Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-1996 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 4, 1996 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10,Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. Call to Order called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:11 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Miller, 2. Roll Call Brooks, Johnston, Stevenson and Chair Peterson. (Commissioners Brasaemle and Obert had excused absences.) • ALSO PRESENT: Community Development Director Pamela Sheldon, City Attorney Bob Long and Recording Secretary Tamara Saefke. Commissioner Miller noted some corrections to the 3. Approval of Minutes: August 7, 1996 Minutes. Page 4, 3rd paragraph should August 7, 1996 be changed to read ". . . fact that the main office for the New Apostolic Church is located. . ." Also page 5, fourth paragraph should be changed to read ". . .however, the rate would be controlled." Motion/Second: Miller/Johnston to approve the minutes of August 7, 1996 as Amended. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no citizen requests or comments from the 4. Citizen Requests andfloor. Comments From the Floor Community Development Director Sheldon informed 5. Planning Case No. • the commissioners that this request was for a minor 454-96 subdivision for property located at 8021 Eastwood Road. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 2 The property owner, Erik Anderson, is requesting that this property be split into two lots. Ms. Sheldon explained that at the last discussion session, there were some items of concern, however all of these have since been resolved(utility easement, evidence of ownership). Staffs recommendation would be that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this subdivision to the City Council via Resolution No. 472-96. Commissioner Stevenson noted that in past cases, the resolution or the application refers to a Park Dedication Fee. He felt it perhaps should be included in this Resolution. Ms. Sheldon stated per their request she would add a paragraph to the Resolution to reflect that the applicant has paid the $100 fee for Park Dedication. • Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to Approve Resolution No. 472-96,Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision for Erik Anderson, 8021 Eastwood Road, as Amended. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Bill Diem of Stahl Construction was present. He 6. Planning Case No. distributed revised plans to the Commission members 452-96 and staff. Community Development Director Pamela Sheldon explained that this application was to allow for the construction of a 2,054 square foot church facility to be located at 3025 County Road H. She noted that the application before the commission consisted of three parts: a variance request for the front setback along County Road H,the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a church facility, and a development review. • The applicant is the Stahl Construction Company, on • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 3 behalf of the New Apostolic Church. Ms. Sheldon explained that the variance request requires a Public Notice before the Planning Commission can make a decision. The notice for the September 4th meeting was not published, therefore a decision in regard to the variance cannot be made until the September 18th meeting. The Planning Commission can, however, review the request for the Conditional Use Permit and the Devel- opment Review. Ms. Sheldon explained the requirements for a Conditional use permit for property located in an R-1 district, including church use. She noted that the application currently does not meet the front yard setback requirements of 35 feet. The applicant has requested a variance to address the front setback. In regard to screening requirements, it appears that the revised plan provides ample buffering between the parking • lot and the adjoining properties if it were just to meet requirements established for permitted uses. For conditional use permits, the Planning Commission and City Council do have the ability to determine whether or not the width is enough to provide adequate buffering. Conditions can be applied to provide greater yard setbacks if it is felt necessary in order to make the use compatible with its adjacent property uses. In a survey of buffer areas for other Mounds View Churches, the range of buffer is between 14 and 63 feet(church parking lots and residences). The typical distance is about 29 to 31 feet. The parking lot as proposed provides for seven compact parking spaces along the north property line. If the buffering is provided as proposed, depending upon how far the cars pull up into those spaces, there may be only five to seven feet left unobstructed in the drive aisle behind them. Ms. Sheldon referred to a letter she received from the Blaine/Spring Lake Park/Mounds View Fire Department which addressed the drive aisle. They recommend that a minimum of 20 feet be kept open in this area which poses a significant constraint. However, the Fire Marshall has stated that if the building had a sprinkler system, they may be able to approve a narrower driveway. Their main concern is that they need enough width to keep the fire truck away from the • building in the event that the building collapsed(which would be less • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 4 likely if the building had a sprinkler system). Ms. Sheldon noted that the buffering as proposed is really less than typical, and it would be reduced if the parking spaces in that area were made functional. Ms. Sheldon noted that as proposed, five of the parking spaces are less than the city's normal requirement(9'X 20'). They currently measure 9'X 18'. There is also a 17 foot drive aisle along the east side of the property behind the first bay of parking and that drive aisle is not sufficient for cars to back up. Ms. Sheldon noted there is room, however to move one bank of parking over to achieve the 23 feet needed in order for the cars to be able to back up. In order to bring the parking spaces into compliance with the city's requirement, some of the buffer would need to be reduced. She suggested the Planning Commission consider whether the number of parking spaces provided is adequate and also the fact that the number of compact spaces is larger than the 10% allowed (they currently propose seven spaces). • In regard to the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit, the city must consider the compatibility between adjacent uses and this proposal, the amount of screening, and whether or not there will be adverse affects on adjacent residential properties. Ms. Sheldon stated staff sees enough dimensional problems on the site that they question whether a church of the size proposed fits. If the proposal were for a smaller church, they may be able to achieve the parking requirements and provide sufficient buffering. Ms. Sheldon noted that the Commission may need to determine how they see the proposal relating to the Comprehensive Plan. In regard to the zoning, she noted that the neighborhood consists mainly of oversized lots with low intensity and one of the characteristics of this particular plan is that it would be a much more intensive use of the lot. It is staffs view that it is difficult to meet the intent of the zoning district(R-1, Single Family)with this size facility. With respect to the Conditional Use Permit, staff would • recommend that the Planning Commission recommend • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 5 to the City Council that it be denied. Ms. Sheldon noted that the purpose of the Development Review is to check the plan to see if it meets the dimensional requirements of the code. The areas where the proposal fails to meet the requirements are as follows: 1) the front setback 2) number of parking spaces-they have provided 30, they need 31 and of those 10%, or 3 spaces, can be compact. Ms. Sheldon stated staff feels that it is difficult to accommodate the sizes of the parking lot and the building on the site, so the plans have been designed with more compact spaces. There is also a problem with the length of the spaces. There is a problem with the drive aisle on the north side of the building. With regard to signage, the code does not provide much • guidance for churches in residential districts, so staff has used the neighborhood business district as a guide. That district allows for 100 square feet of signage. The current proposal shows 115 square feet. Staff would also suggest that any lighting be at a very low level and turned off at a certain time each night. The lighting for the parking lot as proposed would be building mounted on the north and east sides and would shine out on the parking lot. Staff is somewhat concerned about it shining out into the yards of the adjacent homes and would recommend that lighting be put on the perimeter of the lot so it would shine inward. Staff recommended denial of the Development Review, based on the fact that some of the dimensional requirements have not been met and they do not see an easy way to achieve them. Ms. Sheldon noted two letters which she distributed to the Commissioners: one from the Fire Department and one from Paul Ostrow who represents Mr. and Mrs. Moon, expressing concern about whether or not the project meets the criteria and that it would have serious impact on the client's property. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 6 Mr. William Diem,Project Manager of Stahl Construction, responded to the concerns expressed by Ms. Sheldon as follows: 1) The Fire Department informed him that as long as the church had a sprinkler system and that the structure was within(at the further point of the building) 150 feet of a fire hydrant, adequate protection would be provided to the building. The farthest point of the building from the fire hydrant is less than 150 feet. (The 20 foot wide access road was required if the building were constructed without a sprinkler system.) The sprinker system must be designed by a licensed contractor, and submitted for approval to the City. That is why the system is not shown in the informational packet. This would be submitted prior to the start of construction. Mr. Diem explained that this facility, since it is the first of 10 its prototype, has gone through some design changes to allow for the handicapped person in a wheelchair. What they are now proposing is to eliminate one or two of the rear pews to allow for wheelchair space. This will reduce the permanent seating capacity. Mr. Diem provided detailed information in regard to the "revised" proposal which he distributed at the meeting of the Planning Commission, noting the general layout of the facility. 2) The entrance width is a full 22 feet with a five foot radius curb cut. 3) The parking stalls are 20 feet long, with a 23 foot center aisle, and 20 foot parking stalls abutting the church. Mr. Diem suggesting that the Commission review the parking lot requirements, as MNDOT only requires an 18 foot space and they require 22 feet for the drive aisles. 4) The new proposal reflects only three compact parking • spaces which is within the 10% limit. (Mr. Diem stated • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 7 at the last Planning Commission meeting, he was informed that they could have up to 20% of the spaces for compact cars.) The proposal shows that the depth from the point of the striping to curb line is at 19 feet(actual is 19'4"). This is 8" from the ordinance requirements for standard parking stalls. Even if a car were not parked so that its tire were flush against the curb, eleven feet would still be available for a fire truck to pass through, which is their minimum requirement. 5) The new proposal includes 31 parking stalls. 6) The ordinance requires screening of at least 5 feet: This can be provided by installing a fence or by installing trees and landscaping. They have provided for a ten foot buffer with the installation of plantings to provide a variety of color to be enjoyed by the adjoining properties • as well. The plantings as proposed would be staggered with some of them being fast-growing, to provide sufficient screening. Mr. Diem explained that upon Planning Commission approval, they would propose to extend the landscaped area along the east property line. 7) They meet the requirement of the 30 foot sight triangle at the southwest corner of the property. They still intend to keep as many of the oak and cherry trees as possible. The new plan depicts a 22,500 square foot site. Of this 13,429 square feet will be impervious surface. The green space has increased to 9,071 square feet(they are at 40.47%green space which exceeds most cities' requirements by 10%). In summary, for the Conditional Use Permit, they have complied with the five foot buffer requirement from the parking code. • Mr. Diem noted that they now comply with the following 411 Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 8 Dimensional Requirements for the Development Review: lot area, lot width, building height, side building setbacks, rear building setbacks, parking lot setbacks, parking space requirements& maximum compact car spaces allowed. The four spaces which previously were proposed to be compact spaces for a total of seven, are fractions from ordinance requirements. Commissioner Stevenson commented that he would like to save any questions he may have until the next meeting as he, along with the other commissioners and staff, had just received copies of the new proposal and he has not had adequate time to determine if the questions they had have all been addressed satisfactorily. A discussion followed in regard to the time limits established by State Law as to the length of time allowed between the submittal of a proposal to the decision date. The normal limit is • 60 days, which can be extended by the city at its discretion for an additional 60 days. If no decision is made by the City Council by then, it is considered approved with no action taken. The applicant can determine if they want to extend the time. Ms. Sheldon noted that 60 days from the date of the application(July 15, 1996)would be September 12, 1996. The applicant has been sent a letter notifying them that the City is extending the review time for an additional 60 days or to November 11. Mr. Long, City Attorney, noted that the criteria under 1106.04 noted that the front yard setback can be no less than 35 feet. The applicant is providing only a 30 foot setback. He wondered if the church would be able to be built to comply with the 35 foot front setback requirements. Mr. Diem noted that the church could be built with a 35 foot front yard setback, however the buffer on the north would need to be adjusted down to five feet(this buffer area was a point of discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting and the proposal was based upon input from that discussion). Commissioners Johnston noted that at the last meeting, input from residents resulted in the Commissioners feelings that a 10 foot buffer would provide a better buffer to those • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 9 residential properties abutting the church property. Commissioner Peterson asked about the grading along the backside in the Northeast corner and if building blocks would be included as initially proposed. Mr. Diem noted that by moving the curbline in five feet, it creates a natural contour, so the water containment and the exiting is controlled. No retaining wall is needed. In regard to concerns of residents in regard to property value of neighboring properties, Mr. Diem stated they had an independent Realtor survey the neighboring properties adjacent to some of the churches in Mounds View and they found that the average price difference per square foot of the building did not change more than$.50 per square foot. They found that in 50% of the cases, the neighboring properties were higher in value than the properties on the • other side. Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, commented that the survey did not likely include any property which had a parking lot as close as what this would be to their property.. Commissioner Miller asked what the actual size of the parking spaces is for the new proposal. Mr. Diem noted that they are 9'X 20' along the east area. The five spaces to the North are short by 8". Commissioner Peterson noted that the spaces on the North indicate one corner of the car extending over the curb. Ms. Sheldon stated, in briefly reviewing the new plan, the parking spaces East of the church are at the correct size. The ones along the North side(compact) are still short 6" in width. Therefore, they would not be in compliance with the code. The angle of the parking makes it difficult to determine code compliance as no guidance for measuring those spaces is provided. She noted the usual way of measuring • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 10 these spaces. Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, commented that one of the criteria in a Conditional Use Permit is that R-1 is low intensity. When a parking lot is designed the way that this one is proposed to allow more spaces to fit, it indicates that they are trying to squeeze too much on too small of a lot. Therefore, one has to determine whether or not this is an appropriate use for the property. Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H., stated one of the criteria is that the proposed structure will not have an adverse affect upon the neighboring residential properties. He believes that a parking lot next to the neighboring yards will have an adverse affect on their properties. He believes it will have an adverse affect on potential sale of his property in the future. Mr. Diem, in response, stated all of the changes they have made • to the plans have not been to change the design or scope of the project to fit the ordinance. It has been to try to appease the neighbors. It is to try to make the property as beautiful as possible. Barbara Cloues, 2875 County Rd. H, asked if the church members, after learning how many changes were needed just to comply with requirements, felt perhaps the site was not adequate. Donald Kratt, 1437 76th Avenue N.E. Fridley, stated the majority of the changcs have come about due to their attempts to appease the neighbors. Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, stated there is nothing in the proposal that is of benefit to her. Without the variance, the buffer would need to be reduced to five feet which the Planning Commission agreed is not adequate. Mr. Diem noted that the ordinance allows for buffering either by fencing or by landscaping and they would meet the five foot requirement with a fence. In regard to a discussion about granting a variance for a proposal 11 Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 11 which could be constructed without one, Mr. Long offered the following: Under 1106.04, the Planning Commission would need to find that the proposal meets the setback requirements unless there is a hardship which justifies a variance (the proposal does not meet the front setback at this time). Under section 1125.02 of the code in regard to granting variances, the hardship must be on the owner of the land or the applicant and not a hardship to the adjacent properties. Ms. Sheldon stated the Commissioners must keep in mind that if the building met the setback requirements, would it be possible to meet the buffering and parking lot requirements? Mr. Diem showed changes that were made to the original landscaping plan. The focus of their attention has been to the area abutting Mr. Moon's property. Additionally, if • the two pews in the back of the building are removed, the number of parking spaces could also be reduced. Mr. Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive stated the plan would be able to meet all of the requirements if the applicant reduced the size of the building. With a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission has the right to tell the applicant that the building is too large for the parcel of land. He knows of other properties that would be more suitable for a church. He feels that a parking lot so close to his property will depreciate the value of his home. Furthermore, it does not fit within the Conditional Use Permit requirements. Commissioner Miller stated she would be interested in following up with proposing a smaller structure. She wondered how the size of the proposed building was determined. Mr. Diem stated it was based upon the current number of parishioners with growth taken into consideration as well as additional space in the event of weddings and funerals. Commissioner Johnston stated the Fire Marshall requires a 20 ilkfoot wide access road, as documented in his letter to Ms. Sheldon. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 12 Mr. Diem has mentioned that a 12 foot drive is acceptable if the building is provided with a sprinkler system. He would like this information verified. Mr. Diem stated he would also like the Fire Marshall to verify that the width of the drive aisle is really not an issue if the farthest part of the building is within 150 feet of a fire hydrant. He stated they would also be willing to provide a siamese hydrant in the corner. Barb Croues, 2875 County Road H, asked about snow removal and stated her concern that storage of it on the site would affect the number of parkingspaces available. Mr. Diem stated if this was an issue, they would have it removed from the site. Commissioner Miller stated she would like to know if two parking spaces are removed on the north side, could the remainder be made into parallel parking spaces? Chair Peterson stated he feels the main concern is the size of the lot for the proposed use, however many other issues of concern have been addressed as well. Overall, he would admit that the revised proposal is much more acceptable than before. A discussion arose as to whether the Commissioners would like to see two different plans at the next meeting: one taking into account a five foot variance and one without the variance. Commissioner Stevenson stated he really could not see a reason to submit a plan with a variance, however the choice is the applicant's. Motion/Second: Miller/Johnston to table the request for the New Apostolic Church until the September 18, 1996 meeting. 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried (Brooks was excused from the meeting) I • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 13 Ms. Sheldon noted that she had received a request 7. Planning Case No. from a resident for a change to the city's zoning code. SP-008-96 This request pertains to parking lot setbacks between residential and non-residential uses. Mr. Moon has requested that a provision be added to the code that would require that where there is non-residential uses in a residential district, the parking lot associated with those uses be at least 15 feet from the property line and that the area be used for landscaping and buffering. Ms. Sheldon noted that one must also take into consideration how a change such as this would affect existing churches. It appears that most of the existing churches would meet the 15 foot proposed requirement. The Planning Commission must determine whether it should be fifteen feet or more than fifteen feet. She would recommend that it be based somewhat on the size of the site and that an allowance be made for existing parking lots to remain but if they are ever reconstructed, 4111 they would need to be brought into conformance. Ms. Sheldon noted that code allows any property owner in Mounds View to initiate an amendment. Another issue that the Commissioners may want to look at also deals with minimum lot size required for these types of facilities. Commissioner Miller stated she would like to discuss the changes further and would also like to see what impact a change like this would have on existing buildings and schools. Commissioner Stevenson stated he would like a survey completed to see what other cities' ordinances are with regard to setbacks. Ms. Sheldon stated she had prepared an Ordinance and Resolution in regard to the requested amendments for the Commissioners' consideration. She noted that part of the reason she wanted to present this information at this time is that it does have some relationship to the other case and staff did not want to prevent it • from moving forward. Discussion on this can be scheduled into • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 14 the September 18th meeting, if the commissioners so desire. Chair Peterson stated there was some discussion at the last meeting and it was felt that it would not be appropriate to apply ordinance changes to those applications already in process. Motion/Second: Miller/Johnston to continue the discussion of Planning Case#SP-0008-96 at the September 18, 1996 meeting. 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Ms. Sheldon noted that this item was strictly a follow up 8. Planning Case No. SP-002-96 for the Planning Commission. The commission has Revision to Flood Plain already passed on their recommendations that this Zoning be approved by the City Council. The changes to the Flood Plain Zoning are being requested by the Department of Natural Resources to keep the city in compliance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's about Flood Plain Zones. The resolution will merely reconfirm their recommendation of approval for revisions. Motion/Second: Miller/Johnston to Approve Resolution No. 473-96 as amended. 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Ms. Sheldon noted the items which will be on the 9. Report of Staff Agenda for the September 18, 1996 meeting. Chair Peterson noted that Gary Stevenson and Bobbie 10. Report of Chair Brooks had excused absences from the August 21, 1996 agenda meeting. All others were present. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 15 . There being no further business before the Planning 11. Adjournment Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, PlvyytAA.,Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director • • FThit.at)n i il , Mt MOUNDS VIEW CITY Ce 12 j'I'I 'IlQ/e/L l' / • Please sign NAME -ADDRESS t(cPiff I 4,Cie (I )) , )g,‘-, ta.--- ' 75/37 76/-4 A ii.f.' A/r, i-17.-1 cif /t A 3 --k-rA+ / (;,7;...7.7/ 0 O4P tt AV /4/ ilk; e-2.=P A R --/-0 AT 5_co t-1 , • .1 // /7i-ti.,;,(,, (-1",:e_ .-- La occ- c uc. v .,-5 15 5 i, P-- 64.060_ c,A ikk) E: Mt)ic, 54I L/ Pi.) / 2/.i ._:--7..-i-•//-2- /fer --c3 Akf-% - 7_5-12 sz S,4.a 49 2.-.2,_.i Z--- /21.) if 1,( 5-4-'7( 4 _ 11 /i_ 1 9 ..--,---.- V 0 C- t?7 C da i /iYi W, ---- -) tit /247*, ,S,, - ' 11-‘144-447 . ? *,4_.,.,i)y,Xi # iiiactit/p;,e,,, 414 5---,?,----pz_- ' 0 t9f.,_. 1)P. /7)ji •:::,'--)I./;_:7 ._ ._., ( ), - - ___:- r69,,,____.-il , . i/ ( ) i oe<i ,,1 Ajli :1-2e--4-L ,,,,:elo110.-4, "i'Ap— dt, „el // *A Rk„k_ jib. /00 h,,esv-clf-A4 Pr, Ale, gl.,,e /144 S.5 U3 ci iln i VeArt SIN, (2._ 1.00 I Pre-5'' ,4 Pk . /1,/ . . lci,s,t, frv.\•C --zi 3 4/ 11 / th ( 144dP1/94 '' Pe 0) ( rs--)J Z, • • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 472-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR ERIK ANDERSON, 8021 EASTWOOD ROAD MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 454-96 WHEREAS, Mr. Erik Anderson, 8021 East wood Road, has requested approval for a minor subdivision dividing Lot 61, Spring Lake Park Hillview into two lots each having a width of 82.5 feet and an area of approximately 19,057 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1201, 1202, 1104 and 1204 of the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has paid the required park dedication fee in the amount of $100.00. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision request made by Erik Anderson, 8021 Eastwood Road, contingent upon the following: 1. Prior to transmittal of this case to City Council for action, the applicant provide the following: a. Evidence of ownership of the property b. A revised land survey changing the references to Anoka County to Ramsey County, and adding a note which states: "Utility and drainage easements have been dedicated by a separate recorded easement dated and recorded at c. A document dedicating the utility and drainage easements shown on the land survey, which is acceptable to the City Attorney as to form, and has been executed by the applicant. 2. Prior to signature of the mayor on the land survey, the applicant shall have • removed that portion of the driveway which encroaches into the drainage and utility easement. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 473-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECONFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 589 WHICH AMENDS CHAPTER 1301: FLOOD PLAIN ZONING WHEREAS, Chapter 1301, entitled"Flood Plain Zoning," is currently not in compliance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements; and, WHEREAS, it is essential for a community to have flood plain regulations in compliance with FEMA requirements in order for the City of Mounds View and its residents to be eligible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); and, WHEREAS, NFIP provides federal and state assistance in the event of flooding, and allows the opportunity for citizens to purchase flood and related water damage insurance; and, . WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is committed to reducing flood damage potential through a properly administered and compliant floodplain ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed language for Ordinance 589 at its meeting on August 7 and adopted Resolution 471-96 recommending approval of the proposed revisions; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance 589 has now been prepared and has been presented to the Planning Commission for its review; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends modification to Chapter 1301, entitled"Flood Plain Zoning", by amending the definition of structure in Section 1301.04 Subd. 15 and adding a definition of travel trailer and travel vehicle in Section 1301.04 Subd. 16; Section 1301.07 Subd. 7 on Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping; Section 1301.10 Subd. 2.a.(5) on Travel Trailers and Travel Vehicles; Section 1301.10 Subd 2.c.(3) on Accessory Structures; and Section 1301.13 Subd. 2 on Nonconforming Uses, to make minor changes in format and to correct minor typographical errors and errors in cross-references. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View reconfirms Resolution 471-96 and recommends approval of Ordinance No. 589, an ordinance amending Chapter 1301, entitled "Flood Plain Zoning," of the Mounds View Municipal Code.