Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-20-1999
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION S . October 20, 1999 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 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. Approve Minutes: a. September 15, 1999 5. Planning Case No.559-99 Property Involved: 2670 County Road I Discussion regarding a development review for a two-story, senior assisted living residential facility. Applicant: MSP Real Estate 6. Special Planning Case No. SP-074-99 • Discuss proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code related to driveway widths and curb cuts. 7. Staff Reports/Items of Information a. Billboard Update b. Previous Council Actions 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • • AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. Review Minutes --October 6, 1999 • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1999\10-20-99.REG • • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: October 20, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 559-99 Request: Development Review Petitioner: MSP Real Estate Location: 2670 County Road I PIN Nos. 07-30-23-11-0040 Zoning/Land Use: B-2, Limited Business Commercial/Vacant land Applicable Regulations: Section 1006.06, Development controls Section 1103.09, Lighting and Glare Section 1104.01, General zoning provisions --yard requirements Section 1104.02, Area and building size regulations • Section 1109.04, Subd. 2, CUP requirements Attachments: Zoning Map Location Map Site Survey--Existing Conditions(Separate Attachment) Site and Floor Plans, Elevations (Separate Attachment) Landscape Plan Lighting Plan, Photometrics (Separate Attachment) Fixture Specifications Background: The applicant, MSP Real Estate, has requested approval of a development review for a two-story senior assisted living complex to be located at 2670 County Road I. The applicant has an agreement to purchase this site from the property owner, M&E Realty. The City Council has approved the conditional use permit for this development (Council Resolution No. 5345 attached for reference) and Ordinance 631, the ordinance which rezoned the property from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential. This ordinance is also attached for your reference. One of the requirements of the approved CUP is that the applicant get approval of a Development Review. The building will have a maintenance free exterior will brick accents on the first floor. The • applicant has submitted an architectural rendering of the proposed building, which will be on display for your meeting. r MSP Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility Planning Case 559-99 October20, 1999 Page 2 Analysis: Dimensional Requirements: Building Setbacks: Required Proposed: Met ? Front (Co. Rd. I) 30 feet 30 feet Yes Front (Mounds View Dr.): 30 feet 25 feet No Side (SuperAmerica): 40 feet 85 feet Yes Minimum lot width: 100 feet 190 feet Yes Minimum lot area: 1.0 acre. 1.62 acres Yes Building height: 45 feet z'35 feet Yes Parking requirements: 31 spaces 31 spaces Yes The site plans show that the building encroaches into the setback at the most southern corner of the building. Staff has asked for a clarification of this, in that previous site plans did not show any encroachment. This topic will be addressed at your meeting. Drainage: The applicant has not yet submitted for review a drainage plan to show how stormwater runoff will be accommodated on the site. This will either be presented to you at the time of your meeting or • will be included for your next meeting. The drainage plan will be reviewed by the Director of Public Works to ensure compliance with the City's Local Water Management Plan. Landscape Plan: In Section 1103.08 of the City Code pertaining to Fencing, Screening and Landscaping, it states that the lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, sidewalks, driveway, building and other requirements shall be planted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable vegetation or materials generally used in landscaping. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which has been forwarded to the City Forester for comment. After review, Forester Wriskey recommends that the following changes be made: • Eliminate"Buckthorn" from the plan. • Change"Crabapple" to either"Pink Spires" or"Snow Drift" Crabapple. • Change"Seedless Ash" to "Patmore Seedless Ash". In addition to these changes, the landscape plan will need to be revised to show the total number of plantings by species. The plan should also be revised by indicating all non-impervious areas shall be sodded. The plan shows that the garbage dumpster enclosure will be screened by plantings. Parking and Access: There are 31 parking stalls shown on the site plan, the amount required in the approved conditional • use permit. Two of the stalls are handicap-accessible, which satisfies ADA requirements. There MSP Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility Planning Case 559-99 October 20, 1999 Page 3 • are two accesses to this site, one on County Road I and the other from Mounds View Drive. It has been discussed that the access drive from County Road I be marked as an"exit only" to prevent any attempted dangerous cross-over access from the west-bound lane of County Road I. This should be further discussed, and if it is the consensus of the Commission, the resolution will include a stipulation requiring such signage be added. Utilities and Easements Utilities are available to this site and no easements will be required to be dedicated for this project. There is an existing utility easement along Mounds View Drive in which the telephone and gas lines are buried. A storm sewer is located on the site in the County Road I right of way. Staff will present information at your meeting as to the sufficiency of the number and location of fire hydrants available to the building. Currently, only one hydrant is directly available, that being in the County Road I right of way. Another hydrant is located across Mounds View Drive, although it is about 130 feet away from the building. Staff will have the Fire Department review this plan and make any recommendations. Signage: The site plans do not indicate any signage. Staff has made a request that the applicant supply such plans if any are available. The conditional use permit approved by the City Council allows for signage not to exceed 32 square feet, not including any incidental signs, such as directional signage. 1111 Lighting: The Lighting plan and photometric analysis show that the footcandle readings are within required limits, though the readings do not extend to the centerline of the adjacent streets (County Road I and Mounds View Drive.) Readings at the property lines adjoining these streets do not exceed 1.0 footcandles. The light plans do not indicate that any building lighting will be used--staff will verify that this is the case and will address changes if any at your meeting. General Site Plan Issues The site plan indicates a sidewalk in front of the building and along the west side of the parking lot. This sidewalk connects to the sidewalk on County Road Drive, but does not connect to anything on Mounds View Drive. One of the issues discussed during the CUP process and rezoning was that a sidewalk should be installed along Mounds View Drive. The site plan will need to be revised to show a seven-foot wide sidewalk in this area, however before construction can occur, the applicant will need to notify the utility companies. The site plan shows the proposed location for the dumpster area--noted only as"trash". The plans will need to be revised to show the construction details of the enclosure. The building elevations will also need to be revised to show dimensions--specifically the building heights. The scale as shown in the elevations is not accurate and will need to be corrected. • MSP Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility 4 Planning Case 559-99 October 20, 1999 Page 4 • Conclusions: - Staff has indicated to the applicant that the following things will need to be revised and corrected before the Planning Commission can take action on the development review request. (The Planning Commission may add other requirements to this list as may be appropriate.) • Eliminate the building encroachment • Submit garbage dumpster enclosure plans • Revise Elevations to indicate building heights and correct scale • Revise site plan to show location of sidewalk • Provide drainage plans • Provide signage plans • Revise landscape plans as indicated herein These issues will need to be resolved prior to the Commission's next meeting on November 3, 1999. James Ericson, Planning Associate • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\DEV-REV.PC 1 1110 r , -• I I s.4 IN i NV 0 7876 Z"- 7885 7866 7867 7870 7869 7858 03 03 N 0 B-2 co 7870 uaZ 7877 7854 7851 7860 7865 Br- , 4" 7850 7855 B .. A (1. > 7863 ortaz 7841 • , 7840 7835 777888454026. I.'i 777888425913 777;01:71 , 4 mi 77883200 c2. 7815 4:-3 , 7790 7815 7800 R-4 ,,NI MICE(1) 0 7805 0 7780 > 7770 ° 7801 '7760 7750 -cx i 7800 7800 'Z — / B-2 I Lu 7751 n5o 7787 e p R-4 7801 tu '7777 •.(1;:k0001,ta, 4, 7767 7760 (DIX 7741 7740 ---- ' 410164 ct) 7767 — 9( _ cv _ 7761 7750 7731 7730 7753 0 7801 1 N 7755 7730 7721 7720 ______ —2 7739 B-2 '7745 '7710 7711 772c inothiv, ----le;i 7715 ro. °co - ' 7700 770 s • -• N N ,ilrarliFT C •' .'....•::::::::::..... : : : : : R-2 .. .... *:::::11111111wr— ,,... • 7692 cV if?" PUD 7690 R frGo 8_3 1411'1-W" 1::P V2 ' P2 'i' . CO 2549 .-.Z 2547 --I's 758 768 i fi ol in cv 768c LIJ Y 2545 . 5 8-4 2541 g-3 I, • 2539 2537 -11 It' (c J SILVER VIEW N , 1 c:0 , 4 434P ,A)cn rcAir 4 p B- 0 2 k l'.44 N N PARKt- 0 mi r,-....-- '' cv N - N -I-' N 46'111 le) ILI 41111..... -d :1.0 0) > (7 0 —2 Ce .. ,....03 .1.I to ...,/, .../ 0) • N c4 ''',41frk, ••••. '552 ' 1 co .o 0 in r0 ,AI c4 01 o* c° '550 roj N N CNI C'l C4 ii CA (13 o 0 co '542 PF • 7:.r) oc4 co--•c., ...e. '540 , .-• 0 .r.-a.Lo.'''' cm 0 '532 110.rs-i N "I's Noi lif" c7i a . co ow 0,1 - co cs) o Y.; 0 cp co 0 LO 522 ...CNI %/1/riammidimpopltl° cola 0 IT)-'.. N ik .. , , F...,....y.::::z.:.:.:::::-E.-:/.............sx.:.:::::!:.,..... ___ .,:re, 'i::::::5R-i:::::::±N::::::0:7,:•:::"'"-*...-•::.•:;:::D:::::::%:;;::.:3:.:.:.::1::.:-:',1K5.:.:::::::::it:.:::•:•......:.!:.j.g.....::::z.T.2.::::::.i.....-;.:-;;;:::.::.::.:::::i.:::.:::;i::-::.:;;I:::::.::::if::;:::..:::.• ,D3 ,2 111111 7444 01111 ''.•'..::,:::.a2:::::::;.'2"vklMri --.-..::.:::.::;•::::::::;,:::;;;;F:7:,./,1-7:,:...:•;:::- .3::.::,:::4.::::::;;;;::::•k::::.::.t.::.:•,0::::::::.1:2:::::::::p icA 2 ti cc 7442• PA 11121 Ili mat!/7401 '..-:•....::::: ""'""•'-'•:::: ""--"------ ".',,H,F,•:•:•::::::.••::,.:.:ici,F.'•:.. ........--,.... PF •—•-••••••::.i....F.,x.......m.-........:.:,...12...,,....yi,F.ii.x.:.F.:?.?:::,.... .,.............. 7408 7390 :: •-• ? * 74°. 41 ::-....';.• -...posmw.ui.ci•cwpmpm•••iw•owPNONIIIIIIIIII.IIIIIIMIIIIIIIMwk----. •Ri- .gt h h N N ii, ilifr 7329 :::.:•..zif' 1 - . - . MI ......:,:::::::Y a ,.- co el 7390 -Fii.Y,... co to to to (i3 to •. MEI H•DG trial -4 .2-..y (0 N in N N • r.- • 7. esmilim . 7350 Ersi, 111111LIVII illipt ....::::•:..'::::..K.T Pi c•1 °3 o in ISE; 735' 1,93 iii.S-- tr°1111 Zif::::;:::,::.:K o co co 03 c0 2,0, N CN1 73.13 ........::::::::z-... (...... 7144. -rxca l''' ,7;:74.,:e.....:-:42.•:,:. 0 Zoning Map Planning Case 559-99 Applicant: MSP Real Estate Location: 2670 County Road I N i) . City of Mounds View • Location Map 0 mi 1 / N./. 16.-INN° 11. Imo 111 in ......mmos iiiiiE. „111 NNW NEN 44144#441111110, • IN NI „...1. I I I Am 111M11,_. .... 111111111- 1.11111111"."- PV'M . ."41P..4.!:1051 W ''.',11:':•0' 1111 -- - , ,,Sy:',T, '.15'.;:,.",,,S,g, '51$,S,...' , , . 4:413 s% `'.;',5W is., q:,,,,V>''' ,;1,,, _ 2670 County Road II1 -:,,v,,, -0 f0f*, OA V;$0.64 ', •%>ii.,:%>W::if 4 4' •`. 'A'4,1'1::,•::,. .,<,•' .•,'''''•,* •,L,a....• ..s.'.'. < •.;5,,..: •,>•;.;..,-,..:,..•.5'.-.•;•0.,",Q.1'.;," . 2...,..pi' ;'.' 4.N.l.a, c„.;f., ,,, ,4 .. ..,....,,..;....,,,.....„.3....,.., <..43 PTI, •"..50<,,,Sfl , ,:,,1,,...•A.; .,4 1..." ,.',5-,is5, ":0.1.0..fr Z.,..2X.?.5 ,,,:'i,,.-5,''. ...',5..'.H.`50,i'V ,4. 4.p,kl: '' • 44 ___ 1.,3:•,t•t„..!..1„:!,,!!:•?!;.,::0,ci, ,,,,ykal I, ,,,......,,„,:..:,„,!„,...r1.,,,,,,„,v.. • . , „, ,,,,,„>.';£MMAX0A ,^<, 1.f•••`,M,..si:',,,A.,:n, ,-,, , 01.11'110 14 :1,,,, ,..':$4..f.:VS{:Vs1V, ,L...:',...£,V5.,:,04,,,',,,,W./....; 1111tt,'COM6404430 ,,,,,,,..... 431Pv,,q:, • rilinfe4d,...A.ax 424,..K..4a,:va,1:111,00W3,50kill • I giliP12.12-411iiiiHntliNittlalattiMP401 , L) mow, epoWq g Wfm&m,,403,44MAI miumsw —__ ,—_ atilizt!,f-:Yo.•,.vkl.r4..,$,,.2.4:=0,t.',W06r..,•.-..$4m4r..:* Pi'..i&Agd.44R-0;07,61411*40MergWO•PW aqui 4•?,=.a.opmwst 4i: m::::'$-,'•::',0m,•7•••:;,:; 0,..* — mon ovirk.:11 ill =111,06111 • -,00,ge — No u 1 J atiovaNi i ,go" _ _ _ Aegioq _ _ 16... IMMO mar,,,,f,,,,,,..x.,, _ „.,S..3.- 4," --.— ME ..—.—.----•-•— •-- . --.--r--- . 1 • ,...-. Numma ow _ mximarovamm_aucang nano IN Ems ismAg _ . ... 2. -11 itliimil _ ...... 1 • ,.....,..._ ,.,...i.wri nm_ - / ---_,. . la=.-..,..-..r.=6. .., i FS iii I-14 F.-ME EF.E.5 I 1"g-il --9 g g.t.--g•i i -...1- - :41 la Ill II L..-E SEE a S.F.a MSP Real Estate r:i'....• .••.••...minim— =111.1111111i - ---. Ir.ai&FQ:'•NE11111 Illirsig 1109 2670 County Road I 44-4,MEM'NW, m•..,,,,,.., r`,-....41 MOM 2 111112 mataiiiii: Conditional Use Permit and Rezoning 111111/411111111 Planning Case No. 559-99 and 560-9? i . i szeri*IMII'"„?.1,,,,,,,,lin 111111111111111111 if...?... l:-.1-141.,9,1,..P111 Ir7inglImilm Kat-—_gi...!-.2 it. 1.6115..1 !lilt ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,immiumen ., ...,a6..41.7.F. ., :"." trimm74.4•I,,,,,,mumil 2670 County Road I .......... No f. .>•F:f '%, ig-ig ;:... -ri .,,f, ,'"i-nr,'.‘ i- - &AI; ,,,,:w:\•§,-,a.,, , :1= ri:A•• _,,,,,, is- ./11114= .ft:6k,N1,,,M Properties Within 350' • =====---:-.11:114. / .11111111111 .---...-..-?.=.1. zalk:.•> ;1111i iiIIIi:::aii ..v.:•...i..; MINIM: INA Mg .c=:.1111111E 'IL; T]4,,„ • IIIIIPE-:an on r:!!!!!! 11 ti-liP IBM :;„ I 11111111 am.. ...11. '011111111111, lie L'Ilill • ill 1 1.111111111:11MMMililiiiiiMMMMERIIIIIIIIkilliir IIII Ira . mit , II A a 1- k .v I. 6, M t2 ,•• '''''`.................................) i _ 4 y H' NI 1- ' n 4 .t p Ilq N 8 w n 1 ` s ci i �. 0 . I 1 ie,, . 10 - . .4110 --co c k a l; t! 23r c 3 - � ON Q.l ti t w h in m a°' /O , tel. nt 4 " 1 ' Q N �`''A n 17 O i O O i l A I i •e//' a In i ` .yam/ \\ ahryo� • 41tU_LLLI I \"--\\\/ '/' - a e ` 1 \ s' / ♦ ,f.14 � ti' im Ial 1 -'V a m� LLl U ,\ 0 1 ;Uf a I Ie . ,0 IQ SFk3 r O I2 1 11 ..--% * . --...,,, 1ii`ja, OJn ' g ID o` I I Ni0 oe, _or 1\. is , .0 ,, ,i i �, , / • 0, . •,„ c:, 1 , P" - 111, ei fJ O • r t �1 \ f i�� o / 4% ` ryo^`' / •�a� / >___ d , .. , ..... poo ../ Alp , . , . ___.. ,0 ,_-ID e, 7- , ci. , z tiM �9�10 / tnl , D / 9!Y6 £,b01— / ... / / / / e i 4 . 1 -_______ Q R I N 5. o � a J) Cel 0 TY6- c, 2"ADJUSTABLE FITTER CF3-16 16" (406 mm) CUTOFF FLOODLIGHT SERIES -Housing. Reflector. \�.\ • . � .. de cast aluminum. semi-specular ��\� - ' • ..;,. 'C .4 Finish color.bronze. dtfuse aluminum. \ a. / a Ballast / Capacitor \ t31:;1 \V T.� Igniter \ 0�6 6S l (where required) \,... x 225'(57mm) -�/1\ 1 wiring ` 1 ;' _ Y. Chamber ,\ `%'r (Included) - 4741 '� lampholder tgoW _W j _ 1 31.(89 n""' llast Coampaps rbneM Lens Frame. Cover Die cast aluminum AdfustabIFitter. Set Screws - door frame secures Die cast aluminum knudde Patented lens;sealed with is sized for 2'pipe(2-3/6'[60 mml 0.D.). Hinge silicone gasket Finish cdor;bronze. Assembly Finish color,black SPEC# WATTAGE CATALOG# (a)VOLTAGE SUFFIX KEY (b)OPTIONS(factory installed) UNI-FORM"PULSE START METAL HALIDE M 120/208/240/277V(Standard) -(a)F Fusing 150W PSMH CF3615-(a)(b) T 120/277/347V(Canada Only)(Standard) -(a)H 2-Level Lighting e (120,277,347V) 200W PSMH CF3620-(a)(b) 1 120V -5P External Photocell(for 480V) 250W PSMH CF3625-(a)(b) 2 277V Q Quartz Standby 320W PSMH CF3632-(a)(b) 27 277V(PSMH Only) (includes 100W quart lamp) 350W PSMH CF3635-(a)(b) 3 208V (N/A on 277V Reactor ballast) 400W PSMH CF3640-(a)(b) 4 240V U Uplight Lens Frame 450W PSMH* CF3645-(a)(b) 5 480V Specify(a)Single Voltage-See Voltage Suffix Key. METAL HALIDE 6 347V(Canada Only) ID 175W MH CF3417-(a)(b) For voltage availability outside the U.S.and Canada,see Bulletin 250W MH CF3425-(a)(b) TD-9 or contact your Ruud Lighting authorized Intl Distributor. 400W MH CF3440-(a)(b) HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM 250W HPS CF3525-(a)(b) e 400W HPS CF3540-(a)(b) e Specify(a)Voltage 8(b)Options. *Consult factory for availability. C 2-Level Lighting available.See Technical Data Sheet TO-8. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ELECTRICAL FINISH Sharp cutoff luminaire for HID lamp,totally Fixture includes clear,medium base lamp. Exclusive DeltaGuard®finish features an E-Coat enclosed.Housing is seamless,die cast Pulse-rated porcelain enclosed,4kv rated screw epoxy primer with medium bronze acrylic aluminum.Aluminum die cast adjustable shell type lampholder with spring loaded center powder topcoat,providing excellent resistance fitter mounting is sized for 2'pipe(2-3/8' contact.Lamp ignitor included where required. to corrosion,ultraviolet degradation and [60 mm]0.D.).Allows for directional aiming as All ballast assemblies are high power factor and abrasion.The finish is covered by our 7 year well as 2-1/2°incremental vertical adjustment. use the following circuit type: limited warranty. Contains integral wiring compartment.Two Reactor(277V PSMH) stainless steel set screws provide clamping (150-450W PSMH) ACCESSORIES to vertical tenons. Lens assembly consists of BYO-16 Wire Guard rigid aluminum frame and high impact,clear CWA—Constant Wattage Autotransformer temperedglass. (150-450W PSMH;175W-400W MH; LS-16 Polycarbonate Vandal Shield P 250-400W HPS) (not for use with fixtures in uplight position) PC-1 Button Photocell LABELS (for fixtures set to 120V) ANSI lampwattage label supplied,visible duringPATENTS PC*6 Button Photocell tto PA {torfixturessetto347V) relamping. UL Listed in U.S.and Canada for wet U.S.4,689,729;5,451,843;4,709,312 PC-2 Button Photocell locations and enclosure classified I P65 per (tor fixtures set to 208,240,277V) IEC 529 and IEC 598. PGM-1 Ground Mount Post SBL-16 Backlight Shield • rM 9201 Washington Avenue Racine,Wisconsin 53406-3772 U.S.A. PHONE(414)886-1900 FAX(414)884-3309 RU U D C Ruud Lighting,Inc. Printed in U.S.A. http l/www.ruudlighting.com 7/15/99 LIGHTING M Advanced udeoa T.111d..CMgq 7-Y,6-• CG' CF3-16 2'ADJUSTABLE FITTER SERIES 16" (406 mm) CUTOFF FLOODLIGHT .P.A. RATING Isofootcandle plots show initial footcandles at grade.(Footcandles+0.0929=Lux) E.P.A. 1.27 for single fixture with 20°tilt(Consult factory for E.P.A. rating on multiple units or other tilt angles). 100'80' 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 100 80' 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 180° 150° 120° 160' i 48.8 16048 8 ,'■,�,.,. 140' ; + 42.7 140' � ` 42.7 ,�I II�•10. 120 ' +.-._.__.-,-..._.._ 36.6 120 ....._..._..< t , ._......_ _.. 36.6 `` /1 ell. illIlk 1 +. _.+.._.----- 30.5 100 +_ 30.5 �l .._, .t r... + 24.4 80 24.4 • �.� 60'.__.._..- ....... Y.. >.._W _-_... 18.3 60 -._.._ 18.3 • '�`,.• 12.2 '10000 `,i_'' • :.(i).... . ... .t 6.1 2a 6.1 V--V. 2a 20000 ...♦ 60° ,.__ _-_._. 6.1 20' +.....i '6! 6.1 40' 12.2 40 122 305 244 18.3 122 6.1 0 m 6.1 122 18.3 24.4 305 305 24.4 18.3 122 6.1 Om 6.1 122 18.3 244 305 Lighting Sciences,Inc. Isofooteandle plot of 250W MH Cutoff Isofootcandle plot of 400W MH Cutoff Certified Test Report No.LSI 4948 Floodlight at 25'(7.6 m)mounting height Floodlight at 30'(9.1 m)mounting height Candlepower distribution curve of 400W MH and 20°vertical tilt.(Plan view) and 20°vertical tilt.(Plan view) Cutoff Floodlight at 20°vertical tilt. 100' 80' 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 4a 60' e0148.8 160' 80' ea 40' 20' 0' 20 40' e0' 80'100'49 48.8 tso° 150°, 120° 160' `,,,,,,' ,, 140 .._ .,--.-_ 42.7 36.6 140'-----AdaLl 42.7 '', 36.6 .. 120 r.._ . _ .. __ 30.5 120 30.5 �� 1 . 100' + 4 i Y....... QO S 80' _ 24.4 80' 24.4 • 90' 60' • 1 • 18.3 60 - 18.3 , illiprIV"riuui 40 _..... - ... ..__.. 122 44120' 0 122 6.1 ) 6.1 /20000` ., 0 .- _..__--- 0 m oCID o m e «\ 40000 so° �. 12.2 40' ' ' 12.2 0° 30° X 305 24.4 183 122 6.1 0 m 6.1 122 183 24.4305 30.5 244 18.3 122 6.1 Om 6.1 122 18.3 244 30.5 Lighting Sciences,Inc. Isofootcandle plot of 250W HPS Cutoff Isofootcandle plot of 400W HPS Cutoff Certified Test Report No.LSI 10692 Floodlight at 25'(7.6 m)mounting height Floodlight at 30'(9.1 m)mounting height Candlepower distribution curve of 400W HPS and 20°vertical tilt.(Plan view) and 20°vertical tilt.(Plan view) Cutoff Floodlight at 20°vertical tilt. 417,./, Dote Spacing Example Data ili / Average Initial Light Levels at Grade 4 Fixtures per pole Test area is centered within a(16)pole layout (Footcandles+0.0929=Lux) Catalog ft Lamp Type Lamp Lumens Mounting Height Max.Recommended Pole Spacing Footcandles Lux CF3417-M 175W MH 12,000 15'(4.6 m) 75'(22.9 m) 6.06 65 20'(6.1 m) 100'(30.5 m) 3.62 39 CF3425-M 250W MH 20,000 20'(6.1 m) 100'(30.5 m) 6.03 65 25'(7.6 m) 125'(38.1 m) 3.45 37 CF3440-M 400W MH 32,000 25'(7.6 m) 125'(38.1 m) 7.75 84 30'(9.1 m) 150'(45.7 m) 5.75 62 CF3525-M 250W HPS 28,500 20'(6.1 m) 100'(30.5 m) 9.45 102 25'(7.6 m) 125'(38.1 m) 5.39 58 CF3540-M 400W HPS 50,000 25'(7.6 m) 125'(38.1 m) 9.45 102 • 30'(9.1 m) 150'(45.7 m) 6.89 74 TM RUU D 9201 Washington Avenue Racine,Wisconsin 53406-3772 U.S.A. PHONE(414)886-1900 FAX(414)884-3309 LIGHTING ©Ruud Lighting,Inc. Printed in U.S.A. http://www.ruudlighting.com 7/15/99 An Mvaa<d 1{yonp 7edlook tt(Wpary CLEAR LENS—FLAT TOP HC ` ROUND BOLLARD SERIES N08.87'(225 mm) /,.--IoaeityoPpa inted +Specular Upper e \ ,// �R. Clear Reflector 5.5"(140 mm) Acrylic Lens Die Cast Aluminum Lens Main Collector \\n..��\mss\ RetainingRin Reflector With doble 9- silicone gasket. Finish color,bronze. (Included) lull 36 (914mm) . , Lam Idem •• s to ignitor % .�, ' ' ;::. ,,, (Where required) L I Ballast .5 1 Capacitor - Epoxy Coated Steel Frame Housing. Extruded aluminum. - Base Plate. Finish color;bronze. Die cast aluminum. Conduit Entry flail/ Galvanized Steel IP_�Q Anchor Bolls. 3/8"-16x6"(152 mm) J `I L +1.25'(32 mm). SPEC# WATTAGE CATALOG# (a)VOLTAGE SUFFIX KEY (b)OPTIONS(factory installed) 13W Fluor. HC213-(a)(b) D 120/277V A 180°Shielded Clear Lens 50W MH HC405-(a)(b) (Standard:50-100W MH;50-100W HPS) -(a)F Fusing 70W MH HC407-(a)(b) M 120/208/240/277V J Tamperproof Lens Fasteners 100W MH HC410(a)(b) (Standard:50-100W MH;70-100W HPS) -(a)P Photocell 35W HPS HC503-(a)(b) T 120/277/347V(Canada Only) V Polycarbonate Lens • ' 50W HPS HC505-(a)(b) (Standard:70—100W MH) Specify(a)Single Voltage—See Voltage Suffix Key. 70W HPS HC507-(a)(b) 1 120V(Standard:13W FL,35W HPS) 100W HPS HC510-(a)(b) 2 208V 4 208V Specify(a)Voltage&(b)Options. 4 240V 6 347V(Canada Only) For voltage availability outside the U.S.and Canada,see Bulletin TD-9 or contact your Ruud Lighting authorized Intl Distributor. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ELECTRICAL FINISH Extruded aluminum housing supplied internally Fluorescent fixture includes a quad tube Exclusive DeltaGuarde finish features an E-Coat with a formed and channeled 16 gauge steel frame compact fluorescent lamp.HID fixtures include epoxy primer with medium bronze acrylic supports the electrical components and main a clear, medium base lamp and porcelain powder topcoat,providing excellent resistance reflector.Housing fastens to a die cast aluminum enclosed,4kv rated screw shell type lampholder to corrosion,ultraviolet degradation and base with four 1/4'-20 phillips flat head screws. with spring loaded center contact.Lamp ignitor abrasion.The finish is covered by our 7 year - Base is secured to concrete footing using included where required.All ballast assemblies limited warranty. provided masonite template and three 3/8'-16 x 6' are high power factor and use the following (152 mm)galvanized steel anchor bolts with circuit types: leveling nuts and washers.Suggested poured PATENT base:2'(610 mm)deep x 12"(305 mm)dia., Preheat U.S.5,105,347 depending on soil types and frost line in your (13W Fluorescent) area.A 3'(76 mm)dia.conduit opening is Reactor(120V only) provided in the base for ease of wiring.Injection (35W HPS) LABELS molded clear acrylic lens with specular collecting ANSI lamp wattage label supplied,visible during reflector attaches to the top of the housing with HX—High Reactance relamping. UL Listed in the U.S.and Canada for an over-lapping die cast aluminum retaining ring, (50-100W MH;50-100W HPS) wet locations and enclosure classified IP65 per held by two stainless steel alien flat head IEC 529 and IEC 598. fasteners.Two silicone lens seals prevent ACCESSORIES moisture from entering the lens,while a double HCL Louver lip silicone seal at the top of the reflector and TPS-1 Tamperproof Screwdriver III sealed lampholder prevent insects,dirt and moisture from entering the optical chamber. ��■ ,D "' 9201 Washington Avenue Racine,Wisconsin 53406-3772 U.S.A. PHONE(414)886-1900 FAX(414)884-3309 LIGHTING ©Ruud Lighting,Inc. Printed in U.SA. httpl/www.ruudlighting.com 7/15/99 MN/MOM'( oS TM. br....P+7 77'4' - f(c f HC CLEAR LENS-FLAT TOP SERIES ROUND BOLLARD • (Footcandles_0.0929=Lux) 3) At \1�►ij ♦♦0._ .., t , Atli 1all �A�' 900 �/ ���II,11 i I I�I�11;/' 1viili \\ 00111'I 'iiitoAi 1000 70 V.. t A;.... 2000wAc ..--- / -.1„sr Lighting Sciences,Inc. Ray Trace showing light distribution of Certified Test Report No.LSI 9728R patented reflector system. Candlepower distribution curve of 100W MH Round Bollard with clear lens. IIIIRound Bollard with clear,flat lens. Use this chart to determine initial Footcandle levels at grade for the HC Series top I ,' ,I I I :. I Lamp Lumens 50W MH 3400 1.79 4.38 2.33 .90 .36 .17 .09 70W MH 5600 2.95 7.22 3.85 1.47 .59 .28 .15 100W MH 9000 4.74 11.60 6.18 2.37 .95 .45 .24 35W HPS 2250 1.34 1.97 .94 .41 .18 .08 .05 50W HPS 4000 2.38 3.50 1.67 .73 .31 .15 .08 70W HPS 6400 3.81 5.60 2.67 1.17 .50 .24 .13 100W HPS 9500 5.66 8.31 3.97 1.73 .74 .36 .19 • TM RUUD9201 Washington Avenue Racine,Wisconsin 53406-3772 U.S.A. PHONE(414)886-1900 FAX(414)884-3309 LIGHTING ©Ruud Lighting,Inc. Printed in U.S.A. http/fwww.ruudlighting.com 7/15/99 r` 10/7/99 11:30 <1-800-236-7500 Ruud Lighting. Inc. Catherine Smith--RICK 2/2 r 6 HID RSeries Aldg t e f j Adjustable Hausieg l. 1> t•`'ig 'i0,:k:rii`:.::j}:2::t:: k. ?}::i?`. %i; i:;ti. di a an.. Irl[-It.trl d. ; 1 }`7�Y7ts;ic};;,:f iie,i: ;`::;; .k`•s YY.',•::: :::::, it0 j 4 IlS'S Up t01-318'in plaster :i • :a•'e'�:r � n3 `�>}:= frame:o accommodate d .ere . k:tic ame C G:Y3: c arterio r Y,kt•1 E •• e r 9 70 l�e� it 7ia I. :� iiing thicknesses.sse . ::z � <'is � i i}: v7 :?(vT tc� !Igain9ce.,gn. >ast 'i ' 3 k .tYc.. Oversized Junction n Box :>s�•k �i` :�iisparked a, a c.IGw•wata e. c' c• :tzki%ti• I 1 In n CI Designed�o r . m-hasty.. Hu. (High to _.r� Vis? <«> :;:;:�,z: mad L ! sir. v'. h:N^: cut�III. .Eie X12//90,.• :sit: �:k: l :77. g / Discharge; Ixr Es I_CI'3 z' J 1 ;0,i: ..\... . :kt[k:; YYkY: r^ e-•-'• it f it ncuc:G's r Factory • L -Y n X �• arm."G ,,�ttG ho i>.:-: •s•;r.;.,, :; ':O ITlisi..i .demand. a[Rp. :.kv ?::�.::•. wiled for 277V.Can be easily :`x0,: ,,.:,,:: new offer�>k,:, :�; ,• ;:k..7,.•;•,�:: tk..,: �: char d for 120V G e.at on. �...: 41-q• 7`•:^:•:::.:% r I' , cf e_I n ooth 92 °p rat x:, smaller ume � ,eg •gin:....,, '{ }t. i, f si:Y•+. melt •:list:,.}:; ...,�,.;•:: re .un anG e� .4 f•P, [,_sed •-:�::•:: i`, rc i ESS 'i 9 X>. : kkkkY ..L Halide !amps .: i 27"Ear Hau e ts i � '; ^ 1oH2f..a:bar i n a rs are �k�� :i7 > : standard Jrri-rlJ hnus 'n DC: �: t r�EtNDH h Prescu.pH rf . w� S}} ':o-::;`-}7: }k'�T•i``:i: lamps efficient and cn he 'I -ed on the sides 0,r Y :ii, ^'Gdu„m more lumens war. tr ecods of. e plaster frame. 44 And the H a lamps nave a r 0,. : d ?2t�`:k :.Y :i. T}}:.• + 4average ~hours. Thermal Protector r : Ri :t : ,rctoc.�fixture.fromo ��rn aatl[ g r NEC per r^ r, lampis used or. JT 3rn! col more`R. C� h ,a ev. :�1':til:•1 Yt` G i 45> I I I I .if insulation Article , 0-65 su a is i "tri'• o AJtCc t rYii 7:•yt•{. r P lauds Jik. I f d_t3, a tl efficiency, stl2 :7z:%: c -Y. :kik:' c c ..c�:ss r r• •in Iy-or k:t.hY :kY: C adr rtE.J �ta ed a :Y�Yi.k. .t ti rrn-cc G ) •AH`lace a ':iii: s�t�7 k:: I p•• t5:�. kY. P ?:: 'nlr -fix.^ �. I rEm E wnt. 3"of have a^e200 lams a p p 6714111-Urdu Information • a CP!of 65.arc a 5.300-15.000 Adjustable Socket Wattage/ - hour life. Lamp Type Description vans Camrog# Socket p ate is adjustable as ,xWANi HO 120/277 R?M05 ledevelopmertOf cw-Wattage reCuired forcifferentt'!Rs. 11:W MN H0 120/277 R7M07 Metal Hanoe lamps used wilt' 100W MH • HD ruse with ertins only! 120,277 R7M10 'open"fixtures allows our Labels 50W ITS HO 120,277 117505 ??18 and F30 trims to be U.. Housing is J^'_isted n the L'.S. L sled;o•use with 50.70 or and Canada fo damp locations 1WWHPHID 120,_7 ,2:312 0 alndfeed-tlroughwiring. it10wHPs Hrl(use w2hopen tnnsanlyi 120,277 R 0,'1: 1!AWPAH lamps. Aecesssries(Page 2D4) Catalog 0 T-Bar Clips(4i RTBC SES III Internal HID Ret ecriu 'eau Wet gill,Ri15,8iw) PPMDuaI•Voltage Ballasts Oversize t ;Iti1nRirg(7-7/e"c.d` /=OTR -- Iig�=eac1anCe.nig powerfaC:Cr (tori to use wdi 11t18) 120/277V ha last is Typal. encased and cottec.Internal [t•ermal protector is incuded. Lamp Included Tie appropriate din se or coate0 HID lamp s included n the C. nousing p•:ce and is shipped vn-1- Z R7P45 HD the t xture. H 18" 1 I Ballast Une Front I r' le r' ` / �: Amps Amps ` Cal7�' /i i\ -a r I !HID Total -.4111111 Amps l Nin®' „MI. -• i Housing Watts 120V 277V 120V 277V IJ piastteertram 6.43"— R;SDS 85 0.70 0335 0.65 30 dimensions:181 x 6.25"W 107507 90 1.00 0.50 0.6'2 0.36 CZ !07310 125 1.50 0.65 1.10 0.50 R714UF 72 0 ^.35 (1.65 0.30 i R7M07 94 0.53 0.27 0.35 0.37 j Ri M-CI 125 22 20 0.95 1.10 0.48 • !Trim Color Code:WH(White) Reflectors Nash Cede:RL'Speeder Dear).Go(SpecLler Gold) 'Battles Coles Code:WH(Whtel 8K[Biackl Accessories ...... Page 204 Photemetrics and Coefficients of Utilization .... ... .,..Pages 205-207 Cl • 202 10/7/99 11:27 (1-800-236-7500 Ruud Lighting. Inc. Catherine Smith-►RICK 2/2 7 K/'6 - 027 ( 6" Incandescent IC Economy Trims RT Series Lamps. Rag es166-158 0 . . . -,-::;;•'• •-,;',.:: • 40 Alumirarm Baffle Adjustable Eyeball Drop Opal Lens(plastic% Open Metal Trm Ring(A41);7-1/4'ad. Wal Ping(Wtp.7-?/8'od Pla.4ieTri-nRir.3 WI.7'7/t o.d hfi lTcm Ring('M1),7-1/4'od. Catalog 4 Lamp Catalog 4 Lamp Catalog 4 Lamp Catalog 4 Lamp 8126" 5DPAR30max P,T22 SG PAft2Drraz. R-1131441 40:413 max 8-111 7t8R3"umac "e,.peaty batfl=.:dor:MI or Bit NOTE Can be a...35-and rotated 359' !n:lJdes RI?P htemelTrim R3fleez:0,2041 UL Listed fx wet locations 410 R Lamp Asti actor(Airs le) Adjustable Eyeball Drop Opal Lens(aiaM) Plas!chlmRing rel 0,7-1;4'0.d. Wad Tarn RIM(WN:7-7,/8'od - h'kt?ITrim Ring(40-1i.7-73'od Catalog a Lamp Catalog a Lamp Catalog ii Lamp RT120' 5CPAR30max R73 753R/PAR3Cmu. 1-11a 4041S max. 'Speedy rads/Yalu.CL,GD or BK _ (Long tock) ;r:udes Ran teernai Trim Pailedu.:p 204': MOTE Cin be a rrr 35`and rotated 358` i% :A:::iii<' '::' ••r•-',:tl,.. :li}lii-ii*.:i..-- 410 Reflector(Alzatet Fresnel Lens(pass! Plasic?rimRng UN;7-114'o.d het-ITiim Ping(N4-0.7-7/3'ad. Catalog a Lamp . Catalog a Lamp • 8130' e0A19 naK. R-115 40A1S rex. 'meat'tedexx MU.Cl.or GD 'n:,.des R!TF.Inre:nal Min RefIe to,.0 21.34) • 40 , Albania Lens sass) Metal Trim Riro MI 7-76cd Catalog C Lamp X R"125 4C41,4 roc. In:lades RITR ntemalTrim Ref!edcr..p204', C Z;) • n I . -I Trim Ring Finish: Z WI-1(aite) Reflector Finishes CL(SpecLrar Clear) GD(Specular Gold) BK;SpectlarDal) f.f Battle Colors: ^; ori(lhtilej 1 5. 41 6K(Black) I y • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Subject: Proposed Ordinance 642 Date: Meeting of October 20, 1999 Background: Per the Commission's direction on October 6, 1999, staff has drafted Ordinance 642, and ordinance which amends the Zoning Code regarding driveways and curb cuts. The primary change relates to the width of a driveway in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Instead of the existing 35 foot wide limitation, this ordinance would allow for a driveway as wide as the garage, plus an additional 12 feet, or 35 feet; whichever is greater. The other change is to increase the maximum curb-cut to 24 feet from 22 feet. Staff was not sure if there was a consensus on that, so if the Commission would prefer to retain the 22-foot cut, that part of the ordinance will be omitted. • There is one part of the ordinance that staff would like some direction, concerning Section 1121.09, Sub 5e, concerning driveway widths and spacing on medium density residential properties. The current specifications staff feels are too restrictions, especially considering what has been approved in the recent past on Silver Lake Road. Instead of limiting the curb cut widths to 25 feet, staff feels 16 feet would be more appropriate. Similarly, instead of requiring a minimum spacing of 40 feet, staff feels that 20 feet would be more appropriate. However, this still causes problems for twin homes with side by side garages and separate driveways. Single family homes may have back to back driveways, perhaps requiring even a twenty foot spacing is unreasonable for twin homes? The other changes considered by this ordinance are of a housekeeping nature. Recommendation: Please review the changes contemplated by this ordinance and direct staff to make any further revision as the Commission deems appropriate and direct staff to draft a resolution recommending approval to the City Council. CT/!',t_e_.4 � l James Ericson • Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP074-99\MEMO 1.PC ORDINANCE 642 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1100, CHAPTERS THE COUNCIL OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 1100, Chapter 1104 of the Mounds View Municipal Code shall be amended by the addition of the italicized and double-underlined language and the deletion of the stricken through language in Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4 to read as follows: Subd. 4. Minimum Setbacks for Accessory Buildings, Driveways and Parking Areas: a. Accessory Buildings (detached from a principal building): (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-O: (a) front: no accessory building shall be located between the front of the principal building and the front lot line. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) 1111 (b) side: five feet (5') except the minimum setback shall be thirty feet(30') from any lot line abutting a public street. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (c) rear, including street frontages at the rear of through lots: five feet (5'). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (2) All other districts: a rot : no accessory building s a se oca es se e-n e on o e principal building and the front lot line. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (b) side: same as principal building. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (c) rear: same as principal building, except accessory buildings having four hundred (400) square feet or less and not abutting property in a residential district or a street, may have a minimum rear setback of ten feet(10'). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) b. Driveways: (1) Driveways shall have a minimum setback of five feet(5') from any lot line, • Ordinance 642 Page 2 S. except as permitted in Sections 1104.01, Subd. 4b and 1121.15, Subd. 2 of this Title. Driveways shall be permitted to cross a required setback area in order to establish access between the lot and a public street. Where a driveway would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit if required by the City prior to construction of the driveway. Drive aisles and driveways which are within the boundaries of a parking area shall conform to the setbacks required for parking areas. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (2) Driveways in existence as of the date of enactment of Ordinance 620 and which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue subject to the provisions of Section 902.02. Subdivision 2 and Section 1123.02, Subdivision 1(b) of this Title. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) ,(22 In the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, the combined width for driveway and attached parking areas shall not exceed thirty-five feet(355. or the width of f the garage plus an additional twelve feet(12). whichever is greater. c. Parking Areas: (1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O: 110 (a) residential uses: five feet (5'), except in the R-1 and R-2 districts, parking areas and driveways shall be permitted with a setback of one foot (1') provided the owner(s) of the abutting lot(s) indicates their permission on a form acceptable to the City. Where a parking area would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior to construction of the driveway. The combined feet-03517 (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590, 11-25-96; Ord. 620, 7- 27-98) (b) non-residential uses: five feet(5') except where non-residential uses abut property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from the common property line shall be as follows: (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) [I]. for sites having two and one-half (2.5 ) acres or less: twenty feet(20') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) [ii]. for sites having more than two and one-half(2.5) acres: • thirty feet(30') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) Ordinance 642 Page 3 S (2) B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 (parking areas and loading docks): (a) front: thirty feet(30') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (b) side and rear: five feet (5'), except where a non-residential use abuts a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from the common property line shall be as stated in Section 1104.01 subdivision 4c(1)(b). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (3) I-1 (parking areas and loading docks): (a) front: forty feet (40') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (b) side and rear: five feet (5'), except where a non-residential use abuts a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from the common property line shall be as stated in Section 1104.01 subdivision 4c(1)(b). (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (4) Parking areas in existence as of the date of enactment of Ordinance 620 • and which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue subject to the provisions of Section 1123.02 subdivision lb. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) SECTION 2. Title 1100, Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Municipal Code shall be amended by the addition of the italicized and double-underlined language and the deletion of the stricken through language in Section 1121.09, to read as follows: 1121.09: STALL, AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN: Subd. 1. Parking Space Size: Each parking space shall not be less than nine feet (9')wide and eighteen feet (18') in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be served adequately by access aisles. Subd. 2. Within Structures: The off-street parking requirements may be furnished by providing a space so designed within the principal building or one attached thereto; however, unless provisions are made, no building permit shall be issued to convert said space into a dwelling unit or living area until other adequate provisions are made to comply with the required off-street parking provisions of this Title. Subd. 3. Circulation: Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, Ill Ordinance 642 Page 4 • parking areas shall be designed so that circulation between parking bays or aisles occurs within the designated parking lot and does not depend upon a public street or alley. Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking area design which requires backinginto the public street is prohibited. Subd. 4. Dimensions: Except in the case of single-family,two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking areas and their aisles shall be developed in compliance with the following standards: Wall to Interlock to Wall to Interlock Interlock Wall Angle Minimum Minimum Minimum Dimension A Dimension B Dimension C 45° 44.8' 43.0' 47.0' 60° 52.5' 51.0' 54.0' 75. 61.3' 61.0' 62.0' 90° 63.0' 63.0' 63.0' • Parallel Parking: 22 feet in Length Subd. 5. Curb Cuts and Driveway Openings: a. No curb cut access shall be located less than fifty feet (50') from the intersection of two (2) or more street rights of way. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot lines. b. No curb cut access shall exceed twenty trona- our feet(22'24) in width for R-1 and R-5 residential uses. A thirty foot(30')wide curb cut shall be permissible for R-2, R-3 and R-4 uses, subject to requirements of subdivision 5e hereof, commercial uses (B-1 through B-4) and industrial uses (I-1). • c. Curb cut openings shall be at a minimum of three feet(3') from the lot line in residential districts and five feet(5')from the lot line in business or industrial districts. d. Driveway access curb openings on a public street, except for single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, shall not be located less than forty feet (40')from one another. e. Each property elevation of any parking area shall be allowed one curb cut access for each one hundred twenty five feet(125') of street frontage. All property shall be entitled to at least one curb cut. Single-family uses shall be limited to one curb cut access per property unless, upon application for a variance of this restriction, the Board of Ordinance 642 Page 5 Adjustment and Appeals finds that it is in the interest of public safety to waive such. • Medium density residential (2 to 6 units) may have two (2) curb cuts; provided, at each cut does not exceed twelve feet (+21 16), and that their surfaces are a minimum of forty twenty feet (40'20 apart. f Curb cuts in existence as of 10/11/99 that do not conform to this subdivision may remain in existence unless deemed by the Director of Public Works to be a danger or public safety hazard. Notices to abandon a curb cut may be appealed in writing to the City Council(ord. 640. 10/11/99). Subd. 6. Grade Elevation: The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five percent (5%). (1988 Code §40.07). Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in Subdivision 1104.01(4) of this Title, to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with a permanent, improved surface material as defined in Section 1102.02 of this Chapter, suitable to control dust, drainage and erosion, meeting the requirements of Section 902.053 of this Code except as follows: A gravel surface material meeting the specifications of Section 902.053, Subd. 5 of this Code may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R-2 District not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet or, if to be used as a parking surface for an RV, the minimum area that would encompasses the wheel-base area of one(1) recreational vehicle. Plans for • surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five (5) or more vehicles shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review, and the final drainage plan must receive the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's written approval. (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 640. 10/11/99.) Subd. 8. Striping: Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses, all parking stalls shall be marked with yellow painted lines not less than four inches (4") wide. Subd. 9. Lighting: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged so to reflect the light away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses and public rights of way and be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of this Title. Subd. 10. Signs: No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly operation and traffic movement within any parking lot. All signing must conform to the Mounds View Sign Code'. Subd. 11. Curbing and Landscaping: Except for single-family and two-family developments. • • •• • • • • . . • • ; • , all open off-street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot. The specifications and location of this curb barrier shall comply with Section 902.04 and with the setback requirements for parking areas stated in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4. Grass, plantings or surfacing materials shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. (Ord. 590, • 11/26/96: Ord. 640. 10/11/99.) Ordinance 642 Page 6 • Subd. 12. Required Screening: All open, nonresidential, off-street parking areas of five (5) or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts in compliance with subdivision 1103.08(6) of this Title. (1988 Code §40.07) 1 See Chapter 1008 of this Code. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of 1999. • Dan Coughlin, Mayor g � Y Attest: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney C:\OWECE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\ORDINANC\642.ORD • r PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION 5 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 6, 1999 Mounds V'kw City Hall 2401 Highway 10, unds .,MN 55112 1. Call to Order a The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peters.,t.,8.00 < Octobe 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissione ..erk. m %Johnson, Kaden, Laube, and Miller. , Members Absent: Commissioner Stevenson,%. ° d. , . -' Co : •ner Braathen, Leave of : . Absence. w • Also Present: Planning Associate Jittilricson, "•mmuni > -velopment Director Rick Jopke, Council Liaison Roger Stigney, an. order ' sh Pears§i'. y'�' Index to 'rtes Page J Planning' 0-99, ,: 'y`` .:1 Hillview Road. Consideration of Resolution 5.";:fr : -solutio " . a variance request to allow fora one-foot • Lei» `• ck. Jeff Johnso': `.plc , 2 d .s Pla ' Case No. 571- h 7 astwood Road, Consideration of Resolution 595y;! , a resolution rec. _ z,nding approval of a conditional use permit for a.;f z.-rsized shed. 0 Tammy Doroy Applicant. 3 ,H n amending the City Code to allow for driveways wider than 3 rr "''. 5 Staff Reports/Items of Information 9 IIIChairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 14 t Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda IIII There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. September 1, 1999 ?, , f,. Council Liaison Stigney requested a correction to the to •Itai iw:< presence at the September 1 meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Berke to approve the Auguit418, 199.4° eeting nn '` ted. 14:3,03,, : Ayes—7 Nays—0 The motion came.., 4r sifeAke 5. Planning Case No. 570-99 „� ,<-N,, Property Involved: 2075 & 2081 Hillview R _a, <` Consideration of Resolution 591-99, a resol appro . o } �` • i;uest to allow for a one-foot garage setback. ;, Applicant: Jeff Johnson A tee 0,, Ill „..„.„ . „ 0 , r7 The applican was not presee ->;. Plannin: c ; .to 9 Erics " staff re•I asf follows: .. "5 ryF The applicant 41,fm, ,N22 a redu p 0:::;I setback to allow for two garages to be located at 2075 and 2081 Hilly R g e sub °` ":perties are located on the eastern edge of the City, in an area com. 'Av. :' i `. four- ex dwelling units and a manufactured home park. The two separate p $ erties are : ` :`.:g .. ith four-plexes, and neither have garages: The applicant would like onstruct a three.. l r rage on each property, separated by one foot from their adjoining pro •' y line, which wo r=.uire a variance from the five-foot setback requirement. .,. g Associate Erb..'tin stated this item was before the Planning Commission at their last meeting 6' •tuber 1 ' 4 9, at which time, there was discussion regarding a possible hardship. Staff . -. g• .ship exists at this location, in that the slope of the property to the rear, and an e "gg s $°`g`ement located in that area of the property prohibits construction, as well as the placement of the buildings on the lot. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has reviewed the seven criteria presented for establishing a hardship to allow for a variance, and it appears that a variance can be granted based upon II hardship and practical difficulties of the subject property. He explained the topography of the Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 IIIproperty creates a situation that makes development where setback requirements could be met very difficult. In addition, the placement of the buildings on the lots does not allow enough room for a five-foot separation, and the property owner did not create the situation, but is simply attempting to improve the property. Planning Associate Ericson stated that based upon the review of the criteria, the app ,pant's presentation at the prior meeting, and the Planning Commission's directic` staff,`s s drafted Resolution 591-99, which approves the one-foot sideyard setback for ts-.;;.':t..iq;: t. He explained that the approval is contingent upon the applicant filing the. tions <": '`<: ssey County and submitting a revised site plan, which indicates the locatio A g g ftd,,,,,pe;L�.�'t`e ara e,�htt, allowed ::��with the one-foot setback, r > Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant has indi • -0 •es not expect t nce construction of the project during the current building se. ":. - - re, the item can •e tabled, however, staff believes that there are no unresolved issu ° `a`sfo . He stated staff is recommending approval of Resolution 591-99. " _ .. Chair Peterson inquired if the existing asphalt w a ` ` -s.aced int `' _,a'� locations. Ericson commented he would not expect this to be th 4. ., • ;- ';4j taff d.o` ��not yet have a site plan that shows the dimensions and location of •ve ' ...;r � ,:tr j, �d that a problem does exist at the site in that there is a telephone poli,,t • Ithe p<�.:�.- t,lfie, which makes the ingress III .. Z and egress of the property somewhat e �tcult. �.dvised . �`� ill review the revised site plan and any proposal to redo the asph... ':,ensur- at it co les with the City Code. He added this matter would be brought back bet:..%.- the Co ission i vz:ere were issues with the driveway and parkingarea, and this would. e , sidered,,,:,,,s,',.:,>t-:J � sm the garage issue. MOTI• :IsSE.; D: Jo t(.g :` ; e. To App‘ti a Planning Commission Resolution No. 591-99, a Resoluti .. `.< g a 4,; • Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4, of the Mounds View Zoning Code % - >.''0);*.,,to Seed.` , �,3<. •w For a Reduced Sideyard Setback for Garages at 2075 and 2081 :' . 8 •s.d; Mo' ,.. :l iew Planning Case No. 570-99. d ' Nays—0 Motion carried. rod' ,f 6,1: Planning Case.,0,b. 571-99 41' k.s .� v l.`; _Involves\ Q 0 Eastwood Road �),`9,�. ®'esolution 595-99, a resolution recommending approval roval of a conditional use p= • R §: • ersized shed. Applicant: Alan& Tammy Doroff IllThe applicant was present. Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: • The applicants, Alan and Tammy Doroff, have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 384 square-foot shed in the backyard of their home located at 8270 Eastwood Road. The proposed shed would be located behind and in-ground swimming pool on the subject property. Planning Associate Ericson explained that staff does not typically see requests flPh a large shed, and it was clear that the matter would require very clos!escrutiny?*otod staff has examined the matter very closely both in terms of the general,; teria f Tonal use permit for an oversized shed, as well as the adverse effects. "`` Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has been to the . <�..erty, Mich ..is a lare' �.:,...a tlialf an acre, and the majority of the lots in the surrounding • :: ' < ;re:::: .` same size. He <>'..•that because the applicant's have an in-ground swimming poo -s�. :a erty is enclosed by an eight- foot wood privacy fence, which offers complete screeninµ. z :..;;,:.y.+ and area from the adjacent neighbors, and staff had taken this into consideration u ® revs i pecific and general criteria. He noted that all of the dimensional require - s for this 't< : quest are met, in terms of setbacks and rear yard coverage for acc,- f "y.0. :''.ctures. ftixe dined, although the proposed shed is to be 384 square feet, it wo,,ireAs ,� , percento f the backyard area, and the Code requires that accessory buildings ° er noe x: :,:',Rel scent of the backyard area. He added that the total area of all access buildin4s on the< y is 864 square feet, which includes the existing 480 square-foot t '-carg• ``ge. or',„,, • Planning Associate Ericson state e etie speci quirem,.g ' for this type of use, and the general requirements I resented for any k :ditional < rk:-R, `.equest appear to be met. The adverse affects of tk ' z : e were ex,,a;: in ;n terms a, :=::`lie <'A-Hing that is provided with the fence, and the fact that.the ,' dosed sh` `' t be visit lex'o the neighboring properties. He added that this 'C . (S.• i ip/ use would`f of - the ccrtoS14,4f the propertyor the neighborhood, and would only serve to create addition,A >.ge spas`, .oft .perty, which currently only utilizes a very small metal shed, and a sma '�•ra e. `�" Planninm ° sociate Erir °.Nt does not appear that there are any adverse impacts presented with proposal, other;. ,_.16 size of the structure. He explained, however, the shed would not', utilized for vehicl .°t• •ge, or any type of business, but strictly as a storage shed of similar and constructio : . a shed which presently exists on a neighboring property. q5i4 4 Associae::Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 595-99, a resolution recommending - .: ditional use permit to the City Council. WDOSPREEry Commissioner Miller inquired if the shed would be the same size as the shed located immediately to the north of the applicant's property. Alan Doroff, the applicant stated the shed would be a slightly larger than his neighbor's, however, • it would be the same height. Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 1111 Commissioner Miller inquired if the last sentence of Page 3 of the Resolution should end with the word"typical," and the phrase"arguably uniform in appearance" be omitted. Ericson stated staff would delete the words following the word"typical." Commissioner Miller further inquired if language should be included on Page 4, Item 3 of the resolution to indicate that the existing shed would be removed. Ericson stated that a building permit would not be issued unless the existing shed was removed. Commissioner Miller inquired if there was a time frame for the removal,i:' - -`sting shed. Ericson pointed out that it would be necessaryfor the li o re :..: isting shed prior pP �� ,.:: ..xV to constructing the proposed structure, as it is to be const A • in the s9`lea:;° s; ' . MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Kaden. To Approve Res itjon No' •5-99, a °> • 115:.;,/ Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit t t�'„°•, i r an Oversize. .". oAlan and Tammy Doroff, 8270 Eastwood Road, Mounds Vie '<` tB0.Case No. 571-99, as `*` aa amended. Ayes—7 Nays— ‘1- bt;on carried. A404, 'Kx4i2v Planning Associate Ericson stated this item wry;; > iebef :;;fie Coun or' a public hearing at the October 25, 1999 City Council meetin• Y. • 7. Discuss 'options for amend :e 9< e Ci V>>ode to for driveways wider than 35 feet. P Y Planning Associate Ericson t • .t the Seo`=` r ' t 99 Planning Commission meeting, a resident of 4 ity had a•s : '1 • the Co� i o request a variance to allow for a 44-foot drivewa'.. < :`' Co• ` •rohibits a• veway in excess of 35 feet. He stated staff was directed t.:440,4", and after surveying a number of neighboring communities, t<$.; • that NO..•a 4w s requirements are on the more restrictive end of the spectrum in to • mu • of driveways and curb cuts. Plannin'.ssociate En' • ,: he City requires a maximum curb cut of 22 feet at the street, and • s one other city, ` - �' Is, requires a curb cut that narrow. Other communities require >y ; q q betV-n 24 and 28 feet, d e city of Blaine allows 30 feet at the street. He explained that most o!(11, communities su ed did not have a requirement in terms of the width driveways. Some £ • unities restrict..;s= width of driveways in relation to a percentage of lot width, one ity requi e driveway be no wider than the garage, and another community requires • surface coverage of the lot can not exceed 40 percent. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff is requesting direction to revise the City's 35-foot width requirement, to reflect more current times in which three-car garages are the norm. He explained that the Code was written during a time when single car garages were the standard, and it does • not appear unreasonable to staff to amend the Code to allow for wider driveways. He stated staff has proposed language which indicates"the lot width, driveways or parking areas shall not exceed Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 thirty-five feet, or the width of the garage plus and additional ten feet, whichever is greater." He III pointed out this would provide that residents with a single car garage can still have a 35-foot driveway, however, a three-stall garage can have a width of the garage, plus ten feet. He commented this appears to be very similar to what is allowed in other cities, with the exception that there would still be a limitation on the amount of driveway a resident could have, and it would not provide a blanket allowance on the width of the driveway. He explainedte City would prefer to strike a balance between that and a restrictive driveway Width. ,46ra Planning Associate Ericson stated if the Commission so des :.. tall :':. . r a.; ordinance that would reflect this type of change, or a similar change, in tent that flillt#01 ten-foot width is not sufficient. He noted this matter was open fa ; iscussion< i�aier: < ?:e e,..otherrI means to accomplish this consideration, they can be disaa ed as wed'' t �F � < ` IvIal Commissioner Laube commented that the ten-foot width : .' .•mmodate a semi-trailer. Commissioner Johnson noted, however, room would st i a re `'i, j i.open doors and walk around the vehicle, which, if eight feet wide, would r a a having 9 :< >:<:uf ng the curb or grass on the side of the driveway. He stated he would b: .of a twee = . t additional width. He added that being able to park a vehicle farther '.;,'':'4:(' > is ,wilding*ght be better from a fire and safety standpoint. <` ; Commissioner He land stated he waavor of .'' sie city ofd::.h• eview's requirement that theII/ impervious surface does not exceed:'::'`' ercen > vera a at a.,he lot, and did not see a need to be more specific than that. He come .ted that. City w ' ttempting to control the amount of ?C'Srn impervious surface and the curbwith the, l : :- e '#gip mctions. He noted that there are varied types of h iw ° 1� ithin the ,; E. :ity, and ; i . would be tied to the width of the garage :.. would .;> � ' stricti � PI; ld not s1V °any problems. Commissions 1.:0-.: •ted tha ,ey: ;: . to allowing lot coverage of 40 percent impervious surface would b -; a:_ .:ate= mpris :: . ;. rge lots, which could potentially pave half of their front yards. Co shone.,i. notediey could limit the amount of impervious surface. Commis'`:tier Johnsonj`'� ;'<...._ or 40percent impervious surface. .�� could indicate 12 feet, p wAso Pla .7, g Associate Ericst sated that a problem might exist for both residents and staff, in terms o _ < culating a 40 perc it impervious surface requirement. «; :> f,''•dded that this might also constitute a hardship for smaller lots, in that the FAr: , ,.x. ,re also considered impervious surface, and this would not leave very much af ` - of for the driveway. Ericson stated this could occur, and could.potentially result in a driveway that is smaller than that which is presently allowed by the Code. Commissioner Laube stated he was in favor of allowing the driveway to be the width of the garage, with additional footage to the side, which would provide uniformity. III Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 • Commissioner Hegland advised that all the lots within the City are not the same. He stated that the City Code should not be restrictive, but should cover the goals of the Code, which is more important than attempting to indicate a specific criteria, which would require judging each situation on a case by case basis. He reiterated that the goals of the Code are impervious surface and curb cuts. He added most of the lots that are wide, are also deep, and would require extra impervious surface simply to reach the garage. Chair Peterson stated the City has a large variety of lots, and it would b- . ° to set a standard that would fit all of them. He stated he had concerns regar.i. 40 p-`' eervious surface lot coverage requirement, in terms of the larger lots. Co :� ssioner Jo . ,3.z `.„, ome of the larger lots could potentially have a half-acre of asphalt. Commissioner Hegland reiterated that a maximum limit :; :::. $- et, related to this lot size. He explained he would like to find a means that wo':` ::<A-,.nt each request from having to be judged on an individual basis. .'r Commissioner Miller stated this matter had come fo • primari - :`>}-: .arking is prohibited on City streets, and people require additional pa., $* _i',' She in. < ,,,istaff's proposal was to extend the additional 10 or 12-foot width a e _.Y: q` i, Se curb , and then reduce the entire width to 22 feet. Ericson explained If has al :.a •,, t<t` ;c e, in that a resident could have a 35-foot driveway to the propertyInc. howls:, , at -:• .g between the property line III ' y :> and the curb, the width of the drivew=,;y ust be.A;:';uced to° eet. He added that a resident could potentially install a 35-foot i grivewa` o the prta&ty line, however, it was unlikely that a resident would wish to do so, i t •-. t of th-, ' ditional.>e ^pense. ' Commissio0 'ller inq ;,:-0 -'�. rding th- .; <: 'idth of a driveway for a three-stall garage. Ericson ° : o ' :° woul. ..- : . nor 36 feet, :riding that most driveways taper toward the street. k £” Commissioner I '�;1 `' 6 A '�$ how • i : " - Planning Commission had considered variances for driveways,, .:,10.4.e ^-° wears. ricson stated this did not occur very often. Chair Peterson added t ', t was more moo. of driveways being too close to the property line, rather than the a < a ance for the act . 4: ^ of the driveway. C. i, .ssioner Miller c.1% . ented that a specific width, with additional width available, would be `to administrate n a requirement based upon the percentage of impervious surface upon a g ^ . ' `oted in some long established neighborhoods, the residents are not aware of the exact ovation of their property lines. He stated that calculating a requirement based upon the percentage of impervious surface of a lot would place quite a burden upon staff. He explained that the impervious surface includes the structures on the site, and there are other measurements ID that would be required in order to determine the size allowed for the driveway. He stated the reason for the current maximum 35-foot width requirement was to keep the impervious surface Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 under control, and this appeared to be one of thegoals in the language ro osed bystaff. He 111 pP proposed stated he was in favor of the proposal as staff has suggested, with an additional width of 10 or 12 feet. Commissioner Johnson noted that basing the requirement upon the percentage of impervious surface might indicate to some parties that they could create a very large parking ar,...and this might present a goal for them to request the maximum percentage. Comssion :i€ egland stated the 35-foot requirement would not prevent this. He explained that ma .. :; tilizing the 35 feet plus an additional 10 to 12 feet, would approach the m. `:tm co .: , ay, as the City does not limit the length of the driveway. j Y IF w Fit;. Commissioner Johnson inquired if this type of re uirem would 14;05-united tort` `. P>°: ; oi o ,rte. �` ,� garage. Commissioner Hegland explained that a garage I4hree stalls wide < >=` set, and with another 10 feet, the driveway would comprise over' ,i.. ,,frontage of the lot. Commissioner Miller stated she was in favor of 35 feet$, the o °: .garage, plus an additional 10 feet, whichever is greater. ; . , :f w.« Chair Peterson stated for the parking of a bo..<" e" x, <$ :.an infre ;Vent basis, 10 feet would be sufficient, however, on a regular basis, $resents :.'::: y : ljti. Commissioner Laube added that if there is an eave on the garage; any go.. sized.;>...: ^r�could present a problem as well. He explained that an eave wou ke up 14 8 inche;STI`+a recreational vehicle, 10 feet 1111 wide, would have to park up to the;;:-;_ t in onto remai 1pon the blacktop, and this situation would require 12 feet. Chair Pete 6% tated he , Nv ortable*LAW> ' ` or the width of the garage, plus 12 feet, whichever -r. , Commissions ' °,• : ,sked i'ily...<`•'�.,. ,'ssion was to discuss a revision to the current curb cut requirement. : l 6 4ftwaapawqm, *, r:. Chair P .Zson stated i laiatio the other communities, the City's requirement regarding curb me cuts also on the rest .rde. C . ssioner° Miller a d Planning Associate Ericson if the matter of curb cuts had presented a t of ,m in the past. cson explained that staff had seen a greater amount of requests for from the. oot curb cut, than they had for driveways in excess of 35 feet. itesoKWg art oted a previous case in which a driveway was installed, and after the fact, a request was made for a wider curb cut, however, no hardship could be found, an a portion of the asphalt had to be removed. He commented in other cases there actually was a need determined for a variance from the curb cut requirement. Planning Associate Ericson suggested staff could draft an ordinance that contemplates adding the II Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 • discussed language, and bring it back before the Planning Commission for future discussion. He added at that time, the Commission could consider whether or not they desired to examine the curb cut. He noted there were other issues in the Zoning Code which required resolution, which will be coming before the Council, and this might be an appropriate time to review other issues which need to be addressed or made consistent with the Code. He explained that staff could include a clause in the ordinance that addresses the curb cut requirement, if so desir#iW however, the matter does not necessarily require resolution at this time. .4,— ........0. Commissioner Laube commented that the question of curb c = .could e.: ` self in terms of some smaller lots, for example, a newer house with a thre l garage ha ; mar to the street•s He explained that a 35 five-foot garage, with a 35-foot • way, tape }r g t' •::: `.. 3.,,the s reef. e, might not allow enough room to access the third stall o - gara::Ale .. `F �e state� ..�.< ::�:. ��, t would allow the property owner to angle the driveway d ` :..! •rovide easier a-:cess . e stated there were a few places that this may be a problem,* t a'ly in situations Where a structure is cleared from a lot, to allow for a new, larger > <<'' Ericson stated staff could approach the Public Works P;..artmen ; , ;�;:-.s•dew e if there are any issues that they have seen in terms of the curb cu ,.....w ommissrb::<>> oul discuss the matter further at their next meeting. - Chair Peterson commented that allowing:' wider d aPr ewa . • might result in a situation • where a resident would have to placeaer amo` ts of sn••“; •n either side, and the snowplow li would then have to push the snow,. ° ' .4nto t g;•riveway , Commissioner Hegland state; thiwould b-;: .,.o sing. He noted this was not an issue of abuse issu- „ .t rather a a..:< .;3•ractical'y. <:;:$: .ppeared that if a twelve-foot additional width w el,,at th- .i a ' would ma sense to have twice the curb cut as well. Chair Peterso' tpointed •ut that . :: r :`_` , pervious surface located in the middle of the t. property would Q _ o. e opilitiO: for stormwater runoff to soak into the lawn, however, a wide driv,.4:ay a '„. :ould a <w the runoff to go into the street. He commented that this might be : argument a.,-4.4t:,'- ding the curb cut. He note. st. ' s survey in.icate. t at a �, maxi”fin 24-foot curb c k:; * ement was the most common among the other communities. E �bn stated staff has >fficient direction to proceed with this matter. Aar -z: ._ z`' §:°Bits /Items of Information AritiftwoVgN,A. Theater Fence Community Development Director Jopke reported on the fence located at the theater property, • which was the subject of discussion at the last two Planning Commission meetings. He provided the Commission with a letter from Anthony Properties indicating that they were withdrawing their Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 request to move the fence, and will provide a fence connecting the buildings as indicated in the III existing Planned Unit Development document. B. Comprehensive Plan meeting schedule Community Development Director Jopke stated the Commission was requested to sdiedule study sessions for their review of the City's Comprehensive Plan. He noted th- rst dr.Etof the overall Comprehensive Plan is almost complete, and at this point, the entire do�`` t open for discussion, to insure it reflects what the Commission believe. �::; uld � : :��`:" : r the community. He suggested the Planning Commission consider the Wedr 'ays in Oc .J fr -t .,eduling the" study sessions. ;.:n;, <:: :: ' ': " s Commissioner Miller stated she would be out of town o$ ar: :;, :abs 7, and would tri to,,,.ilable for that meeting. '` fir'' He'. q '�':. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there were any signific. t cha" .draft plan, and if there would be sufficient time to review the document prio , q the first firitappke explained the Commissioners would probably receive a hand-d lz ":< ;spy the fol .::`i*Monday however, it yew`i-:�' :.; 9fia, would likely require more than one meeting t' :4i'e . .:hand-4900:91y and tl� ommission could take as much time as necessary for their review to '.0 're the. ' ` t ;; ab . with the document. �> ;�:,. Yom. .' on:F III Chair Peterson asked if the prelimina,;:. aps wot` �v . be avai in time for the first of the study t:i:,- sessions. Jopke stated he was unce. ' •howev;, the GI f. `'.nsultant had indicated he was presently putting the final touche ' ::' 'the mai He co 1. nted he had not seen the maps to date, and he believed they would :e v good, h. 'y°eer, . ay need to make some changes prior to iiia iiia their comp],- n. t>` Y lS f M•TIO ._ • Laub f Schedule Two Special Meetings to Discuss the � ... .:nom o��:. :p Comprehensi ,j'�° :: Octob- f .'.:: ,� .:: otober 27, 1999, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. ato:'::: ' 7`. Nays—0 The motion carried. ,Air ARNOW Com tuty Developmen :..r Jopke inquired if the Planning Commission thought the me gs should be telev d.<: $r `' 'eterson inquiry i', f there was a problem with the broadcast of the cable during certain : > :opke state$ .'= would have to look into this matter. He added that the meeting on its' onflict with the Parks and Recreation meeting. Commissioner Hegland noted that this was just a review of the Comprehensive Plan, not the final version, and televising this review might not be necessary. Community Development Director Jopke advised that there be a least one informational forum to • present the plan to the community, and a more formal public hearing following that, therefore Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 IIIthere would be ample opportunity to gain public input. Community Development Director Jopke reported he and Planning Associate Ericson had attended the State Planning Conference the previous Thursday and Friday in Bloomington. He commented that one of the sessions he had attended was a panel of Planning Commission members from a variety of different communities, and during that session, a questio ':was raised regarding how staff could assist the Commissions in performing their yeiffrcult o , and what could be done better. He noted that the Chair of the Eagan Planning C et"� 3, si an attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities, had indicated that sta' ` ld ort ` �_ . de factual information, and that recommendations by staff are unnec;, . Chair Peterson commented over the past several years t° '„lannin more complete and useful information than ever before, a g g_>•n o 'perspective, sta"< ' ; tine a great job for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Miller stated the information staff proviis vex ::`` fi.articularly in terms of �..,. .., the references to the Code, which provides the Co ' 'oners do <: spend their valuable time researching these matters. She remarked it very time . ng process to gather this information, however, it is very helpful w�: `h :'"`, .< . -renes `p:areas in the Code that are . ,i, pertinent to the issues. • Chair Peterson noted the Commission:=is ubject tt.'deadlinet:.rid timetables set by the Legislature, and generally have only one meetinghich etermine�'ach case. He explained for the more clear cut cases, not having a sta':;:j . •mmen�`a;. on., and., °'erefore a resolution to consider, would substantially slow down the • .o s"s. Commission , son t. "' ! i where weft- hies when staff requested the Commission's recommend :` .: :- state.,,='g`g :. _ 's!,.4,no problem with staff recommending one direction or another, and _:)itt; �ie mass' , ' :" > recommendation. He noted the Commission always �:; adds their stipu .: • �;. t ff-<: tafF s f endation of approval does not indicate that a case is approved <. -en )101411 Chair• terson stated alt w ; as been implied that if staff gives a recommendation for a ot,cS. spe ` issue, the Planni -mmission will simply"rubber stamp" it, this is simply is not true. ,ted, in many case nitial information pointed in one direction, however, further review •d the necessity go in another direction. He stated he treated the staff recommendation g er item o aVrmation, and did not consider it in any way mandated. b > :s. aube stated that staff's recommendation provides the Commission with staff's thoug s, and how they are researching their information, which assist in directing the Commission. He explained that the Commission does not deal with many of these issues on a daily basis, and without staff's recommendation the Commission would be required to spend much time attempting to find the direction in which to proceed. He explained he has not always • agreed with staff's recommendations, and there have been some very serious discussions while Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 worked through the issues. He commented that he believed the Commission has always done a 410 g Y very thorough job with every issue that has come before them, and he would like to keep stall's recommendations. Commissioner Hegland stated he could not imagine a situation in which staff provided a positive recommendation that would be contested. He stated the only cases this might apply , would be those with negative recommendations, and this was not often the.case. litexplOdthe general concept is to attempt to find a way to approve the majority of the requrY..;tsome exceptions Commissioner Kaden pointed out that if there were some v.: son ursua : .o �' t Code that . p �,�.y particular case can not be approved, staff would provide':. ecommenz on't ' < ommiss t t nota rove it, and other cases are either recommended ." a rov. for left wife recommendation from staff. He stated staff's recommen€ ati ;:c'-re more helpfii He added that the Commission does not"rubber stamp" `':` »' >ommendation. %Commissioner Berke stated he considered the informati pro i s taffto be almost vital to his work as a new Commissioner. He explained this assists him in '''..`� g tyre logical decisions, ter rather than spending his time researching all oft' <� t ifs;< ori''`'' p ` `h" i ,g eir Code books and would Chair Peterson commented that in the ast�>4a e Com � i f��: :.... �� look up the ordinances during the meetii n order,,S determine requirements, and most of the • cases required more time and discussio It the C0.tiimissionr than they presently do. He remarked that the Commission co do t ; business jOithout the information provided by staff, in the time allowed. He ex dj ; ed his .' areciatio Community Development Director Jopke, Planning Associate Er se sand the: o> Pviousp` tions ''°" Community pment Dire`orf reported on previous Council action from their meeting on September 2 .4 discus %. >>: garding the Mermaid Project, which is presently `.. attempting tt, : :'"its-, for tli '`development. He explained they have come to an agreem• t:i1X ith two o ' :'"` o ?,...o erties under consideration, however, the Lampert site does not w' oto move, and is -ks_ :'g a higher price for this property. He commented that this - pro y was the propos• �;s fe'of the Mermaid's stormwater holding pond, therefore, they were e ring other option - . handle the stormwater. He explained that staff would authorize SEH to dy this issue. jilir saik WOW :: . opment Director Jopke stated a joint meeting between the EDC and EDA norrsoTr'' 0' October 21, 1990, to discuss Tax Increment Financing, in terms of how it has been ted, and to determine if the current policies are still appropriate. He stated the Planning Commission is requested to attend this meeting. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Council upheld the Planning Commission's • recommendation and approved the conditional use permit request for an oversized garage at 8011 Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 IDSunnyside Road. He added they approved the second reading and adopted Ordinance 639, and ordinance which clarifies the uses within the R-4 and R-5 Zoning District. Community Development Director Jopke stated at the Council Work Session on October 24, discussion was held regarding the remnant parcel located next to City Hall, and an adjacent property, which Told Real Estate has expressed an interest in developing for a Walen's Drugstore. There is an alternate proposal that would utilize a triangle of pie Cit °' perty, and �r` would require the vacation of the old right-of-way for Edgewood Drive::>:�:'„ ;,;c: ented that Told is still considering donating seven acres of wetland to 7 qty, vi<:ph." . • prised of some high ground on the east end of the property. He explained : the Colire- 9.: _ o nested the h Parks and Recreation Commission to provide their input ' this mat Ar.no``x 'j,.:1 ' ;:onside n< ' s and conduct a comprehensive study of the area as a whcal at thei eeting on07 ':> Community Development Director Jopke reported that i _0. ! : evelopment Coordinator, Kevin Carroll has accepted a position as the City Admini city of Carver, and his last day with the City of Mounds View will be October 15. L.e co `: : t ,will be sad to see him ;� a go, and wished him the best of luck. .d , ry . °' D. Upcoming Planning Cases ,...:. >:: v. Planning Associate Ericson stated that O dinance ..4,:1'am.. 41 � �`" er 902 of the City Code, regarding street openings, and includ : guage, ertaining< . is-of-way. He noted the City III has passed a right-of-way ordinan , • addr-ay-'s utilities. ndergrounding and things of that nature found in the right-of-way,41.:'e com!.:':,,f ensive rd nance. He explained that Ordinance 640 removes language that is o ddress• h- 1 ''sof--way ordinance. He stated in conjunctio _ Ordinance ere wa 11:144p,to include language to address non- confo °"x' ,t;:n':;�ays, : `.. y° : ally indica " •-, any non-conforming driveway is allowed to be recons ;'or.re-pave'o 4� ng; tune fashion or manner that it currentlyexists, unless there is an evident pu" 1�T= oncerri. ."'"�. tned that if a building permit is denied because of such a concern, the r-a o: :-.f> �•.: s peal .� al to the City Council. He stated this matter would be before the.; O Vo ide actin at their meeting on October 11. He added there would be an or;in`.nce that a - •ning Code, as the inclusion of language pertaining to the drive s requires addit` `. '.responding language to the Zoning Code to provide that these p: Nho are ` sistent. Mi g Associate EAr on stated the Development Review for MSP Real Estate, for an assisted , :R ility wou, `> •- before the Planning Commission at their next meeting, as well as an 1$ : ' ?_give-through coffee hut on the Mermaid property. ffilligi 9. ' hairperson and Planning Commissioners Report Council Liaison Stigney reported that the franchise fee for NSP gas and electric was discussed at the • previous Council Work Session. He stated the majority of the Council is in favor of raising the franchise fee, and there is a consensus to increase the fee from two percent to a maximum rate of 4 Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 percent. He explained, at this time, there is some question regarding whether there will be an actual 111 public hearing, or the setting of a public hearing for this matter, at the next City Council Meeting, on Monday. He stated the actual public hearing may take place, and he would like to forward this information to the Planning Commission and the residents, so that interested parties may attend. Chair Peterson stated the Planning Commission was delayed from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p . so that the Commissioners could attend the Metropolitan Council meeting that was a> oint 0fing with the I- 3 5W Corridor Coalition. He stated this was a very valuable meeting ant = . :.rth the time. Commissioner Miller stated she would not be present on tis er 20 or g '�` AVS. . No other reports were considered. gat, AY' ,404 ?2iper $' '_ 10. Adjournment � ` mow`', °'w.,..rr�„ _'. There being no further business before the Planning Con issio ig: :hair Miller adjourned the meeting at 9:12 p.m. 441%/4.0i, NANZIA: 4 =ifs<>=:,-401‘.., . s :� (The meeting immediately adjo..>` `: `g -nda Segan) Respectfully submitted, , � mimpy > z'�.,`. 0 Rick Jopk t,. 'p �*>. .. . . . ..> <A _ ' cry.>,. Commun A p;°: opmeri' .... ,, *460$6 Transcribed i <:. :Y p::>..:.. Vie.:� x.WOW Trish Pearson "< . , 40, TimeSaver017;� ``t ;e: -£; '.g; '0 Inc. a 411110110* MD ; \USERS\B •t' �`AS`... \991006.PC ir At van ",:mmismiaw 0