Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 20, 2001 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., June 20, 2001. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Hegland, Stevenson, Johnson, Kaden, Zwirn, and Scotch. Members Excused: Miller (excused). Cerny (unexcused). Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson. ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR01-005 2 Applicant: Arlen Baumhoefner Location: 5532 St. Stephen Street Planning Case No. VR01-006 4 Applicant: David VandenEinde Location: 2832 Ardan Avenue Planning Case No. VR01-007 6 Applicant: Jennifer Osterlund Location: 8081 Red Oak Drive Planning Case No. DE00-002 13 Applicant: Tony Mezzenga Location: 7664 Greenfield Avenue Staff Reports/Items of Information 14 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 14 Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes a. May 16, 2001 MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Hegland. To Approve the May 16, 2001, Meeting Minutes as Presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case No. VR01-005 Planner Atkinson noted that this matter had been noticed for a public hearing. Planner Atkinson noted that the applicant had requested a variance to build an accessory structure on the property line and noted that City Code requires that accessory structures be located at least five (5) feet off the property line. Planner Atkinson noted that there were seven criteria that must be met in order for the Planning Commission to grant a variance. Planner Atkinson noted that the first criteria is that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to the 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 have had no control. He then noted that the property is located at 5532 St. Stephen Street and is a through lot with street frontage on both St. Stephen Street and Jackson Drive. He further noted the lot is relatively flat and free from any significant circumstance that could be considered exceptional or extraordinary. Planner Atkinson noted that the second criteria is that 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. He then noted that the setback requirements for accessory structures are the same for all residentially zoned lots within the City and no different from those imposed on the subject property. Planner Atkinson noted that the third criteria is that the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. He then noted that there appears to be no special conditions or circumstances on this property. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Atkinson noted that the fourth criteria is 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. He then noted that Staff feels that granting the variance requested would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners. Planner Atkinson noted that the fifth criteria is that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship noting economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. He then noted that without a demonstrated special condition any variance granted would exceed the minimum necessary to alleviate a hardship. Planner Atkinson noted the sixth criteria is that the minimum variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. He then noted that granting a variance in this situation would be detrimental to the purpose of the Title by allowing an accessory structure to be located within a required setback while there is ample space to construct the accessory structure in a location that meets the setback requirements established in the Code. Planner Atkinson noted the seventh criteria is that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. He then noted that the requested variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Planner Atkinson indicated that Staff does not feel the situation warrants a variance and recommended denial of the variance request. He then noted that Staff had drafted a Resolution for consideration at this meeting that would deny the variance request. Chair Stevenson asked why the City does not allow structures within five (5) feet of the property line. Community Development Director Ericson explained that for fire code reasons maintaining adequate space between buildings is important. He also noted that due to the intensity of use keeping structures five (5) feet off of the property lines keeps neighbors a distance from each other to keep them from infringing on each other’s space. He further noted that if the structure were located on the property line, maintenance of the structure would be an issue as the applicant would need to be in his neighbor’s yard to do the maintenance. Chair Stevenson noted that it is also a good idea to be on your own property so that the run off from the structure does not fall into a neighbor’s yard. Arlen Baumhoefner, the applicant, noted that the structure is not being built on the property line but one foot off the property line so water runoff should run on his property and not be an issue. He handed out pictures to the Commissioners to show where the shed would be located. He noted the structure would be backed up to his neighbor’s garden and hidden by the existing fence. He further noted that the shed is more like a small carriage house than a shed. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Baumhoefner noted that he felt leaving the five (5) foot space behind the shed would leave an area to draw yard clutter. Mr. Baumhoefner noted that, in an effort to protect future property owners, the shed would be constructed on 12 cement pads to allow the building to be moved in either direction. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Kaden noted that, as has been stated at many meetings, everybody likes to see owners improve their properties. He then noted that, unfortunately, he did not see how the requested variance meets the criteria required. Commissioner Johnson indicated he felt that there is not a hardship and that the variance could not be granted. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To Approve Resolution 660-01, a Resolution Denying a Variance From the Minimum Setback Requirement for Accessory Structures to Allow for a Zero-Foot Setback for a Storage Shed on the Property Located at 5532 St. Stephen Street. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Chair Stevenson noted the applicant could go before the City Council as Council can overrule a denial by the Planning Commission if it finds just cause. Community Development Director Ericson also noted that, if the applicant chooses to appeal the decision, he would need something in writing within two weeks to get the matter on the City Council agenda. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case No. VR01-006 Planner Atkinson noted that the applicant from 2832 Ardan Avenue has requested a variance to be allowed to place a six (6) foot tall fence in his front yard as defined by City Code. Planner Atkinson noted that there were two issues with the case. Planner Atkinson noted the first issue is that it is a corner lot and the Commission must consider if that is enough of a hardship to grant the variance. He then noted the second issue is the grade change from Groveland to the house. He further explained there is a two-foot grade change and noted that needed to be considered. Chair Stevenson asked for clarification of where the six (6) foot fence would be located. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Atkinson noted the six (6) foot fence would be located around the entire property and indicated the bracketed area on the drawing is where the four (4) foot requirement is located. Chair Stevenson noted there are several instances where corner lots do have six (6) foot fences to the side of the residence which fronts on one of the streets. He then noted that the circumstances of the corner lot are difficult, as it appears there is street frontage as defined by City Code but the resident treats it as a sideyard. Commissioner Johnson indicated he would call it the sideyard of the residence. He then noted that the Silver Lake Road development has six (6) foot fences. Planner Atkinson noted the City is dealing with a technicality, as it is a front yard based on City code. Commissioner Kaden asked what type of fence Mr. VandenEinde intended to use. Mr. VandenEinde noted the fence would be located around the property he considers to be his side and backyards. He noted the reason for the request is that the four (4) foot height is not sufficient to contain his twin daughters due to the two foot grade change on the Groveland side. Chair Stevenson noted he could sit at his kitchen counter and see into Mr. VandenEinde’s backyard and noted there is definitely a grade change. Mr. VandenEinde noted there is a line of trees that the fence would need to be inside of so the roots can be avoided when constructing the fence. He then noted that he should be well off the property line with his fence location. Mr. VandenEinde noted he intended to use shadowbox cedar boards to match the fence of his neighbor. Chair Stevenson inquired as to the Groveland right of way requirement and noted that the fence would need to be located inside of that. Mr. VandenEinde indicated he was told that his property line would be located thirty (30) feet from the center of the road. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Chair Stevenson indicated he feels there is a hardship due to the difference in grade and noted he had no problem granting the variance requested. Commissioner Johnson indicated he would like to direct Staff to draft a Resolution of approval for action at the next meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson directed staff to draft a Resolution for approval at the next meeting. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the next meeting would not be until July 18, 2001. Mr. VandenEinde asked if there was anyway he could be allowed to construct the fence earlier than the July 18, 2001 meeting, as he is concerned for the safety of his daughters. He then noted he realized he was asking for something extraordinary and outside of the normal procedures. Community Development Director Ericson noted it was rather unusual but offered to ask Planner Atkinson to draft a Resolution of approval to be voted upon later in the meeting. Chair Stevenson reviewed the conditions upon which approval for the variance would be granted in order to give enough information for Planner Atkinson to draft the Resolution. Commissioner Kaden indicated variances have been granted for properties in similar situations. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Scotch. To Table Planning Case No. VR01-006 Until Later in the Meeting. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case No. VR01-007 Community Development Director Ericson noted this was a Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of a variance for a second curb cut at 8081 Red Oak Drive. He noted the property owner, Jennifer Osterlund has requested the second curb cut to provide additional access to the property. He further noted that, in speaking with Ms. Osterlund, she indicated the second curb cut is mainly in response to the heavy traffic on Red Oak Drive as they are having difficulty getting out of their driveway and onto the street. Director Ericson noted that City code states that single family zoning is limited to one curb cut unless the Planning Commission feels that there is an issue as to public safety that could be used toward the hardship requirement. Director Ericson noted there is a question as to whether the corner lot provides an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that would warrant granting the variance. He then noted there are close to 400 corner lots in the City that may be able to argue the same circumstance. Director Ericson noted he did not feel the literal interpretation of the code would deprive the property owner of something others in a similar situation are allowed as other property owners are not allowed to have two curb cuts. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson noted that the condition exists due to actions by the property owner. He then noted there was a similar case but clarified that the second curb cut in that instance was a pre- existing condition not one created by that property owner. Director Ericson noted he had received a letter from the neighboring property owner indicating they were in favor of granting the variance due to the safety issues involved. He then noted there are other neighbors who are opposed to the second curb cut. Director Ericson noted that it is Staff’s opinion that the variance requested does not meet the hardship requirements and has drafted Resolution 661-01, a Resolution denying the variance request. Commissioner Kaden indicated he had called Planner Atkinson and asked him for traffic counts for Red Oak Drive and other comparable roads in the area. Director Ericson provided copies of information with traffic numbers to the Commission for review. He then indicated that based on the traffic study done in 1997 somewhere between 1000 and 1050 cars travel Red Oak Drive on a daily basis. Commissioner Johnson indicated that, if the house were built to today’s standards, the driveway would need to be farther from the stop sign. Director Ericson indicated that if the variance were to be approved the driveway may need a variance as it may be too close to the stop sign. Chair Stevenson indicated that historically, a second curb cut request has been denied. He then noted there are some properties in the City but noted those were pre-existing before the new code was passed. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Osterlund indicated he was unaware of the requirement to obtain a permit before commencing work on the project. He then apologized to the Commission for the oversight. Mr. Osterlund explained that the main issue they are having is that their driveway is located only 25 feet from the stop sign which causes them to have to wait to get out onto the road. Mr. Osterlund provided pictures of the property and driveway to the Commission for review. Chair Stevenson asked for clarification as to what Mr. Osterlund meant when he said they have to wait to get out of the driveway. Mr. Osterlund indicated that they have to wait to get in or out of the driveway because there are cars lined up at the stop sign. He further indicated that even if there are only two cars in line the end of their driveway is blocked. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked how long the property owner had lived in the home. Ms. Osterlund indicated she had purchased the home one and a half (1 ½) years ago and indicated that prior to that the house sat vacant for two and a half (2 ½) years. Chair Stevenson asked how far the second driveway was located from the stop sign. Mr. Osterlund indicated the second driveway is approximately fifty-five (55) feet from the stop sign. Chair Stevenson inquired as to whether the property owner could access their garage from Sherwood Road. Mr. Osterlund indicated they could not but noted that they plan to move the garage in the future to face Sherwood Road. Mr. Osterlund indicated he feels that being located on a corner lot they need to spruce up their yard and intend to do some landscaping. He then noted that the driveway meets all the requirements for curb cuts except it is the second curb cut on his property. He further noted that according to the information he had obtained from the City one curb cut per 125 feet of property is allowed. Mr. Osterlund stated he did not know he needed a permit for the second curb cut. Claude Wetterling of 2716 Sherwood Road indicated he had received a letter from Community Development Director Ericson which indicated the driveway was illegal and the property owner was to stop using it immediately and not use it until the matter was resolved. He then indicated that it is an illegal driveway that they have continued to use and that was finished after being told to stop and he feels the variance should not be allowed. Mr. Osterlund indicated it was not his fault the project was finished as he went to work and the contractor arrived and finished the project before he could be told not to. Chair Stevenson asked Community Development Director Ericson to comment on the statement “one curb cut per 125 feet of property.” Director Ericson clarified that the reference made is referring to the property elevation of a parking area which states that the property owner shall be allowed one parking access for every 125 feet of property. He then noted that this reference is intended to govern commercial development as single family uses are allowed only one curb cut per City code. Director Ericson indicated that the other issue involved is that the driveway needs to be located 50 feet from the intersection of two street rights of way. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Johnson further clarified that the reference to the 125 feet of frontage is for commercial usage and noted that the City typically does not give commercial developments that many curb cuts. Harold Vierkant of 8071 Red Oak Drive stated he feels the traffic count is higher now than in 1997 and stated he feels the property owner needs the new driveway as the current driveway is unsafe. He further commented he felt it would be safer to pull forward out of the new driveway rather than to back out of the existing driveway. Chair Stevenson indicated that there are other residents in the City who back into their driveways in order to be able to pull out when they leave as they do not feel it is safe to back into the roadway from their driveway. Mr. Irken indicated that traffic on Red Oak Drive will not allow them to back into their driveway. He then indicated he is in favor of the second curb cut as there are six other properties with second curb cuts on Red Oak Drive. Jerry Moylin of 2708 Sherwood Road indicated that to his knowledge there have been no changes in traffic flows by the City or County in this particular location in the 23 years he has lived there. He noted the number of cars has increased but stated he goes through the intersection in question three or four times a day and has not waited very long which makes him skeptical of the need of the property owner to wait to get into line to get on the highway. Mr. Moylin noted the previous home owners managed quite well with the driveway they had. He then indicated that, as far as the safety issue is concerned, the existing driveway on that property comes just before people are slowing down to stop at the stop sign and the temporary or proposed new driveway will be in the acceleration path of people coming through the intersection which he feels is much more dangerous. Commissioner Kaden indicated the traffic count number on the handout received looks like 1900 cars not 1000 cars as earlier indicated. Chair Stevenson confirmed that the traffic count at Red Oak Drive and Hillview appeared on the map to be 1900. Commissioner Hegland asked how the traffic numbers were determined. Director Ericson indicated a cable was strung across the road to count vehicles. Commissioner Hegland questioned whether every axle was recorded or if the 1900 was an actual vehicle count. Director Ericson indicated it was an actual vehicle count as the cable is computerized and is aware of what type of vehicle passes over it. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Alice Wetterling of 2716 Sherwood Road indicated she is concerned that the driveway is a safety hazard as Mounds View has lots of kids on bikes, roller blades and scooters who will not be aware of the driveway onto Sherwood. She then noted that she has seen two close call car accidents since the driveway was put in. Ms. Osterlund indicated she was unaware of any alleged close call accidents so she is not sure what Ms. Wetterling is referring to. She then indicated that the previous owner had lived in the house for 30 years and never had an issue with the driveway but noted that traffic was a lot different 30 years ago as compared to today. Mr. Osterlund indicated that neither of the gentlemen who commented have lived on Red Oak Drive and have not tried to back out of his driveway. He noted there is plenty of sight line to see kids coming. He noted that he had spoken to the neighbors across the street and they have said they have never noticed him tearing out of the driveway. He further indicated that he drives very cautiously and feels that as a future parent it is his job to look out for other peoples’ kids on the streets as he expects other residents will one day do for him. He also commented that the driveway is Class 5 which would be displaced if he were to tear out of the driveway which ends up costing him money to repair or replace. Chair Stevenson asked if the property owners had considered an area to back up where the second driveway was put. Mr. Osterlund indicated he had considered a back up lane but noted there is a tree in the way which he would really need to maneuver his truck around to get into position. Chair Stevenson asked Mr. Osterlund if he had driven out of his driveway forward before. Mr. Osterlund indicated that he had but not from the angle Chair Stevenson had suggested. Commissioner Scotch asked how much property there is between Red Oak Drive and the property line. Commissioner Kaden questioned whether the contractor had suggested that the property owner might need a permit or that there might be setbacks to be considered. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the contractor was licensed, bonded and insured. Mr. Osterlund indicated he was not sure whether the contractor was licensed as he had not checked it out. He then indicated the contractor did not tell him a permit may be required. Commissioner Kaden indicated that, in most cases, the contractor will offer to get the permit as part of the quote. Chair Stevenson asked the Commission if they felt the hardship requirements have been met. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland indicated he feels the safety issue is pretty serious and it would appear to him that pulling out onto Sherwood Road would be safer than backing out onto Red Oak Drive. He noted he feels the second curb cut appears to him to be a reasonable solution to the problem. Commissioner Kaden commented that if the variance for the second curb cut is granted that it may set a precedent for the City and there could be many other requests for second curb cuts. He then noted that the current driveway is a safety issue and noted he understands that traffic won’t let you back into your driveway as he has the same problem at his house. Chair Stevenson indicated he feels the real safety issue is with the new driveway being in the acceleration path on Sherwood Road. He then noted he was not sure that the safety issue would be alleviated or if a new one would be created by creating a second curb cut on Sherwood Road. Chair Stevenson indicated he would like to see the applicant attempt to find a way to find a turn around in the driveway and drive out of the current driveway rather than to allow the second curb cut. Commissioner Johnson noted he felt there were other alternatives to granting the variance and expressed concern for setting a precedent in the City. Commissioner Kaden indicated there is a safety issue because traffic will not allow them to stop and back into the driveway in order to be able to pull out when they leave. Commissioner Hegland stated he felt this situation was unique and would not set a precedent. Commissioner Kaden indicated that if the Commission were looking at a variance one block away on Sherwood Road and Sunnyside he would not feel the need as Sunnyside does not have the same amount of traffic. Commissioner Johnson noted he had an issue with someone not wanting to wait five (5) minutes to get out of their driveway as he has to wait for ten (10) minutes or more to get out of his in the morning. Commissioner Kaden indicated that the situation is unique in this case as it is dangerous to attempt to back up into your driveway and have cars pull up behind and not allow it or swerve around you. Commissioner Scotch indicated there would be a better sight line if the resident were to pull out of the driveway rather than back out. She then stated she feels the resident should further investigate whether a turnaround could be placed in the driveway to allow the resident to be able to pull out onto Red Oak Drive. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 661-01, a Resolution Denying a Request for a Variance to Allow a Second Curb Cut at 8081 Red Oak Drive. Community Development Director Ericson noted the Resolution, if approved, will require a further stipulation that the right of way and boulevard area needs to be restored. Commissioner Johnson asked if the proposed driveway was Class 5 or asphalt. Director Ericson indicated that Class 5 driveways are no longer allowed by City code but noted a parking area of 300 square feet or less of Class 5 is allowed. Commissioner Johnson clarified that the grass on the boulevard would need to be restored but noted the Class 5 could be left in place for a parking area. Director Ericson indicated a permit would be required but noted the area could be used for a parking area. Chair Stevenson clarified that five (5) feet of the boulevard and the curb cut would need to be replaced if the Class 5 were used for a parking area. Director Ericson noted the Resolution would be amended to require that a permit be obtained and all City codes complied with. Ayes – 2 Nays – 4(Hegland/Kaden/Scotch/Johnson) Motion failed. Chair Stevenson asked the Commission if it wanted to direct Staff to bring a Resolution for approval of the variance before the Commission at the next meeting. Director Ericson noted the next Planning Commission meeting would be held on July 18, 2001. Commissioner Kaden asked Director Ericson to comment on the public safety aspect of the hardship requirement. Director Ericson noted that the Planning Commission could give added weight to the safety issue and can add that to the hardship but noted the Commission still needed to establish that there is a hardship. Commissioner Kaden asked if the Planning Commission should make a change to the City code for future situations. Director Ericson noted that the Planning Commission can suggest changes to the Code at any time it feels it is appropriate. Commissioner Johnson noted the new curb cut would need to be in compliance with City code. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ A resident asked if the driveway could be used prior to resolution of the matter. Chair Stevenson clarified that the residents were not to use the driveway until the variance is approved. Chair Stevenson noted if the variance is approved at the next meeting the matter would not be going before the City Council. ______________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson informed the Planning Commission that Resolution 663-01 regarding the Vanden Einde variance request was complete and ready for their review. Planner Atkinson presented the resolution and asked the Planning Commission if any changes were necessary. Chairman Stevenson indicated there were none. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Johnson. To approve Resolution 663-01, a resolution approving a variance to allow a six-foot tall fence to be located in the front yard of the property located at 2832 Ardan Avenue. Ayes – 6 Nays-0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Planning Case No. DE00-002 Community Development Director Ericson explained that the building official had determined that the building needed to be modified in order to meet state accessibility requirements. He noted that the matter was discussed at length at the previous meeting and it was determined that the building needed to be a full two stories to meet the accessibility requirements. Director Ericson noted that there were to be no windows on the upper story south elevation and no bay or projecting windows on the east side elevation to minimize the peripheral site lines for the adjoining property owner. He then noted this matter would be before the City Council for approval on June 25, 2001. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Stevenson. To Approve Resolution 662-01, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Increased Building Height for a Proposed Office Building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue. Commissioner Hegland noted that this is not a design the City is requiring and noted that the design is a result of the requirements of the State Accessibility Code. Director Ericson noted the Resolution indicated the design had been changed to comply with the State Accessibility Code. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn indicated he would abstain from voting as he is the neighboring property owner. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Commissioner Zwirn abstained from voting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Staff Reports a. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Ericson noted that there was a discussion on lifecycle housing geared toward the Highway 10 Corridor redevelopment efforts at the last City Council meeting. Director Ericson noted there would be a meeting of the Highway 10 Oversight Committee on July 11, 2001. He then noted there would be a public open house on July 16, 2001 to seek community input. Director Ericson noted he was in need of one more Commissioner to sit on the Oversight Committee if anyone was interested. He then noted that the meetings are on the off Wednesday nights at 7:00 p.m. Director Ericson noted that Council had discussed the Comprehensive Plan and set a public hearing for July 9, 2001 where proposed changes will be presented. Director Ericson noted that, at the last Planning Commission meeting there was a public hearing and discussion concerning a proposed major subdivision for Long View Estates by Mr. Harstadt. He then noted that the matter is still under review and stated it may be back on the calendar at the July 18, 2001 meeting. Commissioner Kaden noted that he would like to have an expert on storm water management come and explain how wetlands work and the differences between the different classifications of wetlands. Director Ericson noted he would attempt to set up a half hour seminar for the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Hegland thanked Planner Atkinson for drafting the Resolution on the VandenEinde variance during the meeting. Director Ericson stated that Planner Atkinson has only been with the City for a couple of weeks and is already contributing. Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 11. Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 18, 2001 ______________________________________________________________________________ 12. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:16 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.