Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 1, 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., November 1, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Miller, Stevenson, Kaden, and Cerny. Members Excused: Commissioner Thomas. Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson and Community Development Director Jopke. Index to Minutes Page Review Modifications to TIF Districts, Consideration of Resolution 639-00 2 Review Proposed Ordinance 675, an Ordinance Rezoning the Mermaid Parcels from B-3 to PUD, and Consideration of Resolution 640-00 Recommending Approval of Ordinance 675 3 Review Second 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 5 Staff Reports / Items of Information 7 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 7 3. Oath of Office, Travis Cerny Community Development Director Jopke administered the Oath of Office to Travis Cerny. Mounds View Planning Commission November 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Citizen’s Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 5. Approval of Minutes A. October 4, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve the October 4, 2000 meeting minutes as presented. Ayes – 8 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 6. Review Modifications to TIF Districts, Consideration of Resolution 639-00 Community Development Director Jopke explained to the Commission the need for some housekeeping changes in the way the City keeps tax increment finance (TIF) records and in its TIF reporting. The City has been under review by the State Auditor’s Office and in response the City has hired Ehlers and Associates to recommend changes to bring the record keeping and reporting into compliance with state requirements. Staff recommended approval of Resolution 639-00, a Resolution concerning the City of Mounds View and the Mounds View EDA Proposed Modifications to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts Numbers 1, 2, and 3, within the Mounds View Economic Development Project Area. Chairperson Peterson restated the fact that the changes were merely housekeeping issues and were not changes to the TIF Districts. Community Development Director Jopke confirmed the changes were merely housekeeping issues and no changes were being proposed to the TIF Districts. Chairperson Peterson pointed out a typographical error in the language on Page 1-3 and asked that it be corrected on all three pages (1-3). Commissioner Johnson inquired as to why there was one piece of property that was not included in the TIF District map on Page A-1. Community Development Director Jopke indicated it may be a problem with legal descriptions but said he was unsure of exactly why that piece of property was not included in the TIF District. Community Development Director Jopke indicated at some point, it might be appropriate for Council to amend the TIF District to include that piece of property. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to whether the maps included were created automatically using software or if they were done by hand. Mounds View Planning Commission November 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Community Development Director Jopke indicated the maps were created using software. He indicated Staff had checked the legal descriptions and they appear to be correct. Commissioner Miller noted there was a typographical error on Page 1-2 in Section 1 and asked that the reference to TIF districts on the second Page 1-2 refer to TIF District 2 consistently. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Berke. To approve Resolution No. 639-00, a Resolution Concerning the City of Mounds View and the Mounds View Economic Development Authority’s Proposed Modifications to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Numbers 1, 2, and 3 within the Mounds View Economic Development Project Area. Ayes – 8 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 7. Review Proposed Ordinance 675, an Ordinance Rezoning the Mermaid Parcels from B-3 to PUD, and Consideration of Resolution 640-00 Recommending Approval of Ordinance 675 Planner Ericson told the Commission the City Council had approved Resolution 5476, a Resolution approving the development stage plans for the Mermaid Planned Unit Development. The Resolution contained a clause authorizing Staff to draft an ordinance to effectuate the rezoning of the properties from B-3, Highway Business, to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission is required to review and offer a recommendation regarding all rezonings in the City. Approval of the rezoning of the Mermaid Parcels will allow the Mermaid project to move forward. Commissioner Stevenson inquired as to whether the Perkins parcel was included in the rezoning. Planner Ericson indicated the Perkins site was not included in the rezoning. He also noted the business park portion of the property was not included in the rezoning as it is already zoned PUD. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to whether the reference to Anoka County on the map had been corrected. Planner Ericson indicated the map would be corrected to reflect that the property is in Ramsey County. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Johnson. To approve Resolution 640-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Ordinance 675, an Ordinance rezoning properties associated with the Mermaid Planned Unit Development. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission November 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 8. Review Second Draft of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Home Occupations. Planner Ericson told the Commission this was the second draft of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance relating to businesses operated from within a home or garage, defined in City Code as a home occupation. The second draft reflects changes requested by the Commission at the meeting on October 18, 2000. The first change references the amount of parking a home business is allowed by changing the requirement from “no more than two vehicles for on or off street parking” to “no more than two vehicles for on street parking.” The second change reflects where signage for the business is permitted on the homeowner’s property. The proposed change to the Ordinance would allow a sign for the business to be placed within five feet of a street frontage, as long as no part of the sign extended into the right-of-way or adjoining property. The third change involves “nuisances.” It includes the addition of item “h,” which explicitly states that automotive sales, service or repair as a home business is expressly prohibited. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to whether Staff had consulted with the City Attorney prior to drafting item “h.” He then indicated he was uncomfortable with prohibiting automotive service or repair as there are many aftermarket things you can add to vehicles that do not require loud tools or tearing cars apart and causing a nuisance for the neighborhood. Planner Ericson indicated he could check with the City Attorney to ascertain what—if any— legal issues this would create. Commissioner Johnson indicated in the past in the City there were many mechanics working on vehicles but said in this day and age you need a very expensive piece of equipment to analyze what is wrong with a vehicle before it can be fixed. Therefore, there are only a few mechanics left in the City and he does not believe there is a big problem. Commissioner Stevenson questioned whether items “g” and “h” could refer to all home businesses within the City. Planner Ericson indicated the City has had several problems with automotive businesses within the City but not other businesses. Commissioner Kaden indicated he agreed with Commissioner Johnson that the statement excluding automotive repair or service was too broad and would eliminate those businesses adding aftermarket items to vehicles that do not cause a nuisance to the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson indicated he is involved with an aftermarket organization and had heard from them that a statement disallowing service and repairs to automobiles could be construed as discriminatory as this type of business does not necessarily cause a nuisance to the neighborhood. He also indicated the organization believes a home business could fight the ordinance in Court and would more than likely win. He indicated a desire to have the City Attorney review the legalities of including such a statement. Mounds View Planning Commission November 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Planner Ericson indicated item “h” could be stricken from the ordinance if the Commission would prefer. It was the consent of the Commission to strike item “h” from the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Miller indicated there was a typographical error in the first “Whereas” clause and asked that the word “to” be added. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Hegland. To approve Resolution 641-00, a Resolution indicating the Commission’s Support of Ordinance 672 and its Recommendation of Adoption by the City Council with the Deletion of item “h.” Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9. Discuss Possible Changes to the City’s Sign Code, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Planner Ericson presented a copy of the sign ordinance from the City of Burnsville for comparison to Mounds View’s Sign Ordinance. He indicated Staff will continue to clean up the format of the City’s Code and present the sign code one piece at a time to the Commission as this is a large project encompassing many different aspects of signage. Commissioner Kaden indicated it would be helpful to have either pictures or drawings of the specific types of signs referenced in the Sign Code so the Commission would know what the signs looked like for discussion purposes. Planner Ericson indicated Staff would be taking pictures of signage within the City to present to the Commission. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to what the criteria would be for each type of business to determine signage allowed. Planner Ericson indicated signage would be allowed based on the zoning district the businesses were in. Commissioner Stevenson indicated the Burnsville Sign Ordinance seemed clear and concise and noted it was a good model to start with. Planner Ericson indicated Staff would attempt to redraft the City’s Sign Code to model after the Burnsville Code to make it easier to read before any changes were made. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to whether any of the work of previous Commissions on the sign ordinance would be able to be used. Planner Ericson indicated he had pulled the old file on the sign ordinance and will use whatever information that is not outdated. Mounds View Planning Commission November 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Hegland noted it may be helpful to contact a sign company for information on standard signage. Planner Ericson indicated he could contact local sign companies to get feedback on any revisions. Community Development Director Jopke indicated he was aware of a national sign industry group that would have a model sign ordinance the City could use as a model. Planner Ericson indicated he would research the group and attempt to locate the model sign ordinance. Commissioner Kaden inquired as to the status of the billboard situation at the golf course. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the permit for the billboards had been turned down based on the fact that the property is not zoned industrial or commercial. There is an appeal by the sign company that the City has joined in. There is an administrative hearing November 16, 2000 that may be delayed into December. One of the big points the City will make is the State did allow billboards on a golf course in Eagan with a similar zoning designation. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to whether Community Development Director Jopke had attended the Metropolitan Council meeting to obtain the approval of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the meeting had been rescheduled for next week and he would be attending. 10. Staff Reports/Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke indicated Council had set the public hearing for the Mermaid Preliminary Plat. B. Items of Discussion Community Development Director Jopke told the Commission he had submitted his resignation and taken a position with the City of West St. Paul. 11. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports Commissioner Stevenson invited Commissioner Cerny to give some background on himself. Mounds View Planning Commission November 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Commissioner Cerny indicated he has lived in Mounds View since 1997 and previously lived in Ham Lake. He also said he is a rental property owner in the City. The Commission welcomed Commissioner Cerny. There were no other reports of the Commission. 12. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, James Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.