Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2004/02/02 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION AGENDA Monday, February 2, 2004 7:00 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS SCHEDULED 6 MONTH REVIEW OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR PERFORMANCE. ROLL CALL: Linke, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Gunn PUBLIC COMMENT Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. Agenda Items Discussed by Consensus _______ 1. Discussion of Long-Range Financial Plan. – Hansen _______ 2. Discuss Proposed Revisions to the Housing Maintenance Code - Anderson _______ 3. Review Alternative Billboard Designs for Bridges Golf Course - Ericson _______ 4. Discuss Proposed Amendment Regarding Temporary Outdoor Structures in Residential Districts – Ericson _______ 5. Review Charter Commission Issues _______ 6. Mounds View Manufactured Home Park – Second Access Proposal _______ 7. County Road 10 Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan – discussion on how the Council wants to proceed / what data would they like / schedule separate meeting (verbal report) _______ 8. Community Development Staffing, Request for an Intern – Ericson (verbal report) _______ 9. Discuss Potential Revision to the Wetland Zoning District Map - Ericson Next Council Worksession: March 2, 2004 Next City Council Meeting: February 9, 2004 Item No: 3 Meeting Date: Feb 2, 2004 Type of Business: Worksession Administrator Review : _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review Alternative Billboard Designs for Bridges Golf Course and Possible Amendments to Height and Spacing Introduction: On the 27 day of March in the year 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 5419 approving an Interim Use Permit for six billboards at the Bridges Golf Course. The City accepted the design and proposal submitted by then Eller Media (Now Clear Channel Outdoor). The graphic below represents the design selected by the Council: Clear Channel Outdoor and staff would like the Council to consider other design options for the billboards at the golf course and would like the Council to consider other changes associated with their location, spacing and height. Billboard Discussion February 2, 2004 Page 2 Discussion: Regarding the approved design of the billboards, the former golf course manager who was initially involved with the project had agreed (at the City’s expense) to construct an earthen berm along the periphery of the golf course upon which the billboards would be located. The proposed berm was functional from the standpoint of elevating the billboards above the surface of the road (Highway 10 and 35W) and provided a sense of separation between the golf course and the billboards. The dirt would have been the spoils from a planned nine-hole expansion of the course. As everyone is aware, the golf course expansion did not occur and no berms were constructed. Staff feels that the proposed berming and design—if implemented as approved—would cause too much of an obstruction and would impede play. We would recommend approving an alternate design to minimize the obstruction that billboards will cause. Two designs have been submitted that would resolve the berming issue and also limit the physical obstruction. Other designs were submitted incorporating multiple poles however these were not included with this report, as they did not lessen the physical obstruction within the field of play. Labeled Design A and B, staff would encourage the Council to consider one of these new designs. Design A. This example incorporates a single pole design with a brick column and brick trim under the sign face. This design minimizes the extent to which the billboard face projects into the golf course. Because the cart paths could be located under the billboard, there would be little disruption to the facility and no need to relocate cart paths. Billboard Discussion February 2, 2004 Page 3 Design B. Of these two designs, staff prefers Design A so as to limit to every extent possible the physical and psychological impact the billboards cause. Spacing One of the issues cited by MnDOT in their denial of the billboard applications was that one of the billboards would be located in an undeveloped, natural area. To resolve this concern, Clear Channel is proposing to pull the sixth billboard out of the undeveloped area and to accommodate its placement on the developed golf course property, requests that the spacing between one of the signs be reduced to 500 feet on one side and 600 feet on the other side. (This would be consistent with MnDOT’s minimum spacing requirement of 500 feet.) Such a reduction would however necessitate either a variance or Code amendment. It may be less problematic to simply amend the City’s Code to be consistent with MnDOT’s spacing allowances. However, one could argue that by reducing the spacing and pulling the sixth billboard out of the undeveloped area, hundreds of trees along the roadway that would have been cleared to create a viewing area and an access road for the billboard would be saved Thus, the hardship would be tied to tree preservation and the preservation of the natural environment of the undeveloped area.. This example is similar to Design A by virtue of the single pole and attempts to replicate a lighthouse feature as did the original design. The difference with this design is that the face of the billboard is offset from the column by five or six feet, which means the billboard would project five or six feet further into the field of play. Billboard Discussion February 2, 2004 Page 4 Height Another issue that Clear Channel would like the City Council to consider is the height of the billboards. Mounds View’s City Code limits the height of a billboard to no more than 35 feet above the grade of the adjacent roadway. There are many trees within the MnDOT right of way that would block the view of the signs if the height were limited to 35 feet. MnDOT does not typically allow billboard companies to remove trees to create a viewshed but does permit those same trees to be trimmed if the grow into the billboard viewing area. In addition, there are many trees on the golf course that could be saved if the height were increased an by ten feet. Similar to the spacing issue, the height issue can be resolved either by variance or by code amendment. In this case, a variance may be more appropriate because one could argue the height of the existing trees causes a hardship. Clear Channel has submitted a few graphics showing the height differences between 35 feet and 45 feet along with a map showing an aerial photograph of the golf course with the proposed locations of the billboards indicated by blue “V”s. IUP Amendment Regardless of what’s decided by the Council concerning the redesign of the billboards or the spacing and height issues, Clear Channel would like the City Council to consider amending the IUP to allow for a true 20-year duration (rather than limiting it to a specific date as is currently the case) consistent with the approved leases. The Interim use Permits are currently approved through the end of 2023. It has been almost four years since the Council adopted the original resolution of approval and an additional year since the Council approved the lease extensions. Staff would recommend such an amendment not be processed until the billboard applications have been approved by MnDOT. Recommendation: Discuss Clear Channels request for reduced spacing, alternative locations, increased height and a different design. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Resolution 5419 2. Resolution 5904 3. Ordinance 708 4. Clear Channel Photographic Documentation RESOLUTION NO. 5419 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF SIX OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ON BRIDGES GOLF COURSE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ELLER MEDIA PROPOSAL WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has applied for an Interim Use Permit to install six outdoor advertising signs on Bridges Golf Course Property; and, WHEREAS, the Bridges Golf Course property is made up of a collection of parcels; and, WHEREAS, the following legally-described golf course properties are zoned CRP -- Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation: That Part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 30, Range 23, lying north and west of State Highway 10 Right of Way, and, Those parts of Lots 3, 4, 13 and 14, Block 1, Laport Meadows, lying north of State Highway 10 Right of Way; and , Those parts of Lots 1 – 5, Block 2, Laport Meadows, lying north of State Highway 10 right of way; and , All of Lots 1, 2 and 15, Block 1, Laport Meadows; and, WHEREAS, the following legally-described golf course property is zoned PF, Public Facilities: Outlot A, SYSCO WHEREAS, the following legally-described golf course properties are zoned I-1, Industrial: Outlot A, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Add Lot 4, Block 1, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Add WHEREAS, the above-referenced properties zoned CRP and I-1 are in the process of being rezoned to PF, Public Facility, by the City; and, WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 644 which amended the City Code to conditionally allow billboards as an interim use on properties north of State Highway 10 to face either State Highway 10 or I-35 W right of ways; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance 644 requires that any billboard application be reviewed in the context of Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3 of the City Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the proposal from Eller Media and finds it to be consistent with the zoning requirements pertaining to billboards; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed lease of the Bridges property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in keeping with the requirements of Section 462.356, Subd. 2 of Minnesota Statutes; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has examined the adverse effects criteria in Section 1125.01, Subd. 1e and finds the benefits of the proposal outweighs any possible or perceived impacts to the community; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has examined the general criteria as stated in Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b and finds all requirements to be satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves an Interim Use Permit for the installation of six billboards on Bridges Golf Course property in accordance with the Eller Media proposal, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The billboards shall be designed and constructed as indicated within the Eller Media proposal dated January 14, 2000, as shown on the attached Exhibit A. 2. The locations of the proposed billboards shall be as indicated on Page 8 of the Eller Media proposal dated January 14, 2000, or in other locations consistent with Mounds View Municipal Code and the lease agreement between the City and Eller Media. 3. If any of the proposed billboards are to be sited and installed within 100 feet of a wetland, the applicant will need to apply for and obtain a wetland buffer permit. 4. If the selected billboard vendor is unable to obtain the requisite billboard permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the interim use permit should be considered null and void. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any and all other necessary governmental permits and/or approvals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this interim use permit becomes effective upon the effective date of Ordinance Nos. 655, 656 and 657. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this interim use permit shall expire on July 1, 2015, or in the case of abandonment for a period greater than six months or upon lapse of the lease agreement between the City and Eller Media, whichever occurs first. Adopted this 27th day of March, 2000. ____________________________ Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST _____________________________ Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) M:\2000\City Council\Resolutions\5419.doc RESOLUTION 5904 CITY OFMOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 5419 AND EXTENDING THE EXPRIATION DATE FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF SIX OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ON BRIDGES GOLF COURSE PROPERTY WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5419 was adopted by the City of Mound View on March 27, 2000, wherein the City Council approved an Interim Use Permit for the installation of ix billboards on Bridges Golf Course property in accordance with the Eller Media (now known as Clear Channel) proposal, subject to various stipulations and conditions contained in the resolution; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of Resolution 5419, delays in receiving permit approvals from other governmental agencies necessitate the adoption an amended expiration date for the interim use permit; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of Resolution No. 5419, the parties have determined that it is necessary and desirable to amended expiration date for the interim use permit as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mounds View City Council that the last resolved clause of Resolution No. 5419 which previously read as follows: NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this interim use permit shall expire on July 1, 2015 or in the case of abandonment for a period greater than six months or upon lapse of the lease agreement between the City and Eller Media, whichever occurs first. is hereby amended to ready as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this interim use permit shall expire no later than December 31, 2003, or in the case of abandonment for a period greater than six months or upon lapse of the lease agreement between the City and Eller Media (now known as Clear Channel), whichever occurs first. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Mounds View City Council that City staff are hereby authorized and directed to take all necessary steps to implement this resolution including, without limitation, the preparation and execution of all appropriate documents. Adopted this 30th day of December, 2002. ATTEST: ___________________________________ Richard Sonterre, Mayor (SEAL) ___________________________________ Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator Motion by: Stigney Second by: Quick Sonterre: Aye Stigney: Aye Quick: Aye Marty: Absent Thomas: Absent ORDINANCE NO. 708 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1008.10, SUBDS. 6A and 6C OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1008.10, Subd 6a of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions struck out, to read as follows: a. Interim Use Permit: An interim use permit (IUP) must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any interim use permit issued for an interim use billboard shall automatically expire no later than July 1, 2015 December 31, 2023 or when the lease agreement for the billboard expires whichever date is earlier. Such IUP shall be null-and-void if the applicant fails to obtain any required permit from the State of Minnesota. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00; Ord. 679, 5-29-01) SECTION 2: Section 1008.10, Subd 6c of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions struck out, to read as follows: c. Minimum Spacing: Billboards must be at least one thousand feet (1,000') seven hundred and fifty feet (750’) 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. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01) SECTION 3. This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 9th day of December, 2002. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 30th day of December, 2002. Rich Sonterre, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Scott Riggs, City Attorney Motion: Quick Second: Stigney Sonterre: Aye Stigney: Aye Quick: Aye Marty: Absent Thomas: Absent Item No: 04 Meeting Date: Feb 2, 2004 Type of Business: Worksession Administrator Review : _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review Zoning Code Provisions Related to Temporary Structures Introduction: Staff and the Planning Commission is seeking guidance from the City Council regarding temporary structures in residential districts. A provision in the City’s Zoning Code implicitly prohibits temporary structures, however from time to time the City receives requests for temporary storage structures and up to this point has denied such requests as being inconsistent with the Code. There are situations, however, when allowing a temporary structure would be preferable to other alternatives. It is for this reason Staff asked the Planning Commission to review the Code requirements and make a recommendation as to whether an was in order. Discussion: The Zoning Code implicitly prohibits most “temporary” structures in Subd 1 of Section 1106.03, regarding accessory buildings as accessory uses within the R-1 zoning district. The pertinent language is as follows: “Accessory buildings shall have a weather resistant, treated or finished exterior. Structures composed of tubular metal and canvas or exposed plywood, particle board or similar materials shall not be permitted.” (Emphasis added.) This passage was added to the Zoning Code in 2000 with the adoption of Ordinance 664. The intent of this passage was to effectively prohibit the often unsightly tubular metal framed membrane covered temporary structures as well as unsightly plywood “shacks.” The prohibition, however, prevents staff from allowing membrane structures on a temporary basis under certain conditions. Recent cases which would potentially justify such a temporary “permit” include garage reconstructions, home remodels and reconstructions. Other more common requests are for winter coverage for vehicles stored outside. (Examples of these types of temporary structures are attached for the Commission’s review.) Often times the temporary structures are erected without permission unbeknownst to staff. When complaints are received, staff will investigate and inform the resident that the structure is in fact prohibited and request that it be removed. What do other Communities allow? The City of Crystal recently performed a study regarding temporary structures in response to the same issues Mounds View is experiencing. Mounds View participated in their survey and their survey results are attached. Some cities expressly prohibit such structures; some are Temporary Structures Report February 2, 2004 Page 2 silent on the issue and allow them, while other cities expressly allow them under certain circumstances. Ultimately the City of Crystal opted to forbid such temporary structures. Inquiries were also sent to the cities of Fridley, Shoreview, Roseville, Blaine, Spring Lake Park and Arden Hills. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission discussed this issue at their December 3rd, December 17th and January 7th meetings. While a unanimous position was not reached, a consensus did feel some type of revision was in order. However the amendment is ultimately constructed, the Planning Commission felt that the administrative and enforcement impact should be minimized so as to not impose impractical enforcement demands upon staff. The amendment proposed by the Planning Commission would involve the following changes: Temporary structures as defined in Chapter 1102 of this Title shall be Permitted for periods not to exceed six months in duration. Setbacks, location and maximum structure area shall be computed as would an accessory storage building. No vehicle shall be parked under or within such a structure if it violates outside parking regulations as addressed in Chapter 607 of the Code. Maximum allowed square footage of structure shall not exceed 288 square feet nor shall structure exceed or cause to exceed the maximum accessory building space for the property. Property owner shall be maintain the structure in the manner and appearance it was originally intended. Temporary structures in a state of disrepair or those remaining beyond the permitted date shall be considered a Public Nuisance as defined and addressed in Chapter 607. While such an amendment would not impose impractical enforcement demands on staff, I believe these proposed changes are too permissive and contrary to the intent of the 2000 Code amendment prohibiting such structures. A less permissive option was presented to the Planning Commission which would allow temporary structures only in conjunction with construction, renovation or repair projects, and only for the period in which the permit remains valid. Structures would need to be removed within 30 days after the project has been completed and signed-off by the building official. No allowance would be made for temporary structures to cover vehicles and other non-building related materials and possessions. The drawback with this option is that it would impose a greater enforcement burden on staff to verify and ensure compliance, however the burden would be marginalized by the limited number of permits issued with the more restrictive conditions. The last option considered was the “do nothing” approach; keep the status quo and make no changes to the Code. While there may be support for this option, staff would point out that prohibiting such structures altogether might be too restrictive. Striking a balance between permitted and prohibited uses is a challenge for every community and their elected representatives. Cities need to be able to adapt and be flexible--codes and ordinances should be reviewed and updated in response to changing technologies, changing demographics and changing social patterns. The objective of this process is to preserve and protect the resources and values that residents find desirable while maintaining enough flexibility to accommodate positive and constructive alterations to the community fabric. Temporary Structures Report February 2, 2004 Page 3 Recommendation: Discuss the possibility of amending the City Code to allow temporary structures in residential districts. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Photographic Documentation 2. Crystal Report on Temporary Structures 3. Planning Commission Resolution 749-04 Photographic Documentation 5072 Red Oak Drive 7641 Edgewood Drive 7965 Fairchild Avenue CITY OF CRYSTAL TEMPORARY STRUCTURES REPORT Characteristics: Temporary structures with metal or wood supports and canvas, tarp or membrane exterior; most generally used as carports or storage structures for recreational vehicles and household items. Current ordinance: 515.01, Subd. 8 Uses not provided for within zoning districts. “Whenever in any zoning district a use is neither specifically permitted nor denied, the use shall be considered prohibited.” “Temporary structures” are not specifically permitted in the current ordinance; therefore, enforcement to date is characterized by ordering the removal of such structures. This approach is the result of a fairly strict interpretation of the ordinance. Someone might argue that these structures, temporary or not, are “accessory structures,” and thereby permitted by right. If treated as accessory structures, temporary structure placement and property coverage and setbacks would apply; i.e., located in rear yard only, no more than 15 feet in height, 3 feet from any lot line. Even if our current interpretation would be to consider such structures as “accessory structures,” they would not be permitted in the front or side yards, which is generally where we find they have been placed. Building and Fire Codes: The newly adopted State Building and Fire Codes now requires building permits for temporary structures to ensure they are adequate to handle dead and live loads, to ensure proper anchoring and to ensure property placement and separation from adjacent structures. (Note: These building and fire code requirements would be applicable only if such structures were permitted by local zoning code.) Other cities: Woodbury: Cloth, canvass, plastic sheets and tarps and similar materials…..are not allowed as primary materials on accessory structures. Exceptions: greenhouses, accessory structures in the urban reserve district, agricultural buildings as defined by Minnesota Statutes. The probation is driven by aesthetics (“unsightly materials”). New Hope: Tarp membrane structures are not permitted within residential areas per ordinance. The accessory building requirements state that …the same or similar quality building material shall be used in the accessory building as in the principal building. Additionally, the exterior appearance and architectural design of the accessory building are to be similar to that of the principal building. Exceptions include temporary structures for commercial use in garden centers or shopping centers for the selling of plant material. Mounds View: Temporary membrane/tarp structures are not allowed, and the code explicitly prohibits accessory buildings of tubular metal frame construction. Accessory buildings shall have a weather resistant, treated or finished exterior. Structures composed of tubular metal and canvas or exposed plywood, particle board or similar materials shall not be permitted. The prohibition is driven by aesthetics. St. Louis Park: Not permitted. If they were to change the ordinance to permit them they be most likely be allowed in the rear yard only (but accessibility by vehicles to rear yards in St. Louis Park is difficult), would be required to secure a building permit similar to that for a shed and would contribute to the accessory structure square footage maximums. New Brighton: These have not been an issue, to date. They are not specifically called out in the zoning ordinance. Robbinsdale: Membrane structures are considered accessory structures governed by the same standards (size, rear yard coverage, total sq. ft., etc.) They are permitted in rear and side yards with setbacks of 5 feet from side lot lines and 1.5 feet from rear lines. They have contemplated regulating these structures, but they haven’t had too many – “yet”. With the small lot sizes in Robbinsdale, such accessory structures usually cause the allowable square footage to be exceeded. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 749-04 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE REGARDING TEMPORARY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City receives requests from residents who desire to erect temporary outdoor storage buildings on their property; and, WHEREAS, temporary outdoor storage structures tend to be composed of tubular or metal framing covered by a membrane consisting of plastic, canvass, cloth or tarp; and, WHEREAS, the Zoning Code prohibits the use of and erection of tubular or metal framed membrane structures for residential use; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission feels there are situations and circumstances that would justify permitting such temporary structures, and accordingly have reviewed the following documents regarding this action: a. Photographic documentation b. Sales literature and brochures c. Staff Reports d. Comparables from other cities e. Proposed amendment language NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Sections 1103.06 and 1106.03 of the Mounds View Zoning Code substantially similar to the following language: Temporary structures as defined in Chapter 1102 of this Title shall be Permitted for periods not to exceed six months in duration. Setbacks, location and maximum structure area shall be computed as would an accessory storage building. No vehicle shall be parked under or within such a structure if it violates outside parking regulations as addressed in Chapter 607 of the Code. Maximum allowed square footage of structure shall not exceed 288 square feet nor shall structure exceed or cause to exceed the maximum accessory building space for the property. Property owner shall be maintain the structure in the manner and appearance it was originally intended. Temporary structures in a state of disrepair or those remaining beyond the permitted date shall be considered a Public Nuisance as defined and addressed in Chapter 607. Resolution 749-04 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of January, 2004. ______________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No. 6 Meeting Date: February 2, 2004 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Mounds View Manufactured Home Park Second Access Proposal Background: At the November 4, 2002 Work Session, Staff presented the issue of creating a second access to two of the three manufactured home sites in Mounds View, Mounds View Mobile Home Park and Towns Edge Terrace. Neither site currently complies with the City Ordinance 1110.05 subdivision 2a, “Park Site shall have at least two (2) points of ingress and egress for vehicles.” On January 13, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 5931 authorizing the engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates (BRAA) to provide engineering services, including municipal and traffic engineering, at these two manufactured home parks. A draft of the feasibility report for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community was completed and presented to the City Council for their review and comment at the June 2, 2003 Work Session. The report for Towns Edge Terrace Manufactured Home Community was presented to the City Council on July 7, 2003. Prior to conducting a Public Improvement Hearing and seeking the City Council’s approval of the preliminary feasibility reports for the two Manufactured Home Communities, Staff met with the respective park owners and managers to discuss the findings of the report. Staff also organized and conducted two separate Neighborhood Meetings to present and discuss the proposed second access. The Neighborhood Meeting for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community was held on June 24, 2003. The Neighborhood Meeting for the Towns Edge Terrace Manufactured Home Community was held on August 26, 2003. On October 6, 2003, all data collected pertaining to the manufactured home access study was presented to the City Council. On October 13, 2003 the City Council approved the feasibility reports for the manufactured Home Park second access. On November 3, 2003 Staff presented opinions from the City’s legal counsel pertaining this matter. These opinions stated that the City’s legal authority to require a second access is somewhat limited. Based on these opinions, the City will not be requiring a second access at the two parks that currently have only one access. However, City Council recognizing the merit of having a second access from a public safety and somewhat from a traffic circulation standpoint, directed staff to work with the property owners to facilitate the construction of a second access if they so desired. Discussion: The owner of the Towns Edge Terrace Manufactured Home Community, Gerold Toberman, has on several occasions made it clear that he was not in support of a second access at Towns Edge Terrace Manufactured Home Community. Therefore, a proposal to Mr. Toberman to facilitate the provision of a second access is not sought at this time. Mounds View Manufactured Home Community, however, is a different case. In December of 2003, Staff contacted Perry Hanson of Durand & Associates Property Management Inc.. At that time, Mr. Hansen requested Staff to develop a proposal that he could take back to the property owner for consideration. The report for this project did not identify a funding source. Should the Council choose to offer the utilization of City funds to finance a second access to the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community, a funding source(s) will need to be identified. Since the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community will benefit from the second access, it may be possible to assign all, or a portion, of the cost to that site. It would be very unlikely to show any benefit to adjacent or nearby properties; therefore assessments for these properties is not likely. Staff has requested BRAA to split the cost based on the work that is associated with public roadways (Belle Lane and Raymond Avenue) and private driveways (proposed driveway into the Manufactured Home Community). The split is: $28,650.00 Public Street Work $17,350.00 Private Driveway Work $46,000.00 Total estimated cost Given this data, Staff is providing three possible proposals to present to the owner of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community. These are: Option No. 1 The City to pay the full estimated cost of $46,000 Staff does not recommend this option. There a clearly a benefit for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community, and should therefore participate in the financing. Option No. 2 City to pay for the work within the City the right-of-way and the Park to pay for the work associated with upgrading their driveway City $28,650 / Park $17,350 Staff recommends this option should the City Council wish to help facilitate a second access. This option best assigns cost fairly to the responsible parties. Option No. 3 The Park to pay the full estimated cost of $46,000 Staff does not recommend this option. It is Staff’s opinion, that if this amount is to be assessed, that the City could not demonstrate full benefit. Much of the proposed work would be performed on a City owned street, for which the City has jurisdiction. For all three Options, should the City Council wish to proceed, the project could be added as a Change Order to the 2003 Street Improvement Project and constructed in 2004. The Mounds View Manufactured Home Community could then be assessed for this project with an assessment period of ten (10) years. Should the City Council wish to facilitate a second access to the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community, Staff recommends that Option No. 2 be proposed to the owner of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community. Possible Grant Assisted Funding Another factor to consider regarding this issue is possible grants that may be available to assist in the financing of this project. One grant in particular may be a possible candidate: the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG Grant). This particular grant is available through Ramsey County to assist lower income housing and manufactured home facilities to make improvements to make them or keep them desired elements of the community. Opposition to the Project On June 24, 2003, at the Neighborhood Meeting, and at several subsequent meetings, the residents along Belle Lane have voiced concerns regarding the establishment of a second access. Should this project go forward, the City would need to conduct a Public Hearing with all nearby property owners being notified. Recommendation: Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for Council input as to what proposal City Council would like to make to the owner of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park to help facilitate the creation of a second access. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item No: 09 Meeting Date: Feb 2, 2004 Type of Business: Worksession Administrator Review : _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consider Possible Amendment to the City’s Wetland Zoning District Map Introduction: Staff has long been aware of some discrepancies on the City’s adopted wetland zoning maps in that the actual wetland and corresponding buffer designations are inaccurate. Discussion: One such area is the Spring Creek basin south of Woodale Drive, east of Pleasant View Drive, north of County Road H and west of Knollwood Drive. The buffer for this area on the west side extends to Pleasant View Drive and includes all of the homes on this block. The wetland designation (which is not a true delineation but an estimate based on elevations performed in the 1980s) has been challenged by some of the residents on this block and Rice Creek Watershed District inspectors agree that the designation is excessive. Because the buffer extends beyond where the homes are located, (see Exhibit A) all proposed additions and grading have to be reviewed and approved either by staff or by the City Council. This can cause unnecessary delays for residents who wish to make improvements to their home or property. Wetland Zoning District Report February 2, 2004 Page 2 City Code: The City Code in Section 1010.06 identifies the process by which a Wetland Zoning District can be amended Subd. 2. Modification of District: A wetland zoning district may be modified or eliminated by four-fifths (4/5) affirmative vote of the Council after public hearing and notice as set forth in Title 1100 of this Code. Wetland zoning districts may not be eliminated unless it can be shown that the original designation is in error or that conditions have changed. When modifying or removing a wetland zoning district, the Council shall use the criteria and methods established in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands dated January, 1989, as amended from time to time. Recommendation: Staff would like the Council’s permission to seek proposals from qualified consultants to reassess the validity of the Spring Creek basin wetland zoning designation and associated buffer. All proposals would be brought to the Council for review and final consideration regarding this issue. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Wetland Zoning Map of Spring Creek Basin Exhibit A.