Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-06-1999
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1999 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes a. December 2, 1998 5. Planning Case No. 540-98 Property Involved: 8444 Greenwood Drive • Consideration of Resolution No. 567-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision Request to Divide the Property Located at 8444 Greenwood Drive into two parcels. Applicant: Danny Danielson 6. Planning Case No. 539-98 [Public Hearing] Property Involved: 5364 Clifton Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 568-99, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Allow for a Garage which Exceeds the Maximum Permitted Height by One Foot. Applicant: Daniel Gates, Property Owner. 7. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Review of Previous Council Action 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. 4 AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of the December 16, 1998, minutes of the Planning Commission NADATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1998\12-2-98.AGN • S r • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: January 6, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No. 540-98 Request: Minor Subdivision (Lot Split) Applicant: Danny Danielson Address: 8444 Greenwood Drive PIN#: 06-30-23-11-0045 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential Lot Size: 55,258.4 square feet (1.27 acres) Applicable Regulations: • Surveyor's Certificate: Section 1202.01, Subd. 3b requires that the applicant provide a certificate of survey prepared by a Minnesota registered land surveyor. • Minimum Lot Size and Widths: Section 1104.02, Subd. 2b, as amended by Ordinance 111 590, sets the minimum interior lot size at 11,000 square feet. The minimum width for interior lots is 75 feet. • Provision of Easements: Section 1203.04 requires that drainage and utility easements be provided in the event of property subdivisions. • Park Dedication Fee: Section 1204.02 requires that a park dedication fee be paid in an amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the land value of the property to be subdivided. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Certificate of Survey (Separate Attachment) Resolution No. 567-99 Background: The applicant, Danny Danielson, representing his parents Ernest and Marlene Danielson, is requesting City approval of a minor subdivision to create two lots from their property located at 8444 Greenwood Drive. The City's subdivision regulations allow for approval of a surveyor's certificate in these situations. A copy of the surveyor's certificate showing the proposed lot split • is attached. This property currently has 234.98 feet of frontage on Greenwood Drive and is 234 feet deep. There is a home and garage on the north half of this lot. The applicant proposes to split off the south 78.01 feet of the existing lot to create an 18,254 square-foot interior lot. Both dimensions exceed the minimum established by the City's Zoning Code. 1 Danielson Minor Subdivision 8444 Greenwood Drive • Planning Case No. 540-98 January 6, 1998 Page 2 Issues: Staff sent a letter to the applicant dated 12/21/98, in which three items were pointed out with regard to the survey which would need to be changed prior to Council approval. Those items are (1) show all required easement areas, (2) add a signature block for the property owners and City's signatures, and (3) change the title to read"Certificate of Survey." In a previous letter, dated 11/24/98, staff requested that text be added to the survey to read "Separate drainage and utility easement documents consistent with those areas so noted on this Certificate of Survey have been recorded with Ramsey County." The proposed legal descriptions and certificate of survey have been reviewed by the City's Engineering Technician, who finds them in compliance with City standards save for the above- mentioned changes. Staff has sent a copy of the survey to the City Attorney for his comments and to arrange for the drafting of easement documents to convey the drainage and utility easements as shown on the survey. The only issue that exists with regard to this request is the park dedication requirement as stated in Section 1204.02 of the Municipal Code. Because the area to be subdivided is greater than one acre, the Code specifies that a ten percent (10%) park dedication fee is required to be paid before the subdivision can be approved. According to the Ramsey County assessor's records, this land is valued at $47,700. Ten percent of that would amount to $4,470. Subdivision 3 of this Section, however, allows for the exclusion of the land under the existing home remaining after the subdivision. With this exclusion, the dedication requirement would be reduced 66 percent to $1,475. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 567-99, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of this minor subdivision subject to stipulations. 6- 24,..i&t., James Ericson, Planning Associate N:`DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\540-98\D, NNYSON.PCI • 1 [1 ©uhy COMMuNTI'y DEVELOPMENT DEPARRTNIENT � • o DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION I, Y#. 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 p�tl-Parment4' - 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides-o-f This Form `._. _ __.._._ Applicant Information Name of Applicant .ERNE s a NAP._L Cr itt E D4 / Nlt-L sw Telephone 7rif- 7 47 y(y Address._.i- -z--_- :• F(5/7'/GR.EEA/eJOD D Die ', -'1:':..1;...,_: ti_ - 41.-.::,fA/1Llh�� 7 ......,_. d R(! � G V� ,moi %/ — • Interest in Property(check appropriate box) ,fid Owner of Property ___ , -- .: -.;,,-.10 . _Contract for Deed Owner 0 - Lessee,Operator,Manager - - 0 Other(explain) _ - - ,- ..a Agreement to Purchase - - �•- Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the ownergiving consent to the filing of this application. The • _ property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. • -=- __ _—Property Descnption/Proposa! s Addreass or General Loc .....!,....!...-..i.:,.,,...'3.4.:. • ... Location 0 . - .. Gat=F' Leal D _ . AIGJ�nDI�,c� _ . . 8 escrtption - - Property IdentlfiCa o-2-'(PIN#�' - - --�s" " - r,e, , ,� L.. {.�.. �r�. o �lasL� �r/y ToQ `s •1 R�w....ba.I .#.` ereS - _ '-�.._' -thl Ail 7Sa/V •40bi /l/� --EX H. /76 / 1r'-JU! .5 Birk.' _.. . Current Zoning _. . — �esioEti7lAL -,: - - Type of Application - Q Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 Q Rezoning 5250/acre; min 5250 max 51500 Q Major Subdivision 5250+$250 deposit* ,is Minor Subdivision—. $200 0 Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees 0 PUD Amendment S350 a Conditional Use Permit R-I, R-2$75:all others$250 o Variance ❑ Code Appeal R-I, R-2$100 all others$250 - 0 5100 Develop Review/Site Plan S 125/acre;min$125 max S750 o Wetland Alteration Permit _ R-1,R-2$I50;all others$200 -: a Weiland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 O Floodplain Permit S200 Q Other *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, • research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Development Application Page 2 I Present Use of Property Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling a Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification Qf Abstract ❑ Torrens Description of Proposal jj A r1 t rt Q M A k E • ,4 7 A L o7`' a ti E g o ut }� �!q Gr - p >J . • - •f a35A •- .9 be»r'th,P X134 . _. . z - BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION.I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST-0F MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. - -f Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant(typed/printed)..: „ F E.-$r J, /)4,r i e L 5 O ff 9R- / AR,Z Eta J jj.4n t E l 5 Signature of Property Owner ,V / # Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) NES r5e-Wh L. c ' ' ' :• Address __ - _- _ .. - of Owner - - -=-' - C _ _ _ h • : LLN D s V I E Lc) A N, //a- x -- Phone Number of Owner 6/3-78.61 - 7 c/ q • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal NOV 1 o) 14 q g Date of Acceptance DEC i 9, i 9 9 2 Assigned to: 't. E u4')1. Planning Case No. 5 4 0 - 9 8 60-day Limit . - ' - 3 120-day limit +a- ti-la Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt Application: .(30. o o • Park Dedication: Deposits: Other Total: • N:TATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FOILMS1DEVAPP.FOR 1198 349 a 8494 8495 ° I \ — --- -- I ` ' n�� N 1 cD 44,90 C �NlN' 8490 8481 L 7 N 8485 8484 8471 i 3470 8175 0 8475 8474 8471 9466 `O 8465 8464 8465 �_, 8467 o I C</ ! Z 8455 8454 8455 845? P485 /Tjco c` PUD 18443 8444 C 8445 8444 8453 8464 "ro'9 8454 84.35 8434 8433 8432 8441 8425 8424 �j 8425 8428 8429 3425 8415 I 8414 [ 8405 1 8404 8415 I 8408 8415 841518408 r 8379 8390 8405 84001 8395 8400 Cd 8405 18400 f� 8384 .8395 I 8380 - . 8373 8381 8390 8395 8388 8370 8385 8370 8379 8380 8385 8384 8360 8375 8360 1 . Y8350 8355 8350 f 8375 I 8376 8375 8378 8360• 1 8345 8340 8345 8340 8.3718365 8372` , 8335 8330 8340 8325 8.331 8330 8357 8325 { 8320 - 8321 8315 8320 { 8.323 • 18320 ti 8315 8.3188315 8340 8303 8310 w 8305 8310 G 3321 {8300 8305 8330 o 8295 I 8290 r 8291 I 8290 2 8285 I 8290 8295 8310 8287 { 8280 z 8281 l 8280( 3• 8280 G 8273 ' ARDAN p 6281 I 8270 N 8271 { 8270 i. 8z7 0 8267 s3oo 3 PARK \ • I 8260 cc 8273 8260 8261 { 8260 8265 Z t.. a,.i_aN Lr. --..--r r 8250 8251 ( 8250 8255 18250 w 8255 6280 I N 8267 ,Cc- 828.3 / :.:.:-:,- 8261 ( 8240 . n 8241 a 8242 ^ 8260 8271 ~... 8255 I ;', N N N I L N 8231 { to 8232 N N N 8250 AVE ARDAN AVENUE 3247 ) • 1 ;{ N I oI m til o N c f 0 1 ,D 1 EI mi " i i I •,!n 23D 8239 I / .::•E 8211 8205 INI NI Nl N " N{ NP 8225 ••• 8184 8193 8224 ' 8212 8217 j 8180 8185 o 8206 9205 ... 9175 I g\� �y 8160 3171 8200 :: 8165 I :: :: ::::........................... :115: c:0/4,4 I81508t65 8150 ` /� �s814 \ I ,/'� •.•.•.L 'z0 \;,(1 8145 8140 8135 • ms's 8140 8135 8 \� 8141 --1 .� 812511130 313 �' 8132 8121 • 8126 8 +I ar Q v 81 1; o o :.: m r\ :a a Q' 1 o E N ,c.-„1812C 3'1 21 N N N ( ..0, ‘,.!,1 N N I N : it,-; in N N N 161 CO 8101 N to G_ SHERWOOD _ JJ 80811E N o^18088 8075 i 8094 1 `c I `o° 8085 'D 2 18086 8085 to I u;I til I 8C N N N } N N N N :V N N 1 3080 G 8071 l .,,.,.. I R(17, a 1 - I LE -• Zoning Map Planning Case 540-98 Applicant: Danny Danielson Location: 8444 Greenwood Drive 1\7- MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 567-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR DANNY DANIELSON, 8444 GREENWOOD DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 540-98 WHEREAS, Danny Danielson, representing parents Ernest & Marlene Danielson, has requested approval for a minor subdivision dividing property located at 8444 Greenwood Drive, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: The South 234.98 Feet of Lot 5, Block 1, Danielson Addition, r . _ Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the two lots created by this minor subdivision, Parcel A(the northern parcel with the existing home) and Parcel B (the southern parcel) would be legally described as follows: Parcel A: The North 156.97 Feet of the South 234.98 Feet of Lot 5, Block 1, • Danielson Addition, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota Parcel B: The South 78.01 Feet of Lot 5, Block 1, Danielson Addition, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant's request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate and Plat of Survey for the above described property; and, WHEREAS, the Engineering Technician for the City of Mounds View has reviewed the proposed minor subdivision and has found it acceptable with stipulations as noted herein; and, WHEREAS, all subdivisions of land are subject to a park dedication fee as required in Section 1204.02 of the Municipal Code NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission . recommends approval of the minor subdivision request made by Danny Danielson, of 8444 Greenwood Drive, contingent upon the following: Danielson Minor Subdivision Resolution No. 567-99 • January 6, 1999 Page 2 1. Prior to City Council action on this request, the Certificate of Survey shall be revised to show the following: a. Text shall be added to the certificate which states; "Separate drainage and utility easement documents consistent with those areas so noted on this Certificate of Survey have been recorded with Ramsey County." b. A signature block shall be added which bears the names of the property owners (Ernest & Marlene Danielson) and the Mayor and City Clerk/Administrator (Daniel Coughlin and Charles S. Whiting, respectively) c. The title of the survey shall read "Certificate of Survey. " 2. The applicant shall make payment of a park dedication fee of$1,475 according to the requirements in Section 1204.02 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. 3. Before building permits can be issued, the following shall occur: a. The applicant shall record the City Council resolution of approval, the • Certificate of Survey and the drainage and utility easement documents with • Ramsey County within sixty(60) days of final adoption, and present proof of such recording to the City of Mounds View. Failure to record these documents or provide proof of such recordation shall cause this approval to be null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of January, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director • (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCAS ES1540-98\567-99PC.RES REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION • Meeting Date: January 6, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No. 545-98 Request: Accessory Building Height Variance Applicant: Dan Gates Address: 5364 Clifton Drive PIN #: 08-30-23-14-0042 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential Lot Size: 10,449 Square Feet (.24 acres) Applicable Regulations: • Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. • Section 1106.03, Subd. lc states that no accessory building shall exceed 15 feet in height. • Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Resolution No. 568-99 Background: The applicant, Dan Gates, is requesting approval of a variance to permit his under-construction garage to exceed the maximum height provision of 15 feet. The proposed height of the garage is 16 feet The basis of the request is two-fold The applicant would like the roof-line of the new garage to match the roof-line of the house, which has a fairly steep slope. The other reason for the variance request, and the basis for the hardship, is that the City is requiring Mr. Gates' work truck to be parked within his garage or to have it removed from the property altogether. (His work truck is a commercial vehicle as defined by City Code and as such is not allowed to be parked outside in a residential district.) Because the truck is too tall to fit within a typically sized garage, Mr. Gates needs to install an eleven-foot garage door, thus raising the height of the proposed garage by one foot. On August 13, 1998, the applicant obtained a building permit to expand his garage, which involved moving the existing garage back approximately fourteen feet and constructing additional • garage space with a new door in the front, to match the front line and roof line of the house. After having received an anonymous complaint about commercial vehicles parked at the applicant's house, staff sent a letter dated 9/4/98 which informed the applicant of the City Code requirement prohibiting commercial vehicles from being parked outside in a residential district. Gates Variance Planning Case No. 545-98 • January 6, 1999 Page 2 The applicant then approached the City Council on October 12, 1998 in an effort to resolve the situation by means of a special use permit or a"grandfathering" action. Mr. Gates related that the truck has been there for years and his home is the only place to conveniently park the vehicle. In response, the Council explained that this particular ordinance was put to a vote of the community and the community decided that commercial vehicles were not appropriate in residential districts. Staff is duty-bound, the Council added, to enforce the Codes of the City to the best of its ability. As a result of this exchange, Mr. Gates resolved to alter his building plans to be able to park his vehicle inside. Analysis: For the Planning Commission to grant a variance, it must examine the criteria established in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the City Code, which relate to hardships. Specifically, a variance may only be granted in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which does 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. The applicant has been instructed by the City to either park his work vehicle in his garage or remove it from the property. This is resulting from a Code requirement that restricts commercial vehicles from being parked outside on a residential district. To accommodate the truck, the building plans for the under-construction garage were revised, going from a ten-foot door to an eleven-foot door. The additional foot puts the height of the garage at 16 feet instead of the originally-proposed 15 feet. b. 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 language regarding accessory building height, if upheld, would require the applicant to demolish the work already done on the garage expansion (i.e., remove footings, foundation, slab, walls) so as to excavate one foot deeper, repour the floor, reinstall the footings and foundation. If the garage floor were excavated as such one foot deeper, no variance would be required as the height of accessory buildings is measured from the exterior grade, not the interior floor elevation. • Gates Variance • Planning Case No. 545-98 January 6, 1999 Page 2 c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. While Mr. Gates is responsible for owning a vehicle which does not conform to City Code, he is attempting to correct the situation by constructing a garage with a one-foot variance in order to park the vehicle inside. • d. That granting the variance requested will 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 this variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege, in that staff would instruct future applicants intent upon parking an oversize vehicles within a garage how to make such arrangements without the need for a variance. Because staff told Mr. Gates that the truck would need to be removed after construction had already started on the garage addition, staff could not offer Mr. Gates this advice. • e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. In order to reconfigure the garage to allow for the truck to be parked inside, the garage door will need to be made one-foot taller. Because of the added door height, the garage in turn would become one foot taller. This is the minimum variance possible with keeping the garage roof in line with the roof of the home. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting this variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other properties in the neighborhood. Many attached garages have taller roofs to match the roof-line of the home. The one-foot increase will be im perceivable to the general public. g. 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 will not impair any neighboring properties' supply of light or air, it • will not create any additional traffic impact nor will it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. There would not be any impact to property values in the immediate area. Gates Variance Planning Case No. 545-98 • January 6, 1999 Page 2 Recommendation: Approve Resolution 568-99, a resolution approving the variance request made by Dan Gates to construct a sixteen-foot tall garage, one foot taller than allowed by Code, at his property located at 5364 Clifton Road.. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\545-98\GATES.PC 1 i S I1 %!l' Z; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • ... if V'Ft 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 nRMl'-Partne" 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information n Name of Applicant D a vt ,2..+-C. s Telephone 6),P - 9 gf'h-S7 3 Address S Z u e_.V‘1.-�, IDI\ Fax . S.S'» . . Interest in Property(check appropriate box) X Owner of Property 0 Contract for Deed Owner _ 0 Lessee, Operator,Manager a Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal I ' . • Address or General Location 6\- r,, 6—S `" e 1 t-g „� .. Legal Description Lv T 2k. igLK • (z Pi (7eweocd' 72,dvgce 4-`-/ ,,Property Identification#(PIN#) -', ' _ #of Acres Current Zoning '9 — J Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5250 ❑ Rezoning 5250/acre; min 5250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+S250 deposit* 0 Minor Subdivision $200 0 Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees 0 PUD Amendment $350 a Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2 S75;all others$250 _Variance R-1, R-2 5100 all others 5250 0 Code Appeal $100 a Develop Review/Site Plan 5125/acre;min S125 max$750 0 Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2 SI50;all others 5200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2 S25;all others$100 a Floodplain Permit 5200 0 Other *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, • research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Development Application Page 2 - Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant X' Single Family Dwelling • ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) • Property Classification 0 Abstract ❑ Torrens - Description of ProposalZ 0 J•t ''{—ca e_: X 2 2 e- r az: 0 rcc 1 s Qh. C i ,, x•A�r 1- - `t." d.arfN vs.e -t-kit )''J. Q BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant �✓t !� Name of Applicant(typed/printed) D Q n , ) a+e Si ature of Pro Owner � PAY • Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) D 1 Oe S • Address of Owner �3 l" �1%-c +o,,. 7.>,1 L 14/Ott-tdrS V:L� -'�/V• Phone Number of Owner 6 I ! eZ- 6-).7 • • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 3' { 0 Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. S V' S gam(, 60-day Limit 120-day limit - Fees Paid: Account# Check# • Receipt# Application: { 0C) . W tick) —3 9 53 2L-1' `t(f) Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: N'DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 m ; 5511 I 5512 1 5511 CN 5497s 5472 5503 C 5504 5505 i. F 5499 PINEWOOD 1 • _d 1 5493 5494 I 5493 SCHOOL (.. 5479 5485 5486 5485 5500to R-2 1.0 5473 5468 5475 5478 5475 5467 W 5464 5463 546 5467 F Q 5463 B 5459 5455 5456 4. OJ s23' 5453 i.. I� 5447 Q S� 5447 0 s. y1,, W 5441 < 543 c0.S Sp7� so 5439 NI in in ,,� ��'t• (- 5433 �`�� 5433 N N N N N N - ,n moi, z `sem i 5425 BELLE W N 7425 r'di 2 2 O N 5421 `° u' 'n `r ,� 542 5419 N N N N N T 5415 5414 — N 'n o 0 3 ^ N Q, --in ,n N in rn11' Io .4- ri N .-: Y 5405 5406 N N N N N N 5405N N N N N N N . 538 `. Q DRIVE 53 i N cp O N N O O 'r L+ .• m "' `r' "' N O rn C° 5392 % 91 53921 5391 536 r w N N N N N N N (N N N N 36•. 0 �/• • 5386 538- .6. 6' O ir80 5379 C 5380 RE -011Ew • ' - . UM= Mill 5351 J :. 535wm E 64 536 ' 5364 536 ' 534' 0 R-5 5357 1158 535 5358 IME 53 Lil N N N N N N No o rn m EM 5352 5351 �„ N N N N N N N N N N N T.3v ;• ERT AVE �� 533. N 14 u, ' .� ' I vi ' ' .N } 5338 53. S.138 . 532` 1 = N N N N Q7 Z 532-:BERT N I N I N 1 N I N N N N N N 5 533031 532• 5330E 532 s. _ 111111111 . 531 ),K 1 I cangsze11112311 53" � i I � ; p W_ I i ! 1 '-'161 - I i 93 ,4 5.308 5301 U 53081 5347 . �3 c 530 1 0 i I 5300. 529• 53001529• 529 - 20.. -' - I n i nIa, I n n In 5294i 529 ' 52941529 5O I I g v I N i NN N_ Nc) c° 5L90NJ (NN NNC`: ZN; i ( 1 N I NN Z N N , N , N I N 52881 528� 52881 528� 528 s NN SZ75 . . . ...... . ... ..•........... N N PUD 5267 S Zoning Map Planning Case 545-98 Applicant: Dan Gates / Location: 5364 Clifton Drive - L�\� a f _.. MI `moo /i.),: I ► cr1 / // .."27 • w • II %N. y L ".--9 ~`_ - - a // rs. 17 \....:,,,--:„.....; - J .--- . , 1 .\ \ i 1 s, ....., , \ I I \ I 1\ • z l. C..• I f \ • 3 \ c i i \ i ___,1, 0 v mok...,1) 1 -_ '' \., . ...„, . , --., ,. . . 4 I.i C ,.. , , ‘ .) , i I ; I. M `' w d L_ . J G 1.4 IIi I..••'•.• . K c r '1 - I (i : .,49 0 cb s T • ill . 1 s JP. 6 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 568-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A GARAGE WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF 15 FEET BY ONE FOOT; 5364 CLIFTON DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. 545-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Dan Gates to allow for a garage to be constructed at a height of 16 feet, one foot beyond the maximum allowed by Section 1106.03, Subd. lc of the Mounds View Zoning Code, at his property located at 5364 Clifton Drive; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 28, Block 12, Pinewood Terrace No. 4; Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 City of Mounds View, County of Ramsey 1110 WHEREAS, the PlanningCommission has reviewed the followingdocuments associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plan WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may grant variances to specific dimensional requirements within the Zoning Code under unique, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do 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, in that the applicant has been instructed by the City to either park his work vehicle in his garage or remove it from the property. This is resulting from a Code requirement that restricts commercial vehicles from being parked outside on a residential district. To accommodate the truck, the building plans for the under-construction garage were revised, going from a ten-foot door to an eleven-foot door. The additional foot puts the height of the garage at 16 feet instead of the originally-proposed 15 feet; and, 410 Planning Commission Resolution 568-98 Gates Variance January 6, 1999 Page 2 111 WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the literal interpretation of the language regarding accessory building height, if upheld, would require the applicant to demolish the work already completed on the garage expansion (i.e., remove footings, foundation, slab, walls) so as to excavate one foot deeper, repour the floor, reinstall the footings and foundation. If the garage floor were excavated as such one foot deeper, no variance would be required as the height of accessory buildings is measured from the exterior grade, not the interior floor elevation.; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that while Mr. Gates is responsible for owning a vehicle which does not conform to City Code, he is attempting to correct the situation by constructing a garage with a one-foot variance in order to park the vehicle inside; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that staff would instruct future applicants intent upon parking an oversize vehicles within a garage how to make such arrangements without the need for a variance. Because staff told Mr. Gates that the truck would need to be removed after construction had already begun on the garage addition, staff could not offer Mr. Gates this advice; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship, in that in order to reconfigure the garage to allow for the truck to be parked inside, the garage door will need to be made one-foot taller. Because of the added door height, the garage in turn would become one foot taller. This is the minimum variance possible with keeping the garage roof in line with the roof of the home; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the same zone in that many attached garages have taller roofs to match the roof-line of the home. The one-foot increase will be imperceivable to the general public and - .. . ' ._ _ - . . • . -- - . .. ' . ... . - .ar e. in ron o e home; and, WHEREAS, the variance would 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 in that the one foot difference from what is allowed and what is requested will not impair any neighboring properties' supply of light or air, it will not create any additional traffic impact nor will it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. There would not be any impact to property values in the immediate area.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission, • acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, approves the variance to allow a 16-foot tall garage at 5364 Clifton Drive, in accordance with the building plans on file with the Building Inspector. Planning Commission Resolution 568-98 Gates Variance January 6, 1999 • Page 3 Adopted this 6th day of January, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\545-98\568-98A.RES • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION IP CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting December 16, 1998 Mounds ,`,,i. City City Hall 2401 Highway 10, 's`: nd . '7ew, MN 55112 r'k' `1K.>, 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peters•'_ 7:0 , Decemb-.�g a. rnA,,, 2. Roll Call - Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commission. Bras kik,,.t , ed 9:20), Johnson, Miller, Obert, and Stevenson (arrived 7:05 departe• , , 0.) ' Members Absent: None , Also Present: Community Developme ��.irector 4 ck Jop'4.•.:30*- . g Associate Jim Ericson, III Council Liaison Koopmeiners, Publi. kirks D r,=' or MiklJ 'ch, City Attorney Scott Riggs; and Recorder Stacy Caton. w3 Index to 'n •s Page Planning Ca -r ` -98, A D��� � Recommending Approval of an 2 Alternate Site ' i ) °- opme- s : for the Proposed Building N Developmen '` obis ,' • , Busin �: °ark. Specia ., ng Case o._ P i y-98, consideration of an Amendment to Chapter 6 112 l Mounds Vie ` C. ` Code (Off Street ParkingRequirements) Regarding q ) g g Multi le Curb Cuts on C rner Lots within Single-Family-Residential Districts. Resp a tion No. 566.9:, A Resolution Establishing Planning Commission 8 feet R d '+ 6 'e Submission Dates for 1999 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda No citizen requests of comments on items not on the agenda were considered. III4. Approval of Minutes � Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 2 • A. November 18, 1998 Motion/Second: Johnson/Miller to approve the November 18, 1998 meeting minut- as corrected. , . Ayes- 5 Nays- 0 The motion carried. 5. _ Planning Case No. 543-98 Property Involved: 5145 Program Avenue Consideration of Resolution No. 565-98, a Resolut'•_ commen• • r;.p 'oval of an Alternate Site Plan (Development Review) for the Propo a = •• Develo zn� Mounds View Business Park. c Applicant: Everest Development, Ltd., ' -$ esented. PP P � The applicant was present. • Ericson gay- he staff repo 41t., oi ows: n a The appscant,.. est Dev opm--t is requesting approval of an alternate site plan for the Building N s te= tqt . withutt ; o t.•s View Business Park, which was originally approved by the City Council*.'49- The a.• ' -guests that either plan (the 1994 version or the plan contemplated n '• ed to "I " greater flexibility in marketing the building to prospective!• enants orowr' ' ,The new proposal shows a 69,582 square-foot building, which is 33 perc t smaller than the:012v - y approved 102,950 square foot buildi••. - • - the singe-story, brick faced p= ce/flex building will match that of the Liberty Check Building. The ilding would accommodate user needs for office, laboratory, production, high-tech assembly or storage useg useIt is anticipated that office uses will occupy 50 to 75 percent of the build•. E' sackr _ cements have been met. There is currently a Rice Creek Watershed District (R ' permit in force for the previously approved Building N development. Staff has forwarded a revised set of plans to the district office for their review. Revised plans have also been sent to the City Engineer for their review. The parking provided, according to City requirements, will be adequate to serve the building as 1111 long as office uses do not exceed 75 percent of the usable floor area of the building (the balance i Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 • Special Meeting Page 3 used as warehouse, storage or manufacturing.) The revised landscape plan indicates all of the same species, in similar ratios, and e.,t4= exceeds the previous plan by an additional five plantings. Staff has asked the City F• ter tV--view the revised landscape plan in the event that any of the species hay been rem # •find to be susceptible to disease or any other problems. The access and drive aisles are in conformance with Fir `-partme •uire #; 5zakt,, an. 4's. Because of the angled loading bays at the rear of the bu _, tru•4,"raffic will •61:01.0;4. the north driveway and exit only from the south driveway. _ feet of impervio ace at the rear of the building to sufficiently accommodate the .i maneuvering of the trucks. The building will tie into existing watermains and sant:-.• sewe d e Fire Marshall has been sent a copy of the utility plan to verify locatio umber o i, � drants available for the site and building. Ericson told the Planning Commission of } ssue ra r •'-1.. � 4:- '.ay by the City Engineer and Director of Public Works regardin_ ;}e south ;r vewa ! development. It was f • suggested that Clifton Drive be exte+g,- , into th :uilding '•'and Mounds View Inn properties to eliminate a possible point of traffi ct. P— drivewa„ or the uss mentioned are within twenty feet of each other and ar4ectly a R$• from ,,Er on Drive. Tim Nelsof� .resentin.; '- = Group, it; ommission that Everest does not have a tenant fac• .54 ed buy• • a , design o `a e building gives Everest the flexibility it needs to accommod = types • *474.4r44,-,, Several photographs of existing buildings were offered n6 to give the Co" ,"• 1.:. idea yt: proposed structure would look like. Several reports were offered t. 00e«t *army ation for the type of building that is being proposed. • ge • r 3• ;:f • ,w011• 1 • - • •i 's es would not be completed at the time an o « pant was signed.° ' "on concurred with Peterson's comments. n said Everest is a' 'ng for approval of the "plan" so that they have the flexibility of either l v •g the previousi-.pproved office/warehouse building or the building that is before the Co ion to gh `"Construction would begin spring of 1999, Nelson added. f ; • N= st e idea of the extension of Clifton and redoing the driveway connection at the southwest corner of the site was a new issue and would be addressed after being analyzed by Everest staff Nelson did say that the extension seemed problematic from the standpoint that Everest has spent a lot of time developing the alternate building and companion engineering plans. • Nelson said Everest would like to keep traffic from the Mounds Inn and this site as far away from each other as possible. Peak hours in the mornings would see traffic coming into the Everest site I Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 4 • and peak hours in the afternoon would see traffic leaving, which is just the opposite of the motel traffic pattern. Nelson said Everest would be willing to supply the appropriate signing for the streets in order to minimize traffic congestion. The plat has already been approve' billing four existing legal parcels into one for the proposed site. Filing has not n p1.. on this yet because of the substantial park dedication fee that goes with • -velopm4W.Ir''site. Peterson noted that there were five main entrances for sus; ants. Nel were designed in a fashion that would allow two doors off of entran nee.''w4 € ; s_.ed = building could be divided down into 5,000 square-foot bu ,•e° most like n . would be 10,000 square-foot. • Peterson asked for clarification in regard to the site's drivel `gym• • . with the car wash. Nelson said the driveway was moved to its current loc.f•on, as • • ' e plan, so it matches up with one of the driveways of the car wash rather , ave two e This shouldn't be a conflict. He added before the plan gets to the est wourd;re, ew the driveway locations and adjust any conflict that may oc« xU J N Ericson said a lighting plan had been su•;e tted anep' did requirements. Peterson asked for a description o 4 e ••r< all syst:..r located between the proposed • building site and the adjacent C.r site. son • • <'e retaining wall system, a Keystone product, w. described in d $& e civil._ , '`project. There are also retaining walls along the no ;• ide of th. • • $ >, he ad. - Miller aske• or •cation • • snow storage. Nelson said the site did not have a lot of room for snow`$ Drag -: • ccurntiraWPTin. will have to be removed from the site and relocated, Nelson said. Trai ilii..‘- :andle•: Q umpsters located inside of the building. Pick-ups and deliveries can„ge andlec t _,ade-'--vel entries located at various sites in the building. This' Al- •_,• • . • .. •. _3: it*.• - • - . - .. - ■ . n • •'.• . • - . . . . . - _se said ,,, Paingratios were discussed and deemed acceptable by the Commission. Nelson said the parking in the busine s,!:;'park had been designed for the highest range of tenant use and was flexible i terms of acco .• ating changing parking needs. 4 '�<�r�”"moi.; Nfliit item No. 2 of the Resolution stipulations would be eliminated. Obert said it was his opinion that the stipulation should remain as part of the Resolution. Miller said there are different office requirements in regard to parking. Nelson agreed that the market will self-correct the parking needs of each individual site. In this particular case, the site is engineered for 5 stalls per thousand which is almost 100 percent of the requirement in most suburbs. Ericson said staff • would be comfortable omitting stipulation item No. 2 from the resolution. • Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 5 Obert asked for an explanation as to what would happen if extra parking is needed for a site that has been engineered for a certain amount of parking, or if parking complaints are lodged by neighboring businesses. Ericson said the City has no fall-back plan for this situatio 's is an issue that is supposed to be under the control of the building owner or o •ant die s supposed to be a self-correcting issue. Obert suggested that the surroundi neigh.:4• t• eed protection, not necessarily the business park occupants. The private s 4 ' t.`' '° :,4 a heir parking problems, Brasaemle said. Obert expressed his concerntf off e City n--1" l.e of enforcement for possible parking violations. Nelson sai•k AV e City c. &€ -lp e property rights. as mn7 rr d a zt Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission a A ; olution 565-98, a resolution recommending approval of an alternate site plan, with sti ti. a ;: .si•9, development of the 6.89- acre Building N site, Mounds View Business Park, as a ueste.<i :., Group. • Motion/Second: Stevenson/Miller to strike sti• • • ` ,� � o. 2 fro "olution No. 565-98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an • a`- ent Review) for the Proposed Building N Development, Mou 8 iew rot" f=S • Ayes - 5 ;\.f. s 1 (O=. ) The motion carried. Obert said he didn't agree with p ► $; g the b , k-n of g the site's driveway on the developer. Director • c Work dxx4a 'ch, sai1 s opinion that there should be some type of language ui olutioii.or D 4:74,' .ment eement that would address accidents that could happen beco u- turning' �,:is on the site and the two entrances into the site. Obert • _ said it would rio o the • ,. .Au have to maintain a shared access to the site. Peterson said the issue could be. •=r-ssed _ tatement of liability in the Development Agreement. Ulrich saiJp ea•-ofhav ng o driveways the City would extend the public street into the site and be =. ntained by th Ci ttorney Scott Rigs 7 sat• it would be very difficult to formulate language that would prevent lia : concerns and . 6w or require a developer to come back some time in the future and re the develNp ent agreement. The issues being discussed should be handled in the front en o •e develo•ii ent process, Riggs said. He recommended, as part of the motion, that the dnx , • e the City Council can make up its own mind and staff can suggest a different solar problem, be stated as not being a problem because it is part of the approved plan. Brasaemle suggested that the staff report reflect the Commission's opinion that the driveway issue was not a problem. This would eliminate the need to have the Resolution's language reflect the • Commission's opinion, he added. I Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 6 io Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. 565-98, A Resolution Recommending Approval of an Alternate Site Plan (Development Review) for the Proposed Building N Development, Mounds View Business Park, as amend:=gf ' the previous motion. Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 Cj- moti Ulrich made the comment that the City should consider M `.pleting 4e urb Artsjigti .y st iti the business park in an effort to eliminate future parkin:. . . traffi,,,..roblems. �t'o. ' ,-he staff report written in regard to this evening's meeting r}.-, 4,3'r'uggestion. Erica t••. the report would reflect Ulrich's comments. Special Planning Case No. SP-066-98 [Publt, . ting] 4 �£ -. Properties Involved: Corner Lots, Single-FanuL . : s-+. ,1 District Consideration of an Amendment to Chapter '' o :��� s Vie ity Code (Off-Street Parking Requirements) Regarding Multip wurb C ..'''111.71 -0.2`f'. within Single-Family Residential Districts. • No public was present Peterson N. the publi -y " •. > Riggs gave' s e=, folio fW'h k b:: ya.. City Attorne g ;sa gts te iss411,;i=: come down to whether Mr. Tobias had done repair work or has 'i ne replac•= ... •utri: t of his driveway. The bottom line is that Mounds View's '. .. ..- .' . --‘ - ' inte . as a guideline. ; t' obias' case, a nonconforming situation was destroyed by more < thai 0 percent, which s, ul. not have been rebuilt," Riggs stated. He added, Mr. Tobias' driveway is now in violn of the Code and would require a variance. "The idea of 4.27 ormity is ifi td "` es not conform once it reaches the end of its useful life, that end period, Fon If out placing a driveway because you can't overlay it, that suggests it is to the p o , , 1 'amortized itself out, and that's the idea of a nonconforming statute, or aril ...1 ch the City has," Riggs said. Peterson said the last time the Commission was faced with this issue the same conclusion was drawn. The applicant was in violation of the Code. Obert said Tobias' driveway was a nonconforming use to begin with. Not only was the old asphalt removed and the base III underneath, but the tree roots underneath the base was removed, Obert said. He said the Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 7 • homeowner had signed an agreement with the contractor that showed no driveway going out to Sherwood Road. The City's Codes are put in place to protect all of the City's residents. Granting of variances to skirt the Code should not be the norm, but the exception, Obert sai• -a' he Council's request to consider rewriting the code to accommodate a van . res " would set an extremely dangerous precedent, he added. Ericson asked Riggs how other City's view driveway repl.. ent. Sh. 3 °< Code refle that a driveway that is "there" can be maintained, and , i a repaire—s d ma involve taking the driveway out and putting in new Cl ar. d ne�d`". phalt? P. �. v.• itute removing the old driveway and putting in a new drivew /044 Ns t just simple mai" ."e and repair, Ericson asked. Miller said in the City's other Codes that apply to con. rsns th. gr-Zs eyed more than 50 percent, those situations have to be brought up to c..' Tobias' • . • :.is are nonconforming and you aren't bringing it up to ,•,1c4, 3_ it up tea'' Riggs said the easiest way to read the that T4."i s , ar a destruction and would cease the nonconformity at that point in e. Th- Y ies tseen used for comparison have • a little better definition of what a "d. ,s ':e and •,M ruction" , ggs said. Peterson recommended conside '8 'a e •;."- issue .4►urate of the driveway replacement issue. The Commis ion concurred Ulrich s. t hi situa on is how close his driveway is to the intersection and the sal es:e. f volve• ` - backing out of his driveway into heavy traffic conditions. Johnso• °W�t8 he wo'41 , '7' . favor of changing the ordinance because of the precedent it wouis of;er `-sidents to request variances because of some situation that is notal we• byyC•• .: :. terson'asked if there were setback requirements for a driveway to • -• - •• - ei er •ire ion o an m ersectton, • nc a•.e•. Brasttemle said it was hisopinion that the Council should decide on this variance request based on thy:••erits of the particuf case. If the City needs to revisit the Code, that should be done in a nor =: esearch oriental approach rather than making the Code change based on this one case. -,14.1`; ° ed in all of his years workingfor the Police Department he had never seen ,� F ,,. P an acctcdetl:` .,Involved a two-curb-cut lot. Peterson closed the public hearing. • Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Stevenson to inform the City Council that after considering testimony at the public hearing, it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 8 41 Mounds View City Code (Off-Street Parking Requirements) Regarding Multiple Curb Cuts on corner Lots within Single Family Residential Districts, should stand "as is." Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 The motion 'ed. The Commission directed staff to gather information on w A sti ork and what constitutes replacement work in regard to residential s in the ,4,1‘409,$,,•s View. T3° would include criteria for different types of building and .li applicab =tbac : `€ 'M e information can be presented to the Commission at a la 4,7.0,'1. w "ommissio =' 7. •Resolution No. 566-98 A Resolution Establishing Planning Commissio$�s eetitt= . d Timeli ssion Dates for 1999. This item was added to the agenda. • Motion/Second: Obert/Johnson f,-e'prove € '. 566-98, A Resolution Establishing Planning Co I 'ssion Meet'$cL . 86', Time .414$,I$.;Ray$ Dates for 1999. -4 Nays - ' The motion carried. 8. Staff R $ 3 ,, ._ • Jopke tol..k,n ommmsssto$ ; Dave has submitted his Ietter of resignation. He has accepted a posits.. in Tampa, Floe= '' *>esolution of Appreciation will he drafted and forwarded_to Daves.e appreciation for>vsar with the City. 100,9:•,-1;q Chairperson act Planning Commissioners' Reports A s were § idered. t , .TmiAv ii:',4,ziagiournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 410