Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 21, 2001 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., February 21, 2001. _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Hegland, Johnson, Stevenson, Kaden, Miller and Cerny. Members Absent: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Special Planning Case No. SP-082-00 2 Continuation of Sign Code Review Planning Case Nos. DE01-001, VR01-001 & CU01-001 5 Applicant: ISD #621 Location: 5500 Quincy Street Review of Pinewood Elementary Expansion Plans, Variance and Conditional Use Permit Request Planning Case Nos. DE01-001 & WB01-001 8 Applicant: Minnesota Institute of Public Health Location: 2720 Highway 10 Review Development Plans for a 13,912 Square Foot Single-Story Office Building Within the Silverview Estates Planned Unit Development Consideration of Resolution 647-01, a Resolution Amending the Mounds 11 View Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws Mounds View Planning Commission February 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ Staff Reports/Items of Information 11 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 12 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Special Planning Case No. SP-082-00 Continuation of Sign Code Review Invitation to Business Owners to Comment on Proposed Revisions Community Development Director Ericson explained this is the third comprehensive revision before the Commission. Staff took the information discussed at the last meeting and rolled it into this updated draft of the Code. Staff sent out in excess of 125 letters inviting the business owners in the City to this meeting and provided a copy of the existing Code on the website along with a copy of the staff report. It is possible business owners reviewed the proposed changes to the Code and determined there weren’t any changes they deemed restrictive enough to cause an issue for them which could be why none are in attendance. Director Ericson stated his staff report showed the changes from the last revision of the Code and asked if the Commission wanted to go through the revisions to the Code. Director Ericson reviewed the changes with the Commission. Chair Stevenson stated he had an issue with allowing a two square foot pennant. Director Ericson stated it could be changed to one square foot but questioned whether the Commission wanted to allow them at all or limit them as a temporary sign. Chair Stevenson stated he was not opposed to the temporary pennants allowed for 21 days advertising a company or product. In his opinion the more permanent pennants should be limited to a solid color. Commissioner Hegland stated he finds the pennants noisy when the wind is blowing and they become an eye sore if they are allowed to deteriorate in the wind. Commissioner Hegland suggested limiting all pennants to 21 days as they are really meant to be a temporary sign. Commissioner Johnson stated he feels the issue is how to prevent the abuse of the use of pennants. Mounds View Planning Commission February 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ____________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson stated he felt the need to revise the part of the code to allow advertising information and suggested eliminating the first provision in that section. Director Ericson asked how the Commission wanted to measure the sight triangle noting some cities measure from the curb line rather than the property line so this allows the sign to be brought in much closer. He indicated Mounds View’s Code does state from the property line. Commissioner Kaden suggested adding a statement for measuring from the curb line noting property owners take the risk and may have to move the sign if the streets are ever widened. Director Ericson stated that would pose a problem in that once a person has a sign and the street is widened the sign becomes non-conforming and would continue to be allowed the way it is. Director Ericson stated he would rather leave the Code the way it is for this matter. Director Ericson stated he would review the Code with the city attorney to see if the language governing the control of signs with obscene language is allowed or prohibited by law. Commissioner Kaden questioned how the City regulates obscene signs. Director Ericson stated the City cannot regulate the content of a sign only the size and type of construction. Director Ericson explained an obsolete sign or sign copy must be removed or covered indicating that goes along with the abandoned sign language. This language gives the City the opportunity to remove a sign that is no longer valid. Director Ericson asked what the Commission thought of the graphic illustrating where signage would be allowed. It was the consent of the Commission that the graphic properly illustrated the restrictions for signage. Commissioner Hegland asked Director Ericson to add right-of-way information to the graphic to clarify. Director Ericson stated the temporary sign section has been completely rewritten from the previous Code and stated he was hoping for business community input at this meeting. He noted this was an attempt to section out the types of signage for individual requirements. Director Ericson questioned whether the Commission wished to limit the time for allowing a searchlight. It was the Consent of the Commission to require a permit issued by Council for beacons and searchlights. Mounds View Planning Commission February 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Johnson asked staff to check with the City of Fridley to see how it regulates beacons and searchlights. Commissioner Kaden asked how the City would determine how fast the light is flashing. Director Ericson stated the Code defines a flashing sign and provides a definition of flashing. Director Ericson stated the Code has increased signage allowed to 48 square feet for temporary signs to accommodate the square signs with wheels and neon letters. This provision of the Code would require that the sign copy stay within the 48 square foot area of the sign. Commissioner Hegland asked Staff to verify the sign dimensions with the sign rental companies. He then asked how the Code would handle an inflatable play area that has advertising on it. Director Ericson stated a permit is required to put them up. Director Ericson stated he had received comments from the business community that limiting temporary signs to three times a year for 21 days at a time does not provide enough temporary signage for businesses. Commissioner Hegland asked if the duration allowed for a temporary sign is the issue or if the issue is the number of occurrences. Director Ericson stated he was not sure if the business community takes issue with the duration or the number of occurrences, or the fact that a permit is even required. Commissioner Johnson stated he believed the business community was concerned for having to go before Council to receive authorization for a permit for a temporary sign. Director Ericson stated he had attached an e-mail from the Chief of Police stating he was 100% in favor of the proposed change in window signage in the interest of public safety. Chair Stevenson stated he is concerned for allowing signs above seven (7) feet noting he thinks the Code should allow for signs above seven (7) feet but no signage between four (4) and seven (7) feet. It was the consent of the Commission to direct Staff to change the Code to require no signage between four (4) and seven (7) feet but allow signage above seven (7) feet. Director Ericson noted he would make the changes. Director Ericson stated the Code does not address maintenance of non-conforming signs. As drafted it is a statement that says if anything is done to the sign it needs to be brought into compliance. He then questioned if the Commission wished to change the language in the Code. Chair Stevenson suggested Staff provide an example of model language to cover the maintenance of non-conforming signs. Mounds View Planning Commission February 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked if variances transfer with the transfer of property. Director Ericson stated variances typically run with the land so would transfer with a transfer of ownership. Director Ericson stated he would go through the Code again to make any further changes and then ask the city attorney for comments. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case Nos. DE01-001, VR01-001, & CU01-001 Pinewood Elementary School Expansion Community Development Director Ericson explained this is a request by the school district for approval of development plans for the Pinewood Elementary School building and parking lot expansion. The first page of the plans shows the bituminous areas to be removed. The second page shows the expansion of the parking lot and the paving plan and the last pages show the interior floor plan with the new or expanded areas highlighted. Director Ericson explained this project would require a variance and a conditional use permit. The access off of Quincy for the parking lot extends off of the property line and onto the City right-of-way by six or seven feet and in order to maintain that type of setback the City would need to approve a variance. He stated there may also be a need for a limited use agreement for liability purposes. He stated he would check with the city attorney concerning the need for a limited use agreement. A conditional use permit will be required as the school is in an R1 district. He then explained that whenever these types of instances come before Council for approval the City requires a conditional use permit be issued at that time. Director Ericson noted there should not be a problem with granting the variance and conditional use permit. He noted City Staff did some research to look through files for an original agreement between the City and the school district and found no documentation. He then noted this matter will be published for public hearing on the variance for March 7, 2001. Director Ericson reviewed his staff report noting there were no changes to the building that would increase the setback to County Road I or Quincy Street. The parking lot will be maintained with no additional encroachment or expansion. The parking lot along County Road I, however, is too close to the right-of-way and that will be addressed at the next meeting also. There may also be a problem with the second access north on Quincy Street and that access may be removed and circulation would be such that all traffic would flow out onto County Road I. The County may have a problem with that proposal as the buses may have a problem negotiating the intersection. The Ramsey County Traffic Engineer has been sent a copy of the plans for input. Mounds View Planning Commission February 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 ____________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated drainage and utility has been reviewed by the Director of Public Works who cycled the plans through the water dept and has provided some comments. He noted as this is a large property and there is a large amount of area being repaved this is something Rice Creek will need to review and approve. Director Ericson stated it appears from the plan that many of the trees will be relocated and stated he is not sure if there is a need for additional landscaping. Director Ericson noted there may be additional lighting in the new parking lot area. Commissioner Miller asked why the access onto Quincy Street would be removed. Director Ericson stated he thought it was due to the difficulty in getting out on Quincy Street at certain times of the day. Chair Stevenson pointed out that having sent two kids through that school, he personally knows the access onto Quincy Street is very difficult to navigate. Commissioner Hegland noted if the school district is extending the non-conforming parking lot to the south they are actually adding more area that is out of compliance with the setbacks for parking. Director Ericson agreed that the school district is not increasing the setback but is increasing how much of the parking lot is out of compliance. Commissioner Hegland questioned how many spaces are needed to accommodate parking needs at the school. Director Ericson stated he felt there was a need for a parking analysis noting he was not sure of the capacity of the school or the available or proposed stalls. Sandra Gay, the architect for the project, addressed the Commission and showed on the plan that the school district intends to add 12 parking spots to the south. The school currently has 68 spaces and there are 50 proposed spaces for a total of 115 spaces when the expansion is completed. The existing parking is comprised of parking to the south and along County Road I. The parking to the south on the plan is new and will replace the playground currently located in the area. That playground will be relocated on the site. She then pointed out the expansions to the school on the drawing noting there will be a new mechanical system for air quality and ducting on the roof. Ms. Gay addressed the question of watershed off of the parking lot to the south by explaining that a bermed planting area would be added and water would sheet off the impervious surfaces and infiltrate into that landscaped area. The rest of the watershed will flow into the current street system. She then explained the larger circles on the plan denoted new landscape plantings. Mounds View Planning Commission February 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 ____________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Gay showed a lighting calculation drawing indicating there will be new lighting in the new parking lot areas but the lighting plan shows there will not be any light spillage onto adjoining property. She also noted there should not be any light pollution into the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Gay showed a floor plan for the school showing the remodeled and new areas as proposed. She also noted there is a plan to paint, upgrade flooring and doors, and refinish wood coat racks. Ms. Gay showed an elevation plan for the school showing the type of exterior to be used. The plan also showed the mechanical screening for the roof mechanicals. Director Ericson stated this matter will be before the Commission again on March 7, 2001 for a public hearing and noted Staff would have a resolution for consideration and approval of the variance and to recommend approval of the development plan to Council. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case Nos. DE01-001 & WB01-001 Minnesota Institute of Public Health Community Development Director Ericson explained the applicant has requested approval for a site plan for an office building approximately 13,912 square feet with 3,000 square feet for future expansion. The lot was originally slated for an office type use in conjunction with the Silverview Estates Planned Unit Development. Mr. Ericson noted a thorough set of plans has been submitted to the Commission for review and commended the developer on his work in providing such detailed plans. Director Ericson reviewed his staff report and noted all setbacks as determined by the PUD are satisfied, all city code requirements are satisfied, parking requirements were approved to be one (1) space for 250 square feet of gross floor area equaling a need for 56 spaces. When you add in the 3000 square feet of expansion there is a need for 70 spaces. Director Ericson explained the building is located next to a wetland and would require a wetland buffer permit. The impervious surface area of the proposed building encroaches 10% or less into the wetland buffer area. The original Planned Unit Development originally showed a maximum allowance of 45% impervious surface within the buffer area making the development significantly below the maximum number. Director Ericson noted the landscaping plan has been revised by the city forester and those changes have been worked into the plans before the Commission. The city forester has talked with the developer’s staff and has approved the revised site plan. Director Ericson explained the lighting plan shows a photometric analysis for the site and indicates there will be three (3) light standards twenty-four (24) feet tall housed in aluminum housing units to prevent glare. Mounds View Planning Commission February 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 ____________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson explained there would be two accesses to the site. One located on Silver Lake Road and one on Highway 10 which would be a right in and right out access. He then explained when the plat was approved in 1997, MNDOT had jurisdiction and had approved the access onto Highway 10 but that will need to be confirmed with Ramsey County. Director Ericson explained the garbage dumpster enclosure meets the requirements of the previously approved planned unit development and there will be no other accessory structures on the property. Director Ericson explained the drainage and utility issues were discussed with Rice Creek Watershed but the developer will not need official approval, as the property is smaller than 2.5 acres. The pond is designed to handle more drainage than the building will require. Director Ericson explained he and the developer have discussed a trailway along Highway 10 and Staff has asked for an extended trailway to connect the trailway from Silver Lake Road all the way down to County Road I. He also noted the City may pay for lights if the developer agrees to the extended trailway. Director Ericson explained the signage would be relocated from the other location of Minnesota Institute for Public Health and used at this site. This amounts to 56 square feet of signage which is within City requirements. Director Ericson summarized that this is a purely informational discussion for the Commission to look at the plans provided and provide input as needed. There is no action required on this tonight. Director Ericson pointed out he has been in contact with the property owner to the south who is concerned with the placement of the proposed building on the lot. The applicant is proposing to set the building back 30 feet from County Highway 10. The property owner to the south is concerned that the proposed building would block the view of his building if the building were built as proposed. Commissioner Miller asked if someone could tell the Commission what the Minnesota Institute of Public Health is. Mr. Jerry Jaker, Director of the Minnesota Institute of Public Health explained the Minnesota Institute of Public Health is a non-profit organization that has been in business for 28 years in the City of Anoka. The reason they are seeking to build a building in Mounds View is due to the fact that they have outgrown their current location and Mounds View seems to be a central location for their employees. Mr. Jaker handed out materials to the Commission giving information on the Minnesota Institute of Public Health. He pointed out they are not an agency of government but are a freestanding 5013C non-profit organization that offers research-tested and powerfully communicated advice on how to take better care of yourself. They are not a clinic, do not see patients, and do not Mounds View Planning Commission February 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 ____________________________________________________________________________ provide a direct counseling service. Mr. Jaker then outlined a few things his organization does for the state of Minnesota as a client. Steve Doughty, the architect on the project, showed a color drawing of the proposed building. The architect stated the building is currently in the design development stages and is on schedule to have construction documents completed sometime around the first of April. He indicated they are hoping to break ground as soon as road restrictions are lifted. Mr. Doughty explained this is a single story office building with a possible expansion to the southwest on the lot which is a horizontal expansion of the building and a third phase would be a vertical expansion of the building of approximately 6000 square feet over the original portion of the building. Mr. Doughty pointed out they are trying to maintain the residential character of the area with the design for the building but noted the vertical expansion will go up approximately 12 feet above the ridge line of the shingled roof. Mr. Doughty explained the materials to be used for the building are a face brick material with a pre-cast base below the windows and a type of commercial stucco from the head of the windows to the roof eaves. Mr. Doughty stated he was recently made aware of the concerns of the property owner regarding the setback issue. In an effort to show good faith he provided another site plan that would pull the building back 50 feet. There would still be an additional 20 feet of the proposed building out past the concerned property owner’s building but he stated his client would agree to this alternative plan in an effort to appease the other property owner. Mr. Doughty noted, for the record, his client would be incurring additional costs to bring in more fill due to the wetland located on the property. Commissioner Miller asked how the alternative site plan would impact the parking lot for the building. Mr. Doughty stated the parking lot would be the same with the building in either location. Mr. Doughty then explained they intend to build, grade and provide enough parking for the current building and the expansion with this first phase. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to how much additional fill would be required if the building were pushed back on the site. Mr. Doughty estimated the additional cost for fill to be between $4,000 and $10,000. Commissioner Kaden inquired as to whether moving the building would affect the holding pond. Mr. Doughty stated the holding pond would not be affected by moving the building back. Mounds View Planning Commission February 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 ____________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson stated the building was moved up on the site in an effort to be sensitive to the fact that the building would be partially in the 100-foot buffer for the wetland. He then noted there is room to pull the building back without affecting the wetland buffer or storm water pond. Commissioner Hegland asked how moving the building would affect the expansion. Mr. Doughty stated he did not believe there would be any significant impact to the expansion by moving the building aside from slightly increased construction costs. Commissioner Miller asked the architect what the orientation of the picture he was showing the Commission was. Mr. Doughty indicated the building as presented in the drawing was facing directly south. Chair Stevenson thanked the architect and Mr. Jaker for the information. Director Ericson asked for direction from the Commission. Chair Stevenson noted it was the consent of the Commission to ask that the building be pushed back the 50 feet to better accommodate the property owner to the south. Commissioner Miller inquired as to where the snow removed from parking lots would be placed. Director Ericson stated that was not addressed yet but indicated that Rice Creek Watershed has stated a good place for snow would be the storm water pond or they could also plow snow up toward Holiday. Director Ericson stated he would draft a resolution for review at the next meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Consideration of Resolution 647-01, a Resolution Amending the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws Community Development Director Ericson stated the Bylaws were reviewed at the last meeting and noted there were a few changes, none of any substance. Commissioner Miller requested a change to the Bylaws to read “council liaison” rather than “liaison to council”. Director Ericson noted he would change the language for clarification. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Hegland. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 647-01, a Resolution Amending the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission February 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 ____________________________________________________________________________ 8. Staff Reports a. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Ericson reported at the last Council meeting Council discussed the site plan approval for Mr. Mezzenga and tabled action on the matter to allow the resident to the south and Mr. Mezzenga time to resolve the fencing issue. Council tabled the matter noting it will only be tabled once before Council will take action. Mr. Zwirn is proposing an eight (8) foot fence and Mr. Mezzenga is proposing a six (6) foot fence. Director Ericson reported that Council had asked Staff to request input from the Commission on the issue of whether to require an eight (8) foot fence or a six (6) foot fence. Commissioner Kaden asked if there was a cost difference between a six (6) foot fence and an eight (8) foot fence. Director Ericson stated there was a difference, but could not guess what that might be. Commissioner Johnson stated he believed the cost difference could be as much as double. It was the consent of the Commission that a six (6) foot fence should be adequate to provide screening for privacy. Director Ericson thanked the Commission for its input and noted he would forward the information on to Council. b. Planning Commissioner’s Journal Director Ericson noted the 2001 Home and Garden Show is scheduled for March 3, 2001 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center. City Staff will be available to answer questions for residents. He stated he believes this will be a good show providing information on all types of home improvements as well as landscaping and encouraged residents to attend. ________________________________________________________________________ 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports None. 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission February 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 ____________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.