Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 13, 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., September 13, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Miller, Kaden, and Thomas. Members Excused: Commissioner Stevenson. Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson and Council Liaison Roger Stigney. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR00-007, Discussion and Consideration of 2 Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parking Lot Setback Variance for Tony Mezzenga, 7664 Greenfield Avenue, Applicant. Staff Reports / Items of Information. 14 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports. 15 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. August 16, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden. To approve the August 16, 2000 meeting minutes as presented. Ayes – 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 2 5. Planning Case No. VR00-007 Property Involved: 7664 Greenfield Avenue Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parking Lot Setback Variance Applicant: Tony Mezzenga Tony Mezzenga, the applicant representing the property owner Ernest Gustafson, was present. Planner Ericson explained Tony Mezzenga is requesting approval of a variance to construct a small, split-level office building on the undeveloped lot at the southwest corner of County Road I and Greenfield Avenue. The variance is requested for reduced parking lot and building setbacks, a reduced parking ratio, reduced driveway separation and reduced parking lot width. While not legally required to do so, Staff again sent notices to the property owners within 350 feet of 7664 Greenfield Avenue regarding this meeting to ensure neighborhood awareness. This 13,068 square foot property is zoned B-3, Highway Business. The size of the lot and corner-lot setbacks present practical difficulties in terms of what can be developed, which has left the lot up to this point unimproved. This lot borders commercial property to the west (Tom Thumb and a Laundromat), high density residential to the east, and low density residential to the south and north. The proposed office use is consistent with the B-3 zoning designation and is a less intensive use that would fit well into the predominately residential surroundings. The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this proposal at its last meeting on September 6, 2000. Numerous residents attended the meeting, some of whom expressed concern regarding the proposal and the existing condition of the vacant lot and the Tom Thumb store. In summary, the general concerns were as follows:  Cut-through pedestrian traffic  Littering and graffiti, lighting and fencing  Reduced visibility  Traffic Congestion  Inappropriate zoning designation In response to these concerns, Staff recognizes that there are issues regarding the lot in its present, undeveloped state. The property owner has indicated that people are cutting across his lot to go to the adjacent Tom Thumb store, and in so doing, have worn a deep path through the lot. There also seems to be a constant accumulation of litter on the lot that at times becomes quite unsightly. Development of this lot would greatly reduce if not eliminate both of these problems. While completely unrelated to the requested variance application, Staff has inspected the Tom Thumb store and is working with the management to address recurring graffiti problems. The problem however is not limited to Tom Thumb or this area. At this time, the building and fence is free from any graffiti and the grounds are free from litter and debris. Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 3 Regarding visibility, one resident expressed concern that the view from his home would be blocked by the construction of a building or fence on the vacant lot. While this may be true, development on the vacant lot cannot be denied to preserve this view. Staff would encourage the residents to be involved in the site plan review stage of the development, at which time consideration would be given to landscaping and fences and other physical site improvements such as lighting. Concerning the issue of traffic congestion, Staff acknowledges that County Road I carries a significant volume of traffic and while a curb cut onto County Road I would not improve traffic flow, Staff firmly believes that the anticipated daily vehicle trips to this property would be minimal so as to not cause any unreasonable congestion. Assuming a peak of ten vehicle trips per hour, a car would be entering or exiting the parking lot less than once every five minutes. At that rate, vehicle safety and traffic flow would not be compromised. Last, regarding the present zoning of the property, as indicated at the Planning Commission’s last meeting, the commission members examined this lot and its zoning during the comprehensive plan update. The commission determined that a residential development would not be appropriate on this site, even though it borders residential on three sides. Given its frontage on County Road I, the amount of traffic and the adjoining commercial use, the Planning Commission chose to maintain the commercial land-use designation, considering business/commercial to be the most feasible and appropriate future use. The Planning Commission inquired about the number of stalls, and if the applicant felt the parking requirement to be adequate or excessive. Mr. Mezzenga replied that twenty spaces were excessive, given the small size of the building. Staff agreed that the requirement may be more than what is needed and offered to provide the Planning Commission with office parking requirements from other municipalities. Staff referred to the Off-Street Parking Requirements publication, published by the American Planning Association. Of the nine examples given, none required more parking for an office use than does Mounds View. The range went from one space per 200 square feet to one space per 750 square feet. The most common ratio was one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. Applying the one per 250 ratio to the proposed 3,480 square foot building results in the need for 14 spaces. Given that, Staff drafted a site plan based on the 3,480 square foot building and a parking lot to accommodate 14 vehicles. The site plan differs from what was originally proposed by Mr. Mezzenga in that the building and parking lot have essentially traded places. The new site plan maximizes green-space while minimizing the parking area. With six less stalls and a reduction in the drive aisle width, more pervious surface area can be set aside for landscaping and grass. The building setback from Greenfield Avenue is 30 feet, which complies with the Zoning requirements. Because of the small lot size, however, variances are still necessary. The variances contemplated by the proposed site plan are as follows:  9’ reduction in front yard building setback  14’ reduction in front yard parking lot setback  18’ reduction in driveway separation requirement  2’ reduction in parking lot width requirement  6 space reduction in number of parking stalls required Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 4 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. 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. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. Given the reconfigured site plan, Staff believes that the variances requested are the minimum to alleviate the hardship and believes the hardship test has been met and that there are clear and demonstrable practical difficulties associated with this lot which makes development prohibitively restrictive. Staff is recommending approval of the variances requested by Tony Mezzenga to construct an office building at 7664 Greenfield Drive, with stipulations. Chairperson Peterson asked for questions from the audience. Herbert Zwirn of 7660 Greenfield Avenue stated he would like to object to the project for the same reasons as he listed last week. He said he used to be an insurance agent and indicated at times his office used 3 parking spots and at other times his office used 10 parking spots. He feels the type of occupancy needs to be taken into consideration based on reduced parking spaces. Mr. Zwirn indicated he has to live with what the Commission decides and he doesn’t want to have to deal with the fallout of the project such as debris, foot traffic and privacy issues once the project is approved. He said he has many problems with the Tom Thumb that have not been dealt with and he is afraid he will have even more to deal with once this property is developed. Chairperson Peterson said the Commission is dealing with the application for a variance and all the talk about Tom Thumb and maintenance of the fence and garbage should be dealt with under the City Nuisance Code that was strengthened a couple of years ago. He then said Mr. Zwirn needs to follow proper procedures to work with the City to bring Tom Thumb into compliance with City Code. Chairperson Peterson said the property owner of a lot in the City has the right to develop the lot within the limits of City Codes and Ordinances and B-3 zoning allows many different uses. Tom Thumb is not directly related to this variance request and he asked if Mr. Zwirn had contacted City police in the past to report any incidents. Mr. Zwirn indicated when he first moved in he reported to the police the foot traffic, the activities in his yard and the graffiti. He indicated he does not want to have to spend his evenings calling the police and turning people in all the time. He said he realizes this is not about Tom Thumb but his point is he has trouble already with the commercial property next to him and he is afraid of having yet another business he will have problems with. He then said in his opinion the developer and the City are asking to put too big of a building on too small of a lot and are attempting to get away with it by shrinking the parking lot. Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 5 Commissioner Hegland asked how the variance actually affects Mr. Zwirn’s property and said in his own opinion he doesn’t believe it does affect Mr. Zwirn’s property. Mr. Zwirn said he is unhappy with the fact Mr. Mezzenga wants to put a bigger building on the lot than is allowed by ordinance and he believes it will only cause trouble for him. Commissioner Hegland said he believes something on the lot will be better than nothing on the lot and should actually decrease problems for Mr. Zwirn. Mr. Zwirn said he spoke to two realtors who indicated if the City rezoned the property residential it would be no problem to develop as residential. He suggested he and the City sit down and look at the ramifications of this proposed development to his property. He said he wants the Commission to be aware of the fact since he moved to the property in February he has had nothing but problems with the Tom Thumb lot. He requested the City slow down and really consider what will happen if they proceed with this development. Chairperson Peterson indicated the Commission understands it could be rezoned but there is a comprehensive plan for zoning for every property in the City and it has been determined that the best use for this property is commercial. Chairperson Peterson said Mr. Zwirn’s point is well taken on the size of the building being too large for the lot and that is what the Commission intends to look at tonight. Chairperson Peterson said he agreed with Commissioner Hegland that whatever goes on the vacant lot should improve Mr. Zwirn’s situation and he doesn’t see how it could get worse. Ernest Gustafson, the property owner, said the traffic, trash and graffiti is a reason to build something on the lot to stop foot traffic from going across his vacant lot into Mr. Zwirn’s lot. He stated he believes this development will stop the problems. He also said when he mows his lot there are 2 or 3 cars a minute in and out of the Tom Thumb lot and in his opinion there is no way an office building will generate that much traffic. Commissioner Thomas asked how far it is from the curb cut for the Laundromat to where the curb cut would be for this building. Planner Ericson indicated the driveway access is one or two feet off of the property line and on the site plan presented to the Planning Commission the scenario is 24 feet from the Tom Thumb and Laundromat with the building and the parking lot switching places it can maintain setbacks. Commissioner Thomas indicated her concern would be that having two curb cuts less than 25 feet apart could cause a significant traffic problem. Planner Ericson said it is not ideal and agreed maximizing the distance between the two curb cuts would give a little more room for visibility for people exiting and entering. Commissioner Thomas asked if they considered placing the curb cut on Greenfield Avenue rather than County Road I. Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 6 Planner Ericson said the problem with placing the curb cut on Greenfield Avenue is it reduces the amount of area that can be used for parking. If the building is left in the same orientation there is just barely enough room to squeeze the driveway back along the adjoining property and then into the parking lot which would eliminate two parking spaces so you lose either part of the parking lot or part of the building. Commissioner Thomas said she is concerned about having two curb cuts so close together on County Road I. Planner Ericson said the request for reduction in the parking stalls is not a request of the applicant it was brought up by the Commission last week because the Commission felt 20 spaces were too many and that is what lead to the proposal for 14 stalls. He indicated the 20 stalls calls for a variance of four feet from County Road I and four feet from the side property line. Commissioner Thomas said they went from a maximum of 20 stalls to a minimum of 14 stalls and have left no maneuverability as far as site development to fit in that many spots. She then said if they really are limiting it to 14 stalls she feels Mr. Zwirn’s comments as to the fact the City and developer are trying to fit too large a building on too small of a lot have some validity. Commissioner Thomas said six parking spots were dropped from last week’s plan and if the orientation of the building is changed you lose two more parking spots. Then you are down to 12 parking spots which is too few for the size of the building. Commissioner Heglund said he is not sure it has been determined how many spots are required for the size of the building and he did not believe the Commission has studied enough what this size of the building requires. Commissioner Thomas indicated the City has a lot of buildings of this type and has set Ordinances which are used to judge how much parking is required per square foot of building. Commissioner Johnson said he would like to try to meet in the middle and he thought there would be 16 or 18 parking stalls not 14 parking stalls. He then clarified the Commission is supposed to be talking about the variance not the development plan. Commissioner Johnson said at this point he would vote for the variance. Commissioner Thomas asked if they are locked into a certain amount of feet in a certain place when they actually have no idea what they are saying yes to. She indicated the variance would be dependent on which site plan was approved so there does need to be discussion about site plans prior to approving the variance. Planner Ericson said based on the site plan provided to the Commission, it calls for 14 parking stalls but there are ways to look at how much parking is enough parking and there are a number of ways to look at the situation. The Commission is being asked to provide a minimum number of parking spaces to the applicant and the applicant would be required to work within those constraints. Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 7 Commissioner Thomas asked what is the probability once the site plan is approved the Commission will be asked to consider a different or further variance to change the numbers. Planner Ericson said whatever is decided tonight, there should be enough forethought into the process that a further variance request would not be necessary. Commissioner Thomas agreed and indicated she felt the Commission needed to take a better look at the numbers. Commissioner Johnson said he would like to see 16 parking spaces and feels anything larger than that is too many and smaller than that would not accommodate the businesses planned for the building. Commissioner Thomas indicated she would like to suggest the Commission go with the “one space per 200 square feet” ratio that would be within the 16 spaces and reduce the square footage of the building if needed to comply. Chairperson Peterson said Mounds View’s requirements are much more strict than other cities in the area. He suggested the plan proposed in the Staff report extended two feet back on each side achieves the 16 parking spots. He indicated he did not have a preference for what side the building is on. Planner Ericson indicated the only difference in the plans if the parking lot is next to Tom Thumb is a five-foot setback. If the building is next to Tom Thumb it requires a 10-foot setback and the difference on Greenfield Avenue is a 25-foot setback instead of a 30-foot setback. The curb cut is away from Tom Thumb but closer to Greenfield Avenue. Commissioner Thomas said if there is not enough parking there is no where for the overflow parking to go in the area which means there will be parking up and down the street in front of people’s houses. She stated she wants to make sure there is enough parking to accommodate the building. Commissioner Johnson said if they allow just enough parking for office space there is the potential that something else can come in at a later date with a higher volume of traffic and then there isn’t room to accommodate the parking for it. Commissioner Thomas said she agrees but thinks one space per 200 square feet of building is very common in the City and she sees no problem with it. Commissioner Johnson said the Staff report from last week indicated even with the square footage of the building as it is, there are limits to the type of tenants that will be able to use the building. Planner Ericson said the building is proposed to be 3,480 square feet which is a total foot print number not a total useable office space which is 2,950. He said if you round the number up to 3,000 leaseable square feet at one per 200, it figures out to be 15 parking stalls. If one more is added, they could lease an additional 200 square feet of office space and still comply. Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 8 Commissioner Thomas said she would be more comfortable using those numbers and felt the site development plan would be more workable if they called for 16 spaces or one space per 200 square feet of building. Commissioner Johnson agreed. Planner Ericson indicated the proposed curb cut is close to 50 feet from Greenfield Avenue. He said there should be room for 16 parking stalls and plenty of room for the curb cut as shown on the site development plan. Chairperson Peterson said if one more stall in each bank were added it would push it back farther towards the back of the property. But if you centered it, then the setback on the backside is not 15 feet. Planner Ericson said they were intending to measure the setback from the 20-foot mark. Chairperson Peterson said it didn’t matter to him if the parking lot is on the Greenfield Avenue side or the Tom Thumb side. He felt that was irrelevant in terms of a variance and noted that how much building and how many parking spaces is what they are deciding tonight. Commissioner Thomas asked where the current sidewalk was located. Planner Ericson said the sidewalk is within the right-of-way, located approximately five feet from the subject property. Planner Ericson summarized the discussion by saying if two stalls were added and the lot shifted up, there would be a 15 foot setback on the back side and a 12 foot setback fronting County Road I. He then said if the Commission wanted to make sure they don’t have to revisit the variance in the future, they could round it to a 10-foot setback on County Road I. Commissioner Miller asked what the extra space toward the back of the parking lot would be used for. Planner Ericson said the extra space in the back would be used to back out, not as an encroachment. Commissioner Thomas asked if they needed to make it 10-foot wide stalls if they go with one parking spot for 200 square feet. She also asked if they had room for 10-foot wide stalls. Planner Ericson said 10 foot wide stalls would require eight additional feet and City Code only requires a nine-foot stall. If the Commission wants to make sure they don’t have to revisit this issue, they could note there could be a 25-foot setback from Greenfield Avenue only if the parking lot is on the Greenfield Avenue side. It wouldn’t be needed if the building is on the Greenfield Avenue side. Commissioner Thomas stated she would like to give everyone as much space as they can but make sure it is workable. Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be a 10-foot setback in the front and the back. Planner Ericson indicated there would be 10 feet in the front off of County Road I and 15 feet in the back. A member of the audience asked if there would be room to plow snow. Planner Ericson indicated there is plenty of room to plow snow and if there is a large amount of snow it would have to be removed from the site. This is a common practice with commercial developments. A member of the audience asked what the setback from County Road I to the Tom Thumb driveway was. Planner Ericson said he did not know and referred the question to Mr. Gustafson, the property owner. Mr. Gustafson said he believed it to be around 20 feet. Planner Ericson asked if he meant from the street or the property line. Mr. Gustafson said he thought it was closer to five feet but he was not sure. Chairperson Peterson asked Planner Ericson to look at the aerial photograph to see if he could tell. Planner Ericson said it was hard to tell but he thought it looked to be around 10 to 15 feet. Commissioner Thomas said it would match if Mr. Mezzenga were to be granted a 10-foot variance. Chairperson Peterson said the Tom Thumb was constructed in 1972 and they would have had to follow the requirements then in place. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission was planning to grant 10 feet in front, 15 feet in back, with a minimum of 25 feet from Greenfield Avenue if the parking lot is on the Greenfield Avenue side. Planner Ericson asked if the building were switched with the parking lot would the Commission prefer a greater setback to the front or to the rear. He indicated if there was a greater setback to the front the people leaving Tom Thumb would have more visibility. The Planning Commission asked the developer to comment on his preference for the location of the building and parking lot. Mr. Mezzenga said he would prefer the back of the building against the back of Tom Thumb because it is easier to pull out on Greenfield Avenue and the aesthetics of the building would be cheaper for him. He explained if the back side of building faces Greenfield Avenue, he will have Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 10 to make it more aesthetically appealing but if the back of the building faces Tom Thumb there would be no need for aesthetics. Mr. Gustafson said Mr. Zwirn had said last week there was a plan to put up an eight foot fence so he couldn’t see out. He said he wanted to make it clear there is no proposal on any of the plans presented to have an eight-foot fence. They were proposing lilac bushes which can be trimmed. He said if the building is towards Greenfield Avenue the neighbor would not be able to see anything. But if the back of the building were toward Tom Thumb, it would be better for Mr. Zwirn. Chairperson Peterson said there seems to be a little support for the idea of moving the parking lot toward the Greenfield Avenue side so the wording of the resolution could be simplified and there are fewer changes required. Planner Ericson said Staff would put together another site plan showing how it could work out given the variances that would be granted by the Planning Commission this evening. Mr. Mezzenga asked what the worst case would be if the Commission granted a variance for more parking spots. Chairperson Peterson said he needs to meet the minimum requirements for a hardship and the Commission felt 20 parking spots was too many. Mr. Mezzenga said he doesn’t want to get into a position where it becomes a larger monetary investment to have plans drawn and then need to come back and revisit parking issue. Commissioner Johnson said flip-flopping the plan in front of them would give him 10 feet in back and would increase the number of parking spots from 14 to 16 because the Commission did not think 14 parking spaces was enough but felt 20 spaces was too many. Commissioner Thomas indicated the Commission is trying to grant the minimum variance that would allow Mr. Mezzenga the maneuverability needed to develop the lot. Chairperson Peterson said he wanted to make sure it is the minimum to alleviate the hardship and then asked Planner Ericson if he had enough information to be able to draft a resolution for approval at the next meeting which is the first meeting in October. Commissioner Kaden asked if they could plug in the new numbers to the resolution before them in order to approve it tonight. Planner Ericson said that would be fine and then asked if there was a consensus to act on the Resolution tonight with the adjusted variances as agreed upon. He stated that the parking lot setbacks would be 25 feet to the Greenfield Avenue side, 15 feet to the side neighbor, five feet to the Tom Thumb side, and 10 feet to the front on County Road I to allow for 10 foot setbacks for the building at the corner and rear. Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 11 John Houle of 7643 Edgewood Drive said his backyard and Tom Thumb’s backyard touch. Mr. Houle said he has been there since the 1960’s and he doesn’t know why the Tom Thumb lot was ever rezoned to commercial. He believes the lot in question should be zoned residential, not commercial, for the simple reason it would do away with a driveway onto County Road I. He feels there is a real demand for residential and a house belongs there, not commercial. Chairperson Peterson said if Tom Thumb were not there the whole block would have been zoned residential but since it is there, it is less desirable now for a residential development. Mr. Houle said he feels a house belongs there and he would like to see it rezoned. He expressed his concern for accidents because of the traffic on County Road I. Chairperson Peterson indicated the current zoning for the piece of property in question is commercial and it would be up to the property owner or the City to request a zoning change which, in this case, neither are willing to do. Chairperson Peterson said once a property is zoned commercial in an area where commercial works for the City, it is difficult to change the zoning. Commissioner Johnson indicated if the property were in high demand for residential use a builder would have purchased the lot, asked to have it down zoned to residential, and built an apartment building or duplex. But, that has not happened which indicates to him there really isn’t a demand for residential use for the property. Commissioner Thomas indicated at this point a rezoning would be at the request of the property owner, he hasn’t requested a rezoning, and the City is not inclined to make him rezone it. It is zoned commercial and he is within his rights to develop it commercially. Commissioner Miller asked if the Commission had decided what the driveway separation would be. Planner Ericson indicated the Commission had determined it wasn’t necessary for the resolution as long as the parking lot and the building were going to switch places. Chairperson Peterson indicated the driveway separation could be dropped from the resolution. Commissioner Thomas indicated any further changes could be worked in as process moves along. Planner Ericson summarized what the Commission had agreed upon to be 25 feet from Greenfield Avenue, 15 feet from the side fronting the property on Greenfield Avenue, five feet from Tom Thumb, 10 feet from the front on County Road I with a building setback of 10 feet from the side and the rear which maintains the 30 foot required front setback, the variance for the one space for 200 square feet parking, and the variance for the 61 foot parking lot instead of the 63 foot as per City Code. Chairperson Peterson asked if he had included the five-foot from the Tom Thumb side. Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 12 Planner Ericson clarified it is for the parking lot being on the Tom Thumb side. He also explained a variance is not required because the setback is five feet from Tom Thumb and that part does not need to be in the resolution. Commissioner Miller asked Exhibit A to be changed to reflect the changes discussed tonight when the resolution is revised. Chairperson Peterson said Exhibit A could be the same as last week’s but the parking lot portion is changed to reflect decisions of the Commission at this meeting. Planner Ericson said there is no notation of fences or trees as that will be determined at a later date during the development review stage of this proposal. Chairperson Peterson said contingencies must be recorded with the county and development review must take place within three months in order to be valid. He said they could add a sentence that says screening and fencing would have to be resolved at that time as well, but it is not totally necessary. Commissioners Thomas and Miller said they did not believe it to be necessary as there is a sentence saying failure to apply for and receive approval will render the variance null and void. Chairperson Peterson asked if there was further discussion on the resolution or the changes. Commissioner Miller asked if they need to edit the sentence which states the public hearing was held on Wednesday, September 6, 2000 to add the discussion was continued to September 13, 2000. Planner Ericson said he does not know if this is legally a public hearing but they could certainly indicate the matter was discussed at the September 13, 2000 meeting. Chairperson Peterson said he doesn’t think the public hearing was continued from September 6, 2000 to September 13, 2000. He said he would like to add a sentence saying the issue was discussed at the meeting on September 13, 2000. Planner Ericson said he will change the resolution to read “a public hearing was held regarding this variance request on Wednesday, September 6, 2000 and the discussion was continued to September 13, 2000.” MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Heglund. To approve Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parking Lot Setback Variance for Tony Mezzenga, 7664 Greenfield Avenue with the changes as requested by the Commission. Ayes – 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Chairperson Peterson indicated without the development review nothing can legally be done on the property and the next step at this point would be to work up the plans as to where to put the Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 13 screening and what type of screening. He asked Planner Ericson to give information on the development review process to the applicant. Planner Ericson said he would work with the applicant to make sure he was aware of all of the requirements involved with the development review. Chairperson Peterson said it would be in everyone’s best interest if the neighbors were actively involved in the plan. Planner Ericson said Staff will notify residents when this comes back before the Commission for discussion. 11. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Staff brought the Planning Commission up to date on the action of the Council as it relates to the Commission. The City Council did approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 663 which is the Ordinance governing tattooing and piercing establishments in the City with a change not to allow the tattooing of minors at all. He indicated the change was made because the City did not want the operator to have to make the judgment as to who was the parent and if they were following the Ordinance. The Council wanted the change so for people under 18 years of age, there would be no tattooing and no piercing in Mounds View. Chairperson Peterson asked if the prohibition of under 18 applied to ear piercing. Planner Ericson indicated ear piercing is allowed but no other piercings. Planner Ericson said the City Council also approved the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 668 an ordinance vacating the sign easement. He indicated the easement area is no longer used or needed and that is why it was vacated. He said if and when the Walgreens transaction goes through the City will own all of that frontage on Highway 10 so if the City should need an additional sign location there would be plenty of room. Planner Ericson said Staff would like to bring to the attention of the residents that there is a vacancy on the Planning Commission and the Mayor has stated he will be accepting applications for the seat up until 12:00 Noon on Monday, September 25, 2000. He indicated they have received some applications and the term ends December 31, 2000. He said the application is on the website or a City Staff person would be willing to fax or mail the application if anybody is interested. 12. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports Chairperson Peterson noted Saturday, September 23, 2000 is Fall Clean Up Day. There were no other reports of the Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 14 13. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.