Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 7, 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., March 7, 2001. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Hegland, Stevenson, Kaden, Miller and Cerny. Members Absent: Commissioner Johnson (excused). Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson. ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case Nos. DE01-001 & WB01-001 2 Applicant: Minnesota Institute of Public Health Location: 2720 Highway 10 Planning Case Nos. DE01-001, VR01-001 & CU01-001 6 Applicant: ISD #621 Location: 5500 Quincy Street Special Planning Case No. SP-082-00 11 Continuation of Sign Code Review Staff Reports/Items of Information 11 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 12 _______________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Planning Case Nos. DE01-001 & WB01-001 Community Development Director Ericson reported Minnesota Institute of Public Health, which has recently become a subsidiary of Blue Cross Blue Shield, has applied for a development review to construct a 16,912 square-foot office building on the vacant lot to the southeast of the Holiday Store. The Silverview Estates PUD indicates the lot was intended to support a 25,000 square foot two-story office building. There is also a request for approval for a second expansion that would potentially add 6,000 square feet of second-story office space. All together the maximum proposed office space would be 22,912 square feet. Minnesota Institute of Health has indicated that there will be no clinic, outpatient, classroom or medical procedures taking place at the facility. This facility would function as the central headquarters for the organization. Director Ericson explained that the proposed building meets all City zoning requirements and the requirements of the Silverview Estates PUD. There is one issue with regard to the placement of the building. The original site plan submitted by Minnesota Institute of Health indicated the building would be setback 30 feet off of Highway 10. The property owner to the south, Mr. Winiecki, expressed concern for the location of the proposed building as it blocked the view of his building. Minnesota Institute of Health and its developer, and architect have, in a good faith effort to appease Mr. Winiecki, agreed to set the building back at 50 feet from Highway 10. The developers have indicated it would be cost prohibitive to pull the building back any further. Director Ericson explained the Silverview PUD established the parking requirements for the office building to be one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. That means this building, at full buildout of 22,000 square feet, would require 92 spaces. The site plan indicates there will be 70 stalls built to cover the first phase of the building and the first expansion. The site plan also shows 22 spaces as proof of parking for the final expansion phase should that take place. Director Ericson explained that with the increased setback from Highway 10 more of the building is situated within the 100-foot wetland buffer noting that the amount of building and impervious surface within the buffer is still only 10% and the Silverview Estates PUD allowed for a 45 percent buffer coverage. Director Ericson noted the landscape plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Forester. Director Ericson noted the lighting is within City requirements. Director Ericson explained there would be access off of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road. Staff has spoken to the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer who has indicated he would like to see a 30-foot wide access that is more in keeping with uses of this type. The Traffic Engineer also Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ mentioned a turn lane on Highway 10 indicating it may be possible to use part of the shoulder to incorporate the turn lane. Director Ericson explained the only accessory structure on the property would be the trash enclosure located behind the building. Director Ericson noted the drainage plan has been reviewed and approved by the public works department. He also noted the site will provide less runoff to the storm water management pond than originally estimated and stated there will need to be a drainage swale between Mr. Winiecki’s property and the proposed building. Director Ericson noted that rather than requiring the developer to build trailways and provide decorative lighting it may be more appropriate to escrow a certain dollar amount to allow the City to build the trailway after the Highway 10 redevelopment plan is developed. Staff estimates the amount of the improvement dedication would be $14,125.00. Director Ericson noted Minnesota Institute for Public Health intended to relocate the sign from its Anoka location to the site and that the sign is 32 square feet and internally illuminated. The sign will be set on a masonry base with materials that match the building. Director Ericson noted there is a Resolution for consideration if the Commission chooses to do so. Mr. George Winiecki of 2704 N.E. Highway 10 addressed the Commission and apologized for not being able to attend the previous meeting concerning this issue. He then gave a brief history of how he arrived at his current business location noting he owned the corner lot that was the key piece in the Silverview Estates PUD planning process. Mr. Winiecki then made his point to the Commission, which is that his business would be negatively impacted if the proposed building is not setback even with his building. Mr. Winiecki told the Commission that he felt that he gave up location when he sold the corner lot which allowed the Silverview Estates PUD to go forward but made up for losing location with curb appeal as the building he moved into is a very nice building. Mr. Winiecki noted the City had led him to believe the only way to develop the lot he owned was through a PUD and so he agreed to the deal to make it work. He explained to the Commission his one concern and request during the Silverview Estates PUD planning process was for the location of the building that would someday be built on the lot in question. He then explained to the Commission that he thought he had an agreement with the City on the matter. Mr. Winiecki noted he would like the Commission to tell the developer there is a concept plan that is good and require them to follow it. He then stated he feels betrayed on this issue as the other people involved in the transaction have gotten what they wanted and he has not. Mr. Winiecki provided copies of the Spring Lake Park, New Brighton, Arden Hills and Shoreview zoning codes as well as Mounds View’s code to show that his request to require the Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ building to be setback even with his building is a normal and customary practice in surrounding communities. Mr. Jaker, Director of the Minnesota Institute of Health, told the Commission he just met Mr. Winiecki and stated he and his company want to be a good neighbor in Mounds View. He stated his company is sensitive to environmental issues as it is part of their business to advise people on environmental issues. He then introduced Mr. Dzurik of McGough Construction. Mr. Dzurik explained he and his company like to tailor a building to their client and the site, which is why they did not conform to the original PUD requirements noting they needed to allow for horizontal expansion in the near future. He then explained his client would incur additional costs to move the building back the additional 20 feet. Mr. Dzurik noted he drove by Mr. Winiecki’s building to view it for line of sight and stated he felt Mr. Winiecki’s sign draws the attention first and then the building. In his opinion, you may not be able to see the building from the intersection but by the time you reach the access for the proposed building the eye begins to see Mr. Winiecki’s building. Chair Stevenson asked if the developer had explored the possibility of moving the office toward the car wash. Mr. Dzurik noted they have not specifically explored that option but certainly could noting they would lose an entire entrance if they did that. Chair Stevenson noted this is an office with employees not a business relying on a customer base as Mr. Winiecki is. Mr. Winiecki noted the developer had pushed four feet of fill onto the lot which is why the developer is incurring additional costs to correct the soil. He stated he did not feel this was his problem and that he should not have to pay for it. Chair Stevenson questioned at what point Mr. Winiecki’s building becomes visible when traveling on Highway 10. Director Ericson gave a line of sight drawing to Chair Stevenson showing a person would be able to see Mr. Winiecki’s building from the Holiday store. Chair Stevenson asked Mr. Winiecki how far back his building is setback from Highway 10. Mr. Winiecki stated his building was setback approximately 75 feet. Commissioner Hegland questioned whether there was an agreement in the original concept plan requiring the building to be setback even with Mr. Winiecki’s building. Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated the original concept plan calls for an office building but does not have a specific setback requirement. He further explained the PUD determines minimum setbacks but stated the PUD allows for flexibility. Commissioner Miller asked if Mr. Winiecki had seen the line of sight drawing. Director Ericson noted it is a line of sight to the corner of the building so it is difficult to get the full effect of what the line of sight is. He then noted the whole building would not be visible once the proposed office building is built. Commissioner Kaden explained he had driven by the area this afternoon and feels that the sign attracts enough attention to then direct the eye to the building. Mr. Winiecki stated every one had worked on the concept plan and he was asked where he wanted the office building to be located as he had a big stake in the development. Chair Stevenson noted he would need more information before passing a Resolution. Director Ericson noted he would get the 1997 meeting minutes for review at the next meeting. Commissioner Miller pointed to a concrete sidewalk around the perimeter of the building and asked if it would also be following the proposed expansion building. Mr. Dzurik explained it was a sidewalk as required by the fire code and explained it would go around the expansion as well. Mr. Dzurik pointed out the entrance to the building on the drawing. Mr. Winiecki noted he has been in business in Mounds View for 22 years and asked the Commission to require the developer to set the building back. Mr. Dzurik stated it comes down to visibility and no matter what a person will not be able to see the side of Mr. Winiecki’s building as you can now. Commissioner Miller noted she sees the sign first and then the building. Commissioner Kaden commented he would feel better in asking the developer to move the building back if there was something in writing promising the setback. He then pointed out the ordinances Mr. Winiecki had provided copies of outlined a requirement for flexibility. He then stated, in his opinion, the developer has made a good faith effort to move the building back. Commissioner Hegland noted he would like to see the minutes before making any decisions. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Cerny. To Table Resolution 650-01 to the next Planning Commission Meeting to Allow Staff Time to Research the Matter. Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case Nos. DE01-001, VR01-001 & CU01-001 Community Development Director Ericson explained the Pinewood expansion encompasses approximately 10,000 square feet of new area. The plan also indicates there will be a complete overhaul of the parking situation as well. There are parking issues on the site right now and the expansion would create 50 additional stalls on the site. A play area will be converted to parking and parking would be extended to the south along Quincy Street. Director Ericson noted a representative from the architect’s office was present to answer questions about the plan. He also noted he had spoken to the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer who has no problem with the plans. Director Ericson noted the Planning Commission had asked for a parking analysis that was completed by Staff. Per City Code the school is required to provide one stall for each classroom and one stall for each 50 students which totals 46 stalls. This poses a problem on the site as the school employs a staff of 96. The expansion would allow for 115 stalls total. Director Ericson noted Rice Creek has indicated approval and stated no ponding would be required as the site will utilize drainage into the green space areas and there really is very little impervious surface being added to the site. Director Ericson noted the setbacks are an issue on the site and would require a variance as the parking lot on Quincy is six (6 ½) or seven (7) feet into the right-of-way. Staff is not sure how it occurred but can only imagine the City and the school district agreed at some point to allow the situation to occur. Director Ericson noted the other issue is the proposed parking lot to the south is indicated at a 20-foot setback. The conditional use permit requires a 30-foot setback from residential property and the bituminous is setback at 25 feet. The school district will either need a variance for that or will need to pull back the parking lot to comply with the setback requirements. Director Ericson noted the Planning Commission needed to review the requirements of the conditional use permit but noted all of them appeared to be satisfied with the exception of the parking lot setbacks. Director Ericson explained the expansion will match the architecture and design of the existing building and the mechanical equipment on the roof of the building will be screened. He then noted Staff feels this is a good proposal and is hopeful it will resolve some of the issues for the neighbors on Quincy Street. Director Ericson also noted he has talked with the police department and asked them to increase patrol in that area at the congested times of day and ticket those vehicles in violation. Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked if it was the intent of the south parking lot to use the one-way method. Director Ericson explained the south access could go in and out but was designed so that vehicles would not have to circulate the whole site to get out. Ms. Gay of Perkins & Will showed the site plan for the school and explained where things were located on the site. Ms. Gay explained that the west building expansion was designed to allow school administration a clear view of the school buses lined up on the site as well as the children and other individuals entering and exiting the building. Ms. Gay pointed out the mechanicals on the roof will be screened and the ductwork will be painted to match the color of the roof so it will not stand out. Ms. Gay reviewed the interior plan for the building with the Commission and residents. Ms. Gay noted there would also be general upgrades in the school for finishes and floorings. Ms. Gay noted they had planned to be able to expand classroom space to the south and not interfere with the parking lot. She noted she would need to go to the district if the City requires the parking lot be moved back. Ms. Gay noted she would send a request in writing for the variance for the 20-foot setback. Ms. Gay noted they intended to match the exterior brick as closely as they can. Ms. Gay reviewed an analysis of the lighting for the site that indicated light would not leave the site. Chair Stevenson asked if the school would be requiring staff to park in the area where the buses will board. He then asked that the stalls be marked to reflect staff and visitor parking. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. Mr. Dewey Nelson of 5459 Quincy Street asked for clarification on the sidewalks along Quincy. He then asked why there is a setback issue on Quincy. Ms. Gay explained the existing parking is encroaching into the city right of way and, in order to line up the expansion parking to keep it in line with the existing parking, the school would need a variance. Mr. Nelson expressed a concern for how many crossing guards would be needed. Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Gay said she could not speak to that but stated the school is very concerned for student safety, which is why they want to have the buses board on Quincy. Mr. Nelson indicated he did not think it was appropriate to expand into the boulevard, as the kids need a space to walk. Director Ericson stated he thought it would have been nice to have someone from the district at the meeting to address the safety issues. He then noted the school his kids attend has a designated pick up and drop off area and suggested the school district may need to communicate that issue to parents telling them to stay off of Quincy. He then asked that Ms. Gay have someone from the school administration present at the next meeting to give assurance to the neighborhood that this expansion will fix the parking problem at the school and to speak to the safety issues raised. Ms. Gay apologized that there was not a school district representative at the meeting stating no one was available but someone will come to the next meeting as they are concerned for the safety and parking issues. Director Ericson then clarified the setback on Quincy would not change but the parking lot will continue to the south following the same setback not getting any closer to Quincy. Mr. Dennis Hames of 5511 Quincy Street stated the City has no idea what goes on over at the school and asked where the school crossing will be located. He stated it was fine to move the crosswalk back from the intersection where the child was hit but no one took into consideration that there is no where for the kids to walk in the winter when there are cars parked on the street. He stated he goes over to the school every day and picks his child up so that he does not have to worry about his child trying to cross Quincy at the busy time of day. He then stated no one on Quincy wants sidewalks added but stated he is very concerned and feels this issue should be addressed as part of this expansion. Mr. Hames suggested there be parking restrictions placed on Quincy to allow no parking during the busy time in the morning and in the afternoon. He then noted he has seen the police drive by when there is a vehicle parked in front of his driveway noting when he called to complain the first answer he gets is the officer was answering a call. He also noted the police do not ticket for parking violations because it takes 20 to 40 minutes to get them to respond to a parking violation call. Chair Stevenson noted that the crosswalk would need to be marked. Mr. Hames suggested fold down stop signs posted in the area that the crossing guards would use to help get children across the street may help in this situation as it would require all cars to stop in the area during school release times. Chair Stevenson noted the City and the school would need to address the safety and crosswalk issues at the next meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Kaden asked that the residents present come to the next meeting to express their concerns to the school administration. Mr. Hames stated he has talked to the principal but, in his opinion, the principal seems to be operating under the “ignore the situation and it will go away” theory. Mr. Hames then complimented Director Ericson on his attention to and the handling of the situation when residents called. Ms. Vera Olson of 5499 Quincy Street noted the parking was a problem on Quincy and she does not see how the drawing presented will help it as it is very convenient to park on Quincy, which is why they do it. Commissioner Hegland asked if the issue is drop off parking. Ms. Olson stated there is a parking problem all day noting she thinks it is staff. Commissioner Hegland noted there would be a lot of parking added so that should address the staff parking issue. Commissioner Hegland stated the school could require staff to park in the lot. Mr. Hames noted the basketball court is open to parking but few cars park out there. Commissioner Hegland indicated that staff parking should be addressed by adding more spaces and suggested when the school administrator is at the meeting that the school should have a plan to present concerning staff parking and student drop off and pick up traffic along with the safety issues. Mr. Hames asked if it was feasible to get parking restrictions during drop off and pick up times. Director Ericson noted a number of residents have been talking about parking problems on Quincy and that when he saw the Police Chief walk by he asked him to speak to the issues as to how the City can control the situation. Chief Clark noted parking along Quincy has been issue since he started with the City. He noted the folks at Pinewood have been receptive to his suggestions concerning alleviating the parking and did open the basketball court for parking. He noted as a part of the expansion the plan is to reroute traffic to the county I side of the building for drop off and pick up. Chief Clark then explained how the police department responds to parking complaint calls noting that if officers are already involved in another matter the parking complaint call drops in priority and as soon as the officer is free he/she will be sent over to do the parking complaint. He noted this does not help the residents on Quincy with their parking concerns but stated calls must be handled this way in the interest of public safety. He then noted he went over to Quincy Street Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ and observed during drop off pick up time and feels this is mainly the issue. He stated he is hopeful the plan to move the drop off and pick up to the County I side of the building will alleviate the traffic issue on Quincy. Mr. Jack Lasota of 5467 Quincy Street asked if vehicles could exit onto Quincy from the newly expanded parking lot to the south. Ms. Gay explained it is a one-way loop noting cars could enter off Quincy but could not exit. Chair Stevenson stated he would like to see the current bituminous area to compare how close to the property line the proposal of 20 feet is. Director Ericson stated the information was in the original plans received. Chair Stevenson asked how many parking stalls would be lost if the setback was changed to 25 feet. Ms. Gay noted she would look into it. Director Ericson said in looking at the plan he thought it may require dropping one of the stalls. Chair Stevenson stated he would prefer to stay within the existing bituminous area. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 9:02 p.m. Director Ericson asked if the Commission wanted to act on the Resolution or hear from the administrator before passing this on to Council. Commissioner Hegland stated he felt the Commission should resolve some more of the issues before going to Council with it. Commissioner Miller stated she did not see why the Commission couldn’t approve the Resolution. Chair Stevenson noted the Commission would table the matter for two weeks. Director Ericson stated the Commission could table the matter to its next meeting as the Council meeting is after the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kaden again asked that residents come to the meeting with the school administrator to tell them what happens and explain the parking and safety issues. Director Ericson also asked the residents to come to the next meeting. ________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Special Planning Case No. SP-082-00 Community Development Director Ericson explained this is the fourth comprehensive revision of the sign code. He then reviewed the changes made to this revision of the code with the Commission to make sure the changes accurately reflected what was discussed. He also discussed the various changes to the code the City Attorney had recommended. It was the consent of the Commission to change the language of the code slightly to require that an inflatable device be no more than 30 feet above the surface to which it is attached. It was the consent of the Commission to hold a public hearing on April 4, 2001 to discuss changes to the sign code. ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Staff Reports a. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Ericson noted Council discussed at the work session Pinewood Elementary, the building on Highway 10 and the concerns raised by Mr. Winiecki as to setbacks, and potential long range redevelopment on Highway 10. b. Highway 10 Project Update, Steering Committee Community Development Director Ericson reported the City has received six (6) proposals from various firms for the Highway 10 redevelopment project. Three of those firms were selected to be interviewed and staff narrowed the list down to one firm that staff feels is best suited for the project. He then noted this will be a year long process and that Council will have a Resolution before it to award that bid at the next meeting. Director Ericson stated he is looking for three people for the Highway 10 Redevelopment Steering Committee stating Commissioners Johnson and Stevenson had expressed an interest in serving on the Committee. He then noted there is one meeting a month on a Wednesday and that there will be three representatives from each committee along with some members of the business community, and the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer. c. Cancellation of the March 21, 2001 Meeting Community Development Director Ericson noted that, as there is unfinished business for the March 21, 2001 meeting it will not be cancelled. He then noted he will be out of town and, as such, there will not be much information available ahead of the meeting for Commissioners to review. Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson asked the Commission to let him know if any of them were interested in attending any of the GTSI training sessions that are available. ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Commissioner Miller noted at the intersection of Long Lake and Hillview there is a Mounds View banner flopping in the breeze upside down. She also stated she will be gone for the next two meetings. Community Development Director Ericson apologized to everyone for the late packets noting he has placed an advertisement for a planning associate and hopes that within a couple of months the Commission can start getting the packets on Friday and he will not have to assemble them on the weekends. Director Ericson noted there are three vacancies on the Planning Commission if anyone is interested. 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.