Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-10-2007 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 10, 2007 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. Oaths of Office for New Planning Commissioners B. Election of Officers – Chair and Vice-Chair C. Review Planning Commission Bylaws 4. Approval of Minutes: A. December 6, 2006 5. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 6. Planning Cases A. MI2006-002: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road Applicant: Abiding Savior Lutheran Church Address: 8211 Red Oak Drive 7. Other Planning Activity A. None 8. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. January 24, 2007 B. February 7, 2007 9. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. December 20, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting December 20, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Chair Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. December 20, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson, Commissioners Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, and Miller. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Scotch and Zwirn Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Planning Associate Heller, Economic Development Coordinator Backman ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Presentation: Premium Stop Redevelopment Area Study 2 Review Planning Commission Applications 6 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes November 15, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Miller. To approve the Minutes of the November 15, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. DRAFT Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases None _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Presentation: Premium Stop Redevelopment Area Study Community Development Director Ericson presented the draft plans for the Premium Stop Redevelopment Area prepared by DSU/Bonestroo. He explained the Mounds View Economic Development Authority (EDA) acquired the Premium Stop parcel in June 2006. He reported the property located at 2390 County Road 10 had fallen into significant disrepair and therefore the City felt compelled to take action or face its continued operation as an independent gas station with multiple violations and a very unappealing appearance onto the corridor. Community Development Director Ericson explained the City recognized the potential of the property and realized it would be best to look proactively into the future. He pointed out that because an agreement could not be reached as to what redevelopment was possible or how the land from County Road H2 to Woodale should be used, the City Council decided to hire a private consultant. Director Ericson indicated DSU/Bonestroo put together a plan that, if approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, provides a framework or guidebook as to how the area could be redeveloped. He explained it puts the City in a position to react to development proposals consistent with the plan and the City’s vision for this area. Community Development Director Ericson explained DSU/Bonestroo developed five concepts. He stated phasing is possible and it makes sense to start with the City’s parcel. He informed Council that the consultant recommends waiting until marketing conditions improve and the Medtronic and Arden Hills development plans come to fruition. Community Development Director Ericson presented the plans for the Planning Commission to evaluate and make recommendations to the City Council. He mentioned the plans would be presented to the residents to glean feedback and recommendations for the City Council to give Staff marching orders to bring in developers. Community Development Director Ericson began with Concept A that shows a one story, 5,000 square foot building that could be used for office and/or retail space. He mentioned it is close to the highway with a wide area that makes it look larger than it is. He indicated the consultant felt bringing the building closer to County Road 10 would make the corridor more pedestrian friendly by creating a link to the neighborhood and redevelop the property in such a way as to Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ create synergy with the properties to the south. Director Ericson mentioned Concept A would not affect the current Japanese restaurant. He pointed out a possible location for the shared access and a stormwater feature. He stated Concept A provides the opportunity for meaningful redevelopment along the corridor. Community Development Director Ericson displayed Concept B and pointed out the addition of a two-story 10,000 square foot building at the corner of County Road 10 and County Road H2. He stated this plan would require cooperation and easements with the adjacent Japanese restaurant. He indicated the Japanese restaurant would remain, however façade improvements would be required, parking would be reconfigured to create shared parking opportunities, access would be maintained from Greenfield Avenue, and a new right-in/right-out only access drive along County Road 10 would be added. Community Development Director Ericson presented Concept C-1 that shows expanding the 5,000 square foot building to 8,000 square feet and relocating the existing Japanese restaurant into this expanded space. He pointed out there would be 84 shared parking stalls located behind the buildings that front County Road 10, a reconfigured parking lot with two driveway accesses to Greenfield Avenue, landscaped islands, and parking lot edges to screen the parking. Community Development Director Ericson explained with an additional property, a new 40-unit senior condominium complex could be developed and/or 13 townhome units. He further stated a public park with connections to residential neighborhoods and County Road 10 was an option. He explained the desire is to reshape and redevelop this lot as a buffer from County Road 10 and County Road H2 into the neighborhood. He stated the big difference is that this area becomes residential rather than commercial. Community Development Director Ericson displayed Concept C-2 stating it extends the development farther to the southeast, carrying on the theme and design of the previous two buildings. He indicated it would provide close access to the trail ways and an opportunity to tie into neighborhoods to the south. He stated the possibility to provide access to O’Connell Drive exists in the future if the residents were in favor of this. Community Development Director Ericson exhibited Concept D-1 explaining it is the more long- range option that shows a residential redevelopment at the southeast corner where presently four single-family homes exist. He explained Concept D-1 shows a residential type of use with 20 townhomes and a three-story, 60-unit multi family property. Director Ericson stated Concept D- 1 shows a residential use not too out of character with what is to the south. He indicated there seems to be an emphasis to keep it as a corporate office or office/industrial space similar to the other side of County Road 10. Community Development Director Ericson displayed Concept D–2 with the corporate office campus concept with two buildings equaling a total of 60,000 square feet and two stories in height. He stated this theme continues with connections through the campus from the single- family neighborhood to Woodale with streetscape improvements and access directly onto Woodale. He indicated this concept offers a buffer for the residents on O’Connell Drive. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson explained Concept E includes the potential of doing the Roberts site, coming down four more lots, pushing O’Connell Drive through to Edgewood Drive, closing off Greenfield, and access to County Road 10 from Jeffery Drive. He pointed out this option would close off Greenfield and capture the area as a larger residential redevelopment site. He explained the City would not want to do that if residents on Greenfield did not support it. Community Development Director Ericson expressed Staff feels these concepts provide the City with ideas and a vision. He stated the next step is to seek comments and feedback from residents. He explained this is new ground for the City in that it is the first step in dealing with a situation proactively. Chair Stevenson commended the effort, stating this is what the Planning Commission would also like to see. He commented this is looking forward instead of reacting to a developer taking a property without considering the City’s ideas. He stated he has no negative response to any of the proposals and could envision any of the scenarios. Chair Stevenson stressed that because these are phases they could all be done together or one phase at a time. Community Development Director Ericson replied the City owns one acre of the 12 acres discussed and the property owners located in the triangle area near Woodale and County Road 10 could come forward with a developer and state they like the plans. He said if it is something City Council feels is the vision for the property, it does not matter who goes first. Commissioner Meehlhause agreed with the comments he heard, however, he questioned whether more townhomes are needed given the two townhome developments currently under way. He indicated that if the new townhomes sell quickly or if they take three to five years to complete, should that dictate the direction for additional townhomes. Community Development Director Ericson replied next year may dictate what happens as to whether it make sense to add more townhomes or if there is a better use to consider. He indicated businesses are coming, but so too are townhomes and residential units. He stated the City needs to start looking at supporting businesses that meet the needs of the residents not only directly in Mounds View, but in surrounding communities as well. Commissioner Hegland asked if anyone looked at, as residences are added versus business, what it would take tax wise or tax base to support it with infrastructure and services to keep the City viable relative to its financial commitments. He suggested a plan be developed to address what mix it would take for the City of Mounds View to support the mix it has. He indicted the City is highly developed and this area is an opportunistic piece of property to give this mix a chance to happen. Commissioner Hegland stated this is good planning, but a step to look at the tax base is also needed. Economic Development Coordinator Backman addressed the Planning Commission and explained that at the EDA meeting on December 11, 2006, questions were asked on what it Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ would cost relative to the infrastructure. He indicated the only plan that significantly impacts roads is Concept E. He stressed the nice thing is these plans are scalable. Coordinator Backman mentioned in terms of what would be a potential mix, he contacted six developers regarding this project, and the comment made is they see this area as an opportunity for commercial, retail, restaurants, or a commercial building of 20,000 square feet. He explained that this is what the people on the real estate end are saying. Economic Development Coordinator Backman mentioned he agreed with Commissioner Meehlhause as to how many townhomes could be built. He indicated that given the location on County Road 10, there might be some attraction on the retail side. Coordinator Backman mentioned he invited individuals from the development community to come to the EDA meeting and three did attend. He stated he would follow up with them to ascertain what their interest levels are, what questions they have, and if they would like contact information as the majority of the property is privately owned. Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated there was some foresight on the Hidden Hollow project where proposals were requested from three development groups. He stated the Planning Commission and the City Council looked at the options and because of the process, the City came out with a better project that fulfilled the development concepts at that time. Commissioner Meehlhause suggested an ice cream store be considered. Economic Development Coordinator Backman replied he had a discussion with a premium ice cream store and is trying to encourage them to move to Mounds View. Commissioner Miller asked Coordinator Backman if he foresees concerns with people farther down along County Road 10 and the use of eminent domain. Economic Development Coordinator Backman replied Mounds View has taken a cautious approach to eminent domain. He stated this has not been the orientation of the Mounds View City Council. He stated the City much prefers a voluntary sale of property and all previous transactions along County Road 10 were on a voluntary basis. Coordinator Beckman stated this lends itself to a better relationship with the property owners who want to be a part of the community. Community Development Director Ericson mentioned he did not want to imply that the City has not been proactive in the past. He stated that were it not for the foresight of Coordinator Backman, there would not have been the high level of development with Hidden Hollow. Community Development Director Ericson commented, in terms of looking forward, the comments, thoughts, and concern with the cost is good as Mounds View is heavy towards residential. He stated it does make sense to develop industrial options where feasible. He indicated it is something to consider as the taxes hit residential property owners harder without commercial development in the community. Director Ericson commented anything developed now is icing as the infrastructure is already in place. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson commented he would let the Planning Commission know when this is presented to the residents. He stated that as it moves forward, the Planning Commission would be included in the process. B. Review Planning Commission Applications Community Development Director Ericson reported there are four openings on the Planning Commission; three terms have expired and Commissioner Hull was elected to the City Council. He stated applications were requested via advertisements in the newspapers and the website. He reported seven applications were received for the Planning Commission. He explained that typically the board reviews the applications and present who they feel would be the best candidates to the City Council. Community Development Director Ericson stated this is an opportunity for the candidates to appear before the Planning Commission to answer questions. He listed the applicants as: Mr. Todd Langdon, Mr. Keith Cramblit, Ms. Sherry Gunn, Ms. Gabriela Kulp, Ms. Mari Scotch, Ms. Laurie Shoop, and Ms. Mary Kay Walsh-Kaczmarek. He instructed the Planning Commission to vote for four individuals to present to the City Council. He explained the City Council would look at the applications and take under consideration the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson called Mr. Keith Cramblit to the podium. Mr. Keith Cramblit, 5753 Bunker Hill Drive, stated has been a resident of Mounds View for six and one half years. He stated he has a wife and three daughters. He indicted he should be considered as a candidate for the Planning Commission because in his professional career he is a civil engineer and familiar with the type of plans that come before the Commission. Chair Stevenson asked Mr. Cramblit if he would be over logged with working in his civil engineering career all day and then having to deal with it again at the Planning Commission. Mr. Cramblit replied he would not. Commissioner Hegland asked Mr. Cramblit to talk about why he wants to be on the Planning Commission. Mr. Cramblit responded he wanted to get more involved in the community. Commissioner Miller asked if he watched the Planning Commission meetings on TV. Mr. Cramblit replied he did not have Cable TV, however, he keeps track of the meetings, agendas, and minutes online. Commissioner Meehlhause asked Mr. Cramblit what his thoughts were on approving variances. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Cramblit replied it depends on the situation and the need for the variance. Commissioner Hegland asked if he had specific items he would like to see addressed. Mr. Cramblit replied he did not, but likes the proposal presented tonight by Community Development Director Ericson. Chair Stevenson thanked Mr. Cramblit and called Mr. Todd Langdon to the podium. Mr. Todd Langdon, 2558 Ridge Lane, addressed the Commission and stated he, his wife, and two children have lived in Mounds View for three years. He reported he is organized and objective and a structural engineer with a consulting firm in the metro area. He reported his particular area of expertise is bridge engineering. He stated he is interested in a position on the Planning Commission because it is important for the community to be involved in City government as this is how to get the best representation of what the community wants, what they believe, and what they think. He stated he views the best use of his skills would be on the Planning Commission. He indicated he does not deal with developments or civil works, but in his position, he deals with codes and believes he has something to add with his skills. Commissioner Miller stated she liked his comments that he is organized and objective. Mr. Langdon replied he tries to be and believes that is what goes on in the Planning Commission meetings with sorting out the important from the unimportant and is the basis for decisions. Commissioner Miller asked if he watches the Planning Commission meetings on TV. Mr. Langdon stated he has tried, but it is hard with two children, so he attends the meetings on occasion. Commissioner Meehlhause asked Mr. Langdon how he feels about granting or denying variances. Mr. Langdon replied it is important that the City has codes. He indicated that with his background in understanding codes and their intent and when it is reasonable to vary from the code, he is comfortable with codes and would bring valuable input into those discussions. Commissioner Hegland asked Mr. Langdon if there are issues he would like the Planning Commission to address. Mr. Langdon replied he liked the presentation from Community Development Director Ericson in that there is a plan and vision to go forward when deciding what is best for the community and deciding what developments are right for the community. He stated he would like to see more preplanning. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson stated he would let the other applicants know the Commission appointments go before the City Council on January 2, 2007. The Planning Commissioners voted for their top four candidates. Community Development Director Ericson reported Mr. Todd Langdon, Mr. Keith Cramblit, Ms. Sherry Gunn, and Ms. Mari Scotch were selected for recommendation to the City Council. He extended an opportunity to all applicants to appear before the City Council on January 2, 2007. Community Development Director Ericson stated that any applicant not chosen for the Planning Commission would be considered for the openings on the Park Commission if they would consider that possibility. Chair Stevenson asked if there were other commissions with seats available. Community Development Director Ericson replied the Charter Commission has positions open. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. January 10, 2007. This is the second Wednesday of January. B. January 24, 2007. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:07 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 3C Meeting Date: January 10, 2007 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws Introduction: The Planning Commission’s Bylaws state that they [the Bylaws] shall be reviewed on an annual basis, at the first regular meeting in February. Due to the Commission having four new members this year, staff thought presenting the Bylaws earlier than usual would be a good idea. Discussion: The Bylaws were amended slightly in September of 2004 with one change regarding public comment unrelated to the Commission’s business. Since then, no other changes have been made to the Bylaws. Recommendation: Review the attached Bylaws. If the Bylaws do not require any amendments or modifications, simply readopt by motion the existing Bylaws. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS (Revised Sept 1, 2004) I. AUTHORITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission (Bylaws) are established in accordance with the Mounds View Municipal Code Section 401.06. Subd. 7 “The Commission shall adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its business.” Where there is a conflict between the provisions of the Bylaws and the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code, the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code shall govern. (For purposes of simplicity, the Planning and Zoning Commission may hereinafter be referred to as the Planning Commission or the Commission.) II. ADOPTION OF BYLAWS; REVIEW AND AMENDMENT: A. ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT: The Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution by an affirmative vote of the majority of members of the Planning and Zoning Commission appointed as voting members, and shall be placed on file with the City Clerk-Administrator and the Community Development Department. A copy of the bylaws shall be forwarded to the City Council for its information. Any amendments to the Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution in the same manner as the original Bylaws. B. ANNUAL REVIEW: The Bylaws shall be reviewed on an annual basis at the first regular meeting of the Commission in February. III. MEMBERSHIP AND VACANCIES. Vacancies on the Planning Commission shall be filled in accordance with the Municipal Code, Sections 401.02 and 401.03. IV. OFFICERS A. OFFICERS NAMED: The officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a chairperson and vice-chairperson. The Commission may create and fill such other offices from its members, as it may determine, to transact Commission business. In addition, the Director of Community Development, or his or her designee, shall act as the recording secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeting minutes. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 2 B. ELECTIONS; TERMS 1. Chairperson: At the first meeting in January, the Commission shall conduct an election in order to make its recommendation for the chairperson, following the procedure in Section IV.B.3. The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council for action 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 chairperson of the Commission each year. 2. Vice-Chairperson: The Planning Commission shall elect a vice-chairperson each year at its first meeting in January, following the procedure in Section IV.B.3. 3. Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson shall invite nominations from Planning Commission members. After nominations have been received, the chairperson shall entertain a motion to close nominations. If such motion is made and passed, and more than one nomination has been made, the chairperson shall distribute ballots to the Commission members and each member shall write his or her selection on the ballot. The recording secretary shall tally the ballots and announce the nominee receiving the most votes. In the event of a tie, the recording secretary shall announce the nominees tied in the voting and balloting shall be repeated until an election occurs. If only one nomination has been received, the chairperson may conduct the voting by voice vote. If a majority of the members present vote in the affirmative for the nominee, the nominee shall be elected. 4. Assumption of Duties: The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall assume office at the first meeting in February of each year. 5. Term of Office: The chairperson and vice chairperson shall serve one year terms, and may be re-elected to additional terms in accordance with this Section IV.B. C. DUTIES OF OFFICERS: The chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the Planning Commission, and shall have the authority to add or cancel regular meetings and to call special meetings as provided in Section VI. The Chair shall have the authority to redirect public comment unrelated to the Commission’s business to the most appropriate City commission or to the City Council. The vice chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson, in the absence of the chairperson. In the event of the absence of both the chairperson and vice-chairperson, those members present shall elect a temporary chairperson to preside over the meeting. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 3 V. COUNCIL LIAISON: The City Council may appoint from among its members a Liaison to the Commission on an annual basis. It is expected that the Council Liaison will attend the Commission meetings on a regular basis. In the event of the absence of the Council Liaison at a Commission meeting, a Commission member may be appointed by the chairperson to represent the Planning Commission at the next regular City Council meeting or at the meeting where the City Council will be considering the planning cases acted upon by the Planning Commission in the absence of the Council Liaison. VI. MEETINGS A. TYPES OF MEETINGS; SCHEDULE: The annual meeting schedule of the Commission shall be adopted by Resolution at the first regular meeting in December for the following year. 1. Regular Meetings: Subject to the adopted meeting schedule, the Commission’s regular meetings will occur on the first and third Wednesdays of each month for the purpose of convening public hearings, making recommendations to the City Council, conducting business which requires a vote of the Commission, convening as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, conducting long-range planning functions and other official business. 2. Agenda Sessions: An Agenda Session is an informal session of the Planning Commission, typically held immediately following adjournment of a Regular or Special meeting, at which time the Planning Commission may review minutes, informally review proposed or pending planning cases or ordinance amendments, discuss previous actions of the City Council or other Commissions, and to perform other matters not requiring a vote of the Commission. 3. Special Meetings: From time to time, special meetings may be called in order to process significant caseloads, to review works in progress such as comprehensive plan updates or municipal code revisions, or to undertake a retreat or strategic planning session, either amongst itself or in the company of the City Council or other commissions. Special meetings can be proposed by any Commission member or at the request of the Director of Community Development, yet must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission. 4. Emergency Special Meetings. Emergency special meetings can be called via written notice to the Director of Community Development by the Chairperson or two Commission members, or by the Director of Community Development. (Emergency special meetings are those in which the subject matter is of such an immediate concern that it cannot be delayed until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.) The Director of Community Development shall post and mail a notice of any special meeting City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 4 in accordance with State Statutes. Planning Commission members shall be notified by telephone and in writing, if possible, at least seven days prior to a special meeting. 5. Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may be canceled by the chairperson or Community Development Director in the event that there are no items of business requiring the attention of the Commission, or for lack of a quorum, or in response to inclement weather or for any other good and sufficient reason. Members of the Commission shall be notified by telephone of any meeting cancellation. A notice of the meeting cancellation shall be posted as required by State Statutes. B. QUORUM: A majority of the number of voting members appointed to the Commission shall constitute a quorum. C. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS; ADJOURNMENT 1. Meeting Chairperson: If neither the chairperson nor the vice chairperson is present to conduct a meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may elect a meeting chair from among those members present prior to the commencement of business. The election shall follow the procedures set forth in Section IV.B.3, except that the Community Development Director, or his or her designee, shall conduct the election. 2. Open Meeting Law: Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the State of Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minn. Statutes 471.705). 3. Adjournment: Meetings shall adjourn at or before 11:00 p.m. unless a two- thirds majority of the members present agree to extend the time of adjournment. If there is no objection, the Chairperson may declare the meeting adjourned without the necessity of a motion or vote by the Commission. D. MINUTES: Minutes shall be recorded for regular meetings and each commission member shall receive a copy of the unapproved minutes for review and approval at a succeeding meeting. Minutes shall be approved by motion. Approved minutes shall be the official record of the business conducted and actions taken by the Planning Commission. Commission members may request copies of approved minutes after they have been corrected, if necessary, and signed as approved. Copies of the approved minutes shall be filed with the Community Development Department. Unapproved minutes shall be clearly marked “DRAFT”; approved minutes shall be marked “APPROVED”. A policy statement regarding the content and format of the minutes shall be on file with the Director of Community Development which may be reviewed from time to time as needed. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 5 VII. INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans and additional information, as appropriate, for each item placed on the agenda for any regular or special meeting. The Commission packet should be delivered at least four days prior to the meeting. Each Commissioner is responsible for reviewing the material within the packet prior to the meeting. VIII. PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS: Advice from, consultation with, and/or requests for review by the City Attorney, City Engineer, City Planning Agency, or other paid consultants shall be in accordance with the Municipal Code, Section 401.07. IX. SUPPLEMENTARY PUBLICATIONS: All Commission members shall receive a copy of the Mounds View Municipal Code and a copy of the Municipal Comprehensive Plan as well as other materials provided by the City Council or City Staff. These materials shall be retained by each commission member and returned to the Community Development Director upon the member’s resignation or termination of appointment. X. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated Staff member or the Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Any member attending less than 20 meetings per year without the consent of the Commission shall be deemed to have vacated the office, and such vacancy shall be filled by the City Council pursuant to Section 401.03, Subd. 1. A leave of absence may be granted by the consent of the Commission. B. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: 1. General Standard: No Commissioner shall be appointed with private or personal interests likely to conflict with the general public interest. If any person appointed to the Commission shall find that their private or personal interests are involved in any matter coming before the Commission, they shall disqualify themselves from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter; alternatively, they may be disqualified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Commissioners in attendance. 2. Conflict Due to Economic Interests: A Commissioner has a conflict of interest if, in his or her discharge of official duties, would be required to take an action or make a decision that would substantially affect the Commissioner’s financial interests or those of an associated business, unless the effect on the Commissioner is no greater than on other members of the Commissioner’s business classification, profession, or occupation. In the event a conflict of interest exists with respect to a particular matter before the Commission, the Commissioner shall disqualify himself or herself from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter. C. EX PARTE CONTACTS: Ex parte contacts are contacts between individuals seeking to influence the decisions of the Planning Commission and individual Commission members outside the meeting forum. Such contacts include meetings with project proponents, residents, property owners, and citizens separate from Commission meetings, communication between Commission members outside the meeting forum, telephone calls or letters which attempt to influence a Commissioner’s opinion on a matter which will be subject to the Commissioner’s vote. When the Planning Commission is involved in a matter which is to be heard and decided by the Commission (e.g. variances), Planning Commissioners shall indicate to the person contacting them that such contact is inappropriate and all testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to ensure a fair hearing for all parties. In all other cases, Planning Commissioners should discourage such contacts and should avoid expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case. When ex parte contacts occur, the Planning Commissioner is responsible for notifying the Community Development Director, and for conveying the substance of the communication at the next commission meeting at which the matter discussed is under consideration. _______________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _______________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director Revision History: September 1, 2004 February 21, 2001 February 2, 2000 March 5, 1997 February 3, 1993 October 1990 Item No: 6A Meeting Date: Jan 10, 2007 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road; Planning Case MI06-002 Introduction: Abiding Savior Church is the owner of the single family dwelling located at 8184 Eastwood Road and they have submitted a minor subdivision request to split the home and 16,025 square feet from the parcel leaving a flag-shaped lot that would be absorbed into the Church’s land at the corner of Red Oak Drive and Ardan Avenue. The basis for the request is that the Church would like to expand their acreage to allow for a senior residential facility to be built on the site. (An application has been submitted by Bradford Development of Mankato on behalf of Abiding Savior requesting a rezoning, comp plan amendment, development review and conditional use permit for the project, which will be addressed by the Planning Commission in February.) Keeping in mind the future plans of the Church, this minor subdivision application should be reviewed and considered on its own merits and according to the Subdivision Code (Title 1200) requirements 1. Abiding Savior has submitted a certificate of survey (attached) which illustrates the proposed subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road and have submitted the necessary title commitment which has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review. Discussion: A minor subdivision is a division of land less than two acres in area in which no more than one additional lot is created. The lot at 8184 Eastwood Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential. The minimum lot width for interior residential parcels is 75 feet and the minimum lot area is 11,000 square feet. After the proposed subdivision, the house would be situated on a 16,025 square foot lot with 90.54 feet of frontage on Eastwood Road, both consistent with City Code. The “created” lot would not be consistent with the minimum requirements however due to only 10.72 feet of frontage on Eastwood Road. Due to the potential for future redevelopment, the noncompliance may be permitted subject to resolving the inconsistencies within a certain time frame—one year, for example. Church representatives have indicated that the only reason the lot was not split cleanly in two (maintaining the 10.72 foot wide strip to Eastwood Road) was to preserve a the row of mature pine trees in that strip. (Please refer to the photos later in this report for reference.) There is a shed which is shown to be straddling the proposed lot line—this building would need to be moved or removed if it has not been addressed already. Aside from the above, all setbacks and minimum requirements are satisfied with this request. 1 For the benefit of new Planning Commission members, the entirety of the Subdivision Code is attached to the staff report. Abiding Savior Subdivision Report Jan 10, 2007 Page 2 Park Dedication Requirements. Subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication requirements. In cases where future redevelopment and platting is planned, typically the park dedication fee is deferred. For this request, staff would recommend that any park dedication fee due be deferred for one year while the redevelopment applications are being processed. For subdivisions which have no impact upon the park system (such as a lot line adjustment) the City Council will ordinarily waive any dedication fee. For most other minor subdivisions, the dedication fee imposed is usually five percent of the county assessed land value of the lot created. For major subdivisions and projects which significantly intensify the existing development density, up to a ten percent dedication fee may be imposed by the Council. If a five percent dedication fee were imposed on this minor subdivision, the fee would be $1,875. Easements. With every subdivision of land, the City requires that drainage and utility easements be dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. In this case, easements would be required for Parcel B as follows: The north and south 5.0 feet and the east and west 10.0 feet of Parcel B While easements may not be recorded via a certificate of survey, staff would request that the easements as described above be added to the certificate of survey with a notation that the easements as shown will be dedicated separately by the property owner. Public Notice. No public notice is required for a minor subdivision, however staff typically notifies adjoining property owners when development may occur. In this case, because no direct development will occur as a result of this subdivision, staff only contacted the neighbor to the south. The rezoning and comp plan amendment requests however WILL necessitate public hearings which will require full notification of all property owners within 350 feet of the Abiding Savior property. Deadline for Action. This application was accepted on December 26, 2006 and in accordance with MN Statute 15.99, a decision will need to be made within 60 days of application acceptance. The deadline for action for this request is February 24, 2007. Summary. The proposed minor subdivision or 8184 Eastwood Road is requested to create additional land which would be utilized in conjunction with a future major subdivision and senior residential development. The single family lot on Eastwood Road (Parcel B) would be consistent with all setbacks and subdivision code requirements. Abiding Savior Subdivision Report Jan 10, 2007 Page 3 Recommendation: Discuss the request submitted by Abiding Savior Church to subdivide the parcel located at 8184 Eastwood Road. If the Commission feels it has all the information necessary to proceed with a recommendation to the City Council, one of the following options may be considered: 1. Recommend approval of the requested minor subdivision application subject to correcting for the easements and the shed, deferring any dedication fees for one year. The approval would require that Parcel A be made consistent with the City Code within ONE YEAR from the date of City Council approval or the minor subdivision approval would become null and void. Staff supports this option and has drafted a resolution of recommendation upon which the Commission may act. 2. Recommend denial of the minor subdivision request due to the creation of a non- conforming flag-shaped lot. If the Planning Commission elects to move forward with this option, staff will need to be directed to prepare such a resolution for your action on January 24, 2007. 3. Table action pending receipt of additional information deemed necessary before a recommendation can be determined. If a tabling motion is supported, staff or the applicant will need to be directed to prepare or submit the information requested. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Certificate of Survey 6. Title 1200 (Subdivision Code) 7. Resolution 858-07 Zoning Map Abiding Savior Church Lot proposed to be subdivided Aerial Map 8184 Eastwood Road Photographic Documentation Certificate of Survey MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 858-07 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8184 EASTWOOD ROAD REQUESTED BY ABIDING SAVIOR CHURCH; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI06-002 WHEREAS, Property owner Abiding Savior Church, located at 8211 Red Oak Drive, (the Applicant) has requested approval of a minor subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally-described as follows: The North 101.25 Feet of the South 810 Feet of the East 528 Feet of the West 1,584 Feet of the Northeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 30, Range 23, subject to easements for road and utility purposes. WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to split off the existing home and 16,025 square feet (Parcel B) from the above described parcel to create a presently non-buildable 34,900 square foot lot (Parcel A) with 10.72 feet of access onto Eastwood Road; and, WHEREAS, while proposed Parcel B satisfies all City Code requirements, Parcel A would be non-conforming in that it would not satisfy the minimum street frontage requirement of 75 feet; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Applicant’s request for a minor subdivision and has determined that the requested subdivision pertaining to Parcel B is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a park dedication fee of $1,875 may be imposed as a result of this subdivision in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4 of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision 8184 Eastwood Road subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Applicant shall arrange to have the Certificate of Survey revised to illustrate the following proposed drainage and utility easement areas: The north and south 5.0 feet and the east and west 10.0 feet of Parcel B And shall arrange to add the following language to the Certificate of Survey: The proposed drainage and utility easements shown on Parcel B will be dedicated by a separate document and recorded by the Property Owner with Ramsey County. Resolution 858-07 Page 2 2. The Applicant shall arrange to bring the existing shed from 8418 Eastwood Road into compliance with setback and zoning requirements based on the proposed new lot line. 3. Payment of the park dedication fee of $1,875 shall be deferred for one year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the applicant shall be granted one year to bring Parcel A into compliance with all City Code requirements. If such action is not accomplished by the date so indicated, this minor subdivision approval shall be considered null and void. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 10th day of January, 2007. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL)