Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-1999 PC PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION el CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 17, 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 17, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, Stevenson, and Miller. Members Absent: Commissioner Braathen (leave of absence). 41) Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Liaison, Roger Stigney, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 574-99, 7687 Long Lake Road. Discussion regarding a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Sunrise United Methodist Church and a Development Review to allow an expansion to the Church facility. Vanman Companies (Representing Sunrise), Applicant. 2 Discussion regarding TOLD proposal for a Walgreens on the Videen property and the adjacent City Remnant Parcel. 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. 15 Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99, Consideration of Resolution 597-99, a Resolution Recommending Denial of Proposed Ordinance 644 Relating to Billboards. 19 Staff Reports/Items of Information 21 0 Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 21 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. October 20, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Berke to approve the October 20, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes— 8 Nays—0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 574-99 Property Involved: 7687 Long Lake Road Discussion regarding a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Sunrise United Methodist Church and a Development Review to allow an expansion to the Church facility. Applicant: Vanman Companies (Representing Sunrise) The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Vanman Companies, representing the property owner, Sunrise United Methodist Church, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review to allow for the expansion of their Church facility located at 7687 Long Lake Road. The Church has been located at this site since 1957, and predates the existence of Mounds View as a City. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the Church was damaged beyond repair in 1965, after a tornado struck the area, and was completely renovated the following year. He noted that the Church and the architect were presented an award for the design of the structure. Planning Associate Ericson stated the proposed expansion will serve as additional space within the sanctuary and worship areas, and will provide for additional child care and Sunday school areas toward the rear of the Church. The expansion will also provide office space for the pastor and other church workers, and add a meeting room and multi-use space facility. He explained the total area of the expansion is approximately 7,400 square feet, which would bring the total square footage of the • Church facility to 20,464 square feet. Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 • Planning Associate Ericson stated the general requirements considered for a Conditional Use Permit are outlined in the Staff Report. He advised that the specific requirements indicate the front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty-five feet, and this provision is met. He stated another requirement provides that sideyards shall be no less than thirty feet, and staff believes this provision to be met as well, however, there is an accessory building on the site which encroaches into the sideyard setback, and is located 20 feet from the property line. He explained that staff interprets this provision to address the Church structure, itself, and not any accessory structure. Planning Associate Ericson noted a specific requirement that the minimum lot area shall be no less than one acre. He explained the site is approximately 6.4 acres, of which a significant portion is wetlands and upland woods. He indicated that adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided, particularly with the presence of the wetland and the woods, in addition to the mature trees and landscaping on the site. Planning Associate Ericson stated there is a requirement that off street parking and access to the site be provided. He indicated there are 98 parking stalls on the site, which meet the need for the existing facility, as well as for the expansion, according to the City Code. He noted additional temporary seating in the worship area might be made available, however, staff believes this does not require to be further accounted for, in terms of the parking requirements. He pointed out there is sufficient room on the site to create additional parking if it is determined to be necessary. 411 Planning Associate Ericson explained the provision pertaining to adequate off street loading and service entrances is not applicable with this proposal. He advised there is a requirement that the provisions of Section 1125.01 of the Zoning Code be met. He explained that these provisions pertain to the adverse affects criteria, which are additionally reviewed with the Conditional Use Permit request. Planning Associate Ericson stated the adverse affects criteria are addressed with this proposal, and staff believes no adverse affects are presented with this use, or with the expanded area of the Church facility. He indicated with the location of the site, which is adjacent to three streets, and the surrounding woodlands and wetlands, the proposed use is sufficiently separated from neighboring uses. Planning Associate Ericson explained that with the second part of this request, the Development Review, there are dimensional requirements that must be met. He advised that all of these requirements have been met, with the exception of the parking lot setback on the west side of the property, along Long Lake Road. He provided the Commission with the site plan, which indicates that the parking lot is approximately two feet from the property line. He explained, however, even with this, staff believes that all the requirements are met, in that no alterations to the parking lot are proposed. He advised that the parking lot represents a non-conforming type of use, and unless the applicant was proposing to redo the parking lot, it is allowed to remain, according to the City Code. Planning Associate Ericson advised that with the expansion, the applicant would be required to provide 92 parking stalls, and at present there are 98 parking stalls on the site. He pointed out that Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 if the Planning Commission desires to consider the potential 48 additional temporary seats, as indicated on the site plan, an additional twelve stalls would be required. He explained that if that were the case, there would be a shortage of six parking stalls on site. He stated there is adequate space to provide the additional six parking stalls, and if the Planning Commission wishes to enforce that, staff recommends the site plan be redrawn to indicate proof of parking, rather than an actual requirement that the developer provide the six stalls. Planning Associate Ericson indicated staff feels a shortage of parking on the site would be self correcting, in that the congregation would certainly inform the Church if additional parking is necessary, and at this time, that is not the case. He stated staff recommends the Commission allow the parking to remain as it is. He explained that if at some point in the future, the temporary seating becomes permanent, the parking requirements can be revisited through the Conditional Use Permit which can be reviewed by the City at any time, for any reason. He stated staff believes there is adequate protection that adequate parking would be adequately provided. Planning Associate Ericson stated in regard to the wetland on the site, development reviews and any construction activities that occur, require the consideration of the distance from the wetlands. He advised that the City Code requires there be a 100-foot buffer between the wetland and any development. He explained that none of the expanded areas would encroach into this area, and the Church itself does not encroach into the 100-foot setback, therefore, this requirement is met. Planning Associate Ericson stated there are no plans indicating that additional landscaping will be provided. He stated staff has concluded that the landscaping on the site is adequate, and the representatives of the Church have indicated they intend to replace the trees and landscaping that will be removed with this expansion project. He added that, given the history on the site, and the care of the existing landscaping, staff believes it would not be necessary to require a detailed landscape plan. Planning Associate Ericson stated there are other considerations with the Development Review, which typically require discussion. He explained there are no plans to alter the lighting on the lot, therefore, there is no need to review this provision. He indicated access to the Church is taken off of Long Lake Road, and there is no other access from County Road I or from Bronson Drive. He reconstructed, staff would consider this, and attempt to achieve a greater separation between the two drive aisles. He pointed out, however, there are no plans of this nature at this time, and staff is not recommending any changes be made with regard to the access or parking lot. Planning Associate Ericson indicated staff believes the specific and general criteria, and the adverse impacts to this use are met, and therefore recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposal and direct staff to draft a resolution for action at their next meeting. He stated staff feels there are no outstanding issues with this proposal, and therefore, a positive recommendation to the City Council is warranted. Commissioner Miller stated the dimensional requirements listed on Page 6 of the Staff Report indicate the front yard setback on Long Lake Road is proposed to be 35 feet, and inquired if this was in error. Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 • Planning Associate Ericson stated this was in error and should indicate a 75-foot setback. He explained that on Page 2,Item A of the Staff Report indicates the existing front yard setback for the Church to be 90 feet along Long Lake Road. He noted with the expansion of the worship area, that setback would decrease to 75 feet,which is well within the minimum setback requirement of 35 feet. He pointed out that the proposed setback of 35 feet on County Road I was also in error, and should indicate 47 feet,which is the existing setback, and will not be altered. He advised these items would be corrected within the Staff Report. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the seating capacity would increase from 275 to 368, and if these calculations were used to formulate the parking requirements. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson stated he did not believe it was necessary to indicate proof of parking with this proposal. He explained it has been the practice of the Planning Commission to avoid requiring pavement, in speculation of a future need. He stated in this case there appears to be sufficient room to add parking in the future, if necessary. Commission Stevenson stated he concurred with this statement. Commissioner Kaden stated he also agreed. He added that any Church or business would likely desire to provide sufficient parking for their customers or congregation, therefore, if it is necessary, • it will be provided. r PaChairpersonrk Peterson inquired if the Church had made arrangements with a bus route a a rk and Ride type of service, and if a portion of the lot would be reserved for this purpose. Carey Lyons, representative of Sunrise United Methodist Church stated several years prior, the Church had a tentative agreement for this service, however, they were not presently providing this. Commissioner Kaden stated the parsonage building was located 20 feet from the property line, and inquired if the 30-foot setback requirement was not relevant because this structure was not being altered. Planning Associate Ericson explained that staff interprets this setback requirement to be applicable to principle structure. He advised that setbacks for accessory structures are typically less than the setback for the principle structure, and the small house is considered by staff to be an accessory structure to the principle use, which is the Church. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to direct staff to draft a resolution of approval for consideration at the next meeting. Chairperson Peterson stated it appeared this proposal was well prepared, and there were no issues that require changes or corrections. He added that the proposal appears to be a benefit to the Church congregation, as well as the community. Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 41111 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would prepare a resolution for consideration at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, and would schedule a second public hearing before the City Council at approximately 7:00 p.m., on December 13. 6. Discussion regarding TOLD proposal for a Walgreens on the Videen property and the adjacent City Remnant Parcel. Community Development Director Jopke stated this item has previously come before the Planning Commission, and is the ongoing discussion of the property located across from City Hall, a portion of which is a remnant parcel created by the realignment of Edgewood Drive, and the privately owned Midland/Videen property. Community Development Director Jopke stated in the past, the Planning Commission has discussed this matter and advised the City Council that specific types of commercial development of the parcel would be appropriate. He indicated the City Council is seeking additional input in this regard, and has also referred this matter to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review of the drainage issues, as well as the wetland area, which comprises a good portion of the site. Community Development Director Jopke stated the City Council has requested the developer come 110 before the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission and present their proposal, so that the Commissions can provide their input.. He explained the Council is seeking input regarding whether or not the proposed development is appropriate, and if the City should proceed to make the City owned portion of the property available to the developer, as well as vacating the Edgewood Drive right-of-way. Community Development Director Jopke stated Bob Cunningham, of TOLD Development Company, and Terry Moses, representative of Robert Videen, the property owner were available to present their current ideas and alternatives for the site. He explained Commissioner Stevenson, as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, could provide a summary of that body's discussion of the matter. Bob Cunningham, representative of TOLD Development Company, stated his company was proposing to bring a Walgreens store to Highway 10, and to the City of Mounds View. He provided the Commission with a map of the proposed site, and provided a brief orientation of the areas depicted. He stated the Midland/Videen parcel is approximately 9.4 acres in size, and the remnant parcel is approximately 7.4 acres in size. He indicated the concept of their proposal is to take the remnant parcel and the west half of Edgewood Road owned by the City, and trade that land for the land that would not be utilized for development, which represents a fairly even trade. Mr. Cunningham provided the Commission with a site plan, which indicated the re-reengineered Edgewood Drive, and was created from the drawings of SEH. He explained the parcel is large enough to accommodate some ancillary development adjacent to the proposed Walgreens store. He • indicated this area has been identified as an appropriate site for a retail or restaurant building, as well Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 • as a possible clinic location, which use appears to be missing from downtown Mounds View. He noted some direction had been provided to staff to consider this to be a downtown area, or even the establishing of a downtown Mounds View. He requested the Planning Commission consider that a drugstore and clinic or restaurant are cornerstones of downtowns as they have been known since the 1950's, and will continue to be in the new millennium. Mr. Cunningham requested that if the Planning Commission and the City Council support this project, they be permitted to proceed through the Planned Unit Development process. He indicated they had met with the Parks and Recreation Commission two weeks prior, and explained the concept and the development. He stated Commissioner Stevenson was present at this meeting, and requested he address the proposal in his capacity as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Commissioner Stevenson stated the focus of the Parks and Recreation Commission was not with regard to what the development would be, in terms of a drug store, restaurant, etc. He stated their main focus was upon the trade factor, and the wetland, which they would gain as a potential natural area. He pointed out that two years prior, the question had arisen regarding the potential of the wetland area, in terms of developing a ball field. He indicated the Commission was under the impression that they could not utilize the area for ball fields, as it has been too wet in the past. Commissioner Stevenson advised the Parks and Recreation Commission felt they could possibly utilize the suggested trade area to their advantage. He explained that they could not utilize the old Edgewood Drive area for a ball field, and did not wish to utilize the original soccer field location along Highway 10. He indicated there was a positive reaction among the Commissioners with regard to utilizing the wetland area for this purpose. Mr. Cunningham stated the Parks and Recreation Commission had brought forward the economic consideration of the relocation of the stormwater detention pond. He indicated that his company has agreed to provide the funding for this project. He added they also have agreed to provide an unspecified amount, which would be negotiated in the future, as an allowance to the Park District for the construction of some trails, and other similar considerations. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the proposed development would encroach upon the wetland buffer zone. Mr. Cunningham stated it probably would. Commissioner Kaden requested clarification of an area indicated on the site plan. Mr. Cunningham explained that this area represented the preliminary proof of parking. He explained that the site plan was a very preliminary plan, which would be subject to much revision prior to completion, and is only intended to indicate the massing and some relationships at this point. Mr. Cunningham indicated they would like to obtain access to Highway 10, at minimum a right-out, to provide that all of the access would not have to occur on Edgewood Drive. Commissioner Miller inquired how large the proposed facility would be. Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 Mr. Cunningham stated the proposed Walgreens building would be approximately 15,000 square feet. He explained that the size of the prototype has increased in relation to the development located on County Road I, which was proposed to be approximately 13,000 square feet. He pointed out that the footprint of the second structure on the site is approximately 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Johnson inquired regarding the amount of wetland located on the site. Terry Moses, representative of Prudential Commercial Services, and Robert Videen, the property owner stated he has estimated the wetland to be approximately 4 acres in size, however, the actual size is undetermined at this point. He suggested that SEH could possibly provide this calculation. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the wetland area of the site was the proposed location of the stormwater holding pond. Mr. Cunningham stated he did not believe the Watershed District would permit a holding pond to be located within the wetland area. Commissioner Laube inquired if there was sufficient room on the parcel to create a holding pond as large or larger than the existing pond. Mr. Cunningham stated there was a significantly more room for this purpose. Commissioner Miller inquired how this Walgreens store would compare in size to the Walgreens structure located on Lake Drive. Mr. Cunningham stated the Walgreens building located on Lake Drive is 13,500 square feet, and the proposed structure would be approximately 1,500 square feet larger than this. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the size of the Walgreens store in the city of Fridley. Mr. Cunningham indicated the Walgreens store in Fridley is 15,000 square feet. Mr. Cunningham advised that the proposed facility would utilize a drive-through pharmacy, which is currently standard on all "stand-alone" Walgreens stores throughout the United States. He explained this would not be a drive-through in the same sense as a bank or fast fuod restaurant, in terms of traffic volume, and on a nationwide basis, an average of six cars per hour utilize the Walgreens drive-through facility. Mr. Cunningham stated that Walgreens is a neighborhood and convenience oriented retailer. He indicated that parking would be arranged in a convenient fashion around the front of the structure. He stated the Parks and Recreation Commission indicated it was necessary that the proposed development would be compatible with the design of the Community Center, City Hall, and Theater buildings, and they would insure that their design would fit in and compliment the other facilities in the area. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the City would gain bank credits for acquiring additional wetland. • Community Development Director Jopke stated there was a delineated wetland on the east end of Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 the Community Center land, where parking is now located, and that had to be mitigated. He stated there were a number of options to mitigate the wetland, and the City chose to utilize the Woodcrest Park area for this mitigation. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the City would gain some type of credits for mitigating the wetland. Community Development Director Jopke stated this is possible. He explained that in the event that more wetlands were gained than removed, the City could create a bank of credits that can be utilized to mitigate other wetlands. Commissioner Johnson stated,therefore, the City would gain with regard to subject property, in that they could utilize that property to mitigate the wetlands for another development, and gain these credits. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was potentially correct. He noted there is also an overall stormwater issue in this particular area of the City, and it has been discussed that some of these issues could be resolved by creating a regional stormwater pond on the Videen site, controlled by the City. He added this could meet the needs of any potential development on the property, and replace the pond that was put in for the street project. Commissioner Johnson stated he was aware that the pond could be relocated to the east in the future, therefore, the City could benefit by ownership of that land. • CommunityDevelopment Jopke advised the CityCouncil had used much foresight when considering the location of the stormwater pond for the street project. He explained that the pond was located on the east side of the new road, versus the west side, in anticipation that at some time in the future, the road might be moved, and less work would then be required, in terms of pipe removal and other such matters. Community Development Director Jopke advised that in terms of the Comprehensive Plan designations of the Community Center, and the Public Facilities zoning, the portion of land on the Videen site is zoned B-3, and has a medium density housing designation. He stated, therefore, if the Council gives approval, and this proposal proceeds with the zoning process through the Planned Unit Development process, as the developer proposes, it will also be necessary to clean up some of the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations on the property. Community Development Director Jopke stated the City property would require to be re-designated in terms of the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plan designation for the Midland Videen site. He added that the Comprehensive Plan update indicates this area as a Community Commercial Planning Development, and the proposed development would be consistent with this designation. He pointed out that other potential City actions would be the vacation of the old Edgewood Drive right-of-way, and the Wetland Buffer Permit, which would be required because there would be construction within the 100-foot buffer area. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 • Community Development Director Jopke indicated that some re-platting of this property would be required. He advised it would be necessary to create an official parcel of the remnant parcel in order to transfer ownership to the developer. He added that part of this process would include the City Hall property, as a corner of this property is currently a part of that parcel, and it would have to be included in the plat. He commented this would provide the City the opportunity to clean up other issues pertaining to City Hall, such as the correction of some of the utility easements. He added that Bronson Drive, located on the north side of the City Hall site, is not a dedicated road and does not appear on any County maps as a road, but is simply a piece of roadway across the City Hall parcel. He pointed out that matters of this nature could be resolved during the platting process as well. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Council is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission based upon the alternatives and the present proposal, in terms of whether or not this development is an appropriate land use, and if it fits in with the overall City Hall campus type of development. Commissioner Hegland inquired if there were any maintenance issues with regard to the wetland. Community Development Director Jopke advised there would be maintenance issues in the sense that if the City acquires the property and the stormwater ponds require maintenance, or improvements are made, such as trails and pedestrian areas, they must be maintained. 11111 Commissioner Hegland inquired if MNDot would have to approve of the additional access off of Highway 10, and what issues were presented with regard to this. Community Development Director Jopke indicated there would be issues, and no guarantee that this would be approved. He explained that the State is somewhat reticent to allow additional access onto State roads. He stated although this road is in the process of being turned back to the County, which is somewhat less restrictive in this regard, it may still present an issue, and not be permitted. Commissioner Johnson inquired regarding the amount of frontage along Highway 10. Mr. Cunningham stated there was approximately 500 feet of frontage. ommissioner o son as es w ere eco - . - • - • - • ' • • ••• • o •• • . - • Community Development Director Jopke stated this access is located at County Road H-2. Commissioner Johnson stated he would not anticipate a great issue with the County with regard to an access at this location, as it would not require a new curb cut, and would utilize the old Edgewood Drive access. Community Development Director Jopke commented that this area was utilized in the past, however, it has been closed off. Commissioner Hegland stated the Comprehensive Plan provides for sidewalks in this area, and another access might pose a problem in terms of pedestrian traffic. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 • Community Development Director stated these issues were very good and would require further review, however,they would be resolved through the Planned Unit Development and Development Review process. Chairperson Peterson inquired when the transfer process of the roadway would be completed. Community Development Director Jopke stated he was uncertain. Chairperson Peterson inquired if MNDot would no longer be a factor in this consideration, once the road is turned back to the County. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was correct. He indicated he was uncertain when this would occur, however, it would likely be several months before the process was complete. He pointed out that the transfer of the road was originally planned for July 1, however, there are still issues between the County and the State with regard to the road's condition at the time it is transferred. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the height of the proposed building, in relation to the Community Center. Mr. Cunningham explained the elevations of the building indicate the parapet of the building would be approximately 20' in height. He indicated he was uncertain regarding the height of the Community Center. He pointed out however, there are additional architectural features that might be employed to add bulk or height to the building so that it fits in with the surrounding structures. • Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the height of the Community Center building. Commissioner Johnson stated the Community Center is approximately 18 feet in height, and the proposed structure would not likely present a great variance from the height of other buildings, in light of the distance between the structures. He stated he saw this as a good project. Mr. Moses stated that a strip of land indicated on the site plan was 66 feet wide, and could eventually be utilized for additional parking. He stated if the City desires, the pond could be moved from it presently proposed location, which would provide an area approximately 116 feet by 300 feet that would potentially allow for a junior sized soccer field in that area. Mr. Moses noted that it has been mentioned this property is wet, and possibly too wet for certain types of use. He pointed out that many years ago, there was a cul-de-sac in this area of Edgewood Drive, and when the City decided to reconfigure the roadway, they inadvertently raised the catch basin at the corner of Edgewood Drive and Highway 10 by approximately 14 inches. He explained this was most likely the cause of the additional water retention, and could possibly be resolved by lowering the area again. Mr. Moses stated he has spoken with SEH staff, who indicated there is a considerable amount of solid ground on the site that can be utilized for ponding to serve any new development on the site, as well as to replace the existing pond and cover an area-wide stormwater problem. Commissioner Johnson inquired regarding the current status of the billboard located on the Videen • property. Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 • Mr.Moses stated the billboard was in place by way of an easement, and easements were sold for both the Bel Ray sign as well as the "V" shaped sign. He indicated this was a very small and restrictive easement, covering only an area around the sign itself, and only for the purposes of access and maintenance. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the billboard would be removed. Mr. Moses indicated this was a possibility. Commissioner Johnson inquired how the billboard fits into the site plan. He pointed out that the property owner would probably not want the billboard situated in front of the proposed building. Mr. Cunningham stated this was correct. He explained that they would attempt to purchase the easement, however,billboard space continues to increase in value. He indicated at some point in the future, they will make an economic proposition to have it removed. Commissioner Berke stated this appeared to be a good proposal, and the development would be of value to the community, particularly with regard to the building design. Commissioner Stevenson agreed. He commented that with the site location along Highway 10, some type of development would certainly be proposed, however, this proposal would be very appropriate. • Commissioner Kaden inquired if some trees would remain along the wetland. Mr. Cunningham stated they would leave as many trees as possible. He explained they intended to leave the trees located along the property line, as well as a tree buffer between the homes. He added that there were no homes within 300 feet of the proposed development. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if there were any considerations to limit the hours of the drive- through facility. Mr. Cunningham explained that they could stipulate the hours of operation in the Planned Unit ieve opme• is I .. , . .. . , . - .. ;. . :et, e. -., : stores in the Metropolitan area. Commissioner Laube inquired if there were any evergreen trees on the land. Mr. Cunningham stated he was not certain. Commissioner Laube pointed out that evergreen trees would provide a year-round buffer from vehicle headlights. Mr. Cunningham indicated they could propose additional landscape buffer, and provide this is compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chairperson Peterson inquired what the developer would propose, in the event the County does not believe there is a substantial need for access off of Highway 10. S Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 Mr. Cunningham explained they have discussed this matter with both the State and the County. He stated that a representative of the County has indicated their requirement standards are less stringent than the State requirements. He commented that the State tends to guard the rapid flow of traffic on arterial roads such as Highway 10, and the County may recognize the need for access to businesses along the highway. He stated however, if this is not permitted, they would request a right-turn into the site. He pointed out there are other options, however, providing adequate access is clearly the best retail solution. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there were any signage issues with the proposal. Community Development Director Jopke advised these issues could be resolved as the matter proceeds. He explained at this point, the Commission should consider the basic land use, in terms of whether or not the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, and if this particular proposal fits in at this location, the Commission can qualify the specific details in their recommendation to the Council. Chairperson Peterson inquired if any Tax Increment Financing funds were proposed for this project. Community Development Director Jopke indicated no Tax Increment Financing would be utilized. Chairperson Peterson stated this development appears to be a compatible use of the land. • Commissioner Laube stated this would be a good project for City, and the City would benefit through the acquisition of the wetlands. He indicated his only concern is that they do not lose any wetlands. Commissioner Johnson stated he concurred with this. Commissioner Berke agreed. Commissioner Kaden indicated he was in favor of developing a Walgreens store in this area, as opposed to a more residential area. Council Member Stigney inquired if the owners of the theater had made a proposal on this site. Chairperson Peterson stated this matter was discussed a year prior, and was also a very compatible use of the property. Community Development Director Jopke explained at one time, Anthony Properties indicated they would like to bid on the property, however, they did not proceed to this point. He stated they had indicated they might develop office buildings similar to those proposed at the theater, however, he was uncertain of the status of this matter. Commissioner Laube inquired if the proposed buildings would be smaller than the buildings constructed at the theater. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the office buildings at the theater comprise 11,000 square feet. Commissioner Laube inquired if this represented a higher tax base. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was possible. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 • Commissioner Johnson stated the owners of the theater were interested in the land, prior to the realignment of Edgewood Drive. He pointed out that any developer would now have to relocate the holding pond. Commissioner Miller stated this appeared to be the best offer for the site, and something they could work with. Commissioner Hegland stated his concern was that the City does not acquire any expenses due to the holding pond or additional road, and he was otherwise in favor of this proposal. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the City would realize some savings, in terms of the platting of the land. Mr. Cunningham indicated the survey costs and issues of the plat required further clarification, however, the plat would include the City parcel. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that to have a surveyor simply come to the site requires an initial fee. Commissioner Hegland stated he would like to have this matter clarified in the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Council. Community Development Director Jopke explained that typically these issues are clarified and spelled out during the Planned Unit Development and Development Review processes. He indicated staff would prepare a resolution for consideration of this proposal, and bring it forward at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. • 7. Special Planning Case No. SP-074-99 A. Discuss revisions to proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code related to driveway widths and curb cuts. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was the discussion of proposed Ordinance 642, which addresses curb cuts and driveway widths. He slated the Planning Commission has had significant discussions on the proposed ordinance, and how they can insure that what they are recommending for approval is clear, concise and not confusing in any manner. He pointed out there was some discussion at the previous meeting regarding zero lot line subdivisions, and the emphasis of presenting this version of the ordinance to the Commission is to address those issues, and resolve any inconsistencies. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the first change addresses the zero lot line subdivision issue,with the addition of Section 2, on Page 3 of the ordinance. He stated the entire section is new, with the exception of the existing Code, and the addition of Subds. 3d and 3e define driveway and curb cut widths for zero lot line subdivisions. He explained that Subd. 3d indicates"The width of the driveway servicing one dwelling unit would not exceed the width of that dwelling unit's garage. • When located side-by-side driveways shall maintain a minimum four-foot(4') separation unless the Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 111 affected property owners have filed a right-of-way and maintenance agreement with Ramsey County according to the provisions of Section 1121.15 Subd. 2 of this Title pertaining to joint driveways." He advised this language was already present in the Code, and must be in place to explicitly address joint driveways. Planning Associate Ericson stated Subd. 3e defines the width of the curb cut, and indicates "The width of the curb cut servicing one dwelling unit shall not exceed eighteen feet (18'). In the event of a common or joint driveway servicing both units, the width of the curb cut shall not exceed thirty- two(32'). He explained this change was proposed, and received significant discussion at the previous meeting. He advised that the width of the curb cut could be further discussed and specified during the meeting. Planning Associate Ericson explained the second change to the ordinance is the addition of the minimum drive aisle width, as indicated on Page 5 of the ordinance. He explained that after the fact, he felt the addition of this language might not be necessary, and in fact, may be too limiting, and may commit the City to a width they did not need or desire in a future development. He stated staff proposes this language be removed, and requested the Commission direct staff to do so. Planning Associate Ericson stated the third change is to the language of Subd. 5e. He explained that it was indicated at the previous meeting, it might be more appropriate and clearer if the curb cut width • was defined by land use, and presented in a table format, rather than simply language. He noted the width of the curb cuts was subject to further discussion. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commission with a brief overview of the table prepared by staff which indicates that Single Family Residential and Manufactured Home curb cut widths are twenty-four(24')feet, and the current Code allows twenty-two (22') feet. Zero lot line subdivisions are currently allowed eighteen feet(18'), and the appropriate width is yet to be determined, however, this curb cut width would be the same as it appears in the R-3, Medium Density type of zone. Planning Associate Ericson stated the table further indicates thirty-two (32') feet for Medium and High Density Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and the PF and CRP Zoning Districts. He advised that currently there are no curb cut widths listed for the PF and CRP districts. He explained that there are driveways in the PF district, at the parks and City Hall, and although a curb cut width requirement may not be necessary, as these situations can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, there is no reason to exclude them. Planning Associate Ericson stated another change is the addition of language to Section 1121.09, Subd. 5e of the ordinance, with regard to the zero lot line subdivided lots, which previously indicated "Single Family uses shall be limited to one curb cut access per property. As the Commission indicated at the previous meeting, if that is not extended to the zero lot line subdivided lots, it could result in more curb cuts and much greater width than intended. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the additional language clarifies this provision, by indicating "Single family uses in zero lot line subdivided lots, which represents the 50-foot section of land that would be limited to one curb cut, • contingent upon application for variance from this restriction." He pointed out there was also a Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 • footnote at the bottom of Page 6, which refers to Section 1107.03 for more information regarding zero lot line subdivisions. Planning Associate Ericson explained that previous changes to the ordinance now appear in double underline, and basically add language to clarify the zero lot line subdivision requirements so they are no longer ambiguous. He indicated from staff's perspective,the only matter left to resolve is whether or not the stated widths are appropriate, and the Commission is requested to discuss this, and possibly forward this ordinance to the City Council with a resolution at their next meeting. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the second column of the table is intended to reflect the maximum width of curb cuts. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that this should be indicated, to clarify that lesser widths are permissible. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a good point. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the intention of the language in Section 3, Subd 4, pertaining to the R-1 Zoning District, is to allow twelve feet (12'), in addition to thirty-five feet (35'), in the case of a triple wide garage. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Commissioner Miller pointed out this language specifies the width of the attached parking area, however, not the length. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained the Code • provides there are some limitations on the amount of gravel that is permitted, however, there are no restrictions in terms of an attached parking pad. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the curb cuts widths on the townhome units located on Silver Lake Road and Knollwood Drive. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the curb cuts of the units on Silver Lake Road are all forty feet (40') wide, and with the exception of one property on Knollwood Drive, which has two driveways and two eighteen-foot (18') curb cuts, the others are forty feet (40') as well. Commissioner Ilegland stated a normal two-car garage is twenty-two (22') wide, and a vehicle is typically 61/2 to 7 feet wide. He explained in the case of a driveway,where there is approximately two feet between vehicles, and a car is parked in the driveway, the narrow curb cut would be difficult to negotiate, when attempting to back out of the garage. He advised that a forty-foot (40') curb cut would be more appropriate. He stated Page 6 of the ordinance, pertaining to zero-lot line subdivision curb cuts in the R-2 district, should be amended to reflect twenty feet (20'), rather than eighteen feet (18'). Chair Peterson pointed out the eighteen-foot (18') requirement is also indicated on Page 4 of the ordinance, in Subd. 1. Commissioner Hegland commented that the forty-foot (40') curb cuts already exist within the City, • and this width would allow the resident to back straight out of the garage. He added that the wider Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 • curb cut would be helpful for snow removal purposes, and would present a much better design. Commissioner Johnson stated he agreed. He pointed out that a wider curb cut would benefit those residents with boats and recreational vehicles, as well. Commissioner Stevenson indicated that in the case of a joint driveway, this would represent 36 feet. Commissioner Laube advised that driveways could not be adjoined without approval from Ramsey County. Commissioner Stevenson stated he was referring to those situations where the driveways are joined, and one continuous curb cut is permitted. He explained those persons with a three or four-stall garage are still limited to twenty-two feet (22'), and possibly twenty-four (24') in the future. He stated that a thirty-six foot (36') curb cut would provide sufficient room for access to the garage, in the case of a continuous curb cut. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out on Page 4, the addition of Subd. e, pertaining to the zero lot line subdivision curb cut widths, indicates they are limited to eighteen feet (18') per dwelling unit, and if the driveways are joined, this represents thirty-two feet (32'). He explained that if it is the consensus of the Commission, this could be changed to thirty-six feet (36'), or if the Commission feels a forty-foot(40') width is more appropriate, they could indicate a twenty-foot (20') maximum width for each dwelling unit. Commissioner Stevenson stated a thirty-six foot (36') continuous curb cut width would be appropriate. Commissioner Johnson agreed, adding that separate driveways should be allowed at least twenty feet (20'). Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the standard width of garage door on a twenty-two foot (22') garage. Community Development Director Jopke advised that sixteen-foot (16') doors are standard.. Chairperson Peterson stated he previously resided in a townhome with two driveways with a five-foot separation. He explained that the driveways were the width of the garage doors, and went straight back to the street. He commented that this was workable, and that configuration of the driveways in conjunction with the garage doors did not seem to be out of place. He noted, however, this would not be appropriate in the case of a three-car garage. Commissioner Stevenson stated he had no problem with permitting twenty-foot (20') curb cuts, however, he would not want to double that width to a forty-foot (40') curb cut. He inquired if they could amend the language to limit this to a twenty-foot (20') curb cut for a single driveway, per dwelling. He noted a single-family dwelling is allowed twenty-four(24'), and they did not want to penalize the residents of twin homes, therefore, they should at least allow twenty(20') feet. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 18 1111 Commissioner Johnson stated he agreed with this, in that they should indicate twenty feet (20') for a single driveway, and include a thirty-two (32') foot limitation for joint driveways, as well. Commissioner Laube stated he would prefer to see thirty-six (36'), in that if there is a standard twenty-two foot(22')garage, with zero lot lines, and a four-foot separation, the driveway would be thirty-six feet (36') straight back from each garage door. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the proposed language would indicate a limit of thirty-six feet(36') for adjoined driveways, and if there is a four-foot separation between the driveways, two twenty-foot (20') curb cuts would be permitted. Commissioner Stevenson stated this sounded reasonable. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the draft language of Subd. D at the top of Page 4 appeared to be adequate. He advised they were attempting to protect against the potential of an excessive amount of asphalt on a small lot. He explained that many homes have driveways that are as wide as the garage, and through this language, single family homes will be permitted to expand this width by an additional twelve feet(12'). He advised that if this provision were carried over to the zero lot line subdivisions, there could potentially be forty (40') feet of driveway on each side of the garage, and no front yard. He noted the proposed language specifically addresses the zero lot line subdivisions, and no other use. five-foot separation between the driveways Chairperson Peterson stated there was a of the townhome e p he had lived in, and there were shrubs, landscaping, and mail boxes in that area. He stated, however, there was language in the right-of-way and maintenance agreement, which indicated they must allow the other resident to drive on your property,to cross the driveways. He explained this might be good language to incorporate, and may be standard language for mortgage companies, as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated he would change the maximum width for a driveway servicing one dwelling unit on a zero lot line subdivision to twenty feet (20'), with a maximum curb cut for adjoining driveways at thirty-six feet (36') in both sections of the ordinance. He stated he would . . - the twenty (20') and thirty-six foot (36') widths. He stated he would also indicate that the second column of the table reflect the maximum curb cut width. He explained that the R-O Zoning District had been inadvertently omitted from the table, and suggested that a sixteen-foot (16') curb cut might be appropriate for this use. Commissioner Stevenson requested the provision pertaining to adjoined driveways in the zero lot line subdivisions be included in the table for clarification. Commissioner Miller inquired if the language in, Subd. e, on Page 6 of the ordinance would be amended to indicate a twenty-foot (20') maximum curb cut. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 19 • Planning Associate Ericson stated this subdivision addresses zero lot line subdivided lots, as well as typical R-2 lots, and it would be logical to make this consistent. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would make the requested changes and bring a resolution forward to the City Council. He advised that a public hearing would be set for the first reading of the ordinance, as this matter is in contemplation of an amendment to the Zoning Code. 8. Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99 A. Consideration of Resolution 597-99, a Resolution Recommending Denial of Proposed Ordinance 644 Relating to Billboards. Community Development Director Jopke stated this item has come before the Planning Commission at several previous meetings, and is the discussion of an ordinance to amend the City Code to allow billboards by Conditional Use Permit, and setting standards in terms of size location, spacing, orientation, height, and obstruction factors. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff has drafted Ordinance 644, which has been discussed by the Planning Commission. He indicated the consensus of the Commission at the previous meeting was to forward a recommendation of denial of the ordinance, because they felt billboards were not an appropriate use in the locations discussed. He stated that based upon the Commission's direction, staff has drafted a resolution that recommends denial of Ordinance 644 to the City Council, with four findings, as follows: 1. Large billboard signs are not appropriate uses of property within CRP Conservation Recreational Preservation and PF Public Facilities zoning districts. These districts are intended to provide recreational opportunities, open space, and protect the natural environment where possible. Large advertising signs are not consistent with that intent, and are more appropriate to commercial and industrial zoning districts. 2. Large billboard signs can be visually distracting and may detract from the neighborhood and promote a negative image for the community. 3. The City Attorney has advised City staff that the City cannot limit billboards to city- owned properties only. 4. A permit will be required from the State of Minnesota to locate billboards along state and federal highways. State statutes restrict such signs to commercial and industrial zoning districts only. The contemplated sites for additional billboards are not zoned commercial or industrial. Community Development Director Jopke stated Resolution No. 597-99 indicates that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council does not approve Ordinance 644, and that this recommendation be forwarded to the Council, prior to final approval of the Planning Commission i Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 minutes. Community Development Director Jopke advised that the ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office, and approved, as to form and findings. Commissioner Stevenson inquired who had drafted the ordinance. Community Development Director Jopke stated he drafted Ordinance 644. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the standing of the ordinance at this time. Community Development Director Jopke explained that the review of this matter was currently before the Planning Commission, and their recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Stevenson inquired who had directed Community Development Director Jopke to draft Ordinance 644. Community Development Director Jopke explained that the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the issue, and the Planning Commission indicated there should be a specific ordinance for public review, and that this consideration should involve the public hearing process. He indicated staff drafted this particular ordinance, which has been discussed by the Planning Commission, however, has not come before the City Council. He stated the ordinance would be brought forward to the Council, along with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Laube. To Approve Resolution No. 597-99, a Resolution Recommending City Council Denial of Ordinance No. 644; an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 (Signs and Billboards) of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to Billboards; Planning Case No. SP-071-99. Ayes— 8 Nays—0 The motion carried. 9. Staff Reports/Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the November 15, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council approved the Development Review for MSP Real Estate for the assisted living facility to be located at 2670 County Road I. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports No reports were considered. • 11. Adjournment Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 21 iThere being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, etit Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 111 • Planning Comm. Mfg Date: I I- 17 (19 Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: ija /0A)q Al 0 1701\41A le[2- 11 -Or) 4( 6? lA I'� -� �5/-�3--.- 7Jc1 f3a• � 4 . iZ— Se3 Z -a73c 1J 5 1U4842-61 140 N Lo I `Z-' t • RESOLUTION NO. 597-99 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 644; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS; PLANNING CASE NO. SP-071-99. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Municipal Code does not allow billboards in the City; and WHEREAS,the Mounds View City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review possible ordinance changes to allow billboard signs in certain areas of the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered Ordinance No. 644 and made the following findings relating to the land use impact of allowing additional billboards in Mounds View: 1. Large billboard signs are not appropriate uses of property within CRP • Conservation Recreational Preservation and PF Public Facilities zoning districts. These districts are intended to provide recreational opportunities, open space and protect the natural environment where possible. Large advertising signs are not consistent with that intent and are more appropriate to commercial and industrial zoning districts. 2. Large billboard signs can be visually distractive and may detract from the neighborhood and promote a negative image for the community. 3. The City Attorney has advised City staff that the City cannot limit billboards to city-owned properties only. 4. A permit will be required from the State of Minnesota to locate billboards along state and federal highways. State statutes restrict such signs to commercial and industrial zoning districts only. The contemplated sites for additional billboards are not zoned commercial or industrial. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not approve Ordinance No. 644, an ordinance amending Chapter 1008 (Signs and Billboards) of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to billboards based on the above findings. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. 11111 Adopted this 17th day of November, 1999.