Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 5, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., January 5, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Miller, and Stevenson (Commissioner Stevenson joined the meeting at 7:25 p.m.). Members Absent: Commissioner Braathen, leave of absence, and Commissioner Laube, with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 578-99, 2442 Laport Drive. Consideration of a variance Request for a reduced side-yard setback for the proposed home to be located At 2442 Laport Drive. Spencer Mistelske, Applicant. 2 Consideration of Resolution 602-00, a resolution establishing the year 2000 meeting dates for the Mounds View Planning Commission. 11 Election of Planning Commission Officers 11 Staff Reports / Items of Information 13 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 20 3. Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Citizens’ Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Planning Case No. 578-99 Property Involved: 2442 Laport Drive Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side-yard setback for the proposed home to be located at 2442 Laport Drive. Applicant: Spencer Mistelske The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Spencer Mistelske, is requesting a variance from the side-yard setback requirement, which on this lot is 30 feet, as it abuts a street right-of-way. He explained that this right-of-way takes the form of Faber Street, which was originally platted with the SMUDER Addition, in 1968, and at 30 feet in width, is not sufficient for a street, and it is the City’s position that it will not be developed or improved in the future. Planning Associate Ericson indicated there is one parcel that would take access from the right- of-way, and that is lot 4, Block 1, SMUDER Addition. He advised that the City holds a Use Deed on this property; therefore, there is no concern that it would be landlocked, if in the future, the City decides to vacate the right-of-way. Planning Associate Ericson stated the question that arises with this request pertains to whether or not there is a possibility of potential development of this area at some point in the future. He advised that if the Commission finds this to be the case, it would probably not be a good idea to grant a variance to the 30-foot setback requirement. He explained that they would not want to allow for this house to be located 10 feet from the side property line, if at some time in the future, a street could be constructed directly in front of it. However, staff contends that this will not occur, and it would probably not be unreasonable to grant a variance to allow for the 10-foot setback. He added that a hardship is certainly present, in that the unimproved right-of-way exists, and the City has no plans to improve it. Planning Associate Ericson stated the site plan submitted by the applicant indicates a side-yard setback of 8 feet from the western property line, and additionally, an 8-foot setback from the eastern property line, which is the location of the proposed garages. He advised that this setback could be decreased to 5 feet, as the minimum setback requirement for a garage is 5 feet from the property line, and this would provide sufficient room on the west side of the lot for a 10 foot Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 side-yard setback. He advised that if a variance is granted, staff recommends it be no less than 10 feet, which is the typical side-yard setback for properties not affected by an unimproved right- of-way. Planning Associate Ericson stated the site plan provided to the Commission indicates the approximate width of the proposed house, and this could be shifted slightly to allow for a 10-foot setback. He explained that although staff has not supplied the Commission with a resolution for this request, a resolution has been drafted which indicates a 10-foot setback, and he could recite this document, if the Commission were to consider granting the variance at this time. He indicated that staff has notified all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Pam DeGross, 8133 Woodlawn Drive, stated their land backs up to Faber Street. She indicated that she had spoken to staff after the subject property had been sold, and learned that the City has been discussing the different development possibilities of the “big woods”. She indicated they have determined some possible solutions for what is occurring in this area. Mrs. DeGross stated they own approximately 2 acres of land, and are considering building four houses on this property. She stated a portion of their land abuts Faber Street; therefore, they could also utilize it as a right-of-way. She indicated they are interviewing several developers to determine their interest in developing that land. She requested the Commission consider this, adding that if the City begins to grant variances, they will require variances as well. Dan DeGross, 8133 Woodlawn Drive inquired regarding which lots the applicant owns. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant owns Lots 2 and 3. Mr. DeGross stated they plan to develop their property as well, and will also require an exit. He stated the applicant proposes to construct a driveway adjacent to unimproved Laport Drive, however, the City has denied other attempts to develop this area for at least 25 years. He requested the Commission consider this, in conjunction with the existing development in the area where Woodlawn Drive goes through to Arden Street, and attempt to tie all of these developments together. Mrs. DeGross indicated that if the applicant is permitted to construct a driveway where an actual City road should be, they will have to request right-of-way from the applicant’s driveway to access the back of their property in order to build. She commented that this road should be developed into a full-sized City street with fire hydrants and other amenities. Commissioner Miller inquired why the previous requests to build in this area were denied. Mr. DeGross explained that in the past, the wetlands were in closer proximity to the property, and they have been receding, however, they could also come back. He presented the Commission with an alternate development proposal he had drafted. Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the circumstances leading to the City’s control of Lot 4. Planning Associate Ericson explained that when the SMUDER Addition was platted in 1968, it was assumed that the property on this side of Laport Drive would be similarly developed, and that an additional 30 feet of right-of-way would be platted as well. He pointed out that this would have resulted in a standard size right-of-way, however, it never occurred. He indicated Lot 4 went tax-forfeit a number of years ago, and ownership reverted to the County. He advised that the City does not own the property, however, no development can occur on the lot without the City’s interaction. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that if the DeGross’ decide to subdivide or develop their property, and choose to dedicate an additional 30 feet of right-of-way to improve Laport Drive, it would be unwise to grant a variance to allow for the 10-foot setback on the applicant’s property. He explained that although there is no guarantee that this will occur, the fact that the possibility exists may create sufficient reason to prevent granting a variance in this case. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the amount of frontage the DeGross’ own along Faber Street. Planning Associate Ericson stated that according to the half-section map, they own 220 feet of frontage. Mrs. DeGross stated they would definitely build, adding that they have already selected plans for four houses to be constructed on their property. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the applicant had requested a variance on this property a few weeks earlier. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He stated the applicant was permitted to utilize the roadway by Limited Use Agreement. Commissioner Miller inquired if a different configuration of the house might prevent the necessity for the variance. Spencer Mistelske, the applicant, stated the only other configuration discussed was possibly turning the structure 90 degrees, however, this would not make sense, as the house would face the opposite direction. He explained that if the area were developed, most of the homes would likely face Laport Drive. Mrs. DeGross stated they plan to build two houses facing east, and two houses facing north. Chairperson Peterson inquired if Lot 2 was also available to the applicant. Mr. Mistelske, stated he was the owner of Lot 2, and at this time he was uncertain regarding his plans for this lot, which were somewhat dependent upon what occurred that evening. He noted that the neighbors to the east of his property were interested in purchasing this lot to expand their Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 back yard, and he had advised them that if all went well at the meeting, he would be willing to proceed with this. Mr. DeGross suggested that if the property along Laport Drive were divided into three parcels, all of the property owners would have larger lots. Mr. Mistelske stated he did not own Lot 4, and therefore, had no control over it. He added that he did not believe it was a buildable lot, and inquired regarding its size. Chairperson Peterson stated the 75-foot frontage width was acceptable; however, the length of the lot does not allow for sufficient square footage. Planning Associate Ericson advised that this lot is approximately 9,890 square feet in size. Mr. Mistelske stated the wetlands were a major consideration when he purchased his land. He explained that the wetlands are in very close proximity to his property, and constructing a street would not be feasible, unless the wetlands recede at some point in the future. Chairperson Peterson advised that wetland boundaries are not defined by their present location, but rather, are examined on an historical basis. He explained that soil borings are taken to determine the soil types and the types of vegetation that have grown in the area for in the past 50 years or so. Commissioner Kaden inquired if a delineation of the wetlands had been performed. Mr. Mistelske presented the Commission with the wetland delineation. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the site plan indicates the approximate location of the 100-foot wetland buffer line. Mrs. DeGross stated they would certainly encounter difficulties in attempting to obtain an easement on the applicant’s driveway, as it is proposed to be located on a potential City street. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the Limited Use Agreement allows the applicant to take access from this area, and no one else. He stated it is not contemplated that any other parties would take access at this location. Mrs. DeGross stated that because this proposal has come forward, they would build on their property, and the street would have to be developed. She inquired who would be responsible for the cost of developing the street. Planning Associate Ericson stated the developer would be responsible for the development of the street. Mrs. DeGross inquired why the applicant would not be responsible for this, as he would be developing his land, and using the road as his driveway. Planning Associate Ericson explained that pursuant to the agreement, when the street is constructed, any and all appropriate fees would be assessed to the applicant, however, this was to Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 be determined. He stated the applicant would bear a portion of the responsibility for the construction of the street. Mrs. DeGross stated their land is fronted on three sides by platted streets; therefore, they would also be responsible for the majority of the assessment. Planning Associate Ericson stated the City is considering the potential for future development in this area, and staff has explored different possibilities, and has shared this with the DeGross’. He explained that given that information and the intent of the DeGross’; the Planning Commission might desire to entertain another discussion of this matter. He added that if the Planning Commission feels that action is appropriate at this point, they could also direct staff to draft a resolution of denial. He pointed out that the information presented could impact the appropriateness of granting a variance, however, without the benefit of the wetland study for reference, the discussion of different development possibilities is simply premature. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the City has any plans to develop Faber Street at any time in the future. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Commissioner Johnson advised that in light of this, the developer would be responsible for the costs of developing Faber Street, which is standard procedure with any large development. He explained that if the DeGross’ subdivide the back portion of their property, they would assume the responsibility for developing the street, as would any developer. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that the question at hand relates to the setback, and if the street were to be developed, would this setback cause a problem. Commissioner Johnson stated it would. Commissioner Hegland stated platting of this area appears to convey the assumption that the DeGross’ lots could be developed in the manner they have indicated. Commissioner Johnson stated this was correct, however, the City should not be responsible for the cost of constructing Faber Street, simply to allow for the subdivision of this property. Commissioner Hegland stated the City’s only responsibility would be related to Lot 4. Commissioner Johnson stated Lot 4 was not buildable. Planning Associate Ericson explained that this is a substandard lot, which does not meet the square footage requirement for development. Mrs. DeGross stated her in-laws own the adjoining property. She commented that they could purchase their in-laws back lot, and could access Faber Street from this property as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated many possibilities exist; however, Lot 4 is currently not developable. He pointed out that the applicant could also utilize 1000 to 1500 square feet from the back half of one of his lots, and it would be developable, however, that is not the issue at Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 hand. He advised however, that simply being aware that these possibilities exist might shed light on the request before the Commission this evening. Commissioner Hegland inquired if Lot 5 was developable. Planning Associate Ericson stated there is a house on Lot 5. He explained that a number of lots in the City which were developed many years ago do not meet the current minimum lot size requirements. Commissioner Miller inquired if a cul-de-sac would be necessary, if Faber Street was developed. Planning Associate Ericson reiterated that any number of possibilities exist. Chairperson Peterson stated since Mounds View is primarily developed, the issue of re- development also arises. He indicated that re-development is an area the City has become involved in, and that is also another possibility that should be considered. Mr. DeGross stated his proposal completely eliminates Faber Street. He suggested another possibility would be for the applicant to sell half of Lot 2, and move the proposed location of the house. Commissioner Kaden inquired if Mr. DeGross’ proposal indicates three new houses constructed on one half of their existing lot, along Laport Drive? Mrs. DeGross commented that if the applicant’s proposal is approved, and Faber Street is not developed, they would simply construct a house in their back yard. Chairperson Peterson advised that houses could only be constructed upon established, improved roads. Mrs. DeGross remarked that the applicant was not building on an improved road. Commissioner Johnson advised that the applicant was not proposing to build three houses, and subdividing property. Mrs. DeGross stated the applicant was proposing to build a 400-foot driveway. Chairperson Peterson advised that it is typical for the developer to be responsible for the initial costs of constructing a street, when more than one house is built on that street at the same time. He explained that after that point, the City pays all of the maintenance costs, with possible assessments to the property owners. Planning Associate Ericson reiterated that this is discussion for another meeting, and the fact that these possibilities exist should provide sufficient information to direct staff to draft a resolution of approval or denial of the variance request. Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the amount of wetland in the area. Planning Associate Ericson explained that he had drawn in a loosely defined boundary of the City controlled wetlands on the plat map contained in the Staff Report. He stated this boundary is within two or Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 three feet of that indicated on the applicant’s delineation, however, without seeing the results of the wetland study, it is simply an estimate on the part of staff and the City Engineer. He added that it is not believed that the lots located on the north side of unimproved Laport Drive would be developable, even with a favorable delineation. Commissioner Johnson inquired if this was due to the size of these lots. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was not, but rather because of the conditions of the soils, and their proximity to the wetland, which would not support housing. He advised that these were City controlled lots, and no development could occur without the City’s interaction, at some point. Chairperson Peterson inquired who owned the land to the north of unimproved Laport Drive. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the City controls these lots, and retains Use Deeds on them for drainage purposes, however, the State of Minnesota owns the property. Chairperson Peterson stated it was somewhat difficult to determine the highland trees from lowland on the aerial photograph, however, it appears to indicate a natural boundary line along the Laport Drive right-of-way. He stated that since there is a potential for possible development and the improvement of Laport Drive, further discussion should take place, prior to acting upon this matter. Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the time frame for consideration of this request. Planning Associate Ericson stated in order to meet the 60-day requirement, the Commission should take action by February 14 or 15 at which time the City could request an additional 60- day extension. He explained that he did not anticipate there being a need for this, as there was certainly sufficient time for another meeting, prior to acting upon the matter. Commissioner Kaden stated that it appeared the DeGross’ could develop the back portion of their lot, and if they do so, there is a good chance that Faber Street could be improved. Chairperson Peterson noted that Lund Construction Company owns one of the lots on Woodlawn Drive, and it was likely they would be interested in developing this property as well. Mr. Mistelske stated that if the DeGross’ build as they have indicated, and Faber Street and Laport Drive were improved, they would both be assessed a very substantial amount for these two roads. He stated he would likely be unable to afford such an assessment. Commissioner Johnson stated if Faber Street were improved, it would be done at the expense of the developer. Planning Associate Ericson advised that there are formulas to determine assessments, and because Mr. Mistelske would benefit from the frontage, which would be considered an improvement to his property, he would also be assessed for this. Mr. DeGross inquired if Tax Increment funds could be utilized for such an undertaking. Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 Planning Associate Ericson advised that certain grants could be requested, and different funding sources could be examined, however, it was not likely that the City would consider utilizing Tax Increment funds for the construction of a street. Mrs. DeGross stated they were required to build approximately 30 feet of roadway along Woodlawn Drive, at a cost in excess of $5,000, when they constructed their home, and they were aware of the costs involved. She indicated that sewer and other amenities were already in place along Faber Street. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that the reason the few remaining lots in Mounds View are not developed is because there are quite a few development limitations, as well as wetland issues. He stated many lots were developed, which should not have been. He explained that even if there is not an actual wetland boundary, or standing water in this area, there may be soil conditions that are not sufficiently stable for a roadway or a home foundation, and development may require some excavation in order to establish a road. Mr. DeGross stated his father has owned this property for more than 50 years, and that is the reason it has never been developed. Chairperson Peterson inquired if Mr. DeGross had previously indicated there have been many unsuccessful attempts to develop the property in the last 25 years. Mr. DeGross explained that he was referring to Lots 2 and 3, which are at a much lower elevation than his property. Chairperson Peterson advised that when there is development, expenses are involved, and generally, the developer absorbs these costs. Mr. DeGross commented that this was the reason he did not understand the logic in regard to the proposed driveway. He added that if this is going to be done, it should be done correctly. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the proposed driveway has already been approved by the City Council, therefore, the issue is not debatable at this point. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the land in the vicinity of the City controlled lot was fairly clear of vegetation, as indicated on the aerial photograph. Mr. DeGross explained that there were currently grasses and some large trees in this area. He stated this land was higher in elevation, and sloped downward. Chairperson Peterson reiterated that he did not believe the Commission could take action upon this request at this time, and suggested the matter be tabled until their next meeting. He reiterated that the best solution would appear to be for all interested parties to discuss the matter, and attempt to determine some solution Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Mr. Mistelske pointed out that if the DeGross’ were to develop their land, the improvement of Faber Street and Laport Drive would be a very time consuming project, due to the wetlands, which are far too close to construct a full-sized City street. He stated the discussion appeared to have been diverted from the direction he had anticipated, adding that as a first time homebuyer, he simply wanted to build a house. Chairperson Peterson inquired who owns the property located to the north of the lot owned by Lund Construction Company. Mr. DeGross stated Lund Construction Company also owned this lot. Chairperson Peterson stated Lund Construction Company could potentially build two homes to the west of Woodlawn Drive, and south of Laport Drive, if Laport Drive was extended to provide access. Mr. DeGross stated this was correct, however, Laport Drive would have to be extended to Long Lake Road. Commissioner Miller inquired what restrictions would apply to the improvement of Laport Drive. Planning Associate Ericson advised that this would be contingent upon the results of the Wetland Study. He explained that this study could indicate that the soils could not support development without substantial corrections, in which case, such development may be cost prohibitive. He stated that without the completed study, there was no way to determine this. Commissioner Stevenson inquired when the Wetland Study would be available. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the study would possibly be completed in March. Commissioner Miller inquired if this would be the appropriate starting point for consideration of this matter. Commissioner Stevenson stated it appeared that many of the decisions would be made dependent upon the findings of this study, in terms of whether or not the property is developable. Planning Associate Ericson advised that when this item went before the City Council, both in terms of the Wetland Buffer Permit and the Limited Use Agreement, the Council had considered the fact that some future development could occur. He explained that the Council felt that even if this were the case, it would not prohibit the applicant from building on his lot, as he would have a buildable lot regardless. He pointed out that this is simply a question of where the road might be located if it were to be improved, and if it could not be, the issue would be moot. Commissioner Miller inquired if there could be such questions relating to Faber Street as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was probably less likely, in that it is located further from the wetland to the north, the elevation changes, and there is less of an issue with regard to the soils and suitability for improvement. He explained that without seeing a contour map of the Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 area, it was an uncertainty at this point, however, through his examination of the property, he found this to be a more realistic possibility. Chairperson Peterson stated the delineation presented appeared to be fairly accurate, based upon surveys and aerial photographs, and that a boundary line could be determined which would be very similar to that represented. He commented that this appeared to be a photo-based wetland boundary, rather than an actual delineation. Planning Associate Ericson explained that in the early 1980’s, when the wetland zoning maps were created, they were based upon national wetland data, flight data and elevations. He advised that the boundary line indicated on the map presents an elevation, which, according to the National Wetland Institute, is the location of the elevation that encompasses the wetland, however, it is not intended to be an accurate reflection of where the wetland actually exists. Commissioner Stevenson inquired what new information would be available to the Commission if this item is tabled until the next meeting. Planning Associate Ericson stated this would likely be the result of any discussions held by Mr. Mistelske and the adjacent property owners, as well as the manner in which Mr. Mistelske would like to proceed, in light of the discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden. To Table Consideration of the Variance Request for a Reduced Side-yard Setback at 2442 Laport Drive Until the Next Meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Chairperson Peterson stated the applicant submitted this request on December 15, 1999; therefore, the Planning Commission would have two additional meetings in which to review this matter, prior to the expiration date of the application. He advised that the Commission was not attempting to prevent the applicant from developing his property. He explained that the properties remaining in the City are oftentimes oddly shaped, or subject to certain limitations, and at times, one development has the potential to impact another, therefore, the City desires to insure that all of the property owners are provided equal opportunity. Commissioner Johnson added that the City would also like to see that all developable land is developed, therefore, the Planning Commission is charged with the responsibility of making certain that potential development is not hindered in the future. Chairperson Peterson advised that they must attempt to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties. 5. Consideration of Resolution 602-00, a resolution establishing the year 2000 meeting dates for the Mounds View Planning Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 Chairperson Peterson stated that each year, the Planning Commission is required to adopt an annual meeting schedule, which sets the regular meeting dates. He indicated that staff had done a very good job preparing a proposed calendar, and he did not see any conflicts presented with this schedule. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the Commission should also consider the memorandum from Community Development Director Jopke, regarding the Study Session meeting dates for the Comprehensive Plan, as these meetings would also be televised. Chairperson Peterson stated the Study Sessions were special meetings, during which the Planning Commission conducts their review of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Miller advised that the item presently before the Commission pertained only to the regular meetings of the Planning Commission. Chairperson Peterson noted that all of the proposed meeting dates were the standard dates. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the July 5 meeting date may present a conflict, in relation to the Fourth of July holiday. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that this meeting would be held in the middle of the week, and the given holidays would likely fall on Monday and Tuesday of that week. Chairperson Peterson stated he did not anticipate a problem in this regard. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden. To Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 602-00, a Resolution Establishing Planning Commission Meeting Dates and Applicant Submission Schedule Dates for Year 2000. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 6. Election of Planning Commission Officers Planning Associate Ericson advised that according to the bylaws of the Planning Commission, the Commission is to vote to elect its Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson at the first meeting of each year. He indicated that if there is only one nomination for each position, a voice vote would be sufficient. He explained however, if more than one nomination is made, each Commission member shall write his selection on a secret ballot, and the recording secretary shall tally the ballots, and announce the nominee receiving the most votes. Commissioner Miller nominated Jerry Peterson for Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 Commissioner Stevenson moved for acclamation. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Berke. To Approve Jerry Peterson as Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 The motion carried. Chairperson Peterson stated he had no objections to serving as Chairperson for the Commission, although this was not a role he sought. He explained that his primary concern was to be of service to the community, and whether or not that is accomplished through this position is insignificant. Commissioner Miller nominated Gary Stevenson for Vice-Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Miller moved for acclamation. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Berke. To Approve Gary Stevenson as the Vice-Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 The motion carried. Planning Associate Ericson advised that according to the Bylaws, the Planning Commission officially elects its Vice-Chairperson, however, the election of the Chairperson is a recommendation to the Mayor, who may affirm the election, or choose someone else. He stated staff would present this information to the City Council at their next meeting on January 10, 2000, and the Council would act upon this matter at that point. Commissioner Stevenson advised that he was no longer serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission. Commissioner Miller stated this was unfortunate, as Commissioner Stevenson had acted as a liaison to the Planning Commission, and had shared information that was especially helpful to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Johnson added that this was particularly useful in regard to the Comprehensive Plan. Chairperson Peterson noted that the City has received much good service from the various Commissions, and at times, it is easy to forget the long, sometimes tedious hours involved, however, these are service positions. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the City would be holding a City Council/Commission Appreciation Dinner for all of the Commission and Council members, on Thursday March 2. He Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 indicated this event was tentatively scheduled for 6:30 p.m., at the Community Center, and was in recognition of their dedicated work and devotion to the community. 7. Staff Reports / Items of Information Planning Associate Ericson stated that in his memorandum to the Planning Commission, Community Development Director Jopke has suggested they set Study Session dates for January 12 and 26, to complete the review of the Comprehensive Plan, and set the date of the Informational Community Forum, for February 9. He explained that if the Planning Commission was comfortable with this schedule, staff would insure that proper noticing requirements are met, and would also work with Video Producer, Patrick Toss, to produce a short video, which would be televised to provide information regarding the discussion of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Associate Ericson advised that staff is working on the final drafts of the maps. He indicated staff was unable to print the maps in time to provide them to the Commission for review, however, all of the input and information the Commission has provided has been incorporated, and the next map presented should be the final version. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the dates of January 12 and 26 were acceptable to the Commission members. Commissioner Stevenson advised that he would be unable to attend the January 26 meeting, however, he felt these would be the most suitable dates. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to set the Study Session dates for January 12 and 26, 2000. Commission Johnson inquired if the Comprehensive Plan would be forwarded to the City Council after the February 9 meeting. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the Informational Community Forum would be held on February 9, and the City would probably want to set a formal public hearing at the Planning Commission, which Community Development Director Jopke indicated could potentially be scheduled for February 16 or 23. He explained that after the public hearing, the Comprehensive Plan would be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Miller stated there appeared to be some question regarding whether or not there should be both an Informational Community Forum and a formal public hearing. She inquired what would be accomplished by holding both meetings. Planning Associate Ericson stated this would depend upon whether or not the Planning Commission completes their work on the Comprehensive Plan, or if further revisions are required. He explained that staff could advertise the formal public viewing of the Comprehensive Plan as the formal public hearing. He pointed out that the proper course of Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 action could be decided during the next several weeks, and if this can be accomplished in a lesser amount of time, staff would certainly attempt to do so. Commissioner Johnson advised that they could postpone the matter for another two weeks if there was substantial input at the formal public hearing on February 9, however, if there were not, there would be no need to delay the matter. Planning Associate Ericson stated he would inform Community Development Director Jopke in this regard. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there would be some notification to property owners, particularly those located along Highway 10, where the zoning will change, either on their property or the property adjacent to it. Planning Associate Ericson advised the Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate any rezoning of property. He explained that there might be a redistricting or re-designation of some properties, however, this would not require a rezoning at this point. Chairperson Peterson indicated that although there may not be a legal requirement for notification, it would be wise to invite everyone who may be affected, in order to clarify the difference between the Comprehensive Plan designation and the actual zoning, as well as what could potentially occur in the future. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that there was already some confusion in this regard. Chairperson Peterson explained that the residents should be aware that the City does not intend to do something to them. He explained that this is planned process, whereby if something were to occur, and only by market forces, the results would be beneficial for both the City, and the residents affected. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that this information would be for the benefit of the landowners along Highway 10, who might have concerns that the City desires to take their valuable land, which they have owned for many years. Commissioner Kaden added that these are valid concerns, in that this has occurred in other cities. Commissioner Hegland stated that the City hould clarify that this is not the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, but rather, it is a plan for future development, if future development is to occur. He explained that it does not alter any existing property rights, and this should be communicated. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the decision to schedule the Informational Community Forum or the formal public hearing, or both, would be determined during the next two Study Sessions. Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 Commissioner Johnson pointed out that the public hearing would require time to allow for notification. Commissioner Kaden inquired if a 60-day notice was required for the public hearing. Planning Associate Ericson explained that a 10-day notice is required, which must be published 10 days prior to the meeting, and the information must be provided to the newspaper prior to the publication date. Commissioner Johnson suggested two 20-day notices be provided. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would probably do this, to insure that the residents are aware and prepared. He indicated that staff would also include this information on the City’s website, it would be scrolled on Channel 16, and any other means that are available for advertising will be utilized. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the Focus was still the City’s Official Newspaper. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson noted that the previous Informational Community Forum had been advertised in both the Focus and the Bulletin newspapers. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would consider this as well. Chairperson Peterson stated it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to set the dates of the Comprehensive Plan Study Sessions for January 12 and 26, 2000. A. Previous Council Actions Planning Associate Ericson stated at the December 13 City Council meeting, the Council approved the conditional use permit and development review for Sunrise Methodist Church, upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation, with no changes. He indicated that the Council held the first reading of Ordinance 642, pertaining to driveway widths and curb cuts, and the second reading has been scheduled to occur on December 10. He explained that one of the diagrams could possibly change, and this has not yet been determined, however, no substantial changes have been proposed to this ordinance, which the Planning Commission recommended. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Council held second reading and adoption of Ordinance 644, regarding billboards. He indicated there was consideration of a request for a Wetland Buffer Permit for the property located at 2551 Ridge Lane, and this item was tabled for further discussion. He indicated that the Council discussed this item at their previous Work Session, and it has been scheduled for consideration on January 10. Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 Planning Associate Ericson advised that the City had authorized staff to draft a resolution which would allow TOLD Development Company to come forward with an application and development proposal for the City remnant parcel and the Midland/Videen parcel. He advised that the City is required to sign off on the application, as the City is one of the property owners, therefore, the Council directed staff to draft a resolution authorizing the City’s signature on that development application. He explained that this does not guarantee that anything would be approved, but simply allows a proposal to come forth, and this proposal would come before the Planning Commission. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the additional cost for the surveying of the northern portion of the City property had been authorized. Planning Associate Ericson stated this issue was discussed, and an arrangement has been made with the developer, who will probably bear the majority, if not all of the costs for the surveying and platting. He advised that this matter could be clarified in the resolution that goes before the Council at their next meeting. B. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Ericson stated at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, there would be consideration of a variance request pertaining to a warehouse/office building, which is located on Highway 8. He explained that a survey of the property has indicated that the building is situated slightly over the minimum setback for the parcel, therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building to remain as it currently exists, simply to provide for a clean transfer of ownership. Commissioner Hegland inquired why a variance was required. Planning Associate Ericson explained that it is not necessarily required, however, many times mortgage companies or prospective owners would prefer to see City approval in writing, in order to legitimize the existing location of the structure. Commissioner Hegland stated there is an existing property clause, which indicates that the status of existing property is not affected by a transfer of ownership. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that potential legal problems could arise in the future. He explained that the City did not request this application, however, the applicant chose to proceed in this manner. Planning Associate Ericson stated pursuant to the discussion at the previous Council Work Session, all public meetings held in City Hall shall be subject to cable cast. He explained that the Planning Commission Agenda Sessions, at which meeting minutes and other non-planning related issues are reviewed, and the special meetings, such as those held for the review of the Comprehensive Plan would be televised from that point forward. Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 Planning Associate Ericson advised that since the Planning Commission is required to review the Bylaws during their first meeting in February, they could amend the Bylaws to reflect this new policy at that time. He explained that the Agenda Session meetings no longer appear to be necessary; therefore, this could be clarified in the Bylaws. Chairperson Peterson commented that this policy could conflict with special meetings, which are not held within the normal schedule. He explained that the Commission utilizes the Council Chambers for regular meetings, however, they are sometimes required to utilize other rooms, which may not have access to the cable equipment. Planning Associate Ericson advised that these situations would have to be resolved in advance. Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not think the Planning Commission’s informal discussion of the Comprehensive Plan should be televised, and suggested these meetings be held in a different room. Planning Associate Ericson explained that this would not change the requirement that these meetings be televised. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that minutes are not kept during the informal discussion of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Kaden added that this might result in misinterpretation. Commissioner Miller stated this would cause much confusion. Planning Associate Ericson explained that they would have to utilize disclaimers, and be very clear in terms of the discussion and its purpose. Chairperson Peterson stated he was not opposed to televising the meetings, however, it would most likely tend to stifle the free discussion. Commissioner Stevenson stated he had seen the December 13 meeting of the City Council on television, and the Council’s adoption of Ordinance 644, pertaining to billboards. He noted comments regarding the Planning Commission recommendation, and that the Council appreciated that the Commission had rendered the only decision they could have, and unanimously opposed the billboards, although they voted against the Commission’s recommendation. He pointed out however, there was another comment that suggested that the Commission had not been provided with all of the information, and he interpreted this to imply the Commission was slightly ignorant to the facts. Commissioner Stevenson stated he was not ignorant of the facts, and the Planning Commission was aware of the rationale behind the billboards, as relates to the golf course, and the bond issues it is facing. He stated this was fairly well represented, and the Commission was aware of the Council’s reasons for voting in favor for the billboards. He advised that his decision was not influenced by these factors, and in his clear conscience, he could not vote in favor of billboards for the purpose of generating revenue, and then have to look at them, and know that he had any part in allowing them to be constructed. Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 Chairperson Peterson stated the Planning Commission was not ignorant of the monetary factors, however, he believed the Commission’s decision was based upon non-monetary issues. He added that even if the Commission had considered the monetary issues, he did not believe this would have altered their decision. Planning Associate Ericson requested the Planning Commission amend the agenda, and review the minutes, prior to adjourning the meeting. Chairperson Peterson suggested the Commission could amend the agenda to indicate that the three items listed on the Agenda Session be re- numbered as Items 9,10 and 11. Planning Associate Ericson asked if the Commission would prefer to review the minutes at the beginning or the end of the meeting. He advised that the City Council reviews the minutes at the beginning of their meeting, and appears to move through this quite rapidly, however, the Commission may desire to consider this review at the end of the meeting, to avoid requiring applicants to wait, if the review is very lengthy and time consuming. Chairperson Peterson advised that the review of the minutes should be conducted at the end of the meeting. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would draft the agendas to reflect this in the future. Commissioner Miller inquired if the recording secretary would then record all of the corrections to the minutes. Planning Associate Ericson stated this is the procedure at the City Council meetings, and it is a decision that can be made by the Planning Commission and staff. He indicated he had no problem making the corrections himself, and did not believe staff would mind continuing in this manner. He inquired if the presence of the recording secretary would be necessary at this point, since she would only be recording the adjournment of the meeting. Chairperson Peterson advised that someone could join the meeting during the review of the minutes, and request consideration of an issue. He stated the meeting would still be called to order, and although the Planning Commission would not necessarily take any action at that point, they could listen to the issue, and the information could be recorded in the minutes. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the recorder could simply indicate that discussion was held regarding a specific issue, or clarification was provided, however, she would not need to record the specific corrections to the minutes. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the minutes are already very lengthy. Chairperson Peterson stated it was not necessary for the recording secretary to take the minutes of the corrections to the minutes. Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 20 Commissioner Hegland advised that the Planning Commission could adjourn the regular meeting, and proceed with the Agenda Session, as they normally would. He explained that there was no need to change their procedure, simply because the meeting was being televised. Commissioner Stevenson added that the recording secretary was not required to remain for the Agenda Session simply because it is televised. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue to utilize the current adjournment procedure. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that someone could join the meeting after the adjournment, and during the Agenda Session. Chairperson Peterson stated the public is notified in regard to when the Planning Commission meeting is called to order, however, the Commission could reconvene if necessary, and have any further discussion entered into the minutes. Planning Associate Ericson advised that according to the Bylaws, the Community Development Director, or his or her designee, is the recording secretary; therefore, the Commission is not required to have a body present to record this information. Commissioner Hegland explained that the meeting is over when the Commission has adjourned. Chairperson Peterson stated that according to State Law, if the Commissioners are present together, even at a different location, they are technically in a meeting. Commissioner Johnson indicated that the Commission could meet in the Agenda Session, and not be formally called to order. Commissioner Hegland inquired if it would not be necessary to keep records of this. Chairperson Peterson advised that any official business must be conducted while the meeting is called to order and the minutes are recorded, however, informal discussions, such as the review of minutes, are not official business, but rather, housekeeping considerations. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report No reports were considered. 9. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 21 (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.