Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-2006 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 5, 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. July 5, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners Hegland, Hull, Miller, Scotch, Absent and Excused: Commissioners Meehlhause and Zwirn Also Present: Community Development Director Jim Ericson Planning Associate Heidi Heller ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page VR2006-005: Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Front Yard 2 Setback at 2764 Laport Drive. Applicant: Lawrence & Mari Okoro Address: 2764 Laport Drive VR2006-004: Continuation of Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for 4 a Billboard and IU2006-001, a Variance to Increase Height at the Mermaid, 2200 County Road 10. Applicant: Clear Channel Outdoor Address: 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413 VR2006-004: Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a Billboard 10 and IU2006-002: a Variance to Reduce Setback at 5201 Program Ave Applicant: Clear Channel Outdoor Address: 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413 MA2006-002: Consideration of a Major Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road. 12 Applicant: Matthew Hofmann Address: 15472 Fillmore Street NW, Elk River, MN 55330 Chair Stevenson asked if there were additional items for the agenda. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, approached the Planning Commission and asked for information on the process for obtaining a billboard permit and how it gets on the Commission agenda. Community Development Director Ericson explained the items on the agenda were submitted on an application similar to an Interim Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit. A public hearing before the Planning Commission takes place and the Planning Commission makes recommendations to the City Council for approval or denial of the item. Mr. Glidden asked what criteria are used. Chair Stevenson answered the City Code is their guide. 3. Approve Minutes A. June 7, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller /Commissioner Hull, to approve the Minutes of the June 7, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2006-005: Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Front Yard Setback at 2764 Laport Drive. Applicant: Lawrence & Mari Okoro Address: 2764 Laport Drive Planning Associate Heller introduced a request for a variance for approval to construct a front entry and covered porch addition on the home of Lawrence and Mari Okoro, 2764 Laport Drive. A variance is needed because the addition would extend into the prevailing front yard setback. Planning Associate Heller reported the prevailing setback for homes on this block of Laport Drive is approximately 52 feet. The applicants would like to add a 10’x14’ front entry and porch onto their home that is currently set back approximately 57 feet from the property line. This addition would bring the building up to 43 feet from the property line, an encroachment of nine feet. Planning Associate Heller reported the Okoros would like to expand the inside front entry space and add a covered front porch to replace the current small concrete steps. The Okoros have elderly family members who stay with them for extended periods of time. Due to their physical difficulties, Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ entering the home with the small front step and entry has proven to be very difficult. In the winter, ice buildup is also a problem. Planning Associate Heller reminded the Commission that for a variance to be approved, the applicant must demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Planning Associate Heller reported the subject property is a typical rectangular shaped lot with no unusual characteristics or conditions. The only extraordinary condition on the property is the prevailing setback of 52 feet, 22 feet more than what would otherwise be required. Planning Associate Heller explained the literal interpretation of the provision of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that most homes in Mounds View maintain consistent setbacks, whether at 30 feet or 52 feet. Because of this, porch additions or any additions to the front of a home are usually problematic. Planning Associate Heller stated the Okoro’s home was constructed in 1970 and situated on the lot to be of a similar front setback as the home constructed in 1940 located on the opposite end of the block. The homes on this block all have much larger front setbacks than the 30-foot minimum, but they are all set back a similar distance from each other which effectively eliminates the possibility of a front expansion. Planning Associate Heller confirmed granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district in that the Commission has granted front setback variances for additions in the past. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that a ten-foot front entry and a four-foot porch that encroaches nine feet into the front setback would be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the Okoros perceived hardship. Planning Associate Heller stated the variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to the adjoining properties. Given how far back from the street the homes on this block are, a nine- foot encroachment may not be overly discernable or disruptive to the setback pattern for the block. Planning Associate Heller stated the proposed front entry and porch would not impair adequate light or air to adjacent properties, increase congestion of the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. She also indicated property values would not be substantially diminished or impaired within the neighborhood. Planning Assistant Heller reported notices of the public hearing were mailed and submitted to the newspaper. Staff received no comments regarding this property. Commissioner Miller asked what the front setbacks were on the other side of the street. Planning Associate Heller indicated when determining a setback Staff only looks at one side of the street. She commented that the opposite side of the street is similar. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland referred to the drawing to point out where the owners would put the addition eight feet out from the front of their home. The garage is two feet farther out than the house so the addition would not need more than a seven foot variance. He asked if the neighbor’s house lines up. He is under the impression that they count only the foundation. Community Development Director Ericson stated the City does allow for a two-foot encroachment for roofs and eaves. It appears the roof covers the walkway in its entirety. If the owners expand out two feet it would be ten feet from the house. Chair Stevenson opened the pubic hearing at 7:17. There being no input from the public, Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:18. Chair Stevenson indicated that he is familiar with this property. The setbacks are quite a distance from the street on both sides. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Hegland/Commissioner Scotch, to approve resolution 841-06, approving a variance to encroach seven to nine feet into the prevailing front setback at 2764 Laport Drive; Planning Case VR 2006-005. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. VR2006-004: Continuation Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a Billboard and IU2006-001: a Variance to Increase the Sign Height at the Mermaid, 2200 County Road 10. Applicant: Clear Channel Outdoor Address: 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413 Community Development Director Ericson stated this is a continuance of the discussion from the previous Planning Commission meeting for the consideration of an Interim Use Permit to site a billboard on the Mermaid property at 2200 County Road 10. In addition, the applicant also requests approval of a variance to extend the height of the billboard ten additional feet from 35 feet to 45 feet. The basis of the variance request is to not obstruct the adjoining property and to not be obstructed by the Mermaid’s ground sign. Director Ericson mentioned that significant discussion took place concerning the height and location of the billboard at the last Planning Commission meeting. Since the last meeting, Director Ericson confirmed that Mr. John Kopas, owner of Abbey Carpets at 2222 County Highway 10, no longer had concerns regarding the location or 45 foot height for the billboard and has submitted a letter to that effect. Director Ericson pointed out the Code requirements for a billboard. Ordinance 769 was adopted by the City Council which, among other things, allows for a billboard at this location. The requirements include zoning, location, setbacks from residential, property line setbacks, spacing, and height. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson stated the applicant must show a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes the literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Clear Channel would argue that the 35-foot height limitation does impose a hardship to neighboring properties and to themselves in the sense that at 35 feet their sign or adjoining signage would be obscured. Clear Channel was asked to remove four signs from the former golf course location and work in good faith with the City to relocate the four signs. This is why the City Council approved, although not unanimously, Ordinance 769 that provides additional opportunities to relocate the signs. The locations to site a billboard include anywhere on Highway 35W, Highway 10, Old Highway 8 and the south side of County Road 10 south of the Woodale Drive intersection. This is presupposed on the appropriate zoning of B-2, B-3, PUD, or CRP. The site on the Mermaid property does satisfy all criteria. Director Ericson stated Clear Channel must meet all seven criteria to indicate a hardship exists. It is not clear whether all criteria can be satisfied. Clear Channel would argue that a hardship exists as the provisions of the Ordinance are arbitrary in the sense that all other sites were provided a 45-foot height whereas County Road 10 was provided a 35-foot height. Director Ericson stated in terms of the Interim Use Permit process, the Commission would look at this as it would a Conditional Use Permit. The Mermaid location for the billboard would not cause any adverse impacts or impact residentially zoned properties as the closest residential property is approximately 1000 feet away. Director Ericson stated the Code requirements are satisfied for this request. The issue for the Planning Commission to consider at this point is whether or not a sufficient hardship exists for Clear Channel that would warrant or justify approving the variance at this location. If the Planning Commission does see justification for a variance, a resolution to approve the request is attached. If the Planning Commission does not see a hardship, a resolution to deny the request is also attached. The recommendation of the Planning Commission would then be forwarded to City Council. Chair Stevenson felt it would be better to handle the resolution for an Interim Use Permit before the height resolution is considered. It seems more appropriate to approve or deny the Interim Use Permit as a recommendation to the Council. If it goes forward, then tackle the resolution for a height variance. He sees these as two separate issues. The Planning Commission is the body that years ago recommended, and were very explicit, that no other billboards would be erected on County Road 10. Now, with the Council’s directive that one more billboard be allowed, the Commission should rule on whether or not our recommendations for Interim Use be permitted and if so, add that the Commission strongly opposes any additional billboard on County Highway 10, but since the Council has directed there be another billboard south of Woodale, the Planning Commission would approve this. Commissioner Hegland asked if it is true that this was one of the designated areas, but not the only area designated as a possible site for a billboard. Director Ericson replied that is correct. Four locations have been approved for the billboards and Clear Channel must relocate a total of four billboards. Director Ericson remarked that there are not many options in each of the designated areas. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked if it was possible to locate two billboards in the area along Highway 35W or County Road 10. Director Ericson responded that due to the spacing requirements from the existing billboard at Mounds View Manufactured Home Park and the one proposed on the Building A site along Highway 35W, if another billboard were located south of that it would be too far from the interstate to be viewed. It is not likely that another billboard could be located along 35W. Commissioner Scotch asked if the City would benefit from the billboard. Director Ericson replied the City would not directly benefit from the billboard. Commissioner Scotch asked if the maintenance of the billboard would be done by Clear Channel. Director Ericson stated the Mermaid entered into a lease agreement with Clear Channel that states Clear Channel would assume all maintenance for the billboard. Commissioner Scotch asked Mr. Sonterre to come forward to explain the terms of the lease. Mr. Sonterre explained the duration of the lease would be for a minimum of 30 years. Commissioner Scotch asked what would happen if the status of the Mermaid changes. Mr. Sonterre stated the billboard goes with the property and the lease would transfer to the new owner. Commissioner Hegland asked if the terms of the lease began at the golf course. Mr. Sonterre stated the 30 years starts with the new lease. Commissioner Miller talked about County Road 10 being the entry to Mounds View and making it more attractive. She opposes the billboard at this location and asked if there are any other locations the billboard could be constructed at the height of 35 feet. Director Ericson stated that given the number of trees and the turning radius of the roadway, visibility is limited to the north. The host property owner would like it at the location chosen. There are two other businesses that could host the billboard but he is not sure that given the visibility, either is acceptable. Commissioner Scotch asked about a location along the frontage road near 35W or on the north side of County Road 10. Mr. Sonterre said it would not be allowed because, per the Code, it would be on the wrong side of County Road 10. They did look at the two alternate properties and declared the County Road H Bridge would obstruct the visibility from 35W. Mr. Sonterre indicated Clear Channel is remarkably restricted in terms of the areas where they can relocate the billboards relative to zoning and spacing issues. Part of the agreement is large and broad and they have an obligation to make a good faith effort to relocate these billboards. Mr. Sonterre feels Clear Channel is doing their part to find areas that meet the Code and have participation by a landowner. The City by the same agreement must provide a good faith effort to assist Clear Channel find a location to relocate the billboards. If both parties make a good faith effort but are not able to meet the requirements or find host sites, there are contingencies for this also. They are doing their part to identify where they can locate the billboards. Clear Channel believes it is part of the greater civic good to help the City in its redevelopment of the golf course. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hull asked Director Ericson if the City Council looked at a buyout option. Director Ericson replied this is one of the options Mr. Sonterre is referring to that if sites are not available a buyout is a contingency. When the agreement was first drafted, Clear Channel was not open to a buyout. The value to Clear Channel is having the signs out there. If both parties make a good faith effort and no site can be found, Medtronic would provide the buy out. Commissioner Hegland asked about contact from residents opposing this. Director Ericson said those who responded were not property owners adjacent to the Mermain site or close by. Chair Stevenson clarified that the City said the property is consistent with the Code, that a billboard can be relocated here, it meets the requirements, there is a willing property owner, and a willing Clear Channel. He believes the Commission is faced with the fact that if this is going to be allowed, this is where it would be allowed. Denying it is really not going to make a difference. The only thing the Commission can do is make a recommendation. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, addressed the Commission and stated two things struck him. The first is he heard the property owner said he only wants the sign at the location chosen. This is a property owner that benefits from this billboard. Mr. Glidden said he is a property owner that would see this billboard every time he drives by. He believes there are better locations for the billboard on the Mermaid property. Secondly, Mr. Glidden made reference to Commissioner Miller’s comments as to County Road 10 being the entry to Mounds View. He has heard the term beautification of County Road 10. This billboard is not going to improve the look of County Road 10. The Planning Commission has the opportunity to carry out one strategy or another. He is one property owner that is voicing his opposition to the location of the billboard. He does not have a problem relocating these billboards where feasible. The location chosen directly affects people driving through Mounds View and this is not something the Planning Commission should be choosing to add to the City. Commissioner Scotch stated there are two situations before the Commission. There is a problem with businesses staying on County Road 10. If the Mermaid benefits by the revenue, she would like to help them. On the other hand, Medtronic was another deal that should have included the billboards. Commissioner Miller reminded the Planning Commission that it is not to consider financial gain when making a decision on this issue. Chair Stevenson stated, that pre-2000, they talked about their opposition to County Road 10 looking like Central Avenue and others streets relative to advertising. As a Commission, they made a solid point that one billboard was allowed on County Road 10 and no others. Mr. Glidden encouraged the Planning Commission to not approve this request. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland stressed it appears the Council tried to designate this area as a possibility for relocating one of the billboards. In the process of trying to relocate the billboard in this area, Clear Channel has gone another step by adding the height variance. This is going beyond where the Planning Commission wants to go. He does not think it is an acceptable solution. Chair Stevenson stated that if the City Council wants to do this, it is up to them. It is hard to make a recommendation to the City he is opposed to. If the sign is going to be there, 45 feet is the right height. Commissioner Hegland said this particular solution is in trouble and it is going beyond the relocation of the billboard. He understands the height issue, but that is why he feels it is the wrong solution. Commissioner Miller said not to approve the Interim Use Permit. Mr. Sonterre replied he understands the Planning Commission must make a judgment based on the Code and not personal feelings. He asked that the Planning Commission make a decision based purely on how the Code is written today and how the request fits the Code. Chair Stevenson reminded everyone that the Code is for the benefit of the City. Commissioner Hegland restated Clear Channel’s request goes beyond what the Code specifies with respect to the height of 45 feet. Mr. Sonterre respects what the Commissioners are saying if in fact Clear Channel does not meet the criteria of the Code as the basis for their decision. He restated that his question is whether or not the Commission’s charge is to evaluate City Code and whether or not the variance or IUP is consistent with the Code. If in fact it is their charge, that would be the way the process would be determined. Chair Stevenson replied they would not pass the request as presented. Commissioner Hegland stated part of the Code includes meeting requirements in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not allow for billboards. This has been changed and an agreement is in place to try to relocate the billboards, but this request is going beyond the rules for a normal billboard. Chair Stevenson stated that five years ago the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council that a billboard would be allowed on the current site of Walgreens. The City Council fully approved the Planning Commission’s recommendation that this would be the only billboard on County Road 10. Mr. Sonterre asked Director Ericson if billboards are contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan. Director Ericson said the Comprehensive Plan is not intended to be so specific as to address a sign or billboard or anything that is so site specific. The Zoning Code is for these types of considerations. The Comprehensive Plan lays out the development of the community and how it should look in the future. It is clear that billboards are not contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan so it would be difficult to say billboards are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked Mr. Sonterre if he approached the R.J. Riches site on 35W. Mr. Sonterre said they looked at a location that was actually closer to the interstate than R.J. Riches and to push it further off the interstate would not be an acceptable site. Commissioner Scotch stated this is a business that needs help also. She also asked about the parking lot southeast of R.J. Riches that is controlled by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Sonterre said that if R.J. Riches had unobstructed visibility from the interstate and Clear Channel thought they could sell that location on a regular basis it would have been considered. Relative to the parking lot, they did not have a willing participant in that process. Additionally, the bridge that takes eastbound Highway 10 going over 35W was a significant obstruction to the view. They need a minimum of six seconds read time as one approaches a billboard. One of the factors is they have an asset that had a particular value at the golf course that performed at a specific level. The Mermaid is a significant step backwards in the value of the sign to Clear Channel. It is a factor they must consider over all. Commissioner Scotch suggested the Planning Commission look at other options for the billboard. Commissioner Hull asked what year the initial agreement was signed. Community Development Director Ericson stated the original agreement was with Eller Media in 1999 or 2000. He recommends the Planning Commission take action one way or another regarding the IUP and variance request. Chair Stevenson stressed they need to take one issue at a time. He asked the Commission to rule on both even if it is denied. If the Council so chooses to overrule the Commission if it is denied, he wants the Council to know whether or not the Commission approves a 45-foot tall billboard, if the Council chooses to site a billboard in this location. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:03 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Hegland/Commissioner Miller, to recommend approval of resolution 844-06, a resolution denying the resolution for a variance for a 45-foot tall billboard at 2200 County Road 10, Planning Case VR 2006-004. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Chair Stevenson) Motion carried. Chair Stevenson stated the second resolution before the Commission is for approval of an Interim Use Permit for a billboard at 2200 County Road 10, Planning Case IU2006-001. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Hull, to recommend approval of resolution 845-06, a resolution denying the request for an Interim Use Permit for a billboard at 2200 County Road 10, Planning Case IU2006-001. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller recommended grammatical changes to resolution 845-06. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. C. VR2006-004: Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a Billboard and IU2006-002: a Variance to Reduce Setback at 5201 Program Ave Applicant: Clear Channel Outdoor Address: 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413 Community Development Director Ericson presented the consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a billboard and a Variance to Reduce Setback at 5201 Program Avenue. This request is consistent with recently adopted Ordinance 769. Director Ericson stated Clear Channel Outdoor has an agreement with property owner RREEF American REIT II, a division of Deutsche Bank Group. They are proposing to site a billboard at the southwest corner of Program Avenue and Woodale Drive. A survey is included in the Commission’s report to show the location of the billboard site. Director Ericson reported that in addition to the IUP application, Clear Channel also requested approval of a variance to reduce the setback of the billboard from fifteen feet to five feet. The basis of the variance request is to avoid placing the billboard within the existing storm water pond. Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission is to treat this request as they would a Conditional Use Permit. The Commission is to look at adverse effects criteria relative to the Comprehensive Plan. Director Ericson indicated this area of Mounds View is dominated by office, warehouse and industrial uses. There are no adjacent residential properties and the closest residentially zoned lots are north of County Road H2 at the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park, which has its own billboard on site. Director Ericson commented that given the location adjacent to Highway 35W and the fact that it is separated from any residential properties by more than 350 feet, it would not adversely affect the properties. Relatively little traffic exists in this area. The visibility of the billboard is intended from 35W. Director Ericson stated the property owner has set this area aside for a billboard. Director Ericson reported Staff looked at the possibility of placing a billboard just north of the intersection of Program Avenue and Woodale Drive. The property to the north is also owned by RREEF. Staff did an analysis of the setback to the Program Avenue right of way and found a five- foot setback from the parking lot to the right of way. The billboard would not satisfy the 15-foot setback at this location. Director Ericson stated the request is to grant a variance to the 15-foot setback requirement that would reduce the setback to five feet. Another way to look at this is the setback from the traveled surface at Program Avenue is 30 feet and 15 feet from the traveled surface of Woodale Drive. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson again stated Clear Channel would suggest they are not here because this site is something they would prefer to have rather than the golf course site. They were required to remove their signs from the former golf course. The site on Highway 35W is one site that gives Clear Channel the visibility they are looking for. Director Ericson directed the Planning Commission’s attention to the survey in the Staff report. He indicated it provides the Commission with a good view of the setback. He pointed out that Program Avenue curves to the southwest while Highway 35W maintains a straight north south orientation. If the billboard were placed any farther south of the property, it would be too far from Highway 35W to give good visibility. It also does not disrupt parking on the host property. The billboard can be sited between the pond and the right of way without much trouble. Commissioner Hegland asked if this request is based on the cost incurred by the 15 foot setback or is it a location for a visibility issue. Director Ericson responded the issue is finding the best location for siting the billboard. Bringing the billboard 10 feet closer to the right of way would enhance visibility, but this is not the primary reason. The pond does not allow for much flexibility. Staff feels this is the minimum to satisfy the hardship. The pond is an immovable feature. Director Ericson informed the Planning Commission it must determine if the applicant demonstrates a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Director Ericson pointed out there are resolutions attached to the report for the Planning Commission’s action. There is only the resolution for approval of the variance. If the Planning Commission decides to deny the variance, Staff would prepare a denial resolution. There is also only a resolution for approval of the Interim Use Permit. Again, if the Planning Commission feels there is justification to deny the resolution, Staff can be directed to draft a denial of the Interim Use Permit. Staff does feel there is sufficient justification to deny the resolution. Chair Stevenson stated they have not looked at this previously and asked for input from the public. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:15. Mr. Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, asked if Mr. Ericson has a map that identifies this location. Planning Associate Heller provided a location map for Mr. Glidden. She pointed out and discussed specific reference points. Mr. Glidden asked what businesses are located in the area. Director Ericson stated there are a number of businesses here. Mr. Glidden believes this is a more reasonable site than the proposed location at the Mermaid. Commissioner Miller mentioned she has a problem with the wording of the variance. She recommended corrections. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:20. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Hegland, to approve resolution 846-06 approving a variance, with corrections, for a reduced setback for a billboard at 5201 Program Avenue, Planning Case VR2006-005. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson /Commissioner Miller, to approve the resolution 847-06, Interim Use Permit, with corrections, for a billboard at 5201 Program Avenue, Planning Case IU2006-002. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Community Development Director Ericson stated these items would be on the July 10, 2006 City Council agenda for consideration. D. MA2006-002: Consideration of a Major Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road. Applicant: Matthew Hofmann Address: 15472 Fillmore Street NW, Elk River, MN 55330 Planning Associate Heller presented an application for a major subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road. Since this is a major subdivision, it would be done in a three-step process. She presented the preliminary plat, which would also go to Council. Planning Associate Heller stated this is approximately a 1.5-acre lot with one house on it. Mr. Hofmann has a purchase agreement with the landowner and proposes subdividing the lot into three single-family lots. These would match up with the properties directly behind them so the property lines would be along the same lines. The area is currently zoned single family residential. The proposed subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property. All lots shown on the preliminary plat satisfy the minimum requirements of a 75-foot lot width and 11,000 square foot lot area. All three lots would be almost identical in size at 83’x 270’ or approximately 0.51 acre. The house currently on the property would be demolished and three new single-family homes built. Planning Associate Heller stated the Comprehensive Plan does designate this area to be single-family detached housing. The proposed subdivision would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Associate Heller reported there are no wetlands on this property. There do not appear to be any drainage issues on this property. Planning Associate Heller referred to the preliminary plat and pointed out this plat does dedicate the necessary perimeter easements. There is a 45-foot drainage and utility easement along the west property line that would cross all three lots and remain in this area. Planning Associate Heller indicated the three new lots would have access onto Long Lake Road, which is a County-owned road. This street is adequate to handle the small amount of added traffic Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ that two additional homes would create. Any work to the boulevard would require a permit from the County, and any alterations to the existing sidewalk would require a permit from the City. Planning Associate Heller reported the Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is subject to a park dedication fee. The dedication fee imposed is intended to mitigate public costs to the park system associated with land development. The fee shall be reasonable and based on the extent of the development. In this case, the fee would be equal to 10% of the market value of the land. The amount of $10,640 has been communicated to the developer. Planning Associate Heller stated all utilities on the site would need to be installed underground, per Section 1203.10. Water and sanitary sewer lines are easily accessible. Planning Associate Heller reported the amount of daily vehicle trips on the proposed road would be minimal since only two additional housing units are proposed. There is currently one house on the property. On average, single-family homes generate about ten vehicle trips per day, thus one could expect an additional 20 movements along Long Lake Road as a result of this subdivision. Planning Associate Heller indicated the 1.55-acre site is mostly tree covered. Neighbors are concerned about keeping the buffer between the properties. The applicant indicated that having the lots wooded would be a great selling point for the homes. The City Forester contacted Staff and indicted there are four to five large red oaks on the property that he would like to see saved. He also stated there is some oak wilt infection in the northwest corner of the property. This would be taken care of during construction. Planning Associate Heller reiterated there are no wetlands identified on the property as indicated on the National Wetlands Inventory Map and the City’s official Wetland Zoning Map. Since the property is over one acre in size, the applicant would need to apply for a general storm water permit from the MPCA, and contact the Rice Creek Watershed District to find out if they require a permit also. Planning Associate Heller stated Staff sent notices to property owners within 350 feet of the project area. Their main concern was keeping the wooded buffered area. There should be no problem with this. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that Mr. Hoffman could not attend the meeting, but Ms. Deede Kron from Kemlet Construction, was available to answer any questions. This is a fairly straightforward subdivision. The lots would all be approximately the same size, double what the city requires in square footage. A resolution is attached for the Planning Commission’s action. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Chair Stevenson stated it appears to be less than ten feet from the current home on the property. Planning Associate Heller stated this old home would be demolished as it is in the wrong place to keep it there. The new home would not be in the same footprint as the old one. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller /Commissioner Hegland, to approve resolution 843-06 recommending approval of a preliminary plat for the subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road; Mounds View Planning Case number MA2006-002. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Continuation: Review TIF Policies, TIF Scenarios and Economic Development Funding Priorities. Community Development Director Ericson stated this item was on the June 21, 2006 Planning Commission agenda for discussion but was pulled from consideration due in part to time constraints. Director Ericson referred to a collection of information on the TIF before the Planning Commission. The City Council has been discussing its TIF policy and Economic Development Strategy for the last six months or so. It started taking shape when the Medtronic process started. Questions were asked about the extent of tax increment financing in the City. It became evident that the Council needed to look at the status of the three TIF districts as to when they expire, how much increment is generated, look at the percentage of tax capacity captured in these districts and provide some consideration as to the future of increment collected and whether the City should maintain the status quo or take action to reduce the amount of increment collected. Director Ericson, referring to financial spreadsheets, presented five separate scenarios that estimate the amount of TIF increment collected over the remaining life of the original three districts. The first scenario is a status quo response to TIF revenues. The second scenario represents a decrease in revenues by decertifying District 3. The third scenario contemplates a reduction of TIF revenues by changing the fiscal disparities election on the three original districts to “B” rather than “A.” The fourth scenario combines the effects of scenarios two and three, which is to say a decertification of District 3 plus changing the fiscal disparities election to “B” for Districts 1 and 2. The fifth and final scenario considers an across the board reduction in TIF by ten percent. Director Ericson stated if no changes are made to the existing TIF districts, the amount of Market Value Tax capacity captured in Mounds View TIF districts is 16.29 percent. Factoring in the Medtronic development and its projected $96 million market value, the amount of the City’s tax capacity captured in TIF districts would rise to 22.32 percent. Scenario one represents this option. Director Ericson explained that scenario two, decertification of District 3, the net effect to a property owner with a median valued home in the City would be a reduction of $32 annually. To give up the $2.1 million, the property owners would save $32 on the median valued home. Director Ericson stated scenario three represents the effect of a change to the fiscal disparities election for the original three districts. The amount of increment collected from the three districts would amount to a cumulative $9,000,000, a reduction in revenues by more than five million dollars. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ The net effect to a property owner with a median valued home in the City would be a reduction of $55 annually. Commissioner Hegland asked what budget they are basing this on. He stated the budget has something to do with this and does not understand why the budget numbers are not represented here. Director Ericson replied that there are too many variables to try to factor what could happen. They are looking at what would happen, based on today’s budget all things being equal. This is strictly speaking today’s dollars. It gives a comparative understanding of what the impact would be. The City Council has indicated their preference is not to increase the budget or the levy so theoretically these are good numbers for a number of years, or at least solid when compared against other scenarios. Commissioner Hegland stated this is not an adequate way of doing this. Director Ericson stated it is not intended to predict what the revenues will be in ten years but rather a means to decide which option to consider. He further stated that the City’s tax portion is only one- third of the tax statement. The City has no control over the other taxing jurisdictions. Commissioner Hegland expressed this all needs to be taken into consideration. Director Ericson explained that the other thing to keep in mind is if the increment is decreased, the general fund levy may be increased to cover the costs of the projects that could have been covered through TIF dollars. Commission Hegland asked if the tax increment collected for the districts is a fixed increment that cannot change or is it based on property values. Director Ericson reiterated it is based on property value. This is a snapshot in time for 2006. It should be constant in terms of the relationship between the various options. The dollar amount would vary, but not between the different options. The spreadsheets are tools. Commissioner Hegland indicated that he understands what Director Ericson is trying to do and why, but he does not agree with the outcome because increase in budget and increase in property values are unrelated and can skew the outcome in either direction. Director Ericson went on to explain that scenario four, decertification and FD election, combines the effects of the two previous scenarios. This scenario would reduce in today’s dollars the amount of increment collected to about $6.9 million. The net effect to a property owner with a median valued home in the City would be a reduction of $73 annually. Director Ericson explained in scenario five, examines the impact of reducing TIF revenue by ten percent. The reduction would likely occur by selective parcel decertification within the districts. This approach would reduce the amount of revenue collected by less than $1.5 million. The median valued homeowner would see a $16 savings from the City’s portion of the tax bill. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated the other aspect is to look at the TIF policy and to make a determination as to whether or not it makes sense and represents everything the Planning Commission and City Council wants to accomplish. Director Ericson provided a TIF policy recently adopted by St. Anthony for comparison. Director Ericson stated the City Council is looking for the opinion of the Planning Commission. They received feedback from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) also. Director Ericson stated the reality is the three TIF districts will expire in 2013, 2014 and 2015. This would be the end of the increments. They have identified approximately $50 million dollars worth of projects that could be supported by TIF. Only $14.9 million in TIF available. Any reduction would have a likewise reduction in the programs that could be supported. Chair Stevenson ask for clarification on what they are charged to do at this meeting. Director Ericson explained that the EDA would like the feedback and input from the Planning Commission as to whether they should maintain the status quo or take steps to reduce the amount of increment generated in Mounds View. If the Commission does want to consider reducing the increment, how they would go about it. If there are changes required to the TIF policy, what could be amended or incorporated. Chair Stevenson asked for further clarification. He asked if the task for the Commission is to not necessarily decide on one of the scenarios but whether the Commission would support continuing TIF as is or with minor changes to it. Director Ericson said that is accurate. The Planning Commission asked to hear from Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Backman. Mr. Backman told the Planning Commission the EDC supports Scenario 1. The EDC prioritized projects in 2005 looking at a variety of items and generated a list of projects. Their view is to stay the course and to proceed with projects. There are more projects than there are dollars to go around. As to the issue of how the TIF is now, the City is in good condition. Bonds have been paid off and the City is in good shape compared to other cities relative to financial obligations and dollars on hand. Commissioner Scotch indicated she is surprised this is before the Planning Commission for question. The Commission was told nine months to a year ago that any type of funding brought before the Commission was not to be discussed. Now they are looking for the Commission’s opinion. She also asked if some of the projects would have been funded if the City had not given so much to the Medtronic project. Commissioner Hegland indicated he does not think the only thing to consider here is how much TIF funding we have at the moment. The problem is the TIF money changes as property is developed. The Medtronic project is going to develop an area and taxes would increase. A cost benefit analysis must be done on each of these. Director Ericson clarified that the issue with the Medtronic TIF district and the increment generated for that project is completely unrelated to the issues on the table and what could be funded. The TIF laws state that any TIF increment generated on the Medtronic site go to the Medtronic site. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch said the TIF moneys coming back are available for other projects. Director Ericson said the TIF laws say it can only be spent on projects to reduce that obligation. It could be spent in the Medtronic TIF district area only. Coordinator Backman clarified that the older districts allow for pooling. This is not the case for the Medtronic TIF district. It can only be spent in that district. This is reflective of the Legislature. Commissioner Scotch asked where the funding comes from to make improvements to the inner city. Mr. Backman stated it would come from districts one, two and three. There would be about $1.0 million available per year for projects. Commissioner Hegland restated that the Economic Development Commission recommended staying with scenario one. He asked on what data was this decision made and why. Coordinator Backman indicated that there was simply a higher demand for dollars than dollars available. The EDC recognized that they want to keep the levy rates down to the lowest possible level. Commission Scotch asked what projects came forth that the EDC wants to work on first. Coordinator Backman said the EDC is in sync with the Council to prioritize projects. The EDC is looking at improvements along County Road 10, housing, infrastructure and how to allocate dollars equitably. When you get into the realm of infrastructure, equity comes to the floor. Commissioner Hull indicated that even with $46 million worth of expenditures, he likes Scenario two as it gives something back to the taxpayers and seems to make more sense. Commissioner Hegland said none of this makes any sense. The City Council is responsible for the City and the Planning Commission is responsible for making decisions on codes and code compliance. He believes the information is inadequate to make the decision the Council is asking the Planning Commission to make. Nobody understands how this works or if it costs a reasonable amount for the gain received. Chair Stevenson reported the Planning Commission is not ready to give an opinion. Commissioner Scotch finds it a privilege that the EDC, the EDA and the City Council asked for the Commission’s opinion. She believes more collaboration with the Council and the EDC equals better decisions. If the Planning Commission were more educated on all the numbers and factors, it could form an opinion. Chair Stevenson asked Coordinator Backman for a quick summation of TIF and what it is the City is looking for from the Planning Commission. Coordinator Backman deferred to Director Ericson. Director Ericson clarified that the whole premise of tax increment financing is that a municipality or a taxing jurisdiction is able to leverage future tax dollars generated by a development to help pay for Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 18 ________________________________________________________________________ development construction costs and the infrastructure to allow a development to move forward. The City is able to pledge future tax dollars for a project to encourage and provide assistance to a developer to bring in that development. It establishes a base value in terms of the value of the property and any valuation increase from the date the TIF district was created. Any increase or construction past the date the TIF was created would be captured tax value and would go into a separate pool. Based on today’s legislation, the dollars are designated to pay off the obligation incurred to assist the developer. There is a “but for” this assistance, the development would not go forward. There must be rational bases for the assistance provided. TIF is a development tool a City or County can utilize to redevelop an area so as not to lose what is there now and utilize the increased value to pay off the cost of the project. These dollars are initiated from the property owner that creates the project. Commissioner Hegland said the three districts have different rules because dollars are reallocated to other projects as opposed to future projects that can only be dedicated for the assigned project. The Planning Commission needs to have the whole picture. Coordinator Backman clarified what TIF can be used for. It can be used for such things as parking, utilities, water and sewer and things that pertain to the site. It cannot be used for operational expenses or putting up office spaces. Think of it as from the ground down. Commissioner Hegland asked for an explanation of the length of time a TIF district is established. He asked how this is determined and what fiscal impact it has on the City. Coordinator Backman said legislation establishes the TIF districts. This particular district is established for 25 years. The projects within the districts can be for less time. Commissioner Hegland asked if once the TIF districts are retired at the end of 2015, is this the end. Coordinator Backman said that is correct. The one exception is if decertification is done. It is possible to shorten the TIF but not lengthen it. We could, in theory, decertify parcels from any of the districts. But if there are financial obligations pertaining to that district, these obligations must be kept in mind. The obligations continue on. The risks are on the developer, not the City. The City is not obligated to pay off the note. This is true of Medtronic also. Commissioner Hull said that by decertifying a TIF district, it is quicker on the tax rolls and better for the taxpayers. Director Ericson said theoretically there is a reduction in the tax levy and how it is spread among the taxpayers. Property taxes collected by properties in the TIF district are not paid into the tax fund. They are taxed according to the tax rate established. Coordinator Backman said the City could not hoard TIF dollars. If the TIF dollars are coming in and the City sits on them, Ramsey County would say you either use them or lose them. Within a specified period of time, the City must show Ramsey County these dollars would be used. Commissioner Scotch said the key is to know the districts. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 19 ________________________________________________________________________ Coordinator Backman said that is true and it also includes getting to know the needs in the community. Commissioner Hegland asked for clarification relative to Coordinator Backman’s comment that the City could only use new TIF money for projects in that district. The City has the ability to shorten it if the TIF obligations are paid off. The Commission, Coordinator Backman and Director Ericson continued a discussion on clarifying where the TIF districts are located, decertification possibilities and how the money could be used. Commissioner Hegland stressed the need for a cost benefit analysis, Mr. Glidden approached the Planning Commission and stated he hears that partial and confusing information was presented. A TIF should be clear so everyone can understand it and can do a benefit analysis. He never heard that anyone took the time to do a benefit analysis on the Medtronic project. The Commission cannot make a decision without the facts on the table. This is straightforward and no different than making any other decision. The TIF district is established for economic redevelopment. State law provided for a maximum of 25 years for redevelopment. He personally does not know how someone can make a decision with the information available at this time. What seems reasonable is to be more specific on what the City TIF policy is. Commissioner Hegland said the TIF laws have changed. There are issues that are not clear and the Commission is trying to make a decision on two different issues at the same time. The bigger question is how the money that can be reallocated could be spent. Commissioner Scotch asked if there is a task force working on this. Director Ericson said the EDC is basically that task force. They are charged with looking at economic development within a community. They have taken a position on where TIF dollars should be spent. Commissioner Scotch wants to understand TIF. Chair Stevenson pointed out that Mr. Glidden summed it up very well. There are many projects that could use TIF money. The worse thing would be to have Ramsey County say the City could not use collected TIF money. Commissioner Hegland stated that is not our problem. If the question is which one of these scenarios is the best, the answer must be the one that maximizes the collection of tax increment that can be reallocated. He is not sure if he understands which scenario is the best decision. The purpose of the TIF is to improve properties so the tax base is high enough to support the needs of the community. The public hearing was closed at 9:40. Chair Stevenson instructed Director Ericson to take this back as the Commission is not ready to make any recommendations at this time. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 20 ________________________________________________________________________ B. Continuation: Review Amendments to Chapters 701 and 1106 Regarding Dog Kennels. Director Ericson stated Staff is seeking Planning Commission review of a proposed ordinance that would eliminate residential dog and cat kennels as a conditional use. Director Ericson stated that the Planning Commission had asked to have stronger language added to the ordinance so that loopholes by which someone that should not be given a kennel license are given one. He indicated that at the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney, the only change from the version presented and considered at the June 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, is the addition of the words “who has mistreated animals” to page two of Ordinance 774, item e under Persons Ineligible. “No license shall be granted to an applicant who has mistreated animals or has been convicted for animal cruelty offenses.” Director Ericson indicated that the prosecuting attorney felt by adding “who has mistreated animals” the City has the discretion it needs to deny someone a license where there have been problems in the past. He stated that this is the only change made to the resolution. Director Ericson stated that if this wording accurately reflects what the Planning Commission is looking for, he would have it forwarded on to the City Council for consideration. Commissioner Miller asked about the order of the new clauses. She indicated she thought the clause for persons ineligible should be located closer to the license fees. Director Ericson said that typically when they talk about ineligibility it is usually placed later on in the document. He stated it could be written in anywhere the Planning Commission feels is appropriate. He does not feel the order makes a difference. Chair Stevenson stated if it follows the way other ordinances are written and addresses eligibility at the end; it should be left where it is. Commissioner Hegland asked if it should be “anyone being charged with” or can anyone accuse someone of mistreatment of animals. Director Ericson clarified the prosecuting attorney said in his opinion having the language “mistreated animals” is sufficient to provide just cause to deny a license where there is sufficient justification to do so. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Scotch /Commissioner Miller to approve the ordinance 842-06 amending the procedures and regulations pertaining to dog kennels. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. July 19, 2006. B. August 2, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 21 ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:48 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.