Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 7, 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., November 7, 2001. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners, Stevenson, Johnson, Zwirn, Miller, and Hegland. Members Excused: Kaden (on leave), Scotch (excused). Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planner Atkinson. ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR01-010 2 Location: Silver Lake Road/County Road H2 Applicant: Marty Harstad Planning Case No. MI01-002 8 Location: 7841 Spring Lake Road Applicant: Brian Diehl Planning Case No. DE00-002 10 Location: County Road I/Greenfield Avenue Applicant: Tony Mezzenga Planning Case SP091-01 13 Discussion and Review of Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View City Code pertaining to development controls Staff Reports/Items of Information 13 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 15 _______________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Approval of Minutes: a. October 3, 2001 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Johnson. To Approve the Minutes for October 3, 2001 as presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case No. VR01-010 Community Development Director Ericson explained that this case is a request for a variance to allow for reduced lot widths. He then indicated that Mr. Harstad had applied for the subdivision in June and Staff had discovered that Section 1010 of the City Code requires a minimum lot width of 125 feet and a minimum square footage of 20,000. He further indicated that Mr. Harstad had redrawn the lots to increase the square footage and all of the lots meet the minimum 20,000 square feet. Director Ericson indicated that the discussion at the last meeting, during the public hearing, focused on the potential impact to the wetland. He then noted that Rice Creek Watershed District has tabled approval of the development pending receipt of a couple of documents with authorization for administrative approval when those documents are received. Director Ericson indicated that the applicant must meet the hardship requirements to be granted a variance. He then commented that Staff did not feel the applicant caused the conditions, the utility stubs are in place, and the comprehensive plan calls for residential zoning. He further indicated that Staff had said at the last meeting that its interpretation was that hardship was satisfied but said this is a subjective type of interpretation and the Planning Commission needs to discuss the matter. Director Ericson indicated that due to the split opinions of the Commissioners at the last meeting Staff had drafted a resolution to approve the variance and a resolution to deny the variance. He then asked that the Commission discuss the matter and act on one of the two resolutions. Commissioner Miller indicated she had asked how many utility stubs were installed at the property and Mr. Harstad had answered 10, yet he has proposed 11 lots. Director Ericson indicated that there were 10 utility stubs installed at the property. Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller indicated she was not in favor of granting such a large variance, especially for the two 80 foot lots. She then commented that the lot width requirements were in place when the property was platted. Director Ericson explained that the minimum lot width requirement when this division was platted was 75 feet. He further explained that the additional wetland requirements came into play in 1992. Commissioner Hegland questioned the reasoning behind the 125-foot lot width requirement. Director Ericson indicated he did not work for the City in 1992 but said it is his opinion that the City added the extra wetland restrictions to further protect the wetlands during a time when there were not such strict regulations. He then commented that the City does not have storm water sewers in most areas and utilizes the wetland for providing surface and storm water management thus allowing the City to maintain some of its rural flavor with the ditch systems rather than the curb and gutter. Commissioner Hegland indicated that the residents in attendance at the public hearing were concerned with water issues for the development if the wetland were filled. Director Ericson indicated he was not a hydrologist or an engineer but said it is clear that drainage flow comes down from the north from County H2, feeds into the area and the elevations are such that it flows away from properties to the east through an outlet by Woodcrest Park and feeds into the southwest corner of Woodcrest. He then indicated that residents should not be affected by the proposed development but said he understands their concern. He further indicated that the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District have approved the plan. Commissioner Miller asked if curb and gutter would be needed. Director Ericson indicated that curb and gutter would not be needed. He then explained that all the trees within the right of way would remain and a natural drainage swale would handle storm water in the area. Chairperson Stevenson asked if a hydrologist would look at water pressures on the neighborhood for the development. Director Ericson explained that there is someone at Rice Creek Watershed District who reviewed the plan and determined that the impact of filling the wetland is limited to the close proximity of the house pad itself. Chairperson Stevenson indicated that one of the residents had expressed concern that the area may not be able to support house pads due to the peat soil and had asked that the City require that soil borings be done prior to removal of trees. Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated that he felt that would be an appropriate requirement and indicated that he thought the developer would be amenable to that since there are costs involved with removing trees and clearing a site. Chairperson Stevenson commented that he did not have an issue with the property owner wanting to develop the land but said Chapter 1010 was written to protect the wetland from added water pressures that come with building houses too close together in it. Director Ericson indicated that the larger lot size requirement also limits the amount of impervious surface in the area. Chairperson Stevenson indicated he was not sure where the exception is that would allow the Planning Commission to grant the variance. He then commented that this seems to be a prime example of why the City wanted lots of 125 feet and to reduce the lot width by 40% of the requirements does not seem appropriate. Commissioner Miller asked, if the builder were limited to eight (8) lots, would the proposed development match the other lots on the other side better. Director Ericson indicated that the way the plat is drawn currently the lots match up well with the development across the street. He then indicated that most of the lots are 100 feet wide which is 33% larger than the minimum lot width requirement of 75 feet and noted if this were not a wetland the developer would be able to have 14 lots. Commissioner Johnson asked if this property had been previously platted for 14 lots. Director Ericson indicated that no formal plats were approved for this property previously. Commissioner Johnson indicated that since Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the proposed development he would support approval. He further indicated that with the drainage swale and requirement to do soil borings before trees are removed there should not be a problem with the request. Commissioner Miller indicated that the Planning Commission is not denying the builder his right to build but rather to require him to meet the 125-foot lot width requirements. She further indicated that requiring the builder to meet the 125-foot minimum lot width requirements would still allow for eight (8) lots. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he felt that 11 lots is over saturation for the land and he would be more comfortable with the eight (8) lots. He then indicated that he felt approval of this development with the 11 lots would be providing a long-term detrimental impact to the neighborhood. He further commented that with residents fertilizing lawns and runoff into the wetland there is the potential that it would create a stagnant pond and jeopardize the wetland area. Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland indicated he felt the 125-foot lot width requirement should be upheld because the Ordinance was developed for the protection of the wetland. Mr. Harstad indicated he understood why the 125 foot requirement was created at the time it was created and that was to maintain the health of the wetland but also because the City decided to use its wetlands as storm water areas in order save the expense of installing a storm sewer. He then indicated that his father, who owned the property in town with the wetland, allowed the City’s drainage to flow to his property. He further indicated that the rules were created for the City’s benefit and are detrimental to the property owner. Mr. Harstad indicated that there is a national wetland rule and a state wetland rule and, with the proposed 11 lots, he meets the national and state rules. He indicated that those people are wetland specialists and this is what they do all day long is analyze and determine wetlands and they have approved his plan. He further indicated that all agencies including the Army Corp of Engineers, Rice Creek Watershed District, and the Fish and Wildlife Department were notified of the plan and all approved it. Mr. Harstad indicated that he is asking for the right to develop the property in a manner that is acceptable by the state and federal agencies who regulate the wetlands. He indicated that he has agreed to create setbacks, keep as many trees as possible, and create a drainage ditch for storm water that he is not required to do all in the interest of bringing a nice development that respects the wetland area to the community. Mr. Harstad commented that he could remove trees and fill more of the wetland and under R1 zoning could get almost 28 lots on the property but he has only asked for 11. He further commented that he has tried to be responsible because of the wetland and asked the Commission to recognize that. Chairperson Stevenson asked Mr. Harstad to list the lot widths of the 11 lots. Mr. Harstad reviewed the lot widths with the Commission indicating that Lot 10 was the smallest lot. Commissioner Johnson asked if Lots 10 and 11 met the minimum square footage requirements. Chairperson Stevenson indicated that all of the lots meet the 20,000 square foot requirement. Commissioner Hegland indicated he could see granting a variance on the two end lots but said the rest of them would be going against the intention of the Ordinance. Commissioner Johnson commented that failure to approve this plan could result in a less desirable proposal where all the trees were leveled and the wetland was filled to the maximum amount allowed. Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller indicated that the Planning Commission is charged with making sure that the hardship requirements are met in order to grant a variance. She then said she does not feel those requirements have been met in this case. Chair Stevenson indicated that the Commission has before it a resolution showing it meets the requirements and one showing that it does not. He then said that the criteria are very subjective. Commissioner Hegland indicated that granting the variance is not appropriate in this case because the Ordinance was created specifically for this type of situation. He then indicated that, if there were something unique about the property, he could see a consideration being made but, since there is not, he feels the 125-foot lot width should remain. He further indicated that the City is responsible for local protection of the wetland because the state and federal regulations are broad based and general and may not cover the City’s specific situation. Mr. Harstad indicated that, technically, because the lots are fronted on two roads and back up to a wetland they could be considered a unique situation. He also commented that someone at the City arbitrarily determined that lot widths should be 125 feet wide in a wetland area. Commissioner Johnson asked if Mr. Harstad was filling in as much wetland as he would be allowed to fill. Mr. Harstad indicated he was not. Commissioner Johnson commented that the next developer could fill the wetland to the maximum. He then indicated that Mr. Harstad has made concessions by not filling the wetland as much as he could, has agreed to allow a drainage swale, and agreed to allow the trees to remain and that will make a much nicer development for the existing neighborhood and the City. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that he felt that since the City was dealing with the protection of its wetlands there would have been research or study involved in setting the minimum lot width at 125 feet. He then indicated that he feels the 125-foot lot width needs to be maintained while working with the developer to develop the land. He further indicated that he feels that eight (8) lots is a workable solution. Commissioner Johnson indicated he did not think that eight (8) lots would be workable because the developer could not afford all the things that need to be done for the eight (8) lots versus the 11 lots. Mr. Harstad explained to the Commission that he could change the plat around and using the magic number of 20,000 square feet per lot and create triangular lots that front on Silver Lake Road and Longview Road which would result in more lots for him but would mean the trees would all be leveled. He then indicated that he has proposed a quality development that respects the wetland. Commissioner Miller asked whether the lots ran all the way to Silver Lake Road. Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Harstad indicated he had guaranteed the City that he would establish an outlot that would be deeded to the City to make sure that those trees would be protected forever and would not come down. Commissioner Miller commented that there are only 10 utility stubs to the property. Mr. Harstad indicated he would need to add one utility stub but said the City ends up with a nice project when it is done. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the 10 utility stubs match up with the locations of the proposed lots. Mr. Harstad indicated that the 10 utility stubs match up with the locations of the proposed lots and said that if the Planning Commission cuts him back to 10 lots the last lot becomes 400 feet wide because the lots are determined by the location of the utility stubs. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Miller. To Approve Resolution 678-01, a Resolution Denying A Variance For Reduced Lot Widths Within a Wetland Zoning District. Commissioner Hegland indicated that he felt approval of the variance would confer a special privilege onto the applicant not enjoyed by others. Chairperson Stevenson asked that the Resolution be amended to reflect wetland property owners, not just property owners. Chairperson Stevenson asked when the last time someone had come before the Commission with a situation under Chapter 1010. Director Ericson indicated this was the first time since 1996 and may be the first one. Commissioner Miller indicated that requirement number 5 is significant because she does not feel that literal interpretation of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others because he would still be allowed eight (8) lots if he complied with the Code. Commissioner Johnson commented he feels that denying the variance will open up the wetland for more intense development and more problems. He then commented that, while the minimum lot width may not have been met, he has doubled the square footage of the lots since his first proposal. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that the square footage of the lots was doubled by pushing fill into the wetland. He then commented that approval of the variance would have caused water table issues in the area. Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Johnson reminded the Commission that Mr. Harstad had testified to the Commission that the property was not as wet as it is now prior to the development across the street. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Johnson) Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case MI01-002 Planner Atkinson explained that the applicant had requested approval of a minor subdivision at 7841 Spring Lake Road to split off the rear 260 feet of his lot that would front on an unimproved portion of Knollwood Drive. He then commented that City Code requires that all lots front on a publicly improved street. Planner Atkinson indicated that less than 10 feet of the lot fronts on the right of way for Oakwood Road and said that the Code does not interpret how much frontage needs to be on an improved street. Planner Atkinson indicated that, with the exception of the access issue, all other requirements for the subdivision have been met. Planner Atkinson indicated that, based on discussions at the last meeting, it was determined that, if the applicant were to dedicate a portion of the lot to the City for a future cul-de-sac, it may be possible to allow access onto unimproved Knollwood Drive for a short term solution. Planner Atkinson indicated that Staff is recommending that if the lot to the south should subdivide, Mr. Diehl would be required to participate in the costs to improve the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the cul-de-sac stipulations would be attached to the property to ensure that a new owner would be required to comply with the cul-de-sac requirements. Planner Atkinson indicated that the cul-de-sac requirement will be attached to the property’s title and recorded with Ramsey County. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the property owner to the south would be required to honor the cul-de-sac agreement should they decide to subdivide. Planner Atkinson indicated that the property owner to the south would be required to participate in the costs to develop the cul-de-sac in order to subdivide the lot. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the property owner to the south had agreed to the cul-de-sac requirements. Planner Atkinson indicated that the property owner to the south had not been consulted concerning the cul-de-sac issue. Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Johnson asked if the property owner to the south would need a cul-de-sac regardless of whether this request is approved. Planner Atkinson indicated that it would be difficult to allow any development in the area without an improved cul-de-sac. Commissioner Hegland questioned whether the property could be developed prior to the cul-de- sac being improved. Planner Atkinson indicated that the Planning Commission needs to determine if it will allow access onto unimproved Knollwood Drive with the assurance that at some point in the future there will be an improved cul-de-sac. Commissioner Zwirn asked how much of the property to the south fronted on Oakwood Road. Planner Atkinson indicated he was not sure of the frontage for the property to the south but said it is significant enough that the property owner could get two additional lots for a total of three if he were to subdivide his property. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the property owner to the south could subdivide and have enough frontage for a driveway without having to install a cul-de-sac. Planner Atkinson indicated that the property owner did have enough frontage for a driveway but said if the cul-de-sac is installed the property owner to the south could get two lots out of the back half of his property. Commissioner Hegland asked if Mr. Diehl had enough frontage for a driveway on Oakwood Road. Planner Atkinson indicated he did not think there was enough frontage on Oakwood Road for a driveway. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the property owner to the south is interested in developing. Planner Atkinson indicated that Mr. Diehl had attempted to discuss the matter with the property owner to the south and the person was not interested. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he was not comfortable with placing covenants on the property of another to allow this request. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff struggled with how to approach this case and said that by requiring the cul-de-sac the City would be assured that, if the lot to the south subdivides, the cul-de-sac would be improved. He also explained that, should the property owner to the south determine that they wish to subdivide and create just the two lots instead of Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ three the City could consider vacating the right of way established by this request and allowing them to do so. He further explained that requiring the cul-de-sac is a good idea to allow for future expansion and does not negatively impact the property owner to the south because the property owner to the south would have the option of either two or three lots total on the property. Chairperson Stevenson indicated that the cul-de-sac would be advantageous to the south property owner when or if they should decide to subdivide because it gives them the option of getting two lots out of the back part of the property. Chairperson Stevenson suggested that the Resolution should reflect the number of feet the gate should be moved. Commissioner Hegland asked how the area would be plowed beyond the access drive. Mr. Diehl indicated it would be treated as a driveway and he would be removing the snow himself. He also indicated he intends to install his driveway in such a manner to make it easy to connect it to the cul-de-sac in the future. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Hegland. To Approve Resolution 677-01, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 7841 Spring Lake Road. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case DE00-002 Community Development Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission had requested that Mr. Mezzenga seek approval from Ramsey County to install an island around the catch basin to allow access to be onto County Road I as was approved. He then explained that Ramsey County had determined that this option was not workable due to the separation needed from either side of the catch basin and the potential confusion that could be caused due to the 21- foot separation between the drive aisles. Director Ericson indicated that, based on the information from Ramsey County, Mr. Mezzenga has submitted a revised site plan switching the entrance into the development to Greenfield Avenue. He then indicated that, while the design provided to the Commission does not appear to be popular, it is workable and does satisfy access to the development that is probably safer than the County Road I access. He further indicated that the City does not have the authority to deny access to the development. Director Ericson indicated that letters were sent to property owners within 350 feet of the development and one resident was in attendance earlier. He then indicated that Mr. Mezzenga was dealing with some health issues and was not able to attend the meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Chairperson Stevenson indicated that the driveway had to be a minimum of 50 feet from a certain point and asked what that point was. Director Ericson indicated it needed to be 50 feet from the corner. Chairperson Stevenson asked if that was 50 feet to the centerline and whether this request met the minimum. Director Ericson indicated that the 50-foot requirement was not met with this request as the lot is too small to maintain the setback from the corner. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the minimum setback was met with the access onto County Road I. Director Ericson indicated it was not. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the access onto Greenfield is as far from the corner as the previous approval. Director Ericson indicated that there is a one or two foot difference but said that this is as far away from the corner as it can be while maintaining the approved 15 foot setback from the property owner to the south. Chair Stevenson asked if the City can allow it if it does not meet the setback requirements. Director Ericson indicated he would check with the City Attorney to determine what needed to be done because the plan that was approved originally did not meet the setbacks. Commissioner Zwirn asked if all of the options for access onto County Road I had been exhausted. Director Ericson indicated he believed all of the options had been exhausted for access onto County Road I. Commissioner Zwirn asked if it were possible to do a joint access with Tom Thumb. Director Ericson indicated that option was not explored and, in his opinion, all workable options have been exhausted. Commissioner Zwirn asked if Mr. Mezzenga was going to address the issue with accessibility regarding the entrance to the building. Director Ericson indicated that the plans submitted had to be signed off on and said that a permit could not be issued unless the building official approved those plans. He then indicated that the building official had visited the property and it seems that everything is proceeding properly. He Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ further indicated that, if at the time of the inspection the access were not up to Code, a stop work order would be placed on the construction. Commissioner Zwirn commented that he has an issue with Mr. Mezzenga because he appears to do whatever he wants to do and then the City has to approve something that has already happened or is in the process of happening. He then indicated that the school would have to modify its bus stops because kids were picked up in that location. He further indicated that all during this process he has been extremely opposed to access onto Greenfield due to the number of children in the area. Commissioner Zwirn commented that he does not understand why someone who claims to have built a number of buildings would not have checked into some of these complications prior to purchasing the property. Commissioner Zwirn stated that he would like to know why things get to the “11th hour and then get crammed down our throats”. He further stated that the City is supposed to be able to work with the developer to maintain some type of control over the development not have things rammed down its throat. Director Ericson indicated he understood the frustrations of Commissioner Zwirn but explained that the options for access to the development are very few. He then indicated that the property is small so there were some inherent difficulties with it. He further indicated that access to the property would be allowed on either County Road I or Greenfield by City Code. Director Ericson indicated he would be more concerned with the Greenfield Avenue access if the development were a more intense type of use that generated more traffic. He then commented that the majority of the traffic should occur between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. when roughly 10 cars could be leaving the parking lot. Director Ericson indicated that there was an expectation that the access would be onto County Road I but he said that he feels this is a safer access for the development. He also agreed that there is a sort of “in your face” aspect to this since the access is graded and all ready to go pending approval. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Stevenson. To Recommend Approval of a Relocated Driveway Associated with the Approved Development at 7664 Greenfield Avenue. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Zwirn) Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Planning Case SP091-01 Planner Atkinson explained that Staff had asked the Commission to review section 1006.06 of the Code pertaining to development controls because it feels some of the sections should be clarified. Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Atkinson indicated Staff had drafted an Ordinance for review and comment by the Commission. He then handed out a revised copy of the Ordinance for review. Chairperson Stevenson questioned if the City wanted to review footprint expansions or overall expansions of 10% or more. He then asked whether the Commission should review a vertical expansion if the footprint is not changed. Planner Atkinson indicated that the gross square footage requirement would account for height. Commissioner Hegland commented that he felt exempting single family and twin homes would be appropriate as the Code would pertain primarily to commercial property. Planner Atkinson asked whether the Commission wanted to review a parking lot expansion or relocation. Chairperson Stevenson indicated the Commission should review any major expansions or relocations. Director Ericson questioned whether the Commission wanted to review a 10% parking lot expansion request. Chairperson Stevenson indicated the Commission should review any request to change the amount of impervious surface. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 676-01, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a City Code Amendment to Section 1006.06 Regarding Development Controls. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Staff Reports a. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Ericson reported that on October 22, 2001 the City Council had approved the expansion of the billboard on County Highway 10 but did not approve the wetland alteration permit as Council wanted to receive comments from Rice Creek Watershed District prior to authorizing the permit. Community Development Director Ericson reported that Council held a special work session on October 29, 2001 to discuss the budget and Staff was able to present a balanced budget to Council. He also noted that there would be another work session on November 19, 2001 to further discuss the budget. Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson reported that Council had called to order at the October 29, 2001 work session and voted to authorize the conveyance of tax forfeited parcels in Sherwood Estates. Community Development Director Ericson reported that Council held a work session on November 5, 2001 and one of the issues discussed was the billboards at Sysco. He then indicated that the billboards are finished and do not look like what was approved by the City so Council had asked representatives of Delight Outdoor Advertising to come to the meeting to discuss what could be done to make the billboards look more like what was approved. Community Development Director Ericson reported that Council had discussed the options for the County Highway 10 reconstruction and decided to explore the option of compressing the right of way to gain property for redevelopment and improvement and to shorten the distance to cross the Highway. He then noted that there would be another meeting coming up to further discuss those options. Community Development Director Ericson reported that Council had discussed the nuisance code as it pertains to snowmobiles and ATV’s. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the City had sent out requests for proposals to redevelop the four plex owned by the City on Hillview. Community Development Director Ericson reported that Council had discussed returning to a full time building official rather than contracting through the fire department. He then noted that at the time it was thought a contract would be less expensive for the City but due to the volume of building activity in the City it has actually cost as much as or more than a full time building official would cost. Community Development Director Ericson noted that the next Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 13, 2001 due to Veteran’s Day. Community Development Director Ericson reported he had received applications for the Economic Development Coordinator position and hoped to have someone in place by the end of the year. ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 11. Next Planning Commission Meeting: December 5, 2001 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ 12. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:55 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.