Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-2007 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA December 19, 2007 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. November 7, 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. DE2007-003 Consideration of a Development Review for a Building Expansion Applicant: Midwest Motor Express Address: 2169 Mustang Drive B. VR2007-003 Consideration of a Variance to allow for a Reduced Amount of Covered Parking at Greenfield Estates Apartments, 7521-7661 Greenfield Ave, 2370 Cty Rd I Applicant: The Tycon Company Address: 321 University Ave SE, Minneapolis 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Ordinance 801 Amending Title 1000, Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View City Code Regarding Requirements for Signs And Billboards B. Comp Plan 2008 Update – Chapter 6, Transportation 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. January 9, 2008 (date change) B. January 23, 2008 (date change) 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. December 5, 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 RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting December 5, 2007 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. December 5, 2007. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners Cramblit, Gunn, Lang, Miller, Meehlhause, and Walsh-Kaczmarek Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Planning Associate Heller, and Kathi Osmonson, Mounds View Building Official/Fire Marshall ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Continued: CU2006-009: Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for Storage of Flammable Liquids at 4815 Mustang Circle 2 CU2007-005: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Communications Monopole Located at 2400 County Road J, Sysco 11 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Schedule 12 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Applications 13 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes A. October 17, 2007. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/Commissioner Cramblit to approve the minutes of the October 17, 2007 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. Continued Planning Case CU2006-009: Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for Storage of Flammable Liquids at 4815 Mustang Circle. Planning Associate Heller reported this is a continuation of the public hearing that was opened on November 7, 2007. She reported staff again contacted the neighboring businesses in this industrial park and the Townsedge Terrace manufactured home park owner and managers to notify them of the proposed project. Planning Associate Heller reported this request from the Tyson Company is for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the storage of flammable liquids at 4815 Mustang Circle. She stated they are proposing to relocate Farrellgas from its current location at 1430 Old Highway 8 in New Brighton. They are currently located in the northwest quadrant area that is being redeveloped, and the city of New Brighton is buying their property and they must move. Planning Associate Heller stated the Tyson site is zoned “Industrial” and currently encompasses four lots for a total of approximately 20 acres. She indicated the Tyson Company currently has a Conditional Use Permit in order to allow for a motor freight terminal. She explained that an amendment to their current Conditional Use Permit is required to allow for the storage of flammable liquids in an industrial zoned district. Planning Associate Heller explained that this planning case first came before the Planning Commission in October 2006 where it was tabled and a risk management plan requested from Ferrellgas. She stated that on November 7, 2007, this planning case was back before the Planning Commission but Tyson requested that the case be tabled in order to better address concerns from the City and neighbors. She reported that Tyson recently submitted a new site plan that again has Ferrellgas being located at the most southerly end of the property and behind the Fedtech building. Planning Associate Heller pointed out that in this location, Ferrellgas would be at least 1,000 feet from Townsedge Terrace homes and fairly well hidden from street view behind Fedtech’s building. Planning Associate Heller reported that Section 1116.04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows storage of flammable liquids in Industrial districts. She stated the applicant is proposing to have three main 30,000 gallon above ground propane storage tanks and would construct two smaller buildings, approximately 1,500 square feet and 1,800 square feet, for office space, storage, and a dock for cylinder filling. She reported they would have four to eight employees on site, with the additional employees during the busy winter months. Mounds View Planning Commission December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller summarized the 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, traffic, adequate utilities and access roads, the demonstrated need for such a use, and the fire safety code. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Cramblit questioned whether an environmental impact statement was conducted. Planning Associate Heller replied there was not, and they would need to work with Rice Creek Watershed District on the stormwater management for the development. Commissioner Miller commented the report states there would not be as much equipment and tanks on this site compared to their current location in New Brighton, as the area they would occupy on Tyson’s property is smaller. Commissioner Gunn expressed concern about the time it would take the Mounds View Fire Department to access the site in an emergency Kathi Osmonson, Building Offical/Fire Marshall replied it would be a mutual aid situation with New Brighton. She stated this is the most remote and farthest Mounds View site for the SBM Fire Department to access. Commissioner Gunn stressed she did not believe this was adequate and there is always the potential for an emergency.????? Chair Stevenson questioned whether the total response time was acceptable. Fire Marshall Osmonson replied a day-time response would be quicker as the station is fully staffed; however, it would probably be ten minutes at night as a best case scenario. Rich Pehrson, Futrell Fire Consult & Design, commented this is a difficult thing to quantify; and there is no real hard and fast number to say whether or not it is acceptable. He commented response time was analyzed in his review of Ferrellgas’ risk management plan, and based on thresholds, it was determined the SBM Fire Department response time would exceed the appropriate time. He commented the fire code permits for solutions on the engineering side to compensate for the longer response time. He explained that solutions such as shut-off valves would stop the flow of propane in a hazardous condition. Commissioner Gunn commented on the docking fill area which would be closest to the neighboring building. Fire Marshall Osmonson explained the additional requirements and fail safe redundancies that would be required if this were to move forward. Mounds View Planning Commission December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Cramblit questioned what would happen if the redundancies failed. Mr. Pehrson replied the redundant fail safe design has been proposed on the three above ground tanks and the fill area. He stated this is a new concept with little incident for evaluation. He stated this is a mechanical system designed to react should a hazardous event occur, but still must rely on it’s mechanics to operate properly. He stated it could not assure a zero risk; however, it would bring it down to what the code states to reduce risk. He mentioned a special fire resistant coating that could be applied to the large tanks as well as other options to increase safety. Chair Stevenson pointed out the location of the Townsedge Terrace manufactured home park and asked how much of a concern this is to the Fire Department. Fire Marshall Osmonson replied the safety of residents is always the primary concern of the Fire Department. She indicated though that she can only enforce the code. Mr. Pehrson replied standards are established that the tanks must pass. He stated the separation distances are met. He commented that a fire safety analysis is required for the new location. He explained that the release scenarios are not worst case scenarios for testing ultimate safety. Mr. Pehrson stated it would not appear to protect from rocketing tanks or cylinders. He stated that in the past there have been cases where this has been the case; however, the tanks or cylinders traveled less than 1,000 feet. He stated the code did not appear to address this. Fire Marshall Osmonson stated the code states only the minimums. Chair Stevenson stated it appears that Ferrellgas it is now closer to the Fedtech building. He commented he appreciated that Ferrellgas chose a location that is lower than the neighboring properties. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek questioned what would be the difference in the procedures in Mounds View than in the current location for the escaping of odorant. Mr. Pehrson replied the adopted fire code minimums did not address odor thresholds and traveling distance from a site. He commented that there is one area where, if odor is a concern, low emission transfer may cut down on the odors. Commissioner Lang asked Fire Marshall Osmonson to elaborate on the additional fire department training requirements that would be needed if Ferrellgas were to move here. Fire Marshall Osmonson replied Ferrellgas has agreed to provide training to the Fire Department on an annual basis. Commissioner Cramblit questioned whether the Fire Department had the required equipment to handle an emergency at Ferrellgas. Mounds View Planning Commission December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ Fire Marshall Osmonson replied the Fire Department would not need additional equipment. Commissioner Meehlhause questioned how close this location is to New Brighton residents and Irondale High School. Planning Associate Heller pointed out the locations on the map. Commissioner Gunn asked if there would be a driveway from Mustang Drive. Planning Associate Heller replied the main access to Ferrellgas would be from Mustang Drive. Chair Stevenson questioned if it would be cleared of snow. Planning Associate Heller replied it would be used daily and kept clear of snow. Commissioner Gunn questioned whether the trucks had large tanks that fill the propane tanks or did they carry small cylinders. Planning Associate Heller replied most of the trucks have large tanks on the back. Commissioner Gunn commented there is a great deal of semi truck traffic in the area. Planning Associate Heller replied the area includes three trucking businesses and probably at least one hundred trucks travel here daily. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek questioned this property being designated light industrial in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and pointed out the definition of heavy industrial included hazardous materials, whereas light industrial did not. She concluded that if this area is designated light industrial, hazardous materials would not be allowed here according to the Comprehensive Plan. Kathy Kimmel, attorney representing Ferrellgas, explained why Ferrellgas is relocating. She indicated there has been a history of a propane business in New Brighton for 50 years without incident. She stated Ferrellgas hopes to continue to serve Mounds View at a cost effective rate. She stated she believes Ferrellgas is consistent with the goals of Mounds View. She stated Ferrellgas is concerned with safety as well and fail safe redundancies and systems would be in place to exceed safety standards. She stated she believes Ferrellgas has addressed the concerns expressed and wants to do the right thing. Ross Warnell, Technical Standards and Procedures Manager, Ferrellgas, pledged that the safest standards would be in place. He addressed the environmental concerns and stated propane is exempt from the EPA regulations because it is a gas and not a liquid. Propane releases instead of spilling, so there is no ground seepage. He commented engineering would address the city’s requirements. Commissioner Miller asked what safeguards would be in place to prevent vandalism after hours. Mounds View Planning Commission December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Warnell replied they would work with the Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement on a security plan. He explained a chain linked fence topped with barbed wire would surround the site. Commissioner Gunn questioned where Ferrellgas usually placed their facilities. Mr. Warnell replied they are placed in locations that vary from remote to heavily populated metropolitan areas. He stated they take the best possible safety precautions in all sites. Commissioner Cramblit asked if Ferrellgas maintained the redundant fail safe system. Mr. Warnell replied they do maintenance and monthly inspections. Mr. Warnell replied he just finished designing and installing a Blue Rhino system. He stated that if there was a problem, they would be prepared to deal with it. He explained they attempt to minimize the odors during filling. He stated that most odor problems are due to procedural issues. He stated there are enzyme based products that can be used to neutralize the odors also. Chair Stevenson commented on the 15 foot berm and questioned how high it would be along the roadway. Jeff Wahlert, Ferrellgas Local Operations Manager, replied it would be about 15 to 20 feet in height. Mr. Warnell assured the Planning Commission they would do whatever it took to eliminate odors. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked for the volume of sales from the current facility. Mr. Wahlert replied they sell about two million gallons per year at the New Brighton location. Commissioner Gunn questioned how often the large tanks are filled. Mr. Wahlert replied they are usually filled once per day. Commissioner Cramblit questioned what would happen if a truck hit the tank. Mr. Warnell replied there are large post barriers around the tanks so it is not possible for a vehicle to hit the main tanks. The tanks are single hull and because they are older tanks, they were built better than the current requirements. Commissioner Cramblit asked if the current tanks would be relocated to Mounds View. Mr. Warnell replied they would be relocated. Mounds View Planning Commission December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Warnell reported on locations where Ferrellgas tanks are located much closer to residential areas than the 1,000 feet proposed in Mounds View. He commented they also adhere to static electricity safety precautions. Commissioner Meehlhause questioned whether the City of New Brighton made any attempt to find another location in New Brighton for Ferrellgas. Mr. Wahlert replied they did work with them, however, a suitable location could not be found in New Brighton. Commissioner Meehlhause questioned the practice of storing old equipment. Mr. Warnell replied the current location is about four acres, but the new location would not have the same storage capabilities. The previous property owner had left some old equipment and because there is space, tanks and equipment tend to accumulate. Mr. Warnell commented that when the new plant is built, the number of tanks allowed there would be explicit. He stated Ferrellgas plans to be a good neighbor and would store tanks appropriately. Dave Fox, President of Fedtech, 4763 Mustang Circle, stated 60 employees are on site during two shifts and the odor is important to him. He asked Ferrellgas if they could guarantee that he would not encounter the smell when he had clients on site. Mr. Warnell replied he could ensure him that the odor would be controlled. Mr. Fox stated he wanted proof from Ferrellgas. He asked who would pay for lost production costs if they needed to evacuate or who would explain to his customers why they could not meet a schedule because of Ferrellgas. He stated the byproduct of his business is sparks. He stated he believes the smell of propane could cause employees to panic. He stated there would be security issues as this area is out of site. Mr. Fox sited a propane explosion occurrence that resulted in the evacuation of hundreds of people. He stated he is concerned that approving the location of Ferrellgas would negatively impact the businesses and residents of this area in numerous ways. Mr. Fox presented information he printed from the internet to the Planning Commissioners. Attorney Kimmel responded to the issues brought up by Mr. Fox. She assured everyone that the issues would be addressed to the satisfaction of everyone. She stressed that Ferrellgas is willing to take proven reasonable steps to minimize the risk and comply with the code. She reiterated that Ferrellgas is located in metropolitan areas throughout the country. Mr. Warnell reiterated the locations of Ferrellgas in many similar industrial areas. He stated that well over 100 of the more than 2000 nationwide locations are in metropolitan areas. He assured everyone they are willing and prepared to take the steps required to minimize risk. Mounds View Planning Commission December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 8 ______________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson commented the biggest concern appears to be odor. He asked how a facility in Mounds View would expel fewer odors than in New Brighton. Mr. Warnell commented he found those common odors complaints are typically the result of the small tanks being left open when they are empty or being repaired. He stated he knows how to minimize or eliminate the odors. Attorney Kimmel stated because this location is near other businesses, odor would be addressed if it is an issue. She explained the difference in conditions in New Brighton. There is no one around the New Brighton site, and no need to be as careful with odor control, but when they move and have neighbors, the employees would have to keep the tanks closed. Commissioner Gunn questioned why the issue of odor could not be addressed immediately rather than waiting until it becomes an issue. She asked if the old tanks are an issue. Mr. Warnell replied the tanks are not the problem. He stated tanks coming in for maintenance would be the tanks causing the odor. Commissioner Gunn questioned whether tanks would be repaired at the Mounds View site. Mr. Warnell replied some minor repair would occur in Mounds View. He assured everyone the odor issue would be addressed. Mr. Warnell made the commitment that Ferrellgas would build a gas recovery system in Mounds View or send all tanks for repair to the Inver Grove Heights or Ramsey locations. Commissioner Cramblit stated he is concerned abut the unthinkable of three 30,000 gallon tanks exploding. Mr. Warnell replied the involvement of a tank in an explosion is exceedingly rare. Commissioner Gunn asked if Mounds View is the only site Ferrellgas looked at. Mr. Wahlert replied they would like to stay in this area in order to stay close to their customers. Commissioner Cramblit questioned if they considered Blaine. Mr. Wahlert replied it would be too close to the Ramsey site. He commented that customer convenience is a consideration in selecting a location. Attorney Kimmel replied there is no other location to be found in this area. Mr. Brian Sjoberg, Dymax, 4751 Mustang Circle, inquired as to why the number of tanks decreased from four to three. He questioned whether the tanks would need to be retrofitted to meet the fail safe redundancies. Mounds View Planning Commission December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 9 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Warnell replied the number of tanks decreased because the rail system would no longer be used. He stated the valves would be replaced to meet the new standards for fail safe redundancies, and would have to be replaced by 2011 anyway in order to meet requirements. Commissioner Gunn asked if there is a gate to allow access by the fire department on the south end of the site. Mr. Warnell replied there is currently a fence there and a gate would be built. Mr. Eric Chalmers, Fedtech, 4763 Mustang Circle, distributed a layout of the Fedtech building with the location of the proposed Ferrellgas tanks, fill dock, and buildings. He stated he could not accept the small chance that a hazardous event could happen. Mr. Warnell replied the fill dock is planned to be on the west side of the property instead. Mr. Dale Tellers, Tyson Company, 4825 Mustang Circle, pointed out that the new layout includes two fire hydrants on the south end of the property, and that the north/south boundary line between Fedtech and Ferrellgas is 500 feet. He stated this makes it 1,200 to 1,300 feet from the manufactured home park. He stated Ferrellgas has been a valued vendor for 45 to 50 years. He commented he believes there is more of a safety issue with the standby tanks at businesses than with Ferrellgas. Chair Stevenson asked Mr. Tellers if he is in favor of the berm. Mr. Tellers replied yes if it improves the comfort level of Fedtech. Mr. Pehrson provided additional clarification on comments made. He stated the berm would aid with fumes; however, he cautioned that the height could become a detriment to the Fire Department. He stated a concern for a major incident scenario with the three large tanks is valid; however, it also applies to the loading building and the smaller tank storage area. He suggested all three areas be taken into consideration. He recommended that all potential gas release areas are addressed if odor is a concern. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek requested clarification on the berm and access to the location. Mr. Pehrson replied the Fire Department needs as many access options as possible should an incident occur. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek questioned what height he would recommend for the berm. Mr. Pehrson replied it is more an issue of what the Fire Chief is comfortable with. Commissioner Cramblit questioned whether the six-foot fence height should be the maximum. Fire Marshall Osmonson commented the south access road is already higher than the fence. Mounds View Planning Commission December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 10 ______________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson questioned whether the position of the large tanks were a concern. Mr. Pehrson replied there was not a measurable change in safety or response if the tanks were turned a different direction, and is not of major concern. Commissioner Gunn asked if the Fire Department had concerns with the long drive into the site. Fire Marshall Osmonson replied they have not seen that level of plan to date. She reiterated the more access points the better. She commented the road at Belair would need to be upgraded to handle the weight of the fire trucks. She recommended the developer be required to upgrade and maintain that road. Commissioner Meehlhause questioned the concern expressed over the loss of a customer or revenue because of the odor. He asked if Ferrellgas had coverage for these risks. Mr. Warnell replied it comes under customer loss of business and their insurance covered this concern. He stated the odor released from the transports or loading could be piped directly into the recovery system. He restated that Ferrellgas is prepared to deal with any and all issues. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek commented she is convinced that Ferrellgas is committed to making this work; however, she is not convinced this is the ideal site. She believes there are issues that could not be resolved. Commissioner Meehlhause supported Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek’s comments and stated this is not the type of business Mounds View wants in this area. He stated the present site in New Brighton has not impressed him over the years. He stated he believes New Brighton appears to be forcing Ferrellgas out; however, they found a location in New Brighton for another business, but not Ferrellgas. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit /Commissioner Gunn to approve Resolution No. 876-07, a Resolution Recommending Denial of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for Storage of Flammable Liquids at 4815 Mustang Circle; Planning Case No. CU2006-009. Commissioner Gunn stated they must be concerned with the residents of Mounds View as a whole. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Chair Stevenson informed Ferrellgas and Tyson that this decision could be appealed. Planning Associate Heller replied this would come before the City Council in January, 2008. Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting for a short recess at 9:24 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 11 ______________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson called the meeting back to order at 9:30 p.m. B. CU2007-005: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Communications Monopole Located at 2400 County Road J, Sysco. Applicant – T-Mobile Central. Planning Associate Heller reported that T-Mobile is proposing to construct a 128 foot tall wireless communication monopole on property owned by Sysco at 2400 County Road J. She stated communication towers are allowed in all zoning districts; however, the heights permitted vary by the property zoning. She stated Industrial and Industrial PUD districts allow for the tallest towers at 150 feet. She indicated the monopole would be located on the west side of the building in a graveled area along County Road J that is used occasionally for extra trailer storage and has a utility structure. Planning Associate Heller reported that T-Mobile originally proposed to construct this antenna as a large light pole in Groveland Park. She stated the City ultimately decided that having a cell phone tower in the park was not desirable, which left T-Mobile to find another location. She indicated T-Mobile stated that no other existing sites would meet radio frequency coverage needs for this area. She stated T-Mobile has come to a lease agreement with Sysco, and are proposing this site due to the availability of space to meet setbacks and the required height to reach into the surrounding neighborhoods. Planning Associate Heller reported that the CUP would 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. Planning Associate Heller summarized the 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, traffic, adequate utilities and access roads, and the demonstrated need for such a use. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek questioned the directional antenna of 125 feet on the monopole and FAA limitations. She indicated she is looking for reassurance that this is not a hazard and within the FAA requirements. Josh Matthews, T-Mobile Design Engineer, replied the ASML is the sum of the ground elevation above sea level plus the height of the tower. He stated the approved height is 1,038 feet and their height is at 1,034 feet. He explained the FAA is very picky on the accuracy of the information submitted by T-Mobile. Commissioner Miller requested the dimensions of leased area. Ms. Kari Brown, KTB Consulting representing T-Mobile, replied it will be 15 feet by 35 feet including the pole. She stated it is a co-locatable pole that could hold up to two additional carriers. Mounds View Planning Commission December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 12 ______________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Cramblit questioned the need for the 20 foot utility easement. Ms. Brown stated they must have access to their site at all times. Chair Stevenson commented there must be lighting required on the top for aircraft. Mr. Matthews replied the FAA only requires lighting on towers over 200 feet. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek questioned whether the City would be well advised to have an agreement with T-Mobile to control who it opens up the pole to. Community Development Director Ericson replied the City Code requires co-locatable poles and any new provider must look at what is available before requesting a new location. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/Commissioner Meehlhause to Approve Resolution No. 878-07, a Resolution Recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for T-Mobile Central to construct a 128 Foot Wireless Communication Monopole at Sysco, 2400 Road 10; Planning Case No. CU2007-005. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. Planning Associate Heller explained that the Planning Commission establishes its meeting schedule each year by resolution. She stated that the meeting schedule proposed for 2008 represents the usual first and third Wednesday of every month. She pointed out that none of the regularly scheduled meetings fall on a holiday, but a couple meetings were within a day or two. Consensus reached to reschedule the January meetings to the 9th and 23rd and the July meetings to the 9th and 23rd. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/Chair Stevenson to approve Resolution No. 877-07, a Resolution Establishing the 2008 Meeting Schedule of the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 13 ______________________________________________________________________________ B. 2008 Planning Commission Applications. Planning Associate Heller stated the City Council would appointment the Planning Commission seat at their next meeting on December 10, 2007. She stated there were two applicants, including Sherry Gunn, but that the second applicant had indicated interest in both the Planning Commission and the Economic Development Commission. She stated that since the EDC had two open seats and received two applications, staff was recommending that the Council appoint the second individual to the EDC and reappoint Sherry Gunn to the Planning Commission. Consensus reached to recommend reappointing Sherry Gunn to the Planning Commission in 2008. ______________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. December 19, 2007 B. January 9, 2007 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: December 19, 2007 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Development Review for Midwest Motor Express building expansion; Planning Case DE2007-003 Introduction: Applicant and property owner Midwest Motor Express is requesting a development review for a proposed 4,840 square foot building addition to be added onto the west side of the existing building at 2169 Mustang Drive. Midwest Motor Express is a transportation service company that has about 80 employees. This expansion would increase the building size by approximately 25 percent. Midwest Motor Express has been located in Mounds View since 1994 and is a successful company. This expansion would help the company continue to be competitive in their market. They provide direct trucking services to 13 states in the Midwest and western United States. Midwest Motor Express came before the Planning Commission in June 2006 with plans for a 10,000 foot expansion to the north end of their building. They decided not to move forward with this addition and has now decided to add on to the side of the building instead. By adding to the side of the building rather than the rear, they will not need to expand the asphalt parking area. This way they are not adding more impervious surface area to the property. Discussion: The Midwest Motor Express property is zoned Industrial with motor freight terminals being allowed as a conditional use. The building was constructed in 1974 as a trucking terminal, and was expanded once in 1994 by 3,500 square feet along with surfacing approximately 90,000 square feet. The property is just over eight acres in size and the Comprehensive Plan designates the current and future land use specifically as “heavy industrial.” This designation is not proposed to change with the new Comp Plan update. The main building is currently 19,154 square feet and the site also includes a separate 3-bay repair garage near the western property line. Midwest Motor Express would like to add a 22’ x 220’ addition onto the west side of their building. This building addition would be an expanded warehouse space to help with staging and dock operations. They are not expanding the building in anticipation of additional business, but want to be able to perform their dock operations in a more efficient and productive manner. They do not anticipate additional truck traffic after the expansion. Parking: According to the City’s parking code requirements, this facility would be required to provide parking according to the following schedule: At least eight spaces plus one space for each two employees on each shift based on maximum planned employment; or, at a minimum, at least eight spaces plus one space for each five hundred square feet of floor space. Midwest Motor Express December 19, 2007 Page 2 At maximum expansion, this would result in the need to provide a total of 48 parking stalls when based on total square footage for the building. Many of the employees are truck drivers so they come to the facility with their trucks and hook up to a trailer, so parking spaces for them are not needed. The spaces would only be needed for the office staff and visitors. There are currently about 40 marked parking spaces in the front of the building. There is more than enough space for parking at this facility since much of the site is paved. Staff is confident that the site can support any parking that is needed. Setbacks: None of the setbacks would be changing. The west side of the building will be expanded, but the repair garage is already much closer to the west property line than the expansion would be. Townsedge Terrace Manufactured Home Park abuts Midwest Motor Express on the north side, but the residents should have little to no impact from this expansion. There is a grassy area with a berm and trees at the north end of the property which separates Midwest Motor Express’ property from Townsedge Terrace homes. Traffic: With the proposed expansion, the applicant does not anticipate an increase in traffic since they want the added space in order to load and stage freight more efficiently, not necessarily because of more business. This property is located in the Mounds View Industrial Park along Old Highway 8, which is a fairly high traffic road due to the amount of businesses on Mustang Drive and in the nearby area. The 2005 traffic count on Old Highway 8 is 5,600 vehicles per day. Summary: Midwest Motor Express is requesting plan approval to construct a 4,840 square foot addition to their current building at 2169 Mustang Drive. Such an expansion would bring additional tax base to the community, and the availability of more space would allow the company to operate more efficiently. No additional parking stalls would be required with this expansion. Recommendation: Review and consider attached Resolution 879-07, which recommends approval of the plans submitted by Midwest Motor Express proposing a 4,840 square foot addition to the west side of the existing building. _______________________ Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Site Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map 5. Aerial View 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Planning Commission Resolution 879-07 Zoning Map Midwest Motor Express Bauer Welding Vitran Express - trucking Tyson Company - trucking Comp Plan Future Land Use Map Proposed Site Plan Current Building Proposed Addition Aerial View Proposed Expansion Front of Midwest Motor Express building Looking north along east side of bldg Area where expansion would be built – added on to the west side South end of bldg – office space Expansion area North end of bldg MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 879-07 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 4,840 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE MIDWEST MOTOR EXPRESS BUILDING; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE DE2007-003 WHEREAS, Midwest Motor Express, located at 2169 Mustang Drive, proposes to construct a 4,840 square foot single story addition to the current building; and, WHEREAS, the lot in question is zoned Industrial; and, WHEREAS, the subject parcel is legally described as: ALL THAT PART OF LOT 3 BLOCK 1, MOUNDS VIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK, OVERLYING THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23, WHICH LIES EASTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 113 FEET WESTERLY OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; AND THAT PART OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, MOUNDS VIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK, LYING EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View City Code requires all new commercial and industrial development to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with all codes, regulations and requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents relative to this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Site Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map 5. Aerial View 6. Photographic Documentation Resolution 879-07 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request for a 4,840 square foot addition to the existing Midwest Motor Express building and recommends approval subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall submit plans and receive a building permit prior to any construction. 2. The applicant shall install sod or asphalt on any disturbed areas no later than 60 days beyond issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, weather permitting. 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 19th day of December, 2007. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: December 19, 2007 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow for a Reduced Number of Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates, Located at 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue; Planning Case VR2007-003 Introduction: The applicant, Alan Menning, representing The Tycon Companies, is proposing to demolish the existing garages and construct new garages at Greenfield Estates located at 2370 County Road I and 7521 – 7661 Greenfield Avenue. The proposal includes demolishing the existing four buildings with 126 individually divided garage stalls and constructing three new garages with 100 stalls in a drive through style. The Zoning Code requires one covered parking space per unit. Greenfield Estates has 125 units and would be required to have 125 covered parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement that would allow them to have 100 covered parking spaces, which is 25 less than the required amount. This is the second time the applicant has requested a variance for a reduced amount of covered parking. In February 2005, the applicant came before the Planning Commission with the same request, except at that time they were proposing to construct only 78 garage stalls. The Planning Commission denied the request, stating that that was too large of a reduction in number of covered stalls from the requirement, and that more residents would probably rent garages if they were safer with a better layout. In response to the Planning Commission’s comments in 2005, the applicant has redesigned the new garages to make them larger with more parking stalls. Discussion: Parking requirements are addressed in Section 1121.13 of the Zoning Code. The Code requires that multiple-family dwellings provide one and one half uncovered parking spaces and one covered space per unit. Greenfield Estates has a total of 125 units. The applicant is requesting to be allowed to reduce the number of covered parking spaces to 100 and provide 225 uncovered parking spaces. The table below shows the existing and proposed number of parking stalls, as well as the code requirements. Code Requirement Existing Parking Proposed Parking Covered Parking 125 126 100 Uncovered Parking 188 160 225 Total 313 286 325 Greenfield Estates Variance December 19, 2007 Page 2 The existing parking is currently non-conforming, as it provides a total of 286 parking spaces, which is 27 spaces short of the 313 required spaces. The proposed parking would provide 12 more spaces than the total number of required spaces, however it would provide 25 spaces less than the requirement for covered parking. In a letter addressed to the City, the applicant, Mr. Menning, explained the hardship that Greenfield Estates is experiencing. The existing garages have had three fires in the past several years due to juveniles breaking into the garages. The garages are appealing for this type of activity because half of them are vacant and not visible to the rest of the property. Staff agrees that the current garages are somewhat unsafe, as the back side of the garages are very isolated. As Mr. Menning explains in the letter, because of the configuration of the existing garages, the resident using the garage must step out of their vehicle, open the door, drive into the garage, then close the garage door once they exit. The proposed garages would be fully enclosed with only two vehicle entrances, one at each end of the building. Each resident with a garage stall would have an electronic device to open and close the doors. When a resident drives up to the garage, they can open the door without leaving their car and the door will close behind them. The resident can then exit the garage through a side door (facing the apartment buildings). The applicant is also proposing to add other safety features, such as additional lighting for the proposed garages and some additional fencing. The other consideration is that the garages have a very high vacancy rate. The applicant provided information regarding the percentage of garages rented over the last ten years. On average over the last ten years, only 54.3% of the garages have been rented. The decision made by the Planning Commission for this request would only be approving or denying this variance and would not constitute an approval or denial of other site plan modifications (such as rearranging parking, adding a fence, etc.) Any other modifications done to the property would need to meet code requirements and would require a permit. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. Greenfield Estates Variance December 19, 2007 Page 3 The extraordinary circumstances surrounding this property are that existing garages are poorly configured and are somewhat unsafe for residents. The applicant does not have control over the actions of others, but is trying to improve the situation to deter criminal activities from occurring in the future. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not necessarily deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, however denying the request would limit their ability to improve the safety and functionality of the property. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased the property after the buildings and garages were constructed. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and viability of their property. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The applicant feels this is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship, as it allows for an adequate number of garages based on their past garage rental statistics and allows them to create more uncovered parking than currently provided. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting a variance to reduce the number of covered parking spaces would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code. There have been no objections raised up to this point from any of the adjoining property owners. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The requested variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Greenfield Estates Variance December 19, 2007 Page 4 Public Comment: Staff has not received any comments or feedback from residents. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 880-07 is attached for the Commission’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff 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. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Garage Rental Statistics 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Resolution 880-07 Letter from Applicant Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View County Road I Landmark Estates Apartments Greenfield Ave 4 Garages 7 Apartment Buildings Greenfield Estates Garage Rentals Currently provide 126 garage spaces Year % of Garages Rented 2007 48% 60 spaces 2006 46.4% 58 spaces 2005 49.60% 62 spaces 2004 44.80% 56 spaces 2003 47.63% 2002 55.96% 2001 70.80% 2000 65.83% 1999 59.85% 1998 54.8% Proposed Site Plan Existing Garages – front side facing the apartment buildings Existing Garages – back side faces wooded area and neighbor Landmark Estates’ privacy fence Apartment Buildings Garages MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 880-07 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SPACES AT GREENFIELD ESTATES LOCATED AT 2370 COUNTY ROAD I AND 7521-7661 GREENFIELD AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2007-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, The Tycon Companies, has applied for a variance for a reduced number of covered parking spaces at Greenfield Estates located at 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue are zoned R-4, High Density Residential, and are legally described as: Except the East 99.41 feet of Lot 2, All of Lot 1, Block 1 Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota Lots 14 and 15, Block 1 Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota Lots 16 and 17, Block 1 Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota Lots 18 and 19, Block 1 Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Section 1121.13 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that multiple family properties must provide one covered parking space per unit; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a variance to provide 100 covered parking stalls for an apartment complex with 125 units; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Staff Report Resolution 880-07 Page 2 WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, December 19, 2007, with regard to this variance request; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request: 1. The property is zoned R-4, High Density Residential. 2. The extraordinary circumstances surrounding this property are that existing garages are poorly configured and are somewhat unsafe for residents. 3. Denying the request would limit the property owner’s ability to improve the safety and functionality of the property. 4. The special conditions or circumstances necessitating the variance request do not result from the actions of the applicant. 5. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and visibility of their property. 6. Permitting the property to have 100 covered parking spaces is the minimum variance, as it allows for an adequate number of garages based on past garage rental statistics and allows them to create more uncovered parking than currently provided. 7. Granting a variance to reduce the number of covered parking spaces would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code. There have been no objections raised up to this point from any of the adjoining property owners. 8. The proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Resolution 880-07 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby approve the variance request to reduce the number of covered parking spaces to 100, at Greenfield Estates located at 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue. Adopted this 19th day of December, 2007. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: Dec 19, 2007 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review Ordinance 801, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 Regarding Requirements for Signs and Billboards Introduction: The City Council adopted Ordinance 784 on February 12, 2007 which authorized a one-year moratorium on the installation, creation, construction, replacement, modification or improvement of static or changing electronic, digital, video, display signs or billboards and flashing motion, animated, changeable copy and illuminated signs in all zoning districts. This moratorium will expire on February 12, 2008. Discussion: The City Attorney has reviewed all relevant studies and research regarding the impacts and safety consequences of dynamic signs and has prepared an ordinance which will amend Chapter 1008 to define “Dynamic Display” and to clarify that no further interim use permits will be issued for any new or presently existing billboards in the City of Mounds View. The ordinance will also clarify that dynamic display signs, as defined, and billboards in general, would be prohibited in the City. The moratorium indicates that the Planning Commission will review any studies or actions relating to the billboard and signage issue. Attached to this report, in addition to the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney, are studies and research from both perspectives of the discussion, some of which highlight the inherent risks associated with dynamic display signs while other studies discount any safety concerns. Staff, the City Attorney and the City Council believe that the best course of action relating to the soon-to-expire moratorium is to define the type of signage in question and to adopt language which prohibits such signage. While this action would admittedly cause all the existing dynamic displays signs to become non-conforming, not taking such action would potentially leave the door open for dynamic display boards to be erected. The City feels confident that it can progress with a supplemental ordinance to address the non-conforming dynamic display signs early in 2008. Recommendation: Review the materials provided by the City Attorney and Ordinance 801 which amends Chapter 1008 regarding requirements for signs and billboards. As recommended by the City Attorney, Staff suggests that the Commission approve Resolution 881-07 which recommends approval of Ordinance 801. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director ORDINANCE NO. 801 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1000, CHAPTER 1008 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 1000, Chapter 1008, Sections 1008.02, 1008.10 and 1008.12 of the Mounds View Municipal Code by deleting the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: 1008.02: DEFINITIONS: * * * DYNAMIC DISPLAY: Any characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components. This also includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, or animated display or structural element and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, “digital ink” or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays. * * * 1008.10: SPECIFIC SIGN TYPE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS: * * * Subd. 6. Billboards: A new or renewed interim use permit shall not be issued for any new or currently existing billboard within the City. unless it complies with the following interim use requirements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3597: a. Interim Use Permit: An interim use permit (IUP) must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any IUP issued for an interim use billboard shall automatically expire no later than July 1, 2037 or earlier if so indicated in the resolution approving the IUP. An IUP shall be null-and-void if the applicant fails to obtain any required permit from the State of Minnesota. * * * h. Maximum Number/Nonconforming Status. The maximum number of billboards that may be located within the City at any one time shall be limited to ten nine (10 9). Any billboard legally existing or permitted at the time that this ordinance is adopted may continue to exist only for such time period as is be removed and relocated consistent with the provisions of this Code. Any billboard in the process of being relocated at the time that this ordinance is adopted shall be counted among the maximum number allowed and shall be allowed to complete its relocation. * * * 1008.12: PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs and sign types are prohibited in the City of Mounds View: * * * Subd. 7. Dynamic display signs and billboards. Subd. 8. Billboards, except as otherwise provided in this Code. SECTION 2. The interim ordinance adopted by the City of Mounds View (Ordinance No. 784, adopted and effective February 12, 2007) shall be repealed and null and void upon the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 3. 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. First Reading: December 10, 2007 Second Reading: January 7, 2008 Publication Date: ________________ Rob Marty, Mayor Attest: _____________________________________ James Ericson, Interim City Clerk-Administrator MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 881-07 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1008 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 784 on February 12, 2007 which authorized a one-year moratorium on the installation, creation, construction, replacement, modification or improvement of static or changing electronic, digital, video, display signs or billboards and flashing motion, animated, changeable copy and illuminated signs in all zoning districts; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance 784 indicates that the City will undertake a study regarding electronic, digital, and video display signs, billboards, billboard networks, flashing, motion, animated, changeable copy and illuminated signs and that the scope of the study should include review of regional and national studies, local research, ordinances in other jurisdictions, review of relevant studies and a legal analysis of applicable case law, sign display operational literature, existing electronic signs and other factual and quantifiable information; and, WHEREAS, upon completion of the study, the matter is to be considered by the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the study regarding electronic, digital, and video display signs, billboards, billboard networks, flashing, motion, animated, changeable copy and illuminated signs is complete and the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following materials comprising the study: 1. SRF Study regarding Dynamic Signage – June 2007 2. City of Minnetonka Staff Report – May 2007 3. Regulating Dynamic Signage, LMC Memo – 2007 4. Minnetonka & Clear Channel Reach Tentative Agreement – May 15, 2007 5. Clear Channel Sues Arden Hills – Oct 25, 2007 6. Opinions Harden in Billboard Debate – Nov 20, 2007 7. Electronic Billboards Raise Risks – Nov 30, 2007 8. Billboard Deal Up In The Air – Dec 6, 2007 9. Billboard Deal Pleases No One – Dec 13, 2007 10. FHWA Report on Electronic Billboards – Sept 11, 2001 11. FHWA Memo on Changeable Message Signs – Sept 2007 12. Outdoor Advertising Assn of America - Regulating Digital Billboards (undated) 13. Ordinance 881 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, in light of its review of the study, finds that there is sufficient cause to justify the ban of dynamic display signs and billboards in the City of Mounds View and recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance 801, an ordinance amending Chapter 1008 of the City Code to define and prohibit dynamic display signs and billboards in the City of Mounds View. 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 19th day of December, 2007. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6B Meeting Date: December 19, 2007 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Comp Plan 2008 Update We will be discussing Chapter 6, Transportation. The Comp Plan Task Force began discussing this chapter along with Greg Lee, Public Works Director, and suggested a lot of changes to this section. I am including the original chapter, and will give everyone an edited version next week after I have worked on it. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate