HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-2007
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
June 6, 2007 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. April 18, 2007
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already Present on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and
address for the minutes.)
5. Planning Cases
A. CU2007-003: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Merryville Farms to
Locate a Seasonal Produce Stand at the Mermaid, 2200 County Road 10
Applicant: Craig Gilb with Merryville Farms
Address: 4750 25th Street SW, Waverly, MN 55390
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Comprehensive Plan Task Force
B. Review Housing Replacement Program Guidelines and Criteria
C. Review Revisions to Zoning Code Relating to the Former PF Zoning District
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. June 20, 2007
B. July 11, 2007 (July & August date changes - 2nd & 4th weeks)
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
Agenda Session
1. Review Minutes:
a. May 2, 2007
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
DRAFT
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
May 2, 2007
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
Chair Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. May 2, 2007.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Chair Stevenson, Commissioners Cramblit, Gunn, Lang, Meehlhause,
Miller, and Walsh-Kaczmarek
Absent and Excused: None
Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planning Associate Heller
3. Approve Minutes
A. April 4, 2007
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek to approve the
April 4, 2007 meeting minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None
5. Planning Cases
None
Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 2
________________________________________________________________________
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Review Housing Replacement Program Guidelines and Criteria
Community Development Director Ericson reported the Housing Replacement Program
Guidelines and Criteria were last reviewed in 2004. He stated it was set into motion about 1995
in response to blighted property.
Director Ericson explained there are two parts of the program, the first being the acquisition and
demolition of the property, after which the property is then offered to a developer. He stated the
second component is to provide only demolition assistance. He indicated the second option was
meant to encourage residents to stay in the community, either by demolishing either own house
or one on another lot.
Director Ericson reported a resident recently applied for and was approved for the demolition
assistance option through the EDA, however, there really is no criteria for this program and the
EDA thought there should be. He stated the acquisition portion of the program does contain
some criteria. He commented the City Council asked the Planning Commission to look at
potential criteria to implement and to make recommendations back to the Council.
Director Ericson stated the Housing Replacement Program is a voluntary program. He
commented on the rumors and miscommunications that the City created a list to acquire certain
properties. He explained the list of properties was created at the direction of the Office of the
State Auditor. He explained the City could acquire property only if it was specifically listed in
the TIF plan. He explained the City looked at which parcels would qualify under the blight
guidelines. He stressed the City is not attempting to force anyone out of his or her home.
Director Ericson recommended the guidelines associated with the demolition assistance
component of the program could include the financial status of the applicant based on need,
residency requirements for a specific number of years, ownership and residence of the property,
a neighborhood analysis of the property, a maximum award, and a deferred loan program.
Director Ericson stated City Council would consider the possibility of a deferred loan program.
He asked how the Commission felt if money was provided to demolish the old property, the
owner then builds a new home, sells it, and moved out of the community. He commented the
City Council would like the Planning Commission’s thoughts on criteria.
Director Ericson suggested setting a maximum dollar amount and reviewing it every two years or
so. He commented creating a deferred loan program to discourage blight and help property
owners stay in the community made sense. Director Ericson stated the purpose of the Housing
Replacement Program is to reduce the social costs of blight, improve residential neighborhoods,
and increase the tax base. He explained the objectives of the program are to replace deteriorated
lower value housing with higher valued housing, eliminate blight, and increase the availability of
quality housing for families.
Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 3
________________________________________________________________________
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked how many houses were on the list.
Director Ericson replied there are about 218 parcels.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked how many property owners have approached the City.
Director Ericson replied Staff is rarely approached and has not been approached since the list
was put in place in 2004. He commented the City sent mailers to the property owners to inform
them of their options. He explained the list only provides the property owner with another
potential buyer. He mentioned that before the list was developed, the City could not obtain the
property because of the opinion of the Office of the State Auditor.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked what the intent of the State Auditor was.
Director Ericson replied the list was made because of the interpretation of TIF laws in that any
acquired property must be listed in the TIF Plan. He commented the Office of the State Auditor
prepared a finding of non-compliance to the City because properties previously acquired were
not listed in the TIF Plan. He explained the list was created to satisfy the Office of the State
Auditor.
Chair Stevenson asked if any of the homes fell into a non-R-1 designation in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Director Erickson replied he believed there were some.
Chair Stevenson stated these properties should receive different attention than R-1 homes
scattered across the City. He commented the Comprehensive Plan deemed one area be changed
from an R-1. He suggested perhaps Class A and Class B criteria be outlined to distinguish
between them.
Director Ericson stated he thought that was a good idea because property owners realize they are
in a development area and have been fully apprised of what would eventually take place. He
indicated the priority in an area designated as not single family be re-designated. He stated it is
time to make the distinction.
Commissioner Meehlhause asked if this becomes a criteria.
Director Ericson replied it is less of a criterion than a priority point with priority given to existing
Mounds View property owners than to individuals from outside community. He stated a point
system could be used to rank the properties and a checklist could also be developed.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek recommended giving higher points to residents who have been
in the community for a specific length of time. She suggested that perhaps ten percent of the
loan could be forgiven per year for every year they remain in their home.
Commissioner Miller asked if the loan was for the demolition.
Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 4
________________________________________________________________________
Director Ericson explained there are two options, the first being the property owner would
approach the City to purchase the property and alleviate all the problems of selling the home
through a realtor. He stated it gives the property owner an additional mechanism to sell their
home. He stated the City would then clear the property and market it to a builder or developer
who would submit a proposal to build a new home that would meet the neighborhood criteria.
Director Ericson stated the only time money is given and the property owner stays is if they want
to demolish the old home and build a new one. He explained the City would reimburse the
property owner for the demolition up to possibly a capped amount. He stated if it were a
deferred loan, the Housing Resource Center or Ramsey County would manage it and place a lean
on the property so some of the dollars come back to the City if the person moves before a
designated amount of time. He stated everybody wins in this scenario.
Commissioner Cramblit asked if the program would pay for a total demolition.
Director Ericson replied it would cover whatever it took to bring the property back to its natural
state. He commented that if a new home were built on the lot, that scenario is not expected.
Commissioner Meehlhause recommended going through each one the criteria for discussion.
Director Ericson stated financial status is the first criterion. He indicated the City would want to
make sure the property owner had the financial ability to finish the project. He recommended a
demolition and redevelopment agreement be put in place.
Commissioner Meehlhause recommended the lending source be secured before any demolition
dollars are authorized.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stated it might be the best to cap the amount secured for the
new home. She commented the new home value should match the median home value and be
otherwise appropriate for the neighborhood. She commented the new home could perhaps be ten
or fifteen percent above the median home value in the neighborhood.
Director Ericson replied this is a good suggestion and gave examples of huge homes being built
that did not fit the existing neighborhood. He suggested criteria stating the new home be
consistent with the neighborhood. He indicated that on the other hand, the City should
encourage a better home if the area is significantly blighted.
Commissioner Gunn expressed concern that it could be somewhat detrimental in that it might
discourage someone from coming in to demolish the old house and build a larger home.
Director Ericson replied he did not think that would be the case. He commented it might prevent
them from building a $500,000 house; however, if they want to do it, they would do it anyway.
Commissioner Meehlhause stated if the City wants the community to continue to be progressive
and not become blighted, it must encourage new home development.
Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 5
________________________________________________________________________
Commissioner Gunn stated that perhaps this would motivate others in the neighborhood to do the
same.
Commissioner Director Ericson gave an example of where that scenario has occurred.
Commissioner Cramblit commented construction costs continually increase, so there might not
be a way to control the cost of the home built.
Director Ericson indicated there is probably a way to ensure the house would be similar and not
out of character with the neighborhood. He stated he would review case studies or scenarios to
see what this might look like.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek summarized that financing be secured for rebuilding, and the
character of the neighborhood be guaranteed.
Director Ericson asked the Planning Commission if they agreed that, at a minimum, to determine
that the individual has the financial ability to finish project. The Planning Commission reached
consensus on this criteria.
Commissioner Lang raised a different viewpoint. He stated that if the objective is to eliminate
blight, why not let the rich get richer by eliminating the City’s blight.
Director Ericson replied that regardless of where the money goes, and if the end result is to build
a new home, encourage redevelopment, and increase the tax base, the goal is achieved
regardless.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek commented that why should the Mounds View property tax
owners be using their tax dollars to benefit those that could afford it themselves; better they
purchase one of the other 200 blighted properties. She stated need is a very applicable and
appropriate criteria.
Director Ericson commented this might be an opportunity to use a ranking or point system and
provide scenarios in which this could work.
Commissioner Meehlhause asked if a distinction should be made between a resident with
blighted property and someone taking advantage of a situation. He stated he agrees with
increasing the tax base.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek commented Mounds View taxes recently increased because of
the school levy. She stated the City needs to be cognizant of the burden on the residents. She
indicated she would not object to a rich person building if they did not use TIF money.
Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 6
________________________________________________________________________
Director Ericson directed the Commission to a discussion on the residency requirement. He
asked if the Planning Commission wanted to exclude non-residents or require a resident live in
the community for a specific amount of time
Commissioner Gunn stated she preferred the individual be required to stay in the home for a
specific number of years after the fact rather than the resident or non-resident criteria. She stated
that if an elderly resident needed to go into assisted housing, it gives them the opportunity to sell
the property.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek agreed the residency requirement after the fact should be
included. She recommended five years would be a reasonable length of time.
Chair Stevenson asked if the City could legally require someone to remain on the property for a
specific length of time.
A discussion on the length of time ensued.
Director Ericson summarized he heard the Commission preferred not limiting the program to
Mounds View residents; however, the resident would have preference. The Planning
Commission reached consensus on tying the demolition grant to a forgivable deferred loan.
Director Ericson stated a neighborhood analysis could be tied into a ranking or pointing
schedule.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked if the statement “should be equally…” would be hard to
evaluate because of the micro neighborhoods throughout Mounds View. She recommended the
degree of blight and whether it is a danger to a neighborhood should have a higher priority.
Commissioner Lang asked if the list should be tied to it.
Director Ericson recommended no; however, he could give points to properties on the list.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked if the program would apply to a home destroyed by a
severe storm or tornado.
Director Ericson replied Federal or State programs would probably be available to help these
property owners or a community rebuild.
Director Ericson asked the Commission to discuss the maximum award.
Commissioner Gunn asked what the average demolition cost would be.
Director Ericson replied it generally costs between $8,000 and $10,000. He stated in cases
where hazardous waste, such as asbestos, is involved the price could increase. He indicated
Staff would talk to various demolition contractors to arrive at an average cost.
Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 7
________________________________________________________________________
A discussion on asbestos ensued.
Commissioner Cramblit recommended a dollar amount per square foot or a percentage increase
each year.
Director Ericson replied he would rather not measure square footage or adjust for inflation
because the price could vary based on the age and/or condition of the home to be demolished.
A discussion on demolition issues and costs ensued.
Director Ericson indicated consensus was reached that a deferred demolition loan program be
added.
Director Ericson referred the Planning Commission to page six, section two, Planning for
Demolition of the Housing Replacement Guidelines. He stated he is drafting a report for City
Council on housing programs in the community. He stated he would ask the City Council if it
would want to flip-flop the options. He commented that perhaps demolition should be the
priority. He reported there are 55 properties for sale in Mounds View today, 53 of which exceed
$150,000. He asked if the City would receive the most bang for the buck by purchasing the
property from the property owner. He stated that if all things were equal, buying the property or
funding the demolition, the City could spend much less money to achieve the same end. He
asked if the program guidelines should focus on the demolition as it is the faster return on
investment.
Commissioner Gunn agreed it would give residents the opportunity to stay in Mounds View
rather than selling and moving out of the community.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stated a cleaned lot rather than a blighted home would make
the property more attractive for resale.
The Planning Commission reached consensus to put the focus on demolition assistance.
Commissioner Miller asked if a variance would ever be required to redevelop a property and if
so, what type of variance would it be.
Director Ericson explained the City would work it out so someone would not buy a lot and then
have to go through the variance process.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked if there is a restriction on heavy trucks coming into a
neighborhood in the spring. She asked if this would have a detrimental effect on the timing of
demolition.
Planning Associate Heller stated the truck drivers could apply for a road restriction permit during
these times.
Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 8
________________________________________________________________________
Director Ericson stated Mounds View follows MNDot’s guidelines and restrictions regarding
road restrictions. He mentioned the Housing Replacement Program would be on the agenda for
the next Council Worksession.
B. Discuss Expanding the Allowed Food/Restaurant Uses in a B-2 Zoning
District
Planning Associate Heller reported Kraus Anderson, Management Company of Silver View
Plaza, came before the Planning Commission in November 2005 to request a rezoning of the
property from a B-2, Limited Business, to a B-3, Highway Business. She explained the same
request was also made in 1988 not long after the center opened. She reported that due to the lack
of parking on the site and the layout of the building, and traffic flow, they were denied both
times.
Planning Associate Heller reported several business have asked about opening a business in
Silver View Plaza and were told they could not because of the zoning. She stated that in
comparison, the zoning across the street is B-4 and it is almost fully occupied. She indicated
Staff thought the Planning Commission might consider expanding allowed restaurant uses in a
B-2 zoning district. She stated other communities allow more in the B-2 than did Mounds View.
She pointed out the B-2 zoning areas on the zoning map.
Planning Associate Heller reported Silver View Plaza is over 50 percent vacant with more
tenants planning to leave.
Chair Stevenson stated that as much as restaurants were wanted in Mounds View, they require
adequate parking.
Planning Associate Heller replied parking has always been the issue at Silver View Plaza. She
listed the square footage of miscellaneous businesses, restaurants, and fast food establishments in
Mounds View.
Discussion on Silver View Plaza and parking issues ensued.
Director Ericson commented there is no way the site would support a restaurant over 2000
square feet. He cautioned that once the door is open to expanding the allowable food/restaurant
uses in a B-2 Zoning District, other problems could arise.
Chair Stevenson stated every business in Silver View Plaza would have to be a conditional use in
order to not cause parking problems.
Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek recommended making suggestions as to what type of food
businesses could fit into Silver View Plaza.
Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 9
________________________________________________________________________
Director Ericson stated Kraus Anderson asked Staff to bring this to the Planning Commission to
see if it were open to a restaurant in a B-2 district. He commented it is fine with Staff if the
Planning Commission is not open to it. He explained Staff did not want to create a situation
where there is not enough parking to serve the tenants in the Silver View Plaza.
A discussion on possible food options in Silver View Plaza ensued.
Commissioner Gunn stated the property owner should be marketing to businesses that could go
into Silver View Plaza.
A discussion on why tenants are moving out of Silver View Plaza ensued.
Commissioner Lang asked if the owner had anything in mind to fill the vacancies that would not
create a parking problem.
Director Ericson replied they did not. He commented the owners are looking at potential uses
currently not allowed in a B-2.
Commissioner Miller stated she did not see how Silver View Plaza could be opened up to
restaurants because of the limited parking available.
A discussion on other options for Silver View Plaza ensued.
Planning Associate Heller reported the Silver View Plaza site plan indicates there are up to 16
different tenant spaces and 172 parking spaces.
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. May 16, 2007
B. June 6, 2007
8. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 8:26 p.m.
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Director Ericson
Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 10
________________________________________________________________________
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Dianna Wise
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Item No: 5A
Meeting Date: June 6, 2007
Type of Business: Commission Business
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
Outdoor Summer Seasonal Produce Stand in the
Mermaid Parking Lot at 2200 County Road 10;
Planning Case No. CU2007-003
Introduction:
The applicant, Craig Gilb with Merryville Farms, is requesting approval of a conditional use
permit to operate a summer seasonal produce stand in the parking lot of the Mermaid at
2200 County Road 10 from approximately June 21 – September 3 each year. Merryville
Farms has been operating their summer produce stand at Mounds View Square since 1996
and would have continued in that location except that the mall property owners did not renew
the lease agreement with Merryville Farms this year. Merryville Farms wanted to stay in
Mounds View and was welcomed by the Mermaid to move to their parking lot.
Requirements:
Section 1115.04, Subd. 2: which allows for open or outdoor service, sales and rental as an
accessory use for a period of greater than 10 days with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Section 1125.01, Subd. 1e: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible
adverse effects of the requested conditional use.
Section 1125.01, Subd. 1g: which states that the Planning Commission shall make findings
of fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as it deems
necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and forward such findings
to the City Council.
Discussion:
The produce stand would be open seven days a week from approximately 10:30am to
6:30pm, and would be selling produce home-grown from Waverly, Minnesota. The stand is a
gazebo-like structure with a roof and is 14 feet wide and 9 feet high at the peak. The stand
requires no utility hook-ups and would take up about two parking spaces. Merryville Farms
was granted a Conditional Use Permit for their Mounds View Square location, but since
conditional use permits go with the land, not the user, they need to apply for a new CUP for
their location at the Mermaid. Staff is not aware of any problems associated with this
operation since they have been in Mounds View.
Signage for the produce stand will be banners affixed to the gazebo base and lettering on the
roof. As was done previously, the conditional use permit is drafted in such a way so they will
not need to appear before the Planning Commission and City Council each year. The
Merryville Farms CUP Report
June 6, 2007
Page 2
CUP will remain in effect indefinitely so long as there are no changes to the operation and
there have been no problems or reasons, which would warrant the City Council to re-examine
the CUP.
CUP Considerations:
Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address
any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the
Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the
surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential
adverse effects is addressed below.
Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages existing
businesses to remain in the city along with the introduction of new businesses within Mounds
View when compatible with surrounding uses. The Mermaid is zoned Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and is surrounded by commercial and industrial zoning designations and
land uses. If the requested conditional use permit were approved, this CUP would be in line
with the Comp Plan “Community Commercial” and “Regional Commercial” land use
designations for the Mermaid site.
The Location and Character of the Surrounding Area. The Mermaid is located on the corner of
County Road 10 and County Road H. The produce stand would be located in the corner of the
parking lot, closest to the intersection for the best visibility. There are no residential properties
within sight of this location and the proposed produce stand would not be out of place in this
commercial neighborhood, nor should it affect any neighboring properties.
Depreciation. The proposed produce stand will only be operating for a few months during the
summer and will result in little, if any, adverse effect upon the surrounding area.
The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a small produce stand to
operate during the summer and only during daylight house. This business has been very
successful in Mounds View for the past 11 years, and offers a variety of fresh fruits and
vegetables to the residents.
Summary:
All zoning and code issues are satisfied with this request.
Merryville Farms CUP Report
June 6, 2007
Page 3
Recommendations:
After taking testimony from staff and the property owner, the Commission can take one of the
following actions related to the request:
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Resolution 867-07 is attached if the
Commission chooses this action.
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this
option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact
appropriate to support the denial.
3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered
or if more discussion is needed, 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. Planning Application
2. Aerial Site Plan
3. Zoning Map
4. Resolution 867-07
Zoning Map
Properties not bearing a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 867-07
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW A SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10;
PLANNING CASE NO CU2007-003
WHEREAS, Craig Gilb with Merryville Farms, has applied for a conditional use
permit to operate a seasonal produce stand in the parking lot of the Mermaid; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2200 County Road 10, is zoned PUD,
Planned Unit Development, and is legally described as follows:
Common Interest Community No. 598 Mermaid Hotel &
Entertainment that part of Unit 1 in TIF
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows open and outdoor
sales in B-3 and higher zoning districts; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed produce stand would operate from approximately June
20th to September 3rd each year; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Site Plan
c. Zoning Map
d. 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 outdoor produce stand meets the requirements as outlined in
Chapters 1115 and 1125 of the Zoning Code.
2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the
outdoor sales type of use is consistent with the Community Commercial and
Regional Commercial land use designations for this area.
3. The proposed produce stand would not be out of place given the commercial and
industrial character of the surrounding area involved.
Resolution 867-07
Page 2
4. The proposed produce stand would not depreciate the neighboring properties.
5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the seasonal produce
stand, with conditions as follows:
1. The produce stand shall be allowed to operate from approximately June 20th to
September 3rd of each year.
2. The hours of operation of the stand shall not exceed 8:00am to 9:00pm.
3. Signage shall be allowed only as affixed to the gazebo base and/or roof.
4. Lighting for the use shall be supplied by existing parking lot standards.
5. The applicant shall provide the following on an annual basis to the City of
Mounds View Community Development Director:
6. This Conditional Use Permit may be reviewed by the Planning Commission and
City Council if any problems develop or if there are any changes to the operation
deemed substantial enough to warrant such a review, in the estimation of the
Community Development Director or the City Council.
a. Letter of permission from property owner.
b. Drawing of site plan.
c. Narrative description of the proposal.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Conditional Use Permit
shall have no expiration date and shall remain in force so long as the conditions agreed
upon herein are observed.
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 6th day of June 2007.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Item No: 6A
Meeting Date: June 6, 2007
Type of Business: Discussion
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Establishing the Comprehensive Plan Task Force
Background:
The City of Mounds View, like all metropolitan communities in the Twin Cities area,
is required to update its Comprehensive Plan by the year 2008. In recognition of
this requirement, the City Council identified the Comp Plan update as one of its
adopted goals for 2007. Establishing a task force will help ensure the process
moves forward in a timely fashion while providing addition means of opinion,
review and oversight.
Discussion:
The Council discussed the idea of a task force at a meeting earlier this year and
reiterated their support for such a body during the strategic planning and
leadership retreat held in February and attended by the City Council and
department heads. The Council passed a resolution on Monday, May 14th with the
recommendation of having up to six residents-at-large on the task force. Staff has
sent a notice to the Bulletin and Focus newspapers looking for volunteers. An
application is required from each applicant and the deadline to apply is June 6,
2007. The City Council will officially appoint members to the group, which we
anticipate to be done at the June 11th Council meeting.
Staff envisions that once work begins on the Comprehensive Plan, the task force
would meet once every month or every two months, depending upon progress and
issues being reviewed. The Planning Commission will take the lead on the comp
plan preparation with the Economic Development Commission and Park and
Recreation Commission playing strong supporting roles. From a staff perspective,
Community Development will assume the lead role on the update with a strong
supporting role played by Public Works. The Finance and Administration
departments will also lend support as needed.
The membership of the Task Force is envisioned as follows:
1 - Planning Commission Rep
1 - Economic Development omission Rep
1 - Park and Rec Commission Rep
1 - City Council Representative
1 - Chamber of Commerce Rep
6 – Residents at large
Comp Plan Taskforce Report
June 6, 2007
Page 2
The principal goal and purpose of the Task Force will be to review and oversee the
preparation of the Comprehensive Plan update. The Task Force would likely meet
once a month (when activity relating to the Comp Plan is extensive) or every two or
three months (when activity is minimal.) The Task Force would conclude its
responsibilities upon City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment, after which point the Task Force would officially expire.
Recommendation:
Staff requests that the Planning Commission decide which Commissioner would
like to sit on this task force. It is preferred that there be a Planning Commissioner
at every task force meeting, so designating more than one person may be a
suggestion. Anyone who is interested is always welcome to attend these
meetings. Staff would prefer to meet on a Wednesday evening, but this has not
yet been decided.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Item No: 6B
Meeting Date: June 6, 2007
Type of Business: Discussion
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review Housing Replacement Program Guidelines
and Criteria
Introduction:
The Mounds View Economic Development Authority (EDA) provides the funding for the
City’s Housing Replacement Program. The Mounds View EDA reviewed the program
guidelines at their meeting on April 9, 2007 and suggested the Planning Commission also
conduct a review and recommend any changes which may be considered appropriate.
The Planning Commission reviewed the program guidelines on May 2, 2007, and
considered possible revisions to the guidelines addressing potential criteria for the
demolition option. Also discussed was the shift of focus from acquisition to demolition.
Rather than acquisition being the focus of the program, the Commission felt that the
demolition option should be the focus. The City Council concurred with this change in
program focus at their May 7, 2007, work session meeting.
Discussion:
Based upon the discussion at the Planning Commission’s May 2 meeting, a number of
changes were made to the program guidelines. The purpose and objectives remain the
same, as do the property criteria. The primary changes relate to the program focus and
the funding criteria for demolition assistance.
Program Focus. The program guidelines have been revised to switch the primary focus
from outright acquisition to the demolition assistance component, shifting the acquisition
to a secondary option.
Funding Criteria. While the Commission did not reach a consensus on all of the possible
funding criteria, there was unanimous agreement that there be some funding criteria tied
to the assistance. One specific area discussed was whether funding should be based on
need. From a staff perspective, limiting the funding to only those who demonstrate a need
may be somewhat short-sighted, but on the other hand, if a property owner has the
financial means to effectuate the demolition and the new home construction, why provide
assistance? Based on the discussion, the following funding criteria have been added to
the program guidelines:
1. Evidence of construction financing
2. Demolition assistance provided ONLY in the form of a deferred non-assumable
loan, forgivable after five years
3. The property shall be owner-occupied by the applicant receiving the funding
4. Maximum amount of assistance limited to a one-time $10,000 loan
5. New home construction shall satisfy minimum new home construction
requirements
HRP Report
June 6, 2007
Page 2
While other criteria could be added beyond those mentioned above (such as encourage
energy efficient design and materials), staff feels that the five criteria listed encompass
the intent of the Commission. Requiring that the funding be in the form of a forgivable
loan will promote owner-occupation and may dissuade individuals who already have
sufficient funds from applying for the assistance. Staff has consulted with the Greater
Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) which indicated they could administer the
processing and management of the deferred, forgivable loans at no extra cost to the City.
(The Housing Resource Center is a subsidiary of GMHC.) The program guidelines
attached to this report address the suggested funding mechanism as discussed by the
Planning Commission, however specific language regarding the loan process will need to
be refined based on GMHC’s review.
Ultimately, the desired outcomes (to encourage neighborhood revitalization and property
reinvestment, eliminate blighted housing and enhance the tax base) will be achieved by
adopting these changes.
In addition to the HRP policy document, we have updated the Housing Design and Site
Criteria document. A few changes were made to the document to make it consistent with
the changes to the HRP policy document, but a few other revisions were made as well.
We did not establish a minimum value nor did we establish a minimum square footage or
footprint. The Commission may want to discuss whether such requirements should be
incorporated into the Housing Design and Site Criteria document. Finally, Item 2F on
Page 2 should be reviewed. The Planning Commission discussed the issue of
“compatibility” at its May 2 meeting… does the statement reflect the desires of the
Commission? If a new house is proposed among a neighborhood of small one-level
homes, does the new home have to maintain the same one-level character?
Recommendation:
Review the revised Housing Replacement Program guidelines and the revised Housing
Design and Site Criteria requirements. If the HRP program and site design document
revisions satisfy the Commission’s expectations, staff will prepare a resolution for action
at the June 20, 2007 Commission meeting.
_____________________
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
City of Mounds View
Housing Replacement Program
(Revised June 2007)
A. Statement of Purpose
The Mounds View Economic Development Authority Housing Replacement Program
(“Program”) is established to reduce the social costs of blight, improve residential
neighborhoods and increase the tax base.
B. Program Objectives
• Replace deteriorating lower value substandard housing on scattered sites throughout
the City with larger, higher value housing designed for owner-occupied families.
• Eliminate the blighting influence of substandard housing.
• Increase the availability for quality housing for families.
C. Program Funding
The Program is funded through Tax Increment Financing and administered by the Mounds
View Economic Development Authority (the “EDA”).
D. Data Privacy
All files and information, which identifies property and persons, is private and cannot be
released. All information secured through the Program is subject to the Data Privacy Act.
E. Program Options
The Program offers two options for participation.
Option 1 – Demolition Assistance: The primary component of the Program involves
providing financial assistance to cover the cost of demolishing substandard or blighted
property with an agreement that it will be replaced within a specified time frame with
a new home that meets certain minimum design standards and area requirements as
articulated in Attachment A, Minimum Standards and Requirements. This option
involves the sale of substandard single-family homes and land to the EDA. The EDA’s goal
is to offer the property for sale for the redevelopment of new, standard housing.
Option 2 - Acquisition: This secondary option involves the purchase of a substandard
single-family home and land by the EDA from a willing seller. The EDA will
coordinate the site clearance activity and market the site to a developer/owner with an
agreement that a new home would be constructed within a specified time frame that
meets certain minimum design standards and area requirements as articulated in
Attachment A, Minimum Standards and Requirements. This option involves the
property owner retaining the property where a substandard single-family house is located,
and receiving funding from the EDA for demolition of the house with an agreement that it
City of Mounds View
Housing Replacement Program
Page 2
will be replaced with standard housing meeting certain EDA guidelines and time frame.
F. Publicizing the Program; Making Application
1. EDA staff, or their appointees (“Program Staff”), will solicit participants by direct mail,
advertisement, or other method. The number of applications accepted for participation in
the Program will be determined by the availability of personnel and financial resources.
2. Participation in the Program must be on a is voluntary basis. Interested participants must be
able to furnish proof of ownership of or interest in the property, and are required to submit
a letter of application respond to the EDA solicitation in writing, with a letter indicating:
a. b. For Option 1 2 (Funding for Demolition):
(1) An interest in obtaining funding for demolition from the EDA to replace existing
housing with new standard housing that meets the meeting EDA expressed
minimum guidelines of the EDA.
(2) Consent Willingness to hold the EDA harmless for demolition activities.
(3) Consent Willingness to enter into a legal development agreement with the EDA
regarding redevelopment of the property.
(4) Ability to produce proof of construction financing.
b. a. For Option 2 1: (Sale of Property to EDA):
(1) An interest in selling their property to the EDA.
(2) A willingness to waive relocation benefits.
(3) Statement affirming that the property is either vacant or owner-occupied of
tenant interest in the property at the time of offer.
(4) Consent to the release of relevant information to potential developers and end buyers.
3. Individuals who have expressed indicated an interest in participating will shall be contacted
by Program Staff to inform them of the estimated project time line and to obtain complete
information on the items noted under F.2. above.
G. Property Eligibility Criteria
Program Staff will shall evaluate each property for which an application is received to
determine Program its eligibility for the Program based on the criteria in this section. Program
Staff will shall prepare property fact sheets for each property for which an application has
been received owners have expressed an interest in participating in the Program, and will shall
conduct an interior and exterior drive by inspection of each property. Properties will be
evaluated based on the criteria outlined below. To be eligible for participation, the house must
be previously identified by the EDA as a potential acquisition (Option #2 #1 only) and the
property must have one of the characteristics noted in 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 below:
1. Substandard as to condition, code compliance property value, size or usage.
2. Obsolete and having a faulty design for block and area in which it is located.
3. Deterioration which has caused blight to other adjoining properties.
City of Mounds View
Housing Replacement Program
Page 3
4. Detrimental to the safety or health of abutting properties in the block.
5. Foreclosed upon or notice of foreclosure has been served on occupant.
If it is determined that the property is eligible for participation based on the condition of the
house as expressed in characteristics 1-5 above, it must also meet the following criteria as
outlined in 6 5-8 below.
5. A geographic mix of properties is achieved.
6. The site can be developed with a single family home within city code requirements,
including zoning and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The property may
be considered if a variance can be obtained (see Section I.2.).
7. The property must be owner-occupied or vacant before the owner or owner’s
designee makes application to the Program. Non-homesteaded vacant property will
be considered for demolition assistance or acquisition. Tenant-occupied properties
will not be considered for participation purchase or funding for demolition by the
EDA on a case-by-case basis.
8. Prior to approval by the EDA for participation in the Program, properties over 50
years old must be evaluated for historical significance. This will be accomplished by
forwarding general property information and a property photo to the Minnesota
Historical Society for review. The EDA will not enter into a purchase agreement or
award funding for demolition of on a property which qualifies for the National
Registry of Historical Structures.
H. Program Priorities
If more than one application for acquisition or demolition funding or acquisition has been received
during a given month, the Program Staff shall rank the applications to determine the best candidates
for Program participation based on the information and criteria noted below:
1. Properties that can meet EDA established guidelines and time frame will be considered
first.
2. Properties considered the most substandard with the lowest values and poorest visible
conditions will be considered first.
3. Properties should be equally distributed by location and value throughout the City when
possible, and provide a viable financial mix of properties to support Program financial
requirements.
4. Requests submitted by Mounds View residents will be considered first.
5. Applicants who have expressed a funding “need” shall be considered first over
applicants with little to no “need”.
City of Mounds View
Housing Replacement Program
Page 4
I. Option 1: Funding of Demolition:
1. Blight Qualification: Properties being considered for demolition funding must meet
blight qualifications as outlined in Section G.
2. Need for Variances: If a variance is required to redevelop the property, the
homeowner must obtain the variance prior to the approval of demolition funds. If a
variance is not granted, demolition funds shall not be awarded.
3. Comprehensive Plan/Zoning: The Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning on
the property must allow for its redevelopment as a single-family residence.
4. Development Agreement: The applicant must enter into a Demolition and
Redevelopment Agreement with the EDA which will stipulate housing design and site
development features consistent with the guidelines attached in Exhibit A (Housing
Design and Site Criteria) and identify the time frame for completion. The development
agreement will include an estimate of the minimum value of the home to be constructed.
5. Demolition Contract: The applicant must obtain three estimates for demolition from
qualified demolition contractors which will assist in determining the amount of
demolition funds to award for the project. The total amount of assistance provided shall
not exceed the lowest responsible estimate received not to exceed $10,000. The selected
demolition contractor must be able to meet project deadlines as outlined by City Staff.
The demolition contractor will be required to obtain all necessary City permits, pay
applicable fees and provide for appropriate handling and abatement of any hazardous
materials encountered. Overall demolition supervision will be provided by a designated
Program Staff in conjunction with the interested participant.
6. Funding Mechanism: The assistance will be provided to the applicant upon conclusion
of the demolition activity and satisfactory final inspection of the demolition permit, in the
form of a five year forgivable interest-free loan, with a 20% incremental reduction in
principal upon each successive year the participant lives in the new home, with complete
forgiveness after the fifth year in the home. The annual reduction in principal is tied to
the date of completion/owner-occupancy of the new home and not to the loan closing. If
the participant sells or rents the home to a third party prior to the fifth year, the
following loan repayment schedule shall apply:
If the home is sold before the The amount to be repaid upon closing shall be
End of the first year, 100% of the loan amount
End of the second year, 80% of the loan amount
End of the third year, 60% of the loan amount
End of the fourth year, 40% of the loan amount
End of the fifth year, 20% of the loan amount
City of Mounds View
Housing Replacement Program
Page 5
The loan shall be administered by the Housing Resource Center, NorthMetro Office, a
division of the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC). The Housing
Resource Center or GMHC shall prepare lien release and satisfaction documents as
needed.
J. I. Option 1 2: Acquisition of Property by EDA
1. Blight Qualification: Once an offering letter is received from the interested participant,
Program Staff will shall arrange, by appointment, an inspection of the interior of the home to
establish blight qualification as outlined in Section G. The following information will also be
obtained during the inspection: In addition, Program Staff will make a determination as to
the potential presence of hazardous materials on the property and will obtain
a. Demolition information for estimating demolition credit to builder.
b. A determination as to the existence of any hazardous materials on the property. This
includes:
(1) a visual inspection
(2) a statement from the interested participant regarding any knowledge of the
property’s use for production, storage, deposit, or disposal of any toxic or
hazardous wastes or substances or asbestos products whatsoever, during the time
the interested participant owned the property and prior to the date of interested
participant purchased property. Properties with recognized environmental
conditions environmental problems or hazards may be considered if the purchase
price is reduced sufficiently to cover increased site clearance and preparation
costs.
If a property satisfies meets the blight conditions as outlined herein test, acquisition
procedures can continue. If the blight test cannot be met, the interested participant will be
notified in writing indicating the reasons why the property cannot be considered for
acquisition.
2. Need for Variances: If a variance is required to redevelop the property, the EDA may, at
its sole discretion, choose not to acquire the property. This determination will be made based
on the project time lines, available resources, and availability of other properties which do not
require a variance. If the EDA chooses to pursue a variance to enable the acquisition of the
property, an application shall be filed following the usual procedures. If a variance is not
approved, the property cannot be considered for acquisition.
3. Appraisal: Determining Purchase Price: If the EDA chooses to continue with the
acquisition, a fee appraisal shall be ordered at the EDA’s expense and the result shall be used
in determining the amount of the purchase price to offer to the interested participant. The
independent fee appraiser shall be carefully instructed to document in specific terms the
conditions of the property including details regarding structural condition and floor plan. The
acceptance of these conditions in the market place should be discussed in the report. The
appraiser’s value judgment should reflect these conditions. A negotiated price considerably
below the assessor’s market value may be accepted without an appraisal on a case by case basis
City of Mounds View
Housing Replacement Program
Page 6
if the interested participant concurs.
4. Purchase Agreement: Closing Procedures
a. When both parties have verbally agreed upon a purchase price, Program Staff and
Legal Counsel shall prepare a Purchase Agreement to be presented to the interested
participant. The purchase price contained in the Purchase Agreement shall be within the
range authorized by the EDA. The purchase agreement shall be contingent on the
completion of an environmental evaluation suggesting no evidence of hazardous waste on
the property. The interested participant shall receive a copy of the purchase agreement
including the following information:
(1) The purchase price
(2) How the purchase price was determined
(3) The amount of earnest money
(4) A date to sign the Purchase Agreement
(5) A closing date
b. To enable the acquisition process to continue, the interested participant must execute
the purchase agreement and a “waiver of relocation benefits” form. The waiver of
relocation must be clearly explained by City staff to the interested participant at this time,
if not explained previously.
c. The EDA Executive Director and President shall be signatories on the purchase
agreement.
d. The acquisition and disposition of the property must be in conformance with the
Mounds View Comprehensive Plan.
e. Following EDA authorization of these agreements, interested participants and/or
Program Staff will be requested to assemble and supply all required documentation prior
to closing as outlined below.
(1) Title documentation acceptable to City staff An Abstract or RPA (as
applicable) must be furnished to the Program Staff to facilitate the
rendering of a title opinion. The interested participant will bear the cost
of updating the Abstract or RPA as part of the closing procedures.
(2) EDA Legal Counsel shall review the submitted title documentation
will be responsible for having the Abstract or RPA updated and will
provide Program Staff and interested participant with a written opinion
of title. EDA Legal Counsel will also secure title insurance.
(3) If the title opinion indicates the property has marketable title, purchase
procedures may will continue. If the title opinion does not indicate
marketable title, the EDA, at its sole discretion, may choose not to
City of Mounds View
Housing Replacement Program
Page 7
acquire the property. The EDA may determine remedies and evaluate
their resolution, including the additional time and expense to provide
marketable title. It shall be the seller’s responsibility The EDA may
proceed to correct title deficiencies to effectuate the sale continue the
purchase of the property dependant upon the additional time and expense
incurred.
(4) Simultaneously with the title opinion, an environmental evaluation will
may be obtained from an independent environmental engineering firm or
other firm performing such service. If environmental hazards are found
on the site, the EDA may choose not to acquire the property.
f. The seller must be prepared to vacate the property on the day of closing unless other
arrangements have been made with Program Staff.
g. If the interested participant decides not to sell the property after execution of the
purchase agreement then the interested participant must provide the EDA with the
following:
(1) A letter expressing their desire not to proceed with selling the property
(2) The full amount of earnest money received upon execution of the purchase
agreement, and
(3) Full payment of legal and consulting fees incurred by the EDA after the
execution of the purchase agreement in preparation for the closing of the
property.
5. Selection of Demolition Contractor and Procedures: After the property closing,
Program Staff will select a demolition contractor by sending Requests for Proposals (RFP) to at
least three demolition contractors. The proposal bid received with the lowest price will have
priority. The demolition contractor must be able to meet project deadline as outlined in the
RFP prior to awarding a contract. The demolition contractor will be required to obtain all
necessary City permits and pay applicable fees. Overall a designated A Program Staff person
will provide demolition supervision.
6. Marketing: Program Staff will advertise the sale of the property by contacting the St.
Paul Realtors Association, area residential developers, interested buyers and by posting signs
on the property.
7. Selection of Developer: Program Staff will negotiate the purchase of the property with
by an acceptable buyer/developer or buyer/builder team. If a buyer/developer or buyer/builder
team cannot be obtained, the EDA may consider selling property to a developer or builder for
sale to the open market after completion. As part of the sale of the property, the
buyer/developer team purchasing party must sign a purchase and redevelopment agreement
with the EDA, which will stipulate minimum standards, housing design and time frame for
City of Mounds View
Housing Replacement Program
Page 8
completion. (Refer to Exhibit A, Housing Design and Site Criteria guidelines, attached.)
8. Development Agreement: Closing Procedures
a. When a redevelopment proposal submitted by a buyer/developer or buyer/builder team
has been approved by the EDA, Program Staff and Legal Counsel will shall prepare a
Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement. The selected developer will shall receive a
copy of the Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement which will include, but not be
limited to, the following information:
(1) Construction of minimum improvements
(2) Estimated market value of the property and improvements
(3) Purchase price
(4) Completion date
(5) Financial guarantee submitted by the developer with a minimum amount equal
to100% of the minimum improvement value
(6) Revesting of Title. Subject to unavoidable delays, if the Developer fails to carry
out its obligations with respect to the construction of the Minimum Improvements, the
Authority will have the right to re-enter and take possession of the property. The
Authority at its option may declare a termination in favor of the Authority of the title
and that the title and all rights and interests of the Developer will shall revert to the
Authority.
J. Option 2: Funding of Demolition
1. Blight Qualification: Properties being considered for demolition funding must meet blight
qualifications as outlined in Section G. and Section I.1.
2. Need for Variances: If a variance is required to redevelop the property, the homeowner
must obtain the variance prior to the award of demolition funds. If a variance is not granted,
demolition funds shall not be awarded.
3. Comprehensive Plan/Zoning: The Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning on the
property must allow for its redevelopment by construction of a replacement single-family
residence.
4. Development Agreement: The interested participant must enter into a Development
Agreement with the EDA which will stipulate housing design and site development criteria
and time frame for completion. The development agreement will include estimate of new
taxes generated based on the construction of replacement cost.
5. Demolition Contract: The interested participant must obtain three estimates for demolition
which will assist in determining the amount of demolition funds to award for the project.
City of Mounds View
Housing Replacement Program
Page 9
The chosen demolition contractor must be able to meet project deadlines as outlined by
Program Staff. The demolition contractor will be required to obtain all necessary City
permits and pay applicable fees. Overall demolition supervision will be provided by a
designated Program Staff in conjunction with the interested participant.
Economic Development Authority
By:
______________________________
EDA President
By:
______________________________
EDA Executive Director
Revised: June 2007
\\trout\CommDev\Users\JIME\Comm Dev Stuff\Housing\Housing Replacement Program\HRP Policies\HRP Policy - 2007 Revisions.doc
Page 1
Housing Replacement Program
(June 2007 revisions)
HOUSING DESIGN AND SITE CRITERIA
The Mounds View Economic Development Authority (EDA) established the Housing
Replacement Program to reduce the social costs of blight and increase the tax base. The purpose
of the program is to replace deteriorating lower value housing on scattered sites throughout the
City with larger, higher value housing designed for families. To accomplish this goal, the EDA
The program promotes these goals through two different mechanisms—providing
demolition assistance to remove sub-standard, blighted and distressed properties, and
acquisition of purchases substandard, blighted or distressed homes. In either case, the subject
property is demolished and a new, larger, higher-value home is constructed in its place.
demolishes the home and sells the lot to a prospective buyers for redevelopment. This The
program will assist in eliminating the blighting influence of substandard housing and increase
increasing the availability of quality housing for families.
1. General
a. b. The developer must enter into a Contract for Private Development with the EDA
which will specify design, set site criteria and establish value based upon new
home construction in the surrounding area.
b. a. The builder developer must be a licensed contractor. All sub-contractors must
also be licensed. Homeowner sweat-equity labor on interior finishes may be
permitted.
c. Home design must comply with all federal, state and local building codes.
d. The house must be able to be built within six (6) months from the time the
Contract for Private Development is executed. An extension may be granted with
the permission of the EDA.
e. Each home must be single-family, owner occupied.
2. Building Standards
a. All building plans must have been prepared in consultation with an a licensed
Architect or Architectural Designer with a minimum two year technical degree.
Housing design is a critical concern.
b. A minimum of three finished bedrooms is required.
c. Two full bathrooms are required preferred. A home design with 1½ baths will be
considered.
EXHIBIT A
Page 2
d. A minimum two-car attached garage is required. Side-loaded or rear-loaded
garages are preferred. If front-loaded, the garage shall not be the dominant
feature of the building facade.
e. Exterior materials (siding, doors and windows) should be low maintenance.
Brick, stone, aluminum and vinyl are preferred. Natural cedar lap is acceptable if
properly stained or painted. Hardboard panels or hardboard lap siding are not
acceptable.
f. Unit height and mass of the new homes should shall be compatible with the scale
of the surrounding neighborhood.
g. Plans must present a balanced distribution of wall and window areas from all
views. A variety of exterior architectural features will be desired.
h. A full basement shall be provided in the house unless the selected design results in
a split level, garden level type of basement.
3. Site Standards
a. The entire grounds must shall be landscaped to be aesthetically pleasing in all
seasons. Land forms and plant materials shall be used to define the site and blend
with adjoining properties. The landscape plan must be reviewed by the City
Forester.
b. Existing trees must shall be preserved when possible. Care should be taken to
preserve existing root systems. Construction fencing around the root system must
be provided on trees directly adjacent to active grading and construction areas.
The City Forester can assist in recommending methods of protecting existing trees
and shrubs.
c. Site drainage must shall be accommodated on the site so that water is directed
away from the new home and the neighboring properties. The developer must
comply with any federal, state or local drainage requirements. Construction and
the finished structure must not have a detrimental impact on storm water drainage
patterns in the neighborhood.
d. All air conditioning units must be located in the rear yard of the house.
e. Utility meters must shall be screened from street view; locations must be specified
on plans.
f. The neighboring property and adjacent public streets must shall be kept free of
construction debris at all times. The construction site must shall be managed so
not to become a nuisance. Under no circumstance during the construction period
may shall construction workers, construction equipment or construction materials
enter, disturb, or damage neighboring properties.
Page 3
4. Builder Requirements
a. Demonstrate financial capability by providing all of the following:
(1) A statement from a financial institution of sufficient construction capital
(2) A letter of credit of the value of the lot
(3) A summary of the financial conditions of the company
(4) Evidence of a construction loan or ability to secure one
b. Possess adequate Builder’s Risk, Comprehensive General Liability and Worker’s
Compensation insurance coverage.
c. Possess a Home Owners Warranty insurance or equivalent to perform warranted
repairs required by Minnesota State Statute.
d. Provide references from all of the following:
(1) Five customers;
(2) Three major suppliers, one being the construction lumber supplier;
(3) Building Inspectors from two cities in which the builder has constructed
new housing within the past three years.
e. Provide information on inventory of homes that builder currently has under
construction.
5. Buyer Requirements, if applicable
a. Must be pre-approved for permanent financing prior to allow signing of Contract
for Private Development.
Item No: 6C
Meeting Date: June 6, 2007
Type of Business: Discussion
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review Revisions to Zoning Code Relating to the
Former PF Zoning District
Introduction:
In October of 2003, in response to a recommendation from the City Attorney’s office, the City
adopted Ordinance 720 which eliminated the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district from the
City’s zoning map. All properties which had been zoned PF (including all parks) were
rezoned to be included in another appropriate district. In the case of City parks, the parcels
were rezoned to be within the R-1, Single Family Residential district. An unintended
consequence of the rezoning of the parks was that telecommunication towers and antenna,
which had been a conditional use in the PF district, were no longer permitted.
Background:
In July of 2003, the City Attorney prepared an opinion to the City Council which
recommended that the City re-evaluate the PF zoning district. The following is an excerpt
from the 2003 attorney’s opinion:
“In light of the recent MN Supreme Court decision in the case of In the Matter of Denial of
Eller Media Company’s Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits in the City of
Mounds View, Minnesota and the reasoning set forth in that case, an issue that has been
discussed by the City in the past regarding the City of Mounds View Zoning Code and the
districts contained therein now appears to warrant additional review by the City of Mounds
View. Specifically, the issue is the existence of a public facilities (PF) district in the zoning
code that covers a range of uses from public parks through wastewater treatment facilities.
The PF district distinction is based solely on ownership of a parcel of land, which has to be
by the City of Mounds View, and does not deal with the type of land use actually being
made of a given parcel of land.
As the MN Supreme Court points out in its opinion, zoning deals with land uses and the
City’s authority to regulate such land uses. In the case of the PF district designation in the
City of Mounds View’s City Code, the designation exists solely for the purpose of
convenience for categorizing land owned by the City and not because of the actual use
being made or the intended use to be made of a parcel of land, which should actually be the
establishing or guiding factor of a zoning district designation. Thus, consistent with the MN
Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Eller case, it may be best to revise or entirely delete the
PF district designation existing in the City’s Code (which only applies to City-owned parcels)
and to revise such districts to guide the uses made of those parcels, e.g.: parks-residential;
wastewater treatment plants-industrial; city offices-business/commercial/industrial; golf
courses-business/industrial (golf courses are a permitted use in a business district as
presently defined by the Mounds View City Code).”
Towers in Parks Report
June 6, 2007
Page 2
Based upon the attorney’s recommendation, the City Council asked the Planning
Commission to comprehensively review the PF district and make a recommendation
regarding the status of the district.
At the August 20, 2003 meeting of the Planning Commission, staff presented the attorney’s
findings and communicated the Council’s direction requesting the Commission review the PF
district and to recommend suitable alternative zoning districts for each of the 17 affected
properties. Staff prepared maps showing all of the PF-zoned parcels and provided a map of
possible rezoning scenarios. The Planning Commission agreed upon a supported
comprehensive rezoning of the PF properties in light of the attorney’s recommendation and
directed staff to draft an ordinance, resolution and final map showing the proposed changes
to forward on the City Council. Based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the
Council adopted Ordinance 720 on October 13, 2003.
Discussion:
As a result of the elimination of the PF district, it was recently determined that the Code
governing the siting of telecommunications towers (Chapter 1124) is out of date in that it still
references the PF district. The regulations originally contemplated allowing towers in City
parks with a conditional use permit. However since all parks are now zoned R-1, Single
Family Residential, towers and antenna are prohibited (except as allowed on churches,
schools or public buildings, but even then no more than 10 feet above the height of the roof.)
Staff brought this issue to the City Council on May 7, 2007. The City Council expressed a
desire that the Code should be corrected relating to the PF district and telecommunications
towers, in that, if towers were conditionally allowed in parks before 2003, the Code should be
amended to clarify that they are still conditionally permitted in parks today. In addition, the
Council requested that any other remnant inconsistency resulting for the 2003
comprehensive rezoning of PF districts be identified and resolved. Attached, for the
Commission’s reference, is Chapter 1124 of the Zoning Code (the telecommunication facility
regulations) and draft Ordinance 793.
Recommendation:
Based on the Council’s direction, Staff has prepared an ordinance which amends the Zoning
Code to rectify any remaining references to the PF District and correct the inconsistency
regarding telecommunications towers in City parks. The Planning Commission needs to
review the proposed ordinance as it does with all amendments to the Zoning Code.
Resolution
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
CHAPTER 1124
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
SECTION:
1124.01: Purpose
1124.02: Definitions
1124.03: Allowance for Towers and Antennae by Zoning District
1124.04: Co-Location Requirements
1124.05: Siting and Design Requirements
1124.06: Procedural Requirements
1124.07: Nonconforming Wireless Telecommunication Antennae and Towers
1124.01: PURPOSE: The zoning regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities is
intended to provide for the appropriate location, development and installation of
telecommunications towers and antennae within the City of Mounds View (“City”). The
provisions of this Code are intended to protect the health, safety and aesthetic concerns of the
community by minimizing the adverse visual effects of towers and antennae through careful
design, siting and screening; by avoiding potential damage from tower failure to adjacent
properties through structural standards and setback requirements; and by maximizing the use
of existing towers, structures or buildings to accommodate new telecommunications antennae
in the City. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
1124.02: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, for purposes of this Chapter,
shall be defined as follows:
Subd.1. ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT STRUCTURE: A building or cabinet-like structure
located adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of, a wireless telecommunication tower or
antenna to house equipment customarily incidental to the receiving or transmitting of
wireless broadcasts, cellular telephone calls, voice messaging and paging services. (Ord.
588, 2-10-97)
Subd.2. ANTENNAE: Equipment used for transmitting or receiving radio frequency signals
which is attached to a tower, building or other structure, usually consisting of a series of
directional panels, microwave or satellite dishes, or omnidirectional "whip" antennae. (Ord.
588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 3. ANTENNAE STEALTH: Wireless telecommunication antenna designed to blend
into the surrounding environment or integrated into the physical structure to which it is
attached. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 4. BASE TRANSCEIVER STATION: Equipment that provides the link between
wireless communications and land-based public telephone switching networks, including
radio frequency transceivers, back-up power sources, power amplifiers, and signal
processing hardware, typically contained in a small building or cabinet. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
1124.02 1124.03
(Rev. 2/97)
Subd. 5. CO-LOCATION: The location of wireless telecommunications equipment from
more than one (1) provider on one (1) common tower, building or structure. (Ord. 588, 2-
10-97)
Subd. 6. TOWER: Any ground-mounted, pole, spire, structure or combination thereof,
including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces and masts, to which a telecommunications
antenna is attached or affixed. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 7. TOWER, LATTICE: Three (3)- or four (4)-legged steel girdered structures
typically supporting multiple communications users and services generally ranging from
sixty feet (60') to two hundred feet (200') in height. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 8. TOWER, MONOPOLE: Single pole design, approximately three feet (3') in
diameter at the base narrowing to approximately one and a half feet (1½') at the top,
generally ranging from twenty five (25) to one hundred twenty five feet (125') in height.
(Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 9. UTILITY POLE: Pole used to support essential services such as power,
telephone, or cable TV lines; or used to support street or pedestrian way lighting, typically
located in public rights-of-way or boulevards. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 10. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES: Licensed or unlicensed
wireless telecommunication services including cellular, digital cellular, personal
communication services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized
mobile radio (ESMR), commercial or private paging services, or similar services marketed
or provided to the general public. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
1124.03: ALLOWANCE FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAE BY ZONING DISTRICT:
Subd. 1. Permitted Uses, All Districts: Wireless telecommunication towers and antennae
shall be allowed in any district as a permitted use only as provided below: (Ord. 588, 2-10-
97)
a. Water Tower: Wireless telecommunication antennae shall be permitted upon City-
owned water towers provided the applicant has an approved lease agreement with the
City and has obtained a building permit from the City and paid all applicable permit
fees. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
b. Co-location on Existing Towers: Wireless telecommunication antennae shall be
permitted to be attached to existing towers within the City in accordance with the
applicable siting guidelines and design criteria in Section 1124.04, after the applicant
has provided to the City a written statement of approval from the tower owner or lessor
and has obtained a building permit from the City and paid all applicable permit fees.
(Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
1124.03 1124.04
(Rev. 2/97)
c. Utility Poles: Wireless telecommunication antennae shall be permitted to be
attached to utility poles after the applicant has provided a written statement of approval
from the utility pole owner or lessor and has obtained a building permit from the City
and paid the necessary fees. The height of the antennae shall not exceed ten feet (10')
and shall not extend more than six feet (6') above the pole. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 2. Conditional Uses, Specific Districts: Wireless telecommunication towers and
antennae shall be allowed with the approval of a conditional use permit in the zoning districts
specified in the table below and in accordance with the co-location requirements stated in
Section 1124.04, siting requirements and design criteria stated in Section 1124.05, and the
procedural requirements stated in Section 1124.06. The procedure for review and action on
conditional use permits shall be as stated in Section 1125.01. Conditional use permits are not
required for towers and/or antennae used by the City for City purposes or public agencies for
public safety purposes; or for repair, adjustment or replacement of the elements of a wireless
telecommunication antenna array affixed to a tower, if the repair, replacement or adjustment
does not reduce acceptable safety standards. The height limitations listed in the following
table shall include all parts of the wireless telecommunication tower and antenna structure
except for that space needed for lightening diffusion apparata. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Zoning Districts Height Limitations With Co-location
R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O
(antennae only)
10 feet above the height of the roof, allowed
only if mounted on educational facilities,
religious institutions, government or public
utility buildings; or in “upward thrusting
architectural elements” such as church
steeples, bell towers or smokestacks1
N/A
B-1, B-2 75 Feet 95 Feet 2
B-3, B-4, PUD
(Commercial PUDs only.) 3
100 Feet 120 Feet 2
I-1, PUD
(Industrial PUDs only.) 3
150 Feet N/A
CRP and PF 100 feet, allowed only if incorporated into
new or existing facilities or structures, such
as using the tower as a light standard for
ball fields or parking areas, or into mature
tree stands that provide a suitable screen
for at least half the height of the tower.
120 Feet 2
1 In accordance with section 1124.05, subdivision 7 of this Code.
2 Co-location height bonus subject to applicant providing to the City proof of a signed lease
arrangement, shared use agreement, or other like document.
3 For towers and antennae proposed in PUDs, the applicant shall file a request to amend the
existing PUD final plan and/or adopted conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter
1120 and Section 1125.01 of this Code. Wireless telecommunication towers and antennae
shall not be allowed in PUDs having residential uses. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
1124.04 1124.04
(Rev. 2/97)
1124.04: CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS:
Subd. 1. A proposal for a new wireless telecommunication tower shall not be approved unless
the applicant documents to the satisfaction of the City that the antennae planned for the
proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial or
industrial building within a one-half (½) mile radius, transcending municipal borders, due to one
or more of the following: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
a. The antenna would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower
or commercial building. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
b. The antenna would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at
the tower or building. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
c. Existing or approved towers and commercial buildings cannot reasonably
accommodate the antenna at a height necessary for the proposed antenna to function.
(Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
d. Existing or approved towers and commercial buildings are outside of the
documented search area. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
e. The owners or lessors of existing or approved towers and commercial buildings are unwilling
to allow co-location upon their facilities or are unavailable to grant such an allowance. (Ord.
588, 2-10-97)
f. Approval cannot be obtained for co-locating upon an existing tower or antenna site which is
within the documented search area but outside Mounds View municipal boundaries. (Ord. 588,
2-10-97)
Subd. 2. It is the City's intent to encourage co-locating providers to share accessory
equipment building space whenever possible and practical so as to minimize the number of
necessary accessory buildings and their impact upon the surrounding community. An
applicant co-locating on another provider's tower shall incorporate its base transceiver
station and all other equipment into an existing accessory equipment building or suitable
principal structure, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision 2. If this requirement
cannot be met due to insufficient space within the existing accessory building, security
issues, competition or compatibility concerns, or for other reasons, one of the following
options, ranked in preferential order, shall be utilized: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
a. The existing accessory building shall be expanded to a size sufficient to house the
co-locator's equipment. Such building expansion shall match the design and features
of the existing accessory equipment building. The applicant shall obtain a building
permit from the City prior to construction. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
b. A cement pad shall be constructed alongside and adjacent to the existing accessory
equipment building upon which the co-locator's equipment shall be attached. The
applicant shall obtain a building permit from the City prior to construction. (Ord. 588, 2-
10-97)
1124.04 1124.05
(Rev. 2/97)
c. A separate building shall be constructed that conforms to all the requirements set
forth in Section 1124.05 of this Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
1124.05: SITING AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: The requirements of this section
apply to all wireless telecommunications towers and antennae erected, constructed, placed, or
replaced in the City. All wireless telecommunication towers and antennae shall be designed
and situated to be visually unobtrusive to minimize the impact upon the neighboring uses and
shall conform to the following design and siting criteria: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 1. Setbacks: The minimum setback from any property line or public right-of-way for a
wireless telecommunications tower is thirty feet (30') unless abutting a residential district, then
at least half the height of the tower. Where placed on a lot improved with a principal building,
the wireless telecommunication tower shall be located only in the rear yard or interior side
yards not abutting streets. Wireless telecommunication towers shall not be placed between
the principal building and any street abutting the property. Setbacks for accessory equipment
structures associated with wireless telecommunication towers and antennae shall meet the
requirements as outlined in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4 of the Zoning Code. (Ord. 588, 2-
10-97)
Subd. 2. Accessory Equipment Structures: The base transceiver station and all other related
equipment shall be housed in an existing building whenever possible. If an existing building is
unavailable, a new accessory equipment building may be constructed according to Minnesota
State Building Code requirements and shall be of the same or better construction, design and
appearance as any principal structure or adjacent buildings. If the equipment is to be housed
in a weather-proof cabinet-like structure in lieu of a building, it shall be mounted upon a
suitable concrete pad. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 3. Fencing: The wireless telecommunication antenna tower and/or accessory
equipment structure shall be surrounded with an eight foot (8') fence so as to prevent
unauthorized entry and access to the equipment building or tower. Barbed wire, razor wire or
electrified fences shall not be permitted. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 4. Landscaping and Screening: The wireless telecommunication tower and/or
accessory equipment building shall be landscaped and screened with a mixture of six-foot (6')
tall evergreens and one and one-half inch (1½") caliper ornamental deciduous trees at a ratio
of four (4) evergreens per every one (1) deciduous tree, spaced no less than eight (8) feet
apart on center so as to achieve at least a fifty percent (50%) opaque screen. Trees may be
clustered to create a more natural appearance to the screening. In addition to these
landscape requirements, wireless telecommunication towers and/or accessory equipment
buildings located in the PF and CRP zoning districts shall include a mix of shrubbery and/or
flowering perennials in order to enhance and complement the natural features and
environmental value of the City's parks and recreation areas. The landscaping plan shall be
reviewed by the City Forester and approved by the City Council as part of a conditional use
permit (CUP) or by the Director of Community Development, if the wireless telecommunication
tower or antennae is allowed as a permitted use. The City Council or Director of Community
Development, as applicable, may waive the landscaping and/or screening requirements upon
request of the applicant if the existing landscaping and screening is deemed sufficient. (Ord.
588, 2-10-97)
1124.05 1124.05
(Rev. 2/97)
Subd. 5. Color: The wireless telecommunication tower and antenna shall be of a neutral
color such as light grey or sky blue except as dictated by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and be designed to minimize visibility and to blend into the surrounding environment.
(Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 6. Construction Type and Materials: The wireless telecommunication tower shall be
of a monopole construction unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals. Guy-wired towers shall not be permitted. Metal towers shall be constructed of, or
treated with, corrosive resistant materials. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 7. Roof-Mounted Wireless Telecommunication Antennae: Roof-mounted wireless
telecommunication antennae shall not be permitted on buildings with pitched-roofs, unless
they are stealth antennae incorporated into upward thrusting architectural elements, such
as a church steeple, spire or bell-tower, smokestack, etc. On flat roofs, the height of the
antennae and mounting hardware may not more than ten feet (10') above the highest point
of the roof to which the antennae is attached. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 8. Structurally-Mounted Wireless Telecommunications Antennae:
Telecommunication antennae mounted upon sides of buildings shall be attached flush
against building side, not to protrude more than the depth of the antennae. Structurally
mounted antennae not affixed to towers shall be made to blend into the design and
contours of the structure, unless roof-mounted in accordance with Section 1124.05,
subdivision 7 of this Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 9. Prevention of Radiation: Wireless telecommunication antennae shall be subject
to state and federal regulations regarding non-ionizing radiation and other health hazards
related to such facilities. If the federal government adopts new, more restrictive standards,
the antennae shall be made to comply or the antenna shall be removed by the owner or the
City at the tower owner's expense. The owner or operator of the tower shall pay any
associated costs of compliance verification. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 10. Lights: No wireless telecommunication tower or antenna shall have affixed or
attached to it in any way except during time of repair or installation, any lights, reflectors,
flashers, day-time strobes or steady night time light or other illumination devices, except as
required by the Federal Aviation Agency, the Federal Communications Commission or the
City. This restriction against lights shall not apply to towers which have been combined
with light standards for illumination of ball fields, parking lots, playgrounds, or other similar
public uses, as provided in Section 1124.03, subdivision 2 for the PF and CRP districts.
(Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 11. Signs and Advertising: The use of any portion of a tower for signs or
advertising, other than required warning signs, shall be prohibited. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 12. Other Attachments: No antennae or tower shall have constructed thereon, or
attached thereto, any platform, catwalk, crows' nest, or like structure for the purpose of
human support, except during periods of construction or repair. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
1124.05 1124.06
Rev. 2/97)
Subd. 13. Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications: No new or existing
telecommunications service shall interfere with public safety telecommunications. (Ord.
588, 2-10-97)
1124.06: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS:
Subd. 1. Conditional Use Permit Requirements: Applicants proposing to erect wireless
telecommunication towers and/or antennae that require a conditional use permit (CUP) as
outlined in Section 1124.03, subdivision 2, shall provide at the time of application the
following information: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
a. A notarized document from the property owner or lessor that allows the applicant to
apply for a CUP and building permit to erect a wireless telecommunication tower and/or
antenna. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
b. Demonstration of need, in accordance with Section 1124.06, subdivision 3 of this
Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
c. A site plan which shows property lines, location of wireless telecommunication tower
or antennae, setback distances, any accessory equipment structure, fencing and
landscaping proposed. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
d. Sufficient information to show that construction, installation and maintenance of the
wireless telecommunication tower and/or antenna will not create a safety hazard or
damage to the property of other persons. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
e. Proof of insurance, in accordance with Section 1124.06, subdivision 4 of this Code.
(Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
f. Any other information necessary for the City to evaluate the CUP. (Ord. 588,
2-10-97)
Subd. 2. Building Permits: Applicants proposing to erect wireless telecommunication towers
and/or antennae shall obtain a building permit. The towers and antennae are subject to
inspection by the City building official to determine compliance with Minnesota State Building
Code construction standards. No building permit shall be issued by the City without prior
approval of a CUP by the City Council if applicable. When no CUP is required, the applicant
shall provide to the City all information as required by Section 1124.06, subdivision 1 of this
Code at the time of application for building permits, in addition to that required by Section
1124.06, subdivision 2a below. Building permits shall not be required for the repair,
replacement, adjustment and/or alteration of the elements of antenna arrays if such work
does not reduce acceptable safety standards. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
1124.06 1124.06
Rev. 2/97)
a. A report and plan from a qualified and registered engineer or firm that specifies and
includes the following: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
(1) The tower height and design including a cross section and elevation.
(Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
(2) The height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-
located antennae and the minimum separation distances between
antennae. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
(3) The capacity of the tower, including the number and type of antennae
that the tower can accommodate. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
(4) The steps that the applicant will take to avoid interference with
established public safety telecommunications. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
(5) An engineer's stamp and registration number. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 3. Demonstration of Need: The applicant shall provide a diagram showing the cell
site configuration illustrating the coverage area of the proposed wireless telecommunication
tower and/or antennae. This diagram shall demonstrate the frequency re-use and spacing
needs of the wireless system in order to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas
that cannot be adequately served by locating the antenna on an existing structure. (Ord. 588,
2-10-97)
Subd. 4. Proof of Insurance: The applicant shall provide the City with proof of liability
insurance which protects against losses due to personal injury or property damage resulting
from the construction or collapse of the tower, antennae or accessory equipment. Such proof
shall be supplied to the City by the wireless telecommunication tower owner or lessee at the
time of application and shall be made available to the City from time to time upon its request.
(Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 5. Removal of Abandoned or Damaged Towers: Any wireless telecommunication
tower and/or antennae that is not used for one (1) year shall be deemed abandoned and the
property owner shall remove the tower and/or antennae in the same manner and pursuant to
the same procedures as for dangerous or unsafe structures established by Minnesota
Statutes, sections 463.15 through 463.26. If the owner fails to remove the tower and/or
antenna after one (1) year, it may be removed by the City with the costs of such removal
assessed against the property owner of the tower site. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 6. Violations: Deviations from the approved construction plans and CUP is a
misdemeanor, punishable as provided in Section 104.01 of this Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
1124.07 1124.07
(Rev. 2/97)
1124.07: NONCONFORMING WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAE AND
TOWERS: Wireless telecommunication antennae and towers in existence as of the date of
enactment of this Chapter that do not meet or comply with the provisions of this Chapter are
subject to the following: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 1. Existing towers may continue in use for their existing purpose but may not be
replaced or structurally altered to an extent exceeding ten percent (10%) of the tower's fair
market value, as determined by the City, without meeting all standards in this Chapter. In
no event shall any alteration have the effect of increasing or intensifying the level or extent
of a tower's nonconformity. Alterations shall be subject to Section 1124.06, subdivision 2 of
this Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 2. If such tower is damaged or destroyed to the extent of fifty percent (50%) or more of
its fair market value, as determined by the City, due to any reason or cause whatsoever, the
owner of the tower may choose to rebuild or remove the tower. In either case, the tower
owner shall have one (1) year in which to obtain a building permit from the City and to
complete the necessary work. If the owner chooses to rebuild the tower, the tower as
reconstructed shall conform to all current and applicable regulations as specified by this Code.
If a tower is damaged to an extent of less than fifty percent (50%) of its fair market value, the
tower owner shall have one (1) year in which to obtain a building permit from the City and to
repair or restore the tower to its former size, height and use. The location and physical
dimensions shall remain as they were prior to the damage or destruction. If the tower is not
repaired or restored within one (1) year from the date of the damage, the ability to repair or
restore the tower shall lapse and may not be exercised, upon which time the tower shall be
deemed abandoned. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 3. Removal of Abandoned or Damaged Towers: Any tower and/or antenna that is
not used for one (1) year shall be deemed abandoned and the property owner shall remove
the tower and/or antennae in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for
dangerous or unsafe structures established by Minnesota Statutes, sections 463.15
through 463.26. If the owner fails to remove the tower and/or antenna after one (1) year, it
may be removed by the City with the costs of such removal assessed against the owner of
the tower site. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 866-07
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO
TITLE 1100, CHAPTERS 1105, 1121 AND 1124 OF THE MOUNDS
VIEW ZONING CODE BY CORRECTING LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO
THE FORMER PF ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, in October of 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance 720, an
ordinance amending the Mounds View Zoning Code to eliminate the PF (Public Facilities)
Zoning District; and,
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance 720, the City has become
aware of additional “housekeeping” changes necessary to correct for remnant PF
references in the Zoning Code and an inconsistency relating to telecommunication facilities
on City-owned parklands; and,
WHEREAS, City staff, working in consultation with the City Attorney, has prepared
an ordinance (attached as Exhibit A) to eliminate the remaining references to the PF zoning
district and correct the inconsistency relating to telecommunications facilities on City-owned
parklands; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that these
amendments to the Zoning Code are warranted and justified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Title 1100, Chapters 1105, 1121
and 1124 of the Mounds View Zoning Code as evidenced in Exhibit A.
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 6th day of June, 2007.
__________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
__________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Exhibit A
ORDINANCE NO. 793
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1100, CHAPTERS 1105, 1121 and
1124 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE BY CORRECTING
LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE FORMER PF ZONING DISTRICT
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 1100,
Chapter 1105 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to “Zoning Districts and Maps”
by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows:
1105.01: DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED:
Subd. 1. Establishment of Districts: The following zoning classifications are hereby
established within the City:
d. Special Districts:
CRP, Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation District
PF, Public Facilities District PS, Pawn Shop Overlay District
PUD, Planned Unit Development District (1988 Code §40.09)
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 1100,
Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to “Off Street Parking
Requirements” by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as
follows:
1121.09: STALL, AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN:
Subd. 5. Curb Cuts and Driveway Openings:
a. Parking Space Size: Each parking space shall not be less than nine feet (9') wide
and eighteen feet (18') in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be
served adequately by access aisles. Spaces designed as curbside parallel parking
shall be twenty-two feet (22') in length.
b. Curb Cut Widths. Widths of curb cuts shall be as follows, subject to
requirements of Subdivision 5e hereof:
Ordinance 793
Page 2
Type of Land Use Maximum Width
of Curb Cut
Public Parks & Preservation Areas
(PF R-1, CRP)
32 Feet
SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 1100,
Chapter 1124 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to “Wireless Telecommunication
Facilities” by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows:
1124.03: ALLOWANCE FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAE BY ZONING DISTRICT:
Subd. 2. Conditional Uses, Specific Districts: Wireless telecommunication towers and
antennae shall be allowed with the approval of a conditional use permit in the zoning
districts specified in the table below and in accordance with the co-location
requirements stated in Section 1124.04, siting requirements and design criteria stated
in Section 1124.05, and the procedural requirements stated in Section 1124.06. The
procedure for review and action on conditional use permits shall be as stated in Section
1125.01. Conditional use permits are not required for towers and/or antennae used by
the City for City purposes or public agencies for public safety purposes; or for repair,
adjustment or replacement of the elements of a wireless telecommunication antenna
array affixed to a tower, if the repair, replacement or adjustment does not reduce
acceptable safety standards. The height limitations listed in the following table shall
include all parts of the wireless telecommunication tower and antenna structure except
for that space needed for lightening diffusion apparata. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Zoning Districts Height Limitations With Co-location
CRP and PF
City-owned parkland
zoned R-1
100 feet, allowed only if incorporated into new or
existing facilities or structures, such as using the
tower as a light standard for ball fields or parking
areas, or into mature tree stands that provide a
suitable screen for at least half the height of the
tower.
120 Feet 2
2 Co-location height bonus subject to applicant providing to the City proof of a
signed lease arrangement, shared use agreement, or other like document.
1124.05: SITING AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: The requirements of this section
apply to all wireless telecommunications towers and antennae erected, constructed, placed, or
replaced in the City. All wireless telecommunication towers and antennae shall be designed
and situated to be visually unobtrusive to minimize the impact upon the neighboring uses and
shall conform to the following design and siting criteria: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Ordinance 793
Page 3
Subd. 4. Landscaping and Screening: The wireless telecommunication tower and/or
accessory equipment building shall be landscaped and screened with a mixture of six-
foot (6') tall evergreens and one and one-half inch (1½") caliper ornamental deciduous
trees at a ratio of four (4) evergreens per every one (1) deciduous tree, spaced no less
than eight (8) feet apart on center so as to achieve at least a fifty percent (50%) opaque
screen. Trees may be clustered to create a more natural appearance to the screening.
In addition to these landscape requirements, wireless telecommunication towers
and/or accessory equipment buildings located on City-owned parkland or in the PF
and CRP zoning districts shall include a mix of shrubbery and/or flowering perennials in
order to enhance and complement the natural features and environmental value of the
City's parks and recreation areas. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the City
Forester and approved by the City Council as part of a conditional use permit (CUP) or
by the Director of Community Development, if the wireless telecommunication tower or
antennae is allowed as a permitted use. The City Council or Director of Community
Development, as applicable, may waive the landscaping and/or screening
requirements upon request of the applicant if the existing landscaping and screening is
deemed sufficient. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
Subd. 10. Lights: No wireless telecommunication tower or antenna shall have affixed or
attached to it in any way except during time of repair or installation, any lights,
reflectors, flashers, day-time strobes or steady night time light or other illumination
devices, except as required by the Federal Aviation Agency, the Federal
Communications Commission or the City. This restriction against lights shall not
apply to towers which have been combined with light standards for illumination of
ball fields, parking lots, playgrounds, or other similar public uses, as provided in
Section 1124.03, subdivision 2 for the PF and City owned parkland and CRP
districts. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97)
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its
passage and publication, in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter.
Introduction and First Reading by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ____ day
of _______, 2007.
Second Reading and Adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _____
day of _______, 2007.
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)