The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-07-2008 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 7, 2008 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. March 19, 2008 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2008-002 Consideration of a Variance to allow for additional wall signage at Totino’s at Mounds View Square Applicant: Totino’s Italian Kitchen Address: 2535 County Highway 10 6. Other Planning Activity A. None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 21, 2008 B. June 4, 2008 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. April 2, 2008 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 7, 2008 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. March 19, 2008 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2008-002 Consideration of a Variance to allow for additional wall signage at Totino’s at Mounds View Square Applicant: Totino’s Italian Kitchen Address: 2535 County Highway 10 6. Other Planning Activity A. None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 21, 2008 B. June 4, 2008 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. April 2, 2008 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 7, 2008 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow an Increased Amount of Wall Signage for Totino’s Restaurant at 2535 County Highway 10; Planning Case VR2008-002 Introduction: Totino’s Restaurant, represented by Steve Elwell, has requested a variance to allow for an increased amount of wall signage on their building located at Mounds View Square, 2535 County Highway 10. Totino’s recently moved in to the free standing building at Mounds View Square (previously The Mattress Factory), and are installing a large sign above the main entrance door. They would like to have another smaller sign on the south wall which directly faces County Highway 10. The end units or free standing retail buildings typically have more than one exterior frontage wall, which is the case with Totino’s location. Each business/tenant is allowed up to 100 square feet of wall signage. Discussion: The Sign Code calls for building mounted signage not to exceed 100 square feet per building occupant. In most cases, 100 square feet is more than adequate, although issues have arisen regarding end spaces at the retail malls and for stand-alone buildings with multiple frontages. All four sides of Totino’s location at Mounds View Square are easily visible since the building is right at the corner of County Highway 10 and Long Lake Road. Our City Code makes no exceptions for multiple building elevations, thus limiting each tenant to 100 square feet. Totino’s would like to install two wall signs for their business. The one above the main entrance will be 89 square feet, and the proposed south wall sign would be 40 square feet. The signage would appear as shown in the photo included in this report. Paster Enterprises, the owners of Mounds View Square, are supportive of Totino’s request. Similar Requests: Budget Liquor, Mario’s Video, and just recently, Aldi, were granted variances for additional signage at Mounds View Square. (All leased space at either end of the center.) The Abbey Carpet building, Carmike Wynnsong Cinema and C.G. Hill & Sons also received approval for signage in excess of 100 square feet. The Mermaid, through its PUD, was allowed signage in excess of the City’s requirements. Totino’s Sign Variance Report May 7, 2008 Page 2 Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) 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. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. A variance for additional signage is unique among the spectrum of possible variances in that the Sign Code is not a part of the Zoning Code; rather it is a chapter within the building code. The building code however indicates that any requested deviations be handled as would a deviation from the Zoning Code. This business is located in the Mounds View Square shopping center which is zoned B- 4, Regional Business. Exterior building mounted signage is limited to 100 square feet per building occupant in industrial and other commercial districts, regardless of the building mass—its height and length. Some sign codes from other municipalities allow for greater sign area for multiple building fronts while others allow more based on wall area. Mounds View’s code simply limits each building occupant to 100 square feet. The somewhat exceptional or extraordinary circumstances involving this property, other than that this business is in a free-standing building as part of a shopping center, is the direction that the building is sitting on the property. The building was placed on the lot so that the front door is facing “in” toward the rest of the shopping center, rather than out toward the highway. And with the angle of County Highway 10, this allows only the traffic going south on County Highway 10 to be able to see the sign above the front door. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not necessarily deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, however denying the request would put the occupants in an unfavorable position based upon the City’s past practice of approving reasonable signage variances, especially for business with multiple building frontages. 3. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. Totino’s Sign Variance Report May 7, 2008 Page 3 4. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and viability of their business. Neither would such approval confer a special treatment as similar reasonable variances have been granted in the past. 5. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Allowing for an additional 40 square foot sign would be the minimum the applicant feels is necessary to provide suitable visibility. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting a variance to allow an additional 29 square feet over the allowed amount of building mounted signage for a business with multiple visible elevations would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the building code. There have been no objections raised up to this point from any of the adjoining property owners. Given the building’s size, the additional 40 square foot sign on the south wall would not appear excessive. 7. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The requested variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Deadline for Action: This application was accepted on April 16, 2008 and in accordance with MN Statutes §15.99, a decision shall be made within 60 days of application acceptance. The deadline for action on this request is June 15, 2008. Summary: Notices were sent to all property owners within 350 feet of 2535 County Highway 10. Staff has not received any comments to date. All of the criteria, as indicated above, appear to be satisfied which would allow for the granting of the variance. Totino’s Sign Variance Report May 7, 2008 Page 4 Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the business owner and affected property owners, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 884-08 is attached for the Commission’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should move to direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. _______________________ Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Resolution 884-08 Zoning Map Mounds View Square TOTINO’S Aerial View N Mounds View Square TOTINO’S 2 sides of building with signage Photographic Documentation Proposed 40 square foot sign on south wall facing County Highway 10 Allowed 89 square foot sign that will be above main entrance MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 884-08 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR 129 TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF EXTERIOR WALL SIGNAGE FOR TOTINO’S AT MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE, 2535 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. VR2008-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Totino’s Italian Kitchen, represented by Steve Elwell, has applied for a variance from the maximum wall-mounted signage allotment for their restaurant space located at Mounds View Square, 2535 County Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, Section 1008.09 of the Sign Code indicates that the maximum wall- mounted signage for a commercial building is 100 square feet per business occupant; and, WHEREAS, Totino’s is requesting an additional 29 square feet of signage above the allowed amount; and, WHEREAS, Section 1008.16 of the Sign Code indicates that variance requests be treated as any other variance request as articulated in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The free-standing restaurant space at 2535 County Highway 10 is in need of additional exterior wall-mounted signage on the south building wall in order to have signage directly facing County Highway 10. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in that the City has approved similar variances in the past for reasonable sign variance requests. 3. The special conditions or circumstances necessitating the variance request do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and viability of their business. Neither would such approval confer a special treatment as similar reasonable variances have been granted in the past. Resolution 884-08 Page 2 5. Allowing for an additional 40 square foot sign on the south wall of the building would be the minimum variance necessary to provide suitable visibility and alleviate the hardship. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Municipal Code or to other property in the commercial zoning districts. 7. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby approve the variance requested for a total of 129 square feet of wall signage on the west and south sides of Totino’s restaurant space located at 2535 County Highway 10. Adopted this 7th day of May 2008. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 2, 2008 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. April 2, 2008. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners, Cramblit, Gunn, Lang, Miller, and Walsh-Kaczmarek Absent and Excused: Commissioner Meehlhause Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planning Associate Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page VR2008-001 Consideration of a Variance request for additional signage for Aldi, Inc. at Mounds View Square 2 IU2008-001 Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a temporary tent at Moe’s Restaurant 3 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes A. February 20, 2008 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Gunn to approve the minutes of the February 20, 2008 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2008-001 Consideration of a Variance request for additional signage for Aldi, Inc. at Mounds View Square Planning Associate Heller reported that Aldi, Inc. is requesting a variance to allow for an increased amount of wall signage on their building located at Mounds View Square, 2537 County Highway 10. She explained the Aldi grocery store recently moved in to one of the end spaces and installed signage above the entrance door that says simply “Aldi;” they would now like to add another small sign under the original sign that says “Food Market” in order to specify what kind of store it is. She stated that Aldi’s current signs total 93.75 square feet and the two additional proposed signs, each measuring 18” tall and 6’3” wide, would add an additional 18.75 square feet of wall signage, which puts them 12.5 square feet over the amount allowed by the Sign Code. She noted that Paster Enterprises, the owners of Mounds View Square, are supportive of Aldi’s request, and there have been other sign variances granted in the past, including C.G. Hill & Sons. Planning Associate Heller stated in order for a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property, and the Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the seven criteria are met. She stated that staff has determined that all of the criteria appear to be satisfied which would allow for the granting of the variance. Planning Associate Heller stated that Aldi has two frontages with signage on both sides and the signage is important to their business. She stated that each wall is fairly large and it appears the sign will not overpower or look out of place. She added that special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant and granting this variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege. She stated that notices were sent to all property owners within 350 feet of 2537 County Highway 10 and staff received no comments to date. Chair Stevenson stated there is a precedent at this location where the City granted a variance to Mario’s for signage on both sides of the building. Commissioner Miller requested clarification with respect to the third “Whereas” in the resolution and asked whether Aldi is requesting an additional 12.5 square feet of signage on each side. Planning Associate Heller replied that Aldi is requesting an additional 12.5 square feet in total and not on each side. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson requested that the resolution be amended to state that Aldi is requesting a variance of “12.5” square feet over the 100 square foot amount allowed in the Sign Code. Planning Associate Heller stated she would clarify this provision in the resolution by stating that the variance is for an amount equal to 12.5 square feet over the 100 square feet allowed in the Code, for a total of 112.5 square feet of signage. Commissioner Miller expressed her support of the variance and stated if a person has not heard of Aldi, they would not know what it is. Chair Stevenson stated that he has seen several Aldi stores and they all appear to be using the “Food Market” signage. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. There being no public input, Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek to approve Resolution 882-08, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for 12.5 Square Feet of Additional Exterior Building Signage at Mounds View Square, 2537 County Highway 10; Planning Case No. VR2008-001. Commissioner Miller asked about the amendment to the resolution requested earlier by Chair Stevenson. Planning Associate Heller stated she will clarify the entire resolution to state that the requested variance is for 12.5 square feet over the allowed amount of 100 square feet per business occupant, and that the request is for 18.75 square feet of total additional signage. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. IU2008-001 Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Tent at Moe’s Restaurant Planning Associate Heller reported that in late 2006, soon after Moe’s opened its new restaurant at 2400 County Highway 10, they built a deck in order to provide outdoor seating. She stated in the spring of 2007, Moe’s put a temporary tent on the deck in order to be able to have additional seating for the early spring holidays like St. Patrick’s Day, Easter and Mother’s Day, and with the tent they are able to use the deck longer than only for the short Minnesota summer season. She explained that temporary tents in commercial districts are allowed for up to seven days, and longer than one week requires an interim use permit. She stated an interim use permit allows a business to have a tent for up to 180 days per calendar year and Moe’s may want to split the 180 days between the spring and fall each year. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller stated the process for reviewing an interim use permit for a temporary tent is the same as if it were a conditional use permit, i.e., a public hearing will be scheduled for the City Council meeting and notices sent to property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel. Planning Associate Heller outlined each of the specific requirements of the approval process, including compliance with all provisions of the Fire Code and annual fire and tent permits issued by the Fire Marshal. She added the applicant will have to apply for these permits each time the tent is erected. Planning Associate Heller stated the other requirements of the approval process include adequate parking (since this temporary tent will always be on the deck, it will not be removing additional parking spaces); the tent will be subject to the same building setbacks as the principal building on the lot (the tent does not encroach into any required setback area); the tent shall be limited in size to 5,000 square feet or 10 percent of the principal building’s square footage (the tent is 1,100 square feet which is approximately 10 percent of the restaurant floor area); the tent shall be constructed of a durable reinforced material to withstand wind and snow loads (the tent is not used during the heavy snow months); the structure shall be anchored to the ground (the tent structure is adequately anchored to the deck and an inspection by the building official is done each time the tent is set up); the tent shall be maintained in good condition (Moe’s does not own the tent and rents it from a company that also does the setup and takedown); the interim use can be reviewed at any time by the City if problems arise which necessitate revision or termination of the interim use; and the interim use would become null and void if the property owner fails to comply with the provisions of the permit, if the structure is not used for more than a one year period, or if the property undergoes a change of ownership. Chair Stevenson asked if the resolution contains similar language as that contained in the resolution pertaining to the Mermaid tent. Planning Associate Heller replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Miller asked about a heat source for the tent. Planning Associate Heller stated that Moe’s intends to heat the tent and this is subject to inspection by the Fire Marshal. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked who would be responsible for making sure the applicant does not exceed 180 days. Planning Associate Heller stated that she and her staff will monitor and keep track of the 180 days. Commissioner Gunn requested the second “therefore” clause in the resolution specify that the interim use permit is valid for a tent on the deck only. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked if the applicant would have occasion to request an additional tent. Planning Associate Heller replied that if they want to put up an additional tent, they would have to come in and make application; this interim use permit pertains only to the tent on the deck. Commissioner Gunn stated the second sentence in the second “therefore” clause should be corrected to delete the word “is” before the word “IUP.” Planning Associate Heller stated that the Planning Commission is also required to review and address any potential adverse effects, including relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. She stated the tent would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which guides this parcel as community commercial, and added that the movie theater has been willing to allow them to share parking when an additional tent is used in the parking lot for one day during the summer. She indicated there should be no depreciation to the subject property or surrounding properties as a result of the tent’s existence and the tent will be completely removed when not in use. She noted the building is located in a fairly commercial area and staff has received no complaints in the past; finally, the applicant has demonstrated a need for such a use. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked if the applicant might want to add a banner of some sort to the tent and whether this is something that would be permitted. Planning Associate Heller replied the applicant could add a temporary banner if they obtain a temporary sign permit, which allows for three signs per year for 21 days each. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked if the resolution should include a condition that the tent shall be of neutral appearance. Commissioner Lang stated if the City determines that the tent is unsightly, the City can review the interim use permit at any time. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/Commissioner Miller to approve Resolution 883-08, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Tent at Moe’s Restaurant Located at 2400 County Highway 10; Planning Case No. IU2008-001. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. April 16, 2008 B. May 7, 2008 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:31 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Barbara Hughes TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Date: April 24, 2008 Item Title/Subject: Results of Comp Plan Questions at Town Hall Meeting For the Town Hall meeting, I wanted to have an inter-active display that would get people to think and talk about the Comprehensive Plan and Mounds View’s future. With the help of the Comp Plan Task Force, we came up with six questions that were hung on the wall for attendees to anonymously respond to. It seemed to be successful and quite a few people participated. Attached are the results of this informal, and very unscientific, survey. QUESTION 1 Do you feel there is a need for more senior housing in Mounds View? TOTAL RESPONSES: 23 Strongly Agree: 8 Agree: 2 Somewhat Agree: 4 Somewhat Disagree: 7 Disagree: 0 Strongly Disagree: 2 Comments: - Independent senior housing would be ok, do not support assisted living or memory care type facilities QUESTION 2 Would you support adding new higher density housing? – Like condos, townhomes or apartments? TOTAL RESPONSES: 35 Strongly Agree: 0 Agree: 6 Somewhat Agree: 5 Somewhat Disagree: 4 Disagree: 2 Strongly Disagree: 18 Comments: - Provides opportunity for new residents to move in, love Mounds View and then buy property. QUESTION 3 What types of new development would you like to see on Cty Highway 10? May choose more than one answer. TOTAL RESPONSES: 85 Retail: 21 Restaurants: 25 Higher density housing: 2 Grocery store: 15 Office Building: 1 Medical Clinic: 17 Light Industrial or Mftg: 4 Comments: - Target please! - A big retail store where Saturn is…This will get more people interested in Mounds View - Strip mall at the Saturn site? Petco, Dunn Bros, Archivers, flower shop, Borders/Barnes & Noble - We all need to think about providing for daily necessities within walking/biking distance of our homes. As people currently dependent on petroleum, we soon will not be able to afford to travel more than a few miles to find food, clothing, medicines, etc. - White Castle QUESTION 4 Do you support City acquisition of property or public financial assistance to promote redevelopment on the County Highway 10 corridor? TOTAL RESPONSES: 53 Strongly Agree: 3 Agree: 43 Somewhat Agree: 2 Somewhat Disagree: 0 Disagree: 3 Strongly Disagree: 2 QUESTION 5 In regards to the park system in Mounds View - Would you like to see… TOTAL RESPONSES: 56 A Skate Park: 10 A 2nd Disc Golf Course: 2 More City Parks: 5 More Trails: 17 A Community Pool: 15 Nothing more, just maintain what we have: 7 Comments: - We need to have a place for teens that is in biking distance. A skate park or swimming pool would do that. - We need more recreation options close to our homes to stay busy and healthy. It will soon become out of reach to travel long distances by car to do these things. QUESTION 6 As a resident, do you feel well informed about what is going on in Mounds View? TOTAL RESPONSES: 38 Strongly Agree: 12 Agree: 16 Somewhat Agree: 4 Somewhat Disagree: 5 Disagree: 0 Strongly Disagree: 1