Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-1999 PC PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 20, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7.00 p.m., October 20, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, and Stevenson. Members Absent: Commissioners Berke, Braathen(leave of absence), and Miller, with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Liaison Roger Stigney, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 559-99, 2670 County Road I. Discussion regarding a development review for a two-story, senior assisted living residential facility. MSP Real Estate, Applicant. 2 Special Planning Case No. SP-074-99, Discuss proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code related to driveway widths and curb cuts. 6 Staff Reports/Items of Information 10 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 14 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 • 4. Approval of Minutes A. September 15, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Kaden to approve the September 15, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes—6 Nays—0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 559-99 Property Involved: 2670 County Road I Discussion regarding a development review for a two-story, senior assisted living residential facility. Applicant: MSP Real Estate The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: • The applicant, MSP Real Estate, has requested approval of a development review for a two-story senior assisted living complex to be located at 2670 County Road I. The City Council has approved the conditional use permit for this development, as well as the ordinance rezoning the property from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential. The applicant has indicated the placement of the building on the site, and has revised the footprint of the structure to bring it into compliance with the setback requirements. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the site plan provided to the Commission indicated an encroachment of the building into the setback, however,this has been resolved through a slight adjustment of the structure, which places it closer to the parking lot. Planning Associate Ericson indicated all of the dimensional and parking lot requirements are met with this proposal. He provided the Commission with a memorandum prepared by the applicant in response to the Staff Report, which addresses and satisfies staff's concerns with regard to the site plan review. Planning Associate Ericson stated that one half of the drainage flow at the site would be directed toward County Road I, and the remainder, toward Mounds View Drive. He explained the drainage plan has been reviewed by the Public Works Director who has found that the amount of runoff at the site will not be significant, and any excess runoff 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. • Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has consulted with the 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 response to the Staff Report. Planning Associate Ericson indicated, as discussed at previous meetings, the applicant will attempt to restrict westbound traffic entering the site from County Road I, and the exit at this location will be clearly marked"exit only," to prevent any circulation problems or potential traffic issues. Planning Associate Ericson stated another matter brought forward at previous meetings was that a sidewalk would be required along Mounds View Drive. He referred to the site plan, which indicated the areas where sidewalks will be constructed, and explained that these sidewalks will adjoin the existing sidewalk along County Road I. He indicated that a sidewalk would follow the perimeter of the site, and connect to the SuperAmerica access, to allow for the ingress and egress of pedestrian traffic in that area. Planning Associate Ericson stated the specifications for the garbage dumpster enclosure, as indicated in the plans submitted by the applicant, meet with City requirements. Chair Peterson noted there had been some question regarding the accuracy of the scale of the building. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the elevations indicated on the previous plans were not accurate, however, the revised scale is accurate, and indicates the topmost height of the building to be 37 feet. He explained that the maximum height allowed is 45 feet, and the structure is within that requirement. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant does not propose to install any lighting on the building. He explained the Lighting Plan indicates the proposed lighting, and the foot-candle readings are all within City Code requirements, in terms of glare, and light spillage onto the surrounding properties. Planning Associate Ericson stated no signage plans have been submitted at this time, however, the applicant has indicated that any signage will comply with the City Code and the Conditional Use Permit requirements. He pointed out that the Conditional Use Permit sets a maximum size of 32 square feet for signage, and staff will review the signage based upon this requirement, if the applicant has not provided plans for this by the next meeting of the Planning Commission. He added that the signage issues could also be reviewed at the Council level. Chair Peterson inquired if the applicant has indicated the type of signage they might utilize at the site. Mike Lewis, representative of MSP Real Estate, the applicant indicated their facilities typically utilize wooden signs, set in block foundations. Planning Associate Ericson advised that all of the Development Review requirements appear to be met, and there are no outstanding issues. He explained that staff will require the plans be revised to Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 i indicate the proposed landscape changes, sidewalk location, and all of the other changes that have been addressed, to provide the City Council will have a final, revised set of plans for consideration. Chair Peterson noted the site plan indicates the parking stalls to be 9 feet by 18 feet in size, and the City Code requires 9 feet by 20 feet. Planning Associate Ericson explained that Ordinance 620 has revised the dimensional requirements of the parking stalls, and the proposed stalls are within the Code. Chair Peterson pointed out a discrepancy in the revised elevations, which range between 112 to 113 feet, and the previous elevations, which were indicated to range between the 910 to 916 feet. Mr. Lewis explained this was an error on the part of the architect, and the correct elevations are in the 912 to 914-foot range. Chair Peterson inquired regarding the elevation of the lot, and if fill would be brought in or removed from the site. Mr. Lewis indicated with the exception of some concrete block on the site that will be removed, there would be no need for fill to be brought in or removed from the site. Commissioner Kaden pointed out that the majority of the lighting appears to be directed toward the SuperAmerica site. Mr. Lewis explained that the floodlights in the parking lot would be directed downward. 41110 Planning Associate Ericson advised that there is some light spillage onto the SuperAmerica location, and the Code does not require there be any minimization of light spillage onto a commercial property. He indicated, however,that the Code puts limits on the intensity of lighting, measured in foot-candles, at property lines abutting residential districts and public street right-of-way. Chair Peterson noted an entrance and sidewalk at the eastern side of the building, with pedestal type lighting at this location. He inquired if this would provide sufficient lighting for the entrance. Mr. Lewis explained this entrance is primarily for delivery purposes. He pointed out that the eastern portion of the facility will be utilized for the Alzheimer's clientele, who will have a separate access, and this entrance will be secured at night. Mr. Lewis inquired if a five-foot wide sidewalk would be sufficient, rather than 7 feet, as indicated by staff. Planning Associate Ericson explained the Department of Public Works requires a seven-foot wide sidewalk for its maintenance vehicles, to provide that the plows and brushes don't interfere with the surrounding landscape. Council Liaison Stigney inquired if the remaining debris at the MSP site located across from the assisted living facility would be removed. Mr. Lewis explained he was not the project manager for this site, however, he would bring the matter to the attention of the president of the company. • Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 • Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that unless the center median 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 at this location, therefore, signage may not be necessary. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that although it is not intended that traffic traveling west on County Road I utilize the County Road I access, some people may deviate from this by crossing a lane of traffic and diverting themselves from the median. In addition, he explained that eastbound traffic on County Road I travels at a fairly significant speed, and although entering the site at this location from the westbound lane is probably less of an issue, it would likely be less hazardous to eliminate this ingress altogether, marking it exit only and divert all traffic into the site to Mounds View Drive. He commented however, this might be overly cautious. Chair Peterson stated that a motorist traveling east on County Road I might see the traffic light change and increase their speed to reach the light at the same time a vehicle is attempting to drive the wrong direction to by-pass the median and access the driveway. He stated he believed signage at this location was a very prudent consideration and not overly cautious. Commissioner Laube inquired if the site access at Mounds View Drive would be indicated"entrance only," as previously discussed. He pointed out that this access exits the site in an area surrounded by a strip mall, the SuperAmerica station, and the Silver Lake Woods Development. 411) Commissioner Stevenson stated this would not be possible, as it would restrict vehicles attempting to travel west on County Road I,who would subsequently have to enter the SuperAmerica or Burger King sites, and turn around. Commissioner Laube pointed out that the traffic from the SuperAmerica station will be adjacent to the site, and directly across the street, within a few feet, there is a 131-unit development, with only this and one other exit, which will result in much congestion at this location. Commissioner Stevenson stated 80 percent of the traffic exiting the site to go to the highway would exit onto County Road I,turn right, and travel east to the traffic light. He explained that there would not be many people traveling west on County Road I, however, they should be allowed to do so, as forcing them to first travel east on County Road I would ultimately create more congestion. Mr. Lewis stated he agreed with this. He added that if Mounds View Drive was restricted to an entrance only, people would disobey this, or problems would result on County Road I. He pointed out that assisted living facilities do not generate a large amount of traffic, and there would only be 10 or 12 employees on site during the heaviest shift, who would not be entering or exiting the site during peak traffic times. Chair Peterson inquired if the fire hydrant location had been addressed by the Fire Marshall. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has not yet consulted with the Fire Marshall, however, this • matter will be addressed prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. He explained that Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 • some relocation of the fire hydrants would be necessary, as the fire hydrant on County Road I appears to be located within the driveway of the site. He added that the Fire Department is somewhat apprehensive about utilizing fire hydrants for a project when they are not located on the site. He explained there is some question as to whether or not the fire hydrant located across the street would be sufficient to meet the needs at the rear of the building, and this will be determined. Chair Peterson commented there did not appear to be any other issues, with the exception of the fire hydrants, and suggested that staff proceed with the next step. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would draft a resolution for consideration at the next meeting of the Planning Commission on November 3. 6. Special Planning Case No. SP-074-99 Discuss proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code related to driveway widths and curb cuts. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the October 6, 1999 meeting of the Planning Commission, there was discussion of the options that could be put into place to resolve some of the hardships, which are a growing issue, as more houses are utilizing three-car garages, which necessitate wider driveways. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff was directed to draft an ordinance that would amend the City Code to allow for driveways that would be 35 feet wide, or the width of the garage, plus an additional 12 feet,whichever was greater. He explained this ordinance would not restrict a property owner with a one-stall garage to a lesser width, and they could still have a driveway 35 feet wide, as is presently allowed, however, a property owner with a 36-foot garage could increase that width by an additional 12 feet. Planning Associate Ericson commented that staff does not feel the allowance of wider driveways would result in many situations where there would be an excessive amount of impervious surface. He explained that typically, a property owner would not desire to construct more driveway surface than absolutely necessary, due to the great expense involved. Planning Associate Ericson advised the City currently allows a maximum 22-foot wide curb cut for residential districts, and there has been some discussion that the curb cut be increased to 24 feet. He stated he had spoken with the Director of Public Works, Mike Ulrich, who indicated that increasing the curb cut two feet to accommodate this would be acceptable, therefore, the proposed 24-foot curb cut has been indicated in the ordinance. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the ordinance before the Commission was the first draft and could be amended until the Planning Commission is comfortable with its writing, after which, a • resolution will be prepared to forward to the Council for first and second reading. Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 • Planning Associate Ericson 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 ranging between two and six units, is currently 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 appeared to be overly restrictive, and not in keeping with what has been approved. Planning Associate Ericson advised staff has attempted to address this issue in Subdivision 5e of the ordinance, which indicates the 12-foot driveway width be changed to 16 feet, and the driveway surfaces be a minimum of 20 feet apart, rather than 40 feet. He pointed out this appears to be less restrictive, however, in the case of a twin home with the side by side garages, he was not certain how any separation of the driveways could be maintained. He explained that the intent of the ordinance appears to conflict with the market and current building applications. He indicated that a 20-foot separation might not be necessary, and a ten-foot separation might be sufficient, adding that there were a number of driveways that currently have no separation at all, and one large curb cut. Planning Associate Ericson stated Subdivision 5f of the proposed ordinance indicates"Curb cuts in existence as of 10/11/99 that do not conform with this subdivision may remain in existence unless deemed by the director of Public Works to be a danger or public safety hazard. Notices to abandon a curb cut may be appealed in writing to the City Council." He explained this language was taken from Ordinance 640, which was adopted by the City Council on October 11, and provides that as f long as a driveway is not a public nuisance or safety hazard, and its non-conforming status is not increased, it can be kept, replaced or maintained. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that there are similarities between the driveway requirements in Ordinance 642 and Chapter 900. He explained it is a"sister ordinance" to Ordinance 640, as it takes into consideration the changes that were made with that ordinance, and institutes those changes into the Zoning Code, so that the two are consistent. He stated other changes considered by the proposed ordinance are of a housekeeping nature,to ensure that the Code is internally consistent with other Chapters. Commissioner Law e commente• t at many twin omes are on y separa es By si.e •y si•e garages, typically 22 feet wide, and this does not provide sufficient room for a 10-foot space between the driveways. He stated this problem is becoming more commonplace throughout the metropolitan area. He added that the larger sized garages in these developments tend to be deeper, rather than wider. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the Code should not be drafted in a manner that would create a hardship that properties can not meet, or result in a large number of non-conforming driveways, although the trend is moving in that direction and the non-conforming driveways do exist. He pointed out that this indicates the Code does not reflect what is currently being constructed. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the intent of the separation of the driveways. • Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 • Planning Associate Ericson stated this is a safety consideration, to minimize back to back driveways. He explained that two vehicles might simultaneously back out of the garage, and cross paths without seeing each other. Commissioner Hegland commented that the separation between the driveways was likely to create a problem in the wintertime, in terms of visibility, as the area between the driveways would probably be utilized for snow storage. He stated he was unclear as to why the separation was necessary, and inquired if there were any traffic reports of data available, which indicate specific instances where problems had occurred with regard to safety. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff was not aware of such data, and there was probably very little available in terms of previous problems, however, he would research this matter. Commissioner Laube stated he resides in a similar development, and during the 9 years he has lived there, he has not heard of anyone having a problem in this regard. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the units constructed on Silver Lake Road provide any separation between the driveways. Planning Associate Ericson advised that at least one unit does, however, some do not, and in fact, some of the driveways are separated, but the curb cut is not. He explained that some of these units utilize a landscaping separation between the two driveways, which is approximately 5 feet wide. • Chair Peterson pointed out that the R-1 district should be a separate consideration. He explained that the five-foot separation requirement is necessary with R-1 housing, simply to provide that the driveways of neighboring properties are not in too close a proximity to each other, however, it may not make sense to require the separation on R-2 properties. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Commission would consider a width limitation to be appropriate. Chair Peterson stated a width limitation would appear to make sense, however, he was unclear as to what the driveway separation requirement would accomplish. He added that the R-3 and R-4 districts present a number of different scenarios, and these might be difficult to classify. Commissioner Stevenson stated staff's recommendation of a 24-foot curb cut for the R-1 and R-5 residential uses was adequate, with an adjustment in subdivision 5b to a 32-foot maximum curb cut for R-2 and R-3 uses. He explained that in the case of single units, this indicates a 16-foot driveway per unit, if the driveways are back to back, however, if they allow one curb cut for both homes, it should be 32 feet, and the spacing requirement should be removed. He requested subdivision 5b indicate that a 32-foot curb cut shall be permissible for R-2, R-3, and R-4 uses, with the explanation of this in subdivision 5e, indicating two curb cuts together, not to exceed 16 feet each, and the removal of the clause indicating the minimum separation footage. • Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 • Commissioner Laube inquired if this would present a problem for R-3 uses, in which there are two 24-foot garages, constructed side by side, in terms of attempting to narrow down the driveway surface into a single 32-foot curb cut. Commissioner Stevenson stated this would be preferable to allowing a 44-foot curb cut, which would be unreasonable, and would probably be unacceptable from the standpoint of the Director of Public Works. Planning Associate Ericson explained that higher density locations with multi-family units have driveways and some parking area, therefore, the surface expands upon entering the property. Commissioner Laube commented that some of these units are constructed very close to the curb, and attempting to narrow down the driveway within a 20-foot distance might result in a safety hazard, in terms of backing out of the garages. He pointed out the majority of these types of homes are purchased by elderly people. Planning Associate Ericson stated he understood this concern, however, the City does not anticipate a great deal of this type of development in the future, as there are only 2 or 3 high density parcels remaining in Mounds View. He explained that amending the Code to allow for the wider curb cuts would not result in a hardship for future developments, and would provide for greater flexibility. Commissioner Laube stated he was in favor of the wider curb cuts. Commissioner Hegland commented he could see no benefit from keeping the curb cuts narrow. He pointed out there were • already examples of the wider curb cuts within the City, which would not comply with the current ordinance, yet he has not heard any complaints in this regard. Planning Associate Ericson stated he would remove the last clause in subdivision 5e, relating to the spacing requirement between driveways, and change the curb cut width for medium and higher density uses to 32 feet. Chair Peterson inquired regarding the origin of Section 1121.09, Subdivision 5e. Planning Associate Ericson stated this section originated in the Zoning Code, under parking requirements for all zoning designations. Chair Peterson advised that any differences should be indicated in each section. Chair Peterson stated that Item 3, on Page 2 of the proposed ordinance indicates the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, and inquired if the R-2 district should be included in this, as there appears to be a need to separate the R-1 from the other districts. He noted that the requirement limiting the width to 35 feet is contained within Item C, 1-a, residential uses, which includes all of the districts, and replaces the requirement for the R-1 and R-2 districts. He pointed out, however, by striking this requirement in subdivision 5e, any restrictions on the R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-O Zoning Districts will be removed. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the reason for this is that some higher density developments might have a parking lot that is 100 feet wide, and staff does not feel this requirement would be appropriate for these types of developments. He added, however, the R-2 Zoning District • and the 35-foot driveway width requirement was drafted prior to addressing subdivision 5e, and Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 • presents an inconsistency. He advised that the R-2 Zoning District can be removed from Item B-3, and the width of these driveways can be addressed in subdivision 5e. Planning Associate Ericson stated he would obtain measurements from some of the twin homes located on Silver Lake Road and County Road H-2, and provide this information to the Commission for their review at the next meeting. He explained that staff would prepare a resolution for consideration at that time, which will forward this matter to the City Council, however, there is ample time for further discussion, if the Commission so desires. Chair Peterson advised this consideration should proceed in a timely manner. Commissioner Stevenson explained that staff can prepare a resolution for consideration at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, and if there are concerns at that time, the matter can be tabled. 7. Staff Reports /Items of Information A. Billboard Update Community Development Director Jopke updated the Commission regarding possible revisions to the ordinance relating to billboards. He provided the Commission with the written opinion of the City Attorney, which he received that date. • Community Development Director Jopke explained there was some question as to whether the deed to the golf course property contained any restrictions that would prohibit the placement of advertising devices or billboards at the golf course. The City Attorney has indicated this is probably not the case, however, the only way to be certain of this is to obtain the opinion of the State Attorney General. Community Development Director Jopke stated another issue reviewed by the City Attorney is if the placement of advertising or billboards at the golf course would constitute illegal spot zoning, or raise any other zoning implications. The City Attorney has indicated that this is probably not the case, and would depend upon the characteristics and locations of specific billboards proposed to be constructed. Community Development Director Jopke stated the City Attorney has also provided his opinion regarding whether or not advertising devices or billboards would be permitted along the State trunk highway system, and has indicated that if the property zoned for business, commercial or industrial activities,this would appear to be permitted. Community Development Director Jopke pointed out that the relevant property within the City is zoned for business or industrial use, and the State may determine not to issue the necessary permits, however, this is within the State's purview. Community Development Director Jopke suggested, in light of the late receipt of the City Attorney's opinion, this matter be scheduled for a more detailed discussion at the November 3 Planning Commission meeting. He indicated at this time, the Commission could further review the ordinance, • and forward this item to the City Council for consideration. Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 Community Development Director Jopke indicated the Commission has directed staff to research the history of existing billboards within the community. He advised there were two billboards within the City. One of the billboards is located along Highway 10, on the Midland Videen 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 the advertising company has the right to maintain the billboard in this location indefinitely. He stated the advertising company leased the billboard space in the late 1970's, and purchased the permanent sign easement in 1994. He explained that in order to remove that billboard, the easement would have to be purchased from the advertising company. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the other billboard in the City is located at the Rent-All facility on County Road H and Highway 10. He stated he has reviewed a copy of the lease that was entered into in 1984, when the property was appraised for the expansion of the Mermaid Project. He explained that this is a 10-year lease, which will remain in effect until 2004, however, the property is being purchased by the Mermaid Project, and the owners have indicated that the billboard will not be utilized. Chair Peterson inquired how the placement of the billboard located across from City Hall fits in relation to various proposals that have come forward for this site. Community Development Director Jopke stated this billboard has been"grandfathered" in, and from • what he has seen on preliminary site plans, the billboard will not conflict with, or restrict the construction plans of the current development proposal. He pointed out however, it will be clearly visible to any business that is developed on this site. Community Development Director Jopke commented that Told Development Company has approached the Council regarding this particular site, and is still interested in constructing a Walgreen's drugstore at this location. He noted there is an alternate proposal, which would not involve the remnant parcel owned by the City, and would only require the vacation of the old Edgewood Drive right-of-way. He commented that they would prefer to move forward with the original proposal, however, they have determined that the development can proceed with the minimum of the vacation of the easement. Community Development Director Jopke stated the City Council has requested the Parks and Recreation Commission review this proposal, as it also involves the possible dedication of wetland area to the City. He explained that the Council has requested the Parks and Recreation Commission provide their opinion regarding whether or not the City wants this land, and what potential may exist. He indicated that this matter would be addressed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their next meeting 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 Development Director Jopke provided the Commission with the written text of the • Comprehensive Plan draft, and explained that some of the maps and tables were not yet included. Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 i He stated that PlanSight, the consultant who is developing the maps, has provided the first draft, to which he has made some editorial changes, and they should be available by the end of the week. He noted this is a discussion draft of the Comprehensive Plan, with information pending, in terms of transportation issues and traffic projections from Ramsey County and MNDot. He indicated he was also attempting to obtain additional language from the City Attorney regarding airport issues for inclusion in the document, however, with those exceptions, the draft should be completed for discussion on October 27. He suggested the Commission's first consideration at that meeting should be the method with which they will approach the review process. Chair Peterson inquired if there were any major changes to the draft since the previous review. Community Development Director Jopke stated there were no major changes. He explained that he has reorganized some of the information, and included a new table in the Land Use section, which indicates the compatibility between the Zoning Districts and Land Use Designations. He stated there was additional information regarding highway noise and potential noise walls along Highway 118, based upon complaints staff has received in terms of noise levels, due to the increased traffic along this road. Chair Peterson stated since the early 1990's, and discussion of the 610 freeway, the issue of noise walls has come forward many times, and the standard answer from MNDot has been that only areas of new construction or major modifications are eligible for a sound wall. He explained, therefore, the 11) portion of the new Highway 10, east of Long Lake Road, is not eligible for a sound wall, and this is likely the area that generates the majority of complaints. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was correct. He advised, however, MNDot has indicated they will be monitoring noise levels along this roadway in the spring and summer, as traffic levels stabilize, and depending upon their determination, are agreeable to indicate this section of roadway as justified for a sound wall in the future. Chair Peterson stated he had never felt the treatment of this matter was fair, in that there are some definite increased impacts to the residents in this area, and no means of recourse. Community Development Director Jopke stated he felt it was important that the City indicate on record that this problem should be addressed, and this is why it has been noted in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the types of maps that will be provided with the draft plan. Community Development Director Jopke explained these would be colored maps, 8'/2 by 11 inches in size. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if this was such a reduced size, the maps would be difficult to read. Community Development Director Jopke stated in his opinion, the maps appeared to be very good, however, staff would look into this. Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 ! Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the nature of the maps. Community Development Director Jopke explained that Page 5 of the draft contains a list, which indicates the types of maps contained within the document. Community Development Director Jopke indicated at the first study session, the Commission should discuss what type of community input is appropriate. He explained there would be at least one informational community forum,for presentation of the document, and a more formal public hearing, during which the citizens will provide their input. He pointed out that the Metropolitan Council requires the City's Comprehensive Plan is made available for the review of adjacent communities, and this should be done at the earliest point in the process. Chair Peterson inquired if the adjacent communities' Comprehensive Plans were also subject to an extension period. Community Development Director explained the plans were all in various stages of the process, however, fairly close to that of Mounds View. He added that the Comprehensive Plan for the cities of New Brighton, Shoreview, Arden Hills, and Blaine have already been submitted to staff. Chair Peterson inquired if any conflicts or incompatibilities were indicated in the plans that had been submitted. Community Development Director Jopke stated he was not aware of any. Commissioner Hegland inquired if staff would present any of the data through graphs. He pointed out the draft contained many charts, however, graphs may offer further clarification of the information. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff would attempt to utilize any means to better communicate this information. Chair Peterson inquired if sufficient room would be available for the study session. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the conference room would be available for this meeting. Chair Peterson suggested the Commissioners skim through the entire document, to see how it flows and fits together, and get into more detail, and decide what they would like to proceed at the study session. B. Previous Council Actions No previous Council actions were considered. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report No reports were considered. 9. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned 110 the meeting at 8:09 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) i Respectfully submitted, (L)4.5.Lr Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. N:\DATA\USERS\BARBB\SHARE\KEEP-IT\WPDOCS\MINUTES\1999\10-20-99.WPD • OPPlanning Comm. Mfg Date: l0 Z o q g Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: ��" , :J,5 `�� ti . 3,4 c( yy kkikS -35 ? 5ly4 e • 10