Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 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., July 19, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Miller and Thomas. Members Absent: Commissioners Berke and Gary Stevenson, with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Parrish, and Recorder Carla Wirth Index to Minutes Page Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 622-00, a Resolution Recommending to the City Council Adoption of the Updated Local Water Management Plans as Presented by SEH, Inc. 2 Planning Case No. ZC00-002, 2387 Highway 10. Discussion and Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 623-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Major Subdivision and Development Review Regarding a Walgreens Drugstore and Proposed Restaurant at the Northeast Corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive. TOLD Development Company, (Represented by Bob Cunningham), Applicant. 3 Planning Case No. ZC00-003, 2200 Highway 10. Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding the General Concept of the Mermaid Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 97-Room Hotel and Banquet Center Addition. The Mermaid, Inc., (Represented by Dan Hall, President), Applicant. 5 Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Index to Minutes – continued Page Special Planning Case No. SP-079-00. Consideration of Resolution 624-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Accessory Buildings. 11 Special Planning Case No. SP-075-00. Discussion and Review of Proposed Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments. 12 Discussion of Proposed Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Clarifying Language Pertaining to Fences and Fence Heights, and Consideration of Resolution 625-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 658. 14 Staff Reports / Items of Information 15 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 17 3. Citizen’s 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. June 7, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden to approve the June 7, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected Ayes – 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 622-00, a Resolution Recommending to the City Council Adoption of the Updated Local Water Management Plans as Presented by SEH, Inc. Community Development Director Jopke reviewed that at several past meetings, the Planning Commission discussed the update to the Surface Water Management Plan as prepared by SEH, Inc. He noted the Commission had requested additional language which has been prepared and presented for the Planning Commission’s review. Staff recommends the Planning Commission pass Resolution 622-00 to recommend approval of the plan by the City Council. He noted the attendance of a representative from SEH, Inc. should there be any questions. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Commissioner Miller and Community Development Director Jopke noted several typographical errors and requested that they be corrected. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Kaden to approve Resolution 622-00, a Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of the Updated Local Surface Water Management Plan as prepared by SEH, Inc. Ayes – 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 6. Planning Case No. ZC00-002 Property Involved: 2387 Highway 10 Discussion and Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 623-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Major Subdivision and Development Review Regarding a Walgreens Drugstore and Proposed Restaurant at the Northeast Corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive Applicant: TOLD Development Company (Representative: Bob Cunningham) The applicant was present. Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Bob Cunningham, representing TOLD Development Company, is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to construct a Walgreens Drugstore and restaurant at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive on property commonly referred to as the City’s “remnant parcel” and the Midland Videen property. Mr. Cunningham is proposing to swap approximately 8 acres of the Midland Videen site for the remnant parcel, which is approximately 1 acre. It is proposed that the stormwater pond on the remnant parcel would be relocated to high ground within the 8 acre Midland Videen site. Planner Ericson reviewed that this application was considered at three Planning Commission meetings and the issues of the site plan, drainage, platting, signage, and parking have been thoroughly discussed. The consideration now before the Planning Commission is a resolution recommending approval to the City Council of the development review, preliminary plat for the proposed Mounds View City Hall addition, and the rezoning of the parcels from B-3, Business Commercial, and PF, Public Facilities, to a PUD designation. He noted the updated site plans that were provided to the Planning Commission. Planner Ericson stated his staff report indicates the requirement for a minimum 7-foot path that was given preliminary approval by the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer. He corrected it to indicate a minimum 9-foot path to match what is on the theater property. He advised that the cost differential between a 7-foot and 9-foot trail is not significant in the view of staff. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Planner Ericson stated the drainage plan is in its final form and has been reviewed by the City Engineer who indicated the outlet from the subject parcels could be put in a more appropriate location. Commissioner Laube arrived at 7:10 p.m. Planner Ericson stated it would be more appropriate to relocate the storm drain to disturb as little wetland as possible, which will occur. All other aspects of the drainage are satisfactory and the Rice Creek Watershed District has indicated support for what is being proposed. He stated the only other change that will occur with the site plan is the addition of a safety bench within the storm water pond to provide an added measure of safety. Planner Ericson noted the specifications for lighting fixtures. He explained the plans showed four shoe-box style lighting fixtures along the Highway 10 trailway and staff recommends, instead, five decorative lights which are the same as will be installed along Edgewood Drive. Planner Ericson noted the inclusion of the proposed resolution and recommended it be corrected to explicitly state the rezoning will be from PF and B-3 to PUD. He proposed a revision to the Resolution title, advising that staff will insert that language and correct the trail width to 9 feet. Planner Ericson noted the attendance of Bob Cunningham and offered to answer questions. Bob Cunningham, representative of TOLD Development Company, stated he has no issue with increasing the trail width to nine feet. He stated the monument signage is proposed for the intersection of Edgewood Drive and Highway 10 but he does not have a colored rendering of the proposed signage. He presented a colored rendition of the proposed building, noting there will be no signage on two of the elevations. He stated this rendering shows the color of the brick being closely matched to that of the theater, Community Center, and City Hall buildings. He stated a metal cap will also be added to the corner element to add a similar design feature as contained on the Community Center. Commissioner Miller asked if the plans include a pylon sign. Mr. Cunningham stated they do not propose a pylon sign but do propose a 65 square foot monument sign in keeping with the style of the City Hall monument sign. The brick base will match the building brick and the sign will be on top of that. He stated a similar sign will also be proposed for the restaurant site. Commissioner Thomas asked if the right-out turning movement has been eliminated from Highway 10. Mr. Cunningham stated they had requested a right-in/right-out from Ramsey County but that was denied and a right-in only was granted which Walgreens has now agreed to. Commissioner Kaden stated the corner of Lot 2 shows an area jutting into the wetland and asked if that is a change. Mr. Cunningham stated it is a slight change at the request of Culver’s Restaurant to accommodate a future parking expansion area, if needed. He clarified that area is not being Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 requested today for parking, but the lot line is being changed to allow Culver’s to retain the area should it occur that they need additional parking in the future. He noted using that area for parking would not be easy, and would involve wetland mitigation. He agreed with the staff recommendation to remove the notation that it is a parking area since that is not being proposed at this time. In response to Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Cunningham explained the right-in is designed as requested by the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer so it will not be perceived as a high speed slip off lane and would require a turning movement at about 15 miles per hour. He noted this design would slow the cars substantially as they exit from Highway 10 and make the turning movement into the parking lot. Mr. Cunningham advised they have used a similar design in another area where a trail was in the vicinity and found it worked well. Commissioner Johnson reviewed the discussion held by the Steering Committee relating to the configuration of the trail to slow down the speed of bicycles. Mr. Cunningham stated they will work with staff to assure that an acceptable design is included. He suggested this is a good first step in the right direction for the use of Highway 10. Planner Ericson reviewed proposed corrections to the resoution including a corrected title, a revision to the NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED paragraph on Page 3 to add the wording: “the rezoning of land from B-3 and PF to PUD,” and another revision to Page 3, sub 1a, to state “The bituminous trailway shall be changed to a 9-foot width.” MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Johnson to approve Resolution 623-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of (1) A Preliminary Plat of a Major Subdivision, (2) A Development Review Stage of a Proposed Planned Unit Development, (3) A Rezoning Of The Properties from B-3, Highway Business, and PF, Public Facilities to PUD, Planned Unit Development, and (4) An Exchange of Land for and with TOLD Development Company; Planning Case No. ZC00- 002. Ayes – 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mr. Cunningham stated his appreciation for the careful consideration of the Planning Commission on this application and stated he looks forward to bringing quality development to the City of Mounds View. 7. Planning Case No. ZC00-003 Property Involved: 2200 Highway 10 Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding the General Concept of the Mermaid Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 97-Room Hotel and Banquet Center Addition Applicant: The Mermaid, Inc., (Representative: Dan Hall, President) The applicant was present. Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Dan Hall, representing The Mermaid, is requesting City approval of a general concept plan to construct a 97-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. The general concept plan is the first stage of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. If the City approves the concept plan, the developer would then prepare the balance of the submittal (landscaping, detailed site plans, drainage, signage, elevations, photometric analysis, etc.) for city consideration, which is referred to as the development stage of the PUD. Both stages (concept and development stages) require a public hearing. The final stage of the PUD is the administrative approval. A public hearing notice was published in the newspaper and notices mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties for this meeting. In addition to the PUD, the applicant has also applied for a major subdivision, which would combine all of the subject properties into one platted parcel (presumably, Lot 1, Block 1, Mermaid Addition). Action on the major subdivision is not scheduled at this meeting. Planner Ericson noted the comprehensive plan does designate this as a mixed unit/Planned Unit Development so this application would be consistent with that designation and the zoning. Planner Ericson noted there have been several submittals identifying the parking and building configuration. He advised that Perkins has decided to not renew their lease so that property will be included in this project. The Mermaid also closed on the rental property and applied for a demolition permit for that property. The Music Off 10 property and part of the business park property that provides the access from Highway 10 will also be incorporated in this project. Planner Ericson explained that as part of the project, all the parcels would be combined and the access drive location shifted to the west to allow for contiguous parking on the site. Planner Ericson stated there is a small holding pond on the business park property that would be relocated as part of a larger regional storm water pond that would be constructed on the school district and metro waste property. Planner Ericson noted the City was awarded a grant to assist with the development of the regional pond. The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the project, as has the City Engineer, County Engineer, Metropolitan Council Waste Management Division, and all are pleased to see the storm water pond be installed. He advised that currently, all of the water drains, unfiltered, from this site directly into Rice Creek so it is a benefit to divert the water into a settlement pond and assure the water going into Rice Creek is treated. It would also reduce the spikes of water inflow into the Creek during heavy storms. Planner Ericson reviewed the proposed parking of 972 spaces, noting 977 parking stalls are required by Code, but since this is a PUD, the City can consider the complementary uses this development would have to determine the appropriate number of parking spaces. He noted the required parking setbacks and pointed out that the site plan identifies a 1-foot setback from County Road H. Staff would recommend that be changed to a 5-foot setback. He noted there appears to be room on the site to accommodate this 5-foot setback. Planner Ericson stated the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer indicated no objection to a trail on County right-of-way but the applicant inquired regarding the need for a trail in this location. He stated this issue could be worked out during the process. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Planner Ericson stated these are general plans and staff’s recommendation is for approval of the general concept plan, with the 5-foot setback change, which would be considered by the City Council. He advised that this is a public hearing so notices were published and sent to property owners within 350 feet of the site. Dan Hall, representing The Mermaid, presented a colored rendition of the proposed project identifying the southwest corner of the 4-story AmericInn and attached banquet facility. He explained the regional holding pond will clean drainage not only from this site but also from County Road H, Horse and Rider, Pettibone, Herbst, and Perkins properties. He stated this is the largest area of untreated water in Mounds View and a grant was awarded to address the need to treat that drainage prior to it entering the Creek. Mr. Hall offered to answer questions of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaden asked if the drainage for businesses past Music Off 10 is addressed. Mr. Hall stated it is not. Commissioner Kaden asked if this will be enough parking as proposed. Mr. Hall stated the parking is appropriate when considered on a year-round basis. He noted the parking lot is designed in regional sections to allow clients to park close to the use they desire. However, since the building is connected, it allows you to enter the building and walk inside to the desired venue. Mr. Hall explained how they anticipate groups of people to arrive at the site, noting the various uses anticipate activity at different times. He commented on the importance of offering adequate parking and stated he is comfortable with the number of parking spaces being proposed. Commissioner Miller asked if the dining area will be opened to the public. Mr. Hall stated they are not adding square footage to the existing upstairs facility and the banquet center will be a new area. Commissioner Thomas noted the dining area being referred to by Commissioner Miller already exists. Mr. Hall stated that is correct and that it is a public dining area. Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the exterior finishes. Truman Howell, the architect representing the Mermaid, stated the hotel will be a 96 to 97 room facility and construction will be with precast concrete floors and party walls constructed of concrete block for soundproofing as developed in the AmericInn programs. The exterior is made of EFIS and decorations. He stated EFIS is a stucco-like material that provides exterior character amenable to detailing and reveals. Chairperson Peterson asked how the exterior finishes of the new addition fit with the existing building. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Mr. Howell stated the existing building is fairly simple so not much work will be needed. He explained that the east side of the building, the water park area and plaza, and the existing structure will all blend together. He stated they plan to add a new entry to the existing restaurant area in a style that is compatible with the new structure. Mr. Howell stated they are sensitive to the need to assure the structures blend and hold their character. Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. Commissioner Kaden stated there is a holding pond behind Music Off 10 and another pond exists between the two existing buildings. He asked if that is where the new pond will be located. Planner Ericson stated the new pond will be farther west on County Road H, just beyond the Herbst property. City Engineer Keehn stated there are some wetlands in this area and they are aware there will be some impacts to this wooded wetland area. He stated the wetland has been delineated. City Engineer Keehn explained they would incorporate the pond into the school’s environmental system and add diversity to provide different types of wetlands. In this case, it will create more open water wetland areas for birds and ducks. He advised this is acceptable with the Rice Creek Watershed District and reviewed the additional calculations that would occur prior to construction. Commissioner Kaden asked how the filtration concept works. City Engineer Keehn stated the theory is that if there is enough depth in the pond, it will provide treatment, along with assuring there is enough distance between the entry and outfall. He stated in theory the pond will provide a 25-year sediment loss but this rate can depend on the amount of sand and salt in the water drainage. Chairperson Peterson asked if the business park property will be tied into this drainage system. City Engineer Keehn stated the actual drainage treatment area includes the south part of the existing business park building and a small area to the east. Chairperson Peterson asked if the entire business park area to the north will be included City Engineer Keehn stated it will not be included but the erosion concerns of the school will be addressed. He stated this project will also address the undeveloped area to the north that is zoned industrial/commercial which will need its own sedimentation pond but discharge through this area. This project will be designed to accommodate that in the future. Chairperson Peterson asked about the school district’s desire to make trail improvements. City Engineer Keehn stated the school may look at improving or expanding the trail system and this pond design will accommodate that as well. He noted this pond is designed as a regional pond so it will address drainage for that entire area. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Hegland asked if there is a requirement or Code that dictates the number or location of entrances and exits. Planner Ericson stated that type of restriction to limit the number of entrances is not included for commercial uses. He noted four accesses are being requested and those four exist today. He noted the Rent All business has two additional access points but they will be removed. Commissioner Hegland stated it appears one entrance per road would be more realistic and cause fewer problems. Planner Ericson stated with having almost 1,000 parking stalls, limiting to one access on Highway 10 and one access on County Road H may be problematic, especially considering the uses include a banquet hall. From staff’s perspective, reducing from six access points to four is a good situation. He stated staff believes the proposed configuration will work out and provide sufficient traffic flow. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the distance between the points of access. Commissioner Kaden estimated there is about 230 feet of separation between two access points and about 250 feet of separation between the other two. Chairperson Peterson stated he believes the number of proposed access points to be appropriate. Commissioner Kaden asked if the access road to the business park identified on the plan exists today in this alignment. Planner Ericson stated the plan before the Planning Commission identifies the proposed driveway with the relocated access points. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the exact number of rooms being proposed, noting 96, 97, and 100 rooms have been mentioned. Planner Ericson stated the application is for 96 or 97 rooms, given internal configurations and what will fit. Mr. Hall explained that with every hotel you have to provide for meeting rooms, storage, etc. and it is an internal decision if they should add a meeting room and eliminate a sleeping room. He explained those decisions have yet to be made but the square footage would remain the same. Mr. Howell explained that there are many configurations and provided details of how hotel units are configured in several other hotel projects. Chairperson Peterson noted the economic issues with this project have been discussed by the Council. Planner Ericson stated there have been Council discussions and staff has been directed to work with the Mermaid to finalize the financing package. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Economic Development Coordinator Parrish stated the preliminary financing package is a pay- as-you-go TIF arrangement, as opposed to up front bonding, with a not-to-exceed amount of $2.5 million. He stated those are the rough parameters that staff is working with. He explained that with a pay-as-you-go arrangement, the money received depends on the project’s ability to generate tax revenue. Chairperson Peterson stated if the project has come to this point, it means the financing issues are believed to be feasible. Mr. Howell stated staff will provide a report at the August 4, 2000 meeting of the EDA with the proposal finalized. Bob Hajak, legal representative for the Mermaid, advised that John G. Kinnard has provided a letter of agreement and a dialogue is occurring between them, the developer, and the City. He advised that John G. Kinnard is anxious to close on the property. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the water park. Mr. Hall stated the pool will be oversized and contain fountains, a larger seating area, and be more than a pool in an effort to attract family business. Commissioner Miller asked if it will be available only to the patrons of the hotel. Mr. Hall stated he is unable to answer how the end use will be handled but noted they have always been a strong supporter of the community and he believed there were possibilities in the future. He clarified, however, that it would never be open to the public. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Laube to approve the Resolution 626-00, a Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of the General Concept Plan Regarding the Proposal to Construct a Hotel and Banquet Center at the Mermaid, Located at 2200 Highway 10; Planning Case No. ZC00-003. Ayes – 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Planner Ericson stated the City Council will hear this proposal on August 7, 2000 and it will be considered for action at their regular meeting of August 14, 2000. After that, he expects the development plans will be submitted for Planning Commission consideration. Mr. Hall thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration of this project. 8. Special Planning Case SP-079-00 Consideration of Resolution 624-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Accessory Buildings. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Staff has been directed to work with the Planning Commission to draft language revisiting the Zoning Code regarding sheds and accessory structures. The Planning Commission initiated discussion on the issue on June 7, 2000 and continued discussion on June 21, 2000. Based on the input and comments generated at these two meetings, staff drafted Ordinance 664, which amends Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code pertaining to accessory buildings. The ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 5, 2000 and direction was given to staff to draft a resolution recommending to the City Council adoption of the ordinance. The only changes made to the proposed ordinance that was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 5 2000, were to underline the added text in subdivision 1a on Page 2 and to re-letter the subsequent subparts of that same subdivision. Planner Ericson explained that it is hoped this will be a benefit to the City. He stated the Council looked at this at their work session and they felt this was a huge step in the right direction, and would benefit the City’s residents. Planner Ericson stated the Council conveyed its thanks to the Planning Commission for taking on this project to create an ordinance to address this issue. Commissioner Hegland asked about the height of the building, noting there is a 15-foot limit. He stated if someone has a home with a steep roof pitch, a height of 15 feet may prevent them from matching roof styles. Planner Ericson explained it is measured as 15 feet from the ground to the midpoint of the truss so it does allow for flexibility with higher-pitched roofs. Also, if there is living space above the garage, a roof line could be maintained that way as well. Chairperson Peterson asked if that type of language is a common practice. Community Development Director Jopke presented a diagram to better explain the area of measurement and advised this is standard Zoning Ordinance language. Planner Ericson stated that during his employment with Mounds View, there has only been one request for a taller roof and that was only for several more inches. Chairperson Peterson stated he wants to assure, since a change is being made, that the language is adequate to address the requests that will be received. Commissioner Thomas suggested a wording change on Page 5, subdivision 6, to indicate “Accessory building” rather than “Accessory buildings.” Planner Ericson noted other sections use the plural word form and explained it is relating to the zoning district not to one specific lot. However, that could be changed, if directed, to the word “building.” Commissioner Miller reviewed the language on Page 2, subdivision 1a, and suggested the word “allotted” be changed to the word “allowed.” Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 Planner Ericson stated the City Attorney also commented on the use of the word “allotted” and agreed with the suggestion to use the word “allowed.” Commissioner Miller referred to the language on Page 3, subdivision. b, and asked if the Fire Code should be mentioned when there is only a 3-foot separation. She also asked whether a special fire wall is required. Planner Ericson stated the Zoning Code requires a 6-foot separation but the Building Code requires a 3-foot separation. He stated that staff will verify the Fire Code requirement and make the appropriate correction, if needed. Chairperson Peterson suggested the Fire Marshal also be asked about the issue of eave separation. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Kaden to approve Resolution 624-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Proposed Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Title 1100, Chapter 1106, Regarding Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Accessory Buildings; Special Planning Case SP-079-00. Ayes – 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Planner Ericson advised that a public hearing has been scheduled before the City Council on July 24, 2000 9. Special Planning Case SP-075-00 Discussion and Review of Proposed Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The City Council placed a 6-month moratorium prohibiting any tattoo shops or body piercing establishments to be located in the City. The 6-month period will expire on August 14, 2000. The proposed ordinance creates licensing requirements and adds minimal language to the Zoning Code as to the appropriate zoning designations in which such a use could be located. Planner Ericson noted the memorandum from the City Attorney’s office providing feedback. He advised that a copy was also provided to the Police Chief and the Assistant to the City Administrator. He stated this ordinance was based on a City of Richfield ordinance and revised to fit the City of Mounds View in all references. Planner Ericson noted the memorandum from Bob Vose and recommendation that there be no spacing requirements from other types of uses since there is no documentation saying these types of uses are inappropriate or should be a certain distance from a school, church, etc. He stated at this point the only separation language being contemplated is a 1,000 foot separation from other such establishments. Accordingly, Planner Ericson recommended a revision to Page 11, Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 1113.02, subdivision 3a to strike the words: “500 feet from any educational facility, place of worship and shall be separated by no less than.” Planner Ericson stated the Planning Commission will need to consider which zoning districts this type of business is appropriate to be allowed, noting staff has suggested it be allowed in the B-2, B-3 and B-4 business zoning districts. Commissioner Hegland asked why a 1,000 foot separation between similar uses can be required but not a separation from other uses. Planner Ericson explained that spacing distances can be required to assure there is not a strip mall created of similar piercing businesses. Commissioner Hegland stated it appears if a restriction can be required between common businesses, the other separation requirement is no different. He asked if there is B-2 property adjacent to residential. Planner Ericson stated almost all commercial districts in Mounds View are next to residential districts. Commissioner Johnson stated the separation between like businesses will limit the number of businesses and prevent concentration. Planner Ericson clarified it is 1,000 feet as measured from the property boundary which restricts two similar businesses on the same property. Commissioner Kaden noted the licenses required and asked if that is required in St. Paul or if Richfield has any body piercing businesses. Planner Ericson stated he is not aware. Commissioner Kaden stated he called such a business and found the tattoo shop is licensed but none of the employees are licensed individually. Planner Ericson stated the City wants to assure the operators are responsible and can be held liable. Commissioner Miller noted the language does not identify who is doing the licensing. Planner Ericson stated since it is within the Mounds View City Code, that is understood and implied. Commissioner Miller asked if body painting as defined in the definition section means a permanent application. Planner Ericson stated there are types of ink that are not necessarily permanent but have a permanence to them, such as henna ink which is not injected under the skin and wears off over time. He noted the definition of “tattoo specialist” which is referenced in the other areas. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 Commissioner Miller reviewed the remaining sections of the proposed ordinance and requested modifications to provide consistency in word usage and capitalization, and to correct wording. Planner Ericson stated staff will make the requested revisions. Commissioner Kaden noted the exception paragraph addresses only ear piercing which would not include other body piercing. Planner Ericson stated that is correct. Chairperson Peterson asked if anyone has made application for such a business. Planner Ericson stated he is not aware of any and, technically, the Council should extend the moratorium an additional two months to cover the time during which the ordinance is being considered and becomes effective. He stated he will ask the City Attorney about that issue to assure it is addressed. 10. Discussion of Proposed Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Clarifying Language Pertaining to Fences and Fence Heights, and Consideration of Resolution 625-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 658. Planning Associate Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The drafting of Ordinance 658 resulted from a series of discussions held by both the Planning Commission and City Council earlier this year regarding a property owner’s variance request for a tall fence in her front yard. The request, as the Commission may recall, was denied due to a perceived lack of property-related hardship. The City Council ultimately overturned the Planning Commission’s decision, citing the documented harassment of police activity next door as the governing hardship. Through this process, it became apparent that there should be a provision placed in the Code that would allow for some flexibility in dealing with unusual situations that would not normally be considered “hardships.” The proposed ordinance contemplates the addition of one sentence of text to Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3a., which states: “The City Council may require or approve fencing up to ninety-six inches (96") in height in a front yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a development review or conditional use permit.” The addition of this language would have the effect of allowing for taller than normal fences (up to 8’) if required by the City Council or requested by the applicant for buffering or screening purposes. Planner Ericson explained that this provides another avenue of consideration other than a variance procedure. If the Commission is comfortable with this language, staff would recommend approval of Planning Commission Resolution 625-00, a Resolution Recommending Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 Adoption of Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1103 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Fences and Fence Heights. Commissioner Johnson stated his support for the proposed ordinance which will provided added privacy. Commissioner Miller asked why the height is stated in a measurement of inches rather than in feet. Planner Ericson stated there is no reason and both can be stated. He reported a public hearing is scheduled for Monday, July 24, 2000 with the City Council. Commissioner Kaden stated his back lot line is his neighbor’s side lot line and asked if this ordinance would allow him to place an 8-foot fence to within 30 feet from the road. Planner Ericson stated some interpretation is needed with that type of situation and staff has approved fences where one back yard property abuts another’s side yard. He commented on the difficulty in wording an ordinance to address every situation that could occur. Planner Ericson advised that staff created diagrams for residents who want to put up a fence so they can better understand the regulations. MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Johnson to approve Resolution 625-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Proposed Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Amending Title 1100, Chapter 1103, Regarding Fences and Height of Fences; Special Planning Case SP-080-00. Ayes – 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 11. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Pervious Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke reported on previous Council actions pertaining to Planning Commission cases. He advised that the Council scheduled two public hearings for the ordinance on fence height and accessory buildings. At the work session on July 17, a presentation was made by the Rice Creek Watershed District Administrator regarding a potential project in the Greenfield Park area and their interest to work with the City to create additional storm water holding ponds. The intent would be to provide additional storm water treatment and rate control prior to entering Rice Creek. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Council gave approval of the concept and for Rice Creek to proceed with developing more detailed plans so neighborhood meetings can be held. Community Development Director Jopke reported the Council established a schedule for 2001 budget discussions. Community Development Director Jopke advised that another issue addressed was truck traffic limits on County Road H as requested by Beverly Adair due to Murphy Warehouse truck traffic. Ms. Adair is asking that trucks be prohibited on County Road H. It was determined that County Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 Road H is a County State Aid road so trucks could not be prohibited but the County said the City could put hours of day limits on the truck traffic. However, Ms. Adair also sent letters to Murphy Warehouse. They have been working to reduce the level of truck traffic on County Road H. Currently, Ms. Adair is happy with the results. The Council discussed this and truck traffic on County Road H2, and directed staff to look into the matter further with the potential to establish hourly restrictions in cooperation with the City of Fridley on County Road H. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Council received an update on Local Surface Water Management Plan by the City Engineer. Also, discussion was held on public notice requirements and issues relating to notification of apartments and other properties where the owner is noticed. The Council was asked to establish a policy for future notification and they directed staff to conduct further research on the procedure and costs to expand notification. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Walgreen proposal was presented as well as proposed lighting on Edgewood Road. B. Highway 10 Steering Committee Update Community Development Director Jopke provided an update on the community meeting which was held on July 11 and attended by about 20 people to discuss issues and priorities related to Highway 10. He advised it was clear that safety was the number one priority so the Steering Committee, staff, and the consultant will meet again next week to look at those priorities and how they are presented to assure that safety is a top priority. Community Development Director Jopke advised that a report will be presented to the Council in August and authorization requested to draft detailed action and financing plans. Chairperson Peterson stated he felt a lot of good information was presented at the community meeting but, perhaps, a better explanation should have been given to explain why some of the items were included on the priority list for Highway 10. Commissioner Miller stated there are certain things you cannot do anything about, such as bicyclers coming from Perkins and crossing Highway 10 traffic lanes. Community Development Director Jopke explained how walls and berms can be used to create more separation. Commissioner Thomas stated residents were concerned about the placement of trails along the highway since it allows trail users to leave the trail area to cross the highway. Commissioner Johnson agreed there was a misconception with residents who had the impression that curbs and landscaping would immediately be installed along the trail. Chairperson Peterson reported on a recent near-accident by Taco Bell when a group of pedestrians were attempting to cross Highway 10 after the signal light had turned green. Commissioner Kaden commented on a location along University Avenue that has a fenced area to prevent pedestrian crossing activity which he believed did not look very good. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 Commissioner Thomas noted several areas by Northtown Shopping Center where shrubs make it more difficult to cross the area. She suggested there are other methods that can be used, noting it is not a good idea to locate all of the City’s trails along the highway. 12. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports No reports were considered. 13. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.