Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-2007 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 24, 2007 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. December 20, 2006 4. 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.) 5. Planning Cases A. Continuation MI2006-002: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road Applicant: Abiding Savior Lutheran Church Address: 8211 Red Oak Drive 6. Other Planning Activity A. Consideration of Resolution 859-07, a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws. B. Review Potential Timeline and Process for Updating the Comprehensive Plan 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. February 7, 2007 B. February 21, 2007 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. January 10, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases b. Review Potential Discussion Points for Worksession with the City Council on February 5, 2007 at 7:00pm 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 January 10, 2007 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Chair Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. January 10, 2007. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners: Cramblit, Gunn, Meehlhause, Miller, Lang, and Walsh-Kaczmarek Absent and Excused: None Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case MI2006-002: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision; 4 Applicant: Abiding Savior Lutheran Church; Address: 8211 Red Oak Drive _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business Chair Stevenson announced there are several new members to the Planning Commission. He asked each member to introduce him or herself and talk about their Planning Commission experience. Commissioner Todd Lang, 2558 Ridge Lane, stated this is his first time serving on a Planning Commission. He has lived in Mounds View for about two and one half years. Commissioner Gary Meehlhause, 7400 Parkview Drive, stated this is his third year on the Planning Commission and has lived in Mounds View since 1984. DRAFT Mounds View Planning Commission January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Jean Miller, Hillview Road, stated she has enjoyed being on the Planning Commission for more than 20 years, seeing what goes on in the City, and contributing to the community. Chair Gary Stevenson, Arden Avenue, stated he has lived in Mounds View for 30 years and has served on the Planning Commission for about 15 years. Commissioner Sherry Gunn, Red Oak Court, stated she has lived in Mounds View for 19 years and just finished a four-year term on the Mounds View City Council. Commissioner Keith Cramblit, Bunker Hill Drive, stated he has lived in Mounds View for six and one half years and this is his first time serving on a Planning Commission. Commissioner Mary Kay Walsh-Kaczmarek, 8346 Pleasant View Drive, stated she has lived in Mounds View for nine years and this is her first time serving on a Planning Commission. A. Oaths of Office of New Planning Commissioners Community Development Director Ericson delivered the oath of office to Commissioners Cramblit, Walsh-Kaczmarek, Gunn, and Lang. B. Election of Officers – Chair and Vice-Chair Community Development Director Ericson suggested deferring the Election of Officers until after the planning case. Chair Stevenson agreed. C. Review Planning Commission Bylaws Community Development Director Ericson suggested deferring the Bylaws review until after the planning case. Chair Stevenson agreed and continued the meeting beginning with Item 4. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Approval of Minutes December 6, 2006 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Meehlhause to approve the minutes of the December 6, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda. None ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case MI2006-002: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision; Applicant Abiding Savior Lutheran Church; Address: 8211 Red Oak Drive Community Development Director Ericson explained the planning case before the Commission is for consideration of a minor subdivision for Abiding Savior Lutheran Church, 8211 Red Oak Drive. He stated the Church owns the property next door located at 8184 Eastwood Road and would like 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 Arden Avenue. Director Ericson indicated this request is the precursor to a request to create additional land for use in conjunction with a future major subdivision and 32-unit senior housing cooperative. Director Ericson indicated the lot is wide enough and deep enough to allow for a subdivision. He explained subdivisions are usually done perpendicularly or horizontally to the street to allow for another housing unit. Director Ericson mentioned it is not often a portion of land is split off the back yard without access to a street, however, when redevelopment opportunities exist or where land is going to be subdivided by one property owner and combined with another, it is allowable and that is what is happening in this case. He pointed out the City code that provides for a subdivision is title 1200 of the code and was provided in the commissioners’ packets. Director Ericson reported that with this subdivision, potential easements were also looked at. He stated Staff required easements be granted over the remaining property to make sure there are no easements on the larger property that need to be vacated; it appears there are not. Director Ericson mentioned the certificate of survey, title commitment, and the staff report was sent to the City Attorney for review. Director Ericson explained that with subdivisions, there is generally a park dedication fee of five to ten percent of the property value to help offset additional costs to the City Park System for additional users. He stated this is a way to make sure parks are current and up to date and for developing communities to dedicate land for parks. Director Ericson explained that since Mounds View is a fully developed community, the fee is considered a commensurate donation to the park system. He indicated no park dedication fee would be collected for this subdivision because at present there would be no increased property density. He stated the park dedication fee could be revisited should future development occur. Director Ericson stated that public notification is required for subdivisions, with the exception of minor subdivisions. He stated the property owner to the south was notified as he is immediately impacted by the subdivision. Director Ericson explained that if the church did come forward with a plan for redevelopment, official notification would be required. Mounds View Planning Commission January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson stated Staff’s review indicates this request satisfies City code except for a shed that would be moved or removed from the property. He mentioned on the issue of consistency of the minor subdivision, the overall development of this lot would need to be combined with the church property or a new subdivision must come forward within a year. Director Ericson explained the minor subdivision would need to be recorded in Ramsey County and the new deeds filed to make it official. Director Ericson stated that what is before the Commission is strictly a request for a minor subdivision. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked why the lot was subdivided in the flag shaped manner with a 10.7-foot frontage. Director Ericson replied the church wanted to preserve the row of pine trees on the lot. Commissioner Cramblit asked who currently occupied the home. Director Ericson replied the church owns the property. Mr. Jerry Kunz, 8284 Pleasant View Drive, spoke on behalf of the church and reported the house is currently unoccupied. Chair Stevenson stated the Planning Commission is charged to not allow lots with less than a minimum of 75 feet access onto a public roadway, therefore creating dead lots. He stated his feeling is that because the applicant has one year to submit a plan for the property, it must be highlighted that this is not a creation of a dead lot and that it would reverted back to the original configuration if it is not adjoined to the rest of the church property or development has not come forth. He stated the Planning Commission wants to be up front that it is not the norm to create a lot that does not conform. Director Ericson added it is not a conforming lot in a conventional sense nor is it intended to be a separate buildable lot with access to a roadway. He explained if it were a stand-alone property with no adjoining neighbors absorbing this property, the Planning Commission or City Council would not approve it. He explained that subdivisions that create a landlocked lot where there was future impending development have been approved in the past. He stated that nonconforming lots have been created with the requirement that it be attached to other property. Director Ericson explained that in this case the subdivided property from the lot on Eastwood Road would be attached to the church property. Commissioner Miller asked if this is explained in the resolution. Chair Stevenson replied it was and pointed out the comments on page two of the resolution. He stated that perhaps it should be spelled out further. He said the staff recommendation wording is Mounds View Planning Commission January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ somewhat better than what is in the resolution. Chair Stevenson asked that the resolution clarify what the applicant must do within the year to become compliant. Director Ericson indicated Staff could add a stipulation that the lot in and of itself as created is not a buildable lot. He stated there is a provision that stipulates it is invalid if the church does not effectuate it within the year. He stated the deeds could not be sealed until something occurs. Commissioner Miller asked if anything should be said about the wooden fence. Director Ericson replied nothing had to be mentioned. Director Ericson noted this was not published as a hearing; however there are residents in attendance that may wish to speak to this topic. Chair Stevenson stated residents may speak if they wish, but currently the Commission is only looking at the church’s request to split the lot and take the back off the existing lot. Mr. Jim Sikorski, 8340 Sunnyside Road, stated he lives just south of the proposed property. He stated his concern relates to what the future plans are for the property. He reported the large number of senior coop units would cause concern with the people in his area. He stated this is a low residential zone and that is the way it should stay. He said if there is a plan to upgrade the subdivision and change the zoning, he has a major complaint with the proposal. He stated some of the items brought up include the eyesore created by a huge development in a low residential area, safety concerns in an area with children and increased traffic, a single lane street that would be a burden with increased traffic flow, parking would be an issue, noise is one of his biggest concerns, church parking is already an issue and this would make it worse, water and sewer capacity would be an issue, utility upgrade requirements, storm water runoff, and the increased need for police and emergency services, he was looking forward to a plan for sidewalks on that side of the street, and setting a precedence for a low density area. In summary, he stated he does not have a problem with the subdivision as long as it does not lead to rezoning the property resulting in an undesirable effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Alan Smith, 8385 Sunnyside Road, asked if the potential fate of parcel B is that it could be sold within the year before parcel A is resolved. Chair Stevenson replied it could be sold and the fate of it would not change if the Planning Commission were to change the boundaries of parcel B from 100 feet to 90 feet. Mr. Smith asked if parcel B were sold with the house on it and the church was unable to resolve the issue with parcel A, would the subdivision revert back to the original configuration. Chair Stevenson replied if it were sold, parcel B could revert back. Director Ericson replied, at this point, the property at 8184 Eastwood Road is one large piece of land with a house on it. He explained that if the church were to sell this property without any Mounds View Planning Commission January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ action by the City Council or the City stamping the deed, it would not be a valid transaction. He believes there is some assurance that if the property is sold, it would have had to be effectuated. Chair Stevenson asked if the church could sell the property during this year. Director Ericson replied that if the City Council approves this request, and they come forward with a new deed that combines parcel A with the church property and files it with Ramsey County, parcel B becomes a parcel onto itself and could be sold. Mr. Randy Heltzer, 8180 Eastwood Road, stated he lives next door to the property. He mentioned he has a preliminary sketch of what is planned for this summer. He indicated the lot they are proposing currently does not conform to the comprehensive plan. He explained the previous owners explored the option of building a house behind their home and were told they could not as it was a nonconforming lot. He asked the Planning Commission to tell Abiding Savior Lutheran Church that this is a nonconforming lot. Chair Stevenson replied the church has one year to make this a conforming lot, which means they would have to join it to their property. Mr. Heltzer stated that when the house is sold and the additional footage is taken from the house, future owners of the property would not be able to add on to their property. Chair Stevenson stated there are some tree issues with any changes to that home. Mr. Charlie Terry, 8385 Eastwood Road, pointed out this is being looked at as just a subdivision. He compared it to a teenager wanting to buy a car but stating it would not be driven until later. He commented this cannot be looked at as just a subdivision, but to look at it with the realization that the senior housing would happen. He stressed this is not the right use for this property. Ms. Ann Ackerman, 2673 Ardan Avenue, stated this subdivision is a precursor to a change in zoning to allow a multiple family unit. Mr. Ken Fletcher, 8330 Sunnyside Road, added his opposition based on everything that has been brought up. He asked if this is going to be built, what is going to happen 20 years from now when Augustana has already backed off stating anything less than 60 units is not a viable investment. He is concerned that low income housing or something worse would be considered. Chair Stevenson stated when this comes back it would most definitely be a concern. Mr. Fletcher stated Abiding Savior would sell it to a developer who would sell the units and Abiding Savior Lutheran Church would be a neighbor rather than it being a church sponsored development. He believes the entire plan should have been put on the table up front. Mr. Steve Bakke, 8261 Sunnyside Road, indicated he thinks everyone on the Commission recognizes that it would make sense to break this down and look at it separately but residents have pointed out why it should not. He would like to add that it may seem harmless to split off Mounds View Planning Commission January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ the lot, but if the church sells parcel B and cannot go forward with their plans and are stuck with Parcel A, they are not going to give it back to who owns parcel B. He stated the church could be looking at losing money. He believes the ramifications of doing the split now where it would be hard for the church to back out. He stated there are ramifications that need to be considered before a vote is taken. Chair Stevenson replied that this is why the church is given one year to develop the lot; it will revert to the original configuration. Director Ericson stated the confusing thing is that the 16,000 square foot property and house could not be sold without parcel A attached to it because at this point, the lot does not exist and the deed has not been sealed to it. He explained the deed would not be sealed until something is resolved. He stated his recommendation is that nothing occurs on this lot until there is some action by the City Council with any kind of subsequent rezoning, comprehensive plan, or major subdivision request. He appreciates all the comments and concerns by the residents and realizes it is difficult for the Planning Commission to consider this request without looking at the future plans of the church. He stated this may warrant tabling until the next meeting if additional information is required. He stated that in terms of whether parcel B can be sold separately; only after something is resolved with regard to this request. He stated it would not be advisable to sell the property as the house and 16,000 square feet until there is resolution to the request by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He explained that parcel A does not exist until the City seals the new deeds and this will not be done until something occurs with the request. He indicated there are other recommendations in the resolution. He stated the Planning Commission could table this so there is no action until or in conjunction with other actions that are yet to be accepted by the City. Chair Stevenson stated that is the direction he is leaning towards. Mr. Terry readdressed the Commission and stated this request needs to be looked at further and to put it off until the complete plan is put forward. Mr. Sikorski readdressed the Commission and asked what this allows Abiding Savior Lutheran Church to do other than sell parcel B. He restated it is a precursor to selling the property to a developer for condominiums or a large development. Commissioner Lang asked Director Ericson what action would be required by Abiding Savior if this were to go forward, to take parcel A and add it to the church parcel. Director Ericson replied it is a paperwork process of a lot combination through Ramsey County, tying the two properties together for tax purposes. He stated there is Minnesota State Statute 15.99 that requires the City take action within 60 days. He stated Staff could ask the church to waive the 60-day requirement and bring it back to the next meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Bob Sherry, 8160 Eastwood Road, addressed the property with the house and referenced the photo on page eight, stating the homeowner would never be able to get to the back of the property because of the trees. Chair Stevenson explained there is actually 33 feet to the parking lot from the garage and the property line would go through the middle of the shed. Commissioner Meehlhause stated there is another step in the process in that the City Council must also approve this. He mentioned that whatever the Planning Commission votes is not necessarily what would happen. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek commented that it is possible that by Abiding Savior Lutheran Church bringing this forward now, it might be to help them with their planning process as to what their options are financially as well as legally. Chair Stevenson asked Director Ericson what the Commission’s course of actions are to table this until a later date and what rational they would have do this. Director Ericson replied the Planning Commission could direct Staff to speak with the Church and determine whether it would consider putting off final resolution until it is packaged with the other requests pending before the City. He stated the Commission could table it until the next meeting pending the outcome of Staff’s meeting with the Church if it does not to waive its right to 60 day action. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked what the benefit would be to table this rather than denying it. Director Ericson replied the Planning Commission could deny this request if felt it was inconsistent with the subdivision code or the comprehensive plan. He explained if that course of action is taken, it sends a message to the Church of what could be accomplished in the future. He stated that to deny the request, there must be rational that warrants the denial. He explained that to deny a request, it must rest on the City Code. He stated that theoretically the fact that it does not have the necessary frontage on Eastwood Road could be justification for denial. Commissioner Gunn asked Mr. Kunz why the church is coming forward with the subdivision without it being connected to the other plans. Mr. Kunz replied the Church would like to sell the house and cannot do that without the subdivision. He stated the Church would keep the lot as green space if the development did not go through. Commission Gunn asked if the Church would keep it as a separate lot if it did not go through. Mr. Kunz replied parcel A would be kept as Church property. Mounds View Planning Commission January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson stated that if the Commission never sees anything for building and the intention is for green space and they would really like to sell parcel B and the rest would be attached to the church and there was never talk of a hi rise building, he does not see a problem at all. He indicated it would get property off the church’s tax base and it is a very sellable 16,000 square foot space, but in the back of his mind, he does not know what their intentions are. Chair Stevenson indicated he would like to know what the intentions are. Commissioner Gunn stated this is what the Commission needs from the church in order to make a better call on this situation. She stated that what Mr. Kunz just said separates it from the future plans. Mr. Kunz stated the church has always had their eye on that piece of property next to their parking lot. Commissioner Gunn stated the problem is this is not stated in the resolution and the Commission knows the church is thinking about developing the property. She indicated that there is not enough information to comfortably make a decision. She stated that even with the one year stated it is not enough information. Chair Stevenson entertained a motion to table this with the stipulation that it come back when the purpose of parcel A and B are stated or parcel A be attached to the current church property. He would like this tabled until the first Commission meeting in February unless the church agrees to postpone the 60-day requirement. Commissioner Miller mentioned that she does not know how far the church has taken their plans for building. Chair Stevenson stated this would be part of the development plan, but if the church comes back and states it would like to add parcel A to the church as green space and sell parcel B as soon as possible, the Commission would be looking at it differently. MOTION/SECOND: Cramblit/Gunn, to table Resolution 858-07 a Resolution Recommending approval of a minor subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road requested by Abiding Savior Church; Mounds View Planning Case No. MI06-002. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Other Planning Activity None ______________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson asked the Commission to return to Items 3 B and C. Mounds View Planning Commission January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ 3B. Election of Officers – Chair and Vice-Chair - Continued Chair Stevenson returned the Planning Commission to Item 3B and opened nominations for the position of Planning Commission Chair. Commissioner Gunn nominated Chair Stevenson, seconded by Commissioner Meehlhouse. No other nominations were made and Chair Stevenson called for a vote. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Nomination of Chair Stevenson passes. Chair Stevenson opened the nominations for Vice Chair by nominating Commissioner Miller for Vice Chair, seconded by Commissioner Meehlhause. No other nominations were made and Chair Stevenson called for a vote. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Nomination of Vice Chair Miller passes. ______________________________________________________________________________ 3C. Review Planning Commission Bylaws - Continued Community Development Director Ericson presented the Planning Commission Bylaws stating they are reviewed on an annual basis at the first regular meeting in February. He indicated that because there are four new Commissioners this year, Staff thought presenting the Bylaws earlier than usual would be a good idea. Director Ericson asked the Commissioners to review the Bylaws and let him know if there are any questions. Director Ericson explained Planning Commission meetings are held on the first and third Wednesdays of the month, however the meetings for January 2007 are held the second and fourth Wednesdays to accommodate the New Years Holiday. Director Ericson informed members a quorum exists when four Commissioners attend. He asked that if you cannot attend a meeting, to please let him or Planning Associate Heller know so they are aware of it in advance. He stated that on occasion an additional or emergency meeting is called if there is a lot of Planning Commission activity. He stated that at times meetings are cancelled if activity is light. Director Ericson explained packets are mailed or delivered to Planning Commission members the Friday before the next meeting. He stated if anyone would prefer an emailed copy of the packets to let him know. Director Ericson asked if there were questions or comments from the Commission at this time. Mounds View Planning Commission January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson commented he has made the same suggestion since 2004, and will do so again. He invited the City Council to appoint a Liaison to the Planning Commission as outlined in Section V Council Liaison of the Bylaws. Commissioner Miller suggested under Section X A Attendance, it is cumbersome to say “Any member attending less than 20 meetings per year . . .” rather than stating how many absences for the year, because sometimes only one meeting is held in a given month. Planning Commission members discussed several options of how many meetings could be missed before action was taken. Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission could take action at any point if they felt someone was not participating. He stated Section X A could be changed to reflect whatever the Planning Commission recommends. Commissioner Miller stated she likes a certain number in a row without notification. Commissioner Gunn recommended any member missing four meetings in a row without notification. Director Ericson pointed out the standard at this time is missing four meetings assuming there are 24 meetings in the year. Chair Stevenson recommended missing three regularly scheduled meetings without notification. Director Ericson stated Staff would draft up a recommendation for approval. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. January 24, 2007 B. February 7, 2007 ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Mounds View Planning Commission January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: Jan 24, 2007 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director of 8184 Eastwood troduction: 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 subdivision f 8184 Eastwood Road and have submitted the necessary title commitment which has been iscussion: ision is a division of land less than two acres in area in which no more than one dditional lot is created. The lot at 8184 Eastwood Road is zoned R-1, Single Family be enjoined to the Church property s soon as possible after subdivision approval to allow for the subsequent disposition of the Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision Road; Planning Case MI06-002 In Abiding Savior 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. While the Church has made clear its desire to develop a senior residential facility on the property, the subdivided area from 8184 Eastwood Road is desired to be annexed to the Church property regardless of whether or not the development moves forward. If the development is not approved, the land subdivided from 8184 Eastwood Road would simply be more greenspace for the Church. Abiding Savior has submitted a certificate of survey which illustrates the proposed o forwarded to the City Attorney for review. D A minor subdiv a 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 parcel created by the subdivision would not be considered a buildable lot as it would not comply with the minimum street frontage requirement. The Church indicates that the created parcel of land would a house. 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. 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. Abiding Savior Subdivision Report Jan 24, 2007 Page 2 Previous Meeting. The Planning Commission considered this request at their meeting on January 10, 2007. While not advertised as a public hearing, many members of the neighborhood attended to voice their opinions regarding the proposed subdivision. The neighbors understood that the subdivision request was separate from a proposed redevelopment of the property for a housing project, yet remained opposed to the subdivision from a precedent-setting standpoint and because it would be one step closer toward achieving the Church’s development vision. Action on the request was tabled with direction given to the Church to clarify their intent regarding the subdivided land referred to as Parcel A on the certificate of survey. On Friday, January 12, 2007, staff received correspondence from Jerry Kunz, Abiding Savior’s Resource and Development Commission’s Vice-Chairman, which reiterates their intent to subdivide 8184 Eastwood Road and enjoin the created lot to the Church’s property, regardless of the outcome of the housing development application. Mr. Kunz’ correspondence is attached for the Commission’s reference. Park Dedication Requirements. All subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication fee requirements. 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. In this case, the minor subdivision requested by the Church would not likely cause any additional impact to the park system thus it would follow that no dedication fee would be applied to the requested subdivision. If, on the other hand, the potential exists for greater intensification of the subject area, the Council may at their discretion impose a dedication fee. For most 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. The proposed housing redevelopment would be subject to a park dedication fee. 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, if the City were to approve the subdivision, 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 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. Abiding Savior Subdivision Report Jan 24, 2007 Page 3 Public Notice. No public notice is required for a minor subdivision, however staff did send notices to the property owners who signed in at the last meeting as a courtesy. 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. Assuming the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on January 24, the request would then go before the City Council on February 12, 2007. Summary. The proposed minor subdivision or 8184 Eastwood Road is requested to create additional land which would be combined with the Abiding Savior property at 8211 Red Oak Drive. The remaining single family lot on Eastwood Road (Parcel B) would be consistent with all setbacks and subdivision code requirements. 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 revising the certificate of survey to show the proposed easements on Parcel B and correcting for the location of the shed, either by removing it from the property altogether or moving it fully onto Parcel B consistent with the setback requirements. A resolution recommending approval with stipulations as noted has been prepared for the Commission’s action. 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 February 7, 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 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 as a buildable lot 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. The applicant shall arrange to immediately combine Parcel A with the existing 6.31 acre Church property at 8211 Red Oak Drive. No construction activity shall be permitted on Parcel A NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant shall have 60 days from final approval to file proper documentation with Ramsey County, including new deeds, easement documents and lot combination agreement, and furnish proof of such recording to the City showing evidence of such recording. If such action is not accomplished by the date so indicated, this minor subdivision approval shall be considered null and void. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that no park dedication fee shall be imposed on this subdivision due to there being no increase in density or no further intensification of the land usage. NOW, THEREFORE, 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 24th day of January, 2007. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: January 24, 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: Consider an Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws Concerning Attendance Discussion: The Planning Commission reviewed the Bylaws at the January 10, 2007 meeting and suggested a change pertaining to the number of absences a commissioner may have in a given year. Based on the suggested change regarding attendance, the bylaws have been amended to read as follows: Any member absent from three or more consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or more than six regularly scheduled meetings per year without the consent of the Commission shall be deemed to have vacated the office. (The attached Bylaws show the new language underlined with the old language stricken to show the exact nature of the amendment.) Recommendation: If the above language is representative of what the Commission desires, Resolution 859-07 has been prepared to effectuate the indicated amendment. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 859-07 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISIONS TO THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS WHEREAS, Section 401.06, Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its business, and for annual review of these bylaws; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a review of the Bylaws and has determined that a minor revision is needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Bylaws for the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be revised as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and that the Bylaws as shown in Exhibit A supersede previous adopted versions of the Bylaws. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these revised Bylaws shall be kept on file with the City Clerk-Administrator and the Community Development Department, and shall be forwarded to the City Council for its information. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 24th day of January 2007. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: James Ericson Community Development Director EXHIBIT A CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS (Revised Jan 24, 2007) 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 in accordance with State Statutes. Planning Commission members shall be City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 4 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. VII. INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 5 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 absent from three consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or more than six regularly scheduled 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: January 24, 2007 September 1, 2004 February 21, 2001 February 2, 2000 March 5, 1997 February 3, 1993 October 1990 Item No: 6B Meeting Date: January 24, 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: Review Potential Timeline and Process for Updating the Comprehensive Plan Background: The City of Mounds View will need to update its Comprehensive Plan by the end of 2008. Given the magnitude of this task, staff feels it would be best to start planning the process as early as possible and establish a framework to guide us through the update. For additional background, we have included a newspaper article from the Sun Focus which highlights the comprehensive plan update process and are providing a copy of the Met Council’s Local Planning Handbook which covers topics relating to the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion: There are many options to consider and discuss regarding the update of the Comprehensive Plan, such as who will be involved, should the City hire a consultant to assist with the preparation, should a steering committee be formed, should a community survey be conducted, etc. The newspaper article addresses many of these options. The last Comprehensive Plan update was initiated in 1998 and was concluded in 2001 with adoption by the City Council. The task was challenging due to the fact that the previous “official” Comprehensive Plan was from 1979—twenty year earlier. The update due in 2008 should be a relatively straightforward process given that the City is for the most part fully developed and given that the last update was adopted just five and a half years ago. Recommendation: We don’t need to hammer out a timeline and framework all at once; I expect this will take a few meetings to consider all of the options. At a minimum, however, I would like to discuss ideas as to how to better involve the residents and property owners of the City in the update process. The Comprehensive Plan should represent the culmination of the community’s vision for the city, thus broad public participation will be key to the success and acceptance of the document. PLEASE BRING YOUR COMP PLAN TO THE MEETING! _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director