Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-2003PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 20, 2003 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:02 p.m., August 20, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call. Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Scotch, Hegland, Song, and Johnson Members Absent: Miller and Zwirn (excused) Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes: Page Planning Case VR03-006 2 Location: 2214 – 2222 Highway 10 Planning Case VR03-007 (CANCELLED) 3 Location: 3001 County Road H2 Special Planning Case SP-118-03 3 Consider Changes to the PF Zoning District to Correct Zoning Inconsistencies Special Planning Case SP-114-03 5 Discuss and Consider Ordinances Relating to the Zoning and Regulation of Pawnshops in the City of Mounds View Discussion of Possible Amendments to the Zoning Code 8 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes. a. July 2, 2003 Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Johnson /Scotch. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for July 2, 2003, as Presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda. None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Consideration of Resolution 735-03 Approving a Variance to Allow an Increase in Wall Signage. VR03-006. Community Development Director Ericson explained the applicant’s request and indicated that Mr. Kopas of Abbey Carpet planned to have his business open at the site by September 1, 2003. He noted the Sign Code called for building mounted signage not to exceed 100 square feet per building occupant; however, the Abbey Carpet building, referred to as the Highway 10 Business Center, has three frontages with County Highway 10 visibility. Director Ericson stated Mr. Kopas would be installing a 96-square-foot sign above his entrance on the front of the building but would also like to install his existing signage from the New Brighton location, which had an area of 50 square feet. He added signage had been installed for 3 Seasons and 4 Sunrooms on the front elevation and they proposed adding signage to the south building elevation in an amount not to exceed the 50 square feet proposed by Mr. Kopas. Director Ericson noted there had been similar requests granted by the Planning Commission and City Council. He cited Budget Liquor, Mario’s Video and Minnesota Fabrics as examples. He stated the considerations to grant variances were quite rigid and referred to the seven criteria to be reviewed for variance consideration. Director Ericson explained the overall intent was to establish a hardship and to ask if the applicant caused the need for the variance. He indicated all the criteria for variance consideration appeared to be satisfied. He added the staff position was the request was not unreasonable or excessive and was the minimum that would alleviate the hardship. Director Ericson stated the Commission could take one of the following actions: approve the variance as requested, deny the requested variance or table the request. The Commission could move to table if additional information or further discussion was needed. It was noted that John Kopas of Abbey Carpet and Ozzie Osborn of 3 Seasons and 4 Sunrooms were in attendance. It was also noted that notices were sent to properties within 150 feet of the building. Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ____________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Johnson noted the major businesses seemed to be requesting variances and wondered if the codes should be revisited. He stated the only variances given were to the bigger, nicer businesses and he wanted to keep it that way. He did not see a problem giving the variance. Chair Stevenson indicated the request was not unusual considering the multiple, high traffic fronts. He added he did not want to see the Sign Code changed. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Chair Stevenson asked for a recommendation from the Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson /Hegland. To Approve Resolution 735-03, a Resolution Approving a Variance for 100 Square Feet of Additional Exterior Building Signage at 2214-2222 County Highway 10. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mr. Kopas thanked the Planning Commission. He noted the Boy Scouts would be moving into the center spot in the building, which would be a showpiece for them. He also stated the Commission would be invited to the Open House. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Consideration of Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow Two Curb-Cut Accesses. VR03-007. (CANCELLED) Community Development Director Ericson indicated it was determined a variance was not needed for the two curb cuts. He explained the Code stated that curb cuts not in compliance with the Code may be allowed to remain as long as they were not deemed a public hazard. He added site inspections revealed no apparent hazard or danger associated with the two curb cuts, both of which access Spring Lake Road, and visibility and spacing on Spring Lake Road was sufficient. Community Development Director Ericson stated the scheduled public hearing had been cancelled, the Planning Application had been voided and the fee was refunded to the applicant. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Consider Changes to the PF Zoning District to Correct Zoning Inconsistencies. Special Planning Case SP-118-03. Community Development Director Ericson indicated on July 14, 2003, the City Attorney addressed the Council regarding the Mounds View PF Zoning District and recommended the City strongly consider revising the district’s purpose and rezone some or all properties within the PF district to another district more logically suited. He presented copies of the City Attorney’s Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ July 14, 2003, letter, his correspondence to the City Council, Chapter 1118 of the Mounds View Zoning Code and the City’s “Facility Guide” for review. Director Ericson stated Council had directed staff to bring this issue to the Planning Commission for review and requested the Commission draft a proposed ordinance for the Council’s consideration. Director Ericson indicated the City Attorney’s response was perhaps the City was zoning improperly, as the zoning should be related to land use and not property ownership. He added the City Attorney felt this revision would make the City’s zoning code more consistent with conventional zoning concepts. Director Ericson presented a map showing the PF zones within the City. He noted the uses present within the City’s PF district were the following: city parks, wells and pump houses, City Hall, water treatment plant, water tower, The Bridges Golf Course and Community Center. Director Ericson discussed how these properties would be zoned if the City followed the example of other cities. He indicated the Planning Commission should discuss appropriate zoning for these parcels and the target was to eliminate the PF Zoning District. Director Ericson reviewed the “Facility Guide” map with the Commission. Commissioner Hegland asked where the PF zoning designation originated. Director Ericson responded it was implemented at some point after the 1970s. He explained each city came up with its own designations, with many of the labels being similar and others being unique to the community. He added other communities had the PF zoning designation and the City probably borrowed it from another zoning code. Commissioner Hegland questioned why the designation was a problem. He stated he felt PF (public facilities) would cover any property owned by the City and by definition it would be scattered around the City to serve the public. He added he did not understand the legal problem because the land use was to serve the public. Director Ericson replied he was not sure there was a legal problem. He added the Supreme Court had thought it was backward to zone the property according to ownership instead of the nature of its use. He indicated the drive was consistency with conventional zoning. Commissioner Hegland stated he felt the PF zoning designation was nature of use, as the nature of use was to serve the public. Discussion ensued regarding properties owned by the City that were not in PF Zoning District. Chair Stevenson asked how other communities designated parks and public facilities. Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson responded they were designated according to the surrounding area. Director Ericson explained this issue was before the Planning Commission for its feedback and consideration. He added he had not provided a resolution and could draft one for the next meeting. Commissioner Scotch noted this issue had surfaced based on the Supreme Court decision relating to the Eller Media’s request for billboards from MnDOT. She added more detail regarding the decision could be obtained by reviewing the case. Commissioner Johnson stated the decision was made because the PF zoning derived from City ownership, as there was no designation of use. Commissioner Hegland stated the PF zoning indicated City ownership based on the comprehensive plan defining their properties as public facilities. Discussion followed regarding properties the City uses but does not own. Director Ericson indicated he would collect and prepare further information regarding City properties, review the ultimate goal and present the pros and cons for revision at the next meeting. Chair Stevenson asked Director Ericson to advise the Commission regarding public facility designations in other communities. He stated he would be interested to learn if there was additional identification of these properties in their codes. Director Ericson stated he would present any findings at the next meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Discuss and Consider Ordinances Relating to the Zoning and Regulation of Pawnshops in the City of Mounds View. Special Planning Case SP-114-03. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the City Council had asked the Planning Commission to comment on the overlay issue as to which of the two proposed areas would be more appropriate and which properties should be included in the overlay. He added Council also asked for a response regarding the proposal to include multiple “unwanted” land uses within the overlay. He stated the Commission should address these two issues in light of the legal opinions that had been offered and prepare a response (in the form of a resolution) to the City Council. Director Ericson noted, to assist the Commission with the potential overlay boundaries, he had revised the original overlay maps to reflect a smaller overlay area with fewer parcels. He stated the Commission would need to determine if the area and parcel availability would satisfy the “reasonableness” test. Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 6 ____________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson noted two proposed overlay districts had been discussed at the last Commission meeting and the Commission had questions and concerns that the size of the area was too large. He explained the City Attorney indicated it would probably not be defensible to create the overlay district using only the golf course, as such an action could be deemed arbitrary and capricious. Director Ericson also briefly examined what other cities were doing regarding this issue. He also questioned whether the City would be open to litigation if they limited the number of pawnshops allowed or included other land uses in such an overlay district. Director Ericson explained there was no threshold area; however, the City must be reasonable. He added he was not aware of documentation warranting an outright ban of pawnshops that would not meet a challenge. Director Ericson indicated there probably would be negative ramifications to setting up a multiple-use overlay district, as it could be viewed as irrational and not in the public interest. He added cities like New York City had eliminated their “red-light” districts. Director Ericson noted he had taken a second look at the proposed overlay districts after the last Commission meeting and had revised them into smaller areas. He discussed the two revised overlay districts, one consisting of 9.2 acres and the other consisting of 16.3 acres. He asked the Commission if this area was sufficient or if it was still too large. Director Ericson stated the Commission needed to decide where the overlay should be, how large it should be and what uses would be allowed within the overlay. He noted he should be able to bring a resolution to the next Commission meeting that indicated which area should be in the overlay and the uses allowed in the overlay. Commissioner Johnson asked about the yellow parcel on the map. Director Ericson responded that it represented Mounds View Square, which the Commission originally indicated as a site appropriate for pawnshop use. Commissioner Song stated the City certainly did not want a “red-light” district. Chair Stevenson noted this area was to be strictly pawnshop usage and “red-light” usage was not being discussed. He added he favored overlay option 1 if a choice had to be made. Commissioner Hegland, Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Scotch agreed with Chair Stevenson. Chair Stevenson stated he was opposed to anything other than industrial in the mobile home area. He added he actually was opposed to an overlay district. Commissioner Hegland indicated the overlay district should not be any larger than the smallest business district in the City. Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 7 ____________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson responded he thought that would be a 10,000 square-foot lot, which would be zoned B-1. Commissioner Hegland explained he did not mean one individual district but a business area. Discussion followed regarding the parcel sizes for B-1 through B-4. Commissioner Hegland noted this was going to become the second largest business district in the City. Director Ericson replied the district would be larger than B-1 and B-2 if the position were that the overlay was a district. Commissioner Hegland asked if it made sense to create an overlay for one business that was larger than business districts within the City. Commissioner Johnson added the pawnshop owner may fight spending a “ton of money” to build in a location where he could not draw traffic. Chair Stevenson asked if the suggested locations would be considered reasonable or arbitrary and capricious, as the pawnshop business relied heavily on drive-by traffic. He questioned if the City would get into a legal bind by limiting the locations to the corner of a golf course or in an industrial park. Commissioner Johnson felt, according to the City Attorney, the Commission was being reasonable, as long as the size was adequate. Director Ericson responded the Courts gave substantial deference to cities to regulate what goes onto a property. He added a judge must rule an action to be arbitrary or capricious for it to be overruled. He explained, if the intent of the City was to segregate this type of use away from residential areas because of issues relating to crime or bringing in the wrong element, that action might be unfounded. He added, however, there were reasons behind the City’s actions if it were trying to separate this type of use from churches, daycares, etc. He noted the consideration would be if the City’s action was reasonable for the pawnshop or if the City was making it hard for the pawnshop to operate. He stated the zoning needed to be for the common good of the community. Chair Stevenson asked how much of the 9.2 acres was occupied. Director Ericson replied 100% in terms of buildings; however, he was not sure how much was open and could be leased. Commissioner Johnson asked if the City should zone for 2,500 feet between adult businesses instead of 1,000 feet. Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 8 ____________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson responded he could get one business on the 9.2-acre option and possibly two businesses on the 16.3-acre option. He indicated he would do some research regarding this issue to bring back to the Commission for information and discussion. Chair Stevenson asked if the City had revised where pawnshops were allowed. Director Ericson responded pawnshops were currently not allowed. Chair Stevenson asked if the Commission was agreeing with the 9.2-acre option. Commissioner Hegland stated he felt it was too much space. Director Ericson indicated he would bring back a resolution stating the Commission’s position, along with its recommendation for no other uses. Chair Stevenson asked if the Commission was still in line limiting this to 4,000 square feet. Director Ericson responded that ordinance had not been recommended for any change, only the zoning one. David Przetycki, a resident of Mounds View, came forward and asked who owned the 9.2 acres. He stated he was opposed to an overlay district whether or not he was opening up a pawnshop. He felt this was a place to open up businesses and, if someone came before the City with another undesirable business, it would have to allow that business as well. He noted he did not want to see a “red-light” district in Mounds View. He asked what would happen if the residents did not want an overlay zone. Director Ericson stated the property owners and/or adjoining property owners did need to be notified of the action and they could come before the Council with their concerns. He added the adjoining city would also be notified, as they could be irritated by the decision. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Review Possible Amendments to the Zoning Code. Community Development Director Ericson noted Council had identified possible amendments to the City Code, which were being presented to the Planning Commission for comment and possible action. He indicated the possible amendments were as follows: 1. Amend the City Code to increase the minimum square footage requirements for a single- family home. Director Ericson noted a one-story home currently was required to have at least 960 square feet of first floor area and a two-story home would need a minimum first-floor area of 780 square feet. He added these areas did not include basements or upper stories. He asked the Commission to discuss if the area requirements should be increased to prohibit smaller homes. Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 9 ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Amend the City Code to support and encourage life-cycle housing and upper-end condominiums. Director Ericson noted there were a multitude of options that could be employed to encourage the development of life-cycle housing and upper-end condominiums. He indicated one option recently adopted was to eliminate the CUP requirement from townhomes and other options might include density bonuses, fee reductions, local tax rebates, etc. He added another idea would be to allow detached townhomes (single-family detached dwellings with minimal setbacks on individually platted lots surrounded by common areas). 3. Amend the City Code to restrict or prohibit fast-food drive-thrus. Director Ericson stated this could be done by requiring a CUP for drive-thrus, so the Commission and Council would have an opportunity to review the concept prior to allowing the development. He added, while an outright ban was possible, he was not sure that course of action would be advisable. 4. Amend Zoning Code with regard to permitted uses. Director Ericson noted this concerned the structure of the Zoning Code and how permitted uses were identified. He provided a copy of Chapter 1113 of the Zoning Code relating to the B-2, Limited Business District, which he indicated exemplified the City’s unwieldy zoning scheme. He explained uses were explicitly identified in each district and, if the use was not listed, it was not allowed. He felt, while there was some benefit to having articulated lists of uses, the problems tended to outweigh the benefits and the difficulty magnified with each passing year as new uses and technologies entered the commercial marketplace while outdated and outmoded uses fell by the wayside. Regarding item 1, Chair Stevenson asked when the City had last invoked the square footage noted by Director Ericson. Director Ericson responded the City had not had to deal with this issue, as small homes were not being presented. He noted building permits had been for larger homes. He stated the square footage could be increased, however, if it was determined such an action would encourage larger, upper-end homes. Commissioners Hegland and Johnson did not see this as a credible issue. The Commission agreed item 1 should not be amended. Regarding item 2, Commissioner Johnson indicated he thought the City had already made changes to support and encourage the type of housing it wanted. He asked what land was available for building this type of housing. Commissioner Hegland stated he thought the City’s intent was to eliminate high-density building, as it had more than its share already. Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 10 ____________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson noted the City wanted to encourage the development of upper-end condominiums, which would not be rental property. He cited an example of a completed upper- end condominium in the City. He added the City needed to be cautious, however, as it did not want to be blindsided by having to deal with issues that were not intended. He stated the City should proceed to study it further, as it did want to encourage redevelopment of upper-end housing. Commissioner Scotch asked about increasing the square footage in the upper-end condominiums. Commissioner Hegland responded square footage would need to be increased to avoid additional high-density problems. Director Ericson cited developments completed in Fridley and New Brighton, which had high density but nice outcomes. Commissioner Scotch stated the City should have something going on for redevelopment and suggested it look at what other cities had done to encourage this. Regarding item 3, there was discussion about the new drive-thrus in the City. Director Ericson asked if the Planning Commission saw this as an issue. Chair Stevenson noted he did not think more restrictions should be placed on businesses coming into the City. Director Ericson indicated some of the sit-down restaurants were offering drive-thru service, and he felt the Commission should not restrict those businesses. Commissioner Hegland noted the only concern he had was that the businesses would need to deal with the traffic issues on their property, as he did not see the City amending its Code to change the number of exits, spaces, roadways, etc. He added he did not think that would be a big issue, however. The Commission agreed they were not interested in amending the Code listed in item 3. Regarding item 4, Director Ericson indicated, if the Planning Commission wished to address this issue, it would need to do some research and ask for assistance in accomplishing the task. He noted money had been budgeted for zoning code reviewal. Commissioner Hegland asked if redoing the list was cost effective. He added the discussion was really about the cost of trying to cover every contingency versus dealing with issues as they arose. Director Ericson responded there was language in the Zoning Code that said if a business was not listed it was not allowed. He noted the Code could be revised to indicate what was generally Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 11 ____________________________________________________________________________ sought when looking at Code B-2, for example. He added examples of businesses could be listed; however, the Code should not be limited to the list. He stated the Zoning Code could be reduced in half by not listing every use. He felt amending the structure of the Zoning Code would be preferable to the present Code, as the City would be able to determine similarities of uses not listed. Director Ericson added the current process was cumbersome if a business was not listed and the wordage was not accurate. It was agreed further research would be done regarding item 4. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: September 3, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Marjorie R. Jenkins TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.