Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 1, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., March 1, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, Miller, and Stevenson. Members Absent: Commissioner Braathen, leave of absence. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Liaison Dan Coughlin, Golf Course Superintendent John Hammerschmidt, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. IU00-001, Bridges Golf Course. Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 606-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Interim Use Permit to Allow for the Installation of Six Billboards on Golf Course Property. City of Mounds View, Applicant. 2 Planning Case No. ZC00-001, Bridges Golf Course. Consideration of Resolution Recommending Approval of a Zoning Change of Bridges Golf Course Parcels from I-1 and CRP to PF. City of Mounds View, Applicant. 18 Staff Reports / Items of Information 20 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 22 Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 3. Citizens’ Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. February 2, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Berke to approve the February 2, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. IU00-001 Property Involved: Bridges Golf Course Consideration of Resolution 606-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Interim Use Permit to Allow for the Installation of Six Billboards on Golf Course Property. Applicant: City of Mounds View The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, the City of Mounds View, is proposing to install six billboards on Bridges Golf Course property. This action would require the approval of an Interim Use Permit (IUP), and the duration of the interim use would be 15 years. There was significant discussion at the last meeting of the Planning Commission concerning this issue, and some of the issues raised with regard to the billboards centered upon the spacing and location of the signs, as well as their design and the message content. Planning Associate Ericson stated Golf Course Superintendent John Hammerschmidt has conducted extensive measurements at both the Bridges Golf Course and the Sysco property, and has made some calculations with regard to the siting and location of the signs, in keeping with the 1,000-foot separation requirement. He indicated Superintendent Hammerschmidt was present, and could speak to those issues. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 606-00, which recommends approval of the IUP to the City Council with a stipulation that the City retain the ability to refuse objectionable advertising content per its lease agreement with the billboard vendor. He indicated the resolution also contains a stipulation which indicates that all of the billboards be constructed Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 of similar materials, and maintain a consistent design theme, as presented on Page 6 of the Eller Media proposal. He advised that another stipulation addresses the issue of whether or not the billboards can be permitted through the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and indicates that if a billboard permit cannot be obtained from MnDOT, the Interim Use Permit approved by the City will be considered null and void. Planning Associate Ericson stated the signs do not appear to present adverse effects, with regard to the subject property. He indicated the Planning Commission discussed this issue at great lengths at their last meeting, and the general Conditional Use Permit requirements appear to be met by this proposal, as well as the adverse effects criteria. He stated the Planning Commission received testimony from a resident who lives on the south side of Highway 10, who was concerned regarding the location of the signs, and the potential effect they would have on her property. He indicated staff is of the opinion that the installation of the signs would not be detrimental to the property values of those properties located on the south side of Highway 10. Superintendent Hammerschmidt provided the Commission with a site map, which showed the proposed locations of the signs. He indicated the first sign would be situated in the corner of the golf course property at its easternmost point, in the area where the second green adjoins 35W on the boundary of Mounds View and the City of Blaine. He provided the Commission with an overview of the site locations from the eastern to the northwestern edges of the property, and explained that a minimum of 1,000 feet is required between each sign. Superintendent Hammerschmidt stated there would be a 1,400-foot separation between the first and second signs. The second sign has been extended forward so that it will not interfere with the western sight lines from the onramp, and would otherwise only be visible to eastbound traffic. He stated the third sign would be located 1,000 feet from the second, and situated on the edge of the swamp, in the middle of the golf course. Superintendent Hammerschmidt indicated the fourth sign would be located 1,000 feet from the sixth green, and the fifth sign would be another 1,000 feet, and adjusted slightly toward the east because it could not be located directly in front of the eighth green. He explained that they placed this location approximately 40 to 50 feet behind the eighth green, to the east of Judicial Ditch. He indicated that from this point, they moved exactly 1,000 feet to the sixth sign location, which would be at the edge of the woods clearing, and approximately 375 to 400 feet east of the golf course property line, which is adjacent to the Sysco property. He indicated this is the maximum amount of separation they can provide, and they could not move any farther to the east of the property line. Superintendent Hammerschmidt advised that Sysco’s preferred site is in very close proximity to the property line, which would allow them to construct the sign off of their parking lot, however, the distance between this location and the City sign would be less than 1,000 feet. He advised that in the northwest corner of the Sysco property, there is a portion of land that extends down from the junction of County Road J and Highway 10, however, this would not be an acceptable Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 sign location because the overpass would block any view from the north. He explained that they could move approximately 40 to 50 feet from the property line, which would provide an acceptable location for a two way sign, however, there would only be 500 to 600 feet between the signs. He pointed out that with the 1,000-foot spacing requirement, one of the applicants would have to either obtain a variance, or lose a sign. He advised that State Code calls for a 500- foot minimum spacing between signs, therefore, Sysco could install a sign in this location if they obtained a variance, for which they would have to show a hardship, which may exist in terms of their internal traffic circulation. Superintendent Hammerschmidt indicated another factor that may come into play is that during the initial consideration of the signs, one of the primary criteria was the design, in terms of offering something unique. He stated they were proposing this on the golf course property, and they would like to obtain some agreement for similar designs on the two signs proposed for the Sysco property. However, it would be very difficult for Sysco to provide the same type of sign facing. He explained that the monument style sign they were proposing for the golf course would cut approximately 50 feet into the property, and this would be prohibitive for Sysco, if the sign would have to be constructed within the existing parking area. Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the accessibility and ground conditions of the westernmost site proposed on the golf course. Superintendent Hammerschmidt indicated there would be hydrological studies of the entire area. He explained that this site was all upland, and was bermed up at the time the drainage was excavated, therefore, access would be fairly easy. He noted that it would be much more convenient to obtain access from the Sysco property, and this might be worked out at some point. Peter Coyle, representative of DeLite Outdoor Advertising and Sysco Foods stated a set of plans has been submitted to the City that reflect the monopole structures that would be proposed for the Sysco property. He explained that those signs reflect the comments that Superintendent Hammerschmidt eluded to, which is the need to ensure there is clear space under the bottom of the sign and to allow safe mobility of trucks in the parking area. He stated these plans have not yet come before the Planning Commission, in terms of a formal review, however, the Interim Use Permit process is pending. He advised that the design of the signs was an issue that required further discussion. Commissioner Johnson inquired if they were proposing a monopole structure, rather than a monument style sign. Mr. Coyle stated this was correct, adding that they have no other option, given the layout of the Sysco property. Commissioner Berke inquired if there had been any discussion between Sysco and the City since the last meeting of the Planning Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Planning Associate Ericson stated he did not believe so. He indicated Superintendent Hammerschmidt has been quite involved with the examination of the dimensions and the sign spacing, and it was believed that these discussions would take place within the next few days. Mr. Coyle stated they had hoped there would be a meeting earlier in the week. He explained that Paul Radamacher, a representative of DeLite Outdoor Advertising had undergone surgery the previous week, and this has been the primary obstacle in this regard. He indicated he has been in contact with City staff and the City Attorney on several occasions, and was satisfied there is a good desire on the part of the City to resolve the issues, however, at this point, they have not been practically worked out. Mr. Coyle indicated their fundamental concern at this point is that as a private property owner in this process, they do not wish to be the ones who have to come before the City seeking a variance. He stated it would be logical for the City, as the applicant, to attempt to have the decisions regarding the sign facings made up front, so that neither of the applicants are in the position of having to achieve the relatively difficult variance standard. Mr. Coyle advised that the City’s 1,000-foot spacing requirement is well in excess of MnDOT’s requirement, therefore, there may be some options with regard to the spacing of the signs. He explained that one option would be to apply this as an interior lot spacing requirement, in which case the application presently before the Commission would be in compliance, because there is a 1,000-foot spacing between the proposed signs. He indicated this would also allow Sysco to proceed with its two proposed signs, which are also spaced 1,000 feet apart, on an interior lot basis. Mr. Coyle stated that with approximately 1,400 feet between the first sign on the furthest northeast location of the golf course, to the sign located around the curve, and it was conceivable that the average spacing measurement across those signs would be 1,000 feet, notwithstanding the cross boundary spacing issue. He explained that this presents another potential means to resolve the spacing issue. He noted that another option would be to decrease the 1,000-foot spacing requirement. He explained that although this would probably require a Code amendment, this could provide a solution, if it would allow the City to achieve the locations proposed for the golf course, and also respect Sysco’s preferred locations, which are necessary for its operational capabilities on the site. Mr. Coyle stated as the Commission was aware, Sysco is a good neighbor to the community, and their desire is to cooperate with the City in this matter, and they anticipate that with further discussion, this would be the case. He indicated it was their hope that if the Commission took any action on the application before them at that time, they would request the Council not take any action relative to the golf course that would put the Sysco property at a disadvantage under the Code. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Johnson inquired regarding the area required to construct a monople sign versus a monument style sign, in terms of the amount of space Sysco would lose in their parking lot if they were to construct a monument style sign. Superintendent Hammerschmidt indicated the monument style sign would be 51 feet in length, and there would be a separation of 15 to 30 feet, depending upon the sight angle. He explained that the signs would be 50 feet by 50 feet, and with the addition of safety poles, would involve at least several hundred square feet. He pointed out that they were proposing the monument style signs at the golf course because of the design issues that had come forward in the initial discussion pertaining to the monopole structures. He stated he would not attempt to tell Sysco how to proceed, however, if his spacing calculations at the golf course are correct, Sysco would not have a need to install a sign in their parking lot, and could install the monument style signs at the locations he has suggested. He explained that there would be sufficient room for this, and it would be nice to have similar signs. Commissioner Johnson inquired regarding the distance between the sixth sign proposed on the golf course, and the location of the first sign on the Sysco property. Superintendent Hammerschmidt stated approximately 550 to 600 feet. Mr. Coyle pointed out that this would satisfy the MnDOT spacing requirement. Superintendent Hammerschmidt advised that even if the spacing requirement were changed to 800 feet, there would not be sufficient room to install any more signs at the golf course because of the physical barriers. Commissioner Miller inquired if the City would consider five signs at the golf course, instead of six. Superintendent Hammerschmidt stated the Council had originally proposed six because of the distance between the signs and the economic factors. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the amount of frontage Sysco has on Highway 10. Superintendent Hammerschmidt indicated Sysco has 1,200 feet of frontage, however, the plans indicate 1,649 feet, because the measurements were taken all the way to the edge of County Road J. He explained that the Sysco property begins on Highway 10, and extends into the right- of-way on County Road J, therefore, they have 1,400 feet, with a 200-foot easement in the center of it, which totals approximately 1600 feet of frontage. Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the likelihood of obtaining the permits from MnDOT for the six signs proposed by the City, and then obtaining permits for two additional signs shortly thereafter. Mr. Coyle advised that as long as the City has approved a permit, and the spacing requirements and other Code requirements provided for under the State Statutes are met, MnDOT is obligated Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 to issue the permit. He explained that MnDOT does not have the discretion to make their decision based upon the number of requests submitted, as long as they are in compliance with the local Code and State Law. He stated it was his understanding that as long as the signs have met MnDOT’s 500-foot spacing requirement, they would be approved. Michael Cronin, representative of Eller Media stated this was correct. He explained that this was an administrative permit, and there is no discretion. He commented that if the signs did not meet the 500-foot State requirement, MnDOT might have to make a judgement in terms of which applications were submitted first, however, the City requirements are so far in excess of MnDOT standards, there would be no problem obtaining the permits. Commissioner Johnson stated he was not opposed to allowing all eight signs, and even with only 550 feet spacing between Mounds View’s and Sysco’s signs, he would prefer to see Sysco have both signs for their financial benefit as well. He indicated however, he was concerned with regard to the design theme, in that the City was initially attempting to eliminate the monopole style structures. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Sysco application was scheduled for a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting, therefore, the issue of design could be addressed at that time. He advised that the Planning Commission could include a fifth stipulation in Resolution 606-00 that could convey to the City Council their desire for Sysco and the City to work together to resolve whatever issues exist in terms of spacing. He indicated both the Sysco representatives and City staff believe this could be accomplished through several different means. He explained there are numerous options available including a variance, an interpretation of the Code, and amending the Code with regard to spacing, which would allow both Sysco and the City to achieve their objectives. He stated language could also be added to the resolution to make the Council aware that the Commission desires this issue to be resolved. Commissioner Johnson stated he would prefer to see a variance between the two parties’ signs, than to amend the Code to allow for this. He explained that if they decrease the spacing requirement in the Code to 500 feet, there would be nothing to prohibit Sysco from installing additional signs in the future. Chairperson Peterson stated although he is no fan of billboards, the City Ordinances allow them in this situation, and there is not a major difference between seven and eight signs, therefore, they should attempt to find a means to make this work for both applicants. He stated a variance would probably be a more appropriate approach than amending the Code, and the language of the ordinance is fairly clear in terms of the 1,000-foot spacing requirement, therefore, there is likely not much room for interpretation. Commissioner Miller requested clarification regarding the 1,000-foot spacing requirement as it pertains to the distance of the signs from the property line. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Chairperson Peterson stated the language indicates “Billboards must be at least 1,000 feet apart. Spacing between signs shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to the property line of the right-of-way from which they are intended to be read, and measuring the distance in a straight line from the projected points.” He stated the best approach would be to work out an arrangement between the two applicants to allow for all eight signs, and to accomplish this through a variance. He explained that the details could be determined at the Council level. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the Planning Commission would grant the variance. Chairperson Peterson indicated either body could consider this matter. Commissioner Stevenson advised staff that the Planning Commission would like to include the fifth stipulation regarding the City and Sysco working in cooperation, as suggested by Planning Associate Ericson. Commissioner Berke stated he agreed. He indicated the loss of any sign should be on the part of the City, as Sysco is the taxpayer. Commissioner Laube stated he would like to see that this matter is completely resolved prior to Council approval of the current application, regardless of whether or not this results in a delay, in order to avoid any misunderstandings on the part of either of the applicants. He advised that language should be added to the resolution to indicate that this situation be resolved prior to the next step in the process. Commissioner Stevenson reiterated that he would like to see both applications submitted to the State simultaneously. He explained that he would not care to see Sysco’s two signs denied because the City of Mounds View was previously allowed six signs in the same general vicinity, and he would like to see that the Sysco application receive the same priority as the City’s. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Coyle if he could foresee a problem in this regard. Mr. Coyle stated he did not. He explained that the fact that they were attempting to proceed on a collective and cooperative basis was sufficient from Sysco’s standpoint. He indicated both parties were basically on the same time line, and it would be his hope that before the City Council takes action, the parties would know precisely what MnDot’s answer would be, and that the final approval on the golf course request would include that final decision. He explained that if they were not prepared to make that decision because the outcome as it relates to Sysco is unknown, they could defer action until the outcome is known, and then they could proceed simultaneously. Commissioner Johnson inquired if Mr. Coyle could foresee a problem in terms of constructing a monument style sign rather than a monopole structure on the Sysco property. Mr. Coyle stated he did, because of the parking lot encroachment issue. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Johnson pointed out that if the spacing requirement was decreased to 500 feet, the sign could be shifted 50 feet or more in either direction. Mr. Coyle indicated they would be willing to consider this, and would do their best to cooperate with the City. Commissioner Laube inquired if the construction materials for a monopole structure could be more consistent with the materials used on the golf course. Mr. Coyle indicated they would discuss this matter with City staff. He pointed out that at this time, he could not commit to this, because it would depend upon the location of the signs. Commissioner Hegland advised that the Commission should address the sign location relative to the adjacent property lines. He indicated that as a Commission, it was their responsibility to recommend changes to the Code to address problems therein, and this was a problem. He stated they should have a 250 foot limit between the property line and any sign that is installed, so that any adjacent property is provided the same rights as their neighbor. He explained that this would comply with the 500-foot MnDOT spacing requirement, and would not change the present proposal with the exception of the first sign on the golf course, and possibly the adjacent sign on the Sysco property. He pointed out that if Sysco only has 1,400 feet of frontage, they would have to decrease the sign spacing distance to 900 feet, however, that would appear to be a solution, and all of the criteria would fit for the eight signs. He proposed the Planning Commission consider examining the Code to amend it accordingly. Chairperson Peterson noted that the site map clearly indicates the location of the proposed signs, however, there are two additional signs involved, which are for the golf course, itself. He advised that if there were a 250-foot property line distance spacing requirement, the locations of these signs would become a problem. He explained that as the Code is written, these proposals fit, with the exception of one sign that could be resolved with a variance. He explained that amending the Code would involve delaying this matter, and he was not certain that creating a property line distinction would be particularly helpful. Commissioner Johnson stated he had considered this as well, and did not believe this constituted a change in the Code, because there was very little possibility that additional billboards would be proposed, except possibly to the north of the City’s first sign, on the border of Mounds View and Blaine. Commissioner Stevenson indicated the permits would only be specific to this area, therefore, he did not perceive a problem in this regard. He stated that in terms of the 250-foot property line separation, the intent of the original spacing requirement was to address residential properties, and this requirement should remain in place, to insure that the signs do not infringe upon residential property owners. He pointed out that this was a specific case, and they should not interfere with the City Code, they must simply decide whether or not to allow this specific use. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Commissioner Laube pointed out that with the hardship presented in terms of Sysco’s parking lot, a variance would come into play, regardless. He explained that even if they utilized a 250- foot property line spacing distance, it would not affect this specific proposal, because a variance would be granted for the parking lot, which would move the sign closer to the property line. Commissioner Johnson indicated that if they moved the first golf course sign 250 feet, it would be located on the curve, and Eller Media would probably not wish to consider installing it. Planning Associate Ericson advised that with the addition of language requiring a minimum 250- foot setback from the property line, Sysco’s second sign would have to be installed in their parking lot, as it is currently proposed to be 150 feet off of their property line. He indicated that the Planning Commission would be looking at an ordinance with regard to this Section of the Code, in terms of re-addressing the Conditional Use Permit with Interim Use Permit language, therefore, this language would come before them again. He explained that if there was a desire to make a change, or to recommend to the Council that a change be made, it could be done at that point. Commissioner Hegland stated the Sysco proposal had not yet come forward, and inquired if these signs would be subject to the 15-year duration as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained this was the maximum duration of this use. Planning Associate Ericson suggested language with regard to the fifth stipulation as follows: “The City shall work in conjunction with DeLite Outdoor Advertising to maximize the proposed signage, and this shall be determined prior to Council action regarding this request.” He inquired if this language reflected the Planning Commission’s intent. Commissioner Miller inquired if Resolution 606-00 should indicate that this is to be an interim use. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He pointed out that this terminology is not clearly stated in the caption of the resolution, however, it has been incorporated in the first “WHEREAS.” Commissioner Miller inquired if this should also be clarified in the title. Planning Associate Ericson suggested the title be amended to indicate “…a resolution recommending approval of an Interim Use Permit to install six outdoor advertising signs on Bridges Golf Course Property,” which would clarify that they are referring to the Interim Use Permit. Commissioner Miller noted that the third “WHEREAS” of the resolution refers to the Conservancy Recreation and Preservation Zoning District, however, the ordinance refers to the Public Facilities Zoning District. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that the current zoning of the property is Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation, and the next item on the agenda is the proposed rezoning of the golf course, to make all parcels representative of the Public Facilities Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Zoning District. He stated this action was intended to occur in the past, however, had not been accomplished. He indicated the resolution refers to the Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation zoning, because that is the current designation of the property. Commissioner Miller stated the fourth “WHEREAS” refers to the Public Facilities zoning designation. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that this was the current zoning of that parcel. Commissioner Kaden inquired if this Interim Use Permit and any other that may be approved for Sysco, would expire January 1, 2015, and not 15-years from the date of approval. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the issue of the permit duration would come back before the Council, and the language is proposed to be changed to indicate a fifteen-year period, beginning July 1, 2000. He stated the expiration date would be amended with the adoption of Ordinance 656. Commissioner Kaden stated one of the stipulations in the resolution indicates “The City should retain the right to refuse objectionable advertising content per its lease agreement with the billboard vendor.” He inquired who would be responsible for determining objectionable content. Planning Associate Ericson stated this would be addressed in the lease agreement, whether that be by a specified listing, or if the City would request the billboard vendor to limit what they would accept. He stated he was not certain how this would take place, which was more of an issue for the City Attorney and the sign companies to determine. Commissioner Miller indicated Eller Media’s proposal contained a list of objectionable content, and the Planning Commission had simply added one item with regard to advertising related to gambling. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission could provide a recommendation to the Council that gambling also be included on that list. He advised that this could be indicated in the first stipulation of the resolution, and it would be the Council’s decision whether or not to proceed in this manner. Chairperson Peterson stated Eller Media’s proposal indicates that they are restricting the advertising to those items that are age restricted, with the exception of gambling. He explained that the language of the proposal indicates that this restriction eliminates almost all of the potential sources of controversy, however, he did not believe that was correct, as in his opinion, billboards advertising gambling are some of the most objectionable. Commissioner Kaden stated in his opinion, the State should not be in the business of running a business that promotes social problems. He indicated some well known public figures have either served time, or would possibly do so in the future, as a result of gambling. He added that Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 the City should not be in the business of providing a means to advertise gambling. He pointed out that if they were going to restrict advertising for cigarettes or alcohol, which also cause social problems, they should not allow advertising for gambling. Chairperson Peterson inquired if it was the consensus of the Commission to add language in the first stipulation to indicate they be more specific regarding the right to refuse objectionable advertising content. Commissioner Stevenson stated he would agree to this. He explained that they do not need to address all objectionable content, however, the Commission could indicate they desire that gambling be included as objectionable content, upon consideration. He pointed out that the City would not be aware of the Commissions’ opinion unless something to this effect is included in the resolution. He added that this language might be incorporated into the lease, or ignored and stricken. Planning Associate Ericson suggested the language indicate “The City should retain the right to refuse objectionable advertising content, including advertising promoting gambling.” Chairperson Peterson inquired if it was the consensus of the Commission to include the language, as stated. Commissioners Berke and Johnson stated they did not agree. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that not all people view this type of advertising as objectionable. Commissioner Laube stated he had no problem with this language. Commissioner Hegland stated he did not wish to see gambling signs, however, he did not believe this was the only objectionable advertising content, and he was uncertain that it would help to specifically restrict this item. Commissioner Stevenson stated he would agree to the addition of this language. Commissioner Miller suggested the matter be put to a vote. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden. To Include Additional Language in the First Stipulation, to Indicate that the City Should Retain the Right to Refuse Objectionable Advertising Content, Including Advertising Promoting Gambling. Commissioner Stevenson stated there currently exists a list of items that are considered objectionable, and the issue of gambling does not appear to be addressed. He pointed out that the Commission was not attempting to dictate what is moral or immoral, or to determine what constitutes objectionable material, however, they believe this item should be amongst those included on the objectionable materials list, for consideration by the City. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 Commissioner Hegland inquired who would determine what is objectionable material. Commissioner Miller pointed out the Eller Media already has a list of items they do not advertise. Commissioner Kaden indicated they specifically exempt Minnesota State Lottery and Indian operated casinos. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the Grand Casino would not be permitted to advertise their hotel in this case, simply because it refers to a casino. He pointed out that gambling constituted a very large market, and this action would attempt to limit Eller Media and DeLite Outdoor Advertising from this. He advised that eventually this would result in an issue of freedom of speech. Commissioner Hegland stated he did not agree, in that the issue was that the City was allowing an interim use, which would affect members of the community. He inquired who would determine what is considered to be objectionable material. Commissioner Stevenson stated the Commission’s only interest should be that the Council include this item in the lease agreement, and not who makes the decisions or enforces them. Commissioner Hegland stated in his interpretation, the Commission was suggesting the City retain the right to refuse objectionable advertising, whatever that may be, and therefore, did not understand how being more specific was necessary, in terms of this resolution. Commissioner Kaden stated Eller Media has indicated in their proposal that they would prohibit the display of any advertising for specific items, or any product or service whose use or purpose is restricted by age. He stated in his opinion, this includes gambling because you must be 18 years of age in order to lawfully gamble. He pointed out that if they are going to restrict liquor and cigarettes, they should not allow gambling, which is age-restricted as well. He stated the only reason he requested this language be added was to make the Council aware that this issue should be considered in the lease agreement. Ayes – 6 Nays – 2 (Berke and Johnson) The motion carried. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that alcohol and tobacco are items that are readily accessible to minors, either in their homes, or through friends or acquaintances, however, lottery tickets and casinos do not involve the same accessibility. He advised that minors could not legally enter casinos, therefore, the issue of age restriction does not apply. Commissioner Berke stated the comment that gambling was socially unacceptable would only be applicable to a small number of people who were opposed to gambling. He indicated he did not gamble, however, the fact that gambling casinos continue to expand, and take in millions and millions of dollars, is reticent to the fact that the majority of the people do not find this activity to Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 be objectionable. He stated he did not believe it was the Commission’s position to state that they find gambling advertising objectionable. Chairperson Peterson stated the third paragraph of Eller Media’s proposal regarding advertising copy indicates that gambling is specifically considered non-controversial. He explained that he was in favor of the addition of this language, because he does not agree with that statement, and whatever the outcome, there would probably be little difference in the end result, however, this was a statement he desired to make. Commissioner Hegland stated the second paragraph on Page 2 of the resolution makes reference to the general Conditional Use Permit requirements, and inquired if this would be an interim use. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct, however, the requirements and the review components are the same as those for a Conditional Use Permit. He advised that this was not in fact, a Conditional Use Permit, however, the Council and the Commission would look at those same criteria in their decisions regarding interim uses. Commissioner Hegland stated it appeared that language should be added to indicate that the Commission has reviewed the matter in terms of the Interim Use Permit, under the same requirements as those set forth for a conditional use. Planning Associate Ericson stated the present language could be re-drafted, making reference to the Section of the Code adopted in Ordinance 644, and refer to that particular subdivision instead of Section 1125.01. He suggested the language indicate “WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has examined the siting requirements as specified in Section 1008.08, Subd. 3, and finds that it is consistent with those requirements.” He explained that this would not necessarily address the fact that those requirements are in fact, Section 1125.01, regarding conditional uses, in order to eliminate the potential for confusion. Chairperson Peterson stated Ordinance 644 is mentioned in the third “WHEREAS” from the bottom of Page 1, in the context of Section 1125.01. He stated this was essentially the same reference, therefore, the suggested language would simply reiterate that the matter had been examined in all of these details. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that this language simply states that Ordinance 644 requires that the permit be reviewed in the context of 1125, and the second “WHEREAS” on Page 2 indicates that they have made that determination, and are making the finding that it is in compliance with that Section. Commissioner Stevenson requested Planning Associate Ericson clarify for the record, how they as a Commission, could unanimously vote to oppose billboards, yet justify to the residents of Mounds View and to themselves, a vote in favor of the resolution before them. He stated this Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 had been clarified at the previous meeting, however, he would like to have this reiterated, in terms of how this action differs from the Planning Commission’s opposition to the billboards. Planning Associate Ericson advised that in December, the Planning Commission was requested by the City Council to consider the possibility of allowing billboards in a particular section of the City. At that time, the Commission’s finding and intent was very clear, in that it felt this was not an acceptable use. The Commission passed a resolution indicating their findings, and forwarded this to the City Council. The City Council acknowledged the Planning Commission’s feelings on this item, and proceeded to adopt Ordinance 644, which amended the City Code to allow for billboards, which are now a permitted use in this section of the City, as long as certain criteria are met. Planning Associate Ericson stated one of the roles of the Planning Commission is to review applications in terms of the City Code. He indicated the Commission was considering the application before them in terms of whether or not it meets with the requirements of the Code, and not in terms of whether they desire or approve of billboards, about which, they have been very clear. Chairperson Peterson stated at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, a resident had spoken with regard to the siting of billboards across the highway from her property, and had indicated she found this to be objectionable. He inquired if any similar objections had come forward. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was not aware of any. Commissioner Laube stated he had spoken with a property owner who resided at 2411 Laport Drive, who expressed his disappointment that not all the residents on the north side of Laport Drive were notified regarding this application, and that the notification was strictly within 350 feet of the proposed site. He explained that during the wintertime, this resident would be able to see two billboards from his rear window, and would probably see the light as well. He stated all of the residents who live on the north side of Laport Drive should have been notified. Planning Associate Ericson stated in his understanding, all of the properties on the north side of Laport Drive that abut Highway 10 were notified. There are four properties that do not abut the highway that may also be able to see the billboards. These four properties were not notified. Commissioner Laube indicated this property was the furthest from Highway 10, however, as it extends into the cul-de-sac, the property protrudes outward, and all of the rear windows are facing toward the billboards. He indicated that although this property was the furthest distance from the golf course, it would have one of the better views of the billboards. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 Planning Associate Ericson stated this property owner probably did not receive a notification, and this was an oversight on staff’s part. He explained that they did not intend to exclude a resident who would potentially be affected by this proposal. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden. To Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 606-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Proposal to Install Six Outdoor advertising Signs on Bridges Golf Course Property, as Amended to Include Additional Language in the First Stipulation to Indicate that the City Should Retain the Right to Refuse Objectionable Advertising Content, Including Advertising Promoting Gambling, and to Include a Fifth Stipulation which Indicates that the City Shall Work in Conjunction with DeLite Sign Company to Maximize the Proposed Signage Regarding Both Interim Use Permit Applications. Such Agreement Shall be Determined Prior to Council Action on this Request. At this time, Chairperson Peterson opened the floor for public input. Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle inquired if the ordinance was specific, why was there a need for a Conditional Use Permit, in that the term “conditional” indicates there is an exception, and this item is not in complete compliance. Chairperson Peterson explained that conditional and interim use permits are utilized when there is some aspect of the proposed use that requires monitoring. Ms. Olsen inquired if the Commission would not necessarily have to approve the resolution before them, because there is a condition that does not meet the normal criteria of the ordinance. Chairperson Peterson explained that this was not the same situation as a request for variance, and the applicant is entitled to a permit unless there is a specific reason not to grant one. Commissioner Kaden advised that a conditional use permit is such that if an applicant meets all of the conditions, and the City Council denies the request, the applicant could successfully sue in court. He explained that unless the applicant does not meet the conditions, the City is required to approve the request for a permit. He pointed out that this was not like the variance process, where the applicant is required to prove a hardship. Ms. Olsen inquired regarding the nature of the conditions, and if they were based upon staff’s interpretation, in terms of the impact of the proposed use on neighboring properties. Chairperson Peterson stated staff in this case, is also the applicant on behalf of the City, and there may be some perception of a conflict of interest, however, he did not believe this to be the case. He indicated the criteria include five items which are examined in terms of adverse effects, and eight general conditional use permit criteria which are also examined as part of the review process. He stated staff went through each of these items to determine if they were met. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 Ms. Olsen stated no studies were conducted, but rather the findings were based upon staff’s interpretation, therefore, the Planning Commission should not be required to accept this as gospel. She added that although the Comprehensive Plan does not address billboards, this does not represent that they are in compliance. She stated in her opinion, the Planning Commission has the right to their own interpretation, as to whether or not the use actually meets the conditions. She inquired who creates the conditions. Chairperson Peterson stated they are specified in the ordinance. Ms. Olsen inquired if an ordinance was written for a specific area, for business purposes, what would occur if someone else were to indicate they require the same consideration to do this for business purposes as well. She inquired regarding the potential for litigation in the event another business were to request a billboard in order to meet their expenditures, which was the reason the City allowed the billboards. She inquired why this was not one of the criteria for examination. Chairperson Peterson stated these issues have been previously discussed, and the rationale for these decisions ultimately does not matter at this point. He explained that the City now has an ordinance that allows billboards in the area north of State Highway 10, which consists of City- owned property, and the property owned by Sysco Foods, and both property owners are applying for billboards. He indicated the Planning Commission is not ruling on desirability or matters of this nature, but rather acting in their role as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, which examines such applications in terms of whether or not they meet the Code requirements. Ms. Olsen stated it would be appropriate to table the item until a study has been conducted, and to direct staff to perform a feasibility analysis as to whether or not this item would adversely affect the value of surrounding homes. Chairperson Peterson stated ultimately, there would be a judgement call on the part of the Planning Commission, in terms of making a recommendation to the City Council, and then a different judgment call on the part of the Council, as to whether or not the requirements are met. He pointed out that the Planning Commission reviewed this matter at their previous meeting, and none of the items stood out in terms of requiring much further discussion. Commissioner Stevenson indicated the Planning Commission had questions regarding several items, and they were answered to their satisfaction. Chairperson Peterson stated the Commission did not see any necessity to adjust their view in this regard. He stated this was one of the reasons he had earlier inquired if staff had received any other comments from residents in regard to whether this use would tend to, or actually decrease property values in the area in which it is proposed. He indicated that this proposal is in compliance with the Code requirement that the use be 250 feet from residential areas. He explained that this also involves a judgement call in terms of whether or not the surrounding Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 properties would be negatively impacted, and after their previous discussion, the Planning Commission determined that there did not appear to be a significant affect to these properties. Ms. Olsen stated the Planning Commission had requested both parties come to an agreement in regard to the two applications. She requested clarification regarding what had occurred in this regard. Chairperson Peterson explained that the applicants have attempted to discuss the issues, however, one of the applicants was unavailable, and there has been no complete agreement as to the placement of the signs at this time. Ms. Olsen inquired if the item could be tabled in light of this. Chairperson Peterson explained that the Planning Commission was considering language to address this issue in their recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Miller advised that they have added language to the resolution that both applicants continue to work together. Ms. Olsen indicated that until they are certain that an agreement has been reached, she would like to see that the item is tabled. She stated this item could go before the Council as a recommendation, however, there was no assurance that it would occur. Commissioner Berke advised that the item would come before the Planning Commission prior to final approval. Planning Associate Ericson stated both applicants have stood before the Planning Commission and have indicated they feel very strongly that this will be resolved. Chairperson Peterson stated further delay at the Planning Commission level would not necessarily be beneficial, and it was best to move forward with the item. He explained that both applicants have indicated their willingness to work together towards a resolution, and he has every confidence they would do so. He stated there was a motion on the floor to approve Resolution 606-00, with several amendments and corrections. He inquired if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Miller requested clarification regarding the language proposed for Stipulation 5. Planning Associate Ericson stated the proposed language indicates “The City shall work in conjunction with DeLite Outdoor Advertising to maximize the proposed signage regarding both Interim Use Permit applications. Such agreement shall be determined prior to Council action on this request.” Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 Chairperson Peterson stated the Planning Commission voted in favor of this resolution, however, this does not indicate they are in favor of billboards, but rather that they must act in a different capacity than they had during the previous consideration. 6. Planning Case No. ZC00-001 Property Involved: Bridges Golf Course. Consideration of Resolution 607-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Zoning Change of Bridges Golf Course Parcels from I-1 and CRP to PF. Applicant: City of Mounds View Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: This item is consideration of Resolution 607-00, which is a resolution recommending approval of the rezoning of Bridges Golf Course parcels from I-1, Industrial, and CRP, Conservancy, Recreation, and Preservation, to the PF, Public Facilities Zoning District. In the course of reviewing the City’s application for billboards on the golf course property, staff discovered that the zoning of the golf course is not consistent with the City Code, in that golf courses are not explicitly permitted uses within either the CRP or I-1 Zoning Districts. Planning Associate Ericson stated there has been some discussion on the part of City staff members that the City initiated a rezoning action on this property several years earlier, however, this had not taken place. He stated the proposed use is not in compliance with the zoning on the golf course. He advised that the PF Zoning District allows golf courses as a permitted use, and one of the parcels associated with the golf course is currently under the PF zoning designation. He explained that the proposal before the Planning Commission would rezone those parts of those parcels associated with the golf course from their existing CRP and I-1 zoning, to the PF designation. Planning Associate Ericson indicated Resolution 607-00 recommends to the City Council that they adopt Ordinance 655, which approves the rezoning of the golf course parcels. He stated the proposed PF zoning designation, is in keeping with the proposed Comprehensive Plan, whereas the existing designation is not necessarily consistent with the Plan. He explained that this proposal would clarify the fact that the use is not consistent with the Zoning Code, and also the fact that those zoning designations would not be consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation for these parcels. Chairperson Peterson stated a portion of the wetland between the Sysco property and the Industrial Park is currently zoned PF, as well as a portion of the golf course around the ninth hole. He stated he believed Outlot A, of the North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, is currently zoned I-1 and should be included in the rezoning as well. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 20 Planning Associate Ericson stated they could include this property in the ordinance, and change the zoning from I-1 to PF, which would make sense, given its more park-like purpose. He stated there were two outlots, and the parcel Chairperson Peterson was referring to was Outlot A, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, as opposed to Outlot A, SYSCO. Chairperson Peterson inquired if a formal legal description of this property was available. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was. Chairperson Peterson stated this description could be included in the fourth “WHEREAS” of the resolution, pertaining to the I-1, Industrial zoned properties. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the legal description of this property would also be included in the ordinance. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Miller. To Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 607-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Ordinance 655, an Ordinance Rezoning Bridges Golf Course Parcels from CRP (Conservancy, Recreation, and Preservation) and I-1 (Industrial) to PF (Public Facilities) as Amended to Include the Legal Description of Outlot A, Northstar Industrial Park, Second Addition, in the Fourth “WHEREAS” of the Resolution, Pertaining to I-1, Industrial Zoned Properties. . Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 8. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke stated the Council meeting on Monday was very emotional in light of the tragic accident that occurred the previous Friday which resulted in the death of a 13 year old attempting to cross Highway 10 at Edgewood Drive. He indicated there was an appeal from the youth and parents in the community for the City to do whatever it can, as quickly as it can, to provide safer conditions for people attempting to cross the highway. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the City Council has scheduled this item for discussion at their Work Session the following Monday, and many ideas are being discussed, including the future formation of a Task Force to examine Highway 10. He advised that the Planning Commission and the Economic Development Commission have been mentioned as the groups that would be requested to participate in the Task Force, however, this has not yet been defined. He stated in light of the importance of this issue, there would be significant discussion in the upcoming months, including revisiting the issue of pedestrian bridges or tunnels, and items of this nature. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 21 Community Development Director Jopke stated there was also discussion regarding the potential improvement on Pleasant View Drive and Highway 10, in terms of the geometrics and traffic signal, which is being brought forward primarily by Spring Lake Park and Anoka County. He stated this was also important to the citizens of Mounds View, in terms of the potential impact, and there was much discussion concerning an increase in traffic levels and less desirable conditions for the residents on Pleasant View Drive. He stated there was an appeal to the Council that they not approve the plan that has been brought forward, and there will be additional discussions in this regard. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the Council set a public hearing concerning the Interim Use Permit application for billboards for March 13, and they also set a public hearing for the Business Subsidy Policy that the City is required by State Statutes to prepare. He stated there would be discussion of this item at the Work Session on Monday night. He advised that the Council accepted the Comprehensive Plan, and authorized staff to submit the document to the Metropolitan Council and adjacent communities, and the Council also authorized staff to proceed with the rezoning action at the golf course. Community Development Director Jopke indicated Ordinances 656 and 657 are clarifications relating to Interim and Conditional Use Permits, particularly as they apply to billboards. He explained that one would clarify that language in the ordinance related to billboards, and the other would create a new section that establishes the authority to issue Interim Use Permits as per State Statutes. He indicated these ordinances would be before the Commission for consideration at their next meeting. Commissioner Laube requested staff send notifications to the four residents on the north side of Highway 10, for the March 13 public hearing scheduled before the Council regarding the Interim Use Permit for billboards. Planning Associate Ericson stated that at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, there would be consideration of the Sysco application for an Interim Use Permit for billboards on their property. He indicated Messiah Lutheran Church would come before the Commission with a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review to allow for an expansion of their facility and additional parking on their property. He indicated there would be a variance application for a corner lot reduced sideyard setback for a garage, and some review of Ordinances 656 and 657. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the following Planning Commission meeting, on April 5, staff would bring forward language pertaining to tattoo parlors, body piercing shops, and establishments of this nature. He indicated the Council approved an ordinance that suspends those types of uses for a six-month period to allow the City time to review its Code, and to make recommendations as to the appropriate zoning language regarding such uses. He stated staff will bring some sample language, and have some discussion regarding which components of which draft ordinances might be appropriate and how they would apply to Mounds View. He indicated Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 22 it was possible they could have a workable ordinance to recommend to the City Council for their review by May. Planning Associate Ericson stated there would also be a public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized shed. He pointed out that the unseasonably warm weather has gotten the building season going in full force. He stated the City has taken in a number of building permits, and they were happy to see that this is occurring, and certainly were not planning on a rush this early in the year. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Board Appreciation Dinner would be held the following evening at 6:00 p.m. He indicated on Wednesday, March 29, the I-35W Corridor Coalition Planning Commission Dinner and Training Session would be held at 6:30 p.m., at the Shoreview Community Center. He requested the Commissioners contact Community Development Director Jopke or himself regarding their plans to attend this meeting, so that staff could respond and make the appropriate plans. Community Development Director Jopke advised that the Commission members might be requested to speak at the Appreciation Dinner the following evening, regarding their current business and their priorities for the upcoming year. Chairperson Peterson stated in the past, the Planning Commission has had a wish list of items they would like to address, including the Sign Code and various items of this nature. He inquired if this list has been updated, in light of the fact that the Comprehensive Plan Update has been completed. Community Development Director Jopke explained that with the implementation and formal adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission would be examining the entire Zoning Code, as well as all other items contemplated in the implementation plan. He pointed out that this would be a very time consuming process. Chairperson Peterson stated these were the primary issues to be resolved, however, there would be a period of time during which the Metropolitan Council and all of the other bodies would be involved in the review of the Comprehensive Plan. He inquired if the Commission had any suggestions regarding which items they would like to address during the year. He indicated they have been meeting every Wednesday for many months, therefore, he did not think they would desire to take on a task that requires action beyond their normal meeting schedule, however, the Sign Code has come up a number of times, as well as various other items. Chairperson Peterson explained that throughout the City, there are a number of issues that should be addressed, and they are primarily housekeeping items. He advised however, in terms of the Sign Code, there are many new businesses coming in to town, and the Sign Code is not consistent, and does not allow certain things that most businesses have come to expect, and a number of these issues require clarification. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 23 Community Development Director Jopke advised that the Highway 10 Corridor issue would also be coming forward for examination in the near future, in terms of the redevelopment, as well as the safety and traffic issues. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports No reports were considered. 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.