HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-1999 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
November 3, 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. October 6, 1999
5. Planning Case No.559-99
Property Involved: 2670 County Road I
Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 596-99, a resolution recommending
approval of 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 revisions to 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
c. Upcoming Planning Cases
d. Planning Commissioner's Journal
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 20, 1999
•
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1999\11-3-99.REG
•
t
.11
• REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Meeting Date: November 3, 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
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 and Ordinance 631, the ordinance which
rezoned the property from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential.
Analysis:
As was discussed at your last meeting, this development meets or exceeds all of the dimensional
requirements associate with a development of this type, in the R-4 Zoning district.
The applicant submitted a memo to staff and the Planning Commission on October 20, 1999, which
responded to issues in the staff report concerning the landscaping, dumpster enclosure plans,
revised elevations and sidewalks. The only issue that was left unresolved from the last meeting was
the location of fire hydrants to service the development. Staff has since discussed this with Kathi
Osmonson, the City's Fire Marshal, who has indicated that because the building will be sprinidered
and the close proximity of the two hydrants, no additional hydrants will be required. The driveway
onto County Road I will be shifted a few feet to the west to accommodate the existing fire hydrant.
• The applicant has indicated that all of the requested changes are being m ade and revised plans will
be presented to the City Council for their final approval.
4
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 596-99
• CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR A TWO-STORY, 46-ROOM SENIOR ASSISTED RESIDENTIAL
FACILITY LOCATED AT 2670 COUNTY ROAD I;
PLANNING CASE NO. 573-99
WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate has requested City approval of a development review for a
46-room, senior assisted living facility located at 2670 County Road I, property legally described
as follows:
Tract `A', Registered Land Survey 414
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a
development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development and all
residential development if more than two dwelling units are being erected within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Site and Parking Plans,date-stamped 10/8/99
4. Elevations and Floor Plans,date-stamped 10/8/99
5. Lighting Plans and Specifications,date-stamped 10/8/99
6. Landscape Plan,date-stamped 10/8/99
7. Staff report
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plan date-stamped
October 8, 1999 and revised on October 20, 1999, conforms to the general zoning requirements
of Title 1100 with regard to setbacks, parking requirements, and building height; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acknowledges that the Mounds
View Fire Marshal has reviewed the placement of fire hydrants to service the building and finds
their location and numbers to be acceptable; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acknowledges that the Director of Public
Works has reviewed the drainage plan and has found it to be in conformance with the City's Local
Water Management Plan; and,
IIIWHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acknowledges that the City Forester has
reviewed the Landscape Plan, recommending slight modification and clarification of the planting
species used, and has found it acceptable with the indicated revisions.
Resolution 596-99
MSP Development Review
November 3, 199.9 •
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of a development review for a 46-room, senior assisted living
facility located at 2670 County Road I, subject to the following stipulations:
1. The Site plan shall be revised prior to action by the City Council as follows:
a. A sidewalk shall be shown along Mounds View Drive.
b. The access onto County Road I shall be marked as being"exit only."
c. The building shall be situated so as to comply with all setback requirements.
d. Signage shall be in compliance with the City Code and approved CUP.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 3rd day of November, 1999
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
SEAL
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\596-99PC.RES
110
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMO •
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Subject: Proposed Ordinance 642
Date: Meeting of November 3, 1999
Background:
Ordinance 642 was before the Commission at your last meeting on October 20, 1999, at which
time staff was directed to revise sections of the ordinance as it related to curb cut widths and
spacing between driveways in R-2 zoning districts.
After some additional staff review, it was thought to change altogether how and where driveway
widths are addressed in the Code. Currently, widths of driveways are tucked inexplicably within a
subsection of the Code dealing with setbacks. It would make more sense to staff if width
requirements were instead added as a new subsection under Subdivision 4 of Section 1121.09 of
the Zoning Code pertaining to"Stall, Aisle and Driveway Design," as follows:
• Subd. 4. Dimensions:
a. The combined width for driveways and attached parking areas in an R-1 and
R-2 zoning district shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35') or the width of the garage plus an
additional twelve feet(12'), whichever is greater.
b. Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking
areas and their aisles shall be developed incompliance 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
•
I
Planning Commission Memo ID
Ordinance 642 Staff Report
October 29, 1999
Page 2
The Planning Commission also directed staff to investigate how wide the driveways are for the
newer twin homes fronting Silver Lake Road as well as those on Knollwood Drive just north of
County Road H2. Staff has not as of yet had an opportunity to do this, however we will have this
information ready for the meeting November 3.
You will also notice in the proposed Ordinance 642 that a graphic was inserted within the
"Dimensions" subdivision of Section 1121.09. This graphic had appeared in older versions of
our City Code, yet for some reason became omitted in subsequent updates. The importance of
this graphic is that it answers the question of what the dimensions in the table within Section
1121.09, Subd. 4b refer to. (I am attaching the page from an old Code book for your reference.)
I have verified with the City Attorney that this can be reinserted to correct the earlier omission.
Recommendation:
Please review the changes made to this ordinance and direct staff to make any further revision as
the Commission deems appropriate.
1111
\<, adtilikLA ?..'4.-+'""Lfr- L..' --C.--,---
James Ericson
Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP074-99\MEMOI.PC
•
2
1
40. 07
r
e. 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
' 450 . • 44. 8 ' 43. 0 ' .47. 0 '
600 52.5' 51.0' 54.0 '
75o 61.3 ' 61.0 ' ., 62.0'
900 63. 0 ' ' 63. 0' 63.0'
Parallel Parking: 22 Feet in Length
. WALL
•
ZANGLE .
•
•
f. No curb{'cut� access shall, exceedtwenty-two (22)
`:feet `.in' width:'for%R-1 ,and: R-5;residential uses. A
thirty (30) foot wide curb- cut shall be
permissible for R-2, R-3 and R-4 uses, subject to
requirements of 40.07, Subd. 8(j ) , commercial uses
. 1 . - n. n.us ria uses - .
( 287,288) .
g. Curb cut openings shall be at a minimum of three
• ( 3) feet from the lot line in residential
• ,districts and five (5) feet from the lot line in
business or industrial districts.
h. Driveway access curb openings on a public street
except for single, two family- and townhouse
dwellings shall not be located less than forty
( 40) feet from one another.
i. The grade elevation of any parking area shall not
All ' exceed five (5) percent.
I
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) •
(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) front: no accessory building shall be located between the front of the
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)
•
Ordinance 642
Page 2
•
b. Driveways:
(1) Driveways shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5') from any lot line,
except as permitted in Section 1104.01, Subd. 4b c 1 a and Section 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 , . .: , . ..'. •
1(b)-ofthis Title. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98)
c. Parking Areas:
(1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O:
• (a) residential uses:
Parking lots and driveways shall be set back 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. . • '. . .. _
I I . (Ord.
524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590, 11-25-96; Ord. - -
(b) non-residential uses:
Parking lots and driveways shall be set back 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
•
(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
Sparking 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 backing into the public street is prohibited.
Subd. 4. Dimensions:
a. In the R-1 zoning district, the combined width for driveway and attached parking
areas shall not exceed thirty-five feet(359. or the width of the garage plus an additional
twelve feet(129. whichever is greater.
b. 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
Anile 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
WALL
A B ZANGLE G
V
•
I
Ordinance 642
Page 5
•
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 two four feet(2.21/1_) in width for R-1 and R-5
residential uses. A thirty-two foot (39 32') wide curb cut shall be permissible for R-2,
R-3 and R-4 uses, • •. . • •' • • •••' .• • , commercial uses (B-1
through B-4) and industrial uses (I-1), subject to requirements of subdivision Se hereof.
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 •
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
(40') apai t neither curb cut exceeds sixteen feet (16') in width.
. Curb cuts in existence as o 10/11/99 that do not con orm to this subdivision m•
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
111)
surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five (5) or more vehicles shall be
Ordinance 642
Page 6
• 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.)
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.
110
Ordinance 642
Page 7
•
SECTION 3. 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
Attest:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
111
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert C. Long, City Attorney
C:\O1.1,10E\WPWIN\WPDOCS\ORDINANC\642.ORD
•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMO
To: Mounds View Planning Commission,
From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
Subject: Billboards
Date: November 3, 1999
As I previously indicated to you the City Council has asked that the staff and Planning
Commission look into and make recommendations concerning ordinance amendments to the sign
ordinance to allow billboards in certain areas of the community.
The Planning Commission has asked for and received the City attorney's opinion on certain
matters. A copy of the opinion was passed out at a previous Planning Commission meeting. The
• Planning Commission should now complete its review of the proposed ordinance that was
previously drafted by staff and presented to the Planning commission in July. I have attached a
• copy of the previous staff report,the proposed ordinance,and the attorney's opinion for your
information. A copy of the proposed ordinance has been forwarded to the City Attorney's office
for review.
REQUESTED ACTION: It is requested that the Planning Commission complete its discussi
the attached draft ordinance and suggest any changes that maybe necess on of
should also discuss what kind of public input process should be utilized. At a future Com
etin othe
Planning Commission will be asked to make a formal recommendation of ordinances to the City
Council.
N:1DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM111-3-99 billboard report.doc
•
PLANNING COMMISSION •
MEMO
To: Mounds View Planning Commission,
From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
Subject: Billboards
Date: July 15, 1999
As I previously indicated to you the City Council has asked that the staff and Planning
Commission continue to look into and make recommendations concerning ordinance
amendments to the sign ordinance to allow billboards in certain areas of the community and to
allow signs in the PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy,Recreational and Preservation
zoning districts.
At the July 7, 1999 Planning Commission meeting I presented to you two draft ordinances for
Planning Commission discussion. The first ordinance dealt with billboards. This ordinance was
drafted after discussions with a representative from the billboard industry, and after reviewing
state rules and ordinances from the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The draft ordinance
II/
amendment proposed the following:
1. Removes billboard provisions from Section 1008.08 Subdivisions 1 and 5 and puts
all billboard requirements in Section 1008.08 Subdivision 10.
Commentary: This is proposed to allow for easier administration.
2. Adds a new requirement that a conditional use permit be obtained for any new
.1 soar.. uc con•i ion. - • . - - _ __
will be null-and-void if any required state permits are not obtained.
Commentary:An alternative would be to not require a conditional use permit and rely
on the standards in the ordinance to ensure that billboards are properly installed and
maintained. No sign permit would be issued unless all of the standards in the
ordinance are met. .
3. Sets location standards including being on city-owned property located along or north
of 118. Billboards must be orientated to 118 or 35W and be at least 250 feet from
residentially zoned property. Billboards can be located with a zero setback from streets
but may not overhang the right-of-way.
Commentary: The standard for location on or north of 118 is based on City Council •
•
direction. The separation from residentially zoned property is open for discussion. The
setback standard is from the existing ordinance in Section 1008.08 Subdivision 1
Paragraph 5.
4. Sets minimum spacing of billboards at 1500 feet measured along the same side of the
same roadway.
Commentary: Spacing is open to discussion. In my review of other ordinances I have
seen spacing requirements from 500 feet to 1000 feet. The representative from the
billboard company indicated that the City could consider spacing requirements up to
2000 feet. I have asked John Hammerschmidt to review the spacing of potential sites to
determine if the 1500 foot spacing requirement would work.
5. Sets maximum sign area at 700 square feet but allows temporary extensions over and
above that as long as they do not exceed 25 percent of the sign area and as long as they
do not exceed certain dimensions.
Commentary: The proposed requirements reflect standard billboard sizes and
practices.
• 6. Requires that billboards have no more than two faces that are back to back and angled
no more than 35 degrees.
Commentary: This standard is suggested for aesthetic reasons to limit the visual
impact of these signs.
7. Sets the maximum sign height at 35 feet.
Commentary: This consistent with the code requirements for other signs. The St. Paul
code allows signs up to 37'/_7 feet. The point of measurement standards are based on
other codes and state requirements.
8. Requires that billboards not obstruct traffic signs or obstruct drivers vision.
Commentary: This is important for safety reasons especially if billboards are allowed
right up to the right-of-way lines.
9. Indicates that existing billboards can be maintained and the message changed as
long as they are not expanded.
Commentary: This requirement is intended to clarify the status of non-conforming
billboards.
0
10. The title of Section 1008.11 is changed to reflect what is actually discussed in the •
section.
I have sent a copy of the draft ordinance to the City Attorney's office for review and comment.
At the request of the Commission I have also asked the City attorney to suggest some "sunset"
language which would allow the code to revert back to its present form if the state does not allow
any billboards. As I indicated to the Planning Commission on July 7th,the City Attorney's office
is reviewing two related matters. These include whether there are deed restrictions which would
preclude billboards on the golf course property and whether are not there would be spot zoning
issues. I have not yet received any further information from the City Attorney concerning these
issues.
I also sent a copy of the proposed ordinance to a consultant to the billboard industry and received
comments back subsequent to the July 7th meeting. Mr. Cronin commented that he felt it was a
reasonable ordinance but requested that the City consider one change. The change was to allow
signs that would have an angle greater than 35 degrees to allow sign faces side by side. I have
attached his comments which include an illustration of the type of sign he would like allowed.
I also indicated to the Planning Commission on July 7th that, in terms of maximizing potential
sites on the golf course,the proposed minimum spacing could be reduced from 1500 feet to 1000
feet. •
The second ordinance amendment allows and sets standards for signs in PF and CRP zoning
districts. The current code does not list any permitted signage or standards in either of these
districts. The draft ordinance allows signs consistent with neighborhood business districts and
with the pedestal sign requirements in Section 1008.01 Subdivision 6 in the PF and CRP
districts. This is open for discussion. The amount of signage allowed may be more than
necessary. The existing signage at parks in a neighborhood setting appears to range from 18 to 20
square feet total sign area while the main City Hall sign is approximately.128 square feet in area.
The total freestanding signage at the Community Center appears to be approximately 90 square
feet. Signage at the golf course has been at times as much as 130 square feet.
REQUESTED ACTION: It is requested that the Planning Commission continue its discussion of
the attached draft ordinances and suggest any changes that may be necessary. The Commission
should also discuss what kind of public input process should be utilized. At a future meeting the
Planning Commission will be asked to make a formal recommendation of ordinances to the City
Council.
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\7-15-99B.MEM
•
• 1008.01 1008.01
Subd. 6. PEDESTAL SIGN: A ground sign erected upon a single post or shaft or upon two (2)
posts or shafts that merge or touch at the base or which are not more than fifteen feet
(15') apart, center of shaft to center of shaft, with the display portion mounted on top
thereof at least seven feet (7') above the surface of the street adjacent to the property on
which the sign is located. No such sign shall have a sign area of more than three hundred
forty (340) square feet on each side. Such sign may advertise only businesses located on
the premises. No business property shall have more than one pedestal sign adjacent to
each street upon which such business property abuts;provided,that on each street frontage
of more than one hundred feet(100'), one additional pedestal sign may be established and
maintained on such street frontage if such additional pedestal sign a)is located on a single
pole,b) does not exceed twenty eight(28) square feet in an area on any side and does not
have more than two (2) sides, c) is not more than four feet(4') in width or seven feet(7')
in height on the sign face, d) is located at least seven feet (7') above the'surface of the
street. In lieu of one additional pedestal sign, two (2) separate signs may be located on
the same pole, but such two (2) signs combined shall not exceed, in area or dimensions,
the limitations applicable to a single additional pedestal sign. No pedestal sign shall be
so designed as to have both a) moving parts, and b) moving or blinking lights. In
addition to the pedestal signs permitted by the foregoing provisions of this subdivision,
• a sign advertising a public telephone may be located in the area ahead of the building
setback line on the structure in which such public telephone is located.
Subd. 7. PORTABLE SIGN: A back-to-back, mobile advertising device which may be
mounted on wheels and used for commercial as well as civic promotions.
Subd. 8. PROJECTING SIGN: A sign other than a wall sign suspended from or supported by
a building or structure and projecting out therefrom.
Subd. 9. ROOF SIGN: A sign erected upon or above the roof or parapet wall of a building or
structure.
Subd. 10. SIGN: A sign, the primary function of which is to direct attention to a product,
service or activity that is sold or offered either elsewhere or upon the premises where such
sign is located or to which it is affixed.
Subd. 11. SIGN,ADVERTISING: A sign, the primary function of which is to direct attention
to a product, service or activity that is sold or offered either elsewhere or upon the
premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed.
Subd. 12. SIGN AREA: That area of a sign within the marginal lines of the surface, which
bears the announcement, name, advertisement or other message or, in the case of letters,
• figures or symbols attached directly to any part of a building, the area which is included
in the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe each letter, figure or symbol
displayed thereon.
City of Mounds View
7-13-1999 2:38PM FROM M CRONIN 612 941 2645 P_ 1 '
MICHAEL CRONIN & ASSOCIATES
8809 WEST BUSH LAKE ROAD •
S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55438
PHONE 612 941-7487 FAX 612 941-2645
email mcronin@mra.com
TO:-f/./ _ .I DATE (...1/(6 13
RE'
/b PAGES TO FOLLOW 2—
Rick - •Billboards
Rather than all typical V type billboard structures on steel poles (the industry's
answer to less is mores) Eller may propose one or more traditional structures that as
an object may better fit in the setting along 35 or 118 for either an on or off premise
sign. Following is an example of this type(none have been built for fifty years).
This type of structure could not meet the proposed 35 degree angle standard. •
Please call if.you have any questions or comment.
Thanks
•
•
•
•
• 7-13-1999 2:39PM FROM M CRONIN 612 941 2645 P. 3
. i . . •
•
• .
, .. ." Opp-1 41 : iri s, .... :4; • -
A I et r. ti . 4111fr.---;
. \ \‘1,,, •:\.......4.....KIP _i � .t •
- s‘ S • , 611" i gli
\\1 'Ili ' •• .
%•%:\ . • • . i i
i V\•`\.• i i,.' ;i: • I
•
, N. \,.,, ‘..„...\\,,...\.: ,
, . it
. fi 41 : .
SLC ! tt,
�� \
li j i (le • '41 1 117...V.,i'•'7••• •• pi,..... .../...,„)::=---"-,.,X:I. X
.• : 11 . t.! 111V4. .2A,:\ ki % p.alz • = '
a_ \i. 1.1 ili)11111111110= -1,11.- 1....1
0 1
! . ' 'Ilt4" . 71n: g
t', • 3. -
,. . ii.4( •
41
•
• / f% g1 •
i15
•
i ,nI ��'• j• • r,
• ' .. ' 1.0 . hie
I f elk .'11. , • ti;; ." i •
r .. 41111riej . -
• • ,
- ••-•--- t,..J�
•
I .
7-13-1999 2:38PM FROM M CRONIN 612 941 2645 P. 2 -
ii \ii ‘
•
i ) i '14.•
LI A i, pp(t , i:,, • •
/,......3i.:# 1/4;:ek, 0
. 1 ng `� , ..;, i
• Al•
( t„' ;";ti • •
, 1)41
•
t •'• v t.f. .
.i ' ,,
•,,;\., 0 .,
111 1 ,4
t11 ‘:,' k .4 ,4; ..
t , S 'iit qo q
ii giot .
}
' :,'1 ,11
� .,
t
•
: •1, _______,S,---°1t-..-
' 1 I="mss` '
till
1 . y . 1p,, ,� x
l ► 1 ' aiY-s.i�cS:rte=” -
�c •4;+ 11 ' 'T. • to
t .
r
• 1 , .-Ni.i
c 1 i r Ai,....ot v.
1 11' 11 ---\
14 t
lir A if; . – }.'4 .
Q ,,'III14� Iii: i�:�•.
li, li ,. .. 4)1 ' . l*t-i.e:4tff N
'k. ' '.x
. :ill
I ' if
. f raj\.. k',.'.�4
I ill ''I,i,11.!.!
I J ,,,Tr Sep
kI
S,
. ,
v.
ORDINANCE NO.
• CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) OF THE
MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS; PLANNING
CASE SP-07 -99
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Section 1008.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended
with the proposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions struck out and italicized,
respectively,to read as follows:
Subd. 1. General Standards;Paragraph I(1):No ground sign(except temporary signs,
portable signs or banners), or signboard or-billboard shall approach at any point nearer
than three feet(3')to any building unless such sign is placed parallel to the side of the
building,nor shall any such sign be placed within six feet(6') of the side of any lot nor
nearer than fifteen feet(15')to any street line where there is no established or customary
building line nor within twenty five feet(25') of any street corner right-of-way. Whenever
the established or customary uniform building line upon the street where such ground
• sign is to be erected is more than fifteen feet(15')from the street or property line,then
such sign shall not approach nearer to the street than the established or customary
uniform building line.
Subd. 5. Signs Along Freeways: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, signs
located on property adjacent to any freeway within the Municipality (including Interstate
Highway 35W) shall be business signs advertising businesses being conducted on the
premises on which the signs are located.No"traveling"or changing-message signs shall
be located so as to face any freeway or be visible from the freeway. The provisions of this
subdivision, however, shall not be construed to render illegal or nonconforming any
signs which are legally located along any such freeway at the effective date herein.Any
;:; : -; . . ; ; - - - , ; - ;; -
. ., ; .•; ;, ; , - -
; -. '; •- - ;;; ; . . ; . - ;, -
Subd. 10. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard or-advertiting
• .
•• ;;; i : - - --. unless it complies with the following requirements:
• a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:A conditional use permit (CUP) must be
obtained in accordance the procedures found in Section 1125.01
Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any conditional use permit
issued for a billboard shall automatically expire when the lease agreement for the
billboard expires. Such CUP shall be null-and-void if the applicant fails to obtain
any required permit from the State of Minnesota. •
b. LOCATION: The billboard must be located along or north of 118 and must be
located on City-owned property. The applicant must have an approved lease
agreement with the City. The billboard shall be oriented towards 118 and/or
I35W. Billboard must be located at least 250 feet from residentially zoned
property. Billboards may be located adjacent to the right-of-way of a street or
highway but no part thereof shall extend over such right-of-way.
c. MINIMUM SPACING: Billboards must be at least 1500 feet apart. Spacing
between signs shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to
the property line of the right-of-way from which they are intended to be read and
measuring the distance in a straight line between the projected points. Required
spacing shall apply only to billboards on the same side of the same roadway.
d MAXIMUM SIGN AREA: The maximum gross surface display area of the sign
cannot exceed 700 square feet per side except that any rectangular billboard may
contain temporary extensions. cutouts, or top lettering which occupy a total area
not in excess of twenty-five (25)percent of the area of the basic billboard and
form an integral part o the design thereof. No such temporary extension, cut out,
or top lettering may project more than six (6)feet from the top, eighteen (18)
inches from either side or fifteen (15) inches from the bottom of the basic •
rectangular advertising message. The area of an extension, cutout, or top
lettering shall be deemed to be the area of the smallest rectangle into which such
extension, cutout, or top lettering will fit.
e. ORIENTATION OF SIGN FACES: Billboards may have no more than two (2)
sign faces. Signjaces must be back-to-back with sign faces parallel or angled. All
billboards with their faces back-to-back and parallel shall have no greater
distance than eight(8)feet between the faces. All billboards with faces at an
angle shall have no greater angle than thirty-five (35) degrees.
f MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT: The maximum allowable height of billboards shall
be thirty-five (35)feet, The height shall be measured from the grade at the base of
the sign or from the surface of the roadway whichever is higher.
g. OBSTRUCTION:No billboard may be located in such a manner as to obscure
or otherwise interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, signal, or
device, or obstruct or interfere with a driver's view of approaching. merging, or
intersecting traffic.
Any billboard legally existing on the effective date of this ordinance may continue to be
maintained in its present form and size but not expanded. This does not preclude the •
periodic change of the message or advertisement presented on the billboard.
Any billboard destroyed by an act of God may be rebuilt within thirty(30) days if the
construction of same would comply with this subdivision.
S . SECTION 2: The title of Section 1008.11 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby
amended with the proposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions struek-eltt-and
italicized, respectively, to read as follows:
1008.11: SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS: SIGN VARIANCES:
SECTION 3. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty(30)days after its publication in the
official City newspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of
, 1999.
'Dan Coughlin,Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City
• Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
•
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\6XX.ORD
470 Pillsbury Center
Kennedy 200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612)337-9300 telephone
Graven (612)337-9310 fax
CHAR TER ED http://wwwkennedy-graven.com •
ROBERT C.LONG
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial(612)337-9202
email:rlong@kennedy-graven.com
October 19, 1999 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Rick Jopke
Community Development Director
City of Mounds View
2401 Highwayl0
Mounds View, MN 55112-1429
Re: Placement of Billboards at The Bridges Golf Course
Dear Rick:
I am writing in response to your request for an opinion regarding the placement of billboards or
advertising devices at The Bridges Golf Course in the City of Mounds View.
111
In reviewing this matter, it should be noted that the following assumptions were made:
1. Possible deed restrictions'as to the use of the real property underlying the golf course
were reviewed only as to the main parcel acquired from the State of Minnesota. Such
excess "takings" land originally acquired for the construction of Highway 10 was
transferred by quit claim deed pursuant to statutory authority to the City in 1988.
2. Due to cost issues in reviewing this matter, none of the other parcels of land which make
up The Bridges Golf Course were reviewed for deed restrictio■_ . . i a •- •iii . . '. i s
as to-this opinion.
3. No opinion is provided as to the applicability of any bond document covenants or
restrictions as to the financing for the construction of The.Bridges Golf Course. Bond
counsel should be consulted concerning these issues before the City enters into any
agreement concerning the use of the The Bridges Golf Course for billboard or advertising
placement.
ISSUES
The following issues were reviewed as to the placement of advertising devices or billboards at
the golf course: •
JPD-153046
KG400-1 .
Mr. Rick Jopke
October 19, 1999
• Page 2
1. Does the deed for the golf course property contain any restrictions which would prohibit
the placement of advertising devices or billboards at The Bridges Golf Course?
2. Does the placement of advertising devices or billboards at the golf course constitute
illegal"spot zoning"or raise any other zoning implications?
3. Is the placement of advertising devices or billboards permitted along the Minnesota State
Trunk Highway system?
The discussion and opinions as to the above noted issues follows.
SHORT ANSWERS
1. Probably not. Placing a billboard or other advertising structure on the involved
property would not appear to contravene the public purpose use restriction because doing so
could be construed as a supporting element of the public purpose use. However, if the billboard
is used to advertise and promote a business other than the golf course or other government
function, then it may be argued that this is more of a commercial use rather than a public purpose
use. The only way to be certain on this issue would be to seek a new Attorney General's opinion
on this specific question.
• 2. Probably not. There are no facts to suggest that allowing a billboard on the
involved property (or on other properties within a particular district) would totally or
substantially diminish the value of the golf course property or abutting properties. This may
depend, however, on the characteristics and location of the billboard.
3. Possibly, if the property is zoned for "business, industrial, or commercial
activities." If the property where an advertising device is to be placed meets the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 173 and the City Code, the advertising device would appear to be
permitted.
FACTS
The state of Minnesota (State) acquired a parcel of land for trunk highway purposes. The
property is mostly wetland and floodplain and is located within a conservancy, recreation, and
protection district. After deciding that it had no need for the property, the State by special
legislation transferred the property to the city of Mounds View (City) pursuant to a quit claim
deed. That deed contains a provision that the property must be used for a public purpose;
otherwise, the property would immediately revert back to the state. The city is currently using
the property as a golf course and is interested in placing a billboard or other advertising structure
thereon.
ANALYSIS
• I. Deed Restriction--Public Purpose
SJR-168870
MU210-1
Mr. Rick Jopke
October 19, 1999 •
Page 3
The deed for a portion of The Bridges Golf Course property states that the property must be used
for a public purpose. The question arises as to whether placing a billboard or other advertising
structure on the involved property would contravene the express deed restriction that it be used
for a public purpose.
Opinions of the Minnesota attorney general have touched on the issue as to what constitutes a
"public purpose" in a municipal golf course setting. The attorney general has stated that a city
cannot outright lease a municipal golf course to a private entity "as long as there still exists a
municipal need for the course." Op. Att'y Gen. 469a-9 (September 9, 1957). However, the
attorney general has suggested that a public purpose might be found to exist in situations where
such use is incidental to the primary public use. Op. Att'y Gen. 59-B-11 (April 23, 1957). In
order to be certain on this issue, the City could request an opinion of the Minnesota attorney
general as to the ability of the City to place billboards at The Bridges to ensure that the City is
operating within the previous opinions of the attorney general, as well as the "public purpose"
provision mandated by the authorizing statute and the deed from the State.
In addition, whether an action of a local government serves a valid public purpose has received
considerable attention in the context of condemnation law. "Perhaps the most complete and
often cited statement of the factors to be considered in determining whether a valid public •
purpose is present is . . ." [W]hat is a 'public purpose' . . . is not capable of a precise definition,
but the courts generally construe it to mean such an activity as will serve as a benefit to the
community as a body and which, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of
government." Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority v. Printy, 351 N.W.2d
319, 338 (Minn. 1984) (citing Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 184-85, 89 N.W.2d 635, 643
(1958)). A local government's decision that an action serves the public purpose is given great
deference. See Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facility Commission, 270 N.W.2d 749, 754-55
(Minn. 1978). A legislative determination of public purpose will only be overruled if it is
manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. See R.E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d
331, 337 (1978).
Placing a billboard on the golf course property would serve the purpose of promoting the
business and attracting customers. That generally leads to an increase in customers who use the
golf course or buy goods sold thereon, which in turn leads to increased profits. Assuming the
golf course itself constitutes a public purpose, allowing a.billboard for the purpose of advertising
or promoting the golf course would be considered a supporting element of the public purpose
use. The same would hold true for advertising another government function. The end result in
either case would be a benefit to the community.
If the billboard were utilized to advertise or promote businesses other than the golf course, then
one could argue the billboard has less of a supporting element to the golf course and the only
public purpose would be to raise revenues. If the raising of revenue was determined to not be a •
public purpose, the deed restriction may require transfer of the property back to the state of
Minnesota. My office has found no case involving the same or similar situation.
SJR-168870
MU210-1
470 Pillsbury Center
Kenne dV 200 South Sixth Street
l Minneapolis MN 55402
(612)337-9300 telephone
Cj raven 9 (612) 337-9310 fax
c H A " _" ' RED http://wwvvkennedy-graven.com
II. Spot Zoning
Spot zoning has not been substantially addressed by Minnesota courts. In fact, there are only ten
Minnesota cases' that mention spot zoning, and most of those cases do not provide much
guidance or a well-developed rule. See, e.g., Communication Properties, Inc. v. County of
Steele, 506 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993); Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Ass'n, 437
N.W.2d 52 (Minn. 1989); Larson v. Washington County, 387 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. Ct. App.
1986).
Having said that, "[s]pot zoning is the reclassification of a small area of land in a manner that is
"not compatibla with.tl e.sur ounding'neighborhood, for ilii: benefit of the property o'wnei', and to
the detriment of others."2 Amcon Com. v. City of Eagen, 348 N.W.2d 66, 73 n.6 (1984) (citing
Terr v. Duddlesten, 641 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)). Said another way, spot zoning
applies to zoning changes on a small parcel of land, establishing a use classification inconsistent.
with surrounding uses and dramatically reducing the value for uses specified in the zoning
ordinance of either the rezoned plot or abutting property. See State by Rochester Ass'n of
Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 891 (Minn. 1978) (citations omitted).
One can prove a case of spot zoning by showing the zoning amendment caused (1) a total or
• substantial diminution of value of the property affected thereby or (2) created an island-of
nonconforming use. See Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, 267 Minn. 155, 160, 125 N.W.2d
. 583, 586 (1963). That rule was followed fifteen years later in State by Rochester Ass'n of
Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 891-92 (Minn. 1978). The usual
presumption of validity attaching to zoning amendments as legislative acts applies, and the
burden of demonstrating spot zoning rests with the one attacking the ordinance. M.
In the present case, there is no information to show whether allowing billboards or other
advertising structures (collectively billboards) in the district that includes the golf course, would
affect the value of the golf course property or abutting properties. One consideration may
include the characteristics of the billboard. A billboard that is considered an eyesore may have
the effect of reducing:the value of uses allowed on abutting properties. Another consideration
may involve the location of the billboard.
Even if a billboard did affect the value of the properties, it may not totally or substantially
diminish that value, a requirement for spot zoning. The typical scenario associated with spot
zoning involves rezoning residential property to allow for commercial or industrial uses. The
1 One other case references spot zoning but that case had been overruled. See Paster v. Glen
Court Neighborhood Ass'n, 424 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
2 Other courts in defining spot zoning have developed miscellaneous variations. See, e.g.,
• Waterstradt v. Board of Commissioners, 454 P. 2d 445 (Kan. 1969) ("Spot zoning signifies a
carving out of one or more properties located in a given use district and reclassifying them in a
different use district.").
SJR•168870
MU210-1
Mr.. Rick Jopke
October 19, 1999 •
Page 5
increase in noise, traffic, and potential odorous emissions have a direct and substantial negative
effect on the value of abutting properties. Here, the connection is tenuous, but even if the
connection did exist, one would question the degree such an effect would have on property
values. To constitute spot zoning, the effect must be total and substantial. Under these
circumstances, spot zoning would be difficult to prove.
Another way to prove spot zoning is to show the rezoning created an island of nonconforming
use. Allowing the billboard for only one property--the golf course--may create an island of
nonconforming use sufficient to prove spot zoning. If other properties within the district are
allowed to have billboards, or if other zoning districts, such as public facilities districts, are
• allowed-to have billboards, such as Brough a conditional use permit process, then spot zoning
• may be harder to prove, especially if those properties are located near the golf course property.
III. Statutory Restrictions3
The placement of advertising devices or billboards along a state trunk highway, such as Highway
10, also must be consistent with Minnesota statutes. Minnesota Statutes § 173.08 provides in
part that no advertising device except those expressly permitted by exception shall be erected or
maintained in an area adjacent to a state trunk highway. One such exception for the placement of
an advertising device adjacent to a trunk highway provides that placement is permitted for •
"advertising devices which are located, or which are to be located, in business areas and which
comply, or will comply when erected, with the provisions of§ 173.01 to 173.27." Minn. Stat. §
173.08, subd. 1(h). A "business area" as used in the statute is defined to be "any part of an
adjacent area which is (a) zoned for business, industrial or commercial activities under the
authority of any law of this state or any political subdivision thereof, or (b) not so zoned, but
which constitutes an unzoned commercial or industrial area as herein defined." Minn. Stat. §
173.02, subd. 9 (emphasis added).
Thus, it would appear that if the zoning for The Bridges Golf Course under the City's zoning
code is that of business, industrial or commercial, placement of billboards would be permitted
. adjacent to State Trunk Highway No. 10. If The Bridges Golf Course is not.zoned business,
industrial or commercial, placement of advertising devices or billboards would not appear to be
permitted along State Trunk Highway No. 10. I have enclosed a copy of Chapter 173 regarding
advertising devices for your reference.
3 Minnesota Statutes Chapter 173 also has provisions requiring the issuance of permits in certain •
situations. The Placement of billboards would also be subject to any such permitting
requirements.
SJR-168870
MU210-1
Mr. Rick Jopke
• October 19, 1999
Page 6
Please feel free to contact me regarding the above opinions and supporting discussion.
Sincerely,
KENNEDY& GRAVEN, CHARTERED
Robert C. Long
• Mounds View City Attorn
RCL:sms .
Enclosures
• cc: , Chuck Whiting
•
• .
•
SJR-168870
MU210-1
. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
October 20, 1999
Mounds View City Hall
AbY
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
.4. 4111111N,
4fgh, Valiiiiii.
1. Call to Order
0,- ,AWORNhy:,%46 gd
4 , ,
.... .,„:,,s,,:,,,,,,,„,, •::-.i.,i,':.'
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson dt 7 0001., OctoberVi1499 :-
W
".%Mwiter-
OK wpm.
2. Roll Call - OAMMONs,
AMOMOM.
„IMMO:MN
ite VIORDN
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Heglatiphlitwon, Kaden, Laube, and
andWoh,
Stevenson. „Adak. IMINOMP
--,Nft'Oi,AW%r
0.40•01.071 . Wgqiiia
Members Absent: Commissioners Berke, Bragl)en (leave of and Miller, with prior notice.
4M1111111 tretsa
:fr!'• 4? r-:1601100‘'
Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, gammuiTigNOVtlopment Director Rick Jopke,
Council Liaison Roger Stigney, and Recorder Trish Pearson
"Mt AN:
..,a.•' Aill' Of
At
or „on AK-
Index to Minutes46 se me...dg,
Apowommor Page
....;,•:71t.. , OMSK woo,'"
Planningqe0W;:'4V559-99,26100.unty Road I. Discussion regarding
N 5:001.42- VEMNON
a development review a twituttoMomor assisted living residential facility.
-440-010144,
MSP Real Estam*mpote t. 111110 2
040-34."•";1‘. ,,,,,:
Special Planning Cage No Discuss proposed Ordinance 642, an
ordina,amending theikiiktade related to driveway widths and curb cuts. 6
te: •
Stag Reports/Items of Information 10
0.40 or
.' :;A. 4*
ftitperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 14
Oillitki. A.401"
!'iageEtir''
3. -'ff,?, 6fiiens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda.
0
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 2
4. Approval of Minutes •
A. September 15, 1999
MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Kaden to approve the September 15, 1999 meeting minutes as
corrected..
Ayes–6 Nays-0 :A. The motion carried.
ski"i
Aso
5. PlanningCase No. 559-99 r<. „ �ry.':•; �f
s; r . tax.;> £ .
Property Involved: 2670 County Road I
Iwo, ,: "`'`..
Discussion regarding a development review for a two-story,4jaibbIR§Sisted living residential facility.
Applicant: MSP Real Estate " votaideN
ir '�eiq::xa:::a �„
NiOntk.
oinow, Vow
The applicant was present. »'"''
s'-
de
Planning Associate Ericson gave the stall'•eport as follows;::;.:v ;k:$>
:,w
The applicant, MSP Real Estate, hajuestecl„ pproval o 'a development review for a two-story •
senior assisted living complex to beijegted at `70 Count Road I. The City Council has approved
the conditional use permit for this s velopme swellf the ordinance rezoning the property from
,.
B-2, LimitedBusiness Com` ercial, to R-4fIggiagity Residential.
. ,:}+.y.,4}i:.w '.Vic.. �tj [-,j�' ,:
The applicanti as indicated Modeemont of the building on the site, and has revised the footprint of
V-Wathe structure t >1tFinto compliance th the setback requirments. Planning Associate Ericson
explained that the sit,::::".' :;..:. rovided tot<e Commission indicated an encroachment of the building
into the setbackhas beeresolved through a slight adjustment of the structure, which
places it gar to the p' t n lot.
•
':1:61160—
Plana Associate Ericson ind cated all of the dimensional and parking lot requirements are met with
this He provided the Commission with a memorandum prepared by the applicant in
response to the Staff Xitort, which addresses and satisfies staff's concerns with regard to the site
Aar view. ”.
P9., >: >. .' elate Ericson stated that one half of the drainage flow at the site would be directed
toward 'aunty Road I, and the remainder, toward Mounds View Drive. He explained the drainage
plan has been reviewed by the Public Works Director who has found that the amount of runoff at the
site will not be significant, and any excess runoff will be diverted into available on-site green space
and City storm sewers. He indicated that there appear to be no issues with regard to the drainage.
III
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 3
• PlanningAssociate Ericson stated staff has consulted with the CityForester who has rovided his
P
recommendations regarding the landscape plan, which has been revised to indicate appropriate
species, as specified in the applicant's response to the Staff Report.
Planning Associate Ericson indicated, as discussed at previous meetings, the applicant will attempt
to restrict westbound traffic entering the site from County Road I, and the exit at:,ts`location will
be clearly marked "exit only," to prevent any circulation problems or potential.traific issues.
Sieto„Planning Associate Ericson stated another matter brought rw rd at previousi stings was thataa
sidewalk would be required along Mounds View Drive. Hc-teferred to t sitiltige ich indicated
the areas where sidewalks will be constructed, and explained that.igre sidewalks ztll oin the
existing sidewalk along County Road I. He indicated thati .'idewal would followtirag meter of
the site, and connect to the SuperAmerica access, to all'I* .:,ingress and egress ofpedestrian
traffic inthat ''
area. `�'�"
Planning Associate Ericson stated the specifications for the garbageumst :enclosure, as indicated
in theplans submittedre f :<:<._ »::.»>: <....
by the applicant, meet with., t 1 uirements `sp: `
� ;fir f,, •;�.:>.. ::F>:
s`z :...:::> :>:;;Ae;: >:.:.
Chair Peterson noted there had been some::::. uestiori:r itillt:..theta ccurac of the scale of the
building. Planning Associate Ericson ex.,gained that. i e eltyM dicated on theprevious plans
F>> dry..,::>.::..:....:_
were not accurate, however, the revise scale is.a curate, a ttAtd cates the topmost height of the
• :::hat it
building to be 37 feet. He explainedlt the maximum heft allowed is 45 feet, and the structure
is within that requirement. ""h" ` >
Planning Associate Ericson ated the applicantk does not propose to install any lighting on the
building. p'lained the' i t` pPlan indicates the proposed lighting, and the foot-candle readings
are all within 0 Code rekigtObAtk in terms of glare, and light spillage onto the surrounding
•Vatiproperties. :: <^ $ " a.4 '» .
Planning Amit s <;stated n'o i igna e plans have been submitted at this time, however, the
g
applican ::as indicated tha any signage will comply with the City Code and the Conditional Use
Permit'quirements. l i 'pointed out that the Conditional Use Permit sets a maximum size of 32
squ.,; ��>feet for signage, an twill review the signage based upon this requirement, if the applicant
h. t provided plans forthis by the next meeting of the Planning Commission. He added that the
si ; age issues could a, obe reviewed at the Council level.
> <, >_o i ired if the applicant has indicated the type of signage they might utilize at the
stght. s= s a::
Mike Lewis, representative ofMSP Real Estate, the applicant indicated their facilities typically utilize
wooden signs, set in block foundations.
Planning Associate Ericson advised that all of the Development Review requirements appear to be
• met, and there are no outstanding issues. He explained that staff will require the plans be revised to
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 4
i the proposed landscape chanes sidewalk location, and all of the other changes that have •
indicate p p p changes,
been addressed, to provide the City Council will have a final, revised set of plans for consideration.
Chair Peterson noted the site plan indicates the parking stalls to be 9 feet by 18 feet in size, and the
City Code requires 9 feet by 20 feet. Planning Associate Ericson explained that Ordinance 620 has
revised the dimensional requirements of the parking stalls, and the proposed statue within the
Code. _:���. � �:
lk Air
o':
Chair Peterson pointed out a discrepancy in the revised elev.:tions, which'range tween 112 to 113
feet, and the previous elevations, which were indicated to age between' h ?*1 sto _000 feet. :;Mr.
Lewis explained this was an error on the part of the architect, and t correct4ei ; t ns arc the
912 to 914-foot range. Assisar
>' fF° t<'wr4<i
Chair Peterson inquired regarding the elevation of the lot, ane 'il 'wuld be brought in or removed
some concrete .lock on the site that will be
removed, g there would be no need for fill to be brought in or removed<>" the site.
FAth
inout that the ma'orit 't 'ith`e'> t n a IOW•kto be directed toward the
Commissioner Kaden pointed J ,,,,;_;�a.,.:,_.3.:��.,� �,::.,>..: g PP :
SuperAmerica site. Mr. Lewis explained that the floodlights= _<the:parking lot would be directed
downward. H,< °<. <..
Rit{: Yr�_...a
Y.'jam"�:ir_.. ..�..
Planning Associate Ericson advised tha tere is spine light spillage onto the SuperAmerica location,
and the Code does not require therep-4.ny min zation of:Zi ht spillage onto a. commercial property.
€'" `''t e candle of the lighting, and it appears that
He indicated, however, there is a r �i�rementan' �rans c� = `'�"� pp
the MSP light)* decreases .c a .;r minimal` mo t within a. short distance from the site. He added
that the for t-candle reading a:.<.;;::.<tthe street> r ell within the Code requirements.
Chair Peterson:`oti .;entrance''a 4 alk at the eastern side of the building, with pedestal type
lighting at this location. e inquiredli bl' would provide Sufficient lighting for the entrance.
Mr. Le ::hex lained this :<. •rimaril for deliverypurposes. He pointed out that the eastern
,
portio f the facility will ' ed for the Alzheimer s clientele, who will have a separate access,
andaiiS entrance will be With d at night.
Ay
ewis inquired if a" "ve-foot wide sidewalk would be sufficient, rather than 7 feet, as indicated
.$t0 PlanningAssociate Ericson explained the Department of Public Works requires a seven-foot
_.:. provideplows�,� .a.. ..f maintenance vehicles, to that the- and brushes don't interfere with
t andsca e.
Council Liaison Stigney inquired if the remaining debris at the MSP site located across from the
assisted living facility would be removed. Mr. Lewis explained he was not the project manager for
this site, however, he would bring the matter to the attention of the president of the company.
110
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 5
• Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that unless the center median at the entrance on County Road
I is removed or shortened,which is not presently allowed, there would be no alternative but a right-in,
right-out turn at this location, therefore, signage may not be necessary.
Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that although it is not intended that traffic traveling west on
County Road I utilize the County Road I access, some people may deviate from this by crossing a
lane of traffic and diverting themselves from the median. In addition, he plain dthat eastbound
antlioartraffic on County Road I travels at a fairly significant speed4102:d althoughBring the site at this
location from the westbound lane is probably less of an issue,'it'would`'likely less hazardous
eliminate this ingress altogether, m rk' i „c"into e si n
g marking it exit only anctivert all tralc intra,<f �::;sze to Mounds
View Drive. He commented however, this might be overly cautious:>r�
F=<� ter: `�*.., ..., ;�a'
tESaW
Chair ete son stated that a motorist traveling east on esOnlyiRpad I might see the Traffic light
change and increase their speed to reach the light at the same same;t40044.0hisle is attempting to drive the
wrong direction to by-pass the median and access the driveway."`' a` be believed signage at this
location was a very prudent consideration and not overly cautious,,
sagym ;.:. imp
Commissioner Laube inquired if the site access at urgogpiNfioy,Drive would be indicated "entrance
only," as previously discussed. He pointed, is hat thisexits,t e site in an area surrounded
by a strip mall, the SuperAmerica station,,d nd the Silver Lake< ` ds Development.
Ar Viler
Commissioner Stevenson stated thi :::`'ould not;e ossible °s it would restrict• �� tau �,�y p �� d est ict vehicles attempting
to travel west on County Road I, who„ would subsequently have to enter the SuperAmerica or Burger
King sites, and turn around. itior"
Commissionerbe oit ted: } at the traffic trattn:Siltm the SuperAmerica station will be adjacent to
the site, an l°':across t t within a few feet, there is a 131-unit development, with only
this and one at .:owhichW ll l n much congestion at this location.
>:�:} �,t�:,�. of
Valtr
Commissioner= idip emsimuch t ed 80 percent of the traffic exiting the site to go to the highway would
exit onto ty Road'>>=tttht:and travel east to the traffic light. He explained that there would
not •e. < 'any peop e trave >on ounty Roas I, owever, they should be allowed to do so, as
forcarr them to first travele'i ton County Road I would ultimately create more congestion.
i'Vewis stated he a•reed with this. He added that if Mounds View Drive was restricted to an
entrance only, people>'��ould disobey this, or problems would result on County Road I. He pointed<. n�facilities do notgenerate a large amount of traffic, and there would onlybe
g
eoyees on site during the heaviest shift, who would not be entering or exiting the site
duriri -peak traffic times.
Chair Peterson inquired if the fire hydrant location had been addressed by the Fire Marshall.
• Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has not yet consulted with the Fire Marshall, however, this
matter will be addressed prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. He explained that
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 6
some relocation of the fire hydrants would be necessary, as the fire hydrant on County Road I appears III
to be located within the driveway of the site. He added that the Fire Department is somewhat
apprehensive about utilizing fire hydrants for a project when they are not located on the site. He
explained there is some question as to whether or not the fire hydrant located across the street would
be sufficient to meet the needs at the rear of the building, and this will be determined.
Chair Peterson commented there did not appear to be any issues, with':>#h . exde'ption of the fire
hydrants, and suggested that staff proceed with the next step", '<' ,w
op* NitomorN,
ire Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would draft a resoluttn for considrat'tna next meet g
sir:>:� � ��=t:<:><; <
ni Commission on November 3. t ,> :> N:.:
of the Planning 407
',EA .
:
,'ytsYt^.,'iii z';;
'`"ziv ° < <'
6. Special Planning Case No. SP-074-99 �>�<:.:: < ���•
Ar lemili*,
Discuss proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning ,d re ated to driveway widths
and curb cuts.
A',>!i,u >:;�l+»i"fig'>�� ...
e m
`' r 1 . 9 meetf`' t`e Planning there
Planning Associate Ericson stated at the Orbe6, �:.. et. g_^,;.;,, :: Commission,
was discussion of the options that could_,beput into lace to resolve some of the hardships, which are
a growing issue, as more houses are,, ing three car garages, which necessitate wider driveways. •
....,
Planning Associate Ericson stated giff was directed.to,d ff an ordinance that would amend the City
Code to allo :br driveways ; ould be 3$feet0te or the width of the garage, plus an additional
12 feet, `:.'• '::was ter x lained4t rdinance would not restrict a property owner with
e g . <`.: t�. , ias is presently
one-sta g:.ra v a lesser the they could still have a driveway 35 feet wide, p y
allowed, howe. e ' :s ertov '`?vii 36-foot garage could increase that width by an additional
12 feet. ': > ;: «%
ilf
LQi t;,,: •md
Planningssociate Ericson ktmented that staff does not feel the allowance of wider driveways
wouldeifSult in many situationshere there would be an excessive amount of impervious surface.
Heexplained that typicallyi owner would not desire to construct more driveway surface
t , .bsolutely necessa<; 'due to the great expense involved.
1.��```: • Associate. :"> son advised the City currently allows a maximum 22-foot wide curb cut for
t ; .; _ < :.:;'end there has been some discussion that the curb cut be increased to 24 feet. He
E'� ' zx ken with the Director of Public Works, Mike Ulrich, who indicated that increasing
the cu .'nt . two feet to accommodate this would be acceptable, therefore, the proposed 24-foot curb
cut has been indicated in the ordinance.
Planning.Associate Ericson explained that the ordinance before the Commission was the first draft
and could be amended until the Planning Commission is comfortable with its writing, after which, a •
resolution will be prepared to forward to the Council for first and second reading.
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 7
• Planning Associate Ericson stated the width of driveways and curb cuts for twin homes and duplexes
have presented an issue, in that the existing driveways, however they were approved, do not meet
City Code requirements. He explained that a medium density residential dwelling ranging between
two and six units, is currently allowed two curb cuts on the property, as long as they are spaced 40
feet apart, and each driveway is no more than 12 feet wide. He stated this appeared to be overly
restrictive, and not in keeping with what has been approved.
<_•,
Atli,AP
Planning Associate Ericson advised staff has attempted to address this is =:Subdivision 5e of the
ordinance, which indicates the 12-foot drivewaywidth be hag ed to`'T1` i``fo a d the drivew
; ss`. g �:wy µh n
surfaces be a minimum of 20 feet apart, rather than 40 feet He pointed oust<>t i pears to be::.less
restrictive, however, in the case of a twin home with the side by side . ages, hew:s< ot: at how
any separation of the driveways could be maintained. H' ::;lained that the intennt of the,:b nance
appears to conflict with the market and current building` pl: ons. He indicated"'th'at a 20-foot
gonme:separation might not be necessary, and a ten-foot separatcnght` e sufficient, adding that there
were a number of driveways that currently have no separation at'a p one large curb cut.
Planning Associate Ericson stated Subdivision 5f of>the "ro. osed ordinance ndicates Curb cuts in
existence as of 10/11/99 that do not conform,:v t rttdv..ision may:<remain in existence unless
deemed bythe director of Public Works to be. 'dan er`` >t>"ul.la safe ;< hazard. Notices to abandon
a curb cut may be appealed in writing toff 'e City cOndlitilioWlginedCouncil," this language was taken
from Ordinance 640, which was adopteby the RO Counci on October 11, and provides that as
• long as a driveway is not a public nuance or `afety hazard; and its non-conforming status is not
increased, it can be kept, replaced t' aintain ..04
PlanningAar Aiii AV
Associate Ericson .; i ted out that therear it iilarities between the drivewayrequirements
"sister in O di c�..6� and ClV"°� `»' ��� He ex"''1'�i�'�d rt is a ordinance" to Ordinance 640 it
° pt p a.:.n..
'L.'q.'<z: �y�,.:.....,*'v:.'..:x'�a nY�..: t.�Z{``.h�,.` kz".`v':: .;.:.,
takes int&401 e�non the changes that were made with that ordinance, and institutes those changes
into the Zontg: ;;iso thatt ` tiQ consistent. He stated other changes considered by the
proposed ordinanar4 housekpiature, to ensure that the Code is internally consistent with
other Chapt ,° . A'rr •' : »�F:.
Co 'oner Laube co c: c t at many twin homes are only separated by side by side garages,
typically 22 feet wide, amus does not provide sufficient room for a 10-foot space between the
Wil' 1
d • ays. He stated thisroblem is becoming more commonplace throughout the metropolitan area.
e4 :added that the largersized garages in these developments tend to be deeper, rather than wider.
Associate Cson advised that the Code should not be drafted in a manner that would create
:: irz' 1> that< ,, perties can not meet, or result in a large number of non-conforming driveways,
`t'
a ::"�u ,j k' . d.is moving in that direction and the non-conforming driveways do exist. He pointed
out tht hi indicates the Code does not reflect what is currently being constructed.
Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the intent of the separation of the driveways.
0
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 8
PlanningAssociate Ericson stated this is a safetyconsideration, to minimize back to back driveways. •
Y
He explained that two vehicles might simultaneously back out of the garage, and cross paths without
seeing each other.
Commissioner Hegland commented that the separation between the driveways was likely to create
a problem in the wintertime, in terms of visibility, as the area between the driveways uld probably
be utilized for snow storage. He stated he was unclear as to why the sepaaior.: s necessary, and
inquired if there were any traffic reports of data available, which Indic,toinstances where
problems had occurred with regard to safety. Int
.
PlanningAssociate Ericson stated staff was not aware of such:data, an. .there way`"`A
available in terms of previous problems, however, hew : research this matter. y : < °
..:.: : tea.
Commissioner Laube stated he resides in a similar develop, the 9 years he has lived
there, he has not heard of anyone havin aproblem in this re arxiiii>a'>;' ::;,
Y g :. g .-........:
a�:'`lf:ice',�i\:F
Commissioner Kaden inquired if the units construct o i!ver Lake. oa provide any separation
between the driveways. Planning Associate E soz ya Psed that at lest one unit does, however,
some do not, and in fact, some of the driveways are sep;;t the zi rb cut is not. He explained
that some of these units utilize a landscaping separation bet :te n the two driveways, which is
approximately 5 feet wide. 41" "' ' "
G ii a�A*
Chair Peterson pointed out that the,. district should be a;s parate nsideration. He explained tMgt
hat
the five-foot separation requirement is necarywti R-1 hcoousing, simply to provide that the
driveways of4eighboring protoo are not<in t ° l se a proximity to each other, however, it may
not make`5 ..s ". require t t tsepration on R, ,properties.
• itikilk
Planning Ass .:. - ricson inn it d if the Commission would consider a width limitation to be
appropriate. �. , ><tapmem
Now"fila
„4411111,1
9104..
Chair Pete on stated a i t i.:`.;ration would appear to make sense, however, he was unclear as to
what t c a riveway separAkittpfement would accomplish. He added that the R-3 and R-4 districts
pre : a number of diffe ei lk enarios, and these might be difficult to classify.
.:�: iissioner Stevenson stated staff's recommendation of a 24-foot curb cut for the R-1 and R-5
' Wit. . ��<�:�
ruses was:aequate, with an adjustment in L.
>xsubdivision 5b to a 32-foot maximum curb cut
�:r :>:.;,;.,R-3yoa : He explained that in the case of single units, this indicates a 16-foot driveway
p ryt riveways are back to back, however, if they allow one curb cut for both homes, it
sho 'i; e3"2 feet, and the spacing requirement should be removed. He requested subdivision 5b
indicate that a 32-foot curb cut shall be permissible for R-2, R-3, and R-4 uses, with the,explanation
of this in subdivision 5e, indicating two curb cuts together, not to exceed 16 feet each, and the
removal of the clause indicating the minimum separation footage.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 9
• Commissioner Laube inquired if this would present a problem for R-3 uses, in which there are two
24-foot garages, constructed side by side, in terms of attempting to narrow down the driveway
surface into a single 32-foot curb cut.
Commissioner Stevenson stated this would be preferable to allowing a 44-foot curb cut, which would
be unreasonable, and would probably be unacceptable from the standpointyof the Director of Public
Works. Planning Associate Ericson explained that higher density locationswith xmulti-family units
Ammaw
have driveways and some parking area, therefore, the surfaceAxpandsoamouering the property.
1 let:t i <K. :
Commissioner Laube commented that some of these units ar constructed e Io :e t the curt),Aid
attempting to narrow down the driveway within a 20-foot_Fdistance fight result i a a ty zard,
in terms of backing out of the garages. He pointed ou =.maority of these types> 'homes are
purchased by elderly people.
he understood this concern ho e`r, t:.e Cit does not anticipate
Planning Associate Ericson stated ;;W...�;.,k_:;,,,::�, Y P
a great deal of this type of development in the future, as there arelt < r>:3 high density parcels
remaining in Mounds View. He explained that amending e Code for the wider curb cuts
would not result in a hardship for future developments, i would provide for greater flexibility.
Commissioner Laube stated he was in or of the wellg „cuts. Commissioner Hegland
a';
commented he could see no benefit frorleeping;,te curb cu:tsmna'row. He pointed out there were
already examples of the wider curb curblAifiWithin40 City, w ish would not comply with the current
ordinance, yet he has not heard any' dinplain Ili this regatrd.
aft ��'Y+�*"�e
Planning As oeiate Ericson.: tae ie would move the last clause in subdivision 5e, relating to the
��Zts�: Fxx`..y;.,,. :»?:a<I. ?+`::� .:L.3:.cac�x;::,;.•x •
spacing uir ment betweendr veways, and change the curb cut width for medium and higher
densityi : eet .
Chair Peterson inquired e _aiding the tiiimirof Section 1121.09, Subdivision 5e. Planning Associate
Ericson stated state4LwasOgkittgipated\Atithe Zoning Code, under parking requirements for all zoning
designat{':"'s Chair P`et n adv:,,ised that any differences should be indicated in each section.
Chair+,��Peterson stated th `3, on Page 2 of the proposed ordinance indicates the R-1 and R-2
af'Av�iO
Zog Districts, and insured if the R-2 district should be included in this, as there appears to be a
end to separate the R ''from the other districts. He noted that the requirement limiting the plfeet is contac'within Item C, 1-a, residential uses, which includes all of the districts, and
the ;ieinent for the R-1 and R-2 districts. He pointed out, however, by striking this
r' ;.:,to eti subdivision 5e, any restrictions on the R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-O Zoning Districts will
bertha d.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that the reason for this is that some higher density
developments might have a parking lot that is 100 feet wide, and staff does not feel this requirement
would be appropriate for these types of developments. He added, however, the R-2 Zoning District
• and the 35-foot driveway width requirement was drafted prior to addressing subdivision 5e, and
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 10
R-2 ZoningDistrict can be removed from Item •
presents an inconsistency. He advised that the B-3,
and the width of these driveways can be addressed in subdivision Se.
Planning Associate Ericson stated he would obtain measurements from some of the twin homes
located on Silver Lake Road and County Road H-2, and provide this information to th Commission
for their review at the next meeting. He explained that staff would ,prepare.. resolution for
consideration at that time, which will forward this matter to the City Councow er, there is ample
time for further discussion, if the Commission so desires. >><. _i ` "'
Air should roc.::. d in a tii el`"' 't�t a :: et"<`<C>ommissio er
Chair Peterson advised this considerationp �; ,;,��.y ;..;`,,;:,.H;�,>,.,k� r_R;. �;
Stevenson explained that staff can prepare a resolution for consideration at th'etoompotiggOthethe
Planning Commission, and if there are concerns at that time><<the;:mtter can be tallc < 4
lar
' .::i.ii:'A%nomat
lr
7. Staff Reports /Items of Information
A. Billboard Update
idh
<., ....: .issi in 7 possible revisions to
CommunityDevelopment Director Jopke totaled th commissionr:. Bard g
the ordinance relating to billboards. He prqgided the Wfrinits0,MOVIhe written opinion of the City
Attorney, which he received that date. < > `x= _
Alp
Community Development Directotii p e explained there s some question as to whether the deed
to the golf course property containedArany restrictionsrestigwtloalyould prohibit the placement of advertising
devices or billboards at the soft Orse. TheCity _rney has indicated this is probably not the case,
h wever:t "': ay way t `be'_`�e "''''n of this rs< obtain the opinion of the State Attorney General.
CommunityDeviwl..>: :>tn_�Jt DirectorJop fated another issue reviewed bythe CityAttorney is if the
placement of adr i v t:billboara:$0*'golf course would constitute illegal spot zoning, or raise
any other zo `: ` it . he Cif/Attorney has indicated that this is probably not the case, and
would •. ' u.on ar ...teristics and locations of s.ecific billboards .roposed to be
const ed. ay
Y
44
C•; unity Developmeti Director Jopke stated the City Attorney has also provided his opinion
AV
r::at ing whether or not advertising devices or billboards would be permitted along the State trunk
I** system, and has indicated that if the property-zoned for business, commercial or industrial •
tf "appear to be permitted. Community Development Director Jopke pointed out
rt property within the City is zoned for business or industrial use, and the State may
determine not to issue the necessary permits, however, this is within the State's purview.
Community Development Director Jopke suggested, in light of the late receipt of the City Attorney's
opinion, this matter be scheduled for a more detailed discussion at the November 3 Planning
Commission meeting. He indicated at this time, the Commission could further review the ordinance, •
and forward this item to the City Council for consideration.
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 11
Community Development Director Jopke indicated the Commission has directed staff to research the
history of existing billboards within the community. He advised there were two billboards within the
City. One of the billboards is located along Highway 10, on the LaDeen property, and information
provided by Terry Moses indicates that the property owner sold a permanent sign easement to the
advertising company. He explained that this billboard is not subject to a lease, and the advertising
company has the right to maintain the billboard in.this location indefinitely. Ie stated" e advertising
company leased the billboard space in the late 1970's, and purchased the< rrnat ent sign easement
in 1984. He explained that in order to remove that billboard, the ; te ;;would have to be
purchased from the advertising companMar y.
.>. <::: is„`>:N
CommunityDevelopment Director Joke indicated the ;:her billboa 'in the'City located=at the
Rent-All facility on County Road H and Highway 10. Heas:tated he has reviewed a':Olvitiltitht lease
that was entered into in 1984, when the property was appraisedwor the expansion 41Wit Mermaid
Project. He explained that this is a 10-year lease, which 411110,00 effect until 2004, however,
the proert is being purchased by the Mermaid Project, and te� ers have indicated Gated that the
; .
billboard will not be utilized.
INISOF
Chair Peterson inquired how the placement ofeettg oa d located across from City Hall fits in
relation to various proposals that have comet<c rward r
R'i`m
k4',
Ei
Community Development Director Jopke tated thia'billboard' %a '< een "grandfathered" in, and from
preliminary
what he has seen onlans, tl 'billboarci<'<t7vi11 not conflict with, or restrict the
• construction plans of the current de alt <hl`opment`;p oposal. pointed out however, it will be clearly
144
visible to any business that is developed on this _ate.trompty
,
Communs ovflo mettgr Jo ke<.0ommiented that Told Development Company hass
approaAidtplguncil
regarding<this particular site, and is still interested in constructing a
Walgreen;s140011v.this1016.01471e noted there is an alternate proposal, which would not
involve the remnant reftaiitgil own4.180ite City, and would only require the vacation of the old
EdgewoodOlitilley. He` iimented that they would prefer to move forward with the
originaltposal, hov "xy. have determined that the development can proceed with the
'
minim of the vacation oft : . �i sement.
Ar we,
unity Development Director Jopke stated the City Council has requested the Parks and
Recreation Commission <review this proposal, as it also involves the possible dedication of wetland
k�
1 ;H ` he City. Hey,.."wined that the Council has requested the Parks and Recreation Commission
,ffi:;.ita ,,eir,'Vitnregarding whether or not the City wants this land, and what potential may exist.
a . :; 0 this matter would be addressed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their
next*MiffiOn October 27, which will commence at 6:30 p.m., and will be considered early in the
agenda. He encouraged the Commissioners to attend the discussion, adding that the Commission's
. Comprehensive Plan study session was scheduled for later that evening.
• Community Development Director Jopke provided the Commission with the written text of the
Comprehensive Plan draft, and explained that some of the maps and tables were not yet included.
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 12
He stated that PlanSight, the consultant who is developing the maps, has provided the first draft, to •
which he has made some editorial changes, and they should be available by the end of the week. He
noted this is a discussion draft of the Comprehensive Plan, with information pending, in terms of
transportation issues and traffic projections from Ramsey County and MNDot. He indicated he was
also attempting to obtain additional language from the City Attorney regarding airport issues for
inclusion in the document, however, with those exceptions, the draft should b 'ompleted for
discussion on October 27. He suggested the Commission's first consideration at,tltaf meeting should
somfi
be the method with which they will approach the review process. 405600*,,
>'
alp *VVARde*
Chair Peterson inquired if there were any major changes griire draft sigig th .e.., io :s review
Community Development Director Jopke stated there wereq_ ,aj r changes. He'"6044000t at he
has reorganized some of the information, and included algtiltae,ain the Land Use'sectiion, which
indicates the compatibility between the Zoning Districts andt#0104MDesignations. He stated there
was additional information regarding highway noise andOterttai :walls along Highway 118,
based upon complaints staff has received in terms of noise levels ue ;e<>increased traffic along
this road. 4< <h '
Chair Peterson stated since the early 1990'xAfind discussion dis910000p,:%g freeway, the issue of noise
walls has come forward many times, and thetandard t nswe o A''. of has been that only areas
of new construction or major modificatio °are eligiblefor a sa >wall. He explained, therefore, the
portion of the new Highway 10, east,dkang L e Road, is_, lit eligible for a sound wall, and this is
likely the area that generates the majority of complaints. .
Setn. AN"
Communityevelo ment Dir o Jopke statedthi i s'correct. He advised, however, MNDot has
indicated heywi 1 be moraionng noise levels along>this roadway in the spring and summer, as traffic
levels st ., t depen utile i heir determination, are agreeable to indicate this section of
roadway as ju f q a soundwyin the future.
Nowtor
Sly .
Chair Petersonto�� r d never felt he treatment of this matter was fair, in that there are some
definite increased impasi tresidents in this area, and no means of recourse.
Co nity DevelopmentDirector Jopke stated he felt it was important that the City indicate on
re that this problem should be addressed, and this is why it has been noted in the Comprehensive
P kti
L{+bY
CoMag
. :. :e `Stenson inquired regarding the types of maps that will be provided with the draft
p' :, stay Development Director Jopke explained these would be colored maps, 8'/2 by 11
inch n e.
Commissioner Stevenson inquired if this was such a reduced size, the maps would be difficult to read.
Community Development Director Jopke stated in his opinion, the maps appeared to be very good,
however, staff would look into this. •
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 13
• Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the nature of the maps. Community Development
Director Jopke explained that Page 5 of the draft contains a list, which indicates the types of maps
contained within the document.
Community Development Director Jopke indicated at the first study session, the Commission should
.R.::;::orr
discuss what type of community input is appropriate. He explained there would b'e at least one
informational community forum, for presentation of the document, and a rrrforl public hearing,
t,`:re
during which the citizens will provide their input. He pointw' out tha' tetropolitan Council
requires the City's Comprehensive Plan is made available forview off` j A ommunities, and
this should be done at the earliest point in the process. AlirA<,<;
Chair Peterson inquired if the adjacent communities' Copp . kens e Plans were ar 'also s jeot to an
q `V�o'°u:`L:S,.�2n..`.�:`.:e:.::Gar:. .4.33.:.i<::::{'<':':':::`�+r"
extension period. Community Development Director explained yf. e plans were all in various stages
of the process, however, fairly close to that of Mounds Viewrdtd::that the Comprehensive Plan
: 3d
for the cities of New Brighton, Shoreview, Arden Hills B`i' i ie have;already been submitted to
staff.
tiek
Chair Peterson inquired if anyconflicts or incont itttbtxtt:es<>were indicate; `' 'ythe plans that had been
submitted. Community Development Director Diregtpflopkejidoligiwp aware of any.
Commissioner He land inquired if staff 'ould prrnt any o:r': pwdata through graphs.
He pointed
d
out the draft contained many cha'k < howev : graphs:hay offer further clarification of the
information. Community Developrt>Director`< opke stated staff would attempt to utilize any means
to better communicate this information.
Chair Pete ei " quired>> ufflci nt room'wo ld="be available for the study session. Community
Developiii iteptor Jopke'i d c t dthe conference room would be available for this meeting.
VW:be, Nosszoih,
Chair Peterson sustt ;e Coers skim through the entire document, to see how it flows
.
and fits to eb661 d'"x`et` tomnlss:o
. ore d't f it and decide what theywould like to proceed at the study
: .:.
session '1911.. ,.����_..
WA
B. Previous council Actions
:evious Council aeons were considered.
`v` 1bair a soil and Planning Commissioners Report
Val
No rept ' were considered.
9. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned
IPthe meeting at 8:09 p.m.
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 14
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) •
Respectfully submitted,
taw•V
o?'w3Afx
Rick Jopke
::
;K
Community Development '
> :< „
z
IMF
^ K~ .: t .`,:
;4 ` i ? ? ^jtiY, �ir
Transcribed b h f :
Trish Pearson t<>::;• > 'x:<» , ;: 'ar :
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. k< ;•.:. `_ >H ry`
:art :: t
NADATA\USERS\BARBB\SHAREKEEP-IT\WPD 0 C SWIINUTESV9)')\J -20 WPD
;. '''`0:: `'en ,:.
,'x. ,,.tet:'
of»»= 0,-
0' NiNannimompr
INif
<. ` tea * Wxz%`::`
,, max:'„>..
JAM
Mr
r«:ErT�` ;g. fi;:.i•,: .. :�3,F.�r::;:;.z;;:<rr�"s'::::
�`'?�':xii�`cr%$ <:,:�ieo r:j.::yi� :p.i;?!'i
'./.;rxM111+�` fry+`;+.eh:;: me:,
NAkii3010926„.: ..;:::.:om<'>
oe ?"'"- -..."::.:Rwoow„,
z
t
a tom4:01 .
'194.
y� x.
0