Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-18-1996 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ior DECEMBER 18, 1996 7:00 P.M. (Revised Agenda-Previous Agenda Dated December 4 By Mistake) AGENDA MEETING AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION: Call to Order Items for Decision 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. 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 4. Planning Case No.SP-001-96 Ordinance 588: Commercial Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas 5. Adjournment 111111 PLANNING COMMISSION: Adjourn to AGENDA SESSION Items for Discussion 6. Review and Approval of Minutes (October 2, 1996) 7. Staff Reports a. Forum on the First Ring b. Scheduling a Review of Bylaws c. Work Program for 1997 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS:YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * c:\wpdocs\plancomm\agenda12.18 r • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Subject: Review and Approval of Minutes December. 18 Meeting Date: December 2, 1996 Attached you will find a copy of the minutes for the October 2, 1996 meeting. We could not find in our records that the Planning Commission ever reviewed and approved these minutes. The minutes for the November 20 meeting will be prepared for your review at your December 18, 1996 meeting, unless you wish them held over to the January 22 if the December 18 meeting is canceled. At this point in time, we have no items other than the telecommunications ordinance for your consideration at that meeting. This item could also be held over until January. • • • UNAPPROVED PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 2, 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 7:04 p.m. • on October 2, 1996. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Miller, 2. Roll Call Brooks, Stevenson, Obert and Chair Peterson. (Commissioner Brasaemle arrived late and Commissioner Johnston had an excused absence.) ALSO PRESENT: Community Development • Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson and Recording Secretary Benesch. Community Development Director Sheldon 3. Approval of Minutes: went over the corrections that were made to the September 4 and September 4, 1996, minutes that were noted at September 18, 1996 the last meetingThe following corrections were noted for the September 18, 1996, minutes: 1) second paragraph, page 5, 1) should read " that they opposed the plan, in a resolution for approval, would be inappropriate....; 2) page 6, second paragraph, should read. "He requested, in the interest of saving time, that comments..., 3) Evangelist is spelled wrong, 4) page 8, fourth paragraph, fifth line from the bottom should read, ".... wheel chairs.", and 5) page 14, the first motion should read 3 nays, not ayes and the second paragraph should read, "Motion/Second:..." Motion/Second: Stevenson/Miller to approve the minutes of September 4, 1996, as amended UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 2 • 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Peterson/Brooks to approve the minutes of September 18, 1996, as amended. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no resident requests or comments 4. Resident Requests and from the floor. Comments from the Floor Community Development Director Sheldon 5. Consideration of explained the request from Ronald Gardner for Planning Case No. a variance in the rear setback. She explained 478-96 Regarding the that the normal requirement would be 30 feet Variance Request of and the request is to allow the setback to be Ronald L. Gardner, 8480 reduced to 10 feet from the rear property line to Pleasant View Drive, • allow the construction of a three-season porch. Planning Case No. She further explained that the porch would be 457-96 replacing the existing deck that was in the same location at 8480 Pleasant View Drive. Director Sheldon continued by saying that Staff has taken the criteria for granting variances and noted where she felt the Commission could make appropriate findings to approve this case which is Staffs recommendation. This information was in the proposed resolution of approval which had been provided to the Commission. Director Sheldon summarized the main points from the resolution as follows: the lot is irregular in shape because it is at the end of a cul-de-sac and as a result the house is pushed further to the rear; because of the interior floor plan of the home and the fact that there is an existing sliding glass door on the second floor, there does not appear to be any other practical • location for the three-season porch. She further explained that the house on the UNAPPROVED • Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 3 neighboring property to the north is off-set to the opposite side of the lot so there is no house right across the property line and there are trees that screen this improvement from the neighbor. Director Sheldon informed the Commission that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Gardner, were present. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Miller to approve Resolution No. 478-96 approving a variance granting a reduction in the rear setback requirement from 30 feet to 10 feet for construction of a three-season porch at 8480 Pleasant View Drive, Planning Case No. 457-96, as amended. . Commissioner Miller was concerned about the fifth paragraph being redundant from the fourth but Director Sheldon explained that the resolution follows the criteria outlined for variances. It was decided by the Commission to leave the resolution as is. Chair Peterson recommended that the title of the resolution be changed to include, "resolution approving a variance granting a reduction...." 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Chair Peterson informed the applicant that their case had now been approved and the next step would be to obtain a building permit. Community Development Director Sheldon 6. Consideration of addressed the Commission explaining that this Resolution No. 479-96 request is for a variance in the building setback Regarding the Variance requirement between two structures on the Request of Vic& Son • property located at 7090 Knollwood Drive. She Construction, on behalf further explained that the structures involved of Terry and Anne were a residence and a detached garage and Jacobson, 7090 • UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 . Regular Meeting Page 4 noted that the required setback is six feet and Knollwood Drive, the applicant is requesting three feet (this has Planning Case No. been rounded off from the 3'4" requested). She 458-96 continued by saying that the applicant has added an enclosed entry way at the back door which is existing and the direction of the stairway within the enclosure is towards the garage and because of those factors, in means that the structure does get closer than six feet. It was Staffs feeling, especially since the two structures do not overlap and that a hardship would be incurred by having to redesign the house and move the rear entrance, that this variance was justified. It was Staff s recommendation that this request could be approved. Director Sheldon noted that a diagram had been provided to the Planning Commission. She continued by saying that a resolution has been provided to the Planning110 Commission that outlines the findings and the facts that apply to those findings and suggested that the title be changed to include "..a variance granting...". She noted the contingency contained in the resolution which is that prior to final inspection and approval of the building addition that the proper work is done on the walls of the garage to fireproof it to meet building code requirements. Director Sheldon informed the Planning Commission that the applicant, Scott McCulloch from Vic & Son, was present. The following corrections were noted in the resolution: 1) the first paragraph, third line, should read, "....to allow a reduction...", 2) the seventh paragraph, first line, should read "...the granting of the variance...", 3) the seventh paragraph, second line, should read, "...to owners ofother lands...", 4) the second page, third paragraph, second line, should read, "...on • behalf of Terry..." and 5) the same paragraph, UNAPPROVED • Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 5 third line should read, "....three feet between the corners of the principal..." Motion/Second: Brooks/Miller to approve Resolution No. 479-96 approving a variance granting a reduction in the setback requirement from six feet to three feet between the corners of principal building and an accessory garage building to allow the construction of an enclosed rear entrance for the residence at 7090 Knollwood Drive, Planning Case No. 458-96, as amended. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Commissioner Stevenson addressed the applicant and requested that it be noted in the minutes that the applicant had proceeded with • construction and then requested the variance after the fact. Director Sheldon explained to the Planning 7. Consideration of Commission that the next case was a request Resolution No. 482-96 to construct a concrete parking area within one Regarding the Variance foot of the side property line. She continued by Request of John R. saying that the City Code does allow for Manning, 7755 Spring temporary parking areas within one foot of the Lake Road, Planning side property line with permission from the Case No. 459-96 adjacent neighbor but in this case the applicant is requesting a different material which is not defined as temporary and has been unable to get the permission from of the adjacent property owner. She continued by saying that the staff report outlines the reasons why Staff is recommending denial of this request. She reminded the Commission that this case had been discussed at length at their last meeting. • She believed that the key issue in this case was that the original allowance for parking lots at one foot was added to the Code with certain UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 6 • limitations and with a specific requirement that the neighbor grant permission and that the property has sufficient room to add area for parking without having to use the area between five foot and one foot. She continued by saying that it is questionable whether there is a hardship in this case and there are alternatives available to the property owner. A resolution had been prepared that denies the request and again suggested that the title be modified to include, "...a request for a variance for a • concrete...". Director Sheldon informed the Commission that the applicant, Mr. John Manning, was present. She noted that she did talk to the Police Department about whether is was possible to get a special permit for parking on Spring Lake • Road and the Chief said that it is a possibility if there is a special event where there are a number of guests and that the property owner could ask for a special permit for parking on the street and she also learned that there are plans to widen Spring Lake Road in 1998 and the width would make it easier to use it for temporary parking. (Commissioner Brasaemle arrived at 7:30 p.m.) Commissioner Brooks asked the applicant why he could not add to the driveway in the other direction. Mr. Manning explained that he is trying to clean up the property. There are so many pine trees in the area that he would like to add on to the driveway because it is difficult to grow grass in that area. He also explained that he cannot park on the street ever, day or night. Chair Peterson inquired as to how a parking • permit is obtained and whether or not it needs UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 7 to be a "special event". Director Sheldon replied that her impression is that it would be events such as an anniversary party, birthday party or an open house, etc. Chair Peterson asked whether or not Mr. Manning is required to explain to the Police Department a reason for wanting a parking permit. Director Sheldon didn't think so, but thought that if it would be a frequent request, the Police Department may start to question it because the street is narrow in that area. Commissioner Obert briefly talked about the parking restriction but noted that he does not see a hardship in this case because he believes there are other way to clean up the property and added there are numerous kinds of plant material that will thrive under these • shady conditions. Chair Peterson added that he has the same situation in this yard and that the pine needles works great as a mulch. The applicant then brought up that the neighbor's trees were hanging in his yard and was there anything that he could do about it. Chair Peterson inquired as to whether or not he had asked the neighbor to trim them back. Mr. Manning replied that the neighbor does not take care of that end of the property. Chair Peterson informed the applicant that if the Planning Commission denies this request, it does not mean that he cannot put a driveway in. Director Sheldon noted that he can install a driveway without a variance up to five feet from the property line. The applicant was concerned that if he installed gravel, that the neighbor could still complain about it. Commissioner Obert replied that the Code is specific in stating that there is a five foot limit unless he can get • approval from the neighbor. Director Sheldon added that concrete or gravel could be installed, but only up to five feet from the UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 8 • property line. Director Sheldon showed the Planning Commission pictures of the property. Chair Peterson again mentioned to the applicant that there are other alternatives to maintaining the shaded areas of his property. Mr. Manning informed the Commission that the neighbor's house is eighty feet away, they have at least 100 pine trees, and you can't hear or see him and that she didn't even know who he was when he went to the door to get permission. Ruth White, the adjoining neighbor at 2917 County Road I, addressed the Planning Commission and indicated that she is the only one affected by this request. She informed the Commission that Mr. Manning already has a big111 driveway and there are always numerous cars parked there and that he parks up against her fence. She was not quite sure what he now has for a parking surface there. She indicated that her fence is not on the property line and she believed he could even be parking on her property since he parks right up to the fence. She indicated that her property is a big vacant lot and that at some time this lot could be sold and someone else would be living there. She further explained that she objects and thinks the driveway should be five feet from the line. She agreed that he does have a need for extended parking but thinks that gravel could be used. She would like consideration used for the people in the future who will be purchasing the lot and building a home. Commissioner Brasaemle confirmed a comment from Ms. White regarding the use of gravel and wondered if she would object to • having it put to one foot from the property line. UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 . Regular Meeting Page 9 She replied she does not object to gravel, she just does not want anything permanent such as concrete. • Chair Peterson indicated that if the applicant is willing to drop his request for concrete he could get permission from the adjacent property owner to install gravel. Director Sheldon wanted to make sure that Ms. White understood that the Code allows for gravel to be placed up to one foot for parking purposes with permission and asked her if that is the permission she is willing to grant the applicant. Ms. White replied that yes, it is the permission, but wanted to make sure that the applicant is aware of where the property line is installing the gravel and added that the fence is not on her property line but approximately six inches • from the line. Chair Peterson asked if either Ms. White or Mr. Manning knew where the property line is. Both thought that the property line was six inches in from Ms. White's fence. Mr. Manning confirmed that without a variance and with just a permit he could put gravel up to one foot from the property line. Director Sheldon again added, yes, with a letter of permission from Ms. White. Commissioner Stevenson said that they would Applicant Withdrew be removing this item for consideration at this Request point since the applicant is withdrawing his request. Ms. Sheldon at this time asked the applicant if he was withdrawing his request or if he would like the Commission to act on it. It was explained that if the Planning Commission denied his request he could appeal to the City Council. Mr. Manning withdrew his request and was informed that his request for gravel up to • one foot from the lot line, with a letter of permission from Ms. White, would be handled UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 . Regular Meeting Page 10 in the office by the Community Development Department. Chair Peterson informed Ms. White that this is an informal process and once this is established the parking area will stay on the property and that the new owner of the property should be informed of this agreement. He suggested that the details of the letter be worked out as soon as possible so that Mr. Manning could proceed with his building permit for the driveway. Commissioner Miller asked if the City had a standard form that could be used. Ms. Sheldon replied that we don't right now but it is something that could be created. Director Sheldon began the discussion by 8. Discussion of Proposed explaining this ordinance amendment was Ordinance No. 590 . started in conjunction with the request for a Regarding the Revision church development at 3025 County Road H. of Parking Lot Setbacks The adjacent property owner has proposed a and Revision of Code amendment that would require at least 15 Minimum Lots Size between parking lots for churches and Requirements for Non- commercial uses when those parking lots are Residential Uses next to residential property. She explained that when Staff began drafting the ordinance to bring it before the Planning Commission, additional items were included. She reminded that Commission that at their last meeting, the Commission asked if Staff could prepare at least one version of the ordinance that narrowed it back down to the original request and then a version that had the other items so that if the Planning Commission felt that the longer ordinance needed more review, the Planning Commission would be able to take the original request and move it forward. She noted that the City attorney had decided the sixty-day rule which limits the length of time a • case can wait for decision, applies to this request. She indicated that she had notified • UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 11 the Moons, who are the applicants in this case, that with a sixty-day extension of the rule, a decision is needed from the Planning Commission regarding their recommendation either at this meeting or the next meeting on October 9th so that this item can get to City Council in time to still stay within the 120 days time limit. Ms. Sheldon suggested that they look at the proposed ordinance page by page to point out what is in the basic ordinance and what additional things are in the longer ordinance and if the Planning Commission could provide her with feedback as they go along. She commented that if the Planning • Commission felt comfortable, they could vote this evening or bring it back to the Planning Commission at the October 9 meeting. • At this time the Director Sheldon and the Planning Commission discussed extensively the proposed Ordinance No. 590 relating to setbacks for parking lots, driveways, and principal and accessory building; minimum lot area for non-residential uses listed as conditional use in residential district; and continued use of nonconforming parking lots for non-residential conditional uses in residential districts. Director Sheldon started off by indicating that in our current ordinance in the section on setbacks, the chart shown in the proposed resolution is also in our current ordinance, but it is not clear whether it applies to just principle buildings or all types of buildings and in later sections of the Code, specific references are made to accessory buildings. Director Sheldon explained that in the longer version of the resolution she is trying to define what a principle building is and then apply the chart to • principle buildings and the use the sections that UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 . Regular Meeting Page 12 follow that apply to accessory structures and d parking lots. Extensive discussion regarding the changes proposed to the Zoning Code took place at this time. Ms. Sheldon indicated that these changes are being proposed in order to better clarify the Code and make it easier apply. The section regarding parking areas, would keep the current ordinance allowance for parking lots at five foot away from the property line, except for temporary, which can go within one foot with permission from the adjacent property owner when the parking areas are for residences. For non-residential uses the proposed ordinance indicates that churches, • day care centers, nursing homes, etc. can go to five feet except where the adjacent property is zoned for residential use. If that is the case, if the site with the non-residential use is 2-1/2 acres or less it must be 20 feet, and if it is more than 2-1/2 acres it must be 30 feet. Parking areas in existence prior to the date of this ordinance can be considered non-conforming. She continued by addressing parking areas in business districts and indicated that front is 30 feet, side and rear is five feet except where the land on the other side of the line is in a residential district it will be 20 or 30 feet as noted in the chart. Ms. Sheldon then addressed industrial districts, and noted that the 40 feet requirement came from the chart and the 20-30 feet came from the Moons request. Reminding the Commission that the applicant's request was 15 feet and the Planning Commission's was 20 to 30 feet. Ms. • Sheldon went on to discuss requirements for lot sizes. She indicated that the proposed UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 13 ordinance includes non-residential uses in an R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 or R-5 District listed as conditional uses such as nursing homes, churches, etc., except for governmental and public utility buildings and structures needed for public health, safety and welfare, which shall be a minimum of one acre and she noted that this was not Dan Moon's request, but was her suggestion and reminded the Planning Commission that they felt they should leave it in. The last section that was discussed was non-conforming continuance of use which says that if you have a parking lot that does not now meet the setbacks, you can keep using it, restripe or resurface,etc. (which does include grinding it up and relaying it) and keep it the same size. At this time the Planning Commission thanked • Ms. Sheldon for taking the time to clarify some of the confusing sections of the Code and bringing them to the Planning Commission for discussion. Director Sheldon went on to discuss the item 9. Staff Report regarding the liaison relationship to City Council and requested the Planning Commission's feelings regarding this issue. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a member of the City Council should be present at all Planning Commission meetings to report on the activity of the Commission because they feel the Commission goes into more depth and detail and that the Council should be apprised of those details and "digging work" that is involved. The Commission also felt that if there are liaisons, there should be fair treatment of the Commissions. Commissioner Stevenson noted 111 that he has been on the Parks and Recreation Commission for almost ten years and a Council UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 14 member liaison has been present at almost every meeting. They further discussed which meeting would be more crucial for the council liaison to attend, • the agenda or regular meeting. The Planning Commission felt that the items are discussed in more detail at the agenda meeting and no minutes are taken at this meeting. Director Sheldon informed the Commission that she had a discussion with Attorney Bob Long regarding a member of the Planning Commission reporting to Council on the kind business that the Planning Commission does. She sees a problem in cases going on to the Council for decision and of having a separate report outside of the public hearing on cases they are going to be deciding. She felt the Planning Commission's work is different from the other • Commissions noting that there is a definite procedure that takes it from the Planning Commission to the Council and that there are hearing provisions to protect the neighbors and property owners. She added that Attorney Long thought that it was a point that needed to be clarified with the Council. Commissioner Brooks brought up a comment about the City Council receiving minutes and it was noted that the City Council does receive a copy of the approved Planning Commission minutes. Commissioner Obert commented that he felt the work done by the Planning Commission is the "fabric" of the City and that they also lay the ground work for the City and is very concerned that a Council member does not come to the meetings because not all things that go on at the Planning Commission can be recorded on • paper. UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 15 Commissioner Brasaemle felt that if a Council member is not willing to come to both the agenda and regular meetings, he believes that it should be the agenda session that they attend. Chair Petersoncommented that on more than one occasion when he attended City Council meetings, the Council liaison or staff member as well as himself had to defend the actions of the Planning Commission against the misrepresentations of the applicant so he believes the involvement of the Council liaison is very important. Director Sheldon added that perhaps as a supplement to the Council liaison, a member of the Planning Commission, on a rotating basis, • could go to the Council meeting when cases are being discussed to comment on the key issues and concerns of the Planning Commission. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a member of the Commission attend those meetings where their items are being discussed. At this time Ms. Sheldon reviewed a memo that she drafted regarding the desire for closer communications between the Council and other Commissions. This concern was expressed by the Chairman of the Economic Development Commission at the September 30th City Council work session. It was suggested that the Planning Commission receive minutes from each of the other Commissions and it was agreed that they would try this to see if it is helpful. • The next item discussed was the idea of having an annual or biannual meeting between the City Council and each commission to discuss UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 16 goals and objectives and that perhaps the meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council could be combined with the EDC because of the overlapping areas of interest. The Planning Commission also discussed touring the City to look at project sites and the general condition of the City and it was agreed • that touring would be done on an "as needed" basis. Director Sheldon indicated that she would write up these comments for Planning Commission review at the next meeting, and if acceptable to the Commission it would be sent on to the City Council. (Commissioner Brooks left at 9:30 p.m.) At this time, Director Sheldon, introduced our • new Planning Associate, Jim Ericson, and indicated that he will certainly play a big part in working on cases and coming before the Planning Commission and she noted that she had given each Commission member a copy of his resume. Commissioner Miller expressed her concern with what was going on with the grey building behind Fins and a large semi-type trailer that was parked next to it. Director Sheldon indicated that she would check into the situation. At this time Director Sheldon distributed a publication entitled, "Planning Commission Journal", .and indicated the department has gotten a one-year subscription for the Planning Commission to try. Members present at the September 18, 1996, 10. Chair and Planning • agenda session/special meeting included Commission Reports UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 17 Commissioners Miller, Johnston, Stevenson, Brooks, Brasaemle, Obert and Chair Peterson. The Planning Commission at this time also expressed their concern with the limited coverage of the City of Mounds View in both the Focus and the New Brighton Bulletin. Commissioner Stevenson inquired as to whether or not Staff had provided proper legal notice of the meeting date change from their regularly scheduled agenda meeting on October 16th to October 9th. Director Sheldon indicated that she will check into it. There being no further business before the 11. Adjournment Planning Commission, Chair Peterson • adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director S Pkwi \A co Dld M '� Nl, 1Ci 1/ I ISI (i ?tug., caAA D QAk0/i/S.t' ?yga Ph g5.447- U/.Fw,_ oe1 v6- -V)Etc./ .. Qti4m "\\- �o �n f�ann,n 77.55 5p/(115 La kg f? /.. N(fkncisv°,Pw ma( Del A) /*0A/ p1c d & r b/;v, . ,� Pecs:41e,,,f- > / - /ZW Vi c 0-�So e O ,J �a,�sJ� OOa70- ��(/E S7` / dx1 /e 0 ; 77?N• ,z9/7 � � s - V,. • • Item #5 •• REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: December 4, 1996 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case File No.: _ - - 466-96 Request: The applicant is requesting a minor subdivision to move 12.5 feet from 7532 Silver Lake Road to 7540 Silver Lake Road. Petitioner: Larry Beach, on behalf of Richard Edin (7532 Silver Lake Road) and William Culbert (7540 Silver Lake Road). Location: 7532 and 7540 Silver Lake Road PIN No. 7532 Silver Lake Road: Pending 7540 Silver Lake Road: 07-30-23-21-0069 Zoning/Land Use: The properties are currently zoned R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential and are improved with two twin-homes. Total acreage of existing property is 46,935 square feet • (1.08 acres.) Applicable Regulations: Section 1201.03, Subd. 11, defines a minor subdivision as"A subdivision of a parcel or parcels or 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-2 lots of 100 feet. Section 1104.02, Subd. 3, requires a minimum lot size of 12,500 square feet for R-2 lots. Section 1204.02, Subd. 6, requires an additional park dedication fee for re-subdivided parcels. This applies only when park dedication fees have not already been paid for the • property or if the gross density per acre increases as a result of the re-subdivision. Park dedication fees have been paid for the property to the north, but no fees have been collected for the subdivision to the south. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Certificate of Survey (reduction) Certificate of Survey (full size enclosed with packet) Utility and Drainage Easements Resolution No. 488-96 PLANNING CASE NO. 466-96 November 27, 1996 • Page 2 • Background: This minor subdivision does not create an additional lot but instead takes a 12 1/2 foot wide strip of land from one lot and adds it to the adjoining lot to the north. This action would formalize a previous agreement made with the property owner to the north and Mr. Beach. The property owner to the south was informed of this impending action prior to the purchase of 7532 Silver Lake Road. The applicant has provided a new ten-foot wide drainage and utility easement centering on and corresponding to the new property line. (See the attached easements.) Analysis: The minimum square footage for lot area required by the Code is 12,500 feet. The properties currently well exceed that requirement with 20,853 square feet for the property to the north and 26,075 square feet for the property to the south: After the re-subdivision, the properties will remain in compliance with this requirement with 23,460 square feet for the property to the north and 23,468 square feet for the property to the south. Currently, the properties meet or exceed the minimum lot width requirement(100 feet for the northerly property and 125 feet for the southerly property.) After the re-subdivision, the width of the properties will be 112.5 feet for both. • The applicant has provided a revised Certificate of Survey for the properties located at 7540 and 7532 Silver Lake Road. This revised Certificate of Survey shows the property lines and easements as revised with the former property lines and easements in the background. The revised lots have been labeled as Parcel X(7540 Silver Lake Road) and Parcel Y(7532 Silver Lake Road.) The Certificate of Survey includes the revised legal descriptions for both parcels, as well as their former descriptions. Staff Recommendation: Adoption of attached resolution recommending approval of this minor subdivision. • s • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 488-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LARRY BEACH,REPRESENTING PROPERTY OWNERS OF 7532 AND 7540 SILVER LAKE ROAD, MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE 466-96 WHEREAS,Mr. Larry Beach, representing property owners of 7532 and 7540 Silver Lake Road(Lot Y and Lot X, respectively), has requested approval of a minor subdivision that will remove the north 12.5 feet from Lot Y and combine same 12.5 feet with Lot X; and WHEREAS, the legal description of 7532 Silver Lake Road is currently(prior to the proposed subdivision)as follows: THE NORTH 75 FEET OF LOTS 10 AND 11, SPRING LAKE PARK KNOLLS,RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA. SUBJECT TO DRAINAGE AND . UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER THE NORTH 5 FEET,EAST 10 FEET, AND WEST 38 FEET THEREOF. WHEREAS, the legal description of 7540 Silver Lake Road is currently(prior to the proposed subdivision)as follows: ALL THAT PART OF LOT 3,BLOCK 1,DAILY KNOLLS,RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA,LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 50 FEET THEREOF. SUBJECT TO DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER THE WEST 30 FEET AND THE SOUTH 5 FEET THEREOF. WHEREAS, notarized letters of agreement have been signed by affected property owners of 7532 and 7540 Silver Lake Road; and WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision and determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1201, 1202, 1104 and 1204 of the municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a revised certificate of survey for the two properties; and • WHEREAS,the applicant has provided the City with revised utility and drainage easement documents for 7532 and 7540 Silver Lake Road. Planning Commission Resolution No. 488-96 December 4, 1996 Page 2 . NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision request from Larry Beach, representing the property owners of 7532 and 7540 Silver Lake Road, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit the appropriate title abstracts and the signed, revised easements prior to the City Council's action on this item. 2. The applicant shall provide the City with a park dedication fee in the amount of $100 per Code requirements in Section 1204.02. 3. The applicant shall provide the City with notarized letters of permission from William Culbert and Richard Edin, owners of 7532 and 7540 Silver Lake Road, respectively. 4. The applicant shall record the final resolution, revised Certificate of Survey, and revised drainage and utility easement documents with Ramsey County within sixty (30) days of final adoption, and present proof of such recording to the City of Mounds View, or this approval shall be null and void. 5. The applicant shall include the following restrictions in the deeds of the two parcels and as part of the easements: a. If one dwelling unit is burned or destroyed, it shall be reconstructed in a . uniform appearance. b. Ifboth dwelling units are burned or destroyed, minimum lot widths shall then prevail as for single family homes. c. A double dwelling unit may be rebuilt meeting the original conditions of this code. d. A uniform exterior appearance, in terms of color, design and maintenance, shall be maintained. 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 December, 1996. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (SEAL) • n:\data\users\jime\share\beach.reso CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION APPLICANT: ).-NJ S EAcLI Phone 11 F.0 --57 oo II/ ADDRESS: ( 9s7 KQAtiwooci SQ. i'uU Street Address, City, State, and Zip Code Interest in Property (check appropriate box): ❑ Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase . ❑ Other (explain) 0ocumentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final City=ton of this request PROPERTY INVOLVED: Address/General Location 95_32. — 95 443 S;1 ver 2,1•4/e. 12x,4 d Legal Description or Property Identification Number Legal Owner: Name/Address -0 i c k Ea;N) t7532. 6;1der La We. ? ;It co lb e r-+ '15440 z i l o e r L .kms_ \c„, Present Use (check appropriate box): O UndevelopedNacant • ❑ Single Family Dwelling Duplex/Two Family Dwelling . . --. ..e '\ O Multi-Family (No. of Units . ) Q Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment Q Other (explain) • Property Classification: Q Abstract Z Torrens REZUES T: �i r \ , r ' raw, fl53 s a.to 1 O.& -6 t. 15LI'D %5 luer Lr,Ki_ . 'Please note: Applicant may be responsible for=atonal fees associated with e review of this request I HE:;E3Y DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE. a 7:4140-1 - Signa I,re -_ ..-..-!!llRlrlIP!ll9IIII.M7.lF1r7r7!!=7ltirR Irlff*7'f7.!='p f a. X7 DI.. fir!'R!=w?^r Rezoning 5200/acre.minimum$200.maximum 31,000 Park Fund Dedication Fee Variance R-1 to R-2-S75.ail others 3200 Date Paid Conditional Use Permit R-1 to R-2•S75.ail others$200 Receipt Number Code Appeal S75 Deveiao Site Plan Review Si 00/acne.minimum 100.maximum $500 Total Fees Paid / 'O• a o -46z=cop $150 Data Paid / - 1171, • ,- -+• ....-=Nissan $250 pius$250 deposit Receipt Number 3 C.xno. Plan Amendment $200 wedana Alteration Permit S50 pius deocsit detemtinea by Starf Additional Fee Psid 'Nedana Buffer Permit 310 Cate Psid Planning Sign $50 Receipt Number PUO $350 PUO Amendment 3150 Oats of final acton APPROVED C✓ DENIED _ TASK clam I O-17-01 (/) 'k t. - cl,la _,_ ,______ .,_ yv\ Ivar ' CO N/ b .ew /`Jotl "" /`J.74 /9,9 c N m rgllNii7933 7950 7940 7945 7946 791 O f _ 7930 ;3560 7930 791 �i 4� w :. h a .__ —J 7897 N . p �� N N N 17900 7901 7900 I H N N[7900 790 47 -- • •-4' HILLVIEW _ Er m 7830 T N • 7820 En - 7890 7861 ►. 111:01111111011E 789: isg 7880 781••I� 7870 7865 �. 7835 ler 8-2 7876 Z 7885 MEM 786 "� =� 860 7651 - 7850 7821 1,� 7870 N 7877 785' 7850- 7641 • -4.4... 7801ti 7863 M Q 784vaiy • d •R _ 7791 • +_—3 7830 p— ` 7830 E �O� 781 7821 , , 7781 `Y •<n 776;4717r11= �� 780E 7775 7758 7770 B—V* 2 # R47800 ..., ib,::,... 760• timet{4 _4:::':•.z:r.::vvr:.. :.t 7748 7749 II) ^ ti� �'� 776: *!;•••=.:.:.:;;;;;.::::::::::::::::..:.....::......... ::.-::::}_:•:: ;i::•:_.:•:•. iir?:.= i'•v: 7765 776a 7767 - _ «Mc;:.: .:.:::::: -._ : _:::-::.::..:;: F 773: 7739 7729 R-3 a A. 776 is:::•:rc-::.- ... -•:.... ......::::. 7755 �.] _ ` ""' '":' _ _:r ,.:`..i'::".:'::.'. 772=`7 7729 772: 7723 :— 7801 775: -n 771:. 7719 771; 7715 i3. \ ' 774 : -- .--:-----t i :;ri•i••• •• N 7710 Y ' 771: 7709 7710 7711 N �� • • -.... m 7692 .:?.Z::.::.:::::::.:•::::::::7.:::::. .. ... .- 7688 7.: is n 769, OE C4 7690 PUS N4 '' B-3 N m m0 �Q 7675 n 7680 p 7669 7670 7663 • W n -•' N �� n 7660 7670 7665 7660 Y 7855 7666 7647 7844 7653 ^ ►4 B-3 tiy°� 763d 7633 7664 7629 7634 76� 11111 N 7624 7629 7620 7625 7620 • 7614 ,ti 7627 7600 7819 7600 7601 — 7604 7581 7594 L� SILVER VIEW 7581 7580 _7579 7588 7575 _ N n n 1 7584 N �L 0 i, 7511 c PARK �sN Ngo '' 7564 7556 O-7585 75842 In� N N•o N•• • Z '4'IA In 7546 -7555 3 7555 7572 S, a i N g co 7545 7550 p 7545 7580 r o N Port m m I♦ N 7538 W 7546 Y 7515 Nal" 'iL PF " `r `� "' N.. m o c 1 I 1OPI MN7ON 7500 N � NOjNnD N 1-'• NO ""NN N.•f N N CON N o 2ONSON DDRIVE �•-;t•� N '*si lb 0,i ° Gag', , 0 ;PI 0 7474 7489 0, o I 7490 7485` 0. ' to to N •lt•, 1 3 ev o m m n n n • 7485 7474 49� • �E ..:::.:E.*::::':..,.,..... N N m m o N 7462 BRONSONFISiat _ _ _ N N N N ........ ::::' ........ .............. ... 7454 7451 7456 N m _ _ _ _ - _ _ /:_ :.}: 7 7445 — 0 _ - _ 448 Z - 7452 m m ® - -- N sompu ..._0170 - N ,,::::,:-7,:::,..,:,„:„„,:,:,i 7430 7435 7434 t 04 E zoom � 7409 74x0 -'1 • VIEW og a - PF 7408 7405 7412 7408 . �• F..7k:. c� 7405 ,—���� _ 7380 7381 7382 7400 = N ��! 7390 � .4 H7350 7365 7360 �� fi H•DG - co pe 7340 7347 7340EMI ..1.1111"4.411 :: :11-;.. m •. N 4;EMPerft- n . a 7337 �+� �� `o "+ �n n as 7 � 7338 �:�t1 N n n n M N N Q1 rn f� Fir Fir m m N N N '• • N N 7310 N co t Rs R-2 H2 N 1 I O N . m °� ',NC 'O 7 I I Q: I w I M I N I ry I NO I NO I CO I (mV I N I Nm 5278 1' ^ N N0' • Vicinity Map Case No. 466-96 7532 and 7540 Silver Lake Road N 4 Applicant: Larry Beach • SKSTCH P1.,1 N1 For: LARRY BEACH ' 6951 Knol/wood Or. Mounds View, MN 55112 Tele: 780-5608 • • • U U' -'-1 NORTH • • '' �/ ,` (deck ; / 30 17542 J Gar. n I 208.19 Townhouse 4 0 Gar. - 01 O. 30 �� N SOhft ne of ot Loth3 7540 0 ----� PARCEL Xa . South II line of Lot 3, i deck j 13,032 sq. ft. 2, ' in e DAILE'1I KNOLLS • . --,_ , SEJ-,DETAIL l 4.1o asements to be vacated X / a .•�z;y.'�'F X..r,5..`-u. - ir,.2:17 r"K w' c.5.1.0 f:-. Sita, .,, :�, '.., North line of Lot 11 -- =j Rort me of Lot 10 -..� E - _ 208.8 , _�� _ - S?RIIN LAKE PARK KNOLLS / REVISED DIVISION UNE--' NI .\ _r 1--South line of the N 12.5 ft. of}Lots 10 and 11--' _ Ilo v> Ili 0 > 38 I 7532 deck r� , N m E I -1 O °I N eD ' F 1• `- ;; .PARCEL Z` o W 10 ° I 15.645 sq. ft. Gar. •c-- % I t 1 / 208.6 , Townhouse / .. ' ! I 7530 I DETAIL o `r r J I No Scale J -- `0 38 I I deck ' °o \ I L j ---J- . - — -k1/ ° '\ �' c h 44 10 i 208.53 •1a ' a 208.6 f o ' / r. r. FORMER PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS 7540: Al/ that part of Lot J. Block 1, DAILEY KNOLLS Ramsey County, Minnesota /ying south of the north 50 feet theme?! Subject to drainage and utility easements oaf the west 30 feet and the south 5 feet thereof 7532: The north 75 feet of Lots 10 and 11, SPRING LAKE PARK KNOLLS, Ramsey Counts Minnesota. Subject to drainage and utility easements over the north 5 feet, east 10 feet and west 38 feet thereof. REVISED PROPERTY DESCRIP77ONS PARCEL A': A// that part of Lot ,1'Block 1, DAILEY KNOLLS: Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying south of the north 50 feet thereof, together with the north 125 feet of Lots 10 and 11, SPRING LAKE PARK KNOLLS, Ramsey Counts Minnesota. PARCEL Y.• The south 52.5 feet of the north 75 feet of Lots 10 and 11, SPRING LAKE PARK KNOLLS Ramsey County, Minnesota. III Revised 11/14/96 (easements updated) Scale: 1'= JO' I Drown By: JK9 j Book Pace I Disk: -- I Job No. 95539LSI sa /hereby certify that this p/on, survey or report was prepared by me or under my �� � . INC. direct supervision and that / am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws LANG 444112mOR16 of the St A 'ne ta. Dated thisday of ev 19 9G. 9180 LIMN/5=N AVE NO. GIRGLS PIN'S,MNNIiBOTA 55014-362: License No. 91.08 TBL 186-8886 RAX 186-6001 • UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT AGREEMENT 111 THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT made this day of , 1996, by and between William E. Culbert and Joanne C. Culbert, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as _— - "Grantors" ) and the City of Mounds View, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "City" ) ; WHEREAS, Grantors are the fee owners of land located in Ramsey County, Minnesota more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof and said land hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, Grantors have requested the City approve a lot division for the Property; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to approve the lot division upon the condition that Grantors grant to the City certain • utility and drainage easements affecting the Property; and WHEREAS, Grantors and the City wish to enter into an agreement which will grant to the City a utility and drainage easement over a portion of the Property as more fully described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof, hereinafter referred to as the "Easement Area"; NOW THEREFORE, FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the premises contained herein, it is agreed by the parties as follows: 1. Grantors hereby convey to the City and its successors and assigns an utility and drainage easement in, under, on and over the easement area, and the City hereby accepts such conveyance. 4111 2. The following terms and conditions shall apply to the • easement area: a. No building or manmade structure of any kind shall be placed within the easement area without the prior written consent of the City. b. No trash, waste or other offensive material shall be placed upon or within the easement area without the prior written consent of the City. c. The duration of the easement granted herein is perpetual. 3. Grantors, their successors, heirs and assigns agree to maintain the easement area subject to the provisions stated. herein. 4. This easement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties, their successors and assigns. 5. Nothing contained herein shall impair any right of the City now held, or hereinafter acquired to construct or maintain public utilities in or on the easement area. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this agreement have . caused these presents to be executed as of the date and year aforesaid. William E. Culbert Joanne C. Culbert CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW By its 111 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of •, 1996, by William E. Culbert and Joanne C. Culbert, husband and wife. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1996, by the of the City of Mounds View, a municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: • Peterson, Fram & Bergman (SHB) 50 East Fifth Street Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55101 13037.960001 SHB\MISC\CULBERT.EA2 • 3 EXHIBIT A • LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of Lot 3, Block 1, Dailey Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying South of the North 50 feet thereof, together with the North 12.5 feet of Lots 10 and 11, Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota. • s 4 EXHIBIT B EASEMENT AREA • The South 5 feet of the North 12.5 feet of Lot 11 except the West 30 feet thereof and the South 5 feet of the North 12.5 feet of Lot 10, all in Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota. • 1115 UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT AGREEMENT 111 THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT made this day of , 1996, by and between Larry K. Beach and Shelley B. Beach, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as "Grantors" ) and the City of Mounds View, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "City" ) ; WHEREAS, Grantors are the fee owners of land located in Ramsey County, Minnesota more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof and said land hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, Grantors have requested the City approve a lot division for the Property; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to approve the lot division upon the condition that Grantors grant to the City certain • utility and drainage easements affecting the Property; and WHEREAS, Grantors and the City wish to enter into an agreement which will grant to the City a utility and drainage easement over a portion of the Property as more fully described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof, hereinafter referred to as the "Easement Area"; NOW THEREFORE, FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the premises contained herein, it is agreed by the parties as follows: 1. Grantors hereby convey to the City and its successors and assigns an utility and drainage easement in, under, on and over the easement area, and the City hereby accepts such conveyance. 111 1 2. The following terms and conditions shall apply to the easement area: • a. No building or manmade structure of any kind shall be placed within the easement area without the prior written consent of the City. b. No trash, waste or other offensive material shall be placed upon or within the easement area without the prior written consent of the City. c. The duration of the easement granted herein is perpetual. 3. Grantors, their successors, heirs and assigns agree to maintain the easement area subject to the provisions stated herein. 4. This easement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties, their successors and assigns. 5. Nothing contained herein shall impair any right of the City now held, or hereinafter acquired to construct or maintain public utilities in or on the easement area. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the date and year • aforesaid. Larry K. Beach Shelley B. Beach CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW By its 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) • ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1996, by Larry K. Beach and Shelley . B. Beach, husband and wife. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1996, by the of the City of Mounds View, a municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public • This instrument was drafted by: Peterson, Fram & Bergman (SHB) 50 East Fifth Street Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55101 13037.960001 SHB\MISC\BEACH.EA2 • 3 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION • The South 62.5 feet of the North 75 feet of Lots 10 and 11, Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota. • 4114 EXHIBIT B EASEMENT AREA The South 5 feet of the North 17.5 feet of Lot 11, except the West 38 feet thereof and the South 5 feet of the North 17.5 feet of Lot 10, all in Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 411 5 Item #6 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: December 4, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case File No.: 468-96 Request: The applicant is requesting a variance in the Sign Code to allow the installation of a monument-style directional sign at one driveway entrance on Highway 10 and one on County Road 1-12. Petitioner: Saturn Development Location: 2375-2395 Highway 10 PIN No. 08-30-23-31-0001,2,3 Zoning/Land Use: B-3 The property at 2375 Highway 10 is being used for the existing Saturn dealership, and at 2395 Highway 10 for an existing Citgo gasoline station. Applicable Regulations: The regulations applicable to this request are stated in the attached . resolution. Attachments: Diagram of sign Background: At your meeting on November 20, 1996,the Planning Commission discussed a proposal from the Saturn dealership to add two monument signs to their property, which is proposed to expand to include their existing site plus the Citgo gasoline station. The monument signs would measure 5 feet high by 8 foot 6.5 inches wide (42.7 sq.ft.) and they would be located at the westernmost driveway on Highway 10 and the easternmost driveway on County Road 1-12. The Planning Commission indicated that it was favorable to this request since the overall sign area on the site is less than allowed by the Sign Code, and the signs are needed to assist in directing customer traffic. A resolution has been prepared granting approval for this request. The criteria to be used in evaluating the variance are stated in the resolution, along with suggested findings as to how the criteria are met. (See attached Resolution No. 489-96.) Staff Recommendation: Approval of the attached resolution. Jim Price, Saturn Development, P.O. Box 10813, White Bear Lake, MN 55110; FAX 490-9416 Darwin Lindahl, Darwin Lindahl Architects, P.A. 5701 Shingle Creek Parkway, Suite#130, Minneapolis, MN 55430; FAX 560-0441 111 c:\office\wpwin\wpdocs\devcases\468-96\468-96.sr2 • f \ -11.11," 011111i (I\4 Fa SATO0 • ;✓ in! • MONUMENT SIGN NOT TO scAL= • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 489-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE IN THE MOUNDS VIEW SIGN CODE TO ALLOW TWO MONUMENT SIGNS AS DIRECTIONAL SIGNS FOR THE SATURN DEALERSHIP, 2375-2395 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE No. 468-96. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request from Saturn Development for the construction of two monument signs at the Saturn Dealership, which is proposed to expand to include their existing site and the Citgo gasoline station; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed two monument signs which would be 5 feet high and 8 feet 6.5 inches wide, or 42.7 sq.ft. and which would be located at the westernmost driveway on Highway 10 and the easternmost driveway on County Road H2; and, WHEREAS, the sign on Highway 10 would"be on the Citgo gasoline station property, and the sign on County Road H2 would be on the existing Saturn dealership property; and, • WHEREAS, this property is in the B-3 Highway Business District, which allows 100 square feet of signage for each business occupant, and a 340 square foot pylon sign; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the criteria used to evaluate variances from the Sign Code as stated in Section 1008.11 and does hereby make the following findings: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners or the property since the effective date hereof had no control. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Saturn dealership has 764 feet of frontage along Highway 10 and 580 feet of frontage along County Road H2, and two driveways on each frontage. This amount of frontage is longer than most properties along the commercial corridor on Highway 10. The City's Sign Code limits properties in the B-3 district to two types of signage: one 340 square foot pylon sign and business occupant signage not to exceed 100 square feet. The Sign Code does not anticipate the provision of directional signage on properties in the B-3 district. Due to the long frontages and the types of activities on this site, directional signage is needed to insure customer safety and smooth traffic flow. The applicant's proposal does not increase the total square footage of signage above the amount allowed by the Sign Code, but redistributes sign area from what would have been displayed on the pylon sign to two monument-style directional signs. Planning Commission Resolution No. 489-96 • December 4, 1996 Page 2 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. 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. g. Circumstances under which the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title create an undue hardship on the applicant. Economic hardship may be a circumstance for issuance of a variance. The amount of signage allowed on this site will not be increased by the granting of this variance. The total sign area on the site will be 279 square feet, where 440 square feet are allowed. Redistribution of sign area from what would be allowed for a pylon sign to monument-style directional signs will reduce the visual impact of signage on the site. The applicant will be unable to provide adequate directional signage to customers without approval of this variance. Such signage is needed to improve safety and smooth traffic flow. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. • f. The variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The amount of signage requested, when added to the existing signage on the site, is 161 square feet less than the sign area permitted to the site. The size of the directional signs in modest in comparison to the scale of the site and the length of the frontages. The use of directional signage, as opposed to a larger pylon sign, will make the signage on the site more functional. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals does hereby approve the request from Saturn Development for a variance to the Mounds View Sign Code to allow two additional monument signs on the property at 2375-2395 Highway 10, subject to the following conditions: 1. The monument signs shall not exceed 5 feet high by 8 feet 6.5 inches wide (47.5 square feet of sign area) and with one sign to be placed at the westernmost driveway on Highway 10 and one sign at the easternmost driveway on County Road H2 in accordance with the development review approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 5042. 2. Prior to installation of either sign, the applicant shall obtain a building permit from the • Community Development Department and shall pay the appropriate fees, as required by City regulations. • Planning Commission Resolution No. 489-96 December 4, 1996 Page 3 3. Installation of the sign on the Citgo property at 2395 Highway 10 shall not occur until the Saturn dealership obtains ownership of the property. If ownership is not obtained, the allowance for the monument sign on Highway 10 shall be null and void. 4. The style of the monument signs shall be similar to the"Used Car Sales" sign which is located at the eastern end of the property. 5. Any illumination of the signs shall use external, ground-mounted light fixtures which are shielded so the light source is not visible from the abutting streets or any residential properties in the vicinity. Adopted this 4th day of December, 1996. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST: • Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director (SEAL) c:\office\wpwin\wpdocs\devcases\468-96.res I • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Subject: Proposed Schedule for Planning Commission Meetin s in 1997 Date: December 2, 1996 Attached you will find a resolution adopting your meeting schedule for 1997 and a calendar of meetings, based on the discussion we had at your last meeting. This calendar shows agenda meetings on the third Wednesday of the month(except for January and July) and regular meetings on the first Wednesday of the month. The deadline for submittals for the agenda meetings would continue to be the Friday three weeks prior to the Friday before the agenda meeting. This Friday falls in either the last or second to last week of the month. The Planning Commission suggested that the calendar and the format for your meetings be • reviewed again when your bylaws are reviewed in January. We are suggesting that this review be done on January 22, 1997 at your agenda meeting. 110 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.490-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA ESTABLISHING MEETING DATES AND SUBMISSION DEADLINES FOR 1997 WHEREAS,the Mounds View Planning Commission will be holding two business meetings per month during 1996,with the exception of Special Meetings,as needed based on development submittals, ordinance revisions,and special projects undertaken by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS,the first meeting of the month shall be a regular meeting at which actions are expected to be taken,and the second meeting of the month shall be an agenda meeting to review and discuss items which will be on the agenda for the regular meeting in the following month;and, WHEREAS,the usual procedure shall be for items to be discussed first at an agenda meeting and then acted upon at a regular meeting; and, WHEREAS,the deadline for submittal of requests for the agenda meeting shall be the Friday three weeks prior to the Friday before the agenda meeting; and, WHEREAS,developers,citizens or other interested parties should be advised of deadlines for submittal of materials used by staff to prepare its report and by Planning Commission in its discussion of development requests; and, • WHEREAS,establishing meeting dates and deadlines for submittals provides for an orderly system for the Planning Commission,staff and the general public. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View does hereby establish meeting dates and deadlines for submittal as shown on the Exhibit 1 (Planning Commission Meeting Schedule- 1997),which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution by this reference; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the Planning Commission is required to or desires to hold special meetings,or to call to order to take action at an agenda meeting,they will do so in accordance with State law,Code requirements and the Bylaws; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission may cancel meetings,based on having no business to conduct,if such cancellations are posted at the Mounds View City Hall no later than one week prior to the meeting. Adopted this 4th day of December, 1996. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST • Pamela Sheldon,Community Development Director (SEAL) • V) NPN to NP '� Ncc.3 t/) .pc? aN >, CCC J~ c, ,_ r^ N N~ N. NN W� Q ^ con O 0 Q •U eIQhLuU _ UQ Nv N~ ^ COInN N ~ ~ N P O5� N0 ch 2 ^ Q 'RI N • 2 Q cc) LR, 2 ^ COu) NN C 'O O rn T Ni pmON cn c� � � �`'' N t. Q _ N CI a/�� )^N N CI ^) .L.- r cni ^ coLoNN cnitO " °' N cn ^ coa) NN j z L.1.1RI z LL N. :24§4g tr. C ^ �® LL. N. Q®N O O H N N U CO cQ,, O 53 No W 3 O v� a W ---c,, Z N off W Z � ° ham � cNN 2 co ° •- N O Cl)cn OO -0 H W to N P ,.," cn O " ^h ,- ,N o 0 L Cl) = Z N ^ CO 10 CV N I C N N GD tf) C z H N Q N OOLL r\ Q•t.5v;co LL .p M N J'.I O ,--_@;-,-., a) Zi W /^ LL C-J ^ cC �/' s` E PA Q Z R Cl) w 2 m� 0 X0 � 00. C UJ O LL~ Q ^ .- N - r � i^ N Qi- N .qNN O al z C.7 2 co ° ^ N 2 NO• 4ONO� 2 .pc) ON O O Z C� Z Z Cry NP -� N co - q� 2NN N inCVPN a) tO o Z a) cc) d- N Q ,^ C° N cn r) _ ^ N _ Cr •0 ,_ 0N - .0 co (a = ..+ "-' N 03u c7 c7 U. N P �O fi w3 cO LL to 40N _ O C� NP '� N � }r- ^ CO - NN LLI I-c ,_ N C C'� OC E Q CD ca � � ^ Q � � 2 Z ^Q 97 § O .�p LU O ® O CD OO a �p 22 = a) moo'- � QNN i.._ •0 Cr) �~ NP •0N � ` C LO �CU � - 2 ,p c") O N 2 to CV P N2 ,_ coto N P C O 'v C C to tc) n' c'' Nco v - co cn r. QFN- N c4 < D O -c Q.- • : O 009 > LL CD Item ##8 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Subject: Commercial Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennae Planning Case No. SP-001-96 Date: November 27, 1996 Meeting of December 4, 1996 Issue On August 12, 1996, the City Council approved a six month (180 day) moratorium on the new use, development or construction of wireless telecommunications services (Ordinance No. 587) within the City. This moratorium is set to expire on March 8, 1997. The Planning Commission • held a special session on October 23, 1996 to discuss this topic at which meeting industry representatives were present to give short presentations and to answer questions. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached draft of the Commercial Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennae ordinance and make suggestions and or comments as to its content and provisions. In addition, staff has provided a short summary of the ordinance which answers the list of questions developed by staff for your September 12, 1996 meeting (list attached.) Analysis Because there is currently a moratorium in effect, some extra thought needs to be given to the process and time frame by which this ordinance gets approved. If approval of this proposed ordinance (or some later iteration) is desired prior to the expiration of the moratorium, staff will need to draft a separate resolution to repeal the moratorium. If the prevailing thought is to let the moratorium expire on its own accord (March 8, 1997), the proposed ordinance to replace it must be timed so it is approved by the City Council no later than the second Monday in January (January 13, 1997). This will allow sufficient time for the adopted ordinance to be published in the newspaper and the required 30 day period before the ordinance is effective. • • Planning Commission Planning Case No. SP-001-96:Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennae November 27, 1996 • Page 2 Summary (The numbers before each statement correspond to the numbered questions in the attached list.) 1. Definitions: The following words and terms were chosen to be defined because of their inclusion within the text of the ordinance:Accessory structure;Antenna, telecommunications;Base transceiver station; Co-location; Commercial wireless telecommunications services; Tower, lattice; Tower, monopole;Antenna, stealth; Tower, telecommunications. Refer to the proposed ordinance for the corresponding definitions to these words. 2. Antennae permitted as use by right: As proposed, only antennae locating on the water tower and antennae co-locating on existing towers are allowed as permitted uses. If an accessory building is required for the water tower site, the Zoning Code will need to be amended to allow such buildings since the water tower is in the PF district and this district only allows public facilities. We would suggest that accessory buildings associated with a telecommunications antenna be allowed with approval of a conditional use permit. Towers are not permitted in residential districts. Roof-mounted antennae are allowed in residential districts as a conditional use if located on a school, church, government or public utility building (see chart below). • 3. Antennae and towers are allowed with approval of a CUP as follows: Zoning D13tT1ctS Height Limitations With Co-Location R-1,R-2,R-3,R-4,R-5,R-O 20 Feet, N/A (antennae only) only as roof-mounted on school, church,government or public utility buildings;or in"upward thrusting architectural elements"such as B-1,B-2 75 Feet 95 Feet B-3,B-4,I-1,CRP*and PF* 100 Feet 120 Feet *Towers must meet higher standards of landscaping and screening in the CRP and PF Districts. 4. Co-location is recommended whenever possible, but not required. Applicants must show that any new antenna cannot be accommodated on an existing tower. Applicants providing for co-location of an additional antenna would receive a height bonus of 20 feet. 5. Applicants are not required to provide space on proposed towers in speculation of future . co-locators, if costs of doing so are overly prohibitive. Planning Commission Planning Case No. SP-001-96:Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennae • November 27, 1996 Page 3 6. Setbacks: Towers must be located away from all property lines and public right of ways a distance equal to the height of the tower plus five feet. 7. Towers must be located in the rear yard if it is an accessory to a principal structure. 8. Proposed code does not require siting on City-owned properties. 9. Antenna tower shall not be.lighted (except as may be required by FAA). 10. Antenna tower shall not display any signs or advertising. 11. The tower and antenna shall be painted a neutral color, such as grey-tones or light blue. 12. Monopoles are required unless, at its discretion, the City Council decides otherwise. 13. Accessory buildings are permitted. 14. Accessory buildings shall match or be compatible with the architecture, style and appearance of the principal or surrounding structures. • 15. Landscaping is required to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and City Council. An eight foot fence is required to surround the tower and accessory building. 16. Height limits vary by zone. See#3 above for heights provision. 17. A twenty foot bonus is given to encourage co-location in all districts but R-1 and R-2. 18. Non-conforming existing towers shall be allowed to continue, but cannot be replaced or structurally altered without meeting the provisions of this ordinance, unless repair or replacement is a result of damage to tower. (See Section 1123.07 of the City Code relating to non-conforming buildings, structures and uses.) 19. Owners of towers in violation of this code can be charged with a misdemeanor; citations can be issued. 20. Tower owners are required to remove obsolete or unused towers within one year. 21. The applicant shall provide proof that the tower will not disrupt or interfere with other wireless communications. • 22. Applicants are required to provide proof of need and an inability to use existing towers or structures before a new tower proposal will be approved. Mounds View Planning Commission • SP-001-96: Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Page 2 September 12, 1996 Definitions 1. What terms need to be defined? Location; Type of Use 2. Where should towers and antennas be allowed? Which zoning districts? 3. Should they be listed as allowed or conditional uses? 4. Should the City require co-location of equipment on a limited number of towers? 5. Should applicants be required to provide room on their tower for other companies' equipment? 6. Should the City specify where on the property the tower must be located? 7. What should the setback requirements be? 8. Should the City specify that the tower must go on a municipal site, owned by the City? Lighting/Signage/Color/Design/Landscaping&Screening 9. What allowance or limits should be put on lighting a tower? 10. What allowance or limits should be put on signage on a tower? 11. Should the City specify the color(s) allowed to be used for the tower? 12. Should the City specify the type of tower? What tower design is permitted? • 13. Should separate accessory buildings be permitted? 14. What design standards should be established for accessory buildings? 15. What landscaping and/or screening requirements should be established? Height Limits 16. What should the height limit be? 17. Should a bonus be given for towers holding two or more companies' equipment? Miscellaneous 18. What provisions should be made for non-conforming towers? 19. Should specific provisions for abating towers in violation of the Code be stated? 20. Should the City require removal of obsolete or unused towers? What time limit should be used? 21. Should the City require documentation that emissions from these antennas will not affect other wireless communications? 22. Should the City require proof of need? search for alternative sites based on certain criteria? • • • • ORDINANCE NO. 588 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1126 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE ESTABLISHING THE REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES AND FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Chapter 1126 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is re-enacted to read as follows: 1126.01: PURPOSE: The regulation of commercial wireless telecommunications services (CWTS) and facilities is intended to provide for the appropriate location, development and installation of telecommunications towers and antennae within the City of • Mounds View("City"). The provisions of this Code are intended to protect the health, safety and aesthetic concerns of the community by minimizing the adverse visual effects of towers and antennae through careful design, siting and screening: by avoiding potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements: and by maximizing the use of existing towers, structures or buildings to accommodate new telecommunications antennae in the City. 1126.02: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, wherever they are used in this ap er, s all be defined as follows: Subd. 1. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: A structure located on the tower or antenna site usually for equipment customarily incidental to the receiving or transmitting of radio or television broadcasts, cellular telephone calls, voice messaging and paging services. Subd. 2. ANTENNA, STEALTH: Antenna designed to blend into the surrounding environment or integrated into the physical structure to which it is attached. Subd. 3. ANTENNA, TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Equipment used for transmitting or • 1 • Ordinance 588 -Draft . December 4, 1996 Page 2 receiving telecommunication, television, or radio signals which is attached to a tower, building or other structure, usually consisting of a series of directional panels, microwave or satellite dishes, or omnidirectional "whip" antennae. Subd. 3. BASE TRANSCEIVER STATION: Equipment that provides the link between wireless communications and land-based public telephone switching networks, including radio frequency transceivers, back-up power sources, power amplifiers, and signal processing hardware, typically protected by a small building or equipment cabinet. Subd. 4. CO-LOCATION: The location of wireless communications equipment from more than one provider on one common site. Subd. 5. COMMERCIAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES (CWTS): Licensed wireless telecommunications service providers including cellular, digital cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), commercial paging services, and similar services marketed to the general public. Subd. 6. TOWER, LATTICE: Three- or four-legged steel girdered structures typically • supporting multiple communications users and services generally ranging from 60 to 200 feet in height. Subd. 7. TOWER, MONOPOLE: Single pole design, approximately three feet in diameter at the base narrowing to approximately one and a half feet at the top, generally ranging from 25 to 125 feet in height. Subd. 8. TOWER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Any ground-mounted, pole, spire, structure or combination thereof, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces and I.• • •' • Ile.-' . u. - • ••• - - -5 ..... - ••-- •Ss. -• 1126.03: ALLOWANCE FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAE BY ZONING DISTRICT: Subd. 1. Permitted Uses,All Districts: CWTS towers and antennae shall be allowed in any district as a permitted use subject to the following, only as provided below: a. Water Tower: Antennae shall be permitted upon City-owned water towers provided the applicant has an approved lease agreement with the City, has applied for and received a building permit from the City, and has paid all applicable permit fees. If the applicant •2 Ordinance 588 -Draft • December 4, 1996 Page 3 proposes to construct an accessory building to house any necessary equipment, application must be made for a conditional use permit. (Accessory buildings are conditional uses in the Public Facilities PF and the Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation CRP Districts.) b. Co-location on Existing Towers: Antennae shall be permitted to be attached to existing towers within the City in accordance with the applicable siting guidelines and design criteria in Section 1126.04, after providing a written statement of approval from the tower owner or lessor and obtaining a building permit from the City and paying the necessary fees. Subd. 2. Conditional Uses, Specific Districts: CTWS towers and antennae for the following zoning districts are allowed with the approval of a conditional use permit and in accordance with the co-location requirements stated in Section 1126.04, siting requirements and design criteria stated in Section 1126.05, and the procedural requirements stated in Section 1126.06. The procedure for review and action on conditional use permits shall be as stated in Section 1125.01. a. In R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-O Districts: • (1) Roof-mounted CTWS antennae mounted on religious institutions, educational facilities, and government or public utility buildings in accordance with Section 1126.05, Subd. 7: height shall not exceed ten feet (10'). (2) CTWS antennas concealed within upward thrusting architectural components such as a church steeple, spire or bell-tower, smokestack, etc: height to conform to architectural element. f31 Towers, and antennas on structures other than those enumerated in Section 1126.03, Subd. 2.a.(1) above, are not permitted in these districts. b. In B-1 and B-2 Districts, CWTS towers and antennae shall not exceed seventy- five feet (75') in height. The height may be increased up to a maximum of ninety- five feet (95') if the applicant can demonstrate to the City that the extra height is necessary for the co-location of another provider's antenna. c. In B-3, B-4 and I-1 Districts, CWTS towers and antennae shall not exceed one hundred feet (100') in height. The height of a tower may be increased up to a maximum of one hundred and twenty feet (120') if the applicant can demonstrate to the City that the extra height is necessary for the co-location of another • 3 Ordinance 588 -Draft • December 4, 1996 Page 4 provider's antenna. d. In CRP and PF Districts, CWTS towers and antennae shall not exceed one hundred feet (100') in height. The height of a tower may be increased up to a maximum of one hundred and twenty feet (120') if the applicant can demonstrate to the City that the extra height is necessary for the co-location of another provider's antenna. In addition, the following requirements shall be met: (1) In order to protect,.preserve and enhance the natural features and environmental value of the City's parks and recreation areas for the appreciation and use of the community, the highest standards of landscaping and screening of CWTS towers;antennae and accessory buildings shall be utilized to the satisfaction of the City Council. (2) The applicant shall incorporate the proposed CWTS towers into new or existing facilities or structures, such as using the tower as a light standard for ball fields or parking areas, or into tree stands similar in height to that of the tower. e. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs): In commercial or industrial PUDs, CWTS • towers and antennae shall not exceed one hundred feet (100') in height. The height of a tower may be increased up to a maximum of one hundred and twenty feet (120') if the applicant can demonstrate to the City that the extra height is necessary for the co-location of another provider's antenna. The applicant shall file a request to amend the existing PUD final plan and/or adopted conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 1120 and Section 1125.01 of this Code. CWTS towers and antennae shall not be allowed in residential or mixed use PUDs. f Conditional use •ermits are not re uired for antennae and towers used b the Ci for City purpose or public agencies for public safety purposes: repair or replacement or adjustment of the elements of the antenna array affixed to a tower or antenna, if the replacement does not reduce acceptable safety standards: and antennae mounted on water towers, and existing power, light, or telephone poles. 1126.04: CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS: Subd. 1. Letter of Intent: For all new CWTS towers erected in the City after the date of enactment of this ordinance, a letter of intent shall be required that commits the tower, the owner, and the owner's successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use. 411 4 Ordinance 588-Draft • December 4, 1996 Page 5 Subd. 2. A proposal for a new CWTS tower or antennae shall not be approved unless the applicant can document to the satisfaction of the City Council that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial building within a one-half mile radius, transcending municipal borders, due to one or more of the following: Subd. 1. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or commercial building. Subd. 2. The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building. Subd. 3. Existing or approved towers and commercial buildings within a one-half mile radius cannot reasonably accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary for the proposed antenna to function. 1126.05: SITING AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: The requirements of this section apply to all CWTS towers and antennae erected, constructed, placed, • or replaced in the City. All toers and antennae shall be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive, shall be screened as deemed appropriate by the City Council, and shall not display advertising or signage of any type except as required by government regulation. Equipment buildings housing the Base Transceiver Station (BTS) must conform with the guidelines pertaining to accessory buildings as outlined in this Chapter of the Code and by zoning district and shall be of the same or better construction and design as the principal structure or surrounding buildings. All CWTS towers and antennae shall conform to the following design and siting criteria: Subd. 1. Setbacks: The minimum setback from any property line or public right-of-way for an antenna tower is the height of the antenna tower plus an additional five feet (5') and shall be located only in the rear yard if incidental or subordinate to a principal use. Subd. 2. Accessory Buildings: Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed in an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary, it shall be of the same.or better construction, design and appearance as the principal structure or surrounding buildings so as to minimize the impact upon the neighboring uses. The tower/antenna and equipment building shall be landscaped and screened, and surrounded with an eight foot (8')tall fence so as to prevent unauthorized entry and access to the equipment building or antenna. Barbed wire, razor wire or electrified fences shall not be permitted. i . 5 Ordinance 588 -Draft • December 4, 1996 Page 6 Subd. 3. Color: The tower and antenna shall be painted a neutral color such as light grey or sky blue except as dictated by the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) and be designed to minimize visibility and to blend into the surrounding environment. Subd. 4. Construction Type and Materials: The antenna tower and shall be of a monopole construction unless the City Council, at its discretion, approves otherwise. Guy wired towers shall not be permitted. Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant materials. Subd. 5. Roof-mounted Antennae: Roof-mounted antennae shall not be permitted on buildings with pitched-roofs, unless incorporated into upward thrusting architectural components, such as a church steeple, spire or bell-tower, smokestack, etc. On flat roofs, the height of the antenna and mounting hardware may not extend 20 feet above the tallest point of the structure to which the antenna is attached. Subd. 6. Prevention of Radiation: Antennae shall be subject to state and federal regulations regarding non-ionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities. If the federal government adopts new, more restrictive standards, the antennae shall be made to comply or operations may be restricted by the City Council. The cost of verification of compliance shall be paid by the owner or operator of the tower. Subd. 7. Lights and Other Attachments: No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way except during time of repair or installation, any lights, reflectors, flashers, day- time strobes or steady night time light or other illumination devices, except as required by the Federal Aviation Agency, the Federal Communications Commission or the City. Nor shall any tower have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way, any platform, catwalk crows' nenest (lo ._or_._=�1�Ce _ ■ � - ■ 1 • ' ;OA _ 0 2_ ■_ _ .•• 11.Z Subd. 8. Signs and Advertising: The use of any portion of a tower for signs or advertising, other than required warning signs, shall be prohibited. Subd. 9. Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications: No new or existing telecommunications service shall interfere with public safety telecommunications. Before the introduction of new of new service or changes in existing service, telecommunication providers shall notify the City at least ten (10) calendar days before such changes and allow the City to monitor interference levels during the testing process. • 6 Ordinance 588-Draft • December 4, 1996 Page 7 1126.06: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: Subd. 1. Demonstration of Need: The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a City-wide coverage/interference and capacity analysis, that the location of the proposed tower and/or antenna is necessary to meet the frequency re-use and spacing needs of the wireless system and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the antenna on an existing structure. Subd. 2. Building Permits: All towers and antennae must obtain a building permit and are subject to inspection by the City building official to determine compliance with UBC construction standards. The applicant shall provide at the time of application, sufficient information to show that construction, installation and maintenance of the antenna and tower will not create a safety hazard or damage to the property of other persons. The building permit application must include a report and plan from a qualified and registered engineer or firm that specifies and includes the following: • a. The tower height and design including a cross section and elevation. b. The height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennae and the minimum separation distances between antennae. c. The capacity of the tower, including the number and type of antennae that the tower can accommodate. d. The steps that the applicant will take to avoid interference with established public safety telecommunications. e. An engineer's stamp and registration number. f. Any other information necessary for the City to evaluate the request. Subd. 3. Proof of Insurance: The applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the insurance policy which protects the residents and property owners from personal injury or property damage and holds harmless the City from any and all claims resulting from the construction or collapse of the tower, antennae or accessory equipment. Subd. 4. Violations: Deviations from the approved construction plans is a misdemeanor. Ordinance 588-Draft December 4, 1996 Page 8 1126.07: EXISTING ANTENNAE AND TOWERS: Antennae and towers in existence as of the date of enactment of this ordinance that do not meet or comply with the provisions of this Chapter are subject to the following: Subd. 1. Existing Towers may continue in use for their existing purpose but may not be replaced or structurally altered to an extent exceeding ten percent (10%) of the tower's fair market value, as determined by the City Council, without meeting all standards in this Chapter. Subd. 2. If such towers are damaged or destroyed to the extent of fifty percent (50%) or more of their fair market value (said value to be determined by City Council) due to any reason or cause whatsoever, the owners of the towers may choose to rebuild or remove the towers. If the owners choose to rebuild the towers, they shall from and after the date of said destruction be subject to all current and applicable regulations as specified by this Code. If such towers are damaged or destroyed to an extent of less than fifty percent (50%) of their fair market value, the towers may be repaired and restored to their former size, height and use within one(1)year after getting a building permit from the City. The location and physical dimensions shall remain as they were prior to the damage or destruction. - • Subd. 3 Removal of Abandoned or Damaged Towers: Any tower and/or antenna that is not used for one(1) year shall be deemed abandoned and the property owner shall remove then tower and/or antennae in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for dangerous or unsafe structures established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 through 463.26. SECTION 2. Section 1112.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code relating to conditional uses in the B-1 zoning_district is amended to add S»hdivision5to read as follows- Subd. 5. Commercial wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1126 of the Zoning Code. SECTION 3. Section 1113.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code relating to conditional uses in the B-2 zoning district is amended to add Subdivision 6, to read as follows: Subd. 6. Commercial wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1126 of the Zoning Code. 1110 8 • • Ordinance 588-Draft December 4, 1996 Page 9 SECTION 4. Section 1114.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code relating to conditional uses in the B-3 zoning district is amended to add Subdivision 8, to read as follows: Subd. 8. Commercial wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1126 of the Zoning Code. SECTION 5. Section 1115.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code relating to conditional uses in the B-4 zoning district is amended to add Subdivision 6, to read as follows: Subd. 6. Commercial wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1126 of the Zoning Code. SECTION 6. Section 1116.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code relating to conditional uses in • the I-1 zoning district is amended to add Subdivision 22, to read as follows: Subd. 21. Commercial wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1126 of the Zoning Code. SECTION 7. Chapter 1117 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to the Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation(CRP) District is amended by adding a new section 1117.04, entitled "CONDITIONAL USES" relating to commercial wireless telecommunication towers and antennae, to read as follows: 1117.04 CONDITIONAL USES: The following shall be considered a conditional use in the CRP District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. Commercial wireless telecommunications towers and antennae to a height of no more than one hundred feet (100') unless providing for a co-locating wireless service, then one hundred and twenty(120'). Towers and antennae must conform with and be subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1126 of the Zoning Code. A utility building to house necessary equipment integral to service provision shall also be allowed, subject to design, • landscaping and screening standards set forth in and regulated in the Zoning Code. 9 • Ordinance 588-Draft • December 4, 1996 Page 10 SECTION 8. Chapter 1118 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to the Public Facilities (PF)District is amended by adding a new section 1118.03, entitled"CONDITIONAL USES" relating to commercial wireless telecommunication towers and antennae, to read as follows: 1118.03 CONDITIONAL USES: The following shall be considered a conditional use in the PF District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. Commercial wireless telecommunications towers and antennae to a height of no more than one hundred feet (100')unless providing for a co-locating wireless service, then one hundred and twenty (120'). Towers and antennae must conform with and be subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1126 of the Zoning Code. A utility building to house necessary equipment integral to service provision shall also be allowed, subject to design, landscaping and screening standards set forth in and regulated in the Zoning Code. SECTION 9. Chapter 1106.04 related to conditional uses in the R-1 district is hereby amended to411 add Subd. 8 as follows: Subd. 6. Commercial wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1126 of the Zoning Code. SECTION 10. Chapter 1110.04 related to conditional uses in the R-5 district is hereby amended to add Subd. 10 as follows: 00. •. - . .. •• - - - - . . -: . •: Owers and ante i ons establis hed in Chapte r 1126 of the Zoning Code. • 10 Ordinance 588 -Draft • December 4, 1996 Page 11 SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance goes into effect after the City Council approves it and 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on , 1997. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of ,.1997. Jerome Linke, Mayor ATTEST: Charles Whiting, City Clerk—Administrator • (SEAL) • APPROVED TO AS FORM: City Attorney n:\data\users\j ime\share\tower.ord • 11 ITEM #9A • • PLANNING MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Vf—ei\ Subject: Resolution 484-96: Mounds View Square Shopping C§nter Date: December 2, 1996 Attached you will find a revised version of Resolution No. 484-96 which approved the variance in sign regulations for the Mounds View Square Shopping Center. It incorporates the changes which the Planning Commission approved at your November 20, 1996 meeting. Because of the number of changes, staff indicated at that meeting that we would provide you with the revised wording before given the resolution to the chairman to sign. We have noted the additions with underlining and the deletions with strikeouts, to assist the Planning Commission in its review. We have included this item on your agenda under Staff Reports to just confirm that we have made • the revisions correctly. c:\office\wpwin\wpdocs\devcases\462-96\pcmemo.res • • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 484-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE IN THE MOUNDS VIEW SIGN CODE TO • ALLOW THREE MONUMENT SIGNS AT TIRE+' MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, 2535-2585 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 462-96. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request from Mounds View Assoc. LLP for the construction of four monument signs at the Mounds View Square Shopping Center, with two of these signs to be placed at the driveway entrances from Highway 10, one at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10, and one at the intersection of County Road I and Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed these monument signs to each be 12 feet in height and 18 feet in width, for an area of 216 square feet; and, WHEREAS, this property is in the B-4 zoning district, which allows 100 square feet of signage for each tenant, and a 340 square foot pylon sign; and, • WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is proposing to construct a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 just west of Long Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, the position of the bridge will block the view of a portion of the shopping center's face and its center identification sign from view by motorists traveling on Highway 10, from east to west; and WHEREAS, the heaviest traffic in the east to west direction is evening, homebound commute traffic, when motorists are more likely to stop to shop than motorists traveling to work; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the criteria used to evaluate variances from the Sign Code as stated in Section 1008.11 and does hereby make the following findings: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners or the property since the effective date hereof had no control. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The property is developed with a retail building that is L-shaped and set back from • Highway 10. The City is proposing to construct a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 at • Planning Commission Resolution No. 484-96 November 20, 1996 Page 2 Long Lake Road which will block the view of a portion of the front face of the shopping center and its center identification sign until motorists travel under the bridge. The monument signs proposed at the two driveway entrances will alert motorists to where to turn in the most efficient way possible, since they will be at the roadway edge and more at eye level. They will compensate for the lack of visibility of the center. At present it is very difficult to find the driveway entrances into Mounds View Square at night. The monument sign at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10 will provide signage in advance of the bridge structure for motorists traveling west, which is needed since the bridge will block the view of the center identification sign. 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. 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. • g. Circumstances under which the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title create an undue hardship on the applicant. Economic hardship may be a circumstance for issuance of a variance. The Sign Code allows for tenant identification signs and one pylon sign to identify the overall shopping center. The construction of a pedestrian bridge will block the visibility of both the tenant signage and the pylon sign for Mounds View Square until motorists have traveled under the bridge. The visibility of other shopping centers in Mounds View will not be impacted by the bridge construction. All other properties which abut Highway 10 have clear visibility from the highway and are not obscured by overhead structures. The impact on Mounds View Square will be the most significant due to the angle of the highway, thel. • • a- a• ..' _ - - . as •- .• • ••i • 108•4_- e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. f. The variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The applicant has requested four monument signs, measuring 12 feet tall and 18 feet wide. One is proposed to be located at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10, in advance of the bridge structure to alert motorists to the upcoming shopping center, two at the driveway entrances from Highway 10, and one at the intersection of County Road I • and Highway 10. The first three signs are needed because the center identification sign will be blocked by the bridge from motorists' view when they travel from east to west on Highway 10. The size of the signs is approximately half the height of monument style Planning Commission Resolution No. 484-96 ID November 20, 1996 Page 3 signs along Highway 10 and elsewhere used as the sole identification for shopping centers. The signs at the driveway entrances are needed to provide a unmistakable visual signal at the roadside, close to eye level, of the presence of the shopping center since motorists will have less reaction time than if they had an unimpeded view of the center identification sign traveling toward Mounds View Square on Highway 10. With the design requirements in the conditions attached to this variance, the signs will be tied into the landscape and be less intrusive. (This variance does not grant approval for the monument sign at County Road I and Highway 10.) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals does hereby approve a modification of the variance request of Mounds View Assoc. LLP allowing for three monument signs, with one sign to be placed at each of the two driveway entrances from Highway 10, and one sign to be placed at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is being granted in recognition of the anticipated construction of a pedestrian bridge using a spiral ramp design at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10. The signs permitted by this variance shall only be constructed after commencement of construction of the pedestrian bridge, and only if the . bridge uses the spiral ramp design. The applicant is responsible for obtaining sign permits from the City prior to construction of the signs. • 2. The two signs at the driveway entrances shall consist of a monument style sign or "sign wall" constructed of brick, stone or break-off decorative block and measuring at a maximum 10-1-2 feet in height and 15 -1-8S feet in width. This"sign wall" shall have an added wall extension on either side approximately four feet in height and 8 feet in length, finished with a capstone as is shown for the sign. The sign wall and wall extensions shall be curved, to reduce the appearance of its mass and to approximate the curvature of the driveways. Earth shall be bermed against the backside of the sign wall and the wall extensions. . . •• . :. . • grade- Landscaping shall be planted behind the sign to include at least three trees in a cluster, which shall be of a species which will grow at maturity to approximately the same height as the sign. Landscaping may be designed to remain low in front of that portion sign having wording. The final design of the sign wall and sign extensions, and the landscaping plan shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development prior sign permits being issued and landscaping being installed. . . • . - - I . - • I. 1 . :, . 1 . . • .. Vol . . .. . . _ . . fell • • • ••• • .'' The . .. • . • . . .. •': - color of the masonry shall be compatible with the existing brick used in the shopping center, subject to approval by the Director • of Community Development prior to issuance of sign permits. Planning Commission Resolution No. 484-96 November 20, 1996 Page 4 • 3. The sign at each driveway entrance shall be located on the northwest side of the driveway more orless as shown in the diagram submitted with this application. 4. For the signs at the driveway entrances, no more than 3/4 2/3 of the sign wall may be used for wording(i.e. that portion of the wall face which is 10-1-2 feet x 15 -1-8- feet) feet) as measured using rectangles around each business's name and the shopping center's name. Letters shall not exceed 1 foot 6 inches in height. No wording may appear on the wall extensions. All lettering for tenants names shall be uniform color except that a corporate color scheme integral to the identity of the company may be used. The lettering for the name of the shopping center may be the same color or a contrasting color. Lettering may be internally illuminated or the sign may have indirect illumination from ground lighting. Any ground lighting shall be shielded so light rays are directed to the sign, but the light source is not visible to the street or parking area. • 5. Signage shall be limited to the name of individual businesses and the name of the shopping center. A portion of the sign face shall be used for the shopping center name. 6. The design of the sign to be installed at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10 shall be coordinated with the design of the bridge and be located outside the required sight lines for the Highway 10/Long Lake Road intersection. This variance allows for 145 square feet of sign area to be used for wording, not to exceed 10 feet high, of which 1/2 a portion shall be used for the name of the shopping center . • . . • .. • .• . . . . . . ••: . The City shall determine the height and length of the wall and its placement, in consultation with the applicant, as long as the sign area allowed by this variance is accommodated. If the applicant desires to display signage on the wall, the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of constructing up to 280 square feet of wall at this location, unless an alternative funding arrangement with the City is approved by the City Council. • Planning Commission Resolution No..484-96 . November 20, 1996 Page 5 Adopted this 20th day of November, 1996. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST: Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director (SEAL) c:\wpdocs\devcases\462-96pc.re2 • • ITEM #9B 4) PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director V !J Subject: Revisions to Format for Minutes Date: November 25, 1996 At your last meeting, the Planning Commission asked staff to revise the format for the minutes and make them shorter. Attached you will find a sample of how we propose to change the format, using the minutes from the November 6 meeting. We have also included the text from the Mounds View Shopping Center cases to illustrate how we might cut down the length of the text. The key changes in the format are: • eliminating the two columns, and placing the numbered items from the agenda at the left . hand margin • including an index showing which cases were discussed at the meeting and where to find them in the minutes • "announcing" each case by putting the request at the left hand margin and putting lines before and after it • bolding and underlining each Motion/Second • bolding the names of the Commissioners, applicants and citizens who comment in the minutes to make them easier to find • indenting the text under each case so it is easier to read than a full page width We-need-t• _.• • •• •_ ' -.2.1 •. omission if the-changes for--mat_are-acceptable, and what you think about how we have cut the text. We could cut the text even further, and need your guidance on this point. If this format is acceptable, we would being using it for the minutes prepared for the November 20 meeting. • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 6, 1996 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The Mounds View Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:03 p.m. on November 6, 1996 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Brooks, Stevenson, Obert, Johnston, Brasaemle and Chair Peterson. Also Present: Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate • Ericson and Recording Secretary Benesch. 3. Approval of Minutes: October 9, 1996 The Planning Commission reviewed the minutes of the special meeting of October 9, 1996. The following corrections were noted: 1) Page 1, last line, "by" should read on, 2) Page 2, third line, "site" should read sites. 3) Second page, third paragraph, lines 6 and 7 should read "if the lot is" and "Commission" should read Commissioner, 4) Page 3, line 3, should read "...line for a...", 5) Page 3, paragraph 6, line 2, should read acre not "acres" and line 4 should read "...than one acre. was-added." Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Stevenson to approve the minutes of October 9, 1996, as amended. Motion carried on a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays. 4. There were no resident requests or comments from the floor. Index to Minutes Page Case No. 461-96, 462-96, 463-96: Mounds View Square Shopping Center 2 Case No. 464-96: Saturn Development 9 • • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 3 house restaurants recognizes the lower customer turnover as compared to fast food restaurants. Staff has prepared Resolution No. 485-96 which would approve a variance in parking ratios for the expansion of Mounds View Square She then explained the request for joint use of parking facilities. The number of parking spaces needed for the expansion would be 492, if the new ratios are applied to the footages being deducted and added. This number is higher than to one reported at the Commission's last meeting, and is 38 more spaces than will be on the site with the expansion (454). It is not possible to add these spaces through restriping to compact size stalls, which had been the Commission's suggestion at the last meeting. The applicant was proposing an 8% credit for offsetting daytime and nighttime uses to show that the 454 spaces were adequate to meet the parking demand on the site. Staff had prepared Resolution No. 486-96 which would recommend to City Council that a conditional use permit be approved allowing for the 8% reduction in parking spaces based on joint use of parking facilities between daytime and nighttime uses. • Commissioner Brasaemle asked if the variance in ratios would result in a requirement for 492 spaces and wanted to verify if the conditional use permit was needed to get the number down to the 454 spaces, which the applicant was proposing to provide. He also asked if the maximum allowable cross-over between night and day use is 50 percent and if staff was proposing only 8 percent. Commissioner Stevenson asked if there is any alternative to the spaces the shopping center is losing for the storage area, why is the 5,000 square feet needed and what use would go into it. Mr. Streeter explained that they initially proposed to expand the shopping center further to the south. in discussions with staff, it was noted that expansion in that direction would cause more than one row of parking to be lost so they reduced the expansion to save all but one row of parking. Chair Peterson asked how the signage at Marios would be affected by the expansion. Mr. Streeter said he expected that whoever rented the new area would want to have it for their advertising, or there was a possibility that Marios would move over and thenew tenant would occupy the space in between. Commissioner Obert asked if the new parking computations included the • elimination of the 23 spaces on the south side of the building. Director Sheldon explained that they were included, and that is why the parking count went from 477 to 454. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 . Regular Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Miller referred to Page 2, part C. of Resolution No. 485-96, and said she felt that adding the 5,000 square feet to the building was an action taken by the applicant, i.e. a self-imposed hardship, and asked why 6,000 square feet is being used for the dinner house restaurants. Director Sheldon explained that the ratios in the City's code create a hardship for a shopping center of this size and that the applicant did not choose the ratio. The hardship is coming from the ratio rather than the square footage being added by the applicant. She noted that the 6,000 square feet for the dinner house restaurants came from the applicant's plan. • Commissioner Brasaemle suggested leaving the parking count for the current shopping center as is, and use the ratios from the Code to calculate the amount of parking needed for the expansion. He asked what percentage reduction would be needed using the allowance for daytime and nighttime uses to get to the 454 spaces being provided. He indicated his desire to address the parking question with either a variance or an allowance for daytime and nighttime uses, but not both if possible. Director Sheldon responded that it would take a 26% reduction to go from 492 to 454 spaces. Director Sheldon explained that she felt it was easier to show that there was a problem with the ratios and fix it through a • variance rather than just using the daytime-nighttime reduction. She noted that if you apply the current ratios to the square footage that is changing, there would be 614 spaces required but noted that there may be a problem with how the 614 spaces were calculated. Commissioner Stevenson asked which time would be the busiest for the shopping center. He was concerned if the ratios were not changed, and only the reduction for daytime and nighttime uses were used, there would not be enough parking at peak times. Commissioner Brasaemle asked what would be the total number of parking spaces that would be needed for the entire center including the expansion, using the current ratios. Director Sheldon replied that it would be 1,035 spaces. Commissioner Johnston said that he feels that this proposal would be good for Mounds View and is for granting this request but it is.a matter of how to do it. Chair Peterson said that he had similar feelings and thinks that the Planning Commission needs to lay a more stable ground-work for any other cases that may come up and that he felt more comfortable with the resolution as prepared which included the variance in ratios. • Commissioner Obert said he is comfortable with the way staff has prepared the • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 5 resolution, but shares the concerns that Commissioner Stevenson raised regarding the daytime/nighttime mix. He felt that right now he did not see a problem, but depending on future tenants, such as a high-traffic store, there could be a concern. Commissioner Brasaemle noted that he feels one advantage to granting a variance is that it does not establish a precedent if the Council rejects the conditional use permit and retracted his proposal to eliminate the variance. Commissioner Miller had concerns with losing the 23 spaces by making the building 5,000 square feet larger when there are already vacant retail spaces and wondered if they might change if there were more traffic. Director Sheldon explained that by adding the restaurants you may get more interest in the center. She also added that if people do go out to dinner and then run errands to the other businesses in the center, they are still only using one space. Earl Hamilton, Sunrise Methodist Church, 7687 Long Lake Road, asked if traffic from the shopping center could accidentally overflow into their church • parking lot across the street. He did note that they have not had a problem as of yet. He was also concerned with the dumping of garbage into the wetland adjacent to the church. Commissioner Miller suggested that signage, "Sunrise Church parking only" could alleviate this concern. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve Resolution No. 485-96, as amended, regarding approving a variance request in the parking ratios applicable to the Mounds View Square Shopping Center, Planning Case No. 463-95. Commissioner Miller noted some corrections to proposed Resolution No. 485-96: 1) Page 2, line 1, "result" should read results, 2) third Whereas, item a, line 2, "or" should read of. Motion carried on a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Stevenson to approved Resolution No. 486-96, as amended, regarding recommending approving a conditional use permit for the joint use of parking facilities at Mounds View'Square Shopping Center, Planning Case No. 461- 96. The word "Recommending" was added to the resolution. Commissioner Miller noted that item 7 in the resolution may not be necessary. Director Sheldon explained that this item indicates that the variance cannot stand by itself. The Commission directed that item 7 be moved to a Whereas clause. Motion carried on a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 6 Director Sheldon explained that the second part of the request pertained to the signage for Mounds View Square Shopping Center, and that the proposal has been changed by the applicant. The original proposal was for a 75 foot high, 800 square foot sign. The Planning Commission had requested information on how much of the sign would show above the bridge. She reported on a study conducted by the City Engineer which estimated that the bridge would cover up 52 feet of the sign, when viewed from a distance representing 10 seconds of travel time at 50 mph on Highway 10, east of the sign. If the sign were 75 feet high, then 23 feet would show above the bridge. She explained that the applicant is now proposing a sign which would be 50 feet high, and have 430 square feet of sign area. Signs at the other shopping centers owned by the applicant (Mendota Plaza, Crystal Center, and Northway Center) were reviewed. The sign at Mendota Plaza was the same as the one requested by the applicant for Mounds View Square. Director Sheldon explained that once you lower the sign, even to 50 feet, you cannot see it over the bridge, so from staffs perspective, you have lost the connection between the bridge and the need for a variance. She suggested several ways to address this issue: 1) amending the Code, 2) a variance request for monument signage at the driveway entrances and at Long Lake Road, 3) reducing the pylon sign to fit within the current code, • 4) add a procedure for approving "sign programs or packages" to the City's code which would allow customized sign regulations for the larger shopping centers in Mounds View, 5) grant a variance for a "floating box" of signage from the top of the bridge railing to 75 feet, with a condition that the variance could not be used unless the bridge is built and the City has six months in which to update its Sign Code. If the Sign Code is amended to allow a sign program, then the applicant could not use the "floating box". Director Sheldon suggested that the Commission table this item until a firmer proposal is made and more information is obtained from the applicant. Commissioner Brasaemle wanted to make it clear that this variance request is contingent upon the bridge being built and whatever variance is passed by the Commission needs to have this clause in it. JoAnn Colleen, 2617 County Road 1, asked why the parking and signs are being dealt with now if we don't even know if the bridge of the dinner house restaurants will be built. It was explained that before the applicant even considers building the restaurants, they would need to know if adequate parking is available to inform future tenants and it is only the sign request that is related to the construction of the bridge. It was added that it was easier to come to the Planning Commission with both of these items at once. Ms. Colleen expressed . her concern about the construction of a lighted sign and the view from her window. She also expressed concern with other businesses wanting taller signs. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 7 Earl Hamilton, explained a signage situation that he experienced as a resident of Blaine, and that the business was required to reduce is signage so that it did not take away from the surrounding businesses and homes or they would not get a building permit. John Streeter, addressed the Commission showing them drawings of their other shopping centers and explaining their proposed sign size and the location of the pylon sign with respect to Mounds View Square. He said it was very similar to the sign at Mendota Plaza. He pointed out that signs and the size of the lettering are sized by traffic engineers based on the location of the sign and distance to motorists. Discussion continued between the applicant and the Planning Commission regarding the similarities of the Mendota sign and the proposed sign for Mounds View Square. Commissioner Johnston expressed concern with the possibility of other Mounds View Square tenants requesting separate signage for their businesses. • He asked for more information on how a sign program would work. A comment was made that a sign program is a comprehensive package could include signage for individual tenants, signs at entrances, an overall center identification sign, signs for pad sites. A comment was made that it is similar to a PUD for signs. Commissioner Brasaemle asked about the signage for the other pad sites. The applicant indicated that tenants are often demanding and want pole signs, but if a location is very desirable, they are willing to use monument signs. Commissioner Brasaemle wanted all of the signs expected on the site to be addressed at the same time. Commissioner Obert expressed his concern how this sign proposal would relate to the entire picture along Highway 10. Director Sheldon noted that the City Council expects to hire a consultant to work on designs for the section of Highway 10 north of Mounds View Square, and any design theme they develop for that section will probably be extended to the south. She also noted that if the Planning Commission sets a good standard on this site, the City will be okay on other shopping center sites that propose new signage. • Commissioner Obert again expressed some concern and thought the Planning Commission needs to make sure that these standards are set high enough. Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 8 Commissioner Brasaemle asked the applicant what they expected the dinner house restaurants would want for signage, especially pole signs versus monument signs. Mr. Edward Paster replied that usually the tenant wants an identification sign that separates them from everyone else and that monument signage is not always accepted. He also said that promoting tenant names instead of shopping center names is now the trend. He thought if a monument sign were placed at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10, it would be an innovative approach. He said it would be a hard sell to get tenants to go on a monument sign as opposed to a pole sign. Chair Peterson asked if the Planning Commission had everything they needed to give this case further consideration. Director Sheldon indicated that she needed a diagram that shows the locations where they want the signage and also a drawing of the signage itself as to what package goes with the variance. Commissioner Stevenson suggested that staff provide the Commission with information on what other types of signage are along Highway 10. JoAnn Colleen, asked if the requested monument signage would also be • located at the entrance on the north side of the shopping center. Mr. Streeter replied that they were not asking for signage there. Motion/Second: Miller/Johnston to table the discussion of the signage for Mounds View Square until the Commission's next agenda meeting. Motion carried on a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays. Director Sheldon asked that the Planning Commission consider calling to order at their November 20 meeting to take action on this item and its was Planning Commission's consensus that it would be a possibility that they could call to order contingent upon receiving adequate information on this case. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 9 6. Planning Case No. 464-96 2375-2395 Highway 10 Applicant: Saturn Development Request for amended conditional use permit to allow expansion of an existing auto dealership, the addition of a car wash and expansion of available repair services. Chair Peterson opened the public information meeting on this item. Mr. Jim Price and Darwin Lindahl, representing the applicant, Saturn Development, were present. XOX Motion/Second: Miller/Peterson approved Resolution No. 483-96 recommending approval of an amended conditional use permit and a development review for the expansion of the Saturn Dealership at 2375 and 2395 Highway 10, Planning Case No. 464-96. Motion carried on a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 1 abstention. (Commissioner Stevenson abstained due to his son being employed at the Saturn Dealership.). Chair Peterson informed the applicant that this item will be heard by the City Council on November 25. 7. Staff Reports/Information Items Planning Associate Ericson provided an update on Planning Case No. 460-96: Auto Central which was heard at the October 7, 1996 meeting. The property is owned by Norwest Bank. There are now two different parties considering the property for an auto servicing businesses, and the bank is also talking with the City about buying the site. The application is on hold at this time. Director Sheldon informed the Planning Commission of items that are scheduled to be heard at their next meeting: the variances on signs for Paster Enterprises and for Saturn Development, a lot split request from Larry Beach, and a draft of the telecommunications ordinance. • Mounds View-Planning Commission November 6, 1996 41) Regular Meeting Page 10 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner Reports Both Commissioners Obert and d Miller attended the Council work session on November 4 to represent the Planning Commission regarding communication between the commissions and the City council. Commissioner Obert commented that Commissioner Miller made a very good presentation but that the Council was unresponsive and he expressed his concern with the communication problem. Director Sheldon suggested that this item be discussed at the retreat that will be scheduled between Staff and the City Council. Commissioner Johnston brought up a concern regarding the conditional use permit that was approved for Colonial Village Mobile Home Park approximately one year ago which allowed them to sell homes. He indicated that this permit should be coming up for review soon. He informed the Commission that he has received complaints regarding the permit and added that there were people in the park that were unhappy about it. 9. Attendance at Agenda Meeting: Chair Peterson noted the members present at • the October 23, 1996 special meeting: Commissioners Miller, Obert, Brooks, Stevenson, and Chair Peterson. (Commissioners Johnston and Brasaemle had excused absences). Planning Associate Ericson was also present. 10. Adjournment . There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director