HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-1992 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 18, 1992
7:30 P.M.
•
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments from the Floor:
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL
NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
4. Consideration of Resolution No. 333-92 Regarding Variance (Setback
Requirement) Request of Herbst & Son's Construction Co., Inc., 2299 County
Road H, Planning Case No. 336-92
5. Consideration of Resolution No. 334-92 Regarding Major Subdivision Request
of Everest Development, 2375 Highway 10, Planning Case No. 335-91
• 6. Adjournment
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes: February 19, 1992 (Enclosed)
March 4, 1992 (Enclosed)
2. Discussion of Conditional Use Permit (Pet Grooming) Request of Twin City
School of Pet Grooming, 2840 Highway 10, Planning Case-No-34342
3. Continued Discussion of Development Request of Harstad Companies,
Planning Case No. 333-91
4. Discussion of Chapter 91, "Animals"
****************************************************************
APPLICANTS: YOUR Ar1'ENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ArIEND. THANK YOU.
• ****************************************************************
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, PLANNER\
DATE: March 12, 1992
SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST, HERBST & SON'S CONSTRUCTION
2299 COUNTY ROAD H, PLANNING CASE NO. 336-92
Because of the lack of a sufficient number of commissioner's at the
last regular meeting, action was unable to be taken on this
request.
I have attached all items that were provided in the previous packet
for your review. The applicant has been informed that action will
be taken on this request at the Wednesday Evening meeting.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
•
•
411
TO: PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, PLANNER r
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 1992
RE: VARIANCE - SETBACK REQUIREMENT
HERBST AND SON'S, 2299 COUNTY ROAD H
Attached for your consideration please find Planning Commission
Resolution No. 333-92 . At the February 19, 1992 Planning
Commission Agenda session, staff was instructed to draft a
resolution which could either approve or deny the request. Staff
is currently researching the history of the property and will be
providing any information that is found at the Wednesday meeting.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
•
riouNL5 VIX.;11 PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 333-92
• CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW--
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING/DENYING SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST BY
HERBST AND SONS CONSTRUCTION CO. , INC.
2299 COUNTY ROAD H, PLANNING CASE NO. 336-92
WHEREAS,. the Mounds View Planning Commission has
reviewed the request of Herbst and Sons Construction Co. , Inc.
for a variance to- allow the construction of an addition to their
existing facility at a five foot (5' ) side yard setback where a
twenty foot (20') setback is required by Municipal Code;-: and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
criteria used to evaluate all variance requests; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has presented a hardship
statement to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions
of this code would/would not deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under
• the terms of this Code; and ?
WHEREAS, the special conditions of the property do/do
not result from the actions of the applicant; and
WHEREAS, granting the variance would/would not confer
special privileges on the applicant that are not enjoyed by other
property owners in the same district; and
WHEREAS, the variance requested is/is not the minimum
necessary to alleviate the hardship.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View
Planning Commission approves/denies the variance request of
Herbst and Sons Construction Co. , Inc. for a fifteen foot (15' )
variance into the side yard setback.
Adopted this 4th day of March, 1992 .
ATTEST:
•
Chairman
(SEAL)
• Planner
t/rv. J
MEMORANDUM
411
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
•
FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, PLANNER
DATE: March 12, 1992
SUBJECT: MAJOR SUBDIVISION
EVEREST DEVELOPMENT, 2375 HIGHWAY 10
Staff will be meeting with representatives of Everest Development
to discuss options available for the dedication of right-of-way on
the proposed plat of the property located at 2375 Highway 10.
Results of the meeting and any appropriate resolution will be
provided at the meeting on Wednesday evening.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a
call.
UNAPPROVED
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
• Special Meeting
February 19, 1992
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 Mountin at 8: 20
p.m. on Wednesday February 19, 1992 .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Colleen, 2 . Roll Call
Miller, Nelson, Peterson, Stevenson, and
Chair Mountin.
Commissioner Burgers had an unexcused
absence.
ALSO PRESENT: Planner Harrington,
Recording Secretary Asleson, and
Councilmember Blanchard.
There were no resident requests or 3 . Resident
comments from the floor. Comments From
The Floor
• Planner Harrington outlined Planning 4. Consideration
Case No. 335-91, Conditional Use Permit of Resolution
request by Everest Development for an No. 330-92 ,
automobile dealership at 2375 Highway Regarding
10. It was noted that notice of this Conditional Use
Special Meeting had been posted and that Permit Request
Tim Nelson, representing Everest Devel- of Everest
opment, and Jim Price, representing Development
Saturn Auto of St. Paul, were present.
Motion/Second: Miller/Stevenson to
approve •eso u ion 'o. •-• , recom-
mending approval of a Conditional Use
Permit for an automobile dealership at
2375 Highway 10.
6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
There being no further business before 5. Adjournment
the Commission, Chair Mountin adjourned
the meeting at 8:23 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
•
Paul Harrington
City Planner
410 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Ili1/ A �fl r--;
R; c-
S;
i' U` D tj ; , ii 7'41'
Regular Meeting
I ( [ C1 � �yl3� { March 4, 1992
d E 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 Mountin at 7:37
p.m. on Wednesday, March 4, 1992 .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Burgers, 2 . Roll Call
Nelson, Peterson, and Chair Mountin.
Commissioners Colleen and Miller had an
excused absences.
Commissioner Stevenson had an unexcused
absence.
ALSO PRESENT: Planner Harrington,
Recording Secretary Asleson, and
IIICouncilmember Blanchard.
Motion/Second: Burgers/Peterson to 3 . Approval of
approve the minutes of February 5, 1992 . Minutes:
February 5,
4 ayes 0 nays 1992
There were no resident requests or 4. Resident
comments from the floor. Requests and
Comments from
the Floor
Planner Harrington outlined Planning 5. Consideration
Case No. 340-92, Conditional Use Permit of Resolution
for an oversized garage at 8315 Pleasant No. 331-92,
View Drive. He noted that this item had Regarding
been discussed at the previous agenda Conditional Use
session and had been found to be in Permit Request
conformance with all applicable for Oversize
requirements of Chapter 40. He also Garage at 8315
noted that the applicant, Tom Edwards, Pleasant View
was present. Drive
•
�, n r
` u _
Mounds View Planning Commission March 4, 1992
Special Meeting Page 2
Motion/Second: Nelson/Burgers to
approve Resolution No. 331-92,
recommending approval of a Conditional
Use Permit for an oversized garage at
8315 Pleasant View Drive
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Planner Harrington outlined Planning 6. Consideration
Case No. 337-92, Conditional Use Permit of Resolution
for an oversized garage at 2865 Highway No. 332-91
10. He noted that this item had been Regarding
discussed at the previous agenda session Conditional Use
and had been found to be in conformance Permit Request
with all applicable requirements of for Oversize
Chapter 40. He also noted that the Garage at 2865
applicant, Gregory Johnson, was present. Highway 10
Motion/Second: Nelson/Burgers to
approve Resolution No. 332-92 ,
411 recommending approval of a Conditional
Use Permit for an oversized garage at
2565 Highway 10.
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Planner Harrington indicated that the 7 . Consideration
next item on the agenda, a variance of Resolution
request from Herbst and Sons, could not No. 333-92,
be acted upon at this time. City code Setback
requires that a variance have 2/3 Variance
approval from the full Planning Request of
' . - • - • • our `er•s and
Commission members were in attendance, Sons, 2299
the variance could not be voted upon. County Road H
The Commission agreed to call to order
at the March 18, 1992 Agenda Session to
act upon the request.
There was no staff report. 8 . Staff Report
The attendance at the February 19, 1992 9. Report of Chair
Agenda Session included Commissioners
Colleen, Miller, Nelson, Peterson,
Stevenson, and Chair Mountin.
Commissioner Burgers had an unexcused
411 absence.
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, PLANNER1,
DATE: March 12, 1992
SUBJECT: C.U.P. - TWIN CITY SCHOOL OF PET GROOMING
2840 HIGHWAY 10
Twin City School of Pet Grooming has made application for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a pet grooming
facility at 2840 Highway 10. Chapter 40 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code allows for this type of establishment in a B-2 zone
district with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
Staff has reviewed the requirements for a C.U.P. at this site and
determined that a substantial amount of additional parking would
need to be provided on the site to support a facility such as the
one proposed. Additionally, a second business operation is located.
on the site and it is the opinion of staff that parking would need
410 to be provided for that establishment as well as the proposed Pet
Grooming facility.
Staff will be attempting to contact a representative of the
applicant in order to explain the situation. In the meantime, I
have left the item on the agenda so that the applicant can meet
with the Planning Commission to discuss their options including,
but not limited to, appeal of either the code requirements or the
interpretation of those codes by staff.
If you have questions, please call.
- - .u.44 wetiana zoning Districts
111,
A wetland zoning district- may be modified or eliminated byrourr .
-_s.rth$
affirmative vote of the Council after Public searing and notice as set
forth in Chapter 40 of this Code. . . .when modifying or removing a-wetland
zoning district, the Council shall use the criteria and methods established
iu the Pederel Manual for identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands dated January 1989, as amended from time-to-time.
1
SACXGROUNA: The applicant has requested a modification to the 1-19 wetland
zoning district. The proposed wetland boundary is shown on the preliminary
grading and drainage plan (October 25, 1991 submittal) . In support of
their request, the applicant has attached a letter from the Corps of
Engineers dated October 4, 1991.
The wetland zoning district consists of the wetland and a 100-foot upland
buffer surrounding the wetland. The wetland boundaries presented on the
Wetland Zoning District :'rap are conservative (may include upland)
j
representations of existing conditions. 2'1119 provides the CitJ$wetland
resources protection from loss due to mapping errors. The applicant has
the obligation of demonstrating if the original designation is in error,
The Congress prohibited, as of August 17, 1991, further use of the 1989,
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands
until revisions to the manualare finalized. In the the Corps interim, C
orgs has diA
beet di=acted to use the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual for •
delineation of upland!wetland jurisdictional boundaries. A brief fact l
sheet outlining the difference in methods is attached to this letter.
A consensus was reached- among Barr, the Corps, and RCSCS in October and
November 1987 regarding the location of the jurisdictional boundary for •
Wetland 1-19. The boundary was located using the 1987 Corps Wetland
Delineation Manual. This boundary appears as the proposed boundary on the •
applicant's October 25, 1991 submittal. %'.i •
•
t.
- ... __.. _,... ..c.+.i eacion, a revised
wetland zoning district would be created consisting of the new wetland and
11111 a 100-foot upland buffer. This is represented by the 100-foot but: r Zine
on•
the applicant' s Proposed wetland Zoning Dist_:ct Eoundary rap submitted
•
January 1992. The wetland zoning District boundary shown on this `� i Jr-
not correct.
REGULATION: 4S.0S Wetland Zoning District Regulations gulat_ons
Subdivision 1 . No development shall be allowed within a wetland zoning .
district without first having obtained a wetland alteration permit trom the
City as provided for in Chapter 48.06 of this Code, •
coml,LIANcm STATUS: The applicant has applied for a wetland alteration permit.
UrGiSITICN: Subdivision 2. whenever a wetland or dr ainageway is located on
lands that are. being subdivided, the subdivider shall dedicate such wetland
and/or drainageway to the public as allowed per Minnesota Statutes 462 and
jIPshall dedicate an easement to the public as required for purposes of
improving, maintaining, or protecting the area for drainage, water quality
enhancement, or other curposes expressed in this Chapter.
COM?1,1ANCZ STAmUS: The applicant proposes to convey the wetland to the City per
City Code 48 ,08, Subdivision 2, The proposed access to the wetland is from
Edgewood Drive.
RrC LATIoN: Subdivision 3.1 Minimum lot size - 20,000 square feet.
• Subdivision 3. 2 Minimum lot width - 123 feet as measured at the
building setback line.
Subdivision 3.3 All buildings, other than accessory buildings,
shall be set back at least 100 feet from the
wetland.
Subdivision 3.4 All accessory buildings shall be set back not
less than the setback requirements set forth in
Chapter 40.05, Subdivi*egrosis th.
4111
,b4. , .
•• ' ail G
s, Eiock 4, part or all of all lots lie withi:la:.a wetland zoning district.
:.4111All Y'C:DUl3Cd 14123 SViti7i� .:le w meet the 20, °oo square moot rafnimum lot
size and 125-foci lot width criteria. Lot size requirements were met
largely thxough the vxt_nsion of the lot boundary 4leteree into the wetland.
The City should consider reducing the lot site requirement in this case as
c condition of preliminaxy ?let approval. This action would allow the City
to protect a greater acreage of wetland.
The minimumbuilding setback from wetland criteria (100 feet) is not met by
any of the lots on the proposed plan. Setback distances vary from about 20 .
to 80 feet.
Accessory buildings are not shown on the submittal.
R T'LATIOIv: Subdivision 4 Nat applicable,
48. 06 Permits
I
IPSubdivision '_. Specifies the types of activities that trigger the need
g for
a wetland alteration permit, including filling, alteration of vegetation,
and dredging.
CQM?L A$C9 STATUS: Applicant has requested a wetland alteration permit.
GtL•ATION: Subdivision 2. References the information which the N.
. rev-re from the applicant as part of a wetland alteration permit, and
Lsts the relevant factors the City shall consider when evaluating a permit
amplication.
C01.417t=NCZ STATUS: Ongoing evaluation based on public Council and panning
Commission needs, 3
• PI 19Nameal As ......, _
A. tipecwfies that a minimum alteration may be allowed when
necessary if substantial or significant adverse effect upon
ecological and hycrologlcai characteristics of the wetland
do not occur, that an alteration may not be allowed without
variance it minimum permit standards are exceeded; and that
any alteration opportunity must be allocated among property
owners in proportion to the area of wetland located within
each property.
5TANDARD; 1.
} alteration shall not cause a reduction it :food storage
capacity,
COH.LIANCD STATUS:
S+ANDAP.D: 2 . Aly alteration shall not the she ex:stir.^ water quality
enhancement value
COMPLIANCE STATUS:
STANDARD: 3. Any alteration shall not reducethe a exx
isting wildlife
habitat value.
COMPLIANCE 5T`s'TS: The wildlife habitat assessment was value based on
characterization of the8
Y' " wetland obtained from.._cm the National Wetland
Inventory Map and the Corps identification of two Type II wet prairie
remnants. The method to set habitat value appears to have come from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation Wetland Sabitat -Mitigation
B r � a� Program, This program amt use the
g U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Zab{tat igluation Procedure to calculate habitat value by wetland type'.
The values are generic for a best imaginable .. la with n a
41111 particular R DOT district.
evaluation. . We would prefer, however, that thewet1a.. d be evaluated ba ed
ou salt+tiny habitat types rat:er than on he Nat onal'Wetiaeo n�ds Inventory
CVAlt-511' K.
Map. I believe that existing conditions Types 2, 3 and 6 wetlands;
and ptnwescd conditions will likely result in Types 2, 3 and 3 wetlands .
The characteristics of each wetland type are described in the M4DOT
doer*,•-t t
•
_'"ANDARD: 4. Cleein fill must be used.
•
COMPL:=s.MCr $TA'r .SS: .Applicant proposes use of fill available on-site.
STANAPpP: 5. Shall minimize impacts to vegetation.
COM?LIA.Ncx `.3'_','ATUS: See Standard 7.
STANDARD: b. Shatl not adversely alter water flow characteristics .
110 COMPJ,,IAN"7' STATUS:
:
S^r.NDARD: 7 . Shall minimize the size of the .t»edd area.
COMPLIANCE STATUS: A general standard of alteration is establishment that the
a;teration is the minimum necessary. vegetation disturbance is addressed
specifically by Standard 5. Standard 7 is a catch-all (filling, dredging,
etc. ) for all types of alteration.
I believe that the applicant has made a good faith effort to minimize
disturbance, to the extent possible for this development configuration,
within the constraints of the Ordinance. The filling appears related to
creation of desirable lots and the dredging appears to be• related to
replacement of stornwate_ storage wildlife habitat .141-1414a4 and water
ri,tal.l.y enhauvuuu at. valuta.
Barr's assessment of the extent of disturbance raised two questions. `'hese
.1
questions were in regard to the need for filling
- -- --- ..........u:.aa�. vi Lv.. 3 ox 1ocxs 2 and ?
and Lot 1 of Block 4. These lots are located almost entirely in existing
II wetland.
with reepect to dredging, 3arr's standard of measurement is that the
dredged area must be no larger than necessary to meet the applicant's
objectives . In this cave, we believe the objective of dredging is to off-
set water quality enhancement and stormwater storage values lost as a
result of disturbances associated with the proposed development. The
applicant has (has not) demonstrated that the proposed plan replaces •
stormwater storage on a one-to-one basis. This meets the minimumnnecessary
standard. The applicant. has also demonstrated that the water quality
enhancement values of the wetland will be (will not be) enhanced if the
proposed dredging plan is adopted. This indicates that moreCjtegp.the
minimum amount of necessary dredging is proposed. The impacts of increased
dredging to improve water quality enhancement values of the wetland must be
weighed against the disadvantages of disturbance prior to permitting the
proposed plan.
IP
STANDARD: S. Work shall not be performed during waterfowl breeding and
fish spawning seasons.
COMPLIANCE STATUS: The proposed construction schedule does not comply with this
standard. The applicant should be encouraged to schedule Phase 1 work
during winter mmnths (November to February) .
•
STANDARD' 9. On-land or in-ground waste disposal shall be greater than
100 feet from the wetland.
COMPLIMCE STATUS: On-land and in-ground waste disposal has not been proposed.
S A A.KT.J: 10. Solid and/or hazardous waste shall not be disposed of to the
wetland.
COMPLIANCE STATUS: Solid and hazardous waste disposal to the wetland has not
4110
1:? cal pz: mcia, ono f A mi
loss Brom the site to not more than 5 tons per acre per
year. Pias and documentation shall be developed and
approved by the City prior to construction.
•
COKPLIAN STATUS:
STANDARD: 12. Yearly soil loss a_tmr development shall not be greater than
0.5 tons per acre per year.
COMPLIANCE STATUS:
STANDARD: 13. Speci=ies method for calculation of sediment and soil loss.
tom LIANCE STATUS: The specified method was (was not) used.
IPS'"AN A.RO: 14. Stor'mwate_ runoff must be in conformance withsurface
the
water management plan, substantially free of sediment,
debris, pollutants, and at rates which will not
s-ubetantiai y alcozur» veryatatiau or ineraaso turbidity.
•
COMPLIANCE STATUS:
STANDARD: 15. The stormwater runoff rate shall not exceed the rate or
clue anticipated by the City's Surface water Management
Plan.
COMPLIANCE STATUS:
•
STANDARD: 16, Infiltrated water quality shall remain substantially
411) unchanged.
_-...,....,;,.,,c, y 444.%za raise
concerns about potential groundwater quality impacts.
•
STANDA70:: 17. - . ..
All buildings, other than accessory buildings, shall be set
back 100 teet tram the wetland.
rhe applicant has requested a variance twos: this standard.
STANDARD: 1t3. Accessory building setback standard.
COMPLIANCE STATUS: No accessory buildings are proposed.
STANDARD: 19 . Lowest floor elevation in wetland zoning district shall be
2 feet above 100-year frequency flow level.
COMPLIANCE STATUS: The 100-year frequencyflood for level t 5is wetland is
903 feet MSL. The lowest building as
d elevation evasion spawn on the plan sheet is
905 feet MSL. If the structures ructures do not have • wevati.ors
less than the pad
. IP
elevation, the proposed plan is in compliance with the standards.
STANDARD: 20. Altezations resultingin health
1.ea_,.h and safety risk or high
maintenance costs shall not be allowed.
CO;�LIAD7CZ STATUS: Sarr
does not have the expertize necessary to evaluate
health and safety issues. The maintenance cost standard was assessed,
however. au
ver. In r opinion, the Positioning of the p=- .
access) will makeremoval of accumulated sediments unnecessarily costly.
We do not believe the proposed design meets this standard.
,?^ 21. Removal of vegetation shall be permitted only when
reasonably required for the placement of structures and use
of property.
•
COMPLIAMSTAT`$: If the City believes that filling should be further
minimized by limiting the size of backyards, the proposed plan does not
• meet this standard.
lv: ruJ
• From: RJB
Re: Greenfield Estates Plat Review
Date: 2/27/92
Peter, I have completed my review of the wetland alteration permit
submitted by McCombs, Frank Roos Associates, Inc. My comments are enumerated
below.
1) Existing and proposed flood storage volumes.
McCombs computations showed that they are replacing flood plain lost due
to home construction with flood plain created as the result of pond
excavation. Therefore, no hydrologic analysis was needed. I am in agreement
with this.
However, I do have a concern regarding the pond outlet configuration and
ground water levels. McCombs states that the current ground water elevation
in the wetland is approximately 898 and their assumption seems to be that
this elevation will be maintained after the wetland is altered. I have
doubts on whether this is an correct assumption. On a earlier permit
submittal by Merila & Associates, the outlet for this wetland is an 24" RCP
culvert at an elevation of 896.33. The Merila plans indicated construction
of a baffle weir in front of the outlet culvert to control water levels in
the wetland. The McCombs plan does not provide for water level control. It
is conceivable that the creation of ponding arcas will provide greatet
discharge area for ground water than the current ditch. This could result in
depression of the ground water levels, which will stabilize at an elevation
near the 896.33 outlet elevation not the 898 assumed by McCombs. This drop
in water level could have negative impacts on the wetland community and
reduce water quality enhancement of the wetland.
2) Water Quality
I am in general agreement that the proposed configuration of the wetland
• will enhance its water quality function. However, there are several items
- -�� �••�.�. L� �laririea. =combs uses the Walker method for determining
4111 • watershed phosphorus removal for the wetland. The underlying assumption in
the Walker method is that phosphorus removal occurs in the permanent pool
below a ponds' normal elevation. It is not clearly stated in the permit
application whether the 54 ac-in pond and pool volume includes or excludes
the available flood storage. If the flood storage is included, then using
the 54 ac-in is not a valid volume for determining the phosphorus removal
potential of the wetland. I am also concerned about including wet detention
areas that can be easily short circuited by storm water flows. Especially
Pond 2 on the grading and erosion control plan. This pond would provide
little in the way of water quality improvement for the 150 ac watershed
tributary to this wetland. It is my opinion that pond 2 should not be
included in the water quality computations for this wetland alteration.
Also, if the outlet elevation is to remain at 896.33, then only the wet
detention below this elevation should be used to estimate water quality
enhancement potential of the wetland.
. 3) Soil Erosion
The city's ordinance requires that soil loss from the construction area
must be less than 5 tons per acre during the construction period. McCombs
has compute a soil loss of 7. 6 tons per acre. This means that the sediment
and erosion control plan for this project is not in compliance with city
requirements. An assumption was made that during construction the entire
constr -
_ • =even o .oing
construction in phases and leaving some areas in turf this avoids soil
disturbance. Another option is to provide mulch or erosion matting to
prevent exposure of bare soil. This should be done in addition to the silt
fencing already indicated on the erosion control plan. Once an area is open
for construction, all land area not needed for construction purposes should
be mulch or covered. These practices may improve erosion controls and limit -
the predicted erosion to less than 5 tons per acre.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, PLANNER eb
DATE: March 12, 1992
SUBJECT: CHAPTER 91, "ANIMALS"
At the February 19, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting, the review of
two requests for residential dog kennels revealed the rather
excessive requirements of the Mounds View Municipal Code governing
approval of such requests. As per Planning Commission direction,
staff has contacted area cities in order to obtain their
requirements/procedures for processing a request for a kennel.
Attached please find a copy of Chapter 91 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code and a summary of the requirements of surrounding
communities for your review.
Following discussion of the requirements, a recommendation, if
410 appropriate, can be made to the City Council.
If you have any questions, please call.
Residential Kennel Policies in Surrounding Cities
Arden Hills: Residential kennels are not allowed. Each
home is allowed a maximum of four domestic
animals (excluding birds) of which no more
than two may be dogs. Kennels are allowed
only by Special Permit in B-2 districts and
above.
Blaine: Blaine requires that a kennel license be
secured whenever a home•has more than three of
any kind of animal on the premises. A
Conditional Use Permit is required to obtain
the kennel license; to get the C.U.P. a public
hearing is required and property owners within
350 feet of the proposed kennel are notified.
No petition is required.
Fridley: Residential kennels are not allowed. Each
home is allowed a maximum of three dogs and/or
cats.
. New Brighton: Anyone with more than three dogs and/or cats
must apply for a residential kennel license.
However, since no one has applied for a
license in recent memory, there are no
licensing procedures in place.
Shoreview: Residential dog kennels are not allowed. Each
home is allowed a maximum of three dogs;
anyone found to have more than three dogs is
asked to remove the extra animal(s) . There is
no mention of ca-ts-annwhere - - - -
restrictions
-restrictions on the number allowed.
Spring Lake Park: Anyone with more than three dogs over six
months old must obtain a kennel license. A
Special Use (Conditional Use) Permit is
required to obtain the kennel license; to get
the C.U.P. a public hearing is required and
property owners within 350 feet of the
proposed kennel are notified. Cats are
licensed in Spring Lake Park, but are not
included under the kennels section.
•
CHAPTER 91
• ANIMALS
91. 01 ' Dogs.
Subdivision 1. Definitions.
(1) As used in this chapter, "Owner" means any person,
firm, partnership or corporation owning, harboring or keeping a
dog.
(2 ) "At large" means off the premises of the owner and
not under the control' of the owner or a member of his immediate
family, whether by leash or otherwise. 7
(3 ) "Vicious dog" is one that is habitually unruly and
untamed or one that is a general public nuisance.
(4) Dog kennel - residential. Means any premises where
more than two dogs over six months of age are owned, boarded,
bred, or offered for sale.
( 5 ) Dog kennel - commercial . Means any premises where
more than four dogs over six months of age are owned, boarded,
bred, or offered for sale.
Subdivision 2 . License Required. No dog owner shall
keep any dog over six months of age within the Municipality
unless a license has been issued by the Clerk-Administrator for a
fee established by City Council resolution. The fee for licenses
obtained for a period of one year or less shall be one-half of
the above fees. (256 )
A certification from a veterinarian shall accompany an
application indicating the following:
( 1 ) That the dog has been innoculated for rabies within
two years from the date of application.
(2 ) That said dog has been spayed or neutered when a
license is being sought for a spayed female or neutered male.
All licenses issued under this chapter shall expire on
the 1st day of September of the year of their expiration.
Subdivision 3. Date of Payment. It shall be the duty of
each owner of a dog to pay the bi-annual license fee imposed in
Subdivision 2 to the Clerk-Administrator before the first day of
September in the year which licenses are to be renewed, or upon
acquiring ownership or possession of any unlicensed dog or upon
• establishing residence in Mounds View. The Clerk-Administrator
shall cause a notice of the necessity of paying such license fee
to be printed in the x$44x/710104sIss City Newsletter one time
before the 15th day of August of the year in which licenses
expire. ( 221 )
•
Subdivision 4. Receipts and Tags. Upon payment of the
license fee, the Clerk-Administrator shall execute a receipt in
duplicate. He shall deliver the original receipt to the person
who paid the fee, retaining the duplicate. He shall give an
appropriate tag to the owner . The tags shall be metallic and
shall be of a different size and design each license period.
Subdivision 5. Affixing Tags. The owner shall cause said
tag to be affixed by a permanent metal fastener to the collar of
the dog so licensed in such manner that the tag may be easily
seen. The owner shall see that the tag is constantly worn by
said dog.
Subdivision 6. ';l'ik 1i91Z4 ///71i: /$47 0hLAX/0931 l�l� //////
$O1'� 00/04 00zW X/ AX0/416/4491/ 160) W/ ii/004 93 A“Oi /
0/$14;“Oh6A YY/1'% 0 / 0/ 44/ 16xW%000/ 5� / 4/$0 9W4
00041//V6/0StSx'00/ /014Ag /44 91/00 4SW/$0 p 00/9314%0 //
Al /1O,X 00/5 00 /Ax10/ 169300 g4iO yW 0 091/ 0S 0i/01604///
gig) 74/16xV, O/g0pUlg0 /5140 0/0W1 i0H0 56iASX0/0A4WW160X%0 0/
mow 160 /%; shIllA ssli 091/91934/ Duplicate Tags. In case any dog
tag is lost, a duplicate may be issued by the Clerk-Administrator
upon presentation of a receipt showing payment of a license fee
for the current year. A charge of two dollars ( $2. 00) shall be
made for each duplicate tag.
Subdivision 7. Offense Involving Tags. It shall be
unlawful to counterfeit or attempt to counterfeit the tags
provided for in Subdivision 3 of this chapter or for any person
other than the owner to take fram any dog a tag legally placed
upon it by its owner .
Subdivision 8. Refunds. No dog tag shall be transferred
and no refunds shall be made on any license fee because of
leaving the Municipality or death of the dog before the
expiration of the licensing period.
Subdivision 9. Restriction on Certain Dogs . No person
shall keep or harbor a dog which habitually barks or cries . No
dog owner shall permit his dog to damage any lawn, garden, or _
other property. No person shall own, or harbor a fierce or
vicious dog, or a dog that has been bitten by any animal known to
have been afflicted with rabies. Any person who shall have in
his or her possession a dog which has been bitten by an animal
known to have been afflicted with the rabies, shall upon demand
41, i of the Health Officer or any Police Officer of the Municipality,
DT'1�C�11nc arri cnrronraav ,,4A A.-... s-.. ._ ; a _rrt - -- ' -- - -
} (1 ) The Council shall from time to time appoint such
person, or persons or firms as the Council may deem necessary and
advisable as Community Service Officer to work with the Police
Officers in the enforcement of this chapter and shall be vested
with all authority conferred hereby. The Council may provide for
such compensation for a Community Service Officer as it may deem
reasonable.
The Community Service Officer and any Police Officer is
empowered to and shall take up and impound any dogs found
anywhere, including dogs found on the private property of their
owners, within the City of Mounds View in violation of this
chapter. The Community Service Officer is further empowered and
instructed to enter any private premises where they have
reasonable cause to believe there is an unlicensed dog or a dog
which is in violation of any of the provisions of this. chapter.
(2 ) The City Council may designate by resolution a
privately owned and operated facility designed and operated to
house animals with qualified personnel who shall attend to the
maintenance of the facility and animals contained therein as the
municipal pounds. Such facility may be located within or without
of the municipality.
Subdivision 11 . Change of Address. An owner who has
obtained a dog license shall notify the Clerk-Administrator of
°-, owner ' s address changes within the corporate limits of the City
during the life of the dog and within ten (10 ) days of any
address change.
Subdivision 12. Notice of Impounding. Upon taking up
and impounding of any dog as provided the operator of the Pound
shall immediately notify the Clerk-Administrator of such action
and the Clerk-Administrator shall keep a record at the Municipal
Office of all dogs so impounded.
Subdivision 13 . Redemption. Any dog may be redeemed
•U • - . .• ■ • '.
Clerk-Administrator or Pound the license fee for the current year
as provided for in Subdivision 2, together with an impounding fee
according to the following schedule:
•
(1) First pickup during any 12 consecutive months -
$25 .00
( 2) Second pickup during any 12 consecutive months -
$50. 00
( 3 ) Third and all subsequent pickups during any 12
consecutive months - $75 .00
•
LVL
board for each day or part thereof during the time the dog is
impounded . The fees may be paid on authorization of the
Council to its agent, pursuant to an annual contract between the
City and the designated pound beginning January 1 of each year
providing for the impounding of dogs. All monies collected
pursuant to this section shall be submitted by the Pound to the
City on a monthly basis (221) .
Subdivision 14. Release. Upon purchase or presentation
of a current license tag and a receipt for dog license for the
current year and for the fees provided for in Subdivision 13 , the
Pound shall release to any owner the dog claimed by him upon
adequate proof of ownership. (221 )
Subdivision 15 . Disposition of Unclaimed Dogs . Any dog
which is not claimed or redeemed as provided in Subdivision 14
within 72 hours after impounding, may be sold at a fair and
reasonable price to anyone desiring to purchase the dog if not
requested by a licensed educational or scientific institution
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 35 . 71 . All sums received above
the costs and license fee shall be held by the Clerk-Administra-
tor for the benefit of the owner and if not claimed in one (1 )
year, such funds shall be placed in the General Fund of the
Municipalitiy. Any dog which is not claimed by the owner or sold
shall be painlessly killed and disposed of by the Pound.
Subdivision 16. Summary Destruction of Dogs . Whenever
the Community Service Officer or any Police Officer has
reasonable cause to believe that a particular dog presents a
clear and immediate danger to the residents of the City of Mounds
View because it is infected with rabies or because of a clearly
demonstrated vicious nature, any Mounds View Police Officer after
making a reasonable attempt to impound such dog may summarily
destroy said dog.
Subdivision 17 . Vicious Dogs. Whenever the Community
Service Officer determines that any dog has bitten any person,
_- so-se of this
chapter. Such animal shall be impounded for a period of ten (10)
days or more at the expense of the owner of said animal . Except
for the time limit, disposition or redemption shall be in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The quarantines
required by this section shall not be necessary and the
requirements may be waived whenever the owner of such dog,
immediately upon receipt of notice that a dog in his control or
possession has bitten a person, presents to the Community Service
Officer or a Police Officer a Cetificate of a Licensed
Veterinarian indicating that the dog has been vaccinated for
rabies on a date not less than twenty-our ( 24) months prior to
the date of such notice.
Aft)
Subdivision 18. Seeing Eye Dogs. Whenever a blind person
J accompanied by a "seeing eye dog" or guide dog presents himself
for accomodation or service on any public transit vehicle or t-n
(1) Every dog shall be restrained off the premises of
111 '
its owner by means of a leash not to exceed 6 feet in length and
every dog in heat shall be confined in a building during such
entire period and until such dog shall not attract other dogs on
account thereof. All dogs shall be confined on the premises of
its owner by leash or by adequate fencing.
(2) The owner of any dog shall not permit said dog to be
on any public beach, school playground, public playground or
public park unless such dog is leashed and under the control of
said owner or his agent.
(3) Any Police Officer or Community Service Officer of
the Municipality shall take up and impound any dog found in
violation of this section, and release it only upon the payment
of fees as provided for in this chapter.
Subdivision 20. Interference with Officers. It shall be
unlawful for any unauthorized person to break open the pound or
to attempt to do so, or to take or let out any dogs therefrom, or
to take from any police officer or Community Service Officer any
dog taken up by him in compliance with this chapter or in any
manner to interfere with or hinder such Officer or Community
Service Officer in the discharge of his duties under this
chapter.
Subdivision 21. Muzzling Proclamation. Whenever the
prevalence of Hydrophobia or Rabies renders such action
necessary, to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the
Mayor shall issue a proclamation ordering every person owning or
keeping a dog to confine it securely on his premises unless it is
muzzled so that it cannot bite. No person shall violate such
proclamation and any unmuzzled dog running at large during the
time fixed in the proclamation shall if possible be picked up and
impounded or if necessary killed by the Police Officers without
notice to the owner of said dog pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
1953 , Section 35 . 69.
Subdivision 22 . Cruelty to Dogs. Minnesota Statutes
. Sections 343 . 20 to 343. 37 are hereby adopted by reference and
shall be in full force and effect in the City of Mounds View as
if set out here in full.
Subdivision 23 . Clean Up. Any person who owns, harbors,
or keeps a dog within the City of Mounds View shall clean up all
feces of the dog and dispose of such feces in a sanitary manner.
Subdivision 24. Guard Dogs.
(1 ) Businesses" located within the City and maintaining
a guard dog for security purposes shall post notice
1111Vat the entrance to the premises of the presence of
said dog.
••�� J•1��� ba1Q uog in an emergency
situation, if necessary, in order to allow a police
111
officer or fire figher to gain admittance to the
premises in the peformance of their duties.
Subdivision 25. Kennels.
(1) No person, firm or corporation shall possess more
than two dogs over six months old unless in
conformance with this subdivision.
(2 ) All dog kennels - residential or commercial as
defined in Subdivision 1 must be established by a
special use permit as required in Chapter 40 of this
Code. The zoning classifications as required under
Chapter 40.04 and 40.06 must be conformed with.
Notwithstanding, any provision to the contrary in
Chapter 40, the owner of a proposed dog kennel shall
present a petition to the Council signed by over 50
per cent of all registered landowners or those
occupying land within 500 feet of the property to be
affected, upon the receipt of which the Council will
then set the hearing for the special use permit as
provided for in Chapter 40. The petition shall
contain among other items of information how many
dogs the petitioner intends to keep on the premises.
(3) The annual license fee for dog kennels shall be established by resolution of the City Council.
Said license fees are due the first day of September
of each year.
(4) Kennels and premises used therefore shall be kept in
a clean, quiet, orderly and sanitary condition so as not to
constitute a nuisance as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
561 . 01 . In determining whether a nuisance exists, consideration
• - 0- e - - - - - - I -
residences, and general character of the neighborhood.
Subdivision 26. Penalty. Any person, firm, partnership,
or corporation violating any provisions of this chapter shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor.
91. 02 Domestic Animals.
Subdivision 1. Definitions.
(1) "Owner" means any person, firm or corporation owning,
harboring or keeping a domestic animal .
(2) "At large" means off the premises of the owner . (3 )
"Domestic animal" means any cattle, horses, mules,
sheet, swine or goats.
(4) "Private property" means all premises owned by
• private individuals, including all structures located thereon,
front yards, side yards and back yards.
Subdivision 2. Public Nuisance. It is hereby declared
to be a public nuisance affecting the public peace, safety and
welfare to keep or raise any domestic animal as defined herein on
private property within the Municipality.
91 . 03 Raising of Animals.
Subdivision 1 . Definitions.
(1 ) "Raising" The maintaining and breeding as a hobby
or as a commercial enterprise any animal defined herein.
(2) "Keeping" Providing food, water, and shelter for
any animal defined herein.
(3 ) "Animal" Any mammal of the rodent family, including
but not necessarily limited to, rabbits, hares, and hamsters, and
any fowl including but not necessarily limited to chickens,
pigeons, ducks or geese.
(4) "Private property" All premises owned by private
individuals, including all structures located thereon, front
�-Jo=' yards, side yards, and back yards.
•
Subdivision 2. Permitted. It shall be lawful to keep or
raise not more than two animals, as herein defined, on the
private property of the owner of said animals except where such
animals shall constitute a public nuisance.
Subdivision 3. Complaints. It shall be the duty of the
Police Department to investigate all complaints submitted to the
Council and if after investigation there appears to be a
violation of this chapter the investigating officer shall sign a
complaint.
Subidivision 4. Penalty. Any person, firm, partnership
or corporation violating any provision of this chapter shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor . (157 )
91. 04 Wild Animals.
Subidivision 1 . Definitions.
(1 ) "Owner" means any person, firm or corporation owning,
harboring or keeping a wild animal .
(2 ) "At large" means off the premises of the owner .
• (3 ) "Wild animal" means any animal or reptile which, in
its uncantured wild nr
..
• ) Subdivision 2. Permitted number. No owner shall have in
his possession more than one wild animal, as herein defined, at
any one time.
Subdivision 3. Confinement of Wild Animals.
(1) No wild animal shall be allowed by its owner to run
at large in the Municipality, whether or not the wild animal is
attended by a human being and shall be confined to a cage or
building located on the owner ' s premises.
(2 ) Any wild animal found running at large may be
immediately destroyed, without notice to the owner, by or under
the direction of the Community Service Officer or a Police
Officer if said wild animal cannot be taken up and impounded
after reasonable effort or without serious risk to persons
attempting to impound it.
Subdivision 4. Penalty. Any person, firm partnership,
or corporation violating any provision of this chapter shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor.
Or"'
1111-4