Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-16-2002 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 16, 2002 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 7:00 p.m., January 16, 2002. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners, Stevenson, Johnson, Zwirn, Miller, Hegland, and Scotch. Members Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planner Atkinson. ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR01-013 2 Location: 7575 Groveland Road Applicant: John Winiecki Planning Case No. VR01-012 3 Location: 2149 Program Avenue Applicant: William Bell, Mounds View Hotels, LLC Discussion and review of Section 1106.03 of the City Code 5 Pertaining to Accessory Structures Staff Reports/Items of Information 6 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 8 _______________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission January 16, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments concerning items not on the agenda. _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Planning Case No. VR01-013 Planner Atkinson explained that the applicant had requested a variance to allow for a storage shed that would increase the total square footage of the accessory structures on the property beyond what is allowed in City Code. He then indicated that, with the new shed, the total square footage of accessory structures would be 1,706 square feet. Planner Atkinson noted that at the last meeting the Planning Commission discussed the criteria required to approve the variance and felt that Mr. Winiecki’s request was reasonable but it seems to be a “big stretch” to meet those criteria. He then noted that Staff had discussed the case and the various criteria and recommends that the Commission discuss a possible amendment to the Code. Chair Stevenson asked Planner Atkinson to read subsection one of the Code concerning rear yard allowance. Planner Atkinson read Section 1106.03, Subd. 1(d): The combined square footage of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the rear yard. Chair Stevenson asked the size of Mr. Winiecki’s rear yard. Planner Atkinson indicated that Mr. Winiecki’s request was well under the 20% rear yard requirement. Chair Stevenson pointed out that the structure would be under the 20% but noted the total combined square footage requirement in the Code does not take into consideration Mr. Winiecki’s larger yard. He commented that he did not feel the hardship criteria could be met. He then asked the Commission how it wished to proceed on the variance request. Commissioner Johnson suggested tabling the matter until the Commission has a chance to review the Code for a possible amendment. Planner Atkinson noted the Commission needed to take action on the variance request because of the 60-day time frame requirements. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the City could extend the deadline for action on the request for another 60 days. He then indicated that the Commission could either Mounds View Planning Commission January 16, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ table the request until after the Commission discusses the Code or deny the variance because it does not meet the hardship requirements. Commissioner Miller asked if it would be more appropriate to deny the variance and then discuss the Code. Director Ericson indicated it would be appropriate to deny the variance but noted that tabling the request until after the Code amendment was discussed would be appropriate as well. He then noted that Council may not agree with the Commission’s proposed change to the Code and, if the variance was denied, the applicant would be stuck. Director Ericson indicated that variance requests, if approved, stop with the Planning Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hegland. To Table Mr. Winiecki’s Variance Request To Allow Time for Review of the City’s Code. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case No. VR01-012 Planner Atkinson explained that William Bell of Mounds View Hotels had requested approval of a variance to increase the sign height for an existing 50 foot tall pylon sign at the Days Inn. He then noted that at the last meeting, the Commission had asked for more information concerning line of sight comparisons to the McDonald’s and Amoco signs. Planner Atkinson presented a PowerPoint presentation showing pictures of the Days Inn, McDonald’s and Amoco signs from various locations. Commissioner Miller commented that with leaves on the trees none of the signs are visible northbound on 35W. Commissioner Johnson asked the height of the Amoco sign. Planner Atkinson indicated that Mr. Bell had the Amoco sign measured. He then asked Mr. Bell to explain how it was done. Mr. Bell explained that he hired Topline Sign Company and they came out with a boom truck and dropped a tape measure down to see how tall it was. He then noted that the sign was 83 feet high. Commissioner Miller thanked Staff for the pictures and said the pictures provided a good perspective. Mounds View Planning Commission January 16, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson indicated he had trouble referring to this request as a 15-foot variance request because the sign code allows for 35 feet and this sign is already at 50 feet. He then noted that this is actually a request for a variance of 30 feet. Planner Atkinson indicated that, technically, it would be a 30-foot variance but noted the sign would be allowed to stay at 50 feet because of a previously allowed variance. Mr. Bell indicated that the traffic patterns have changed and County Highway 10 is no longer the main thoroughfare and that is why he would like to increase his visibility from 35W. Commissioner Zwirn asked what Mr. Bell was trying to accomplish with increasing the height of the sign. He indicated that he did not feel that increasing the height would increase visibility and asked if Mr. Bell had explored a more visible alternate site for the sign. Mr. Bell indicated he was considering asking the Amoco people if they would allow him to place a sign on the pole for their sign. He then commented that the purpose behind the request is to increase visibility. Commissioner Zwirn noted that, with the clump of trees in the way, he did not see how Mr. Bell would get much more benefit out of increasing the height of the sign. Mr. Bell asked who controls the trees. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that MNDOT would be the proper organization to contact concerning the trees. Commissioner Hegland asked if it was possible to advertise on a MNDOT sign near the exit for the hotel. Mr. Bell indicated that the Days Inn is on the MNDOT sign northbound on 35W but noted that MNDOT does not have a sign southbound on 35W and that is the side that would generate the business for his hotel. Mr. Bell indicated he felt a videotape of the signs would give a better view of the actual line of sight for the signs. He then commented that the sign is not visible until vehicles are past the exit. Commissioner Miller commented that exploring sharing the Amoco sign would seem to be the best option. The Planning Commission directed Staff to draft a Resolution to deny the variance. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission January 16, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Discussion and Review of Section 1106.03 of the City Code Pertaining to Accessory Structures. Planner Atkinson recommended changing Section 1106.03, Subd. 1(a) to allow a maximum of 1800 square feet of combined accessory building area in the R-1 district. He then noted that with the 20% rear yard requirement only the larger properties would be allowed the 1800 square feet of accessory structure. Chair Stevenson expressed concern that an 1800 square foot accessory structure could be attached to a very small principal structure. Planner Atkinson explained that there is still a provision in the Code that requires that no accessory structure can be larger than 952 square feet without a conditional use permit. Chair Stevenson clarified that a resident would be allowed three structures totaling 1800 square feet but no one structure could be larger than 952 square feet. Commissioner Miller asked the size of Mr. Winiecki’s garage. Planner Atkinson indicated that Mr. Winiecki’s garage is 624 square feet with a 10x13 shed attached to it and the new structure would be 952 square feet for a total of 1706 square feet. He then noted that the 1706 square feet would be only 10% of the rear yard. Commissioner Miller indicated she was fine with the change as long as the City can control the size of the attached garage. Commissioner Johnson suggested using 1852 square feet because that would give residents a 952 square foot attached garage and another 900 square feet in the backyard. Chair Stevenson indicated he would prefer the 1800 square feet. Commissioner Miller asked whether the Commission needed to consider the types of building materials available when determining what size structure to allow. Commissioner Johnson indicated that most residents have an attached garage and a shed that would need to be subtracted from the total allowed square footage and that means the size of the third structure would vary greatly. Commissioner Scotch commented that she felt 1800 square feet was more than gracious. Commissioner Miller asked what the City allowed in the R-2 district for accessory structures. Planner Atkinson indicated he had not reviewed the Code for R-2 accessory structures because only the R-1 district was being considered. Mounds View Planning Commission January 16, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 685-02, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a City Code Amendment to Section 1106.03, Subd. 1(a) Regarding Accessory Structures. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Planner Atkinson indicated that this matter would be brought to a Council Work Session and then two Council Meetings before it is official. Chair Stevenson asked Staff to bring the matter back before the Commission, if necessary, after it goes through Council. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Staff Reports a. Discussion of Allowing Banners on Light Poles at Mounds View Square Planner Atkinson indicated he had received a call from Paster Enterprises because they are interested in hanging seasonal banners on the light poles at Mounds View Square in an attempt to spruce up the parking lot. He then noted that the banners would be changed out seasonally. Commissioner Miller asked how big the banners would be. Planner Atkinson indicated that he would be receiving more information concerning the specifications of the banners. Commissioner Scotch commented that she felt it would be a good idea. Commissioner Hegland asked if the City would have control over the weathering of banners to keep them from looking unsightly. Planner Atkinson indicated he felt the shopping center would be sure to keep the banners in good repair because the purpose behind them is to spruce up the parking lot. He then noted that, if the banners should begin to weather and look unsightly, the City could enforce through the nuisance code. Chair Stevenson indicated he would be fine with the banners provided the City regulated them. Commissioner Johnson asked how banners fit into the sign code. Community Development Director Ericson indicated there was something in the sign code pertaining to banners but that was for banners attached to buildings for temporary purposes. He then indicated that there is nothing that would address this type of seasonal banner on a light pole. Mounds View Planning Commission January 16, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated that the material used in the construction of the banners is very weather resistant. He also noted that he could not imagine that the Center would use a banner that would make the Center look rundown. Director Ericson indicated that Staff could talk to the Shopping Center to obtain the proposed sizes for the banners and do a presentation for the Commission before giving approval. Commissioner Miller asked how many light poles were in the parking lot. Planner Atkinson indicated he thought there were either four or five light poles. He then commented that the banners were not to be used for advertising. Commissioner Miller recommended starting with the size of the Mounds View banners. b. Acquisition of Tax Forfeited Property Located at 2935 Highway 10 Community Development Director Ericson apologized for the last minute report but noted that Staff had been asked by the City Attorney to present this matter to the Commission at this meeting. Director Ericson indicated that 2935 Highway 10 was a small piece of land established during the platting of Sherwood Estates to allow for a future subdivision. He indicated the developer of the property had attempted to sell the sliver of land to the adjoining property owner for a ridiculously high amount and the adjoining property owner was not interested. He further indicated that the piece had gone tax forfeit and the City Attorney is recommending that the City purchase the property and sell it to the adjoining land owner for the City’s cost. Director Ericson indicated the basis of review is whether or not this purchase would be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. He then noted that selling the sliver of land to the adjoining property owner would allow for a subdivision to create another housing unit and that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area. Commissioner Miller asked how big the sliver of land was. Director Ericson indicated the sliver of land was a few hundred square feet and has no development potential on its own. Commissioner Hegland asked why the City was buying it only to make it available to the adjoining property owner. Director Ericson indicated the City is able to purchase the property for a very nominal amount. He then explained that by purchasing the property and selling it to the adjoining land owner the City would be enabling a subdivision which would bring park dedication fees and a new housing unit to the City. Mounds View Planning Commission January 16, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 686- 02, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Purchase of 2935 Highway 10 Tax Forfeited Land. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. c. Brian Kaden Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Brian Kaden has expressed a desire to step down from the Planning Commission. He then noted that Mr. Kaden was back in town but his work schedule has changed and he is not available in the evenings. He further explained that, if his schedule permits in the future, Mr. Kaden had expressed the desire to reapply to the Commission. d. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Ericson reported that Council had discussed the proposals for the Highway 10 corridor and noted the representative from URS was at the work session. Director Ericson reported that someone from Xcel Outdoor Lighting attended the work session to discuss the options for lighting within the corridor. He then noted that Council had decided that the decorative lights, while nice, were not the best expenditure of City funds and other lighting options were discussed. Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Radamacher from Delight Outdoor Advertising was scheduled to be at the work session but was unable to attend. He then noted that Council had not gotten through the work session agenda and had decided to schedule another work session for January 22, 2002. Director Ericson reported that Council had unanimously approved the recommendation of the Commission to have Commissioner Stevenson serve as Chair of the Commission. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Commissioner Hegland indicated he wanted to voice his appreciation for the work Staff did regarding the sign height variance as he felt the information provided was very helpful in making the decision. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: February 6, 2002 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission January 16, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, James Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.