Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 2, 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., February 2, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, Miller, and Stevenson. Members Absent: Commissioner Braathen, leave of absence. Also Present: Community Development Director Rick Jopke, 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 Annual Review of Planning Commission Bylaws 3 Staff Reports / Items of Information 6 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 8 3. Citizens’ Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 A. January 5, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Miller t o approve the January 5, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 5. 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 not present. Community Development Director Jopke gave the staff report as follows: At the January 5 meeting of the Planning Commission, there was discussion regarding the variance request of Spencer Mistelske for property located at 2442 Laport Drive. This was a variance request to construct a new home at a lesser side lot line setback than that allowed by Code requirements. In this particular case, there is an unimproved 30-foot right-of-way along Faber Street, adjacent to the subject property, and the applicant proposed to construct the home closer than 30 feet to this right-of-way. Community Development Director Jopke indicated that after some discussion at their January 5 meeting, the Planning Commission continued this item for further discussion. He stated the matter was again continued on January 19, as no further information had come forward since that time. He explained that staff has received no word from the applicant regarding his plans, or how he intends to approach this matter. Community Development Director Jopke stated the findings in Resolution 601-00 indicate that there is a possible need for the Faber Street right-of-way, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances present on this site, and that the situation was, in fact, created by the property owner. He advised that in light of these findings, and the 60-day time frame deadline, staff would recommend the Planning Commission approve Resolution 601-00, which denies this variance request. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there was any further word from the neighboring residents who had proposed to build in the same area. Community Development Director Jopke stated there was not. Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Chairperson Peterson inquired if there was any further information regarding the wetland delineation. Community Development Director Jopke stated no. He indicated many questions remain with regard to the proposal, and it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to deny this particular request. He pointed out that the applicant was examining the possibility of some minor subdivision of the property, which could eliminate the need for a variance, depending upon how this is done, and where the house would be located. Commissioner Johnson stated this was a situation where the neighboring property owner was also considering subdividing and building houses in this area. He advised that if this item were approved, it would affect the potential improvement of Faber Street, and whether or not those houses could be constructed. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was correct, adding that much of this related to the adjacent property owner’s ability to obtain proper access into the property. Commissioner Johnson explained that if Faber Street was ever improved, and this variance request was approved, the proposed home would be located in too close a proximity to Faber Street to allow for proper access. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Kaden. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 601-00, a Resolution Denying a Variance from Section 1104.01, Subd. 4, of the Mounds view Zoning Code Pertaining to Setbacks to Allow for a Reduced Sideyard Setback for a Proposed House at 2442 Laport Drive; Planning Case No. 578-99, as corrected. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that although the resolution is approved, this action denies the variance request. Chairperson Peterson stated this was correct. He indicated that this denial was not based so much upon a lack of merit in this case, but rather, because there was not sufficient information available with which to proceed, and by State Statute, if action is not taken within a certain time period, the matter is automatically approved. 6. Annual Review of Planning Commission Bylaws. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Planning Commission Bylaws indicate that each year, at the first regular meeting in February, the Planning Commission is required to review the Bylaws, and make any changes they feel are necessary. He indicated staff has provided a copy of the Bylaws for the Commission’s review. Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Chairperson Peterson stated the Planning Commission had made a number of corrections the previous year, primarily to eliminate procedural difficulties in terms of the schedule of certain operations within the year, and in this sense, many improvements were made. He indicated that this year, the Planning Commission has undergone a change with respect to the broadcasting of meetings. He explained that two meetings prior, the Commission formally decided it was not necessary to amend the format of their agenda, as the only difference would be that the entire meeting is broadcast, rather than only the formal portion of the meeting. He inquired if the Bylaws should be amended to reflect this change. Community Development Director Jopke stated he did not believe the Bylaws made any reference to the televising of meetings. He inquired if the Planning Commission would care to incorporate this into the Bylaws, or if they would prefer to rely upon the Council action in this regard. Commissioner Stevenson stated the Agenda Session would be a more appropriate place to make mention of anything related to the televising of meetings, as it is for the minutes which are subject to somewhat frequent change. He pointed out that the broadcast policy was also subject to frequent change, therefore, he would rather not see this as a complete addendum to the Bylaws. Chairperson Peterson stated he agreed. Commissioner Miller stated Item No. 4, Officers: Subparagraph A, last sentence, should indicate “…secretary of the Commission for the purpose...” She noted Subparagraph B, first paragraph, which indicates, “The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council for action at its first meeting in January.” She inquired if a situation might arise wherein the Council would hold their first meeting on Monday, and the Planning Commission meeting would occur the following Wednesday. Chairperson Peterson stated the Planning Commission had discussed this the previous year, and had proposed language to address this possibility, however, he had not seen any provision for this in the Bylaws. He pointed out that if the first Council Meeting were to occur prior to the first Planning Commission meeting, this recommendation could not come forward to the Council until their second meeting in January. Commissioner Laube suggested the language be amended to indicate “…at its second meeting in January,” and omit the word “first”. Commissioner Johnson stated the language could indicate “…the first Council meeting to follow the first Planning Commission meeting…” Commissioner Laube suggested the word “first” be omitted, and the language simply indicate “…at the City Council meeting in January.” He noted this language would leave the date of action open. Commissioner Miller stated this would be the simplest means to accomplish this. Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Community Development Director Jopke inquired if the language would then indicate, “The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council for action in January.” Commissioner Kaden suggested the language indicate, “…or at its next meeting.” Chairperson Peterson stated this would be appropriate. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if this paragraph should begin with a sentence that indicates “At its first meeting in January, the Commission shall conduct an election in order to make its recommendation of a chairperson,” and followed by the sentence “Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, at the next Council Meeting, the Mayor, with the approval of City Council…” He pointed out that the current language appeared to be backtracking, and the sentences were not in proper order. He stated this should start out with the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Miller advised that the first sentence would be followed by the sentence, which indicates “The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council at its next meeting in January.” Commissioner Stevenson stated this was correct, and this sentence would then be followed by the sentence that indicates, “Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, shall appoint…” Commissioner Miller clarified that the first sentence would, in effect, become the last sentence. Commissioner Stevenson stated this was correct. Commissioner Kaden explained that the first paragraph of Subparagraph C sets forth the procedure to be followed in the event that both the chairperson and vice-chairperson are absent. He indicated this situation has arisen in the past, and according to the Bylaws, the Planning Commission is required to hold an election, and elect a temporary chairperson. He advised that this procedure should be followed, in that if it was not, and the Commission made a decision that resulted in litigation, and an attorney reviewed the proceedings of the meeting and the Bylaws, there might be opportunity to suggest that the decision was not legitimate. He noted this was a fairly remote possibility, however, it could occur. Chairperson Peterson agreed, adding that this could prevent a particular problem in terms of any perception of railroading or heavy-handedness, and although it was hoped that this was not the impression the Commission would ever put forward, he could see the point of following this procedure. Chairperson Peterson stated the previous year, he had notified City staff via E-mail that he would be unable to attend the meeting, however, for some reason, this message was not received until Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 the following day. He noted a similar situation two weeks prior, during a snowstorm, when he had been unaware that the Planning Commission meeting was cancelled, and only learned of this upon coming to City Hall. He pointed out that the Bylaws indicate the Commissioners shall be notified of such occurrences by telephone. He commented that in the past, a variety of different notification practices have been utilized, however, in this situation the procedure had broken down. Community Development Director Jopke explained that he had attempted to call each Commissioner regarding the meeting cancellation, and had left a voice message for Chairperson Peterson. Commissioner Miller indicated that the Page 5 of the Bylaws, last paragraph, last sentence, refers to a “revised meeting schedule.” She requested clarification, pointing out that the Planning Commission’s meeting schedule had been previously approved. Community Development Director Jopke stated this entire sentence appeared to pertain to the Planning Commission’s 1999 meeting schedule, and suggested it be stricken from the Bylaws. Commissioner Stevenson stated he agreed. Chairperson Peterson agreed. He explained out that current practice provides that the meeting schedule is established in January, and the review of the Bylaws takes place in February, therefore, the situation where both meeting schedules are incorporated into the same resolution should not reoccur. Commissioner Miller advised that that the top of the first page of the Bylaws should indicate “Revised March 2, 2000.” MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Laube. To Approve the Bylaws, as Amended, and Item No. 4, Subparagraph A, Last Sentence, Indicate “…secretary for the Commission for the purpose…”, Subparagraph B Indicate “At its first meeting in January, the Commission shall conduct an election in order to make its recommendation of a chairperson. The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council at its next meeting in January. Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council shall appoint…”, the Last Sentence, on Page 5, Last Paragraph, be Stricken, and that the First Page of the Bylaws Indicate “Revised March 2, 2000.” Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 7. Staff Reports / Items of Information Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Community Development Director Jopke stated Planning Associate Ericson had provided the Planning Commission with a supplemental memorandum pertaining to two items that staff would like to bring the Commission’s attention. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Planning Commission had previously tabled a request for variance at 8359 Red Oak Drive. He indicated the applicant, John Henning, was requesting a variance pertaining to a driveway width, and since that time, the City Council has adopted Ordinance 642, which amends the driveway width requirements. He advised that this particular driveway now conforms with the new ordinance requirements, and upon notification in this regard, Mr. Henning has withdrawn his application for a variance. Community Development Director Jopke advised that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a motion to accept withdrawal of this application. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the application fees. Community Development Director Jopke stated the fees were non-refundable. Chairperson Peterson pointed out there was considerable staff time involved in researching this case. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Miller. To Accept the Withdrawal of the Application for a Variance Request to Allow for a 44-foot Wide Driveway for John Henning at Property Located at 8359 Red Oak Drive, Planning Case No. 568-99 Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried. Commissioner Hegland requested clarification regarding the necessity of this action. Community Development Director Jopke explained that this was to officially acknowledge the withdrawal of this item. Community Development Director Jopke stated that the second item noted on the memorandum was of an informational nature. He indicated the I-35W Corridor Coalition has discussed the meeting of Planning Commissions for joint training sessions. He explained that these sessions would pertain to a number of issues, including planning items, the various public hearing procedures that are utilized by each community, and the endeavors of the I-35W Corridor Coalition. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the first of these meetings has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 22, and its location has not yet been determined, however, it appears it will be held at the Mounds View Community Center, because of its centralized location. He advised that staff would update the Commission, as more information becomes available, adding that this would be a good opportunity for the Commissions to congregate and learn from each other. Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 A. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke updated the Planning Commission regarding recent Council action. He indicated the Council approved second reading and adopted Ordinance 637, an ordinance related to signage permitted in the PF (Public Facilities) and CRP (Conservancy, Recreation, and Preservation) Zoning Districts. He stated that item had been tabled pending the outcome of Ordinance 644, which was subsequently passed. He noted the City Hall sign is now legal. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report Commissioner Kaden reported he attended a meeting last Thursday, which was arranged by State Representative Barbara Haake concerning the airport issues. He stated representatives of the Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers had also attended, and he obtained much information from this meeting. He advised that Representative Haake has introduced a Bill to the House of Representatives that would attempt to take the final decision from the Metropolitan Airport Commission with regard to the Anoka-Blaine Airport expansion. He indicated Senator Steve Novak has introduced a companion Bill in the State Senate. Commissioner Kaden stated both of these Bills were brought before the Senate and the House of Representatives last year, and were not passed, however, this year, there is new information regarding the expansion that may change the opinions of some State Senators and Representatives. He explained that the Metropolitan Airport Commission plans to fill 158 acres of wetland, and are not certain where this wetland would be replaced. Commissioner Kaden indicated both Senator Novak and Representative Haake believe that passage or failure of this Bill hinges upon the public’s ability to engender the support of their State Senators and Representatives. He commented that Linda Runbeck, who represents Blaine, Circle Pines and Lexington, and State Representative Andy Westerberg, have to this point, been in favor of the airport expansion, however, the new information regarding the filling of the wetland may change their minds. Commissioner Kaden advised that citizens could call the State Senator and House of Representative Information Line, and obtain the telephone numbers for their Representatives. He indicated that the new information appears to have changed the entire nature of this issue. He pointed out that the proposed site is the second largest plot of land owned by the Metropolitan Airport Commission, and they would eventually like this to be their second largest airport. Chairperson Peterson noted residents who have moved into the area east of the airport have experienced some troublesome situations with regard to the volume of traffic and noise, Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 therefore, there might be some opposition from this area that would assist in this Legislative effort. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that these residents were required to indicate that they would not oppose the airport expansion, upon signing their leases. Chairperson Peterson stated this was correct, however, this would not prevent them from contacting their State Representatives in this regard. He noted the wetland issue appears to be a very substantial matter, and it was surprising, in that it was not previously known. Commissioner Kaden commented that part of the reason for this was that until one week ago, the Metropolitan Airport Commission had denied their intentions to fill this amount of wetland to their own Airport Commission. He explained that they plan to do this incrementally, however, they would be required to fill in 158 acres of wetland in order to secure the minimum amount of acreage necessary to construct the 5,000 and 3,000-foot runways in each direction. He stated he was uncertain regarding the specific provisions for wetland replacement, however, believed it must be mitigated within the same watershed district, and the Metropolitan Airport Commission would like to replace the wetland with property located on the Minnesota River. Commissioner Johnson advised that there must be a two-to-one replacement of displaced wetland. Chairperson Peterson indicated they would have to locate 316 acres of replacement wetland within that particular drainage sub-district of the watershed district. Commissioner Kaden noted the airport property is located within two watershed districts, and this appears to be the best means to slow down the proposed expansion. Chairperson Peterson added that it makes no difference if the wetland replacement proceeds 30 acres at a time, it still must be mitigated according to all of the requirements. He stated this was an issue to continue to closely monitor. No further reports were considered. Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 9. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.