Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-1999 PC PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 3, 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., November 3, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Kaden, Laube, and Stevenson. Members Absent: Commissioner Braathen(leave of absence), Johnson, and Miller, with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, 1111 Council Liaison Roger Stigney, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 559-99, 2670 County Road I. Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 596-99, a resolution recommending approval of a development Review for a two-story, senior assisted living residential facility. Applicant: MSP Real Estate 2 Special Planning Case No. SP 071 99, Discussion revisions to proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code related to driveway widths and curb cuts. 6 Staff Reports/Items of Information 10 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 16 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 1111 Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes A. October 6, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Laube to approve the October 6, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes—6 Nays—0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 559-99 Property Involved: 2670 County Road I Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 596-99, a resolution recommending approval of a Development Review for a two-story, senior assisted living residential facility. Applicant: MSP Real Estate The applicant was present. 410 Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, MSP Real Estate, has requested approval of a development review for a two-story senior assisted living complex to be located at 2670 County Road I. The City Council has approved the conditional use permit for this development and Ordinance 631, the ordinance which rezoned the property from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential. Planning Associate Ericson stated that at the October 20, 1999 meeting of the Planning Commission, issues were brought to the attention of the applicant with regard to sidewalks, parking lot access and concerns of that nature. He advised all of these issues were resolved, with the exception of the • .. View Drive, and a hydrant on County Road I, which would service the property. Staff has since discussed this matter with Kathi Osmonson, the City's Fire Marshal, who has indicated that because the building will be sprinidered, and the close proximity of the two hydrants, no additional hydrants will be required. The driveway on County Road I will be shifted approximately five feet to the east to accommodate the existing fire hydrant. Planning Associate Ericson stated all of the criteria with regard to dimensional requirements i.e., setbacks, spacing, and the required number of parking spaces are met. There are no unresolved issues that staff is aware of, therefore, staff recommends approval of Resolution 596-99, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the site plan review. He pointed out a stipulation that the site plan be revised prior to Council action. He explained staff has received an updated site plan that indicates the sidewalk along Mounds View Drive. The access onto County Road I will be Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 • marked as "exit only," and the building has been resituated so that it complies with all setback requirements. He added that signage shall be in compliance with the City Code and approved conditional use permit. He indicated although these conditions are listed under the stipulation that the site plan be revised,the condition pertaining to the signage does not necessarily apply to the site plan revision. He suggested this condition be removed from the listing and indicated as a separate stipulation. Milo Pinkerton, representative of MSP Real Estate, the applicant inquired if it was necessary that the entrance to the site on County Road I be marked as "exit only." He pointed out that vehicles could not cut across the median and cross traffic, and inquired if eastbound traffic could enter at this location. Planning Associate Ericson explained that with the speed of traffic on County Road I, the merging traffic from Mounds View Drive, and the close proximity of the SuperAmerica entrance to this location, there were concerns that vehicles slowing down to access the site might cause some confusion. He explained the Planning Commission believed it would be a cleaner, safer solution to mark this entrance as"exit only." Chair Peterson added by marking this access"exit only,"it would be less likely that westbound traffic on County Road I would drive the wrong direction and go around the median to enter the property. He pointed out it was conceivable that someone might attempt to do this, and particularly with the • traffic along County Road I traveling at a fairly significant speed, there would be a potential for accidents. Commissioner Laube stated he was concerned regarding the Mounds View Drive exit. He indicated he had observed a semi truck parked in the SuperAmerica driveway, blocking traffic that would take a left turn. He stated semi trucks utilize both the SuperAmerica and the strip mall driveways, and the exits for the Silver Lake Woods town homes are in the same close vicinity. He suggested the Mounds View Drive exit be marked "right turn only." Commissioner Stevenson stated the other exit from the site was a"right turn only" onto County Road have to travel down Highway 10 to Long Lake Road to get over to Mounds View Drive. He stated this would be very difficult to enforce, in terms of those residents who live in the area, as they would have to travel almost a mile, in order to go a block. Commissioner Laube stated this location would be very difficult to exit from at many times during the day. Chair Peterson stated the northbound exit from County Road I could be marked "right turn only" from the parking lot, and if an exit was allowed from that point, a sign could be placed on the other side,facing County Road I indicating no entrance for westbound traffic. He pointed out it might be somewhat restrictive to indicate the County Road I as an"exit only," and perhaps"right turn only" • would work just as well. Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 11) Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that there is very simple right in, right out on County Road I. He stated only the westbound traffic would utilize County Road I as an entrance to the site, and it should be very clearly indicated as"right in, right out." Commissioner Laube suggested placing a sign at the very end of the median indicating no left turn. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out this entrance is in very close proximity to the SuperAmerica access, and this would be confusing to those people turning into the SuperAmerica station. Mr. Pinkerton suggested they place the sign 10 feet into the concrete median, further away from the entrance. Commissioner Stevenson suggested they stipulate this entrance be a right in, right out off of County Road I in the resolution, with no stipulation for Mounds View Drive at this point. Chair Peterson suggested the stipulation could indicate"right in, right out, with appropriate signage," and specify the actual signage at a later point. He advised that by moving the driveway over a few feet to accommodate the fire hydrant, the more likely it is that someone would travel the wrong direction for ten feet to enter the driveway. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if it was necessary to shift the driveway the full five feet to the east. Planning Associate Ericson stated the driveway was shifted as little as possible to avoid any • obstruction. Commissioner Laube suggested placing the sign at the entrance to the driveway facing County Road I, so that it would only be visible to traffic heading west on County Road I. He pointed out this would not affect the SuperAmerica traffic at all. Commissioner Hegland stated he thought this was too complicated. He advised they should eliminate the median, and allow traffic to enter and exit in either direction. Commissioner Stevenson stated the SuperAmerica and Burger King sites generate more traffic than the proposed development will, and they were even closer to Highway 10, Commissioner Berke indicated if vehicles are allowed to make a left hand turn at this location, they would back up traffic when the light is green. He explained this already occurs at the SuperAmerica and Burger King sites. Commissioner Hegland stated he did not perceive the anticipated additional traffic in this location to be a problem. Commissioner Berke advised he lives in the area, and traffic is already a problem. He explained if traffic must travel further down on County Road I before turning, it would back up on Highway 10. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 • Commissioner Hegland stated the median was somewhat inconsequential in that if someone sees an entrance at this location, and are not aware there is an entrance on Mounds View Drive, they will attempt to enter the site from this location. Commissioner Laube stated County Road I was under the jurisdiction of the County, and the City has no control over it. Mr. Pinkerton suggested they start with a sign which indicates "no left turn" at the exit, and if necessary, indicate"no entrance" on the other side of the sign later, and tilt it so it is visible only to traffic coming from the right. Chair Peterson reiterated the earlier stated language of"Right in,right out, with appropriate signage," with the specific details determined either prior to the final approval, or with experience. He noted staff's recommendation to list Item ld as a separate stipulation. Planning Associate Ericson stated lb should also be a separate stipulation indicating"Right in. right out access onto County Road I,with appropriate signage." He stated this would be indicated as the second stipulation,with the third stipulation being the current Item ld, which indicates"Signage shall be in compliance with the City Code and approved conditional use permit." Commissioner Stevenson noted a contingency for additional parking stalls, in the event the facility's parking was found to be inadequate. He stated it appeared this contingency was omitted when the applicant indicated that 31 parking stalls would be provided, and inquired if there was still a • contingency for overflow parking and additional stalls. Planning Associate Ericson explained the applicant has made an arrangement with Silver View Plaza, to utilize the rear of their parking lot in the event of parking overflow. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if there was any possibility of conditional parking on the site in the future, or if the 31 parking stalls are the maximum, even if this was found to be inadequate. Planning Associate Ericson stated he believed the site design utilized as much area as possible for parking spaces. Commissioner Stevenson explained if there was additional room to expand the parking area in the future, he would like to include this contingency in the resolution. Planning Associate Ericson advised if it is discovered during the course of the operation that the parking is not adequate, the conditional use permit can be revisited, and the matter can be brought back before the City Council to be addressed. MOTION/SECOND: Peterson/Kaden. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 596-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review for a Two-story, 46- Room Senior Assisted Residential Facility Located at 2670 County Road I; Planning Case No. 573- 99, as Amended to Indicate Item lb as Stipulation 2, "Right In, Right Out Access Onto County Road I,with Appropriate Signage," and Item ld as Stipulation 3, "Signage Shall Be in Compliance With the City Code and Approved Conditional Use Permit." Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 • Ayes—6 Nays—0 Motion carried. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item would be considered at the November 15 City Council meeting. 6. Special Planning Case No. SP-074-99 Discuss revisions to proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code related to driveway widths and curb cuts. Planning Associate Ericson stated Ordinance 642 is an ordinance which revises the Zoning Code with regard to driveway widths and curb cuts, and incorporates some changes which make the Zoning Code consistent with Chapter 900 of the Municipal Code, which was updated with Ordinance 640. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the October 20, 1999 meeting of the Planning Commission there was discussion regarding driveway widths and curb cuts, and what is appropriate in which districts. He stated the Planning Commission concluded that staff's proposal for the R-1 district is adequate, however,there was a question in regard to the R-2 District, and what would be appropriate for twin homes. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commission with a supplemental memorandum which indicated the driveway widths and curb cuts utilized on the recently constructed twin homes located on Knollwood Drive and Silver Lake Road, all of which are wider than currently allowed. He explained these twin homes all have 40-foot wide driveways, with the exception of one, which has an eighteen-foot wide driveway for each unit, separated by a very large tree. He indicated there is a four-foot spacing between the driveways, toward the garages, and there is no separation between the driveways as they approach the street. - . - - requirement for spacing between the driveways was even necessary. He pointed out that in the R-1 District, the driveway setback is one foot from the property line, which results in two feet between driveways, in some instances. He advised that the Code currently requires a 40-foot separation between driveways, for two side by side single family dwellings. He indicated the Commission felt this was restrictive, in that the garages are now generally constructed side by side, as opposed to either end, as is the case with the older twin homes. Planning Associate Ericson stated through this research, staff is of the opinion that the separation between the driveways in the R-2 district is not necessary, however, 40-foot driveways, although they do exist, appear to be excessive. He explained that narrowing the driveway width to 32 feet, in staff's opinion, would not create any hardship or problems in terms of entering or exiting these properties. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 1111 Planning Associate Ericson requested the Commission discuss these issues. He stated at the last meeting, the Commission concluded 32 feet would be an adequate driveway width, however, the question is if there are two driveways on one property, should they be 16 or 18 feet wide, and what would be the appropriate curb cut width. Chair Peterson noted there was also a question in regard to a number of single family homes constructed on R-2 lots, which should be taken into account as well. He explained some of these properties are inappropriately zoned R-2, when their uses are currently R-1, however, they currently exist in this manner and language may be required to address this. Planning Associate Ericson advised that Subdivision 5b of 1121.09,Page 5 of the ordinance, indicates "No curb cut access shall exceed 24 feet in width for R-1 and R-5 residential uses. A 32-foot wide curb cut shall be permissible for R-2, R-3 and R-4 uses." He explained this language could be interpreted to indicate a single family home is not an R-2 use, otherwise, it could be amended to indicate a single family dwelling or use, as opposed to the Zoning District reference. Chair Peterson pointed out that the language alternates between the district and the use, and this presents a conflict. Planning Associate Ericson stated this language could be amended and made consistent, and brought back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. Chair Peterson stated the 32-foot driveway width did not seem unreasonable, as the current 30-foot • maximum did not appear to be accommodating. Commissioner Hegland inquired if a 40-foot width should be allowed, as this was currently being constructed. Chair Peterson pointed out that this would result in an excessive amount of impervious surface. Commissioner Laube stated the driveway width in the R-2 and R-3 District should be 36 feet. He explained that for a 22-foot wide garage, with a 16-foot driveway straight from each garage door, and allowing for 4 feet in the center, the driveway width would be 36 feet. He commented that the majority of these homes are constructed closer to the road, and it would be difficult to park a vehicle in the driveway if it was narrowed down any further. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that the driveways of most twin homes, even if they both have 3 car garages, do not necessarily go straight back. He explained that the person with a 3 car garage will only have a 22-foot curb cut, and if this is a back to back twin home, he could not see allowing more than the 32 feet, because the driveway will be jointly used. Commissioner Laube reiterated most town homes are built closer to the road, and with a narrower driveway, parked vehicles could very easily block the other garage. Commissioner Hegland stated the driveways should be allowed to go straight back 40 feet. He explained that a single family home is permitted 11 feet per car, and this is restricted to 10 feet for 111 twin homes. Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 • Planning Associate Ericson stated a 40-foot curb cut would be as wide as many of the City streets, and this wide a curb cut might not be necessary. He explained that it was unlikely that multiple vehicles would enter and exit at the same time. He added that some of the higher and medium density town homes are closer to the street, however, those on Knollwood Drive and Silver Lake Road are approximately 45 feet from the street, and the driveways could accommodate almost 3 vehicles. Commissioner Hegland inquired if each half of the twin home units was individually owned, separate pieces of property, with a zero lot line. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Commissioner Hegland pointed out they should have the same opportunity for the driveway width as single family dwellings. He commented this makes the property more saleable. He added by definition, these are zero lot line properties, however, they are still separate entities, owned by two different parties. Commissioner Kaden stated he was in favor of the 32-foot curb cut. He indicated he agreed with staff, in that 40 feet was an excessive amount of pavement. He noted some people might desire to purchase this type of property, however, he would personally rather purchase a home with a lesser amount of pavement. He added, from a safety standpoint, 16 feet per side would be sufficiently wide. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that the purpose of allowing the 32-foot curb cut in R-2, R-3 and R-4 uses was for one single property, and not necessarily for two adjoined properties. He stated 111 he did not see how the issue of twin homes was addressed in this statement. Chair Peterson stated there should be a distinction made between the two types of R-2 usage, the zero lot line situations, and the older style duplexes. Commissioner Stevenson agreed. He added that the issue of zero lot lines, with two driveways together, should be specifically addressed. Planning Associate Ericson advised that zero lot line subdivisions are addressed in the Code, and have their own set of requirements and restrictions. He stated he was uncertain if there was anything specifically relating to driveway widths or curb cuts, however, there may be, and if the requirements are changed,this should also be indicated in the R-2 section of the Zoning Code. He explained there is an entire section pertaining to zero lot line subdivisions, and deed restrictions and covenants that are required to be put in place with the property. He advised this would be the appropriate place to address this issue, rather than attempting to address it in the ordinance. Commissioner Stevenson stated that at the widest,these properties are 50 feet, and inquired why they were considering a 32-foot curb cut for a single property. Planning Associate Ericson explained there might be a twin home that is not zero lot line subdivided, and is one parcel. Commissioner Stevenson commented he was not aware of any apartment buildings in the R-3 or R-4 district that have a 32-foot curb cut. Planning Associate Ericson stated, at present, the widest curb cut allowed in these districts is 30 feet. Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 • Commissioner Stevenson inquired if there were many 30-foot curb cuts in the R-3 and R-4 districts, at present. He explained the zero lot line issue is a unique situation, and should be treated in that manner, otherwise, it could result in 32-foot wide curb cuts where they might not be desirable. Commissioner Kaden added it could even be misinterpreted, in the case of two properties, to allow 64 feet,by adding the number of feet on each side. He pointed out this is probably how the existing 40 foot-curb cuts came about. Planning Associate Ericson explained the only reason the curb cut was changed was to allow for the side by side cases. He inquired if the Commission desired to go back to the 30 foot-curb cut for R-2, R-3 and R-4 uses. Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not see any reason to go any wider than 30 feet, and was not aware of any R-3 or R-4 cases, which utilized the maximum 30 feet. Planning Associate Ericson explained that if the twin homes were on one parcel, they would be required to have a 30-foot wide curb cut, rather than a 40-foot curb cut, which in the case of the Silver Lake Road twin homes, currently exist. Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not desire to restrict that situation to 30 feet, in the case of adjoining properties with a dual driveway, however, he did not desire the 30-foot width in all R-3 and R-4 districts. He explained a single curb cut driveway into a multiple unit should not be allowed the same curb cut as a back to back driveway. He pointed out that the language generalizes all curb cuts • for R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts, however, there are situations such as the four-plex developments, where all the driveways are joined. Planning Associate Ericson advised that these types of developments would be addressed through the Planned Unit Development,which provides the flexibility to allow for these considerations. He stated staff was concerned with the 30-foot curb cut in the case of a side by side twin home with a two-car garage on each side, which is owned by one individual who rents the other side, who will then be restricted to the 30-foot curb cut. Commissioner Hegland commented that the issue would be with the property, and whether or not the property. Chair Peterson stated that Subdivision 5, Item b should be divided into separate areas, with R-1 zoning indicating 24 feet, "and the R-2 zoning separated into three subsections to reflect the different land use possibilities". He explained that in the R-2 district there would be a single family use where 32 feet would not be appropriate, and the current 30 feet might even be excessive, and two cases relating to whether or not the property is one parcel or subdivided as a zero-lot line development. He stated if this is not worded carefully, someone could interpret that 32 feet is permissible for R-2 uses, at 32 feet per property, resulting in a 64 foot width. Commissioner Hegland inquired how the situations of R-1 uses in the R-2 district came to exist. • Chair Peterson explained the zoning has been in place for many years, and at some point, someone Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 desired a single-family use in the R-2 district. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that the zoning could be changed, and probably should be to prevent these situations. Planning Associate Ericson stated that side by side twin homes in zero lot line subdivisions can be addressed in the R-2 Zoning District separately from this consideration. Commissioner Stevenson commented he would like to see them considered separately, as it would be confusing to group R-2, R-3 and R-4 together, and not include a specific reference to adjoined driveways. Chair Peterson advised if there are zoning incompatibilities, they should be corrected, however, until that time,these situations should still be addressed. He reiterated there were three cases that require consideration, and although this may be a temporary situation, it is subject to the Council's decision regarding whether or not to down zone these properties. Planning Associate Ericson advised this could be done in conjunction with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, as a logical next step to make the zoning consistent to the land use. He indicated staff would make changes to the proposed ordinance, and bring it forward at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. 7. Staff Reports/Items of Information 110 A. Billboard Update Community Development Director Jopke stated several months prior, staff drafted an ordinance for consideration which would allow for billboards by conditional use permit in certain areas of the community as long as they meet certain standards. He indicated the discussion of this matter was delayed while the City Attorney reviewed issues concerning spot zoning, and whether or not there were any deed restrictions which would prohibit billboards on the golf course property. He explained the City Attorney's written opinion indicates these issues might not be a problem under certain circumstances. .• . . . . . . original ordinance, and for the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the City Council in this regard. Community Development Director Jopke stated the City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance and has commented that the conditional use permit process outlined in the proposed ordinance appears to be workable, however, the conditional use permits could not be limited to City owned property. He further commented that due to the zoning of specific properties at the golf course, even if the City grants a conditional use permit, the State may not grant a permit, which would be necessary for this to occur. Community Development Director Jopke pointed out that if the City desires to proceed with • billboards, one alternative would be to indicate the conditional use permit would be granted in the Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 CRP of PF Districts along a State or Federal highways. He explained this language appears to . address the issue, more by district than by property ownership. He added that the City Attorney has not reviewed this language, at this point. Community Development Director Jopke requested the Commissioners discuss the specific ordinance, and determine if they are comfortable with the provisions therein. He explained the Commission should also consider whether or not there should be a public hearing process in this regard, and what that process should be. He noted there was previous discussion that there should be a specific ordinance for presentation to the public, and when the ordinance is suitable for public review, the Commission should direct staff regarding the public process and how to notice it. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the ordinance required rewording to reflect that the conditional use permit would not be limited to City owned properties. Community Development Director Jopke advised this could be indicated through specific districts, such as the PF or CRP districts, however, there are some PF districts amidst the single family residential, and this would not be an appropriate location for billboards. He advised that the City has control over these properties, however, it would be more appropriate to further limit the conditional use permits to State or Federal highways because these would be more appropriate locations for the billboards. • Commissioner Kaden inquired if this would open up Highway 35W to additional billboards. Community Development Director Jopke provided the Commission with a map indicating the CRP and PF zoned properties within the City. He advised there is a portion of land at the golf course, and a strip of CRP land on the south side of Highway 118, north of the Mobile Home Park. He added that there is some County land along Rice Creek on County 10 and Highway 35W that would be the other possibility. Chair Peterson inquired regarding news on the outcome of the case in the city of St. Paul regarding billboards. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was a referendum vote to ban billboards in the city of St. Paul, which was defeated during the election. He advised there would be no ban on billboards in St. Paul. He pointed out that the community should decide whether they desire billboards. He explained the Commission can recommend to the Council that billboards are inappropriate, or provide a recommendation on the specific ordinance that staff has drafted, and forward that to the City Council. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the funds generated from billboards placed upon golf course property would be directed to the golf course. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was correct. He explained that any revenues received from billboards on that property would be used to retire the debt at the golf course. He stated that a billboard on property other than the golf course • would not be subject to that same provision. Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 Commissioner Hegland commented the billboard consideration was originally undertaken as an attempt to retire the debt at the golf course more quickly. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was presented as an alternative to produce revenue to assist with paying off the existing debt at the golf course. Commissioner Hegland inquired how much revenue the billboards were estimated to generate, and what would be the effect on the debt at the golf course, and the City, should they proceed with billboards. Community Development Director Jopke stated the estimated revenue from billboards would range between $1,000 to $2,000 per sign, per month, $12,000 to $24,000 per year. He stated he was uncertain regarding the impact this would have on how soon the debt at the golf course would be paid. Commissioner Hegland commented this was the original impetus for pursuing billboards, however, Wit does not represent anything significant in terms of retiring that debt, he was uncertain why they were proceeding with the matter. Community Development Director Jopke pointed out that the issues of revenue and debt are considerations of the Council, and they must ultimately make the decision regarding the economic issues. He explained that the Planning Commission should focus upon the land use issues and the • impact on the community, as this is the appropriate input to provide to the City Council. Chair Peterson commented there appeared to be some question in terms of the Highway Department policies and the zoning. He explained that the land was given to the City with the provision that it must be used for a public purpose, however, the Highway Department regulations require that billboards can only be allowed on commercial property. He stated this presented a conflict. Community Development Director Jopke stated this might be the case. He reiterated the City Attorney's indication that however the City proceeds in this matter, the State must ultimately issue the permit, and they may not, based upon the fact that this property is not zoned for commercial or industrial use. He noted a suggestion that the State may consider this more of a commercial use, and therefore, be willing to issue the permit, however, this is simply speculation, and will not be known until a billboard owner applies for a permit. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if staff had conducted research of the ordinances relating to billboards in the surrounding communities. Community Development Director Jopke stated the cities of Arden Hills, New Brighton, and Shoreview do not allow billboards. The research indicates that Shoreview and Arden Hills prohibit any new billboards, and existing billboards are grandfathered in. He pointed out that Shoreview is attempting to remove billboards through redevelopment, as it comes forward. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 • Chair Peterson stated they should consider this issue on a land use basis, in terms of whether or not billboards are appropriate in the PF and CRP land use designations. Commissioner Stevenson commented about the definition of CRP and PF designated areas, in terms of preservation and public facilities, billboards do not appear to be appropriate. He stated he could understand the placement of billboards in commercial districts, however, he was concerned regarding their placement in areas such as parks and public facilities. Chair Peterson agreed, adding that he does not believe billboards are compatible with this land use, and therefore, could not recommend in favor of them. He further indicated he did not believe billboards were a good use in any land use district, and was of a similar view of the surrounding communities in that they should not be looking to expand their use, but to restrict it. Commissioner Laube commented that in light of what they have seen with the city of St. Paul and the surrounding communities, and their attempts to limit billboards, he had a problem with attempting to allow them in the City. He added although the measure in St. Paul was voted down, it was by a very narrow margin. Commissioner Kaden stated he had a lengthy discussion with an individual who had studied the issue of billboards in St. Paul. He clarified that new billboards are already banned in St. Paul, and the recent referendum was to remove approximately 40 to 50 percent of the existing billboards within the next 5 to 15 years. He explained this referendum would have actively removed billboards in good condition. He pointed out that the current law in St. Paul, which bans new billboards, indicates if a billboard is taken down as a result of redevelopment, or destroyed by a storm, it may not be reconstructed. Commissioner Laube stated this referendum came very close to removing a percentage of billboards, in addition to the current sunset law. He explained this represents that citizens do not desire the billboards that currently exist. He added that he does not desire to see billboards at the golf course. Chair Peterson requested the Commissioners provide their leanings on this issue, as a directive for staff. Commissioner Berke stated he was opposed to billboards in any type of a park or golf course. He explained they have attempted to create a nice facility with the golf course, and placing billboards in the middle of it to generate some revenue, in his opinion, would be throwing bad after good, and destroying a nice recreational area. Commissioner Kaden stated he agreed that placing billboards in PF or CRP areas was not a good idea. He explained these areas were intended to present a nice appearance, and billboards would not further or enhance that purpose. He explained although the economic considerations were not within the purview of the Planning Commission, he had asked several of his neighbors and other residents if they would be in favor of billboards on City owned property to help with the City budget, and • possibly prevent raising taxes in the future. He stated that each individual emphatically stated they Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 • would not be in favor of this, and this affects his decision on the matter. He commented he had personally attempted to view this matter with an open mind, in terms of a means to assist with the City budget. Commissioner Hegland commented that the economic factor was the original intent, and the only positive side to this consideration, in his opinion. He stated he does not believe the issue justifies all the effort staff and the Commission have dedicated to it, and they have run into more problems with the issue, than they would ever stand to benefit from it. He stated he was not in favor of continuing to pursue the matter. Community Development Director Jopke inquired if the Planning Commission desired to consider a resolution indicating they do not believe additional billboards are appropriate in the community. Chair Peterson stated this was his understanding. He advised that the research has provided clarification regarding billboard and sign issues, with regard to existing signage, and some good information has come out of this effort, however, there were also some legal questions with regard to the issue. He stated it would be unwise to place the City in a situation where legal question might exist. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff would prepare a resolution for consideration at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. • B. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke reported at the Work Session the previous Monday, it was pointed out that Commissioners Miller, Stevenson, and Johnson's terms will expire at the end of the year. He stated Mayor Coughlin indicated if the Commissioners desire to seek re-appointment, they should reapply for the positions. Chair Peterson inquired if the formal application process was required for re-appointment to the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Jopke stated it was his understanding that available at the front counter for anyone who is interested in applying for these positions. Community Development Director Jopke stated Mayor Coughlin indicated he would like to have the appointments made prior to the end of the year, to provide a full compliment of Commissioners for the commencement of terms in the upcoming year. Community Development Director Jopke stated there was further discussion at the Council Work Session regarding the public hearing process. He explained the City Council is not required to hold public hearings on ordinances, although there is some question as to whether or not that is appropriate. He stated there was discussion with regard to public hearings on ordinances in the future, and options to insure the public is made aware of the ordinances. He stated there was also a suggestion that public hearings be held on resolutions and other items which particularly impact Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 taxes or represent a financial impact to the citizens. He noted discussion of fee increases, and added he had provided the Council with an update of the Comprehensive Plan process. C. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Ericson stated at the next meeting of the Planning Commission there would be consideration of a request for a conditional use permit and development review to allow for an expansion at Sunrise Church, located at the corner of Long Lake Road and County Road I. He commented additional cases could come forward, however, no other formal applications have been submitted at this time. D. Planning Commissioner's Journal Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commissioners with a copy of the Planning Commissioner's Journal. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report No reports were considered. 9. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCM N\1999\11-03-99.WPD MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION 410 RESOLUTION NO. 596-99 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY, 46-ROOM SENIOR ASSISTED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY LOCATED AT 2670 COUNTY ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. 573-99 WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate has requested City approval of a development review for a 46-room, senior assisted living facility located at 2670 County Road I, property legally described as follows: Tract 'A", Registered Land Survey 414 Ramsey County,'State of Minnesota WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds.View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development and all • residential development if more than two dwelling units are being erected within the City; and, • WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site and Parking Plans,date-stamped 10/8/99 4. Elevations and Floor Plans,date-stamped 10/8/99 5. Lighting Plans and Specifications,date-stamped 10/8/99 6. Landscape Plan,date-stamped 10/8/99 7. Staff report WHEREAS, the Mous--'- Pl nihig Commission finds that the site plan date-stamped October 8, 1999 and revised on October 20, 1999, conforms to the general zoning requirements of Title 1100 with regard to setbacks, parking requirements, and building height; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acknowledges that the Mounds View Fire Marshal has reviewed the placement of fire hydrants to service the building and finds their location and numbers to be acceptable; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acknowledges that the Director of Public Works has reviewed the drainage plan and has found it to be in conformance with the City's Local 0 Water Management Plan; and, 0 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acknowledges that the City Forester has reviewed the Landscape Plan, recommending slight modification and clarification of the planting species used, and has found it acceptable with the indicated revisions. Resolution 596-99 MSP Development Review November 3, 1999 Paget NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of a development review for a 46-room, senior assisted living facility located at 2670 County Road I, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Site Plan shall be revised prior to action by the City Council as follows: a. A sidewalk shall be shown along Mounds View Drive. b. The building shall be situated so as to comply with all setback requirements. 2. The access onto County Road I shall have appropriate signage to designate it as being "right in, right out" only. 3. Building signage shall be in compliance with the City Code and approved CUP. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward • this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 3rd day of November, 1999 • Jerry Peters* Ch irperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Co unity Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\596-99PC.RES S •