HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-1996 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION •
SEPTEMBER 4, 1996
7:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: August 7, 1996 (Enclosed)
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,AND GIVE
YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
5. Planning Case No. 454-96
8021 Eastwood Road
Applicant: Erik Anderson
Minor subdivision to create two lots.
6. Planning Case No. 452-96 (continued from August 7 and 21, 1996)
3025 County Road H
. Stahl Construction Company on behalf of the New Apostolic Church
Request for a conditional use permit to construct a 2,002 church in the R-1, Single
•Family Zoning District, a wetland alteration permit to undertake construction in the
100-foot wetland buffer, and a variance to allow an encroachment of five feet into the
35 foot required front yard setback.
7. Planning Case No. SP-0008-96
Revision of parking lot setbacks between residential and non-residential uses
Revision to lot area requirements for public or semi-public recreational buildings and
neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions limited
to elementary,junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as
churches cha.els t-m.1- ... ii, •.• -
8. Planning Case No. SP-0002-96
Revision to Flood Plain Zoning
•
9. Staff Report
10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
11. Adjournment
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
****************************************************
UNAPPROVED
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
August 7, 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 7:03 p.m.
on August 7, 1996.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Miller, 2. Roll Call
Brooks, Johnston, Brasaemle and Chair
Peterson. (Commissioners Stevenson and
Obert had excused absences.)
• ALSO PRESENT: Planning Associate Pruitt,
Community Development Director Sheldon and
Recording Secretary Benesch.
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve 3. Approval of Minutes:
the minutes of July 10, 1996, as amended. July 10, 1996
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
There were no citizen requests or comments 4. Citizen Requests and
from the floor. Comments From the
Floor
The Planning Commission took action on 6. Consideration of
agenda item 6 before the informational meeting Resolution Nos. 468-
for item 5. 96 and 469-96
Regarding a PUD
Rob Davidson and Mike Grenander, Amendment for
representatives of the applicant, Everest Everest Property
Property Management, were present. Management, 5251
• Program Avenue,
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
Regular Meeting Page 2OW/
Planning Associate Pruitt explained that Planning Case No.
Everest Property Management is requesting a 453-96
PUD amendment and development review to
expand the parking lot at 5251 Program
Avenue, Building G and reminded the Planning
Commission that this item was discussed at
their July 24, 1996, agenda meeting. She
continued by explaining that the applicant is
requesting to have a net increase of 35 parking
stalls on the east side of the property and •
wishes to increase the number of stalls in order
to meet the demands of a tenant that may
locate to the business park which will bring the
total number of parking stalls provided on the
site to 500. She noted that the plans indicate
the parking spaces located on the east side of
the property will abut the property line and
noted that at the last meeting the Planning •
Commission agreed to allow parking up to the
property line for this PUD amendment since a
landscaping buffer is being provided within the
right-of-way. It was also noted that the parking
area to the south of the building will be
restriped. She also indicated that Rick
Wriskey, City Forester, has requested the
existing trees be moved within 8 to 9 feet from
the curb along the right-of-way and also that
the applicant has been advised that the
amendment will require Rick Creek Watershed
District approval.
Planning Associate Pruitt noted the
contingencies contained in Resolution No.
468-96 which are: 1) a landscaping plan be
submitted subject to approval of the City
Forester and 2) approval be given from Rice
Creek Watershed District.
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve
Resolution No. 468-96 as amended
recommending approval of an amendment to
•
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
• Regular Meeting Page 3
Development Agreement No. 87-81 with
Mounds View Business Park, Building G, 5251
Program Avenue.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve
Resolution No. 469-96 as amended
recommending approval of the development
request of Everest Development LTD, Mounds
View Business Park, Building G, 5251 Program
Avenue.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
The applicant was informed that this item would
be forwarded to the City Council at their August
meeting for action.
•
Bill Diem, of Stahl Construction, was present. 5. Public Informational
Meeting Regarding
Community Development Director Pamela the Request of Stahl
Sheldon noted that this item was discussed at Construction for the
the Planning Commission agenda meeting and Construction of the
that Stahl Construction is requesting to build a New Apostolic Church
church, the New Apostolic Church, on the at 3025 County Road
property located at 3025 County Road H. H, Planning Case No.
452-96
Community Development Director Sheldon
informed the Planning Commission that there
was new information regarding parking and
drainage for this request. She continued by
explaining that the Building Inspector had
calculated the total parking stalls required
based on the total area of the building, not the
seating capacity, and that Stahl Construction
has asked that it be recalculated by the area
that will be used for seating. Stahl's point was
• that not all of the area will be used for seating
and they anticipate their parking needs will not
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
Regular Meeting Page 4
be as great as portrayed in the City's analysis.
She also explained that a retention area may
not be required because they have an
alternative proposal to use a clarification ditch
and that our Engineering consultant is awaiting
a proposal from Stahl Construction as to how
they will modify the parking lot to make this
proposal work. Director Sheldon recommended
to the Planning Commission that this item be
tabled at this point but noted that the applicant
is requesting that the Planning Commission act
on the variance so that the lay-out of the site
can be arranged.
The Planning Commission inquired about the
curb cuts that are not in compliance. Planning
Associate Pruitt informed the Commission that
the applicant desires to remedy this issue and •
come into compliance with City Code. Planning
Associate Pruitt also noted items that need to
be addressed: landscaping, fire suppression
system, driveway access, exits on both sides of
the building, revised floor plans showing one
story not two, revised drainage plans for
approval by the City Engineer and submittal of
an application for a wetland alteration permit.
The applicant, Bill Diem, explained that he is in
favor of temporarily tabling this item due to the
fact that the main office for Stahl Construction
is located in Pennsylvania and that it may take
some additional time to get all the items
required.
Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, inquired
whether or not the proposed building would be
a multi-person residence. Mr. Diem responded
that there would be no residence on site. Mr.
Bellis also asked if a traffic study had been
done because he felt this proposal would .
increase traffic flow. Mr. Diem indicated that
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
iRegular Meeting Page 5
they did hire a surveyor, who specializes in
traffic studies, but reminded the residents that
this facility would mainly be used only on
Sundays and Wednesday evenings.
Commissioner Brasaemle inquired if the
building would be one-story. Mr. Diem
indicated that the facility would be first-floor at
grade and a basement for a total of 2,002
square feet. Mr. Diem at this time showed the
plans to the residents.
Some of the drainage concerns were
discussed, mainly the flow of drainage on the
site: The applicant assured the Commission
and the resident that he had been in contact
with Rice Creek Watershed District and noted
that there is currently a filtration system in
• place along County Road H. Some residents
were still concerned with the water flowing to
the north. Mr. Diem assured the residents that
all water would drain to a gravel bed to the
south.
Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, addressed
the Planning Commission expressing his
concern regarding drainage of the property. He
asked if additional water would be draining to
County Road H. Mr. Diem indicated that they
are proposing a filtration and detention area
and there is the availability of berms, curb cuts,
etc. to slow the water down. He also indicated
that more water would be flowing, however, the
volume would be controlled. He also indicated
that they will try to provide more green space
and are proposing more green space on the
southwest corner of the property and will
address any aesthetic issues.
. Barb Cloues, 2875 County Road H, asked why
the church would be allowed in an R-1 District.
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
Regular Meeting Page 6 •
The Planning Commission responded by
indicating that churches are an allowed use by
conditional use permit in an R-1 District. She
also had a concern regarding the future growth
of the facility and what would happen to the
building if the church vacates. Mr. Diem
explained that the structure being proposed is
twice the size needed to allow for future growth
and, if the congregation did become too large,
part of the congregation would be moved to a
new building. He indicated that a majority of
the congregation now lives in the Mounds View
area. Ms. Cloues also asked what the church
would be used for. Mr. Diem explained that
Sunday School would begin at 8:45 a.m.,
worship services would be held at 10 a.m. and
5 p.m., the choir meets twice a month, a
evening worship service is held on
Wednesdays at 8 p.m. and also noted that the i
average attendance on Sunday is 60-70 people
at the morning services, 20 people at the
evening services and 20 people at the
Wednesday service.
Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, asked why
the church didn't rebuild their current facility in
the Midway area. Mr. Diem again stated that a
majority of the members live in this area.
Barb Cloues, 2875 County Road H, inquired
about the parking issue and whether there was
enough and was concerned about off-street
parking. The applicant indicated that no off-
street parking is needed and that 17-18 cars is
the most they have had at one time.
Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive,
inquired as to why the church doesn't get a
property better suited for the facility with more
green space.
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
• Regular Meeting Page 7
Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive,
referenced another particular property that the
church had been looking at. The applicant
indicated this particular property had an
easement running through it which would not
make it a desirable site for the church.
Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, indicated
that he is aware of land available on Highway
10, on both sides, that may be better suited.
The applicant explained that the ability for a
church to build in a residential district has been
protected. He also explained that other
properties that they had looked at did not have
sewer and water to the site which would cost
more to install than the lot itself.
Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, mentioned
that a developer (Steve Borden at this time
indicated that the developer was Larry Beach
and that he was told by Mr. Beach that his
name could be used at this meeting) tried to
develop the property with no cooperation from
the City. Planning Associate Pruitt responded
by indicating that she has not been approached
by Mr. Beach regarding development of this
site.
Commissioner Brooks asked whether or not
church representatives are aware of
neighboring property owners' objection to this
proposal. Mr. Diem explained that, in his
experience, the development of schools and
churches is always opposed. He further
explained that typically commercial
development doesn't create as much
controversy since those properties are already
zoned for that particular use.
• Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive,
explained that she has nothing personal
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
Regular Meeting Page 8 •
against churches but does have a concern
about the church parking lot being next to her
house. Mr. Diem indicated that landscaping is
required for a buffer.
Commissioner Brasaemle asked where the
parking issue stands with the 22 stall difference
from what is required. Planning Associate
Pruitt explained that the building inspector has
gone over the floor plans based on maximum
occupancy load of the building and that the
applicant would need to show proof of
permanent seating for the facility. Community
Development Director Sheldon indicated that
there is a one stall per four seat required per
City Code and that 32 stalls currently are
proposed.
Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, asked
whether or not the church congregation was
required to sing and was concerned about the
noise level. The applicant indicated that, yes,
they would be singing and said that
construction would consist of 6 inch insulated
walls.
Barb Cloues, 2875 County Road H, asked if
photographs were available. The applicant
indicated that he would bring the photographs
to the next meeting. Planning Associate Pruitt
informed the residents that she indicated to the
applicant that this item would more than likely
be tabled so the applicant was not prepared to
make a presentation at this meeting.
Lynn Widseth, 3001 County Road H, said that
she was not aware of a previous meeting that
was held regarding this issue. Planning
Associate Pruitt explained that a public hearing
is only required at the City Council level and •
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
• Regular Meeting Page 9
that this informational meeting at the Planning
Commission level was held as a courtesy.
Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, again
expressed his concerns regarding the traffic
issue.
Chair Peterson asked the applicant to describe
the design of the building. The applicant at this
time gave a brief description of the lay-out and
indicated that floor plans would be presented at
the next meeting.
Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive,
expressed her concerns that if a berm was
installed it may dry out. Chair Peterson noted
that at this time questions are taken regarding
the building structure, and they would get into
drainage issues and show how the grade works
later.
Lynn Widseth, 3001 County Road H, asked if
there were any handicapped individuals in the
congregation and was concerned about
handicapped persons escaping during a fire.
The applicant indicated that currently there are
no handicapped individuals in the congregation
and explained that it is a requirement that two
staircases be installed along with egress
windows (which would accommodate the
handicapped) in the basement.
Barb Cloues, 2875 County Road H, expressed
her concerns about the security issue and that
she sees very little police traffic on County
Road H. The applicant explained that
vandalism is a product of our society and, as
always, is at the risk of the property owners.
He also indicated that churches have the same
. ratio for vandalism as strip malls. Chair
Peterson asked if a monitored security system
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
Regular Meeting Page 10 •
would be installed? The applicant explained
that to put a security system in would be the
decision of the owner and also informed them
that the church is self-insured.
Barb Cloues, 2875 County Road H, was
concerned about her safety. The applicant
indicated that the rate of loss to a retail mall is
less than that of residential property.
Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, asked if
the lighting on the site would be on. The
applicant explained that no direct illumination is
allowed onto adjacent properties.
Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, asked what
the addresses of the congregation members
were and how many were south of Highway 36.
The applicant informed Mr. Bellis that 5 percent
of the congregation lived south of Highway 36
and approximately 20 percent live in Mounds
View.
Chair Peterson asked the applicant to address
the drainage issues. Mr. Diem began by
explaining that better than 150 feet is going
towards the west and exiting at a controlled
rate to Pleasant View Drive and the remainder
to County Road H. The Planning Commission
noted that the Engineer expressed concern
with filtration. Mr. Diem continued to explain
the drainage for the site. The applicant stated
that they are proposing to move the building
farther to the west, some additional parking
would then be in back and more green space
would be created at the exit.
Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, inquired
about the proposal to widen County Road H.
Chair Peterson informed him that Planning •
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
• Regular Meeting Page 11
Commission was not aware of any plans to
widen County Road H.
Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, expressed
his concern with the parking elevations and the
lot draining to the northeast and running
through his yard. The applicant explained that
the entrance will be high enough to contain the
drainage and then recapped the proposed
drainage plans for the site and the proposed
lay-out of the building.
Barb Cloues, 2895 County Road H, was
concerned about the 3/12 slope to the Borden's
property. The applicant explained that they
would not be changing the grade near the
Borden's property to the east. Commissioner
Miller was concerned with the accumulation of
• water on the north side of the building. The
applicant said that there would no accumulation
and demonstrated the proposed water flow for
the site.
Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, asked if there
would be an entrance on County Road H. The
applicant stated that yes there would be an
entrance onto County Road H and that he has
contacted Ramsey County and was informed
that there would be no plans to update County
Road H.
Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, indicated
that he believed that there are plans to update
County Road H in 1999 and was concerned
about that green space that would be removed
from the church for this project. The applicant
indicated that if Ramsey County plans to widen
County Road H they would first need to buy
property from the existing residents in order to
. do so. He also indicated that the green space
proposed for this project is not on an easement
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
Regular Meeting Page 12 S
and that at least a five foot setback would be
required for the installation of sidewalks along
County Road H. Commissioner Brasaemle
informed Mr. Diem that the sidewalk along Long
Lake Road abuts the property line because
there wasn't enough space to provide five feet
and also that a temporary construction
easement was given by the residents.
Chair Peterson asked the applicant to address
the snow storage issue. Mr. Diem explained
that 2 percent of the green space proposed for
the site will be used as snow storage with the
additional storage coming from one parking
space.
Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, inquired
as to the parking lot setbacks. Planning
Associate Pruitt indicated that there is a five •
foot minimum setback requirement. Mr. Borden
also expressed that he believes that parking
requirements should be calculated by
maximum occupancy of the building.
Community Development Director Sheldon
explained that parking is tied to permanent
seating capacity.
Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, asked if
there would be concurrent use of unsay
school and church services and was concerned
about the parking issue. The applicant
indicated that there would be no concurrent
used for these activities and that it has never
happened.
Lynn Widseth, 3001 County Road H, asked
what the denomination of the church is? The
applicant stated that it is Christian, the New
Apostolic Church.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
• Regular Meeting Page 13
Dave Griffen, 2965 County Road H, inquired as
to what the church is doing now with their
property? Mr. Diem explained that the church
is currently renting because their facility has
been sold.
Barb Cloues, 2897 County Road H, again
expressed her concerns regarding alternative
parking and Chair Peterson assured her that
• these issues will be addressed. Ms. Cloues
also inquired as to the signage that would be
on site. The applicant explained that there
would be an illuminated cross on the building
and a sign would show the name of the church,
service and Sunday school times and it would
be located on the building near the entrance.
Additional snow storage issues were reiterated
• and the applicant explained that snow storage
will not be located in areas where water is
expected to drain.
Shelley Borden, 3009 County Road H, asked
the Planning Commission what "tabling" this
item means? The Planning Commission
explained that there is not enough information
to make a decision at this time.
Planning Associated Pruitt noted at this time
that a wetland alteration permit is also needed.
Community Development Director Sheldon
asked when the City could expect to receive
the needed items for review from the applicant.
Mr. Diem indicated that they would be supplied
in one week and will be shown to the Planning
Commission at the next meeting.
The informational meeting was closed at 9:00
• p.m.
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
Regular Meeting Page 14 •
Community Development Director Sheldon
indicated that we will need to review new plans
to determine what the variance request is.
Chair Peterson and Commissioner Brasaemle •
expressed their concerns that this proposal did
not meet the criteria for granting a variance.
The applicant indicated that they are seeking a
variance in order to add green space but that
locating the building on the site is workable
without a variance.
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to table this
item with no action to be taken before their
September 4, 1996, meeting.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Commissioner Brasaemle informed the •
residents of the next Planning Commission
meeting dates of Wednesday, August 21 and
the regular meeting to be held on September 4,
1996.
Planning Associate Pruitt informed the
Commission that she would be writing the
applicant a letter requesting an additional 60
days in order to process the application.
Community Development Director Sheldon 7. Consideration of
reviewed this item indicating that the Mounds Resolution No.
View ordinance requires development contracts 470-96 Regarding
for almost every step in the development Ordinance No. 588
process, whether the step involves (Chapter 1006.06)
improvements or not. It is staffs understanding
that the purpose of the requirement is to make
sure improvements are completed. She
recommended that, for private improvements, a
better approach would be to allow applicants to
proceed without posting security. If, at the time •
•
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
• Regular Meeting Page 15
when the applicant wants occupancy of the
building, the items are not completed, the City
would decide if it would allow security to be
posted and occupancy permits to be issued, or
require that the improvements be completed.
Right now the City requires that the applicant
put up security before construction is started,
when the usual practice is to construct private
improvements along with construction of the
building. There are occasions when
improvements such as landscaping cannot be
completed until the next growing season
because of weather. In these situations,
security could be required for installation of the
landscaping and an occupancy permit issued.
For public improvements such as sidewalks,
curb and gutter, streets, etc., development
contracts and security are needed and no
•
change is proposed in this requirement. She
expressed that development contracts are not
needed for proposals such as oversized
garages. Resolution No. 470-96 talks about
making these minor items exempt because no
other improvements are involved. It was
requested by the Planning Commission that
Resolution No. 470-96 be amended to state
that the Planning Commission recommend and
the City Council grant waivers when such
contracts are not needed to fulfill the
requirements of the ordinance, rather than
exempt certain situations. The Planning
•Commission discussed that there are some
cases when the construction of an oversized
garage involves removal of other structures and
then a development contract and security is
needed.
Motion/Second: Miller/Brasaemle to table the
consideration of Resolution No. 470-96
• regarding Ordinance No. 588 amending the
development contract language of chapter
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
Regular Meeting Page 16 •
1006.06, Subdivision 4, of the Municipal Code,
with direction to staff that the Planning
Commission review the specific wording of the
proposed ordinance revision before it is sent to
City Council.
(Commissioner Brooks left the meeting at 9:30
p.m)
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Planning Associate Pruitt reviewed this item 8. Consideration of
indicating that the City of Mounds View was Resolution No.
informed that the City's flood plain ordinance is 471-96 Regarding
not considered compliant by the Minnesota Ordinance No. 589
Department of Natural Resources and that a (Chapter 1301, Flood
nonconforming uses section and a section Plain Zoning)
addressing travel trailers is encouraged to be i
added. She also indicated that this ordinance
needs to be in place by September 1, 1996, or
the City of Mounds View will be suspended
from the FEMA program. The Planning
Commission inquired as to how much of
Mounds View is affected. (A FEMA map was
shown to the Planning Commission at this
time).
Motion/Second. Johnston/Brasaemle to
recommend approval of Resolution No. 471-96
as amended by Staff to meet Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) criteria, regarding
Ordinance No. 589 amending Chapter 1301,
entitled "Flood Plain Zoning".
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Planning Associate Pruitt informed the 9. Staff Report
Planning Commission that she has accepted a
position with the City of Hastings and will be
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996
• Regular Meeting Page 17
leaving the City of Mounds View with August 30
as her last day. She also introduced the new
Community Development Director, Pamela
Sheldon, and welcomed her aboard and
thanked the Planning Commission for their
cooperation and understanding during her time
as Acting Community Development Director.
All members were present at the July 24, 1996, 10. Report of Chair
agenda meeting. Also present were Planning
Associate Pruitt and Community Development
Director Sheldon. Chair Peterson requested
that the agenda be changed to contain not only
the Chair's Report but also that it include the
other Planning Commissioners.
There being no further business before the 11. Adjournment
• Planning Commission, Chair Peterson
adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Pamela Sheldon
Community Development Director
ID
ITEM #5
. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Meeting Date: September 4, 1996
f40/
Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
Planning Case
File No.: 454-96
Request: Minor subdivision to create two lots
Petitioner: " Erik Anderson
Location: 8021 Eastwood Road
PIN No. 06-30-23-41-0041
Zoning/Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and
is improved with one house. The property contains 38,114 square
feet (0.87 acres).
Applicable.Regulations:
Section 1201.03, Subd. 11, defines a minor subdivision as"A subdivision of a parcel or
parcels of property less than two acres in size in which no more than one additional parcel
or lot is created."
Section 1202.01, Subd. 1, states "Minor subdivision requests shall require at least a
surveyor's certificate for approval."
Section 1104.02, Subd. 2, requires a minimum lot width for R-1 interior lots of 75 feet.
Section 1104.02, Subd. 3, requires a minimum lot size requirement of 11, 000 square feet
for an R-1 interior lot.
Section 1204.02, Subd. 2, requires a"park dedication fee" (dedication to the public for
public use as parks, playgrounds, public open space or storm water holding areas of
ponds) of$100.00 per care for a gross density of 0.0-2.0 dwelling units per acre.
Attachments: Planning Application
Warranty Deed
Zoning Map
Certificate of Survey (reduction)
Certificate of Survey (full size enclosed with packet)
Resolution Recommending Approval
Planning Case No. 454-96 •
September 4, 1996
Page 2
Background:
Erik Anderson, the applicant, is requesting a minor subdivision to split the property at
8021 Eastwood Road into two separate parcels.
At the Planning Commission's agenda meeting on August 21, 1996, several issues were
raised:
• the removal of the word"proposed" from the utility and drainage easements
• the encroachment of the driveway into proposed utility and drainage easements
• the spelling of the applicant's name
Since the Planning Commission meeting, several other items have come to light. The
quick claim deed in the file showing Mr. Anderson's ownership of the property was dated
October 24, 1995 did not show evidence of recordation. We requested Mr. Anderson to
supply a recorded copy of this deed. He has provided us with a copy of a warranty deed .
for the property, but it also does not show evidence of recordation. A contingency has
been included in the attached resolution requiring that evidence of ownership be supplied
prior to the City Council taking action on this case.
Ramsey County has established standards for the format for land surveys if they are used
for creating lots. A title block, approval block for the City Council, and signature blocks
for the Department of Property Taxation, County Surveyor and County Registrar of Titles
are needed and have been added by the applicant.
The City Attorney has advised that easements cannot be dedicated by way of a land
survey, and need to be dedicated by a separate recorded easement.
Analysis:
The proposed lots each meet the minimum lot area and width requirements as outlined in
the Zoning Ordinance.
Required Proposed Requirement Met?
Minimum Lot Area
(Interior) 11,000 appr. 19,057 YES
(Interior) 11,000 appr. 19,057 YES
Minimum Lot Width
(Interior) 75 feet 82.5 feet YES
(Interior) 75 feet 82.5 feet YES
• Planning Case No. 454-96
September 4, 1996
Page 3
The applicant has provided a revised land survey which shows the following:
• correct spelling of his name
• addition of the required title block, approval block and certificates
• removal of the word "proposed" from the labeling of the easements
Dedication of easements: The applicant has submitted proposed wording for the
dedication of the easements, which needs to be reviewed by the City Attorney. Because
this requirement only came to light this week, we have not had time to put the easements
in final form. We have included a contingency in the attached resolution that the
easements be approved as to form by the City Attorney, and signed by the applicant, prior
to any approval by the City Council.
Encroachment of driveway: The applicant has agreed to remove that portion of the
driveway which is encroaching into the easement on Parcel A. A contingency to this
effect is included in the attached resolution.
• Evidence of ownership: As is noted above, we do not have complete evidence that Mr.
Anderson is the owner of the property. A contingency requiring him to supply evidence of
ownership prior to the City Council taking action on this application is included in the
attached resolution.
Minor errors: The description of the lots refers to Anoka County and needs to be changed
to Ramsey County.
Park dedication fee: The required park dedication fee of$100.00 has been paid.
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to the contingencies stated in the attached resolution.
cc: Eric Anderson, 8021 Eastwood Road, Mounds View MN 55112; FAX: 493-3642
•
, - ��- ilk,'
_ . . CITY OF MOUNDS_VIEW. ., .. .- - _... .
PLANNING APPLICATION _.::-. '_- '''.:7::::::-'/::- > == �`.
Phone 5f 51 ...-.4-
ADDRESS: 8Odl 4.--Z-74c boo./ .za/ 0ao-c r,� r73- .
Street Address, City, State, and Zp Code -
.
Interest in Property (check appropriate box):
Owner of Property - -
0 Contract for Deed Owner •
0 Lessee, Operator, Manager . • S .
Agreement to Purchase
Q Other (explain)
Codimerrtary evidence of applicantg
s interest in the.property may he required before final My aeon of this request. -- - ..:
PROPERTY INVOLVED: .
Address/General Location .F041 j,o / • ,P�/- v„, ...,?s-,,,- _4/ 7)-.. �//�. c'1C,7-3 - y I -Oo
Leval Description or Property Identinca ion Number(/ ��r.. . y, „e,. ,e,,,-)
Legal Owner: Name/Address 9 / Ecbf) Pv4,,c -/ . 3-/
•
Present Use (check appropriate box): •
0 UndeveieaedNacant .
Er:- Single.Family Dwelling •
Q . Oupiex/TWo Family Dwelling. ry ..
. ..
: 0 Multi-Famiiy (No. of Units _ ) -- - :--7^-7.'.
Q Eusiness/Cammerdai Establishment :.:_ . -
0 Industrial Esta bIishment
0 Other (explain)
Property C;assTication: [ Abstract .." . • [ i crrens
•
REQUEST: ,2-.",z3,' "1 --.utero--
'9!ease note: Applicant may be resccnsibie for acc bent fees asscc:areb with the review at this request.est.
_.......,j
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE AECVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE.
Signature
weirevineinirsrirone-sarmiripsinrw _mm
P.e.:,ning =CO/ad-a.minimum =c0.maximum 51,E Paris Fund Cedicscicn Fee
Variance R-1 to n-2•STS.aii others SZCQ Caw Ps
ici
Cznaiticrsai Use Permit R-1 to r;-Z-Si.I.Si ethers=0t3 Pecaiot Number
•
Cads Aopere S77:71
Ceveico.;Sarte Ran nevi •. ..minimum 1CC.maximum utm $ C0 Torsi Fees ?;.id 4 LSO
Minor Subdivision Case P $ 9 y�O
td.-......•4l •
exsr Subdivision pias S'.;._' 0.:edcsit Receipt Numoer L.
C.:4-no. P'an Amendment SZCG 4 {
Wetland Alteration Permit S:0 oius deco=Oata m,r ae Ilv Stasi Adciticnet Fee P-fd
Wettand 3urier Psrmrt ' S;0
Care i--id
Panning Sign w�0
m
Pi jo Recaiot Nuoer
P'.1C Amendment Sh57 Cam ci anal ac-.:on
APPRCVEC 7 Calla," ` TAcL�_] 7
i - o/v i c—i t r ! 1
Individual(s)to Individual(s)
No delinquent taxes and transfer entered;Certificate
of Real Estate Value( )filed( )not required
Certificate of Real Estate Value No.
,19
•
County Auditor
by
DePuty
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON:S 2 8 0.50
Date: July 25 ,19 96
(reserved for recording data)
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. Mary K. Siemon, a single person
(marital crams)
Grantor(s),
hereby convey(s)and warrant(s)to Erik A. Anderson
.Grantee(s),
real property in Ramsey County,Minnesota.described as follows:
Lot 61, Spring Lake Park Hill Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota
•
•
(if more space is needed,continue on back)
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto,subject to the following exceptions:
•
17)1,A4
Mary K. Siemon
Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF Ramsey
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 25th day of July 19 96
by Mary K. Siemon, a single Person '
,Gmna (s).
4-1 NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL(OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) •
• _,, SIGNATURE OF ERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT
46 „ UNDA R.MITCHELL E Tax Statements for the mat try described in this instrument should
Z '1e ROTARY PUMA•MRINESOTA 1; 6e sent to(Indy name and eddies,of Grantee):
a4'Cea7.
Jai 31.1T1
Erik A. Anderson
8021 Eastwood Road
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY(NAME AND ADDRESS): Moundsview, MN 55112
Equity Title Services AND
6800 France Ave. South •
Edina, MN 55435
•
8198 8205 I I N INIDRNI I 8180 8185 8206
8192 d 8203 8205
Z_,,..._82031
— m 8208 IH414
8160 8171 8200
6160 N N N 8200 8165
E 8155 a m %,1 8150 8165 -.' 8150 =:
LAPORT
8148 O M N Co Co 0 8142 8145 �` cPia� 8145 8140 8135
8138 N N N N N 8135 �1 dj'�S� 8144 8141 .i 8132
1.-A....6 2863 8132 8127 81251 8130 # 813 A I 8121
'• IN o ?? 8111 flfli;:1100
F, 6, � 0
810174
812 •12 N ry N N NN N N N
8106 N N N N N N N N N N
-mN' SH RWOOD
8100
{ co $ m
,D N 18080 m O N 1 N I N N 8086 8085 N N N
8080 co Co co co Co n N NII 80811 Ca N ( N18088 8075 N 1 N 8099 m m 8085
8084 8085 8070 O 8071 8066 8071 8068 8071 8072 8071 8072 O 8071
8060 8065 _ 8075 8060 8059 8050 8055 8060 8050 8060 Cr 8041
8040 8046 8042 8045 8• 8051 :044 8045 8046
B-3 8045 aoa5 8040
R-08030 8036 8039 8032 8033 E40 8035 ='32 8031 8038 8035
8025
a). 8026 8E 2 8019 8030
`Y 0, 8020 8025 80261 8015 8025 8018 8011 8000 8021' 8t 8001 8010 8011
co,
8000-.48005 8016 8009 8006 l
7980 8005 = 7985 8004 7981 7990 a 7981 90 7989 7 6 7993 7990 cc re 7977
7990 980 a 7985 7970
7970 7979 7980 7969 79-• 7979
7975 7964 7975
7980 f 7960 7961
�/ 7960 7985 7960 7959 7970 7965 7966 7969 7950 7951 7954
rn n W 7949 7954 7959 7955
N 4 _79g 7955 7956 7946 7927 HI LLVI EW
I N ry 7940 7945
o N 7934 7933 7950 • 7930 7935 7930 7917 7940 PARK 7945
°' I 7932 n n 7901 _ rn co; o
NR n N PF 901 N N co
N. °f N n N 7900 7901 u) m 7900
4 JO N N N 7900 7901 7900 "' ROAD
N E
HILLVIEW. CM '41111111er . m m o mom. 9T
::p 7891 m m 17880 7895 I N N 7890 78851 '13,4 N 7864 7865 N ,' N
Fri N N 7ES8 W
laS Erg tr. m }} 7885 7866 7867 7870 7869 7953
, m m 7876 Z 7860 7865 7852 W
N o B-2 O 7877 7854 7851 7846
co 7870 to 7842 7850 7855 7841
7850 B O• �� ,
7863 7841 7840 7829
L o +� 7801 Iv 8�0 7830 7840 7835 7817
N r'N N
1.00,
4=—3 7851 7820 7815 7790 7815 7900 7809
i1ii'i :!i
ti SI 7sos 7780 7aot
7810 7809 7770 Z 7801 7760 7797
M� .4 7800 w 7801 7750 7787
B-2 1E 7801 w 7777
7770 ry��• *��P 7767 7760 7741 77'w 7767
m ry Vikithi h
�}!CM ra
m ti� 7761 7750 7731 7730 7753
ECMEM Q 7801 7761 7730 7721 7720
�C-� N.„ �yh 7745 7710 7711 N
�. /,. .
ry 7715 co N o vOi 7700 N "C;;
7710 ��7710 7711 . 0 E R21 R-2
ESI ..................................::�......
...:...................
• �i• nMrn,n el 4
. N
mell 7692 PUD �: :�"• n n n c o c n n n 2551 N ;
®NCl 7690 n = m B-3 A u� P, N N N N N 03 2549 2
m 769• O ul NNNN m -Z
..� Nall 0:768: N '- N y N 2547 0
ip 7669 7670 Y ��j � 2545
7665 7660 g B-3 ry°� 3-4 2541
2539
7647 7644 7653 2537
7629 7634 7635ips k�N —4 7,
7625 7620 � _ At) 7'
7619 7600 7601 SILVER VIEW n 1� `• -2
7585 7594 7575 I n n� N B-2
7579 7588 PARK N'N * 0 �s •
a 7565 Min O 7565 N N ?
tO° 8-3
3 Ja 04 04
° ' rn� 01
-1 W < m
-
431. N
c`i
Z 7545 7560 •�kili�N' PF N ^' N N N�m"'N ry�ry •-
aY 7515 n , O yN a,o dipp J�
_ 7540 O 'N�n any NA /N •O.rry t''I
f11 v T ..'71 m O,•I N = •., p t0 �p N
co co co co
N N N N N N �YI ' N ' N OI2
DRIVE �kianal ►•x*:4 O N R-4
0 O 0 b N
7490 7485 cg,
0 m m m ::.;• N .... 0 N N 22 03 =N N N y N ^�„ji
747a� N N N :'.
7474 7471 BRONSON
'5 7456 w Co .:..:.• Vicinity Map: 454-96 --"-
z
�
l 7451 01*
17444 glit, ....- ^ ,e tit
N N
8021 Eastwood Road
7442 42' a -- n " n411S1 ':::::
7434 1,1
7415 It
Applicant: Erik Anderson
C 7409 7440 V1Evm
v B-
Lu I SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.
` LAND SURVEYORS
REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
•
7601 73rd avenue North 612-360.30Q5
Fax No.560.3522
"ii.
Minneapolis,Minnesota 53426
MINOR SUBDIVISION FG:
ERIK ANDERSON •�ururyars CCrrtifiratr
•II Registered Land Survey No.
Registered Land Survey for
-S Loi 61.Spring Lake Park Hillview
Ns 9035Parcels A and B
aa.
ifI:! T
I —."_231.0 N90°00'00-E - - r —
Q iys ?_ ,.�:.-
0 f .._SS 2_.. 1PP 24su: •,•••..
• N PARCEL •-$ rR n.E :;r^ GAF�i46 ,eN C' A
-1 co - A4 P02� N ,Q til - l� IL:
N• cc
L .E't n 04 2C 9+ n
�'' 23.6 ^, JI C•-
- I -6-t t o Y.Ili.o U e - 7 F t.Vtr.
I
in •.
cr —--- - — — 231.0_ N90°00'00"c __ ___
o I Z i -. .tl •
•
O 0 p Pa, . PARCEL B
II I _
li I -' III
---- co
Q 1 l.:I U «o Ic
0I ;
1 —"'_ "" 231.0 S90°00'00'W-----
P .1[ ,-S SPLIT �>
•
00 7989
:etc I 4
I
I �� ,,.
44422 City Council Approval '1
742-12 I do hereby certify that 6n the dof .19 ,the City Caoadl of the Cite c 1
a-
Mounds View in Ramsey County.Minaesaa approved this registered land survey.Mecum=m as
Surrey Notes: shown m the reputed hand survey and shall be ser as shown between Parcel A and Parcel B.according to
. Minnesota Statutes.Sect=505 02.Subd.I.
1.Property Address:8021 Eastwood Road
2.Property zoned R-I Residential
3.Total area of property-38.114 Sq.Ft(0.87 Ana)
legal Description:
Jerry Linke.Mawr
Lot 61.Spring tate Park NIBvew
ATTEST:
Pared A-(19.057 Sq.Ft.) -
The north 82.5 feet as mesaosd along the eau and west lines
thtaeof of Lt 61.SPRING LAID:PARK HILLVIEW.Ands Churl Whiting.Coy Clerk-Admmisusor
county,Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof '
Deparmiaut of Property Taxation •
Parcel B-(19,057 Sq.FL) Taxa payable m the year 196n the land heron described have been paid also tbcre are no delinquent
taxes and transit enured this day of 19
Thu pan of Lot 61.SPRANG LAKE PARK HILLVIEW,Anoka
City,Minnesota wading to the recorded plat thereof lying
sank ur
erf the north 82.5 feet as measured on the eau and west •
- •- - .
nest- _lines .. .. ". - - . _ _ D toff Property Toutice,---,,,".,-.1--,_ D°, -"• .
•
__. . __.- .. County Surveyor Certificate
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,Serum 383A.42.this regiuted land survey bat beer esamio°d and is
•
• approved this day of
'19 and the=dine= Minnesota Statutes,S072.100- 505.03.Subdivision 2,have be=fulfilled
cou
David D Claypool.ILLS.
• . - - -
. -- - - . _gamey Canny Surveyor
auitoirq information must tee emceed with approved building _�� :
e emwetion aria construction.
_ Co..mry Registrar of Titles Certificate --
eoatmerna atwwn oa from para of recur°-or irtorm°tlon Regime-0(74.1mClamlyofRamses statofMmoeaota•.
ry anent. 1 hereby ratify that this Registered Land Survey No.;"• was filed in this otTieae this alae or
• . ~.. _. - -- •
- -c--.- Doexamrt Numbs
19 .at dclot_Ms
r Certify Mal this is a True and correct reereserfi ton of - •J.
i the pountloi ser o1 the°pout tle iWtl Jeno one tM - - -
f m°u and vide tntoocnnwnts. i any,from or on - .�. ...
'x• _ - _ _ ;?Gmaa,Canty Ree°rdt
soy of- auouat 796•• _
inn27'T N
-.. 9—• ..._. �+n
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 Na 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.
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
. . -.
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.
•
• Planning Commission Resolution 472-96
September 4, 1996
Page 2
3. The City Council resolution of approval, the land survey and the drainage and
utility easement be recorded with Ramsey County within sixty(60) days of final
adoption, and present proof of such recording to the City of Mounds View, or this
approval shall be null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff
to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 4th day of September, 1996
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Mounds View Planning Commission
ATTEST:
• (SEAL)
Pamela Sheldon
Community Development Director
•
N T E R
•
MEMO
OF F ICE
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Pamela Sheldon
Subject: Planning Case No. 412-96
New Apostolic Church
3025 County Road H
Date: September 2, 1996
Attached you will find the staff report and revised plans for the New Apostolic Church, proposed
to be located at 3025 County Road H. This application includes a request for a setback variance,
a conditional use permit and a development review. You will notice that the staff report on this
item is quite extensive. Due to the time required to review the plans and prepare the staff report,
the resolutions corresponding to the staff's recommendations are not ready but we did not want
to hold the packet until they were. So you will be receiving the proposed resolutions prior to
your meeting on Wednesday, September 4.
ITEM #6
• REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Meeting Date: September 4, 1996
Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director `‘71-
ti
Planning Case
File No.: 452-96
Request: The applicant has submitted an application for a variance for
setbacks, a conditional use permit to allow a church in an R-1
Zoning District, and a development review for the new construction
of a church.
In addition, the applicant will require a wetlands alteration permit
for construction of the proposed parking lot on the site, since the
east side of the lot is located within the 100-foot wetland buffer.
Petitioner: Stahl Construction Company,
on behalf of New Apostolic Church
Location: 3025 County Road H
. PIN No. 07-30-23-33-0031
West 225' of Lot 75, Knollwood Park
Zoning/Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and
is improved with a house and garage/shed. The property is .517
acres, or 22,500 square feet in size.
Applicable Regulations: Regulations applicable to this request are discussed in the analysis
section of this report.
Attachments: Planning Application
Letter from applicant re: hardships dated July 17, 1996
Letter from applicant re: seating capacity dated August 15, 1996
Letter from LRK design group re: seating capacity dated August 8, 1996
Zoning Map
Wetland Zoning District Map
Chart on site sizes/setbacks for existing churches in Mounds View
Section 1103.08 of Zoning Code
Diagram of compact parking spaces
Letter from City Attorney dated August 29, 1996
Letter from City Engineer dated August 23, 1996
110
Planning Case No. 452-96 •
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 2
Variance:
Resolution Recommending Denial
Resolution Recommending Approval
Conditional Use Permit:
Resolution Recommending Denial
Development Review:
Resolution Recommending Approval
(if variance and conditional use permit approved)
Site Plan and Landscape Plan(full size enclosed with packet)
Drainage and Grading(full size enclosed with packet)
Background:
The property is located at 3025 County Road H. The New Apostolic Church is proposing
to build a 2,054 square foot church on a R-1 Single Family Residential Property. This
request has been discussed at the Planning Commission meetings on July 24, August 7 and •
August 21. The meeting on August 7 was advertised as a public informational meeting.
The plans being transmitted to the Planning Commission with this report have been revised
from the original submittal, following an extensive discussion at your August 21 meeting.
The applicant's request includes three different types of approval:
• a variance allowing an encroachment of 5 feet into the required 35 foot front
setback [see Section 1106.04(1) and Section 1125.02 of the Zoning Code]
• a conditional use permit to allow construction of a church in the R-1 district [see
Section 1106.04(1) and Section 1125.01(3) of the Zoning Code]
• a development review [see Section 1006.06(2)] of the Municipal Code]
Each of these items, and the regulations and criteria which apply to them, are discussed in
the analysis section below. We have discussed the variance first since the proposed site
layout depends on the granting of a setback variance. (It would also require variances in
the size of the parking stalls and the number of compact parking spaces allowed, which
have not been requested by the applicant but is needed in order for the layout to work.)
Wetland Alteration Permit:
The east half of this site is located in the 100-foot buffer area of the Wetland Zoning
District (Chapter 1010 of the Municipal Code). This chapter requires a wetland alteration
permit be issued for any development in the Wetland Zoning District. Development is •
defined as"construction, installation or alteration of any structure, the extraction, clearing
or other alteration of land or terrestrial or aquatic vegetation or the course, current or
• Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 3
cross-section of any water body or watercourse or the subdivision of land into parcels..."
Staff has determined that the proposed parking lot for the New Apostolic Church would
be in the wetland buffer area and the proposed church building would be located outside
of Wetland Zoning District. A wetland alteration permit is required if this project is to
proceed. If the Planning Commission forwards a recommendation of approval on either
the variance or the conditional use permit, staff recommends it be made contingent on
obtaining approval for a wetland alteration permit and this permit must be obtained prior
to the issuance of any building permit.
It would be advisable for the applicant to apply and obtain this permit prior to any
irrevocable commitment to this site.
•
•
Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 4
Analysis:
The analysis portion of this report consists of three sections:
• variance application pages 4-7
• conditional use permit application pages 7-14
• development review pages 14-17
Variance Application
The regulations for the R-1 district require a front setback of 35 feet, and side and rear
setbacks of 30 feet for churches [Section 1104.01(3) and 1106.04(1)]. The site layout
shows the church building placed so the front setback to County Road H is 30 feet,
instead of the required 35 feet. The applicant has submitted a letter dated July 17, 1996
stating that the variance would allow better fire access around the building by adding
additional width to the drive land and would provide for more green space along the north
property line (see attached). Variances may be issued by the Planning Commission, acting
as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, to provide relief to the landowner in those
cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property
owner in the use of his land. A variance may be granted only in the event that the •
following circumstances exist:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective
date hereof have had no control.
The lot in question is a standard residential lot containing 22,520 square feet, which is
10,020 square feet more than the minimum requirement of 12,500 square feet. It is
rectangular in shape, with no exceptional topography. Given its larger than normal size
and its regular shape, it should be possible to accommodate uses allowed by the zoning
district without varying the Code requirements.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title.
The typical use of lots in this district is for single family houses. The applicant is
proposing is a church, which is a conditional use. It would be possible to accommodate a
church building within the required setbacks if the size of the church were reduced. The
need for the variance is caused by trying to fit a 2,054 square foot church having 125
seats, and the associated parking onto the lot, and also providing a typical landscape buffer
area between this property and adjacent residential properties. A survey of the churches in •
the community show that buffer areas range from approximately 14 feet to 66 feet, and
•
• Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 5
average approximately 36 feet. The median distance is 30 feet. (See attached chart.)
When the site is designed to meet the setback requirements and the parking requirements,
as well as to provide a buffer of 12 feet along the north property line, the building
encroaches into the front setback. The rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in
this district are for development of single family residences. Allowance has been made for
churches as a special review use. The allowance for a church use could be exercised and
could accommodated within the required setbacks if the size of the building were reduced.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
The proposal is for new construction on a cleared site, where no impediment exists to
achieving the dimensional requirements in the Code. The need for the variance has been
caused by the size of building, seating capacity and site layout chosen by the applicant.
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same
• district.
The granting of this variance will allow the applicant to construct a church which will
conform to the dimensional requirements, and typical buffering provided between church
properties and residences, only by encroaching into the front setback. (The layout also
shows parking spaces sized at 9 x 18 feet, instead of the required 9 x 20 feet, and the
number of parking spaces provided is one less than required. This issue is discussed later.)
The encroachment could be alleviated by reducing the size of the building to one more in
proportion to the size of the site.
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
The five foot variance requested is the minimum needed in order to accommodate the
building, the parking area and a buffer of 12 feet along the north property line.
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
The purpose of the Zoning Code is in part to "prevent overcrowding of land and undue
concentration of structures by regulating land, buildings, yards and density of population"
and "to provide for compatibility of different land uses." The purpose of the R-1 district is
• "to provide for low density single-family detached residential dwelling units and directly
related, complementary uses." The typical standard in the community for buffering
Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 6
between churches and residences is 30 feet. The buffer provided along the north property
line is 12 feet where the dimension is critical to the placement of the building.. The size of
the building and site layout is overcrowding the site, and creates an incompatible situation
for the adjacent single family residences.
g. The proposed variance does not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment may impose such restrictions and
conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with
the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance
upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance.
The proposed variance would move the proposed building further from the residence to
the north of the property, and would allow a wider area for landscaping and buffering
between the church property and adjacent residential property than would be provided if
the building met the front setback.
The Zoning Code requires that each of the criteria noted above be met for a variance to be
granted. The preceding analysis shows the request meeting only criteria g, and perhaps e.
It should be noted that the parking spaces illustrated on the revised site plan do not meet
the requirements of the Zoning Code. Standard spaces are required to be 20 x 9 feet. The
spaces shown are 18 x 9 feet. Compact spaces are to be 8.5 x 16 feet. The compact
spaces are located in the first bay of parking (starting from the west side) along the north
property line. The stalls are angled and are 12 feet wide. The length of the side stripes is
16 feet but because of the angling, only contain an effective length of 7-9 feet. The north
edge of these parking spaces would have to be"sawtoothed" into the landscaped buffer
for them to have an effective length of 16 feet. (This issue is discussed later under the
"Development Review" section of this report.) The applicant would have to obtain a
variance for the size of the parking stalls in order to use the site layout submitted. Two
other items need to be mentioned. The number of parking spaces is one less than
required. The number of compact spaces exceeds the 10% allowance. No variances
related to these issues has been requested at this time.
Staff Recommendation: Denial of the variance application. A resolution recommending
denial has been prepared and is included with this report.
It should be noted that the denial of a variance application may be appealed by the
applicant to the City Council (Section 1125.02. Subd.3.) If adjacent property owners •
Planning Case No. 452-96
• New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 7
object to the granting of a variance, they cannot appeal to the City Council but may appeal
the decision to the Ramsey County District Court.
* * * * *
Conditional Use Permit Application
Criteria from R-1 District
Section 1106.04, Subd. 1 allows churches as a conditional use in the R-1 district provided
certain conditions are met. These conditions include:
a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty five feet(35'):
Does not comply(see discussion of variance).
b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet(30'):
Complies.
• c. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in
compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. (A copy of this Section is attached.)
The applicant has proposed landscaping of all areas remaining after providing for off-street
parking, sidewalks, driveways, and the building site. No new trees or shrubs are
proposed, and no fences or structures are located in the area within sight triangle 30 feet
from the intersection of Pleasant View Drive and County Road H. The Code requires
either a fence or a green belt planting strip the height of which shall be sufficient to
adequately shield the activity from the abutting properties. If a greenbelt planting strip is
used, the Code states it shall be not less than 8 feet in height. The landscaping plan shows
a more-or-less continuous screen of evergreen trees along the north and east property
lines, with a double row of trees in the center section of the north property line. The only
breaks in the line of evergreens along the north side are to allow room for existing mature
deciduous trees. The row along the east side has three deciduous trees at either end. The
evergreen trees are specified at six feet. The deciduous trees are 4 feet and 2 feet. The
City Forester has recommended that the White Cedar (Arborvitae) be replaced by Black
Hills Spruce because White Cedars do not thrive when planted in single rows alone. They
are susceptible to wind and snow damage, and to being eaten by deer, which have been a
problem for property owners in this neighborhood. The City Forester considered both
Black Hills Spruce and Austrian Pine as suitable. Staff has discussed the height of the
trees with the City Forester, since there was some comment at the last Planning
. Commission on the ability to transplant eight foot trees successfully. Rick Wriski
indicated that there is a break point in the availability of trees between 6-7 feet, and eight
Planning Case No. 452-96 •
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 8
feet, and that he would advise the trees be specified at 6-7 feet because their ability to
survive transplanting is better. Staff has reviewed the list of all the landscape materials
with Mr. Wriski, and all of them are suitable other than the White Cedar. Staff is
recommending that both the evergreen and deciduous trees be specified at 6-7 feet in
height.
The Code does not specify the width of the green belt planting strip, so it falls to the
Planning Commission and City Council to determine if the proposed width is sufficient to
provide adequate screening. Working from west to east, the green belt planting strip goes
12 feet in width to 24 feet and then to 10 feet along the north property line, and is 12 feet
in width along the east property line. Certainly the width of the planting strips have been
increased from the original design, and they improve the buffering effect. It should be
noted, however, that the section along the north property which measures 12 feet would
be reduced if the parking spaces along this section were"sawtoothed" in order to make
them functional. A diagram illustrating this design is attached. The width of the planting
strip along the east side would have to be reduced if the length of the parking spaces were
increased to the standard 20 feet. The buffering situation has been improved at the
expense of meeting the required dimensions for parking spaces. •
The widths of the buffer areas remain less than is typical for other churches in the
community, as was discussed earlier in the"Variance" section of this report. Staff
questions whether an adequate buffer has been provided, and is concernedthat the
proposed buffer would be narrowed further if the sizes of the parking spaces were brought
into compliance.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or
• directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this
abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title.
The site has adequate access with two driveways, one on County Road H and one on
Pleasant View Drive. The site plan shows a drive aisle of 11 feet behind the first bay of
stalls along the north property line (the compact stalls). Cars parking in this bay will leave
only 5-7 feet of width between the back bumper and the curb line, and thus will block the
drive aisle and make it impassable. Staff is suggesting that these spaces need to be
"sawtoothed" into the landscaped buffer area in order to make them functional. Staff has
discussed the revised plans with Mark Bishop (Spring Lake Park-Blaine-Mounds View
Fire Department) by telephone, and he has indicated that the 11 foot drive aisle is a
concern. Staff will be meeting with Mr. Bishop on Tuesday, 'September 3 to review the 111
plans in person. Unless the problems in this area can be resolved, the site does not have
adequate on-site circulation.
•
•
Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 9
Chapter 1121 requires standard parking stalls to be 9'x 20'. The standard parking stalls
on the site are undersized at 9'x 18', as is the 17' drive aisle between the parking bay along
the east side of the site and the next parking bay. The second parking bay can be moved
to the west to allow a 23' aisle between the first and second bays, and the second and third
bays. There is insufficient width to make the stalls 20' long without reducing landscaped
buffer areas. The proposed site layout does not meet Chapter 1121.
The degree to which the proposed plan meets Section 1103.08 has been discussed in the
preceding section c.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where
applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title.
Off-street loading areas are not required for this type of use or this size of building.
f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily
met. (This section is quoted below.)
• Adverse Effects: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider possible adverse
effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon(but
not limited to)the following factors:
(1) Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan
(2) The geographical area involved.
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need for the use.
Current planning staff is not familiar enough with the City's Comprehensive Plan to
comment on the relationship between its goals and policies and this application. The
geographical area involved in this application is a residential neighborhood bordered on
the south by County Road H which serves as the municipal border. The neighborhood by
deep, oversized lots and mature trees. Because the lots are large, the typical building
coverage is low. The applicant's proposal would be a more intensive use of the lot than is
typical of the neighborhood.
The applicant has testified of the difficulty encountered by his clients in trying to find
vacant property which would allow development of a church near to where most of the
church members live. The church congregation includes members who live in the Mounds
View area. There appears to be a demonstrated need for the use.
•
Planning Case No. 452-96
all
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 10
Criteria from Section 1125.01: Amendments and Conditional Uses
Section 1125.01 describes the purpose of conditional use permits, and includes criteria for
granting these permits. •
Purpose: The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable degree of
discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare,public
health and safety.
At your August 21 meeting, the Planning Commission asked staff to discuss with the City
Attorney the degree of discretion which the Planning Commission has in making its
recommendation on a conditional use permit. City Attorney Bob Long has provided a
letter dated August 29, 1996 which discusses this issue. It states in part:
"The Planning Commission(serving either as the Planning Commission or as the Board)
and the City Council retain full discretion to grant or deny a conditional use permit or
variance request based on whether or not the CUP or variance request meet the criteria as
set forth in the Code. The Planning Commission and City Council are not in any way
obligated by the actions or undertakings of a(n) applicant prior to a public hearing on a
conditional use permit or variance nor is either body bound by the earlier communications
between city staff and an applicant. The only proper considerations for the Planning
Commission or City Council to consider in granting or denying a conditional use permit
request or variance request is whether such request meets all of the criteria set forth in the
Code, taking into consideration the testimony of the applicant and the reports and
recommendations of the City planning staff" (Copy attached.)
Conditional uses are distinguished from permitted uses for a reason. These uses are
subject to greater scrutiny because they have the potential for creating greater impacts
than the permitted uses in a given district. The criteria for granting conditional permits are
intended to assess, in part, the suitability and compatibility of such uses with adjacent
permitted uses. The criteria are noted below, and have been grouped to avoid repetitive
discussion.
Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits: In granting a conditional use permit,the City Council
shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and upon the health, safety and general welfare
of occupants of surrounding lands. Among other things,the City Council shall make the following
findings where applicable:
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
•
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 11
(8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
The New Apostolic Church proposed to hold Sunday School at 8:45-9:30 AM and two
Sunday church services: 10:00-11:00 AM and 5:00-6:00 PM. The Church also holds a
Wednesday evening service from 8:00-9:00 PM. The current congregation is
approximately 55 people. Because the use is a church, rather than residential homes, it is
not anticipated to create a demand on parks or schools. Both water and sewer service
adequate to support this use is available to this site. The site is served by two streets,
County Road H and Pleasant View Drive. Given the limited number of services, and the
size of the congregation, the amount of traffic is anticipated to be low and will occur on
weekends or evenings rather than during peak commute times.
The City Engineer has reviewed the applicant's drainage proposal and has indicated that
the rate of runoff should not be a problem and the grass treatment areas will provide
enough water quality treatment. Drainage will now be directed to County Road H and
will flow through grassed areas to allow sediments to percolate before runoff water leaves
the site. Recommendations from the City Engineer that the grass treatment areas be
seeded rather than sodded are addressed as a contingency in the resolution on the
development review. (The City Engineer's letter is attached.) The Rice Creek Watershed
District has indicated to staff that a permit from them is not required.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
This proposal would result in a church development on a single residential lot measuring
one-half acre, which would be the smallest site used for a church in Mounds View. The
next smallest site is 1.59 acres (or three times as large) and the average size site is 3.7
acres. The actual size of the lot is less of an issue than how it relates to the size of the
building, its seating capacity, and the number of parking spaces needed. The need to
accommodate a 1027 square foot building footprint and 31 parking spaces affects the
ability to provide buffer areas along the perimeter of the parking lot. The proposal is for a
church having 125 seats. It is our understanding that the congregation is approximately
55 people. The applicant has indicated that this denomination builds churches of various
sizes, including churches having 50 seats and 70 seats.
• The applicant has provided a 12 foot wide landscaped buffer area along the east property
Planning Case No. 452-96
•
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 12
line, and a buffer area ranging from 10 to 23 feet along the north property line. Effort has
been made to incorporate several large existing trees into the buffer along the north side,
including a 26" oak tree. The landscaping plan shows an extensive screen of evergreens
along both the north and east sides. The buffer areas are less than is typical of other
Mounds View churches. As discussed earlier, the typical width is 30 feet for buffer areas
between parking lots and adjacent residential properties. The narrowest buffer area on this
site (10 feet) is along the back yard of the property owner situated north of the site. This
property owner has requested a buffer area of at least 15 feet be provided. This dimension
has been met for the middle section of the north property line(for approximately 72 feet
out of 224 feet or 32%) but not inthe area most critical to the adjacent property owner.
The 12 foot buffer area along the west end of the north property line will be reduced to as
close as 7 feet if the compact parking spaces are"sawtoothed" into this area to make them
functional. (This issue is discussed under the"Development Review" section of this
report.)
If the proposal were for a 70-seat church, the parking requirement would be for 18 spaces
(or 13 less spaces). All of the compact spaces could be removed and six additional regular
spaces. It appears possible to achieve a buffer of 20 feet along the entire north property
line, if the need for parking were reduced by reducing the seating capacity of the church.
Staff does not know the size of the building footprint for the 70-seat church, but it may be
reduced enough so that a 15 foot buffer could be achieved along the east property line.
Testimony received from adjacent property owners indicates strong feelings that the use as
proposed is not compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood, with the main
concerns about the extent of paving and the width of the landscaped buffer areas along the
north and east side of the property. Some concerns have also been raised about traffic and
drainage.
(4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
As is noted earlier, current planning staff is not familiar enough with the City's
Comprehensive Plan to comment on whether this use is in conflict with the Plan. The
Zoning Code does envision the development of churches in residential neighborhoods, and
there are five other churches in Mounds View. The applicant has testified that a number
of the members of this church are from the Mounds View area, and desire to locate the
church close to their homes.
Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 13
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the purposed use.
According to the Zoning Code, "the purpose of the R-1, single family district is to provide
for low density single-family detached residential dwelling units and directly related,
complementary uses." Churches are allowed in all residential districts in Mounds View,
and one could conclude from this allowance that they are regarded as complementary
uses. They require, however, approval of a conditional use permit. The conditional use
permit process requires that a public hearing be held by the City Council before making its
decision, and that property owners within 350 of the site be notified. Churches, therefore,
are regarded as complementary uses which require special, discretionary review. The R-1
district is intended for low density, i.e. low intensity uses. The difficulty presented by the
applicant's proposal is the size of the structure and the parking lot, in contrast to the
typical pattern of development on residential lots in this neighborhood. Although the
property at 3025 County Road H is larger than the minimum required, it is smaller than
many of the adjacent lots along Pleasant View, Woodale, Woodcrest and Knollwood
,Drives. It is more intense, and there is insufficient room on the property to meet the
• parking requirements and provide the type of buffer between the parking lot and the
adjacent residences which is typical of other churches in Mounds View. The proposed
church development, with a building of 2054 square feet and a 31-space parking lot, does
not fit with the surrounding single family residential neighborhood.
The Planning Commission may recommend that the City Council impose additional
conditions considered necessary to protect the best interest of the surrounding area or the
community as a whole. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(1) Increasing the required lot size or yard dimension.
(2) Limiting the height,size or location of buildings.
(3) Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points.
(4) Increasing the street width.
(5) Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces.
(6) Limiting the number,size,location or lighting of signs.
(7) Requiring diking,fencing,screening,landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent and
nearby property.
(8) Designating sites for open space.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the conditional use permit application as presented. A
resolution recommending denial has been prepared and is included with this report.
•
Planning Case No. 452-96 •
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 14
The Planning Commission could recommend approval of the applicant's proposal with
conditions that the building have a seating capacity of no more than 70 seats, and the
parking lot have no more than 18 spaces. The Planning Commission could also specify the
minimum width of buffer areas to be provided along the north and east property lines.
Staff is concerned, however, with approving a proposal without having a site plan showing
the building and parking layout before granting the conditional use permit. It is our
recommendation that the current proposal be denied or withdrawn, and the applicant
decide if they wish to submit a plan for a 70-seat church.
* * * * *
Development Review
According to Section 1006.06 Subd. 2 of the Municipal Code, all proposed industrial,
commercial and residential developments and expansions of existing facilities, except
developments where public utilities and streets have previously been installed and the
erection of no more than two (2) detached single-family dwellings are planned, must be
reviewed by the City Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the City Council •
for compliance with development requirements.
Dimensional Requirements
Required Provided Met/Not Met
Lot Area* 12,500 s.f. - 22,520 s.f. yes
Lot Width 100 100 yes
Building Height 2.5 stories;45 feet 30'to ridge yes
22'to midpoint
Building Setbacks*
Front 35 30 no(3)
Side 30 30 yes
Rear 30 40 yes
Parking Lot Setbacks* 5' 10-23' yes
Parking* 1 space per 4 seats 28 + no
122 seats(1)=30.5 or 31 2 handicapped
125 seats(2)=31.25 or 31
Compact Parking Allowed no more than 10%=3 7 no
*The City Council may increase these requirements as a condition of permit approval.
•
• Planning -
a g Case No. 452 96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 15
Parking
There are several issues related to parking which require further discussion.
Compact Spaces: The Zoning Code allows 10% of the required spaces to be compact size
(16 x 8.5 feet.) The number of spaces required for this proposal is 31; three of the spaces
may be compact size. The applicant has shown seven spaces, which is more than allowed.
There is another problem with the compact spaces. The length of the side stripes is 16
feet which appears to meet the length requirement. The spaces are angled, however,
which means that the car will extend further than sixteen feet on the far side when the
front bumper or wheel of the car hits the curb on the near side of the parking space. Staff
has measured some compact cars and they are approximately 14-15 feet long. If a 9 x 15
foot box is drawn in one of the compact parking spaces on the applicant's plan, to
represent a car parked in the space, the back bumper will be within five feet of the curb
line along the church building. The car will block the drive aisle behind it. Even if
allowance is made for the car pulling forward until a tire hits and overhanging the curb,
only 1-2 feet is gained and the car is still extending to within 7 feet of the curb line. The
• drive aisle is still impassable. The only solution available, if the compact spaces remain is
this location, is to "sawtooth" them into the buffer area along the north property line. A
diagram showing the existing situation, and the"sawtooth" design is attached.
Standard Spaces: The Zoning Code requires standards spaces to be 9 x 20 feet. The
applicant has shown these spaces at 9 x 18 feet. Also the second bay of parking from the
east edge of the site needs to be relocated eight feet to the west, so the drive aisle behind
the first bay of parking is 23 feet wide, and the drive aisle between the second and third
bays is 23 feet wide.
Handicapped Spaces: The - : .• :'- = -4 4. : -: .. -
be 8 feet wide, with an access aisle five feet wide. Two spaces may share a common
access aisle. The applicant's plan shows one handicapped space and an aisle which meets
these dimensions; the second handicapped space is 7.5 feet wide. The second space would
have to be made wider by one-half foot.
In summary, the parking proposal does not meet the Code requirements, and correcting
the dimensions will reduce the buffer areas provided. Staff also questions whether four of
the compact spaces could be made standard size, to comply with the Code, and still fit.
•
Planning Case No. 452-96
•
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 16
Access Points
The curb cut on County Road H is 41 feet and the curb cut on Pleasant View Drive is 34
feet. The maximum width allowed in the R-1 district is 22 feet. The maximum allowed
for business and industrial uses is 30 feet. Given the size of this church facility and its
location in a residential neighborhood, staff feels at curb cut of 22 feet is appropriate. A
contingency has been included that these access points be reduced to 22 feet.
Landscaping
This issue has been discussed earlier under the Conditional Use Permit section of this
report. In summary, with the exception of the White Cedar(Arborvitae), all of the
landscape materials proposed are acceptable. The applicant's plan shows a close to
continuous screen of evergreen trees along the north and east property line, with a double
row of trees in the most critical section of the north side. Flowering ornamental trees have
been used to accent the building and create an attractive setting. Many of the existing
mature trees have been retained as part of the landscape plan. The plan shows a
commitment to create an appealing site. Staff regards the landscape plan as acceptable, •
with the substitution of Black Hills Spruce for the White Cedar, and changing the height
specified for all of the trees to 6-7 feet rather than 4 or 6 feet. Staff is also recommending
that a note be added to the landscape plan specifying that a sandy topsoil be used in the
grassed areas and these areas be seeded rather than use sod.
Signage
The Zoning Code is close to silent on the question of signage for churches. Community
facilities such as churches, schools, community centers and recreational buildings, and
some businesses such as day nurseries are allowed in residential zoning districts, but the
sign regulations for these districts only pertain to residential uses. Staff has noted that the
other churches in the community have signs. The closest regulations would be for the
neighborhood businesses (B-1). This district allows signs not exceeding 100 square feet
of total area combined.
The applicant is proposing a sign and cross on both the east and west walls of the church,
and a plaque at the entrance which would list the times of the services. On the east end,
the sign is 18.15 square feet and the cross is 24 square feet for a total of 42.15 square feet.
This represents 5.7% of the building face. On the west end, the sign is 29 square feet and
the cross is 44 square feet, for a total of 73 square feet or 10% of the building face. The
overall total is 115 square feet which is more than the 100 square feet used in the B-1 •
district for neighborhood businesses. The applicant has indicated that they want to
• Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 17
backlight the signs and the cross so that lighting would be reflected off of the building
wall. Staff's only concern is that this building is situation in a residential neighborhood so
it is important to keep the lighting levels low.
Staff recommends that the signs and crosses be reduced in size so that the total square
footage is 100 square feet or less. We also recommend a contingency that, prior to the
issuance of any building permits, the applicant provide lighting levels and field examples of
these lighting levels, if possible, and the level of illumination be subject to staff approval.
Lighting
The applicant has not shown any lighting on the plans.submitted with this application.
Staff understands from conversations with the applicant that they are planning one light
fixture on the north side of the building, and one on the east side of the building, as well as
backlighting the proposed signs. The applicant expects to use a downcast fixture which is
hooded. The light is intended for the parking lot, and is not expected to spill onto
adjacent properties. Lighting is a concern to adjacent property owners. Staff is
• recommending that a lighting plan be submitted, for review and approval by staff prior to
the issuance of any building permits. We are concerned about the height of the lighting
and how it will be shielded and have no design information. We would recommend that
lights be mounted on poles at the curb line along the north and east property lines, and
that the lights be directed toward the parking lot and building, rather than putting the
lights on the building and directing them outward toward the parking lot. The luminaires
should have sharp cutoffs which confine any direct rays to the site, and should be limited
to 250 watts. The light standards should be no higher than 18 feet.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the development review. The applicant must either obtain
approval for variances for setbacks, number and size of parking spaces, and number of
compact parking spaces allowed, or revise the plan. It is questionable Staff is not willing
to recommend approval with a contingency that the site layout be revised because it is
questionable whether the requirements can be met due to the size of the site. A resolution
recommending denial has been prepared and is included with this report.
* * * * *
Planning Commission Options: Recognizing that it may the Planning Commission's
desire to approve the setback variance, the conditional use permit and the development
review, staff has prepared a list of contingencies for each request which we would
recommend that the Planning Commission include. This list appears at the end of this
• report. The Planning Commission would also have to make affirmative findings for each
of the criteria listed in this report.
Planning Case No. 452-96 •
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 18
60-Day Rule: Minnesota State Law requires that action be taken on development
applications within 60 days of submittal, or an application is automatically approved. The
law allows for one 60-day extension if the applicant is notified in writing prior to the
expiration of the first 60 days. The application for this case was submitted on July 15,
1996. The applicant was notified of the City's intent to add a 60-day extension on August
12, 1996. The extension will end on October 11, 1996. It is most important that this
application be before City Council prior to October 11 so that action can be taken. It is
staffs recommendation to the Planning Commission that you take action at your
September 4, 1996 meeting so that your recommendation can be forwarded to City
Council. (The applicant can waive his rights to the time limit, and the Planning
Commission may want to ask if the applicant is willing to do so.)
Overall Staff Recommendation:
• Recommend denial of the variance request
• Recommend denial of the conditional use permit request
• Recommend denial of the development review
410
Recommended Contingencies
(if the Planning Commission desires to approve these requests)
Variance: If the Planning Commission desires to recommend approval of the variance
request, staff would recommend the following contingencies:
1. Prior to City Council action, the applicant shall provide documentation satisfactory
to the City Attorney that the applicant has a property interest in 3025 County
Road H, or has the permission of the property owner to file this application.
2. Prior to City Council action, the applicant shall submit revised plans showing the
compact parking spaces"sawtoothed" into the landscaped buffer area along the
north property line and the second bay of parking from the east side of the site
relocated eight feet to the west. The handicapped parking spaces shall be shown at
8 feet in width. The applicant shall also obtain approval from the Fire Marshall
that the site layout meets Fire Department requirements for emergency access.
3. The granting of this variance is contingent upon the following, and shall be null
and void if the following approvals are not received within 90 days of the date on
which City Council acts to grant this variance: .
• Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 19
a. The granting of a variance to allow one less than the required parking
spaces on the site than is required, and to allow 25% of the parking spaces
on the site to be compact size (seven spaces) rather than 10% as is required
by the Zoning Code.
b: The granting of a variance to allow standard size parking stalls at 9 x 18
feet rather than 9 x 20 feet as is required by the Zoning Code.
In no event shall any building permits be issued until such time as these variances
have been granted, or revised plans are submitted and approved which conform to
Zoning Code requirements
Please note: The Planning Commission would also have to make affirmative findings
Planning Case No. 452-96
•
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 20
related to the criteria on pages 4-6 of this report. A resolution would be prepared based
on Planning Commission direction.
Conditional Use Permit:
Option A. If the Planning Commission desires to recommend approval of the conditional
use permit request as presented (with a 125-seat church), staff would recommend the
following contingencies:
1. The granting of this conditional use permit is contingent upon the following
approvals, and shall be null and void if these approvals are not received within 90
days of the date on which City Council acts to grant this conditional use permit:
a. The granting of a variance to allow a front setback of 30 feet where 35 feet
is required by the Zoning Code.
b. The granting of a variance to allow one less than the required parking •
spaces on the site than is required, and to allow 25% of the parking spaces
on the site to be compact size (seven spaces) rather than 10% as is required
by the Zoning Code.
c. The granting of a variance to allow standard size parking stalls at 9 x 18
feet rather than 9 x 20 feet as is required by the Zoning Code.
In no event shall any building permits be issued until such time as these variances
have been granted, or revised plans are submitted and approved which conform to
Zoning Code requirements.
2. The granting of this conditional use permit is contingent upon the granting of a
wetland alteration permit, and shall be null and void if this approval is not received
within 90 days of the date on which City Council acts to grant this conditional use
permit. In no event shall any building permits be issued until such time as the
wetland alteration permit has been granted.
3. Prior to City Council action, the landscaping plan shall be revised as follows:
a. Remove White Cedar (Arborvitae) as a plant material and substitute Black
Hills Spruce.
b. Change the word"sod" to "grass lawn" and add a note which states"The •
areas shown as grass lawn shall be prepared using a sandy topsoil to
increase the permability of the soil and improve its ability to filter sediments
Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 21
from runoff. These areas shown as grass lawn shall be seeded rather than
sodded for the same reason.
c. The height specified for trees shall be 6-7 feet rather than six feet.
4. Prior to City Council action, the applicant shall submit revised plans showing the
compact parking spaces "sawtoothed" into the landscaped buffer area along the
north property line and the second bay of parking from the east side of the site
relocated eight feet to the west. The handicapped parking spaces shall be shown at
8 feet in width. The curb cuts shall be shown at no more than 22 feet in width.
The applicant shall also obtain approval from the Fire Marshall that the site layout
meets Fire Department requirements for emergency access.
5. Use of the church building shall be arranged and scheduled so there is no
overlapping use of the auditorium and the fellowship hall. Parking requirements
have been calculated and approved based on this arrangement. Church services
shall be scheduled so there is at least three hours between each service (with
. allowance for Sunday School preceding each service).
6. The auditorium contains bench-style pews. The seating capacity in the church
auditorium shall calculated based on 22" of bench space for each seat. The seating
capacity shall be limited to 125 seats. Any increase in seating capacity shall require
the approval of an amended conditional use permit by the City of Mounds View.
7. Prior to City Council action, the applicant shall revise the plans to show the plaque
announcing the schedule of services. The applicant shall also reduce the size of the
signage shown on the plans so the total square footage of all signage is no more
than 100 square feet. In calculating the '• .. • - •. a- • .: .- •__-_ _hall
be included. The plans shall include a note as to the method and level of
illumination for the signage, and a statement as follows: "Signs shall be allowed at
the size and location as shown on this plan, and shall comply with the design and
construction standards contained in Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code. Signs require approval of a separate permit. No other signage is permitted
on the site, except as otherwise allowed by the approved conditional use permit for
this site."
8. The permit holder shall be permitted a temporary 2'6" x 8 foot sign announcing
"The future home of the New Apostolic Church" which may be ground-mounted
• with an overall height of no more than five feet. The sign shall not be placed in the
sight triangle at the intersection of County Road H and Pleasant View Drive (a
triangular area with legs 30 feet long along each property line abutting these
streets.) The sign shall face County Road H.
Planning Case No. 452-96 •
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 22
9. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall approval from the
Community Development Director for a lighting plan showing any exterior lighting
to be installed on the site. Parking lot lighting shall be mounted on poles and not
on the building. Poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height. The luminaires shall be
limited to 250 watts, have sharp cutoffs and downcast fixtures to direct light onto
the parking lot and not onto adjacent properties. The number of lights on the
property shall be limited to four, with two on the east side of the building and two
on the north side. Walkway lighting using bollards, not to exceed four feet in
height, may be used in the vicinity of the main entrance on the south side of the
building. Site lighting shall only be turned on from an hour before evening services
to an hour after evening services. Lighting for signage on the east and west side of
the building shall be turned off after nine o'clock PM.
10. Prior to City Council action, the applicant shall provide documentation satisfactory
to the City Attorney that the applicant has a property interest in 3025 County
Road H, or has the permission of the property owner to file this application.
11. Approval of this conditional use permit shall include the site layout and
landscaping plan, dated , the grading and drainage plan, dated
, the construction drawings prepared by LRK design group
dated , and any plans approved by the City as required
by the contingencies on this permit.
Option B: If the Planning Commission desires to approve a conditional use permit for a
smaller sized church (i.e. 70 seats), staff would recommends the following
contingencies:
1. The church facili y s a .e imi e• o -+ e. , w-i . - • .- - 'h in
the pews counting as a seat. The number of parking spaces on the site shall be
limited to 18 spaces, including 1 handicapped space.
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised
site layout, and landscaping, signage, lighting, drainage and grading, and
construction plans for development review, in accordance with Section 1006.06 of
the Mounds View Municipal Code. The revised site layout shall show a church
facility with a 70-seat capacity and 18 parking spaces. The curb cuts shall be
shown at no more than 22 feet in width. This conditional use permit is contingent
upon the permit holder obtaining approval from the City Council for the
development review. If approval is not obtained with 90 days from the date on .
which the City Council approves this conditional use permit, the conditional use
permit shall be null and void.
•
Planning Case No. 452-96
• New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 23
3. The granting of this conditional use permit is contingent upon the granting of a
wetland alteration permit, and shall be null and void if this approval is not received
within 90 days of the date on which City Council acts to grant this conditional use
permit. In no event shall any building permits be issued until such time as the
wetland alteration permit has been granted.
4. The landscaping plan submitted in accordance with condition#2 above shall be
revised from the landscaping plan reviewed with Case No. 452-96 as follows:
a. Remove White Cedar(Arborvitae) as a plant material and substitute Black
Hills Spruce.
b. Change the word "sod" to "grass lawn" and add a note which states "The
areas shown as grass lawn shall be prepared using a sandy topsoil to
increase the permeability of the soil and improve its ability to filter
sediments from runoff.. These areas shown as grass lawn shall be seeded
rather than sodded for the same reason.
• c. The height specified for trees shall be 6-7 feet rather than six feet.
Upon approval, the landscaping plan shall also be made a part of this conditional
use permit and a copy shall be placed in the file for Case No. 452-96.
5. Use of the church building shall be arranged and scheduled so there is no
overlapping use of the auditorium and the fellowship hall. Parking requirements
have been calculated and approved based on this arrangement. Church services
shall be scheduled so there is at least three hours between each service (with
allowance-_for Sunday School preceding each service).
6. The auditorium contains bench-style pews. The seating capacity in the church
auditorium shall calculated based on 22" of bench space for each seat. The seating
capacity shall be limited to 70 seats. Any increase in seating capacity shall require
the approval of an amended conditional use permit by the City of Mounds View.
7. The signage plan submitted in accordance with condition#2 above, shall show the
plaque announcing the schedule of services. The total square footage of signage
on the site shall not exceed 100 square feet. (In calculating the signage on the
building, the crosses shall be included.) The plans shall include a note as to the
• method and level of illumination for the signage, and a statement as follows: "Signs
shall be allowed at the size and location as shown on this plan, and shall comply
with the design and construction standards contained in Chapter 1008 of the
Mounds View Municipal Code. Signs require approval of a separate permit. No
•
Planning Case No. 452-96 •
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 24
•
other signage is permitted on the site, except as otherwise allowed by the approved
conditional use permit for this site."
8. A note shall be added to the site layout and landscaping plan stating"The permit
holder shall be permitted a temporary 2'6" x 8 foot sign announcing"The future
home of the New Apostolic Church" which may be ground-mounted with an
overall height of no more than five feet. The sign shall not be placed in the sight
triangle at the intersection of County Road H and Pleasant View Drive(a
triangular area with legs 30 feet long along each property line abutting these
streets.) The sign shall face County Road H."
9. The lighting plan submitted in accordance with condition#2 above shall show any
exterior lighting to be installed on the site. Parking lot lighting shall be mounted
on poles and not on the building. Poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height. The
luminaires shall be limited to 250 watts, have sharp cutoffs and downcast fixtures
to direct light onto the parking lot and not onto adjacent properties. The number
of lights on the property shall be limited to four, with two on the east side of the
building and two on the north side. Walkway lighting using bollards, not to exceed •
four feet in height, may be used in the vicinity of the main entrance on the south
side of the building. Site lighting shall only be turned on from an hour before
evening services to an hour after evening services. Lighting for signage on the east
and west side of the building shall be turned off after nine o'clock PM.
10. Prior to City Council action, the applicant shall provide documentation satisfactory
to the City Attorney that the applicant has a property interest in 3025 County
Road H, or has the permission of the property owner to file this application.
11. Approval of this conditional • - .- : ' •:_ _ - _ ; •
landscaping plan, dated , the grading and drainage plan, dated
, the construction drawings prepared by LRK design group
dated , and any plans approved by the City as required
by the contingencies on this permit.
Please note: The Planning Commission would also have to make affirmative findings
related to the criteria on pages 7-13 of this report. A resolution would be prepared based
on Planning Commission direction.
•
• Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 4, 1996
Page 25
Development Review: If the Planning Commission desires to recommend approval of the
development review, staff would recommend the following contingencies:
Option A. If the Planning Commission desires to recommend approval of the
development review request as presented (with a 125-seat church), staff would
recommend the following contingencies:
Conditions 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, and 11 as stated for conditional.use permit Option A, except
wherever it says "conditional use permit" substitute"development review". Add the
following additional contingencies:
X1. A note shall be added to the site layout and landscaping plan stating"The permit
holder shall be permitted a temporary 2'6" x 8 foot sign announcing"The future
home of the New Apostolic Church" which may be ground-mounted with an
overall height of no more than five feet. The sign shall not be placed in the sight
triangle at the intersection of County Road H and Pleasant View Drive (a
triangular area with legs 30 feet long along each property line abutting these
• streets.) The sign shall face County Road H."
Option B: If the Planning Commission desires to approve a development review for a
smaller sized church (i.e. 70 seats), staff would recommends the following
contingencies:
Conditions 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 as stated for conditional use permit Option B,
except wherever it says"conditional use permit" substitute"development review".
Please note: The Planning Commission would have to make affirmative findings related to
the issues identified on pages 14-17 of the staff report (dimensional requirements, parking,
landscaping, signage and lighting) and that the project meets the development
requirements of the Code except as allowed by approved variances. A resolution would
be prepared based on Planning Commission direction.
•
•
CITY OF V
94316:06 FAY 612 T84 3462 -. - —-
CITY' OF MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING APPLICATION
APPUCT. Stahl construction Company Phone 931-9300
0 ADDRESS: 5900 Rowland Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
Street Address, City, State, and Tsp Cade
Interest in Property (check appropriate box): .
CI Owner at Property
Q Contract far Deed Owner
Q Lessee, Operator. Manager
Q Agreement to Purchase •
cm other (slain) Contractor
Ooasmenesry evidence of applicants interest in Ise property may be required baler.Mei Ott scion of this request .
PROPERTY INVOLVED:
Address/General location_ 3025 County Road H, Mounds View
Legal Description or Property identification Number Loi 75. Xnollynod Park.
Ramsey County. Minnesota
Legal Owner Name/Address 255-' a . aa5' of /5 t 7_s--
e --.7-3, ?3- 5 -003J
Present Use (chock appropriate box): / 00 X a,R S
Q UndevelcpedNarsrst a 9/ o o 5•r
El Single Family D' m9
• Q Duplex/Two Family OwelUng
Q sm / 7 41.c.,"-&_5
Muilily (No. at Units_
Q Business/Commercial Establishment
Q Industria! Establishment .
Q Other (e>i:tta1n)
Propety Cassilicatiorc G Abstract Q Tatars .
REQUEST: ConditionalrUse Permit d_ X � ,(q.�
.� vv,,L -lf,,c u?,.(,4,1_, 11)
,i � i''
TL.k r l 1a 4^ I" . 111d`f1MC /t_.P 41.4-11��I,g
' —rt.-
11
--- .r�,� . •L.. .
( %,ter-cAn C.,c)ct:-Ct.-tirnL-\ C (A- 4 — I '/;: ,\C".)-\"r J"c "
'Please nal= Applicant may be responsible far addtdartal fees associated with .1-�� •. at . ' est
Oleg -A8 STATL'�AENT ARE TR ii�.w��Ai�►�../-.
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE
Signativa ',illiam A. Diem
\
SZQO/aeZ+e� =OIL.maximum$1.000 Psi FenO
Fiend .diostion Fee
11-1 se ail adiw.=0 Ohs POI
\�na1 Use Permit 14.1 to 144- adlrrs Receipt Number
Pln mon— ton 100.mexim mu 5500 Taut Fes Paid a5-O• 'l°
tA'ir aion sire • Nes Paid 2 -/G, - 1-/64,
Major Subdivision 5250 pita sz5a deposit A.eript Number ___....i.-_-,1 I `1'
Cana Pen Amendment SZCO
Wetland Abingdon Permit S50 pita deposit dstnmined by Sod Additiensi F..Paid / 5-7' vC2
Wederd Butler Permit S10 OM Ped .7-i4,- c:/ .
41 _, evern;nq S.On t;so F4eaeipt Number --31. 1 q
P!0 3350
PUD Amendment dment 3150 Oso of Lind action
APPROVED ❑ OEriED C rgaei s 3 C
Oars 7-i S p— -[ braining ca.No. 9 S S . — 4/ Co Admit.Account No._ _ 2`5
STA H L STAHL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
5900 Rowland Road
411 CONSTRUCTION Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
(612)931-9300 FAX(612)931-9941
July 17, 1996
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
Re: New Apostolic Church(Project 7870)
Dear Sir or Madam:
Property Address: 3025 County Road H
Under Chapter 1125.02, Subd. D, we are seeking a variance change from thirty-five feet (35')
• back from the street to twenty-five feet(25') to thirty feet (30') based on the following:
1. This change would allow better fire access around the building by adding additional width to
the drive lane.
2. This request is a minimum variance and would alleviate the hardship.
3. The variance would grant more green space along the north property line.
4. The variance would not change anything from what is already a present condition relative to
the existing facility on site.
If there are questions, please call.
Sincerely,
STAHL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
APP"\
-pec----,.
William A. Diem
Project Manager
mh
New Apostolic Church United States of America
•
DT: August 15, 1996
TO: Moundsview, MN - City Engineers Office
FR: Walter Hallmark
RE: Proposed Church Building
NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH
3025 County Rd. "H"
Moundsview, MN
Message:
Dear Mr. Jarson,
Please be advised that the proposed New Apostolic Church in Moundsview, MN .
will have a fixed seatingcapacity of 125 in the pews in the upper auditorium.
The auditorium will be used for services conducted on Sunday mornings and
afternoons, and Wednesday evenings. The basement will be used for Sunday
School classes, occasional fellowships and other church activities. The basement
is not used while services are being conducted, and likewise services are not
conducted during Sunday School, fellowships, or while other activities are going
on in the basement.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely yours,
4914eti
Walter Hallmark
National Building Office
1703 Peninsula Drive. Erie, Pennsylvania 16505 United States of America
Telephone (814)833-6063 Telefax (814) 833-6308
TOTAL P.01
HUU-16t3-1y'Jb 17;34 NRC ERIE 814 833 6308 P.02/02
design group
AMecMHTECTUPIQ • euva NeeRINet
■ L.ANOSCAPC Ai C1-tr r OTURE ■
•
1l03 Peninsnng Drive
Eris.Peemsyivtnit
16305 DATE: August 8, 1996
Me)858-6614
Pe*(814)8584306
TO: Moundsview, MN - City Engineers Office
FROM: Leonard R. Kolb, P.E.
REF: Pr000sed Church Building
NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH
OFFICES: 3025 County Rd. "H"
• Erie.PennsyIvan* Moundsview, MN
■ Jtmeslown,New Yost
• BraetMMO.PenntyWenn
Message:
Dear Mr. Jerson,
• Please be advised that our prototype design for the New Apostolic Church
proposed for Moundsview, MN has a fixed seating capacity of 125. That is to say
that fixed pews will be installed in the auditorium with sufficient space to seat 125
occupants. It is my understanding that presently there are approximately 50
attending members, therefore the church is designed to provide adequate
expansion capability for the congregation.
Should you require any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact our
office.
Sincerely yours,
frLe'onard R. Kolb, P.E.
LRK/wjh
• L.onaed R.gob P.E.
• Starers A MgrettinCin LA.
■
Rimed e.S•nCsr R.A.
•
TOTAL P.02
•
.._.L-.... .:M N e O o 33 m rn rn n N 7301 a, w n N 7310 r§27,..n� n �'FrlStE m m �wNN _
FR 1 iii
N N
Me] IrCj• M M M M N N N R, R-2 H
J 11111
K• Nem
co0 01 as co
c v .4-
iiI,
111 03
—y�.� 12121111:O �n 1(1 +• 'd' �f '2: ',:l
01
5254 5255 O N N N N N N Ni
_ •
7234 � 4G O
IIIIIMIIIIIM 5176517°> 5248 5249 :=1.: w n
--- 7226 k 7200 7195174 517.0 5242 5243 N N CLEARVIEW N
;
f: ��a�� mill
7188 7191 R-4 5172 517' 5230 5231 5231 5234 N n N g n N
5230 ,
7172 :12 718. 5174 5169 5224 5225 0221 N N N `N° N N i
�: 7150 Z 5168 5167 5218 5221
!flOnUn
051665165
5212 521 5212 5213 tlj 521;
1IIDIiii'i
W000ALE DR. BMw 51645183' 5206 5211' 5206 5207 Z 5206 5207
N •e CO o 51625161 5205 5200 5201 -3 5200 5201
0o Nm N Cal 7100 7095 N N N N 7090 i 5200 5201 �--t
N N N 0. WOODALE DR 5148^--.1 5148 5149 5148 5149E
v m
I 7094 00 7085 7070 514915140c 7092 n 5740 5140 5141 51411
„� � 7090 3' 51417082 0 7095 OJ 707` 7060 1111:6143
OE 5132 5133 5132 5133 5132 51321
7074 Z
7072 Y 7063 0 5124 �`�5124 5125 5124 5125
I7069 060 M n n a CO 5125 0_
mu
7054 7057 7039 N 1D omi 5116 5117 Z 5116 5117 5116 5117'
_ 7044 N N Nock o:: p.•CREST m
. 7034 704 ,� WOODCREST 1:_,-14'' PARK N 51081'5109F_, 5108 5109 5108 1 5109
7028 N m n 5100i5101 5100 5101 S100I510t
7026 �7 1;n1171:0,0 m m m P,-- PF N 5107
J702 �1 N i N N N N CO W00 CREST
7006 701 N N S 5091 509 N 509. 09 50921 5091r 5092 509
5092
8 69.1 2940 N I ` 696' 5086 50850 5086 5085 508. 5�: 508616°86 5086'5d8`
r 6960 5079 508. _ 5080,5079 z 5080 5075
I 8970 Q 697 2932 t. .i1 I 5080 5079 5080
^--0 vV m o 5072 5071 5072 5071 507. 507, 5072150711— 5072 507
1e_ 6951
695 o• N N 6940 5066 5065W 5068 5065 506 5061 5066 5065 50661506f
942 0_ 6939 1 6945 cc
5060 5059 0 5060 5059 506. 505 5060 5059 O 506. 5051-
6928 �� Z 505'505- 5054 5053 5054 505.
6929 N n 0 rn M In n rn 5054 50530 5054 5053 504
Y 8900 a1 1 N N n n ori N c`av N N N 5046 5045, 504615045 56 • - 50465045=504615cw
V E VV
\\*".............2
ZONING DISTRICTS
* R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-2 L
R-2 SINGLE & TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-3 1-
R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 8-4 F
R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1-1 I
t-5 MOBILE HOME PF F
R-0 RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE PUD F
B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CRP C
1 . 1i7
1 1
1 I al
•ng
NI 0
4 27 . C 2
-1 0
2.
-------------.
I
Li I , . 26 •
.7'._—
I .
._ ________
,•....•.• I
1
..-,..,______, . z 5 o
• I ' 2_4 II A* 1•4 •It , o
V --
N
14,
. 1 '
24
I1 .—.-. • NI
;I l
1 •
-. -.
e , , • , :
2 3
Z 4 i'' ' d''f
I I I . •
cs
< ti• 48 -. 47 :I 46 45 4 4 43 I 4 2 0101 di 0•.:I g .7
i 0
C-.4.3•7_I‘i 11 4 i , 1 1 ,
22 : •
<I 4 41
I I i 4
UJ I ;
I 0
0 ,
2,1 a r•
- e ,
1.,„„ t • 3 .., .
a.. -,•• io 4
'
i . .
NA.... . “.°-‘ i• •.I 4-1.„Dors°, I TO I
4 4 It.G.1,
- 103-3a f04.3I 4441 V 4
I 0 - ' 10901 el iii
Woodale Drive P!,: 4
.2
i 1
.i
.--::-:::::.::::::.:,:40.N.......:.•.:.:1•::.2:.1:*$.:.4::i•;,:a•:•:I•::.•::::•..K::.:•::i•::::::::•M:::4::K:••::.:::•:M:4•.::•:::::1•::::.•:::iK.•,;:x.::;M:::.Pi::'•::,s::r:*0o..0,,*1.r....,.I:4t..*.i,.0%0,0*'
.*
•00*04.*.•*e0•1*
,
.
s ; - - 63 t . .....A4 i-/a1.8•
-ia . 82 :I : t, -
.T..
2 9f
... ....,..•••• •••••::::::::::::::::::::1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Ati..,;•.•••:••Att•tils ,,,,,
, . 50 •:: 1.4.1 1.-
. *4' ;;:iii:.iii'iii::::?:.:it:iii:x;i:i:::*:*:::::K::::::::::::;i:::i::::::::::::.:,:.•.......,..,i,,.:::44--
- .. ----
>'- ,. _t•r; ::::::::1. _ ,.*iii4::,;i::: i::iii:::::g:i:i::i:i::::.• .iiiitso:8 Q c lottee 888
.:•:.: :•1: . ..:.,. .1.:.... ::..:.74.:::: 0 u 0.0.:--Airee • - - -
I.. 51 : CC;g o
i' 52 I CI I- .i::::::::::::::::::::::::::..x.x.x.:,0::•:•::::::::::::.;.:•:41•:•:x.:” • * * * * * * 102
85 . ::iiiiIiii4ft,:3::::K:K:igii:i*:f,....It.‘":_....„:t.otict:-...t.t.1.11.:"....",......ctiv
•-- ******************
....F.F.;,...-.,.........••••••:-:•:•:-:,,:•:::::•:•:•:•:4;::::::1:0:6._.:,K.;-...to 0 0 0 0.0........
.1 !: ,.....:,...„.•.,..:••::::.-.......,.............-..,:•:-....x.:•:::::::.---. . •::::::::::::::::.:,4*:::::.:::::.lt-looloti,..;
,_.:...1,to ,,&.-..........‘....11
i
-clef)
Abiii?:iiiiii'i::iiiffiiiii:iiiiiii:iK:i:i:K.;-:,iiimiiii.ii:iiiiiii,x mi.,::.: .....14.04:tivii.i.t.74,1t, :..
„....... .„:„.. . .:.::::::..x.......„.„:„.:.::,................,.:.:.:.:.
1 . 1 —,::::::::::::.:,:.:i:::.::if::i:i:::::::ms„:„:„Ii:....0„.:::i::::::.:......•..."....:.:: 11
Woo ,- 53 r,:.::::ig.:,:::::::::41 :...:1::1::i.:: 22-EK::::::::::::::x.:< xitiii:ii:ii.•iiii:::iii:::::..xf::.:ii:A;;A****Alrow" / Aw /
cic rest Dr 1 ;.,
,,.......,:::::::::: :::: :::-:,;:i::::::::.
---4::;:igZ44:=4:i"ZO:•:i:i::::'..,:::.:.&•iiii:AiNU iiiiaiWkia.::4'4'4.4,-Z`
:. 54 I . .*:::.:i:.:ai::•;:i.i:: ::.:Ng7:::: Iii:::i§:i0jtifOi:::•44:::.*Ag*::0A1444:s.::'• 1 . 100
'.:1 :, .iiii:Kig:..tRieiiiii:::*ig..::::***X::V*******************...-....‘: •:::.7.0 ,,,,t*,..t....,e.._
i ';.':':';':',..<':*::,:.;:.:':':**.•:•:*:•:**7:
ntft77:-XW::::::::.:..::..::.::::::*r.:...::::•:*:::::.::*.:x:*: *S,;t..:*.;7:::::.::..:..•.:y:x.:..:::.:::.::#...•
li ee* 11.41tiI1t.$s•1.4t•%•..ii•A*0X31/4,
g•;4.4.'eSn
i ....
..] la
* 8 3 t•••••A"i;:::!;1 lc& -, I
58 4 _,.> P:i.i.,•.......:.......'n't...11:;:•.:•:::.:•li:ii:::::'.:••••••:Ii::::::.:::::i::';i::::?:1:0::41;.::::‘4'..:o_.!
,:•Kiiiii::....AigiiiiiI.:NiMi:K:S::?1::•••• - I
t::::::.:.:.::•.---::: :••::::::Y:''••':**:.::
:i:i:.ii:::i:iiiiniiiii•.. • ,3j ***********'','4••;;:.'
S. _r_
'1/2•,:e_ .., 1 V.St.A.A... ".§4.4r.1
• •143 13-
1'. O %,•'....
i .-- .f2.;..:::}. .::.::..:.*:... ...::.. . *... . , ,_ __ .: :78 ::::::
Spring View ' 57 z I inii:i:K:if:7'•*i:i:i.::iK...K:i:i:::i:::::::i::•ii;i: 1 1 i
-;.4..r . , , T,
L.an e I SPgING.1EW
I I
1' 5 8 ._ H •••••••••••••.. ........,,.......•.......„.......
,.........-.. _______,..........." .
;: .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•;:x•:•:•:•:•:.:-. , 73 i' i 111176 *
' 1
A. —I I:
`'::::.:::..,:::.:I.:::.:.,,,":::::::::::*::::::::::.:::::i*:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::*.. , , •:). ,o,:tv :: fr.,
I I < '•--'•••••••••• :I:•xm.::01.,!::::4441::::.;:::::::::::::::-.::::: ;
...::i:: :,...i.:•::.iiiii:•:.i::.::..:ii.:iiiiiiiIi:i::.I.iiiiiiiiK:i:i0i:14:::i:::.. 1 , .,,,i
•--.' --__..1 -.1 I ,
::::::::,..:•:•:,::::2E:::::::2:•:•::::+1.:.:.:Z...:.:..
1 .=...•: .
,...*::::::::::::::::::::•:•:::::::::::. :::::g:::5t::::: :. 7 8 79 1 50, - SA Z I.• ..„...or'
I— \---.1.--r" -----1 .4( ------ ——l'•.:';'..:.• i:ii..: ..........:*:.'"iik:::::•:•:::: - - - -.. - -1,4- -- LI ,116
; 0 :
—,,; . •,::4-:::::.:i:;;;;:*i:i:;.:;,::::::::::.::::i:::::.,"•,.:*;.::::::K::::K:,,..::.):.:*.:::;i:.::i
•:::::::::::.:-N.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::,.:444:,::,..*;,:::::::„:::::::::::::: ,
-
I
;
1 T SI A MT 7 i:::::::::::•-:::*:.K::*!:::::::::::::* gliM••:::::1:::i:ii: :: .ilig) .-•• 15.4 1
:Kf: :-:i:i:-.-::?,:::.ii::::i:Kff:K ;,:i: ify.. I
a
1'- Z.7-5 -4-50....v.;:::::iik'?";....i:i:::::::::: •:::K§:ifi:i:5,-.:::::r.....i:::::::: ia. i .o I i 00 1.0 1...., i 100.17 I 1,
County Rd. H s-- - -COUN TY -'--IFROAD ---u---
az-,..,:s
,
i
I.
•
. •
• —
O
• V
0
ct
CI)
O
a i i i i i )
w w w w w 1°c
_
cn M ,--1
V0 N •••-- Vj M
a c
0
a
...G C
Z ed o :c
cn W W Z W W CZ W
0
ani
a > .0
oC 0,
• a\
U ��al OO y
O
/r M N U
..0 cn
j .C z y ct v1 OA r- 00
CA E _O O� N r-+ ---- N N
•
-L3 C$ C/) M ‘--' N M C` M
ed U
c�
• I-'
Ncc
CAct
U 0. N
d.' • a > > x
v) .c . .—L. °
ti-4 A A ,.. 0 4-',..
to 2 c4 0
U
c O O
Nc ,r)
CI)
V V - o
rx <4 U t;
ti"' r—' ---' N 00 t---
7:3 — O N 'V• 00
'C3
Q 0 0 0 N N N 00 N
0
0
•O ect U O
O O .= .0
C,r) = J
cw.
cz
U a U ti Ct
= .15
NO U
U < U U v d
.
1103.07 1103.08
• 1103.07: DRAINAGE: In the case of all residential apartment, business and
industrial developments, the drainage plans shall be submitted to
the Director of Public Works/City Engineer for his review, and the final drainage
plan shall have his written approval. All drainage plans shall conform to the
comprehensive storm drainage plan of the Municipality. The requirements of
Chapters 1010, 1301 and 1302 of this Code shall be met. (1988 Code §43.04)
1103.08: FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING:
Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height, and in the case
of grade separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall,
the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the
average point between the highest and lowest grade.
Subd. 2. Intersections: No fences, structures or planting of trees or shrubs shall.
be permitted within thirty feet (30') of any corner formed by the
intersection of street property lines or the right of way 'of a railway
intersecting a street', except properly constructed chain link fences. Such.
chain link fences shall not exceed forty eight inches (48") in height from
the grade level at the lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of
not less than one and five-eighths inches (15/$") nor more than two and
one-fourth inches (2'4"). Such fences may follow the lot line to the lot
corner. The thirty feet (30') restriction noted above shall consist of the
triangle formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines
• that are each thirty feet (30') from the lot corner.
Subd. 3. Location:
a. Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty
eight inches (48") in height may be located on any part of a lot. Fences
not to exceed ninety six inches (96") in height may be erected on any part
of a lot behind the front line of the principal building.
b. A fence shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence shall
not be installed directly over the property line.
Subd. 4. Landscaping R- - . - : - .-'- .. . :: :
after providing for off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks,
driveway, building site and/or other requirements shall be planted and
maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable vegetation or
treatment generally used in landscaping.
1. See also subdivisions 604.03(3)b. 604.03(3)n. 1008.08(3)e and 1008.08(6) of this Code.
•
City of Mounds View SECTION 1103.08
1103.08 1103.09
Subd. 5. Surface of Fences: Any fence shall be so constructed that the surface •
facing adjoining properties or public rights of way shall be of finished
construction.
Subd. 6. Required Screening: The fencing and screening required by this Title
shall be subject to subdivisions 1 through 5 hereof and shall consist of
either a fence or a green belt planting strip the height of which shall be
sufficient to adequately shield the activity from the abutting properties.
a. A green belt planting strip shall consist of evergreen ground cover and
shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an effective screen.
This planting strip shall contain no structures or other use. Such planting • •
strips shall not be less than eight feet (8') in height. Earth mounding or
berms may be used but shall be limited to. an average of five feet (5') of
the height of the required screen. The planting plan and type of shrub
shall require the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission based
upon a recommendation of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer
and Building Inspector.
b. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick,
wood or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not
exceed eight feet (8') in height or be less than six feet (6') in height. The
design and materials used in constructing a required screening fence shall
be subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission based
upon a recommendation by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer
and Building Inspector.
c. Ground cover shall be established within one year following issuance
of the building permit. Ground cover material shall be of such type as to
control erosion. (1988 Code §40.04)
1103.09: GLARE: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking
area, sign or other structure shall be arranged as to deflect light
away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets'. Direct or
sky-reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high temperature processes,
such as combustion or welding, shall not be directed into any adjoining property.
The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to
light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in
view of adjacent property or public right of way. Any light or combination of
lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one foot-candle (meter
reading) as measured from the center line of said street. Any light or
combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed
four-tenths (0.4) foot-candles (meter reading) as measured from said property.
(1988 Code §40.04)
1. See also subdivision 1008.08(3)d of this Code.
41110
City of Mounds View
897.85 \ (5)D ),.--- — -
_ .�.• .
1( • ,. .. •11. --.".. illMi .,410.tf. 141111Wairl'C 2',..'J .4. ,.....,... .
410�� .!•4116A
• ALMAr' CLUMP
Cif ' uY
10.
._ .\.._.....--.. ...__`_N .
`.aP J C?r at'
nh
j^ effective width bumper at 5' 'bumper at 7'
• of aista:s.5'Eeet
/ from curb from curb \
/ — — -.- a y- -
\
0 ' I s Z
ity
'z' -.• 1 •
Proposed Church Buiidin (4)J
FIRST FLOOR ELEV. = 898.75 (3"i
01.1"
LOWER FLOOR ELEV. = 8 88.75 .o• . *..
ir
•
�� j ICISCI • \ . ''C .
c,ury . •- Apa Air .._.....digtii'ci...V '
`L.:; C. r 'b` FOYER ELEV. = 893.75 R
$Art 'Ill
(6iJ • '• �
;,,c�M.z -«. i X5...4 46. •• . tiz l;
r7'7 .8'�AK ��i.. �' '�c J3)J 'u" I
ill
I N.
Closest point of "sawtooth"\
• ) • i
892.85 \ to property line: .7.feet pp
— -
ikA11111r..."'•
� +fir'ir
{ ir" J1 q �4 ,i
7'''.1 :-.' 0.11%P. i'll • �
I I. ---
1 i ,',..\' /...- .
Parking stalls "sawtoothed" into landscaped ' N
/ buffer area; drive aisle remains at 11 feet /
i j
1 _._ .•i
4.
A9;%11
I/ ~o1 ;- 1 ( \'� Proposed Church Buiidin (4)J
..1'AAW I 1 `bN• '.i'
I v % FIRST FLOOR ELEV. = 898.75 ;' • !')
II
{ LOWER FLOOR ELEV. = 888.75 �.:!_7,t440/,...1"./
�,
•J‘��: A(ll.(\ 11
Ili
• /5)F , t ),-11
I :c.,)
� rarw . :• 7— FOYER ELEV. = 893.75 ." 1.
i ,. GH1Y' u 16/J • OW <f I
,"?`:3' .9-,‘"K ... � `'' \ .2 11,1 1 . , r - r
KENNEDY & GRAVEN
rBARTERED
AUseweys u Lsw JAMES J.Thorson
470 Pillsbury Cur,Minaeapona,Minnesota 55402 Lamy M Tansginm
A.Amor (61Z)337.9300 Bourns L WiLio s
4111EM.BATTE1kBON JOE Y.YANG
H.BATTY Faesimae(612)337-9310
Sulam J.Busv[, DAA T_G1tivRf(193,400.Iosx a.Deur ,^
DANIELJ.GYEZVrswiG
DAM,1.KENNEDY OF Goi7if�L
MAMAS L.LE ft RODSRT C ARI.9ox
JOUN M.L EFavR$JR WRITER'SMEL,'DIAL Rom=rtT L.CAviosox
Rosa J.LCssALL 337-9202 WEILI GT0$H.L W
ROB=C.LoKG PLOYD B.OiSON
loots M.Sraorommt CURBS A.MASON
CORIUNE a THOMSON T.YAY SALIN
August 30, 1996
Pam Sheldon
Community Development Director
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
RE: Legal Opinion on Pl**tring Commission and City Council Discretion and
Procedures in Considering Conditional Use Permits and Variances
Our File No. MU125-47
Dear Pam:
• Issues: You have asked for a legal opinion on the following three issues:
1. What procedures should the PlAnning Commission follow, and what is the role
of the City Council, in the issuance of a conditional use permit?
2. What procedures should the PIRTming Commission follow, and what is the role
of the City Council, in the granting of a variance to the zoning code?
3. Does the Planning Commission and the City Council retain their discretion to
grant or deny conditional use permits and variances regardless of the actions
undertaken by the applicant prior to a public hearing and decision of either
the Planning Commission or the City Council?
Answers:
Issue No. 1: Pursuant to section 1125.01 of the Mounds View Municipal Code (the
"Code"), an application for a conditional use permit is referred to the City staff for
a report and recommendations to be presented to the PlFnnir g and Zoning Commission
(the "Planning Commission") and the staff reports and recommendations are to be
made part of the permanent written record of the Plal nine Commission. The
Pining Commission shall then exercise its discretion and judgment to consider the
possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use permit and its judgment shall
be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors:
• (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The geographical area involved.
ACI,109523
MU123-47
b/Z 30ttd 0 t C6LCCZ 19'C I N3Ate40 '8 AQ3NN33I'WO213 SZ°S I 96-ec-0II'd
Pam Sheldon
August 30, 1996 •
Page 2
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depredate the area in which
it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need for such use.
See Section 1125.01, subd. 1(e) of the Code.
The Planning Commission then makes its findings of fact regarding these factors and
makes a report and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council considers
the recommendations of the Planning Commission and determines whether the request
for a conditional use permit meets all the criteria set forth in Section 1125.01, subd.
3 of the Code, including but not limited to making findings that:
(2) the usew l be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or
screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used lands so that
existing homes will not be depredated in value and there will be no
deterrence to development of vacant land;
(3) The structure and site have an appearance that will not have an
adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties.
The City Council then renders its decision to grant or deny the conditional use •
permit based on whether the criteria for granting such a conditional use permit have
been met. A decision of the City Council on a conditional use permit can be
challenged in Ramsey County District Court by either the applicant or affected
property owners.
Issue No. 2: In considering a request for a variance to the zoning code, the
Planning Commission meets as the Board of Adjustment Appeals (the "Board") and
a different procedure is followed than in consideration of a conditional use permit.
A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board only in
the event that all of the criteria listed in Section 1125.02, subd. 2 of the Code are
met.
Pursuant to Section 1125.02, subd. 3 of the Code, if the Board acts in favor of the
applicant, the decision is final and can only be challenged by affected property
owners in district court. No appeal of the Board's decision to the City Council is
provided for in the City Code (This may be an amendment that the Planning
Commission would want to consider in the future). If however, the Board denies the
applicant's request for a variance, the applicant within 60 days from the decision of
the Board may appeal the Board's decision to the City Council for the variance
sought. The granting of a variance of the Zoning Code must be by a 2 jirds vote of
the full Pbannh g Commission serving as the Board pursuant to Section 1125.02,
subd. 4f of the Code.
Issue No. 3: The PlA ring Commission (serving either as the Planning Commission •
or as the Board) and the City Council retain full discretion to grant or deny a
conditional use permit or variance request based on whether or not the CUP or
RCL.109523
?1U125-47
b/C 39Hd 0 t ESLEEZ t 9.Q I N3AH2if 8 AQ3NN3N=WO21d 8Z° S I 9s-0E-OflV
Pam Sheldon
.
August 30, 1996
Page 3
variance request meet the criteria as set forth in the Code. The PlFervning
Commission and City Council are not in any way obligated by the actions or
undertakings of a applicant prior to a public hearing on a conditional use permit or
variance nor is either body bound by the earlier communications between city staff
and an applicant. The only proper considerations for the Planning Commission or
City Council to consider in granting or denying a conditional use permit request or
variance request is whether such a request meets all of the criteria set forth in the
Code, taking into consideration the testimony of the applicant and the reports and
recommendations of the City planning staff.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Long
RCL/cm
•
•
RCL109523
)W125-47
v,is, anws aTs'ciis7Tc.rt7 M?nwx.l Q in=mNau:wnx4 R7egT qR-Off'-nnv
MEMORANDUM •
Q Si PAUL,MN a MINNEAPOLIS,MN L ST CLOUD,MN ❑ CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI ❑ MADISON. WI
TO: Pam Sheldon, Community Development Coordinator
City of Mounds View
FROM: Rocky Keehn
DATE: August 23, 1996
RE: Mounds View, Minnesota
Review of New Apostolic Church
SEH No. A-MOUND9701.00
We have completed a review of the plans submitted to me dated August 15, 1996. The site does •
provide storm water treatment prior to discharging into Spring Creek through grass swales and grass
pond areas. This should mitigate for construction in the 100-foot wetland buffer area.
Since the site will not have large amounts of cars on a daily basis, the grass treatment areas will
provide enough water quality treatment. Also, the area which would have most of the cars parked
on a daily basis drains to the larger grass area which would further improve the quality of runoff
from the site.
Our only recommendation on the grass ponding areas is that they not be sodded. A sandy topsoil
shouic-beplaceri an i a n,P orate seed used. This will provide better infiltration into the soil-forthe
runoff.
Rate of runoff should not be a problem, since the area drains over the grass area prior to discharging
to the street. Our only concern is that the house just to the east of the site has a driveway that slopes
towards the house. The only way to keep water in the street is a raised curb in front of the driveway.
If the church discharges additional water to the street, it may overtop the curb and drain towards the
house. The developer should investigate whether or not this will occur.
If you have any question, please call me at 490-2026.
tlo •
Item #6
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
.
Meeting Date: September 18, 1996
Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
Planning Case
File No.: 452-96
Request: The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use
permit to allow a church in an R-1 Zoning District, a development
review for the new construction of a church and a variance to allow
a 30 foot front setback where 35 feet would be required. The plans
submitted for the Planning Commission's September 18 meeting,
however, do not require a setback variance and staff has assumed
that the applicant has withdrawn this part of the request.
In addition, the applicant will require a wetlands alteration permit
for construction of the proposed parking lot on the site, since the
east side of the lot is located within the 100-foot wetland buffer.
Petitioner: Stahl Construction Company,
on behalf of New Apostolic Church
• Location: 3025 County Road H
•
PIN No. 07-30-23-33-0031
West 225' of Lot 75, Knollwood Park
Zoning/Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and
is improved with a house and garage/shed. The property is .517
acres, or 22,500 square feet in size.
Applicable Regulations: Regulations applicable to this request are discussed in the analysis
section of this report.
Attachments: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Wetland Zoning District Map
Section 1103.08 of Zoning Code
Letter from City Attorney dated August 29, 1996
Letter from City Engineer dated August 23, 1996
Letter from the Spring Lake Park Fire Department(9/6/96)
Letter from the New Apostolic Church,Minneapolis Congregation(9/8/96)
III
Planning Case No. 452-96
110
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 2
Conditional Use Permit:
Resolution Recommending Denial(475-96)
Resolution Recommending Approval(480-96)
Development Review:
Resolution Recommending Denial(476-96)
Resolution Recommending Approval(481-96)
(if conditional use permit approved)
Site Plan and Landscape Plan(full size enclosed with packet)
Drainage and Grading(full size enclosed with packet)
Background:
This report serves as a supplement to the staff report prepared for the Planning
Commission meeting on September 4, 1996. It focuses on the changes which have been
made in the applicant's proposal during and after discussion at that meeting.
The property is located at 3025 County Road H. The New Apostolic Church is proposing •
to build a 2,054 square foot church on a R-1 Single Family Residential Property. This
request has been discussed at the Planning Commission meetings on July 24, August 7,
August 21 and September 4. The meeting on August 7 was advertised as a public
informational meeting. The meeting on September 18 has been advertised as a public
hearing on the variance request. The plans being transmitted to the Planning Commission
with this report have been revised since your meeting on September 4.
The applicant's original request included three different types of approval:
• a conditional use permit to allow construction of a church in the R-1 district [see
Section 1106.04(1) and Section 1125.01(3) of the Zoning Code]
• a development review [see Section 1006.06(2)] of the Municipal Code]
• a variance allowing an encroachment of 5 feet into the required 35 foot front
setback [see Section 1106.04(1) and Section 1125.02 of the Zoning Code]
As noted earlier, the plans submitted for the Planning Commission's September 18
meeting do not require a setback variance and staff has assumed that the applicant has
withdrawn this part of the request. The Planning Commission may want to open the
public hearing on the variance application, since it was advertised, allow staff to explain
why a variance is not now needed and have the applicant indicate whether they are
withdrawing the application. If they withdraw the variance request, no public hearing on
1110
the variance request is needed.
• Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 3
The reason that the application no longer needs a variance is that the "front" of the site has
been changed from County Road H to Pleasant View Drive. The Zoning Code defines the
front lot line as"that boundary of a lot which abuts a street, and in the case of a corner lot,
it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street; should the dimensions be equal, the
owner shall designate the front for the record." (In practice, when a property is already
developed, the City often uses where a residence or business faces, or where the driveway
enters the property on a corner lot to help in determining which side is considered the
front. The Zoning Code indicates that the shortest dimension should be used.)
•
In this case, the shortest dimension is on Pleasant View Drive and the applicant is
proposing to use this side as the front. They are showing the building at 35 feet from
Pleasant View Drive, 30 feet from County Road H, 40 feet from the north property line
(side) and 121.5 feet from the east property line (rear). These dimensions meet the
requirements for setbacks in Section 1104.01(3) and Section 1106.04(1) a. and b.
The conditional use permit and the development review are addressed in the analysis
section of this report. Staff's review of the revised plan indicates that no variances are
• required from the City's Zoning Code requirements.
Wetland Alteration Permit:
The east half of this site is located in the 100-foot buffer area of the Wetland Zoning
District (Chapter 1010 of the Municipal Code). This chapter requires a wetland alteration
permit be issued for any development in the Wetland Zoning District. Development is
defined as"construction, installation or alteration of any structure, the extraction, clearing
or other alteration of land or terrestrial or aquatic vegetation or the course, current or
cross-section of any water body or watercourse or the subdivision of land into parcels..."
Staff has determined that the proposed parking lot for the New Apostolic Church would
be in the wet a d buffer area and the proposed church building would be located outside
of Wetland Zoning District. A wetland alteration permit is required if this project is to
proceed. If the Planning Commission forwards a recommendation of approval on the
conditional use permit and the development review, staff recommends that they be made
contingent on obtaining approval for a wetland alteration permit and this permit must be
obtained prior to the issuance of any building permit.
It would be advisable for the applicant to apply and obtain this permit prior to any
irrevocable commitment to this site.
•
Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 4
Analysis:
The analysis portion of this report consists of three sections:
• changes to the plan
• conditional use permit application
• development review
Changes to the Plan
The following changes have been made to the plan since the Planning Commission's
meeting on September 4:
• Parking spaces closest to Pleasant View Drive and north of the building have been
changed from angled to parallel; the number has been reduced from eight to five with two
spaces at 9 feet x 20 feet for compact cars and three spaces at 9 feet x 22 feet for regular
size cars. The drive aisle between these parallel spaces and the building is 12 feet wide.
• The two parking spaces next to the building on the south side of the entrance drive from
•
Pleasant View Drive have been reduced to one space, and the orientation changed from
head-in to parallel; the space is 9 feet x 22 feet.
• The buffer along the north property line (on the west end) has been increased from 10 feet
to 15 feet.
• The building is now situated 35 feet from Pleasant View Drive (used to be 30 feet) and 30
feet from County Road H. It is now butted against the sidewalk on the east side of the
building.
• The middle bank of parking in the main lot has been reversed so that cars will back into
the first aisle, and has been lengthened by two spaces. The result is that the wide
landscaped area along the north side has been reduced from 1269 square feet to 984
square feet (285 square feet less) and the 26" oak will not be kept. Also, the lower edge
of this bank of parking is within 15 feet of the beginning of the driveway throat. This
distance used to be 17 feet.
• The buffer along the north property line (on the east end) remains at 10 feet wide; the
buffer along the east property line side was 12 feet in the 8/29/96 plan, 10 feet in the
9/4/96 plan and remains at 10 feet in this plan.
0 Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 5
• All of the full size parking spaces are 9 x 20 feet (except the parallel spaces which are 9 x
22 feet). The drive aisles between the parking banks in the main lot are 23 feet wide.
• The amount of impervious coverage (building footprint, paving and walkways) is
13,662.625 square feet of 60.7% of the site; 39.3% of the site is in landscaping.
Conditional Use Permit Application
Criteria from R-1 District
Section 1106.04, Subd. 1 allows churches as a conditional use in the R-1 district provided
certain conditions are met. These conditions include:
a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty five feet(35'):
Complies. (Pleasant View Drive is being used as front.)
b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet(30'):
• Complies.
c. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in
compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. (A copy of this Section is attached,and
paraphrased below.)
(1) No fence shall exceed 8 feet
(2) No fences,structures or planting of trees in sight triangle
(3) Fences not to exceed 48" allowed any where on lot;fences not to exceed 96" may be erected
behind the front line of the principal building.
(4 ences s a se cons c es so s ace as joining adjacent properties and rights-of-way are
finished construction
(5) Landscaping required in areas remaining after providing for off street parking,off-street
loading,sidewalks,driveways,and building site
Complies with 1103.08 Subd. 1-5, except that there are five existing trees in the sight
triangle. The applicant has shown two of these remaining. If the branch structure is high
enough they will not pose a sight distance problem. The Planning Commission may wish
to put a contingency on any approval that either the trees be removed or trimmed to
prevent a site distance problem. All areas of the property other than the parking area,
building site and walkways are proposed to be landscaped. No fencing is proposed.
IIISubd. 6 is discussed below.
Planning Case No. 452-96 •
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 6
(6) Required fencing and screening sufficient to adequately shield the activity from the abutting
properties.
The applicant is proposing to use landscaping rather than fencing to provide the required
screening between this property and adjacent properties. If a greenbelt planting strip is
used, the Code states it shall be not less than 8 feet in height. The landscaping plan shows
a mixture of evergreen and deciduous along the north and east property lines, with a
double row of trees in the center section of the north property line. The row along the
east side has three 4-foot deciduous trees at either end.
On the north side, two Austrian pine has been removed, and the number of Mugho Pine
has been reduced. Two Black Hills Spruce have been added instead of two Amur Maples
in the center section. On the east end, three Black Hills Spruce have been replaced by
Austrian Pine and the White Cedar(Arborvitae) remains. The White Cedar are specified
at 3 feet high. The Black Hills Spruce and'Austrian Pine are specified at 6 feet.
Staff is recommending that the Black Hills Spruce and Austrian Pine be specified at 6-7 •
feet, and the White Cedar(Arborvitae) be replaced by Black Hills Spruce. (The City
Forester has recommended that the White Cedar be replaced by Black Hills Spruce
because White Cedars do not thrive when planted in single rows alone. They are
susceptible to wind and snow damage, and to being eaten by deer, which have been a
problem for property owners in this neighborhood.) We also recommend that Austrian
Pines not be substituted for Black Hills Spruce along the east end of the north buffer area
because they have a much more open branch structure than the Black Hills Spruce. It is
our recommendation, if the Planning Commission recommends approval, that 6-7 Black
Hills Spiuce-be-shown along the north side of the project abutting the first two banks of
parking, to create a continuous screen.
The Code does not specify the width of the required green belt planting strip, so it falls to
the Planning Commission and City Council to determine if the proposed width is sufficient
to provide adequate screening. Working from west to east, the green belt planting strip
goes from 15 feet in width to 23 feet and then to 10 feet along the north property line, and
is 10 feet in width along the east property line. The width of the planting strip has been
increased on the west end of the north side, and has decreased in the center section of the
north side and along the east property line. As noted earlier, the wide landscaped area
along the north side has been reduced from 1269 square feet to 984 square feet (285
square feet less) and the 26" oak will not be kept. The reason for this change is that two
parking stalls have been added to the middle bank of parking. •
iPlanning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 7
The buffer area along the north has been widened in the area abutting the neighbors' front
yard and reduced in the area abutting their back yard, where they have indicated that
buffering is more critical. The width of the buffer areas along the east end of the north
side and the east side of the property is less than the minimum seen on other church sites
in Mounds View(14 feet). The typical width for buffer areas on other church sites is 30
feet. The reworking of the parking lot to fix problems with parking stall sizes and layout
has reduced the buffer area, in particular in the center section and on the east end of the
north side.
Staff questions whether adequate buffering has been provided.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or
directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this
Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and
abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title.
The site has adequate access with two driveways, one on County Road H and one on
Pleasant View Drive. The driveway onto County Road H is 20 feet in width and will be
• used for emergency vehicle access. The one on Pleasant View Drive is twelve feet in
width and needs to be signed as"Exit Only". The problems with the parking stalls at the
west end of the property, along the north side, have been solved by changing the spaces
from angled to parallel. The dimensions are shown at 9 x 20 for two compact stalls and 9
x 22 for three regular stalls. The Zoning Code does not address sizes for parallel spaces.
Research on dimensions for parallel spaces indicates these sizes are acceptable.' The drive
aisle will be 12 feet wide between the spaces and the building, which is wide enough for
one way traffic. The Fire Department has indicated that if the building is sprinklered, the
20 foot drive on County Road H will be sufficient for emergency access. (They willnot
be relying on the drive along the north side of the building)
The main parking lot meets the Zoning Code dimensional requirements in that all of the
parking spaces in the main lot are now 9 feet by 20 feet, and the drive aisles are 23 feet.
The handicapped spaces are 8 feet wide with a five foot aisle between them. Staff has a
concern with the distance between the end of the middle bank of parking and the
beginning of the driveway throat. This dimension was 17 feet and is now 15 feet. We are
I Staff reviewed the following sources regarding sizes for parallel parking spaces:
- Minnesota Department of Transportation: range of 22 to 26 feet for regular spaces
- Traffic Engineering Handbook,Institute of Transportation Engineers: 22 feet for regular spaces
- Highway Engineering(Oglesby and Hicks): range of 22 to 26 feet for regular spaces
• Staff also consulted with several cities in the vicinity. None of them had dimensions for parallel
spaces.
Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 8
concerned whether this is sufficient to maneuver fire trucks, and will be checking with the
Spring Lake Park-Blaine-Mounds View Fire Department.
The applicant has provided 29 parking stalls (two of which are marked for handicapped).
This number would limit the seating capacity of the church to 116 seats or 212 lineal feet
of bench seating. It is our understanding that the applicant is proposing a 115 seat church.
Staff has not received a revised floor plan showing the change in seating capacity.
Finally, Chapter 1121 includes Subd. 12 which states"Required screening: All open,
nonresidential, off-street parking area of five (5) or more spaces shall be screened and
landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts in compliance with
1103.08(6) of this Title."
The plan meets the dimensional and numerical requirements of Chapter 1121 of the
Zoning Code as long as the seating capacity is limited as noted above. The degree to
which the proposed plan meets Section 1103.08 has been discussed in the preceding
section c. A question remains on whether there is adequate on-site circulation for
emergency vehicles, and whether there is adequate screening and landscaping from
surrounding and abutting residential uses.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where
applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title.
Off-street loading areas are not required for this type of use or this size of building.
f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily
met. (This section is quoted below.)
Adverse Effects: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider possible adverse
effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon(but
not limited to)the following factors:
(1) Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan
(2) The geographical area involved.
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need for the use.
Current planning staff is not familiar enough with the City's Comprehensive Plan to
comment on the relationship between its goals and policies and this application. The
geographical area involved in this application is a residential neighborhood bordered on •
the south by County Road H which serves as the municipal border. The neighborhood is
Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 9
characterized by deep, oversized lots and mature trees. Because the lots are large, the
typical building coverage is low. The applicant's proposal would be a more intensive use
of the lot than is typical of the neighborhood.
The applicant has testified of the difficulty encountered by his clients in trying to find
vacant property which would allow development of a church near to where most of the
church members live. The church congregation includes members who live in the Mounds
View area. There appears to be a demonstrated need for the use.
Criteria from Section 1125.01: Amendments and Conditional Uses
Section 1125.01 describes the purpose of conditional use permits, and includes criteria for
granting these permits.
• Purpose: The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable degree of
discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare,public
health and safety.
At your August 21 meeting, the Planning Commission asked staff to discuss with the City
Attorney the degree of discretion which the Planning Commission has in making its
recommendation on a conditional use permit. City Attorney Bob Long has provided a
letter dated August 29, 1996 which discusses this issue. It states in part:
"The Planning Commission (serving either as the Planning Commission or as the Board)
and the City Council retain full discretion to grant or deny a conditional use permit or
variance request based on whether or not the CUP or variance request meet the criteria as
set forth in the Code. The Planning Commission and City Council are not in any way
obligated by the actions or undertakings of a(n) applicant prior to a public hearing on a
conditional us= ._ ••. - : . • - nor is either body bound by the-earlier—communications
between city staff and an applicant. The only proper considerations for the Planning
Commission or City Council to consider in granting or denying a conditional use permit
request or variance request is whether such request meets all of the criteria set forth in the
Code, taking into consideration the testimony of the applicant and the reports and
recommendations of the City planning staff" (Copy attached.)
Conditional uses are distinguished from permitted uses for a reason. These uses are
subject to greater scrutiny because they have the potential for creating greater impacts
than the permitted uses in a given district. The criteria for granting conditional permitsare
intended to assess, in part, the suitability and compatibility of such uses with adjacent
permitted uses. The criteria are noted below, and have been grouped to avoid repetitive
1110 discussion.
Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 10
Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits: In granting a conditional use permit,the City Council
shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and upon the health,safety and general welfare
of occupants of surrounding lands. Among other things,the City Council shall make the following
findings where applicable:
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
(8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
The New Apostolic Church proposed to hold Sunday School at 8:45-9:30 AM and two
Sunday church services: 10:00-11:00 AM and 5:00-6:00 PM. The Church also holds a
Wednesday evening service from 8:00-9:00 PM. The current congregation is
approximately 55 people. Because the use is a church, rather than residential homes, it is
not anticipated to create a demand on parks or schools. Both water and sewer service
adequate to support this use is available to this site. The site is served by two streets, 1111
County Road H and Pleasant View Drive. Given the limited number of services, and the
size of the congregation, the amount of traffic is anticipated to be low and will occur on
weekends or evenings rather than during peak commute times.
The City Engineer has reviewed the applicant's drainage proposal and has indicated that
the rate of runoff should not be a problem and the grass treatment areas will provide
enough water quality treatment. Drainage will now be directed to County Road H and
will flow through grassed areas to allow sediments to percolate before runoff water leaves
the site. Recommendations from the City Engineer that the grass treatment areas be
seeded rather than sodded are addressed as a contingency in the resolution on the
development review. (The City Engineer's letter is attached.) The Rice Creek Watershed
District has indicated to staff that a permit from them is not required.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
This proposal would result in a church development on a single residential lot measuring
one-half acre, which would be the smallest site used for a church in Mounds View. The
• Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 11
next smallest site is 1.59 acres (or three times as large) and the average size site is 3.7
acres. The actual size of the lot is less of an issue than how it relates to the size of the
building, its seating capacity, and the number of parking spaces needed. The need to
accommodate a 1027 square foot building footprint and 29 parking spaces affects the
ability to provide buffer areas along the perimeter of the parking lot. Staff has assumed
the maximum seating capacity will be 115 seats based on the applicant's testimony on
September 4 and the parking provided.
The applicant has provided a 10 foot wide landscaped buffer area along the east property
line, and a buffer area of 15 feet, 24 feet and 10 feet along the north property line. The
wider buffer area in the center of the north side has been reduced in order to rework the
parking layout. The buffer areas are less than is typical of other Mounds View churches.
As discussed earlier, the minimum seen is 14 feet between parking lots and adjacent
residential properties; the typical width is 30 feet. The narrowest buffer area on this site
(10 feet) is along the back yard of the property owner situated north of the site and along
the side yard of the property owner situated east of the site. The property owner on the
north side has requested a buffer area of at least 15 feet be provided, especially where the
parking area abuts his back yard. This dimension has been met for the west and middle
• section of the north property linea approximately o
P P Y (forPp mately 153 feet out of 224 feet or 68/o) but
not in the area most critical to the adjacent property owner.
The applicant has indicated that they want a church with at least 115 seats, rather than
building a smaller size church.
Testimony received from adjacent property owners indicates strong feelings that the use as
proposed is not compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood, with the main
concerns about the extent of paving and the width of the landscaped buffer areas along the
north and east-side of the property. Some concerns have also been raised about traffic and
drainage.
(4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
As is noted earlier, current planning staff is not familiar enough with the City's
Comprehensive Plan to comment on whether this use is in conflict with the Plan. The
Zoning Code does envision the development of churches in residential neighborhoods, and
there are five other churches in Mounds View. The applicant has testified that a number
• of the members of this church are from the Mounds View area, and desire to locate the
church close to their homes.
•
. Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H •
September 18, 1996
Page 12
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the purposed use.
According to the Zoning Code, "the purpose of the R-1, single family district is to provide
for low density single-family detached residential dwelling units and directly related,
complementary uses." Churches are allowed in all residential districts in Mounds View,
and one could conclude from this allowance that they are regarded as complementary
uses. They require, however, approval of a conditional use permit. The conditional use
permit process requires that a public hearing be held by the City Council before making its
decision, and that property owners within 350 of the site be notified. Churches, therefore,
are regarded as complementary uses which require special, discretionary review. The R-1
district is intended for low density, i.e. low intensity uses. The difficulty presented by the
applicant's proposal is the size of the structure and the parking lot, in contrast to the
typical pattern of development on residential lots in this neighborhood. Although the
property at 3025 County Road H is larger than the minimum required, it is smaller than
many of the adjacent lots along Pleasant View, Woodale, Woodcrest and Knollwood
Drives. It is more intense, and there is insufficient room on the property to meet the
parking requirements and provide the type of buffer between the parking lot and the •
adjacent residences which is typical of other churches in Mounds View. The proposed
church development, with a building of 2054 square feet and a 29-space parking lot, does
not fit with the surrounding single family residential neighborhood.
The Planning Commission may recommend that the City Council impose additional
conditions considered necessary to protect the best interest of the surrounding area or the ---- -
community as a whole. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(l� In -. • . - .... -. ot-siz�or yard-dimension.
(2) Limiting the height,size or location of buildings.
(3) Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points.
(4) Increasing the street width.
(5) Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces.
(6) Limiting the number, size,location or lighting of signs.
(7) Requiring diking,fencing,screening,landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent and
nearby property.
(8) Designating sites for open space.
Option 1: Approve the conditional use permit including findings that the plan provides
adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping in compliance.with
Section 1103.08 of the Zoning Code, and the buffering provided by the applicant is
sufficient to adequately screen and landscape the use from surrounding and abutting •
residential uses. (All other criteria have been met as long as the seating capacity does not
iPlanning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 13
exceed 115 seats and the plan is acceptable to the Spring Lake Park-Blaine-Mounds View
Fire Department.)
Option 2: Deny the conditional use permit based on findings that the plan does not
provide adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping in compliance
with Section 1103.08 of the Zoning Code, and the buffering provided by the applicant is
not sufficient to adequately screen and landscape the use from surrounding and abutting
residential uses. The buffering provided is less than the minimum widths seen on other
church sites in the community. Testimony has been received which indicates a minimum
buffer of at least 15 feet is needed for this proposal to be compatible with adjacent
residential uses.
Resolutions for each option are attached, with recommended contingencies appearing in
the resolution recommending approval.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the conditional use permit application as presented.
Development Review
According to Section 1006.06 Subd. 2 of the Municipal Code, all proposed industrial,
_ -_ commercial and residential developments and expansions of existing facilities, except
developments where public utilities and streets have previously been installed and the
erection of no more than two (2) detached single-family dwellings are planned, must be
reviewed by the City Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the City Council
for compliance with development requirements.
•
Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 14
Dimensional Requirements
Required Provided Met/Not Met
Lot Area* 12,500 s.f. 22,520 s.f. . yes
Lot Width 100 100 yes
Building Height 2.5 stories; 45 feet 30'to ridge yes
22'to midpoint
Building Setbacks*
Front 35 35 yes2
Side 30 30 yes
Rear 30 40 yes
Parking Lot Setbacks* 5' 10-23' yes
Parking* 1 space per 4 seats 27+ yes
115 seats =29 2 handicapped
Compact Parking Allowed no more than 10%=3 2 yes
* The City Council may increase these requirements as a condition of permit approval.
Parking
The issues related to parking were discussed earlier in the report under criteria d. on page
7. In summary, the parking proposal meets the dimensional and numerical requirements in
the Zoning Code. A question remains on whether there is adequate on-site circulation for
emergency vehicles, and whether thereis adequate screening and landscaping from
surrounding and abutting residential uses.
Access Points
ThP rh cu birh ccUtn_Count ads_24Ieet and_the_curb cuton_Pleasant View rive is 12
feet, which meet the maximum width of 22 feet allowed in the R-1 district.
Landscaping
This issue has been discussed earlier under the Conditional Use Permit section of this
report. In summary, the applicant has not removed the White Cedar(Arborvitae) from the
plan as has been advised by the City Forester. Changes have been made in the placement
of certain species which lessen the buffering effect. Staff's suggestions on how the
landscaping plan should be revised are discussed earlier on pages 6-7. Many of the
2The front setback is being measured from Pleasant View Drive,rather than from County Road H as 410
was the case in the original submittal. This issue is discussed earlier in the report.
• Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 15
existing mature trees have been retained as part of the landscape plan. It should be noted,
however, that the changes in the parking since your last meeting have resulted in the loss
of the 26" oak tree on the north side of the site adjacent to the neighboring property
owner's deck.
Signage
Staff has not received updated elevations to know if changes have been made to the size
of the signs proposed on the building. Our earlier comments are noted below. The
Zoning Code is close to silent on the question of signage for churches. Community
facilities such as churches, schools, community centers and recreational buildings, and
some businesses such as day nurseries are allowed in residential zoning districts, but the
sign regulations for these districts only pertain to residential uses. Staff has noted that the
other churches in the community have signs. The closest regulations would be for the
neighborhood businesses (B-1). This district allows signs not exceeding 100 square feet
of total area combined.
• The applicant is proposing a sign and cross on both the east and west walls of the church,
and a plaque at the entrance which would list the times of the services. On the east end,
the sign is 18.15 square feet and the cross is 24 square feet for a total of 42.15 square feet.
This represents 5.7% of the building face. On the west end, the sign is 29 square feet and
the cross is 44 square feet, for a total of 73 square feet or 10% of the building face. The
overall total is 115 square feet which is more than the 100 square feet used in the B-1
district for neighborhood businesses. The applicant has indicated that they want to
backlight the signs and the cross so that lighting would be reflected off of the building
wall. Staff's only concern is that this building is situation in a residential neighborhood so
it is important to keep the lighting levels low.
Staff recommends that the signs and crosses be reduced in size so that the total square
footage is 100 square feet or less. We also recommend a contingency that, prior to the
issuance of any building permits, the applicant provide lighting levels and field examples of
these lighting levels, if possible, and the level of illumination be subject to staff approval.
Lighting
Since your last meeting, staff has not received any plans for lighting on the site. Our
earlier comments are noted below. The applicant has not shown any lighting on the plans
submitted with this application. Staff understands from conversations with the applicant
that they are planning one light fixture on the north side of the building, and one on the
• east side of the building, as well as backlighting the proposed signs. The applicant expects
Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 16
to use a downcast fixture which is hooded. The light is intended for the parking lot, and is
not expected to spill onto adjacent properties. Lighting is a concern to adjacent property
owners. Staff is recommending that a lighting plan be submitted, for review and approval
by staff prior to the issuance of any building permits. We are concerned about the height
of the lighting and how it will be shielded and have no design information. We would
recommend that lights be mounted on poles at the curb line along the north and east
property lines, and that the lights be directed toward the parking lot and building, rather
than putting the lights on the building and directing them outward toward the parking lot.
The luminaires should have sharp cutoffs which confine any direct rays to the site, and
should be limited to 250 watts. The light standards should be no higher than 18 feet.
Option 1: Recommend denial of the development review based on an inability to make
the findings for approval of the conditional use.
Option 2: Recommend approval of the development review based on the ability to make
the findings for approval of the conditional use, and with the contingencies listed in the
resolution recommending approval.
Resolutions for each option are attached.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the development review based on an inability to make the
findings for approval of the conditional use.
* * * * *
Planning Commission Options: Recognizing that it may the Planning Commission's
desire to approve the setback variance, the conditional use permit and the development
review, staff has prepared a list of contingencies for each request which we would
recommend that-the—Pinning Commission includ This list appears at the end of this
report. The Planning Commission would also have to make affirmative findings for each
of the criteria listed in this report.
60-Day Rule: Minnesota State Law requires that action be taken on development
applications within 60 days of submittal, or an application is automatically approved. The
law allows for one 60-day extension if the applicant is notified in writing prior to the
expiration of the first 60 days. The application for this case was submitted on July 15,
1996. The applicant was notified of the City's intent to add a 60-day extension on August
12, 1996. The extension will end on October 11, 1996. It is most important that this
application be before City Council prior to October 11 so that action can be taken. It is
staffs recommendation to the Planning Commission that you take action at your
September 4, 1996 meeting so that your recommendation can be forwarded to City •
0 Planning Case No. 452-96
New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H
September 18, 1996
Page 17
Council. (The applicant can waive his rights to the time limit, and the Planning
Commission may want to ask if the applicant is willing to do so.)
Overall Staff Recommendation:
■ Recommend denial of the conditional use permit request
■ Recommend denial of the development review
96 16:06 FA.I 612 784 3462 _ _ -
CITT OF MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Stahl construction Company Phone 931-9300
1111
ADDRESS: 5900 Rowland Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
Street Address, City, State, and Zip Code
Interest in Property (cmc appropriate Pax): .
Q Owner or Property
Q contract tar Deed Owner
Q Lasses. Operator, Manager
C Agreement to Purchase •
Q 0 (explain) Contractor
poaan.ntary.rider=of appieanfa imam in the prm.rq mar be required bigots find ay anion of this MUM, .
PROPS INVOLVE):
Address/General Location 3025 County Road H, Mounds View
Legal Description or Property Identification Number Lot 75. Knol1woori Park.
Ramsey County, Minnesota
Legal Owner: Name/Address W ;3a5' 0f Lo f 7_5'
Dq-36'73- -5 -0031
Present Use (check appropriate box): / o o X 2.A.5-
Q UndevdcaedNarartt a 5 o D 5• r
Q Single Family Dwelling /
• 0 Duplex/Two Family Dwellingf 7 a c✓'-e
CCI Multi-Fundy (No. at Units
H t hment
CI industrial Establishment
Q Other (exalain) -
Property Cessilf G Aurae~ Q Torre= •
REDuE T: Conditional Use Permit d ,.-I,,-,_,L, n. me-L-L.) "t1D
n p ,� I �'^
(1..(M��J`t_, r .1' \1. ,c-•, ,ter N`._ I/i4 I�r('�k M Cfi -)-\_1 61„d 4 P/�l
.--/ .c (-4-6 .------,4-2 - I ti ‘------r--, r.�
Pleas. rats Applicant nsay bs responsible far aadttional tees associated with his of . :. -. .et.
I HEREBY DE 'OGRE THAT THE ABOVE STATBAENT META ...-...6,2122110721- .4 .
Signature Gilliam A. Diem
---------CENi2AO/atsa. SZnQ msren .n aS1.o00 Peds Fad Dedication Fee
FSS us ad meagre SZ00 0111111 Paid
Use Pamtit FM to 1;40- entars.2Q.. Rom*t Number
Ran42601.darumum 100.masimsn 3300 Total Fess Paid a5-0•
yy30 Owes paid -IG - zi(,�
Major Su6dbtis on SZSQ Pius 5270 doomed Peas*Number -,;...... ..........1 O
Cana Plan Amendment S2C0
Wetland Attention Permit S110 pNa daocsR ds_rmin.d by Stet Maim.Fee Peid / 0'VC'
Wedand Boder P.rntit S70 Oa..Paid 7-/4,- / -
--Zemin*Son S30 Pam*Number R i 0
. P10 =SO
PUG Amendment Srsa Gan of fowl action
APPROVED ❑ Pete: C TABLWC
Nee 7-/ 5-- g C, Ptaro+mq ca.No. 9 S - - q Admin.gaunt No.
-I
___
1'
1 ;
• '
' 1
i 1
. t if
1.1.1 •1 I
26
> 1
I I
;-----------
I
: 1 1
:______.•
....... • 2 5 • -
I •
I ------
I I i I ; ! •
1
N 24 '
! ; ,
1 , 1 • ,
i-- ;
' -te . -, I •
1 :
23 e
9
4 2 °I 41 ). --a------____....---.__._.--------...-. ,
4,,I°. .o.I •1 4 5 1 4 3 ; 0 1
844 41 7 to I 48 i
; 2 2
V)I•7', ..1 41 , . : .
I . t
';'•1
....1
1 I4
10431 0
. 1 E53,2.4 -4.4.4-3. 25-3.,24. 1 :10 Lta
I 1 •
"- CLI I •
•
I 1 •• IE.: ' a., 1. te -.'
_._04.3i1 . 24,1..4,,•0..._.,0'
-------....<1:,... • „ 'it0,.-„?4.
-*o)•,P`.-3
744--1''0• 1.01.r-•.1'--:-9.-01-:-- —Woocals Drive . . ,.41 ,0 , ---
I L6.1,
1 4
• 1•013 I ,=-.:,"'• 1 e"" 1: 14-r' - 53 A roStA.-r.
la
. • 1 „....r.lnamigg.1:::.•.:•1:-4,-0,
. i ,...._!- 2. ./.•:•:::::i :13:2i::Iiii:::::::::::::..,..00.1,......."...•
. --- - - - - "` - - -.. _ ,:.PiiiiiagiiiiMEgir4. .•::.;;;::::: -,,a.8 ---1
.2
I t a ' •
:... c2•71) ....•....• ••••:. ::::::::if:,.i:;*.::::::::,::::::::K:i :***!oo..000toiwf•
5 0 4 LLI i o•
• `."' -....,_•ff. -\ej-is ::?;0:•:•i::::::.:t.1:•:;i:::i:: 1:Mii :: : i :4,...„,..,„,:,.._.,.
. •
......„...........:............................: .. ::::...tttttt ,. .._ 0 0
RR g ttttttttttt
K210,.: ••••••40 ttttttttttttttt '', -
2 51 1 ‘.i.-i: ::::;K:if:::::::::::::::K:K:K:i*,/•:4:::::::Mi:x.... 4:::•:-' -to_totott'ro":434rita:
65 ::::::::::::::M;i:•Z:::::::::::;V:K:i:::::::::::::::::(4v:: ..-....a.....,................. o
il 0 - .:INNiiliiipaii:::iii::::i:.,:st11.5...t:511.1:1
- 102
•• -,...:.:-.....-.,, k,....: „... . . . ._ ,.t, --(7,51
1 , ..:....::::::.:::::::::K::7: Kiiiiiiii:iire :.‘,.....w....:41g,„-ivrt•iiett:
i z 5 2 I !' itf4:0•IME:;,:::iR:i ;::::.:'::::'::iiii:g:11? -s;:i:K:::.:......foo=4.1.4i..f."*.;"*..
_I :.___ ...
' • 1 ANPiiiingigiON:1::::;::::•.0::::gike:14.S .X.,"' :
iili:K:3::•i:iiiiiiii;K::::: :;:::.ii. :isi:i:!:::fa:W::::::: ::::;::::::,:aiilt.VV..1* ,
Woodcrest Dr 53 :I I: c,....:::::::::::::::-Ip5iiiigi:.9 9 Er.M..!.:§:::v..4riPliiiiiiill. .:.:.:.;•••:.....*•':::;••••••••-•...•:.....:
P':::::*Ki:',:::-:::::::::::U 0 Ti::•i•i-i44•• ..A:.•:•...-:::K:1:::::::. •:E:::•••:••::::::•:•::.,
;
4::::K:KW::::::::::::i:::::::::i2'Zi::::i::.:::::''',.:ti.:if.Mi:i::::::::::::.::::::::::•:.:-:•:•:-:•:-....:.:., ............
I ;
5 4
- .1 ;.t :•:*K:i;i:i:i;K:i:i:K*::Nif.:::::::'...:::::::•:::::i4A4441!:.:...).*:. ....::::::.5:4.4,.1........r., 1..„..‘. • ..
',:::::::::::.::;•::;"•,;iMii,::::.:=::.*::-'.0:.1!.!:.,-1:ti.:::ir::::::::::.:.:.;k4j,::*- _. .-.iliSigt..,.. ,
.k.:::.—............::::*;*ii:•:-::ii:::::i.;:iiiii.:i.:W::;•;i:::•:..:i:?4::•:::X::::::K:K:K:::::::::::c.:,
..
I--- --------; ••:/•'''''Httk' ::':':':'.'''':':':';':':';• . •F-::::i:K:i:Kg:F 1:::..7•1" .4 * Si:B 3 ..]
5 5 vi'K*Kii:iiii?:Qi.':::K;K:f4:*iiiii:•:;i:,:;:iKii:-..iii:::::::::, , '" '193 ,.........cf° -.. I
z I , ii0:-*:::;glifii::::aif ii':•:-::i:i:iia:e:44*.::ir---,pr g, 31 .................... Z ........y.,..,:-.•..;
1 ,
IS) 0-
i 2.:NtiffintiaNiltaP" 4-'3' AIL
I > •
i.:........::........::: ..::•......,::. ..
:: ::::.::..:.:..::• ..,w L .. ,.. .. i-.....„...-.1.1is:........,
..,:„...........t......„,:;t„.;.::,..
56 :I ...7. . ...4 ;A ..........
t,:.:i:K:i:i:::::::::::::;:::::::.:•:•:•:.:•:•:•:•:•:•:•.•:-...:.•,,:.:.:.,
ti.ii:Mf:::•>4..*:::; :::;,..........:,.:,.....,..... r,„ MI
-4 I, I , '•',-.t..,_,_••':::::':::',.,::::.::::t::::•:::•:::::•:&;::::;:::::::: A t! .1 I . 'otilp '•. '..!:', :.;::: !$.4
I "...... .""LALL' '''' . - .. :......::i:M*0::::*:::::.:::::::::::::!::•:•:::i:::i:i:i:i ,..... ....... ...!: 8.
1 -7 0 _:.:i.:i§::.:K::::::.::::::::::K:i:i•.•;:::::::::::::::::SK:::::::::P
. .,... ' SPRING.'IEW :::- .......
Spring View r 57 •I -•-- K;i:K:K;if:;:::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:•:•:::::::::, Z.!
-
ot- d.I • 3 ' ' •
L_one
iiNiiig:::.:iff•::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.
- .z.:-:::-.--------,..:-.:.:-:-:-:-:-:•::::•:•:•:.:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:.
. .. . 0.6.
•0
1' 5 8 ...... H' ,; , ....
..... I' ,3 I'1 1 t•74 . I.'. 7
I
, \ ' -cit..11Z—
.1 I 0
qZ-47 : ttt -.
I < ' ,:,::::tx..;........... ,:;.:."..::::itiTivitiiEk;:::::i:::::•:::::::,;,2::::, , ; _114 -I I-
, i..ii.,. .:;iii:•:i:ii. . a::*•;::.... 1
V) : ::::::::::: ••••::::::::::::::::::i:44;::::•:.:::::::::: :::+:...:.% I 'Lt7!, fr(f`1 " 0 i° ••
I • 6:::::::•:•$:::::::::::::::i:K..•::::::::::::::::::::,V&,::.:14.:$.2i2i.:•:::. .=....,z o• et !• .),..,,,
4:':':-:::::::::::::Ox•x• ::::::::::::::::::::$4::A:gcM::::$Mt.:•. 78 79 80' - 81 4 i• ..
i------"--"--\t•.• -----1 < ------- ----':::it:1 ; .....•.•::::•••••••••• •:•:•:•:•:•:•.:•.5::::::):::::::::::::: - - - - 1 - _....,. __
I 0 .I I i t ! I 4 • la "`'
0 et '1• :..eigiiMi:i.:iii::*::iiii::::Climiiiii;liii:Ainii: .
- 1 1 . iiiiiiVEMia...,::V::::::iiini4:iiyin •cazi,Pz %a.; i 1 1
1 00,
I;
-4.,,i c.-L- •-mc- . . _•',•:-......'..:.'i:i.x.:.K.:.":.::Z..::.:::::::::::::::::::::.::::.::::.::::,.i*:..-:.:::6K4*$14.1-:•;4(.-4::4:;:4k1.,„*..",::.:.K.:::.i::.K::.„::i::Ki:.:„::::::::::.
--:--,1
61 c /
„,..., „ .. -d4I iIiat,.o
.-,.....5 ......... ...ft ,:::::::„.:„:• ::: ...., , I .. 1 100 , 0 -... 1 1.5.17
1::::.::::,,: .. 1 ;: ..,:x:K:i:::-illigt.:.: :.. at
County Rd. H s'" - —COUNTY 'ROAD - 5-,'--- -
,
i
• 0
•
. .
•
1103.07 1103.08
1103.07: DRAINAGE: In the case of all residential apartment, business and
• industrial developments, the drainage plans shall be submitted to
the Director of Public Works/City Engineer for his review, and the final drainage
plan shall have his written approval. All drainage plans shall conform to the
comprehensive storm drainage plan of the Municipality. The requirements of
Chapters 1010, 1301 and 1302 of this Code shall be met. (1988 Code §43.04)
1103.08: FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING:
Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height, and in the case
of grade separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall,
the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the
average point between the highest and lowest grade.
Subd. 2. Intersections: No fences, structures or planting of trees or shrubs shall.
be permitted within thirty feet (30') of any corner formed by the
intersection of street property lines or the right of way of a railway
intersecting a street', except properly constructed chain link fences. Such
chain link fences shall not exceed forty eight inches (48") in height from
the grade level at the lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of
not less than one and five-eighths inches (15/8") nor more than two and
one-fourth inches (2'/4"). Such fences may follow the lot Iine to the lot
corner. The thirty feet (30') restriction noted above shall consist of the
triangle formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines
that are each thirty feet (30') from the lot corner.
1111 Subd. 3. Location:
a. Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty
eight inches (48") in heightmay be located on any part of a lot. Fences
not to exceed ninety six inches (96") in height may be erected on any part
of a lot behind the front line of the principal building.
b. A fence shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence shall
not be installed directly over the property line.
Subd. .wand-scapingRequired: In-all—zoning districts the lot area remaining
after providing for off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks,
driveway, building site and/or other requirements shall be planted and
maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable vegetation or
treatment generally used in landscaping.
1. See also subdivisions 604.03(3)b. 604.03(3)n. 1008.08(3)e and 1008.08(6) of this Code.
• •
City of Mounds View SECTION 1103.08
1103.08 1103.09
Subd. 5. Surface of Fences: Any fence shall be so constructed that the surface
facing adjoining properties or public rights of way shall be of finished
111
construction.
Subd. 6. Required Screening: The fencing and screening required by this Title
shall be subject to subdivisions 1 through 5 hereof and shall consist of
either a fence or a green belt planting strip the height of which shall be
sufficient to adequately shield the activity from the abutting properties.
a. A green belt planting strip shall consist of evergreen ground cover and
shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an effective screen.
This planting strip shall contain no structures or other use. Such planting
strips shall not be less than eight feet (8') in height. Earth mounding or
berms may be used but shall be limited to. an average of five feet (5') of
the height of the required screen. The planting plan and type of shrub
shall require the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission based
upon a recommendation of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer
and Building Inspector.
b. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick,
wood or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not
exceed eight feet (8') in height or be less than six feet (6') in height. The
design and materials used, in constructing a required screening fence shall
be subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission based
upon a recommendation by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer
and Building Inspector. 111/
c. Ground cover shall be established within one year following issuance
of the building permit. Ground cover material shall be of such type as to
control erosion. (1988 Code §40.04)
1103.09: GLARE: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking
area, sign or other structure shall be arranged as to deflect light
away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets'. Direct or
sky-reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high temperature processes,
such'as combustion or welding, shall not be directed into any adjoining property.
The source of-lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to
light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in
view of adjacent property or public right of way. Any light or combination of
lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one foot-candle (meter
reading) as measured from the center line of said street. Any light or
combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed
four-tenths (0.4) foot-candles (meter reading) as measured from said property.
(1988 Code §40.04)
1. See also subdivision 1008.08(3)d of this Code.
•
City of Mounds View, .
KENNEDY & GRAVEN
a3ARTERED
AIRRVels at Law lugs J.1331oamme
470 Pillsbury Center,Miaowores,Minnesota 55402 LA:zT M.WERTHEI►t
ROBERT A.Atom, (612)337.9300 Boma L Mums
elif.BATYlRSOa
H.BATTY Facsimile
Y.YANG
Facsimile(bu)337-9310
J.Bum.
Josue B.Dux DAM.L.GRAVEN 0923.1%k)
DANIEL J.GRffivswr1G --
DAM,I.
.DAM.L ICERYEDY
=atm L LzErvalm a'COUR=
Ronal C.CARLSox
Joex M.UMW.JR. WRITER'S DIRECT DILL 71:O11FZT L.DAMSON
Roarer LtrasAu.
Roxrrr CC.Lot►G 337-9202 W L rON H.LBW
JAa�c M.Mame= non)B.o�sota
Coannaz S.TROMsor
Corns A.Puitst e
T..1.14 SALx
August 30, 1996
Pam Sheldon
Community Development Director
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
RE: Legal Opinion on Planning Commission and City Council Discretion and
Procedures in Considering Conditional Use Permits and Variances
Our File No. MU125-47
Dear Pam:
• Issues: You have asked for a legal opinion on the following three issues:
1. What procedures should the Planning Commission follow, and what is the role
of the City Council, in the issuance of a conditional use permit?
2. What procedures should the PIFnring Commission follow, and what is the role
of the City Council, in the granting of a variance to the zoning code?
3. Does the Planning Commission and the City Council retain their discretion to
grant or deny conditional use permits and variances regardless of the actions
undertaken by the applicant prior to a public hearing and decision of either
the 'Biu Commission or—thCioty-Cun
Answers:
Issue No. 1: Pursuant to section 1125.01 of the Mounds View Municipal Code (the
"Code"), an application for a conditional use permit is referred to the City staff for
a report and recommendations to be presented to the Plsnning and Zoning Commission
(the "Planning Commission") and the staff reports and recommendations are to be
made part of the permanent written record of the Plpnning Commission. The
Planning Commission shall then exercise its discretion and judgment to consider the
possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use permit and its judgment shall
be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors:
• (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The geographical area involved.
xcL109523
xa125-a
b/Z 3DV arc-CJrc7rCI:ry♦ ..-- ... .....—......... . .---- - - .-
Pam Sheldon
August 30, 1996
Page 2 •
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which
it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need for such use.
See Section 1125.01, subd_ 1(e) of the Code.
The PIRT+ning Commission then makes its findings of fact regarding these factors and
makes a report and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council considers
the recommendations of the Planning Commission and determines whether the request
for a conditional use permit meets all the criteria set forth in Section 1125.01, subd.
3 of the Code, including but not limited to making findings that:
(2) the use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or
screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used lands so that
existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no
deterrence to development of vacant land;
(3) The structure and site have an appearance that will not have an
adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties.
The City Council then renders its decision to grant or deny the conditional use •
permit based on whether the criteria for granting such a conditional use permit have
been met. A decision of the City Council on a conditional use permit can be
challenged in Ramsey County District Court by either the applicant or affected
property owners.
Issue No. 2: In considering a request for a variance to the zoning code, the
Planning Commission meets as the Board of Adjustment Appeals (the "Board") and
a different procedure is followed than in consideration of a conditional use permit.
A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board only in
the event that all of the criteria listed in Section 1125.02, subd. 2 of the Code are
met.
Pursuant to Section 1125.02, subd. 3 of the Code, if the Board acts in favor of the
applicant, the decision is /info and can only be challenged by affected property
owners in district court. No appeal of the Board's decision to the City Council is
provided for in the City Code (This may be an amendment that the Planning
Commission would want to consider in the future). If however, the Board denies the
applicant's request for a variance, the applicant within 60 days from the decision of
the Board may appeal the Board's decision to the City Council for the variance
sought. The granting of a variance of the Zoning Code must be by a 2/3rds vote of
the full Planming Commission serving as the Board pursuant to Section 1125.02,
subd. 4f of the Code.
Issue No. 3: The Planning Commission (serving either as the Planning Commission
or as the Board) and the City Council retain full discretion to grant or deny a
conditional use permit or variance request based on whether or not the CUP or
xazo9Szs
1W125-47
6/E 3nVd @tC9LEEZI9=QT uan1,>1 o Xrt=rrtaau:Wr T ..oft.a
KENNEDY & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
Aeawneys at Law L
470 P� Minneapolis,Caster, MinnesMinnesota55402nnota am AL WISZTIEDM
Rostts A.AL9of (61Z)337-9300 Borate L wRLZII1s
41M.BAI7Sesox JOE Y.'UricS.Um Facsimile(612)337-9320 —
J.Amu.8 Dux DAvto L.GRAvnr 0, If1)
DANms J.GRffi4SWDG —
DAVAA3.XEXNEDY
f A v,ES y LEE1vves ar ommm
Joarz M_LEFEva&JR. WRITER'S DIZEGT DIAL Rom=C CARLsox
aosur J.L ULL itOeERT L.DAvmsox
Roszsr C.Lox* 337-9202 Wauxac70N 8.L&W
• Flora 8,oLsox
JAMES M.51toMXM Moms A,FLAMM
Connor a THOMsox T.JAY SAL3dx
August 30, 1996
Pam Sheldon
Community Development Director
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
RE: Legal Opinion on Planning Commission and City Council Discretion and
Procedures in Considering Conditional Use Permits and Variances
Our File No. MU125-47
Dear Pam:
. Issues: You have asked for a legal opinion on the following three issues:
1. What procedures should the Planning Commission follow, and what is the role
of the City Council, in the issuance of a conditional use permit?
2. What procedures should the Pls3niing Commission follow, and what is the role
of the City Council, in the granting of a variance to the zoning code?
3. Does the Planning Commission and the City Council retain their discretion to
grant or deny conditional use permits and variances regardless of the actions
undertaken by the applicant prior to a public hearing and decision of either
th _Commission orthe City_Caunc�7?
Answers:
Issue No. 1: Pursuant to section 1125.01 of the Mounds View Municipal Code (the
"Code"), an application for a conditional use permit is referred to the City staff for
a report and recommendations to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission
(the "Planning Commission") and the staff reports and recommendations are to be
made part of the permanent written record of the PlAnning Commission. The
PIRn*ting Commission shall then exercise its discretion and judgment to consider the
possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use permit and its judgment shall
be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors:
(1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
• (2) The geographical area involved.
m:1.109523
xas.2s-t7
b'/Z 39ttd 0 t esccez I9'Q I N3Att2i9 '8 AQ3NN3M:WO2i3 8Z= S t 9S-0E-onv
Pam Sheldon
August 30, 1996
Page 2 •
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which
it is proposed_
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need for such use.
See Section 1125.01, subd. 1(e) of the Code.
The PIAnmfrg Commission then makes its findings of fact regarding these factors and
makes a report and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council considers
the recommendations of the Planning Commission and determines whether the request
for a conditional use permit meets all the criteria set forth in Section 1125.01, subd.
3 of the Code, including but not limited to making findings that:
(2) the use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or
screering from adjacent residentially zoned or used lands so that
existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no
deterrence to development of vacant land;
(3) The structure and site have an appearance that will not have an
adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties.
The City Council then renders its decision to grant or deny the conditional use •
permit based on whether the criteria for granting such a conditional use permit have
been met. A decision of the City Council on a conditional use permit can be
eballenged in Ramsey County District Court by either the applicant or affected
property owners.
Issue No. 2: In considering a request for a variance to the zoning code, the
Planning Commission meets as the Board of Adjustment Appeals (the "Board") and
a different procedure is followed than in consideration of a conditional use permit.
A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board only in
the event that all of the criteria listed in Section 1125.02, subd. 2 of the Code are
met.
Pursuant to Section 1125.02, subd. 3 of the Code, if the Board acts in favor of the
applicant, the decision is final and can only be challenged by affected property
owners in district court. No appeal of the Board's decision to the City Council is
provided for in the City Code (This may be an amendment that the P1Arming
Commission would want to consider in the future). If however, the Board denies the
applicant's request for a variance, the applicant within 60 days from the decision of
the Board may appeal the Board's decision to the City Council for the variance
sought. The granting of a variance of the Zoning Code must be by a 2/3rds vote of
the full Planning Commission serving as the Board pursuant to Section 1125.02,
subd. 4f of the Code_
Issue No. 3: The Planning Commission (serving either as the Plpnnittg Commission
or as the Board) and the City Council retain full discretion to grant or deny a •
conditional use permit or variance request based on whether or not the CUP or
xa1o9S23
b/£ 30Vd O t£6L££Z L 9'C I ma vao V AC3NN3M'WOad 9Z:S t 96-0£-orW
Pam Sheldon
August 30, 1996
• Page 3
variance request meet the criteria as set forth in the Code. The PlArming
Commission and City Council are not in any way obligated by the actions or
undertakings of a applicant prior to a public hearing on a conditional use permit or
variance nor is either body bound by the earlier communications between city staff
and an applicant. The only proper considerations for the P}Anning Commission or
City Council to consider in granting or denying a conditional use permit request or
variance request is whether such a request meets all of the criteria set forth in the
Code, taking into consideration the testimony of the applicant and the reports and
recommendations of the City plinni o staff.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Long
RCL/cm
•
•
197125-47
b/b 301yd 0i£6G£CZL9'QI NatlVd9 V AC3NN3N'WO2id 6Z '9I 96-0£-9P1V
•
Azseri MEMORANDUM•
= ST.PAUL.MN = MINNEAPOLIS.MN = ST.CLOUD.MN = CHIPPEWA FALLS. WI = MADISON. WI
TO: Pam Sheldon, Community Development Coordinator
City of Mounds View
FROM: Rocky Keehn
DATE: August 23, 1996
RE: Mounds View, Minnesota
Review of New Apostolic Church
SEH No. A-MOUND9701.00
We have completed a review of the plans submitted to me dated August 15, 1996. The site does
provide storm water treatment prior to discharging into Spring Creek through grass swales and grass 411
pond areas. This should mitigate for construction in the 100-foot wetland buffer area.
Since the site will not have large amounts of cars on a daily basis, the grass treatment areas will
provide enough water quality treatment. Also, the area which would have most of the cars parked
on a daily basis drains to the larger grass area which would further improve the quality of runoff
from the site.
Our only recommendation on the grass ponding areas is that they not be sodded. A sandy topsoil
shouid be placed and a rye gra s_s_ezd uaed. Tnis_wilfprovide-better-in ltratjon intothe soil-for-the
runoff.
Rate of runoff should not be a problem, since the area drains over the grass area prior to discharging
to the street. Our only concern is that the house just to the east of the site has a driveway that slopes
towards the house. The only way to keep water in the street is a raised curb in front of the driveway.
If the church discharges additional water to the street, it may overtop the curb and drain towards the
house. The developer should investigate whether or not this will occur.
If you have any question, please call me at 490-2026.
tlo
VO/ VW/ aV gra 1.0. lld ua000UJ LQ.]002
a
) Lake Park
411) iair�e
ounds View
FIRE DEPARTMENT
H>✓A no Ms PamiSheldon
Community Development Director
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View Mn. 55112.
Sept 61996
Dear Ms. Sheldon,
This letter is to confirm my discussion with Mr.Bill Dean regarding the
proposed New Apostolic Church building,File No. 492-96. We will accept a minimum
20 feet wide driveway of sufficient size to support a 35 ton fire truck on the County Rd.
H entrance. The driveway fru,u Pleasant View Drive will not be deemed a fire access
point. This is predicated on the installation of a full NFPA 13 compliant fire sprinkler
system.
If you have any questions on this issue please contact me at 680-6705 (pager) or
638-9976(office).
• Yours sincerely
Mark Bishop. Fir
•
•
1710 Highway 10 Spring Lake Park.MN 55432 Phone: 6I2-786-4436 Fix: 612-786-9617 Emergency: 911
///
New Apostol is Church
Minneapolis Congregation
September 8, 1996
City of Moundsview
2401 Hwy 10
Moundsview, MN 55112
ATTN: Pam Sheldon
Re: Property located at 3025 County Rd H
To the Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission of
Moundsview:
We the members of the New Apostolic Church Minneapolis Congregation want to thank
you for your consideration of our plans to construct a church at the above referenced
property in Moundsview. Our congregation was previously located at 21 Clarence Ave SE •
in Minneapolis from the mid 1950s until last year. That building, which was
approximately 70 years old, was renovated for our congregation and served us for 40+
years. While for many of us our families Grew up in that building, the cost to renovate and
upgrade the facility to serve us into the future was not economical. There we had become •
accustomed to parallel parking on the hill in front of the large Green tower in the Prospect
Park community(we were unable to ever build a parking lot on our site).
We also look forward to becoming an upstanding member of the Moundsview community
for years to come. The congregations of the New Apostolic Church pride themselves on
making their properties beautiful additions to the community. Our churches are not
business centers, but are rather designed for the quiet gatherings of our member families.
While sur__b__usine repre entat ves_negotiate ith_yuu_and_the_community so_that_w_e can_fit
ourselves in and develop the currently substandard condition of the lot, we want to portray
our committment to increasing, rather than decreasing, the value of the neighborhood. We
look forward to making Moundsview the new home of our congregation.
Very truly yours,
The Members of the New Apostolic Church
•j htiollC�cu/ /I`��7 J�'-Zi!/sl�/ ��^��iL ✓�" 7 i /'
all/C./C,f,
M • DCS ► c�� E ls< ' _
_rupty,L, k5.4.4
'l' „ A
L.' `-UL1
T.
72” !)-e( �t- 7 Y7/ 1 nA, •r ?'a. i.� �.�.a. '� (11_ j' f,, .{ <:�Lei c��
° 'j✓_�f�� �Lr�ti c,, X11,., 'A.,._ _. 1'c-,;•1.1.--L i _ ,
• MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 475-96
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REQUEST FOR THE NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH
FACILITY AT 3025 COUNTY ROAD H; PLANNING CASE NO. 452-96.
WHEREAS, the New Apostolic Church has requested City approval to construct an
approximately 2,054 square foot church building and associated parking lot on property at 3025
County Road H; and,
WHEREAS, this property is in the R-1 single family residential district, which requires the
approval of a conditional use permit for the development of church facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the R-1 single family residential district is "to provide for low
density single-family detached residential dwelling units and directly related, complementary uses;
and,
• WHEREAS, the purpose of conditional use permits is "to provide the City with a
reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the
general welfare, public health and welfare; and,
WHEREAS, Section 1106.04 Subd. 1 of the Mounds View Municipal Code allows
churches in the R-1 district provided certain conditions are met; and,
WHEREAS, Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e. of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires
the Planning Commission to consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its
judg_ement shall-be-based-uPon-(but not4imited-to)the-following-fact-ors:
(1) relationship to the Comprehensive Plan
(2) the geographical area involved
(3) whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed
(4) the character of the surrounding area
(5) the demonstrated need for such use
WHEREAS, Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b. of the Mounds View Zoning Code states the City
Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and upon the health, safety and
• general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands, and requires that certain findings be made for
the approval of a conditional use permit.
Planning Commission Resolution 47.5-96 •
September 18, 1996
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this conditional use permit request:
1. Project Location Plan/Rio Architects; September 11, 1996
2. Grading and Erosion Control Plan/Pioneer Engineering; September 11, 1996
3. Planning Application dated 7/15/96
4. Staff Report dated September 4, 1996 with attachments listed on pages 1 & 2
5. Staff Report dated September 18, 1996 with attachments listed on pages 1 & 2
5. Letter from Mark Bishop, Fire Marshal, Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View
Fire Department dated September 4, 1996 and September 6, 1996
6. Letter from Sweeney, Borer& Ostrow dated September 4, 1996
7. Letter from the New Apostolic Church, Minneapolis Congregation(9/8/96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact
regarding the requirements set forth in Section 1106.04, Subd. 1 of the Mounds View Zoning
Code:
a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty five feet(35'):
Complies. •
b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet(30'):
Complies.
c. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in
compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. (A copy of this Section is attached.)
The applicant has not provided adequate screening from abutting residential uses in that
the width of the landscape buffer areas along the property lines are less than is typical for
churches in the community. The proposed plan shows landscaped buffers of 10 feet along
the east end of the north property line and along the east property line, between the
parking lot and adjacent single family homes. Parking lots are not typical improvements in
the R-1 single family residential district and represent a more intensive use of property
than is typical for this district. The minimum width of landscaped buffer areas between
parking lots on other church sites in the community and adjacent residential uses is 14 feet
with the typical width being 30 feet. The type of landscape material proposed will not
provide an effective screen at least eight feet in height. This criteria is not met.
•
_ , 4
• Planning Commission Resolution 475-96
September 18, 1996
Page 3
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on thesite or on lots directly abutting or
directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this
Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and
abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title.
The proposed plan provides 29 parking spaces of which two are compact size and two are
for handicapped. This number is sufficient to meet Code requirements with a limit of 115
seats for the seating capacity of the Church. The size of the parking spaces, number of
compact spaces, and drive aisle widths used meets Code requirements. The curb cut on
County Road H is 20 feet and the curb cut on Pleasant View Drive is 12 feet, which meet
the maximum width of 22 feet allowed in the R-1 district. **The Fire Department has
indicated that there is sufficient access and maneuvering room for emergency vehicles if
the building is sprinklered.** The plan meets the numerical and dimensional requirements
of the Code. It does not meet the requirements of Section 1103.08, as is stated under c.
above. (**Staff is checking on this statement)
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where
applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title.
• Off-street loading areas are not required for this type of use or this size of building.
f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily
met. (This section is quoted below.)
Adverse Effects: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider possible adverse
effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon(but
not limited to)the following factors:
(1) Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan
(2) The geographical area involved.
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need for the use.
The geographical area involved inthis application is a residential neighborhood bordered
on the south by County Road H which serves as the municipal border. The neighborhood
by deep, oversized lots and mature trees. Because the lots are large, the typical building
coverage is low. The applicant's proposal would be a more intensive use of the lot than is
typical of the neighborhood. At the size proposed, and with coverage of 39% of the lot
with impervious material, the proposal is out of character for the neighborhood and does
not meet this criteria.
•
Planning Commission Resolution 475-96 •
September 18, 1996
Page 4
The applicant has testified of the difficulty encountered by his clients in trying to find
vacant property which would allow development of a church near to where most of the
church members live. The church congregation includes members who live in the Mounds
View area. There appears to be a demonstrated need for the use.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact
regarding this conditional use permit request with respect to the criteria set forth in Section
1125.01 Subd. 3.b. for the review of conditional use permits:
The criteria are noted below, and have been grouped to avoid repetitive findings.
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
(8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
The New Apostolic Church proposed to hold Sunday School at 8:45-9:30 AM and two •
Sunday church services: 10:00-11:00 AM and 5:00-6:00 PM. The Church also holds a
Wednesday evening service from 8:00-9:00 PM. The current congregation is
approximately 55 people. Because the use is a church, rather than residential homes, it is
not anticipated to create a demand on parks or schools. Both water and sewer service
adequate to support this use is available to this site. The site is served by two streets,
County Road H and Pleasant View Drive. Given the limited number of services, and the
size of the congregation, the amount of traffic is anticipated to be low and will occur on
weekends or evenings rather than during peak commute times.
The City Engineer has reviewed the applicant's drainage proposal and has indicated that
the rate of runoff should not be a problem and the grass treatment areas will provide
sufficient water quality treatment. Drainage will now be directed to County Road H and
will flow through grassed areas to allow sediments to percolate before runoff water leaves
the site. Recommendations from the City Engineer that the grass treatment areas be
seeded rather than sodded are addressed as a contingency in the resolution on the
development review. The Rice Creek Watershed District has indicated to staff that a
permit from them is not required. The proposal meets the criteria (1), (7) and (8) stated
above.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and •
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
- • t
• Planning Commission Resolution 475-96
September 18, 1996
Page 5
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
This proposal would result in a church development on a single residential lot measuring
one-half acre, which would be the smallest site used for a church in Mounds View. The
next smallest site is 1.59 acres (or three times as large) and the average size site is 3.7
acres.
The applicant has provided a 10 foot wide landscaped buffer area along the east property
line, and a buffer area ranging from 10 to 24 feet along the north property line, between
the parking lot and the adjacent single family residences. The buffer areas are less than is
typical of other Mounds View churches. The range for buffer areas between parking lots
and adjacent residential uses is 14 - 63 feet with the typical width at 30 feet. The type of
landscape material proposed will not provide an effective screen at least eight feet in
height. Parking lots are not typical improvements in the R-1 single family residential
district and represent a more intensive use of property than is typical for this district.
Testimony has been received from adjacent property owners that the proposed plan will
have an adverse effect on the enjoyment of their property due to the closeness of the
• parking lot to the property line, and that a landscaped area of at least 15 feet in width is
needed to provide an adequate buffer. Criteria(2) and (3) are not met.
(4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The Zoning Code envisions the development of churches in residential neighborhoods, and
there are five other churches in Mounds View in residential districts. The applicant has
testified that a number of the members of this church are from the Mounds View area, and
desire locate the church lose to their homes.
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the purposed use.
According to the Zoning Code, "the purpose of the R-1, single family district is to provide
for low density single-family detached residential dwelling units and directly related,
complementary uses." Churches are allowed in the R-1 district but require approval of a
conditional use permit. Churches, therefore, are regarded as complementary uses which
require special, discretionary review. The R-1 district is intended for low density, i.e. low
intensity uses. There is insufficient room on the property to meet the parking requirements
• and provide the type of buffer between the parking lot and the adjacent residences which is
typical of other churches in Mounds View. The proposed church development, with a
Planning Commission Resolution 475-96
September 18, 1996
Page 6
building of 2054 square feet and a 29-space parking lot, does not fit with the surrounding
single family residential neighborhood. This criteria is not met.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the conditional use permit
request as submitted by the New Apostolic Church for 3025 County Road H does not meet the
criteria set forth in with Section 1106.04 Subd 1. nor Section 1125.01 in their entirety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the conditional use
permit for development of a church facility at 3025 County Road H as presented by the New.
Apostolic Church in its plans dated September 11, 1996 (project location/Rio Architects;
(grading and erosion control plan/Pioneer Engineering)be denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 18th day of September, 1996
•
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Pamela Sheldon
Community Development Director
.
• MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 480-96
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REQUEST FOR THE NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH
FACILITY AT 3025 COUNTY ROAD H; PLANNING CASE NO. 452-96.
WHEREAS, the New Apostolic Church has requested City approval to construct an
approximately 2,054 square foot church building and associated parking lot on property at 3025
County Road H; and,
WHEREAS, this property is in the R-1 single family residential district, which requires the
approval of a conditional use permit for the development of church facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the R-1 single family residential district is "to provide for low
density single-family detached residential dwelling units and directly related, complementary uses;
and,
• WHEREAS, the purpose of conditional use permits is "to provide the City with a
reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the
general welfare, public health and welfare; and,
WHEREAS, Section 1106.04 Subd. 1 of the Mounds View Municipal Code allows
churches in the R-1 district provided certain conditions are met; and,
WHEREAS, Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e. of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires
the Planning Commission to consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its
judgement-shall-be-based-upon-(but-not-limited-to) the-followingg factors:
(1) relationship to the Comprehensive Plan
(2) the geographical area involved
(3) whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed
(4) the character of the surrounding area
(5) the demonstrated need for such use
WHEREAS, Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b. of the Mounds View Zoning Code states the City
Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and upon the health, safety and
• general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands, and requires that certain findings be made for
the approval of a conditional use permit.
Planning Commission Resolution 480-96
September 18, 1996
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this conditional use permit request:
1. Project Location Plan/Rio Architects; September 11, 1996
2. Grading and Erosion Control Plan/Pioneer Engineering; September 11, 1996
3. Planning Application dated 7/15/96
4. Staff Report dated September 4, 1996 with attachments listed on pages 1 & 2
5. Staff Report dated September 18, 1996 with attachments listed on pages 1 & 2
5. Letter from Mark Bishop, Fire Marshal, Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View
Fire Department dated September 4, 1996 and September 6, 1996
6. Letter from Sweeney, Borer& Ostrow dated September 4, 1996
7. Letter from the New Apostolic Church, Minneapolis Congregation (9/8/96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact
regarding the requirements set forth in Section 1106.04, Subd. 1 of the Mounds View Zoning
Code:
a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty five feet(35'):
Complies. •
b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet(30'):
Complies.
•
c. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in
compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. (A copy of this Section is attached.)
The applicant has provided adequate screening from abutting residential uses by including
landscaped buffer areas along the north and east property line. The buffer areas along the
north side measure between 10 and 24 feet, with the widest buffer in the area of most
concern to the adjacent property owner. The buffer area along the east side measures 10
feet and abuts a wooded area on the adjacent property owner's lot. The adjacent property
owners home is feet from the common property. The applicant has provided a
combination of evergreen and deciduous trees in these buffer areas. This criteria is met.
•
II
• Planning Commission Resolution 480-96
September 18, 1996
Page 3
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or
directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this
Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and
abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title.
The proposed plan provides 29 parking spaces of two are compact size and two are for
handicapped. This number is sufficient to meet Code requirements with a limit of 115
seats for the seating capacity of the Church. The size of the parking spaces, number of
compact spaces, and drive aisle widths used meets Code requirements. The curb cut on
County Road H is 20 feet and the curb cut on Pleasant View Drive is 12 feet, which meet
the maximum width of 22 feet allowed in the R-1 district. **The Fire Department has
indicated that there is sufficient access and maneuvering room for emergency vehicles if
the building is sprinklered.** The plan meets the numerical and dimensional requirements
of the Code, and the requirement for adequate screening and buffering from surrounding
and abutting residential uses as is stated under c. above. (**Staff is checking on this
statement)
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where
• applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title.
Off-street loading areas are not required for this type of use or this size of building.
f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily
met. (This section is quoted below.)
Adverse Effects: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider possible adverse
effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon(but
not limited to)the following factors:
J1) Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan
(2) The geographical area involved.
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need for the use.
The geographical area involved in this application is a residential neighborhood bordered
on the south by County Road H which serves as the municipal border. The neighborhood
by deep, oversized lots and mature trees. The applicant has preserved a number of the
mature trees on the site and added 24 evergreen trees and 10 deciduous trees in the buffer
areas bordering adjacent residential lots. These trees when mature will create a wooded
effect on the lot which is.in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. This criteria is
• met.
Planning Commission Resolution 480-96 •
September 18, 1996
Page 4
The applicant has testified of the difficulty encountered by his clients in trying to find
vacant property which would allow development of a church near to where most of the
church members live. The church congregation includes members who live in the Mounds
View area. There appears to be a demonstrated need for the use.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact
regarding this conditional use permit request with respect to the criteria set forth in Section
1125.01 Subd. 3.b. for the review of conditional use permits:
The criteria are noted below, and have been grouped to avoid repetitive findings.
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
(8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
The New Apostolic Church proposed to hold Sunday School at 8:45-9:30 AM and two •
Sunday church services: 10:00-11:00 AM and 5:00-6:00 PM. The Church also holds a
Wednesday evening service from 8:00-9:00 PM. The current congregation is
approximately 55 people. Because the use is a church, rather than residential homes, it is
not anticipated to create a demand on parks or schools. Both water and sewer service
adequate to support this use is available to this site. The site is served by two streets,
County Road H and Pleasant View Drive. Given the limited number of services, and the
size of the congregation, the amount of traffic is anticipated to be low and will occur on
weekends or evenings rather than during peak commute times.
The City Engineer has reviewed the applicant's drainage proposal and has indicated that
the rate of runoff should not be a problem and the grass treatment areas will provide
sufficient water quality treatment. Drainage will now be directed to County Road H and
will flow through grassed areas to allow sediments to percolate before runoff water leaves
the site. Recommendations from the City Engineer that the grass treatment areas be
seeded rather than sodded are addressed as a contingency in the resolution on the
development review. The Rice Creek Watershed District has indicated to staff that a
permit from them is not required. The proposal meets the criteria (1), (7) and (8) stated
above.
•
• Planning Commission Resolution 480-96
September 18, 1996
Page 5
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
The proposed church will have a building footprint of 1027 feet, which is within the range
of a single family house, and will provide adequate screening and buffering to adjacent
residential properties as noted in c. and f. above. Criteria(2) and (3) are met.
(4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The Zoning Code envisions the development of churches in residential neighborhoods, and
there are five other churches in Mounds View in residential districts. The applicant has
testified that a number of the members of this church are from the Mounds View area, and
• desire to locate the church close to their homes.
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the purposed use.
According to the Zoning Code, "the purpose of the R-1, single family district is to provide
for low density single-family detached residential dwelling units and directly related,
complementary uses." Churches are allowed in the R- and, therefore, are regarded as
complementary uses in residential neighborhoods. There is sufficient room on the
property to meet the parking requirements and provide adequate screening and buffering
between the parking loLand the_adja_c_ent residences.This criteria-is-met.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the conditional use permit
request as submitted by the New Apostolic Church for 3025 County Road H meets the criteria set
forth in with Section 1106.04 Subd 1. and Section 1125.01 in their entirety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the conditional use
permit for development of a church facility at 3025 County Road H as presented by the New
Apostolic Church in its plans dated September 11, 1996 (project location/Rio Architects;
(grading and erosion control plan/Pioneer Engineering) be approved with the following
contingencies:
4110
Planning Commission Resolution 480-96 •
September 18, 1996
Page 6
1. The granting of this conditional use permit is contingent upon the granting of a
wetland alteration permit, and shall be null and void if this approval is not received
within 120 days of the date on which City Council acts to grant this conditional
use permit. In no event shall any building permits be issued until such time as the
wetland alteration permit has been granted.
•
2. Prior to City Council action, the landscaping plan shall be revised as follows:
a. Remove White Cedar(Arborvitae) as a plant material and substitute Black
Hills Spruce.
b. Change the word"sod" to "grass lawn" and add a note which states "The
areas shown as grass lawn shall be prepared using a sandy topsoil to
increase the permeability of the soil and improve its ability to filter
sediments from runoff These areas shown as grass lawn shall be seeded
rather than sodded for the same reason.
c. The height specified for trees, including evergreen, deciduous and
ornamental, shall be 6-7 feet. •
•
d. Six Black Hills Spruce shall be substituted for the three Austrian Pine and
the six White Cedar along the north side at the east end of the property.
3. Prior to City Council action, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Fire
Marshall that the site layout meets Fire Department requirements for emergency
access.
4. Use of the church building shall be arranged and scheduled so there is no
overlapping use-ofth-e-auditorium-and-the-fellowship-hall. Parking iequirements
have been calculated and approved based on this arrangement. Church services
shall be scheduled so there is at least three hours between each service (with
allowance for Sunday School preceding each service).
5. The auditorium contains bench-style pews. The seating capacity in the church
auditorium shall calculated based on 22" of bench space for each seat. The seating
capacity shall be limited to 115 seats. Any increase in seating capacity shall require
the approval of an amended conditional use permit by the City of Mounds View.
6. Prior to City Council action, the applicant shall revise the plans to show the plaque
announcing the schedule of services. The applicant shall also reduce the size of the •
signage shown on the plans so the total square footage of all signage is no more
• Planning Commission Resolution 480-96
September 18, 1996
Page 7
than 100 square feet. In calculating the signage on the building, the crosses shall
be included. The plans shall include a note as to the method and level of
illumination for the signage, and a statement as follows: "Signs shall be allowed at
the size and location as shown on this plan, and shall comply with the design and
construction standards contained in Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code. Signs require approval of a separate permit. No other signage is permitted
on the site, except as otherwise allowed by the approved conditional use permit for
this site."
7. The permit holder shall be permitted a temporary 2'6" x 8 foot sign announcing
"The future home of the New Apostolic Church" which may be ground-mounted
with an overall height of no more than five feet. The.sign shall not be placed in the
sight triangle at the intersection of County Road H and Pleasant View Drive (a
triangular area with legs 30 feet long along each property line abutting these
streets.) The sign shall face County Road H.
8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval from
the Community Development Director for a lighting plan showing any exterior
• lighting to be installed on the site. Parking lot lighting shall be mounted on poles
and not on the building. Poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height. The luminaires
shall be limited to 250 watts, have sharp cutoffs and downcast fixtures to direct
light onto the parking lot and not onto adjacent properties. The number of lights
on the property shall be limited to four, with two on the east side of the building
and two on the north side. Walkway lighting using bollards, not to exceed four
feet in height, may be used in the vicinity of the main entrance on the south side of
the building. Site lighting shall only be turned on from an hour before evening
services to an hour after evening services. Lighting for signage on the east and
west side of the building shall be turned off after nine o'clock PM.
9. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain
approval for construction drawings and shall comply with all requirements of Title
1000: Building and Development Regulations. The construction drawings shall
show no more than a 115-seat capacity in the church building.
10. Approval of this site layout is dependent on sprinklering of the building, because
the access drive along the north side of the building is insufficient for emergency
access purposes. The applicant shall obtain approval for a plan for sprinklering
from the Fire Department and the Building Official, prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit.
•
Planning Commission Resolution 480-96
•
September 18, 1996
Page 8
11. Prior to City Council action on this item, the applicant shall revise the grading and
erosion control plan to show all of the existing trees on the site. The applicant
shall revise the title of the landscaping plan so instead of being labelled"grading
and erosion control plan" it is labelled "landscaping plan".
12. Approval of this conditional use permit shall include the site layout and
landscaping plan, dated September 11, 1996, the grading and drainage plan, dated
September 11, 1996, and any plans approved by the City as required by the
contingencies on this permit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 18th day of September, 1996
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson •
ATTEST:
Pamela Sheldon
Community Development Director
•
. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 476-96
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REQUEST FOR THE NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH
FACILITY AT 3025 COUNTY ROAD H; PLANNING CASE NO. 452-96.
WHEREAS, the New Apostolic Church has requested City approval for a development
review to construct an approximately 2,054 square foot church building and associated parking
lot on property at 3025 County Road H; and,
WHEREAS Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a
development review be conducted for this and similar proposals; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this development review request:
• 1. Project Location Plan/Rio Architects; September 11, 1996
2. Grading and Erosion Control Plan/Pioneer Engineering; September 11, 1996
3. Planning Application dated 7/15/96
4. Staff Report dated September 4, 1996 with attachments listed on pages 1 & 2
5. Staff Report dated September 18, 1996 with attachments listed on pages 1 & 2
5. Letter from Mark Bishop, Fire Marshal, Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View
Fire Department dated September 4, 1996 and September 6, 1996
6. Letter from Sweeney, Borer& Ostrow dated September 4, 1996
7. Letter from New Apostolic Church, Minneapolis Congregation (9/8/96)
WIEREASehVZoundew Zoning Code requires approval of a conditional use permit
for the development of a church in the R-1 single family residential district; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has made findings that the
application from the New Apostolic Church does not meet the required criteria for issuance of a
conditional use permit for a church on this property.
Planning Commission Resolution 476-96 •
September 18, 1996
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the development
review for development of a church facility at 3025 County Road H as presented by the New
Apostolic Church in its plans dated September 11, 1996 (project location/Rio Architects) and
September 11, 1996 (grading and erosion control plan/Pioneer Engineering) be denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 18th day of September, 1996
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
•
Pamela Sheldon
Community Development Director
. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 481-96
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REQUEST FOR THE NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH
FACILITY AT 3025 COUNTY ROAD H; PLANNING CASE NO. 452-96.
WHEREAS, the New Apostolic Church has requested City approval for a development
review to construct an approximately 2,054 square foot church building and associated parking
lot on property at 3025 County Road H; and,
WHEREAS Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a
development review be conducted for this and similar proposals; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this development review request:
• 1. Project Location Plan/Rio Architects; September 11, 1996
2. Grading and Erosion Control Plan/Pioneer Engineering; September 11, 1996
3. Planning Application dated 7/15/96
4. Staff Report dated September 4, 1996 with attachments listed on pages 1 & 2
5. Staff Report dated September 18, 1996 with attachments listed on pages 1 & 2
5. Letter from Mark Bishop, Fire Marshal, Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View
Fire Department dated September 4, 1996 and September 6, 1996
6. Letter from Sweeney, Borer & Ostrow dated September 4, 1996
7. Letter from New Apostolic Church,.Minneapolis Congregation (9/8/96)
WHEREAS, the anView Zonmg Code requires approval of a conditional use permit
for the development of a church in the R-1 single family residential district; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has made findings that the
application from the New Apostolic Church meets the required criteria for issuance of a
conditional use permit; and,
•
1 .
•
• Planning Commission Resolution 481-96
September 18, 1996
Page 3
Landscaping
The landscaping plan with revisions required by the contingencies stated in this resolution
is acceptable. It will provide an evergreen screen along the north and east property lines
sufficient to buffer the adjacent residential properties. Species of plant materials are
suitable for the site and climate conditions.
Signage
The signage plan is shown on elevations prepared by LRK design group and on file with
the Community Development Department as of August 29, 1996. The signage with the
revisions required by the contingencies stated in this resolution is acceptable. The
contingencies limit the overall total signage on the site to 100 square feet.
Lighting
No lighting plan has been submitted as part of this application. The contingencies stated
in this resolution require that a lighting plan, consistent with the specifications stated in the
contingencies, be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director prior
to issuance of any grading and building permits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the development
review for development of a church facility at 3025 County Road H as presented by the New
Apostolic Church in its plans dated September 11, 1996 (project location/Rio Architects) and
September 11, 1996 (grading and erosion control plan/Pioneer Engineering) be approved subject
to the following contingencies:
1. The granting of this development review is contingent upon the granting of a
wetland alteration permit, and shall be null and void if this approval is not received
within 120 days of the date on which City Council acts to grant this development
review. In no event shall any building permits be issued until such time as the
wetland alteration permit has been granted.
2. Prior to City Council action, the landscaping plan shall be revised as follows:
a. Remove White Cedar(Arborvitae) as a plant material and substitute Black
Hills Spruce.
• b. Change the word"sod" to "grass lawn" and add a note which states "The
•
Planning Commission Resolution 481-96 410
September 18, 1996
Page 4
areas shown as grass lawn shall be prepared using a sandy topsoil to
increase the permeability of the soil and improve its ability to filter
sediments from runoff. These areas shown as grass lawn shall be seeded
rather than sodded for the same reason.
c. The height specified for trees, including evergreen, deciduous and
ornamental, shall be 6-7 feet.
d. Six Black Hills Spruce shall be substituted for the three Austrian Pine and
the six White Cedar along the north side at the east end of the property.
3. Prior to City Council action, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Fire
Marshall that the site layout meets Fire Department requirements for emergency
access.
4. The auditorium contains bench-style pews. The seating capacity in the church
auditorium shall calculated based on 22" of bench space for each seat. The seating
capacity shall be limited to 115 seats. Any increase in seating capacity shall require
the approval of an amended conditional use permit by the City of Mounds View.
ID
5. Prior to City Council action, the applicant shall revise the plans to show the plaque
announcing the schedule of services. The applicant shall also reduce the size of the
signage shown on the plans so the total square footage of all signage is no more
than 100 square feet. In calculating the signage on the building, the crosses shall
be included. The plans shall include a note as to the method and level of
illumination for the signage, and a statement as follows: "Signs shall be allowed at
the size and location as shown on this plan, and shall comply with the design and
construction standards contained in Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal
•� .. -: r' . •• :•. i : :: ; •: : -
on the site, except as otherwise allowed by the approved conditional use permit for
this site."
6. The permit holder shall be permitted a temporary 2'6" x 8 foot sign announcing
"The future home of the New Apostolic Church" which may be ground-mounted
with an overall height of no more than five feet. The sign shall not be placed in the
sight triangle at the intersection of County Road H and Pleasant View Drive (a
triangular area with legs 30 feet long along each property line abutting these
streets.) The sign shall face County Road H.
7. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval from .
the Community Development Director for a lighting plan showing any exterior
Planning Commission Resolution 481-96
September 18, 1996
Page 5
lighting to be installed on the site. Parking lot lighting shall be mounted on poles
and not on the building. Poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height. The luminaires
shall be limited to 250 watts, have sharp cutoffs and downcast fixtures to direct
light onto the parking lot and not onto adjacent properties. The number of lights
on the property shall be limited to four, with two on the east side of the building
and two on the north side. Walkway lighting using bollards, not to exceed four
feet in height, may be used in the vicinity of the main entrance on the south side of
the building. Site lighting shall only be turned on from an hour before evening
services to an hour after evening services. Lighting for signage on the east and
west side of the building shall be turned off after nine o'clock PM.
8. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain
approval for construction drawings and shall comply with all requirements of Title
1000: Building and Development Regulations. The construction drawings shall
show no more than a 115-seat capacity in the church building.
9. Approval of this site layout is dependent on sprinklering of the building, because
the access drive along the north side of the building is insufficient for emergency
1110 access purposes. The applicant shall obtain approval for a plan for sprinklering
from the Fire Department and the Building Official, prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permit.
10. Prior to City Council action on this item, the applicant shall revise the grading and
erosion control plan to show all of the existing trees on the site. The applicant
shall revise the title of the landscaping plan so instead of being labelled"grading
and erosion control plan" it is labelled "landscaping plan".
11. Approval of this development review shall include the site layout and landscaping
plan, dated September 11, 1996, the grading and drainage plan, dated September
11, 1996, and any plans approved by the City as required by the contingencies on
this permit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 18th day of September, 1996
• Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Planning Commission Resolution 481-96
September 18, 1996
Page 6
AT LEST:
Pamela Sheldon
Community Development Director
•
II,
•
III REVISIONS TO RESOLUTIONS
FOR PLANNING CASE NO. 452-96
NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH
Add to Resolution 475-96: Denial of CUP
Page 3. item d. from the **
'
•
... . . . - . . - 11 - . . . • - . • • .. .
' '.. . • 11 ' 1• .. - . .1 . • .. I I •. .1
. . . .. . .. • - -I I . . . ..:, . . - .
under . The Fire Department has indicated that the 13 foot wide drive aisle along the
south edge of the parking lot, adjacent to the driveway from County Road H, does not give
sufficient room for emergency vehicles to access the property. This situation poses a threat to
health and safety. The plan meets the numerical and dimensional requirements of the Code. It
does not meet the access requirements for the Fire Department or the screening and landscaping
requirements in Section 1103.08 (see item c. above). The Planning Commission finds that this
criteria is not met. 1
Page 5. item (2) and (3), 1st paragraph:
• This proposal would result in a church development on a single residential lotone-half p p g a measuring one
acre, which would be the smallest site used for a church in Mound View. The next smallest site is
1.59 acres (or three times as large) and the average size site is 3.7 acres. The proposed structure
is 1-1/2 stores high with a wall height of 13.5 to 16 feet, and an overall height of 26.5 to 29.5 feet
above grade. The proposed footprint is 2054 feet. The typical homes in this neighborhood are
one story bungalow-style homes, which are much lower to the ground and have smaller building
footprints.
Page 6 (first line at top of page)
building of 2054 4108 square feet on two levels, with a building footprint of 2054 square feet,and
a 29 space parking lot, does not fit with the surrounding single family residential neighborhood.
Page 6 (3rd paragraph)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the conditional use
permit for development of a church facility at 3025 County Road H as presented by the New
Apostolic Church in its plans dated September 11, 1996 (project location/landscaping Rio
Architects; grading and erosion control plan/Pioneer Engineering) and the elevations and details
• from the construction drawings prepared by LRK design group (sheets L-2, A-2 and A-3) be
denied.
0 Revisions to Resolutions
Planning Case No 452-96: New Apostolic Church
September 18, 1996 .
Page 2
•
* * * * *
Add to Resolution 480-96: Approval of CUP
Page 3. item d.: Drop sentence between **s
Page 5. items (2) and (3): first sentence
The propose church will have a building footprint of-1-03-27 2054 square feet, which is within the
range of a single family house, and will provide adequate screening and buffering to adjacent
residential properties as noted in c. and f. above. Criteria (2) and (3) are met.
Page 5, last paragraph
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the conditional use
• permit for development of a church facility at 3025 County Road H as presented by the New •
Apostolic Church in its plans dated September 11, 1996 (project location/landscaping Rio
Architects; grading and erosion control plan/Pioneer Engineering) and the elevations and details
from the construction drawings prepared by LRK design group (sheets L-2, A-2 and A-3) be
approved with the following contingencies:
Page 8 add the following:
12. Approval of this conditional use permit shall include the site layout and landscaping plan,
dated September 11, 1996, the grading an drainage plan, dated September 11, 1996, the
elevations and details from the construction drawings prepared by LRK design group
(sheets L-2, A-2 and A-3) on file in the Community Development Department as of this
date, and any plans approved by the City as required by the contingencies on this permit.
13. Prior to City Council action on this item, the applicant shall add a note to the grading and
erosion control plan which states"A sign"Exit Only" no larger than 2 feet x 1 foot shall
be installed where the driveway intersects Pleasant View Drive, with the location to be as
shown on this plan." The applicant shall add a sign location to the plan.
* * * * *
III
. Revisions to Resolutions
Planning Case No 452-96: New Apostolic Church
September 18, 1996
Page 3
•
Resolution 476-96: Denial of Development Review
Page 2, 1st paragraph:
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the development
review for development of a church facility at 3025 County Road H as presented by the New
Apostolic Church in its plans dated September 11, 1996 (project location/landscaping Rio
Architects; grading and erosion control plan/Pioneer Engineering) and the elevations and details
from the construction drawings prepared by LRK design group (sheets L-2, A-2 and A-3) be
denied.
* * * * *
i
Resolution 481-96: Approval of Development Review
IIIIPage 2, last paragraph: Drop sentence between **
Page 3, fourth paragraph:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the development
review for development of a church facility at 3025 County Road H as presented by the New
Apostolic Church in its plans dated September 11, 1996 (project location/landscaping Rio
Architects; grading and erosion control plan/Pioneer Engineering) and the elevations and details
from the construction drawings prepared by LRK design group (sheets L-2, A-2 and A-3) be
approved with the following contingencies:
Page 5, add the following:
11. Approval of this development review shall include the site layout and landscaping plan,
dated September 11, 1996, the grading an drainage plan, dated September 11, 1996, the
elevations and details from the construction drawings prepared by LRK design group
(sheets L-2, A-2 and A-3) on file in the Community Development Department as of this
date, and any plans approved by the City as required by the contingencies on this permit.
Revisions to Resolutions
410
Planning Case No 452-96: New Apostolic Church
September 18, 1996
Page4
12. Prior to Cit Council action on this item the a..licant shall add a note to the •radin• and
erosion control plan which states"A sign"Exit Only" no larger than 2 feet x 1 foot shall
be installed where the driveway intersects Pleasant View Drive,with the location to be as
shown on this plan." The applicant shall add a sign location to the plan.
•
0
•
S
ooi
•
MWB FIRE PROTECTION ENTERPRISES
411 1980 INCA LANE
NEW BRIGHTON MN. 55112
FAX COVER SHEET
•
DATE: September 18, 1996 TIME 1:55 PM
TO: PAM SHELDON PHONE: (612) 784-3055
MOUNDS VIEW FAX: (612) 784-3462
FROM: MARK BISHOP PHONE: (612) 638-9976
M.V. FIRE DEPT. FAX: (612)638-0803
RE: NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH
cc:
Number of pages including cover sheet 1
Message
13 feet does not give adequate room to access the property. We have a
• minimum width of 20 ft for roadways but were prepared to flex that to 17 feet.
This is particularly important in view of the severely limned access from the other
side of the bolding.A 17 roadway is a 15% reduction in width, a 13 ft. is a 35%
reduction. It is extremely unlikely that a fire engine could negotiate in such a
small space. Engines get bigger each time we purchase but the bid specifies a
• turning radius which will work with our minimum road. Thus any downsizing of
roads constitutes a significant issue.
•
09/18/96 11:42 STAHL CONSTRUCTION 9 612 784 3462 NO.390 P001/002
SEP-0S-1996 16:36 NAC ERIE 814 833 6389 Pal'e's
. ' 1111Z11 design group
411— AACNITCCTUA5 • ENaINetRtw3
I L4•0409ACAPE AnCriITQCTuw* •
•
"r"""'^""'°'" DATE: September 5, 1998
1.110
viz MI
`• TO: Moundsview, MN - City Engineers Office
41 OH=
FROM: Leonard R. Kolb, P.E.
REF: Prosed Church Svildina
NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH
3025 County Rd. "N"
arms*' Moundaview, MN
a Me,PT U Iy+..*
• 4oe.N*.w.,Mw Ven
• snahrd,PM0110414 Mo same:
Dear Mr. Jerson,
111 Please be advised that we are removing the lest row of pews from our proposed
Church for Moundgview, MN. The reason for this is to allow for handicapped. or
individuals that ere bound to wheelchairs easy access to the sanctuary. This also
will remove their need to leave the wheelchair to sit in a pew. The removal of
pews will change the fixed seating capacity to 115.
Should you require any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact our
office.
Sincerely yours.
A
eonard R. Kolb, P.E.
LRK/wjh
Post-its Fax Note 7671 �—ia _mL ,
Topp •44/0_, ,F"",9 [t. y
• Lamm"I.$.s•.e. C0 pI...,11c°' 74;f�L
•iiO. Id.4nH lel Phone• Pho.1•k /3/"�i 6bL
Nr••.semen* Fax�1,$f" "3¢4 2- Fe"*43 1 -11 4-1 ,
09/18/96 11:42 STAHL CONSTRUCTION 4 612 784 3462 NO.390 PO02/002
Xr-0.1-1770 CP.JCS 17T. Cn,C 74,1 WJ 411, r•.4•C RT.
•
•
New Apostolic Church United States of AmericaID/
OT: September 5, 1998
TO: Moundsview, MN - City Engineers Office
FR: Walter Hallmark
RE: Proposed Church Suil jg
NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH
3025 County Rd. "H"
Moundsview, MN
Massone:
Dear Mr. Jerson,
1111
l em writing to inform you that presently there are no handicapped or wheelchair
bound members, or guest attending the New Apostolic Church, Minneapolis, MN
congregation.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call ma.
Sincerely yours,
/4 Nii 1 4 .
Welter Hallmark
National Building Office •
1703 Peninsula O$vo, Eris, Pennsylvania 18.505 United States of Amer ca
Vacherie 18141> 3-e0r� Telefax 18141833-8308
ITEM #7
• PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMO
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director ?"lr---
Subject: Planning Case No. SP-0008-96
1) Revision of parking lot setbacks between residential and non-residential uses.
2) Revision to lot area requirements for public or semi-public recreational buildings
and neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions
limited to elementary,junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions,
such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues.
Date: Meeting of September 4, 1996
1) Revision of parking lot setbacks between residential and non-residential uses.
Mr. Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, has submitted a letter requesting that the Zoning
Code be amended to require a fifteen foot setback for parking lots for churches or any commercial
• uses from property lines which abut residential uses. It is staffs understanding that this request
was prompted by his concern about the parking lot proposed for the New Apostolic Church at
3025 County Road H. Mr. Moon's property is directly north of the proposed church site. Any
person owning real estate within the City is allowed to initiate a request to amend the Zoning
Code (Section 1125.01 Subd. 2).
At your meeting on August 21, 1996, the Planning Commission indicated a reluctance to forward
such an amendment to the City Council. Since the Zoning Code provides for property owners to
initiate amendments, action is needed on this item since Mr. Moon has asked that it be forwarded
to City Council.
Staff has researched the current provisions in the Zoning Code concerning parking lot setbacks.
To our knowledge there are references in four places as follows:
1. Chapter 1104: General Zoning Provisions
1104.01: Yard Requirements
Subd. 3. includes a table showing minimum setback requirements for each zoning district,
with lettered footnotes. Following the table are Sections a. thru d. which correspond to
the footnotes. Subsection d. states for front setbacks in the business and industrial zone
districts: "Vehicle parking or loading docks shall not be located within the minimum
required setback."
•
Mounds View Planning Commission S
SP-008-96: Revision to Parking Lot Setbacks
Meeting of September 4, 1996
Page 2
2. Chapter 1104: General Zoning Provisions
Subd. 4. Location of Driveway states: "Driveway surfaces shall be not less than five feet
(5') from any lot line, except where said driveway provides access to a public street. With
the written permission of the adjacent property owner, temporary parking surfaces may be
within five feet (5') but not less than one foot (1') from any lot line."
3. Chapter 1121: Off-Street Parking Requirements
1121.09: Stall, Aisle and Driveway Design
Subd. 11 states: "Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses, all open off-street
parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot; said curb barrier
shall not be closer than five feet (5') to any lot line. Grass, plantings or surfacing materials
shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area."
•
4. Chapter 1121: Off-Street Parking Requirements
1121.11: Location (accessory off-street parking facilities)
Subd. 3 states: "Accessory off-street parking shall be not less than five feet (5' ) from any
lot line.
•
Our current practice is to allow parking areas for multiple family residential and non-residential
uses to within five feet of the property line, except as noted under Item#1 above. This practice is
supported by Items#3-4. Item#2 is not very clear. What we believe it to mean is that driveway
setbacks must be at least five feet except where the driveway must cross a required setback to
provide access to a public street. Our current practice is to allow driveways to within five feet,
and to allow parking areas surfaced with gravel or asphalt to within one foot, if the adjacent
property owner gives permission. There is no indication if such"temporary" parking areas must
be removed if a later neighbor objects. It is not clear if this allowance was meant for single and
two-family residences only.
Mr. Moon has requested an amendment which would require parking lots for churches or any
commercial uses to have a 15 foot setback from property lines which abut residential uses. Our
research on existing church properties in Mounds View show a range from 14 feet to 66 feet
between parking lots and property lines, where the property lines abut residential properties. (See
attached chart.) The average is 36 feet. Using 14 feet would avoid creating a non-conforming
situation on existing properties. Using 30 feet would be closer to the average now being
provided.
An ordinance has been prepared which would add a requirement to the Zoning Code that parking
areas for non residential, conditional uses in the R-1 and R-2 districts would have the following
setback requirements: •
■ on sites having 2 acres or less: 15 feet
■ on sites having more than 2 acres: 30 feet
•
0
O
0
cd
ti
0
a i i i i
oA w w w w w
•I r-+ VO CN d- MVD
iM ,--4 VO N '-. VD M
a
O
ct
CA •.
..x c
CA v
o CI urn cu -
vi VI na v0
c0 DyW WZ W W W
a)
�
aVD
ON
o C) ON
1-4
xO O N V
C.)
M G^
as kr, Q\ --. 00
�
• .":3V1 . M ,--. N M Cr;
0,.., V ct i
¢' Csi O
0 = 6. 0 0 x
o al
W A A i ° ^
of)
U
cn
a 0 0 -o 0 o
- — O N oo •00
00 N 00 N
x
0
0
= cn
O
cd fl. O
� N
a
O ' O °'
.� c,-.104
U 0 y ccS
CI, &I D
6.O y
UdU n U C
d
•
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
• CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SETBACKS FOR PARKING LOTS,
DRIVEWAYS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND AMENDING TITLE 1100,
SECTIONS 1102.01, 1104.01, 1106.04, 1121.09, 1121.11,AND 1123. 02
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 1102.01 is hereby amended to add a new Subd. 88. "Principal
Building" as stated below, and the subsequent subdivisions in this section are to be renumbered
accordingly.
Subd. 88. Principal Building: The main or primary building containing the principal use of
a property as distinguished from an accessory building.
Section 2. Section 1104.01 Subd. 3. Is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 3. Setbacks for Principal Buildings: The setback distances listed in the table below
apply to principal buildings, except as otherwise provided for conditional uses in
. specific zoning districts. All setback distances shown, as listed in the tal,it beluw,
shall be measured from the appropriate lot line. The lettered footnotes correspond
to Section 1104.01 Subd. 3. a., b., c., and d.
Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
District'
Minimum Minimum When Abuts Minimum When Abuts
Residential Residential
R-1 30 a. , 10 b. 30
R-2 30 a. 10 b. 30
R-3 30 10 c. 20 c. 30 40
R-4 30 20 c. 20 c. 30 50
RR=S --As required under Chapter 1110.05 of this Title--
R-O 30 20 c. 20 c. 30 50
B-1 30 d. 10 c. 20 c. 20 30
B-2 30 d. 10 c. 20 c. 20 30
B-3 30 d. 10 c. 20 c. 20 40
B-4 30 d. 10 c. 30 30 40
. I-1 40 d. 20 c. 40 40 40
PUD --As required under Chapter 1120 of this Title--
'Lettered footnotes in this table correspond to Section 1104.01 Subd. 3.A.,b.,c.,and d.
Ordinance No. )0CX
Page 2 •
a. Where principal buildings on lots within the same block on the
same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the
front yard setback shall be • ' _ • ••
the minimum setback in existence for any one lot.
.. . - . . , . •. . .• • • •• , . . - • .
. , • ; , .. • • • . In no case
shall the front yard be less than thirty feet (30').
b. Not less than thirty feet (30') from the lot line if lot is on corner. , and on interior
•
The side setback may be reduced to five feet (5')between an interior side lot line •
and that side of a principal building which is constructed as a garage.
c. Not less than thirty feet (30) from lot line if lot is on corner.
d. Vehicle parking or loading docks shall not be located within the minimum required
setback.
Section 3. Section 1104.01 Subd. 4. Is hereby amended to read as follows:
frons any lot line, axcapt vhare said drivevayproaides access to a public street.
thirty five feat(35'). •
Subd. 4. Setbacks for Accessory Buildings, Driveways and Parking Areas
•
a. Accessory Buildings (detached from a principal building):
(1) R-1 and R-2:
five feet (5') from all lot lines, except no accessory building shall be located
between the front line of the principal building and the front lot line.
(2) All other districts:
a front lot line, and any lot line abutting public sti eet:
same as minimum setback for principal building
al side and rear lot lines (not abutting a public street): five feet (5')
b. Driveways: Driveway surfaces shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5') from
all lot lines, except driveways shall be permitted to cross a required setback area in
order to establish access between the lot and a public street. Where a driveway
would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an
encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior to construction
of the driveway. Drive aisles and driveways which are within the boundaries of a
parking area shall conform to the setbacks required for parking areas.
•
Ordinance No. XXX
• Page 3
c. Parking Areas:
(1) R-1 and R-2:
(a) residential uses:
five feet (5'), except temporary parking areas surfaced with either
gravel or asphalt shall be permitted with a setback of one foot (1')
provided the owner(s) of the abutting lot(s) indicates his/her
permission on a form acceptable to the City. Where a temporary
parking area would encroach into an easement, the property owner
shall obtain approval for an encroachment permit if required by the
appropriate authority prior to construction of the driveway. The
combined width of parking and driveway surfaces shall not exceed
thirty five feet (35'). (Ord. 524, 2-22-93)
(b) non-residential uses, allowed by conditional use permit:
for sites having two (2 ) acres or less, the minimum setback for
parking areas on the site having non-residential uses shall be fifteen
feet (15'); for sites having more than two (2) acres, the minimum
setback shall be thirty feet (30').
Parking areas in existence as , and which do
not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue
subject to the provisions of Section 1123.02 Subd. 1(b).
• (2) All other districts:
fa) from front lot lines, and lot lines abutting public streets:
thirty feet (30')
(b) from side and rear lot lines, when abutting properties are in the R-1,
R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5 districts: thirty feet (30')
(c) from side and rear lot lines, not abutting properties in the R-1, R-2,
R-3, R-4, and R-5 districts: five feet (5')
Section 4. Section 1121.09 Subd. 11 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 11. Curbing and Landscaping: Except for single-family, two-family and
townhouses, all open off-street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the
entire parking lot_, . . • .. • • I • •- • • • - • • -.
The location of this curb barrier shall comply with the setback requirements for parking
areas stated in Section 1104.01 Subd. 4. Grass, plantings or surfacing materials shall be
provided in all areas bordering the parking area.
Section 5. Section 1121.11 Subd. 3 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 3. Accessory off-street parking . . • - - • •
shall comply with the required minimum setbacks as stated in Section 1104.01
Subd. 4.
•
Ordinance No. XXX
•
Page 4
Section 6. Section 1123.02 Subd. 1 is hereby amended to read as follows: •
Subd. 1. Continuance of Use:
(a) General: Any structure or use lawfully existing prior to a
revision to this Code or a change in a zoning district designation which makes the
structure or use nonconforming shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the
size and in the manner of operation existing upon such date, except as hereinafter
specified or subsequently amended.
(b) Parking Areas for Non-Residential Uses, Allowed by Conditional Use Permit, in
the R-1 and R-2 District: Parking areas in existence as of , and
having setbacks which are non-conforming with respect to setback requirements
stated in Section 1104.01 Subd. 4, may continue in use and may be resurfaced and
restriped, and potholes and curbing may be repaired. Parking lots or portions of
parking lots which are reconstructed by the removal of the parking surface to the
subgrade shall be brought into conformance with the setback requirements in
Section 1104.01 Subd. 4.
•
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of
, 1996.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of
, 1996. •
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chuck Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert Long, City Attorney
i
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
• RESOLUTION NO. 474-96
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE XXX AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW
ZONING CODE, TITLE 1100,SECTIONS 1101.01, 1104.01, 1106.04, 1121.09, 1121.11, and
1123.02 RELATING TO SETBACKS FOR DRIVEWAYS,PARKING AREAS,AND PRINCIPAL
AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS,AND THE CONTINUED USE OF NON-CONFORMING
PARKING LOTS FOR CONDITIONAL USES IN THE R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code sets forth provisions concerning setbacks for
driveways, parking areas, and principal and accessory buildings; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the community interest to assure that parking areas associated with larger
scale uses such as multifamily residential, community facilities, commercial and industrial developments do
not have an adverse visual and aesthetic impact on adjacent residential properties; and,
WHEREAS, additional buffering is needed between parking lots associated with multifamily
residential, business and industrial uses and adjacent residential uses
WHEREAS, residential districts allow for certain non-residential uses such as schools, community
centers, and churches as conditional uses, and additional buffering is needed between the parking lots
associated with these uses and adjacent residential uses; and, •
WHEREAS, certain provisions in the Zoning Code related to setbacks for driveways, parking
areas,principal and accessory buildings are in need of clarification; and,
WHEREAS,with the adoption of increased setbacks for parking lots abutting residential
properties, it is advisable to address the continued use of existing parking lots which do not conform to the
revised setback requirements, and the ability to repair and resurface them.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds
View recommends approval of Ordinance No. XXX, an ordinance amending Title 1100, entitled"Zoning
Code,"of the Mounds View Municipal Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to
forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 4th day of September, 1996.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
A 1TEST:
(SEAL)
• Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
ITEM #8
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMO
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development.Director
Subject: Planning Case No. SP-0002-96
Revision to Flood Plain Zoning
Date: Meeting of September 4, 1996
At your meeting on August 7, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed changes to Chapter
13: Flood Plain Zoning on the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the changes, and passed the attached resolution. This item will be before City Council
for a public hearing and adoption on September 9, 1996
At the time of your meeting, we provided the Planning Commission with the text of the changes
but not the actual ordinance. The City Attorney has advised that we present the actual ordinance
. to the Commission to reconfirm your recommendation, to make sure there is no question whether
the Commission reviewed the ordinance. Attached you will find a copy of the staff report to City
Council and Ordinance 589.
The reason for these revisions is to keep our regulations in compliance with federal law, so that
the City of Mounds View and its residents continue to be eligible for the Federal Flood Insurance
Program.
Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution reconfirming the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval for revisions to Chapter 13: Flood Plain Zoning.
Attachments:
Resolution 471-96: Recommending Adoption of Ordinance 589 (approved 8/7/96)
Resolution 473-96: Reconfirming Recommendation of Approval (presented for approval)
City Council Staff Report on Ordinance 589
Ordinance 589
•
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION S
RESOLUTION NO. 471-96
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
•
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDING'DIE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL
CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 1301, RELATING TO FLOOD PLAIN ZONING IN
ORDINANCE NO. 589
WHEREAS, Chapter 1301, entitled"Flood Plain Zoning," is currently not in compliance
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements; and
WHEREAS, a compliant floodplain ordinance is a prerequisite of a community's eligibility
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); and
WHEREAS, NFIP provides federal and state assistance in the event of flooding, denial of
flood insurance in a community, 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 recommends modification to Chapter 1301,
entitled"Flood Plain Zoning", to add the required provisions by amending the definitions of
structure in Section 1301.04, Subd. 15,; Section 1301, Subd. 7, on Flood Insurance Notice and
Record Keeping; Section 1301.10, Subd. 5, on Travel Vehicles and Travel Vehicles; Section
1301.10, Subd. 2.c.(3) on Accessory Structures; and Section 1301, Subd. 2, on Nonconforming
Uses, 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 recommends approval of Ordinance No. 589, an ordinance amending Chapter
1301 entitled"Flood Plain Zonin• " of the Mounds View Munici•al .d-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff
to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 7th day of August 1996
AI-1"mST:
Chairp 'on Peterson
(SEAL) i)1vriViJA. i4L'1,LI°"/��� •
Pdm Sheldon, Community Development Director
•
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMNIISSION
• 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," in currently not in compliance
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) requirements; and,
WHEREAS, it is essential for a community to have a 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.
Planning Commission Resolution 473-96
September 4, 1996
Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff
to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 4th day of September, 1996.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Mounds View Planning Commission
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Pamela Sheldon
Community Development Director
s
•
Ci REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section
STAFF REPORT Report Number:
; Report Date: 8/31/96
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE• _
_
vY% September 9. 1996 _ Special Order of Bus.
-A,oa�rff-partneooc Consent Agenda
X Public Hearings
Council Business .
Item Description: Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance No. 589, an Ordinance Relating to Flood Plain
Zoning and Flood Control Regulations and Amending Title 1300, Chapter 1301, Sections 1301.04, 1301.06,
1301.07, 1301.10, 1301.1 1, 1301.12, 1301.13, 1301.14, 1301.15 and 1301.16 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code; Planning Case No. SP-0002-96.
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
-No Comments to supplement this report
-Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary)
Summary:
This item was introduced for first reading and the public hearing on this item was tabled to September 9 at your August 26
meeting to allow for proper notice to be done.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has notified the City that our current Flood Plain Zoning District(Chapter
1301) is not in compliance with federal law. DNR has provided to us a list of the changes needed to bring the City's
ordinance into compliance. It is essential to make these corrections so that the City of Mounds View and its residents
remain eligible for the National Flood Insurance Program. DNR had set a deadline for the changes to be completed by
ptember 1,and has extended that deadline to September 15 to accommodate our meeting schedule. Revisions have been
11111Fafted and contained in the attached Ordinance No. 589. The proposed ordinance has been reviewed and approved as to
form by the City Attorney. Mr. Joe Richter,representing the Minnesota DNR,has reviewed the proposed ordinance and
notified us by telephone that it is acceptable and includes all of the changes requested by DNR. A summary of the changes
is as follows:
■ Revision to the definition of"Structure"to add reference to Travel Trailers and Travel Vehicles,and addition of a
definition of Travel Trailer and Travel Vehicle (p. 1)
■ Revision to the section on Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping to remove the specific dollar amount
insurance may increase(p. 2)
■ Allows for travel trailers and travel vehicles as a permitted use in the Flood Plain Zoning District,with the addition
of areas exempted for placement of such trailers and vehicles-and riteihr fut when�iion is lost.
Additional language allows for new commercial travel trailer or travel vehicle parks or campgrounds and new
residential type subdivisions and condominium associations in the floodway or flood fringe if they meet certain
criteria. (p. 2-3)
• Adds more specific language regarding accessory structures,and how they must be elevated or floodproofed(p. 5)
• Adds more specific language as to how nonconforming structures may be changed, and when such structures must
meet the standards for new structures (p. 7-8)
Adoption of this ordinance will require a roll call vote.
ela Sheldon, Community Development Director
City Council
Planning Case No. SP-0002-96
Flood Plain Zoning
August 31, 1996
•
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing and move to adopt Ordinance No. 589,an Ordinance Relating to
Flood Plain Zoning and Flood Control Regulations and Amending Title 1300, Chapter 1301, Sections 1301.04, 1301.06,
1301.07, 1301.10, 1301.11, 1301.12, 1301.13, 1301.14, 1301.15 and 1301.16 of the Mounds View Municipal Code;
Planning Case No. SP-0002-96.
Attachments:
Resolution 471-96,adopted by Planning Commission recommending approval of this amendment
Resolution 473-96, adopted by Planning Commission reconfirming recommendation of approval
Ordinance 589
•
•
. ORDINANCE NO. 96-589
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO FLOOD PLAIN ZONING
AND FLOOD CONTROL REGULATIONS AND AMENDING
TITLE 1300, CHAPTER 1301, SECTIONS 1301.04, 1301.06, 1301.07, 1301.10,
1301.11, 1301.12, 1301.13, 1301.14, 1301.15 AND 1301.16
OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
•
Section 1. Section 1301.04 Subd. 15 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby
amended, and Section'1301.04 Subd. 16 is hereby added to read as follows:
•
Subd. 15. STRUCTURE: Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to
the ground, or on-site utilities, including but not limited to buildings, factories, sheds,
detached garages, cabins, manufactured homes, travel trailers and travel vehicles not
meeting the exemption criteria specified in this section of the ordinance and other similar
• items (Ord. 535, 3-24-94)
Subd. 16. TRAVEL TRAILER AND TRAVEL VEHICLE: A vehicular-type portable
structure, mounted on wheels and without permanent foundation, which can be towed,
hauled or driven and is primarily designed as temporary living accommodation for
recreational, camping and travel use and including but not limited to travel trailers, tuck
campers, camping trailers and self-propelled motor homes.
Section 2. Section 1301.06 is hereby amended to read as follows:
1301.06: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: A Zoning Administrator designated by the
City Council' shall administer and enforce this Chapter. If he/she finds a
violation of the provisions of this Chapter, he/she shall notify the person responsible for
such violation and order the action necessary to correct it. (Ord. 535, 3-14-94) •
• 1 See Section 1125.05 of this Code,City Clerk-Administrator to serve as Zoning Administrator.
Flood Plain Ord. Page No.1
Section 3. Section 1301.07 Subd. 7 is hereby amended to read as follows:
•
Subd. 7. FloodInsurance Notice and Record Keeping: The Zoning Administrator shall
notify the applicant for a variance that: a) the issuance of a variance to construct a
structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood
insurance up to amuulls as high as ta'eaty five dollars ($25.00) for uue huudied-dotlars
. • and b) such construction below the 100-year or regional
flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with
a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such
variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the
National Flood Insurance Program. (Ord. 535, 3-14-94)
Section 4. Section 1301.10 Subd. 2.a.(5) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(5) Travel Trailers and Travel Vehicles. Travel trailers and travel vehicles that do
not meet the exemption in Section 1301, Subd. 2.a.(5)(a) below shall be subject to
the provisions of this ordinance and as especially spelled out in Subd. 2.a.(5)(c)
and (d) below. Travel hailers and tdvelvehicles provided they meet the folluwiug
Enterra..
(a) Exemption- Travel trailers and travel vehicles are exempt from the
provisions of this Ordinance if they are placed in any of the areas listed in
Section 1301 Subd. 2.a.(5)(b) below and if they meet the following criteria: •
(ajal Have current license required for highway use.
(b)(2) Are highway ready meaning on wheels or the internal jacking
system, are attached to the site only by quick disconnect type
utilities commonly used in campgrounds and trailer parks and the
traveltrailer/vehicle has no permanent structural type additions
attached to it.
(3) The travel trailer or travel vehicle and associated use must be
permissible in any preexisting, underlying zoning use district.
jb) Areas exempted for Placement of Travel/Recreational Vehicles:
(1) Individual lots or parcels of record.
(2) Existing commercial recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds.
(3) Existing condominium type associations.
•
Flood Plain Ord. Page No.2
• (c) Travel trailers and travel vehicles exempted in Section 1301.10, Subd.
2(5)(b) lose this exemption when development occurs on the parcel
exceeding five hundred (500) dollars for a structural addition to the travel
trailer/travel vehicle or an accessory structure such as a garage or storage
building. The travel trailer/travel vehicle and all additions and an accessory
structures will then be treated as a new structures and shall be subject to
the elevation requirements and the use of land restrictions specified in
Section 1301.10, Subd. 2 of this ordinance.
(d) New commercial travel trailer or travel vehicle parks or campgrounds
and new residential type subdivisions and condominium association and the
expansion of any existing similar uses exceeding five (5) units or dwelling
sites shall be subject to the following:
(1) Any new or replacement travel trailer or travel vehicle will be
. allowed in the Floodway or Flood Fringe Districts provided said
trailer or vehicle and its contents are placed on fill above the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevations determined in accordance
with the provisions of Section 1301.10 Subd. 2.c.(2) of this
Ordinance and proper elevated road access to the site exists in
accordance with Section 1301:10 Subd. 2.c.(3)(b) of this
Ordinance. No fill placed in the floodway to meet the requirements
• of this Section shall increase flood stages of the 100-year or
regional flood.
(2) All new or replacement travel trailers or travel vehicles not
meeting the criteria of(1) above may, as an alternative, be allowed
if in accordance with the following provisions. The applicant must
submit an emergency plan for the safe evacuation of all vehicles and
people during_the 100-year flood. Said plan shall be prepared by a
registered engineer or other qualified individual and shall
demonstrate that adequate time and personnel exist to carry out the
evacuation. All attendant sewage and water facilities for new or
replacement travel trailers or other recreational vehicles must be
protected or constructed so as to not be impaired or contaminated
during the times of flooding in accordance with Section 1301.15 of
this Ordinance.
• Section 5. Section 1301.10 Subd. 2.b.(7) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(7) Other uses similar in nature to uses described in
Section 1301.10 Subd. 2.a. and 2.b. hereof which are consistent with the
provision set out in Section 1301.02 and this Section.
•
Flood Plain Ord. Page No.3
Section 6. Section 1301.10 Subd. 2.c.(1), (2) and (3) are hereby amended to read as
follows: S
(1) All Uses: No structure (temporary or permanent), fill (including fill far for
roads and levees), deposit, obstruction, storage of materials or equipment or other
uses may be allowed as a conditional use which, acting alone or in combination
with existing or reasonably anticipated future uses, increases flood heights. In
addition, all F.Z.D. conditional uses shall be subject to the standards contained in
subdivisiou- Section 1301.12 Subd. 5 (5)of this Chapter and the following
standards of this Subdivision 3 Section 1301.10 Subd. 2.c.
(2) Fill:
(a) Any fill deposited in the F.Z.D. shall be no more than the minimum
amount necessary to conduct a conditional use listed in subdivision 2b
Section 1301.10 Subd. 2.c.(2)(b) hereof. Generally, fill shall be limited to
that needed to grade or landscape for that use and shall not, in any way,
obstruct the flow of flood waters. Fill shall be properly compacted and the
slopes shall be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or
other acceptable method. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area
designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100-
year flood elevation -FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill •
compaction and side slope protection standards for multi-structure or
multi-lot development. These standards should be investigated prior to the
iniation of site preparation is a change of special flood hazard area
designation will be requested.
(b) Spoil from dredging or sand and gravel operations shall not be
deposited in the F.Z.D. unless it can be done in accordance with
subdivision C2a Section 1301.10 Subd. 2.c.(2)(a) above.
e - ■- t- --• -u•• a e--se__• -• ---
as conditional uses by subdivision 2b1 Section 1301.10 Subd. 2.(b) hereof.
(a) All structures, including accessory structures, additions to existing
structures and manufactured homes, shall be constructed on fill so that the
basement floor, or first floor if there is no basement, is at or above the
regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation must be no
lower than one foot (1') below the regulatory flood protection elevation
and shall extend at such elevation at least fifteen (15') beyond the limits of
the structure constructed thereon.
110
Flood Plain Ord. Page No.4
(b) All Uses: Uses
that do not have vehicular access at or above an
• elevation not more than two feet (2') below the regulatory flood protection
elevation to lands outside of the flood plain shall not be permitted unless
granted a variance by the Board of Adjustment. In granting a variance, the
Board shall specify limitations on the period of use or occupancy of the use
and only after determining that adequate flood warning time and local
emergency response and recovery procedures exist.
(c) Accessory structures shall not be designed for human habitation.
(d) Accessory structures, if permitted, shall be constructed and placed on
the building site so as to offer the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood
waters.
(1) Whenever possible, structures shall be constructed with the longitudinal
axis parallel to the direction of flood flow, and
(2) So far as practicable, structures shall belaced approximately
P pp mately
on the same flood flow lines as those of adjoining structures.
(e) - • • • -
Bt di-ng-Gede-' Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or I
. structurally dry floodproofed in accordance with the FP-1 or FP-2 flood
proofing classifications in the State Building Code. As an alternative, an
accessory structure may be floodproofed to the FP-3 or Fp-4 floodproofin�
classification in the State Building Code provided the accessory structure
does not exceed 500 square feet in size, and for a detached garage, the
detached garage must be used solely for the parking of vehicles and limited
storage. All flood proofed accessory structures must meet the following
additional standards, as appropriate:
(1) The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotations
collapse or lateral movement of the structure and •. .- .
to equa ize hydrostatic floodforces on exterior walls; and
(2) Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be
elevated to or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation or
properly floodproofed.
2 - . :0 •. • •.
• Flood Plain am Ord. Page No.5
Section 7. Section 1301.11 Subd. 2 and Subd. 6 are hereby amended to read as follows: •
Subd. 2. Application for Permit: Application for a use permit shall be made in duplicate to
the Zoning Administrator on forms furnished by him/her and shall include the
flowing where applicable: Plans in duplicate drawn to scale, showing the nature,
location, dimensions and elevations of the lot; existing or proposed structures, fill
or storage of materials and the location of the foregoing in relation to the stream
channel or water body.
Subd.6. Record of First Floor Elevation: The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a
record of the elevation of the first floor(including basement) of all new structures
or addition to existing structures in the flood plain districts. He/She shall also
maintain a record of the elevations to which structures or addition to structures are
floodproofed. (Ord. 536, 3-14-94)
Section S. Section 1301.12 Subd.2 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Decisions: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the request at its
next regular agenda meeting unless the filing date falls within fifteen (15) days of
said meeting, in which case,the request would be placed on the agenda and
considered at the regular agenda meeting following the next agenda meeting. The
Clerk-Administrator shall refer said application along with all related information
to the City Planning and Zoning Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the
•
regular meeting. The City Council shall then arrive at a decision on a conditional
use within sixty (60) days of the date on which the application was accepted as
complete and scheduled for the Planning Commission agenda meeting, except that
an extension of sixty (60) days may be allowed with notice to the applicant. In
granting a conditional use permit, the City Council may prescribe appropriate
conditions and safeguards, in addition to those specified in JuLdivision 7 Section
1301.12 Subd. 7. hereof which are in conformity with the purposes of this
Chapter. Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made part of the
terms under which the conditional use permit is granted, shall be deemed a
• . •' •. • - I •' •. • - ••- -••'•• i • _ •• • . •- '••
granting conditional use permits shall be forwarded by mail to the Commission of
Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action.
Section 9. Section 1301.12 Subd. 3.a. is hereby amended to read as follows:
a. Upon receipt of an application for a conditional use permit for a use
within the F.Z.D., the applicant shall be required to furnish such of the
following information as is deemed necessary by the Planning and Zoning
Commission for the determination of the regulatory flood protection
elevation: Plan (surface view) showing elevations ut of the
S
Flood Plain Ord. Page No.6
ground, pCrtiiicut tiuctuic, fiH tniagc ckVatiOns; ;.i.C, location and
• •• • .1 .! • • .1 • ••• • • • • • • •
• • • .1 • •. • • , • • •=11 • 11 • •• • • .1 •
WA! �� �tatio�l upstrcani and dowast1 cain add soil type-
(1) plan (surface view) showing elevations or contours of the ground
(2) pertinent structure, fill or storage elevations:
(3) size, location and spatial arrangement of all proposed and existing structures on
the site; location and elevations of streets
f4) photographs showing existing land uses and vegetation upstream and
downstream
•
f5) soil type
Section 10. Section 1301.12 Subd. 5.b. is hereby amended to read as follows:
b. Transmit one copy of the information described in subdivibivii 44
Section 1301.12 Subd. 4.a. above to a designated engineer or other expert
person or agency for technical assistance, where necessary, in evaluating
• the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities, the
seriousness of flood damage to the use, the adequacy of the plans for
protection and other technical matters.
Section 11. Section 1301.12 Subd. 6 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 6. Time for Acting on Application: The city Council shall act on an application in
the manner described above within the time limits given above, except where
additional information is required pursuant to Section
1301.12 Subd. 3 and 4 of this Section. The City Council shall render a written
decisiQn_within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of such additional information
beyond the time limits given above.
Section 12. Section 1301.13 Subd. 2 is hereby amended to read as follows:
•
Subd.2. •. • • .1 . . •• • ...•• •• • . • • • • • ; - • . • .
of the . . - . • .11P 1
. - • •
•
•
• • . • • • • 1 - - - • • - • •- .1 - • • • : • . • • I • ; •
Uac 01 uillcwa it • • • • • • •
fortite-entire-stracture7 The cost of all structural alterations or additions both inside and
outside of a structure to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall
S
Flood Plain Ord. Page No.7
•
not exceed fifty(50) percent of the market value of the structure unless the conditions of
this Section are satisfied. The cost of all structural alterations and additions constructed •
since the adoption of the City's initial flood plain controls must be calculated into today's
current costs which will include all costs such as construction materials and a reasonable
cost placed on all manpower or labor. If the current cost of all previous and proposed
alterations and additions exceed fifty(50)percent of the current market value of the
structure, then the structure must meet the standards of this ordinance for new structures.
Section 13. Section 1301.13 Subd. 8 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd.8. The Zoning Administrator shall prepare a list of those nonconforming uses which
have been floodproofed or otherwise adequately protected in conformity with
uLdiv si0n 1301.12(7) Section 1301.12 Subd. 7 of this Chapter. He shall present
such list to the City Council which may issue a certificate to the owner stating that
such uses, as a result of these corrective measures, are in conformity with the
provision of this Chapter. (Ord. 535, 3-14-94)
Section 14. Section 1301.14 Subd. 3 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 3. Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation: The Federal Emergency
Management (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood
hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the
100-year flood elevation. FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill
•
compaction and side slope protection standards for multi-structure or multi-lot
developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site
preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested.
(Ord. 535, 3-14-94)
Section 15. Section 1301.15 Subd. 2 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Public Transportation Facilities: Railroad tracks, roads and bridges to be located
within the F.Z.D. shall comply with •••' . : — •
Section 1301.10 Subd. 2.c(1) and (2) of this Chapter. Elevation to the regulatory
flood protection elevation shall be provided where failure or interruption of these
transportation facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor
or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where
failure or interruption or transportation services would not endanger the public
health or safety. (Ord. 535, 3-14-94)
Section 16. Section 1301.16 Subd. 1 is hereby amended to read as follows: •
Flood Plain Ord. Page No. 8
•
• Subd.1. The flood plain designation on the Flood Plain Zoning Map shall not be removed
from flood plain area unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that
the area has been filled to or above the elevation for the regional flood and is
contiguous to lands outside the flood pain. Special exceptions to this rule may be
permitted by the Commission of Natural Resources if he/she determines that,
through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 26th day of August, 1996
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of
, 1996.
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chuck Whiting,
City Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert Long
City Attorney
Flood Plain Ord. Page No. 9