Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 15, 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 15, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Laube, Stevenson, and Miller. Members Absent: Commissioner Kaden, with prior notice, and Commissioner Braathen, leave of absence. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Council Liaison Gary Quick, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. IU00-002, 2400 County Road J-Sysco Minnesota Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 610-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Interim Use Permit for Two Billboards on Sysco Property. DeLite Outdoor Advertising, Applicant. 2 Planning Cases DE00-001 & CU001-001, 2848 County Road H2 Public Hearing and Discussion of Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for the Proposed Expansion of the Messiah Lutheran Church Facility. Messiah Lutheran Church, Applicant. 9 Planning Case VR00-001, 2741 Hodges Lane. Public Hearing and Discussion Of a Request for a Reduced Corner Lot Front Setback to Allow for a Garage Expansion. Cathy Magoris, Applicant. 15 Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Special Planning Case SP-076-00, Consideration of Resolutions 608-00 and 609-00, Resolutions Respectively Recommending Approval of Ordinances amending the City Code by Creating Language to allow for Interim Uses. 22 Staff Reports / Items of Information 23 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 24 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. Planning Case IU00-0002 Property Involved: 2400 County Road J – Sysco Minnesota Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 610-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Interim Use Permit for Two Billboards on Sysco Property. Applicant: DeLite Outdoor Advertising The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: DeLite Outdoor Advertising, representing the property owner Sysco Minnesota, has applied for an Interim Use Permit to install two billboards on Sysco property fronting State Highway 10. Planning Associate Ericson advised that in December of 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 644, which amended the City Code to allow for billboards as an interim use, and set forth requirements in terms of spacing, height and other criteria. He indicated the general conditions are that the billboards be located at least 250 feet from residentially zoned property, the minimum spacing between the signs shall be 1,000 feet, the maximum sign area shall be 750 square feet per side, and the maximum sign height shall be 35 feet. Planning Associate Ericson stated this application was referenced by the Planning Commission at their previous two meetings, during which there was consideration of the City’s request for an interim use permit to allow for six billboards at the Bridges Golf Course. He explained that there was some discussion regarding how that proposal would impact Sysco’s application, which is before them at this time. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Planning Associate Ericson stated the two billboards proposed for the Sysco property are to be constructed of steel, and be of a monopole double-faced “V”-shaped design. He indicated the Planning Commission has expressed a significant concern regarding this type of typical billboard design and the fact that it would be aesthetically inconsistent with the billboards to be constructed on the adjacent Bridges Golf Course property. He advised that because billboards are conditionally allowed as interim uses, the City has the ability to impose reasonable design requirements with the granting of the permit. Planning Associate Ericson explained that in addition to the siting criteria, Ordinance 644 requires that the requested interim use permit be reviewed in the context of a conditional use. He indicated staff has examined this item in terms of the adverse effects criteria, as well as within the context of the Comprehensive Plan and the health, safety and general welfare of occupants on surrounding lands. Planning Associate Ericson stated with regard to the adverse effects, staff does not believe that the two proposed billboards would be a detriment to the area, or to the subject property. He indicated that in terms of the general conditional use permit criteria, the use would not create a burden on public facilities, and it would be consistent with the City Code, as amended with Ordinance 644, and not cause any traffic congestion or hazards. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address billboards, and in that respect, staff is of the opinion that the use is not inconsistent with the Municipal Code. Planning Associate Ericson stated the proposed signs are to be located adjacent to, and north of, Highway 10, which is in compliance with the ordinance. He indicated the two signs would be more than 1,000 feet apart, however, one of these signs would not be 1,000 feet from the nearest billboard, which would be located on the golf course property. He stated the maximum sign area and height would be consistent with the Code, and the sign faces would be angled and oriented toward Highway 10. He indicated it is not believed the proposed billboards would obstruct traffic or traffic patterns, or be intrusive to the vehicles travelling along Highway 10. Staff feels that this interim use permit request is consistent with the City Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and Ordinance 644. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission recommended that both applicants, DeLite and the City, work out an arrangement that would allow the six billboards on the golf course and the two proposed on the Sysco property to co-exist and be consistent with the City Code. He explained however, it does not appear this can be achieved, due to the proposed locations of the billboards on the golf course, which could not be further shifted without placing a billboard in a green or on the fairway. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 606-00, which recommends City Council approval of the interim use permit for the two billboards on the Sysco property, contingent upon stipulations. He explained that the first stipulation indicates the proposed billboards should be designed to be consistent with and aesthetically complementary to the billboards approved for the Bridges Golf Course, and final design approval would be given by Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 the City Council. He indicated the second stipulation requires that the applicant apply for and successfully obtain a variance from Section 1008.08 Subdivision 10c of the Sign Code, regarding minimum spacing requirements. He pointed out that if the variance is denied, the applicant would be allowed one billboard, subject to the siting requirements as outlined in the City Code and the Sign Code. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the third stipulation is that, subject to the previous stipulation pertaining to the variance, the locations of the proposed billboards shall be as generally indicated on Exhibit A, which is attached to the resolution. He explained that Exhibit A indicates the locations of both the billboards proposed for the Sysco property, and those proposed for the City golf course. He pointed out that the first billboard on the golf course is in very close proximity to the second billboard on the Sysco property, thereby necessitating the variance. He explained that the distance between these two billboards is 500 to 550 feet, therefore, if the Planning Commission were to review a variance application and determine that a hardship exists, the spacing of these signs meet the 500-foot MnDot minimum spacing requirement. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the last two stipulations of the resolution were housekeeping in nature. He explained that the applicant is required to record a copy of the Council resolution of approval with Ramsey County, and if the applicant is unable to obtain the required billboard permits from MnDot, the interim use permit shall be considered null void. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was a public hearing, and staff mailed notification to residents within 350 feet of the property, as well as to the city of Blaine, which is within the 350- foot radius of Sysco. Peter Coyle, representative of Sysco Food, and DeLite Outdoor Advertising, indicated they appreciated the recommendation of approval, however, they disagreed with the conditions that the burden should be on Sysco and DeLite to seek the variance to site the two signs on the Sysco property, which is the private property. He stated it was not disputed there was ample land area to site the billboards, with six on the golf course, and two on the Sysco property. He explained that the problem exists in that the golf course design configuration and the wetland on the property makes it difficult to site the billboards in a manner that would allow the maximum spacing Sysco has available for its two proposed billboards. Mr. Coyle reiterated they did not agree that the burden should be on Sysco and DeLite to apply for the variance, because the hardship is clearly present on the golf course property. He pointed out that the City has not completed action on its own application, and they believe it would be more appropriate for the City Council to take action on a variance as relates to its own application, rather than put the private applicant in the position of having to compete with the City for the approval of their second billboard location. Mr. Coyle stated City staff has recommended, and they have agreed to do all they are able to design their monopole structures to be compatible with the ground signs proposed for the golf Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 course. He indicated Sysco has sent the City a letter, informing it that ground signs were not feasible on their property, as they would create a safety hazard for the truck traffic. He explained that they propose to utilize a brick wrap-around of the pole to provide a complementary style, and would be willing to work with City staff to attempt to obtain an appropriate design. He pointed out that this represents an additional cost to them, however, they understand the sentiments of the Planning Commission. Mr. Coyle stated the primary issue is the variance, in that they do not believe it should be their burden to satisfy this requirement, and particularly so, given that the staff recommendation acknowledges the potential that the interim use permit might not be granted by the City Council. He explained that if this were the case, Sysco would be left with only one billboard on its property, however, the City would have all six it has proposed, which they do not believe would be the proper outcome. He stated they would argue that the City should be prepared to give up one sign location if necessary, in order to achieve the spacing requirements of the private property taxpayer. He indicated they had no problem with the other recommendations set forth in the staff report. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the exact distance between Sysco’s two billboards. Mr. Coyle stated their billboards were 1,000 feet apart, which meets the spacing requirement of the City Code. He pointed out that the southernmost Sysco billboard and the northernmost City billboard create the conflict. Chairperson Peterson indicated this was a public hearing, and opened the floor for public comment. There was no public input. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the first sign on the golf course was located as far to the east as possible. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that this sign maintains a 1,000-foot separation from the second sign, which was situated as far over as possible without being located in a green. Commissioner Miller inquired how it was determined that Sysco request a variance, rather than the City. Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Attorney has indicated that this was the more appropriate manner in which to proceed. He pointed out that while there were two sides to this issue, and a case could be made that either party could bear the burden of obtaining the variance, the majority of staff and the City Attorney were uncomfortable with the concept of the City granting itself a variance, in terms of how this might be perceived by the general public. Staff has recommended that Sysco apply for the variance. He pointed out, however, the resolution could be changed if the Planning Commission so desires. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if there was a point on the Sysco property where their second sign could be located that would not impede truck traffic. Mr. Coyle stated in his understanding, Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 in addition to the parking area, there is a stormwater retention pond in that corner of the property that prevents them from shifting this location any further. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the parking lot was directly adjacent to the stormwater holding pond. Mr. Coyle indicated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson indicated the entrance driveway and the parking lot are in very close proximity to the edge of the property. He stated the Commission had previously discussed the possibility of monument style billboards on the Sysco property, however, he had not seen the letter indicating there was insufficient room for this. Mr. Coyle stated the letter was sent two weeks prior. Chairperson Peterson stated the requirement that the billboards be aesthetically complementary was somewhat vague. Planning Associate Ericson stated this language was drafted specifically to provide some ambiguity as to what is aesthetically complementary. He explained that the intent of this stipulation was that something be done, which the applicant has indicated is the case, however, the Commission might wish to be more specific in this regard. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the Commission previously determined that the billboards did not need to be identical. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if this matter would come back before the Planning Commission, at the design stage. Planning Associate Ericson advised that it would not. Commissioner Berke indicated he would prefer to see some type of stone structure, rather than a steel pole. Commissioner Johnson advised that at minimum, there should be something of this nature in front of the signs. Commissioner Johnson indicated at the time the Planning Commission tabled the City’s billboard interim use permit, there was to be discussion between the City and Sysco to resolve the issues, before the item came back before the Planning Commission, however, the burden of applying for the variance is now being pushed back onto Sysco. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the City’s argument for this was related to timing, in that the City’s application was submitted prior to Sysco’s. Planning Associate Ericson stated he did not believe this was the case. Commissioner Laube inquired if the variance request would come before the Planning Commission or the City Council for consideration. Chairperson Peterson explained that either body could grant a variance. Commissioner Miller inquired if Sysco would be able to meet the criteria the Planning Commission must consider in granting a variance. Commissioner Laube stated they would have to provide evidence of a hardship. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Commissioner Johnson indicated that if Sysco’s trucks were parked against the second monopole, this would prevent a complete wrap-around design, and all they could do is put some type of brick in front of the sign. Commissioner Laube stated they could camouflage the pole by utilizing an imitation brick wrap-around material. Commissioner Hegland stated he was convinced that Sysco was willing to make the signs as aesthetically pleasing as possible, and had no concerns in this regard. He indicated there were concerns with regard to the property line issue, however, he believed the application for the variance should be Sysco’s responsibility. Chairperson Peterson stated it was the general consensus of the Commission that the signs be aesthetically complementary, and that staff should work with the applicant to accomplish something to this effect. He stated he did not believe it was fair that Sysco must bear the burden of applying for the variance, however, there was an apparent hardship in terms of both applications. Commissioner Berke stated he believed that the application for the variance should be the City’s responsibility, however, he would be agreeable to granting a variance to Sysco, if their application is approved at this time, to ensure that this would be done. He explained that if one of the applicants was required to lose a sign, it should be the City. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the City’s 1,000-foot spacing requirement exceeds the 500-foot State requirement, which would also be a consideration in terms of granting the variance. Mr. Coyle stated they were not opposed to being required to apply for the variance, however, they would prefer not to be left hanging, and required to undergo a second application process, after having already been before the Commission twice on an indirect basis, in terms of the City’s application. He suggested the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council that the variance be approved; in conjunction with the approval of the interim use permit. He indicated they would prefer not to have to go back through the process again, when the variance could be achieved on the City’s property. He explained that Sysco was able to satisfy their application on their own property; however, the adjacent City property was creating the issue. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the variance request was anticipated to come back before the Planning Commission for consideration, or if this would be resolved at the City Council level. Planning Associate Ericson advised that according to the City Code, the Planning Commission is required to review the variance request, and public hearing notification must be published and provided to residents within 350 feet of the proposed site. He stated staff appreciates the applicant’s suggestion, however, they must comply with the public hearing and public noticing requirements of the variance request. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Chairperson Peterson stated that given this, the next step in the process would be for the applicant to apply for a variance, which would then come to the Planning Commission for consideration at their next meeting on April 5. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He noted there would be sufficient time prior to the next meeting to provide proper notification and publication of the public hearing. Commissioner Berke stated it should be the City’s responsibility to apply for the variance. Planning Associate Ericson advised that if the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the City obtain the variance, this recommendation would come before the Council at their meeting on March 27th, and technically, a notice could not be published in the newspaper prior to that point. He stated the City Council might overrule the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He indicated this item could be scheduled for the April 5th Planning Commission meeting, however, they could not be certain what the City Council, as the final decision maker, would respond to this particular condition as an aspect of the interim use permit. Commissioner Stevenson stated they would not desire to delay in this manner, therefore, they should move forward upon the basis that the applicant must apply for the variance, and schedule the consideration at the April 5 meeting of the Planning Commission. Planning Associate Ericson stated he believed that if the resolution before the Commission goes forward to the City Council as presented, with the stipulation that the applicant apply for the variance, the City Council would be agreeable to this. He indicated staff would be comfortable sending out the notification and scheduling the public hearing of the variance request for the April 5th Planning Commission meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Johnson. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 610-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Interim Use Permit to Allow the Installation of Two Outdoor Advertising Signs on Sysco Foods of Minnesota Property, subject to stipulations as presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Cases DE00-001 & CU00-001 Property Involved: 2848 County Road H2 Public Hearing and Discussion of Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for the Proposed Expansion of the Messiah Lutheran Church Facility. Applicant: Messiah Lutheran Church The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 The applicant, Messiah Lutheran Church, located at 2848 County Road H2, has requested City approval of a conditional use permit and development review to allow for an expansion of their facility. The subject property is zoned R-1, which allows churches as a conditional use. Currently, Messiah does not have a conditional use permit. The development review is necessary according to Section 1006.06 of the City Code, which requires that any development, redevelopment or expansion of existing facilities be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Planning Associate Ericson stated Messiah has been at its present location in Mounds View since 1941, undertaking numerous expansions, and having changed buildings on three occasions in the past. He indicated the Church has been a good neighbor, and is providing a valuable service to the City and surrounding communities. Staff would hope that the Planning Commission would view the request for the conditional use permit in a favorable light. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commission with a site plan that indicated the proposed expansion plan of the Church facility in the various phases of the proposed expansion. He indicated the building expansion, which is proposed in two phases, will be of brick and would match the architecture and design of the existing building. The first phase of the proposed expansion would involve two small additions, totaling 5,220 square feet, and a partial parking lot removal and replacement. The west single-story addition will be a remodeled entryway, and the two-story addition to the east will add a more spacious lobby and gathering area, additional classroom space, a larger mechanical room, an elevator and restrooms. The total square footage of the first phase of the expansion is proposed to be approximately 5,200 square feet. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that with the number of seats available in the worship area, staff anticipates that 75 parking stalls would be required for this site, and there are presently 165 stalls, therefore, the applicant is well within the parking requirement. He stated the parking area appears to be expanded quite extensively with this proposal, however, upon completion, the actual parking count would not increase beyond 8 to 12 stalls. He explained that after the first phase of construction, 188 stalls would be available, and the second phase of the construction would reduce the number of stalls to 176. He pointed out that even with the full buildout of the facility, assuming there would be additional seating space in the expanded worship area, staff feels very confident that the proposed 176 stalls would fit with the Parking Code requirements. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that while the building expansion itself would not be located within 100 feet of the wetland on the site, the parking lot would be, and this will necessitate a Wetland Buffer Permit. He explained that the plans have been submitted to the Rice Creek Watershed District, which is currently examining the drainage issues. He stated a rather large stormwater management pond has been proposed for the site at the back corner of the lot, outside of the boundaries of the wetland. He indicated staff has reviewed the drainage plans, and submitted the drainage calculations and pond specifications to the City Engineer who believes this proposal is consistent with the site, and acceptable. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Planning Associate Ericson indicated that staff is awaiting Rice Creek Watershed District approval of the drainage plan for the site. He explained that once the watershed district is comfortable regarding all of the drainage impacts, City staff, the City Engineer, and the Director of Public Works would also be comfortable with regard to the drainage proposal. Planning Associate Ericson stated at this time, no plans have been submitted in terms of landscaping on the site, and as indicated in the Staff Report, a significant number of trees and landscaping will be removed with this expansion proposal. He explained that staff has concerns that the overall character and environmental nature of this site will be drastically altered, and therefore, has requested the applicant submit a landscape plan, which he believed was available for presentation by the applicant at this time. He indicated the landscape plan would be reviewed by staff and the City Forester, and brought back before the Planning Commission for consideration at their next meeting. Planning Associate Ericson indicated another issue pertaining to the landscaping is the screening on the site. He indicated that the Church owns two homes, one adjacent to the site at 7225 Knollwood Drive, and one, adjacent and to the east of the site, at 2824 County Road H2. He stated these two homes would be removed to make room for the expansion, and the Church parking lot would then be shifted down into these lots. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has been contacted by residents adjacent to the site, specifically, the property owner at 2816 County Road H2, whose property, after the removal of the house on County Road H2, will be 40 feet from the parking lot. He explained that this resident was unable to attend the meeting, however, would submit a letter expressing his concerns for Planning Commission consideration at the next meeting. He explained that this property owner indicated he would be much more comfortable with the proposed expansion if some type of privacy fencing were to be installed. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was within the purview of the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to this effect, adding that with an appropriate landscaping plan and some screening, staff would be comfortable that the concerns of the residents on the abutting properties would be addressed. Planning Associate Ericson advised that there was some concern with regard to the lighting, and staff has requested a photometric analysis of the site. He explained that while this analysis was not available at the time the report was prepared, Staff received a copy of the analysis afterwards, and finds it to be consistent with the City Code. He stated the lighting specifications indicate the lights will be hooded and shielded from direct view so there would be no issues with regard to glare, and the proposed light fixtures would be a decorative residential type of light. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Church currently has six access points, with three curb cuts on County Road H2 and three on Knollwood Drive. After the construction, the number of access points would be reduced to five. He indicated staff has reviewed this matter with the Director of Public Works, and in terms of access and circulation, this appears to be acceptable. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has provided the Fire Marshall with a copy of the site plans, in order to obtain her response with regard to the internal circulation on the lot and the drive aisle specifications. He indicated the Fire Marshall had questions regarding whether or not the building would be sprinklered, which would also impact the location of fire hydrants, and other items of this nature. He explained that these are all issues yet unresolved, however, staff feels very confident that prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, they will be addressed. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant proposed to construct an accessory structure of approximately 400 square feet at the most southerly point of the site, on Knollwood Drive, for the purpose of housing lawn mowers and equipment, and as a utility building for the Church facility. He stated staff is recommending this structure be relocated to the rear of the lot, adjacent to the volleyball court. He explained that the City Code requires that accessory structures be located to the rear of the property, behind the primary structure. Planning Associate Ericson stated the demolition or removal of the homes would proceed immediately to make room for the parking lot expansion, which is incorporated into the first phase of the development. He indicated permits from the City would be required for the demolition project, as well as notification to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which is indicated as a possible stipulation in the Staff Report. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Staff Report lists the specific conditional use permit requirements as they apply to Churches, and similar uses in the R-1 Zoning District. He indicated that all of the specific requirements are met as proposed. He stated in terms of the general conditional use permit requirements, staff feels very comfortable that the use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, streets, schools, and other public facilities. He pointed out however, there is some question with regard to the use being sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used lands. He explained that this is the area in which he has addressed the fact that additional landscaping and screening on the site is necessary. He advised that whether this is accomplished through berming, fencing, or evergreen trees, this is an item that must be addressed, and until that time, staff feels that those particular requirements are not specifically met. He also indicated, that in Staff’s opinion, all of the adverse affects criteria – other that the screening issue – are satisfied. Planning Associate Ericson stated there is no resolution before the Planning Commission at this time. He explained that this matter was strictly the discussion of this item, in terms of resolving all of the issues and directing the applicant to come back before the Commission at the next meeting with changes that will satisfy the requirements. Planning Associate Ericson stated that staff has received a couple of telephone calls from neighbors who have indicated concerns regarding the expansion, and the potential change in the character of the area, in terms of removal of two homes and the additional impervious surface. He noted one telephone call from a resident to the north of County Road H2 who lives across the Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 street from one of the houses proposed for demolition, who expressed that he would be pleased if that house was removed, as he had some issues with its occupants. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted several recommendations pertaining to this proposal. He stated staff recommends that the applicant provide to staff a comprehensive and detailed landscape plan, which staff will review and forward to the City Forester. He indicated the second recommendation is that the applicant apply for and receive approval of a Wetland Buffer Permit in conjunction with the development review and conditional use process. He stated staff recommends that the site plans be revised to indicate the relocation of the accessory structure toward the southeastern corner of the lot, rather than 35 feet from the front property line. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff’s fourth recommendation is that the site plans be revised in the event that the Fire Marshall determines the drive aisles or parking areas are not sufficiently designed to allow for fire vehicle access. In addition, the Fire Marshall would provide a recommendation regarding the number and placement of fire hydrants to service the site. Planning Associate Ericson stated there was some concern that with this expansion, there would not be sufficient fire hydrants to satisfy the requirements of the Fire Code, which, in his understanding, requires that all portions of the building be within 150 feet of a fire hydrant. He indicated this matter would be resolved prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. He stated the fifth recommendation is that specifications for the garbage dumpster enclosure be indicated on the site plans, and staff would further recommend that this be provided by the next meeting. Planning Associate Ericson indicated there were a number of issues remaining to be resolved, which is expected with any expansion of this magnitude, however, staff feels very confident that they can be resolved, and that the concerns of the residents can be addressed as well. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the plans for the playground equipment located off of Knollwood Drive. Chairperson Peterson indicated the playground equipment appeared to be located within the parking lot, which was not proposed to be altered until the second phase of the expansion, therefore, he would assume this equipment would remain intact until that time. Mr. David Rootham, a church representative, indicated the existing parking lot would remain as it is, and the driveway between the parking area and the building would be removed. He stated this would expand the green area and move the playground closer to the south side of the building, where it would remain until the second or third phase of the expansion, at which time, it would be relocated to the southeast corner of the site. Kristen Boen, representative of Messiah Lutheran Church stated they understood the necessity for all of the recommendations listed in the Staff Report. She indicated there was somewhat of a misunderstanding with regard to the landscape plan, which was not yet complete, and therefore, she had not brought it along at this time. She explained that the plan was in the process of being completed, however, they would desire a little more time, in order to hear some of the comments Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 from the neighbors, and to determine what could be done in terms of fencing and additional screening. Chairperson Peterson indicated this was a very informal stage in this process. He stated he did not anticipate a problem with regard to the site drainage. He noted that with the expanded parking areas, there would be more runoff, however, the ponding should provide better control of the quality of the water, and with the outlet structures in place, there should be more control on the quantity of the water as well. Commissioner Stevenson stated he agreed with staff’s recommendation regarding the relocation of the accessory building. He indicated he would like to see the structure located to the north of the volleyball courts, in front of the pond, with attempts to maintain some of the existing landscaping. Commissioner Miller inquired if the garage of the adjacent property affected by the demolition of the two houses would be facing the parking lot. Chairperson Peterson indicated the garage would face the volleyball court. Commissioner Miller stated she did not feel that screening would be necessary in this particular location. Commissioner Stevenson stated there might be concerns with regard to screening for the house located on County Road H2, adjacent to the subject property. Commissioner Johnson inquired regarding the type of screening proposed for this location. Ms. Boen stated they were considering some type of fencing, in addition to trees and landscaping. Commissioner Johnson noted that in the past, neighboring residents have desired to have a fence constructed immediately, in order to screen the actual construction site from their view. He indicated he would like to see that screening is provided as soon as possible, after the two houses are removed. Commissioner Johnson inquired at which stage of development would the parking area be expanded. Ms. Boen indicated the entire parking area would be expanded during the first phase of the development. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the angled driveway in the northwest corner of the site would be included in the demolition project, or a portion of that removed and reconfigured. Ms. Boen stated the driveway would be removed, and the sidewalks would remain. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the applicant was aware of the general nature of the landscape proposal. Ms. Boen indicated they were considering the placement of berm trees along Knollwood Drive, around the dumpster location. She stated they would not attempt to significantly landscape the area of their future worship sanctuary, however, they would do their best to attempt to landscape within the 8-foot wide strip along the eastern edge of the driveway. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 She indicated they would scatter plantings throughout the remainder of the site to break up some of the pavement, and there would be some ground plantings adjacent to the building. Ms. Boen stated a number of trees would be removed with the expansion, and she was not aware if the City would require they replace the exact amount removed, however, many of these trees would replaced. She advised that the site would appear quite barren for a period of time, however, they did not desire to leave it in that condition. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the trees that did not require removal for the parking lot expansion would remain. Ms. Boen stated this was correct, adding that they would attempt to save all the trees they could. She explained that the reason for the large amount of parking with this phase of the expansion is because during second phase, in three to five years, this area will become the new worship space, and that expansion will seat 600 people and require approximately 150 parking stalls. She indicated this first phase prepares the site for the future expansion of the facility, which will be sprinklered and elevator accessible. She advised that ease of expansion is their primary objective at this time. Chairperson Peterson stated at this time, it was undetermined if the driveway aisle widths and the turning radius on the corners were in compliance as relates to the Fire Department requirements. Planning Associate Ericson stated he believed the proposal would be acceptable, however, he has not yet received the Fire Marshall’s report. Chairperson Peterson stated a fire hydrant was located on the southwest corner of Knollwood Drive and County Road H2. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that if the building were sprinklered, this would probably not be a significant issue. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there were any other fire hydrants in the area. Ms. Boen indicated their civil engineer is currently looking into the issues of fire hydrants and Fire Department site accessibility, and they expect to meet all of these requirements by the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the use of the facility would change significantly with the expansion. Mr. Rootham stated he did not foresee a significant change in the usage. He explained that they do not have sufficient room to meet their needs in terms of classroom space and sanctuary space in the future, and this is simply an expansion of existing functions. Chairperson Peterson stated this appeared to be a very good expansion proposal, which is sensitive to the environment. He pointed out that although there would be a change in the appearance of the facility for a period of time, the end result would be worthwhile. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item would come back before the Planning Commission for further consideration at their April 5 meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 5. Planning Case VR00-001 Property Involved 2741 Hodges Lane. Public Hearing and Discussion of a Request for a Reduced Corner Lot Front Setback to Allow for a Garage Expansion. Applicant: Cathy Magoris The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Cathy Magoris, who lives at 2741 Hodges Lane, which is located at the northwest corner of Hodges Lane and Park View Drive, is requesting a variance from the required thirty- foot corner front yard setback. She would like to expand an existing attached two-car, 576 square-foot garage into an 864 square-foot three-car garage. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the existing garage is set back 30 feet from the side property line, on the corner of the property, and the applicant is proposing that the setback be reduced to 18 feet at the front corner of the garage. He explained that the setback at the back corner of the garage would be more than 18 feet, as Park View Drive angles away from the property. He provided the Commission with a photograph of the subject property. Planning Associate Ericson stated, as with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. He indicated State Statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria, which are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. Planning Associate Ericson stated that 2741 Hodges Lane is an odd-shaped corner lot which presents difficulties in terms of development, yet there are numerous other corner lots in the City and similar types of situations. He stated that the literal interpretation of the Code, in staff's opinion, would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the R-1 district. He indicated that while staff does not feel there are any special circumstances regarding this request, the configuration of the lot is certainly not the doing of the applicant. He stated that approval of the requested variance would in effect confer upon the applicant a special privilege. While granting a variance to allow for the third garage stall would not necessarily be materially detrimental to the Code, he indicated that based upon the other criteria, it would appear that the variance should not be approved as not all of the criteria are satisfied. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 Planning Associate Ericson indicated staff has not prepared a resolution for action at this time. He explained that there is some gray area with regard to the criteria, and the requirement is that all of the criteria must be met in order to grant a variance. He indicated staff has attempted to address the criteria, however, the Planning Commission might not be in agreement with these findings. He stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution either approving or denying the variance request, for their consideration at the next meeting. He explained that if staff is directed to draft a resolution of approval, the Commission should discuss this item, and determine clear findings of fact in support of that. He indicated this was a public hearing, and notification has been provided to residents within 350 feet of the applicant’s property. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has received two telephone calls from residents who expressed concerns with regard to this request, as well as a letter, copies of which have been provided to the Commission members. Peter Murlowski, of Timbercraft Lumber Company, representative of the applicant, stated his company was working with the Magoris with regard to designing this particular project, and if the variance request is granted, they would be performing the construction work. He stated one of the main considerations with a variance is the ability to demonstrate hardship. He indicated they feel that Mrs. Magoris’ situation presents a particular hardship, in that she operates a daycare facility out of her home, and has a lack of storage within the house because the majority of the space is finished off. He added that the driveway becomes congested when her clientele arrive to drop off their children in the mornings and pick them up in the afternoon, and this is very cumbersome. He explained that the Magoris family has a number of vehicles, and with their son is coming of driving age fairly soon, another car will be necessary, which will compound the problem. He stated they feel there is a hardship and a definite need for a third garage stall. Mr. Murlowski indicated there are at least three properties within the immediate area that have received variances similar to that being requested by the applicant. He stated a variance was granted for a sideyard setback for a porch addition at the property located at 7386 Park View Terrace. He indicated a variance was received to allow for an addition and a deck on property located at 7441 Park View Terrace, which is also a corner lot, and the property located at 7312 Park View Drive was granted a variance for a sideyard garage addition. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the storage shed in the back of the property would be removed. Cathy Magoris, the applicant stated it would not. She explained that this shed had just recently been constructed. Mr. Murlowski stated this shed was utilized to store the pool equipment. Mrs. Magoris indicated she owns a large van that she utilizes for her daycare operation, and she currently parks this vehicle in the driveway. She stated she would like to be able to park the van Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 to the side, which would be safer for the children, and this was another reason she would like an additional garage stall. Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the size of the storage shed. Mrs. Magoris indicated the structure was approximately 8’ x 10’ in size. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the nature of the telephone calls received by staff. Planning Associate Ericson stated he received two telephone calls, and a letter that day, however, he could not verify that they were from different individuals. He explained that the letter might have come from one of the two people he had spoken with on the telephone, whose names and addresses were not provided. He explained that in the letter, which the applicant has not seen, there is mention of a privacy fence to assist in screening the site. He indicated this might make such an expansion more palatable to certain people in the area, although imposing such a condition may be viewed as unreasonable and unrelated to the actual request. Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the accessibility of the applicant’s pool. Mrs. Magoris stated the pool was above ground, completely surrounded by a fence, and there was a deck on the side. She explained that in order to access the pool, you must go through a locked gate and up the ladder on the deck, and the pool has been approved by her daycare licensing board. She added that the yard is completely fenced at this time, however, it is not a privacy fence. Gary Millhouse, 7400 Park View Drive stated he lived directly behind and to the north of the applicant. He indicated he had no problem with regard to the applicant’s proposal, and he would be directly facing it. He stated he believed the property owners who may have some concerns with regard to the proposal are located to the side of the applicant’s garage. He pointed out that the garage would not be across the street from either one of their houses. Mr. Millhouse stated he believed that a three-car garage would increase the value of the property. He indicated this is one of the nicer developments in the City of Mounds View, and he is very much concerned regarding the property values in that neighborhood, and would like to see that they continue to rise. He stated that neighbors who invest in their homes with additions and expanded garages help increase the value of all the homes, and make this a very desirable neighborhood. He stated he was in as close a proximity to the applicant’s garage as a neighbor could be, and he had no objections to this proposal. He indicated he understood the issues pertaining to variances, and that the Planning Commission must take these into consideration. He stated he would strongly recommend the Commission provide the Magoris with a variance. Chairperson Peterson indicated he had some concerns regarding the expansion of a corner lot toward the street. He explained that corner lots are more difficult to deal with, however, when you begin to encroach closer than 30 feet, other issues come into play, such as sight lines. He indicated he would be concerned about this proposal independent of the criteria that must be met Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 in order to grant a variance. He added that although this is probably a larger lot than most in the neighborhood, he has the impression from looking at the photograph that it is already overbuilt. Commissioner Stevenson advised that they must be very careful when considering corner lots, where vehicles turn in both directions. He stated there are reasons the 30-foot setback requirement is in place, however, the house appears to be setback 40 feet from the road, which would probably provide a sufficient safety factor with the expansion. Mr. Murlowski stated he agreed there were reasons for the 30-foot corner lot setback requirement, in that they would not want a structure to encroach into the street and obstruct traffic visibility. He stated the applicant’s house is situated on the lot with a 40-foot front yard setback, and Park View Drive to the east actually curves away from the house, therefore, the addition of 12 feet of structure would not obstruct visibility any more than the existing house currently does. Chairperson Peterson stated this is an irregularly shaped corner lot however, he did not see much difference from a normal corner lot as relates to the first criteria. Commissioner Miller stated she did not see any special circumstance presented with this lot. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He added that this was not an older house, and a variance is generally granted to improve situations found with the older smaller structures, in order to upgrade the property. Mrs. Magoris indicated the owner of Lot 4, two lots to the south of her property, requested a variance that the residents opposed. She indicated this resident had a two-car garage, which he basically doubled straight back into the lot. She stated this lowered the surrounding property values by 5 percent, and although the residents were opposed to this, the City approved the variance. Chairperson Peterson stated this occurred on the property located at 7312 Park View Terrace, in the early 1990’s. Mr. Millhouse indicated this garage extended beyond the side of the house, and the expansion was not consistent with the original roofline of the structure. Commissioner Hegland inquired if this expansion would be approved if it were not being proposed on a corner lot. Planning Associate Ericson stated yes, depending upon how much side yard space was available. Commissioner Hegland stated he would argue that this makes all corner lots exceptional. He stated he realized there are rules for corner lots, however, the Commission should look at this application in terms of the intent, the original setback of the property, and the equity of all homeowners in the area. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that if the configuration of the back of the lot were extrapolated to the front, there would be more than a 30-foot setback. He explained that because of the irregular shape of the lot, which narrows in the front, there is an exception. Commissioner Miller stated she did not believe there was a certain right to have a specific number of stalls. She stated that while the City allows three-car garages, two-car garages are quite typical in this area. Commissioner Johnson inquired regarding the square-footage of accessory building area of the lot. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was 864 square feet, plus an additional 100 square feet, if including the shed. Commissioner Stevenson advised that this was less than the maximum requirement. Commissioner Miller indicated they were not denying garages per se, as the applicant already has a two-car garage. Commissioner Stevenson indicated they also could not deny the request on the basis of requesting a third stall. He stated he did not believe the number of stalls, unless it exceeded three stalls, was relevant. Commissioner Hegland explained that in order to interpret this properly, the Commission would have to compare corner lots of the same shape, which would be very difficult. He advised that the intent of the 30-foot setback on corner lots is to address traffic visibility. Chairperson Peterson stated the setback requirement was in place for other reasons as well. He explained that the front yard setback of all homes along the block is 30 feet, which carries through to the corner, and is uniform all the way down the block. He stated a variance would result in structures located too close to the street in relationship to other structures on that block. He stated the main argument for the 30-foot setback is this uniformity. Commissioner Stevenson stated the 30-foot setback is normally required to maintain that the structures would all be in alignment. Mr. Millhouse indicated his home, located on Lot 5, is setback 37 feet from the street at one point. Chairperson Peterson stated he had concerns with regard to the second criteria, in that granting the variance might confer on the applicant special privileges denied to the owners of other properties in the same district. He explained that he was concerned that approval of this request might set a precedent, and the owners of other corner lots would desire the same consideration. He pointed out it could be argued that this is not a typical corner lot. Commissioner Hegland indicated he perceived this proposal to be an improvement to the property, and not unusual. He stated the City was nearly fully developed, and there have been a number of requests for additions to structures. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 20 Commissioner Miller advised that the criteria for granting a variance were not set by the City, but rather by State Law. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that Planning Commission is charged with interpreting these criteria. Commissioner Miller inquired if the driveway width would increase at the structure. Planning Associate Ericson stated this would not necessarily be the case. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the content of the letter staff received pertaining to the privacy fence. Mrs. Magoris indicated they would be willing to construct a privacy fence. She reiterated that this proposal does not represent a significant difference in terms of the current view of the adjacent properties, which would simply continue to see the side of a garage. Mr. Millhouse pointed out that this resident’s concern might have been with regard to the daycare equipment and a play structure located in the applicant’s back yard. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the applicant’s boat would be stored in the garage. Mrs. Magoris indicated the boat would be parked in the second stall. She reiterated that having this additional vehicle storage would create safer environment for the children. Chairperson Peterson inquired if any of the items kept in the backyard would be stored in the garage. Mrs. Magoris stated the playground structure in the back yard, which was constructed by her father, was made of wood and could not be moved. She stated they would store the children’s tricycles in the garage. Chairperson Peterson requested clarification regarding the residents’ concerns as expressed to staff via telephone. Planning Associate Ericson stated these concerns were primarily related to the activities in the applicant’s backyard. Chairperson Peterson indicated it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the variance request, and to include findings in support of the variance, based upon the irregular shape of the lot. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would prepare a resolution for consideration at the April 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. 7. Special Planning Case No. SP-076-00 Consideration of Resolution 608-00 and 609-99, Resolutions Respectively Recommending Approval of Ordinances 657 and 656, Ordinances Amending the City Code by Creating Language to Allow for Interim Uses. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 21 Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: During the discussion of the proposed billboards at the golf course, it was determined that billboards should be an interim use instead of a conditional use, in order to put time limits on them. In order to do this, technical amendments to the City Code are required. Planning Associate Ericson advised the Ordinance No. 657 gives the City the authority to issue interim use permits pursuant to the authority granted to cities in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3597. He indicated Ordinance No. 656 changes the requirements that were instituted by Ordinance No. 644 to require an interim use permit instead of a conditional use permit. He stated this ordinance further indicates that the procedures for obtaining an interim use permit will be the same as for a conditional use permit. The ordinance also extends the expiration date for billboard interim use permits from January 1, to July 1, 2015, so that the proposed billboards on the golf course can be up a full 15 years. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Resolutions 608-00 and 609-00, resolutions respectively recommending the approval or Ordinance Nos. 657 and 656. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Berke. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolutions 608-00 and 609-00, Resolutions Respectively Recommending Approval of Ordinance 657, an Ordinance Relating to Interim Use Regulations and Amending Title 1100 by Creating a New Chapter 126 in the Mounds View Municipal Code, and Ordinance 656, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 (Signs and Billboards) of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to Billboards as an Interim Use. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 8. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Planning Associate Ericson updated the Commission regarding recent Council actions. He indicated at the City Council meeting the previous Monday, the Council considered Resolution 5419, which is a resolution approving the interim use permit for the six billboards at the golf course. He advised that the Council tabled this item until their March 27 meeting, in order to have language in place in the City Code, which would allow for such approval to occur. B. GTS Training Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commission with information pertaining to classes being offered by the Government Training Service. He indicated that if the Planning Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 22 Commissioners were interested in attending any of these classes they could contact Community Development Director Jopke, who would register them for attendance. Planning Associate Ericson stated the North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition Dinner and Seminar would be held on March 29, 2000. He indicated he has not personally seen the mailings for this event, therefore, he was uncertain if the Commission was to respond to staff, or mail a response directly. He stated Commissioner Kaden has indicated he would attend the seminar, and requested the Commissioners advise regarding their plans, which he would communicate to Community Development Director Jopke. Planning Associate Ericson stated the City is experiencing an influx of planning cases, and the next meeting of the Planning Commission should be quite lengthy. He stated in addition to the Messiah Lutheran Church and Magoris applications, the Commission could see a variance request at their April 5 meeting. He indicated there would also be a conditional use permit request for an oversized garage, a variance application for an over-height fence, and a conditional use permit for an oversized shed. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the Walgreen’s development proposal would be coming before the Commission in the near future, and it was possible that the Commission would be seeing another large scale expansion proposal as well. He stated the April 19 meeting agenda includes the review of the City Code with regard to tattoo shops and establishments of this nature. He explained that the City Council adopted a moratorium ordinance pertaining to these uses, and gave the directive to determine appropriate language to address such uses within the City of Mounds View. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report No reports were considered. 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:49 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 23 Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.