Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 19, 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., April 19, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, Stevenson, and Miller. Members Absent: Commissioner Berke, with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Council Liaison Roger Stigney, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Cases DE00-001 & CU00-001, 2848 County Road H2. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 611-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for the Proposed Expansion of the Messiah Lutheran Church Facility. Messiah Lutheran Church, Applicant. 2 Planning Case VR00-002, 8438 Groveland Road. Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for the Installation of an Eight-foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of the Property. Gregory & Elizabeth Brunes, Applicant. 5 Planning Case VR00-003, 2400 County Road J. Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for a Reduced Minimum Spacing Between Two Billboards. DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, Applicant. 7 Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Discussion Regarding the Peterson Environmental Hydrology Analysis of the Vacant Land North and South of State Highway 10. 11 Discussion Regarding Proposed Changes to the Zoning Code Related to the Presence and Siting of Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting and Related Establishments within the City of Mounds View. 12 Staff Reports / Items of Information 14 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 16 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. March 1, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Laube to approve the March 1, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Cases DE00-001 & CU00-001 Property Involved: 2848 County Road H2. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 611-00, a Resolution Recommending 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 not present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: This item is the consideration of the development review, conditional use permit and wetland buffer permit for the Messiah Lutheran Church located at 2848 County Road H2. The application is in conjunction with the Church’s development plans to expand the Church facility. The applicant proposes to remove two homes adjacent to the facility, expand the parking lot to Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 accommodate a future expansion, and install a stormwater holding pond on the property. There is currently nothing on the site to accommodate the stormwater runoff, therefore, the addition of the stormwater holding pond is viewed as a significant improvement, and will help to protect the wetlands on the site. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was discussed at the March 15 and April 5 Planning Commission meetings, during which, significant discussion was held regarding the impacts of the proposed expansion and the fact that two houses adjacent to the facility would be removed and replaced with the expanded parking lot. At the previous meeting, the Planning Commission requested the landscape plan be revised to include additional screening and plantings on the site to help mitigate this encroachment. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the landscape plan has been revised to indicate a row of four to five-foot tall arborvitae on the northeast side of the property to provide additional screening, and with the addition of trees at the south end of the site, the Planning Commission felt that the landscape plan was adequate and met with Code requirements. The City Forester has reviewed the revised landscape plan and has found that all of the proposed planting species are consistent with City soils and the climate of the area. Planning Associate Ericson stated the parking requirements are met with the proposal, both before and after the proposed expansion. He indicated that at one of the previous meetings, the Planning Commission briefly touched upon an issue pertaining to the proposed 30-foot tall light standards on the parking lot, which was brought forward by a resident located to the south of the subject property on Knollwood Drive. He explained that this resident commented that these light poles would be quite tall, and seemingly out of place in this residential neighborhood. Planning Associate Ericson indicated staff reviewed the issue and made reference to the lighting of the Wynnsong Theater located on Highway 10. He explained that residents south of the theater on County Road H2 successfully lobbied to have the parking lot lights nearest County Road H2 be no taller than 20 feet. Staff has spoken with the lighting engineer who indicated the height of the proposed light standards could be reduced, however, there would be some trade off in terms of the number of light standards that would be required to meet the lighting needs of the facility. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was staff’s contention that something must be done with regard to the lighting, as this is strictly a residential neighborhood. He explained that while the Church has been present at this site for a number of years, the proposed expansion of the parking lot would bring it closer to the other properties, and the new parking lot lights would create an encroachment into the nighttime calm and peace that the neighborhood currently enjoys. He advised that the resolution before the Planning Commission contains a stipulation that the lighting plan be revised to indicate that the light standards be 24 feet in height or less, with lesser intensity lumens than the presently proposed 400 watt bulbs. He explained that staff was not certain if it would be possible to lower the intensity of the lights, however, the height of the light Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 standards could certainly be decreased. He also pointed out that Staff has learned that light standards are manufactured in five-foot increments, so if the resolution is approved, staff would recommend this stipulation be amended to indicate 25 feet or less, as the light standards are manufactured in five-foot increments. Planning Associate Ericson stated with the exception of the lighting, all of the other issues pertaining to the specific conditional use permit criteria, including the zoning requirements, setbacks, and parking requirements are met. He indicated the only unresolved issue at this point is the permit through Rice Creek Watershed District, which is only because the applicant has not yet retained a contractor to perform the work. He advised that the Watershed District tabled the permit request with authorization for administrative approval subject to a cash surety and to the applicant obtaining a National Pollution Elimination Discharge System permit. He indicated this was an administrative permit and it would not be the case that it would be denied, therefore, Rice Creek Watershed District has essentially authorized the approval of the permit. He advised that the wetland delineation indicates the stormwater pond is sized accordingly for the anticipated storm water runoff on the site, and is also sized for future buildout, therefore, when the second phase of the construction takes place, the storm water pond would accommodate any additional runoff created by this expansion. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the general conditional use permit criteria, as reviewed at the previous two meetings of the Planning Commission, appear to be satisfied, as do the adverse effects criteria, with the sole exception of the lighting on the site. He stated staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Resolution 611-00, which recommends to the City Council approval of the development review, conditional use permit and wetland buffer permit, subject to a number of stipulations, with the only change to those being the amendment to the third stipulation to indicate the light standards be 25 feet in height or less. He advised that this item would be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on April 24, and any additions or omissions to the list of stipulations should be addressed at this time. Commissioner Miller inquired if the trash enclosures on the site had been addressed. Planning Associate Ericson indicated this was specified on the site plan. Chairperson Peterson requested the year 2000 be included in the date of adoption of the proposed resolution. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the relocated accessory building was a new structure on the site. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was uncertain if the accessory building depicted on the site plans would be salvaged from the site or if it would be a new structure. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that if the applicant constructs a new accessory building on the site, they would be required to remove the existing structure. Chairperson Peterson noted the existing structure appears to have been the garage that remained after the removal of a house. Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Planning Associate Ericson stated he believed the site plans indicate removal of the existing structures, and the accessory building may be a new structure, however, he was not certain. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Miller. To Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 611-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Development Review and Wetland Buffer Permit Request for Messiah Lutheran Church, Located at 2848 County Road H2; Planning Cases CU00-001, DE00-001 and WB00-001, as Amended to Indicate that Stipulation 3 be Changed from (24 Feet or Less) to (25 Feet or Less). Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 6. Planning Case VR00-002 Property Involved: 8438 Groveland Road. Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for the Installation of an Eight-foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of the Property. Applicant: Gregory & Elizabeth Brunes The applicant was not present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: This is a request for a variance to allow for a fence taller than that permitted by the Code, in the front yard of the property located at 8438 Groveland Road. The applicants, Gregory and Elizabeth Brunes, have had some difficulties with a neighbor located to the north of their property, and felt that the fence would provide a privacy screen between the two properties, and reduce, if not eliminate some of the harassment issues and problems they have been experiencing. Planning Associate Ericson stated there was significant discussion of this item at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, at which time, the applicant addressed the Commission, and explained why she felt that a hardship was evident in her case. He indicated the Planning Commission empathized with the applicants’ situation, and would have desired to approve this request had there been any means to do so, however, the Commission explained to the applicant that there was no hardship that could be tied to the property that would warrant the construction of an 8 foot-fence rather than a four-foot fence. He advised that the Commission must abide by the language in the Minnesota Statutes and the City Code when granting a variance. He explained that there are seven criteria, all of which must be addressed and satisfied, however, in this situation, that could not be done. Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 613-00, a resolution denying the applicants’ variance request, for Planning Commission action at this time. He indicated there are four findings of fact listed on the second page, which indicate that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances related to the property, and that the literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others. He stated the third and fourth findings indicate that without an evident hardship tied to the property itself, it would be inappropriate to grant a variance, and that granting a variance to allow for an eight-foot fence in the front yard would be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code, and does not lend well to the community spirit and neighborhood cohesion. He pointed out that this factor might already be lacking in this situation, however, approval of this request would certainly set a precedent in terms of the potential for future requests for eight-foot fences in the front yards of other properties. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the applicant has been notified regarding this action, and has been forwarded a copy of the staff report and the resolution, which denies this request. Commissioner Stevenson requested a brief explanation of the option pertaining to an interim use, as presented at the previous meeting. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the previous meeting, it had been brought forward that perhaps the fence could be allowed as a temporary structure, through an interim use permit. He advised that the City Code had been recently revised to allow for interim use permits, which are very similar to conditional use permits, with the exception that a time limit could be imposed on the use. The enabling language in the Code, however, necessitates that an ordinance be drafted to allow for each type of use. In other words, the City could allow for a use as an interim use, however, they must first pass an ordinance that would amend the City Code to allow for that use, after which, depending upon the conditions stated therein, they could grant an interim use permit for the use without necessarily being required to come back before the Planning Commission or the City Council. Planning Associate Ericson stated this process would require a minimum of two months before there would be any resolution for the property owner, and in light of this, it would probably not be the best response for the applicant, who would most likely take her case to the City Council. He indicated staff felt that actively pursuing an interim use permit would not be the best course of action in this situation. Commissioner Hegland inquired if this was the recommendation provided to the applicant. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff and the applicant did not specifically discuss the interim use permit approach. Commissioner Hegland stated this option was discussed at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, and he was uncertain whether or not the applicant had a clear understanding of the Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 process. He inquired if this option has been offered to the applicant as an alternative that she could pursue. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was dependent upon what occurs at the City Council level, as resolution at the Council level would be immediate. He explained that if that is not forthcoming at the City Council, staff could certainly address the possibility of an interim use permit with the applicant. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the last paragraph of the resolution contains the only reference that indicates a four-foot fence is allowed. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff could add a “WHEREAS” clause between the first and second clauses to address this point at the beginning of the document. Chairperson Peterson stated the fifth “WHEREAS” clause indicates that the public hearing was being held at this time, however, neither the applicants nor any residents were present to address this item. He requested additional language to indicate that this item was discussed at the April 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, in order to provide a complete record of the discussion of this matter. Planning Associate Ericson suggested both statements be combined in the “WHEREAS” clause to indicate “The Planning Commission discussed this request on April 5, 2000, and the public hearing was held on April 19, 2000.” MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Stevenson. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 615-00, a Resolution Denying a Variance from Section 1108.08 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Fences to allow for an Eight-foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of 8438 Groveland Road, Mounds View Planning Case VR00-002, as corrected. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 The motion carried. Commissioner Johnson inquired if there had been any meetings with the Police Department in regard to this matter. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was not aware that any meetings had taken place during the week. He indicated he has spoken with the applicant, and has also spoken with the Chief of Police, who is aware of the situation, and has offered his assistance in attempting to mediate some form of resolution to this matter. Commissioner Johnson stated it was his understanding that the applicant was attempting to obtain direct telephone numbers to the Police Department, as the neighboring property owner was utilizing a scanner to avoid being confronted by the Police. He noted he had seen a list of the number of times the Police have been called to this residence, and it was approximately 5 pages long. Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 7. Planning Case VR00-003 Property Involved: 2400 County Road J. Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for a Reduced Minimum Spacing Between Two Billboards. Applicant: DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc. The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The item is the consideration and public hearing of a variance request by DeLite Outdoor Advertising to allow for a reduced minimum spacing requirement between two billboards. The two affected billboards are located at the southern end of the Sysco property and the northern end of the Bridges Golf Course property. The distance separating the two billboards would be approximately 500 feet. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item has been discussed at several meetings during the past two months in relation to the interim use permit and the variance requirements. He indicated staff has drafted Resolution 613-00, which approves the variance request based upon the discussions at the April 5th Planning Commission meeting, at which time, a list of hardship statements was comprised which address the seven criteria for approving the request. He indicated Exhibit A depicts the locations of the billboards, and specifies the location of the two billboards that would have the reduced separation of 500 feet. He pointed out that this attachment indicates that the distance between the billboards would be approximately 550 feet, however, this would actually be closer to 500 feet, therefore, staff would recommend any references to the distance be changed to indicate 500 feet, and that Exhibit A also be amended to reflect this. Peter Coyle, representative of DeLite Outdoor Advertising and Sysco Foods stated he would like to clarify for the record that from the perspective of DeLite and Sysco, the hardship that justifies the variance request is created by the inability of the City to adjust the placement of the billboards that were previously approved on the golf course property. Mr. Coyle indicated there is ample space on the golf course property to adjust the City billboards to accommodate Sysco’s proposed billboards. He stated there is sufficient spacing between the two proposed Sysco billboards, and the variance does not apply to those, but rather the easternmost Sysco proposed billboard, as separated from the westernmost golf course sited billboard. He explained that the difficulty is presented in attempting to achieve the City’s minimum spacing requirement of 1000 feet, as set forth in the City’s interim use ordinance. Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 Mr. Coyle indicated he would like the record to reflect that this is the obstacle they are seeking to overcome by virtue of the variance application, and that the hardship is warranted on the basis of the City’s need to be able to protect the play of the golf course, as well as the water features that are present on the golf course, which preclude the adjustment of any of the billboards to accommodate the spacing issue. On behalf of the applicants, he extended his appreciation to the Planning Commissioners for their time in attempting to resolve these issues. Commissioner Stevenson requested clarification of the proposed locations of the billboards as depicted on Exhibit A. Planning Associate Ericson explained that there was sufficient room along the frontage of Highway 10 to allow the Bridges Golf Course billboards to be more closely spaced together, however, they are located as proposed due to the presence of water features, greens, and items of this nature on the golf course property. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the distance between the Sysco’s easternmost billboard and the property line. Planning Associate Ericson stated this billboard is proposed to be less than 250 feet from the property line. He explained that the parking lot is located to the north, and the stormwater holding pond is located to the south and immediately adjacent to the proposed billboard, therefore, this is the only possible site. Commissioner Hegland advised that this places the burden upon Sysco rather than the City. He explained that the issue under consideration is the 500-foot spacing between the billboards, however, if Sysco’s proposed billboard is less than 250 feet from their property line, they are encroaching upon their legal limit. He stated this has not been established in the discussions, and the variance would not change this, however, he did not believe that the statement that the City is at fault in this situation is completely accurate. Commissioner Kaden stated Item e indicates “the variance requested is the minimum variance required which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.” He pointed out that both Sysco and the City were pursuing the billboards for economic reasons in that billboards generate revenue, however, this was not addressed in the response. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a matter of interpretation, in that billboards are allowed, and there is room to make them fit. He explained that the economic factors could come into play, however, there is some subjectivity with regard to the criteria, and through the discussions at previous meetings and at the staff level, staff felt that economic conditions alone were not driving this variance request. Commissioner Kaden stated the City submitted their application for the billboards first, and had the locations of the City billboards planned out, therefore, Sysco could only have one billboard without the variance, and was the Planning Commission was considering “that” the hardship. Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Commissioner Kaden explained that without the variance, one of the parties would lose a billboard. Commissioner Johnson indicated another factor is that the State spacing requirement is 500 feet, whereas the City requires a 1,000-foot minimum spacing between billboards. Planning Associate Ericson stated the case could be made that it is not necessarily the fact that the City submitted their application first, but rather that the ordinance was drafted in a manner which precludes the siting of that billboard. He pointed out that State requirements do not mandate a 1,000-foot separation, and if the distance between the billboards was 750 feet, the variance might not be necessary. He explained that this could be considered another cause for hardship that is not based upon the fact that the City’s application was submitted first. Commissioner Miller stated Page 3, Item 2 of the resolution indicates that the variance shall be considered null and void without an approved interim use permit. She explained that this does not address the fact that this proposal is contingent upon the applicant’s ability to obtain a State permit. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct, however, this contingency is addressed in the interim use permit. He pointed out that the variance is tied to the interim use permit. He explained that if the State does not grant the required permits, the interim use permit shall be null and void, and if the interim use permit is null and void, the variance would also be null and void. He stated this could be addressed with a third stipulation pertaining to the State permit, however, staff felt this might be somewhat redundant. Commissioner Kaden stated he was contacted a week earlier by a resident who had been notified of this proposal, and they had a lengthy discussion pertaining to the billboards and the golf course. He indicated her primary concerns were with regard to the placement of the billboards, and he had suggested she speak directly to Sysco in this regard, and also advised her that if she desired to voice an objection to the proposal, she should attend the public hearing, or contact staff. He inquired if this resident had expressed any objections to staff. Planning Associate Ericson stated he had spoken with this resident as well, and that she was not pleased with the prospect of billboards being installed along Highway 10. He indicated she had called to voice her concerns, and he had similarly advised that if she desired to do so, she could attend the meeting or draft a letter, which staff would be present for consideration. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Laube. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 613-00, a Resolution Approving a Variance from Section 1008.08, Subd. 10C, of the Mounds View Municipal Code Regarding a Reduced Minimum Spacing Requirement Between a proposed Billboard on Sysco Property and a Billboard Approved on the Adjacent Bridges Golf Course Property; Mounds View Planning Case VR00-003, as Amended to Indicate that Stipulation 3 and All References to the Spacing Between the Affected Billboards in the Resolution be Changed to Indicate 500 Feet. Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 8. Discussion Regarding the Peterson Environmental Hydrology Analysis of the Vacant Land North and South of State Highway 10. Planning Associate Ericson indicated both Golf Course Manager John Hammerschmidt and the representative from Peterson Environmental were unable to come before the Planning Commission at this time, and have requested this item be removed from the agenda. He indicated staff would reschedule this item for consideration at the May 3rd Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Laube stated at the previous meeting, he requested information from Rice Creek Watershed District pertaining to their plans for the area affected by the runoff from County Road J, Sysco, and the surrounding the properties located in Blaine. He stated he was somewhat disappointed that the Commission had only received a small amount of this information in this regard. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff had spoken with a representative from Peterson Environmental, and had expressed the Planning Commissions’ desire to learn more about the broader impacts to this area, in terms of the origins of this runoff. He stated this issue would be addressed. He noted that staff had distributed questionnaires to the Commission, and had hoped to receive them prior to this date. He requested the questionnaires be returned to staff at the Commissioners’ earliest convenience so they could be forwarded to the consultants to provide them with a better understanding of the Planning Commissions’ concerns. Commissioner Miller requested clarification regarding the electronic wells being utilized to prepare the hydrology report. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the wells are radio controlled, and take readings of the water table levels at various times throughout the day. He stated there were approximately 32 wells being utilized for this purpose, which were installed the previous spring, and have been reporting for the last year. He explained that a significant amount of work has gone into the development of this hydrology study, and in mapping out the locations of the water tables to determine how they fluctuate over time with the rainfall, and how they compare to previous years. He advised that the continuing reports would lend additional strength and legitimacy to the statistics they are providing toRice Creek Watershed District. Chairperson Peterson requested staff provide a copy of the map and the survey to the representatives of Sysco, who, as adjacent property owners, would be interested in this matter. He stated the survey appears to indicate that if the compost site is relocated, it could only be moved north of Highway 10. He advised that there has been discussion regarding this in the Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 past, and he believed a more appropriate location would be the old arsenal site on County Road I. He explained that this would be a better location for most of the residents of Mounds View, and would also serve some of the Shoreview residents. Planning Associate Ericson stated this would have an added benefit in that residents would not have to transport their compost across County Road J. Commissioner Kaden requested clarification regarding the distribution of the survey. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was not certain which groups would receive the survey at this time, however, he was aware that a copy has been forwarded to the Council and Parks and Recreation Commission. 9. Discussion Regarding Proposed Changes to the Zoning Code Related to the Presence and Siting of Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting and Related Establishments. Planning Associate Ericson stated this issue is before the Planning Commission for preliminary discussion at this time. He stated the City Council adopted Ordinance 653, an emergency interim ordinance, which prohibits the siting of tattoo shops, body piercing, body branding and related establishments within the City of Mounds View. Planning Associate Ericson stated a few months ago, the City was approached by an establishment that was looking to locate in the City, and at that time, the City Code did not address these types of uses. He explained that this is not to say such uses are inherently bad, or that they would not be welcome in the City, however, without any language pertinent to such uses, it could be legally challenged that they be allowed to operate on Highway 10, next to the daycare facility, or anywhere within the commercial district. He advised that the City Council adopted the emergency interim ordinance, which allows the City time to review and research different codes, and to draft language which would create conditions by which these types of uses could be located. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the courts have upheld that a City may not discriminate between certain types of uses, and all were aware of the issues and controversies surrounding “adult” establishments, pawn shops and gun shops, therefore, it makes sense for the City to address these types of uses before we are faced with a use in a location that may be inappropriate. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has provided the Commission with examples of codes relating to tattoo shops and piercing parlors, one of which is that of the city of St. Paul, which is quite brief, and the other two from the cities of Crystal and Richfield. He indicated that the Richfield and Crystal codes were very similar in nature, and were actually drafted by the same Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 company. He noted that once a good ordinance is drafted, it is often the case that same ordinance is adopted by other cities. Planning Associate Ericson explained that at this time, staff was requesting feedback from the Commission. He stated the questions before the Commission are which zoning districts would be appropriate for these types of uses, should such uses be considered conditional or permitted by right, and if conditional, what conditions would be appropriate. He indicated there were conditions set forth in the examples that would certainly be adequate, however, in the process if adopting another city’s code, some fine-tuning and tweaking is required to suit the specific needs of the City. Commissioner Kaden pointed out that the language of these ordinances does not address scarification. He explained that this process involves placing silicone sand into an incision in the skin, over which a scar heals in different shapes and designs. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff could research this issue to determine if there are definitions for scarification, and possibly discuss this with a person who performs the procedure. Council Liaison Stigney stated all licensing requirements appear to pertain to the owners of these establishments, and there is no mention of licensure of the personnel actually performing the tattoo functions. He advised that some States require that you must have certified trained personnel performing these procedures. Planning Associate Ericson stated this would be similar to a massage studio or a beauty parlor, in which each of the individual operators are required to be licensed. He indicated this could be addressed in the ordinance, and there are licensing requirements for other uses within the Code that this language could be patterned after. Chairperson Peterson stated St. Paul’s ordinance is very brief, and does not appear to address location. Planning Associate Ericson stated the ordinance itself does not, however, they utilize a matrix consisting of the different zoning districts and a list of all of the uses, which are indicated as permitted or conditionally permitted uses in certain districts. He indicated that where these types of uses were permitted, they were permitted by right, and did not require a conditional use permit. Commissioner Miller advised that the Commission may wish to consider the hours of operation, depending upon where these businesses are located. Chairperson Peterson stated this was addressed in the Richfield code, which also addresses additional uses in the C-2 General Commercial District, with a number of dimensional criteria. He pointed out that St. Paul’s ordinance only addresses these criteria in the matrix. Planning Associate Ericson added that this ordinance goes no further than to specify the location of the use, and in which district, in terms of sizing requirements or matters of this nature. He stated the city of Minneapolis is similar, in that these uses are specifically permitted in certain districts, as opposed to conditionally permitted. He pointed out that this might be one advantage Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 of a city this size, in that they have many zoning districts, with many divisions and different classifications, and the uses might be permitted in such a limited area. Chairperson Peterson stated Richfield’s code sets up certain distance requirements from other zoning districts and other uses, and that indicates that these are conditional, which would be appropriate. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff could draft an ordinance fashioned for Mounds View based upon Richfield’s ordinance, and bring that before the Commission for an item-by-item discussion, which would provide the opportunity to obtain some feedback specifically pertaining to the City. He advised that the interim emergency ordinance establishes a six-month moratorium on the siting of these types of businesses, and this matter requires to be addressed. He indicated staff would commence this process, and attempt to bring the draft ordinance before the Commission at their May 17th meeting. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there were any City ordinances with language pertaining to the restriction of similar types of uses. Planning Associate Ericson stated the City has an Adult Use Ordinance that limits the locations of certain types of adult uses. He indicated this ordinance has not been recently amended, and it is available for review in the City Code that was provided to the Commissioners. Commissioner Kaden inquired if this ordinance also addresses pawnshops. Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Code does not address pawnshops or gun shops, which are both very contentious and controversial types of uses, and may require examination at some point in the future, however, the City Code does address adult uses, and this could provide some additional background in terms of how to approach the matter at hand. 10. Staff Reports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions Planning Associate Ericson indicated at the City Council Meeting on April 10th, the public hearings were set for the Snetsinger/Hill and Kleinshmidt conditional use permit requests for oversized sheds, which were heard and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at their last meeting. He stated the Council also set the public hearing for the Messiah Lutheran Church development review, conditional use permit and wetland buffer permit request, and accepted the Planning Commission Bylaws. b. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Ericson stated three planning cases have been scheduled for consideration at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, and a fourth case is pending. He indicated there Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 would be consideration of a conditional use permit request for an oversized garage, and for an oversized shed. He stated a conditional use permit was also being requested to allow for outdoor storage at property located at 4749 Old Highway 8, which is the same property that was granted a variance to allow for a reduced front yard setback a few months earlier. He advised that outdoor storage is allowed by conditional use permit in the industrial district. Planning Associate Ericson stated this week, TOLD Development Company, representing Walgreens, will submit their application for a Planned Unit Development at the corner of Edgewood Drive and Highway 10, where they propose to construct a Walgreens and a Culver’s Restaurant. He stated this item would probably come before the Planning Commission soon. Planning Associate Ericson stated another item the Commission would be considering shortly is an examination and possible revision of the Code, in response to the number of oversized shed conditional use permit requests that are being submitted. He explained that the City is consistently granting conditional use permits to allow for sheds larger than the 216 square feet currently allowed, and in light of this, the Commission may determine that the maximum square- footage should be increased. He advised that the previous year, the City Council and Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Code to allow for larger garages without a conditional use permit. He indicated the maximum square-footage without a conditional use permit was increased from 864 to 952 square feet, and it would be prudent to review the requirements for sheds and accessory structures now as well. c. Sensible Land Use Coalition Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commission with brochures from the Sensible Land Use Coalition meeting. He indicated that anyone interested in attending this meeting should complete the application form and advise Community Development Director Jopke or himself. He indicated he has personally attended a couple of these meetings, and found them to be very informative. d. I-35W Corridor Coalition. Planning Associate Ericson stated the I-35W Corridor Coalition is requesting feedback from the Planning Commissions and City Councils with regard to the meeting which was held on March 29th, in the city of Shoreview. He requested any comments or suggestions pertaining to this meeting be forwarded to Community Development Director Jopke or himself. Commissioner Laube indicated this meeting was basically identical to the previous meeting, and suggested that different topics be considered. Chairperson Peterson stated the meeting was well worth attending, however, he shared Commissioner Laube’s viewpoint, in that specific topics at future meetings would be more valuable. Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 Planning Associate Ericson stated the Coalition plans to work toward seminar type meetings in the future, and discuss specific topics such as conditional use permits, land subdivisions, or land use law. Chairperson Peterson requested an update regarding Highway 10 long range planning. Planning Associate Ericson stated there is little to report at this time. He indicated the consultant has been inundated with reports, studies, and files of information pertaining to previous studies, and at this point, is attempting to digest all of this information. He stated the consultant was aware of the individuals who would serve on the Steering Committee, and it was possible that during the first week in May, tentative dates would be set for these meetings. 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports No reports were considered. 12. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.