Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-2013 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 16, 2013 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: September 18, 2013 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. MI2013-001 Minor Subdivision to Adjust a Common Lot Line Address: 3030 & 3032 County Road J Applicant: John Engberg B. CU2013-005 Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage Address: 8280 Eastwood Road Applicant: Ryan Carlisle & Sarah Lange 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Proposed Sign Code Amendments 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, November 6, 2013 B. Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8. Review Minutes: A. October 2, 2013 9. Staff Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner’s Reports 11. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 2, 2013 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for October 2, 2013. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Carvelli-Yu, Cramblit, Elofson, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2013-005 Variance Request to Allow a 6-foot Fence in the Front 2 Yard of a Corner Lot VR2013-006 Variance Request to Allow a Reduced Driveway Setback 3 Discuss Proposed Sign Code Amendments 4 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes August 21, 2013. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Carvelli-Yu. To approve the Minutes of the August 21, 2013 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2013-005 Variance Request to Allow a 6-foot Fence in a Front Yard of a Corner Lot Applicant: David Farrell Address: 7700 Bona Road Planning Associate Heller indicated David Farrell is requesting a variance to install a 6-foot tall fence in the “second front yard” of his corner lot located at 7700 Bona Road. She explained the property is located at the southwest corner of Bona Road and County Road I. Since two streets border corner lots, they have two front yards. As such, the City Code requirement for front yard setbacks applies to two sides of the property, which means that corner lots have additional limitations. Associate Heller stated the Zoning Code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building in a residential district may exceed four feet in height. The applicant would prefer to have a 6-foot tall fence for screening from County Road I and has applied for the variance, after installing the fence. She reviewed the variance considerations in detail and recommended the Commission support the variance as requested. Chair Stevenson questioned why the fence was installed prior to seeking City approval. David Farrell, 7700 Bona Road, stated he had friends and family lined up to assist with installing the fence. He was not made aware of the variance requirement until he applied for the building permit. Chair Stevenson commented he did not object to the variance request, except for the fact that the fence was already installed. He stated the work was not completed in the correct order. He encouraged all residents in Mounds View to speak with the City prior to completing construction projects. Commissioner Cramblit questioned when the fence was constructed. Mr. Farrell explained the fence was constructed the second week of September. Commissioner Schiltgen indicated the fence was nicely done, but he had concerns with the manner in which the project was completed. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Mike Winkel, 7701 Bona Road, explained there was a need for the homes along Bona Road and County Road I to have a fence for privacy purposes. He stated the fence constructed by Mr. Farrell was very nicely done. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Love indicated this variance request was similar to the variance approved in September. She suggested fence heights allowed in the Code should be addressed by the Planning Commission for homes along busy roadways. Chair Stevenson was in favor of continuing to have the Planning Commission review variance requests for taller fences on a case-by-case basis as it would be difficult for staff to determine which roads were “busy”. In addition, the Commission typically receives only one variance request for fences per year. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 989-13, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to Allow a 6-foot Fence in a Front Yard of a Corner Lot; Planning Case No. VR2013-005. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ B. VR2013-006 Variance Request to Allow a Reduced Driveway Setback Applicant: Kent Reed Address: 2833 County Road H Planning Associate Heller indicated Kent Reed was requesting a variance to allow his driveway to have a 3-foot setback for the property at 2833 County Road H. She explained the City Code requires a five-foot setback for driveways without a variance. Mr. Reed is going to install a new driveway and wants it to stay in the same location as the existing gravel driveway with a three- foot setback. The applicant’s house was placed near the west side of the property in 1940, and the driveway runs next to the house to access the garage in the rear. Since there is a side entrance with steps on the house, the driveway would be extremely narrow next to the house if it were to have a five-foot setback. Associate Heller reviewed the variance criteria in detail and recommended the Commission support the variance request. Chair Stevenson did not object to the request as the existing driveway was not being widened and the neighboring garage was 35 feet from the driveway so it wouldn’t be affected. He supported the reduced driveway setback. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Commissioner Schiltgen asked if the driveway would remain Class 5. Kent Reed, 2833 County Road H, explained the entire driveway would be paved with concrete. Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 990-13, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Reduced Driveway Setback; Planning Case No. VR2013-006. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Proposed Sign Code Amendments Planning Associate Heller explained the Commission discussed sign code changes at the July 24, 2013 and August 21, 2013 Planning Commission meetings and was in favor of amending the sign code rather than only having specific requirements for the County Road 10 corridor. The majority of the commercial signage within the City is along the corridor, but it would make the most sense to have the sign code be consistent for the entire City. Associate Heller also suggested that the Commission review the “sight triangle” setback amount as a 30-foot setback seems excessive given the amount of right-of-way along County Road 10. She requested the Commission review the proposed sign code amendment and provide feedback for staff. Commissioner Cramblit recommended the “sight triangle” setback along the County Road 10 corridor be reduced to 10 feet instead of 30 feet. Chair Stevenson supported this suggestion for signs along County Highway 10 only. The Commission agreed. Chair Stevenson asked if new signs should be required to have masonry construction materials. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu thought this would be an important requirement to improve the sign aesthetic quality throughout the City. Chair Stevenson recommended staff make the recommended changes and report back to the Commission at a future meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. October 16, 2013 B. November 6, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. September 18, 2013 The Commission discussed the September 18, 2013 meeting minutes. 9. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She stated Coventry was hoping to have their foundation completed this fall. She explained the Taiko and Robert’s buildings had been torn down. It was noted a consultant would be assisting the City with planning the future redevelopment of these properties. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Chair Stevenson explained the Lion’s would be holding a Spaghetti Dinner on October 15th from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. He encouraged all to attend this community event. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:46 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: October 16, 2013 Type of Business: Planning Case City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision: Lot Line Change between 3030 & 3032 County Road J; Planning Case MI2013-001 Introduction: John Engberg, owner of 3030 County Road J, has applied for a minor subdivision to adjust the lot line between his property and his late mother’s property next door at 3032 County Road J. The lot line change is not for development purposes or to create any additional lots, but simply an extra 1,020 square feet of backyard area for the applicant. The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey that shows the property line change. The property at 3032 County Road J is now owned by the children of Mary Engberg and they have agreed to this subdivision. Discussion: A minor subdivision is ordinarily a division of land less than two acres in area in which no more than one additional lot is created. Even though this particular request isn’t creating additional lots, it is still processed as a minor subdivision. The lot is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential. The minimum lot width for interior residential parcels is 75 feet and the minimum lot area is 11,000 square feet, and corner lots must be a minimum of 100 feet wide and 12,500 square feet. Below is a table which shows the rear dimensions for the parcels before and as a result of the proposed adjustment (the front dimensions won’t be changing): Before Area Sq. Feet After Area Sq. feet Mary Engberg lot Parcel A 28,059 square feet Rear width 120.86 feet 27,039 square feet Rear width 100.01 feet John Engberg lot Parcel B 23,673 square feet Rear width 108.86 feet 24,693 square feet Rear width 112.01 feet As this table shows, the proposed lots still exceed all city standards. Park Dedication Requirements. Subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication requirements consistent with Chapter 1204 of the City Code. When the subdivided parcels are not going to be developed, Staff typically recommends that the park dedication fee not be required. Since there will be no additional development on the lots, staff is recommending that the park dedication fee not be required. Engberg Subdivision Staff Report October 16, 2013 Page 2 Easements. With most subdivisions, the City requires the owner to dedicate drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot. Since there will be no construction occurring, staff is not requiring that these easements be added at this time. The applicant is adding a 15 foot easement to the rear of the 3032 County Road J property so he will be able to access pipes he installed to drain stormwater from his backyard, across the 3032 lot and into an existing underground pipe after the 3032 property is sold. Public Notice. No public notice is required for a minor subdivision. Summary. The proposed subdivision will simply adjust part of the property line between 3030 and 3032 County Road J to give 3030 County Road J 1,020 more square feet. All minimum city requirements are met with this request. Recommendation: Because the proposed subdivision satisfies all city code requirements, Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 991-13, a resolution approving the minor subdivision of 3030 County Road J, owned by John Engberg, and 3032 County Road J, owned by the family of Mary Engberg. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Resolution 991-13 4. Certificate of Survey Zoning Map N * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial Map Applicant 3030 Cty Rd J 3032 Cty Rd J 15 foot easement area N Yellow =New lot line MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 991-13 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION BETWEEN 3030 COUNTY ROAD J AND 3032 COUNTY ROAD J; PLANNING CASE NO. MI2013-001 WHEREAS, John Engberg, has requested approval of a minor subdivision to adjust the common lot line between 3030 County Road, J and 3032 County Road J; and, WHEREAS, both of the properties are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and are legally-described as: 3030 County Road J The West 100 feet of the East 532 feet of Lot 1, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 06-30-23-22-0088 3032 County Road J That part lying West of the East 532 feet of Lot 1, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 06-30-2322-0089 WHEREAS, the 12 feet by 85 feet of land being detached from 3032 County Road J and attached to 3030 County Road J is legally described as: The East 12 feet of the South 85 feet thereof, as measured at right angles. WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to adjust the lot line dividing 3030 and 3032 County Road J to give the property at 3030 County Road J an additional 1,020 square feet (12’ x 85’); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Applicant’s request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Applicant’s request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, Resolution 991-13 Page 2 WHEREAS, since no additional homes or development will occur as part of this subdivision, a park dedication fee is not required with this subdivision application; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Applicant shall have 6 months from final approval to file proper documentation with Ramsey County, and furnish proof of such recording to the City. If such action is not accomplished by the date so indicated, this minor subdivision approval shall be considered null and void. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of a minor subdivision, lot line adjustment, of 3030 and 3032 County Road J, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Applicant shall complete any and all requirements after final review of the Certificate of Survey and title commitment by the City Attorney. 2. The Applicant shall arrange to amend the Certificate of Survey if any changes are required by Ramsey County. 3. The Applicant is responsible for reimbursing the City of all fees associated with this subdivision request. 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 16th day of October, 2013. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: October 16, 2013 Type of Business: Planning Case City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 8280 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case CU2013-005 Introduction: The applicants, property owner Sarah Lange and Ryan Carlisle, are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct an oversize attached garage on their property at 8280 Eastwood Road. The applicants want to demolish the existing 22’ x 21’-8” (476 square feet) garage and build a new 22’x50’ attached garage (1,100 square feet). The applicants have submitted plans for a garage larger than what the City Code allows without a planning action. The City limits the size of accessory buildings, whether attached or detached from the house, to a maximum of 952 square feet. Any building larger than 952 square feet must get City approval of a conditional use permit. The garage the applicants are proposing would be 1,100 square feet. The applicants indicate that they want the extra space to store a boat and a classic car, among other things. Requirements: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the number of accessory buildings, the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings and specifies roof style and pitch. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages exceeding 952 square feet. The garage must be permanent, be uniform in appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory building area on the lot. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Discussion: The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,100 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. The proposed garage would meet all City setback, height and accessory building coverage requirements. The applicants’ property is 0.43 acres (81’ x 231’). The City Code limits backyard building coverage to 20% of the yard area. The added garage area that extends into the backyard along with the existing 192 square foot shed would cover approximately 5.7% of the backyard area. The total accessory building square feet with the shed and new garage would be 1,292 square feet which is below the maximum of 1,800 square feet limit. 8280 Eastwood CUP Request October 16, 2013 Page 2 The City Code also specifies that the roof for all accessory buildings exceeding 250 square feet, shall match or be similar to the character and style of the roof of the principal structure, and have a pitch or slope of at least 2-12, but no steeper than 12-12. The proposed garage will have a pitch that matches the house since it’s an attached garage. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects of a conditional use that include, but are not limited to, the relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Staff has addressed each of these potential adverse effects below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as low-density residential, as well as the surrounding area. The Comp Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. W ith this project, the applicants would be creating more garage space to have more indoor storage for their recreational vehicles. Such additional storage would be a benefit to the property and to the neighborhood. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicants’ home is located on Eastwood Road, in a residential neighborhood, towards the north end of the City. Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage, as well as in an economic sense, as the addition would increase the “value” of the property. Increased property values are a benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. The applicants neighborhood is entirely single-family residential. The homes in this area are a variety of styles, with the lot sizes all around half an acre. The garage would still look like a typical 2-car size garage from the front, but would extend deeper into the backyard. It would be visible to the adjacent backyard neighbors, but the properties in this area are all fairly large at 80-100 feet wide and 230 feet deep (0.59 acres), so the deeper garage should not look out of place. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicants are proposing a 1,100 square foot garage that would allow for parking recreational vehicles and a boat inside. 8280 Eastwood CUP Request October 16, 2013 Page 3 Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicants and affected neighbors, the Commission may take one of the following actions below related to the request. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit. 1. Recommend approval of the CUP as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 992-13 that approves the conditional use permit if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Choose to deny the conditional use permit. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Site Plan 4. Photos 5. Resolution 992-13 Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Ardan Avenue N Expanded Garage N Aerial View Site Plan Photos View of front of property from street View of backyard area where new garage would be MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 992-13 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,100 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 8280 EASTWOOD ROAD ; PLANNING CASE CU2013-005 WHEREAS, property owner, Sarah Lange, has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,100 square foot garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8280 Eastwood Road, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 2, East Oaks, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 06-30-23-11-0078 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,100 square feet, thus requiring City approval of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Site plan 4. Photographic documentation 5. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The proposed oversized 1,100 square foot garage satisfies the zoning requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. Resolution 992-13 Page 2 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,100 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The new garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the existing house. 3. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall become null and void if the work for which the CUP was granted is not completed within one year from the date of approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. 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 16th day of October, 2013. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: October 16, 2013 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Sign Code Amendment Discussion The corridor is the City Council’s priority this year and the Planning Commission has been asked to review the Zoning Code in order to better promote and accommodate development along County Road 10. The Commission has started by focusing on creating a PUD Corridor Overlay District and discussing general development ideas to make the Corridor look better. One of those ideas was changing the style and height allowances of the signage that is along the Corridor to only allow monument style signs, and to reduce the 15 foot setback amount. The Commission discussed sign code changes at the last few Planning Commission meetings and feels that amending the sign code (Chapter 1008) rather than only having specific requirements for the corridor is a better option. Staff has drafted Resolution 993- 13 with the discussed amendments. The proposed added changes are underlined and highlighted in blue, and deleted language is stricken and highlighted in red. There is already language for nonconforming signs, which are signs that don’t meet the City Code after it’s amended. Recommendation Review the attached resolution with the proposed sign code amendments. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Resolution 993-13 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 993-13 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE TITLE 1008 REGULATING SIGNS IN THE CITY; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 189-13 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve the aesthetics and promote development of the County Road 10 corridor; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the City Code regarding the allowed heights and setbacks of ground signs; and; WHEREAS, City Staff has recommended that the ground sign height limits and setbacks along County Road 10 be reduced and the construction design be improved to require masonory; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to reduce the ground sign height allowed in the business, industrial and conservancy, recreation and preservation zoning districts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to reduce the ground sign setback requirements for properties with frontage on County Road 10; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1008.09 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Subd. 3. Ground Sign Height, by District: The following table represents the maximum height allowed for ground signs in each zoning district.(Amended, Ord. 829, 9-3-09) R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 I-1 CRP PUD (1) (1) 8 8 8 20 16 20 16 (3) 35 16 (3) 35 16 35 16 (3) 35 16 (3) (2) (3) (1) No ground sign, other than home occupation, campaign, real estate, incidental and temporary signs shall be allowed in these districts. (2) Signage requirements within a PUD shall be as indicated by the PUD Narrative document. If no such document exists, signage shall be as allowed for a B-3 zoning District. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) Resolution 993-13 Page 2 (3) Maximum billboard sign height in some locations is 45 feet. Refer to Section 1008.10, Subdivision 6 of this Code. (Ord. 769, 5-8-06). WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1008.10 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1008.10: SPECIFIC SIGN TYPE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS: Subd. 1. Ground Signs: The following standards shall be maintained for all ground signs, excluding incidental, temporary, home occupation, campaign, identification and real estate signs: (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) a. No part of a ground sign shall be nearer than three feet (3') to any building unless such sign is placed parallel to the side of the building. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) b. No part of a ground sign shall be nearer than 15 feet (15') to any perimeter lot line, nor located within a thirty (30)-foot sight triangle on any property abutting two (2) intersecting street right of ways. However, ground signs on properties that front County Road 10 may have a five foot (5’) setback from the lot line adjacent to County Road 10, and a ten (10) foot sight triangle. (Refer to the graphic below.) (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) County Road X Right of Way County Road Y Right of Way 30 ft 30 ft Sign is set back 15 feet from both front and side property lines. Signs may have a 5 foot setback from County Road 10. Business Sign cannot be located within sight triangle. Sight Triangle* Property Lines * The sight triangle is formed by connecting the two end points of 30-foot lines extending in both directions from the intersection of two property lines abutting a street or highway. The sight triangle on properties that front County Road 10 may be formed by connecting the two end points of 10-foot lines. Resolution 993-13 Page 3 c. The owner, lessee or occupant of the land on which the ground sign is located and the owner of the sign shall keep the property on which the sign is located free of long grass, weeds or other rank growth, rubbish or debris. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) d. All parts of ground signs shall be designed for wind pressure of not less than thirty (30) pounds per square foot, and ground signs of wood construction shall have all members which extend into the ground protected from decay by treatment with a preservative approved by the Building Inspector. (Ord. 679, 5-29- 01) e. No permit shall be granted for the location of any ground sign having a sign area of more than forty (40) square feet within one hundred feet (100') of any single-family residence. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) f. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 6 of this Section (1008.10, subdivision 6), no more than one (1) pole or pylon sign shall be allowed per lot. However, the ground sign area allowance may be divided between one (1) pole or pylon sign and a monument sign or between multiple monument signs, subject to the requirements herein, provided that one (1) or more of the following conditions are applicable: (Ord. 679, 5-29-01; Ord. 769, 5-8-06; Ord. 816, 1-22-09) (1) The lot abuts multiple street right-of-ways, in which case a sign may be located along each frontage. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) (2) There are multiple curb cuts or driveways accessing the property, in which case a sign may be located near each access point or driveway, provided the signs are separated by no less than two hundred feet (200'). (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) (3) The width of the lot, as measured along its longest street frontage, exceeds two hundred and fifty feet (250'), in which case multiple signs may be located along the long frontage provided such signs are separated by no less than two hundred feet (200'). (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) (4) The property or properties are within an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) g. Ground signs must include masonry construction materials such as stone, brick or stucco. Resolution 993-13 Page 4 WHEREAS, amending the City Code to reduce ground sign height limits and setbacks, and require higher quality construction materials would better serve the City’s goal of improving the aesthetics and promoting development along the County Road 10 corridor; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View City Code to add regulations as defined herein. 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 16th day of October, 2013. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)