Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-2006 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 21, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Chair Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. June 21, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Jim Ericson Planning Associate Heidi Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case ZC2006-001: Continuation – Consideration for a Rezoning 2 of 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and West Half of 8060 Groveland Road Applicant: Integra Homes Address: 12721 Overlook Road, Dayton, MN 55327 Planning Case PA2006-001: Consideration of a PUD Amendment for 2442 8 County Road 10. Applicant: LandCor Companies Address: 9325 Upland Lane North, Suite 300, Maple Grove, MN 55369 Planning Case VR2006-004: Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a 12 Billboard and a Variance IU2006-001: for Height at the Mermaid, 2200 County Road 10. Applicant: Clear Channel Outdoor Address: 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413 Planning Case SP-146-05: Consideration of an Ordinance Amending 17 the Procedures and Regulations relating to Dog Kennels Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes A. May 17, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Scotch. To approve the Minutes of the May 17, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. ZC 2006-001. Continuation – Consideration for a Rezoning of 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and West Half of 8060 Groveland Road. Integra Homes Community Development Director Ericson addressed the Planning Commission clarifying the continuation of the consideration for a rezoning of 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road to an R-3 Medium Density Residential to allow for a townhome development of 19 owner-occupied units. Director Ericson relayed an apology from Integra Homes, as there was a mix up in their scheduling. Director Ericson explained that a resolution of a recommendation of approval or denial is available for action. The recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at their meeting on June 26, 2006. Director Ericson provided background to the Planning Commission and listeners on the rezoning consideration. Integra Homes applied for a Planned Unit Development in 2005. The Planning Commission reviewed the general concept plan, which involved the development of 21 owner- occupied townhome units. There was some concern expressed at that time by the Commission members and adjacent property owners that the extent of the proposed development was too intensive and the orientation of the proposed units intrusive and out of place given the adjacent single family residential properties. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 796-05 in July 2005, which recommended denial of the PUD based on excessive development density and other adverse impacts. Rather than pursue action at the Council level, Integra chose to re- evaluate their plan based on the feedback received. They have completed the evaluation and have resubmitted an application as a simple rezoning rather than a PUD. The development site has an area of 3.01 acres and is located on County Road 10 and currently has a mixed zoning designation. The property at 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business and is currently vacant. 2925 County Road 10 and the rear yard of 8060 Groveland Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Road are currently zoned R-3, Single Family Residential. 2925 County Road 10 has an existing single family home that would be demolished if the development were to be moved forward. Integra Homes is requesting a rezoning of the identified parcels to reflect an R-3 Medium Density designation. The R-3 zoning designation would explicitly permit single-family dwellings, twinhomes and townhomes. Schools, churches, day care centers and multiple family developments would require a Conditional Use Permit (PUD) in an R-3 district. Director Ericson clarified that when the Commission looks at a rezoning they are looking at the same factors as a Conditional Use Permit. The Commission must decide if rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Commission’s vision of what should be on the property. The Commission also considers the potential adverse effects of the development. Director Ericson stated the relationship to the comprehensive plan indicates it is consistent with the future land use of a mixed-use planned unit development. Regarding the geographical area, Director Ericson pointed out the townhome development across the street, commercial development to the southeast, and housing to the northeast and the north. There has been some discussion on depreciation as to whether or not the townhome development would depreciate the adjoining areas. Studies indicate there is little correlation between a townhome or mixed use and depreciation. The townhome development will bring additional tax base to the community. The rezoning would promote a substantial increase in market value at the site, increasing from the present approximate valuation of $460,000 to an estimated $4,750,000. Depreciation can also be measured as something other than monetary, such as privacy. The character of the surrounding area consists of a variety of commercial and residential uses. The City has a sufficient volume of multi-family properties. The residential uses include single- family residential, owner-occupied townhomes and multi-family rental dwellings. Single-family residential is predominant in the immediate area. Even with the 66-townhome units going up along County Road H2, the City is under represented in our housing demographics. Director Ericson did receive one comment from a resident along Groveland Road. It is included in the Commission’s packet. Residents have previously come before the Commission to express concern regarding traffic and access to County Road 10, limitation of future development, opposition to residential development and inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. These and other residents are encouraged to speak again at this meeting. Director Ericson believes their comments and concerns remain the same as those expressed previously. Director Ericson reported that according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), a 19-unit townhome development would generate an average of 112 vehicle trips per day. An office building would generate much more traffic, though without knowing the potential area of the office development, it would be difficult to arrive at a suitable comparative figure. A single right-in right-out access point onto County Road 10 would serve the site. The number of vehicle trips per day generated by a 19-unt townhome project would not exceed the capacity of the access point. There are other examples of commercial and residential development on County Road 10. While perhaps less convenient than other developments at a signalized intersection or Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ those served by a cross street or service road, such mid-block developments do not pose a safety hazard. Director Ericson indicated the project is in the middle of a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development district as designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. If the Integra project is allowed to proceed as requested, neither the area to the southeast or the northwest could be developed as a PUD. However it does not preclude either area from being developed in conjunction with the Integra project or as a stand-alone project. The Integra project does not preclude or hinder redevelopment of either area. As stated earlier, the site is designated as Mixed-Use Planned Development (PUD). Staff would submit that the Integra development would not be inconsistent with that designation. Director Ericson and Staff appreciate comments and concerns expressed by the residents. They also believe the project as proposed would not adversely affect the neighborhood, would generate comparatively less traffic than would an office or commercial development, would not preclude or prevent adjacent redevelopment and would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The only question that remains at this point is whether the Planning Commission and neighbors believe an alternative land use would be more appropriate than the proposed medium density, owner-occupied townhome development. If that is the case, the preferred land use should be articulated, and if warranted, consideration is given to an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Finally, if the proposed zoning and townhome project is not the preferred development opportunity for this site, the request should be denied. Director Ericson recommends the Commission review and discuss the request and consider the merits of the requested rezoning of the subject parcels from R-1 and B-3 to R-3 to allow for a 19- unit owner-occupied townhome development. The resolutions of approval and denial have merit and there is sufficient basis for both. These are available for action by the Commission as presented or subject to modification. The Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the June 26, 2006 meeting. Commissioner Miller asked if the townhomes across from this location are owner-occupied. Director Ericson replied yes. Chair Stevenson asked Director Ericson what the ratio is of owner-occupied townhomes versus rental units including the new units about to open along H2. Ericson stated, to his understanding, all townhomes in Mounds View are owner-occupied except the ten units in Silver Lake Commons located north of County Road I. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there is anything in this proposal that precludes it from becoming rental property. Ericson responded there is nothing that precludes them from doing this. A CUP would need to be applied for to allow for a multi-family dwelling. Townhomes are an explicitly permitted use. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked if the townhomes did not sell as owner-occupied, could it be turned into a rental unit and would the Commission look at a CUP before it could be turned into a rental unit. Director Ericson will need to do research on this. He indicated some legal considerations would need to be made. If Integra owned each of the units and decided to rent them out, there is nothing technically that would preclude this. Director Ericson said they would have to come before the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Meehlhause asked what the approximate selling price would be for the units. Director Ericson believes they would be somewhere between $225,000 and $275,000. Commissioner Scotch asked what business could go in here. Director Ericson stated it could be pretty much anything such as office or retail but as a stand-alone development it has limitations because of setbacks and parking requirements. Commissioner Miller thought she had read about a previous consideration for advertising this property for business. Director Ericson stated he does not know if this is the case. He would have to inquire from the previous owners what their efforts had been in terms of marketing the property. Commissioner Hegland asked if there is an under representation of townhomes in Mounds View. He asked where the City is relative to the percentage of townhomes and what the plan is for this. Director Ericson said there is no benchmark and no plan at this time. The most predominant choice is single-family with multi-family and modular homes following. In terms of townhome units, the City is under represented. Mounds View is percentage points below the metro area region relative to townhomes. There are a number of quad homes located in the northeast section of the City. These are all multi-family properties. Blaine and Coon Rapids have individual owner-occupied condos or townhomes with the same look and feel of the quad homes. From a percentage standpoint, Mounds View is less. With the 66 units coming on line, the percentage will change. Chair Stevenson complemented the Staff on the two resolutions. They are both so well written that he cannot make up his mind and needs help from everyone. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. and invited comments from the audience. Mrs. Cindy Johnson, 2865 NE County Road 10 and 7980 Groveland Road, stated this has been going on for some time. Her husband has been gone for two years and she believes he was fighting the same developer for two or three years before that. She does not feel it follows the Comprehensive Plan. This development will break up the PUD and would decrease her property value. She restated that $12,000 was spent to make this property look appealing to businesses. She does not like the one access to the development because this will make getting in and out of her driveway more difficult. She asked how likely it is for the remaining PUD to be developed for business. She believes this is not a good idea for the City. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked Mrs. Johnson what her picture of the Comprehensive Plan was. It is Mrs. Johnson’s belief that the properties would be developed together. She feels this will hurt the City’s tax base. The Comprehensive Plan was to combine the properties and make it into a commercial property. Mr. Duane Waldoch, 2935 County Road 10, stated he is not against Townhomes. Using the property on County Road 10 and breaking up the PUD is not a good idea. He feels there is not much land available on County Road 10 for business development. He believes that in the future, businesses will expand here. He wants to see it developed as motels, restaurants, and small businesses. With County Road 10 connected to Highway 65, people could be redirected into Mounds View. He believes County Road 10 is already chopped up and more chopping is not needed. Commissioner Zwirn asked how many people are participating in the ownership of the PUD. Commissioner Scotch believes there are five. Mr. Waldoch restated that once the Commission decides to build the townhouses, it eliminates the decisions of property owners to put businesses in. He reiterated that the property was bought and now the owner is trying to force townhomes onto it. Mr. Waldoch said that one year ago, this developer did not meet the requirements to build townhomes until more property was purchased. Now with the additional property, the developer meets the requirements for townhomes. There are townhomes going up along H2. To make a hasty decision now is not a good idea. Commissioner Scotch stated she thinks an elderly housing unit could be built here. Director Ericson stated this would be an R-3 zoning also. Mr. Waldoch would like to see the PUD and for the Planning Commission to ask the residents want they want to see on the property. This is for the City, not just for a developer to profit from. Mr. Richard Sonterre, 5060 Red Oak Drive, asked Director Ericson a question on the discussion of rental versus owner-occupied. There has been a trend in the City where people have invested in single-family and later turned them into rental properties. He asked if someone in an owner- occupied scenario could purchase it and turn into rental. Director Ericson said yes, any property owner in the City could rent out their home. Mr. Mark Schnor, 2949 County Road 10, brought up the safety factor, if an emergency occurs on County Road 10 and the emergency vehicle cannot access into the driveway to the townhomes. Director Ericson stated the Fire Marshall has no concerns for access. Brian Bourassa, MFRA Engineering, apologized for missing the last meeting. He displayed the plan and referred to the staff report. He stated that last year they listened to the concerns of staff and residents and brought forth a new plan addressing these concerns. Integra did meet with Mrs. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Johnson to put a project together, but this did not work out. With respect to developing retail or commercial projects, this consolidation was not able to occur on the parcel. In reference to the right-in and right-out traffic issue, there is more impact from a business than from a residential development. The impact is diminished on residential project. Chair Stevenson asked, in reading minutes and comments from residents in the past, they stated they were not approached to purchase their property. Mr. Ron Lillestrand, Integra Homes, addressed the Planning Commission to answer this question. He did ask Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Schnor if they would be willing to sell and they said no. About a month ago he met with Mrs. Johnson where she stated she was interested and was supposed to get back to them. Mrs. Johnson suggested a selling price that Mr. Lillestrand said would preclude them from developing anything viable. Mr. Bourassa addressed Mrs. Johnson’s access concerns. They would have to work with the City and County to make sure not to detract from her property. In reference to Mr. Waldoch’s concern about breaking up a PUD, Integra did consolidation with the three properties. Integra plans to market the townhomes as owner-occupied units. Integra did meet with the Fire Marshall to address safety concerns. In conclusion, Mr. Bourassa stressed that everyone has been patient and have been here a lot. They are trying to listen to the concerns of everyone. He does not feel the project precludes or hinders redevelopment of the area. They are providing utility connections for looping and street access that would allow potential development access to the west and the east. Hopefully as the project moves forward they will work with and meet with everyone to eliminate the concerns. Their market research indicates townhomes would be good for this area. Commissioner Scotch asked Mr. Bourassa what type of businesses he feels can go into this area. She still believes a Senior Citizen facility could go here. Mr. Lillestrand stated he did not think about this before but was talking with a company building assisted living units in Forest Lake. He thought this would be wonderful for this site and would be interested in this option. He did not know how the City would feel about this or how this works. He has not done any research on this option as he thought they were too far into the townhome project. Commissioner Scotch is very interested in this, feeling it would stay consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Director Ericson stated this type of development is either an R-3 or R-4 but in a business type operation. A discussion between the Commissioners ensued. Mr. Waldoch pointed out this is what he is referring to when looking at different options for this property. He believes Integra did not do their homework. This is why the whole project needs to be re-looked at. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch replied there are always new ideas. She wants it to remain dedicated to business development. Mr. Schnor clarified that he was approached right after the first meeting before all the plans were developed. He believes Integra should go to the front door and let people know what is going on. Mrs. Johnson said the first time she was approached was less than a year after husband died and she was not ready to make any decisions at that time. Chair Stevenson expressed his appreciation for the clarifications. Commissioner Hegland voiced his understanding of a PUD as that of a mixed use, but there needs to be a plan. He believes the Comprehensive Plan intended for business to be developed in this area because it is one of the few areas available to commercial development in the City. Because the townhomes are an acceptable use for this property does not mean it is the intended use. The reason this is a problem is because it is difficult to see the property as a commercially viable option without the other properties. By putting the townhomes in the middle of the property it precludes ever using the property for commercial use. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Hegland/Commissioner Hull. To approve the denial of Resolution 835-06, a Resolution recommending the Rezoning of 2901 and 2925 County Highway 10 and West Half of 8060 Groveland Highway to an R-3. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1 (Commissioner Zwirn) Motion carried. Director Ericson asked if the Planning Commission is willing to forward a recommendation to the City Council that a study be done on the block between Groveland Road and Spring Lake Road as to what the commercial marketability is or what the best use of this area would be. Chair Stevenson says this is very appropriate. Commissioner Scotch asked if there is any way the Planning Commission or the City could help the developer with this. Ericson stated yes something could be worked out to coordinate a meeting with the developer and the residents. __________________________________________________________________________ B. Planning Case PA2006-001: Consideration of a PUD Amendment for 2442 County Road 10. Applicant: LandCor Companies Address: 9325 Upland Lane North, Suite 300, Maple Grove, MN 55369 Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Planning Associate Heller presented the proposal for an amendment for the 2442 County Road 10 Planned Unit Development. This 26-acre PUD bounded by County Highway 10, County Highway H2 and Long Lake Road allows for a movie theater, parking, office buildings and a retail building. Mr. Brickley is requesting an amendment to the PUD to permit an accessory building at 2442 County Road 10, the triangular parcel identified as Parcel A in the PUD document. According to the PUD document, accessory buildings, with the exception of trash enclosures, are not permitted within the PUD. The City originally approved the O’Neil property PUD in May 1998. The original land use designated for 2442 County Highway 10 (Parcel A) was for a restaurant. In May of 2003, the City Council approved a PUD amendment to allow an office building to be constructed on the subject parcel, which was then constructed in 2004. With the requested amendment, LandCor would construct an attached garage on the southwest side of the building. They would need to relocate the garbage enclosure that is currently on the site slightly to the east and in turn would lose two parking spaces. When this building was constructed, it was determined that 60 parking spaces were required based on the building square footage; 64 spaces were provided. Even with losing two or three spaces, LandCor would still exceed the required number of parking stalls. Ms. Heller stated an amendment to a Planned Unit Development is processed the same as a Conditional Use Permit. The procedural requirements of Section 1125 of the Zoning Code would be followed. Section 1125 requires that the Planning Commission and the City Council review the request, taking into consideration any and all potential adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Relative to the Comprehensive Plan, the O’Neil property PUD site is identified as a Regional Commercial PUD. The proposed accessory building as an addition to the existing office building would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is a triangle shaped lot bordered by County Road 10 and Long Lake Road on two sides and a wooded wetland area to the south that separates the movie theater and the Subway mall from this building. Rice Creek Watershed District approved the initial development and storm water ponds were constructed to handle full-site build out, which includes the subject parcel. Adding a garage to the office building would not impact the neighborhood. At this time, the plan is that only one business would lease the entire building, keeping traffic to a minimum. The proposed attached garage would not be out of place, as the design would blend in with the current structure. There are a variety of buildings in the area, for example the movie theater, a senior housing building and a retail building. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ LandCor has finally found a tenant that would lease the entire building but they require a garage space. Since the PUD also states that parking on the site is only allowed during business hours, any tenant that had company vehicles would not be able to leave them outside at the building over night. Ms. Heller commented that it appears amending the PUD to allow for an accessory building would have no adverse impacts and would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the amendment to allow for one attached garage on the site. The site drawings propose that the garage will extend about 30 feet from the front of the building. This is due to the wetlands in the back of the property. The garage is the size they need to support the company that will occupy it. It is 25 feet wide and 80 feet long on the side attached to the building. The square footage is 1,864 feet. Chair Stevenson noted the square footage does not appear in the staff report or on the resolution. Ms. Heller stated that she did not know the size at the time. She only received the information on Friday. Chair Stevenson asked about the loading area reference. Ms. Heller deferred to LandCor to address the question. Mr. John Brickley, LandCor, indicated that the proposed tenant regularly receives deliveries of large cylinders of sign materials, up to 24 feet long, that are then cut on the laser machines. The loading area is actually a scissor lift that comes out of the ground to pull materials off the delivery trucks. The company also does vehicle signage wrapping and the length and width of the garage enables vehicles up to a semi truck size to pull all the way into the garage. The garage is necessary for working on the vehicles all year round. This is a significant part of the business. This building has not leased, as they would have liked. They plan to build the garage to have the same look and feel as the current building. The docking door on the front of the building will be the only thing identifying it as a garage. The rest of the garagee will have the same look and feel as the rest of the building so that it will not look like a garage. They are taking the extra steps to keep it looking like a professional office building. Commissioner Hegland asked what the business does. Mr. Brickley said advertising signage and graphics is the business that will occupy the building. Mr. Bob Fields, Mounds View Offices, LandCor, is the owner of the property and the retail building adjacent to the movie theater. He stated they tried developing the property many years ago working with Louise O’Neil. Mrs. O’Neil passed away recently and they will be buying it from her estate in about 12 months. It is currently under ground lease. They have had difficulty attracting a serious client for that building. Many people have approached him for the building, but he was unable to accommodate their ownership requirements. This particular business is willing to lease for a number of years and then purchase it after the Louise O’Neil estate is settled. He reiterated that materials would be used to match up with the building that is currently Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ there. The building cannot be slid to the east because of the drainage easement, utility power lines and a natural gas line. Staff did a good job of giving him direction. The company is called Let’s Get Graphic. They are a local couple that applies unique laser graphics to a wide variety of applications. Mr. Fields has used them for numerous projects. In the future they plan to have a company vehicle and understand that it must be parked inside per their lease. Commissioner Hegland asked if there are any size requirements or restrictions relating to an accessory building. Director Ericson said there is not in commercial or industrial districts. Commissioner Hegland asked for the proposed height of the garage in relation to the building. Mr. Fields stated he did not know the exact height but said there is an upper band of windows with the roof line just below so the second floor offices will have visibility. Commissioner Scotch asked if some of the pavement would be changed. Mr. Fields said they would only cut out a portion between the trash area and the office building. There is a platform buried in the floor that will rise up to the level of the truck to off load materials inside the building. The door will not be left open, as they require the building to be environmentally controlled to apply applications to vehicles. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if he will be leasing both floors or will the second floor be unoccupied. Mr. Fields stated the business would occupy the entire second floor. An accountant may also lease a portion of the second floor. The first floor will store all the computerized cutting equipment. Commissioner Meehlhause asked how many people they employ. Mr. Fields said there are at least 30 employees. Commissioner Miller said this does not look like a garage. In the resolution they must say the same design as the building in item two. Mr. Fields is agreeable to this. Commissioner Miller would like to add in order “to” provide, on next to the last “whereas” on the document. Chair Stevenson requested they add the 1864 square footage. Ms. Heller indicated she will add that as number four under “to be it further resolved”. Commissioner Zwirn asked if they would lose parking spaces. Ms. Heller said they would lose two spaces when the garbage container is moved but with the current 64 spaces they still have enough to meet the requirements. Commissioner Miller does not like calling it a garage. The Commissioners agreed to call it a parking bay. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Chair Stevenson. To approve Resolution 840- 06, Recommending Approval of an Amendment to the O’Neil property PUD Agreement to allow for an accessory building at 2442 County Highway 10. Planning Case No. PA2006-001. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ C. Planning Case VR2006-004: Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a Billboard and a Variance IU2006-001: for Height at the Mermaid, 2200 County Road 10. Applicant: Clear Channel Outdoor Address: 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413 Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Community Development Director Ericson presented a request for consideration of an Interim Use Permit (IUP) and a Variance for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 otherwise known as the Mermaid Entertainment Center, to the Planning Commission. In addition to the IUP application, Clear Channel has also requested approval for a variance to extend the height of the billboard ten additional feet from 35 feet to 45 feet. The basis of the variance requested is to not obstruct the adjoining property and to not be obstructed by the Mermaid’s own ground sign. The City of Mounds View and Clear Channel entered into an agreement in 2005 in which Clear Channel agreed to relocate four of its billboards from the former golf course site on Highway 10 to make way for the Medtronic development. Clear Channel was given two years to find suitable locations elsewhere in the City for the billboards. The City’s role was to amend its codes and regulations to allow reasonable opportunity for the signs to be relocated elsewhere in the community. On May 8, 2006, after multiple meetings held by the City Council, Ordinance 769 was adopted which expanded the locations for billboards to properly zoned parcels along County Highway 10, Interstate 35W, Old Highway 8 and the south side of County Road 10 south of the Woodale Drive Intersection. In addition to identifying locations, the ordinance also amended the spacing and height requirements for billboards. The 250-foot setback from residential land uses remained unchanged. The relocated billboards and the two billboards remaining at the former golf course site were provided 30-year lease rights. The City Council indicated that the height limitation would be 35 feet along the south side of County Road 10 south of the Woodale Drive Intersection in recognition that this is the community’s corridor. Clear Channel submitted a plan showing where the billboard would be in relation to the adjoining properties and signage at 35 feet. They made a determination that at 35 feet visibility is a problem for them and the adjoining properties and signs. They have requested a variance for 45 feet, ten feet higher than what is allowed. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ There are two issues before the Commission, the Interim Use Permit and the Variance Application for the billboard. There are no resolutions attached to the staff report, as this is a discussion item. Staff is seeking guidance and direction from the Planning Commission so they can come back with something that the Commission is comfortable with at the July 5th meeting. There are requirements for an IUP that need to be reviewed similar to conditional use permits and the rezoning process. The adverse effects, geographical area involved, depreciation, character of the surrounding area and a demonstrated need for such use. The Comprehensive Plan does not address or contemplate the issue of billboards. The Mermaid property is located at the intersection of County Road 10 and County Road H. County Road 10 is considered the City’s primary commercial corridor and in this general area, commercial and office land uses dominate the landscape. The closest residential property is located more than 1,000 feet north of County Road 10 and the billboard would not be readily visible from any residential property. The billboard would be located in the north corner of the nine-acre Mermaid property with the nearest affected property being the Abbey Carpet building. It is not believed that the placement and installation of the billboard on the Mermaid property would have a negative or depreciatory effect upon the subject property or adjoining properties. It can be argued however, that in a more comprehensive sense, the placement of the billboard on County Road 10 would depreciate the ongoing efforts of the City to improve the appearance and aesthetics of the corridor and would be contrary to the goals of the County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program. Residents do not see it as depreciation. Depending on the height of the sign, there could be some adverse effects in terms of construction, visibility to the Mermaid sign and the Abbey Carpet sign. Based on the new ordinance adopted by the City, all code requirements are satisfied with the exception of the height. The area south of Woodale Drive and north of County Road H is strictly developed as commercial or office type usage. The Abbey Carpet building is newer than other buildings in this location; however the area as a whole is well maintained. Clear Channel has clearly not caused the situation that necessitates the additional ten feet. They were asked to vacate their prime locations at the former golf course to make way for a new development and were provided limited opportunities within the City in which to relocate. The Planning Commission must determine if a hardship exists. In this case the variance is based strictly on height and visibility. Anyone in advertising will tell you the lack of visibility is in fact a hardship. The additional ten feet would satisfy the hardship requirement. Three residents have called in an opposition of the variance request. The residents were from Eastwood Road, one from Sherwood and a resident from Sunnyside, who expressed his opposition in writing. The owner of Pettibone on County Road H contacted Director Ericson and indicated they have no concern with the placement of the billboard. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ With the exception of the issue necessitating the variance, the requested Interim Use Permit appears to satisfy all Code requirements and would not appear to cause any appreciable adverse impacts to the area where the billboard is located. While it can be argued that a billboard on the County Road 10 corridor is contrary to the City’s goal of improving and enhancing the image and appeal of the corridor, this site has been identified by the City Council as a potential location for a billboard. Staff is looking for direction to bring something back to the Planning Commission meeting on July 5, 2006 that can then be forwarded on to the City Council. Chair Stevenson asked for clarification. As a Commission they voted unanimously to not have billboards along County Road 10. The City Council overruled it for monetary reasons years ago. We are now back to approve something that the Council again has said this is where billboards will go. The Planning Commission does not have an option to make recommendations for billboards when the Council has said there will be billboards at specific locations. Director Ericson stated this is correct. Chair Stevenson stated he is not in favor of billboards. Chair Stevenson stated that since the Commission is not here to discuss whether they want the billboards, there are several things they can do a better job on. On page three he believes one 45- foot billboard should be allowed because if the drawings are accurate, it will definitely impact the Abbey Carpet and Mermaid signs. With this writing, he directed the Commission to look at section 7, number 3 and requests striking “ …. the maximum billboard sign height is 45 feet” and say “35 feet except as allowed in section 108.10.” Director Ericson asked Chair Stevenson if he is suggesting the ordinance be modified. The ordinance is adopted and unless he is recommending that an adoption or revision for amendment be proposed, the ordinance is in effect. Chair Stevenson said he is. With this writing, he does not see how they are limiting it to the billboard they are discussing. Looking at subsection 10.16 (f) on page 5, “the maximum allowable height the billboard shall be … except for billboards located on CR 10…..” Director Ericson explained the existing code allowed for not more than 35-foot high billboards in the City of Mounds View. Clear Channel provided information that there are some locations where they will need additional height. There was a concession made to extend billboards up to 45 feet, with the exception of any potential billboards along County Road 10 to preserve the look and feel of a community corridor. They very consciously struck the 45-foot provision from County Road 10 and made it 35 feet. The issue with the “except between County Road H2 and County Road I” is an existing billboard in the Townsedge Terrace Manufactured Home Park that is presently a nonconforming use in a residential area. The Council did not want to inadvertently allow for the billboard to be placed at 45 feet in that area. There was an expressed desire to limit the height of that billboard and the height of any billboard along County Road 10. The spacing was increased from 1000 feet to 1500 feet between billboards. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson stated that what this is saying is, wherever we put the sign we can put it at 45 feet except along County Road 10, and now the applicant is asking for this billboard to be 45 feet. Director Ericson rephrased by saying what the ordinance allowed for is 45-foot billboards wherever billboards are permitted with the exception of County Road 10 and except for the existing billboard on 35W. Chair Stevenson asked where other locations are that the code allows 45-foot billboards. Director Ericson stated anywhere on Interstate 35W, US Highway 10, and Old Highway 8 that would have consistent zoning of B-2, B-3, a PUD designation, a CRP designation and an industrial designation including a 250-foot set back from residential areas. Along County Road 10, only the area between Woodale to County Road H, have the 35-foot height and the 1500-foot separation. Commissioner Scotch asked why Clear Channel is not looking for a spot along 35W. Director Ericson stated they are looking at the 35W and an application will be before the Commission at the next meeting. Chair Stevenson asked if the Mermaid would be compensated for the sign on their property. Director Ericson indicated the Mermaid has signed a lease agreement for this site. Commissioner Miller has a problem granting a variance because if the Mermaid did not want this billboard there would not be a problem. Commissioner Scotch stated the Mermaid would make revenue off this, therefore helping their business. Commissioner Miller stressed this should not be one of the reasons to grant a variance. Director Ericson said Chair Stevenson summed it up when he said the Planning Commission perhaps does not support billboards and that may be the case, but the City Council has adopted various locations within the City where billboards can be located. In terms of the Interim Use Permit and whether a billboard can be located at this location, if this were a 35-foot billboard, the Planning Commission’s hands may be tied. The fact that a variance application is in front of the Planning Commission gives you the opportunity to decide if a hardship exists to warrant the variance. Mr. John Kopas - Abbey Carpet at 2222 County Road 10 stated he came tonight to find out where the billboard will be placed and how it will impact his building signage. He stated that no one has had the courtesy to come to him or tell him. Looking at the picture he sees before him, he feels that at 35 feet the billboard would impact the view of his building significantly. He Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 ________________________________________________________________________ asked if it could be moved to the south end of the Mermaid property where it would not impact any of the businesses. Mr. Kopas would like them to talk to him and see what they can work out. He noticed the large post would for the billboard will block the view of the Fastenal sign also. A discussion on optional locations continued between the Planning Commission, Director Ericson and Mr. Kopas. Mr. Rich Sonterre, Clear Channel Outdoor 3225 Spring Street, Minneapolis, approached the Commission and stated this process is not one Clear Channel wanted to undertake. They wanted the signs to remain at the golf course. Clear Channel entered into the negotiations process with the City to help facilitate the Medtronic development and to encourage good community relations. Throughout the negotiations it has been a partnership with the community. Clear Channel negotiated with the City in good faith. They were a participant in the process and worked closely with the Community Development Department to create an ordinance that closed all loopholes that might lead to future billboard development in the City. Mr. Sonterre emphasized he specifically worked on putting together language known as cap and replace, a policy in which a community can reclaim a maximum number of billboards and no more. He worked on a process by which billboards can be relocated within the City to appropriately zoned and designated areas, therefore causing no additional billboard inventory. In reference to the 1500-foot distance that was added when the ordinance was passed, this was his doing. Mr. Sonterre stressed he wants what is best for everyone. He entered into an agreement to move the signs from the former golf course and replace them, in many cases, in less profitable areas. This has not been an adversarial process. Mr. Sonterre explained how and where the pictures presented were taken and how the reality of the actual view is somewhat askew. The column for the billboard is slightly larger than a power pole and there is a short-term obstruction as you drive down County Road 10. The overall size of the pole is increased slightly to create the square effect to meet code requirements. If the sign were located on the south side of the Mermaid, a variance would still be required because of the obstruction to the Mermaid from the other direction. Commissioner Hegland asked if the position for the sign support could be anywhere else. Mr. Sonterre indicated he would have to check with the engineers. Commissioner Meehlhause asked Mr. Sonterre if there would be opposition to moving the sign to the south. Mr. Sonterre said the location is at the owner’s request. Commissioner Scotch does not like the location because it still blocks Fastenal. She emphasized these businesses have the right to have full visibility to the signage on their building. Something else could be worked out. She does not agree with Mr. Sonterre’s statement. Several Commissioners expressed their inability to support the placement of the sign. Mr. Sonterre stated that he is within his rights to build the sign at this location at 35 feet without applying for anything but an IUP. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch said the Planning Commission is looking for another option so there is full view of the signs of other businesses. Director Ericson stated that when he indicated the requirements of the Interim Use Permit application have been satisfied, there is some slight subjectivity with this as well. He indicated that the use would not depreciate the area in which it was proposed and has received feedback from adjacent property owners expressing some concern with the location. When looking at an interim use permit and if the Commission feels the location does pose a depreciatory effect or hardship for adjoining property owners, the Commission can make that statement and make a recommendation to the City Council based on that. Commissioner Hegland would like to see Clear Channel make an effort to talk to Abbey Carpet and work this out. Mr. Sonterre stated he is happy to speak with him. Chair Stevenson gave Director Ericson the recommendation to City Council that this is not a good location for the sign. It is not in consideration of the property owners of Mounds View. Whether it is 35 feet or 55 feet it is not a good location for the sign. Mr. Charlie Hall, owner of Mermaid, addressed the Commission. He has owned the Mermaid for 33 years. He stated they have grown, and all of his money, wife’s money is in this business. His son is also very involved in the business. There is a hardship for him. They are happy to have the money from the sign because they need it. The sign is crucial to them. Mr. Hall listed things that have happen to him from a business perspective that has added to their hardship. Chair Stevenson stopped the discussion and directed Clear Channel to find out if a new location on the Mermaid property is possible. If the best decision is the location currently recommended, what is the minimum height to eliminate interference with other businesses. Chair Stevenson would like this by the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Stevenson directed staff to determine the correct location and height for the billboard. Commissioner Hegland requests to see if there is any way to redesign the support structure so it is no larger than it has to be. Mr. Sonterre explained that each structure is designed to meet the requirements of the customer. He said they strive to make billboards the least intrusive as possible. This particular design was approved by the City Council. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. No motion. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 18 ________________________________________________________________________ A. SP-146-05: Consideration of an Ordinance Amending the Procedures and Regulations relating to Dog Kennels Director Ericson presented a proposed ordinance that would eliminate residential dog/cat kennels as a conditional use for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has review oversight due to one line of text stricken from the Zoning Code. The amendment before the Commission is to amend the code to strike the requirement for landowners go through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process if they want three or more dogs. The basis for this proposed amendment is that any property owner with three or more dogs must currently go through the CUP process with the Planning Commission and City Council and be subjected to redundant public hearings and notification requirements. The problem with the process is that a CUP is attached to the property, not the property owner. If the resident receives a CUP and later moves, the CUP stays with the property. Having three or more dogs is really not a land-use issue. Director Ericson stressed that licensing requirements would remain essentially the same. The primary change is to drop the CUP requirement from the process. If a resident wants three or more dogs, a petition bearing the signatures of at least 50% of their neighbors within 500 feet, still must be presented. Property owners would no longer have to wait six weeks to complete the CUP process. The proposed amendment would add language regarding persons ineligible for a kennel license and would clarify the justification for license revocation. Director Ericson asked the Planning Commission to review the proposed code amendment and if found acceptable, approve Resolution 842-06. No time constraints are associated with this request. The Commission may request further discussion at the next meeting or ask for additional information. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Commissioner Miller asked Director Ericson what represents 500 feet. Director Ericson replied it is approximately five houses in any direction of the property owner. Commissioner Zwirn asked about the “persons convicted” statement in the code. He would like to strengthen the language to include something like “If ever any charges are brought forth” it would become open to review. In view of the recent problems of cruelty in St. Paul, he would also like to see something referring to cruelty to animals. Director Ericson will look into this. He asked the Commission to keep in mind there is nothing about cruelty currently in the Code. He will discuss the cruelty issue and strengthening the “persons convicted” statement to include charges brought forth with the City attorney. Chair Stevenson recommended no action on this item until Director Ericson comes back with recommended changes to the amendment. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 19 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. No motion. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. Continuation: Review TIF Policies, TIF Scenarios and Economic Development Funding Priorities. Chair Stevenson recommends tabling this item until the next meeting. No motion. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 5, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.