Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-1990 PC PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 7, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., April 7, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Braathen, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, Miller, and Stevenson. Members Absent: Commissioner Berke with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Council Liaison Stigney, Golf Superintendent John Hammerschmidt; and Recorder Carla Wirth. • Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 550-99, 5302 Raymond Avenue, Don Norris, Property Owner, Consideration of a variance request to allow a five-foot building setback for living space expansion 2 Planning Case No. 549-99, 2791 Highway 10, KinderCare (Jones Sign Company, Inc.), Consideration of a variance request to install a 16-foot tall, 48 square-foot advertising sign on their property facing Highway 10 5 Planning Case No. 551-99, 7805 Gloria Circle, Dorothee Dietrich, Property Owner, Consideration of a variance request to allow a detached, two-stall garage in the front yard of the subject property 8 Presentation of Bridges Golf Course Sign Plan 10 Staff Reports/Items of Information 14 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 14 • Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 2 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. February 17, 1999 Miller asked what date should appear on the February 17, 1999, and March 3, 1999, meeting minutes to indicate approval. Ericson stated the dates have been corrected so they don't conflict. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden to approve the February 17, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes - 8 Nays - 0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 550-99 [Public Meeting] • Property Involved: 5302 Raymond Avenue Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow a Five-Foot Building Setback for Living Space Expansion Applicant: Don Norris, Property Owner The applicant was present. Chair Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Don Norris, is requesting a variance from the required ten-foot side yard setback established for principal buildings and living space therein. He plans on constructing an attached, 16-foot wide garage to his twinhome, located at 5302 Raymond Avenue. (He owns both sides, renting out the other unit.) In conjunction with this construction, he would like to add living space behind the garage, which would maintain the same proposed setback--five feet--as the proposed garage. Currently there is no garage present, and the square footage for this half of the twinhome is about 540 square feet. The garage expansion, which would be allowed unconditionally, is proposed at 368 square feet. • The subject property is one of several side-by-side twin homes that were built in the mid-1960s on the east side of Raymond Avenue. All of the lots are 100 feet wide which leaves little room for expansion possibilities. The applicant has already expanded out the back of the house, creating Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 3 additional living space, and has constructed a deck and a below-ground pool, which prohibits any further expansion in this area. Ericson noted the seven criteria established for consideration of a variance which proves a hardship, noting a variance may only be granted in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. Ericson indicated that a hardship may exist in this case since the lot itself is 100 feet wide and shared by two units (side-by-side duplex). He advised the applicant has added onto the back side of the twinhome and a deck and pool also exist. The size of the dwelling is 540 square feet which does not provide a lot of living space. Thus the request for a side yard setback for a bedroom to be constructed in conjunction with the garage. Ericson explained the intent of the Code to maintain more separation between intense uses. Ericson cited the criteria which needs to be met and indicated that overall staff believes there is a legitimate indication of hardship but whether sufficient to grant a variance is under consideration tonight. Staff recommended the Planning Commission discuss those issues and then direct staff to either draft a resolution to grant, or draft a resolution to deny the variance request. Ericson advised staff received only one comment after sending out the required notices to • properties within 350 feet. The comment was from the property owner across the street, who maintained that the subject property is one of the nicest on the block and he was in favor of allowing the expansion as proposed. Ericson stated the Planning Commission can either direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the variance request or denying the variance request. Don Norris, applicant, stated he had nothing to add to staff's presentation. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is another structure within five feet of the property line. Ericson explained a garage is attached to the twinhome but staff believes an adequate buffer exists. Commissioner Kaden reviewed the site plan drawing and asked if much of the bedroom is attached to the home and if it is accessible from the house. Ericson stated he is unsure of the amount of feet providing the connection but estimated it to be four feet. Mr. Norris explained this will be a regular bedroom and the connection area is wide enough for a doorway. Commissioner Miller asked if an outdoor access will be provided. Mr. Norris stated there will be a sliding glass door providing access from the bedroom to the deck. • Chair Peterson asked the applicant if he owns other units in this neighborhood. Mr. Norris stated he does not but has talked to that landowner who asked how much room would remain between the garages. He advised there will be 14 feet of separation so the landlord did not object to Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 4 granting of the variance request. Chair Peterson stated he is glad to see these types of improvements being made to the dwellings. Mr. Norris stated they hope others will follow suit and improve their property. Miller stated she viewed the property and understands how this could be a definite improvement. However, the Planning Commission is charged with having to determine whether the criteria exists to grant a variance. Commissioner Stevenson stated this reminds him of a property on Sherwood Road where a garage was constructed. He agreed the Planning Commission is charged with upholding the Code unless the seven criteria are met. He stated he reads into the criteria that it would be allowed and, in his judgement, he believes the criteria have been met so he will support the variance request. Commissioner Hegland stated whenever you improve an existing property that makes it exceptional and extraordinary due to the existing limitations you need to work within. He stated he believes that consideration is applicable here since this project will result in a definite improvement. Hegland stated his support for the variance request. 111 Chair Peterson asked for an indication whether staff should be directed to prepare a resolution of approval or denial. Commissioner Johnson stated he supports the request since it will result in an improvement to the property. Commissioner Braathen concurred. Chair Peterson stated that he also believes it is important to assure the seven criteria are met and he believes, in this case, they are met. He stated he believes some leniency is appropriate when the consideration is with an existing development rather than a new development. He stated he believes this project will result in a benefit without harmful effects to the neighborhood. Commissioner Laube stated he is wiling to vote for approval but questions whether the shed will be retained. Mr. Norris advised that the shed was recently moved to the renter's side of the property. Commissioner Kaden stated he believes the benefits of this project will outweigh the concerns so he will vote for approval. Chair Peterson explained that if the strict criteria are not followed, it results in establishing a • precedent that could be cited during future considerations. He explained that with garage size variances, several Code changes have been made as well so the Planning Commission has to consider whether this is a routine situation or a unique situation. Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 4110 Regular Meeting Page 5 Chair Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Hearing no public input, Chair Peterson closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Chair Peterson stated it appears there is unanimous consent among the members to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving Planning Case No. 550-99, 5302 Raymond Avenue, for a reduced side yard setback variance to allow for the construction of living space up to five feet of the side property line. 6. Planning Case No. 549-99 [Public Meeting] Properties Involved: 2791 Highway 10 Consideration of a Variance Request to Install a 16-Foot Tall, 48 Square-Foot Advertising Sign on Their Property Facing Highway 10 Applicant: KinderCare (Jones Sign Company, Inc.) • Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Jones Sign Company, Inc., representing the KinderCare Learning Center, is requesting a variance from the Sign Code to allow for the installation of a pylon advertising sign at KinderCare located at 2791 Highway 10. This property, even though it supports a commercial use, is zoned R-3, medium-density residential. The basis for this zoning is that day care facilities such as KinderCare were not originally allowed in commercial districts. This restriction was eliminated with the passing of Ordinance 595 in 1997, which allowed as conditional uses day care facilities in all commercial and industrial zoning districts. Were the property zoned commercial, it could have up to 100 square feet of combined permanent signage. The current proposal would add a 16-foot tall, 48 square-foot pylon sign to the existing 36 square-foot wall sign. Together the amount of signagc would be below the maximum allowed 100 square feet. Ericson stated if the property were zoned appropriately for a day care, they would be allowed to have signage in the amount being requested. This is the basis for staffs determination that a hardship exists. He read each of the seven criteria established for consideration of a variance and staffs analysis of each criteria. He noted that a variance may only be granted in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. Ericson indicated that a hardship clearly exists in this case. He advised that staff sent out public hearing notices to all properties within 350 feet of the KinderCare property. Of the 19 properties affected, only 12 are developed residentially. All of the others are developed commercially with 411 the exception of Church on the Rock and a vacant parcel on the south side of Highway 10. Staff has received a call from Western Bank indicated they do not support the variance request. Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 Ericson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 575-99 approving a variance from Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code pertaining to signage to allow a permanent, freestanding pylon sign at 2791 Highway 10, KinderCare Learning Center. Chair Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Charles Durand, Holiday Stationstore, 2744 Highway 10, asked if this will be for a KinderCare sign or a sign that will be used to advertise other activities. Ericson advised it will only advertise KinderCare, not other activities. Commissioner Stevenson noted the size of the sign is four feet by twelve feet. He stated that the Highway 10 right-of-way is a total of 200 from side-to-side which would be quite close to the KinderCare fence. Ericson stated he is not sure of the exact location of the property line. Stevenson noted if the proposed trailways are constructed, they will probably be located quite close to the fence line. Ericson stated the sign setback is ten to 15 feet from the property line, which should place the sign outside of the trailway. Commissioner Miller noted one of the objections from Western Bank is the size of the sign so, perhaps, they do not know the actual size of the sign. Commissioner Kaden noted the residential zoning and asked if this will establish an adverse precedent. Ericson stated this is the only distinct commercial operation in a residential district that he is aware of. From staff's perspective, there is no danger of establishing a precedent. Kaden asked if this property had, at one time, been zoned commercial. Ericson stated he believes it has always been zoned residential. Commissioner Miller asked if it could be rezoned. Ericson stated it could be. Commissioner Johnson asked about the tax impact should this property be rezoned as commercial. Ericson stated the applicant did not set out to derive any special tax benefit and, in fact, the City established the zoning district. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the hours the sign would be lit. Stevenson stated this type of light does not shed light and appears to be a light from within the sign. Chair Peterson noted the sign material is not very translucent so he doubts there would be any illumination reaching the ground. • Commissioner Kaden asked if any nearby residents commented on the lighting. Ericson stated no comments were received. Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 7 Chair Peterson stated he is unaware of the City setting hours of operation for such a sign. Commissioner Stevenson stated lighting times are usually only restricted if a ground-mounted spotlight illuminates a pylon-type of sign. Commissioner Hegland asked why a variance was requested rather than a rezoning. Ericson stated the applicant submitted a building permit unaware that a sign would not be allowed. He explained that a variance application costs less and is more expedient than a rezoning which involves the adoption of an ordinance which requires a minimum of two City Council meetings. Hegland stated it appears the problem is that KinderCare is attempting to run a commercial business on residentially-zoned property. He stated it seems more appropriate to rezone the property to the actual use. Ericson suggested this issue be addressed while the Comprehensive Plan is being considered. Commissioner Miller noted a day care can be operated on residential property. Ericson stated that is correct and the property would not need to be rezoned. • Chair Peterson noted at the time of construction, there was no alternative so it may be a little harsh to force a rezoning at this point in time. He stated it may be more appropriate to consider a rezoning during discussion of the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Peterson commented on the importance of signage for a commercial business and stated his support to consider the variance request. Commissioner Johnson asked if any change to this property is proposed in the future Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Kaden referred to his copy of the Comprehensive Plan and advised it is identified as Community Commercial. Hearing no additional pubic input, Chair Peterson closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Commissioner Laube stated he would want to be assured the placement of this signage does not conflict with placement of the trailway. Ericson advised that the trailway would not need to maintain the signage setback. Commissioner Stevenson stated this is correct and when the highway is turned back some of the 100 feet will be brought in closer by means of the trailway, narrowing the current image of Highway 10. He stated his concerns are well addressed that the sign will not result in a conflict • with the trailway. Chair Peterson concurred. Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 8 Commissioner Kaden stated since KinderCare was not allowed a commercial district initially, he would consider that to be a hardship. Chair Peterson noted that without the variance, this commercial use would be denied the privilege of signage enjoyed by other commercial uses. Commissioner Stevenson addressed one of the concerns expressed by Western Bank related to safety of the sign placement. He reviewed the last WHEREAS as contained in the proposed resolution and stated it is part of staff's responsibility, as it relates to sign placement, to assure it would not endanger public safety. Chair Peterson noted the existing wall sign will be removed and discarded so the final square footage will remain below the allowable square footage. Ericson clarified that the building sign will be replaced by another sign. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 575-99, a resolution approving a variance from Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code pertaining to signage to allow a permanent, freestanding pylon sign at 2791 Highway 10, KinderCare Learning Center, • Planning Case No. 549-99. 1 (Johnson)- 7 Nays - The motion carried. Commissioner Johnson stated he voted against the request due to the price of the variance and indication it says R-1/R-2 so they are benefitting from a commercial use without paying the price. Commissioner Stevenson suggested the Commission inquire regarding the tax impact should the property be rezoned to commercial. Chair Peterson noted a mistake was made in the cost of the variance and asked staff to research that issue. 7. Planning Case No. 551-99 [Public Meeting] Property Involved: 7805 Gloria Circle Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow a Detached, Two-Stall Garage in the Front Yard of the Subject property. Applicant: Dorothee Dietrich, Property Owner • Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Dorothee Dietrich, is requesting approval to build a garage within the established Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 9 front setback of her property, which is located at 7805 Gloria Circle. This lot is one of the few lots in the City which border Spring Lake, the City's only natural lake. The Zoning Code prohibits the construction of a garage or any accessory building in the front yard of a residential property. The front yard, as is defined by the Code, is that area between the front line of the principal structure (house) and the front property line. Ericson advised it is proposed to turn the existing attached single family garage into living space. However, if the Code requirements were followed to a"T," it would place the garage between the house and lake. He explained that because homes on lake lots are typically oriented toward the lake, many communities offer a provision for allowing a garage between the home and the street, as it would be undesirable to construct the garage between the house and the lake. There are six lots in the City where this becomes an issue, and 7805 Gloria Circle is one of those lots. He reviewed his analysis of other city's codes and the seven criteria established for consideration of a variance, noting a variance may only be granted in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. Ericson indicated staff believes that a case can be made for the existence of a hardship with regard to the applicant's request. However, because it is not clear that all of the criteria can be met, the undue hardship requirement • may not be satisfied. Ericson noted the water feature is important to this property. Ericson referred to a recent Code Amendment passed by Roseville which allows garages and other accessory structures in"front yards" of lake lots. Ericson went on to explain that there are provisions in the Mounds View Code to permit building expansion and location of accessory buildings within the buffer area. The intent is that this area should remain in an undeveloped state to protect and preserve the impacted water feature. In situations where the Code does not anticipate a given situation or cannot be applied to a specific property for reasons of undue hardship or through practical difficulties, there are two courses of action to remedy the situation: the property owner can request a variance or request an amendment to the City Code. Ericson advised that amending the Code would be done only in the event that a mistake was made in the Code's original construction, discovery of a situation or condition which was not originally anticipated, or because changing community standards over time warrant such a change. Because there are only six properties in the City to which this condition would apply, amending the Code would not be appropriate. Chair Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Dorothee Dietrich, 7805 Gloria Circle, applicant, advised that the impervious blacktop area of about 50 feet by 25 feet will be removed and the garage built in that location, resulting in less impervious surface than currently exists. Commissioner Stevenson asked if the actual garage placement will be considered. Ericson stated when the building permit is considered, if the variance is approved, staff will assure the garage placement meets the stated requirements including the setback distances of a Single Family Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 Residential District. Stevenson stated it may meet setbacks but his concern is that it might be an unsightly structure located in the front yard area. Ms. Dietrich stated there are 15 oak trees in her yard area which is why she prefers to use this particular blacktopped area. Commissioner Miller stated the"front" of the house is obviously the back of the house. She stated this is a beautiful area overlooking the lake and it would be spoiled should the garage be located in the rear yard behind the house. Commissioner Stevenson agreed that with lake property, the back of the house (which faces the lake) is actually considered to be the front. There being no additional public input, Chair Peterson closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Ericson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 576-99 approving a variance from Section 1104.01, Subd. 4a(1) of the City Code, to allow for the construction of a garage between the house and street at 7805 Gloria Circle, subject to maintaining the property setbacks for a principal structure. received from neighboring properties. Ericson Commissioner Kaden asked if any calls were r ec g g p p advised that staff sent out public hearing notices to all properties within 350 feet of 7805 Gloria Circle. Of the 28 notices sent, only one phone-in comment was received. The caller was concerned about setback issues but was not opposed in theory to the requested variance. Kaden stated he also prefers the garage to be located between the house and roadway rather than between the house and lake. He stated he believes this is common practice with lake properties. Kaden noted one of the neighbors has a fairly large-sized white shed between the house and roadway. Also, the house adjacent to the park has a garage between the house and roadway. Chair Peterson stated it appears a precedent has already been established with lake lots to locate garages between the house and roadway. MOTION/SECOND: JohnsonBraathen to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 576-99, a resolution approving a variance from Section 1104.01, Subd. 4a(1) of the City Code, to allow for the construction of a garage between the house and street at 7805 Gloria Circle, subject to maintaining the property setbacks for a principal structure. Ayes - 8 Nays - 0 The motion carried. Ericson requested the addition of an agenda item to consider a request of Superintendent John Hammerschmidt, golf course, to talk about signage at the golf course and on City property. The Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 11 Planning Commission agreed with this request to add: Presentation of Bridges Golf Course Sign Plan. Superintendent Hammerschmidt explained the City Council had directed him to pursue the possibility of billboards. He stated he does not like the view of billboards from golf courses but understands the merit of looking for alternate income sources. He explained in the past, signs advertised"golf course coming" which were removed with the intent of erecting signage advertising the course and hours of operation. However, there was a budget issue so he started looking at the option of offering businesses naming rights with the business paying a fee. Hammerschmidt stated they did erect an entry sign but permanent entry markers are needed which could cost up to $10,000. He advised he has been approached by someone interested in erecting billboards, which would be an income source, and after meeting with them it was determined that if signs were a possibility, the golf course property would be the best option and provide the best exposure for the vendor. Also, signs in that location could be landscaped to improve the appearance. Hammerschmidt reviewed the nine proposed sites for signage that are easily accessible. He noted two additional locations that could be used but are not as accessible. Hammerschmidt commented on each of these locations and why they are being considered and then offered to answer • questions. Commissioner Braathen asked which sites would be the most valuable and least hindrance or viewable from the golf course. Hammerschmidt stated the reasonable option would be to issue RFPs so vendors can be interviewed. He explained locations in the wooded area may be best but it is difficult to answer at this point. He stated once more information is obtained, the proposed sites could be ranked by that criteria. Hammerschmidt suggested that these sites be reviewed periodically with action being required to keep the signs. Commissioner Miller stated there has been discussion about not allowing any new billboard signs in Mounds View Commissioner Kaden noted the placement of some locations near residential properties and asked if the signs would be placed directly adjacent to the freeway wall to prevent lights from shining into the residential areas. Hammerschmidt stated he agrees with this concern and advised that the sites identified on the map are very rough. Art Dean, representing Eller Media, stated the signs have to be off the freeway right-of-way and they are recommending the size of 14 high by 48 long with all metal construction. Hammerschmidt stated he has received some calls of concern. He advised that the City can • control content of the signs. Commissioner Braathen stated he approached the Mayor about the possibility of allowing signage Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 12 to provide income for the City. He stated the City would have a lot of control over sign content and he hopes the City would use funds for more than just the golf course. He stated he has signs on his building downtown and knows they are a good source of income. Hammerschmidt reviewed the standing City policy which already regulates sign content. He stated the minimum income received by the City would be $1,000 per sign per month. He advised that the bond regulations may indicate that any income generated at the golf course needs to stay with the golf course but that could be researched. Braathen pointed out that another need is to provide advertisement for the golf course itself. Hammerschmidt stated this is correct and noted this income stream requires no capital outlay. Commissioner Miller asked if federal funds were used with the construction of the highway. Hammerschmidt advised a State permit is required but not a federal permit. Michael Cronin, representing Eller Media, advised that a State and Federal permit needs to be obtained and maximum guidelines are established. Also, the property needs to be zoned for commercial or industrial uses. • Chair Peterson stated he considers billboards as a blight but there may be some situations where they are not as obtrusive. He stated that as a golfer the last thing he wants to see is a large advertisement billboard. Chair Peterson stated that when advertising the course, smaller monument signs are usually used rather than a large billboard. Hammerschmidt advised of three locations where the billboard would aid in blocking golf balls from adjacent property. Chair Peterson asked if a motorist has been hit by a golf ball. Hammerschmidt stated a vehicle has been hit and this is a concern. He reviewed how liability is determined in such a case. Commissioner Hegland asked if negative impacts have been researched. Hammerschmidt stated the course is so full of golfers that this is probably not an issue. He pointed out that the face of the billboard will face the freeway, not the golf course, and they will be placed into the wooded area, where possible, and landscaped. Hammerschmidt stated the policy can contain recourse should an objectionable sign be placed. Mr. Cronin reviewed their experience with these concerns and assured the Commission they can be addressed by prohibiting the advertisement of any age-restricted goods, political issues, etc. He stated if they are told to remove a billboard, it is done within three days. Mr. Cronin suggested that one person within the City have the authority to request the sign be removed. He advised this may impact the"richness" of the bids but would provide protection. Mr. Cronin • stated the actual sign structure could also be reconsidered. Mr. Dean explained the sign needs to high enough so it can be read from the freeway. Mr. Cronin Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 i stated they are usually at least 14 feet off the ground which allows a ten-foot ladder to be in place without ready access from the ground. He stated another option is to place the sign directly on the ground with a lattice bottom. Mr. Cronin stated they understand they are guests and are concerned with addressing all issues. Chair Peterson stated if signs are approved, he would be very vocal should trees need to be removed. Hammerschmidt stated he shares that concern but believes an agreement can be reached, if approved. Hammerschmidt stated the next step will be to apply for a variance and submit an application. Then it can be debated by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Laube stated that he would like to see the type of signage style and size being proposed when the application is submitted. Mr. Dean explained the signs are very site specific so it is difficult to create a sign that would work in all locations. Mr. Cronin stated if they were to be awarded the bid, they will be able to provide more design details when the sites are identified. 411 Hammerschmidt suggested he prepare a bigger layout with photos of the site that could be presented to provide a more clear idea of the site. Also a proposal could be submitted with several vendors making a presentation of what they would erect. Commissioner Miller stated the Planning Commission has been addressing how to prevent billboards from cluttering Mounds View and now they are being asked to consider multiple locations within one site. Commissioner Stevenson stated if any of the sites are approved, having pictures or video of the site would help the Commission to address impacts to surrounding areas. Hammerschmidt agreed and stated the placements identified on the map are very preliminary in nature. He suggested that pictures be created of computer generated signs on these sites. Commissioner Miller stated her support for Hammerschmidt's suggestion to rank the sites and also include a sunset provision for the billboards. Commissioner Stevenson asked if the Planning Commission is being asked to make a general consensus statement. Ericson stated there are several elements related to capacity. He advised there is a current Code requirement to allow no more signs along the freeway unless advertising the use on the property. Therefore, a variance or a Code amendment would need to be considered to make it allowable. Ericson stated in the CRP District, it is possible for someone to • propose a development plan. He suggested the Code limitation be addressed as well as the signage issue within the CRP District and approval of a development plan. Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 Stevenson noted that O'Neil is not being allowed a"for rent" sign along the highway. Ericson stated it was never zoned CRP and is currently a PUD. Stevenson asked if the Commission is expected to set the tone for allowable signage. Ericson stated the current Sign Code needs to be updated and is a priority for this year. Commissioner Kaden asked how adjacent residents and the rest of the community will provide input. Hammerschmidt stated if a variance is needed, notification will be provided for the public hearing. He suggested staff provide visual aids to help the Commission in this consideration. Ericson stated whether or not this requires a variance procedure with a public hearing, residents will be notified in several ways including published and mailed notice, web page, cable television, and the bulletin board. Chair Peterson stated if billboard signs are approved, he would suggest it being a temporary situation with a sunset date established. He stated that the bond covenant also requires that any funding generated must stay with the golf course. Hammerschmidt stated he will research that issue and provide the information to the Commission. 8. Staff Reports /Items of Information A. Review of Council Actions -- 3/22/99 and 4/5/99 Ericson updated the Planning Commission regarding recent Council action to approve the Linders conditional use permit (CUP). He advised that the CUP process initiated at the Planning Commission level was thought to be the most appropriate action since it does not expire as long as certain conditions are met. B. Recap of GTS Advanced Zoning Seminar-- 4/1/99 Ericson reported on the Government Training Service Advanced Zoning Seminar which he attended on April 1, 1999. He stated an amazing amount of information was provided to participants including pertinent court actions relating to CUPs which cannot have a time limit. Ericson stated information was also provided on sign codes and temporary permit uses. He encouraged Commissioners to attend this seminar when made available again. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports No reports were considered. 10. Adjournment • There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 • Respectfully submitted, ‘(2( ..A Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCMIN\1999\04-07-99.WPD • Planning Comm. Mtg April 7, 1999 Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: ori, Z, 1/ ,4 „ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION 111 RESOLUTION NO. 575-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CHAPTER 1008 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO SIGNAGE TO ALLOW A PERMANENT, FREESTANDING PYLON SIGN AT 2791 HIGHWAY 10,KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER; PLANNING CASE NO. 549-99 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Jones Sign Company, representing KinderCare Learning Center, to allow for a permanent, freestanding pylon sign at property located at 2791 Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential, and is legally described as follows: Subject to Highway,Lots 129 and 130, Spring Lake Park Hillview, City of Mounds View, County of Ramsey 11111 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Sign Plans WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may grant variances to specific requirements within the Zoning Code under unique, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do 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, in that the use is of a commercial nature and is located within the Highway 10 commercial corridor yet the underlying zoning is residential, a district in which advertising signage is prohibited; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that all businesses --including day care facilities--located in a commercial district are allowed (depending upon the • particular zoning district) a minimum of 100 square feet of signage. Granting of this variance would provide the day care center the same rights commonly enjoyed by other businesses; and, Planning Commission Resolution 575-99 KinderCare Variance April 7, 1999 • Page 3 Jerry Peter on, Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Con nity Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\549-99\575-98A.RES • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION IIIRESOLUTION NO. 576-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CHAPTER 1104 OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SETBACKS, TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND STREET AT 7805 GLORIA CIRCLE; PLANNING CASE NO. 551-99 • WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the variance request of Dorothee Dietrich, property owner of 7805 Gloria Circle; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 1,Lakeside Court City of Mounds View, County of Ramsey WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated 1 • with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plans 4. Letter from Applicant WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may grant variances to specific requirements within the Zoning Code under unique, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do 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, in that this property is one of only six lake-front properties in the city and which property is subject to prohibitive development restrictions; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the presence of Spring Lake is an important aesthetic and environmental feature which needs to be protected and preserved; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special • privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that the property itself is unique in its lake-front status and associated prohibitive development restrictions; and,