HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-1999 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
S . November 17, 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 20, 1999
5. Planning Case No.574-99
Property Involved: 7687 Long Lake Road
Discussion regarding a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Sunrise United
Methodist Church and a Development Review to allow an expansion to the Church
facility.
Applicant: Vanman Companies (Representing Sunrise)
• 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. Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99
Consideration of Resolution 597-99, a Resolution Recommending Denial of Proposed
Ordinance 644 Relating to Billboards. •
8. Staff Reports/Items of Information
a. Previous Council Actions
9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
10. 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 --November 3, 1999
2. Comprehensive Plan Review--Time permitting
•
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1999\11-17-99.REG
•
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
•. Meeting Date: November 15, 1999
Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Planning Case No.: 574-99, 575-99
Request: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and
Development Review to expand the Church by adding office space
and classrooms.
Petitioner: Vanman Companies representing Sunrise United Meth. Church
Location: 7687 Long Lake Road
PIN No. 08-30-23-22-0038
Present Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential/Church
Applicable Regulations: Section 1006.06 states that a development review is required for all
residential, commercial or industrial development or redevelopment.
Section 1106.04, Subd. 1 lists the CUP requirements for Churches
• and other public or semi-public institutional uses.
Section 1125.01 lists the general CUP and adverse affects criteria.
Section 1121.13 lists the parking requirements for Churches and all
other types of uses.
Attachments: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Location Map
Site Plans date-stam.ed 10/29/99
Background:
The applicant, Vanman Companies, representing the property owner, Sunrise United Methodist
Church, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit and development review to allow for the
expansion of their Church facility located at 7687 Long Lake Road. The Church has been located
at this site since 1957, having previously met in temporary space at Sunnyside Elementary in New
Brighton. The Church was damaged beyond repair in 1965 after a tornado struck this area and was
completely rebuilt the next year. Sunrise also provides day care services for about 45 children, a
service they have been providing since 1981.
• The expanded areas will serve as additional space within the sanctuary and child care areas and will
provide for office space for the pastor and other church workers and add a meeting room and
multi-use space for the staff and congregation.
Sunrise CUP
November 12, 1999
Page 2 •
CUP Discussion:
Sunrise United Methodist Church has been serving Mounds View and the surrounding communities
for 45 years, the last 42 at its present location on Long Lake Road and County Road I. The
Church itself has been in the City longer than the City has even been a city! What this also means is
that the existence of the Church predates the first zoning code, and predates the requirement for
Churches to be conditionally permitted in residential districts, although staff has yet to determine
when this requirement became adopted.
Specific CUP Requirements:
Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code addresses conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 zoning
district. Subdivision 1 of this Section addresses the specific CUP requirements for Churches, which
are as follows, listed with responses relating to the present Sunrise facility and proposed expansion:
a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty-five feet(352.
The existing front yard setbacks for the Church are 90 feet along Long Lake Road and 47
feet along County Road I. The existing building meets this requirement, and with the
sanctuary expansion, the setback along Long Lake decreases to 75 feet, yet still beyond that
which is required.
11/
b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet(30).
The sideyard building setbacks for the Church exceed 100 feet. There is a small single-story
wood frame home on the Church site that serves as the parsonage (where the Pastor lives)
which is set back 20 feet from the side property line, yet staff interprets the setback
requirement to pertain to the Church itself, viewing the parsonage as an accessory building.
This requirement, then, is met, before and after the expansion
c.—.Aiinimum_lotarea_shall he no lesslhan-one (1) acre, or a I e• • g•
subdivision 2b(3). (Ord 590, 11-25-96)
The property the Church and its accessory structures occupies comprises 6.4 acres, of
which nearly three acres is preserved as natural wetlands and upland woods. This
requirement is met.
d. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance
with Section 1103.08 of this Title.
With the exception of the expansion of the sanctuary, all of the development will occur
away from either Long Lake Road or County Road I. The wetlands and uplands provide an
expansive buffer to the south, while the parsonage and other accessory buildings and uses
provide a sufficient buffer to the east. There is adequate landscaping on the site at present 41)
which also adds to the screening and aesthetic appearance of the Church and grounds.
Sunrise CUP
November 12, 1999
110
Page 3
e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or
directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title
and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting
residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title.
At present, the seating capacity of the sanctuary is approximately 275, which translates into
the need to provide 69 parking stalls, utilizing a ratio of one stall per every four seats, or
fraction thereof. The existing parking lot has 98 stalls and meets the minimum requirements
for the sanctuary. The ADA requirements however dictate that there should be a minimum
of three handicapped stalls provided, at least one of which should be van-accessible. Only
two handicapped stalls are indicated on the plan.
With the expansion and reorientation of the sanctuary, the capacity will increase to 368
seats. Using the same 1:4 ratio, a total of 92 stalls would need to be provided. Because the
parking lot exceeds 92 stalls, there would be sufficient room for the expansion without the
need to expand the parking lot. Two more handicapped stalls would need to be added to
comply with the expanded number of required spaces according to the ADA guidelines.
The floor plans show an area of overflow seating behind the main worship area, however
this area is not anticipated to be needed at present, and as such, the Church requests that
parking stalls not be required for these future seats. Assuming full capacity with overflow
seating, there would be a need for 104 stalls. Given that there are 98 existing stalls, six
• more would need to be provided to meet the future anticipated needs of the congregation.
While there is sufficient room on the site where six stalls could be added, staff would
recommend that parking not be required to be provided for the temporary seating. If the
Planning Commission disagrees with this view, staff would then recommend that the site
plan be amended to show these stalls as future"Proof of Parking."
f Adequate off street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable
by Chapter 1122 of this Title.
This requirement does not apply to the Sunrise Church facility.
g. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and satisfactorily
met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
Refer to Page 5 of this report regarding the adverse affects criteria.
General CUP Requirements:
Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b outlines the general conditional use permit requirements that must be
satisfied in order for a approval to be granted. These requirements with responses are as follows:
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public
facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
• The Church itself functions well at this location without any negative impacts to the
surrounding community. Staff is not aware of any complaints associated with this facility.
Sunrise CUP
November 12, 1999
Page 4 •
The expansion of this facility would not pose an excessive burden on existing parks,
schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve the area.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there
will be no deterrence to development of vacant land
The Church property is bordered on three sides by public streets--Long Lake Road to the
west, County Road Ito the north and Bronson Drive to the south. To the east, the Church
abuts both medium and high density residential properties. These properties are at least one
hundred feet away at their nearest point and as far away as 500 feet from the Church. The
magnitude of the separation, in staff's opinion, is of a sufficient distance so as to not have
any depreciatory effect on the residential properties.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
The existing Church, given its separation from other uses, fits well in this area and is
aesthetically pleasing. As evidence of this,the Church and the architect who designed it
received an award in 1967 for architectural excellence from the Minnesota Society of
Architects. The expansion will match the appearance and design of the existing structure
and will add to the overall appearance of the community.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the •
City and to the existing land use.
The fact that the Church has existed in this location for 42 years with a consistent and
growing congregation is proof alone that the use satisfies a community need. Its expansion
is a direct result of the Church's growing congregation and its desire to be more responsive
to its membership.
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
Churches and other institutional uses are conditionally permitted within the R-1, Single-
family residential district.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The Comprehensive Plan(both the existing and proposed plan) designates this area as
Institutional, appropriate for this type of use.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
Staff is unaware of any congestion problems on Long Lake Road as a result of the Church's
services. The additional traffic generated by the expansion would not add any significant
volume to Long Lake Road, a Ramsey County four lane collector roadway, a street
designed to accommodate higher volumes of traffic. Also, the times during which the • .
Church would have its greatest impact upon the street is also a period of relatively low
Sunrise CUP
November 12, 1999
• Page 5
traffic counts. Given these facts, it is not anticipated that use will not cause traffic hazards
or congestion.
(8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
All of the infrastructure serving this site are installed and provided--no additional
infrastructure will be needed to accommodate this use or its expansion.
Adverse Affects Criteria:
Section 1125.01, Subd. le requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider possible
adverse affects of the proposed use, or in this case, the existing use and expansion thereof. The
following is the list of factors to be considered, along with a narrative response:
(I) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The geographical area involved
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need for such use.
Staff feels that the impacts of this proposed use are minimal, considering its 42-year history
• of operation without incident or complaint. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan which designates this area as Institutional. It is bounded by public streets on three
sides, medium and high density residential on its fourth side, properties which are separated
by the Church's accessory buildings and uses as well as extensive wetlands and wooded
uplands. It is improbable that the expansion of the Church would have any depreciatory
effect on these abutting properties. The need for the Church is clearly demonstrated from
its continued presence at this location.
Staff feels that the all of the specific conditional use permit requirements, all of the general
conditional use permit requirements and the adverse affects criteria are satisfied and that the
expansion of this use would be an overall benefit to the Chur_ch,_its_congr_egation—and-t-he
community in general.
•
Sunrise CUP
November 12, 1999
Page 6 •
Development Review Discussion:
Dimensional Requirements:
Required Proposed Met?
Lot Area 1 acre 6.4 acres Met
Front Setback (Long Lake) 35 feet 6 feet Met
Front Setback(County Rd. I) 35 feet 35 feet Met
Sideyard Setbacks 30 feet 105 feet Met
Parking lot Setback(east) 30 feet 60 feet Met
Parking lot Setback(west) 5 feet 2 feet No'
Parking lot Setback(north) 5 feet 80 feet Met
Parking lot Setback(south) 5 feet 400+feet Met
Parking stalls (1:4): 92 stalls 98 stalls Mete
The expansion areas will be of brick construction and will match the exterior of the existing
building. The total area of the expansion planned is 7,477 square feet for a total build out area of
20,464 after project completion. There will be a new covered entryway that connects to a new
drop-off point adjacent to the parking lot, an expansion and reorientation of the sanctuary to
increase seating capacity to 368 from the existing 275.
There will be an expansion to accommodate additional space for Sunday school services. A 1111
kitchen area will be added along with some multi-purpose space, conference rooms, and office
space for the Pastor and Church staff. There will not be an increase in services provided by the
facility other than being able to accommodate more members in the sanctuary at a single service,
thus the additional number of parking stalls required by this expansion will be limited to the
increased seating capacity of the sanctuary.
Parking:
As indicated above, the seating capacity of the sanctuary is increasing by nearly 100 seats, from 275
to 368. Using the required ratio of 1 space per 4 seats, 92 stalls would need to be provided. There
are currently 98 stalls which can be utilized which would then be adequate to accommodate the
expansion. The plans, however, show a possibility of an additional 48 seats in temporary overflow
seating. Church officials do not foresee a need to use these spaces except only rare occasion and as
such is requesting that parking spaces not be required for the temporary seating. Because of their
temporary nature, staff would consent to this request if the Planning Commission were to agree. If
the Planning Commission felt otherwise, the plans could be revised to show"Future Proof of
Parking" which could be built if it becomes clear that additional spaces are required.
1The parking lot adjacent to Long Lake Road was constructed only two feet from the property line.
Because no plans are being made to repave the parking lot,staff recommends that this be treated as a non-
conformity to be corrected if possible at some point in the future,as allowed in Section 1104.01, Subd.4c(4).
2 The number of parking stalls required increases to 104 when considering the anticipated future 410
overflow seating. Because 98 stalls exist,six additional stalls will need to be shown on the site plan as
"Future Proof of Parking."
Sunrise CUP
November 12, 1999
• Page 7
Wetland Buffer:
The construction and expansion activities on the site will not encroach into the 100-foot wetland
buffer, thus no permits of that sort are necessary.
Landscaping:
While there are no explicit plans showing proposed landscaping, the Church does plan on replacing
the landscaping that would be removed with similar materials. Because the extent of the expansion
is minimal considering the total lot area, and because there is already extensive landscaping
provided that would remain after the expansion, staff is not requiring the applicant to submit
anything formal in this regard.
Other Site Conditions:
Neither the parking lot nor the existing lighting will be altered with this proposal. No changes are
being proposed with regard to signage of other site conditions.
Access:
The Church takes sole access from Long Lake Road, with two entry points more than 200 feet
from the intersection of County Road I and Long Lake Road. No changes are proposed at this
time to the parking lot or curb cuts.
Recommendation:
• Staff believes that the criteria for both a conditional use permit and development review have been
met yet would seek direction from the Planning Commission with regard to drafting a resolution for
this proposal. There is sufficient time so that a resolution can be drafted and brought back before
the Commission at your December 1, 1999 meeting. Staff is anticipating that this request will be
heard by the City Council on December 13, 1999 and has set a public hearing on that date
\.)Gly \iU'
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\574-99\SUNRISE,PC 1
•
errf
05;•N`resCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATI
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 551
•��°A°�t, Par«els612-717-4020
612-784-3462 -FAX
Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form
Applicant Information
Name of Applicant Vanman Companies Architects and Bids Inc. Telephone 612-541-9552
Address 9211 Plymouth Avenue Fax 612-541-9857
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Interest in Property(check appropriate box)
❑ Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase
Other(explain) Architect/General Contractor
Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the
property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The
property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted.
Property Description/Proposal
Address or General Location Corner of Round Lake Road and County Road I
1111
Legal Description See attached ceg 7 Le-)- s
L
Property Identification#(PIN#) G�3 Q 3 a'c.1`O O
#of Acres 6.3527
Current Zoning R1
Type of Application
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250
❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500
❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit*
❑ Minor Subdivision $200
❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees
❑ PUD Amendment $350
gr Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250
❑ Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250
❑ Code Appeal $100
4L Develop Review/Site Plan • $125/acre;min$125 max$750
❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200
❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100
❑ Floodplain Permit $200 - $125 x 3.5 acres =
o Other FEE CALCULATIONi $437
C.U.P 75
Total: c5
*Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the revi w,
research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable •
incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded
to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed.
Please complete the reverse side of this application.
jiO'G3 t-t(t.)-1
City of Mounds View,MN
Development Application Page 2
411 Present Use of Property
❑ Undeveloped/Vacant 0 Single Family Dwelling
❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling 0 Multi-family Dwelling
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment
Other(explain)
Church
Property Classification ❑ Abstract 0 Torrens
Description of Proposal Request permission to add office space and classrnom.G in (kilt=
to ret..- • 10 . .• -.��_ •• •• - - Y•- �I• • -•� - - . -w . •
of develop reviewLsite plan fees for thnGP port.innc of 1-hP prnparty that are
within the heavily wooded/flood 7n Q-Al1.,Lwat}and area (appox. 3 acres)
BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND CCURATE.
Signature of Applicant �t �
Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Carey Lyo
II) Signature of Property Owner •
Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) Sunrise United Methodist Church
Address of Owner 7687 Long Lake Road
Mounds View, MN 55112
Phone Number of Owner 786-4926
************************************************************************************************
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Submittal /2 - -°l 7
Date of Acceptance Assigned to:
Planning Case No. - CA-p)60-day Limit 120-day limit
Co>e--1
Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt#
Application: S/ 'AD iD I341(0,4 • L t 5 7 49 3 'Uta
Park Dedication:
Deposits:
• Other:
Total:
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/98
�_L" N •--.."'"'._ elLNt....::. N t N .7_– •-- .._,.[_...d
��.f_.. _8 7869 7_858 , N cV{ OV
7866 7867' _ 7870 7878 78751786= 78697860 a
_.,,• s-------- 7852 7853 .:. 71
. 7854 7851 M 7860 786 W ---- 7870 7857 785'. . _._ 7841 ::•:_ a_. Z 7861€785' �...
7842 [ 7850 78-5-5----7.846 �• • 7836
7841 ----I-mil-4Z i--• 291 "� �-�--� 7847!7840
7845,784+
-7830 0 - f7840
7835 7840 7829 _ ..
7815 7820 0 _v__ 7837783+ w 71
p 7817 . _ _ p 7833'7832 ---•----
782+ 7815 1 7790 0 --,.--..-----� .. 7800 7809.___��,r„�� 781 ' 7815 7827 782+ Q
781+ U1 _ ( p 7805 7780 7801 7806 781
78171
7809 7770 3 7801 _7760 7797- �� 7800 7801 €780+
7800 - - --- =
780_1 7764 W 7751 _ 7750 7787^ 7778 7749L775+ 7807
A.��,. 7767--„.—r---
/-
^ ) ,-7760 7741_r_7740 7767 __ 7768 77391t774°---r-
7751
,,,N L_
7761 ' 7750 7731 7730 7753. J7748 7729 7730 7741377' • p
7730 7721 7720 . _ 7728 + r
R. 3 7755 _ �- --•1t----- 77191772 77311773•
i (1,, 7715
7745 v 7710 7711 7710 77091771{ _ +p 7721 772+
_71 e- I O 000;600 t0 i � r D O O { N
7715 N 3 `° - to ,n ,- 7700 N u, u, N 7701 s 7700CCI a 7
`R-2 R-2 CO
�:— ` hnrnu, n,--a).►.u, c f o ro ao o •r
%t. �r hhtoto oroinu,u, 2553 in 1 t° * 1- *v * nv I d
in
tn0 NNNNN . 2551 , 7695 N N N N N N N t�
���ttt/// N 2549 p 7687 li66 -3 f766« 82547 -a S'u�R)5tR... R, 4.
2545 �a
fie° B-4 2541 C:HUt;C� 766 ,' • 3 7
8-3 ti 2539 sl-re
-4
2537 7661 610 71
e 7635: • +;.
0 7 6++ 7655 762 . p 71
ti� '—4 7 7645 p 74
�. :,liiiiLit..'i R 0 7
Aik
IMir
s. �` ��Gs `R-2 co/ A *• w" * �:` 6. 20 761 d
N All B-2 ti �i n h h- h h 763 '
0o fl'� •• �if RTS , ! j 7:
N .1 2T1 �� B-3 ' et - t0 0 7:
04� N tOV if +' �� ��� N N N .Ny. 7
e N
N r a► to Q o co N N
c
0 ofsiFiy 94 7.
" ;r tc41,1 �0 ;yN �� N 6 .� P�
N �j
,,e o°tn0 N N �
R—
s' ro CITY HALL
`r '—N O .
)rN N .2N O,Du, ry�h
N N,
.. ...... R- /4
> O
PF
a "O
N N N N O PUD
Zoning Map Planning Case 574-99
Applicant: Sunrise Church CUP Request N4 7
Location: 7687 Long Lake Road
City of Mounds View
0 Location Map
I
..... .... .... • 1.i •uIu M11■ WI■111111111 1-]TT I ■:�is rn-u
1' li MIMI■ f ,6. 7.44.. owl■ � 1 ■�m 11 ii IImom 1 1111
/y?Lib . �C ma= ` _ = 111111/
• ` mimi s C� II ! ) - miii'
— 1
1� - — - 11111/1
111 1 Vika:�, ..�. -�.� = 1111111
Sunrise Church
•or nweizar ' �, , I 1 I I I 1 1 �.� . � ' ' fl
X11•
- %-:4-glimit4;>q ri.4; *logo - i___ E
1 \ITO* -,&F.;p:R,,,.ov si.d 42v,-
„,,,.„.„.„,‘„.,....
,,,,,,,,<,..,..„,,,,,., ‘,.,...:7,,,atal—1
I „,,, 4, .-ktaiw-b .
--1.1r,i , ,,.,,,‘,,,,v, .
tits .,,,,„, .,,, ,.
haor
- Ileiiii0i0larti co -- - 1 a 4/110w topa40... —• EN lig IliiiMI
k iMIllb. lin MUM
• ___- is met iis p sr Aft=
110 *Nun
111, aims
11 MOW 10. iftemi
No
NI
E i t__- or�et S az
S i 7.7. I VIA
Sunrise United Methodist Church
.,_ _ 7687 Lon Lake Road
_ g
—”"- -`—�/ Conditional Use Permit/Development Review
' i m'riTa Er ®®: uln:
', MU' Gi7nu.•.,�°,�°° " " '° Planning Case No. 574-99 and 575-99
Ilibri mmiNmEmimp.1.
wits 1 Ci." 5FM'i 5 arida„„,,„■aunww
�'04 Vk i - = 7687 Long Lake Road
QIP' ". IL fli''. _ ���_
_I,_.;,;,_.;:I.. b..•.; . -4!q:i
_ Properties Within 350'
.■mums°
HIM Mill
IIIIhIIUIIL "' :c-�A�'Mil
IIII=�i�7 ,,, i€ �'
1 MM MM I MIIIIIIIMw
_dila MIN
roue II,.
MMEMPArie
0 ra
I(4
„J.
r■..:
...,::'....c... .!.,.......'.::i.,.:::::::i:::::•3:.:::::::::•.',.:....-. ..
•
��yyy...��1/ ::'�irl4.
:4tK
y,
GQ :1'•: ;:'•::
•:• ,......7::::::::::::1::::::1::::::::::::.
..... ...... ....... iib �i►�' i 1 ..-:,...f
�t� ''�
� /:•}::•:•r:i:•i.'.:••:• ....•.•. ...•..•.•. . 9.::•:•. I
:.i\ � \ � \ XPi I / •• � ,
it f • K i I ;•.'".-.•,•.,....,;
t { 1
..
1 ii 0
I
' Ci i
R'
•r:
a
,r a............•............... . ... . ..:
iti
a I .
\ Ri;;
.4.:1;.::"
pED
c
I ,
1
is�k,..
y
r!Ci(`
1.
L;w'
s
i
_ nlibi
iit ' .t.
i14i'x r(i;>.
•\ 1 • 4•:•:•..-:•:•:•:.:.....,....,4;t.. ., ::'•:.•:-:•:•:•:- :',-.:it-t;if,•gi.,,, .is
10
---,—ino--.... L. iii$ 1 f,) . ii (;st' 1 ,.:.i........!..-..q.:....c., :
'\--q\i-11.1 a 11 4fai, -Amite 11 oil 1 . i
v.,: i
\ \lhoi> 1,1 .itz -.:7 . :.... ..:.
\ -N. _L\ : • Bs • , N . i I a •.t.i;.:17."1::.
N I El :!':'.....';1•'... ....V.•
... .............................
..........
II s i; .r. .`f'
o
i ; m c '2 N
\ \)1 tf, 1 23— IS4
N �Z r m
Ow
F,),
zz
,tn. " ill
' I ` {{ iiIee
t ,,,:. g1m
c c)_,- -c)_,- -,3y J 8 1
co0
.rri N 1 i-I ` ri-Titi
73
141 0
I
�t 7 (�to ^V,� i i � 1_ � @ i i
i1iI1i
-- 1i 111 iii !- : " IIIb � i0
ts
51 ® e C33 ' -- ! ilii
C:�= = I
•�'i~a..'40....'•,.:••••••!..14.,..,,,..'Kt"�� T:aT :' ., .•.. r
.^;�..,•: �a ,.._.n•va=a—.cR-•r....... . .... 'h,9.- i.a,".
Ilk cn • r•v� , >. : a'" :. Y: ' Sji 1r5,�+o%';': •+`` �A�T: �S
�" .� :'' A- ^F . na!YS' Y•- .r • . .
' ' rMij. :W. . •:.. _N Z TR % I
..
vi ZZ ::::if:::: iii ; !atm 1
O -c; I 1 ti -7fsrw
73
C) 'ii:4...• :.... :•: 1 1 i a ±
. •
4043 LAKE ROAD 1'
e
- 1 ,
f 141
1 I " 0
1
0 :
Oi 1 01 i iAi [ C') ;77,
filk C)
t i 1R -ri
1---
0
W4 &IPA .
I 1 1/ilia < D3 1k: 0
i lair .f US •
Pas it 1 fildi m rvi ll
t WAY 1/41
5. C 6-1(22
= - v I-
1 I 8
X 8
B - it Z z i>
% ,• , 1 , 0 --- -, z
ri ei —I 0
M N
I IN
II \ a 11
tr----() 0
II ) WO K
b
.. } o
e A --1
n
II
i i 0
II . i 0
.... .............
.:.: ...1....... .,,,
.. ......
II a
•. •.• •••••••• •••
1 I.,:i '• 1 ....... -_-..„-..:.-4. :.-..-..-..:•-,.-._ ..,
• . .. . .. . ••
'ri,11
, 0
=
1 V r':: _. _ •.•.•.- .•.• ,...• - ,
-- :
• 1
1 ' 0
4111 IX
•
J '
Oi '41r'
l•.#''''*Aii*,. ‘ ' - 1 1 il i - ---i
ArtV474.43e = 1
,,
, .
•
or% VEERS •
r. e
Ey .........M......) I &SW El
''4-_-i-A, .-:•:-:-:•:-.-....: :::1 1
kIe• " 4 -......:;•:::44-ii - I `II
f —i
ilk
11.7:. :•::::::::::*....:4:,:-.....,......4 „,44
rk
1 u Il 4 g
1:•:',f,r-.-:-.•.•.-... ..•:' ,,,•C'-'-'-'d: 6 1 ii
: ::4 "- -.-.• ...-....
::••••:::' :•:-: -*-:-..1 .1 I ItN..u..is ,
" -.-..,i, -.: ...., ii, ii,vL , pe-a---.4 ..)
L_ •
•,...„
IIII
_It: ill
ellifiaMiaNii:. .7'1 "• A— -t I
•••"•...••••••••.•: •..--.•WA MI, 4
ir-.:11'..-:::;:4:- •-•---Itall
‘..., ........1 111
:1:-•-:-:--:-:-:-:::. ::-..1 :-:-.....-
---:-•-A-•••••••• ••' ••••:•••:l 1 , 01
I ..
lq. ill
' ' • P V609; 7 . 4.i 1 i
V a g g 1
::---:•:-:-:-:.--------:-:- :-..--.--."-L,_ ji. I 3 se
• •••••-••----- --.--.--....- -.----.-:->:-:-:---:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.--.••••.-:-:1 -.-..a2 i _ ._ _ Al_ __ ._
{..:...•...:::Y.f.:'..:....:-.2.:..:-.....-r...7-,;• ''----;•7•:4•7•.:-:-:-7•.••17. ••••••••••.. -- -. ... ............
, :..•_._-_..X.:.....••••••••::::..•:...X..•;_.•-•••_._-•..•-. ••••••...•...•:••••••.•..•-.•.-..**.••••••••.•:•:•:•...•...•..•..•..•.•. , .:.•............• .-..•.•........•......................
1 :-:":,-.-t:. :rX•:;":-'7:s:'7;i7.-.• :':':=:':-It:tr.::n';•::-..-.*.- ----- ....: t7-.-•-•-•...." :''`*--.: .":•:-..-:•::.:•:-Y.-...:•:•:•>:•:-:•:•:•:. ,---,=—,---=:—:„,„
1 1 ""1".'t."-':• ••-•'*"...-*-:•*:':*---:•:-:•:•:•:•:-:-•'-' •:1.:q::::-...*::‘,U r,-it,.,„*-11-. .........-14 :.,..- -..:.-..:-.1.t....-.......:.:, ,: _
. - —-11 17
. . (:::.:•••••••••• • 7.• :::::••••••••••••-•:::::.. .•et• •Ii,213°1' 1 •.:::- t 1.'lltlj.114.1.• •.. •••••:•••-••.1•••••••.• .•:•••:-.••••••.•: 1 ,...,, , - co triA
i '•••• 1:f . . • •.•• . 2 •‘:•11;• •N.*.••i•••.:•...Ki...•.... .. •• . C(Z) C)
.C.;:i;:\:•.*Ki.j. S.• ....le •:•.•.•;1•.•.•..S .-..:. ._...:',
•'••••
••••t .1
.-..--... ..,.- f ,.-.-.-. ..-...:.:
...
::.--.-.-\-:-.,-:--.-..:-:- .-.-..:. -.-..:..- ,„,.,„,, ,,41 .... ,.... ___ _
.
; r--' II( 07.---;*ww.'..t...., ...,.
ii 84 r .s-r--:::-I A:::1‘;';*. ..:;• :.?:...:' I i I
- g
i p ii .1-
1
I e ':II '11. --:'1'...:i?,:''i::F.:"..::::.:*:?* I I I :.•;.• 101 1
'----.
1.1111 i
I 1 Lc--------- I
1 .
•o
c m m
. r
ti,L TCf .
N
C /�� x. 7{�
f VJ —C Y 1 xs_ e i�Iq;
r Z m 1 € 1 Cl
Z O
o
§ill
K I •
m __
_ ■ \�c . . „r,
;
rP �
7=' ' O
I
100
11 1 '
C r° n
\
aE 2SIt
$p --- i
_
. a
'I■ ,— 0 /I �
E I 'SI'
• U .11
S :AI \
I
11 ...L\
/ 1
HMI
IIII
A_Ik _
41 IC
r
NN:Nss,
,, „
.
y
It
- , ,,A,
_,,,,,,,!----_,,,,.,
II L.77-1 „.._4$0. -4F7, ,:.; r1,1
1 V(----; 8 (--,...--,
- __ Aul,
e . iii.i Z\D [F-1711
I `N W 1..=
co =a
nr
E o
•
3Cm . r
r •
y Z K m
< _J <
f CA -< . 1
m . E
C Z Z & ® m I .3§'1' t„(€�y£
OF (P �. 3 1t f14 I S k-
n ""� 0'1 i Uk i Ill
+ #41141111P
� a�.
-• m It r t-NL.10,z1,
D 1D R M _, 1 :-,P
0:11.
-I ED t ; m
O • tr1€1 i erg E .
61-11.41101� igt:4n� ,
p ® n C U
'�: 144
ie}4 - I 1
CD I f !E�f:. 2
n N
2
C
2
\ AN
g
® x •E Z
-i O
�'^ R: -, R. ; EllFF
Y ���1 2 tl
n tc;; I, ilir
111!....:;
as t 4r lo
r= i
4
o ii
, = :!fl !3 .al �� s is �°
. to rte_.. ytIL: 1 1:s 1 ` j t I O
Czi
D r f til IN 1
i 2
tit .
i
il
ii
:leo 1
1 idI •
11/12/1999 10:18 6127860658• SUNRISE UMCTED MET PAGE 01
eit/4491,
•r5 �F4 r r 4�A. ,: , y...; ' ` Sunrise Methodist Church was organised in January
•• ,' t •1.^r,;.�� 4.,� y` of 1954 at the Sunnyside School in New Brighton. A moving
4 force in the organization was Dr. E. B.Cooney,St.Paul Dis-
trict Superintendent. The congregation continued to meet
•
at Sunnyside until November of 1957 when if moved into
its new building at 2520 County Road I in Mounds View.
By the summer of 1954, when the charter list was closed,
83 persons had become members of Sunrise Church. For•
the first two years the Sunrise pastor lived in a rented par-
sonage. By 1956 a parsonage had been built with much of
• the labor donated by members of the congregation. Next
r. '••,••t•,• ' -' an old church building was moved to the present church site
erw from West St. Paul. This was to be a temporary meeting
•
`' " place until a new structure could be built. The mover Who
• ;' brought the old church here from West St.Paul did not,have
the proper moving permit, he was apprehended by the police
after the church building hit a power line and knocked out
the electrical service for a large section of St. Paul, He was
fined $150.00.
Financial problems made it necessary to incorporate the old church building in plans for the new. A
basement was built beneath the old building, the peaked roof was replaced by a flat roof, and a ground-level
educational unit was built around it. The result was a "split-level sanctuary"with the overflow area some three
feet higher than the chapel in the new part of the building.
The Rev. Arthur Beckendorf, a retired Methodist missionary, was appointed as interim pastor of the
newly formed Sunrise congregation and served here from January, 1954, until June of that same year. At the
June, 1954, Annual. Conference a full-time pastor was appointed to serve the congregation. He was the Rev.
Robert Armand who, with his wife and three children, came here from a pastorate in Ohio. The Rev. Armand
ed here for 5 years and then was forced to retire because of failing health. In 1959 the Rev.Donald Sheffield
to Sunrise church and was here for 3 years. In 1962 the Rev.Sheffield moved to Hutchinson,Minnesota and
the Rev, William Foster became this church's third pastor. He served here until April of 1964, at which time he
accepted an appointment to serve a Methodist church in Cannan, Connecticut. For six weeks the Rev. W. Erie
Shields, a retired Methodist minister, served the congregation.
In May of 1964,the present pastor came to Sunrise from Walker Methodist Church of Howard Lake,MN.
On May 6, 1965, the church and parsonage were struck by a tornado. The church was considered a
total loss by the insurance company and the parsonage suffered about $6000 damage. Plans were begun immedi-
ately for a new building. Throughout the summer the congregation met for worship in the Bel Rae Ballroom,
about four blocks from the church site. In the fall it began meeting in the Red Oak School and continued there
for a year. During the summer the congregation tore down the remaining church structure and sold much of the
salvageable material. With some professional help, members of the congregation built a three-car garage in order
to_pr-ovide_par-king-fsr-the_parsonage ears_and additional storage for the church. Construction on a new church
began in December, 1965, and the congregation moved into the new structure in September of 1966. The con-
tractor for the new church was Henning Nelson. The architect was Roger T. Johnson, Total Cost was about
$200,000. In September, 1967, the church and the architect received an award for architectural excellence from
the Minnesota Society of Architects. Sunrise church was the only church in Minnesota to share in such an award
in 1967.
During the fall and spring, 1966-67, members of the congregation laid nearly 3000 yards of sod around
the new building. In the summer of 1967 they installed parking lot lights and that fall the parking lot was black-
topped. An additional sidewalk was added and a landscape project begun in the spring of 1968.
From October of 1972 until November of 1973 the Abiding Savior Lutheran congregation rented our
facilities for most of their mid-week activities while their new building was under construction. This was a very
busy time for Sunrise with two congregations making use of the same space, especially in view of the fact that
their congregation is about 3 times larger than ours. In September of 1972 the Fellowship Hall was carpeted to
make space more usable with less noise. In January of 1974 the Sunrise congregation celebrated its 20th anni-
4persary with District Superintendent Clarence Nicholas as guest speaker.
The congregation has grown from an original 83 to a present 540. Budget-wise it has gone from an
annual figure of around $12,000 to a present figure of around$53,000. The 1973-74 year has seen a church-wide
spiritual renewal which we believe will be of lasting significance. In the fall of 1974 we are planning to have a
pastor's assistant from nearby New Brighton Seminary. We are also presently involved in plans for the final edu-
rational unit to be added on the north side of our present structure. All in all,the future looks bright for Sunrise
as it moves out into the second twenty year period of its life in Northern Suburbia.
• PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMO
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Subject: Special Planning Case No. SP-074-99
Date: Meeting of November 17, 1999
This is a short memo to alert you to the changes to proposed ordinance 642 which result from our
discussions at your last meeting on November 3, 1999. (I have taken the liberty of highlighting in
yellow sections of this ordinance where changes from the previous version have occurred.)
First change addresses the zero-lot line subdivision problem by adding Section 2. This defines
driveway and curb-cut widths in Section 1107.07, by adding new Subds. 3d and 3e. Whether the
widths listed are appropriate or not is a matter of continued discussion.
• Second change is the addition of a minimum drive aisle width as shown on Page 5. On second
thought, now I'm not sure that this should be added as there are instances where a more narrow
aisle would be appropriate. Please direct me to remove this!
Third change is a change in how subd. 5b reads by putting the curb cut widths in a table format,
as requested. I think this improves this subdivision's readability.
The fourth and last change was the addition of"zero-lot line subdivided lots" for those properties
limited to only one curb cut. This is necessary to ensure the intent was crystal clear.
Recommendation:
Direct staff to make any further changes as necessary and to draft a resolution recommending to
the City Council adoption of Ordinance 642.
C1 cv� -c-d &tel-c1• -�
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP074-99\MEMO4.PC
S
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. 4h 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 and Section 1123.02, Subdivision
1(b) of this 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. • • + •• • _
. (Ord.
524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590, 11-25-96; Ord. 620, 7-27-98)
(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
S
(2) B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 (parking areas and loading docks):
(a) front: thirty feet (30') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(b) side and rear: five feet(5'), except where a non-residential use abuts
a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas
from the common property line shall be as stated in Section
1104.01 subdivision 4c(1)(b). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(3) I-1 (parking areas and loading docks):
(a) front: forty feet (40') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
(b) side and rear: five feet (5'), except where a non-residential use abuts
a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas
from the common property line shall be as stated in Section
1104.01 subdivision 4c(1)(b). (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590,
11-25-96)
• (4) Parking areas in existence as of the date of enactment of Ordinance 620
and which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue
subject to the provisions of Section 1123.02 subdivision lb. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98)
SECTION 2. Title 1100, Chapter 1107 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to zero
lot line subdivisions shall be amended by the addition of the italicized and double-underlined
language and the deletion of the sem-through language in Section 1107.07, Subdivision 3 to
read as follows:
Subd. 3. Specific Requirements or 'esu ting we ing Units:
a. Area Requirements: Six thousand two hundred fifty(6,250) square feet.
b. Lot Width: Fifty feet (50')per dwelling unit.
c. Setback Requirements:
(1) Front Yard: Thirty feet (30').
(2) Rear Yard: Thirty feet(30'). _
(3) Side Yard (where applicable):
• (a) Ten feet(10').
(b) Thirty feet(30') on street side of corner lot.
Ordinance 642
Page 4
d Driveway Widths: The width of the driveway servicing one dwelling unit shall not •
exceed the width of that dwelling unit's garage. When located side-by-side driveways
shall maintain a minimum four-foot(49 separation unless the affected property owners
have filed a right of way and maintenance agreement with Ramsey County. according to
the provisions of Section 1121.15. Subd 2 of this Title pertaining to joint driveways.
e. Curb Cut Width: The width of a curb cut servicing one dwelling unit shall not exceed
eighteen feet(189. In the event of a common or joint driveway servicing both units, the
width of the curb cut shall not exceed thirty-two_feet(329.
SECTION 3. Title 1100, Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to off
street parking requirements shall be amended by the addition of the italicized and double-
underlined language and the deletion of the stritherr 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
feet (18') in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be served •eighteen
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,
parking areas shall be designed so that circulation between parking bays or aisles occurs
within the designated parking lot and does not depend upon a public street or alley.
Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking area
design which requires 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:
Ordinance 642
Page 5
• 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'
750 61.3' 61.0' 62.0'
90° 63.0' 63.0' 63.0'
WALL
A B JANGLE C
• , v
• Parallel Parking: 22 feet in Length
• The Minimum Drive Aisle Width shall be 24 feet
Subd. 5. Curb Cuts and Driveway Openings:
a. No curbcut 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. Curb Cut Widths. Widths o curb cuts shall be as ollows sub'ect to re,uirements o
subdivision 5e hereof:. •. . . . .
- . . - I . . - I • .. 1/ .. . . . . . . . I- -'V .
R-2, R-3 and R-4 uses, subject to requirements of subdivision 5e hereof, commercial uses
• (D-1 through B-4) and industrial uses(I-1).
Ordinance 642
Page 6
•
Type of Land WidthofeutifiiCut
Single Family Residential(R-1)
Manufactured Homes (R-5) 24 Feet
Zero Lot Line Subdivisions(R-2) 18 Feet
Medium Density Residential(R-2, R-3) 32 Feet
High Density Residential(R-4)
Commercial. Industrial 32 Feet
(B-1. B-2. B-3. B-4. I-I)
Public Parks&Preservation Areas 32 Feet
(PF. CRP)
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 anyparkingarea shall be allowed one curb cut access for •
P p Y
each one hundred twenty five feet (125') of street frontage. All property shall be entitled
to at least one curb cut. Single-family uses and zero lot line subdivided lots' 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, . . . . , . .
. . . • = : . ., neither curb cut exceeds eighteen feet(18') in width.
f Curb cuts in existence as of 10/11/99 that do not conform to this subdivision may
remain in existence unless deemed by the Director of Public Works to be a danger or
public safety hazard. Notices to abandon a curb cut may be appealed in writing to the
City Council(Ord. 640. 10/11/99).
Subd. 6. Grade Elevation: The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five percent
(5%). (1988 Code §40.07).
Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in Subdivision 1104.01(4) of this Title, to be utilized
for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with a permanent, improved surface
material as defined in Section 1102.02 of this Chapter, suitable to control dust, drainage
and erosion, meeting the requirements of Section 902.053 of this Code except as follows: •
'Refer to Section 1107.03 of this Title for more information regarding Zero Lot Line Subdivisions.
Ordinance 642
Page 7
• A gravel surface material meeting the specifications of Section 902.03, Subd. 5 of this
Code may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R-2 District not to exceed three hundred
(300) square feet or, if to be used as a parking surface for an RV, the minimum area that
would encompasses the wheel-base area of one(1) recreational vehicle. Plans for
surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five (5) or more vehicles shall be
submitted to the Director of Community Development for review, and the final drainage
plan must receive the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's written approval. (Ord.
524, 2-22-93; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 640. 10/11/99.)
Subd. 8. Striping: Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses, all parking stalls shall
be marked with yellow painted lines not less than four inches (4")wide.
Subd. 9. Lighting: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged
so to reflect the light away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses and public
rights of way and be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of this Title.
Subd. 10. Signs: No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly operation
and traffic movement within any parking lot. All signing must conform to the Mounds
View Sign Code'.
Subd. 11. Curbing and Landscaping: Except for single-family and two-family developments.
• . • •• .. • + + • . . • . , all open off-street parking shall
have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot. The specifications and
location of this curb barrier shall comply with Section 902.04 and with the setback
requirements for parking areas stated in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4. Grass, plantings
or surfacing materials shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. (Ord. 590,
11/26/96: Ord 640. 10/11/99.)
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.
•
Ordinance 642
Page 8
•
SECTION 4. 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)
•
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert C.Long, City Attorney
C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\ORDINANC\642.ORD
110
•
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMO
To: Mounds View Planning Commission,
From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
Subject: Billboards
Date: November 12, 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 on November 3, 1999 reviewed a proposed ordinance which would
amend Chapter 1008 of the City Code to allow billboards in certain areas of the community by
• conditional use permit and would set standards which billboards must meet. At that meeting the
Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and directed staff to prepare a resolution
for Planning Commission consideration that would recommend that the City Council not pass the
proposed ordinance. I have attached a draft resolution(Resolution No. 597-99) for Planning
Commission consideration at the November 17, 1999 meeting. The draft resolution has been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office.
REQUESTED ACTION: It is requested that the Planning Commission complete its discussion of
the attached draft ordinance and pass a resolution recommending approval or denial of the
proposed ordinance.
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\11-17-99 billboard report.doc
•
RESOLUTION NO. 597-99
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW •
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF ORDINANCE NO.
644; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) OF
THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS;
PLANNING CASE NO. SP-071-99.
WHEREAS,the Mounds View Municipal Code does not allow billboards in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has asked the Planning Commission to
review possible ordinance changes to allow billboard signs in certain areas of the City; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has considered Ordinance No. 644 and made the
following findings relating to the land use impact of allowing additional billboards in Mounds
View:
1. Large billboard signs are not appropriate uses of property within CRP
Conservation Recreational Preservation and PF Public Facilities zoning Ill
districts. These districts are intended to provide recreational opportunities,
open space and protect the natural environment where possible. Large
advertising signs are not consistent with that intent and are more
appropriate to commercial and industrial zoning districts.
2. Large billboard signs can be visually distractive and may detract from the
neighborhood and promote a negative image for the community.
3. The City Attorney has advised City staff that the City cannot limit
billboards to city-owned properties only.
4. A permit will be required from the State of Minnesota to locate billboards
along-state-and-federal highways. State-statutes-reslfiet-such signs to
commercial and industrial zoning districts only. The contemplated sites for
additional billboards are not zoned commercial or industrial.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council not approve Ordinance No. 644, an ordinance amending
Chapter 1008 (Signs and Billboards) of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
billboards based on the above findings.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this
resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 17th day of November, 1999. •
•
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Attest:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
•
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 644
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-071-99
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 e ly located-along any such freeway-at-the-effective date-heir
Subd. 10. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard or advertising
. . . .• • . • • •• •. . . •• .a, . . •
. . . - •• • '. ' • 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.. Billboards 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 of 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. Sign faces 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.
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 str-144-eut-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
I
• PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
November 3, 1999
Mounds . ,'' City Hall
2401 Highway 10, _.. nds ew, MN 55112
'' t,littkkOtnV
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peters•,a = • 0' `1 `
7.00;���Tri., Novemb°� � ��-� �z
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commission rs Be . nd, Kaden, Laube, and
Stevenson. R,
Members Absent: Commissioner Braathen(le. a' ,•< -lson, • Miller, with prior notice.
Also Present: Planning Associate Jim .I'''cson ? uni`, <°. "'.elo ment Director Rick Joke
• Council Liaison Roger Stigney, and , i•rder T . Pearso
Index to M'#utes . Page
;g Vi:: . ...
Sia?' ,;' -\-v: t .
Planning' : k 59-9 , ,, , " ty Roa. I. Consideration of
Planning d•-11:11,101.'M
esolu V � u, a resolution recommending approval
of a developm � ,, for a t '3 ti 2 enior assisted living residential facility.
Applicant: ;� c _ 2
,- •. uaiming Ca - :• . . }-99, Discussion revisions
642 a`t ordinance amen. Zoning Code related to driveway widths
an g >urb cuts. 6
.. ' eports/Ite ,xr Information 10
o >Ca:.:, r`,,
Fr
. o 0\ 'laming Commissioners Reports 16
3. Citizens' 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 November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 2
4. Approval of Minutes 1111
A. October 6, 1999
MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Laube to approve the October 6, 1999 meetin. minutes as
corrected. •
Ayes—6 Nays—0 T 41,0%<'0<ti carried.
5. Planning Case No. 559-99
Property Involved: 2670 County Road I
Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 596- . fit.;; 4. .ecommending approval of
a Development Review for a two-story, senior assisted lying res ,itt >: ;lity.
Applicant: MSP Real Estate
The applicant was present. NSAVV
Planning Associate Ericson gave th4V,I repo follow
•
The applicant, MSP Real Estate s reque '.. •pr• T `of a development review for a two-story
senior assist-ff 'ving compl: •w< ocated ty Road I. The City Council has approved
the condi ' 'o` permi elopmettat 4 rdinance 631, the ordinance which rezoned the
propertySINVA, imitei4W4kommercial, to R-4, High Density Residential.
Planning Associ. ; tated ,f; i S ctober 20, 1999 meeting of the Planning Commission,
issues were b ,3 w • 0,$ •tion o y applicant with regard to sidewalks, parking lot access and
". s ised all of these issues were resolved, with the exception of the
concern ��� at nat .�
r
'"` �- ^ <� ained there is a fire hydrant located on the south side Motes
locati. ;,� the fire hydr. iM,sti , y
Vie:1415rive, and a hydr. ounty Road I, which would service the property. Staff has since
di' 'sed this matter wit .athi Osmonson, the City's Fire Marshal, who has indicated that because
t ilding will be sp ered, and the close proximity of the two hydrants, no additional hydrants
_ 1 * equired. T H riveway on County Road I will be shifted approximately five feet to the east
8I • '`existing fire hydrant.
Pla` n:. ` sociate Ericson stated all of the criteria with regard to dimensional requirements i.e.,
setbacks, spacing, and the required number of parking spaces are met. There are no unresolved issues
that staff is aware of, therefore, staff recommends approval of Resolution 596-99, a resolution
recommending to the City Council approval of the site plan review. He pointed out a stipulation that
the site plan be revised prior to Council action. He explained staff has received an updated site plan •
that indicates the sidewalk along Mounds View Drive. The access onto County Road I will be
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 3
• marked as "exit only," and the building has been resituated so that it complies with all setback
requirements. He added that signage shall be in compliance with the City Code and approved
conditional use permit. He indicated although these conditions are listed under the stipulation that
the site plan be revised,the condition pertaining to the signage does not necessarily apply to the site
plan revision. He suggested this condition be removed from the listing and indicates as a separate
stipulation.
Milo Pinkerton, representative of MSP Real Estate, the app ', .nt ins0:40 as necessary that
the entrance to the site on County Road I be marked as e y." H.... t k .ut that vehicl:,a,
could not cut across the median and cross traffic, and inqui gif eastbo . w , enter at s
location.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that with the speer k '` on County Roa' V merging
traffic from Mounds View Drive, and the close proximire uperAmerica entrance to this
location, there were concerns that vehicles slowing de• a Via: e site might cause some
confusion. He explained the Planning Commission belied ed it w ;; .eaner, safer solution to
mark this entrance as"exit only." • ., 3 .
Chair Peterson added bymarkingthis access"• onl " less: kel that westbound traffic
Y, � ._ .�.� � �- y
on CountyRoad I would drive the wrongg ction a' '' : ; edian to enter theproperty.
,., .�. g
He pointed out it was conceivable that ,. ', eone !,17 t atte .;`o this, and particularly with the
• traffic along County Road I travel'gire. a fair ignifica Akpeed, there would be a potential for
accidents.
Commission.,. aube stated ; e concern a 8 �.g the Mounds View Drive exit. He indicated
he had ob, >:. = semi t i in the S a.$ : -rica driveway, blocking traffic that would take
a left to ' :,` - °_ -d se -*Ark;ize both the SuperAmerica and the strip mall driveways, and
the exits fo , i t , a zLake `otritiFfii4,1 homes are in the same close vicinity. He suggested the
Mounds View s e mar i ' urn only."
Commiss' 0`0; < . # a other exit from the site was a"right turn only" onto County Road
• - . i-.• 1. •011 elrtit . s• - _. sill •e-site-werereturns-only, vehicles woul•
hav- travel down Hi ' o LongLake Road to get over to Mounds View Drive. He stated
l� '�;,.
t ' • •uld be very difficu� o enforce, in terms of those residents who live in the area, as they would
h . o travel almost •vele, in order to go a block.
o stated this location would be very difficult to exit from at many times during
Chair Peterson stated the northbound exit from County Road I could be marked "right turn only"
from the parking lot, and if an exit was allowed from that point, a sign could be placed on the other
side, facing County Road I indicating no entrance for westbound traffic. He pointed out it might be
somewhat restrictive to indicate the County Road I as an"exit only," and perhaps "right turn only"
• would work just as well.
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 4
Commissioner Stevenson ointed out that there is verysimple right in, right out on County Road I. •
pP
He stated only the westbound traffic would utilize County Road I as an entrance to the site, and it
should be very clearly indicated as"right in, right out."
Commissioner Laube suggested placing a sign at the very end of the median indicatin no left turn.
Planning Associate Ericson pointed out this entrance is in very close proximity to t SperAmerica
access, and this would be confusing to those people turning into the Supea e trstation.
Mr. Pinkerton suggested they place the sign 10 feet into the 4 -te mea' s< ` -r away from t
entrance.
07'4 `'iftaiiiigk,g.,
Commissioner Stevenson suggested they stipulate this en belfliight in, right€ ounty
Road I in the resolution, with no stipulation for MoundsV6Ailve at this point.
Chair Peterson suggested the stipulation could indicate rikg ;,n, a 4% with appropriate signage,"
•and specify the actual signage at a later point. He advis'd that byvtiii:i:Ate driveway over a few
feet to accommodate the fire hydrant, the more F.0 °: . s that sottlp,A4Nbuld travel the wrong
direction for ten feet to enter the driveway.
u
Commissioner Stevenson inquired Wit was 'essary a the full five feet to the east.
Planning Associate Ericson stated th- ' rivewa . > as shi'g 'y`' ittle as possible to avoid any
obstruction. •
„„Commissioner Laube suggested p g the si M$: 4:= the en::nce to the driveway facing County Road
I, so that it ould only be:.• to traffigiVNitg4rst on County Road I. He pointed out this
would no,13 he Su.4 traffic
Commission V , ated . g ;+'s was too complicated. He advised they should eliminate
the median, an• s c tot in either direction.
Commissi•g tevenW <.a SuperAmerica and Burger King sites generate more traffic than
the pro g'a seddevelopmhey w .
•
C• . •'"ssioner Berke ind' to. if vehicles are allowed to make a left hand turn at this location, they
•. • back up traffic w the light is green. He explained this already occurs at the SuperAmerica
• ' rger King sites.'
IVO** . 11 and stated he did not perceive the anticipated additional traffic in this location to
be . r b `.
Commissioner Berke advised he lives in the area, and traffic is already a problem. He explained if
traffic must travel further down on County Road I before turning, it would back up on Highway 10.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 5
• Commissioner Hegland stated the median was somewhat inconsequential in that if someone sees an
entrance at this location, and are not aware there is an entrance on Mounds View Drive, they will
attempt to enter the site from this location. Commissioner Laube stated County Road I was under
the jurisdiction of the County, and the City has no control over it.
Mr. Pinkerton suggested they start with a sign which indicates "no leftturn" a 15. exit, and if
necessary, indicate"no entrance" on the other side of the sign later, and ;"'` : s.;`: s visible only to
traffic coming from the right.
Chair Peterson reiterated the earlier stated language of"Ri: right ou, t : %>V $ 'ate Signa,
Y �<
with the specific details determined either prior to the fi approval.. with : -;..$ ed
stafl's recommendation to list Item 1 d as a separate stip •n.
Planning Associate Ericson stated lb should also be a sepa - <,$1,,,,; ion indicating"Right in. right
out access onto County Road I,with appropriate signage t "*.,,would be indicated as the
second stipulation,with the third stipulation being the curr t Item 4indicates "Signage shall
be in compliance with the City Code and approve',L: "'.nal use pp- :
Commissioner Stevenson noted a contingencaddi :gl .:. < 'ng sills, in the event the facility's
parking was found to be inadequate. He ed it a•.t,=ar ` `:`� ` s enc was omitted when the
p g q �,��::•: g Y
applicant indicated that 31 parking s < s woul• ;e pro d' and inquired if there was still a
• contingency for overflow parkinga . $dition. ails.
Planning Associate Ericson expl.'‘,.\-=‘, "he app' kk..,has an arrangement with Silver View Plaza,
to utilize the ear of their p.- . . of in the ng overflow.
•
Commiss on "`tom -` son ino 4 • ff-re was any possibility of conditional parking on the site in the
future, or ift •<•}5 . , g�a
g st. ", , a,4. urn, even if this was found to be inadequate. Planning
Associate Eric ` ,- e bely4it' .'te design utilized as much area as possible for parking
spaces. M
Co oner Stevens(); : • if_there wasadditional room to P g area_inth-
futu,t,K. he would like t•f kVa e this contingency in the resolution. Planning Associate Ericson
ad .d if it is discover-gig 'during the course of the operation that the parking is not adequate, the
ional use permit ".1,4 be revisited, and the matter can be brought back before the City Council
0 „ •dressed. '
. :
, ' ):Peterson/Kaden. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution
No.'-,'. '' 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, as Amended to Indicate Item lb as Stipulation 2, "Right In, Right Out Access Onto County Road
I,with Appropriate Signage," and Item ld as Stipulation 3, "Signage Shall.Be in Compliance With
the City Code and Approved Conditional Use Permit."
411
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 6
Ayes—6 Nays—0 Motion carried. •
Planning Associate Ericson stated this item would be considered at the November 15 City Council
meeting.
6. Special Planning Case No. SP-074-99 .tt
Discuss revisions to proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinan ro , g '-nding ,',Code related
driveway widths and curb cuts. :; „ �
Planning Associate Ericson stated Ordinance 642 is an ordi ." t-' ch revises the Zonin_ ode with
regard to driveway widths and curb cuts, and incorporate:7>:.::; ' ,,anges which make the Zoning
Code consistent with Chapter 900 of the Municipal Co hip <: •ated with Ordinance 640.
Planning Associate Ericson stated at the October, : „ ;,'!.""`fmt,,g of the!fanning Commission there
was discussion regarding driveway widths a .$ rbc €x : .t is, propriate in which districts.
He stated the Planning Commission condi'd that qC.4.0eriir the R-1 district is adequate,
however,there was a question in regard he R-2 strict, at_:;. :: t would be appropriate for twin
homes. •
Planning Associate Ericson s ro s d the V ssi• j,:with a supplemental memorandum which
indicated th-.4veway widt ` •! rb cuts: 4 g e recently constructed twin homes located
on Knol >._ *, rive a ;$`; �', .ke Road; .,,_:. . $ which are wider than currentlyallowed. He
�...<: . : ms � >,�. �:: :.
explainer '� ,home` .. i-foot wide driveways, with the exception of one, which has
an eighteen- o. p p, vewa t, separated by a very large tree. He indicated there is a
four-foot spaciri_. ` q e driv 'and the garages, and there is no separation between the
driveways as VAisfralot` e stre=
Plana�: Associate En . . _ .-d the Planning Commission has discussed whether or not a
req 'B( ent for spacing b the driveways was even necessary. He pointed out that in the R-1
D' t, the driveway s. ck is one foot from the property line, which results in two feet between
ays, in some nces. He advised that the Code currently requires a 40-foot separation
driveways,�. two side by side single family dwellings. He indicated the Commission felt
z2 .: A', in that the garages are now generally constructed side by side, as opposed to
e ' °> t e case with the older twin homes.
Planning Associate Ericson stated through this research, staff is of the opinion that the separation
between the driveways in the R-2 district is not necessary, however, 40-foot driveways, although they
do exist, appear to be excessive. He explained that narrowing the driveway width to 32 feet, in staff's
opinion, would not create any hardship or problems in terms of entering or exiting these properties.
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 7
• Planning Associate Ericson requested the Commission discuss these issues. He stated at the last
meeting, the Commission concluded 32 feet would be an adequate driveway width, however, the
question is if there are two driveways on one property, should they be 16 or 18 feet wide, and what
would be the appropriate curb cut width.
Chair Peterson noted there was also a question in regard to a numbe of sing .mily homes
constructed on R-2 lots, which should be taken into account as well. - •1. s some of these
properties are inappropriately zoned R-2, when their uses are c ently ' e ;ever, they currently
exist in this manner and language may be required to addr-
Planning Associate Ericson advised that Subdivision 5b of .1.09,Pa of th- . ::� . :. �.tes
"No curb cut access shall exceed 24 feet in width for R- .s : $R-5 . sidential use .'`` ..wide
curb cut shall be permissible for R-2, R-3 and R-4 us:, :explained this lan_ua. could be
interpreted to indicate a single family home is not an R-2-s ":' ise, it could be amended to
indicate a single family dwelling or use, as opposed to t o `4 1.`
., . t reference.
Chair Peterson pointed out that the language alte ; etween t •' and the use, and this
presents a conflict. Planning Associate Ericso. anguage could be amended and made
consistent, and brought back to the Plannin! . irnmis•° `,..1 s "_& ,.next. eeting.
Chair Peterson stated the 32-foot drivew width .4;4 not see _seasonable, as the current 30-foot
• maximum did not appear to be acco$ • dating
Commissioner Hegland inquired 40-foo .th be allowed, as this was currentlybeing
constructed. .hair Peterson 4 , ?gin out tha fipoti . esult in an excessive amount of impervious
surface.
Commissio s ated t 4 width in the R-2 and R-3 District should be 36 feet. He
explained that R •t wid .µY .,::. ith a 16-foot driveway straight from each garage door
over, and alio ';,i ;t mthe cet'the driveway width would be 36 feet. He commented that
the majo lotthese constructed closer to the road, and it would be difficult to park a
veluc,l-a» - . •ve••. • ; o> #. • -. sown any further.
C. � }• ssioner Stevenso :$!tinted out that the driveways of most twin homes, even if they both have
3> _: $':arages, do not n. sarily go straight back. He explained that the person with a 3 car garage
have a 22-f• curb cut, and if this is a back to back twin home, he could not see allowing
atAite • - �. , because the driveway will be jointly used.
Co ` • r Laube reiterated most town homes are built closer to the road, and with a narrower
driveway, parked vehicles could very easily block the other garage.
Commissioner Hegland stated the driveways should be allowed to go straight back 40 feet. He
• explained that a single family home is permitted 11 feet per car, and this is restricted to 10 feet for
twin homes.
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 8
Planning Associate Ericson stated a 40-foot curb cut would be as wide as many of the City streets, 111
and this wide a curb cut might not be necessary. He explained that it was unlikely that multiple
vehicles would enter and exit at the same time. He added that some of the higher and medium density
town homes are closer to the street, however, those on Knollwood Drive and Silver Lake Road are
approximately 45 feet from the street, and the driveways could accommodate almos 3 vehicles.
Commissioner Hegland inquired if each half of the twin home units was inc "duall $"•caned, separate
pieces of property, with a zero lot line. Planning Associate J, son sta .e. i as correct.
til:. \ A
Commissioner Hegland pointed out they should have the:l. e opportem:., € e veway
, �
as single family dwellings. He commented this makes propert: more by
definition, these are zero lot line properties, however, th,..`: e st parate entiti ; 0 PA:•. ay two
different parties.
Commissioner Kaden stated he was in favor of the 32-feP `c >' a indicatedhe agreed with
staff, in that 40 feet was an excessive amount of paver ht. Hello. a e eople might desire to
purchase this type of property, however, he would " `; .11y ratne'''tiz-tgeea home with a lesser
amount of pavement. He added, from a safety st. 'e t per si e:k p. Id be sufficiently wide.
Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that purpo„ o t` 32 32-foot curb cut in R-2, R-3
and R-4 uses was for one single property,, :�d not nssarilya~ adjoined properties. He stated
he did not t see how the issue of twi ' i $es wa ;dressed i .this statement. •
Chair Peterson stated there sho .e a dis:: #on m.d `etween the two types of R-2 usage, the
zero lot line ations, and t . style dui ;�e , e n ssioner Stevenson agreed. He added that
the issue e!` of line `'4 e. drivew: :4'- er, should be specifically addressed.
Planning Ass ' ,1 on ad xi. o lot line subdivisions are addressed-in the Code, and have
their own set o Pitrtmgents a tons. He stated he was uncertain if there was anything
specifically re .-0.: e, .� ; widt a '. curb cuts, however, there may be, and if the requirements
are chan_a s show fo $a icated in the R-2 section of the Zoning Code. He explained there
is an e.'Jr-er> section pertag # 0o lot line subdivisions, and deed restrictions and covenants that
are rayrired to be �
in ut `v" "'
p p � h the property. He advised this would be the appropriate place to
ad eet e° s this issue, rathe 'an attempting to address it in the ordinance.
'AMA!ssioner Steve stated that at the widest,these properties are 20 feet, and inquired why they
A .'. 'ear. 3 '-foot curb cut for a single property. Planning Associate Ericson explained there
3 a e- . V ome that is not zero lot line subdivided, and is one parcel.
Commissioner Stevenson commented he was not aware of any apartment buildings in the R-3 or R-4
district that have a 32-foot curb cut. Planning Associate Ericson stated, at present, the widest curb
cut allowed in these districts is 30 feet.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 9
• Commissioner Stevenson inquired if there were many 30-foot curb cuts in the R-3 and R-4 districts,
at present. He explained the zero lot line issue is a unique situation, and should be treated in that
manner, otherwise, it could result in 32-foot wide curb cuts where they might not be desirable.
Commissioner Kaden added it could even be misinterpreted, in the case of two properties, to allow
64 feet,by adding the number of feet on each side. He pointed out this is probably ho the existing
40 foot-curb cuts came about.
Planning Associate Ericson explained the only reason the curb 74,,t was dr17,4 was to allow for the
side by side cases. He inquired if the Commission desired to , le k to t .`` wt : . urb cut for R-
R-3 and R-4 uses.
Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not see any reaso . 'o an: 'der than 30 e : w ;as not
�:::: n`.
aware of any R-3 or R-4 cases, which utilized the maxi ; `0,Apet. Planning As oeiayoa Ericson
explained that if the twin homes were on one parcel, they w,`' ''> '�`*:e•uired to have a 30-foot wide
curb cut, rather than a 40-foot curb cut, which in the \i''• er Lake Road twin homes,
currently exist.
Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not de A,Th'0,q.,',51VrAff, hat situa o 30 feet, in the case of
adjoiningproperties with a dual driveway, ho , he ' e th- 0-foot width in all R-3 and
p p Y, � .. ,� _.�
R-4 districts. He explained a single curb c Grivewa nto se 't should not be allowed the
same curb cut as a back to back driveway e poin ¢'� out th. A-Ek anguage generalizes all curb cuts
• for R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts, ho _ _, there situati• °such as the four-plex developments,
where all the driveways are joine
PlanningAs . iate Ericson g >x. 444,.
-;��hat thew �-� 4_ �;z •elopments would be addressed through the
Planned ' lopme e.• &� ovides t r gs.,p:* q ty to allow for these considerations. He stated
staff was ;t6ts•. 'th th-..e i
az rb cut in the case of a side by side twin home with a two-car
garage on 41;etit ,, hich i '`� g . g .ne individual who rents the other side, who will then be
restricted to th= .orb cut.
Commiss'. eglani iY �Vdthat the issue would be with the property, and whether or not the
p 00 - . . . Iy-di :. o-separ-ate-pies-esof-pr-operty—not-with the ownership-of-the
pro.
E •y
Ayr
Peterson statedat Subdivision 5, Item b should be divided into separate areas, with R-1
. e :indicating 24 , and three cases for R-2 zoning. He explained that in the R-2 district there
• � i m ' '`Yly use where 32 feet would not be appropriate, and the current 30 feet might
e = , and two cases relating to whether or not the property is one parcel or two. He
sta - :jtsnot worded carefully, someone could interpret that 32 feet is permissible for R-2 uses,
at 32 feet per property, resulting in a 64 foot width.
Commissioner Hegland inquired how the situations of R-1 uses in the R-2 district came to exist.
• Chair Peterson explained the zoning has been in place for many years, and at some point, someone
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 10
in
desired a single-family use in the R-2 district. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that the zoning •
could be changed, and probably should be to prevent these situations.
Planning Associate Ericson stated that side by side twin homes in zero lot line subdivisions can be
addressed in the R-2 Zoning District separately from this consideration. Commissio i er Stevenson
commented he would like to see them considered separately, as it would be confusi a • group R-2,
R-3 and R-4 together, and not include a specific reference to adjoined dr:iv'_:::e.._..:.-.--.wa ;s.,
Chair Peterson advised if there are zoning incompatibilities 'ould'''`: ::' r'-;
however, un
that time,these situations should still be addressed. He reit- 'ed there .e;I z. .; that reg„
consideration, and although this may be a temporary situ.h7n, it is sub,e to t e;.: :' •,%9.on
regarding whether or not to down zone these properties' . "
Planning Associate Ericson advised this could be done i4 hj ," ion with the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan, as a logical next step to make t o ` gW .:: ;'' tent to the land use. He
indicated staff would make changes to the proposed grainance,':YOK.`7:01 it forward at the next
meeting of the Planning Commission. , : es` '
f,.. k..
:
7. Staff Reports/Items of Inform. 1 n �, , :4> ,, ,.
A. Billboard Update Ill
Community Development Direct.Repke sta ��never. .k nths prior, staff drafted an ordinance for
considerati. :which woul a : . ',', for bill..' - $ ..nditional use permit in certain areas of the
communit,. o "ig as t " $$r4 :4 . rtain st. ' e indicated the discussion of this matter was
delayed ' ''e'' ,si"-•t Att. '- s. ed •issues concerning spot zoning, and whether or not there
were anyd <:._... ; % s whic > _. 0 bit billboards on the golf course property. He explained
the City Atto >•n opi :ff tes these issues might not be a problem under certain
circumstanc- ',zt.
``
Co eli Developme " opk.e stated at this point, it is appropriate to further discuss the
ori_.i: ordinance, and ' Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the City
Cs it in this regard.
>Fi,,j11E unity Develo1411=nt Director Jopke stated the City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance and
. °``% a ' a he conditional use permit process outlined in the proposed ordinance appears
s.
t ' A . < : owever, the conditional use permits could not be limited to City owned property.
He `'rt -r. sinmented that due to the zoning of specific properties at the golf course, even if the City
grants a conditional use permit, the State may not grant a permit, which would be necessary for this
to occur.
Community Development Director Jopke pointed out that if the City desires to proceed with •
billboards, one alternative would be to indicate the conditional use permit would be granted in the
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 11
• CRP of PF Districts along a State or Federal highways. He explained this language appears to
address the issue, more by district than by property ownership. He added that the City Attorney has
not reviewed this language, at this point.
Community Development Director requested the Commissioners discuss the specific •mssdinance, and
,
determine if they are comfortable with the provisions therein. He explained the Co �ff ssion should
also consider whether or not there should be a public hearing process i .:e re a, and what that
process should be. He noted there was previous discussion th. here s 8Vspecific ordinance
for presentation to the public, and when the ordinance is sui.�.� sr p611a:> the Commissi• s.
should direct staff regarding the public process and how otice it. 4:..
Commissioner Kaden inquired if the ordinance required r- ... in:„,-reflect that t ,- . . al use
permit would not be limited to City owned properties. `` '
�a
Community Development Director Jopke advised this C'.:. • • • through specific districts,
such as the PF or CRP districts, however, there are •me P `:::`:•':' t 'dst the single family
residential, and this would not be an appropriate loca •; billboare • 'sed that the City has
control over these properties, however, it would 4. • • o•Hate toy:k'-`i t ger limit the conditional
use permits to State or Federal highways bec. es- •.•,, mor-s<ppropriate locations for the
billboards.
II) . Commissioner Kaden inquired if thi,;.::!",,,„•'2,, Id op- p High 35W to additional billboards.
Community Development Direct t ' •pke pr d th- a mmission with a map indicating the CRP
and PF zone:$r operties wit'' ity. He - is a portion of land at the golf course, and
a strip of d on t ;:.• .•a of Hi8, north of the Mobile Home Park. He added
that ther-.. • t• 'unty 1 .w a Creek on County 10 and Highway 35W that would be the
other possi, 46.
i
Chair Peterson;'. • - a ing ne . Ain the outcome of the case in the city of St. Paul regarding
billboard
Co nity Developmen or Jopke stated this was a referendum vote to ban billboards in the
cit 'f St. Paul, which s defeated during the election. He advised there would be no ban on
b." "• ards in St. Pau e pointed out that the community should decide whether they desire
He ex•. ed the Commission can recommend to the Council that billboards are
4'4E96:,,', - . • :vide a recommendation on the specific ordinance that staff has drafted, and
fig' e City Council. p
Commissioner Hegland inquired if the funds generated from billboards placed upon golf course
property would be directed to the golf course. Community Development Director Jopke stated this
was correct. He explained that any revenues received from billboards on that property would be used
to retire the debt at the golf course. He stated that a billboard on property other than the golf course
iwould not be subject to that same provision.
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 12
Commissioner Hegland commented the billboard consideration was originally undertaken as an •
attempt to retire the debt at the golf course more quickly. Community Development Director Jopke
stated this was presented as an alternative to produce revenue to assist with paying off the existing
debt at the golf course.
Commissioner Hegland inquired how much revenue the billboards were e timated.t.<:. enerate, and
what would be the effect on the debt at the golf course, and the City, ,• .ul. y proceed with
billboards other properties.
Community Development Director Jopke stated the estim.§ revenue .<� ti.$ . would r.., :�-
Win. .. .iq._ y.<
Yui ��
between $1,000 to $2,000 per sign, per month, $12,001 o $24,0 . .er ye. .# -• . y as
uncertain regarding the impact this would have on howl the•t at the gol ' a i Id be
paid.
Commissioner Hegland commented this was the originalp- ;>` >: uing billboards, however,
Wit does not represent anything significant in terms of retiring tha 7,�_ Swas uncertain why they
were proceeding with the matter.
Community Development Director Jopkeed o'> °••e is s of revenue and debt are
considerations of the Council, and they ultimat , _€:' ision regarding the economic
issues. He explained that the Planning .mmissi.)`shoul. t .. :: > tpon the land use issues and the
impact on the community, as this is .,g 'prop in input t. ;rovide to the CityCouncil. •
P per ' p
Chair Peterson commented there . ••: ed to • ,�.me • : Yton in terms of the Highway Department
policies and, >'a zoning. H >' 's , ed that= :.4' ' • • p. given to the City with the provision that it
- y howe z- - hwa De artm.ent regulations require that
must be .151Tia,, a pu• �' �� '�$ -:, �..�s` g Y P � q
_.e alto ' + ercialproperty. p
billboar .\. • He stated this resented a conflict.
:... .. Vii:..
Community D=". • Direc . i W stated this might be the case. He reiterated the City
Attorney's in .,� <<, .t: ever it proceeds in this matter, the State must ultimately issue
the permi tri• they lqi wed upon the fact that this property is not zoned for commercial or
t . ��a. -, Ike notezl hatthe-State-may-consider-t-his-more-of-amrn
e� er-c•a �
l-usend
there ;: e, be willing to is ``'permit, however, this is simply speculation, and will not be known
u 4ir billboard owner a g •lies for a permit.
'-0 ssioner Stev -.n inquired if staff had conducted research of the ordinances relating to
.. ::..:>'• t sunding communities.
Co I evelopment Director Jopke stated the cities of Arden Hills, New Brighton, and
Shoreview do not allow billboards. The research indicates that Shoreview and Arden Hills prohibit
any new billboards, and existing billboards are grandfathered in. He pointed out that Shoreview is
attempting to remove billboards through redevelopment, as it comes forward.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 13
Chair Peterson stated they should consider this issue on a land use basis, in terms of whether or not
billboards are appropriate in the land use designations, and accomplishing that be restricting them to
the CRP and PF uses.
Commissioner Stevenson commented through the definition of CRP and PF designated areas, in terms
of preservation and public facilities, billboards do not appear to be approp 'ate. H; ted he could
understand the placement of billboards in commercial districts, however, h.: ..s c :# erned regarding
their placement in areas such as parks and public facilities.
Chair Peterson agreed, adding that he does not believe bil :rds are c• #;p. # this land
and therefore, could not recommend in favor of them. e forth- .dicate '�
billboards were a good use in any land use district, an•,1* of . milar view o>.,:' a ° .k`nding
communities in that they should not be looking to expan �` -, but to restrict : »r.
Commissioner Laube commented that in light of what they e o- a _ he city of St. Paul and the
surrounding communities, and their attempts to limit billbo. ds, hex'`= .., : tblem with the attempting
to allow them in the City. He added although the u t.in St. Pa>'° ' `._ :: ted down, it was by a
very narrow margin. z'
Commissioner Kaden stated he had a lengt iscussi•& iti:,% ortIV:';:who had studied the issue
of billboards in St. Paul. He clarified„ t new +oards r ady banned in St. Paul, and the
• •recent referendum was to remove app ately � 'o 50 percent of the existing billboards within the
next 5 to 15 years. He explained -f'eren would e actively removed billboards in good
condition. He pointed out that t 49,$' went 1.&� St. P. °'
. which bans new billboards, indicates if a
billboard is ,.,.ken down ;` It of rep ...` , or destroyed by a storm, it may not be
reconst : '
Commission .: : :.ted thi ` - g ' s came very close to removing a percentage of billboards,
in addition to f4,9,1 sunset , .. -xplained this represents that citizens do not desire the
billboards thal r > He a.. 8., hat he does not desire to see billboards at the golf course.
C• -- i over-Steve..e .t-=r.e-golf cour-se-super-intendent-had-seriously studied-the-issue-of
billb• placement to . ay golf balls from entering the highway for safety reasons, however,
the ust be a better s to control this problem than billboards.
;..g :: v 'eterson req ; d the Commissioners provide their leanings on this issue, as a directive for
Co' Y•n r Berke stated he was opposed to billboards in any type of a park or golf course. He
explained they have attempted to create a nice facility with the golf course, and placing billboards in
the middle of it to generate some revenue, in his opinion, would be throwing bad after good, and
destroying a nice recreational area.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 14
r wasnot •
Commissioner Kaden stated he agreed that placing billboards in PF or CRP areas a good
idea. He explained these areas were intended to present a nice appearance, and billboards would not
further or enhance that purpose. He explained although the economic considerations were not within
the purview of the Planning Commission, he has asked several of his neighbors if they would be in
favor of billboards on City owned property to help with the City budget, and possibly • event raising
taxes in the future. He stated that each individual emphatically stated they would •e in favor of
this, and this affects his decision on the matter. He commented he had pe �pall .s,.>empted to view
this matter with an open mind, in terms of a means to assist n the eihtiVik
Commissioner He land commented that the economic f.g. was the . `` and the •' g4"
positive side to this consideration, in his opinion. He stat,: %e does n:e eliev v all
the effort staff and the Commission have dedicated to it, ey L,ve run into more: <,b'„*1 - R s with
the issue,than they would ever stand to benefit from it. a was not in fav140Fontinuing
to pursue the matter.
Community Development Director Jopke inquired if th lanniri:: - .§`':'scion desired to consider
a resolution indicating they do not believe additio • &. .` dards arelc•o in the community.
Chair Peterson stated this was his unders .r..g•ing. <:: ed thatthe research has provided
clarification regarding billboard and sign> 'ues, w )�re w>t:r4:-L. ting signage, and some good
. r
information has come out of this effort, wever, e were. .'ome legal questions with regard
to the issue. He stated it would be u o pla City i situation where legal question might
exist.
Jke
Community .evelo ment ould prepare a resolution for consideration
at the ne g of t en.Commi'
,a.
B. ,trdtt s Coun ...&
3 : .
Community 0,,: 4.1 ${ -ctor JoliV eported at the Work Session the previous Monday, it was
pointed o. hat Co ` - •; .'ller, Stevenson, and Johnson's terms will expire at the end of the
year. '`tated Mayor CM/•: # .weif the Commissioners desire to seek re-appointinent, they
sho reapply for the p. ..'f
`, Peterson inquirF f the formal application process was required for re-appointment to the
Commissio• ommunity Development Director Jopke stated it was his understanding that
. . :. ' '•. ould complete an application. Chair Peterson advised that applications were
a ;" ' . `.nt counter for anyone who is interested in applying for these positions.
Community Development Director Jopke stated Mayor Coughlin indicated he would like to have the
appointments made prior to the end of the year, to provide there is a full compliment of
Commissioners for the commencement of terms in the upcoming year.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 15
• Community Development ment Director Jopke stated there was further discussion at the Council Work
Session regarding the public hearing process. He explained the City Council is not required to hold
public hearings on ordinances, although there is some question as to whether or not that is
appropriate. He stated there was discussion with regard to public hearings on ordinances in the
future, and options to insure the public is made aware of the ordinances. He stated ere was also
a suggestion that public hearings be held on resolutions and other items which p. larly impact
taxes or represent a financial impact to the citizens. He noted discussion • .0: e i e ; ases in building
related areas, and added he had provided the Council with . „update ,, - omprehensive Plan
process.
s
C. Upcoming Planning Cases
Planning Associate Ericson stated at the next meeting o ing Commission" `-...: would be
'
consideration of a request for a conditional use permit an '.t� °x3,; ent review to allow for an
expansion at Sunrise Church, located at the corner of L• k m' ` r= 9` and County Road I. He
commented additional cases could come forward, how-: -r, no o ,,c`ifoill applications have
been submitted at this time.
D. Planning Commissioner's J : alp"
Planning Associate Ericson provided th "ommissi! ers wl r
a20013y of the Planning
• Commissioner's Journal.
Ai
8. Chairperson and Plann,jrComm` {ners ' port
r- ,granwan,
No repo •F t::w conside
j
9. Adlo Arra
3x a
•
There being n %.:':<< . � ;ss be � : e Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned
the meeti :3 '.$T z .
(The mee F,00' ediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
ctfully submitted
Co $ „ . ' evelopment Director
Transcribed by:
Trish Pearson
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
N:\DATA\USERS\BARBB\SHARE\KEEP-IT\WPDOCS\MINUTES\1999\11-03-99.WPD