Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 18, 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., October 18, 2000. 2. Introduction of New Planning Commissioner, Travis Cerny Postponed to later in the meeting. 3. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Cerny (arrived late), Hegland, Johnson, Miller, Thomas, and Stevenson. Members Excused: Commissioner Kaden. Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson and Community Development Director Jopke. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. PD00-002, Discussion and Consideration of 2 Resolution No. 638-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Mermaid Addition Preliminary Plat Applicant: Dan Hall Review First Draft of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Home Occupations 4 Discuss Possible Changes to the City’s Sign Code, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code 7 Staff Reports / Items of Information 8 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 9 4. Citizen’s Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 5. Approval of Minutes A. September 6, 2000 B. September 13, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Berke. To approve the September 6, 2000 and the September 13, 2000 meeting minutes as presented. Ayes – 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 6. Planning Case No. PD00-002 Property Involved: 2200 Highway 10 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 638-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Mermaid Addition Preliminary Plat Applicant: Dan Hall Planner Ericson explained that, Dan Hall, the applicant, is requesting City approval of the preliminary plat for the Mermaid Addition, a major subdivision associated with the recently approved Mermaid PUD. The plat groups together those parcels being utilized for Mermaid expansion, which include the former Rent-All property, the Music Off 10 property, the south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Park South plat as well as the existing Mermaid parcels. The total area involved in the plat is 9.36 acres. This plat combines all of the properties involved in the Mermaid PUD into one lot, Lot 1, Block 1, MERMAID ADDITION, and one outlot, Outlot A, MERMAID ADDITION. The outlot would serve as the access drive to the business park property to replace the existing access drive. While it is not anticipated that the business park would own the proposed outlot, it is expected that a permanent easement would be recorded in its favor. The plat dedicates additional right-of-way for County Road H south of the Rent All Parcel and south of the Music Off 10 parcel. The plat dedicates a ten-foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter of the Mermaid property and also dedicates a 35-foot wide easement area for utilities along the southwestern shared property line between the Mermaid and business park property. Chapter 1204 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that all major subdivisions and plats pay a park dedication fee. For developments encompassing more than one acre of land, the fee amounts to ten percent of the associated land value. The assessed value for the Mermaid plat is $923,057. This amount is based on the market value for assessed year 2000 for property taxes payable in 2001. Based on the assessed value of the property, the park dedication fee required is $92,306. Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Staff recommends approval of Resolution 638-00, a resolution recommending approval of the Mermaid Addition preliminary plat, subject to the following stipulations: The Preliminary plat shall be revised by indicating the current property owners and appropriate legal descriptions for the involved parties. The developer shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City of Mounds View the forty-foot triangle at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H as shown on the preliminary plat for a City gateway sign. The developer shall submit the applicable park dedication fee of $92,306 prior to the City signing the final plat. Planner Ericson noted if Resolution 638-00 is approved by the Planning Commission it would then be presented to Council for approval. The applicant was not present. Commissioner Stevenson inquired as to whether the applicant was aware a park dedication fee would be required. Planner Ericson indicated the applicant was made aware of the requirement for a park dedication fee earlier in the process and was quoted a somewhat lower figure. Planner Ericson indicated the applicant may request some consideration on the fee. Commissioner Miller inquired as to whether the original quote for the park dedication fee included the Perkins property. Planner Ericson indicated it did but said the original quote for the park dedication fee was based on 1999 values while the current figure is based on Year 2000 values. In addition, the original quote did not include the portion of the business park property that is included in the plat. Altogether this amounted to a 12 percent increase. Commissioner Miller noted the reference to Highway 10 in the legal description was inconsistent. In some instances U.S. Highway 10 was used and in other instances Trunk Highway No. 10 was used. Planner Ericson indicated this is the legal description as it stands and once the plat is approved all references to Highway 10 are eliminated and there is no longer a problem with consistency. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to the difference in the first quote for the park dedication fee and the present quote for the park dedication fee. Planner Ericson indicated the first quote for the park dedication fee was approximately $82,000. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to the logic behind the additional the right-of-way dedication on the north side of County Road H in front of the Music Off 10 Parcel. Planner Ericson indicated the City did not require that and said the Mermaid did that on their own. Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Community Development Director Jopke indicated it may have been a County requirement. Chairperson Peterson referred to the plat and noted there was a reference to Anoka County. He then inquired if that was an error. Planner Ericson indicated he was unsure and would check into it. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve Resolution No. 638-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Mermaid Addition Preliminary Plat. Ayes – 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 7. Review First Draft of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Home Occupations. Planner Ericson explained Ordinance 672 was drafted in response to growing issues relating to businesses operated from within a home or garage, defined within City Code as a home occupation. Planner Ericson noted there are four proposed changes to the Ordinance at this point. Two of these changes are housekeeping issues and the other two relate to signage and expressly prohibiting automotive sales, service or repair as a home business. Commissioner Miller inquired as to whether the City needed to set a limit for motor vehicles allowed at the residence at a given time. Planner Ericson indicated he felt it was appropriate for the City to limit the number of vehicles a business may have at the residence at any one time in order to prevent the business from causing a nuisance for the neighborhood. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to how the City would enforce a two car rule. Planner Ericson indicated the City has had two instances recently where home businesses were violating the two car rule and the City has been able to enforce the rule. Commissioner Thomas indicated she did not believe the City should be attempting to regulate the number of cars at a home business. Planner Ericson noted the ordinance is already in effect and limiting the number of cars is not a change---it is currently part of the Code. Community Development Director Jopke indicated that the limit on the number of motor vehicles allowed serves to limit home businesses to those types that do not have a high volume of vehicle traffic. Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Commissioner Hegland inquired as to whether this vehicle restriction applied only to businesses or if there was a provision within the Code for social gatherings as well. Planner Ericson indicated the City does not limit the number of vehicles a resident can have at a social gathering. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to whether this vehicle restriction would apply to someone who has frequent garage sales. Planner Ericson indicated it would, though he is not aware of any situation where this has been a problem in the City. Commissioner Johnson noted there was an incident in the past where the City ended up videotaping a residence all day in order to show a violation of the vehicle limit. He indicated even with video evidence the case was thrown out of court. Planner Ericson indicated the courts are more aware of the need to regulate home businesses now than they have been in the past. He also noted there have been two cases in recent history where the City was able to enforce its Code. Commissioner Thomas asked for examples of the situations Planner Ericson referred to. Planner Ericson noted there was a landscaping business operating from home that was violating the vehicle restriction. He also noted there was a business repairing vehicles also in violation of the vehicle restriction. In both instances the City was able to enforce the vehicle restriction with the help of the courts. Commissioner Johnson indicated he would like to see a restriction for “on street” parking but not for parking off street. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to if a Mary Kay demonstration would violate City Code. Planner Ericson said, technically it would, but indicated a infrequent group of cars at a residence, while being a technical violation of City Code, should not be a problem. Commissioner Thomas indicated she would like to eliminate the language restricting the number of motor vehicles allowed. Commissioner Berke indicated he was in favor of restricting the number of vehicles allowed because he did not feel the neighbors should have to put up with the nuisance created when someone runs a business from home and has a high volume of traffic. Commissioner Thomas indicated she would prefer to put some language in the Code only limiting the number of vehicles if there are a certain number of vehicles for more than two or three days in a row. Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Berke indicated he would prefer to limit the number of vehicles not the number of days in a row. A consensus was reached that the Commission would like to see the stipulation for “off street” parking removed from the Ordinance. Commissioner Hegland inquired if there was regulation for lighting the signs for home businesses. Planner Ericson indicated there was not, as property owners are allowed to use decorative lighting and to aim lights at the house or a sign. Commissioner Miller inquired as to what provisions would be made for existing signs. Planner Ericson indicated it would be difficult to determine what signs were in place before the ordinance was changed. He also said Staff is familiar with the City and that most of the signs in the City would comply with the four square feet provision in the Ordinance. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to whether two-sided signs were in violation of the four square footage of sign requirement. Planner Ericson indicated two-sided signs were allowed under the Code. Planner Ericson asked the Commission if there should be allowances for signs if the sign would not be visible from the street if attached to the structure. Commissioner Thomas indicated she would like to make a provision for signs not visible from the street. Commissioner Johnson indicated he too would like to make a provision for signs not visible from the street. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would be fine with a provision for signs not visible from the street provided the sign was far enough from the property line so as not to create a nuisance for the neighbors. Commissioner Johnson indicated he would prefer the signs be placed within five feet of the front property line. Commissioner Stevenson indicated he would prefer the signs be placed within five feet of the property line that abuts the street right-of-way. Thereby allowing people with road frontage on two sides of their property to choose where they wish to place the sign. A consensus was reached to allow signage within five feet of the property line that abuts a street right-of-way. Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Planner Ericson noted he would make the requested changes and bring the Ordinance back before the Planning Commission for further discussion. 2. Introduction of New Planning Commissioner, Travis Cerny (continued) Planner Ericson introduced Travis Cerny to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission welcomed Travis Cerny. 8. Discuss Possible Changes to the City’s Sign Code, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Planner Ericson explained the City’s Sign Code needs to be updated and clarified and said this agenda item is to begin discussions on proposed changes to the Code. Commissioner Miller indicated traveling signs and flashing signs need to be addressed. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to whether the Sign Code covered search lights. Planner Ericson indicated there is a provision in City Code for search lights but it is not addressed under the Sign Code. Planner Ericson indicated multiple family housing complex signage needs to be addressed. He said the City has some signs that really look nice and others that are possibly too large. Planner Ericson also indicated that according to the City Code, churches in the City are not allowed to have signs because of the zoning district they are in. In a related situation, there was a variance granted for the Kinder Care to allow for a sign. Because of the zoning district the Kinder Care is in they would not have been allowed to have a sign. Planner Ericson requested guidance from the Planning Commission as to how to proceed on the Sign Code. A consensus was reached by the Planning Commission to direct Staff to clean up the current Sign Code to make it more readable by using tables to describe signage allowed by zoning district; to check with other cities and provide examples of sign codes to compare with Mounds View’s Sign Code; to check with a sign rental company to verify the standard size for temporary signs; and to take pictures of examples of good and bad signs within the City and outside the City to use as a comparison. 9. Staff Reports/Items of Discussion A. Previous Council Actions Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Community Development Director Jopke noted that the City Council approved the Development Stage Plan for the Mermaid PUD and the final plat for Walgreen’s at the October 10, 2000, meeting. B. Items of Discussion Community Development Director Jopke noted there is a meeting of the Highway 10 Steering Committee scheduled for Thursday, October 19, 2000. Dan Soler from Ramsey County will be attending the meeting to update the Steering Committee on Ramsey County’s plans for Highway 10. The work plan will be discussed which includes the development of a conceptual design for the city’s plan for the roadway. There will be a breakfast meeting set up sometime in the near future with local businesses to discuss the future plans for the Highway 10 corridor. Community Development Director Jopke noted he had received an e-mail from the Metropolitan Council which indicated there should not be any opposition to Mounds View’s Comprehensive Plan. The Plan should be approved as a Consent Agenda item at the Metropolitan Council’s next meeting on November 1, 2000. Once the Plan is approved by the Metropolitan Council, a public hearing will be scheduled prior to the City adopting the Plan. Community Development Director Jopke indicated his desire to bring before the Planning Commission the redevelopment of the area on Highway 10 between Silver Lake Road and Groveland Road in the near future to discuss the mixed use planned unit development and what role the City should take in facilitating unified development in the area. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the terms for Commissioners Hegland, Berke and Peterson expire at the end of the year and asked the Commissioners to inform Staff as to whether or not they are interested in serving another term. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports There were no other reports of the Commission. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:39 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.