:�€� alternative so it may be a littte
��V�
�time. =� stated���►ay be mor� appropriate to consider a
ehe�st�e Plan..� a�r Peterson commented on the
��$����, �z����ated his support io consider the variance
ta this property is proposed in the future
his copv of the Comprehensive Plan and advised it is identified
�uty t;otxunercta�
�;
�
; no additxonal pu;''�� input, Chair Peterson closed the pubiic hearing at 7:39 p.m.
ssioner Laub ted he would want to be assured the piacement of this signage does not
�,�th p1a��� ��t of the trailway. Ericson advised that the trailway would not need to
;���,
� r�� ���,�e setback.
Cor�rrussion�r Si:evenson stated this is correct and when the highway is �.urned back some of the
100 feet wili be hrought in closer by means of the trailway, narrowing the current image of
Highway 10. �-Ie staied his concerns are wei! addressed that th� sign w►11 not result in a conflict
with the trailway.
Chair Petersor� concurred.
�
I!/�oa�r�ds Vie� �l�n�aa�r� Co�ra�aiss�nn
I�eg�ta�° �Ieet���
Ap�ei 7, �999
Pa�e �
Commissioner I�aden stated s�nce KinderCare was not allowed a, commercial district initiaCly, he
would consider that to be a hardship.
Chair Peterson noied that without the variar�ce, this commercial use would he deni ��he privilege
of signage enjoyed by other commercial uses.
Commissioner St�venson addressed one of the concerns ex � �
_ �d by 1��\�5t��t� �ank related to
safety of the sign piacement. He reviewed the last �� '�as coni���� ���,� ��-oposed ���
resolution and stated it is part of staf�s responsibility, as 3�-elates to ��;ci plar��t��� �'� �,SSU� �
would noi endanger public safety. "�` , �� ��'�' ' , ; �
�:
�
Chair Peterson noted the exisiing wafi sign wil� be remov� ��t� ,di�carded so the final`square
footage will remain below the allowable squar� footage ,���icss�� �1a�-�#i�d that the buiiding sign
witl be replaced by another sign, ��,.�,�`�
, :.
:�
NI�T'ION�SECOND• Stevenson/�Iiller to adop ,��t�i�rn�, ��rn�nissiot� �.��n�ution 575-99, a
resolution approving a variance from Chapte��. �� �r� ��� ����cipal ��d� pertaining to signage
io aliow a permanent, freestanding pylon �` . at 279�;��g�xy;r�3: ���>;�n�erCare Learning Center,
Planning Case No. 549�99. S� � „�' ��
Ayes - 7
Commissioner Johnson
indication,�t �&�_� R-1/R.
Commissio�sr �t.
praperty be r����
,:»:: ;�.
Chair Pete °`"�``' '`
i�t�i inc
that iss � Chair
��anning
on
551-99
1 {�ohnson} �,��x� Tke motion carried.
:d aga�n�� t��� �q���st due to the price of the variance and
benef���t��; �'��i� � �Q�ercial use without paying the price,
�� Commission inquire regarding the tax impaci shauld the
r��de in the cost of the variance and asked staff to research
#his minority opinion will be reflected in the meeting gninutes.
jPublic I�le�tingl
�'�'����riy :��v�s����'7805 f"rloria Circle
Co�s���'�'g�c��'of a Variance Request to Aliow a D�tached, Tvao-StaII Garage in the Front �Iard of
the s�zbjecC property.
Applicant: I3orothee Dieirich, Property Owner
Planning Associate Ericson gave the sfiaffrepari as follows:
_._ . . __ .
i
� <'
')
,.
l�ouxads �1iew Plann�n� Co�xreiss���►
I��gul�r I�/Ieeting
A�ral 7, 1999
P��� 9
The applicant, Dorothee Dietrich, is requesting approval to build a garage within the �stablished
frront setback of her property, which is located at 7805 Gloria C�rcie. This lot is one of the �ew
iots in the City which border Spring Lake, the City's only natural lake. The Zoning Code
prohihits the construction of a garage or any accessory building in the front yard o`� s�dential
rd a� is defined b the Code, is that area between���� fror��i ` e of the
property. The front ya , Y
principal structure (house} and the front property 1ine.
_ �.
Ericson advised it is proposed to turn the exlst�ng attacY�
However, if the Code requirements were foliowed to a`'
house and lake. He explained ihat because homes on ia�
lake, many communities offer a provision far allowing a
as it wouid be undesirable to construct the garage betwE
lots in the City where this becomes an issue, and 7805 C
He reviewed his anaiysis of other city's codes and
af a variance, noting a variance may only be gra�t;
undue hardship or practicai difficulties to the,�r�
a ca�e can be made for the existence o�' a h�.��ship
However, because it is not clear that all �'�he cril
may not be satisfied. Ericson nated �� ater fe.�
n���: � £
Er�cson reviewed the Code
there are prov�ssions in plac
within the h��� area, th� �
� � � �,
and pres��:?th� xtnpactPC€<
situatior� o� c�.�n�ti t�� appl
practical diflScu�����x t�aer�
can requesi a v�,��� �s�' �'
���"�`e<'�c��� ci
ihe Code _ 2,
constru � n, discovery ��'
y, ;
beca changing comr�►uir
��x � .: nerties in the City,�
are ivi��
eauest
it wou
ving sp
,en the home'�ri�i,��e`stree�,
and the lake. ih�re are six
;: o�le of those lots.
�e�,�.�n criteri� est�h��sl�ed for cansideration
�,���.pe� cases r�`her�,�he Code imposes
,
���� �'ric�on��i�dicated staffbelieves t at
.
� �����, �� ���,�pplicant's request.
can �'� �'�x��� the undue hardship requirement
is imp�rtan� �o this property.
� followe���y the G;��of Roseville and explained that while
5 ti
in�t bu�id��� ���aei���n and location of accessory but mgs
that this ���� s��t�1d remain in an undeveloped state to protect
�ture In sit�ations where the Code does not anticipate a given
sp�ci#'xc proper�y for reasons of undue hardship or through
�auz`��s;of action to remedy the situation: the property owner
�� �i��idment to the City Code. Ericson advised that amending
d ' 'nai
the e�ent that a mistake was made tn the Co e s ong�
�.t�on or condition wluch was not originally anticipated, or
indards over time warrant such a change. Because there are only
,h this condition would apply, amending the Code would not be
the public hearing at 7:56 p.m.
��������,��� ��°i��, 7805 Gloria Circle, applicant, advised that the impervious blacktop area of
about 50 fe�t by 25 feet will be removed and the garage built in that laca�ian, resulting in less
impervious surface than currently e�sts.
Cammiss�oner �tevenson asked if the actual garage placement will be considered. Ericson stiated
when the building permit is considered, if the variance is approved, staff will assure the garage
- placement meets the stat�d requ�rements including ti�e sethack distances of a 5ingle Fairiily
�
1VI���ads �T�ew Planatarag Coanre�i�seon
I���ulaa° M���ing
Residential District.
Apral 79 1999
�ag� 10
Stevenson stated it may meet setbacks but his concern is thai it might be an unsightly sfiructure
ioca�ed in the front yard area.. IV1s. Dietrich stated there are 1 S oak trees �n her yar .�ea which is
why she pi•efers to use this particular blacktopped area. �
Commissioner IvIiIler stated the "front" of the house is obvi
stated this is a beauiiful area overloolung the lake and it v��a
located in the rear yard behind the house. ��
Commissioner Stevenson agreed that with lake
lake) is actualty considered to be the front.
There being no additionaf public inpui, Chair Petersan
Ericson stated staff recammends that the Plai
appraving a variance from Section 1104.01, !
construction of a garage between the haus��
maintainin� the property setbacks for a��ci
sec�
he 6ac� �i��f��;
spaile� s�c�ulc
,
.:y�
`o�the house (
se. She
rtara�e be
ing at 8:02 p. m.
n app� av� T�;�solution 576-99
� City C�i�e, to aIlow for the
�l;a��ircle, subject to
the
Comrnissioner Kaden asked if any `' �vere r ived fro���teighboring properties. Ericson `'
L� 4 7
advised that staffsent out public��, ng natx�� to alt ��;�erties within 350 feet of 7805 Ciloria
Circle. Of th� 28 notices seu�, oi��� one phott� ��pt�ent was received. The caller was
concerned �}��i�t setback z��u�� btit was no� �p�as�e��i'n theory to the requested variance.
, ��,
Kaden siaie�
between �he
Kaden noted
roadway. �
:terson stated it
between the ho
be located between the house and roadway rather than
;�elieves this is common practice with iake properties.
irly large-sized white shed betweeii the house and
park has a garage between the house and roadway.
;"a, precedent has already been established with lalce lots to locate
roadway.
��(;UNll•����hnson/Braathen to adopt Planrung Commission Resolution 57b-99, a
a roy' �a variance from �ection 1104.01, ��tbd. 4a(1) of the City Code, to atlow for
PP .
€c�.�t�t1;, a garage betw�en the hous� and street at 7805 Gloria Circie, subject ta
;<t�i'e property setback� %r a principal structure.
Ayes -� IVays - 0 The mation carried.
Ericson requested the additian of an agertda item to consider a request oi Superint�ndent John
Hamrnerschmidt, goli course, to talk abaut signage ai the goif course and on Ciiy praperty. The
i,
:;:' :.�..: .- '�� l: .' C�.�- ::-�,., . � �.��.�:. ..;'.:
: . .... : ��..• �: . :.:
. i � . '.: . :�: . . . . - ' - ...:�:: . . �".�: ...�`> _. -�.:-: .
l��rands �se�' Plana�i�g Coa�e�tais�io�
�e�e��a� Meetan�
Apri17, 1999
Pa�� 11
Planning Commisszan agreed with this request to add: Prese�tation of Bridges Golf Course �ign
P1an.
Superiniendent Hammerschmidt explained the Ciiy Counci! had directed him to
possibility of billboards. He stated he does not like the view of billboards �rom
understands the merit of looking for alternaie income sources. He expl�%��t� ��
advertised "golf course coming" which. were removed with �� �,; tent o�`e�'������
advertising the course and hours of operation. However, Q e was a bu�t�c#. �s
looking at the option af oflEering businesses naming rigt�t � ith the b��,�cs5 ��,�
Hammerschmidi stated they did erect an entry sign but p�t'��anent;��ry mar���
.,, � .
1���� the
�c��
ourses but
� past, signs
he
could cost up to $10,000. He advised he has been app�c���� ��'s��eone interest�c� �� �l���i�l�
billboards, which woutd be an income source, and after r�r3e�t���� �itt� ihetn it was deternuned thati
if signs were a possibi(ity, the golf eourse property wou►d �e ��� ���� ��tio�i and provide th� best
exposure for the vendor. Also, signs in that location c�'icl be lauri�c���a Yo improve the
, ..
appearance. � , __ . . _ ,
Hanamerschmidt reviewed the nine praposed �"'� �
two additionai locations that could be use �_.� t are
on each of these tocatians and why they .< being �
questions. h•
,�:<: ;
Commissioner Braathen asked
viewable frorn fihe golf cour�:
ItFPs so v���a�s can be i�t�rk
it is di�i��tl�. �U ��u'er af"tl���'�
sites could h� rarik�d by that �
periadicaliy witli �t�c�x� �eina
_ ___..._..
has
in Mou�?��`View.
�asily accessible. He noted
[ammerschmidt commented
offered to answer
�
s�tes wc� �i be th ' st vaivable and least hindrance or
lerscl�iidt Si���,�lie reasanable option would be to issue
He e��i�����d=�ncations in the wooded area may be best but
�e state� once more information is ohtained, the proposed
;I�ammerschmidi suggested that these sites be reviewed
� tt� �eep the signs.
discussion about not allowing any new billboard signs
Co ;y4;,`"�ssioner Kaden no �`"'� E�ie�placement of some focations near residential properties and asked
�f �h� si�ns would be pl���d directly adjacent to the freeway wall to prevent lights from shining
Ittt� tk�e residential ar . Hammerschmidt stated he agrees with this concern and advised that �he
�rx�c 's'�i�:ntifi�d o�:.;�kt�� ap are very rough.
, ��Y
�;�� ����� ��i=esenting Eiler Media, stated the signs ha,ve to be of�'the freeway right�of way and
ihey a,re r�commendir►g the size oi 14 high by 4� long �vith all metal construction.
Hammersclunidt stated he has received same calls of concem. He advised that the City can
control cont�nt of the signs.
Commissioner Braathen stat�d he approached the Mayor abouf the poss�bility of allowing signage
, : ,:; ,
I��u�ds V�ew Plaean�r�g Cora��i�sio�
Ite�e�l�r I�eet�a�g
Apri� 7, 1999
Pa�e 12
�
to provide income for the City. He stated the City would have a lot of control over sign content
and k�e hopes ihe City woutd use funds for mare than just the golf course. He stated lie has signs
on his building downiown and knows they are a good source of income.
Hammerschmidt reviewed the standing City policy which a(ready regulaics�sigi
stated the minimum ir�come received by the City woutd be $ l,. 00 per st�r� ��-
that the bond regulations may indicate that any income gen ` �: ai the ��If �t�
with the galf course but that could be researched. ,'
� a�`� •
r � s�, <
Braathen poinied out that another need is to provide adv��seme �� he golf
Hammerschmidt stated this is correct and noted this inco,�z�;��r��rn req�aires no
Commissioner Miller asked if federal funds were used
Hammerschmidt advised a State permit is required but
rVioch�el Cron��►, representing Eller Media,
obtained and maximuen guidelines are estab.
commercial or industrial uses, �
a
te and I
;ro.pe-,rty
ient, He
h. He advised
needs to stayr
of the highway.
�1 permit needs to be
s io be zoned for
Chair Peierson stated he considers b� `� ds as���ight but ��ierc may be some situations where
they are not as obtrusive. He stat ���� as a g�i�fex- the la ,fhing he wants to see is a large 1
advertise�nent billboard. Chair P� �son siat� �hat whe�,�dvertising the course, smaller
monument si�ns are usuaily,u��d�ther tha��:� ���Qg �r�l�ioard.
from adi
determined in
the
t�se is so full of
board will face 1
�It�re possible, a
ar� obiectiona�sli
ions w�ere the billboard wouId aid in blocking golf bails
�, �sked if a motorist has been hit by a gotf batl.
:��l�it and this is a concern. He reviewed how liability is
:;:<�<:<;f
�i �i n�gative impacts have been researched. Hammerschmidt stated
'� t(��.t �his is probably not an issue. He pointed out that the face of
e�vay, not the golf course, and they will be placed into the wooded
dscaped. Hammerschmidt stated the policy can contain recourse
be placed.
l��`F t�r�s�r� r�Y���ed their experience wittz these concerns and assured �he Cammission they can
�..
b����,ti��'es��ci by prohibiiing the advertisernent of any agearestricted goods, political issues, etc,
�� stated �f �hey are told to remove a billboard, it is done within three days. Mr. Cronin
suggest�d that one person within the City hav� the authoriiy to request the sign be removed. He
advised ihis may impact the "richness" of the bids b�at would provide protection. Mr. Cronin
stated the actual sign structure could also be re�onsidered.
Mr. l�ean �xpIained the sign need� to high enough sa it can b� read from fhe freeway. Mr. Cronin
3.
i
1VI��nds Vrewd Pla�n��rg Co��isseo�
Re��lar° I�I�etae�g
Ap�°il 7, 1999
Page 13
stated they are usually at least i4 feet o�the geound wiuch ailows a ten-foot tadder to be in place
without ready access from the ground. He stated anoth�r option is to piace the sign directly on
the ground with a Iatiice bottom. h�'. Cronin stated they understand they are guests ar�d are
concerned with addressing all issues. � �
Chair Peterson stated if signs are approved, he would be very
removed. Hammerschmidt stated he shares that concern b�
reached, if approved. �,,
Hammerschmidt stated the next step wilt be to apply
Then it can be debated by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Laube stated that he would like to see th�
proposed when the application is submitted. �
Mr. Dean explained the signs are very site
work in ail locations. Mr. Cronin stated if
provide more design details when the sites
�
Haenmerschmidt suggested he prepa����iigg
- - presented io provide a more clear����> the
several vendors making a presen,#���n of wh
s:::
locations
Commiss►oner ����r��;
site would : `�ip tlle' �c
and sta • e plac�m�
nictu � e created of
er Miller
a sunset�
it ta
�ed
:dtobe
can be
subrnit
style and size being
� sign ihat would
they wiil be able to
�u� with �l�otos oi the site thai could be
Aiso a��posal could be submitted with
���it� has been addressing how to prevent
they are being asked ta consider multiple
if ar��r t�� the sites are approved, having pictures or video of the
to ad�iress impacts to surrounding areas. Hammerschznidt agreed
:t��l an the map are very preliminary in nature. He suggested �hat
�enerated signs on these sites.
her support for Hammerschmidt's suggestion to rank ihe sites and
on for the billhoards. �
6 33 >
������������ ���enson asked if the Piannin� Commission is being asked to make a genera
cotic�i=irc�s ���rsinent. Ericson stated there are several elements r�iated ta capaci�y. He advised
th��-� is a curr�nt Code requirement to allow no more signs aiong tlxe freeway unless advertising
the use on the property. Therefore, a variance or a Code amendment would need to be
considered to make it allowable. Ericson siated in the CRP Dlstrict, it is possible far someone to
propose a deveiop��nt plan. He suggested the Code limitation be addressed as weii as the
signage issue within the Ck� Districi and approva� of a development plan.
� ,
I. I I.' ,
Il�ounsis V�ew Pla�tnraa� Comrreission
Regtei��° 1�/Ieeti��
A�S�i1 7, 1999
Pa�e 14
,
Stevenson nated that O'Neil is not being allowed a"foz° rent" sign aiong the highway. Ericson
stated it w�s never zoned CRP and is c�arrently a PLTD.
5tevenson asked if the Commission is expected to sei the tane for allowable signa �Ericson
N�,..
stated the cuxrent Sign Code needs to be updated and is a priority for this ���ar.
;:
,� , � �:
Commissioner Kaden asked how adjacent residents and the :��> f the c�in�m�€���ty will provide
input. Hammerschmidt stated if a variance is needed, not' �' ion will bc� �rc�v��i�c� fsar the publi ,�`�
hearing. He suggested staf�provide visual aids to help t� ommiss in thi�;t;t��s��e���tion�,E
�� �y i
� '. �.
Ericson stated whether or not this requires a variance pr����i��� �nvith a public hear���; ���ldents
wili be notified in severai ways inciuding pubtished and m��ed �3t���ce, v��eb page, cable �elevision,
and the bulletin boarrd.
3�
C
Chair Peterson stated if billboard signs are approved,;�� k��ould sup��� �� I��g a temporary
si�uation with a sunse� date established. He stat i���. �h� �ond cove��nfi,�lso requires that any
funding generaied must stay with the golf co ,; ���uncr�sc.�znidt st��e�i he will research that
issue and provide the information to tl�e Cc�; 'ssjon,;� ��;,, *U�
�. �iaf�' Repo�s / Items �f Inf . �teoa� _
Ao 13evie�rv of Couaece �< �� ''
�; �• ons �t, 2/99 an
" /5/99
�%�.�` :��
��,�,s �' ,
Ericson updafied the Plannin� �a�iimission t�cR���d� �'���nt Council action to th L� d
condition�
Commis�i
as certain
mei:
z, �, , approve e �n ers
ised'��1��;��ae �UP process initiated at the Planning
ie mosf`"appi-opriate actian since it does not expire as long
B ���.����, c��' �'�',S Ac�Ef����e��Zo�eng Se�eenar -- 4/1/99
,<> ;: � �iG�s,
Ericson,
orted or� the {�'..rc�����nt Training Service Advanced Zoning Seminar which he
atten - on Aprii l, 1994 �� �fated an amazing arrkount of information was provided to
s,:: `.u»
pab; F ants including pe ��rerit court actions relating to CUPs which cannoi have a time limit.
E���t�n stated ir�orma � was aiso provided on sign codes and temporary permit uses. He
;
�ne��r��ed Commis�4� �iers to attend tlus seminar when made availahle again,
�� ..: ,� ., '
�4 ��������; n and �Ian�i�eg Coaeamissiane�°s Repmt°��
, :;,
I�do r�poY-t��wer� considered.
l00 .Ad�oua°�arne�t
T�ter� being no £urther business before the Fianning Comrriission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned
the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
(Th� nneeting irnmediately adjaurned to the Q,genda Sessior�)
_ _ _ _ __
�.
�.
i _ 4-
N1o�e�ads �Ta�vv Plannasag Corn�a�sioa�
iteganlar N1�etm�e�
� '�
1..�::::'.-.::.
_:..,:':_1
Respectfi.ally submitted,
Apr�l 79 1999
Pa�e 1S
. i .. ..._. .. ' . . ' . .
�:;
}. ;
`o.:
:;.-�:
�' .
a;
> ��:
�: ,
�
�
a� ��
�
_�
�
.
�
�
�
m
�
�
�
.fl
�
eJ
�r
�
�
�
r�
_ . . ... . ..
�
� �
a-�
� �
a�
��
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
0
�
�
.�
.a
�
�: ,
�
0
�
� ' �,.V � Lll
a a� °i pap
bn so � �a
to d p, R
n.
- m
�
� �
O
P. �
O �
� 0. �
� � u � N U
c � ,�j p. .+� o
O M
�, y v ai°i c� U
� C'3 � � ¢ o o. � c°�i o � �
� a a ;,.., o .,.
° � o t�+ 'x' N
o c o��'a � y�. � a � o
° q F � �=
v � a¢Uw v Qa. �,
i ..
�
�
a
a
�
�
Y
I '�
C�
�
II� �
N
bL
�
R
�
v. _
a ' N
^ i y m
p � O 0 V � „
i=� � � ��y � �
� � � � N G d P
� ;., b q ° Q. � U eq " ,Y .O �
� o � � � �, a, � = g
K a� � � .�
� �'i' q o u+ U .,. � m au � p�L' � �° o� '�'�'
� � 'a o � � � � � ... �2 0 � Z � N
�
�°, c°��`3HCa z ww"Aww�a�'. � r �� '°
C
O
�.
V
�
a
� i
i._. - . ' .._ __ - . . - ,.... .... .__ ..... .. � . _.. ... -..
w--�
G
�
�
F
O
V
cn
u
V
0
Q.
A•^ � '� . c�d .Q1n
i� }9 0 � s1 0
� � ,c 3 °
m o � � � �
�y �.yi � � �y3d''� m
6j U d.'�r. " � G
o � '� 3 v
� � � di�: pbC
ad � � � � U cd
i.y+� � U CL � v�i a�
F �+ N m
� .ti 3 a .� .a �'
U � .:.i itl ¢ U
0.
O
�
,�°' %��m?,
4-� 3 1�-. 'LS y�j � A
Q � O tl rn � �
3 `y �' � *''
°� aGi o �
� � F � � b �
b
'� � � ��„ ° p -d o
'� � 3 .d �' v
� � � ,� � �'> �
�p�� y �•y �,�
'O � � p � 'd � 'O
q � .� �
7 � � � T� 3 �
d
@ � � '� � ry
'O � � N
^p . O U � 0.
�J -�o .� w° 'y v '� ?j
�
�
�
�
A
a
.o
m
0
�
w
$
C
�
�
s
`¢,�i
�
a
ro
�p •°-� � .
P � � '�
� -y a'�
O b ,� U
y�,, ,� o
� �� � ?.
' � N
} p O �OU
b U � x
4 ^ � w .y
N �
3 3 � w
O w Q �
N O Fy �
�, N ° �
U � .a 'CJ
o � �
¢, � .�
m `� �
o �6 0 .�
w �a ❑
��a°,r'
N S U �
0
o c'''o �
a� p N '
N� � '�d
� � �
� 'p .a .�
� 4i ~ T A � � .+ ,� � �
P
� � � � 3 �a ... � Cy xy.
�N 5] N � � .�+ � � t�d f0 � .
,�j a 3 0 � �' � ,: � a�i n.
b N "7 .fl � ��'+ 7 � 0 .i � .0
7�� 4i �n iU O�+^� y��
A� O b0 � i P' .vi C� ��
� � a � � � y.'� yo o ,� �
y � O Id "^"lF .� � N p�
� �'�v �•� �� � � �
" ��.��w�;� � o ° a�
� c��a o W.� "� y ia �, � o
� a�� � �� o� � g
�°'' °' °�''��� �
o d� o� ."i� � W E�,' � a�pi �a
o ,,, � eu � o �i
� � a�' �°'� �x � �
� �"p, �y�j o � v � 0. Y .+- �' b
,.�°�, .� ,� a�i a�i � o :� y y � �
o� a� cU ��� y w p T
�'6 i. o� � p O p, tC
�.� o o�� o`� :� T'' 3
>, "
.� y.a � �� � G� b� O
P'�'�EO Gr-�i,.� `�b°
.�� � y � � � o � �, S U
a� o a� a� a� �.. o a�
� .� m �r `� q � � .5 � p. �c�
i '. .
/
�
Nq
O
.�
C
�
.o
W
w
�
� �
� b
� �
� �
0
b T
��
U �
�
a'� �O
� �
� �
o i
�+ �
d b
.�
C
�.
�,�x
�
Q
al
n..
ro M �
•� °� N p � �
T � � U � O O �q
m o s'* o
��� � ~ .q
F a� `a ,�,'�` 0 7 p .n
07 aF.+ V .n O � ,..
'+� F�,,. O N � � � �
° � `eL � °1 >. v
,�7 o-,.0 p� ���
a""G1.X.� api � o
Q� d 44 N a��
.� N .0
N.
��3+�°���opa
� -6U� � � o � v
.��v•� v� �a� �
� o a.� o :� a� �
� � ��� a��.
N�v �
��g~:3 °�',N
� � �` � � w7 p o
�i �O u 'o '� ayi
� "�~"' � > '� � � � �
O �n 4 � '�" .�`
�� op�, �.7
o °��-b �o
� � w � � � b �
T � �. ia � ❑ a
U V N�� N?i O U
,s�� � � � y � � � �
(-+ Ks U W ... .. � H
a
Z
j
0
C
E
Si
0
C
O
�
�
.yo
m
R
h
Mp
U
�
�
M
O
�
Z
,� ° o a��i �
`a �` n� �. �
� � V � �
p � � o �
� •� a o 'd �
�o�y-���
o 'O �
'O y a 'd � .b
U y p O �
,p p, � a"3 � .�
61 C 3 O
N � � � � v
U ,p � V,
sI . W
�, %
00 .� y � O '�
�
s� v
� `� � o Fqw o
'd � T _°: a�'i
� � p � � P
b o � � q �
�
� �•� � v D
a�i q �a y � "
m U � �'� � o
N 'O � � V �"
�Q � m '� 'o '�
ab� aro�
,Cd �
F-� P�i � a� �i3 ta
� � ��� � ^� b � �
� � � � w 3 C' � � �N
y o
b.0 'd �"' � � tTE P C fl
� m a� � � � � 3 � �o <s
p w ° �,� '� xa��,3 .� -d❑
�� � oy�5-� N wn x 4+ p N
a� a y C v� �p � Ft F O N T 0 N
�oy����oob�� ��a�
m w i� o�� y v�, o �� eo q
o •.G .a m N yg ' p �.0 a�
� •� � � � 'a � �� " '� � � � N a�
0.a��g• � ;��a�;� b
y� a� u on a -� �❑ o o n ��
.� � O O� td O� pp o� 60 A�� O
� w .�. a, C � a� ' m y
� � ° C � 3 3 � � ; Q � �o o "" �
�
'd '�dy N.� v' �a '�'1' o� � O O N iy?�j q❑ �
��° �•� bptC p N"d �,�, �, O q'O i2 U O
� N U id ^•� a'C b'� C��O N O y
�,` a. � � ,� � � �t". � � C_) N �n '� '.� p
G
0
�
0
'�
�.
�.
.-.
c
¢
�
L
�
S
�
4
m
�
C
�
c
F
�
�
3
�
�
g
�
�
b
�
�
p �❑ � �i � p � '� �
F V ����!777 � 7 �' � � 'D N
� U O.� ���� j O
,� U �
N o�F.iD .16 � vi � Vq P• N
� y y C?l d N 7� � a�
��a.m���?�...
N.� � NF..-�'. ,�' U,�'' N
� � Y p � 'L7 � �G0� � �H
y- � � � � � � � � �
•G b> • ° 8
0 3 y�• ��e y o
�� � �� 3 Y�i a� a,� �
� � � � � � p b � �
� .a � o x 'F° > � b v °��'
� 7� o o� v°� o���
��.� N N 3 y�• r' ��•O
P, � d � , �, F� � 'v" o
� � � � � � � � �
� O � � � � � � � � C
�u
❑ � S"i � � � m N O -d ,L�
� F � � O � � " � O �
� a� o v U v°�on " a 3 F
U �. a�i � N
U � o � U � o � >, -d �
,G N N 4
H N O�'� N W 7G N O<
�
G
�'. , i .:-� .- ::.- ;.. .::�'. ,�-'. .- ::. . :� , ::.- i
G
�,
�
l_:
b
G
b
a�
a
�.
G.
P
�
�
�
�
W N e�+
N � N
.y � '
7
b �
�:�.� �
����
�a��.
b O V .4'
�b y.�
.��oo�
���b
w� °�'�
� �C U
'� 7 '�
���
���c
.� �.ab
� � ��
w � � b
U a1
� � � b
�
A N �i f+
�� �b
� �
� C C
o � �
��.��
V
{.L
w�
�o
��
a�
��
��
w :�
0
'C �
��
� U
N
X �
�� 3
A
� �
� �
3 � P
� � N
b
w � '>
�y o
'� [�
N �
a� �
�
� p o
a o ;,
�� �
o �
� � p
� � o
�
�
1--
O O � d
U 4i
KJ � U �
Q � � O
hq'd � P' �
��o
�� „� �
���
.. b �.
�. Y
w " �
y ?i N �U
�3���
' o �; 3 0
�.� v'x °
�
a o ° U a
o :a w m m
� � V �
� ���
o"a��
�
.� '� u P�. p
a� � � � �
� p " � �
'fl q �` �
� `O 'U N
p] t�d N � N
�o•�� �
0
o ro � ��
�b a o a �;
�� � ��
�
�
.�
�
�
0
.�
T
�
�
w �
0
y q h
� d � �
�, �' a > �,
U o �
b C. � � � �
� u � O
���M2
�
a� N Tf m� o 0
b c�g � A � � p, ,tlp
O iy 'G '� F'. U p. tp
a � � 3 c°� � .°b �
o �a °� �o �
v��,�'�,�x"�
���ab'�3�
�
�' .� � o o ,�d o '�
���+�-���;�
� � �
� o� 3 p �,fl �
� w w P, m
� '� ° o �'' o � °
„'�", � � � .� � � �'
fi
o p y�! o -d �
O a � � � � �
N U � � n
.� � •� o � 4 . o �
a
v'��4-� � � v o «
Y � � �.°n� a� � �
� �a °�p, � w � � � v
Ly. 4� "' .d '� w � � �
� .. O �j
O � � �
� � � "' �H � N `p w
W p.
.G•j AO Np N y'� .1E u
a°��°�O�'°�'"o
�o m Y 'bb
� � � �
'° �o m q '° �' � � �
o�" w��^� � A� °'
�°mwp y � �-s y
o .�
�
�� a
o� -0
a� d
� �
� �, �� �
�
�b � d
� � � a
3 .5
� � � � �
.� N tl � �
p � y � �+
v � r
� p � '� x
p sf �
'M b.�r{tl y '�n �. ' � C
N�y G i..^ fi Q V v
"i-i 'l7 i�.7�•. ,L'� p�j U tl M
�a � b[' `� � h °? .�. 'o
�+ i w� 5 Ci O
�' �� �� ��`� �'
m�d V O tl
n n�� V� o�
�3����a, ti 0.�
i.
0
�
�
-�
0
�
�
a
�
�
m :
P. x �
.� o �p�
ty.� � � M'
0 o m :� e
N o ti �
'm ^''- o � i
� �y
� "❑ d � O �
� �� ° U �
� � �a � a.� s
� o v C'� � c
:a �a`��ro_ ��c
�
�
°s
�
.�, �
$ �
o q
°ja �
� °3
� o
� �
��
\
C �
a�
vro
0
� •�
� ro
`' b
�
T .
4
` �:. ;� . . , _
b
W
� a
c �
� �
� ~ �
� m N �
o .., °
o � � a
�
m
•D �p �❑ � '.�.
W .
O
'.g � d� � �
o.� �� �
o �
����ao
a�i 3 � �o �,
� ��b �
� �
� � �o �
pw° � F''.�
C .d � ¢� on
6 a� ... �2 A
� o � �'�
a °' b F .�
� ayi a� d $
���'�a
�Y���
b o�
',�,���5
o "�" � o ��C p
o°�.�'� idp
�
C " p � b .�n
����.���
d
'd °� w �
G � � �
� >:d a�
S � � P
� O � b
� �
O � � �
'�d N '� m
.o���
�����
���o
� _ .�
��oV
�� a
� �
� � �
cu �,a o�o °�
o t-� � b.
y��
3a��;
�
'?: �' o q
� � R �
�`d „ b "d m
a� 9 q N'G
� o� ,�'a 0.
� u ��
°' � u a,
� o � b
A 4�i �
?� � � p � 7
P � O '
-d O � �" �
� w ^� U � � �
G
C � �N � � °�
�i m u ,�, '� ��}
N ''a' U e] b 'O
� ttl ^N � LI O
� 3 � t°
� w p v° N � �
� ° �d y � F o
u
�'� � ro� b
al � � � � T
y '� � o � O A
� p � � U y O
Y 'd ,� ... t�
� � � � � N H
� � ,Q m '.. '� a �
'.,.d� �,Y � 3
{7 ^T+ N d .V-i U N
���"����Q
�°�"�,�'�'��
�j b p
� 'O � � p O
� � 'p� � O U
.°�.'�.�°� 3w u
� � y 3 ° � •°-�
� � �'e�P 3 �.�
p' � � '°°n ° a
� U V O G S'+ ��
y N N
� 'ar-1- P� � '� +�.+ "�7
a
C
�
c
4
w 'b
� �
U w
, D �
� � NM
o, p a�
� � �
a
b � �
G �j t�a
N ,d
b � N
� u Q1
U �
v � �
.a �
M.Q O
^' � W
b
.X O �
yJ O
`t° a
��
0 0 �
Y � .
� � O
3 a. `"
'J '+� �
� o w
� � �
� O e1
,� O �
p � �m �
A
N i� �4Un]
� O .a
N �' p
'� p o
j� U
N
� u �
O � �
,� U
+' � q
'� t ' :�a
� � 9
� w"
� �U �
H
� � N
� � �
� � O
❑ U M
'a� � �
'� b0 �]
� ~ �
m
m
b�v `�,,�Y„
N N Y O
7
� a 'd � L7
� � y O
y•D•� N
� � ,�°, �b 3
0
'�3 7 �v
•ij � �µ p r�
O• b
�b�� �
Y��x��
v �" �, °n. � °°'
o�;c�sw�
A .b F � � �
� � 0 � � �
�'d .'�.. � � �
G w � � °^
� �' o � d �a
Q � � o.��
� � � � � �
x•jr�' '� N � O
a K U
w� � p �'�
� � � � ttl O
C ."
'� � m .o ° �'
7 �. � y G �
H� W J N P.
M
�
4
A�,a�,°
o °1
y w � �
� � . 3
U � � �
�
o � 3 �
o'� b o
.b o ,� ,
��o��
y�� a��
.� � � � o
� � � � �
J �y V �
° •� .� � �
�
�,,,��3
M � � w '�
::
o � a�
� 3 3 � m
G�'�� N
� U �
� � � O �
+� ,�
�� �� o
9 T o� 'a
� p � �
,,.
� � � ��b N� � � �
� �!a o�'v y`�,=o 0
.°�y T � ' i
`,�'° •� 3 a � ia � �.: ,-� �0 0
O U � � � b ~ .� 7
� � � � b
;q �d p O
U T,mr,� q� �� ° �p
�� � ~ � o � � � � � °
� y.; o... • N� D�-, kw
b0 � y � b�.. P u�
H
0�i .: p� N P' � O
•� � Tp U w "a ~ � � P �
-7¢ d:� �, N m- c'�x
� p
6L � C � O9 �a�i o � � � �n d
N � �+ .� -' i q �
o �,� ;�� ❑•C a� api�''qy�
N?? 'C N l.., �.r. T N'C
m a� a d q m>. B`" - m
p P, g�°°' w m�, 6 G �
v�i o'�cn'd N� o ��.� ii q
� p �-�o o,a G
� y ro o o � � Q��
� o d�; p' a� �° U° 3
��� 3 �� ����'��
n o .a F � �
U p O � O . � �.�j � � � �
w � � � � o R� � w
Y � G t7 °' � 'd o k � � �
a, 3 '� �
.w � v° H � °o P a p � ° �
�
:� �v u°� � �y .�
��.��.c �
y��a�o
-�i '� � � °� � x
� b � � v �
� V � � V V �
�:e���''v
0
� � o � � Q U �
`^ om �
� •`� oC � a�'i aTi �
y .T.� "' H '� '� .0
�- � � N{.� � °� o w o
� �+ cd C� U �. � U
� � y U O� P� y
tp ° a� '� id � ,�j r
� � `�' '*� b � v
O �
,� �����-��>
m
m•
P� � ¢`�i `�' P� P �'✓ ��i,
-- m .� '� y pp c°� v�
U cc�q 'Op
� 'd O � "d � � ?� �
" ��a����o
Vl .�n. 'd y d p � `"
� '.'� $ � Y�. 'S � '.. �
� T� �� � �
� �bo�'�
n. � � o.�.��.g �
Y
�F�, .��q � � �
vg��u�i
�w �� G�
� ; g � a
�Y �
� o � �.t �
o a�
U " ° .�
y��� 3 a
'd � O
d a �
a�3�5�,
N � ;� � w �
ti O O N O
� a � a °� o
41 Q U
� � � N ti �
�. .. w F4 N '�
,� o 0
� ,'� bn � � w
���� o•�
�'<"U'��G�
_ 3 � � a�
� .� 'd
O
�j-�' m
w � p,'d ,�p N
.7000��C
� � a � � A
� �
.�
�
d �
�
ny T
U � �
.� F
bD � �
� � y
� � �
w
y, o
�.°�y� o°�o
� � �
� s
U y y
V
�
a� b � ;°
N y u
� � '�
J � ,d '�
� �
� � :�
��
� �� �
� i
�a C � °
b
�
�
�
0
"al
.G
�
�
M
a
�
t
�
�
�
c
v
�
-�o
h
� .�
o p, �
�o�
3 � P'
�� �A
� f' 3
� � m
b � �
o .q
.� � �
� � �
.� � �
c G�
�� l0
� ��y G
b 7
�
� � b
o �
�U
�
� '� o
� 4, � ,:
'.: �
�7p ��
p � � T
g
� ��
� .� o �
✓� td U
`� o.�7 m �
�w 7 � �
B � � y P,•N ^
��:a�� °�
�� �w �r��
a
� � w �'i' °�' � �
N 4' ;; � ,� � '�
:c •y � y •� � �
3G^ t° o �„
;.�°����+'�
��'g•�a v.a�
� o � �a .� 3 ...
U���ya����'S�
� '�G J � O N .� '�
w� o a� �� o 0
b � c"i .^�a o � � A❑
�^�j ,'9. q y�'�' � O P;
.� p ^� � � C p °�
m v•� oov qwro`"
id o � . o �j
� o � H ^' v°c �3 `�
� � � U � F � N}�
w � � � .n N � � V
�pa�,b'�b�
zss��.���
s
�
�
S
�
�
N
�
ro
w
V
�
�
O
�
4
�s
�
x ' �'
�� � � � '� y
� � e - � a, .`�,+. �
� �n � � � � � �i�
� � � � � � � � O
`.�y � �j
p V�Q31 w O 'd Cl �� .+
'p, N 6f � � . � tl 'y 'd ++
a v ''� � � o °h' � � o
� 'o '� �, �, o�. � � �j �, .�
i. a. o W �0. '� v .e ��
� o
� � � `�' � � � ,°�� �, a ' c �
.�v a" o ° a `- 'o�'� �
Cg t� C
. •" � tl SL O� � N���+ N �
q�y` R. d p�y tl'd v 4 5 O ��'.��'' �
b O�i'� � w{`' � W �'.9 " v U° a� �� Zi
o P. a b� r m � o °' n °' "� �
@�� C n� e a w �"� V� 3� a c''i � a n'� � E
` � �
p o � � � 0. � � � tl u � � � � � � • b � �
y �i N � �n � � 3 �' � o �'i
'5 b ' �
N� s a �e °�;
�
C
.0
�
`�
�
�
.�M
ro
2j
�,
V
G
r,
�
�
`p+
Q
�
g'
>
b
0
.�
7
W
b
d
�
C
� ..
b
d �
� �
T �
rn �
�
.� .d
o �
0
.� �
��.�
�°
0
4 a
` N
. F aa
4
0
�
�
�
.`
0
22
��
C
N
W
C
�
c
0
H
g
h
y�r �� ti a� w �i b ��
0 0 ,� o o zs
ab�- � m�;,b � � o
a� b � .� �n � g � .°c a�
� d � O N � � � 'd b '�
p � � �
N p J Hl � N U � N (� �
G
-P��4",� �0+� P: '�N
U � � R QQ � � � �
.0 o ' 'd u Q � � ¢ `'� �
� a� b o �'. � . o �
.� � � � o � � O � y �
� A � '� p .d 'O O � N
��o•b 3g�o om �yP
� a�i � o �' � 3 � � o °a
� 5 Cl U Q�� O��C N A
O 'a � P" ^�' � O M � q
o��• 3 ��� o� a o a
W aQi s°1- Y O m aa °�
�, 'd J � p C1 y abi
.y � ' q ;� � w �o .d �
�� � q 3"" �� � o w 93 0
O _ • Ca � � � o o � >.
�°a' � " ami y °' F°. o u c�� � � � °�' �
Hw �' b,A� ao�Cm rt' dro
i
_ ; - : i
' � h
m
�
4
3
�5 ��
3 I
� � E
�§����
� ����� �
h �
8�������
���������
1
�
� �_
:�
�
�Y
f
�
�-
{
��� —
���.v:�.�.�:
�
��;� �
�� �
�
. �,, . -..
. . ,,
' �����`���=�-=;�
o �i::° •. ,
:tia
- �a.�,� ; �'
1 �a. .•. q�� � � i
{,' p.�a�— + .�=' �g..
�� ..�_.e
� m» " g .. v
Aom�� � 1�=.
� ����m
r�� -�
�' �
/ °`� e `
�e%�' i= .; t
" �y .� �r' � .
� ° o � �a
N � U � �
� a�j o � ai
Vtn V H t�
� � � � �
�
c � ;; � � a�
O � � � � � .,
0
-._. id b U
�tl 'd
" �.�'.3�a
� � b o � � �
�Q���c�,�
O p o'�j � l. N
�. o�b�a3
m 3 � oq > �
X tW � p 5"i � '�
uJ � � y '� � ,�,
� o m s�i �. ..'�
o� ° '`3 ti¢
•�, � ° �
v � �a�i � ,� � o
o r,i�.57
� �.d.a ��
� ��� ro �,�
� o � m � o �
lJ p c� w p ��
_�
1 � - _�-
. �'; ' ;,
�.,� ' --; .,.
g � � .. _.._.. ; :
�i a'�� aa. �-; �
a_.—o:.—,_i_.��
���'`��
�
��,
T� �i �
��,
. ��, ��a ����
3
` T :��
���- �, �
� � ��
,
� �3 ( � �F
�J.. _ �1 ��� _
� � ' ,... ` . ' u
�� ,' :,
�
�
ll
I�
t
��
�� ! .�i
v�r-.�r
�al . ��.
(S
I
�I
��
. ,.t
//
„ .ti `cgn ai ei �' ,�'� �' _a '� :s ° ,� a � ° :ti ,� .� g
� � � .}: 'S '� � � N i`d '� � avi � o 'd 2� ,d° o � a� k
� >A �°v Q �•�,°'a,^"�� �°G.Aai 3.'� ��d °' a °
a) Ln � c� o e) ro� �y u
��°�� Q.'�`a a�� �.C�.�� L1t3 �.5 y E'' ��� U-d
<r.� r�
� °o $ b m t°�u m � u � ° ' ;� p' . : � � �a J� ,� � ai
a 3 � . p, v ° p �,Xe�b.p � � m � � � � ° o � �. a �
o �u' � � .� �''� 3 � � y 'd `'-' � a m �o ��„ � ° ''� `d ''7
q f� � ''y � � � � .� aqo o � � � o ^� b � '� � �q 3 3 �
a� s', G.? � �.� bb p °�� id
m � � � ,� � .� O. J'J '� �, p� � ,�° x � � o � � � �'�
�a � J a`{d.i� � �3,y � .� � � °1 a�i w � '� 3 °' 3 � � .d � � nv
f�GJ O O N .fy �!+U U � � � p .d OYOI •0 b � � � p � ��'�"' '•�� •C p
,
oTy�y� ��y���.z�° '�o�b�a;�° _�°��
,u p ap P'
- 'C '`�en �i C �' 3 0 � � x°y� °� eF � �F '� � � °�° � ° ,�°� w p. �c N
' o. � � d •� o �. w o �' ,b '�3 s � � � .� cn � 3 � �
°� p, q o o a'3 o b m�� 61 �� o �� 3 w p b° -'3 N.� T
°i ° o °' °' °' °� �l ° `° � � �°'� �i `° 4' :� � "' 'p '� � id w �
� � 'tl � � a �i �i � 3 . a� s°'. � o ,a�i� �� :� � w
„� °� � �Q ~°u ��.� �'e�y o � o'� vtG� �Nbvp .��„wv�
� 3 � ei �' �� o u�, �.�tL b �'� .� w-C � T v
v+ �, � O �'' .o .� O b � 3 "y � "m � � � � c�i .� �° ,o `� > .� �
� `° w' � �' � G� � d � o � o `d 3 k w ;� :� ° �' '�'a` '�° 'cb �
c � � a� � � m � o ,�a � ° � �d a� �, C� 3 � ',� °�
._. en v � ° � `� '�i .o � a�i a�i v � v 3 � � � N �" G 'o� � � L�,
x � o �. �.� .�y�; v
� � � � o o � ,� � � p .d N' a v Ci 3 c°� � � � T� � i-� °��' �
... . ... .. ..... ....... ......... . .
t . .
. . � _ . _ I'. . ' __ . .. . . .
a
m
.�
�
�
�
�
C
m
eo
'C
�
�
C
I�
.�
�
�
.g
�
�
::� i �:�:� - :' . : :.-� .. ..:: ::. -.- :
{ .- -
[3`
0
H
j
n
a
a
�
�
`�i
�
b
� ,,
q ' "
0
.�l_
Q
�
�
j'
�
Np
N
�
�
�
$
�
�
�
0
�
�
h
�...i .
�
� �b �'d �
� �� � m o� ��� ��,�� w w o 0 0,�
a' qa_ �.W„ `� n� m aD � p, �' y� v' � $�j m e.
�; (o �. oq � � y -A �, � Q' p, � � �
�p � C G `y `�i' C! �� �— �w' ;,�D [a ^ y �' c�
pp�`� Cp,� � m p o m pq v, PW �.j � 'r*�' rwS rp1i, � u' O o
p � P P �-�i � O. � � ^.��'. �• � P rn < � A' � � tT+ � O
P-�'a� �.� 4,°Y w�b�ac,�y � �� Es d ci
� ri, w rt
cu a�'o � o H o 0. n o p rn o�=' E�q° � a y a. � w �, tn
� � G � � w
� � � o o � � m � � � � v � M � � � � � a
rt �' %v rn n G
�'i �°- � o a � Q � �y � Ys a � C °' � � v, �' �, �
� " � � °' o �. `'C � � w P• �s � ti �t � �i'
�� �o x E a o �o � w �o o P' ,r�'* �v y,r �- �' � a
�° cv � �, �o„ ty '�3 o f�y° % rn � � ° o � m
�� c`�D 6'. E� C H 'd C. � y O�� �. �� � R
7 p � � H a' y � '�. �� (� �' � ip � � "p O �. � � �
a• �a c. o o� o o� ?� `T c�`v � A �,`DCa. ]. d' � o eo � �a
Y
� E � ��.��.rn o "� � a'_v `� -r^�'�.��°.�' ^
aa o C,. �rs � o ��� c. co � ,�' a
3��,� �o otr' w[# ft� M.� o w
�. o �° c�o y'� '� � � N � � g• � � `P 'C L'��'i �
y io �''�,". � N o w m °� o� o y
w a ���� �o � co � �� � � �.wao e ¢
o' � w v 4� w �' ��°-n :; '° rn T o �' �� v,
y �. `� � °' � 9 � .°-r' � w � a��a o � � � ' o � '
� n�� o. o��' �� e' � o� c�o �, 7 0 . O
°°�, ° o�. p � ° � w b a
� � a.rx� � �'�as�a'� °' :; ��t �
�� �.��o �, ,roi, a'�i .�+v�°i � p�.�'.�' C
t� � p. � ' y
,�,� UNG on ��(D � n� w rn O �
' p � �ii' P'a��+ rr P
� � � O
Or�.`' � �� _•. o e. v
�• "
o.: :
o � ` .
:.e m..�i�� � !
� a1 i
r _�`:.v..r�� .�`.__.r�...–.—:_
.�
�
. y . .'".._. w I � '
! '� �I �
' Ii �_ ������� �
�� �� �����
�
�
�� �� �����
i �-_____ _ � � � � � =
�
� s ��
. . .. .. .. . .. ..._.. ......... . . .._...... .
i
, a+-i �
a
�+
�.
�:'.
.�.�.��..���. •
O
u
N
G"-1
a�
4
W
�
m
H
����Na
� o� � 3
o ��� ,�H
�
n.
� b ,�, � 3 rr°
� 7 � �
� p�� �3
0. N y � N �
q �p � p � �
U U�� V d U
'� Q � � � w
� � � b �� �
� � �
� p �'�yTj�'�
b.�����
� .�
�� � � �,�
•tl � w �
a� a o
� s .}�a, .� � o
o � W
G � �+ d � °�
������
�� w_°; o.a�:y'd
`A W � � Q1 y. �
3 � � v u b �
r. r: �d a
ii.
p � ,� .� v
p ° ,�c`, � a Y � " C ' � d +''�- °� 'r' 'd r5 � 7 0
P m o � � � p, � 5 3 0 . _ � •G °' ,,, �
a. � 3 y � b Q � o u �' .��, c� ci w o � -'ri .`Y,� `� v
.� � �y 3 a � o a� m, v �� o •o q o .Y
� ^: o � d a ;; �3 a � � �' ;� a ° �
�� ��� m � � ° N.� �b o•�'� �� °1 u �� �
� �..Na .� ?: m ,aC �, Y � � :� .c .� � 4G7y �
c�y en � o [� '� 5 id y� T o P. � a � o b � a� t�
p � N � ..y. > � A Y ~ S7 .� � y�! � � � y � � r�. N
P N O b P y '� � D� y p rn �` � m�-' � � �� H
O
v c�i � N A p P. a) .G � n) p V, '� p N,4? � q,.�.+
� � q � `�,° .�aa � � � °° � . �,�, >.� P o •o� a `p" �'' tO °' a'
v 3 �.
G� �� � a ^a� c�i � o-d m> O P' d b� 5�p � N o� �� p
� � = � � � t� :� a � .� � � � � o �i � �a W � w a � � 3 0
� p� o � o� �,� O `�d 5 C a.� o � R� o� o b j� �v, �aa �
� a� � M a' "� `� "' :� � ai .d a� ,� o - v o .� � �' v �a 7 'R � � ''� y
.�i, 0°40 � � � " a � � � 8 0 �° o � °� ,� °� b o � 0 3 ° ~ � � �.
00 o c°i . � � � ,a � � .� � m b � � � o o p, � ° '� u ,., � p ti N .d
.d o" � �, b 3 3'� `' � a v ,_, `J a� � d t' 4 `° `�
� � .n � p �i p° .� � °' H co'o�'a� � .� � 5 -� w° � � �o'o .� .z ,a :a �°, ti
� oY°�� 'd�-o��� y��oy�y,�� I a.9�,dp,�`�, �"�,�
'� b '� v � °; a �, au m '� � en � a� .� 1� °' � �n � � ° � v p � � y ° � � o�
�o� a � ���, � .�� �.�a� ,,,,� o
q3 .e �
w� ��.��� �n�w �� uF oc°�.�IY2bd �3E- o� �d�w�a �U:�
iC
i
�Y
U �
� �
id u
� �
o ',�
O �
.� b
N �
•n N
b
°o ++
�
� �
.n
a`i
� �
N
ro p
'� j
N �
v °�
� �
'� v
F _°:
_ � ^
m
V
t
� ,-
0
w
m ,
� �
� �
�j
� " s
a �
� �
n
�
a
a
j
O
�
��
�F
Ca
�
"€
�
�
�
� w
�
a.
a
S'
I �
I ��'.
� �.o o•� � o
��u���� �
°� b '�^ °" �b' �,
° co � w � .°�
o� � E � N � . . ..
,� N � ��� 04
., , � � � �;. ,� �
a
� ° � � � �
w
iu � o � m �
�m y �'+, �
. � m ��-n � n
� �' o w m
� P; o o �
'�- �, � M o �
N
�i � �� � �
p- w � �'
tr��
� p,�n o
� xy �.�
��'o � �
� =�
oo��w
�'� ��°.
�aw�`° 7
o �
� � � �
� � � � �
� �
�"a � g�.r�y � � ��
� � � �,' � � e . . . ¢ m o ai
°° � �' �a � q � � � o � a' w � a
5' u o `� w�� < m�cs
o µ t,'d y� rn uo p.�� o c?, c° .�.
� E o r' `� r '� � -�
c�o [F W o��o 'd .�. °: o �' �1 w `D � :: m
� y� m �, y � p. co �� ,-.1 cc � m
� ��' fn �i � w �' o t�ol &1 m in
p' p o�' �. �� ��' p, a' w°+ o�
�o
� � ,� E .�°, � m �' � �a �' � � � �
o c.� d�� � y o 0
� rn rn a�i � c
C; .y R C Q
� � � � � O � � ��r} � x p `� � �
N
��'. n � � � A' . � Y` � �`'. � � � pq
�r° w � " n�.�, . `G o �D Y � w �• �
� f° �,•"te`, �i t� �p o P� o � �� p, o
�'m�°r��� � �°'a c��e ��
o � � os
R� � o� �' t..., o � o p. a
�'< � �,?:. � �� o �,�.o'°
o`@. p o o� uc � o`a a
�b �•c� �°'�'� w � � �
�D P' u� °, C �o r"� w°� �+
a. o aa �
�
`�'� � �`� d a �,b �
K °, -i'x�m.o �dP''" c�o w v�
� � � w �
w m o � � F+.�. �
u�'', �C' � 7 7 w w
i i
�• ;
�•
M
�
�
Z�
�'
O
�i
C a
� �
� � i�
Q �
� �
4 4 ��lJ �S 1
n� '
v <<�
°' � \
a � �
-q' Z r
; � �� �
a o � (
� � ' F� y s
a y t E
� �' � � :
`-lo
� a � n
a >
� �.
�� � �
�a �
5 FL
�. � 6 F y
Q �
o a = i �
� � Y
Oq.
g
b �
�
���
c
� .
7
i
w
a
ti
3
�
5
a
a
c
a
�9
�
4
�
w
�
�
�9-
�
0
�
m
�
�
0
a
�
�
ai
�
a
4
�
2
m
a�
Q
�
�
a
�
3
�
0
�
0
R
;
ti
�,b"�+q9 �x
b �i a� � ° �
a, � �; �. o°� a�
v�' � � �
-�'s 2 ua m
o �'
.j G N oT p�{ �
� e' o�a' � � •.�
.- o
p�c � � o n
.o� E [�.
o � G w � o
� � ... p o `i.
w a o a
OR, ry �p 'P'' �
rn�. � � p -a
Q.
p- � �
a �+
c�a o � � E s
E � m p. `�� a
�:; o :ja�
o y
p o �
�. � Q0 � �, 3
�
�m m'°
� � �� �
� � o �. .o
� a w � N
� w � �.
� �. _pf a.
p. p
P�
�, o w w
�
� ��.�
� �"7� G[i p 'ri �. 7 `�(p" G t�o � � " Fc N � [�o pp p �w (�n p rp
Oq• N P' �' Q � � " � � � � � �-f � � `�. y N N � o m
� w X ��'- � �°q :°- p• �
�•P-o g �c�w o roaa ., � �o °�� � :v.
'��' o c w�. co ,..� rv co o �—
� � a `� oa `� �° y��*i. � N -°n ,S. � 5q+ � � � � � °' � 'k
a � � � � � o � w � C,°. R F � in G M � �' � � � s
� w� m o w��a � js' � `e -ne
o`� co �p �+,�`C N u� rn o,� �.�� ���'c
�� n. a- °� a' o. o�� p' � o c�c p m°�+ y p�
�a�y� a��N:oa�� �������N.�
'� �� .b o `D � � w c o is � �, w � o � o � °0 �_
� �+,' o a .ti Cr ��a, .'v-v p. e, Ts ,� � � �o �y E '�„ °
� o� 09 w f° . o o�o �`< „°, m a� "�p. a g x',
�E � � " a. °» � �o .�+ oa' o; 2 �- °� � o �. �, x
H?� .� H y ° � � �„ ,rn„ .��°. � c09c � `� i� F ua
� a � � � � w � c � �' �' � �• � o � P, �e �-
� a �� '��Q'�'wN `� b � � �.0 5'w � o�
�a ct !y
A' co � �, rt. � � q ^ `ti a. p. .a � � p; � p � io `<
.�`<��°�.�°'�°`�::5p�. ��;��,.��°'°°-�
.`ej(p � � .. � �V o�.MP OO�o � �W (D � p' v�. 4
� N (ww9 � �.��G' 0 � p.� a :1. � � � � "* A p �
� m [v ; "aU �' w `� � 0. � p� n s-''T. `�S° � �' � � �
a � � o 'C pW� io a � � � `,� 7' t1 ,�'�., � �. � rn
,�p. �� �[yD ���- � M O N G w N � �
� �y .�
Ni m R' `G �.. cD N.-, O1 'G �' O c�i � N
�
0
�
5
C
C
. . . ... ........ .........
i i
v ���`h
�t' � ���
�f,�„-v-``f
� \����A
� � � ,..�' M '1'
� -�� I,..��+(.SN
ia _�.� �,� , 1
� s - �+1: ^i..r�i �'� ,�
� '� S �
� t-
q �
�
b
a
�
0
i.' � .._
b
a
H
o �
� i
a . 4. . p�
� _ �. � tr# �
3 �g ' • "
� � ;��
a ~.�' k �?4 �`. r
b �l' � i; °
` `' : i %
��t �
`� -___�._1-� / � I �
� ` EUj- ,� }� f� �:
�, tm
o � s
3
� � ..
� 4 �
a • , �
� '�
�
t
0
b
�
tis
a � .p .
4 i$"
� � � °"
4
� .� �'-aP-. _
w � - '�, 1
0 2- ..
� �� �.�
0
} ay,
� ��
� �'.
i' i
� �
o ''� �`
m .�i
a s i
a4
Z '
�. i
� - ' ���
� .'
° ji i ,; � ����..
is � �°l��
9�
��e � 11 �f
�_; � �i I
:i �a' y
�i� I
, y
M
b
�9
a
,,,J.. '�i'Z, �
.i"—��. t
. ri`�1n.,M.�` c
1'+ �. ?
w-Sy.�' � �
.4,. J�'` ,-,
i
. . ^ i. i
."''��' �.-�
� �-- ^"`.
�_ ,��_�,
y: f a �, �� . � _ .
y c,;t.,a
����K..,l,
k�_;��,c ..
� :`�.
..�.. '\.i"' �
�
�
€
4
i
:
� _�
.. ._, :�._.
�J
�'� �, �
� . yi
�. "-
�t p� � 6� B� P. � o amNo
0 �+ P� � �
o � o a �° rn � �
� C � � �� �i' �, m w u
o ,�„ p' � � � � o � �o
[�o � '� &' C � o o � Py �
w o �.o � o �'� �-° �
�' � m
� � n p,N. C��_,r�,::oa
��.���. ��ya�
�,��.�o.�. o �_
~�� � � n 04
� � `S E � � � m m � a'
� ��� c�o, Cm���m
V � N R CC � �• �^ '� �
`� n Q�� �° o p pi o
�QOry����@�o
w �� � a, " ; �'
C [o p' qq P�
... G p Cy n't�U p G• .w..
w � � � ^ � � �
� � °: o w
rn H o n g � 8 5
� m �n- a' ° w G oG �
p ' � v�i c�i p � -�i
w �'�'�, � �0� � �
� N ti� o�' II' '7� ti' C'.
� m� C o o°w ?: N
p�� � art
. °, � !° � x1 c�o 5'
� g,
o�
J
�
�
w•
�
�
C
�
�,
�
�
$
d
J'
�•
ro
�
2
ti
a
00
�
Y
�
s
3
�
£
r
,
a
�
v � K1
� °o a
o c�
"' K �9
�' w p
n R 'b
� •�I
n b
v �
0
0 0
❑ "�
0 0
rn �
d o.
� �
0
`� �
� p
'�U"
� R'
w �
N �
a�
� O
'a
�'�CJ�„b �
� � �
° �'�'���;�
� � p' s�' w �
o p O� � p
sa o-a m c� o
�'y M
o w '�'� �'
� �. m
� o o; `^
rn � y t4 �'�'.
a
m�.°�, N`D
� � G a �
°° y
� � o � �°n
� � � o �
. � � `� N
� � y � �
O
��-n �', "" O p� '
�' p �' ,b p
m � � �
� �
� � � �
� � M
� 6 �
�
��'�mr"'c�
G�i���� F�
E
�
y� � � M� n� 0.
� � R. C"� �
b��s�•a�.
`�" c��aP'
o%�� w .°� a...
0.p�.� m 5.pi°p
�°'�o � ���
�o�m�,t�
���,.���
vp,�T� o
Y O � � � O �
o t9 q w.�-.R,w
�. N � h� c°i �.�j r"A
t�
�.�,\wn w
�F O�y �
H � N
� o 0
C. � p'
� '� �n
N �'
N
o�
C
G^, �
rAA�PNN�/+
�� O O o
O
w��,2���
�' z a' a' �v- �
O QO y
P
�tJ c3
C O
o �3
0
� P.
�+ w
E �,
�' co
�
� �
°^»,. Ks
o �f ro
� �'
m
c�
� �
� �
y
� �
G "��+
��
� �
N �
w� O p�g � a
#.�.�C �� G �.
pG p tra �
G w �
�.,� � o o � �
�g �� �ry N �
C N (D 'D �•
o 'cpi� °. � w � o
� y o.fDn m a' o
w � �
,ti roF .ro^
$��� � � o �,
b � D
a � � ° � �
?a � �' „��, '° o
y � �
��- �
� � � � p �
w �'
P�. �° o ° �o
O '�
ro p � a c°�o �.
� � o .�°• � �.
'c]
.ws
� N y � � �
� ,�
� �' �
0
BoE'���,
o ro �
o•� �•w� �
� � � � G.p{ �-`n.
u [G fD '1 (9
�o
�v�,�.-1rorom��
�V�C�i���� .�+
��•� �•�• �
b ;
m
o ti". o'
m w a
�.n w�vv �n��
�p o Q
'Cl y fn '� �. C. C •�-'
�M�,��� a
� �o E w w P'o
ab.a�o �n �
G�w°ucaeE"Ew'
G�'��°�y'�.
'Cl � � „ O � O y
�7•w+�P�•nr�
���»r
o'� �p � n N
p
� �.�% � x�
p� � � �tS
v�°�. �� J�l
c°,y °w
v. � o'
� � �
y+1NN�J�A
Np,~~ oO
O
ca'i �+=nwo%�`�c^�
p' S- c' X a'
�
aw
�r'��F �
�G'�n] �.�..
m�.'^g �
� °° � -s
o a
� �
�
m
��o�o=
b N ���� F
v q•�`ro ro
��a::F
0.�� ° �
��� rn
C w ewi,��
•O�rWy�
uP y ��
En�
�� A
� �
� �
�' C
m
�
m
(YV
_
�
-+.
�
�
�
� opq �
w,r..� ,�D„
o � �
w �• N
w
n. »,
F• y N
� �' �
� � P.
rn p. a
y �, �
��
m
� a
0
��
. n
� o
R� �
� �
O
A �
�
. a.
o F
G �
� a
� �
m �
�y
�
�r�ro��3��a
n�'��q �
::��tr'� o
� a
H
0
�n'd c7 „' ,g m o
o ao �°c
'�y<°�'a'd�~
'�5'0��'0
�'��C.o�
p..-• t� G 7'd
��.�� �
� w �� �. £�°.
c �, » 4
'°o"acG:
ppq n Q. � w
�oo"�
:.-.on �w
.o
��P.�n�
wO��G ^R
oG 000.
�' "��,
U�9 p r?
oG
�
� �
R.
0
^tiSy��,.N.W ~OOON
�� p ~��OOO
p O O O
c°'i�cainM' o��P��+n`G -rh
u-�a�a' a'�'rro'
� � .i
� w `�
E �
rv � �
o �
S. � �
a.
� �' rn
H
o �
� � �y.
� � P
�
� � �
� y �.
�0
� �
co y
n' uwg �
� ��y
� � �'
M �
�' �
��
�
� i�
m
�
9
d
�
i�.
f"1
0
�
rr7 � °�.�b��
p � o a � �
`° � y a � K �
� � � � � � �
"t- � o�{ w. m � �
P y' P V� (�9 � [�D
FI QO y. CL
v�'' P�F! c'-�C c�i w
O � j• � � � y
� ' N d
N � o�c � c �'�
R' � � o 0 5'
m 5 � �:��,
w m � a w.
o.
a �,'
�'� � �� a
y x N �
p.tY< < o�a
�
m '� w �. P- '
w
�
�D , , a
�. ,"� P. a N �.
� N `< � R. [a
y � O ^p��' � o.
� P+ pp' �
a• � io � F' a
o "=� a� ^'
P
�� �'��
�� ��rp�-" � �
p iD [�D ' j iG �'
�o
��"j`o� tvr�'ty�'�
m
�'� �� ���� � a
_� �. w a.
w
� �� � �
o p. 5 �
� � � ^
Lf
trto �.� P m'�iF:(i,��ai
�n y �. °o p �,�c o a
n
�oa^�m�����
a� r. w ,� c. g
.�°"'�`°�.��,�,'��
`.o � a9
�������p���.
F -�i O(1 y-•- �^. Q� c
a�.�'�iwo��ao�'
� ��O CO d
p� � N � I1 =� V � �
�Ra^�eoo�3"E
n�n}pi0_�9 ^o oi C.
a�Rwu,�'rnw�.8 �
o� � < � �' _ e. �'
�ryw.°aon�d:^
R C�o.�w U
0.n�� � A
� �� N n ',�
�wQO d w
� o
�G rs M o. �'
O� T .wi y� 7
<
(1 O q
o C. �
vp+N � n
�
W.-�oaww.�
��00im0 �
� O �
fw! (w] O M�� � n n�l
cr�a� a-u�
ro
�r
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
��� � ���
o;
^.�'w � ro
�O0 w ��
y � �
n c� a� a� Cj
�c.°����
.� rt��f y�.
a� �w� �
���s`°�
� P'° cs �"
� o` � r�
� �wyNo
o�
.w. E � p'.'�y�
� ^ �
yb � ^ h�
o.o�° ?: w r'A
� �n L� �. p'
°o � °o�° �
M
�a mocn
� o �.o
0
� o' � o'
F�.. m
�
w
o'
�
�OOO� w
P
�� ^ry�M
ux
'd yt��ntnviww nsztn HUF szs�tnFntnw(.zva o�F tnv s9Fnus o�� FncnwFnw(n o Nvas�vEn�vwcn nwFn�nen y�� viFn�v.c.v �
�! �o' wo� � �°� p'
�� �\o AO B e � Gv o Nw �o O NN r �� � NNN 000 �(� � U o
fl ^n NN 00 (� � ViA Ntn�l (� V�OWN u�ON
p�ViO 00�++ O�i 00 OOU W O Y�OOOU O�000 O�
o � 000�000 p^'OOJOOOtAO p 0004W p OPOA�� [3 OOOOJU+DO00 � ONJ�nO „
OO�oOOO OOUOOOOO ' OOOOO �' 4a�OOO r OOO�tnOOOOO OO�OO
� O O�n O O O O O O O O O O P O O o O O O O O O o d O O o �(n O O O O o O p o O O O
69H VifnNffi9fA�w 6/f4'lV�vifA6'i69fAEnE9 6/ff9E96'lfnfiAfM 4nV1N169ViNivfE9 (l�69Vib'l6�fFn6�lfAEnw6�Ni blHfvi63HfViVi �y
,
C
Grt
�0�0000000 tw�00o0004� Ifio�P0�00 IN�-1�00000 �OC�OOON004400 �0�40000
� 6'1 . �
Ni b� �
N Q O � �
O
J O� v ~ ' J W
� O
� � w W uNi O d
i-. � . � . . . .
-' ' ` " _ - - :.: � �._�
i
.. : . �: . . . :. . . !; -: �.- . ... � _ -
. . �; �., . .. . . :: . . �: i � -
�. , . . ::: . , ' �'� ;;_
,. -`
. . . . .: ..: � . . ��.�. � . .. . .-- . ... - .'. - :
�
e
�
ti
i
;4,p�.�;',''�`"� �
r.:_:.:� ��,.¢ � i
: - . f„
. ' ..,-C iR� � rttb�r
.LL� � .��r,,�} ,�g
.. r�''::. rYY,�i'tf�', ;.
lx ���Z1��Y���` ��1t��c1�!
�'i l�a r S' �+� ��.!\:9M 1�
'�fs��a� j��fi�.+�+�� ��
f._{,y, ��,h ;�.
1�1
�� :. �'
, ,xa��C
:��'�'
ti4.i
. ��,
���
�
o�z
., � o
� ��
� N� �.
� �' o
�D o
w N �,
� o 0
y. ,a `�G
o a � .
w p ...
E3 � ��
� � M
v `h
�y � H
� 7.�0•
� � 7,
O � p
�nyo'
H �
N
o � �
� � ��
N �
e g
� �
��'',� �'��%q.ro�o ^cl
. �O o �. p �.
�p:"�°"�?:
°q�" � � o p �o p �c
woD�^,' ,�'"�,d�'�
���b � aa�.�
ro ro � � < n �
c r � `D fD g'
�
ii " � R: v° � �
� n ,.o.h cw�o � 7 �W..
O � � � � � P
ti O � O S' �s
H � � � p �+'. P.
, n �
S o•� � � � 0.
°�, p o• �, � a �.
�•�.� o ° �.
�. �' �. �� �
p �, �
o � ��
� � � �
� ° w
f0 �'r P;
Q' o' n n
� u� o �
ns �.g C p.�� c� E'r�y
�' m m
� �.w �, N a�p c��o1 ��.8 w m
cD o b E�' 0 2f R• P W� p-
o; o croi �' ��+ m o �
�� �� �.pp ��K�'��a'
� a. co „�D, ° o � �' o- 5 '� _< �
N ° o o "�`C ie o M�. �'s'
� ���•�,o� a� � � � �
W � n�- Q,�„ ,d pp 'y p, Q, p N
F. •°� °, a, ° � � rn '� °, o � �
�°' �,�`C� � � �aa-co � �'
+' ic � ' � o ° �. �x �. o
� ox� rn � w ���� E� c`.�'oy
�, !n N� o� O N�• F HY. fpD G
� O �. � m b O y p'.
.�. �. �. �� a' p. � o�h �
p. � �. � `w�' �.o Co `�'�-_R� �
�' �°°�'ao�'°���'�sS
a c, � ' • � ��° r° � � o c
�n °p -�*,�, $ 'b Q. `D w � " � � � �
� [q
'� :S � C m � N p '.�. N � '�t''
� p(�D C�> W�; n�.,�y+ P[D
o �-h C C v�i �c] o �o co � � p
E � � `D � � �' m N �' �a io
o q• �
'�' ,o� pap � � a°'a � o �p� � n o
�n W O� P ��' p(> ""'
- a'� � �,E aao � �
a a m �`° y o.�°-' 'w�^ a;° rn
�b ����� o ���.� Mo ��o � ,�� .
� a-'d „ °' �'' �a. m m co �' �a' io � p � �
� � �D �D � a. C �r p � ��i � � � �,5� � � 'O b O
�. �, p w � < o �' c��n �' k7 � �. E c"o � � `�' �
�'o �' �, m `� �° � � a ro � �' o, �, °� �n cy �
�((cppp. � p ro o ti .�+ � � (7 � v�i �p+� w pFp, � 'v
� p M O b �n � M.'�i � d Q,� p� '-�-' x o�
d � M� x
� �� �,� �����'�� �� �;o o�
W q p � o ct
o m � v�D, �°-e � ='' n ��q- °� � ,c p w �, Q0 �°,
�. ,-�• ° c�+ o �o
C � r �. rn � � p � R' �. �j' "" � o w
� w °� o �j' � � �o t�Ro V � � a w � � w �
rt � � � � � P O � � � O � � �•
�d co � a w,a m '�`y w o ?'. � o
�' p O �. ..@i, 3� � � � �c� � m �� � v .�-�. � �'
.`�4��'� E m �°-no 6� `�° °m� � a�, �s�
� 'i3 'D ..�. � p 'C .-�i� co p. � p p
'a � � (D � � G. p� �• � H y. � N.
�, b�' �� � � �+ � o co �x E� q' w
� w y � co �- ro p, o Pa o, ,d p`D. N. "
� b p P� � � ,d �, � p� � pp� a � �' ro,
° � �. � a
P- ��' O m o,�y '�t � o a. �
G
w W� iu `G� «ai ., i P" �, 7 p� m p rn
° � �' �', � i3 p � y �D d a
R G tn m co p-�W- �
'� ��� b'h b C'� p � p4
�O' � QC � 0 0�� D fa 'd H
� � � ^. P. � ° � � p w
�� E� O �� O� C7'. �n
� o w `,� w, y� o�'
��.�. ��� s�-a»,
p,N,t n� P' v, 7� p' �' �^
n�� � Q' e�y-+ p p ���
? j ' O''c7 O N .��. �, m
� o� E'r � Y ro �; ��
� G � � � P.
p. �; S R, n o rn c�'n a�' �.
�' ` � m
c cs
� m K7 �' p� R. � o co
N P. a4 n n �n
�. �� o' � ��„ w� o H o
•��l''+, ° � �i. m � •°d m � P; �
E• � � P' �' � �p � � � Oa
:c � w �'' ^
�e ''s � � p. ,� '� � w w ^
�
� ., �
��o ��.� � b �•o
� � �n' P' ° y �' �' c
� n p �
� � � �' o o co �' w
o '*+
R m ,��0,_, �' �-" �. � ^ tr'
'� w w °�' m � � � �`+Cr
� � o � �' � � � a•
�• m w � � 'd c' H; `:�
'�
c1,
�
rt
�
�
�
�
�
����y -„
�� ��� �
..���� �
� � � o �
ti
e', o na n �
0
C��� ao
E � �, �
� � � �.
�����
� w �
� � �
� ��' �
N b
O ¢` �''cy
� � r-e o
N 07 M ...
�o Q � y
G � �
.�yo g"m
'd �0 ° o
O �
�•� � O
� ���. �e
� p � y.
o � o
E � �' .°�"i
� �c° m o � �
� � � � �
� � � �!�f P' p
� N R. � N ^'i
< N � '° � �•
�.bE�� �-
n � �
O
�, < � ° 'U
N � � p, O'
`� �, ,� � �.
� �' ��
� � � w n
� � E � �
•o
� �• p.� �
�- o w � �•
�� �� �
� � �y.�
w
Q�q; p p� � a
Ct' y�'a N
'o P; � co 'b
m
�.�'� <�
� a�a � °», °�
0
. ,
�
C
�
C
i
I i
�..
�,
�-'
.r .� �
a
�
�: _
; � . _ :
� � �
. . �
�
, ; ,�; ,; r _ � : '! , 1; . ,
�. i��. � .-� � l. :
� � � L �� i �` ��'�
� � _.
l 4
� ;.�'• ��'.
� � �
to: Planning Commissioners
�rom: Jim Ericson
subjeci: Jim's Schedule
da�e: April 26, 1999
Com�issioners:
I wan�ed to let you know that i will be out of the office beginning Apri127 though 1V1ay 7. The
first week I will be in Disneyworld with my family, the second week I will be at a Zoning
Conference in Madison Wisconsin.
In terms of the meeting on May Sth, for which I am sending to you information, there are no
planning cases on the agenda, so I would imagine much time could be devoted to the
Camprehensive Plan. Rick will capably lead you zn that discussion.
Rick is also out of the office this week; he is at the national planning canference in Seattle,
�lashington. He will return on May 3, I999, as will Barb Benesch. Barb is our Community
Development Adrninistrative Assistant and is a nearly twenty-year employee of the City. (She
siart�d here while in High �chool !} As one might expect, Barb is a wealth of knowledge--we rely
on her experience and wisdozn far more than she realizes! We are VERY excited to have her
back wiih us.
I3een has contacted me to remind us that he will not be at the meeting on May 5th as he will be at
the Rice Creek Watershed Board meeiing. Gary Stevenson has also informed us of his absence at
this meeting as weil.
If you havs azay questions while Rick and I are away, I'd su.ggest leaving a message for Barb at
717-4024. She checks her voice mail frequently from home and can pretty much handle most
�nquiries or will direct you to someone better able.
�ee you May 12thi
�.�Lv
. ,: ,
,
::; , , ; .
= ;. ., ;. - _ - . . .. .. _
,. � ..:: , - , :. . " -. _ - -.._ .
- i
1.
2.
3.
4.
M��J�S VI�'F� PL,AI�NII�iG CO1�M�SSI01�
I�ay 591999
7:00 PeI'�ie
IZE LTL� MEE`TII�TCl
AGENDA
CaII to Order
Roll Call
Citizens Kequests and Cornments on Items Not on the Agenda
Approve Minut�s:
a. Apri17, 1999
� � .. .. , � �. , . ;�. �, � , �. : �: � � ,�� �; .
.� . ��':� � y. _ •_, ' ,'I'
;f' _ _/' � '.�-
� �"' _
5. StaffReports / Items of Information
a. Billboards
b. Previous Council Action
c. Planning Commissioners Journal
6. � Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
7. Adjournment to Aaenda Meeting
{Immediately Following Regular Meeting)
�**�*��**��*��**����***��**��*�:�*����*��x
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQ[IESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMtTNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
*��������x*��x*����*��*�***�����x�*��*����x
1
�
AGENDA SESSION
AGENI3A
Review 1Vl�nutes -- April2l., 1999
Discussion regarding Comprehensive Plan Transportation Component
a, Streets Committee Report
6. Highway 10 Design Them�
N:�?�TA\GROUP S\CON�E�I�PT,ANCONiIVI�iCAGENDA\ 1999\5-3-99,REG
� - •
,..
��
'��P
��m��
��n����tp -
1����6
�=
f�s � tn����f
�Cornrnissic,
atl�we� and
I�lfitl
° statu
to d�
' IFtli
�� spec��:
1!
�
� �'�
4
�
�
7
�
�
'�.�����e ��oi
is t�at t1i�
represen�a
�o�n�i��r�
��e as a
niui�b�r �a:
i�x�I3t�T �
c�urse �c�
��� � � �� -� � �� ~ .� ���� y�� ���� . .
��.��...:�: . .. , ,
� ��
y..
IV£c�iand� �'z��r �'��n��g ��mra�ssion,
P�icic �+ap�e; �',omr�.u�iy D���lo�n��ix� T3irec%r
�zl�b�ards
A��'ii 2�, � �'99 . . ;, ; ; -
.�� — - --
,...._�., _ .«�...
�� i� y�,�z �,� ��.� Apxil 21, "19�� me�ti�ag, th� Ci� �aun�il has asked that t�� pla��n.ing
n�;a�-�zr�u� �:ci �o�lc ant+a a�d mal€� recan�m�nda��c��s �+h�t���r �illboa�c�.s �hoiald b�
what p�oce�s slic��al� b� us�d; rf is ks: d��erznined th�.�c ihe �ity �.�vants ta alis�w
; t�e �gc?�� �i��rs�:� I��z`��onali� ana ��oi � f�n�af bii��ic�ards, � a��o ha��. ��xzou�
i�out gx�.�a�i.ng �a�i�i��es tti :altc�v+r billboa�ds o�. �i� gc�lf cou.rs� �.��� ather si��s i1�
;c�v: ��� my' �a�.z�ci� �l�is woul� caz�siziu�e �. us� v�rianc� �whi�� zs prohibited by stai�
��ternat� met�od �f add�e�si�g �his; i� tk�e �zty u�islxes �o per��it �illl�r�ar�s, �vould be
aaxien�imen�.
�ish�s;to �roceed io approv� billbc�arr�s� i�vt�u�d rac�m�zend f;�at t�� c:ade ��
�l�ow bil�boat�d� by condziaon�� use perrr��t anc� tl��t s��ci�i� sta�dart�s for bi�lbraards
4 in th� code._ Th� �y�es a� sfia��ards: ec�uld irzclud� th� followin��
faximu� �zgn area
�a�izz�u�n sig� 1�eig�it
��nimur;�i dzs%ac� be;t-�ve��a b�ilks�ard�
o�� type
�gn €�c� con�g�ra�io�i : :
�iiurn�in_�is�anc� aa�dlor sczeening requ'ire�ne��s frt�m reside�.iia� �r�p�rty
'�tal ��.rmb�r o�'Y�'i1��Qar�s �lowed
�errrx�tte�. IQCaiiai�s
r�it�urn:���g�:� of permit
11�znim�i s�tb�c� �equ�r�ine�is
[� a se�ond issu� [�.a%would I�ave ��? �� ov�rco�n� �f bi��bvazds axe i:a b� �o����ctc�, .It
�il��oarci cor��aily ��i�l; k�ave to, a1sQ ob�a�n a}�exrnit �'�o�a iV��C�T. ��a iail�i�g to a
:i�re �ra�nn �. bi�lboard ct�rn�ar�y5 I���OT xec�uir�s`�ha� �aiilboar�s �us� be �a�at�c� i�
k� ox irid�striai zoning d�st�icts: �e th�u�l�i cha� tl�ey �nigl�t �ea� a gcil�' �ou3cse �s th�
�c�r�mc�r+cial �.se z� ii ���as in d zotxit�� disitici ��rhi�h p��i�itt�d o�l�+ p�zl��,ic ty�� uses. �.
th� pc�te�iial billb�i�c� si�es are in i�� �l�F' zc�n�n� t�istxicf. It is t:s��clea.� �r����i�r
c�
�ould ap�rove �e�r.�iCs iri ilr� �RI� �istri�t. F�n �lt�rnati�=� -cuould b� �t� r��a�ae t�� ��1�
'�'. �i�l� cc�urses �r� �e�n�iti�c� c�ses i�� t�i� P� �i�iri��. �-�o������r, i�e ��.u�ent �i�� c�c�e `
�
. - _
.,, _
l
/ f�.,
/�?.: � . � ... � . .. .. � .
��'.5��!�1�;��if" ���",� si€`il, ��e�I�'TIi: c`?Yi� �i�i���� il: l�"'s�: ��d� t3:° �E' r{3�"A�'_ �J�i.(l�f fil:, �.iCiii��e, SG��t���.!�s f�"i�
� �
� � �f3€�i� �CS���.{� �� ��i"�'t�il��� �.Cs �s:��£���v �➢%�I���F'(1� iY't 1�� °���t<i��£ � .�'��' �. 31�?�i�� 1� � �,Cif�f.i:ii.'�3:�"i�! ��8,!�E' �;�,;Iax7�i. � ` c
�� ���7��.�Y2��_ �� � �� ��
� "�i-��Cis���, u�.��;.�c�j: ��x�C'E�i�' ���."P,'LCiIPi�� 4:�3t`iil`3iY �`,s'1a1i1 Ckl��:i��� �}�� �f;���;1".�� �;t�l��t:y�7i, E�i���It°i�'� t�:�cs�:TE� �,t; ii'iC;
', Z�`.t�.�y �g �.��9 ��a���:a���, �"��� �:�.;���rn��-�i�,.x ��{�;�I�:u��� �isc�:s:� ���r�,� l:�r�r� cs�'�r�i�liy �r3����:-��r�c.�s�
rr ���c�a1i� �� r.i�ili��cJ� �as�r� �n 'r.�� j•���1 cs c�� ik�a� dis�;�s5? ,�y �?%a��` �;U�z��� 9:h�r� ��r����°�; �r��.�i'c
f c�E°��sidr��� {3.r���a� �rnc;���� �'�� ��i��,�ri���, �u����.r�s����� �;c�i��i�cr�.t�v� ac �� fi�tt,z�� ix���c����.
�
r�:u:i��,� �c�oi�js�`cor����rv=�.��?�rc,o�,��i��-�-���.1����
f �,
�
. - . .... .:-.: .-.,'__:
;
; ��
�' �. �= `_ � :�� � �_ `' `� � . i y. � '�, ' '. �� '- �� `_ � � . -.: *(-. , t � �= � , _ -,. _��> `'`
`t f , �'- i � ' ' 1� ` .�� ' `'
!� a. " �' � - � � . �% ��
Itegular Me�tang
Ape°°sl �19 �999
1Vloc�ncis 'View Ciiy ��1F
2401 �ighway 10, I�o�red� V,�.���.'�, �VII� 55112
1. Cal1 to O�°der
Th� meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pet
2, R�11 �'all
�/Ternbers Present: Ghairpersan Peterson, Corilmissi
I�aden, I,aube, and NIiiler.
,:� ;
IVlembers Absent: Commissioner Stevenson wit ,>;�i
t�- a
Also Preseni: Planning Associate Jim Eri �, Corcu
Council Liaison Rager Stigney, and Re :' der Car�;
Inde� io l�inutes
�'�
Planning ��se'�To.
Over-5ized
7:00
Hegland, Johnson,
Director Rick Jopke,
�,,
,, .
� < �3
^:>.
S52 9����t��� '�errace I�a���, ��aald Miiter, Property Owner
anrung �'���;����an �e�oluifion 5i8�99, a Resolution
p�qval of a���d��icjrr,al Use Penmit %r an 1,�40 square�foot
, _^. ,
Planning , e��TO. 5���, �8��+. �ronson I?rive, Andrea MacRat�nolds, Property Owner
Consi iion of Plar�ni'rt�; �'��;ission Resolutian 57�-99, a Resolution Recommending
Den � of a Conditianal 'L7s� �?erinit Request for a Residential Dog Kennel
.:�
r�;, j
��anrur�� Case No. 55 �: , 5302 Raymand Avenue, Don Norris, Property Owner
�:€i����d�ration af Pl _� ng Commission Resolution 574-99, a Resotuiion Approving
�f���r����� Re . o Allow a Five-�oot �uilding �etback %r Livin� Space Expansion
�,,, ; o
: � ,; ;�.`
St `a��`r:�.;����¢�'% Items of Information
Cha,irperson and Plannin� Commissioners Reports
Pa�e
Z
�
10
13
�!
. .: � .
� r
.�.� �..� � .' . :�: :� - -
�;. . �'_ .. � . . .-. : �. �..' _ -
_- ' -. . . . .. .. �.- :: �.::
,�..�1. . � ,..-:::-. .. . .��: . ': ...:-�. . .. �� � �'
1
�_�:':. -'.'... ,..:`:, .. .... . '. ��: . �. .:: t
1VLo�a�ds Vfew Pian�f�� C'o�emi�szor�
Re�tal��° i�e�ii��
3o Cat�e�s° Reqaaes�s ar�d �or�irr�enis on Iterre� 1�Iot on th� Ag�nda
No citize� requests or commerits on items not on the agenda were considered.
4e Approval of 1VIirea�tes
Ao l�1aa°ch 17,1999
IVIOTION/SECOND; Berke/Hegland to approve the
presented.
�
.P,yes - 8
Piannan� Case Noo 5�2-99
Nays - 0
Property Involved: 2091 Terrace Drive
Consideration of Planning Coznmissian Re���
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit f�n 1,
Applicant: Gerald Mi11er, Property � r
The applican�,,was present.
as follows:
17, 1
[����
l�pri! 2�, 1999
�age 2
'1 h� motion ca�-ried.
Recammending
;ed Garage
The applicant;`���ra�� �iler, is�''���uestirig�a conditional use permii {CLTP) to constnact a 1,040
square-foot ga��.�� �:i �U��?;�'errace �xtr�e which is located north of County Road I near the
eastern b����o�t�e �;�1� ��,,praperty, an interior 1ot, is approximately 13,OS0 square feet.
The ho �is set bacic �p�ro�imati±�ly 49 feet toward the middle of the lot, with the detached
�ara ��ituated behind the:.��u��. The house at approximately 926 square feet is presently larger
���' �,, ;,;.� , �
th�;��� existing two-st�,���ai'a��, which is 506 square feet. The applicant will be removing the
p��F�
��t garage to mak � om for the n�w one. There is an 80 squaxe foof (8 x 10} shed behind
i�t� ���stin� garage "' h is sei far enough back so as not to be in the way of the proposed
� <:. ��t
�.'���,�i�..t'���t�ir�d, ui this case, due to the size af ihe proposed garage. The size of the proposed
garage wo�id be i,040 square feet, which is not much larger than the house. While it would %e
larger, ther� would nat e�st the "imhatance" wiuch has been present in �he [ast few ov�r-sized
garage CUP requests. `The applicar�t proposes ta consiruct an a,ddition to the rear o#`the house in
the follorr�ing year which woutd again make the house bigger fihan the garage. The proposed
location of the garage does not interfere witih the fizture expansion plans nor the e�stence of a
shed in tke back yard.
�.
_, '.,
.. ;!:
:, ;�
_. , ,,
: ; .., . ` `• . - . ` - =? ':` . _.. __ , . ... -- _. _. . .
I�Ioa��eis V�e� P�ann�n� Coar�enBSSflo�
l�e�u��ar Mte�i��
Ape�a121, 1999
Pa�e 3
All af the dimensi�nal criieria associated w�th this reques�--se�backs, spacing between build'zngs,
width of proposed garage, and numbers of doors�-satisfy the requiremen#s as stated in Chapter
1104 of the Zoning Code. The proposed garage is about 91 feet from �he front p�operty line, 43
feet from the rear property line, and is set back from the side of ihe property by ab�;�seven feet.
Taking into consideration the size of the shed, the total amount of acces��y buil��g coverage on
the lot would be 1,120 square feet, or 14.6 percent of the rea ard are� ;:��'�, �z� h� applicani io .
replace the existing shed with the largest aliowabte without , th� �rs�r�t �g� wauld rise to k�
16.4 ereent whtch is still less ihan the ma�mum access L` uilding c��r�����_�� i uuen�y perce��
P� �� �.� ;� .. �:�,
Ericson reviewed the five CLTI' criteria as contained iz� �hc: �iiy C�
and sta.ff's analysis. He indicated this proposal appears �o �a�i�%�
Ericsan advised that staff has not received any advers� fe�c���k� ��
regarding this request. He then reviewed the criteria cor�t�n�d �n
grantin� a CUP and staf�'s analysis of each. He stated'"5;��ff �eI��s�i
this development proposai are minimal and are far out ��i�h�c� b}
that i� is desirable frorrz a community perspectiv� �t? k���F� p�t��e�Y
properties with building expansions since th f' opei-t��,s ar�, i��.� u
more ins�de storage being provzded and m�a' trigger ci�h� ��c���ti
== Ericson stated ihat s�aff recotm
resolution recommending appr�
2091 T�rrace Drive, requested
contained within the Code ��"�t
��
uniforn� e���x�r�� appeara ��� �
�-
the indica���ti��}Ye �xist�ng ���t�
distances � ; „� :3, �
Ge�°a►d
Chair
nd � the
a � x ond
.��
�' R rald M��
�.:
ung to ov�ri
�€ng oive�i�
�ay �ave to���t�
1..
r
" °��.
he l��i� riot
� �ection 17 �� fi� � ���i`�i" �
adverse eif�cf� ��L�uria.
i nei�hboring residenis
,Iaori 1125.01, Subd. 3b, for
h�t'�h� adverse effects oi
� b�zi�"i,�s. StafF also believes
�le�r� �mprove their
�l�zr-�e�t in beiter order.with
do the sarne.
�ng Corn�ission approve Resolution 578-99, a
�al Use •� 't for a 1,040 square faot garag� at
He r� ed the standard stipulations as
'�aC" es related to the use of the structure,
:>:
��i>tmproved surfaces or within the garage, and
rnoved to maintain the mir�imum six-foot setback
hin.� to add to the staff report.
afi 7:12 p.m.
.,:;>z ��, :.;.
C�, 'ssioner Miller in ;;';Jre�'�regarding the location of ihe small shed. Ericson advi�ed it is just
b�,;;.;_;,;d the garage, on t west side of #he properrty. Mi1ler asked if enough space will be allotted
�,cr t���ntain a sIx-foa�.,,�paration. Ericson stated it appears there e�vill be but staff will �heck to
���tdr���� �s prov '' ;��hen the bu�lding permit application i� received. I�iller asked if there will be
�, ��a�: �� i�, ,�i A'�of the garage. Mr. Miller stated h� is plannin� to have a singleasized garage
doo�, E�s�.��i��b cic �ithe garage. Miller s�ated the house is stuc�o and asked if the garage will also
be stucco. 1VIr. l�[iller a.dvised thai it vvil[ be vinyl sided anc� used primarily for storage, nc�t a home
o�cupation b�siness.
Tr��aring no iurther pubic input, Chair Peterson closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m.
�
IVlounds �7eevw Plan�ar�g Commas�aorn
R,e��ctar I�eeg�n�
;
Ap�°i� 21, 1999
Pa�e 4
MQTION/S�.CUND: Jolu�son/�,aube io adapi Planning Commission Resolufion 578-99, a
resolution recommending approval oi a Conditional Use Permit �o allow for an oversized garage
at 2091 Terrace Drive, Mounds View Planning Case No. 552-99.
Miller requested the correction of several minor typographical errors. �'ri�son
corrections wi11 be made.
�.;
Ayes p � Nays - 0 ��;
, t
?'%T�.:: .tC?��O''' ` ` .
�/'�t �,. :,,:�� �
6o Ptar�r�ing Ca.se I�oe 551p99 F ��'�kb�ic $earin�)
Property rnvolved: 2814 Bronson ]�rive �� �
Coilsideration of'Planning Commission Resoiution 577��, a
of a Conditionat Use Pet-mit Request for a Residerit'ra� I3a,� K
Appiicant; �indrea MacRannolds, Property Ow�er :; , ,,
The applicant's son was present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave
The apphcar��, t�ndrea
pernut (CC.T�� �or a re;
four do�� €�n� t��'the
approvai irb� �,r��e ��
kennel. Tl�e a���can�.
This it ��iad been sc�ae
earli, 2's year but was
ou � state and Z she f
:� ; )
p���t�on related to this ��
r����� ��a�- an additiona��
5 0 p�:
s se�t
rep
these
carried
Denaczl
of 2��� ��q�s��,�rive, is applying for a conditional use
nnel, a�c�d�; s equirement for property owners with three or
r�inents �s'that the property owner shall obiain signatures of
��tk�e r�sidents within S00 feet of ihe property proposing the
3��c��ing those properties within SOd feet along with a
>�ta�payers.
�I�c�,�i�� J� public hearing with the Planning Commission and City Council
�L�II.�� �rom the agendas when it was learned that: 1} the applicant was
� no`t satisfied the minimum requirement for signatures needed for the
�uest. Staff sent the applicant a letter indicating it� intent to exercise its
da�rs with which to make a decision regarding this case.
�icsv���e�t���`�����°hat he jusi received the petitiion from the applicani's son before the meeting
toru��� ����<lras been unable to verify the signatures. Ericsan reviewed the four incidents
inv�Ivin� d��� at this address as indicated by the Poiics I�epartmeni. (7n November 30, I992, a
male Rattt�eiler vdas remov�d from the property a.fter ii had reportedly attacked someon�; on
October 10, 1994, the applicant was issued l�drninistrative Offenses for havin� two dogs
(Rottweiiers) wxthaut a license, boih of whiah h.ad been rut�ni�g loose through the neighborhood;
On l�/Tarch 19, 199$, a dag r�vas removed from the subject proper�y for not having a dog Iicense;
at�d on D�cember l, 1998, the applicant was issued a Ciiation for havin� more than twa dogs at
�
;: �
` -3
> � �'< '; `;..... - . ::-' '� � .. .. . - � __. _ . . .._ ....__ -- - ._. _ .
,,
I
l�ot�nds �Ie��v Pla��in� C`or�r�xssron
Re�ular l�eet��tg
A�ri12�., 1999
Page 5
her properiy. %ricson clarified that the applicant has indica�ed that she called the police
department to remove the dog.
E�icson explained that because of the 120 day deadline--May 8, 1999--the
needs to act on tlus request so that the City Council can take final actio�<�
<: :
last regular meeting before the deadline. He explained that th ef%ci o�'�z
applicaiion is tfl have the application auiomatically approve. . �
;� ,
,�
Ericson stated that gn consideration af ihe incidents in�o�� g ogs
commenis from the neighborhood, staff is recommendm� t�at the 3
Resolation 577-99, a resolution recomm�nding denial o�� C'��� �'t
Macl�.annolds, locaied at 2841 Bronson Drive. He adv�sed ��.�i t��
the meeting b�t her son is in at#endance tonight to answeX �«����t�x
Also, several residents are present who may wish to ac��ress this;�i�
I)avid NIa�Ra��olds, the applicant's son, stat�
of dog was involved in the attaclt and staf�s��
�tottweiler. He stated ihey have lived at t_ o
knows that things happen. He explaine ,� < at a.
only one incident in ten years. Mr. � annol
askimg for a dog kennel to be built i� >` pro :
be buii�. He stated they cuzxentl ' ve Chre��
Chair Pei�.���n opened
Phil Jo�n��
50 percent
petition.be
the si�natta
�
but
;'6, 1999, the
on the
a dog kenn�l �r A.�idr�ea
�pplicant was u��able ia attend
tiith� i'lanning Commission.
� that it sh�uld'not matier whai type
�� .ha,�,�e indl�:ated it invol�ved a
�r��r� ��� everyone who has a dog
�� b�ti�breeder happens but that is
�
a loi at' people believe his mother is
�re indoor dogs and a kennel will not
one dog that is smailer than a cat.
>lat�t� ��ad; �tated fihat he is confused aboui the petition and whether
their ap�rt����l q� tlus request. Ericson explained staff just receive the
� tnr�;��,t�sn,th�v have been unable to verify the number and accuracy of
ti :� ; <�
Mr. ` son stiated a r�ur�l��r,��'neighborhood residents are present tonighfi and none were aware
�,,;; r • ;�,
th �� as a petition. H��at�d if they had been aware, none would have signed 'zt. Chatr
P�f;i'son explained the-.'S cedure for this type afpetition.
°;
r ,� ed there are 30 to 31 si atures on ihe etition and 29 signatures were
��i� ����anno�l � � P
i �qu�r�t� tc� �?�� l`50 percent.
< , � z �,
� �x�:�.�_,��:.�� , .
Mr, J �hnsor� stated he would think the imrriediate �eighboz's who lzve adjacent to ihe property
should have been asked about the petition,
Cons�anc� I,arson, 2�33 Bronson Drive, said she signed �he petition wit� understanding that tk►e
applicant would be fined �i00 per dog if they didn't sign the petition. She stated they do nat
mind the do�s but do ob�ect to the smeil sinc� the yard is not clea�ed up. NIs. Larson explained
I I
Illo�an�s �7ee� Plar�ni�� Co�rnissio�a Apr�i 21, �.999
R��ul�r I�e��i�� Page 6
that they �oved in�o ihe house d�ring the winter vvhen the smell was not an issue but iti is now an
1S5U8.
Mr. MacRannolds stated they are working to resalve that prablem and clean up
Ms. Larson stated she did express her concern about the smei to the
and agrees they axe makin� an effort to clean up the yard. ,
Ger°ald SuYliv��, 2832 Branson Driv�, asked how tn�
MacRannolds restated they have three large dogs and
1Vlr. Sullivan stated the a.pplicant already has the dags a�
per'mit. He suggested ihis may be why some signed the
being fined. �
days ago
to retroactively get ihe
vent the applicant from
P�tric°s� Joh�son, 7474 Groveland Road, stater� ���e ����s �� occa�i�n�il�� �et out and the
�_ ,;,
Rottweiler h�s foIlowed her while she walki '���d ct�i�hz��a� to, follo �[er until David
�<:
1VTacRannolds called ihe do� back. She st :�tivs o�u�r�cl:l��t s, er and she does not think
the dags are very friendty. ``
� ,.
Wa�1y Bettirn�to�, 7560 Groveta �-' d, st ,t�°� there ar �our dogs now and due to the smell iY
is hard %r him to work in his bac �"ard. AI� ��: � advi the dogs are quite noisq and this is not
�,
a ne w p r o b l� m b � a t h a s b e e� � r � � c� i n g. M rr ��� t���� cr��k�� ta te d t ha t since t h is situation has existed
for a while, ��"does n�t fi�z�?� ��� �.ituation ��� ����e so he supports denial
John Wip��e��� '7.5'�;
safety for his �rr��cic�
that one dog a�3 a�r�'�
against th ���t�e and'
fence f��r�o�s o�tl�is
�t�'.��.r���,,stated he also supports denial due to a concerx about
�d e���r� ta rid� bicycle and walk in the neighborhood. He advised
arid anptk��'r is a Rottweiler. Mr. Winiecki stated he was leaning
��;dogs�growled at him. He advised the current f�nce is a short
acxannatds state '� did indicate three large dogs and one small dog and the vet clinic
b� able to verzfy,�� e wetIness and mental soundness of his dogs. He stated that any dog
,��: �t someone,;. ; Iking by or teasing them. Mr. I�IacRannolds stated the fence is
t���d to � d<;� or do�s.
_....__._,�_,.. �-���
l�i����? �;��,���gton, 7560 CTroveland Aoad, stated she would like to speak to the height of'the
fenc� sinc� €t is not as high as wouid keep a Greai Dane or Gemaan Shepard in the yard. Sh�
noted that leaves and snow pile up atongside the fence wluch allow them to eas�ly get over the
fence. She stated she cannot enjoy her own back yard swing or walk in her back yard withouC
the dogs barkirrg at her. Ia/Is. Bettington stated she doubts most people coUld get the dogs to stop
shautd they get out.
i.
;
1
;:— ,., ,.- _ ,:. _ .
1Vlm�nds Vae�nr Planne�ag Coma�ess�on
�e�ul�� I�Ileetfn�
Ap�°i121, 1999
Pag� 7
The appiicant was asked if�they were indoor or outdoar dogs. N�r. MacRannolds stated th�y let
the dogs outside to go to the bathroom and the Gr�at Dane and Gerrnan Shepard are pt�ppies so
they da like to run. �
Mr, MacRannolds explained that there is an area where the fence is by a,,.t�ll but. ��outd be
rectified with a higher fence. He stated his opinion that some eople assiat��� �.��tweilers are a
bad dog because of the bad press coverage they get and pe >' rget ��� ��c�d things about
,
them. °� � � , ,, ,, .
. �.,...� _ . .
Commissioner I�aden asked how old the dogs are. Mr.
seven years old and past her average life span, the �hih-�
12 years, the Great Dane is 14 months old, and German
years old. . ,
11�r. I�acRanr�olds explained that his mother is at
year and usuaily takes two of the dogs wifh her �
��
Ericson advised that staflf forwarded tt�s r�iuiion
Minnesota Siate Statutes classify Rottw .` rs as a`>�
this particular RottweFler rnay be a''� dog n
Statute does classify it as a"dang {��nima
_ �.
Cammissionex Kaden asked �i�
reapply if tk��'t�c��diiions� , �
making r��.��>la����ari sa i � ���ed.
can then retzp��y� �n seg�eral rr1c��#l'
� �:
., .:,
;
I�aden askec� wka�'� �i����eri� i� the
stated the ,�""Yi�al �t��trt�l`�i��e�
�<
dogs.
_:
�s stated th� ���.t�r��ier i;�
years old and -��F�Ii' ��u�'about
� y�ar and one�half to �wo
�� �c oper-tv �ti� ���u�six months out of the
; �r��ly,iwo at t�� re�tclence.
3>. y!
: �Y
��� ���� ��i:c��-�iey who commented that
gerai�s tt�tr�ial." He explained ihat vvhile
{ ...w
enci �� it� life span, he reiterated that the
iappens if theS �p���a�ion is denied and if the applicant can
Ericson �ta��d �l���Code requires a two-manth period before
� _;;.,.
�>.�he C;c�uric�I"tliev would have to remove two of ihe dogs an
is denied and they do not remove two dogs. Ericson
enforce the Code by forcefully renaoving two of the
sioner 7olinson a�lted` if ihere is a Code pertainzng to the height of a�ence for dogs.
siated there rs ,��.
? ' �� • �;�
%�rr�t���sraner -< t1d asked how long the applicant is given to compty. Ericson explained t e
�����
����,���jy� ���,� '�� in December and an agreemeni reached that they would make applica.iian so
th� t�i��`r���e' o comp�y is now. Ericson stated i.f ih� appiication is not approved by the Counc�l,
ihey �wil� rleed to immediately comply since there is no grace period and they have already
received a, period of four manths including a 60-day e7rtension.
A reside�t stated that the fence will gain nottun� except ia keep the dogs in on one side of the
yard hut it will not keep the st�nch out. I�e stated the neighbors cannot enjoy their own back yard
during the surnmer because of these dogs.
l�ou�d� V'gev� Planni�� C�mmessio� Aps°i121, 1999
�.8eg�la� I�Ieeton� Page S
: '�
1VI�'. Johnson sta�ed that the smell is not a. probletn with his lot but Yhe barking is a problecn and
there zs no fence in the front yard. He stated ihat he does not think there should be four dogs in a
reside��tial r�eighborhood and noted tha� one dog has aIready chased �us wife when she was out for
a walk, ,��
Chair Peterson explained thafi these a.ppiications occur due to
dog owner becomes aware of°the �eed for a license. When -:.
are researched and, generally, the only problem that is us :.'
that comp�aints of dogs runnin� at-large and odor have nb � be
the r�corr�mendaiion is for denial �arith the Council maki�i� �i�e
exptained ihe Planrung Cornmission will have io consider �Il;�
recommendation to the CounciL `',�, `.::''
NIr. M�cRannolds asked �f the petition of signatures is
that since staiihas not been a.ble to verifry the Iocai�ot�;
apprav�d on that basis alone. He stated that pr�c�t �t� ,�
verified by staffto see a�'this requirement is r,�a�i} _
>Ia�t £�`t�m-�'nezghbor oz the
ca��i�t� �� �ri��ie, complaints
as ��c� a�`��.t�i���. �ie note
,,,�,
�cin cot�,���,i�t�,�tai �if >:c
�' . _. s . . _ .,r;:�'�'cZ,F �
input and
onst�i�� e� �hair Peterson explained
�,;
si�na���'e� �t� �tumber, it cannot be
1 considc��t�€�zr�`�this p�tition couid be
IVIr. Sutlivan stated the petition cannot b iven w�it sm�� z� ��pears it was obtained by telling
peopie that they would be fined if th `dn't ob4` n"X" nu bei of signatures. He stated that he
4x.
believes the petition should not ca ;.,�;�, w�t��:
�w�� �
Mr. MacRaru�oids stated the �n� rriay have ��n`r�;��r��zaned to a couple of people but the more
recent sigta��ure� on the se�p�e� p�Ue �were �c�x �c���;t�f�a fine.
COri1tT11S51�P
street nam�.
�T�
af
th� names on th� petition have no house number, only a
neighbar and didn't even see the petition:
�terson noied that c��a� �ddress on the petition is outside of �he distance criieria but some .
thers are fairly ci` `�e �to the hotne, some immadiately adjacent. He asked if there is a
Zent on the ian `ge used an such a petition. Ericson stated that staf�typically prepares
ion and pro� <�s ii to the applicant ta use during the signature gathering process, He
�at a pet�t�, ' as drafted for and given to this applicant but rnay have been misplac�d.
i (CY'f�i.�
�-e����� e typical language used and staied the petition presented tonight is noY in the
�I������b� City staff.
Cha.ir Peterson stated since it is not in tha fonn of petition usu�lly �sed by the City and not yet
verifi�d, he does not believ� the petiiion ca,n be co�sidered tonight.
.J
�
�
Nia�nd� Viev� Pla�►n��� Coa�missjon
���ula� l��eta��
AprYl 21, �999
�a�e 9
Mr, MacRannolds requesied a copy of the meeting minutes for his m:other's review. Chair
Peterson stated a copy of the rneeting minutes vvitl be made available. Eric�on added that the
meeting video will be replayed later ihis week. �
Hearing no additianal pubic input, Chair Peterson closed the public
Commissioner Laube nated that 120 days were provided to ':� � er si
the last rninuie, the peiiiion was received so it coutd not ;`erifi�d �
Planrung Commissioners to consider it tonight, especiall.� view of
He asked how the Commission can be assured the clean`���.;of the�
� "'� J .::.
and not done at the last minute. � <,
i7Uith regard to tkte delay in stabmitting the petition until
his mother gathered the signatures on the firsi page anc
for a family emergency so she was gone for several tnc�
receni surgeries so she worked on gathering si�%�;��
Cammissioner Kaden sta.ted that he does
dog and he even owns a large dog that �'
� ownership which includes having do .-. = d
of the yard, ii is always on a teash � ai
they should be abie fo enjoy thei :operty
the time. He. stated this is ni�;,a ;:�obiem ir
owners. I�acle�x stated Yt�fi.���`� �um that k
�;
dogs being � ��nt���d but, t�� �t� ����liborh
Mr, M�cRann���i�'�x
alleviated long agt� i1
neighbor '����Id i�if
make i#�.,' ter. I�e s
;rson siated i
to complain
at 7:4�U.m.
tonight, at
a�h for th�
��, �"r `�ta.cRannolds explained that
had �o teav�.�?rid travel out of state
I�e ad��i��ci ����vas also limited by
� v��s abl�. :< . � ;>>
; app�����f �t� �i`1ik the Commission is anti�
iier. ��i, ��� also believes in responsible
at all ��i��es. � He stated when his dog is out
one '"j�s $80,000 to $100,000 for a house
�v � smell dog waste or hear barking all of
;,�hood even though most residents are dog
"e to vote in such a way that results in two
rn, he does not see whai else he can do.
��,i��'�ithe problems or complaints could have been
��nu�?ication between neighbors. He noted thai the new
io�'� problem and they have tried to address that situation to
neighbors have never approached kum about a compiaint.
',,.
ie of this involves common sense and it is not the responsibility of
responsible ownership results.
I�h,s �.,ar,son state� � y jus'� moved in and want to get along wiih their neighbors and don't wani
'� s� r-rC�'� .
t�.��`�� c�.�� e� ���hboz's. She stated that last week she talked with them and said she didn't want
�g
ta��� ���� ��ilice but to t�lk with them first. �he stated they are erec�ing a fence five feet farther
fi°orn th� current fence but her concern is that even though the fence is being built, wiil they clean
up ihe yard to elitninate the odor problerms. She stated she shares the cancem expressed by
Comrnissioner Kaden about two dogs being rernov�d from the praperty buti she wants to be
assured the ciea� up will cont�nue.
NIOiYII(�� V9CF� �I�Q1I@al�� CpIi19H3HSSi0Ri Apri! 21, 1999
Re��a��r IVI�e��n� Page 10
Mr.1VIacRannolds stated that there is about 30 feet between the new fence to the neighbors. He
stated he has started to clean up the yard and landscape thai side of the yard to put grass back in
and have the trees grow. He staied he also wan#s ta improve the candition of the yard and
landscaping. �
MOTION EC ND• BraathenBerke to adopt Planning C�
resoiution recommending denial of a conditional use pernu
Macl�annalds, 284I Bronson Drive, Mounds View Plat�ni�
Chair Peterson restated that the criteria for the petition
in%rmation has not been verified by City staff. He siat
reason enough for denial in his opinion.
Ericson staied that staff will review and verify the
the petition meets the Ciiy's standard to address t
information wili be presented to th� Council pri�r'<
Mr. Johnson asked if the neighbors in c
Chair Peterson explained that general p
would be conszdered, but are not bind;ir
_ .'
�
Ayes - 8 �; '
f:� A�
s� � o
Mr. Beitir�c�r�; r-equested �<�t3�� pf �he
providec� � �c���� o�.�he p�f;i��c�r� �ri �im.
io
�
ssion �.��r�z����r� 577-99, a
Ila�a �c��;� s�ca�`k�nneI for A
�ase No 5�'� �) ;
not b�> `et'toni�-h`� �€r�c�e th�, 'va
r � .
_ .>
iat �i�s�d on the publ�c in�ii�t, �liai is
�;
�
` ��
s and a�sk �� �ity Attorney whetl�er
e misr���e��n����t�n af the facts. This
�nsideraiit�r� : ��
4 h:,v,.
�v'%�
��
�
�br��t � ��tion for consideration.
fi���� ���°nature .for the Council and
, ;;
; ::;
`:�' -
The motion carried.
circulated by the petitioner. Ericsott
M` " volved: 53 0� �,� '
, y�+���1 Aventte
•ation of Planrun� ��,��russion Resolution 574-99, a Resolution Approving a Variance
ta AIIow a Five.` ao�'�uilding Setback for Living 5pace Expansion
�t, Don Nomsy���opertv Owner
preseni.
l�iarinin� l�sociate Ericson gave the siaffreport as follows:
At th� lasC reg�xiar meet�rig held by the Pla�ing Cornmissian on April i, 1999, sta.f�presented a
reporf and request for a variance to be approved at 5302 Raymand Aver�ue. The applicani, Don
Norris, wishes �o construct a living space addition 6ehind a garage that is being buiIt onto his
home. Th.e living space �uvouid be constn.acied at the same setback as the �arage.
_ _ __
�
i !
1Vlaea�tds View Plan�°sa�� Coanmissiorr
I3e�a�lar Me�t��g
Ape°i1219 1999
Pa�� 11
The Pianning Commission agreed ihat the improvement would be a benefit to the home and
wouid serve to make the property mare habitable ar�d to increase the value of the property, as
�well as possibty promptin� others nearby to invest in their own properties. BECause oithe narrow
lot width and the fact that the lot supports two dwellings, buitding expansion beco � difficult.
Sta�has examined the criieria upon which variance appli
in alI instances, a case can be made which supparts the g�
There do not appear to be any negative impacts resulting
would be located l�ehind a planned garage additiori, and i
fih� narth by a� atiached garage. The dwelling unit to tt�i
would not be impacted by this addition as it is separate�;;
of the building.
�s are to ��� �u't1��1� and found that
�f a v�r��r��e in: t�?i�s circumstanc
this add���q��, th� ����� spac� ,�
be b� � �'�'ed f'rai� ��� ��o�er��r��
1, ����.ched to Mr ��r���' ����'�
.v.:.
��mon addition on �h� �a���: side
Ericson stated thai given the supporting criteria, Iack a�ne�a�i� irn�
increased Iivahility af the property, staf�'recomrnend� t�at,the ]�l�.ri��1
Resolution 574-99, a resolution approving a va��a�c� tr� �1tpw a bi�ili
foot setback from the north property line of �.�t�2'�i�:a����nond �.� enu�,
Ericson advised that the applicant was
-' � there were any unresolved issues. �-t�'
.,. ,
comments receivad since the last r�z��t
Miiler
this can be r��i :�mpravem
grant a vt�r�arie� ��:d she
et�j oyed by o�h�� �� i�p�
differeni confi�u�'�t���
requires t���'��e �pecta
Miller ��� d she under
cann�e the result af
�..
to at��� bu
her�'a.re no c
d ihe resulting
�ission approve
ansion with a five-
ested by Don Norris.
n this morning to ask if
issues nar negative
ed ��Zat�e has be�z� Va�;t�n�� over ihis decision She stated she sees
�it fic� t�i� ,propert}� b�i� t�ez`�;'are seven criteria that must be followed to
s%bpt���'�d l?y two. �"Specifically, the criteria indicates that by the literal
iszor�� of thi� � itle, it would deprive the appiieant of righis cammonly
es ir� tlie ��tne t���trict. Miller noted that the applicant could b�aild a
�� still ma�r�t��n a��en-foot separation. She sfiated the criteria alsa
�cir�c�i�i,c�ns or�circumstances do not result frorn actions oithe applicant.
�ta�� �����aod intent but the variance says to grani fhe circumsiances
Y�oz�� nt the applicant.
i stated staff, in� iewing the applica#ion, felt the actions are not the result of ths property
since ihe pro ��4.�es were platted many years ago and the way ihe twinhomes were
�Y'�C� ptl ��i�J;; �fdid not lend to fiirther �xpansion. He stated he understands Commissioner
�.�,
���
s_�s��������u� feeis the hardship goes back fitrther than the ownership of this applicant.
"�;>::;'�:�� ��::��:�:,
Commission�r �egland stated the Codes the City now foilows are based on new constructxon
t�cluiiques and requirements and the City is imposir�g those on existing properties that were buili
long ago, which is the funciion af redevelopment. �ie stated he believes ihis h�s created a
hardship for this particutar property so he sezpports approval.
�
,:::: _ _
_
_ . .. .. ;.: , ,
- _ _._ __ , -
liZourecis `Iiev� Planatin� Com�is�ion Apri121, 1999
�e�ular 1VIee��xe� Pa�� 12 -
Corrunissioner I�aden asked if the hardship was created by whoever platied the loi and
constructed the twinhome. Ericson stated the original design of this subdivision may not have
been fully thought out to allow for the construction of garages or any future expansion. He noted
the Codes at the time of construction may have been different. From staff's persp� ��e, they �'elt
the situatian and circumstance was not created by the property owner lun���elf b�;,��athar, the
person who platted and designed the twinhomes. Ericson not � d the des��z�'����w �y�inhomes
utilize the land much betCer and provide for living space an�����ling ar� �._ .
Co�nmissioner Miller asked if fihere wiil be future problE
Ericson stated this is one of the criteria that needs to he
would apply to. He staied �his row of iwinhomes iace ;
considera.tion being raised and felt whether a precedent
request r�vould be looked at in the same way.
Commissioner Braathen asked if this is creating a
want a rrurror caevelopmeni. Ericson stated he dci
� :.� ;;:
adjozrung property s ability to expand. I�e n. ��d'�
south side of the lot.
Chafr Feterson reviewed ihe cc
presenied. He agreed with Eri
design oithe units. Chair Pete
result in a. be�efit to the Ci�v:�t
Commis�to
Plannirzg ��
they may na
support for
Nliller
they
cier� � . ow mar� " "`:
. y p�rc��e��.��s t�'is
, :_;
�� si�uation but siafE�r�igl��ci�ihat
��r�;;"s�i or not, a simiiar var�ance
for the
nk ii w
;��operty should they
�ct ar limit the
have a garage on the
�n of th��rnit on th ot and noied ihe great limitation
the h���hip occ d with the original piatting and
ed th���''ommis�' must consider whether tI�is request will
�ghb��i�c�d � k�
,. ,,., � .
ilus wii� be� an improvement to the praperty and, as a
�rt the redevelopment of older buildings. He cammented
�ype of situation arising in the future. He stated his
criteria were not deveioped by the Ci#y.
ussioner Berke no��" � i�iai this property was planned in the 1950s and 1960s and ihe Ci#y is
to impose today'.`� tandards. He stated you need to make some allowances and not place a
i� on owners . o want to improve their property.
��l��� P�t���t�xa ���ed that a variance, by it's very definition, addresses u�xique situations so he
�;�e����,�, "t;���. i;ssue as weli, He stated he a�rees �rith commenis made that with a redevelopment
situ�,tiori o�'l�ss than ideal conditions, it need5 to be cor�sidered while assuring a precedent is not
set that will cause fiature problems. �ie suggested that ihe praposed r�solution mention the
uniqueness oi this particula� loi.
Ericson stated if a. similar app(�cation as �ade and it becomes ar� issue where more variance
requests ar� being made, then rn�ybe the Code should be reviewed to s�e if it should be �hanged
�;
j
, , ;:-
I�I�uaacis �ger�r Planreing Co�►�►xiss�on
Re��ia�° I�eetin�
Apa°i121, 1999
Pa�� l�
to be more conducive of redevelopment and reuiilization oi prope�cies. He noted that if the Code
is amended, there would be no hardsYiip because iti would be allowed and not need a variance.
Chair 1'eterson stated �f a Code amendment is considered, it would have to be
assure setback distances are maintained. In this case, he stated he sees. n.A: �Qth
believes it would be unreasonable to refuse to allow the propc�ty own��` tc� ��s;
�OTIQN/5ECOND: Hegla.tad/I�aden �o adopt Planning �ssion lZ��ii
resoluiion approving � variance to allow the required fiv,,,, � at side "'set
struciure living space iocated at 5302 Ita,ymond Ave�ue, ��iound�, '� w Pla
� fF *
t . :'
99. __ __ _ �.
:;: ;
Commissioner 1Vlill�r requesied a correction to the fot
to elimina�e ar►e of the words "not" from the firsi line,
criteria have all been met so she wili vote against. ;,;,;,:;
Chair Peterson requested that additional
the uniqu� situation, Ericson suggested
alternatives to expansion ar� very timite�
Ericson suggested wording as
b u i l d i n g units; and given ihe c
restrictive." ,;. ,.<'�
]
written to
tives and
9, a
Page 2 of the resolution
he does mot believe the
ne resolutioi� to clarify
to indicate that
ry n th e lot is ,> y l 00 feet wide and supports two
of the �.,;- ing de��= which makes building expansion overiy
-zendly ann�i�iment
=;,:.
� >t Nays - 1
�.. , ,,�'
#'ot°�eataon
r�,ct�ons
to the motion.
The motion carried.
m� Director Jopke updated the Planning Commissian regarding recent
sions an a proposed TI�' office/warehouse development and,continuing
��hat project. He staied thai depending on the next EDA discussion, that
may not move forward. ,
Joplc���� �vi�wed the survey which was recently cond�acted regaxding the dispositic�n of a remnant
parcel that will be created when Edgewood is realigned. He not�d the responses received wzth
the clear �najority suppo�rttimg the City to keep ii and da no�hi�g with it or use ii for a storm water
pond. Jopke advised that the Council was concerned with the low number of responses and asked
staff ta get more citizen input fcam an aver-ali community survey.
, �
l�/lo�ar�ds �Tae� planni�g Cor�missi�ra A,prit 21, 1999
Ite��iar 1V.�eet�n� Page 14
Jopke advised of the development interest in this remnan� parcel and options that could be �
considered. -
Jopk� inquired regarding the Commissian's impression of the GT� �eminar. �
Laube stated he attend€d two se�ninars and found the firsi more usefial �h�;�z the
somewhat unorgatuzed, �:� �
�
Commissioner 1VI411er stated she vv�ll be attending next
�o IT�date �°e�ard�r�g I�a�tderC�r� �1,
Ericson expiained that at the l�st tneeting, the Planning (
granting a variance to I�iinderCare for a sign. At that me
paid the appropriate fee for the application. Ericson re�
indicated they paid $100, they actuaily paid the apprp�a�
Co �tamsey Co�t�ty i'ax
Ericson announced the Ramsey County
on the vaeant parcel abutting Edgew. •�
was some developer interest in th ,", . �
Ericson reported on Cc
reading ai ��� A.pril 25,
9e ��e���°���.����, 2
.�
Commissioner .���� �i;
biilboard z����vas ��isc
would ;_ ��ifficult %r tl
Iook Code amendn
de ' �strate a hardship
: � k
f �.
f.".r�i��cil 1 iaison �ti�n ;
�d
��
wluch was
date.
�.dopted a resoluiion
��on was raised wheiher they
ul�, �a� meeting packet
t�n :Aprii 29, 1999, and reparted
on that daie. He expiained there
amendment which is scheduled for first
gnissionea°s Reports
an`��d�t'e on the goif course 6i�lboard proposat. Jopke stated the
�1� the�ouncil at the worlc session. Jopke stated ihat he thinks it
�;�atisfy the hardship requirement so h� recommended the Co�ancit
'ow billboards under certain conditions rather than trying to
� a variance.
expiair�ed there was a reyuest to make a committnent to place biilboard
:iI the Planning Commission provides a recommendati�n.
were considered.
10. Adjourn��nt
T'here being no fur�her business before the P1at�rung Cammission; Chairperso� Peterson adjourned
the meeting at 8:40 p.m,
;.
;-';
;;
- -:
Nlound� Vi�� Plan�in� Co�r►m�s�io�a Ap�°il 21, 1999
itegula�° r/Iee#eat� l�a�e 15
(The meeting immediately adjourned to ihe Elgenda Session)
�aevvart�i���V Cli�'11Ylltf'P.f�
R
�
. . .. . .... ..... .. . _. ....... ... ....
; � ; :: .
: ,. ,
_. _
. _ �f�,:�
_ ;
I�.� : � � ` � '= :� `i, `
�� � _ �; :�; ��_
1� �1�� '� ' `
I�GLTLAR I�ETINC�
AGENDA
1, Call io Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
�
5
�
,;
1
� , ,� , ; , �. �, �1� . � �� � � ��: .�� �,. ` ' :�> .!. ' �
� "� � �. � . ,�• 1 �, ��:�. �. :. � ��. �. ■��; �- � ;1�� . "
Approve Minutes:
a. April 21, 1999
Plana�i�� Case l�Io. �53-99
Property Involved: 73�5 Parkview Terrace
Cansideration of a variance request %r a reduced side yard setback for a three-
seasan porch.
Applicant: Mike � Sandy Leon
Staff Reports / Items of Information
a. Billboard Update
b. Previous Council Action
Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
Adjournment to Agenda Mee�ing
(Immediately Following Regular Meeiing)
�*��*��**��**��***��**�**��**��**�x**�**�
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT 'THIS MEETING TS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUi�IITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TD ATTEND, THANK YOU.
���x���x**��:*�*��xm**����x�*�x�**���*x��*����x
AGENDA _ SESSIOI�T
AGENDA
Review Minutes -- May 5, 1999
Iv:�ATA\GROUP�\CONIDEV�LANCOMIVI�'CAGENDA\1999\5-19-99.REG
� �
;;.
__ , I
�
_ :I: ; i•. ;� , , :, �� . . ;� ; ;1 ;� '�
Il��etia�� I)�te:
Staf�i�eport byo
Ptan�an� Case l�Io.:
A�aplicant:
I�ec�e�es�:
Locat�oa�o
PIN l�o>
Zon�a��/Id�nd IT§eo
Appl�c�ble Re�ulat�o�es:
May 19, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
553-99
Nlichael � Sandy Leon
The applicant is requesting a reduced side yard setback to allow for a
porch addition in place of arn e�sting deck
73R5 Parkview Terrace
07-30-23-13-0056
R-1, Single Family Residential / Single Family Dwelling
Section 1144.01, Subd. 3, regarding Sethacks: All principal structures shall have a
setback from sideyard lot lines o� at least ten feet.
5ection 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Comznission in its
review of variances.
At�ae6n'ents: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Surveyar's Certificate
Proposed Porch Plan
Proposed Porch Elevation
Letter from the Contractor
Letter from Affected Neighbor at 7390 Parkview Terrace
�acl�grourasi:
The applicants, Niike and Sandy Leon, are requesting a variance from the required ten-foot side
yard setback e�tablished for principal buildings and living space therein. They would Iilce fio replace
an e�sting 10 x 12 square fooi deck with a three-season parch o�the same size in the same
location, The deck, which has e�risted since the construction of the house, is five feet from �che
north side of the property. Decks require a minimum iwo foot side yard setback.
The subjecti property is located in the Silver Lak� Woods single family home development at the
northeast corner of County Road HZ and Silver Lake lzoad. The home, which faces east, is one
; of many in this development that have a street at the front (Parkview Terrace) and back (�ilver
Lake Road) of the property. T(�e lot size of this property is only 9,150 square feet.
I .
Lean Variance
�lanning Case No. 553-99
May 19, 1999
Page 2
Ana�ysis:
As with any variance application, for the Planning Com�nission to act favorably, there must be a
demons#rated hardship or practical di�culty associated with the praperty which makes a literal
interpretation of the Code overiy burdensome or even restrictive to a property owner. State
statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criterza for each appiication and
inake its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section
1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code, The Code elearly states that a hardship exists when all
of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows:
a. Exceptional or extraaYdinary czYCUmstances apply to the property lvhich do not apply
generally to othe� prope�ties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or
�hape, topography or other circumstances over tivhich the owners of the property sinc�
the effective date hereof have had no contYOl.
�taffcould not discern any exceptionai circumstances applicable to this property.
b. The literal inte�prePaPion of the p�ovisions of this Title would dep�ive the applrcani of
rights comnaonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the ternzs of this
Title.
;'3
While the literai interpretation of the Code wauld not prohibit the property owners from
building a porch, because of the sethack requirement, the porch could only be seven feet
deep.
c. That the special conditions or circumstcrnces do not �esult fi�am the actions of the
applicant.
The variance request is the result of the applicants' desire to construct a three season porch.
d. That granting the variance r�equested will not eonfer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by thrs Tztle to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in
the same district.
While three-season porches and other like living space additions are allowed 'zn this district
and are a desirable property irr�provetneni, not every property has room to accommodate
such an expansion, especiatty in a side yard.
e, That the varrance requested rs the minimum variance which would alleviate the haYdship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considere�' cz hardship.
The property ovvners �wish to replace an ea�isting deck with the porch. Iithe porch were to ?
be constructed observing the proper setbacks, it would only 6e seven feet deep--not "
enough room for a table and chairs.
i i
Leon Variance
Planning Case No. 553-99
May i 9, '! 999
Page 3
f. Tdre va�iance would not be materially detrirnental to the purpose of thrs Title or to other
p�operty in the same zone.
The purpose of the Code with regard to setbacks is that living space shall maintain a
greater setback from the property lines than an accessory building (shed or garage) which
requires a five-foot setback; or a deck, which requires a tc�ro-foot setback. The rationale is
that living space is a more intensive use. Appraving a reduced setback withoui suitable
hardship would compramise ihe intent of the Code.
g, The proposed variance will not iinpair an adequate supply of light and ai�� to adjacent
property op substantially fncrease the congestion of the public sireets or increase the
dange� of fiYe or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair p�operty
values within the neighborhood.
A porch at the reduced side yard setback would probably not impair a supply of light or
increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety
or diminish praperty values.
According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order io justify the
_-_,� granting of a variance. After much analysis, it appears to staffthat in this case there is no
'.' hardship, unless the Planning Commission were to take into cor�sideration that the iot area is
� suhstandard. (The lot is 75 feet wide by 122 feet deep, for an area of 9,150 square feet,
substantiaiiy less than the required 11,000 square feet.) Ye� the width of the property--7S feet__
does comply with the Code, and it is a matter of property width, not depth or area, which is basis
far this variance.
Silver Lake Woods PUD: This lot was approved in 19�5 as part of the Silver Lake Woods 2nd
Addition subdivision and in canjunetion with the Silver Lake Woads Planned Unit Development
agreement. �Nhile density bonuses and reduciions in frontage requirernents were given to the
development to allow for substandard lots, no mention is made in the documeniatioii about
ailowance for reduced setbacks.
Resident Comment: Staf�sent out the required public hearing notices to properties within 350
feet of 73 86 Parkview Terrace. The property owners to the north, Ken and Ann Stagg of 73 90
Parkview Terrace, who would be most affected by this request, have provided a letter in which
they indicate their support for this request.
�pteonse
A. Direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a variance for a reduced sidemyard seiback to
allow for the constnaction of a three-season porch five feet from the side property line.
� , __ _ _ .
�
,; , ,. , , ;. ,:
.._
; .. . ...: >, , :-
Leon Variance
Planning Case No. 553-99
May 19, i 999
Page 4
B. Direci staffto prepare a resolution denying the variance request for a reduced side yard
setback.
��c,wv� � �-
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:�DATAIGR�UPS1COIvIDE V�DE V CASESILEON.RPT
-, ,. _
i
-. , . ,
.. _; ; . . . . : ,;.
�,. iA� ��.!
`:'/�� �Lii'
j);ii`.�'?sl.�!�':�,� C.� 1`�ld Y$ 39�r i� �` ��A l� 1 HJL`ed tSalO 1V S
-- ,, T)E�I,OPIVI�I�'I' �PP�.ICA'I"IOI�I
� ;,,:-<.:r: 240i Highway 10, Mounds View I�1N 55112
� "ia �:��j 612-717�4a20
ep`oR�rp ° P2It�e'��r��a
612-784-34b2 m F.�XX
Pleas� Type oe Pri�t Infoemation - Co��lete �mth �id�s oiTitis Foe�
�_=:-�.=>';
Applicant Ixtfo�ation /� r j �
Name of Applicani G� J d
Address /_� ��& q'� Q�lNh/ �?tvr.-��
� � � �-C v r =.t�+ti/
_.z—�._.
I�aterest ia 1'rapee°iy (check appropriafis box)
� Owner of Praperty
o Lessee, Operator, Manager
a Other (eYpiain)
Telephone (9�L ���'�`i��
Fax _ _ _ __
[� Contract for Deed Owner
Q Agreement to Purchase
Applica�ts ��s� peovide evidence of a�teres# ira property at the time of appGcation, and if yoaa a�e not tt�e owne� aff tE�e
pt°opee°ty, you rnusf pro�ic3e a tettet° 08 peemission ft�om the ownee gi�i�g co�seai to Fbe ftBiog of ibis applicatio�, '1'�e
propee°ty o�er nua�st sig� i(��s appi�cation for it to be accepted.
Propee°t� Desceiptloa9/Proposal
Address or Generai T,ocation
Legal Description
Property Identification # (PIN #)
# of Acres
Cucrent Zoning
�-30-� °13�4n5�y
Type of Applicafion
❑ Comprehensive Ptan Amendment
❑ Rezoning
Q Major Subdivision
a Minor Subdivision
❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD)
o PUD Amendment
❑ Conditional Use Permit
� Variance "
' t� Code AppeaE
o Devetop Review/Site Plan
❑ Wetland A3teration Permit
o W�dand But�er Perinit
❑ F'ioodpiain Pernut
Q Other
$250
$250/acre; min �250 max $ i 540
$254 + $250 deposie'�
$200
Refer to rezoning fees
$350
R-k, R-2 $75; atl others $250
R- t, R-2 � 100 nll others $25fl
$100
$125/acre; min $125 max $75�
�2-1. R-2 $ i 50; al! others $20Q
R-1, R-2 �25; all otl3ers � 100
$200
�Deposits shall be paid to cover a[1 costs of public notices, materials and staff or cansultant time spent in the review,
research or preparation u#'ma[erials associated wit4t tlus appiication. The applicant shall be responsible for ail reasonable
incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall b� refunded
to the app[icant wichin thirty (30) days ai�er consideration ot the applicution is cornpleted.
�le;ase cor�pleie the rewee�e si�le af thes appiisationo
�.
� !
,.:: _ , ,
; . �
.---. ._..">I ; .. ... , " " -
..::;: <: : .
,.._ _. ;
- ' ; ; ; ;:
_,:;_
_ _ , '; ..
Ci�y oi �Iounds View,1�N
I)evela ment A iication Pa e 2
Prese-nt Use of Property
o UndevelopedNacant �, Sing3e �'amily Dweliing
� Duplex/Two Family Dweiling o Mu[ti-famiIy Dwellirig
o B�asiness/Comrnercial Establishment o Indus�°ial EstablishmenC
O 4ther (explain)
Properiy Classifica[ion � Abstract a Ta�
BY MY (OUR) STGNATURE �N THTS APPLICATION, T I°�REBY DECLARE THAT, TO TH� BESi OF MY
KNOWI.EI�GE, THE INF'URMATION PRUVIDED IS TRiTE AND ACCURATB.
Si�ature of Applicaz�t
Name of Applicant (typed/printed)
Signahue ofFroperty Owner
Name ofProperty Ownar (typed/printed)
Address of Owner
�� '� � k.�f`�
- : U i.'P /%7'= �
,1 � %
)�i�r�`��.�'i_ �,
� � � �� �,� � ,..
7 -� i"�C � U r�iLJ �°.1��
';
<:; : :,
� o�.��- �, �-z„�,— �, f- � �3---- .����
Phone Number of Owner �� j�� �{�('j " 3�( �J
T��
}�
%� l � 33 ... y�°.S /
,7i�'�r ,�2 �tz � (�-t�--J
� ,.
,G' ���;� � Zo � s' a' .
��**�***�*�����:����*����*#*������**���*�������*����*�#�����*��������'� # �* ��`*� **������
�o� or���E Us� o�,Y
Date of Submzttul ' �� � �
Date of Acceptance Assigned to:
Piaauung Case No. ,�° e 60-day Limit � 120-day limit
Fe�s Paid: Account # Check # R ceipt #
Application: > 00 j'd v .:� `� iB,� _ � / , , � � ' " t ���
Park Dedication:
Deposits:
Other:
Total:
N:IBATA\GROUYSICOMDEVIFORIv1 SIDE Vr1PP. FOR
,. :
.
.. r .` ` ...
1l98
'
i
7759 ///U
��49 77sB 7767 ' 4 --
' 7733 7729 � Q
O 7801
� ��2s 772 ��za R-2 � �d� �.._
-� 773
- p 7739 771 7715 772
Z W 77i
Y 7709 7710 7751 N 770
� 7882
'° 769 7685 ed 7890 ��D a
N n
7670 7663 � 76B a
g W
g
7fi60 -
7644 �653 p
�
N
� ��4- 7635
7620,
7600 7601
i 7594 SlLVER VIEW
7575 .-
�� �5ae PARK
i-.'` 758 Z 7565
5 7572 � �°� �
w 7555 7552 � `
� 7SS6 � 7550 �
5 � 54S 7542 ' i9� '
�sao ;
� m ° � sa �saz ,
DRkVE 7530
7522
� 7485 � 501 n :��
43 N °�° 50 ---
4 747f 747 -
'�:�. . -,-r. , . , v.
BRON �,� 74 743 ' ;r:._.
..,..._.. �:,�::;;c:::: _.__......
f 7456 � m
7451 �v o
7444 ; ��:,'� �,
, ao w � 42 rn o
� `� N � ° ^ 7
W 7435 7442 744 � 42 � �^
� p 7409 7440 � V1�� o� 7
f._`;;';_, 7408 g � �
7405 � � r� �
7395 � '� 74G� 73'0 ^ .� � , � 13:
-� T-. 7390 738 N N N N 732
7375 7378 y�G N 73
Y r i° ul
737
n r
r
350
� `� 731
7373 � 7370 735 M
7344 n ~ 7313 :
327 d. M 736
325 N N n ,yy`L 7309 ;
:s�}.
....
7317 "::
d- a r� � m 7310 n � M n ,,
31 S m°0 °��, �? cv ro �
�_x --__�---- -H 2 �
.r io ao aivomcotr a M
o "�
� � 2B �2g' � n n N N 5278 527 527� NNNNNCV N
N N SZU
5272 527 527 ,n n � N �"� p a
�8 1S 5256 526 526 N N N N N N N N N N N� rJ2rJ
�2gp 526f LO UISA AVE Q 525
517 517 ��n irr �- ¢ rCOi M M N� � O
5254 525 Q� cn m ��n cn �o �a co e�<o O 524
O N N N N N N N � N � N N� Q
517 517 > 5248 524 � � a � � � � � � N ° � � 5 �
N N N N N N N
� N N N N N �'
517 537 � 5242 �2 CLEp,RVEEW AVE �
0
5236 523 � v� � r� r� s� c1OV N co �a co N PE
5�72 5�7 523 2`3 N N N N N N c�V N N N N
5230 n, n � M°' o o�c �n �n
5170 5t 6 522 � � � "� � � � w � � � 'O `O `rt '° `A
5224 22 N N � N tY N N N N N N �`% � N N N
5168516 52t8 5221 RIdGE �
�D N Cp a' O N m � O �
5166516 521 5212 52� � 521 S21 �;n � c°o r°o u�i �� �
iJZ'I �L W N N N N N N � N N 52C
516 516 � �21t Z 5206 5207 5206 __
Q 520� 5206 5207 � o 0 0��� �
m
�1 �� {� c, O SZO5
iroi � v
V'L�O�� 7761 7750 7731 7730 7753
� 7755 7734 7721 7720
6�,h 7745 7710 7717
ry 7715 � � �� u�i 7700 �
�.:........ N R-2 '�
.......... �
_ ����,� ���
rr�� �����n 2553
u� u� uz ui in u7 in in �i
'.�� N��� NNNfV � NNNNN 255� z
. � �n v� . 2549 �
N `� `� 2547 � 76E
2545
�o B-4 2s4�
�—� ry6 2539
2537
��2 �
ti
n
,°�' _°n, �-2
��N � •-�o• �
� N N .�+ N� � � ��O .
co � ° c1OO � ryh^
� M N N �
w �n t on rn
�-°' N n.P.r. t0 � �o �
N NN�N m � oom
M 0 N � �'' N �
c0" N
n p N
� N�r N N N p*�'N
D O�f N .o�+ � N (�•} N
��N N p�jbO,N
�o o en • �--�
.y o t+� N
� r� � N N � cV � t`1 _ p � y�i
N �o ° � m °'° � a �n 'Lh
......,..
� ................
N N ...... ..�.. ..
.. �.........'.". ..
N N ....:...,�.:� :::'::::�:l, cVi' N
_ _ � O
- - - in
- �
0
- �7
,n a,
- N
t;:..._..i;.'df�"��°�'-i.• ...............�..... .. = ._ . .... ._...._,.. N
�
..� _,.- - �
i , . ' �
f[) M
� �° � �
10 � N N
N
n
�
�° N � �
N
O � N N
� N
+o
N
R�� �
m � �
N
O
7237 7250 �
7225 72
' 7215 719
7191 R'°�
718
ist
M In 1� W
1 � � a�0 � � c0 0�0 W
N N N N [V N
DR �
` __'_ N � � � -.....
M N
Zoning Map Plannix�g Case 553-99
Appiica�t: Mi�� �i Sandy Leon
Loca,tion: 73 �6 Parkviev+� 'Te�'a�e
. � � :
°�7' ° _ � \\ - � _ �. _ �
i0 � `• ` .
� �� 9� 5. \ � �
.•o�
`•a� �s.s�
,,, � \ � :
�E � � � �v
� � � w�. o °-- �
�a, a - �� • W � � �t8 � ` ,
�), ��� N � � .
rv �
t a . a o. 4 r �� �, � �' °� � � ` _ , . .
o �
tL,e9�=;� � 4, 4 r °`� -`- _ _°� � � �
�9 � �a � ���! »�. `
� �' � � C�� � ' ��°���� � ``� `
� 15��,� � � ��6g��� �a���.� '�� y6 � _ o � �
(4�) 0 � '1 � � N �i g� A�� ,. . '�' �I.
� `9 � �' �� � °:'i �
f-. ',�
> �d. 27,5' �y ' `9 , � �, 7 q
1l05 —° �, � �°;��.53 � , �,9� �B3�S � �(�,� °-° ���'
� `
� y
��l . � ' � °o � 0 2. 23 e,$��� ��.�_- �� �" I� °�' �ll� I ! .a
t��) � � � 1 � . � (�� .;�� 9 ° ,p w ,oz
I!� i: C�) � � � � 0 �,07� �� �`��p ��
�' ��
; : � �'aoo `� �. ri �� �a . W � 7f�> . �.
/�°�,� �°•��' '� ���� E �°
,
(�> ; � ° F?A R K � �c �4/ � 9a �� '�,�
b �O ,' � �� �� ,� C�� -,� � . •
C4s) o �r7}� 40,3� ��o�' %�: w � .c C,�-)
o � 9 � ��) r (32) � °.
a �.o . " � � � � � .� � � � � . ,� � s. 3
e
It1 j � `°° /6 ,�°. �y �i
O � J pY �j 'O j
� ` 1 P� 0G �7�1 0 � ti yB �, � �,' ��}
�4�� CY1 . �� . � � . l���.S _ ,9Z. _ .�0.�3. l4� e s. .I .; �
�.� �—�
�
c��
' (�.3��
;
�
��� {¢�j �
�
� � ��� �
��`°)
�oo,� -
�� °
� ,
2DOe�
o M
�
�
i
��
_�
:�
�
� 6r
� � " ��i�� ES ` L �� � � o��x
24.9 $ d� � 05 � 7l.o,s ��7} 6 �9
y°� � �5�� w � a %, Q �i�l, . Q �47� ,� /% � �
� � 4 y
• �� �. .3 a� �L/ /,ZS c.!
� � � �
� �z�r g y �"° p � d � 93 « -� � C�) .� 3�.oii �
� � �' �' � � . . �3 0 &�) C¢3, � ��°z• �
� �, � . °9 $, � � 5 ° q, "' . a C� �
c�l� r+ ° � `" �. �
s � � � �t � a� i �,7r ,��
� �
� �.9� - � / c9 � � � �9 �`J�r �Z�i O �
•���� V ���6 3.� 9a � ia'�� � � o� �t , \�
� � � C� 9) ,� c4'�� c�?, L�2) o� � P,�j/
� � � u� � � Q � � �' G? �) � � / i
� � .� � �
� ��/ e�5 7 e3"P /o � � �f� � / �
„y • "4e� �
� � :
r . :. � •• � � �
O
Pla.� �ap
Appli�ani:
I,ocation:
Planning Cas� 553-99
Miice � Sandy L�on
73�6 Parlcvi��v Terrace
_ _ __
1
�
_
i _ i
��LVIN f�� Fi���l� � �7zs �norac�r� �v�. so.
MiPdP��l4pOLIS, I�tIPlN: 55qz3
Lr:-.�i �urbeyor �fe#1 �n�ln��e I'F#OidE I�lU, 8fi6-z523
_ � v �
J0� NU. / Dt�J��
SURVEY FO�c M�IRVIN fl. I�Nll�RSON CO�I�'�CRUCTION CO.
DESCF�I��� AS� LO�C l0y HI.00k 1/ SILVER LAKE WOOUS 2ND �llDTT10N, City
of Mounds View, Ramsey Coun�y, P4innesota r�servii�y tlie
drainage and ut�ility ease�nen�s as sliown oi� �he
recard plat �.hereof .
/ V�i t i�''. °�� _ ___ -_ ---�--- .� � .
-�c�/e o /�%��Q�
S/� !�f%`ij�
_ �a.ss�
�-���,
:`�m��� '���"�;�
� Q.0 ��V I � „!
IMo
;� � � , �
�v .?x� C�,�c,�;
o � S�4 �
��; � G� �
r a. c; .
E�.� :,.
� �� a a � �
� �� � cu ,-�� a c�'u' a� ~---- -----
C4 4� f�:, o t� t7 U]
'� a, �,r} c� ��.� r,a t3
... t�+
a; �' Cl Li �y ni �:�
�' �3 �� �j v� ��, � f. /�/
« �� E-•� i� :a°' �a° � l �Ti.�/%�✓
�",.���%r,�-�r � �
� ,
Co��;�,�°r�-° C�,�
�:c�r� � �
:�t�j(,cS,.�S!lc��Jt,! rtl��.ii,.cr
��•�?'�..,�'_t:. r,�itE�i�.:..�•�,..r•^ti_'"�l;'�tI�S�
.�,�`�,f- � ��vi►�,��
�SO/'
�—
Cr-� � __... _ .l
' � j`'�7-��,,�..�,�:r~ c;�' � (
.� .� i
��` �%� �°��%��-.�.�-�ir�
hl �
,
��� 1
�. ; . � � 1��r>��,�' � I,�,
I � ', � , ,; Ijd�' ���
I ����'�� �:� �`;.��`� � �
�1� �° ���l��,es�:• �� ��'
�,����;. � �'` �,`
`. f'I . _ . .
r��µ 1
n0�' , � ;� �. .
.`` ��,�
\\\,.; �9�'`l
�, - -,���,'z,�
D�i�%.Q�� �a�
�
�� � ���
'so
qa�; �
/ / /
� r•.� �� __— / !
� �
� � E\
�t
� �)
` �°�.� ���'� ._._..___�_ .-. ; �o --
,,
��°r9/�s �'---�,i� fi1/ ; �i�` :�{"�t�'�
''<'-'�-'��R1'i�BCATE, OF S��V�1! .
% h�reby c�r46P� thai �� 5/6/87 I t�rv�y�d Bh� �ro��r@� d�s�rib�d ����e a�ad 9h�t
1P�e e�b��� p9�f I� � gar�e�P P��Sr����t�iiq�a �f ��6d �tePVey. � � ,, �' /..i
�r
F � // ,% �T C.° �!
.�
�a@�In �. H�dla�n�g Mi€�t�. �itq. Fdo.� ��4�
1
"��, , .
! �% � �� ���7� co ��,�� ��l��C �,
� l' ' A N rs�, �'cl C.°���,4- i dt �i.,�' Ss
"7 3 � (� }����-v i � �'i�
� �_ �l aI
/� �s� ��o�� �'�r��'�i�;`�� ����r;���.�
. 3� t� �oof -�e �- . �/,� �{��G�
� f C�� ��`�`�e.. ��t`� � � _ ,
9 G•'3 � ��/�V;,��° �„`' e �yci i�S
S �,;N�#�� fa'`� `
-..,
�,`��� :e�1
�., .
/ ;-�m l�
�'...
_ —.�
,. , .
. � �,
P •
. �
e ax� ��-�ds i �"o �
� �la u�at� ��,s��%�'��
� B�� ��- �i �e si����+ ��
� t4 � U►�►�t i rv t�.. 5(� t;vq
1
/ �
y �,� �� sL���2o C��. W� Q i
�/p�ors� �6�r b. �.
. . .. . . ........ . .
y f
�� S L+-��Ra c.�
�t `j �' ��i
��' --.._.-.r
3i8 Sa ���''� /3I y �,�af
t
. . ...... .......
�� �
/� C� -
Q�'r� �joi`�%'��:a
I
�/y � (� i�-G
ii �i
�—��� �o�s
�
.. �
i_
.t; J .
.:H�
��K
� � � � � �
�
�
cn
�.
A
�
��� OoWn�
��1�TI Z��
� � n � � D �
�
0 � � �
Oo� ��r°
�� rn � --� rn
o� ��z
x�n �
12' � � n
��
2648-2W 2648-2W
�
m
�
� , °�
D o
� �
j n C)
2
� � D
v
� v
p '-�
0 0
� z
�
2448 24�8
�
z
ozm �
�v�
=�o
zr°'"'
a��
� � ,
m �
,- � .
0
n �
� ^?
� v
z n
x
�.
�
m
�
�
X
�
�
�
�
O
0
a
�
m
X
�
�
�
G�
CJ
Z
Z
�
�
0
0
�
i
=, �i
�.���
�
�
� � , y ' y _ ., -
I r'� �t � + ?
b rC
��n � . . . �_ �
. ..
� � � . ,� .. .. ,���� �� ��,�
. .
. , , , , . . .. . :
- • , r • � � .: ♦ � `111 �_.
April 23, 1999
Czty of Mounds View
24� 1 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
RE: Proposed vanance for
To Whoin It May Concern:
Miite & Sand}� Leon
7386 Parkview Terrace
Maunds �iew, MN SS1I2
The Leons have been residin� at the above referenced address far the past several years.
They c�,trrently wish ta add a porch on to their home.
__ If you refer to the attached floor plans, you �vill see that the only place for them to add on
is to ihe north. Adding a porch on to the rear (west) of the home is impossible because it
would deny the haineotivner convenie�it access, as this is where all the bedrooms are
located. Access would mean going through a bedroom. On the south side of the house is
the garage; therc is na way to add a porch an there. Finally, to the front (east), the house
is currently at a 32' setbacic, thus not allowing any additional rooin #o add on. That
leaves us with the north side.
Currently, there is a 1 U' X 12' deck off the existing dining room. The Leons propose to
add on a 10' X i2' porch (the exact size of the existing deck), thereby not encroaching
any further towards t3�e north property liile tl�an currenfily exists.
It zs our understandii�g tl�ai Mounds View zoning code ailows a 5' side yard set back for a
d�ck, but a minimum of a 1�' sideyard set back for finished space. Therefore, v�e'are
rec�uesting a variance to allow the Leons fo construct the proposed �orch addition.-:'"=' �
��,,.,�,v�„��
Qe� !!� �p�s
R��oae€o�
rvnrwww�u ���I •
BwPEMOOEIINGCIN0U5TRY Kow1OWx�¢tw49aewsl�
a divisiol7 of tirnbercrait ee�terpri�es, inc.
,�;��_ ,.;,�;�,
eG�'�' �J i1 ^�t�.
,����r � :. ���y__
;�°"���," + �
�� �����`
BIJ�LDERS AS NOCIA�T�I�ON
�
,
; ; ;: �
In conclusion, we feel that the Leons should he allowed ta have a porch on their home;
due to �ie design of their house and it's layout an the lot, the only place to locate tl�e new
porch wouid be on the north side, Thank you for your consideraiion,
Sincerely,
_ __ ._ __ .
� -
'i
;
�
_ _ . _.
�.
�
April 2 i, 1999
Cit� ofMoundsView
24� 1 Highway 10
MoundsView, MN. 55112
Atte.nti.o�: Pianni�g Commissian.
Re: Proposed varia��ce for porch addition at tl�e Leon residence at 738b Parkview
Terrace, r/IoundsView, MN. 55112. .
Dear Corninissioners,
We are the neighbors directly ne� door, to the narth of the Leons. The Leons proposed
addition will be adjaceni to our south property iin�.
Mr. and Mrs. Leon have met with us and shown us the plans for the porch additzon. We
;; ; unders�and that they are asking for a variance ta build their porch with a five faot set
`' back from their north (our south) properiy iine.
We want to express our support for this project, and see no reasan why tlie Leons should
not be �*ranted this variance.
Szncerely,
Cs��,�-- ��
.�
��� ������� ����J
'? ��1 c; Pc�r� vi�w �.�,rut`e
c'tilo�tv�ds v; e.L�, mr5 ss r ��
�;
_
. ; . ._ _
! i
1 � �,, ;� ,',� .t . - ,/� 1 y :�� �...'' , i`���� '1: :. `.1 �._ � z�', ; i�; "�
; � `, �: � . ''�- ;1� ", '. ,1i � �`.
. �; ��.. �.. ; ., <�' ���; '�. � '� � � ;f: i � .
Regular IVIe�t�r�g
I�Iay 5, �999
Mou�ds ��v �ity �all
240� �ighway 10, a;.,,;;.:nds �ee�, l�l� 551�2
1. Cal! io Oreier ��
The meeting was called to orde� at 7;0� p.m., May S, 1�:
Vice Chairperson Stevenson were absent, consensus wa .\
Miller to Chair #he meeting. ���
Z. �01� Call •
IVlembers Present: Interim Acting Chairperson �1�1�e�„�`t��
�:
Kaden, and Laube. h,�
� �� : !.
�,��
Metnbers Absent: Chairperson Petersor� �ammiss�pner �
���
�0 Ll�iei. a'�s�
� \O�'
Also Present: Community I7eve��� ent D�z��ti�r Itic ,£'-
Recorders �<a,rla Wirth and,��sli ;�earson ;
Indez �o Ii��a��ie� '
StaffReports,�/, I��ri�s c���r��,rrnatio
and Planntr�� �c��nrri�ssioners Reports
���oth Cliairp��t'�t�z�t �,����'� and
�� •
ta designate �omrn���'ioner
�ssioner� ���iC1:�, Hegland, Johnson,
V�� _,.
����g �nd Stevenson with prior
C'
�, Council Liaison Roger Stigney, and
Page
2
5
�; �itizens' lteq�g," ts and Comments o�a I#ems IVot on the Agenda
�j� ��Y�a:e� �equ�� r comments on iterrts not on the agenda were considered.
; '��
�e ' ����� �va� �f Ni�nutes
A. Ap�i1791999
MOTION/SECONI3' Laube/Jahnson to approve the April 7, 1999 meeting minutes as presented.
� > i
IVYQUnds j7iew Planrean� C'or�e�issean
Regular° I1�Ieeiin�
Ayes � 6 Nays - 0
50 �tafi Iie�sor�s / Itean� of In%a�rrsaiaon
A. ��liboards
Caznmunity Develapmeni I7irector Jopke explained the ��ncil h�
Commission to continue ta iook into and make recomm�t�c�{itions::,
atiowed and what process should be used if it is detern,�F�ec� ��.�� �}`
at the goif course. He stated that he was not a"fan" of bill(��i�td�'
aboui granting variance� to allaw biilboards on the golf �i�i'�� arzc
He stated he believes this would constitute a use varian� whiclt zs
He suggestied, as an alternate method af addressin� i�is �f the �ity
�hat they consider a Code amendment. � `
ropke stated if the City wishes to proceed�
be amended to allow biilhoards by cond� c
be speeified ir� the Code. He review < e
. `;•�
sign area, maximum sign height, m
configuration, rrunimum distance .,:,"' /or sc
� ,�
number of bi�lboards aliowe�� p��itted io
setback r�qt���'��n�nis) ' ;
Jopke stated ,� ��c;t�r��:,i�
have to also obt�in a p�,
commerc�al oz,az��G�st'ria:
����.,
MnD�T �� apprctv�
golf co =�> e to PF since ;
sign � e technically do
Co��coutd be amended
. :� ;=rs . . ,
u
I�'Iay 5, 1999
Page 2
The motion carried.
s �;�i�ed th� ,l.xt��tt���
�.��whether b`i�l�c�ari�� ��ac��i �d be
e �ity wants to a1�c�� �illboards
:u�d has serious misgivings
oil�er sites in Mounds View.
�arr��.b�ted by State Statutes.
���h�; �t�;�ermit billboards,
i11k���ri t�s, ���i�ould recammend the Code
,.
ut an€� tha� specific standards for 6illboards
�dards that could be included (ma�mum
�ve� \ biilboards, pole type, sign face
�t�c ents from residential properiy, totai
um length of permit, a�d mir�imum
t�t���� laave to be overcome is that the billboard company will
��t����; which requires that billboards must be located in
�ist���� `The golf course is zoned CRP and it is unclear whether
in th�i zoning district, An alternative would be to rezone the
scs are pernvtted uses in the PF district. However, the current
rinit any signage in the CRP or PF zone. Under this scenario, the
billboards in PF and/or CRP districts if a conditional use permit
�c���� ��.���sted,,�����'lanning Commission discuss the general concept outlined �.s well as what
Ici.�ad t�� �au�tt� ����itt process should be utiiized. Based on direction from the Planning
�c�'�nr����cr�a; �taff could then prepare draft ordinance amendments for their consideration at a,
future meeiin�.
Commissioner Johnsan asked if t4us will "apen the door" far Highway 10 biilboard requests.
Jopke s�aggested the Cod� specify specifi� areas and wh�re billboards wauld and dvould not b�
perrr�itt�d vvith a CUP process. Highway 10 would not need to be Iisted as a pernutted area.
�.
')
�
I
- I�o�nds Ve�w P6ae�nan� Corrt�eaassimr�
13.�gastai• I�/Ieeting
�
1Via� S, 1999
P��e 3
Comm.issioner Johnson asked how many signs the golf course would be limited to. 3opke stated
he thinks eleven potential sites were identified but two did not have ac�ess and several of the
remaining nine were not on ihe galf course property, ��
�.
Commiss►oner Laube agreed that several, perhaps three,
Commissioner Berke asked if there will be a problem
stated that could be the case. Berke asked if this pro
is first ascectained.
Commissioner Kaden asked if it would "open the door"
ii is correct that anyone who abides by all of the conditi
Commissioner Laube asked if there will be problem
stated this will depend on the zoning seiected. I��?i
�_>
probiems since golf courses are permitted in �i c��
of other requests.
Commissioner Laube suggested
PF zoning district prior to the C
Stafie has no prohlem with billbc
surrounding �ommunities hav��, i
may have ma��num stand�i�d� �i
Acting
1
ra�
be
property.
rOp%�
ia get a CUP. 3opke stated
';';;�ble io make applicaiion.
ihe gol�'��r�c� be rezoned. Japke
ed he wault� �c�� anticipate major
:�o�al� no� "open the cioor" for a Iot
t�,��i�tact th��'�tate to s��if ihey would allow billboards in a
u� �� .
�,���s�on sp��?�ing a lot time on the issues. He stated if the
then tl�� Gommis '��could start looking at what
4'
billboard z'��t�t��rt�� s such as size, height, etc. Also, the State
can b� r���x��'��ti.
_
�rces at`r,��,r�t��e but she
as the biiibr��z�� prc���ss.
out if �horeview permits billboards.
Course Superintendent was charged with finding
� if there may be other apportunities that are nat a§
ssianer Berke as ��i i�there is any indication of the revenue estimated from the billboards.
! Liaison Sti�ne �'dvised it was estimated at $1,000 per sign per manth. Jopke agreed the
; ranged fro ;00� to $2,000 per sign per month. Commissioner Laube stated his
ltion the .�����ie is based on size, location, and cu�stomer.
�Qt�az�issit��►�� f.i�ohnson stated he does nat think the community will suppart billboards on the golf
co�ars�'�ar►d h� is concerned about "opening the door" for hitiboards along Highway 10 or 35V�1.
Jopke stated sta#i will conduct further research on State requirements and whether there is merit
to pursue this optian. He stated he will aiso ask the State and neighboring communities what
'.
IV�ou�ds �i��w �'lannir�� Coa�rr�ission
�8��ular° l�ieeting
I�ay 5, 1999
Page 4
design standard they use. Jopke stated that staffwill also research other revenue generating
opport�anities that would be ava.iiable for the golf course.
��
Jopke asked what type of citizen input process would be used. ' ��
Cominissioner Laube suggested staff obtain information on� .•'mum ��,re, i�er�;l��, number, and
allowed content before citizen hearings are held. �� ,��
Jopke agreed that hearings will be cansidered once sp
Commissioner Kaden asked if the billboard issue was
Jopke stated he is unsure but will find out, Kaden noi
Jopke stated tl�is is correct but existing biliboards wer
Jopke explained how the CUP process would
hearing, and standards to consider,
b
$.
Cam�nissioner Laube suggested that info'�'t�iati
hearings. '
����
Commissioner Hegland siated th�Y��mmis�i�z
� ��
making a de sion. He expr�sei� concerr► t�tat
getting ve � 1� out of 1� ��c�laiad suggestec
-- -�,� , . � . .
Commissio
will be desi
revenue w�
sioner Laube
to the gotf c�
are
Focus 2000 me�tings.
� are currently prohibited.
oards in����i�'ig notification, pubic
be det�t'i�t���prior to hoIding public
so ne .> better revenue estimates priar to
s� �� ` ess could take a iot of time with the City
� bzllboard companies be contacted for these
sri't have to make a decision based on a scenario.
}le c�l��.�l� �.l�p Iike to know how the revenue wii] be used, whether ii
�� al fund� `�oif course, and whai percent of the entire budget this
lerstanding that anything an the golf course property had to be
not the general fund.
he will ,�� out that information.
:'igney explained that funding restriction was part of the galf course bond
does not know ifthat can be amended.
�o Pr���ous C�urac�l ActHOn
Community Dev�iopment Director Iopke e�pdated the Commission regarding action taken by ihe
Co�ancil a# their meeiing o�' Apri( 26, 1999, to approve �irst reading of an ordinance amending
-. ;
;,
: t . -
t.
,
I1�oe���s Vae� �'lanning Ca�me�sion
Reg�slar 1VIee��ng
i�iay 5,1999
Pa�e 5
Chapter 401 of the Code, denial of the CUP for the dog kenriel an Bronson Drive, and approvai
of a CLJP for an oversized garage on Terrace Drive. �
Jopke �-eparted the EI�A discussed the Building N agreement and, after �andm�°��s, approved it.
He advised the development will proceed and initial grading �rk has bc�un
r
Jopke reported on Council discussion from their work se
request from ihe KnolLwood Green hotneowners associa
siding improvements since they do not have enough mo�i
informed them tha� they don't have enough collaieral. 'T
in reasonably good shape and the association hasn't expl
inierested in proceedxng. They directed staff to work wi
Jopke stated �he City had made housing grant progr�rn ap�
and MHFA for $150,000 to help fund the hous' ��'�:p�d���
EDA to purchase blighted housing, clear the� �s��eri�� �t��
County approved a$'75,000 grant for the� °v sing �t�.p���
grant with the City ofNew Brighton to ���p apart nts bc
However, the MI�FA did not appra��U�e City'� ant req
to
�I le
indicated the t�'wn��ore��s are
ions so the Council was not
��iermine another option.
ions thzoz���a both Ramsey County
pro�r'�zxi i�tl�ich would allow the
the s��� �'Ie advised that Ramsey
�,��s�,��am, plas a $25,000 join�
ttz�,�'as crime-free multi-housing.
Jopke reported thai the other ap� ,��on mat�� �o � or money to offer an interest subsidy
p r o g r a m f o r � i n g l e f amil y reh�,b �v�s also nc�i �� a�rt�4��♦ �
3opke r�g��r�`��d t�e. �ounci�; �� ��� revie�}�ec� the redevelopment praposals submitted for
property or� �t��sK�nt> Vicw D�a�Y� �t�d dt�ected staff to negotiate ihe sale of the property with the
top two biddcr�, �?[� ���sed th��;th� �r��;bidder was Marquis Builders with a bid of
approximatei ,���,��€� �`�z I�Q1 •�'�arC��t�s'�uilders is proposing a 1,600 square foot rambler with an
Av„a„���.n 1��� l�v�l �nrf�ar� ��timated value of $184,500.
I�lae�nan� �'�rts�a`i�siomers Journal
�c���.e stated the City �a subscription for this journal which is provided for the Commissioner's
��i�c���ation. ��
` . �; ����.
�� �, ���b���son �n� Plana�e�g Co�r�e�ssio�er� lZeports
l, 7y
�/"iillez� repoE�ted on the advanced zoning application workshop she attended on Aprii 29, 1999
which was a newly developed course. �he described the topics of the sessions she attended and
stated sh� rec�ived a lot of information inciudin� tips for amending ihe Zoning Ordinance, the
PLTD process, perforrnance zoning, sign ordinance standards, keys to working in multi-
� .
i
�Iounds Vie�r Plannis�� C'o�ta�nissfon
Regular° l�iee�ang
IVia� 5, 1999
Page b '
jurisdictional planning, and billboards, She thanked the City for the opportunity to attend this
worth�uvvhile seminar.
Transcrihed hy:
Carfa Wirth
TimeSaver O, ff ,
.�_.
N:IDATAIU��;R5�Aii
__ _
: -. � . •
�
C��� �
6�
'.�
� O�ti��
` ����'a�.c
i
� � �
�
�
TJP A.ri'�N� �' � �I�N Il�AN�E
��r�r�o�ucTio�
The sign ardina.nce is one of the most complex, diffcult, and emotional issues a community can
undertake to overhaul. It is complex because there are so many different types of signage and so
many different functions signs perform. Difficult because there are so many different issues to
address and so many peopie to please. And emotional because the right of a business,
organization, or an individual to express him-, her-, or iiself, and fo communicate their existence
atid message to the larger community is seen as a sacred right, and tampering with it an unholy
interference. Or, canversely, the right of residents to have their horizon free of any visual clutter
is also a sacred right. Our fust advice: tread carefully and thoughtfuily on the path to sign
ordinance refonn.
� :. � �. �, �; '- - ��; ,� �. . � , ����
As with any zorung issue, if there is no problem, don't fix it. But if there are constant complaints
from business owners thai they can't get enough signage, fhat their competitors have an unfair
advantage, or that church staff can't advertise their Spring bzealtfast or their Sunday school
classes without a ream of government paperwork, or if community members are beating down
the doors of City/Town I�Eall compiaining about the visuai blight from signs on Main Street or the
neon glare on the Yughway, then you should cansider reviewing the sign ordinance xegulatians.
The sign ordinance is largely an aesthetic issue, so as a community considers other ordinances
tied to community aesthetic standards, such as lar�dscaping and building materials, a review of
signage issues may not be far behind. What was acceptabie in 1.950 or 1970 may not be at all
appropriate today cozzsidering the size, shape, and character of the community• Times change
and so do zoning standards.
� ;� ...,.�.
.,�. �; . � � • ��y :.
1. Pacic a l�nch<
Experience in a number of communities suggests thai there is no quick way to address the
sign ordinance well. It is a matter for several months of intense work, if not a year or
more. To address all the issues, hear all the concerns and craft an ordinance that is clear,
consistent and fair, takes times.
2, Identi at�d involve the stak� laoider°s.
Know who is involved and how. A comznunity xnight take a survey of business owners
and r�sidents to f�el out signage issues. You mighi corasult 4he locat Chamber of
Commerce, neighborhood organizations, service clubs, church groups, eic. If a city
4
� __. ;
(township, county) is thinking of tinkering with sign standards, these people should be -
confacted and kept informed. A task force, or several task forces devoted to specific sub-
issues, mighi be appointed to discuss, study, and make recommendations. As wiih all
planning issues, allowing people to know they have been heard goes a long way toward
reducing hostiliky and suspicion about a govern.ment agency's acti�ns.
3. 1)ivide a�d conquer.
Because of the varied types of signage, ii may make sense to divide the task of sign
ordinance refo�rn in�o several issues. Have one task force address residential signage
issues, have another group focus on pylon signs on the highway, have another one tackle
temporary signs such as banners, penriants, balloons, searchlights, etc. The issues
involved can be vezy different from one another. ICeeping each group focused wili make
the job easier. � Remember, however, that the end objective is to promote communiiy
aesthetics, public safety, and related issues. It may heip to parcel out the issues to various
groups, but after aIl the discussion there needs to be one comprehensive, consistent,
rational framework of regulaYions.
4. �Iave clear obiectives
At the outset, the Planning Commission, City Council, Town Board, or County Board
should outline clear objectives for siudy of the sign ordinance. Qften �he Comprehensive
Plan may already have goals and policies related to signage. Rely on t�em as a _��
foundation for your efforts, since the role of #he zoning ordinance is �o implemeni the
Comp Plan. If fhere are Comp Plan policies that conflict wiih the objectives of your
signage discussion, you may need to amend the Plan as part of the process.
Then, look around and ask some basic questions about signage. Is the concem a specific
area of town that is "cluttered" with signs? Ts there a proliferation of tall pylon signs that
no one anticipated? Are there numerous banners and grand opening signs going up
without clear regulation? Are billboards a current or potential threat? Is there a type of
developmeni, e.g., anulti-tenant o�f'ice-warehouse buildings, for which there are no clear
sign standards in the ozdinance? Or is there a general distaste for the way the corrununity
has developed and �he nwnber and size of signs? Be clear about what you want to #ackle
and what questions you want answered, and have everyone involved agree (to the extent
possible) beforehand to the abjectives that a study is expected to achieve.
5. Out�ine a roce s.
A ciear process would include the following:
* St�dy the current situation, conducted by staff, the Planning Commission, a task force,
or consultant. At the very least they should reseacch what the current standards are and
E
_ � ; . . __
i. .
what they allow, the number of signs and Y.heir location and any historical trend (more
: recently? none in the last ten years?), It is also very usefui to visualize what the cunent
standards ailow. 'I'his establishes a baseline for comparing alternatives later in the
process.
* Communicate with the stake holders. In one community, we had a mailed survey of
business owners on signage. This was followed up with an invitation to owners and
managers of liquor, stores and hardware stores to a discussion session, a separate
discussian with car dealers, and yet another with religious groups. Each had their own
issues.
'� Research other commur�ities' ordinances. l7o not copy another ordinance just because
it's there, but you will discover a varie�y of unique a�proaches and you wi.11 also be able
to place your community within the spectrum of regulations. �1re you strict, Ienient, or it�
the middie? Do you miss some issues altogether? ,
* Test alternatives. It is helpful to be able to visualize different standards and how they
would affect your community. Have specific examples of pylon. s�gns that are 20', or 30',
or 40' in heigh� to compare to. Kx�ow what 5%, 10%, or 20% coverage of a buiiding with
wall signage will look like. This can be done with drawings, graphic modifications to
photos, or research of specific signs with these characteristics in other locations. It can be
a lot of work, but xemember tlaat you need a rationai basis fo� adopting a regulation. With
a pictuxe in front of you and objectives already agreed upon at the start, you can say:
"This size of a sign in this location �neets my standards for a tastefui environment on
Main Street," or 66.A sign this tall is simply out of character with our community's
standards for this neigt�borhood business district." Yau will have a clear written and
graphic record to rely on if the ordinance is challenged. Recent experience suggests that
the courts wili not substitute the�r judgement for that of the city (township, cownty) if
ihere is some rational basis for your decisions.
* Keep communicating. Make sure your stake holders, task force memibers, and
interested community members are inforrned af all meetings, especially public hearings
where ordinances may be discussed and adopted. You can never guarantee that everyone
will agree with your preferences, but you can steer clear af the ugly effects of
stakeholders being uninformed.
* Craft ordinances carefully. Translating ideas inta ordinance language �s a delicate art.
Consult your city/tawnship/county attorney. Make sure the ordinance ianguage follows
logicaily the objectives you set out to accomplish; that it is clear, concise, and campleYe;
that it doesn't leave any gaping Ioop holes, and that you have created only the �ninimum
iools necessary to accomplish the pubiic purposes you sei out to address.
3
� _ _ �.
-
��NIE �PECI�"ICS
�. 'I'hree �iaeer-s %r° the red �hite ae�d bl�e.
�ne community tried to iimit the number of flags a car dealer couid fly. However, being
American flags, ihe owner was able to drape himseif in patriotism, attract the attention of
a popular talk radio host, and eifectively thwart any attempts at limiting the.nuznber of
these bIatant advertising devices on his premises. Choose your battles carefuliy!
2. Bi€lboa�-ds.
Billboards are a big issue because biilboards are big and they are big money-makers.
Billboards are signs that many people love to hate, but they have some special protection.
They can be reguiated, as many communities do, by Iimiting their size, locaiion, and
spacing along roadways. They can be prohibited, and in some anstances, existing ones
can be amoi-tized and required to be removed. But be aware fhere is protection in Federal
legislation and a State Attorney General's opinion that certain billboards along Federal
highways are protected from removal by amortization and in fact must be purchased if a
community reaIly wants them dor�vn. At the very least, a commuruty that wants to limii
billboards can prohibit new ones, leaving the old ones as legal non-conforming uses.
One approach to limiting billboards is to define them as "principal structures" and allow
oniy one principal structure per loi. If an owner wants a building, the billboard must go. ,=''�
3. oi hol hol . .
If you want to make enemies fast, go after church signs. While we all want to see lofty-
minded communiiy institutions flourish, a community must �nake sure that it is uphoiding
the equal protection clause and treating equal situations similarly. We canno� singie out
chuxches or temples for special consideration. For example, we ought to allow an
apartment buitding in a residential district the same right to a big banner sign several
times a year that we give the church next door to it. And the Iittle off-premise directional
signs (often oIder) on street comers are helpful in directing one to one's wozship center of
choice, but would we do the same for McDonaid's or �urger King? Why not?
4. �ff-��e,mises.
Most ordinances prohibit off-premise signs, i.e., signs that adveriise goods or services not
offered at the location of the signe Wliile there may have been some strong feelings
behind these regulations, rnany communities are coming around to the position that we
really shouldn't regulate the content of signs (other than obscene messages or those thai
interfere with traffic safety). Tl�is may seem strange at first, but we need to get bacic �o
the public purpose, the rational basis. Why are we regulating signs? The xnost likety
4
�
4 - 1
��
;;
�
�
answer relates to the aesthetics af the pubiic streetscape, establishing a safe and attractive
environment. Under this rationale we can regulate height, setback, size, lighting,
materials, and in some instances, color and design. But content? There is a siippery
ConstitutionaF argument involved here that communities should think through carefuliy.
Pa�er har� in .
Be sure to look inside windows, not just autside for signs. Anything that is clearly seen
from the public spaces is fair ganne for regulation. Some communities have found a
proliferation of paper signs advertisircg liquor specials or car sales to be particularly
obnoxious and have gone after them, simply by stating that if it's vzsible it's a sign, arid
setting iimits on the size and coverage of such signs.
F`rattcriise architecture.
How do you define signage? At what point daes a franchgse coior scheme, or logo
incorporated into an awning or roof system, become a sign? If you are careful and
consistent in how you deiine a sign you can successfully Iimit the efforts of franchise
businesses to use every element of their building and site to attract attention. Some
specific examples include: the name and color scheme on the edge of gas station pump
canopies, a single long neon stripe at the upper edge of a building, or a broad altemating
colored stripe in the meYal roof of a fast food restaurant.
'T�PE OF SI I�iS
We cannot cover ail signage issues in a short handout. The following is an incomplete list of
types of signage. How many does your community's ordinance address?
Abandoned signs
�iddress signs
Advertising signs
Awnings/canopies
Balloons
Banners
Billboards
Box/cabine� signs
Bulletin signs
Changeable letter boards
Construction signs
Directional signs
Electronic reader boards
Entry signs
Flashing signs
For sale signs
Freestanding signs
Govemment signs
Grand-opening signs
Ground signs
Ideological signs
Institutional signs
Monurnent signs
Moving signs
Nameplates
Neon
Off-premise signs
Pennanis
.
Political signs
Portable signs
Projecting signs
Pylon signs
Recreational signs
Roof top signs
Sandwich signs
Searchlights
Signs on a%nce, zock, tree
Temporary signs
Traffic signs
V-shaped si�r�s
Wall signs
Window signs
4 I
` '..
w
` h
_ � .�,.. " ��,
r
.e ' .. .- ... : , � :��^ ;. . - ��: s
�
: ',' �
- k�
� ' �
.r� w 3 :., . . � =
- .
.
. � � . : �_ .. � ,
n�
�
♦� �
In piannin� circles, Minnesoia is somet�mes referred to as the land af 10;000 local governments.
We have 1�71oca1 jurisdictions within the seven county Ivletropolitan Area, and numerous cities
and townships throughout the state's SO counties. There is a growing realization that the
problems of service delivery, crime, iransportation, environmental protection, and many others are
not limited by �urisdictianal boundar�es. Particularly in the area of growih management, multiple
jurisdictions are zncceasingly �acing the need to work together to identify and achieve corrunon
objectives.
As in everything else, each af these situations is unique and it will require its own distinct recipe
�for successful intergovernmental collabaration. There are, however, several key elements
included an virtually any successful approach, as vve11 as a number of obviQUS mistakes to be
avozded.
� u: �'° �:� � � � '� :�
1. (;o�rtmunic�tion
�ithere is one area where you can be in control of your process it is in the area of
,, communication. �ne of the pat criticisms that neighboring jurisdictions tend to lean on is
;`% �hat they weren't informed. Var�ations on ihis theme include: we didn't leam abou� it untii
y o u w e r e a i m o s t d o n e, w e d i d n' t g e t a de quate notice to be abl� ta attend, you oniy to3d us
part a�the information, etc.
Comm�atucate early anci often. Let peopie know well ahead of time what is being siudied,
why it is important and that you acknowledge their stake in the .autcomes. First
irr�pressians are critical to ihe success of this type of communicatian. This is true both of
the content and the attitude ihat is conveyed by the communication. Tf the initial contact
conveys an attitude of respect and openness, it can set a tone for the whole process.
Don't underestimaie the potential benefits of taking a personal touch ta the initial
invitation. Sometimes a personal invitation by the Mayor or ane or more of tk�e council or
board can go a iong way toward �getting the process off on the right foot.
Early on in the process, there shoutd be a broad disiribution of in%rmation. This may
include newspaper coverage, community newsletter, comrnunity cable, web page, etc. %t
also neecis to set the tone for an open and respe�tfial process. Tell people what the projeci
is about, who is involved and haw, how and where to �et additionai informatior� and how
to particBpate. At the first meeting, include a si�n-up shee� for anyone desiring to be on
your rnaiiing list. Assure
�. . __ ;.
..
thecn that they wi�l receive timely notification of atl meetings and leam about the
availability of work products and how they can be review�d before ariy action is taken on ` t
them.
The intemet promises to greatly facilitate the commurucation process. Not only can you
post and maintain the newsletter and schedule, but, you can aiso prov�de background
reports and data.
2. �iv� Them a F6ace af t�e T'abie
Invite surrounding jurisdictions to appoint a represenYative or two to serve on the planning
cammittee or task force. Since ih� work that this group will do is purely advisory, don't
�isk the atienation of appointing ihe representatives frorn surrounding jurisdictions as ex�
officio members or as non-rrrembers. There is aimost nothing worse ihan having the
representatives from neighboring communities show up at the meeting to �find ihe
committe� sitting in a circte and them on the outside.
We advise appointing #hese representatives as members of the committee. �Ie also
suggest that you actively support them in iheir efforts io communicate with ofihers in their
community, Provide thern with additionaI copies of materials io dissemina�e. This isn't
rocket science, but everything ihat you can do to send a message of welcome and respect
will pay dividends.
3o Ge� the Iss�aes on the'I'able Eari�a Ackrsowled�e 4herra and CornaTn6t to Dealir� with '>�
T__ ��m
Somehow early on in the process, you need to invite all of the participants, but particularly
those from sunounding jurzsdictions, to identify the issues that they are concemed about.
These issues should be acknowledged in some forznalized way and a commiiment
expressed io dealing with them. There is aImost nothing worse than a process that drones
on and on when everybody knows thai there are strangly held views Yhat are not out in the
open. By geiting them out and ackrtowledged early, the host community conveys an
attitude of resgect and a willingness to work cooperatively.
4. �or[z Thrau�h an iTnderStandable Process and Be Cle�r Aboai Who �ill I�I�Ice tt►e
�inal I)ecisron
There is a very strong tendency for people to equate participating in a process with
making the final decision. If they attended meetings and expressed their opinion and the
grou,p decided sometliing different, the process fafled.
Set up realistic expectations from the start and reinforce thern throughoui the process. AII
af the participants wil! have access to the same information and have an opportunity to
chai(enge and supplem�nt it at any point. Everyone will have an opportunity to have iheir
iss�a�s and �oncerns recorded and they will be addressed by the process. AII af the
participar�ts will be involved in ariicula�ing and refining recommended policies, responding
�
� �
� .
, �.
, �;. ';
_ ;,,
i�
to aiternatives, implementation strate�ies and on and on. But, when a11 is said and done,
th� work of this iask force ar commi�tee will be advisory recommendations to t�e ptanning
commission which wil1, in tum, make a recornmendation to the city council (county
board). The council wiit hold public hearings, gaiher other opinions, consider all of the
information and make a decision.
S, Avo�d Win-i.ose �olu�tBQns
If you boil it all down, most of ihe fear that surrounding jurisdictions have about agreeing
to participate in a multi jurisdict�onal planrung ef�ort, is that th�y will iose soenething• 3�3Y
participating, they will be somehow co�opted ar�d the host community wiil claim some
form of de£acta approval from �hem, just by their attendance.
Tden�ify and stress shared obj�ctives wherever possible and strive to achieve some tangihle
evidence of success through coilaboration eariy on. This early success will contribute to
trust and trust is essential �o ongoing success.
Try whenever possible to identify objectives in terms of desired outcomes as opposed ta
rigid prescriptions. Be apen to a variety o£ means of acluevin� the desired results. Finatly,
have reasomable expectations and recognize that ii is an ongoing ei�art.
�
_ _.....
i i
. _ . : -" -- . ; ' _ � � `��'-5����. f -C�-�'� r � ce� _ _ _ .
.�: ' * -`� _ l - �c ��'�
1/' c.
}� /// � .��j '-�-� J�j' ��y
��py�vy .ij.i �'/�'C�wP f/ G �i " � G.���_� ..r ��l,y!J /!Y�-��ii�AV� �S =6✓�vwill
� l �
� /-tC�-u!_` "''
��������� �� � �-� ��� �
� :�'" - f � ��
',`';:}
: � � :� � :;
• .;
�_ , .
_ .
; . . . �. � ,� -
: .:
,:
�
; �: .:
, �; ��,� � ,_ �.
�
,'�/ , �
,�� �' .��
� �
�
The zoning ordinance is ihe primary tooi ihat communities have to guide and contrai iar►d use. It
�s also ane of the most tangible and direct means for implementing the comprefiensive plan. When
all is said a�d done, the sum iotal of a community's authority to regulate the use of property is
what is written in its ordinance,
However well vvritten or inten�led, ordinances are prepared ai a single point in time, in response to
the community's then current objectives and valu�s. Ordinanc�s also change incrementally over
time, with individual sections being prepared in response to problems. It is inevitable ihat plans
and ordinances becorr►e outdated. Often this obsolescence shows up as simple irreledancy, but
there are also times when the adopted ordinances are compleieiy opposite the preva��ing sentiment
in the comm�aniiy, or the apinions of its a.ppainted and elected officials.
One of ihe main reasons why ordinances are allowed to slide in�o inef%ctiveness and obsolescence
is that the process of amending them is complicated. Often rNhen a community wades into what
seems Iike a rather straightforward amendment, they a�re confronted with the realizatior► that the
same deficiencies they were aware of in one section of the code are aiso present in others, or they
may realize that to make the changes they wan� to make in ane section, will create internal
inconsistencies, confiicts and illogicat consequences somewhere else. When th�y recoge�ze the
scope aithe effort and ti�e time (and often money) it would take �o tacicle the whole problem,
many �urn away in frustration.
I� is tnte that a complete rewrite of a community's zoning ordinance can be a mammoth
undertaking. Even a tofial overhaul or a major section can result in a great deal of tirne and
energy. Unfortunately, in many cases, there simply isn't much choice. Since the only authority
communities have is what is written in its ordinarzces. There really isn't anywhere to hide. Local
planners are building their community one pern-ut after anoiher, just as a carpenter builds a house
step by step. Neither the carpenter, nor the planner can �vork without the right toots.
._'`. ° �. : .,�, `: j��� i.-�_� ti��;_ _ ■' � , � ��� . � � ' �� � � � � �?�
Th� purpos� of a zoning ordinance is to imptement the comprehensive plan. F'ar the sake of this
discussion, it is assumed that the community's comprehensive plan is current and refle�ts its �vision
for the fu�ure, complete with goals and policies related io aIl rnajor plan elements. If this were n.ot
the case, this mi�ht assume an even higher priority than the zoning ordinance.
�.
i '
There are several relatively simpie ways io iest your zoning ordinance and de�ernvne if ii is in sync -
with the comprehensive plan and your community's curren� objectives. Every community is
unique so it may be appropriate to consider approaching the following suggested steps in a
different order,
1. R�vaee�r�our° �Iaria�ace A�plicattons �ve�° the Re�ent Pa�t
If you are receiving numerous requests far variances, it is often a good indication ihat
your ordinances are at odds with ihe type and style of development that your property
awners desire. VVhile you migh� or might not choose to change your standards in Iight of
this information, ii is often a good place to siart. In particular, if your review reveals that
you hav� been regularly approving these variances, or have been strongiy inclined to do
so, it is very likely that your ordinanc� should be changed. �=
2o r� r h al a�d Palacie i�a u�° �n r° her�siv Pl�n eth he Pur nd
Intent Sections of vo�r �onin� I)estricts �
The goals are the heart of your Comprehensive I'lan and they should refleci a clear
indication of your communities aspirations, its values and its vision. The poIicies are the
specific strategies and action steps thaY you iniend to take to effectuate the goals.
The text af many zoning districts sta�i v✓ith a statement of the purpose of that district.
��lhile it wili be more focused, it wiIl also contain informaiion about the nature and
character of ihe development ihat occurs in this district.
Tf a comprehensive pian is current and the zoning ordinance is old, there wiil frequentiy he
significant and important inconsisiencies between these sections.
3a I3 vie he I,� of I'e�°me ted nd s�d� i nal s in the areous Z nin Dis e°e s
IVIost oithe ti.zne when you read your ordinance, you are doing so in relation to a specific
application. Your eyes quickly scan the page, zeroing in on the relevant inforrnation. For
the purpose of this exercise, simply read through the Iist of uses alIowed in the various
districts. If you happen upon uses like rendering works, liveries, sada fauntains, or
similar, it is a good chance your ordinance needs a tun� up. .
��:� � �� : � �' ' ' �' '. � : �' �. � ' "'� :�� : . :� • ��.. ;�- , �� ,. ��, -�. � �� ,� . :
Obviously, every situation is unique and th�re isn't any one size fits aIl approach to amerading a
iocal zonin� ordinance. 'There are, howevec, some lo�ical procedures �nd tried and tnae
approaches to different types and levels of amendment. T�is section outlines same of them.
0
- ; .-
1
�. : .� � _.:
�. ; '
1. ��ee�w Mocl�i Or in r� s
If your ordinance needs to be completely revised, stari the process by reviewing a model
ordinance and several �xamples of modem ordinances from similar communities.
Ordinances vary considerably in formai and organization and you should reach consensus
about the approach ihat agpe�ls to ihe majority of yaur staff, planning commission, and
city council (county board)
2, er uia�e ue tionn irc olici� I� aa�
You should also solicit input frorrt thase who have to work with your ordinance, on both
�he puhlic and private side. This might be as simple as writing a ieiter and attaching a
questionnaire with plenty of room for com.ments and suggestions. Make sure that in
additian to asldng the recipients to identify probiems, that you ask if there are features or
provisions in �he current cade that they would like to maintain. .
30 �ald An Issue Icie�tY�ie�tioa� Worksho�
After the questioruiaires have been filled out, consider holdin� a joint planning
commission/city council (county board) workshop. Ii is also a very goad idea to invite
�, representatives of the development community, chamber of commerce, EI3A, etc. The
�'''j purpose oitha workshop should be to generate a r►7aster Iist af issues and problems to be
; -;:
addressed ihrough the ordinance rewriting process.
4. Divad ihe 1° inanc �nto rkabl c i n and h Wretin n�Zeview
�° ce
If you are faced with specific challenges or concerns you may want to deal with a porkion
of the code sooner. Depending upon the specific nature of your cammunity, it may be
possible to either cornb�ne some af the following, or fiarther divide them. The foilowing is
simply a logical way to divide the sections fhat has worked well in the past.
A. Generai Provisions, Procedures; Ordinance Structure. This would i�clude the Title
and Legislative Purgose and intent, Interpreiation, I�efinitions, Adtnirastration, etc.
�. Resid�ntiai Districts
C. Commercial Districts
�, Industriat I3istricts
�'
3
; . . ;.
i
�'.
F.
G,
�i.
I.
Special Districts: Pi7D, Conservar�cy District, Overlay Districts
�nvironmen�al Itegulations - FIood Plain Regulations, and Reclamation, Mining,
Other Env�ronmec�tai Ordinances
5ign Ordinance
]Dssign 5�andards, Landscape Ordinance, Parking, r.oading Requirements, etc.
Nfiscellaneous - Interim Zoeung, Penaities, Special R�quirements
�, •- •�.
In the vast majority of cases, communities dvill choose to revise a port�on of their ordinance at a
time. ihis might be a matter af simply updating a seciion, or two, or it might be a strategy for
balancing out the workload and budget.
Obviously, if you are experiencing problems in a particuIar area, that is where you shoutd s�art.
Be awa.re of the need to remember to think about the effects that changes in one section may have
on anather,
Another very positive approach that affers a number of advantages is for the planning commission
to rev�ew a section or two of the ordinance eve .ry year. T4us approach is goad because, assuming
the cornmunity is committed to it, the ordinance will tend to be maintained in a relatively up to �
date ma.nner.
This approach also affers the advantage of keepin� the commissioners, themselves, involved and
experience has shown that they are much better versed in their ardinamce and also tend to do a
bet�er job of following it than their counterparts who are not involved in a similar task. If the
ordinance were to be completely reviewed on a 4-5 year cycle and ihe community has elected and
appointed officials who have served over that entire period, they will tend to be very secure in
their understanding of the ordinance and very effective in its administratian.
�
_
, ;.
, �
;
+ f. i
; : '�
i=;
z ��` . z�
When asked to identify areas of concern regarding the planning process in theu community, local
eiected and appointed afficials most frequently point to the approval of variances. Almost
invariably, they point to inconsistencies in the approval and denial of variance requests. They also
regularly point to a pattern of disregard for the standards for approval set forth in their ordir►ance.
Another very frequently mentioned problem is ot�e or the other of the Planning Connmission, City
Council, or County Board iaking a much more casual, or libecai stance than their counterpart.
. ;
•� . � ,� .. ., : �. ; _... ., , :� , ., •� ; r ;;. - :� ;� '�
� - ;o , .� � i ��':
�.�. . . ■ ' : . .
: �, s .. � �., � ; , a�: �
:�' , i' ? �j' ' � �- . ;} . .� � `'" � �, r� j r :r ' r . �. .�� ° : f . ;
� � ,�" - ��" - �.' � ;
First of aIl, a variance is defined as approval to depar-t from the standa�ds contained in the
o�dinance. Therefore, if there is to be a commi�ment to maintaining a set of standards and
procedures to reg�alate the use of land in a community, logic would argue that there should be a
pretiy good reason to justify granting a variance. Furthermore, human nature being what it is,
consistency in interpretation and action will also prave to be very important over time.
-�. , ;�. �_ ��.:
� , ,.
� t° � •
The Nlinnesoia State Zoning Enabling Statute, Chapter 462.357 Subd. 6 Appeats and
Adjustments states as follows:
Subd. b. Appeals and' adjustmenis. Appeats to the board of appeals and adjustments may
he taken by any af�'ected person upon complianee with any reasonable conditions impaseci
by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers
with respect to the zoning ordinance:
(1) To hear and decide appeats where it is aileged that there is an error ir� any order,
requirement, decision, or determination made by an administraiive officer in the
enforcement of the zoning ordinance,
{2)
� ���' �� ��
����� �,�
�� �°h '`� . � �
��� � ���
��i ��r� � %�
r� ��' ����
' x�L F y�' /� .
�� �'j'�l ����
U ``..v� �� /1�''
i ��
c:;;_:
To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in
instances where their strict enforcement vvould cause und�ze hardship because of
circumstances unique to the individ�al property under consideratian, and io grant
such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keepin�
with the spirii and �ntent of the ordinanc�. "�Tndue ha�°ds�►ap" as used in
connection with the granting of a variance enea�s the pe'OP��j' g� �����a°�
cae��ao� b� put to a�°eason�6ie use if used ander conditions allowed by the af�icial
controls, the plight of the la,ndowner is d�ae t� circurr�stances unie�ue t� the
p�°ope�°iy �ot �reatec� �y t3�� laa�dovvre��°, and tl�� va�°ia��e, if �ranted, ��ll �oi
�$y
al�ea° the e��entaal c�eae°�c�er of t�e �ocala�ya Econorn�c consideratians alone shall
i
� . �
�
not constituie an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property e�sts under the
terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to,
inadequate access ta direct sunlight for soiar energy systems. �lariances shall be
granted for earth sheltered eonstruction as defined in section 116�.06, subdivision
2, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or
the governing body as the case may be, may not pernvt as a variance any use that
is not perrrutted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the aflFected
person's land is locaied. The board or gaverning body as the case may be, may
permit as a variance the temporary us� af a one farnily dwelling as a two family
dwelling, The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions
in the granting of varxances to insure corripliance and �o protect adjacent
properties.
,..;
t :1:
� : :. �: ; �
The standards for granting variaraces in some state enabling st�.tutes and some local codes include
"practical difficulties". Of course, dvhat practical difficulties are is also subject to definitian.
In some codes, practical difficulty is defined almosi identically io hardship. In others, it is much
more loosely defined and subject to interpretation and the judgement of the local government on a
case by case basis.
1 ' r � - <�; .
The simpie answer is that there isn't a single right way to use the variance tool. In fact, based
upon Minnesota case law, it is ciear that communities have a fair amount of discretian in
approving or denying variances.
With this in mind, it is obvious �hat individual communities have some choices io make about
variances. The most importan� �hing is to identify the standards for approving variances in your
community. If you are not cotnfortable with these standards and pracedures, or intend to use the
variance tool differently, change your code to match your intentions. When you have revised
your ordinance, be consistent in applying your standards and procedures.
If you find your community receiving numeraus variance applicaiions and, particularly if you are
regularly approving them, you should probably anaiyze whether your standards should be
changed. Circumstances change,� communities evotve, and there is nothing wrong with changing
your s�andards. You might also exp�ore the broader us� of plar�ned unit development,
performance zoning and oth�r tools that might provide you with more flexibility in accomplishing
your obj�ctives.
�
`..._ " f . t = "
. .. _... . . .. .
� '� �:.•..'. . .. ._, .... .. .... . . ._. . ..._
.:':: ..:'. " .. _. .'.' __ ' .' __.'
�•.'�� i�//� /�✓"�"— a�'�H"Y"<��
TE I LT5E�
(A} Purpose: The purpose and intent of allowing interim uses is 1} to allow a use for a limited
period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonabie to utilize it in
tbe �nanner provided in the comprehensive guide; and 2) ta allow a use that is presently
acceptabie but that, with anticipated development, will not be acceptable in the future,
(B) Application, I'ublic Hearing, No�ice and Procedure: The app�ication, public hearing, public
notice and procedure requirements for interim use permits shall be Yhe same as those for
zoning amendments as provided in Section i0-5-6 ofthis Chapter. �
(C) �tandards: The Planning Commissian shall recommend an interim use permi� and the
Council shall issue such inierim use permiis only if ii �inds that such use ai the proposed
lacation:
1. Meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in Section 10-5-5 of the
City Code.
2. Confarms to t%e zoning regulations, perf-or�nance standards and other
requirements.
3. Is ailowad as an interim use in the zoning district.
�_.� 4. V�1�11 terminate upon a date or event tha� can be identified with certainiy.
5. Will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is necessary for
the public ta take the property in the future,
6. Will be subjected to, by agreement with the owner, any conditions that ihe City
Council has deemed appropriate for pernussion of the use, including a condition
that the owner will provide an appropriate f nancial surety to cover the cost of
removing the inierim use and any interinn structures upon the expiratian of the
interim use permit.
(D) Ternunation: .An inierim use permit shall ter�runate upan the occurrence of any of the
folfowing events; whichever first occurs:
1. The date stated in the permit; or
2. A violation of conditions under wh�ch the pernut was issued; or
3. A chae�ge in the City's zoriing reg�alations which renders the use nonconfarzning.
, : _ :
;;
, - - � , ���� �� G1�,,.;1� ������� '`r�r, c:��--��..�';
,,:�-�'� �'�` `'^��' "'' J `
� ,,�-L` �� �--���� �.' : �� �--��..
)
.�. _�, ;,° :> :r !�
Cornmunities ftequently misunderstand both the level and the nature of the discretion that they
have in the review af conditional use pernnits. They often treat their review as though they were
legislative approvals like a rezoning, rather than the administra�ive decisions that they are.
; :�. i �: ,. ; ,, : . : i. E , � ��. _, t. ;�: , • ;� -
�� � ,�. ���� ; ��. , ���. � : �� ���.
The foiiowing is a good example of an ardinance de�inition and the standards for its appraval.
(A) Purpos�: "Conditional use" rneans a land use or development as defined by ordinance that
would not be appropriate generally but may be allowed with appropriate resirictions as
provided by of�icial controls upon a finding that 1) certain conditions as detailed in the
Zoning Ordinance exist, 2) the use or development canforms to the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan of the City and 3) is compatibie with the existing neighborhood.
(B) Applicafiion, �'ublic Hearing, Notice and Procedure: The application, public hearing, public
notice and pz'ocedure requirements for conditional use permits shall6e the sa.me as those
for amendments as provided in Section lOrS-6 of this Chapter, except thai the permit shall
be issued on the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire Council. Aithough specific
submissions required to complet� an application for a conditional use permit may vary
with the specific use and the district in which iY is Iocated, all applications for such permiis
must include at minimum a site plan that clearly illustrates the following: proposed land
use, building mapping and functions, circulation and parking areas, planting areas and
treatment, sign locations and type, basic lighting concerns, the relationship of the proposed
projec� to neighboring uses, enviranmentat impacts and demand for Municipal services.
(C) Standards: The Flanning Commission shall recommend a conditionai use permit and the
Councii shall issue s�ach conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the
proposed locatian:
2.
Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
canvenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City.
Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plam and this Title.
Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be compatible in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general viciruty and will
not �hange the essential charact�r of that area.
� : I
4. Will noi be hazardaus or disturbing to e�sting or future neighboring uses.
,,
5. Will 6e served adequateiy by essentiai pubiic facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systezns and schools; ar wilf be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of
the proposed use.
6. Will not creaie excessive additional requirements at public cost for pubIic facilities
and services and wilI not be detrimen�al io the economic we�fare of the cominunity.
i. Witl not involve uses, activiiies, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be det�imental to any persoras, property or the general welfare
because of excessive production of tra�°-tc, �oise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
8. V�ill have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create tcaf�ie
congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
9. �1ii1 not result in the destruction, Ioss ar damage of a natural, scenic or historic
feature of major importance.
i 0, Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
(D) Conditions: In revzewing applications for conditional use permits, the Planning
Commission and the Council may attach whatever reasonable conditions they deem
necessary to miti�ate anticipated adverse impacts associated with these uses, to protect
the value of other property within the district, and to achieve the goals and objectives of
the Comprehensive Pian. Such conditions may inciude, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. Controlling the number, area, bulk, h�ight and tocation of such uses.
2. Regulating ingress and egress to the property ar�d the proposed structures thereon
with particular reference to vehicle and pedestrian safety and converuence, traf3�c
flow and control, and access in case of fire or other catastrophe.
3. Regulating off-street parking and loading ar�as where required.
4. Utilities with reference to location availability and compatibility.
5. Bemung, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect nearby
property.
�
;
6. Compatibility of appearance.
�� In determining such conditions, special consideration shall be �iven to protecting
immediately adjacent properties from objectionable views, noise, traff'ic and other negative
characteristics associated with such uses.
(E) Denial for Noncompliance: If ihe Planning Coznmission reconunends deniat of a
conditionat use pemut or the Council orders such denial, it shall include in its
recommendation or determination findings as to the ways in which ihe proposed use does
not comply with the standards required by this Title. .
(F) Permittee: A conditional usa permit shall be issued %r a particular use and not for a
particula€' person.
(G} P�riodic Review: A periodic r�view o� the use may be attached as a condition of approval
of a conditianal use permit.
(H} Revocaizon: Failure to comply with any condition set forth in a conditional use perrnit, or
any other vialation of this Title, shall be a misdemeanor and shali also constitute cause for
the termination of the conditional use pemut by the City Councii foliowing a public
hearing.
- (I} Expiration: If substantial canstruction has not taken place within one year of the date on
� which the eonditional use pernut was granted, the permit is void except that, an
-- application, the Council, after receiving recommendation from the Planning Cammission,
may extend the permit for such additional period as zt deems appropriate. If the
conditional use pernut is discontinued for six (6} months, the conditional use permit shatl
become void, Ttus provision shall apply ta conditional use permits issued priar to the
effective date of this Title, but the six (6) month period shatt not be deemed to commence
until the effective date of this Titte.
�
(r) Minor Alterations: Any minor extensians, alterations ar madi�ications of existing buildings
or structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if they are
consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan. No change may incz-ease the cube
of any building or structure by rnore than ten percent (10%).
P�CTI AL I}EF%[�IT�Ol�
A permitted use io which reasonable conditions may be attached based upan factual evidence
contained in the pe�blic record.
3
I �
: °i �-'� 0' � � :; . �:f,', ). ' � �; � ��,- ., ; � , y� . � �i �, ;�: :
Do not list uses as conditional uses in a district if you believe it is generally unacceptabie there.
Remember the question about the right io ihe use is basically off the table. It is a matter of how
the use may be modified, or its adverse characteris�ics may be mitigated.
I - °• � : .�• ';
The coucts have made it very clear that there must be a direct connection or ne�cus between the
problem and the cure. If you have reviewed evidence that suggests that a fast food restaurant
with a drive through window witl have up to eight vehicles stacked waiting for food during peak
periods, it is acceptable to conditian the pemiit to require space for eight vehicles io stack on site.
It is not acceptable to use the fact thai a use is tisted as conditional to require architecturai design
features, building materials or landscaping that is not required generaliy in your ordinance, or to
restrict its sign �rea to less than the amount avai(able to other uses in the district.
... U�. '. �� � .'�.;, : '�; 1,. ; ,t, .:..:
■
Another rarnpani abu�e is the attachment of time Iimitations to CUPs. The only permit that can
legally be attached a�ime limit or "sunset pravision" is an interim use �ermit. Conditional use
permits are land use permits that run with the Iand. They cannot be autoznatically revoked when a
particular applicatat sells, or a specific time period elapses.
"' ; , , `, � , ' 1, •. 1 1; . ; .�; ., '., `; . �.: ...
There is nothing wrong with the idea of scheduling annual or biannual reviews of CUPs (or other
time interval of your choosing}, but, understand that this is simply an administrative convention
that you have established. `Iou cannot require an applicant to renew his/her permit at a prescribed
time.
You can at virtually any poini, based upon evidence or even concern that condi�ions are not being
met, provide legal notice and hald a public hearing to review � Ci7�. If there is suf�icient
evidence of serious vioiaiions, you may have grounds to revoke a CLTP.
�, 1 � i
Conditional uses are pemutted uses to which reasonable conditions may be attached. The need
for these conditions must be supported by evidence in the record. As part af your community's
planning and zoning administration program you may decide to conduci periodic reviews of
CUPs. �owever, CUPs are land use permits that run with fihe land, not the land owner or
applicar►t and as lon� as the conditions are bein� met, the permit remains vaiid.
0
.
... , _.
` -.
_ � ; . ::: .:
if there are very specific aspects of a use thai cause you to want to classify it as conditionat,
� consider �etting forth standards directly in the text of the ordinance ia address these problems. It
may be possible, for instance, to identify a size threshold for a use at whi�h it becomes a probiem,
due to trafi�c ar some other characieristic. You may be able to list it as a perrnitted use up to a
certain size and have it become a conditional use beyond thai point. Another approach that is
regularly taken is to tie specific performance standards or mitigative measures to certain uses and
thereby allow it to be listed as a permitted use.
:;
_ ,;,
Ta say this another way, if you can iden�ify specific concerns abaut a use, try to create a siandard
that would address that concern to your satisfaction. If these same concerns apply to several
uses, consider establishing them as a set of standards that cover the entire district or group of
disiricts.
Be careful of GiJPs. Use this tool judiciously and understat�d that you are in an administr;,�.tive
mode whe� you are reviewing this permit.
5
� , �..
`�l
�:i
`
PERFO�IVIAI�CE Z01�1�NG
At the most fundamental level, zoning starts with the reco�nition that different types of land uses
have widely different characteristics and activities associated with them. They vary widely in terms
of their intensity and their relative effecf on adjacent properties.
Historicaliy, zoning has sought to categorize sitnilar land uses and to group them tagether. Much of
the focus of zoning has been or� the edges between incotnpatible land uses (those that vary ir►
intensity) and to employing such reyuiremenis as setbacks, screening and buffering to render themr
compatible.
The syste�n has never been perfect for mat�y reasons, but particularly because the task of categorizing
"similar uses" is so difficult. For instanae, it has been relatively comnnon to lump all manufacturing
uses togetlaer in General or Heavy Industrial districts. In reality, manufach�ring businesses vary
wideiy frotn light assetnbly, or fabrication that occurs totally within a huilding, to noisy, smelly,
"smolce stack" businesses with extensive outdoor storage, rail unloaciing, truck traffic, etc.
Obviously, the Iogic of treating these uses similarly from a land use �•egulation perspective brealcs
down.
When you add to this example similar and equally problematic ones from the other districts it
becomes a�parent tlaat zoning has some inherent limitations. Because of these shortcomings, most
local ordinances augment their basic district stanciards with additaonal re�ulations related to specific
uses within the general district. Typically, older ordinances also tend to contain numerous provisions
that were developed in response to speciftc problems encountered in the past. These problems may or
may not still be an issue. More importantly, the cumulafiive effect of these piecemeal changes is an
ordinance that is complicated, confusing and contains numerous internal inconsistencies. The
practice of listing al( of the Types of businesses and activities that are permitted or conditionally
permitted in the district is also cumbersome as some become obsolete, and others are arriving on the
scene ail of the time.
The idea behind performance zoning is to move away from simpiy lumping large groups of
businesses or activities together based upon one or two factors or characteristics, and regulating them
as though they ware the same. Performance zoning measures the relative intensity of ]and uses,
based upon several characteristics or fea#ures. The eumulative iotal of the scores for each of these
attributes or descriptors causes the use to be piaced in an intensity category. These categories in turn
trigger different standards of mitigation in the form of setbacics, screening, landscaping and others.
Performance zoning has gained popularify around the country and many planners feel that it offers
distinct advantages over conventionai zoning. This is particularly true in iight of the increasingly
strong movement toward mixed use developments.
Performance zoning is not without its own chalienges. One of the most important is to make some
rational sense of the intensity ranking system. Inevitably, this system demands that one measure such
disparate factors as FAR, noise, t�°affic generation, height, and hours of operation and eguate their
relative scores in terms of relative effect on adjacent uses. Based upon some established scale of
intensity for each of these factors, a total score is assigned. It is almost impossible to avoid
subj�ct�vity and some personal bias and values when assigning the relative importance of these
various weighting factors. Another frec�uent criticism is that performance ordinances are sitnply too
complicated. It is not ttnusual to find ordinances with I2 weighting factoi°s dividing uses into eight
di�ferent intensity characteristics.
I �
. ... ... ... .. . .. ..... .
•: . .-�. ...:: '� :;. . . . �:.': ., . :�..': I ,
_ ._ .._'"_ '""'"'�..
/
� ���� �
� � .���� � �- ����. ��°`��� ����°�-�`�`"�``�
� c'�� ,�,»� �`
,��.��v�'��'�``� s2�''-� �'
%
(�r�r-¢��-�- °� � .-J-� �- G �L�
� . ; � _ �-� � ��',�
�, �-.y f�-���--�-� �- /�-�-�-�- �.
��.�� � �1� � __ _
%� ,G°�-� � �-���� �- ��r.�� � �..�-��'�-�-z-��'.�.y�.�G�
�
' ''!
'f
. . ._. . ........ _ ._
;. ,
� . . -. �
i'.
;, �-:% r , ;, �,' l-. � ♦ ,, ' ':� �' - �� .
� � �;. , ♦
( , . i :� .. .,.,,:,,:
-', [� �� - �.
�,and LJse Plana�in� �Vorkshops:
Advanced Zoning Applic�tio�s
fl�nual I'la�ning Ins�it�te: The �asics
�eyond the �a�ics
Coxnp�°e�ens�ve Planning for �'aur Cornareunity
Environ�ental Plan�in� � C'o�plian�eo i�ooki�g �t Sust�inability
Government Training Service (GTS) can tailar any of these workshops especially for your community. Such
customization atlows you to focus on current issues ua your area of the state, include other individuais (i.e. advisory
commission members, elected officials, staff, interested citizens) and perhaps share the cost with neighboring
jurisdictionsl Contact Carol Schoenecic (65l/222-7409, 800/569-b880 ar e-maii: cschoeneck@mngts.org) to explore
the possibilities!
.. �.
; �� ., � ��: � ; .: �. ���, � �
Government Training Service (GTS) can provide facili#ators who have extensive experience working with iocal
governments like yours. GTS can facilitate a process to gather citizen input, guide prabtem solving, help re-allocate
'=� scarce resources, malce budget decision, or help strengthen existing teams. Contact Mary Sabatke (651/222-7409,
°=� 800/652-9719 or e-mail: msabatke@mngts.org) for details!
,
,i `' i ` / : ;a � i . . , :�. � ' .> �; ,,
The following publications could prove to be excellent resources for you and/or your Plannirig
Department! They can be obtained from their sponsoring organization:
IVdinnesota Planning (coa�tact I�iieole Bror�v�s @ 651/29b-6550 or accessi�ag ihe�r web site at
v��ww, mz�p la �.state. rr►n.us.
"Getting Started with Community Based Planning" A new guide for establishing local planning
efforts.
"Choosing a Consultant for Locaf Planning" A brief publication to assist local goavernments in
sedecting a planning consultani.
"Sustainabie ➢evelopment" A publication describing what sustainable development is and
government's role rn acldressing it.
"Law Sets the Stage for Community-Based Planning" Full text of the Community-Based Planning
Act that estabJishes a new state framework for local plannr�zg.
"ModeE Zoning Criteria for Recycling Facilities" Model criteria for siting recycling facilfties
that could be incorporated irtto existing local government ordir�ances.
OVER ...
� ,.
A1VI�I�iCAI�t �I,AAiI�II'�G ASS�CIAT`I�I�T
122 �ou�h IViichigan Ave�ue So�z�h, Suit� 1600
C'hicago, �llinois 60603
312/756-6344 (phone) or 312/434-99�5
ww��.�ianiii�g.org
���r.ruissaans �' �SD�trc�s
Cr�afirrg Successful Comm�naties
Cunrvcu• Lrherg. 1997. 46 pp. (Merr•opnlrtun Cn�nrcil.)
$l �i (prq�c�rl�uc•k); APA mc<rrrher,+• $l4.
Why plan? lsberg nffers picnty of reasons why comprehensive pfanning
benefil� communities. Avoiding land-use confiicts. Protecling natural
resnurces. Atiracting high-quality develogmenL Stabilizing neighhorhaods.
Crectlirt� St�cce.e,sfu! Conanrrrtifier will heip loc:il planning officiaEs identify
Ehe di�racleri�t+cs c,f a eo�d ct�mmi�nity Plnn :�nd pre�arc or amend Ehcir
own. h acknowlcel�cs tlir m:�jor Ircn�{ti iii E,I.ini�ing tind cmhr:tccti now
planning approac)ies. A grcat resource for planning officials who want lo
takc control c>f thcir cc>mmunitics' futurc.
P[nnning M�ds Easy
Willia�� Tnner et a1. 1994. Ib8 pP• IAPA Plaiiners Press.)
$36.95 (3-ring biltder); $32 each for 10 rnpres a' rrzore.
Training fl4ode Easy $$ {I S-urintrle ��ideo a��d trai�tiitg guideJ.
Dcvcloring a prograin to trait� nEan�iittg commissioncrs and zoning bt�ard
ntcnthcrx taRcs a lu( ��1'tim� ntid cl�fi�tt. This tnanual makcs (lic �rc�ccs.e eaxicr.
It covers the basics of cammunity pianning, zo�;ing, subdivision refiulalion,
and ethics. With chapters organized in discrete modnles, it's ideaE for bnth
sclf-study and ctassrnom usc. Narrutivc� cxplain gCncraf pilnning Principlcs,
L:xerciscs encouragc uscrs tc� tl�ink abaut lhe planning issues in ik�eir
cummunities, and worksheets rci�iforc:e important concepls. 7ruir�rng Mude
E�r.cr, a comp.�niori E•esotirce bool:, li.�ining guide, and video,. is also av.eilable.
�Vhy Pian? A Primer for ihe Canc�rned�C�tizen � �
30 mrnures c�f video educalion. 1988. (Mu�ricrpul �deo Pmjer�.} $90.
This enlertaining and informative video shows the impartance of planning,
wF�o and what is involved iit thc process, ,�nd the conseyuences of not
plan�zing. It includes a brief history of plaiming In the U.S, and cominents
from a noted land-use a[torney, several planning directors, and the
executive direcEor o( the League of CaEifornia Cities. 7'he video is idca) for
new commissioners and council �nembers, service ctubs, and civic groups,
Peaso�al LE�6ility o$ �Innning nnd Zoning Officials
Michuel M. S'ht�ltz. 1499. 27 ��p. {Iluc•ky Mnrnriai» l,rrnrl 1Js�� I11,5'(I!!f!('. �
$45 (punerbackJ: APA mentbers $42.
As a ptanr�ing or zoning officint, you can be sued for the land-use decisions
y�n� tn:�k�. This rc�ctirl lcliti you what ycxt c:.in do lc� prcvcnt a �icrsnnul
la�vsuit---and how !o handle onc if it is brou�Ii1 against you. Sliulv. first
provides an overview o€ personal Iiabilify issues i� Eand-use cases. He thcn
snaiyzes stale and fecicral claims that can be flled against pEans�ing and
zoning officials.
D�gign[r�g t�e Citya
A Gu�de f�r Advoe�tes a�d Public Officia�s
Aclerc� Flc�cl lic�cnn: 1995. 19.� �,f�. (l.slunc! Prr�,+.s.)
$29.95 (pcq�erbnck).
This pr.�cticfil m:�nual shnw� citizens and clected of'Eicinls hrnv t� ii»�r<�ve Ihe
way commu�lities arc pla�i��eci, dcsig�3ecl, a3id built. 13acow prese���s ways to
intiuenee design decisian it�aking. De�c�ilecf ease �tudies show ynsi how
a�tucrncd ci3ir.ci�� in �il! �sirtti <if thc c�u3�try hfl\'C (Of€'C(I SUCCC!;s1��1,
pruzkuclivc p:�rt�icrzlii��s witli dc�ign�i:�, cicvcltiEurx, und ��lannci:ti.
The Jo6 of ti�� Planning Comr�issio�er
3i�1 c�rf.; rc•��i,sr�d, A!l�rr7,Sulrtrl. 1987, 19�5 p�,, {�1I'A 1'lc��rnrr.r 1'rr,��,c.)
$24.95 (pa>>�rbuckJ; $20 ench fnr 1� c�npies vr rrrore.
A popuEar anci practical guide on how to be an effective planning comrois-
sioner. Fillcd with clieckiists anci outlines, it's both a good introducti���. �iizd
a handy refereiice. includes :� lruining checklist Cor new ec�mn3issinn �j
crilcria for �cc�iing a itaastcr plan ih wcir[cin�* order. lisu of toolti tc� g� :' `::-'
growlli, aclvicc un how lu dcal witE� rrofctisio��a! ,�ta(I", and clo'ti and cion'ts
nf successful public meelings. .
T�e Pianning C�mnaissianers Guide
Darid J. Allar: /984. 18( l���. (APA Plrtrt�rc�l',S P1Y',S.S.� .��'�. JS �rlClf)L'�'hrrr'k).
Alle�r sl�ows co�iuttissioners how to make group ctec;isions in a reu�onuble an�
cE'f'cciivc wciy. I Ic tirtit intcrvicwcd cum�u"sssion mcmbcrs. Tlicit hc Iislcncd lu
staff'present.uions, c�uestions and comments of comn�issioners, and lestimony
c�f applic:.uu. a�ul witi3atiscs. Iic uscs tiiis ir�fon:ialion to sf�ow hc��v ccmimis-
sioners can work logether lo direci a coraununity's dcvelopmeoe.
The Ro3e a�d Respo�si6ility �f i6�e Pl�nrring Commissioner
40 mi�reue,s nf vrden eclrrcativ�i. 1988. (Mrrrriripal Viclen Pr�oject.) $175.
This video detuil� fhe pow�ers and responsibilitics of the plaf�ning cnmmis-
sioner and provides an overview c�f a range of topics, including Ehe
mandatory and permissive elemenEti of the gcneral pian and the retation-
ship betwecr� �he pl�nnisig ��ency :trid varioas elected bodies, h cover�
la:id-i�sc :uid U�+ns�ui�•I�ilicm 'sst�irs, ii���ilci�irnliizg Itar goncrtit �zlfUk..in�l
p�ib{ic p.ir(ici�ialiun in lltic ��l:t��3iiug pruccsti.
Tlae Zoning �o�rd M#aatual
J�'r��d����rrk !I. 13uir; .lr. /9��f4. l32 �,�,. (�il'�t Plunrte�tr 1'rc.t,s. }
$24.95 {pctperbac�J: $20 ecrclt fnr.Ti�e cuprc�,s nr niore.
The only com�rehensive guide !o the work oi� the zonin� bc>ar�. Tfje boc�R
expfains lhc bo�rd's responsibiliEies and the lisi�its of its pa�ver, discusse�
co�iimon ty�es of zoning cases, pro��ides model rEilcs of proccdurc, and
oftcrs pointers on how la sc�lvc pci;yistcnt probkcrns. Fil�cd �vith cxuo�'. '>�.s
from zoning practice and ordinance Jai�guage,
�
�l
` >,
_ -_ =_;:1
,
.� �_ ;�- � �; i� �: , � � ;�� �, ;�, �
l�/Iee�ing I�a$e:
Staff It�porrt bye
Pla,a�a��e� Ca�� �To.:
Ap�licat�t:
ltes�uesto
�.oc��iono
PII� I�o.
Zoe�in�//I�a�c� �Tse:
App�icabl� ��g�t�tiore�:
June 2, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associa�e
553-99
Michael & Sandy Leon
The applicant is requesting a reduced side yard setback to atlow for a
living space addition in place of an e�sting deck
7386 Parkview Terrace
07-30-23-13-OOS6
R-1, Single FamiEy Residentiai / Single Family Dwelling
Section 1104.01, Subd. 3, regarding Setbacks: All principal structures shall have a
setback from sideyard lot lines of at least ten feet.
Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outiines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its
review of variances,
l�ttach�aents:
�ackgraund:
Planning Application
Zoning Map
Surveyor's Certificate
Proposed Porch Plan
Proposed Porch Elevation
Letter from the Contractor •
Letter from Affected Neighbor at 7390 Parkview Terraee
The applicants, Mike and Sandy Leon, are requesting a variance from the requzred ten-foot side
yard setback established for principal buildings and living space therein. They wauld Iike to
replace an e�usting 10 x I2 square-foot deck with a tIu-ee-season living space addition of'the same
size in the same location. The deck, which has existed since the construction of the house, as f�ve
feet from the north side of the property. The subject property is located in the Silver Lake
i7�loods singie famiiy home development at the northeast corner of County Road H2 and Silver
;'� La%e Road and is only 9,1 SO square feet in area. This requesi was first heard at the May 19, 1999
Com�nission meeting, and after much discussion, stafiwas directed to explore in greater detaii
possible language addressing each of the standard criteria for grantin� a variance.
� ,
,� _
...
'.•_
A�aalysiso
As ihe Planning Cotnmission is aware, in order to grant a variance, there must be a demonstrated
hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property which makes a literal interpretation of
th� Code overly burdensome or even restrictive ta a praperty owner. State statutes require that
the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each appiicatzon and make its decision in
accordance with these criteria.
There was much discussion regatding these seven criteria at the last meeting, and based upon that
discussion, staffhas drafted Ianguage that relates to the criteria in Resolution 550-99, a resolution
which approves the Leons' variance request. The individual criteria, with responses, are as
follows:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the propeYty which do not apply
generally to other pr�operties in the same zone or vicrnity crnd result from loP size o�
shape, topogYaphy or other ci�cumstances over which the owners of the propert�� since
the effective date he�eof hczve had no control.
7386 Parkview Terrace is a substandard lot--its area comprises only 9,150 square feet, a
condition the current owners had no part in or control over. The lot was allowed as part
of the Silver Lake Woods Second Addition, which replatted a section of larger R-2 zoned ';.r
lots to smaller R-1 zoned Iots. The smaller lot size in and of itself creates practical
difiiculties in maintaining a typical hamEe. It was not the City's inient in approving this
subdivision to limit the size of a house that could be built.
b. The literal interpretation of the p�ovisions of this Title would dep�YVe the applzcant of
rights comrnonly enjoyed by othe� properties in the same district unde�� the terrns of this
Tit`le.
Porches and oiher living space additions are a common feature in this district and serve as
a physical improvement to properties. Other properties in this district typically are able io
make these types of improvements without ihe need for variances. However, because the
subject praperty is substandard, it would be unreasonable to assume that the same size
house could be built and expanded upon without a comparable reduction in the setback
requiremenfis.
c. T7�c�t the special conditions oY circun�stances do not result fYOm the actions of the
applicctnt.
The variance request is the result of two faetors over which the applicants had no control.
The house was constructed on ihe substandard iot in s�ich a way that wasted five feet of
space atongside the garage. The side-yard setback for garages attached to principal
structures is five feet, yet the garage is set back ten feet. Had the house been consti-ucfied
so as to take advantage of this additional five feet alongside the garage, a variance would
i
LeOi] \/ariaPlCe
June 2, 1999
" F'age 3
nofi have been necessary as there would have been adequate room to allow for a living space
addition on ihe north side of the property. The other factor contributing to a need for a
variance is that the internal configuration of the hozne is atypical in that the floor plan ailows
for a living space addition only of�the north side of the house. There is oniy bedroom space
offthe rear of the home, the most logical place for these types of additions.
d. Tdtat granting the vaYiance �equested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Trtle to owners of other lands, sir�uctures or buildings in
the same district.
Granting a variai�ce to allow a three-seasan porch or other type of living space addition
would not be a speciai privilege--mosi properties in this district either have sirnziar types oi
additions or have the space to constntct such additions.
ThaP the variance requested is the minimum variance wlaich would alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
The prop�rty owners wish to replace an e�istirzg deck with the enclosed porch. If the
porch were to be constn.icted observing the proper seibacks, it would on[y be seven feet
deep-�not enough room far a iable and chairs. The five foai; variance is th;e minimum
variance that would alleviate the hardship.
f. The varicrnce would not be mater�ially detrimental to tl�e pu�pose of this Title or to othep
p�ope�ty in the same zone.
The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners
seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code
requirements and factars heyond their control. Granting this variance for a living space
addition would not be materiaily detrinnental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequcate supply of light and air to adjacent
p�operty or substantzally increase the congestion of the public stree�s a� increase the
danger of fire or endafager the publre safety or substantially diminish oY zmpair p�operty
vcrlues within the neighborhooc�
A living space addition of such a limited size (120 square feet} at the reduced side yard
setback would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase
the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or ditninish property values.
Accarding to ihe Ciiy Code, all of the preceding criteria shall he satisfied in order to justify the
granting of a variance. It app�ars �o staffthat in this case a hardship does exist, and as such, if the
Planni�g Cominission were to concur, a variance could be granted to ailow the appiicants to
cons�ruci a living space addition five feet from the north property Iine.
_... _ , .; ._ 4 . , .. .::
I
Leon Variance
.lune 2, 1999
Page 4
Reconramendat�on:
if it is ihe Commission's desire to approve a variance for Mike and Sandy Leon to allow a five-
foot side yard setback for a 120 square-foot living space addition at 7386 Parkview Terrace, stafi
has prepared Resolution No. 579-99 to accomp�ish this.
�:,� Lwv�S �'�-�-v-rL,
James Ericson, �lanning Associate
N:�DATAIGROUPS\CONIDEVIDE V CASESIS 53-991LEON2.RPT
;
`�;`�` ,��,
�''I �;�':r�(���. CC) ���I,OPI��dT I)E�r�it NT
`� Il��IJ�PMEI��' r��'PI�ICA`I'I��d
" �":�''`'''``= 240� I-�a�hway 10, Mounds View MN 55112
.. . i"a ,fiUr
��,o ' �::a �
ro��tt ° Parrnats'��Q' C�Z-%1%-4OZO
612-784�3462 � FAX
Please 'Fyp� or �eti�t lnformatio�t - CoQnple�e ��th Sades o€'Tl�i� Fortn
AppLicaa# I��°oa��tgon l /
Naane of Appiicant Gf� � d' � Telephone (9�L `%� Q- 3`� `��
Address � l_3 �� a:e Qc/lP�t/ P�2c�c.2� Fax
d U'w� 1(/ � �/+�/
In4erest in �roperty (cheok appeopriatc box}
� Owner of Property [� Contract for Deed Owner
a Lessee, Operator, Manflger ❑ Agreeenent to Pwchase
Q Other (explain)
Applicants �atsi prowide evidence a►f interesi in pa�operty at the tim� af a�ap[acatio�sy a�ci �i'yoea are not the orva�ee of the
peaperty, you mus� provdde a letie� of per�aissi�n frors� the oevnea giving co�seni to the �°rling of this appl�cation. Tt►e
ps�aperty o�er must sign tbis applicatioo �or it to be accepted.
�a•oPea�ty IDescription/Proposat
Address or General Location
Legai Description
Properiy Identificatioa # (PIN #)
# of Acres
Current Zoning
b'7 -30 -�3-l3� ofl5(o-y
Type of Application
❑ Coznprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ Rezoning
a Major Subdivision
❑ Minor Subdivision
❑ Planned UniC DevelopmenE (PUD)
�7 PUD Amendment
a Condi€ional Use Peruut
Variance '
a Code Appeal
❑ DeveEop Review/Site Plan
Q Wetland Alterafion Pertnit
� Wetiand But%e Permit
Q Floodp{ain Permit
❑ Other
�250
$250/acre; min $25fl max $ i 500
$250 + $Z50 deposit*
$zoa
Refer to rezoning fees
$350
R-1, R-2 $75; QiI others �250
R-1, R-2 $1 OO a110the�s $250
�100
$125/acre; min $1 �S raa.c $750
R- !, R-2 � 1 S0; all others �Z00
iZ-!, R-2 $25; ail others $(00
$200
�DeposiEs shalt be p�id to cover a[1 costs of pubitc notices, materials and staf� or consultant time spent in the review,
research or preparation of materiats associated widi this applicatian. 'i'he applicnnt shafl be responsible for all reasonable
incurred costs in excess oF the initial deposit amount. /�ny portion of the deposiE not spent or encumbered shakl be re�unded
to the appficant withir► ihirty (;0) days atter consideration ox the appiication is completed.
�Icase co�plete the reverse side af this ag�pdi�ateone
1 :.:
City of tVlounds Viev�+, IVII\(
Development_Applicafior� �a�e 2
Presenk Use of Properiy
o Undeveloped/Vacant � Single Faznily Dwelling ` i
� Duplex/Two Famiiy Dweliing � Multi-family Dwellang ,
Q Business/Commercial Establishme�t ❑ Industrial Estabtishme,nt
❑ Other (eYplain)
Property Classification r Abs�ract ❑ Torrens
BY MY (O[JF�) SIGNA'Si1�2E ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, THE INFURMATIUN PRUVIDED iS TRllE AND ACCURATE.
Signa[ure of Applicane
Name �f Applicant (typed/printed)
Signature ofProperty Owner
Name of Property Owner (typed/printed}
Address of Owner
� C i ��h
31, - �1.an .0 a d�
�� rf i''
.�\,l��l�,����.'•. � — .-.
/� � �� o�
�� �� ' _ _
�"�2 . V r�1 1?.�2�t.c.�_
_ Y�
► r3 o G+,.4` ' V�-�.J° t�'.f ` ��.� S"` c?� l(
Phone Number of Owner (� � �� " 3 �( �J �( �„ y )�� � l .^ � 3 � 3'�'S �
,��'l ,�u2 ��v � �.��'—�
,-, ��
, � �c,� ��d � s J '
�'9'�'� ij � i��C �� . ��."�
��*mx�**��*�����**����*���**m�xm��+��**��*�x���������*�*��*��������*��x �**�*��*�*�� �m*�����**��:�*��
FOit OF�'ICE U3E OI�d%,1'
DAte of Submittal ' _� / �
Date of Accep€ance Assigned to: _
Planni.axg Case No. ,�,� �.�� 60-day Limit E 20-day lirnit _
—�---
Fees Paid: Account #� Check #
Application: .�� � ° �� id� � `-Fi6� � /�, _
�-----,. _..__., -
Park Dedication:
Deposits:
Other:
T�tal:
N:1DriTA1GROUPSICOMDE V1FORlviSSDE VrIPP.FOR
�R ceipt #
`� ��`�
1/98
{ :.
� .:..:
7759 ///U
7749 776� 7767 � , � --
7739 7729 � Q r
O 7601
3 7729 772 77Z3 (�— a
-� 773 ���
O 7719 771 77i5 2
Z m 771
Y 7709 77� 0 771 � c�+ 770 .
°° 7692 •::::::: •. � .;:.:j�
N 769 7685 N 7690 �U� o
7570 76G3 � 768 � � E
768 Y e
7BfiD s � �
7644 �653 � �
7634. 7535 �
7620.
7fi00 7601
. 75g4 S1LVEft VIEW
7575 . _, �
'� '588 PARK �
•� �.� i.or ... ....�
'1�6 776'! 7750 v 7731 7730 77b3
7755 7730 7721 7720
6ry,h 7745 7740 7711
� 77 # 5 w �°o �� u`Di 7700 4
......... � R-�2 'P
�
N
n
��
- MO�� \ MrOil�in
� r � �n � �o �n �n �n 2557
NNNN � NNNNN 255� �
z
`� 2547 � 76E
2545
�—�' 2545
2539
2537
�' ���
��z �ya ,yh
w
> y'��O �m
� �� ry
Y-'� 758 � 7565 N N� N� ul �,
� om
5 7572 � ��� � � N "�
l� 7552 `D � "'
'S 7560 > 75b5 7550 uJ n°`y . � y � w y`P°i° � �
N N N N N 6� to D O!o
5 � 545 7542 P� n "� °N '°" c�
754D , � `Q `�
u�p 14 � %Jr' 32 � W O�i N� N N O N O fND
N� N N 5'2 7530 . c� o�o � r N
DRIVE "' N `�
7522 . � � N
�J 7485 a�a 507 � � M� m N�y �n c`ov ' c
m � SO N � � M O tD
49 �y m - � �.° sn co
4 7a71 747 = ,. _
N N N "J �,N.W� ..
BRON '� 74 743 -- - -."•-°'n°°."
� 7451 7456 N o -°" {C:
, � m 7444 42 �.,: �, :� � o „
� W N cv 7442 - 744 � 42 d�:•:: � �� n 7401
74't 5 `u
> N n
D 733
n �aos �aao g VlE`N� �
7408 ^ � n � � 333
7405
7395 � 74�u 738 � » ,� 7�2y
7390 738 � � N c^v 732
7375 7378 N DG N
73
w
n �n
Y
7S7
r � r
7350 "� _.'')',,°�
7373 � 7370 ��,c ,� �. 731
� -- t�-- � � � -r
5 0�0 0�0 00 ��. N N %3 � Q
,�d. N 1° 0 7295
°� � N N za B-9
N
28
6
37 7250 p
�
7225 72�
7215 � 7�g
, 7181 ��-�
�Fl��7I N I �� N N �.. N W
1
DR Y
� __ ' _ !�7 N � O -..... �
�
n
�
N
�F
/ d
aN
N
�
� � N
� . ���
N
r° h°'
� o u�i �.y
[V"'N
ro a
�y �
......... N N
, , . ,
u�
� � �
� � N
N
N �
to u%
� �
N �
���
iB 6'L/"L ozi �u � � r rn N � � o 0
18 52fi6 526 S,Zfi N N N N N N N N N c�t N N
52fi0 5261 LOl11SA AV� o
7 7 517 Q � •' � O
5254 525 � � � � � +Mn � � � � 'O ' 1O
O N N N N N N N N N N N N Z
17 517 > 5248 524 � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
'�� 517 � 5242 524 � N N N N N N nf N N N N�
CLF�4RVfE4V AVE
5�36 523 +n a d� r� M M � rs ��° o
172 517 5,23 2`3 N N N N (�V N N t��t N N N N
5230 Y � o, �
170 516 522 224 � c�a � cMn � � � � � � � `�°
5224 N N N N N cV N N N N N N
168516 g��$ 522� IDGE
(D ^ Op "�
166516 5212 521 5212 521 � 521 52I N� N N
�6 s�6 � saos sa�� 5206 5207 g 5206 5207 szos � p o
1�9 S� c: 4 5205
Zoning Map Plaruung Case 553-99
Appli�ant: I�iike c4� Sandy Leon
Location: 73�5 Park�new T�rra�e
M
�
N
�
N
�
M
N
526
525
525
524
! _
W
Ya
...7
521
PF
N N
N � � �
N N N 52�
� � v� --
,:. ..
,.. ,._ ... ;..
.
�0�� �' \. °``__ . _� _ .
�
�, j: oe. �� �. \ � .
i. 'oo t w ��.�� ` �
r °
I1� � �.
� er� �°±-
. f � W • 4. °� �
�t W � -� .�
.�A � ��� . w� , �, �` �'g _ �
o � �
z} Jo ,`i, t o.4l� �/ po �"��_ `°� ` : .
fd�:�9`°�, 84.41 _,1 � � _ . .. .
1 �/ � � . `��'�'4/ �°° ° °�
.o � � (� �� �° .� � hf ���� '' .— —
i5�P � � � �a���� �X����i t�� � N 1 � -_ `
^i � %; � {�j ' P�� °_
C'�) Q � � � W � ��� ,� .� OA,9� .� '>�� �
' s+z�s' ; ���2�,�� � �, �sb y�,3�� � ��,1� ����� ���, 2
��� - o �+ � s�� , o ,• � �3 �.�. � 9,4! � I j � � �,
Q ! (47, � 1 � N (�� � �4��� �� � � � `� l�`� ; � �
i � Pr
. ,r 1f� t•' C�) .� � � ��7°7 � .� �� e� t�°�A �.�7 '�� t33.� �
, � l oa I` , 11 z !e0 . ` 0�� � . .� 2 � :'� Q � ��� q f'�
,
� o ��t� � � A �
' (�� : �°PARK : �►�'V!� �� �� ao� Q �
1��.3'b bo �� �� �� `�� � ;Y•� �x.7
�` o� ���, ��� W m a, e,�.� ,�
c�, ' . � � � �5',�� � ���� �� �� 4
,�� . �A c�, � r�� �.
� i o � �� ffi� � �
: , � e� .
.o
Q � ` or�.o�~ 9��� ��qti 7D �. � �� `��(�s) �
� (�) °1 � �, �C�).s ��, �� � 79�. a��P ! � w
�
,
,
,
r �`"`� �
� �
C�) °°
�
C��) �
�
7
s� � g. - �
� 9 � �� q� �' ~ � `
94
��' do�:s �a. �as� 6 66) a� 5•
o s� . . a �1 � ���� ° i{b.Z3
h� n °1��� � � L, 1�� � o� P
z4.9 tr� 'o.� � (?)6 �
� s� � � � f�J � '@$) . . . � f�2j 7� � '' � `
� �( � �
^ � m
, �1 3 a � ��,� �
� � � h �
� /z�-�) h � � 419 �3 r�' �° .� �� .�,3�.o�t �
e 6 0 (�' 6�) (43) � � �
�`�, �.� � � � 5 0 � � ��9� �• .
�� �� w �� '� ` � � ° �. �
�
� � . 8� � �' 1 i,7a ^�.
� �9� �' s ��� �° ��,� ��, o .
�, ���� � ���6 3.� �o � � 7��'�� 6 3 I�sS. � ���
.� (4 9� � c�},�� (�7) � !�z) � � � � �/i
� . � � �, ►� � � � - �Z �) �+ �i s
. ! - . � 4 h ,� i �
�.. 0�1.��° � .3� �o � i o� � ( �4�0
� � o--
�� �
. � � .
Plat �ap Pla.ru�ing Cas� 553-99
Appli�ant: Mike & Sandy Leon
I,ocatiom: 73�6 Parkvie� Terrace
`�
i:
,.
i . : a .
r�' "
CALVIiV ��e �-� �tJ �7zs �or�c�t� �v�. sU.
M€NN�/1POLIS IL11NN: 554z3
�r-�. Surv�per Clali �ngln��r �fOQNE i�IOa 86&-Z523
� � �
• J�� �!(3. ��(�J�'��7
SUFiVEY FOFi: 1�1RVIN fl o I11VllERSON CONa`.CRUG7.'ION CO .
DESGRI��,D qg: La�. 10, Block i, SILVER LAKE WOOUS 2ND ,�ll�1T�ON, City
of Mouric�s View, Ramsey County, t4innesota reserving �tlie
drai.nage and ut�ility easeYnents as sltown an the
�_ record plat ther�of .
� .-,
�i C .
' �.
..�o � o /'= �' ,
S/� �,i `% ja
� �a��
,�_� � "� o � �, `�i�T ;�
�� ���� ��
� � . v 4U � ,,.
:�? � M `� . f
E� '�X y ��.';
�;+ S��-
�.� V �i V ,
� �
�- �
{t � 4. � r 7� � Ol U)
�: o cu `' �i �� �
��'��''�'"" o ��°�i���
Tso/ ,
�-,---�� _ ..-�
�� j"',� �.,r/.�,e3�'°°, �;�'I ' I
�f �--�j'J,�/.�°°°�';!`i��c-/�1�''"/t-'�?..
�� ,
�� �
� �� •L� r'��j H oi ui �� _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — —
'� w I,�j .,� '<) f.�a rl.�} *, f�.
1
Q; � ��, �' �; �� � �, �)
� `-' �� o' G4 ;j' � `
t4 � �.. �-°t r�o ! �T/.C/i`.•!
�r%,�C����/a� / r d�
.� f
� qas; �_,. .__� .
. .. !��'O��% f���'� .. � � f
� � 3�4� �,`�� i' -__ / i
) ''
! .� °'
I � f�D� ��. � •� �� �l; �; t�d ,� �F�
; � `�. `�t� y. ,, � �� -
/� 0 \' • 6� �
� � ._�� ':s5. -- -
�������� \��
+K 4, t
�!��_:� -
` . �
f • - '' P
F� �! �. % % \�
�
;•��� ig'! � �
Co,cc.�`�`�, � �
cr/,9•ur �
�
. `�����
7/ D /
,��
.� � �
� �
n� ��
LG'�/,G;�"�°%r'C�,(�',�'�--°' a/g `�E�[ O32 J
.
`'h�rf e c ' i poz.� ���� _._.,...--=•- --• ;-`0
.. _....: ?..,.lfc��/EI rf�c,:E�.�a � �
•'_'�`-���.�,�,�c fsPr�r � ,�',fl; . � �__ I� i -"�"°,�-, � `., 1' •,
.__.� — • :'.:.._� _.`..�_- :tJ�,�.: ���[ `� Y/��� s'����� s°�'C��°
�.�.
_ • TIFi i t�F U�V��
� hsr�by c�r�ePy fhae �r� �/6/87 ��u�����d tho Qg���fl� d�scrdb�d �b�a� �nd th�i
1h� �bov� pBo4 fa � ��rr��l P�pPe���1�Bi�r� oQ �al� ��r��y. ' � /,,�' i �lr.�
r �f�
� :�. �� ����
����i� �. a���r���a �a��o ���. ��.� ����
�.
I;
�� - ----
� ll��N � �'a����.� `����_ _1 �' �a C. �e� � �s �'�.� � �.. ;
- � ��o '?38� ���-���� �2 :
0s3 �oo-�� �����'���`"'� , ����s ���
� 3� �b �2flo� -fe {`�
� � � ��� ������
� i c�� w�°��e. ��ti� � � ,,.- � \ �
a c?� A� �A �°° ..f ` R'i�( i Ns
$ �,irv � -'''? e
.�
R �Qlt �
jNj
j,' . ('-�� ��
_ °.P
P�
" � o
� s.
� P ,
• ,
° ax( .���t�.S ����� �
� � i� �.�J�.tt ��,5�1���'��%
m �ut i�' �i �: s°����t ��
�� t c�n i rv l�vt. s(� �%v �
� �,� �� s���`20 �� wr� � �
p�J�%��o1's� ��7�f �. �.
�� S ��-c,�l�o e.�
�
�� So'���'`� /�%!� w��
1
� � - /�-''c� �..�
P�CrI� 7�J�I`F; �rP.s
�
3/Y � l� T��--
�-���" �
�o �
�
. a
���
��
1
�
�.
�
�
_ _ .. ,
, :;.
b��! �W�
�o� OaoT
m�m ��R'
�p� ���.
�°� C
�
�o� ���
ra
�
��� z��°
� ��°o
92' � m �
��
2648-2W � 2848-2W
� �
m m
� �
� � � �
O �
� n. �
o t� � -�'i
� � o z
o �
0 Z =° °o
0
� z �
�
2448 2448
D
�
� n �
o�m
�v�
�mo
zc<
Z�rr'
D��
� � ,
m �
O �
n .
D N
� �
� �
m
x
�
�
Z
�
v
z
z
�
�
0
0
�
,'.
'ti
,. -.- �,:�;: .
�
�
U � � �
��� ��� �,�y� ��,«y U s�r � pe�. bcix 1203��
new brighton, rnn 55112 •(612) 633-�611
minr�esoia building contractor id #0002624
ApriI 23, 1999
City of Mounds View
24Q 1 Highway I O
Mounds View, MN 55112
RE: Proposed variance for
To 'Whom It May Concern:
Mike & 5andy Leon
7.�86 Partcview Tezxace
Maunds Vier7v, MN 55112
�
The Leons have been residing at the abave referenced address for the past several years.
They currently wish to add a porch on to their home.
If you refer to the attached floor plans, you ��viil see that the only place for them io add on
is to the north, Adding a porch on to the rear (west) of the home is impossible because it
wauld. deny the homeowner corzvenient access, as this is where all the bedrooms are
lacated. Access �.�vould tnean going through a bedroom. Qn the south side of the hottse is
the garage; there zs no way to add a porch on there. Finally, to the front {east), the house
is currently at a 32' setback, thus not allowing any additional roam to add on. That
Ieaves us witb the north side. �
Cuzxently, there is a 10' X 12' deck off f.he existing dining room. The Leons propose to
add on a 10' X 12' porch (the exact size of the existing deck}, thereby not encroaching
any fuxther towards the north property line than currently exisis. �
It is our understanding that Mounds View zozaing code allows a 5' side yard sei back for a
deck, but a minimum of a 10' sideyard sei back for �nished space. Therefore, vi�e'are
rec�uesting a variance fo allow the Leon.s to construct the proposed porch addition._�' �'�'�.' �
1y'_ 1�V4`H°'
�
� �
�,� ��, �,,,�
Rerrsoa�fora
warwmxau ��$��.
NA710NAt ASSOGIATION ot HO
Uw REMODEUMC IHDUSYHY nouvowu�aswenroa.�
a cifvision of iirr�bercraft �nterprtses, inc.
�� .���uP
I���,V^� ���� ��'�{�`
��`„��^r �� y��
��y,�`�i �;o
[G'iy?YI !P:�j
BCIILDERS ASSOCIATION
O F T H E T W] N C[ T I E S
S `
. . . . .. ... . .... .
I
In conclusion; t�e feel that the Leons should be allowed to have a porch on their ho�ne;
due to the desig�► of their honse and i#'s iayauf on the lot, the onJy pl.ace ta locate the new
porch would be on the north side. Thank you for your consideration.
Siz�cerely,
t'
' , ;i
i � i
�.
�
�
Apri12l, 1999
City oflVloundsView
2401 Hi ghway 10
MoundsVi�w, MN. 55112
At�e�ti.on: Flanning Commissian
Re: Proposed va.riaaace for porch addition at the Leon residence at 7386 Parkview
Terrace, Mour�dsView, MN. 55112. .
Dear Commissioners,
We are the neighbors directly ne� door, to the north of the Leons. The Leons proposed
addition will be adjacent to our sou#h property line.
Mr. and Mrs. Leon have met �vith us a,nd shown us the plans for the po�ch addiiion. We
ut�derstand that they are aslcing f�r a variance to li�ld their porch with a five foot set
-__ � bacic frotn their north (our south) property Iine.
We want to express our support for this project, and see no reason why the Leons should
not he ��ranted this vaxiance.
Sincerely,
� �``
�
��.�n �� �. �ti� S-P�cc�j�
'i��n� t? Pc�rl� Vi� w ��►-r�t�e
t'�'lOtli��S ���iil}� %�j5 S`�j�c�'
_.:. ,, ,
PI,AI�iI�ilNG COlVI1VII��I�N I�E�OTIIT'I'IOI�I 1V0. 579-99
�`_ :� . � ; f� � � `� , �� ���. ��,
��:: ��. �, ��� • ..
� J.., �`•=
.- � ;�. . : : �, �, ,,, � � .� €1� �1 �� � , _ ,. ; , . � � ., � ; �; - � � .. _ 1 ` .
� � : �� � ' f: , �. . �, � ; ,., � ,, �: � ; �. -. ��<, �, �. . �,. . �; ..., J�� t��. _ ' .'�; . �,; , . ;._ ;��,
!� `,� �� :`' ' ` 1 � 1;
�;�: ' 1' . �_ � •, ,� , � .
f �. , �. � ; :,�, � , . :� � ., .,
i': " . �;: :,, � , , � : � ;; . , �; . , � �
`-,
;
��E12��iS, Mike and Sandy Leon have applied for a variance to allow for a living space
expansion flve feet from the north side property line at 7386 Parkview Terrace, property zoned R-
I, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows:
Lot 10, Block 1, Silver Lake Woocls ,Second Addition
Idamsey Caunty, Minnesota
�HE1�A�, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding ihis proposal:
l. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Surveyor's Certifieate
4. Proposed Expansion Plan
5, Proposed Expansion Elevation
b. Letter from the Contractor, dated 4/23/99
7. Letter from Ken & Aiuie S�agg, dated 4/21/49
�l�E 1k5, ihe purpose of the vaxiance provision in the Zoning Code is �o give relief to
property owners vvhen the sirict er►forcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship
ther�by restricting ihe improvement oi }�roperiy due to practical difficuities brought about by
unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's
control; and,
,.;,.
;:
Pianning Commission Resolution 579�99
_ Leon Variance
June 2, 1999
Page 2
W��I�AS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, May 19, 1999 with regard to this
variance request; and,
��E�2EAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code, the Planning Cammission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be
satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
�pW, T`��i ��'pI�9 �E IT �SOL�D, the Mounds View Planning Commission
finds that the cr�teria as iderztified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Cade are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the properiy
located at 7386 Parkview Terrace to warrant the approval of a variance to Mike and Sandy Leon
for the construction of a i20 square-foot living space addition five feet from the property line, and
makes the following findings of fact related to its decision:
1. Exceptional or exiraordinary circumstances apply to 7386 Parkview Terrace which do not
apply generatly to other properties in the same zone or vicin3ty in that the property is a
substandard lot--its area comprises only 9,150 square feet, a condition the current owners
;
had no part in or control over.
- _ ,> �
2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicani of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
Title in that porches and oiher living space additions are common features zn this district
and serve as a physical improvement to properties. Other properties in this district
typically are able to make these types of improvemenis without the need for variances.
�Iowever, because the subject property is substandard, it would be unreasonable to assume
that the same size house could be buili and expanded upon without a comparable
reduction in the setback rec�uirements.
3. The variance request is the result of two Factors over which the applicants had no controi.
The house was constructed on the substandard lot in such a way that wasted five feet of
buitdable space alongside the garage. The side-yard setback for gai'ages attached to
principal structures is five feet, yet the garage is set back ten feet. Had the house been
constnactied so as to take advantage of this additional five feet alongside the garage, a
�variance would not have been necessary as there would have heen adequate room to allow
for a living space addition on the north side af the property. The oiher factor eontributing
to a r►eed far a variance is that the internal configuration of the home is aiypical in that the
floor plan allows for a living space additio� only offthe north side of the house. Ther� is
only bedroom space off the rear of the home, the rrxosi logical place for these types of
additions.
Planning Commission Resolution 579-99
Leon Var►ance
June 2, 1999
Page 3
4. Granting a variance to allow a three-season porch or other type of Iiving space addiiion
would not be a special privilege--mast praperties in this district either have simiiar types of
additions or have the space to construct such additions.
5. The variance requested is the minitnum variance which woutd alleviate the hardship in that
the property owners wish to replace an existing deck with the enclosed living space
addition. If the addition were to be constructed observing the proper setbacks, it would
only be seven feet deep--not enough raom for a table and chairs. The five foot variance is
the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship,
6. The purpose of the variance provision ir� the Code is to give reiief to property owners
seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code
requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for a living space
addition would not be materially deirimentai to the pur�ose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
7. A living space addi�ion of such a limited size {12� sqnare feet) at the reduced side yard
setback would not impair a suppty of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase
the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. _:' :;,
Adopied this 26th day of April, 1999.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
(SEAL}
N:IDATA\GItpUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASEStiS 53-991574-99PC.RES
_ I .-:
i1 �_, ,: ,; ��; '�� 1:, ' � �' �� � :,. _
����iYH� ����o
Siaff i�eport �y:
Plast�i�� C'ase I�To.o
lteque�ta
P��gtioner:
Locatdono
"' ���1 � r
Z�n�r��/Iaand �Tseo
May 27, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
555-99
Development Review
Mike Juaire (PMJ Group, Inc,)
7623 - 7629 V{Ioodlawn Drive
08-30-23-22-0403
R-3,1l�edium Density Residential
l�ppii�able Re��aEatYO�s: Section 1006.06, Development controls
Section 1104,01. General zoning provisions �- yard requirements
Section 1104.02, Area and building size regulations
Aftacl�mea�ts: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Site Plans (Separate Attachment}
Building Elevations (Separate Attachment)
Planning Commission Resolutian 570-99
�acl�ge°ound:
The applicant, Mike Juaire, representing PMJ Group, has requested approval af a devetopment
review for the four-plex to be locaied at 7623 - 7629 Woodlawn Drive, currently vacant property.
The applicant has purchased this lot and the adjoining formerly tax-for%it property to the east and
plans on devaloping bo�h �with four-urut dwellings.
The elevations provided for the four-plex show a simple, four-unit back-to-back two-story
building with no architectural features to break the building's uninterrupted straighi lines. The
iront elevation show faur windows, four garage doors and four entryways. The side elevations
do not show any windows while the rear elevation shows three windows per unit.
An�ysiso
Dimensional Rec�uiremenis:
Buitding Setbacks: R�ce ,uired Proposed: IVLet ?
�'ront {Woodlawn Dr.} 30 feet 3Q feet Yes
Side {V+lest): 20 feet 20 feei Yes
5ide {East); 20 feet 20 feet Yes
Rear (North): 4� feet 40 feet Yes
Juaire Development Review
Planning Case No. 555-99
June 2, 1999
Page 2
Parking Lot ,�etbacks:
Minimum lot width:
Minimum loi area:
(2,500 sy. ft per D. U.):
Minir;num Open Space
(625 sq.ft. per dwelling unit}
�uilding height:
Minimum floar area for
three-bedroom dwelling units:
I'arking �equirements:
Uncovered: (1.5 per unit)
Covered: (1.0 per unit)
Required Pro.�osed: Met ?
5 feet >5 feet Yes
100 feet 108 feet Yes *
10,000 sq.ft. 15,246 sq.ft. Yes
2,400 sq. ft. 3,700 sq. ft. Yes
45 feet 26 feet Yes
8i0 sq.ft. 960 sq.ft. Yes
b spaces 4 spaces Yes* *
4 spaces S spaces Yes
i
� Since this lot is located on the cun�e of a street, the lot width dimension ss measured at the 30-foot building setback line.
** The four extra covered spaces compensates for the reduotion in uncovered spaces.
DYazna�e: �
The site is flai with littie if any elevation change from one end to the ather. Criven that, devising a
suitable plan #o handle stormwater runoffbecomes a challenge. Staff has review a preliminary
drainage plan for the four-plex (as shown on the certificate of survey) and has found that it would
be suf%cien� if there were no other mitigating factors. There is, however, one issue which further
compIicates the drainage plan, and that is the adjacent property--Woodlawn Terrace Apartments--
has exiensive runoffflowing onto the applicant's property. There has been much discussion
between the applicant and the adjacent property owner in an effort to resolve the drainage issues,
and because many options do e�st, staff feels confident that art aceeptable solution wiii be
achieved. The applicant has retained a drainage er�gineer wha will be providing a detailed analysis
of the situation and will formulate options which can be utiiized to aileviate the drainage concerns.
7Chis informatian was not completed at the time this report was written, though should be available
for your meeting on June Z, 1999.
Landscane Plan:
In Section 1103.08 of the City Code pertaining to Fencing, Screening and Landscaping, it states
that the lot area remaining after providing for off-stree� parking, sidewalks, driveway, building and
other requirements shall be planted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other accepiable
vegetation or materials generally used in landscaping. The applicant proposes at this point nothing
more thari sod for the site. �taff recommends that specific plantings be shown on the final site plan
in a quantity and quality that would be acceptable to both the applicant and the City,
There has been some discussion about constructin� a fence around the property, but at this time
one is not �lanned. The applicant wouid like to be able to do so in the future if it is determined to
be necessary for securi�y or o�her reasons.
,
Juaire Development Review
Planning Case No. 555-44
June 2, 1949
i
Page 3
Pcarkin :
Each of the new townhouse-styled multi-family units is proposed to have a tuck-under attached
two�car garage while the two units closest to the street vvill have driveway spaca for an addiiional
two vehicles each. The Code requires that there be 2.5 parking spaces provided per unit and the
applicant is proposing an average of three spaces per unit. There are two problems with the
parking plan however that will need ta be addressed before the site plan can be approved. First, the
two units furthest from the street cannot have parking in fron� of the garage because there is not
enough room. While this is not a desired situation, it could be acceptable if the tenants are made
aware of this restriction. Second, and more importantly, there does not appear to be sui[�icient area
for backing out of the coznplex, i�Ihile it would he possible for cars frorn the two units closest to
the street to back out of the garage and exit the property in a forward motion, the two end units
can oniy exit the property in reverse. Staf�would not be in support of this plan if there vvere no
means to correct this situation.
Building Cl�aracter:
VVhile the City typically does not require that buildings be designed to tlne highest and most
appealing aesthetic standards, there are some simple changes that staff would suggest could be
utilized to improve the exterior appearance of this development. First, it would he suggested that
the entryways be moved so that they are at ground level and be protected with some type of
overhang. 5econd, there should be an exterior tight between each entryway and garage for safety
and security purposes, Third, with the lowered entryway, there would be sufficient room for a
second.window, perhaps in the foyer area. Last, the entryways £or the end units should be moved
so that access is taken from the sides of the building rather than the front. These changes, and any
others proposed by the Planning Commission, shouid be incorporated into the site plans far final
approval of the City Council,
Utilities arrd Easements
There are water and sewer lines in Woodlawn Drive so utilities are available ta the site. There are
ten-foot drainage and utility easemenis on the property's north and west sides which will more than
likely serve as drainage areas for the development. There are no easements along the east lot line
betweer� the two vacant properties, and because the City typically requires that five-foot side yard
drainage and utility easements be dedicated, this may be something that will need to be addressed.
There is no need �'or garbage enciosures as garbage containers will be kept inside the garages.
Other Issues:
It can be seen on the certi�icate of survey that the neighboring property, Waodlawn Terrace
A�partments, encroaches onto the subject property in two ptaces near the southern end �oward
Woodtawn I)rive. Woodlawn Terrace's dumpster enclosure and parking lot crass the lat line,
which is a viola�ion af the City Code. Staff wiil be meetii�g with the owner of the apartment
complex on June 1 to discuss this and oYher issues relative to the d�velopment of the four�plex.
Juaire Development Review
Piamung Case No. 555-99
3une 2, 1999
Page 4
CoaecPus�onso
Taking into consideration those comments and suggestions autlined in this report, Staff would
recommend approval ofPlanning Commission Resoluiion 580-99, a resolution recommending
approving approval of a development review for a four-unit multi-family structure at 7623 - 7629
�Ioodlawn Drive, as requested by Mike Juaire, representing PMJ Group, Inc., with stipulations,
Jame� Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDEVtiDEVCASESIS 55-99UUAIRE.PC1
-i
I' ��i
-
, - -`' ---
05!14/99 15:40 FAX 612 784 3482 CI'1'Y OF 3i�%
p�002!OOo
��
�il�;��i�'�r.�'`�s:� CO� ��`V�3�f7� �'T �EP� ��`
a l���L�� `� �3�i�C.�°���1
� ll'i� �i 24�1 �$hdvay 10, �eFaunds �lietar 1i�1 S 5112
e�P
�,�g o ���er��r 612�7'17�4U24
• 61�-7�4r3462 - �,4�
�t��s� Ty�� �r ��iai I�fo���ion - �'o�ptet� �otffi Sld�r o('1'�f� �'oa�
�ppue�g ��r���ta� • � f� Pe315'—a34..��.
t�i'�me �f' App licaa,t . i f�, ielepbane ,� --
� �C� � Fax �%Z•-� .31 �°" ✓ �`�
�, �
I�t�e�t L�s �ropeety (ahesk eppropriake box) �
�, br��r af �re�erc�r � Cnn�acc for 13ead Ovener
a I,ssseo, Qperagor, Mana��r � A ent co Puechase
� Oth�r (�napl�)
�pptic�.nts �esst pgo�Bde evid�oce af iad�re�t t� p eeparty �i th� ¢l�e ot �pg3icst�omP asd f� yau ae� aea�� t�e o�a� o[ 4h�
Ps°P��J, You ffiuei pPavlde a lei#er of pgr�ue@oa froa� t@se ew��e $iv�� eo�r�eat #� tlam t71ir�� of t�i.� appl9�atio�. 'lise
prope�iy a�e� �use siga tbia appllcaBio� Yor if 4a b� accept�d,
Prap�c°6� Descr3ptior��poa��
�dd��s or G�uera% Locatin�
Le�ai l��scripticm
Property Id�t�iication ��(PL�i #)
# of A6�tes
Currene �on;n�
3 t.�',� u��r �� �� � u� �� tJ� ��oe�°�
�"°r g �c..r�c,lt .� ��r�- 1�t�� i' ��
�36-23 �Z�—�a'o�3� �
�� !Y3$ .
�
Typo at Appligation " ��°� 3~ ���` Y
o � Co�prel�cnsive Plan Amendazient
n
. a Rezonang
� 2vTajor Subdivision.
o Mdator Subdivisioa -
o Flanncd Unit Deveiopment (PLiU)
� PLJD Amen�nent
a . Canditional Use Pefmit
� Variasice
❑ Cvdc Ap�al
Develop ReviewfSite Pla�x
n W�tland Alt�ratioai P�nie
� W�tlaad Suffer Pet°�it
a �'loodpEaacd P�rmit
n 8eh�
�Z50
.ffi254/ucre; min $�50 max �15�0
�250 +,SZ50 deposit`�
S7A0
Refcr to reznning fe�s
5350
12-1, I�-Z �/5; n1I oth�ra �ZSO
R_`, R.Z �104 atl ath�ss �250
�E00 �
� 12Sl��r�; n�in $125 Htw�t $i50
R-1, 3�t-2 �150; all athers �200
Rd�. �a2 �25: oil others $100
S2t7o
Sl��
,r r .�t!/�Jl��
.�
�I3�posits sh+�l! be p�id to covar all costs af pubGc notices, materiais and st�atior caeasz�ltant tirgae spe8t iz� th� rcvicw,
res��h vr pcepnzatiora o3'�ant�risl� �ssnci�� wich th�� npplication, The applicnnE sh�ll be re�pon�ible for u31 r�asonabie
i�curred cogss ia excess of tttz inidai dnposit �noc�g. ,4.ny portivn ��i th� deposit not �°p�i or �ncuzr►beged shali be r�£unded
to the applacant within dur[y (3Q� aays otier uonsid�racion of th� appiic.�cion is comp4�ted.
�a��B co�pc�ae rh� v�v�a�� saa� �fth�e app€�c�aio�a.
,:,
.::;.
05/1�/99 i5:41 P:1X GIe 784 3462 CI'I`7i 0�' bi4' t�003!00�
�I�y U�l�df��3dS 1%i��9 �
Dev�ldpr��n�e Applicataa� _ - ���?
F t Use af Prop�ty
� LJBdcv�lo�acsrbe
� pupioxiiw�o Faratily Uweiling
� F3usin�/Coreuaerci�! �stabiisl�n�nt
e� atbeY (explaisy)
� Sir9g1� �scxu'ly I7v✓�lli��
� MulEi-fesaily Dw�Lling
� I�dustci�E �sta6lisfamment
Prop�st.y �1s�sification ±3 Abstr�ot � Totrens
DesocipiioaofProposal �„�u� C�JS�T�cte.�°1a� C.S� �_�_a1'r � � .f..
B°� MY ��iTR) SIGAfA6T1J'R� O�I' 1`I�� APPi.ICATIpN, t �i` flECL� THAi, Ta Tf� �ES�' OF Mir
FC�SQI�DGE. °i� INFO�T�Ut�f PRc�tiItDEI� IS 7RU� � ACCLJR.4T�,
v �
Si�atuse of Appticant r
Naxr� of Appliasat (typedlpfinted) 1C.�9 �( � J t�
. �
�
3i��hu°e of �ra�rcy Ovaaer
TIame aii'sapet�y Owner (typedJptuated) �L' �t e tl 1"�
Address of Own��r �� e� � t� .
�c,. � ��K �% ��` .�
P�Sane Nutnber of ORVneT � I � M° � 1 � "` � � � �
�a�w����a������������a������w��a�� ���a������a�a��#����as�*����a��*�*�*�aaa��are��a�r���*�a���������m�������
F�� ��ICE �TSE ONI.�'
Ase� of Submittal S ° � � '-�
�7ste oiAcceptaa�c� Assi�e� to; ,,.-
Planaing Case No, � S� 5— ` Ll q__ 6�•c#ay Licnit ! 20-day limiti
Fexs Puid: Acsaucu # Cheelc'� Receipt �k
Applicotlor�: �„I ��' bd / D� - -?�lr� S�_ ,.� � _ 1 �+ --_
P�k Ded'acanon: _ _ -
Daposits: ---- — -
Oth�r:
� .�
`�otal:
N:�A't°AiQROUPSiCBMTJE�OFi.4S51�EVAPP.FO�{
;m�
. ,
;.. ,
.: , . :. ,
; ,�" NILLVIEI�V �g» �, � N - � ,
7917 79� 7945 783 7931 793Q 7gOg 7g�0� 7909 N N N N``o�
N n 7901 �AR� o, �n : Q, 7905 7906 790 �0
1 7901 N N 79Q0 PF 901 ��: N 7900 N N N N � 7901 790 y�\1.�-�/1 a O .t �� O
ROAD n� � � N N N N N N
� N � �O � O �" O Y N � � m 01 e11 � C� M�7 N 1� O�
� � 7864 86 �'n " i!1 N 88 � M N M M rry M M i'� 7 M
. %H9S N N %S9O %BB�J N N N N�•,�, N N 7 8 H 9 % S H N N N ,��C N � N l V N CV N N c�
> 7857 7870 7869 7858 7678 7875 786 78ss �as� 9AKWp0� pR
7853 7855
4 7851 7860 7865 �$5z W 7B7Q 7857 785 561 56t S6t 5B1
2 7850 7855 7845 Y 78a1 z 7861 �65 � ,.. 561 v~i
764i S 7B3fi 3 �94� �8 7845 784 784 561 56i � 567
)� 7840 7835 7846 7829
Q 782o Q 7837 �83 ; �8z : 560 560 560 560
� 7815 7817 p 7833 7Sa
�� 7815 7790 O 780� �$�g 7g1 � 7815 �8Z7 �$2 0 _ 5s�� 560 5607 560
cn 78d5 7780 781
O 7801 760fi 781� 556 � 5662 55fi 556
�� 7803 7770 � 7807 7760 7797 7800 7801 780 555 Q 5556 5557 Z 555
7801 � 7751 7750 ��8� 7778 7749 775 7807 n� 8551 V 5550 5551 a 555
7787 776D � 7741 7740 7767 �'�8 7739 774Q n51 N N,yy 5S4 � 554 5545 � 554
•7761 7750 7731 7730 77�3 7748 7729 ��gp 7741 774 PINEWOOD C!R `�'
o cti � ,2 5539 5538 553 553
7755 7730 7721 7720 ��28 7719 Z "� N- N N ��`S8 5533 � 5532 5533 55�
7745 7710 7711 7710 7 771 p 772i772 � `� v1 F
o m m� a o o � 6V m m n �� 5527 5526 552 � 552
7715 N ,o ,� �n ,n 770Q N v� in v� � 7701 77P0
770 d � 770i "� N N N N 5521 5520 5521 552
R�� ;°__'" CO
RD
— r� w u� \ ro .- ai n in o m v�i cv ° a n o a c
� n <o �a �n � u� u� u� 2553 �n .r .t � � "� d- � � — r� � c
N(V cV cV M N N N N N 25rJ1 C� 7695 N N N N cV N N � N �
� z -o �BS � �
� 2545 0 76$7 �� fi �—� s� 66 7&43 7fi58 � N
� ��� 2549 3 7fi41765 �661 �
25�9 ' �61 7fi33 764 76r�� II 31
2537 766 �a�s �,..
,
:�`�:�.j t+�
-:;; o co
�, �
N
��
�
• ,(
/
1�
• O�
� ..+ c
�
a
o�
�
� � N
N v7
� N m
� �
co �o
N c`1
�°3 � N
� hti N
m o w
co N N
N N N
PF
C171' NAI�L
�,
ti
tio
NOrD�OV' D 17 ry p Ol a7 (�j tp � � �
,:cm� �� � 1 n ia w u� u�
� N 7 N I N 5a�s �. �� v�� 5301
i
Zoni.�g Map Planning Case 550-99
I�pplica.ut: PIO/�J ilz°oup, Inc (Nlik� Juaixe}
L,ocat�on: 2200 m�214 I�Iighwr�,y i0
7635 76
7625 2 7641
7 76)
�9 759 7fi3i
7581 758 7531
�sss �esa
7551 755 7527
7535 753 7571
7521 752
7.�n5 75!]d 75ai
7
�°4
544:
sac
53E
53F
537
53E
53d
63:
53�
53:
5�:
532
53'
53i
53
52!
52�
�
.; . ., _ .: i .;_ . . . �.....
.�. . .� � �.: . ..:': .:':<� `: . .��'� '; :. '..;. ;.;: s. :::
�% 1- ..., 1# .,, , . �, � �., . ; :� �, -,_.
.� � �.. �; , ; ,,�: � �,, ;�, . � .� � ,,
, ,� � , � .� �`�= _t, 1'. `����
i,; . � °�• : . .
� ' i;� ` �� '
" ' 1-- � � �, � ' � .�, �. , , . �, � � , ,, � � .. ?I� . �. � f � �. 1 ' �`+ : ;i " ,� - � �� ;� � �� � ,:
�. �; . �� � ; �! ; < , ` ',�: �� �• ' ���1� i ��� � ` � '1; ��. � � ` ' �1 : . ; ��: : • 1> �, .;
� ,� � � � � .�: ; � ,• ; +� � �� . �� ��� ���_
�IHEREAS, PMJ Group, represenied by Mike Juaire, has requested City approval of a
development review for a four-unit multipie fami(y residential structure to he located at 7623 -
7629 Woodlawn Drive, legally described as follows:
Lot 9, Block 1, Parkvie►v Terrace
Ramsey CounPy, Mannesota
WI3EREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipat Code requires ihai a
development revievv be conducted for all commercial and industrial development and alI
residential develapment v�here more than two dwelling uruts are being erected. within the City;
and,
�REAS, the Mounds View Pianning Camrnission has reviewed the lfollowing
documents regarding this proposal:
1. Pla��ning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Site Plan (Certificate of Survey) date-stamped 5/28/99
4. Elevations, date-stamped 5/24/99
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plan dateWstamped
May 28, i 999 confoF-ms to the general zoning requirements of Chapter 1104 with regard to �
setbacks, parking requirements, building heighl:, minimum floor space, open space, and floor area;
and, .
VVHEREA�, ihe Mounds View Planning Commission is aware that City siaffhas reviewed
proposed drainage plans and has deternuned that a suitable method for addressing drainage
considerations can be accomplished, yet that plan has not yet been finalized; and,
�REAS, the Niounds �Iiew Plannin� Commission finds that the building elevations
and arehitectural design of the structure couid be improved and has offered a list of requested
changes.
I�OW, T�EItEFO�, �E �'I' �5��,�I�9 that the M[aunds View Pla�uung
Commission recommends approval of a development review for a four unit multiple family
residential structure to be located at 7623 - 7629 Woodlawn Drive, subject to the followin�
siipulations:
;:
ResoIution 580-99
, Juaire Development Review
June 2, I999
Page 2
1. A landscaping pian shall be provided showing ail areas to be sodded and those areas where
additianal plantings wili be located with the species and yuantities identified, prior to City
Council review,
2. The building pians shall be revised prior to City Council review as follows:
a. The entryways shall be located on the ground flaor and the entryways for the two
end units shall be relocated to the sides of ihe buiiding rather tha� the front.
b. Ara exterior iight shal( be located on the building adjacent to each entryway.
c. Overhangs or some oiher type of archit�ctural feature shall be added to the
structure over each entryway.
d. A second window shall be added to the front of the building for each unii..
�. A final drainage plan shalI be submitted and approved by the City b�fore any building
pernnits are issued.
4. Drainage and utility easements shall be d�dicated to the City prior to building pez-mits
being issued for those areas to be utilized for drainage purposes where none have been
previous(y been dedicated .
�E IT' FiJRTfl�it ��OI��ID that the Planning Commission directs Staffto forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adapted this 2nd day of 7une, 1999
7erry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community Development I3irector
��
N:IDATAIGROUPS\COMDE V1DE V CASESIS 5 5-9915 80-99PC.RES
: . _ ..:.
�
,'`;
,`.: i
�
�
0
��
�
=�
4�
o �
�
� 0
- z
�
�-�-=�
��.
i� r
�� ➢ �)
� � c\") �PJ'� �
'� - i_`,'1
�:_;
i L _ =—,s
�����
�����
L��C �E�
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
���8�
�
O O 0
Z LO --�
� Q �
��n�
<ox
�
��0
���
z�s
<�
��
��
n� �
� �
� �
n
�
�
�
Q
�
�
z
,. .
�;
,J
I�
i
�, � \ � � , �
i � � � � I j �
� O
o�� z - Di_ D �. � D �' 1 ��
' � � �- m � m °� � Z ��9 �'��01� ��° � � � I { 1 �
�
� �
��
-�
�,-
n�
<
�
�--�
�,
N�I
!� i
�O o
i
,_ * :> ,
_ ; .. , '> ' >'
30' O"
r
�
i
_: : -
_ _
, -..
: . . ..- - ;:. � i; ,
- , _
�
�
L—J ��i�
�
�
�-\y�
5 11�
�
ll�
o i z
0
.�ko.
�
i-
_ _ I
�
nj
�
1
�c
�-
�
<
�
0
z
,- _
8•�-��d�� u ii. e•�-��d„
n
J
_�
_ Vt --
�
�
- _t
v
O °yo
fti �
rn
N
�
1)
S
�
�
�
�/
\
�
� � O
o i} z
�� o
:�
N �
'� �i
� N
��w�
a �
�x��
� � N Q
N �
<tt
N
ii �e
;' N��S
� � �
m
� N � p r
� �pN��
y y 6
A
�
@ �
Q O
ri �
�
�n
� \ � � _
a�7 '3T
� � �
W��z-
oDm�
����
y i�1 �` _
1N
\
N O
z y
� �
r�
�
�
_�
��
� �
d �
O �
�
-
'< - . : ,` r; ,: ',
,,. . .._ .: , :; ;. , i .�.: :::: � -:�r , . � :-�:
i
m�
m
�
O
� �
V j"
m
s �
��
2
�
O
\
� v
m °' "�' P �
� �
�
� �� o 0
. �
o� �6 �d
a-
� � a
� � �
a
O
J
�
Y
w �
O
m
� � �
�
0 �Z O
Si1 [�i O I.
bT
P m
�
�a ���_
� �
� �
Q �
G C.l
� o ml
o �
P
61[E CF 6:AIXIU+ "e°aYoi�"' �i- �
NORTN m� 4 s, o� m m
� w �
o f�AINAGE g lJl'�LITY �fiSE?.SENTS�
w — � _'w--rt{---- � 10�
a+ o
r �
°m m { �n
�1 e
tll-f- l � --__� I O ,
0 �� �- m � ��� Q
� m
� O �
Ao ����{ � �
� �>o�mm �
,� a �QOO j X7
r y-� �n �
�ri�zm
`� , yo� �
TQ���- �
� -~. mri�j rn
� z°zNO�
s mi° �-Yi G-
' r 'am��-i �
r � i p "' �
a°z�c`„
r v� K —
�' mv�po �
0 o,.,i��
Z_ cxz��'a rn
� �dmozz'
por �
-o $OViv
� R'�o�n
u
»o°-�v
N-l.nxr
-Otn�
01 �
o�r�t � m
$
a
�� 1d
o� ��s
�� ��
C
b (�
�
m- �#= - m _� -' ,'� r�
; 5-- �� P�`���.�as��;�J 7 c�t i o, � �+- ° ���
� ecx � 1 � ' � I ' • ---� I � °' � " _ � (�
7 � � i � h F
ui w o ' �b I� m r„ �z�
� a
�{- _ ° � z n
m � S � �I- T m m�
m o -�
ro � � � oz
/ 'O�
� •- �_ ��`�
�� • � � �
a �}- �� P - 'O a
( � y�P• �f- \ , o } � �� '�Ti'` �l
�a�-b' `%,° � ��� °� ° °ol- � ' � ° �°�'
/j� �' � � � � i- � m� V ° a�
:, / �* �°
� m ----� i � ; ` t.� � o ° �
d `b , � �-p ; � � aa+', o � �
t3� Q � � � � m y . ;, �
, ,� im
W � i _
Q � ~ m � w m
i
� ��a � w ------� � R
W J 1 �
� � �� � �' _� A �{
-{ ]
� � 1 �� ------� � m+
�e � j
fi .��� 1O � � z � I m �i-
( �
. " � �p , T . m m
�
� � �
" �j
/•• .
� / I
J �
i
' � �
�v�
��O
v�i � c�i�, ' `�'�, �-=_� �
m < <o �!,� - ��"I
-! � � `��J ' « " I
� � � J 'J_,�
E,� .� s�
o � o �, �, ��
C m' ! �j - _ _ �
z�cz� `' _ :�
[ -~-;
i m
V, J �� V � , t O� i�
u
�
� �
m
�rn
G ?�
�
"I �
�
�o
1U0.01
�-
� �a-
� m
� P
m � O
v�i V .Z1
m >
� o 0
Z T !�1
-� m ✓1 �
�I O D � .Z7
r � m z7O
° ➢
�
,�v �� O O
f7l Vl
n cn rn
I 1 I 0
�V,y m o
.;�mo9
a -i
ii u ir i� X7 �� f71 4 P
d�m�z- mcN�
��xvc�:n � m �
>o--v�o x, `y>
-��� z 1 m �
zo�m� ���
av�- z�� N
c�mz�nmo T
moc��v� � '_"'°�
_,
i . _
i
DATE: May 28, 1999
TO: Mounds View Plaa�ning C°m�ission
FROM: Terri Blattenbauer r�
YMCA Program Executrve
RE: Paving of trail at Silverview
On We�nesday, May 26 at the regular meeting of the Parks and Recreatzon Commission,
11 community members vvere present and spoke to supp� 1� m of dis�cuss onrwith the r of
the trail that sui°rounds S;lverview pand. This has been
Parks and Rec. Commission for so�ne time, as th�Y hC e�e�i�s °At thiS t methe p�� for
spending park dedicat�on funds for enhaneemCo��ss oxi with the ho es that it can mave
Commission inoves this iteni to the Planning
P
rapidly forward to the City Councii, and hopefully to some fruition yet this sumn�er•
Thank you for your attention to this project. If you haVe questions, please call me at
(612)717-4042. -
i
i
r
: .::::i
<i
� " _ i . . ._
:�.� .��� '.. �.. �_ .; I :�.
_-__.... . �R.�����YLi�� �1' H818% lYJi�Vl�R/� �V �t• 1\8�<Y ��1�alYa��UAVlV
' - VS� �L' 1�6�V1Y ry�p
� A�Ci17'%�� H�� V 1 V 1 H y 1�"i11V 1\ 5��� i L'�
2401 �Rgh�ay 10,
�. Call ta �rder �
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peter
�. Ro11 Cali
Members Presen�'. Chairperson Peterson, Commissi
Miller.
�,� ..
�,�t�be a
Members Absent: Commissioners Johnson, Q
�� ;
Aiso Present' Community Developmen��►rector�t�
�.
and Recarders Carla W��1� and Tr�sh �"rsan �,
/.��R��:'t ��
��E(��� �O �i�YE�CS
Plan�ng ��� ��� �� 53-99, 7��at�
Property �����'> ��`��aderatzo� s
setback for a th�'��-������'.p°r�h
� ,: !
StaffRep . :. j Items c�� �����rma
c�t,�; : >� rson and Plannin� � ���
�
an
RegUlai l�e0tiitg
1�ay 19, 1999
1Vlo�nds . �'�✓ Cily �ial1
���g��c�s:;,:`,�ti �'�'9 li�dl� 55112
7:00 �;�m., May 19,
Ber
Jop
Hegiand, Kaden, and
�,�t <�rtor notice.
�.�.
���
::><-�.
�nin� Associate Jim Encsan,
Terrace, Nlike & Sandy Leon,
�e request for a reduced side yard
Reports
�'�ti�ens9 It =. ests and Ca�►�rents on Iteens I�ot o� the Agenda
�..
:,
r� r�q� s s or comments on items not on the agenda were considered.
_�pp�°o�al. of IVIir��et�s
�,, t�prd12191999
�AgC
�
7
9
i
- i
IVloureds �Iiew p[ar�s�ist� �oe�naissdon
�tegaala� IVleetin�
IVi�y 19, 1999
Page 2
Comm�ssioner�Miller stated that the minutes had been reviewed at the last meeting, and a few very
minor corrections had been made.
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hegland to approve the April 2 i, 1999
Ayes — 6 Nays � 0
5o Planrs°sn� Ca�e I�o. 553-99
Proper�y Involved: 7386 Parkview Terrace
Consideratian af a variance request for a reduced side
Applicant: litike & Sandy Leon
The applicant was present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the
The applicants, Mi}ce and Sandy J
setback established for principaI
e�sting 10 x�J 2 square fooi ���
The deck _w�,�-i�>h;�� pV;�rP�r'�;:;�,r
ire
as corrected.
on carried.
blfc �
three-season porch
a�°e requ���ng a var��e from the required ten-foot side yard
ings ar�c�z �„ing s��� therein. They would like to replace and
��
h a thre� se�ason:�orch of the sarne size in the same location,
onstru���qz� ����e }�ause, is five feet from the north side of the
wo foot side yard setback.
The subject prc���z�y ��; ��caled ir� ih� �aiv�r Lake Woods single fari�ily home development at the
northeast cot-r��x ��'� ����,y �,�aad �'� �rzd Silver Lake Road. The home, which faces east, is one of
��:
many in t'�developin�nt th�fi la�ve a street at the front (Parkview Terrace) and back (Silver Lake
Road) :^ e property. �7`kt� �tit �e of this property is only 9,150 square feet.
� �
E,� n noted for the Pl ��ing\Commission to act iavorably on a variance application, the Planning
��4�rimission must ftnd •, emonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property
�h���� �nakes a literal �� erpretation of the Code overly burdensome or even restrictive to a property
�E�'rt�x State sl�;��ies require that ihe governing bod� review a set of specified criteria for each
ai�������t�� �C3 triake its decision in accordance with these criteria as set forth in Section 1� 25.02,
�u�l����t��'�,�ofthe City Cade. He noted the Code cleariy states that a hardship exists when a!1 of
the criteria are met,
Ericson noted this tot was approved in 19�5 as part of the 5iiver Lake Woods Second Addition
subdivision and in conj�nc�ior� with the Siiver Lake V1loods PIanned Unit Deveiopment (PUI�)
agreemeng. 1741hile density bonuses and i•eductions in frontage requirements wer� given �o �he -
i;
�)
;
! ::.. I " ��.:
i
_ _ _ � '"
Mo�nds �1i��r Plaa��i�g �o�remiss°ron
Itegt�lar I�eetae�g
��y 19, 1999
�age 3
nt to altow for substandard iots, no mention is ntiade in the documentation aboufi allowance
developme
£or reduced setbacks. �
'ewed the seven criteria which must be considered anP,an�ed
� - 1 ' it
Encson rev�
appears to staff thai in this �� areaes substandardh� (Thetlot t> �'���=�eet vv
into consideration that the l0 000 sqt
a �'� � . .
area of 9,150 square feet, substantiatly less than the re u�r ��� � ,
width oithe praperty, at 75 feet, does comply with the Cod�, ax►d lt �s ��
depth or area, which is basis for this variance.
�r���
Ericson outlined the criteria as foliows:
a.
L�7
Exceptfonal oY extraordinary circumstances
geneYally to othe� properties in the sarne �onc�
topography or othe� ci�cumstances over w�azc�i
date lze�eof have had no control. ����
Ericson stated that he could
The literal interpretation
comm..only enjoyed b,�� a
: uch ana ysis,
on were to take
�, �vhich do not apply
�rnm lot size or shape,
t�eYty since the effective
mstances applicable to this
�e would deprrve the applrcant of rights
district under the terms of this Title.
►tei-pretation of the Code would not prohibit the property
'st could aniy be 7 feet in depth.
do not res7rlt fram the actions of the applicant.
request is the result of the applicant's desire to construct a
"= ,
araance reqirested will not confer o� t�e �upes ortbui d'ngs�inl�he s me
this Title to olvners of other lands, stru
�. , , < .>
�X �y . sl
u�F :�
z ,.'
but not a �rope
��'z���i stated that three-season porchesHe tat d that;this 'is a desirabie improvement, and
oyaners ha�e room to accornmodate them. roved variances to allow for iiving space
that i� the past, the Planning Commission has apP
' ions. He staied that staff should determine whether or not this particular prape�y met
cond�t
the same criteria as pasi properties.
4'
n/Ioaands �Ae�w Plan�fn� C�rn�rai�$yon
Regular IVleefing I@�ay 19, �999
Page 4
e• TdraP the variance requesfed zs 1he mirrinaum vapiance wl�rch would alleviaPe the hardship.
Economic conditrons c�lone shall not be considered a hardship.
Ericson stated that this would be the minimum variance req
He reiterated that if the porch were constructed observin the
be 7 feet in depth, which, he stated, would not be enc�i�h ar
� The va�iance would not be mate�ially detri
property in the same zone.
Ericson stated that the purpose of the Code was io
that the existing deck has a setback of 5 feet anc
th�-ee-season porch at the same setback, He noted;
be viewed as a more inienstve use of the snac� :>.
g. The proposed variance wrll nol rmp �
properly or substat�trally irrc�ease t��on1
of frr-e or endanger the public s�t1' or
within the neighborhood. ����
Ericson stated that he d�d���i��believ���t a
depr��e other residen�� o���ie right tL� �it 'a.n
ed
Ericson staied,tl��t' st�
subject pr ; �rty; ' ar�� ;:�
neighb , �� th adjaceni`
��e � � �osed constructi
AF\\�_.;:Y
til\ .`
��t�` �eterson opened�
the
alleu���� this hardship.
�tl�acks, it wouid only
;separation oiuses.' �-ie stated
i�l�ca��t wishes to construct the
��t � three-season porch could
���light and air to adjacent
�ets or increase the danger
or lmpair property values
the reduced side yard setback v�,ould
'�dfi ��i� �riteria lend flacinselves to subjective thought and requested the
iss�ai3�tev���u;�}��m to determine whether or not a hardship exists.
.i the required mailing to all residenis within 350 feet of the
o response. He stated that he had received a letter from a
houses north af the appticant, who stated tha� they approved
Puhiic Hearing at 7: i0 p.m
�����- ���F�o��s►�a���;�°�presentative of TimberCraft Remodeiing the appEicant's contractor, stated that
t�� ����i��� ����lanned on constructing a porch on the property since purchasing it in 1981. He
stat�i,�;h�tt �ii�r,e the deck was already there, the appIicant had assumed he couid buiid a porcl� ir� the
sa�n� area. I�urlowski stated that vahen he and the applicant discodered thai the existing ci�ck v✓as
not in compliance with the City Code, they iooked at other options far placement af the deck. %Ie
siated that placing the porch at the rear of the home would require the eliminatian of one of the two
bedrooms locatec� t�tere. Due to inadequate front yard setback, as we�l as aesihetics, the poreh could
�
i
. .; ::. . i. �:' �. _ . . . .. . � �. S,
1 . <: . '. `. ....": ::.. .. ,' :�. ..: . ..' 1; I
l�ou�ds �1e°�' �fannin� Corr�gnissios�
Ite�ealar I�iee����
��y 199 1999
page 5
nt of the propertY, and a garage is located on the opposite side of the
not be constructed o� �h �.�°�it placement there.
structure which would p ���
_..�o h,�,-v,i;�� to a neighbot
Murlowski stated that in 199b a variance had been granted for the
1�lr. iicant's propert��
tocated directly across the street from the app ���.�
Commiss�at�er Br�t�en stated � ie�� ,�tiself orthe onstruc
placement of the original deck
ob}ectio�► to approving the request for a variance.
Cornmissioner Miller asked if the proposed deck would
� orch in continuum
applicant had planned °n siding the p s
Commissioner Hegland asked if the subject pra�c��Y,'
Director Jopke stated that some af t�e hon t�� n tt�� da���
family homes, and the requirements to mee �
alt the properties w�� zoned �
He stated that ong�n�y� �-'"
g� ��e
some of the properties in order to acco odate���
Commissioner Hegland stated tY
which was previously granted pert
Code regardu�g setbacks far i�??-
singie fami�}7 �t���es and tv����� l�air
.., , r_....it> hnm
as opU��
in either
Murtowski staLed that the
tihe structure.
rr�rnunity Development
�lthough they are singie
iy� R1 zoned properties.
was a re-subdivision of
xesti �: � Was zoned Rl, and that the variance
� e^ �. He asked if there were changes in the
��-ification regarding the difference between
�t a twin-home is defined as two dwetling units
side, front, and rear setbacks remain the same
_ __ _ ..
;��� �lze was substandard. Er�� Lake Woo�s development had
�G��ent perta�ning to the S�lver ercent increase in
e requirements, and had provided for a 5 P
; to find any documentation supparting reduced setbacks.
;~�.�.;:<�>
�� ranted a variance for a three-season porch on a
; a property owr�e� was g
£the development in the early 1990's.
,s�� yacd on the eas ����� o
� �� .' 000 sq
uare feet normaliy required, and
����
��°`' �� ' r stated that the 1ot s►ze is less than the 1,
��?������°� ��� � det�rmine if it couid be considered an `exceptional circumstance'
as��.�,,u�t�������een reviewed to
as set forth gn the first criteria.
ealt only looking at the width of the lot weC � an app� able ha ds1uP�
Ericson stafied that they were r y
but he had exam►ned the �a��r °f lot size and be1ieved it could be consi
, ;
i.
.. . . ' �
;
_ . > , . <
l�/Io�nds View Planni�g �or��rnissior�
�2e�uiar Ii7eefir��
�'Iay �.9, 1999 � t
Page 6
Chair Peterson stated that the Surveyor's Certificate indicated there was space behind the ara e o❑
the west side and asked what was lacated there. � g
Ericson stated that there was a bedroom and laundry room in back of the �ac-4ige
that area inaccessible. He reiterated that the south side ofth�fhome �,rr�� ���,� �
front did noi have the required setback. .�� _
Chair Petersot� stated ihat fhis situation wou�d apply io
same cons�dei°ation.
�'. Murlowski �tated that this was true, however, the
that was granted.
Commissioner Miller asked from what point the
consiructed above ground 1eve1. Mr. Murlowsk.
wall. _.
Commissioner Kaden asked in regard to
the actions of the applicant. Mr. �
homeawner, not a necessity, but i �
��'�
expansion to rema2n in the residen���Ie
if they couid �pot expand, th�y;;;,rn��'};ave
�.
�I{i�
growing
t�l�`criieria��f'the s�
�owsk��tatec! tha
iay be ��cessary fC�
�t���d �I�at the l��,u��
,� � �
t0 :it3L�'UP, ::: .�``�..,
de�cri�i
woEild
would make
�ible and the
e
een sefi with the first variance
the parch was #o be
�ed from the outside
�k�� �rrc�amstances did not resuli from
at this time it was the desire of' the :
n the standpoint that they may require
was already 100 percent finished, and
�ni, ����d 4#��t his chiic�ren ���ere now teenagers and ti�ey had waited for this
o the�r �q�� ��� ��ated that they needed more room to accommodate their
t;�l�ey did �it�� �,7t�� to move.
Commtssi, ,�'�3ra��th�� y��,��� t{�a� z�e hardship was created in 1985 when the City allowed re-
subdivi of the propert� �% s�ated that he supports granting the variance,
�o ssioner Hegland a�e�d 1-Ie stated however, that he had concerns about s'
a�;d"�he possibility of cr. ��ing a situation that may impose upon the nei ��0�-5 etting a precedent
r g
���i� ��erson st���;. y hat the matter was just up for consideration and �her
�� ��� ���.���:��hat he did not believe there would be ��'as no clear direction
�0�� t?�h��h�rr�s�, �.nd added that he thou�ht �l�s would be a des�ir b!e mprovement� He stated that
��� ptacemenf ofthe stnacture on ti�e !ot did not allow for expansion, but he vvas concerne
w�s not unique, d that this
1!�%-. Nturlowski stat�d that a iypical twin-home has a spiit entry with a patia door �nd deck off the
back.
;
;
i
�
�
,
�
�,
,,
�
, -
, , ; ,,
, , ,
7.: ; , ; ,. ;
l�iarunds �I�ew Planngng Corn�essio�
Ite ular i�teetin�
��y 19,1999
Pa�� 7
g
. ' ed his roperty was unique in thai ali s on other homes in the
I+/Ir. Leon expla�ned that he belsev P t��
rhood had a pat'to slab in the back which allowed for fi�rther expan t� He asked if it
neighbo � .,�r;�ed�:t�e fe�:����
air Peterson stated that he had driven by the proPe�Y and ha
Ch �,eon stated that his fence located in � e
would be xemoved. Mr• �
�€� � `.
�licant.'
'ssioner Miller asked how they would�ad of the�a�� ��f
Com�►�
or circumstances do not result from the actt
hat the could maintain a hardship in Y��� ����
Ericson stated i Y
k which would ha�e prov�de� ���
house was situated on t�ebac creattng a 10 foot set ac,
required only a 5 foot set , ot the
stated that ihe placement o� t�e structure on the lot was�
Commissioner IVSiller stated that i£ all the criterta
approval of the variance. �
<�� �
C}�a�r peterson stated that they had
viewed that diffecently as that was £��
Commissioner Hegland stated
stated, however, that hom� �
variances a�� ��t��cks, e��
Mr.
purchasedthe
Chair
removed.
that the
, ,� .,__- , • ara e
����;e. He stated thdt ihe g g
���z�zed space for ex�ansion. He
}�ilt c��:�:h� aPPkicant.
a resolution granting
on a smaller home, but
ered iiving space.
sed the home the waY that it was. He
o� the City's requireme�zts regarding
assumed that since the deck was in place when he
ch in the same area.
vuv ;o
thankful the applicant had come hefore �e h�°�S�ipSissues that
udS
at�d that they needed to formally address
�" d staff be directed to conduct furt17e9 research and submit a
�este
the next meeting scheduled for 3une 2, 19
LJ-d ._ ssion, Chair Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 7:5� p•�•
�:
er ��
rovinS a variance for a redu�ed�sid�-
��ied to direct staffto prepare a resotution app
atlow fbr the co
nsiruction of a three-season porch five feet from the side p p Y
iin�.
6o Statf IZepo�°is / I��ens of Ini°orn�ation
�o �aliboa�°d �1pd���
t
i
...: � ..:. . .. -.. :-.
�.. . � ,- � -:� � ��."� ����: �.-� -
I�'Io�nds V�e� Planr�an� Cornrraiss�on
Ite�ul��- I�/Ie�t�n�
�Iay 19, 1999
Page 8 _ '
Community Development Director Jopka gave an update regaratng the issue of '
community. He stated that he believed that a Code amendment was the rr�ost a ro ri
b�Ilboards in the
approach the issue. He stated that h e h a d b e e n d i r e c t e d by t�e planning Commis '�
f u r t h ee research into the State requiremenis for a permit and had je P� p a t e w a y t o
grant a permit in commercia1 or industrial zoning districts an � to conduct
arned th;�t tI����ate would only
a sitvation where re-zoning was dane strictiy for the pu ��at thPt� �3xn„�.� ,�_� •
the Stat� also requires pernvts for' billboards along State a
spoken to a consultant who int'ormed }�im that a pe�� ha
to allow for a billboard on a galf course within an insti
gndicated a precedent had been set.
Jopke stated he spoke to Mike Cronin who suggested
b��g whether or not CRp is the proper zoning far the
regarding signage in a CRI� or PF dtstricts need to �� ��
no signage is pern�it�ed Fn these districts but the `
of the overall discussion. Jo pke s t a t e d t h a �� i� �� ��
discussed with Mike Hammerschmidt
approximately $12-24,000 per year ex, ,���° bel�eu�
�
such as �he location of the billboard, p,` ���board���pE
Chair Peterson stated that he
�ssue a permit in
�,. _�_ . , -
�ssues to considered, on�
��11y, that the Code issues
f fh�t at the present time,
'«jd be addressed as part
rvenue projections were
provider as weil as
and asked if they genera.ted revenue.
�z any revenue generated from the s�gns �,aujd
and could not be directed to the Genera! Fund.
�Y�� spoken with the Cammunity Development Directors of the
�hb �nforn�ed him thai their requirements prohibited construction
this point, he had not been able to determine when the Ordinance
ald find no discussion which addressed the billboard issue in the
'��.� stated that the issues should be defined and resolved before furthe�
��
�ted that th� Comrriission not "shut the door" on the billboard issue.
very few vacant bi116oards, and if they are vacant, it was because the We ate�d
stated that Mr H
e
ammerschm�dt was researching tocations that wouideb
�PP�opI°�ate for bi11boards. He requested that the Work Sessions be reschedu]ed ta
Wednesday so that he wauld have the o ortunit to attenci, He su
be to chan�e that current CR.P zoning.pp y m��t on
ggested the first direciion would
l
r. `'�
. ... j ,_._:. . ..: ... • 1
1; -.� ::, .. ?i. ,,,' _'�.
. .:� ��� >::�
>_ . . .�. �.:- ... ..'��.
::. .. . �.�. t �:; -.:. ;: '�.. ..- . _ ,":, :. -_. - .
,, _�
;i
;,,
I�Io�nds �Iee�v Pla��i�� �o��ission
� e��n�
i :
��y �9, i999
Pa�e 9
�te�ula� e
nnin Commissiotl shou�d determine if there would be
land stated that the P�a g ust� fu��er considerat3o E,
�ommissioner Heg
u h revenue generated from the billboards to j a�d �����omi���He stated that
eno � f desirabilrty `=<:� �_ ' ht not be
a��' �aii
Cha.ir Peterson stated that theyri �a �� �ia�r �t taf e ide�rificatio��sigesfrb�� t��
the iype o� signs requcred ative reS .�
�� �
ne
cessary. He stated that he had r ere� a number a r°ad��� S to o� ���°e
d He stated that there w ��ound theu ���nce rega��
m�g _.
the
biltboa� s� � �
and asked if there was a way �� y�
requirements, 4;Y���rl,pr to approach th� i,��u��rOm the
tated
e stated that he believed this cauld be overcame, b�
�opk need furfher discussion
�tandpoint of usage o� re�z°nir�g
th
at he would continue to investigaie the State requiren�
Pr�vious Councit Act�on
Cam�nunity D��elopm�n� Director 3opke
Ordinance 629 which Provides consistent
,�
expired terms.
3opke stated that the theater is
incomplete. He siated a �err
some min�r �ssues and iands�
�opke rE
tenants
�opke
� draw a conclusion. �� S
�„���„cr iurther research.
ic,�,d reading and adopted
policy for expired and un-
ed a number of items that remained
had been �SSUed since there are stiU
�
he is uncertain wheiher or not they have signe
He stated that Ar►thonY PT°p�rties
>qz ►
rocess, and hoPe to have the first office
.al�fc� Ct�c���rative is u►Zder way.
=oin �iiraugh the bidding p are con£ident that
k1�y � g He stated that they �onstru�tao�► °f a
��.�, under construction in � an� they are considering
���;1�uilding is constru���d,
�t'C'o the theater.
�ay 22, is the Mounds View �prin� Clean-Up Day
stated that Saturday,
ara e
6 1����--- could drop o� �tems of discard at the Public Works g �
�'�`" � �rrtiunity that they
������i�r,ed th
., t M' .k �y�3
` nded tour of the theater. He stated that it was a"first c as
`��� d�that he ha d t a k e n a n e� e ual�t was e x c e l l e n i.
� r t G S O t�;;���? » and remar i c� d t h a t t h e sound q Y
'ri sit�ation,
v��w� � � � �a°is
7.
Cha��°persm�► and P1�n�in� Corr►�is�eon�rs Igep
�
IVloun�fs �aevv Plan�ae�� �ornr�as�ion
�egaalar I�eeting
�aY 19, I999
Page 10
Commissioner Kaden reported that he had attended the advanced zonin
�PnI 29, 1999, fo�tnd it ia be inforn�attve, and thought it was a wprthw '.
8 �pP[ication workshop o�
�aden stated that he attended the meeting at the St �I� sem�nar.
and Mayor Coughlin. He sta�ed that there weretcurrently t��a 8���$h ���� A�
prohibited the airport from constructing ]onger run�,�,a s t ��`� �
approvai. He stated that currently o�ly �C � y .;� �urre��t�� ��;
the second Bill vvould cease construction of the runv,,aajfo r` irec�. He s��g�� ��
could still go through the plannin r Y?� 5�� to one r�Hc SG
that he had iearrned that the Governor would pass the B����g�r� h,��
� � � ��me to co
Novak and House Representative Barb Haake. 1�I�} ������ �'ere 5ponso
Chair Peterson stated that the City has had a probl
considered this an opport���y to controi the airpo�-�';
received much negative inp�t ftom the comm���� ��
airport noise.
� <:
Kaden stated that the official position of �����
but there was nothing in the Com re �' �� C,�y
p ,��?��2ve Pla
�hair Peterson stated that in one
remain awar� of the situa��p��
Compi �heljsi�� Pian. I�e �skc�
airport
ropke statec� t
be, He s�ated
Attorney r��
Kad ;stated that the
��s in the State, inc
�h� sr�ialler airports if th
�rt��ihe Twin City.�
not.
prev�
���trator W}uting
idered, �ne Bil!
i�haut legislative
�f" t1�at I3ill fail�i��,
:.�
��" with ��-���� ��ISe for man
ii�rther exp����l�,rl �e sgated th t he had
r�
er�c�t�nds �Iiew xx� �`��ard to the problem of
, .,.
.3 �
��:
'S ���� ���y are against extended rur�ways,
fl�; f:�ie airport.
�'����s��unci] had indicated that the City was to
�����,��ere was little language regarciing it in the
��'�uage in the current draft which addressed the
owever, that in iight of current Iitigat�an� there should
at this point but plans to after conferring vvith the City
��� �,;�nsportat�on Commissioner was in favor of expanding three rni�Qr
1�?���g �he airport located in Blaine. He siated they ma not wi
��consider the possibility of future construction of an ai port 60 to to expand
� ort to accornmodate UP� and freight deliveries, Kaden stated tha��t'iles
-�e�� with the State Transportation Commissioner to atterr� t ta had
input from the Commission to be put forward during that rneetin ga�� �s
Cha�r Peterson stated thaC at one time he had lived next to the air or-t fn B• g
there, and at th�.t time there �yas a probiem W��h �xcessive noise, He stat
worsen the situation for the residents and a5k�d • p laine' pr�or to Jet travel
ed that expansion would
expansion. tf the City of Blaine was in favor of airport
i
` ---- -
';
r
_ � - _ � - -
- . ;; ;: � : � , : ;
;
; ,
,
,,
,: , . :.. _ . -
.._ ; `-;
, ;` . ,,?
;,,. , i. �.:-:,. . ;<:, '
`!
' i:3
1@/�aunds V��w �1an�i�� �o�°a�eissi�n
lte�uia�° Meeting
�/iay 19,1999
P��� 1�
sent a representative to the meetinS� but he betieved they were in �fa�or
Kaden stated that they had not ��
of expansion. f °
� f� e im act from
ld �, F�'�r>.a ne��"� � 1�
C�air peterson stated that residents north of the golf course wou �
ested that they may wish to�becom
expansion of the aii-port, and sugg
��'
cked whic '���ohibite�
e, He stated that �.here wer� prior consider l�ions for 100� ��� t e
issu stai airport was land ��,�
expansion since the Cry roblems. He stated tha�' he coui�,
airport was subject to �loading p
�
andin a cargo type airpart in the northern suburbs b�.G�uSe �h��
exp g - . � _�
;�, . >:�.�
Kaden stated that a requiremer►t for larger aircraft is a 5
were a 5000 foo�. runway at the airport, there would b
k
smaller aircrai�.
Cammissioner Hegland expressed concern that tk�
°��r
't£ there were any strategies in place to unite
��� ;..
o ke stated that City Administrator W�,��'� an�
J p nd tha�
City Admirustrators to discuss the is_ ��
�f' �`��
('hair Peterson stated that
in regard to the
area for airport,
�nd th� St p���
�_
L. ���`+�:,io�xmnlf� OI
`v�ras nat
�y, He stated that if there
in ptace to limit access ta
dy turn i�tta ��JP� airport. He asked
�:Y�ies in c�t�_i�ostn� the expansion.
� had been meeiir�g with °t1�er
made.
�. "
��a�tive of the Metropolitan Councii had
�le in these types of issues. He stated that
Metropolitan Council to participate in the
�ther cities was• 7oP1�e stated that Circle Pines attended
other cities had no official stand at this point.
�"`�,`Y ma be interested in participating in the discussion,
McCartney Y
He stated that Mayor Cough1in had taken a ieadersh�P role an
1�/Iounds View may
be interested in organizing a committee ta
bers of the community to come forward.
Cit of Mounds View had takeri a lead�r� �p �eeeH gad� � that
y articj ate in the c
; Wo�ald be pleased to p P
�o oli�an Airpoi-t Commission were being considered for re-
P
eficial.
�gpaix�����t9 a�� ��1aL =���� � n the lanned construciion of a warehouse project on �he Onan
Hegland requested an update o p ro erl notified.
T�Ie asked if the adjacent l�/lounds View residents had been p p y
property.
_ i �
I ' _ - '
I
l�oe�e�cfs �iewr Plararair�g Co�mi��ion
Re��al�,° IVIe�i�n�
��� 19, 1999
Page 12 ... . ., ;
Jopke staLed that there was a iailure to notify the residents which was due to an honest ov
the part ofthe City ofFrici��y� and that they would be noYified in the future, He stated th ersight on
held arg open house at the Onan property for the residents along P��,�ew Drive and t°' at they had
are south on County Itoad H in Fridley, where ihey had been shown t�i� plan����r t�� ro os
�Z��esidents that
construction of a 4,OQ0 square foot office project. He stated t at ther� is a c���e � re ar '
p p ed
possible generation of truck #raffic at the access drive on �� ' g d�ng the
indicated they will take steps to direct traffic onto Old Ce ;�� Road
� ;,�ty Rt�a� �� ��i� stated that Onan
are working on a iandscaping ptan to provide a buffer an ��e consid �� ��a��d ����t the archit�e��
possibly an evergreen screen. He stated that as soon�as t tan Is� esen ih� �������� ���cn�� °r
the City oflVlounds �Iiew and ���: �� ted to �(�� �af" �
the resider�ts would be not��ec�` '� �����d�ey,
No other reports were considered. '� '
�y� �_.
�• f�C��Ol7@°IlIl7eiir
There being no further business before the ��i�,i�
�.
meeting at 8:40 p.m. .��'� � Cc�r��mis�ion,
�� � .
(The meetin i �� �
g ,,�t���tely adj��ned to ��e Agen
Respectfully submitted, ^ ' �� � > ��
. ,� �
;�
::� .
<'
�>
Rick Jopke'�' ,
Community D��eI�?p�zae�at I�irectar �y
>�•
Transcrib� �� h��
Trish P . "�on
Time� " er OffSite Seciet`ctt�r��! i���
Peterson adjourned the
Session)
TAIUSER5IB ` <: B1�HAREIKEEP-ITIi7e�PDpCS1MIIV�TES11999105-19-99.1�1PD
'` ,'�
'�
;
:-1�}
�'::i
=1
`_.':_`;�
;:�_-;�
.':l
���
'i
-,
-:i
i
� - - � - - --
-,;
. :�i
��
�
��' ����T�����
���I3� ��'�� �6 1999
7:00 I' TNI°
g�GULA� �EE�ING
AGEN�A
1 Ca11 to Order
e p,genda
Rau C�1 on Items Not �� �h
2. Citizens ReAuasts and Comments e____-- -_- �;�� T�IE P��I�J1�/I, ANl)
3. ^� _ __ _ ` ��� �PE � J � �P ��� C��THE ���TE� � _ _
A� � 5 �'�� -
C�T����� �UL� ��-� A� - ° ° ° �
��� __----
4 �pprove M�utes:
�a�, 19,1999
a. �� View Sc�u�e)
Case l�o. 55�-99 hWay 10 (Moun erate a produce stand
5. ����e�y Invalved: 2523 �g ��,it t�a�ket)
P�O� • Iv1enY�'�lle Farnl
Cansider t'Cxaig 3. G lb (°na1 use
�,pplican
9 ad
Case N o. 557-9
6. �A���e��volved: 769017692 �ilver L�� °
propertY rninor suhdivision
Considerati�e�a L�e
7.
8.
Q
�pplicant.
me56�-99 oadlawnDrive �#,resident��
P�a�nln Case N. 7b13-7619 W r� �est for afour-
p�ope�Y�volved� developm�nt review q
Consid�e� 1°�g £ a �ike 7uaire)
rental pM� Group �
�,pplicant:
ocmat�°n
St� ��Ports 1 Items of Inf
Previous Council Ac�on
a� Commissioners ReP°rts
Chairperson an� pl�'�g
enda Mee�i�g
Ad�ol�inentto Ag �� Meetix�g)
���nediately Followi�g Reg
���������������
�*�,�,�,����*** �S�ENTAT?17-G020
*,��,�** �CE�T E
� �` * * � � � Ts; YOUR �'TT MM�ITY DE�1EL0 KYOU� ,� ,� ,� ,�
�pPLIPL� ��p�F�YB �E *0 A �TEND;� ,�T ��`N � � �`
REQ��TED�� YOU � ,� ,� ,� � �
'� �` '� � * * * SE5SION
�GE�DG NDA
1.
Review �inutes -° 3�'� 2,1999
N,�DATA\GR�UP
S\COMD��L�COMN�CAGENDA\1949\6-16-99.RE�'
,. , _
;:. . _ _.. = �> ; , .' : ;: _ - --
, .: 'i
-'�
2.
4
����� �%J�� ��t����r �����s�����
��E �6,1999
'7a00 P,Ii'I,
REGULAR IO�IEETING
AGENDA
Call to Order
Rall Call
Citizens Req�ests and Comments on items Not on tl�e Agenda
' : /: . � � . ,� • �, . .�. � � , , � � __ :�:
� � ��1 1�►'�
!
Approve Minutes:
a. May 19, 1999
5. Planning Case I�oo 554-99
Property Involved: 2523 Highway 10 {Mounds View Squa.re)
Consideratio� of a conditional use permit to operate a produce stand
Applica.nt: Craig J. Gilb (Merryville Farm Market)
6. �lar��►ng Case I�1o. �57�99
Properiy Involved: 7690/7692 Silver Lake Road
Considerat�on of a minar subdivision
Applicant: Meiho Lee
7. Planning Cas� I�io. ��1-99
Proper[y Involved: 7613-76I9 Woodiawn Drive
Consideration of a development review request for a fout-unit residential
rental dwelling
Applicant: PMJ Group (Mike Juaire}
7. Staff Reports / Items of Information
�
�]
a• Previous Council Action
Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
(Immediately Following Regular Meeting)
*�x*�****�x�*�:����:�*�=*�x�*:�����*��*������*�
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT TfIIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED, PLEASE NOTIFY CQIVIMUNI'Ty DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020
� * � * �F *�U ARE UNABLE *O ATTEND *THANKY OU. * � � �
AGEIVDA �SESSION
AGENDA
1• Raview Minutes -- June 2, 1999
N;�DATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIPLANCOMM�PCAGENDA1199916-16-99.REG
1;:; ' ,
i:j
L`;"
i a '� � �, ;" : • : � , ; ';.
`j '� \
I�IeetE�� I��teo
�ta#�' l�epo�°t by:
�lanr�i�g Case l�oe:
Ideques�:
Ap�iic�nt:
I,acagaorte
;" '1`. ', ! ,
�onYn�/I.anci iTseo
Ap�iicabl� Ite��elations:
Tune 16, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
554-99
The appiicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit io
operate an outdoor saies produce stand at Moundsview 5quare.
Craig Gilb, representing Merryville Farzn Market
Moundsview Square Shopping Center parking lot
07-30-23-11- 0079
R-4, Regional Business District; Moundsview Square Shopping Center
Section I 115.44 Subd, 2, which allows for apen or outdoar service, sales and rentat as an
accessory use with a conditional use permi�.
Section 1125.01 Subd. le, which states that the Planning Commission shall consider
possible adverse effects of proposed conditional uses.
Section 1125 O 1 Subd 1�, which states that the Planning Comtnission shall make findings
of fact and recommend such actions or conditions reiating to the request as it deems
necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and forward such
findings to the City Council.
Att�chr�ents:
��ckgwound:
Planning Application
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Letter from Paster Enterprises, 5/26/99
Resolution 581-99
Craig Gilb, representing Merryville Farm 1Vlarket, is requesting a conditional use permit io operate
an ou#door produce stand in the parking lot of Moundsview 5quare Shopping Center from July
I, 1998 to September 30, 1999, The produce stand would be open seven days a week from 10:00
am io 7;00 pm. and would be selling produce home-grown from Waverly, Minnesota. The stand
is a five�sided gazebo-lii�e structure wiih a canvas roof, and is 14 feet wide at its widesi point and
9 feet high ai: the peak The stand requires no utility hook-ups. The produce stand was granted a
CL7P the last three years at this same location. Staffi� not aware of any pi-oblems associated with
this operation.
..
,.
Merryville Farm Market CUP
Planning Case Na. 554-99
3une 16, 1999
Page �
Analysis:
IV1r, Gilb has stated that this will be the same operation that was approved last year for this locatio��.
No changes have been praposed. The dates of operation far the farm market, if approved as
requested, would overlap by I S days with Linder's Greenhouses, which was granted an outdoor
sales CUP ihrough Juiy 15, 1999. Linder's will be dismantling its greenhouse someti�ne in between
June 30 and July 15, so the overlap of operations could be less than tl�e passible 15 days. In the
occurrence of an overlap of uses, there should be little impact to parking, as the produce stand
wau(d occupy anly 110 square feet of the parking lot. Signage for the praduce stand will be
accomplished with small banners aitxed to the gazebo base and Iettez�ing on the canvas roof.
As was done for the Linder's Greenhouses, the conditionai use permit for Merryville is drafted in
such a way so that future appearances before ihe Planning Commission and City Council are not
required. The CUP will remain in effect indefinitely so Iong as ther� are no changes ta the
operaiion and there have been no problems or reasons which would warrant the City Council to re-
examine the CUP.
C�7P Itequ�rements:
The criteria for apprQVal of a canditional use perm.it appear in Section 1115.04, Subd. 2 of the
Mounds View Municipal Code. They are as follaws:
a. Outdoor service, sales and equipment rental connected �vith the principal use is
linnited �o thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principal usa.
The shopping center contains 102,035 syuare feet of buiCding area. The applicant proposes
to occupy I 10 square feet of the parking lot, which is less than 1% of the building square
footage on the site. This criterion has been met.
b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an
abutting residential district in compliance with Subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of ihis
Title.
The parking lot fronting Highway 10 does not abut any residential properties. The nearesi
residential property is Wildwood Manor, an apartnlent building for senior citizens, which
would be well screened from the proposed use by a stand of trees.
c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from
the public righi of way or fronn neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section
1103.09 of the Code.
The applicant will not have any lighting associated with the produce stand as it will be
operatiing during daylight hours.
,
. i;
_- _.
t
; ,,._ -
, _, _ ;
, ,
;.. :
- . .. ;, . ' `
,_.:: :: ; � < .
Merryviile Farm Market CUP
Pla��ning Case No. 554W99
� i June ib, 1999
Page 3
d. Sales area is gressed or surfaced to control dust.
The applicanti is proposing to use an e�.isiing parking lot which is surfaced wi�h asphalt.
This criterion is met.
Staff believes the criteria for granting a CUP have been rnet. The Planning Commissioz� sha11 also
consider any possible adverse effects ofthe proposed use as required by 5ection 1125,01(1)e ofthe
1Vlunicipal Code, which are as follows:
(1) Reiatianship to Municipat Camprel�ensive 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 proposal is for a temporary produce stand in the parking lot of an existing shopping center.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this sifie as HC--Highway Co�n�nercial. The produce stand is an
appropriate use wi#hin this designatian. The shopping center is surrounded by roadways and the
area where the use is to be located is 1,000 feet from the nearest residential property. The sale of
produce is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a
community need. The short duration of the use will result in littIe, if any, adverse effect upon the
surroundiz�g area.
�decore�me�dation:
Approve Plannin� Commission Resolution No. 581-99 recommending to the City Councii
approval of a conditional use permit for Merryville Farm Market to aparate an outdoor produce
stand at Moundsview Square ;hopping Cenier from July 1, 1999 to September 15, 1999, with
stipulations.
�,� '�c.�?.vL�c� � �c�c����.�
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASES1554-991MERRy_pC_RpT
'i
4. .
. ... .. . .. ,.. : . . . . ... . '_-:: _ .. .. . . . __ . ......... . . . __"'
_
" ..-.
. .:..`. -.. " . . .::: ..�..:. '"__.. , ... - . . . . �.,
6'/ii � {; `L'��'{'
� .�i:�:'•';,� %'` 5
u
a
� ��r�,�:r.;
�:�::a;
a�, :,i:::, .r..
poR��ss � Parm�"��Q°
A,p�ticant I�for�atyon
Name of Applicant
Address
Ixa�erest in Prope¢°ty
o Owner of PY
�, Lessee, Ope
❑ Other (expi<
Please
� � �1 � ' � �' , r. , ',■ �r�: . � —
�I'- ��- � � :' "' �TC ' < . .� - ,� ��;
2401 �ii�way l0, A/Iounds View N1I� 5511�
or Fri�t Itsfo�mation � Co�plete Botb �ides of'il�is ���a
r�
612-717-4020
612-7�403462 - FAX
Telephone � l �— �' O �� % � � �/
2 S � �' S' � � �i', �i Fax
l v-� � � N `��10
:ck �ppropriate box)
�, [� Cantract for Deed �wnet
, Manager � Agreement to Pur�hase
r�ppGca�sts �re�st pr�vsde evideoce of im�ere9� i� property a# the time of applicat@on, an�i if you are not tl�e ow�ne� of the
prop�riy9 yon ma�st peo�rid� a tet�er of per`uiss°aon feom ti�e ovvt,ee° giv�g consen� to the %liug of t�bis appi�catione '�he
ptopee�y ow��c ffiu9� sega th�s appiicatio� foe it to be acceptedo
�rapeety Descre�tion/�r�posal
Address or G�eral Location
Legal Description
Properiy Identification # (PIN #) �7 - .� p - a- 3 -° ! ) "" � � � /
# of Acres
Cureeat Zo g _ �—`7
Typa of A� lication
o Comprehensive Plan Amendcnent
� � Rezoning '
� Major Snbdivision
❑ Minor Subdivision
� o Pianned Unit Development (PUD)
[7 PUD Amendment
� Conditional Use Pez�nit
Q
�
fl
0
❑
❑
❑
Variance
Code Appeal
Devetop Review/Site P1an
W�tland A.iteracion Permit
Wetland Bu1%r Petxuit
Floodplain k'emzit
Other
�s ��
$254
$250/acre; min �250 max $ i 500
$250 t $250 deposit'�
$200
Refer to re2oning fees
$350
R�l, Rr2 $75; all others $250
R-1, R-2 $! 00 ail others �25Q
$i00
$ i 25/acre; mi� $125 max $750
R-1, R-2 � 150; all others $200
R-1, R-2 �25; aiI ott►ers �i00
$200
� ,��
*Deposits shall be paid co cover all costs of pubEic notices, materials and stat�or consuitant time spent in the review,
research or preparation ot rnaterials associated with this application. The applicant sha[I be responsibie for a[1 reasonab[e __ -
incurred costs in ��cess of the initial depasic amourst. Any portion of the degosit not s-per�t ar encumbered shatl be rei'unded
to rhe applicant witiiin thirry (30) days s�t'ter consideration ot the application is completed,
Ple:ase correplet� the Yev�rse side of ihis applicat�on.
�aty oi 1Vlounds �1iew, IdII�
l�evelo re�e�t A iicaiion , Page 2
Present Use of Property
❑ Undeveioped/Vacant ❑ Sing3e Family Dwelting
� Duplex/'i'vvo Family Dwetling a Multi-family Dweilin�
`�� Business/Cnmmerciai Estabiishment o Indusirial Estabiishment
❑ Other (explain)
Property Classification � Abstract ❑ Torrens
�
BY MY (OUR) SIGNATiJRE �1V THIS APPLl'CATION, I HERE$Y DECLARE THAi, TO "I`H� BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, THE INF'ORMATIUN PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. .
� � �
Si�ature of Applicant
Name of Appiicant (tyged/printed) C YGf rr G1 %~ - G,`I �7
,
Signah�re of Property Qwner Lt9 c�L-�
Na�te of Property Owner (typed/printed) ���
,
Address of Owner
Phone Number of �wnee
��*������x*���������*��*�����*�**�**��*�*����**���*��**���������a����*�**�����x�*���*��n�����x��*����
FOIt OFFIC� U�� OI�,Y
Date of Submittai �"- /3 _ 9
Date oiAcceptance S° Z,�o - G ' Assigned to: �` �t
Ptaiuiiug Case No. .� S-- 60-ciay Limit `7°2,5-�� 120-day Iimi€ _ I L- 25-��
Fees Paid: Aecount # Check # � Receipt #
Application: 5°°0 • 8� L D d, 3�'' °) 3 D 3 0� � 03 �
Park Dedication: '�
Deposits: — ^.. _
Other:
Totat: �
N:1DAT,�IGROUPSSCOtv(DSVIFQRMS1t?EVAPY.FOR 1/gg
�iLVER VIEW
���y � •� � , ..
.:;! �,i
�, �� . ,; ���,� � .„� '. ' � � 1: �; �:'. .
>
"'. � � . �� .f.:l. � �, " ; : �- ."� : ,��::�.
I ''_
I
I
�
MAY-26-1999 16�26
�
�
_ : .��,
,
PASTER ENTERPRISES
512 646 1389 P.�2i02
�,
, . ,,
. .. ��- - .. : . - - ;:_ . . , . _ � . � _ ; ,,
x, , ' � .�.!; - .....�, .�, �.... � � ,;.,.
-;�`- �. ;� •.,. _ '
., , -�: �..
r . - � ^
�__
� t ". .� -, - � a ,
x. � ��i .; �-.._ . �.__.
� - rt ° . � � N.
f�d�RRYViLLE F��€Vl� r+�ill pl�c� t��ir ��r�et/star�d ir� t�+e �rea hightighted o� �t��
�r��lo��d site pl�r�.
Sinc�re#y,
` ).� .
� �t.
5t�phaeli� �. Kirchrrtai�r
Direci�r of 9��rketeng
Pa�ter Ent�rpr�s��
2227 University Ave. Q St Pa�f, �N ��51 � 4�1677
fi5i.646.7901 � Fx 6b1.64�.f 3�3
.- �_.�. pea���rt�sl�ig�'�a�ter�e�terpYfses.com �.pa�i�r��QerpeEsas.c�a� _ ..... .
� - '�,•.,
,
._. -- - - - . . _.
I:
I 3 �le.
i ,s �I .
, �
;;,
;; .
� � 1 `
i I-
� ' Q
1 E, o �
i
1 =
1 = a
j = N
1 ; '
t :
1 ro � °
i �� .moy.va�a
_ � t..e
' 1 _ av�tvn
q � �. � a
•> I - svmuv�xnwu
� — m �:o>
f � xo.a�awu
~ � .
t
O t `..
¢ ; : •te uoz
y 1 - 'ra oee•�
� 1 y
a 1 ! a.m
O � '"
�% � r �5 oat'a
1 i:
1 r
i . ¢
� o
� ;.
1 = o
1 � J
� ... �
� � °
0
� �' 'm
t�va�> •aa� oorx OoOH 3NVl 'JNO°9
. i
I• .` �I I•
� � . v
p � N � li1
. o �
P �
� —� s
�....T- 1
�, v ��
I $ ��
�
��
, � �
r.
__�
V
_ �
�1
�
�
�rt � �
— � ��
Nry "'I_'....
W �
{y > W
� �e _ .� __.. �
o u ,
° 3a ' —
e �� .
P s : • i
—.� ~ /
/�
� �
_! -� ��
_ � � �
/
�- -� ��` ?o
. C
- \^" 99'
- L`. ' �
_ .,v
� �O
. rQ.
P
v'�°� �
a`/
� �' �
i �,.��
0.
ti/
� {P
_ /� y
//
' �
,
�
� '" �/ �
. � /
/ �
�
1i /
�
�
�
/%�i; � {
��
.-ae+tdc,o�rr�r.� a��:�!nacco�
OOCOID�OTe1��C�0 `CONridO000C0
OOR'Ot�Of �c?t�Ome�[ O�coaM�DOCIrMCo
p�Qr�rr°rQNNCV CVrNrNN U7�C9
r r P
N ~
W �
� a
Q �
I� � }� N W 8
U � O � � !Pl �
N� ��J U, z9-�-LLf�tA� �
Zo }B��i71� Y��a�� �
aN �O'Z�f°"� W����o �U9
�
QO ��00�� ������� ww
�� �2u1ti7� �» �v�p- C'3�
�e[ ��t»��� t»�->°tn�� ❑�
�u O -
dB�� u��¢�G�.:a �¢
cs� c�����..,tn ca��c�c3a.m ��
�NNM°�i[BtAF`mO�Ov+�CVL'q�'MlDP'�mII90�fV
rwr�r�r-v���rNNN
� `'f ;1; � `I` � : �1: �. � ;�� �_
. , .: � , ' �. ._, , ,,l, ,+ , �. r;
�a '�' � � ? ''� €� , ;� , '.
r�> ' � � �
�, ;_ i �, °�_, ,, , � . ,,
�� �� � ��_ . ��_� �; � '',1 '��: �: ���•. : . , � � ,. � � .�, � �. : . �� ;�_ �. � � . �. . �,, �_ , � � , :, �
��� � ': :1= �1� �.:! � �: i� • �. ;��; � '�, . �: ��, ��: �E .: :�. .. ., . .
� I: ; °,
, � � ;, . � .
'��� �� � .
W���.�5, Craig Gilb, representing Merryville Farm Market, has applied for a
condiiional use permit to conduct open and outdoor sales ai Moundsview Square Shopping
Center; property zoned B-4, Iegally described as follows:
�'haP 1'c�rt Lying Ii/o�theaste�ly of the C'enterlin� of ,�tate 7'�urzk Ila�l��vay 10 of 1`IE 1/
o, f`I�T.E'/ (Subject to IZoads and �Ii�/iways) ia� ,Sectaon 7, Township �O, I�ange 23
W���AS, the Ivlound View Zoning Code aliows open and outdoor sales in the B�4
Regional Business I�istrict with the approval of a conditional use pernut; and
�'��AS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the foltowing documents regarding
this proposal:
a. PIanning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plan
d. Letter from Property Qwner
iaV�E�2EAS, The Mounds View P]anning Commissiorz makes the following findings that
the criteria for approvai in Section 1115.04, Subd. 2 have been met:
a. Outdoor servzce, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is
limited to thirty percent (30%) of flie gross floor area of the pzincipal ase.
The shopping center contazns 102,035 square feet ofbuiIding area. The applicant
propases to occupy 11 � square feet of the parking lot, which is less than 1% of the
building square fooiage on the site. This criterion has been met.
b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring r�sidential uses or an
abutting residentiat disirict in compliance with Subdivisians 1103.08(1) through (5) of this
Title.
The parking iot fronting Highway 10 does not abut any residential properties. The nearest
resideniial property is Wildwood Manor, an apartment building for senior citizens, which
would be welJ screened from the proposed use by a stand of trees.
Merryviile Farm Market
Planning Cominission Resolution 581-99
June 14, 1999
Page 2
c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed thai ihe light saurce shall not be visible from
the public right of vvay or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with
Section 1103.09 of Yhe Code.
The applicant wili not have any iighting a.ssociated with the produce stand as it will be
operating during daylight hour�.
d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to controi dust.
The applicant is proposing to use an existing parking lot which is surfaced with asphalt.
This criterion is met.
W�E�AS, ihe Planning Commission has considered the provisians from Section
1125.01(1)e ofthe Zoning Code regarding passible adverse effects ofthe proposed use and
makes the following findings:
(1) Relaiionship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The geographical area involved.
(3} W�ether 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 proposal is for a temporary produce stand in the parking lot of an existing shopping
center. The Comprehe�isive Plan designates tlus site as HC--Highway Commerciai. The
produce stand is an appropriate use within this designaiion, The shopping center is
surrounded by roadways and ihe area where the use is to be located is 1,000 feet from the
nearest residential property. The sale of praduce is. a typical seasonal business in a
community such as Mounds View and it serves a community need. The short duration of
the use wi11 result in littie, if any, adverse effect upon the surrounding area.
I�p�, 'I'�EIt��O�, �E �'I' �tESO�,�I) that the Mounds View Planning
Commissian recommends approval of the conditional use permit with ihe following stiputations:
1. The facility shall be ailowed io operate from 7u(y 1 to �eptember 30 of each year.
2. The hours of operation of the facility shall not exceed 8:00 a.xn. to 9:00 p.m.
3. Si�nage shafl be atlowed only as affixed to the gazebo base and/or canvas roof.
4. Lighting for the use shall be suppli�d by existing parking lot standards.
5. The applicant shall provide the �ollowing on an annual basis to the Director of
Community Development:
, i:
Meiryville Farm MarkeY
Planning Commission Resoiution 581-99
June 14, 1999
Page 3
a. Lefiter of permission from property owner.
b. Complete set of site plans
c. Narrative description af the proposal.
6. This Conditional Use Perrnit may be reviewed by the Planning Commission and
City Council if any problerns deveiop or if there are any changes to the operation
deemed substantial enough to warrant such review, in the estimation of tl�e
Director of Cammunity Development o�- the City Council.
�� ��' ���'���� ����,VEI} that this Conditional Use Permit shall have no
expiration date and shali remain in force so long as the conditions agreed upon herein are
observed.
�� �T ��dA�.I�Y ��OI,iIEIi that the Planning Commission directs staffto forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approvai of the minutes.
Adopted this 16th day of June, 1999,
Attest:
(Seal)
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Rick Jopke, Cammunity Development Director
IJ:IDATAIGROUP5ICOMDEV\DE VCASES1554-99\581-99PC,RES
, � a:
; ,.. , , ,
-__ . -
.. ,. . ., ,, , -.
:, ... ,:
-- _ , . ,.. -
____-�_ .:-- - � ' ` ' '
� ,- :�� , .,;. �' ; I� . r f, .' �- '
' v : ��� � �' �. :. .:. ,' '�
���$9�i� �����
S�aff 13��ort by:
Pl�nni�g Case �T000
R�ques�:
P�iitianer:
I.oe�tior�:
PIN l��s.
Zon°aa��/�,and �7se:
3une 1b, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
558-99
Development Review
Mike Juaire (PMJ Group, Inc,)
7613 - 7619 Woodlawn Drive
�8-30-23-22-0003
R--3, Medium Density Residential
Appiicab�e Regul�tior��e Section 1006,06, Development controls
�ec�ion 1104.01. General zoning provisions -- yard requirements
Section 1104.02, Area ar�d building size regulatians
At�achmea�$s:
�ackg�ound:
Planning Application
Zoning Map
�ite, Landscape & Parking Plans {Separate Attachment)
Building Elevations (Separate Attachment)
Planning Commission Resolution 583-99
The applicant, Mike Juaire, representing PMJ Group, has requested approval of a development
review for a four-plex to be located at 7613 - 7619 Woodlawn Drive, currer�tly vacant property.
The applicant has purchased this lot through the Ramsey County iax forfeit auction and is also the
owner of the adjoining iot to the west, for which the Planning Commission already recommended
approval of a separate development review.
The elevations provided for the foursplex show a two-story structure buili at grade ievei {no
basements) with the four dwelling units lined in a row. The two middle uniis will have three
hedrooms and two baths, while the west-end unit, because of the diagonal wa.11, will have oniy
two bedrooms and one bath. The east-end unit, while srnaller than the middle two, will also have
three bedrooms bu� only the one bath. All of the units, with the exception of the west-end unit,
will have a two-car iuck-�under garage. The west end urait wili only have a one-car garage. The
end dwelling uniis have entrances at the sides of the building while the middle uni�s take access
from the building's front. The uiilities (washer, dryer, furnace, etc.) are on the lower level of the
units.
The Planning Commission recornmended approval of the development review for the four-plex on
the adjoining lot a� the June 2nd meeting, conditioned upon several modifications being made
concerning the overa►1 site, parking and landscape pians. All of Staf�'s and the Planning
Juaire pevelopment Review
Lot 10, Woodlawn Terrace
Planning Case 558-99
June 11, 1999
Page 2
Commission's requested madifications have been aecomplished by the appficant, with the
exce�otion of some additional detail needing to be added to the landscape plan in the area
highlighted.
Anatys�so
Dimensiorral Rec�uire�zents:
Building �etbacks:
Front {Woodlawn Dr.)
Side (West):
Side (East):
Rear (North}:
Minimum lot width:
Miniinum loi area:
(2,500 sq. ft per D. U.):
Minimum Open Space
(625 sq.ft. per dwelling unit}
�uiiding height:
IVlinimum floor area for:
three-bedroom dwelling uniis:
two-bedroom units:
Parking requirements:
Uncavered: (1.5 per urut)
Covered: (1.0 per unit)
Rec�uired Pronosed: Met ?
30 feet ' 30 feet Yes
24 feet 24 feet Yes
20 feet ZO feet Yes
40 feet 40 feet Yes
100 feet 120 freet Yes �
10,000 sq.ft. 14,998 sq.i�. Yes
2,500 sq. ft. 3,900 sq. ft. i'es
45 feet 26 feet Yes
870 sq. ft. 95b sq. ft, Yes
750 sq. ft. �06 sq. ft. Yes
6 spaces 8 spaces Yes
4 spaces 7 spaces Yes
* Since this lot is located on the curve of a street, the lot width dimension is measured at the 30-foot building setback line.
Draina,�e:
The applicani has submitied for review two alternative drainage pians for the two lots, one af
wliich showing a storm sewer �hat drains into a catch basin on County Road I, the other utilizing on
site grading to direct flow into the drainage easement areas. Both drainage plan aiternatives have
been reviewed by City staff and the City Engineer, who find either approach to be sufficient to
accommodate the on-site stormwater runoff.
Landsca�e Plan:
In Seeiion I 103.48 of the City Code pertaining to Fencing, Screening and Landscaping, it states
that the lot area remairung after providing for off-street parking, sidewalks, driveway, building and
other requirements shall be plar�ted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable
vegetation or materiais generally used in landscaping. The applicani has submitted a la��dscape pian
vvhich addrressed the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The plan was %rwarded to
the City Forester, who made suggested substitutiar�s for two of the plantings which the applicant
'i
Juaire Develapment Review
Lot 10, Wood(awn ierrace
I'lanning Case 558-99
June 1 �, 1999
Page 3
has agreed to. In addiiian, the plan has been revised to show ei�her a row of plantings or
decorative fencing along the southwest property line on Lot 9 bordering �Ioodtawn Terrace.
Pa--�
Each of the three-bedroom dwelling units are shown to have a two-car garage on the lower ievel of
ihe buiiding, while the two-bedroom unit shows a single stall garage. Each of the four units will
also have iwo uncovered (outside) paricing spaces available, which meets the Cifiy's parking
requirements. The units will take direct access to the street without any type of parking area or
turnaround, which wiit require residents to back out of the units onto Woodlawn Drive. Because
of �he minimal distance between the units and the street as well as the unobstructed views in eiiher
direction, staff does not believe this to be an issue of concern.
Utilitres and Ecrse�ents
There are water and sewer lines in Woodlawn Drive so utilities are available to the site. There are
ten-foot drainage and utility easements on the property's north and west sides which will more than
likely serve as drainage areas for the deve�opment. To accommodate the proposed drainage plans,
�dditionat drainage easement areas will need to be dedicated. The applicant has indicated a
willingness to dedicate those areas shown on the certificaies of survey, however the document
preparation witt not be completed before final Council action due to requested title commitments
from the City Aitorney, The applicant will sign a statement agreeing to the dedication of those
areas so inarked on the surveys as a matter of assurance to the City.
Coa�clusions:
Staffrecommends approval ofPlanning Commission Resolution 583-99, a resotution
recommending approval (with stipulations) of a development review for a four-unit muiti-family
structure at 7613 - 7619 Woodlawn Drive, as requested by Mike 7uaire, repz-esenting PMJ Group,
Inc.
�G�►`1�.�.--� �C�� -�..�.�� 1J\,
Jamss Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEVSpE VCASE515 58-99L1UAIi2E.PC 1
D�rOd18� 09:2� �AS 6�2 i84 �492
:;:
� �: �� .;,I C,i Il! r:
l�
C i'TY �F �'V
►�1UUi
� t� i � .� �' � y� �;, _
� . : �, ,. � � . ;.. ' :. . :. � ,,
„ �. � _ � �
,: �_ � ., �3� C .. ���.; . �.
1 't
►� �. ^ y ,. -. -
� mr Lfb � m ��� �i� �`i�t� �o�
..r f ., : >, ,
. v :,e .,y�,
:: . , , r ��. � i ." � � i � �;.
_ lti+rl _ � � �.:: , „�.-i• � ... :
__, . _ ... _. __
:. . ;1a =°.: � !. . � , ! .. ... �..: ., . ' :'., i. � .
,... . .. . . . :... ., . . _, . ... ..... . . . . ... . . .. ..-,,.. _.._
. .., __ . ...... . ...... .__...�_
! , : . . - —. . '
j► -'. r i.. ,: � ': I : .
. i `.. t� ' � � "' .�" r, g' • i£�-
r7. A,� .i- .... i • ii ; • �., • e: �, �.�
w •._ iri�_ �� '3 -��. r�_•�,,;=
�e
,Ap� �p � � p� � �c�p fi€�+a� � �e � o��8i�
� *�' 7� � a �4 �� �i�� t #o �' aP � � ��
� r � a ap �br � @� � �,
r
�, ,
f •.3n
'?' ►
..,r !ii .: � .. ' ���:
' il
�.l
' � �� - i�> , . ��� . � f r �.�._
�
�` �
• _ 1 ► , �. . , r . }.
�+_ _ rib..
_ . .
t+ � i I Y� �
� /
..,f� ..,..
r1. _.� ... ..
!�
.�. :ix .t : :..��� -
� ' r n.i �
» .;:i.
,--� � - .. � .
r ,.��.,: •.: � . �. _ !
� r ,._,,,�.� ;
. � .:. :;. „r .
� <��
� r��.= � � .:e�a
Yi. � .,,; ' . i. ".
+�-. ,i... ��. :
R i' Y ?."lr,..' �r
� i, ,�..�
4 � i
'Y _ �
`tr l..a.... .��:at "! �i?'v `y.�.
Y 4�� �- " ! �.
� t �
. s r: i
ti 1:
- 'i
' �.� : � �.:_,�
t/
��.1 .• . ��.
�� /i,1
- F'' ,�;i i �?�
`/ 1'i!
°� �� �eadd Y� �m�8ed � a!a �pub� a � 6Aaimt d3a �i��Riy
ar 'a� �f ��c�i�l� +mit� thes app ' s�ap ° b� 'bi� f%r �1 t�
i� � � � i�cti�I �t � P � � �6 � �r �� �hali b� t�d�d
���pli�� wiB�aa '(J0� dA� 'a� aR d�� i�nsi�ffi � a 1�
P �s��to� �� �[c� � �p� � a�.
�•� �wm .av ysY6
e✓j�di QA Raq
�t�A2
�r. .' �.. , . � ; {' :
,
r �. � x►.�.� ? , .; , ''. � � z ,- ..
� �.r< ..�,_ _....._ __w���__ .._ _�� .__ _v.- - —
. ; �, ;:,
., -� ..:,::�
r� ► r. f�= � .�1:�
� r „�:� �. .-, .._ , ,.,. ��. . . , : ..<�.� .
!: tia, -,.�. �. = ��i_ �.
-- �.ov=,Y�
�a, 1 �.•�I, "r � ".;r;r➢
�.
�
_, i►. „��
I i � � �� + �
� a .. „r,-
��
,. � . ,- � =� � .� � .
" ' � �' ...,'' _
R _,�.; ,' ,, i c',� , ... ... �.�? j„�,1 .1�-��.�.�:.+�,., , i, . � ...,,__ . . - � -- - _ _ �...' � . _
:�
, _ _ .. �� � ; , . � ,. -. r'�..._ ��'�� "s � �+. . *_ � ,
,x.. . _ w
� t �:. . � i- � ��
. : ,�- ., - _ _..•,. . = . � -
_ _ _ _.. ; - - :
� . � - ..��,; r. * +� F � . �w �►�. h �, _
,: - ..� � _ f � � ;
�„ ,� .. �;�
�.
,
a � - � , �"� _
:. , ., = � �: ;E � � ,.. �,, �,�.. � �. �� �.. �:..._.... �
_�
�� . . . _.. _., .... .... ,.. t. � � "'� .
- �1, -t+ �
�..�r.: • ' * :tse .
i:i �
�� . !, f � • i �� i :
�
„�,, t.,�+} . . __., �� .�, , .... ,-
;.. � :� � . /� : ��� �
� r � ,.....-. .w, _.. -._ . ,.,_ _ . -
�' /. ` . � � (� ,r � ..
�..
� �
,�� �.,._ ... ..�..�
� .. .. . :::... . ..... .... .
� - - .., ,._._ .. ... _._..
4r�����c$1���i ���� ����P���������k�W$�����������������I����������������1���
�q p �5� �l�.Y
Da� �tS ' �' - 7 - � � �sd t�:
�l�tr of � Lia�at i2 ii�ae
p " � Gaa� Ida.
p� F�i�. � -
• �.:�5` o� ��)- r.
P� �� '
�t� .
�.�.-
'�s�l:
� :. . . � - . �,,:. . „ ...� - , -_ „� ��a
� �t {� '
�� �,
� � �� �
�
7869
7865
7855
7835
i815
7ea�
7801
i751
7741
7731
7�Zi
7711
IUJU
7852 �
�s4� �
7840
�soo
���o
7760
7i50
7740
7730
��zo
���
� � ��va'i�uu�i 2553
�n cn u� �n �n u� �
cV � NNNht[V 2551
� 2�q-� o
N �J4% J
2545
�m°� 2541
ocz�
J �
I
�
J
O �
, � O �
; N �
7
�
V
M
L!�
tfl
N
�� �
� 1
Zon�ng I�ap Planning Case 55��99
Applicant: Mike Juaire {PI!/IJ Group, Inc.)
Lo�a.tion: 7613m7619 VVoodlawn Drive
vr�r� y
�
` `,�
5521
;-: - �
� �
�l��
��iS
t; 1= - k � !1'�. ��° ,1=
. _. ;�; �_ ., �., ,�, �_ , ,,
`�: =f= '� :� ��� � �. :1' '_���
:! `: �:t . '° �-
<�; _ 1 � - °�'. ��
.�� :� �; ; � �; �� . � ,; �. . , �,, . . ,; ;, � ,� .; :� :, :.. : _�. : ;_, � : `�, �; �: . . . . ; :. � ;� , - ; � ;,�
• J; � ��� 1' � ;�� '�; ; 11 � 1: ��� 1��� �'� 1: z,
�� ' � ; . ' �, _I -! 1�: _ ., . � �; . _ �, , ;� . : ;� � � �, � ��,
WHEREAS, PM3 Group, represented by Mike Juaire, has requested City approval of a
development review for a four-unit multiple family residentiai structure to be located at 7613 -
7bI9 Woodlawn Drive, legally described as folIows:
LoF 10, Block 1, Parkview Terrace
Ramsey County, lddannesota
WIIEIZEAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires thiat a
development review be conducted for all cominercia( and industrial development and aIl
residentia,i development where more than two dwelling units are being erected wi�hin the City;
and,
�IF�REAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the fallowing
documents regarding this proposal:
I. Pluining Application
2. Zonir�g Map
3. Site, Parking, Landscape Plan, date-stamped 6/7/99
4. Elevations and Floor Plans, date-stamped 6/4/99
5. Drainage Plans, date-stamped 6/7/99
WI�EREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plaa date-stamped
June 7, 1999 canforms to the g�neral zoning requirements of Chapter 1104 with regard to
setbacks, parking requirements, building height, minimum floor space, open space, and floor area;
and,
�JVHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission is aware that City staff has reviewed and
the City Engineer has approved two alternative drainage plans for the site.
I°d��, ���1�F01�, �E �'I' �SOI.VEI), that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of a development review for a%ur unit multiple family
residential stnacture to be located at i613 w i629 Woodlawn Drive, subject to the following
s�ipulations:
1. The landscape plan shall be revised to include a row of plantin�s or decora�ive fencing
�long the southr�vestern-most property line of Lot 9. Any plantings shall meet with the
approval of the City �orester to ensure compatibility with 10/Iounds View soils.
Resolution S$3-99
Juaire Developzrient Review
June 16, 1999
Page 2
2. Drainage and utility easements shali he dedicated to the City prior to building permits
being issued for those areas to be utilized for drainage purposes where none have been
previously dedicated. A signed and notarized "Intent to Dedicate" agreement document
will be acceptable in the event easement docunnent preparation is nat completed prior to
building permits being issued.
3. Those areas of the Woodlawn Terrace apartment complex encroaching upon the subject
properiy shall be removed and relocated according ta City setback requirements in
conjunction wiin grading activities on the site. In na event shall a certificate of occupancy
be issued before this has occurred.
�E I'I' FiJI3'I'�Ela �SOI�i�D that the Planning Comrnission directs Staffto foi-ward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the ininutes.
Adopted this 16�h day of June, 1999
Jerry Petersan, Chairperson
ATTE�ST;
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
SEAL
N:IDATA\GROUPS\COIvIDE'VIDEVCA5ES155 8-9915 83-99PC.RES
°1
�'1 .� ; �: J'. 1. ; �=. _ , . ;�;. � ,; �.
I�'T�eteng Date:
sta����m�t by:
Plan�n�ng Case I�o.
Requesio
t�pplie�nto
Address:
PII� #:
Zoeain�//I�a�aci �Ise:
IJot Siz�o
Appticable lZegulaiions:
*'� Sl,�����°y lte�3or� **
3une 16, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
557-99
Minor Subdivision (Lot �plit)
Meiho Lee
7694 / 7692 ,5ilver Lake Raad
Q7m30-23-21-0002
R-2, Two-JFamily and �ingle Famity Residential
25,415 Square Feet
� Sa�rveyor's Certificaie: Section 1202.01, Subd, 3b requires that the appiicant provide a
certificate of survey prepared by a Min�iesota registered land surveyor. A full plat of the
property may be substituted..
� l�in�rnum I.oi �i�e and VVidti�s: Section 1 I04.02, Subd. 2b, as amended by Ordit�ance
590, sets the minimum R-2 zoned lot size at 12,500 square fee#. The minimum width for
R-2 lots is l00 feet.
c
0
P�avision oiEasements: Section 1203.04 requires that drainage and utility easements be
pravided in the event of property subdivisions.
Pai•k I)edieat6on �+'�eo Section 1204.02 requires that a park dedication fee be paid in an
amount equiva�ent to five percent (5%) of the land value of the property to he subdivided.
Att�c(artaer�ts:
Plaru�ing Application
Zoning Map
Certificate of Survey (�eparate Attachment)
��ck�round:
The applicant, Meiho Lee, is requesiing City approval of a minor subdivision to create two lots
from her property located at i690 / 7692 Silver Lake Road. The City's subdivision regulations
allow far approval of a surveyor's certificaie in these situations, however a more complex and
detailed full plat may be substituted. A copy of the surveyor's certificate showing the proposed
pla.t is attaclied. This property, located ai the southwest corner of County Road I and Silver Lake
I
Meiho Lee Minor Suhdivision
7690 / 7692 Silver Lalce Roac!
Planning Case No. 557-99
Ju�ne 16, 1999
Page 2
Road, currently has 202 %ei of frontage on County Itoad I and 101 feet along Silver lake Road.
There is a twin hame existing on the lot that takes access from Silver Lake Road. The applicant
proposes to split off an irregular portion of land from the west haif of the existing lot to create a
new, 12,500 square-foot lot with 102 feet of frontage on County Road L The remaining lot will
be 12,915 square feet wiih 100 feet of frontage on County Road I. The dimensions of both of
these iots, as shown on the survey, would meet the City's minimum requirements as specified in
ihe Chapter ll04 of the Zoning Code.
Anal�s�sa
Lot Ir•��gularities; As divided, the lot becomes quite irregular, departing fram the typical and
preferred rectangular subdivisiozl. The reason for the irregular split is due to additional right of
way on taken hy the County for Silver Lake Road improvements. Were it not for this additional
right of way, the lot could have been split in a more conventional nature. The alternative to this
irregular subdivision is the granting of a variance to allow for the creation of a non-conforming
�ot.
Drainag�e Corasiderations: The subject property, as well as the lot adjoining ta the south, are lova- `?;
Iying. In periods of heavy rains, the backyards fills with stormwater having nowhere ta drain. ''�
Staff has been advised that at times, the neighbor to the south pumps the stormwater out onto
County Road I. The proposed subdivision would in all Iikelihood increase the amount of
stormwater that coflects in the backyards. While the survey does show that the rear 30 feet of ihe
proposed iot would be reserved for drainage and utility purpases, staffwould require that extra
measures be undertaken io minimize any additional nanoffto the back yard area
Staff has sent a letter to the applicant and the surveyor requesting modifications to the survey io
make it confarm to City and County Piat standards. In addition, Siaf�has sent a copy of the
proposed plat to the City Attorney and the City Engineer for their comment and review. Last,
Staff has sent a copy of the proposed plat to Ramsey County for their comment. Any information
that comes to Iight prior to the Commission's meeting on June 16 will be presented verbally to tihe
Commission.
Park dedication: According to Section i204, 02 of the Municipai Code, every subdivision of Iand
within the City is subject to a park dedication fee. Because tl�e area to be subdivided is less than
one acre, the Code specifies that a five percent (5%) park dedication fee is required to be paid
before Lhe subdivision can be approved. Ramsey County assessor's records vaiue this property at
$27,500. l�ive percent of that ainount would be $1,375. �ubdivision 3 of this �ection, however,
allows for the exciusion of the land under the e�sting home remaining after the subdivision.
With this exciusion, the dedication req�airement would be reduced 51 percent to $673.75
:: � ; . . . .. : . .- :.. I ':
' ..:. : . '�'..
:: " .. ,_, . ..., . , . . _ '.'.. . .-. �.�'� i . :-:
Meiho Lee Minor Subdivision
7690 / 7692 Silver Lake Road
- Planning Case Na. 557-99
� June 16, 2999
Page 3
Reeor�meatdataat�:
�taffrecommends that the Ptanning Commission discuss tlus request and to direct staff'to draft a
resolutian of appraval or de�nial for action at the nexi Planrung Commission meeting based upon
detiberations ai the meeting on June 14th taking into consideration any additional information
brought forward by staff az the applicant not contained wit�un this report.
� �.: !i�-'1� ��-r� �/�rif.�( c���
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATAIGROUPS\COM1lEV1DEVCASES155'7-991METHQLEE.PCi
::
<. � �.0
�:.,:
�t �>;;'"� ( %`L �� � �3��i�P I�i'T I}EPA�2 �1'►', ..
-� I�E�T��P1�iIEl�d'T �P�.ICA'TI� ,
° �'�°�''ri� 2401 Htgh�ay 10,1VIounds View MlN 55112
•,m :i�:::, �s��.r
rnR��' ° Parrnersr�e° (� 2-% 1 i-°4�2�
b 12-784-346Z - FA�
�'lease 'Type or �rtnt Infotmation - Co�ple�e Bot�s S'sdes of'This �'oer� ,
App[�caat Ir�for�at�ore "J 1�` ±, ...
Name of Applicant �� �t U � �� Telephone t.�5 r � �{` (��, � �:����
I =�' �, , / ���
Address ���L:�xt l���G�a'1 lr� * iV . Fax
�'f 11.7�c � U�i �--v� __ !t-1 A� � �J—�
J
I��erest in I'roperty (check appropriate box)
� Owner of Property ❑ Contraci for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreemenc to Pwchase
❑ Other (expiain)
r�ppGc�ats �ust peowide evide�ce af iesterest � propee°i� at t5e ti�ae of appYecatiuee, aQd if you are no� the os�ner of tde
properiy, yots ��ast prov�ide a lei�er� oB peemtssio�t from the ow�et° givitag cooseat to �hs %Iing of ihis app(icalio�. '�he
prope� owr'er me�st sign tEeis a��nl�ca�io� for it to be acceptedo
�roperty Descs°iptioia/Praposal
Address or General Location
Legal 27escr.'ption
Property Identificatioe� # (PIN #)
# of Acres
Cucrent Zoning
iype of Application
❑ Comprehensive Ptan Amendment
❑ Rezoning
o Major Subdivisian
�/fvlinor Subdivision
Pianned Unit Development (PUD)
o PUD Amendment
Conditionat Use Pernut
Variance
Code Appeal
Q Develop Review/Site Plan
❑ Wet(ar�d Alteration Permit
❑ Wetland Bu.tiFer Pernvt
❑ Floodpiain Perrnit
❑ Other
$250
�250/acre; min $250 max $iSOQ
$250 + $250 deposit'�
$zoo
Refer to rezoning fees
�354
R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250
R-1, R-2 $100 aIl others $250
�100
$125/acre; min $125 ma�c $750
R-1, R-2 $ i 50; �lI others �200
R-i, R-2 $25; ait oihers $100
�240
��� �- ���� ;
r __ ;
�l�f�+� '
' f
j�'Ut�n��/ C;;u�i�y I
�,�i
*Deposiis shall be paid to cover aEl costs of public notices, materials and stat� or consultant time spent in tha review,
research or preparation of mater.iais �ssociated with this application. The appticant shall be responsible for ail reusonable
incurred costs in excess of the initiIIl deposiE amount. Any portion of the cteposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded
to the upplicant within tfiirty (30) days �er cansideration of the application is compE�ted.
�ie��e complet� �fse P�ve�� $ide c��flees �ppii�a�iono
City of �ilounds View, I�I�1
I�evelo ment t� lication p� � Z
Present Use of Propecty
o Undeveloped/Vacant t� Sing,�e Family Dweliing
� Dupiexii'wo Family DweiIing � Multi-family Dwelling
' C7 - Business/Comrr►eeciat Estableshment ❑ IndusYrial Estabiishment
c� Other (explain)
Property Classification
Description of ProQosal
� Abstract ❑ ro�ens
BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON 'iHI5 APPLiCATiON, i HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOW�,EDGE, TIIE INF'ORIvIATIUN PRUVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURAiE.
Signature o# Applican[ � yr /��
Name of Appiicant (typed/printed) �� � �-'�� � �"� ¢�
$ignAtttre of Psoperty Cwner
�;�.11i4' 4�trU�:�t;i�y vti il�: t jrz:3/���+n�jl
Address oi Owner
Phone Number of Owner
.._�
����� ��._-,l`.'���--� f-�r� ���-
?-! ` q� �
C.� 11'�. "1'� �: J �``-i
� °� `� Z� � � , .s���- r
�
" � �-�. �; �
��#����*���m����#��#*��m�*��*����m��w�*�����**���x�������**�*�����a�����x�*�w��x�r****x:�������a�x�����*��
lFOit OFFICE I75� O1�I'
Date of Submittal - •-�� �
Date of Aeceptar�ce Assigned to:
Planning Case No. 6�-day L:mit 120-day limit --
Fees Paid: Accotant # � Check # Receipt #�
Application: ��,�J . O� i v t.) ° .� �."� ��� / �
Park Dedication:
Deposits: � —
Other:
Total:
N:�DATAIGROUPS\CpMDEV�FORM51DEVr�PP.FOR � ��98
� J �e��
r83o ' 7e3s �e90 7ssi
7824 78Z5 7gg� 7879
78i � 7815 7870 7865
� 780 7860 7651
a�°o � 7850 � 7841
�
, .,,. ;__,,., :.:,.. 7�3 7821
� �n o
rn
N
( N
�
�
� N �
PC � a
' � �°�
N 79 �
791 `V
78�0 788
78fi0 78 '
7850 7821
a �' `r 7801
n°ii � c°DV 8Q
7791
oN°� aN`�'o 7786 7781
�a- -
°D 7960 i965 796b 7959
c4 "� Q
N 795 7955 7956 � 7949
7934• 7933 -
�ss�
7932
� rn
,o N c�v c�`v 7900 7901
HlLLV
N ti
�
1 N `1.1 s� �
� o
� f oa cp
� N � �°�
N
� ^�p ry^'`�
7750
-- - ---= 7768 7789 //�
-- �_ - _ - 7775 7758 7759 7770
- -- -- _- -- 774B 7749 7768 7767
-- :- - -_ - _ _ 7765 773 7739 7729
- � -- --� _ 7755 772 Q 772 7 •�� �
: ��, � - -- _ � 7729 �
P,�:. _ - -- - = --� 773
'i�'?�:,,, ...,,.;.::,:' .........::::::.: � 771 p 7719 771 7715 772
'��'�;:�,���,,,, rn Z � 771
" -..;'�;... - N 7710 Y �°
7709 77'� 771 'I N 770
- - : :i��l�:� __=- - �,
- ,
_ ' ' ' " _' o� %Fi92
-_ � 7686 7685 � 769 7685 C�f7690
�
p c°sv 7680 � 7g6g 7670 7663 � 768 �
N`° o 0 7fi7 7670 7fiB5 766� �
Q � � 766 � 3
7655 766fi 7647 7644
��3 7633 7664 7629 �fi��- 7635
762 7629 7620 7625 7s20,.
76� 7627 76Q0 7619 7fi00 760]
760
758 7581 758 7585 7594 7575 ,
7579 7588
7564 7565 O 756a.. 758 Q 7565
7555 7�� � 7555 7572 � �m� �
754fi � w 7555 7552 J
7545 755 �p 7545 756Q p 755� �y
7538 � 7546 Y 7515 ��4� 7542
7540 .
� M a � 750 N N 7500 m N N � �2 7532
���
�:''�:: '!.
�—� �`
� _ t7lf iP9-��.:�. . �
SILVER V1EW
PARK
�
Zoning Map Plarllning Cas� 557-99
Applicant: Meiho L��
Location: 7690-7692Silv�r Lake Road
�
i
�ItOCEEDII�IGS OF 'I`�E 1VI��l�S VIE� PI,AI�tING COl�li�iI55I01�
CI'TI' Ok�' I'�dOiJI�1I�S �1IEi�
� �� �oL'AlVA45L' � ���JA 7��g 1V1ll1�LC&.` �y���
I�eg�9ar° Ii�Cetii��
June 2,1999
I�ou�ds��''w Cei� �-Iail
240I ffffighwaay 14, I�'�a�x�c�� �'Y �, Id1I� 55112
�.
���� <_ � a_
1. Catl to 4rder ' `
Ez�`j _ �
The �neeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterso�i ai
2o Ral( Call
;
Members Present: Chairperson Pe#erson, Commissioners
Kaden, Lauhe, Miiier, and Stevenson.
�
Members Absent: None. . � °
� •
,� : `;.
Aiso Present: Planning Associate Jim Eti son, Co -, �,uut�� I
Recorders Carla WirFh and Trish P,e �'
,.,..
��• �� ��
I�adex �01Vlinutes � f _,����
Property (� vv
setback for a
Planning C�
553 3�6 �'a��kvi�
�zlsidera�it�n c�#�,a �ari
sc��on porch
`
.
555-99_ '7623-762�'"�G
rental dwelli
rts / Items o
�3
June 2y�1��)9, ,� ��;� �
�t�.�fheri, Hegland, Johnson,
Direcior Ricic Joplce, and
srxacc, Mike & Sandy Leon,
request for a reduced side yard
oodlawn Drive, PMJ Group {Mike Juaire),
nC review request for a four-unit
CJ��ir}?et•son and P�,, ;'ng Commissioners Reports
, 3 -,._r.:._ ' _
� ,
3; �''it��i�s' itequests a�d Coa�►an��ts on Iiean� I�ot o�a the Agea�da
There were no citizen requests or comments an items nat on the agenda.
4. A����val �f I�Ii�i��es
I'age
r�
3
9
12
iVlo�t�ds Vaevv I'lannimg Co�nr�aission
ite�ulaa° Il�eetia��
Aa 1VIay �,1999
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden to apprave the May 5, 1999 meeting minutes
Ayes — 9 Nays — 0
5e Plannin� Case I�1o. �53-99
Properly Invoived: 7386 Parkview Terrace
Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side y
Applicant: Mike & Sandy Leon ,
The applicant was present.
Plamning Associate Ericson gave the staff;��port as
The applicants, Mike az�d Sandy L�
setback established far principai hi
exisiing 10 x 12 square-foot decl�
same locaiion ;,� "I'h� deck, w�iicli h�
narth szde ta� �hc �i-opez t� °I'lic su;
��= ��� �
home de��lc��7izient:at tl�c ntirthea
9,150 square f.`eet an sti'ea. T11is r�;
and after mucli ,dtsct����on, stafi
addressing���;�;����ie �t��axd cr
Jur�� 2, �999
Page 2
oz• a three-season porch
���°�� requ .�g a vari "��e from the required ten-foot side yard
� ings an��ng sp ��, herein. They would lilce to replace azi
�i�h a il�iec season 11��ng s�ace addition of fhe same size in the
existed su�ce tltc cc�nstruction of the house, is five feet from the
ect pro�e�-iy,'ts located in the Silver Lake Woods single family
co��aler of County Road H2 and Silver Lake Raad, and is only
���t i��as first heard at the May 19, 1999 Com�nission meeting,
���s directed to explore in greater detaii possible language
.,r��'for gxaniing a variance.
Erics ��� oted the seven C��te��xa `established for consideration of a variance which proves a hardship,
stat' � that a variance mdy�on,ly be granted in those cases where #he Code imposes undue hardship
o�; �;�etical difficulties `"ociated with the property which makes a Iiteral interpretation of the Code
o�er��; burdensome or.,:, �trictive to a property owner. Ericson stated that it appeared to staff that in
x��t�4 �a�e a hardsh�, ���es exist, and recommended ihat, if the Planning Commission concurred, a
t�aiian�e cc�u1� b``d' ranted to allow the applicants io construct a living space addi#ion five feet from
th��n�lth;:}�ro��crty line. He stated thai based upon the discussion at fhe last Commissian meeting,
staff iia �'-drafted language that relat�d to the crit�ria in Resolution 579-99, a resolution which
approves the Leons' variance request. He stated that he had received conespondence from adjacent
property owners who indicated theii• support for the project. He noted that the date of adopfion of
the Resolution, Iisted on Page 3, should be amended to the present date.
IVlorands �Iie� Planreing Comtnissaor�
�egealar I�Iee#ireg
J�r�e 2,1999
Page 3
Commissioner Kaden aslced if a permit would be required should the applicant wish to turn the porch
into a living space in the future. Ericson stated the resolution is drafted to indicate "iiving space"
since the Code provisions consider the porch to be a living space expansian. �� �
�'�� . . . ,��� ^�
Chair Peterson noted that the case number on Page 5 af the ResQ�lution was incorrect, and stated that
it should be changed to 553-99. ��� �. .
Commzssianer Miller stated fhat Item i of the R
supported ihe project as "the neighbor to the north."
Cammissioner Kaden asked if the neighbors to the north i�f
using the three-season porch as addi#ional living space.�,<r� ;
1Vrii�e I,eon, the applicant, stated they were aware
MOTION/SECOND: Jollt�son/Berke, to
from Section 1104.01, Subd. 3, of ti�e M
for a Reduced Side-Yard Setback for a
4'��
View Platu�ing Case No. 553-99, as `"" ,�
atu i
2, 1999, to correct fhe case num��,�'�'�
neighbar referred to in Item 7 as��ie ne
6. Plan�����
���
s View ���nin
; Spa�xpat
to � =�ange the
` to Case,��,
�, � r�- °
or to thc no�
��
N'avs °->()
Secn
tilat the applicants planned on
�ol�stniction plans.
�3:,�99, ttesa�5��tion 1�pproving a Vaxiance
�-�a.
C:od�,.T'e'r�au�i�zg to Setbacks, to Allow
tcii� at 7386 Parkview Terrace; Mounds
�te of adoption stated on Page 3 to Jzane
i. 553-99, and ta identify the adjacent
,�
The motion carried.
Property��a��olved: 7G?3 7�i2� Woadlawn Drive
�� �y
Cons ��at�on of a deve7n�ni�r�t rcview request for a four-unit residentiai rental dwelling
Ap °:-ant: PMJ Graup {Mi�C�'7uaire)
��y
r ,., c� ;x �'�'
� ., --
T 11� � � licant was _���eni.
��?..
F
Plani�iz�� Assti iai� Eri�son gave the staff report as follows:
The applicant, Mike Juaire, representing PMJ Group, had requested approvai af a deveiopzxk�nt
review for the four-plex to be located at 7623 — 7629 Woodlawn Drive, currenily vacant property.
The applicant had purchased this lot and the adjaining formerly tax-farfeited property �o the east,
and plans on developing both with four-unit dwellxngs. The eievations provided for the four-plex
IVlou�ds �Iiew PLan�►�n� Com�►ission 3une 2, 1999
Regular I�eeti�g Pa�e 4
s11ow a simple, four-unit back-to-bacic building with no axchitectural features to break the building's
unzxzterrupted straight lines. The front elevation shows four windows, four garage doors and four
en�ryways. The side elevations do not show any windows, while rear eievation show ,.,'` ee windows
per unit. ��, , a �
Ericson reviewed the site plan and eaplained what each
is flat with Iittle, if any, eievation change from one end to
a preliminary drainage plan for tl�e four-plex, and has fo
other mitigating factors. He stated that there are three
complex to the west of the subject propei�ty, which
applicant's property. He stated �hat this runmoff causes p�
the applicani's properiy. Ericson stated that one optio
minor grading, the properiy couid utilize the catch basiri�
be established to carry run-off into the City stoizn ��c
easexnent for the storm sewer, and suggested t�i�t a�fi�Yt
storm water xun-off Ericson stated that
the adjacent property owner in an effort
thai the W�odlawn Terrace Apartmen
�;
property. He stated that because m�:
solution will be achieved.
Ericson stated that, at this
rock for landscp,�ing ptup'o
the fina��slte pl�t i�i, a, qua
City.
Ericson
exterior =;'-�aranc� ot
ihey a� � � ��t ground level
be ; - xterior light bet�
tha �'__: exteriar Iighting
exist,
�v „
_�� ��esent �; � i e,x.pla�ne � at the sfte
�th�er. He�stated that staf�has revie e��
,
it would�b"e sufficient it` t�ie�G v,�c�e no
���
-plexe�� `to the no�tli =at�d ari apartinent
;',extensive runwof� flowii�g' onto the
i� and''accumulation of starm water on
fhe drainage issue would be that with
�uiity Road I; atid a right-of-way could
He stateci that:the applicant has no
�� easement �a��granted to faeilitate the
c�iscussion between the applicant and
;e issues; and another option might be
ert,_tl�eir run-off from the applicant's
:aff feels confident that an acceptable -
nothing more than sod and decozative
t1�a� staff reconunends that specific plantings be shown on
ity ihat would be acceptable to both the appiicant arzd the
ad;�ug�;esied s��me simple changes which could be utilized to improve the
e development. First, he suggested that the eniryways be moved so that
�d 112at 1:h�y be protected by some type of overhang. Second, there should
w�i�`e�ac�h entryway and garage for safety and security purposes. He stated
�hown in the site plan at this time. Third, with the Iawered entryway, there
be sufficient r.�iii for a second window for each unii, perhaps in the foyer area. Last, the
ays far #he ,en�nits could be moved so that access is taken from the sides of the building
.h�n th�r:frc��i� Ericson siated that these chan�es, and any others proposed by ihe Planning
E�Sio�x; "�I�c�Li1d be incor�oraied into the site plans for f nal approval by the City Council.
Ericson stated that there were considerations to be taken in regard to the parking situation. He stated
�liat the third unit to the north cauld not park in front of the garage as ihere was not enaugh room.
He stated that the applicant could possibly provide on-site paxldng elsewhere, and tliough this was
not a desirable sitraation, it could be acceptable if the tenanis were made aware of this r�striction.
Secondiy, he stated, Yhere does not appear ta be sufficient area for bacicing out of the complex. He
1�Iounds Vie�v Plareni�g Coin�is�ion
l�eg�la�° IVleeteng
Ju�� 2, 1999
Page 5
stated that all four ur�its would have to exit #he property in reverse, wluch could be a safety concern.
He stated that these issues would be addressed a�id sfiaff believed there were means to resoive them.
Ericson t•eferred to the Certificate af Survey, on-site plans, and a grap
areas of the Woodlawn Terrace Apartment complex encroac :; upon tl
southern end, toward Woodlawn Drive. He stated that Wo �_'� ��,;� Teri
, �� .��
1ot cross the lot line, which is in violation of the City Co� _�� ��e stated
with the owner of the apartxnent complex to discuss this a�;��other issue;
of the four-plex. �� _ �
Ericson stated thai there were water and sewer lines in UJ
the site. Thexe are ten-foot drainage and utility easemer
which will more than likeIy serve as drainage areas foi��
be consulting with th� City Attorney regarding a�ive�fn
along the east lot line between the two vacant prca�erties #r
that the Cit t icall re uires that an ease �
Y Yp Y q �n 'f�l�e d�d�
easement would no� be privately owned-� reta�i���i l
deveioper could be required to maint � the ea ' eni
discussion with the City At�orney. _
Ericson summarized the issue
of the development review,fc
�
Mike J�i�i� �, appiic;�cnt, statc�
stipulation a�tl�c Rcsolution.
Commissioner����lanc� a5k�d
northern : , �t unzt. `� . � �`
1VIi � uaire stated that �t w�s;
� ;..
cQ ;`,. ` of the site, but th,�la�
to tti�rr lease.
it'tl�e
.ting thai two
°rty, near the
- and parlcing
�4.
d be meet' ``�
dl�wri i�rive so utilities are avaiiable to
ori il�e �ropert��'s north and west sides
de� elppinent`„��e stated that l�e would
side yar�,ciraina�� and utility easexnent
rovicte for additic�i�al drainage. He stated
te� %r th���,'purpose. He noted that the
t�e Citv ��; � Ie stated, however, that the
ic� :th�t tliis would be addressed in his
a resolution recommending approval
subri�itted the site plan chan�es as set forth in the second
contained anything to address the parlcing situation on the
�iy intention to create two additional paricing spaces in the northeast
had not yet been redxawn.
��stated Y1ie end parking spaces will eliminate the back out movement. He
isidering putting up signs and striping a no-parking zone in an attempt to
of congestion. They will also have separate operatin� procedures as an adjunct
Coriunissioner Miller asked about the compositian of the exterior of the buiiding. Mike 3uaire stated
that it was caza�prised of maintenanc�-free siding and steel doors.
Chair Peterson aslced if the building location on the lot could be adjusted.
�
li�oune�s V�ev+� PI��araira� Co�xrn�ssior�
�teguiar I�eeting
.�ua�e 291999
Pag� 6
Ericson stated that it could not, but the l�uilding itseif cauld be wider, explainzng that there was a 20
foot setback to the west. He stated, however, that ihis would not increase the function of the paricing
area or the building itself. �"
��.,.
�
�� ��
Chair Peterson asked if there were plans to develop the second�lot in ihe iu'ture Ivlike Juaire stated
they were preparing paperwork which would be submit shQ� �
A ��
Ericson stated that the lot was relatively flat but with a c
providing channels and swafes, and given the sandy con
the property would drain but may result in standing wa
�unds Vie��v SUils,;he.li�1'ie
period of tinie (�ti hour).
__
Commissioner Kaden asked about the exterior lighting�VV�ii"ch, Iie n�t��i; was ilot indicated in the
building plan revision. Mi%e Juaire stated that there was �xistin�'cxfet�io� 1ig1��i�1g for each entryway,
and that floodiighting was planned for the bacic of il��'siructure �
{
Ericson stated that plan will need to be sub �c1 prio� ta Cc�uncil cot�sideY•afion.
� � : ":�
�� l i :
Coxxuxaissioner Braathen requested clarif��ation of�,ow thcy �lann�,d�io d'rvert the water tun-off. He
asked if it would drain onto County,��,��d I, and���'so, where�from that point.
Ericson stated that the driveway
diverted fronx the existing b�ilcii,
��.,
and that ,�. �a�cir; �ortion cif ,5�c�r
��.
stated lchat`�Ze 1x�d spqlcen to Ft�3�1
oftheten �iictitiz•ai��a�?e nia�e��ve
planried t�;ap'�ace a par
stated that
��
;� ld be b�i ��t,� to i���.�f the water to remain on the property, or
to the v�e t~�,��e; �d that the voiume of run-off was mirumal
� � �.`,� �.. �
��-ater w ul��� absorbed before reaching County Raad I. He
4�Ioxlcs Director Ulrieh who agreed, and stated that the utilization
i, �ut�iciently accommodate the run-ofF.
;'�
..:.
i�'i�vas allowed on Woodlawn Drive. He stated that the appiicant
� the souih side, and asked if there would be room for visitor
parking was restricted on one side of Woodlawn Drive.
siated th�at �pplicant was required to provide only 2.5 parking spaces per unit, and was
as�d i� ����ide visitor parking. He agreed this level of parking may noi be sufficient for an
us�.�v�nt but visitors could park on the street prior to 2 a.m.
Commissianer Stevenson stated that he is not satisfied with ihe landscaping plan and would lilce the
site plan reviewed by the City Forester for additional piantings and landscaping design. He stated
that it should be specified that some of the gr�en area on the site �ian contain plantings.
IVlflunds �1�ew Plann6r�g Corr►mission
' Re��iar �eeting
.�une 2,1999
Page 7
Ericson stated that th� City Forester could make suggestions on specific species that thrive best in
Mounds View soils but further direction should be provided.
Chair Peterson suggested requiring one tree per unit arad possibly some��w ma��i�enance sl�rubs
along the foundation. �, f-�: .
Commissioner Sievenson added that plantings couid be ;,��ed on each; ct�il�ci of tla�
encourage slower traffic. � � ,���u
Ericsonagreed, stating tkxe property manager of Woodlav;m I'�rr�.ce has indicated thcre.�are�pr4blems
with vehicles running over the edge of the property so, pethaps, IandsG�pe plantings will indicafie
to the driver the demarcation of the property line and entr,��ce points. Hc suggested staff be allowed
to revzew and approve the landscape plan prior to City�'�ou�icil consideration.
Commissioner Hegland asked abou� plans for sz�ov�reniov�I: Bill Jua�re �tated that ihey have o�her
units and plan to coniract with the same fixm �`rcmc�ve snow anci pla�,ce�it between the drives and
to the west. The sidewalks wouid be cie � y indi�iidual� , I�e�1��d'aslced if the residents would
�
be it�formed to move their cars. Mr Ju �_ e stated�`�ia� th�v v�nulr� be.
Chair Peterson asked if the applic �`�':'�ned o�I�er pioper�i��s similar to this four-plex development
project. Bill Juaire stated that t��-�r own an apal-tnlc,nt ��� plex in Columbia Heights and a newly
,� �� �
rebuilt side by-side duple� iii �t���ey. ; �
,
�.
Conums��t�iie� I:;au�c aslced z� rhere�;�v�uld be plastic or drain tile under the landscaping. BiII Juaire
stated that tlley�plan:,l:c� instal� di�aiii tile,and a sump pump to alleviate the accumuiation of water
under the concr�;t� sl��', �Ie staied ��liat he��"'elieved oue sump pump per unit would be sufiicient for
that t�urpose. � �,� , _ ��� .�.� `;
Chair���rson aslced if adjacentpr�perty own�rs had the same problems with water rundoff. Ericson
stat "v at the owners of �,434�a1�d 2432 Woodlawn Drive had installed a storm sewer which would
be e- t all of the properi���owners. Chair Peierson stated that this would be a good oppoi`tunity for
aiI �roperty owners to��rticipate in resolving the nu�-off problems.
,
; �
�3tIl Juairc. state���at he was attempting to learn nnore abdut the drainage situation, and had
dis�u�sed;thc matter with City Engineer Hess.
Braathen stated that there should be consideration not ta jeopardize other properties. He added that
the Rice Creek Watershed District wauld be concezned with possible liability. Ericson stated that
the surrounding buildings were sufficiently protected from run-off. He stated that staff believes the
four-plexes located to the �orth vvould not be impacted by the drainage plan, no#ing that ihe run�off
originated from their property. He added that the plans could address this issue.
,;
1V���nds Vie�v Planr►in� Cotnrr►a�s�ori
Reg�a��r I�eetin�
�ua�e 2,1999
Pag� �
Kaden asked who would pay for the drainage improvements. Ericson stated that the applicant would
be responsible for the cost of the improvements, and possibly the other in�proved pro�erty owners.
Chair Peterson asked about the warranty for the drainage plan. Ericson ��ied tli���`�Ehere would be
� ,�,
a warranty period to cover repairs should they be needed. In the future,�x ��i'rs vi�buld be the City's
responsibility which, in his opinion, would be desirable to,���te ownerSliip .\>,
�.,.
Miiler asked about entrances for emergency vehicles. :
and vehicles could ingress and e�ress wiihout difficulty.
to insure access. Miiler asked where the fire hydrant
located at the sou#hern corner of the lot.
Hegland aslced why there appeared to be a rush to
he had been working with the applicant for two m
to the developer that ihey would be required to �;
was attempting ta rminimize the impact to th���;
��
added that if the Planning Commission ��s not
time, they cpuld hold the matter over ur�i��� the ne
Kaden aslced what guarantees the
recommendation to the City Cou
staff would l�rin� it forward=��,.t1�
Heglanc�`��
add�tional
Braathen re u��
2 of the R rv�iYuti
City _ ineer."
�equested the
tl�
it the lots wcre sniall �.iiough
Bill Juaire sta�ec�'�tliat it was
this a�pliv��iioz�;., F,ricson explained that
ring which tit�nc,it;was not made lcnown
ce,ihe City`�`ouu�il. He stated that staff
fc�,`no� add��ssing the matteY ea7rlier. He
ble��wiil�;adontin� the Resolution at this
;��i��inents�'ouid be m� if the Planning CQmmission made their
� to appxavc ,.hric ,o'��tatect that if the conditions were not met,
�:�
next Counc.il`rneetz�i� and recammend deniai.
2.e, to address revisions to the parking Iot and providing
ic� language regarding the drainage plaii. Ericson staied that Page
.e finai drainage plan will be submitted and wili be approved by the
" in Item 4 of the Resolution be omitted.
if th�: �uage pertaining to the landscaping was suffzcient. Ericson stated that staff
�� Q
�-tli� Jai�guage based upon the discussion, but he believed it was sufficient.
Cha�r�p�terso�n requ�sted that Condition 1 of ihe Resolution include the statement "approved by City
staff and the City Forester."
Hegland r�quested the addition on the plan of standard, to�scale, vehicle autlines to indicate the
amount of room available in th� parking spaces. Ericson s�ated staff wiil assure parlcing spaces are
in accordance with the City Code.
;�
l�ou�ads �Tie� Pia�ne�g Ca�►�nis��o�
R.egular 1V�eetin�
Stevenson asked if the Comznissianers were comfortable with voting at this time,
Miller noted fhat at other times when all items were no# as requested, the Co
the matter be brought bacic at �he next meeting. �'
Chair Peterson stated that although he would prefer two
this time.
Kaden stated that he would feel comfortable voting at t�
He asked when the Resolutian was set to go before the i
Ericson stated that it was set to go before the Councii at
Chair Peterson asked if staff could prepare the
Cominissioners far review prior to the Council z��E
then go before the Cauncii and address any item��i�
wouid suhmit the plans to the Commissione���oi�
MOTION/�ECOND: Stevenson/IV�iIIe�Y" ta
Resolution Recammending Approval of' a Df
'���1 Residential Dwelling Located at,762� �'_� i62�
s#ipulatians as amended and mod�'ed. �`�
6a
Sta�f'
❑1
��l�T�;�"���*w �a��c,.'T�-ail Pavia�g Plan
kr.... �._ ... :.. ..:.. ... .....
.���� 2,1999
Page 9
asked that
hc'r,ould act'u�on the matter at
��
�A
��� ������
r11 of the st���ulat�oils wexe met.
il.
mc;etin� on June 1 �.
ani� ?��ibiiiik. �he finai draft to the
en ac�cied that'Cornmissioners could
as raquested`: Ericson stated that he
`:�axior t��tlie Council Meetzng.
, . (�c�`inmission Resolution 5 80-99,
ew for a Four-Unit Multiple Family
ve; Planning Case No. 55-999, witl�
The motion carried.
Co ��issioner Stevensot� siatecl that he had attended the last meeting of the Parlcs and Recreation
C.;, ,u ,,,; ittee where discu�s�on took place in regard to the trail surrounding the Silverview Pond. He
staterl that for severa .: ars, there had been consideration of paving the trail, which is at this time
�c�r��priseci of woo 'ps. He stated that there was unanimous support for the proposed paving
pr�jec�t ����o�e -� neighborhood residents. He stated that the project would require sorrxe
e���tneeriii� cka�iiges, but would run along ihe current wood chip trail. Steven�on stated that some
of tlie i•csi��ents on the north end of the pond ha.d voiced concems about the boggy nature of the east
side of the pond. He stated that there were also inquiries regarding ihe construction of a bridge on
Long Lake. He added thai the constructior� oithe bridge would not talce place at this time due to the
need for time-consuming engineering work.
IVlounds View Plann�mg Camrnfssion
�egular I�Ieetfn�
Ju�e 2, 1999
P�ge 10
Communiiy Development Director Joplce sfiated that formal action was not req�ired at ti�is tizne, and
he would relay the comments and concerns of the Commission to the City Council.
�� �
Stevenson staied that a portion of the fitnds used for �aving the trail w�uld c¢��' from the park
dedication fees paid by the theater. ,,� __,''�
Co�nmissioner Berke stated fihat he had heard that funds
project several years prior, but the City had spent the fu
�tevenson stated th�t he has served on the Parlc
comment.
ovrdeci by_ a�cicveloper for tl�s
F�'�.: �.���'
x��� � �.��
�, <�.
12 years and rievei�. lieard thafi
� , : ,. ,
Sievenson stated fihat the maintenance requirements�'w'ould be ILSSe�1�d for the bIacktop trail,
explaining tihat the existing wood chips required hi�lier maintenaii�e. ��� stated that the issue of
snow removal was discussed at the meeting, a�d that`t�1e paviti� wo�ld.not facilitate large snow
removal equipment. I�e stated that he was i��vor�of���oceedi�t�g w�t��-the project.
Coznmissioner Kaden asked if any of th�s'°�€sidents ��`th �raper�y ne�t to the �rail had objected to the
paving project. He noted thaf incre�`���traffic �d activit ;rnigh� be cause far concern regarding
�,.,
loitering and crime. '` � �T�`
r ;,i �f( � �
Delbbie .To�xnsdr�, 7405 Parltv�er�`s�7rive, stat�c�-'h�x ho4ne is located on the south side and adjacent
fo tlne po�7d Sh;� stated t�fat.she l�ad, heard only,�?U�ifive feedback from the other residenis in regard
to the pr�j�c� :����e�stated that� �h� lielieved the occurrence of crime mighi actually be decreased by
the increased�achvl�,y ��;�he note� �i�at �lie�existing wood chips are diff�cult to walk or ride a bicycle
.�
on. _ , � - .. �
Kaden as�����iiilie restdeazls:a�c�epted the ideathe paved trail would not be plowed in the winter.
Comnl�sianer Johnson st�ticd th�� there was a mixed zeaction among the residents in this area.
issioner Braathen:�ked if the proposed paving would be blacktop, explaining that blacktop
facilitate a fas �� snow melt. Jopke stated that the trails would be paved with blacktop.
�n asked if�;�e was access to the trails, other than the resident's properties.
5�: stated that there was an access on Long Lake Road, from County Road H2, at the
th� pond.
Conunissioner Miller asked how long the project would take to complete. Sievenson stated that he
did not know.
IVlo�rnd� Vievv Plar►r��ng Co�n�ni�sio�e
l�egular I�I��ting
.�une 2, 1999
Page 11
Chair Peterson asked where the proposed bridge would be located. Ms. Johnson siated that she
believed it would be located ai the narrows af the pond.
��
F ����
Chair Peterson stated that the paving would be a benefit to tl�e ne�glzb�rh�oc��d would help
encourage a higher standard of mainienance which was in the.:;best intea��:st o� ilie� park.
-�
�� d s`�
Commissioner Johnson stated that he agreed. }�M f �, .� ��
�
.� � � ��
Kaden stated that eleven community xnembers had
MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Hegland to support u�
remainder of the trail that su�ounds Silverview Pond.
:'
Ayes — 9
Pr°evfous Coancil
Community Development �
= May 24. He stated that there
and a Resolution of Comr��e
stated that ;dzscussion wa�;
Energy/IY1mne�;ascay wh�vv
Jopke stated �l�at at t1i�,EDA �
6991 Pleasatit �r�e��� Iati�ve tc� l�
by the City �� fut��te redevetc
the nro�.e� located `at 222_`
to
and they werc
3 wi�h the red�
N
,-:�.
their su�i�ort forth� ti�'orect.
, -::
�-- �ark dedication funds to pave the
'Che ni�lion carried.
���pI�e repo n;�d on Crt �` ouncil action from their meeting on
.��� �
� entat� aof certif ��es for tlie Girl Scout Award recipients
��was prese�ted tc� .���ired firefighter, Timothy C. Hawley. He
in rega�d t�i_ ai��: a�ditional franchise agreement for Reiiant
ucstingkio �co�iduct business within the City of Mounds View.
ing, a�?;��blic hearing was held %r the sale of properly located at
�t� Buil�crs, Ine. He stated that this property had been purchased
�nt ��Ie staied �liat the Ciiy had expressed the desire to purchase
llview Road for participation in the Honsing Redevelopment
the possibility of using CDBG or Habitat for Humanity fiinding
�t project.
stated he will b�,�out of town next Wednesday and aslced that #he study session be canceled.
EricSC��z adv2s��'� � Focus wili advertise the Miracle Farm Market's produce stand wi�ich has
op�r�t��'�fro.t��he Mounds View Square parking lot and will l�e adclressed via a SUP. This
�onsic�er�tion will be on the June lb meeting agenda.
Ericson stated that he would be attending the Focus 2000 meeting an Thursday, and �hat the first
item on the agenda would be t11e discussion of a minor subdi�vision located at Silver Lake IZoad and
Couniy Road I. He stated that this was the propased subdivision of a 20-26,000 square foofi Iot into
1Vloureds �Tyevv �ianning Coanmissior� Juue 291999
lZ�gula�° IVieeting p�g� �� .
12,500 square foot iots, and that he would bring the discussion forward at the i�ext Comrnission
meeting on June 16.
7. Ckaairperson and �ian�i�a$ C�mmission�rs IZepo�°i
Commissioners Braathen and Stevenson stated that they
of the Pianning Commission.
No other reports were cansidered.
�. Adjo�rnm�nt
� att�nd _the next
< _
There bei�ig no further business befare the Planning r�mmfstiic�n,_ Chaii�,Peterson adjourned the
meeting at 9:04 p.m. \`
(The meeting imtnediately
Respectfuily submitted,
da
;
�O�tI)� �EW PI�AI�Ii�dG CO1�1ViISSI01�
�3LY 21, 1999
7.U0 i'.IVI.
REGULAR. M�ETING
AGENI3A
Call io Order
2, Roll Call .
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
..
' 1; "' , � ,,,�,.
� �
1 �'; 1 1 :1'. . � -_ �. .
4. Approve Minutes:
a. June 16, 1999
5. Planning Cas� l�do. �6�-99
Property Involved: 2975 Highway 10 (srte formerly lrnown as Quik Lube)
Consideratton of Resolution 586-99, a resolution recommending approval of a
conditional use permit to operate an autorrtobile rental agency
Applicant: A Macfrugal Company (Thrifty Car Renfia])
6, Piaa��aing C�se No, Sb3-99
Property Involved: 8059 Red Oak Drive
Consideratio� of Resolutian 588-99, a�•esolution recommending approval of a
conditional use pernut for an oversized garage
Applicant: Allen & Joy Dick
= 7. Pl�nnin Case I�oo 564-99
Property�nvolved: 2732 Highway 10
Consideration of Resolutior� 589-99, a re�olution recommending approval of a
conditional use pemut to a11ow for an outdoor �roduce stand at the �Ioliday
Stationstore
Applicant: Chuck Durand
Planndn Case No. 559-99
Property�volved: 2670 County Road I
Discussion concerning applicahon to rezone property and far a eonditional use pernut
for an assisted living seruor residential facility �
Applicant: MSP Rea1 Estate
9, Speciai Plaa�ning Case l�o. SP-071-99
Consideration of proposed ordinances amending Chapter 100� of the Niounds `Iiew
Municipai Code pertaining to Billboards az�d amend�ng the Code partaining to signage
iri the PF and CRP zoning distncts.
10. Staff Reports / Items of Information
a. Previous Cour►cil Action
11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
12. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
{Imrraediately Following Regular Meeting)
�k �k �k �k �I' �k �k �k � �k �k �k �A �k �k �N �k �k �'F �k �k �Y �k %k �'F �k % �k �k yF �k �'F * �k �k �k * '� �F YR
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THi� MEETING IS
I�EQUESTED, PLEASE NOTIF`�' COIV[IVIUlVi'I"Y DEVELOPNiENT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANI� �'OU.
��������u����*�����*�����������������a���
AGENDA �ESSION
AGENDA
Review Minutes -- July 7, 1999
N:IDATAIGROUPS\COMDEVIPLANCOMMIPCAGEN �A\1999\7-21-99.REG
'�
,
• �, ; � • � .: � � �; �, .
I1��e��n�� Date:
�taf� Repor� by:
Plae�r�in� Case l�aa
I2eques�:
Peiitjonea°o
Locaiiono
�"�' �1'���_ �_ _i�
Zore'r�a�/I��nc! i7se:
July 21, 1999
James Ericson, Plar�ning Associate
562m99
Conditional Use Permit io operate an auto rental operation
Thrifiy Car Rental (A Macfrugal Conipany)
2975 Highway 10 (�ormer location of Quik Lube)
06-30-23-23a004S
B-3, Highway Business / Former Quik Lube Business
At�aeh�raer�ts: Planning Applicaiion
Zoning Map
Locatior� Map
E�sting Site Plan
Proposed Site Plan, daie-stamped 7/15/99
Resolution 586-99
�ack��oeand:
The applicant, Thrifty Car Rental, is seeking a conditional use permit to operate an auto rentai
business at the property most recently uti(ized by Spots Quik Lube. As an accessory to the
principal rental operation, the applicant requests that they be allowed to sell rental vehicles from the
site as well. The applicant anticipates that there wou[d be no more than ten cars on the premises at
any time, whether they be for rent or sale. The applicant indicates that ihe proposed hours af
busirness would be from 7:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m, Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 4:00
p,m, on Saturdays, and from 10;00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Sundays. Other than repainting ihe
buiIding and installing company signage, there are no plans to alter the building
Thi� item was discussed at the Comnussion's meeting on July 7, and the applicant indicated that
they would iike to expand the parking lot to accomrr�odate additional vehicles. A site plan is
attached date-stamped 7/15/99 which shows the area for expansion as well as an area set aside for
snow s�orage. Also discussed at that meeting was the need for landscaping improvements, which
the applicant had indicaied would be accep�able, though no specific plans have been submitted for
this. �taf�'will visit the property prior to ihe m:eeting on July 21 and wiil make specific
recommendations in this regard.
Last, because oithe parking lot expansion, staff sent a copy of the proposal to the City Engineer to
review possible impacts of the additional run off. Currentiy there are two catch basins that divert
stormwater nan off to the Highway 10 drainage ditch. it is expected that the addiiional impervious
surface will increase the flow, but not in any signif cani volume to warrani further improvements.
�taff wiil orally present the City Engineer's opinion at the meeting.
Thriffiy Car Renta!
2975 Nighway 90
July 21, 9 999
Page 2
r��aly��so
Section 1114.04, Subd. 5 of the City Code requires that a conditional use permit be issued for uses
such as that proposed by the applicant . Specifically, it states that "Open or outdoor service, sale
and rental as a principal or accessory use and including sales in or from rnotorized vehicles, trailers
or wagoz�s requires a Conditional Use Permit." T}�e primary functio�� of the proposed business is
the renting of automobiles, with an accessory use of sale of said rental vehicles. Because of the
restrictions placed upon auto sales operations, the extent of Thrifty's auto sales may not exceed 30
percent of i�s gross floor area which translates into no more than three vehicles. This iacation has a
iong history af autornotive uses, and the proposed use would not be inconsisteni wiih the previous
uses. The zoning oithe property is commercial although the coinprehensive plan indicates a low
dens�iy residential designation. Because of the long�standing commercial history at this location
and the impending revision to the comprehensive plan which could redesignate this parcel to a
commercial use, stafffeels that ihe inconsistency with the comprehensive plan could be te►nporary.
Cr�te�ia:
The conditions placed upon rentai businesses, as stated in Section 1 l 14.04, Subd. S of ihe City
Code, were listed in the previous siaff report and are now present in the proposed resolution of
approval. In addition io the addressed CUP conditions and the adverse a.Pfects requirements, the >,
Code also requires that certain findings o� fact be addressed in the granting of any conditional use �'
permit. These criteria appeared in the previous staff report as well and are now listed in the
resolution of approval.
Recorr►mendatea�:
Staf�is recommencling that the Planning Commission discuss this proposal and take action on
Resolution 586-99, a resolution recommending approvai of an auta rental operation at 29'7S
Highway 14 for Thrifty Car Rental, with stipulations and any amendments the Commission feels
necessary.
�1 G���i G%�? v�-8�.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N;IDATA\GROUPS\Cpi4IDEV�DEVCASES1562-99\THRIFTY. PC2
� . �,;
���„ ;>�
. �:; j °;., ; � t:' ;
`,,
:. J �.J�t��i�•,
� -�
. � ��1::.yH.tw
a� ::I? :;��(
Pn���d ° Partneash�4b
7
�
` w�
�� � � � � ! ' � ; ':1 �,! '> : ' �;
DE�+ I.OPMEI�T A��I�ICAT`It�IV
240 i Highway 10, �o��as v�e� �r ss I 12
�lesase'I'ype oe� ��°i�t Inforenatiot� n Coenplete �ot� Sides of'Tiai� �'o�
612n717�020
612-784-34b2 � FAX
A�pV�a�# I�afoe��tio�t
Na�ne ofAppiicant ��•,��.,���1t��l�i�� Telephone �t� —� � L��j
Address �,Q���: I�"r"��. j��[-�,(�?Ti�� F�c (� 1�— �,�� �
�'�kpl C. `l°i�'� r'�'SiR�.� ��
�c.�cm � ��a �i, �n,t� ,�� u � �
Int�eest i� Peoperty {check appropriate bax)
� Owner of Property \❑ Coutract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager �r'� Agi°eement to Purchas�
❑ Dther (explain) _�
[�pplaca�is eau�t pe°a�iede evi�le�ace oi �terest in properky at the t�e of appli��tion; a�d if you are �ot the owne� of the
propert�, you �ust promide a Ietter of permissio� fro�n the o�er �ivi�g co�seo# to tE�� fili�g of thi� applicatioae T'iae
property o�a+aer �usg segn this �ppt�c�tio� for it t� be accepted.
Propea�ty Descriptio�roposal ,I ' •
Ad�I'�SS OP CTeII�i� LOC�ClOri �C�.�. ���t�L�fo�`-'y, i l j t• 1 V��� v� G l�v
Legal Description
Properiy Identification #�(PIN #)
# of Acres
Curreat Zoning
�> 4..c :� <7 :a—'_3 �— ?� �� � �— �
Type of Appiication
4 Comprehensive PtAn Amendm�nt
❑ Rezoning
❑ Major Subdivision
� Minor Subdivision
❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD)
\ ❑ PUD Amendm�nt
�� Conditional Use Permit
❑ Varianc�
❑ Code Appeal
❑ Develop Revi�w/Site Plan
� Wetland Aiteration Pe�nit
❑ V�7etiand Buffer Perrni�
❑ Fioodplain Permit
Q Other
$zsa
�250/acrc; min $2S0 max $1504
�250 + �250 deposit*
$200
Refer to rezoning fees
$350
R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250
R- l, R-Z $100 all od�ers $250
�ioa
� 125/acre; min � 125 max $750
R- I, R-2 � 1�0; all oEhers $200
R-1, R-2 �25; all oti�ers $100
$200
`i *Deposits shafl be paid ta cover aiI costs of public notices, materials and stafior consulcant time spent iz� the revier,v,
- research or preparaEion of inAierials associated with this appiication. Th� uppGcant shalI b� responsible �or aEl reasonable
inc�ured costs in �xcess of tl�e initial deposit amouezt. Aixy ��rtion of the deposi[ not s�p�nt ar encurr�bered shall b� eetund�d
ko th� appIicant within thirty (30) days ai�er consideration of the application is compiet�d.
�Icase cornplete the ���rse �6de of 4his ��pliea#io��
� � �fl � � la. � � � Fd � � �k � a? ' �'i° '°P a�- � � �
t�-�`� TBi� �'F1da�l�* � . P.�Q+B�d
.ry �gt4�aa�fid� �;eawwe f��i�8 ,.,, ,., .
�ve[��4�_4`���.��,6i�xid� ..�^. ,,.....,. . , -
1��e �1� af �p�'�Y � S�ap�� �°�ty iGw
� tJa+s�c1��N'�ra�t � �✓9u�taaf�'sdY �'
� ��1�lT�+� ��e��l �l��l� ts�►�¢ � l,�uy��t �.s&��?i
� ��,�1��mav►
°°� � ��Pf � y � .-.
.: ��,..�..
�,..
Pt �1�i�t�rtlon � �beu�� � '��er�
... �..--�--�. .�.m...�. .--
��.�.�.,��...�..
e' ^° _ � _._.,�.� ,A�., ...�_m.,.. �...w.a-�w.a
,�m.. -
� .��-o�.....s
�esa.•���swr
-�ow•�m�---a""�"°`..._..e.,�....�.,.�...«m... e._
�`� �i°� �C1W Sri �Y�%$� 6iq� �,� P°a� �L$�+tR�CACai�l� i A� `t�.���' Ta�Y: A, i'C� ����°T Cy� 1� i
10E�J� ��� i�� xx�3� P���� i"� �l� ReN� a+��`J��°�G,
a
m`il�.�I� Or���1��i� �v.���..,r .�.... .am,,. �'
�tam� Q£.�9ptd��t L�a;�ttcie�t�� . . ' �' � �
�
:►i�at'�'q oP Pr��� 4+a'�'ar . .. . �
;�ipe�ca �f Yr�p�r�y �+u�d'� (�r��c'�+�r�,4? �, �a .� �....�
- � �� ��� n. ,.. � � �
. �.� �..�.� ��
�'bac�a ��sb� +�' �w�aer � a '�' ,.
d���P��4 � a,�ra�rme�����a����ha�a ��r�a.�aWa��m�ba��bra��� wr+�n�o�*za����,��e�
bnt� �f �ub�ital
�at� �f ��cepto��e
pt�� ��e Na�
�'CI� � � g}15�. 'i�
�, �_.9,� __�._.,�. , - —
...,� a�.r��....�.,��...,� --�,�^�
...� ,ti, �SD•ds�v l.i�t
�r� P�i�' ��count �
�ppiicaQa�: �...,..�„«�.�.a-�-.�w._J... . _.o..M�-.....,.-�..a...,.a.,
�Otk'��pCi�C�ia4�. .�...�,..�..— _..• ..�
���AiN9i y�/•YOIM�OW �' pn[mwp�qWFI
�� .cam�i.....n..ONWa'�'pMb+S�rv+Plp�
�Y+00V�11 wwt�wo�er.. ..—�n✓�va+w+�!'A
�aom�Fs�.� vw .w�pvunla.
�P'�3i �, ..�__...a�
NP�h'Tr448�p1�t1@R51$,°SJ9`1����R�1t1E.41�ti1�iPv,OTP FCiR
�P`�
�� �3��
I
�---T.—�
0
1 �;
l�c
�r► `�. �-<
�l�ab� � ��a�1pe �
a,hm�,. .�...,
.yq,.......,�a.�,, - - —
, �m ��.
rer+ oW0.Je�disiM �
�� � � �
rr�u .arrm-ev�tl�
F�t��t�tt°' ��x �i�t� i�71
tiC.1� �o!� � T� � w� � �
C. �;u,fl7u�t� , �'oy
�u��a �r�. ���(,`�3�
"Ix� .li��'1t� F�x ro I t 1, `!�%� •��Y �
��l
��
1�5�
�
(w.t �'�� p�p��� � ,
0
a�
�. a�
�� :
���°m°�°y�I ;
e �� � S' a�. j� / �� '. .
• �,�� 838i a�y1 84-06 - . _ . ---- RUVtLAE� '�"
83�d 8391 8388 �7 �
p° 8385 8�
838fl �385 �387 8362 ��g1 837� 37 � m 836
� � 8355 ��
� 8374 g3�3 8372 g3�1 8388 � 8369 �36�
8370 � 8379 ��6
93i1 8388 83b1 83 H365 8354 8345 8`
� B3fi0 836p y 8359 6360 �344 8351 8346 �335 �~
8��� `� 8347
� 8355 8�4 8358 8.'a41 83�3 ��42 8325 Bv
� • 8:i40 $345 8335 8334 O a339 8334 8335 8332 8315
8330 8338 8325 O 833� 83+
8335 8330 � 8330 8333 g322 g�05 82
� 832a 8�25 ��1� 8315 8322 p 8321 8325 �300 � 5285 821
8310 8315 8311 8308 � 8�� =C �2i5 �2;
• 8300 8305 8:[12 6297 8298 8301 GROV�I�P�ID � g265 82�
'� • 8289 �280 8285 p��A�� 8255 B2
8284 8285 82�0
g289 82fi0 S26t r\ r ul � o, ,- $2�
8280 �275 �� N cc +n d- er
� 8270 � 8270 825� 8230 8241 N �y ��DAi� cv c� c�t cv 82;
� 826�J
(/7
6250 B255
� 8248 � � a°, a°s a°s :•: • � � � 82 m m °0 � °ao � n � � 82
��rJO ��Z�:�y i�.• N N N N.: ' N N CV �y N N N N � N cV L�S h!
' 8240 pj�� 8233 �22� ��245 �2�s 822% 82
82 D 8293 8202 c'�o ���:
� 823 � 82'ED 8217 8198 8205 N N� N
22 819 C 82a � 8191 8192 y 82D3 �� 8208 cn W� o
� �
� �Z � 3 S78O 81 �160 �� N N HZOO �� N N�
1 i1 St80 n 814a p LAPORT
R�� a��7 a1s� � ��' �:: � M � � a s
0p3 g 168 N V I N•:. B7 �$ � N N N N N
- �O. �a HE�Wdp P�ACE �863 si�z e127
�( � �-3 s 141 � o
�,t � 0 28s s3 � � � n � � � � .-
>( 8131 � � cv P' � o``�o oNO e� �� � n� rd-` .
� � � 8�EQ6 N N N N N [V N N N
�I `� S�rt� � N � .
8100
' \ • �
� \ �v �
� \ • N
� \ � ��
�) � �
� � � � ��\��°
� � � .
�� �
Q-- I , (
_. � f i � e
( /°1 � I i
V J �I ' I �
�
I p�
° � �
�
i=
Zoning l�ap Plan�ing Case 562-99
Appli�a�.t: T�i%, Car Rent�.l
L,oca.t�on: 29i5 I�i.�hway 10
f0 N 00 O
8�80 c`$v � c° w m � � � 8C
N N N N
�060 806b , 8084 808 �. 8l
. � 8U 75 � BI
8040 �046
8045 8045 $t
R—� ao�o aass
8028 8�25 �`
8020 8025 �d1�
8015
8005 S�
7s8D BooS 8000
7990 7985 $C
� :� 798i 7975 7e
�� N 79$0 7965 7�
m 795 %955 7
N N
� 7934
CO 7933 7
N �
1 � 7932
`� o — _ • � _n ai- ^ -
��
a�
� �. �: �'... . �' ' �� � . :
' � � :r �: ; � .�;
�I■�� � �
rr r�
�r �� _� �
r � w �♦1� �� ru'�
�,�� �� ��
M� "� �� :'lll�ll�
�� ��
� o �� � ���
�
� � � ��
■ �� ����� ��.�. ....
��� � ■ ����� • ■'� ■
�� � �� ���� ■
�w� �� ��
rwr �� �� �O
�� �� �� ��
=� �� �� ��
r i � �� �� ��
■��■ � ��■ ��+r ■��r■
■MM� ���■ ��� ��� �� ■��
�.. .. • �.� r ..
.r■� ..� �� .. � ..
��.: :� •. �" .� :C
�� �� � ■■ ;�
�� ��
�� 111�� �"'n�� �� �a
�� �� �� �� �
�� �� ��r� �� f�
�� �� �� �� ��
s� � �� �� ��
��■ ���� ■��� ■� ��
7hrifty Car Renfiai
2975 Highway 10
Condifional lJse Permit
Plar�ning Case No. 562-99
2975 Highway 9 0
����
,��� �": ;��� �ropertie� �lVithin 350'
..���w�=
I. . "
1
�
I
�
\
�
�
_ . ��
�,
�\
,�
,
f` ' r •
.�
�� .
�,.
�,
F.�\\
�
� ..... i
...5.' I
I
' I �
I` :.... i
� I .t:`. I
i � .. '
� � •r
I j I
I � i
�' 1
�;
� �
�
I� �
I �
�
i ' .i
{I ;
;� ,
,
�i ► �
� ;
'� � I
�� � �
� �
;� i
r
� ;
I , } I
a7/15/99 0&�a9 FA� Tk�RI�'Y CAR �ENi'
j 0�� 14��� 34:�� ��.t �i6 eb9 J4�& �-aAa a�r �e
�� .
f��°oposed S'it�e Plan
,�
�
� �a
�
{
�
�
.i
�q
�
:�
Yoe ;��� ����
�
� o
� �$ - -
-. �
0
r° � � � `i
/� %
�-
� � _�
�
� _�
��
� 0
s � � � e ��� ��
�I��L��l1�C� �=-
J ll L 1 5 7999
�y �-���,
�j02o�
i��� I
_�
t —
� ��
� •� �
� �. �
� I� �
� .
�@
a � 6 `
� ��o � � � ;
, f �a. -
�i � � ;..o
s ��
`�. .,. ,
� �� �.
., a =
� �e
. � `�
�
��
� � ;�
,��,� - e ;:
� o � � �:
. � � f�.
�
� � �'.
i �
� �
1 �
� tl � � i;'.
� !
' a
Q
d �
7 �
f d
e `
�
� �
�
� �,
� � ��� ��������
!r ' 1:: -. : � ��, ��, �+ �� : , '�1-: . :� ;�; �; ����.
�' �; : - ;� , °� :�; = � ,. �: ,�,
J 'f `I Ji
1° c! '" �,
: M t , I ' �.. � ;.
.. , , f � �; ., . � �. , �, �- �� :�� .� : � � . , : �, ; „_ � . .�; , , : �;
�. �- � � � , � . `,. _.� � ' : " .�: ', : ." �'� ',1� • " '�� =�:
�, ! ,: :, �; ; ;� , f ;�; �: , � � • ,, ;I ' �. .' - I
'' ::. � ii 1� 1�►1 , �= � e �:
'VV�E�A�, Tim Mae, representing Thrifty Car Rental, has applied for a condiiional use
p�rmit to operate an outdoor automobile rental facility at 2975 Highway 10, property zoned B-3,
Highway Business Commercial, legally described as follows:
LoP 13 of'.4u�litor'.s ,�ccbdivrsion 1�To. �9,
SatbjecP io Highaa�ay 10 a�cci S'prin� L�ake I�or�rl
�iaansey C'our�ty, State of 1�2inr�esotcx
VV�EI�A�, ihe Mounds View Zoning Code allows outdoor automobile rei�tat facilities
in the ��3 Highvvay Busir�ess District with ihe approval of a conditional use permit; and
� W�EI�AS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Exisiing Site P1an ,
4. Proposed Site Plan, Date-stamped 7/15/99
5, Letter from Applicant
6: StafiReport
W�EI�.EAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that
the criteria for approval for automobile rental facilities in Section 1114.04, �ubd. 5 have been
met: �
a, Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited
to thirty percent (3 �%) of the gross floor area of the principal use.
Tdre pYincipal use for this location will. be automobrle �ental and is not subject to the
thirty pe�cent limitation. The ope�ation may be allowed to ma�ket fo� sale r�ental vehicles
as an accessory use which would be subject io the thirty pe�^cent limitation. This
limitation tYCrnslates into no more than thYee vehacl�s on the property marked for sale at
any one time.
b. Outs�de sales areas are fenced or screened f'rom view of neighboring identical uses or
- an abutting R District in campliance with subdivisions 1103.08(1) ihrough (5) of this Title.
Thrifty l�uto Rental
Resoluiion 586-99
July 21, 1999
Page 2
Tlier•e will be no of�cially designated sales area on this property as the p�-incipal use will
be auto rental. The use is curYe�zily screened from abutting residential properties by
viYtue of a wood privacy fence. The resideniial propef•tres across the street af�e
sufficiently separated by the width of Phe Spring Lake Road rzght of way and the
respective setbacks of the busirress and houses.
c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the Iight source shall not be visible
from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compiiance
with 1103.08, Section 1103,09 of this Title.
There are no changes proposed �vit�i regar�d to tlre external lighting of this p�ope�°ty,
w�irch is currently zn conzpliance wrth the indicated section of City Code.
d. �aies area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
The a��ea on which the rental vehicles and those vehicles pat�ked for sale is bit.unainously
paved. Vehicles will not be allowed % be parked upon any unpaved area of the proper�ty.
e. The open or outdoor service, sale or rental use does not take up parking space as
required for conformity of this Title. '''
According to the Chapte� 1121 of the City Code, this operation will need to provide a
minimum of four parking spaces for employees and customers. Any remaining parking
spaces fnay be utilzzed for rental vehicles.
f, The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e ofthis Title are considered and satisfactorily
met. �
These provisions are addressed in detail in the following "vwhereas" clause.
��E1tEAS, The IViounds View Pianning Commission makes the foilowing findings that
posszb�e adverse effects have been taken into consideration in iis recommendation according to
5ection 1125.41, Subdivision 1.e:
(1} Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
(Z) The geographical area involved.
(3) Whether such use wiil tend io or actuaIly depreciate �he �rea in which it is proposed.
(4} The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need foe such �ase,
Thrifty Auto Rental
Resolution 586-99
_ Juiy 21, 1999
Page 3
Thzs pYOposed use a� any comnzercial use would be inconsistent with the comprehensive
plan as currently drafted. A comnzercial use has been p�esent at thrs location for the last
30 years and it is staff's position that the compYehensive plan should be afnended to �•efZect
this type of use. This corytp plan change coul.d occu� as part of the curYent comp plan
update process or could be done in conjunction with the applicant's request. The area
surrounding the parcel is dominated by residential uses. There ttre com�rre�cial uses and
higher density residential uses across Highway 10. While ihe property is tl�e only
cosnmercial use in the immediate area, its location at the intersection of Sprzng Lake Road
and Highway 10 mcrkes it undesirable for a residential use. Addressing the issue of
neighborhood depreciation, it is much rrrore desirable to have a successfully operating
bu.siness ai this location t1�an to have an abandoned, �-un-down prope�•ty. As for the need
foY such a use, there are currently no busirtesses i�a the City that provzde a ca� rental
servtce.
VV�EREA5, the Mounds View Plamvng Commission makes the following findings
relative to the criteria siated in Sectton 1125.01 Subd. 3.b. of the Mounds View Municipal Code:
(1} The use will not create an excessive burden on e�sting parks, schools, streets and ather
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
The use will be a service-oriented business, rather than resrdential deveZopment, and
the�efore is not expected to create a burden on parks o� schools. The pf°oposed use will
utilrze the existing building and is not expected to increase the demands on public
facilities and utilities.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separaYed by distance or screening from adjacent
residentiaily zoned or used land so that existing homes wi11 not be depreciated in value and
there wiil be no deterrence to development of vacant 1and.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance �hat will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential groperties.
The use is currently scr�eened from abutting �eszdential properties by vzrtue of a wood
p�rvacy fence. The residential properties crcross the street are suf�ciently separ�ated by
the width of the SpYing Lake Road right of way and the respective setbacks of the
business and houses.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and ta the existing l�nd use.
Tiae capplicant wrll be replacing a closed and untended business site with a new business
and site improve�nents. The�e are cuYYently no other sitnilar r�ses in the City.
Thrifty fluto Renta(
Resolutio�� 586-99
July 2I, 1999
Page 4
(S) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends ta locate the proposed use.
The Zoning Code allows for automobile rental businesses rn this zoning district, with
approval of'a conditional use permit. Tlre property is located on Higl7way 10, which zs
the City's primary business corridor.
1�i0�l, T�EREFOl�, �E I7' I�SOI,�Ii tlnat the Mounds View Planning
Cotr�nission recommends approval of the conditional use perznii with the following stipulations:
1. Hours oFoperation shall noi exceed 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday,
9 a.m, to 9 p.tn, on Saturdays, and 10 a.m, io 4 p.m. on Sundays.
2. Service of vehicles shall oniy be performed inside the building and shall be limited
to orily fihose vehicies on site for rent or sate. There shall not be any service of
vehicles allowed for the general pubiic.
The applicant shall revise the site plan to show two posted "No Parking" signs
along the Spring Lake Road right of way. `�
4. Oiher than the vehicles for rent or sale, there shall be na outside storage aiiowed
without the prior approval of an amendment to this conditionai use permit.
5. Automobile saIes will be limited to a maximum of three vehicles at one time.
6. Other than any interior signage, t�iere shall be no signage allowed pertaining to the
sale of vehicles. Cars rnay display "for sale" sigrns only ii said signage is restricted
to the interior of the vehicles.
7. No more than 23 vehicles shall be atlawed to be parked outside on the premises at
any ane titne, and only in accordance with the site plan date-stamped 7/15/99.
No vehicle shall be allowed to be parked on urtimproved surface on the premises at
any time.
9. The applicant shall make landscaping improvements io the property consistent with
Co�nmission and Council desires, to be more fully addressed prior to City Council
action.
10. The applicant shall record the conditional use permit wiih Ramsey County v,�ithin
60 days of City Council approval or this permit sha11 become null anc� void, -
Thrifty Auto Rentai
iZesolution 586-99
July 21, 1999
Page 5
BE IT FURTHER RESOLjIED that all other Conditional Use Permits o� file with this
property pertaining to previous uses shall hereby be revolced, rescinded and considered null and
vaid because ihe provisions pertaining to those uses are no longer being abserved .
BE IT FINALLY RES�LVED that the Planning Commission directs staffto forward this
resolution to the City Cauncil prior to approvat of the minutes.
Adopted this 21st day of July, 1999.
Atitest:
_,
(Seal)
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Rick Japke, Community Development Director
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DEVCASES\5 62-99\5 86-99PC.RES
. "�
'r>.;
;
�; 1. �� ;'_ . : �°<. , : -� # ` :' : � ; =,i` !; .,
�e�i��� ��fi�e
�i�fi R.epo�-t by:
7uly 21, 1999
3arz�es Ericson, Pianning Associate
Pian�fng Case No.o 563-99
iZeqa�es�a
Feti�ioner:
Locatio�:
PI�d l�ioe
Zoni�g/IJan�3 iTseo
Conditional Use Permit for a i,004 Square-Faot Garage
Allen �. 7oy Dick
�059 Red Oak I�rive
06-30-23-420-0038
R-1, Single Family Residential / Sin�le Family Dwelling
App�ieable �egula�EOns:
1104.01 Subd. 4: Accessory buitdings detached from principal building shall have a setback of 5 feet.
Accessory buildings sha[l not be allowed in the front yard.
i 106.03. �ubd. 1: No garage shall exceed 952 square feet except by CUP; the combined square
footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 20% of the rear yard.
I 106.04, Subd.b; The cambined square footage of all accessory buildings on one tot cannot exceed
1,400 square feei, the garage width cannot exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than three vehicle
accesses.
1125.01, Sub. le: This section lists possibie adverse effects that the Ptanning Coznmission shall
consider in making its recomrnendation.
1125.O1r Sub. 3b: This section lists possibie additional criteria by CUP requests shall be judged.
Aita�hments: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Location Map
�ite Plan
Resolution 588-99
►
:. ; - �, �. .�
8059 Red Oak Drive is lacated north of Highway 10, between Hillview and Sherwood Raads.
The area of the subject property--an inter.iar lot--is approximately 16,142 square feet. The house
is set back approximately 68 feet from the street, witl� the detached garage situated behind the
house. The house, at appro�mately 960 square feet, is presently larger than the existing two-stall
garage, wlvch is 480 squar� feet. The applicant proposes to construci a 520 square-foot addition
to the rear of the garage, maintairung the same width of the existing garage. The roo� line of the
addition wiil tie in pei°p�ndicularly ta the existin� garage and will either be of the sanne height or a
foot or so lower. In addition ta the �arage, ihere is also a 130 square-foot shed in ihe backyard,
which will be moved further back to allow for th� garage expansion.
Allen & Joy Dick CUP Request
8059 Red Oak Drive
July 21, 1999
Page 2
An�l�sisa
1� Conditional Use Permit is required due ta the size of the proposed garage. The size of the
proposed garage woutd be 1,000 square feet, which is camparable to the size of the home. VVhile
it would be larger, there wou(d not exist any imbaIance between the home and garage. The
proposed addition to and location of the gai•age would not interfere with any future expansion
plans.
Dimensronal Criteria
All of the dimensionaI criteria associated with this request--setbacks, spacing between buildings,
widih of proposed garage, and the numbers of doors--satisfy the requirements as stated in Chapter
1104 of the Zoning Code. The proposed garage would be about 100 feet from both frant and
rear property lines and is setback from the side of the property by five feet. The toial square
footage ofihe garage, garage addition and shed is 1,130 square feet, which would comprise aboui
12.5 percent of the rear yard area. The maximum coverage allowed is 20 percent.
Adverse E ects and CLIP Criteria
The City Code, in Section 1125.41, Subd, 1 states that the Planning Commission shall examine �
)
the possible adverse effects of a conditional use permit request prior to making a
recommendation. The following represeni those items explicitly stated in ihe Code:
1. ReIationship with the Comprehensive Pian.
The Comprehensive Pian encourages the deveiapment and main�enance of residential
areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and
residentiai property in generaL The Coxnprehensive Plan designates this property, 8059
Red �ak Drive, as Iow-density residential, This proposal does not conflict with the
Comprehensive Pian.
2. The Geographical Area Involved.
4. The Characier of the Surrounding Area
In this area of Mounds View, most of tlxe lots are larger than the subject property. The
homes are generally of a similar style architecture and were built around the satne time,
although the subject honne is newer ar►d is larger than those in the immedia.te area. Many
of the homes in the immediate area have larg�r garages, most of which ace detac�ed as in
ihis proposal. A larger garage on the subject property would not appear out of place.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depr�ciate the area in which it �s proposed.
Allen & Joy Dick CUP Request
8059 Red Oak Drive
July 21, 1999
Page 3
Adding to the existing garage will have an immediate positive impact on the value of the
subject property. At 1,000 square feet, set back from the stree� as far as it is, this garage
addition probabiy would not depreciate the surrounding area in any way.
The demonstrated need for such a use.
The existing garage-�while a two stall gacage-- is considered fairly small by today's standards.
�Ii�h multi-car families being the norm rather than the exception, the need for more garage
space becomes an issue. This is the case wiih the applicants--both of wham have vehicles as
do their children, in addition to a boat. Clearly the need is evident.
This proposai appears to satisfy the adverse effects criteria. Also in Section 1125.Oi, the Planning
Commission is io examine the criteria for granting a conditionai use permit, which are outlined in
Section 1125.flI, Sub 3b:
(1} The use will not create an excessive burden on e�sting parks, schools, streets and other
public facilities and utilities �vhich serve or are proposed fo serve the area.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
- (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or wiil be
-=,,- provided.
Adding on to a small garage would not create a greater impact on existing public iacilities,
parks, schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in
tra�ic on adjacent streets.
(2} The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screerung fronn adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes wilt not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
Because the house is set back fiarther than is typical, and because the garage is situated
behind the house, there would be substantial public screening from this accessory
structure. In #erms of its retationship with the two adjoining properties, the backyard of
the s�abject property is well shielded by privacy fencing and tall trees and bushes on either
side and is separaied by distance from the property to the rear. In staf� s opinion, all
properties are completely screened from the proposed garage additian.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the CiYy Council, is reasonably relatad to the overail needs of
the City and to the existing land use.
(5) The use is consistent wiih the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which ihe applicant intends ta locate the proposed use,
Allen �c. Joy Dicic CUP Request
8459 Red Oak Drive
July 21, I999
P age 4
(6j The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Garages and detached accessory authuiidings are typical �ses in residential areas, and
ailow far the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment.
�taff believes that the adverse affects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out-
weighed by the benefits. Staff also believes that it is desirable from a community perspective to
have property owners improve their properties with building expansions since the properties are
then usuaily kept in betier order and nnay trigger other properties to do the same.
18ecomme�dat�oea:
Staff recommends that the Planning Comn:►ission approve Resolution 588-99, a resalution
recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a I,000 square foot garage at 8059 Red
Oak Drive, requested by Allen and Joy Dick
.
� v�-v,�-, G� ��a-cs-�,
rames Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATA1GROlJPS1COMDEV�pE VCAS ES1563-941DJCK.PC 1
`a
_•-,
_ :,'i
r� ��
''"�"''�(;., CO�I€T�i I2��I.OP IV�` D�P� �'T'
,EJ���ii.�;�; i;:��;
� � ��.������� ����T�E����
p i;`�'�`'u� 2401 Hi$h�r�y 10, Iv.�ounds View Nfl�i 55112
•,, t:::,:r;�
° 612-717-40�0
n���s - PareneYS��4
6I2m784�3462 � F�
PEg�se'fype or Pri�t Inf�r►natioet -�o�glete �ot}e �Ides of'ThRS �or�
A�plicamt Info�ation �j � f� �° �,a� /�l�r� � B � l�,l� r p
Name of Applicant �'? � �e � Telephoz�e � �. �rl ��°°� ���'
Address �j �� �d�'� ��°° Fax -
��1� � �� �'Lt�t. .�'..t"Il� . -
� ��.� � � : �. ...
Interesi � P�°o�ea°� (check appropriate box)
� Owner of Property � Contract for Deed Owner
o Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase
❑ qther (explain)
[�pp�cants mus# provide evride�ce of imterest i� prog�erty at tiee ti�e o€ ap�lication9 and if' yora are �ot the owner of the
propertY9 you ��est provirie a letier of per�sssioee irom the o�nee� giving coosent to �be fd�� of tfais applicatioa. '�he
proper�yy o�es' t�us� si�n this applicatio� for it to be accepted.
�rope�y Ues�riptioa�rop�sai
Address or Generai Location
Legal Description
Property Identiiication # {PIN #)
# of Acres
Current Zoning
�
�r � _.. _ � �i
�
Type of Application
o Comprehensive Plan Amendment
r� Rezoning
❑ Major Subdivision
o Minor Subdivision
❑ Flanned Unii Development (PUD)
o PUD Amendment
o �Conditional Use Pertnit
❑ ��$rianc
❑ Code Appeal
❑ Devetop Review/Site Plan
o Wetland Alteration Pemiit
Q VSletland Buffer Permit
❑ Flaodplain Peemit
o Other
$250
$250/acre; min $250 max $1500
�250 + $250 deposit*
$200
Refec to rezoning fees
��;
` �(R-1, R-2 $7 , al! others $250
R-1, R-2 $ i 00 all others $250
�i00
$125/acre; min $ I 25 ma.v $750
R-1, R-2 �laa; atl okhers $200
R-1, R-2 $25; a[t others $100
�200
�Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and stafi or consuEtant time spent in the review,
research or prepgration of materials associuted with this application. The appGcant shali be responsible for a11 reasonabie
incurrecf costs in �xcess of the initial d�posit umount. Any portion oY the deposit noe a�pent or �ncumbered shall be refunded
to the upp[icant within thirty (3fl} days �er consideration ot the application is cotnpleted.
Ple:ase co�rplete the �e�es°se side of this �applic�stio�a<
City mf Mounds �Iier�, Nil�d
I)eveioprrrent t�p (ic�tion� Page 2
Present Use of Property
n UndevelopedNacuzat
❑ DuplexiI'wo Family Dwelling
❑ Business/Cornmercial Establishment
❑ Other (expluin)
,� Single Family Dwell'zng
❑ Mutei-family Dwelling
o Industrial Establislunent
Property C�ass'iiication ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens ,
Descrigtion of Proposal _ _
BY MY {OUR} SIGNATURE ON THIS Al'PLICATiON, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWL�DGE, T'HE INFURMATIUN PRUVIDED iS TRiJ� AND ACCURA'T`E•
Signature of Applicant
Name of Applicane (typed/printed)
Signature of Properiy Owner
Name af Property Owner (typed/printed)
Address of Owner
Phone Number of Owner
�!�.i %I.� � � � i
�„>t�r
' �..c. �
�w��t��...:,i` , 1_
�
,l�" /� !r � � '
�_ �1
/ � f
� � �
.� , // �,'. - :� ._..
j'"� . / . �� � 1 .. ,: �/
/ .� f � � ,�' _
����z***������u�**��mra��**���*���������*#�**��*�*x�*��x�ra�x��s���*���*������u�*m���x��*���*��z�x���x�*�����
FOI� O�']CC� USE OI�iLY
Date of Submittal '�,.s7'° � �
Date of Acceptance 1 tz - 2�3 - �`yt Assigned to:
60-d4 Licnit 2Z �i f 120-da limit . U Z-p ``
Planning Case�No. —�. Y Y �
Fees Paid: Accaunc # Chec,�c # Receipt #
r � _:�� � ,J
Application: _ L� J • P ``� 0 �'�1 t "3 _ �l �j f I ' e `�/ �
Park Dedication: --
Deposits:
Other:
Totai:
N:U�ATA\GROi.JPS1COMDEV\FORNtS\IIEVAPP.FOR 1/98
'7
Y` (� S R� 1 h
�1�8 �205 � cv � c�! j_cv � cv_�_ I � �1�0 �1�a
E� 92 G] �20�� ~�' DR ...._ p..__....____...^ t� l._._.�.,, f .�.... �._...._..�.._........._...._
� ��� 8208 � � �I � ��._.�.., �1i5 _�,_..� t � ��`�f1 �i60 �1T1
8 i fi0 � na � � 8200 �° _, � ! ra � �� 65 ' °° � ,� �_ �....._.�. i �
� � cv cv ra c� re� 814 �-�---�� � � i 50 � 9 65 ,�.�.
�94� � L14PORT �.�_�.,..�_.,._.�_ 8955 ��,� � G� � .�.�..�.....
� o� c� .� o � � f � � 14 $ 9 45� ,�0�0 ��,�"` � 14� � ::•,'.
813� N r�a � c°0i N° N� r i3135 �� �, c�, `���, � 81 �0 � 14t # �
�j"�`�' � �,_� ,
�132 �127�� t {e � i ` �125( �430 �13 � `}r-°� ,. :�
811 rh ! u� � s, t�` in � r\ � � � ics �� r� �in i r os I �(���� o'�' �
- ��e.� o o�ce �n� �; � �� cv r ir � � � � � � 8199 1 �o � w•.:•: _
8i08 ao ; s� r��i cfl0v � c�v ' r�a c�v � N� � t� c�'°y ?� 812 12� N N i cv c�t ; a. ra � cv � ev •.�.�..
cd ; cv
8i � #'1�RWOOD
80 o m � �; �' � n � � �Q80 808i ro � 8088 8� b75 � � � 8Q99� �o f � ,
..-.-W,_. N t N�(�Q j ly �" �y ly l,� N tV =V N f'� j '�.
y j�� 80�4 808 y _� .__. 8066 �071 � 80fi� 8�79 y�..�. 80i2
Bfl60 8065 { _.,.�_�-,- a e0i0 �w�.
-----• '..w..i_..�. $075 8Q6Q �055 T���0 8d55 8069 8065 8450
804b,........... �...�._.,,_ ._..... �-
8045
�� �046 �045 � 8042 8045 T s E0�2 �051 i.~...8044 .
803� 8036 _-�. �040 60�9 ..,�.,, ...._� _.._�.._._,
._...� 8�25 8032 8033�W� �C34-0 ��35 �032
802Q 802� _..8026 •-�»� . 80�8 �.�-'��°'_'�.'�`.�.°"'° 801 i 8000 8U2'f 8022
a �Ot6 8a15 i---- -- p SOZS 80i8 ._._.,,_,.
.,._...�...._�. 8008
� -•-�- _._.... `"° 8000 80A5 �016 $009 b011 �B000
79�0 8QU5 _.ww �-- .�. ._..u�...�........_......._ .. _..� ._.._. _ —�.�..�....�...
� 7990 �'9� � �004 7981 7990 � 7981� �i990 � 7989 7998 �
T"�,�.._... �.w..�_. 79 0 79i9� 79�0 7969 �� 78�e 79i9 ��_7980 �
et" � � 798� 79i5 y .w._...�._ ..,.,�... ..._.......__._., ._�, _ ._ �....�.....�_ ,...,
°i+ N 7g60� 7965 ��N �960 � 7959 � 7970 7965 7969 ,,�79G0
� "y • 795 � i955 � 7956 � �9°�9 i � i954 i959 7966 .���._795�
N �'� ��.,�.., i940 7945� 7946 7927
7934 7933
7950 7935 7�30 791i 794-0
�.��D i932 i93� �..
13�' � n i w� r- _^ '_'� � er) �n of M� � 4 T i
:I R�-� �� n � � i9Q0 � � � � 7980 7�Ot � � �; 7904
cv � ev ra 79�� 7901 � cv�...cv ��e i �
g hiILL'
%9i N� � g``+y� ^
`° 7�61 � � 'Y4-/ cv
786Q 7835 �I N �
7850 7829 `y
$�'
� �7so 7so� �
7791
_.,.. 3 R-4
�_77s6 7'7st 7750
� ria
� 7770
�i768 7767
9 7729 p � o
i72 7723 �
P 7i18 7795 � Z
� � 771 .
►, i710 7i 11 c� 770
.�'°� °��o'
B-2
��
��
�� s� �
0 7891 �
�
� 7685
� 7863 �
�oning IVIap Planning Case 568-99
Appiicant: Allen � Joy Di�k
Location: �059 Red Oa1c I3r�v�
y � 7�gp 7895 �
78�{ 7867
� i854 i659
�..�..7842 i641
� 7��0 0 .�
� i82 � i�95
781
� 780�
7800 ----,--
7801
y+� 7i67
�
i`�' 7i61
R�`� 77�5
� ��},y 7745
ti �.
7ii5
�o
N
7850
7�a-o
i79C1 �
O
777� �
i76� �
�so �
7i50
7i30
77i0
- - � : `,. � .. : � : . �.
- `� . ..< � .,, ` ,�. ,:!
� �� �� �� ir ��
� _� �■ �� � r�
�� �� ��
� �� � �� ��
� �� � sr w�■�
� �� i��� � ����i ��
� ■■�■ ��■�■ �� ����� � �
:■ � � � �����.��
�� �,*� a'/1i �IIIi �� ��
�: ��1� � ■���� �■ �► ���
� :r��� „' ieifl��� '""'' ��
- �.� : .. -•
�� � ��� ' :, . . , .. . -
� � �
� -� � r� �r _
t � �
�■ �� �� �
�.!:� ������
, ��'C���
, � :� �..
'� ...� �� �� �� �� �
■� � i��i ni i�u � i i
�� r � � ' � ,� ��
..= ••� ..�.
�, C ,r■ � , ��
� ��■■ � � i � '�;.
'`�i��■ � ,�,
�� �� �� ,.
___. __ �►, r �
-� �� _A , ,
� � �
/ ■
r� ��! ��
�� �� ��
�� �� ��
��1�� � � �11�
�� i � `t�
�� ���
�� _`�
..� Ii11111I
....
��■ � ��� :���
��C : : :���
�1'�
��
�
��
�����
■��� �■�� ■i� ��� ■■ ���
r�� � � � .. �� �.
�� r� �� �� '�� ��
� �� .. �� .�
.� �� w � �� ��
�� . �. � �. � �� ��
�,�■ �� �� �� ��
�: Cr �- :: --
!� �� ��� �� ��
�� �r ��� �� !�
�� r �� �� ��
�■� ���� ��� �� ��
:::�
i
�
�
�
�
�� :
�: :
-
: �'
����
�
�
����
���,
i��1
Allen & Joy Dick
8059 �ed Oak Drive
Conditional Use Permit
Planning Case No. 563-99
8059 Red Oak Drive
Properfi�s Within 350'
�
S—r r -�"
. ..
;,. .
� a.
;_.
�/o� �o
� CA� �- �
:� . ;�; .. : f: . � , �, : � ,
. � �' °� ;1� �: , ,��, l� .� ,. ,,
� � :� � � r
f� :� �
t� �: ��� ;t . �� �� : :�
r�� �� ��; � .�; �. � , ; ��� i� �� � �� : �� � ����;�: � � . ; � �; .�, �� ��� �. ; � . . .. ,. ; : ;
��� � �� : , � ; � ,, �r , ,. . � ;� . , „ � ;� � ; , :: � ., � � � ,. :,. � � ,.
� , �� � � � ;��� ; �; x �
�1�ae�°ea�, Allen and Joy Dick have applied for a conditional use permit to allow for a
1,00� square-foot garage on property located at 8059 Red Oak Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential, Iegally described as follows:
The ,Soraih 70. 00 �'eet of'Lot I19,
Spriazg Lake Park �Irllview, County of Ilaaatsey
���AS, there is currently a 480 square-foot garage and a 130 square-foot shed on
tlus 1ot; and,
VVH�I�AS, The I�ounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use pernut, up to
1,400 squa.re feet of garage/accessory building space on one lat; and
W��2EAS, the Planrung Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposaL'
a. Pla.t�rung Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plan
d. Location Map
e. StaffReport
�I3��A3, the Planngng Commissior� finds that the dimensional requir�ments as stated
in Chapter I 104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and,
;: ;' . : .:::::::::::::::::..:: :: <:
Planning Commission Resolution 588-99
July 2I, 1999
Page 2
`��EI�A�, the Planning Commission nnakes the following findings that possible adverse
effects have been considered in its recommenclation, as required by �ec�ion 1125.01 Subd. l.e.:
1, Reiationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development crnc� maintenance of residential areas so as
to improve the quality, appearance arrd attractiveness ofhousing unrts and residential property in
general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8059 Red OakDrive, as low-densiry
residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comp�•ehensive Plan.
2, 4. The Creographical Area Involved & the Character of the Surrounding Area.
In this a�ea af Mounds View, rrtost di the lots are larger than the subject property. The
homes are gene�ally of a similar style architecture and weYe built around the sarrze time,
altltough the subject home is newe� and is larger than those in the imrnedirxte area. Many
of the homes in the imrnediate area have larger garages, most of which are detached as in
this proposal. A ZargeY garage on the subject pr�operty would not appea� out of place.
Whether such use will tend to or actuatly depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Adding to the existing garage will have an irnmediate positive impact on the value of the
subject prope�ty. Ai 1, D00 square feet, set back from the street as far as zt is, this gcrrage
'_ j addiiion probably would not depreciate the surrounding area in atay way.
5. The de�nonstrated need for such a use.
The existing garuge--while a two stalls-- is considered fairly small by today's standards. The
applicants both have vehicles as do their children. In adclition, the applicants own a boat whrch they
would like to have stored wzthin the garage. Clearly the need for additional garage space has been
demonstrated.
��EI�A.�, the Planning Commission makes the fallowing findings regarding the criteria
for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.OI Subd. 3.b.:
1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other
public faciiities and utilities which serve ar are proposed to serve the area.
7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided.
Adding on to a small garage would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities, parks,
schools oY services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it cYeate an increase in traffrc on
ddjacent streets.
2. The use will be su�"iciently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
r�sidentially zoned or used land so that existing homes wili not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
3. ihe stzucture and site shal� have an appearance that will nat hav� a� adverse effect upon
i
Planning Comnnission Resolution 588-99
July 21, 1999
Page 3
adjacent residential properties.
Because the house is set backfurther than is typtcal, and beccruse the garage is situated behind the
house, there would be substant�'al public screening from this accessory structure. In terms of its
relationship with the two adjoining properties, the backyard of the subject praperry is well shielded
by privacy fencing and tall trees and bushes on either side and is separated by distance from the
property to the reat�, In stcrff's oprnion, all properties are eonzpletely sereened fYOm the proposecl
garage addition.
4. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonabty xeiated to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing Iand use,
5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purpases of the zoning
district in which the applicant iniends to locate the proposed use.
b. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are rypical uses in residentral areas, and allow for
the storage of vehicles and yard crnd garden equipment.
I�iOW, T��FOI�, �E I'� ��O�,i1ED that the I�/founds View Planning Commission
recommends ap�roval of the conditional use permit to allow for a 1,000 square-foot garage with ��
the following stipuiations: -
The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey Coanty witlun 60 days
of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided ta the
City of Mounds View,
2. The garage shall not be used for iiving space or other uses not allowed by the
district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for
which the permit was granted, the conditiona( use permit shall became null and void.
The garage shali be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building
appearance with the existing garage and hause, which is to mean the garage shall at
a minimum be painted with the same coior-scheme as the home.
4. All vehicles �arked at the property shall be parked either upon tine driveway's
improved surfac� or within the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be allowed to park
upon the grass or off of the improved surface.
The existing shed on the Iot shall be moved to m.aintain a minimum six-foot setbacic
from the gara�e and five feet from the rear or side lot lines.
�E I�' �'I�IAL,I�� ,SOI��D �Ila$ �%e Pla11ri1rig COCX1iX1f5Si011 C�1FieCt� Staff�O
forward ihis resolutian io the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Planning Commission Resolution 588-99
July 21, 1999
Page 4
Adopted this 21st day of July, 1999.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Cornmunity Developi�neni Director
(SEAI,}
N:�DATAIGROUPS\COMDE VIDEVCASES\5 63-9 915 8 8-9 9PC. RES
:;
:
QTJES'�` T�R PI�ANI�II�dG C�1�l�IISSION AC`T'IOP�I
1l�Ie��in� �ateo
Sta#°f� Repm�� byo
Pianning Case I�Ioo:
I�equ�§t:
A�plicant:
I.ocatione
��, ,,,
Zoni�e�/L�nd ITseo
Ap�l�cable R��ulat�orrso
July 21, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
564-99
The appiicant is requesting a Conditional Use Fermit to
operate an outdoor sales produce siand at the Hoiiday Stationstore
Holiday Stationsiore
2744 Highway 1 a
06-3-23-43-0038
PUD Pianned Unit Devetopment / Convenience and Gas Station
Section 1114.04; �ubd. 5, which aliows For open or outdoor service, sales and renial as an
accessory use with a conditional use permit.
Section 1125.01; Subd. 1e, which states that the Planning Corrunission shall consider
possible adverse effects of proposed canditional uses.
Section 1125.01, Subd. 1�, which states that the Planning Commission shall make findings
of fact and recommer�d such actions or conditi�ns relating to the request as it deams
necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and %rward such
findings to the City Council.
Aitachrxae�a�s:
f,
.- .,_ , ;. � —n i �s
Planning Application
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Letter from Chuck Durand, 5/26/99
Resolution 589-99
Chuck Durand, representing the Holiday Statianstore, is requesting a conditional use perrnit to
operate an outdoor produce stand in the parking tot of tfne Holiday Stationstore, iocated ai the
southeast corner of Highway 10 and 5ilver Lake Road from July through October of this year and
years thereafter. Th� praduce is ptanned to be open from dusk to dawn seven days a week. T.he
stand would be operated by Darcy Ewin� of Big Lake, Minnesota. The stand or sales tent is
proposed io be 12 feet square and wauld be located in the grassy area immediately adjacent to th�
bar�k of parking sta(Is ai the north corz�er of the lot. If there are no problems with the operation,
the applicant would lik� the opportunity to operate in subsequent years as was done with Linder's
and Merryville farm market.
-
,:,, ,. ;
Holiday Produce Cup
Planning Case 564-99
July 21, 1999
Page 2
Arral��eso
This produce stand wouid be similar to the.Merryviile operation at Moundsview Square, Signage
fot° the produce stand will be accomplished witH smalI banners affixed to the stand and covering.
As was done for the Linder's and Nierryville, the conditional use permit for Holiday is drafted in
such a way so that future appearances before the Planning Commission and City Council are not
required. This aIlowance is canditioned on many factors, not the teast of which is that there be no
problems associated with �he operation this year. The CUP would then remain in effeci indefinitely
so long as there are no changes to the operation and the applicar�t resub�nit a letter of intent and site
plan each year in advance.
C�JP Requir��e�tse
The criteria for approval of a canditional use permit appear in Section ll 14.04, Subd. 5 of the
Mounds View Municipal Cade. They are as follows:
a, Outdoor service, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is
limited to thiriy percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principa( use.
The Haliday Stationstare building contains approximately 6,500 square feet of building
area. The proposed produce stand wouid occupy 144 square feet of ihe property, which zs
about 2% of the building square #'ootage on the site. `'
b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an
abutting residential district in compliance with Subdivisions 1103.08(1} -(5) of this Title.
The produce stand would be screened from the neighboring yet-to-be completed Realife
Cooperative senior residential corrzplex by the Holiday building.
c. All tighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from
the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compiiance with Section
1103,09 of the Code.
The applicant will not have any lighting associated with the produce stand as ii will be
operating during daylight hours.
d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
The applicar�t is proposing to use the lawn area adjacent to the north bank of parking stalls
instead of taking up space in the parking iot.
e. The apen or outdoor service, sale or rental use daes not take up parking spaces as required for
conforntity of khis Title, �
The produce stand would no� be located in the parking lot a�id it is expected that the
majority of the customers would be drawn from those aiready on the premises for gas or
convenience products.
woi�aay ProauCe cu�
Planning Case 564-99
July 21, 1999
Pag� 3
f. The provisions of Subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title ar� considered and satisfactorily met:
{1) Reiationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
{2) The geographicat area involved.
{3) Whether such use wili tend to or actuatly depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surraunding area.
{5) The demonstrated need for such use.
The proposal is for a temporary produce stand adjacent to the parking lot of an existing
Holiday �tationstore. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Usa PUD,
which coincides wiih ihe zoning of this site. Such an accessory use would not be
inconsistent with the Plan. The store is at the corner of two major transportation arteries
and is screened fcom adjacent residential uses. The sale of produce is a typical seasonal
business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a community need. The short
duration of the use will result in iittle, if any, adverse effect upon the surrounding area.
In addition ta the specific criteria addressed in Section 1114.04 and the adverse efFects
consideratians in �ubdivision I 125,01 (1)e, there are generic CUP criteria that apgear in
�ubdivision 1125.01 {3)b that need to be addressed by the Pianning Commission. 'They are as
fol(a�ws:
(i} The nse will not create an excessive burden on e�isting parks, schools, streets and other public
facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed ro serve the area.
It is not expected that this use will have any irnperct on parks, schools, streets crnd other
public facilities and utilities tivhich se�ve o� aNe proposed to serve the area.
{2) The use witl be sufficientiy compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will
be no deterrence io development of vacant iand.
The produce stand would be screened from the neighbor•ing yet-to-be compl.eted Realrfe
Cooperative senio� residential complex 8y the Holiday building and by distance.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance ihat will not have an adverse effect upon adj acent
residentiai properties.
While staff has no plans to show the design or construction of this structure, it is not
expected that the 12 foot square stand would have an adve�se appearance, no� would it be
adjacent to any residential property.
(4) The use, iri the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City
and to the existing land use.
The City alr�eady has given app�oval for one produce stanci to be located crtMoundsview
Square. This iype of business, hoN�eveY, depends upon exasting to-affac for• the �najority of
its business, which �eans it will drerw p�irr�arily fro�rr those people already at the Holiday
stoYe. Hcrving two such businesses separ�ated by a third of a�ail� on opposite side� of
Higl�way 10 �ouZd satisfy a need cand provide fop additional convenience.
Holid�y F�roduce Cup
Planning Case 564-99
July 21, i999
Page 4
(5) The use is consistent witii the pwposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district
in which tlie applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
Tyie Zoning Code allows for this type of use with a conditional use perrnit. It tivould not
inconsistent with the rntent of the Zoning Code fo� such a business to opeYate at this
locatron.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of tlie City.
The Comprehensive Plan desrgnafes this area of the City as Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development, which indicates an anticipation for a variety of uses. A praduce stand to be
located at a gas and convenience store would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
('%) The use wilI not cause traffic hazards or congesiion.
It is not expected that Phis 7.cse will draw significani customeps on its own. The majority of
its customer base will be those people alr�eady at the Holiday store for gas or othe�
conve�iences. As such, it would not be expected that this use tivould cause traffrc hazayds
or congestion.
(8} Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
The use would be located in the par&zng lot af the Holyday Stationstore which is served by
Higlrway 10 and Sil��er Zake Road. All of the infrastructu�e se�-ving this siPe are installed
and provrded -no additional infrastructure tivill be needed top accommodate this use.
In the estimaiion of staff, it appears as though the speci�c C[JP requirements in Subdivision
1114.04(1}e, the adverse effects criteria in Subdivision 1125.01(1)e, and the general CUP
requirements in Subdivisian 1125.01 (3)b are all satisfied.
l�ecorrarnen�a�ion;
Approve Planning CQmmission Resolution No. 589-99 recommending to the City Cauncil
approvai of a conditional use permit for the Holiday Stationstore Iocated at 2i32 Highway 10 to
annually operate an outdoor produce stand from July 1 to October 31, witla stipulations.
t
�7 G�,�� �,� c��
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDEVIDE VCASES15G4-991HOL[DAY. PC I
'i
_ . ,�
sY�,�v rn.ra
f
, .-;�j �:; ..r �
��i.�i��;�i.:!%�;::
�a
1� �If�j�t��
.�
�,i:::>'r��
,o��ss ° Parene=S�i44
� :�� ' _ . � J. � � �� � �� - �
���Y.1��1W1�a�.1� 1 t9��,e.�A4.13i1�1�
2401 Highway i0, i�ounds View IVIN 55112
Please'Typ� or Pe°i�t informatioee - Complete �3otEa 5ides mf'I°6is Fo�
s i 2-7 i �-aoza
612�i84-3462 m FAX
�i,p�ticaat Iat°o�a►tfoo � �
Nasne of Agplicant /�v �� o�i�t y .f'//t�%t a � � /'UJ� C: Telephone � ( � " ��Z �l� o Z.
Address l`7 o c°� R.. !� l� l.t� Fax l� r Z. -_ 7� 2�,��'1 �
�73 z �v /o
,
�'o �•�- ��._1° l� r F c-v !`%,J J i°/ J z
�t�resi 'sts Frop�rty (check appropriat� box)
� Owner of Property , n Contraot far Deed Owner
❑ L�ssee, Operator, Manager � Agreement to Purchase
❑ Other (explain)
Appdica�ts �aest pevviale cvidence of �&erest itf p�opee�Cy at t�e time af appiie�iio�, aad if yora $re �ot tlte ovvner of the
peopertyy yo� ��st provide � lette� of per'aris�aon fwom the o�er giwing cmnsent �fo tbe itWig of tbis appGcatiom. '�`he
proges� o�sr �usi ssg� ehi� �pplicatios� for it t� be accepted.
Prope� Descri�iio�//Pe°oposa! /
Address or General Location 0 i� �e.r� .� v� 6�- LvF=� ff d1�Cl� /�G�
G
i.egal Description �'• 1 ,, -i1 K" . ( �—�� � -� - `C.S ���5 --
Property Identification # (PIN #) �% _j Q- - �3 _ �4 3 CSt� ':� � - ---
#� of Acres � 4�5 �
Current Zoning
Type ofAppiication
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ Rezoning
❑ Major Subdivision
n Minor Subdivision
❑ Planned Unit Deveiopment {PUD}
o PUD Amendment
;� Conditional Use Per�nit
❑ Variance
❑ Code Appeal
❑ Deveiop Review/5ite Plan
❑ Wetland Alteratioa PermiE
❑ Wetland Buf%r Permit
a Pioodplain Fetmit
a Other
$zsa
$250/acre; min �250 max $1500
�250 + $250 deposie'�
�200
Refer to rezoning fees
�350 . m_
R-i, R-2 �75; aEl others..$250. �
R- i, R-2 � 100 all othess �25f� '""
�100
$125/ACre; min � 12S max �750
R- i, R-2 $ I 50; all others $200
R-1, R-2 �25; all others $l00
$Z0�
- �Deposits sball be paid to cover all costs of pubiic notices, znaterials and st�ff or consultant time spent in the revie�v,
'? research or preparation of materiats associated with this appiicaiion. T°he applicant shaEl be responsible for aIl reasonable
incu►�°ed costs in e�ccess of El�e initiat deposit amotsnt. Any �ortion oi the deposit not s-pent or encumbered sha(1 be refunded
ro tiie appticant within thirry {30) days ai�er consideraeion of the appiication is completed.
Ple�s� coenpiete th� rc�c�� s6de o�° �his �p�►iisatiou.
City af iV[o�ands �Iiera, �I1V
Develo �ent A lication Fa e 2
Present Use of Property
a Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Single Faxnily Dwelling
Q Dupie�c/i°wo Family Dwelling ❑ Multi�family Dwelling
�Pf Business/Commercial Estabiisiunent n industria[ Establishmecxt
❑ Other (e;tplain}
Property Classi�ication
Description of Proposal
o Absfract o Torreezs
BY MY {OUR} 5IGNATUIZE ON THIS APPLICATION, I BY DECLARE THAT, TO 7T3E BEST OF MY
KNOWLEJ�GE, TIlE INFORMATIUN PRO D S T�•
Signature of Ap�licant - " � � �
Name of Applicani (ryped/printed) ��'��� �•� �� � -
Signature of Property Owner
Name of Property Owner (typed/printed)
Address of Owaer
Phone Number of Owner
���*��x�*x���x�r�*��*�����*�x����������*��*��+�*��*�����*�������*����*�*���������*�*�*�*�x���*�����*�x��
1FOR �F�'ICE USE Oi+TLY
Date of Submittal �` �,�1'i:0�.� '� , ; `:' `:' `:; �� �'.
DAte of Acceptance `u -�'''t ° r'1 t� _ Assigned to:
Plan�ig Case No. �� (� �-- ��� 60-day L'unit 120-day limit
Feas Paid: Account # Check # Receipt #
Application: �- p , o � 1 L9 � �% � � 1 � � �"��
Park Dedicatio�:
I�eposits: �..-- �
Other:
Totai:
N:�DATAIGROUPS�COMDEV1Fh RMSIDEV rIPP. F�R
,,
:�
1198
� �
N
�
N
� ��� R��
; \� �
�,
`�, �
� �\ 1 c
�065 � i ; 808� �08�
,_.�.�� �._....,�r, 80�5 �._,.
80-45 �_. �045 �0�5 � _� ....
8036
_`...,... �(}26 �Q25 �,._.
�o2J � �o�� �---
� sa � s _,...,._
.�.8000 �90�
8005 �_..._.�.,�. ....._.
7990 79�5
� :.3 ry9g� 79i5,�
�' � � � `7960 7965
r° Q ev
� � M �T � �
° � • 785 7955
� � � N _
o �y � - 793� 7933
°c�', i `r 7�32
K°r�a �^� u�j '• �.�t. �
i� R-3 g �'� ;� v w
N
f �
i91 � �
{ �� �
� �
� ��so 7�3� m N �
� 7850 7�21 �
��
o � $ � 7801�
c°'v � � � �7$0
7791
..��3 R--4�
� N �77s 77�9� 77b0
� �7� °-�' 776 7769 � 77s
' 7775 7758 ii59i�'7i4
'"'�'.'�7748 7i49 7768 7767
7765 773 7739�,�„ 7729 "�
7755 7�� � 772 �772 7723 �
�` i71 p 771 7i98 7795 Z
'�'' 0
.,_,_,.�„ ``i 7710 =� 7709� 771 � 7i 11 � c�v 7i0
768fi i585 � %�9 �'s�?. � 7690
,L . N � � %6�
7680 p i66� 767� 7863 766
7670 7g6� 7660
764�� i653
7666 7647 �,,..�, -�------�--
� 7fi64 7629� 7�3� 763�i
,.._._... • -°-- ��.,
7620 i625 � i62�
� 760Q 7519 � 76�0 7601
� i5� 75E5 �w 7599� 7575
7579 `75�8
���
- ° �/y 7�fi5_,�..,�_.._..758' � 7565 � �°°2
7J5 V� `'Ce�
.
.
�
9070 SDi1
�a60 8059
�046 8039
�aaa � -�-�--
Q �oa�
�015 8009
8004 7981
i9i0 7979
7960 i959
......._.... � .,_..
7955 � _i949
Zor�i�g Map Pla,nnning Case 56$-99
Applicanf�: Holiday P�odu�e CUP
Lo�ation: 2744 Haghv✓ay 10
7�0�
nu�rs r�vi� v.,Vv
8050 �055 �060
8o�z ao�� aos2
�032 8033��� 8Q4�D
�o�s �o�t �� a000
aoos � �._�....^
799� � i981 � 7990
79�0 7�69 � 79�0
i9i0 i965 �_.��
7954 7959 �96fi
i94�0 7945 7946
7930 7935 � .7930
.�..T,_ �—� � � � � �_�.
i900 �� N 4 N i900
!■■
� z G,�`-
� r
� 04
i
j � IV1�lllV�a7 NI�YY ��LLJ'14��
` GE�Ii�R CAiE1�/�Y RREA
_ EASEME�VT 3�' X 30'
I� , �
��a
6 �'��o�
�o
�--
�`P�o �
O❑
0
u
.�
S? S
�
w
�
�
� ��'��' �
m
�
� �
�
��
�
. . . .:.:, . :: _.:. _...:,� :�::� ii:
Proposed stand location
� ��g ° -
�
.
.
�
� ...
�, ' . ';
0 ,:.
,�
►
.�
�.
�.
/ !� � �
� . .
:: ,- ,
_ , ,.
,
a �
■ �
��' � ;1; [�.
. ,.. , _ ', ,. . 1. r... ' J:
��� . _... -�i �� r �
...__ � ��. .
�
O �-�� � �� , I
�\ '
♦������������.� — -- � i
, �, .,
� ...... : .... .... .......... . >::. \ .
' \ _
; ; \ .
, s �' + � �
., �� r �
� �`
1 c: " a • - ; - �5�.\L�\ .. ,_
, y�`�'``1\„
� �; ,�
; II! III �:.,` �
• !4�
i �
Q � ��� ��� ... . �.i `
�`
. �m ��\\\�\�.,���\\\\� :
. __ :�
���-a�
� �o�-��
. . � .�
_ —�, _ .
� �
�
�
:�
y:
.
1:12-�" 91:11'�"
C
6
Q �
�
�
i
�.��o� .�
�.
_ _.
. _ __. _ .
:� 1 I � I �
: � ;
�
���v (J/a7o17a7
Too Jim �rickson, �ity of 6�ounds View E
s
��o a Chuck Durand, Holiday S#ationsfare
p Condiiior�a! Use F'ermit for produce si�r�d
I am �,rt°iti�g you in cor�ju�ctior� wiih th�� �or�ditional U�e Permifi, �nich we re�ently
submi�ted to provide for fhe safe of fresh prod�ce on the exterior of o�r premise.
V1/e ar�ti�ipate thaf the safe� ter�ilstand �ill be appraximately 12 feet square and be
located in an area as s�own on �he site plan I submitted. �!1!e plan on a safes period
of #he mo�ths o� July, Paugust, Sep4ember and October (this year rnr� �nnilf stant �s �oon
as the permit i� granfed). Vile do not #�ink par�ir�g will be a prablem �� rrv� already
have ample spaces and r�tost of our �ales will be fo t�astomers aCready purchasing
g�s or mercl�andise. The operator of the stand is exp�cted �o be Darcey E�ng irom
�ig Lake who has other stands of ihi� nafi�are in the area. The stand vvi�i speciali�e in
Homegrown produce ofi many typ�s including �orn, potatoes, T�matoes etc... We
fee! th�t a fresh produce stand of this nature wii! o�er i�e area welcomed so�rce af
fresh quaiity produce at a very c,�mpetitive price.
Please start the process for the condi4ional t�se permit as soon as possibie and I�t ��
kkr�ow if �+ou h�Ve �r�y questions: Th�nk you far your cor�sideration.
�
I �'t' ;t -. �, 1'�� ' � "; � � "�; [!'`� � , � � -- . ���� `�.
' i' . 1 J � ;,f: ;_ �_ F.,�.
�� : � �i- '�� :1� � �; ;13� ';`;
�: ` �� ` i� . ;•;; .: �. �� �
!�� ,= !'' . �� ,�i ;
. �. ; 1� " .� : � � �����, ,' , , �.: � � �� � �: � �> � � � ,�:
, ,.
�; ��. ' ,��. , ;1� � !� '_ ' . ;� `�, : :� . . � � .� : ��,,���- . �. ��� ; : �. ., ..., ;� � * ' . " 1- � i . )�_
.- . ■ .
.. . : `1:. - ' : ,. -i; ' , � ,, . �. � � . � �
��E�AS, Chuck Durand, representing the Holiday Stationstore, has appfied for a
conditional use permit to conduct open and outdaor sales at his business located at 2732 I�ighway
10, property zaned PUD, legally described as follows:
Loe 1, �lock 1, ,Silvervaew ��traPes,
C��nty ofl��m�ey
��E�t�S, the Planning Commission has reviewed the foilowing documents re�arding
this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. �ite Plan
d. Letter from Property Owner
�i'��1�AS, The Nlounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that
the specific criteria %r approval in Section 1114,44, Subd. 2 have been met:
a. Outdoor service, sates and equipment rental connected with the principai use is
limited to t�vrty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principai use.
The Holiday Stationstore building contains approximately 6,500 square feei of building
space. The proposed produce stand would accupy 144 square feet of the property, which
is about 2% of the building square footage on the site.
b. Outside saies areas are fenced or screened from view of neig�boring residential uses or an
abutting residentiai district in compiiance with Subdivisioras 1103.08(1) -� (5) of this Title.
The produce stand would be screened from the neighboring yetrto-be completed Realife
�ooperative senior residentiat complex by the Hoiiday buzlding.
c. All lighting shaII be hooded and so directed that tlae light source shall not 6e visibie from
the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in �ompiiance wiih
Section i 103.09 of the Code.
ihe applicani will not have any lighting associated with the praduce siand as it wilI be -
operating during daylight hours.
:;i
Holiday Pcoduce Cup
Resolution 589-99
July 21, 1999
Page 2
d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to co�►trol dust.
The applicant is proposing to use the lawn area adjacent to the north bank of parking stalls
instead of taking up space in the parking lot.
e. The open or autdoor service, saie or rental use does not take up parking spaces as required
for conformity of this Title.
The produce stand would not be Iocated in the parking lot and it is expected that the
majority of the customers wauld be drawn from those already on the premises for gas or
convenience products.
�I�E�AS, th� Planning Commission has eonsidered the provisions from Section
1125.01{1)e of the Zoning Code regarding possibie adverse effects of the proposed use and
makes the foilowing findings:
{1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Pian.
(2) The geographical azea 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 designates this site as Mixed Use PUD, which coincides with the
zoning of this site. Such an accessory use would not be inconsistent with the Plan. The
store is at the corner of two nnajor transportation arteries and is screened from adjacent
residential uses. The sale of produce is a�ypical seasonal business in a community such as
Mounds View and it serves a communiiy need. The short duration of the use will result in
little, if any, adverse effect upon the surrounding area.
W�E�AS, The Mounds View Pianning Commission makes the following fmdings that
the general criteria for CUP approval in 5ubdivision 1125,01 (2) have been met:
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on e�cisting parks, schools, streets and other public
facilities and utilities which serve or are praposed to serve the area.
It is not expected that this use will have any impact on parks, schools, streets and otheY
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the a�ea.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatibie or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing �►omes wilt not be depreciated in value and there will
be no deterrence to development af vacant land.
Tdre produce stcand would be screened frorn the neighboring yet-�to-be completed Realife
Cooperative senio� r�esadential complex by the Holiday buildrng and by distance.
Holiday Produce Cup
Resoluiion 589-99
July 21, 1999
Page 3
(3} The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent
residential properties.
While staff has no plans to show the design or- construction of this structur�e, it is not
expected that the I2 foot square stand would hcrve ar� adverse appearcance, nop would it
be adjacent to any residential p�operty.
(4) The use, ua the opinion of the City Council, is reasonahly related to the overail needs of the Czty
and to the e�stir►g land use.
The City already has given approval for one produce stand to be located atMoundsview
Square. This type of business, however, depericds upon existing traf�c foY the majoraty of
its business, which means it wiZl draw priyrrarily fron� fhose people already at the Holiday
store. Having two sucla businesses separated by a third of a mile on opposite sides of
Highway 10 would satrsfy a need crnd provide for additional conveniei�ce.
(5) The use is cansistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to iocate the proposed use.
Tdte Zoning Code allows for this �ype of use with a conditional use pe�mit. It would not
inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Code foY such a business to ope�ate at thrs �}
locatron. -
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The Comprehensive Plan desig�ates this area of the Crty as Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development, which indicates an anticzpation for a variety of uses. A produce stand to
be located at a gas and convenience sto�e would not be inco�rsis%nt with t�ie
Comprehensive Plan. .
(7) The use will not cause lxaffic hazards or congestion.
It is not expected that this use will draw significant customers on its own. The majority of
its customer base will be those people already at the Holiday store for� gas or othe�
conveniences. As such, it tivould not be expected that thzs use would cc�use traffic hazards
oY congesiion.
{8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary faciliiies have been or wiil be
provided.
Tdre use tivould be located in the paYkin� lot of the Holic�Cry Stationstore which is served by
Highway IO and Silver lake Road. All of the infi�astructure se�ving this site a�e installed -
and provided--no crdditional infYCrstructure will be needed top accommodate this use. _. .
Holiday Produce Cup
Resolution 5�9-99
7uly 21, 1999
Page 4
���I, T�E�FQ�, �E IT �SOLVEI3 that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval ai a condiiional use permit for a produce stand at the Holdiay
Stationstore located at 2732 Highway I0, with the following stipulations:
1. The facility shall be allowed to operaie from 7uly 1 to Octabe� 31 of each year.
�. The produce stand shalt operate only between dawn and dusk hours.
3. Signage shall be allowed only as affixed to the stand and/or roof.
4. Lighiing for the use shall be supplied by exisiing parking lot standards.
5. The applicant shaii provide the foiiowing on an annual basis to the Director of
Community Development:
a. Letter of permission.from property owner.
b. Comp(ete set af site plans
c. Narrative description of the proposal.
6, This Conditional Use Permit may be reviewed by the Planning Commission and
City Council if any problems develop or ii there are any changes to the operation
deemed substantial enough to warrant such review, in the estimation of the
Director of Co�nmunity Development or the City Council.
�E �T FUR'T�IER RESOLVEI� that this Conditionai Use Permit shall have na
expiraiion date and sha(1 remain in force so long as the conditions agreed upon herein are
observed.
�E I�' FINf1LI..� I�SOLVEI� that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior tio approval of the minutes.
Adopted ihis 21st day af July, 1999:
At�est:
(�ea.l)
Jerry Peterson, Chazrperson
Rick Jopke, Community I�evelopment Director
;�
?. ;e8✓
�.- �.
•��_ �; .,. , ;i' � _ �',. ;� `�; i; - >#< :.'
��e�lil� ����:
s���° ���o�-t b�:
Piaraning C�s� l�Ioo:
ruty Zi, �9s9
3ames Ericson, Planning Associate
559�99, 560-99
lt�q�aesto The applicant is reques�ing a Rezoning and Conditional use permit
for an assisted iiving senior residential facility on vacanic land behind
Super America.
Petiiione�°:
I,oca�ione
'' :1� � ,i.
MSP Real Estate
26i0 County Road I(Vacant lat behind Super America}
0'7-3 0-23 - I 1-0040
Prese�t ��ni��/I..ar►d �Jseo B-2, Limited Business Commercial / Vacant land
A,�tach�aent�o
Location Map
Site I'lan, Option 1
- Site Plan, Option Z
j Assisted Living Background Infarmation
Backgrounat:
M5P Real Estate has made application to rezane the vacant property located at 2b70 County Road
I from B-2, I,imited Business Commercial, to R-4, High-Density Residential, at�d for a conditional
use permit to construct and operate an assisted iiving senior residential facility. According to the
applicant, the reszdents wouid be elderly and unable io care for themseives, some of whom may
have Alzheimer's Disease or other forms of elderly dementia. The proposal wouid fall under the
zoning requirements a.s outlined in Section 1109.44, Subdivision 2, pertaining to "Nursing homes
and other similar group housing".
This requesi was discussed at the Planning Commission's last meeting on July 7, 1999, at which
iime many issues were raised reIated to this application. Many of these issues wili be addressed in
this report and others will be addressed orally at the Comrnission meetin�.
Dis���sao�
�ased on �he discussions at the last Planning Corrunission meeting, ihere are four main issues of
concern with regard to this projeci, The first two, parkir�g and access, are issues that pertain more
to the sf�e p3an than the use itself, and as such, may be less relevant to the request at hand than the
other two items %r discussion�-tax generation and rezoning impacts. Staffbelieves that all of the
issu�s can be addressed to the satisfaction of aIl invoived parties--the Plannin� Commission, the
n�;�hboring residents, and the applicant.
4 ,
j
f1�SP Rssisted Living Proposal
Planning Case 559-99
JUIy 21, 1999
Page 2
Pccrkin�:
It was brought up at the meeting that the parking as show�� on the draft site plan may not be
enough to accommodate the actual demand that the faciiity would generate, even if ihe parking
pravided inet the City's requirements. The site plan shows 22 spaces, which is two more than what
is required, based on the need to provide four spaces plus one space for every three beds. S�aff
researcbed what other facilities provide and what other City's require. The following table
represents examples of parking code requirements for this type of use.
E : � x :3t 3� ia# �. } �#£� �3 � � � t S(i i4.�:sF,2{ .�5¢ksi i i } s {t �� � s � �' s s � hi : N3 �y ��i i� iy _� j �
I�� ��I f� Ij'�a�' I ���'31� � � �£, �� � ���aj�; j� � $ r � � . � � ypy�r ��y � 3
E s at i. ? � �} i 3 � � 3,i�� ,i.iii ii � t t f �33� ' $3.,��?�£3�:;3��'s>;';3� s 3��£'�i & .su ��� . � � . i � ���89 L! ��L&��Z�i� �.
:.,,.?;:��� �3I ) ;:� ,:� �I��� s §. . �$. f�s �.it, ,;.Il �ss $� ..,; .,>'s,:-.. .z ..:;.. :: ,r; . . S,», tt .¢ .:.<� �. , ,. ::.� � i .>?t3.>.�.3 � �� )„ „.-;, ::>> t ,..e5 ,a.,sv :' �,
Saint Anthony, MN Convalescent or nursing homes 1 space per 5 beds, plus 1
space for every employee on
the largest sluft
Gurnee, II; Nursing homes, convalescent 1 space per 5 beds, plus 2
center, geriatric center and the like spaces for every 3 employees,
plus 1 space per doctor
IVlaplewood, MN Multi-farnily residential 2 spaces per room
Ellington, CT Convalescent and rest honrxes 1 space per 4 beds, plus 1
space per etnployee
St. Paul, M1V Nursing Home 1 space per 3 beds and 1
space per each 2
empioyees
�elmont, CA Rest homes, nursing homes, 1 space per 4 beds, plus 1
sanitariurns, convalescent homes or space per two employees and
institutions for the aged 1 space per doctor
Montrose, CO Nursing Homes 1 space per every 3 beds
Plainvieev, TX Sanitarium, conval�scent home, 1 space for every 6 beds
home for the aged or sirnilar
Kenyon, IV�N Congregate housing for the elderly 1 space per room
Jordan, IVIN Nursing Hoane 5 spaces plus 1 space per 5
beds
As can be seen, the city's requirernents fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of required
parking rat�os. The highest ratio �s Maplewood's, yet this is i�risleading in that they do not have a
specific r�quireman� for assisted living or nursing ho�nes. In speaking wiih 1Vlaplevdrood's planner,
he indicated thai the Ciiy's two ass�sted living facilities were granted variances from the parking
requirem�nt. The lowest requirements were frorm Jordan and Piainvie�v, Texas, which require 5 -
and 6 spaces per bed, respectively.
;
;>,
::i
'-f
fVlSP Assisted Living Proposal
Planning Case 559-99
Jufy 21, 1999
Page 3
Staff spoke with a representative from Chandler Place, an assisted living facility in St. Anthony,
Minnesota. The ciiy requires one space per every five beds and one space per emplayee on the
largest shift. The repres�ntative indicated thai there is often a parking shortage at the facility,
�which shares the parking lot with a nursing home. During these periods, however, there is on-
street parking available to accorrunodate overflow, an option that is also available in Mounds Vi�w.
Mounds View's code requires that all required parking for a use be accommodated on-site, yet
does not prohibit vehicle parking on streets where parking is allowed. Given this and the
availability of addiiional spaces on site, parking should not be an issue of significant cor�cern at this
point.
�4ccess:
This use as proposed would take soie access from County Road I. A concern waa raised at the
Commissian meeting aboui how delivery vehicles--semi tractor trai�ers in particular--would be able
to perfarm a safe eniry and exit frorr► the site. As currentiy proposed, there is only one way in and
one way out of the parking Iot and no room is availahle for a large truck to turn around. Given ihe
number of times such a vehicle would be servicing this tocation--perhaps once a week, it might not
be completely unacceptable to have a truck backing out from the facility. On the other hand, any
iime a vehicle, especially a large truck, has to back out onto a busy street is one time too many.
For this reason, stafiinstructed the applicant to initiate discussions with SuperAmerica io see if it
wouid be possible to tie inta their rear access onto Mounds View Drive as shown on the attached
site plan, indicated with 4ption 1. A better alternative to this option, shown as Option 2, is to
reconfigure the parking 1ot and add an exit onto Mounds View Drive. This would eliminate the
�eed for any cross-access easements or agreements between the subjeet property and the
SuperAmerica property, as well as preserve the overgrowth of vegetation that acts as a screen
between the two properties.
The other issue with regard to access is that there is a median between the east and west lanes of
County Road I which e�ends }ust beyond the proposed entrance to the property. Because the vast
majority of traf�ic destined for .this property would be coming from Highway 10, the median would
cause vehicles to either cut in front of the median into oncoming traffic or perform a u-turn at
Mounds View Drive and County Road I, neither of which would be a safe inaneuver. I� is not yet
lcnown whether the county would permif the median io be cut back to a11ow safe access, hut stafF
would require that some aiteration be made to make access more convenient.
Tcr1c Ca�acitv.:
The question of taxes was brought up at the Commission meeting, pertaining to the differences in
tax generation between the proposed use a»d an unspecified commercial use. Because of the
number of unknown variables invoived, it would be difficult to provide any substaniial response
other than the tax rates that wouid be used. In speaking with Ramsey County Tax Department,
stafflearned that a use such as the proposed assisted Iiving facility would be taxed a� the same rate
as any oiher comm�rcial use--2.4 pereent up to the first $150,000 in valuation. From that poinic on,
commerciai uses are taxed �t the rate of 3.4 pereent. There is a pravision in the tax code thai
allows for "elderly iiving facilities" to maintain the 2.4 percenfc rate at vaivations after� $1�0,000 as
well, �hus the proposed use would be taxed at the 2.4 percent for its tatal valuaiion. Wluie a
commercial use may be taxed at a higher rate after the initial $150,000, it wauld not be unrealistic
to assum� that the proposed use would be "valued" significantly ixigher than a retail or co�nercial
�: .:
MS� Assisfied Living Proposa!
Planning Case 559-99
July 21, 1999
�age 4
use, which might have 75 percent of its space open for display or sales, and the balance for storage.
It is not currentty known whai assessed valuation the County assessor would establish for this use
and there are no known similar facilities with which ta campare. Similarly, there are no new
commerciai uses in the area that would be appropriate to use as a commerciai comparison in ierms
of tax generation. As best as staff can determine with the information it has, the proposed facility
would be likely to generate an equal or greaier amour�t of taxes than many, bu� not ati, commercial
uses.
Rezoning:
�onne members of the community who were in attendance at the Planning Comrnissions's last
meeting expressed concern over the potential re-uses of the property should the assisted living
faciiity fail oi- be sold to another developer. The permitted uses in an R-4 district are multiple
family residential, townhomes, boarding horne or day care home (both of which are restricted to a
family dwelling). Nursing homes and similar group housing is permitted conditionaily wiihin this
district. Because of the conftguration of the building and the rooms, none of which would have
private kitchens, utiiities, or entrances; this building could not be reused for multiple fami(y
housing--not oniy would it not meet housing and building code requirements, the lot couid not
accommodate the required parking of 2.5 stalls per unii. From a practical standpoint, ti�is building
could only be reused iar what is being proposed--assisted living. If a daveloper at some point in
the future intended to raze fihe structure and start from scratch, this would be allowed yet would
probably not be econonucal feasible given the expected value of the facility. But even if this were a
reaiistic consideration, the re-uses without a CUP woutd be linnited to multi family housing.
Because of the size of the lot and the parking requirements, probably no more than 12 uruts could
be built. The other possible use that was of some concern was "group housing," which is allowed
only if the use is in a family dwelling and be limited io no more than 12 children.
The Code in Seetior� 1109.04, Subd 2 is somewhat unciear in its definition of what would be
considered a similar group housing use. Because the subdivision heading is �ursingHoynes; staf�
would contend that similar types of group housing would pertain only to elderly group housing.
But because this i� not explicitly stated, staffwould recommend that if it is the Commission's desire
to limit the iype of group housing ta the elderiy, that the code shou(d be amended io reflect that.
The amendment would be simple, changing the frst line of Subdivision 1109.04 (2) to read,
"Nursing homes and other elderlv con er�gate housing...." This would effectively eliminate any
possible reuse of the property to anything other than a multi-family struciure of a limited size.
�tecoan�eencf�taon:
�taff is recommending that the Commissian discuss this request in the context of whether or not it
would be an appropriate use for this location given the information thai has been pr�sented and
direct staff to prepare a resolution for action ai your next meeting on August 4, 1999.
�c;vy�� �,�'..�u`,�a,.�
James �ricson, Plar�ning A�socia.te
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDE V1DE VCASES1559-991MSP.PC2
I .':
I�� Of U Cl �I
LOC fl �
��
_�
��
�...
��111
C
nnsP Re�t �St�te
267o caunty Roaa �
Conditional Use Permit and Rez�ning
Planning Case No. 559-99 and 56�-9�
2670 Ctiu�fy Road I
�'ropertie� V1lithin 350'
�`
�
p � � v�
r' N
N N
< {/i
r^ �° X'
0
y�� 4 .-m^--e_e�.._m��me��.�
R z a 7 s
M = °'>
� e � i .
i
i
i�
i�
�' a.c• m
�
�� e �Q� _ OA.i6� _ �
/ / ! e f 2�
/ � e�- ���
/ .�' �° � 1 bi
� ��� / t
/� �' '�• �e_e_...m� � . ��
/ `% � i � � .- 1
/ pp / �
/ / � �' �
i�� /
Oo ( I
/ ' f
/ . p4rti'/, j� o � ;
/
rr`, ,% J� �, � i �i l�
, j ' _
/
1! I '/�� � � �f I '
f ' ! °O � !t �
. , i
I
l
i
E
1
�\
I
l
i
s
1
f
I
�
i
i
i
�
i
I
�
'
r
t
i
�
i
;
;
1�
� �
� �
: ,
r el
��
.i
i
m�
�
��
Q D�
�C � .
U
2 �1
m ��
.,
8�
�� ;
Ct .
�
I
E
�
{
I
I
I .
I �
I ��
4
t
� � >R � �
�s ' � ,�N£ 'u
� �<� �� %" �
i
.� ,� �,� �
��{�,; ,
i ��
� ' f�`\```' �,�'✓
� � �^``�� ���
� � �� ` v�
. �, �� �:, .,�;��y.��
� `,1 :, `, ,•
. ^ •��.�
, ; � :-
t.
.��� -
�Y - .
sti� � � �
" i ,��.'; �:_'s
°� o` 1 � �
i- ��� `1 �j ` "
�Y �, `.
1 � 1 1�
� � \ "� '_
� ���- ��:��
. � �
\
` � , ,:a
�a � � , � ;:��
\ ' i �
� yl i`F `
� j�� : ��`� `.
y� .'�'
`
�
' ., �' :ti.. :`. %�=..
�°
" �.
��w
�
�
{
I
I
�
�
�
I
1
t
i
�
k
1
1
l
Y
1
S
1
1
�
�
ti
5
1
\
i
\
�
,
�
I.; .
_. 1
� �
� U. � ,�
�- ry � � �
� �. `
� ( � h �
\% � V1 � "
1�- d'
m_ - ��±- t?�i " �'�,_.',�.° N.��' A`JI� i�� .$f'e .
. 1� 1., L ��e IJ'_�L�:._t5 .'I�J+1 4!�,
_�:n::.. e e�:��a., n �'�F pfJ.�,+):�.\?. �1—�' �
_ r+�,� , . I. J
•-_. u.n su �b?'
�. � . . . .
+
<-)
C � � ��
z�
c�
w�
S N
m� K' �m._
�O = � ���.__��d.e_�r�m�r..
�n * �
$ � �� .
e*� $ ' �
0
�
0
r
�
i
i'
i
i
i
i
/
/
!
!
r
l
!
f
�
i
i
c
:
i
i
i
E
!
1
I
;
�
I
I
4
1
I
I
rl
rm—
I
I
I
i
�
i
i
l
�
l
1
1
f
1
i
1
t
i
1
l
1
1
i
t
�
i
�
�
`
�
�
\
,� / � � , �.�
. �
�
� �
�
� �
- -�Z, p.i -- G�z.�....." N.eP a:5:� i�.� e=�Re ,
°' � ' p `` ��� �i�.'V�S v�:.1�1, h�i'. .
. S` . .I,�: : :' � !. �. EE' � ' .
_e :k;:.C. a a�a��i::. H �aF � IJ,.�):�.\?. ��' �
• ' ea.� . I! � . ,
. - wrs ru .r'r' • � •
What is Assisted Living7
�a.
����,
� �;� .
� ��
�., � ! .� ; 1
�
� ��
�z
http://www.alfa,org/WhatsAL.htm ;
ihe new housing and healfh care alfernative combining independence with
persorra! care in a warm, digni�ed, corrrmunity sefting.
l - - -. ; . �:�
The Assisted Living Federation of America (ALFA) defines an Assisted Living
residence as a special combination of housing, persona(ized supportive
services and health care designed io meet the needs —both scheduled and
unscheduled--of those who need help with activities of daily living.
�i =.. .:,.,-, ,. ... -�.. .;
ALFA members subscribe to a 10-point philos�phy of care:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
,�
Offering cost-efFec#ive quality care fihaf is personalized for individual
needs
�ostering independence for each resident
Treafiing each resident wifih digr�ity and respecf
Promofing the individuality of each resident
Rilowing each residertt choice of care and lifestyle
Protecfiing each resident`s right to privacy
Nurturing the s�irit of each resident
Involving famify and friends, as appropria#e, in care planning and
implement�tion
Providing a safe, residential environment
Making the Assisted Living r�sidence a valuable community asset
. �. -.: ��;� .-
Currently, more than a million Americans live in an estimated 30,p00 Assisied
Living resid�nces. Assisted Living residenis can be yo�ang or old, afflueni or
low income, frail or disabied. A typical resident is age 83 or ofd�r, is female,
and is either widowed or single. Residents may suffer from Alzheimer's
disease or other memary disorders. Residents may also need help with
incontinence or mobifiiy.
. . - � .. .. �. ,. • . .� '��
A�si�ted Livittg residences �an range from a higharise apartment complex to a
converfed Vicforian home to a renovated schooL Residences may be free
standing or housed with other residenti�l opfiions; sucf� as independent li�ing
or nursing care. They may be operat�d by r�on-profit or for-profit companies.
�ost facilities have between 25 and 120 units. Th�re is no single bl�aeprir�t,
because cansumers' preferences and needs vary widely. Units may vary in
;
I
1 of 3 07/I4/99 12:55:14
Witat is Assisted Living7
http://www.alfa.org/WhatsP,L.htm
size from one roam to a full aparfimenf.
.,., ;. -. ,: =.: -,
Regula�ions �nd licer�sing regula#ions vary frorrt s4ate to sta4e contribu�ing to
the wide range of senior housing models cansiciered Assisted Living. �liost
provider� and their s#aff have special trair�ing as a result eifiher of st�te
requirements or company policy. Some stafes require special sfaff
certification and training. Residences must comply with local building codes
and fire safefy regulations. AL�A bslieves the mosf successful regulations are
consumer drive, balancing th� safety concerns we a!I share with the
consumers' desires fio retain their ind�pendence and freedom of choice.
�_ , � . .�. �, � y� .. � �_ �' -
Services provided in Assisted Living residences u�ually inclucie:
� 7hree meals a day served in a common dining area
Nousekeeping services
Transportation
Assistance with eatir�g, bafhing, dressi�g, #oileting and walking
24-hour security and staff availability
�mergency call systems for each resident's unit
Healih promotion and exercise programs
:_�::; il�edication management
� - � Personal Iaundry services
Socia{ and recreational activities
.... .
Costs vary with the residence, room si�e, and the types af services needed by
the residents. Across ihe nation, daiiy basic fees range from approximately
�2O to $100 �� generally less than the cast of home healfih services and
nursing home care. ,4 basic Assisted Living fee may cover all services or
fhere may b@ additional charges for sp�cial services. Most Assisted Living
residences charge manth�ta-month rates, but a few residences require
long-term arrang�ments.
� �, ,, - �.; � - .: � � � - . � . � - � . •
�esidents or their families generally pay th� cost of care from their own
fir�ancia! resources. Depending on the natur� of an individual's he�l#h
i�surance program or long-term care insurance policy, co�ts may be
reimbursed. In addition, some residences have their own financial assistance
programs. Gov�rnment paym�nts for� Assisted Living resid�nces has been
limiied. Some state and local governm�nfs offer subsidies far renf or s�rvices
for [ow income elders. (�thers m�y provide �ubsidies in fihe fcarm of an
�dditional payment for those who receive Supplemental Sec+arifiy Income
{SSI) or Medicaid. Sorr�e state� afso ��ilize Medicaid waiver programs to help
2 of 3 07/14/99 12:55:14
What is Assisted Living?
htip://wwtiv. atfa.org/WhatsAL.hCm
pay for Assisted Living �ervices.
: R� ." : • �S � . �- �' � : " ♦,� ' , �; "' ' -
� Consumers inferesfed in locating Assisted �;���: �,������ ��.;.
Living facilities shauld visi# �he searchable �' ��,��_ - $ �- —
g �.,; ;:�.�,,� ��:�°�` �����
ALFA Online Direc#a of Assisted Livin . ;� ,;�-�� ' � . . ,
... f% ,us.w�,cearn��:,��!.?:r��
providers a# CareGuide. l'he site is
searchable by state, county, city or metropolitan area. ,
Call the national �Idercare locator service at (800} 677-1116. Calls are
accepted befiween 9 am - 5pm IVionday #hrough Friday.
Cont�ct your loca! area agency on aging. These agencies are generaliy
listed in the biue pages of your telephone dir�ecfiory.
Check your library for the Nafii�nal Directory af Retirement Facifities.
Or for a state listing of ,4ssisted Livirtg resider�ces contact Gloria Lewis,
Consumer Referra! iVianager, �ICa7alfa.ora
" �f,S't = - Z> �S.�t,%:..�_ <���`� �»���& n,yC"L xo.�;
� <��>,.
For more information abouf Assisted Living contact Whitney Redding,
Director of Media & PR w�alfa.orc�.
�s� wy�- ,�, � � ,..
� ��� �� ' •
� .;>� , �.F �`� ��, �3:;
Send mail to Ic[u��l�a.or�; with questions or comments about this e�eb site.
Copyright � 199�,1999 Assistecl Living I+'ederation of America
I.ast modified: March 31, �999
' `.`,
>;, r
3 of 3 07/14/99 12:55:14
� .. �,: � ,; r�
,i.Y � � � � -
. . >
_ , .
_7 -
I _ i�
'I'o:
�'�°am:
Sub,�ecto
I)ate:
Mounds View Plaiuiing Comtnission,
Ricic 3opke, Community Development Director
Billboards
July 15, 1999
As I previously i�'dica#ed to yau the City Council has asked that the staff and Planning
Commission cantinue to loolc into and inalce recommendations concerning ordinance
amendn�ents to t%e sign ordinance to atlow bilibaards in certain areas of the cornrnunity and to
allow signs in the PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreational and Preservation
zoning districts.
Ai ihe 3uly 7, 1999 Planning Commission meeting I presented ta you two draft ordinances for
Planning Commission discussion. The first ordinance dealt with billboards. This ordinance was
drafted after discussions with a representative from the billbaard industry, and after reviewing
state riaies and ordinances from the Cities of Minneapolis and Si. Paul. The draft ordinance
amendment proposed the following:
I. Reinoves billboard provisions from Secfiion 1008.08 Subdivisions 1 and 5 and puts
all billboard requarements in Section 1008.08 Subdivision 10.
Commentary: This is proposed to allow for� easier administration.
2. Adds a new requirement that a conditional use permit be obtained for any new
billboard. Such conditional use permit will expire when the bzllboard lease expires and
will be null-and-void if any zequired s#ate pertnits are not obtained.
Commentary: An alternative would be to not require a conditional use permit and rely
on the standards in the ordfnance to ensure that billboards are properly installed and
maintained. No sign pernzit would be issued unless all of the standards in the
ordinance are met.
3. Sets location standards including being on city-owned property iocated along or north
of 11 �. Billboards must be orientated to 118 or 35W and be at least 250 feet fram
reside�tially zoned property. Billboards can be lacated with a zero setbac% from stxeets
bui may not overhang the rightaof-way.
Con�men.ta�y: The standaYd fo� location an or north of 118 is based on City Council
direction. The separation from residentially zoned property is open for discussion. The
setback standard is from the existing ordinance in Section 1008. 0$ Subdivision 1
Parag�aph S. �
4. iets minimum spacing of billbaards at 1500 feet measured along the same side of the
same roadway.
Co�nmentary: Spacing is open to discusszon. In my review of oChe� ordinances I have
seen spaczng requirements from 500 feet to 1000 feet. The representative ff-om the
billboard company indicated that the City could consider spacing requirements up to
2000 feet. I have asked Johr� Hamfne�schmidt to review the spacing ofpotential sites to
determzne if the I500 foot spacing �equi�ement would wor�k.
5. Sets maximum sign area at 700 square feet but allows ten�porary extensions over and
abave thai as lon� as they do not exceed 25 percent of the sign area and as lang as they
do not exceed certain dimensions.
Comr�zenta�y.• The praposed r^equirements reflect standard billboaYd sizes and
pYactices.
6. Requires tl�at billboards have no more than two faces that are back to back and angled
no more than 35 degrees. =��
Commentary: This standard is suggesied for aesthetic reasons to limit the visual
im�act of these signs.
7. Sets the maximum sign height at 35 feet.
Commentary: This consistent with the code requirements for other signs. The St. Paul
code allows signs up to 37'/_� feet. The point.of ineasurement standards are based on.
other codes and state reguirernents.
8. Requires that billboards not obstruct traffic signs or obstruct drivers vision.
Cornmentary: This is importani fo� safety �easons especiaZly if billboards are allowed
right up to the right-of-way Zines.
9. Indicates that existing billboards can be maintained and the message changed as
Iong as they are noi expanded.
Co�nmentary: This �°equi�°ement is intended to cla�°� the status of nan-confo�ming
billbocards.
14. The titie of Seciion 1008.11 is chatiged to reflect what is actually discussed in the
section.
I have sent a copy of ihe draft ordinance to the City Attorney's office for review and cormnent.
At the request of the Commission I have also aslced the City attorney to suggest some "sunset"
language which would allow the code to revert back to its present forn� if ihe state does not allow
any billboards. As I indicated to the Planning Commission an July 7�1i, the City Attorney's office
is reviewing two related matters. These include whether there are deed restrictions �vhich would
preclude billboards on the golf course property and whether are not there would be spot zoning
issues. I have not yet received ariy fiu ther information from the City Attorney concerning these
issues.
I also sent a copy of the proposed ordinance to a consultant to the billboard industry and received
comments bacit subsequent to the July 7th meeting.lVlr. Cronin commented thai he felt it was a
reasonabie ordinance bufi requested that the City consider one change. The change was #o a11ow
signs that wauld have ax�. angle greater than 35 degrees to aliow sign faces side by side. I have
attached his comments which include an illustration of the type of sign he would lilce allowed.
I also indicated to the Planning Commission on Juiy 7th that, in terms of ma�ixnizing potential
sites on the golf course, the proposed minimum spacing could be reduced frozn 1500 feet to I OOQ
feet.
The second ordinance amendment ailows and sets standards for signs in PF and CRP zoning
districts. The curreni code does not list any permitted signage or standards in either of these
districfs. The draft ordinance allows signs cansistent with neighborhood business distc•icts and
with the pedestal sign require�nenis in Section 1008.01 Subdivision 6 in the PF and CRP
districts. This is open for discussion. The amaunt of signage allowed may be more than
necessary. The existing signage at parks in a neighborhood setting appears ta range from 18 to 20
square feet total sign area while the main City Hall sign is approximately 128 square feet in area.
The total freestanding signage at the Community Center appears to be approximately 90 square
feet. Signage at the golf course has been at times as much as 130 square feet.
REQUESTED ACTION: It is requested that the Pianning Commission continue its discussian of
the attached draft ardinances and suggest any changes that may be necessary. The Commission
should also discuss what lcind of public input process should be utiiized. At a future meeting the
Planning Commission will be asked to make a formal recommendation of ordinances to the City
Council.
N:�DATAIGROUPS\COMDEV�YLANCOMM\7-15-998.MEM
i
�''�. �� . `, �g
� , t :;� ;� .,,
1% �; . , �� ': ;. �
� .f;,
' � ? � . "�. .;_ '. ; ; `�, � - ': :; , : .- :r r : �` � � �' i = , i- `�` +. � '�' ` , �' ;
�� - �'� :�� �' �' :- ; � '�� �. , � : , �' � � � ;� � � ,- '' ��
,'r_1 ��
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEVJ ORDAINS:
�ECTION 1: Section 100�.08 o�the Mounds tliew Municipal Code is hereby amended
with the proposed additions under�lined and italicized and deletions
respectiveiy, to read as follows: 9
Subd. 1. General Standards; Paragraph I(1}: Na ground sign (excep� temparary signs,
portable signs or banners), or signboard �e� shali approach at any point r�earer
than three feet {3') to any building unless such sign is placed parallel �o the side of the
building, nor shall any such sign be placed within six feet (6'} of the side of any lot nor
nearer than fifteen feet (15') to any sireet line where there is no established or customary
buildin� liile nor within twenty five feet (25'} of any street corner right-of-way. Wlienever
the esiablished or customary uniform building line upon the street where sucli ground
sign is to be erected is more than fifteen feet (15') from the street ar property line, then ,f
such si�n shall not approach neaxer to the street than the established or custaxnary ''
uniform building iine.
Subd. 5. Signs Along Freeways: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, signs
located on pioperty adjacent to any freeway within the Municipality (including Intexstate
Highway 35'W} shall be business signs advertising businesses being eonducted on the
premises on which the sig�s are located. No "traveling" or changing-message signs shall
be located so as to face any freeway or be visible from the freeway. The provisions of ti�is
subdivision, however, sha11 not be construed to xender iliegal or nonconforming any
signs which are legally located along any such freeway at the effective date herein.�
,
�
, �
Subd. 10. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard �r
,
. unless it corn�lies with the�ollotivin� �°e�uirements•
a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI _T.• A conditional use �nermit�CUP� must be
obtained in accoYdance the�rocedu�es found in Section 1125 01
Subdivision 3 o the Mounds Vie�� Munr'ci al Code. An conditional use e�mit
issuec� for a billboard shall automaticallv ex�ire when the lease a�reement or the
billboard ex�ir•es Such CUP shall be null-and-void i,�the a�a�licant fails to obtain
an re uired errnit om the State o Minnesot�.
b. L4CATION• The billboard rraust be located along or north o�118 and n�ust be
located on Citv-owned��o�er The a plicant nzust have an annYOVed lease
a�Yeerrrent wrth the Citv The billboard shall be oriented towards 118 andlor
I35W. Billboards must be located at ledst 2S0 eet am residentiall zoned
pro�tv Billboa�ds ma� be located adiacent zo the ri ht-o�v of a street ar
hi�hwav but no z�art theYeo shall extend over such riQht-of-wav.
c. MINIMUMSPACI'NG.• Billboards must be at least 1 S�0 eet a art. S acin
between si�ns shall be measured by�roiectin� the nearest noints o the signs to
th�ro�er lfne o the ri�ht-�wa�from which thev are intended to be �ead and
measu�rn the distcrnce in a strai ht line between the Yo �ected oints. Re uired
s acin shall a l onl to billboa�ds on the same side o the same roadwa .
d.1t1AXIMUM SIGN AREA - The rnaxirnum ,�-ross sur ace displa area o the si n
eannot exceed 700 sauare eet ber side exce,�t that anv rectan�ular billboard mav_
contain tempararv extensions cutouts or ta� lettering which occupv a total arecc
not in excess o twen - ave �5 ercent o the area o the basic billboaYd and
orm an inte �al art o the desi � theNeo . No such tem orar extension cut out
or to� letterin� mav nro'ect nzore than six 6 eet f�om the ton, ei,ghteen ��
inches rom either side or aiteen 1 S) inches�f'rom the bottofn o„f the basrc
-:;�=: ;;�' rectan ular advertisin messa e. The area o an extension cutout or� to
letterin shall be deemed ta be the area of the smallest rectan le into which such
extension cutout o� to letterin will rt.
e. ORIENTATION �F SIGN FACES• Billboa�ds mav have no more than two 2
si fz aces. Si n aces must be back-to-back with si n aces arallel or an led. All
billboa�ds vvith their aces back-to-back and�ar•allel shall have no rec�ter
distance than eight �) feet between the fa�es All billboards with faces at an
an le shall have no reater an le than thir - ave 35 de rees.
f, MAXIMUMSIGNHEIGHT' The maximum allowable hei�ht of billboards shall
be thir - ive 35 eet. The hei ht shall be measured om the rade at the base o
the si�n or ,�rom the surface o the roadwav whichever is higher.
,g. OBSTRUCTIDN• No billboard mav be located in such a�nanner as to obscuNe
or otherwise inte� ere witl� the e ectiveness o an o icial tra re si n si nal or
device or obstruct ar inter eNe with a driveY's view o a roachin yner in or
inte�sectin tr•a rc.
Anv billboa�d l�alZX existin�on the e ective date o this ordinance mav continue to be
mainiained in its resent orm and size but not ex anded. This does not reclude the
' t�eYZOdic chan�e o the message or adveYtisement t��'esented on the billboaYd
Any biilboard destroyed by an act of God may be rebuilt within thirty {30) days if the
consiruction of same would corr�ply with this subdivision.
SECTION 2: The tiiie of Section 1008.11 oiihe Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby
amended with �he proposed additions underlined and italicrzed and deletions s����d
�`��, respectively, to read as follaws:
1008.11: : SIGN VARIANCES:
SECTION 3. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty (30) days after its publication in the
ofiicial City newspaper.
Read by the City Council of #he Ciiy of Mounds View on this day of , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of th� City of Mounds View on this day of
, 1999.
ATT'EST:
Clerk/Administraior
(SEAL)
APPROVED 1�S TO FORM:
Cify Attorney
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
Charles S. Whiting, City
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVISPECPROJ1bXX.ORD
;' �}
;,: i '.l; ' (.. .' ; ."' ��1 .
7
C.lY S�1' LWA�Vl`71V17 V SL` Vy
��Ui F Y H �.[ R�C81Vi�7L` Y
STA'I'E OF ESOTA
' -� '. 't i` ; °. 1 .� . ; . . ; .,. . . , 1 I : - �. '�. 1, : 'i ? :. � � ' .,1, ,, i: ,
, ` � . ; '� . , '.1' 1 ,. ;: -�. � . :� , . :, � . � ; � ;; ; :�. �. . �; . � , :, � :1 ;
. ,� � c
THE CITY O� MOLINDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTI�N 1: Section 1008.08, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby
amended by adding the following new paragraphs m and n. The proposed additions are underlined and
italicized and deletions '- �-•` �--''`�"�`�°`; respectively, ta read as follows:
m PF Public Facilities Distt�ict•S�ns not exceeding 100 sauare %et total per buildin� In
addition edestal si ns a�e allowed in accordance with Section 1008. 01 Subdivision 6 exce t
that no nermit shall he �antede or an pedestal si of more than fortv (40 sauare eeP within
one hundred eet 100' o an sin le amil residence.
n. CRP Conservanc Recreation Preservation: Si ns noP exceedin 100 s uare eet total
t�er building In addition nedestal si,�rs are allowed in accordance with Section 1008.01,_
Subdivisiosa 6 exce t that no�ermit shall be �ranted�'or arry pedestal sign oimore than fortv 40
s uare eet within one hundred eet 100' o an srn le amil residence.
-.;- '.', SECTION 3. This Ordinance goes into effect 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 , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of ,
1999.
ATTEST:
(SEAL}
APPIZOVED AS TO FOR1V1:
City Attorney
Dan Coughtin, Mayar
Charles 5. Whiiing, City Clerk/Administrator
N;�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�SPECPROJ1bAA.ORD
100�.01
1008.0' ,_
Subd. 6. PEDESTAL SIGN: A grourad sign erected ugon a single post ar shaft or upon two (2)
posts or shafts that rnerge or touch at the base or which are not more than fi�teen feet
(15') apart, center of shaft to center of shaft, with the display portion mounted on top
Yhereaf at least seven feet (7') above �he surface of the streei adjacent to the property on
which �h� sign is locafed. I�10 such sign shaIl have a sign area of more than three hundred
forty (340) square fee� an each s�de. Such sign may advertise oniy businesses located on
the premises. No business property shali have more #han one pedesial sign adjacent to
each street upon which such business property abuts; provided, thai on each s�reet frontage
of rnore than one hun,dred feet (100'), one additional pedesial sigr� may be es�ablished and
maintained on such street frantage if such additional pedestal si�n a) is located on a single
pole, b) does not exceed twenty exght (2�) square feet zn an area on any side and does not
Iiave more than two (2) sides, c} is not more than fo�r feet (4') ir� width or seven feet (7')
iz� height on ihe s�gn face, d) is located at Ieast sever� feet (7') above the surface �f the
streeY. In iieu af oz�e addit�onal pedestal sxgn, iwo (2) separate signs may be Iocated on
. the same pole, but sttch two (2} signs combined shatl nat exceed, �n area or dimensions,
the limitatrons applic�ble to a single addiiional p�destal sign. 1Vo pedes�al sign shall be
so designed as io have bo�h a) mavir�g parts, and b) moving or blinknldn� iights. Ir�
addition to the pedestal signs �ermitted by the fare�oing pravisions of #his subdivision,
a sign advertising a publ�c teiephone rnay be located ur th� area ahead of th� bu�lding :
setback Iine oz� the structure zn which such public telephone zs locateci. '��
Subd. 7. PORTABLE SIGN: A back-t�-back, znobile advertising device which may be �
maunted on wheels and used for commercial as well as civic pron�ations.
5ubd. �. PROJECTING SiGN: A sign other than a walI sign suspended from or supported by
a building or struc�ure arnd projeciing out therefrom.
�ubd. 9. �tOOF SIGI�T: A sign erected upon or above the roof or parapet wall of a building or
structure.
Subd. 10. SIGN: A sign, the primary functian of wluch is to direct atter�tion to a product,
service or aciiv�ty that is sold or offered either elsewhe�e or upon the pr�m�ses wher� such
sign is located or to which it is affixed. �
�ubd. 11. SIGIV, AD�IERT'ISING: A sign, the primary fitnctron of which is to dzrect attention
�o a produci, servic� or activity �i�.t is sold or offered eithe� els��+rhere or upon �he
premises where s�ach sign �s located or to which i� is affixed.
Subd. 12. SIGN .4�ZEA: 'That ar�a of a sign r�rith�n the marginal 1��es of the surf'ace, which
bears the �.nnouncem��at, rzam�, adv�a�isement or oth�r �nessage ory in the cas� of letters,
f�ures or symbols �ttached dir�c�iy io ariy par� of a buildi�ag, ih� area wh�ch �s included
iri the small�st recta.n�le which car� be rnade to eircumscribe each letter, figur� or symho� ::'
displayed thereor�.
Cily of Mourads f�iew
, _.
---
7--13-1989 2: 38PM FROM M cR01�1 I N 612 9[t i 2645
�
� .� ��►
;.
�`
. r
v , �
;
� y.
`:
�._,_� �. .. � __ �.. �� .. _ ,�: � � _,. . � . . � �� . ,:
;� . • ' . �:
� + � • � �: � _ �.:
�:. • ,
• � .
g. � � � y ;r `� • � _:
, � ,
i` �
" � I , i; _ 'f;. �► .. ; ,. 1 t_� `Ic I1_ . , f ,fd"Ms.
�� < /. . - _ -_ ,�I , �'�_
v - ,�
� : �,, � ���.�t...��• � _�__. _
� � '� � �� � '� , :
�
,� � ; � .
��
.
�;
v Y _
,. : _ _� _ __ .
.: _: ,=� ,
- _ . �.;, . `. • � r . - - ;�� ; r _ = a,�� , �
j� �,� � i. ��; • �• - f i' �1:� '_ �. °1 '
f � f _ � � � � � �; � . : �. . � , j. �` :a � �
� . � _.. _. :> .
�:,'- �_ �. ��...'� ' _ _ � - f: �`.� ' � - -- _ ���,� i " ��
i� � • s • - �:.�ii -'• �'s i - ,�t .�.
" - - ,'�' - - • `li i� �--
�
7-13-1�99 2:39pM �OM M CRONiN �i2 9a1 26�5 P.� ,
,'a ' ; i . • ' ' ' ; r, . - : s e° • ' , , ' �
, ' • . ' I
. , ';
. • �
• � !
� e . 6 v.maoae� s. .�+`�r.uvs�e� � q �enai o� . � ... -:t
J � � � 1
. ,e 1 ;
, o , �
. `,,` e . ; -� �
- e � `e o" f
. \ 0 ,� �� ' �� mr
' l�� o"� • t � - re..- � . .
i O
;
�
� �
i �
� �
� a
! � �
f "
� �.
. �
I o
r
a
• 3
. �
� •to i
�� �°
• �� ��
. �� ���
. ! � ��
p �-
�
E e . f' ;
. i
, �
�
. ' �
�`J�J „
�;��-:,
�
a � B
,.:..-. ;,.. r .-.-.- ..:: .-.-.. .-... .. . .:.;: ..:..- .
i
7—t3—i999 2:38PM FRDM M�RONIN �t2 941 264a
- � �. �
' � '�
�.
+'� ,' .�
_ � �1
,J
. � �
� �
, q
.,
�i � ;,
. �I � ,� , 1
� �� � a1 �
, � (' ! , o ; �
F � . , � '!
.E jjj �
! �1lt �, o � t� �:�di �:
a � + ^
� f
► I
� � '��
; f �
` � 4 ,�
` 1 y^�� � � �
e ,
, �
_ ' � �� ���
, f �,
. �
. ;,
` '� 'i
a
�
. �
� � `
. �!
� 4
; , �_jJ v
u
ti`
1 '
` �
.� � �� .
I y
� i
i
�
i �
'1
d
. , �
:� • .
1i
�
Y
� i
�
�
o�
�, ' - .
�9
�� �
,�,,�
���
�'g� 9
. `1
���
y�
90
0
�. �
0
,`
4 O
�
�
�
, �
, , .,
` 'ti
,
i
;: >. :
_.':;.. , : ; ;
,
_ ,
� . .�; ;: ��: �:�� ,_ :�� : �� :' � � �� � 1, ;��, _ ��� ' �,_ ',� .. . � � �� ; , ; � _ , :�; �,�..
, .�� �, ; ,1 � � �1'� � �
. , �. ; `� �� �♦ ! ��,
Zao� �ignw�y ia,
lo Cait to Order
'The meeting was called to order by Chairperson P
2. Itoli Call
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissi
Nliller, and Stevenson (Commissioner Stevenson j
Members Absent: Commissioner Laube, wi ;:<;�rfor
�
Also Present� Planning Associate Jim:� icson,�
Council M[ember Roger Stigney and��,` order '�'�;��
Ind�x to I�I��a:utes
7
n�eettrt
Regealar Meeting
Juiy 7, 1999
I�/lounds ��evv C°rty �all
r� ��
G:Q'!$11t�5.�1C�'9 �� ���IZ
, 3�uly 7,
nd, Johnson, Kaden,
m.).
Direc�or Rick Jopke,
, . .
Planning ��s�:�a. ��62 9�>���"i� ��€;1?way 10 (site %rmer y own as
Quik Lubc) �i?�ts�t,�era�ion of ��U►tti�tit�n�l use permit to operate an
automobile ren�d� a����c;y.. � 1�ac�'� ug�� �t��nPany (Thrifty Car Rental), Applicant
Planning �"� �Vo. 56l ���,'��Ql. �laadaSe Drive. Cansideration of a
resoluti -'ri approving a vazta��� f�ir a reduced front yard setback.
MMic �e� and Christine G�t��t���, Applicant
'l�� yy..:: t�
��
�?lanilin� Case No. 559 �, 560-99, 2670 County Road I, Discussion
f�> o rezone properCy and for a canditional use perjrut
�enior residential facility
�pee►��<:��ari"riiiig Case No. SP-072-99, Consicieration of Resolution 585�-99,
A resolution recommending adoption of proposed Ordinance b32, an
ordinance amending Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code,
p€rtaining to permitted uses within the B�2, L.imiied Business commercial
zoning district
Page .
�
4
�
F�_1
�ounds Vre�w Planning Comraiiss�on
Itegular Meetiin�
Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99, Consideration of a proposed ordinance
amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
billboards and amending the Code pertaining to signage in to PF and CRP
zoning districts. :_.
Staf'f Reports / Items of Information ��
Chairperson and Pla�u�ing Commissioners Reports ,� ,��, `
�
_ _ —���"
�. Cite�ens' Requests and Coen�aeg�ts on Items l�«� ��i t��� t�.��nda
There were no citizen requests or comments on items �r`��ton th� r��cnti�. .
4. Appi•ov�al of 11'I►n�tes
A. Nlay 19, 1999
Commissioner Braathen requested
"He requested that the Work Se;
• p ��K �
MOTION/��„�ND: Br����nl�
Q�;, �:
, Ayes '� 1 ;
.
:�ctfon
be res+
ier to
.Tu1y 7, 1999
Pa�� 2 ,
�
�
$� %��
t{��Page 8, la�•paragraph, fourth sentence to indicate i
It�ciuled to:��t meet on Wednesday..."
,�
� F��
�ove %�{�May 19, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected.
Nays – 0 The motion carried,
�r��t����iller to approve the June 2, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected.
<<�;<:
�`�es – 7 Nays – 0 The motion carried.
� ° �I������� ��se 1�10. 5G2-99
„>,..<�:..::;��:�.
�roperty Involved: 2475 Highway 10 (site formerly known as Quik Lube)
Consideration of a conditional use permit �o operate an automobile rentai agency.
Applicant: A IVtacfrugal Corripany {Thrifty Car Rentai)
1Vlaund� �Iievv P1ar�n�ng Com�ission
Re�ular° �eeting
The applicant was preseni.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows:
The applicant, Thrifty Car Rental, is seeking a conditionai
business at the property most recentiy utilized by Spots Qu;
there would be no more than ten cars on the premises at ar��'
The applicant indicates that the proposed hours of busin �°��'
Monda throu h Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 4:00 p�.c
Y �
operate on Sundays. Other than repainting the building az�d �;
alter the building or make any improvements to the lands��p
Ericson stated that the primary function o� the pro
an accessory use of sale of said rental vehscles
requirement for the purpose of sales and that this lc
restrictions placed upon auto sales aperations st�f
percent of the building's gross floor area, wtt�c��wc
�'
that if there were 30 cars on the lot, 10 c�%u�ld be
; a Ericson reviewed the conditions
Subdivision 5 of the City Code, �
�`,'•,
stated that the first condition re�u��'
floor area c������ }�rincipai use.��tii
r.alr.►�lat'tr�s� t.h� fiaot� are� t�f tll� L
towards
Ericson noted th� rca�j
that, with �exce�t;
propert'�� are effect
peop >< s across the s
pri�r �; fence, to the
stated that
es
use permi�
�;
k�:,�abe. T�
;,�, ,
��i�t e, wheth
would b�3:��
ays. Tl�e
signage, �
Ja�ly 7, 1999
Page 3
an auto rental
anticipates that
�'or rent or sa���'
�:�
�� tc� 1 00�. , am.
��
n�ss w�+�� not
ar�� rxc�'vlans to
in� ss �� tl�� s�e��tin ; of automobiles, with
;: .
d�11at �4}� ����' 1�as a two-acre 1ot size
t�neet that� r��u�srement. Because of the
, ;,
'Thrifty's aut� sales may not exceed 30
.t� int� t1�r�e'�vehicies. This would imply
��y���d upaz� rental bu���iesses, as stated in Sectian 11 i4,04,
iti coininen�ed on theu�reiationship with the proposed use. He
ig tha� a� acc�sso�� use be limited to thirty pezcent of the gross
c3 apply tc� t�i�: sala� aspect of this business. He stated fihat after
ilding, sta#�'detcrfnined the amount of space that could be put
.Iltal�� no n�ore than three vehicles to be for sale at any one time.
that c�t�tsicl��`sales areas be fenced or screened from view. He stated
res�der�tiat property across the street, a!1 of the abutting residential
�tred. He stated that there was no effective way of screening the
tl��t the building itself pravides a screen, as well as the six-foot wood
� around the rear and sides of the buiiding.
condition requires that all lighting be hooded and directed so as not ta
ties. He stated this criteria had been addressed by the previous owner,
does meet this requirement.
Encsoz�`stated that the fifth criteria provides the requiremeni that "open or outdoor service, sale or
rental use does not take up parking space as rec�uired for conformity of this Title." He stated that,
according to staff's interpretation of the Code, this type of use would rec�uire four parking spaces for
on-site workers and customers. He explained that ihis condition does not apply to the rental vehicles
parked on the 1ot. It does, however, require that a rr►inimum of four parlcing spaces b� marked and
designated for employees and customers.
liioureds View PI�►n�aing Comrr��ssio� ,Ta[y 7, 1999
Regular I���iin� . Page 4
Ericson stated thai Section 1125.01 of the City Code, relating to adverse effects resuiting from the
proposed use, provides criteria which are present for any conditional use. He listed the criteria, and
stated that all of these have been addressed and met. ,�
Ericson stated that there has been a longstanding automoti
opinion, other types of use of the property would not be ap �,
the iniersection of �pring Lake Road and Highway 10 ma V��i
noted, however, that the Comprehensive Pian designate���is
ihat one means of addressing ihis would be during the Cor��re
it co�ld be changed so as not to conflict with the zoning �c� t
be addressed separateiy, and the Commission could deternu��� ^�
to consider it at this iime, or within the cantext of the Cornpi
Ericson stated that, in addition to the Conditional
requirements, the Code aiso requires that certain fii��
eonditional use permit, as indicaied in Section ����:�
���� :
thai these criteria would be addressed in co�ct�an.
approvat oc deniai of the proposal.
Ericson stated that staf�'s recon
believed further discussion was
conditions which si�auld be placf
this could be � po�entially
time far<ft����r d'ts�ussio�
Commiss�c��1 _,.
Niike i�Vinslo�
pon the
use for
3.ra�ion
�e use at ����� �s�c-�l�son, and in staf�s
�•4
3,��iate �e �.ds��� that its location at
�undes�rabL�; ��a�' � ����cif�ntiai use �
�,a�,
parcel ��w d�ns���r �es�dential ��nd
�ensi�� lan updati���; �}rac��:s���here
�� t�e. He stated that ��is t�c�uld also
xeli2er or not it wouid be appropriate
«zl�zv�Plan Update.
c�nd�t�c��i� "and the adverse affects
be address�d in the granting of any
ion 3b t��the City Code. He stated
ftaa���l�a resolution recorrxmending
allow th�proposal at this location, but ihat staff
g the a�ceptability of this use and any additional
o:> �>> or to drafting a resoiution. He noted that
�� �ocation, and added that there was sufficient
�lution prior ta the next meeting of the Planning
Car Rental, stated that their business has been in
operation �,�t�i"�c n�ont.�at�ci� Wards store location in Blaine for eight years. He explained that, in
lighi of � ecent closin�s ci�z�lztny,ofthe Montgomery Wards stores, they were searching for a. new
iocai:i �, ;�tn which to cand��t t�t�xr business. He stated that the balance of their intent was not to open
an �' omobile sales lot n�tin� t}�at seventy percent of their fleet of automobiles is leased and that
tl� ars are returned t��he manufacturer for auction. He stated that their fleet was comprised of
t��i-fy�-percent owner ��of those automobiles. He explained the process of the automobile sales
� ;, ,,
a�p�ci o�`their bus' '. , noting that generally, a customer would inquire about a. specific autorr►obile
tl��t �� �t��' ��,�;; � hich time the vehicle is brought to the location for viewing purposes.
1Vir. �'inslow stated that on the Fourth of July weekend, typically their busiest weekend of the year,
they had 35 rentals, with th�ree or four cars reinaining on the lot. He stated that the rental cars are
broughi up from the main location in Bloomington by reservation, adding that �his is generally
accampiished within a one hour turnover window, to minimize the number of cars on the lot at any
given time
`;;�
_ ;
l�found� �iee� Pl:�nn°rng Co�nmrssion J�rly 7, 1999
I�egullr li�Ieetire� Page 5
Commissioner Kaden asked if the applicant planned on expanding the parking area, noting that ihe
site plan indicates only nine parking spaces. Mr: Winslow stated that they did not plan to expand. He
stated that they iniended to utilize the spaces that were provided. He explained that i�;;�he car rental
� J4� .
business, there might be ten to fifteen cars on site for twenty minutes, unt�l t�:e ru 'drive them off
,2 u,b r il���c
Ll?e IOt.
:y:_
Commissioner Hegland asiced if the applicant would agr'ee t���3icate a
that couid be parked on the lot at one time. Mr. Winsloy;!��ated that 1
to examine the Iat prior to comrnitting to a t�naximum rittinbe��, bu�=t
providing that,
Commissioner Jahnson asked if ihe appticant's business �l�c>l��d�d t�iFC;
thafi ihe iargest truck in their fleet is a fifleen-foot Isuzta��oh trut��,
more room than a normal parking space. He noted that> during a lar��
the end of the month, they may have three of thes� ��� o�i �he lot.
Chair Peterson stated that the pavement
for the oil changing business. I�e stated
r�vhich had led to random parking af ve�
Winslow stated that they attempted fi
arrivals, there were two additior�� st
parking.
Ericsor� �1
suggest that �t�� �pp
provide ti�� ma�n�um
added that some c�ftii
�_
these as w �;;�e st�
as with tl��revious
�;�
arose `�"' e noted the
the : as adequate i
cant
�
er of
t he
e to
i�entals, Mr. Winslow stated
�zcl� does nat take up much
r�s��� weeice�d," typically at
e��7�ihe prci:pa��� o��.rai-�c�xhad been previously utilized
��less parh�� spac� uTas r;�c�u�red than that of a prior use,
les on ti�e.`tat, on tlze mcdian and in the right-of-way. Mr.
vo�d th�`,����' type of�y'oblein, adding that in the event of late
;
��e s�aaces witl��� the buifding that couid be utilized for
a�as ����ale raom for> pai=king at the location. He stated that staff would
ii����tt; p� I.h� site plan where the vehicles wou3d be parked, as well as
er af�r�h�cl�s't�?��.ich would be parked on the lot for a period of time. He
es presen�l� r��iresented storage spaces, but the applicant could park on
a� ihere w�s` na rec�uirement to maintain a drive-through at ihe iocation,
rt�. €�t� �pplicant could double-park their vehicles in that area if the need
�ir�a� ,possibility of parking two cars in front of the stall doors, as long as
� ar�t� egress.
�
C"���,�i�Peterson stated��t it was important to determine the maximum nuenber of automobiles that
�:c�u�c� �tt on t��� 1Q=t; ?�s $treet overflow parking would nat be possible. He stated that the City of
I��p�t�r�� �����r prpl�it`bits overnight parking on City streets, and added thai if a vehicle was left on the
ste��� �t e�u1c�'potentially be towed away. He stated that the parking res�rictions were posted at all
�nirances ta the City. Mr. Winslow stated that they cauld post signs at the locaiion as well, to
pr�vent the drop off of vehicles on the sireet. Ericson stated the requirement that the applicant post
signs to indicate no parking or dropping off vehicles on the sireet at any iime could be added to the
resolution.
l�mtar�ds ��ew Plan��ng Coitt�cnisseon J�sly 7, 1999
ReguIar Meeting � I'a � 6
�
Corrunissioner Miller asked what plans the appficant had for snow remaval. Mr. Winslow stated that
they had four-by-four trucks and a plow in their fleet, He stated that they could dedicate a truck for
the purpose of snow remaval and do the maintenance themselves. Commissioner Mill�� asked where
the snow wouId be placed. Ericson stated that previous owners of the sit�had d�i�;nated areas or�
the property for snow storage, and added that the applicant could indicatc 11�� s���'�w storage location
on the site plan. y�
� ,. ��_
Commissioner Hegtand asked if the applicant had any ����ntion of�.��pand�r�g ��e p�ved ar 3= o
increase the parking capacity in the back of the property, r�o `�ng that���- ppeared t}ia� t1��i-e was'��oom
to ex and in that are and that this would be the time to a�' `�\�
p �, re�s tk�at �ssue. Mr. �Iin��e�w s�:ated that
both he and co-applicant Dave Besonen had coi�centrated ot� tlle ,Ite �nd location, wzthout examining
the deiails of the parking situation, but that he was agreeabl� to taol��n� inta the issue at this time,
Chair Peterson requested ciarification to the locat
relationship to the property Iines. Ericson stated tha� tl'
�� .:
property Gne. He stated that there was some tre���'��
ctoser to the building so as not to interfex ;� ith th
provide an option to the parking require�ents, and��#
Commissioner Kaden stated that
Chair Peierson stated that the e
smaller in size than the City hac� r�
had not be�� ���11 attended, zt�d ��
the appli��z�i c��iasult wit}� �Iie C�1
Chair Peterscx�''explained th�� t�i�
low maintenar��e ty�aes �,f piantin;
could discuss thc,.latxis��ai��z issu�
attracttve
a fenci; it� b��� ,Qf the parking lot, in
was locdiad a;,�tiad distance from the
�,,;
��e build�n,�; �nd the #'ence was located
�3r ;;::�iislow stated that this might
,�'�vould 1`ook into it further.
���fd like��i see soi �;additional landscaping at the location.
� .,..
;reen trecs��origina ���p3anted by the previous applicant were
�ted. F�=ic:sesz� sfat :='�,�hat tl�e trees �were not only small, h�� they
red to be �ti p�t�r�eaith. Commissioner Kaden suggested that
orester F,��;a�r`ding which type of piantings do well in this area.
t� �'ores�er has provided assistance with heartiness issues, and
h�� �� also attractive in the past. He stated that the applicant
tth. �tat�' and the City Forester ta de�ermine an economical and
F�"son�n, co-appli�,�.��t xe���senting Thrifty Car Rental, stated that he was the manager of the
s' off-airport locattnns` �-Ie stated that he managed a lot in downtown Minneapolis which had
�r parking spaces�' �nd that he had no trouble keeping cars off of that lot. He stated that they
b� servicin `��'
g� �e of the automobiles on site, for minor repairs such as oil changes, fixing
;ts, and re�I��rr�g windshield wipers. He stated that this would only be for their automohiles,
1Vrr. 13esonen asked what would be allowable in terms of indicating that they had cars for sa9e.
Ericson stated ihat any type of permanent signage advertising the saie af automobiles should not be
allowed. He stated that sales was considered strictly an accessory use, and to allow signage might
categorize it as part of the principal use, which could cause concern among other parties who had
wanted to utiiize the property for an auto sales op�ration. He also addressed issued of fairness and
legality, and the possibility of vioiation of tlze City Zoning Code,
:::1
I�'Iounds Viewr �i�nnin� Correm�ssaon
Rege�i��° IYreetin�
,Tuly 7, 1999
Page 7
Commissioner Miller asked if it would be possibEe to indicate that cars were for sale inside of the
building, to prevent the problem of the public driving by and seeing a sign from the roadway. Mr.
Besanen stated yes. � Q�
�� ��..;
Council Member Stigney stated that this was a rental business, and th�� fl�� �pplicant would be
bringing a car �o the lot for a specific customer. He stated t�ia��ie did'nc�t wa�� io see any signage
advertising automobiles for sale at the location. ��z�F��� ���
��� ��
Chair Peterson stated that he cancurred with Ericson'� `r�marks;
signage would be unacceptable. He noted that Commissip�t�z;x�ill�
would certainly be acceptable, but tha� thE issues of st�� t�� t
advertising would have to be addressed further. He requested �c�ar��c
to other businesses or the public parl<ing their cars on �l�t wt��k `
Ericson explained that if a person or property ownc,� wez �, to park a
oftheir tot it would be allowed. He stated that in d�aiii��; ���� a C;o
itse[f, the Commission was provided the opport�zuiy tc� �ia��. �c�clEtioj
He stated that if the Commissian felt strar���y that �o ��gi�a�;� �
�r%
requ�rement could be added to ihe resoluti ���to reflec�,that �•�� ���„
,f.
consider the issue on its own. ,;:�r ��s
Cammissioner Stevenson statf
signage, he believed there shoul
the Co�xii�i5�it�:n should t�c C�
.. .. . , .. , ;
already lin��t�d ;ii� th�;ee cars
to the sign itsei� �ic�t�n� il�at
transiate into a �qt�r<���. �i
5tevenson `��c� tftat �e t��:
signage „� vertising the sal�'�
ut�Lz °• i the applicant's ct�
on�.��'the reasons they des��
;���tnat any �x��r��at �a�rmaneni
-'s suggestion of��tt�;�ac�� signage
ac windows or ot��er forms of
tian of the City Code, in regard
�t�� �ale" signs in the windows.
r�hi�(e fc7r:;.sale an the pavement
�ditio�z��i Use Permit and the use
al restrictions upon the signage.
h��.�oever should b� aiiowed, a
ined that the Council could also
, ,. ,�<<.
d that; althou�l� the Co ,mm�ssion could not rule on the matter of
i b`� a rule Ittrzzii���; thts; He stated that if this was a Councii action,
t�in that t�e ���un��l address the issue. He staied that without
out af har�d. �o�nrnissioner Johnson stated that the applicant was
a�e a� t��le time. Ericson stated that the concern was more in regard
�t� a,wiiid�w sign might be allowable, without limitations, it might
;he�� �if piywood, which would be unacceptable. Comrr►issioner
_.
ttie �s�e.shouTd be addressed and clarified prior to agreeing to allow
�� three cars. Commissioner Kaden asked what type of signage was
business location. Mr. Besonen stated that there was none, and that
reet visibility was ta infonn the public that they had vehicles for sale.
�:, �-�
���r'�eterson stated�� often times the pubiic associated a rental car facility with the purchase of
��e�t���es,,,and that ��� y people would simply inc�uire. Commissioner Kaden noted tha# automobiles
��t� ��e� �qld �`tc����the former fire station located in Spring Lake Park, and that the largest signage
�
he ��s3 ��e��,;�1�e�-e was paint or a sign in the window. He stated that he did not find that type of
�,a,:::;,
sigr�age objectionabie.
Mr. Besonen stated that he had naticed the Enterprise car !ot in Spring Lak� Park, and believed that
their signage indicated sales and rentals. Council Member Stigney stated that the sales were not on
� site at that location. Mr. Besanen stated that their car sales would not necessariiy be on site either,
as the majarity af time, the cars would be rented. He suggested the possibility of signs in the cars on
I�Iounds �I�er� �lannin� Comr�aiss�on
Rege�lar 1l�eet�n�
July '1, �999
Pa�e �
the iot indicating the customers inquira within. Chair Peterson asked if aEl of the thirty percent of the
appIicant's vehicles coutd potentialiy be sold. Mr. Besonen stated that was correc�.
Chair Peterson stated that he believed Ericson's points were valid, in reg��d, to th.�'�al issues, and
that something should be provided in the ianguage oithe Conditional Use ��;t�r�i�� ���ddress the issue.
.� ���;
Commissioner Stevenson stated that no exterior signage pr ��ing t#��al� �f vehicies should be
permatted, with �he exception of signage in the windows °����vehicies ��ai�z` �'���rson stated th�i�
a.
interior signage wouid be acceptahle. ;�� ���' ,��
.., �� � �,:.,,u
Commissioner Braathen asked how the Saturn Dealer��i�
Commissioner Stevenson stated �hat the sate of automobiles ��
He added that the City had placed a moratorium on ih�t t'y��
Peterson exptained that, due to proble:ns in that area of th��'City, f
to provide a workahle compromise. He stated that this was a d
auto sales was not the primary use of this proposa y'l��.r, ��sc�ne
wifh signs in the windows of the automobiles �;����� _
Ericson asked ii the Commission
operate for limited hours on Sur
summer months, possibly from A�
Commissioner Stevenson
in the area �� :Winslow ;
busines����� ��ver beet�'
returned v��t��les t�z� Sund�
Sunday operatip� r�rot�ld b�
of operaYion waulti b�'i M
�
p.m. durin����'��p�a�. s���ti
,
a bei�
,'�Vin
-e an „�ancerns;,�n
Y s.
Wi�sYow stated tl
a�1���lovembe�:� 5.
stat
with the i
ved usage at that property,
�long Highway 10. Chair
:�� ium had been establisaied
�����on, but reitera�ed �hat
L��t Yhey wouid be satis%ed
�ard �o allowing the business to
this would only be through the
�egard�ng �iit�d��;; ``�"ration of the other two car rentai facilities
�
he thau�l�t h�i��! ,�re not open on Sundays. He stated that their
�Sundays i37 �he"Blaine iocation, and added that customers still
e�`��11 charged for the day. Commissioner Stevenson stated that
�"c�r ��tomers in that re�ard. He asked what th� proposed hours
t� �ta�ed that they were considering hours of 10:00 a.m. to 2:40
�ioner Mil}er asket� rf;��i�'a��piicant would be selling cars on Sunday. Mr. Winsiow staied that
ould not. He stated tlaai any potentiai saEes customers would have to purchase the vehicles in
or Bloonnington, �ere the paperwork is generated, and if a customer inquired about a specific
�, they would d��t him to those locations.
�q����Yt�r��r 3-Ii�gland asked if the applicant permitted after-hour drop-offs. Mr. 'I�linslaw siated
�ti� ���r,cite� �c�ti have to, with the exception of Sunday evening drop-offs, when the return process
� ;:, ,;...
rrvght�iriterfere with a customers work schedule. He stated that he would be agreeable to the addition
of a. statement to ihe resolution �-egarding drap-offs, requiring that the vehicles wouid not be left on
the street, and that they would inform customers that cars must parked on the loi.
Erieson stated ihat siaffwould continue to gain infarmation froin the applicant re�arding the parking,
and that the issue of landscaping improvements could be indicated in the resolution, as a rec�uirement
�ou�ds iTtew Pll�tning Cotn�nissiori
�tegul�r NIeet':rsg
July 7, 1999
Page 9
that the applicant provide a landscaping plan which would satisfy the City Forester, staf�', and the Cifcy
Council. He stated that staff had enough infor�nation to proceed with the resolution, and that any
additional chan es or recommendations could be added prior to the �nal draft. ,k�
g �����
b. P[�tnning Case 1�To. 5G1-99
Property Invoived: 2801 Woodale Drive
Consideration of Resolution 587-99, a resolution app
setback,
Applicant: Michael and Christine Gregori
The applicant was present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staf�'
The applicants, Michael and Christine Gre;�
�...
the northwest corner of VJoodaie Dr�u�=�r
.;) requued thirty-foat setback establist��d for
- to replace their old, single stall gar��� i�vith �
which was butlt with the hous� xn��S2, sits
predates th� �ity's first Zo���'� •,de, whic
of the ex�d�s�an s�� the gar���, tl�e applica�
eleven feci.
Ericson
with
to a
3 V�1�1f�31Ge �OI" ci
at `�$(J3 ��?c�odale Drive vvhich is located at
r�� Lake 1Z�;�d, 'are rec�uesting a variance from the
�j
;ory building from public streets. They would like
car, 67 �fjuare-foot garage. The existing garage,
�� ��s ,��Iose to Silver Lake Road. Its construction
adripted in 19b0. He stated that, in consideratian
proposing the reduction of the present setback to
presenLec� �fiai�h� anaiysis; 1au��s�� tf�at, as witll any variance application, for the Planning
«
,io �'.A�ct fa��r�k>I}�; ��ere must be a demonstrated hardship or practical di#�iculty associated
�r perty whic�l n��.k�s ��iieraE interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive
►erty owner. Stat� ��t���s rec�uire that the governing body review a set of specified criteria
application, and�ake its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set
Section 1125.Os%: Subdivisian 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship
�en ali ofthe ����t�ria are met. Ericson outlined the seven criteria, and provided responses to
:;; , :
; <...
E������ stater� ��ai the applicant has some hardship presented in the lot, in that the-house an garage
were �co�istructed prior to any zoning requirements. He stated that this was a single car garage,
outdated by today's standards, and that there was no room or alternative for expansion without
maintaining some encroachment into the setback. He stated that staff had examined the criteria for
satisfying the hardship requirements, and found that all are mei with the exception of one, whtch is
that the variance requested is the minimu�n Setback rec�uired to alleviate the hardship. He stated that
Ii�o�a�ds View Pl�anree�►g Comrradssion J�ly 7, 1999 -.
I2eg�l:�e° 1Vleeting P�ge 10 . �,
staffwas suggesting that the garage could be constructed in such a way so as to maintain the e�sting
fifteen foot setback. He stated that this would mean that the garage would be pushed toward the
house, and slightty tovvard the back yard. He explained that staffwas nat certain th����is would be
possible, and added that the applicant could address the feasibility of:t�aai su���tion with the
Commission. � ': ,
Ericson stated that staff had drafted a resolution that wo��'��'�'i-ant a
y;�/,aiY
construct a garage at a m�imum fifteen feet from the pro ;_�tau� y line, ad
be amended according to the Commission's direction. He siaied that t;��
whether or not a greater setback was warranted in this c�s�<' •`
IVlechael G�°ego�i, 28�1 Woodale Drive, the appticant,
indicating ihe garage as it was currently situated on hi�s�
expanded to the fifteen-foot setback, it would be ali���ec
hardship, as they would have to drive around th�;�ider�7�
applican�
��'eser���d th� Commission with pictures
`opei tv ��� st�t�� thai if the garage were
with the s�d�wa�k,:;which would create a
� �� enier tY�� ��ii•a�e.
Commissioner Hegland asked if the ste��`on the easi s���� c�� tk�e applicant's home were a
consideration. Mr. Gregori stated yes, th�,�=.�e was `i�uesiitt� i�raC t:�i� far east side of the garage be
moved so as not to interfere with the�,i���se. He�a�ed that the drivcway offsets the garage by five
fee�. Chair Peterson asked if the ���;�e�vvas tc�;�� twenty�ur feet wide. Mr. Gregori stated yes. -�
��, �
Chair Peterson asked if th
stated yes, �,�'� that the gar<
the curr����t��st��� from t�
further int���� slo�� ; The
it wouid not aE��ct the s1vpE
where the expanslon, cotil
requesting ��� t}�E �ar��,
be
slope oz� tlie �rc��l��ty toward Silver Lake Road. Mr. Gregori
�proxzEt��ttely prt`+�L�faot fram that slope. Chair Peterson stated if
-way ��as less than fifteen feet, the applicant would have to go
st�ted tl�at it was, but ihat the garage couid be situated so that
.��ned;;t�at there was a levei spot or� the east side of the garage,
,tr€��ted. He stated that, of that five foot area, he was only
ad``'over four feet, which wauld create enough of an offset ta
;ioner Stevensoi� asl<ec1`if`ihe proposed garage was to remain ten feet behind the house, Mr,
stated yes, and��3ded that he might be able to move it back a foot or two at the most, but
proposing to,a��i so at this time.
�[�€�n�i�sidne� ����;I'and aslced if the existing setback requiremeni for reconstruction was thirty feet,
a.n� i� so; r�'a� ti�ai requirement intended for the positioning of a driveway that enters onto a street.
i�� noted'thaY �his garage did not enter onto ihe street in the same manner which the Code may have
intended. Ericson stated the property did not take access from Silver Lake Road, but explained that
the �oning Code does specifically stipulate that there should be no accessory buildings, or any
building �ithin thirty feet of the front property line. He exptained that the front property line is
def ned as that property iine abutting the street, and added that corner lats present a unique
circumsfance in that there are effectively two fi•ont property lines that are required to maintain a thirty
l�o�ee�ds �1�ew Planning Comgngs§ion
Iteguia�° l�/Ieeting
July 7, 1999
P�ge 11
foot setback from the street. He stated that, at the time this property was constructed, this was not
a consideration. Chair Peterson noted that the lot appeared to be substandard by current corner Iot
rec�uireinents. ^ ��.�
fi°
Com�nissioner Hegland asked what was located to the north of
stated that there was an apartment complex to the north. Coma
�>
a good proposal, and that he understood what the ap�licant��
support far the propasal. ���
Commissioner Kaden stated that he did not think eleven C€
noting that he had seen many garages offset behind houses
and for aesthetic purposes, it wouid look better if it wa
eleven feet, a twelve-foot setback would place the end��
sidewalk. He stated that this would require less cor�cr�tc
added that the edge of the garage wouid align with ��t� crl�
the driveway. He stated that he had originally v�*��teci t��e
�
that the garage wouid not be so ciose to the �ouse and rt�
to be a reasonable compromise. He sta����c� that t��re
placement of the house on the lot, as.��l� as the���obab
<���:�✓;� ��
corner tot standards. ���`:��% �'�'
�,::,��;<..r :<:.«
Cammissioner Johnson requestec��i�at the
faot setbac,i:. ��r. Gregoz�i,�iaiE�i',tl�at a �
would �� ic���l ia� his pu�-�c�sc�: '_
proposal.
g�
th�
u�ark f
; c�f the
�a�it'� �xc����`rty. Mr. Gregori
��glaYid stared that this was
to ac�amt�i��h. �Ie stated h�
e much warse i��r� �ieen feet,
�d however, that iiz'his opinion,
Gre�ort stated that, ins�ead of
;e alc�ng the side of the existing
��t� �ic�ew�lk and driveway, and
ie-s�;��i1��. ��vhere it intersects with
��ci�t�c�na1 faot f'c�r clearance purposes, so
e�s. C�}�a►� �'e��rson stated that this seemed
was :�� ���'a ent hardship in regard to the
ility�;.t�f`tlie 1ot being undersized by current
if he was rec�uesting an eleven or iweive
ek would be acceptable, but eleven feet
t:h� �i�d seen the property, and could see the logic in the applicant's
a`t�c�� �,i�l���son coneurred and indicated their support as well.
t��'�er Miller st��ied il��f ����had also seen the property, and wondered how a two-car garage
m that area. I�ir _ C'r���ori` explained that by a(igning the garage with the driveway it would
ier west, He addet��hai most of the garage area to the west would not be for parking, hut that
�ould be a servic y�oor for ir►gress and egress, which would face south. Mr. Gregori stated
had not antici ,, . d these complications when he purchased the property. He stated that his
;�� �
� was to bu�: he garage to matc� the existing structure, and added that the pitch of the roof
��_ih� ca�n��as that of the house, and that it would be sided with the same material.
Charr �'�ferson stated thai it appeared that the consensus of the Commission was to allow an eleven-
foot setback.
Chair Peterson opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Hearing no comments from the floor, Chair Petersan ciosed the Public Hearir►g at 5:11 p.m.
1Viou�ds 'View Plann'rng Coenmission .�uly '7, 1999
Re�ular Ii/ieet�n� Pa�e 12
Com�missioner Hegland stated that he thought they shauld go ahead with the approvat. He noted that
Item 5 of the resolution sho�ald be re-warded. Ericson stated that staff could amend Item 5 to indicate
that the variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardshi��.and tha� tl�e
Pianning Commission finds that an eleven-foot setback would accomplisl� ,ihis. ��=stated that the
:�,m
secand paragraph of fihe second page of the Resolution should be amet���� t� �t�dicate ". ,. for the
construction of a 672 square-foot garage eieven feet froEn tl��,��opert�r„�ir�e,'� as;vrell.
Camrrrissioner Miller requested a correction to the first
indicate "� garage eteven feet from their east side lot lin
Chair Peterson stated that Item 7 contained a reference t
the garage to the hause would be ten feet wide and wc
wauld normaily requii°e a six-foot distance. ��
MQTTON/SECOND• Hegland/Braathen. To
Approval of a Variance for Michael and Cr
672 Square-Fooi Garage at 2801 Woodaie<;
�•
��:
�<„
<�p
Ayes — 7 Nay����
�
Commissioner Kaden stated that,�h�T` reaso
eIeven-foot setE�ack, althougk� he �id agre� 1
7. �
Pro�erty
I�iscussic
living s�
Appl���n
�rs�ie�� �"�is:e Nose ���M9�,'St
[nvolvc.ci ��'7�} �ouniy kaaci �
�c��cer-t�irt�:�p�l�����pi� to rczo
ior residentiia! facili�� '
: IVISP Reai Estat�i �
licant was
0-99
, PIa#�ri�;
��``.
:�ain — 1
��
his absi
;e of the �`a�lu
�.
�, ��;m� :.:.
He stated the disiance from
;t with the fire code, whieh
587�9�3, � .I�,.esoluiion Recommending
Aliow a���Ieven -Foot Setbacic for a
�5� �p,��61-99, as revised,
The motion carried
n`tion was that he did not agree with the
was needed.
Jacant lot behind Super America}
property and for a conditional use permit for an assisted
gave the staff report as foElows:
MSP Real �siate has made an application to rezone the vacant Kraus-Anderson property located at
2670 County Road I from I3-2, Lirr►ited Business Commercial to R-4, High-Density Residential and
for a Conditional Use Permit �o construct and operate a forty-eight room, assisted living senior
residential faciliYy. According to the applicant, the residents are elderly and unable to care for
�h�msetves, some of whom may have Alzheimer's Aisease or other forms of eldei-ly dementia. The
_ �i
I'
Mountis V�ew �lnnnit�g Commession
Regul�r l�eeting
J��y 7, z4ss
P�ge 13
proposal would fal! under the zoning requirements as outlined in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2,
pertaining �o "Nursing homes and other similar group housing". Ericson provided a statement of
intenY from the appiicant along with a proposed site plan for the development for th��Qmmission's
review. :<�
Ericson stated that staff feels the impacts of the proposed
ihe impacts of a potential commercial use that could develc
be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the proper
separated from the park and the residentiat area by Moun�
prohable that this project would depreciate the area in a��y
the area. He stated that the apparent need for such a u
affect other simiiar uses, as there are none.
Ericson stated that the Comprehensive Plan �dentifie.s_
deveiopment. He stated that staff's interpretation �ua� �I���i tJ
with the land use desigt�ation. He stated that sta� w�s �lso
for this s�te if the zoning was left commer ����He sta�ec� "i
iit with the B-2 Zoning District wouid ��among,�;ttier t
store or video store, all uses which w��t��tl gener e substa
was proposxng re-zoning to a resider����1 t�pe of ���and the
H� stated that the access wou(d ��`taken of� pf Coun��
parking situated adjacent to t�e �uperAmet°��� s1a►�, �n
View I�riv�. �"_ ..
Ericson st��ec� t�at� �
additionat cnter�a �c��' i�
wouid need to he dc���
f
requires a ��'=�c?c�t '�
that thi����operty met
He stated i£a�:�.ts�'
� adjacer��et behr"
iew Dr��e. He no
in comparison to
u�.c� Uenerally r���
�ould seern to ��: a'.�c7o-d fit for
c� as such would not adversely
this arc� a5 �!,tnixed-use planned unit
us type ofus�.would noY be in:consistent
�e�earching t1}�''consti-�ction possibifities
1��p �I�t�s� �j�pes of businesses that would
��ri�s, � �rocery store, iiquor store, drug
n�j��i"'�rafiic. He stated that the applicant
���
�;`�ecific use would generate tittle traffic.
�oad I. He stated that there would be
there would be no access on to Mounds
__ __ _._
addit�t��i �r� 1.��e typical criteria addressed for a conditional use, there were
;; spectfic �s� �T� �fated that one of the criteria was that the side yard setback
�li� nlini�n�7rn rec�uirement. He stated that instead of twenty feet, �he Code
:b�c:l� :He stated that the minimum iot area rec�uirement is one acre, noting
z� �t°�tet��;with approximately I:7 acres.
����
�r��sc�n reviewed the �iv �r���ria that are present with all Conditional Use Permits. He stated that
c7
s�al�;f�e1s tivs type of use��, ould appear to fit in wel! with this property as a business/commercial type
p� sz��. He stated th tie subject property is presently vacant, noting that, given its setback from
F�. �v,ray 10, the d�:���nd for the property is tninimal. He stated that stafifeels this type of higher
�
�������Y'�S� �r�i�`�� be a good buffer between the cammercial area and the ad�acent housing.
Comr�issioner Berke requested ciarification of "other group housing" as defined by the Code.
Community Development Director 7opke stated that the Code was not specific and there%re left this
some�v✓hat to the intetpretation of the Planning Commission and the City Council as particular types
of housing are presented. He stat�d �hat other �onns of group housing could be considered under this
provision.
l�Io�ar►ds `�ie� Pllr�ning Commissio� ' 3uly 7, 1999
i2egutar 1Vlee�in� P�ge 14
Commissioner Berke asked if the property could be uiilized for a halfway house or some other type
of group home without any real changes, if the project was developed, and did not fare well. Jopke
stated ihat this could happen if a conditional use permit amendment was approved b,,,"��, the City. He
stated that anything that was different would have to be reconsidered by,the Pla�g Commission
�� ���
and the City Council as an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit Cot7����ss�t�ner Berke asked if
it would be di�'icult to disaliow another pennit, iithis Conditi�,ria� Use P�rin�i w�s::already approved.
Jopke stated that they wauld have the opportunity to look
the specific impacts might be. He stated that they coulc
could have more 'rmpact on the community and therefar�
Commissioner Kaden asked if tl�e project could be turn
before the Council, if the housing project failed, Joplce
rn that type of situation would be parking. He stated that
buiiding would be different than those of an assistec�;li
would be rec�uired to meet the Code requirements '� a�a ;
be consistent. �
Il�Iilo Pinkerton, the applicant re�
demand For seruor apartments, their
facilities this year. He stated that tr
popuiation. He stated that they ha�
units of houszng in the Ivlou,�ds '
and/or Alz.���er's dement�� �Zt���i
medical;;��s�e�?saiion. T�e ��a��� !
tnarket wa� �t.rictl� f�i- senior�, iir�
replacement o��t�c�� fb�, sc��iors �v}�c
emphasis on thls i�e t?t �ttc�me ���as �
.:
of intensiv� �c� and c�re:�.:..
ld n
� par�z���;.;1
g friciiit�;
r#�ne��t hu
; and w
of l�ou�
approp
nts withaut havin� to come
uld. He noted that an issue
its for an apartzneni
i that more parlcing
the use itself would
rese���rig MSP �eaf hst�t�, ��fed that in light of the growing
�� Y
`a ����ny was�,��anching^QUtj �nd would be building four similar
���'d no ir�x��rest in gr��p homes or apartments for the general
�tployed �.�tiarket stu(��"ihat deter�nined the need for up to fifty
��,
ew area �� stat�d '�hat the housing would be assisted living,
g, wh3ch Xci�u�r`�� t�venty-four hour care, meat preparation, and
tl�is facil�ty also requires state licensure. He stated that the
�e average age of 75 to 80 years, He stated that this was a
ul��,otherwise go into nursing homes. He explained that the
��ide the opportunity to be independent, with the availability
Mr P�3��erton stated t�za� t��'or��i� discussion with s�affthey had concluded that it was best to take
acc�S� to the property o$'\��'�ounty Road I. He stated the back area of the building wouid be fenced
;n;��ti terraced, with a���llis overloolcing the baseball field that the seniors could enjoy. He noted
th�l ��lere would be��rop-of�' area and handicapped parking stalls in the front, wiih additional
�. �.,
pai-�n�; foc° staff,������ side and rear of fhe building.
IVFr =,����1,�t�r�ti'iiescribed the building. He stated that there would be a living raom with a two-story
fir�pla�e�' and a dining rooin with a kitchen in the front of the building, He stated that a nUmber of
seniors with dementia enjoy wa[king in loops, and that ihe design of the floor plan wouid a11ow for
this type of activity. He stated that the studio apartments would be located on the outside perimeter
ofthe buiiding to provide sunlight and exposure. He stated that there would be a private dirting area,
an activify center, soda bar, separate pantry for storage, and a separate area for medical prescription
dispensation. He provided a brief description of the elevations and general design of the building.
')
i i
Mo�nds 'View Planning Commission. Jul� 7, �999
�tegul�er 1Vlee�ing P:ege 15
Commissioner Berke stated that the site plan indicated 22 parlcing stalls, and asked how many
employees the applicant would be anticipating. Mr, Pinkerton stated that ihey would be working
rotating shifts, but that there woutd probahly be 12-14 at peak times, with an a���°r�age of 8-10.
� ;�;�.
Commissioner Berice stated that this type of facility would likely req�jre a ra��er number of
employees, but nated that even with that many employees, and 48 re�id�t�ta 'tvi`th visiting family
members, the available parking �waUid be inadeguate. He add�,that with �nowr;the parlcing space
,„
wowld also be reduced. He stated that given the amour����f��pace mdzcatec�; ����;�ehicles woui�
overflow into the street and asked if there was coom to pr�3�3�ide more �ki�3g �r �'znkerton s.�ed
that there was room for the addition of 6-8 more stalls, but. that th�; �did not b�li��e tl��.t r���rl`d be
necessary.
Ericson stated that the paridng space provided does meet
use. Commissioner Berke stated that his undersiandin�
care for senior residential housing, and that at ieast 11a,�,��i
which would leave very few stalls for visitors. Mr ��nl��r
,
four unit facilities with 10-11 parking stalls, an '" y��ix �
stated thai these nunnbers were based upon �a ,�r fac�ltt`�e
stated fihat staf�could research wha� oth r�ities and���h
��� �
that what the Code requires is in line �;a�h the e�pecte�
facilities have a greater demand for ;��'� than��iat ind�c
homes and simiiar types of faciliti �,� >hey could�rec�uire �
:.
reflect that. -_;F ,.,_��
Carol ���c��tB�°�749
home, She �fiat�d ��i
that staff was ���u��'€
more employee� fi��;
be utilizine ��r� �'�nk
that
,�-.
��t1vs time. He
i be eligible for
problematic fo
Ee C:ity Gt�i�� requirement for this type of
�as t�».� �.lt�r� `was a much higher ratio of
the stall�'��c��tld' 1��; iaken up by the staf�,
€���stated tY��� �.li��r ���ad deveioped iwenty-
t� £�cilities �viFh 15-16 parking statls. He
`�.
�ii�� �am��ize and their usage. Ericson
f�cil�t��s`in the area utilize, to be certain
ie�i��rtd. He stated that if assisted living
'�}�`by the Code requirements far nursing
e parking space and arnend the Code to
`�q�irt ;D,rive, sta�ed"`fil�'at she was e�nployed by a nursing/assisted living
�av� 1S0 resicients in that facility, and 215 to 250 employees. She stated
all asp�cts a�:that business, and added that the applicant would require
uiticipatec�, �he asked what type of payment provider the facility would
s�ated tha� t��ey were researching the matter, but did not have all of the
�d, ��wever, that they were attempting to keep the price range at a rate
,�It��re. Mrs. Holden stated that the parking at her place of employment
e'e�npioyees and the family members who visited the residents.
IV�:i� ,i;Iolden asked if ��facility wouid have private rooms. Mr. Pinkerton stated that, at present it
��.s c��sig�ed ia ha� alI private rooms, adding that they may consider some dupiex-style rooms,
t����c�� ,��t��l� :€z���u�1e the sharing of some oi the corner units, Mrs. Holden asked if they wouid be
,
coi�attierin��n�`i-ied couples as residents. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they would. Mrs. I-�oiden stated
thaY sl�e`lived directly across the street and could see the project from her frant door. She stated her
support for the project.
li2'ske Groer`YSaesh, 2698 Lake Court Drive, stated that a residential facility of some sort in that lot
was far preferable to anything else he could think of. He stated that his main concern was the parking
issue. He stated that he had three family members in nursing homes, and that parlcing always seemed
I�ounds Vaee�v 1'lnna�Btag Conarrtes�aor�
Reg�ta�° l�eetirt�
Juiy 7, 1999
Page 16 '
to be an issue because ihere was never enough provided in the ariginal plan, He asked how many
square feet the lot and the footprint of the building were comprised of.
TVTike �.e�vis, Development Director for MSP Real Estate, stated that the
than 70,OD0 square feet, and the faotprint of the buiiding was i6,00p
�W
Grommesh asked how much of this space would be devoted t�� ;�king �i
were 23 car stails, but was uncertain as to the sq�aare foot ar$ Mr GrQ
the size of the individual apartments. Mr. I,ewis stated th���hey wou .,,.�<
sc�uare feet in area. �'?�� y
�����.. .�� ,
Mr. Grommesh stated that the entrance was anather conce
View Brive and County Road I was a very dangerous one.
be researched very carefully. He asked if there were o�
.�
comparable in parking thai they could look at, Mr. Pix�
of this type in the State of Minnesota. He stated t}t�i thcv.
Wisconsin, which was not yet completed. ��,
I�c. Grommesh asked i£the facility wo���`'
�'a\�
funding would be utilized. Mc. Pink > n s
Ivlr. Grommesh asked the appi���n � if he
neighboring residents' view Iv�r :Pinkerto
lined with a�f��l-ative fenc� `�pprt��:imately fi
that wou�c� ��o�^fde shad� ta th�: li�rin.� roor►
street. IVIr. �'iril�e�=ti��i siated th�
did not plan il�e; �t�c�zti�xj;of a si
view of the buildin� v��c�u�ti be
privatf��y fu
�d ti�`at the i
�
con
��s slightly more
�et in area. Mr,
stated that there
. , ..�
�!I17
the intersectio�i of Mounds
the traffic concerns shou(d
t�ities in Minnesota that are
�
'"�k�ts was their first project
�.�;��i`:
�t���a facility in Greenville,
""I'ax Increment Funds or other
s completely privately funded.
ca�l�l descr�b�`�how the facility would appear from the
n st�,ted t�za.�E�fhe patio itself would be a half-oval shape
����`e�� ��eight, He stated that there would be a trellis
�. I����.�`Grommesh asked how far the patio was from the
distance was approximate3y 30 feet. He added that they
; rear of the buildir�g. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the rear
t of the front.
Mr. Gr ' esh asked if t,�u� vvc��c� be ciassified as a skilled nursing facility. Mr, Pinkerton stated that
this 'ld probably be t�t�� Iet�el�less than a skilled facility, but adc�ed that with the Alzheimer's
restd�nts, it may qualify �;� stated that the target market had not been fully determined at this time,
bui �t�'�vould be a 24-ho��C��are facility. Council Member Stigney rec�uested clarification regarding the
s���ed facility Ievei���Ir. Pinkertan stated that it depended on their market, but it would be
Gans�e��xed an as�st$i� living facility, not a skilled nursing facility, He stated that there would be a
�y�z`��ti►�e n�����"�i���staff, rather ihan a fuil-time nurse as a skilled nursing facility might .have.
Commissioner Stevenson asked if the exterior would be consistent with ihe senior home located
acrass the street. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the brick would be toned down a bit, and the building
would be cream and beige in coior with a green roo£ Commissioner 5tevenson stated that he was
concerned that, in light ofthe senior home located less than a block away, they wouid have tQO many
incongruent buildirng types in that area. Mr. Pinker�on stated that he would look into that matter.
,,
;
���
I�Iounds Vievv �11�aai�g Com�a�a�ssion July 7, 1999
�te�ular 1!/Ieeti�� Page 17
Commissioner Hegland aslced if the residents of the faciiity would be ahle to leave the premises. He
stated that he was concerned for the safety of the type of residents who would be occupying ihe
facility, in regard #o the busy traffiC area. Mr. Pinkerton stated that there woutd be c�`��alled access
entering and exiting the building and the residents could not leave the pre�fses ����ut assistance.
Commissioner Berke inquired aboui the time frame for co
siated that they planned to commence in the fall, and hop
estimated that tHe project would take seven months to co
�
were the developers of Silver Lalce Commons, adding that ��
quite unsightly. Mr. Pinkerton stated that this was cor�r�
prablems wieh the development of that iocation. Commisszc�
of the area was very unsightly, and that if it were a��y indicat��
be ve concerned, �, A•��
ry ��!�
�on of ��Ze b�alr�in�. Mr. Pinkerton
open the ��c�l�ty; �� ihe spring.
. , . _ . . . ,. � ��
�ra�ec�_�+'as not ��et ca�a�lEt�, ��a,�"was
';�i��d, �greed, adding th&�i� ti�e��ad had
;r B�r�:c: ��eiterated that tlie ap�earance
� of h.t��� th,e applicant builds, he would
Mr. Grommesh asked ifthere was room for the in�r��s and ��rPSS of ci������ �rucks at the propased
(ocation and the access at County Road I. Mr��'x��t���-i��� s�ared that th��r�elivary tn�cks would have
to turn around to exit the location. Mr. Gror�►esh noted ihat tt�1r�in� �'ound would take up parking
space as well. Mr. Pinlcerton staied that,�pically t�y wotz�€i lia��:ane delivery truck a week.
�h _
��
� �;�'
Commissioner Miller asked if there �t���� be any�, c'slities, s�� as a microwave or refrigerator in the
t-esidents' rooms. Mr. Pinkerton sta ��d that th� are prese f� considering having a[i of these facilities
in a centra� tocation. He stated th����t least iti�s� <i�c� �rt��.�a�ily three of the meals would be prepared,
and the r�sl��t?f s could snaeic tn �he centraliz�� at �,>{�. "�Ie acided that activities would be organized
�
on a dail� ��sis. ;, �.
Mrs. Holder� s��t�d �li��'.
the numerous issit�s ihzt
the pretnise�yt��t tl�iir c�w
that a si ���facility in tl
statec� : at they now opc
incx-e�sed ciramatically.
atr�t��phere, and that tY
a�plicant 5��ult�, be aware if the speciai diets that might be required, and
3uld be`'irav�s�.��ated. She added that some residents do manage to leave
attz�� that tf does occur at the facility on Silver Lake Road, She stated
rea h�d,started out as an assisted living facility and did not succeed. She
;d �s a nursing home type of facility and added that the residenis' rent had
ie''�tated that she hoped the applicant couid succeed with the home-Iike
was a definite need in the City for this type of facility.
�c�un��,, Tvlember �� ;'�'ney asked if ths applicant, as a developer, was in partnership with anyone,
r�at���a1'q� Ca�`����''s�, and what their pratection was as a develaper. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they
ev�uid l�� �� �uilder/Owner, and would be partnering wiih a professional care provider, who they
ha�, e not yei determined. He stated that this will be a party who understands this type of business,
and can have their employees run the facility.
1�/Ir. Pinkerton stated that within the next two weeks he woutd lilce to conduct more research on the
parking ratios, and bring that information back to the Commission. He stated that he would atteir►pt
to learn more about what the ReaLife Cooperative was planning for their color scheme through
Il�iour�ds V�edv Pl7nnang Co�miss�on Ju[y 7, 1999
Regr�lar 1VIeeting 1'age 13 ;
consultation with staff, and continue to dialogue with their providers to determine the direction af
the level of service for the facility. He stated that he believed this facitity met the requirements for
setbacks. I�[e added that the use would be appropriate for many different reasons. H���tated that he
,�,�,.
would like to know if there were any other issues which he should resear��, ,���
Commissianer Kaden asked for clarification of the landscaping.: <`� `,�as indi
Pinkerton stated that the site plan did not provide a detailed.�����scape pl
5�;�
was to remain an the property as a buffer. ,��� ���
e site plan. Mr
�
�.ated only vvlY,��
��..�
Ericson stated that the first step in this process was the coi��c��:�at�o�t'of the rezo�iiri� a�d' Gt�Y��iitional
Use Permit. He stated that the app[icant was aware ihaY they wt�ufd stil i}�ave to come be�ore the City
for a Developcneni Review, wtuch would provide a more in-d�;�tl� loo�: �t the site plan, landscaping,
and parking requirements. He stated thai the Council ar�c� �or��r�aiti�ic��� vti�ould have the opportunaiy
to provide greater input, and that there wouid be an���le ti��ie f'or m�r•� c3���f3i1�.d discussion.
It�th ��a�ke, 2683 Lake Court Circle, aske���1�'e r�s�c�ents:.wol�ld h�ve any assurance that ihe
subject property wouid remain a senior buiid���;if the �o�i���,'����� �����ed to aliow the Conditional
�Jse Pernut. She stated that she was conc�„�ied that ��inight k�eco�n� a shelter or a halfway house in
the fiature due to the chan ed zonin ,:��� Ty ���
g �E�.`��� s��'
�i
Ericson stated that the Conditi
was changed in the fuhire, ar
reviewed. �%� �t�ted, hawe�e�
added th�� #��� ��ncern wa� r�a
typ� of use and ar�o���e�' penni
that if a h�lfwny;,�c�us� [�� othe
Use Permit. He, si���t� ��t �t�i
that ihe on��atlo���ablc t�s�
;d that fo
wvhich wo
31 ��Permit c�t�uld be s����fic to this use. He stated that ifthe use
wa� sUf�icicntl}� cliss���ai�ar to the approved use, it would need to be
�a� if an at��rtt�x�'t�t i�uiiding was proposed, it could be allowed, and
���,,cxplai��ec� ih�t the Conditional Use Permit would appiy to this
� use ��u��uid not come back before the Council, He stated, however,
�e� c�f us;e ,were proposed, it would ret�uire a different Conditional
�as`��� �arotection provided to the City and the residents. He added
tl�out a Canditionai Use Permit is a multi-famiiy dwelling. Chair
E�sidential uses there would be different parking ratios and other
fi�r a review of ihe permit.
IV� �erke stated that s;�'�ived in ciose proximity to the proposed development, and therefore, she
w�.,� concerned about.�. hat could happen in the fi,�ture. She asked if any of the Commissioners had
��r�� fp the Silver�,' e Commons site, She stated that she beiieved this property was setting a
��eC�t��nit, �r�d ��g�d the Commissioners to go to the focation to see what could be expected from
th�t t���rel;�rpGr �Cammissioner Stevenson stated that he agreed with Ms. Berke in that this property
neede�i �to be cleaned up. He rec�uested that she also consider that this was the same party who
developed Silver Lake Pointe, the 83 unit senior facility directly across the street from her residence,
Ms. Berke stated ihat this faciiity was very nice.
Chair Peterson stated that they should address the proposal to change t3�e property frorr� a commercial
to a residenYia! use. He stated that the property had been vacant for quite some iime and asked if a
Moe�zad� `Iiew Pi�an,iing Corntnission
�2egula�° IVleetrng
July 7, 1999
�age 19
commercial enterprise at thai location would be viable ar�d desirabls for the City and immediate
neighborhood. Ericson sfiated that the owner of the property has been actively seeking a developer
for this site over the years, and that the parcel has not yet been sold. ��h;:
Commissioner Johnso� stated that he was a member of
Chamber of Commerce, and that a great amount of discussi
pr.operty. He stated that no developers would consider t[}�
Update was completed. He stated that there have been a lo t
�hat he is not in favor of `dawn-zoning' at a�l. Erics4t�
proposal could be considered `down-zoning' but agreed t�a
into consideration.
Commissioner Hegland inquired about any liability that ��i
for tlus type of usage, because of the safety considcratian�
. stated he wauld tike further examination of the saf�t��• z�st�
S:
5� •
Commissioner Berke asked about tlie differ,��e in thc ��tx
to a commercial type business. Ericson st� �cl that a�>this p
was fairl insi nif cant. He added ih�t the <`u d lac
Y ;�, d
endeavor woul generate. Corrunis ������erk� �fated that
-� development would generate con��erably mor� that a�
�
...,
Mounds ��e��� �r�� New Brighton
�s taketx p��c� re�ar-ding the subject
��}�6perty unt�l:tk�� �>t��nprchens�ve Yl�h
��'proposals�c�r t�3aC ��rupe�'1��, and���d
�tated t�t�'he wa5 nat �e�t,��n ��a this
�.t'!t1��s was an issue that �shc��:�Ic� �e taken
: City �����k�t i��ui- as a resul� of rezoning
in regarcl ic� ti•��'i� and the residents. He
<zm� of this building as opposed
ax generated from the property
e difference that a commercial
ed the tax base of the proposed
store.
Commission�i°1Caden stateci th�t, tn;i�is opinio��, tl�� ��t�"ofMaunds View already had a targe amount
of high-d�r�s�ty' iesic�entia� de�clo�ns�z�t, ant� altl�ougll this current proposal for this property was not
an apartme��i lx:iz�d�x��,, it could p�sslblyT becaE��e that in the future as a result of changing the zoning.
He stated tha� he ��d;i�z'�scrvdtic�ns��'�b�t�t���dding any more R-4 zoning to the City.
�;:
Chair Peter ��~stated' El�d� 1�� ���as not�otally convinced that a commercial use was nat an optton at
that loc = but that st,�r,et��in� Ie�� intense would be more desirable. He stated that if this location
was � n area that pro�zded d�stination traffic, it might be viable for a commercial venture. He
���;
rec��e�ted clarification r��art�ing ihe suggestion that the Comprehensive Plan update had deterre
dev�lnpment, noting th�'�:�spontaneous Comprehensive Plan revisions have occucred in respor�se to
s��c�fic developmen��� juests in certain areas. Commissioner Johnson stated that the uncertainty
���c�ci�ted with th� �t`ocess was a deterrent to developers. Chair Peterson stated that if there is an
a�tZbi�u����at;�?����1��he current and proposed Comprehensive Plan, and the current zoning, this should
not,sta�d t� �h��way of a particular development proposal from progressing. Commissioner Johnson
a�ceec�,`bu� stated that the proposals for commercial devefopment were not progressing.
Ericson stated that staf�'required specific direction on how to proceed. He stated that the date of the
public hearing had not been set yet, although it was planned for the July 25 Council meeting. He
stated tha.t staffc�eeded Yo know if the Commission felt that a recommendation could be made at the
ne�ct Plannir�g Com�-nission meet`sng, or if the public hearing should be set for the first Council meeting
�ou�ads �Iiew Plae�n�ng Commassion
l�ege�l�►r I�/Ieeting
July 7, 1999
Pa�e 20
in August. He s�ated that if there was a consensus among the Cotnmissioners, staff could draft a
resolution, which could be completely re-drafted at their next meeting if necessary.
Comcnissioner 5teve��son requESted information on the difference betwe��. the t����.se for an R-4
versus a B-2 development. Ericson stated that staff coutd proyide that i���o�`rna�inn.
Chair P.eterson sta�ed that another issue is the intensity of
less intensive use than B-2 commercial would he more 3
Miller and Stevenson stated that they agreed. Chai�
Commissioner Kaden regarding his view on R-4 zoning C.
was not specific to tl-�s proposal, but a general observation �
seem like a lower intensity use of the property than a comr�
this paint he was undecided. � :��'�
Commissioner Stevenson asked what percentage
tha� this proposal would not be the same as an;3
� ,.
have in Mounds View R-4 districts are r��ta
Cammissioner Stevenson stated that he d' not
��,�.
to thaY type of change. Ericson sta;�ec��hat it
��.
requirements. Commissioner 7ohnsq��s��t�d thai
be acceptable at that iocation, nott���.tiiat t}�ei�
worte at that lacation as well��
��zne s�
uld not
would I
e a nu�
r use, and aci�iec� t}x��, tn his opi
rable at th.�� locat�as� �'�mrnis
1. Tec�U�sLea ;Cl�l"1�1Cc��IQt1 !I:'�rOI7i
or�er Kaden s�a-�� �����ti his view
��owever, that this proposal did
�� kxz regard to traffic, and thai at
y in th� �ity ��'non-rentai. He stated
�a.rl�, n�f�tt��tl�a� primarily, what they
�re wh��'they were trying to avoid.
<._�,�
..t p�operty would be very conducive
e� a��y of the Building or Fire Code
to see a list of businesses that would
of Eow-density businesses that could
Chair Pet�rsan s�atecl that �� �;p��;a��d they had anly a general consensus among the Commissioners.
..,
Ericson a5�et�; ��, h� sl�oulc� c�e��y sefting the public hearing for the 3uly 26 Council Meeting.
Commiss�oncr:�N�111�r s�a�ed yes. � ��
,��,
Ivlr. Pinkert��� �sk�ci v,rliei� tYz� publi��hearing could be set. Ericson stated that it vi�as a matter of
sending �;�per natificatic>t� tt�'t��� ��ubl�c, and having enQUgh time to send the notice to the newspaper,
whic : uires a seven-d�yT at���ance in addition to the legat rec�uirement of ten days. He stated that
he �:< d set the public he��g�%r the August 9th City Council meeting, and that staffwould continue
�,�
to`�t'�fi`eai-ch the issues, ar�� bring them %rward at the next Planning Commission meeting.
ning C'�se 1��. SP-072-99
�onsideration of Resolutian 5�5-99, a reso�ution recommending adoption of proposed Ordinance
632, an ordinance amending Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zaning Code, pertaining to permitted
uses within the �-2, Limited Business commercial zoning district
�
;
li�founds Vaewr Pt�a�ani�g Coynrntssaor�
Itegular �/ie�tang
Pianning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows:
Staf�' has issued a buiiding permit to Kraus Anderson to do interior remodeling
'View Plaza, Iocated at 2540 Higl�way I0, for private educational instiiutioz�A-Ca'
subject property is zoned B-2, Limited Business, which does not spec�ft�altj! �,�e
Ericson stated that, as the Planning Commission was aw �° �°ne
Zoning Code is its rigidity. He stated that each district has,,. ��pecifi
to as a"laundry list" of uses, yet since it is impossible to in��"�'rle eve
is often the r►eed to make interpretations. Ericson stated t����t, fiv e�:
regarding this type of use, staff proposes that it be added ic� l}�'e li�#
district. If no action is taken, Ca(vin Academy woulci o'�����
administrative Cade interpretation rather than by an ex�`(�cit re�'�;�'.
staf'f felt it would be more appropriate to a►nend the Zanin� Code.
concurs, staffrecommends that they approve Reso�u��an S�f 5-99, a
tt►e City Council thafi ihey adopt Ordinance 6���;
Ericson stated that the Calvin Academy pl
that this is an accredited institution in w,,':�
that these may be exceptionai or �`;;
additional tvtorage. He stated tl�:"� e
students. ''.,
.
� <:��
. �,H : ..
.�. : �
ing ti�c abe range of the students. Ericson stated that ihe
;arten through the twelfth grade levels.
the
sch
of thc: p:
c s�t t�� u
.Tuly 7, 1999
Page �1
f��ithin Silver
�
�cadeimy. The
such a use.
th the
mes r�
�ate any s�rbset}t�t.�i.t��aestions
�..�:� -
permitted uses within ihe B-2
z►�d function by virtue of an
e��:,the Code, He stated that
�1�t�r�`��iat if the Commission
alu�iot� which zecommends to
to o�, the�r �c�ity ��the fall of 1999. He explained
�t � nts are t�ugh`C on an individual basis. He stated
,��
n�s; spec�ai n�eds students, or students who require
1;is ��ot pL,o;�iosing to have any more than thirty-six
l;ommiS��a�ae��';;; �e:�tce lnc�t�,
students we�ul�i ��rt��:, fi-om
Commissioner �ii���r sta��
,
amendment c� t�►� �c��ie ��'�
correct. ���m�nissianer ��d
woulc� ' nd added that it v�
Sq _,;; �' , Community Edu�G�
�at` il�� �11�ase "private educational facilities" indicated that the
iot be�l�mited to this particular schoal. Ericson stated that this was
>k.�d if this would apply to a school of dance. Ericson stated that it
f°also apply to businesses such as the karate studio at Moundsview
and otliers educational facilities.
,
�� -�-
�'t�zniilissioner Heglan �asked where they were proposing to have physical education. Ericson state
�f this tirne i�z .� ro osed io be off site. He stated that they had an agreement with Roseville
fI��t, > �;:' P P
�� ������ ���� �;��t`sunity gym and playground, and that there would be some type of van to transpart
g}i� si�,d+��ts �o that location. Commissioner Hegland asked where the students wouid have their
iur�cli� `antl 'if tlley 1,vould be pernlitted to leave fihe premises. He nated that children of this age group
would reqtaire recreation. Ericson stated that he assutned ihe students would have their funch on-site,
and thai there were presently no plans for a recreational area at the facility.
Comrt�issioner Miller asked ahout businesses that would be displaced by ihis pa�cicular school.
Ericson stated that through discussion with representatives of ICraus-Aaiderson, this particular spot
IVlonnds �ie�r Plannir�g Co►�enrssion
Itegular Nleetr€a�
July 7, 1999
Page 22
in the building had encountered same dif�iculty being leased, due ta its iimited visibility. He stated that
he was not aware af any businesses that would be displaced, adding however, that staff would
research fhe matter. ��
Chair Pete2-son stated that the Cotnmission should d
amendrnent was the proper way to proceed. He inquired r
of ihe Code, which would aitow the matter to proceed r�vi
that staffinterpreted that this use was sufiiciently similar$
district, and had issued a building permit to Kraus-And�
lease. Chair Peterson asked about the current language of`.
businesses that Ericson had indicated. Ericson stated, al
result of this particu(ar use, it would alsa apply to instruct
the Code had not previously addressed. .,��
Chair Peterson nated that B-2 zoning is intended
presently he could not think of ar�y higher type o�
than that intended by B-2 requirements. I��state
a(low additional uses which are reasonabl� and lo
Commissioner Hegland asked if th��,��ere
re ard to la areas and arlun 1Qt �t�iat the
g P Y , P g_..<�.;
and Johnson stated that they d�� :tioi bel�e
Commiss�a��r,,:Tohnson ad��d t�at, in hcs
Commis������r%�uer stat�d't�at t�e amend�
that the �e��b�is�t�t��t;y was
adding that i}ie tt���l�bq�g 1
at �imes when ratan� c��t��
safety issue��„��
ol
nine whetl�"��` �t r��t the ordinance
���g the a�atz�rrusta�tive interpretation
C amendin� thc Cc�c�� �ncson stat�
c�
the pur��se a��d ir���t�� �f this zq���g
to p�,e�orm the iiitci ro� r�rQr� �o�r this
�ode�'and its relativ�ty ��;t�� types of
��� tilae proposed amendment was the
a�i�t educational types of uses which
siiy i� taFl +�z� service. He stated ihat
� fro�Y� a.:piivate educational facility
it� �'��t�r of cleaning up the Code to
�nr,�y�"dditionai�; quirements on educational facilities in
Co�runissio � as not aware of. Commissioners Miller
.i�'�`
�e. il��se,����es should be the Commission's concern.
r�.<a>,
a�iinxa���"this would be the school's responsibility.
��nt �vas intended for private facilities, not public, and
Com�i�issioner Hegland stated that he did not agree,
nerate iarge amounts of traffic at this type of location,
ent. He stated that he was concerned in regard to the
�sioner Braathen st���� fha�' �his proposal provides businesses the opportunity to run their own
,, and that the Coiluni��'ion should not attempt to run these businesses. He added that fihese
are the responsib���ty of the school. Chair Peterson added that Yhe responsibility would also
�d by the lessortt��:�ommissioner Hegland stated that he did not agree, and that he was not in
f�. y}
,� allowin�,s��'oIs in B-2 designated areas.
�'f_�l.�a�y1�.E�C:�C):�D: Stevenson/Miiler, To Approve Resolution 585a99, a Resolution which
1Zecorrimends Adoption of Ordinance 632, an Qrdinance Amending Chapter 1113 of the Mounds
View Zonin� Code pertaining to Permitted Uses within the �-2, Limited Business Zoning Distr�ct,
Speciat Planning Case No. SP-072-99.
Ayes — 7 Nays — 1(Hegland) The motion carried.
I�ounds Vie� P1;ennin� Corr►rti4ssion
�egui�w I�Ieeting
9. �pecBal Pl�ne�ing C�tse I�Io. SP-071-99
Consideration of a proposed ordinances amending Chapter i008 af the
Code pertaining to Billboards and amending the Code pertaining �o signage
districts. �°�:���:��
Communaty Developmer►t Director Jopke stated that th�`��ty Co
Planning Commission continue to look into and make re�.c�rn��e�ac�<
the sign ordinance. He stated that these amendment wei e t�� ��Io-��
of the community, and to ailow signs in the PF {�u�i�� �'�€
�tecreational and Preservation) zoning districts. ��`�
Jopke stated that he had drafted two ordinances tg f��
matters, He stated that the first ordinance de��� ��j
���.
discussions with a representative from th��i�lboar
ordinances from the Cities of Minneapo�i���and 5t I
with Mike Cronin, a consultant � e,���senting��i
sugges#ions when drafting the ar���s�;ia'ee. He��ro�
f�� ' ��`� :�
ordinance, and reviewed its com��ients.
3apke stated �1�at the ordirzat�
one spac� �o �7�'t����e ease`c��di
if granted,'t�o�ilcl ��pi�;e wt�en
state permits ���r� ��cit �btain
Jopke stat�d�ai t11c i��U4�tj��ti
owned ,r,::.operiy along or n�
Hig - s 118 or 35W ��;i
hiilk� rds could 6e locat� w
had
��ly 7, 1999
Page 23
�`iew Municipal
and CRP zoning
the
ons concerni���; at�f��c�xn�nts to
�iited billboards it� certain areas
rie;s) and CRP (Conservancy,
:�t� �lannit�g Cc�x��,t�is�ion discussion of these
bt1l�p�r�s. This r��c�inance was drafted after
ir�dustr;y, a�d;;�£�er reviewing state rules and
al H�'�t�.�ed�fi�iat he had discussed the issues
bilibo�rd industry, and had considered his
ed tl���Commission with a copy of the draft
��u..
e�npts ia`�?rOv�c1� �:11 of the biliboard standards and regulation in
�i-ation. Hc stated that �he Conditionai Use Permit for billboards,
I��c��z-d Iease expired, and would be null and void if any required
uire��ents, pursuant to Council.direction, were de�ined as the City
o� H�ghway 1 I 8. He stated ihat billboards should be oriented to
t least 250 feet from residentialty zoned property, He added that
zero setback from st�-eets, but may not overhang the right-of-way.
������ stated that one c��he suggestions for the spacing of billhoards was 1500 feet measured along
�t�e t��'��ie same rp�.��ay. He stated that he had discussed the matter with John Hammerschmidt who
�, >.,
h�r� indi����d tl��t°'1000-foot separation wouid be prsferable to maximize the number of potential
bill��eia�d :����s` `He stated thafi the maximum area of signs should be 700 square feet, but that
ternporary �xtensions would be allowed, as long as they don't exceed 25 percent of the sign area or
certain dimensions. He stated that these rec��airements are based on standard billboard sizes and
practice, and consistent with rec�uirements in other comEnunities.
I@/iauncis View Pl���aing Commissioea
�tegulaa° IVleetersg
Ju�y 7, 1999
P��� 24
Cornnvssioner l�iller stated thafi if soinething projected six feet above the top, it would be almost as
high as the biIlboard itseif. She asked what might project six feet from the top of the 6illboard. Chair
Peterson stated that he had most commonly seen a face, with the top of the head p�ecting above
the main area of ihe billboard, noting that general�y this projection was not a� wide ���ie 6ody of the
billboard itself.
,�; ,;.� �
Jop e noted the requirement that bitiboards have no more two face� x}�at �te back to back a,�€i
parallel, or angled no more than 35 degrees. He stated th � taffhad�r,���e�ed tii'� �����irnlzrn }�,��g�t
requirements for billboards, and that staff suggested the��ximum,�,�ight be set'at 3� fc������ch is
consisteni with the maximum height limits for other typ�s c�£s��ns'` '�"t
Jopke stated that staiihad indicated a req�aireinent that b►Ilbaai`ds not ��StruGt traffic signs or drivers
vision. He stated ihat they included a provision to clart�y the strt�us c�f`�zc�n-conforming hiilboards,
indicating �hat any billboard in existence can continue, atxd ,the messa�e ca�;�i��nge, but the billboard
cannot he expanded. � .
Jopke stated that the finai ordinance prov�i,� c�
signs and bi�lboards, but the section de,�� s
amended the title to reflect the ordinan���sues
forwarded to the City Attorney's of���,�;�t��° revi
Commission, he had asked the Ci����ttorney;
the code to revert bacic to its nre�e�lt for�n if t
Japke stat�d ��Za� i
zoning distr��t�; _.
either of t�ese di
districts and with �
districts. �c��k�`
st�n
allowedt�ir�ht be
was
5F1
�; t��a�'t� tq �e�i��n i 008,11 that is labeled as
�ith sign uar�a:�ces. He stated that staff had
�d tha� � �c�py of the draft ordinance had been
///:y`
comrn��it. He added that, as requested liy the
es��,��zne "sunset" language that would allow
:;ZI;�'es not aliow any biElboards,
�canci ozdi�i�,t�c,e amenci�r�e�nt �llaws and sets standards for signs in PF and CRP
oted ti�at ���e �,�t��,�:nt code does not list any permitted signage or standards in
k�.; 7'11e dr�f� ord�t���ace allows signs consistent with neighborhood business
��s°�`
sett�n ppears to range
app�,�, �imately 128 squ�
Cprnri�u�viy Center app��
Joh� Hammerschmid <�
�.
pr���e;� �onin� of tk��, 'ol
�al sign ��et�u�r��ients in Section 1008.01, Subdivision 6 in the PF and CRP
,
a=r1:; �his was dpen for discussion. He stated that the amount of signage
ar� ����sary. He noted that existing signage at parks in a neighborhood
��in 18 ta 20 square feet total sign area, while the main City Hall sign is
e fee� in area. He stated that the totai freestanding signage in at the
s to be approximate3y 90 square feet. Jopke stated that he had requested
inventory the signage at the goEf course, and added that the issue of the
course required further investigatian.
�o�l�� s�:�t�d,t�i�t �°ormal action on this matter wo�aid be premature at this point, but requested that
the Pla�nin� Commission discuss the draft ordinances, and suggest any changes that may be
necessary. He added that the Commission should also discuss what kind of public input process
should be utilized. He stated that the Planning CoEnmission wouid be requested to make a formal
recommendation an the ordinar►ces to the City Council at a future meeting,
;;
1VIo�c�ds Vie� Plannin� Comsnfssion �ury 79 i999
Regul�aa° �VIeeting Pa�e 25
Chair Peterson stated that PF and CRP designations indicate the purpose of the signage as they relate
to the specific use of the property and allow no signage that relates to anything else. He stated that
he thought this would apply to the City parks and other City owned properties. He,��ggested that
.:•u�� ��
language be added to indicate this purpose for the signs. �� `°°`
Gommissioner Miller noted the requirement for PF and CRP;;t�
��� �
and that the current signage at City Hall atready exceeds t����a
, ��;�
Jopke referred to Seciion 1008.01, Subdivision 6, which all�g�`s ac
signs, which would cover the additionat amount of signag� ,He
to attempt to keep the regulation of signs sim�le and consi�tezl�
consider different signage �'egulations for other situatio►�5, s�ich
Commissioner Miller stated that staff had indicaied
commercial or industrial zoned properties, and asked
that ihis was an issue that the billboard compani�s
philosophy of the City was that they woul��;j�,�a3erit
;•;,.
appropriate, and that the billboard cornpanie�:�ould ha;
that the biilbaard companies would have to obt�
requirements, and that there was no g�€�'antee tl���' Y
Council Member Stigney noted
message changed as long as they
Paul had pi ��c�;tied an ardi3ld��� i;
affect th� �t�a�osal Joplce stated
had culed tt��t c�t�c�s'�ould not ��
�n � ���,
� �
� not ex�
iminate K
staff co
iatio�ls nf lUQ total square feet,
nt. Slie r�c�u���ed clarificatiQ�`b
�s`ted that tf��; zz�Etzal �k�ort'�was
rtain areas, biit t��:t ��ey could
ity Hall and City parks.
tl]e �tt�Lt' k3
tl�is af��et�{
ci need to �
c��dit�anc�.s
ii� th� i�e��s�ary
is co�rlc� be cione.
1�1d only grant a permii in
iki� proposal. Topke sYated
idi��ss. He stated that the
v rcflect v✓hat they feel is
those standards, He added
permits to meet the state
icate����iat billboards can be maintained anci the
�� stated that he had heard that the city of St.
r��t�s within five years, and asked how this might
�arcli the matter, adding that a recent caurt case
uses in that manner.
Comrr►issioner h�iii�i �sk�d, i�1 ii�S�t�of t�ie� present proposal, haw ihe billboard was allowed at the
Rent-All bu���tng: Tapke �tatcd that��l-►is billboard had been in place for some time, and he was
uncerta�f the ordinance'�'et�ulrements at the time it was constructed. He stated that staff had a
copy���he lease and ca�l�I zes��rch the ma�ter. Commissianer Braathen asked if hillboard projects
we�,��quired to come be��i�e tl�e Planning Commission, prior to construction. Jopke stated no, that
��. �y�
tt}�}�,\.���re no� pern�itted ai�s point in time. He stated that staff could review the matter to determine
M�% +.
il��:status af all existi�.`�billboards in the City.
C;��n��� `I���e�`��l�t�� � gney noted Item 4, which indicated the spacing of 6illboards to be at 1500 %et
a�oti� i�xe �a�����roadway. He asked if this meant that th�ere covld be one biilboard immediately accoss
a roa�way from another billboard. Jopke sta�ed tha� this was a possibility. Chair Peterson asked if
the language could be amended to indicate that both sides of the roadway would be talcen into
consideration. Commissioner Johnson suggested that the language cauld indicate "on either side of
ihe� roadway" and "1500 feet from any other sign."
I�Iounds `Iie� P[��ning Commiss�on
I�egula� I�deetiat�
July 7, 1999
Page 2b
3opke stated that, as the biiiboards would have fio be on City owned property, the City would
ultimately have control over their Iocation. He staYed that staffwould continue to work with the City
Attorney, and report back to �he Planning Commission at a future meeting. �;�
IOo Staff 12eports / Ttems of Inforanit�ar�
Ao Previous Co�a�ci9 Actio��
Community Development Director Jopke reported on
June 28 and July 6,
�o Nleiha Lee S�bdi�vision Upd�tf�
Planning Associate Ericson reported that staff
to the Meiho Lee Subdivision. He stated that
nat appear to support this proposal, due to t��``
flooding in this area. He stated that on�` of
��t
property who owns a through-Eot, ind►���,�d that
for a drainage way through his pro „�`,_; :�o dir
had spoken with the applicant w�4 �s aware�-
added thaf ���hen iurther informat�€�r� co�nes��
��,
property ov,�s��xs who sndt�ate�l t�at they w,�?��,
ia�g
,�....
actions rom fh��r t��etin� on
was ���tir�u�n� to research tlie drainage issues relating
t[ie�pTO�ai.,�t�= t��z�ers sou�ll;of the subject property do
poss�blc �mp�tc�t tr� ��Z� ctrainage, and the possibility of
the ��ti�perty p��e�'s tio the south of the appticant's
h ould nat be agreeabie to giving consent to aUow
e����he run ;�o the wetland, Ericson stated that he
� t this m��.� might take some time to resolve. He
,��.
���� � lanning Cotnmission, staf�would notify the
��1� ��� o attend the discussion.
/ Pubtic He1�'ings
Pianning Associ�,i.� Li�cson reporrt�d i.��,t there would be many pianning cases caming before the
Planning C���ia��it�r� �c:�r c;onsrderatic�n in ti�e future. He stated that there were aurrently two
Conditi �"1`Use Per�7iil rec����ts fpr oversize garages, and a request from Holiday Station Stores
for a, a� ditional Use Pc,x-xi�it ta operate an outdoor produce stand. He added that there was a
we d alteration perm�t re����est a��d vacation of a drainage and utility easemeni, which were
p �., g• ���:'
�'4'�
�1; �Ct���rper�� ��nd Pl�ennEng Comniiss�oners lteports
were considered.
12. Adjoa�rnrr�e�t
There being no further business before the Planning Com�nission, Chair Peterson adjourned the
meeting at 10:27 p.m.
`
I�oua�ds Vievd I'l�nnia�g ComrraB�sion
It�ga€I�r I�eeting
(The meeiing immediatety adjourned to the Agenda Session)
.Tuly 7, 1999
Pa�e 27
IViOIJI�tDS �IIE� �LA�I�IIVII�IG COI�IIVIISSIOI�I
Augtast 4, 1999
7:00 P.I1�.
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2, Roll Call
Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
----_�tl--------------------------------------- - W ____-____-----------tl----------------
CITIZENS: �3E�'ORE SPEAI�i1�iG, �LEA�F�OIl/IE 'I'O TI3E POI3IiJi@�I, ANI)
GIV� i'OUR F`ULI, NAlVIE A1�Ii3 ADI)i�ESS �OR T�IE IVIII�iU'�ES
4. Approve Mintates:
a. July 7, 1999
5. Pllnt�ing C�se I@�o. SGG-99
Property Involved: 2809 Woodale Drive
Discussion regarding a conditiona} use permit request to constnact a 1,296 square-foot
garage.
Appticant; Tim Skeate
6, Pl�nr�ing C1se l�o. 559-99
Property Involved: 2670 County Road I
Discussion concerning application to rezone property and for a condiiionaE use
permit for an assisted living seniar residential iacility
Applicant: M�P Real Estate
7. Plar�ning Case �10. SGS-99
Property Involved: Lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square (Pinewoad Circle}
Discussion concernin� a request to vacate a portion of a drainage easement and
request to ailow far the cons#ruction of two single famiiy 1�omes via a wetiand
alteration permit
Appiicant: Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land Development
7. Speci:�l Pl�nning Case I�1o. SP-071�99
Consideration of proposed ordinances amending Chapter la0& oithe Mounds View
1Viunicipal Code pertaining to Billboards and amending the Code pertaining to signage
in the PF and CRP zoning districts.
8. Staff Reports / Items of Information
a. Previous Council Action
9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Raports
10. Adjournm�nt to Agenda Meating
(Immediately Foilowing Regular Meeting)
.���������*�x�:*�x��:������*�����x�**�*m������:
� AFPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4a20
IF �'OU ARE LJNABLE TO ATTEND. THANIC YOU.
� �k �k �k � �k � � �k �= * �k � �k �k � � �k �k �k * �k �k � � �k * �k �k * �k �k * * �k �k a= * �
August 4, 1999
AGENDA SESSIQN
AGENDA
Review Minutes -- July 21, 1999
� A....
N;1T)ATA1G ROUPS1COIvipE V1PLAiV COMMIPCAG GNDA1 E 99918-4-99. REG
,: ::. .:::
_.
;
: ;:.:
, .. _ - � --
� �{ ,.�.-�,.�y �3i� t�} C'.a,u i� l� i�� P� ?_,.�.m,�a� _ t U��s t,v J°G.f��G.,..,
�'a ��1.'1 ..— �� �.�.i�, 7
/il�u _ in'Za.y �J"�.a'�" �%r Y`t)Pt1>t..l ti1Cifi' CrtL'F:
� .� ,•�'�P� °' f'��;;��n-7ir_=�.�, �r. � „
'� � f e�.», -- €3��r-��:t�
��.c2�r�s�a � ,A �r-��, z4�� �1�5�����-�`���.����� 4
_. NL>i� F% F�rv%iC.a 7�C'y'" a;� j'Ji� ��'a��... �
�rC;�le"tG� °
, RE�i)�S'�' �OR PI.�NI�I1�1G COI�M��SIOI� AC�TOI�
I�eetsn� �ate:
S��fi° l���ort by:
Pla�ning Ca�e 1Vw.:
Reqe�esi;
P��at�ane�°m
Locatim�o
� ;�-� ,,.
Zonin�/I,and iTseo
Appl��abte Regulatioaas:
August 4, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associaie
566-99
The appiicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a
57b square-foot addition to his existing 720 square-foat garage.
Tim Skeate
2�09 �loodale Drive
07-30-23-31-0019
R-1, Single Family Residential
1104.01.�Subd. 4: Accessary buildings detached firom principal building shall have a setback of
5 feet. Accessory buildings shail not be atlowed in the front yard.
_` ? 1106.03.�_�d 1• No garage shall exceed 952 square feet except by CUP; the combined
square footage for al( accessory buildings on a lot shail not occupy more than 20% of ihe rear
yard.
1 lOb,04, Subd.6: The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot
exceed 1,400 square feet, the garage width cannot exceed 35 feet nor atlow for more than
three vehicle accesses.
1125,01 Sub. 1 e: This section lists possibie adverse effec�s that the Plannin� Commission
shall consider in making its recommendation.
1125.01. Sub. 3b•_ This section lists possible additionat criteria by CUP requests shall be
judged.
Attach�nents: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Location Map
Sifie Plan
.
li.: � - �'• -
2809 �Iooda(e Drive is located south of Highway 10, two properties west of Silver Lake Road.
The area of the subject property--an interior lot--is approximately 16,200 square feet. The house
arnd garage are set back approximately 60 feet from the sireet, wi�h the detached garage situated
alongside the house to the east. The house, at appro�mateiy 400 square feet, is much smaller
] [ .:� �G=-vL � �. t::[�`va_�7` � �'� LL 7 J �' � ..-��
� 9 f{ y'v'l u SC$-�' ' Y'a) � t''�� l
Skeate CUP Request
2809 Woodale Drive
August 4, 1999
Page 2
than the existing two-stall garage, which is 720 square feet. Th� applicant proposes to construct
a 576 square-foot additiorn to the rear of the garage, maintaining the same width and roofline of
the existing garage.
A�alysas:
A Conditional Use Permit is required due to the size af the proposed garage. The size of the
proposed garage wauld be 1,296 square feet, which would be three times the size of the house.
'I'he Pianning Commission and City Council i�ave in the past been very concerned about this iype
of imbalance. A garage is intended to be an accessory stnacture ta service the principal dwelling,
not the dominating feature of the property. A garage of this size, were it to be built, would appear
oui of place and obtrusive, in staff's opinion.
'i
Dimensional CYiteria
VVhile the size of the garage with respect to the home appears to be excessive, a11 of the
dimensionai criteria associated with this request--setbacks, spacing between buildings, width of
proposed garage, and the numbers of doors�-sa.tisfy the ret�uirements as stated irz Chapter 1104 of
the Zoning Code. The garage after the proposed addition would be about 53 feet from the rear
property tine and 5.5 feet from the east property line. The tatai square footage of the garage and
proposed addition is 1,296 square feet, which would compri�e about 16 percent of the rear yard
area. The maximum coverage allowed is 20 percent. ;?
Adverse E ects
The City Code, in Section 1125.01, Subd. 1 states that the Planning Commission shall examine
the possible adverse effeets of a conditional use permit request prior to making a
recommendation. The following represer�t those items expIicitly stated in the Code:
Relatianship with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Cornprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential
areas so as ta improve the quality, appearance and atiractiveness of housing units and
residential property in general. The Comprehensive Flan designates this proper�y, 2809
i�oodale Drive, as high-density residentiaL The existing use is not compatible with the
land use designation, yet this will be corrected with the updated comprehensive plan,
Garages and other types of accessory structures like sheds and tool buitdings ar� allowed
and expected in this distric�, yet a garage that is triple the size of �he house may be
inconsistent with the second residentiai goal, whi�ch states: "Preserve the identity and
improve the quaiity and appearance of existing residential neighborhoods." Sta�feels thai
ihis proposaI would not innprove the quaiity and appearance of the neighborhood,
2. The Geographical Area Involved.
4. The Character of ihe Surrounding Area
,.
,
, , . :;
Skeate CUP Reqaest
2809 Woodale Drive
August 4, 1999
Page 3
Tn tk�is area of Mounds View, most of the lois are as large or larrger tl�an the subject
property. There is a good mix of architecture preser�t in the neighborhood, with some of
the houses being older and some newer. The subject home, however, is much smaller than
�hose in the immediate area. Many homes in fhis area h;ave large garages yet they do not
appear out of place because the houses are larger as we11, Whiie a larger garage could be
accommodated on the subject properiy, ifi would not be proportionally consisteni with the
house.
Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
It can be generally assumed that adding to the eXisting garage would have a posiiive
impact on the value of the subject property. It is not knovvn whether a garage three times
larger than the home would have a negative monetary impaci upon the neighborhood,
even though it may be visually obtrusive.
The demonstrated need for such a use.
The e�sting garage--at 720 square feetmF is considered fairly typical by today's standards.
While it does not have access for ihree vehicles, there is ample work area and supplemental
storage space beyond that space needed for the vehicles. �Iowever with multi-car families
being the norm rather than ihe exception, demonstrating the need for additionai garage space
- becomes less of an issue.
In siaf#''s opanian, tttis proposal does not satisfy tF�e adverse e3i°�cts crit�ria.
�eneral CUP Criteria:
Also in Section 1125.01, the Planning Commission is to examine the criteria for granting a
conditional use permit, which are outlined in Sectian 1125.01, ,�ub 3b:
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on e�sting parks, schools, streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the axea.
{7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
(S) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
Adding on to the existing garage would not create a greater impact on existing public
facilities, parks, schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an
increase in traffic on adjacent sireets.
(2} 7Che use will be suf%ciently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes wi11 not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence t�a development of vacant land.
Skeate CUP Request
2809 Woodaie Drive
August 4, 1999
Page 4
(3) The stnacture and site shall have an appearance that wi13 not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
Because the house to the east is set back further from the street ihan the house and garage
at 2809 Woodale Drive, any expansion to the garage would be futiy visible ta people on
both Woodale Drive and Silver Lake Road, in addition to the abutting property owners.
{4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably reiated to the overall needs of
the City and to ihe existing land use.
(5} The use is consistent with ihe purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
distriat in which the appiicant intends to iocate �he proposed use.
(b) 'The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Garages and detached accessory autbuildings are typical uses in residentiai areas, and
altow for the storage of vehicles and yard and gardern equipment. A garage expansion in
and of itself would be consister�t with the intent of the Zoning Code, aithough the Code
stipulates that any time a proposed garage or garage expansion becomes larger than ihe
house, City review in the form of a conditional use permit is required. The intent o£this
provision is grounded in the concern that t�s�i-ssio�-and-Co�ncii-shar-e,_ar�d-that-i,s; a
garage shoutd not excessively dominate the property or create a proportional imbalance.
f
1�s they relate �o thes speea#ic praposal, st�i�' believ�s that the generai concliiionaI use
permet crateria ac�e raoi cee�l��i�Fe1� met.
Recosnmeredation:
Staffrecotnmends that the Planning Comtnission discuss this proposal paying particular attention
to the issue of proportional imbalance between the house and proposed garage, as well as the
garage's potential obtrusiveness, and direct staffto prepare a resoiution for action at the ne}rt
Commission meeting on A.ugust 18, 1999.
C ��.U����� ��1��
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV\DE VCASES`566-9915KEATES.PCi
;:
� ,� �
t ),!;�sla R i) :.^•.;
;l�.iu:3 ti:•
. . .a
or . rx,Pn,
}� a��
�o� Jl::: �:r��
. ,
og�Sg ° ASPtfl2Y���Q
� �� �'' .� : _ � �t � ,� x. � _� i `e ; • `�'�, .
����a�� �������
24Q1 i�ghway 10, �iounds �iievd 1b1IV 553.I2
6�2�717-�a�a
6I2-784�3462 - FAX
Piea�e i'ype mr P�°ir�t T�fo��Ho� - Co�plei� �+nt� �ides of'T�ys �oe°�
Ap�lic��i Infcsr��tio� ,,r� /
Name of Applicant �1%n ����% 'E— T'�iephone t�/� �° ��� � y�1
Aaa�ss ____'��1 (�vod�rl� d�i'. F� � � -- -
���as cr�,,✓✓ /1� .S"�'iez
Interest � Ptoperiy (check appropriate box)
o Owner of Property � Contract far De�ci Or�vner
� Lessee, Operator, Managcr � Agreexnerat tu F'wrchsase
o Qther {zxplain)
Appt����fs �east provade e�i�ence of interes� � Qrog�et°ty �t t6� t�e of appi�catam�, an� if yoea a�°e uoi t�xe own�e- of t��
propesty9 you ffi�a�i p�o�ide � tette� of p�raaissfloa froaa th� o�er gfai�g co�sent to t6e fil�g of thi� applicaiaono T12e
property o�vne�° �s�est sign t�es. applicaiion for it to be acc�ptedm
,�ropez°ty �escrip��on/�rop�sa[
Address or G�neral Loaadon '
Legal Descrigtion
Property Identificatian # (PIN #)
# of Acres
Current Zonin�
_:� :
�
Type af Applica�ion
❑ Comprehensive P1an Amendment
� Rezoning .
❑ Major Subdivision
p Minor Subdivision
❑ Planned Unit Deveiopment (PUD)
❑ PLJI� Ameadment
� Condition�l Use Pem�it
❑ Variance
❑ Cod� t�ppeal
� Dev�lop Review/5ite Ptan
� Wetl�nd Ait�r�tion Permit
❑ Vdetl�d �u#�er Perrnit
ra Ftoodpi�in Pemut
❑ Oth�r
�250 '
$250/acre; min $250 max $ ] S00
�250 + $254 deposit*
$i00
Refer io eezoning fees
$350
R-I, R-� alI others $25Q
R- t, R-2 $] 00 aU others �250
�toa
$ I 25/acre; �in � 125 �tax $750
Ft- i, R-2 � 150; all others �Z�O
R- I, R-2 $25; alI othe�rs $ i OQ
$200
�I7eposifs shalI b� paid to cover alt costs of public notic�s, materials and stai3' or consuitaga[ tune speng in ttie review,
research or preparntion of mat�rials nssociated with tlxis appiic�tion. The applicant shatl be res},onsible for all re�anable
incuFred costs in excess ot th� initi�l deposic sunount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refianded
to the applica.nt within chirty (30) days atter consideration oi th� appEication is compi�fed.
Pl��ase co�txpleie �h� ��v��se sic�e of ��eis appia�ntio�e
Ciiy of �/Io�sreds �1iew, �YI�I
Dev�loprner�t Ap�licatio� Pa�c 2
Pres�nt Use oiPropertY _ ,
C� Undev�loped/Vacane �'� , Single FaEniIy Dwelli�g
❑ Duple.clI'wo F�enily Dweliing ❑ MuEti-family Dweiliri8 .� O
a Busigxess/Co�xuncrcia[ Establishgnent o Iac�usY�iai �stabiisbmene �`� '�
� o�� �e�P�a�� � jr-t �
� 1 e'(� ; '- ; � �, � � .�-'�� . .
�i,/ J� 4� ~
�,� iJ
Properry CIassification ❑ Abseract ❑ Torrcns �
� ��
BY MY {OUR} SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION. I HEItEBY DECLARE T��Ai°, TO 'iI�E BEST OF M�Y
I�10WI.EDGE, THE INFURMATI(�N PROVIDED IS TRUE ACCURAT�.
Signature ot Applicant r '
�
Name of Applicant (typed/printed) 4 //i'�'t �°��ri'�
Si�ature of Propeaty Owner •
Name ofPrapeaty D�mer (typed/printed) �%�s .✓zq rC
Address of O�n+ner
Phone Number of[ Owner
��xx���a���*����������*���*��x*���m��x�����������������a�*�*�#�����������������*�����������a��x�x�����*��
�'OR OF`ll�'IICE US� oI�Y
Date of Submittal � � —
Dute niAcceptance — Assigned to:
Plnnning CASe No. 6U-ds�y Limit 120-day kimit
Apptication:
Psirk Dedicaiion:
Deposits:
Other:
Totnl:
Fees I'ai�d� �� AccouQt #
�
N:IDATA1GROi1P51COMDEVIFOR3vfS�DE V;�.PP.FO Et
� ,.. �+ � ,.. �r
Checfc # Receipt #
�r� �S3 � 5�°�P� -
� , -
>��
lJsB
;
, ;: ,. -
�5
i9
>5
°�
; �
..�. � .___.
�
7380 C� ��81
��.. a ,..,_..
i350 � 7J65
�,q , 7347
�� �� �� a1 � ��s� �, �1 �( O� Q
p,�j 3'd7 M� tO � r��j i N N N� N� N
CD O� N N`�� d C
M N � # O � d�i 1. � N N� N� �
Noj � M i P'o'1 { M �� N, �
.....,.� - t : � j
� � � � � � �
F ��i��:��!
7oe2
io72
70�4
7034
702s
7oos
ssas
69i0
68b2
6942
692�
� o p -�
N'o ° °� � �
Q � "' � woo�A��
� � M = �. ,
�
r.
�
i
7�
���s
5133
5125�
5t19
5993
��a�
507c
505E
�m H���- ��.���,r
�OYllII� ��1.�3 PIa1ll11Y1� �a,S� �66-��
Applicant: Skeates Conditional U�e P�rmit
I,ocation: 2�09 '�+loodale Dnve
_ . , ---- - . _ . .
! � ^ J: "� . : ' � :-; � = :
�` �: i� �, j !; �.
�
�'� � �■ �
���11� ��■� ■� ■ ■■ �
�� .�� ■■ . �
�� �� '���f= ■ ���/��
�■01�
�■�r� ■�� .�� � ■■■r �
. �� �■� �� � ■■. *
i����i Il���i �:� � G%:'.-i
.■;�::: : ��"„ .,»„�,,,,,��...,. �,.,,, ,,,,�,_. ■■ ■.� li�lll=
.■� .f��.���i..�� � : :r � .
�� ��■������ ■ ,,,��� �� � ■
�� �� �����i■i���� ,��,�,,, �i �� ��""�� �
�� �w �ii�l����ii■� ,� �,�,� �� a� 5�1��11 ■�i�
ii Qi ��!l�r��l�����l��■ �� �� II�IIf11 �
ii ,*�i�� i� �i i������1�� ������ 11I�1�11 �
�� �� .� �■■� ���s��f�� � � :i11l111 �
�� i; ii ii i� �� �� � : wC �f/
ii ii
��: ii ii i: �� �� � i i� :�
�C ii ii ii i: ii ii ����ti :: ��
M� �! s� M� i� �� �� �� � � �� �S
Mw �� �� r■� �w �■� �� �� �"� �� ��
�r� �� � �� �� �� ar� �s ��■
�i ■�iw �� i� �� ii� �r�w �� � i/� �■`i1
�� rs �� �r �s r■~i� �r ��� A`i1'�'�' %% ��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Tim Skeate
2809 Woodale Drive
Conditional Use Permit
Planrting Case No. 566-99
2809 Waodale Drive
�`°�. ��� Pro erties
�;��:• P Wiihin 350'
`}'�
, . ,,
� � _ _ _..
•., ,� �� __ � �; , � :
Job: �j/: Daice:
. .,... ._... , .., ....;. . ,.1.. ,. .. :_ :
°( ''::;,�`.�.: ;';__. '_� "�.;��;_:.:... . 4,; . ;'';'_.:. : :;.::.'.
, . _ . . , ;. . . . . _ . .. , . , F -; " ...... f..';- - . , = : , ... �..� .. . ;_ F. . . : - .
, ..�,-._, ,..;.,. ,., a ..,. „_s . . ' ,_ ' . ...
. . � , . . , . _ � ; _ , , . , .. , _�,� . , >. �_ _ F . ��
,,:.,.,_.s.�...,,.',.�W..._... �.w...,�:.....ti.�.; _ � . ,,..� : �,...,}.,...�.,,,. :r .. ; .., � , .. � t.� .,} .� W.,_,. _ , - , ; � , �
1 L i :.. ;-.'._`_i�, ,. •:.' :_,5 '...,�. _,�.�. . �. : .;., ..
� ! � � 1 4 � ' T f � � r � n . ` : ' e . ;-n ' : . . � •
! i . �' ' • ' ' ' , � ; � � ! � i 1 _ , > . �. , i • � ' I 1 • t �. i � � ' ' i t .
- ' ! . '� . � . • � ' I . � � ' v i . �. �. J�ry �..• . ! r V } . . . . L ; . ,. .. `.i ' 6 , �T � f, r � , . t_
I , ' 1 1 ' f .� ' . � . � T i i _ � 1. : . 5 . . c . � i � . �' � _ r .. _ -. ., .
; . � � � i - . r . . 1 1 r � I' 1� � ' � ' ' 7 . . � , T ' -
� . . .. " _ . ' - ' . . . . ( � . j i . 4 � � : f_ � � 4 > , � a • . , i ,... � .t..; i , . . . � i '. ;.�, ,
"r t f. , � , � . . ' : ! •�- j- .` t' ; ( . ,� .-,�. i : . . . . � � , i. } y `. ,� ' .,.
1 Fv.w�S+.ir.m,h.r� � . .. �. : � . .. �- _. .... ' i r •, 1 � � � � . . �� :
f . . _�....: xr--....i ' _ .....s.�..�..w:..�.o : jrr"W"":"`�..,...K.........,.-iw� ���%', �•..� . � .e.i.....u«�_...,..'... �. rJm��,.�..W....,.�,.„
, �,� .. S . , . . . , v [ } � - ' 's � i. , � • : - • �i . . . , i i :. � . F , . . . , . � i . .
_ . �� l � . . � I . . . S . .. � i f.. i ! + : � fi a : t. . - .� 1. _ t ; � . - . ' .
_ " . � a . . . S � ' . . . . { . � . _ r � . 1 { ' I 1 ` � s � � , , . ' - t . a .. .
! l � j � � . 1 ; , •: _g +... A. i...: f. .
i ' ; . > ' ' ? . • � . � . � � . s � � . t � . i. . . 3 : . ;. . 3 . . , � � . . ,�_1.:.�. ��S,,J.��.11�!! r . . .. . � - �
. , , . . , . . , . , . � . , � � "(T. ��C7 • �
. . . , . . � - . ' , , . � � . . , . t � � :, i., . � i i � . � � , , � ; ; r � � f�-=�1 !-4 �'� . . . � � ..
� . � . . . .. , � � . . . . ,. , . � . . . T. ; . . l ;...�. e. _z . '� '
_.,, ,..'_..,....._�_.�..,� .� ; �.--:�; ; �F,��F�����_''' ' ' � �
' . ; . , ; , . s , , _ . , . � . . . . , , , , . � ; ; ,. ; , � � : , �..,,W '.,.:_;..��.,.. ..:. a.�.. � .:.,�.,.:.�;�:._i,. y.�.�.
�;,..;�...�.�..Y.... �,.�,...�..,..�....... � : .�.- — ..�.�...�...w�......�....�. e , . . �i --A��, l�r°�Qhl- . . . . �_ , ..
. . . ! . ' . � ' � � / M . .. ; ' : , 1` ' ` , 1 , � . � ' . ` � . . ,. � . . . • . � �, ' y � ` -' � r '. .� _ . . , l
.! . _' •(''.,....�''_'�...,, �;�,...,..j.� . .. 3. .:.f_ . .. _
�..� .. .� �_. „1,.. .. . .Y.'. _� � � � .,.� .-. . . . .
, • ,�..r.-...�w..�._.r.a .ww.+�A—n�w.aw�n.,w..u�. ' i � � .w�rw.xnwr...u.., • � , , , v.w...r.-.�..+1.:.....i...........r. �.. .�...,..en.«�.,..i - . p , ..� . ..w�.Y.�.i,.._�a.
� ; , � � � � ; : '�� . , ', : ` : ; �s : � ; ' . ; �� �� ;m��±�/ STtNCx A . . �E��ST°' f � ���� � � � � t - : '..
� e � ' �. 1 , i , � . I � , � _ k F . . � � ' -. i . � . F. I�) : ' ' . , � - !� AI�Py4.TG•. � ' .. . � .
. � . . , . � . . ,. . . � . � , � - - ' - • • - � � ' ; �?,��� i . , � . , � 4 `-+� . ; � . � , • , -
. ' (5 �.�y-� Q� . t . 'oLd �'�'� , , , . . � . .
. - . � f j ' � ! . , � . , - , r r r > � , ' . , ! �oSv� j . . - .. _ _ . , . - � � • - � � - -
,� ' � 1 ! .,:...5.. , § ' I. , � _ ! � J ; � . � - � , t a. : , �' .........�,.s�,�.,,. ' . , { ! .' , •. . � 1 � %�� / ..�.,.._.
� � � .fQ'e`�...W,.,,..
_�wa..�., W . ......,-w.r�..:.., .t....,,.�.,..,..-.- . A
_ ,_,,,,,f,,, ,�,,,.. . .�,.-�........�,M..... � 1 A . G ' :. , `�.`'.. �.._i.,i . , . - ,
. . . . i . f , � i •-"-$ �� � . � . . .. , ; _'�`�; � ' ' ' ' i ' , •'.._ 1._ i -_ y. .. . 1 i . �p . � . . . . ..
. . < � i . e , i � � . . � � - i s . . . _ . ; f , � : � . , � 3 � � : r_,11`3...� . v 4 � �
, , . � j t . . , { . ' • . ;; i , s , � i , � i , , � i,t � , i � � . . { ; � . .
. . i , . � _ � � � ` , - : ` 5 � � . . - ' ., i ; ' ,, : . , , • . � . . . . i..s . ; a . ' � s , . � ; t ; r . ,
; j � � i . i � ; � , . � ,;\� . = • 's � . , . .
� ;_ . i • � , r� . � . � - . � � • . . . . � $ . . '. , i . i ; + � '° : , i , :. : � `�C' • ; ; . , � ," � ' � } :
� � :..,.y,,,.r.. . ,....u..w,.�.i � � ° _ «. .-..,.d, i.y...�«*v�rt...:».....,,�.,.:,...� ........�..-�.,.. �..w..�...�.,:��;�...�..:.... . -.-:«..R.��..aY-.q .� �,�,,....t.,w...,;...v..�..;w.-�:= � . ...�.�.,�...�.,y.�..r...
.j. � . .� � _ . � i � � r , . . t+ � , � t : . . . � ; . . � . ' � '� ' � , , �� � �r�� ��! ��� ' � e � ,_ : o- , ' ..
1 jN . . � T � I , .. ; i f. t. ; .F `'� �' .
f : : . . � � . i : , � ` , ; ; . ��`,G � . � �.� t.
4 . � � .;. : i � . 4 . i . �. ; , . . � � . . , ; : : : ; �. ; � , i. i i � , t �t� : y, s '��l � i .k . I '� , i • L
1 � , � � ' , r i :' : � r ; , E + F..�.., ; � �;? �- , t _ ; :
� � � ! i ' I � � . , �i : ! t t' '. : i i : . �. .7 3 i �— � i `F , . y ! i
t � ! ; , � . . i � , T , i. � ! } r i ; � � �, � �r � 'ay j • ,� � ?
+� . . 1 } } � , � I . t r � � . , i�i . � S � , - � i , • . �
i r i t } 1 V - � _ _ .. � ' � i : � ; . : i S : � .� � i � 1 f i i i ; � . � �' b { . . . , �. . , . ��,', ' '. , - . . ' ; .
� ' �. � + - r � f , ' : i i � i � 's i. s � r t � ..1.,� ,� r- s- } �i :. � . � � F . 4 � � . � � � � ; q ( ; v
w.. ,.;,..�.--'"""�g° � �....es,..:.�.. � .�w.a„......,...}..,�..„fi�.,.�-- 3 � . 6 '...� t....,..�..,...,.-. �a�ro,- a-y �-,. �,....�.w �._... .�„�.r.,.�...T..
v..+wM rs"'S'�^Y°"^"'an'�"'u"�.J°'�./m.+wFxv�� _
i i . . .. ', ..,.W. �. ; F . i ; r � ' -t..i � � 't p + i � ti # � ; •� i
� r � � � ' �� ! , 5, � i � . } � .. . � � t � ; � i � i i � v . i . • r i S • #. .t . i . i �. , � i
_"}.. � ;. t � �.: , , j - . . . . i .3..A i -� � ti � f � i � � .� i - e ��,. I i i 4..i.}.y'2... _ • - . .
� : _ F , , - ,. ., a , .a. �.. ; ; i t - i- ' � ` .: ; ' t s � � � , . .
, - i - . i . . � � � i. � ; ; . . � i , � '. � 1 r . ; , . � >. �r -r .} 'ri � ' � :
. � t r r :' I • • ^ Z';' } r . . 1, i �. ! t t. ` 1 i �. � ,S.-t. F. . u. . � . : . .
i.3- : t �. L f .� .-.i i ,� , o ; ';.a :` . : � i' �' , . � . ..�,..j..1� . ' � 1 .
; .1 � . j . a . -� , j i. $ : . � . i .L {� � � . �. i j A � � i i ! ' � 4 ~ � � _ i . . - . , ' •
i i ' & , � , � 1 # � � : - . � . � ' i 'x . .. .�...;...� .. �
� i � _ . i : � i . . � � j � � ^i
+ i � .. � r -�- I � r t - 3 � 4 F i . i i ^ �; � [ i' 1""_",'_ " ~ .� . . � . . ; : i
. i r - . � . . r i. _ � _ �-�.i^�..�-,.����,��..
^� i l : ° i � E , r , r i . = I ' �' 7 : � i 4 i � i c F -f � `'T . . , . . _ S ' ` . � � , . �tl ' . . • : . i
� t �. �. . }.. � t � .. . � e ' . • - , � 4 � } } � � i� 4 ' j h- � � % r , � . � _ _ � i � - . . � E � / . . . � -
. j : " S , � . � � . < � � � .. . . . .
i � � � , � ! � t' ' �
.. G � . .. , i ; ; �. . � _ t � : t e T ' . , • . . . : � e• i = � � - � . . : . . - , , , : . . - 4 , . ; . .
. � � Y . ; . , F , � 1. , i � F i . : .. : �. { ? ; , : . % � : , . . r : . . : . 's : ? .. , � . : 5 . . . . ,
. ,� , ° ? - - � . . . . . } i ; y a � � . } t ; t � .�. t . , i � . � . � , I , r , ,. i , . . . � .
; . � � i F . t � i , . , .a . - . - . .k < < P i � � y 1 , , i . . . � . , • . �
. � . ? . _ . � . . ' . . _. _ =- -
..,
t "C` �Y ; •- , .� °" � ,� .�:�
_ _ . ; _
x <
� ,� ..,, ..
, i
�
=`:::;
r:: i,
=i. � �� ,# ,
To: Mounds View Pla�uzing Cammission,
F�-or�: Rick 3opke, Community Development Director .
�ub,�ecto Planning Case No. 559-99: M�P l�equest for Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit at
26iU County Road I
Daie: July 29, 1999
BA.CKGROUND: ° �-
The Planning Commission has discussed the propased rezoning and conditional use permit at
2670 County l�oad I to allow an assisted living senior residential facility at the last two meetings.
The Planning Commission has asked the developer to �rovide additional information about ihe
type of facility it will be, parking requir�ments and staffing levels. l�ttached are co�ies of
additionai information that staff has received frorn the developer since the last meeting as well as
the p�evious staff report on this matter. Staff will be attempting to contact other cities and repart
our f ndings to the Planning Commissian at the August 4th meeting.
REQLTESTED ACTION:
Staff is recommending that the Commission discuss this request in the context of whethex or not
it would be an appropriate use far this location given the information that has been presented and
direct staff ta prepare a resolution fox action at your next meeting on August 18, 1999.
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV�DEVCASES\559-99\7-29-99.MEM
i i
� �JUL,28.1994� 2;23P . F&L 319 7193
0
reezl ese�t�
fncvrpurr�r�d
_ . ,, _ .�. . -
}„ .. � ._
` i: , " :
` �� * .,. .
, ,�.�; ,�
/ r
' ':.
.. � �..: ' . j ,..,:
_' __., va_ ��1 it/
A!
�; � �;",. � ,
- - � . ` � .
i ,
i
�
I: � " ; :'�- .
1 b 9 9��P, 2/
�. �: ^"
r�
f.
.
� r},
' s- ' � . �, �� ��
�' �' il �: �: �
�� � ._ �
,..
;�;
�. � � � i + _'i
�;' � '?.
• :' �• : , 'i ' ' - �: : � �: ,
�:
�` •
►�.� ' �: '.; . .' !" ; �: ; ; r .:; j � , :_
��
�
�` i' � �
�;, ', - ; . � � .' ! ' �' �. . .f ,. �.
�
�" S- .
. _: � ` � � ��- _.. -�:_ `,
�....�/
�. t .. , . _�,� � ;
ai
.
- �� � �
_._ .. :. .. ; " ►
_.. __ :.��. . � ,s �� �- .: � _ _.
..b._ ;;,.., : -. .� ..
_,.: �, , �
� ' � � � � _; , _ � � ,_ , " ,. ., �. _: � �:.
__ r._.... ... �. _ _ - ' _
, , �-_
_...
•; �_ y
, M ��-�
� _.
- � r ; _. _ , _
. ,
-- : �. � r ,� � - _;
K _.�. 'l�'�rr +�
: --
__. v�,r�.., _ ti � � - ,
_ .._. _ .m. _..._..._ ��_;,..- ,
_ . -.� ,. . < r --._ -�. _ ..,,.
�. _....
r. . . � . . .� ..,
. . . , .--, �. _,
.,._.,_... ...,
-_ , i'r= . . . � I ..� y y N ..e: � ..
I::;
°7l � � C7 (A D C� Cn �'1 C7 Cn D w X7 N �n � N 00
O(� Dwm �Wm OWEn �N� Q�D ���
zD ��� ��� ��� �o� Cncn� o
oc� ��p m�`o °Y'�'o � < Crm w��
° � c�i� o v�i a � _�� �n� �mz �
,� o ? o �, o ��� mo�, �no �
n � � � � n � �'O� �� o�� °
� o o � o z� �� �x�' `;
� � � �� �
m o
�
�
D D D �°*-- D D � �
r� r� �� �� r'� r'� r�
< � < � < � < � C � < � < � � �
G1m G7� G�m G?m G�m G�m �m �O
0 0 � � � U �
�
O 0 O O V � � d� �
~ � �
�
i j w �
� D u, cn .A "O
C� {,� °�fn� �D
w c o o e�i�p � o�D r�°°�
� � � r n � � �
� �
.p � cn cs, � � � �
cn cn o o � � r.� �
� � o � D � � �
o � �
� o 0 0 0 0o rn � p
m
N � Z
,� °� Cty O� ls1 0°� CJt O'Y7 '0 � Z 7�7
���n� -��� �ci� � � �Ci
O C) O C7 O Ci
Z� ��G� ��G? ��L� � G� ��
mo ��p ��v ��o i 2 -�ic,�n
-r� r -� e-°. �l r
-�-i6J !O� n0&� C70p � � '�°�n
�D %��D ��D ��D d � �T O
�m N�m ��m ��m � � � �
z�t m-r' �-" ��' � Z o m
O. m0 mCa m0
�� �� �� ;�� z z �
� D� � � � � � v�i
o �o �o �o Z �
n Z� Zn �n G7 G�
� � � � � � � O O
� �
m 1�1
�
�
�
�
z
c�
�
-�
�
�
�
v�
�
-�
m
v
r
<
�
�
�
�
b
�
m
C�
°i
�
JU1.28.1999 2,23PM F&� 319 7193
kiSR,As�ocxares
1 �32 �auriex ��i�e
Madisor�, Vd'ascomsin 5:37I 7
��.662.134I fa� dOB:8d2.i342
n 6YCI11'P@S:7'U [`L'
):Pal:1W�i•�INC:
lA'Tki�IO�U&Sl�pN
��ty z7, 7s9�
r r y
'� "+ {�'
. . 1.
. . , +
, .,.,. ._
� `�: �, '�* . _ ... � _
� � ..
• . — —,
�
N0, 1699 P, 4/b
���f Il�r �1P1�C�CfA[�. ' ° °° . , . ' . :t ar
_ w� _� .
I have �it��hed a fist af ��si�ted c�re ga�iifies w� h�v� d��lgr��d ov�r the pas� 5 y��rs.
�h� p��iflg ��ti� of y��r Mou�ds !/i�� �roj��4 of � s4all per every 2+ �rnit� is consisi�nt
witM ��t �ur �ssi�t�d ��e eper�tio�s a�d ��mr���iti�s �r� ��perien�ing �� �rae��ing t�e
n��ds of par�ng �t �n �ssis�ed �re project.
Unfr�rt����ely fot the resid�nis tF��y d� r��� r��etv� ma�y �[si�ers �r�d don'i dri�r�
them��lves. ihe p��ing is for the siaff and far vfsi�ar�. On� s#all per �very 3 u�its h�s
worked su�c���fudly on Q�st proje�ts. 1 stalf per ev�ry 2 u�iis will pro�ide ove�l�w
p�rking.
Aftached is a ia�t of �pEratars of f�c�li#ies, ple�se feel �r�e te h�v� ths Citp ca�l fhem �r
fh� �mmuraities they h�v� bttilt in 4o reviev� p��eing ne�d�.
Si�e�r�ly,
�
A4t�chme�t: �i�t of f�ulgti��
�. 4 9 .. m. rm n
0
r
`l
;;
>:
---- --
jU�, 28, 1999 2. �4PM F&� 3�9 7193
m
S�i1l�P ��P�
��4t �oEiins
53�5 VUalI Str��t,
Suite i504
�Aadison, l�ll 5371 �
,: ,
,_ :.
, -. .,.
. .. ,
-., _ :���
..,�. � .,., �,�= _
,
� �: � � . � y�:.
� ... . _ ->
. _. . ,
Bonnie Amdi
5�4 S. Univ�rsit�r Av�.
B��v�r Dam,lAfl 53�1�
� � .: .
�. • a
• �. " •
:� •'
.-
� ,. � i
��• - •�'�!
N0.1699 P. 5/6
0
JU�, 26. 1999 2:24PM
m
m
F&l 3�9 7193
�a ��.sB pro�e�' ��e�fe�as� �veP tls� pasl��e (S) ye�PS.
�6SR �s�ocia#e9, Ir�e, experi�ne� inelude� ihe folf�wing.
Y �e; S ac�:
Alzheirrrer's Desrg�r:
���cor�/Elderh�us
- M1ll�di�an
� Monrae
- Rib ���rttain {V�lausau}
m Ea� �lair�
- F�nd d� �.ac
- Manttowoc �
, � Sn�bayg��
o K�rtos�a '
� Prairie d� ��c
Pratatypes ptu�.. �.�
1°hree 16-units
8 u�its
1� unifs
�fi u�its
16 u�its
8 urrits
� ����
1� u�i$�
S �ni�s
C��rtmr�r�iiy �ased �esi�'�r�tial �aeiliPiss (C�Rh�.
•S��i�rGare of �Aiiscon�in
- N��r protofype {24 unitsj
� hnadison
- f�arti�ew�c
- iwb Ri�ers
- Ken�sha
� l�adison
dsheboygan
- St�ught�n
- ��C611�
• D�rby Ent�rpciseslPrec�sion
- Fend d� I��
- Madi�ott
B Una�reJ�tendica�e Health �aciliiy
- �it�orta
-�itefsh �ap
Ski!!ed l�ia►r�ing ��cfrit;�� (SNF):
z4 ur�its
24 unifs
24 �nii�
32 uniis
24 u�its
24 u�tits
24 units
2� Ldt11�5
30 �nits
8 uniis
40 units
4� unit�
,: ., �. �
_ �. �
; .; .- . . . . t . _.
� , � - = `� ; ��-� ; _
,-_.- .� : - _,. t._
�
_ _ .,._.
. . : � -� , .
�
� " r .: - „ a y � . � -
� ► . ►. _
- .. iz
�
�szs,000
�271,304
�525, OD�
$519,DOd
S521,400
5269,7'00
�271,40b
$572,9Q0
$275,fi00
$764,400
$764,400
�76a,�0Q
$1,321,900
$764,�00
s7�a,aoo
5764,�04
57�4,Obb
i
N0, 1699 P, b/b
Daie:
1997
1997
1997
1997
1ss7
9997
�997
�997
1�97
1997
1997
i997
i997
1997
199i
1998
i�gfl
$2,076,743 1897
�291,000 1997
�1,8d3,38� 1996
�z,saa,000 � �9s
0
�1.5 (�tilli�� 1 �9�4
�900,00� 1994
�4.5 �illi�n 9994��995
(P��sEd)
$2d,000 i995
� ; ;-�' .._, ..` �?. ;� Y• .O � `'., � � � .. %� � ' .�< �T l .�i -,
��efar�g Da#e<
��a�Repo�°t bye
�I�renia�� C�se ��.o
Tu1y 21, 1999
Tames Ericson, Planning Associate
559-99, 560-99
R�q�est: � Th� app�icant is requesting. a�ezoning and Conditional use permzt
. far an assisted living seni��'r�sidential faeility on vacani land behind
Super Amer�ca.
P�titi�n��°o
Locaiaos�o
I?�` t`��. '= r .
M�P Real Estate
2670 County lioad I(i/acant lot b�hind Super Amer�ca)
. 07-30-23-1100040
P�°esent Z�a�Fn�and �Tsee �-Z, Limited Business Commercial I Vacant land
At�achnaent�:
Locatiar► Map
Site i'Ian, Option I �
Site Ptat�, Option Z _
. Assis�ed Living Background Information
��ekgroundo
1VI�P Rea� Estate has enade appi�cation to rezone the vacant property lacai�d ai 2670 County �oad
I fro�n �-2, Limited Busu►ess Commercial, to R-4, �ighpDensity Residential, and for a conditiona�
use permii ta consicuct and apera.t� an assisied livin� senior r�sid�ntial facility. Accordizig �o the
applicant, the residents would ti� elderly and unable to care for themselves, some o£ whom may
haee Alzheimer's Disease or other forms of elderly dementia. The propasal wauld fall under the
zoning requirements as .outfined in 5ection 1109.04, Subdivisian 2, pertainirtg to "Nursing homes
and other sirr�ilar group housing".
Tkus requesi was discuss�d at the Pianning Commission's last meeting on July 7, I999, at wkuch
time many issu�s were raised related to this applicai�on. �Iany of #hese iss�.es wlll be address�d in
�his report and others vv�ll be addressed orally ai ihe Coar�rriission tneeting. �
r;� . . ; :. . � :,:
Based ox� th� d�sc�assla�s �t th� iast Pianr�ng Comr�ussion m�eiing, ther� �r� �our rna.ul �s�ues of
concern �th rega�°d io tt�is project. `The first t�wn, parking �d aac�ss, are �ss��s ihat pertain znare
to the site plan th�,n �he us� itself, and as s�xch, m�y be iess relevant to th� request at hand tha� th�
oiher t�o iiems fot� disc+�ssion�-iax ger�eration and rezaning unp�cts. Sta..�believes that c�ll of th�
issuss can b� addressed to the sat�sfaction of �ll involved pa.r�ci�sm�the Pl�uiing Commissiorri, the
neighbor°in� res�dents, a,nd the a.ppli�ar�t.
;.. ; _ :. .
iI�SP Assisted Living Proposai
f'lanning Cas� 559-98
J�iy 21, 1999
Page 2
Parkin�: .
It was broughi up at th� meetir�g �hat the parlang as shown on ihe drafi site plan rnay not b�.
enaugh to accommodate fihe actual dermand thai the f�.ciliYy would g�nerate, even if the parking
prov�ided met the City's requirements. The site plan shaws 22 spaces, which �s two more �han what
is requzred, based on �he need to provide four spaces plus one space for every three beds. Staff
res�a.�ched r�vhat other facilities prav�de a.nd what other Cit�'s requxre, The following table
represents e�arr�ples of parkin� c�de requirements for this" t�e of us�.
Saan� .P�n�hony,10�T
Ciurne�, iI,
�Vlaplewood, I�.N
E113ngion, CT
St. Paul, N�
ConvaIescent or nurs�ng homes
I�lursing homes, convalescent
center, geriairic center and the like
Ii�iulti-farruly residentiat
Convalesceni and rest homes
Nursing Home
1 space per 5 beds, plus 1
spac� for every empIoyee on
the largest sh�#i
1 space per 5 beds, plus 2
spaces for every 3 etx�ployees,
plus 1 space pec docior
2 spaces per room
1 space per 4 beds, plus 1
space per employee
1 space per 3 beds and T
space p�r each 2
empioyees
�elmont, CA ' Rest homes, nursing homes, 1 space per 4 beds, plus 1
sanitari�arns, convatescent homes ar space per two employees and
- instytutions for the aged 1 space per doctor
Montrase, CO
Pi�.inview, Th
Kenyon, �/!N
Jordan, IVl�
Nursing Homes
Sanitarium, convale�ceni home,
home for the �.ged or similar
Cor��-ega�e housin� for the elderly
Nursin� Fiome
1 space per every 3 beds
i space for eve�y 6 beds
1 space per �°aom
5 spaces pius 1 space per 5
bsds
�s can be seer� fihe city's �equ�rernents fall somewhere � ih� rr�iddle of t�►e spectz°�arrt� ofrequ�-�d
pat'l�g raiias. 'Th� high�st rat�o as Ivlapiev�rood's, yei this is rr�slead�g in that th�y da noi have a
sp�cific �°eq�.ir�n�ent for assisted i�vzng or n.ursin� homes. �n spea.�wag wi�h NlapiewoodyS �l�YLI�Pr9
he indicated tha� the City's two ass�sted livin� %cilities vver� granted v�riances from the pa.rking
requireat�er�t. ihe lc�t�r�st r�q�Frem�r�t� t�rer� from rordari and Plainview, T'axas, r�ahich requ�'e 5
ar�d 6 �p�c�s �er bed, r�spe�t�vely. �
;
-; '. , ,
" -- - -
-
MSP Assisted Living �ropasa!
F'lanning Case 559-99 �
Juiy 21, 1999
Page 3
Sta.ff spok� �vvith a represer�tat�ve from Chandler Place, aY► a551St�d IlVlil� �SCt�I�Y lYl �ti. Al'It�lOYly,
Minnesota. The city requires ane space per �very five beds and one spac� per employee on the
lar�est shift. The represeniative indicated that there is often a parking shortage at the facility,
wlvch shares ihe parking lo� v�riih a ntarsing horne. During these periods, how�ver, there is on-
streei parking available to accommodaie overrfllow, 1T1 OptiOri $�la� IS 5�30 �.Vat�1�'3�e liI MOLlildS V10W.
Mounds View's code requir�s that a�l requ�red park�ng iar a us� be accommodated on-siie, yet
does not prohibit vehicle parlcing on streets where parki►zg 't�s_aliawed. Given this and tt�e
availability of additional spaces on site, parking should not i3�` an issue of significant concern at ttus
point.
Access:
Tlus use as proposed would take sole access from Cour�ty Road I. A conC�rri was raised at th�
Corr�mission �meeting about how deiivery vehicles--semi tractor trailers in particular--would be abi�
io perfc�rm a safe en�ry and exxt from the site. As c�trrently proposed, there is only one way in and
o�e �vay out of the parking lot and no room is available for a large iruck io tum araund. Gaven the
number �f iimes such a vehicle would be servicFng tkus locat�an�--perhaps once a week, it might not
be carnpletely unacceptable to have a truck backing out fram the faci(ity. On th� other hand, arty
time a vehicl�, especially a large truck, has to back out onto a busy street 2s one time too rnany.
For this reason, staff instructed the applicant io initiate discussions r�vith Super�nerica. to see if ii
vvould be possihle to tie inta their r�ar acGess onto Mour�ds View Dr�ve as shown an the attached
sit� glan, indtcated with Opt�on 1. A better altemative to this option, shown as Op�ion 2, �s to
reconfigure the parking Iot and add an exit onto Moumds View Drive. This wauld ��iminat� the
need for any cross-access easemenis ox agreements hetween the subject property and the
Super,�merica propsrty, as well as preserve the overgrowth of �egetation. that acis as a screen
b�tw�en the two properties.
The other issue with regard to access is that ther� is a�nedian between the east and west lanes of
County Road I which extends just beyond the proposed entra�ce to the property. Because the vast
majority of traflfic destined for tliis property would be com�ix�g fram Highway 10, the median would
caus� vehicies �o either cut in frant of th� median into oncomir�g tra�°ic or perPorm a u-tum at
Mounds �Tiew Drive and County Road I, neither of which would be a safe maneuver. Ii �s noi yet
known whether the co�nty vvoutd permit the med'aan tn be cui back ia allow safe access, but staff
would require tYaat some alferatior� b� made to make access m�re conv�nient.
Tcrx Cc�acitv:
The quesiion of �a�ces was larought up at the Com�nission meet��, pertairring �o the diffez-ences in
tax generatioz� b�tweer� the prop�sed use and an unspecified commer�ial us�. �eca�se of the
number of unkno� variables involved, it would be difiicult �o pravide any subsiantiat response
other than the tax rates tiaat would be �sed. In spe�king wath Ramsey County Tax I3epartment,
stafflearned that a tase such as th� proposed assisted livin� fac�lity vvou�d b� t�ed a.t the sarr►� rate
a� any ather com�raercial useym2.4 p�r�e�xt up to the first �IS0,000 in val�xation. �roan that pa�t on,
commer�i�l us�s are tax�d ai tlx� rat� of 3.4 percet�t. T`h�re is a pravision in the ta� code that
Q.11�WS lO� 66��ld�rly LIVZY�.g ��C11161�599 to maintain th� 2.4 perc�nt ra�� at valuati�ns after �150,n00 as
well, thus th� proposed use wc��ald be taxed at the 2.4 p�rcent for its total vaivatio�, �Ie a
�ornmerci�l use may be iaxed at a high�r r�te aft�r th� initial $150,000, it vvould ��t be �znrealistic
to assume that the prapos�d use would be "v�uedyy si��ficantiy higheY than � r�tail or caa�n�rcial
.'
�
i
' 'r �
• •�•
e - . •
.. . �
�:a-
�se, which might have 75 percent of its space open for display or sales, and the balanc�, for storage.
It is noi curren�Iy kr�own �vhat assessed vaIuation the County assessor wauld estabiish for this use
and there az°e no knovtim similar facilities with �wh�ch to compar�. Sirnilarly, there are no r�ew
commerciat uses in th`e area ihat would be appropriat� to use as a commercial comparisor� in t�rms
oitax gen�ration. As best as staffc�.n determine r�vith ihe �rifarmatiom at has, the proposed facility
vvould be likely to generate an equal or gr�aier amount of taxes than many, .but nat all, coznmerciai
uses.
,w,._
�....
ezonin :
Same memhers of th� cornmuruty who were in atY�ndance at the Planning Commissions's last
meeting expressed concem over the potential r�-uses of the property should the assisted liv�ing
faciliiy fail or be sold to another developer. The pernxitted uses in an R-4 district are multiple
family r�sident►at, tawnhomes, boarding home or day care home (both of whi�ch ar� res�ricted to a
family dwelling). Iolursing hames and similar group housing is perrrutted conditionalIy rrait%ir� this
disiric�. Becaus� of ihe cqnfiguration of the buildin� and the rooms, none of r�vhich would have
private kitchens, utilities, or entrances; this building could not be reused for multiple family
housing�-not or�ly would it not meet housing ar�d building code requirements, the lot could not
accommoda.te the required parking of 2.5 sialls per unii, From a practical standpoint, this building :-
could orily be reused for what is being proposed--assisted living. If a developer ai some paint in
the future iniended to raze the struciure and start from scratch, this wauId be allowed yet would
prabably not be economical feasible given the expected value of the facility: But even if this were a
reatistic consideration, the re-uses without a CUl� would be limited to multi family housing. �
Because of the size of the lot and the parking requirements, probabIy no more thxn 12 uruts coul�
be buil#. The other possihle use ihat was of sotne concem was "group housang," which is allowed
oniy if the use is in a family dwellirig and be limi�ed to no more than 12 children.
The Code it� Secf�on 1 i09.04, Subd 2 is sornewha,t unciear in its d�finition of what would be
considered a similar groug housing use. �%eca�tse ti�e subdivision heading is Nursing Ho�rees, staff,
would contez�d that similar types �of graup housing would pertain only to elderly group housing,
But because this is nat explic�tly stated, staff would recommend that if it is the Cominissfon's desire
to limit the type of group h mg'%t'�ie et�rl�,�hag ghe code should be amencied to reflect that.
The amendment would e simple, �hanging ihe first�lrn' e of Subdivision I I09.04 (2) to read,
"Nursing homes and ther elderlv con � e�ate housi ...." This wo�atd effectively eliminate any
p�ssible reuse of the roper�to a.�yti�ing ot an a multi-family structure of a limited size.
IBe�ont���d�teor►: �
Staff is recammending that the Comtriission dis�uss this request in the cor�text of whether ar r�ot ii
wouid be an appropriate use for thzs location giv�n the znformatian that has been pr�ser�ted a.nd
direct sYa�°to prepare � res�lution for action at your n�xt meeting on August �, 1999.
.� ' � --�,
Ja.r�e� Ericson, Plaruling �,ssociat�
Y�1:1DATf�1�1tOUPS\COM�Ei�DEVCA�$S1559-991MSP.PC2
, ,
�
�
�
i
i
i
�
�
i
i
�
�
�
�
i
I
i
�
i
�
r
.a
�
i
�
r
i
r
r
'�� ���
z�
� '�" w
�Sa
I�v �
�
4 z� � �y s �r°°- -_�-_-__-°�__-_°°__°
� �'� o
.
.
r�
o' . .
. ,
�
.
r w
,. . v �Jd��ayw�.9.16 �
� � ./' ! " rc°^ i
� m/
� PC • t h
, � �� �W�rws�� � �
. �
/' ;�✓• •f`� r�� ' i j �`
/ % `/ s' ( � I
� /" 'o I
�� , `O�'y/ ! . _ �oo I t
� �j f 1
% � % ' � 1 ��
1
1, �/ ^� / � 4 i
r 1 �D ' . ,� 1 '
�
�
�' � �
� Q
N �� �
� n• �
e �,
�;: :,
�
� __
�
�;.
ti;
'
�,
�:
�':::
��� �,;,,. .
�.,%
t �-
�;<;
, �,.
i
f
1
V
i
,
�
�
1
1
1
1
1
L
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
\
����
�
� a
—5a ='e'"tT�_ n.. g� --- - �s.o..rE:' A°SF 4:Slaiei' dwF'o .
. k I�e t t• �. ��° W°!'J`°Je 'd�rs9. A@I'.
ma :qi::[ 0 W:?'S:Y. � ! ' . .
`i
i -
�
gN ���
�
�N
N�
� �� x
,;
�
�v ff ���_�---�_�_---�-----_�..
� � g �o�
a � o' a
r+ � ' ✓
.
, �
`
.
a .
' , .
. ,
�
B
/
�
0
J
/
/
i
I
J
►
1
1
I
I
{
1
1
1
I
t
1
I
!
I
I
k
�
i
�
�
r
�
�
I
F
t
�J
1 �
r—�
r
�
i
� . �
�
E
I
i '
1
1
i .
1
�1
1
1
1
1 .
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
\
\
\
>
�
� ` / s ' �
I
�
� .
� a
�� ^�tM' it.e ��avE° �!�F ArS;miE:� e�;�': , .
�� _.r ; 6 �� � 6A m:�°<:J: �dlr A. Aa¢• �
; . .. °'r.;.si= i �,
,e^:&b ea,a't�a.9•�:p. a • �a� �kP,n*i:aOA 'F� � . � 1
What is Assisted Living?
�
����
�� �
i : i .
hrip://www.alfa.org/Wi�atsAL.
_' � .
�>: �. � y
�, ,
• r <�.
_ i:
The new housing and heal�h care alternafive combining irtdepender�ce w�gh
personal care ir� a warm, dign�fied, cammunify sefting.
� , . �. �. : �_ - :
� 4....
T�e Assis#�d Lfving Federation of America �A`�F,�) defines an Assisted �iving
residence as a speci�i combination ofi housir�g, pers�naiized s�pportive
services �nd health care desig�ed to mee# the needs —both scheduied �r�d
unscheduled--of those who �eed help with �ciivifi�s of daify [iving.
�, � _ _,
,.. ::-.; ._.. ,�=.�.. .� �_
� , = .- , .,
R ., � �i R s ��_ R: .- �
1.
.
.
.•
�.
OfFerirrg cost-�fFective qu�lity care that is p�r°sor��li�ed for individual
n�eds
Fostering ind�pendenc� for �ach residenf
Treating each residen# vvith dignity and respe�t
F�romoti�g ihe individuaf iiy of each resident
Allowing each resident choice of care and lifestyfe
Protecfing each resid�nt's right io privacy
Nurturing the spirifi of each resident �.
lnvolving family and fri�nds, as appropriate, in ear� plan�ir�g and
imp{ementafiion
Providing a safe, r�sidenfiial �nvironm�nt
Making the Assisfed. Living residence a valuable commur�ity asset
. �:� ..�_ .�:-,.-
Currently, more than a miliion American� live in an esiimated 30,000 Assisted
Living residences. P,ssist�d Living residents �an be y�ung or old, a�'Iuent or
low income, frai{ or disabled. A�iypical resident is age 83 or older, is femaie,
a�d is eifh�r widowed or sir�gle. Residents may� ��fFer frpm Alzheirr�er's
disease car other memory di�or�ers. F�esidents m�y �l�o need l�elp wiih
inconti���ce or mobi(i#y.
. ,. . � .: � �; ; . � -
� �.
.
-.: . = �- - < : ..- . _ . = .:�� _ . .* ! -
- .ti
� - -+r �. • - . � - . -• �� 'Y •� - �x
� .; �' - - ..: �-..: � .a'; i� .y-�^ s- •:
_ � • � _
+ ,,� ! . -. - �� �: i� •i= y -� ! R s �"" ll' -• ! ! �.�- �_ � '�=
- ° � �. � .
� �._ �_ � _ �, � ��
�' ;., , � _. a". ".^' - -<.
_ : � i -r�;_: . �' ' f�;�
*
'�
?
��: Rick Jo�k�
F�°ome I�e`rin Carrotl
Subj���o Parking Analysis (MSP Project}
I�at�o l�ugusi 3, 1999
At your request, I recently contacted s�veral fa�ii�t►es tha� pro�de "assisted living99 j.4�] for
seniors, in order t� det�rmin� the �dequ�cy of their current parking arrangements. Of the s�v�n�
facili�ies that wer� on the list that MSP provided, I contacted ih� thr�e that ar� locaied in the
Twin Cities (the rernaining four from the �/I�P Iist �re in �I+lisconsin}. I also conta.cted six other
faciliiies, masily in nearby suburbs, that have identified thetnselves as � prov�ders. For whatever
it r�ay b� worth, the "Elder Care and Senior Housing I�irectory" ihat can be found on ihe Iniernet
at �vww elrlersecarch. co� lists 22, .4L facilities in Ramsey County and 24 it� Hennepin County.
I hav� attached a table that summa.r�zes the in%rmation ihai I gathered. The conclusions that i
have dravvn from these fac�s are listed betow.
:' ; It is almos� self-�vid�nt that ihe parkir�g requiremen�s for � facilities are largely d�pendent upot�
' the parking required f�r four groups: resic3ents, staflF, independent prov�ders, and visitors.
A. Reside et�s.° There is no widely-accepted, precise definition af "assisted living," and as a
result, the range of services �rovided varies considerably from one facility to the ne�. Of
th� nine facilities surveyed, twa seem to cater to those wha need relaiively litile assistance,
and 50% to 75% of their residents own cars. The ottaer seven facilities provide a higher
lev�l of care, and 0% to �% (average: 5%) of th�ir residents own cars. If ihe proposed
Idlour�ds 'View facilify caters io seniors wha are more "independent," 24 to 36 parlcing
space� might be needed for residents alone, which is more than ihe total amount oi
parkitn� ihat has been proposed. If the Iviounds �Iiew facility marlcets �tself to �hose
needing significantly more assistance, 4 spaces (roughly 8%) might be more than enough.
�, ta °`This issue is complicated by the fact that tnost � faciIities have 2 ar 3 shifts of
�rorker�, and both pari-tirne and fi�ll-time employees. �orne t1L facilit�es also "share"
workers v�ith �liated and/or a��ached "independent iiving" andl�r "skilled nursing"
facilities. I�owever, th� three surve�ed facil►ties that had �nder 75 residents [20, 40 and
54J seem to require no more ihan two io five FTE (fiall- time equivalent) posiiions p��
shift. �y compariso�, the fiv� "mid�'r��gV" size facil►ties [75-1a�] surveyed seem to
�°eq�ire, or� average, a maximum of 10-15 employees for a shift, if ii is assuaned that
somewhere b�ivaeen 1/3 and'/a of ihe tot�i �TE positions are required for the anain (d�y)
shift.
S -
C• Inrle en�len8 ovi er°s : Some � facilities use the�r own internal sfa,i�f ta provide
routine servi�es, and exiernap sources to provide more specialized on-site ass�starice such
as tnedical care or physical iherapy. If the Mounds `Vi�w facilify intends to use suci�
ind�pendent provid�rs, th� amount o# paricin� that they require should be detemlined. For
example, the two Rosewood Estates facilities in kosevilie and Ma.pl�wood (105 and I00
units, respectively) have 4-10 independent care providers preser►t at any giv�n t�me.
D. i�°io�; 'This is the variable that is ihe ha,rdest to pred►ci. Some � residents have
rnaray regular visitars, ana sarr�e never have any. F�owever, most � faciliiies seern to
have �-5 l�rger evenis per year (summer p�crucs, Christmas parties, etc.} to v�rhich the
farrulies and fries�ds of the residents are Fnvited. It does not seem reasonabl� �o require a
faciliiy to provide suf�icient parking to accommodate alI of th� gu�sts at such events,
because for th� r�mainder of the year ihase spaces wouId be unnecessary.. Still,
"overflow" parking, �ven though rare, has to ga sonae►vhere. The faCilities that deal with
it the most effectively are those that have e�ther a shared parkin� arrangement vvith a
nearby sctaool or business or an agreemen� w�th the local municipaiity that upon
reaso�able advance notice, short-term parking wili b� ailowed on nearby resideni�al streets
on a handful of occasions during the year.
�ased upon the preceding conclusions, ihe most critical questions would seem to inc(ude the
fallow�ng: ;'i
• Wha8level of assisted living will be provrded by the proposed 11�founds T�Yew facility?
That is, wi(1 fhe abjective be to attra�t active, independent seniors who need relatively few
servic�s (and who might therefore be more lik�ly to drive and own cars), or
dependent/disabied seniors who need a high level af assistance (and who might therefore
be less likely io have or need their own transpor�aiion)?
� A�hat i� th� maxi�raum nurrabeY of "f�aternad " staff inerrtbers that the pr�oposecl Mouaads
Yiew facalaty would expect ta hcrve on-site at rmy gdven time?
• Will the proposed.tvlourrds View use aray "ext�rnaX, " on-site, indepertd�nt service
provide�°s m- and af so, what is the maxirraurat numb�r of such ar►dividuals who would be
present at any gaven trnB�?
� �rll periodic "over°f7ow" perrkfng be allotived on nearby residential st�eets, r�aad/o�° is
ther� ca nearby p�°oper°ty awner° or bza,rine�s thai would.occasaorrally allow its pcar&in�
s�crces to be arsed in such situcriio�as?
My perso�al asses�met�t is thai the 2� spac�s provided on MSP's site plan may b� suffici�nt if less
than 10% af th� residents ow�ned a cat°, a�ad ii the facilit� anti�ipated a 66typicatyy internal staf�in�
l�vel �r�o rr�or� than 5 employe�s per shift), and �f fev✓ {no more than 3�4 per shift) independent
providers vvere utilized, and if accepiable arrangeme�rt� could be made for occasional of� sate
parkir►g.
�
�
�
�
,
�::
�
r:',.,
�
�::
�
�',
�.�
�
,.�
,� � o �
� �� A�w �_b+ c�� �
3 ° o a� c° �v d�0 5 .� :: o w a�i
�v
� a, a� ,� � .y a� � � � � b,'� a� .n ,� .�
� � °' � +��.. c�a a�i �o °�' � a�i °o � � � v � o i
r.; � .� a� v., � an � �a � � '" � .� � � " `'-' �,
� � '� � o ,�a. � � � � �' � �" � � � v . �
�i �� � � °°�vro� o �-G �.� «'� �a. � �
en •� � � � 'y°.'� � � � .y ,� o � c�
�` � � � � a�' y 'b � 'V � � � .'vy� t6` � h •N O � d�
`. O � N ^ � .� N 'O ��.., .L^ �a'� � e. 7 '�. vi � � �
% y��p v•� O l� y w� 'a � C� � O,� � y O
Vs a �� y s-+ °C7 9 W � y 67 ��^ h�� y
� °� o z � .� �° � r, .� y. � � � � � `a" ° � �
� � a+ e, cK a) vi o.+, D m R{ p�+ ,�
aa
� a, � O ° � � 4�+ ~, � � O � p�0 � � M � � � �
�, p y� � a� s c�
� ,._, .� � • Sa. N � t�. N � v, ++ .O W
� �•� BD �C� y C�J a tUd ���1'" �� C N'�y� O Ca��
�: U G'' ��y U O 0.�� R `n �� R9 N i` N D
� r�t o-�+' E°°� P.'Fn w ❑++ � A'.by in. .!E V1 ��
OO� �� .'•'_J N p O d� E% g� '�' L�i :� � �, .
m� � pg F�i vi �O •5 �� d �e'-�. �� A N�� N y
y � ��.. N.n 0 r° c'� 'Ty Oq
� � � L' q •� c0 �`" � N � ��" a�l' X .`.�.' � W � O � .�r �y �
�:. �O o ;� ,A ''` Q � � O M �S � bA � � � a o '� U �
- �•c 3p;5� o � � 3r:� y.5[-{ � �'�3.� �
.°°�,� e., �a�� �, o�,� � o^�.�°.�� w.�
� ��' � � � o_�; ��Z � � � c V� �;� ��
� �
, � w o a�i o �� � �°�;.� ��� �, c, p-' ,'L., >,� � �
�� � `� �n,�.����� ��;� �y � o o`�E`� a
�� A1a � � •� � � �'a Qi � � (H y iC t++ � N � Ga (�p �
,� � � y -b (Q � a .o o � G> 8i •� `� � °ol� �.� .z` c�` � � ir
� � � F � � � �c! � a F' w Cpy � � � � bA oD : y � � Fa
�+ ���. � � N �(� y °a r°' F'' �� �y v� i �F�.. •N v �R�"1 °O � Ccy��, � NC R�i!
SC.�: �H �.�Q°���p�°..7��� ����^�.��WGG
�; -: � •� y Cn �. �° �il eG w � �1 � v �A A N1 N � �a:i ��
� �:
�7� ��r :
�sU 4 ' Q o �
�= y y '.q
CA� ,�,c:' rrr FF�
� � � � �
� cvt o � � � 4 �-' � >
'+� C7 O O O v1 v 4� U�
(� ; N Vi v� �Y'
wa,�:
� $� '
Li 'FW.
"� SJ"
C1 L� � �
_�.: _k«i;; � �
, ny
Np� � �° � C7
� t� Cu •� O�U a a f�V � C
��� � o �e vi U (V O
Sw y � O U
pA - � � v�`i �D � a. , � c�v � U y
'.'_"\,'1"�_ ^:`::
�"• �
Ss'i- .. __ � ~ wd
�
a�
� � H
� � � � o • •� � � �
� �-� � � � � � � � � �
� ,y'° � c�' Qi �o °9 °� � �� �o
w+ ya'° : ' i� �O �. i �
&° t�.; @J � y.. w i/� .� rr
p -'�u.. �
e� N N tP1 � Vt
���a:s �?� � n �+�i�n� P��
� �.� .r, �.,. .� �.�,�
.M,..s� ,
� � �. � . � � ' �i i
� ��"�`, ° i.� ' iz + �r � � ' us � ya �,, ;:
i `4� i`w�; -�-• .:C7 � . �" Q�'"Y c-"s4 � �iil J� �
�° E1- Sa � �� ka � @i �: :t33 �` � ;'� � � � ' I
� � f'! {,° � � �.-i f� �� C> � :ie�
� �' ✓ el �
�' - aa ; � t� - ' ;
� �, e� � � c u
�-�''���� :gn'��, .�' ��,:��`
y� c� � �a c� €� r� : ' ' � ; .
� � a'� f�;,:�? w.,' ?�2 �� �°i , i ? t�i � v , !
� '.�,�,,,� ���a_.,�,.;�,.�,H . �_ .. _ .�,..��, ...�.. ..,..�. � .,.,.,,.. , �. , .�i$
'____ � ._.__...�'. ..:..� . -.. _._'::_ �...'.:.. .. . ..:. ::::� ";:�. .. ._ f
•C � � � � , m
� O y � .�c . �'�' p � � � eOi y .pp � ' O v�i aCi
� "� � ,� � °'.� e �a�art � y o � � � w ,o a�i
���,� � °�t�� �� �°� oo ��.° A'� �
� � �j
� � � � � ♦� � � � ,y � � � � � CFj � � I�i
q . y � C o �� td v� �.la 9] O� t°�. V c�d a+
`"'i � y ''� y U 7 �°s3 p 6. �>� CJ' CL vi e' O
�g O � _ ° al O 'n` `O al � Ld � r��, � w 'd � p ,� � '
.g'+ �'1 � '� .VRr °Q ti+ � C ] � � V�i �pGy o � � Oy � „g `3
S°. ^M1 Fw � O � ,� U a� � � � `� :+ � O C'` �
V � � {� . � y � '1� Cd eC'i y y .> � a+ N °� °C
;� '� � an a'r� a � � � � °' �' v, ; a�' .,�'-., C � o � �
3a�.� �p�d -d��co'yN-�"�y°' Qa,a,
�N� ��� � a. o,�,c °o•��� ,�, �'b.Da
a� b � � o � a o ° � .�Z ,� � ° � � � °o c � �
`�° u � o ° °`°' a o � U o � � � � � � o 'G a�i o�n
v� N •d �'tl M � � �' � � �'" „S-e N � � � yr
'Ir�' � � y y y ^�y � � L° a � � � i� � �❑ � � �.3 •
a� L C�Gj � (Q {.�y.�� ld CII
�� o �fA � � � � � LC � � Q) � \ � T. i'-a � F °�°
�o �S � •� � y R y O `� -p a�..i `° r' a� ea" = ,� 00:�
� '� E�i g � °� � � �pp o � ,� � F � � rt � . V �.�. � �
� � � ° � � � � � eV a�i ;a � a '� � � � v�i 'v a �
� ��an�'° � a,�� � � � °�' � � � �G �; � S o �
.� `° � `°'' `" '� v
�� N'� o�� ��a�i'"v'��'O°V � vis�� n
P-, c`tli N� y� °m' '.w ° c��d , H ��� o v f�n• � o'�
'� ^o � O � � � � � � •� � � ��'' G �in � � r°� rn
`O � o N �� t� � � ��! � � � � � C:a C^� vl .g � ,� � � aqa+
td" N � t� '•°°.5 �y .D ^� ,rsAl U � y N � H •� 'p .o �^ O N U
� � ,� `� ° � � y a� t; �v ,� E � e o� o a, :�
� � �N �°d � e4ia6�i a� ��3.��' u� �9 �N.�
�� ��� o �'°� � � �'� en:° > `" ��° a �'� o
4-+ V ���p` R. � d y� N..r ��
sb :� � y
oa� � �a� � A.� � ��� �.fl � � � �� �' o.M�
�ay�
���
v •� �
� �-
�, �� '� �, �
z � z��y� z
�
,�
�� �� �
N
� W � fJr vMi N •�
\°
o �
U1 r�a �
P� +'a
�
o P �'
O Vol � M 1�P1
"C� y � N
� � �' o � � � � � � �
pNq o � � �i y Vi o 6i � Q�%^ 1" o
' � '�" �+ � Vj +-'
oSN, 0���0�0 O �C"�o��p
-� aoo�, o, � �naonv,'5��
� �
e°�a � ° °
�
o� oc°v :
ro � �
+'' °� `J � \o `� °.� �
`° � a �a � e� • � F-�° � �
ai �� �o�, �'� oo�o � ��n
.�
.��� � �� �.� � �� � v�
� .,,a � � o � �� ���
E?-� ��.Y> GPJ "� LJ �-,l -G�i I?.� ��.Ll tZa c� 4�
II
. .��:. t� �i :�: � '''� . .: �: � _.::': I I :�:.
� �� � .aa :�,
c � �
�,r`� �' � `�' '� `� ' � ' �
}� , � �! . L ..�' re�y "� ,,.� c{ u � S6�
� � : 4'1 i �� � � �^ {Q v'�. ,,p r3' 'Y� Ej; 4'J
aa . C.� '
��, � .� .11 �u �- L�A � .�.�, i� i ' �i:� � ii � ,� � � � � Ci! �
�a�� N
-�y .
�d .il�' `_��r,�`r�ai�i; �' i' �a �� � � � r� r�� � ;
-
�,,._.-� ,w.,a�N„ • �,,,�,,,e �e���.�;;�, ��w..r.�m„,�.� „_M ..,:��,,�,.;�.�ua ��.a ,».��.:w ,,, �,....,'..,_ _�.....
� ��
:
�
i
� ' � �
� � °� � >, v�, �
..:E 'n id m
�.q � f/J �y °� Lw y Qi P°� L+
� +� °� � a �1 � V di � �T Q:
� � � by b � � � �' � Vi
��a���� ���o�•�°�
; .., r. � p � � � a, � ; •�
� i ��e�, �� ° �='6,�
� � � � � .� .� ,� .� �a '� •�
�° �°'�o�o a��°�'d°��
v,���`�.S `� '°'��°a,
'� � � oD °� �
•y �
�ou�`�m�po�y n��y� ���
�V�i - V iY r'°' U 6".. •�.°l: "•Q y Q
�
C7 O v�i '� 'b � c� � •� � � � O
wx v � � a °� a� ��., � � .s4
w ,V •�, ca ~ �" �j � o � � � Ra -
�� at.e y� p �� ��•0 O
•�� o � ' �'y � P4 ,� � [ y y o .
j � G � .� V] .'r..�' v� .� isa a�"i � �
� Pr b o°� � y Q° O'�
}� ^'' � O �,,, � N
� �
� :� o e�n � � 'C O � `� � A.
�n O
vi V'1 �+ � N � t
°O ���� N N a�i O 40 � U�'
�o � � ,n w �"ea '� >+ � '� t.
� � '� � ao � � �, i^ `� .a 'p, �
.� °� � ._. � "d a c`�i � a.
.
.9� � o �p, � ��b � � �
on� � °•
� � �
�� � � �`� � � � ` a� y eb _
y a ..� � �, � �, �, �. b°
� ° �� .�� :. �"� o
���.��,a� 'v�;�°°'°��
� �� ��.fl� �� � �� � �.'�
� � ��w�� � �U�� �i� °��'
'� a �, °a
'�.� � �r-.
a y � �
� o � � ; �
j� zo.°�yffi'
�
M
.�a o ev'v .�. � v .-,
,� �i a a�
� en en � v�i �aa � o a. v, .
�
.�
M �
N �
� � O O
d ��
�
��� ��^ o v e�.
O ao+ � � �: P m'°
O� O O � O�� h��D c�
t"1 .� +n o0 �r' C� r• d' �
O
� O
c1 � .�-a
Gr . M 9 i+1
v�i � � y•� � �.� �
� � '�' °L9 e� �
W q� pp e� �`q�C' �'+"1 O O
•� � •�in N �i �D� C/] �j �J Qi
O�i pO�� �N,p•�yi � 6�2 ,��G � te1
C.� f!� WW �A t�1 '�4 �m'.� r�_� I��� �� \'J
ii i
i �tti{�: ial � ;
a �
ii i
i
nihr,.� ��= �
� F,
,� aE��..�; �i � : *C� �
� -.
r �:`i3 �: s � p N �
� J � �y �.' L-B] � r� �'r
'� 'e� ''�
� � � ��. tld �� '� �?� :
�, ' �" nra �.: �' °�'?q rg� v
� :.� � 1 .,: � �. �', �a � .: . ..: �:
�
h
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i �
Elder Care and �eruor �iousir�� Dir�ctory
����a�r �
;� f`f;€ �i'���� s,,; y.
�� �',... � �s M,� ��r;. ..
�... �.�. ,. . . . . ,... ,Y�?��'�.c�.. ��.� .. ... '�
��our���
�€�'� ��� ��N"��� .�p`�:`
_. _ :
L ' '� � / f • � � - 4 � �
` t k .
�� ', $' r
.-: S\; �w � ��� . . � � � � � � •.
vlloGi�e5litii _��tiny�'y� : A .
� . V
� � . k ,:, _ � � ' � ' L
r , � " . i+ v:; :. . . �,
� 6 �v
. . , ..a K i . � / . � �. ^ � .. .- ..
�.
�rtawu�".vi.M �w.�cvc<,..mwunuvv�,�iv,u��Gm�:.
.•
���C. -. . l.. � ' •' �,. ' - � .
� a�c-'�c.
p�y a ! . � a � . 1. �
.. �\ i�, ! w r �
ti�'�i>.����.�..���TCv��,.+.\q �.\� s��� !� a '����} s� ; � � - f • � �
�`�.'�4c�ite:�a�..���.�.���w�;��a,aa`a� �' �� ° � � ' .
._... ....: . _..... �-• '� _ ^ �
�: � Zf 7 � : :: 1 . / •.
P,��^ i '
9 � � '�� ' �
,. .,,... 4 . , � ^ • _ •
vw �
, ,�_ r. :. .� y �♦ - w .
,, .
�. , � . � �
�. �; - - � .: � � ��.�� �
. _ _ � a -� - .�r�-. �
'f# . £ - � " ^ -. ^ i' ' r�_
�f � f �� �# � � i � � � -
�. � .:: e � � .-. � � ._ + ' ' � • _ . � ' _
�;
� � . i � ' � f ` ! ^ / . �
, ,,, '
� Y
'�t; ? s:
: n a- s - �
� . r.'�- � � �� � =r •' � -
�� ;� � ;�%� � f .: �. � . � i � ^ �
"Assistartce" carr be defined
as help with any "activity of
daiiy liv�ng,'° whlch �r�cludes
bathing, graomi�g,
administr�iion of inedications,
�r�r�sferring, toileting,
laundry, cleaning, ar�d ineai
reminders. However, keep in
mind thai all AL facilitles are
difFerent, and of�er varyirig degrees of
serwices. One facility may offer only limited
assistance, while another may o�fer mare
�ompreher�sive care. Also, AL regulatians
difiFer by,state, but across the board are
designed to provide assisYance, not skilled
care. Skilled care �ntails servic�s that can �
or�iy be rendered by a doetor o� ficensed
nur�e; �n advanced Iev2I ef c�re tha� wotald
usually be fo�and in � nurs6ng hom�. AL is
most appropriate for the individ�al vuh�
needs some assistanc�, but is not quite ready
for nursing P1orn�.
A� f�clliti�s offer three me�is � d�y, sa�i�{
progr�ms a�d activities, and many other
s�rvic�s f�r th� residentsa Oftentim�s,
individu�ls flgt�rish �nd "cc�rr�� �live" on�e
t�ey �nter th�s� facill�ies �fiter � p�riod of
lit�� ://�. �Id�rs�arch. corrtl��sour��s/�ssisted. html
P�ge i of 3
1
,
R/2./99
� ;6 .
�lder C�r� a.�r� ��nioa° I�oiasing T3irect�gy
living al�rr� wifih littie or no �ociaiaz��ian. AL
�nvironments tend to be v��r home-ii�c� and
�re geared �ow��°d th� �omfort of th�
-- r�siden�s, often res�mbiing � beautiful
apartme�� eornplex ar h�tel. Gost� range
from $i,500-$4,000 per month, d�pendinq
on the faciii�i�s° ranki�g, locatior�, servic�s,
and �are opt9on�. Although s�rn� faeilities
accepfi staie funding, At� is ordinarily privately
fur�ded.
AL is a wo�derf�! optian in t�rms o� prod9ding
an elderfy rela�ive uvith assistiance in a safe
environmen� that offers plenty of ac�ivities
and s�cialization, ihe �rollowing are some
qtaesti�n� you r�ay want to ask vuher� visifiing
these facilaties:
� H�vv rr��rty IeveEs o� eare do you have
and how are they c�t�gariz�d?
. Aside frorn the montf�ly, are there any
additlonai cost� involved?
� INha� does the monthly payment
irtclude?
� V�/ha� h�pp�ns vvh�n Moen runs out of
- money7 Do yo�a ac�ept st�te fu�ding? If
- ` not, what Happens?
_-_ � How many nurse'S aides ar� scheduled
on each shift? How are weekend�
handled? VUhat is th� ratio of c�re�
givers to residents?
� Is tran�porta�ion inciuded?
a What is yaur poficy on dying? Dg j/ou
aliow Fiospice services?
� What are your Eimitations regardi�g th�
r�eeds af the resident?
� Da yo� allow wh�eichairs? �
. Do you a{1ow �xygen?
� Do you ta#ce residents with inconiie�ec�ce
problems?
";.:��,,e,.. � ri � , � .
� �'. �.�t�€����t�.����t��r��.
amo ( Frea Consullatlol] � Senfar S!!A Con eetia J C�
e 's j Confact Us
Asslsted Llvinse � i de ende t Liv'n �[.ifo Ca�a Corr�mun
Skllled Nues'n F cllit'es � Home HeaRfi! ui men
64dutt �av Caro � o�9►+eimers �3esources & Sua�
os i4als � os ico � ide Law �+tFor e s
GeriaQric Pir sleians E Garlatrlc CarO Managees
�etire en4 Plenners J Counsatina Saev� { Heafth Insurance
htt�:/J�. �ld�rsearch. c�ga�/resources/assisted. htrril
���� � a� 3
�/2/99
, , �:'
Eld�r Care �d S�nior �Iausia�� Iiireciory
C,, '�' f �"`'�,
��`� � E" �
�f�. �c �� ,
s � `� .'�� �" _ �
; � f�,;,�
, �� �` 1 �'
' ,.���
� �-�.
��rt�o� €� ��a���e�
�' �+' , e s�f3��s�£'fs «.a� o-� mz :.. . ..:: ::.:: ::. .
. ,_ _•:.:. .....
,.. ...,.
�,v � � o ., � :� � � 4 ;..;..f ::: ; ...... �.
#`d�"'"-„�,t. .�,.+. .N, .t�. . �. �..:': ...:� ....8.`.�..c � �����
Yaur ��ar�h �ta� re#ure��d 22 corr�pa�ie�e
��+"- � *•
(612)698�s1z�
18i5 �EECI�IJOOD AVE
S� I' PA�JL, l�d 55116 2�28
. .�= .
(61z)22, os7q
�s vnt�� sT
S�IIrT'T �AUL,, Ii�IN 55102 2113
., i '. *_�: . ,. y �
(b12) 646-0934
2300 i�CI,IF'F ST
S�TT PAI7i.,, �IN 55114 121 �
. -.•. -
{612)646-700i
1821 UIe1IVERSI'TY AtiE W# 165
SAIN'T PAIJL, I�i1N 55104 2801
�� •- � . a
(612)2Z8-IOSI
7ao D��roN �vE
SAII�t'� PALTI,, �155104 6657
�.�_ �.: ;�°;� ,;* �>
(6I2)22�m8922
469 t�3A ST
S�`I' PALTL,, I�t 55107 2303
�_ � . . �_ - ,
r:, , ; _ ; _ �
hitp://se�rch. �ld�rs�arch. coxn/s�arch.cfm
��g� l of 4
;�,
�/2/99
a
, , - _, ,
Elder C�e �d �eni�r Fiousing Directory Pa�� 2 of 4
139 �3T'Ei�d AVE S
Sp,IN"� ��C1I,, iV1I� SSI42 2916
liAlUiLfN� ASS1�T�� L.iilliV�
�R�G
l� t
47-9133
777 II� AVV� l�d
SAI%IT PAUL, �viN 55104 13b2
,,`�.. �..! ; r. ���i�,�
(612) 775-i170
908 �IO[TP� �°T
Sf�IlVT PAiJL, I� 551Qb 6332
_ �..
' . i_ ► z;, ` � _ ; >. � _ �
(612) 771 m7565
1161 �h1E5'iI�1NSTE�t S'T
S�,IN'T Pt�i1�., MN 55101 3652
.
(612)227-1333
69 Ia�iII,T�N �T N
SAINT PAUL, �i1N 55104 7028
PR���YiERtAN I�OMES o� fNN
INC
(61Z)631-5200
1910 C�UI�tTY ROAD D VJ
SAIl�iT g�,UL,, T�+155112 3503
VOUX A�SI�T�D �11/tP�G
�ROG �i
(612)227-6853
2�0 R.A�OiJ% ST
g�I�I'�' pAtTL, NIlV 55103 2328
��D��M�RS ARMS
(bl Z)224-7665
313 I�AL� �T N
http:/ls��rch.�Id�rs�a�ch.�ott�/s�arch.cfr� � S/2/99
�lder Ca.�� �d �etuor I-�ousir�g I7ireciory
SAlI�TT P�4I3L, � 551(}3 _ 2434
��= � `� `. �� 4 4' ` : . , ,_ -_
� `!
11 •!! 1i
� , ��.� 1, , _.�
�i �•�`�-
(61�)631�38,25
1995 OAK���T A.V� �
R�SE�iII.,L,�,1ViN 55113 2605
_ � � �: � . � �-� , �, �- ��� �
(61�)482-1611
2750 VICTORIA. ST 1V
ROSE�,L�, IVIN,SSI13 207b
-• •.r.
(612)698-1111
750 MISSISSIPPI RI�R BL� S
SAiN'T PAUL, I+�SN 55116 i 006
S 1 Mitldtle�l ��NI�IG1tl i Fhl{o �tl�o IIY6m
(612j649-0671
1218 ED AVE
�AINT PAUL, IV�d 55104 2522
� ST" ANN'S UVAtVER�D SVC
PROGRA�
(612)649-0103
1239 S�RBTJRIej.�.A`VE
��IT PAUi,, �t SS 104 2530
1 2 N� EXT�
rN�v,r Search�
ome � F ea ConsuEfafEon �$enior S{te Cannac4ion � C a
dve�tlsin � Contact Us
htt�J://S��rC�l. e$d�xse�a_r�h. tnm/��a
.,;;_ � * f
':
,:
�ld�r Car� and SenY�r Housin� i3irectory Page 1 of 1
� ��[ar � e�dur���
��,��. ��;�,�� _� : �e� :
„ , :
. ::
��' � �,m,`�"�',��e "� � � � , . "' �:
�i,..� ,� ...... ...... .�.. �..�� • .
Yaaa� searcla has r��u�raed 22 compar���so
-,; .,
� � • � ...,
r �• ••� �
� 1 '' • � •
� �'.
�61z�2z1-sszr
ao �xc�G� s� E
SAIN'I' pA�Ji.,, MiV 55�01 5200
fPREV1OUS1 'i 2
�lew Search
o a j e C uI 'on J Senlar Site Cannectian � C�a4
Advartisina � Co !a s
Assistad livina j Independe 4 ivin � Llfe Care Communitv
Skilled Nursina Faci itles j Ho e�Heaith/Equipment
Adult Dav Car� � he'mePs Resaurces & Su o
os ' ats ( os ice � de aw or e
Geriatric P sici ns � GeriatrEc Care Manaoers
Reiiremenf Ptanne� � Counselinq Services E Heaith Insuranee
01998 EideeSeaeeh.com. AIE rights reserv�d, .D�'sciaimer
h�tp://se.../s�a�°ch.ci�?eld=l�cstai�-=xnr��t.�ount�r°Rarns�y8�a,rea=assisted�start=2l�action—s�ar� 8/2/99
_. -
Eid�r Car� ar�d Seriimr kIousing Dire�tary
' �y' .
,� �� 1' -� .
; �' r
� �,
, �;�!� ,� .:�:
I R ;� � ''tf�f
j �i ;
� ,}�q �d �
: �} � �1/
i
�f I
�
��nFar � e�oa�rc��
y N. i �'i i 3j� �� k@� ��;� : .
..: ..
,. �'�xs � � � � .,i.�,
....... .
. ......:......
.....:... .....
� � , , ......
.... .. .. - _ ....... . . �f,... .. , ,... . . . . ' ..
Your ��a�ch ha� rei�rned 1. ���pani�s.
!�!H(��EFiING P[N�S CARE CiR
-(�I-�.576-9524 C�7> S c' ���1'` � 7��
2153 7TH AV� �
�tOi�.4, NIN 55303 17i0
pjor�� � Free Consultatiort ��
d e ' ' �
(��
Assisted Living � Independe t ivina �'t� C�re Cornmunt
Skilled Nursing FaciliEies � o A Haait - ii men
—�duit Dav Car� � Alzheimers Resource •& Su � on .
oS ~ � 05 t�� �� e t W a, o Q 5
Gerlatrie Physic�a �s � Geriatric C e a a ers
e4ieemen4 Planners j��eli��Servic�s ��{ealth Insurance
� 9998 ElderSaarch.cam. A!i righls rese ed. scla' e
Fage 1 of 1
j� , �. ° % ! z .- s�-� � -. � `l°�.�
( /�L S4 � l .� �.� w/e�%� �. �' �--'i�
�_
ht��://s��rch.�tc�er��a,rch_cnm/sea.rch cfm
� :!`i
�
�Id�� ��re and Seiuor I�ausi�� D�e�ory
5er���r � ���urc��
�:r�/� myj�:is}Ec,F,�fy,:�`bF�`�s.�A,�..�ts:��...;}iiFki::-:::.:: ::..
u&� - - �b"� a - �g �� ' ',yL: _::: ...
�6 �c g '�' # � ss:.
,. �... �:.�`���
� . .�� ti - ��. i� � ,
::� .
(612)86� 0053
6527 5T�I A`�11E S
RICHFI�LD, Iv�i 55423 1644
� AbDF�1CF1 �OAR�IN� CAft�
i�OM�
�`�`�� � � 612 825-44�8
�,��' ( )
;,��� � � R�,�° �.. � � 3101 �I.I)RICH AVE S
� i� 1. � APOLIS IVi.�I 5540$ 2805
� � �� `� , � � ` j� _, �ry .�.� �
� �� ' `� "
. r� �, .
,�`y� "� `'
�
)
Y�,:�- _�, ���;
(612)333-0111
I215 � 9"�'H ST
NIINN�APOI.IS, MI� 55�404 1710
�� :. , .�� � � .
(b12)823-7286
715 �l 31 ST 5T
N�NEAPOLiS, MN 554�8 2915
..
(612}479-3655
5515 �RY�T'f ST
�,p�.E pLAIr3, MN 55359 9446
� .i �� ; � ,. �. �-
(612) 78�-�757
3427 CENTRP�I. A� I�
l�POLIS, I+/IN 5541� 1221
�. , �..
(b12j781a4871
" .. ^ :. � ,
h�tp://s��rah.�ld��s�ar�h.�orn/search.cfm �/2/99
;
Eld�r Care and �exsio� I�ousir�� Directory
1507 LO�Y t1� I�
APOLI�, iVIN 5541 � 3� 59
.-- , ;�
(612}933-d 752
1140Q 4'TfI ST 1�I
��TONI�A, I�IlV 55343 36Q3
�:..
:-
� ,. ,�.
.� � , : � �, `,,
:°+�•'. , � _; �
; ;,,;
(bl2)929-2122
5100 �UEN A�IIE
EDIlVE1, MN 55436 2337
.-. . , �.�.
(612)948-3000
10030 NEi�TTON AVE S
BLOOMIl�IGTON, �T 55431 �939
, . .
(612)824-1 �34
3956 GI�ND AVE S
MINNEAPOLI�, MN 55409 1535
• ,;� - � . � �,;: �'<
r�l���zo-zo3o
3700 �EI�A�t LAi{E At/E
.�i'OLIS, l�t SS415 424fl
# �,
(61�)379-8454
909 ST IV�
�ilV�APOLIS, �N 55413 295�
�a�� 2 of 4
;;
;-�
ht�p://��a��h.�ld�rs�arch.car��/sea�°�h.cfiyz R/�/4A
� ' I, .. . ... .. _
Eide� �are a�d Ser�or I�ousin� Directory Pa�� 3 of 4
��ftlD[AN �iANOR
(612)473�3Z00
163 Wf��ZATA BL�D VJ
VVA'YZA'T�, I�' 55391 1562
�llJ �lAY H093�� INC
(612��7�-7s6s
2200 1 S'i Ai� S
�OLI�, �155404 3401
N�J-�1�4Y H�lJS� 1NC
(6r2�s7a-osoz
251 � 1 S°� A� 5
�PQI,IS, �1 55404 43 17
PARKSHORE �La4�� ��NI��
P�PTS
-': 1 (812)925-6231
-_ 3663 PARIC CEI+ITER �LVD
SAIN'T L4iJ�S PARI�, Ml�i 55416 2532
P�IRI� ��Nt�R COTTe4G�a
(612)SS�7-9009
1660 HIGH�IAY° l00 S
SAII�I'�' LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 1529
�IGN� �Ut2CK�lAR�i M14NOR
�6rz>s,z-7oos
2533 1 ST` Ad� S
1i��P,ppLI�, �t 55404 4342
1 2 N�X
Nev� Search
a e ��ree Consultation J Senior �iia Connectlon � Chat
Advertlsinq ( Gontact Us
Assisted Livina j le�deuanden4 L vi � � Life Care CommunikY
Sklfled Nursinc Facilitias � Home 1iealthlEaulomen4
Iati�t�:/lse�.r�h. �ld�rs��rch. coa�/s�azch. cfi� �/2/99
, , ;,.
,
Elder Care a.r�d ��ruor �Iousin� Direc�ory
ht.fn•// /
�����r R e��c�r��s
;?.�e �<��;�� �
,.
8 . .
> ' �
.,..y:� ::•
�`:a -... � . _. . , . �.. : �.....-�:-.�.�.. .��'� �����
Yo�a� s��rch t�a� ��turne� 2� cor�panieso
SOUT'HSiD� �A�� CiR.
(612)8i2-4233
2644 AI,DRIC�I A►� S
AIaOL,IS, i�T 5540� 1307
YEACIi�R� PARK A1lE�lUE
R�SID�NC�
(612)87�-4574
2625 PARK AVE
��IVEI4POLIS, MN 55407 1015 �
�lA�.�(�R �LD�R SIlIiE� ,
(612)835-8351
i400 Z'O1tK A�/E S
I�IINNEAPOLIS, NIlV 55435 562�
�iA�EC�R PLe0.CE
(bl2)�27-8500
3701 BRI'�NT AVE S
I�IlNNEAPOI,IS, �IN 55409 I051
tPREV1oUS] 1 �
LNew 5earchj
Home j Frea Cansulta4lon � Senlor Site Cannedion j Chat
A vertisin j CanPact Us
AsslsQed E.ivj�g J Ind�o�nden4 I.ivin� j LIFe Cara ommunity
Skilled Nursing Faciiltles J Floma Naa[?h/Equipment
Adult Da�Care ( Alzhej�ers �osauroes & 5u�par!
os s J os 'ce � Elder Law I4ko,fIIavs
Geriairic Physicieq� � Geria4ric Car� Managers
$elire e t Pla ne s j Counseling 5erviees ( Hea14h Ensurance
� 3998 ElderSearah.com, All rights reserved. D selaimer
Page 1 of 1
' 's
,
,, ; ; . ; ,.
- . S
a
`: '�
,
I �, , � �; , ,#, � _; ; ;�:
`Too Mounds View Planning Commission,
��°ome Rick Jopke, Community Development Direcior
Subjecie Signage Requirements in PF and CRP Zoning Districts
Date: 3uly 29, 1999
BACKGROUND:
�.
As I previousiy indicated to you the City Council has asked that the staff and Planning
Commission continue to look into and n�ake recommendations concerning ordinance
amendments to the sign ordinance to allow biliboards in certain areas of the community and to
allow signs in the PF Public Facilities and CIZP Conservar�cy, Recreationai and Preservation
zoning districts.
I am still waiting for an opinion from the City Attorney's office concerning the proposed
billboard ordinance. Based on the direction of the Planning Commission at the Juiy 21, 1999
meeting staff is bringing the ordinance amendment allowing and setting standards fo� signs in PF
and CRP zoning districts forward for Planning Commission actiorn separateiy from the billboard
ordinance.
- ANALYSIS:
The current cade does not list any perznitted signage or standards in either of �hese districts. The
draft ordinance allows signs cansistent with neighborhood business districts and with the
pedestal sign requiren�ents in Section 1008.01 Subd.ivision 6 in the PF and CRP districts.
Signage ailowed wauld include 100 square feet of signs on the building and a 340 square foot
pedestai sign for each street frontage. If the site has more than 100 feet of frontage an additional
100 square foot pedestal sign would be allowed. Any pedestal sign which is withui 100 feet of a
single family residence cannot exceed 40 square feet, however. This is open for discussion. The
amou.ni of signage allowed may be more than necessary.
The existing s�gnage at parks in a neighborhood setting appears to range from 18 to 20 square
feet totai sign area while the mazn City Hall sign is approximately 128 square feet in area. The
tatal freestanding signage at the Community Center appears to be approximately 90 square feet.
Signage at the golf course has been at times as much as 130 square feet.
REQUESTED ACTION:
It is requested that the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolutian No. 592-99
recommending City Caux�cil adoption of Ordznance No. 637.
N:\DATAIGROUPSICOMDEV�PLANCOMNn7-29-49.MEM
,; ;: . ;
;.
;: , . , ,
� '; ! I,, ., .. . . f. � :
C�'I'Y �F 16�IOTJND� �E�TV
C�TT1�iY QF 12.�a1VJ[SEY
ST1��'E OF I���SQ'I'A
��12DITdAI�C� AIVI�i�II�IG C�PTER 100� (S�G1�TS �1VI) BIL,LBOA�S} O�' 'I'I�E
19�OYJNDS ��f1 IVI�JRICIPAL C0�3E I'�l�'I'AI1�ING T'O 1'EI�iVIITTED �IG1�11�GE Il� FF
S YJSBLiL Y�tY�1lX.rAB ae`,�y �1C.11 LH6r ��l�SL' LO V,tilV4. Y y fllLCea�+.t�1A�1Vy PdAY'��d�1t��AA�1V L.,olV81`4�
dJH��AdA�S�9 �Lt91l1V11`I� C��L �7.C°o/�^77
T� cl� o� Mour�s v�Ew oxDAnvs: �
SECTION 1: Section 1008.08, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds �Iiew Municipal Code is l�ereby
amended by adding the following new paragraphs m and n. The proposed additions are underlined and
italicized and deletions .�; °•�'- --�' ---a'�~"--' ; respectively, to read as follows:
m. PF Public Facilities Dist�ici: Si s not exceedi� IOD s uare eet total er buildin . In
addrtzo� pedesPal si�ns are allowed in accordance with Section 1008 OI Subdivision, 6 except
that no ermit shall be ranted or� an edestal si o more ihan or 40 s uare eet within
one hundred feet (100't ofan�single familv �esidence
.�
n. CRP Conservancv. Rec�eation, Preservation: Si2ns not exceeding 1 a0 squaree eet total
per buil'din�. In addition pedestal signs are allo�ved in accora'ance with Section 1008 01.
Subdivision 6 exce t dzat no ermit shall be ranted or can edestal si o mare than or 40
s uare eet within one hundred eet 100' o an sin le amrl residence. -
� 'i
SECTION 3. This Ordinanee goes inta effect thirty (30) days after its publication in the
offcial City newspaper.
Read by tl�e City Counci( of the City of Mounds View on tl�is day of , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Counci] of the City of Maunds View on tl�is day of ,
1999.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
Charies S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
N;IDATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�SPECPROJ153 7.�RD
. _,
'�, � ,�,' " . ` ���: . ��,. ��; - � � _ ��, r
CI`T'Y OF IVIOITIoII)� �TIE�I
COUN'I'Y OF' IiE1NiSEY
5'I'ATE OF 1VII1VI�IE�OTA
12�SOLiTTIOi�t �CO1ViP/IEIVDIl�TG CI'TY COLTIVCIL, AI'PItO`IAI, OF O�II�TAI�CE I�Oo
637; AN OItI�II�IAIVCE �ENI)II�G TIiE C�I��ER 100� OF` T� I�OiJI�1I)S �E�1V
1V��7I�ICIPAL COl)E PE1gTAIPTING TO PERIV�I`FTEI� �I�I+IAGE �1� PF FU�I,IC
�L-��1Ldi1.Hl�til'Yd94�i6F ��1VJ�EleYtil`i�Jly��1l1�XT.11O1�l91�[�,���VL�lIOlWZOLYAIiIT
DIS'I`RICTS; PI,A�II1�T� CA�E l�T�: SP073-99.
WHEREAS, Section 1d08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code sets standards for signs and
billboards in fhe City; and
V+IHEREAS, Section 1008, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Muilicipal Code does not list
any permitted signage in P�' Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreation, and Preservation
zoning districts; and.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that signage is necessary
and desirable in PF Public Facilities ar�d CRP Conservancy, Recreation, and Preservation zoning
districts; and
WHEREAS, tk�e Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed Ordinance No. 637, an
� ordinance amendment pertaining to permitted signage in FF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy,
Recreation, Preservation zot�ing districts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Coinmission
recommends City Council approval of Ordiriance No. 637, an ordinanc� amending Chapter 1408,
Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining ta permitted signage in PF Public
Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreation, Preservation zoning districts.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Ptanning Commission directs stafito forward this
resoiution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 4th day of August, 1999.
Atteste
N:�DATA\Gii0ETP5\COMDEV\SPBCPRORSP073-9910RD637.RES
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Ric% Jopke, Community Development Director
l Q0�.01
�S
1008.�i
Subd. 6_ PEDESTAL SIGN; A grorind sign er�cted �apan a sinble post or shaft or u�on two (2)
posYs or shafts �hat merge or touch at the base or whFCh aze noi more �han fifteen feet
(15'} apart, center of s�iaft to center of shaft, with t}�e display portion rnounted an top
�hereof at least seven feet (7') above the surface of the street adjacent to the praperty on
wh�ch the sign is located. No such sign shall hav�e a sign area of mare than thre� hundred
fo�ty (340) sc�uare feet on each side. Such sign may advertise anly businesses located on
the premzs�s. Na business property shail have more tt�an one pedesta} sign adjacent to
each street upon. which such business propert�r abuts; provided, that on each street fronfiage
of more than one hundred feet (1(}0'), one additional pedestal sign may be established and
rnaintained or� such street frontage if such additional pedestal sign a) is Iacated on a single
pol�, b) dfles not �xceed t�renty eighY (28) square feet in an area on ariy sfde and does not
laave maz'e than two (2) sides, c) is not more than four feet (4') in vvidth or seven feet (7'}
in height on the sign face, d) is located at lease seven feet (7') above the surfac� Df the
streei. In li�u of one additional pedestal sign, #wo (2} separate signs may be located an
the sacne pole, but such two (2} signs combined shall raot exceedy in area o� dimensions,
the iimitations applicable to a szngle additianal p�desta.l sign. No pedestal sign shall be
so designed as to have baih a) maving parts, and b) mo�ting or blinking Iights. In
addition to the pedestai s�gz�s permitted by ihe foregoir�g provisions of this subdivision, ._
a sign advertising a public telephone may be located in th� area ahead of the building ,, ,:.!;s
setback Iine on the struciure iza which such public tele�hone is located.
Subd. 7, PQRTABLE SiGl�i: ,A back-to-back, mobile advertisir�g cievice vrhich may be
mounted on wheels and used for commercial as well as civic promotions.
Subd. 8. PRQJECTING SIGN: A sign other than a wall sign suspended from or supported by
a building ar structure and projecting �ttt therefrom.
Subd. 9. RQOF SIGN: A sign erected upon or above the roof ar parapet vz�all af a buiiding or
structure.
Subd. 10. SIGN: A sign, the primary function of which is to direct attentian to a product,
service or aciivity that is sold or offered either elsewhere or upor� ihe premises wheze such
sign is tocated ar to which it is aff xed.
Subd. 1 I. SICrN, ADVERTISTNG: A sign, the primary fuaaction oi which is to direct attention
to a product, sei°vice o� activity that is soFd or off�red either elsewher� or upora the
premises where such sign is locat�d o� to �vhich it is aff°ixed.
Subd. i2. SIGI�T A.I�EA: i'hat ar�a of a sign �thin the ma�g�al lines of the st�rface, which
bea�s the an�ou�acement, name, adv�rtiser�eni or other naessag� or, in �h� cas� ai letters, .-
�gures or symbols aita�hed direcily �o any part �f a building, the azea which is ineluded� =:
in the smallest rectangle which can be mad� to cxrcuansc:�be �a�i� i�tter, figtare or symbol
displayed Yhereon.
Gfty of Mourrds L`ie�a�
._:_-' : :: .. ... -. • ..: ..': -. . I� .:..
.:�.'- :':::' ...� . �.:.: ':.. .. � ,..:'. :': . .�� ..:�_.:�::. ...._: ....... .:.: ... . ___..._ . _. . ..___ ..
,_ -- - �v�-} N�� � C, _ n, r' � rvt C�r.� p.� T t r r�. iJ r i-�Jr �'�k'c� t/�.�`f �� �
.. �-+ � �, �� g
��C} �! yY � G%'��� C� 9�
i�' "�-s�% �f—t Y� �J � Ll✓�V �,- � j �� {�� �C� St c��G��
iVv y�,����� �
, .. �
" �: `. : f ;!°, ' '`; �. : .� ° �',, ;!� °-.
l�ieetixt� I)�ie:
�t��f �tepo�t bye
P�an��n� Cas� �to.:
�t�questo
Petit�o�e�°e
I�o�a�ioa�:
",f .` �
Za�ea��/Land I1�ea
�1�plac�bl� Re��lations.
Attachn�e�etse
�aekgrou��f:
August 4, 1999
7ames Ericson, Planning Associate
565-99
Wetland AJteration Per�nit, Easement Vacation
Greg Peterson, represer�ting Oakwood Land Development
Lots 17 �i I S, Edgewood Square (Pinewood Circle)
OS-30-23-34-0076
OS-30-23-34-0077
R-1, 5ingle Family Residential / Vacant Land
Section 1010.08 -- Requires that any work done within a wetland {or within 100
feet of a wetland) as show�� on the City's Wetland Zoning Map shall reyuire a
permit.
Planning Application
Zoning Map
Location Map
Grading Plan
Purchase Agreement Letter, dated 2/11/99
RCWD Pernui, expires IO/16/99
�ity Council Minutes, 12/8/97
Letter from SEH, dated 8/12/8 �
Letter from the MN SWCD, dated 6/28/99
Let�er from #he MI�I SWCD, dated 7/27/99
Greg Peterson, represeniing Oakwood Land Development, has requested that the City vacate a
portion of a drainage easement that covers Lots 17 & 1 S of Edgewood Square which had been
dedicated to the City as a result of the initial platting in 1982. Even though wetiands are present
over parts of I,ots 17 8c I 8 and all of Lot 19, drainage easements were dedicated for the entirety of
the three Iots. This was done ia satisfy Minnesota Soil and Water Canservation District concerns
and City concerns about the potential far floading and runoffin this area. In addition to the
easement vacation, to build on the two lots, a wetland alteration permit would need to be obtained
because.work wouid be dane witlun the wetland as shown on the City's official �7etland Zoning
Map. Approval is also needed from the Rice Creek Watershed District.
The appiicant ma.de a similar request with regard to these �wo lots on September 9, 1997, however
�he request was denied by the Cour►cil on 12/8/97 because it was felt that the easements were
granted in goad faith and that the lots were never intended to be built upan.
;:. ,...
,
;,;: . _..;.__ ; ,
_
.. . ,
.....:.:. ... .. .--- - : -; - . .
__......_.----`; -..:.,.. -
�
Oakwood Vacation Requesf
Lots 97 & 18, �dgewood Square
August 4, 1999
Page 2
Ordinarily, the Planning Commission wouid not review these types of reyuests, however because of
the underlying land use element associated with this proposal and the work being done to update
the City's Comprehensive Plan, staff feit a recommendation from the Commission would be ir�
order,
E�61���$AS;
According to �ection 12.06 of the City Charter relating to Vacation of Streets, the Council may by
ordinance vacate any street or alley or other public grounds or part thereof witl�in the City.
Nlinnesota Staiutes and the City Charter require that vacations reyuire a public hearing. Such
vacations may be made only after published notice in the official City newspaper and for providing
the affected property owr�ers and public to be heard. This action shall be recorded with Ramsey
County to take effect. T�e City Attorney has advised siaffthat the vacation of an easements may
be appropriate in the event the easement area no longer sezves a public benefit, however ihe City is
under no obligation to do so in any event. The process for vacating a drainage easement is the
same as for vacating a street.
When originally piatted, these two lots and a third were placed in a drainage easerr�ent as they were
deemed to be unbuildabie due to the presence of wettands, The City since that point has adopied
its Local Water Management Plan which comprehensively deats with all aspects of drainage, '
stormwater runaff and wetlands within the City, Aiong with the Wetland Zoning Ordinance, which
was adopied by the City in 1992 and revised in 1997, certain types of development under certain
conditians are allowed within and aiongside wetlands, Vacating a portion of the original easement
over and across Lots 17 and 18 woutd not necessarily be inconsistent with either the Locat Water
Management Plan or the Wetland Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant had the wetland on these lo�s delineated in 1997 and the delineation was %rwarded
to the I�ice Creek 6�Iatershed District, who verified the delineation to be valid. The new
delineat�on, which is shown on the site pian as a heavy daskzed line, indicates that almost all of Lot
17 is outside of �he wetland, save for a small encroachment toward the back of the Iot. SEH, the
City's engineer, reported that the grading and drainage proposal provided by the applicant was
acceptable from an engineering standpoint, and recommended that if it was the City's intent to
grant such a vacation io atlow development on tl�e two lots, that an additional ten-foot easement
area around the wetland he dedicated to ensure a natural vegetation strip beyond the delineated
boundary of the wetland.
The central focus of this request then can be narrowed down to two issues. First, do these lots
cantinue to serve any hydrological purpose within the City's Iocal water mana�ement plan, and if
noi, would a partial easement vacation be in the besi interest of the public? Secondly, should the
City continue to protect the existing open space?
If the City was to determine that the Iots should be deyeloped, and t11at the drainage easements -
:�
;:
. Oakwood Vacation Requesfi
L.ots 17 � 18, Edgewood Square
Augus� 4, 1999
Page 3
intended to be vacated did not serve a hydrological pui-pose and that an easement vacation would
be in the best interest of the City, a wetland alteration permit would be required for any
developmen� to occur on the sites. According to Chapter 1010 of the Municipai Code r�lating to
the Wetland Zoning District, any work occurring within a wetiand or the 100-foot buffer
surrounding a wetland, a weiland alteratian or wetland buffer permit is required. The scope of the
proposed work as presented involves the filling and excavation of a previously identified wetlar�d
area. In order for the City Council ta approve a wetland alteration permit request, the proposed
development shall comply with the requirement� as specified in Section 1010.08, Subd. 4, It
appears thai these requirements can be met in ths event the City does approve of the easetnezat
vacaiion.
�tecorr��e�d��°soe�:
StaflFis seeking the Cammission's input with r•egard to this request. �pecifically, (1) do these iots
continue to serve a hydrological purpose within the City's water �nanagement system, and, if not,
would a partial easement vacation be in the besi interest of the public; or should ihe City continue
to protect and preserve the open space? Staff will draft a resolut'ton indicating the Commission's
position and have this ready i'ar action at your meeting an August 18.
= - ;
� ��,�-'l;^�� ��-', i CS�'?�,
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDEV CAS�S1565-991VALUE-PC.RPT
��� �
�,
i
�:.,�� ;; �,.,. �;.r :.a 7�gvqy�+Y '�T �+p�
��/��ic"i!�'•-v �� LSr9'b'rla�� i`E��SiS g�'T:__...,
A D��L�� ��T APPLI�A°I'I�i
"m,� ��t`.:;��;�;�i 2401 Highway 10,1l�[ou�ads 'iliew I�T SS l i2
�'�°�u ° ��e�e=S'"'e° 6 � 2-7I 7-4020
• 622-784-3462 � F�
Pl��se T�pe or Y��i In%e�ma4�oa - Complei� �otb Sides ot�is �o�
[��pl�cant I�form�#ion "�
NameofApplicant _ �Re"?r ��'�ssvN -Q�k-W�� �Arvo l--�Ez��phone �$o-�{�t�tb
Address
� b [ t _ i� ,- �i ,�.," l o � Fax °i �' o - �Sti
.; I_.a, k� �,. k N�,� SS�3 �
Interest in Pe�ape�ty (check appropriat� box)
❑ Own�r of Property o Con�act for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager '� Agreement to Purchase
� Other (exptain} � .
AppGca��s �ust provide evideace of �terest in propertty at the time of applicatio�, �d if you �re �ot the owner of t[te
P�'o�erfYy Yaa� ffie�9# pa oe�ide a leiter of per�ission tt°om the os�er �iving �a�ses� to t�e f�g oit�is applecation. '�i�e
property osvder must si�n iUis applicatiota for it to be accepted.
Rroperty I3e9cripfion/Fenpo9al
Address or General Lncation
Lega1 Descripiion
Praperty Ideniification # (PIN #)
# of Acres
Current Zoning
2-f
Type ofApplication
❑ Compreheasive Plan Amendmcnt
Q Rezaning
o Major Subdivision
❑ Minor Subdivision
❑ Planned Unat Deveiopment (PLTD)
� PUD Amendment
D Canditionai Use Permit
❑ Variance
� Code Appeui
❑ Dev�lop Review/Site Plan
Wetiand Alteration Permit
❑ VJetland $uffer Pesmit
❑ �'loodplain Permit .
� Other d
�c
�250
$250/acre; min $250 max � I SOQ
�250 + $25fl deposit'�
�200
Refer ta rezoning fees
$350
R-1, R-2 $75; aIl others $250
R-1, R-2 $ i 00 atl others $250
�100
$ I 25/acr •'� i 25 aiax �750
R-t, R $150• fall others $200
al
R- l, R- 2�: aEI others $100
�200
'',
� ;-r
_ . ,_. ..
'�Deposits shall b� paid to cover all costs of p�ablic notic�s, materials and staffor cor►sult�t tame spent an Ehe retnew -�
research or preparaiion of z�aterials assflciated �eith this apptication. i7ae applicant shal� be respoQSible for ail reasonabie
incurred costs in ��ccess of the initial deposit amo�n� Any portion of the deposie not spent or eegcumbered shall be refunded
to the applica�t within thirty (30) days a�er consideration of th� appiication is compieted.
�l�a�� coenpi�k� the revers� aade of t#�� �pplicatQO�a.
�:. .
C�ty vf I�ou�ds `Iies�, MN
pt�s�nt Use of Praperty
� UndsvelopedN�cant
❑ . DuplexiT�+o �'aznily Dweiling
❑ �tasiness/Commercial �stablisttment
p Other (�xplai�)
Propeity Cisss�Cation
Description of Proposal
� Abstract
�
❑ Single Family DweEling
❑ Multi-family Dweiling
� Indus�aial Establisbment
p iorrens
I
I i � i� or
�
BY MY {OUR) SIGNATLJRE ON THIS �pVIDED O°CRUE AND ACC�URATE. x` TO TI-�E BEST OF MX
�OW�,�DGE, THE INFORMATIUN PR . �� `„ �,
. �
Signatu�e of Applicant N� -Z,Z.oPr��`-�
Name of AnP�G�g (tYPe�p�'ted)
��t2cCr � 5�•�-' �tl�c„�,uao L
Signature of Pxoperty Owner
Nam� of Progeriy Owner (EYPedlPrinted}
Address of owuer
Phone Number of Owner
� �c„✓c�,r� �A�r� CLE2oPnaE/�%T
, - v
<, L�r� P r� , ss �r3 �.
'�€sv-�(9� n '
*���x#���a��������***����*�*��#��a*�#���**�,����*���a��*��*�����a����������a��a�a��*�a���x�������*�������;
' F�R OF'�IC� LiSE ��X
Date of Submitt�[ �@� A,ssi�ed to: �, �
"� cc _. e t �l
baee of Acceptance 6fl-day Limit _��.�r 12Q°day limiE r�
p}anning Case No. �� — �
Fe�s Paid: Account #
Ch�ec� � r� R�P�
Applicatioa: � ' a� --
P ark Dedicaeion: �
Deposits: • D U � -
1��_
: Ocher: . .. „ . . . . . ,� .r:.._ _ . r,
� �� � •
,;��'-L� �Ot�: �—�—° � tl48
r ,�` � �
,� ,+± � 3+l:�ATA\GFtOUPS\CAhtD��O�tiiS�EV,�PP.FOIt
.r.
� �,_;: - � . .
Ai� ^ . .. ,� . �. � �
7tit i�
!�� t�,' � � -- ' - � ,.. . . : * . :. �
-, d .,Vv__ .
, ,-. °. t, � - � ,�
� �� , +� `, + �F�a
, "�`"3'ir �''3.'�.:iae�%.b-.�.' -" a ,' i ,,.' , :.. , a.,a1- „? i«. _ ,n.�G'C �... _,__�.'i... ...,c� .�.��,c - -. _.. .
�' �ra_., l,�p ` .:
.. . .... . �. ... _ . . . +�.�tW . _�:5..�.r� �. ..i,�.>7- ' � ri ,� t��... �3J �r '.
. wJr_� . t-
:.: , � , .
7984 i989
7980 79i9
_i944 �953
793 7931
i900 N
%�38�
78i5
786i
inLV d 7�i3; %8
7�1 � 7�15�781
7806 =---�-
7800 7801 7�
7778 7i4^ 9r%�
7768 7739:�7,
7745 7729!773
77z8 ^W�
i719j77
7710 7709�i71
_.���...
� A? i701 t77
� 798� 7929 7928 792i
��-� 7325�324
� � 7�z� .
7968 7929. 7920 � i919
.��.._._._._......... 7917 - �i ..,_._...,_
7� i A� �
W, F 7948 �9 31 �7� 10 � i913
; 79a9 t""" � i909
� 7s�o 79os � �so
� ' � � 7905�90 �►11.�-vi
N! N N %9O7 Or i
o \ �,�„ � �'�
��y� �o { � �� � � � 'S'+�-'.
.:�. �� � � �
786557�60 ,���� �'
, � %�J% %�J .....
� a %�45 784 78� �
1,.�
32 783i`783Y j 7�2 s
7527 782 �
..,.M �
78i7� � _ �
5 780i `� ! � �n �
,¢p 7751 " j � N s N
0 �
a 7741 j7� �,�� PINEV�OOD GiR
^"'_' � O N � t
2` � 773t 773 .M�..� c"�v �� j r�i �
p 7i21�772 7795 '�"'`��-� --
��n u� a,
QO m 770 °�' � 7701 � r"�i � N c`r'v
�0
� � ° ��� I'I N
N c��! N N N1 N
—3 76�
R�4
3
610
7635 764�
7655 762
7645 � � �a
�
R —,
� ,s� .�.�.�
�� rtO• � I n i63 769
� � �
C�d N �
N
�o
��
� �
PF
o��t� �„1`N 1 4� !� .� �� 5 �?ji �� � ,
_'�S"S, ����i��/'f��� � � �� N t �� `
�! ��'� "A"�1�2 ��
C� t, ��'c� Pf't�cA�� c' co � c
' � �. c�"� k 4' ; e" � � 'a? � u
a 9�85 � ���� CaC�:. o`C7��00 \F ����N� . . .
7 �
C�
� ��� �y ��� C'� �'� �� .,� ry,,..�"�
?di I�t 4—��,� ca `' �. G±� r' �' �
t ,;
ca o s r�
� M pry �� N N I N� N
N N N f�1 � N � T N
'�, . .� � �.' �n T' � o� I
� �t r r7 cv � v o �D � o : � <n !
M w9 N? M r^i i r� �� �i � eD t I� � to ? It�
N N N (*i (V N N lV � c�6 : N, N� N�
nE � CV s N N� N�
ol�K�OOD �� •�t..._.�._
�� �; r���ti�
� C(3 �� h,c0;�
5f>1 56' J�� 561 NjN N? NiN:��i
N N �� Ct (V:���
561 � S61 561 N�6� O,d
560 �60� 560 5606 N' N ���,°�° i
NI�, {
5601 �64�601 �i600 �-�- N ��' `� ' `�!,
� � �:� � �
M,.._ _....,_ a> �� r� , r� c� a� �
556 W S5fi 55fi 5 5 6 2 N� N t N{ N N i� i
555 = 555 55b7 � 55�i
(� � i r�E�lO �� 1�p:
:5551 � 5550' 5551 � 555 N; ao j N? N 1 N� u� i
w �� Ni��M�N� N i
554 5 554 � ,� �.��--n=--- '
�
�': a� in ai( ,
rrvn eezn csz �..�. � ��f . Po; P° �� � I i
5520�5521
RD
a526 O�€ m f o� d- ro � I t .
aa E m aD t� co u) u
N;N�N�cv N NJe
5J��1 N i nf <<`1 j� N• N� c
I
Zoning Map Planni�lg Case 565-99
Applicani: Oakvvood Lan� I?evelopm�nt
Z,ocation: I,ots 17 � 1�, Ld�e�ood �qua��
a` ti
��
�
E
�480
5474
5468 �
5462^
5454 W
5446
5440
5434.`
:i�'1�
5�zo w
5414�
��os
�
.
,5�Fi3 �
5467 i
5463 "
b455 � . �
54.47 p r
5449 `� �
5433
,��z�
5421 :
5415 '
� �a�s :
�
+ �. - � -
� �. � �; �'
�
,
� �� �� ����� i � i
.r■�� r� �� �� �� C r �
�C �� �� �I� � C ������� ���t��t�1� i
�� �� �� s� i� �1��� ��
�1M� � ��� t�� ����� � l�Riii� � �I�111!!1 , ��� ������
■��� ���� ��� ��� �� �f� � ������■ t �l���11111111 111f11111111
r■... � � �■ �� •• �� ■� � f��rr��11111i11 �1111!#lil111
�� r� ii �/� ��■
/� �� � � :i �� �� C �/!�C//��1/111lI IIf1111111111lI1
�r��' �""� �� " � ���� ����1111/!1 i111111111i11i11
r� �.� ■■ � .
�� �� ��. ..� ;:�;= � � �
�..� .- .� �.-.�, . . ����ie��,��
,�r ,�� ._... �. • ��� � . ■���r ��iu��i �������
�� �� ,� s� �� � �. • �11If�/!��/I
����+
�ii i� ■�i ii ii .� :111111/�11� ��� lillill I liil!!
.� - � �� � ■� ��
1� ���� CC � ��� � i�
� �, �r ■ �r �� �w .
i%�i����� �� � �� �=
._ __ ♦ - flllll�
� �C � �C .� � ��■.�
ii � � C� C1I111/� ������� �
� � �'�'I'�""� �� �: �
r ��__ ___
r : � : �������� � i� =C
�`�. ����
Greg Peterson, Oakwood Land Development
Drainage and Utikity Easement Vacatian
Planning Case No. 565-99
Square, Lots
Properties 11Vithin 35�`
. , __
, , . ,.�..��_,.
. ._..... .,z..
. _ ., _ ..w:,.•.,,�, . __., . . ... _ _.
�
f�
-� ..-
,
�
��-------
Z
C
—j •r
�
�
D
-i
�D
�
f-+
r
r
z
�
�
td
fTl
t7d
C.
r
� .
D
�
�
_
r-e
N
�
.-.
�
fTl
„ .� �� r�
n �,� � �
�4 � �
�1 �
Ser�t By: �akwood Land Developmen�, Inc, 612 780 &599; Ju1-26-99 9:04AM; Page 2/2
",
� � `�� �r <_ ,
� �: : -� � � _ ' �' � ._:.: . . � � , ... ;: ,
16I i Hi$hwa�r 10 m 5p�ring T�ee �'�x�+ � 5�432�
Phot�a:612-T�0-�499� � F�x:61�-y�-859i
._�-���
!+a
I�eg�a ����1t�S
23�1 �o��r�.�y Road I
._.._ . . . ..
_��� ... . ��u�i��sv�ew, �� S5 2
- �:'` i
�. .�
�.,
, . � . �.. � ,.� � _
� "` .:1
r: . ;►: ,,
'T�i� ��iter° is to sur�amari� �b� dis�eussio� w� h�.c� t�t��y regardi�� your la�ts
��r�e�r�od �i��i�. �� wi�l p�y y�u 5�.7,�oa ��� �o� f�r �,o� x� �.�d �s
Ed���aod Sq�e if we ar� able �a g�t the City of �ound.s�ie� �o �a���e tll�
�r�i��a�� �i� �at.ility �as�mi�nts whiGh. curr�ntl� enc��b�rs thcse •fwo �ots.
T l�a�e decad�d tl�at. i# wiil be n�cessar�+�to h�t� an �ttorncy to h�lp us �r�rk
to�+°�rd apprtodal �f �ur v�r��ion. r�q�e��. �11 �os�� �sc�ciat�d v�rith
d��el�p�.�e�.�, �n�fu�ir�g � ��s� f��s, �iIl b� �aid b� �r.s.
, _ ,_ a -_.•.:� .. �� .�:; o �:: �� �-� ._ .::���, f�� � ��
.:. �
�_;: ; e. � , • � ., +,', t : •► `
�
+ i��
�f�5a � � �
�
� .
,,,, ., ,�.�,,�� ���N�-�, ��,� w,��_.� „-�w�
,���-.�,r�,.� � ,��,�„��-� r -,��-
Sent Byo �ekwo�d Land �evel�p��nt9 Inc; 612 780 659i, Jul-2�-99 7a99A�; page 2/2
;�;�.e-r�. `t� ..�. {�,�r r ��, g•• \d7• �, r �s . rv a� ..
.. r - .n -° s .. �, , ' ^� _ . . • . . . . _ ;w.�: •..,s . ' .. �� ,. .�. � . ...
.� .: a - �' � . . . .. . .. .
� .. . ..%7��� .5�.�. .. �i �yy�;�l.s:i;�x'�,.,i.f* Lf �-�Tti ���':�3�r":.•% >t�'+Mr c>'.,,.,p�y.,iityZ��t,.,:.i-i.'���.,� ..
m..$ � . �i� '7£. � _1%D. �' ,�?'�v.:��...�.�1 �.".Y. ��r!: xi:is'o ..x _.��_'�:�'.'43., ,,��ti.. 1en�'s.k :.
t��tkv,"f°%bY'.friTF?���f%���;.",�y"'��r�� ' �'' Y ': . t. .
�'���y�_�.i..�����!�.,K..rf t�i� y�..1i,��`i.;.`� ^�'� :y.�' •���. •,'�r+, '1r'� .
��,S�'` `atL.S �;�.�,.{'ia.c?ti!. ';•' �'�.
:�?.';y';.F ,.�t� : ��m; ;7�.v; : 1Y."
i„ ��;;Y'. �F. '.:s1��. , ,
�S.✓ �r .:� '��` .
��A�' • �''��� �"•��,' ' .
P 4 ' .. %
�''�M1�,ti'��i��1I�,,"� YVw.. . '
i�1f�r �Y � :'%�; �� ,
, 'rr: •iE• �,{; °` . . . '
' '�;�N r •.�f:1 �'r f .
,,�. :`i,C'. .+<, — ;:i�;, . .
_ �' � , '
. 1telN�� �
� •. q
!
. �
. �
�' i';;
6
, , � m
/
�
�
� �
�
., tr', „" ' . � . ' .
. °�:� ; . , ,
.. �� . 'f�. � ,. , . .._ . . .
�.
,, ,;,
►:.;:
�,
�
• j �l�.�.�_K.'^.�..,.:.,."�`:``1 �� . ':et'.� ' �..k:� .,t.�;y.;� ,
.� �.;�, :.ir•l "aN�;;"�.,;,.-1,;;ii�iY„ '•k.� .r'�h• • <.. �1�''�..�
�. �.. `'f�'�.:
.':Y" `.�.�r:�'`':�, :•.M+. .}�.'�1.,'.��1�:;�.i., .�
. . . S .'�r: . ' ° R' ..... , r. .. ' '-'7
. . ;�, ,. ,. ' ,. ••I ... . ' , �Si -.
• ' . " • ' � . . .�ti . , _
•:.. ,
• . . ...e.��.:�:,... . , ..
l
. ''
. .,..:.,: .,.
�, �.`.
I.:.
. :.
.`��..�:.�,�
i`;;
•';;
�
�:`
�;`
;r s!1`i.
�,
i. ,t'
: :�;`%
r.��:��i.}'?r;{ '�i3'.:�,-��:•°,
"`:�
�I
�
i
� •
�
�
i':: i `
:.. . __ , . ., .. ::.: :.:. - . .. : .,:y . . �: _.. -�: .__ .. .. ._'__ '_' "'".....__ . .
-,..:. .,..: .... .
... .. . �.::
-�. � ��. . . _.:� :�._. .��.-: �.�.-.-::- .--` '-._"'- --_.' _. �.
-.- �': .. �. .' ' -`-. -- .
�:
'`�
��� 3
Dece�nb�r �, 1997
Mounds �ew Ciiy Coian�I
J '
�=.���� �.:�
j���
Mayor IvicCatfy opened tlre Pr�blic Heairin� at ?:12 p.m. T1xer� we� no ques�ons or cn�ents from ih�
puhlic on tlxis issue and Mayar McCarty cias�ed tixe Ptablic Hearing at 7: i 3 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Quic}dKoopmeiners to approve the renewai of #he 3.2 off sale malt iiquor Iicen.� for
To�a Thumb Feod Markets, 240� County Road i.
V01�: 5 ayes 0 n�ys Motion Caaried
� T'o coras ° fhe 8ransfer of tke .3 2% o,�f-,sal� laquor lac�sse f or Super A ° a E� Ret�a� ,
oTo�f Y'�ture9 2��0 Goaa�cty �� I�
M�yor McCarty opened the Pnblic Hearing at 7: I3 p.�. There wer� no qu�stions or comme�ts froffi the public
on this isset� a�d Mayor MoCax#}r closed thc Public I�earing at 7:14 p.m.
MO`I'rON/SEC�ND: Gusa/Koopmeiners to approvc tii� transfer of 4h� 3,2%0 off-sate malti liquo� license for
Super America to Reta�1 Joint V�nhxre, 2640 County Road L
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motio� Carried
�. Comsideratio� of Resol�atio� Nom �1949 �sppr�v�rig thc Mounda Viev�r ��ttea°� l�Ie�sleiter �fd A�ard
tm I�Tys�r�� Prabli��� for the ye�r 199�<
M�TidN/SECOND: QuicklfCoopmeiners to approve Resolution No. 5194, Approving the Mounds View
Iviatters Newsieifier Bid Award to Nystrom Pubiishing for the year 1998.
VOTE: 5 eyes 0 nays Motion Gazried
Mayor McCarty aslced that Item 4 under Cauncil Bnsiness be considered grior to Item 3, as the Council's action
an Item 4 would affect their decisions on Item 3.
4. �aa°st Resd�g of ��dinancc Na 60�, au Ord�ancc� V��tting ��ortio� af � Ifraim$ge Eage�xes�t o�re�°
�nd acaose I�nts li amd 18, �Hock 1, Edgc�o� Squat�ee, �c�uesied by �et Val�te I�oaaes, I�ce
a Public Hearing: Mayor McCarty opene� the Public H�arin� at 7: I9 p.m. Thera r�rere no
comments ar questions from the public and Mayor McCarty ctosed the Public Hearimg at 7:20
p,m. �� ' .
IviOTION/SECOND: Sti�ey/IvlcCarty to deuy the request for Ordinance No. b08, an Ordinsac� Vacating a
P.ortion of a Drainage Eas�me�t avea and a,cnoss Lots l7 �nd 18, Block 1, �dgewQad Squ�re, tequestesl by
Good Valt� Homes, Inc.
M�. Bob Loa�g, City Attorney, ststed h� had re�ewed all conespond�nce in the records irdcluding a lett�r dated
3un� 2II, 198I fror� th� Minnesota Soi1 and Wate�r Conservatio� Dishci�t �n this lett�, they recnxxasmended 4i�at
Lots 17, 18 anci 19 r�si� undev�ioped for dr�in�ge and vve�l�nd piuposes. 'rl�is is one of the re�oas tl�e
drainage eas�nent was granteri across fi�ase lines> He slss reviewed a�ctfer dated August l�, I9� 1 iz°om the
Shogt-Elliott�Hendrickson Engin�ring fir�a whach con�urred tbat le�vin� those lots undeveioped would be of
b�nefit to the cily for �vetlands and dc�age.
i
Pag� 4
Dec�rnber �, 1997
�ou�ds View CiYy C�un�aI
/� �� � � =
f � ��
Mr. Jabn Petecson, r�presenting Goosi Value Hornes, Ino., �cp�ained that the two reasons the city acqeaired a
drainage easement in Yhe 1980's were for storm water detention and becavse it was believed to be wetia�d
Ateither of those Conditaons exist to�ay and the plan they propose would aciva.11y improve the storm wafer
defentioa ia the are� by iacressi�� the oapability o£the pa�ding area in terms oistorage. They lxave also goae
to �ea# lengths to aietermine t�iat tlus l�nd is not a part of ti�e wetlands, ss origina.11y determiued. He
proceeded to clarify ttae details rega�ding owaership af ffle progerty, notin� that they ha�re a gurchase
a�eea�eflF waih tl�e current owne� for ihe pur�hase of the land
r+fayor McCarfy asked if this purchase agr�neat confiaixaed any contang�ncies. Mr. Peterso� noted #hat the
agreeement was contingeaf upon the approval of Ordinance 608 by t$ae City of Mouads `View.
Mayor McCariy noted 4bat the Co�ssullting Engineers had atready deCexmined that th� lots weze within the 904
Contour elevation which at tl�at time �rras determined to be wetland through the Soil and Water Co�s�rvation
Dis�icts. He d�oes not 3mow wiaat would have changed physicaIly ta z�ake that det�rminatioa a�y differen�.
He believes the drainage easemeng vvas given in g�d faith that �hese lots would not be buildable.
ROLI, CALL ti'OTE; (To deny Ordinance 60�)
Mayor McCarty
: ce�C� ��b� Q���
; Courkcil ffi�mb�r Stigaey
: ca�C�. ���� G� .
co�� �n�b�° x�����
�o�on C�ea t3-z)
aye
nay
ay�
aye
II�y
3. Co�sic��r�tio� of Rea�laafion Nae. 3173, a Resol�etio� Approving ��et8and r�teastiota P��it fmr Lofs
I7 � 1�, ��OC74 Sy L' �gNW�� SS�II��y i�@�iIC.166� Uy VrVA/� 7 ffi7�� ISOH(L�y i�Co
MOTION/SEC�ND: McCarly/Stigney Yo table inde�aitely Resolutio� No. 5173, a Resolution Approving a
Wetland Alteraiion Permit %r Lots 17 aad 18; Biock 1, Edgewood Squax°e, raquested by Good Vaiue Fiomes,
Iuc.
VOTE: 5 syes 0 nays Motion Catxied
5. Pe�blis Hesai�� and Copaadcra4io� of Resolatioa I�d4i. 31�3, m�8esal�et►on Approviag the SaT�re�ie�
Estates �re ' ° �ry p��i �aed' .
�m �bl�c I�e�� �d �oneiderat�o� of Res�I�ei�oa� I�� S1�A, a Resolestao� App�vin� the I}eeetop�aeat
St�g� R&vri�w f�a th� ��egvie� E�f�t�s P�. �
Mayor Mc�arty opened i�e Public Hearin�s at 7:30 P-m-
� Mr. PaYaick Pefets, Piar�iag Coasialtant, eatpIained that the applicant, Silverview Estates, is requesti�g
approval for a Pr�limixxary Piat aad Development Pia� for a coraveni�c,� �arke�, two offic� buildirogs and a
� seaior residential faciiity at the comer of Highway 10 �nd Silv� Lake Road. H� went over the �v�nts tbat
\� have occurred since M�y whe� tkae City Couacil apgroved tiie ordinsnc� %r tlie rezoning of the property and
�" the res�lution approvi�ag the genergl conc.�pt pl� for the PUD. 'iiie Plan�ing �om�zssioaa reviev�ed 4$e plat
,
,
�
� SHO�T--�LLI�TT�HEN�RICKS�N, INC..
�� C�N�ULiING ENGi�EE�S
ST. PAUi, MINP!@S�iA a CHIPPEWA FAE.LS, W15CON51N
AuguS� .L2, 1�$1 �o MOUNDS V�EW, MxNNESaTA
�� %lOLINDS �7iE6�1 SQUARE
� (RO�ERT �zGE��ER �RO��xT�°)
�tJR FILE NO a 7703g '
�i�y o� Motznds Vi.ew
2401 H�.ghway �Ifl
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
�►t�n; Mr. st�ven Ae Rose
Ger�tlea�en: .
j�e have reviewed the retrzsed grad�nq pZ�r� far �his project da�ed
August 4, i98].> vde ���xd� tha� �he storm wrater starage pond
propased to be can.structed adjacen�. to �.he wetland meets tkae
requirements o£ Caty R�solu�ion No. 983. We would recommen� that
the outl�t pipe from the pond be � 12'° reinforced concrete pipe as
: zs dictated by the drainage calcuZations applied by the deveiopers
engineer. We und�rstand that it has been determined tha�. the
� existin wetlan s ex ea�d up to �he 90 contour el�vatione The
-�_.�-' ro osed and site iies partially w�.thin tha,s area, but i£ � e
th�ee lats west of the pr�posed pond ��te are �eserve o and
a�u�oses, t ae dditiona�_benefit of preserving the wooded area �
abave the 904 contour el.evation immediatel�y wes� of the on sa.�e
w�1.1 be reaiized. .
Summarizing our previous comments on the preliminary plat, we feel
that the 6`° san�tary sew�r shown orx the preliminary plat sh�ll be
changed to an S" sanitary sewer, and the �lass 5 gravel base
shou�d be increas�d from 4" to 6" irs tha.cknesse '�he developer
proposes to construct a 32 fte wida street ia the Edgew�od Drive
right-a�--way with ex�ruc3ed bi�uminous curbso This street �ouid be
extended to proper MSA street width in the future if it is
de�erznined that �dgewaod Dri�te is to be constructed to Fiiliv�ew
Roado
We �ecaaru�end a}�prvval o� the prelimirxa�y° plat from ar� enginee�i.ng
standpoint subje�t to the �Eoregoingo
Si,ncerely,
O�iL�Y . J �
!
aniel Rq �raac�ud /
cc < Kei�:h I.+Telson
i��:
20Q GOPHEFr BUfLDING ° 2�2 EA57 LIiTLE CAPlADA ROAD � 5T. PAUL, �titINNESQTA 55T77 � PFif�iJF IKi�ti wu,+ �,-�1
�' *:
� � � �
�i� , , �
r..��.�:�
�
�
i'-
�. -, , � � >: � .; � _- . .
_ _.
-_. _ �> � .. - �
� - R � _. _.
� � ., � - .. , • . ,, . : ;,_. �: - -
`, i:• -_
.' !D I � � :_...._._
., a.�. �,�.... • _ - . .�-'.�.� - ..� - - �i � � - �
A0.id-krv+arica Bank Buifding
TH27 Ncrth 9aint Poul Roe-�-.
1J�plewocc, Minnrna!o 5;
Telephane (63i• 777-J127
:.� _ �_ R A ` _"- _ �° ' • .'- ' � �l S- .. � __- , .. . ,_� � .
. . -_ � _. _ _ . , �: � .
. . � .�. � .. : � . .: - �,_- �- �� �� � �
_ � �
� `�. �l f. !�'... 1 � � 1 ' ',1 . �. .. J 1 �ti .. .
_. # '
' ..i • i �.1 � '.
.� ' _ � . ... • �:1 ! - . ; 'f ' , • . .. _ _ . ^ .. ' f .� '; .�
�t/�'� ... � � -.,. � _ ' � ' ^ - . � i , :..
_ �• �.� • � , . ' �
' . _i� � �.. � _ ,.. . ., i . .. _ . ... ' - ' • •
' ' � �".. _ . . .. . . •,.!_, ' ' • , • -_ ' � ��:� •� - � s'.. • :�.-� p � • -,.... _� .. . . � ..
_ _ � __
-
' �.. -� � " � � .i
_ � � '
�, � .. . .. • , ... . . .
� � • � � ! �.�..� + . ' `� . .
... �: y • -: � .
� � � ..- .. �Ij • .
..� .f ' ., _ ' " �f „_ , �I.l 1 ., . ,�' � .
� ► . .... � . _. ._ •:�. ^ � - � .. ..* ....
�r�l 4 . i f_�� .. � .. .. .
.. � • rs:� = ^ -� '� - -
• � � .�� � �...: , � �, �� �
•^ .. _ ,. s_ _. • - . . ' _ ..
� _ _ ' _� . . ..... �.
� � .. - • � ��. � ... .. � . � .' � _� • �. � _ � .. �' • - _ • �`N�. .
. .. • � .� �. :.. � , ..: -_ . �1 -� • : Y �
.. _.,•. � -._ .. �•. _ .... _-��
� �' -� � ��� � �.,• � �. � �• .� ,r � - • - �, � -i� � �� -
Il�- � ..� 1 '. _- If�1 �t .1 .._ _-f •
H! . �1■ ' �It� �. _ ,.. _ � .. �: �. /.
��%�C��Z�,
6 A
` � • �
`�C�Il Fe��°'i 5�1
C�.s�ation S�ecialis�
.s � ,��__�. � ,;
�
I �
�
R.4A�S�1' SOIL AN�7 ' .TER �ON5ERV,4ilON �ISTR{� i
�'' ^ wr
.. . -� . . .. ... , .
i r � 'r i � a � � �
�-ane 2e s i9�i
P2xo ROb@T'� �ig2ilt7eE:�
120a.5 Centxal Averiue �'�Ea
Bi.aine � �'Ia.szszesota 55�-;4
i�eax Ms� Ezg�enbeerz
Mid-?.merica Bcr:{. Bvilding
t827 Nar4h Sainr °aul Reau
Maolewaoo, M:9nesc!c 3� ; �Q
Telephone ;6i2; 777-0127
��3qS
"�; ti �;► ,��
� ._ ���j G�
,�
� r�p'f
����a�,�.�� �
°� b��j'` �� �.
.",��J���Qdf631J� ��d�c� rn,��a
. � s"!
N1ra Thomas Pe versera �rese*�ted his review o? the �rel�..�i.na� pla',; oi MGUnds V�e;ra Sq,� e
�velopment �o t%e a�amsey So�1 and Water Conser�rat.�on D�.�t�3.c� S�pervysors io� t�eix
conside�atian. We accep� his repc���t�
-_:.;; ;`F'�he ou1.�: o� the so�.Is ui this plat axe svitable ior d�velop�aent wi uh �nc�r 1:..�.� ��.ta.ons �
�' i0e.' Zi�mme� an� the Li:io�Lirba�a coraplexo Major problems �e s�,dewa�.l cavia� of
trenches far foundatians s iow iertility when reestablisha�° vegezatioxa, azid w�d
erosion durix� develapmentm A�.1. these Za�itations can be easily overca�eo
�cweverp the pol�.c� of the �amsey° Soi1 and Water Canserv-�,�ion Dis-�rict Su���r�.�ars
is n�t �o reco�rend �evelopment of �,aetZands bette� sttited for s+oxza �.ter rete�t? o��
We recoaaznend �i°aat iots 17, 18 �d 19 reznaa.n undevelopea. If �hese 1ot� a.xe
developed ali or�anic soi�s shauld be re�oved, replace� with suivable fill� and
allvweci �o settle for an ap�rop��a�e iime (�.bout ene year} be�ore clevelopmen�
beg°i�as o �
Sazzcerely�
,
;��,�;��; �
, ,
�
R��e� i s� Aa� � ��e
�lat ��e��w c�����
CO�. e r�� �o� �et���e�
Mo�d� ��ew City Counebl
R�..ce Ca:eek �'a�teyshe� ��stri�t
AN �C�lJ,4E� OP��Ri',JN1iY �M�LOY�R
;;
i��S'lX7E�i'F' Cb�,�t�N"'%-
�� ! ��ti)y tt,i � S��� �-�� � �,-,; �.�: A.� S �T;�-c i� � C; l Y;;; %� Bi'G f� r7 1�,�7 G vG- �
,?.�� I� /� 1 �,l � / � �/�/ ,� ��/� ��-.�� �,� �
`+i' �c r. f%f � ' {} ��2/z.('i�- �c� Gt�?L,7�i� f::7�,-.7��l�.2...i .�
L.(t,Jj--r--+l,����L't .�. � 7 iI�L`C)c��JG / �� L
+/ � 7 ��.CCbr1 � 41 d�LC.%a.2 �� t/,.� `� ' � �Y i`�_
V��-1 7�U �['.V'It� r-� LL��l_ r>�(rt� ��o �a� � l•Z�%G.`;'1
i
f�7•5 �J� �'Yi79 a✓t e-�-c�_ I 5 S il-'� fi � 4�'a t�%�T,�,v� / %S S U l�.
� �� ��,� C-� � lPt� ,' < � 3 � -? ,�L�,�����-:� <a�n,<���. � � �,�
/'�" /� 7 t1 L��- �,� � Z,(/1 C�!Sr ` � / ?
�[' �/ '�'�.��y�
/� � j� l UJ�LL�,/ ' (',��%�U� `'�� �f� If CUi
:x '�'; .�, �9t_ �., �-��v�, r7 �.,ti����l-� �.,� ��,� �� , �_ (/
� p 1 — �a��1�- C.� � �.�1L,.�r�
�/I/r.'�-j-�CU�i.rQ 'l C'��C�C��y'aL��12�JM
� C ����i C�'Y'�i�S�U1Q�� ? ---� C7 c'' c�r � t:t..��' �� � 7"��L �i iJ�' �t c! c� P2c� .t.i -�a" l 7t�-� Cy ca,�4�1 s��.c t, �' 1
/ �/
� �i` �!G' NL��-+z-
)! � / � / � �
,. ��'��� �cvJ(Ie5' "'" �i.e_f7�� c.?.bu_��r �.. r�'l� l r�,e>,/xC;'c� < C3-}°1.c.,,' C�-�tG,�-�ytLC:'Gr)s�vG.zi__�i` �- .�
� �, (�
<��-. ;/'� � �.4; s°:l-�, �7 � ,I'��"2 ` r �e'vL�i C'c9 �- - s��,'�� r�vE<r :
, / J L`;I/_ ,c �u �, y� c�
'�- l�! /"L �l >-L`'� 'rt L� -�
r:�E,¢v'� � �` /i,� r�i'/� L : /Uc� %T� �.a.�in�� °
\�
�y— l�, /
! ���� � �
� / �,� (,', r� c.l� i� � "'�r�' � I�'� �� 1n� � <i vo"k:_
�i��J l'LD7�Y�L�Zci�'uL-�� ( �.� ,
.TC>i� 11�1. � e3�e,f'�GYI.
Y �� (J�;? -i� � tJi\. � G�"1 b"/L ' �`ji (� .(.c�Q.?_ �) °^!- i( R `%.S G�-'� '�- � �` P !Glt.d
C_. Q.�"Y-�1'��i �.f(--Gv➢`L=�=C`� - j C
u
,�... r,s /��s�c��Gl ��p ��',� ����;,�
��' ? �� �(l� s_
�,}-��� �t�i.c,$'��Si,-r�,�.
�,�� p F� �,� ! > �fJ�. �..�.�... �t7t.t�6. �� � �„1
�L I+
!)
�
;
�
3.
4,
�ro�r�s �rr�w ��,���r� eo�vt�rss�o�r
r�tx�t�st l�, 1999
7:ao �o�o
REG[JLAR MEETING
AGENDA
Call to Order
Roll Call
Citizens Requ�sts and Comments on Items Not on the fSgenda
_________.._____o..______________________m_____�____..__________________.,_____,._____ e__„___ ___m., _
C'YTIZEI�S: �EFO� �PEAI�iI�G, PLEASE COI�,�IE TO T�IE POI)IiJ1V�, Al�iID
GI� YOIJR �Ug;I. I+�AIl�IE A101D AI)I)��S FOR TI� 1l�II+TiTT'��
Approve Minutes:
a. July 21, 1999
5. Plannarag Case No. 5�6-99
Property Involved: 2809 V�/oodale llrive
Consideratian of Resolution 590-99, a resolution recommending deraia.l of a conditional
use permit for a garage expansion. .
Appiicant; Tim 5keate
6. Planne�ag C�se l�a. 559-99
Property Involved: 2670 County Road I
Consideration of Resolution S 84-99, a resolufion recommending approval of a
conditionai use permit for an assisted living senior residen�ial facility; a rezonirig
ordinance (Ord. 631); and an ordinance amending the �oning Code pertaining to
conditionat uses within the R-4 zoning district.
Applicant: MSP Real Estate
Staff Reports / Items of In€ormation
a. Previous Council Action
b. Upcoming Pianning Cases
c• Planning Commissioners Journal
Cha.irperson and Planning Commissioners Reparts
�. Adjournment to t�genda Meeting
(Immediately Following Regular Meeting}
�*��*�*��*�*�**���������**�*�����*������x
APPLICANTS: YQUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMM(JI�]ITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
�����:�*��:*��**�*�*��***�:*����*�w�:�*�x�:���:
��E�rDA sESSroN
AGENDA
Review Minutes -- August 4, 1999
I`1:1➢ATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIPLANCOMMIPCAGENDA1199918-4-99. REG
�
�
�
�; . . � . , .
� .. • � r "� : , w i . .
� . ..
7' �; �,.
a � � ,
- � _ , , -__ -
E.
rr 4 � �
�__ �
� ,, .
� � � _ . �A _ __
,r�� 2s, �9ei
�o �db@I'°� �+'�.g2rib��'�'
120�.5 Cent�al Avenue NaEm
��a�ae� 1�es�ta 554�4
1�@� �T.T� EI.g�%].b29TY
Mid-America Bcnl, Building
1827 North Scint °aui Roau
Maolewooa, 1v�,i��esalc 5�!�9
Telephone ;512; 777-p127
.,7���31�� 239
� � v °� `��',
�; , r.
� �.:1;► ���' ��
�J � �• •
,�+5�„J �
.1 �0� �MI �
`` ���'� �i,� � "'
�
��, �i�ilh9�� '���6� „`,,��
e ,��?`'^� ^� el r� ���/
. ,� L - � �✓
Mr� Thomas Petersen p�ese:�ted hi.s .review oT �he p�ela�ninar1r p�a� af° Ma�xnd� Vae„r Sq�,: e
�4elo�ment t� the i�amsey So�l and Wate� Coz�ser�r-at�on Distra.ct SuperPa.sozs ior ��zeir
conside�:ation. We accegt �� ��portm
irhe Du1.� of the sorls ��ihis pza-� axe s�atable for d��elopIIen� wi':h m�zor 1:;�.�atio�.s'
i�e, � Zir�nermaaa and ihe Li°�o-Urban co�plex. Majcir pxoblems �e sidewall ca�ix� of
trenches ior �oUndats.ons 1 iow fertility wheza reestai�lis3�ng vege �a�iorz, ar�d w.�,nci
eroszon d�arin� devel�pment. A11 these Iimi.tations can 'be easily avercameo
Hoarever, Vhe pol.zcy of �h� ��y gog� and Water Conserva-tion I1ist�i.ct Superaisoz°s
is not to reco�end �evelopment of jsetiands better suited i�r s+,o�m w�..-�er r�te���on.
ble r�oo�end tY:at lo-�s 17, � 8 and 19 remaisx undeve�oped. Ii �Eh�se lot� ase
developed a7.1 or�raa�ic sails should be removed, replace� w�.th s;u vable f�11, a�d.
a��O��$ �° se���� �°ar �.n aPx�ro�o�iate time { a,baut one year) beiore development
bega�as. .
Sixicexely,
,
,��-�,�yF'� f/f " a�
l
Russe,l So gdams� Jr�
Pl�.t P�ev�e�r C ' ete�
ceca m �� 'Inzom� Peters�n
IKou�zds �a.ew Ca� Cou�c:�I
RS.ce C�eek �Ta,te�she� Dzst��ct
AtV ��UA� �P3��R►tJ�i�Y �MPLOY�f�
-���rr���s-r- Co�M�:n��r��
--------__.._ ____ _ __—__ W ��-P,� F %: �%"t !� ; 7 G/� G i�� � <<:
� Cs'"i� A.) 5 r.4c:.[_ j
�r `j (�n7y �u r S G� c��-� `', �% �.
/ � (/�iL_ Vp-� ^ >
/ I/ � :� <�Z �._ w6lt,::I �✓�<�Lf �:. ,r��..- r
�( �`�i/t,6 i L.. / �°7i y�-�i/7l���� .,. �" ) /LZ �f j._r�7G' � �L /)
r � 7 �,��i iw(' ! rt. �ct�.s�: -
�� j� � j��«�/- � azc�S-e /1k � ���"' _ �
j/!'T �L'J %� ! �- I/ i7a, r-� - �
/f ��.51% I r`,� Yl Y+/td'•v�-i�, � S's U� 5,� I �,:� y �,-✓,�7i-vl %�3 S b f S'
C � l� 7 � � � ,��a��,�,�1 �a���
.Q
�a � i S,�- t:-� � l3 ,�-; 7 ,
/� d.� ZI/I S' o `, /Y al�.,�,e.�t��
�� /'1 � r1 ZG%e'�} '�"' ,� ,,.i u> Lu f• /)%1��i �' e� t�� CJ t✓f/�y
-jF ��i�vl ��dr�,,F��,rrl, ��N�e,�cs7c,c:%� l.-lit.c:LL' _ ..--_._�
/ i,���,�u. G'����Q.:�`�
" � v
(/i%C �}(G-vt.�Q fi `�'..C��Gi�N;�tC 2 tre
n i 7 � !i) � � � ' �L r'(.�1�(J.ii�-Ci'� CpYZ-t ��!_R.�C�.6�,�Z_lil.���� / _
� ���� y �, _ , ._. �i� �f< <_�:���-� ��- ��u ,� �� � t � -
��,��
. ��r y� N�.-�,�+— ..
� / / � � �/ �
r��2 ��/c cuti�z.rL�� ;�'�i �`cly<%v-Ize �� � Cs'i,"'ti� E'.!-t C,r���.G;drl,�.v.:�ac.�l''; �'-
v �,�� � �«,1,(�`s �. �- t , ( `
�, � � ' / / —�/—u l y�� ,�C�srC�ei� �'c9��� ��yr �+� ;�
�r J ���,_. /`1e C�..l c�,,.�i�'"�~ (j� l^
� G—1 �'� �! `l� L,�.-�� � " �.r_ �.,,; r ur, r� �, : /Uv I, v-c.�.� :� .
L�- �-'J�
��
. ��,�� � ,,�� �
L1^�-r��tl� l�,+o � 1 nJ � A va 7�.
P/ � /�,1 ��6 c.,� �1 /
li �,� ; i,rr�tie- (�iv-r�-� t
;fni��f�, i L',+�� ��;YL
_.�_-4_____ — 1 'c�:., /L��=c.,h,G� �iJ �,wQa..�> °�' (�,��'-`)5 G�'�� ��,�r�`� -��l�i�d
(°j. G�� u ir�'-�SaJ��i�, ��Y"GvY'��P`'E=-fr" !
a
�'7��«�} r`s n�����d' f� ���,� /���
=� -
-m---��-- - �� -.-----�--�---�-,-�-.
� �a�.� ������� a�
.__�.._'.._�. =_��- ��1�=- r��-�_ ��� � � �
�,,� G.� �'�`L ,
f� i ;; � .:._ • ; ;;, ., ;
! �.�:; �_ , : ; : �.�:�.
I�/iee�ing Date>
S��.ft° 12eport bg�:
Pl�n�ai�g Case liTo.:
�ec�e�est:
Petri�one�°:
I.o�atio�:
PI� IV�o.
Zo�eng/I.�red iTse:
1-it�achrnen�so
�ackgroundo
Au�ust 18, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
56b-99
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to constn.ict a
576 square-foot addition to his exisiing 720 square-foot garage.
Tim Skeate
2�Q9 Woodale Drive
07-30-23-31-0019
R-1, Sirigle Family Residential
Planning Application
Zoning Map
Locatian Map
Site Plan
Resoiution 590-99
2809 Woodale Drive is located souih of Highway 10, two properties west of Silver Lake Road.
The area of ihe subject property�--an interior tat--is appro�mately 1b,200 square feet. The house
and garage are set back approximately 60 feet from the street, with the detached garage situated
atongside the hause to tihe east. The house, at approximately 400 square feet, is much smaller
than the existing two-stall garage, whieh is 720 square feet. The applicant proposes to construct
a 576 square-foot addition to the rear of ihe garage, maintaining the same width and roo#line of
the e�sting garage.
t�nal�saso
A Conditional Use Permit is required due to the size af tihe proposed garage. The size of the
proposed garage would be 1,296 square feet, which would be three times the size of the house.
The Planning Commission and City Counci� have in the past been very concerned about this type
of imbalanee. A garage is iniended to be an accessory structure to service the principal dwelling,
not the dominating feature af the property. A;arage of Yhis size, were it to be built, would appear
out of place and obirusive.
Skeate CUP Request
2809 Woodale Drive
August 18, 1999
Page 2
Adi�erse E ects
Staff and the Pianning Corrunission reviewed the adverse effects that would be associated with
this request, and have determined that for reasons that include inconsistency with the
comprebensive plan, the proportional imbalance, lack of screening, and impact to the appeara�.ce
of the neighborhood, such an expansion would not be beneficial to the neighborhood.
GeneYCrl CUP Criteria:
Also reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission were the general criteria for approving a
conditional use permii. Because of issues cancerning a lack of screening, the magnitude and scale
o£the garage in comparison to ihe house, and inconsistency with the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Code, granting a conditianal use permit would nat be in the hest interest of the City.
�'revious Plannin� Commission Action:
Given the findings associated with the adverse effects and ganerai conditional use permit criteria,
the Planning Commission, at its last meeting an August 4, 1999, directed staff to prepare
Resolutian 590-99, a resolution recommending denial of an over-sized garage conditional use
permit for Tim Skeate of 2E09 Woodale Drive.
Iteco�mend�tAOn;
Approve Resolut�on 590-99, a resolution recommending denial of a conditional use permit
requested by Tim �keate, 2809 Woodale I�rive.
�
�J �.w�� C'�,-�a.v-��
James Ericson, Ptarvung Associate
N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDEVCASES1566-991SKEATES.PC1
�� ; -�; ; �; -, �. �� � ��. � : ; ; ��, . ; .�, ,
_�. . ,.. .�� : , � ,,. ��. ;��; � � �, _ � ��.�,
- `: �� ��� ' � ` ��. :�' : �, �: = :
I ' `; _/ �: ...
�� ' � ��� .
�.:., f, , �..; ,
�� � ` � 1` °'1 r � `� � � �; �/� ; �� <i, ` � : � . . _ , , -, : .:
�f_. . -- �; .. �R�� .. � 3 .! ' . �= _! 1 .1� ;;, ; 1; ;, . . , �
�:.
�I� ' �� °I '� 1 ��_ : ;► ; �, ., =. .� �, - , �-: :�: � ,, ,
�'�ereas, Tim Skeate has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a 1,296 sguare-
foot garage on property located at 2809 Woodala Drive, zoned R-1, Singie Family Residential,
Iegally described as follows:
Lot I2, Except the North 250 �'eet, Knollwood Park
Coranty of I�amsey
�V�E�A�, there is currently an existing 720 square-foot garage on this property and a
400 square-foot home on this lot; and,
�i'�EREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code ailows, with a conditional use permit, up to
1,400 square feet af garage/accessory building space on one lot; and,
�'�R�A�, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding t}us proposai:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plan
d, Location Map
e. StaflFRepor#
���ItEEiS, the Mounds View Pianning Commission makes ihe following findings in
relation to Seciion 1 I25.01 �uhdivision. l.e, of the Mounds �Iiew Zoning Code, regarding the
- possible adverse effect f tIu
s o s proposal.
Planning Commission Resolution 590-99
August 18, 1.999
P2ge 2
Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the developn2ent and maintenance of residei�tial
areas so as to improve the quality, appecrrance and att�•activeness of housing units and
residential property in gerzeral. The Comprehensive Plan designates tl�is pr�operty, 2809
Woodale Drive, as hrgh-density residential. The existing use is not compatible with the
land use designatron, yet this will be corrected with the updated comprehensive plan.
Ga�ages and other types of accessory structures--like sheds and tool buildings--are
allowed and even expected in this district, Jfet a garage that is triple the srze of the house
tivould be inconsistent lvith the second residential goal, whrch states: "Preserve the identzty
and zmprove ihe quality crnd appearance of residential neighborhoods. " Allowing a
ga�age that rs three tinzes as large as the house would create an obtrusive st�uctu�al
irnbalance and could likely detract f�om the aesthetic appearances of the neighborhood.
This proposal does conflict lvith the Conrprehensive Plan.
2. The (seagraphical Area Tnvolved.
4. 'The Character of the Surrounding Area
In this area of 1vlounds View, most of the lots ape as large or larger than the subject
proper�ty. There is a gooc� mix of architect�.�re present in the neighborhood, with some of
the houses being olcler and sorne newer. The subject home, howeve�,, is signi�cantly
smaller tl�an those in the inzmedrate ar�ea. While many hotnes in thzs area have lcrrge
gar�ages, they do r�ot appear out of place because the houses are larger as well. T�hile a
lcrrger garage could be physically accommodated on the subject property, it would not be
proportionally consistent with the house.
�1Vk�ether such use wilt tend to or acivally depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
It can be generally assumed that adding to the existing garage would have a positive
impact on the value of the subject property. It is not known whether a garage three times
larger than the home would have a negative monetary impact upon the neighborhood, even
thaugh it may be ph,}�sically obtt�usive.
5. The demonstrated need for such a use.
Tbie existing garage--at 720 square feet-- is considered fairly typical by today's standards.
While it does not have access for ihree vehicles, thet•e is ample wo�k aYea and supple�nental
sto�crge space beyond that space needed for the vehicles. However with multi-ccrr families
being the no�m rather than the exception, demonstrating the need for additional garage space
becomes less of an issue.
�I�E�AS, the Mounds �View Planning Commission finds that the general criteria of
approval for conditional use permits, as stated in Section 1125.01 Subdivision 3.b, of the Mounds
�Iiew Zoning Code, car� not iully be satisfied: These criteria and responses are as follows:
1, Ti�e use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed 9:o serve the area.
7. 'The use will not cause traffic hazards or can�estion.
Plamu2�g Commission Resolution 590-99
August 2 8, 1999
I'age 3
8. Adequaie utilities, a.ccess roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided.
Addrng on to a small garage tivould not create cr greater impact on existing public fQCilrties, parks,
schools or setvices, on ut�7itres or access roads, nor tivould it create an inct�eqse in trafflc on
adjacent streets.
2. The use will be sufficiently compatibie or separa#ed by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land sa that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
3. The siructure and site shatl have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
Because fhe house to ihe east is set back further from the street than the house and garage
at 2809 Woodale Drive, any expansion to the subject gat�age would be fully visible to
people on both Woodale Drive and Silver Lake Road, in addition to the abutting prope�ty
owners. There would be lrttle if any screening of the proposed 54 foot long garage, the
appearance oj`'which wauld likely have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential
properties.
4. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Garages and detached accessory outbuildings a�e typrcal uses in residential areas, and
alloiv fo� the storage of vehicles and yard artd garden equipment, A garage expansion in
and of itself would be consistent with the intent of the Zonrng Code, although the Code
stipulales that any lime a proposed garage o� garage expansron becomes large� than the
house, City �eview in �the form of a conditional. use permit is required. The intent of thrs
pYOVision is grounded in t1�e concern that a ga�age should not excessively dominate the
prope�ty or create a proportional imbalance.
N��� '�`�E�F'OI�, �E IT RESO�,�D �hat the Mounds View Planning Commission,
after reviewing the documents associated with this proposat, the possible adverse effects and
criteria for CUP approval, does hereby recommend denial of the conditional use permit for a i,296
square-foot garage due to the existence of adverse effects resulting from the expanded garage and
the finding that the generai criteria for appravai cannot be satisfied.
�� �'� �Il�AI��.Y I�SOI.�D that the Planning Commission directs staffto forward this
resolution to the City Council prior to approvai of the minutes.
Planning Commissiota Resolution 590-99
August 18, 1999
Page 4
Adopted this lSth day of August, 1999.
Terry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:�DATAIGROUPSICOMDE VIDEVCASES\5 63-9 915 8 8-9 9PC.RES
I�A G OIVII�I�S�I�1� E O
��� Niounds View Planning Comrnission
�'�°o►�: James Ericson, Ptanning Associate
���,l���e Conditional Use Permit request for an Assisted Living Senior Residential
Facility ae�d fo Rezone property located at 2670 County Road I
P�ar��aieag Ca�ee 559-99
�atee Meeting ofAugust 1�, 1999
I)aseus��on:
The Planning Cammission, at its last meeting on August 4, 1999, after having been presented with
parking requiremen� research tahulations and after having heard additional testimony from the
applicant and comments frorrr staff and residents, moved to direct staff to draft a resolution that
wo�ald recommend to ihe Ciiy Council three things:
l.. That a Conditional Use Perinii for an assited living facili�y be approved;
2. That an ordinance be adopted to rezone the property located at 2670 County Road I from
Ba2, Limited Business District to Rp4, High Density �Zesidentiai; and
3, That an ordinance be adopted to clarify langr�age concerning "Nursing Homes and similar
group housing"
Staff woutd add that the ordinance drafted to ctarify the language concerning nursing homes and
' 1 similar group housing include a clause w,hich wouid require that the base parking requirement of
one stall per three beds be increase d as appropriate depending upon the intensity of the care
provided and the number of emplayees and or service providers needed.
The Planning Commission also requested two things of the applicant before it would act upon the
requests, name�y that a letter from the property owner be submitted which indicates a desire to
retain the original B-2 zoning designation in the event t�at this project does not come to fruition,
and also that a site plan be submitted that shows in better detail the footprint of the building, the
parking areas and numbers of stalls, and accesses to the properiy, Staff is forwarding to the
Commission these two itiems, which have been sub�rutted as requested.
Reco�nm�ndataons:
Approve ResoIution 5�4-99, a resolution recommending {1) approval of a Conditional Use Pern�ut
as requested by MSP Real Estate for an assisted Iiving senior residential facility, {2) adoption of
Ordinance 631, an ordinance razoning 2670 County Road i from �-2 ia R-4, ar�d, (3) adaption of
Ordinance b39, and ordinance clarifying langauge in Section 1109.04 of the City Code.
i c
"°4.� CLWL.cJ� C� i�3 c`,�
James Ericson, Planning Associaie
�-.
0B/65/1999 13:04
f'. .
..,
612336a565
City �f l�tound� �'i�w
2401 kIigitw�� 10
h�four►dg View, S51 i2
R�: ApQId����� f�r e�a��� of Tr�cB t�,
e���t�r�d L�nd S�r�ey N�. �14p
�� ��� ���C ������g �d��a �14d�He�S91�
�c�g Sir/i�s .
MSP REAL �STATE, INC
��, E R�aity Co., � th� ovvr�er af 4�ie abo�ve-tf�s�zabed px�pe� �"Prope�y"�, h�.s
e�t��ed intv a pur�has� a���yner�t �yth �1�F for th� ���� ar�d pur���se of the P�operty.
MS�'� �b�i��t�on to gurch�sc tbis Pr��� is corci�ragent aapo� obt�tnin� r��o�tin� ��
�llow for i��ir d��la�ra��r�c �� �.rs �ssasted-�a�vir�� f�ci�ity. �ax mrder to allovv MS]P to
abtai� the re�a�an� s�f #i�c Pro�rty, �ve hav� executed th� applic�tion far r�zonir,�. °X'his
letter is submi�ed a�a co�xpiianc� r�rith t}i� City's requircr��r�t that � letter of p�aragssior�
from ih� owr�er of tbe Pr9Qerty be s�bnnitted with t6� ��plic�tian f�r rezonir��.
If hiSP does r�ot sub�eq�aerttty acquirc title t� this �rm�rty, we wdauld p�fer that thc
ce��nt �-2 �o�it�� be rr��ant�ir�ed. T'her�forc, we requcst that if th� �i� �ppro��s this
appli�sti�n for r��oe�z�g, su�h appr�val b� conditiancd u�or� �iSP �cqninn� fe� tiile Yo
:, �-.,,
Sie�ccr�ly,
��. �, : r _ +.
,
f
�
�y:
�t��� �/. ����lsrr��, ��id��t
�
P�1t�E 02
_ '.,
� — ._ . _
a°
�
�
v
� y
�
O �
N �
� y
P
� ��
0
A
r
�/
f
l
r
1
�
�
�
i
E
I
t
1
1
i
�
I
!
I
P
l
1
!
i
F
1
!
d
J
l
!
!
f
B
/
/
�
�C E N ���� � ��w
a � � R
� �
� �✓
8
� d�r p�M�p��� e..��..�_.e����ar__rr��..._
o�
✓p
d�
I
O� ��
s •!� a
r�.,�� ° _
✓B A . �' ..� �
PR�J£�i aASR AS�tST�O ��RE
�d�1PdD5 �t�1V, 1dt�
�
HSR J� Ie4XKkK%X
e�,m� a�e r�+
�a AU� t�99
�w ps X
�
i
I
I
�
t
�
I
!
t
9
1
t
t
ti
1
ti
a
'.
e
�
�
a
e
e
.
�
m
\
�
i� ', '1 � �_ ��, . . '��. �: � : i
�; �. ; ,i. : �. 1'= , '. ;� ; ' ���.
;�; ; . , � �• �;
.� ; �, �;
l' '�, � ':� .� ., :, ' ;, r � i .�: ' � .. ; � +, ; �; � ... ; ;� ' + � , . � ,` : ' ,,
�r ,�` : 'i.: . ��..� - �' :i: ' ' .(''. : � `�; �� ` ` `�% �. ' _ �' . - �% � _
�� . .�:i . .. : � •'_. . '�: �` ': = �. ..�_. � �I �: : _ :��.-' . � � ��' � `�; :� '�� . .��' f `.
]';. '. .��'; . ' : -- j� i '/- ��::. � '.�-' � .� `. ` l, .
PI1A�i1�IliTG C'ASE 1��. 559-99
THE CITY OF Ni�UND� VIEW ORI�AINS:
SECTiON i. Recitals
Section 1.01: M�P Real Estate has applied far a rezoning af the property located at
2670 County Road I, currently zoned B-2, to be rezoned as R-4, High Density Residential, said
property legally described as follows:
Tract "A ", Registered Land Suf-vey 414
Ramsey County, State of Mrnnesota
Section 1.02: The use proposed by 1VISP Real Estaie is an assisted Iiving senior residential
facility; and,
Section 1,03: The Mounds �1iew City Council has reviewed the foiiowing docuznents
regarding this proposal:
a. Plaruung Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. Site Pian
e. Staff Report
f. 5taff Parking Analysis Memo, dated 8/3/99
g. Letter from M& E Realty, Property Owner, daied S/24/99
h, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
I. Planning Commission Resolution 584-99
Section 1.04: The Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation af approval
from the Mounds View Planning Commission as stated in Planning Commission Resoluiion No.
5�4-99; and,
Section 1.05: The Mounds `Iiew City Co�ancii does hereby �ind that this proposal meets
th� �en�ral requirements and standards for Rezonin�s �s follows:
OwneYShip: The application for approval of this rezoning has been f led by MSP Real
Estate, who holds a purchase agreement for the property, and has been executed by the
owner of the property,lVl & E Realty Company.
Comp�ehensive Plan Consistency: The comprehensive gian designation for fihis property
is Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. The proposal is consistent with this designatian.
Geograpdzic Area Involved.• The subject property is locat�d at the southeast corner of
Mounds View Drive and County Road I. Nearby uses include a SuperAmerica and the
Silver View PIaza to the west, a high density residential deveiapment and Siiver �liew
Park to the south, and a Burger King, Bicycle shop and a senior high rise to the north.
Impact to Adjoining Properties: It zs beliaved thai the impac� of ihis proposed
developmeni would be minimal. The use would act as a tYansition between the present
commercial and residential uses.
SECTION 2: The Mounds �Iiew City Council hereby amends Appendix A of the Mounds
View IVlun�cipal Code entitled "Specific Rezonings" and amends the Qfficial Zoning 1VIap for the
City ofMounds View to change ihe zoning designation on the property described above from B-2
to iZ-4.
�ECTION 3. The Mounds View City Council does hereby stipulaie that in the event the
; � development being proposed by MSP Real Estate does not come to fruition within one year of
this ardinance's adoption (or sooner, upon written notification of the applicant), the Council wilt
a.ct to reinstate the property's original B-2 zoning classification.
SECTION 4: This Qrdinance is effective thirty days after its publication.
�'irst Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds �Iiew this � day of , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _ day of , 1999,
Dan Coughlin, Mayoi-
ATTEST:
Charles Whiting, City Cterk�Adminisirator
APPROVED AS TO FORI�:
Ciiy Attorney
N:IDATAIGROUPS\COZviD8V1DEVCASES1559-991tvIS P63l,ORD
;=`.i
i' '. ±1 1'��- �_ '` �`,. :i- � -. �;
���`;
� ` ,! " ��;: .. (
f� _ `- � `: �� � '� ��. �
� � ;. �:: �.. ��-_ �; : :�_
_� ��;,� �,:.�, � �, ����r.: �:,, i� i, �, ;; f. �� � .
��� .. � .�; ,�� . , :, � :��� �r� � ��, �: ��_ � . �,, � � � .�� r�- ; :e '��� � �
: ; : . �� �� ��� � � ���� �� �i r �� _. ;�: � � �- ,; . � �
� ,�, . �; , � , � ,.
THE CITY OF MOUND,S VIEW ORDAINS:
�ECTION 1: �ection 1109.04, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is
hereby amended with the proposed additions underlineci and_ italicrzed and deietions si�P
�.�, respectively, to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Nursing homes and ' other� senior con e ute housin but not
includin� hospitals, sanitariums or similar institutions; provided, thai:
a. Side yards double the minimum requirements established for this I)istrict and are
screened in compliance with Seetion i003.08 of this Title.
b. Minimum 1ot area shall be no iess tl�an one {1) acre, or as provided in �ection 1 iO4.02,
subdivisian 2b(3), {Ord. 590, 11-29-96)
c. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational area. Said area shall be fenced
and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. (Ord. 590,
11-29-96)
d. The site shall be served by an arferial or collecior street of sufficient capacity to
accommodate traffic which will be generated.
e. All sigriing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance
with the Mounds View Sign Code.�
f. All State laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to, and aII required
operating permits are secured.
g. One of� street loading space in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title is provided.
h. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision 1 e of this Tit1e are considered and
satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
I, The parking requirement of one {1) space per every three {3) beds or fractions thereaf
shall be increased as appropriaie depending upon the ir�tensity of the care provided and tihe
number of employees and or service providers on site at the Council's discretion.
Ordinance 639
:',
Page 2
SBCTION 2. This Ordinance goes into ef�'ect thirty (30) days after its publication in the
official City newspaper.
First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on the 23th day of August,
1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on the 13th day of
September, I999.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
APPROVEY� AS TO FORI�[:
City Attorney
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
Charles S, Vi7hiting, City Clerk/Administrator
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASES1559-99\639.ORD `° i
�,
i
�
1Vi� S VIE�I �I.�II�tG CO SSIOI�
I21��OI.LTTIOI� NOa 5�4-99
:� ` � ' :1
y� � � . _ '� � �� :-
;,, _ f; � ,� =_ °•� . .�� � �,
;•> �, ,�, � � : ;�: !; �; �- "�� ':1 .1: �~. sl� :f � �� ; ,: �� �� ���_ � � ; � � ; ;, ��; `��. .!: _ ' �� . :. °
[': - ' �_ , ` �' ", -1. '. � , .� s . ! � 1 :- , f i '1- ` � ' J�
�� �: � ��� � � �� r� � r �� � �� ��� ���f: , _ i; r� :; :
; �� . �. ; _ �:, �. ��- � , ;�, � � � , �, ,. ��; : :
�� � �� � . : ���, � � � �:.�;
W�-IE�AS, A�ISP Real Estate has applied for a canditianai use permit to allow for an
assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I; and,
��iE1ZEl�S9 such a facility would necessitate a rezoning of the property from Limited
Business Commercial (B-2) to High I3ensity Residential (R-4), a reques.t for whicl� has been made
by the applicant; and,
i�I��1�Sg the subject property is Iegaliy described as follows:
Tract `A', Registered Larad Survey 414
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
AS,the Planning Commissio�� has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
a. Planning Elpplication
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. Site Plan
e. Staff Report
F. Staff Parking Analyszs Memo, dated 8/3/99
g. LeYter from M& E Realty, Property Owner, dated 5/24/99
h. Comprehensive Plan Land Use IVIap
+ 5,the rezoning reques� would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, which
identzfies this Iand as Mixed Use Planned Unit Develapment; and,
W�EI�A�, The Ivlounds View Planning Commission has considered ihe speciflc criteria
for assisted Iiving facilities as they appear in Section I 109.04, Subdivision 2 and find that they are
m��; and,
Planning Cornmission Resoluiion I�io. 584-99
August 18, 1999
Page 2
W�E1�AS, the Mounds 'View Planning Commission has considered the provisions from
Section 1125.01{I}e aftihe Zoning Code regarding possible adverse effeets of the proposed use and
makes the following findings:
(1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Ptan.
{2) The geographical area involved.
(3} Whet;her such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in wt�ich it is propased.
{4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The dcmonsirated need for such use.
The Camprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use PUD, which wouid be consistent
with the proposed R�4 zoning ofthis site. Such a facility would heIp meet the housing needs
of a particuiar segment of the communit�. The property is located between commercial sites
to the north and a high density residential development and park to the south. The proposed
use would act as a buffer between the existing iand uses. The proposed styIe and architectural
design of the proposed faciiity would blend inta and add character to this area.
�'�1�A�, The Mounds View Pianning Commission makes the following findings that the
general criteria for C[TP approval in Subdivision t 125.01 (2) have been met;
'�
� (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, sNeets and other public
facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
It is not expected that this use will hm�e any impact on parks, schools, streets and other
public facilities cend utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
{2) The use will be suf�cientiy compatibie or separaEed by distance or screeni,ng from adjacent
residentially zoned or used ianc� So that existing homes wili not 6e depreciated in value and there wili be
no deterrence to development of vacant land.
This development, while not abutting any r�esrdential property, would be suffrciently
compatible with the exzsting Zand uses and would not cause any foreseeable depreciatian in
nerghboring p�operty values
(3) The structure and si�e shaii have an appearance that wiii not have an adverse effect upon adjacent
residential properties.
The carchftectural renderings presented to the Planning Commission and public show a well
designed and aesthetically plecasing building.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the City Councit, is reasonabty related to the overall needs of the City and
to the existing iand use.
The demand for assisted living� facilit.ies such as the one proposed is g'Y'DWIYI� t0
accomnzodate an crging population.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5$4-99
August 1 �, 1999
Page 3
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district
in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The use would be consistent with the R-4 zoning district, which allows for assisPed living
facilities with a conditional use permit.
(6) The use is not in confiict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development, tivhrch indicates an anticipation for a variety of uses. An assisted Ziving
facility would be consistent with t�ris designation and would also address a goal to offer a
wide r�nge of housing alternatrves to a variety of population segments.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
It is nat eapected that this use would create or generate substantial levels of t�affic. As such,
it would not be expected that this use would cause traf�c hazards or cangestion.
(8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or wili be
provided.
All of the infrastructure serving this site are installed and p�ovided--no additioncrl
infrast��ucture will be needed to acco�nmodate this use,
NOW �`HF.IZE�'O� BE I'I' RE50I.�Ei) that the Mout�ds Vi�w Planning Cormmission
does hereby recommend that the City Cauncii take the foilowing actions:
2. Approve a Conditional Use Permit for an assisted living s�nior residential facility at 2670
County Raad I, with stipulations.
2. Adopt �rdinance 631, an ordinance rezaning �he property Iocated at 2670 County Road
T from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential, with a clause
indicating that in the event this project does not go forward, the pxevious zoning will be
reinsta.ted by means of a subsequent rezoning action.
3. Adopt Ordir►ance b39, an ordinance amending and clarifying Sectian 1109.04, Subdivision
2 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to pertaining to condiiional uses within the R-4, High
Densiiy Residential zoning district.
Pianning Cammission Resolution No. 584-99
Augus� 18, 1999
Page 4
�� �' ��'I�ER I�S�I.�� that the Niounds View Planning Commissian directs Staif
to farward this Resolution to �he City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this I8th day of August, 1999.
Gary Stevenson, Acting Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke,
Community I�evelopment Directar
(SEAL)
N:\DATAICROUPS1COMbEV1DEV CASES�559-991584-94PC.RES
— g��C.L` L` i611o1 �� �g� �� 1Y3� vi;�11�7 tl id_. S+Y �Lta.lVl`I dl�l� ��1v11WAl��i�lq
� -��_����_�-� i..11 l �F1V1�6JiVal�,7 9'aa�,�
. d9-t'�IW1�.7�� i..�lJiV g$ y 19'19_L�Il�fL` �� F ti
�Cgi[]8i' �Q�tlilg
Au�ust 4, 1999
IVIounds���`ee� City �a11
2401 I�agl��ny 10, i�aoeands<���`ew, Il�I 55�12
.�.
�'` �s.
10 Ca[I to O�•der �����` '
� a ���
s�� ���
• 3 `� i `� '>> � z��
The meetir►g was called io order by Acting Chairperson �te��jensoi�;��`'7;00 p.an,,'f�,U�;us� �, �.��99,
2. ltold Call
Nlembers Present: Acting Chairperson Stevenson,
Laube, and IVliller.
Members Absent: Chairperson Peterson and �����n�isszt�n
�`�.
�,:�
A3so Present: Planning Associate 7irn �cson, ��f111T1CJ
Council Member Roger Stigney, Econ,ry,: �c Dev�l��`pcnent +
Trish Pearsor�. �- ��� !
�' "�
Inde� t�
Planning C`a,�e �� 5�6-99, 2,�'i
canditional us� ��i�zaaz� rec��iest
Tim Skeaie, f1����c;a.���.-���
iar�eis �3�;irlce .�Iegiand, Johnson, Kaden,
r �'r�`�then, witl� prior notice.
�„,..
;�`,
���y�_ �e��lopment Director Ricic Jopke,
,,,
pprc�inator Kevin Carroll, and Recorder
�
P�ge
e Drive. Discussian regarding a
�,�;;a 1,296 square-foot gara�e.
Plannm��ase No. 55}-�9, ��'�Q Gounty Road I. Discussion concerning
� _,
appi��s..�lon to rezonepro��i�y and for a conditional use permit for an
ass�: 'd living senior res *:�eitial facility. MSP Real Estate, Applicant.
�< �:
�, �
�l�.�zt��ng Case No 56��}9, Lots 17 & I 8, Edgewood Sc�uare (Pinewood
��.
��r�Ie} Discuss�r���' ncerr�ing a request to vacate a portion of a drainage
easei���ni �� �l�c�w�or the construction of two single Famil y homes via a
�'�il'at�c� �l��z���on parmit. Greg Peterson, represanting Oakwood Land
B�velo�ii�ezlt, Applieant.
Speciai Planning Case No. SP-071-99, Consideration ofproposed ordinances
amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Billboards and amending the Code pertaining to signage in the PF and C1ZP
zoning districts.
2
�
m
21
i
I
I�ot��ads `7eew Planning Cos��mission
lZe�ai�tr I1�eeting
,Tune 16, 1999
P:►ge 2
StaffReports / Items of Information
Chairperson anci Planning Com�nissioners Reporis
3. Citizens' Iteqaest§ �nd Comanents on Items Not on
There were no citizen requests or comments on items not
4. Approva! of 1!/d►neates
A, Jaly �, 1999
�� ;
MOTION/SECOND:1Vlilier/Hegiand. To approve the IViay I9,
Ayes – 7
5. Piannfng C'�►se I�To. 566-99
Property involved: 3809 V►loodale
Discussion regarding a conditiona
Applicant: T��n Skeate
A.\:
The appl
Planning
resen
I1
�
23
�ninutes as corrected,
on carried.
const�t�i�t`a 1,296 square-foot garage.
ve ttic staff report as follows: .
��i�
The ap��icant, Tin� �k�ic�,; �� re�uesting a conditional use permit to construct a 576 square-foot
addi�:<'�to his existing 72� �t�u��i•e-foot garage. The praperty, 28d9 Woodale Drive, is iocated south
af �t:'hway 10, two prop�tt�es'west af Silver Lalce Raad. The area of the subj ect property—an interior
,,,
lat-as appra�:imaiely 1,�a200 square %et. The house and gara�e are set back approximately 60 feet
,� _-
�roin �he street, with,�t�e detached garage situated alongside the house to the east. The house, at
appzn�ixnatel}� 40 ,,z `��`are feet, is much sz�aller than the existing two-stall garage, wh'ich is 720 square
f�et Tkie �p�al�,��nt proposed Yo construct a 4i6 square-foot addition to the rear of the garage,
�i3��f�iri���.the same width and roofline ofthe existing garage.
Ericson sta.ted a conditional use pern�it is required due to the size of the proposed garage, which, at
1,296 square £eet, would be three times the size of the house. He stated the Planning Commission and
City Cauncil have, in the past, been very concerned about this type of imbalance. A garage is intended
to be an accessory structure to service the principal dwelling, not the dominating feature of the �
�
�:
�munds View Pl�rrning Commiss�on �Iune 16, 1999
lZege�lar �eetis�� 1'age 3
property. A garage this size, were it to be built, woald appear out of place and obtrusive, in staf�s
opinion.
Ericson stated the size of the garage, with respect to the ho�r�e, appears to be excessive however, ail
of the dimensional criteria associated with this re uest in re ard to setbacics ��'
�1 , g , �J��'eing between
buildings, width of the praposed garage, and tl�e numbers of daors, satts� �he z�qc�ireraents of the
Zoning Code. The t�ta! square footage of the garage and prp�osed a�t�iti�i� is l,296 square feet,
which would comprise about 16 percent of the rear yard ar `� �he m�himui�l �i���erage allowed xs.
twenty percent. � �
Ericson stated fihat the City Code sfiates the Planning Comr
effects of a conditional use permit request, prior to ��
possibility o£ adverse affects with this type of conditio
nei�hborhood, in terms of aesthetics and generai appearai
ather tyges of accessory structures like sheds and too�6S�
district, yet a garage that is triple the size of the hous� �a
of the Code. He provided the Co�nmission with:<�h�e.sat�' �:
Ericson stated staffno#ified all residents �
negative commen�s from residents who i
the neighborhood. He stated there w��
business within the garage. He state ��
,.�
not intent to utilize ihe ara e fo �'" ,
g � �.u��' P
a boat. _ _ .
Acting C;���r �tetfenson o�
�;
There was no publ�c- i��?�t.
Acting Ch���'��e���t�sa�� c�t
1-.-.
Acti hair Stevensor� in���
eo � �nts. Ericson state�
ar�t� e had not had the o��o
�n il��:ir consideration �i:rythE
ubiic
��350
ted t
��
SStori 5t1;
� �z�� a t
�i1 use,' t�
:e ril tlZe
ilding�,�
be incof;
�rk of the
examine th�; po�,�;l��e adverse
�mrnendafion ���:�no�ed the
egard to its impact upon the
a.: He stated that garages and
�I��wed and expected in this
����t �rath the intent and spirit
�.po�a1 �'or their review.
teet t�i �1�� sut��ec�t p�bperty, and had received two
��r�did nc3t tl:i€�i�c;this would be a good addition to
a�regard ta ihe. possible operation of some type of
indtcate <ihere would be no business, and he did
,��
er thaz���e storage of vehicles, snawmobiles, and
,;:,.
g at 7:05 p,m.
t��e pu�`ii� hearing at 7:06 p.m.
r�� 3'f staff could provide the Co�nmission with copies of the resident's
s�t the co�nments were in the form of anonymous vaice mail messages,
unity to transcribe them, however, the Commission could refer to them
matter.
C.�'o�attnxs��;i����' J�o�nson inquired how many persons resided at the property, Ericsor� stated the
ap����ant i�ti�cated only himsetf, and that he had no need to expand the house, however, required
addicion�I garag� space. Commission�r Johnson stated he nnight cons'tder the need for additiona!
space if more peaple lived at the house, however, in this case, he felt the proportion of the garage to
the house was excessive. �
CommissionerKaden stated that he had driven through th� neighborhood ofthe proposed project, and
sawtwo very addiy built hauses, with new construction. He stated one was an older 1'/2-story house,
.
Ii�aunds View Pt�anning Cosnmissio�� .Tune l6, 1999
Regu��r I�'Ieeting P�ge 4
with a one-story addition and a flai roof, and connected to that house, was a three-story addition with
a garage on the first floor, a full basement, and a high pitched roof. Co►nmissioner Kaden stated the
ofiher property, located on the same blocic as the applicant's, was an older one-story stucco rarnbler,
with a 1'/z-story addition. He stated the addition was sided, and did not match the stucca. He stated
��
that the garage had a pitched roof, unlike the other structures on that property�..�'�� it was very
noticeable. He inquired, in light of these structures, what the logic was in�cl�ny►t�.�=�his requesi. He
suggested the Commissioners drive by and examine these prop��ies, additi� ihat he did not know if
this would apply in terms of disaltowing further construction qf�Si type �� iz� tt�rr��� of approving t}�
�� � �,�
applicant's rec�uest. �,�� ,z ���`' _ _,:���
Comrr►issioner Miller stated that she had driven by the si
through the neighborhood. She stated, as she drove down'
garage is already much larger than the house, and she w
construct it further out of proportion.
. .��:
,�rty, however,��, � ;� �.ot' r�ve
e Road, she notiees� t�� �,xisting
�vor oi allowing the proposal to
Corrumissioner Hegiand inquired regarding the calls rece�ived by staf�"��iad ti�� s��cific objections they
raised. E�•icson stated that one catler expressed con���t� i`�g���in� a busmcss t�ecurring in the garage,
and the other caller was concerned in regard to t��e>r�sspro�oz�i3a����e size a,f, the garage. Commissioner
,��>:
Hegland stated that the business operation iss��te had he�ri acldzY�ss�d, a:i�d was not allowed. He stated
that one of the probletns with the interpret �on of th���ity Code �S �'�t they only consider the square
�.� ��#.
footage ofthefoundation. He explain�d�hat mo$�„��f'tha ho���es in the City of Mounds View are 1%a
a,�, `�i � > � �>
stories or more. He stated that the��,�,�tcant s�s a smaller,��me, and it appears that the hozr►e itself
coulcf be expanded at some po�n ;�`���"the fuiure ; He stat���from his pers�ective, he did not see ihe
property as sqmething that covld i�at be imprca��d b���g�d the garage, and that this could provide a
different rai�t�. ;i;n �he futu��, He stated he d�d .;nat,�eel this was a great problem. Commissioner
NPalan�=rr�,fec1 th�:C"it�� was'atte�7n�:iri� to encour���e people to clean up their lots through ordinances,
and addec�, .an�'�n� ��ith a `1�
equipment and `� el�i���s ;,He s
accordirt$ �o the Code.
condi���a1 use pennit. C
alt�`„x.
�gh they are nofi. al
<:_:.:::.,
���t�S� v�rsus the square f
�
t�e 1�ca�sse, in terms o,>
�1f:�he proposal. �<,���
uld prabably require additional storage space for lawn
�:;in favor of the proposal.
k�c�w lar�e a secondary building could be constructed on the property,
�c��� stated that the maximum size would be 1400 square feet, with a
€ssic�ner Laube stated, in his opinion, the City had Codes in piace, and
rigl�t ar proper, they take into consideration the square footage of the
; of the garage, He stated this garage would be considerably larger than
ion size, and does not meet the criteria. He stated he was not in favor
,; ,�,
: :
Cozx�sn�s���x��:�'Berke agreed, stating that the Codes were in place for a reason, and should not e
consiste�tly changed. He stated that if the applicant was expanding the house and requesting to
increase fihe garage size in conjunction with that, he could envision some leniency. He stated,
however, the garage wauld overwhelm the house with this proposal. Acting Chair Stevenson stated
that ii would be 54 feet deep, large enough to garage a greyhound bus.
IVlounds View Plan�ning Commissron June 16, 1999
lZeg�la�° IVIee�ing Page 5
MOTION/SECOND: Laube/IVliller, To Direct Staffto Prepare a Resolution Denying a Conditional
Use Permit to Construct a 576 Square-foot Addition to the Existing 720 Square-foot Garage at 2809
Woodaie Drive.
6.
Ayes — 5
�l�n�ing Case I�o. 559-99
Nays — 2 (Hegland, Kaden} Motion;;�rried.
Property Involved: 2670 Gounty Raad I ���" �
Discussion concerning appiication to rezone property and fC���a conditipt��� usc
living senior residential facility. ,�y�
<:
Applicant: MSP Real Esta�e _ ;'; _ `
The applicant was present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff repo
The Planning Commission has discussed�
�
conditional use permit at 2670 County Ro�'I
the last two meetings. The Plannin�v�m1
��� �
information regarding the type of�����►'�y it
stated Co�nmissioner Berke and���a'ff had c
, ,..�
facilities in th� Twrn Cit�es ar�a �ri'd provid�
as additioz���J �nformation siaff €��d received i
he requ,.,���i t�y M�T' 1:��`�l Estate for rezoning and a
to all��an ass,t�tec� ��ving senior residential facility at
iss�t� had as1c�`cl the developer to provide additionai
�V��; � e �,��.
, parkt��' requireinents, and staffing levels. He
�n�ucted it�i�her research in regard to assisted living
l th� (�'�n�snission with copies of this research, as well
�tY� t�i� developer since the last meeting.
Economic�S�c.��e1��3€Taent Coarc�z��att�r (;arroll provided the Commission with a suEnmary af the
information he 1t��i c�1>4a,irzed as a res�tll c�i cc��tacting various assisted living facilities within the Twin
Ciiies area H�:; �t<tt�c�; it� ]ight o�;:tlt� issues raised by tl�e Planning Commission regarding the
adequacy a�h�'p� opUS��i parl��ng, l�e thought it would be useful to contact a varieiy of facilities to
detertni��eir current'p���ciri� t`e>�luirements.
�.,, ,...�,:
er =� e fi at part of the ,::pblei=n in determining these issues, is that there does not seem to be a clear
d�t�ition of assisted livi "`". He not�d a discrepancy in the r+umber of these faeilities within Ramsey
�nc� ��nnepin Count��s listed on different websites, adding that one website included the R�msey
�UUnt�Detox Cerzt$��tnd Eden House in Minneapolis, a drug rehabilitatian center, as assisted living
�a����t�� '�:X� siaf�� �hat the website he utilized for his research was somewhat more restrictive in its
an�.�y���, �it�� he had focused upon the cocnmunities nearest to Mounds View, thinking their parking
requiremuiits would be similar.
CommissionerBarke stated that he had contacted the State ofMinnesota during his research, and had
spoken with several different departn�ents, ultimately contacting ihe Directar of Licensing for assistec!
living and Alzheimer's care in the state, He stated this contact indicated there are presently no set
�eqtairements regarding the percentage of staff members to residents. He stated that, of the seven
::
I�ounds `�lrevv I'[ana�°se�g Comanissioa� .Tune 1fi, 1999
Itegulaa° Meeti�g P�age 6
directars he had spoicen with, all considered a staff of 14 to be somewhat light, depending upon the
Alzheimer's factor and the degree of ihe care provided.
IVIr. Carroil stated he had determined some of his information regardin� state iicensing rec{uirements
from Yalking to the tnanagers and executive directars of the facilities the�nse}ves. He��d`#ed that ihere
is a wide range of services offered by iacilities that refer to themselves as ass�sted�J�ving. He stated
some facilities at the lower end of the assistance spectruin basica.11y provicie €�r� a�artment in which to
live. He stated the other end of the spectrum involves pe4pl� wha are ii�t?re c��S�bled, and thes�
facilities provide all meals, housekeeping servicas, physicalE�.erapy on szte, ��s w�11 as t�ansportat.��i;
COUf1581117g, and assistance with medications. He stated the��,facilities h���`e st�if�in�; �e�te�;, at a.l����er
ratio. He stated that it would be usefizl to gain as znuch infc��x�ai�on as;possible, re�;arci�r��,;��zu c�'re the
proposed faciiity would provide, as this directly reiates tt� �ae si�ffing requirements
Commissioner Berice stated this was his conclusion as wel�. f�� stat�d tl�at, in preparing his survey,
he had attempted to eliminate the Detox Center type of factlities Kc� stated th� employee to bed ratios
were cansiderably higher, even for the lighter care, thar� �u��a.t w�s origii�al{y prop;osed by the applicant.
Corr►missioner Berlce stated he 11ad atte�np
actually had, and a large number of the fa :
<���
indicated no probleins with parlcing wer,��
Carroll stated that i�e also had difficulty"�c���iit
the site Commissioner Berke had cg�t�;�ted
��� _ :l•
����determt�le licsw 111a�zy �arking spaces the facilities
, <:
es did i�o[ k��� �H��added that some of those who
;d f��'Ii�tzes at�d h�.�i„�a"ccess to overflow parking. Mr.
� N,��
�g ��e packing*��arough the institutions. Ha stated that
� h<
r,�in exampl�of continuous care, where the residents
\ -s� .
start out with independent ltvtn�;;�rogress tc�;assisted;�;fving and then nursing home care. He
explained t��ey provide the:eaatir� range oi s��'��ces, �rid share the same parking, which makes it
difficultto �ete��a1ine the acfuG�l ���1King attributab�� it� assisted living. He stated that he had found a
facility�i�at s����d park�rt� �vsi:� a; �;oliege 1��cated across the street, and another with an adjacent
grocery sto�� �.ri���� �arking lc�i t��ey si�a!-ed.
Corrimiss�oner��;�'kc 5t�ted ti�ai the 1t�y�q rSetermining the parl<ing requirements was to determine the
ti� =�`
staff, as the��ou'�� a!I reqtai�-c ��arkiilg facitities, then adding an adec�uate percentage of visitors. Mr,
��
Carrol���a�'ed the stafiin� ��s al��a; a complicated analysis. He explained that the facilities had fUll-
time d part-time emp��}J�e4, different shifts, different staffing levels per shift, and outside
cons�►1`tants. He stated tha�;I�e b�.sed his determination upon the most people on site, during any shift.
��:�
CU�t�ri�issioner Berl<e sta, �$ that he had gained a general consensus of what most minimum heaith care
ar!asss,sted living care�,��ilities rec�uire in regard to staffing, which is 17 support people, in addition
to tl�e number of rtu��s or s�aff required per bed. Mr. Carroll inc�uired if this represented 17 people
p�r sl�zf�.�`+��r►���ai�s�oner Berke stated that these were categories, with a comE�ination of people in each
caiegory:�� rur� t1�e facilities. Mr. Carroll stated that he would not dispute that amount. He added that
he had aYso received some high staffing levels, until he began c�uestioning what they were comprised
of He stated some faciiities indicated they had 40 employees, 6ut actually had b or 7 on site at any
given time. He stated, of the 40 employees, two-thirds might be full-time, one-third part-time; and
af the fult- time staff, not all are on site al l of the time.
l�
�
1VYou�sds �iew P�nnni�ig Cotnn�ission J�ane 16, 1999
Rege�iZr l�eetang Page 7
CommissionerHegland inquired it'Mr. Carrol! could provide his recommendation regarding what he
determined was adequate parking. Mr. Carrotl stated that his personai assessment took into
consideration the proposed 22 paricing spaces at the faciiity, which would not necessarily be
inadequate under certain circumstances, He stated one of those cireumstances wou�d be a higher
level of care type of facility, that would be related to a fewer number of peo.pEe drivir��; or where ten
percent or less of the residents have cars. He stated another factor wauld E�e t1��`�typical internal
sta.�ng 1eve1 of no more than five employees per shift. He stat�s# that his �es�ar��i'�indicated that this
would be the typical staffing ievel, on site, at this size fact��e' ja�'any otie �z�n� �e statecf anoth �
factor would be relatively few independent providers, an ���cally, for> a, f'acai�t�l, tkzis size, no mQ�e
than 3 to 4 outside consultants coming onto the property��er sh�ft -I.���;stated fi3�,t, �����si a�l��o��nt,
was the availability of accasionat off-site parking. He ��c�lain�d, uv�th 48 rc�s3dcnt�, t��ie ��rty per
year, and each resident having two family members vist�in�; ;�t th,e same time, y�u �o�Id greatly
exceed the 22 parking space capacity. He stated the facili��s t��t �naf�age this successfu(�y eitl�er
have ar� agreement with the local municipaiity, that upon ��varicn �,r�li�t�, they can obtain permission
to provide parking along the street, and the residents are n�tifi�ci a�cord,in�ly, or they have an
agreement with a nearby business or educationa! facil�t� to sharc th��� �jarl�i�g on such occasions.
He stated ihat, 'tn the absence of this, there cou�d be � p�-o�ief�� with th� paE�lcing. He stated, in I�is
opinion, if these four factors were met, the �,�t��iosed p��l�in�'�auld ��>sufficient.
Commissioner Berke stated that he wo�
that his statistics indicate an average o�
� care is almost one hundred perce��
su�cient. He stated that a park�n�'a�r
adjacent to ihe proposed s��e. �ic stated
surroundira�; nc�i�laborhoo�, an� kaaci #alc
to parkin� t�n I��:o�lac�s Vie�t> i�ri�l�. ':,
_ .. .
Mr. Carroll stat�d t.��
two fuil-time ec����a�+
other facil����§"'fiave a
the sta��� of the prc
was ,�� oncern of the
ere are a num�
should be reso
he
en a
to �gree ix� re�arc�''to the staffing leveis, expiaining
c�i?'� ratia of e�?iployees to beds, and the Alzheimer's
>� ,;
��;� in light R%"this, thrrty parking stalls would not be
tt t1��ght,��"{iossible with the shopping center located
lie pz�std'ent of the Homeowner's Association for the
u�ha�l�`indicated the residents would not be a�reeable
inges at thc l��v�rview Highland facility in St. Paul indicate 54 units, with
�tic�ns to rt���n�ge the assisted living. He stated, however, he agreed that
�3�'r�i�a, and even higher. He stated ihat they neecled to determine what
(�et1���r r�vould be, Commissioner Berlce stated he agreed. He stated this
lt�,:�s� tlie neighborhood, in that there is no off-street parking, He stated
�roblems in the facilities that did not share parking. He stated that the
efore they become a problem.
�! t�`'i����c�, rcpr���ritative of MSP Reai Estate and President of Senior Solutions, stated their
or�;an�,�ti�v� z�ay��ged 100 units of assisted living in Wisconsin, and that he had been in �he assisted
Iiviii� ����a�ess f'or six years. He stated the typical resident of the proposed faciiity would be 83 io 86
y�ars old, a widowad or singie female who requires assistance with at least three activities of daily
living every day. He explained that aciivities of daily living include hathing, dressing, toileting,
medication reminders, and mobility,
. ;;
1'Vlou�ds 'Viee�r 1'innsi�e�g Commissioai ,Te�n� 16, 1999
ltegulai° 1!/Ieeiir�g . Page �
Mt'. Meier stated that the residents typica]!y come to this type of facility directly from the hospitai or
after recuperating at a nursing home. He stated they don't require nursing home services at that point,
but are no longer able to live at ho�ne. He stated that they are afraid far their safety, they can't keep
their homes as they did before, and they do�1't socialize as much as they previously did. He stated they
L�..
seek soeialization, assistance with medications, and their famify is concerned for tl�ern„��ierefare they
come ta this type of facility for assistance, and to maintain as much indepe�i�e��ce :�s passible, before
they have ta go into a nursing home. He stated that, in Wisco�sin, wl�er� ��e ��v�%s are simitar, they
discharge their residents, at some point in ti�ne, to nursing ho ����;�;&s the ��reS �l�c ���rson requires a�e
beyond the ability of the facility to provide. £f ��' `
_._� .�.,,' _ _.
1VIr. Meier stated that typically, their residents do not
tnanages 108 units, and none of the residents have vehi
Mr. Meier stated they have a 20-unit building, with 30 emp
nat all onsite daily for 24 hours. He stated that typically, �
24 hours per day, which translates to two full tit���: :t
administrator, cook and housekeeper on site, from 8€�6 t� zrs
��
administrator remains, the cook remains unt�l 6 p� p.m. ta E
they utilize two care givers. He stated the��ec�uire tWO c
Mr. Meier stated, in a 48-unit build
would sta,ffane care giver ta four re��t
for 24 residents. He stated the lo�zk�.
there would be a total of etgh� ��
%��..
housekeen�z� a�id administ�a�r�r
Mr. Meier �t��ed t}1�y, do
___ _ .
ansite. He sta�ec� ��� ihe�;
bed making and ���r�n3c�'�
s\�j
the comma�;�reas �nd ba
ah.r
aversee�edicaiian, and 1
medic���records are kept ba
;�-;�
cora��ate office.
utili
eanin
WOUlU'Si'c
givers. ,
3:00 p.m�
n.f1a.. and
his o
ently
ained that these peopke are
�:�3e person to 12 residents,
sta��d they also have an
�� siated after this time, the
rii 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
e ni�ht shift.
���ith the��pstairs cq��pi=ised of Alzheimer's residents, they
�� ..
��,s; whtch,�-��'t�'anslates,��`�six care givers onsite 24 hours per day
�.:
evel o£��<resider�t���ouEd require two care givers, He stated
give�•s dur�r�g�?f�i� daytime hours, in addition to the cook,
�� physical ti�erapy, so tizere would not be a physical therapist
t��ikersal worker, and the care �ivers aiso assist the residents with
,�t�i� assist with meal service, He stated the housekeeper cleans
I�� stated they contract with a registered nurse and pharmacy to
the buitding approximately one ha[f a day per week. He stated
the administrator, and bookkeeping is done via computer to the
r stated there :��tiuld be an activity director in the buildin� approximateiy twice a week, who
ordinaie th�� tivities every day through the universal worker and the care givers. He stated
\�
a��t�niza.t��n worked with the county, and the social workers are not on their staff, and would
�he b�'iilding, He stated fhat dishwashing is perfarmed by the coak.
Mr. Meier stated they would require approximately 12 parking stalls for staff during the busiest times,
and during the late evenings and nights they would require eight. He stated that they did encourage
fannily memhers to participate. He stated that they do try to plan a couple of events every-year where
the families come in. He exptained, however, families typically take the residents home for the
holidays, such as Easter and Christmas. He stated they have a�taff /Resident Christmas party -
1`/iot�e�ds �1°re� Plannang Commession .Ya�rte 16, 1999
ltegu[ar 11�Ieet°sng I'age 9
annvally, which can cause some probfems with parking. He stated Mr, Pinkerton's sfiaff has been
discussing ihe matfier with adjacent businesses to determine if they could share parlting for those
events. He stated, in driving by the site, he realizes that street parking would not warlc at this location,
and does not intend to pursue it.
Mr. Meier stated the residents of these faci[ities do �iot generally go out;
as iheir mobiiity is greafEy decreased. He stated, when examini�g possi
living facilities, they typically loak for buff'er sites, which p� o t�����view'
to residentiai surroundings, He stated the proposed site ac�`�niplishes b
Commissioner Laube inc�uired if there were any situatiai
residing in a unit. Mr. Meier stated yes. He stated they h�
reside tog�ther in a different facility. He explained, in �
cauples, which is a very rare and unique situa#ion in the i
independent, and avaid coming to these facilities, howev�f',
requires extra assistance in caring for the other.
Commissioner Stevenson inquired if th
accommodate two persons. Mr. Pinkerton s1
Mr. Meier stated that the generation th�}
r� su
lI�3COYTllC1g ge11BI'iltl0il ieCjUli05 1170i� ��'�j11
�-:.'���
increased greatly in the past ten year�;;�I���ad
af their two-bedroom units. „���
';��er look outside,
ns for the assisted
tivity, in additio�
_; �
e.�'actors. ��
� t�zere were more t��� ;fln�;person
,:: ;�
,bai�d and wife, and �chres.sisters who
t�:i� �acility they currently have two
y He stated that people want to he
�r� tin��s, _when one of the spouses
er���;r`✓ere fpti�- c�x�ta�r roo��s per floor, which would
a��, ,.
� that the scct�nd �IQor is�Comprised af aEl single units.
�'"care fo� i�ow �s S�itt�#ied with wl�at they have, and the
. He;�?�ted that tl�e sc�uare footage of these units have
Vj'Y
ded,���ingle fem��� who desired extra room occupies one
Cammissio��r�aden inc�ui.z��d if Ivtr. Meier �;����-t��t�t3'a maximum of i2 staffat any one iime, in the
48-unit �a,�tl�ty ".iVJr. 1Vicier stat�d t.l�is was carrect. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the
custodial se�rr�:�s` ��,.l�7eier s1at�� fi3�tT tl�e housekeeper wouEd perform the custodial function, and
an offsite corpnr�te r��rx,,��rho woi�lc� uc�m�,to the facility on an as needed basis.
Mr. Meier #ated; in s-e;�a��f tp;c�el�v�ries, t]�ey would have one dro}�-ship���ent per week from a food
vendor. �,��+�stated the re�tste��d;�.t��se consu(tant would be onsite one half to one day per week, and
=�;.
the r���of the people at t�e �u��d�ing would be visitors. He stated so�ne residents do not have any
visi�; , and some have res`�entis have family members who stop by daily. He stated, however, visitors
t���i��lly come ai non-p��� t�mes, such as evenings ar mid-afternoons.
Rc,t;ing C,ha;r St ��e�;s2in inquired if the maximum staffing levei of l 2 was the staffing level ueilized
at t�� �t� u�����ylity, or fihe proposed 48-unit facility. Mr. Meier stated that he was referring to the
prrapa�t�cf.�$��l�itt facility. He stated, in their 20-unit facility, they have two people on at nibht, and
dui-ing th� daytirr►e they have two care givers, an administrator, housefceeper and cook. He stated that
this number is subject to change if tlle acuity of the facility cl�anges. He stated that as the acuity of the
resident changes, they so►neti�nes become isofated from the rest of the residents, and consideration
is given to how they fit in that atmosphere. He stated if the change is permanent, the resident is
transferred to a nursing home or faciti�y with a higher leve[ of care. He stated their residents tend to
be very independent, and the philosophy was to provicfe care if and when needed. He stated that the
I�IIour�ds Vies� �I�tr�r►ing Corr�rrdissifln .7une 16, 1999
Regul�tr Meetia�g Page 10
desig�n of the building takes fhis into account, and they encourage independence and mobiiity as long
as possible.
Acting Chair Stevenson opened floor for pubiic input at 7:50 p.m.
Caro[ Golden, 27Q9 Lake Court Drive, inquired if one person wouid cooEc at�ciiser
meals per day. Mr. Meier stated that there would be one cook,, �nd th� unzuersa
meat service. Mr. Golden inquired what other functions th��'�'����ersaI w�rlccxs
���,
stated that they help with the cares and activities. Mr, Gold�n requested ���rih�.s
Y,�z�
of these workers the facility would utilize. Mr. Meier statec� the first f�,c��i� assisiF
two, and the upper floor woufd have six who would assEs� ti��ith Coa��service an
x.=
Mr. Golden stated that she was concerned regarding the Alz1
tlie facilily should have someone an hand at all the tin�e�.
Meier stated, during the daytirne hours the administrator is
activity director who is in and out. He stated that the ty_�ic
and, after 3:00 p.m., there are more activities He,��teLl;�c�
8:04 p.m. Mrs. Golden stated, in her opir�iA�� tli�y; v,!+
contemplating for the Alzhei�ner's residei�� She ��r�ui
��`=did. Mr �� Id
Alzheimer's clientele, Mr. Meier stated th�� ,��� a
someone would be able io cook the ine���;�'s'erve tl����' od, m�
� �#�� . F<=�
stated she was welcame to tour the_it�,���cil�ty, a�t��added th
3 residents three
rkers assist with
orm. Mr. Mei�
�s to how ma�-
ri�;..y :�voul�:�ave
:itiaei's ��esider�t's activities, and thought
�urma tl►t; cl�y to provide activities. Mr.
very a��t�o ��x C�zs regard, and there is an
1 day iric3:uc�es �i z�orning activity, lunch,
�et�a[iy the r�sit��nts are in bed by 7:30 to
t�Ici requfre,yznore staff' than they were
0d �� the>,����isting facilities incltaded an
�,� �t<�.ted slte found it hard to believe that
k�t11e beds and do the dishes. Mr. Meier
�'it works well.
Mrs. Crolden tnt�uired regarding tlie �rocess of����s��c�z�%N1r. Meier stated they utilized an admission
,�, y
agreement� ai�$ �he family atld �'�n��ly pl�ysi��an �er�� voEved in the process. Mrs. Golden inquired
ifthe sa�a�� �rt���s� was utrlt�et� i�i �t��, dete��i��inin� discharge. Mr. Meier stated this was correct, the
family or gu�t�dia� t��:<is �nvo��r�c�1 a�1d �;ener-aily at the time of discharge, the faciiity has had much
involvement wi:fh ��e i�aiz�ily physic��n �i�s. Golden inquired if the care leveE at the facility would
be increased, skt��id t��� ap,�lican! �iz�d t�e residents required �nore care than they had previotisly
�� ;,
considered��°'�'fei�r!st��f�d,;ty�ical}yat that point, the resident would .be transferred to a higher care
fac�lity, .��1i as a nursing h�t�i� �,rs, Golden stated that per5ons with Alzheimer's disease required
a pre '�able routine, and ��vi�ld �ot be subjected to being "bounced around." Mr. Meier stated this
,::.. :: .
wa�i;;orrect. He stated t�l'at'ihe issues arise when the disease pro�resses to the point o£ violent
h�k�a�riors, as a result o��mentia. He stated, at this time, the facility would probably no longer be
��:
a�le ta care for these�>����dents, and they would be transferred to a iociced-in type of facility. Mrs.
��h
Gtitd�xa r.equested �1�`r��ication of the security features of the proposed facility. Mr. Meier explained
. , r�:::
i��ai tl�� u�s�zzs vvould be alarmed and locked, and the downstairs would utilize a buzzer at the
eiitxa��e5 .�� �tated this addressed the issues of wandering, as ressdents.would have to get through
three sets af security in order to exit the building.
Acting Chair Stevenson closed the floor for public input at 8:00 p.m.
-•f
Ericsori stated he believed �hey had gained some clear estimates of the staffing levels anticipated at
the facility. He siated that, if they were to have a maximum of 12 staff at the facility, and 22 spaces -
. j
I�IOUiI(iS VHeW Pli1IlBfllllg CO[11R]lS510[I .T�ne 16, I999
Itegula'• IVl�eting Page 1�
ofparking as proposed, there would be ten parking spaces for visitors, He stated that this exceeds the
City Code parking rec�uirements, which are one space for every three beds. He stated the question at
hand is whether or not this amount of parking is adequate. He stated the app{icant has indicated there
is room to provide additional parking, and if, at some point in the future it was deter�nined that 22
spac�s vvere not adet�uate, they could show proof of additioilai parking on the site plaz��:�ricson noted
that there were some tune constraints ta be cansidered in regard to this pro�i�3sai I��s �nquired if there
was sul�icient consensus among the Commissioners to direct s� ff to bri��;�e%re t}�em a resolution
recommending approval or denial to tha City Council at the,;,���;�meetfn�,
Commissioner Kaden inc�uired regarding an amendment t
facility as "Nursing homes or other elderly congregate hc
in conjunction with their recommendation to the City C.
recommending the approval of the.rezoning rec�uest, t11ey
the City Code to clarify the allowed use, in tenns of assistf
group Iiving. He stated this could be done at the sart�f
Cammissioner Kaden stated that he wo�ld like to see. (:i�is
r=.�uc �,vu� ;�r.iiaucy Ltt� LV�J� C)7 L�S� ���he
» r�`ia'�;
�sing, at3'�'�fthis coulc� 17� a"cct�n�pfished
urt�;z� �ricson stated thai, i�=.a�iciition to
�.Jqt�ld rn��k,e a reco�ntnendation to amend
� liviz��, tattx`szng homes, or other types of
ti�z�e, 1�{����Vt�r, as �wo separate actions.
anguage it� ti�c (��o�fe.
s��
Commissioner HegIand inquired regarding the �rq�rc,ss t�l tfte �ra:�£ic fiaw issue at the facility. Ericson
stated, at this time, he was not aware of an �*
y��ee�nents �et�eet� i�e ad�acent property owners and the
appliGantfor jointaccess, however, there vti�`re opt�o`s #o ap}��vaC�� this matter, as well as the rrtedian
� ��A•
on County Raad I, at the time of fihe s���=j�ian rev�w.
xc ��� ,� ..,, .
x���� ^ ,� ;
Mr. Pinkerton sfated, at this t�t1�;�;��SuperAi��r�ca is r���nteresTed in agreeing to a joint access,
Commissioner Laube clarifie�l t}��,� the appliUai�i fa��d �r;�'viousfy indicatad that they wQUld consider
an entranc� t�ii�y on Mou�ads Vae��:, Drive, w�t�� the ��it on County Road l. Mr, Pinkerton stated he
thought t�ts c�to�a�d be �� ��ac� ac�e��< Acting C���ii� Steve��son inc�uired if they wouid then keep the
median. 1V�t` Ij�nt��rton stated tl�dt t�`�� mcdian couid stay as it is, with a right out only exit.
Acting Chair St���c�z� �tafed that the ��ul.irig issues could also be addressed on the site plan review.
He stated��;e �o�nm��s�ax� ��uld ret�u�ire the additional parking spaces be classi�ed as possibte
overflo��zrking, and waulcl n�tnecessarily have to designate them as additional parlcing at this time.
Erics��i%stated this was cUrr�:ct_ '
A6G�rt�g Chair Stevenson��ated that the zoning change was the preEiminary step, and would have to
r��1e�t that ihe prape�reverts to its origina[ zoning if the proposal does not go forward. Ericson
h.,
�ia��ti that aftcr res���ching this matter, staff determined this technically could not be accomplished
�S prev�cs�.���� z�tdi�ated. He explained that the resolution could state "if the project does not go
for�t����$, �i r��on2ng v,,ouid take place," however, some action would be required of the Council in
orc�er fo rei�state the ori�inal zoning of the property, He stated that the property owner had indicated
he was ageeeabl� to this. Acting Chair Stevenson stated tfiat a statement to this effect shou(d be
i�icluded in the resotution. Commissioner Hegland inc�uired if the property owner could also be
requested ta provide his signature indicating his acceptance of this procedure. Ericson stated that this
could be requested.
�/Ioands �T�e�v PI��a�aiR�g Cornmissiori
I�eguEnr IVleetia�g
,Tune 16, 1999
P1ge 12
CommissionerHegland stated there shauld be ianguage in the resolution to indicate an agreed upon
parking raYio for this type of use. Ericson stated, fro�� the infarmation presented, they had determined
there really was no way create a parking ratio whECh would apply specifically to assisted living, as
there are different intensities af assistance that can be provided, He stated t}tat.the Code presently
required a 1 to 3 ratio. Commissioner Hegland stated this was a spec�a{ized situatip��Z'and inquired
ifanything cotald he inciuded in the resoiution to cover it. Ericson stated th�� th�s,c��d be done. He
stafed, if the Commission desires, a code amendment could b�f put in �la�� to specifically address
assisted living, and possibly apply the parking ratios determin�� ���� thts fac,�Ii1Y iq �e the requiremez�t
far assisted facilities in general. ��� ,��,4, ' F��,y�
�.,..
Acting Chair S#evenson explained that an amend�nent to ��e Cad��`would Izave to be ��r�si' ere
separately, with additional readings and so forth. He state�i;�i���t�u[d just be spec�fic �:q �i3'is site, as
a requirement of the conditional use permit. He asked ihe Cp�tat��ssion .if they would direct staffta
provide a resolution the next meeting to recot�3a»�nd apprq���.1 o��i�.� .Cc�cJe arnendment to change the
B-2 to R-4 zoning, and the conditional use permit. �"'�
� ` :;.
MTOTTON/SECOND: Miller/Stevenson to Direct r��tc� ��`�p��e a I�esolutipil and Draft ordinance for
.���.
approval of the Rezoning of Property and a Cortelition�� U�� �ermit, to, al�ow for an Assisted Living
Senior Residential Facility to be Located at 2��� Count�;.I�c�ad I, 1'ianr���i`�g Case Nos. 559-99, 560-99.
c���� F�:�°
Ayes — 6
Commissioner Jollnson stated that�i�
x��
Commisst��'�;�viiller int�uir�d ��a
J��
Ericson ��fiec� t��a� stafC co�l� c�iscu:
at this po�r�t i�t;�� �rac�5s. Ac,tir��
would request c��i���.taon of the �
layoui of the p�.rk��� ��d clveriiow'
�
C�se
N��s'"— I(Johi�,s�i� j The motion carried.
not k�1 f��ivor of��e dowr� zoning of commercial properties.
n�ore spc�i�i� �Xf.�plan would be pravided at the next meeting.
s;:the matter'with ihe appiicant, explaining that it is not rec�uired
C`ha;ir Stevenson stated that prior to approval, the Commission
u�Ic�z��,;and parking ratios, and would appreciaie a more defir�ite
�copc�ty Involved: Lot�s7 & 18, Edgewood Se�uare (Pinewood Circle)
Dis�ussion concernir���a rec�uest to vacate a portion of a drainage easement and request to allaw for
��
t�� �t�t�str�ac�ion o��t?�o single family ho�l�es via a wetland alteration permit.
A:#�������i�, �is✓��; �'�terson, representing Oakwood Land Development.
The applicant was present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows:
} I
I�IOY111(IS V1�V0� I,Cilll&1111� C,pIIli1115S1091 Jvne 16, I999
lt�ge�laa- I1�feeiang Page �3
Greg Peterson, representing 4akwood Land Development, has requestad that the City vacate a portion
ofa drainage easament that covers Lots 17 & 18 of Edgewoad Sc�uare, which had been dedicated to
the City as a result af the initial platting in 1982. Even though wetlands are present over parts of Lots
17 & 18 and alt of Lot 19, drainage easements were dedicated for the entirety of the ti�\ee lots. This
was done to satisfy Minnesota Sail and Water Conservation District concerns; and Cit�}�i�`ncerns about
ihe potential for flooding and runoff in this area. In addition to the easeme��,f�vacati�`�i� to build on the
two lots, a watland alEeration permit is also being requested anc�,would �ee'd to L�e ohtained 6ecause
wark would be done within the wetland as shown on th '���;�y�'s af�'it,t�� V�vetl�s�d Zoning Ma y
Appraval is also needed from the Rice Creek Watershed I� ���ict, ,,,, , ,���
Ericson sfated the appiicant made a similar rec�uest witl� xe,�ard t� :��iVese two lots ott ��g1���E�er 9,
I997. He stated, however, the request was denied by the Cc�t�ne�l c�tiyDecember 8, I9�i, �� ii was felt
fhat the easements were granted in good faith and that the lai,;; t�er� �.ever intended io he buiit upon,
due to the possibility of detriment to the wetland. �
. ���>,
�:.
Ericson stated, at this time, the applicant is rec�iiestin� �iz;e� sz��e action,a���i tl��;�e were no changes in
regard to the plans submitted. He provided the:;Cc�inF�i�ssi�n wiih a ct�p�r'tsf the delineation of the
wetland upon Lots 17 and 18, which was fnade � 1��'7, Ai�c� fttz��er veri%�d'by Rice Creek Watershed
,
District to be accurate. He stated, howev��,�� e detf�eatio�� c�c�es z��t>agree with the City's off°icial
V�1etlandZoningMap, explaining thatatt��4time of i��inakE��� tl�e weilands were not delineated but
defned to fall within a certain elevatic� �ie state�d�<fhe area �ll�t is ��roposed to be filied, falls within
,�,��":
_ the 904-foot elevation, which has l�e�,����dee�ne����ood stora�� capacity, He stated that the applicant
���
has proposed to create an add�tiot���i°' }�oldin� �,�:nd on t�� back half of Lot I 7, to replace the flood
storage capacity. He stated t�zls t�touid allev�aie;;atiy 2ssiaes in regard to lessening the flood storage
capacity, a,cad inay uEtimztc�l�� cr��C� additionai �food storage,
Ericson stat�ci
should they be`
the preserva�i
neighborhQR[�;
,
re:�l i5sue is r��izether or not the easements serve a ublic r d'f
in regarG€�io`the appropr�a�
area , ��-I�e stated that the
so :: isruption to the ne
�v �:
w�t fid would be impa��
t�e c��lineated area. : ���
p pu pose, an i not,
siatc,ci, �tt .d�c �a���e time, consideration sllould be given to whether or not
nvii'o�1�i�ent sEiould continue as it is, a buffer between the existing
,�o:�c����ay, �i1c! the lots to the north ofthe wetland. He stated the issue is
ess t�f'��acating the drainage easement to allow %r two more homes in the
c��,�'�;3-fy is zoned appropriately for the proposal, h�wever, there would be
,barl�ood and to the naturaf area. He stated that it is not indicated that the
;, although the construction wauld occur on the perimeter and autside of
��z�csar� sf��Y�d f���t�'aIl residents within 350 feet of the prouosal were noti�ed by staff, and had
pr���z�f�d "z�.1.1r��erotas commenis, unfavorable to the proposal, and indicating cancerns regarding t�e
d��r�raient �.o the neighborhood and drainage system, with tE3e exception of one resident who was in
favor of the proposal. He provided the Commission with a letter from a resident who was not able to
aitend the meeting, hawever, indicated that the residents were not in favor of the proposal.
i
IVlounds'V�ew Pl�n�in� Comniissso►� Ju�e l.b, 1999
Regul�x Meetrng Page 14
Ericson stated that staffwas seeking a recom3nendation from the Planning Commission in regard to
the granting of this easement vacation to allow for the two additiona[ building sites, or if the drainage
easements shouId stand, as was the original intei�t of the subdivision.
Comrnissioner Kaden inquired re�arding the current owner of Lots 17 and 18, ar
compensaied for granting the drainage easements. Ericson stated that the c�i?�ner �
Peggy Haselius, and he was not certain if she had been cflmpens,�:t,�ed. He s�at�d tl��
E\ `�..
Haselius awned al[ of the surrounding property at ihat ttrne, ��d the �se�Ze�#
�;
condition of the approval of the subdivision. He stated �,��� the subdt�s�'o11 wt�
approved, were it not for the granting of these easements, ��# was beli�t�e��i at tl�at s.
located within the wetland, and that in providing the easezn��lts th�'�mpact to tP�e
..
minim�l.
J�ohn �'eteE�son, applicant and owner of Oakwood Land
properties throughout the metropolitan area, primarily in
that he was also speaking on behalf ofPeggy Haselius, v�
View for 51 years. He stated the manner �n wh��� hi�',
rather unic�ue. He explained that another devel��s'�had bt
difficulties, and his company bailed that de��l�oper ouT:��
company believed they owned these lots���r �nany�yy���r:
s��.
`i�t�iey had heen
��ie property was
he believed Mrs.
�vas granted as �
l� s�ot have b�en
,,
ne7 t1-i€ Ic�t�;�'ere
ret�aii� ��tild be
L?�er�etoprra�nt, stated i�is company develops
,�..
`�3iaine an� th�: i�c�rt;tiern suburbs. He stated
�c�:has resided �n t1�'e ssme house in Mounds
.��m"����r�y beca3t�c invalved in this issue was
�ur� fii� proces��s�zyears ago, ran ir�to financial
d co�'i���eteti�;�lie process. He stated Yhat his
, hov,��vcr, in l 997 they determined the lots
>een easy far them to walk away from the -
personal cause for him. He stated Mrs. __
�e. He stated, in his opinion, she has the
do�Ears froi�� his con�pany for them.
were owned hy Mrs. HaseEius. He stat ��']at it woi��2� have
��� € � «„<
maiter at that point, however, it }����t�e so».��vkzat of a
� �� -
Haselius retired 11 years prior a�tcj"lives or� a�xed in s��
good faith ri�ht to develop the la#s.j and to r�,�ei?le 3��`3,�0
Iv1r. Peter�nn S���d the
could keep t���1 r�' ii�
Haselius, he do�s �r�t'
not 6e worth it;fc�r t��ie
He exptai�t��t��hat tl�i
taI commutii
what a wetl,
.� .
y�ttot�ey l�<�d pre��iously determined that the City had the easements, and
so desir�d, �t;.. stated that, due to the expense to his company and Mrs.
ire to res+���t� tht�`inatter througll the court system. H� added that it would
u�t� lots, I�t� :�i�ted, however, many things have changed since the 1980's.
������;�ition of wetland has been clearly defined and agreed upon by the
,�hes����tific community, the legisEators, and the politicians, who now af]
,t�.,.i�,.,.,�-Te stated this was not the case in 1981 w(Zen this plat went through
I��t �eterson stated th ,,<:hired an expert to go to the site and tel{ tl1e��1 where the wetlanc! was. He
s�;���t� they then conta���� Rice Creek Watershed District and requested they confinn these findings,
�.rit� �a��,:did. �Ie s���d that their propasal to deveiop Mrs. Haselius' lats will not touch any wetland.
Y��� st�ti�� ��a� tl�� praposal fills 11,850 cubic feet of flood storage in that area, however, it creates
3�,`�0(1`cr�b�� �`eet of flood storage. He stated that these lots have already been platted, and the street
is atready in. He stated thatthe net effect ofvacating this easement, and allowin� Mrs. Haselius to seli
#he land to his campany so that he can prepare it for houses, is almost a 30,000 cubic foot gain in flood
storage capacity in that basin. He stated that the Watershed District will conf'srm this.
Mr. Peterson stated that they have abtained the Rice Creek Watershed District per�r�it. He stated ihat
water is not the issue. He stated the issue is open space, and the development of the properiy. He
,
N[otsnds �ievv Pl�taie�ang Comei�issioga .�urae 16, 1999
�tegulnr Il�Ieefing Page 15
stated the issue is the neighbors, who do not want two more houses in the area, because they use the
lots almosi every day all summer long, and their children piay on the fots. He stated that it is Mrs.
Haselius who is held liable ir those children are injured on that property.
IVlr. Peterson stated, in good faith, Mrs, Haselius anci the deve[oper �ranted t
na longer necessary. He stated that the reason for the easei��ents was not py�
the City did not state they wanted the easements for open space. He state;
�a`��
easements for water storage, and to prevent inter�erence w►th;�„��� wetland, �
reasons apply any longer, He stateci, if the Commission is tt���s`ten to the rz��`F
�
as open space, it wiil not be in keeping with the origina{ int�i�. He state�,�liat
<
�:
�'��ts, which are
�� He explained
ity requesteti the
� neither of thes.e
n�l leave the lc���
has been paid far the sub�ect lots, through I 997. He statet� the pt�rperty taxes l�a�-e tial t��r.r� paid
following the denial of the City Council, on a three-to-two voLe,;iil 3�97, and may weil �;c�;�i�li��quent.
He stated the $10,000 in property tax was paid because tl�c}� had reason to balieve that the wetland
delineation and the reason for the easements were chan��n�. HP s��ed lhat these have changed, the
wetlands are not located as previously believed, arzd tt�� flood st0���r�e �apacity issues have been
resolved. He inquired how they could be required t�;;p�y� $10,0aC� �n t���.c�s,;:and not be allowed to
d�velop the lots. He stated this was not fair or ri�h�. '
Mr. Peterson stated the neighbors do not w�z�� �wo mo�c:'f�t�zGSes, �.Illza,u�h, basically the sarr►e type as
�a .
those already in the area, possibly more ex�ensive, b�h��use they ti��ant to use Mrs. Haselius' land. He
stated they wanted to look at it, drive b��t, and li��rally use �i:` I�e stated this proposaE presented no
� negative impact to the neighbors. I�����iied tha��lrs. Hasel��i'�, having lived in Mounds View for 51
years, and being retired on a fixeda;t�coEne, �s ���atly i�npacted by not being a{lowed to develop the
iwo lots. He stated that she i� z�ipacted s�Y t11e;a�not�ri't� of $37,000. FIe inc�uired how much this
proposal �tioi��� 1�urt the n,c�i�;���c�rs. He stated tf�3i �Vtrs. Haselius had acted in good faith. He stated
�;
that the ��u�cii ��arro���7y dei�tGti tl3is proposal ii� 1997. He rec�uested the Planning Commission
recommenc� tt� the C:ity Cour��'cil tl�ilt tk�ey vacate the eas�menis.
Acting Cha�r St����c�zi, �i�c�t��red w�iy tli� rriatter was coming before the Planning Commission, with
virtuallyno���an�es sitit�� 1��}7, ar�d no� going directly before the City Council. Ericson stated staff
feft thatw�t�i the lan� tise anipl�c�tiot�s, and in Iight of the comprehensive plan revision it might be
usefi.��l��ir the City CounGll tt�;I�e�r a recommendation o£the Planning Commission. �
3>C� .
onerKaden in�uired iffihe inap presented to the Commissianers upon their membership to
s��
ng Comzniss,i�� was still accurate. Ericson stated that this zoning map does not aceurately
any wet��s within The City. �
n opened the fioor for public input at 8:21 p.m.
T'oray IViiskovviec, 2396 Pinewood Circle, stated he was a-new resident to the area. He stated he had
moved to the area from northeast Minneapolis, where they are about to spend hundreds of millions
of dollars reciaiming nature along the river. He stated he started a neighborhood organization, which
purchased lats, ar�d toak down the houses to develop open spaces. He stated that this kept the
properiy values up. �Ie stated that apen areas have been proven to lceep the property values high.
Mounds �I�ew Pl�tnning Conimrssior� June 16, 1999
12eguC;�r I�[eetis�g . Page 16
He stated when he selected his house he had been shown pro}�erties within a certain range. He stated
that he had seen bigger, newer, nicer houses, bu# chase his hoEne because of the ciear view of the
swamp. He stated ihe realtor secured a hi�her price because of'the swamp. He stated �hai he wouid
not be greatly impacted by the proposal due to the location of his house, however, the rest of his
neig�bors would suffer a negative impact, ,� ���
�ai•b Liulckonen, 2367 Pinewood Circle, stated that she und��
�`�,�
be outside of the 904-foot fload storage level, however, they �ytp`u';
�:,,:. .
which aithough not renuired, is recomn�ended for the prese.�r�t'ic
stated that Lot I7, and probably 18 as well, wouEd require the rE
for the construction. She stated that tl-►is is one of the few re�na�
of the other oak in the area has 6een lost to oak blight ovex t�i�
appro�citnately 40 years o1d, and isolated from other oak trees E?�
fload storage Iocated behind it. She stated that she thought,il�is
neighborhood, but �o�• the community as well. She stafed that
and 16, has a floodwater storage basin in the back yaad, �lhic}a is a
was an undesirable situation, and providecf no,p��c� �cit �l�ild.3
vacant for 2Y� years, and has since been sold hc��i�ev�r, i�`i}ie}I �
the same conditions, it would not be high,I��saleable �it}�ez. ,�
become nuisance houses. She stated ti�at t�i;is plan n��y compek�
� ��
opinion, it is not a productive and via�l� �`�ternative�for flood sto
space and natural habitat, and does;�ave`the po��ntial to i�pac
..
Lisa Gilpen�,�..2358 Pinewoc
challenged ��ez� !a tell her����l'
poss�ble� : S�1e�:�,�t��ed ti�a� �
approxima��lp� ��� �t� tt�, eigE�t
environment arrt� ih� t�,r��1a�1d,
mal�e some mQ���y, �i �� ac�
confusing "�dis��earte���n� ��
and a t!��'�y of birds ar�d atx
why����vould be acceptat�le`
ori�allv intended for dev�lo�
inds t
be wi'
of we
�d houses will
ot buffer area,
spaces.
;mova�E r�f`a[ l of t%� �x�sti�� oai� ��ees
����
�zrn�4�tands of oal:-; �p%ng t��� n�uch
(�St ten years. She statet]'�t is a stand
� L�ae t�etland and the retention of the
u�c�ul� U�;.,a real loss, not only for the
tl�e �at�st� iocated adjacent to Lot 17
pit tet� feei de�p. She stated that this
�ei7 to pla�r. 'Si1e stated this house sat
r�sh to construct another house under
�,y%i'
�ie st�;t�d the vacant properties cauld
>at� for flood storage, however in her
rage, and will remove vaivahle green
�t the wetland.
k}� --:`:;�
C��cle, rec����.st�d t�2�;��G�-mmission drive past the subject site, and
��t�
w tlae wetlands st�,ri �iid where they stop. Slle stated that it was not
��ad childre��, al;d worlced with Pinewood Elementary, and spent
�ur� pex week, taiking to the children about the protecting ihe
�d ��s �����a�ance. She stated that this indicates, if the developer can
�tab�e .ta build a house there. Sl�e stated that she founcf this very
he ciuldren. She stated, in the wet[and area, they have seen red fox,
3�s wllich [ive i�l that space, and found it hard to explain to her child
eliminate the area for development. She stated that lot 16 was not
ent either. She stated she couid not see any pur.pose for this except
,.�
� i��� I�'�ec��aar� 2.3$�;P newood Circle, stated he had was a resident of the area for over 15 years. He
sf.�st�d he;� ��.�t��t��ed the meetin�s concerning this issue for a number of years. He stated �hat Mrs.
I�.ase�al�s";�a�nity was previo►�sly opposed to this development, until she found out that she owned the
laa�d, a��d �'tr. �'eterson's group offered to purchase it from her. He stated he was personally opposed
to the developtnent, He stated that Mr. Peterson had indicated that in the l 980's they did nofi knaw
vety much about wetlands. He stated they now Icnow much i��ore about wetlands, and their
importance. He stated that t11e Lalce Calhoun reciamation project is buying back houses and
businesses, �o restore the wetlands, as the water quali#y has suffered so dramatically due ta the
:;
l��und� �lievv Pi�na�i��g Corr,n�issian June J.6, 1999
I2eguIat° l�/Ieet�ng Pa�e 17
development. He stated that he was not in favor af the loss of hahitat for deer pheasant, birds, and
raccoons, He added that he beiieved the majoriry of the residents were overwhelmingly opposed to
this.
Cathy G�yzmal�, 2374 Pinewood Circfe, stated that she lived directly
the proposed sites. She stated that she moved into her house in 1991, a
Mrs. Haselius, about constructing a stationary pEayground the sl
petitioned the Rice Creek Watershed District in 1995 in this ����d. Sht
the Watershed that the entire Iot was subject to draina�e e��inent, and,
cou(d be placed upon it. She stated that, with a propasal t��t mi�ht ��i
the s��'t��� from one of
ke<;�i[�i her neighbor,
site. She stated she
���t� was informed E��:
r��£����'��1� or structui`�s
appear ta have changed the�r mtnd, She provided the ��na�niss��ar�'`with a copy�c��'� �I�g.tt�ap for
Edgewood Square. She stated Mrs. Haselius' signed this dc3�u��3er�t, which states, ", h��� caused the
same to be surveyed, �latted, and known as Edgewood Sc�t�are,�a�kc� do�,l�ereby dedicate to the public,
for the public use forever, the drainage and utility easeme�lts, driY� ci�cle, and the roads to be shown
on the plat." She stated that ihis map was dated April of l�`83, SIz� si�ieci tl:�at sl�e believed that Mrs.
I�aselius learned she could make some money witk� ;t�e..,prope�ly„ a��d c}�tiz�ged hei mind about
dedicatin� it to the public. She stated that she had r�c�tu�ci a ct�py of the c��a� �fter her initial proposal
to purchase her home, and was told by the Rice �reelc Vk7�te1•si��:� ,Distnct>tl�at those lots would never
<��:,�
be built upon. Mr. Meehan stated that he ����lso beet� told by ]��� s r,a]f�r, these iots would never be
developed. ;�� �
Gaey CotEis, 2390 Pinewood Circle��`���d he had "�ttended t```�� meeting on this matter, the prior year.
He stated the Mayor had asked the ��ty Attomey i�`the C� .`���uld keep the drainage ditch and the City
Attorney stat�d they could. k�� st��ed, at tE��t t�rr��, �k��;��l�Iayor reviewed all of the agreements made
> ��
at the time �f�.t�evelopmc«t �� t��e �a,arcei. `k�6�
�.���\
3�� y.�,m
�c er S ,>
Mr, Collis`�tat�ci�i�x�s,.area was � t�x� �cre plot, cansidered wetland by the State of Minnesoia. He
stated that if any ��`ri i� ta��en av� ���, �t x��u�� b� tnitigated. He added it appeared that Mounds View had
no other weiland to t'epl��c� �his f{es(al�c� he was not in favor of da���aging the wetland any further.
He stated� e�f}i�v� c�u�; l�c�l�s in it for drainage ponds on the north end of the wetland, and have
develop��=�� street, and a cuI-d� saa .iurn around, which are within the wetland. He stated that this area
was c�; ` er repiaced. He stai�t� tliat houses have been built with backyards encroaching upon the
we >' : ds. He stated tha��le i�i�ought this to the attention of staff, who stated this should have been
mc���`'closely monitored`and should not have been done. He stated that the proposed development
�t��tl�i encroach upo ��fie wetland as wel(, He sEated that the purpose of the watland is to act as a
s��n��, explainzr��$J�� tl�e polluted water is filtered through tl�e wetland to wells, which the residents
, <•
i��� ���'�t�� frc�n�;� ��-Te stated he is prepared to go to the State of Minnesota if the wetlands are not
Acting Chair Stevenson stated that he did not disagree, and that they did not want to lose any wetland
eithec. He stated the development of the homes, cul-de-sac, and Edgewood spur, was mitigated 6y the
dredgir�g and deepening of the wetland, which created a pond, He stated this was reviewed by the
Corps of Engineers.
i�'Iou�ds Vaew Plannin� Comm'rssio�' Je�ne 16, i999
i�egula� IVIeeti�►g Page 1�
Mr. Collis stated that he had contacied the Department of Natural Resources, who stated that digging
holes was not considered mitigation. He stated, when l00 feet of wet(and is taken, it must be replaced
with 100 feet of wetland. He added that if the area is more tha�i two acres, it must be replaced to 10�0
percent. He stated that if the City had contacted the Department of Natural Resources t.�ey might not
� «<.
:.�
have been allo�ved to do this. Acting Chair Stevenson stated the Department of Na�u�al Resources
was contacted, and there are records regarding this. He added they were co�3cert}ec��s�a Commission
as they did not desire to lose any wetlands either, and #hey we� e sat�sii�d as ��ommission that the
development was indeed properly mitigated, and aliowanc���s made �t�r the ��cla�nation of th�.
/3i`\ � �Z+
wetland. `'`�� _ �
�i.� � _. ` �?��
Lindsey Little, 5389 St. Michael Street, stated he and hzs��a�n�l
1982. He stated he would not be abke to see the proposed c��s�elo�rr
he had an airplane and he enjoyed flyin�, and would iike to s��o�� �
perspective. �ie sta#ed that it was remarkable, and noted tl�i ����e
He inquired, aside from the money, wouid tlley be in favti� of thi�
up in the southwestern portion of the state and li!<ed the o,pen spaces
to remain naturai, and did not want to see it dev,c�cr�a�d'
. �f���..
CommissionerBerke inquired regardina oc���ons
��<�
the developer or praperty awner, and crea�;�s an as;
,
and if anything had been investigate�l,�i�E�is regai
Ms. Gryz�nala stated she had spok�
would have �o can�e up will� tl
delinquent t���s were $1,C�1�.;4�, t
come up::�t}� �tab�r�auctio►��iri l��
build upai� it, #�1�y ����ded, as a n
was determine� �� ��.ui�i�uiidab�
Mrs. Gryzmala state �, a# that<time,
��::
that it caul�c��o� i�e bt��lt u���i, a
�>.
never dr:�i�ed that th
on
€��ad resided in �heix`kious�' since
!:
�nt from his hon��. FT� �faied that
e Com��iission the area from that
,�it�e fi�os» ane month to the next.
i����qsal;<,He stated he had grown
T�e state�# �ae wouid fike this area
�i�hood purcl�ases the land from
all the neighbors own the land,
i��th the ottL't��al dev��oper in that regard, wl�o indicated that she
`back taxes s�r� 1h�;�roperty, She stated that, at ihat time, the
t,.:�
id ti�at she w�! �o�d'>'�iy the develope� to wait, as the property would
<51�e stated �hat, once they got the inforniation that they could not
i,'���barhoad, not to proceed. She stated, aY that time, the property
�ol�missioner Berke inquired if that was not what they desired.
h�r<w���e considering the construction of a playground. She stated
d a play�round could nat be constructed there, and therefore, she
ld ho�nes upon it. '
Cotit�tissioner Laube a�l.ed Can�►nissioner Miller, in light of her membership with the Charter
.,
�.onti�ission, if they h���started the Cllarter in regard to storm sewer drainage issues, and that the
c��t��en's wanted to ie.�,�� the wetlands as the drainage areas wsthin Mounds View. Commissioner
kp�\\
�;rller �tateci that t�i� was correct. She explained the citizens did not want all of the water to be
c�s��l�z�e�'und�r,���zi�, and to provide places above ground for storage and drainage. Commissioner
�.��1�� ti;a'i�he� clai-ified this was the reason that they started ihe Charter, which was voted upon by the
citizens. �
Gommissioner Laube inquired if staffhad requested an engineering firm review the proposal in regard
to the construction of a holding pond. Ericson stated that the City's Engineer, SEH, Inc.. was
consulted in 1997. He stated the plans were reviewed and found to be acceptable, in that Yhere would
not be an issue of impact to the wetland, as the filling would occur autside the delineated area, and
,
I�IOII8IC�S V1CW �IR11HllYlg C.OT1�I371SSlOfI Ju�e 16, 1999
Rcgul��° 1�/ieeting Page 19
the proposal to create additiona! flood storage capacity wauld more than compensate for the proposed
fiIl. He stated these same plans were provided to the City Engineers, the prior month, and staff
received the same response, which was that there would be no impact to the wetland in regard to flood
storage. He added that, from a land use perspective, the depression at the rear of the lot for fload
;<�.
storage would probably not work very we1L ,<���:'3
Nlr. Collis stated that three hornes iocated o�� the corner of fhe Ed;s�
out 24 hours per day, in order to pass inspection, and obtain a,��;t�,l;l�'
;' /,
ofthesehouses have sump pumps running, and one prope��iwr.
,:..;.
watec from the house. He stated the storm sewer drains ii�fi;�i the
they should keep ali of the drainage easements they have, artcl consi
might suffer the same problems.
woo
has
___.. __
Ter�•� I,ulf, 2375 Pinewood Circle, stated he was a n�w r��;idiz�t
proposed buiiding site. He stated that he had [obked at in�ny p��per#`ie
and chose his praperty because of the neighborhood, addir�� that p�o�le i
of their yards, and are concerned with the appe��'���e o���a� pc-ope��t
person with the pit in his backyard. He expla�t�eel t1�at Iie ciao�`� tl�is pr
was the Iast house on the cul-de-sac, surro ��;��ed by wC�'bd� �n�i ���t��
construction would aiter these c�ualities c��'his prop��y, yet, #1i� p�:i. wc
Mr, Peterson stated that there w
there should be drainage and u�ilir
there are d�ff�rent ruEes at thi� tiC
until recenXl�. �e stated, i,a I�is n�i
becaase�ll c�ft�re water �ss�ses`I-��t��F
would 6e �no zxx�p�ct to the wet��nc�
siated he was ���p��,red t.o pay I�
willing to pay h,�� ���at;ata�ouaat of
at tl�at" 1
the pro
on, pumped water
�aeed tha� al l thre�
E� steadily to k��p
on
tl� property adjacent to the
�x�or to selecting his house,
t.h�� ��e.ighborhood take care
�, He stated that he was the
�ei ty in spite of the pit, as it
He stated that the proposed
ld remain.
r�p.�j'�estio���iat Mrs. �aselius and the other parties agreed that
.;�Y , ,
`�sement fuade.r the ru,l i t�at were in effect at that time. He stated
:, Mrs. Has��Xi�c oti�v���he property, and the taxes have been paid
an, it wo��d tto� heiin good faith for the City to deny her variance,
�i only beer� resolved, but afso improved. He reiterated that there
i�d �.dditional storage wouid be �rovided for the community. He
�; H�ts��:i:us $37,000 for the propeirty, and if the neighbors were
on��r i�e would re►nove himself from the ec�uation.
Mr. Pet >�`z stated the ont�� �-c���sc��� !?e would pay that amount of money was that he couid sell the lots,
how� r, he would not ��e d#sa����oit�ted if the people in attendance purchased the land from Mrs.
Ha >'us, and owned th ��pe►� space themselves. He stated their children could then piay on their
l�i��not hers. He state,:.�.�i was a matter of fundamental fairness, and good faith.
�IJr<;iVi�el�an i��qu����,�'regarding the average price of a fot in Mounds View. Mr. Peterson stated that
.. ,,,,,
t�eze t�as.su6��u���tal�grading required on this site, impacted by the sewer and water; and a lot of costs
iri sur��yin� tl�e engineering that have aiready been invested, as wel l as the taxes. He estimated that
the vaiue oi thc;se iats was approxi�nately $40,OOd, He statad, however, he was not an appraiser. Mr.
Miskowiec stated that these lots were unbuildable, and therefare, t11is was an unreasonable price. Mr,
Peterson skated, ifthe City was willing to vacate the easement, it woulc! be a fair price, but agreed, in
their current condition the lots are worth nothing to Mrs. Haselius.
I�/Io�snds View Pl�nning Commissdan
Regular I�[ee�ing
.�une 16, 1999
�'a�e 20
Council Memher Stigney inc�uired regarding the proposa]'s infringement upon the wetland buffer, Mr.
Peterson referred to the site pian, which indicated it was substantia{ly within the 100-foot buffer. He
stated that he could provide many examples af similar deveiopn�ent, which have been ailowed in this
�uffer, as approved by the Planning Co�nmission and City Council on many occasions Acting Chair
�ti
Stevensan stated that the factors of this proposal are di#f'eeent, explaining that we�l,�?tls have been
<.
:.�:
developed and miti�ated, however, the signing aff of City easements has 'nat b�.���`�a commonpiace
occurrence. „�;,
Acting Chair Stevenson closed the fioor for pubEic input
ComtnissionerKaden stated, originally, Mrs. Haselius sig��
permanent eas�ments, and, in liglzt of this, he assumed t
understanding that the lots coul d never be developed by
document. Mr. Peterson stated that there was no questio
however, it is also irue that it is not uncommon for perm�si
City has the right to vacate a pennanent easement. He s�at
and tander those conditions, it was viewed to b� �e��S4
��r ..
changed. He reiteraied that the vacation of eas�rneiits;as
5 p.m.
ed
t easet�et�a
, a2 the tir��
� it� perpet
ient indicat'it1�t��t tl�c'se'were
and the develop�r ��ere of the
inquired if this was an official
[��selitss signed this document,
s lo b�: vacated. He sfated the
� t�� �asements were granted,
uttv. �E�e stated that has since
n process.
Acting Chair Stevenson inquired rf staff req�ired a re���lutio�i reC��»r��ending to the Council that they
apprave or deny the vacation of the @��'Cnents. ..v�Cicson stated tl�at their recommendation coutd be
3������,,: < %`�
put forward in that nnanner, how�ye�s�it was�iot requtr �#;' and the Plann'sng Commission could �°
� jA
indicate their position by motian �� ; �;� �
� � ..;� �
. � .
Acting Ch�zr ���venson inc�tttrad �'egarding the CGe3�fnissioners' opinions on the matter, and asked
if they vvqulci ��'e���iri�l�end �0: �h� �iiy, Counc,il tl'�at they not vacate the drainage easements on those
two lots.
Drainage
A
iller �:o �ecornmend io tha City C�ouncil�they No� Vacate the
on Lots 17 and 18, Edgewood Sc�uare (Pinewood Circle}.
Nays — 0 The motion carried.
$ Spece�t P[:�ej.�a��ig C�se No. SP-07I-99
_ ,.��� �
` ��������,
;
C�1r�.fiiCl����ttc'�t� c��+�.praposed ordinances amending Chapter 1008 ofthe Mounds View Municipal Code
,, ,
pe�l�sn��� �.cs Billboards and amending the Code pertainin� to signage in the PF and CRP zoning
districts.
I�OIIII(�S V1CW PlilIliltll� COtTk%I1lSSi011 ,Tune 16, 1999
�egular I�'Ieet�ng Page ZY
Community Director 7opke stated the City Council has requested staff and the Planning Corr►mission
continue to discuss the sign requirements in FF and CRP zoning districts. He stated the current code
does not list any permitted signage or standards in either of these districts. He stated that staff has
prepared a draft ardinance, which allows si�ns consistent witkt neighborhood business districts, and
with the pedestal sign requirements in Section i008,01 Subdivision 6, in the PF a�;�(��RP districts.
Si� age allowed wauld include 1Q0 sc�uare feet af signs on the building and a 340 sc�U�re foot pedestal
sign for each street frontage. Tf the site has more than 100 feet„�f frot�ta,�e, an adc�itional 100 sqaare
�y
foot pedestal sign would be ailowed. Any pedesta[ sign wh�����'s with�r� 1�U #"c�.t of a singie-famij�y
rasidence, cannot exceed 40 sc�uare feet, however, Jopke ��fed this ls,a��erZ for tlisc��assion, and t��
amouni of signage allowed may be reduced if the Commt���on so des���s. :;�l
Jopke stated the existing signage in City parks is typically I8 i�a 20 sc�uare feet total sib-� a�-ea. He
stated City Hall has approximately l28 sRuare feet af si`;na��, �nd;;tlle Comrnttnity Center has 90
square feet. He stated signa�e at ti�e golf course has vai �ed, ar�d llas aC tin�es, been as much as ] 30
�:<°
square feet. He stated that these amounts a!1 appear���'to work ���ttz�F� ;:the proposed ardinance
requirements. _
Jopke stated that stafihas drafted Resoluti
of the amendment and adoption of Ordina�
- Cotnmissioner Kaden inc�uired regardE����
� ,, F �.
that these included the golf course,�� �ci�
the strip of land located ne� to Spr,��a''�.a1ce
next to Sprin,� Lalce was owned by Ratn;
might be ab�� #�;,construcw,a si�c� �i, th is lo
for signa�e, J��S�e ��ated t11�,�. it r�-c�u1c�
location. F-�e Sfia;iec� �li�t a si�ii that ti
He stated if th�. �r����v as a�ark. tli
Commiss��� �egland<�
speci�c�r � h the allowc
�°�'�
spec���; however, he d�
of ���ordinance. Com
��:,:: .
int��2�ting the only signa
;, ,�
tk��'�t`�a, and how to u:ti`#:
in�ssion.
� �y whx�k� �`;�cammer�ds �a City Councit approvai
7 >.. °���
� prop��ies with��i fhe. CRP zoning district, Jopke stated
on Qf�'�and acros��i�hway 1 18 from the golf course, and
Corz�,rn�ssione���`aden stated he believed the piece of [and
y Cr�tinty a�� `St. Paul Waterworks. He inquired if they
��ion,':r�afi'in� that it would not be an appropriate location
ave to be a`sign relating to whatever activity took piace at that
n�t re[ate to the usage of the property would not be allowed.
C�f�,;or Ramsey County couid place a si�n in that regard.
.�ireti if tt�is n-iatter was covered in the ordinance, or if they should be more
�i�;riaqe:in the ordinance revision. Jopke stated that they could be more
�vi, lllinlc it was necessary, as it was already covered under the provisions
�sioner Hegland stated that the intention would be to inciude Eanguage
aEfowed in these two areas would be, that which identifies and describes
it. Jopke stated that this provision couid be added if it was the desire of
Co�x�nts�ic�n�r l`vliiler stated that Section 1008.01 refers to these types of signs. Commissioner Kaden
stated`'that subdivision i0 states "A sign, the primary function of which is to direct attention to a
prod�act, service or aciivity that is sold or offered either elsewhere ar upon the premises where such
sign is located or to which it is affixed." Commissioner Hegland stated that this appeared ta relate to
all signage and that the intent was to not have business si�ns included at all. Commissioner Kaden
inquired if the intent was to cover the signage already in place at the golf course and City HaEI. Jopke
1VIo�nds View Planni�ig Comniission
Regullr Meetiesg
Jur�e 16, �999
�age 22
sta,ted that it relates to all existing signs within the City that are technically not in conformance with
the ordinance.
Commissioner Kaden inquired if Ramsey County were to allow people to place advertising signs at
this location, would this he permitted under the ordinance. Jopke stated that he did:�'�'believe they
could, hut reiterated if it was the desire of the Commission to include moY;�'�im'tti���anguage to the
code amendment, it could be done.
Commissioner Laube stated that they could indicate tha
Commissioner Kaden stated that he did not thinl< this w�
desired to erect a sign, such as park identification, he wou:
not advertising. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that tl>;
conforming signs of tljis type. He inquired if this might
more specific with all other types af non-conforming si�
stated what they were atte►npting to do with this particular'C
signs in these twa specific districts. He stated he thou�ht:t
the use regulations. He suggested they include;langut���
"th� signs shall identify and relate to the actiy#�, whic�a i
MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Berke. To Ap��bve Res�l�tion F
Approval of Ordinance No. 637; as Arn�t�ded ta �'i�elude th
to Indicate the Signs Shal1 Identi `���1��Relate ���the Acti
Ordinance Amending the Chapter �t�� of the iVCc�tilnds Vi �
y��
Si�nage in P�' Public Facifitiea �.rrc� CRP t,�nse��a�3��?�R
�� �
Planning �a�� �4�0. SP073-9<� �.
�-
�: _ .
�y���;� ,� _ Nays — 0
9. S��ff
o€
Pa•evior�� �`ri���cil ��ctioi�
ge wh i
�
�r�ancE
v coul
to the
.ry�;,tie statet�,`�f K�tsr�ey ��r�i:a'hty
�alile to that, }�r�wctire►, d�finitely
e should refer to a1I':o�` the non-
n.;i;tin�, and result in having to be
s��'�d he did not believe so. He
i� �p dPf.lne what are appropriate
i oufi���c S���cific requirements in
e end of e�c.l� subdivision, to indicate
��.ded u�Qjz the site_"
i;�2:;;99, a Resolution Recommending
i-iguage �'ollowing Each Subdivision -
Whieh is Intended upon the Site, an _�'
nicipal Code Pertaining to Permitted
ation, Preservation Zoning Districts;
The motian carried.
Co ,:i� unity Development,I3ireetor Jopke re�orted on City Councif action from their meefing an July
?G ;�I� stated there w�`approval of the oversized garage at 8059 Red Oak Drive. He stated the
f =y
�o2u�,�it ap�roved the cc�riditional use permit for Thrifty Car Rental located at 2975 Highway 10, with
�-°-^=
s#,��ul�Yipns. IIe stai�� the applicant would come before the Council and request recansideration of
a stipu�atxaz� r��a��rig to truck, traiEer and recreation vehicle rentals.
3opke stated there was approvai of the conditional use permit for the outdoor produce stand at the
Holiday Stagionstore. He stated nei�hboring residents appeared at the meeting and indicated their
concerr�s in regard to existin� noise problems with the station, and the property owner was currently
working with the residents to resolve these issues. He stated they had the second reading and approval
o�f the ordinance pertaining to the per�nitted uses within the B-2 Limited Business I3istri�t, which
reiates io educational and instructional fa�ilities.
i:
;.. ,:.: ;
l�ouncls �Iie�r Plai�,►iu� Con��nissio�i June i69 1999
l�egula�• IVleeting Page 23
Jopke reported at the V�lorlc Session on Monday evening, the Council was informed regarding #he
conditional use permit rec�uest for the SEceate oversized garage, He stated the Council had indicated
some concerns, but were awaiting the Planning Comn�ission's recominencfation on the matter.
rr'�,,.
10. Ch�airpe�'SOiI All(� PlAitlll[l� COItlIl7iSSi011�1'S IZCpOI�Cs ,
��
Commissioner Milier stated that the Planning Commission had �pproved ��otltiilio7lal use permit for
the outdoor produce stand at the Holiday Stationstore. She �S ����G��she ha�l, il��tt ci<{!e, abserved man,�}
���` �
rugs displayed for sale at the (ocation, and this was not in cn�lpliance w��� t�e ��ri�rzit. Etct�ng Ch�r
Stevenson added the display of these rugs was not within th��2 x 12 s t���`e foot �r�a, �� �����ro� �:��ar
the produce stand, ,�,�`�t
No other reports were considered.
Y�o L�[��Oill'H2Ii]e11t
'There being no further business before the PI
meeting at 9.30 p.m. �. ;
�'
,N,,,
m���ission,
�.,:� �
(The �naeting immediatel��adjourneC���o the
� ��
� ,,
_, ��'� �1�12;�' .� .
Respectfully submitted ,���fj5 ^��. ,,,
� i', kA7 f '
R]CIC f0}��8'::
Community
Trish P�'on
Time�'��`ver Off Site
t �ileC�i7i` <��
____ .__ _.
;
c.
sion)
etersan adjouraed the
TAIUSERS�B,��3B\SHARE�KEEP-IT\WPDOCS\MINLJTES\ 1999108-04-99. WPD
,:: ;
.;
:;:>:i
f,: .' '..a.�i�
@.&�� Od` 1P'lOCJl�lJ.J� Y� AE �'V
10��EE�'�l�dG I�IIVU�'��
1l�IOI�TI3AI', JI7�,Y 26,1999
`7000 P.IVi.
�_ � :�� � � ; ;�
2• �20LI1 CA.I.I�. Coughlin, Stignay, Quick, and Thomason.
NOT PRESENT: Marty.
� � . .� �. ;
� ;�; .
Ao TVlonc�ay9 Jul� 2b, 1999 C�ty Counci� A,ge�da
Mayor Coughlin asked the Councii if anyone wauld lilce to add itenns to the agenda.
No add.itional items were considered.
MOTION/SEC�ND: Stigney/Quick. To accept the July 25, 1999 City Council agenda as presented.
A.yes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
� �. ':1 i "�. '�y �. :�
A. I�onda3�, �IuI;y 12,1999 City Council IViinu�es
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason. To accept the July 12, 1999 City Councii minutes as
presented.
Ayes - 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
, �, .: �; : . � : :� �� ,
None.
�, . � .� :,,
Council Meinber Quick had no report.
Mayor Coughlin reported he had attended the Highway 610 Comdor Coaiition, where he and ott�er
Mayors spoke regarding the project. He stated that the new highway would be opening very soon,
�nd that a stretch from Highway 118, truncating at Hi�hway 65 and extending ia Highway 10 had
been complet�d. He stated that he had attended the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new highway,
and had spoken with many of fihe people associ��ed with the project.
1C:\ADMTN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.1�2IN
I
l
i;:i
, �;;
.. �
� Mayar Coughlin reported he had attended the Council Retreat on Thursday. He stated group
facilitator Carl Neu was also in attendance, and that discussion was held in regard to the budget
priorities.
Council Member Thamasan had na zeport.
Cauncil Member Stigney reported he had attended the July 21 Planning Cammission Meetir�g where
discussion was held in regard to several items presently before the Coi.uicil. He stated these included
a proposal by Thriflty Car Renial to operate a rental business at the former Quilc Lube Site, a
resolution recommending approval of a conditzonal use pezmit for an oversized Garage at 8059 Red
Oak Drive, and a resolution recommending appraval of a condztzanal use permit for the Holiday
Stationstore to operate an outdoor produce stand. Councii Member Stigney stated that tl�ere was
discussion of the MSP Real Estate application to develop an assisted living facility behind the
SuperAmerica station. He noted tl�at some parlc�ng issues were still unresolved in this matter, and
discussion is eontinuing. He stated that there was also continuing discussion of an ordinance
pertaining to billboards in the PF and CRP Zoning Districts.
City Administrator'VVhiting reported he had aiso attended the Highway b10 Comdor Coalition, one
hour after the first traffic accident on the new highway. He reported that Housing Inspector Steve
Dorgan had given his resignation that date, and� wouid he zelocating to Minneapolis to assist in their
Housing and Community Development Department. He suggested the Council discuss the means
of replacing Mr. Dorgan later that week. -
-:':• ��
Mayor Coughlin stated that he had become acquainted with Inspector porgan through their znutual
background in home renovation and construction, and that he was a great asset to the City, and
would be missed.
i l' �.
�i. � Appr�ve Just ancl Correct ClaXtns
�. Apgrove k��dge� amendrnent ira�sferri�g �12,500 from �he Gene�al �+und
Co�t��gency Fe�nci to the City Counci� Capital equipt�en� account io purchase
lapiog comp�te�°s for �he Czty Cauncil.
C, Contr�ctor l�ce�eses for approvale
Mayor Coughlin stated Item �, regarding laptap computers, was in consideration of providing
Councii Nlembers the opportur�ity to e�change information with their constituents. He added, it was
hoped in the near future, such items as the pas� and present City Council minutes would be available
on camputer, to provide informa#ion to the people in a tirnely manner.
1Vtayor Coughlin asked the Cou.ncil if anyone would Iike to rernove items for discussion. _
Council Member Stigney inquired, in light of the r�vide range in laptop computer costs, if staff was
2C:\ADMIN\M�NUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
reviewing what feaiures the Counczl would require.
Mayor Coughlin s#ated he believed this matfier was being researched, and that the $2,500 f gure
was based upon the cost of all of the hardware necessary to coz�x�ect the coxnputers to City Hall,
as weli as the modems, rauting features and soitware.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason To approve the Consent Agenda for items A, B, and C
as listed above.
Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 � Motion carried.
�o Ul�1FTl���IiE1) �iiSIl�E�S
None.
`, " 1 ' . . �: �i � . ',l_ . ,�. ,, � � ! , � ;�> 'R;
Davir� J�hnke, $428 Eastwood Road, stated that the last time he attended the Council meeting
he had challenged #he large raise they were considering for ihe Assistant to the City
Adxninistrator. He stated that he was concerned that the City was not hiring the right people, and
explained that, after reviewing Ms. �chmidt's qualifications, he found tha� she was qualified to
be the City Administrator. He stated, in his opinion, the City should noi hire two people with the
qualifications of Administxator. He siated that he was concerned that the City might be getting
further into debi. He went on to ask if the City of Mounds View was currently fifteen to
seventeen billion dollars in debt.
Mayor Coughlin stated that he would defer to the Finance Director regarding the City's financial
standing. He stated the City had various bonds, both in the TIF Disfirict, and some of the City's
own financial obligations, such as the golf course. He explained, however, that these were
separate from the funds utilized for City employee's salaries.
�chard O�aa�, 8205 Groveland Road, stated that he had watched the Worlc Session that
evening on cable, and added that he thought the cable broadcasting of the meetings was a good
idea. He stated that his understanding w�s that the City's TIF fund was approximately 23
percant oi the tax capacity, which was, in his opinion, way too high. He stated that this is two to
thrae times that of other cities, who had approximately 6 to 8 percenf of their tax capacity in TIF
funds, and that some cities have no TIF at all. He stated that he believed the result has been,
throughaut the time that TIF has been utilized in the City, the NSP franchise fee, the.streetlight
utilities, t�e waier meter charge, the surface water management charge,� and the �act that the Ciiy
has no road mainteriance funds available. He stated that this has also denied the citizens of the
City variaus things, one oiparticulat° interest to him, is pedestrian and bike �rails. He siated that
neighboring cities have bike and pedestY°ian trails which all end when they reach Mounds View.
He siated that he belieded this �uvas related to the practice of haviiig goal setting sessiox�s �wi�h an
imported facilitator. F�e stated that he ihaught this practice isoiated the Cauncil fram the input of
the citizens. He suggested that they log and group the citizen comrnents, and utilize those for
3C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\p72699CC.MIN
i
�:
their goal setting sessions. He requested the Council "visualize themselves and the citizens -
seated on one side of the table, and staff, developers, axzd any other pezson who is not a resident
or voter of the City, on the other side of the table, and to govern with the citizens in znind."
Mayor Coughlin stated that TIF is nnerely a taoi. He provided an analogy it is "like a hammer--
you can hammer nails, or you can hatnn�er youx thumb, and it depends upon what you utilize it
for." He stated that �he Council had posted information on the wa11 af Council Chambers vvhich
inciuded some of the items they had discussed at the Council Retreat. He explained that this
was, essentially, to set TIF polic�, and to set a goal for the funds becoming available in regard to
those districts.
Mayor Coughlin encouraged Mr. Oman to atiend the Parlcs and Recreation Commission meeting
at 6:30 p.m., the following Wednesday, adding that he wouid aiso be in atiendance. He stated
that they are slowly but surely adding trails to the Czty of Mounds View. He stated that the
Council had just authorized an expenditure of funds for a trail to extend from Fridley, along
Coun#y Road I, to Silver Lake Road. He stated that due to budget priorities, thi.s issue had not
been as actively addressed in the past %w years. I�e stated that there was a fair axnount of money
set aside for the Park and Recreation Commission in park dedication fees, and that some of those
fiinds have come available, and would be utilized in that particular manner.
1dlayor Coughlin stated that the elected members of the Council utilize the faci�itator as a guide,
and that the Councii can accept or reject the faciliiator's advisement, adding that he simply =
someone who assists them in focusing the discussion. He stafed Carl Neu is very well lcnown in
facilitating circles, and the reason he has been brought in, is because he has history with the City ��
of Maunds Vievcr, with present and prior Councils. He stated Mr. Neu is not a stranger, and he
understands the dynamics of the City.
Mayor Coughlin stated that seven and a half months ago, he was seated with the residents and a
year and a half from now, he probably would be again, either by his will or someone else's. He
stated that the reason time is set aside at the Council Meeting for resident's comments, is to gain
public input. He stated that all of the Council Members can be reached via voica-rriail, and that
his E-mail address is printed in the Mounds View Matters.' He stated that residents contaci him
on�a daily basis and provide their input.
,�e�°ry I�inke, 2310 Knoll Drive, stated that he agreed wholeheartedly regardir�g the services of
1VIr. Neu. He stated that he was not only lrnowiedgeable of ihe City of Mounds View, but many
of the communities within the metropolitan area as w�ll, and thai he could offer the perspective
of the entzre area. He staied that utilizing him for fhat service was one of ihe best things the
Council could do.
Mr. Linke stated that iwo weeks prior, the City of Mounds �Iiew held their Festival in the Park,
and that he had speni Saturday and Sunday selling bratwursts at the Mounds View Lions booth
during that event. He stated that it was very evident io him, and many of the residents, that the
Council was not ther�. He noted there was a parade, dance, and an all day event on �unday, and
the Council was not preseni. He stated senior staff did not atiend either, and added this �vas the
9C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
first time in approximately 15 years of his involvement that this had happened.
Mayor Coughlin sfiated that he did not dance. He stated he had grown up in a strici religious
bacl�ground, and it was some#hing that was highly touted. He stated his eight-week old daughter
had been having some difficulties, and he had spent a fair amaunt of tixne pntting God first,
family second, and City third. He stated, beiwee��z trips to the drugstore, he did manage to stop iz�
at the Festival, and had extended his appreciation to the Cormnittee Members who pianned the
event, at the last Council Meeting. He stated ihat he and Council Member Thomason had
attended the fireworks display. He stated that, being a rather private person, he prefemed not ta
participate in the parade, but did �ee it #'rom a distance.
Mr. Linke stated that he was approached by many residents who wondered whez-e the Council
Members were, He added that staff and the State Senatar did not in attend the festival either. He
noted that State Representative Haake had attended, and had spen� a great deal of time assisting
at the Lion's boath, and took advantage of the opportunity to talk with the residents. He stated
he felt it was a great opportunity that was missed, �
1Vlayor Coughlin stated that the Council might have made other plans, or been out of town at ihat
tizne. He stated he was aware that one af the Council Members was out of town on a vacation,
which was planned znany months in advance.
City Administrator'PVhiting stated that, although he was not able to attend the entire festival, he
was there on Sunday afternoon, and did see the paxade. He stated that from his perspective,
particuIarly in light of the temporary relocation of the event due to the current consfiructz4n
project at City Hall, the people who planned the event did a very good job in accomm�dating the
crowd. He added tha# he wished he could have been there for more of it.
Council Metxiber Stigney stated that he was noi availabte ta participate in the festival this year.
However, in previous years he has participated in the parade with his classic car, and aitended the
festivals, and has even had some of their brats, and tt�ought they were gxeat. He added that he
also had some of the beez. He stated thai usualiy people dan't talk to him about Council business
at this event.
Mr. Linke stated that Council Member Stigney's absenee was well noted, as he usually did attend
that festival. He reiterated that the opportunity was there to speak to the residents. He stated that
zf the Council Members were there, it gave people the opportuniiy to walk up and talk to them.
Council Membar �tigney staied that he was not there to make "political hay999 as he is reai�y not a
politician. He noted thai he did see the firewarks, and commented that they were great, as they
always ar�.
There were no further requests or comments from the floor.
r . �� : -� c:
Ao Public �Iearr��g and �onsfd��ation of �esol���o� �34�, � reso�u��oa�
5C:�ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\0'72699CC.MIIV
coniemplatin� the issuance of a condition�l �tse permxf fo�° an over-�ized gar��e
at �059 Red Oak I)rivea
Mayor Coughlin opened #he Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated that the applicants, Ailen and Joy Dicic were requesting a
canditional use permit for an oversized garage at 8059 Red Oak Drive which is �located north of
Highway 10, between Hillview and Sherwood Roads. He stated that staff had inspected the
property, and that all of the dzmensional requirements would be met wxth the prroposal. He stated
that the property is well shielded from the neighboring properties, the property to the rear, and from
the sfxeet. He stated that the addition would be located to'the rear of the garage, and would n�t malce
a noticeable impact to the property
Ericson stated that the Planning Coxnmission heard this request a# its meeting on July 21, 1999 and
a�er some discussion concerning the request, unanimously approved Resolution 588-99, a resolution
recomm.ending City Council approval oi the conditional use permit with stipulations. The
stipulations indicate that the conditional use permit will be recorded with Ramsey County, the garage
wili not be used for living space, or for other uses not allowed in the disirict, the garage shall be
designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the house, and alI vehicles parl�ed
at the property shall be either parl�ed on the driveway, irnproved surface of the lot, or in the garage.
He stated fhe existing shed on the lot wouid be moved to maintain a minimum six-foot setbacic from
�he lot, and a f ve-foot setback from the property line.
The applicant was present.
Mayor Coughl.in closed fihe Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Approve Resolution No. 5348, a Rssolution Approving a
Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 8059 Red Oalc Drive; Mounds View Planning
Case No. 552-99, with stipulations. �
Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
Bo Public �€ea�in� a�d Considerati�� of I�eso�utdon 5349, a�°esolutzon
conter�platin.g tl�e is���n�e oi a eonc�iti�nal use pe�°mit for Th�°iftiy Cat° Rentai,
to lae located a� 2975 i�fgl�w�y l00
Mayor Coughlin open�d ihe Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated ihat the applicant, Thrifly Car Renta.l, is seeldng a conditional
use permit to operate an auto r�ntal business at the property most recently utilized by Spots Quik
Lube, located at 2975 Highway 10. He stated that the applica.�t plans an expandimg the parking
lot to accommodate exira vehicles, and with the expanded site p�an, the Iot cauld accommodate
up to 23 vehicles. He stated that the applicant has agreed that na more than 23 vehicles would be
parked on the site.
6C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
,
Ericson stated that the applicant has requested, as an accessa;ry to the principal rental operation;
they be allowed to seli rental vehicles from the site as well. He explained that ihis type of
accessory use is allowed in this district, so long as i� does not encompass more than thirty percent
o�the gross floor area of the business, which, in this case would translate to three vehicles. He
stated that both the resolution before the Council and that approved by the Planning Commission
contain the limitation tlaafi no more than three vehicles on the lot be for sale at one time.
Ericson stated, at the Planning Cammission levei, there was some question regarding signage.
He siated the applicant had requested pennanent signage to advertise vehicles for sale, and that
siaff and the Planning Commission had recommended against that, given that auto sales have
their own specific set of criteria and zoning considerations. He stated that this site could not
acco�modate a use strictly for the sale of automobiles, and therefore, it was believed that any
type of advertising would ga against the grain of #he Zoning Code. He stated that it was
determined that any exterior szgnage would not be allowed. He stated �hat signage within a
vehicle would be allowed.
Ericsan st�.ted that the conditional use parmit requirements for tl►is particular use, had been reviewed
by staff and the Planning Commission, ancl all of these requirements have been met and satisfied.
He added the generai requirements, which are present with any conditional use permit have a1s� been
�met to the satisfaction of the Code.
� Ericsan stated the applicant has indicated his desire to upgrade the landscaping on the site. He stated
the City Forester was at the site that daie, and had recommended that some additional plantings
could be installed, however, in regard to the untended plantings already on site, he zecommended
that they might be trimnned back and cared for, rather than removed. Ericson stated that there were
na specific requirements in regard to landscaping, other than those of the conditionai use perinit,
which indicate that they upgrade zt to the satisfactian of staff a.nd the City Forester.
Ericson.prov�ided an overvzew of the stipulaiions associated with this particular use. These include
the hours of operation, the issue of signage and the number of vehicles on the lot for sale af any time.
In addition, no more than twenty-�hree vehicles wi11 be allowed on the site pursuant to the revised
si�e pian, the service of vehicles will be lixnited to those vehicles owrred by the business, and the
appiican� will mal�e the recommended landscaping improvements. Ericson stated that, as with the
pr�vious request, the conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County. He stated that
Page 5 of the resolution, contains a second clause which siaies all other conditional use permits on
file with the subj ect property pertaiYiing to previous uses shali be "revoked, rescinded and cansidered
�ull and void," as the provisions pertaining to thos� uses are no Ionger being observed.
Ericson stated that the Planning Commission heard ihis request at their July 7 and July 21
meetings. He siated after some discussion concerning the use, and the poiential impacts to the
neighborhood, they approved a r�esolution recomm�nding to the City CounciI that fihis
�onditional use p�rmit request be approved, with stipulations that have been cartied forvvard into
the Couz�cil zesolutian.
7C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
The applicant was not present.
Jul�e �lson, 2663 Lalce Court Circle inquired regarding the proposed hours of operation.
Ericson stated that the hours of operation vvould not exceed 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Nlonday
through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saiurdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.rn. on Sundays. He
stated the applicant expects to operate within that time frame, and possibly not ta tl�ose limits.
He noted that the applicant does not anticipate being open far business on Sundays during the
winter and off-peak months.
Ms. Olson inquired regarding the sales aspect of the business, and the possible conflict created
by Sunday operafiion. Mayor Coughlin statad that the applicant indicated that customers could
look at a vehicle, but would not be able to purchase a vahicle on Sunday. He explained that this
would have to be done during the weekdays, and that an acfual sale transactian could only be
m.ade at their main facility in Bloomington.
Ms. Olson noted that some rental facilities have Iarge trucks on site for rent, and asked if this
would be the case at the proposed site. Ez�cson stated the applicant had indicated they might
have one or two Isuzu bo� irucics, no longer than an extended minivan, on-site at the end of tihe
month in order to accommodate moves, but nothing larger than #hat.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Council Member Quick stated that he would act upon the znatter contingent upon the City
Admizusbrator and Cify Forester's approval af the landscape plan. Council Member Stigney
added that this would be a good idea, in Iight of the problems with the previous owner.
Council Member Siigney stated the applicant had implied this operaiion was only car rentals,
when in fact, it was the rental and sale of rental vehicles, cars, vans, and light-duty trucks. He
stated that there is a large panel t�uck for moving purposes at the applicanYs current location, the
Montgomery Wards store in Blaine, and that ne would not lilce to see tkiat large a truck at the
proposed site. He stated that he would include a stipulation to indicate that fhere would be no
panei trucks, trailers, ar recreational vehicles at the location.
Council Member Stigney stated another issue of concern was in regard to signage. He siated that
exierior signage was restricted, however, interior signage was acceptable< He stated �hat there
was no size resiriction an fhe interior signage, and that he would be opposed to large,
conspicuous advertisements painted in the windows. He stated tha# if they were to allow interior
signage, it should be stipulated thai it be iimited to a one and or�e half square fooi sign.
�ouncil Mernber Stigney stated a concem regarding the sale of vehicles at the site, explaining
that originally the applicant had stated that cusYomers would inquire regarding a vehicle for sale,
and it would then be broughi up from the main location in Bloomington. He stated, at this point,
the applicant requests ta have tl�'ee cars for sale on�sit�, which indicates to him that they are all
for sale. He added that many rental facilities do not have onmsite sale of vehicles. H� requested
furih�r discussion of �he matter.
BC:�ADMIN\MINUTES\CC�072699CC.MTI3
:_-�
i`;
Mayor Coughlin stated that he felt zt reasonable to have three vehicles for sale at any one time.
He stated that the applicant indicated he did not anticipate there would be very many �imes when
ihere would be three vehicles for sale on the Iat. He added that even if they had three vehicles for
sale aIl of the time, he saw it as a function of the business, and that he would rather see the
facility operating and being maintained, .thazz to have it rernain vacant and deteriorate.
Council Member Thomason inquired what safeguards were in place to insuz-e that there would be
no more than three vehicles for sale at one time. Mayor Coughlin stated that this would be in
violation of the conditional use permit. Ericson stated that this was correct, and if it was
determined that the applicant had more fhan three vehicles for sale, the conditional use permit
would be brought back before the Council. He explained fhat there was no way to prevent the
applicant from not disclosing which of fhe thiree vehic�es are for sale, but this was something ihat
staff would xnonitoi• to insure that they were operating within the restrictions of the conditional
use permii.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason, To Approve Resolution No. 5349; a Resolution
Approving a Condztional Use Pezmit Request from Thrifty Car Rental to Operate an Outdoor
Rental Operatian at 2975 Highway 10; Planning Case No, 562-99, with Stipulations that the City
Administrator and City Forester Malce Final Approval of the Landscaping Plan, No Panel
Trucks, Traiiers, or Recreational Vehicles shall be Allowed On-site, and Irzterior Signage shall be
Limited to Equa1 or Less Than One and One-half Square Feet.
Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Moiion carried.
C. Pubiic Iie�t°in� and consic�era�ion of Resolutaoa� 5351, a reso�t�tror� approving
ihe issuance o� a cond�i��a�at u�e perxnut fo�- a�a outdoor p�rodttce s�les �tand at
2732 �ifghway 10, r��quester� by Ii4l�ciay Stationstoreo
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:54 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson siated that Chucic Durand, representing the Holiday Stationstore, is
requ�sting a conditional use permit to operate an outdaor prodnce stand in the parking lot of the
Hol'zday �tationstore; located at the southeast corner of Highway 10 and Silver Lalce Road. The
applicant is requesting that they be allowed to opezate from July through October of this year and
years thereafter. The produc� stand is planned to be open from davtim to dusk, seven days a week.
He stated the applicant is requesting the opportunity io operate in subsequent yea.rs with the same
type of conditional use permit as was approved for Linder's and Merryville Farin Market.
Ericson stated tl�e conditional use permit limits this type af use to na more than thirty perceni of
the square faotage of the gross floor area of the building. He stated s#aff had determined this to
be approximately two percent of the space, and tha# the applican� is well within this �°equirement.
Ericson stated stafi sent notificatians to p�operties wiihin 350 feet of the propo.sed site, and
�eceived no feedback, other ihan two comments that it vvould be a good addition to the City. He
_ stated staff has xeviewed the conditional use perrnit criieria for this specific use as well as ihe
9C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MTN
,
i.
general requirements, and staff and the Planning Commission feels that this proposal satisfies all
of the requiremeni.
Ericson stated the conditional use pez�x�it is drafted in such a way so that futuz-e appearances
before the Plazu�ing Commission and City Council are not required. He explained that it would
remain in effect indefinitely so long as there are no changes to the operation and the applicant
resubmits a letter of intant and site plan to the City Administrator or Community Development
Director on an annual basis. He noted the conditional use permit provides a requirement that the
applzcant must come back before the Planning Commission or City Council if there are any
probletns or complaints associated with the business.
Ezicson reviewed the stipulaiions contained in the resolu�on for approval. He stated the hours of
operation will be from dawn to dusk, the signage will be allowed only as affixed to the stand or
the tent, the Iighting will be provided by the existing lighting, and the conditional use permit will
be reviewed by the City Council or Plan�ung Commission if there are any problems regarding the
operation.
The appiicant was present.
�2alph Iitarand, the applicant's father, stated that they had anticipated placing signage upon the
grassy area to advertise theiz° produce, and requested clarification regarding the signage
requirements. Ericson stated that it was the Plaz�rning Co�nmzsszon's intention that the only
signage ailowed be either affixed to the stand or the tent itself. He stated that temporary sign
permits can be applied for, which are 21 days in duration, and the property owner is limited to
three of these in one year. He stated that these were the same conditions that are placed on the
Linder's and Merryville Farrn Market operations.
David Jahni�e, 842� Eastwood Road, stated he was concerned that thzs xrxight turn into a flea
marlcet type situation. Ericson stated the area utilized for this use would be a twelve by twelve-
foot square structure, and the conditional use permit limited the sales to produce only.
Perry C'orz�nowski, 7750 Silver Lake Road, statet� tizat he was the caretaker at that loeation and
that he was speaking on behalf of several of the tenants in that building who were experiencing
problems regarding the noise levels at the Holiday Siationstore. He stated that they had
attempted to resolve the matter with the management af the store, who did not appeax io be
interested. He stated ihat they were concemed that the proposed produce stand would cause
further dis�-uption
Mr. Durand stated that he was nai awat°e of the noise problem, and that he would like the
ap}�ortunity to discuss the r�atter with Mr. Corzinowslti. IIe stated that the produce stand was
expected to operate between ihe hours of 10:00 a.m. to i:00 p.m., and that he could not anticipate
how the operation might result in additianal noise. He requested clar•ification of tlie noise
problexn. _
11�dso stated tha# the naise resulted from people tall�ing over the intercom system and -
lOC:\ADMTN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
,
playing music all night long. Mr. Corzinowski reiterated that the tenants felt the produce stand
would cause further disraption and did nat waz�t it there.
Mr. Durand stated that they wanted to be a good neighboz-, and would be happy to sit down and
discuss whatever problems they might be creating, and tie was certain that they could resolve
them. '
Mayor Coughlin stated that the matter presentiy before the Council was a separate issue. He
suggeated that tl�e applicant and tenants exchange telephone numbers and attempt to resolve the
problem. He added that, if necessaty, staff would assist in facilitating and mediating the
discussion.
�oi�n IVluller, 7750 Silver Lake Road, stated, as the previous zxianager of the apart�nent building
at that Iacation, he had gone through much difficulty to attezxipt to erect a sign in front of the
building. He stated that, as they were not permitted to do this, he did not thiz�k the applicant
should be allowed to place signs all over the site, and that he thought it wauld look gaudy. He
stated the extra iraffic and noise would cause fiu-ther problems, adding that it was already bad
enaugh.
Ms. Olson asked if the condiiional use pern�it would be ongoing, or if it would be requested
every year. Mayor Coughlin stated that it would be renevved automatically, unless it was �he
Council's desire to do othez-wise or the appiicanti was in violation of #he conditional use parrnit,
which would require it come back before the Council.
Ms. 41son inquired regarding the duration of the operation. Ericson staied thai the applicant was
requesting to opezate betweer� July 1 and October 31. Ms. Olson requested clarification of the
structure; and its location upon the szte. Ericson stated tbat the applicant was proposing to place
it a# the north corner of the lot, at the interseciion of Silver Lake Road and Highway 10, near the
existing Holiday sign. He stated that the structure would be soxne type of tent:, with folding
tables underneath the tent. He stated that this would j�st be a simple enclosure. He added thaf
the City had an easement at that location, an which to place a gateway monuxnent marker, and in
the event that the City decided to go forwaxd with that project, the applicant would re-locate the
stand elsewhere on the site.
Ms. Olson requested,�in light of its visibiiity from the lughway, the Council conszd�r a different
type of structure, or other placement on the sifie.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Heaxing at 8:10 p.m.
CounciI Member Stigney stated that this item had been disc�assed tlloroughly by the Planni.ng
Commission, and that as long as the structure was aesthetically pleasing, and there were no
problems associated with the operation he had was in favor of it. He stated that, as a function of
the co:nditioi�al use permit, these matters, as vvell as the noise and traffic issues, could came back
before the Council at any Yi�ne. .
11C:\ADMIN\MTNUTES\CC\a72699CC.MTN
MOTION/SECOND: Quicic/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution No. 5352, a
Resolution Approving of a Condi#ional Use Permit for Outdoor Produce Sales at Holiday
Stationstore, Requested by Chuck Durand; Planning Case No. Sb4-99.
Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
I). Suspensfor� of `Naste I�Ianagecneni of �laine �iauliaa� Licenseo
Director of Public Worlcs Ulrich stated this item was addressed i�� the staff report written by
Tzacy Juell, the Administrative Assistant for the Public Worlcs Department,. He read the report
as follows:
The City of Mounds View fiuids all of the recycling programs, i.e. (2} City wide ciean up days,
recycling bins, fliers, recycling contest, etc., through a l�amsey County SCORE Grant. As a
requirement far receiving the grant, the City must submit tonnage figures, etc. in bi-annual recycling
reports to the Ramsey County Depariment of Health by their required due daYe.
Each licensed residential/multi-dwelling hauler (garbage/recycling) submits monthly i°ecycling
toz�age reparts; as of taday's date, Waste Management of Blaine has not submitted any reports for
1999. Voice mail messages have been left with Tom Kline, Recycling Coordinator and Erv
Hoffsted, Supervisor, asking that the tonnage r�ports be faxed to my attention irnrnediately. (It
should be noted, that in the July 19, 1999 voice mail znessage fio Mr. Klzne, I stated that I would be
approaching the Courzcil at their next meeting to st�spend their hauling iicense if the reports were not j
faxed by July 20.) �
Attached to this report, is a copy af Chapter 603.06, subdivision 3 oi the Garbage and Rubbish
ordinance, highlighting the requurements of maintaining a hauling license in the City of Mounds
View. Waste Managerxxent of Blaine is not complying wiih these requirements and it is my
u.z�derstanding that this has been an on-going problem/issue with this particular hauler.
Staff recommends that Waste Managemenf of Blaine's hauling license be suspended, if reparts
are not received within �8 hours, and to issue a court citatian and/or an administrative offense of
$1 QOAO pez° month of non-compliance {6 x$10(�:00) and a$100.00 administrative fee,
Mayor Coughlin inquired if �he fees were derived from ihe City Code. Directar of Public Works
Ulrich stated �hey ware. He explained that the matter had been brought to the attention of the acting
Chief af Police, who reviewed the administrative ordinances and identified this as a znisdemeanor,
which can ca�y a$700 fine and ninety-days in jail. He stated that last year, they �iad the same
problem with this pa,rticular hauler, and when the Administrative Assistant indicated that they would
recommend susper�sion of their license, the reports were faxed wiihin an hour. He stated fihat
numeraus attempts had been made to resolve the matter at this time.
City Aitorney Long stated ihe suspension of the license is allowed by the Code, however, Section
603.06 �ubdivision 1H of that Code requires ihe hauler be givera reasonabl� notice and an
opportunity ta be heard. He su$gested that they set a noticed hearing for the suspension at the next
12C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\Oi2699CC.MIN
Council Meeting. He explained that staff could still issue the citation for the administraiive
penalties, but the actual revocation and suspension would be handled separately with a hearing and
a notice.
Mayor Coughlin stated that they were presently in vioiation, and that he would entertain a motion
to apply a ciiation of $700.00 as a fine for non-compliance with the City Code, and send a wriiten
notice, and have an official hearing of fihe matter at the next Council Meeting.
Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the time frame involved in revoking tlae license, noting
that people being sezviced by the hauler at this tirne, would require service fraxn anoiher provider.
Czty Attorney Long stated that once the notice of #he hearing is given, they can revoke the license
and set an effective date to a11ow time far alternative service.
MOTI4N/SECOND: Coughlin/Stigney. To T�npose a Citation in the Axnount of $700, and to Set an
Official Public Hearing to Revolce or Suspand the License of Was�e Management of Blaine at the
August 12, 1999 Czty Council Meeting.
Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
E. Secon� i�eadi�g at�d considera�iot� of Ordina�ce 632, �n ordgna�ce �mendxng
Chapier 1113 of ihe Zonir�g Code per°�a��i�� to permi#tec� aases w�tha�r the �-2,
I�itr�xted �usines� Zo�ing Districf.
Community Development Director Jopke stated the first reading of Ordinance 532, which expands
the list of perxnitted uses wzthin ihe B-2 distzict to include educational facxlities, was held on July
12, 1999. He stated, at that time the Cotuicil amended the original version to permit any type of
educational or instructional facilities, rather than limiting the amendment to private facilities only,
and tkzat staff had incoxporated this Ianguage change infio the ordinance which was befbre the Council
t'or consideration.
MOTiON/SEC�ND: Stigney/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve the Second Reading
of Oi•dinance No. 632, an Ordinance Amendirzg Chapter 1113 of the Mounds tTiew Municipal Code
(Zoning Code) Pertaining to Permitted Uses within the B-2, Litnited Business District; Special
Planning Case SP-070-99.
Ayes —�4 Nays — 0 Motion camed.
Fo Tdight of Way Ordi�a�ce.
Attorney Jim Strummond of I{ennedy and Graven stated that he was requested ta speak regarding
the right-of;way ordinance, presently before the Council. He stated that this ordinance was quite
complicated, however, state and federal statutes, as well as the Public Utilities Commission Rules
require a comprehens�ve ordinance far. cities thai have, and will have an increasing demand for the
use of righis-of-way for uiiliiies. He stated that the v�rsion before the Cvtu7cil was a model prepared
by the Leagu.e af Minnesota Cities. He stated ihat he had recently me� with Harold Bagley, Senior
i3C:\ApMIN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
Attomey far Northern States Power, who provided additional comments regarding the right-of-way -
Ordinance, and that he had aiso received a comment frorrz Reliant Energy Minnegasco. He stated --
he had spolcezl to Tom Gruer�hoffer from the League of Minnesota Cities regardzng thase issues. He
explained that, in light of the late date he was able to meet with Attorney Bagley, and that the matter
was not being considered for adoptiori at this time, he wauld expect to make rninor changes io the
ordinance priar to approval by Council at a later date. He stated that he was available to provide
in£ormation regarding any aspect of the right-of-way Ordinance that fihe Council may have.
City Adminis�ra�or Whiting explained that the Council had thought Attorney Striunmond would be
providing copies of the final draft of �he ordinance for their review. City Attorney Long siated that
the Council might continue the second reading of the matter iantil the August second Work Sessiozz,
to incorporate �he comments of Northern States Power and Reliant Energy Minnegasco, and outline
any potent'ial changes to the ordinance. Attoniey Strunlmond noted that this was a very involved
and comprehensive right-of-way ordinance, with a number of important issues to address at this
time, and that he thought this could be accomplished by that dafe. He staied that the issues relate
to Certificate of Insurance, incor�orating indemni#y, requiring Certificates of .Authority to do
business, reloca�ion from one side of the right-of way to another and some of the ianguage as reiates
to �he rules, in consideration of conforming the language to the rules and statutes. He added #hat he
helieved there would be a fair amount of review of these issues in the fizture, and the possihility of
litigation in this regard, and that they were atternpting to avoid that as much as possible with tl3e
ordinance.
Mayor Coughlin stated .that one of Northenr� States Power's questions was in regard to the ;
requir'ement of underground, and inquired if there was further information in tha� regard. Attorney
St�rumn�and stated that they had discussed the matter, and were not in agreement. He explained that
he felt #he City has the authority, either by statute or a separate ordinance, ta require undergrounding
to the extent they feel appropriate. He sfated, after a recent court appeals case, the law is elear that
the City has the authority to require underg7-ownding and the City need not pay the addztional cosf,
which must be recovered by NSP and the rate beaz-ezs. He stated that he believed the Council had
reviewed a separate ordinance ihat would clarify the undergrounding rights, as the City would lilce
to exercise them.
Cauncil Member Stigney stated the attorneys and representatives of Reliant Energy Minnegasco and
Northem States Power had indicated that they had numerous questions and concerns regaxdzng the
issues at the prior meeting. He stated that they should have suf�cient time to address these issues.
Attomey Strummond explained thai there was more than sufficient due process allowed in this
mattar, and in his opinion, compiete agreemertfi in regard to the issue� of the ordinance vvould be
unlikely. He stated ihat they would recommend the sixongest possible right-of-way ordinance for
the City, without unnecessarily extending beyond its authority.
City Attorney Long stated that Atiorney Strurru��.ond would take �he lead, and they would have the
amended version of the ordinance for hearing at the next Council Worl{ Session on August 2. He
added that, if'the Council had any policy direction concerning ihe issues, it could be addressed at that _
point. �
19C:\ADMSN\MINUTES�CC\�72699CC.MTN
Mayor Coughiin stated thai it was the consensus of the Council to continue �he rrkatter until the
August 2, 1999 City Council Work Session.
G. Tteefew of'TIF Parcel T)ec�a°ti%caiiono
Mayor Coughlin stated this item was discussed at the previous Council Retreat, and at that time,
Coumcil Member Marty had requested that the nnatter be posiponed until the August 2, 1999 City
Council Work Session.
MOTION/SECOND: Quicl�/Coughlin. To Table the Discussion Until the Aug�zst 2, 1999 Council
Work Session.
Ayes —4 Nays — 0 Motion carried.
�Io ReVi�i'V �f C�1�Y'�eB° COYri�iYtSS10II CO�'YQC$I�il.
City Administzator Whiting stated that he and the Charter Commission Chair, Julie Olson, had
discussed a matter originating a few years ago, in regard to whether or not a provision for tern� limits
belonged in the Charter. He stated ihat, pursuant to discussion at that time, the matter had been
reviewed by Iegal counsel, in terms of the court ruling whzch considered term limits to be
unconstitutional, and that .ihe Charters were not printed vvith that provision in them. He noted that
the Secretary of State's Office had been notified that this provision was to be included in the Char�er,
which resul�ed in sorrze con£usion as to whether or not to put that provision back into the Charter or
whether it should have been there all along. He stated that it appeared to have been assessed that the
provision belonged in the Charter, and the reason that he requested fhe matter be hrought forward
to the Council, was �o provide public acknowledg�nent, shouid it be detenmined that the Charter be
changed. He stated there was concern regarding having an item in the Charter, which is not
considered to be canstitutional, and how to inform the residents of that.
City Attorney Long stated that in Noveznber of 1994, when the measure was originally adopted, the
Supreme Court had not made their ruling, and it was his understanding that after the vote was tallied,
there was nothing Iegally preventing the results �from being certified, which the� vvere. He stated,
after that #ime, the Court did rule in the case of the Muuleapolis Term Limits Coalition vs. Keith,
which struck down the Charter provision in Minneapolis, a provision exactly the sazx�e as that of the
City of Mounds View. He s�ated that this ruling declared that City Charters could not be amended
to include term limits as that was in conflict with the State Consiitution. He stated �hat, after the
Supreme Court Ruling, the quesfion arose re�arding putting tl�e Charter out `viih this new
arnendment in it. He stated that they had written an opinion stating that, given ihe unconstitu�ional
ruling, it mighfi potentially raise other conflicts and �xpenditures of public funds, in regard to putting
measures on ballots to print charters and code, and co�ld be seen as an improper expenditure of
public dollars. He sta�ed that, at that tirne, they advised not to create a new set of charters with the
provision, which was considered unconstitutional, thinking that the provision would be disposed of
procedurally. He stated that what he was not aware of at the time, was that some Charters had
incorporated those changes. �Ie stated that vvhen the question was posed to him, he thoughi that the
- matter should be clarified. �Ie stated tliat when a state law is passed, and then struck down in the
15C:�ADMZN\MINUTES\CC�6i2699CC.MIN
.. .��:.' ..::: :.:.:.,: .... .:.- . _ :::; I ,::.: :::... . '. :.-
interim, often the legislature wi11 come back and try to amend it to make it constztutional, or they -.
leave zt alone, and the reviser adds a provision to their biii repealing the unconstitutional provision, '
so that it disappears a year later. He added that if they do not have a repeator bill, they might iilclude
a footnote indicatzng that the staiute has been.ruled unconstitutional, so as to prevent confusion. He
recomrnended thai the Charter Comrnission initzate a provision to remove the unconstitutional
provision, wiih the Council voting on the ruling, which would probably be the cieanest way to
accomplish this. He stated that another option would be to reprint fhe Charter with the footnote
identifying the provision as having been ruied unconstitutional, and that �is could be done
simultaneously with the printing of the next rouz�d of ordinances. He stated that either way, they
shouid attempt to remove �he provision from the books, as any attempt to enforce it would place
ihem in court.
:Y�'�� Y
��II I)ody, 3�49 Bronson Drive, Chair of the oz�gznal Charter Commission, staied that t�e Charter
is the City's constitution. He stated that the citizeruy of Mounds View went to the Charter after
conducting a siudy regarding a 6.5 million-doiiar storm sewer in Mounds View, which became an
issue of actual abuse. He staied that the citizenry conducted a study to detezxnine what would was
best for the City. He stated that Mounds View is a s#atutory Czty, and they found out this meant they
elected a City Council, and under statutory law, tihe Council could do wha�ever flaey pleased, and that
there was abuse of that power. He stated that the Charter was the result of the citizenry reaction.
He stated that #he Charter Co�nxnission is a body appointed by the caurt, to look into the matters thai
the State 5tatute did no� provide, so that th� citizenry can react. He stated that this is what happened
in r�gard to the issue of term limits. He inquired if ihe State Supreme Court ruling regarding the •
unconstitutionality of term limits was specific in the State Constitution, or if it was an amendmeni =?
to the Staie Constitution. �
City Attorney Long stated that he would provide a copy of the Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition
vs. Keith case, which interprets a provision of the State Consti�ution which has the State Legislature
setting eligibility and qualifications for office. He stafied that the State Constitution was specific on
the issue of qualifications for office, and what was determined by the Supreme Court in this case,
was that you could not amend fihe City Charter to include term limits, as the State Constitution is the
supreme document.
Mr. Dody asked if this was speciiically stated iz� the State Constitution, ar if the ruling was based
npon interpre�ation. City Atiarney Long stated the State Constitution sets the qualifications for
office, and the City is bound by the Suprerne Court ruling. Mr. Dody stated that when there is a
question of interpretaiion, the matter could go to ihe next caurt. He stated that other cities in other
states have instiiuted term limits which �ndicates they are legal, hovvever, interpreted under the State
Supreme Court Ruling. He stated that, in fact, the Federal Stxpreme Court has ruled ierrn limiis to
be constitutional. He stated that it is a question, and �therefore could go to a highex court for
detennination. He stated that the reason for having a Charter is so that the citizenry can react. He
added that the ri�ht of the citiz�nry reaction is a form in the Constitution.
Mayor Coughlin stated that Ivlr. i�ody had been granted five m�utes to sp�ak, and requested he yield
the floor. He expiained, as the Charter Commiss�on Chair can attest, the Charter states that the
Councii has to give a r�asonable amoun.t of time, and that the three-minuie rule had been observed
16C:\ADMIN\1�7INUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
r
for many years. He stated #hat the reason for this is not to limit debate, but fio provide the Counczl
a reasonable amount of �ime for consideration oithe issues, and that �hey not be req�zired to malce
decisions at a very laie hour.
Council Member Stigney staYed that he was also a Meznber of the Charter Camrnission, and
requested, in light of the importance of this issue, moved that the Council extend the time allotted
Mr. Dody by and additianal three to five minutes to complete his comments. Mayor Coughlin stated
that he would request that this extension be applied to aIl residents present.
Council Member Stigney agreed.
Mayor Coughlin stated that he wauld second the motion for the puipose of discussion, and the
reason he would nof support it was that they either stand by the rules or they don't. He stated that
he had already flexed the rules to accommodate Mr. Dody's comments. He added that an
assuxnption had been irnplied thai because of this rule, fhey did not want to entertain the discussian,
and that this was not the case.
Ms. Olson stated that she would like to offer a compromise to the situation, requesYing the Council
malce the recommendation to add fihis matter ta the next Council Agenda in a similar form as that
of a conditional use permit request. She staied that this would allow the Charter Commissian as
much time for discussion as the Members required. Mayor Cough�in stated that the rnatter was on
the Council Agenda at that time, and added that if the Council was perceived as not listening, they
could be thrown out of ot'fice.
MOTION/SECOND: Quicic/Coughlin: To Call Off ihe Debate and Call far a Vote.
Ayes — 3 Nays —.1 (Stigney} Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Coughlin: To Extend the Time Allotted to Any and All Persons
Present to an Additional Three to Five Minuies for Their Comments,
Ayes —1 Nays — 3(Coughlin, Quick, Thomason ) Motion failed:
.Tul�e Oiso�, Chair of the Charter Commission, asked that she been faxed a Ietter written .by Ciiy
Attorney Long, in regard to some potential al�ernatives as suggestions. She stated that City Attorney
Long did not lrnow where the previausly copied Charters originated. She stated that in revzewing
the docurnentation oii behalf of the Charter Commission and the citizens, it was very ciear that the
copies came from the City. She stated that this letter also contained an attachmeni, whicii was
forwarded to the attorney froxn the League of Minnesota Cities. She stated that prior to the maiter
going to the citizens, the alternatives were clearly stated that if they chose io bring the matter to a
ballot, and it was passed, the end result would be that ii would become part of the Charter. She
stated that the City Aci�n�nistration, the Ciiy Attorney or City Council does not have the right to state
that the provision does not have the right to be in the Charter. She stated that is the right of the
citizans. She stated the neither Citry staff ar City Council can make a codicil �o the Chart�r. She
stated they can request that happen, and put a recommendation to the Charter Commission, but they
_. can not do that themselves, or omit the term limit provision from b�ing in the Cha�ter. She stated
1'IC:\ADMIN\MIt�7UTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
, ,:_:.
,: :. ':
thai the ma�fier has gone to higher courts in oYher cities in other states, and has gone through the
House and Senate of Minnesota. She stated that it was passed at the House, which determined that
terrn limits were acceptable. She stated that the matter was going to the next level because ifi had
been passed for three of the four cities that requested it.
Planning Commissioner Laube stated that he was a mamber of the Mounds View Charter
Coxnzx�.ission, and that there were several concerns which required clarification. He stated that the
United States Constitution has to be ratified by the State and the courts, and does not allow the
Congress to adrnit any �codicils. He siated that the citizens of Mounds View ratified�this Charter, and
asked what right the City had to add anything to it. He stated that he was not doubting City Attorney
Long's abilities, bu# explained that he is the City's Attorney. He stated that the Charter provided
monies for the purpose of retaining their own legal counsei, and that he feit the City Council should
allot them nloney so that they can retain a charter attorney to advise them in this rriatter.. He added
that he believed fierm limits would be approved by the Siate of 1Viinnesota in the fitture, and therefore
felt that if the Charter Commission chose to leave this provision zn the Charter, it was their right and
ihe citizen's right io approve it. He stated th�t it was not ti�e righ# of the City Council, adding that
the Council is elected by the citizens in the same manner they approved the term Iimit provision.
He stated t�at the Council can request the Charter Commission to act, but they cannot dezx�and it.
Mayor Coughlin stated that this is why the matter is before the Council as a review.
Je�ry Linke, 23 I O Knoll Drive, stated he was on the Charter Commission during that period of time,
and at that time they did have a charter attomey, and raised the same question. He stated that they
were advised that they should no� put the provision in the Charter. He stated that the City did pay '
for that attorney, ar�d that this has already been done. He stated that he vvould like to know when
the Charter was printed, adding that during the time he was Mayor, no p�ntings were authorized.
Ms. Olson s�ated thai the City authorized the printing in 1994.
City Administtator Whiting stated thai #here was no disagreement that this had been done, and that
zt was understood, the vote was taken and passed, and that it had been certified by the Secretary or
State. He stated that, as he recalled from atiending some of the earlier Charter Camnr�ission
meetings, there were printed copies of the Charter �c�aith the provision in them. He stated that, in
1996, they had discussian regarding whether or not this provision should have been included in ihe
Charter, and that Ms. Olson had shown him that it had been done. He stated that he put the rnatter
on the Agenda, without deciding an his own to reprint all the Charters wiih tliis provision included,
to notify the Council. He stated the intent was to present the options provided by the Ciiy Attorney,
adding that anoiher option would be to do nothing and print the Char�er as it was.
Ms. Olson stated that she lzad also noiified the Councii regarding the matter, and did not thinlc that
the Council meeting was a proper foz°um for the discussion oithe matter. She stated that in regard
to a faotnote or codicil, the Charter already states clearly in Section 4.Q2, that if for some reason �the
provision should be found unconstitutional, others shall remain in fi.tll force and effect. She stated
that parts of the City Code also requi�e amez�dment or correcting, but they were not being dealt with
in this manner. She stated that this was no different than the portion of a resolution for initiatives by
referendum, for a ciiizen to uphold hiis right within the City of Mourids View, which is coniained in
the Charter, and does not correlate to Stafe Statutes, and cannot be done.
].8C:\ADM%13\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
i':
Mayor Coughlin stated that he would move to direct the City Administrator to accept, post and
f�i pu3�lish the co�ected Charter, incl�ding the added provision discussed. in addition, he would
request that Council present an offzcial request to the Charter Commission that they revisit this and
all items which have been deemed unconstitutianal by various court actions or the State Supreme
Court. I�� addition, he wauld move thai a separate document, and not a codicil, be included in a�ny
election packet, outlining the surnmary of the Minneapolis Term Limit Coalition vs. Kezth case, and
any summary documents from the State Supreme Court, so as to accept #hat which has been voted
for by the people, and to request the Charter Commiss�on deal with the fact that items in the Charter
axe uz�constiiutional, and to keep the citizenry informed, even those applying for office, so as io not
mislead them in any way regarding the legal status of the term limits provision.
Council Memher Thoxnason stated that she would second that zxiation.
Cauncil Member Stigney staied that this motion was unclear. He stated he was on the Charter
Cornmission, and at that time, Jerry Linlce was the Mayor, and to his recollection ihe citizenry had
this provis�on placed in the Charter by vote, and the City Council was noi going to allow it, so it
remained in limbo. He stated that whatever the correction, it was within the jurisdiction and domain
of the Charter Comrnission.
Mayor Coughiin sta#ed that this motion was basically di�-ecting the Clerk Adminisfirator to accept
the charter as presented by the Charter Commission. Council Member Stigney staied that the
Charter already existed tha� way. Mayor Coughlin sfated that this was just resolving the question.
Council Member Stigney stated that the mattcer was resoived in his mind.
Council Member Quick asked City Attorney Long how something can be filed, when it is
unconstitutionai, and if so, who did the actual f ling.
City Attorney Long stated that when the vote was taken in 1994, there is a requirement that the City
certify the results within a certain time frame. He sta�ed that he l�ad seen a letier from Samantha
Arduna to the Secretary of State, sending, the language that had been adopted at the election. He
stated that this was done as reqixired by iaw: He explained that they did not add the language because
of the constitutional issues that would coxxie up later.
Council Member Quick aslced who had the copies printed. City Attorney Long stated that he did not
l�ow, adding that they had given Yhe opinion at that �ime that if you were going to reprint ali af the
charter issues, it should be done without the unconstitutional provisian, to prevent the possibility of
a taxpayer law suit. He added thafi once you have a constztutional ruling, you are obliga�ed, and
cannot just ignore it.
Council Member Quick inquired if whomevez had the Charters printed had acted irivolously, �nd
had expended taxpayer's dollars for something that was unco�stitutionai.
City Attorney Long stated that he was noi aware haw many copies �vere printec�, but that tlnis, a.t�d
ihat they not continue to print eopies after the nzliilg, was th� concern. He stated tha� there was also
-- the concern that the City noi: print the Chat'ter vvith the unconstitutional provision as courts have
19C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
f
ruled that it mighf be an improper expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
City Attorney Long stated that the matter was basically simple. He stated that the United 5tates
Supreme Court would not rule on a Miru�esota State Supreme Court decision, interpreting its ovcm
Constitution. He stated that for now, the law of the land in Minnesota has determined term limits
to be unconstitutional, and added that the legislature could not change fihat either. He explained tl�at
the Canstitution would have io be amended to allow this. He stated that oile option was that the
Charter Commission could repeal unconstitutional iaws, whicli he beliaved was the xnost prudent
action, and if denied, he thaught the Charter Commission as the codifier could include fhe
footnoting. He stated the third option, which would be equaily valid, vvould be to notify all
candidates filing for office that the provisian still on the �iool�s is unconstitutional.
Council Member Quick inquired if it would be prudent far the City Cauncii to direct the City
Attorney to take the matter to caurt io obtain a ruling from a judge, and to direci ihe Charter
Comrnission to amend the Charter to b�ing it into line with the Constitution. City Attorney Long
stated fhat this could be done in #he form of a Deciaratory Judgment action which seelcs to clarify
whether the provision in the Charter is unconstitutional. Council Member Quicic stated that, as ihe
Charter Commission is appointed by the courts, this would saem the pzoper way to do ihis. He
requested the Mayor withdraw his motion, and substitute his.
�
Mayor Coughlin stated that he would like to, however, he would have to decline. He stated that
these were #wo separate issues, and the verbiage would remain in light of the motion. He stated that
they could appeal to the appointed judge for clarification. =i
Council Member Quick requested City Aitorney Long's opiruon. City Attorney Long stated that in
his opinion, it is a problem to leave an unconsYitutional i#em in the Charter. He stated that he thought
it proper for a public body, when given a court ruling and are obiigated, to #ake action. He stated
that if the Chat-ter Cornmisszon did nflt remove the provision on its own, then a court action might
be the necessary avenue. However, he stated, rather than takirig a court action first, let the Charter
Comrnissio�i do the right thing, which is �to remove the iYnconstitutional provision by a vote, He
stated that, in his opinion, any attorney would tell them the same thing.
Mayor Coughlin requested they have faith in both bodies present.
Mr. Dady stated that whez� the Charter was originally made, the Charter was printed, and they made
sure that the exact Charter, which was voted on, was represented by the Cityp and then the City
copied that. He stated that the City Council is not the keeper af the City Charter. He stated that it
is the responsibility of the Charter Commission.
Mr. Linke stated he believed that in order to amend ih� Chat-�er, the Charter Commission would
recommend the Charter or amendment to ihe Charter for approval, and the Council would have to
approv�. it tznanimously, or the matter would have to be talcen to the voters. He stated that at this
time and to his l�owledge, there had been no revisions to the Charter within the last four years, other
than the term limit provisian. He added that he was aware that there were other unconstitutiar�al
items. He stated that the Co�ncil provided the �noney to the Chatier Commission to print the �
20C:\AbMXN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
i
Charter, and if the Council thought there were urllawful items in it, they should request it be "cleaned
up," before authorizing the expenditure.
Mayor Coughlin restated his motion to direct the Clerk Administrator to accept post anct publish the
adjusted Charter including the added term limit provision, and to request tl�at the Coui�cil request
that the Chairperson and Commission Members to revisit all items in the Charter which have been
deemed unconstituiional by various court actions, and to direct the Administrator to inciude a
separate document outlining the summary af �he Minneapolis Te�°m Limits Coalition vs. Keith
Supreme Court ruling and a suminary explainin� why this provision is unconstitutional.
Mayor Coughlin stated that this was to �oast on the Website and elsewhere, the Charter as it was
voted upon. He added that he voted for term limits at the time. He stated this was also to
acicnowiedge that the provision was duly voted upon and approved by the populous, az�d to
acicnowledge the fact that it is, at presenti, unconstitutional, unless a constitutional amendznent be
enacted at the state level. He added that it also preserves the right of the Cotulcil and the City to not
withhold any information from those people seelcing re-election. He staied that he saw this as a
comproirr�ise.
Council Member Quick inquired regarding whether or not a time constraint should be placed upon
fihe removal of any unconstitutional items in the Charter.
City Attorney Long stated that they were presently in the process of updating the Code book, and
incorporating a11 the ordinances that ihe Council passed in the iast year, and would include the
- �harter, but had the question as to which provision of the Charter they shouid include. He stated
if the Charter Commission were to act witYun the next sixty days, arid vote to remove the term limit
provision, and any others deemed unconstitutional, they could have it back b�fore the Council for
action, and the riew, "cleaned" up Charter could be printed with the Code to avoid the cost. He
stated that from his perspective sixty days would be a reasonable amount of time.
Council Member Quicic inquired if Mayor Coughiin would accept the sixty day time frame as an
arnendment to his motion. Mayor Coughlin stated that the Council could not dictate the timing of
the Charter Co�nmission, however, they could state sixty days, and the Couricil could consider their
options at that point. Council Me�nber Thomason stated that she would agree to this.
Council Stigney requested clarification of the language "publish the adjusted charter," to indicate
"publish the Charter including the added pravision of term limits:" He stated that he did not believe
it was correct for the Council move upon this matter, as it was within the purview of the Charter
Commission. Mayor Coughlzn stated that to an extent, the Clerk Adminisfrator does have the right
io post the Charter or raise questions regarding it. He added that this was simply an attempt to
resolve the matter at the Council levei, and place it out of fhe Council domain.
Ci�y Administrator VVhiting stated that the last Council discussion of the matter had talcen piace
almost three years przar, and at that time, it had been decided to rerrxove the term limit provision
frorn the Chaxter. He stated, in light of this, and for the benefit of the public who might thinit this
- was this had been done, he had placed the matter on the Council Agenda to provide public
21C:\ADMIN\MINU'£ES\CC\d72699CC.MIN
i
ackz�owledgment thai it was a different version than what he understood it to be th�ee yeaz-s ago.
Council Member Stigney stated that he would prefer the motion be broken down into three different
issues. He stated, in z-egard to posting and publishing the existing Charter, it should have been done,
and if noi, the City has been remiss in not doing so. Mayor Coughlin rei�erated that this was a means
to declare this issue resolved in this regard. Council Member Stigney stated that he opposed it, as
it was not Councii business. Mayor Coughlin stated that unfortunately, previaus Councils had made
it thezr business, and that he felt it necessary to declare it otherwise. Councii Member Quick stated
that it is �he Council's business as duly elected representatives of the peopie. He added ihat no
Charter Cornmission Members are elected.
Council 1Vlember Stigney staied that there are no added provisions to the Charter. Nlayor Coughlin
stated he was referring to items added to the Charter b� the voters, however, he would asnend the
language again if necessary. Ms. Olson stated that it should be indicated as the current February 13,
1995 Cha�ter. Mayor Coughlin stated that he would amend the motion pursuanfi to the
recommendation of Ms. Olson, the current Chair of the Charter Commission. Council Nfember
Thomason stated that she would agree to that amendrrient.
Ms. Olson inquired if the Council would consider a separate stipulation to the mo�ion to request that
the Council will provide additional expenditure for a�torney fees at the same time, in order to
facilitate the Council's request that the Cha.rter Commission review the Charter for ►xnconstitutional
items.
Mayor Coughlin stated that he would prefer an actual document requesting specific funding, rather
than a request for an ambiguous amount. Ms. Olson staied that if they bring this motion forward at
the present meeting, and request the Cha.rter Commission to review those items, they would not able
accommodate the request unless the Council extends additional attarney fees for that purpose. She
staied that if Council so desired, they could come back before the Council with a document to that
effect in the fiiture. Mayor Coughlin requested that they utilize ihe League of Minnesota Cities'
staff, as the Charter Corrunission has akeady done, adding thai ihe services are free of charge as they
are dues payers: He requested that they do whatever is required outside of the purview of expending
additional taxpayer doliaxs.
Ms. Olson stated this was not fair or right, in light of the docuxnentation, which came from the
League of Minnesota Cities, which states that the League of Minnesota Cities' attorneys are not for
the citi2ens, £ax their Constiiution, nor for the Charter. She explained ihat they are on opposite sides
of the fence. She stated that he wouid be asking them to take direction based upon someihing that
would not be legal counsel for the citizens.
Mayor Coughlin s#ated that what he was requesting is to pui the matter back in the realm of the
Charier Commission. He siated there are several instances where items a.re nat in keeping with the
Sfiate Constitution, and he would ask fhat f.he Charter Corrunission be allowed to d.ialogue as a�oup,
prior to a major expenditure of legal fees by anyone.
Ms. Olsan siated, because ghe Charter Cornmission was presently working on some very important
22C:\ADMIN\I�TNUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
. . . .:` :��. ;��;i
amendments io the existing Charter, and particulaxly in izght of the City's new budgei, which could
bring forward a spacial election to the citizens, they could not allow the szxty-day time frame to deter
them from thezr work.
Mayor Coughlin clarified that the motion states the Council is giving the Charter Cammission sixty
days from ihe date of tlie present meeting, and requested, as they currently meet on a regular basis
for purposes of reviewing and amending ihe document, they would add this item #o their discussion.
He added that neither he, nor any other member oithe Council was attempting to sef priorities at the
Charter Commission level.
Mr. Linke stated that as a frst step the Charter Commission could go bacic through the minutes of
previous years and easily pull those items out. He added that they already have, either by statute or
ordinance, approximately $1,100.00 for facilitating this.
MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Thomason. To Direct the City Adminisirator to Accept, Post and
Puhlish the Current �ebruary 13, 1495 Charter, Including the Added Provision Discussed, In
Addition He Would Request the Council Present A,n Official Request to the Charter Commission
ihat #hey Revisit this and All Iiems Deemed Unconstitutional by Various Caurt Aciions or the State
Supreme Court In Addition He would Request that a Separate Document, Not a Codicil be Tncluded
in any Election Packet, Outlining the �tunmary of the Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition vs. Keith
Case and Any Suznmary Documents from the Staie Supreme Court so as to Accept that which has
been Voted For by the People, and to Request that the Charter Commission Deal with the Fact that
Ttems in the Charter are Unconstitutional aa�d to Keep the Citizenry Informed, Even Thase Applying
for Office so as to Not Mislead Them in Any Manner, Regarding the Legal Status of the Term Limit
Provision, as Amended..
Ayes — 3 Nays —1 (S#igneyj Motion carried.
Cauncil Member Stigney stated that he opposed, as he thought the Resolution was too convoluted
to make a rational vote an. ,
Mayor Coughlin stated that the City Administrator was direcied to publish and post the present
Charter on the City Website, and any oiher place appropriate, as directed by the Charter Commission
itself.-
�
�
Nex� Councll `Work �ession:
l�ext Council IVlee�in�
�� ;�1� ��� � '
Mayor Coughlin adjouYned the meeting at 9:37 P.M.
Transcribed and recorded by:
- Trish 1'earson
23C:\ADMIN�1`7INUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
I�Ionday, Au�ust 2, 1999 — 6:00 PI�
IVionciay, A�g�st 2,1999 — 7:0� P1VI
I
;
TimeSaver Off Site Sec�etarial, Inc.
29C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN
`:
--:=:-:,
e
I�iOUI�II)S "i1YEl�1 PI,AI�iIl�G COIVII6�IS�IOI�
�eptember �9 1999
7a0i} P.I�.
REGULAR MEETI1V�r
AGENDA
1. Ca(1 to Order
2. Roll Ca11
3. Citizens Requests and Coxnments on Items Not on the Agenda
CIZ'IZEN�: BEFOI� �P��4.I�I1�(G, PI,EASE C011��+ TO TI-€E P�I�II7�€, Al�d�
GI� �'OUI� FI7I.,I.IVA�IE ANI) A�DD��S F018 T�IE I9�IIl\LT�'E�
________________°o__,.______________.�____....__.�sma_�_..a.._.._____m__e__o_..___________________.._______
4. Approve Minutes:
a. August 4, 1999
5. Planning C'ase l�o. 56�-99 ,
Property Involved: 8359 Red Oak Drive
Cansideration of a variance request to a11ow for a 44-foot wide driveway.
Appiicant: John �Ienning
6. S#aff Reports / Items of Information
a. Discussion concerning change in location of screen fence at the Anthony
Properties/O'Neil PUD (Theater Project.}
b. Comrnissioner Deen Brathen's leave of absence reques#
c. Previous Council Actions
d. Upcoming Planning Casas
7. Chairperson and Pla,nivng Commissioners Reports
8. Adjournment to Agenda Meeiing
(Immediateiy Foilowit�g Regutar Meeting)
�***����*�***�*�*��������:�*:��������:**���
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
������:�*������***�**�***���*����*����:�*
AC�ENDA SESSION
AGENI3A
1, Review 1Vlinutes -- August 18, 1999
N:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDE VIPLANCOMM�PCAGENDA\ 1999V-I-99.REG
>.. ;;:;.
'•;
7
;;
: ;:,
i; � ,� .> � . � i. .: :�:
���t��� �a��:
Staff I3epor� I��a
Pl��n�ng Ca�e l�To.:
Request:
Applaca�t�:
Location:
I �' ;� ,, - :r
Zoning/I.anci �i�e:
Applicabie It�g�aiat�o�aso
September l, 1999
7ames Ericson, Pianning Associate
568-99
The applicant is requesting a variance ta allow a 44-foot wide
driveway, nine feet wider than what the Code allows.
John Henning
8359 Red Oak Drive
06-30�23-12-0100
R-1, �ingle �'amity Residential / Singie Family D�elling
Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4c(1}(a) states that no driveway shall exceed a width
of thirty five feet.
Sectiozt 1125.02, Subdivision 2 lisis the criteria for gran�ing a variance.
A�tachmen�s: Planning Applicatian
Zoning Map
Site Ptan
Letter from resident, dated 8/11/99
Letter from afFected neighbor at 8365 Red Oak Drive, dated 8/2/99
Resolution 593-99
�ackgraund:
The applicant, John Henning, has requested that the Pianning Commission approve a variance for a
driveway nine feet wider than is allowed by Code. The maximum width for a driveway is 35 feet.
The applican� wishes to add a nine-foot wide parking pad alongside the garage, which to protride
access for, causes the driveway to increase to a width of 44 feet. The driveway, however, narrows
to 14 feet as it approaches the street.
The intent of the Code requirement which limits how wide a driveway can be is in part ta prevent
an excessive amoun� of impervious surface on a property, As stated above, the limit is not
�rbitrary, instead it is derived from the width of a tlu'ee car garage.
Ar�aEysfse
The applicant in this case was not aware of the limitation for driveway widths and had graded the
__ lot and consiructed a retaining wail at the properiy line to accommodate such a driv�way. The
adjacent property owner,lVorbert Moe, has signed a statement (attached) indicating that he
!
Henning Variance report
8359 Red Oak Drive
August 25, 1999
Page 2
approves of the driveway being tocated one foot from the north property line,
T�ariance Criter•ia:
As with any variance application, for the Ptanning Comrnission to act favorably, there must be a
detnanstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property which makes a literat
interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes
require that the governing body review a set of speci�ed criteria for each ap�lication 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 Cade clearly states �hat a hardship exists when all of the
criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as folIows:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to tlae p�operty which do not apply
generally to other properties in the.same zone or vicinity and result fram lot size or shcrpe,
topo�aphy oY other circumstances over which the owners of the property since ihe
effective date hereof have had no control.
�ecause of the width of the lot and the size of the house, the garage, which a� 875 square
feet, cannot be expanded. While there are three vehicle access doors, the applicant would _
like to be able to park a boat or another vehicle outside without blocking any of the three ___ -�'
doors. Instead o£paving a perpendicular parking pad in the �niddle of the yard, the
applicant would like to utilize the area alongside the gara.ge, which is a common practice in
this City. A11 of this, however, does not add up ta an extraordinary circumstance, a
circumstance over which ihe applicant had comptete contral.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title woula' deprive the applica�zt of
rights commonly enjoyed by other• properties in the same district under the term� of this
Title.
To staf�s recoilection, no oiher variances have been granted which have allawed for
driveway widths in excess of 35 feet, nor have any been requested. Wiaile there are
examples of three-car garages in the City that utilize the space aiongside the garage for
additional parking, that space is typically set apart from the principal driveway by means of
landscaping or gravel, Interpreting the Code so as to disallow the appiicant's request would
noP be depriving the praperty owner of something commonty enjoyed by other properties in
this residential district, because other property owners do not have this right.
Tliat the special condrtzons or circumstances do not Yesult. fi-orn the actions of the
applicant.
The house was constn.�cted this year for the applicant. Tlie survey and submitted buxlding
plans do not indicate a parkin� area aiongside the garage, which if it had, would have been --
brought to Nir. Henning's attention.
Henning Va►-iance report
8359 Red Oak Drive
August 25, 1999
Page 3
d. That granting the variance Yequesied tivill not confer on the applzcant any special
pr•ivilege that is denied by this Title to owne�s of other lcrnds, structure,r oY buildi�zgs in
lhe sanze district.
The Code states that driveways shall not exceed 35 feet. Granting a variance to ailow a
44-foot wide driveway would confer upon the applicani a special privilege that is denied
by the Code ta other property owners.
e. That the variance requested rs the mrninaum variance which tivould alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be consideYed a hardship,
The variance requested is the minimum variance which would aileviate the applicant's
�Zardship of not being able to park atongside his garage.
f. The variance would not be materially detrirrrental to the purpose of ihis Title or to other
property in the same �one.
The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners
- seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code
requirements and factors beyond their control. The Cade limits driveway widths ta
-- prevent the proliferation of impervious surface for not only the aesthetic reasons, but
environmental as well, Approving tlus variance would be to go against the very intent of
the Cade.
g, The proposed variance will not impair an adequczte supply of light and air ta adjacent
property ar substantially increase the congestron of the public st�eets or increase tdre
danger of fire of� endanger the public safety or substanfially diminish op inapair property
values within the neighborhood.
A 44-foot wide driveway would not impazz a supply of light or increase congestion, nor
would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or dimanish praperty
values. It wouid however ensure that vehicles would be parked upon an improved surface.
According to the City Code, alI of the preceding criteria sha116e satisfied in order to justify the
granting of a variance. It appears io staffthat in this case a hardship does not exist, and as such, if
the Planning Commission were to concur, a vari�nce should noi be granted to allow the expanded
driveway.
Relevance o the Code:
While there is no q�estion as to the intent of the Code, from time to tim� the Codes of th� City__
its Zoning Code in particular--should be reviewed ta ensure that they are in keeping with the
values, needs and desires of the com�►unity, especially in light of changing standards and market
demands with regard to home construction.
Henning Variance report
8359 Red Oak Drive
August 25, I999
Page 4
Because a three-car garage is now a standard amenity with a new home, and because of th�
growing number of conditional use permits granted by the City for garage expansions, it may be
ihe case that a Code requirement limiting the driveway width may in itself be an undue hardship,
for no other reason than not having a p[ace to park an extra vehicie or boat without blocking the
path of one stored in the garage. This consideration (amending the Code) should perhaps be
given some discussion, both as it relates to the variance request at hand, as well as on its own
merit.
I�ecoe�er�end�iion:
There are three options available for the Planning Commission with regard to this request.
A, Direct siaffto draft a resolutian of denial based upon the fact that there is no
apparent hardship io warrant approval.
B. Direct staffto draft a resolution of approval based upon hardship Gircumstances as
discussed.
C. Table the rec�uest to a date certain (keepir�g in mind the I20-day time limit) to
allow staff and the Commission the opportunity to discuss the merits of a Code
amendment to Section l I04.01, Subdivision 4b(1)(a) relating to driveway widths
in a residential district.
N:IDATAIGROEJPSICOMDEV�EVCASES1568-991I TENNING 1.RPT
i
s��,�n
j
' j I�j��'� ii:v �L.�1:1 li �i� V.G9J�I l�1Se1�� 9�A���d6 1'1 A
. � L� V Le` 2.���1Vd�:r1V A tit ��ALL'� d 1�17
"a� ;�i?`;;�;�; 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View li�iN 551 I2
r ` 612-717m4020
n�r�l' ' Par[nerS���
612�7�4-3462 - FAX
Please'I'ype o� Print Infortx�atioea - Complete �oth Sides o€TEais Foe-Yu
AppGcant I�foravafion `
Name of Applicant V U �_ ��7 /�J f' r1
Address _ ��� � j / . � � � C`-. �� il` (1 e
o r'V' �S ii �` � 4-t� V% /l� .
Itittere9t �n �'rogerty (check appropr'sate box)
� Owner aiProperty
� Lessee, Operator, Munager
❑ Other (explain)
Te(ephone � r�� ' �/ 7 �5 �
Fax
[� Coatract for Deed Owner
❑ � Agreement to Purchase
r�pp6cants tc�ust provide evi�ence og i�tere�i in pro�erty at the t�e of applica4ion, an�l uf you are not t�Ce owner of t�se
property, you mus� proe�ide a lette� of permission from the at++�t�er gavsng c��sent to the ftling of this applic�tion. �`he
property o�er a�ust segn this applieation for it to be accegted.
Property Description/Proposat
Address ar General Location
LegaE Description
Progert.y Identification � (PIN #)
# of Acres
Curreni Zoning
�� � % �� C� c�
c� f7'1 F? ;S
G � � f. � �
r�� ? c7 _�.:� �� ���e� �
__ �_ _ � �- � � � � LS ---
�5� d����`
Type of App[ication
❑ Camprehensive Plan Amendment
� Rezoning
❑ Major Subdivision
� Minor Subdivision
a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
❑ PUD �nendrnent
❑ Canditional Use Peimit
�„r•`��� Vuriance
� Code AppeaE
❑ Develop Review/Site Plan
❑ Wetland Alteration Permit
❑ Wetland Buf%r Permit
❑ Floodplain Pernvt
a Other
$250 '
$250/acre; min $250 max $1500
$250 + $250 deposit*
$Z00
Refer to rezoning fees
$350
R-I, alI others $250
R- I, �� 10 11 others $250
$100 �'__..�
� t 25/acre; min �[ 25 ma.�c $750
R-1, R�2 $150; ait others $200
R� 1, R-2 �25; ail others $100
$200
- ��y•� �
�`Deposits shall be paid to cover all c�sts of public notices, materials and stat�'or consultant time spent in the revie�v,
research or preparation of materials associated with this applieation. The applicAni sl�all be responsibie for all reasonable
encurred casts in e;ccess of ti�e initiul deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit nof s�ent or encumbered shalf be refunded
to the appticant witlun thirty (30) days after en�xsiderafion ot the app[ication is cornplated. .
Flease `om�rl�te the revsa°se 9ide of �his :�pplic;�trea�o
1
City of Mounds `liew, IV�3�d
i3e�velo ment A lication ,�, Fa e 2
Present Use of Property � , -
❑ UndevelopedNacant � Single Family Dwelting ` s
❑ DuptexlTwa Family Dwelling o Multi-famiiy Dwetling °
� Business/Commercial Establishment o Industrial EsYablishment
[3 Other (explain)
Property Ginss�cation �
T7escriptian of Proposal
� re (� r7� i!� U� �! P_
Absiract
�
n Torrens
� '� O C c1�, d f� �- C�
� o' SG r—���
� � c� � y �`,
'� � /: �v � m _ �.s � � i
c.a.s d �
m� `�____�� �
-�j- a� 'r +� i•�'> w l �. I� c�� c ��� .� �.� o e C�
j�. � ��- CG SL �. c x �� c� r, r,� ; ty s'� �
BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO 'li�E BEST OF MY
KNQWI.,EDGE, THE INFURMATIUN PRUVIDE�S TR� AND A�CURATE.
Signature of Applicant
Name of AppEicant (ryped/printed)
Sigiiature of Property Owner
Name of Property �wner (typed/printed)
Acidress of Owner
Phone Number of Owner
� i�� �.�� �
� � � � ���
�s���x*m*��*�x�:k�*��um�:x**��������*�����������*�*���i������*��ta���a��m�x:x�����k#���x��*���*��mmm�x���m*�x��
FQR OFFiCE i1S� ONL�'
Date of Subenittai � �"` �t
Date of Acceptance °� Z �`� �� Assigned to: :� t/���.. __
Plana�ixig Case No. �to y; -��'� 60-day Limit l 24-day [imii �
Fees Paid: Account # Check # Receipt #
Application: '� n � � l B D � �� — ��—°� 3a�t `�
Prirk Dedication: --- — —
Deposits:
Other:
Totai:
N:�DATAIGROUPS\COMDEV�FnRMS1DEVAPP.FOR 1/98
_�
::'=�.
. . - —NaRTH C�UNTY -�--- LI�E � . . .
� , �N � .
8430 0'�0 849 i7 ���'8494 49�, N 1tO n��49� 8495� �
�4�0 ,_....._. � �489 �� N� �� ,....,.;�N. N B49Q 8485� cv __�480
8470 � 8471 � 8�74 84�85 -�._��48� �47 , 84i0
� �465 �� 8470 84i5 i "� 84i5
8�6fl -- 846� -�•- 8�i4 8Qi1 � 8466 "°'..."',
845� 8�61M1...W_�---8460 8q.5 ��60 g485 + M 8464 8485 �_._.... ��67�� �° y
w- _.� ,� _ ��~ 8455 � ""�--�---- oo �s
.. 8 4 5 0 8 4 5 5 � 844(} 84#1� � 8 4 5 5 � 4 5 4 8 4 5 5M � � 4 5 0 8 4 6 5��� �
-- ---��_�..., ,._._€�.._�_.,_.�..r ,�..�.��... .., ___._ ,,.,._,�....�._
'8"�� 8439 ' 8�'3Z } 8431 � 8444 8443 � 844-4 � 8445 �4�44 845� 84fi4
-4
..�.�.�. _.�._w,,..._
8438 �._�-�--�, a _�....._,..._ $435 { 8434 �433 8432 84-44 ��45A
8432 _.._.�...' �424 8425 � 84 ,4 �.�, ��_..� ,,._._..,...,.,_�_M.. .
- ��19 � � . �..�.�.�..�..._...�_.. 8425 8424 i . `�." �444
8425 8400 g415 � ��20 r.��.��.�,�... 8425 ? 8428 8429 �
- 8495 8�14 �,.....�_.._,w,._,._.._.Y.. .�_ "..'�
8420 84�9 ��392 ........_._.. ._...._.....,. � . _.. ..._._,...,.....,._
---rv--- 840i �� 8406 84.05 � 8404 6415,J,.�� 84�8 8415
$�14 8441�r� �8384 .............. ........�_ ._....� ��.._..._... �
..._._... ..�.P � �rn 1.--- - 8400 83i9 $394 f3405 �� �__8�l00 �9�_~..-844C
$40� �9� � ��✓ 18378 8389 � .._...,,�.w �384 8395 i 838Q g,389 �...�_839C
---�- R I�IV '', E3i3 �_�,......._..._ .,.. . __,_..�._�..83i0 --�w---��--�-�- -
8398 ��"°�' 8379 8380
�385 G . ��7 __.......�.-.-v-... � — - � .,w �370 83�5 8379 83�C
, 37� �,.�,....._„ g385�, 8372 � 3_....._„ $360 8375 �.� 8360 �.. .....n�..._.._
�.,_,�.,. � � �
8378 �_�� �� 836 836$ Y�. j w.T_ � 835Q 8375 837E
8368 a 8369�� �836� 8355.,..,..! A�..,,�. `c - _...�...L__�..._�350 �355 _ � _..._. w..._...��.� -
934 �365 �.�. 8354 8345 � 8364 8345 vM 8340 S'S4.es .�� ^�349 8371 � 837:
.�...._._ ��-�--�—W _.._.��- g335 8330 _�_,.��...�,_834
83�4 8;51 �g34� ~ 8340 833i 8330 ���--�-rv-° 835i �Vwy�u. ��
�� -°---•---�._,.,�._,�u �335 � � ..._.�._ ��..._.._..� 8325 832Q �t
"`� 8343 8342 ��� 83i5 8320 g�g� 832(
8334 . 8325 $:� 12 r,�. y�,,,� 8� i 5�_� 8318 _._...._..._.__,.,,_.�.-�-~�--
.._�,....,�.w�,...._,_,..._.
��3� 5332 2 8�23 ( 839f
_.. �315 $300 �303 � �310 0 8305 � 831� ,.,,�,..._.. ...._.,,t_..._._.
B33(1 8333 ,8322 8305�����2�� 8295 �� a290 � 8291 ��.� 829Q �285 5 g2�!
.�...�._._._..��
; 8325 N 8300 � 82�5 �2�0 82�7 8280 � 828i.r.y_ 8280 � �82gt
-i ._._.._��-- ,_...�....�_,w.�.....�._ �---�......,...._._ 8273
�
� 8275 8270 Q 8289 8270 ��Z7� TL....._ 6270 - „°�'°.
GROVELAPdQ � ._.._........w...�._._ .. W -----�-�-.- � 8260 8285�_ ry_ 8261
Q 8265� 8260 � 8273 ���260 8281
....;�.....�.� ..._. ~ 825(
PAR1C � 8255 8250 8257 8250 8251M�. � 8250 82:55
PF ,�, ...�.�, � _ �........�_.� ..�__.. ,.�...�_.�.,...�..��...�.
824� - sz�:
; � � �;�� � �240 8269 � �- 8240 ��� �i� � �
, � , J cv ^ rI � : � --•-�--a-"-"� co ca � <o � �0 823 9 � 823:
�� ARDAN c�a cv ` cv � cv 823� 8255 � N cv c�a a� a cv �
AVE
( �o ; � � c
M N � � co u�Da ° _� i � 8220 _.�...,__.t..._ - --�---�--�� � „L.� cfl � � u
824 �� N �� e`�v c�+a � c��a i crv � r• '"�" � c.� ° cv r
,.�,. M�N ��.._..._. N �2 � o �2 � 9 82�5 �.�_,�
8206 .W..-_._,.. - __...,._�...__ - _
822i "°" i.,,`""
8202 .,.._ _..�.,w.._ � � j � � � �20 �._..�._.�..._..._ - �984 8193 _ ..,_ -- -
8198 8205 c�v c�y ��t � a� ' r 8180 878b
-----�-�-� ..��..._....,._..._._ ..._.�_._._,...�......y....,..,� �.
� 192 [� 8203 ' DR _...�..�....�.._�._..�."_i".� �.."
�n�i� � 8208 d. ! cA co c�e o 81 i5 fO '��� 816fl 817 9
----� � � '-, cv �D �n � �i-dy,._....... ._,.,_.�.,..� py � .� n.w.. .,�.�_
8180 �y � � N �20D � � � N ie�,, 8165 Ir�. _„ .�._......�.
814 --.�,_,...�. � 815� 816a �,�.�._....�.....
8 9 �8 � LAPORT �..�_..�.,...�� �9 55 � �!� �� �'� °`~~-� ......__.._..._..... ,.�.�
^ c= � � o � � � 3 �i � �145� ,�O ��d'�� 81 �45� .....
813& : M-�- ---"' _°
ev �ra cv cv cv � E i 8135 �� o,ti�,� �s� � 9 40 8 9 4 i i �^.~.
S 132 $� 27 f = ' B 12� 8130 � 131 �-1�~-~ �•-• "�'"""`°'�
811 rh � � n o� f � � u', r � c� ; � �n �u? n + ry ; 'n � „ � � ' . � � � i o c
,.�_.... ry � ev •- o o j co � : � � � e� � �P� � ^ `� �o m � 8111 iu � � u
F31�6 N� N N N� N s N N� N'; N � N N?N�61� 12�� �� e� t��- N 3 e•a Ic�s r
Zonin� I�ap
Ap�licant:
I,oca�ion:
Planning Case 56�-99
Jo� I�ennin�
�359 Red Oak Drive
��i
:
,
��,
� �� 9 9
�
,�--- ,
/1.�✓� � f P� . .........
E�/ v' �s�l..t- r `�' 1 .
l
� "Z4�r✓� �. � •L��� .�'(.�..�CI`" �
„ J �, � �/ " ,
N ;�--�-- •��1�- ' � ��� �;-,�; � C
i ' ,
� ��� }r '�.�,'� :.�'r...�° ��'z./,
� � t�L�--�..n-_� �
.�`� ,,�� � �
�.�.3. �--=` �'`��� � r�' -
. �� ;
c.�- ..�- � � � _ ..�.y���
,�� � -.
�� � " � `7��� , �-� �
� �� ;
.�..� ��. � � �,.
�'�`� _ �
��--� �°, �,� C�
, �� ;
���� - �� m -
�l;� '
� ..�'l.�C.�` % °�-�� . ..�'' � '�-- � � , �
p� I� :=-; -
��1g��.� ,'(7f . , .��L�..�, �-�°; .�d��C'�^-�i.�'��� � �°-��.. -� c
f A ���� [ � � �
� � � �...r ��F..+�°�, � �:
�� ;�.
'���> � ;;
-� ��'�, � �-- 4 �, �
�� �.�,�� ; � � �
/ � r y
/ � � c 3 '
r �:
�� � �� ���
!
�y I
�� ` i°�_ �. C�.. ' o$;,,,� �..� i
I>
�. � � - �.�
���J '/`� -
I � +-n^������� .�.��FV�� �""�� `�� '��)
� � � `
.� 1��� 1�
�� , ` ` ��.-�... "C.�,N:,� ,a� � �-, � :
_ �
d
.��
�� �
!
t
. (�---� � ����✓1��
� ✓
� ��� � � �'.�" ��--�
�
���d� % �.� �
��- ���9
� � i� n � ,r � � �--� �. o �i � e �- s
- ��
� :
� �a� ��� J�o � ��� �Z� ;.
� �
r°� � ,-��-� ���-- �� � � l� e � � c� �� � � ;� -
� , rr
�- �. u� � o � � e �� i
� %Z o � � � �� ,
�F � .��� � � �� � � _ �.
� Ci �°' C�� _ � � � � d W
r !A. f V � ` � � �� l. �� �`J ¢-� � {1 � � � E� L
� � I
� � �� � � i F� � a � � � � ��� j` �' � ;;
�r .
�
"� � � �� f � � �� ... � r
� �
!�%--�� ii��-
E
_.
. .._..,��.
��
9 �
��-- �
1 ; �
. � C
M
m
C
r
� �
� �'
O n i
9
z:
uA
�n
w
�x
�
# CCa�
��
�o
a �a
� }� �
? z�
$�o
� ��
3n
ro n C
� � I
I� N N �
:p � �
u �
m p �
b
'':_v�c� .7
zo.�� ._.. . .—.
i
�
• • k ,�
a�g�s�`��
n F,' o '� M � � �
� P � � � $
� o � � � � �
� n o n $ ='
� � �' � b � a z
�tl N � � � � $ N
O
n� � � g
b � � A
H
rJ � b
n y in
�`
��
� ..
�_.,
,_ i �
�
�
►�i
�
`b
�
�
n
�
1
' I
� �
N �'
� � �°m 0�•U�°a. P O�
v m v
� � � � � � � r � � � ��
r �
� 1�13W35�3 1.�.1iEl9l � 3J�'�1�2�Q
r
��
O
f•' �
P
�
'. l
j i
o � °z �ib
�• ,;
w
� � �- �
; ►^ .Q�.s �'
Q- �-
�-
"^ �.•Fpa o- o �o-.e .e-,Di o o �-,ai � �a-.ot
�' • � � 1 k I
C-' . �� � N ir -
. .8,, � �
�
�
��
0
0
N
� ,
.a ,
�
5°DI �
-- . o- � ��N3alS�� �
� p � a3SOd0�ld M o �
_ r�.. �; . .�
. `ti `1: �' • N"°�ZI � � Ho��41 �
:�. �
.�: ,q: ``� � � � �
. `., ; 1 I �i Q v
. �� Jr , � � � o � ;
N
��.� ,Q—,9� —
� 4a � ' er+ !r
�� � � ��� a
`�°� 1 � °�-!
\ �
� ,� 1
> I
� � �
1 � I
1 ,
.. �, � f
i
� j
�
� • ��•��
................. �
� ��
6 �
a �
� �-
'
i
� _
�
�
,
j I
i + ! _ �- �
�� �l
�° v - ^ �°(� ps '�P �
w? `° ���VC9 � P
Q° � I ' _ �
� ' -
�..,.�:��'� � C �1.�8 �0 3��� rJ -- -
r ,z, p r
C L..L���� ������e� �
a
��_
�
�
N
O
N
0
�
�
v
�
_�
O
'I �
�
.,y, � �
\\ \ M�
�
�� �
,\ \
�
�
�
�
`v�
� c 1
o °�
o � �
�� �
� b
>
�. a � Q1
W � � �a °
� o g�
� c a
� O -p �
0
�
° °' � ¢
2 c E N d�
� ° .Q °' �°, m
v �
� � �� c �
v ` ?+•-
m o � �
� � g�`i � a O
Y o na � A
� � �a
° �� �o° �
� — �' �
o v o � �
� - `t � �,
�
d ��� � �.
� - ° � o � �
� , ; � 3
p � f� N
� .m
N O � aj �w
y � N �
�> °'' N
� � G7 L , 7
� a CJ
w � � � �
�s �
� A V � d
�+ y� � � T
. Q � � 4� j
� A } �
d C �
� � C � �
V' � 1 I J 1' .' `�
� � � j . : I �
� '� .:; . j; . ;� . , �o �L�.� .
• •.';'";' � t _ �,�1
� � ,�`-'�i�'/l i� 't � _ _ '�` �� �<' �
f � ,l � J,.�/ �i% � _ ,� � � � a � �.. � � , � s r ��� s`
(} �,. ' ;':: �� � , � �'' ' �� _ i -
1 4 � ; " j� i . "! ' _�� ,
� � � �� '' ,r� ,' /- � .
� `` .r � '
•. •�
� ' � '
�
�Z \ ' -
y5� � �
� �
�
�
\ � -
� ` e '
a
p� e
� ��_ �x '
�
� . --. . - -
� '� i i .: u�=
k `�
i
� �.'.
�
f ;� -
� =s
� ;��
� �;_ i.
� A.,.,
e� _
� t~ y
�
� � +
' � '
�
� '._
I ':'.
,
,
�-- •�HX3 �
1'¢'X3a * �
� bi7�
a !
.�
�I
�-�x.� .a. �. a..� �L
�� Y �� ��• � ��
- � ,'�;
c _ �. �; -c� x� � � �� .�
s °�� -
m'-.�: �
�.
}: � �
�� , -
� a ��
��� S�°�C ` �
�� . r
����-� �
�L L ���� .�
1 � �'� _ �,-�`�-
� o � a.
a� , l
i �
'��� �
fF � `�
! �`j, c�
���F
� f �,� ,�^`�/f�
; II J . ^~r' p'
� �/
% -�� �y M1 /'
V�` �
/ � , �
�
��a /
�
° P .Q.��9 _
� �ti � �`
'�
! ��'*.
� �, l
� a
'' i
y( t
�� `� .- �4,..
�•--'t.
� o ��.
- :!�
r°" �� .
- D i� �
''` � � � ;�; � - ;�;
'�o: �/iounds View Planriing Commission,
Fa°om: Rtck Jopke, Community i�evelopment Director
��bject: Request to Change Screen Fence Location ai the Anthony Properties/O'Nei► Project
Date: July 29, 1999
BACKGROUND:
As part of the Anthony Properties/O'Neil PUD project (Theater Project) a screen fence was
canstructed along t%e County l�oad H-2 side of th� groject. Th� developers have d���rmined that
the screen fence is too close to the affice building under construction. 'They are asking that the
City approve a change in the tocation in the fence ta deal with the problem. They originally
proposed io move the fence 10 feet to the south immediately adjacent �o ihe buildings. They have
revised th�ir r�quest to oniy move the fence 6 feet instead of 10 feet. The fence will remain at its
present location in the area between the buildings. The fence vvill be removed when the buildings
ar� constructed. The fence will remain at its present location until the office buildings are actually
constructed. Any trees that may have to be removed wouid be replaced.
The d�veloper has attempted to talk with ali the residents on ihe south side of County Road H-2
about the proposal. Six of the twelve residents have indicated that they wouid support the change
� and three residenis opposed the change. They have been unable ta talk to two residents. Councii
Ivlember Thomason lives in the final property and the developer is attempting to discuss the
proposal with her, A copy of a petition circulated and a map is attached.
ANAL,YSI�:
The proposal raises 2 questions. The first c�uestian is: Will the prapase change adversely affect the
project or the neighborhood. It is my opinion that the proposal would not adversely affect either
the project or the neighborhood. The fence iacation change would not result in any additionat
impacts and could be done with minimal impact on the 54 foot bu�%r area and minimal loss of
trees. The developer is working with the City Forester to minimize tree loss and to replace trees
that are lost with varieties recommended by the City Forester. The buffer area wil! remain and a
contintaous screen fence will siili be in place.
The second question is; �1Vhat process should the City follow in reviewing the request? 'The
projeci has been approved as a PUD, As such ihe project has to be constructed in accordance
with the approved pians. The zoning code does not address amendments to approved PUD's.
Daes ihis mean that any changes to a�proved PUD plans have to go through the full PLTD process
again? This seems excessive for minor changes such as the current request. A code arnendment
may be in order to define what minor cl�anges are and what kind of review process should be
followed.
,
In this particular case there appears to be no adver�e irnpact of the prapased chas�ge and those
residents v✓i�o could be impacted by the change have reviewed the change. It would seem that this '`'
type of change could be approved by staff. On the ather hand, based on the history of the project
you mighi want to have a hearing on the project.
1�EQiJ�STEi3 ACTION:
�t is requested that the Flanning Commissian review the above requesi and determine what review
process and actian should happen. The Planning Commission could also recommend that stafibe
directed to draft code amendmen�s far fuiure consideration by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
N:�BATAIGROUPS\COMDEVIPLANCOMMl4-I --99.MEM
.:. .
�'?;;;
,,::
_,. :
;;;
;'
,, _�
� �'
I� .
;
: �.
;.�� �
`�,i�/�ndell #G. .��°ml-�h
Co-;-�ercio` P_ecl _star2
Deveiop^�er', Gopns�lt�ng q
O�'!d groh:e'cqe �-gu�j� 19, 1999
�r. �ck Jopke
City of IVlourids �Iiew
2401 Highwayl4
Mou:n.ds �Iiew, l�/IN SS 1 i 2
I�: �evisioxa of Theater I�roperty PI7Ia
I}ea� Itick:
As you kn.ow, we ar� ut�der construction of ou.r first offcce building. I beiieve tha� tlus
project has gone just the way eve said ii would. Tn dfscnssio�s with d�ffexent nexghbors
on Cou�ty Rd. H 2, �Ue �nain com�la�nt they had were of the tnxcks that coz�tfnue to u�e
�he road. 'I hey clid state that there were cars ihat screech out of Edgewood o�►to H-2. I
believe that this will be taken care of when the urter-section is compl�ted.
It has been brought to �ny attention by the contractor, that there IS NOT �nough room
be�ween tlie office building and tlae fencs to put in the condensers for tl�e air conditioz�ing
�its. These condensers will �it on a cement pad iai the rear of the bu.ilding. 'The fenc�
willl�de these condensers visually, while also blocking any sound. to the neighborhood.
Because the fence was part ofthe PUD, I am asking that we be ailowed to move the fence
I O feet toward H-2. i have tried to visit with all the homes on �i-2, at various iimes.. I
have been able to find �ine of ihese residents at h�me. Seven of tbe n�e signed a
pe�tio� agreeing that we co�.1d move the fen�e. I will try to meet �uiih the oihers before
ihere is a.t�y public hearing on this issue.
In Iooking at ihe site, it looks as �we can move the fence without haaving io take dowra
any t7r�es. I would be happy to meet with you or one of your staff at the site. Pleas� let
me knovsr what I need to do to have thi� it�m pat before ihe �lanning Commis�ion.
Sincerely,
r� l a /�� — �1—=--- --
.���� ' - ,�
���ae�t �. ���
1210 Josephlne Rd. • Raseville, MN 55713 •{651) 48d-ST4 • FAX (651) 4S4-rJro99 � Cel: (612) 889-8230 • E-maii - WSt"I!7N@ocr.oro
�u� �`7 99 11 e 5�a LJ�e�d�I 1 R. Sr�ith
� : , �, �. ; .�.. , ; ,
6�1-�84-0899
�thc�n;� �op�rei� is � �h� p��cess c: f : �►a�s�ruct� �n� £�e� �f�� offi�� build��s. Ix�
��d�r t� ��all �u �m�d�i ° � iu�s ��� t�� �raund beiw�� �h� bauidin�s �h� � ° °
���� n s t� be �d 10 to tl�� .; ,��csenth, ��o tt�� �bafFer �a�. No$ �y �dl. �e
£�ce hid� #�t �ir d�a��s ° s, rt vv�Il �� d�d.�a ihe s�nta�d ��� �.�i�,bmrhood
d� by ��se ° �.
°I'�� ffi��t� of�� fea�� ° no� c�u:-.:� :�c ���al a��� ���th�► �. 'Ther� �e
�Pro ° �%r f�aux t�� t�ri:#1 be s m� iav�d. du:e t� c�a� ° ��t th� r�qx�� �f �ie
c�.
, :,
pe2 ;
W� th� b�lavv ��� n�i�hbo�°�, �h�i ,:.t"sB �ti� �uan�y �d �i 2, x�Prav� ��t6� �sov�n�
a vf tha� f�a�. 'rh� f�cc wall c�gt�u� �� � be thc �.� ]g�igb� �nd dvill b� r�laced �s ��
no�or, � 0�et to the ;�uti�. e
� SIGN� �►�' ,�.���'� P' N I���
,,�� �,a� �f =Z � v� � _ -_
2520 �-I 2 �
2512 �i Z �'� � � � � :� � i���_ ��f � �c! �.',� ��`��°f�;
2504 �i-2 �
2474 �I 2 �, ' u��,✓ .� '
9'
�a6� x x �.,�� � d�� � >
24d2 F� Z �� �,-t�ta.� `?��...�+c�
i�`�,� ����.�
,�,���� %
�i �,��s'
����-r�l,� �-�� ����
--�' � ,4 , � ) >t� � �` � �t.,- .,. ( i• s �, ��ae � �l�°°1
� � x-� �., �,t� �� c� t�� �
�
,�q� 56 �€ � t`� � ,
{st
�442 � 2 ° ,l ��i ` �� U�
�
� � � , � c,� v, � � /�_ ' � ,Y
�
�� u+.i bIG�S � . @ r..s , ,� � �'� ;� 1 I �°"°'
����9 �
��i �i' I
�'°�° ���
�.� � �
�-��►� Mp�a-i.�'ws,�" _ � _ � -- % f
�/ � •v • - .. __ _ � N N o ;��.
l � btih nas rr�o nt t 771n 77os 7?t o 7�z� 772 771s
�. ;.
P.
7715 N °w �i � A1 7iAQ N �n u� u°� N 7701 7700 77p ��I 7701 � m
� � N I.
R�2 R-2 Co I
C1 B-2 r.na�en \ nro�n o ° � u�i 3°n � a o�
P�� .- hP�w ae�n�nu� 2553 'A � c�y n ni c*v N� c�vg �
•.; �. � r y �n u� in en in u9 u> +n 7fi95 N
� i3 eq U]B°°J NNNN ��NNtYN 2S�Ji �
� N N c° 2547 0 7887 786 ��� 76S 8843 858
� �
g � g_� �"� asai s� R-4 � 3 7849 7656
� N� ry ' 2537 ?�� 7835 �10 �639 76
� 2 eQ % fi 7B53 762 76 p 78J5 7630
�� 7 5 7645 �z �� 7825 762
ILVE� VIEIh! � , R— � 7e, 7s1
c�+i u�i P �-w2 �� ��� 0� � n n n� 763 � 76S �%g9 759
�AR%� oN n� � y
N., n y�Y 7389 7 5 b
� N N � m� � �^� ��� N � � ' N 7565 7564
oN i��i � a7 a� � N� �a ry r�, hry N N N N 7 b 5 i 755
N� lV "N N'4 N Ci �W 6 O t�0 � �� 7539 783 w �
PF o� �. �°a �°' sv �. cv cv 7s27 75s �_ �
N$ o N..� N N N N b. � S N O t!I �i[, p f iSQS %SO4
o P� •S m a�+N ry tV
�-' N N ;
O�i T, � r ,�.
� � � �� N " a°-� � C1iY �iALL �
�,� ta W.p N N � N t�! tD �
� N� N ��N N .. N �Yp � �,`�� . �p�Y�Y 589g {
w N cE,
1
O
- �
- O
m
ti
- - �
- IA
.,........ .......................................................................................... o :
� _ _
J e. iq
. - �
,:y.
N
N'
�
..� Q,
�
7401
� �
�`
..;:;..P ....,......, ...................................................:.•.:::: - ;
� h � n o
........ . . � . � ..................................... ....... ..
......... ....� .......... ............................
� ........ ........ ......................�..
� n ^ !
VtEW dR 733 F� ��� �
� � ti
� 7� 3J3
n � g � �J�
,o ,n � 7329 ;� ' V
4 H� N 732 �•i,:: � io- � � Q' �O
DG •l��:::�`� � `O a o PUD
, 32 N N � C�
��.`° r� � "�4
S� 731 �'+ � o ^'k
S5, � , ;M u°� in
�
€::-; n i3i3 .- m N N O7
N �
��as � R...4 � p �& � e�o°
� ro 730 �n _ q1O1 � ,v��' ,y� �p,� 8�Y 3 �
N N �
� R°2 H2 —2 i.
'�P �D aD e•N003�0� O N " h� � � p ;
� M N t0<0/0UfU1 N �.. �. . ��y � �Y �
n t� I� n 3278 527 527 �ofo�o�a�n�o � `{,�' oi
ly Cd NNNNNN N N '�1 .kr SZ%3 ,�'� •'� �;fS r N cV I
� 5272 527 rJ2% Ol �(7 P M p� N P M Oi [f1 g26ii gZS2 �,��.' 1� r)' cJ2g y �
�S .p � � M M N N N O O SZB� :f`: ;�'.;��" �^°d F �
98 g266 b267 $'18 N N N N N N N N N l�y N N 5256 sa61 5258 ---- _ 5287
526� 3281 L4UlSA �VE �
Q317 5 t 07 `�` ° °P �
5aS4 �25 O N N N l��i N N N N N N N N�'Qy. �
S't7 5'17 � 5248 524 � ,n w � � rni � c°i a � ,o . w � �j � �
� 5a42 �2 N N N� N N N N N N N N�
5i7 917 C�EARVIEW AVE �
597 517 "�238 52 �� N rn M N a � o p
5,23o S2,�T 23 N N� N N N N N N N N N
1�517 J�8 R7',�4 rJ22 Zz �,�P, � b��� � N N N� N N N N N P
RIdGE
5212
� N O O b u�S N �
N l`! N N N N N N N
• �f �� �a08 � � o � � � �, �
`� SZO N N N cv N� n� N
�� ��_�� � 5� st75 WOaDALE �R
z �`` �r � �,:
�`-�'��''��.`�s'r 51t0 �165 5t5 5155 S1S 51
��� � �� 5155 , gi4 5i41 � 514 54
st32
�,� �12� 5145 � 5�32 5335 513 ��� �
- - �� ` �'� 5S 35
511B 5t25 5728 5i3'! 592 512 �
5108 g11S 5918 5195 5914 bi9 �
� �'�$ 5408 5107 6106 °i
�
0
5092 5091 509 `O � 5091
�5486 5085 5@86 SA� 508 509
5080 5075 o gp80 307 Q 507 507
5072 5071� 6d72 b071 � 306$ 508
cne +cnAF � cnac kARF Z a<..., p�..�
�
2 5303
590D
�l ;
� �
, : , �
�, ,
�;}
1
/ ,' ,� r �---- - -------- �
/ � � � � � � �
,
, � ,� I
�` /,' ,� �------ �----- _ �
' , , �
� � � " I
„ , . �
, ,
'��, , , �
, ,
, ,
� � ° I
�, ,
� � � � ' � i
� �
� � � � .� � ° �
, , :,
� � �
� � �� �
, , a
� � �
�
� �� m
� � (. �
� J !
�i� Q � i
� � � � �ti �
i
,� � , ������ }.;-�..,. I
, X I
, q _ ::;.
,' � � N �� �o. �
�-
�
C
�
�
����G�,
��
3�;
�,,�
���
=�
-�,$
,�. ";�
„E
a o
w w
� o
� >
Q � �
w � fl-
�n n
J J
o � �
� Q Q
N {f} �
O N
�t d-
: .. � �. �
��-
;:��.
s"
�
� i
I
� �
i
�. �
�
�
d
►
�
�0 �
� i
� ;.
�� �
�r
�
��
� y_
� -�,�i
.,'4'�+, N"
�'� 1'c� :r�l,�
� ��
�
� ' -
:�
.
,
�
P�iOCEEi)IIiTGS OF `I'�E IVIOUI�dDS ��E�' PL,�I�11�II�G COIV11i�IISSI�l�1
C�'TT� O�` 1VIO�JI�I)S �ITEVi/
.. �AVi�.S�3 �Y..9V1V d Y' la'.lY1Vl`IEi7�A�
2401 �Iighw�ay 10,
1. C�ell to �rder
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairpersan
2o T�ol� C�a(1
Members Present: Acting Chairperson Miller, Comrrussior
Laube.
.5+;
Members Absent: Chairperson Peterson, Co�,r���'ssioner�
�>:��_ ,; ;,.
��:<_� , �
:<;�
A1sa Present: Planning Associate Jim;,��icson, ,, �mn
��<< �::
Council Member Roger Stigney, an����corder �3sh Pe
Index to
- ----------� _ _ , ,
No. 590-99, � i���c�lutio�� recort��
for a garage ex'��r�sic�;n Tirn �1<
I�egulaa° 1Vleeting
Aug�st 18, i999
Ii�ounds �Aew C`ity Fiali
��
.t��e�cis:: �e�v, I1�i�155112
�cr at 7��6 p,m.,
Beri:e. ,'}3r��tat�iet
Hegland, Kaden, and
and S�,t�venson, with prior natice.
;� �
=«T .
� ' opment Direcior Rick Jopke,
dale �i ive. Consideration of Resolution
M� cleniaE of a conditional use per�nit
;4, y�tse"No. 55�1��3�, ^�70 C:oui�ty Road I. Corisiderateon of a resolution
�r�ding approva� r�f� ��Ylcfitiona! use perinit for an assisted living
;sidentiai facility, � r�roriing ordinance (Ordinance 631); and an
�e amending the��oning Code pertaining to conditional uses within
zoning district`;��VISP Real Estate, App(icant.
� of Infonnation
Y
I'lanning Commissioners Repor�s
3. Citezens' �.equests �nd C'omment� oi� �tem� IVoP ori tt�e Agend�
There were no citizen requests or cominents on ite�ns not on the agenda.
Page
�
�
,
r''
�
I�ounds �iew Pl�nning C'omrn;ssian A�gust 1�, 1999
�te�ullr IV1ee�ing - -- - - , Page 2
4, A�provnl of li�Iinutes
A. J�u1y 21., 1999
MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Kaden to approve the Juty 21, 1999 m
Ayes — 6 Nays — 0
5o Plnnn��i� C'�se No. 5b6-99
Property Involved: 2809 Woodale Drive
Consideration of Resolution 590-99, a resotution
for a garage expansion.
Applicant: Tim Skeate.
The applicant was not present.
Planning Associate Ericson �ave the
This applicant has requested a
�Toodale Drive. The applica�
sc�uare feet to��,296 square f'��
staff had clisc�i�s�eci that �h� i
propose� ��'��;e �
Ericson stated fh� �rap�
house. He st�t��'��r��.P�;
abaut thi�,�of imbals
the p��`��Ypal dweliing,
requp�nent thai a gara�
a�a���r out of place and
ort
ci:rt carried.
�n�; deniai af a conditional use permit
,,�
r�rial u5c p�imit for ���sexpanded garage to be located at 2809
ropos�.�i tc� ����re,;�;��he size of the existing garage from 720
o�i stat�d; �� iheii' last ineeting, the Planning Commission and
at 4�[� squ�lre feet, would be substantiaily sma[ler than the
1,?z)�;'sc�uareYfoot garage would, in fact, be three times farger than the
�;, Co�n�nzs�ion and City Counci! have in the past, been very concerned
l�� statecl a garage is intended to be an accessory structure to service
lic do`minating feature �f the property. He stated, while there is no
�:��aller than the house, a garage of this size, were it to be built, woufd
usive.
stated staf���''the Planning Commission reviewed the adverse effects associated wiih this
;'�nr�; h��,���etermined that the proposed expansion would be substantially out of character
_ .,;,.
ii�i�i�t�tir�iood, could cause btight upon the neighborhood, and would tend to depreciate the
�hic3i ii is lacated.
Ericson stated, in iigl�t of the findings associated with the adverse ef�ects and general conditianal use
permit criteria, the Planning Com�nission, at its East meeting on August 4, 1999, directed staff to
prepare Resolution 590-99, a resolution recommending denial of the conditional use per�nit request.
I�Iatat€ds V�etn� Plznnii�� Cornmissyon Augusi 1�, 1999
Reg�llr I�Iee�rng-- P��e 3
Acting Chair MiIler inc�uired if staf�had discussed the resotution recommending denial of the request
with the appiicant. Ericsan stated staff has been in contact with the applicant, who is aware that the
request faces a recoEnmendation of denial by the Planning Commission.
MOTION/SECOND: LauheBerke. To Approve Resolution No. 590-99, ,� Resolution
Recommending Der►ial of a Conditional Use Pe�mit For an 4versized Garage,,at 2809;,E;�oodale Drive;
Mounds View Pianning Case No. 552-99. ' :�'�
Ayes — 5 Nays — 1
Commissioner Hegland stated he did not think the Pla
fram improving their property, and he believed this to
6. P11n��ng C�s� IVo. 559-99
Property Involved: 2670 Caunty Road I
Consideration ofResolution 584-99, a resolutior�, ��
,,,��.,
for an assisted living senior residential fa�t�tt�; a
ordinance amending the Zaning Code pert�un`�ng to c
Applrcant: MSP Real Estate ` � �
J
The applicant was present.
Planning t�ssacat�te Erics�n's
The Planz�fn� ��t>tt�miS�;ion h
Resalution 5�� '.-?�'�as'the
information ��;pYit��c# ��� �n��'
,.,�.
�4Y.�
5fc1ff t GUC?3'G 85 `IOI�OW5:
ion carried.
s}io
appr�� ��l c���'�i conditional use permit
�rd�nar���e (Ordinance b31); and an
c�scs::�yvithin the R-4 Zoning District.
sc�t�sec�;;tllis rec�uest at several previous meetings. Ericson stated
,::
�1� �f ��iose �riany meetings and tl�eir discussions, as well as the
s of t�i� Coi��mission, staff and the appEicant.
Ericso ated there were s�v����I �omponents to the resolution. He stated the resaiution recommends
appX�,A�, of the condition�l,:��� perinit, and adoption of an ordinance approving the rezoning of the
pr)�����rty from B-2, Lit�ited �usiness, to R-4, High Density Residential. He stated another
E?:w %�:�:;.Y .�yCtE .
�.�onent of the resolu�ion is the recommendation to adopt an ordinance that clarifies the language
��� 5��� ���
i�l��e�aon 1109.04 of���ie City Code, as it pertains to nursing homes and other similar group housing
A`, �'� it�iii� �h�: �� :4�district. He stated this ordinance includes an additionai stipulatian that the
p��� �a� t���sP types of uses shall be ex�mined, a�3d rather than basing this requirement upon thai
set forii� iri t�ie City Code, the requirement may be increased dependit�g upon the level and intensity
of service being provided.
Ericson staied the applicant has provided a revised site pian, which indicates both entrances to the
property to be located on Mounds View Drive. He stated staff has indicated to the applicant thai this
would probably not be a good situation for people exiting the property onto Mounds View Drive, in
MOLYIId�S �V$�V4' P��3Hllllllg C�111�11ISSiOtI Augus� 1�, 1999
Itegul;s�° IVleet�ng Page 4
terms of the lack of visibility due to its close proximity to the intersectian with County Road I. �Ie
stated staff recommended the site plan be revised to provide an exit only onio County Road T, as
previously discussed. He stated that this revision to the site plan might also result in additional
parking spaces.
Ericson stated the present site plan indicates a total of twenty-six parking
slightly more than one stall for every two beds. He stated the City Code re
s�all per every three beds, which translates to 22 sta{is for t}t�\��ropose�l 4
it was possible that addi#ional parking spaces could be provid,��;ryaild be ii��
,�� ;:.> .
on the site ptan, if necessary. He explained, however: a r�c��e tntense s�z�s
could be addressed and during the Development Review ��acess. ���'
��jtransiates to
° stalls pius one
ility. He stated
roof of parkir�g�
Ericson statad the applicant had obtained a letter of permtsszn�� �ro���;���e owners of Silv�r<�iew Plaza,
indicating they would allow over-flow parking onto their parktxa;� lot ;He stated, upon providing a 48-
hour notice, the applicant would be ailowed to utilize,,��ie i e�� �r e� c�f their parlcing lot, when
necessary. He stated this was a vital component to �resolv�n� th� par�ing issues during past
discussions. He provided the Commission with a lett�r �oz�� r�e�sidents a�� �.,��'Court Drive who had
expressed their concerns that the parking be ade��.���, at�c� z�cat cause a�7�;o,i�erf{ow parking onto the
�>
surrounding residential areas. He stated he bel���ed tl�es� conccrns wci c, s'1lared by all those involved.
Ericson sta�ed S�ction 3 of the proposed ����iir
does hereby stipulate that in ihe event �����evf
�� <��
come to fruition, within one year ���iis ordi
of the applicant), the Councii will ��:t to reiil:
He stated th� City Attorney hfld �ndicated I:
ensure it t�ci�s Ttf�i force tt�e C�t� �ouneil to ta�
this sectii�� rrii�;lit ren
force the Cot�nc>� tt� tats
would review fltzs 1����
��,F, '' ,
Ericson sta��Ythe c;onc
address > and met sati
reg� �`; g #he operation
CQ'�z?`cil.
�lett�r� Chair Miiier�;p�
�nce inclz���t�s "��l�e Mounds View City Council
;�� :,,
�ent be�ng��oposec! Uy MSP Real Estate does not
e's ado�.���n (or sooner, upon written notification
the p��perty's original B-2 zoning classification."
��ic�;,�ike the opportunity to review this section to
y�.�ction that it may not wish to. Ericson explained
� the c�rt�inance tei�tatively, w be amended in a manner which does not
�n, t���t �tz�r�ir�t�i�7s the intent of the language. He stated the City Attorney
t� be ��rtaitt it^"is in proper legal form.
t forth in the City Code and Zoning Code for this type of use are all
, He s#ated if the Commission desired to include further conditions
�ility, they could he addressed at this time, and forwarded to the City
ed the floor for public input.
C�ui�c�i� ���t�tizi�`�tigney inquired if there wauld be any walking access provided for those peopie
utilrzit�� i�� nverflow parking at the adjacent shopping center. Ericson stated he was uncertain, and
inc�uired if there was a sidewalk along that side of Mounds View Drive. Commissioner Laube stated
thai �here was not. He stated this c�uestion had come forward during a previous meeiing, in terms
of whether or not a sidewalk would be constructed around the building along Mounds View Drive
and in the driveway for the residents who might wish �to walk around the building.
IVIOi1�6CIS V1CW I���tYllllllg C;O[TR9ttt5Si0[1 August 1�, 1999
Re�ul�r l�iee�in� Pa�e 5
I�IIi�e I.e�ts, representative ofMSP Real Estate, stated the only existina sidewalk was internaE, along
the driveway and Caunty Road T, and they had not contemplated a sidewalk for the area along
Mounds View Drive. He stated there was no existing sidewallc access to Silver View Plaza, and as
they wouid be crossing over the �uperAmerica property to access this parking lot, they would not
be able to create a sidewalk in that area. He noted they believed the overflow parkir�g would only
:��rt�
be utilized two or three tiines a year. � ,,,>�;�
Ericson stated this matter could be investigated further during
was sufficient room in the right-of-way, it might be poss
accommodate the pedestrian traffic. He stated there could b�
at the south end of the site, where the access of the par �
exptained, however, the applicant had no control over tl�e Z�
construct a sidewalk at that location. _
Commissioner Laube inquired if a sidewalk cauld be c
wallcing path for the residents, so they would not have
if they desired to take a waik. Ericson stated the s��� �
front af the building, which although not circular,�wou�t�
c �: ;}%.1.
these issues could be addressed, and E�e wa�€���r�ain tf
sidewalk on their property, if it was possibl�,�� � r. Le�uis'
���'
�te p
sidewalk segnier
ng lot e�t��`s Mo
5-f�:t�'aersan prop
He stated if there
�s� of sidewatk to;
t�� �ropetty ;�,
not
�tr��cf�t� �i��qu��c� the building, to provide a
walk n1 ���� �.��rltin� lot or cross th� street
i,rldicatc�i" a sc�t:iora'�`of sidewaIk atong the
�ic�e;fo�� sa r,e w�ll:ing activity. He stated
p�lYC���t woUld not be averse to adding a
}s�'
ced t���s �v� correct, and that at this time,
they had simply nofi progressed ta ih�s ��i�znt w�th x��e s�te p
Ericson inquired regarding the nui����i
����h�
stated there were 24 parking stalls3��%ith
if they we� � to, utilize the oz�i,��liai `�ilan,
EricsonYst��t�ci th� C;omnl�s�����,cc
review, wlvc,h t�ottld indicate ti�e c;
proposed, as we}l as ixa�tcate the ���
could be add���� �c� 1}�e� �o�di����nal
»�...
request oi,,�te City, ir�' #he evetit t}
at
an a
ls pro�ri�ed on the originaf site plan, Mr. Lewis
! ni����'identified as proof of parking. He stated
[��ease the parking spaces to 33 stalls.
i�ulate the applicant provide a revised site plan far Cauncil
z�.�the property located on County Road T, as was originally
> �:,
���1 the proof of parking available. He stated that a clause
ermit that the proof of parking would be constructed at the
:re are problems meeting the demands .of the parkir�g.
Corxt�fssioner Laube sta�ed s����c cities rec�Uired one parkii�g stall fol• each member of the maximum
;, ; ,
arrtt��nt of staf� in addittot��°to the three-to-one ratio which in this case, would be 3 I parlcing stalts.
f„>.. > >
I�� sti�ted he liked th��t`r3ea. He stated they did not have �nany nursing holnes in the City, and he
bel�e�ed the ordina�should include parking for both staff and residents in its rec�uirement. He
�: �t
stG�i�c� �i� wauld ��'��er to see this requirei�ent included in the ordinance at this time, instead of the
�ix-oof ta�:pax��i�:� Commissioner Hegland stated the he agreed. He siated it would be much easier
_ _ _ ._
to dc� tl�is �irior �o the occurrence of a problem, and rec�uesied the requirement of 31 stalls be
indicated in the resolution.
Ericson inc�uired if Cominissioner Laube was r�ec�uesting the ordinance indicate this requirement.
Cammissioner Laube clarified he would like to see an ainendment to tl�e ardinance indicating the
requirement for parking wotatd be one stail for every thre� beds, as well as one space for each staff
I�/tounds �7iew �l�na�ir�g Commission �1ug�ast 1�, 1999
�te ul�r Il�Ieetirtg _ Page 6
member, on the maximum shift. Ericson stated that Item I of Ordinance 639 discusses the parking
requ�rements. He stated, rather than the parking requirement be subject to the Councii's discretion,
as presently indicated, the requested amendment could be made ta this item, Ericson noted the
parking requirements would be subject to review under the conditional use permit. Commissioner
Laube stated if the requirement was indicated in the ordinance, it would provide a standard for these
iypes of uses in the future. ,-`�?��'
Acting Chair Milier stated this requirement did not take visito��`,}�arking ixiic� Gat��icieratian. Ericson
sta�ed the vis�tor parking was represented within the stall tp b�c��`�'atio. �,�
� s��� ,�r
� ,.: , �;
; t� � �. ::: � �.; :l
Council Liaison 5tigney stated that some rooms could h�V� �nore tha��i�ne bed,;anc� iz�q���r� 4- ��this
had heen taken into consideration in terms of the parkin� r�c����reixi�nts. He noted �he a����ltc�a� had
indicated some of the rooms might contain more than one bed �,ricson stated that th� requirement
should be based upon the number of beds, as this would alsplb� t��';rec�uirement for other faciEities,
which inight l�ave several beds per room, ��;.
Ericson inquir�d if there were any further questio�x;
rezoning of the property. Acting Chair Mille :.�tic�ui
amended to state "The Council nrcry act.. "��mrniss
�
amended after the Corrunission took action, ��n�the orcji
Planning Commission could indicate t��.��Sect�o�-�'
Council adoption," in the reso{utior�����coinme�d�ng
of th
Council might wish to make addit�� �i chang�s;�o Ordin
Ericson stat�d, tlze resolutior
further reS�l�I� ��at priot� �c?'a
which sh���+� ih� ��cess o�3tc�'.
has indicatc,c� ds a�prti�riate.'
�arol Go[de�,::,27A9 �T.,�il�e C.�
Lq��
exiting to ��� 'property: '��1��, L�
,
on Co -Y�y Road I Mrs. Ga'l�
pro .: p� y. Mr. Lewis stated (
P� '° � Iot. .�
rding O�ditzstr���c. �31, pertaining to the
fl�e iang�aa�e �i'the ardinance could be
[�.�d�z� �nc�u�red if the language could be
� �����
�r���r� stated it could. He added the
, ., ;;.
��grd�nance "may be amended priar to
;�`al. Acting Chair Miller explained the
�e 631, as it was subject to their action.
also i��ci�zd� � sti:�i�ilation w11ic11 states, "Now therefore, be it
T
r the C�ty ��uncil, the applicant wiil subrnit a revised site plan
Road I, and the number of parking stalls that the Commission
urt Di�v�,'iilquired how the applicant would control tlle entering and
r���is stated they would probably utilize a sign, which indicates no entry
ei� tnquired if emergency vehicfes would be abEe to enter and exit the
�ei�e would be suffcient room for this, 1t the southwest carner ofthe
���� �bert, 8315 C,���;nwood Drive, inc�uired regarding the proposed rezorung from B-2 to R-4, and
��`�:��r� �ad iae. '��"�onsideratian to the small amount of zoned business space left within the City.
�"�.
I�� s��fi��, aS�` :'� . were all aware, co�n�nercial zoning generaies Enore tax dollars for the City, which
would prUVirie relief to the property owners. He inquired regarding the difference in tax genera�ion,
in terms of an R-4 use, and a typical B-2 business. He stated they shouEd make the City attractive
for businesses to co�ne in, operate, and be successful. He noted the impendrng revision to fhe
Comprehensive Plan, and stated he considered the rezoning of property to be a very serious �natter.
Nto�nds Vier�v P1Znning Commission Augast 1�, 1999
Re ul�tr° I�eetin Pa e 7
Ericson stated the tax generaiion capabilities of this project, as opposed to a typical B-2 districi use,
had been discussed at a previous ineeting of the Planning Commission. He stated it was determined,
through discussion with the Ra�nsey County Assessor's office that a commercia] use would be taxed
at a raie of2.8 percent up to $I50,000 of its vaivation, and after $150,000, it would be taxed at 3.8
percent. He stated the County considers the proposed use to be a comrr►ercial use, ho �ever, because
it caters to the needs of the elderly, and elderly hausing, the tax rate would be 2.8 pe�;,f��� for the first
$150,000 valuation, and would retain the 2.8 tax rate aifter that point � ,,,_� "��
Ericson stated staffwas unable to find many comparable ex
it was beiieved that the proposed praject, at a I, 5 million dE
sam� types of cammercial uses which would probably cons�fi
the valuation ofthe proposed facitity wauld likely exceecl c�
Zoning District. He stated while it may be taxed at a lo«-'
was likely the proposed facility could generate more tax i�
use. _.,..,
��ipl��' of B 2 us�:s
lar valuat�on� w��i
. ,�.�,�
of a sfiov��o�n oi-
area,
uses;'C�hich would t�e i���nd �n''a B-2
� i�;eyond the $150,000 va[uation, it
��zt tlae lung run, than a commercial
Ericson stated that the lack of comanercial space ���it}xizi'fih�,,City was cei�t�inly'a consideration and a
concern. He stated tl�ere are, however, soine s�tes, ��-}ii�;h ha�ve ren�ai�l�c� vacant for many years, and
the Cammission had talcen this into conside,r�i�an 1-�� st�Lt�d tflc st�b���t site has been vacant for a
�.
long period of time. He stated the develo 4�'�Ilas atte��pteci tc�` E���z�e:��the subject property for quite
some time, and no other proposals hav��,�een brou��it be(b��e tt�� ('ity.
y > (��i`
. ' ..t r ��� .
Acting Chair Miller siated that anotiyerissue �liich had b��n\ considered was the need far this type
of facility within the City. �'� �;��
Proposed �1ssi€
Case No. 559�
that Prior to �;�
the Access��On�
�o
_ Bex�(�ef.i3�u��1�,�;-��. To A}�E3r�oij�Resolutian 584-99, a Resolution Recommending
_;
ional ��� �ertnit;,,Rezaning Request and Code Amendment Associated with a
c7i�� Sen�or T.���id��t�al Facility to Be Located at 2670 County Road 1; Pianning
�x��ndcd to ��a�]ud���` Stipulation which States "Now Be It Further Resolved
A
z%.
fl,>
Associate Eric�q
�,,,,,
, City Cou.t����'l�
�
Couneii, i��e Applicant Wiil Submit a Revised Site Plan which Shows
:;I; atld 3 t Parking Stalls."
Nays — 0
The motion carried.
stated the pubtic hearing of �his matter had been scheduled for the August
orts / Itenis of I��fo���taltio€�
Previous Councdl Actiora
Community Development Director Jopke provided the Planning Co�n�nission with an update of the
billboard issue. He stated he was still waiting for final woed and opinion from the City Attorney
19�iour�ds Vae� PI1nn€�g Con�mission Aeagust 1S, 1999
R��u1:�a� 1Vleetiz'g , . Page �
regarding the issues previously discussed. He stated one of tl�e issues related to whether ar not there
were deed restrictions. He stated he had heard there wou[d not be any deed restrictions, however,
he had not received anything in writing or directiy from the City Attorney in this regard.
Jopke stated another issue was the possibility that a spot-zoning situation might arise,
not heard the results of that research, as yet, He stafied he would bring th�s inforrr�
the Carrtmission, as soon as he received a formal written opinion from th� ��ty;,��t
, .;.
���� �
Planning Associate Ericson reported an City CounciE action,.�'�i��their At��t��� �s 1�
stated the City was involved in the process of seliing a par��i''located at 69�� ��cas
�„�
He stated the City had purchased that property for p���ticipatiot���� 'the I��tc���
Prograrr�. He stated the highest bidder for the property ���ras ��arc��irs Builders, Inc
had lost their purchaser, and were unable to proceed �Ie sifited_the EDA had ac
property to the ne� highest bidder, Vista Construction,
the bids were very close, and the newly proposed
proposed by Ivlarquis.
Ericson stated that Thrifty Car Rental, which
1999, had requested the City Council revise�tki:
taken issue with a siipulation prolubiting tr��ks on
this stipulation. He stated the Council ha �d`enied t
�} � .
recreationat vehicles, or trailers at that����t�on. F�
F s�, �, .� �
would abide by this stipulatian, ��€�3-wa�ald �p�
�.�,f
Highway 10. r�`�;'�
Planning Ass
driveway on
C� Iil i
��AIlI11Y�
� Associate Eri
of the Plannin�
ho�,se
ence
at�d that he had
���:C:Y
��n forward to
irney.
99 meeting. H�
�.�
irzt View D�s��,
�; �e�alac:e�ent
� i�pv,���rer, they
�,��
Eec�'io`offer the
proved that item. He sta�ed
l��r�er than that previously
pps-oval tc�r t�iei►� busines on July 2b,
� pertrrit >�e, stated the applicanfi had
�ad� rerjuested the Council reconsider
.<r,:.; -: _: ;.
<,:,;, ,
t�`��i�aing the prohibition of trucks,
ppl�ca��t has since indicated that they
operation of their business at 2975
statcc� �Ia�; ���l��ic hearing for a variance request for a wider than ailowed
e had b��r� s�i�eclufed for the next meeting of the Planning Commission.
;(111i1�11S�S101ie1'S .1QUCHi�l��
_ ___...
_ .__ __...
_ _ . _ _...
_ _ _ _.... ...
_______.
_ . ..... . ....
_..__.__.
_ _ __....
_ __...
_ __.._
_ _.
i stated the Pianning Commission had been p�-ovided copies of the latest
nmissioners Journal, which has an article about citizen surveys,
� regarding what constitutes a good survey. He sfiated �his was a
e for inforinational purposes. He stated that in addition, the Pfanning
��i'=also been provided with a copy of the previous City Council minutes for their
ai stafi'would continue to provide these minutes, in the future.
�. Ch:►ir��er'SOCI illid P�i3Hld1111� COIIaH]IISSl0Ile1'S I�C])OB•ts
Acting Chair Miller sYated Co�nmissioner Braathen had presented the Planning Commission with a
iet�er requesting an excused leave froin the Plannin� Co►nmission in order to take care of business
'i
I�otands i�ie� Planning Corran�gssio�i Ar�gu�� 1�, 1999
Re�ui�tr° IVieeti�� P1�e 9
, _ �,
matters. PIanning Associate Ericson stated he thought this matter could be addressed at the next
meeting of Pianning Commission, when Chairperson Peterson wouid be present.
No other reporCs were considered.
i
FR�M : La�IS Incorpora�ed �HON� N0. : 612 792 17�1 Sep, 01 1999 12:29PM P2
�i
��: Pia�ing Coau��s�oa� �aY�segs
CC: ��ti.ck J'o1�ke, J'iaa �rick�on, C�iuck W'fritting, C�taycr and Csuucil N[em�rs
�r�m: L�nne 7°hoznson .
��: 09/01/99
R�a Cox,�ideration o� �nrhony Prv�rties request to �xove brali'er Fcricir�
�� •; ,.. . ��}•- -_
i am �ritiag i�aas rnetin� �t�i �s a�sxdent and a g`,ou��il 1Vieml��. ,t�,s i underssaaad itte a�vc
. �+eferenced xss� will be a�iscussed �ai �e P�arming Comm�issioaa �cc�ing vu 5eptemt�;r� �, i,�9. T a�
• .'::::.:
•;: 1�yi�i� to ait�r r�y schedt�Ic to �tte�d, 6ut cvcst if I do aitcst�, % donyt iitia� x! paudezu for m� le s�a� �t
., ..�,,.,., ,..
��;�i��ussia� as 1�orh�lfe�ly tnist ila� �Pltastniag Corr�mussion %r ihcir tewinrn�d�tzox�s. in� Iig�it
� bf:#�#:3;:v�ould litce �or you to i��ve .t�ay �uR p�ior to you �isCUSSiou ergo 1]us �ate�mo.
. • �� �
, . . .... . . .,,., ...
, ...... ..,. . , .. ... . . ,, .
,:;•;,'.;'` 'I #i� �olfoivitt� a,�e t�� 9�ag5 ti►a# cancer�i, me;
•.:: ..
.t: ��
:, �� � :1:,::::::��t;;��iied i� thc �velo�8s p�ndr�g �s to �qu�.st fltes 6 foot �cr�c�tutent i�te tl�e bttff'er'?
:: . :.:.:... ..::�::;
. , .. .............. .
:..,,..,, ,.......�;
,......�
.... .: ,.';,,;;;:,';', „�......,; ;..Y �v�sn'c this dascovered griar to ea�cting t�e �rst b�ilc�ng
. .. . ,...... ... � ? ,A,ax wby u�d vve as a
' h
... .� � . . ..:, � :.; �:;;;;;�tY�� buf%r v�uriancc fo� �oox l�?evela�r's pla.tu�g? This as mY Pri��i3' �acern, �
, .,.. 5 t�
,'' �r: ::�A.'bit.vi�ck�ound; trie ori�irial•pi�n 3vas to havc � 1(M-�'oot bu�'cr t,�e� at d
.. ��. • r�ea lo SU-fi�t �aow t�e deveY r ecrc�sed to 7�, fcct,
�` a � et'�Ats Yo dccr�se ,'lt ��C1in Yo 44- feee. Wc rt�ci to ask �
�ur�efves; wbiat 9s ihc p�se sad ix�tentaoa o€ havi��g a bsaffer• if we keep �tuinimizit�g it �iowm
eaclg timc tt�e I�+�IOper �akes a request7
3. As I�erst�c� C;ounry� ��-�d 1� l�s.c ��46�easentc�t fro�a c,�ntc.�tiaxe of road Jxt �e ae�i� severa!
Yeaxs i�►e cowny evil] � r�oa�� ltixs ro�d, X� al is decided to wid�n this roarl !o a f,F�e ina�rr�
widt� t1iiS �ta efTect woxlld ot�f�� fle�ve a 12-fo�t��f�'er leE alonc a1�ow �'or �ny� �ia�g p�ath as
prev3iotasly eonCeptiaaai.'ucd �
4. L.�stiy, I san q�estiauing t{�.e valid'aty of V�"eu�cl• Smkth's��1�ti�n. As te�ar�y of y�u know I resicie
o� tt� �mex of Ed�et�ood aad �I2 and a� d�r� �a�iYiar wi#h tlne conceras o� thc aes�de�ts at� �3�e
a�c�. A canre�xe:�•aois� a�d ir�ie on• H2� (�n f��t;�usk ��s naont�r, Mayor Dan a�� I in
�s�nse to x�si�at� a�kI2 p�q�se, oontactcd t�a�� C.aip a�id req�stcc� gh�r iastruct ahe.ir
s[ravers nat to ta�: ki2 as � s�artcut tm 1,0)_ i am s�are iii �vc�t � sg�k� with t.ta� samc res�dents
o�a ii2 as Iv�r. Smath di�, and inf�rmed t�en,� �not�ing th� ifen� 6-f�d �oat�d enc�ach a�io ti,e
�SUJ�'er at� the ucsl� fi'qm tbe a1�° conditiazaang uzcits nvi�1 bc 6-feet etasea to their kaomcs, I�oeald
l�ve ��Xnous Y�T� �'oz t� ��w�r. How�rrcr, be�use �f arrlr �sitio�i pn tlze CoeuYCil, it �wattt�
�A� ��P��� fot a�e Err �gs�nt a�� s►tc� �ti€doaa #� �1�e 1'1ar�n� C�an�ssiot� � litc�s�
�use oil�lx. Sn�ti�°s �ttcrest in l�c g�ojec� his ��o� sb.oul� i� c�o�sidc:�d eqa�all,y .
; ;�;:;::':::,.:,.'a;:;; �s^^i�>: ,...:.,
..�d.i^t.�• �.J.a1n.p�1.v, nY. iA.C1n �wa:�:.
�:.kn� :.�1n w�W,. �ili.
yq'.� A1�.. ���Mn
�.I?� ri��D�ly�y�}U: �i<•':
�.,�',�vn ,. C 5�
.:�1,. v. t�.% .i1..
�'yl., �.<.N.� ;r.I+ :�.;��%.:� '••I�.� ;.{�:,:��.•�
.I�� .�,1'vt�: .s'i.�.��:t�:n ,���' �.,.� �.��� •`:Nn•R•" �:i•Y••'n'y^
�.�n•i11<�� n9+� .�},••, .�yi.n.}.v „1<.�w�>:n ��qi� ��Y:i i�.Ji..a
�•.t+��S.��ifR'+ }�Y•� ��Jn.}�� �.;i.v\�%�: ,�.Ir��
�:!ti �: i•�'�: ��I:�Y�v ,.�f.ii
i.K.4..ti.' ��!•.>•/I�>:�>'. »J(\:v �:f•:: iM�Cw•i'�:
i�� . .....� �...�x.v. .;;�ti.�..��r.#itDt.vw:C,Y�'.n[����4A%Ni��nlvn�l„ i.vlv v.Jt4:Ni•1'••
........n9i.tw ..�....�.�nA��fi.ys.��l�n.�.��...n�n.%i�
;.
_:
�ROM : L�t`fIS Irtcorpo��ted PHONE N0. : 612 792 1701 Sep, �1 1993 12:29PM P3
sepiember 9, 19�9
s��PP��1�e. Ther�foxc, if tl� PIanfiit�g io'���niSSio�t dvc,5 v��tt ?o consider thic xec�ncsY. ��
searvc� origina� �'rom tt�e City citing��19 sk�a f�cis (�cssltive at�d tyc�;a�give} would �e the ocily
unbi�sed w�ay to asce�caeta th� resi�n�'� �eal c�s.,sires.
'°�lavs�lc yota %r y�u F�� �nsi�ri���gay i�tat {ar►d r�adisg Li,is rather 14n�e� tban pl�c.�cf n$e�tio)
11��rOU �7VC 8t1y �jtye5tgpyg�� CpII�flY1fi q�' et�, p1ea,� dou't h�it�1te i� con#ac� aue at home 7SO�G058
�iuc.e�°elY,
Lyrat�e Tteo�n;'sson
53 i i �d�e�eoos� briv�
0
. , ,.. ,
;
;:. ; , <.
;: ;::
, ,.: : ,:
� ::' .
,` '1
�ROM : LaTIS Incorporat�d
3
�
PHONE NOo : 61� 792 1703
�
� '
Sep. 01 1999 12.�BPM P4
P43GE � `
��r� �
. e
!
��o y - � , �t�
� ., .�' . ! ! � �. , -� , . �.
,i
,� ,
.
: ,
. i ►
��. � ,�, . . �% � �.. : , : '
,. �� ,i� � ' . ..�. �� - � �'r � � ` '
- , � .,. �
� .` _
.. . !! i � J . -.: ;: , / �' .� .+
� __ _ � , �� .. � �_ � -
<j �.
,. ._,_ ;
� �� / �` :
� �: �_
� „ � � �. � J n�'. �
�� .. , - - -� �
L- - - � .. _� :=. . _ : _ �
� � � � , �.
. �
.
*� ��
' a � ___ � _. ' . .
'�+�/ � � - ,, .� � � ,
.,... � _. * �i
� �•,� - , � � ••
r , �.. , . . 1,.
. , � ,
s -.. �
�. �
i _ . 1 �il ;
N ��
; ,� .:. � _ _ �
, � � -,- ; ;;.. �.
� �
� >M � ., ,-, � _ ,
�; � f ;
� .
; r I� '' � �: . � �'�s
;
;
: � . �: ; � _ "
_ � � � : � �� � �
� _ a. �
�•: � . � /A�` �; � � �• , c _ _;� �;. _ , �:�
. . ,. � s �
,.
� : . ,,, . - � .:. : . .
� � �'7+ �� ; r .� ,: � � j � ( .i
..
i ' .. .,
�
.
�_ � .. � �
_ ,
.. ..: � � :' , , � � i- " �� . ' � �. e , 1�.�.
: .
, ; :;� :��- ��� � �� � 1
� = , ,,f }. . ,.: , /
,� , ► . _ .� . .
, ,, _ -
� ,
� � �
� . � .� , r .: :. .; .,,..; �. , . , : .�
_, ._ .
� ��� _ - ,� : .�
,� �
� , . > ,� � �'-- �'1 I I� � . • -�
. _ � �
� �,�. _.
� _.. . .-- � � ,.
•�
� ; � �,`�� , � � : � � � i � _ � �..� � : , .
� ; i j• �- . � - _
, j
� , j f � f ;,� � . �. r r. ,, ,
.�:� - . _ � � - f . � �. ,
.��.
� �� _ _� � �
�� � ,i � � � �� /
,
, . ;.. A .
; . � ��
, , � <, ,,,,�,,r _ . ..., �. � _ , _
.- t � !'7r/.` . �! f � f � d ��
s . �l ' ��� " � , �
� +
�. � j ,- �,
, � �
vT
� �
� . - ..:�. �
. ; _
,
-: 2 ' '
_
/� ti�. ! . ,. ��� ��'f � i � ` �.�� �---�� ii.`
� .S. ,:►�� � i ' r �
"ti.r.��:� `
, �
! - ' . � - _�� , i� .: . � ��.�.. _.
, 4: �j.'�. �...,., -.- .' � � . . _ ,.
�
.' .A;;� �'... .'I
� r,l �/
� ,`..._. .� ..,.....
� �. ,r.:. ^ � �.
�
�
�
0
.D
; ;;
, ;
, ; : ;
?;.:';,.
;;�
i
FRDM : LaT%S Incorporated
Y y
�
�HON� ND. � 61� 792 17�1
�ai�u�vu�u
R
a _
Sep. 01 1�9�
_ — . .�'- .�� _ /
. . , �.-r.� .� _ . . . � � ..
. _ _-.., � . . ;/
� �
�n ..�. . � „ � A �
„ �� . ' � � " i � �; / C ' " . . .._,. " - -,.
_
.. - v, , , . , + �� ., r '.
, ^ � '
� / � ,� r_ -- � i .r?�
. : � i
� ;
� .., . . ._ . . � M,• � .� �� _ �," �
�� ' : �.,.. . /� \ ,
�.:_
.
_
; � ,� . � � ; � . � ► ;�. ,�
, � �r1 :
__ -°
, • �' �
� � . t _ ., , ,. . = �., ,1_ ..:
I , , . ,. _
: _, A. _ � _ � . ��. _. � -. ���.. :. �s
. � . ; ,
r.
. . .::.. .� �' /. . � : _ i • ' � i, S � /
• - . .�
/ �. �;, .
y i � ♦ �1
.
�
,, / : I: �. .
>....� , ._ � .
... � ,. ., _ , � � �.
1
.��: �,�
;.. , . _ _
+
. ��
� . _ C' .�- � .�,.
�
;. . _,
` .3_.. � _ _ � �. � � ��
, � _ � � ��. # �
, � '� .. , , �> �, " �►.,.. � . .-: ;� � : `r ti
,
" � :; _: . .�
j �� -
, �• I -
�,
� .�,1r � ..<�� _._ k . ,. „> _ w .. - - _. _ � - ° _ . , ij ' _ � ' �
, �
f _ \, "
.
_ � �' e � , . �� �/ 4 � �� i
�
� �.. �` " � _ .�; . . � �. .� , � �
�`'�� � � � �� -
.
� y �. ,�..,__,
.� -.� � , ! �� /
� � � ,, , i . �._f ��: l�, � ". �. ° a ��" � �.., . f l:_ :
.��� ....-.„
t - , � � .����'f
_�
_ ,
, � f . - /� ,:,,
��,: � �� .:> , � . _ .. ,,
, - �
�, � � -
f� ��� :�
_ � �,
� i yi: . � .. . ✓ � � ! � �
i. f
� • r . :.
�� . �
t �_ : � _
� . ��1 � ! u'' �� i � ,� L - �
_ + �,
�
I =,
� } � � � � �
�..
;._ , ,. .., ` � � .�.:- �rr , ., �:. ,' .:s �
.
�i ,.. � ., , _._.
� .�,.. " . :� ' ' -. • , � � :
\ -�f .;' .., e �. ..:�. A ' ".../�� � . „/��
r . ,,.• - . � �.. _._..�
�� �� � �� � , . .'`
f � �rr � + � . - , , s . , ;� � �
• a.- � �� "� �� � �
; � �
��a , � .`� �'` � i --' • � • � -
� . .- � �' .;
� � �, � _.
-
s i� .,, �� _.
�. �, ,
�r� � �- s' � � �%` ,. .. �
�". � . �+ �" � / _ l
" s . . � �:... ,;; . , . � , ♦ ` �.'
�/ ,; ' ' -..: ��•
i , , � -
l � � � �'� ��- � � � !
� , _ :� , ., � � . .
�� �� � �_ ,
. � � �.
�:;. ,
- � � ' -• . � - :
, F - � � /.- � , ; - . _i ,, y �__�. . _ . . ��!
- S i
� ,_ : _ � , � �� I ��
i , ,,,
� ; �. ., , ,
" . - _ .., --, - fi
aif � ,�`✓' ; � . ��''� �Y ...� �� , .::. . .T,.'�„ ' ..�� � •. _ , . 2' , �..,,
� � �
� � 1 /''. , %
. , _ � �3 , r � � ,. ,,.y � .. - ,�
. r '` ,
j 1 ! .� � . ,
�f + `.. . - /< . < : J s...: � � � � � t�
�.. _ -
_�
.. __� i ~
f �► �l : � �- ' � '�►' j�; . , : a, , . l .r` � -.
��� , � _. r � .
' Yi � / ..,�
12:31PM P5
f�F;C�E 0�
�
FR�M o��iIS Fncarpor�ted PHONE ��. a 612 792 1701 S�p. 01 1999 12:31PM P6
°°� emfBB°JJ mde4y V4LII�WdOJdU Ie
w��� Y,�
��
t
i
�
t
t ' 9 A t , `
�d�'+�4� � i
, �� 1
�K-�9--�--- -- -
. �: � ► :, ;
�� .
, _
. , ,r} �, _
.. - . . � ' � � ._.
r:.,�. . -'.
� �� f
�. " .' . . ... -. �J ...� �, 1.
-� .� i_... ,
,,:, .. -� . . , -.. �
i j; fi i : �. %� '=; a�.T�' ��
� � �
i s �� � /%. �'. �
s ,-
�.
_ >.� � � �
�. .� � .�.;. ,� -.., , . 1
_ ` � `
_, � " r ;
� �. .. _. _ ,� _ �.,, . � �.�. ;� :
, `
_ ,. . . �.-
1 �� ,r �: � ,. �
_ � _ _ . ..
<- , ! ]
j ` 1 : � i/ ' +.,..� ,� �yi �, �;� i-
�. , �: 7
, r � y y... .
s,'�! ��� � �-. �
� _�
: _
, Y, . . .:
. , , � . _. � . _-f , � _ . : �� �;
I
�. _ - :
K �.
�. �- r
. . �
_.' x
� � , ; ..,:. � - � �
� < y f .
� �
�y r ��: � 4�� � � , . � �-�
� /
♦ ; � I''
;,...•.
< s•. , . , � .
_ ,Jj , � \
,,:.
r - t t �a ,� _._ . - i
, ,:
�,. . , . _
� �„ - :� /�, � _.
L ,,, . .
• ..
1 �:
� , _. _ �
��� � �. .� , .,,. w �. � • ,
�� - � � ; / �► �
.
� � ; , s.r� 1
�
� . . �. �... ,� .� ���,_ � � � :,
. . _�
; ,
�+. �; . � � ; _ � .=,: ,, �.
�s -,..� �. .� �; _� _. � __ �
: � . 1 � . 1,�
I,-. �
�.,� : � .
; , ; � � ; . ,_._ ,
:� � � �
,_._.
T
� : _ ._
. __ . '' -r.
i
<::�:
1�O�II�S `TIE�1 PLA1�1Il�G CO1�iViI�S��N
�epternber 1g91.999
7°00 P,M.
REGULAR M EETING
AGENDA
I. Cail to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Iiems Not on the Age��da
....m_______________..___a_________..____.._____..�..a..___..______________m______________.._____________.._
��f'�Lg�l�Yga+i��7l�ti7y�:7�DL` �E`7�7y��7 �,6gRi/(`r�Y��il77r!�7,Aq 7g1Lq�L7` ytT'B�C+JC�r� C.�1�ETH:�i �i�1@1/�8y11A�Tg 7Ir�.���eAtlJ1VAy t'llili
�F19'ir A�l /i� �iJg��r 1`it�171� �lrl{' a'�IIPLb93�i�3�3 ��� Y&Y� 19i11� U A��1
��ma,._�__________�_^_°___a-.._....�.0..4�....,._--------_^°________________me_..eev_________e,.��...�m..d___°_
4. L�p�3YOV8 �lllLtiBS;
a. August 1 �, 1999
5. Plannaa�g C�se No. 570-99
Properly Involved: 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road
Consideratian of a variance reques� to a11ow for a zero-foat gaeaga setback
Applicant: 3eff Johnson
6. Plax�r�sng Case l�tme 569-99
Property Involved: SOI I Sunnyside Road
Consideration of Resolution 594-99, a resolution recommending approval of a
-" conditional use for an oversized garage.
, Applicani: Donald Mackeban
7. Staff Reports / Items of Inforznation
a. Update regaxding change in location of screen fence at the Anthony
Proparties/O'N�iI PUD (Theater Project.)
b. Discussion of Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan
c. Previous Council Acrions
d. Upcoming Pianning Cases
8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
(Immediately Following Regular Meeiing)
����*�*�������������:��*�:���:���:�����*�:*��
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING I5
REQUES'TED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
��**w:�����������*������*��������*��*���
AGENDA SESSION
AGENDA
Review Minutes -- September l, 1999
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV1f'LANCOMMU'CAGENi�A11999�9-15-99,REG
-;:"i
'` #_ ; �, '' ' ,; � � " ., :i, '
l�eetin� D�teo
S�a�f° lteport b�:
�lanniaa� C�se l�o.e
Appl�carei:
Iteqea�st:
I.,ocatao�a:
P�i 1Vo�a
�on�ng/I.,anc1 �T�e:
A�plic�bE� Regulatao�ase
5eptember I5, 1999
3ames Ericson, Planning Assoczate
570-99
Jeff Johnson
The applica�rt is seeking a variance for a zero-foot setback to
construct a six-stall garage to service the two four-plexes he owns.
20i5 & 2asi Hiliview Road
OS-30-23-41-0011 �i 005-30-23-41-Q005
R-3, Medium Density Residential
1104.01; Subd. 4; Accessory buiidings detachad from principal building shall have a side-yard
setback of five feet, Accessory buildings shal[ not be allowed in the front yard.
At��chrrae�tso
1. Planning Application
2, Zoning Map �
3 , Location Map
4. Site Plan
5. County Lat Combination Form
Baekg�o�and:
The applica.r�t, owner of two conti�uous pz-operties on Hiilview Road, each impraved with four-
unit multi-family structures, wishes to construct a six-stall garage structure between the two
buiidings to service both buildings. The problem with this request is {1) the structure would cross
a propecty line, and (2j if approved, what would happen at some point in the fiature if one of the
properties were sold. The applicant, since taking ovsr ownership of these iwo properties, has
invesied considerable expense in rehabbing the buildings and making upgr�des and improvemet�ts.
The addition of a garage stntcture would without question be beneficial to the property, to its
residents, and to the icnmediate area.
An�Iysesa
-- Addressing the first issue of a stnacture "straddling" � lot line, so to speak, one can look ai Section
Johnson Variance Application
2075 �c 2�81 HitIview Road
September 11, 1999
Page 2
1107.03 of the Zoning Code, pertaining to zero lot line subdivisions. V�hile not the sarrae thing, the
manner by which a zero lot line subdivision would be similar to how the applicant's reyuest could
be handled. Under Subdivision 4 of that Section, certain deed restrictions are ]isted which would
need to be fited upon both properties, wk�ich are as follows:
a. If one dwelling unit is burned or destroyed, it shalI be reconstructed in a uniforzn
appearance.
b. If both dweEiir�g units are burned or destroyed, minimum lot widths shall then prevail as
for sing�eAfamily homes.
c. A doubte dwelling unit may be re-built meeting the original conditions of this Title.
d. A utuform exierior appearance, in terms of color, design and maintenance shall be
maintained
For the appiicant's request, if a variance were to be approved, deed restrictions would need to be
filed which wouid apply to the garage structures in the event of fire or if one of or both or the
proper�ies were to be sold in the future. In speaking with the City Attorney, however, it was
concluded that this approach--albeit possible--may not be the most appropriate in this situation.
The other possible option to allow for this type of structure would be to require that the applicant
join, or "combine", the two parcels inCo one parcel. This process is fairly straightforward, and only
requires that the taxes payable for the current year be paid. There is no County fee to join parcels.
This pracess has been used in the past without any problems, and can be seen on the Mermaid Site,
the Silver Lalce Commons multi-family complex, as well as other multi-lot parcels. While in mosi
cases it would be preferabie to replat the parcels to make one "platted" lat, joining the applicant's
two parcels would not appear ta cause any problems and would alleviate ariy issues resulting from
property lines or the future sale of the property. (Once the properties are joined, they could only be
"ur� joined" by means of a minor subdivision, which the Plannin� Commission and Council woutd
need to approve.)
Staff has spoken to �he applicant, who has indicated that he would be willing to join the properties
in lieu of requesting a variance. A copy of the iot cambination application is attached for your
reference. Once joined, there would be no reason the appiicant could not proceed with his plans
for the gara�e construction.
Staff wouid recommend, however, that the City Code, in Section 1242.10 pertair�ing to land
subd�visions be amended to ��pIicitly atlow for such combinations. The Subdivision Code does
not �ontemplate simple combinations, only subdivisions. The City Attorney has suggested the
follawing italicized and underlined words be �.dded:
1202. I0: I.A1�II� I)I�SION O� �'41i�BI1V�4T'l�l� P�iOCEI)IJ�: In any case where the -=
Johnson Variance Application
2075 & 2081 Hillview Road
September I1, 1999
Page 3
divisian or combinatio�r of a parcel oY uarcels of land into one or more lots or parcels for the
purpose of transfer of ownership or building development does not come within the definition of
subdivision, as defnecl by this Title, a certified survey and description of such land division or
combination shall be i°iled with the Clerk-Ad�ninistrator who shall suhmii copies of such division or
combinat,ion to the Plar►ning and Zoning Commission and Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
No building permit shatf be issued until said descripiion has been approved by the Council.
Stafffeels this change to the Code is necessary in any event, as this issue has come up in the past
and combinations have occurred with the City's verbal approval.
Ite�omriaensla�ion:
If the applican� is so witling and the combination successfial, s�af� is recommending that the
Pianning Commission take no action on this request as IV1x. Johnson would then withdraw l�is
application from consideration.
�. � (:ia,t.ts�-� C�-��,
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATA\CrROUP�\COIvIDEV�DBVCASES1570-991JOHNSON.RPT
i
sv� ,»�?
+:y�t i ..;,*
' ,Sl� ��'!y<(` �t. �1
i�J ��l i:'.:I.i!•=.;?%
.�
� :,��r,<:, .
°„ : i� :r�?;;
::, 1:.
. i
n�h��! ° PartnerS��@
@..�18'il9$lJ . YJ� V L` ����AV 1 IdL' ��� 1��.,..:_,'-_.
I�E�LOF �FT APPI.ICATT�:" �
2401 i�iighuvay 10, Mounds �View NI�I 551 i2
Please T'ype or Print Info��t►on - Co�plete �oth Sides of T°isa� Fo�n
t�,pplicaat Infb�aiion � —��
Name of Applicant � �' � � � � � s� Telephone
Address ' ,�.�. � �71x1 �C� Fux
�.v � a� f/ e �,1 �
�terest i� I'ropeet� (check appcopriate box)
Owner of Property
❑ Lesse�, Operator, Manager
o Other (explain) _
❑ Contract for Deed Owner
❑ A�eement Yo Purchase
6I2-i17-4020
612-784-3452 - FAX
;�Cil'� c�- •4
� �� � ��
�ppLicaofs rnust prodicfe ewidence of intepes4 in property at the ti�e of applicatio�, and if yo�c are not the ownner of th�
propertyy you must �rovide a le�ter af �eraaissio� from the ov�er givi�g co�sent to the fiti�g of this applicatio�. 'I'be
�►ropeety ownee rt��ast si�m 2his appticatic►n for it io d�e accep4ed.
i�roperty Descripiion/Proposal
Address or GenecaE Location � � ,� � � � � �`� r1...`- (/;� � �J � o
Legat Description � � v �% � �
Property Identification # (PIN #)
#� �f Acres
Current Zoning
a 5� o�. 3�-1 l� of l!����- 3d �.� c,�.� __�Q�- 5�..
:
--�- , . _
Type of Application
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ Rezoning
a Major Subdivision
a Ivlinor Subdivision
❑ Ptanned Unit Devalopment (PUD}
� PCJD Amendment
� Conditional Use Permit
Variance
� Code Appeu[
� Develop Reviecv/Site Plan
❑ Wetlarid Alteration Pemut
o Wettand Bui%r Pemiit
p Floodp(ain Pemut
❑ Ot�Zer
$Z50
�250/acre; n�in $2Sfl max $I500
$250 + $Z50 deposit'�
$200
Refer to rezoning fees
$350
R-1, R-2 $75; atl others $250
�2-1 > R-2 $ i 00 alZ others �250
$i00 '
$125/acre; �ain $125 max �750
R- I, R-2 $ I SO; All Od1eC5 $2OO
R� 1, R-2 �25; all oti�ers $ I OQ
$200
. -.;
'�D�posits shalI be paid to cov�r al! cQSis of pubiic notices, �nateriafs �nd staf�or consultant time spent in the review,
research uc preparation of materiais associated with diis appfication. The applicant shaii be responsible for aii reasonable =-
incurred costs in excess af the initial depos►c amounk. Any partion of th� deposit not spent or �neumbered shaEl be reiiznded
to the apptzcant withsn thirty (;0) days atter consicEeration of Yhe application is compleeed.
�fgase �;ar��►leie th� revgr�e side oitl�is �pplic��io�ae
City of I+/Iounds View, �/[1�I Pa e 2
Develo ment r� lication
Preseni Use of Propetcy
❑ Undeveloped/Vacant
❑ Duple;c!°I'wo Family Dwelling
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment
o Other (explain)
Property Classification � Abstract
■
�.
0
5ingle Family Dwelling
Mulii-ia�ily Dwe9ling
Industriaf Establishment
Torrens
Description of Proposai � ' � �°
BY MY (OUR) STGNATiJRE �N THIS APPLICATION. I�-IEREB�' 1aE�LARE. TI�`T, TO T� �EST OF MY
KNOWi,EDGE, THE INFORMAi.IUN PRUVIDE� IS AND ACC � TE
Si�ature of Applicant
Name of Appticant (tyged/printed) � L � � �-� L. � S., b
�`C �� � r
Signature of Property Owner �
Name of Property Owner (typeci/prinEed)
Address of Owner
� � l i � � cJ �, � �.�1 � �
Phone Number of Owner
�j (� �/� 'Z�
*����x��xz�*���*����:������*x�*����������x*x����*��#��:��*x��**���*#���������*�x�x��x���#��***�����#*�#����x�
FOIt OFFICE USE O1�Y
Date of Submitttil �'- � - �'� R
Assigned to:
Date of Acceptance � 120-da 1'unit
planning Cuse No. �°7 '-3' '� / b0-day Limit ��, Y ---------
Account # Check # Receipt #
Fees Paid � T � � _ � d _ r.,^ �o� � �i i � �'�
Application: � �-� v �
Park Dedication:
Deposits: _
�ther:
Tot�l:
1l98
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMD EV�FOftiviS�DEV;�PP.FOR
' ` '
. ... _ <: . ..: , :
>
�
d
�
�
�
� �
�
a
�
�:�: - _ �;;�.�:� �:�::�'•�= �:•: :�;
- ---- - - -�.. _ -- - - - 57'S1
v ^ 5741
pAR�
_ r,�-�m �j ��� 573i �
1
1 N� N� N�S N��J , 5��'I
� � aDj� ' � '`yJ`�� �-r/" �°. �711
�F. r-; N`� � N. N 22�n} s���� �,� --
�'�'raa ce��1��ii�� �' �Z37` N� N� 2200 5iO1
c� 1 (flt �%t
'��r''`� �� cv � 4 N 2233 °�� °• � 5691
��� �.� �c� �� N � ��olt�2o$� _
P.� � <a o y i �� °�. c9 '�.r' S88]
M' I� Of M tn h� r
td7 � e'? �°S N� O. b
N� N� N N I N N N N N
N N, N N N�N N� N
HILLVIEW '
�j�
y#�
> �
� � ��y
d�N
�
586i
t-3
O � p
N I y
1a! a � P�rj
�a�iBood N�
PARK
�
`LO�11AL VI�L4G�
31LE H , K
;:.�; , ;
� �n ,'P- �n � �
. N N ��'�O O O
'N. :N. N N
(D � E� Cti1 t� ��I QO j�O
N r� r� O O1
� �
�ho—I C�E;NfN N#N Nj�
o, � 3 i �
5590 r� � ai r� ; P r- r7 �� I�
PF '°'�"'�"' r'�� o a�so,
.- �- r- ? P i P P, ,_s
� w.� N`��co�N�tD }m�o N to pf,�i,� o�
t� co � u� � �n ! d° r� ra cv �•- c� o� a� ao "r t� E� i
tV N(�i N�N c�l;N�N N�NSN N�N N+N N':,
�'.�.�,.�.. ' _`.:t. �.�.i. ..__�-.�.. ;
dn{n� a, w� � a� r� n a: .- � rj.- u� f e�
r� i c� u� �n •� r� � w> c�s r.- � o� w 1 rn o� S n n
a-�� o o �io�o
� N(V C��{ N[V I(V nI CV t^�d � N f�! N t�6 i N N
D�
�' SDrCD�N t0 i #
t� � t0 LL7 itS � M H�i N��` o O� II� O� i 00 .� P�
� v-3w r tr�r-lr- r O p} p:�,p
�.N N(V N N !N�I�EjN (�l�N�N tV �t �y?N 3N
� � } t f i � _�,.,,,,,?..�a�,.�._.�..
� u� ��iea t��a��r���� �w-�� r��-�u�'n r�
� co �n ��ir�r � r= 1.03 0 o►�a� W#re�o I
o-- �� � � � o 0y0� o c�a �
N;cV N CV N�N N(t�E :N N�N�N tV[N,N
�oning I�/Iap Planning Case 570�99
Applicant: Johnson Va�ian�e R.�quest
I,oc�.�ion: 2075 � 20�1 1�ill�ew Roa.d
�. �~i.,,_• - �`
r . a . `` . �
�
�
� �� �� ������i ����1���
� ��' ir �� ■ !�: :�����Illll:.
■ i,`� �uii :�� �� :���Ilflilli'■
e ■��� ���� �■��■ ������ ���� �i1111[II
!.i■ �� �� � i �� �—
�i C �� �� �� �� �
� �� �r �� �� �� ���
� �es� �� �� �! wi � .��
� r�r �� �� �� � _ - �
� �� �r
rr ��w �� ��
� �� �� �� �� � : " - ' �
�������� -
�i/ ■1�� ��� I■� lf�� � ' �������
� �,� ��� ��� �1� ■� ��� �� ���IIi111111111
� _� �� � ■ .. ■ �if�11I11/111111 � �
� �� �.. .� �
����.� r• �•• �„ •� �� �■• � . �. .1����l�1'�/11 11111�IIIN 1�
..•_ .. .... �
� �� �� �_ �� �� a �� � 1�1�I� / � ��Illlilllli 111
__ __ — -- � �n� ' ... t/�
....� .. . ��1� �,
r� �� � � i� �� � M� �
�w �� �� r�i� �ii �r■ r riw � IIII� t/�r ��ii��� �����i�;
,�r � ��■ •• a• � �I►�� CC C 1111111111111111
��� ���� ��� ■� ■� ■�����. .. � f�ll �II/ �i
'� .��l� �: � � ��� � ��
' ■ �� . �■■i■,� ��
l�.��.
-- �: .�_: �
: :: == -�._
/.i�...�: �� ■ : : ►���'-_ ����ii�
r --
�
, �� � �� �►�� ��i/�\,
I� �■ .. � —� ������r� ��■���� ■
J�ffrey N. Johnson
2075 and 20g1 HiEEview Road
Variance (Zero Foot Setback)
Planning Case No. 570=99
2075 � 2Q81 Hilfview Road
,, �z;� F'roperties Within 350'
�
; ;
;
,
4�
c�.. � w
�\ � ; I
� I !� [
�I � c�7 �
.���I � I
� � �
�
f-
��- _::.;:>;.
,-;.._:_ 4
�
�
r ✓
�
�
....�..i
�
�
� . !
� n �
. . ° � r.f, ' ' I :; +; I : I . ! . ':I ' ' /',, � '
_ . ,,
� � �'. a', .+..
� � �.
� "� t�:
�°1�-" ��� �►
• � �; .
;
. � ,3�_ -_._ .= _y r �', _ ; +- __�.: ` . ���'-r��°��:. - °.�_ � . -
: l ,:_ .1 _ „ .'� ... :.,, . ' *: ti. :� �. �... . �:;� '� . . �" it " . ��... .' :� ^ . :i. � i. 1) �
�� `. �. ' ,.: • i i • - f ' '�. �. � � �� -
: .: .,. . . , . . � , . - . . • .
... , .. .. . . . .., :. . .
. � � .. _. ��`� ., ,. .. � � y " " �F It • :1. � • ;. , . 1 ��.� " " _ „ �: "' .. ' Y_ � . '. ♦ �.�.
' • , "� ' ' • I. - .1 `Y. ,- '
° � • ` "� ! �=" " � � .� � ' �i ,�- : •. � '
.. ' : ,. � ; . .....
_,
.��. r o.'� " l�: ' �,. ._; � .. .. � T � '-. - . �1 - �- ♦ : ; - ' .;" l. � '_. 'i =' : �
� .' ..
, .r � � -' . .. , ,.:
' � i
. � _ ,� �� "� : ' _ = �. ° ='� R. i '. _ .�I � � , .'1: l�.
.. 4�. a_ � f, _ !1 .� ,, a, ��. - .. / . � �`- .�' . � ' � � ' '" i �l ' �-� �-� ll, -
" ir: 1I. . '�l -�.� • . .;i; � � �: ��. f _ i;. �-1 ' i . � "s! [� e _ . • • _ '
�1�E$�� °
.
Code Y�T �rs ( PIPI)
��� � �=� �,_ ,: .:,. �-., -� : � <.- - -
. . . � ;:. : :.. ,: .. -: �: - .; . . -
R- � e -. .`. � � " r •: =;2 1 , 51 } ` .. __ ._ _, � . _.. .� �':'_. � . .. ':' �' � ".' : '11 r � = ..' � Yl .� ',. ;Q = 1i`ti �. '
• �. :' � ' � ':IC, w : y .� • '� ' ' • .l.. �
! :1 " f '
�,�. / _ �.'�. �.. il • " ..... .�. . . ..._ .
' • � .�. • . ��' • .'1.. ' ! ' _ ' � _ ' • ' �1. .�. �
_ _ _, . . , C . �.� i _. � • - , .� .,. �-_ `. .. !. �� , � -.', .
., ,,. , . . , - :. . . . .. .. . .. . .. _
• ` `-
.. � � ]. .. .' ' .� , � �� _ .� .
�: �'
� �': • . � � � � �. . � � . ��..
. ., _ _ . .. . . ` .. ., .,.. .. , .,; .,
! �.
`
..... .. . . . ..._.. .
l 'c. � �£, _ �:� . . �; �? ,.' '� '�, . �` : � � , ;� _ „
'" ': [� . ° _ ,,, -. . . �,
r .1 ! `�: � :�;
. mr��6.+� dB�dLb1e��J'd�E.B �°0$586� V �ldJ �5i�eddd6re6d
� db���e7�&aBSdJ �b�AS �
�::
91 P
�' . .��� � �� : i :`: .' : ��; � � _ � � �� ; °�°: . , � : � °�. :, �: ..
11���t�r�g I)a�e:
St�ff' Repvr� by:
Plannrr�g Ca�e �Ioo:
App�ieant:
lteq�est:
I.�catio�►o
P�i l�ose
�o�ad�g/I�a��f i3see
Ap�alicable lte�utations:
September 15, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
569-99
Donald Mackeben
Conditional Use Permit for an over-sized garage
8011 Sur�nyside Road
06-30-23-42-0008
�Z-1, Singie Family Residentiai
1104.01 Subd. 4: Accessory buildings detached from principat building shall have a setback of S
%et. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the front yard.
1106.03, �ubd. 1,� No garage shall exceed 952 square feet except by CUP; tlie combined square
footage for aii accessory buildings on a Iot shali not occupy more tharn 20% of the rear yard.
110b.04, �ubd.6: The combined square footage oi a(l accessory buildings on one lot cannot
exceed 1,400 square feet, the garage width cannat exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than three
vehicle accesses.
1125.01 Sub. 1 e: This sectian tists possible adverse effects that the Planning Commission shall
cansider in making its recommendation.
1125.01, Sub. 3b: This section lists possible additional criteria by CUP requests shall be judged.
Attachenentso Planning Applieation
Zoning Map
Location Map
Siie Plan
Resolution 594-99
�aek�roe��rd:
�011 Sunnyside Road is located north ofHighway 10 mid-block between Hillview and Sherwood
Roads, The area of the subject property--an interior lot--is appro�mately 38,115 square feet,
nearly an acre. The house is sei back approximately �5 feet from �he stre�t, with the detached
garage situaied alongside the home on the south side af the property. The house, �t
approximately 1,400 squ�.re feet, is presently larger than the existing two-stall garage, which is
i
Mackeben CUY Request
8U11 Sunnyside Road
September 15, 1999
Page 2
720 square feet. The applicant praposes ta construct a 320 square-foot addition to the rear of the
garage to be used for a workshop / hobhy area., bringing the total proposed square-footage of tie
garage ta 1,040 square feet. A Condi�ior►at Use Perrnit is required because the expansion are
would result in a garage larger than 952 square feet.
Ana[ysis:
Din�ensional Crite�icr
AlI of the dimensional criteria associated with this request--setbacks, spacing between buildings,
width of the garage and e�cpansion, and the numbers of doors��satisfy tl�e requirements as stated in
Chapter 1104 of the Zoning Code, The proposed expansion would be about constructed at the
rear of ti�e �arage, hidden f'rom pubiic view. The e�sting garage is se� hack from the south
property line by five feet, while the expansion would be seven feet from the south lot line, 125
feet from the rear lot line, and over 1215 feet from the north Iot line, as shown in the site plan
provided by the applicant. The garage and proposed addition would co�nprise less than five
percent of the rear yard area. The maximum coverage aliowed is 20 perceni.
,i
Ad>>erse E�'fects and CUP Criteria -
"_';;<;,y
_::=_ -�
The City Code, in Section 1125.01, Subd. 1 states that the Pianning Commission shall examine
the possible adverse effecis of a conditional use permit request prior �o making a
recommendation. The following represent those items explicitiy stated in the Code:
Relationship wiih the Comprehensive Pian.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential
areas so as to improve the quaiity, appearance and attractiveness of housi��g units and
residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, RO11
Sunnyside Road, as low-density residential. This proposal �does not conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Geographical Area Involved.
4. The Character of the �urrour�ding Area
In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are more narrow than the subject property,
though alI just as deep. The homes are genera(ly of a similar style architecture and were
built around the sam� time. A larger garage on the subject property would not appear out
of place, as there is adequate screening, a substantial sized lot and larger home on the
property.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Mackeben CUP Request
�011 Sunnyside Raad
Sepiember 15, 1999
Fage 3
Adding to the existing garage will have an immediate positive impact on the value af the
subjeat property. At i,040 square feet, set back from the street as far as it is, this garage
addition probably would not depreciate the surrounding area in any way.
5. The demonstrated need for such a use.
The appiicant has stated that he would like to use this area for hobbies and a work shop. In
creating this spaee, there would be ample room to do crafts Qr woodwoz-king, insiead of
taking up space in the existing garage or in the basement.
This proposat appears to satisfy the a,dverse effects criteria. Also in Section 1125,01, the Planning
Commission is to examine ihe criteria for granting a conditianal use permit, which are ouilined in
Section 1125.41, Sub 3b:
(1} The use wii( not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets a.nd other
public facilities and uiilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
(7) 'The use will not cause tra�c hazards or congestion.
(�) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary faci�ities have been or will be
provided.
Adding on ta the garage would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities,
parks, schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an zncreaae in
iraf�ic on adjaceni streets.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatihle or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be na deterrence to development of vacant 1and.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adversa effect upon
adjacent residential properiies.
Because the house i� set back further ihan is typical, and because the addition would be
siivated behind the garage, there would be substantial public screening from this accessory
structure.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall neecis of
the Ciiy and to the existing land use.
(5} The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Ga�-ages and d�tached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and
a[low for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment.
I
Mackeber► CUP Request
�011 Sunnyside Road
September i5, 1999
Page 4
Staffbelieves thai the adverse af�ects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out-
weighed by the benefits. Staff also beiieves that it is desirable from a community perspective to
have praperty owners improve their pi•operties with building expansions since the properties are
ihen usually kept in better order and may trigger other properties to do the same,
1�ee o�ra rr►en+d a g i o n o
Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission approve Resoluiion 594-99, a resolution
recommending approvai of a Conditional Use Permit for a i,040 square fooi garage at 8011
Sunr�yside Ytoad, as requested by Donald Mackeben.
i
�1 ��'��� C��,� �;��
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDE VIDEVCASES\569-99Uv1ACKEBEN, PC i
- -_-`.i
'�l
���,� „�;
:�i�;���;;�%`:� C� Ia1I'I'� I�E�I,�P�I�1T ��+P.t�� I�d'T'
-� �3Ei�I,OP N'T APP$,i�A°�TOI�
� :;`��'�;,'�= 244i I3ighway 10, Mottnds View MIV 55112
°„ :,i:::, :r�,
'n��'�� ' PaftA¢YS�t�S � 1 L° ! A ! ""f'oG0
612-7�4-3462 a FAX
�lease T'ype os �rint Infot�atioae - Cor�eplete �ot}a 3ides of T�is For�
AppUcaat Info�atioa n,�
Name of Applic�nt j� / l��J G�� ,(� �° �/.
Address D ' �/ %+�' ' S' � l.�
�i /� �� �.S U % � � %7 �V �
c5`�'S°'/ � �
In�erest in Pr�pe�°iy (check appropriate box)
Owner of Properiy
a Lessee, Operator, Manag�r
❑ Other (expiain)
Telephone 7 � �°' ���r�
Fax
o Contract for Deed Own�c
❑ Ag�eement �o Purchase
AppGcants ��st p�ovi�te eviclence of ic�terest in propee�y at tl�e ticne oi appGcaiio�, a�d if you at�e not tl�e oevner of th�
property, you �ust provide :s letter of �er�issaors frorn t�re o�er gie�g cor�sent to the filiee� of thss appleeatio�. The
peopert� ovvme� m�sst s6g� this appl�cafi�� fae it to be accepteci.
Property Dessra�stioe�ropos�d
Address or Cseneral T.ocation
Legal Description
Property Identification # (PIN #)
� �f Acres
Current Zoning
� o // � �/� ��
���t
� , �.
�/�,1��
'i� � "C3'�1'O
j� �7,.
� N L � e k� 5�-- J° �. r��,,1
���'°
Tyge of Application
❑ Camprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ Rezoning
❑ Major Subdivision
❑ Minor Subdivision
❑ Planned Uriit Developmen[ (PCTD}
❑ PUD Amendment
� Conditional Use Pemut
❑
�
0
�
n
�
Q
Variance
Code Appeal
Devefop Review/Site Plan
Wetland Alteration Permit
Wetland But3Fer Pemiit
Floodpiain Pe�t
Oth�r
$250
�zso�BCr�; �, $zsa maY � � soa
$2S0 + $250 deposit*
�200
Refer to rezoning fees
$350
R-1, R-2 �75; all others �250
R-1, R-2 $100 atl others �250
$100
� 125/acre; min $125 max �750
R-1, R-2 �( Sfl; all others $200
R-1, R-2 $25; all oth�:rs �1fl0
$200
*Deposits shafI be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materi�[s and staii or consuitaeae tiz�xe spent in the rev'sew,
research or preparaYion of materials associated with this application. The appGcani shall be responsible for a!1 reasonable
incut�ed costs in �xcess of the initiak deposit arnount. Anti� portion of the deposit not spent or �ncumbered shall be reizanded
to the app[icarse within thirry (30) days afr�r consideration of ih� applicAtion is completgd.
Plea�se com�le#e the re�er�e sid� of 4his :a��lac��eo�e.
City of IVfocsnds iriev�, MTI
Development A�p[ica�ion � �age 2
Fresent Use of Property
❑ UndevelopedNacant � Sin�le Family Dweiling
❑ DuplexlTwo F�miIy 17wellin� � Multi-family Dwelling
❑ Business/Cornmerciul Establishmeni � Irsdvstrial Establishment
CI Otl�er (explain)
Property Clgssification
Description of Proposal
o Abstract � Torrens
� Z"/ a�
� � ��N
1� �' l,� �` �
N e�J- l''o' i►`
�
���
� f
/ � / �
' j- d f_
.�` �°'� �.S°
BY MY (OUR) SIGNA'i"tJRE ON THIS APPLiCA�°IOi�i, I�IEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST'OF MY
FCNOWLEDGE, THE INFURMATIUN PRUVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.
Signaiute of Appiicant � ~
Name of Applicant (typed/princed) � � %� /'� � '� �7 �� �' � � �.� �° /� -
Signature of Property Owner
Na�e af Property Owner (typed�printed)
Address af Owner
Phone Number of Owner
�Y � i�/ l��f� _
� Uf1( ./)- � � � �%.� c. ,�< C �.� L� !,l''
� l� /� S�/i�/� � s �',�' �' r� ��
�U �/f/�JS' 1i! ` C L� �'i�r�
� g . ,s, � � �
��m�#�����x��w**��x����*�w���*�*�****���*���***��*��**�**#���*��*���**�x���***����****�#������**��*�*
FOIt O�CE tJsE O1�iL1'
Date of Submittal —
Date oiAcceptance Assi�ed to:
Plannuig Case No. 60-day Limit f 20-day limit
Fees Paid: Accauni # Check # Receipt #
Application: " .� 7�j d � o� % --� 9 80 _ ��' G
Park Dedication: — -�—
Deposits: —
Other:
Total:
N:IDATAIGROUPS\COMD E V1FORlv1 S1DEVr1PP.FOR
��( i �-UL,w�.� �C�n � `� �� � !i���_.
I/98
m.o.
� �
� � N � ��„_..,..,
��^ ..�_ � � 14
i t ; � i �34a
- j � i ' �...�...�.�.�...e...
j F
y � �
� 1 � � � � � �° � �
� � N � � � - � � N ! �
4
6
6
0
]
�.�
4
( 2
�
�
;�
�� �
�
�
a
A
�
�iILIVIE�
��1°' f`� � 7�8 d
�- �.,..�.�..e.v,�.. c�
s� , ��� 7�76 �
f �' �� 7�70 �
� �� �� � �,� '�. '
'� � �����o �
�'�`� ,o ����� � e .
Zoning Map Plar�ning Case 569-99
Applica.nt: T/iackeben CUP Request
Location: �Ol 1 �ttt�nyside Road
, ..:,
_ .� �
? .
:.,
�.
! ! �i
►- •
.._. _... _ . ..._..
, ..,. , . .. _..
f. •
"r+�• �:
,
r1L
:s'
::, ,
:�:
.�: ;, •
:�- ;�:� _r:;.
:� :i ' r�
:�.` •�.. :�
:�. :.r. :r*
►•;. ..; ..
.
,:, � „��,•�' ,,
►'•.•:
� �'.i� -��
. �
. '
,. <+ ,;
: ,�
,:,:.
�:►
,:.
.:,
:�
;.
v �
1
i
'i �� �
�..
1 ,� ��
f`
:�
l
�... . . . . ! ... . . .___ . ... ._ .. .... ... . ._
• . . . � . . ._ . . ... _. __.. .. �.. .
� ' .
' . � .. . .. � , . ..... . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . � �
., .,;.. . • . . _. . .. .. _ .. . .. .. . . , _ _
.. ..:. -
...)
,. , . � .
.. . - - .
,. .
.
...::- ;•-. �
. . : : � -- - . . - .... .. __. . . ........_._ .... -._. __ ._._ . . . ..
, ,. . .. ....... . ......._ ._... ...
.. _ .. . , _..
. . ..: : . .
, ... -
.. :
, �
, ,. .... . . .. ...... ....
, � `� . . . . _. _�. .. . _. _ ... . .. ". . . .. -- .. _. . � ...... - ,
. .. . . .. e �
. ,
� ;::: - �I
�
� - �� �
� . � . �, „ .. . _ ... . . ........ ..: ... ... .. . .. . . . . _. ..
' �
_ .... . .
� . _ .. ... .. . ._. .
� �
. . . 3 .. ... ..._ ... •
. .. .. �. � ..
F. . .._...-�- �--• - . -- ... _
J
j
1 .
f-. . . . .. . ...
, � . . " ' . .. . .
� � .. . . _ . . . . _ .. . �--�� � . .
i r�-----°—� � �. [ r:
d �6.. I'
' • ' ' e
I
- ;�, '' 1 ., . ��- , - � :.. "- :�`: �;1: '7' ; � -' '�; ''��.
;� , :�; ; : ; ;� � ,, ,�. � ,: � :�
-.� -�- � � � ! � '��� :1 � � :t; � ���_��.
1; : ��; :�� � '' �
�� : � � : :i , i� ' ,
'-�' � .i� ; �� � - '; ; � � �0� ��� ; . ; �� `J �1��- - � '. , .� �. � . �, � � r ; �, �, �; ; �. . :, _ - � : �, �. � -
�- .. ; �_ : ; � :: ,_ .. �. � . ..- ; , . -� < < ', , , ; F ; � , � ;l�I. : '. +! %. �1�� �
4 , . 1; ' I: `� ' " � 1 � 1 � ' "' "
�1Vherea�, Donald Mackeben has applied for a conditional use permit ta allow for a 1;Q40
square-foot garrage an property located at SOI1 Sunnyside Road, zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential, legally described as follows:
Lot 92, Sp�in� L�ke �ccrk �Iillviefv,
Idanzsey Coa�nPy, ,�"iczte of h2innesotr�
��E1tEA�, there is currently a 720 square-foot garrage on this lot; and,
�'IiEI2EAS, The Mounds View Zorv�ng Code allows, witlz a condiiional use permit, up to
1,400 square feet of garage/accessory building space on one lot; and
W�ER�AS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the follawing documents regarding
this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plan
d. Location Map
e. StaffReport
�3'�3E�A�, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements as stated
in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposai have been met; and,
�V�EIt�t�S, the Planning Comrnission makes the following findings that possible adverse
effects have been considered in its recommendatian, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd, l..e.:
1. Relatianship with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Cotnpr�ehensive Plan encou�ages the developn�enP and maintenance of resrdenPial a�eas
so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential
property in general. The Conaprehensive Plan designates this p�operty, &011 Sunnyside
Road, as low-densiPy residential. This p�oposal does not confZict with the Comprehensive
1'lan.
I
I
Planning Commission ResoIution 594-99
September 15, 1999
`,'i
Page 2
2. ihe GeographicaI Area Involved.
4. The Character o�the �urrounding Area
In this area of Mou�ads V"iew, mosP of the lots are rrzore narrow than the subject pYOperty,
though all are just as deep. The homes czYe generally of u similat- style architectuf•e and weYe
built around the sarne time. A larger garage on the subject prope�t�� -would not appear out of
place, as there rs adequate screening, a substantial sized Zot and la�ger home on the proper�ty,
Whether such use wiil tend to or actuatly depreciaie the area in which it is proposed.
Addrng to the existing garage will have an amnaediate positive in�pact on the value of the
subject property. At 1, 040 squa�e feet, set back fram the street as fa� as it zs, this garage
ac�ition p�obably would not deprecicate the surrounding arecr zn crny way.
5. The demonstrated need for such a use.
The applicant Lras stated that he tivould like to use this area for hobbies anca' a work shop. In
c��eating this space, there would be ample room to do cr-afts or woodworking, instead of
taking up space in the existing gaYage or in tlae basement.
i�VIitE1�AS, the Planning Comtnission makes the following fndings regarding the criter�a
for appravat of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1 I25.01 Subd. 3.b,:
1. The use will not create an excessive burden on exist�ng parks, schoals, streets a��d other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are propased to serve the area.
7. The use will not cause iraffic hazards or congestion.
8. Adequate utilities, access roac�s, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
Adding on to the garage would not create a greate� rmpact on existing public facilities,
parks, schools or se�vices, on utilities or access �oads, nor would it crecrte an increase in
fraffic on adjacent streets.
2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that eacisting homes will nat be depreciated in value and
there will be no deierrence to development of vacant land.
3, The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse eflFect upon
adjacent resideniial properties.
Because the house is set back fu�ther than zs typical, and because the addition would be
situated behind the garage, the�e would be substantral public screening from this
accessor y structure.
4. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to ihe e�sting land use.
S. The use is consistent with �he purposes af the Zoning Code and the purposes of ihe zoning
district in which the applicant intends io locate the proposed use.
Planning Commission Resolution 594-99
September 15, 1999
Page 3
6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Garages and detcrched accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residenlial areas, and
allow foY the storage of vehicles and yard and gat•den equrpment.
l�IOW, T�EREFOI�E, B� IT 12ESOI,VED that the IV�ounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval af the conditional use permit to allow for a 1,040 square-foot garage with
the following stipulations:
The cor�diiional use permit shall be recorded with Rarnsey County within 60 days
of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of
Mounds View.
2. The garage shatt not be used for living space or o�her uses not allowed by the district in
which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was
granted, the conditional use permit shall becorne null and doid.
The garage addition shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building
appearance with the existing garage.
�l
4, All vehicles parked at the prop�rty shai[ be parked either upon the driveway's improved
surface o�- within the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be allowed to park upon the grass -_ -
or off af the improved surface, --=--
BE I'I' FII�E4LI.Y 1�SOi.�EI) thai, the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this
resolution to the City Cauncil prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 15th day of September, 1999.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\569-491594-99PC.RES
;�: . � ., - ,:i _ , , .:`:.
�o: Nfounds View Planning Cammission,
Fu�om: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
�ubjec�o Economic Development Section of the Comprehensive Plan
Date: September 10, 1999
BAC�GROUND:
At the September 1, 1999 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Cammission was given a
copy of the ecanomic develapment section of the comprehensive plan that was developed by the
Economic Development Commission. I�evin Carroll will be present to discuss the document
with the Planning Commission. Please bring your copy of the document wifih you to the meeting.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Discuss f.he document and ask any questions that you may have. No formal aciion is required at
this time. This seciion will be incorporated into the overall comprehensive plan document that
will be presented to the Planning Commission at a future meetang.
N:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDEVIPLANCOMMI9-1 S-99b.doc
i
c;>,
r� ;
; '. ' `� ' '` ;� ` ;� ; ;�;
To:
Frorr�:
Se�bje�i:
Dat�e
Mounds View Planning Commission,
Rick Jopke, Community Deveiopment Dixector
Request to Change �creen Fence Location at the Anthony Properties/O'Neil Praject
Sepiember 10, 1999
BACKGROIJN�D:
At ihe September 1, 1999 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission discussed a
requesf from Anthony Properties coneerning the possibility of maving the screen fence along the
south side of the property b feet to the west into the buffer area. As staff indicated at the meeting
there was �. question what was on the approved plan. �taff indicated that the approved plan
seemed to indicate that the fence oniy had to be be#ween the office buildings. The Planning
Commission directed sfaff to further research the xnatter, discuss the rnatter with the City
Attorney and report back to Planning Commission.
I have reviewed the files, Planning Commissian minutes, and Ciiy Council minutes and have not
- found anything new that would specifically require a continuous fence. I have sent copies of
' materials to #he City Attorney's office a.xzd will report any opinions issued to the Planning
Commission at the September I S"' meeting.
REQUESTED ACTION:
It is requested that the Pla.nning Commission determine what additional review process and
action should happen. The Pia�uling Commission couid also recommend that staff be directed to
draft code amendments far future consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
N:�DATAIGRO'UPSICOMDEVIPLANCOMM\9-15-99.doc
P�32..00EE�II�GS OI+ Ti�iE liiIOUN�S '6�iE�! P�,AIoII�'ING COIVIIl�IIS�IOTV
, CI'I"�' O� T�J[O�Tl�i)5 VIE�
� Yet�l�"1�� 1�l_.� iJl`1 1 E q LV1iLY 1V .C��� L tS
�2egulaY 11/Ieet°rng
Septe�nber 1, 1999
1Vlo�snds �?��'vv City ��11
8441 �ighva��ty 10, I!/TtStsr�ds_��1��, M� 55�12
.�,�;.
3�� �� �> ��
i, CaIE to iirder - - ��
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pet
20 �oll C�►1
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Comrr►issic
IVliller, and Stevenson.
Members Absen�: Commissioner Braathen, ��h pi i
Y/�Sif#
Alsa Present: Planning Associate Jim E��son, Co �
Recorder Trish Pearson. �,w,��, .���
�:,..� ., ;�
.;�� : ;
Community Development Direct `4:�• opke siatec� Cot
�
the meeiing, however, he wei�ild �e viewin{� Z�� ��t•t�c
�ndex to Ii�it��i'te� '
Planning Case �Ia. �
request ta.�,�.1�low fot-
":`�ports / Items af
erson and Planni�i
7:OO:.p'm., Septem
3 erl<c;
�y 3?��
ohnson, Kaden, Laube,
Director Rick Jopke, and
aison Stigney woutd not be present for
� on tape.
59 Reci C3ak Drive. Consideration of a variance
u�icEe driveway. John Henning, Applicant.
on
Commissioners Repart
____ _
3. ° �;it���ns' �2equests �red Cortamerets on �tems Not ora ihe Agenda
There wea-e no citizen rec�uests or comments on items rrot on the agenda.
P�ge
0
�
24
l�ou�ds Vievv Pllnnin� Comm€ss►on
l�egulae° IVleeiin�
4, App�ovnl of Il3inutes
A. �.e�gust 4, 1994
MOTION/SECOND; Stevensan/Miller to approve the May 19, I999 m
Ayes — 8 Nays — 0
5. Planngng C�se l�ae 56$-99
Property Involved: �359 Red Oak Drive
Consideration of a variance rec�uest to aiiow for a 44-goo�
Applicant: John Henning «;'<�
r:
The applicant was present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the
'Th� applicant, John Her�ning, prop�
Commission approve a variance
maximum width %r a driveway zs �
alongside tlie g�rage, whici�,,iu prt
feet. Th� driu,���}�, l�oweve�, ��i
as
Se�fegnbes° 1, 1999
P�ge 2
minu��� as corrected.
carried.
i?�er at�;�� Red Oak�IDrive, has requested that the Planning J
�drive ay nine f�,�,��wider than is aliowed by Code. The -�
* e„
1}�e �pplicar��rshes to add a nine-foot wide parking pad
t ����.s
�cce��, �o� �a►��es the driveway to increase to a width of 44
to 1� �`���;�'��it approaches the street.
Ericson stat�d ille 4�t��ject prc���ert�� is 1�?:cated north of Ardan Avenue, between Ardan Avenue and
County Road �J �; ��l�: s�at:�d t}�e hau���t�a5 built this year, and the applicant is in the process of
completing tl���a�eriar ��c��� and land�,��ping, and the driveway was the last project undertaken. He
'Cj r
stated, at�h�=time Mr.` TT�nr�ii�� �,ubmitted lus apptication for the driveway, he was told that the Code
prohib.it�� a 44-faot dri� ��ray, �zt�d>at that point, he applied for the variance.
���
o��Y
Er���on stated staffhas r�ewed the seven criteria presented far examination in granting a variance,
r;"'�o�� �a�
ui �i��1er to estabtish a �lship or e�raordinary circumstance that would warrant the granting o� such
d i�,�r�ance. He pro ����'+a brief overview of the criteria, and stated that staff was not ahle to discern
�.
aiiy C}+��r a,nr� ci�,f r�'�i� hardship in this case.
Ei-ic��r� s��ted the appticant has a three-car garage, which cannot be expanded any ficrther due to
setbacks and the width of the house, nor can it 6e expanded to the rear, therefore, it is as large as it
can be on the subject lot. He stated, in this regard, staff understands the applicant's position, in that
it would be nice to have a parking space along the side of the garage, so as not to block one of the
three access doors to the garage. He stated, however, this would require creating a driveway that
is larger than that allowed by the Code.
,,
1VIora�ds �Ieew Pllnning Cammiss�on
�tegular I��etin�
Septeer►ber 19 1999
Page 3
Ericson stated the applicant has ai�er the fact, installed the driveway. He stated that when the permit
was applied for, the grading for the driveway had already been completed, and the appticant was not
aware ofthe Code provision. He stated a retaining wall was insta€led along the side ofthe property
Iine, and the driveway was to be located one foot from the nQrth property line. �Te stated the
�r;,,
neighboring property owner, Mr. Norbert IVIoe, has indicated through cor�esponde��eYthat he does
not objeci to the drzveway tocation in that close proximity to his property�`' ;; ���v
Ericson stated the issue to be determined is whether or
appiicant, to warrant graniing a variance, He stated regard.
brought to lighi another issue regarding whether or not th� (
stated it is currently stanc}ard practice that homes have thi ��
clear �in its desire to have alt vehicles parked upon improved
proposa[ would be a positive improvement, however, at do
Ericson stated one ofthe recommendations staffhas
staffto draft a resolution of approval of the variance.
He stated another option waulcE be to direct staff �c� �
no hardship can be found, He stated another o ion
the Code requirement af 35 feet, and co s�r�er a
driveway. He stated the Planning Comi�'�i"�sion mF
the applicant's request, and regardles�z��ie dec�sio
in this regard. '� � "� ��
�.
John ��r��i
the City ,�a
would cciz���1
a three-car �
on the side.
dziveway io
�359 Red O.;i
He explaar��
� d t�iolatror�
;E�; ant�;:is not
� r�1�rr�d>:ta
��t �t tlx� ��r�
5 feet i'r� t�ic�t
M[r �nning stated thc
nu��b;�r of vehicies narkE
excess�ve
� Code.
�
�i :�'tiere �s �t�llft,��ti� hardship for tl��
�...
s of the d�tc�rrt�atic�z�, tl�e matter�'�`�`s
��a . �
�e Es ap���priatf. iz�i���i� ����at�c�.��� He
.�
r g�r��es, and thc Cit�y ���� beeri very
ir�aces. He stated, rn �E7is��i �ga�-d, this
rt�t rr���t,i ti�e C�de requireme�zt.
t to t1�c� i'Ia�lni�x Commission is to direct
�
in th�s
catc soirje �'or�i c�f�hardship in this case,
;t�l��tior� o� d�ilial, based on the fact that
; to tablc: t�� present action, and review
�;�.
��z�c��t�e��t �nactEnenT to allow for wider
>�se�l.u�zon their discussion, to act upon
�articul��r case, further review the Code
IrDrt�e, the a�pti�;�ti1, sL�.t'ed he questioned why he was in violaiion of
�l h�s rlriveway is ��idcr tl�an 35 feet, however, he did not realize this
�Ie �ti�#�d his garage was 36 feet wide, which is a standard width for
an �vci siz�d,garage, He stated he made the driveway nine feet wider
tl�e sit� �Iat� <o'f hls property, and expiained that he had narrowed the
��, and ��er`efare ii was comprised of less square footage than if he had
;�,lt� tile street.
d�; i��ciicates the.restriction of the blacktop area in the }�ard, to limit the
pon it, and to prevent an impact to the neiglzborhood and environment,
rface. He stated he had less blackiop surface than that which is aliowed
this was an attractive improvement, which does not deteriorate the
He stated he did not betieve he was in violation of the Code, however,
determined otherwise, he would request a variance be granted.
IVIt'. Henning stated the reason he had constructed his driveway to a I4 faot width at the street, was
in consideratian ofthree Iarge trees at the front of his property, which he did not desire to lose. He
stated, if not for these trees, a 35-foat width ta the street would have been very satisfactory to him.
He stated this was not possible un[ess the trees were removed.
I9�Ionx�ds V°eevv Pl�tnning Cora�miss�on �eptember 1, 1999
IZegular Ii�eetin� ���e �
Chairperson Peterson stated, in terms of iegalities, there was a Code issue present. Mr. Henning
stated he was a Cade Official for I S years in the City of Mir►neapolis. He stated there is the letter of
the Code, and then there is the Code. He stated he did noi meet the letter of the Code, however, he
actualiy did meet ihe definition of the Code. He stated he had less square feet, and ha�impacted the
envirorimeriY less, by the manner in which l�e had constructed his driveway,, thazi he„�'�St�ld have had
he constructed a 35 foot wide rectangular driveway. He stated his drive��a� was�nre attractive, it
serves his purpose more satisfactorily, and he has ieft the tree,s��n his ya�-t� ""�
:�.�.:. _ _. _
Commissioner Stevenson stated the applicant's design was�
these types o� issues coming before the Pianning Co�
contractor, prior to performing the construction, has be�o
He siated the 35-foot width requirement was in place at ti�E
driveway was not "grandfathered" in. He stated he had a Go
might not be so attractive. :s'
Mr. Henning stated if he had left the nine-foot pad
in terms of the Code, however, if he placed �
�' N �
violation of the Code. He stated he believed tlz�:�i1�
to the City Code, he would have been.��te to
construct a I6-faot wide "I'" section
violation of the Code. He stated a�€
surFace was, and he thought this c����.
allowed by�tki'
the street .i-i �
driveway all t i
He stated that
gravel surfac
driveway
how�;�
� the p
ty attract�v�. ` r�C� s�a��;d he did not
iss�on, er tlie f�.�t {.XC �tat�t�
h�m allf��the City Cc�d� �-�c����r�in�
ic liouse was coristru'cf��i, and the
'tliis re�ard, and noted all designs
��ve] surface, it �c��(d�liave been acceptable
�p c.�r d conc� et� �i�rface upon ii, he was in
�,�ra� �n �►xtprov�rrient. He stated, according
�r-l��t ;a 35��`�rc?t' driveway to the street, and
or a se�2�rai� driveway, and wouid not be in
iEd not' �e in violatron, however, the blacktop
ificatioi� r��;a� d� ��`riveway width rec�uirement at the street, as
d the Cc>�,�;.;;:��'���es that driveways be no wider than 22 feet at
l��e �p.plicant was correct in that he could have brought the 35-foot
�rt� E�ta���� �long as it narrowed to 22 feet at the street right-of-way.
a�'::u�tt��� ie�uirement does take into consideration those areas with
plaiiZ�d;;%t�e City Code indicates a maximum 35-foot width, which
��eway`and parking areas, therefore, even if the present addition was
be'wider than allowed by the Code,
enaing stated he ag,r�ed this might be the case, if they defined this addition as a driveway, and
gravel, however?�����Y could call it a storage area, a patio area, and it would be acceptable, He
�ed he did not f����he was in violation of the Code. He stated he had violated the letter of the
,ti�;:,
lie,l��PVer th�f�e had not violated the actual defnition ofthe Code.
�o�nrni�siot�cr I�.aden inquired if the applicant was aware of the Code requirement prior to laying the
biacktop on the pad. Mr. Henning stated he was. He explained that his reason for doing so was to
maintain his placement upon the asphali layer's list. He staied if had I�e not proceeded at that time,
he would not have been able to install the blacktop until the following spring, and desired to start his
lawn this fall. He stated he took the risk ihat the Planning Comtnission would not approve the
project, and could hardly comprehend that it would not be approved. He stated if it was not
.
',�
,
li�i�und� �iew Pl��ndng Corriereission September 1, 1999
�egaela�° I�e�igng I'age 5
appraved, he would rec�ify the situation, and would make the area into something else. He stated he
would work with the Planning Commission to iake care af the tnatter, He stated he agreed that he
should not have commenced the project prior to its appraval, however, he was pressed for time, and
desired to camplete the project.
�-'`
Cammissioner Miller inc�uired, in light ofthe pad's location at the side of tk�� �;a� a��, would it stili be
defined as a driveway. Ericson stated it would not be, but� ��ther b� �a11�d �i"parking area. He
referred io the site plan, and explained if the driveway wer� *���ie meas�Ere� in �i c�nt of the garag��;
and there were no asphalt, gravel, or rock material from th arage over, ��,r�d t�e �t��� �aved are��o
`�� k S�N
the side of the garage and back, it wauld he accepta6ie. ���noted, hr��ever, i1�e,���LCf �uT���c� tix�'tti be
accessed over grass at some point, and there was no way �r�t�nd "riot includin� th�t �tz�e� �s part of
the width of the driveway. He stated he wo�ld not perso��a��y �a11 that area a drivewasr. �-Ie stated
it was more of a parlcing area, however, the Code does s��t� ;`��arking area and driveway can not
exceed 35 feet." ,,..,
Commissioner Berke stated he did not believe the ap;
when he was aware that it was not accepta�,(�� }
responsibility to see that the City grows and��evei
house, He stated there would be similar� �sues in
possibly, rather than utilizing a variance p���edure �,,`'
Code to encompass the sc�uare foota�� of two a��
Chairperson Peterson stated th
requirements of neighbor�n�;���
larger nur�tbet' �.f. iariance��qz ���
�.:
shouid coz�tit�ii� tc�, rev�e� ,t�t
requirements\"ar� occ�ion are
require�nents oi �ur�t�tiiz�iir1g co
��;��::
Ericson st��;d, in his u��c1�,�sf.af�c
drivew�?�, and he believcd t��is t�
of re�^�t'rements, in this re��j�d� i��
uid li�v� ���7���ded with the project,
he �'omj���sion is charged with the
t�,ted t�i� appiicant's was a very nice
��trea',,�ar garages in the future, and
s�zrisiar issues, they could amend the
�r�ages.
«nat�on q�� L od�;��t�iendments rec�uire the comparison of the
ties. �l.c stat�t�'�ae believed the two issues that benerated the
have bc,ei�; t��e issues of parking and garages. He stated they
itZ cegard to these inatters, and as stancEards ehange, the
ed to meet the standards. He inquired regarding the code
ing the city of Rosevilte does not have any width rec�uirements, for
:�s also true of other communities. He stated there was a spectrum
d!�e was not certain at what level the City of Mounds View fit into
%;��nmtssioner Stevet�in inquired ifthe city ofRoseville based their driveway rec�uiremenis upon the
�a�� of ti��; �ot 4��unity Development Diractor Jopke stated Roseville's code requirements were
�:.
ba.se� �c��t�m�;�ted in regard to the width of the driveway at the right-of-way. He stated, beyond
the`r�gtY��nF-rx�ay, and upon the private property there were no restrictions. He stated the present
proposal would be allowed in the city of Rosevilie,
Chairperson Peterson stated it appeared there was an additionai issue, in regard to the close proximity
of the pav�d area to the iot line of the subject property. Ericson stated this was correct, however,
the letter from the o�mer ofthe neighboring property satisfies this requirement. He expiained further
MOUHI(�3 Vlefli' I'Ii�llllHil� COI111T113S1011 Septembe�° 1, 1999
Itegwi�r 1VIeeting Page 6
that the Ciiy Code had been amended to allow the driveway up to one foot from the property line
without the need for a variance.
�hairperson Peterson inquired if the city of Roseville or any other communities had a�y restrictians
�_:..
irt regard to the proximity of pavement to the lot line. �opke stated the city o�Rosevii;l_�;�did, however,
�:
the problem in Roseville was that many of ihe driveways were develo�aed pr�c�r`to tlieir current
standard, a five-foot setback, which is the standard in man}! cc���munities.: �Te �tated thai Roseville
set up an administrative variance process in order to deal w�th thi�" He sta�ed tE�i� ia as done at a t�
when Rosevilte was in the process of a major street rec�'�sti-uction p��oject. �-�e sta�ed the pal��y
decision was that the city would install the curb cuts to mee��ie ordin�: ,� starldart�, a��d. i�'a pr4�erty
owner desired to maintain Yheir existing situation, they would �o thzt��h this admi��i.,ir�five �ariance
process. He stated variances were typically granted for su�1i situ��tit�rls.
Jopke stated the city c�f Roseville had discussed amendt�g 'th�r1� C'�c�c�e at that time, however, the
���
Counci( decided that the administrative variance process would p�avic�� a record of where the
driveways were located; and chose to pursue that ���t1�ae instead �;�,� ��ted there is a typical
standard in regard io the distance of pavement to,���i'� �t�t lYr�e, �nd in Rose`��'�s case, there were many
variances granted to allow pavement to be ci�i�e�$ihan �i�� ���t . �
,� _:.. ,�::
Chairperson Peterson inc�uired re�
the subject property. Mr. Henn
stated it appeared the retaining w
to the lot li�le. Mr. Henning statec
and he d�d nat, plan to co�ls�rl�ct
He stated t�te d��!eway at,•tl�e �-tr��
he is one fc�o� ��fT't�� 1ot li�i� T��
thought hG had �I� t�� �vay. ,
Commiss�on�� I��1iil�r ir
u ,�.
stated thrs �,s twent�� j
prope�, ,`and commen
3�`
driv ; �y was curved arc
Co.;� :x�issioner Miller fo
h�`�ii�u�ht .would be a�
wa
pa
SiX
de height �`�'the retal�tng tivail located on the north side of
it wa�;�3 to 24 z�iches in height. Chairperson Peterson
�� �,�
d be ��essary �r� ��ht 4f the placement of the garage next
s cc�rtect He,,s���ed the lot required a Earge amount off[l,
kir��; ar�a ���t��� recently, in light of its opportune location.
ect �r��� �� lot line, and at a curb further into the property
he atteinpted to �neet the Code wherever he was ahle, and
•ed regarc����g the location of the curve in the driveway. Mr. Henning
t�i� :tl�e driveway. Commissioner Miller stated she had driven past the
hat �t'looked quite nice. She stated she particularly liked the way the
it��'trees, and that it gave the property character. Mr. Henning thanked
° conlment. He stated he had attempted to do the best he cauld, which
able.
�'s�
��t��ru�s'siar�ez.;�.,a.�tliry� stated so many 1"ots in Mounds View are not only deep but also wide in certain
at�e�.� i��� t�u� �€ivation could come forward again in the future, particularly as homes and garages
a,re getitr�� Iarger. He stated, in light of this, further review of the Ciiy Code was znerited.
Commissianer 3ohnson agreed. He stated the garages are being upgraded to the larger sizes, and a
very massive garage could be constnicted along the front of a house, which instead of having a 30-
fooi d�veway, if paved to the garage, could actually be 42 feet wide. He stated if a conditional use
permit was iss�aed for a 1,400 square fooi garage, it co�ald be 42 feet wide by approximately 30 feet
deep, He stated if the 42 feet hap�ened to be in the front of the structure, the homeawner might
Ii�oumds V►ev� Planning Commission
Regul:ar I+/Ieetin�
September 1, 1999
P�ge 7
desire to pave the driveway to the width of the garage. Co�nmissioner Laube noted that were some
lots in the City that could accommodate this.
Chairperson Peterson stated, he was in iavor of larger garages, as !ot size permits,
sheds for the storage of items. He staied he believed garage space wasN.bette.
purpose. He stated however, he would not like to see more impervious s��rfac� t}�
the probiems with run off. He stated this could result in a vi�v� from t��< ��rec�i
with houses peeking out here and there. He stated he was �.I�Q, l���iing�t ��:vard i
\Y�'"
and the requirements of surrounding communities rega �zrig drivewa}x �r�c�lii
commonly done, and what woutd make sense. ���' .��..
�ominissioner Berke inquired how the appIicant would be
desire to look into the Code. Ericson stated Mr. Henni
the time being. He stated stafiwould review the Code
more time was required, given the public hearings, researi
the Council, the applicant could aiso sign a waiver- th�it 3
decision within that time frame, He stated if �I�� C�o:�e
��
driveway permissible, there wou]d be no need�.�'or a vari�
�athe than storage
all:>��ound for this
r���is necessary, and
of simply garages,
vicwing the Cod r�
, �o see what ��'s
�c���, should the Plan��i:ig���orrlmission
;,t�u�� lcee;} his driveway as it exisis, for
thir� tl�e 120 �lay time line. He stated if
and �����ti��s ��ith the Commission and
!Id allow l�ir1� zt� waive his righT to get a
,;j4i�7�endec�, ���d after the fact, �nade his
:;'� a��cf the r��}uest would be voided.
Commissianer Miller stated she wouid l�� to pro��d ��i th�� mat�rier. She stated according io the
a°�N�'.` ? `:
Code there is no hardship that the can� b� eterm�n�. Mr Hc,zining inquired regarding the definition
of a hardship. Commissioner Steve ��i stated a� example �c�uid be an unusual lot size, which would
restrict a property owner froin �mp�;�v►ng his �arc����rty. C��riinissioner Miller stated thel•e were seven
criteria that�r�;esented for d�t��-rn�t�in� a hardsllit�
1�U1111I1fSS3�}T1�9 tti dQE.tl i1
addition ta thc laoase elc
the house o�� tli� ��i��l���
bedrooms in c�rd�r i� ac�
,�`�, ;r
construct ���van unus��
only h-= hip he could
C � `: erson Peterson st�
c�uest�on was, as more.<a
�te� � r���t�t request for variance,,in which a famity desired to construct an
ser io a Io� linc t�an what was a�lowed. He stated, due to the placement af
� t�zar� �iorm;h� �c�t, ����ey wouid have had to construct � hallway between two
��� �I�e deck nt;�orc}� at the back ofthe house. He noted the house was also
I���azi�z�r. He stated this was considered a hardship. Mr. Henning stated the
11iz��.;c���tt�utd be the loss of his trees located in the front of his yard.
he a�so agreed that the appiicant's design was attractive. He stated the
✓eEopment occurs, what is a reasonable size for a driveway.
��i��on 5tated,���as the consensus ofthe Commission, staf'f could research the matter, in terms
a� c��ez` �it�e���� irements, and provide infonnation regarding the dif%'erent ways a code amendment
couid be accomplished, if so desired, He stated the research migl�t indicate that there is i�o need for
a code amendmen�, in which case, tlle Commission could take action upon the current request.
MOTIQN/SECOND� Stevenson/Kaden, to Table the Request for a Variance to AIEow a 44-foot `iVide
Driveway, and I�irect Staffio Research Driveway Width Requirements Utilized by Other Cities, and
Mounds `Vievv P1�annis�g Commission
Regea[ar �ee�ing
September 1, 1999
Pa�e �
to Review the City Code in Regard to the Driveway Requiremenis and Possible Amendments, and
Bring the Matter Forward to the Ptanning Cornmission at a Future Meeting.
Ayes — 8 Nays — 0 The motion
Cammissianer Kaden inquired if the trees had not been present, would the
a 35-foot wide driveway to the property line. Mr. Henning sta�ed he w�
to have a 35�foot wide driveway to the street, and the tree:���`,e�e the i�
izg`
does restrict the size of his driveway considerabiy. Comr��s�oner Kade
to see the occurrence, commo❑ within new developmen�s� in wh�c��,�v
from the site. l '�
Commissioner Ntiller noted another issue to be considered
to allaw driveways to be closer than five feet from the pr
the case.
b. Stil�Re�lOt°Y5 I I�£@11S Of II1f01°m1
L�o �[5C11S51011 COIlC�9'Hliil :
Pro�erties/0'IVeii PI�i��
� ����# �,
CommuniLy Development Directa���pke
fence locatiqr� at the Anthc�r�y �?i�opert
discussion i���;t�rdii�� t}re buf�cl in;�of the d
across �c�u�aty;��:c�aci. H-2. °`I=ic, �tat�.d, as
a 50-foot ti��id� �t���'�r,; as well as � six-i`t3t��
which were to �e c��ista-�t,ctcd aE�n�; t�x�
Jopke
the
�nge �;�Yt� l�e�fi
seat����''�ro j ect�
'ave constnacted
en very satisfied
is design, whi�
�t �e did not,��'>
Ciiy Code had been amended
h� stated this was not always
creezi ferace :�i the ESnthor�y
st�ter�'tE3is tt.e�,��'vas to discuss fihe potential change in the
les/Q'Nt�tl �'�i' ater Project. He stated there was much
�;
evelopr�zeiit'from tl�e adjacent residentiai properties located
part of the approved p1an, there were provisions requiring
�vood screen fence, in addition to the three office buiidings
squth side.
��;�-
st�t ''�e fe��ce vv�s ;tt� bc� located ai the 50-foot buffer line, and the plan that was appraved
���fhe fence cor�necG�d th� a�ce buildings to provide a continuous screening wall, He stateci
eloper constructed �,cantinuous screen fence in that area, prioi• to the construction of the
�uitdings, as this v�s a phased development. He stated that the developer has indicated they
like to move tha�;�nce six feet back to provide some space behind the buitding as well as the
>
�ous fence scr����"r►g to the propeety. The developer's original proposal was to mave the fence
,io�kt; stat�d this was a change to the plan that he believed woutd merit the attention of the Plannin�
Comm�ssion and the City Council. He stated the ordinance is unclear regarding the procedure by
which to handle these types of atnendments, in terms of whether or not they can be handled
administratively by staf�', if they present no impact, or if they are rec�uired to be brought bacic through
the entire process again.
_ :; ;'
I�oeands View Planning Comra�asseon Septemb�r 1, 1999
�2egealn�° l�Iee�ing Pag� 9
J�pke stated the first issue is the impact of this particular proposal. He stated the developer could
just conneci the buildings with the fence, and technically meet the plan, which would represent no
change to the approved deveiopment stage �lan. He stated there would be windows in the oi�'ice
building looking out toward the residentia! neighborhood, and this would n�t provide th� solid screen,
especially during the wintertime, wlien the leaves are off the trees, that.the nei�ix�`��rhood might
, aa,::
desire. He stated it appears the provision of a continuous fence that jogs a� oitnd t���`6uildings wouId
provide a better screen for that neighborhood. He sta�ed it shc,�t�jd be de��i-a-�rried` whaY effect would
this have on the 50-foot buffer area. �� '
,
:�,�.�._:� _:
Jopke stated the City Forester has reviewed the developer'�
did not pose any great impact to the buffer area. He stated"
which would need to he removed in order to proceed. He's
any of these trees, over four inches in diameter, with two
ihere woutd be little impact upon the buf�'er area in this re �r
additianal, more substantial trees ihan those that curre �i�
Jopke stated the Planning Commission had been pr��idet� �
Lynn Thomason and Rob Marty, which ind�ca�{i �heii ct�n�
be sufficient room in this area for bilce pa���Rand at�,e� p
reconstructed in the future.
Jopke stated he and Planning As
there is a 33-foot right-of-way on
to the 50-fo�� k�uffer betw
mainiain�� �.� �ec�uired .t
:�
right-of'�t�� �ri the sout
Road H-2, t��-� wot�l�;,be
this road.
, and
�osa!
SO ill�
exist.
� has indic.alec� t��� pres�i;�sal
all trees, at1c1 r��i� 1�� ge �ree,
dev�loper has ��grc��d to replace
'�a�e 1ost. He stated it appeared
; ��r���osal could in fact, provide
�3s°from Council Members
�hether or not there would
ies, at the time the road is
at the site, and found that
aad H-2, adjacent to the site, in addition
the fence. He stated the buffer area was
det��Iaj�mc�it stage plans. He stated there was a 43-foot
ad. He stated dependin� upon the finai design of County
R for a pedestrian pathway, if that were part of the pIan for
Jopke sta���nother c�ti�st��z� tc� be deten�ined was the process utifized by which this change should
take p`�''. He stateci tl�z� is `�t r��r�or change, which could be approved hy a recommendation from
the � ' g Commission tr� tli�: C;ity Council, and a determination regarding the iype of public forum
des��d, He stated the d�`�eloper has spoken with the property owners along County Road H-2, in
re�;�r`d ta the prapos�l,;�nd some have indicated they were agreeabie, three indicated they were
c�ppc��td, and iwo v,��� unavaiIable for comment, at that time:
Ja�ic�. �tr�t�d ��,�:>�'3anning Com�nission �night desire to set a public hearing regarcfing this matter, and
nati� �licis� neighbors. He stated at this ti�ne, staff had not notified the property owners. He stated
staff was se�king direction from the Planning Commission regarding which process to utilize. He
stated Wendell Smith, representative afthe deve{oper, was present to answer questions regarding the
proposal.
l!'Iounds Vievv Plann��ag Corremission September 1, 1999
�tegular I�Ieeting Page 10
Commissioner Berke stated the original zoning of the property was R-2 and B-1, and this had been
changed. Joplce stated this was correct. He exptained the zoning had been changed to Planned Unit
Development to allow for this deveioptnent. .
Commissioner Berke inquired if the original setback requirement for the buffer wasl �:O�feet. Jopke
stated he was not present during the preliminary discussion of the pi�o�ect ai�`�d� was uncertain,
hawever, he was aware that the approved plans required a 50 �oot buf�'er: �'
;,
,� � ; ,
4"�'
Commissioner Berke inquired ifthe architect's ariginal des��n�included a c�t�t�nu�itts f�x�ce alon$ ��iie
buffer, and if this proposai was the resuit of a mistalee�yn that ypl�'��` Jop�Ce`��'�c�ic�ti�.ci th��'��the
deve�opment stage plan and the final plan consisted of %n��s con���ted to the builc�i�l7s H�; stated
this was what was presented to the City and approved.
Cammissioner Berke inquired if noise level testing had been_;�>e�'t'i
air conditioners in the cioser pro�mity to County Road � 2. 1op
his knowledge, :
'Vb'encleil �m6th, representative of Anthony�
tnistake for which he toolc full responsib��if
attractive building for the City. He s��.`�ed
elaborate type of building, which wo�ic�,�Cend
� ����.
people who would be going past th� ���'a on a
design of the building to make it �t`���on1y ae�
use standpo�nt. I-�e stated,,hC��e��er, the fet�G
Mr. Smith �ta�e'
inciuding tiie �;
cantractor bcg
when the foo �;
��:.
d
the back � J buiidir��
how tlus�"ad happened,
a pr ��e they would
ho� < :��ver, that this woL
ctermine the effect of the
hi� had not been done, to
.n,���. ' , , _,.
., : j .> .
�ropertie� �idl�d tl�e cu��'ent proposal was due to a
y. He ,�iated tl��}r hac� attempted to construct a very
���'
fie h ca�ivinc�c� �v%r, Anthony to construct a more
in,;:�Il w�ti� ti�e'i`lieater building, in light ofthe many
�` F
dai�y basis �'� stated he had become involved in the
tl�elicall p�eaiing, but aiso functional from an office
� ��ad��i���overloolced.
eiopr�etl�;����;rit through ti�e approvaE process, and no one caught the fence
t�spec�or, He Stated the tna#ter came to their attention when the building
�nstruct�an ��� s��ted the fence was tal<en down, and he examined the site
, ;.
ei_ra� roc�st�-u�i�d. He stated he noticed the existing pole, and its relation t�
���c����rt.e�3i�ed the fence was too close to the building. He stated he inquired
tid tl�e bui'(cling contractor indicated this was ti�e design, and if it presented
��u�,��he fence back and no one would notice the di�'erence. He stated,
ot be proper.
�r7
S;m���� "stated the rea�\��f�e went to the neighbors regarding the fence was to be proactive. He stated
ti�ia�i �t�t�t�cal ivl�mi��i��Thomason indicated this should be considered a petition, however, he did not
cc�nsicl�:�- i� �. ��t3tion. He stated he had gone to the neighbors to i�ake them aware of what was
happ��iiri� �t the site, and that he had made a mistake regarding the fence. He stated his intent was
not io take an}nching away from the buffer area.
I�r. S�nith stated that no large trees woufd be removed from t11e buf�'er area. He stated there was a
small tree, approximately two inches wide, which may need to be remaved. He stated he had spoken
with the City Forester regarding the affect af the relocation of the fence upon the buffer zone. He
IVioua�ds Vieav Ptnnniii� CorYamiss�oe� Septen�ber 1, 1999
Reg�I��° TV�eeting P�ge 11
stated the City Forester indicated this proposal would be bene�cial, in light of the oak trees in the
area. He stated he had taken down ten trees during the last seven �nonths due to oak wilt disease,
and the City Forester has recommended they plant ather species of trees, which are conducive to
growing in the shade, and are not susceptible to the diseases present in the area. He st�ted there was
,.�;�
one large tree in the area that they might be able to work around, and they were will�'rig to do that,
f i,
He stated the landscaping buffer begins approximately six to eight feet fro�n;�he r�of the buildings,
and they were not proposing to remove any landscape of con��c�uence�� th�t ��j�ea.
M[c. Smith stated Council Member Marty had referred to,�xi�ustriai
they would be utilizing residential air conditianing units f'�e indiea
10,000 square feet, and the number of units required �>o�l<i dep�
occupying the building.
Mr. Smith stated they desired as much space in the back of iklc l�u:Iclitls
He stated the fence would only be rnoved bel�ind tlie b�ildirlgs, ai
buildings would remain the same.
Mr. Smith stated they had done everything the �s�a�
ifnot ahead oftime. He stated they had got��to �
there had been much discussion regar ,�ng the
pedestrian traffic over yards, and the s����`ing of,
�he neighborhood he had spoken w����i���catcd a�
situations have not oecurred. ��%` _
e air con�tt�o�xers, how�y�r,
flie siLe c�f t}�� �c��lc�i���;�was
upon thc'n�tmb�� c�f' lenants
possible, as this selis space.
kie �'ei�ce on the sides of the
the�r���e�uld da, ��l r���rd to this project, on time,
ea� �xp���se t� p��i��rm traffic studies. He stated
��;
7Qtential exet,ssive traf�c in the neighborhood,
ash throu�;iiout tlie area, He stated the people in
sitive re��tion to the development, and that these
_ _ _ _ __
Mr $rrutla �t���r� the inte,rs����r��a �t, Highwa�� � t�: is f�ot yet completed. He stated the cantractor has
indicaie� t�� it��e'r�ection "���Id �?e operational the following day, to accoincnodate the traffic
traveIing alon� I;�z��iv���y 10, ta ttxe iiitec �eetion, and he beiieved this would fi�rther reduce the tra�'ic.
Mr. Smith star:ec� �1��;��
stated he ' ��attempTed t
�l
any c a� es since the dE
back���equest a change,
�
zn �>:,< n atmosphere of fe�
��> � � �
}�e �vec�t to the neighbaz�
it�c� l�aci not��iad the fence in �nind when he designed the building. He
iEa�i ii�� l�est way to rectify ihe situation. He stated they had not requested
��i��«�c;Y�t was approved. He stated this was the first time they had come
�c� �l �;�a,� due ta a a�nistake he had made. He stated he did not want to give
regarding what may happen in the future. He staied this was his reason
� discuss the situation.
�r �t�ith sta�cd�,�e'had attempted to contact Council Member Thomason. He stated Council
�e�n��u�' `�'�t���cin had indicated that she was very opposed to the petition. He stated this was simply
hia'"atten���� �o show the Commission that there were people who were satisfied with the manner in
which ihe project was proceeding. He stated he had not twisted anyone's arm. He stated the
Commission may desire to talce another survey, and that would be fine. He reiterated that he was
simply attempting t4 be proactive,
1
Ii/�oua�d� �7iew Pl��iaiing Cotnn�issio,t Septerober 1, 1999
Itegullr I�eeting Page 12
1VIr. Smith stated there had been numerous neighborhood meetings, and discussion with the Planning
Commission and City Council in regard to the buffer zone. He stated the buffer zone was amended
to the current 50-faot requirement, based upon five ar six different plans for the location of the
buiidings. He stated they were requesting the abitity to move the fence back slightly, just behind the
buildings, and no ather place. �;:�'
�,,�
Chairperson Peterson stated one issue was the placement o£ �he air co��dzti�zaers, and one of the
mernorandums indicated these were pad mounted, res�dent��I st�le air cc��7dz�ie�ti��rs, to be installe�
directly against the buildings. Mr. Smith stated there would,lie eigl�t to te� Ir�cla�:s �c:tween the u���s
a�d the building to allow for evaporation. �� �� �
>: :�3,°
Commissioner Hegland inc�uired if the air canditioners werc
Smith stated this was correct, as w�ll as to provide some
hehind the building, Com►nissianer Hegland inquired if �Ii
windaws at the fence, or the landscape buffer. Mr. Smith st
comptetely, if he could. He explained if he was an of�c.� t�.se
buffer area. He noted however, they had made � c�rrimit�
ke �z��ir, reason for the scre�n fence. Mr.
u��r �Foin tE�e visibility of the windows
iVlr. ��ziith rvou!d prefer to took out the
ed he ��oulc3 ��r�efer to remove the fence
}le wot:lci ra.t��it'� Iook at the Eandscaped
�:iit to ir3clud�:the fence.
���v` ' �
Commissioner Hegland stated he was o.�t�e unde���andi�g ��trtt �.he original ptan indicated the
x ��
buitdings would be up to the bufl�er i►ne;��nd ther �~�vould c�t11� 1?� fence between the bui�dings. He
� ��r .
inquired if the fence was to cover u� �I�c air cot�� ioners iVir, Smith stated one of the reasons the
residents wanted the fence original�y���a� to pro�:ide a v�su��`shield between the residentiai area and
the property line. He stated at th�,�tzme thc fenC� was ����ussed, the building was not const►-ucted,
;t,��,
and the residents desired a vi�y,��l barrier betw��xi ih�a^j���:rlcing lot and the [ights. He stated the office
building wc�uld;��dd to the '�u��C�r, ric�i only frozn;;t���Tnoise standpoint, but also in regard to the light.
He state� i���� h��v� tested t��.li�E�t':le��c,ls along County R�ad H-2, and determined it does impact the
neighborliooc� `: �
of the
d tha't tlle developer's petition was not valid. He stated, in light
deveiapment, a neutral party should have performed it.
�ssioner Hegland ��atet� tl�e fence was also to provide a shield of the view of the trash
ures from County Rt�ad H-2. Jopke stated the plan indicates ihe fence between the buildings,
fence on each e►�c�o shieEd in that location.
�a€ritriisstc�rier Sie��:nson stated he thought the area would be much more attractive to the residents
\��;.
��:T�t��c�i:it, t���� ;, �. Coinmissioner Kaden stated the deve{oper should discuss this matter with the
resid��i�s i��'� etennine what they wouid like to see in this area. Commissioner Millsr stated she had
driven by ihe property and could barely see the building. She stated the trees in the buffer would
shield the fence from visibiiity. Mr. 5tnith noted that during the wintertime, when the leaves are off
of the trees, the b�ailding would become more visible,
`
i�Iou�ad� �ie�v Ptai�nin� Cornr�aission
�teguI��° I�Ieeting
�eptember �, 1999
Page A3
Comrrussioner Kaden stated that the future redevelopment of County Road H-2 miglzt result in the
loss of a poriion of the buffer zone.
Chairperson Peterson stated Mr. Smiih was correct in that there was very little dii�erence in the
appearance of the building as ihai indicated on the plans. He inquired if the�rear of�er'iiuilding was
also as proposed. Mr, Smith stated they had upgraded it a bit. ,-;.,���� ;.,,_��
Chairperson Peterson stated he had originalty been conc
oftrees it contained, and particularly the health of the tre
the property, and had found thai so many of the aak fr
within five years. Mr. Smith stated that the area had c�
whichreyuired removal, and it was utilized as a meeting
park area, and since the completion of the project they ha
died, for safety reasons. He stated they have a very good �
in regard to the maintenance of the buffer area.
Chairperson Peterson stated one of the purposes4�f th� ���;
and #his would be accomplished if the fence �s�Q�aied f��I�i
Mr. Smith stated he agreed. Chairperson��?�terson `��te
back of the building to be abjectionahle ;E� stated���at g�
trees than buildings, however, betwee.�;��� trees, ��;,�vould
��
He stated he eauld not speak f�.�'the"re��dex���, but h�
conclusion. �t;=-� `' � ��R.
�t� ��rt`regard ip �he �t��er and the typ�,s
�-Te stated Il�:�a� s�ent ��nle loolcin `at
�`
were alr,�`a�y sicl�, ��1ci �vc3uld l»'g�ne
ined an�enorinous u�y7c�unt> c�f garbage,
� foz-�tee�la�ers. He s€a��d��it tivas not a
'ad �� �;;e�nove several trees which have
:�f�� r�la�iori�hiE� with tha City Forester
>:
�as to prevt;iit ��edestrian cut-through,
�� buildi���; or connects the buiidings.
� dtc� no�find the appearance from the
�Xh�. clloice, he would prefer to look at
�r look at the buildings than the fence.
sumed they might come to the same
c:ommissto�ac:E' �tevenso� ��ted tl�at the issue c�:E`pe�cstrian traffic throUgh this area was the major
concern ���t»71��sic�ner N1ill�r st�f�tl 1�3is was correct. Commissianer Stevenson stated another issue
was the shieldi��� oi���-bage ca�as, azid �t�is woutd not be lost iFthe fence were maintained between
the buildin�;s. ��� st�tec� lle did ncit r�:c;�l� a stipulation that the fence be continuous, He stated the
deveioper m�,��it j�pt h��>a tar��ed to tl�e degree he thought.
�r$on Peterson stated l�e re�alled one plan indicating a continuous fence, however, it may have
.��
;�n in the original �i�n� �i1d 17e w�s uncertain if this rec�uirement was stipulated in the revised
Commissioner Kat�`�n stated he had talcen a Iook at the property, and it appeared to hi�n that
.�
'the buiiding is ��ady behind the fence post, which marlcs the buffer area, by a foot or t�,vo.
ed ifthis is th��;e�§e, the developer would probably have no option. He stated, it appeared by
�ai. ihe c��x����uctian was already past the fence tine. Mr. Smith stated he was uncertain. He
f�e'tito��l3t the fence post was located just behind the building.
Commissioner Kaden inc�uired regarding the measuretnents taken by Community Development
Director Jopke and Planning Associate Ericson. Jopke stated they had deter�nined the area from the
center of the road to ihe fence post at the Edaewood Drive entrance to be approximately 84 feet,
which would indicated a 33 foot rijht-of-way, with an approxi}nate 50-foot buffer area.
n/Iour�ds �lyedv Plaxining Corrimission
Ite�ul�tr 1dleeting
�eptember 1, 1999
Page 14
Cotrunissioner Kaden inquired if the Department of Public Works had made any indications regarding
the plans for redeveloping the road in the future. Joplce stated noY to his knowledge. Chairperson
Peterson inquired if County Road H-2 was being considered for turnback. Jopfce stated it had already
been tumed back. Chairperson Peterson noted that there were funds avaitahle for the reconstruction..
�...
ropke stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson staied the width af, the
contralled by the City. Jopke stated this was correct, and the roadway woutcl �o
and redevelopment process being developed hy the City Cau��i�l based C�z� t�ae
• o ���
the Streets Poiic�es Committee. i�:�?r�°
Chairperson Peterson inc�uired if there would be a 33-
properry, and 43 feet an the south. Joplce stated this wa;
this distance was consistent across the entire area. 3
Chairperson Peterson stated generally, when a road is rf
Mr. Smith stated the residents he had spoken wif�i had
along the north side, due to the pedestrian traffic, and c
Cornrnissioner �tevenson suggested that the F
City Councii regarding the public hearings, ,;
between the buildings. He stated he did nc��k
there was ever the intention to have a c��#in
Chairperson Peterson stated he belie�?�el�tl�e
until the buildings were constnicte;���FComm
zequired for s�curity reasons:,; C`or�3izussione��
irom the pa��r��� a��ca. He STa.tCd �� f�ad a p
a si
us ���,ce
was
the ptanning
endations oi
;��v�y ot� tc�e �t�1tT�� sxac.t��,�ne
iairpersorti I'eter�on irit�uired if
the width jogs ial'�� �k�e lniddle.
the jogs are straightened out.
��,�ould like to see a sidewalk
an �rovid�'ti recommendation to the
�aai tlze}�:c�ere agreeable to the fence
�sz��;�tiuEd come to a consensus that
f the offices.
ntin�,� us fence rec�uire►r�ent was intended only
�e. ��son stated he believed the fence was also
d this was correct, and to pravide shieiding
regard to the continuaus fence located behind
the builc�����, l��c.au.se it ��t�ul� allt��� :�or people ta be concealed behind the buildings at night, and
wou(d Urovid� �o �����ility ('i�r iize� �'oliec,Department.
Julie �isen,,�����.�;;�t�Gt C:c�ur� Circ�e, stated the drawing of the site shows the continuous fence
behind ail�'��ie af�ices �fat �t�ttd her main concern was that this was a Planned Unit Development.
She st�t'� the major cont� c�u�z sy a� this project, or any others contemplated in the future, was due
io tl���teration ofthe Cort�pr�l�c.��sive Plan and the rezoning. Slze stated this property was changed
�„�.:
�s�
to ��.?�anned Unit Develo�tnezlt, and she believed it should follow the norma] proper procedure of a
P�a�u�ed Unit Developznent. She stated if not, they woulcE set a precedec3t, which would came up
��;���t �n future pro�ec��;j`She stated this was not right or fair to the citizens, especially in light of the
��--
r�t��nn�r iri tivhic�i C31"t�project has proceeded.
�-1s. �15�:��-st�ied the fence requirement had not been met, therefore, everyone should be provided a
new copy ofthe current ainended Development Plan, which will supersade any drawing, �he stated
that the requirement for the fence was indicated at a certain height, and that it would be opaque. She
stated this was done for many reasons, not just £or safety reasons, or as a temporary consideration.
1VIoe�nds Vierw P(nnneng Commission
I�egular 1VIeetsr��
September 1, 1999
P�age 15
1VIs, Olsen requested the P�anj;ing Commission to follow the normaf pracedures of the Planned Unit
Development, and not make deviations from it. She stated to do so would be very wrong. She stated
it was her understanding, if the air conditioners were protniding from the building, and that was the
reason that the fence would be rec�uired to jog, in her opinion, was that the building ; as already in
the buffer zone. ,t;<�
Ms. Olson stated people were very unhappy regarding the
100-foot buffer. She stated there was a lot of neighborh
project was not completed, and if this change was viewed a�;
Planned Unit Development procedure, what would happet���
with the ne�ct Planned Unit Development. She stated �he ��
Planning Commission as they move forward with the n�`
amount af property being changed and rezoned as Plann
shoutd be examined. She stated if these types of cha b��;
procedure, it could result in many problems for the City:��
Chairperson Peterson stated one of the issues,,�i�� r��
� 4�
proposat is a change or a request. He st�.fiEei �t a
requirement was not contained in the origin,���ai� that�
does require fiarther investigation. ����y=` ��`
Mr. Smith inquired if staff could
plan that was approved by the +
located betw�en the buildin�� ,:.
was the ptari
stated the m;
solid fence
desired a��i
fence. ,���*
=t�d for tlle �i�iXc�
:�s ui�C���;; a��a,
�rt il�� b�ild;in�s
s solid �c;a�ecriil��
d �t��ttt in
�ninor it d
always wanted a
, She stated th�
����_ � ���-��a�a
en the��ttxt builciin� is �C��1�t��tc���;'or
�preh�nsive Plan m�i� �r'c�pc��cc� �y the
Catnprehensive Plan, indicate a large
C.�z1it �cveIapments, She stated this
r� allt�w�cl, without foflowing proper
e�rocccjur� �i.vas to determine if this
at tE�is �Uint, the continuous fence
r{zZ�y <�}�proved. He stated the matter
:,�, - � > .
;� �he stipulations c 1 ta�ned in the final pian. Jopke stated the
Caunc,�I �t the I����opment Stage inciicated the Fence to be
ch ��la►i Ms Oisen was referring to. Jopke stated this document
c�� p�z�,nit, and upon which the building pec�mits were issued. He
�►�ts �xt`e�`pretation, it appeared tlie developer couid construct the
at�d r�ot require an amend��ent. He stated, if the neighborhood
fence alor�g the area, it wou[d make sense to allow the jog in the
CQi�iiissioner Hegland�s�ted the issue was whether or not there was any statement in the pians,
: t k.
� -:-
u1�ii�� stipulates contint�aus fencing once the building is constructed. Jopke stated that the Planned
��it ��vetopment d���ii�ent stipulates a six-foot, opaque screen fence, however, it does not specify
��
��at i.lus r� �o i��;���n�tructed only between the buildings, or as a continuous fence at the rear of the
b�r����t�;� ���rii�ciissioner Hegland stated the plan drawing indicates the fence to be between the
builc�i����. '�e stated it inight not have been well co�nmunicated, however, that is what was
repr�sented.
Commissioner Stevenson stated this matter might be a non-issue. He stated these were the finai plans
ihat ihe Comrtiissioners received, and they did not show the fence to be located behind ti�e office
buildings, only between. Chairperson Peterson stated the six-foot high fence require�nent appeared
IViounds View Pt�nni'i� Commission
ltegullr I�/Ieeting
Septeniber 1, 1999
P�ge 16
to be or�ly indicated at the sides of the fence buildings. He stated the pia��s were unclear, and he cauld
not interpret the fence requirement, however, atl of the indicatians provided, point to a fence that is
between the buildings.
Ms. Olsen stated the way this matter was explained, and proceeded for,months
original Planned Unit Development, which was approved. She stated t�t�re w�s,'
continuous fence in the back. She stated this was a major i�ssue SIte ����e:
Commission review the minutes and videotape of theF �tt� Council ����t���,
` k ��yy�`�`�
rec�uirements were clearly spelEed out therein. She stated t�e`�present une�rt��n��;�t�
�����..
entire matter should follow the norma] Planned Unit De�i�loprnent �r�'cess S1�e'
provide one hundred percent clarification, and there would be no rriisrepresentatit
in regard to what was ta occur.
Chairperson Peterson stated that the only document that
aIl of the others are very clear. Ms. Olsen stated t}iis w
the citizens on the Planned Unit Development docu�r��7
Planned Unit Deve#op►nent document superseded�ny;
,�;� � `
explained exp[icitly that there would be a c�o�tt�nuou;
opaque, and of a certain height. Sl�e stated��was furtl-�e'
buf�'er zone. �,_'�' ,�:u
Ms. Olsen stated the fence rec�ui
in regard to making any type of �
the entire no,r�al process. S�c �
could sut�jc�c# tl3e,pi-ovisiQZ�� tv
Chairpersan �P�i.�3-s��i slated
Unit Developrrie��t., bc�ih �� te.
Planned Unit��3e��eEo�n�er�i;
i�sed upon the
pposed to tie a
d the Planning
as the fenc�
�
ot �1�at� w�s,�he construction pian, and �
tl�e �Y��• thc �tZatter was represented to
e i�oted t�� ���c3r>Mayor had stated the
��,a drawin� qi' draft. She stated it was
� E��h�nd t}�e`buiiding, and it would be
� tf��t zi.,o$�hing wou{d encroach into the
��vvas not ���� only is��j�`present. She stated another issue was
s to a Plaz�'n�,ci U����evelopment, and following through with
this �uas the �a����air thing to do. She stated to c3o otherwise
differeni iz�����pretations.
e j�resently attempting ta verify the ofiicial appraved Planned
���zitte:n text, and the documents that are part of the approved
>��`
Jopk >�ad paragrapl� zaz��� oi the Planned Unit Developcnent documeilt, entitled Buffer and
� �r �R :
�ere�ng Fence indicateslz� �;:�ening fence shall be installed along County Road H-2 (as shown on
h� ��eveiopmeni Stage,'�an), and tied off on each end to prevent pedestrian traffic from the PUD
}�ve�opment off the s���x The fence shall be opaque and at least six feet in height."
��r�n�ia��onex�lVli��l�ir stated the Development plan indicafies the fence just between the buildings.
C'�l�di;r�e�5�ar� �et��son explained that the construetion plans sllow a dotted line which is in between
the b�ailci����fi, arid no where else. Commissioner Kaden stated these plans show the office building
e�ending up to the 50-foot buffer line. Chairperson Peterson stated this was correct.
Jopke stated it appeared, in loolcing at the actual design of the buiiding that was being proposed, the
building jogs back �'roin the SO-foot line, and there was room ta put air conditioning units.
Mmunds Veew Pl�nning C'omr��ission September 1, 1999
R�gular �Ieet�ng Pa�e 17
Chairperson 1'eterson stated the central portion o�the bui�ding that protrudes is indicated within a
couple feet of the setback line, however, the rest of the building has sufficient room in which the air-
conditioning units could be placed on either side. Commissioner Stevenson stated noise might be an
issue with the air conditioning units, and if so, they may wish to wor[c further with staf� in regard to
the screening and buffering. q;c�'fr
� <�:
Chairperson Peterson stated that it was unanimous that all inv��yed wan��� ade�ti`ate screening, and
it served no one's purpose to have the screening be less tl�'� �'dequaf�, I-�� st�ted this could b�
�� � �r:
accomplished either through the relocation of the fence, �t�additiona� t;rees beiz�� �I��ced, or ,�tfi
the fence between the back of the buitdings. He stated ex�her optior��w�s as �;�c�;�, �a� xiis a�.i;�c�n.
Comsnissioner Kaden stated he wouid like to hear the re
regard to a view of the buffer area or the fence.
Commissioner Johnson stated the air conditior�ers woulc�
fence arjd the building. Coinanissioner Laube stated tl�cy
units for this building. Chairperson Peterson���d Tl
.�.� � ,.
units, which were not very large. Commission�r aube'
� .:�
be noisy. Chairperson Peterson stated he ha� a one azad
and this wouid depend vpon the types of<��irts utiliz��rt,
��; r,�;
coc�ta�n��
G�Id reqt�i
��lelapar
or�e:
He
amount of noise generated by the pr�ipc�sed air �`�i�ditioner
Mr. Smith stated he thought
they would have four uniis.
buffer. He st�i�t� they wo€�li
visibility"� ��t �� ��ie oiice
reasons. tte ��c�ted th� asr co
fence in t}iat loca�it���, Z�e ,exp
stated theY w���1d t�i��` t� d� :,
a
t regarding tl�ci�--:i��-eference in
x a t��c,essecl area between the
t��rc'� c��''�our air conditioning
�uld �robably utilize two-ton
��c�.arrect, however, they could
[�t, which was virtually silent,
Smith if he was aware of the
se���iiald gene�te;more n��se than typical residential units. He stated
� sf�ted he had no �ro���m leaving the fence as it is, and using it as a
���y;;like to �r��7ve ��e fence back to the edge of the trees, to provide
_
ildir��; �nd raom behit3d the building for security and maintenance
djtiantn�; �its could be screened separate(y, if they did not want the
ilne`i�!tk��y���iuld provide additional landscaping around the units. He
liat wa.��i�eneficiai, and what the residents desired.
�ioner Stevenson ���ted, #i-c�m a safety standpoint, he would go without the fence. He stated
�iding the back o[ tl�e ��ice wouEd invite vandalism. Mr, S�nith stated he did not believe the
� f, ,:.
project had geneza�ied any additional vandalism problems. Commissioner Berlce stated there
-ently reports of���iidalism every week in his neighborhood. He stated two years prior to the
�ment, they d���iot have a problem with vandalis�n. He stated he was not certaii� this was the
tl;z� ciev�lo��'nent hawever it appeared to attract kids.
, , > >
€:k�a1��3erst��1 �'eterson stated that the issue at hand was to deter�nine the process by which to amend
the �'lanned �Tiut Development, if rec�uired. He stated the necessity for a change was unclear, in that
the fe� states to refer to the drawing for details, and the construction drawing indicates a dotted line
which shows the 50-foot building setback, and another portion of the line indicates a six foot privacy
fence. Commissioner 3ohnson stated fhe approved plan shows the fence between the buildings, and
in his opinion, the matter does not rec�uire to be before the Planning Commission.
MOilll(�3 V�CMV PIR[l[ltll� C.OI%►T1liS5t0[l September 1, 1999
la�guy�tY �/Ieeting P�ge l.8
Cammissiot�er Hegla.nd stated, however, that Ms: Olsen was under the impression that ii was to be
a continuous fence. Ms. Olsen stated that everyone was. Commissioner Hegland suggested they
request the City Attorney to review the matter, and provide a r►�ling, as he had approved the Planned
Unit Development docuix�ent. Chair}�erson Peterson stated the City Attorney's deterin'nation would
be more legally canvincing than the Planning Commission's interp�-etation of the c�o��ment, unless
there was further description contained within the text of the Planned U►iiC �}evelt�kpment document.
3opke stated ihis matter was unclear, and this was the re.
Planning Commission, and desired a deterniination from
regard to the type of buffer desired by the co�nmunity a�
He stated the deveioper has come forward and stated they
attempting ta work with the neighhorhood to do what was
and City Council should detennine what the expectations v
could occur. He stated in his opi�uon, and based upon ti�e_
the fence between the buildings and meet the requirnm
approved the p1an. „
7opke stated another issue is that the Cit "flrdina►�ce
����.
amending Planned Unit Developments. He���fiated, as �vis.
hetter define this pcocedure for future Piati�i`ed Urut D���ie}o
...,.. , �,_
� �; ..
he would further suggest the Plannu�'s�r�ommiss�on rec
t �� +
directed to prepare some ordmanC�.�'�vis�ons��qr future
stated, as the ordinance is present��Uwritten, it w�s tiif�ic�,fl
stated the Pl�nriing Coinmisszon cn;iid suggest to t,�������j
��
ta the Courl�il �4�eetings ��;�tUUic�� their �n�ut,.: ``',
�•.,•,� . _.
Corrunissiocler ���tan;d s
a coniinuous fe��t��, �c� �;
why tlus d�ser�, p��c� ��d
�� .;.
was anytht�g`in writii7�
� �
should; -'� have to re u
��� �
reo���ed. He stated, �f
fit��, I�owever, from a Co
ti�� re'auirement of a con�
�
the matter.,� � �:
attention of
'ity Counc�l: Ilc� sfat�� the issue �
ghbor-����ci fos� scz-�e��in� �n tlzks.�ea.
'Y/�%.
�osal for cons:c�4rafion,- and was
s:ated the Planr�in� C;ommission
�t�<s� is the best development that
s,, th�, developer couid construct
�la �� t��e. ti�ne the City Council
r�ts sek
�as de,Cic�c,n�:, ►n defining the process of
�15eri Ctat�n'unicated, it was important to
�j�enls t�iat wili come forward. He stated
rr��3exad to the C'sty Council that staff be
;.�c�iisider,ation to deai with this issue. He
'"ta interpret from staf�"s perspective. He
Counci! that the ne'sghborhood be invited
ite� ihe dev�l���r was obviousiy of the opinion that they were to provide
e,,plail d���s x�c�t slx���� a conti��uous fence. He stated they should deter�nine
;�ccuj-red. He stated staff should research the ��natte�� to determine if there
�r."aillez-wise which indicated tl�is. He stated, if there is not, the developer
�£ur�her'approval, He stated he did not think the matter required to be
h�"res�c�ents wished to discuss the matter with the Council, that would be
�'ivssioner's standpoint, unless there is some indication in the minutes that
iuous fence exists, he did not see why they sllauld do anything. He stated
already been approved.
Cqmi�i�szC�tte�- � hube stated he believed this matter rec�uired the review of the City Attorney, and
__ ____ __
furi�tr:� r�s��rc}i hy staff. He stated that a public hearing should be announced, to provide citizen
inpui, in an unbiased faruin. He stated there were m,ixed feelings and the issues were uncEear, and
the Planning Commission did not have the ability to make those decisions. He stated the Planning
Com�nission could hold the public hearing, or it could be held at the City Council level. He stated,
however, he believed, in [ight of Anthony Properties' desire to woric with the citizens, the citizens
should be given the opportunity to provide their input.
Nlottnds Vie�v Planning Coann�issaon September 1, 1999
Re�ul��° 1Vlee�emg i'nge 19
I�r. �mith inquired if it would be possible to obtain a rufing from staff and the City Attorney to
deternune their standing, prior Yo holding a public hearing. Chairperson Peterson stated this would
be a wise and prudent step for everyone's salce. Commissioner Kaden inquired if Mr. Smith obtained
a ruling indicating that the continuous fence was not required, he would not consider the residents'
,3Z�
des�res. IVIr. SmiTh stated this was not what he meant. He stated he would li�ce to see't?��at the ruling
is, and then take the citizen's ir►put. Commissioner Kaden noted at some ���zxt, rnaiayypeople got the
impression that the fence was supposed to be continuous. Mr S,at�ith stat�ci t�t��ey were in the right
and could put the fence against the building, they wouid st�'1� Ill:e to E��ov� i� ��c�:, He stated th ;,.
wanted to be good neighbars and work with peopEe. '�;._'' -�
Chairperson Peterson stated whether the fence is move
location, he beIieved the citizens should have some inpz
matter couid be tabied until the next Planning Comm�
Attorney to conduct their research. He stated they have u�
Commissioner Hegland stated he would haue a proble
cont►nue to be constructed, and if this �natter mi�I�t 1��; ��
Mr. Smith stated the c�uestion was who c
before this situation, or because the builc
this was not a variance situation, He
alternate way of handling the nor�x���'
document, which defines every occ�e�i�
�as in
ilained
uireinE
was supposed to be there, and u�_; n"revie�� of t�e do
Commissi
recollection tI
made xegardir
that the fence.i
.
t� ee � F= �s remove ct�lia�;etPl�Y in that
�n��h� �ilatter. Mr. Sr�i�h inc�trii=ed if the
Q� ���eeti��n�, to allow staff and the City
No��err����r lS to put the fence back up,
in r�e�,airi to t�Zi� as the building would
�
�ened to''ta�t{tin r�5'idents' input.
islX��. lle t��c�u�recl if the hardship was created
u�ron� �c�c�t�pti.�`Chairperson Peterson stated
'hin � I�l'ar�ri�c3 �Unit Development, there is an
and tk�e�sc i��atfiers are spelled out in a lega!
the q�estion was what to do with a fence that
.�.,�
c,ur�ents, appears is not required.
and st�.tec� t���� ut�as an as��zrii��tic}r� at this point, and the only documentation they
vs ti3e b�ii��Ein��=it�i no fe�ice. Chairperson Petersan stated there was an obvious
cr� was to i�c � cUnt�z�uous fence, and the question is what co�nmitments were
� fer��e. 1(e st�tec�, it �v�s clear in his mind, based upon the documents at hand,
r�c�ui!•ed; ��o«rcver, t�s�y should obtain the City Attorney's apinion on the matter.
Mr Sr�"''stated he ho��c� he �t�ciz�'t brought to light a concern that was unnecessary. Chairperson
Pete�on stated he beli�,vacf :hir. Srnith had done the right thing, Com�t�issioner Kaden stated he
wc��`�el rather see Mr, Sin�i�a be proactive, and have the matter resolved to the satisfaction of everyane
��� � � _.�
ir���IvPd. Mr. Smith s��t�d they were attempting to do what was right, and if it was necessary to
rec�i�esi a varianee, ��;a�°was what they would do.
t=��-�t���sr'�+a� �z�uenson suggested staff, upon conducting the research, refer to the meetings during
whic;h dr.5cussio�� was held regax-ding the fence. He stated tlie construction of the fence was rec�uested
in li�u af tI�e oiffice buildings, which were not constructed at that time, as a safety �recaution. He
suggested research be canducted of the discussion that toak placa prior to the construction of the
office buildings.
I�ou�ds �li�w Pllnnir�g C'omn-►►ss'son Septem�e�- i, 1999
Itegular IV�eeting Page 20
�/Is. Olsen stated she had not attended the meetings at tne Planning Co►n�nission level, in regard to
the Theater Project. She siated the discussion regarding the fencing came at the City Council level,
and�would appreciate staf�s review of the City Council minutes. She stated the fina� determination
was the result oithe numerous discussions at the City Council level. �
Ms. Olsen siated it was her understanding that any revision to a Planned`TJnit D
require a re-opening and foi(owing through of the entire norn�al �rocess �tie StatE
would include the construction of the office buildings. Cha�1���son Peterac�n ex�
Unit Development documents provide an alternate form����oniiig, spec�ific.�l i�;
what is acceptable, in terms of its own unic�ue setback ��c�uiremen��, and o�11�
docume�nt specified the uses for the main portion of this d�.velcipmer�t, ;Outlots A an
�lopment would
she believed this
ined the P4annecl:
pertinent to those deve}oprrients. He stated, if the constructia� af_those areas is don� 'ac�ording to
the Plarv�ed Unit Development rec�uirements, there is no neet� ip rs;open it. He stated the reopening
was only required if the originai plan was to� be amend�d: H� statP�3 there was much room for
alterations in building styles, and slight location chan�es, and it was i:h� int��t„of the PUD document
to allow some flexibiliiy in the original plan, whiie stiil �'�,�uic;,ing cor�ft�rn��x��� ��e explained this did
no# necessarily mean that any change wouid requir�,f��P z�qpening of the �?1,�.�1ned Unit Development,
�.r
Jopke stated this Planned Unit Devel�
two retail restaurani buildings. He st
stage plan of the project was specifrc�a�
well as the three office buildings. H��s;
defined fo�' those four parts. He sf� ��
atenant, the sitP layout could zit�t be d
three of�€��
because all
,��;<.
�m��t��included.,�he th�<�t�r btii��ding, the office buildings, and
ed;��is unde�''��andi��g :��} �hi� process is that the development
\\ hk.t�v
i�letailed ��- regard tc� t11e tl�eater portian of the property, as
�d the �a;cation, pa���i�g, and landscaping requirements were
u� z�
the t��p reta�l res��urants were not defined, because without
:er�nu��c�. ���'s��'ted, in his opinion, the two retail restaurant
ve to t�c��n�. ilat't�ugh a d�v�lt�pm�nt stage p[an app��oval process. However, the
�gs �nd tlt� t�����r were covered with the plan which was already approved,
Chairperson��'et�rs�n :
�
Commiss,�o �level, arid
stated��;� saw several
procs�� continued with �
Ms �lsen agreeing th
s��c�u�ci be reviewed in �
�
iiany o����e revisions to this develop�ne��t were rriade at the Planning
�Z���unity tneetings, even before the for�nal application was made. He
�t ��rsions of the project prior to it becoming officiai. He stated the
� CounciE, and there were some changes at the City Councillevel, with
City Council minutes, as well as the Planning Commission minutes,
to the rec�uiremei�ts of the fence.
�is, {�1�'�t� s��t�d � other issue was that the air conditioners and/or the back of the building were
iri'deed �t�1� ez��J�oaching anywhere on the Sa-foot buffer. ComEnissioner Johnson stated this was
cor�ect }�c s��tted the pl�n did nat shaw any encroachment upon the 50-foot buffer, and therefore,
the developer could not place anytlling on the buffe, which he was wef{ aw�.re of.
Cllairperson Peterson stated the general process fbr an amendment to a Planned Unit Development,
in the event oia modiiication to ihe original pian, should be further defined.
l�oureds VH�vw P►;�nnang Commission
l�eg�l�ar Nieet�«g
September 1, 1999
P1ge 21
Jopke stated thaf staff would review the minutes to define what the location of the fence was, and
shauld be, and report hack to the Planning CoE�unission. He inquired if the Commission would direct
staffto notify the residents of a public hearing.
Commissioner Jahnson stated he would lilce the City Attorney to review the matter:-���determine if
z��._�
xt legally necessary to have that meeting. He stated Mr. Smith was th� type ,��'develoger who
attempted to cooperate with the neighbors, and if he is not rec���xed to co���� b�.Gl�'�thi•ough the entire
process, he should not have to. ,�3�� ;k� � �
3oplce siated staff wauld contact the City Attorney's�
Commission would like to notify the neighbors. Commts
where the Planning Comznission's involvernent in this mattc
forum, he did not see where the Planning Commission shotf
stated he was noi saying there sho�idn't be a public forur
held at the Planning Coinmission Ievel. ```�'`
Chairperson Peterson stated if the City
Commission, in that there was no require
cause it to encroach into the buffer, there
He stated, however, ther� was an expect�t
���;
should occur at the Planning Com�nis��o;t�,
.-, tr� , �
.,,��,-
be best held at this level. �,;;,c�t, �`'
Commission��Miller stated
iffihat wo�tc� �I<�ce it into. t
�
woutd Io�e tni�ii�ai sl�n�'
Iandscapin� a��ri tr��s ,��ety
do
be
]ittlr..
ce. t�e;�inq�a��
er �te�venson statcd kke �ii`c� nc�t know
,s. �Ie stated, if they d�sii�e� a public
fu�I�er i�7volved in the process. He
3we�?er,�he, ciid not thinfc it should be
�ttorrs:��r ��rt�e L� �hc s���ne' e�:>,�clusion as the Planning
�n�F�o'tocat� fihc� f�z��e behz�d `the building, which would
:,
��Ed be no �ssue tli�� �-�c�t���es the Planning Co►nmission,
n in the �inds of ��i�y people that this leve( of research
vel, t��refore, h�;vvould assume the public forum would
,:,<,.
cant f�ad stated E��
. Mr. Si�-�zti� �tat�
t}�e buffer area.
would move tlle fence six feet, and inquired
it would be six feet into t1�e buf�er, and they
Joplce stated it wQUld iinpact the existing
"r H��;la��d; �tated,t�ic Cif}Y �our�cil wauld have to amend the Planned Unit Development
��� � „. ,,.
��he fetzce ��lc� o��,�ed into the buffer. Commissioi�er Stevenson stated this would not
if the fencc w�� lacxied between fihe buildings.
stated staff woul�i' report back to the Planning Commission with the results of their
;ation, and the,�la ning Commission couid, at that point, deter�nine what was correct in
to the proce���and pass tl�at recom�r�endatio�� on to the City Council.
�;�insnissii3t3er i.aA�ibe stated the ordinance shouEd also be reviewed to determine the process required
%r y�'i�nt�ee� CTnit Developinents, in cases of modifications. He stated in his opinion, everything should
be brought forwa�•d for the benefit of the residents. �-Ie stated there shovld be no variance rights given
to the developer withaut the notification and input of the residents.
Chairperson Peterson stated that only in very minor instances such as the re}ocation of a sidewalk
should the entire process not be rec�uired, however, a matter regarding a fence, or things of that
I�vua�ds �IBevv �1lndii�ig Con��nissia�i
�begui�r I�ieeting
Sepiember 1, 1949
P�ge 22
nature should be included, and subject to the approval of the City Council. He stated in this case, a
change might r�ot he required.
Commissioner Hegland stated the developer had rec�uested a fence and a change tto its location
because he thought it was necessary, and the necessity ofthat is in c�uestion. �ominissE�o�`�r Stevenson
stated that Ms. �Isen had a point, in that the CounciE may have misinterprete� the pla�is. Chairperson
Peterson stated this also was a possibility. ,;F��
�. Commisssoi� Oe�deen Bra:�then's leave o;�;;�'�sence
�� �`' ' ' .; �
Carnmunity Development Director Jopke stated this iten� r�!as t��`.���o sideratioii c���`t�mrrl�ss�oner
Braathen's rec�uest for a leave of absence. He stated Cc�i���i��ss ���er Braathen has, �'cir reasans o�
establishing his husiness in a new iocation, requested he be gr�fied �� 5ix n,ontfi leave of absence. He
� �,
stated Commissioner Braathen desired to continue to s�%rve, �i�w'��%ez�,. at this time, he has ather
commitments, which prevent him from attending the meeiings.
7opke siated the Code in this rega�•d was soine�v
that the Commissioners attend twenty meet�n�s's
and removal from the Co►�unission. He stat�'th�
that requirement, if he is absent for s�x �oynth,
Planning Commission to provide � f�opini
' �;
Cornmissioner Braathen's rec�uest.y����`� .��
Chairpersozl PLtci-son stated
absence, tuit�t tl�e exC�e�ta'
absence; `ar�d ili�t e �as ��o ��
did noi becoi��c tc�o la�ti-.
�usi�jw;:}7owe�c�, i[ ii'idicates t11e requirement
ic yc�r; �nci if «o�,'they are subject to review
nissic3zie� �3r��tl3ez� would not be ahle to meet
tatcd tl�e �ayor and Councii have asked the
the rra'atier, prior to approving or denying
prior occasions3 t�����'lanning Co�nmission has granted leaves of
� the Co1����n;i�sr�i�er would coinmit the time after the leave of
,�� stated this was provided the membership of the Commission
Commission ,I3�F'k� it�c�c�ir�ct what �.���'Pianning Commission wouid do procedurally, with eight
members ent, iil t]iE e�}ent af a lociced vote. Chairperson Pefierson stated there was previously a
requir -�nt of seven Co�tt�n,ias�c�n�i`s and a maxi�num of nine. He stated presently there is a minimum
and �n��mum of nine niember�. He stated that during a leave of absence, a Commissioner still holds
__ .
_
tll��r seat, however, but r�oes not participate.
���
, , ���,���
������ss�oner He����d inquired if Commissioner Braathen would stitl have voting righis.
�h<u��rsau Pc:tc���i stated he would not expect anyone on a leave of abse�lce would want to vote,
ai7d if't�xty eiaL� it ivould cause him to question their motives. Ca�nmissioi�er Hegland stated, in Iight
of th� 'vi��t����aping procedures, he could vote by proxy.
Jopke stated this would be difficuit, in that he would not be present to hear the evidence presented.
Commissioner Heg�and stated, with the com�nunication technology available, he would think this
would be possible, hawever, the issue was whether or not Ehey would want to do this.
....�.... ..
�011I1CjS ��EW �iAllllill� �.0017YTliSSl011
���LLI:$�° �e�tlll�
Septeniber �, 1999
��i�e ��
Chairperson Peterson stated this perhaps should be clarified in, the by-laws of the Planning
Com�nissian. Joplce stated anQther alternative would be ta have the City Council appoint somebody
for the six-month period.
Chairperson Peterson stated, at the second granting of a leave of absence, the C�ii�iission had a
sufficient numher of nlembers, and white the Ieave of absence was in eft�ct, som�c �ie had resigned,
bring the membership too low. He stated a new member wa� appointed tiur in�,'that time, and that
����..
was the cause of past bookiceeping errors. He stated he d�d n�` ;�lleve e'rght zn�r�l�ers were too lovuz;
. :
� �
�;.
Commissioner Berlce inquired if they could utilize Co� �il Liaiso����'igney fcaa vot��i� �tu� pses.
Commissioner Hegland asked if a spIit vote could be se sc�i�,to th� �ouncil as it wG�s �! �`�
t,
�.
Planning Associate Ericson siated an item would not pass, �f �c7ur ��mbers vated in favor, and four
cast opposing votes, �,
Commissioner Laube stated tliat tlie Cominissioc� v��as l�ar
stated, in light of the upcoirvng deadlines, this m�,y ��esul� in a
sfi';
necessary at present, to meet the �.ne�nbersh�� %ectu�rc,E�eirt?
,,,,,
,j�•`�` �Y �
Commissioner Miiter stated if they ap�p�nt somec��ie for
�
become familiar with the process anc� ,�s��i�es, and ���iis would
in, just for the sake of a vote. �� u��'��� �' �;
Commissioner,;TCaden stated i
ran inta a��v�i��m, som� c�fii
MOTIOI�/S�GC3�1� _ ;> I�1ii]
Braathen's Rec�ues� �az S�x ;
'
,�f r��r�;s��-
�� `""`' !
Cha��e� n Peterson stated i
Cit�r �ouncil make a tena��r
�ly at a"c�uc�r��n tlie prior meeting. He
ni-ablenz H� s#ated more members are
mnri�l�s, it wouid talce them time to
a di#i►cult position to place someone
�nted a 1caVe o�`�f�'sence, they couid go from there, and ifthey
�z coulti (�e t�l�set� at that time,
>an t� Recommend the Approval of Com►nissioner Ordeen
eaae' �f Absence.
Nays — 0 Tl�e motion carried.
; requirement af a quonzm becomes a problem, they can reqUest the
appointment to complete the term of the leave of absence.
Co Prev,�(t;us Cou«cil Actio��s
�`1��1��tn� �s�o���.�e Ei°icson reported on City Council action from their rneeting on August 23. He
stat�d .tiaat tl��, Council upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation and cienied the request
for an oversized garage at 2809 Woodale Drive, He stated there was a public hearing for the first
reading of the ordinance which wouid rezone the praperty and allow MSP to build an assisted living
facility, and the consideration of the Conditional Use Permit for this proposal. He stated the Council
directed �taff to sei the public hearing for the ordinance to a�nend the City Code to clarify the
language in the R-4 Zoning District, and directed staffto draft a resolution approving the Conditional
1Vlo�nds �Iaew P11iu��ng Con���iissioii
�egeatat° I�/Ieetia�g
�e��tember i, 1999
Page 24
Use Permit for the facility. He stated he had spoken with the developers who are dra$ing the site
plans, which witl be back before the Planning Commission in September or October.
Ericson stated the City Cauncil discussed the proposed vacation �f the ease�nent on Ed ;ewood Drive
(Pinewood Circfe). He stated the City Council acted u��animous[y to mainrain the e�,�'�riient, and this
.� a� .
item wouid come before the Council again, to c[arify that the WeiEand Altecat�l��� Pei mit is aiso being
denied. ��_. ` -
D. iTpcoming Pl�€nnis�g C�tses
Planning Associate Ericson stated at the next meeting c
consideration of a request for an oversized garage addrt
garage. �Ie stated the latter may come in the form of t
presently reviewing the matter, to detennine how best to p
request was in regard to two iots facated on Hiliview".
stated the property owner desires to construct a�ara�e t
stalls on each side of the building. He noted t�i� r��ues
7. Ch�eia��serso�� ���d Ptar�ning Con�ri�ission
No reports were considered.
8. Ad�ournment
Trish Pearson
Tinaesaver off site secretcrricrl, hac.
��e 1'Ian��ing Comi�lissio� �her� v,7'�uld be
<,
n, �s �s�e�E as a variance �'or a�.ero iot line
v�rz�nc-�, :hc�wever, the City Attor��ey is
:c�ed,with l��e rec�uest. He explained this
rive, wllie.lt corz��i,c� two four-plexes. He
�ervice bc�t�� buildttigs, with three-garage
r
�1�ht requu c� lot cambination process.
� Com�nission, Cl�air Peterson adjourned the
rned to the Agenda Session)
;
�
I�O�I�S VIEW PI�A1�1I1�G CO��I�SI�l�
Oc�e►ber 6,1999
7:00 �.NI.
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
1. Cail to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Ttems Not on the Agenda
;, � � � � ; � �. ,; �, �. ;
�>
�. ., ) � �= � ' � ,
4. Approve Minutes:
a. September l, 1999
5• �'ta�aa�in� Case �Io. 570-99
�roperiy Involved: 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road
Consideration of Resolution 591-99, a resoiution approving a variance request to allow
for a one-foot garage setback
Applicant: Jeff 3ohnson
6. Planning Case I�1a. 571-99
Properiy Involved: 8270 Eastwaod Road
� Consideration of Resolu�ion 595-99, a resolutian recommending approval �f a
conditional use pemut oversized shed
Applicant: Alan & Tammy Doroff
7. Discuss optians for amending the Cifiy Code to a1low for driveways wider �an the
35 feet. �
g. Staff Repo�-ts / Items of Tnformation
a. Theater fence
b. Camprehensive Plan meeting schedule
c. Previous Council Actions
d. Upcoming Planning Cases
9. Chairperson and Plannuig Cammissioners Reports
14. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
{Irrrrr►ediately Foltowing Itegular Meeti�lg}
*�������������������������������������*�
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT TI-iIS MEBTING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, THANK YQU.
�����������������*�����������*���������
l�GENDA SESSION
AGENDA
Review Mznutes -- September 15, 1999
N:IDATAIGROLIPSICOMDE VIPLANCOMNMCAGENDA1199919-15-49.REG
`';��
�
' ` �j
f:' . ,� ':` . � ;': ! : :, � ; ; ` ., .; -� ; , ; : � -...
Ii�Ieetdng D�te:
St�ff 12e�flrt byo
PIan�ta�g C�s� I�To.:
A,�plic�n�:
�tec�ue�t:
�.ocaiion:
1'' 1` t ` ,
Zo�irag/I,a�ati �Jseo
Applica6l� Regulations:
October 6, 1999
James Ericson, Ptanning Associat�
S 74-99
Jeff Johnson
The appiicant is seeking a variance for a one-foot sideyard setback
to construct �wo three-statl garage structures
2075 & 2081 Hillview Road
OS-30-23-41-0011 & OOS-30�-23-41-0005
R-3, Medium Density Residential
1104.41, ;ubd. 4: Accessory buildings detached from principal building shall have a side-yard
setback of five feet, Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in ihe front yard.
Att�char►ents:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Siie Plan
�ackgro�nd:
,The applicant, owner of two contiguous properties on Hillview Road, each improved with four-
uni� multi-famiIy structures, wishes to construct iwo three-stalf garage str�.�ctures between the two
buildings to service bath buildings. The garages woutd be setback from the common property line
by one foot on each side. The applicant, since taking over ownership of these two properties, has
invested considerable expense in rehabbing the buildings and making upgrades and improvements.
The addition of a garage structure would without question be beneficial to the property, to its
residents, arid to the immediate area.
This request in was before ihe P�anning Cammission ai your last meeting on ,September 15, 1999,
at which time it was thougl�t that a variance could be avoided by combirung the twa pareels into
one, effectively elitninating the inierior Iot-Iin�. The problem with this solution was not wiih the
County or applicant, but rather the applicant's tiwo mor�gagers. The applicant then asked to revfse
his request such that there would be two garage structures r-ather than one, each separated from the
property line by one foot.
_
Johnson Variance Application
2075 & 2081 Hillview Road
October 6, 1999
Page 2
Analys�s:
As was pointed out at the September 15th meeting, there are a number af hardships pertaining to
these properties which makes the approval of a vaciance seeen appropriate. The first is the lots
topography. There is a section of level land immediateiy behind the four-plexes which then begins
to siope downward toward fihe rear of the property. Locaiion of the garages further back on tlie lot
would require substantial filling and land atterations. The second hardship stems from the fact that
these lots were not developed with garages in mind--the buildings were located in the center ofthe
lot. V+Ihile ihis positiarung maximizes the distance between the buildings, ii also Izmits the space
availabl� for construction of garage stalls. The lasi identified hardship is again based on the
topography. Because of the rear slope of the properties, the garages wouid need to be claser to the
buildings to take advantage of the availabie level land. If the proposed garage stnactures were to
maintain the required five-foot setback, the end garage stalls on either side would be difiicult if not
impossible to access.
Variance Criteria:
With these hardships in mind, staff exarr►ined t�e criteria which the Planning Commission is to
consider' ir� any variar�ce request. These criteria are set forth in ;eciion 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of
the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardsl�ip e�sts �hen all of the criteria are met. The
individual criteria, with responses, are as fotlows;
a. Exceptional or extraordinary ci�cumstances apply to ihe property wltich do not` apply
generally to other pYOperties in the same zone or vicinity and result fi�om Zot size o� shcrpe,
topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the
effective date hereof have had no control.
The topagraphy of these lots severely restricts where garage structures can be locaied
wiihout substantial and overly burdensome elevation reparations.
b. The literal interpretation of the provrsrons of this Title would deprive the crpplicant of
r�ights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the %Yms of this
Title.
Because of the topography and the distance between the buildings, the appiicant is already
iimited to providing on(y three garage stalls for each o�the buildings, instead of one siall per
usut. If no varianee were gran�ed, only two garage stalls could be provided £or each
building.
c, That the special conditzons or circtamstances ca'o not result frona the actaons of the
applacant.
Th� applicant is not in control of the Lots' topography nor was the applicant in controi of
where the four-piexes were located upon the lots.
'',
Johnson Variance Application
2075 & 2081 Hillview Road
October 6, 1999
Page 3
d. Thai granirng the ��a�iance r�equested will not confer on the applicant any special
p�ivzlege that rs denied by this Title to owners of other lands, sfructu�es o� buildings in
the same district.
The City Code requires that all (new) enulfii-family resideniial developments provide a
minimum of one garage stall per dwelling unit. Currently, there are no garag�s on site and
the applicant praposes to construct three for each building. Any new multx-family
deveiopment would be requiYec�'to pravide the appropriaie number of garage stalls:
e. That the va�iance �equesied is the minimum variance tivhich would alleviate the hardship.
Economie condiPions alone shall not be conside�ed c� hardshrp.
There is 70 feet which separates the two four-piexes, Each of the proposed garage
structures is 32 feet wide, whieh will bareiy accommodate three individual garage stalls.
�Nere the garages to be any further apart than the rec�uested one foot setback, the risk of
damage to the four-plexes done by vehicles backing out of the garages wauid be too high.
f. The varianee woulcd not be �rrtaterially detyimentcal to the purpose af this Title or to other
pYOperty rn the same zone.
Approving a variance to allow for the construction of the two three-stall garage structures
wouId immediateiy improve ihe appearance of the subject properties and would be a
welcomed addition to a street which has seen the introduction of hlighting influences over
the Iasi few years.
g. The pr�oposed variance will not imparr an adequcrte supply of light and air to adjacent
propel°ty o� substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the
danger of frre ar endanger the public safety o� substantially dinzinish or impair property
values tivithan the neighborhood.
It is not expected that ihe addition of the proposed garages would have any detrimental
ef�ects upon the neighborhood.
In reviewing these criteria, stafifeels that the basis for estabtishing a hardship has been met, in
that afl of the criteria are satisfactorily addressed. Given �his and the discussions of the Planning
Commission and public testimony on September 15th, staff has drafted a resolution which
approves of the variance as requested by the applicant,
Rec�ar►mendattoz�:
Approve Reso(ution 591-99, a resolution approving one-foot side yard seibacks for a three-stali
garages to be located at 2075 and 2081 I�illview Road, according to the proposed building plans
on file.
Johnson Variance Application
20i5 � 20�1 Hiliview Road
October 6, 1999
Page 4
��� Ci,���t`.� ��,�L�
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N;IDATAIGROUPS\COMDE V�DE VCASE S\570-99UGHNSON2.RPT
, -'.'.i'
aip,C�yy ,snr+
�vYi++l ii it;.��!'
/: f !i>ei ( 7
�1� j>>�;;(;`;;
.�
. p 1�{( tLte���.
' e,q �:1.? �fi�;l
. �
,
��8j ° Parmeri��Q
� ., ,�, �. . ��: i_ � , , , ,�
Ia��LOP11�E�1T APPI,YCA'T'IO�t
240I �iighway 10, Mounds Vlevv �+T 55112
612-717-4020
612�784-3�52 - FA�
�leas�'Tyg�e or P�ieai Xnfn�atio� - Co�plete �oth Sides oiTis� �'orai _;
Appl�c�nt I�afot�sation r ----� f�
:�l �-.�.
Name oiAppiicanY k � � �; � � 0 ! •S(� Telephone � �b � ��
Address ' � � � ` U L�% �,�
Fa�c
_�d f.� °' � �i � C 1.�
Hn4erest � Prope�ty (check uppropriace box)
Owner of Properly � Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee, Operator, Munager , ❑ Agreement to Purchase
d Other (explain) �
App(icaa�s e�susg provide eeidense of ie,teres� ixe �►ropee°ty at the ti�ae �f apgiiea�io�a, aa�i ii yoea are �ot 2�e o�rer of tha
properrg}�, you nQpsf provide ;a;etter of pere��ssaon from th� ow�er g�ving cooseai to ibe fiJ�ng of t�is applicatio�a The
prope� ovvaiee �nus� sign this ap�si►cat�an for st to be acceptedo
Property Descrip�ion/Proposal
Address or General Location
Lega! Description
Properiy Identification # (PIN #)
#� �f Acres
Current Zoning
�, "` � ���� r��' (/�i�, fi �^J ! � C✓
e S � � � - ...�,.
a 5 3 0�- � e-1 /� O 1►��-- d.�°',� a-� Q� ��'
Type of Agpiication
Q Comprehensive Plan Amendmene
❑ Rezoning
� M�jor Subdivision
a 1bliaxor Subdivision
❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD}
❑ PUD Amendment
o Conditional Use Pennit
Vari�.nce
❑ Code Appeal
a Develop Revie�v/Site PI�n
❑ Wetlaaid Alteration Pemai¢
❑ Wetland B�er Permit
fl Floodp(ain Permit
❑ Other
$250
$250/acre; rx� $250 max $ i 500
$250 � $250 deposit'�
$200
Refer to rezoning fees
$350
R-1, R-2 $75; alI others �250
R-1, R-2 $100 all others �250 �'°
�100 '
$125lacre; min $ I25 ma;c �750
R-1, R-2 �ISO; flfl ottaers $200
R-1, R-2 $25; all others � 100
$20Q
�`Depasits shalI be paid to cov�r all costs of public notices, materials and sta#� or aonsuttant tEme spent in the review,
reseurch or preparation of materia[s associated with d�is application. The applicant shall be responsible �or all reasonabl�
incuc°red costs in excess of the initial deposst amount. Any poriion of the deposiC not sp�nt or encumbered shall be refunded
to th� applicaztt within thirty (;0) days a#ter cansideration of the applic�Eion is completed,
�le:�s� �am�le�� the revers� sidc of this :appi6catioq.
C'ity of 1�Iounds View, r/II�I
�a � . ___.� 6 J.�i: ..b:
��1
Present Use of Property
❑ Undeveloped/Vacant
❑ Duple:c/Twa Family Dwelling
❑ Business/Commerciai Establishment
o OPher {expiuin)
Property Classification a Abseract
.
�.
r
f�J
Single FamiIy Dwellin�
Ivtulti-fainily Dwelling
Industrial Establishment
Torrens
Description o£Proposat �-- i � �°'
BY MY (OUR) SIGNAI'CJRE ON'THIS APPLICATION, I I-�EREBY DE�LARE TTHAT. T� T� BEST O� MY
i�NOWL.EDG�, "I'�-iE INFORMMP�T.IUN PRUVIDED IS AND ACCURAiE .
f�l
SY�lStil►0 at A�pi%Ca11$
Naane of Applicant (typedlprinred) ' O
�`,� 'F.� n�, � � �'zs� r� ,5
Sigaatuee of PropeRy Owner °
N�ne of Property Owner (typed/printed) � �
�. CJ �' % � G tJ e � �
pddress of Owner .
- ` � � � �� C���
Phone Number of Owner
:2
���
�������*���x�*��*�����*��x�am*�+������*����*#�����*������*�#����*����������*�*****������#�**�*x��a��x�*
�'OIt OF�'ICE USE O1�L'Y
Date of Submittui J° � - �'� �
Assigned to:
Da[e of Acce�tance { 20-da limit
Plaru�iYag Case No. ���'- `�__� b0�day Liinit � y ----°'
Check # Rece'spt #
Fees Paid: Account � �� ��� ti� Y
.��,�,� �� °�� r•
Appiication:
Park Dedication:
Deposifs:
Other:
Total:
1I98
A1:�DA'iA\GROLTPSICOMI�EVIFO RI�15�DEV;�PP.'FnR
\ �`
� _�
�
,�' ---- -- - - "'�:�:.::d,�;; '.'.:','::.'.:','.'.•.
1
//'/� �75 �
574i
� rm.-� u � ��, PARK s's,
� N� � � � � `� s7z9
� �� �z�� . .
��. 1 N N� N N �Af N '`� J%11
A N '�� N 'r�
�� N1N�.� r�-�� zz�� �� � zzoa s�o�
�S ; �, �"� N c� � 22�3 --.,. .
,� � c'� coe � � ? �°' 5691
�+ �y � � ?D `. _..._
;`�c° � �� o J_I v��? ° r, � �p��� �i 5881
�� d�^�°! � N�+ p S O� �
V ��c� �y NfN N Nt(�► N �
N N[�d N� t�! tV �.} N
�ti��vi�nr
>f Ot� t03 p �0�001Q s'}:f0 Q:ty �
a3 dDii� �Di � Kle� M;N N riC3 �i� �
�1 N? N N' � N r tV N; �y (V � �y t(V N a--
d� N: N N� cV cV ; N t�t i N c�E � �y 1 cV. N��tV
I
, N
) i��E �n tc, �`� "°" `..""tl"""" � ..
d( N N 4 N N i��� � f° �.- IL7 ��•Q)
5679
5661
�_�
J° ' ° ��
N N
� �
OAKWOOD v <v
PARK
�
LoNIAL ViI.L�AGE
IILE H K
i � u� '�,�:' � .
, '° r �
, N � '`'� iN: N N
lf3 �SO N� O o O�� �
(y r , � a W p�
li`q N r �y � N cV N N s cV �
d N c�a : cv c� : N, c`�'.s r0 ! N���c`�v i� o w,�� 5590 t� o� M �� � P rn n{.- ,r, � �
N � N N� r� � r � et t7 Ph � N� a� O� Gt 1�
r P Y r r+ �+
OAK1°,,,,,_ ``' ��`�t �`� `� �`"i PF c�a ra cv ! c� cw f cv N N c�, �°�o
°� o ��_ <o
JIN ��.J �„� N �� N
4.w� ,.,
� � � ' M Id9 `..
a� Ca fe�y i N N N it�
`��� N�CV N N N
�`m�Ni�-� o�� o1:
a i�'�aN.�. ���'� ���1
�IOld��tp �(p
N N�;� ��y 1
N N;c�S�CV N�N
'
� � , c�a cv
�'r t O O O� � ��D Q7 � M t0 tX1 � tD � O N 1D Q } 3� O
! Nf fV N a- � le to tfl kP) � M t� t N r r O C) oy � 3� �a
�� � YV N eV N LV N N EV N tV � N? N C�t � N� N Ev o o �
N�N N�� 4N
�"�"� �..�" � �1..
h
N �C9 � �� u7 1� . Of M P� �f M t� U� Y f� P` lA � h s-
�� tV 1� <D u] cn d� M M N�- P- � Q o� � a� � h P�
N N N EV N r r�- r r- r O� O O� O O
N N ry tV N t�E N N cV � lV N� N lV , N cV
� � DR
��� co�t � j � ^��� N� � o o e� a c o � a o� c o
o w f r� +n N � r o o� ai ao f e�
N ��� lV 9.N�CV N1C�! N�tV N�N �N�N�N���toV ��f��f�N .
� , � .
� � ��� h O+ � M j t� Cf M Ce 6D r— i�ry t� aw 1fl �
IA � P% F7 N r O OY � �� �
r r- r r �- r r Q C: Q O
N N' N�t�f N�CY�tViN N N�CV N�CltfV N R�d�tV
Zo�ing Ii�ap Flanning Case 570-99
Appli�ani: Johnson V'�.r.ria.r�ce Request
Loca�ior�: 2075 � 20�1 Hi11�ri�w Roa�
. ;::' .::. .�� i . . :
:.>: - . �.,-. � .i- �- :: . :. . ; i . i .
�iiy of M�und� �/ie�
Loc�ti�n i��p
�
� � :� IIII�It.��i.'i��.�
��■ �� �� - ■
� � ,�� � !�: .���/�lllll
■ i i M' �r: ��� � � :���11llllli■
■ •��■ ■r■■ .■■.■ �1�.■■ ■..� ��������
r■�.. �� ■�� � � ������
r�ie� �� �� �� �� � -`♦'
� �� �� �� �� �� ���
� r�r� �� ��I �! !'! �. .���
�w�r�����
� ��r. �� - -
� r�� �� �� : E ...
� �� �� r� �� �: - "._.
� �� � �� ��
�� �l�� f�� I■� rr�� �
� �� ��� �� ���: ■� ��: ���� �[f���! f�ifi11I11l1111 i�� ��� ��
..A �.. �� .� S. �. ■ . ■.. ���#1!!�/I11i1i1 �111 ����� ��
�■ � �� es .� .� ..r ■ . .. .
� �� •••�• =,: � .. �� � ; :: : ������i1 N�II Il lliilllllllliill
sa� ��.. �� �%/i%
� �� �.■. �� t� � � �� � I��f�f/
.�.� �•• ..—= p� �� •••• 11111�11111l�1111
�� w�� „�� �C �� �����i i� i 11111�/ /
�� �� �_. .� •� a... /u1r 1,j� �� � i11i 11��1ii
�� �r. --�-� _... .■,���••- - S �r �������� �������
�� � ..- -- -- • . ... ������r�r ..
��rr ���� .��� �� ■. .��1��. .� �
■ ���i �� � � !6� � ��
'� ���� �� � !■�,� �C
-a :� =: ■ �= .: �_ .�
li����e..: � � �� ;� ���
tr -- _., �� _ Il1111�
� s� ■ �� ��`I �
.. �` � � !!■�R\
, ii � � �� ..i��11r� !1■���� ■�
Jeffrey N. Jahnson
2075 and 2081 Hillview Road
Variance (�ero Foot Setback)
Planning Case No. 570�-99
2075 & 2081 Hillvi�w Ro�d
� � =; Properties Within 350'
�
�'
�
`.
�
�
�;�``
`..
�:�
♦
�
�
�
�
�
,`
�:
�
�
1''
a09 I-
�;
�
�
,
...
�:
1.
.
�
.
.
.
�
.
•
.
.
.
�
.
�
.
,�
I"'; :. � � � � ��� � . � �'_ • �� ` � � ��; °�,, �., �. � � � .
, � ;i ,�. ',1. � r �:r
�:: � � .� ,, - . ,.
�`' 1., .., � i <
�•. -..:� _ ; '��, ,�� :, , � �� ., :� ��--�_ ; � .: , � �� �� �� �; � , : _ .�< ��: � ! �� ���t '� .
� 1 : 1 % �� ; `; �, °� .� ; �. �1� � `. � ��� : � 1 " ���C'� . ,1 "1 - "° , ', � %, "1, 1_° , �'> :_
� :1=
� �- ..: �`` 1 i :i- f;l '. 1 :: , / ' ! � b ` ',1 ! : '
C :1 ; 1 � �, :�: ,. F � , , :f `, I: ,. , �- ; , �, - � . � �
W�E�A�, Jeli7ohnson o�F2081 Hillview Road has applied for a variance to allow for a
one-foot sideyard setback for proposed garages at 2075 Hillview Road and 2081 Hillview Road;
and, -
W�EREA�, 2075 Hillview Road (PIN # OS-34-23-41-0011) is property zoned R-3,
Medium Density Residential, legally described as foilows:
The west 103 feet of the east. 414 feet of the north 1 b0 feet of the south 193 feet
of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter ofSection 5, Township 30, Range 23
Ramsey County, Minnesata
W�1tEAS, 2081 HiIlview Road (PIN # OS-30-23-41-4005} is property zoned R-3,
Medium I)ensity Residerztial, legatly described as follows:
The west 103 feet of the east 517 feet of the north 160 feet of the south 193 feet
of the northeast quarCer of the southeast quarter of Section 5, Township 30, Range 23
Ramsey County, Minnesota
W�Ei2�AS, the Mounds View Flanning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
l. Planning Appiication
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Pro�osed Site 1'lan
5. StafiReport
Resoiution 591-99
Johnsor� �Iariance
' _ October 6, 1999
Page 2
��E1�AS, the purpose af the variance provisian in the Zoning Code is io give relief to
property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship
thereby restricting the �mproverrxent of property due to practical dif�culties brought a6oui by
unique or extraordinary features of the physicat property that are beyond the property owner's
control; and,
W�EI2EAS, a pubiic hearing was held Wednesday, September 15, 1999, with regard to
this variance request; and,
�l�EE�AS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 ofthe Mounds View Municipal
Code, the Planning Cominission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all musi be
satisfied, in order to grani a variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW9 1�'-'1�` FOL�P�9 �E IT 1��OLVE�99 the Mounds View Planning Commission
finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of fihe Mounds View
Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the properties
located at 2075 Hillview Road and 2081 Hillview Road ta warrant the approvai of a variance to
JeffJohr►son for the construction of garages one-foot from the common property line between the
two parcels, and makes the following findings of faet related to its decision:
l. Exceptional or extraordir�ary circunnstances apply to 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road which
da not appty general(y to other properties in the same zor�e or vicinity in that the amount
of slope at the back of the praperty makes development prohibitively difficuit.
2. The Iiterai interpretation of the ;provisians of this Tit1e would deprive ihe applicani of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
Title in that multi-car garages are desired in this district and serve as �a physical
impravement to properties.
3. The varia�ce reyuest is the result of factors over which the applicant has had no contral. In
addition to the topography, the buildi;igs were constructed in such a way as to restrict tihe
available area that can be utilized for the tocation of garage structures.
4. Granting a variance to aliow a one-foot sideyard setback would allow the applicant to
pravide three �arage stalls for each buildin� where there are no garages currently,
5. The Planning Cominission finds ihat �he requested one-foot setback is the minimum
vaciance that would aileviate the applicant's hardship.
6. The purpose of �he variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners
seeking to improve �heir properties yet are unable to do so because of zorumg code
requirement� and factars beyond their contral. Granting this variance foz' a reduced
Resolution 591-99
7ohnson Variance
Octo6er 6, 1999
Page 3
sideyard setback would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to
other property in the same zone.
7, Two three-car garages located behind the four-plexes at 20i5 and 2081 Hiilview �Zoad
wouid not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger
of iire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values.
I�OW9 'I'�EI�FO�, �E I'I' �'iTl�'I`��IZ 1tESOi,`�D, the Mounds Vievv Planning
Commission approves the variance request for a reduced sideyard setback for two garage
structures to be constructed ane foot from the common properiy line between 2075 and 2081
Hiliview Road, continge�t upon:
The applicant submitting a�•evised survey-quality site plan shovving the garages
with a one-foot sideyard setback, a fence connecting the front and baek of the
garages, and all other pertinent dimensional and struciural information.
2, The applicant arranging to have recorded with Ramsey County this resolution o�
approval and provide proof of such recordation to the City withi� 60 days of the
date of approval, or this variance shalI be rendered null and void. :a
Adopted this 6th day of Octaber, 1499
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTE�T:
Rick Jopke, Community Develapment Director
(SEAL)
N:\DATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASES15 70-9 915 9 1-9 9YC.RES
�, ; ;� ; �; ;+ ;� ; : � 1 < :�:: °.,
I�[�etea�� Daie:
�taif Repo�•t by:
Plannic�� Case IV000
R�c�aes�o
Peiitporaero
IJocat�on:
;, ;�,,; ., �
Zonang/Laead i7seo
Applicable IS�gulatron�:
�ctober 6, 1999
James Ericson, Plannit�g Associate
571-99
Conditional Use Permit to allow for an oversized shed
Alan Bz Tammy Doroff
8270 Eastwood Road
06-30-23-11-0079
lz-1 / Single Family Resideniial
1 l Ob 03 Subd. 1: No accessory building other than a garage shaii exceed 2 i 6 sq.uare feet
except by CUP,
1 lOb:03_ Subd, lh: The combined square footage for al1 accessory buildings on a lot shatl not
occupy more than 20% of the rear yard,
Atiacla�nents: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Location l�ap
Siie Plan
Resolution 595-99
�ae�groe�ndo
The applicants, Alan and Tammy Iaoroff, have applied for a conditional use pernut to consYruct a
384 square-foat shed in the backyard o�their home tocated at 8270 Eastwood Road. The area of
thi� property is 18,711 square feet, or ,43 acres. Mast af the lots in tius neighborhood are af the
same size, many of which are improved with similar types o�split-entry homes with attached
double car garages. The shed, described to be a barn-like structure fifteen feet tall, would be
situated behind the in-ground }�ool as indicated an the site plan.
The backyard of the DoroflFs' property is enclosed by an eight-fooi tal� wood fence which offers
complete screening of the backyard area from ihe adjacent neighbors. The area of the backyard is
6,�80 square feet, of whici� 3$4 square feet would be �aken for the shed. This woutd amount to a
coverage rate of 6 percent. The Code limiis backyard coverage of accessory buildings to no more
than 20 percent. ihere is an existin� shed that would be removed upon constn,�ction of the new
shed,
Platuung Case No. 571-99
Doroff Shed CUP
October 6, 1949
Page 2
Analyses:
Dimensional Re�ui�ements:
Requ�red
Shed Setbacks (Side} 5 feet_
(Rear) S feet
Percent of Rear Yard < 20%
Total Area of Accessory �uildings: <_ 1,400 sf.
CUP, requi�ements:
Pro ose
b feet
3 S feet
6%
3 �4 sf. (shed)
480 sf, (garage}
864 sf. (Total)
Met�
Mei
IVIet
Met
Met
Sectian 11�b.04 of the Zoning Code states that no accessory building other than a garage shall
exceed 216 square feet excepi by conditional use permit. V41ith a conditionaI use permit, the
maxitnum az°ea for a shed is 400 square feet and for all accessory buildings the ma�mum area is a
combined 1,400 square feet. As with any conditional use pertnit appl�cation, the Planning
Cort►mission needs to examine the possible adverse effects of the proposed use and review the
general CUP eriteria ar►d specific CUP requirements, if any are listed.
Section 1125.01, Subdivision 1e lists the general adverse effects criteria which need to be
�.ddressed in order for a conditional use perinit to be approved. ihese criteria are as follows:
1.
2.
4.
3.
Relationship with the Compr�ehensivePlan.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the deveiopment and maintenance of residentiai areas
so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residentiat
property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8270 Eastwood
�Zoad, law-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The Geographical Area Involved.
The Character of the Su�rounding Area
Almost every lo� in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the sub�ect property.
Many of the homes in the immedia.te area have a similar split-entry design and have attached
two-car garages. Many of the homes t�ave sheds in additior� io their garages.
Whethe� such use zvill tend to or actually dep�eciate the area in wl�ich it is proposed.
It is not believed that the construction of the shed, even one so larg� as is praposed by the
applicants, wo�ald depi•eciate the neighborhood. The shed would be completely screened
excepi for the peak, whic� fnight be visible from the adjacent properties. The sh�d would
Planning Case No. 57 2-99
Doroff Shed CUP
October b, 1999
�. Page 3
allow the applicants ta store all of their pool equipnnent, yard equipment and other
common items in one structure without taking away any room in the garage.
5. The demonstrated need for such a use,
The existing garage is a small, two-car garage af only 480 �quare feet. While expanding the
garage to the i•ear is feasible, this option would take up well-utilized backyard space ne�rt io
the home, The applicants desire to construct the shed behind the pool in a less-used part of
ihe yard to minimize the itnpact of adding 3 84 square-feet o� accessory building space.
This proposal satisfactoriiy addresses the adverse effects criteria. Also in Section I 125.01, the
P(anning Commission is to consider the general conditional use permit criteria, which ace as
foilows:
(1) The use will not create an excessive but�den on existing parks, schools, st�eets and
other public facilities crnd utililies which serve or are proposed z'o seYVe the area.
(7J The use will not cause t�affzc hazards op congestion.
(8) Aca'ec�uate utilities, access roads, d�arnage and necess�ary facilities have been or
will be provided. �
The addition oi a storage shed, even ane as large as that proposed, would nflt create a
--- greater impact on existing public facilities or sarvices, on utilities or aceess roads, nor
�vould it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets.
(2j Tdre use will be suf�ciently compatible or separated by distance oY screening from
cadjorcent �esidentially zoned op used land so ihat existrng homes will nat be
dep�eciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant Zand.
(3) The struc�ure and site shall have an appear�ance thcat will not hcrve an adve�se
effect upon adjcrcent residential properties.
The location af ihe shed behind the home and garage would hide it from general public
view. �ecause of the tali fence surrounding the backyard area, the shed itself would be
screened even from the adjoining properties as well. The shed wauld have a barn-like
design, similar to ane on an adjacent property, and would neither be incompatible with nor
detrimental to this district.
(4) Tlae use, an the opinaon of the City Council, rs �easonably �elated to the averall
needs of the City and to the existing land use.
(S) Td�e use is consistent wzth the purposes of the Zoning Code and the pu�poses of
the zanrng district in which the applicant rntends to locate the proposed use.
(6) The use is noi in confZict with ihe Compr�ehensive Pl.an of the City.
5heds and out-buildings are typical uses in residential areas, and aliow for fl�ze storage of
yard and garden equipment . Having this shed will aI1ow the properiy owners to replace a
Plamung Case No. 571-99
Doroff Shed CLTP
October 6, 1999
Page 4
dilapidated metal shed and io store items currently left outside within a secure and
protected struciure.
Staff beiieves that this proposal meets the general requirements as indicated above. In addition to
these general eonditional use permit criteria, Section 1106.04, Subdivision 7 lisis the specific
criteria which need to be met in order to approve a conditional use permit for an over-sized shed.
The criteria with responses are as follows:
a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103. 06 of this Title and
subdivisron 1106.03(l� of this Trtle.
This section of the Code dictates where in the yard an aecessory building can be located.
The proposed shed wauld be located in the rear yard, which ia the only place a shed can be
located according to �he Code.
b. The combined square footage of all crccesso�y buildzngs on one lot cannot exceed
one thousand fou� hundred (1, 400) square feet.
The area of the garage (480 square feei) atld the proposed shed (3 �4 square feet) total
�64 square feet, well within the 1,400 maximum allowance.
',
c. The accessory building shall noP exceed four hundred (400) squaYe feet.
The proposed shed would be 3�4 square feet.
d. The burldrng must be a permanent st�ucture,
The shed would be a wood-framed stiructure mounted upon a concrete pad. Ii is
considered permanent,
e. The building shall be designed and nzaintained to pr�ovide a unzfo�nz appea�ance
with the cdwelling unit. �
The appearance of the shed will be diflFerent from the house, in that it will he a finished
wood exterior having a barn-like design. The structure would be located in the backyard
completely out of public view makes wluch makes this requirement ►ess af ar� issue. T�e
facfi that tnost sheds are of a finished�wood consfiruction makes this all the more typical.
f. Should the use for which the permit was gYanted be changed, the permit shall be
subjecP to �econside�^ataon, revocation or otdrer cactaon regr�lated by Sectron
1125.01 of this Title.
The app(icants indicate that this shed would 6e used strictly for �torage, and that no -
activities would be proposed for the structure other than starage.
Planning Case No. 57 i-99
Doraff Shed CUP
October 6, ] 999
Page 5
Staff believes that all of the specific CUP requirements, as well as the general requirements and
the adverse ef%c�s criteria are satisfied. Any adverse affects of this accessory structure are
minimal and are iar out-weighed by the overall benefits.
ltecoat�mendation:
Approve Planning Commission Resolution Na. 595-99, recom�nending to the Ci�y Council
approvai of a conditiona( use permit for Alan and Tammy Doroff, allowing a 3�4 squaremfoot
oversized shed at 8270 Eastwood Road, with stipulations.
L.1 �.� ��,�,�
James Ericso¢�, Pianning Associate
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASES1571-991SHED-CUP.PC 1
ai,�7U/i n,{,?
Cav il , ,�i..
�); f�,;;. ��;;;'• CO1�I�iITT D��I�O� + l�i`Y" DEPA� I�'
�° D�VEY,OP�rT�' APP�,I�A1"IG
�a F:?�P� `�" .
p� �:::,,.,�; 2401 Highwa.y lO,1Vlounds Vi�w MN 55112
°'�''�, • PartneYe�`�Qb 6I2-717-4020
61�•784-3462 - FAX
`� � � — G� i �5
Please �'y�e or �rte�t Iaformataon - Complete Bo#h Sides of �'his �'ertn
� 3 - U��I�
AppEieant Int°or�aEin�n ` �
Name of Applicant ! Te€ephone _� % � �'�C�� —� /`�
Adds-ess � � ��
� � i > ���,
�In�crest ia' P�°ap�rrt�� (check appropriate box)
� Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner
p Lessee, Operator, Manager o A�ee►nent to Purchase
❑ �ther {expIain} _ _
Applicants must peovide evide�►ce of interest sn property at 4he ta�e o�' appGc�E[on, anci ef yo� a�re not the ownee° of �he
property, yau enust provide a lecfe�° of pee°enission fr�� thc o�vvner giv€ng consent to tlae t"i1in� of this applicaEion. The
peoperty ow�ne�° �aust sig�t tl�is appli�ation fmr it to be accepte�l.
Properiy I}eseiaptio�/Proposal
Address oc General Location
Legai Description
Property Identsfication # (PIN #)
# of Acres
Current Zoning
�
Type of Application
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ R�a��
Q Major Subdivision
� Minor Subdivision
o Planned Unit Develapment (PUD)
� PUD Aznendment
Conditional Use Pennit
❑ Variance
❑ Code AppeQl
n Develop Review/Site 1'lan
o W�tland AlYeration Pemut
❑ WetEaaid But%r Pertnit
o Ftoodpiain Pemiit
� Other
�ZSa
$250/acre; u�in $250 max $ i 500
$250 + $250 deposit*
$200
Refer to rezoning fees
$350
R-1, R-2 $7S; all others $250
R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250
�i00
� 1 ZS/acre; min $12S ma,� $75fl
R- I, R-2 $ I 50; ali others $20fl
R-1, R-2 $25; all others $ i 00
�200
#Deposi�s shall be paid to cover all costs ot public notices, materiais and staff or consultant time sgent in the review,
research or preparAtion of materiais associated widi this appllcation, ?'he applicant shalI be responsib[e for all reasonable
incurred costs in �:ccess ofthe initiai de�osit amount. Anv porEion �f the deposit r�ot s-pent or encumbered shait be refunded
to the applicant within ttiirty (30) c�ays after cansideration of the application is compleeed.
Please co�s�riete �he reverse sid� o€ii�is :applle�Yios�e
���,
�
c�ey of Mounds ��ew, N[N
I)evelo�meni t�ppiic�tion ,_ Fage Z
Present Use of Praperty
❑ UndevelopedNacant
❑ Duple�cfl'wo Family Dweiling
o $usiness/Commercial Establishment
❑ Other (explain) �
� 5ingle FamiIy Dwelling
'❑ ` Mutti-family Dwelling
❑ Industri�i Establishment
Pronertv ClASS�cation a Abstract � Torrens
BY MY (OUR} SIGNAT'URE ON THIS APPLICATFON. I HEREBY DECLARE THAT. TO THE BEST OP MY
KNOWT,EDGE, TI� INFORMATION PRUV]DED IS TRUE ANU ACCURATE.
Signature of Applicant
Nam� of Appiicant (typed/printed}
Signature ofProperty Owner
Nazne of Praperty OWner {lyped/printed)
Address of Owner
Phone Nvmber of Owner
. ..
_,� 1 1 � r,�.
,
� , � � � � ��
M �' �t` �
� r��` • _; ��► _.,
+� � ` �' -r� . : _ �.r �' ��
l.! � '
� ° � i1 " . a '-:
� � �, �
� +
r� � � � ,
�������������������,����*��**�����**�*�*��**�*���*�*������#*�����*��������*��*���*,���������#�*�,��
F�R OFFI�E i18� Ot�iI.Y
Date of Submittal �-- I O�- °t `?
Date of Acceptance Assigned to:
Placu�ing Case No. �% /���_ 50-day Limit 120-day limit
Fees Paid: a Account # Check # Receipt #
Application: 7 5 �`� / D 0 .�� `% _� e�. � � � ���.1� �--
Park Dedication: -�--
Deposits: —
Other:
Totat:
N:IDATA\GROUP5ICOMDEV\FORMSI�EVAPP.FOR
i/as
—NORTH COU
` .�' 84991 � I N @494 �4
a47o .,'.' 8�75
84fi 8¢60
8465
8460 g45 g456 �
6440 8441 � 8455
8432 ¢ 8431 � 84-44 8443
8435
8424 8425 �W 8434
H425
8400 842Q
.,_. 84t5 yy_�. 84i5
8392 6�1 8406 8405
8384
n 8376 8389 g'�0 8378
� " _ — .w
V„� 37 g379 8380 6373
� s��$ 8372 M.M
ao�83fi 8388
8360 8355 � __
8354 g3q5 8364 �345
1834G � 834D d331
a3ss
8342 a325 8312 �315
8332 8315 8300 8303
6322 g30S 82s� 8295
8300 a 8285 8280 8287
= 8275 g270 � 8281
�VELAND � 8255�� 8a6fl � 8273
a
A�� v` 8255 8250 gyg7
N
�; � � � � saao s2s9
N
N� N N 8230 8255
�
n
0
v
�o N Q u�i I
N N ^
8484 808
_ 8075
8046 8045
8038 `
8025 8025
�Qi6 8095
� aaoa eoos
�_ �,,..., 7aa�
821i
8175
8145
8135
Bf25 8
N r
� Ni
u
8067 �
8071
8059
8039
80�& sooe
8004 7983
8490 64B
g4g4 847
8474 8479
846� 8�bfi
8454 845
8444 � 844
8434 8�3
8424
8414 �2
84Q4 841
639p 8405
8384 6395
8370 838
83b0 9375
8350 8355
ft3.an 8345
L! N E� � . . _...� . .
�
N 84fIQ
8470
8475
848fi ""'
8457 °
5 .,.,._
S 8450 8465 �1� '
5 8444 8453 �8464
3 8432 8441 8454 y�
- 8444
5 � 8428 8429 8425
5 8408 8415 84 51 8448
8400 �g5 �8400 a 8405 e��
8380 8�84 8390 8395 83�d
5 � 8370 -- — _._.
8360 �79_. $380 8385 9J84
8350 8375 � 8376 8375 � 8376
�71 g37g 83fi5 836
8315 8318 8323
8305_ 8310 8325
8291 E290 8285
8281 �� —
• 8273
8271 ', � , 2Ja - --
6261 µ_ 8285
s2s3 ~ 8z5o szs5
saa9
N �`7 N N N 8231
� 8205
9184 8183
81B0 8185
– � 0'`^ 1 �81 fi0 8171 �
� - ".�.'�
� � � � �~ 8150 8165
�� �i6, 614fi
8� ��s, 814Q 8141
�131 R
f n `� � � i � 8111 ^
1 Z 1 N � N cv ; N cv
ERWOOD
8088 eD75 g 8099 �c
N N C
B068. 8071 8068 8071
BO50 8055 8080 8065
8042 8045 8052 gag9 �
8a32 E033 8040 8035
SU18 8011 8000 8021 y
epeg 841!
7990 � 7981 � 7990 C� 7989
Zor�ing Map plannit�g Ca�e 57 ��99
Appli�ant: Doroff Shed CUP Requ�si
L,ocation: �270 E�.st�vood l�.oad
�3d0 8325
$aat
8320 8395 834
83�0 8J05 B33
290 8295 8311
80 0 8273
60 � 8267 830(
� Z 1�_.._—_.
s5o � $25� sase
8242 � N� � � j 26(
Bi3Z N 1 N N� 825(
8140 --'
-�--- 8135
�� 8132 8t2T
N1°w �°o::: � � � � 'p 8101
cV:�, N N N N
� 8085 � N �86 gf ryg�
su%2 so%i � eo%2 0 �o�i
BO50 �sfl �
8044 8045 gp� 8D41
8032 8031 �3B �035
8022 8019 8030 .
80D0 �009 801U 8099
7ooa _ 7eo c 7cion ..
,::
;.
� `-' �
°a
N
aaaa
-�
# � �,:" • '. � ':
_ :i ,. . � '..., ;r �
�
� �� �� �rrr� -� �� �� �� �� ,
s ��� �w�
� �� � �� � r� ��
� w �� �� �r �� �� �� �■ ��
� � �� �s
s r� `_ —_ ��� � �� � �� ��
�� �� ,� �� �� �� �� ��
� � _ �■�w ■ _ �� �� ��
� � ,� �rC �C �r�� r� �� �� �� ��
� �� �� �� s� �� � � � ��
� � �� r■� �■ �� = s�
: 1 ��• '♦.� �'���� ��
r � �w� � —� �� a��� ��
■�-it �� �� � �s� � ��
�
�� �� �1�� � ����� � �1��
` �� ■��� ���� ����� liil� + �il ���
�.:==��'.�� �IIII �'��`�
�� � �� �Il�i � �
�,: ;.,� � �... _ , �►`.,,.. �r�
� .r r� � ��Ill�i�� ��� ������ ■ �� �����
�� �� �� � ���� ���� ��� ��� ����
� .��. - _ __ _.. �_ ._
� �i �r i� ��� �
� �� �� ■� �� �� ��
r� �� r�
;�� �� �� �� �r ��
; � �� �� �� �� ■��
� r� ,�� �� �� ��
, ,s �� �� �� �� ��
�� � �� w�
�` :
=■ �
}1:� � �
�i��7 == �1� i�= �
:,i:� __� i�����-�:
�� � ��� ■���
= = ...:: =
��.. .... .���
�■��■ • ��� ����r
_.. �ii_ �..
�� �� �� �
�� �� �� �
�� �� �� C
�� �� �� i
�� �� �� �
�� �� �i i
Alan & Tammy Doroff
8270 Eastwood Road
Conditional Use Permit (Oversized
Accessory B[dg.)
Planning Case No. 57i-99
:��:� .::�;.:;: �>::: �
'�:�;;:�:
���:.,.
8270 Eastwood Road
f�roperties Within 35Q'
�
�
\
`^,.:
�
�
�
a`
�:
w
4
\
�
�w
�.
�
�
\
�.
\
�'
�
.•,
,<
�
�
:..1
�
0
�
0
C
�
�
0
.�
C
�
�
�7
�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
N
�
V
�
�
�
�
�
i
I
.
.,\.
�
�
,
,
�
_
.
�
..��
F'
�`
i
�
�,M.,
�.
_
r
�
�
p�o� apls�uun�
� �° � �
�����
�1.�:�...��.....
F"�'��': <I
� a
� �
i�
..�....: =�i
. ._
•
�.
. .
. ,
, . _
,-
.
.
��
� �'��� � [, ; �-� �;; ,.
� .. �� � � "���� �
,. �� � �
I,
��.:�.::�`�.
• -.
.
.
i - ��: - �� �� � ;�_ ;. � E ._: . � ��r� : t ��� ���
� ,�; :� �. �. �. .: �; _. , ���;
� � � ;�
�, `� 'r
� :1�: Y � -'. ': . . � ����., :.
i�, : .�' : . . : ;� ', �, �,' ,�` .,, � ��. ' ".:.. .."�. �', ;. :. i :� "r ►?. • . � ` :�' ... , -.�.! �`. �, : : '; :,�, .� +.. ' ' 1 ' u.- _< "
1
- -�4 f � '�'� .' . �.. �� � ; , 1 ' _� =�a" �- [ .,�� '� ` �. "�` - ��� �' � ��. . �
' � f �" �;'�"r � �' .�' - �1 ;�.� ��. � �- - ;�t- .,�: 1�. �.1�-
`���AS, Alan and Tammy l�oroff have applied fbr a conditionai use permit io
construct a 384 square-faofi shed on properiy they own, located at �270 Eastwaod Road, zoned
R-1, �ingie Famity Residential, legally described as followed:
Lot 3, �lock 29 EPi.�`� �alL.�y
Ramsey Cou�aty, .1�linnesot�
�'�E�A�, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows by conditional use sheds up to 400
square feet in area and no more than 1,400 square feei totai accessory building space on one Ioi;
and,
�I��EA�, the Pianning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding %
this proposal: "
a. Planning Applicatian
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plan
d. Area Niap with Building Footprints
e. Location Map
f. StaffReport
�hI�E�,�S, the Planning Commission finds that the dirnensional requirements as stated
in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this prapQSal have been met; and,
�'�EREAS, the Planning Commission makes ihe foliawing findings that possible ac€vers�
effects hav� been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.OI Subd. l.e.:
�. Relationship �!zth the Compt�ehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and mainienance of residential areas so
as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential
property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8270 Eastwood iZoadE,
low-density residentia[. This proposal do�s not conflict with the Comprehensive Flan.
2. The Geogrcaphical A�ea Involved -
Planni�ng Commission Resolution 595-99
October 6, 1999
Page 2
4. The C1zaYacteY of the Surrounding Area
Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is ihe same size as ihe subject property. Many
of the homes in the immediate area ha.ve a similar split-entry design and have �ttached two-car
garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to ti�eir garages.
3. WhetheY such use lvill tend to or actually depreciate tlae area in which it is ppoposed.
It is not be(ieved that the construction of the s�ed, even one so large as is proposed by the
applicants, would depreciate the neighborhood. The shed would be completely screened
except for the peak, which might be visible from the adjacent properties. The shed would
allow the appli�ants to store atl of their pool equipment, yard equipment and other common
items in one structure without taking away any room in the garage.
5. The demonstr�ated need for such a use.
The existing garage �s a small, two-car garage of only 480 square feet. While expanding the
garage to the rear is feasible, this option would take up well-utilized backyard space neAt to the
home. The applicants desire to construct the shed behind the pool in a less-used part of ihe
yard to minimize the impact of adding 3�4 squareafeet of accessory building space.
W�IB�AS, �he Planning Cornmission makes the following findings regarding the general
criieria for approvaI of a conditionai use permit, as required by Section 1125.OJ. Subd. 3,6.:
(1) The use ��ill not c��eate an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, stYeeis and
other� pub�ic facilities and utiltt�es which serve or' are proposed to se�ve the crrea.
(7) Tl�e use will not cause traf�c hazards ar congesiron.
(8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessaYy facilities have been or tivill
be provided.
The addition of a storage shed, even one as large as that proposed, would not create a
greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities ar access roads, nor would
it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets.
(2) The use will be suf'ficiently compatible or separated by disiance o� screening, fronz
adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existzng homes will not be
depreciated in value and iheYe will be no deterYence to development of vacant land.
(3) 7�ie structzere and site shall have an appeapance that tivall not have an adverse ejfect
upon adjace�at residential p�operties.
The location of tY�e shed behind ihe hame and garage would hide it frorra generai public
view. �ecause of the tall fence surrounding the backyard area, the shed itself would be
screened even from the adjoi;ung propei-ties as well. The shed would have a barn-like
- design, similar io one on an adjacent property, and would neither be incompatible with nor
detrimental to this district.
Platming Commission Resolution 595-99
October 6, 1999
Page 3
(4) The use, in the opinion of the Ciiy Council, is reasonably pelated to the overall
needs of the City and to Phe existrng land use.
(S) The use is consistent with the purposes of t1�e Zoning Code and the pur°poses of the
zoning drstrict in which the applicant intends to locate the pYOposed use.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the Czty.
Sheds and out-buildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of
yard and garden equipment . Having this shed will allow the property owners to replace a
dilapidated tnetal shed and to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected
stnacture.
W�E1�AS, the Planning Commission makes the folIowing findings regarding the specific
cup requirements as s}�ecified in 5ection 1106,04, Subdivision 7:
cr. The accessory build.ing ryrust confornz with Section I.103. 06 of this Title and
subdivision 1106.03(l} of thrs Title.
ilus section of the Code dictates rx�here in the yard an accessory building can 6e locaied.
The proposed shed would be located in the rear yard, which is the only place a shed can be
located according to the Code.
b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot car�not exceed
one thousand four hundred (1, 400) square feet.
The are�. of the garage (480 square feet} and the praposed shed �3 �4 square feet) totals 864
square feet, well within the I,400 maximum allowance.
c. The accessory building shall nat exceed four hundred (400) square feet.
The proposed shed w�uld be 384 square feet.
d. The building rnust` be a pernzanent structure.
The shed would be a wood-framed structure mounted upon a concrete pad. It is considered
pertnanent.
e. Tlie building shall be designed and naaintained io provide a uniforrrt appecrrance
wrth the dwelling unit.
T'he appearance of th� shed will be differ�nt from the house, in thai ifi will be a�nished
wood extersor having a barn-like desi�n. The fact that most sheds are of a firushed-wood
construction makes this ail the more typical arguably uniform in appearan�e.
Platiiii�g Commission Resolution 595-99
October b, 1999
Page 4
f. Should the use for which the permit was gr°anted be chcrnged, the pe�r�zit shall be
subject to reconsideratian, �evocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.O1
of this Title.
The applicants indicate that this shed would be used strictly for siorage, ar�d that no
activities would be proposed for the structure other than storage.
NOW9 �����OI�, �E I`� �SOI.�I) that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recammends approval of the conditional use permii with the follawing stipulations:
The conditionai use permi;i sha(1 be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days
af City Council approval, and proof of such recording shall be provided to the City
of Mounds View.
2. The shed sha(1 not be used for living spaee or other uses r�ot ailowed by the district
in wl�ich it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the
permit was granted, the eonditional use permit shaIl become null and void.
3. No other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the existing garage shall be
allowed on tivs Iot.
�E IT' FIl�1�I..��' l�SOI�i�ii that the Planning Commission directs staff io forward this
resoiution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted tfus bth day of �ctober, 1999.
Jerry Petersan, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community I�evelopment Director
(SEAL)
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASES1571-991595-99PC.RES
:, � �_�l �, , i W�
To: Mounds View Planning Comtnission
From: James Ericson, Planning Assaciate
Subject: Driveways
RE: Pianning Case No. 55�-99
Date: Meeting of October 6, 1999
�a�k�r°ou�d:
At your meeting on �eptember 1, 1999, John Henning, property owner of 8359 Red Oak Drive,
was before the Planning Commission to request a variance for a wider than allowed driveway. As
you may recall, his driveway was installed after sta�'had informed him that the proposed
driveway was too wide. While the appearance of the driveway certainly is not unappealing, the
fact remains that it is too wide, and there did not appear to be any basis for granting a variance, as
there was no discernible hardship.
Staffindicated that perhaps the Code could be modified to allow for wider driveways in some
situations, given that three-car garages are no longer the exception--three car garages are the
norm. With that, the Planning Commission tabled Mr, Henning's request, directing staf�to
research this issue as to what ott�er cities require--or do not require--with regard to driveway
Wi�t�iS.
The follawing table represents the end product of this research.
Ivlounds View
New Brighton:
Arde�n HtIls:
Fridley:
Roseviile:
Spring Lake Park
�horeview:
Driveway width requirement
at street (property line);
_____________________m.._______a
22' at street
24' at street
22' at str�et
28' at street
26' afi street
24' at street
24' at street
Dtiveway width requirement
in yard:
3 5 feet
None
Cannat exceed 25% offront yard width
IVone
None
No wider than �he garage
None, so long as impervious surf°ace
does not exceed 40% �overage o£ iot
Blaine: 30' at street None
Driveway lZeport
October 6, 1999
Page 2
As can be seen frotn the resutts af this research, Mounds View's requirements tend to be rmare
restrictive than neighboring cities. While Arden Hills has the same maximum curb cut width for
driveway�, no City other than Arden Hills and Spring Lake Fark puts any Iimitation on the �width
of the driveway as it approaches the garage. V41ith Arden Hills; the width limitation is tied to tlxe
widtk of the property--a 240' wide lot then could have a 50' wide driveway. Spring Lake Park
limits driveways to the width of the garage. The obvious follow-up question is, "How wide can a
garage be?" The answer is 1,000 square feei, Thus a person could construct a 5�' wide by 20'
deep garage and have a 50' wide driveway.
Bec�use of this �nsight, �taff is proposing ihat the I'lanning Commission consider the follow
amendment to the City Code pertairiing to driveway widths. Tn Section 1104.01, Subdivision
4c(1}(a), the underlined and italicized te� could be added to the existing sentence:
"The combined width for driveway and parking surFaces shall not exceed thiriy five feet (35'), or
the width o the a� ra�e �lus an additior�al Pen eet (10'), whichever is�eate�°. "
The other approach to solving tlus code imposed hardship is to remove the phrase "parking
space" from that provision, so as to only measure the width of the drive, presumably interpreted
to be the width of the garage. The downside to thai approach is thai it would open the door io a
person paving his entire front yard. And while that wautd be a highly unlikely probability, I would
feel rather uncomfortable knowing that ouicome could occur,
l�ecoma�►endatio�a:
Please direci staff to draft language that would amend the Code to allow wider driveways in either
of ihe two fashions described herein or in another manner yet to be discussed and to draft a
resolution indicating the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Ciiy Council consider
and adopt such an amendment.
J � �,
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATAIGROUPS1CO1vIDE V�DEVCASES1568-99�DRIVE WAY.RPT
�
j . .
��� 27 99.12:O1p �ler�d�ll Rm Smi�h �51m484-0699 �_2
- : •��+ �
�� �
I �'i�
��� i j,i� ��
� � i3 i"I a � �
w�s� �.� � .�` �
� ���? �i� "�<<�
w, 4 n
� y s � � p �
�� � ,�� % �,��� � k
.�;' r7`. j �I�l'��� :� ..
N/�nc#el! R. SPflltft
Garxrserdol Reol r�tcte
peveb�merst, 'Gorsulting
and 6rokerage
s@�tEa�}J�.'Y' 2�%p �.999
l�r e Rick �'apke
Gity of Mour3.ds i�iew
2 4 01 kii ghway 1 �
I�otsncts Viet�, N�T 551Z2
R�a ���ice �uil.ding
� � Dear Rick:
, I apologixed for not beinc; at �he l,ast Plaxxnznc� Coat�nission
� m,eeting. E'�r sara.e reasor, T had Thursday �s the meeting
day and I was out of tornm. �xntil. then.
�ased on th� opinion by tk � c�.ty attorn�y, I am rescindirxg
my application to mo�r�e tk�e fence. We will coras�ruct the
bu�.lclings and mee�' th.e £?iTL� requi�ements fa� th� fence
conrxec�ing to the en�.s o:� Each bui.lding.
Thank you for your ti.me ar:.ti consideration of this matt�ra
If you have any quest..�on�, please call me,
�incerely,
� ^�;�� __
�c�nd�ll Ra Sffii�ix .
r �
:'�
_.,��
►, :_ , .,_ : � : ;�., , ; , , �
'g`�: Mounds iliew Planning Commission,
I'ro�n: Ricic Jopke, Caynmunity Development Direcior
Subjec�: Comprehensive Plan Study Sessions
I)�teo September 28, 1999
BACKGRQUND:
If a.Il gaes we11, I will have the draft compxehensive plan text completed early in October. T have
confracted with a GIS consultant (P1anSight) to do the map wark. They wili have preliminary
maps compieted by mid October. I would lilce to scheduie a number of Planning Commission
st�,�dy sessions in October and an informational comYnunity forum in November to present ihe
plan to the community. A formal pub�ic hearing could then be scheduled in early l7ecember.
REQUESTED ACTION:
I would suggest thaf the Planning Commission set special meetings for October 13"' and 27`� to
review the draft plan. If the Platuiing Commission is satisfied wi.th the draft an informational
- commwiity forurn could be held on November 10'�'. It loaks lilce #he October regular meeting
._ agendas may be Iight so there will be opportuniiies to discuss the draft at those meetings also.
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV\PLANCOMM110-6-99.doc
' ' -��;, _ , �1; � �� � � '� _ .� -� '� � ��� �� ., ��, ��� ; � �. : ���, � ;�� �..
'�� �� ��� '�� ': � �- �il � ;I. '�
�'� �� '�� �� '� �� � - :1 ���. "� : � �i�� �� ���.
l�egular IVleeting
Septe ber� 15, 1999
1VYot�nds ���`w Cety �all
�, *,.
240I I�i�h�vly I0, �OUnds;�ew,1V1I� 55�12
:
le C�1I to Or�er
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pet
20 12o1C C'�lt
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Cominissic
Stevenson, and Miiter.
3� � :
1Vlembers Absent: Commissioner Braathen,��i�:�i p� i
Also Present: Pianning Associate Jim;���cson,
Economic Developmenti Coordinato��,��vin Carx��
rnde� to 1�!Iizaie�c�
A variance rec��c,�t t
JeffJohnson, �}7�1i�:
Planning��s`�e o 5
„� �
594-99r�� "resolution
��� .
an o�r;�t�sized garage.
�
c�-l.� ,� H_e�1�z��,; Tohnson, Kaden, Laube,
��' <��
inn�fz����j�= �e��lop�neni Director Rick Jopke,
and R�Corder Trish Pearson.
::. ;
,
�.;
70-9�, 2(�75 �; �p81 Hillview Road. Consideration of
�;�,}iow for �� ��rt� �'�ot garage setback.
Sunnyside l�oacf: Consideration of Resolutian
ie approva! of a conditionai use permit for
Mackeben, App F;�ant`.
ports / Iterr�s>��f Information
. � y,
,;�,w
�sc�zz ���� Pianning Commissianers Reports
3o Citezea��' Reques#s nnd C'on��nents can Item� 1Voi an the A�end�a
There were no citizen requests or comments on items riot on the agenda.
I';��e
�
,.
;.
Nfo�nds Vi��r PDnnr�in� Con,mission Septeanber 15, 1999
Ite�u�:�r I�/ieetin� - P��e 2
4. Appr°ov�l of Nlinutes
A, Aug�si �8, 1999
MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve the August I8, 1999 m
corrected. „
�
Ayes — 8
Pl�nning Cnse l�oe �70-99
Nays — 0
Property Invoived: 2075 & 208I Hillview Road
Consideration of variance request to allow for a zero-foot
Applicant: Jeff Johnson ,���;
The applicant was present.
Planning Associaie Ericson gave the
The applicant, owner of two
multi-family siructures, had i
ta service both 6uiidings. '
invasied con�icierable expe�
The adc�i����1 t�� a �ara�e
�:.
residents; �tad i.� th�,;in�mec
Planning As
would need
both of th�
aithough pos
cant,
woEild
ck.
minutes as
carried.
� >_,,,«
an Hillv��� Road, each improved with four-unit
-statl gu�ge structure between the two buildings
2n �a�v�r ownershi of these two ro erties has
�, P P p ,
��d��gs and making upgrades and iinprovements.
a� c�uestion be beneficial to the property, to its
ed, �i il�e'variance request were to be approved, deed restrictions
,, ,»�:;:
iiid'�p'ply to the garage structures in the event of fire, or if one ar
�Id in the future. He noted, upon review of the City Attorney, this
`not be the most appropriate in this situat�on.
Pl\,�ng Assaciate Er�c��n stated another possible aption for this type of structure would be to
r��tt'� that the applicant�oin, or "combine" the twa parcels into one parcel. He stated the appticant
�as t�dacated he wo��t� be willing to join the properties in lieu of requesting a variance, however,
���t� ��'� ��Q >sep���e mortgage holders for these properties, and from ihis standpoint, this approach
;
: . .
mi�� z�o� b� �ossible. He explained, �n light of this, the appiicant has revised his request to allow a
setback af one-foot for boin garage structures, which would result in two separate three-stal! garag�
structures an each side, separated one-foot from the property line of each structure. He noted there
would be iwo feet between the buildings to allow for mowing and access to the rear of th� properties_
Planning Associate Ericson commented ihat a five-foot setback would not he possible in this
situaiion. He referred to the site plan, which indicated that a five-foot setback would push the garage
�OLlI1tIS V1CW Pi�28111111� COYl1IIiE3SlOii September �5, 1999
�� Yli:ii' �CC�III �a C �
so far over behind the buildings that one of the garage statis woutd be very difficult ta access. He
added that a five-foot setback would not allaw for access to the garbage dumpster enclosure located
at the rear of one of the buildings,
Planning Associate Ericson explained that staffbelieves there is some hardship pre
this in that the land at the rear of the faurptexes slopes downward toward the;Colo
Horr►e ]Park, and it wouid be diffic�alt to set the garages back any further ��l�x�
four-plexes and the slope of the land dictate the location of the�,a.�age str�cfur�S '
garages, if separated by five feet on each side, would make�������►d gara��� 5t�i1'
to a vehicle. �}"��'
ent�d to allow for
���
i��illage Mobile
�ined that the two
He added that the
li�ost inaccessibl�
'S;3..
PIanning Assaciate Ericson exptained staff had thougt�t the> Io� c,nmbination ap�r�t��:�i ��tstald be
possi6le, however, as it appears that this is not an option t���� is iro resolution before�il�e��Planning
Cammission, at this tiine. He rec�uested the Pianning Commissit�n disi;u5s ihis matter, and direct staflF
to prepare a resolution for consideration at the next meet�n�, ..; �.
Jeff Johr�son, the applicant, stated that the bac�k;���;'
easement, and a large sewer pipe is located un����a�it��
structures to the rear of the property by the����'of fil;, �
���.
�1a�°ren �er°tensteu�, 21�2 Hillview R�ad, stat����e
; property, and had iived at that loca��Qn sinc���1950
-- " encountered many dif�iculties wit,h€��e sE,l�ject;prope
commented that Mr, Johnsor� had improved il�e'rlc��,�
athar projeGt"N1i-. 7ohnson »�u�c� care to pco��os� ;�
of l��is pro�er�ty '�s subject to drainage
ic}� fu�-�her ���vents the location of the
i mi�lit a�,��erwise be an option,
lived��crci�s the street from the appiicant's
�e co�nmented ihe neighborhood had
rty���rior to Mr, Johnson's ownership. He
��'�iood �nd he was in favor of this and any
�5�;
Commiss�4Tier, ��e��nson tnc�u�r�c�'r�;�3�-ding the security of the property, in terms af the two-foot
section bet��eer� ��c �uildings ��Ir, i�t�r�son indicated he could place a fence between the front and
rear ofthe buildin� �-�� �E�c�ed he ��ciu�d a�s��put cement in that area, with drainage toward the back
of the buildi F `
;,
Comrr�; oner Laube i��quir�;c� r�:�arding the Fire Marshail's recoininendation for two feet between
stna��ures. Ericson state�,ili�r� have been instances in tl�e past, where a struciure is located closer
tha����s allowed pursuan��� the Fire Code, which rec�uires a six-foot setback from other structures.
��•
I��;��lained in these e�;�nts, the Fire Marshall has indicated a firewall be constructed on both sides
p�'��� structure, to��ibit the spread of fire from one structure to the other. He stated he was not
��cta� �c,��uc�in��i>'"specifc rec�uirements, whefher this be some type of firewall, or sheet rock that
�s t���I��:�` ti��t�� ���ndard, however, this has been allowed.
Commissioner Laube explained that his primary coi�cern was in regard to eaves of the roof, which
would place the structures closer together at this point. Mr. Johnson explained that he would be
constructing the buildings of stucco, and there woutd be a twa-foot separation to th� top of ihe
building, with only an inch overhang on each end.
�>`
1Vlou�tds iTier� Pl�r�n�ng C�mrraissian Seg�tc�aa�er I5, 1999
Ite�ula�� Nieet�n�; Pa�e 4
Pianning Associate Ericson stated staff coufd consult the Fire Marshall to determine if there are
specific remedies for these situa�ions when buildings are in such close proximity to each other,
Commissioner Laube noted a firewall could be iplstailed, however, the ceiling of the garage would
also require sheet rock, in order to prevent �Fire from jumping to the roof and spreadir�� to the ather
�
side. h .,�`
Pianning Associate Ericson stated he was aware of the code �t��;apartm�z�t �tritcfiures which utilize
a 40 to 50 ara e stall structure vz that eve so man stalls f` �-erv�all is �t��st�u�red. �He ex lain�
g g , �S' Y , ��� P
this could be done, and was simply a matter of ensuring i�as done in ct�ti����ati�e t�,tith the Cca���
�3 '� �
\\\` ; �'f �y%k�.�,>
"�- ,�
Commissioner Miller stated there would be three stalls a.�<s�1;aE�le t� °each garage st��t��ur�yA�nd two
�,.
four-plexes. She inquired how ihe applicant would dec�de v�tlic? woutd utilize the gara�e stails. Mr.
3�ohnson explained the use would be de�ermined on a"iirst: c�r��e, �i��st serve" basis. He noted, not
everyone in liis building has a vehicle. �, " �.,
Commissioner Millec snquired regarding additio
addition of the garage structures wou(d provi�f,e;'
parked within the gara�es, and through angl�n�F'� ex
oPmore than one aftl�e existing parking stalls.
Commissioner Berke inc�uired if t}
from one roof to the wall of the
slope of the roof would direcY ic
d be
���r.�
for visitUrs. IV:��. Johnson stated the
�rking spac�': as six vehicles wo�ald be
sc�?ne��t��i; he did not foresee the ioss
���?� ; ;
��'
Co61em in ���ns of the roof, and ice or snow going
Mr. Joh�n'son expEained there would not be, as the
� fra��t��d rear of ihe buildings.
Chairpersc�n �}�tcz�son inc�u��=�d're�;arding tl�� g�iler�l�Code requirements for garages in this area, in
terms of`�et#����s; zir3d the zc����r��';c�� the property. Ericson clarifed the requirement is a five foot
setback from th� �r��isty line.
Chairperson F tersoz� stateti thei etore, tt�c }�►°esent consideration was to allow for a four-foot variance
,����>�
on each �: Er�cson si��ed, thFS>was correct.
Co ' ssioner Hegland it�c�ui�ed regarding the spacing between the buildings, Ericson stated there
is � eet between the t��i` buildings,
Peterso��t��quired if this represented 37 fee� on the side of one structure, and the 34 feet
: �,
�f'tl�� i���er structure. �ricson stated this was correct, He explained the reason they
�vidP the full ten feet between the structures is because this would leave no room for
; �arbage durnpster enclosure.
,
Commissioner Kaden stated the water and snow would be directed to the front and back of the
structures, and inc�uired if this might resuft in a problem for the mobile home community at the rear
ofthe �roperty. Mr. Johnson stated it wouid not, as it would be run offthe back of the buildings into
the drainage easement, He added ihe land slopes downward in this area, however, it slopes back up
NTou�ads V�edv PA�nns►ag Cornmfss'ron Sep#ember 15, 1999
�e u11r I�%eet'rn �1 e 5
the other side, and it would be very unlikely to f!1 this area with enough water to reach the top of tihe
hitl at the rear of the properiy. Ericson added there would be 55 feet between the rear of ihe
proposed garage and the property line.
Chairperson Petersan ir�quired if there were tax consequences for combining two
stated he believed that there were, and this would result in tax saving�.,ta the
Commissioner Johnson stated this was correct, and would beneft the pr�'�ert}�,<ci�
Commissioner Stevenson noted the four-foot variance <:-�;zi'�st U
Commission for action. Ericson stated tlus was correct, as � was not
the lot combination would not be a viable alternative. ��,
�:�
Commissioner Stevenson inquirad if the matter should be f
be done, however, staff only required direction regardir�g
would like staff to draft. He explained if the Planning C���
staffwill draft a resolution of approvat, and ifnot, a resolu�ic
be prepared. ,.�
Ericson
owner.
before
oment
1ed. Ericson stat�c� this could
of resolution t11e Commission
ds ��ere is suf�icient hardship,
�e r��i:a,est for variance would
Comtnissioner Miller commented she would�i�ke to ��;� th�s �7lattez�go forward. Commissianer
Johnson agreed. He added, in light ofMr. �rtensteir���`coi�ur��nts,,a,i�c3�the awards presented to Mr.
Johnson by the Econotnic Development;��nmissi, � for his e�arts ��ith the four lexes he be(ieved
�. � �. p �
the applicant deserves this. �� °��
c �
; ���� s .
Chairperson Peterson commented �� improv��ne�zts M�s��s�nson has made are good, and he believed
the proposal ��as approprcat�; k-I� r�oted ther� �i���ld;��e��minimal disruption or negative impact with
this proposa� a�zd, as la ;as th� Fire Code ,r<ec�uirements are met, this was a very good plan.
�_
Commissi�an�r ����1�n sta�et�- �� ������red thi� as an improvement as well, as long as the Fire Code
Ericson �f�cl this sti
MO,=`�N/SECOND•
,<�.�„
�Ia�t�ce Request to �
�aur�plexes at 2075 �
��ruGtures far� Secuni�
�
e matte�``of #he fence b�tween the two-foot section of the buiEdings.
puld be added to the resoiution.
�/Johnson. To Direct Staffto Prepare a Resolution Approving a Four-Foot
� for a Zero-foot Setback to Construct a Six-stall Garage to Service two
81 Hillview Road, Stipuiating that a Fence be Constructed Between the
rposes.
Ayes — 8
Pt�n�afeag C;ase IVo. 5G9-99
Prop�rty Involved: 8011 �unnyside Road
Nays — 0 Motiort carried.
1l�io�nds 'View �1:�nning C'or�irre�ssian Sep€ember i5, 1999
12egula�° Mee�ing P�age 6
Considera�ion of Resolution 594-99, a resolution recom�nending approvai of a conditional use permit
for an oversized garage.
Applicant: Donald Mackeben
The applicant w�as presec�t.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staffreport as foliows: �
v���€a�
if' -
The applicant is requesting a Conditionai Use Permit to cc��s�ruct an a�l�i�io�� t� Y
Sunnyside Road. The existing garage is 720 square feet ar���loes not,,�ji�sently ret�;�
IJse permit, however, the applicant proposes to constru��`�;'�20 s��are foot addi
the garage, to be used for a workshop/hobby area. He stat�` tl�� �t�ulci create a ga�
�/
feet in size, and wauld therefore require a Conditional Usez��ral�it, `,,
Planning Associate Ericson stated the exiting house, at
the garage, even after the praposed expansion. He,i�p
the rear of the garage, and wouEd not be visiEai� f
„� {; ;:.
properties. He noted it wouid be visibie fro e pro�
from the property line. He stated there is 125 foo
�u �s
toca�ed �o the rear, and 100 feet or ��oc�` to the ��t
��:�`�
screening and spacing, the proposal ��:e��f�-the rec�uire:
�
pa
ents.
w�thin the Code requirements, wc�t����ot be ��r;�er than
���
so there woufd not be any additid��1 traffic,�;o`iii� in �z��
have all �ec�� �
Resolution ��'1
Permit request.
at
� i-ear of
0 square
natel� �� t�U st�„are feet, is larger than
�roposed ��diti� wo�ald be Iocated to
r ,:,,T,
street, ar �x'om two of the adjoining
,...
ae soutix, v�rhere it would be seven feet
�etw��� the addition, and the praperty
�� ic� tlle north. He stated in terms of
3e added the size of the garage is well
�ouse, and does not create extra stalls,
of the structure.
Ericsa�"���t�t� �t�ffhas revi�t�y��i the general Conditional Use criteria, and these,
�sed anci' �atis�:eci. Iie ex�lained, in light of this, staff has drafted a resolution,
�; �vl�ich recc3r�-������s to the Crty Council the approval of this Conditional Use
Commissk i�°�r N`�iller stated sh� laad driven by the property, and was not able to determine the aspects
of the�posal based upt�n �vttt�t she had seen. She requested clarification.
„� � � •
I9o�a� d 1VIac�Ceben, the�plicant explained he was in the process af demolishing the existing garage.
I-��,,rit�ied three to fq� years prior, snow had caused the garage roof to cave somew�at. He
�o���nted the g������needed new sidin� and garage doors, and when he obtained estimates io
`r�p���� ��� s�clz�i��,�doors and roof, he determined it would be less expensive to take down the old
g��`��e, €��:d �'��i�'ld. He expiained the garage would be constructed on the same slab, exactly as it
had beet�, with the exception of a b-12 pitch, rather than a 4-12 pitch on the roof, to prevent the
previous probl�m froin reoccurring.
Mr. Mackeber� stated the addition to the back of the garage would not be naticeabie from the street,
or frotn the neighbor's house at the rear of the property. He commented that, other than the storag�
of lawn mowers, he was not certain how he would utilize the addition, however, he was scheduled -
I�ouncf� �7ievv P[�tn'�iaag Cammissiot� �e�tember 15, 1999
12e ula�° 1l�ieetin JPa e 7
to retire soor►, and may use ihaf area for miscellaneous hobbies. He staied he was not interested in
mechanic or heavy carpentry work, and this wouid not turn into a situation that might become a part-
tiene job in his yard, or anythir�g afthat nature. He stated he betieved the addition wouid be a definite
asset to the neighborhood and to his property:
1V1r. Mackeben stated the proposed addition wou3d be an area approximately,four
feet long, and would r�ot be much farger than that aflowed by the Code. .�3� �x
wouid match the rest of the house, ;,,,;�
Commissioner Laube inquired if the applicant would h�
garage. Ivir. Maciceben stated he would, adding that he `
were many more oak trees on the property. He expressed
taking the fiime to drive by the property and view the sit
part.
Chairperson Peterson nated a two-faot jog in the
indicates the garage setback five feet from tl�e prope,r�y
stated this was in consideration of aesThetics. H����Cp��
long line, and there was no other reason far �t��►g thi;
long, and the existin ara e is 24 feet �fl
g g g , �ierefore;z�
��
property as a straight iine. He stated h�?�`elt if th'��.�t
r,:.<>,�,�� �......
y:.,r.,;>; .;��
attractive. �;,,,�
Chairpersan Peterson inquired
Mr. Mackek�c�,stated he beli�
Chairperson A�t�r�c��� coi�l�ner�
would be addin;���zto t��e;sEa�
ot �o do tlirs,
on to the �tr1
this showed �
de by twenty
the rooflines
l�ack
ners for
on their
oposed pl�eem�n� t�f this addition, which
�c�, angli►�; ba�k ta tcuo feeti. Mr. Mackeben
ci �:k��s; would }�� eYe't�t tlie appearance of one
�e ex�i{�a��eci, ��i'e addition would be 20 feet
enti�-G lirie �=�utd go back 44 feet into the
was°�u�ci�nted, the structure would be more
oofline affiC�� addxt��n would match the roofline of the garage,
� ,.
wauld I7c�r����rq th'ey may lowe►� it a foot, depending upon the
ms of ���}��t wc�tild loak best,
!so driven by the property, He inquired if the applicant
grade. Mr. Maekeben stated this was correct.
� �-r.
Cornmis �er Millcr ittt�u�r��i xfthere wouid be doors on the addition. Mr, Mackeben stated there
wauld f�doors on tl�e fro��t aiid [�ack of the addi�ion, to provide a drive through in the backyard, to
al�o�t��� access of his ba�tt �rtti' lawnmowers.
�. >
��a��person Peterson,� ated the proposal appeared ta be very goad, and he could not see any
��`�tb��zns with it '����ssioner Kaden stated he couid see no reason the proposal should not go
f�i'i���r� 'Hc st��ed l� had driven by the proper�y and thought it would be attractive. He added he
di� nqt ilx�ni� i� t��ould be visible at all from the street, particu[arly with the proposed jog.
I�r'. Mackeben stated this was correct, adding it would not be visible to the neighboring properties
either. Fie reiterated he believed it would improve the property. He commented he had �ersonalty
contacted all ofthe neighbors on his street, and they have indicated they are in favor of'the proposal.
He stated, had ihis not been the case, he would e�ot have pursued it.
. , , ,
� :; , , :
1VIound� �Iiew Ptanning Co�nnz�ssior� Se�fen�bee° 15, 1999
R�gui�ar° I�Ieetin� , , ... _ Page �
MOTI�N/SECOND: Kaden/1Vliller. To Approve Resoluiion 544-99, a Resoiution Recommendir�g
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for ar� Oversized Garage at 8011 Sunnyside Road;
Mound View Planning Case No. 569-99.
Ayes — 8 Nays — 0 The motion carr��d.
��/
��_
Planning Associate Ericson sta�ed this item wouid be considered at the Oct��,��r L,7, 999 meeiing of
the City Council, �,� ,
7e St�aff°l�epor�s / Items of Inform:ation
A. YTpd:ete regnrdiug c���nge irn loc7t
Propee•ties/O'Nei� PUI� {Tl�enter Proj�
Community Deveiopment Directar Jopke updated the
fence at the Theater Project. He stated this issue w�
Commission, and at #hat time, staffwas directed�to c�hi;
detail, to clarify the fence require�nent. n�;���'
Community Development Director Jop
City Council minutes, resolutions ��
required a continuaus fence. He�����
office for review, and the City Aittirne}
buildings is t�z� only require�e�# p� �5er
fence at�c� �s��ai� it .six feet b���� �}�e �i�f
to the apprci�r�ci: �'L.3�} deveE�l�me�1� st
Planning Carn��:��f3n arid City Cc�ut�;t;�l
represer��'tive of tl�e d
reque��� the Planing C
the�y;; �oncur that, if the
cq�✓ iance, and the mat
cotis�s�er is the potentt . �
��i2CG� ��}11I1CI $fle �7Ll,k�` `n,
iissio�� re�<°
ssed at t��c�i
r�l,opinio�i
fence �at "�'ti`e",Anfihor�y
; the issue of the screen
c�i�eting of the Pianning
review the fiies in more
���`�ated he��ad revsewr�d thc files, Plannii�g Commission and
�� . UD a�;�ements, _�ic! could find nothing that specifically
cl he ha� �orwarde ,�#�ose documer►ts to the City Attorney's
has indicatc,d tra� �legal siandpoint, a fence conneeting the
ed. I-�e ��c�te�� ��the deveioper wishes to provide a continuous
er arc;a,a�n�tr�ci the buildings, it wou3d rec�uire an amendment
�e plan. He explained this would entail fortnal review by the
�xzectar J�ipke commented he had attempted to contact Wendell Smith,
.I��e�', f�owever had not been able to spealc with him at this time. He
�i;t��s�ori discuss this matter, and direct staff in regard to whether or not
v�l�iper chose to connect the buiidings with a fence, they wou{d be in
would not rec�uire the additional approvals. He stated the other issue to
rndment to the PUD agreement, shouid the developer wish to move the
C:"l���rp��sa��y �erson inquired if staff and the City Attorney's conc(usions were the same as the
�:.
T'laritiix�� `C`ommission's determination at the prior meeting. Jopke stated this was correct. Chair
Peterson inquired if staff had received any input from the residents immediately to the south of the
property. Japke stated tl�ey had not. He noted, however, the residents had only been contacted in
this regard by ihe developer.
_ :i
�
Moa�nds �iew Plne�nin� Carr��nission Se�terr�bea� 15, 1999
Itegr�la�° 11�Ie�tdng . ,...,.�_ P��e 9
Chair Peterson stated it appeared to be unwise to reopen the entire Devefopment Review process far
this matter. Jopke stated staff couid direct this question to the devetoper, in light of the new
information, and determine how he would like to proceed. He noted another issue discussed at the
p�ior meeting was that staff shocald work ctosely with the developer in regard to the location of the
air-conditioning units, and insure they are screened and do not generate a noise pr�blem for �he
neighborhood. , �;,v�'
Commissioner Hegland stated there had appeared to be
requirement for a continuous fence. He inquired if this matte
action. ��
Chair Peterson agreed this was the general impressio�� l�
Commission did not have a clear answer in this regard. :
matter of semantics, in that there was discussion of coni
parking 1ot and activities that occur at the site, and migh�t�
a fence, versus buildings and a fence. He stated the ���
screened from ihe neighborhood. The buildings in fa��, �ro;;
and with the fence between buiidings, tlie deve�g��r� ztze t�
�rtant
dear
eral �zxl;pr����br.x that there was a
red to b�;�d��'essed with a form�:l:
'i-ward. He stai�:.i� t��e �ianning
mmented �his r�lay `I�ave been a
��.eening of the Theater Project
�c�rt�lude that the screening be
>ue �W�� t.hat the parl<ing lot be
-�:.
�or �ai�to�i af that requirement,
ically pro�ding a continuous screen.
Comrn�ssioner Miller noted that much emp ' is had be�' placed a�� ��ze fe��ce, rather than the fact that
there would be three offices at the loc�t�ron. Jo k�5tated �t, �u�s clear that it was appro riate to
�� P
construct the fence prior to the cc����ri;ict�on��%� the bu�lc��g in order to provide the screening,
however, now that the building is �at3stnacted, it provide,��,;�at function.
� ; ���
ChairPeterst�n com�nented �i7e��lie� itezn for cc�nsider��ion was to determine the appropriate review
pracess,�ar rn�ii�ir chan��;� tc� a PEJD, He �t�i�d at appeared there should be some simple level of
process �cir �very x��z��r chan�; }f;,�, �nc� tietcj7zunation regarding which changes are minor and which are
not.
Community ��1t���
opinion o ,���'-�City Att�
was al. � necessity to
wor ' g with the City
fo,��"rd to the Plannir
c;tor J�pke stated this was coi•rect. He added they have obtained the
��ard to the fence requirement at the Theater Project, however, there
��;;;s �,,
process in the ordinance, for future PUDs. He stated he would be
iys office to draft appropriate Ianguage in this regard, and bring that
ission at a future meeting.
I)Ese,�;�sto�a of Eco��or�ic IDevelopment seciioai of �he Coniprehe�sive Plan
�c��z���� ����'�;l�pment Coordinator Kevin Carroll stated in cantrast to the mandatory work the
l�laiu�i�g �ortunissioi� is conducting in regard ta the Comprehensive Plan, the Economic Development
Section is referred to by the Metropolitan Council as an optional plan. He added that many of the
cities that have submitted their Comprehensiva Plan to ihe Metropolitan Council have not included
an Economic Development section. He nated, however, a n�amber of rnonihs agfl, he had decided
as the primary siaffperson to the Economic Development Coirunission, that this �uvould be appropriate
from a plar�ning standpaint, as it would assist them in their consideration of the economic
� .;..- -
Moeer�ds V�ew Pl�nezing Commissio� Sep#ember 15, 1999
l�egul�r I!/iee�ing � Pa e 10
development in the City of Mounds View, He explained that if the Eco�lomic Development
Cotnmission could agree upon same general priorities, they could go from the general to the specific,
and use �hat information to help craft their work pians.
Economic Deve(opment Coordinaior Carroll stated the Metropolitan Council and o;ther Planning
��- •
organizations had set forth a recammended format for Economic Development����tions, which
included seven or eight dif�erent pai-is. He commented that some of these �arts.;�`�peared to be too
specific, and %r that reason, they were deleted, and so �,of the �itl�s azld captions oi the
�.�;::=,r
recommended farmat were changed. He stated the Ecc�,' �2n�c Dev�l�pm�z�t ��mmission h�;
determined to approach this section as a document that w�5i�� d closely, r���c,c�,,w�t�.t ��?e believe�`�e
Y
City should do in terms of economic deveiopment, anc�3��his resul�ic��' in many; o� t��� si�t�,��n�s
cantained in the first part of the document, "Community;���as�orr����Goals."
__ ___ _.
Econamic Development Coordinator Carroll exptained �.iai the i�iext section of the document
"Priorities for Economic Developmeni Decisions," was debat�c� i�i r-e,�E�.rd to whether or not they
should list the priorities in order. He noted, as this was would I��' � s�ii�'tculi and time-consuming
process, it was recommended that they utilize bullc,t po���tg .The stat�d s�ct�c�ti'provides a list of the
Econorrxic Deveiopment Com�nission's highes�,�p��o�ities, cc���ectively
��,,
� � ,..
Ecanomic Development Coordinator C,a�oll stat�c� tl�� tlixrd s�c�ion, "Resources to Support
Economic Devetapment" is a lisfi of the �ce'sent ass����jand ra�t�urc.es�of the City thati would assist or
� � ��..
promote Economic Development. �}���� � � �
Ecanomic Developi�ent Coa
Developme�� Chailenges " �
members.: He zz�t�d sever�l tiri�
provide r�co�i�'itxc�ti af the pr�5�
this section p�t��irls tc� lhe cu��+
proactive, and`ta indi�at�; to
��or C;arrol[ Stat�,d t����ast section of the document, "Economic
}iighly deha��d arna,�ig the Economic Development Commission
�ciit3ts had ccam� fe�i'ward, however, the ultimate consensus was to
stdt� of economic development within the City. He explained thai
�i;���c�s�:l,�, and was included in order to make the document more
��ufi�l�c.,i�� in general, that the challenges exist, and the Economic
to ct�;nstructively address these issues.
Development �qprdinator Carroll co�nmented that the �conomic Development
m had spent sr,4�z� tc� eight �nonthly meetings discussing the Economic Section, and the
pres�ntly bef�e the i'lanning Comx�nission is the best culmination of those efforts.
�ssioner Mil���'�ainted out #here were several references to Highway 10 contained in the
� ��°' •
:��e wk����t�uired clarification.
Coorc�i��ior Carroll stated there appeared to be some confusion regarding this roaci. He stated in
eariier draiis they had referred to the road as U� Highway 10, which it was at one time, then they had
references to County Road 10 or County I0, and had decided to omrt those. He stated "Highway
10" was sorrtewhaf generic at present, and it would be helpful if the County and City could agree
upon what the raad wiil be cai�ed. HEe staied in his opinion, it would ultimately be called County
Highway 10. He noted the document would go through several processes of review by the Econorr►ic
�
I�ot�rtd� V�e� PI�'i�a�ng Comrnissio�' �e�tember° 15, 1999
�tegvl�e° I@�eetir��_ _ „ P��e 11
Development Authority, �he City Covncil and other bodies. He explained, at the point it is submitted
to the Metropolitan Council, and they can be certain of what the road will be called, it can be
amended appropriateEy.
Commissioner Kaden noted the signage of I-35W had been changed to indicate tha�,the road was
Caunty 10. Econorruc Development Coordinator Carroll stated there wout,�J proha����e no harm in
adding the word "County" before the references to Highway 10, and if that cha��� s�n the future, it
can be amended at that time, ��,
Commissioner Berke stated it appeared the document
businesses. He inquired ifthere r�vere any ideas brought fo�
future in terms of the residential development and the dc
Economic Development Coordinator Carrol[ stated this was
Development Commission level, He stated two viewpo�,�t;
position, Economic Deveiopment Coordinatar should de<
He stated another viewpoint was that anything tl�a�����ntri�
economic develop�nent. He explained they h,��� ��e�i�t�
pointed out that the second and third para�r�Iis on ,����
residential housing, ���»� �
Commissioner Berke stated he had
business, and not residential deve
Commissi
the sectio�
were �n ���a
Mounds ViE
of the areas,
be cor�
�an jusi
�on for
Cotnmiss�t�r Berke c��
and b��ess areas, aald i
purs�;, �"the business deti
this,
wou 1
ns
lo
ig what ti'
Mounds
ic of del�ate at the Economic
7��t forward, one was that his
exclu�it�cly r��i't��;t�usiness and industry,
es to tlie �UOZ��cny of'the community is
tc� strike a btilaiice in this regard. He
���` il�e d��timent contain references to
�,.
of the document appears to address
re mention of residential deveiopment in
ra�����s�: He noted T��x`�ncre�nent Financing and other funding sources
'-���I��nt��� t�evelop�nent, as weIl as the fact that rrxuch of the property in
vela�,�ed �s �r�zsiness. He stated they should at�e►npt to redevelop some
should �t�tt ai�`einpt to develop the residential areas of the City.
city of Richfield appeared #o be doing much in both residential
: City of Mounds View had similar pfans, or was only going to
Davelopme.��=`Coordinator Carroll pointed out that this document was a Comprehensive
�� t
�, and the���re ather portions of the Comprehensive Plan, which would pertain specifically
�ssu��� �� commenied that fonner Building Inspector Steve Dorgan had done some wark
rc�, ar�� at one poin�, provided the Economic Development Commission members with a
oustng component of the Comprehensive Plan.
Ecanomic Development Coordinator Carroii stated it was necessary for the Economic Development
Commission to determine what their work shoutd be. He expiained fhat in his opinion, and th�
opinion of a majority of the Economic �evelopment Cammission members, they exist not so much
to advise the City with regard to residential development, but primarily with the business and indusiry
�
IYIOlB[1[�S VICVi! P��lTI[1Hilg C011]IYIISSi0H1 Septembet� 15, 1999
I2e �IRr IVI�etin� _ P1�e 1�
component, and as this was their purview, it should be reflected in the Economic Deveiopment
seetion of the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested if the issue of housing was going to be addressed
in the Comprehensive Update, it should be addressed by the Planning Commission, based upon staf�"s
research regarding the City's short and long term residential plans. He added if they were ta consider
including more of the residential housing issues, this might necessitate changing �his section to
"Economic and Hausing Development Section," and would require they start at ""beginning, to
determine how much housing deveiopment shouid be incorporated into t�i� c�o��r�s�t.
Economic Development Coordinafior Carroil stated he belzc�reci there «�c���Ic� 13� � fair amount ��
housing information in the fnal Coit�prehensive Guide��an update,4l��i tEie qi��sf�t��� was w��re
should this information originate. He acknowledged tha �iis was ��inpoz-iai�t i.����c. �
Commissio�er Berke stated he had brought this forwasd �r� 1��1�1 �f Tax Incremetit f�iziaiicing, and
concerns amang t�e residents that it assists the City with thc,�r �ev�lo��nent, but does not necessarily
reduce the ta.x base for the residents. He expiained tl�at b r��c�easz��,t17e residcntial development and
redevelopment, they are actually providing tax reiief'to the residents�iri tla�tt ihc,y are producing higher
property taxes, which is of benefit to the residents. ;
Community Development Director Jopke��s�ated
Comprehensive plan in enfiirety, to deter� �ae how it
He added he believed it would address �� s issue ��;
�� �>
hausing issues ofthe cotnmunity, an ����ere ar�;�re
and consolidated into the Plan. .:-�-,��.'��" h��
Commissio���-;;Hegland inc7i
versus bu��t���s.:a��d industri
�s,�;
Economt� X)�u��c���nent �c
residential dev�lq�ine�i�; ar�d
io the City.
,, ,'
Commur���evelopn�e��i Di;
the C �prehensive Plan �s
pre�� ed for the City. �� '
111sr��tE1�� �I��y ���yould i�ave to Iook at the
flect� i�e ,�c�a1� and needs of the community.
explaiaieti t}�e Housing section addresses the
that �1,�ould I�e emphasized, this can be done, -
ti�e Cor�pr�����s���'Ptan woufd weigh the issues of residential
op�nent">,��; st�ifed he was concerned in that there is list of the
��';s priorities for develop�nent, but there are aiso priorities For
c��i� �k�ey balance these priorities in cost versus henefit analysis
Jopke stated this was a good point. He explained that typically,
:d into sections, and each of those sections address the goats
�%issioner Laube��;dded this was document was one division of the Comprehensive Plan,
,� ;.
k��s�u�tier, �� �s the er� #�,� economic developmeni section, and the Cotnprehensive Plan and zoning of
�t� �`t�y� ��� ��'����s. He exptained that this section would indicate that econamic development is
stt'ictly bt�szt��s� develo�ment, unless some other area of the Comprehensive plan addresses the issiae
of re�id�ri�[�1 housing, which is important in the balance of the development of the City as a whole.
He added that this document otherwise sets the priorities presented therein, as ihe priority in t}ie
hierarchy.
Community Development Director Jopke explained the Comprehensive Plan does not set a hierarchy,
it simply indicates what the goals, objectives, and policy are in these specific areas. He noted the
I�OlBHIi�� VY��' P];lii(]lllg CO(I11TtiSSyOtI Septerrybea° 15, I999
Re ul�r N"ieetin �,� � �3
Land LTse Plan, �which sets an overall tone for land use, however, there are other individual sections
that the Council looks to, regarding specific projects and ways to implement them.
CommissionerBerke inquired ifthis was Community Development Director Joplce's experience with
other cities. Community Develapment Director Joplce s�ated ii was, however, this drd,:�ot mean that
the issue did not merit clarifcation. ;�;�r"
`\` t�"
.. <»�<:�
„
Commissioner Stevenson stated the way that it is presente ,�zt the C,a��pr�l��t�sive Plan, and the
info�-mation it contains, he did not see where this docum� , r�ti�kes any �s�:�t�m�z�t t}iat econorr�>
deveio ment has an riorit . ��? j���
� Y P Y ���e� _...... . ' _ _ _ �.�
Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated the Ect�r�i`�i�a�c ��
intended the document to appear this way. He explained th� ��1aI C�t�
address many di#%rent issues, adding that if it makes refer�i�ce tc
improving a paric, th�s would not i�np[y that this should t���e pric�z-�t�!
the fact that the Economic Development Comsnission'has a sec�i
priority, He noted it is for the City Council and the �coii�t�i�; Develo
the money is allacated. He rei�erated this docuir���t ���zt,S int4n��ti as a
the Economic Develop3nent Commission beli�����`shouid';be t��,�rie H�
be submitted to the Economic Developmer���uthonix a��d thc Czty �
decide to change ii, however, the Ecp���omic D���elopmc.� �t,^Cc��r
advisary badY• .��zf..<;� ��� ;��
�lopment Conz�t���,���� �iad not
��rehensive Piai� ��j�date would
nstructEng a water tower or
�- alI �tl�er things. He stated
�a�� r�ot imply that it takes
�nt At�thority to decide how
����'guide in regard to what
`inted out the document will
cil for review, and they may
ion has done its part as an
Commissioner Milter stated s3�e`�as quite ��}�ressec���ith the docu�nent. She stated it was not
Iengthy, ho�#��er, it conta�n��l ��tt��h infori��t�3��i ���
�k
Community �eue�C���rnetrt Di�ectt�z T�a�]<e stated that the Econo�nic Development Commission and
Kevin Cara11 h{�c� dt�i7�> a ven,� ���� jc>�� ita preparing this document and commended them on their
effarts.
t;nairper Q��f�eterson stai��d tti�s t��as a very good and concise statement of what needed to be done,
and s�h��d be viewed �n t1�e �ar�text of the whole Comprehensive Plan. He added that further
refe��cing of the resid�,�itizi� issues contained within the document would clarify the issue oi
�:,
re��;��, ntial developmen�;�,Economic Deveiopment Coordinator Carroll stated that ti�ere couid be
inteanal cross-referenc��.�to the residentia! development issues within the document.
�n stated that certain areas within the City wiil need assistance in ienns of
this document provides some good guidelines far hetping that along,
Co P�°evio�es Caa���cit Actions
Community Director Jopke reporfied on previous Council action fro�n their meeting on September
13, He stated the Council held First iteading of Ordinance 639, which pertains to conditional
uses within the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts. He noted there was appraval of a Wetland B�ffer
;'
I�four�ds View Pil,ining C`o�i�cuissioai Septen�ber i5, I999
I�eg�tllr I�Ieetin� ,,.�_ .. P1ge 14
Permit for ihe praperty located at 6991 Pleasant View Drive, which was purchased by the City for
the Housing Rep(acement Program. He stated the Council approved a resolution denying th�
W�tland Alteration Permit for Oakwood Land Develapment. He added there was Second Reading
and adoption of the Ordinance to rezone 267Q County Road I, from B-2 to R-4 for the MSP
senior residential assisted living development, as weli as the approval of the Conditi��at Use
Permit for that rec�uest. • , ���:�
Community Development Directar Jopke reported that the C, ��ncil
a_�,
��;: 4 ��
and conducted the public hearing for the ardinance to cre�ey�; �nag�
�oning Districf. He explained he had discussed this matt �Et�vtth the
� ya.
some concem regarding the language partaining to signa�e relaiing
site, and was uncertain how this language might affect i}��, t�i;llboa�d
move forward in that regard. He stated, however, they i����e con��_u
separate issues, moving along two separate paths.
Community Develo��nent Director Jopke corr►rrtented tie'�`had ctiscus
issue with the City Attorney, in terins of al[owing b�l�bt�ards of City
rnight raise a concern ainong private landowne�� t�t�t .tl�ey d�}, nat ha
City in terms of revenue generation. He stat��i 'l�e lza� f���varrled a�
the City Attorney who would be reviewir���t and providir�� a1� o�uii;
Community Development D�rector �c��i� st�
; �.�h
restrictian in the deed, which wo�c�,��'ohibit
indicates that what goes on t�e �3���erty mu:
public purpo�e;,in �erms of reu�z;u� generat�t�
the City ��Qx-zie��; is camfox-1 ablc� li�<3t this cd�i
__
I). �T�i�aai�i�tg Pla
}:
Pfanning Assot���te �z�GSt�� s��
�f�..
be consid,��at�on of a rc,qu�s�;>�
as an s�i�icaiion from N�SJ� �.1
267,,, �ounty Road I. ..,..., ._.
ing approval
e PF and CR
�ho exnres�;
���tne spcci�z�
'aspect, if the t
ded that ti�ese
�h� potential spot zoning
�pei��'' He explained this
t���'same benefit as the
�r of the draft ordinance to
in this regard.
e City A�;�orney had concluded there is no
ards a�`�Iie golf course. He explained the deed
- a;p��'�1ic purpose, and bitlboards would have a
��:,�� reduction at the golf course. He stated
efined as a public purpose.
ed af �,��e next meeting of the Plarining Commission, there would
�� Conditional Use Permit to aliow for an oversized shed, as well
�I �state for a Site Pian Review far the assisted living facitity at
�l�i��un� Associate Er���n stated the Planning Commission would begin to see a number of
c�t'd��t��aces, some v��;�h clarify the Zoning Code, as they attempt to worlc through some of the
�ssu�� �t��en�ec�:�"�`e added that once the Co�nprehensive Plan has been forwarded to the City
CaLrncil, s�a.f� �vil1 begin to reviaw the Sign Code, in entirety, and it is hoped ihat the issues will be
addc��s�ci`�urin� the winter, after the Com�nissioners caseloads have decreased,
�. Cha4rperson �nd Pi�a�ning Comenissioreers l�e�ort
Corrunissioner S�evenson reported i3�at he had received a publication from Ramsey County, "Friends
of Sf. Pau( and Ramsey County Parks," which briefly addresses the biilboards wiThin Ramsey County. "
i:
i�'Io€�nds �'ievv Pl�€nni�g Cora-imissiota �ep$emb�r 15, i999
l�egutnr Il��ee�ie�g I'age 15
He stated ihe article indicates that neighboring communities, either have a moratorium in place, or
ban biliboards. He suggested the Commission keep in mind that these communities are not allowing
additional billboards, during their contemplation of the billboard issues.
No other reports wer-e considered.
g. Acijournme�t
There being no further business before the Planning Comm���b�:Acttng C�Z��z �illcr adjourned
meeting at 8:06 p,m. _� ' ,
.�
(The meeting immediately adjourned ta the �'��end�� ession}
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Jopke
Community Developinent Director
Transcribed by:
Trish Pearson �Y
TinreSaver Off Site Secr•etar•icrl ���
,�
WPDOCSIMINU"I'ES11999109-i 5-99.VJPD
i ;.
1VIOTJI�iD� `7iE� PI,A,�II�G CO IS�IOI�
Oc�o6�r 20, i99�
7:�0 P.I�.
REGL3L� iV1E�TII�IC�
AG�NDA
Ca11 to Order
2. Roll Call
Citizens Requests and Coraments on Items Not on the Agenda
. � ='. � •. �; '� - , :� �. ; 1, ; . ;' 1 1 ; : ', 1?
1= � '�� � ;1. ... 1 )' ' �, �� ` � _, -
4. Approve Minutes:
a. 3eptember 15, 1999
5. Pla�eni�a� C'ase I�Io. 559-99
Property Involved: 2670 Cocanty Road I
Discussian regarding a developmant review for a two-stoxy, senior assisted living
residential faciIity .
Applicant: MSP Real �state
5. 5peciai Plan�f�g Case I�to. �P-074-99
Discuss proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code related to
driveway widths and curb cuts.
7. Staff Reports / Items of Information
a. BiIlboard Update
b. Previous Couneil Actions
8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
9. Adjoununent to Agenda Meeting
(Immediately Foliowing Regular Meeting)
�������*������������������*������������*
APPLiCANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COI�RMUNITY DEVELOPIVIENT A'� 717�4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
����*������r��::��������������������������
AGENI�A SE�SION
AGFNDA .
Review 1l�inutes -- October 6, 1999
N:IDATAIGROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM�PCAGENAA11999\10-20-99.REG
'f ,
'. . #� ' � ; � �:_ .' : �;: ; .. � _ : _ ,i: ,,. . ; i -, I
I�Ie�tareg Dat�:
�iaff' l��poa°t �y:
Pl���a�g Case I�To.o
Itequ�s�o
P�t�t�one�°:
I,oeatioa�a
f;� ,:� . ;�, ,
Zon�n�/I..a�d �7se:
Appl��ab(� Itegulatio�s:
Ociober 20, 1999
James Ericson, Planning Associate
559-99.
Development Review
1VISP Real Estate
2670 County Road I
07-30-23-11-0040
B-2, Limited Business Commercial / Vacant land
iection 1006.06, Deveiopment controls
Section 1103.09, Lighiing and Giare
�ection 1104.01, General zoning provisions �m yard requiremenis
Section 1104.02, Area and building size regulations
Section 1109.fl4; Subd. 2, CiJI' requirements
Att��ha�►enis: Zoning IVIap
Location Map
Site Survey--Existing Conditions (Separate Attachment)
Site and Fioor PIans, Elevations (Separate Attachment)
Landscape Plan
Lighting Plan, Photometrics (Separate Attachment)
Fixture Specifications
�ackgroaeatd:
The applicant, MSP Rea( Estate, has requested approval of a developmen� review for a two-story
senior assisted living compiex to be located at 2670 Counl:y Road I. The applicant has an
agreement #o purchase this site fram the property owner, M& E Reaity. The Ci�y Co�ancil has
approved the conditional use permit for this devetopmer�t (Council Resolution I�To. 5345 attached
for reference) and Ordinance 63 l, the ordinance which rezoned the property from B-2, Limited
Business Commercial, to R�4, High Density Izesidential. This ordinance is also atiached for your
reference. Qne af the requirements of the approved CUP is that the applicant get approval of a
I.�evelopment Review.
T�e building �vill have a rnaintenance free ea�terior will brick accents orz th� first floor. The
applicant has subini�ted an architectural rendering of the proposed building, which wiil be on
dispiay for your meeting,
M5P Assisted Living Senior Residential Faciiity
Planning Cas� 559-99
October 20, 1999
Page 2
l��aiy�iso
Dimensional Reaur�ements:
Building Setbacks:
Front (Co. Rd. I}
Fron� {Mounds View Dr.}:
Side (SuperAmerica):
Mirumurn iot width:
Mirumum tot area:
Building height:
Parking requirements:
R�ce uired
30 feet
30 feet
40 feet
i �Q feei
i.0 acre.
45 feet
31 spaces
Proposed:
30 feet
25 feet
85 feet
� 190 feet
1,b2 acres
� 3 5 feet
31 spaces
Met ?
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The site ptans show that the building encroaches into the setback at the mast southern carner of the
building. Staffhas asked for a clarification of this, in that previaus site plans did not shaw any
encroachmeni. This topic witl be addressed at your meeting.
D�aina e:
The applicant has not yet submitted foc' review a drainage plan to show how siormwater n,inofiwill
be accommodated on the site. This �will either be presented to yoa at the time of your meeting or i
will be included for your next tneeting. The drainage plan will be reviewed by the Director of -`--�
Public Works to ensure compliance with the City's Local Water Management Plan.
Landsca�e Plan:
In Section 1103.08 of the City Code pertaining to Fencing, 5creening and Landscaping, it states
that the lot area remaining after providing for oi� sireet parking, sidewalks, driveway, building and
other requirements shall be pianted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable
vegetation or materiais generally used in landscaping. The applicant has submitted a landseape plan
vvhich has been forwarded to the City Forester for comment. After review, Forester Wriskey
recotnmends that the foltowing changes be made:
Eliminate "Buckthorn" from the plan.
Chang� "Crabapple" to either "Pink Spires" or "Snow Drift" Crabapple.
Cha,nge "Seedless Ash" �o "Patmore Seediess Ash".
In addit►on ta these changes, the iandscap� plan will need to be revised to show the total number of
planiings by species. 'I'he plan should also be revised by indicating a,il non-impervious areas shall be
sodded. The p(an shows tha� the garbage dumpster enc(osure vvill be screen�d by plantings.
Pa�king and Access:
There are 3 i parking stails shown on the site plan, ��e amount requir�d in the app�-oved conditional -
use permit. 'Two of th� sta►1s are handica��accessible, which satisfies ADA requu-ements. There _
MSP Assisted Living Seniar Ftesidential Facility
Planning Case 559-99
t�ctober 20, 4 999
Page 3
are two accesses to this site, one on County Road I and the other from Mounds View Drive, It has
been discussed that the access drive from County Road I be marked as ar► "eXit only" to prevent
any attempted dangerous crass-over access from the west-bound lane of County Road I. This
should b� fiarther discussed, and if it is the consensus of the Commissior►, the resolution will include
a stipulation requiring such signage be added.
Utilities and Easements
Utilities are available ta this site and no easemen�s will be required to be dedicated for this project.
There is an existing utility easement atong Mounds View Drive in which the telephone anct gas lines
are buried. A storm sewer is located on the site in the County Road I righi of way. Siaf�will
preseni information at your meeting as to the sufficiency of tl�e number and lacatian of fire hydrants
availab(e to the huilding. Currently, only one hydrant is directly available, that being in the County
Road I right of way. Another hydrant is located across Mounds View Drive, atthough it is about
130 feet away from the building. Siaff will have t1�e Fire I�epartment revieva this plan and make any
recommendations.
Sigrrage:
The site plans do not indicate any signage. Staff has made a request �hat the applicant supply such
pians if any are available: The conditianai use permit approv�d by the City Council allows for
signage �iot io exceec132 square feet, not including any incidental signs, such as directional signage
Li�
The Lighting plan ar�d photometric analysis show that the footcandle readings are within required
Iimits, though the readings do not extend to the centerline of the adjacent streets {County Road I
and iVlounds View Drive.) Readings at the property iines adjoining these streets do not exceed 1.0
footcandtes. The light pIans do not indicate that any building Iighting will be used--staff will verify
that this is the case and will address changes if any at youc meeting.
General Site Plan Issues
The site plan indicates a sidewalk in front of the building and along the west side of the parking lo�.
This sidewalk connects �a the sidewalk on County Road Drive, but does not connect to anything on
Mounds 'View Drive. One of the issues discussed during the CiTP process and rezonir�g was that a
sidewalk shouId be installed along Mounds View.Drive. The site plan will need to be revised io
show a seven-foot wide sidewalk in this area, however before construction can occur, the appliaant
will need ta notify the utiiiiy coznpanies.
The site plan sfiow� the proposed location for the dumpster areap�noted only as "irash". The plans
will need to be revised to show the construction details of ihe enclosure. 'The bui(ding elevations
will also need to be revised to show dimensions--specificaily the building heights. The scale as
shown in the elevations is not accurate and will need to be correcied.
MSP Assisted Living Senior Residential Faciliiy
Planning Case 559-99
October 20, 1999
Page �
Co�clusao�as:
Staff has indicated to the applican� that the �ollowing things wiit need to be revised and corrected
before the Planning Commissior� can take aciion on the development review request. (The
Planning Commission may add other requireenents to this (ist as may be appropriate.}
• Eliminate the building encroachment
� �ubmit garbage dumpster enclosure pians
� Revise Elevations to indicate building heigh�s and correct scale
� Revise site plan to show location of sidewaik
� Provide drainage plans
� Provide signage plans
B Revise landscape plans as indicated herein
These issues wiit need to be resolved prior to the Commission's ne�rt meeting on November 3,
1999.
�. ; �� ���--�
James Ericson, Pianning Associate
N;IDATA\GROUPS\COMDE VSbEVCASES1559-991DEV-REV.PCI
�
N � �—�
� A�'1
'%%1
�
� m�
�.
�
�
z
�
�
c�
78Q1 �
���
�F�D :. (�}.�.. +-
� .'.�� �
.. � �.� n�i N
'532
'S30
'5�2
W : %.5�
N'
'• �• 74
74-44
7442 •� 744
74ao �
4
raoe �s
I /Jm `V
73dd
5ILVER VIEW
PARK
�
F2 � � �
V►�� �
o s
� P P �
7� 1
� °� 73 i v
�•-..,; -
� .:
�ro — �
7867 7870 78�g 785�
7�51 7�60 7865 7g52 � 7853
7e�t �asn i85b . 7846 � 7e41
7840 - 7835 7�4� 7829
7815 779Q 7815 7800 7817
� � 78�5 �78a 7809
7801
7809 7770 3 78a1 77fi0 7797
�801 � 77�4 7'7g0 7787
776i 7760 � 77'41 7740 �77
7767
7759 7750 7731 7730 7753
7755 773� i721 7720
7745 7710 7719
7%�J N N t�� � T/OO C;
��� -�
� I�M6SIn � t+irtAl`�
���� ����� zss3
���� ����� �
NcVNnf M NNNNCV z'S51 �
� 2547 0 7s6
2545
�°°°� 2541
2539
2537
���
�. �^�y
�-2 �v� ti`'
I� , o i� d�- "� ' a.
N � ,O N.� � �
� pd N y � � ' �^� � a
t0 tn P*1 N ' \ �' �
p�ON �'%O^ r�n�t�9 `°
n1 N� N �� N Qy c�D D o tO
rn � K,o., N �'1d N d.
h
06D p N a.o� � N N � �y � w N -
�c c> N o r o� co
N oc0 *" ..�p+'N � N � -
°' N �= p�j �O ln
� � � ,� � � N R°`�'
�� t0 � N N .� N CV � (p �oj
N tp � t�0 c�9 p tg ' pp CD �4j .
t�f N N'"' =`� N.,_, N
_ - - � o
� �
- o
- - �n
�
�
' N
N
7 ..... .........:.............
40�?,�_-- . '�:�.�I ,-:�::�',=:
�
�
�
PF- - _ :,�;.:
— v - � . . • . �
� � M
� �
t�
N � N c�1
O
� � �
�
N N �
Zoni.ng Nlap Planning Cas� 559�99
Appli��nt: i�SP Real Estaie
Lo�aiio�: 2670 Coixro.ty Roa.d I
, �
� ` ,: ' !` :.. �; :;_ ` ` � °
• . ,. � ;' ' ,� ., .�.
r..A��.�
����
��
�
��
���
L
i
MSP R�a! Estate
2670 Co�niy Road I
Conditianal Use Permit and Rezoning
Planr�ing Case No.. 559-99 and 560-��
��, ..
,�,;;� .
. ! � ' •.� ',
Properties VVithir� 350'
i
i �:
�
: `. +.
I-
� � ��
� ti 'y 4
r� V t,� ° �°
•� V h V � H�
� p la ry I, t N,e p
P � N � . ] l�
�- �0 4 y✓i 1•�v ��� �
R ,�R � r,����y. � �
� d � t i�
�. . � '�. � �V o
- 9 � p i7 '�' C� h � li ] i
� T y i q L 2�� � V t 1'
w�.� ?„�zPa�
� `� . �u < A 4 y� � p
i � � � R i u J� V F�
��Q � a�„i�i3 ,
k��.l j: � r � a? � i � �n ; � rc ,.
y J
d 13 F� s Q ��, , � �
�p �y � t�i ti� 4 4 � p W
al �' i �� � j. a a L' � .
y � 1 , , ' .
� �+ �
Q�..1 11 J � � � � .
i f � `��
/ `
' VT��—` �
��//�%�'I�M/,\KJ �// ' �
/ /
� ',{/ 4 � � � �
: � _' � , a r
A• �� ` I /r J
� �
/
�' � � �� � �
I i � ° � '� /
� �a�/ n r �
� '\\ck � �0. �l! p� �
I ( \\ _r �/ �P /ryry -J /
\��3 t ) " / / `�/ O /
� I \�� / II , ' � /
� ^ i � ���+� J� /
� �— - ---- -s_ � ' o, �' I� O
, /
�� � -> > ��a� �d .,� � ,�
�� - � _ ...:..- ° /9a� ,
� _. _ . ...... ........... � r � �i
............................. . � .
� _ _1— i
si Le - �;eda� - /
�
♦
i
i
i
/�/ g
'�O ,,,
u¢
i� $ � �
'' ti
� �' v �
r � .5
" — — — � � .� .�. .._. ...m _... .r. ..m _.._ � � r «- �
� � ,� u
Q >
o an
0
�� � � °
;,
E ; � 1,; 1 w1>1 ! _ -
Ballast
Capackor
tgnilof �
(Where req,drsd�
225° (� �I �
Wlring
Chambmr
5.5°(940mm) i
� 3 5' (89 mm
l
A�uNahleFiHer. SatSaows
Dio cast aktrrdrnen ivttidJe
ie sizad for 2° pipe (2-318' [8Q mm] 0.0.).
Flrish wla; brvnze.
UHI-FORfl9° PULSE START �SETAL H14LI�E
150N1 FSMH CF3615-{a){b}
204W P5i�H CF3620-(a)(b)
25�W PSMH CF3625-(d�(bj
320W PSIVIH CF3632-(a)j6j
350W PSMH CF3635-{a)(h)
.._ ....................... _.
-- -- ----------------�----............................ _..
400W PSMH CF3640-{a)(bM
asow pstwH" C�3645-(a)(b�
� METAL HALIDE
175W MH CF3417-Raj(6}
250W MH CF3425-(a)(hj
...._._..........�........._. .. . . .._ ................._._.........-------------------------
400W MH CF3440-(a)(b)
HiGN PRESSt1RE 50�iUM
.............._-----...... ..............-----............................_............_.........._........
250W HPS CF3525-{a)(b) �
400W HPS CF354o-(a}(h) A
..---...----_ .................................................._......................._._.................
Speclty (a) Voltage 8(6j Optlons. 'ConsutE factary for avai4bility.
� 2•level UgMing avaliahle. See Techoical Data Sheet TD-8.
'� I I
Sharp cuioff luminaire far HID lamp, total3y
enclosed. Housing is seamless, die cast
aluminum. Aluminum die cast adjustahle
fitter maunting is sized for 2' pipe (2-3/S'
[60 mm) O.D.). Allows tor dirsctional aiming as
weli as 2-1/2° incremental vertical adjusimertt.
Contains sntegral wiring compartment. Two
s4ainiess steel set screws pravide clamping
to ve�ticai tenans. Lens assembly consisEs of
rigid aluminum frame and high impact, clear
#empered glass.
ANSI lamp wattage label supplied, visible during
relamping. UL �isted in U.S. and Canada for we4
locations and enclosure classified EP65 per
1EC 529 and IEC 598.
i�s-�e e ,�-
Houelrtg. ReElectaP.
Seandesa, Ptefirtished
6e cast al�riJnum. sertd•speadar
Firtiah color, bmnze. dEfuse alierdnum.
6��/ �,Fl
.C' \� .O%yyy�( ;�� �,05
lamg
(Induda�
Larr�lwlder
Ba,��t
comw�nem is�re Pr�,e.
eovae bie casl aiumimm
doar hame searen
Paten4e9 lar+s� aealed wit9�
Hinga siliconegasket
Aaeombly Fryeh cdx, Merlc
I �
{49 120/208/240/277V (Standard}
T 120/277l34N (Carrada Dniy} (Standard)
1 12UV
2 2T1V
2T 277V (PSMH Only)
a zosv
--��----..._ ............................_ ---_...._..._._............--------�---------...--�-�----..
4 24UU
5 480V
6 347V (Canada Oniy)
...............�-�---�--�----._......_..,_.._._..-----------------------...�_............_._..
for voRage availahllity outslde the U.S. and Cartada, see Bulletln
TD-9 or wMact your Ruud Llghting authorized Int'! Dlstdbuior,
Fixture includes clear, msdium base la►np.
Pulse-rated porcelain enclosed, 4kv rated screw
shell type iampholder with spring laaded center
contac#, Lamp ignitor included where required.
All balfast assemb#ies are high power faciar and
use the follawing circuit type:
Reactor (277V PSiVIH}
(15Q – 45QW PSMH)
CW{1— Constant Watta e�Auta4ra�sformer
(950 – 450W PSMH; 175W – 4QOW MH;
25� – 40UW HPS}
U.S. 4,689,729; 5,451,843; 4,709,392
� I I i i
-{a)F Fusing
-{�)H 2-Level Lightiag � (120, 277, 3alV}
-SP External Photocel[ (1or 48oV)
Q Quartz StantlDy
(includes 100W quaha iamp)
{N/A on 2T7V Reactor bailast)
li Upiight Lens Frame
....._._..........- -----..._ ........................_.................._......,..........._.._..........
Speclfy (aj Single Vallape — Sea Voltage SuNix Key,
Exc3usive �eltaGuard� finish features an E-Coat
epoxy primer with medium bronze acrylic
powdertopc�at, providing exceilent resistance
to corrosion, ultraviolet degradation and
abrasion. The finish is covseed by our 7 year
limited warranty.
i•
FWG-16 Wire Guard
L3-16 Poiycarbonate Vandal 5hield
(not for use witl� fixtures in uplight position)
PC-1 Button Photocell
(for tixtures set to 9201�
PC"6 Button PhoioeeSl
(for fixtures set 40 347V)
PC-2 Button Photocell
(far lixtures set ta 208, 240, 277V)
PGfN-1 Graund Mount Post
SBL-i6 Backlight Shield _..
i.IG�T���t
N�MVaxcdlkfm.�,E.ivxdm,bC �p.'�7
920i 1Nashing4on Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53406-3772 EJ.S.A. PHOiVE �414) 886-1900 FAX (4i4) 884-3309
8 Ruud Li�hcing, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. httpJ/www.ruudEighting.eam 7115l99
%f'ia�
2" �DJ13ST�BLE FIY°iEF�
� ge � � c r�� F� �� r
�. �.Q. RATIN G Isofootcandle plots show {nitial footcandles at grade. {�ootaandles = 0.0929 = Lux)
E.P.A.1.27 for single fixture with 20° tilt {Consuft factary for E.P.A. rating on multiple units or othet filt angfes).
Li§h6ng Seieeees, Ins.
Cerlifted 7est ReporQ P�o. LSt 4948
CandEepoxrer distri6ution aurve of 40aEY f�H
Cutoif Floodtigh4 ai 20° eer6cal 1itt.
100' 80' 60' AO' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' ea' 300'
160' : : I i � � . : : 48.8
140' ...... `.......; .......:......i.......;.......;......E.......�....._;....... 42.7
� � 1 . , i
...._.� ._;._.... : .
12a I....._�...._•�---•-------•;--�- �---- - as.a
i � ; ' i ; :
la0' ..---.�.....'._...,...... 3 ' - ..._._;....._�.....-�- -- �-fi
eo� .......� ....:......:. ...:..... .......:... .:......r....._i...... aa.a
� _....�...... ;... _?. ..� ' . i.-- :.. ...� _ _ 10_3
, ._.;.._
'......I ' , f . ` �
ao• -...s. ......� ... �......i..._; .. ;. ... .. �z.z
< j 3 � ; i i
. . ; : . ; � ;
. . �
20' ...............:. ...:. ....�......i.... .;... .�... ., 6.1
: : j ; ; : : i ...............
� .......i......s... .. .. .;. ...�... .a. . ..' . ....._...�_._.. o m
: : ' ' ; ` '• � €
20' ....._;._....5......_, . . - - - i.___�.._.t-._.. 6.9
� �
aa �z.z
30S 24.4 18.3 122 &.9 0 m 6.1 122 9fl3 24.4 305
Isotao4eandle plat ai 290� A9H Culafl
Floadiigh4 at 25' (7.6 m) �nouniing height
and 20° eer8ical tllt (F'lan view}
60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' 8f1'
t40' .......:.......:..___:.......;.....-��--....;--.....:.._...j.......;....... 42.7
120' .......;.___>.._._:... '..... � ...._`. ._'�'---!.._._E....... 36.5
i' ' i ': : '
90ff.......: ......: .. :.......q.......;......µ---_._i ... �._.._�. .... 30.5
i � i { i : : E
BO' ..__.j.. . ,....._� .....:... � _.:..__ '.._._: . ..F....... 24.4
gp� .......i ...'.. ... ;.. _...:_ � ..�_. _. . - 18.3
q0' ._.._: . ..i. -"- °-- . ... �..... _ .... .i .. _S.. . : . ,
... 12 2
: ' : �
� � � i
20' .......:.. .i.. ...: "'. ....'r"' '... d.. ..;. _..l.._-_ S_7
p' .......i...... . . . ' ... .. ._.q... _ .' . . ' _ _.. 0 m
I
za' .......i....._�....... . .: ,......�--..�_._. s.t
ao� � �zs
30.5 24.4 1B3 122 &9 Om 6.1 322 t83 29.43U5
too� ea so� ao� zo� a za� ao� ea ao� tom
166' : i p �€ ': : 48.8
140' .......i.......�....._}.......1......_i .......:...... . ' . 42.7
i i : i � ; .:...... ......i_....
t
t
: ; ' ; .
� E i
120' ..__;.._..: .......:.......:-......;..._..;.......,_.....E............. 36_fi
' + . t : i i
960' ...._�_.---i ---.:.......i_.....:_....__E_.. ...i.__i_.... 30.5
.-:....
` . I . :
: t ' : � : • i
' .. ..;....... za.a
� ....._:... ..t ... ..:.. .......�.. --... ..... .._.�.
: ; � � � � �
�' ` ., ' � ' ----- 18_3
....._!. _..� _.:.._. r.._.. .......i....-'-'-° -'-----'-
ao� ......1. ..-� . � --: --- �-- --�--- - .__.. i ... . ... .;.._... tz.z
?p� .......i... ...: .. .i .... ; ... �.. ... �. . . .1.. .._ 6.1
�'--__....'.........�...a....[...'....:.. om
i ' ` : ' �
:
: . : :
20' ._..o.....__.. .,. : . . . . ,.. ...o.--_-._.. 6.1
ao� �x.z
3Q6 24.4 1@3 122 6.7 0 m 6_t t22 183 24A 3U5
isoroat�anare ptot ar aoaw mr� c�otr
Floodlight a4 30' �9.t m) moan4ing heigh4
and 20° vertisa19i11. �Plan uie��
48.8
42.7
36.6
30.5
24.4
18.3
72.2
6.7
om
s.i
iz.z
30.5 24A 783 122 6.1 Om 6.1 122 1&3 24.4 3U5
Lighting Sciences; Ins. IsalooYcandEe piot of 250W HPS Cutoff Isafootcandis plot o140�W NPS Eu4off
Cartilied Test Repon No. LSI 1d592 flaodlighi at 25' (7.8 m) moun4ing height Floodkight at 30' (4.1 m) maunting heighi
Caadtepo�er distrihutiun curve af 400W HPS aad 2U° ueetical tilt. {Plan viema} and 20° ver¢ieai till. (Plan viewj
Cutoit Ffoudlight at 20° Yeetieal iikt.
�/
Poie Spacing ��mpie Data / �
Aveeage Initiat Light Levels at Grade
4 Fixfuees per poie
Test area Is centeied wilhln a(16) puie IayouL (Faateandles = O.U329 = Lux)
CataEog # Lamp Typa Lamp Lu�tens [�ounting Height ftNaa. Reeommended Pole Sgacing footsaodles Lux
CF34t7-� 175W MM 12,000 t5' (4.6 mj 75' (�2.9 m) 6.06 65
20' (6.1 m) 100' (30.5 m} 3.62 39
Cf3425-M 250W MH 2O,O�U 20' (6.1 m) 1�0' (30.5 m) 6.03 65
25' (7.fi m) 125' (38.i m) 3,45 37
CF3440-M 4UOW MH 32,000 25' (7.6 m) 125' (38.1 m) 7.75 84
30' (9.9 mj 1b0' (45.7 m) 5.75 62
CF3525-M 25UW HPS 28,500 20' {6.1 m) 100' (30.5 m) 9.45 902 ,
25' (7.fi m) 125' (38.1 m) 5.38 58
CF3540-M 400W NPS 50,000 25' (7.fi m) 125' (38.1 m) 9,45 i02
30� Sg:f_!�?............_........._ ....................ib0'.{45_7 m)-----................--,..........................6:8g............_......._........._74........._....
-- ---° ......................................._--...................._......------._...._................................................,......
/� M 9201 Wash'sngton Avenue Racine, Wiscansin 53405-3772 U.S.A. PHONE (4l4) 886-i900
L � V��� �°' CW Auud Lighting, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. hftpllwww.ruudllphtinp.cam
.e���„mau���ari.maco� �wn
FAX {Q14) 884°3309
7I15/99
GLE�R LEtdS �- FEJ�T T01'
L
��8.8T (225 mm)
Speeular �
Upper
lieflec4oe 5.5" (140 mm)
9Ee Gast —
Afuminum Lens
fietaining Ring,
With dauble
silieone gaskat,
Finish calor, bronze.
Lampholder --
Ignitnr
{Where taquiredj
Extn�ded aluminum.
Pinlsh color, branza.
ConduiQ EMry
93W Fluor. HC213-(a](6}
60W MH HC405-f�j(6)
70W MN HC407-(aj{6)
.._............__.._.._......iaow_M�----------------�ca� a, t?1(b).............
35V4f HPS HC503-(a)(6j
5ow rtPS HC505-(a)(6)
lOW HPS HC507-(aj(b)
140W HPS HC5iQ-(aj(6)
Specify (a) Vollape & j6) Optioas.
F.�ctruded aluminum housing supp€ied i�iernaliy
with a{ormed and channeled 16 gauge steel frame
supports the electrical componems and main
rellector. Housing tastens to a die casf afuminum
base with four 1/4`-20 philiips fiat head screws.
6ase is secured to concrete footing using
pravided masanite templa4e and thres 3/B'-96 x S°
(152 mm) galvanized steel anchor bolts with
leveiing nuts and washers. Suggested poured
base: 2` (S10 mm) deep x 12° (305 mm) dia.,
depending on soil types and frost line in your
area. A 3' (76 mm) dia. conduit opening is
provided in the base for ease o� wiring. Injeciion
molded clear acrylic lens wiEh specular collecting
reflector aitaches to the top of the hausing with
an over-lapping die cast aluminum retaining ring,
held bytwo siainless steel allen fiat head
fasteners. Two silicone lens seals prever�4
moisture from enfering the lens, whils a double
fip silicone seal at the to� of ihe reflector and
sealed lampholder prevent insects, dirf and
moisiure from enlering the optical chamber.
� �'�E - c
� Inlemaily Palrrted
Bronz� Tap
— Cleae
Acrylfe
L,ens
— �--°-°- RAain Colleelsr
Refleclor
i
Lamp .
(Enduded) w„\
3&" (914 mm) ';�
—I— Ba!!as! __.
Epozy Coaterl
Sleef Frame
— Baso Pl�te.
Die casl
alum'snum.
--- Galvanized Stee!
Andtor 8oI£s.
_ 318"-16 x 6" (152 mm)
+�.25^ {32 mm).
0 120l277V
(Standartl: 50 —1UOW hAH; 50 — t00W HPS}
M 120l208/240/277V
(Standard: 5D — laoW MH; 70 —1UOW H PS)
T 12�/277/34N {Canada Only)
(Stantlartl: 70 - lUOW MN)
1 120V (Standard: 13W FL, 35W HPS)
2 2TTV
3 208V
.....---...__ --�---------------�------------------------_............---�--�---------------�------�...
4 240V
6 347V {Canada Only►
for voriage avaliablliry outside the U.S. and Canada, see Bulletin
TD-8 ar comact youf Auud Llphting authorized Int'I blstrihutor.
FEuarescenf fixture iRCiutles a quad tube
compact fluoresceM lamp. HiD iixtuees include
a clear, medium base lamp and porcelain
enclased, 4kv rated screw sheli type lampholder
wiih spring (oaded center cantac#. Lamp igniior
included where required. All ballast assemblies
are high power factor and use the.following
circust types:
Prehe�
(13W Fluorescent}
Reactar (120V only)
(35W HPS)
HX — Hioh R�i�nee
(b0 –140W MH; 50 –100W HPS)
HCL Louver
TP'S-1 Tamperproof Screwddver
� -::.�
.I:�. .
i !' € i •i
A 180° Siiielded Clear Lens
-(a)F Fusing
J iamperpraof Lans Fasteners
-(a}P PhotocelE
V Polycasbonate Lens � 'i '
Specity {a� Single Vaflage — Sae Volhage Suffix Key.
Exclusive DeltaGuard� finish fea4ures an E-Caat
epoxy primer with medium hronze acrylic
powder topcoat, providing excellerrt resistance
to corrosion, ultraviolet degradatian and
abrasioa. The finish is covered by eur 7 year
iimited warranty.
U.S. 5,1 Q5,347
ANSI lamp waiiage labe[ suppNed, visibis during
relamping. UL Lisied in the U.S. and Canada for
wet locaiions and snclosure classi#iad IP65 per
iEC 529 and IEC 698.
9201 Washington Avenue Racine, Wiscansi[� 53406-3772 U.S.A. PHONE (414) 686°i900 FAX {4i4} 884°3309
OO Ruud �i0hting, 1nc. PriMed in U.S.A. �ttpJlwww.ruudlighting.com 7/15/99
�����I��
.�i,�n�aeui^�,Fron.w�+c �wn
r, � �;
. . � ;:
:� . ':� � �: �
%�f'/°� _
C
(Fooicandles -: 0.0929 = Lux)
Eighting Ssien�es, Ine. Ray Tree� shaeving light disiri6ation of
CerUtied Test AepoR Nn. L31 9728R p�ia�ted refleciar s�sslem.
C�ndlepowse distribution eurve ot 10�W I�W
Round Ballard uith eiear leres.
Use 4hfs charE 4o d�Eermine initiaE Foatcandle leeels �t grade tar the HC Saeies Round Botiard with slear, ila4 top ler�s.
Lamp Lumens --
SpyV I�i� 34Q0 1.79 4.38 2.33 .90 � .36 .t7 .09
70YN RAH 5600 2.95 7.2.2 3.85 1.47 .58 .28 .15
1006� MH 9000 4.74 11.60 6.18 2.37 .95 .45 24
35dV HPS 225� 1.34 1.97 .94 .41 .18 .08 .05
50W Hf�S 4000 2.38 3.5� 1.67 .73 .31 .15 .08
7DW IiPS fi400 3.61 5.60 2.6i i.17 .50 .24 .13
10�V� �IPS 950Q 5.56 8.31 3.97 9.73 .74 .3S .19
*r.
g�q 9�U1 Washing4an Avenue Racine, Wiscansin 534Q6-3772 U.S.A. PHONE (414} 886-1900
�' �}'�' �� Q Ruud Lighiing, Inc. Prirrted in i1.S.A. hltpJ/Www.ruudlighting.cam
A, naa r.ce �hia,q sdr�t, canpa n
FAX (414) 884°3309
7115l99
� 10/'/99 11:30 ti°�OU°236-75�0 Ruud L3ghting. Inr. Catherine �r.ith°�RICK Zr2
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
!
��� � � � � ,��'C/E.'�
% ��� `
� 7
A1� e�8fo�i�
a� fi� ��at a.� I
��OY !
�ierg�Y e�ir�erc+�, sa impc���� ,�
tcday§ ligairg ae�i,� • nas
spark�� 8 a�3ff13�0 fC! Eaw•watt3ge.
mzd?�,m-base�� H J f� ��ah IntenS!fij
JISCh�s�2j ';XPJtES
�:.r•:;;•,; .
r:;:;:;,.>.t:`z..., oma�:!�atdenal . arnp
,kt • a T�nufactu;srs �c�n o�er ycu
�' s"� �� '` smeEier lume� �ckaga� �n �ctFE
�..::::�; .. ..:.... :.... . :.'. '�� � Psess�r: Scd�im �na Ue�i
_ ;� `'.,� � 9
., l� : i> iialide !amP�.
WedHOlf
La�Type Qescrlp9lnn ddte Catalog t�
5GW Aqi H�D 12o/?r^r R?MG5
�`NhW �i� 1iA2;7 R?MO'
10DW MH 4� !u�� �vrth �er h;ns mivi 12E�2;; R?M �D
5p'� I-PS Hb 1?A�?i7 R'£o5
�11vhPS H�D t"c0?i7 R?Si;7
i[l�1,VHPS HIOP�s�wthepEivinsr.niyi 12D,^;� R'51?
Aueszarie� (Pa� 2Db} Catal,g �
i-6at G1ips (4j Fi6C
Intar�»}HiD�ie?zGCr(use�nh�Tl�,x'f15, tri2,Fj F.I�F#I
L rrrsiie ivi�;l "r,�n Ring ;?-?/d" c.d ; ---FOTR -
ilS�liu nSev�IhR"18}
�,:�
�
18" �
7 a" "3•`� \ P �
I� �/ t�,.l \, c
� �
p�2s4erirane � 6A3'—
tl�menslars: i&'E x 6.��'�N
ai �� e rr,�. H gn Prassurz f�f°s)
i�mps srs the more e!Sicient
c'cduci��g more lurrians per war.
An�i the H?S Iamps na4z � ra;�a
3veraqe li� o! �;.{T0�',� hc�lis.
3ut iz culor iS mars ;mpertar;E Fhaa
a�ticlen�y. ceisi�zr r,�=_t�; i�;ide
;"�1H; �arnps. Wa•m-cc��i ti�i�
�am�is h2vs a:200'K ternperatrra.
3 C r! ei �5. �; c a 5.��)C� � 5AJ0
�OL':' lii�.
-�e dzeeapme� t c� c�x-•,va:�age
�1�[al ;-ra;;�2 +_mp� Usetl wi;r
'6�;@!1" 1iXll!!@S �'�av,s au�
r�?18 3r� R� "s0,rims tc ha U_
� st�d'o• �se wi2h �}.'0 ui
1 ��OW hR-1;amps.
Dua1-Vo!lag8 Baltasls
Hig!�= eaclarn;e. yigt powar fac:c�
124127'4� h� �as? is T}�pe 1.
=.ncas:d ar�d c��7ec. I�ter�l
I�'°fff131 pf4:�'of IS ��C�dBd,
Lamp IaCiuded
?ie �ppropria� diF�sa a� caataa
HID lamp s inciuded o��
h��usinc� p•;cx and is shipFed w}-�
cre f xh�!�.
� NID
� Haasing
IAiS05
� P.i�Oi
� RTSiO
� R7,Ui05
� �tr�o7
IAiM"G
Tofal
Uhdt�
85
�
S25
i?
sa
15
�dj�sta�e Havsi�g
adi��:s u�, to 1-3,'6' in pl�s[er
rr�me ;0 3ccumm�date d �fererr
�eii�n� thick��es�es.
Oversized Junctinn Bax
t7ESigned -or e�sy Shrough-bra,�ch
�ircc;t �vir�ng. Eigh- Nc.12 (90'�;
o•ar,c1 c rcuit concuc�ars
p.�miYed n junctior box,. F3ct��ry
�Vif2a fOf 277V. Can �e easi€y
�harge� inr 1��V cperat on.
27" 0ar Hange�s
r�.�H�'f;a: ba� � argarsare
sar�rJa; d wi;�; �n i�l D'nc�:s �ncs
3r�d �a� be ��la:ed �� i�e sides or
t"e �nd� a� E� e piasr r frarne.
Therma! Proteelor
�•OtEC:S i I!(�fE 1i 91110b�(�?936 i1C� C
!rcarrect IamF is used or, p�r ?�EC
�ic1c �;0-65. it �nsu!atior ts
ir�dJe�[ertiy ;nstal eo a�aa ��r
nithir 3" af rixur?.
�tljuslahle Sockel
Socket F at� is a�iu�sbl2 2s
(cCUIC9d 1Cf C,ifi2i9f!t:"!�fIS.
LB�BIS
� lousing is JL'_isied n th� U.�.
3r�G Cara�a �o� damp facaticns
��tl iee�-tvaugh wiri�g,
I�"!1.., :"`i� � .i"�r :,1' �""�
Sl�11t� Operating
Aa�s kmps
920V 277V t24V 277V
�iJ
".�7
'..�D
a �a
0.53
C ZD
�"35 �JCi� �3v
G.50 �,82 G."s6
�J.�5 ":.10 C.5�7
:: s� a 6e csc
�,27 �.85 G.37
u.95 1.10 0.42
' Trlm Colar Co�: W1-i (`h'hrte)
� RefleeSms Hnisb Cede� ;L'Spec�iorpea��, G�3;5pec�l�r�o��
IBaNles GaO� Cnde: Vdk NJh�e1 9K i3Ea:k1
Aeasswies . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. _ . . ?zge 20a
� FhNometrics 41d Coeflicier� of t1fl14zaUnn ... ,. ... .?�3es 2U�-207
��p/7/R9 1I:27 C1-80G-235-75�0 Ruud Llghting. Inc. Calherine Smith-� RTCK
,
� ��� ` � %
, �" �n��de��nt IC E�onor�y ��ir� RiSeries lamPc. ,..........Pegas156-158
Al�m+l�m 9afr3e
; 61dnl.�rmAi�(t7�;7•tld'od.
� CalataA 4 Lamp
iHi�6- 50P.4P3amax
'�a7t�� haNl3 xdir: V!H nr 6K
R LamD ��lealn� (Alza�)
plss!c1Atr Rnq �N9-0; T-1,'4' u.tl.
Ce4aIn0 t Let�
NTl?0' 5C�FR30 max
�F�f r�sietx nla. CL, r,Dor BK
R�flador (Wza�°)
Plesic?�imRns t��, 7-�; 4' o.d
CaEalog Y lasrsp
A?:�0- ap,M9r.ax.
•SaeaP; re�e:t:� c]E��. GL ar GD
�, . • ,'.�
�'\�;. • � �i�',�
AdJuatahle �rsbali
tvGalitim Ping �Kif�. i-?!d' od
Calalug � Lare�
P,T?� 5�'vfa�oT2z.
NATE L'�n b2 a:^.� 3�' znd taa'� ;58'
,'': . . . ' ' `y:�
Ad��stahse Eyaba3l
Fh��lirfrn R:�p (NiS: i-"'6 ^C
Cabbg 5 Lamp
r3i'��3 i5?R/PPR3Gm3�.
ILam, PJecF;)
AOTE C�n bea m�i 35` z��d reaEe� 358"
�op Opal Lens (p#e�ici
?k�.#icTri�Poc� 1"M;, 7-7JL"�u.d
Cata9ng # Lamp
R'i1�V,Rf ;Q4I5r�
In.l�d=,s RCP. �!Pmai 7r:m R; tlecrr �c,2�1
UL Lls]eG twrwN IocatloB
�rap Opal Lens (olz�i
M1A3?fTr.r.� Nir� C�'H"�. ; •%�3' aG
Cataing 12 La�
�111 44455 nat.
:r;�des RfiR lnerne i'rvn P,cflEC,+;r �.�.QA':
Fresnei te� (,�ssi
N:ti'frirn Rirc lY��ll '-lry_' ad.
Calelog � Le�
A'ti5 4�415 rer..
'n.;_Ces R?TR nlEnal?ri��Pa71CC;� ��2ui;
Rl6al�e Letis;�ass>
N�lTrim P,i� (Wril; � � /�' 4d
Cataing # Lar�pt
F,'t?5 4�1.iE t�.
;r:l,ds� Ri?ri l�uemalTri,nASf�x`� �.F�a1:
.i; : .;?';, i `..
��
hkt3�irir.f $it51S'M11i,7-11G' nd.
Cafa�g # lat�
E�717 ;�R<•urra�:.
Tr;m�ing Finish:
WH (r1'hifej
fieyactor Finl�hes � �
Ct ��dCL�3; Cie�f! I
GD!Spe�ular Go!aj
SK �p2ci,lar8��.^K)
8attle Celars: �
Wfi (thtoiEe}
9K,G1adc; ��
�na
�ae
2f2
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
j _'.
I�A.NI�II�G ISS� �
�
To: Mounds View Planning Cotnmission
From: James Ericson, Planrung Associaie
Subject: Proposed Ordinance 642
Date: Meeting of October 20, 1999
�ae�ge-ou�edo
Per the Commission's directian an Oc�cober b, 1999, staff has drafi:ed Ordinance 642, and
ordinance which amends th� Zoning Code regarding driveways and curb cuts.
The primary change relates to the width of a driveway in the R-1 and I�W2 �orvng districts.
Instead o�ihe existing 35 foot: wide limitation, this ordinance would aliow for a driveway as wide
as the garage, plus an additional 12 feet, or 35 feet; whichever is greater. The other char�ge is to
�ncrease the maximum curb-cut to 24 feet from 22 feet. Staf�was not sure i�ihere was a
consensus on that, so if the Commission would prefer to reiain the 22-foot cut, thai part af the
ardinance will be omitted.
ihere is one pari: of the ordinance that staffwouid like some direction, concerning Section
I121.09, Sub Se, concerning driveway widths and spacing on medium density residentzal
proper�ies. The current specifications stafffeeis are too restrictions, especially considering what
has been appraved in the recent past on Silver Lake Road. Instead of Iimiting the curb cut widths
to 25 feet, stafifeels 16 feet would be more appropriate. Similarly, instead ofrequiring a
minimum spacing af 40 feet, staff%els that 20 feet would be more appropriate, However, this
still causes problems for twin homes with side by side garages and separat� driveways. Sing(e
family homes may have back to back driveways, perhaps requiring even a twenty faot spacing is
unreasonable for twin homes?
The other changes considered by this ordinance are of a housekeeping nature.
iteco rrtan e�►dation:
Please review the changes contemplated by this ordinance and direct siaff to tnake any further
revision as the Commission deems appropriate and direct staffto draft a resolution recommending
approval to the City Council.
� Gt���� �° c�c.�1-��°`LL
James Ericson
1'►�,nriing Associate
N:IDATAIGROUPS\COMDE VISPECPROJ1SP074-94�IvIEM01.PC
� �€ j��,, i - � i
`�., �. � �:� f �. . `; .% , ': ;��; '�:',
; f; i .;
��; � � �� � :t,_; � ., , -.. _�; ; :-..
! '. '1. ?I - °! '1 - 1 1 .- � .
�.
THE COUNCII, OF MOUND� VIEW ORI3AINS:
�EC'I'ION �. Title 1104, Chapter 1104 of the Mounds View Municipal Code shall be aznended
by the addiiion of the italrcized arad double-underlined language and the deletio� of the �k�re
� language in Sectian 1104.01, Subdivi�ion 4 to read as follows:
Subd. 4. Ie/Iinimum Setbacks for Accessory �uildings, Driveways and Parking Areas:
a. Accessory Buildings {detached from a principal building): (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(1) R-1, R-2, R-3, It�4, R-5 and R-O:
(a) fror�t: no aceessory building sha11 be located between the front of the
principal builciing and the front lot line. (Qrd. 590, 11-25-96)
{b} side: five feet (5`) except the minimum setback shatl be thirty feet (30')
from any lot Iine abutting a public street. (�rd. 590, 11-25-96)
(c) rear, including street frontages ai the rear of thraugh lots: five feet (5').
(Ord. 590, lI-2S-96} '
(2} All other districis:
(a} front: no accessory buiiding shail be located between the front of the
principal building and the front lot line. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96}
{b} sid�: same as principal building. {Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(c) rear: same as principal building, excepi accessory buildings having four
hundrec� (400) squaee feet or less and not abutting property in a resideniial
district ar a street, may have a minimum rear s�tback af ten feet (10').
(Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
b. Driveways:
(1) Driveways shall have a minimuzn setback of five fFeet (5') from any lot line,
Ordinance 642
Pa�e 2
excepfi as permitted in Sections 1104.01, Subd. 4b and 1121. I 5, Subd. 2 of this
Title. Driveways shall be permitted to cross a required setback area in order to
esiablish access between the lot and a public street. Where a driveway wou(d
encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain an encroachrnent
perrr�it if required by tha City prior io constructian of the driveway. Drive aisles
and driveways which are within the boundaries of a parking area shall conform io
the sethacks required for parking areas. {Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(2) Driveways in existence as of the date of enaciment of Qrdinance 624 and
which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue subject to
the provisions ofSection 902.02, Subdivision 2 and Section 1123,02, Subdivision
1(b) of this Title. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98)
3� In the R-1 and R-2 zonrng disPricts, the cornbined width for drivewav anca'
attached varkin� areas shaZl not exceed thiriv-five feet (35'). or the width o�'tdte
�ara�e nlus an additional iwelve feet /12'). whichever is �eater.
c. Parking Areas:
(1) R-1, R�2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-Q:
� (a) residential uses:
'� five feet (5'), except in the R-1 and R-2 districis, parking areas and
driveways shall be permitted with a setback oione foot (1')
provided the owner(s} of the abutting lot(s) indicates their
permission on a form acceptable to the City. Where a parking area
would encroach into an easement, the property owner shail obtain
approval far an encroachment permit if reyuired by the appropriate
authority prior ta construction of the driveway. .
f�ei-(3-5ij: (Ord. 524, 2a22-93; Ord. 594, 1 i�25-9b; Ord. 620, 7-
27-9�}
{b) non-residential uses:
five feet (5'} except where r�on-residentiat uses abut property in a
residen�iai district, the setback for parking areas from the common
property line shali be as fol�ows: (Ord. 590, 11�25�96}
[I]. for sites having two and one-haif (2.S ) acres or iess:
twenty feet (20') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
jii]. for sites having more than two and one-half (2.5) acres:
thirty feei (30') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
Ordinance 642
Page 3
(2} Bel, Bm�, B-3, Bm4 (parking areas and loading docks):
(a) front: �hirty feet (3�'} (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(b} side and rear: five feet (5'}, except where a�on-residential use abuts
a property ir� a residential districi, the setback for parking areas
from the common property line shall be as stated in Section
l I04.01 subdivision 4c(1)(b). (Ord. 590, 11-25m96)
(3) I-1 {parking areas and loading docks):
(a} front: forty £eet (40'} (Ord. 59d, 11-25-96)
(b) side and rear: five feet (5'), except where a non-residential use abuts
a property in a residential district, the seiback for parking areas
from the common property iine shall be as stated in Section
1104.01 subdivision 4c(1}(b). (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590,
11-25-96)
(�}) Parking areas in existence as of the date of enactment of Ordinance 624 -
and which do not conform to the provisions ofthis subsection, may continue ;
subject to the provisions of Section 1123.02 subdivision Ib. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98)
SECTIOI� 2. Title 1100, Chapter 1121 of the 1Vlounds View Municipal Code shall be amended
by the addition af the italieized and double-underlined Ianguage and the deletion af the �
� language ir� Section 1121.09, to read as follows:
1121.09: STAI,I., AISI.E A�TI) I2R��W�4,� I�ES�G�a
Subd. l. Farking Space �ize: Each parking space shall not be less than nine feet (9') wide and
eighteen feet (18') in length exclusive af access aisles, and each space shail be served
adequateiy by access aisles.
Subd. 2. �Iit�in Structures: The off street parking requirements may be iurnished by providing
a space so desi�ned within the principal building or one attached thereto; however, unless
provisions are made, no building permit shall be issued to convert said space into a
dweliing unit or living area until other adequate provisions are made to comply with �he
required off street parl�rrg provisions af ihis Title.
Subd. 3. C�rculation: Except in the case of single�family, two-family and townhouse dweltings, -
Ordinance 642
Page 4
parking areas shall be designed so that circulation between parking bays or aisles occurs
within the designated parking iot and does not depend upon a public street or alley.
Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parlcing area
design which eequires backing into the public street is prohibited.
Subd. 4. Dimensions: Except in the case of single-farnily, two-family and townhouse dwellings,
parking areas and their aisles shall be developed in campliance wFth the following
standards:
An�le
�S°
60°
75°
90°
Wall to
Interiock
Minimum
Dimension A
44. �'
52.5'
61.3'
63.0'
Interlock to
Inierloek
Minimum
Dirnension B
43.0'
51.0'
b1.0'
b3.0'
Paraliel Parking: 22 feet tn Leng#h
Subd. 5. Curb Cuts and Driveway Openings:
Wall to
Wail
1Vlinimum
Dimension C
47.0'
54.0'
62.0'
63.0'
a. No curb cut access shall be located less than fifty feet (50') from the intersection of iwo
(2) or mare sYreet rights of way. Tkus distance shall be measured from the intersection of
lot iines.
b. No cunc �ut access sha�( exceed twenty t� our� feet (� 24 in width for R-1 and R-5
residential uses. A thirty foot (30'} wide curb cut shall be perrnissible for R-2, R-3 and
R-4 uses, subject to requirement� of subdivision Se hereof, commerciat uses (B-1 through
B�4) and industrial uses (I-1).
c. Curb cut openings shall be at a minimum of three feet (3') from the iot lir�e in residential
districts and five feet (5') �From the !oi line in husiness or industrial districts.
d. I3riveway access curb openings on a public street, except far single-famiiy, two-faix�ily
and townhouse dweLlings, shatl not be locaied less than foriy fe�t (40'} from one another.
e. Each property elevation of any parking area shall be allowed one �urb cut access for
each one hundred twenty five feet (125'} of street fror►tage. All property shall be ee�titled
to at least one cucb cut. �ingle-family uses shatl be limited to one curb cut access per
property unless, upon applica#ion for a varia.nce of this restriction, the �oard of
Ordinance 642
Page 5
Adjustment and Appeals finds that it is in the interest of public safety to waive such.
l�edium density residential (2 to 6 units} may l�ave two (2} curb cuts; provided, at each
cut does not exceed twelve feet (-� lb , and that their surfaces are a minimum of �
�rven feet {� 20 apart.
f. Cuy-h cuPs in existence as of 10/11/99 that do not confor•m to this subdivision n�av
remain in existence unless deemed bv the Director ofPublic Works to be a dan�eY o�
�ublre safet�� hazard. Notices to abandon a c�.�rb cut nrav be appealed in writrn� to the
Ci Council ord. b40 10/11/99 , � �
�ubd. 6. Grade Elevatian; The grade elevaiion of any parlcing area shall not exceed five percent
(5%). (1988 Cade §40.07).
Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as altowed in �ubdivision 1144.01(4) of this Title, to be utilized
ifor parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with a permanent, improved surface
material as defined in Section 11�2.02 ofthis Chaptea', suitable to contrai dust, drainage
and erosion, meeting the requirements of Section 902.��3 of this Code except as follows:
A gravel surface material meeting the specifications of 5ection 902.0�3, Subd. 5 of this
Code may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R-2 District not #o exceed three hundred
(300} square feet or, if ta be used as a parking surface for an RV, the minimum area that
would enco�npasses the wheei-base area of ane (I) recreational vehicle. Plans for -
surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalis for five {5) or more vehicles shall be
submxtted to the I)irector of Co�nmunity I7evelopment for review, and the ftnal draznage
p(an must receive the Director of 1'ublic Works/City Engineer's written ap�roval. {Qrd.
524, 2-22-93; Qrd. b20, 7-27-98; Ord. b40. 10/11/99.)
Subd. 8. Striping: Excep� for single-family, two-family and townhouses, at1 parking stalls shatl
be �narked wiih yellow painted lines not less than four inches (4") wide.
Subd. 9. Lighting: Atty lightit�g used to it(uminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged
so to reflect the Iight away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses and public
rights of wa� and be in compliance with Seciion 1103.09 of this Title.
Subd. 10. Signs: No sign shalI be sa Iocated as to restrict t�e sight lines and orderly opera#ion
and �ra�c movement within any parking lot. All signing must conform to the Mounds
t/iew �ign Codel. .
Su6d. 1 I. Curbing and Landscaping: Except for single-family and two-family c%velonr�rents.
� � , aIl open of� street parking shail
have a perimeter curb barrier around the er�tire parking lot. The specr�cations and
location of this curb barrier shall comply with Section 902. 04 arrd with the setback
requirements for parking areas stated in �ection 1 I04.01, subdivision 4. Grass, plantings
or surfacing materials shall be provided in all are�s bordering the parkin� a�-ea. (Ord. 590,
I1/26/95; Ord. 640. 10/11/99.) _
' Ordinance 642
Page b
Subd. 12. Required �creening: Alt open, nor►residential, of� street parking areas of five (5) or
more spaces shall be screened and landscaped frorn abutting or surrounding residential
districts in campliance with subdivision 1103.08(6) o�Fthis Title. (1988 Code §40,07)
1 See Chapter 1008 of this Code.
SECTIOJV 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication in the of�'icial City
newspaper.
Read by the City Councii of the City of Mounds �/iew this ____ day of , 1999.
IZead and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _ day of ,
1999.
Attest:
(SEAi,)
APPRO`IED AS TO FORM:
Robert C. Long, City Attorney
C:10F�ICE\WPVJIN�WPDOCS\ORDINANC1642.ORD
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
Charles 5. Whiting, City Clerk/Administratar
� ti ��; :� � ;k 1� : , . � � : �: ��' ��l ��� i:�: ; ��i '' ; � � �� °`, ;1 . � , ; �I >i� �"��
��, :�; . ; ��. : �, ;� �-_ :�` �.��.
� :, ��, �; : �-., � ,. � �., � __ �; ��, ; ��:
l. C'a1i to Order
The meet�ng was called to order by Chairperson.
�. itoll Cail
Nlernbers Present: Chairperson Peterson, Comtni
and Mitler.
1Vlembers Absent• Commissioner Stevet�son, 3
' �.
Absee�ee. _���:
Also Present: Planning Assoc�ate Ji ' ricson
Counci( Liaison Roger Stigney, an� �' �order,'�
Index ta ���
Planning� ��e
Resalution 59
for a one-foot
Jeff Johnso�;>':
Pian����Case No. 571�
595.,,> , a resolution rec
at�'�`��rsized shed.
<
Reg�tlar lYieeting
Oetobe�° b, �999
Ii�ou�ds V���vv C�ty �alE
2401 �i�h`way 109 I�I�u���s i����, I�N 55112
8.00 �'���' Octob
p��• 9
�ahnson, Kaden, Laube,
99, �f�'��„ c� 7�� 1�Iiliview Road. Consideration of
esolut�c�t� ����'t�vin� a variance request to allow
Braathen, Leave of
Director Rick 3opke,
stwood 1Zoad, Consideration of Resotution
approval of a conditiona( use permit for
���� & Tammy Doro��ppiicant.
��4:�
` ; �.
�i������,c?{���t�z�; ': amending the City Code to allow for driveways wid�r than
3 �' ����. :
�
�tafil�eports / Itetns of Information
Chairpersor� and Planning Commissioners Reports
�: , .
�
�3
1l�o�nd� `Va�w� �la�ni�g �o�rr'is��or� O�tober 6, 1999
Regul�r 1Vl�etin� ..� P�.ge 2
3a Cii�ze�es' �2equest� �rad Coset�aents ot� Iterr'� 1l�oi mn ti�e A�enda
There were no citizen requesis or comments on items not on the agenda.
4. A�p�°oval of I�Iena�tes
Aa Septerrabee- �, �.999
Couneil Liaison Stigney requested a correction to the m�
September 1 meeting. �
MOTION/�ECOND: Mi1lerBerke to approve the
Ayes — 7 Nays — 0
5. P1a�a���� Case I�o. �70w99
Property Involved: 2075 & 2081 Hillview
Consideration ofResolution 59I-99, a resoli
garage setback. .�j
�:�
Appiicant: Jeff Johnson ������
The applicant, was not
Plannin�u�,�s�c:%���,Eri
The applicant is r�c�u�,�;
and 208I Hillt�iev� ]f�c�c
��* , :
area com ��� t�i a ri�
separat �operties are
iike -- "onstruct a ihrc
pro °z, ° y line, which w�
staff
as iFollows:
8, 1
to
'['he motion
presence at the
to ailow for a one-foot
a reduccad ��d�y��i setback to allow far two garages to be located at 2075
T�e sut�j��� ��-i�perties are located on ihe eastern edge oithe City, in an
��r` �� four=plex dwelling �nits and a manufactured home park. The two
�����d �vith #'our-plexes, and neither have garages. The applicant would
td�� �;�ra�e on each property, separated by one foot from their adjoining
� r�quire a variance from the five-foot setback requirement,
��it�itz��; Associate E'-� n stated this item was before the Flanning Commission at their last meeting
c��;����r��mb�r IS,:�� ° 9, at which time, there was discussion regarding a possible hardship. Sta.ff
1�����tr�� ����� ���' ship exists at this location, in that the slope of the property to the rear, and an
ex��s�iu� ��sement tocated in thai area of the property prahibits construction, as well as the
�lac�gneii� of t�� buildings on ihe (ot,
Plarzning Associate Ericson stated sta� has reviewed the seven criieria presented for establishing a
hardship to allow fae a variance, and it a,ppears that a variance can be granted based upon
hardship and practicaI difficulties of �he subject property. He exp(ained the tQpography of th�
l�Yoaanc�� �lie� Pl�r����� Cor�sa�a�ssim�a Ociof��r 69 1999
Itegul�r �eetee�g Page 3
properiy creates a situation that ma4ces development where seihack requirements could be met
very di�cult. In addition, the placement of the buildings an the lots does not allow enough roam
for a five-foot separaiion, and the property owner did nat creafe the situation, but is simply
attempting to improve the property.
Planning Associate Ericson stated that based upon the review of the criteria, the
pcesentation at the prior meeiing, and the Planning Comrnission's direciiQ�, staf.
Resolution 591-99, which approves ihe one-foot sideyard setb�ack for tk�e ���la�i
that the approval is contingent upon the applicant filing the lution ���I� ���
submitting a revised site plan, which indicates the locatio .a��'� he garage that �uc�
c�
with the one-foot setback, ,�. � ,. _ ,,
Planning Assaciate Ericson stated the appiicant has indi
construction of the project during the current building s
however, staf�F believes that there are no unresolved iss
recommending approval of Resolution 591a99. �
Chair Peterson inquired if the existing asphalt
commented he would not expect this to be th�
that shows the dimensions and location of �e�
at the s�te in thai there is a telephone po� f��c�
and egress of the property somewhaf •', cult
a�d any proposal to redo th� asph .'� A�nsu�
matter would be brou ght back be ��'the Co�
parking area,�and this woutd,;.be ;,nsidered se
a xesoiuti�ri� ���
Zoning Codc �
2075 and 20� J
�pp��ant's
��"�drafted .
�i't. �Ie explained
ey County and
rt�: �c, allowed ��
es not expeGt ta t,a�nrence
;for�, the item c°an �e �ahled,
����cii�t. He stated staff is
�u�� b� t u�laced i�l t��e s<im����ocations. Ericson
s�, [��it��rcy��� sraff do��iot yet have a site plan
ve a�'��� kX� e���a���d that a problem does exist
f th� p����t�riy 1€�e, which makes the ingress
,��dvised ��af�'�vill r�view the revised site plan
iat it co� �: res with the City Code, He added this
ssion i�,�re were issues with the driveway and
a��ly ;�"�n�i the garage issue.
3o�it�sc�rv'L�ube. To Eipp��a��e Planning Commission Resoluiion No. 591-99,
i� a"V��aa�c� ���s�Yn Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4, of the Mounds View
t�,ry to �etbat�k:�, tv �;:ll,�w For a Reduced Sideyard Setback for Garages at
��7'��ad; Mo�n�i� �iew Planning Case No. 570-94.
1Vays — 0 Motion carried.
Pi��ni�g Case�o. 571�99
Eastwood Road
ion 595-99, a resoiution recommending approval of a conditional use
pe���€ ���` �t� �vers�zed shed.
l-�pplican�:: Al�.n & Tammy I�oroff
'd'he applicant was present,
IVi�u„ds Vievv I'lanni�g Co�e�ais�iors Oegobe�° 69 1999
I�e�uiar l�I�e�ia�g Pa�e 4
Planning Associaie Ericson gave the staf�'report as follows:
The applicants, Alan and Tammy I3oroff, have app(ied for a conditional use permit io construct a
384 square-foot shed in the backyard of their home Iacated at 8270 Bastwood Road. The
proposed shed would be located behind and in-ground swimming pooi on the subject property.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that staff does not typically see r�
shed, and it was clear that the matter wou(d require very close scrutiny
examined the matter very ciosely both in terms of the gener ''��eria ft
for an oversized shed, as well as the adverse effects, _�
Planning Associate Ericson stated stai�'has been to the �tt��per
an acre, and the majority of the lots in the surrounding ar�� ai�
because the applicanYs have an in-ground swimmin� poo�, tht
foot wood privacy fence, which offers compfet� screerun� t�f:i
e�eighbors, and staffhad taken ihis into consideration u���i re�
criteria. He noted that all of the dirnensional requ�rer����s far
terms of setbacks and rear yard coverage for acc�q� ���ct�
proposed shed is to be 384 square feet, it wo -�ti�� ��,ic�: i�� ;
the Code requires that accessory buildi�gs ; er no t�t��'� t��ir
4*�\"
He added that the total area of all access, buildm�� on il��,�
includes the existing 484 square-foot�,��ii-car g��age,
Planning Associate Ericson
requirem�nts presented for
affects of tl�t� u�e were e���
fact tha�-�i�� nrtirs�sed sh�ci
use wouid n�at ����� the
to create additic����� ��.tira�
shed, and a small ��q ��`
with < proposal,
not utilized for
d and canstru
�ssoci
o�;,�`ch a Iarge
���siaf� has
z%ional use perrriit
����i is a lar��r �ot, altt�t���:�ialf
same size. He ���l�.itied that
erty is enclosed by an �ight-
�;�yard area frarn the adjacent
;#� �tta� specific and general
.W��� [��;x�;c�uest are met, in
, ..:
�e ���Iained, although the
�en� a£'the bacicyard area, and
���ent of Yhe backyard area.
�y is 864 square feet, whgch
��; specifi� �'�quirem���s for ihis type of use, and the general
��
liiional �a�� ��erm�. �quest appear to be met. The adverse
terms �� t�� st�t; ning that is provided with the fence, and the
at be visib�e to the neighboring properties. He added that this
�� c�f the property or the neighborhood, and would only serve
tk�� �i��perty, which currently only utilizes a very smali metal
���ie�:ai does not appear that there are any adverse impacts presented
�;��� size of the structure. He expia�ned, however, the shed would
to`� ge, or any type of business, but strictly as a storage shed of similar
a shed which presently exists on a neighboring property.
��icson stated staff has drafted lZesolution 595-99, a resolution reaommending
�:
itianal use permit to the City Council.
Comria�sszonei- Tvlilier inquired if the shed would be the same size as the shed located immediately to
the north af the appticant's property.
Alan 1)oa°��', the applicant stated the shed wouid be a slightly larger than his neighbor's, however,
i� would be the same height.
16�I�un�s Vi�� Pla�a�iin� Corair�assaora Octo�a�a° 69 1999
IBe�a�lar° 1l�eetiaag Page 5
Corrunissioner �/IiEler inquired if the last sentence of Page 3 of the Resolution should end with the
wocd "typical," and the phrase "arguably uruform in appearance" be omitted. Ericsan stated staff
would delefe the words following the word "typical." Commissioner IVliller further inquired if
language shouid be included on Page 4, Item 3 of the resolution to indicate thai ihe existing shed
would be removed. Ericson stated that a building permit would not be issued unless the eXisting
shed was removed. � ���
Corr►missioner Miller inquired if there was a time frame for
Ericson pointecl out that it woutd be necessary for the appli
to canstructing the proposed structure, as it is to be const�
MOTION/SECOND; Hegland/Kaden. To Approve Re
Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit
and Tammy Doroff, �270 Eastwood Road, Mounds Vi
amended.
Ayes — 7 Nays —
Planning Associate Ericson stated this item
the October 25, 1999 City Council meetin�
'70 l�iscus� ap�ior�s for
Planning Associate Ericson
residettt oft�e,�ity had a��
directed to����s�d��t,� r�searcli��'i
cammunities, d�t,+�r�nii��c► that
spectrum in terx�a� vff;�� i���
Cit�;:�`�d� to
re�noval
in tl�e
�
:sting shed,
istin� shed prior
:��5-99, a ���Spl��i�i� i�
an Oversiz�d �l��c�' fa�° Alan
iase.No. 571�995 �a�
caa-ried.
a public hearing at
for driv�ways ervider th�n 35 �eet.
the �e���mber �, :�999 Planning Commission meeting, a
the Ca�nxa��s��n`to request a variance to allow far a 44-foot
p�-ahib�ts � drivc;way in excess of 35 feet. He stated staffwas
��,�rd, and after surveying a number of neighboring
ds �%f�'s requirements are on the more restrictive end of ihe
u��t�Z' of driveways and curb cuts.
;,
Piannin ?��sociate Eri�sati s�at�t� the City requires a r�aximum curb cut of 22 feet at the street,
and Q1���one other city, �r;��e�t �ills, requires a curb cut that narrow. Other communities require
: �;�
bet����en 24 and Z� feet, ';�d ��e city of �laine allows 30 feet at the street. He explained that most
o�;th� cammunities sur�ed did not have a requirement in terms of the width driveways. Some
ct�x�a�ttu��ities restrict �_�; w�dth of driveways in relation ta a percentage of lot width, one
��i�m�t��ity r�qu�� e driveway be no wider than the garage, and another community requires
tilia� thc i��r����� surface cov�rage of the lot can rrot exceed 40 percent.
�la��run� As�ocia�e Ericson stated staffis reyuesting direction to revise the City's 35-fooi width
requirement, to reflect more current times in uihich �hree�car garages are the norm. He expia�ned
that the Code was written during a time when single car gara�es vvere the standard, and it does
nat appear unreasonable io staffto amend the Cade to allow for wider driveways. He stated staff
has praposed language which indicates "the lot width, driveways or parking areas shall not exceed
I�✓imu��ads V�e� Plar��i�� Corrarr'ES�io� Oc�ober° 6, 1999
PteguI�r IVleet�ng Page 6
thirty-five �eet, or the width of ihe garage plus and additional ten feet, whichever is greater." He
pointed out this would provide that residents with a single car garage can still have a 35-foot
driveway, however, a three-stail gara�e can have a v�idth of the garage, plus ten feet. He
commented this appears to be very similar to what is ailowed in other cities, with the exception
that there would still be a limitation on the amount of driveway a resident could have, and it
would not provide a blanket alfowance on the widih of the driveway. He explained ;��� City
would prefer ta strike a balance between that and a restrictive driveway �idth. ,�s��
�: .
P anning Associate Ericson stated if the Commission so desi��,���taff c��� t�t aft ��� ordinance that
would reflect this type of change, or a simiiar change, in th��e�ent thai tt�� addxt�a��11 ten--foot ,
width is not sufficient. He noted this matter was open fc�� �'iseussion;�ti if t���r� vk�re oih�r,/;�
means to accomplish this consideration, they can be disc,t�s`.s;ed as �u�Il:
Commissioner Laube cammented thatc the ien-foot widtii �t��al�� ��c:�:�n�nodate a semi�trail�r.
Commissioner Johnson noted, however, room would
around the vehtcle, which, if eight feet wide, wauld r
on the side of the driveway. He stated he wouid }a� i�
\. , .;
added that being able to park a vehicle farther °��ra5� �
and safety standpoint, � l
Commissioner Hegland stated he wa r: av
impervious surface does not excee �: r> erc
more specific thar� that. He co �'ed tha
�mpervious surface and the c�arb � with th+
types of hox�es,within the,�c��r'tr�nunity, and t
would b��;�t��Y�t'1� �'�stricti��, �n� 'tr,+C�uld not �
____
Commissio��cr ��tti
suriaee would t}e �'�
yards. Co�ss�on
Commi �i'ner Joh�
��.
��
Pla �ig Associate
o . � �culating a 40
,:..-0
y_/,/<:.,:,\,\\;
��T17E�1�lS�1011eC I�a.C�
city o
�1 doors and walk
havzn�::� c� ��J�11� ��.�ang the curb or grass
of a t��✓e��`� �F�roi additionat width. He
��uiidin� n�i�h� be better frorn a fire
; ���,,
�
: ;W
�hot�evrew's requirement that the
�lte lot, and did �iot see a need to be
�ity w��a.ttempting to control the amourit of
�.nt ��s'��ictions. He noted that there are varied
���€it �vould be iied to the widih of the garage
any probfems.
that ��r����l���C to allowing lot coverage of 40 percent impervious
mpriset� t�,��arge 1ots, which could potentially pave half of their front
�ci t�oted i�iey could limit ihe amount of impervious surface.
.tE ���y could indicate 12 feet, or 40 percent im�oervious surface.
i s�`�ted that a problem might e7cist for both residents and staf� in terms
impervious suriace requireeneni.
that this might also constitute a hardship for smaller Iots, in that the
�t`t�et�z'�s u�c�t� �;;�"re also considered impervious �urface, and this would not le�ve very tnuch
ar�� ����I�in ���`Ioi for the driveway. Ericson stated this couid occur, and could,potentia[iy result
in a driv�way �hat is s�naller than that which is presently allowed by the Code.
Commissioner Laube stated he was in favor of allowing the driveway ta he the width of the
garage, with additional footage to the side, wl�ich wo�atd provide uniformity.
IVloui�ds V►evv Planraa�� Coar�rnission Octo��r 6, fl999
R�gr�l�r 1�eetEn� Pa�� 7
Commissioner �Iegland advised thati all the lots within tche City are not the same. He stated that
the City Code shouid not be restrictive, bui should cover the goals oi'the Code, which is more
important than attempting to indicate a speci�c criteria, which would require judging �ach
situation on a case by case basis. He reiterated that the goals of the Code are impervious suY-face
and curb cuts. He added most of the lots that are wide, are also deep, and would require extra
impervious surface simply to reach the garage_ �;�,.�
Chair Peterson stated the City has a large variety of lots, and
that would fit ali of them. He stated he had concerns regare��
lot coverage requirement, in terms of the larger 1ots. Co `�''
larger lots coutd potentially have a half-acre of asphali.
Commissianer Hegland reiterated that a rriaximum limit
size. He explained he would iike to find a means that v�
be judged on an individua( 6asis.
Commissioner Milier stated this matter had com�
on City streets, and peaple require additional pazl
to extend the addiiional 10 or 12-foot width a�����
entire width to 22 feet. Ericson explained ��s ha
have a 35-foot driveway to the property 1�,1�e, hot�
and the c�arb, the width of the dri�
could potentially instati a 35-faat
a resident wouid wisk io do so, iz
Ericson ����t�l ll�is w
sireei.
Commissianer 1C�d��; �sl�ed how
driveways�� th� p��t �'�t�r ;y�e
added t t was mar�
the a�•. �ance for the a
„.;,\k,
C�m:missioner Miller c
e�si�t�>io administrate:;�
wa. �ust be
Y,�,�
�d�„�rivew�:�
��it of th� �c
ding t(1e �t�r
or 36 feet. �
aluF��� �?
��r, at �
uced co
r the t�rc��
would
��, 40 X
relaied to
set a standard
ous surface
;ome of thes��
�,��
..�
iaiidar� lot
each requesi fi�oin having to
mari�� ��c���:parking is prpl�ibited
;_
�}�e incXu�r�d ��'staf3�s proposal was
.l�e curb c,t�t" ar�d then reduce the
�� ,�,�;se, in that a r�sident could
�c�i���between the property line
et. He added that a resident
line, however, iY was unlikely that
dth of a driveway for a three-stall garage.
that most driveways taper toward the
in� Commission had considered variarices for
�ricson stated this did not occur very often. Chair Peterson
of driveways being too close to the property line, rather than
of the driveway.
�ented that a specific width, with additional width avaitabie, would be
a requirement based upon the percentage of impervious surface upon a
,..
�ii��� �'�i�t'�c���noted in some long established neighborhoods, the cesidents are nat aware of the
�xact lacation of their property lines. He stated that calcutating a requirement based upon the
percentage of impervious surface of a lot would place quite a b�trden upon staff. He exptained
that �he imperviaus surface inctudes the structures an the site, and there are other measurements
that wauld be required in order to determine the size allowed for the driveway. I�e stated the
reason for the current maximum 35-foot width r�quirement was to keep the irn�ervious surface
1i/Iounds V�evv Pl��ni�g Core�►r�issiore Octobe�° 6, 1999
�ul�r I�eetin� , y� Page $
under control, and ihis appeared to 6e one of the goais in the language proposed by staf�' He
stated he was in favor of the proposal as staff has suggested, with an additional width of 14 or 12
feet.
Commissioner Johnson noted that basing the requirement upon the percentage of impervious
surface might indicate io some parties that they could ereate a very large parking ar � and this
might present a goal for them to request the maxirrtum percentage. Com�ission���egland stated
the 35-foot requirement would not prevent this. He explained that many 1t�4�, r�'��ilizing the 3S
%et plus an additionai 1� to 12 feet, wouId approach the m�y �m ca�re�~���: ��iy�vay, as the City
does not Iimit the len h of the drivewa . �,�'�`4;
� Y �h�:� �'
Commissioner Johnson inquired if Yhis type of requirem�
garage. Cammissioner Hegfand explained that a garage'
wiih another 10 feet, the driveway would comprise over
Commissioner Milier stated she was in favor of 35
additional 10 feet, whichever is gceater.
Chair Peterson stated for the parking of a t
be sufficient, however, on a regular basis, �
added �hat if there is an eave on the gara: �'
well. He exptained that an eave would��
��.�� _� .
wide, would have to park up to th�N�� in
�vould re uire 12 feet. ;�<.:,>�`
q �'
Chair Fete�:���; stated he
whichev.� �ts �•��er. `
Commiss�oner �8�;��1t7t� �
reyuirement.
�::
Chair P� son stated iz�'.
cuts _'v' also on the rest
nited to"���� ��i[��'�� c�fi��e
stalls wide;� �t- � S ��et, and
�tage of tl�e lot:
`;lye �arage, plus an
��;�;i� a��ch�c�e c��3�an infrc,c���tGnt hasis, i0 feet would
�e�.:� _ � ,�:
resents a�t �crc�s� prob�t'�n. Comtnissioner Laube
any go�` sizec� �txe�tt�I�;�tyvouid present a problem as
up 1? ��8 inches,, and a recreational vehicle, 10 feet
t'`
>rd� �to remat��' pon the blacktop, and ihis situation
.« -..
or the width of the garage, plus 12 feet,
�ssion was to discuss a revision to the current curb cut
the ather communities, the City's requirement regarding curb
�ioner Miller as':-d Planning Associate Ericson ifthe matter of cur6 cuis had presented a
��.
in the past. �" cson explained that staff had seen a greater amount of requests for
fi-ozn the ��=:�oot cuxb cut, than they had for driveway� in excess of 3 S feet.
C�i�.�r �'�fe� �t�� i�oted a previous case in which a driveway was installed, and after the fact, a
request was made for a wider curb cut, however, no hardship could be found, ae� a portion of the
asphaIt had to be removed. He commented in other cases there ac�ually was a need determined
for a variance from the curb cut requirement.
Planning Associate Ericson suggested staf�' could draft an ordinance that contemplates adding the
I�/foesnds Vievr P9��a�ain� Comanis�io� Oetober 6, 1999
Re�eai�r I�/Ieet�r�g Pa�� 9
discussed Ianguage, and bring it back before the Planning Commission for future discussian. �Ie
added at that time, the Cotnmission could consider whether or not they desired to examine the
curb cut. He noted there were other issues in th� Zoning Code which required resalution, which
wili be coming before the Council, and this might be an appropriate time to review other issue§
which need to be addressed or made consistent wiih the Code. He explained that staff couid
include a clause in the ordinance that addresses �he curb cut requirement if so desir�. however
� ` ��,,.. �
ihe matter does not necessari(y require resolution at this time. „�`" �
Commissioner Laube comtnented that the question of curb
some smaller lots, for example, a newer house with a three
I�e explained that a 35 five-foot garage, with a 35-foot d��
migh�: not ailaw enough room to access the third stall o
would allow the praperty owner to angie the driveway �i�
stated there were a few places that this may be a proble��,.;
structure is cleared from a lot, to allow for a new, larger t}i
Ericson stated staff couid approach the Public V+I
issues that they have seen in terms of the curb cu
further at their next meeting. �� :
Chair I'eterson commented that allowi
;, where a resident would have to plac�;�
� wauld then have to push the snow����
amo�ts of
�ould �n�ta�te�t iisel�Pin terms of
garage that �� cl�ser to the streE
�, tap���ig to 2� �'eet,at �he st 4
�g���Te statFd � l�r���� �t��b�� t
d provide easier acc�ss ,�e
t���tiv in situations where a
e if there are any
discuss the matter
��rb might result in a situation
eiiher side, and the snowpiow
�r
:,
Gommissioner Hegland stated tP��♦xuould b� s�lf �oz��� hg. He e�oted tlzis was not an issue of
abuse issue,. bu� rather a rt��t��` ��;practica�i�y, �tx�i zt dppeared that if a twetve-foot additionat
width w�� ��Ir�u7�d at the ������, i�`;woutd �nak� seiise to have twice the curb cut as well.
Chair Peters���' �cs���1 e� put that �rt' ���;� �i� i,mpervious surface located in the middle of the
property would �rq�}i�� �nc�re op���r�u�tyr for stormwater runoffto soak into the 1awn, however,
a wide drrve�ay at il�'e ciirl�'��.�auld ai�c�v� the runoffto go into the street. He commented that this
might b���argument a�ai��s� ��.��nding the curb cut. He noted staff's survey indicated that a
maxt �n 24-foot curb ct�i.�'et�t��t`ement was the enost common among the other communities.
•..�,.�j
�xic.�s�n stated staff hadg�fficie�nt direction to proceed wiih this matter.
/ �tee�s of Is�forsn�t�mn
'I'heater �en�e
Community Devefopmeni Tairector Jopke reported on the �er►ce locat�d at the �heater property,
which vvas the subject of discussion at the last two Planning Commission meetings. H� provided
the Commission with a letter from Anthony 1'roperti�s indicating that tlxey were withdrawin� their
a
IiiiouYeds Vievv �lan�in� Coma�assioe' October b, I999
��rlar 1Vleet�n� - _ Page 10
request to inove the fence, and wiil provide a fence connecting �he buildings as indica.ted in the
existing Planned IJnit Development document.
�o Corr►pe-eiaensyve P�a�e meeiing sched�le
Com�unity Deveiopment Director Japke stated the Commission was requested ia ��edule study
sessions for their revier�v af the City's Comprehensive Plan. IIe noted th��rst dr���`af the overall
Comprehensive Plan is almost camplete, and at this point, the entire doc��me�t �'��open for
discussion, to insure it reflects what the Commission believ `<� �uld 6�, ���I��i {�c>r the community.
He suggested the Plarming Commission consider the Wed •:< ays in Oct.�ibe� io�� schPduling the,;,,K:
�::� .
study sessions. a ��,, > ' ;;;�'
Commissioner Milter stated she would be out of town
for that meeting.
Commissioner Kaden inquired if there were any
would be sufficient time to review the document
Commissianers would probably receive a hand-d
would likely require more than one meeting i'�
much time as necessary for their review to��:� rf
Chair Peterson asked if the pr
sessions. Jopke stated he was
presently putting the fina► tou
and he belfeved they would i��
their comvle�i�n. �%�
Comprehensi
ity Develc
should be
ciob
7, and wauld
�� char���"s tra �i�� draft plan, and if there
9:he first`"r���fiz�t�;: �o.pke explained the
�€�py the follt��1���;1l�[onday, however, it
dr�ifty and thc �o�nmission eould take as
with the document.
iminary rnaps wo��be avai �bl�"in time for the first of the siudy -
;;
;..
ncct���zt,�>howe�z��; the GIS� ;�nsultant had indicated he was
ie� �rr tlle ma�� ;' He cort�`�nted he had not seen the maps to date,
��r goad, hat�. evcr�, �€ `'� ay need to make some changes prior to
��
�� ����F
.
���
t�,den �o �chedule Two �pecial Meetings to Discuss the -
r�;3 �nti fl�ciober 27, 1499, from 7:00 to 9:00 p,m.
Nays -- 0 The motion carried.
r Jopke inquired if the Ptanning Commission thought the
ersan inqutr .��f tE�ere was a problem with the broadcast of the cable during certain
pke statec���� would have to took inio this maiter. He added that the meeting on
�, ��-
'/`��;�u�,(� conflict with the Parks and Recreation meeting.
t;oirtrtiis�ioner Hegiand noted that this was just a review of the Comprehensive Plan, nai the final
version, and t�levising this r�view miglit not be necessary.
Communi�y DeveIopment Director Jop�Ce advised that there be a least o�e informational forum to
present the pian to th� community, and a more formal public hearing following that, therefore _
1!�[ou�ds `Iiew Pl�nn�n� Comena�sioa� Octobex b, 1999
12eg�E�r IVIe�iera� Pa�e 11
there would be ample opportunity to gain pubIic input.
Community Developmer�t Directar Jopke reported he and Planning Associate Ericson had
attended the Staie Planning Conference the previous Thursday and Friday in Bloomington. He
commented that one of the sessions he had attended was a panel of Planning Commission
metnbers from a variety of different communities, and during that session, a questi�as raised
regardirng how staff could assis� the Commissions in performing the�r very; dr�c�,l���o , and what
could be done better. He nated that the Chair of the Eagan P1�nning Ca���sst��t, an attorney
with the League of IVlinnesota Cities, had ir�dicated that
informatson, and that recommendations by staff are unn
Chair Peterson commented over the past several years t
more complete and useful information than ever before,
great job for the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Miller stated the inf'ormation staff
the references to �he Code, which provides the �
time researching these matters. She remarked it, �
this information, however, it is very helpfui wk���j
�d1,b
pertinent to the issues. ��Ff
Chair 1'eterson noted the Ca
and generally have only ane
clear cut cases, not having a
substantially slow down the
another, a��d �t
adds their stipu
approved ��:��'+
sp
��'terson staied
ic issue, the Pta�
ted, in many ca�
yd ihe necessit�
�fiaer item o£.��
issior�>.i�"��`�s`ubiect
n.,
ve,
factual
a
cularlv in terms of
lo �pt h��?� �o spend their valuable
�im� ���stttru�g process to gather
ences to ai-eas in the Code that are
',�
� timetables set by the Legislature,
case. He explained for the more
re a resolution to consider, would
�t�d r��it,ther� we�°e titnes when staff requested the Commission's
ci', ���� �� had no problem with staff recommending one direction or
reastit�� �'ta� ��1��r recommendation. He noted the Commission always
,,
.,,
staf�" s r�t��riendation of approval does not indicate that a. case is
_ ____ ____ _ _.
h�u��' i�'has been implied that if stai� gives a recommendation for a
�� Commission will simply "rtabber stamp" it, this is simply is not true.
�nitial information pointed in one direction, however, further review
go in another direction. He stated he treated the staff recommendaiion
and did not co�nsider it in any way mandated.
Ca�'r�tr�i��y�ne3 �aube stated that staff's recommendation provides the Commission with staf�'s
thoughts; and how they are researching their informatian, which assist in directing the
Commissian. �Ie explained thaY the Commissian does not deat with many of these iss�tes an a.
daily basis, and wi#ho�tt stafi's recommendation the Commission would be required to spend
much time afitempting to find the direction in which to proceed. He explained he has not always
agre�d �with stafis recommendations, and there have been sotne very serious discussions while
11�Io�nds ��ew Plan�in� Co�m�ssion Oetober 6, 1999
Regul�r I17eeton� _ _ Pa _e 12
worked through the issues. I�e commented that he believed the Commission has always done a
very thorough job with every issue that has come before them, and he would like to keep staf�'s
recommendations.
Com�nissioner 1E-Iegland stated he cou(d not imagine a situation in which staff provided a positive
recarnzraenda�ion that would be coniested. He stated Lhe only cases this might apply,��a, would be
ihose with negative recommendations, and ihis was not often the case. ��.expla
conce�t is to attempt to find a way to approve the majority of the requests, tva�I�
Coinmissioner Kaden pointed out that if there were some ���on pursuan� ic�,.t�ze'';
particular case can not be approved, staffwould provide�,�Cecomme ��tioz� ����t'
not approve it, and other cases are either recommended it�r,appro����r left witl�;
recommendation from s#a.f� He stated stafi�'s recommer�d�tza�� �vere more help�
He added that the Commission does not "rubber stamp" St��"s t`��ommendation.
Commissioner Berke stated he considered the infor�
his work as a r�ew Commissioner. He ex�lained this
rather than spending his time researchin� all of t�i.�w;�
Chair Peterson commented that in the
look up ihe ordinances during the meetin �t`n o
cases required more time and discuss��r at the
remarked that the Commission co `����`:� da ih
staff in the time allowed. He ex�,; 4 ed his ap:
Jopke, Planning Associate Eri�sorl;K and th� ���i
��, �`�'������� �:o�����i �cte�ns "'
Community T���tr�1Q���i�
on September Z �` 1,��; �
attempting ���:'�c��tr�'p
a�reeme,�:��ith two of'<
the general
� exceptians
Code tha
�` prov►��d �y �ta,�i'to be almost vital to
s hirn in ��a��n� ��o�;e logical decisions,
�ir Code books and would
uiremenYs, and most of the
Ic�-el tt�an they presently do. He
vithout the information provided by
Community I)evelopmen� Director
rec�p� �'o�k�;, eported on previous Council action from their meeting
discu�;s�t�u t'��arding the Mermaid Project, which is presently
t� %r th�i�' development. He explained they have come to an
es under consideratian, however, the Lampert site does
na� wi�1t to mave and �s r�c�����in� a higher price for this property. He commenied tl�at this
pro '�`y was the propos�d� si�� of the Mermaid's stormwater hoiding pond, therefore, they we�-e
e `'ning other option��' handle the siormwater. He explained that staffwould authorize SEH
•... z
ta:�"��dv this issue. ,�;�a.
�;�r����r�i�,y I3���`�`"-.�'pment Director Jopke stated a joint meeting between the EDC and EDA
wc�uld bc ��1d �ri October 21, 1990, to discuss Tax Irtcrement Financing, in ierms of how it has
been utyli�ed, and to determine if the current policies are still appropriate, I�e stated the Planning
Commission is requested to attend this meeting.
Corr�murgity Development Director Jopke siated th� Council upheld th� Planning Commissio�►'s
recommendation and approved the conditional use p�rmit request for an oversized garage at 8011 _
I1�ounds `Iiew PEanning Cora�rrai�sion OcioY�er 69 1999
I�egular IV�eeti� P P��e 13
�unnyside Road. Hs added they approved the second reading and adopted Ordinance 639, and
ordinance which clarifies the uses within the R-4 and R-5 Zoning District.
Community Develapment Director Jopke stated at the Council Work �ession on October 24,
discussion was held regarding the remnant parcei located next to City �IaII, and an adjacent
property, r�vhich Told Real Estate has expressed an interest in developing for a Wat�:�en's
����
Drugstore. There is an alternate proposal that would utilize a triangle of tl�e C�t�r���'operty, and
would require the v�caiion of the oid right�of-way for Edgewood Drtve ��� cc�xt�mented that
Tafd is still considering donating seven acres of wetland to �1����ty, �����I� t� �mprised of some
high ground on the easrc e�d of the property. He explained �afi the Coun�il l�a� �'�r�uested the
Parks and Recreation Commission to provide their input ���'this matt���-�nc� ����!'��zII cc���side��
and conduct a comprehensive sttidy of the area as a whc� ,�,ai their����eiin� on �3'�i,t}%��; ����s =.`�'
Community Developmen# Director Jopke reported that �
Kevin Carxoll has accepted a positian as the City Admini
day with the City ofMounds View will be October 15.�<�
go, and wished him �he best of luck.
I3o �Tpco�aing Planning Cases
Planning Associate Ericson sta�ed that O��i
regarding streei openings, and includ���ang
has passed a rightrof-way ordinanc��t� ad
nature found in the right-of-way, .,,,�.�e coix
640 removes language thai isdnov
conjunctiot� ��v��l� Ordinance ����:
conforr�� driYe�vays, v,���-t� �,��
be reconstru��ed,,o� x�e paved in �
an evideni pu�i�t� sa�et�r�.conccrn."��
a concern, the r�5�d�ri� can appea
before the ���>���nc�l fo� co�si+
be an or ����� nce tha� a�n�ncis th� �
ctrive�s requires addrtit���t �t•
are.�.�ihsistent. f;:�w: •
Associate
ility wou�4
��s utiliti
ensive �
;Iopmerit Coordinator,
city of Carver, and his lasi
i�.tivill be sad to see him
��i� �.hn�stcr 902 of ihe City Code,
�� ��igh9smof way. He noted the City
�:�<
�1�ndergrounding and thi�gs of that
nance, He explained that �rdinance
=way ordinance. I�e stated in
was �i r���u��� �o include language to address non-
indicat�s that any non-conforming driveway is allovaed to
ne fashiot� or manner that it currently e�sts, unless there is
���a�ined that iP a building permit is denied because of such
��iial to the City CounciL He stated this matter woutd be
�n at their meeting on October I l. �Ie added there would
; Code, as the inclusion of language pertaining to the
�ding language to the Zoning Code to provide that these
-�son stat�d the Development Review for MS]P Real Estate, for an assisted
before the Planning Commission at their ne� meeting, as well as an
through cof%e hut on the Ie/Iermaid property.
40 �ka�.�&°��rsor� a�ed P�anning C�ra�mi�sio�ers l�epoa°t
Council Liaison Stigney reported ihat the franchis� fee for NSP gas and electric was discuss�d at the
previous Coun�ii �Iork 5essior�. �Ie stated ihe majority of th� Cauncil is in favor of raising the
franchise fee, and �here Is a consensus to increase the fee from two percent to a�na�mum rate of 4
I�Iounds Vge�r Planr�°sr�� Coe�anes��on Octo�ser 6, 1999
I�e udar I�eeten Pa � 14
percent. He exp(ained, a� this time, there is some c�uestion regarding whether there will be an actual
public hearing, or the setting of a public hearing for this matier, at the next City CouncillVleeting, on
Monday. He stated the actual public hearing may take place, and he would like to farward this
information to the Planning Commission and the residents, so that interested parties may attend.
Chair Peterson stated the Planning Cammission was delayed from 7:00 p.m, to 8:00 >�i, so that the
��-
Commissioners could aitend ihe Metropotitan Council meeting fhat was ��joint m�e�ng with the I-
35W Corridor Coalition, He stated this was a ve valuable meetin an��`n ,,,;_,orth the time,
�Y � ��I �
Commissioner Milier stated she would not be present on
No other reparts were considered.
10, Aci�o�r°nrner�t
T'here being �zo iurther business before the Planning
meeting at 9:12 p.m.
(The tneeting irrimediately
Respectfuliy submitted,
Rick J�
Transcribed b
Trish Pearsan
TimeSaver ��
N:�
It�c.
1006.PC
20 or
�
air 1Vli�ler adjourned the
�
1VIO�D� V�EW PLA�II�IG COII�IV�IS���i�
l�overnb�r 3,1999
ia00 P.Nie
REGULAR MEETIIVG
A.GENDA
Call to 4rder
2. Roli Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on �he Agenda
_______________________a____________r_____________________a______________.._______________________
�4�EyqL�iBrH`il��gy:g3�D�g���y'�g �T�p7�p���i��ilFr��gq, g£�YY.,�tg9,�la ��L�ArY�J� yAg�,+7�1�1�Y�7g 7Yrg�r�.�&P+AaJ1VAy Ii1�BJ�'
A W l:r ��I.J.H� �lJA,rdJ l�["B1CY� �1�� LiH9��&1�� ��� PHH9:a 1rBli'i 9_/ HS��,7
4. AppIOVe l�ItilliieS:
a. October 6, I999
Planning C�se I�Io. 559-99
Property Involved: 2670 County Road I
Consideration of Planning Commission Resol�tion 596-99, a resolufion recommending
approval of a Development Review for a two-story, senior assisted Iiving residential
facility .
Applicant: MSP Raa1 Estate
6. �pec�al I'la�t�ar�g C'ase l�o. 5�'-074-99
Discuss revisions to proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinancs amending ihe Zorung Code
reiated to driveway widths anci cunc �uts.
Staff Reports / Items of Information
a. Billboard Update
b. Previous Councii Actions
c, Upcoming Planning Cases
d. �lanning Cornmissioner's Joumal
Chairperson and Planr►ing Commissioners Reports
9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
(Immediately �ollowitig Regular Meeting)
���*�*������������*��������T��������*�*�
APPLICANT�: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 7I7-4020
IF Y4U ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
��������*����*�����������z*������������*
AGENI3A SESSION
AGENI�A
1. Review Minuies �- �ctober 20, 1999
N: '�DATAIGROUPSICOMDEV\PI.AtJCOMivF1PCAGENDA\1999111-3-99.REG
)
':`::3
-- ,.-.::,
,;-._=
�;�:!' ,; '- � -,' � " i:� ;, �: ':; � i*- ���
�C��lfl� �a��o
Staff° lte�ori by:
Pla�nnie�g C�se No.<
Requesi:
Petitaoe�e�°:
I,ocat�o�o
PII�1 Nose
Zonang/I.,�aed iTseo
l�Iovember 3, 1999
James Ericson, Pianning Associate
559-99
Deveiopmet�t Review
MSP Real Estate
2670 County Road I
07-30-23-11-0040
B-2, Limited Business Commerciat / �Iacant land
Applicable Ite�ulaia���: Section I006.06, Development controls
Section I103.09, Lighting and Giare
. Section 1104.fl1, General zoiung pravisions -- yard requirements
Section 1104.02, Area and building size regulations
�ection 1109.04, Subd. Z, CUP requirements
�ackg�o��d:
The appiicant, MSP Real Estate, has requested approval af a development reyiew for a iwo-story
senior assisted living complex to be located at 2670 County Road I. The appIicant has an
agreement ta purchase ihis site from the property owner, M& E ReaIty. The City Councii has
approved the conditional use permit for this development and Ordinance 531, the ordinance which
rezoned the property from �-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential.
Anatysis:
As was discussed at your last meeting, this.development meets or exceeds a11 of the dimensional
requirements associate with a developmeni of this type, in the It.-4 Zoning district.
The applicant submitted a memo to staf� and the Planning Cornmission an October 20, 1999, wluch
responded to issues in the stafireport eoncerning the landscaping, dumpster enciosure pians,
r�vised eievations and sidewalks. The orily issue that was ieft unresolved from the las� me�ting was
the location of fire hydrants to service the development. �taff has since discussed ttiis with Kathi
Osmonson, the City's �ire Marsha(; wha has indicated that because �he building �will be sprinklered
and th� close proximity of the two hydranis, no addiiional hydrants will be required. The drivewa.q
onto County Road I will be shifted a few ;fee� to the west to accammodate the existing fire hydrant.
The applican� has indicated #hat all of the requested changes are being made ar�d revised plans will
be presented to the City Council for iheir final approvai.
;:: ;;: ,
; ,. . ;
f1�SP D�velopment Review
October 29, 1999
P�ge 2
Ca�cl�as�omso
Staff is reco�ending that ihe Plar►ning Commission approve ltesolution 59b-99, a resolution
recommending approval to #he City Cour�cil of the requested d�velopment review for the assisted
Iiving senior residential faciiity proposed by M5P Real Estate, with stipulations.
�� �ra���1 �,d��'��.1���
James Ericson, Planning Assaciate
N;IDATAIGROUPS\CQMDEVIDEVCASES1S59-99�DE V-RE V.PC2
� .:,
' '.';
r ,:�; ',. ��< ��- . :�; ,'>. ' ; o: . �-. :������.. : , �;�� � ��,: ��,.
' � � :1: ' : : : =1. ., � _� :,�- = � ;�, � �-�:
;1 �� ;i:_ " '1
� `< 0 .; :: ip
1- ,; � `� : 1` "� � � �t-� � �;.
' �� �_�; . : : 1 �. �:�.� � ��: ��.. . � •��. 1� .1°�� : �� ,. �• 1 �:, ::, . f �: _ 1� : � - �`I' '� � : ' " � �'� � � :1` '�-`�
��; •; _, 1 = ' 1 �'; ���, < � .•' � ��� ` ' ` : 1' '. �: '�� i� :�; : _ J.t� _ `
� l, ,._ � � ,� ; . �: . �:�;
'� �` �� � �� �� f= . � ���
`UVF�REAS, M�P Real Estate has requested City approval of a development review for a
46-room, senior assisted living faci(ity tacated at 2670 County Road I, property legally described
as follows:
�'ract `A'; Registered Z,anrl Survey 414
Ramse.y County, State o, f Minnesota
VdHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of �he Mounds View I�unicipal Code requires that a
development review be co�ducted for aIl commercial and industrial development and atl
residentiai d�velopment if more than two dwelling units are being erected within the City; and,
W�IEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Cominission has reviewed the follawing
documents regarding this proposai:
l. Planr►ing Appticafiion
2, Zoning Map
3. Site and Parking Plans, date-stamped 10/8/99
4. Elevations and Floor Plans, date-stamped IO/8/99
S. Lighting Plans and Specifications, date-stamped IO/8/99
b. Landscape Plan, date-stamped 10/8/99
7. Staff report
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plan date-stamped
Octobsr 8, 1999 and revised on October 20, 1999, confo�-ms to the general zoning requirements
of Title 1100 with regard to setbacks, parking rec�uirements, and building height; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acknowled�es that the Mounds
�Iiew Fire Marshal has reviewed the p(acement of fire hydrants io servic� the buildirig and finds
their locatio�n and numbers to be acceptabie; and,
Wk�[ER�AS, the Mounds View Plannin� Comm�ssion acknowledges that the Director of Public
Works has reviewed the drainage pian and has found it to be iri conformance with the City's Local
Water 1Vlanag�inent Flan; and,
WI�REAS, the Mounds �Iiew Planning Commission acknowledg�s �hat the City �ares��r has
reviewed the �,andscape Plan, recommending slight �nodification and ciarification of the planiing
species u�ed9 and has found it acceptabLe with the indicated revisions,
: , : ,
Resolution 596-99
M5P Development Review
November 3, 1999
Page 2
I+�OW, '�'�E1�F�1�, �E I'� �SOI,��, that the Mounds `Iiew Planning
Commission recommends appravai of a development review for a 46-room, senior assisted living
facility located at 2670 County Road I, subject to the followin� stipulations:
1. The Site plan shall be revised prior to action by the City Council as follows:
a. A sidewalk shall be shawn along Mounds View Drive.
b. The access onto County Road I shall be marked as being "e�i only."
c. The bui(ding shall be situated so as to connply wi�h all setback requirements.
d. 5ignage shall be in compliance with the City Code and appraved CUP.
�� �'i' I' T'�R + SO�,�Ii that the Platltii�g Commission directs Sta�to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 3rd day ofNovember, 1999
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
SEAL
N:�DATA1GROiJPS\CONIDEVIDE VCASESIS 59-991596-99PC.RES
' `1
_ ' ';'4
- 1
J
;
,
�; �
� ;�
��
To:
From:
Subject:
I3ate:
�ac��a-mu�eclo
Mo�ands �iew Planning Commission
James Ericson, Planning Associate
Proposed Ordinance 642
I�ileeting of IVovember 3, 1999
�rdinance 642 was before the Cotnmission at your last meeting on October 20, 1999, at which
time staff was directed ta revise sections of the ordinance as it related to curb �ut widths and
spacing between driveways in R-2 zoning districts.
After some additional staff review, it was thought to change altogether how and where driveway
widths are addressed in the Code. Currently, widths of driveways are tucked inexplicabiy within a
subsectiot� of the Code dealing v�rith setbacks. It would make more sense to staff if dvidth
requirements were instead added as a new subsection under Subdivision 4 of Section 1121.09 of
the Zoning Code pertaining to "Stall, Aisie and Driveway 1Besi�n," as follows:
5ubd.4. Dirnensions:
a. The combined width for drivewavs and attached oarkin� areas in an �L-1 and
R-2 zonin� district shall not exceed thirtv-five feet t35') or the width of the �ara�e plus an
additional twelve feet (12'l. whichever is �reater.
b. Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking
areas and their aisles sh�tl be developed in compliance with the following standards:
An�le
45°
60°
75°
90°
Wall to
Interlock
Minimum
Dimension A
44. 8'
52.5'
b1.3'
63.0'
Int�rlock to
Interlock
Nlinimum
Dimension B
43.0'
51,0'
61.0'
63.0'
Parallel Parking: 22 feet in Length
Wall to
Wall
Minimum
Dimension C
47.0'
5�.0'
62.0'
63.0'
!
Planning Commission Memo
Ordinance 642 Staff Report
October 29, 1999
Page 2
The Flannin� Commisston also directed stafftio investigate how wide ihe driveways are for ihe
newer twin homes fronting Silver L,ake Road as we[I as those on Knollwood Drive just north of
County Road H2. Staff has nat as of yet had an apportunity to do this, however we will have this
information ready %r the meeting November 3.
You will atso no#kce in the proposed Ordinance 642 that a�raphic was inserted within the
"Dimens�ons" subdivision of Section 1121.09. This graphic had appeared in older versions of
our Ciiy Code, yet for some reason became omitted in subsequent updates. The importance of
this graphic is ihat it answers ti�e question of what the dimensions in the table within Section
112 ].09, Subd. 4b refer to. (I am attaching the page from an old Code book for your reference, )
I have verified with the City l�ttorney that t�is can be reinserted to eorrect the �ariier omission.
�t�coari�end�tiona
Ple�se review the changes triade fo this ordinance and direct staff'to make any further revision as
the Comrn�ssion deems appropriate.
. >i
' �-7
<`
�. �'�'+`v'v,u;.�� ��f�-�T"uL�.�....
James Ericson
Planning Associate
N:�DATAIGROLTPSICOMDEVISPECPROJ�SP074-991MEMOI.PC
�
r-
�
�:�
--- ,
: �� • o •
' � .
�
r �
40.07
eo �x�ept in the cas� of sf�qle �£amxly, �wo fam%��
�nd towr�house dwell�ngs, p�.rkang a�eea� ar�� �hei�°
aisles 'sha1J. be developed in compliar►c� wi�h �h�
� follo�ing �tan�a�c3s o
Wail to Ir�t�rlock �o Wal]. �o
r�t��io�� �n�e�io�� � w��z
An le °�9inimu�ea �linimum Minimu�n
D1.IR�f1�lOil P� D�fl1�i157.0t1 � DiYttETlS1OP1 C
�5° � • �4. 8' 43. 0' . 47. 0 � ..�
600 5205°. � 5].00' 54aQg
75� 61.3' . 6I.0', fi2o0°
9(i�, ' 63m0° ' 63m0° 63a0°
. P�ralle�l P�rkinga 22 Feet i� %ength
, . . A L .�...�
.. V; , A . .
-� .� � � �
. . ._ . . AN L � .
. � - . � -. . , �
� . .� . �
� �._ . , .
� �. - ;� - .
_ . .; _.. -. � . . . . _ �
. .
� � � �� � . � � � � r � � � . r �_ _ '°
� -� �� � � . � � ,. , ._ �
. ._
_: . .- . - �
-• _ - _ •-: � i 1 •. +'
. -
. .
,.. � i . � _
� . . . _
:.
+., � ••^ . � -"` .c . . �. ,_.
, , ' : • i. ^' � - t � .. ..
# � � � - �
� :.�:�. . ' ��� ' i "` , ,' �. .. �". - *. ,.. . ..
� � � - �- r: ' ,:. . „ . . " s_ i !� ^� i� ' � � a � � _
, . * ,.. . _
_ _.
' . - � � s _ r � ` , _ ' -. • . ! � ., � : : . ^
..
�, �, '
• . � ',._ r - � - �, � .
��� � � _ rr
: � � ,
_.:- .. � _-
�� _ � _ r. .-�� s,- .�� � �; �:�. �_ �
- . .. . �.
T_ - - .. .
_ _
_� A � r- _
9
�
4
. ._ . .. . . ._ . . .. ....
�
-,' ' �� :1�..�_ . . � . 1 A .,
1 , ;1 i 1 � -�- `�`.
� : � ;1 ' .��,.
�" � ��I • "�� , � � � � �_
��- � � ��: -�� _ �. ~� € : 1 'f� , - � I �I� . �; .: '�. ?' '' --
THE COUNCIL OF MOUNDS Vi7EVV ORDAINS:
S�CTIOI� � o Title 1100, Chapter 1 I04 of ihe Mounds �Iiew Il�unicipal Code shall be amended
by the addition of the ztalicized crnd double-uj�derlined language and the deletion of the
language in �ection 1 I04.01, Subdivision 4 to read as follows:
Subd. 4. Minimum Setbacks for Accessory Buildings, Driveways and Parking Areas:
a. Accessory �uildings (detached fi'orn a principal building): (Ord. 590, 11-25-96}
(1) R-1, R�2, R�3, R-4, R�5 and R�O:
{a) front: no accessory building shall be located between the front of the
principal building and the frant lot line. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) :;
(b) side: fcve feet {S'} except the minimum setback shall be thirty feet (30')
from any lot line abutting a public street. {Ord. 590, 1 I-25-96)
(c) rear, including street frontages at the rear of thraugh lots: five feet (5').
{Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(2) All other dis#ricts;
(a) front: no accessory building shall be located be�ween the front of the
principal building and the frant lot line. (Ord. 590, 11-25-9b)
{b) side: same as principal buitding, (Ord. 590, 11-25�96)
(c) rear: same as principai building, except accessory buildings having four
hundred (400) square %eY or less and not abutting property in a residential
district or a str�et, may have a mir�imum rear setback of ien feet (10'),
(Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
Ordinance 642
Page 2
b. Driveways:
(i} Driveways shatI have a minimum setback of five feet (5'} from any lot line,
except as permitted in Sectian i 104.01, 5ubd. 4b c 1 a and Section 1121,15,
Subd. 2 of this Tit1e. Driveways shali be permitied to cross a required setbaek area
in order-to establish access between ihe lat and a public street. �here a driveway
would encroach into an easement, the property owner shail obtain an
encroachment permit if required by the City prior to construction of ihe driveway.
Drive aisies and driveways which are within the boundaries of a parking a.rea shall
con%rm to the setbacks required for parking areas. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(2) Driveways in existence as of the date of enactment of Ordinance 620 and
W�11CI1 C�O YIOt COi1�OTit2 t0 ��le �I'pVl3lOi15 Of $}ll5 SL1bSECtYOri, may continue subjec� to
the provisiot�s of Seciion 902. 02. Suhdivision 2 .,
. (�rd. 620, 7-27�98)
c. Parking Areas:
(�) �-1, R-z, R��, �-4, R-s, �-o:
(a} residential uses:
Parking lots and drrvewavs shall be set back five feet (5'), except in
the R-1 and R-2 districts, parking areas ax►d driveways shall be
permitted with a setback of one foot (1') provided the owner(s) of
the abutting tot(s) indica�es their permission on a form acceptable
to the City. Where a parking area would encroach into an
easemeni, the property owner shall ob�ain approval for an
encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior
to construction of �he driveway.
. (Ord.
524, 2-22�93; Ord. 590, 11-25�96; Ord. 620, 7-27-98}
{b) non-residentia( uses:
Parking lots and drivewavs shall be set back five feei (5') except
where non-residential uses abut property in a residential district, the
setback for parking areas irom the commor� property Iine shall be as
follows: (Ord. 590, I1�25-96)
[�]. for sites having two and one-haif (2.5 } acres or tess:
twenty feet (20') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
[ii], for sites having more than two �r�d one-�hatf (2,5) acres:
t�urty feet (30') (Ord. 590, 11�25�96)
Ordinance 642
Page 3
i..
(2) Bpl, B-2, B-3, B-4 {parking areas and loading docks}:
(a) frant: thirty feet {30') {Ord, 590, 11-25-96)
{b) side and rear; five feet (5'), except where a non-residential use abuts
a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas
from the common property iine shall be as stated in Sec�ion
1104.OI subdivision 4c(1)(b}. (Ord. 590, 11�25_96)
(3) I-1 (parkin� areas and laading docks):
{a) front: forty feet (40') (Ord. 590, 11 25-96)
(b} side and rear: five feet (5'), except where a non-residentiai use abuts
a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas
from the coEnmon property line shall be as siated in 5ection
1104.01 subdivision 4c(T)(b). (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590,
21-25-96)
(4) Parking areas in existence as of the date of enactment of Ordinance 620
and which do not canform to the provisions of this subsection, may contin�ae
subject to the provisions nf Sectian 1123.42 subdivision lb. {Ord. b20, 7-27-9�)
SECTIOI`12. Title 1100, Chapter 1121 of the Mounds �Iiew Municipal Code shall be amended
by the addition oithe italicized and double-unde�lined language and the deletion of the
t�te�t language in �ectian 1121.�9, to read as �'ollows:
1121.09: S'I'AI1L, AISI,� AI�I� � ��A�' DESIGI�T:
Subd. l. Parking Space Size: Each parlcing space shalt noi be less �han nine feet (9'} wide and
eighteen feet (18'} in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be served
adequately by access aisles.
�ubd, 2. �Iithin Structures: The of� stree� parking requiremenis rnay be furnished by providing
a space so designed within the principal building or one attached thereto; however, unless
provisions are made, no building permit sha11 be issued to convert said �pace into a
dwellin� unit or living area, until othe�° adequate provisions ace rnade to eomply vvi�h the
required off-stre�i parking provisions of this Title.
�ubd. 3. Circulation: Except in ihe case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, -
i,.
Ordinance 642
Page 4
parl:ing areas shall be designed so that circulation between parking bays or aisies occurs
within the designated parking lot and does r�ot depend eapon a public street or atley.
Except in the case of single-family, two-family a�d townhouse dwellings, parking area
design which requires backing ir�to the public street is prohibited.
Subd. 4. Dimensions:
a. Irr the R-1 zoning district, the combirred width for drivewav and attached parking
areas shall noP exceed thirtv-frve feet (35'). or the width o the �ara�e vlus an additional
-- ---- ---_
twelve feet (12'). whichever is r�-eateY.
b, Except in the case of singie-farr►ily, two-family and tawnhouse dwellin�s, parking
areas and their aisles siiall be devetoped in cotnpliance with the fo(lowing standards:
An�le
45°
60°
75°
90°
Wall to
Interlock
Minimum
Dimension A
44. �'
52.5'
61,3'
63.0'
In�erlock io
Interlock
Minimum
Dimension B
43.0'
51.0'
61.0'
63.0'
Parallei Parking: 22 feet in Leng�h
rr ; ;.
.... .
. __... . _.
I��"I ���''�'
;
,
;.
�`� ����.�;�,�.� ._ �.:�.�
Wail to
Wall
Minimum
Dimension C
47. Q'
54.0'
62.0'
63.0'
, _.
Ordinance 642
I'age 5
Subd. 5. Curb Cuts and Driveway Openings:
a. No curb cut access shaIi be located (ess than fifty feet {50') frrom the intersection of two
(2) or more street rights of way. This distance shali be measured from the intersection of
lot lines.
b. No curb cut access shati exceed twenty t� our feet (�' 24 in width for R-1 and R-5
residential uses. A thirty �two %at (3r6 32') wide curb cut shall be perenissible for lZ-2,
R-3 and R-4 uses, , commercial uses (B-i
through B-4) and industrial uses (I-1), subiect to �eauir•ements o�'subdivision Se he��eof.
c. Curb cut openings shall be at a minimum of three feet (3') from the to� line in residential
districts and five feet (S'} from the Iot line in business or industrial districts.
d. Driveway access curb openings on a public street, except for sxngie-family, iwo-family
and townhouse dwellings, shalt not be located less than forty feet (40') frorn one another,
e. Each property eievation of any parking area shall be allowed one curb cut access for
each one hundred twenty five feet (125'} of street frontage. Ail property shall be entitled
to at least one curb cut. Single-family uses shall be Iimited to ane curb cut access per
property unless, upon application for a variance of this restriction, the Board of `''''
Adjustment and Appeals finds tha� it is ir� the interest of pubtic safety to waive such.
Medium density residential (2 to 6 units) may have two (2) curb cuts; pravided�
�
���'}--�p�,rt neither curb cut exceeds sixteen feet (16') in width.
f. Curb cuts in existence as o{10/11/99 that do not confo�-m to this subdivision rnna�v
renaain in exrstence unless deemed b the Di�•ecto� o Public Works to be a dan er or.
public sa%tv hazard. Notices to abandon a curb cut mav be a�z�ealed in writinQ to the
Citv Council (O�d.. 640, 10/II/99).
Subd. 6. Grade Elevation: The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five percent
(5%}. {I988 Code §40.0%}.
Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in Subdivision 1104,01(4j of this 'Title, to be uti�ized
for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with a permanent, improved surface
material as de�ined in Section 1102,02 af tt�is Chapter, suitable to control dust, drainage
and erosion, meeting the requiremen�s of Section 902.053 of this Code except as follows:
A gravel surface maten`tal meeting ihe specifications of Section 902.0§3, Subd. S of this
Cade may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R-2 Disirici no� to exceed three hundred
(300} square feet or, if to be used as a parking surFa�e for an IZ�I, the minimu�n area thai
would encompasses fhe wheei-base area of one (1) recreatxonai vehicle. Plans far -
surfacing and d�air�age of driveways and sta(Is for five (5} or moce vehicles sha(1 be
Ordinance 642
Page 6
submitted to the Dii-ector of Community Development for review, and the iinal drainage
plan must receive the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's written approval. (Ord.
524, 2-22�93; Ord. 620, 7-27�98; Ord. 640. 10/11/99. }
Subd. 8. Siriping: Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses, all parking stalls shall
be marked with yellow painted iines not less than four inches (4"} wide.
5ubd. 9. Lighting: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged
so to reflect the light away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses and public
rights of way and be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of this Title.
Subd. 10. 5igns: Na sign shali be so located as to restrici the sight lines and orderly operation
and traffic movetnent within any parking lot. All signing must cor�form to the M[ounds
View Sigti Code'.
Subd. 11. Curbin� and Landscaping: Excepi for sing►e-fatnily and two-family develo�ments.
, all open off-street parking shall
have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot. The specificcrtrons and
location of this curb barrier shall comply with Section 902. 04 a��d with the setback
requirements for parking areas stated in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4. Grass, plantings
or surfacing maYerials shall be provided in all areas bordering ihe parking area. (Ord. 590,
11/26/96,• Ord. 640. 10/11/99.}
Subd. 12. Required Screer�ing: All open, nonresidentiai, off-street parking 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 Title. (1988 Code §40.07}
1 See Chapter 1008 of this Code.
<:. ,
Ordinance 642
Page 7
SECT'��N �. This ordinanc� takes effect 30 days after its publication in the official City
newspaper,
Read by the City Council of the Ciiy of Mo�ands �iew this _ day of _, 1999,
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Iviounds View this _ day of
1999.
Dan �oughlin, IVTayor
Attest:
Charies S. Whitin�, City Clerlc/Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert C. Long, City Attorney
c:�o�cE�v�rnw�wPDOCS�o�n�rarrc�6a2.ox�
�
�� . � � ��
�
�'oo Mounds View Planning Commission,
I+ ronn: Rick Jopke, Community Z?evelopment Directar
Subjecte Biliboards
IBat�o November 3, 1999
As I previotzsly indicated to you the City Council has aslced that #he staff and Planning
Coxxunission look into and malze recommendations concerning ordinance amendments to the sign
ordinance io a11ow billboards gn certain areas of the commwaify.
The Planning Comrnissian has asked for and received the City attomey's opinion on certain
matters. A copy of #he opinion was passed out at a previous Pia.nning Commission meeting. The
Planning Comrnission should now compleie its review of the proposed ordinance that was
previously drafted by staff and presented to the Planning commission in July. I have attached a
copy of the previous staff report, the propased ordinalice, and the attomey's opinion for your
informat�on. A copy of the proposed ordinance has been forwarded to �e Ciiy Attorney's of�ice
for review.
REQUESTED ACTION: It is requested that the Planning Commission complete zts discussian of
the attached draft ordinanc0 and suggesi any changes that may be necessary. The Commission
should alsa discuss whai kind of public input process shauld be utilized. At a future meeting the
Planning Commisszon wili be asked to maice a farmal �ecommendation of ordinances to the City
Council.
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIPLANCOMMIt 1-3-99 bi[lboard report.doc
�. .
�,� �
,, ,
, ;
; L '.
� ��
< �� ,, �� �� -�
,-:.
n , - `y
�O o
Frotno
Sub�ecte
D�te:
� =;.
Mounds View Plamung Commissiox�,
Rick Joplce, Commuruty Development Director
Billboards
July 15, 1999
As i previously indicated to you the City Council has aslced that the staff and Flanning
Commission continue to look into arid make recornmendatior�s concerning ardinance
amendments 1:o the sign ardinance �o allow billboaxds in certain areas of the community and to
allow signs in the �F Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreational and Preservation
zoning districts. .
At the Ju1y 7, 1999 Pla.nning Comrnission meeting I presented to you two draft ordinances for
Planning Commission discussion. The firsi ordinance deal.t with billboards. This ordinance was
draf�ed after discussions with a representative from the billboard indus�ry, and after reviewing
state rules a.nd ordinances from the Cities of Minneapolis and 5t. Pau1, The draft ordinance
amendment proposed the following: -°'
Rem.oves billboard provisions from Section 1008.08 �ubdivisions 1 and S and puts
ali billboa�rd requirements in Sectian 1008.48 Subdivision 10.
Conamentary: This is p�oposed io allow for easier adrrainist�ation.
2. Adds a new requirement that a conditional use permit be obtained for any new.
billbaard. Such conditional use permit will expire when the billboard lease expires and
will be null-and-void if any required state permits are not obtained.
Commentary: An alternative would be to not require a conditaonal use perrrtzt and rely
on the standaYds in the ordinance to ensure that billboards a�e propeYly installed and
maintained. No sign permit would be issued unless all of the standards ira the
ordincrnce ca�e mei.
3. Sets location standards including bain� on city-owned property iocated along or north
of 11 �. Billboards must be orientated to 118 or 35W and be at least250 feet from
residentzally zoned prap�rty. Billboards can be located wiih a zero setbacic from streets
but may not overhang tlxe right-of way.
Commentary: The standard foY location on or north of ll � is based on City Council
direction. The sepa�ati�n from residentially zoned p�ope�ty is open fo� discussion. The
setback standard is f�om the exisiing ordfnance in Section 1008. �8 Sub�livision 1
1'aragraph S. � �
4. Sets minimum s�acing of billbaards at 1500 feet measured along the same side of the
same roadway.
Commentary: Spacing is open to discussion. In my review of other o�dinances 1' have
seen spacing requirements, fi•om 500 feet to IOOD feet. The representative frorrt the
billboard cofnpany indacaied that the City could conside� spcacing requzrements up to
Z000 feet. I have asked Johrc Hamrraerschmidt to review the spacing of potential sites to
deter�nine if the 1500 foot spacing requirement would work.
S. Sets rriaximum sign area at 700 square feet but allows tempoxary extensians over and
above that as iong as they do not exceed 25 percent of �he sign area and as long as they
do not exceed certain dimensions.
Comnzentary: The proposed requirements reflect standard billboard sizes and
p�uctrces.
6. Requ�res that billboards have no m.ore ihan two �'aces tha� are bacic to back and angled
--_ no mare than 35 degrees.
Cornmentary: This standa�^d is suggested for aesthetic reasons to limit the visual
irt�pact of these signs.
7. Sets the maxiznum sign height at 35 feet.
Comrrtenta�y: This consistent` wfth the code requirements for other signs. The St. Paul
code allows signs up to 37% feet. The point of tneasurement standards are based on
othe� codes and state requarements.
8. Requires that billboards not obstxuct traffic signs or obstruct drivers vision.
Commenta�y: 7'his fs irnportant for safety �easons especially if billboards are allowed
right up to the r°ight-of-way lines.
9. Indicates that existing billboards can be maintained and the message changed as
long as they are not ex�anded.
Commentary.• This r•equi�°ement is intended to claYffy the status of non-conforryaing
billboa�ds.
10. The title of Section 1008.11 is changed to reflecf what is actually discussed in ih�
section. �
I have sent a copy o�the draft ardinance to the City Attorn�y's office for review and commen�.
At the request of the Commission I have also asked the City attomey to suggesi some "sunset"
Ianguage which would allow #he cade ta revert back to its p�esent form if the state does not aliow
at�y bzllboards. As I indicated io the Planning Commission on July 7th, the City Attorney's office
is reviewing two related matters. These include whefiher #here are deed restrictions which wouId
preclude billboards on the golf course property and whether are not there wouid be spot zoning
issues. I have not yet received any further information from the City Attorney eancerning these
issues.
I also sent a copy of the proposed o�°dinance to a consultant to the bill�oard industry and received
comments bacic subsequent to the July 7th meeting. Mr. Cronin comrr�ented tl�at h� felt it v✓as a
reasonable ordinance but r�quested that the City consider one change. The change was to allow
signs that would have an arigle greater than 35 degrees to allow sigii faces side by side. I have
attachec� his comments which include an illushation of the type of sign l�e would like allowed.
I also indicated to the Pla.nning Commission on July 7th that, in �errns of maximizing potential
sites on ihe goif course, the propased minimum spacing could be reduced from 1500 feet to 1000
fee#.
The second ord'znance amendment allows and sets standards for signs in PF and GRP zoning
districis. The current code does not list any permitted signage or standards in either of these
districts. The draft ordinance allows signs consistent with neighborhood business d'zstricts and
with the pedestal sign requirements in Section 1008.�1 Subdivision 6 in the PF and CRP
districts. This is open for discussion. The amounf of signage allowed may be more than
necessary. The existing signage at parks in a neighborhood setting appears to range from 18 to 20
square feet total sign area while the main City Hall sign is approximately .128 square feet in area.
The iotal freestanding signa�e at the Cammunity Center appeaxs to be approximately 94 squ�re
feet. Signage at the golf couxse has been at times as much as 130 square feet.
REQUESTED ACTiON: It is requested that the Planning Commission coniinue its discusszon of
the attached draft ordinances and suggest any changes that may be necessary. 'I'he Commzssion
should also discuss what kind of public inpui process should be utilized. At a future meeiing the
Planning Commisszon will be aslced to make a formal recoinmendation of ordinances to the City
Councii.
N:\DATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIPLANCOMMI7- I 5-99B.MEIvi
;_
- �aoa.o� �oogeai
5ubd. 6. PEDESTAL SIGIiT: �4 graund sign erected upon a single post or shaft or upar� iwo (Z)
posts or shafts that merge or touch at the base or which are not more ihatx f fteen feet
(� 5') apart, c�nt�r of shaft to center of shaft, with the d�splay portion mounted or� top
thereof at least seven feet (7'} above the surface of the stre�t ad.�acer�t to the propex�y on
which the sign is located. No such sign shali have a s�gn area of more than three hundred
foriy (34a) square feet on each side. such s�gn �nay �aver�ise on�y busi�nesses locatea on
the premYSes. No business property shall have rt�ore #han one pedestal sign adjacent to
each street upon which such business praperty abuts; provided, �hat on each 5treet frontage
of more than�one hu�dred feet (100'), one additional gedestai sign may be established and
ma�ntagned an such street frontage if such add°zt�onal pedestal sign a) is locaied on a singIe
pole, b} does not exceed t�venty eight (2�) square feet in axi area on aczy side and does not
have anare than two �2) sides, c} is not mor� than fo�r feet (4') in vsridth or seven feet (i'}
��n he�ght or� the sign fac�, d) is located at l�ast sev�n feet (7') abave ihe � surface s�f the
street. in ii�u of one addit�onal pedestal sign, �o {2) separate signs may be Iocat�d on
- the same pole, but such two (2) signs combined shall z�ot exceed, in area or dimensgoz�s,
the limata.�ions applicable t� a szngle additional pedestal szgn. No pedesta! sign shal.i be
so designed as to h�ve bofih a) moving parts, and b} moving ar blinking lights. In
additzon to the pedestal signs pernutted by the foregoing provgsfons of this subdivision,
a sign advertising a public teiephon� may' be lacated in the area ahead of the building
setback line on the s�x�ucture an which such publ�c telephone is located.
Subd. 7. PQIZTABLE SIGN: A back-to�back, mobile advertising device which rr�ay be.
mounted on wheels and used for commercial as well as cFVic prornotions.
Subd. 8. PROJECTING SiGN: A s�gn other than a wall sign sus�ended from or support�d by
a building or siructure and pro�ecting out therefrom.
�ubd. 9. ROOF STGN: A sign e�°ected upan or above #he roaf or parapet wall af a�building or
siructure.
Subd. IOo SIGN: ,A sign, the primary fiuic#ion �of wluch is to direct attention to a product,
service or activity thai is sold or offered either elsewhere or upon the premises vvhere such
sign as located or ta which ii is �xed. �
Subd. 11 o SIGN, .ADV'�RTIS�VG: A sign, fhe pra�riar� furiction of which is to d�ect atteniion
t� a prod��t, servi�e or aciiv2ty that is sold ar off�red either elsewhere or upon th�
premis�s wher� such sign as locai�d or fo vvhich it is aff xed.
- Subd. 12o SIGIet �EA: 'That area of a sign within the Ynarginal ixr�es of �h� siarface, which
bears the �aauxic�ment, name, adv�rtise�ent or oth�r mness�.ge or, in the case oi l�tters,
f gures ar symbols �ttached d�rectl3� to any pa.x-� of a building, the area� wh�ch is �ncluded
in th� smallest z°�ctaragie wl�ch �an be rxiad� to circumscribe each letter, f gur� or syrnbol
displayed �hereoax.
City oj.Mou�ds r�l�w
7-13°199g �:38PM FROM i�i CR�NIN Bi� 941 264�
P. 3
; . r �
.
� ,
�
N.
� ��
� „�
_..� _. . �. �.. . .: :..M . : = a.-
_ 7.,_ , A
: : � �: � ";` � . ;� ,� �;
� �' : �. ;, r • :;
• �_ � �� :��� .
- . �, ..
,. .
: F '�i - ;l%'
f. � ; ��:t. .� ' � ._, � �` .._�=.
.�:� f , � .:"� i 1 �. . . � V"-. � � /�_ . ��. f i���.
�// 1 ..
�, . � -
_ �:. � r � . �.
t
.
,
, �
_
�
..� :�
.. : ... .
N
�. ,
. _ ��
_
�
� , ,. , _ �_
- : f:� f �' f• i.i', - �_ - � �_'. � - ��� ' �
,, ,.: . �. :,. , , -, `. = .... � . _. "' .,_ ' ". ^. , . ; J . . -
�. • s � ." :, f . ,., � . ... • _�:..� � . ��. '�' � -
- • !� �'�. . �A .T. _ _ r � " f ' ' - -
r . i _ .. �e _ � _ �,, �, � ��, . ,. , �. �.. �. �.
� y �'1 �'- �, � - � � . �'� •� - i� � �� -
. .,. ' . f. ; � � ' � , ... " 1 , �. ' s. � � ` ._ ... : _. ��. i !>��. �-,.- � • � � ,.: _ _, �
�, �
�'.:,- - �� . _ � .
' .., .. � - -.. �. ,. .. ., :.
� � , : .�. .. C'. � � .,... � ,,� '
�
i
?J
,
� i� 13-19�9 2_ 3JPM FROM E�I C€�ON I N� 9� 9� 1��A.S
'°. , ,'� • , ' . . • ' .
,a. ,, a � .
' • �
� � 6
� �
. . ° � 0' ' �
-�
�
; 6 ��
� � ��
f �
�
r� . . .
,
. �
,
r
. �,
. i�
i� � .
�� ��
�� ���
��
: � � ���
,�_.l,:
. ,
. �
�
. .�//,
6�°B`1 ��
,
� �
��
� * e
P_ 3
� ,�
1
. �
.�
i
�
f
1
7•
I
�
� �:
3�
�
;
i -
;
�� f
� �.
� ��
� � ��
�
�
a
;
. ,
,
�.
�
� i
�
. i
:
�
.
7-13-199� 2_3gPM �R�M M CRONIN 612 941 2645 p,2
. � � �
, � f ���'�
a :;I��"�
i J .� 4;�� �, ° —
i ;` ,� ' k,. ae� � ° �'
. �� � i��� .
. 1 � � • e,a��J��eto � ,
. . ld�� ' �
,dii.°b •
' � � �, �,, .
v'
1 ��, 11 F .
!
1l
1 e '
� o i'
• �� � I , � , .
; d �. � 1
, � �1 q'; i
.� � � •'4 I � � q .
� I�t �, �t ':k�� �
b,
e
�
!
i
,
t
t
�
:
i
�
.�
�
�
�
.,
e
8
•.�
� �
��
� t �, ,
9
`ti q 1
if "
l
L ,
,
7
.,
, 1f.
,
i � o
r
�
�� o
�r
i
�
� ��
�
t
1
��
y
d �
4
i
0
ga
�
..
0
� i
�:
�
� 1��q I
' t� ;.
� ;-
�
1 '_ '! ` �- .
Ci'��' O�` I�OITI�II)S i�dEi�1
- CO�'I'� OF ��Y
�'T�.7'E O� �f�dE�OTA
' �•� ` � �; 1 ��I� ; � ,: :� ; ` '�� . :_ ��` •�� ': :1� �- �. .1. , ` -
� •� 1 � ,�, ��' � '.
�- � '` �. . �` : ` '.. '.
'i a. _ #� % i' , �. / i ; i; �' � . . �` `. �
�, , �-_ l� k 1;
�` ,
THE CITY �F MOUNDS �IIEW ORDAlNS:
SECTION 1: Section 1408.08 of the Mounds View Nlunicipal Code is hexeby amended
vt�th the proposed additions underlined crnd iPalicized and delet�ons ,
respectively9 to read as follows:
Subd. 1. Ger►eral Standards; Paragraph I(1): No ground si�n (except temporary signs,
partable sf gns or banners), or signboard s�l�ea''� shail approach at any point nearer
than three feet (3') to any building unless such sign is placed parallel to the side of the
building, n.or shall any such sign be placed within six feet (6') of the side af any lot nor
nearer thati fifteen feet {15') to any street iine where there is no established or customary
building line nor withir� twenty five fee# (25'} of any street corner right-of-way. Whenevex
the established or customary uniform building iine upQn �he street vvhere such graund
sign is to be erected is more than fifteen feet (15') �x'om the street or praperty line, then
such sign shall no� approach nearer ta the s�ree� than the established ar customary
uniform building line.
Subd. 5. 5igns Along Freeways: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, signs
located an property adjacent to any freeway within the Municipality (including interstate
Highway 35W) shall be business signs advertising businesses being conducted on the
premises on which the signs are iocated. No "trcaveling" or changing-message signs shall
be located so as to face any freeway or be v'isible from the fieeway. The provisions of tYxis
subdivision, hawever, shail not be constru�d to render illegal or noncox�£orming any
signs which are legaliy located along any such freeway at the effect�ve date herein.�
,
,
� �
Subd. 10. �illboards: A permit sha11 not be issued for any new billboard �
. �
, unless it com l.ies wrth the allowin r°e uiremenis:
a. CONDITIONAL �ISE PERMIT.' A conditional use ernzr.t CUI' nzust be
abiained in accordance the t^ocedu�e.s�.,f'ound in Section 1125.01
ubdivision 3 o the Mounds Vaew �Llunici al Code. An conditional use ermit
issued�r a bzllboard shall autornaticall, � ex i�e when the lease agreement or the
billboard ex ires. Such CIIP shall be null-and-void i the a licant ails to obtain
an re uired ermit om the State o Minnesata.
b. LOCATION:• The billboa�d must be locaied alon� or no�th o�118 and must be
located on Citv-owned robertv. The ap�licant must haye an a�?proved lease
a eement with the Ci . The billbocrr�d shall be oriented towards ,118 and/or
I35W. Billboards rrtust be located at least 250 eet om residentaall zoned
ro er . Billboards ma be located ad'acent to the Yi ht-o -w o a street or
hi h�a but no part the�eo„�'slaall extend ove� such ri ht of wav.
c. MIIVIMU�1�1 SPACING: Billboa�ds must be at least 1 SDO�'eet a,�ari. S acin�
between sz ns shall be �measured bV bYOjectin� the nearest�oints of the signs to
the ro e� Zine o the ri ht-o -wa oni which the are intended to be read and
meusuring the distance in a siraight line bet�;veen the pro�jected�oints Rer�uired
s acin shall a l onl to bflZboards on the sar�e side o the same roadwa .
d. II�YIMUMSIGNAREA: The maximu�ra r°oss sur ace displav area ofthe sign
cannot exceed i00 s ua�e eet er side exce t that an Nectan ular billbottrd ma
contain tempora�~v extensrons. cutouts, or to� letterin� tivhich occubv a total area
not in excess o twen - ave 2.5 ercent o the area o the basic billboa�d and
orm an inte al art o the desi n ihef•eo . No such tem or•ar extension cut out
o� to letterin�ma lYOject more than six �6J feet�m the top, ei hieen {I8)
inches rani eithe� side o� a teen I S inches om the bottom o the basic
rectangular advertising messa„�e The area o an extension. cutout. or top --
letterfng_shall be deenaed to be the area o the smallest rectan le into which such
extension. cutout or to� letterfng will frt
e. ORIE1dTATlON �F SIGNFACES: Billboards ma have no more than two 2
si_ n_ aces. Sign aces must be back-to-back with signe aces arallel or an le_d. All
billboards with their aces back=to-back�and a�allel shall have no reater
distrznce t1�an ei ht 8 eee between the aces. All billboards with aces at an
angle shall have no greater an l�e than�ty_�ve (35) de rees�
. MAXIII�IUMSIGNHF,IGHT.� The maximum allowable hei,ght o,{'billboards shall
be thirtv-�ve /351 %et The hei.�ht shall be measuYed om the g�rade at the base o,�
the si n or om the sur ace afthe �oad►vav whzchever is hi�her
. OBSTRUCTION.• No billboard nza be located in such a manneY as to obscure
or otherwise inte� ere with the e f�'ectzveness o an o ficial tra�' ac si „, si n� _ al, o�
device or obstru"ct or inte� ere with a driver's view o a roachin mer in or
inteYSeciin tf•a ac.
Anv billboaYd le�all� exrstin,� on the e ectzve daPe o ihis ordinance mav continue to be
naaintained in its �resent o�m and size but not expanded This does not preclude the � _
neriodic change of the messa�e or advertisemeni presented on the billboard
Any billl�oard destroyed by ari act af God may be rebuilt v�rithin thirty (30) days if tl�e
consttuction of same wouid comply with this subdivision.
. SECTION 2: The title of Section.1008.1 i of the Mounds View Municipal Code is her�by
amended with the proposed additions underlined and italicized and deletians °~°-•''- --�` ~-°a
�`-��, respectively, to read as foilows:
1008.11: . SIGN VARIANCES.�
SECTION 3. This Ordinanc� gaes into effeci thirty (30} days after i�s publicaiion in the
officxal City newspaper.
Read by the City Councii of the Ciiy of Mounds ��ew on this day of , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Councii of ihe City of Mounds View on th�s day of
, 1999.
ATTEST:
Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED A� TO FORIVI:
City Attorney
�Dan Coughlin, Mayor
Charles �. Whiting, Ciiy
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVISPBCPR0.1�6XX.ORD
'q P 470 Pillsburq Center
� � 200 5outh Sixth Street
, Minneapolis MN 55402
j !; ^!i;';� (612) 337-9300 telephone
. (612) 337-9310 fa�c
c H,a R 7 E R E D �«p����'W kennedy-graven.com
October 19, 1999
Mr. Ri ck Joplce
Community Development Director
�ity az Iviounds View
2401 Highwayl0
Mounds Vie�w, N!N 55112-1429
ROBiRT C. LOIVG
Atlomey at Law
Direcs Dial (612) 337-9202
� email: rlong@kennedy-graven.com
VIA FACSIiV1ILE AIV�i) LJ.S.IVIA,IL
Rea Placement of �ilibaards �at T'lre �ridg�s Galf Course
Dear Rick:
I am writing in respanse to your request for an opinion regarding the placement of billboards or
advertising devices at The Bridges Golf Course in ihe City of Mounds View. �
Ii� re��iewifl� this matter, it should be noted thai the following assumptions were made:
1. Possible deed restrictions'as to the use of the real property underlying the golf course
were reviewed only as to the main parcel acquired from the State of Minnesota. �uch
excess "talcings" land originally acquired far the construction of Highway 10 was
txansferred by quit claim deed pursuant to statutory authority to the City in 1988,
2. Du� to cost issues in reviewing this matter, none of the other parcals of land which make
up The Bridges Golf Course were reviewed for deed restrictzons or any other implications
as tc-�,.is �pir�i�:,ri.
3. No opinion is provided as to the appiicability of any bond document covenants or
restrictions as to the financing for the construction of The� Bridges Golf Course. Bond
counsel should be consulted concerning these issues before the City enters into any
agreement concerning the use of the The Bridges Golf Course for billboard or advertising
placement.
�i�T.�
The foilowing issues were reviewed as to the placerrient of advertising devices or biliboards at
the golfcourse: • . . ..
JPD-i53046
KG400•1
Mr. Ricic Jopke
October 19, 1999
Page 2
1. Does the deed for the goif caurse property contain any restrictions which would prohibit
tha placement of advertising devices or biilhoards at The Bridges Golf Conrse?
2. Does the piacemenf of advertising devices or billboards at the golf course constitute
illegal "spot zoning" or raise any oiher zflning implications?
3. Is the placement of advertising devices ar billboards permitted along the Minnesata State
Tnznk Highway system?
The discussion and opinions as to the above noted issues follows. �
�:� � .
1. Probably not. Placing a billboard or other advertising sfiacture on the involved
property would not appear to contravene the public purpose use restriction because doing so
could be construed as a supporiing eiement of the public purpose use. However, if the billboard
is used to advertise and promote a business other than the golf course or other government
iunction, then it may be argued tk�at this is more of a commercial use rather than a public purpose
use. The only way to be certain on this issue wo�ld be to seel� a new Attorney General's opinion
on this specific ques�ion.
2. � Probably noY. There are no facts to suggest that allowing a billboard on the
involved property (or on other praperties within a particular district) would totally or
substantially diminish the value of the golf course property or abutting properties. This may
depend, however, on the characteristics and location of the biliboard.
3. Possibly, if the property is zoned for "business, industrial, ar commercial
aciivities." If the praperiy where an advertising device is to be placed meets the requirements of
Minnesota Sfatutes Chapter 173 and the City Code, the advertising device vvould appear to be
permitted. ,
F�C'��5
The state of Minnesota (State) acquired a parcel of Iand for #runk lughway purposes. The
property is mostly wetland and floodplain and is located within a conservancy, recreation; aud
protection district. After deciding fhat it had no need for the property, the Sta�e by special
legislation transferred the property to the ciiy of Mounds View (Ci#y) pu�rsuant to a quit claim
deed. That deed contain� a provision that the property must be used for a public purpose;
otherwise, the properiy would imtnediately revert back to the state. The city is currently using
the property as a golf course and is interested in placing a biliboard or other advertising structizre
thereon.
��r�.r��sz�
I. I)eed Itestrict�on-�Pt�blic PurpoSe
5jR-168870
MU21Q• 1
Mr. Rick Joplce
October 19, 1999
Page 3
The deed for a portion of The Bridges Golf Course property states that the property must be used
for a public purpose. The question arises as to whether placiz�g a biilboard or other advertising
structuxe on th� invalved property would coniravene the express deed restriction that it be used
for a public purpose.
Opinions of the Minnesota attorney general have touched on the issue as to wliat constitutes a
"public purpose" in a municipal golf course setting. The attorney generai has stated that a city
cannot outright lease a municipal golf course to a private entity "as iong as there still �xzsts a
municipal need for the course." Op. Att'y Gen. 469a-9 (September 9, 1957}. However, i�ie
' attan�ey generai ne.s suggz�ted that a public pur}�ose might be taund to exist in situations wnere
sucl� usa is incidental to the primary p�blic use. Op. AtYy Gen. 59-B-11 (April 23, 1957). In
order to be certain on this issue, t�e Ciiy could request an opinion of the Minnesota attomey
general as to the ability of the City to place biliboa.rds at The Bridges to ensure that the City is
operating within the previous opinions of the attorney general, as well as the "public purpose"
provision mandaied by the authorizing statute and the deed from the 5tate.
In addition, whether a.�.action of a local governxnent serves a valid public purpose has received
considerahle attention in the context o� condemnation law. "Perhaps the most complete and
often cited statement of the factors: to be considered in determining whether a valzd public 1
purpose is present is ..." [W)hat is a'public purpose' ... is not capable of a precise definition,
but the courts generally construe it to mean such an activity as wili serve as a benefit to the
community as a body and wl�ich, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of
government." Minnesota Energ_�and Economic Developxnent Authority v. Printy, 351 N.W.2d
319, 338 (Minn. 1984) (citing Visina v. Freeman, 252 IVlinn. 177, 184-85, 89 N.W.2d b35, 643
(1958)). A local government's decision that an action serves the pubiic puxpose is given great
deference. See Li$eau v. Me�ropolitan Sports Facilitv Commission, 27� N.W.2d 749, 754-55
(Minn. 1978). A legislative determination of public purpose will only be oveiruied if it is
manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. See R.E. Shart Co. v. Ci of Minnea�olis, 2b9 N.W.2d
331, 337 (1978}.
Placing a billboard oii the golf course property would serve the purpose of promoting the
business and attracting customers. That generally leads to an increase in customers who use the
golf course or buy goods sold thereon, which in turn Ieads to increased profits. Assuming the
golf course ztself constitutes a public purpose, allowing a billboa.rd for #he purpose of advertising
or prornoting ihe golf course wouid be considered a supporting eiement of the public purpose
use. The same wouid hoid true far advertising another government function. The end xesult in
either case would be a benefit to the cominunity.
If the billboard were utilized to advertise or promoie businesses oiher than th� golf course, then
one could argue the billboard has less af a supporting element to ihe golf course and the only
pubiic purpo�e would be to raise revenues. If the raising af revenue wa� det�rmined to not be a
public purpose, the deed restriction may require transfer of the property back to the state of
Minnesota. My office has found no case involving the same or similar situation.
SJIi-168870
MU2i0-1
�att�'� �� �,,� � ���,=
�=�T�enr��d��`�� =
� ��-
�, ;, > > , � _ �,� t i � ry-��,��
i� X �`'
���; � �`-�.�� C�l ��� _ : .
�._ _ �:
II. �po� Zoning
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixch Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(G12) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 f�
h�tp:Uwww.ken�edy-graven.co m
Spot zoning has not been subs�aniially addressed by Mixznesota courts. In fact, there ara anly ten
Minnesota cases' that mention spot zoning, and most oi #hose cases do not provide much
guidarice or a well-deveioped ruie. See e. ., Communication Pro.�erties,_ Inc. v. Couniv of
Steele, SOb N.W.2d 670 {Minn. Ct..App. 1993); Glen Paul Court Nei�hborhood A.ss'n, 43i
N.W.2d 52 (Minn. 1989); Larson v. Washington County, 387 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. Ct. App.
1986).
Having said that, "[s]pot zoning is the reclassification of a sm.atl area of land in a manner that is
•=s','a,•;'<..iiJi Cu�lt�'ic^�.4�T�i° �r:<i�.�"i;it'i�, S'i�il't3i:2'Iti'lai�"1iGI�'�fi3i3i�lill7`a� iUi ��'xi: ti�iii:f �(i� i.11�'f7iO��I'�� [}�Vrt�3�� 1I:i1 �;1�
the detrirnent af othe�s."Z Amcon Co . v. Cit of Ea en, 348 N.W.2d 66, 73 n.6 (1984) (citing
Terr v. Duddiesten, 641 S.W.2d 569 {Tex. Ct. .�pp. 1982)}. Said another way, spot zoning
.. ., applies to zoning changes on a smali parcel of land, establishing a use ctassification inconsistent.
with surrouriding uses and dramaiically reducing the value for uses specified in the zoning
ordinance of either the rezoned plot or abutting property. See State b Rochester Ass'm of
Nei�hborhoods v: Citv ofRochester, 268 N.W.2d $85, 891 {Minn. 1978} (citatians omitted).
One can prove a case of spot zoning by showing the zoning amendxnent caused (1} a total or
substantiai diminution of value of the property affected thereby or (2} created an island of
- nonconforming use. See Alexatzder v. Citv of Minriea�olis, 267 Minn. 155, 160, 125 N.W.2d.
583, SSb (1963}. That rule was followed fifteen years later in State bv Rochesier Ass'n of
Nei�hborhoods v. Citv o� Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 891-92 (Minn. 1978). The us�zai
presumption of validity attaching to zoning amendments as legislative acts applies, and tha
burden of demonstrating. spot zor�ng rests with the one aitacking the ordinance. Id.
Tn the present case, there is no information to show whether allowing billboards or other
advertising structures (collectively billboards) 'in the district that includes the golf course, would
affect the value of the golf caurse praperiy ar abutting properties. �ne consideration may
include the characteristics of the billboard. A billboard that is considered an eyesore may have
fhe �ffect af• ,red.ucing the val�e of uues �'l�we� ���� .qhutti,r�� propertie�: A.notr�er. �onsider�tion
may involve the location of the billboard.
Even if a billboard did affect the value of fihe properties, it may no� totally or substantially
diminish that value, a requirement for spot zoninge The typical scenario associated with spot
zoming involves rezoning residential properiy to allow for commercial or indus4x�ia1 uses. The
1 One other case references spot zoning but that case had been overruled. See Paster v. Glen
Court Neighborhood Ass'n, 424 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. Ct. App. I9�8). .
z Other couris in defining spot zoning have develaped miscellaneous variatians. Se� e. .,
Waterstradt v. Board of Comrnissioners, 454 P. 2d 445 (Kan. 1969} ("Spoi zoning signifies a
carving out of one or more properties located in a given use district and reclassifying them in a
different use district.").
SJR-166870
MU210-i
Mr. Rick J�opke
Oct�ber 19, 1999
Page 5
increase in noise, traffic, and potential odorous egnissions have a direct and substantial nagative
effect on the value of abutting properties. Here, the connectian is tenuous, but eve� if the
connection did exist, one would questian the degree such an effect would have on property
values. To constitute spot zoning, the effect must be toial and substantial. Under these
circumsiances, spot zoning would be difficult to prove.
Another way to prove spot zaning i� to show the rezvrung created an isiand of nonconforming
use. Allowing the billboard fo�' only one property--the golf course--may create an island ofr
nonconforming use sufficient io prove spot zaniug. If other properties within fihe district are
allowed to have biliboards, or if other zaning disiricts, such as public facilities districts, are
all�'�ve�-��o- �i�.v� � ui�fboards, such as ��uuu�h a• coinr:itzonal use p�rmit �r�cess9 �I���n spot zc�ning
may be harder to prove, especially if those properties are located near the golf course property.
. �I�e St�ta��ary �est�zctions3
The placemen� of advertising devices or billbaards along a state tzunk highway, such as �iighway
10, also must be consistent vvith Minnesoia statutes. Minneso�a Statutes § 173.08 provides i�i
part that no advertising device except those expressly permitted by exception shall be arected or
maintained in an area adjacent to a state tnu�k highvvay. One such exception for the placement of .
an advertising device adjacent to a trunk highway provides that placement is pennitted for
"advertising devices which are located, or which are to be located, in business areas and which
conlply, or r�vill compiy when ereeted, with the provisions of § 173.01 to 173.27." Minn. Stat. §
173.08, subd. 1(h). A"business area" as used in the statute is defined ta be "any part of an
adjaceni area which is (a) zoned for busiriess, industrial or commercial activities under the
authority af a.ny law of this state ar any political subdivision thereof, or (b} not so zoned, ,but
which constitutes an unzoned cammexcial or industrial area as herein defined." Minn. Stat. §
173.02, subd. 9 {emphasis added). �
Thus, it would appear that if the zoning for The Bridges Golf Course under the City's zoning
code is that of business, industrial or commercial, placement of billboards would be pennitted
adj acent to State Tnu7k Highway No. 10. �f The B�idges Golf Course is not .�oned business,
industrial or cammercial, placement of advertising devices or biliboa.rds would not appear to be
permitted aiong State Trunk Highway No. 10. I have enclosed a copy of Chapter 173 regarding
advertising devices for your reference.
3 Minn.esata Staiutes Chapter 1 i3 also has provisions requiring the issuance of permits in certain
situations. The Placement of billboards would also be subj ec� to any such permitting
requirements.
SJR-166870
MU210-1
Mr. �tick Jopke
October 19, 1999
Page 6
Please feel free to contact me regarding the above opinions and supporting discussion.
Sincerely,
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHAIZTERED
���� .
�`
Robert C. Lung
iviaunas�view €;�fiy'I�i�orne
RCL:sms
Enciosures
cc: , Chuck Whiting
5Jlt•1b8870
MU21.0-1
, .. ,
.. . : - . ::
.... ._. _ _ _.._ . ;
I
'�
,.:..;
>.
�ti,�;: , 1':'�' -!-` ,.� r.�_ ,.;� , ,_, ; , �..,,: ,�;
, �� `� ? � '�1� � `�- `I `, ��.
• � _ �, ;�;
2401 �Iighway 10,
1. C7l1 to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pete
2. I2ol! C'�lt
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissi
Stevenson.
,�31
�
Members Absent: Commissioners Berke, Bra����en (le�
��r�
.�� ,-;
Also Present: Ptanning Associate Jam, ��icson ���i
Council Liaisan Roger Stigney, and R��order���sh l
�
����. „
Inde� to 1VIix�utes
a developjn'e
MSP Real E
59 99, �
,�jforat
'��U�I.f��lI1t.
Special P�l,��iing Case �
ordina��e amending the
.��'�
;,, ;,`
Sta�'Reports / Items of
.' ;;
Giia.it�erson and Pla��
Het��9
l�egul�r 1Vieef°sreg
October° B0, 4999
9.
�O�IiIC[S < eI�VV C,tty Hii��
;�tands���'� , Il�I�I 55112
.:;� a �`
p.:` ., �.� ,. .. A2�
> � 7%ii�f'
C C i�-��.
, OCtOber`2�. � ���::�>�
n, Kaden, Laube, and
ce�, a�� NIi[ler, with prior notice.
:v���opment Director Ricic Jopke,
_�nty }Z�ac� l.� Discussion rega�'ding
y, �enior assisted living residentiaE facility.
4-99� Discuss proposed Ordinance 642, an
;ride related to driveway widths and curb cuts.
#orma�ion
Commissioners Reports
�o �`itc�xe���� R�quests ne�d Coenmen�s oa� �tem� 1Vo8 an the Agerada
There w�re no citizen rec�uests or comments on items rrot on the agenda.
�age
F�
6
10
14
._:,-: .-.,. .�:-. ::.. ...�.�.� . . :.-: _-_,_.-. .- . .�::.
iVI0Ui1CiS V1eVV PI1T1[llllg COI1R�IlBSS10il �c�ober 20, I999
l�eg�tlar liZee�irs� Page 2
4a .Approv�l of 1Vlan�tes
A. �epten�ber 15, �999
MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Kaden to approve the September l5, 1999 meeti minutes as
corrected. ,. ,�;���
Q
Ayes -- 6
P1:enning Cnse IV�. 559-99
Nays — 0
� inot.ir�r� carried.
Property Involved; 2b70 County Road I
Discussion regarding a deveiopment review for a two-story, s�t��c�r a��isted living residentiat facility,
Applicant: MSP Real Estate �Sj��>�'
The appl�cant was present.
Planning Associate Ericsan �ave the
The applicant, MSP Real Estate,
senior assisted living complex to b�
the conditional use permit for tilis �
B-2, Lim�te� �usiness Cotr�i�.�rci
The a}�plicant has indi�
the structure t� briz��
explained ihat th� siti
into ihe setba��� lio�>c
,��
places it�ser to �hc
corn
�rovi
as
� ��.��� ��_
���t�uested�pproval o��, development review for a two-story
�t��„� . ��
��ted at :Zf�70 County;�oad L The City Councii has approved
elopznc�t�% �5 we�1 a,S`fhe ordinance rezoning the property from
io R-4, �i��z �et7sity Residential.
te�1t of the building on the site, and has revised the footprint of
r��� �ith the setback rec�uirments. Planning Associate Ericson
t� t�e Commission indicated an encroachment of the building
t� resolved through a siight adjustment of the structure, which
ng Associate Ericsa.�;i�ldieated al! of the dimensional and paricing iot requireEnents are met with
�,,,..:
ropasal. He pros�ded the Commission with a memorandum prepared by the applicant in
1se to the Staff,�.��port, which addresses �nd satis�es staf�s concerns with regard to the site
Pl�nriin�' �s�r�c�'ate Ericson stated that one haif of the drainage flow at the site would be directed
towari�`�bunty Road I, and the remainder, toward Mounds View Drive, He expiained the drainage
plan has been reviewed by the Public Works Director who has found that the amount of runoff at the
site wi11 not be significant, and any excess runoi�will be diverted into available on-site green space
and City storm sewers. He indicated that there appear to be no issues with regard to the drainage.
1,/Iounds Vie� Pl�nnr�tg Comrnassion �ctober 20, 1999
Reg_ul�r li�eetws,g Pa�e 3
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has consulted with ihe City Forester who has provided his
recommendations regarding the landscape plan, which has been revised to indicate appropriate
species, as specified in the applicant's res�onse io the StaffReport.
Planning Associate Ericson indicated, as discussed at previous meetings, the applicac�t,Awi11 attempt
�: �
to restrict westbound traffic entering the site from County Road I, and th.�, exit at,,,��,�: s location will
� ��
be clearly marked "exit only," to prevent any circulation problems or pot�n��a1 t�'��ic issues.
Planning Associate Ericsan stated another matter braught
sidewaik would be rec�uired along Mounds View Drive. H�
the areas where sidewallcs will be constructed, and expla
existing sidewalk along County Road I. He indicated tha� t
the site, and connect to the SuperAmerica access, to alio�
traffic in that area.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the specifications for
in the plans s►abmitted by the applicant, meet with Cii
at pr�vi�3uS �'i��etings was
to the: S�C� �idt�. ���f�ic3� ind
ed tltatE„�1�.�"se sidei�all�s �� �I1 adj�,iz���t1�e
�idewa�� would follow �1�� j�eri���eter of
�`t��' ��t�.,ingress and e�ress ot` pedestrian
rbage t�ump�ter:�nclosure, as indicated
irementti '�
Chair Peterson noted there had been soin�`����iestian; re��r�Iit�� tl�e �ccuracy of the scale of the
building. Planning Associate Ericson ex. �at'ned that��3�e el�v�tians'andicated on the previous plans
were not accurate, however, the revise X�scale is���curate �,�c� �r�dicates the topmost height of the
building to he 37 feet. He explained t�1�� the m��mu�n hei�l�t allowed is 45 feet, and the structure
;� � _ ,�� .�
- is within that requirement. ;, . � �
�'` L��
Planning As��ciate Er�cso� ���ted the applzuant d`�,�,t�� not propose to install any lighting on the
bu�lding.,,I�c c�plained th� �..���tx��� �'lan indic�t�s tt�e`proposed lighting, and the foot-candle readings
are all witk�z�z �'ztyr {�ode reqt�i�cmerits, in terms of glare, and light spillage onto the surrounding
properties. _r..
Pianning As ��t� .�
applican s ►ndicat
Permit�'�quiremenis.
eet for signage,
provided plans
issues couid a
�tated nc� si�nage plans have been submitted at this time, however, the
�y s�gnage wiil comp]y with the City Code and the Conditional Use
�inL�c� aut that the Conditional Use Permit sets a maxi�num size af 32
�� wifi review the signage based upon this rec�uireinent, if the applieant
s by the next meeting of the Planning Commission, He added Yhat the
reviewed at the Council IeveL
if the applicant has indicated the type of signage they might utilize at the
l�iiike �.�wis, representative ofMSP Real Estate, the applicant indicated their facilities typically utilize
wooden signs, set in block foundations,
Planning Associate Ericson advised that alf of the Devefopment Review require�nents appear to be
met, and there are no outstanding issues, He explained that staff will require ths plans be revised to
,. :
Td/Iounc�s `7►ew Pl�nnig�g Commiss�on October 20, 1999
Yte�ul�ar I�Ieetir�� P��e 4
indicate the proposed landscape changes, sidewalk Iocation, and all of the other changes ihat have
been addressed, to provide the City Council wil! have a fir►al, revised set of plans for cansideration,
Chair Peterson noted the site plan indicates the parking stalls to be 9 feet by ] 8 feet in size, and the
City Code requires 9 feet by 20 feet. Planning Associate Ericson explained ti�at Ordiz�ance 620 has
� `�
revised the dimensional requirements of the parking stalls, and tl�e propt�sed sta���;�re within the
Code, ; ��`�
Chair Peterson pointed out a discrepancy in the revised elev ns; whECh r���;� I��tween 112 to 11��;
feet, and the previous elevations, which were indicated to �e betwe�� tt�c � 10 Ic� 1000 feet �i=.
� . , - ' �,�
Lewis explained this was an error on the part of the arciu ��ct, and,t�����`�correct �lc�atioi�s a.��'�rt'the
k �.
912 to 914-foat range. �` ' `� ���`
Chair Peterson inquired regarding the elevation of the lot, and !ifi �'ilZ ufc���ld be brought in or removed
fronn the site. Mr. Lewis indicated with the exception of �C��ie cc�r�4r�t� block an the site that wiil be
, µ:
removed, there would be no need for fill to be brofight in or reiT�o���d li�t�rn�the site.
�;,..;.
Cor�vnissioner Kaden pointed out that the majo�,�,��t��':t�
5uperAmerica site. Mr. Lewis explained tli��`the flae
downward. ��
,����
g appear�;�(� be direeted toward the
n�,1�e„��rking Zot would be directed
Planning Associate Ericson advised t�i�%��'ere is s,�`�rie Eight s�illage onto the SuperAmerica location, ';
and the Code does nat rec�uire ther�`���any �������r�zation of k�gllt spilla�e onto a commerciai property.
��.> �
He indicated, however, ihere is�a r��a�reine��t �t�.�enns o��e candle ofthe lighting, and it appears that
the MSP i�gl��tra,�, decreases to a u�r� n�inimal �mt�ut�t ��t`hin a short distance from the site. He added
that the foot-�cktindle readiza�s alo��� tl�e stree�. ar� well within the Code rec�uirements.
Chair Peterso� ��nt�t�����i� entrance �zi�( s�d�.�r��lk at the eastern side of the building, with pedestai type
lighting at this lacaticin, �-�;e i�iquii-�c� iftliis'wauld provide sufficient Iighting for the entrance.
Mr. Lewis����plained t�iis en�r'�.�� ku�primarily for delivery purposes. He pointed out that the eastern
portio����f"�the faciiity wilt:b,��u�;����ed for the Afzheimer's clientele, who will have a separate access,
�,,., ,.,
and_;�fs entrance will be ��c���'d at night,
�is inquired if �'ive-foot wide sidewalk would be sufficient, rather than 7 feet, as indicated
���
I�laxu�ng ,- c�ate Ericson explained the Department of Public Works requires a seven-foot
f�l�l� f��� , maintenance vehicles, fio provide that the plows and brushes don't interFere with
�i2ta�lli��� andscape.
Cauncil Liaison S�igney inquired if the remaining debris at the MSP site located across from the
assisted living facility would be reinoved. Mr. Lewis explained he was not the praject manager for
this site, however, he woutd bring the matter to the attention of the president of the company.
l�ounds View Pl�t��an� Commessioia October 20, i999
�2egul�r 1Vleeting Pn�e 5
Commissioner Stevenson pointed out tllat unless the center media:� at the entrance on County Road
i is removed or shortened, which is not presently allowed, there would be no alternative but a right-in,
right-out turn af this location, therefore, signage may not be necessary,
Planning AssociaYe Ericson pointed out that althaugh it is not intended that trafFc tr
County Road I uiilize the County Road I access, some people may devia�e from tl�
.�
lane of traffic and diverting themselves from ihe median. In addition, h� explai��d'
traffic on County Road I travels at a fairly significant speedr����d altho�7�#� �n�erin�
,.,..,
Iocation from the westbound lane is probably less of an isst��, tt"would Iik�ly be �e
,�� <,
eliminaie this ingress altogether, marlcing it exit only and�cfivert all tr�`jc �ntt> fh�
View Drive. He commented however, this �night be over�y cautiou�, �'
�Ev hng west on
y crossing a
that eastbound
the site at this
s hazardous t��
;'ite to Mout�ds
Chair Peterson stated that a motorist traveling east on ��t��i73t3� �?oad I might see the` �raflfic light
�:.
change and increase their speed to reach the �ight at the same tin�e � u��icle is atte►npting to drive the
�,:_ '
wrong direction to by-pass the median and access the driv�y��y. He st<��ec� he believed signage at this
location was � very p�dent consideration and not over�� cautious.:
Commissioner Laube inquired ifthe site access �;��u��d4 V��w Drive r�t�ulci be indicated "entrance
only," as previousty discussed. He pointed �� �a"that tlita <t�c:�SS �xits �}�e site in an area surrounded
by a strip mail, ihe SuperAmerica station, �:nd the Si�ver �,a�� �`aods Development.
Commissioner Stevenson stated thi�����'i1d not�b°��poss�ble�,�s it would restrict vehicles attempting
�.
to trave! west on County Road I, w1'��"'�,,.�`v�ioulc� s��t�s�c�uently , ve to enter the SuperAmerica or Burger
.,..:
. tr� �,�� .
Kzng sates, and turn around. 3a��
; ,��.:
�
,
w
: `�,:
..
Comrr�issic���� �.,�ube po��icd c�ut ii�at tl�e tra�ic �'rtiin the SuperAmerica station wilt be adjacent to
the site, -�rtc� ���;��t�y,across t�e stre�:t; w-iit�ir� a few feet, there is a 131-unit development, with only
this and one d���e�° exi�.,;,«�hic}� �vill i�esctlt ir� much congestion at this tocation.
exit
not
du
ission��t�.ucz��c�z� �t��e� 80 pc,r�e7it �f the traffic exiting the site to go to the highway would
����, .
to. ��L�nty Road �, � rt����, and travel east to the traffic light. He explained that there would
�'any people travel�,n� �es� on County Road I, however, they should be allowed to do so, as
; them to first travel :e����' on County Road I would ultimately create more conges#ion.
ewis stated he ��eed with this. �-Ie added that if Mounds View Drive was restricted to an
�e onty, peo��e��uld disobey this, or problems would result an County Road I. He pointed
f >>,c
�t �S�z,�t�,c}����'��g facilities do not generate a large a�nount of traf�c, and there would only be
��,:�t��Icryees on site during the heaviest shift, who would not be entering or exiting the site
r�eak ii-a#�c times.
Chair Peterson inquired ii the fire hydrant location had been addressed by the Fire Marshall.
Ptanning Assaciate Ericson sfated staff has not yet consuited with the Fire MarshaEC, ho�wever, this
matter will be addressed prior ta the next meeting of the Planning Co:nmission. He explained that
; ;: , ;: ':,
ldiouYtds �Iie�v Planes�ng Comr�ission October 20, 1999
l2ege�1lr° IVIeeting P��e b
some relocation of the fire hydrants would be necessary, as the fire hydrant on County Raad I appears
to be located within the driveway of the site, He added that the Fire Department is somewhat
apprehensive abouC utilizing fire hydrants for a project when they are not lacated on the site. He
explained there is so�ne question as to whether or not the fire hydrant kocated across the street would
be suf�icient io ineet the needs at the rear of the buitding, and this will be determined,,;�
Chair Peterson commented there did not appear �o be any issues, �rit
hydrants, and suggested that staff proceed wiih the next step,�T �
�����
Planning Associate Ericson stated staffwouEd draft a resolu�it� .for conszc!
�,
of the Plannii�g Commission or� November 3. ^��°
;� �
6. �pece�! Pl��aa�ir�g C�se 1\'0. SP-074-99
Discuss proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance
and curb cuts.
tion of the fire
ext
to driveway widths
Piannin� Associate Ericson stated at tl�e O��o�ier 6, 1999 me�tin� c��':�he Planning Commission, there
:�,�_
was discussion of the options that could b�;�ut into ��ace to � csolve sorne of the hardships, which are
\\ Y
a growing issue, as more houses are �a��ing thr��f car gara��s, which necessitate wider driveways.
�(����`�.,. ' �����;�
Planning AssaciateEricson sta�ed �taffwas dir�ci�c� Yo d��ift an ordinance that would amend the City
Code to aitovt��or driveways t���t titi��uid be 35 ��cst r�,�llde7 ar the width of the garage, p{us an additional
12 feet wt�t�Itev�r;,was gr��l�r He �xplained 4�s c�rd�inance would not restrict a property owner with
�::
a one-sta1T ����ig� �ri a, lesser'��id#�x, �r�d ti�ey could stilt have a driveway 35 feet wide, as is presently
ailowed, howe��r, a���t�perty owz�er v�tk� � 36-foot garage could increase that width by an additionai
12 feet. .
Plam
woul
He ��
:ociate �:rirspa� t�o�,u�ented that staff does not feel the allowance of wider driveways
in many s�irt��i���s +�rhere there would be an excessive amount of impervious surface.
that typical��, a property owner would not desire to construct more driveway surface
ly necessa���due to the great expense involved.
T'la�:�t�z� Associate �son advised the City currently allows a maximum 22-foot wide curb cut for
r�������ti� ri�si����;�and there has been some discussion that the curb cut be increased to 24 feet. He
; .,.
siak�d ��� ��c� �po�en with the Director of Pubiic Warks, Mike Ulrich, who indicated that increasing
ihe curb"cut iwo feet to accommadate tius wo�ld be acceptable, therefore, the proposed 24-faot curb
cut has been indicated in the ordinance.
Planning Associaie Ericson explained that the ordinance before the Com�nission was the first draft
and could be amended until the Pfanning Co�nmission is comfortable with its writing, after which, a
resoiui�on will be prepared to forward to the CounciE for first and seco►�d reading, -
IVI01iC1(�S �IiCW P�ZI]�Illl� COIClS71!§S108] �ctober 20, I999
�egFl�a`t$" �CCtIII� �1�e %
Planning Associate Ericsfln stated the width of driveways and curb cuts for twin homes and duplexes
have presented an issue, in that the existing driveways, however they were approved, do not meet
City Code requirements. He explained that a medium density residential dwelling ran�ing between
two and six units, is currentiy allowed two curb cuts on the property, as long as they are spaced 40
feet apart, and each driveway is no more than 12 feet wide. He stated this appeare,d to be overiy
restrictive, and not in keeping with wl�at has been approved. ,� ''
Pla�vung Associate Ericson advised staff has attempted to add
ordinance, which indicates the 12-foot driveway width be ;
surfaces be a mininnum of 20 %et apart, rather than 40 feet '
�Yd
restrictive, however, in the case of a twin hoine with the s�c��;�b�
any separation of the driveways could be maintained. He �:�c�
appears to conflict with the market and current building a���:
separation might not be necessary, and a ten-foot separatioi�
were a number af driveways that currently have no separ�tic�
Planning Associate Ericson stated Subdivision Sf c
existence as of 10/11/99 that do not conform,.y,fitl
�><<.,
deemed by the director ofPublic Works to b� �ar
a curb cut may be appealed in writing to �, e City
from Ordinance 640, which was adopter��by the 4
long as a driveway is not a public n�z��nce or ., :�'�i
increased, it can be kept, replaced�c�t;� aintain��
Planning �sso�i��te Ericson
in Ordinaxzce G�2 and Cl�€�
takes into r�ai�si'cier�tiU�i the
into the Lori�n'� �:�t��x,so
proposed ordinar�c� ar�: Q� �
other ChabterS.. . . __ > _ __ <;
ho��
C
��s th�s ►ssi��an Subdivision Se of the
��ri�ed to`��f��y���;et, anci the drivew�
3e po�nt�c��ciut this �ppcai s to be,��s
side ��.�r`��ges, t�� ���s xxn� c�:Y-�t��z�3�iow
ain���'that the inten� �f'tizc� az��'inance
t�a�i.Qns. He indicatecf t�3�C a 20-foot
r�zi�;ta� t�e sufficient, adding that there
� �� ��, �,tz<l �ne large curb cut.
c�sed orc�inanec 1��r��dicates "Curb cuts in
,tvision ���,,y,re:i���ain in existence uniess
�Iic ss�fe���hazard, Notices to abandon
X Cc ��plained this language was taken
si� c71� C7ctober 1 l, and provides that as
�; and its non-conforming status is not
t that t�et-e �F•e simi�larities between the driveway requirements
He explai���ci it is a"sister ordinance" to Ordinance 640, as it
�;; ��vere made with #hat ordinance, and institutes those changes
+�c� �3�e consistent. He stated other changes considered by the
��t��-nature, to ensure that the Code is internafly consistent with
Commi�ioner Laube coi7xz��c��t�d tl�at many twin homes are only separated by side by side garages,
�`�
typ���y 22 feet wide, anc� th�s does not provide sufficient room for a 14-foot space between the
��,:
dr� ��'vays. He stated thi �j''i-oblem is becoming inore commonplace throughout the metropolitan area.
i-�� added thaf the lar e,�sized garages in these developments tencE to be deeper, rather than wider.
Pl��ax�,in� Associate E<�s n advised that ihe Code should nat be cirafted in a manner that would create
a h�it�s�t� t���t �3�t?��rties can not meet, or result in a iarge number of non-conforming driveways,
altl�au�li th� �'��1�`is �noving �n that direction and tl�e non-confonning driveways do ex�st. He pointed
out t�iat`t�rrs indicates the Code does not reflect what is currently being constructed.
Commissioner Hegland inquired re�arding the intent of the separation of the driveways.
li7ou�ds V��w P17r�ning Commission October 20, 1999
IZegular I�Teetin� Page �
Planning Associate Ericson stated this is a safety consideration, to �niniinize back to back driveways.
He expIained that iwo vehicles might simultaneously back out of the ;arage, and cross paths without
seeing each other,
Commissioner Hegland commented that the separation between the driveways was likety to create
�;,,,
a problem in the winl�ertime, in tenns of visibiEity, as the area between the d�:jveway��:.�%ould probably
be utilized for snow s#orage. He stated he was unclear as to why the se���r�ti�r�; w�as necessary, and
inquired if there were any traffic reports of data available, w��h ind�c��e sp�ct�c instances where
ao�: < ,�
problems had occurred with regard to safety. ���,�f<�� �.�
Planriing Associate Ericson stated staffwas not aware of
available in terrns of previous problems, however, he �
Commissianer Laube stated he resides in a sij�lilar develo�
there, he has not heard of anyone having a prohlem in t�i�
Commissioner Kaden inquired if the units const
between the driveways. Planning Assoc�ate F�
some do not, and in fact, some of the drivew �z
that some of these units utilize a lands��p �
approxirnately 5 feet wide. , ,��c�
Chair Peterson pointed out that
the five-foot separation requ,
driveways of ���i.�hboring prpp�
not make s�ns� to rec�uir� �lie'
Planning t`�ssc��i�tt� Fricson i�
appropriate,
�q fiT ,
` ,
Cha�r Pet. <`�n�stated a w��,�th` ��t
what tii���veway separa�o�n r�
��.
nrese�l' a number of different s
ntisn
are no
�tion o
data, aiid<:ftiere was;�
�;,:,
;,:�-c;seaz:�h this matter.
rin; the 9 years he has lived
EIVE;1� I_,aE:c .�t.o��l �rovide any separation
�ri tE�at �t Icast or�e unit does, however,
c�� l�ttt t1�e �i�rb cut is not. He explained
betut�e�%the two driveways, which is
���
uld be a���arate consideration. He explained that
�y w;,k���R-1 hausing, simpiy to provide that the
���:���
� c�t��e a proximity to eacll other, however, it may
,x .
�ronerties. �
Commission would consider a width limitation to be
�tation would appear to make sense, however, he was unclear as to
urrement woutd accomplish. He.added that the R-3 and R-4 districts
enarios, and these might be difficult to classify.
��iznii�issioner Steven�;�a�i stated staff's recommendation of a 24-foot curb cut for the R-1 and R-5
� .-
r���de�[ial uses was adequate, with an adjustment in subdivision Sb to a 32-foot maximum curb cut
�`c�x�,M? ��d �t•�3 �aes.� He explained ihat in the case of singEe units, this indicates a lb-foot driveway
per �ar�i; x�'��e.c�riveways are back ta back, however, if they allow one curb cut for both homes, it
sho��d �ie 32 fe�t, and the spacing requirement should be removed. He reguested subdivision Sb
indicate that a 32-foot cur6 cut shall be permissible for R-2, R-3, and R-4 uses, with the explanation
of this in subdivision Se, indicating two curb cuts together, not to excead l6 feet each, and the
removal of the clause indicating the mini�num separation footage.
i
� ;::
I�ounds Vre�v I'l�n�i��g Commissioe� October 20, 1999
�e�ular l�eeirn� Pa�e 9
Commissioner. Laube inc�uired if this would present a probEem for R-3 uses, in which there are two
24-foot garages, constr-t�cted side by side, in ter�ns oF attempting to narraw down the driveway
surface into a single 32-foot curb cut.
Commissioner Stevenson stated this would be preferable to allowing a 44-foot cvrb cutx�which would
� ,:.
be unreasonable, and wouid prabably be unacceptable from the standpoint�of the I?t�e�tor of Pubiic
Works. Planning Associate Ericson explained that higher density locatic>n� wit�E`�rnulti-family units
have driveways and some parking area, therefore, the surface����ar�ds �;��n c�x7ierin� the property.
%�3��`
¢�`
Commissioner Laube commented that some of these urvts a;�� yonstructed :ve��_y c1�'�,v t� the curb,{�i�
attempting �o narrow down the driveway within a 20-fo��distance{�i�lit res�ilt:�n a sa�r�ty k�azard,
in terms of backing ouC af the garages. He pointed ou� �k�e xna���'ity of these typ�� ��I��rnes are
purchased by elderly people. ' �
Pianning Associate Ericson stated he understoad this cor��,eri-i, however,'ikae City does not anticipate
a great deai ofthis type oidevelopment in the futurc, as there a��c o�}9y 2;Ur; 3 high density �arcels
remaining in Mounds View. He explained that amenciizze Clze C,�de to ��I�i�, itir the wider curb cuts
wou(d not result in a hardship for future develo��i�e�t�, ��c� ���oulci provi�i� f'or greater flexibiiity.
Commissioner Laube stated he was in �
commented he could see no benefit froin;
s���;
already examples ofthe wider cui-b�c���;�
_ E�����
ordinance, yet he has not heard any��e�ir►p
'�h��
Planning Associate Ericson �t<�1ed �1e woul
spacingfrc�e�uii��rz�ent betv�eera �ri�reways,
density iises tu;`�� �eet. _.
Chair Petersori i►ic�taia
Erieson state ����; s�
desi�natira���Chair
Ch
�o
r�i
be r
�a�or of t�� �vic��r �u� l� ;�uts. Com�nissioner Hebland
�eeping �� curb cut5 i��rrow. He ointed out there were
P
�vithin���i�`e� City, wl�ich wou�d not comply with the current
latnts°;in this re�\�i'i3.
�\'r .
cI r��nt���'��e�last clause in subdivision Se, relating to the
and �hange the curb cut width for medium and higher
ing t�� o��;ti� of Section 1121.09, 5ubdivision Se, Planning Associate
�>
,znatec� tr� �lie Zoning Code, under parlcin; requirements for ai1 zoning
aci4�ised that any differences should be indicated in each section.
eterson stated thaT Ttc��' 3, on Page 2 of the proposed ordinance indicates the R-1 and R-2
Districts, and in��'ired if the R-Z district shauid be included in this, as there appears to be a
separate the R.��'from the other districts, He noted that the requirement limiting the width
<;.:.:
:et is contai,��`d' witl�in Itein C, i-a, residential uses, which includes all of the districts, and
.�,�
s; ���e �-e��t����ment for the R-1 and R-2 districts. He pointed out, however, by striking this
riet�l �•:subdivision Se, any restrictions an the R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-Q Zoning Districts will
Pla�lning Associate Ericson explained that the reason for this is that some higher density
developtnents might have a parking lot that is 100 feet wide, and staff does not feel this rec�uirement
would be appropriate for these types oFdevelapments. He added, however, the R-2 Zoning District
and the 35-foot driveway width rec�uirement was drafted prior to addressing subdivision Se, and
. _.. _
li�Iounds 'View Plannit�g Commissioai Ocfobea� 20, 1999
lZegular 11�Leetirtg P��e 10
presents an inconsistency. He advised that the R-2 Zoning District can be re�noved fro�n Ite►n B-3,
and the width of these driveways can be addressed in s�abdivisian 5e.
Plannin� Associate Ericson stated he would obtain measurements from some of the twin homes
Iocated on Silver Lake Road and County Raad H-2, and provide this information to tl��\Commission
for their review at the next meeting. He ex.plained that staff would ,�repare,.�i�esolution for
�, ,;.
consideration at that time, wtuch will forward this matter to the City Counc�l;�t�w��er, there is ample
time for further discussior� if the Commission so desires. �ya>
, r, , � �,,.��:
Chair Peterson advised this cansideraYion should pa
Stevenson explained that staff can prep�,re a resolution
Planning Commission, and if there are concerns at that
7. St1fF Reports / Items af Ini'orm�tion
A. B€Ilbo�rrd IJpd�te
�n a
side
i at thE
can be
�nmissi
the
Community Development Director Jopke u�"C�ateci th� Cptn��t�S�on c@"�arding possible revisions to
<
,°� : �.:.
the ardinance relating to billboards. He pro�icled the G��nm�ssi;�n�t�ith tt�e written opinion o'f the City
Attorney, which he received that date ��'"� �-�`
;�� ��� ,,
v. :�,�� � �
Community Developinent Directo ��i��#ce��e�pla�ned there��s some question as to whether the deed
to the golf course praperty cor�tatt��any rest�xrtz;�ns that��ouEd prohibit the placeFnent of advertising
devices or bF��oards at the ������rse. Tl�e �.�ity x�,#tc�rr�ey has indicated this is probably not the case,
however, th�:����� way ta be ��r��.in of thss is lc} c�l�tain the opinion af the State Attorney Generai.
Commuruty l�e��Ip����i�t Directc5z 7e����ce stated another issue reviewed by the City Attorney is if the
plaeement of adv�rtr�uX,� t�r �iillboard� �# tl�e �olf course would constitute i[(e�al spot zoning, or raise
any other zon� ryi�p��catto��s, Tl�e CiYy.Atto►-�7ey has indicated that this is prabably not the case, and
would c���iend upon t��� ���f����zcteristics and locations of s�ecific billboards proposed to be
C
det
iunity Developme�°� Director Jopke sfiated the City Attorney has also provided his opinion
��
ing whether or nR_�<�dvertisin� devices or bif6boards would be permitted aiong the State trunk
s�e;,.�.
:iy system, anc��;�as indicated that if the property zoned for business, commerciai or industrial
>>«
es; tha� wt����� yappear to be permitted. Com2nunity Development Director Jopke pointed out
�e t'�1ev�artC�properfiy within the City is zoned for business or industrial use, and the State may
�iri� i�ot to issue the necessary permi�s, however, this is withir� the State's p�arview.
Community Development Director Jopke su�gested, in light of the fate receipt of the City Attorney's
opinion, this mat�ei° be scheduled far a more detailed discussian at the November 3 Planning
Comrnission meeting. He indicated at this time, the Commission could further review the ordinance, -
and forward this item to the City Council for consideration. -
IVlounds �Teew Pl�aran�►ag Commission October 20, 1999
Itegular I�Ieetin� P��e 11
Community Devetopmenf Director Jopke indicated the Commission has directed staff to research the
history of e�sting biliboards within the community. He advised there were two billbaards within the
City. One of the billboards is located along Highway 10, on the LaDeen property, and information
provided by Terry Moses indicates that the property owner sold a permanent sign easement to the
advertising company. He explained that this billboard is not subject to a lease, and th�e advertising
��,; ..
co�npany has the right to maintain the billboard in.this location indefinitely. He statec�;;t?1�e advertising
���
company teased the billboard space in the late 1970's, and pu�•chased the;perzn�����it sign easemeni
in 1984. He explained that in order to remove that billbc�a�d, the ease�nent would have to be
�rl '.
purchased from the adver#ising company. ,, ��
Community Development Director Jopke indicated the c
Rent-All facility on Co�anty Road H and Highway 10. He'
that was entered into in I984, when the property was a�
Project. He explained that this is a l0-year lease, whicfi
the property is 6eing purchased by the Mermaid Proje.�
billboard will not be utilized.
Chair Peterson inquired how the place�nent q����� t����I�o
relation to variaus propasals that have come,�o`rward �`t�� '.
�� ;
���� �.
�ommunity Develo}�ment Director Jopke stated thi °�'illboa
what he has seen on preliminary s�te �fans, ��billboa�
construction plans of the current d��r��opment-�roposal.e�
ff C ff
visible to any business that is dev���ped a�l �I�is ��te ,1��;;
Commu
approacitca �ti;e �,�unc
Walgreen's dr��si�re <
invalve th�e rei�a7nani ���
Edgewood I,�xii�� r��xlit-
��t�
original � �,��posal, liow
minim�i£ of the vacati o
billbc�ar�"in tlie C�'zt}t �s �c��at�d:���the
� he�Xias reviewed a ce��y q�ihe lease
ed �'�r tl�e expansion of'�he Merrnaid
r���iai;�i in effect untii 2Q04, however,
�i �lte:c��z�ers liave indicated that the
ocated ���';d�� fram City Hail fits in
�as been "grandfathered" in, and from
u�ill not conflict with, or restrict the
pointed out however, it will be cleariy
ent :[�it�cc�or Jopl<c, �;�������ented that Told Development Company has
,il rc;�i�xt�����; t��is particuiar site, and is still interested in constructing a
t t}�is lt�����pri I-�e noted there is an alternate proposa(, which would not
�reel owc�eti by t�ie City, and would on]y require the vacation of the old
c��=��ay. He ���r`ii�nented that they would prefer to move for-ward with the
����t�; �1i'ey have deterir�ined that ihe development can proceed with the
Cc�m��unity Developmeji�f Director Jopke stated the City Council has requested the i'arks and
, s.�
R�cr�ation Commissiot� �'eview this propasal, as it aiso involves the possible dedication of wetland
,H;.
�t'eG� tt� the City. H/���iained that the Council has requested the P�rks aE�d Recreation Commission
�zav�de i;}���r ��i���ra�"regarding whether or not the City wants this land, and what poiential znay exist.
I�� in���c,at�d �'t'�his matter would be addressed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their
neat m�e�t�n� on October 27, which will commence at 6:30 p.m., and will be considered early in the
agenda. He encouraged the Commissioners to attend the discussion, adding that the Commission's
Comprehensive Plan study session was scheduled for later that evening.
Community Developinent Director Jopke provided the Com�nission with the written text of the
Comprehensive Plan draft, and explained that some of the maps and tables were not yet included.
Ir/Ioureds �7ie� Planni«g ComYnissio�t October 20, 1999
l2egul�a° I1/��ettng P:�ge 12
He stated that PlanSight, the consuitant who is develaping the maps, has provided the first drafi, to
which he has made so�ne editorial changes, and they should be avaiiable by the end of the week. He
noted this is a discussion draft of the Cot�nprehensive Plan, with information pending, in ierms of
iransportation issues and traf�ic projections from Ramsey County and MNDot. He indicated he was
also attempting to obtain additional language from the City Attorney regarding air�ort issues for
inclusion in the document, hawever, with those exceptions, the draft should f����:�ompleted for
,„�,
discussion on October 27. He suggested the Commission's firs� considei a��t��� at tl��r' meeting should
be the method with which they will approach the review pro���s: ,
Chair Peterson inc�uired if there were any major changes ����1�e draft
Community Developmeni Director Jopke stated there wert
has reorganized some of the in�ormati�n, and included a
indicates the compatibility i�etween the Zoning Districts and
was additiona! information regarding highway noise and'
�� !.
based upon complaints staff has received in terms of noi��
this road.
rev�ew
r�o xnaj�sr'changes. He e��Iained that he
�w ��ble in theLand Use s�ctron, which
�;nd "C.�s� I7esignatians. He stated there
�tent��l ��p�s� walls alone Highway I t 8,
levels �;ue �c� �17e__increased traffic along
�.�, y< , , >
Chair Peterson stated since the early 1990'�;���id discu�si�t�;���he 6� f} freeway, the issue of noise
wa11s has come forward many times, and t���tandarc�t;a��s4�rc�r �o��-� !I�Ti�1Dot E�as been that only areas
ofnew construction or major modificatso�s�are elig�t��� for a sour+c� wall. He explained, therefore, the
portion of the new Highway 10, east ,t���ong L���� Road, is riot e[igible for a sound walf, and this is
likely the area that generates the n�za�arttyo uf complaints ��`�
� ��
Commu�uty �GVelopment Dirc�tc>r,,�opke stated t�t�s w���'correct. He advised, however, MNDot has
indicated>tl�e�r-�vr3� be mor3itc��-�n�; noisc }evels a�c�n; this raadway in the spring and summer, as traf�ic
,:_
levels st�l�z1���� €��x� ,deper��'ita�; uE�t�� their determination, a�-e agreeable to indicate this section of
roadway as �ustl.�et� ��r,, a sount{ 1����1 in �l�e future,
Chair Peters s���ed
definite i�z��i`ea�sed imp
�nity Developar.
that this proble�n
fe1Y''the treatment of this matter was fair, in that there are some
idents in this area, and no means of recourse.
�ctor Jopke stated he felt it was important that the City indicate on
be addressed, and this is why ii has been noted in the Comprehensive
venson inquired regarding the types of maps that wiI! be pravided with the draft
I�evelapment Director Jopke explained these would be colored maps, 8'/z by 11
Commissioner Sievenson inquired if this was such a reduced size, the maps would be dif�cult to read.
Community Development Director Jopke stated in his opinion, the maps appeared to be very good,
however, staff would look into this.
�
NIOIIIldS VIeVb' P'i!l111[Hig COI17riiH5S1011 �Ck�beA° ZOy 1999
]2e�ul�r° 11/Ieetin� P�e 13
Commissioner S�evenson inquired regarding the nature of the maps. Com�nunity DevelQpment
Director Jopke explained that Page 5 of the draft contains a list, which intlicates the types of maps
contained within the document.
Community DeveIopment Director Jopke indicated at the fiz-st study session, the Cominission should
;��� ,
discuss what type of community input is appropriate, i�e explained the�e woulc�az�` at least one
informational community forum, for preseniation ofthe document, and a mt�re for�t�a� public hearing,
during which the citizens will provide their input. He point��`��out thai ilic �etrapolitan Councif
� . ,.
requires the City's Comprehensive Pian is �nade available for t� a�e�'view of at���v�z�� co�nmunities, a��
. :
this shoutd be done at the earliest point in the process. �. �:, ,s�
Chair Peterson inquired if the adjacent comtnunities' Co�xt��r�e�ens�ve Pfans were also st���ec� to an
extension period. Community Development Director explai�ied t�i� plans were ali in various stages
of the process, hawever, fairly close to that of Mounds View„ j`l� a�d�;t� tl�at the Comprehensive Plan
for the ci�ies ofNew Brighton, Shoreview, Arden Hills ���`� Bir�iE�e kt�t�� already been subinitted to
�X. .
staii ' ' `
„ �,.
Chair Peterson inquired if any conflicts or i
submitted. Commui�ity Development Dir
Commissioner Hegland inc�uired if
out the draft contained many cl
infannatian. Contineanity Developcx�
to better comm�►nicate this infor���
Chair Pe..E�rs�?
Develo�iyY��7t,'
Chair Petersg��
and fits toget��
session.
f���
�N#,:
�'�.
;tor Jop1<� inr�it�<
cst�� �he Coini��
�c� ���t i►�fa;Enore
Pa-evious
s Council
indicatt,c� i:� the plans that had been
�as i�o� aware of any,
ald pr���nt any o� ��� clata through grapl�s. He pointed
wev,��; graphs t�ay offer further ckarification of the
tor��pke stat�d �taffwo��ld attempt to utiiize any ineans
room �auld'�i'e available %r the study session. Cammunity
d tlle conference room would be available for this meeting.
,rs skim through the ei�tire dacument, to see how it flows
, and decide what they wouEd like to proceed at the study
ii Actions
were considered.
and Pt�aaa�in� Co�„niss�onea�s Re�or•t
No re�ciY-ts were considered.
9. Adjourn�r►eeit
There being no further business befare the Plannin; Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned
the meeting afi 8: 09 p. in.
, _
I�ounds Vievd P[nnning Corn�mission �ctobe�° 20, 1999
Re�u11r li/Iee���a� ,...,., P�ge 14
(The meeting immediately adjaurned ta the Agenda Session)
i
RespectfuIIy sub�nitted,
_;
1VIOITI�IDS � W PI.A G C�1V�NII��IOIV
, I�o�ernbe� 17,1999
7:0� �eNi.
REGULAR MEETINC�
AGENDA
Ca11 to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on. ihe Agenda
;. ,�: ;, : . ,- ; . .. � .. , , ,�. . ; �, , , ,�. �. , , , �;
� , :,; : ,� ;�: �; , � � �� .� �� _
4. Approve IV�inutes:
a. Octaber 20, 1999
5. Pl�n�eng Case I�oo 574-99
Property Involved: 7687 Long Lalce Road
Discussion regarding a request far a Conditional Use Pernut for Sunrise United
Methodist Church a�id a Develapment Review to ailow an expansion to the Church
facility.
Applicant: Vanman Companies (Represeniirtg Sunrise}
6. �peeial Plar�ning C�se I�I�o �P�Oi4-99
Discuss revisions to proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code
related to driveway widths and curb cuts.
i. Special Planning Case I�To. SP� �71-99
Consideration of Resolution 597-99, a Resolution Recommending Denial of Proposed
Ordinance b44 Relating to Biilboards.
8. Staff Reports / Items of �nformation
a. Previous Council Actions
9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
10. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
(Immediately Following R.egular Meeting)
�����m�*�����*�����������z��*�����*��*���
APFLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING I�
REQUE�'TED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. TI�ANK YOU.
�������**�����������:�������������������
AGENDA SESSION
AGENDA
1. Review Minutes -- Navember 3, I999
�. Comprehensive Plan Review -- Tirr►e permit#ing
N:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�PLANCOMMIPCAGENpAl1999111-f 7-99.REG
�o° � ` � �: � � �. �- � ; .�; ` -
Meetiea� Dateo
���ti �8epori 6y:
Plan�aan� C�s� l�Taee
�teqa�est:
P�titi��ner°:
�.oc�i�ono
i,, ;�. ,,
November 15, 1999
James Ericson, Planni�lg AssociaYe
574-99, 575-99
The applicant is requesting a Cot�ditional Use Pe�mit and
Development Review to expand the Church by adding office space
and classrooms.
Vanman Companies representing 5unrise United 1Vleth. Church
7687 Long Lake Road
08-3 0-23-22=003 �
Present Zonin�/I.�zad IJ�e: R-1, Single Family Residential / Church
A�plic�ble �3egula�ion�: Section 1006.06 states that � development review is requir�d for all
residentia(, corr�merciai or industrial development or redeveIopment.
Seciion 1106.04, Subd. I lists the CtTP requirements for C�urches
and other public or �emi-public institutional uses.
Sectron 1125.01 lists the general CUP and adverse affecfis criieria.
Section 1121.13 lists the parking requirements for Churches and all
other types of uses.
!-�ttachanents: Planning Application
Zaning Map
Locatian Map
Site Plans, date-stamped 10/29/99
�ack�rou�do
The applicant, Vanman Companies, representing the property owner, Sunrise United Methadist
Cl�urch, is requesting approval of a eonditional use permit and developmen� review to atlow for the
expansian of iheir Church facility located at 76�7 Long Lake Road, ihe Church has been located
at this site since I957, having previously met in temporary spaee at Suru�yside Etementary in New
Brighton. The C�urch was damaged beyond repair in 1955 after a tornado struck this area and was
completeiy rebu�lt ihe nexi year. Sunrise aiso provides day care setvices for .about 45 children, a
service they have been provid�ng since 1981.
The expanded areas wiIf serve as additional space within the sanctuary and ciuld care areas and will
provide for of�ice space for the pastor and other church workers and add a meeting room and
multi-use space for the staff and con�regaiion.
Sur�rise CUP
November 12, 1999
Page 2
CTJIB I9i5cu���arto
Sunrise United Methodist Church has been serving Mo�ands View and t11e surrounding eommunities
for 45 years, i:he last 42 at its present lacation on Long Lake Road and County Road I. The
Chureh itself has been in the City longer than the City has even been a cityi What this also means is
that the existence of the Church predates the f rst zoning code, and predates the requirement ifor
Churches to be conditior�aily permitted in reside�tial districts, although staff has yet to determine
when tt�is requirement became adopted.
5�eci�c CUP Rec�uiremerats�
Section 1106,04 of the Zoning Code addresses conditionally permitied uses within the R-1 zoning
district. Subdivision 1 of this Seciian addresses the specific CUP requirements for Churches, which
are as follows, listed with responses relating to the present Sunrise facility and proposed expa�sion;
a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thir�y-five feet (35�.
'The existing front yard setbacks for the Church are 90 feet along Long Lake Road and 47
feet along County Itoad I. The e�sting building meets this requirement, and with the
�anctuary expansion, the setback aiong Long Lake decreases to 75 feet, yet still beyond that
which is required.
i
b. Side yards shall be tzo Zess than thirty feet (30).
The sideyard building setbacks for the Church exceed 100 feet. There is a small single-story
wood frame home on the Church site that seives as the parsonage (where the Pastor lives)
which is set back 20 feet irom the side property line, yei staff interprets the setback
requirement to pertain to the Church itself, viewing the parsonage as an accessory building.
This requirement, then, is met, before and after the expansion
c. Minimurn lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Sectron 1104. 02,
subdivision 2b(.3). (Ord. 590, 11�25-96)
The pcoperty ihe Church and its accessory struciures oceupies comprises 6.4 acres, of
which nearly three acres is preserved as natural wetlands and upland woods. This
requirement is met.
d. Ade�uate scYee�aing frorn abutting residential uses and landscaping is p�ovided in complrcance
tivith SecPion I103. 48 af this Title.
With the exception of the expansion of the sanetuary, ali of the development will occur
away from either �,ong Lake Road or County Road I. The wet(ands anci uplands provide an
expansive buffer to ihe south, while the parsanage ar�d other accessary buildings and uses
provide a sufiicient bu�er to the east. There is adequate landscaping on the site at present
which also adds to the screening and aesth�tic appearance of the Church and g�-ounds.
Sunrise CUP
�ovember 12, 1999
- Page 3
e. Adequate off-street pa�ki�g and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting op
directly across a pu8lic st�eet to the pr�rncipal aase in conl�liar�ce with Chapter� 1121 of this Title
and that such parking is adequately sc1•eened and landscaped fiNorn surYOUndirrg cand abutting
residential uses in conapliance wztla Secizon 1103.08 of this Title.
At present, the seating capaciYy of the sanctuary is approximately 275, which translates inio
the need to provide 69 parking stalls, utiiizing a ratio of one stall per every four seats, or
fraction thereof, The existing parking lot has 98 stalls and meets the minimum requirements
far the sanctuary. The ADA requirements however dictate that there should be a rrunimum
of three handicapped stalls provided, at least one of which should be van-accessible. Only
two handicappecl statls are indicated on the plan.
With the expansion and reorientatian of the sanctuary, the capacity wili increa�e to 368
seats. Using the same 1:4 ratio, a total of 92 sialls would need to be prov�ded. �acause the
parking l.ot exceeds 92 stalls, there would be sufficient room for the expans�on wiihout the
need to expand the parking Iot. Two more handicapped stalls would need to be added to
corriply with the expanded number of required spaces according to ihe ADA guideiines.
The floor plans show an area of overflow seating behind the main worship area; however
this area is not anYicipated to be needed at preseni, and as such, the Church requests that
parking stalls not be required for these future seats. Assuming full capacity with overflow
seafiing, there would be a need for 104 stalls. Given that there are 98 existing stalls, six
more would need to be provided to meet the fiature anticipated needs of the congre�ation,
While ihere is suflE"icient room on the site where six stalls could be added, stafiwould
recommend that parking not be required to be provided for the iemporary seating. If the
Planning Commission disagrees with this view, staff would then recommend tha� the site
plan be atnended to show these stails as future "Proof of Parking."
f. Adequate off st�eet loac�ing and sef-vice ent�ances a�e p�ovtded and regulated where applicable
by Chapte� 1122 of this Title.
This requirement does not appiy to tlie Sunrise Church facility.
g. The provisions of Sectio�a 1125. Ql, sa�bdivision le of this Title a�e considered and satisfc�ctorily
met. (Ord. 590, 11-2.5-96) -
Ref�r to Pag� 5 of this report regarding the adverse a�'ects criteria.
General CUP Reauirements:
Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b outIines the general conditional use permit requireri�ents t�at must be
satisfied in arder for a approvaI to be granted. These requirements with responses are as follows;
(1) The use will no8 c�°eate an excessive burden on existin� parks, schools, streets and othe� public
facilities and utilities which serve or are p��oposed to se�°ve the area.
The Church itself functions weIl at this location vvithout any negative impacts to the
- surrounding community. Staff is not aware of any complaint� associa�ed with this facility.
Sunris� CUP
November 1 �, � 9J9
Page 4
The expansion of this facility would not pose an excessive burden on existing parks,
schaols, sireets and other public faci[ities and utilities which serve the area.
(2) The use will be sufficiently canapatible or� separaied by distance or screenang frorrr adjacent
residentially zoned or used lanc�'so that existing homes will not be deprecrated in value and theYe
wiXl be no deter�ence fo development of vacant lana'.
The Church property is bordered on three sides by public streets--Long Lalce Road to the
west, County Road I to the north and Bronson Drive to the south. To the �ast, the Church
abuts botli medium and high densiiy residential properties. These praperties are ai least one
hundred feet away at their nearest point and as far away as 500 �eet from the Chuj-ch. The
magnitude of the separation, in stai�s opinion, is of a sufiicient distance so as to not have
any depreciatory effect on the residentiai properties.
(3) The st�ucture crnd site shall have an appea�ance that will not have an adve�se effect upon
adjacent residential p�opef•ties.
The existing Church, given its separation from other uses, fits weil in this area and is
aestheiically pieasing. As evidence of this, the Ghurch and the architec� who designed it
received an award in 1967 for architectural excellence from the Minnesota Soeiety of
Architects. The expansion will match the appearance and design of the exis�ing structure
and will add to the overall appearance of the community.
(4) The use, in the opiniori of the City Council, is Yeasonably related to the overall needs of the
Czty and % the existing land use.
The fact that the Church has existed iei this location for 42 years with a consistent and
growing congregation is praof alone that the use satisfies a community need. Iis expansion
is a direct result of the Church's growing cangcegation and its desire to be tnore responsive
to its membership,
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
disl�ict rn which the applicant intends to locate the pr•oposed use.
Churches and other institutional uses are conditionally permitted vvithin the R-1, SingIe-
famiIy residential district.
(8) The use is nat in confZict with the Comp�ehensive Pdarr of the Cit�.
The Comprehensive Plan (both the existin� and �roposed plan) design,ates tlus area as
Institutional, appropriate for ihis iype of use.
(7) The use wall not cause tYaffic hazards or congestion.
5taff is unaware of any congestion problems on Long I.,ake l�oad as a result of the Ch�arch's
services. The additional traffic generated hy the expansion would no� add any significant
volume ta Lon� Lake Road, a Ramsey County four lane coilector roadway, a street
designed to aecommodate higher volumes of traffic. Also, the times during which the
Church would have its greatest impact upon the street is also a period of retatively low
,
Sunris� CUP
November 12, � 999
Page 5
traf�ic counts. Given ihese facts, it is not anticipated that use will not cause tr�c hazards
or congestion.
(8) Adequate utiliiies, access �oads, draznage and necessary faczlities have 8een or will be
provided. �
All of the infrastructure serving this site are instalied and pravided--no additional
infrastructure will be needed io accommodate this use or its expansion.
Adverse A,gfects Crrteria:
Section 1125.01, 5ubd. 1 e requires that the Planning and Zoning Cotnmission consider possible
adverse affecfis of the proposed use, or in this case, the existing use and expansion thereof. The
fo(lowing is the list of iactars to be considered, along with a narra�ive response:
(1) Relationship to Municipal Compr•eherisive Plan.
(2) Tdae geogr�crphical area involved.
(3) Whether such use will tencz'to or actually depreciate ihe a�ea in whrch it is proposed.
(4) The character of tlre surYOUnding area.
(5) Tbte demonst�ated need for such use.
Stafffeels that the impacts of this proposed use are minimal, considering its 42�year history
of operation without incident or complaini. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive
" Plan which designates this area as Institutional. It is bounded by public streets on three
sides, medium and high density residentia( on its faurth side, properties which are separated
by the Church's accessory buildings and uses as well as extensive wetiands and wooded
uplands. It is improbable that the expansion of the Church would have any depreciatory
ef%ct on these abutting properties, The need for the Church is clearly demonstrated from
its continued presence at this lacation.
Stafffeels that ihe all of the specific conditional use permit requireme�ts, all of the general
conditional use permit requiremenis and the adverse affects criteria are satisfied and that the
expansion of this use would be an overatl benefit to the Church, its congregation, and the
community in general,
Sunrise CUP
Novemb�r 12, 1999
Page 6
De��top�re�e�t l�eveew I)ascussaoe�:
Dimenszonal Rec�uir•ements:
Lot Area
Front Setback (Long Lake)
Front Setback (Couniy Rd. I}
Sideyard Setbacks
Parking lot �etback (east).
Parking lot Setback (west)
Parking lot �etback (north)
Parking 1ot Setback (south)
Parking s�alls (1:4);
Required
1 acre
3 5 feet
35 feet
30 feet
3 0 feet
5 feet
S feet
S feet
92 stalls
Proposed
fi.4 acres
6 feet
3 5 feet
105 feet
6o feei
2 feet
80 feet
440+ feet
98 stalts
Mefi�
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Nol
IVIet
Met
Met2
The expansion areas will be of brick construction and will match the exterior of the existing
buiiding. The tatal area of the expansion planned is 7,477 square feet for a total build out area of
20,464 after projeat completion, Thera will be a new covered erttryway that connects to a new
drop-off point adjacent to the parking lot, an expansion and reorientation af the sanctuary to
increase seating capacity to 368 from the existing 275,
There will be an expac�sion io accommodaie addi#ional space for Sunday schoo( services. A
kitchen area will be added along with some multi-purpose space, confetence rooms, and o#�"ice
space for the Pastor and Church staf�: There will not be an increase in services provided by the
facility other than being able to accommodate enore members in the sanctuary at a singte service,
thus the additionat number of parEcing statls required by this e�pansion will be limited to the
increased seating capacity of the sanctuary.
Parking:
As indicated above, the seating capacity of the sanctuary is increasing 6y nearly 100 seats, from 275
to 368, Using the required ratio of 1 space per 4 seats, 92 stalls would need to be provided. There
are currently 9s stalls which can be utilized which would then 6e adeyuate �o accommodate the
expansion. The plans, however, show a possibility of an additional 48 seats in tetnporary overflow
seating. Church officials do not foresee a need to use these spaces except only rare occasian and as
such is requesting that parking spaces not be required for the temporary seating. Because of theic
temporary nature, sta.�would consent to this request iithe Planning Commissian were to agree. If
the Planning Commission felt otherwise, the plans could 6e revised to st�ow "Future Proof of
�arking" which could be built if i� becomes clear that additional spaces are required.
�The parking lot adjacent to Long Lake Road was cor�structed only two feet from the property line.
Because no plans are being made to repave the parking Iot, staff recommends that tliis be treated as a non�
�onfonnity to be corrected if possible at some point in the future, as allowed in Section i 104.01, Subd. 4c(4),
2 The number of parking statls required increases �0 104 when considering the anticipated future
overflow sea�ing. Because 9� stalls e�st, six additianal stalls wiIl need to be shown on the site plan as
"Future Proof of a'arking,"
Sunrise CUP
iVovember 12, 1999
- �age 7
Wetland Bar er:
The construction and expansion activities on the site will not encroach into ths 100-foot wetland
buffer, thus no pernnits of that sort are necessary.
Landsca�in�:
While there are no explicit pIans showing proposed landscaping, fhe Church does plan on replacing
the tandscaping that would be removed with similar materiais, Because the exteni of the expansion
is minimal considering �he total lot area, and because there is a�ceady e�ensive landscaping
provided that would remain after the expansion, staff is noi requiring the applicant to submit
anything format in this regard.
Other SiPe Conditions:
Neither the parking lo� nor the existing tighting will be altered with this proposal. No changes are
being proposed with regard to signage of other site co�ditions.
Access:
The Church ta�Ces sole access from Long Lake Road, with two entry poinis more than 200 feet
from the intersection of Coun�y Road I and Long Lake Road. No cha�zges are propas�d at this
time to the parking lot or curb cuis.
12eco'�men�fat�on:
S1:afibelieves that the criteria for both a conditional use permit and development review have been
met yet would seek directian from the Planning Commission with regard ta drafting a resolution fflr
this proposaL There is sufiicient time so that a resolution can be drafted and brought back before
the Cotnmi�sion at your December l, 1999 meetir�g. 5taff is anticipating tilat this request wi11 be
heard by the City Council on December 13, 1999 and has set a public hearing on that date
�.� ����� ����� �
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV�bEVCASES1574-991SCTNRIS E. PC 1
si; a �..
n,:;� ,� ::�;r
lJj���1�`:n�;';;;`� �� � �E��.��
���T ���1������
.�^ I�E�L.OP �T�' E�PPI�xCE�TT� . .:::
"°� :=i�-;�:��! 240I Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55I 1L '
�n'"``g� ° PaPtller5�ie4 � �b-717-4020
� 612-784-3452 � FAX
Please Ty�se or Pri�t Info�enation - Co�tplete �oth Sides o� �e� F'oa°°�
Applicant 7nfar���son
Name of Applicant
Address
Vanma��om ani �a Archi tects and Blds_Inco Telephone 612-54I-9552
9211 P1 ou�h Avenue �� 61�-541-9857
Go7.den Va11e MN 55427 .
Interest i� Prroperiy (c3�eck appropriate box)
o Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner
o Lessee, Qperator, Man�ger a Agreement to �'urchase
� Other (explain) _ Architect/C�eneral Contractor
ElppYecaats must psovide eaideoce of'interest i� propee� at the tiffie of applicaho�, and if you are nat t6e oraner of tl�e
property, you �aus� pr�vide a Iet�er oi permi�sio� frotn the owxeet° gtving consemt to �he tilae�g �f 4iafs appticafiio�. 'I'he
prop�rty owr�er mo�st sig� tixa� applicatio� for it tm b� accepteci.
Property Descriptio��°opo�al
Address or General Location
Legal Description
Property Identi�fcation # (PIN #�)
# of Acres
Current Zoning
�orner of Round Lake �oad and Countv Road I
See attached 7 C�� �� .(�� e�
�- � o�a-.� ��.c�p � �
6.3527 �
R1
Type of Appiication
o Comprehensive Ptan Amendmeni
o Rezoning
�► Major Subdivision
� Minor Subdivision
� Planned Unit Development {PUD)
o PUD Amendment
� Conditionnl Use Permit
� Variance
❑ Code Appeal
�C Develop Review/Site Plan
a Wedand Alteration Pemiit
� Wetland Buf�er Permit
$250
$250/acre; min $250 max $150fl
$250 -�° $250 deposit� •
$20�
Refer eo rezoning fees
$350
R-1, R-2 $75; aEl others $250
R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250
xiao
� 125/acre; mzn $125 max �7Sp
R- I, R-2 � I 50; all others $200
R-1, I7.-2 $25; alt others � I00
� Floodplain Perrnit �2Qa $l25 X 3m 5 aczes =
❑ Oth�r FEE CALCULATTONc' $43i
Go.U.P 7F
To�a1. e
'�Deposits shal] be. paid to caver ail costs of public notices, ma[erials and stai�or consuEtarit time spent in the revi�w�' �
research or preparation ofmaterials associated with d�is application. Ttte appiicant shall 6e responsibfe for all reasonable
irFCUrred cos�s in excess of d�e initial deposit amount. Any por�ion of the deposie not spent or encumbesed shakl be reiunded
to the applicAnt within thisZy (30) days afcer consideration of the application is completed.
�lea�e compiete th� revers� sid� of this applicataon.
-D����C�
�
City of i�Iouraas view,lVlN
I)eveiopmenf t�pplication � ���e �
PresenE Use of Property
❑ Undeveloped!`/acant � Single Family Dwe[ling
❑ Dupiex/Two Family Dweiiing o Muiti-faxniiy Dwelling
a Business/Commerciai Esiablishment ❑ Industrial Establishxnent
� � ' Other (explain)
Church
Proper�y Classifacation � Abstraot ❑ Torrens
• �-. - .- • • ... . - .e - ... . ..�, . _.. .
!• � • • •r• .
• - 1��-....e• .�s -.a .E• ..�.• •- _ .- .� il�- M� � -u - -.,-ia •
• �� — •• ' ' _ •.�4 —' • �� — •� •a • •' �_��— _ �_.. __-
,� s • �— �-- ,,���—• �+f� _:rr.- �.__ .-,.�.�-.. -�__ =-e- �x— —_
BY MY (DUR) SIGNATURE ON THiS Al'PLICATION, I HEREBY IaECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWI.EDGE, 'I'HE INFORMATION PROVIllED IS TRLTE AND CCURATE.
Signature of Appiicant �
Name of Appiicant (typed/printed)
Signature of Property Owner
N'ame ot Properiy Owner (typed/printed)
Address of Owner
Phone Number of Owner
. Sunrise United MPt°hadi�t ('hairch _
7687 Lonq Lal�e Road
Mounds �Iiew MN 55112
786-4926
�x��*�*��**����:���.:���**���*���x����*x���*x���x��������*���um�����������a�*���**�������m����x�������m��**
�'OR OFBIC� U�E OI�TI,Y
Date of Submittal / � "_d � " °i _ �
Date of AccepCance Assigned to:
PEanning Case No. _� 7�-� .� �l ���� 60-ciay Limit __ 120-dAy limit --
5�5— k c� � p� 1
Fees Paid: Account # Check #. Receipt #
Application: _ .�/ai ' �d /B d.3Gf(�� Ce � � �
Par[c Dedication:
Deposits: _, _- - ---
Uther:
iotal:
�t;1DA"fA1GROUPStCOtiiDE V\FORlv15\DE VAPP.FOR
U9R
..�...".�..o:. _v. ..., y_T�_`_'° j' "' �M.�._ :_.� e � .cV :.�. ev s
7666 i8S7 �......�,_7874 ��r9 ! � 7�58 -�°—�-
� i852 � 7853 W
7�54 7�51 � 7860 78b5 ..-
w..e_ _..� ,�..._._... � 7841 �H__�
78�2 � I 7850 7856�� 7846 I ;,;::
.__._w i�41 �--........,.,.._ _._._......_ _..�....__.... � �--• � T....._ ,•.
7�30 � �, 784Q 7835 78�40 7829
�.,�_,..._._.�...._ ___�....._._. '��
_��782 � 76�5 � 7i30 n 7�15 �. 780d i89i.� .
0 7805 7780 7809
781 ' �--� 7809
� 7809 �� 7i70 � 7809 � M 7i6D 7797 ��� ���
7�00 ..._, �.,.�.. -- - 7787 , ._,.,_�.�.�.
7801 7764 � 7751 u^��7750 - - �._...W.�...
'�"'�"'.`�.. 77ii
��� 7767 �-- 7760 � 7741 y��� � 7740 7767 ���--
,�i`�' 77 61 �� 77 50 7731..� 773Q 7 7 5 3 �_ �
� R 4` 3 i 7 s 5 7730 7721 i'�20 ............ ......,___., �.�....~
r----�.-
f�ry,� 7745 ~ � 7710 771 t� .� `�
� 77 t S � E�� c°� uo0i � i��� 7700 u��� � o�
3
�O
�...3 ��
���
a�
r�
��-k.,.
� �
d tV
O
w
",.�
� N
� ��
1 �
fi
ffl
t�E
c` iL?
� �
N N
�,�2 �,A� _
P']
�
�
Zor�ing l�ap Planning Case 574-99
Applicani: Sunrise Church CLJP IZequest
Location: 76�7 Lon� L�1ce Road
� ~ �- N i_.eV i. CV .
i8i8 7� �; i86 786�7860 7!
787a � q�861; 78�4 �o i857 j 78a
�
7836 � 78�7�7�� i845,i84
7820 ` � 7�37 ���� �s 7l
p 7833; i832 >
_.f_.�. � �
78i � 781�i�89 782i 782 a
�i�Q6 - 7�17� _
7'800 7$09�7�0 ----,
�7i78 i749 i 775 78fl7
._-- �_._ , ",;;:.
776� 7739`7740 ���1��:;:_;
�7748 7729!�7730 7743 7i :. p
7i28 77�g17�2 7731 773 �
771 D 7709 y 9� p 7721 �7i2 �
�_...�__�.� m
� N 770i ii700 770 � el �
�
' CO
� �
� o N r�v e�v e�v � N � ;
,—.i '�"w' i
� 66 ��� �� �766 �.
7
86 �...,.._,,. � 7
y 610 7i
7635 7S .-�
i655 762., ,q p 7i
7845 �2 � 7t
r �r � � �n' . "��' R� Q ?.
�w � <n � `�' 761 � 7 �
� t� n r. 763
�r� ��� 7:
.�.,_ c0 p � 7;
� N
N t�V � �
� � ��
N N �
7;
�
/ f�
��
c
v
i� of �un � i
L � t� �
�.: -� � s. r __ __ := : .,., i1.
� ��O■.� ��I� ���� ��■ I�� ����� ..I .l�fl�s� • 1!1
�������
,� ���� ■��� ���� �f� ��� ii ��i �� �■�i11
■' ' r � �,� ..�.. .. � ■ � �■ ■ ��1/111
� �� r� r� �� �■■ �� �� � � �� s
■ � �� �� �� �� � ii �� � i ii i �111�/1
� � . � ` � �� �� C.� �� �'" � �� � �lI�1��
� r __ __ .--r_ _• ■ �1�� - --
�.�.�. .: �. . .� �
■ �� � �� .� ... �. .. . III�#�l
■ ��. � :: -� — : : �1I�/�/
�� � �� �� �
=� , , �■�■r � ■�� � � � �����i�
..�.�... �.,.�..,�... ........
�1% .� - ���
�� ��• � ��� :C � �■�
~ I� Ij� - �?s��<�:: �' ii ■ ��
� `:_:�:::� ■
� ;�_�::; � �
�.:::�:;__ ■ �s ��
�;���'�`: �
.. I�r�� �:.,�:._ .._ = � _� ►
:!._
.�
_
: :■
11��
_
..
._
__
;=
�������
i��
��
:������
Sunrise United Methodist Church
7687 Long Lak� Road
Condiiional Use PermitlDevelopm�nt Review
Planning Case No. 574�99 and 575-99
�
7687 Long Lake Road
Proper�ies 1fVithin 350'
:�.. s,�
..�.:
.�'. �.r�.
�_—_ _ _ _ � ' _ ___ _ °.�^.�j•:• .
_ �
p{�r/� �]�y�y/�-y :•( :
R
: ti-i V •S�� � �d9:V: •:1' ���4✓ �'f �
:�'
�',, �
t�..•:: �,..•.' ,+
' •1.
;'i�.
�:.
'.
,
I ��� . _� --.- . _ _ . . _.. . . _.. . �
��� � � � ' � `� �
�. - .t►. �
' °F � - �����3 ni�i I �
��1� �ii� �
1 ��- �,
-,r-
r� .a �� :,
3 �
� � � Qr� ;J�►
��;� : ii►�
�$,�����,� .
�o-�,a: r � �
� 3
. �■
�
� �
� b
X�� ��J �
�:" �t ;
�+���?� � �
� i���r
,
� � r *��
\�,l.'d�! �!. ; _
, \" .._._�v r... - � � �
\ �
�
I
�
.�����
�\�;�•` �\ ?`
\ �� �\
..�\��� �
�
_�=���
�� <
E ��
��p�� a
� ������
. �i1! !: ���' �
, , �, - � `
� �;�� 1 ���� -,'�
Ri �� �� ���
; ;...� f:� : � • � ; �, �
. . , . , _ T ,. , . .
s
-��,.—.��
b ,� a+ ✓ i0
7 111� �
� �� ;
<��>
E p� o
� �� �
� �� �
° �� o
����
�
�
��
�r
r�:�
1�
.�V�
!�,
��'
�
�
�
i
�
�
--t
�
�
�
�
�
��
��
`.___
�r�;,_i
:�� V;}
���;: ;;
F'__ Z
�;
���
f -�f:- _="_���=�,��,
�'.r_S'.J!�.., �L :ty
' r! •" ' � d .,�,'" "
� ` N
D�Q�'o�;� �I '� �� �
� ;�E � • s i_._ � \� (p
� � � � #id�� ��i�m
� � Q a � �
� �� �� v
i t i! � �
���i�t�� � E�'
��
� i ����f�� ��
� � � � 4
����
o � �
c � r
�
o- � �
N
< � b
r� �
� 69 d �
� � R
� �
' � Gi
' � z
W
a � O
O (� �
ial
�
��ry
1,1
�
�
�
�
Vd
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,' � � �
� �R����
� ���5��
��
�o �� a � � ��
���• a i
' 1 t��� ���
� � �
����. � �
���
����
��
°,
�-:� V�-_::==;`�;._'"_-}�
���� c-�_::-._r:: �� --- f
s � ��- �i ;; j
� � �' c��^� t
. ��\J � �-� l.J
l �� �:-1 ,�� �
t � � L_--' 1
�� ,
iI � ':__�:-, ,
� � � r._ _, f
i I i,�- � ,- � ;.
�� e
H 4
$
� 9
R :. � �
� �� � � �:..
li - �
fl 1 . ��
��
II
II
�I �
��
I� �
�a
�
�
�
g
�
B
�b
���
�
�
„?t � �.
e�.
�, �
,.
,
a
�
�
�� �
, ��
4 6 � �� e���o
� ��' i � 'o. � C
� N ��y � @
� �Q��egp < med D
. � � � � �g�'D � r^ �
� ' � ����i� � � ° a
���
m � 2
N
q O � �
� � �
� �
\ �
� �
4 � �
m
: � � V d
�
�
. ` /
.:.
`, /
, � ` �,.,.
� .�
► � �" � � � :
: � � �. �'�
� � �-� - - • - �� . — -- —_— _
� ._:�: _ _ �
. ;:?;-•:�::_:� i �
-:-: '-:-: ��•'•: j i ¢�
I ,,�-�'�-�:�:��-.:�:"=�:�:'. �::•, , �
� .:'---...: �`:::T:�__�-. �� �
f-T 9. ,9.� � � � II il
y 4 fl Et______
�.E'�4j.. .-.•_•.•.•.- •:.•.-.-.�r..•.D s��x� il il lf--
� . . ..• •.•• _ :�.'_'.' . r. s� II El II
�•�J' - - -'�-.•'.-� � il kl II
s�^q•;� � II � II
•�• @ -� - .::.-i.-.•1 L� � � � F���L
_ -�. � v v
r.-q �
}, ' K" . 7��7�'�iV^"_"
.t. .R�•.
.•.'. .�'.'. �.
'C;•-�?::-'-'.•;...'
ug •'''' - ' -' •
•�•:-��:•:��':� :�:•: ���
-.•_•.•.• r•.�_ . . .�.
. .1 _
.•.. � •.•.-.
€ •'�.•:•.•.•:• - -� '.•.•. x
-`F-�•'�� :-t•.�.•.-.• ' • • -
.•1-:-� � 'f: •:o:°'. �
--�• ✓' :�':I
:�.:_A - _ :-� �
.E. �
.L�� �..,_..'..�.�. _ — :��
_��--�- -
�.. -
�-
� :�-�.
.-� �=���
.Y,•.i � '.�'•�'• sf3. '.F.'.dl'.
rrr::•:�:•:•. �� .'.•.°.•.'.-....•.'.•.:.: °.P6•.
'�l-_•.'.-.•r.�'.1� . . . . . . . . .
.i' '�.
-fi
1^
o O
s /V
�
s z
Z
—�y f
R 5� v
x� �
� ia ❑
a
� �_����
�
� 7 ��A ��� '� ���
� � (
L ��!
�+.{ . �. �•�......
L.:
�
�. �
� ���
� . �: ' :'fi���� ' ��
�
� - a n -
Es�x" �� �
��� � b6 �
�
� �a �� E
��=q� :�:_�':::::::.':;.
��� �:�:
tcA� � B •>> e•'•.•'�'i•°•'•'•'•'- •
��' � ••�.•�� '-1.'.•.'.
�� � �: '.i� -�� � �� . . . •.•.-
�:� p ,-� :- ,. �.-.-.•�:_:.:.:�_...-
���: '-'° •_ e•��.; :- ft'•: " ��
. .•�• :a_�:': -'_ :'�$� =."��:�:�-4 - - �
;' {;�. `-�.:...;•.�::� 1 � E � � � � �
-;±°-;���:��.::�=:•.:- � � � � f I �� ��
;:� � � � :;• �o� � I � �
� i i .`�' I I . � � �
��11`a�.�L����Wr _ �
�,.._��� ` .,'
G-�� J
�� O
c�
� � ��, v . :.
i
c- r---�-•; : .
,� � `"l.fl. �
� � -C�l
� �� � ,
�a
�{: �! �
� ��-==�_=> a; .
�
o � �
� � �
a �
M
< � �
�/y �
� Vd {
� a
� m
� � �
�
m � Z
�
o � °�
o �
� �
�
�
m
°�
�
�
❑
�
�
_
�
�
�
�
[� �
�
� �i���o
: � ��€�!�
li1
r
mf
\
I�
;
�,
�,
�
tl
4
9
� iJ �i'i�
� �
� � t�:
� ��.,,,
� ��_,
� �=`�i
cr�
��
�. __. = :�: ;
L
�
�
J
3
�p
Z
X
O
�
rn
r
m
D
�
�
�
�
�
��j�
o �
C � �,
� r
a �
<�>
�
� c1� -�
° �a
� �
;��
�
m�Z
N
o � �,
0 0
� �
�
�
�
�
d
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
n
�
� 9 �F!
i�`�n
� �\ !,
\
1 � i
� �i
�
f�
\^J
`J�
l
CW
CQ
�
CC�
c..—..—� :-,
�� <
i E�
Y p
� � ����
� ������
R1
r
m
{
�
$�
�
��
v
i -
�
s tr
<
D
�
�
n
e
�
�
R
�
P
i
�
D
1
v
i
11f12/1999 i0:16 6227860658
SUNRiSE UMCTED �E7 PA�E �1
. � �i�� '�"i
; � °d. ��°'H'. �y�,,�� •v
:. � � 3ue�� Iafettaa�as� �h�ccl� w� o g�� i�a �u�gl
• .' ,� "}1�1 ��'` ,_ ,r;, , •,�LL s:': of 1954 at �5e �unray�id� S�ho�l ira FVe�v � tc��, d4 aao °
.. .�, ,,
��' '`° force i�a t�� �r��ni���za� w� D�. �. �. Co�ra�'9 �t. Pmul l]i�
4: `,+ . ; i,� .,�� � :�,�.�, r�,��, � �� ,;s .�c� �u�a^�ratead��x�. Tfae �o�a�e��tian ��x��iaa�aad � r��t
_ ,,,,
at 8�xn�yside �tit Noae�rabe�` of 19�7 �hea it reao�recl ic�t�
� iis a�e�r building �� 2520 Cottt�ty .R�ad I in �Quncis �Ii�v�.
� �y the su�ecaer of 196�, +�hea tP�� chatter l.is� v�� clveed,
� �� pegsona had becvm� �embe�s mf 3 ' e�hux�k�. F'or
_ the first two ye�s ��ae �unrise paatrar live� in a Ye��d ��-
�� sonage. �y �9�a� a pat�ot��ge h� �eet� bt�il� �+��h Y�i�c� of
�he labo� dons.ted by membe�s of tihe �ong�e��ti�n. �1�xi
�.,�;r.,,�;,: �r► old chur�� buildin� 1�as moved to th� p�'es�nt ch��e �i4�
from �ldest S�. Pa�l. 'ihis r�as '�o be � tez��raa� tnee�iY��
^�� �� r� x`� �+ glace u�til a new structux� could �e bu�lie Tk�e ��Y�� �ho
.�., Y►,�, ` brou��t tkae oid church here �iom ��Bt St, Paul did not.kaa�
th� p��er mo�in� ��r�zaaitr he r�a�� ap�rehera�ed 6y t�ae polie�
�ftex �k►e chu�ch buildin� k�it a po�u'er line �ad knaclt�d out
�h� electxical ser�ic� �or a laY�e �ectioa� of �t. P�til, ii� �m�8
fined �1bd.00.
F°ia��c�l p�oble� �d� it n�cessargi �� inca�pota� tbe old church bu$� fi�� adaii �n�� �. �rm�an�-1��e
k��em�n� w� �iail� be�aeath �e oId buildin�, tt�� pe�ked �oof w�.s ��glaced by y
��acatienel tarrt�� �as buili a�aur�d °at. T�e �esaait �va� �"�pYii���el s�n.ct�t�r," �i�ta ��� ov��Fto� n s�tx�e t�a�
f e� t h� h� g t�, a n � t�e ch� pel in �� tl��t► p�t oi �he buildin�. i� te d � ix� t�ai�, p� t o r o f t h e
�a� g.e�. �t�,� ��e����orT, a re�ired Nl�tk��dist ffiis�Ao�ar�r, was aP�a
newl� for�.�d �un�se co��te�a�iort �r�d �t��d h�re fxorr� Jar�ua,x�, 1� 6�, ut��il Jtzn� o�' �h�t �me ye�r. At the
Juaa�, 1g649 �a,��l �o�sference � £ull-t�� ��s�or w�s �ppoynt�d �o ee�ve �he co �s�iot�_ Fi� Wu �ia� t�e�.
�o�� �and ��►�, �ttt I��.� �ife ant� ��e clA2ldren, c�%�e her� £�C��n � ��sto���e � OYaim. `��� 1�e�. „�naxad
��� ��Y� �or 6�ea� �n� tY►�� ��s force� �� �tire because e� failin� I�eal.�h. In i35� ih� �.�v. ��aaId Sh�tfiei�
i
,�� � Sun� churc% snd ��s he�e �o� 3 qeara. Ira ].962 ihe �.�v. Sheg�iel� mov�d ��Iutchir�or�, I�Iu:�e��ofca �n
t�� �ev. �iili�tr� Foa4�� b�c�nae t�s ct�ta�ch's th�d p�to�o �ie �rv�d here �ti1 A�r�l af 196�0 �t �+'1�ict� t�m� he
acce�ts� �aa �ppointm�nt t,� ssrv� ��ethodi�t ch�ch irt C�n�x, ConYaecticut. Fv� six weel�� ti�e R�°�. �?V. Erte
S��elds9 �, retaaed �i�tYeodiat tnira��xo seave� ihe con�e�ation.
Ir� �Iay of 3�64, th� Qre�e�at p�to�t c�tne to Stunrie�e isoxra Walker I+�eth�c�i�t C�.urch of �av�'�xd ��lc�, R�I�-
Qn AR$y �y �965, f,he al�ttrch �ed par��r�age were stnae�. k�� a toxnada. Taae Churct� ��s �otasidered a
4ot�1 loss by ��8� i�$u��tce comp�ny a�d �h� p�n�ge su�fered �b�ut $6000 daneaa�e. �lans were h��n �n�me�i�
at�51y for � n�°� buildin�. `1`hxou�hau,� the �ura�mer the cQa�ze�ataon met fo� ,�arship ir� the Bel Ft� ���soat�,
�.6out foue black� �exn the chvreh site- I�x the f$11 it began tm��inS i�. �i�e Red Oak Sehool a�►d contireue� ihen�
��� � y�. �wri�g t�e sra�raer t�,e c�ngr��a�ion tor� down th� remainin� ci�urch st�c�ure ans� e.ol� m�ch� af�t �P
saleegeabie �aiePi�l. t�dit� so�e prd�ession�l �ielpo gnembexs of iiae con�re�a�ion built � tliree���Y �
to ��ovide p�k�ng for ��le p�an��e c� and �dditiv�ial atora�e fo� the ch��h_ �oxasiru�tiota ora a r�ew chux�h
�e�a� if► Decex�a�p, 196�0 �ncl the cea��r��ataQx� �av�d in�n t%e new �truetuxe in �eQ�C�x[abe� of 1�66. The ��i�-
tr���o� f�r t�e �eea chu�eb v�rag L���,�in� Ide�son. Th� �chit�ea$ �ras RogeA �. Johnaon.
'�o4s1 eo8t was ��at��
$20�,000. In �egternb�, 1��7, �he cY�urch attd the �t�aitect rec�ived sa nwtard fog �chi�ectttr�l �xCelleac� ft`o�n.
�he Miri�.essata �oca.��y �f a4rcl�itects. S�,rs� cb�c�► �as i�ie oal�r aburch in Mi�nesa� �o �h�e in �t��t� aa� a�sa�
ira 3967a
I��� �e f�ttl a�d ���ag, 1$�&-67, ffiet�bers o# t1�e con�teg���on l�ici neuly 34flQ �►ard� of �a� atoua
�he n�w° buil�in�. Tt� the su���.t of 19fi7 �la�y i��tai�'ed parki� lat lighis �nc� tha� f�ll th� pa��� lot �la� bLck-
top�d- An �i�.�aor��l, �d��r�l�c �as �dded arid � l�nd6cap� �roj�ct b��n }n th� sp�ie�� �f �95�, t�o� ���$� ou�
�o�a Ociober of ��72 �retil ��ve�ber of 1�78 tl�e �bidin� S�enox Luthe�a.-� c�t►�ga '
i�ciliti� fo� �aat o� t�s�i� gnid�rrree� �zc�iviEies wY��.ie tkaeir n�� bu�ldi�$ vva� ��dex c�ns�z�ctiono x`his w� s���r
6t�y ti,ax�e Yoz' ��x � �ith �wo ����e��tions �a�kin� use o� ihe satn,� s��c�, �speci�lly i� �ie� of $h� £s�c� �h�t
��aeir e�n�e�etiasa i� �b��t � ti��s tar�er �han otars_ In 3�p#�mber of 297� tlhe �`el�aws�si� �i�li �� c�zpeted �o
ffiak� spaee %�are us��l� �rii�a ie� nois�. I� J�aua� ra� 197�4 ihe Sunr�se cora�aeg��aora cei�bzs�d its 2�f.k� �acex-
re�s� with Distta�� �a���i�a�r�den� �Ia��x�c� 1�Iicho}a,� �s �e�t s��ake�e
'i'is� con�e�atfoax ha� �o�a fgo� $r, ori��aaa� $3 �o � pgese�at 5��. �3udge#-�ise it h� ���� �t�� �'i
��, y r, ri
�a�aat figuu�e of aroua�d ffi12,Od� ta a�rese�� gi�e of �o�.id $S�,Om�. 'Tt�e 1973-7� �rear h� �een ��t���h��rid�
�p�ri��l ten��� �hic� w� ��e�e �ill be of la�tin� �a�ific�nce. I�a tk�� �si! of 197�: v�e �e plan�in� to h��e a
rt
p���x's �s�is+�xC frza� t�e�'�� 1��.� �ra�ka�n Setzasn�sy. We �e �lsa �resentl3r i�avo�ae� ira pla�a fo� t�ae £ir� e�t-
,.,; ��eoa��i �iti 40 �� ��de� o� th� n��t� side of orar �r�$er�t s�ruc��are. .��i in s11, the ff�ature l�o� �ri�h� �o� ��e '
� Yt ��v�� ��ti �to t�ae secor�d ��r�zzty Ye� p��i�ei �� i� lif� °s�n I�arthegn Sul�urba�. ,
� � - � `� h � -
To: Mounds �Iiew Planning Commission
From: Jatnes Erieson, Planning Associate
Subject: Special Planning Case No. SP-074�99
Date: Meeting ofNovemb�r 17, 1999
This is a short memo io alert you to the .changes to proposed ordinance 642 which result from onr
discussions at your last tneating an November 3, 1999, (I have taken the iiberty af highlighting in
yeltovv sections of �his ordinance where changes from the previous version have occurred.)
First change addresses the zero-iot line subdivision problem by adding Section 2. This defines
driveway and curb-cut widths in Section 1107.07, by adding �ew Subds. 3d and 3e. Whether the
widths listed are appropriaie or not is a r�natter af continued discussion.
5econd change is the addition ofa minimum drive aisle width as shown on Page 5, Qn secand
thought, now I'm nat sure thai this shauld be added as there are instances where a more narrovv
aisle woutd be appropriate. Ptease direct me to remove thisj
Third change is a change in how subd. Sb reads by putting the curb cut widths in a table format,
as requested. I think this improves this sui�division's readability.
The fourth and last change was the addi�ion of"zero-lot line subdivided lots" for those properties
limited to o�,ly one curb cut, This is necessary to ensure the intent was crystal elear.
l�ecomme�clat�ono
Direct staf�to make any further changes as necessary and to dra,ft a resolution recommending to
the City Council adoption of Ordinance 642.
�/ c��,,,;,-ti-� C�v�-r-�.°-�--�._
lannes Ericson, Planning Associate
N:�DATAIGROUF'SICOMDEV\SPECPR03�SP074-99�MEM04.PC
O�I1�A�tCE 642
���, 1� ' � i ° ���� i ��. �:1� ���. �.
�` � .
� �i �. � 1"= F ��i c
``,� �. +. ;j; ;� , .; . ;, � r. :. . , :1' � '. � : '+ 1'� ��1 i: '": !" : ' '� ' � : =1� �' � 1' . .
��, :� .� : �' , I' . ' !. �, � ���! •�•: , ' :_/� I � ' > ' : ��: ,t �1`v ; , ; ��
i. . , � . i�
THE COUNCIL OF 1Vi0UNll� VIEW ORDAINS:
�EC'I`IOl�d io Title 1100, Chapter 1104 of the 1Vlounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
general �oning provisions shall be amended by the addition of the atalicized and double�
underlined language and the deletion of the ianguage in Section 1104.01,
Subdivision 4 to read as follows:
Subd. 4. Nlie�imum Setbacks %r Accessory Buildings, I�riveways and Parking Areas:
a. [�ccessory Buildings (de#ached from a pr�ncipal building): (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(1) R-1, R-2, R�3, R-4, R-5 and R-O:
(a) front: no accessory building shall be located between the front of the
principal bui(ding and the front Ioi line, (Ord. 590, 11.-25-96)
(b) side: five feet (5') except the minimum setback shall be thirty feet (30')
from any lot line abutting a public stree�. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(c} rear, including street frontages at the rear of thraugh 1ots: five feei (5').
(Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
{2) Ali other districts:
(a) front: no accessory building shall be located between the front of the
principat building and the front lot line. (Ord. 590, i 1-�5-96)
{i�} side: same as principal building. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
{c) re�r: same as principat buiIding, except accessory buildings having four
hundred (400} square feet or less and r�ot abutting property �n a residential
district or a street, may hav� a minimum rear setback of ten feet (10').
(Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
Ordinance 642
Page 2,
b. I�riveways:
(1} Driveways shall have a minitnutn setback of five feet (5') from any lot line,
except as permitted in Section 1104.01, Subd. 4b c I a and Section 1121.15,
Subd. 2 of this Titte. Driveways shall be permitted to cross a required setback area
in order io establish access between the lat and a public street. �Ihere a driveway
would encraach into an easement, the property awner shall obtain an
encroachment permit if required by the City priar to constnaction of the driveway.
Drive aisles and dr�veways which are within the boundaries of a parking area shall
conform to the setbacks required for parking areas. (Ord. 590, 11-25-9b)
{2) Driveways in existence as of the date of enactment of Ordinance 620 and
which do not conform to the provisions of ihis subsection, may continue suhject to
the provisians of Section 902. 02 Sr.cbdivision 2 ,,
°��r�-e,�°-���ii�- (Ord. 620, 7-27-98)
c. Parking Areas:
(1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O:
(a) residential uses:
Parkin� lots ana' dt•ivewavs shall be set back five feei {5'), except in
the R-1 and R-2 districts, parking areas and driveways shaII be
permitted with a setback of one foot (1') provided the owner(s) of
the abutting lot(s) indicates their permission on a form acceptable
to the City. Where a parking area wauld encroach into an
easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an
encroachment per�ni� if required by the appropriate authority prior
to construction af tl�e driveway.
{�rd.
524, 2-22-93; Ord, 590, 11-25-9b; Ord. 620, 7-27-98)
(b) non-residential uses:
Pa�kin� lots and dYivewavs shall be set back five feet (5'} except
where non-residential uses abut property in a residential disi;rict, the
setback for parking areas from the common property line shail be as
follows: (�rd. 590, 11-25m96}
[��, for sites having iwo and one-half (2, 5} acres or less:
twenty feet (20') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
[ii]. %r sites having more than two and one�hatf (2.S) acres
thirky feet (30') (Ord. 590, 1 Im2Sm96}
Ordinance 642
Page 3
(2) B-i, B-2, B-3, B-4 (parking areas and loadi�rg docks):
(a) front: thirty feet (30'} (Ord. 590, 11-25-96j
(b} side and rear; five feet (5'), except where a non-residential use abuts
a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas
from the cotnmor� property line shalI be as stated in Section
1104.01 subdivision 4c(1}(6). (Ord. 590, 1 i-25-96)
(3) I-1 (parking areas and ioading dack�):
(a) front: forty feet (40') (Ord, 590, 11-25-96)
(b) side and rear: five feet (5'), except where a non-residential use abuis
a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas
from the common properiy line shall be as stated in Section
1104.01 subdivision 4c(1)(b). (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590,
11�25�96}
(4) Parking areas in existence as of the date of enactmeni of Ordinance 620
and which do noi conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue
subject to the provisions of Section 1123.02 subdivision lb. (Ord. 620, 7-27-9�)
SEC"I'I01�12. Title 2100, Chapter 1107 of the Mounds `Iiew Municipal Code pertaining to zero
Iot line subdivisions shali be amended by the addition of the italicized and double-underlined
Ianguage and the deletion of the �cen�l�s°au�lz language in 5ection 1107.07, �ubdivision 3 to
read as follows:
Subd. 3. Specific Requirements for Res�lting Dwelling Units:
a, Area Requirements: Six thousand two hundred fifty (6,250) square feet.
b. Lat Width: Fifty %et (50') per dwelling unit.
c. Se�back Requirements:
(1) Front Yard: Thirty feet (34').
(2) Rear Yard: Thirty feei (30').
(3) �ide Yard (wher� applicable};
(a) Ten feei (10').
(b) Thiriy feei (30') on str�et side aif corner lat.
Ordinance 642
Page 4
d. _Drii�ewav.Widths: The wia!th of fhe drivetivav servicinQ one dwellin �rnit shall not
exceed Phe tividih of that dwellin� uniP's gaj-age Wheri loccrted srde-bv-srde drivewavs
shnrll rnaintcrzn a mirrinaum four-foot (47 sez�aration unless the affected prot�ertv owne�s
have �'iled a right of wav and �raintena�rce a�eerrre»t with Ramsev Cor�ntv, accordin� to
the rovisions o Sectzon 112I.15 Sarbd 2 o this Title ej•t.ainin to 'oint dYivew s.
e.. Curb Cut Wzdth: The width of a curb cut servicin� o�re dwelli�g unit. shall not exceed
er�hteen feet (18'). In the e}�ent of a comrrron or ioint drivewav servicing both units the
width of the curb cut shcrll not exceed thirtv-iwo feet t32'1.
SECTION 3. Tiile 1100, Chapter I 121 of the Mounds `Iiew Municipal Code pertaining to off
street parking requirements shail be amended by the addition of tihe itc�licized and double-
underlrned language and the deletion of the �tr�,� language in Section 1 I2I,09, to read
as follows:
1121.09: ��'ALL, AI�I,E .P�I�1I� Dlti��l,��' I)E��GN:
Subd. l. Parking Space Size: Each parking space shaIl not be less than nine feet (9'} wide and
ei�hieen feet (18'} in Iength exclusive of access aisles, and each space shail be served
adequately by access ai�les. --
Subd. 2. Within Structures: The off-street parking requirements may be fiarnisl�ed by providing
a space so designed within the principal building or one attached thereto; hawever, unless
provisions are made, no building permit shall be issued ta convert said space �nto a
dwelIing unit or tiving area until other adequate provisions are made to comply with the
required aff-street parking provisions of this Title.
5ubd. 3. Cireulation: Except in �he case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellit�gs,
parkin�g areas shall be designed so that circulaiion between parking bays or aisles occurs
within #he designated parking lot ar�d does not depend upon a public street or alley.
Except in the case of single-family, two-famity and townhouse dwellings, parking area
design whicl� requires backing into the public street is prohibited.
Subd. 4. Dimensians:
a. In the R-1 zonin,� district. the combined tividth foY d�rvewav crnd attached r�aNking
areas shall raot exceed thi�•tv-five feet (35'}, or the width of the �arage r�lus an additional
twelve feet�2'1, whrchever is �reater
b �xcept in the case of sin�le�farr�ily, tworfam.ily and townhouse d�eliings, parking
areas and their aisles sha11 be devetoped in compliance with the followin� standards: -
Ordinance 642
Page 5
An�ie
�
�
45°
60°
75°
90°
Waii to
Interlocic
Minimum
Dimension A
44.8'
52.5'
61.3'
63.0'
Interlock to
I�terlock
Minimum
Dimension B
43.0'
51.0'
6i.0'
63.0'
,� ; °.
�_�" � � �. - -
,:
�
`,
:: ��:-.� -.�;-:- . ,
Paratlel Parking: 22 feet in Length
The Mrnrmuna Drive Aisle Width shall be 24 feet
Subd. 5. Curb Cuts and Briveway Opertings:
Vdall to
Wall
N[inimum
Dimension C
47.0'
54.0'
62.0'
63.0'
a. No curb cui access shall be Iocated less than fifty feet (50') from the intersection of two
(2) or more street rights of way. This distance shall be measured frotn the intersectzon of
lot lines.
b. Curb Cut Widtlrs. Wrdths of cu�b cacts shall be as follow,�, subiect to �eauiYernents of
subdivrsion Se hereo%•. �
_ � _ _ , ,
Ordinance 642
Page 6
7`vtienf�anrl:tlse , �rlth::n ��rb..��E ;
Single Fan�ilv Residerrtial /R-1)
Mcan�rfact�r�ed Honzes �R-5) 24 Feet
Zero Lot Line Suhdivisions tR-2) 18 Feet
11�Iedi7.�m Densi Residenticrl (R-2. R-3) 32 Feei
HiQh Densitv Residerrtial /1Z-4)
Com»�ercial. Indust�ial 32 Feet
B-I. Bd2. B-3. B-4, I-1)
Public Parks & Preservation Areas 32 Feet
PF CRP
c. Curb cut openings shall be at a minimum of thre� feet (3') from the lot line in residentiai
districts and five feet (5') from the lat line in business or industrial districts.
d. Driveway access curb opetungs Qn a pubiic street, except for single-fatnily, two-family �
and to�unhouse dwellings, shall not be located less than forty feet (40') from one another.
e. Each property elevation of any parking area shati be allowed one curb cut access for
each one hundred twenty fve feet (125') of street frontage. All property shall be entitled
to at least one curb cut. Singte-family uses and ze�o loi line subdivided lots' shall6e
Iimited to one eurb cut access per property unless, upon appiication for a variance of this
restriction, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that it is in the interest of public
safety to waive such. IViedium density residential (2 to b units} may have two (2) curb
cuts; provided, �
neither curb cut exceeds si�hteen feet (18'1 in width
�Curb cuts in existence as of 10/11/99 that do not conform to this subdivision mav
remain in existence unless deemed bv the Director ofPublic Works to be a dan�er or
ublic sa e hazard. Notices to abandon a curb cut rrr be a ealed zn writin to the
Citv Councrl /Ord. 640. 10/I1/99).
�
Subd. 6. Grade Elevation: The grade elevation o�any parking area shall not exceed five percent
{5%}. (1988 Code §40.07),
Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in Subdivision 1104.01(4) ofthis Title, to be utilized
for parking space and driveways sha11 be surfaced witi� a permanent, improved surface
material as de�ined in Section 1102,02 of this Chapter, suitabte to control dust, drainage
and erosion, m�etxn� the requirements of Section 902.0�3 of this Code except as follows:
I Refer to Section 1107,03 ofthis Title for more information reQardin� Zero LotLrne S'ubdivisions
Ordinance 642
Page 7
A gravel surface material meeting the specifications af Seetion 902.05�3, �ubd. 5 of this
Code may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R�2 Disirict not to exceed ihree hundred
(300) sq�aare feet ar, if to be used as a parking surface for an RV, the mininnum area that
wouid encompasses the wheel-hase area of one {1) recreational vehicle. Plans for
surfacing and ciraina�e of driveways and stalls for five (5) or more vehicles sl�all be
submitted to the Director of Cammunity Development for review, and the final drainage
plan must receive the I3irector of Public Works/City Engineer's written approval. (Ord.
524, 2-Z2-93; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Qrd. 640, 10/11/99.)
Subd. �. Striping: Except for single-family, two-farr►ily and townhouses, all parking stails shall
be marked with yellow painted lines not less than faur inches (4") wide.
Subd. 9. Lighting: Any iighting used to illuminate an a#� street parking area shall be so arranged
so to reflect the light away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses and pubiic
righis oi way and be in compliance with Sectiofl 1103:09 of this Title.
Subd. 10. Signs: No sign shall be so loca�ed as to restrict the sight lines and orderly operation
and traffic movement within any parking lof. AlI signing must conform to the Mounds
�/iew Sign Codel.
Subd. I 1. Cu�'bing and Landscaping; Except for single-family and two-family developments.
, all open off-street parking shall
have a perimeter curb ba.rrier around the entire parking lot. The s�eci�cations and
loeation of this curb barrier shall comply with SecPzon 902.04 and with the setback
requirements for parking areas stated in Section 1 T04.01, subdivision 4. Grass, plantings
or surfacing materials shall be provided in ali areas bordering the parking area. {Qrd, 590,
11/2b/96: OYd. b40, 10/11/99.
Subd. 12. Required Screening: All open, nonresidential, of�=street parking areas of five (5} or
more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential
districts in compliance with subdivision 1�103.48(6) of this Title. (1988 Code §40.07)
1 See Chapter 1008 of this Code,
Ordinance 642
Page 8
�EC'T�O�I 4, This ordinance takes effeet 30 days after its pub(icatiozl in the of3E°icial City
newspaper.
Read by the City Councii of the City af Mounds View this _ day of _ , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Council af the City of Mounds View this � day of
I999.
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
Attest:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
APPKOVEI� AS TO FORM:
Robert C. Long, City Attorney
C;10I'FICEIWP WINIWPDOCSIORDINANC1642.ORD
v � �
�.` . �
.�, /� �r �•,�•
._r. .._.:. :.���-
. �:;
To:
From:
S�abjec�:
��te.
Mounds View Planning Commission,
Rick Jopke, Comrnunity Development Director
Biliboards
Nov�mber 12, 1999
As I previously indicated to yau the City Council has asked that the staff and Planning
Commission look into and make recommenda#ions concerning ordinance amendments to the sign
ordinamce to ailow biliboards in certain �eas of the community.
The Plaxuiing Commission on November 3, 1999 reviewed a proposed ordinance which would
amend Chapter 1008 of the �ity Cade to allow billbaards in certain areas of the commumity by
conditional use perYnii and would set standards which billboards must meet. At tk�at meeting the
Planr�ing Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and directed s#aff to prepare a resolution
for Planning Commission consideration that would recammend that the City Council not pass the
proposed ordinance. I have attached a draft resolution {Resoiution No. 597-99) for Planning
Commission consideratian at the November 17, 1999 meeting. The draft resolution has been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office.
REQUESTED ACTION: It is requested that the Planning Commission complete its discussion of
the attached draft ordinance and pass a resalution recammending approval or denial of the
proposed ordinanee.
N;\DATAIGROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM1l1-17-99 hiliboard report.doc
`. � ��� ;i'= =1 .� � �. . ,, _. � �_
CIT'i' OF I�OUI�IDS VIEW
COI1I�'TY OF I�I�ISE�
STATE OF' I+/IINNESO'FA
R7. 1'� : ; ; '!� � :'' < i- �'�, i � " � '�1 � ��� � �; ? �� 1 : ., � �, . ��; �: •: .{ : ��,. s ' �; _1= _
; :.. .. - �
� _ _ �� : , .�� ��, � .. � 1 � �� < : ; : . . � : ., �� �� ; '1. .' _ �; � .�' ;., , �, , ,� '
; ;�}. . �, :� �..,. � - � ��1 .. : t. �� �, � �l' �` ' ' ,; �`� � : : ; .� .�: �. J ,�, .. .
� ' i'. � ;,'. � . ��� .. � ���� ��'.
WHEREAS, the 1Vlounds View Municipal Code does noi allow billboards in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has asked the Planning Commisszon to
review possible ordinance changes to allow biilboard signs in certain areas of the Czty; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered Ordinance No. 644 and made the
following findings relating to the Iand use impact of ailowing add'ztional bilibaards in Mounds
View:
1. Large biliboard signs are not appropriate uses of property wiihin CRP
Conservation Recreational Preservation and PF' Publzc Faciiities zoi�ing
districts. These districts are intended to pravide recrea#ional opportunities,
open space and pratect t�ae natural environment where passible. Large
advertising signs are nof consistent with fhat intent and are more
appxopriate to commerc�al and industrial zoning districts.
2. Laxge biilboard signs can be visually distractive and may detract from the
neighborhood and promote a negative image far the community.
3. The City Attorney has advised City staff that the City cannot Iinnit
billboards to city-owned properties only.
4. A permit will be required from ihe State of Minnesota to locate biilboards
aiong state and federal highways. 5tate sfatutes restrict sueh signs to
commercial and industrial zoning districts oniy. The contemplated sites fo�
additional billboards are not zoned commercial or iildustrial.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends that ihe City Councii not approve Ordinance Na. b44, an ordinance amending
Chapter 1048 {Signs and Billboards) af the Mounds View Municipal Code pertairung to
billboards based on the abave findings.
�E IT FINALLY RESQLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forwaxd this
resoluiion io ihe City Counczl prior to approval of the mir�utes.
Adopied this 17th day of November, 1999.
Attest:
Jerry Petersan, Chairperson
Rick Joplce, Community Developmez�t Director
� �;': ;1- -, . `, ; �, �; � ,; ,
��, .� " �, �, 1, � �1: �, . . � , �
�_ : �� �: f- < �� :, � - ��. : ���.
�` ,:�;:.
I. � �:° ''; � .. . ;�: ; � � . + ��� � � ;� �.� °I_ ; " :, ,�, ., �; �P ,, ,�� i
' ��� ' �`� :i .. � � � ' •. < < f= _i� '� �� ' �� := :�. .1, � � � ��s . �� � .
:. �° ��i;
T�TE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 4RD1�iNS:
SECTION 1: Section 1008.0� of the Ivlounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended
with the �roposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions ,
respectively, to read as follows:
Subd. 1. Generai Standards; Paragraph I(1): No ground sign (except iemporary signs,
portable signs or banners}, or signboard e�-�l-l�e�.� shall appro�ch at any point nearer
tl�an three feet (3') to any building unless such sign is placed parallel to the side of the
building, nor sha11 any such sign be placed within six feet (6'} of the side of any lot nor
nearer than fifteen feet (15') to any sfixeet line where there is no established or customary
buzlding line nor within iwenty five feet (25'} of any street corner right-of-way. Whenever
the established or customary uniform building line upon the street vvhere such ground
sign is to ba erected is inore than fifteen feet (15') from the streei or property line, then
such sign shall not approach nearer to the streei ihan the �stablished or customary
uiuform buiiding line.
Subd. S. Signs Along Freeways; Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, signs
located on property adjacent to any freeway within the Municipaiity (including Interstate
Highway 35V� shall be busi�aess sigiis advertising businesses being conducted on the
premises on which the signs are located. No "traveling" or changing-message signs shall
be Iocated so as to face any �6reeway or be visible from the freeway. The pravisions of this
subdivision, however, shall not be construed to render illegat ox nonconforming any
signs which are legally located along any such freeway at the effective date herein.�
� ,
; �
Subd. 10. Billboards: t1 permit shall not be issued for any new biliboard �:� �a.��N�P t��
,
a,;nx,,,,�.a „U (�(TN ;�, nvinhn ��. unless it com lies with the ollowin re uirements:
a. CONDI7"1'ONAL IISE PERMIT': A condiiional use permit (CUP) must be
obtained in accowdance the ,�YOCedu�es found in Section 1125.O1
Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any conditional use permit
issued or a billboard shall auto�naticall ex ir�e lvhen the Zease a reement or the
billboard expires. Such CUP shall be null-and-void if the applicant �ails to obtain
any requi�ed pertnit from the State of Minnesota.
b. L�CATION.' The billboard must be located along or north of 1.18 and tnzisi be
located on City-owned pro�erty. The a�plicant naust have an approved lease
a eernent with the Ci . The billboard shdll be oriented towards 1.18 and/or
I35W BillbouYds rrzust be located at least ,250 feet froni residentially zoned
property BiZlboards nzay be located adiacent to the Yi�ht-of-�s�tt�� o�'a sireet o�
highwa , but no part thereof shall extend over such right-of-tivay.
c MINIMUMSPACING: Billboards must be at least 1500 feet apart. Spacing
between si�ns shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to
the property line of the r°ight-of-wav �i°orn which they aNe intended to be read and
measuring the distance in a straiQlzt line between the projected points. Requir-ed_
s acin shall a l onl to billboaYds on ihe sanze side o the sanze roadwa �.
d M�l.YIMUMSIGNAREA: The maximum g�oss surface display area of the sign
cannot exceed 700 square feet per side except that any rectang�cclar billboa�d may
contain tempo�ary extensions, cutouts, or top lettering which occupy a total area
not in excess o ttven - tve 25 ercent o the area o the basic billbottrd and
ornz an inte ral art o the desi n theYeo . No such tem orar extensron, cut out,
or top letterin� may prolect mo�e than szx (6} }�eet frorn the top, eighteen �18)
inches from either side or �fteen (I S) inches from the bottom of the basic_
; `- ;
_ rectanQular advertising message. The area of an extension, cutout, or top_
lettering shall be deemed to be the area o�'the smallest rectangle into which such
extension, cutout, ar top lettering will_jrt.
e ORIENTATION OF SIGN FACES: Billbo�rrds may have no more than two (2)
sign faces Sign faces must be back-to-back with si n aces arallel ot� ttngled. All
billboards with their faces back-ta-back and parallel shall.have no ��eater
distance than ei ht 8 eet between the aces. All billboards tivith aces at an
arc le shall have no reater an le than thi� - ave 35 de ee�.
f MAXIMUMSIGNHE.IGHT.• The maximum allowable height o�'billboards shall
be thirty-f ve (3S) feet. The heiQht shall be measured_ from the grade at the base o�
the si n or rom the sur �ce o the roadwa whicheve� is hi her.
,� OB5TRUCTION• No billboard may be located in such a manneY as to obscu��e
or othe�wise inter ere with tlze e ectiveness o an o acial tra lG SZ n, si nal, oY
device, or obstr°uct oY interfe�e with a drive� s view of approaching, meYging, o�°
intersecting t�affic.
Any_billboard leQally existing on the efj�ectfve date o�this ordinance may continue to be
maintained in rts present fo�rn and size but` not expanded. This does not preclude the
eriodic chan e o the messa e or advertisement resented on the billboaYd.
Any billboard d�stroyed by an ac� oi God may be rebuilt within thirty (30) da�s if the
construction of same wauld comply with this subdivision.
SECTION 2: The title of Section 1008.11 of the Mounds View I��lunicipal Code is hereby
amended with �he proppsed actditions unde�lined and italicized and deletions �c-���
�t����, respectively, to read as follows:
1008.11: �` : SIGN VARIANCES:
SECTION 3. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty (30) days after its publication in fihe
official Ciry i�ewspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this d�y of
, 1999.
ATTEST:
Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
Charles S. Whiting, City
N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMBEVISPECPROJ�6XX,ORD
� � �� �,�: ��, : �� ; C, : ,�� 1 ;1 - "�:1= "' ` �; .1 t � _ !; `.
/ 1 - i ':t;
. : , �, � � <; �'_ `�_ ;1�. `==
1. Call to Oe°d�r
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson
2. Roll �all
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Con
�tev�nson.
Members Absent: Co�rr�nissioner Braathen (le �
Also Present' Planning Associate 3im�cson,
Council Liaison l�oger Stigney, and�'�rder T
Index to �'�6
Plannin� �aK
Plannin� �o;
of a develop.
Applicant: �
IZegul�r l�ee�is�g
l�over��ber 3, 1999
t�:�
l�/Iourrds ���� C�ty �atl
2401 ��gi��v�y 10, l��a�ds,< �e�v, l�t 55�12
?. ao >�:��.,
�
Kaden, Laube, and
�a'�il�,t���), ����n�on,,�d �iller, with prior notic�.
; ,�: ,.�
t'���i'nmu��i�xj ��velopment Director Rick 3opke,
i Pearso�i
59 9�; '��i�{3��c�t�pty Road I. Consideration of
�i 1E�esolu�t€� ���w�9, a resoluiion recommending approvat
;v�ei�;;%r a t�v€� tiis��'�= <senior assisied (iving residential facility.
��anning Case
ordinance amf
� c�ats.
:norts / Item,�
, Discussion revisions to proposed Ordinance
�g Code related to driveway widths
�` In�formatio�
ing Comrnissioners l�eporis
3. i�taze�s9 Requests �a�� C��axrre�n�s �� Itte�s I+Iot �n tt�e Agenc�a
'There were no citizen requesis or comrrnents on items not on the agenda.
�
�
6
10
�b
Il7o��ds Vi�w Planrre�� Corr��iss�o�a No�ernber 3, 1999
I�e�ular I�/I�e��ng �� ���� 2
4. �pp�°�va! of l�enu�es
Aa Ociobe�° 6, 1999
IvIOTION/SECOND: �tevenson/Laube to approve the October 6, 1999
corrected.
�
Ayes-6
Pl�nr►�a�g Case N�o 559-99
Property Involved: 2670 County Road T
Nays — 0
Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 596-
a Development Review for a two-story, senior assisted�
Applicant; MSP Reat Estate _,
The applicant was present.
�'lanning Associate Ericson gave
minutes as
carried.
c�mmending approval of
Th� applicant, IV1SP Real Estatez ��s reques��e� �.ppr <��of a development review for a two-story
senior assistec� livin� cample:� �,�3 �;�ocated �� �670 ��i�nty Road I. The City Council has approved
the condii�ctn�i �a� perm�� �o�ilu� �i��lopmen� ai��I �rdi��ance 631, the ordinance which rezoned the
praperty �rs� �3..���L,imutec�'�, ��ui�s� +,Go�nmercial, to 1�-4, High Density Residential.
`::� � > > .
'�;; ; , > ' _t
Pla�u�ing Associ�� �:z�i��c�� stated f� �,� �i� October 20, i 999 meeting of the Planning Commission,
issues were b�c�i�� t�:�k�� �#���t�or� o�t�i� applicant with regard to sidewalks, paricing lo� access and
concerns.����hat n�iu��, �� �d�ised ail of these issues were resolved with the exception of the
locatio���the fire hydrai��� ;��� ���5lained there is a fire hydrant located on the south side of Mounds
.�=� .
�Ii�u� �rive, and a hydra��� �,�i�'�ounty Road I, which would service the property. Staff has since
� ;
di�sed this matter v�nt athi Osmonson, the City's Fire Marshal, who has indicated that because
th� %uilding will be sp ''- ered, and the close proximity of the two hydrants, no additional hydrants
��11 b� req�aired. T,' r�veway on County Road I will be shifted appro}cimately five feet to the east
�i� ;�.�e�r�xr����t� �E�' existing fire hydrant.
�tar��n�` �ssocia�� Ericson stated all of the ci-iteria with re�ard to dimensionai -requirements i.e.,
setbacks, spacing, and the required number of parldng spaces are met. There are no unresolved issues
that staff is aware of, therefore, siaff recommends approval of IZesolution 596-99, a resolution
recommending to the City Council approval of the site plan review. He pointed out a. stipulation �hat
the site plari be revised priar to Council action, Iie explained sfaff has received an updated site pIan
that indicates the sidewalk alo�g Nlounds View Drive. The access onto Couniy Road I vvill be
1VIo�s�d� �I��e� �lannin� �o�a�a�s�im� I�oeem��r 3, 1999
Ite �lar 1Vl�etira �� � 3
marked as "exit oniy," and th� buiiding has been resituated so thaf it complies with all setback
requirements. He added that signage shall be in cornpliance with the City Code and approved
cor�ditional use perrngt. He indicated although these conditions are listed und�r the stipulation that
the site plan be revised, �he condition pertaining to the signage does not necessarily apply to the site
plan revision. He suggested �his condition be removed from �he listing and indicatedf as a separafie
stipulation. ���°��
l�ilo Pgnkerto�a, represenYative of i�51' Real E�tate, the a
the entrance to the site on County Itoad I be marked as "
could not cut across the median and cross traffic, and inqui��
location.
PIanning Associate Ericson explairted that wi�h the sp
trafFic fro�n I�ounds View Drive, and the ciose pro:
locatio�, there were concems that vehicles slowing
confusion. He explained the Plannir�g Commission be
mark this enirance as "exii only." .. _
Chair Peterson added by marking this access"
on County Road I would dr�ve the wrong
I�e painted out it was conceivabte that €
traffic along County Road I travei' �� a
accidents.
Commission��r;�.�ube sta��d _h
he had ol��e���d �, s�rni tr��k j
a left tu`rn� .;�-�� Sfittt�d seini �
the exits far ��� ������ Lake
Mounds View �r���;��t�;be
ii
�
necessary that
t that veivcl
td enter ai..� s
on County Road`I�<tiFie merging
'auperAmeriea entrance to this
site might cause sorne
eaner, safer solution to
s���kely that westbound traffic
tnedian to enter the property,
� ttus, and particularly with the
there would be a poteniial for
;or►cern�t� �����'d���athe Mounds View Drive exit. He indicated
in the S�rl�`�erica driveway, btocking traffic that wauld take
x�ilize both the SuperAmerica and the strip mail driveways, and
s x��.�� homes are in the same close vicinity. He suggested the
� "�;�� ��turn on1y."
Commis��er� Steven�c��7 ;fi�� ��Ze other exit frorn the site was a"right turn only" onto Couniy Road
� ��
I. He �� atned that if bot� i�� ���`�anee and e�cit from the site were righ# turns anly, vehicles would
have ��travel down �-Iigh��>:�� to I.ong Laice Road to get over to Mounds View Drive. He stated
�� �
th����ould be very difficu ��o enforce, in ternns of those residents who live in the area, as they would
have�:to travel almost le, in order to go a biocic.
stated this lacation woutd be v�ry di�euii to exit from at many times during
Chair Petersor� stated ihe northbound exit from County Road I could be marked "right turn only"
frorn the parking iot, and if an exi� was allowed fi-om that point, a sign could be placed on the other
side, facing County Itoad I indicai►ng no entrance for westbound iraff'ic. He pointed out it might be
somewhat restrictiv� io �nd�cate the County Road I as an "exit only," and perhaps "right turn only"
would work j�ast as weli.
�Im�xnd�'V�e�ar Planraing C��rra�ssion l�ovemtr�r 39 1999
�e�}�w I�eet�n� �a�e 4
Commissioner Stevenson �ointed out that ihere is very simple right in, right out on County Road I.
He stated only the westbound tcaf�ic would utilize Couniy Road I as an entrance to the site, and it
should be very clearly indicated as "right in, right out."
Cor�unissioner Lauba sug�eated piacing a sign at the very end of the median zndicatin.� no left turn,
.�_
Planning Associate Ericson pointed out ttus entrance is in very close proxin�ity to t�� ��perAinerica
access, and ihis wouid be confusing ta �hose people turning into the Su��r:A.mer�ca station.
1VIr. Pinlcertan suggested they place ihe sign 10 feet into the
entrance. �
Cammissior�er �tevenson s�ggested they stipulate this er
Road I ir� the resolution, with t�o stipulation for Niound
C�
Chair Peterson suggested the stipulation cauld indicate "n�hi in, ��;hf
and specify �he actuai signage at a later point. �Ie advis�d that t�5r;�i
feet to accommodate the fire hydrant, the more li���{ �t ;i,� �hat so
direction for ten feet to enter the driveway. ���� .
Commissioner �tevenson inquired ifit was�
� 9
Planning Associate Er�cson stated �h�s�r
obstruction. .��
K�.
CommissionerLaube suggested p,,,_,;`,' g ih� si
I, so that �Y�,��ould only be t�t��a��'to tra�e
would nai �.���,the Supe�'����� traf�ic a
the median, and� �11�°
��
Commissi �ie� �tever
the pra : �ed devela
��
,.,��,<:
Coi�rtiissioner Berke
ol� ��F
wt���t� back up tra�c
�.�'ici �t��r�er Kin� srt�
s
:�
���na�s��a���' ���la�
b��a �rr��il��n"
away from
;nt in, rignt °c
at this point.
appropriate signage,"
; driveway over a few
�u1d travel the wrong
ihe full five feet to the east.
e as possible to avoid any
the e��;��nce to the driveway factng County Road
�������
'st on County Road I. He pointed out this
�� t.���?�.t��� �his was toa complicaied. He advised they should elizninate
to et��,��„��d �'�cit in either direction.
SuperAmerica and Burger King sites generate more traffic than
i they were even closer to Highway 10.
it�d i�'vehicles are aliowed to make a 1eft hand turn at this location, �hey
the light is green. He explained this already occurs at the SuperAmerica
stated he did not perceiv� the anticipated additional traffic in this iocaiion to
C;ommissioner Berke advised he lives in the area, and tra�c is already a problem. He explained if
traffic must travel iurther down on Count� �oad I before turatiing, it would back up on Highway 10,
�Io��ad� "V�e� Piannang Cma�ax��ssio�a 1�Toves�be�° 3, 199�
ltegu��r Nle�tflr�� P��.� �
Commissioner I�eglar�d stated the median was somewhat inconsequential in that if someone sees an
entrance at this location, and are �ot aware there is an entrance on Mo�nds View I�rive, they will
attempt to enter the s�ie from this location. CoYnmissioner Laube stated County Road I was under
the jurisdiction of the County, and the City has no control over it.
M[r. Pinkertan suggested they start wsth a sign which indicates "no left turn" a e exit, and if
necessary, indicate "no entrance" on the oiher side of the sign Iater, and t��t �t sa;�., js visible only to
,,.;>
traf�ic coming from the right. �.��� ..�
Chair Peterson reiterated the earlier stated language of"
with the speeific details determined eiiher prior to the
staiis rrecommendation ta [is� Item ld as a separat� s
Plannin� Associate Ericson stated lb should also be a se�
out access onto County Road I, va�th appropriate signage
second stipulation, with the ihird stip�laiion being th� curr
be in compiiance with ihe City Code and approved ���t
Commissioner Stevenson noted a continge
parking was found to be inadequate. He
appiicant indicaied that 31 parking s
eor�tingency for overflow parking as� <
Planning Associate Ericson explai�he
to utilize the �car of their �ar�an�; Iot in
right
Iiem l�
�nal us�
h
ion indicating "iZight in. right
:�s would be indicated as the
�k��f�;:indicates "�ignage shalt
�add��crnai �aaz����n� s%fls, in the event the facility's
�t a�?�ar�c� �:1��� �t�r��gency was amiited �vhen the
aic��`b�e provi��r�, a�d inquired if there was still a
has tt��E� an arrangement with Silver View Plaza,
n� r���lcin� overflow.
Commis��p��t,�f�'�ea�son inr��x�r�i i�'t��cre was as�y possibility of conditional parking on the site in the
future, ar �f t� �i �a�-S�ing stalls �; ��e�ximum, even if this was faund to be inadequate. Plannin�
Associate Eri��c�rt s����:;��e be1f���t� t�i� �ite design utilized as much area as possible for parking
spaces. _�
,<,�
��oner Stevenso� �z������cl if there was additionat room io expand the parking area in the
he would lik� t� tsi���t�'� this contingency in the resolution. Planning Associate Ericson
�;:
i� it is discovere�<:'�►���i�g the course of the operation that the parking is not adequate, the
�`:._
ial use permit �;�i' be revisited, and the matter can be broughi back before the City Councii
. ;;. �.
���„T„�[ �;��,.�'� Peterson/Kaden. To App�'ove Mour►ds �liew Planning Commission Resotution
I�To� ��?�`��9, a Resolution Recommer�ding Approval of a Development Review for a Two�story, 46-
ltoom Senior Assisted R�sidentFal Facility Located at 267� County Road I; Planning Case No. 573-
99, as �rrended �o Indicate Item lb as Stipulation 2, "Right In, Right Out Access Onto County Road
�, vvith Appropriat� �ignage," and rtem ld as �tipulation 3, "Signage Shall Be in Compliance UJith
the City Code and Appe°oved Conditional Use P�rmit,"
I�oa�a�ds Vaew Pl��aaa��a� Co�te�isseon l�av�rnb��° �, 1999
R� ular 1Vleetia� Pa e 6
Ayes — b
Nays — 0 Motian carried.
Planning Associate Ericsan stated this item would be consid�red at ihe 1Vovember 15 City Council
meefiing.
6. Spe�ia! Plan�aareg C�se No. SPm074-99
Discuss revisions to proposed Ordinance 642, an
drivevvay widths and curb cuts.
Pianivng Associate Ericson stated Ordinance 642 is an arc
regard to driveway widths and curb cuts, and incorpar
Code consistent with Chapter 900 of the Municipal Coc
Pianning A,ssociaie Ericson stated at the October �'
,
�.
was discussion regarding driveway widths a:> rb
IIe stated the Planning Commission concl „- d that
��
however, there was a question in regard ��he R-2��
homes. �� .��
Plannin� Associate Ericson
indicated ihe,:�it�vewav widt��.�
on Knollv�c�t�d L3rive ar�
expiaineci ����� t�4rt�. hom
an eighteen-�fat
%ur-foot spaci
driveways a �
ode related
revises the Zor�iz�g''�;ode with
,n�es vvhieli make the Zorung
u.��dated with Ordina.nce 640.
of tl�� �?l,��iir�ing Commissiom there
tt is a�s�ropriate in which districts.
��' for the R-1 district is ade quate,
I��t would be appropriate for twin
the �c��missi �ith a supplemental memorandum wiuch
cuis ��t���;;, .� � e recently constructed twin homes located
�;
:�toad, �� tr� which are wider ihan currently allowed. �Ie
}�foot wide driveways, with the exception of one, which has
� r�nit, separated by a very large tree. He indicated there is a
x,: tt�tivard the garages, and there is no separation beiween the
�`Associate Er������ ����ed the Planning Commission has discussed whether or not a
, . , _. .
ent for spacirtg %�i�t��rt'the driveways was even necessary. He pointed out that in the R-1
the driveway se��� ack is one faoi from the property [ine, which results in two feet between
ys, in some i nces. He advised that the Code c�arrentiy requires a 40-foot separation
driv�ways��x�two side by side single fami►y dwellings. He indicated the Commission felt
<z�����c����;�°in that the garages are now generaily constructed side by sid�, as opposed to
�, as i� �h� case with the older tvain homes.
Plannin� Associate Ericson stated ihrough this research, staff is of the opinion thai the separation
betv�een the driveways in the R-2 district is noti necessaty, $owever, 40-foot driveways, a(though they
do e�st, appear to be excessiv�. He explained that narrowing the driveway width to 32 feet, in stafl�'s
opinion, wouid not create any t�ardship or problems in terms of ent�ring or e�ting these properlies.
Mo��eds Vi��r �i�nnin� Cose�arEiss�o� 1Vav�rre�ber 3, 1999
I$e �ias° l�e�tin P� e 7
Planning Associate Ericson requested the Commission discuss these issues. He stated at the last
meeting, �he Commission concluded 32 feet would be an adequate driveway w'sdth, however, the
questio�i ss if there are two driver�ays on one property, should they be 16 or 18 feet wide, and what
would be the a�propriate cunc �ut width.
Chair Peterson noted there was also a ques�ion in regard to a nt�mbe of sin l�'�arruly homes
constructed on IZ-2 iots, whic3� s1�ould be taken i�rto account as well H� �plaia��� some of these
properties are ina�propriately zoned IZ-2, when their uses are c�trrently R�, h�w�ver, �hey currently
e�sist in this manner and ianguage may be required io addre ��i�.
� ,�
Planning Associate Ericson advised that Subdivision Sb of �'�':1.09, Pa�� �of the €�r��a������ i�ct��ies
"No curb cut access shal[ exceed 24 feet in width for It ��d � S�sidential use�. ��� ��c����wide
c�rb cut shail be permissible for R-2, R�3 and R-4 use�"� ��� �xplained t�is la��g�i���'"could be
interpreied to indicate a single family home is not an �-�,u��, t�tl��zwise, it could be amended io
indicate a single famity dweiting or use, as opposed to t�.�o��an� �7�st���t reference.
�: ,. ._
Chair Peterson pointed out that the language
presents a conflict. Pianning Associate Erics�
consistent, and brought back to the P►annin��
Chair Pe�erson stated the 32-foot drivew �. width
ma�rr►um did not appear to be acco �� dating�
Commissioner ]Kegiand
constntcted. .<.�hair Pete�
A.ii .,
surface. n.�..:..' . -. `:.
�i 40�
aut t}
ih� �i�sfi����> �.nd the use, and this
age c�suld be amended and made
nable, as the current 30-foot
th s� _� be atlowed, as this was currently being
7�ul��esult m an excessive amount of impervious
Commission�ac;t.,at�b� ��aYed th� �r�v�u��.�r width in the R-2 and R-3 District should be 36 feet. �Ie
explained that �c�X ����'� bgt wid� ���-�.�;�, t�;�ith a 16-foot driveway straight from each garage door
over, and alio ,: �',��' ��'�Y ���,ih� cet�t�,'tY�e driveway width would be 36 feet. He commented that
the majo�t ��' of these ��c���� ��;constructed closer io the road, and it would be difficult to park a
vehicl the driveway ��,�t :��� ��t�'owed down any further,
.:::::5�; :_: :=:r.
� � ��� <>.;::;.:>;>.
, .. i..�.�.�.,.
Coi�iisstoner �tevenso inted out that the driveways of most twin homes, even if they both have
3;�r'�;arages, do nat n. � sarily go straight back. He explained that the persan with a 3 car garage
�nll t�r�ly ha�e a 22-fs�;, ` curb cut, and if this is a back to back twin home, he cou(d not see aliowing
��
t�ior� i��a�a the,.����, because the driveway will be joir�tly used.
:;
�ornran�'����n�r�Laube reiterated most town homes are built closer to the road, and with a nat-rower
drivewa,yy parked v�hictes coutd very easily block ihe other garage.
Cammissioner Hegland stated the driveways should be allowed �o go straight back 40 feet. IIe
explained that a sin�Ie f�mily home is permitted 11 feet per car, and this is res�ricted to 10 feet for
tw�n hames.
M�a�nds Vae� Plann�ra� C��ean�ssso� I�ov�rrn�er 3, 1999
Regeela�° I��e#in� �,.. , p��
Planning Assoc►ate Ericson sta�ed a 40-fooi curb cut would be as wide as many of the City streets,
and this wide a cueb cut might not be necessary. He explained that �t was unlilcely that multiple
vehicles would entet' and e�t at the same time. He added that some of the highee and mediuzn density
tovm horr►es are closer to the street, however, ihose on Krtollwood Drive and Silver Lake Road are
appro�rraateiy 45 feet from the street, and the driveways could accommodate aimast�3 vehicles.
Commissioner Hegland inquired if each half of th� twin home units was
pieces of property, with a zero lot line. Plaruvng Associate E���'�son s�
Commissioner Hegland pointed out they should have the - e op
as singte famiiy dwellings. He commented this makes �"� prope
definitian, these are zero Iat Iine properties, however, �h�� �re sti�
different parties,
Cammissioner Kaden stated he v�as in favor of the 32-
staff, in that 40 feet was an excessive arnount of pavetn
purchase this iype of property, however, he would, p€��-�
amoeant of pavemer�t. He added, from a safety st�t�d�a�irtt;
Commissioner Stevensan pointed out th�
and R-4 uses was for one singie propert�,;
he did not see how the issue of twi .��i�
Chair Peterson stated th�r� sha���ie a
zero lot line �t�ations, and �%p t�lde�` style
_ �_�
the issue a#� z���:lat iines ��it� �vi� driv�
Planning Asso
not
�ie ne
re
�wned, separate
correct,
two
indicaied he agreed with
�� .people might desire to
y ratl�er. purc;has�°a home with a lesser
��t per side �rt�uld be suf�ciently wide.
>
►���n� �17�`32-foot curb cut in R-2, R-3
��` ir�r�' acijoined properties. He sta�ed
�this statement.
n the two types of R-2 usage, the
�tevenson agreed. He added th�,t
, should be specifically addressed.
Iot line subdivisions are addressed in the Code, and have
their awn set af` r��t�i�'��aenis ari�� t��tri�'ions. He stated he was uncertain if there was anything
specificaiiy re �i� �t� C��y���'��! v�idths q�� curb cuts, however, there may be, and if the requirements
are chan . s�shoul���� b� t�dicated in the R-2 section of the Zoning Code. He explained there
is an e�„�. � section p�rtai��� �c3 �i-o lot Iine subdivisions, and deed restrictions and covenants that
ar� r�q�ired to be put in ������ �ith the property. He advised this would be the appropriate piace to
addr�ss this issue, rathe `"�an�atter�npting to address it in the ordinance.
�,"rirnrr�ssioraee Steve stated that at the widest, these properties are 20 feet, and inquired why they
��v��� w��szderin� �::�- �fooi curb cut for a single property. Planr�ing Associate Ericson expiained ihere
n����it b� � t��� �ome that is not zero lo� (ir�e subdivided, and is one parcei.
Commissioner 5tevenson cammented he was not aware of any apartment buildings in the iZ-3 or R-4
district that have a 32-foot curb cu�. Pianning Associate Ericson stated, at present, the widest curb
cut allowed in these districts is 30 feet.
I�o��cis Vaew Pl�a��in� Corremes�ioa� Novernbe�° �, 1999
I�e�ula� 1Vle�ta�� P� e�9
Commissioner Stev�nsan inquired if �here were many 30-foot curb cuts in the R-3 and it-4 distcicts,
at present. He explair�ed the z�ro lot line issue is a unique situation, and shouid be treated in that
manner, otherwise, it cauld result in 32�foot wide curb cuts where ihey rnight not be desirable.
Commiss�oner Kaden added it could even be misinterpreted, ir� the case of two properties, to allow
64 f�et, by adding the number of feet on each side. �-Ie pointed out this is probably ho�w the exis�ing
40 foot-curb cuts came about. � ��
Planning Associate Ericson explained �he only reason the ce�rb
side by side cases. He inquired iithe Commissian desired to �
R-3 and R-4 uses, - _,. ,
Commissioner Stevenson stated he did noi see any reasora
aware of any �Z�3 or R-4 cases, which utilized the ma3ci
explauled that if the iwin homes w�re on one parcel, they
curb cut, rather than a 40-foot curb cut, which in the �
currently exist.
Cammissioner 5tevenson stated he did not
adjoining propert�es with a dual driveway, ho
R-4 distric�s. He explained a single curb �`
same cur6 cut as a hack to back driveway,���
for R-2, R-3 and IZ-4 distric�s,
where all the driveways are joiz
Planning kssc�iate Ericson
Planned Ll�ii ���claptner���
sta�'was c�t��z��::��i�h th
garage on ��
restricted to t
actualty di
there
was
�k to
than 3
to allow for the
urb �ut for R-��
not
et. Planning f�ssoe�a�� Ericson
rec�uired to have a 3�-foot wid�
�a�l�Je�- Lake Road twir� homes,
��iri�t t.11�t situatioii to 30 feefi, in the case of
i���t t�ot c��s�re ihe 3U�foot width in all R-3 and
into � a�ul��p�� unit should not be allowed the
out fi�a� �%� �at�guage generalizes all curb cuts
ituaYio�s such as the four-plex developments,
would be addressed through the
to allow for these conside�-ations. He stat�d
cut in the case of a side by side twin home with a two-car
�n� individua( who rents the ather side, who wiIl then be
iha� ihe issue would be with the property, and whethec or not the
� two sepa�-ate pieces of property, not wi�h the ownership of �he
���a��' �'eterson stated � at Subdivision 5, Itenn b should be divided into separate areas, with R�1
�c.�ni��� indicatin� 2���: , and t�ree cases for iz-2 zoning. He explained that in the R-2 district there
v,Toul�i b;� ��in�� ,� • ly �ase where 32 feet would not be appropriate, and the current 30 feet rrught
�u��t �e' ��� ���k=�; and t�w� cases relating to whether or not the property is one parcel or two. He
�iate� €�'•�h�s is��z-�o� worded carefully, someone could inter�ret that 32 �eet is permissible for �-2 uses,
ai 32 feet per property, resuttiz�g in a 64 foot width.
Commissianer Fiegland inq�zired how the situations of �Z-1 uses in the R-2 di�trict came to exist.
Chair Peierson explair�ed the zaning has been in place for many years, and at some paint, someone
1Vlour�ds �'�e� Ptan�aang Co�mrssion I�ovember 3, 1999
Ite�e�i�r° Me�tirsg P��e �0
desired a sirzgle-family use in the R-2 district. Cornmissioner Hegland pointed oui that the zoning
could be changed, antt probably shou(d be to prevenf these situations.
Planning Associate Ec�cson stated that side hy side twin hornes in zero lot Iine subdivisions can be
addressed in the R-2 Zoning I�is�rict separately from this consideration. Commissio er Stevenson
commenfied he would like to see them considered separately, as it wauld be�confusi��� group R-2,
R-3 and IZ-4 together, and not include a specific reference to adjoined d�-��eways -
Chair Peterson advised if there are zoning incompatibilities,
thai time, these sifi.�ations should still be addressed. He reit,
consideratior�, and although this may be a temparaty situ�
regarding whether or not to down zone these properties�%'
Planning Associate Ericson advtsed this could be done
Comprehensive Ptan, as a Iogical next step to make t�
indicated stafi wouid make changes to the proposed �
meeting of ihe Pla�uung Commission. „
7. S��ff I�ep�r�is / Ite�ras of
Ao ��llboard iTpdate
Community Developmer�t
considei•atic�z�,which wa
cammunt�� �� ��3�ag as th
;:
delayed v��� t�� Gi�ty A
were any deer� x�,tt��Y�Q�s
the City Attorn��'� ��
circumstance����? f � ; ����
�� � ,:,<:<:;.<:.;.
..::::;:::;::
,4,r<�::
'4<...
Comm , Developm�ri�
>);`:' '
orig���I ordinance, and
Courtcil in this regard. _�
rd there
it is su�
hovvever,
;�s tl�at re
to
with the adoption oi the
ent to the [and use. He
ri� it forward at the ne�ct
�pke stat�ti �ever nths prior, staff dr�fted an ordinance far
for billbi.��`d� h�`,; - nditionaI use permit in certain areas of the
rtain sta�t�arc�s He indicated the discussion of this matter was
�i�wed issues concerning spot zoning, and whether or not there
�it� p�€�I�ihit billboards on the golf course property. Fie explained
r� iri+�i'�ates these issues might not be a problem under certain
?�``Jopke stated at this point, it is appropriate to further discu�s the
Planning Commi�sion to provide a recommendation to the City
��xxa��un�ty l�evelo��nt Director Jopke stated the City Aitorney has reviewed the ordinance and
%� �pnzt�er�t�d��'�%fhe conditional use permit process outlined in the praposed ordinance appears
, �A ..
ttr�v�� �q������; ��owever, the conditianal use permits could not be limited to City owned property.
�Ie �ur���r coitunented ihat due to the zaning of specific properties at the golf course, even if the City
grants a conditional use permit, the State may r�ot grant a�ermit, which would be necessary for this
to occur.
Community Ilevelopment Director Jopke pointed out that if the City desires to p�-oceed with
billboards, one alt�rnative would be to indicate ihe conditional use permit would be granted in th� :.
Mour�ds `Iie� Plan�af�e� Co�eer�isseore l�ovete�bee° 3, 1999
I�e�ul�a° I�Ieeti�� Pa�e il
C�ZP of PF Disiricts along a S�ate or Federal highways. He e�plained this language appears to
address the issue, more by district than by property awnership. He added that the City Attomey has
not reviewed th�s language, at this point.
Community Deveiopment Director requested the Commiss�oners discuss the specific q�dinance, and
determine ifthe� are comfortabie with fihe provisions iherein. He explaine� the Co��ssion should
alsa consider whether or not there shouid be a public hearir�g process in �s re�,�'� and what that
process shouid be. He noted ihere was previous discussion Yhai, ii�cr� s3����c� �� �'specific ordinance
for presentation to the public, and when the ordinance is sui����� �"or pub��c t'��z���, the Comm�ssi
should direci staf�regarding the pubtic process and how ��iotice it �a.�
r..,<. ���°�r » , ;<>,. .
Commissioner I�aden inquired if the ordinance required
perrrut woutd not be timited to City owned properties.
�omm�anity Deveiopment Director Jopke advised this �
sueh as the PF or CRP districts, however, there are
residential, and this would r►ot be an appropriate locat�a�
control over these properties, however, it woulc
use permits to State or Federai highways bec �_
billboards.
Commissioner Kaden inquired if thi
Community Developmen� D
and PF zoncc����?ro�erties witY
a strip of C�� ��d an
that ther`e �s st�t'm� €"t�un
other possibili�y >;;
Chair
,�t. Paul,
ds in St.
ds. �-Ie
Y
which
�ptce p
ty. �ie
e of I��
ate
that
use
through specific districts,
!;�anidst the single family
! ���ised thai �he City has
�•�lier limit Yhe conditional
�ro�riate locations for the
35�1 to additional billboards.
inmission with a map indicating the CRP
d is a portion oiland at ihe golf course, and
north o€ the Mobile Home Park. He added
Creek on Coueaty 10 and Highway 3SW that would be the
the outcome of the case in the city of St. Paul regarding
ir��tor Jopke stated this was a referendum vote ta ban billboards in the
; dei'eated during the electian. He advised there would be no ban on
; pointed out tha� the community should decide whether they desire
1; �ied the Commission can recommend to the Council that hiltboards ace
��de a recommendation on the specific ordinance that staf%' has draf�ed, and
City Council,
Commissianer Hegland inq�aired if the iunds gene�•ated from bitlboards placed upon �olf course
property would be directed to the goif course. Commututy Development I�irector Jopke sta�ed this
vvas correct. He explained that ar►y revenues received from billboards on that property would be used
to retire the deb� ai the golf course. H� sia�ed that a biiiboard ot� property ather than the goif course
would not be subje�t to that same provision.
�o�n�fs Veevv Pta�ni�� C'om�a�ssio� ' l��ee�b�r 3, 1999
Regeaiae° I�ieeta�� - �a�e 1�
Commissioner I�egland comrr�ented the billboard consideration was originaliy underiaken as an
attempt to retire the debt at the �olf co�arse more quickly. �ommunity Deveiopxneni Director Jopke
stated this was presented as an aliernative to produce revenue to assist with paying affthe eXisting
debt at th� goIf cours�.
Comrni�sioner Hegland inquired haw much revenue the billboards were esti
:,:,
what would be the effect on the debt at the golf ca�rse, and the City,;;�I��
bzllboards other propertges. ,� >
�enerate, and
proceed with
Community Development Director Jopke sta�ed the esttm '�revenue fi��nra �����,ards would r..
betw�en �1,000 to ��,000 per sign, p�r month, $I2,00 0�24,0 ��ez year, �-�� si���d :� as
uncertain regarding the i�npact �lvs would have on ho�vt���� the ��� at the goIf �s�t,s���� �> Id be
F �
paid. �
Commissioner Hegland •commented this was the origina�.�"►�ic��� �`t�� ��tt-suing billboards, however,
if it does not represent anything significant in ierms of re ring ii�a� d�b�, �� was uncertain why they
were proceeding wiih the matter. `
�z��
Community Development Direcior Jopke ��� ed a�€� �h�� �e ia�u�s `of revenue and debt are
consideratioxis of the Councii, and they rr�� ultimat�,�� t���,�� t�,�,t��cision regarding the economic
issues. He explained that the Planning � mtnissi���should I���x� tapon the land use issues and the
impact on the communitry, as this is ���� prop��+� �nput t` rovide to the City Council,
>:>:;��
Chair Peterson commented ihere a;. ared to l�e ��me ion in terms of the Highway I�epartment
policies and �h� zoning ���;��pl�rned that xb+�\�'�t�� given to the City with the provision thafi it
must be_��e� �'ox a pub�:�i�����, how�v���,���` 'ghway Departmenf reguiations requir� that
billboarc�$ ��t� t�n��r I�e alio���d qzi ca�mercial property. He stated this presented a conflict.
Community
Attorney°s ii
the �ernut�
i��`ise. He noted
�e, be willing ta i
bi�lboard owner ;
i ssianer
ec�t�� ��sp��` stated this might 6e tlie case. He reiterated the City
�ver t��.£�ity proceeds in this matter, the Sfiate must ultimately issue
�cd upon the fact that this.property is not zoned for commercial or
st��n thai the State may consider this more of a commercial use, and
�''permit, however, this is simply speculation, and wiil not be k�own
for a permit.
inquired if staff had conducted research of the ordinances relating to
7� communities.
�oixi�t�uri�t}�' "17eti�eiapment Director Jopke stated the cities of Arden Hills, New Brighton, and
Shoreview do not atlov� billb�ards. The research indicates that Shorevievv and Arden Hills prohibit
any new ballboards, and existing billboa.rds are grandfathered in. He poznted out that Shoreview is
attempting to remove billbo�rds ihrou�h redevetopment, as it comes forv,�ard.
I�ound� �Iiew Pla�a�i�a� Co�a�taassao�
1�Tm�vert��e�° 3, 1999
lte u�a�° �e�ti� I'a e �3
Chair Peterson stated they should consider this issue on a land use basis, in terms of wh�ther ar not
bitlboards axe apprapriate in the tand use desrgnations, and accotnplisiung �hat be restricting them to
the CRP and FF uses.
Commissioner �fevensor� commented thraugh the definition of CR.P and PF designated �reas, in terms
of reservation and ublic facitities bitlboards do not a ear to be a ro riate. H'��`ted he could
P � � PP PP �, ; ��
understand the piacement of bil�boa.rds in commercial districts, however, he`:�as c���erned regarding
their placement in areas such as parks and public facilities. ��. '
Chair 1'eterson agreed, adding that he does not believe bil �rds are c��ipai�bl�;��� tYus land .�;
and therefore, could not recommend in favor of them �`z ` e iurth �►clicated �ae t1�c�: rto� b��ve
billbaards were a ood use in a.ny land use district, ar�� ��f� of �;; milar vievv o��� ;;>��t�itnding
g
communities in that they should not be (ookin� to expand i�+c�� us�, bu� to restrict it
Commissioner Laube commented that in light of wha� they �� �; c�ez�`.��t� t��� eity of 5t. Paui and �Iae
surround'vig communities, and theu� atterripts io limit billbo�rds, 11e }��r�„a �rt�blem with the attempting
to allow them in the City. He added although the �o.e�`sur'�; in �t. Fa�l �ur�s ���ed down, it was by a
very nanow rnargin.
Commissioner Kaden stated he had a len
of billboards in St: Paut. I�e clarified
recent referendum was ta remove a ��Y'
P �
next 5 to 15 years. He explained -' :�'�i
condit'ton. He pointed out tt�at ti�";. rret
billboard is -,takeii down a��a,.r��ult of
�iscussia;� ����t� �;i� tt��altvtr�ual who had studied the issue
new h��oar�s �ie �1�°�ady banned in St. Paul, and the
��.��_
rly �0 50 peryc�r�� of ihe existing billboards within the
nd�, would ��ve actively removed billboards in good
��
�w �� �t. P; which bans new billboards, indicates if a
f�ir�ic��ix�rt , or destroyed by a storm, it may not be
Commissior3cr.t.��at�� sY�.ted this �°���en�ut�� came very close ta retnoving a percentage of billboarcEs,
in addition ta the c��:�� ��t, s�nset °%ur �T� �xplained ihis represents that citizens do not desire the
billboards that.�'�3i��u' ,�t��� .:,He adc�e� '�hat he does not desire to see billboards at the golf course.
«. > ,.
� oner Stevenso� �',�£���c� ��ie goifr course superintendent had seriously studied the zssue of
� �;:
placemer�t ta pre�ni �ray gatf balls from entering the highway for safety reasons, however,
st be a better rrn;�:ns to �ontrol this problem than billboards.
the Commissioners provide their Ieanings on this issue, as a directive for
�oir�mi�st���er �erke stated he was opposed to billboards in any type of a park or golf course. He
explained they have at�empted to create a nice faciliiy with the golf course, ar�d placing billboards �n
the middle of it to generaie some revenue, in his opinion, would be ihrowing bad after good, and
destroying a nice recre�tgonal area.
IVlound� V�ew Pla�a�in� Core���s�ion Noverrab�r 3, �999
�e�aiar I�Iee�in� , P�age 14
Cotnmissioner Kaden stat�d he agreed that placing billboards in PF or CRI' areas was nat a good
idea. He explained Ehese areas were intended to present a nice appearance, and billboards would not
iurther or enhance that p�arpose. �Ie explained although the economic considerations were not within
ihe purview of the Planning Commission, he has asked several of his r�eighbors if they would be in
favor of billboards on City owned praperty to h�lp with the City budget, and possibly event raising
ta�ces in the future. He stated that each individual emphatically stated they�;would r���ie in favor o�
this, and tivs aff'ects his decision on the matter. He commented he had per�o��all�r; ��empted ta view
this matter with an open mind, in terms of a means to assist v�i the Cai�y'hud��t.
Commissioner Hegland commented that the economic
positive side to this consideration, in his opiruon. He sta
the effori staff and the Commission have dedica�ed to it,
the issue, than they would ever stand to 6enefit fram ii.
to pursue the rnatter.
Community Development Director Japke inquired if
a resolution indicattng they do �ot believe additional
Chair P�terson siated this was his under
clarification regarding billboard and sign �
information has come aut of this effbrt, e
to the issue. He stated it woutd be un�to p
p , ,.�
VXIS�. �C`> SEG
ri �\.!'<'Ri?��"F
�.OI71IT1liYllty
at the ne�=:�:r
::
of
C€�e�
3opke
was the c��i�;��z�l iz�i
does�c�� �elzeve ���
�
ey ���e run snto rric
�ct� �e was not in fa
and the c��y
��
�ausi��� all
,uY
�t������ with
s� continuing
1zi1� ����sion desired to consider
s are'����-�pr���� in the community.
research has provided
�� e���`� t� �x�r�ting signage, and some good
re wei �"�lst� �oine Iegal questions witt� regard _
C�ty � situation where legal question might
ld prepare a resolution for consideration
Comrr►unity ��t��met�� �i•�ctor Jo�1�� re}�orted at the Work Sessian the previous Monday, it was
pointed o��Eiat Comrriiss�c�rt�r� i�iller, Stevenson; and Johnson's terms wil! expire ai the end of the
�: ,
year. ����tated Mayor �ctiu�akzr� z�5dicated if the Commissioners desire to seek re-appointment, they
sho ,= eapp(y for the pos�ti����:
�::�; �
y . >;<x.:> � . .
:f�� �� �
���;r �,;
�`�:1'eterson inquir �f the fartnal appiication process was required for re-appointment to the
����ag Cornfnissio �;: ammunity Development Director Jopke stated ii was his understanding that
,�,� a
��� �atnir�$stc������s�►ould comptete an applicaiion. Chair Petersort advised that applications were
a��t��U�� �� t�� �nt counter for anyone who is interested in applying for these positions.
Cornn7urury I3evelopment I�irector �opke stated Mayor Coughlin Indicated he would iike to ha,ve the
appointments made prior to the end of the year, to provide there is a full complimez�t of
Commissioners for the commencement of terms in the upcoming year.
,
i
Moaenc3s �Iae� �la�reon� Cor�messaoa� I��ve�reEa�r �, 1999
R�ula�° 1�Ie�ti�ag Pa�e 1S
Community l�evelopment Director Jopke stated there was further discussion at the Council Wor�C
5ession regard�ng the p�ablic heari�;g process, �-Ie explained the City Council is not required to hold
public hearings on ordinances, a(though there is some questian as to whether or not that is
appropriate. He stated there was discussion with regard io public hearings on ordinances in the
future, anci optfons to ins�are the public is made aware of the ordinances. He stated �here was also
a suggestion ihat public hearings be held on resolutions and other items which p��> larly impact
ta�es or represent a financial impaci to the cii�zens. �ie noted discuss�on c��"fee ln�ieases in building
related areas, and added he had provided the Council with ��update ��;th� �omprehensive Plan
process.
Ce iTpcom��e� Pl��nang Case�
Planning Associate Ericson siated ai th� ne� meetjng o�the'���i�r�ing Commission ��t�:�`e �vould be
considerat�on of a request for a conditiona[ use pennit ana ��v��c��it��;ent review to allovv �or an
expansion at Sunrise Church, located at the corner oiLc��'��1�� �o�d �t�d Caunty Road I, �3e
commented additional cases could carrte forv✓a.rd, how�er, no ai�et £t�����1 applications have
been submitted at this time. ����
I)o PEa���ng Co�ea�ession�r'�
Pl�nning Associate Ericson provided
Comtnissioner's Journal, ,�
�.
No
9.
Chairperson and
1=1
There bemg n�.,fi��-�I�er �trs�ess be�
the meetir�����:34 p°.m� ;
��.
r��� :>.
�:
(The meetaaa'� �t��tn�di
;,:
�: `:
�:.
° ctfully submitted
,��.
.
�
�
�+,+15. ����ll . 3�. .
�orr��tt���� �evelopment I3irector
'iranscrihed by:
Trish Pearson
TanaeSaver 4ff SiPe Secreta�ical, Inc.
of �he Planning
��e
P(anning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned
adjourned to the Agenda Session)
N:IDATAIUSERSU3ARBB\STrARE1KEBP IT\WPDOCS�IVlINiITES11999111-03-99.WPD
i
I�/fO�TD� i�I�'� PI.AI+�III�TG COIV�MI�SIOI�T
]3eee�ber 1,1999
7:OU P.TVI.
REGULAR MEETING
I�GENDA
l. Ca11 to Order
2. RoII Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
�,� �; . ;,. �; . ,� , f : ��. ,�� .�� �. ; ��;
�
� , ;�; � ���. .� • l�: �;1 . . ,' 1 i �: :
4. Approve Ivlinutes:
a. November 3, 1999
5, Planr�ing Case l�doo �74-99
Property Involved: 7687 Long Lake Road
Consideration of Itesolution 598-99 regarding a request for a Condifiona.l Use Permit
for Sunrise United Methodist Church and a I3evelopment Review to allow an expansion
to the Church facility.
Applicant: Vanman Companies (Representing Sunrise)
b. Consideration of Resolution 599-99 regarding TOI�I) proposal for a Wa.lgreens on the
Videen praperty and the adjacent City Remnant Parcel.
7, Specia� Plana�ing C�se I�o. SP-074�99
Discuss revisions to proposed Ordinanca 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code
related to driveway widths and curb cuts.
8. Staff Reports / Itenns of Infoxmation
a. Previous Council Actions
9. Chairperson and Plarining Comanissioners Reports
10. Adjourrunent to Agenda Meeting
(Imrnediateiy Following Regular Meeting)
��������*�*����*�*�*��*�*�*��*��**�*��*�
APPLICANTS : YOUR ATTENDANCE A'i '�HIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMiJNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 7I7-4020
IF Y�U ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
��*��*��*�*��������������:��*��**�:�*����
AGENDA SESSION
AGENDA
1. Comprehensiva P(an Review
N:\DATA\GI20UPS\COMDE VIPLANCOIvIlb1\PCAGENDAU 999\l2- S -99.REG
a
r #: � .: . �., � � � � �; -
M�etan� D�t�o
�taff Repo� byo
Plan�i�g Case No.e
Req�es�a
Petitioaee�°:
I���atian:
`,' '!°.� '? �
December 1, 1999
James Ericsor�, Planning Associate
574-99, 575-99
The applicani is requestirng a Conditronal Use Pe�rrrtii and
Development Review to expand the Church by adding o�ce space
and classrooms.
Varunan Companies representing Sunrise United Meth. Church
7687 I,ong Lake Road
OS-30-23-22-0038
Pr�s��t Zo�ing/Lanc� Ilseo R-1, Single Family Residentiai / Church
Appl�eable Iteg�alateons:
���i{gro�and:
Section 1008. 06 states that a development review is required for all
residential, commercial or indusirial developnrkent or redevelopment,
Section IlOb. 04, Subd. 1 lists the CUP requirements for Churches
and oiher public or semi-public institutianal uses.
Section 112S.OI lists the generai C€IP and adverse affects criteria.
Section 1121.131ists the parking requiremenis for Churches and all
other types of uses.
The applican�, Vanman Companies, repres�nting the property owner, Sunrise United Methodist
Church, is requesting approval of a conditional use perr�ut and development review to ailow for the
expansion of their Church facility located at 7687 Long Lake Road. The expanded areas will serve
as additional space within the sanctuary and child care areas, wiit provide for office space for the
pastor and other church workers and wiil add a�neeting room and rr►ulti-use space for the staf� and
congregation.
The expansion areas will be of brick construction and wiil match the e�erior of the existing
b�ailding. The total area of the expansion planned is 7,477 square feet for a total build out area of
20,4b4 a.fter project completian. There will be a new covered entryway that connects to a new
drop-off potni adjacent to the parking lot, an expansion and reorieniatio�r of the worship area to
increase seating capacity to 36� from the existing 275. In addition, there will be an expansion to
accammodate additional space for Sunday school services. A kitchen area wiil be added along
with same rr�ulti-purpose space, conferenc� rooms, and office space for the Pastor and Church
staff. There wili not 6e an increase in services pro�rided by the facility other than being able to
accommodate rnore members in the sanc�aary at a sin�le service.
Sunrise CI�P
December 1, 1999
Page 2
CiJ� �iscu�s�on:
The specific CUP requirements, which appear in Section 1106.04 of the Zorung Code, relate to the
appropriate front and side yard setbacks, minimum loi size , screening and parking requirements.
As stated and discussed at the Planning Commission on November 17, 1999, all of the speci%c
requirements for the Church �acility are met.
As is the case with every conditional use permit application, the Planning Commissian and City
Coue�cil are to consider a set of general requirements and address the adverse effects of the
proposal, if any. In this case, a(1 of the general requirements, which appear in Section 1125.01,
Subd. 3b, are sufficiently addressed a�d satisfied. The Church, wh�ch has existed in this location
since 1957, provides a desired service to the residents of NTounds `liew and the surrounding
communities. To staiis knowledge, ihere are no probiems or issues directly relating to the
operation of Sunrise Church. The use does not present any kraown adverse impacts to any
adjoining properties or to the community in general.
Given these conclusions, staff believes the granting of a conditional use permit for th� Sunrise
Ur►ited Methodist Church wauld be appropriate.
De�elmpr�ee�� R�vsevv Descusseon:
Dimensional Re ui�ements:
Lot Area
F'ront Setback (Long Lake)
Front Setback (County Rd. I)
Sideyard Setbacks
Parking lot �etback {east)
Parking to� Setback (west)
Parking Iot Setback (north}
Parking lot Setback (sQUth}
Parkin� s�alls {1:4):
Re uired
1 acre
35 feet
3 5 feet
30 feet
30 feet
5 feet
5 feet
S feet
92 stalis
I'roposed
6.4 acres
75 feet
47 feet
105 feet
60 feet
2 feet (existing)
80 feet
4�0+ �'eet
9� stalls
Met?
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
No
Met
Met
Met
As can be seen, other than the exception of the non-conforming parking lot setback, all of the
dimensional requirements for this facility are satisfied. In terms of the parking lot setback, because
(1} this is a premexisting condition, (2) be�ause the parking Iot will not be a(tered in any way, and
(3) beca.use the extent of the non�confarrnity will not 6e changing, stafirecomme�ds that the non-
conforming setback be allowed to continue untii such time that the parking Iot is reconsiructed or
repaved. A stipulation indicating as much is present in �he resoiutiot� recommending approvai.
Sur�ris� CUP
December° 1, 1999
Page 3
Pai-king:
The seating capacity of the worship area is increasing by nearly 100 seats, from �75 ta 3b8, Using
the required ratio of I space per every 4 seats, 92 stalls would need to be provided. At present
there are 9� s�alls in t�e parking lot which would be adequate to accommadate the e�pansion.
Welland Bu�'fe�:
The construction and expansion activities on the site will not encroach into the 100-foot wetland
buffer, thus no permits of that sort are necessary.
Landscapin�
�Ihile there are no explicit plans showing proposed landscaping, the Church does plan on t-eplacing
the landscaping to be removed with similar materials. Because t�he extent of ti�e expansion is
minimal considering the total lot area, and because there is already extens�ve landscapFng provided
that would remain after th� expansion, staff is not requiring ihe applicant to submit anything formal
in this regard.
l�ecoenmenda��aa�:
Based on the discussions and direction given from the Commission's previous meeting on
1Vovember 17', 1999 and the information presented herein, staff believes that the criteria for
granting both a conditional use permit and development r€view are met and as such has drafted for
the Planning Commission's action Resolution 598�99.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDEVCASES1574-991SUNRISE.PC2
. ;� � � c , ri-, � i �, ,.
. . � ;; ;r , ;� �.;; � F
_� � � �
� �
=f : � �� ��r-� �.. ; �. �, �: ;,,
. .� �, � > ; �i ��. �. ; � � � � � i ���� .i r�, _ .: �� � �� � . :, � .i� ; �_ � ��; ;- r : � �� . �, ; ;
� � �� �t: ; � ��. .r r : , � � ;., �.. � �, �: � . r , f :. �; � � �. ,� ,.: � �
f . � r : � f ; ., r; :,, ,; ; � : �. .., �; � : r
��- i �: ; ,� ,
�EItEAS9 �Ianman Companies, representing 5unrise LTnited Niethodist Churchp has
applied for a conditional use per�nit and develapment review to e�cpand the Church fa�ility Iocated
ai 7687 Long Lake Road; and,
+ AS,the subject property is zoned I�-1, Single Family Reszd�ntial, is designated as
a"Church° use on the Comprehensive Plan a�d is legally described as follows:
The wesi 3�8. S feet of that part of the NW % of the N4V % of
Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, lying Nor�h of the North Line of
the South IS acres thereof,• subject to County Road 1 and Long Z,ake Road.
AS, according to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds \lievv Nlunicipal Code, any new
construction or expansion of existing facilities rec�uires the approval of a develapment review; and,
1�'HEREAS, according io Section 1.106.04 of the �Vlounds View Zoning Code, churches
and other insritutional-type uses require a condiiional use permit to op�rate within the R-1 zoning
district; and,
� AS,the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
a. Planning �,pplication
h. Zonir�g Nlap
c. Location Map
d. Site Plarr, date-stamped 10/29/99
e. Floor Pian and Elevations, date-stamped 10/29/99
f. StaFf Report
+ AS,the dimensional r�quirements assoczaied wiih this use ar� a11 m�t, with the
exc;eption of an�xisting two-f�t �on-conforming paridn� loY setback adjac�nt �o I�ong Lalce Itoad;
aild� y
Planning Commission �tesolution 598-99
, December 1, 1999
Page 2
Eid�AS, The Mounds `Iiew Planning Commission acknowledges the pxesence of
wetlands on ihe Church progerty yet finds that the areas af building expansion fall outside of the
1Q0-foot buffer surround'zng the wetland; and,
S, the site plans date-sta.mped 10/29/99 indicate that the existii�g Church a�rea
of 13,000 square feet wili be incxeased by approximately 7,500 square feet for a total build-out
area of 2Q,500 square feet; and,
AS, according ta said plans, the seating c�pacity of the w�rship area will increase
from 2i5 to accammodate 368 people; and,
. I�AS, ther� are 98 parking stalls presentiy available on the site which, according
to �eetion 1121.13 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, exceeds the minitnum numher of stalls
�equired to be provideci for 3f 8 seats; and,
��E�AS, The 1Vlounds �liew Pianning Commission has considered the specific criteria
for Chucches and other institutional use facilities as ihey appear in Seciion 1105.04, �ubdivision 1
and finds that they are met; and,
VV�E�A�, the 1Vlounds View Pianning Commission has considered the provisions from
Section 1125.01(1}e of the Zoning Code regarding possible adverse e�%cts of the proposed use and
makes the following findings:
(1) Relatronship toMunicipal ComprehensivePlan.
(2) The geographrcal area involved.
(3) WhetheY such use will tend to or actually depreciate ihe area in which it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(S) The demonstrated need for such use.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as "Church", which is consisient with the R-1 zoning
of this site. Sunrise Church, which has e�sted at this location for more than 40 years, provides a
desired service to the residents of the City and neighbaring comrriunities. The property is bordered
by public streets on its wesi, north and south boundaries and bordered by r�edium and high density
residential on its east side. The proposed expansion would be in keeping wiih the existing design and
architecture and would not detraci from ihe charactec of the surrounding area.
�� A�, The Mounds View Planning Cammission makes the follawin� findings that the
general criteria for CUP approval in Subdivisior� I 125.01 (2) have been met:
(1) The use will not create an excessive buNden on existrng parks, schools, streets and ot`her publac
facrlities and utYlities lvhich serve or ape proposed to se�-ve the area.
�t is �ot expected tha.t the expansion ofth�s us� will have any zmpact an parks, schools; streeis
�lanning Commission Resolutian 59�-99
December I , 1999
Page 3
and other puh(ic iacilities and ut'rlities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
(2} The use tivill be sufficienlly compatible op separ'ated by distance or screening from crdjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will
be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
The Church property is bordered on three sides by public streets�-Long Lake Road to ihe
west, County Road I to the north and Bronson I�rive to the south. To the east, the Church
abuts both medium and high density residential properties. These praperties are at least one
hundred feet away at their nearest point and as far away as 500 feet from ihe Church. The
magnitude of the separatian, in sta.�s opiruon, is of a sufficient distance so as to not have any
depreciatory effect on the residential properties.
(3) The structure and site shall hcrve an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
The existing Church, given its separation from o�her uses, iits weti in this area and is
aestheticaliy pleasing. As evidence of this, ihe Churcln and the architect who designed it
received an award in 1967 for architectural excellence from the I�innesota Society of
Architects. The expansion wili tnatch the appeara�ice and desigr� of the existing structure and
will add to the overall appearance of �he community.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the Ciry
and to the existing land use,
The fact that the Church has esisted in this location for 42 years with a consistent and
growing congregation is proof alone that ihe use satisfies a community need, Its expansion
is a direct result of the Church's growing congregation and its desire to be more responsive
to its membership.
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zonrng Code and the purposes of the zoning district
in which the applicarat intencis to locate the proposed use.
Churches and other institutional uses are conditionally permitted within the R-1, SingIe-family
residentiai dist��ict.
(6) The use is not in con.flict with the Co�nprehensive Plan of the Cfty.
The Comprehensive Fian designates this property as a"Church" use. Churches and other
institutional uses are conditionally perrnitted within the A� 1, �ingte�farnily residenti�i district.
(7) The use will not cause tt�afftc hazards or congeshon.
Staff is un�ware of any cangestion problems on I.ong Lake I.toad as a resuli of �he Church's -
services. The additionat traf%c �enerated by the expansion would not add a.ny significant
Planning Commission Resolution 59�-99
�ecember 1, 1999
Page 4
volume ta Long Lake Road, a Ramsey County four lane collecior roadway, a s�reet designed
to accotnmodate higher volumes of traffic. Also, the times during which the Church would
have its greatest impact upon the street is also a period of relatively low traffic counts. Given
these iacts, it is not anticipated that use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
(8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drai��age anci necessary faerlrties have been oY }vill be
provided.
All of the infrastructure serving this site are insta.iled and provided--no additionai
infrastructure will be needed to accommodate this use or its expansion.
I���' F� �E IT OI.. that the iVEounds View Planning Commission,
fmding that all of the requirements have been met, does hereby recommend that the City Council
approve a conditional use permit and development rev�ew for the operation and �xpansion of the
Sunrise United IVlethodist Church as requested by �lanman Companies, �ith the following
stipulations:
1. 'ii�te design and character of the expanded areas shall match and complement the existing
architecture of �he Church.
2. ihe existing non-con%rming parking lot setback shall be allowed to persist until such time
tha� the parking 1ot is reco�structed or resurfaced and the non-conformity can be
corrected.
3. 'I�vo additional parking stalls shall be marked and posted as "handicapped" to comply with
ADA requirements.
4. The appiicant shall be responsible for reeording ihe City Council resolution of approval
with Ramsey County within 60 days of final approvai.
�E I'� O� that the Mounds `Iiew Plannit�g Commission directs Staff
to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted �his 1 st day af Decemberc, 1999.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTE�T:
IZic�CJopke, C�mmunityI3evelopmentl)irector
- (SEAL}
N:\DA'FA\GROUPS\COMDEV \DfiV CA5ES1574-99\598-99FC.RES
,1
' r: ; � �� �
� ��
, �:;
Too Mounds View Planning Commission,
Fa°o�nn: Rick Joplce, Community Deveiopment Director
S�bjeci: TOLD Proposal for Videen Properry and City Remnant Parcel
I��ie: November 24, 1999
On November 17, 1999 the Planning Cammission reviewed a development concept presented by
TOLD Development Co. to consttuct a Walgreens store on the property sotzth of ihe Mounds
View Community Center curreniiy owned by Mr. Videen. TOLD is requesting that the City trade
the approxirnately 1%a acre remnant parcel created by the realignment of Edgewood Dr. for
approxirnately 7.� acres of ihe eastern portion of the Videen site. A major portion of the 7.4 acres
is wetlaild.
The Planning Comtnission directed staff to pY•epare a resolutian in support of the concept for
consideration at the December l, 1999 meeting. Staff has drafted the attached resolution for
Planning Commission consideration.
REQUESTED ACTION: It is requested that the Planning Commission pass a resalutian
indicating general support or nonsupport of the TOLD concept for the use of the Videen property
and the adjacent city owned parcel.
N:II7ATA\GROiTPS1COMDEVIPLANCOMM\12-1-99 TOLD report.doc
1ViO�i)S �II��I PI.AI�INII�G COIVIIVlI�SIOI�I
��Oi,iJ'�'IOI�I 1�0. 599-99
r - , ,� , . , ,+ ,�
i-� � � `��, ��1 " �'=
�. � �
.: . ;�. -: �, � :' ��� '° � �� 1� �I� 1 : '��� �1:� '' �I'� �- ° �° �'� ,. ���. .1 ,. ,, ;� , �,, �, :�;
,..
VJHEREAS, th� Mounds View City Council has aslced the Planning Commission to
revi�w the TOLD Development Ca. concept for the Videen parcel and city owned remnant
parcel; and
WHEREAS, the PlannuYg Commission has �eviewed the TOLD Development Co.
(TOLD) praposal and made the following findings:
1. The �roposed retail/restaurant/clinic land uses if designed properly are
compatible with surraunding land uses. TOLD has indicated a wiilingness
to design the st�zctures and use building inaterials which are cansistent
wiih adjacent buildings.
2. The proposed development is isalated from residential uses.
3. The proposed land use is consistent with the future land use designation of =
the site as shown an the draft comprehensive plan cu��ren#ly being rerriewed
by the Planning Cominission.
4. The proposed use is consistent wi�li the current zoning of the Videen
property. Rezoning of the city remnant parcel would be �equired.
5. TQLD is willing io relocate the stormWater holding pond on the remnant
parcei at their expense.
6. TOLD is willing to trade approximately 7.4 acres of land for
approximately 1.5 acres of Iand. The City could use the 7.4 acres of land
to protect the existing wetland, to provide additional recreatianal
opportunities, and to provide s�ormwa#er improvements.
7. TOLD is willing to con#ribute towaxds the cast of recreational
improvements on the 7.4 acre parcel.
8. TOLD will attempt to have the existing billboard removed.
9. The Park and Recre�tion Commission has indicated general support of the
TOLD proposal.
10. The TOLD proposal is the best that has been presented and the developer
is willing to work with the city to address all issues.
11. The Planning Commission is concerned ihat the praposal could result in
addiiianai city maintenance expenses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Plaraning Comnaission
supports the TOLD concept and wouid support the proposed land swap. Approval oi ai�y specific
developrnent proposal should be through f.he normal city development review process after any
required public hearings are held. The Planning Commzssion reserves the right to make
add'ztional specific recommendations through this process.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Conunission directs staff to fozward this
resolution to the City Council prior ta approval of the minutes.
Attest:
Adopted this 1 st day of Decembex, 1999.
Jerry Peterson, Cl�airperson
Rick Joplce, Cammunity Developmeni Director
N:\DATA\GROUPS\C�MDEVIPLAI�iCOMM1PC TOLD Resoluteon 12149.doc
/ � �" �
� - � � �a� - � ��' -
To: 1Vlounds tliew Planning Commission
�rom: Jatnes Ericson, Ptanning Associate
SubjecC: Special Planning Case No. SP-074-94
Date: IVV�eeting of December l, 1999
:.=, � ; i x<:
Proposed Ordinance b42, which has been discussed at your four previous meetings, has been
revised as directed and is presented to you for a recom�nendation of approval to tl�e City Council.
At�ached is Planning Commission Resalution 600a99, which accomplishes this.
Re�om��nda��ono
Approve l�esolution 600-99, a resolution recommending to the City.Council approval of proposed
Ordinance 642 regarding curb cuts and driveways widths.
�3 �}.,vv�c� ����--
7ames Ericson, Planning Associate
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COIvID�V1SPECPROJ1SP074-991MEM04.PC
. :
� �+-
'_ � : ''= °�� i � "�. ;1 ° �, �i "��. `�,
�> _ ;! '' �'
!: 1' �'._..
f'��� ;,��, • �� I� � 1 1' :' t � �, �� , �- , r �,
1 :: ; � ��: ��; � 1: �.. ��, 1� �� `��. �" �I°'' �: ` _ i� 1 '� : :'; �, .I �i � � . : ���
1. ;� Is ; '. �:
' 1 -� ! • �. � . � �' � . �
S�CT�0�11. Title 1100, Chapter I 104 of the Nlounds �1iew Municipal Code pertaining io
general zorung provisions shall be amended by the addition of the rtalrcrzed ayzd double-
underlined language and the deletion of the � language in Section 1104.01,
Subdivision 4 to read as follows:
�ubd. 4, Minimum Setbacks for Accessory Buildings, I�riveways and Farking Areas:
a. Accessory Buildings {detached from a principal building): (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(i) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-O:
(a) front: no accessory building shall be lacated between ihe front of the
prir�cipal building and ihe front lot iine. (Ord. 590, 11-25-9b}
(b) side: five feei (5'} except the minitnum setback shall be thirty feet {30')
from any lot Iine abutting a public stree�. (Ord. 590, 1�-25-96)
(c) rear, including street frontages at the rear of through Iots: five feet (5').
(Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(2) All other districts:
(a} front: no accessory buiiding shall be located between the front of the
principal building and the front lot line. (Ord. 590, 11�25-96}
(b) sid�: same as principal building. {Ord. 590, I 1-25-96)
{c) rear; same as principal building, except accessory buiidings havin� four
hundred (400) square feet or less and not abut�ing properiy in a residential
d�strict or a. streety may ha.ve a minimum rear setback oiten feet {10'}.
(Ord. 590, 11-25-96}
Ordinance 642
Page 2
b. Driveways:
(1) Driveways shall have a minirrxum setback of five feet (5') from any lot line,
except as pernutted in Section 1104.01, Subd. 4b c 1 a a�d Section 1121.15,
Subd. 2 of this Title. Driveways shall be pernutted to cross a required setback area
in order to establish access between the iot and a pubiic street. Vdhere a driveway
would encroach into an easement, the property owner sha11 obtain an
encroachment permit if required by the City prior to construction of the driveway.
Drive aisles and driveways which are within the boundaries of a parking area shail
conform to ihe seibacks required %r parking areas. {Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(2) Driveways in e�stence as of ihe daie of enactment of Qrdinance 620 and
which do not conforrn to the provisions of this subsection, may continue subject to
the provisions o� Section 902. 02. Suhdivision 2 .,
. (ord. stio, 7-27-9g)
c. Parking Areas:
(1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, RyO:
(a} residentiai uses;
ParkinQ lots and drivewavs shall be set back five feet (5'), except in
the R-1 and R-2 districts, parking areas and driveways shall be
permitted with a setback of one foot {1') provided the owner(s) of
the abutting lot(s) indicates iheir permission on a form acceptable
to the City. Where a parking area would encroach into an
easement, �he property owner shall obiain appz-oval for an
encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior
ta constntctiori of the driveway.
(Ord.
524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590, 11-25-96; Ord. 620, 7-2'7-98)
{b) non-residentiai uses:
Pa�king lots and drivewavs shall be set back f�ve feet (5') excepi
where non-residential uses abut property in a residentiai district, the
setback for parking areas from the common property line shall be as
follaws: (Ord. 590, 11-25-96j
[i�. for sites having two and one-half (2.5 } acres or less:
iwenty feet (20') (Ord. 590, 11-25-9b)
[ii], for sites havi�xg more than two and onewhalf (2.5} acres:
thtrty feet {30'} (Oi-d. 590, T 1-25-96)
Ordinance 642
Page 3
(2) �-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 (parlcing areas and loading docks):
(a) front: thirty feet (30') (Ord. 590, 11m25-96)
{b) side and rear: five feet (5'), excepi where a non-residenYial use abuts
a property in a residential district, the setback �for parking areas
from the common p�•op�rty line shall be as stated in Sectiox�
1104.01 subdivision 4c{1}(b}. (Ord. 590, i 1-25-96)
(3) I�l (parking areas and loading docks):
{a) front: forty feet (40') (Oed. 590, l 1m25-9b).
(b) side and rear: five feet (S'), except where a non-residentiai use abuts
a property in a residential disirict, the setback for parkir�g area�
fram ihe common property line shall be as stated �n Section
1i�4.01 subdivision4c(1){b). {Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590,
11-25-96}
(4} Parking areas in existence as of ihe date of enactmeni of Ordinance b20 ;)
and which do not conform to �he provisions oiihis subsection, may continue
subject to the provisions of Section 1123.02 subdivision lb. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98)
SECTIOI� 2. Title 1100, Chapter 1107 of the Mounds View Murucipal Code pertairung to zero
lot Iine subdivisions shall be amended by the addition of the italrcrzed and double-unde�lined
langlaage and �he deletion of the strte��� language in Section 1107.07, Subdivision 3 io
read as follows:
5ubd. 3. Specif c Requirements for Resulting Dwelling Units:
a. Area Requirements: Six thousand two hundred fifty (6,250) square feet.
b. Lot Width: Fifty feet (SO') per dwelling unit.
c. Setback Iiequirements:
{1) Front Yard: Thirty feet (30').
(Z} Rear Yard: Thirfy feet (30'}.
(3) Side Yard (wh�re appiicable}:
(a) Ten feet (10').
(b) Thirty fee� (30') on streei side of corner lot.
Ordinance 642
Page 4
d. Drivewav Widths: The width of the drivewav ser�vicin� one dwellin� unit shall rrot
exceed the widPh o that a'�-vell.in unit's ara e. When loccrted side-b -side drivewa s
shall maintain a minznrlrm four-foot (47 sevaration unless the affected nro�ertv owners
have filed a right of wav and nraintenance ar�eement with Ramsev Countv. crccording to
the p�ovisians of Sectron 1121.15, Subd 2 of this Tztle pertainin�to�oint drivewavs.
e. Curb Cut Width: The width of a curb cut servicing one dwellrng unri shall not exceed
t►��entv feet (20'). In Phe event ofa common or iornt drivewav se�vicing botlz units. the
width o the cuYb cut shall not exceed t1�ir -six eet 36' .
�ECT'IOi�13. Titie 1100, Chapter 1121 of th� Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining �o ofi
streEt parking requirements shatl be amended by ihe addition of the italicized and double-
under�li»ed language and the de�etion of the language in Section 1121.09, to read
as foilows:
1121.09: S'i'A.I,I.9 AI�I.E AI�I� D ��AY I)ESIGI�:
Subd. I. Parking �pace �ize: Each parking space shall not be less ihan nine £eet {9') wide and
eighteen feet (l�') in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shait b� served
adequately by access aisies.
5ubd. 2. Within Structures: The aff-street parking requirements may be furnished by providing
a space so designed within the principal buiiding or one attached thereto; however, unless
provisions are made, no building pertnit shall be issued to convert said space into a
dwelling unit or living area un�il other adequate provisions are made to comply with the
required off street parking provisions of this Title.
Subd. 3, Circulation: Except in the case of single-family, two-fami(y and townhouse dweliings,
parking areas �hall be designed so that circutation between parking bays or aisies occurs
within fhe designaied parking lot and does not depend upon a public street ar ailey.
Except in the case oi sin�te-family, two-family artd tov✓nhouse dwellings, parking area
design which requires backing into fihe public street is prohibited.
Subd. 4. Dimensions:
a. In the R�1 zonin district the contbined wrdth o�° drivew and attached a�l�in
areas shall �ot exceed thir•tvm�ve feeP (35') or the width o,�t�e ga�age �lus an additional
twelve feet (12'}. whichever is �eater.
b Except in the ease of singie-family, two-famiiy and townhouse dwellings, parking
areas and their aisles shall be devetoped in compliance t�vith the fol(awing standards:
Ordinance 642
Page 5
�neie
45°
60°
i5°
90°
Vilalt to
Tnterlock
Minimutn
Dimension !�
44.8'
52, 5'
6I.3'
63.0'
Ir�terlock to
Interlock
Minimum
Dimension B
43.0'
51.0'
b1,0'
63.0'
1�' ;;
,._ - _ _...._
"� � � - � � �.'�.. .._._, __.
;.
�
,
_. .: ,-�--�-:-: :� . , _mm..._
a Parallel Parking: 22 feet in Length
Subd. 5. Curb Cuts and Driveway Op�nings:
Wall to
Wall
Minimum
Dimension C
47.0'
54.0'
62.0'
63.0'
a. No curb cut access shall be located less than fifty feet (50') from the intersection of two
(2) or more street rights of way. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of
1ot Iines.
b. Cur�b C7ct w/'idths. Widths of curb cuts shall be as follows. subiect to reauirements of
subdivisiat� Se hereof.•.
_ � _ � �
Ordinance b42
Page 6
, _
7'v�� ��� ���e� �1�� l�i�tr�auta�
: ,, ; � ;
, ;: . �t�t!$ m�" �'�r�b ��t .. .
Srn�le �'ajnilv Reside�tial (R-1)
Manuiactu�ed Homes (R-5) 24 Feet
Zero Lot Line Subdivisions (R-2� I8 Feet
Ze�o Lot Line Subdivisions (R-2)_ 36 Feet
(with combrned drivewavs)
Mediu�n Densitv Residential (R-2. R-3) 32 FeeP
Hi�h Densitv Residential (R�4).
Residential Offace (R-O)
CorrtmeYCial. �ndarstr�ial 32 Feet
(B-I. B-2. B-3. B-4. I-I )
Public Parks & Preservatr'on Areas 32 Feet
PF C.RP
c. Curb cut openings shall be at a mirumum of ihree feet (3'} from the Iot line in residen�ial
districts and five feet (5'} from the iot iine in business or industrial districts.
d. Driveway access curb openings on a public street, except for single-family, two-family
and townhouse dwellings, shall not be located less than forty feet (40') from one ano�her.
e. Each property elevation oi any parking area shall be allowed one curb cut access for
each one hundred twenty five feet (125') of street frontage. All property shall be entitled
to at Ieast one curb cut. Singlerfamily uses and zero lot line sub�a'ivided lotsl sha11 be
iitnited ta one curb cut access per property unless, upon application for a variance of this
restriction, the Board oiAdjustment and Appeals finds that it is in the interest of public
safety to waive such. 1Vledium density residential (2 io 6 unuts) may have two (2) curb
cuts; provided, ,
neither curb cut exceeds twentv feei !20'1 in width.
f: Curb cuts in existence as of 10/ll/99 that do not conforrrt to this subdivision mav
r�e�ain in existence unless deemed b the Di�ecto� o Public Works to be a dara er o�
ublic scr e hazard. Notices to abandon a cur•b cut m be a ealed in writin to the
Citv Council tOYd.. 640, 10/11/99 .
1 Refer to Sectron 1107.03 ofthis Title for more info�mation re�ardinQ Zero LotLine Subdivisians.
Ordinance 542
Page 7
�ubd. b. Grade Elevatian: The grade eIeva�ion of any parking area shall not exceed five percent
(5%). (1988 Code §40.07).
Subd. 7. Suz-�acing: All areas, as allowed in Subdivision 1104.01(4} of this Title, to be t�tilized
for parking space and driveways shaIl be surFaced with a permanent, improved surface
rnaterial as defined in Section 1102.02 of this Chapter, suitabie to cantrol dust, drainage
and erosion, nneeting the requirements of Seciion 90Z.�§3 of this Code except as follows:
A gravel surface tnaterial meeting the specificaiions of Section 902.0�3, �ubd. 5 of this
Code may be used for parking areas-in an R-1 or R-2 District not to exceed three hundred
(300) square feet or, if to be. used as a parking surface for an RV, the mini.mum area that
wouid encompasses the wheetpbase ar�a of one (1} recreationai vehicle. Plans for
surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five (5) or inare veh�cles shall be
submitted to the Director oi Community Development for review, and the finat drainage
plan rriust receive the I�irector of Public �lorks/City Engineer's written approval. (Ord.
524, 2-22-93; Qrd. 520, 7-27-98; Ot�d. 640, 10/11/99.)
Subd. 8. Striping; Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses, ali parking stalls shall
be marked with yellow painted lines not tess than four inche� (4") wide.
Subd. 9. Ligh�ing: Any lighting used to illuminaie an aff-street parking area shail be so arranged
so to reflect the light away frorrt adjoining proper�y, abutiing residen�ia( uses and public
rights of way and be in compliance with Section 1103,09 of this Title, `
Subd. 10. �igns: No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly operation
and tra�c movement within any parking lot. A�l signing must conform to tke Mounds
View Sign Codel.
Subd. T 1. Curbing and Landscaping: Except far single-family and two-family de��elopments.
, all open off-street parking shall
have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot. The speci�cations and
location of this curb barrier shall comply with Section 902. 04 and with the setback
requirements for parking areas stated in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4, C�rass, planiings
or surfacing materials shall be �rovided in all areas bordering the parking area. (Ord. 590,
11/26/96iO�d._840, 10/11/99.}
Subd. 12. Required Screening: All open, nonresidential, off-street parlcing areas of five (5) or
more spaces shait be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential
districts in compliance wi�h subdivision 1103.0�(6) of this Titie. (19�8 Code §40.07}
� See Chapter 1008 of this Code.
Qrdinance 642
Page 8
�'�C"TION 4. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication in the official City
newspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds 'View this _ day of , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this � day of _,
1999.
Attest:
(SEAL)
APPROVEI7 AS TO F�RM:
Robert C. Long, City Attorney
N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVISPECPROJ1SP074-991642,ORD
s. :,
Dan Coughlin,lVlayor
Charies �. Whiting, City Cler�c/Administrator
�� �� . �r= � �; �, _ � .; : �., ���� � �� �:� �� _�= ,.
• � - <��� : � � � _� . � i�� ����i�� � ���
°�: '�: � ;�
�: � •: .
� ; r .. � •;
� ���; � ��: �: � _�: �� � : .�. : 1�: .� .. � � .' ,`I " �_ . �" '. �� :' �� is �I .. :�. ,� � �, ,., ���
*�' �, �� �� �' , ��� !�' _ � � ,�� . _ �: . �t ' ;R. -- , -� ` �._ .. �-`
�. . . , �� ��-; �' . . �R� ii; c '� �:�' � � ` '� '�'�� : ��� ,:�.
�1 „ = � ,'- ` ' "� I — i 1, .i_
W��I3EE�5, the Ivlounds View Planning Commission has reviewed proposed Ordinance
642, and ordinance amending Zaning Code Chapters 1104, 1107 and 1121 pertaining to curb cuts
and driveway widths; and,
�'���AS, ihe Mounds �Iiew Planning Commission afier significant discussion believes
the proposed ordinance to be in the besi interest of �he com�nunity and is in keeping with the
overall spiri� and intent of the 1V�ounds View Municipat Code; and,
W k�t�3, the Mounds View Planning Commissian asserts that ihe proposed ordinance
is consistent with the lae�d use goals and policies addressed in the 1Vtounds View Comprehensive
Plan_
NOW, '�'�E1�F0�, �E I'I` l�SOg,�D that �he Mour�ds View Planning
Commission recommends to the Mounds View Ciiy Counci! adoption of proposed
Ordinance b42.
�� IT F1iiTAI.I1"�' 1ZE�O�,VE� that the Planning Commission directs staffto forward
this resoiution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 1st day of December, 1999.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
(�EAI.,)
N:�DATAIGROUPSICOMDEVISPECPROJ1SP074-99\60a-99PC. RES
�4&. .
other clades as tbe go�e
rd, the gaverning body
ns of th� boaa°d on mac.
nal subject to appea� to
e council. Hearings by
nd upan such notice to
1. 'I'�e board shali wit�_
�e a copy of such order
searing in person or by
ie goveming boay, �e
iles may include provi-
efs by the parties. '�'hE
nde the minutes of zts
ii, incladiag the fina�
as the board of adjust=
petition untii the plan-
reasonable opportuni:
ents and appeats upon
OF C�MPitEIiEN�
hall preparc the com-
�cy shali consult with
es of the manicipalify
preheasive municipal
.zance of the ptanning
;encies. The planning
; whenevernecessary.
inicipality in the niet-
w and apdate ics com-
section 473.864, sub-
�lanning aQency may,
tunicipal charter, rec-�
� co eime af a compre-
:tions, each of which
i of the municipaiity.
End amendments to it
nprehensive mUnici-
�hall hold at least one
�earing shail be pub-
� before the day of the
ve plan or an amend-
•ed therecommenda-
: an amendment pro-
for its recomnaenda-
resolution by a two-
an or porfion thereof �
: prescribed by ordi-.
s or has authorized a
:pose of considaring.
847 HOU�IG� RL�DEVELO�1'1', F'LANNQIG, ZONIl�IG 463.357
�apCion or �txiendment of a comprehensive plan or afiicial controls as d�imed in section
462.352, subdivision 1�, orif new temtory for wtrich plans or controls have not been adopted
is annexed to a municipality, �he gaverning bady,of the municipality may adopt an interim
ordinance applicable to all or part of i�s jurisdictio� for the purpose of protecting the planning
process and the healtli, safety and welfare of i�s citizens.'I'i�e infierim ordinance may regulate,
restrict or grohibit any use, development, oe subdivisiora witliin the jwrisdiciion or a portion
jhereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date ie is effective, and r,nay be exce�ded
for such additional parzods as the municipality may deem apprapriate, nat exceeding a Eotal
additional period af i$ months. Na it�terim ordinance may ha1t, delay, or impede a subdivi-
s;on which has be�a given preliminary appeoval prior to the effective date oP the inCerim ordi-
pBriCe. -
� �tory:1965 c 670 s S; 1976 c 127 s 21; 1977 c 347 s 68; 1980 c 366 s 24; 1983 c
216art1 s67; 1985c62s1,2; 1995c176s4 • '
, � ''' r= r °� � � �
Subdivision i. Recor�meneiatians Por �lan executione Upon the recoznmendation by
the planning agency of the comprehensive muni.cipal plan or sections thereof, the planning
agency shall study and propose to the governing body reasunable and practicable means for
putting the plan or section of the pian inco effect. Subject to the limitations of the following
seciions, such means include, 6ut are not limiteci to, zoning regulations, regutatians for tlze
subdivision of land, an official map, a peogram for coordination af the normal public im-
provements and services of the municzpality, urban renewal and a capital improvements pro-
�• �
Subd. 2. Co�eg[�aace wat1B plan, After a comprehensive municipal plan or section
thereof has been recommended by the planaing agency and a copy filed with the governing.
body, no publicly owned interest in real. property within the municipality shall be acqnired or
disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by the municipaIity or sgecial
district or agency thereof oc any ot}�er polideal subdivision having jurisdiction wifhin the
tnunicipality antit after the planning agency t�as reviewed the proposeci acquisitzon, disposal;
or capital improvemenf and reported in wri�ing to the governing body or other speciai district
or agency or poliEical subdivision concerned, its findings as.to compliance of the proposed
acquisition, disposal or improveznent with the compretzensive munucipal ptan. Failure of the
pianning agency to reporE on the proposal withi�a 4S days aftez sueh a reference, or such oY1�er
period as may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the re-
quizeznents af this subdivision. The governing body may, by resalution adopted by two-
tlnirds vote dispense with the requizeznents of thzs subdiviszon when in its judgment it finds
that the proposed acquisi[ion or disposal of real progerty or capital improvam�ent has no rela-
tionship to the comprehensive municipal plan.
I�isiory:1965 c 670 s b
462.357 PIt�CEDC�'dE FQ� PLAIV EFFECTUATIOP�; ZOIVIl�G.
� Subdivision 1. Authority for zoning. �'or the purpose of pzomoting tfxe public heaith,
safety, morals, and genexal welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate on the earth's
surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height,
width, bullc, type of foundatian, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the
percentaga af lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density
and distribution of papulation, the ases of bdildings and structures for.�ade, industry, resi-
dence, recreation, pubIic activities, or other purposes, and the uses of tand for trade, industry,
residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil conservadon, water supply conservation,
conservation of shorelands, as defined in sections 103F.201 to 103F.221, access to direct sun«
light for solar energy systems as de�ined in section.216C.06, flood eon#rol or other pucposes,
and �nay establish standards and procedures regulating such nses, To accomplish chesa pur-
pases, ofFreial controls may inciude provision for purchase of devetopment rights by the gov-
ezning body in the fozm ofconsezvation easements under chapter �4C in areas where the gov-
�rning body considers preservation desirable and the transfer of development rights from
those areas to areas the governing body conszdezs more appropriate far development. No reg-
�� .