Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-2007 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 24, 2007 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. on January 24, 2007. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Gary Stevenson; Commissioners: Keith Cramblit, Sherry Gunn, Gary Meehlhause, Jean Miller, Todd Lang, and Mary Kay Walsh-Kaczmarek Absent and Excused: None Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Continuation: MI2006-002; Consideration of Minor Subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road 2 Consideration of Resolution 859-07; Amendment to Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws 6 Review Potential Timeline and Process for Updating Comprehensive Plan 7 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes December 20, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/Commissioner Cramblit, to approve the minutes of the December 20, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. Continuation: MI2006-002; Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road; Applicant: Abiding Savior Lutheran Church; Location: 8211 Red Oak Drive. Community Development Director Ericson reported the Planning Commission considered a minor subdivision split request from Abiding Savior Lutheran Church at the January 10, 2007 meeting. He indicated the minor subdivision would include a split of the home and 16,000 square feet creating a flag-shaped parcel that would be absorbed into the Church’s property at the corner of Red Oak Drive and Ardan Avenue. Director Ericson explained a minor subdivision is a division of less than two acres in an area where no more than one additional lot is created. Director Ericson reported the Church wishes to develop the property for senior co-op housing in the future. He explained a letter was received from the Church indicating its desire to join the flag shaped lot to the existing church property. He stated the Church would sell the lot with the house some time in the future. Director Ericson explained the Church indicated the only reason the lot was not split cleanly into two lots was to preserve the row of mature pine trees. Director Ericson explained park dedication fees would be waived unless further intensification or development of the property transpired in the future. Director Ericson stated all setbacks and minimum requirements are satisfied with this request. He indicated that as with every subdivision of land, the City requires drainage and utility easements be dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. He stated that if the subdivision is approved, easements would be required for Parcel B with a five foot easement on the north and south sides and ten feet on the east and west sides of the parcel. Director Ericson explained easements could not be recorded via a Certificate of Survey, however, staff would request the easement as described be added to the Certificate of Survey with a notation that the easements as shown would be dedicated separately by the property owner. Director Ericson explained this is not a public hearing as one is not required for a minor subdivision; however, notices were sent to the property owners who signed in at the previous Planning Commission meeting as a courtesy. Director Ericson stated the application was accepted on December 26, 2006 and in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes, a decision must be made within 60 days of acceptance of the application. He indicated the deadline for action is February 24, 2007. He stated, assuming the Planning Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commission makes a recommendation on January 24, 2007; the request would then go before the City Council on February 12, 2007. Director Ericson summarized the proposed minor subdivision for 8184 Eastwood Road is requested to create additional land that would be combined with the Abiding Savior property at 8211 Red Oak Drive. He stated the remaining single family lot with home on Eastwood Road would be consistent with all setbacks and subdivision code requirements. Director Ericson explained that if the Commission felt it had all the information necessary to proceed with a recommendation to the City Council, it could recommend approval, request staff to draft a resolution to deny the subdivision if just cause exists, or table the resolution to acquire additional information. He stated the Commission should act upon this as soon as possible prior to the 60-day time limit. Director Ericson indicated the 60 days could be extended. Director Ericson pointed out the letter submitted by Mr. Kunz, the application, zoning map, aerial map, photos of the home, and the Certificate of Survey showing the lot division are included in the Commission packets. He stated the conditions included on the resolution are: the applicant shall arrange to have the Certificate of Survey revised to illustrate the proposed drainage and utility easement areas; the applicant shall arrange to bring the existing shed from 8418 Eastwood Road into compliance with setback and zoning requirements based on the proposed new lot line; and the applicant shall arrange to immediately combine Parcel A with the existing Church property at 8211 Red Oak Drive with Ramsey County within 60 days per City Code. Director Ericson stated he spoke to the City Attorney who indicated this could move forward. Director Ericson read the letter from Mr. Kunz to clarify the intent of the Church. He mentioned the Church intends to combine Parcel A with the existing Church property as soon as possible and that Parcel B, including the house, would be put up for sale in the near future. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek referenced to the last paragraph of the letter relating to future development and commented this is not in compliance regardless of the fact they intend to make it compliant. She indicated regarding it separately would have a detrimental effect on the character of the neighborhood which is zoned low density family residential. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stated Mounds View already has an aging housing infrastructure. She stressed that by cutting the lot down, a less desirable house and lot is what is left to be sold. Chair Stevenson remarked Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek made a good point, however, it is a null and void issue if Parcel A is not adjoined to the Church property within 60 days. He stressed Parcel A is a nonconforming lot and there would be no consideration by the Planning Commission to make it a buildable lot. He pointed out Parcel B would have 90 feet plus of frontage and consist of 16,000 square feet, which meets the requirements and is a very sellable lot. Chair Stevenson stressed this is not a public hearing, however, residents were invited to speak on behalf of the separation of Parcel A and B, with the stipulation that Parcel A must be recorded as part of the Church property in 60 days. Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Randy Heltzer, 8180 Eastwood Road, stated he received a letter from the Church indicating they want to put some of this property back on the tax role. He stated the City would lose ten feet of road frontage to the Church. He indicated the reason is not to save the trees, but for the future easement along the tree line. Chair Stevenson asked Director Ericson if the tax issue should be addressed. Director Ericson replied there are legal issues that preclude the City from taking into consideration the loss of tax value as a reason for denial of the resolution. Chair Stevenson asked about the current tax situation with 8184 Eastwood and the Church property. Director Ericson replied, to become tax exempt, the paperwork must be in place by June 30 of the previous year for the following year to be tax exempt. He stated the property is currently taxed. Mr. Bob Sherry, 8160 Eastwood Road, commented the frontage on Eastwood that does not conform to code would set precedence. He stated he did not believe a potential buyer for Parcel B would be in favor of an apartment complex next to their property. He stated he would like to see the current proposal rejected or tabled until a new proposal for a minor subdivision minus the staff portion of the lot is submitted. Mr. Jim Sikorski, 8340 Sunnyside Road, emphasized that he believed the reason for the subdivision was so the Church could combine a piece of property they could later sell as one parcel. He stated the intention of the Church is to develop a 32 unit development, which is something the neighborhood does not want or need. Mr. Ken Fletcher, 8330 Sunnyside Road, stated he agreed the ten feet is for more than saving the trees. He indicated that if this is approved and recognized as a tacit approval of what would surely follow, it needs to be noted in the minutes, that it in no way forces the Planning Commission to approve the second part of this. Mr. Fletcher indicated the Abiding Savior Lutheran Church is not well thought of in the neighborhood. Chair Stevenson thanked Mr. Fletcher for his comments and replied there is no reason the Planning Commission could not put forth, beyond the approval or denial that this is not an endorsement for the development. Commissioner Meehlhause stated this resolution must be considered on the basis of what is presented and not on what future plans might be. Chair Stevenson replied that was true, however, he believes the statement could be made to go along with the resolution. Commissioner Gunn stated this goes back to viewing it as the separate item discussed before and what everyone should concentrate on is the application to rezone the area. She stated this is what Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ would need to be scrutinized and not the current resolution on the table. She stated there are many steps to go through for development requests. Chair Stevenson stated a major rezoning would come before the Planning Commission for the development and that would be considered at that time. Director Ericson explained the proposal by the Church would be to subdivide the 34,900 square feet from the house lot and, at the same time, combine it with the Church parcel. He indicated it would be adding acreage to the Church lot and not creating a separate lot. Commissioner Miller stated the issue on the table is for the minor subdivision and the Planning Commission could not speculate as to what may or may not happen. Director Ericson pointed out the suggested wording in the resolution by Mr. Fletcher could be utilized and easy to add. He suggested the wording: now therefore be it further resolved that approval of this subdivision in no way shall be construed as tacit or implicit approval of subsequent applications. He stated any subsequent application must stand on its own merit. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked Director Ericson if the Church could decide to change their request because of the recommended changes. Director Ericson replied any applicant has the ability to withdraw or modify an application. He stated it is an intermediate step and often times there are modifications to requests. He indicated that in this case the Planning Commission could ask the Church to consider the recommendations. Commissioner Miller stated this should be taken as it is and not muddied up with anything else. Commissioner Gunn stated she liked Director Ericson’s suggested amendment to the resolution. Mr. Heltzer asked why the Church was going through a minor subdivision only to go after a major subdivision later. He indicated he objects to the way the Church is going about this. Commissioner Cramblit explained the Church could not do the major subdivision until the minor subdivision was approved. Director Ericson further explained the County wanted a clean subdivision to create new lot lines, rather than having lots outside of the subdivision as a result of the major subdivision. He indicated this could be done at the same time concurrently, however, this was not the choice made by the Church. Mr. Sikorski commented if the minor subdivision were not approved, there would not be enough property for the 32-unit development. He stated there is no benefit to approving this subdivision other than to assist the Church in moving forward with the major subdivision. Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson replied he would hesitate to say the major subdivision could not move forward if this resolution were not approved. Mr. Fletcher clarified that what the church wants to do is flip this property. He stated they would have no interest in what is built on the property. He stated it would be sold to a developer who would develop it. He stated the only thing this does for the Church is give them several hundred thousand dollars. Chair Stevenson asked Director Ericson to clarify specific items in the resolution regarding the park dedication fee. Director Ericson explained a park dedication fee would only apply if further development was made on the property. He recommended changes to the park dedication wording. Chair Stevenson agreed to Director Ericson’s recommendations. Commissioner Lang pointed out the address correction in stipulation number two. Chair Stevenson asked for consensus on Director Ericson’s recommended wording regarding any subsequent applications on the property. Consensus was reached by the Commission members. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/ Commissioner Lang, to approve Resolution 858-07, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road Requested by Abiding Savior Church; Mounds View Planning Case No. MI06-002, with additions and conditions. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1 Motion carried. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stressed she opposes this resolution because she believes it is not in compliance and would have a detrimental effect on the property and the character of the neighborhood. Director Ericson stated the resolution would go to the City Council on February 12, 2007. ____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Consideration of Resolution 859-07, a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws. Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission reviewed the bylaws at the January 10, 2007 meeting and suggested changing the number of absences a Commissioner could have in a given year. He stated that based on the suggested change, the bylaws have been amended to read: Any member absent from three or more consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or more than six regularly schedule meetings per year without the consent of the Commission shall be deemed to have vacated the office. Mounds View Planning Commission January 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek/Commissioner Miller, to Approve Resolution 859-07, a Resolution Recommending Adopting Revisions to the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Review Potential Timeline and Process for Updating the Comprehensive Plan Director Ericson stated it is time to move forward on updating the Comprehensive Plan. He stressed it is never too early to start given the magnitude of the task. He asked the Planning Commission to consider options for reviewing the Plan. He stated the Comp Plan is a guide for the City to lay out future development. He stated neighborhood meetings would be held to engage the community as much as possible. Director Ericson believes Mounds View is on solid ground with the Comp Plan. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek addressed the actual City Index and Benchmarks for the City in the Comprehensive Plan, asking if the City Index meant 67 percent owner occupied and 33 percent rental occupied and the Benchmark 75/25. She asked if this meant Mounds View was more rental occupied than recommended by the Metropolitan Council. Director Ericson replied the benchmarks are the Metropolitan Council’s goals for Mounds View. He explained the Met Council would like to see a minimum of 25 percent of the housing in Mounds View in rental property. He stated Mounds View met or exceeded all the benchmarks and goals identified by Met Council on affordable housing. He stated that looking forward; a number of affordable housing units should be added. He stated this would be addressed on a demographic basis. He indicated that with housing fluctuations, the City still meets or exceeds the expectations. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stated the Mayor indicated at the City Council meeting that Mounds View is virtually fully developed. She asked what this means for Mounds View if it is outside the guidelines of the Met Council. Director Ericson responded these are guidelines. He indicated that as the Metropolitan area expands, communities share their fair share of the burden of affordable housing. Commissioner Miller stated she has trouble with the term affordable. Director Ericson replied it is based on the median income for the area and differs from community to community. He indicated Mounds View has a fairly good mix of housing. Chair Stevenson commented the Planning Commission, Director Ericson, and Planning Associate Heller should spend time reviewing the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, the terms, the thought process that went into it, and why it is set up the way it is before it is open to the public. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 24, 2007 Page 8 Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek agreed and commented she would like the Commission to be forward thinking regarding plans for the future. Mr. Sikorski commented this is a good idea now with new members on the Planning Commission. 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings A. February 7, 2007 B. February 21, 2007 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PLEASE SIGN IN MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:_-=lfa jll.l/,i► Ly ca�ir�i�fJ7 Name Address Phone - ' a�v 7`�1 71 � r_S ���� Phe. Z�S '�CJ ��L✓GiG �C I� � �%d.S _.�D�d` F g3 q -o -s� v) ,�, 'Rc 7,� .-� 7,' ct o'72-7 Y i