Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-07-2004 Item No: ___ Meeting Date: Jan 7, 2004 Type of Business: Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Subject: Consideration of Resolution 750-04, a Resolution Setting the Planning Commission’s 2004 Meeting Schedule. Introduction: The Planning Commission establishes its meeting schedule each year by resolution. Discussion: The meeting schedule proposed for 2004 represents the usual first and third Wednesday of every month. There do not appear to be any conflicts with holidays that would fall midweek. The proposed meeting schedule is consistent with the Municipal Code as well as the Commission’s own Bylaws. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 750-04, a resolution establishing the 2004 meeting schedule of the Planning Commission. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Item No: 5 Meeting Date: January 7, 2004 Type of Business: Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 2935 County Highway 10; Planning Case MI03-005 Introduction: Duane Waldoch has applied for a minor subdivision of his property located at 2935 County Highway 10. (A minor subdivision is a division of land less than two acres in area in which only one additional lot is created.) The subdivided parcel would be joined with a sliver of land on Sherwood Place (Outlot A) to form a new lot fronting Sherwood Place. The lot fronting County Highway 10 is zoned R-3, medium density residential; while the Sherwood Estates Outlot is zoned R-1, single family residential. The applicant has been informed that the new lot fronting Sherwood place would need to be zoned single family residential to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. Discussion: The Waldoch property is presently 47,470 square feet, or, a little more than one acre. The proposed subdivision would split off the north 106.5 feet of the lot fronting County Highway 10 which would be merged with Outlot A to create a new, 12,690 square foot lot fronting Sherwood Place. The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey for the proposed subdivision which identifies the lot to be created as Parcel A and the remainder lot as Parcel B. Zoning Requirements. The minimum lot size for an interior lot (a lot which is not on a corner) is 11,000 square feet. The proposed new lot would exceed that minimum by 1,690 square feet. The remaining lot would also exceed the minimum requirements. At 102.92 feet in width, the proposed (and remaining) lot would satisfy the City’s minimum lot width requirement of 75 feet. The parcel to be created (Parcel A) would initially have a split zoning designation of R-3 / R-1 with the R-1 designation prevailing. As a condition of the subdivision approval, the applicant shall apply for a rezoning of Parcel A so that it bears only the R-1 designation consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Park Dedication Requirements. Every subdivision of land is subject to park dedication requirements. Because the subdivision is less than 2 acres in area, the fee is 5% of the land’s market value, less the value of the land of the remainder parcel. According to the Ramsey County Assessors Office, the land has a “per square foot” value of $1.21, thus Parcel A’s value would be $15,355 and the applicable dedication fee would be $768. Waldoch Subdivision January 7, 2004 Page 2 Easements. With every subdivision of land, the City requires that drainage and utility easements be dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. The certificate of survey provided by the applicants however does not indicate the presence of existing or proposed easements. The survey will need to be revised to show ten foot front and rear drainage and utility easements and five foot drainage and utility easements on the side lot lines for Parcels A and B. In addition, the following language will need to be added to the certificate of survey: “The proposed drainage and utility easement areas as shown herein shall be dedicated to the City of Mounds View by a separate document recorded with Ramsey County.” Public Notice. While a public hearing is not required for this request, staff did send out letters to neighboring property owners as a courtesy, informing them of the proposed minor subdivision and the anticipated meeting dates. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission approve Resolution 747-04, a resolution recommending approval of a minor subdivision of 2935 County Highway 10, with conditions. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Survey of Subdivision 5. Resolution 747-04 Zoning Map Spring Lake Park Photographic Documentation This is a view looking south at the proposed lot. There are some mature trees around the lot perimeter but the middle of the lot appears clear of any trees and other natural obstructions. The chain link fence, if taller than 4 feet, would have to be removed. (No fence in front of a home shall be taller than 4 feet.) This is a view of the Waldoch property looking north from County Highway 10. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 747-04 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 2935 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI03-005 WHEREAS, Duane Waldoch, property owner and applicant, has requested approval of a minor subdivision of 2935 County Highway 10 and Sherwood Estates Outlot A, property zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential and R-1, Single Family Residential, respectively; and, Whereas, the two parcels of land, collectively referred to as the “Property”, are legally-described as follows: Outlot A, Sherwood Estates Ramsey County, Minnesota and Lot 31, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89, Except the West 50 Feet thereof and Except that part lying Southwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and 150 feet Northeasterly from the centerline of Highway 10; Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to subdivide the north 106.50 feet from Lot 31 of Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89 and join it with Outlot A of Sherwood Estates to create a new buildable lot fronting Sherwood Place; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey for the proposed minor subdivision indicating the new lot as Parcel A and the remainder lot as Parcel B; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant’s request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant’s request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to a $768 park dedication fee which is equivalent to 5% of the new lot’s assessed value; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 2935 County Highway 10 subject to the following conditions: Resolution 747-04 Page 2 1. The survey shall be revised as follows: a. Five and ten foot drainage and utility easements shall be added to both Parcels A and B. b. The following language shall be added: “The proposed drainage and utility easement areas as shown herein shall be dedicated to the City of Mounds View by a separate document recorded with Ramsey County.” 2. The applicants shall arrange to have a Registered Property Abstract (RPA) drafted and submitted prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council. 3. The applicants shall submit the required $768 park dedication fee prior to the City approving the deeds for recordation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of January, 2004. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 7 Meeting Date: January 7, 2004 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Review Draft Ordinance to Allow for an Administrative Variance Approval Process; Special Planning Case SP-120-03 Introduction: At the past two Planning Commission meetings on December 3 and 17, 2003, Staff made a presentation regarding an administrative variance approval process. Based on discussion at the meetings and comments made by Commissioners, Staff has drafted an ordinance for the Planning Commission’s review. Discussion: This ordinance amends the City Code to allow for an administrative variance process. The ordinance is under consideration due to the large number of variance requests that are received by the city. The administrative variance process would allow the Community Development Director to grant variances for properties zoned R-1 or R-2, where the request is pertaining to setbacks and is within twenty-five (25) percent of code. The request cannot create a setback of five (5) feet or less. The process for approval of an administrative variance is three-fold. The Community Development Director will review the request. If the Director chooses to approve, the adjacent neighbors and the Planning Commission will have a chance to review the approval and have the right to overturn the decision if they disagree with administrative approval. If the request was denied or overturned, the applicant would be able to request a formal variance from the Planning Commission. The fee for administrative variances will be set in the fee schedule. The fees, at this point, will be seventy-five ($75) dollars for an administrative variance request and an additional one hundred ($100) dollars if a formal variance becomes necessary. Recommendation: Review the draft ordinance and if it is found to be satisfactory, adopt Resolution 748-04, a resolution recommending adoption of the ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 748-04 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1125.02 REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES. WHEREAS, the City receives numerous setback variance requests; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission feels many of the setback variance requests received by the City could be reviewed and considered on an administrative basis, thereby saving applicants time and money and reducing the workload of staff; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Section 1125.02 of the City Code b. Proposed Ordinance c. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment satisfies the spirit and intent of the conditions outlined in Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment is not in conflict with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Section 1125.02 of the City Code as depicted in the attached proposed Ordinance. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of January, 2004. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: __________________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 8 Meeting Date: January 7, 2004 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 Zoning Code Provisions Related to Temporary Structures in Residential Districts Introduction: At the last two meetings in December, the Planning Commission began reviewing a possible code amendment pertaining to temporary structures in residential districts. Currently temporary structures as illustrated in Exhibit A, Photographic Documentation, are not permitted and when a complaint is received about such a structure, staff informs the property owners of the violation and gives them a certain period of time in which to remove the structure. Given that there may however be circumstances and situations that would justify such a structure, staff asked the Planning Commission for guidance as to a possible amendment. Discussion: As the Planning Commission is aware, the Zoning Code prohibits most “temporary” structures in Subd 1 of Section 1106.03, regarding accessory buildings as accessory uses within the R-1 zoning district. The clause explicitly banning structures composed of tubular metal and canvas or exposed plywood was added to the Zoning Code in 2000 with the adoption of Ordinance 664. The intent of this passage was to prohibit the often unsightly tubular metal framed membrane covered temporary structures as well unsightly plywood “shacks.” The prohibition, however, prevents staff from allowing membrane structures on a temporary basis under certain conditions. Recent requests which could potentially justify such a temporary “permit” include garage reconstructions and home remodels or reconstructions. Other requests are simply to provide winter coverage for boats, vehicles or personal belongings. While a consensus was not reached by the Commission as to the exact nature of a possible amendment, a majority did feel some type of revision was in order. There was direction provided to staff that however the amendment is constructed, the administrative and enforcement impact should be minimized so as to not impose impractical enforcement demands upon staff. Keeping this in mind, staff proposes the following amendment: 1. Allow temporary structures by Permit for periods not to exceed six months. A fee would be collected to underwrite the cost of the inspection and enforcement. Minimum setback of five feet to property line and not allowed in a front yard. If structure is to be used to protect or otherwise cover a vehicle, the area upon which the vehicle is parked shall be “improved” in accordance with the City Codes. Maximum square footage of structure shall not exceed 288 square feet (equivalent to a 12 by 24 foot structure) nor shall area exceed the maximum accessory building space per lot. (In other words, if a property already has 1,800 square feet of garage space, a temporary unit would not be permitted.) Finally, the property owner shall be required to maintain the structure in the manner it was originally intended—which is to say the property owner shall be required to provide regular maintenance as needed to keep the structure in a consistent state of repair. Temporary Structures Report January 7, 2004 Page 3 The other options which the Planning Commission could considered include the following: 2. Allow temporary structures only in conjunction with construction, renovation or repair projects, and only for the period in which the permit remains valid. Structure would need to be removed within 30 days after the project has been completed and signed-off by the building official. No allowance would be made for temporary structures to cover vehicles and other non-building related materials and possessions. 3. Take no action and respond to complaints on reactionary basis. This scenario would maintain the status quo regarding temporary structures. They would continue to be prohibited ands their presence would constitute a violation of the Zoning Code. 4. Allow temporary structures of any size, of any design and for any period of time, and remove language from Code prohibiting membrane and canvas covered, tubular metal framed structure. Recommendation: Consider the four options presented. If Option 1 is preferred, a resolution is attached for your action this evening recommending such an amendment to the City Council for their consideration. If Option 2 is preferred, a new draft of the resolution containing the alternate language could be acted on by the Commission with said recommendation forwarded on the City Council. Option 2, however, would require substantial enforcement and policing by staff. If Option 3 is chosen, no further action would be necessary and the matter would be dropped unless specifically requested to be brought forward by the City Council. The last option would involve eliminating any and all restrictions on the siting and location of temporary structures, which staff would not recommend. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Photographic Documentation 2. Temporary metal framed structure plan 3. Resolution 749-04 Photographic Documentation 5072 Red Oak Drive 7641 Edgewood Drive 7965 Fairchild Avenue MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 749-04 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE REGARDING TEMPORARY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City receives requests from residents who desire to erect temporary outdoor storage buildings on their property; and, WHEREAS, temporary outdoor storage structures tend to be composed of tubular or metal framing covered by a membrane consisting of plastic, canvass, cloth or tarp; and, WHEREAS, the Zoning Code prohibits the use of and erection of tubular or metal framed membrane structures for residential use; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission feels there are situations and circumstances that would justify permitting such temporary structures, and accordingly have reviewed the following documents regarding this action: a. Photographic documentation b. Sales literature and brochures c. Staff Reports d. Comparables from other cities e. Proposed amendment language NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Sections 1103.06 and 1106.03 of the Mounds View Zoning Code substantially similar to the following language: Temporary structures as defined in Chapter 1102 of this Title shall be Permitted for periods not to exceed six months in duration. Setbacks, location and maximum structure area shall be computed as would an accessory storage building. No vehicle shall be parked under or within such a structure if it violates outside parking regulations as addressed in Chapter 607 of the Code. Maximum allowed square footage of structure shall not exceed 288 square feet nor shall structure exceed or cause to exceed the maximum accessory building space for the property. Property owner shall be maintain the structure in the manner and appearance it was originally intended. Temporary structures in a state of disrepair or those remaining beyond the permitted date shall be considered a Public Nuisance as defined and addressed in Chapter 607. Resolution 749-04 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of January, 2004. ______________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6 Meeting Date: January 7, 2004 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 and Discuss Issues Associated with Commercial Tents and Membrane Structures Introduction: This item is being brought to the Commission for review and discussion in response to issues associated with the presence of a permanent outdoor membrane structure on the Mermaid property. The City Code is silent on tents and other non-permanent structures in commercial districts so the purpose of this review is twofold—to address the tent at the Mermaid and to regulate any future tents which may be erected in the City. Discussion: The tent in question, a 40-foot by 100-foot (4,000 square foot) metal framed, membrane protected, clear-span tent structure is located next to the east side of the complex between the original Mermaid building and the new Hotel addition, in an area that had been designated as a courtyard in the development plans approved by the City Council. (Refer to Exhibit A, Photographic Documentation.) During the planning approval process, Mr. Dan Hall, owner and operator of the Mermaid Entertainment facility, had indicated that he envisioned outdoor ceremonies and receptions in the courtyard area but made no mention of a tent in this area as a permanent fixture. Upon erection of the tent in 2002, staff contacted Mr. Hall and communicated that the tent was not compliant with the City Code in that such structures were addressed in the Zoning Code. Staff further indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council would need to review the issue of tents in commercial districts and make a determination as to whether they should be permitted, and if so, under what conditions. Until that occurred, Mr. Hall was told the tent could remain on a temporary basis so long as fire code issues could be satisfied. Mr. Hall indicated he would like to be involved when the Planning Commission and City Council discuss the issue of commercial tents. (Mr. Hall was notified and invited to attend the Planning Commission’s January 7, 2004 meeting.) Fire Code Issues: The City’s Fire Marshal, Kathi Osmonson, has researched the issue of temporary membrane structures and communicated with Mr. Hall in an effort to ensure the tent complies with all applicable codes (refer to Exhibits B and C, Fire and Building Codes, respectively.) Letters were sent to Mr. Hall in an effort to gain compliance on the Fire regulations and to ascertain whether Mr. Hall intended the tent to be a permanent fixture, in which case more stringent code provisions would prevail (refer to Exhibit D). A May 22, 2003 letter from Ms. Osmonson summarized these various requirements for Mr. Hall (attached as Exhibit E.) At a City Council meeting on June 9, 2003, Mr. Hall appeared before the Council asking for clarification on Code issues as well as to express his frustration with the City’s efforts to achieve code compliance (refer to Exhibit F, excerpt of minutes from June 9 meeting.) Mermaid Tent Report January 7, 2004 Page 2 In response to Mr. Hall’s Council appearance, a meeting was arranged with Mr. Hall, myself, Fire Chief Nyle Zikmund and Fire Marshal Kathi Osmonson in an effort to resolve issues associated with exiting, occupancy load and other fire code requirements. The goal was to achieve compliance without compromising the spirit and intent of the Fire Code. The maximum occupancy was negotiated at 499 so as to not necessitate an additional means of egress to the tent. A letter was sent to Mr. Hall as a follow up to this meeting from Fire Marshal Osmonson on June 16, 2003 confirming the status of the fire code issues (see Exhibit G.) The decision was made to maintain the tent for 180 days or less per calendar year so as to avoid having to sprinkler the tent to satisfy building code requirements. Zoning Code Issues: Membrane structures and tents in general are not addressed in the Mounds View Zoning Code. W hile accessory to the principal structure, tents and similar structures cannot be considered an accessory building, as accessory buildings are not intended for public assembly. The issues relating to zoning include location, design and appearance (community aesthetics), parking impacts, duration and setbacks. Some cities choose to prohibit tents altogether while others limit the number of days a temporary tent can be erected. The Planning Commission and City Council will need to determine whether tents should be allowed at all, and if so, under what conditions. If permitted, the first concern should be public safety; and safety is addressed via the fire and building code regulations. Fire Chief Zikmund has indicated that as long as the Fire Code provisions (Chapter 24) are satisfied and Mr. Hall obtains an annual fire permit, the risk to the public is minimal. Second, allowing outdoor assembly areas such as the tent at the Mermaid will impact parking ratios and the number of stalls provided, especially if the tent can be used concurrently with other rooms or uses. The parking rations listed in City Code 1121 do not contemplate banquet areas or assembly areas other than those listed for churches, theaters or auditoriums (one parking space for every four seats.) When the City approved the Mermaid expansion, the parking ratios used were as follows: Hotel, 70 Rooms 100 stalls (1.1 spaces per room and 1 space per employee) Bowling, 32 Lanes 160 stalls (5 spaces per alley) Banquet Center, 500 seats 245 stalls (1 space per 40 square feet Nightclub & Restaurant 307 stalls (1 space per 40 square feet) Office area 9 stalls (3 spaces plus 1 space per 175 square ft) Kitchen area 7 stalls (1 space per 80 square feet) TOTAL: 828 stalls Complementary Use Reduction 20 stalls ADJUSTED TOTAL: 808 stalls If the same ratios for parking were applied to the tent as was applied to the banquet facility, an additional 95 stalls would be required. It should be noted that while parking is a concern, staff is unaware of any problems relating to a lack of parking at the Mermaid since the tent’s erection. Examples of off street parking requirements for assembly areas or banquet facilities in other communities are provided in the table on the next page. Mermaid Tent Report January 7, 2004 Page 3 Roseville, MN  one space per 50 square feet Buffalo Grove, IL  one space per four seats Plymouth, MN  one space per 40 square feet Costa Mesa, CA  one space per three seats Hopkins, MN  one space per 35 square feet Manchester, CT  one space per 25 square feet Santa Clarita, CA  one space per three seats Andover, MN  one space per three seats Redmond, WA  one space per five seats Farmington, MN  one space per four seats Edina, MN  one space per 3.3 seats Santa Ana, CA  one space per 28 square feet Arden Hills, MN  one space per three seats Through the development review process, the Planning Commission and the City Council review and approve site plans, parking requirements, building materials, signage and other design guidelines. Buildings within a development are usually required to be of the same type of construction and materials to provide a uniform and consistent design, especially when located within the County Highway 10 commercial corridor. Utilizing a tent or other perennial temporary structures circumvents the typical review process. For all the above reasons, it would seem apparent that the City should adopt regulations pertaining to tents and membrane structures via a code amendment to allow outdoor assembly and food services (covered and/or uncovered) as an accessory or conditional use in commercial districts for properly licensed restaurants, banquet facilities and nightclubs. Other commercial / industrial uses would also be permitted to erect tents and membrane structures for short periods of time (to allow for employee picnics, trade shows, etc.). The ultimate goal would be to limit and control the proliferation of tents and membrane structures in the City. Recommendation: In summary, the Planning Commission should generally discuss whether or not tents and membrane structures should be allowed in commercial districts, and if so, under what conditions. Questions that should be addressed include parking requirements, location, design guidelines and duration. Specific to the Mermaid tent, the Planning Commission should consider the facts and make a recommendation as to whether any additional regulations or conditions are needed to ensure compliance with the spirit and intent of the City’s zoning code. Final determination as to the presence of the Mermaid tent and membrane structures in general will rest with the City Council. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director City of Mounds View Exhibit A. Photographic Documentation Aerial view of the Mermaid Entertainment facility, taken in the fall of 2002. Ground view of the tent without the membrane cover, taken January 4, 2004 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 750-04 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2004 MEETING SCHEDULE OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission intends to hold two regular meetings per month during the year 2004; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission will meet, unless otherwise noted or herein, on the first and third Wednesdays of each month, or as amended; and, WHEREAS, the schedule of meeting dates shall be established and posted to provide an orderly system for use by the Planning Commission, staff and general public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Exhibit 1, attached hereto, is the Planning Commission’s official meeting schedule for the year 2004. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that if the Planning Commission is required to or desires to hold special or emergency meetings, such meetings will be held in accordance with State law, Code requirements and Commission Bylaws. Adopted this 7th day of January, 2004. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) City of Mounds View Planning Commission Meeting Schedule Regular Meeting Dates EXHIBIT 1. Applications and all supplemental information shall be submitted three weeks in advance of the scheduled Planning Commission meeting. For additional information on submittal requirements, please contact the Community Development Department at 763-717-4020 Exhibit 1 of Resolution 750-04 Approved 1-07-04