Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 17, 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 17, 2001. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Vice Chairperson Stevenson, Commissioners Hegland, Johnson, Miller, Kaden, and Cerny. Members Absent: 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, Consideration of Resolution 646-01, a Resolution Recommending City Council Approval. Applicant: Tony Mezzenga Special Planning Case No. SP-082-00 9 Continuation of Sign Code Review – Ground Signs Staff Reports / Items of Information 13 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 14 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 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes A. December 20, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden. To approve the December 20, 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, Consideration of Resolution 646-01, a Resolution Recommending City Council Approval. Applicant: Tony Mezzenga Community Development Director Ericson explained this is a request for approval of a development review to construct an office building with approximately 2,000 square feet of office space. This matter was before the Planning Commission on January 3, 2001 for review. Staff spoke to the applicant, Mr. Mezzenga, prior to the meeting on January 3, 2001 concerning several issues the City needed clarified or changed. Mr. Mezzenga agreed to the changes and has submitted amended plans that are before the Commission for approval. Community Development Director Ericson noted there were still a few issues that needed to be addressed by the Planning Commission before it would consider a recommendation to Council, such as the direction of storm water runoff indicated on the site plan with arrows, the landscaping areas shown and the schedule of plantings to be used, and the identification of the screening and fencing to be utilized. The landscape plan shall be reviewed by the City Forester. Director Ericson indicated that he did not believe signage to be an issue provided it meets city code requirements. He stated he had spoken to Mr. Mezzenga and notified him the City would require a monument type sign rather than a pole type sign due to the building being located in a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to what the setback for the parking lot to County Road I was. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the setback was originally shown to be 26 feet, but was revised to show a 13-foot setback. Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 Director Ericson noted that the site plan does not indicate the presence of any exterior lighting, however, Mr. Mezzenga confirmed that there may be one or two flood lights mounted on the building to provide lighting in the parking lot. Director Ericson indicated that the lot is relatively flat and, as such, there should not be an issue as to drainage. Staff has proposed the lot slope slightly to direct storm water runoff to the green space to allow it to be filtered before it flows into the storm water system. Mr. Mezzenga indicated he will provide a landscaping plan to Staff prior to the February 12, 2001 City Council meeting. Director Ericson described the proposed structure as a one and a half story building with a hipped roof and covered entryway. The building’s exterior appears to be in keeping with the residential feel of the area. He noted that he asked that the architectural features be carried around to the County Road I side of the building and indicated that he believes it to be a nice looking building. Director Ericson indicated that the issue of fencing was still unresolved and that he had spoken with the property owner to the south, Mr. Zwirn, about this. The building is to be built to the back of the lot and would look into Zwirn’s backyard. Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Zwirn had requested that an eight-foot privacy fence be erected two or three feet off the lot line. The fence would not need to run the full length of Mr. Zwirn’s property as he is just looking for screening from the back end of his house toward the back of the office building for a total of approximately 60 feet. Director Ericson mentioned that Mr. Zwirn is also concerned about cut-through pedestrian traffic on the lot which causes him a problem with loitering and littering. Director Ericson stated that in his opinion, the development of this property would keep the littering and foot traffic to a minimum, however the addition of a short section of fence in the front or back of the building to connect to the existing fence would further reduce pedestrian traffic. Mr. Herbert Zwirn, 7660 Greenfield Avenue, addressed the Commission and reiterated his concerns as Community Development Director Ericson had previously explained. Mr. Zwirn indicated he has had problems with juveniles congregating in the Tom Thumb parking lot late at night drinking, smoking and playing football. He expressed concern that those same juveniles may move the after hours activities to the parking lot of the office building once it is built. Mr. Zwirn expressed a concern that if the parking lot was not well lit and kind of secluded the juveniles would congregate outside his front room window. Mr. Zwirn asked for a privacy fence to block off foot traffic along the fence line on the Tom Thumb side and sufficient lighting from the building to light the parking lot to discourage juveniles from loitering in the parking lot. Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mr. Zwirn explained from the back of his house to the property line is all windows looking onto what will be the parking lot. He would like some type of shrubbery to look at rather than the parking lot. Mr. Zwirn noted the building is now ten feet away from the property line instead of 15 feet but by using fencing and shrubbery he believes it should be able to be worked out. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to whether Mr. Zwirn had a fence. Mr. Zwirn indicated he currently has a four-foot chain link fence. Commissioner Hegland clarified there would be a space between Mr. Zwirn’s fence and the proposed privacy fence with limited visibility that may pose a loitering or vandalism issue. Commissioner Johnson stated the issue is really the Tom Thumb side where Staff has proposed a split rail fence to keep people from going around the back of the building. Vice Chairperson Stevenson suggested closing off the area with a ten-foot long section of fence from the corner of the building to the south property to eliminate travel between the back of the building and the property to the south. Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted the Planning Commission always has concerns when there are two fences back to back as it provides an area of limited visibility where vandals could hide. Mr. Zwirn stated he currently has a problem with a group of juveniles loitering behind the fence on the Tom Thumb property. Vice Chairperson Stevenson indicated due to the fact this is an office building there will not be employees after 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. He further indicated that the site plan did not indicate if there were doors or windows on the side of the building facing the property to the south. Commissioner Hegland noted that building elevations, other than the front elevation, were not provided, so it was not known if there would be windows on the south-facing elevation. Vice Chairperson Stevenson indicated an eight-foot privacy fence lends itself to hiding behind it whereas shrubbery and the use of berms in the landscaping do not. There are shrubs that are prickly to discourage people from being near them. Commissioner Cerny indicated a chain link fence is not suitable for privacy so it may be more practical to remove the chain link fence and install an eight-foot privacy fence. Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 Community Development Director Ericson indicated this is a commercial building which gives the City an opportunity to deal with the privacy issue rather than to have the property owner deal with it. Commissioner Miller noted her agreement with the rest of the Commission that back to back fences typically leads to other negative issues for property owners. Commissioner Miller also noted the back-to-back fences may provide an area where vandals could loiter. Commissioner Kaden inquired as to whether Mr. Zwirn would be taking down his chain link fence if the privacy fence were to be approved and built as a part of this project. Mr. Zwirn explained the chain link fence has concrete around the entire perimeter underneath it to discourage weed growth and is an attractive look and makes maintenance easy. Mr. Zwirn stated he doesn’t have a problem with two fences located back to back as long as the area between and along the fences is maintained. If the City approves this plan for the building he suggested he needs some privacy in his backyard. Mr. Zwirn explained the use of evergreen trees would damage his concrete as the roots would push it up and he asked the City not to use them. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to whether it would be feasible to extend some of Mr. Zwirn’s posts to raise the fence and instead of chain link use either wood or vinyl. Vice Chairperson Stevenson asked Mr. Zwirn what type of screen he wanted on the window side of his house that faces the parking lot. Mr. Zwirn indicated tall shrubbery such as lilacs or tall evergreen shrubbery not evergreen trees would be nice. Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted a need to screen Mr. Zwirn’s view of the parking lot. He also noted a double fence would be a potential problem unless fences are close enough together to discourage potential vandalism but to allow for maintenance of the fence and grass between the fences. He further suggested the fences be no more than two feet apart if a double fence is allowed. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Mezzenga if there would be windows in the top floor of the building looking south. Mr. Mezzenga indicated there would be windows in the top floor of the building looking south. Commissioner Johnson noted if a two-story house were built on the lot in question the neighbors would have windows looking into Mr. Zwirn’s backyard. Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 Community Development Director Ericson stated the fences could be right together but noted doing so would raise a maintenance issue. Community Development Director Ericson suggested using a one-foot setback for the fence which doesn’t leave enough room for vandals to loiter and to put rock or wood chips under the fence to prevent grass from growing up under the fence and between the fences. Commissioner Kaden acknowledged the need for a privacy fence but said one foot might be kind of tight to allow for maintenance of the fence. Commissioner Kaden suggested allowing 18 inches between the fences. Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated he has experience with painting fences and it is possible to spray the fence with a one-foot space between the fences. However, permission would need to be obtained from the property owner to the south to enter onto his property to perform the painting or maintenance. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Zwirn to clarify the purpose of the privacy fence. Mr. Zwirn explained the privacy fence would provide for a sense of privacy in his backyard by screening his backyard from the parking lot and the building. Mr. Mezzenga stated that a six-foot fence would accomplish the same level of privacy as would an eight-foot fence. Mr. Mezzenga indicated an eight-foot fence is quite high and may not be entirely necessary. He further stated it should be possible to connect to Mr. Zwirn’s existing fence and install a privacy fence rather than dealing with the issues caused by placing two fences back-to-back. Commissioner Johnson stated having two fences back to back provides a place for debris to collect. Mr. Mezzenga stated a nice six -foot high privacy fence could accomplish what the resident has asked for and should be able to mount on the concrete block of the resident’s existing fence. Commissioner Hegland asked if Mr. Zwirn and Mr. Mezzenga were interested in working out the privacy fence issues amongst themselves. Mr. Zwirn said he would be willing to discuss the fencing issue with Mr. Mezzenga. Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted either the east or west corner of the building needed to tie into the fence to prevent foot traffic. Mr. Mezzenga indicated he could tie the southeast corner to the building also. Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 Vice Chairperson Stevenson explained the six (6) foot privacy fence would need to start even with Mr. Zwirn’s house not in front of it. Community Development Director Ericson indicated Staff had drafted a resolution recommending to Council approval of the development review request with stipulations, assuming the Commission had no other concerns. He read the stipulations as listed in the resolution to the Commission. Commissioner Miller inquired as to whether the architectural features would be consistent along the west elevation of the building. Community Development Director Ericson indicated it was up to the Planning Commission to decide whether it wanted to require the architectural features be the same on all four sides, the sides fronting the streets, or just the side fronting Greenfield Avenue. Commissioner Johnson asked Commissioner Miller why she felt the west side needs to be bricked. Commissioner Miller indicated the west side of the building is also exposed to traffic and brick would be nicer to look at than concrete block or siding. Vice Chairperson Stevenson agreed the west side was exposed and should be brick but said brick was not needed on the south side of the building. Consent was reached by the Planning Commission to require the north and west sides of the building to be bricked, in addition to the front facing Greenfield Avenue. MOTION/SECOND: Cerny/Johnson. To Approve Resolution No. 646-01, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review Request for Tony Mezzenga for the Property Located at 7664 Greenfield Avenue. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Community Development Director Ericson indicated this matter would be heard by Council on February 12, 2001. 6. Special Planning Case No. SP-082-00 – Continuation of Sign Code Review – Ground Signs Community Development Director Ericson asked the Planning Commission to consider what is currently allowed by code for height of sign, the sign area, the number of such signs allowed per lot and the setbacks required. Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted the document received from Staff on November 15, 2000 contained a table stating ground signs in R3, R4, and R5 were to be no taller than six feet from grade. Vice Chairperson Stevenson inquired as to whether the primary reason for that was to address apartments for rent. Community Development Director Ericson explained that statement was not actually in the code but was added by Staff for consideration. There currently isn’t any height allowance because signs are not currently allowed, yet if signage is allowed Staff feels there should be a height limitation. Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted Staff would need to note somewhere in the sign code that pedestal signs and freestanding signs are now referred to as ground signs for clarification. Community Development Director Ericson indicated pedestal and freestanding were terms Staff believed to be duplicative and unnecessary as ground sign covers them both. Vice Chairperson Stevenson asked if the November 15, 2000 draft document covered the majority of the sign code. Community Development Director Ericson indicated everything with the exception of the table was currently in the sign code. The table was Staff’s addition for consideration. Community Development Director Ericson stated it was Staff’s mistake not to be consistent with the rewrite by underlining what was new and crossing off anything Staff felt could be deleted. The document is not a true reflection of what is in the code but what could possibly be done to clean it up. Community Development Director Ericson inquired as to whether the Planning Commission was happy with the listed heights for signs and the areas the various height restrictions applied to. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to whether it was possible to put together a sign code that is progressively more restrictive based on zoning that would simplify this discussion. He then asked if Staff could put together a chart based on that information. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that is basically what Staff has done with the November 15, 2000 document referred to by Vice Chairperson Stevenson. The Planning Commission took a brief break to allow Community Development Director Ericson to make some copies of the November 15, 2000 document to be reviewed. Vice Chairperson Stevenson suggested a statement be added to the definitions indicating that the definition of freestanding and pedestal signs are now referred to as ground signs. Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 Community Development Director Ericson gave a copy of the November 15, 2000 draft revision of the Sign Code to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Miller stated there was not a provision concerning caring for the sign. Community Development Director Ericson indicated care of the sign is addressed in other parts of the code under nuisance or nonconforming signs and there is a prohibited signs section covering a sign not being maintained. Commissioner Kaden referred to a line on Page 7 that had been deleted and inquired as to whether it should be left in the code. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the statement could be left in but is not really needed as the building code requirements govern those types of issues. Community Development Director Ericson suggested the Planning Commission review the table on Page 8 of the November 15, 2000 report. Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated he liked the format of the chart as he felt it would make the sign code more clear. Commissioner Miller inquired as to what an incidental sign was. Community Development Director Ericson indicated incidental signs were signs like an ATM sign, address signs or nameplate signs, exit signs, and signs for public telephones. Commissioner Johnson indicated that ground signs, if allowed in R-3, R-4 and R-5 districts, should not exceed eight feet in height. Community Development Director Ericson suggested allowing 32 square feet of signage for R-3, R-4 and R-5 districts. Community Development Director Ericson indicated there is no allowance for signage in R-O zoning districts. Vice Chairperson Stevenson indicated the signage allowed for R-O should be the same as for R-3. Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 Community Development Director Ericson asked how the Planning Commission felt about wall signage for commercial property. Currently commercial properties are allowed to have 100 square feet of wall space in addition to a freestanding sign. He asked if the wall signage should be limited by indicating a total number of square feet for both the wall sign and the freestanding sign. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the Woodlawn Terrace and Scotland Green multi-family complexes have signage on their buildings in addition to their ground signs. He questioned whether 64 square feet was needed or if in R-3 districts the maximum should be 32 square feet. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to whether in R-5 districts there needed to be an allowance for wall signage if a trailer park with an office wanted to have a sign or if an allowance was needed for wall signage in an R-O zoning district. Community Development Director Ericson indicated he did not believe R-5 and R-O properties would need wall signage. Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated most large housing complexes would have non- conforming signs if the ground signage maximum was any less than 32 square feet. Commissioner Miller inquired as to whether it would be helpful to know how much signage currently exists for each housing complex. Community Development Director Ericson indicated Staff has this information. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the reason he suggested 32 square feet is that most signs were found to be of that size. There are some signs, however, that won’t be in conformance. Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated it might be beneficial to relate the size of the sign allowed to the size of the property. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to approve 64 square feet of ground signage for the R-4 zoning districts. Commissioner Hegland suggested relating signage allowed to the size of the property. Community Development Director Ericson indicated there may be a way to tie the size of the sign allowed into the size of the project but indicated he didn’t want to break it down too far or it would become difficult to adminster. Commissioner Hegland suggested opening up the signage requirement to 100 square feet and hope common sense would keep smaller properties from putting up a large sign. Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 Community Development Director Ericson suggested instead of basing the allowed sign area on acreage of the property, to allow signage by the number of units. Vice Chairperson Stevenson suggested parameters that would give larger properties the capability to have a larger sign. Community Development Director Ericson indicated there was no provision for a pole sign in a B-1 district. He suggested that this district be allowed to have a pole sign but restrict total sign area to a 100-square foot maximum. Community Development Director Ericson indicated B-2 is not allowed to have a ground sign currently and suggested allowing 200 square feet of ground sign. Community Development Director noted the City Council would be taking final action on Ordinance 672 pertaining to home occupations and asked the Commission if it felt it needed to address allowing signs attached to mailboxes to remain. Vice Chairperson Stevenson indicated he did not believe the issue of signs on mailboxes needed to be addressed since a mailbox is in the right-of-way and the sign would not be allowed. Consent was reached by the Planning Commission to let Ordinance 672 go to Council as previously approved. Community Development Director Ericson inquired as to whether the Planning Commission was comfortable with the 35-foot height restriction for signs. Vice Chairperson Stevenson suggested Staff add a row to the table in the report dated November 15 to address height of sign by zoning district. Community Development Director Ericson noted there was discussion to change signage allowed based on units for R-3 and R-4 zoning and asked what the consensus of the Commission was. Consent was reached by the Planning Commission to leave the signage allowed at eight square feet. Community Development Director Ericson inquired as to whether the Planning Commission felt it was appropriate to encourage monument signs over pylon signs by providing a small area bonus to businesses choosing monument over pylon signs. The City would still allow for pylon type signs. Vice Chairperson Stevenson inquired as to whether a 20-foot height allowance for businesses zoned B-3 along Highway 10 was enough. Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 Commissioner Miller asked if Staff could determine how tall fast food signs typically are. Vice Chairperson Stevenson suggested leaving the height requirement at 35 feet for B-3 and B-4 zoning. Consent was reached by the Planning Commission to leave the height requirement at 35 feet for B-3 and B-4 zoning. Community Development Director Ericson indicated there was not a height requirement for R-O zoning. Vice Chairperson Stevenson indicated eight feet should be appropriate. Consent was reached by the Planning Commission to place discussion of specific uses on the agenda for the next meeting. 7. Staff Reports/Items of Information. Community Development Director Ericson reported there are three open positions on the Planning Commission and invited residents to apply. Community Development Director Ericson reported the City Council will meet on January 22, 2001 and will review Ordinance 672 concerning changes to the home occupations code and Ordinance 674 concerning changes to the housing code. The recommendation to have Commissioner Stevenson serve as Chairperson of the Planning Commission will be on the consent agenda at that meeting. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports. Commissioner Johnson indicted he would not be present at the March 7, 2001 meeting and may not be present at the March 21, 2001 meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 9. Adjournment. There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairperson Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m. There was no agenda session at this meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.