Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 3, 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., May 3, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, Stevenson, and Miller. Members Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Liaison Dan Coughlin, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Discussion Regarding Update to the City’s Local Water Management Plan. 2 Discussion Regarding Peterson Environmental Wetlands Analysis. 10 Discussion Regarding Springsted Highway 10 Study. 10 Viewing of League of Minnesota Cities Video, “Tuesday Night Council Meeting.” 11 Staff Reports / Items of Information 12 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 13 3. Citizens’ Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes A. March 15, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve the March 15, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 5. Discussion Regarding Update to the City’s Local Water Management Plan. Community Development Director Jopke stated this item was the presentation of the City’s Local Water Management Plan, which is being updated in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan and pursuant to Metropolitan Council requirements. He indicated the City Engineer is in the process of preparing the update of the plan, and representatives of SEH were present to discuss the plan and obtain the Planning Commission’s feedback. Rocky Keehn, Short Elliot Hendrickson, stated he has been with the City’s engineering consultant for approximately 13 years, during which time he has had the opportunity to observe much of the development that has occurred in the City. He indicated he had written the City’s original Water Management Plan, adding that Mounds View was one of the first communities he had worked with in this regard. Mr. Keehn advised that they were able to utilize much of the same hydrological information that was contained in the original plan in the preparation of the second-generation plan. He explained that during the development of the first plan, there was a desire by the City to take over some of the permitting authority from the Rice Creek Watershed District, however, that perspective has changed over time, therefore, the Watershed District would continue with permitting relating to wetlands, water quality issues, and rate control. He indicated there were some thresholds over which the Watershed District does not have controls, and these would be addressed during the presentation. Mr. Keehn stated Beth Peterson, SEH Project Engineer, was present to provide the Commission with background information and advise as to the regulatory reasons for the development of the Local Water Management Plan. Beth Peterson, SEH Project Engineer, indicated that in 1984, State Statute required that Watershed Districts write a Water Management Plan, and within two years after the approval of this plan, a Local Water Management Plan was required to be written. She advised that the Rice Creek Watershed District Water Management Plan was approved in 1997, and the City must now meet that requirement. Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Ms. Peterson reviewed the requirements of the four bodies of government that set forth the requirements of the contents of the Local Water Management Plan. These include State Statute 103B, Minnesota Rule 8410, the Metropolitan Council’s requirement for a Local Water Management Plan, and the Watershed District requirement. She noted that the Rice Creek Watershed District and Metropolitan Council’s requirements for the Local Water Management Plan were the same. Ms. Peterson indicated the requirements set forth by the Metropolitan Council are the most detailed of the requirements for the Local Water Management Plan. She discussed each of these requirements and explained that each of these requirements have been specifically listed and addressed in the plan. Mr. Keehn indicated that during the current review process, they had focused primarily upon the Rice Creek Watershed District permitting rules. He advised that the permits relate to rate controls for any residential and development plan greater than 5 acres, and industrial and commercial areas greater than 2.5 acres. He stated the Watershed District continues to permit water quality or wetland impact based upon the lot, which is a much smaller requirement, therefore, with the plan as proposed, Rice Creek Watershed District would continue to permit these activities based upon these acreage requirements. Mr. Keehn advised that the Rice Creek Watershed District has the opportunity to comment upon all proposals that come into the community, which relate to these issues. He indicated that if the Watershed District does not comment upon a proposal, the City’s Planning Department would typically forward a copy of the plan to SEH for their review. He explained that when SEH reviews a proposal, they examine the overall impact to the site, and whether or not the proposal presents a detriment to the larger wetland or area adjacent to it. He noted that the Watershed District considers this as well, and even if they permit a project, SEH does not tend to become involved in the examination of the design specifics, but rather, in terms of the overall impact to the City. He explained that for the most part, the Watershed District does not comment, because they only have regulatory authority over the property that is being developed. Mr. Keehn stated SEH also reviews buffer related issues, and the typical recommendation is that any residential development within the buffer be set back 10 to 15-foot from the wetland, and this review relates primarily to the wetland’s impact to the system. He explained that if this is a wetland at the top of the watershed, which will run through several wetlands before it reaches Rice Creek, the concern is more of a local issue, and providing a smaller buffer. He stated there are wetlands that they consider a bit more sensitive, and in these cases, they have recommended to the City that a larger buffer be provided. He added that in situations where an individual has constructed a driveway or increased the impervious surface directly adjacent to a wetland, they recommend an increase in the buffer. He pointed out that these projects are reviewed on a case- by-case basis, which provides some flexibility in situations that might otherwise require variances. Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mr. Keehn stated he believes the current Water Management Plan has worked very well for the City, and there have not been many controversial issues in the last five years. He added that they have a cooperative working relationship with the Rice Creek Watershed District engineers. He requested the Commission provide feedback regarding the current issues facing the City, and the issues they would like to see addressed with the Local Water Management Plan. He advised that the City would have regulatory authority over residential development of 5 acres or less, and one of the issues for consideration is whether or not the City should approach these situations in the same manner as the Watershed District, applying their rules and guidelines across the board, or if some of these considerations should be left to the discretion of City staff. Mr. Keehn indicated a question had recently come forward with an individual site development, pertaining to whether or not there should be a rate control for one-third acre lots. He stated this particular project did not fall under Rice Creek criteria, however, from an engineering perspective, it presented a somewhat minor impact to the overall hydrologic system. Mr. Keehn stated that SEH has done modeling based upon future development, and they have a fair estimate of what is going to occur in the future. He explained that as long as the land use or development is consistent with the plan, the impacts have generally been identified. Property owners are made aware of the building elevations, setbacks, and items of this nature. Chairperson Peterson stated one of the major changes to the updated Comprehensive Plan relates to properties along Highway 10 that are currently residential, but are now being proposed for commercial use. He inquired if these properties have been identified in SEH’s models. Mr. Keehn indicated these properties would be incorporated into the models, and the Highway 10 Corridor would be identified in the plan. He pointed out that this was one of the reasons they held off development of the Local Water Management Plan until the update of the Comprehensive Plan was complete. He noted there have been only four or five minor changes to the models since the previous plan, with the majority of this development occurring in the past six or seven years, and this has had very little impact on the overall system. . Commissioner Hegland requested clarification regarding the Metropolitan Council’s criteria for determining or defining problems. Mr. Keehn stated these were typically the same issues as those the City would consider problems. He indicated this was not highly implemented in the original plan, which primarily addressed water quality issues. For example, the City has studied the possibility of installing a stormsewer system and providing stormwater treatment at the Arden Avenue sub-district in the northern portion of town. He stated this area has been identified as a problem, in terms of water quality, and they have incorporated plans for resolving this. He pointed out that City staff has also identified other problems, such as flooding at specific intersections. If the Commission is aware of other problems, they could also be included in the plan. He advised that these items are based upon input from City staff, the commissions, the Council, and the residents. Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Chairperson Peterson noted the update was not as lengthy as the previous plan, and inquired if it was intended to be a supplement. Mr. Keehn advised that in the past, the City had intended to take over all of the permitting authority from the Rice Creek Watershed District. He explained that the original plan needed to include the permitting goals and policies, which generated substantial paperwork. He indicated they are currently approaching the plan from the standpoint that the Watershed District’s plan would act as a supplement. Rather than reiterating specific goals, the City could refer to the Watershed’s plan, regarding water quality issues, and items of this nature. He added that the previous plan was written prior to Minnesota Rule 8410, which has provided a checklist and allowed for the omission of unnecessary information. Commissioner Kaden requested the abbreviations of the sub-watersheds be spelled out on the legend. Mr. Keehn stated this would be amended. Chairperson Peterson stated the original plan included a number of maps and illustrations that were unique to Mounds View. He inquired if these items would be retained in the current plan. Mr. Keehn stated the Metropolitan Council requires such items as surface water resources and soil data be included, and all of the required items would be incorporated into the plan, however, if an item is not required, it would not be included unless specifically requested. He indicated that in addition to the Metropolitan Council’s requirements, the plan would contain a land use map, soil map, and drainage maps. Chairperson Peterson stated the original plan included a substantial definition of each of the sub- districts. Mr. Keehn stated the previous plan provided a detailed description of each watershed, however, they have not substantially changed. Chairperson Peterson advised that this information would still have value. Mr. Keehn indicated they could include further detail in this regard, if the Commission so desired. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the plan would contain a future land use map. Ms. Peterson indicated their information had been obtained from the Geographical Information System data. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff could provide a copy of a future land use map for this purpose. Mr. Keehn indicated this could be added to the plan. He added that they had considered including a map, which would indicate the areas that were proposed to change, and specify the potential changes. Commissioner Hegland stated the updated Comprehensive Plan contains proposed land use changes, and inquired if SEH was proposing to include a summary of these changes. Mr. Keehn stated this was correct. He indicated the hydrology model would be completed when they are able to incorporate the areas that have changed. Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Chairperson Peterson inquired if it would be possible to route a copy of the original plan to the Planning Commission and City Council members, for purposes of comparison. He advised that Mounds View was one of the first communities to develop a Comprehensive Local Wetland Program, and much of that detail was included in the original Water Management Plan. Mr. Keehn advised that the changes pertaining to the golf course area would be included in the plan at some point in the process. He indicated some of the procedural issues and wetland evaluations would probably also be included in this plan, which would ultimately be a combination of the original plan. Chairperson Peterson stated this was the first draft of the plan, and many sections were incomplete. He indicated that as the matter proceeds, they would probably go through a review process as well. Mr. Keehn stated this was correct. He explained that this was the basic framework of the plan, as required by law. He indicated that at this time, the Commission should consider whether or not they are satisfied with the Metropolitan Council and Rice Creek Watershed District requirements, and if there are any issues in the City that should be addressed in the plan. Chairperson Peterson stated Section 4 of the plan lists a number of issues present in the City. He indicated the original plan contained a description and rationale for each proposal that was identified at that time, and similar information should be included in the current plan. He explained that some of these items were low-priority considerations, however, the Council would probably desire to have some basis for proceeding in this regard in the future. He pointed out that they would have the opportunity to review staff reports for the particular issues as they come forward, however, this information would provide an understanding of how each of these items relates to the others. Mr. Keehn stated the current plan addresses every watershed within the City, and specifies those items that were based upon a water quality improvement. He explained that in this respect, the plan is somewhat ahead of the curve, as this information is not required. He indicated that the majority of the water quality improvement projects have been identified, with the changes being that some of the requirements are slightly more stringent than they were during the past seven years. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the origin of the term “Judicial Ditch.” Mr. Keehn advised that in the past, a law had been written to grant jurisdiction to the County to construct these ditches in the rural, farmed areas. He advised that the term “Judicial Ditch” is related to the specific Statute pertaining to ditch construction throughout the entire area, and this Statute sets forth very specific requirements primarily related to the manner in which improvements are assessed. Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mr. Keehn indicated Rice Creek Watershed District has authority over the Judicial Ditches and the improvements that are made to them. He pointed out that under the Statute, the Watershed District would be required to petition each property owner in the area prior to commencing any project, such as cleaning out a ditch, however, the law has been amended to provide that improvements can be made under less stringent requirements. Commissioner Miller noted two question marks at the end of a sentence on Page 19, under Ground Water Resource Data, which indicates “Wellhead Protection Plan.” She inquired if something was to be included at the end of this sentence. Mr. Keehn stated the Counties are currently monitoring well water, and at this point, their research is incomplete. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the list in Section 4 was a subset of the list contained in the previous plan, omitting those items that have been completed and adding items that have been identified since that time. Mr. Keehn stated the majority of the projects have been identified, and the majority of the water quality issues have not changed. He stated some of the other issues in the plan relate to the street construction and curb and gutter projects, and this could be included. He added that the maintenance issues are primarily the same. Chairperson Peterson stated the Streets Policy Committee had considered the issue of stormwater runoff, and some of the Planning Commission members had been involved with that committee in terms of the actual impacts of the runoff to the drainage system. He inquired if these items would be incorporated into the plan. Mr. Keehn advised that Rice Creek Watershed District, as the permitting authority, may not be aware of this issue, therefore, it would be best addressed by the City. He indicated that although this may be subject to change, they prefer to include as much of the information in the plan as possible, and have the Ordinance reference the plan. He pointed out that it is much easier to change the plan than it is to change the ordinance. Commissioner Miller stated she would like to see some consistency in terms of the references to Highway 10. Community Development Director Jopke stated the roadway in front of City Hall is generally referred to as County 10, and Highway 118 is now referred to as Highway 10. Commissioner Kaden stated the Comprehensive Plan makes references to “Highway 10 (Old 118)”, and “County Road 10 (Old Highway 10).” Mr. Keehn stated they would attempt to be consistent in this regard. Chairperson Peterson stated from time to time, drainage issues come forward when residents make modifications to their property, and such projects do not typically present a problem, however, in the case of a large commercial property, they could. For example, when Roberts Off Ten desired to expand their parking lot, the neighbors were concerned that every time it rains their street floods, therefore, an outlet restriction was installed in the parking lot. He explained that information came forward with that project, and later as part of the Theater Project Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 discussion was that there were some capacity limitations in the stormsewer south of Highway 10. He inquired if this item had been included on the list. Mr. Keehn stated this had been included, adding that the City was considering the possibility of constructing a new stormsewer from Robert’s Off Ten, and directly south, to increase the stormwater capacity. He advised there was also discussion regarding the installation of a pond at the Community Center. He indicated the regulations have changed in the past seven years, and they are currently examining the system in terms of some of the potential development that is planned to come into the area, as this would have an impact upon what is constructed downstream. He stated they would research this matter, and depending upon this research, there may be some slight changes to the plan. He stated he believed there was still a proposal to construct a new stormsewer system as part of any street reconstruction from Robert’s Off Ten south to Rice Creek to increase the capacity. Chairperson Peterson stated the City would be seeing a development proposal for the vacant area south of the community center in the near future, and there is a park that has recently been converted to a wetland. He inquired if all of these developments have been taken into consideration. Mr. Keehn advised that all of these projects would be researched and identified, and there would be some minor adjustments to the plan in light of the development that has occurred. He stated there had been some discussion regarding a development located downstream from the Theater site, and some thought that at the time Long Lake Road was reconstructed, they would install a large water quality treatment pond as part of that project. He explained that this has not occurred, however, it would be appropriate to leave these items in the plan, as they might occur at some point in the future. 6. Discussion Regarding Peterson Environmental Wetlands Analysis. Community Development Director Jopke stated the consultants from Peterson Environmental were not present to discuss this item, therefore, this matter could be held off until such time as they were available to present their findings. Chairperson Peterson inquired if staff could provide any information regarding the future development of this area. Community Development Director Jopke advised that at this point, the study is ongoing and the consultants are examining three areas, which include the property between the golf course and the Sysco site and the property south of State Highway 10, which is designated CRP. He explained that Rice Creek Watershed District is examining the possibility of creating stormwater ponds in this area. He indicated the area commonly known as the “Little Woods” was also being Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 examined in terms of the ultimate delineation of that particular wetland, and the potential for additional residential development in that area. 7. Discussion Regarding Springsted Highway 10 Study Community Development Director Jopke stated the Steering Committee has been formed, and he has been working with Springsted & Associates to refine the process and the initial work plan. He indicated that during the review of the studies that have been done in the past, it became evident that much of the initial work has already been done, and the issues have been identified. He explained that there were many common issues throughout all of the initial studies, therefore, they have decided to focus upon understanding and attempting to synthesize the issues and common elements, after which they will determine if those issues are still current, and what the priorities and possibilities are. Community Development Director Jopke stated this item would be before the City Council for discussion at their next meeting. He indicated the first Steering Committee meeting was planned to be held a week from that date, however, the process should be carefully thought out and there should be a clear focus prior to proceeding with the matter. He explained that at this time, the focus is somewhat different than what was initially anticipated, therefore, staff would discuss this matter with the Council prior to proceeding. 8. Viewing of League of Minnesota Cities Video, “Tuesday Night Council Meeting.” Community Development Director Jopke stated this item was a League of Minnesota Cities video presentation of a mock City Council meeting, which deals with a company that desires to install a telecommunications tower on their property, and the neighborhood opposition to that proposal. He indicated the video provides insight into how this particular Council handles this issue, and poses questions regarding the process for the Commissions’ consideration. The video focused upon four key points, the first of which pertains to the Council’s review of land use issues and zoning, in terms of the individual’s property rights, versus the philosophical reasons for zoning. The video indicated that the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to maintain an orderly and well-planned City, which helps to ensure that what someone does with their property does not negatively affect other property owners. The Council must consider the accepted uses in specific areas. The video stressed the importance of staff support and active involvement, and the importance of information regarding land use issues. The second point relates to the role of the Council, and which actions are appropriate. The video indicated that the Council must step away from policy and look directly at the facts of the case before them. The Council must consider the goals of the City, and is required to act as judge, not Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 as a legislative body. The Council must work with the specifics of the particular case, and not make broad policy decisions. The third point pertains to the neighborhood reaction to a proposal. The Council is required to examine both the law and the fact, and while it is definitely important, the Council is unable to base their decision solely upon the neighborhood input. The Council must attempt to understand and appreciate the concerns of the residents, and respect their right to dispute a proposal that would directly affect the future of their property. The Council must seek community involvement. The fourth point relates to the necessity of keeping a clear record of the public hearing, to be the record of the evidence presented, and to document the reasons for the finding of fact. The finding of fact must be based upon the record, and within the legal standards of the City Ordinance. The record is also necessary to indicate that the Council has fulfilled its role as judge, and that it has satisfied its position in regard to the law and fact. Community Development Director Jopke provided the Commission with materials he obtained from the Minnesota League of Cities Risk Management Seminar, which reflected the issues brought forward in the video presentation. He indicated the League of Minnesota Cities was a very good resource, and as information is provided, it would be presented to the Commission. He encouraged the Commission members to attend these courses as they become available, noting that he has set aside funds in the Community Development Department budget specifically for Planning Commission training. Community Development Director Jopke stated he believed the video had done a good job of presenting the key points pertaining to dealing with the specific facts of the case, and having a clear record of the hearing and a basis for the findings of fact. He indicated the Planning Commission does a good job in terms of considering resolutions of approval or denial based upon the findings of fact, and it is good to remind themselves of these points. Chairperson Peterson stated some of the training courses the Planning Commission members have attended address these issues as well. He explained there were many legal issues pertaining to variances, conditional use permits, due process for applicants and residents. He stated these issues could not be handled appropriately without some training in these matters, and these courses have been very valuable. 9. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Jopke stated the Comprehensive Plan has been submitted to all of the surrounding communities. He indicated staff requested comments in April, however, no comments were received, and the Comprehensive Plan has now been officially forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their review and comment, which could take up to 60 days. He Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 stated the Commission was provided a letter, which indicates the importance of the Local Water Management Plan. He advised that the Metropolitan Council would consider the Comprehensive Plan incomplete until they receive that plan. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the latest deadline for application submittal for the vacancy on the Planning Commission is May 19, 2000. He stated applications were available at City Hall or on the City’s Website, and encouraged interested parties to apply. He advised that the Mayor would make a recommendation to the City Council for that vacancy. Planning Associate Ericson stated with regard to the request for a variance to allow for an 8-foot fence in front yard of 8438 Groveland Road, the applicant appeared before the City Council at their Work Session on Monday night. He explained that the applicant desired to alert the Council regarding her situation and her immediate need. He indicated there have been discussions between the Council, himself, and Police Chief Clark regarding what could be done to resolve this issue. He advised that there was discussion regarding interim use permits and amending the Code, and the process and time line involved. Planning Associate Ericson stated there was discussion regarding the potential installation of landscaping, with six-foot evergreens spaced one-foot off center, which could provide an immediate buffer, however, there are some concerns that anything planted in that area has a tendency to die. He stated they discussed the possibly of involving the City Forester to obtain some feedback in this regard. He indicated the applicant was hesitant to consider the landscaping option, given that she has attempted this in the past. Planning Associate Ericson advised that at the next Council meeting, there would be discussion regarding the possibility of bringing forward an Emergency Interim Ordinance that would allow for a taller fence in this type of situation, as well as other situations that have arisen in the past, in which the Council could impose additional screening requirements with the conditional use permit or the development review. He advised that the matter is progressing and staff was keeping in contact with the applicant, and attempting to maintain order in the neighborhood. B. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Ericson stated five planning cases would be before the Commission at their next meeting on May 17th. He stated there would be two conditional use permits for oversized garages, a conditional use permit for outside storage, a conditional use permit for an oversized shed, and a variance application for a garage located closer to the property line than what is allowed. He indicated that if time permits, they would also attempt to review the first draft of the ordinance pertaining to tattoo shops, body piercing, and establishments of this nature. He stated staff has met with representatives from TOLD Development Group, and the Commission should be seeing this application on the agenda at the first meeting in June. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 No reports were considered. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:24 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.