Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-01-1999 PC • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 1, 1999 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 1, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, Miller, and Stevenson. Members Absent: Commissioner Braathen, with prior notice. 111 Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Community Development Director Jopke stated Council Liaison Stigney would not be present for the meeting, however, he would be viewing the proceedings on tape. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 568-99, 8359 Red Oak Drive. Consideration of a variance request to allow for a 44-foot wide driveway. John Henning, Applicant. 2 Staff Reports/Items of Information 8 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report 24 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 4110 4. Approval of Minutes A. August 4, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve the May 19, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes— 8 Nays — 0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 568-99 Property Involved: 8359 Red Oak Drive Consideration of a variance request to allow for a 44-foot wide driveway. Applicant: John Henning The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: • The applicant, John Henning, property owner at 8359 Red Oak Drive, has requested that the Planning Commission approve a variance for a driveway nine feet wider than is allowed by Code. The maximum width for a driveway is 35 feet. The applicant wishes to add a nine-foot wide parking pad alongside the garage, which, to provide access for, causes the driveway to increase to a width of 44 feet. The driveway, however, narrows to 14 feet as it approaches the street. Ericson stated the subject property is located north of Ardan Avenue, between Ardan Avenue and County Road J. He stated the house was built this year, and the applicant is in the process of completing the exterior work and landscaping, and the driveway was the last project undertaken. He stated, at the time Mr. Henning submitted his application for the driveway, he was told that the Code ; • '1' - •• • '.- 9.. •, . • . . ••' , - . •• '_• • - - - . . -- - Ericson stated staff has reviewed the seven criteria presented for examination in granting a variance, in order to establish a hardship or extraordinary circumstance that would warrant the granting of such a variance. He provided a brief overview of the criteria, and stated that staff was not able to discern any clear and defined hardship in this case. Ericson stated the applicant has a three-car garage, which cannot be expanded any further due to setbacks and the width of the house, nor can it be expanded to the rear, therefore, it is as large as it can be on the subject lot. He stated, in this regard, staff understands the applicant's position, in that 4110 it would be nice to have a parking space along the side of the garage, so as not to block one of the three access doors to the garage. He stated, however, this would require creating a driveway that is larger than that allowed by the Code. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 • Ericson stated the applicant has after the fact, installed the driveway. He stated that when the permit was applied for,the grading for the driveway had already been completed, and the applicant was not aware of the Code provision. He stated a retaining wall was installed along the side of the property line, and the driveway was to be located one foot from the north property line. He stated the neighboring property owner, Mr. Norbert Moe, has indicated through correspondence that he does not object to the driveway location in that close proximity to his property. Ericson stated the issue to be determined is whether or not there is sufficient hardship for the applicant, to warrant granting a variance. He stated regardless of the determination, the matter has brought to light another issue regarding whether or not the Code is appropriate in this situation. He stated it is currently standard practice that homes have three-car garages, and the City has been very clear in its desire to have all vehicles parked upon improved surfaces. He stated, in this regard, this proposal would be a positive improvement, however, it does not meet the Code requirement. Ericson stated one of the recommendations staff has brought to the Planning Commission is to direct staff to draft a resolution of approval of the variance, and indicate some form of hardship in this case. He stated another option would be to direct staff to draft a resolution of denial, based on the fact that no hardship can be found. He stated another option would be to table the present action, and review the Code requirement of 35 feet, and consider a Code Amendment enactment to allow for wider . driveways. He stated the Planning Commission may wish, based upon their discussion, to act upon the applicant's request, and regardless of the decision in this particular case, further review the Code in this regard. John Henning, 8359 Red Oak Drive, the applicant, stated he questioned why he was in violation of the City Code. He explained his driveway is wider than 35 feet, however, he did not realize this would constitute a violation. He stated his garage was 36 feet wide, which is a standard width for a three-car garage, and is not an oversized garage. He stated he made the driveway nine feet wider on the side. He referred to the site plan of his property, and explained that he had narrowed the driveway to 14 feet at the street, and therefore it was comprised of less square footage than if he had constructed it 35 feet in width to the street. Mr. Henning stated the Code indicates the restriction of the blacktop area in the yard, to limit the number of vehicles parked upon it, and to prevent an impact to the neighborhood and environment, due to excessive blacktop surface. He stated he had less blacktop surface than that which is allowed by the Code. He stated this was an attractive improvement, which does not deteriorate the neighborhood in any manner. He stated he did not believe he was in violation of the Code, however, if the Planning Commission determined otherwise, he would request a variance be granted. Mr. Henning stated the reason he had constructed his driveway to a 14 foot width at the street, was in consideration of three large trees at the front of his property, which he did not desire to lose. He • stated, if not for these trees, a 35-foot width to the street would have been very satisfactory to him. He stated this was not possible unless the trees were removed. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 • Chairperson Peterson stated, in terms of legalities, there was a Code issue present. Mr. Henning stated he was a Code Official for 15 years in the City of Minneapolis. He stated there is the letter of the Code, and then there is the Code. He stated he did not meet the letter of the Code, however, he actually did meet the definition of the Code. He stated he had less square feet, and has impacted the environment less, by the manner in which he had constructed his driveway, than he would have had he constructed a 35 foot wide rectangular driveway. He stated his driveway was more attractive, it serves his purpose more satisfactorily, and he has left the trees in his yard. Commissioner Stevenson stated the applicant's design was very attractive. He stated he did not like these types of issues coming before the Planning Commission, after the fact. He stated the contractor, prior to performing the construction, has before him all of the City Code requirements. He stated the 35-foot width requirement was in place at the time the house was constructed, and the driveway was not "grandfathered" in. He stated he had a conflict in this regard, and noted all designs might not be so attractive. Mr. Henning stated if he had left the nine-foot pad as a gravel surface, it would have been acceptable in terms of the Code, however, if he placed a blacktop or a concrete surface upon it, he was in violation of the Code. He stated he believed the blacktop was an improvement. He stated, according • to the City Code, he would have been able to construct a 35-foot driveway to the street, and construct a 16-foot wide "Y" section at some point, or a separate driveway, and would not be in violation of the Code. He stated a gravel surface would not be in violation, however, the blacktop surface was, and he thought this did not make sense. Chairperson Peterson requested clarification regarding driveway width requirement at the street, as allowed by the Code. Ericson stated the Code provides that driveways be no wider than 22 feet at the street. He stated, however, the applicant was correct in that he could have brought the 35-foot driveway all the way to the property line, so long as it narrowed to 22 feet at the street right-of-way. He stated that the 35-foot driveway width requirement does take into consideration those areas with gravel surface, as well. He explained the City Code indicates a maximum 35-foot width, which requirement encompasses the driveway and parking areas, therefore, even if the present addition was gravel, the driveway would still be wider than allowed by the Code. Mr. Henning stated he agreed this might be the case, if they defined this addition as a driveway, and it was gravel, however, he could call it a storage area, a patio area, and it would be acceptable. He reiterated he did not feel he was in violation of the Code. He stated he had violated the letter of the Code, however, the he had not violated the actual definition of the Code. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the applicant was aware of the Code requirement prior to laying the blacktop on the pad. Mr. Henning stated he was. He explained that his reason for doing so was to maintain his placement upon the asphalt layer's list. He stated if had he not proceeded at that time, • he would not have been able to install the blacktop until the following spring, and desired to start his lawn this fall. He stated he took the risk that the Planning Commission would not approve the project, and could hardly comprehend that it would not be approved. He stated if it was not Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 approved, he would rectify the situation, and would make the area into something else. He stated he would work with the Planning Commission to take care of the matter. He stated he agreed that he should not have commenced the project prior to its approval, however, he was pressed for time, and desired to complete the project. Commissioner Miller inquired, in light of the pad's location at the side of the garage, would it still be defined as a driveway. Ericson stated it would not be, but rather be called a parking area. He referred to the site plan, and explained if the driveway were to be measured in front of the garage, and there were no asphalt, gravel, or rock material from the garage over, and the only paved area to the side of the garage and back, it would be acceptable. He noted, however, the pad would then be accessed over grass at some point, and there was no way around not including that area as part of the width of the driveway. He stated he would not personally call that area a driveway. He stated it was more of a parking area, however, the Code does state "parking area and driveway can not exceed 35 feet." Commissioner Berke stated he did not believe the applicant should have proceeded with the project, when he was aware that it was not acceptable, however, the Commission is charged with the responsibility to see that the City grows and develops. He stated the applicant's house was very nice. • He stated there would be similar issues in regard to three-car garages in the future, and possibly, rather than utilizing a variance procedure to determine similar issues, they could amend the Code to encompass the square footage of two and three-car garages. Chairperson Peterson stated the examination of Code Amendments require the comparison of the requirements of neighboring communities. He stated he believed the two issues that generated the larger number of variances or requests, have been the issues of parking and garages. He stated they should continue to review the Code in regard to these matters, and as standards change, the requirements on occasion are increased to meet the standards. He inquired regarding the code requirements of surrounding communities. Ericson stated, in his understanding the city of Roseville does not have any width requirements, for of requirements, in this regard, and he was not certain at what level the City of Mounds View fits into that spectrum. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the city of Roseville based their driveway requirements upon the size of the lot. Community Development Director Jopke stated Roseville's code requirements were based on the width of the driveway at the right-of-way. He stated, beyond the right-of-way, and upon the private property there were no restrictions. He stated the present proposal would be allowed in the city of Roseville. Chairperson Peterson stated it appeared there was an additional issue, in regard to the close proximity of the paved area to the lot line of the subject property. Ericson stated this was correct, however, the letter from the owner of the neighboring property satisfies this requirement. He explained further Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 • that the City Code had been amended to allow the driveway up to one foot from the property line without the need for a variance. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the city of Roseville or any other communities had any restrictions in regard to the proximity of pavement to the lot line. Jopke stated the city of Roseville did, however, the problem in Roseville was that many of the driveways were developed prior to their current standard, a five-foot setback, which is the standard in many communities. He stated that Roseville set up an administrative variance process in order to deal with this. He stated this was done at a time when Roseville was in the process of a major street reconstruction project. He stated the policy decision was that the city would install the curb cuts to meet the ordinance standard, and if a property owner desired to maintain their existing situation, they would go through this administrative variance process. He stated variances were typically granted for such situations. Jopke stated the city of Roseville had discussed amending their Code at that time, however, the Council decided that the administrative variance process would provide a record of where the driveways were located, and chose to pursue that avenue instead. He stated there is a typical standard in regard to the distance of pavement to the lot line, and in Roseville's case, there were many variances granted to allow pavement to be closer than five feet. • Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the height of the retaining wall located on the north side of the subject property. Mr. Henning stated it was 23 to 24 inches in height. Chairperson Peterson stated it appeared the retaining wall would be necessary in light of the placement of the garage next to the lot line. Mr. Henning stated this was correct. He stated the lot required a large amount of fill, and he did not plan to construct the parking area until recently, in light of its opportune location. He stated the driveway at the street is six feet from the lot line, and at a curve further into the property he is one foot off the lot line. He stated he attempted to meet the Code wherever he was able, and thought he had all the way. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the location of the curve in the driveway. Mr. Henning stated this was twenty feet into the driveway. Commissioner Miller stated she had driven past the : • i- ', . 4 0 - driveway was curved around the trees, and that it gave the property character. Mr. Henning thanked Commissioner Miller for her comment. He stated he had attempted to do the best he could, which he thought would be acceptable. Commissioner Laube stated so many lots in Mounds View are not only deep but also wide in certain areas and that this situation could come forward again in the future, particularly as homes and garages are getting larger. He stated, in light of this, further review of the City Code was merited. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated the garages are being upgraded to the larger sizes, and a very massive garage could be constructed along the front of a house, which instead of having a 30- foot driveway, if paved to the garage, could actually be 42 feet wide. He stated if a conditional use permit was issued for a 1,400 square foot garage, it could be 42 feet wide by approximately 30 feet deep. He stated if the 42 feet happened to be in the front of the structure, the homeowner might Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 desire to pave the driveway to the width of the garage. Commissioner Laube noted that were some lots in the City that could accommodate this. Chairperson Peterson stated, he was in favor of larger garages, as lot size permits, rather than storage sheds for the storage of items. He stated he believed garage space was better all around for this purpose. He stated however, he would not like to see more impervious surface than is necessary, and the problems with run off. He stated this could result in a view from the street of simply garages, with houses peeking out here and there. He stated he was also leaning toward reviewing the Code, and the requirements of surrounding communities regarding driveway widths, to see what was commonly done, and what would make sense. Commissioner Berke inquired how the applicant would be affected, should the Planning Commission desire to look into the Code. Ericson stated Mr. Henning could keep his driveway as it exists, for the time being. He stated staff would review the Code within the 120 day time line. He stated if more time was required, given the public hearings, research, and meetings with the Commission and the Council, the applicant could also sign a waiver that would allow him to waive his right to get a decision within that time frame. He stated if the Code was amended, and after the fact, made his driveway permissible, there would be no need for a variance, and the request would be voided. • Commissioner Miller stated she would like to proceed in this manner. She stated according to the Code there is no hardship that can be determined. Mr. Henning inquired regarding the definition of a hardship. Commissioner Stevenson stated an example would be an unusual lot size, which would restrict a property owner from improving his property. Commissioner Miller stated there were seven criteria that must be met for determining a hardship. Commissioner Kaden noted a recent request for variance, in which a family desired to construct an addition to the house closer to a lot line than what was allowed. He stated, due to the placement of the house on the smaller than normal lot, they would have had to construct a hallway between two bedrooms in order to access the deck or porch at the back of the house. He noted the house was also constructed in an unusual manner. He stated this was considered a hardship. Mr. Henning stated the only hardship he could think of would be the loss of his trees located in the front of his yard. Chairperson Peterson stated he also agreed that the applicant's design was attractive. He stated the question was, as more redevelopment occurs, what is a reasonable size for a driveway. Ericson stated if it was the consensus of the Commission, staff could research the matter, in terms of other cities' requirements, and provide information regarding the different ways a code amendment could be accomplished, if so desired. He stated the research might indicate that there is no need for a code amendment, in which case, the Commission could take action upon the current request. 4111 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden, to Table the Request for a Variance to Allow a 44-foot Wide Driveway, and Direct Staff to Research Driveway Width Requirements Utilized by Other Cities, and Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 • to Review the City Code in Regard to the Driveway Requirements and Possible Amendments, and Bring the Matter Forward to the Planning Commission at a Future Meeting. Ayes— 8 Nays — 0 The motion carried. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the trees had not been present, would the applicant have constructed a 35-foot wide driveway to the property line. Mr. Henning stated he would have been very satisfied to have a 35-foot wide driveway to the street, and the trees were the reason for his design, which does restrict the size of his driveway considerably. Commissioner Kaden stated that he did not like to see the occurrence, common within new developments, in which every mature tree is removed from the site. Commissioner Miller noted another issue to be considered was that the City Code had been amended to allow driveways to be closer than five feet from the property line. She stated this was not always the case. 6. Staff Reports /Items of Information • A. Discussion concerning change in location of screen fence at the Anthony Properties/O'Neil PUD (Theater Project). Community Development Director Jopke stated this item was to discuss the potential change in the fence location at the Anthony Properties/O'Neil Theater Project. He stated there was much discussion regarding the buffering of the development from the adjacent residential properties located across County Road H-2. He stated, as part of the approved plan, there were provisions requiring a 50-foot wide buffer, as well as a six-foot wood screen fence, in addition to the three office buildings which were to be constructed along the south side. Jopke stated the fence was to be located at the 50-foot buffer line, and the plan that was approved mdicated the fence connected the office buildings to provide a continuous screening wall. He stated the developer constructed a continuous screen fence in that area, prior to the construction of the office buildings, as this was a phased development. He stated that the developer has indicated they would like to move that fence six feet back to provide some space behind the building as well as the continuous fence screening to the property. The developer's original proposal was to move the fence ten feet south. Jopke stated this was a change to the plan that he believed would merit the attention of the Planning Commission and the City Council. He stated the ordinance is unclear regarding the procedure by which to handle these types of amendments, in terms of whether or not they can be handled 111 administratively by staff, if they present no impact, or if they are required to be brought back through the entire process again. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 • Jopke stated the first issue is the impact of this particular proposal. He stated the developer could just connect the buildings with the fence, and technically meet the plan, which would represent no change to the approved development stage plan. He stated there would be windows in the office building looking out toward the residential neighborhood, and this would not provide the solid screen, especially during the wintertime, when the leaves are off the trees, that the neighborhood might desire. He stated it appears the provision of a continuous fence that jogs around the buildings would provide a better screen for that neighborhood. He stated it should be determined what effect would this have on the 50-foot buffer area. Jopke stated the City Forester has reviewed the developer's proposal, and has indicated the proposal did not pose any great impact to the buffer area. He stated that some small trees, and one large tree, would need to be removed in order to proceed. He stated the developer has agreed to replace any of these trees, over four inches in diameter, with two for each one lost. He stated it appeared there would be little impact upon the buffer area in this regard, and the proposal could in fact, provide additional, more substantial trees than those that currently exist. Jopke stated the Planning Commission had been provided with memorandums from Council Members Lynn Thomason and Rob Marty, which indicated their concerns regarding whether or not there would be sufficient room in this area for bike paths and other pedestrian amenities, at the time the road is • reconstructed in the future. Jopke stated he and Planning Associate Ericson had taken measurements at the site, and found that there is a 33-foot right-of-way on the north side of County Road H-2, adjacent to the site, in addition to the 50-foot buffer between the road, and the location of the fence. He stated the buffer area was maintained as required by the approved development stage plans. He stated there was a 43-foot right-of-way on the south side of the road. He stated depending upon the final design of County Road 1-1-2,there would be sufficient room for a pedestrian pathway, if that were part of the plan for this road. Jopke stated another question to be determined was the process utilized by which this change should -- - •• -•"" • .. .•• .• •.. • u the Planning Commission to the City Council, and a determination regarding the type of public forum desired. He stated the developer has spoken with the property owners along County Road H-2, in regard to the proposal, and some have indicated they were agreeable, three indicated they were opposed, and two were unavailable for comment, at that time. Jopke stated the Planning Commission might desire to set a public hearing regarding this matter, and notify those neighbors. He stated at this time, staff had not notified the property owners. He stated staff was seeking direction from the Planning Commission regarding which process to utilize. He stated Wendell Smith, representative of the developer, was present to answer questions regarding the • proposal. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 Commissioner Berke stated the original zoning of the property was R-2 and B-1, and this had been changed. Jopke stated this was correct. He explained the zoning had been changed to Planned Unit Development to allow for this development. Commissioner Berke inquired if the original setback requirement for the buffer was 100 feet. Jopke stated he was not present during the preliminary discussion of the project and was uncertain, however, he was aware that the approved plans required a 50-foot buffer. Commissioner Berke inquired if the architect's original design included a continuous fence along the buffer, and if this proposal was the result of a mistake in that plan. Jopke indicated that the development stage plan and the final plan consisted of fences connected to the buildings. He stated this was what was presented to the City and approved. Commissioner Berke inquired if noise level testing had been performed to determine the effect of the air conditioners in the closer proximity to County Road H-2. Jopke stated this had not been done, to his knowledge. Wendell Smith, representative of Anthony Properties stated the current proposal was due to a • mistake for which he took full responsibility. He stated they had attempted to construct a very attractive building for the City. He stated he had convinced Mr. Anthony to construct a more elaborate type of building, which would blend in well with the Theater building, in light of the many people who would be going past the area on a daily basis. He stated he had become involved in the design of the building to make it not only aesthetically appealing, but also functional from an office use standpoint. He stated, however, the fence had been overlooked. Mr. Smith stated the development went through the approval process, and no one caught the fence including the building inspector. He stated the matter came to their attention when the building contractor began the construction. He stated the fence was taken down, and he examined the site when the footings were being constructed. He stated he noticed the existing pole, and its relation to the back of the building, and realized the fence was too close to the building. He stated he inquired how this had happened, and the building contractor indicated this was the design, and if it presented a problem they would move the fence back and no one would notice the difference. He stated, however, that this would not be proper. Smith stated the reason he went to the neighbors regarding the fence was to be proactive. He stated that Council Member Thomason indicated this should be considered a petition, however, he did not consider it a petition. He stated he had gone to the neighbors to make them aware of what was happening at the site, and that he had made a mistake regarding the fence. He stated his intent was not to take anything away from the buffer area. • Mr. Smith stated that no large trees would be removed from the buffer area. He stated there was a small tree, approximately two inches wide, which may need to be removed. He stated he had spoken with the City Forester regarding the affect of the relocation of the fence upon the buffer zone. He Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 • stated the City Forester indicated this proposal would be beneficial, in light of the oak trees in the area. He stated he had taken down ten trees during the last seven months due to oak wilt disease, and the City Forester has recommended they plant other species of trees, which are conducive to growing in the shade, and are not susceptible to the diseases present in the area. He stated there was one large tree in the area that they might be able to work around, and they were willing to do that. He stated the landscaping buffer begins approximately six to eight feet from the rear of the buildings, and they were not proposing to remove any landscape of consequence in that area. Mr. Smith stated Council Member Marty had referred to industrial type air conditioners, however, they would be utilizing residential air conditioning units. He indicated the size of the building was 10,000 square feet, and the number of units required would depend upon the number of tenants occupying the building. Mr. Smith stated they desired as much space in the back of the building as possible, as this sells space. He stated the fence would only be moved behind the buildings, and the fence on the sides of the buildings would remain the same. Mr. Smith stated they had done everything they said they would do, in regard to this project, on time, if not ahead of time. He stated they had gone to great expense to perform traffic studies. He stated • there had been much discussion regarding the potential excessive traffic in the neighborhood, pedestrian traffic over yards, and the strewing of trash throughout the area. He stated the people in the neighborhood he had spoken with indicated a positive reaction to the development, and that these situations have not occurred. Mr. Smith stated the intersection at Highway 10 is not yet completed. He stated the contractor has indicated the intersection would be operational the following day, to accommodate the traffic traveling along Highway 10, to the intersection, and he believed this would further reduce the traffic. Mr. Smith stated the architect had not had the fence in mind when he designed the building. He stated he had attempted to find the best way to rectify the situation. He stated they had not requested back to request a change, and it was due to a mistake he had made. He stated he did not want to give in to an atmosphere of fear, regarding what may happen in the future. He stated this was his reason he went to the neighbors to discuss the situation. Mr. Smith stated he had attempted to contact Council Member Thomason. He stated Council Member Thomason had indicated that she was very opposed to the petition. He stated this was simply his attempt to show the Commission that there were people who were satisfied with the manner in which the project was proceeding. He stated he had not twisted anyone's arm. He stated the Commission may desire to take another survey, and that would be fine. He reiterated that he was simply attempting to be proactive. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 111 Mr. Smith stated there had been numerous neighborhood meetings, and discussion with the Planning Commission and City Council in regard to the buffer zone. He stated the buffer zone was amended to the current 50-foot requirement, based upon five or six different plans for the location of the buildings. He stated they were requesting the ability to move the fence back slightly,just behind the buildings, and no other place. Chairperson Peterson stated one issue was the placement of the air conditioners, and one of the memorandums indicated these were pad mounted, residential style air conditioners, to be installed directly against the buildings. Mr. Smith stated there would be eight to ten inches between the units and the building to allow for evaporation. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the air conditioners were the main reason for the screen fence. Mr. Smith stated this was correct, as well as to provide some buffer from the visibility of the windows behind the building. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the Mr. Smith would prefer to look out the windows at the fence, or the landscape buffer. Mr. Smith stated he would prefer to remove the fence completely, if he could. He explained if he was an office user, he would rather look at the landscaped buffer area. He noted however, they had made a commitment to include the fence. Commissioner Hegland stated he was of the understanding that the original plan indicated the • buildings would be up to the buffer line, and there would only be fence between the buildings. He inquired if the fence was to cover up the air conditioners. Mr. Smith stated one of the reasons the residents wanted the fence originally was to provide a visual shield between the residential area and the development. He stated at that time the fence was discussed, the building was not constructed, and the residents desired a visual barrier between the parking lot and the lights. He stated the office building would add to the buffer, not only from the noise standpoint, but also in regard to the light. He stated they have tested the light levels along County Road H-2, and determined it does not impact the neighborhood. Commissioner Kaden stated he agreed that the developer's petition was not valid. He stated, in light of the controversy surrounding the development, a neutral party should have performed it. Commissioner Hegland stated the fence was also to provide a shield of the view of the trash enclosures from County Road H-2. Jopke stated the plan indicates the fence between the buildings, and a fence on each end to shield in that location. Commissioner Stevenson stated he thought the area would be much more attractive to the residents without the fence behind the buildings.. Commissioner Kaden stated the developer should discuss this matter with the residents to determine what they would like to see in this area. Commissioner Miller stated she had driven by the property and could barely see the building. She stated the trees in the buffer would shield the fence from visibility. Mr. Smith noted that during the wintertime, when the leaves are off of the trees, the building would become more visible. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 • Commissioner Kaden stated that the future redevelopment of County Road H-2 might result in the loss of a portion of the buffer zone. Chairperson Peterson stated Mr. Smith was correct in that there was very little difference in the appearance of the building as that indicated on the plans. He inquired if the rear of the building was also as proposed. Mr. Smith stated they had upgraded it a bit. Chairperson Peterson stated he had originally been concerned in regard to the buffer and the types of trees it contained, and particularly the health of the trees. He stated he had spent time looking at the property, and had found that so many of the oak trees were already sick, and would be gone within five years. Mr. Smith stated that the area had contained an enormous amount of garbage, which required removal, and it was utilized as a meeting place for teenagers. He stated it was not a park area, and since the completion of the project they have had to remove several trees which have died, for safety reasons. He stated they have a very good working relationship with the City Forester in regard to the maintenance of the buffer area. Chairperson Peterson stated one of the purposes of the fence was to prevent pedestrian cut-through, and this would be accomplished if the fence is located behind the building, or connects the buildings. Mr. Smith stated he agreed. Chairperson Peterson stated he did not find the appearance from the • back of the building to be objectionable. He stated that given the choice, he would prefer to look at trees than buildings, however,between the trees, he would rather look at the buildings than the fence. He stated he could not speak for the residents, but he assumed they might come to the same conclusion. Commissioner Stevenson stated that the issue of pedestrian traffic through this area was the major concern. Commissioner Miller stated this was correct. Commissioner Stevenson stated another issue was the shielding of garbage cans, and this would not be lost if the fence were maintained between the buildings. He stated he did not recall a stipulation that the fence be continuous. He stated the developer might not have erred to the degree he thought. •' • . •• - - . -• • - • . • I .. • , •-.•.- • .. -.' . .. , - only been in the original plan, and he was uncertain if this requirement was stipulated in the revised plans. Commissioner Kaden stated he had taken a look at the property, and it appeared to him that part of the building is already behind the fence post, which marks the buffer area, by a foot or two. He stated if this is the case, the developer would probably have no option. He stated, it appeared by sight that the construction was already past the fence line. Mr. Smith stated he was uncertain. He stated he thought the fence post was located just behind the building. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the measurements taken by Community Development Director Jopke and Planning Associate Ericson. Jopke stated they had determined the area from the 410 center of the road to the fence post at the Edgewood Drive entrance to be approximately 84 feet, which would indicate a 33 foot right-of-way, with an approximate 50-foot buffer area. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 • Commissioner Kaden inquired if the Department of Public Works had made any indications regarding the plans for redeveloping the road in the future. Jopke stated not to his knowledge. Chairperson Peterson noted that if County Road H-2 was being considered for turnback. Jopke stated it had already been turned back. Chairperson Peterson noted that there were funds available for the reconstruction. Jopke stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson stated the width of the road, therefore, was controlled by the City. Jopke stated this was correct, and the roadway would go through the planning and redevelopment process being developed by the City Council based on the recommendations of the Streets Policies Committee. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there would be a 33-foot right-of-way on the north side of the property, and 43 feet on the south. Jopke stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson inquired if this distance was consistent across the entire area. Jopke stated the width jogs in the middle. Chairperson Peterson stated generally, when a road is reconstructed, the jogs are straightened out. Mr. Smith stated the residents he had spoken with had indicated they would like to see a sidewalk along the north side, due to the pedestrian traffic, and concerns for safety. Commissioner Stevenson suggested that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the public hearings, with a statement that they were agreeable to the fence • between the buildings. He stated he did not think the Commission could come to a consensus that there was ever the intention to have a continuous fence behind the offices. Chairperson Peterson stated he believed the actual continuous fence requirement was intended only until the buildings were constructed. Commissioner Stevenson stated he believed the fence was also required for security reasons. Commissioner Johnson stated this was correct, and to provide shielding from the parking area. He stated he had a problem in regard to the continuous fence located behind the building, because it would allow for people to be concealed behind the buildings at night, and would provide no visibility for the Police Department. Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle, stated the drawing of the site shows the continuous fence behind all of the offices. She stated her main concern was that this was a Planned Unit Development. She stated the major controversy on this project, or any others contemplated in the future, was due to the alteration of the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning. She stated this property was changed to a Planned Unit Development, and she believed it should follow the normal proper procedure of a Planned Unit Development. She stated if not, they would set a precedent, which would come up again in future projects. She stated this was not right or fair to the citizens, especially in light of the manner in which this project has proceeded. Ms. Olsen stated the fence requirement had not been met, therefore, everyone should be provided a new copy of the current amended Development Plan, which will supersede any drawing. She stated that the requirement for the fence was indicated at a certain height, and that it would be opaque. She stated this was done for many reasons, not just for safety reasons, or as a temporary consideration. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 Ms. Olsen requested the Planning Commission to follow the normal procedures of the Planned Unit Development, and not make deviations from it. She stated to do so would be very wrong. She stated it was her understanding, if the air conditioners were protruding from the building, and that was the reason that the fence would be required to jog, in her opinion, was that the building was already in the buffer zone. Ms. Olson stated people were very unhappy regarding the 50-foot buffer, and had always wanted a 100-foot buffer. She stated there was a lot of neighborhood input in this regard. She stated the project was not completed, and if this change was viewed as so minor it did not warrant a full-fledged Planned Unit Development procedure, what would happen when the next building is constructed, or with the next Planned Unit Development. She stated the Comprehensive Plan map proposed by the Planning Commission as they move forward with the new Comprehensive Plan, indicate a large amount of property being changed and rezoned as Planned Unit Developments. She stated this should be examined. She stated if these types of changes were allowed, without following proper procedure, it could result in many problems for the City. Chairperson Peterson stated one of the issues in regard to the procedure was to determine if this proposal is a change or a request. He stated it appeared at this point, the continuous fence requirement was not contained in the original plan that was officially approved. He stated the matter • does require further investigation. Mr. Smith inquired if staff could verify the stipulations contained in the final plan. Jopke stated the plan that was approved by the City Council at the Development Stage indicated the fence to be located between the buildings. Commissioner Kaden inquired which plan Ms. Olsen was referring to. Jopke stated this document was the plan submitted for the building permit, and upon which the building permits were issued. He stated the matter was unclear, and, in his interpretation, it appeared the developer could construct the solid fence between the buildings and not require an amendment. He stated, if the neighborhood desired a continuous solid screening fence along the area, it would make sense to allow the jog in the fence. Commissioner Hegland stated the issue was whether or not there was any statement in the plans, which stipulates continuous fencing once the building is constructed. Jopke stated that the Planned Unit Development document stipulates a six-foot, opaque screen fence, however, it does not specify that this is to be constructed only between the buildings, or as a continuous fence at the rear of the buildings. Commissioner Hegland stated the plan drawing indicates the fence to be between the buildings. He stated it might not have been well communicated, however, that is what was represented on the drawing. 1111 Commissioner Stevenson stated this matter might be a non-issue. He stated these were the final plans that the Commissioners received, and they did not show the fence to be located behind the office buildings, only between. Chairperson Peterson stated the six-foot high fence requirement appeared Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 • to be only indicated at the sides of the buildings. He stated the plans were unclear, and he could not interpret the fence requirement, however, all of the indications provided, point to a fence that is between the buildings. Ms. Olsen stated the way this matter was explained, and proceeded for months, was based upon the original Planned Unit Development, which was approved. She stated there was supposed to be a continuous fence in the back. She stated this was a major issue. She suggested the Planning Commission review the minutes and videotape of the City Council meetings, as the fence requirements were clearly spelled out therein. She stated the present uncertainty was the reason the entire matter should follow the normal Planned Unit Development process. She stated this would provide one hundred percent clarification, and there would be no misrepresentation to the citizens, in regard to what was to occur. Chairperson Peterson stated that the only document that was not clear was the construction plan, and all of the others are very clear. Ms. Olsen stated this was not the way the matter was represented to the citizens on the Planned Unit Development document. She noted the prior Mayor had stated the Planned Unit Development document superseded any type of a drawing or draft. She stated it was explained explicitly that there would be a continuous fence behind the building, and it would be 411 opaque, and of a certain height. She stated it was further stated that nothing would encroach into the buffer zone. Ms. Olsen stated the fence requirement was not the only issue present. She stated another issue was in regard to making any type of changes to a Planned Unit Development, and following through with the entire normal process. She stated this was the only fair thing to do. She stated to do otherwise could subject the provisions to many different interpretations. Chairperson Peterson stated they were presently attempting to verify the official approved Planned Unit Development, both in terms of the written text, and the documents that are part of the approved Planned Unit Development. Screening Fence indicates"a screening fence shall be installed along County Road H-2 (as shown on the Development Stage Plan), and tied off on each end to prevent pedestrian traffic from the PUD Development off the site. The fence shall be opaque and at least six feet in height." Commissioner Miller stated the Development plan indicates the fence just between the buildings. Chairperson Peterson explained that the construction plans show a dotted line which is in between the buildings, and no where else. Commissioner Kaden stated these plans show the office building extending up to the 50-foot buffer line. Chairperson Peterson stated this was correct. • Jopke stated it appeared, in looking at the actual design of the building that was being proposed, the building jogs back from the 50-foot line, and there was room to put air conditioning units. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 • Chairperson Peterson stated the central portion of the building that protrudes is indicated within a couple feet of the setback line, however, the rest of the building has sufficient room in which the air- conditioning units could be placed on either side. Commissioner Stevenson stated noise might be an issue with the air conditioning units, and if so, they may wish to work further with staff in regard to the screening and buffering. Chairperson Peterson stated that it was unanimous that all involved wanted adequate screening, and it served no one's purpose to have the screening be less than adequate. He stated this could be accomplished either through the relocation of the fence, with additional trees being placed, or with the fence between the back of the buildings. He stated either option was as good, in his opinion. Commissioner Kaden stated he would like to hear the residents' input regarding their preference in regard to a view of the buffer area or the fence. Commissioner Johnson stated the air conditioners would be contained in a recessed area between the fence and the building. Commissioner Laube stated they would require three or four air conditioning units for this building. Chairperson Peterson stated the developer would probably utilize two-ton units, which were not very large. Commissioner Laube stated this was correct, however, they could 1111 be noisy. Chairperson Peterson stated he had a one and one-half ton unit, which was virtually silent, and this would depend upon the types of units utilized. He asked Mr. Smith if he was aware of the amount of noise generated by the proposed air conditioners. Mr. Smith stated he thought these would generate no more noise than typical residential units. He stated they would have four units. He stated he had no problem leaving the fence as it is, and using it as a buffer. He stated they would simply like to move the fence back to the edge of the trees, to provide visibility out of the office building, and room behind the building for security and maintenance reasons. He noted the air conditioning units could be screened separately, if they did not want the fence in that location. He explained they could provide additional landscaping around the units. He stated they would like to do what was beneficial, and what the residents desired. . .. a fence hiding the back of the office would invite vandalism. Mr. Smith stated he did not believe the theater project had generated any additional vandalism problems. Commissioner Berke stated there are currently reports of vandalism every week in his neighborhood. He stated two years prior to the development,they did not have a problem with vandalism. He stated he was not certain this was the fault of the development, however, it appeared to attract kids. Chairperson Peterson stated that the issue at hand was to determine the process by which to amend the Planned Unit Development, if required. He stated the necessity for a change was unclear, in that the text states to refer to the drawing for details, and the construction drawing indicates a dotted line • which shows the 50-foot building setback, and another portion of the line indicates a six foot privacy fence. Commissioner Johnson stated the approved plan shows the fence between the buildings, and in his opinion, the matter does not require to be before the Planning Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 18 • Commissioner Hegland stated, however, that Ms. Olsen was under the impression that it was to be a continuous fence. Ms. Olsen stated that everyone was. Commissioner Hegland suggested they request the City Attorney to review the matter, and provide a ruling, as he had approved the Planned Unit Development document. Chairperson Peterson stated the City Attorney's determination would be more legally convincing than the Planning Commission's interpretation of the document, unless there was further description contained within the text of the Planned Unit Development document. Jopke stated this matter was unclear, and this was the reason staff brought it to the attention of the Planning Commission, and desired a determination from the City Council. He stated the issue is in regard to the type of buffer desired by the community and neighborhood for screening in this area. He stated the developer has come forward and stated they had a proposal for consideration, and was attempting to work with the neighborhood to do what was right. He stated the Planning Commission and City Council should determine what the expectations were, and what is the best development that could occur. He stated in his opinion, and based upon the documents, the developer could construct the fence between the buildings and meet the requirements set forth at the time the City Council approved the plan. Jopke stated another issue is that the City Ordinance was deficient in defining the process of amending Planned Unit Developments. He stated, as Ms. Olsen communicated, it was important to better define this procedure for future Planned Unit Developments that will come forward. He stated he would further suggest the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that staff be directed to prepare some ordinance revisions for future consideration to deal with this issue. He stated, as the ordinance is presently written, it was difficult to interpret from staff's perspective. He stated the Planning Commission could suggest to the City Council that the neighborhood be invited to the Council Meetings to provide their input. Commissioner Hegland stated the developer was obviously of the opinion that they were to provide a continuous fence, and the plan does not show a continuous fence. He stated they should determine why this discrepancy had occurred. He stated staff should research the matter to determine if there was anything in writing or otherwise which indicated this, and if not, the developer should not have to require further approval. IIe statcd he did not think the matter required to be reopened. He stated, if the residents wished to discuss the matter with the Council, that would be fine, however, from a Commissioner's standpoint, unless there is some indication in the minutes that the requirement of a continuous fence exists, he did not see why they should do anything. He stated it appears the matter has already been approved. Commissioner Laube stated he believed this matter required the review of the City Attorney, and further research by staff. He stated that a public hearing should be announced, to provide citizen input, in an unbiased forum. He stated there were mixed feelings and the issues were unclear, and the Planning Commission did not have the ability to make those decisions. He stated the Planning Commission could hold the public hearing, or it could be held at the City Council level. He stated, however, he believed, in light of Anthony Properties' desire to work with the citizens, the citizens should be given the opportunity to provide their input. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 19 • Mr. Smith inquired if it would be possible to obtain a ruling from staff and the City Attorney to determine their standing, prior to holding a public hearing. Chairperson Peterson stated this would be a wise and prudent step for everyone's sake. Commissioner Kaden inquired if Mr. Smith obtained a ruling indicating that the continuous fence was not required, he would not consider the residents' desires. Mr. Smith stated this was not what he meant. He stated he would like to see what the ruling is, and then take the citizen's input. Commissioner Kaden noted at some point, many people got the impression that the fence was supposed to be continuous. Mr. Smith stated if they were in the right and could put the fence against the building, they would still like to move it back. He stated they wanted to be good neighbors and work with people. Chairperson Peterson stated whether the fence is moved six feet, or is removed completely in that location, he believed the citizens should have some input on the matter. Mr. Smith inquired if the matter could be tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting, to allow staff and the City Attorney to conduct their research. He stated they have until November 15 to put the fence back up. Commissioner Hegland stated he would have a problem in regard to this, as the building would continue to be constructed, and if this matter might be reopened to obtain residents' input. Mr. Smith stated the question was who created the hardship. He inquired if the hardship was created before this situation, or because the building was in the wrong location. Chairperson Peterson stated • this was not a variance situation. He explained within a Planned Unit Development, there is an alternate way of handling the normal requirements, and those matters are spelled out in a legal document, which defines every occurrence. He stated the question was what to do with a fence that was supposed to be there, and upon review of the documents, appears is not required. Commissioner Hegland stated this was an assumption at this point, and the only documentation they presently have, shows the building with no fence. Chairperson Peterson stated there was an obvious recollection that there was to be a continuous fence, and the question is what commitments were made regarding that fence. He stated, it was clear in his mind, based upon the documents at hand, that the fence is not required, however, they should obtain the City Attorney's opinion on the matter. Mr. mith stated he hoped he hadn't brought to light a concern that was unnecessary. Chairperson Peterson stated he believed Mr. Smith had done the right thing. Commissioner Kaden stated he would rather see Mr. Smith be proactive, and have the matter resolved to the satisfaction of everyone involved. Mr. Smith stated they were attempting to do what was right, and if it was necessary to request a variance, that was what they would do. Commissioner Stevenson suggested staff upon conducting the research, refer to the meetings during which discussion was held regarding the fence. He stated the construction of the fence was requested in lieu of the office buildings, which were not constructed at that time, as a safety precaution. He suggested research be conducted of the discussion that took place prior to the construction of the 110 office buildings. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 Ms. Olsen stated she had not attended the meetings at the Planning Commission level, in regard to the Theater Project. She stated the discussion regarding the fencing came at the City Council level, and would appreciate staff's review of the City Council minutes. She stated the final determination was the result of the numerous discussions at the City Council level. Ms. Olsen stated it was her understanding that any revision to a Planned Unit Development would require a re-opening and following through of the entire normal process. She stated she believed this would include the construction of the office buildings. Chairperson Peterson explained the Planned Unit Development documents provide an alternate form of zoning, specified in advance, regarding what is acceptable, in terms of its own unique setback requirements, and others. He stated this document specified the uses for the main portion of this development, Outlots A and B, and the issues pertinent to those developments. He stated, if the construction of those areas is done according to the Planned Unit Development requirements, there is no need to reopen it. He stated the reopening was only required if the original plan was to be amended. He stated there was much room for alterations in building styles, and slight location changes, and it was the intent of the PUD document to allow some flexibility in the original plan, while still requiring conformance. He explained this did not necessarily mean that any change would require the reopening of the Planned Unit Development. • Jopke stated this Planned Unit Development included the theater building, the office buildings, and two retail restaurant buildings. He stated his understanding of the process is that the development stage plan of the project was specific and detailed in regard to the theater portion of the property, as well as the three office buildings. He stated the location, parking, and landscaping requirements were defined for those four parts. He stated the two retail restaurants were not defined, because without a tenant, the site layout could not be determined. He stated, in his opinion, the two retail restaurant buildings would have to come through a development stage plan approval process. However, the three office buildings and the theater were covered with the plan which was already approved, because all of the details were defined. Chairperson Peterson stated many of the revisions to this development were made at the Planning Commission level, and the community meetings, even before the formal application was made. He • : _ process continued with the City Council, and there were some changes at the City Council level, with Ms. Olsen agreeing that the City Council minutes, as well as the Planning Commission minutes, should be reviewed in regard to the requirements of the fence. Ms. Olsen stated another issue was that the air conditioners and/or the back of the building were indeed not encroaching anywhere on the 50-foot buffer. Commissioner Johnson stated this was correct. He stated the plan did not show any encroachment upon the 50-foot buffer, and therefore, the developer could not place anything on the buffer, which he was well aware of. • Chairperson Peterson stated the general process for an amendment to a Planned Unit Development, in the event of a modification to the original plan, should be further defined. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 21 • Jopke stated that staff would review the minutes to define what the location of the fence was, and should be, and report back to the Planning Commission. He inquired if the Commission would direct staff to notify the residents of a public hearing. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like the City Attorney to review the matter, to determine if it is legally necessary to have that meeting. He stated Mr. Smith was the type of developer who attempted to cooperate with the neighbors, and if he is not required to come back through the entire process, he should not have to. Jopke stated staff would contact the City Attorney's office. He inquired at what point the Commission would like to notify the neighbors. Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not know where the Planning Commission's involvement in this matter was. He stated, if they desired a public forum, he did not see where the Planning Commission should be further involved in the process. He stated he was not saying there shouldn't be a public forum, however, he did not think it should be held at the Planning Commission level. Chairperson Peterson stated if the City Attorney came to the same conclusion as the Planning Commission, in that there was no requirement to locate the fence behind the building, which would • cause it to encroach into the buffer, there would be no issue that would require action of the Planning Commission. He stated, however, there was an expectation in the minds of many people that this level of research should occur at the Planning Commission level, therefore, he would assume the public forum would be best held at this level. Commissioner Miller stated the applicant had stated they would move the fence six feet, and inquired if that would place it into the buffer. Mr. Smith stated it would be six feet into the buffer, and they would lose minimal shrubbery in the buffer area. Jopke stated it would impact the existing landscaping and trees very little. Commissioner Hegland stated the City Council would have to amend the Planned Unit Development document, if the fence encroached into the buffer. Commissioner Stevenson stated this would not be required, if the fence was located between the buildings. Jopke stated staff would report back to the Planning Commission with the results of their investigation, and the Planning Commission could, at that point, determine what was correct, in regard to the process, and pass that recommendation on to the City Council. Commissioner Laube stated the ordinance should also be reviewed to determine the process required for Planned Unit Developments, in cases of modifications. He stated in his opinion, everything should be brought forward for the benefit of the residents. He stated there should be no variance rights given to the developer without the notification and input of the residents. Chairperson Peterson stated that only in very minor instances such as the relocation of a sidewalk should the entire process not be required, however, a matter regarding a fence, or things of that Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 22 110 nature should be included, and subject to the approval of the City Council. He stated in this case, a change might not be required. Commissioner Hegland stated the developer had requested a fence and a change to its location because he thought it was necessary, and the necessity of that is in question. Commissioner Stevenson stated that Ms. Olsen had a point, in that the Council may have misinterpreted the plans. Chairperson Peterson stated this also was a possibility. B. Commission Ordeen Braathen's leave of absence request. Community Development Director Jopke stated this item was the consideration of Commissioner Braathen's request for a leave of absence. He stated Commissioner Braathen has, for reasons of establishing his business in a new location, requested he be granted a six month leave of absence. He stated Commissioner Braathen desired to continue to serve, however, at this time, he has other commitments, which prevent him from attending the meetings. Jopke stated the Code in this regard was somewhat confusing, however, it indicates the requirement that the Commissioners attend twenty meetings within the year, and if not, they are subject to review • and removal from the Commission. He stated that Commissioner Braathen would not be able to meet that requirement, if he is absent for six months. He stated the Mayor and Council have asked the Planning Commission to provide their opinion on the matter, prior to approving or denying Commissioner Braathen's request. Chairperson Peterson stated on two prior occasions, the Planning Commission has granted leaves of absence, with the expectation that the Commissioner would commit the time after the leave of absence, and there was no problem. He stated this was provided the membership of the Commission did not become too low. Commissioner Berke inquired what the Planning Commission would do procedurally, with eight members present, in the event of a locked vote. Chairperson Peterson stated there was previously a requirement of seven Commissioners and a maximum of nine. He stated presently there is a minimum and maximum of nine members. He stated that during a leave of absence, a Commissioner still holds their seat, however, but does not participate. Commissioner Hegland inquired if Commissioner Braathen would still have voting rights. Chairperson Peterson stated he would not expect anyone on a leave of absence would want to vote, and if they did it would cause him to question their motives. Commissioner Hegland stated, in light of the videotaping procedures, he could vote by proxy. Jopke stated this would be difficult, in that he would not be present to hear the evidence presented. • Commissioner Hegland stated, with the communication technology available, he would think this would be possible, however, the issue was whether or not they would want to do this. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 23 Chairperson Peterson stated this perhaps should be clarified in the by-laws of the Planning Commission. Jopke stated another alternative would be to have the City Council appoint somebody for the six-month period. Chairperson Peterson stated, at the second granting of a leave of absence, the Commission had a sufficient number of members, and while the leave of absence was in effect, someone had resigned, bring the membership too low. He stated a new member was appointed during that time, and that was the cause of past bookkeeping errors. He stated he did not believe eight members were too low. Commissioner Berke inquired if they could utilize Council Liaison Stigney for voting purposes. Commissioner Hegland asked if a split vote could be sent on to the Council as it was. Planning Associate Ericson stated an item would not pass, if four members voted in favor, and four cast opposing votes. Commissioner Laube stated that the Commission was barely at a quorum the prior meeting. He stated, in light of the upcoming deadlines, this may result in a problem. He stated more members are necessary at present, to meet the membership requirements. Commissioner Miller stated if they appoint someone for six months, it would take them time to become familiar with the process and issues, and this would be a difficult position to place someone in,just for the sake of a vote. Commissioner Kaden stated if they granted a leave of absence, they could go from there, and if they ran into a problem, some other action could be taken at that time. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Peterson to Recommend the Approval of Commissioner Ordeen Braathen's Request for Six Month Leave of Absence. Ayes— 8 Nays— 0 The motion carried. Chairperson Peterson stated if the requirement of a quorum becomes a problem, they can request the City Council make a temporary appointment to complete the term of the leave of absence. C. Previous Council Actions Planning Associate Ericson reported on City Council action from their meeting on August 23. He stated that the Council upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation and denied the request for an oversized garage at 2809 Woodale Drive. He stated there was a public hearing for the first reading of the ordinance which would rezone the property and allow MSP to build an assisted living facility, and the consideration of the Conditional Use Permit for this proposal. He stated the Council directed Staff to set the public hearing for the ordinance to amend the City Code to clarify the language in the R-4 Zoning District, and directed staff to draft a resolution approving the Conditional Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 24 • Use Permit for the facility. He stated he had spoken with the developers who are drafting the site plans, which will be back before the Planning Commission in September or October. Ericson stated the City Council discussed the proposed vacation of the easement on Edgewood Drive (Pinewood Circle). He stated the City Council acted unanimously to maintain the easement, and this item would come before the Council again, to clarify that the Wetland Alteration Permit is also being denied. D. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Ericson stated at the next meeting of the Planning Commission there would be consideration of a request for an oversized garage addition, as well as a variance for a zero lot line garage. He stated the latter may come in the form of the variance, however, the City Attorney is presently reviewing the matter, to determine how best to proceed with the request. He explained this request was in regard to two lots located on Hillview Drive, which contain two four-plexes. He stated the property owner desires to construct a garage to service both buildings, with three-garage stalls on each side of the building. He noted this request might require a lot combination process. 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report No reports were considered. 8. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9.16 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • ()Planning Comm. Mtg Date: al- -9 l Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: () k\ -k- 6\c (fv\ •