Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 3, 2001 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., January 3, 2001. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Hegland, Johnson, Miller, Stevenson, Kaden, and Cerny. Members Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. DE00-002 2 Property Involved: 7664 Greenfield Avenue Review and Discuss Site Plans for a 3,500 Square-Foot Office Building Applicant: Tony Mezzenga Special Planning Case No. SP-082-00 6 Continuation of Sign Code Review - Definitions Election of Planning Commission Officers 7 Staff Reports / Items of Information 7 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 7 3. Citizen’s Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Mounds View Planning Commission January 3, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes A. December 6, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Cerny. To approve the December 6, 2000 Meeting Minutes as presented. Ayes – 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. DE00-002 Property Involved: 7664 Greenfield Avenue Review and Discuss Site Plans for a 3,500 Square-Foot Office Building. Applicant: Tony Mezzenga Community Development Director Ericson explained the applicant has requested permission to build a 3,500 square-foot, one and a half story office building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue. This property is zoned B-3 Highway Business, however, due to the size of the lot and corner lot setbacks there are practical difficulties in what can be developed which is why this matter was before the Planning Commission in September of 2000 and a variance was granted. This lot borders commercial property to the west a Tom Thumb store, and residential properties to the east. Staff has reviewed the site plan and City Code requirements and outlined items of issue or concern in the staff report. Mr. Mezzenga is not able to be present at this meeting. Director Ericson indicated that the parking lot requirements have been met. The site plan shows 14 stalls which translate into a maximum leaseable office area of 2,800 square feet. The applicant anticipates a total of 2,600 square feet of leaseable office space. The plan will however need to be revised to comply with ADA parking requirements. Director Ericson addressed the fact that the site plan does not show any parking lot lighting, indicating that staff spoke to Mr. Mezzenga regarding this issue and Mr. Mezzenga has agreed to revise the plan to include a couple of lights on the building to illuminate the parking lot. The lights would need to be hooded or shielded to prevent glare and be downcast so as not to disturb the neighborhood. Director Ericson pointed out that the lot is relatively flat with little if any change in elevation. There may be a slight build up at the site of the building pad. Staff has suggested a slight elevation slope to allow stormwater runoff to flow to the green space area to be filtered before entering the stormwater system. If there are any changes in elevation it will be required to be reflected on the site plan. The site plan will need to be amended to reflect the direction of stormwater runoff. Director Ericson indicated that the applicant had not yet submitted a landscaping plan. He referred to a site plan included with the Commission’s report which could provide the basis for a landscaping plan, yet cautioned that the staff-drawn plan was simple and would need to be considered further by Mr. Mezzenga and the City Forester before a final plan is approved. Mounds View Planning Commission January 3, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 Director Ericson reported that the building exterior would be constructed of brick or cut stone on the bottom half–story of the building and a wood-grained type of maintenance free siding on the top of the building. He indicated that staff would like to see the same type of exterior construction carried over to the side of the building facing County Road I as well, if not on all four sides. At a minimum, he explained, the frontages need to be dressed up. Addressing signage, Director Ericson said he had spoken with Mr. Mezzenga who indicated he would like to leave signage up to the tenants of the building. Director Ericson explained that he informed Mr. Mezzenga that due to the building being located in a predominately residential area, a monument type of sign would be preferred over a pylon type of sign. Director Ericson further stated that he had addressed all of the outstanding issues and site plan deficiencies with Mr. Mezzenga, and informed Mr. Mezzenga he would be required to amend the plans accordingly. Director Ericson summarized that the site plan needs to be revised to allow for a building setback of 30 feet from County Road I and ten feet from the west property line, that the parking lot needs to have perimeter curbing with breaks or cuts identified for drainage, that a van-accessible handicapped stall would need to be shown on the plan, and identification of building and parking lot lighting, if any. He indicated that the floor plans would need to identify the scale and show office square footage and room dimensions, and a computation of the total leaseable office area. In addition, he reported that a grading plan would need to be submitted if substantial grading is to occur or general elevations shown on the site plan with arrows to indicate the direction of stormwater runoff. Director Ericson restated that a landscaping plan showing the species, locations, and quantities of the plantings to be used would need to be submitted as well as a detailed description of any proposed signage if known at this point. Director Ericson apologized to residents for not being able to provide more notice of the meeting concerning this office building. He stated that this matter would be discussed at the January 17, 2001 meeting if residents were unable to attend this meeting. Vice Chairperson Stevenson requested the parking lot spaces be drawn to scale on the site plan map when it is brought back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Miller inquired as to how many handicapped parking stalls were required for this building. Community Development Director Ericson indicated there is a ratio that starts with 1 to 25 and goes down after that. One handicapped accessible spot would be required for this building. Vice Chairperson Stevenson requested the Commission address the concerns raised at the meeting in September 2000 for foot traffic across the lot. Mr. Gustafson, the property owner, suggested using shrubbery or some type of landscaping to discourage foot traffic and force it down to County Road I. Vice Chairperson Stevenson inquired as to what the plan was to discourage foot traffic on the west side or Tom Thumb side of the property. Mounds View Planning Commission January 3, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 Community Development Director Ericson indicated Mr. Mezzenga would need to speak to that matter. Mr. Gustafson, the property owner, suggested a redwood or some type of fence between the property and Tom Thumb. It was the consent of the Planning Commission that members would like to see some type of fencing along the property line to the west on the final site plan. Commissioner Kaden reminded the Planning Commission that the property owner to the south had attended the meeting in September and asked the Commission to consider requiring some type of screening so he would not have to look at the building. Commissioner Kaden recommended Mr. Mezzenga contact the property owner to the south to discuss the type of screening the property owner would like to see between him and the building. Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted the property owner to the south had also complained of having to remove trash from along his fence that comes from pedestrians leaving Tom Thumb. Dawn Little of 7658 Greenfield Avenue explained the property owner to the south and Tom Thumb share a common wooden fence and that is where the trash accumulates. She then asked the Planning Commission to require some type of screening so the residents would not have to look at the building. Commissioner Miller noted that the proposed building was an aesthetically pleasing building. She further noted a house could be built on that property which residents would have to look at from which the City would not require any screening. Commissioner Johnson noted the front of the building faces Greenfield so any type of screen would be blocking the view from the front of the building. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that while the City is sensitive to the pedestrian issues Mr. Mezzenga is the one that should be concerned for trespassing on his property. Concerning the screening issue, Community Development Director Ericson stated that the City would not require screening for a house but this is a commercial property and the City can require screening if it is determined to be necessary. Commissioner Johnson stated if a fence were to be put between the property and Tom Thumb foot traffic would find another way around. Community Development Director Ericson noted having a fence between the property and Tom Thumb would create an area not clearly visible from the street which may cause a problem with Mounds View Planning Commission January 3, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 loitering and vandalism. A fence on the other side of the property may work better. Ms. Little inquired as to where traffic would exit the property. Community Development Director Ericson indicated traffic would flow out onto County Road Commissioner Hegland stated he believed developing the property and having the office building on it would take care of the foot traffic issue. He then indicated he was not sure the building needed to be screened as it appears to be an aesthetically pleasing building with the front facing Greenfield Avenue. This would make it hard to screen from the residents on Greenfield Avenue without blocking the view of the front of the building. Commissioner Kaden stated he had brought up the screening issue because it had been brought up at the meeting in September of 2000. The building presented at this meeting is much more residential in nature and, in his opinion, should not need to be screened. Community Development Director Ericson stated he would like to have Mr. Mezzenga contact the property owner to the south to discuss the issue of screening the building. Commissioner Hegland stated he would like to have a signage agreement in writing that indicates the City intends to be more restrictive with this office building due to the fact it is located in a mostly residential neighborhood. Community Development Director Ericson stated the City would not allow a pylon sign and would insist on a monument type sign not to exceed eight feet in height. Mr. Mezzenga has been made aware of the City’s requirements for signage. Commissioner Miller inquired as to where the trash bins would be located on the property. Community Development Director Ericson indicated he believed they would come out the front door as this is an office building and does not require an outside trash dumpster. Staff will confirm the trash bin location to be sure. Commissioner Miller inquired as to where the snow from the parking lot would be removed to. Community Development Director Ericson indicated there was plenty of green space on the property for snow to be accumulated. Community Development Director Ericson stated he would speak to Mr. Mezzenga concerning the issues raised by the Planning Commission and ask Mr. Mezzenga to provide a revised site plan at a future meeting. 6. Special Planning Case No. SP-082-00 Continuation of Sign Code Review – Definitions Mounds View Planning Commission January 3, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 Community Development Director explained to the Planning Commissioners that he attempted to provide the best example of definitions from several different sources and combine them into a glossary of definitions for review at this meeting. Vice Chairperson Stevenson complimented Community Development Director Ericson on his efforts to provide clear, accurate and concise definitions for the City’s sign code. Community Development Director Ericson explained he had deleted some definitions that were either outdated, addressed somewhere else in the Code, or repetitive in nature making them unnecessary. Commissioner Miller inquired as to why an abandoned sign carried the six-month time requirement. Community Development Director Ericson explained that the six-month time requirement was required by state statute. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to which definition would cover garage sale signs. Community Development Director Ericson explained garage sale signs are not currently addressed by the code so they were not added in this set of definitions. Commissioner Johnson stated if a property owner has a problem with having garage sale signs located on their property it is up to them to remove the sign. Commissioner Kaden questioned whether the City needed to add a definition for the temporary lawn care chemical warning signs since the City is defining the small security system signs. Community Development Director Ericson explained he had not defined lawn care chemical warning signs since they are usually only there for 24 to 48 hours, but felt this to be an incidental sign, which is defined. Director Ericson indicated that as the process of revising the sign ordinance moves along there might need to be changes or additions to the definition list. He stated that the Planning Commission would discuss ground signage at the January 17, 2001 meeting. He told the Commissioners that staff is in the process of obtaining a list of businesses in the community in order to send a letter informing area businesses of the discussions concerning revisions to the sign code. He explained that the letter would be sent out in time to notice for the discussion concerning temporary signage on February 21, 2001. 7. Election of Planning Commission Officers. Mounds View Planning Commission January 3, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 Community Development Director Ericson explained that each year the Planning Commission holds an election to elect the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. The election results are reported to Council for approval. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Johnson. To Nominate Commissioner Stevenson for Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden. To Nominate Commissioner Miller for Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Community Development Director Ericson noted he would bring the nominations to Council for approval and the new Chairperson would take over at the first meeting in February. 8. Staff Reports/Items of Information A. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Ericson reported that the Council held its first meeting of the year to swear in the new mayor, hear departing words from the outgoing mayor and declare its depository bank. It was determined to suspend having Council members act as liaisons at the various committee meetings as the Council has confidence that staff can adequately act as the liaison between the commissions and the Council. Director Ericson reported that Commissioner Hegland was reappointed to the Planning Commission for a three year term. He added that there are still three seats available on the Planning Commission if anyone is interested in applying. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports There were no reports. 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairperson Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Mounds View Planning Commission January 3, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.