Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-2004 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION August 18, 2004 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: July 21, 2004 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Planning Case CU2004-004 Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Conditional Use Permit Request for a Residential Dog Kennel at 8009 Red Oak Drive Applicant: Wayne Seehafer 6. Review Planning Commission By-laws APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: September 1, 2004 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: August 4, 2004 2. Staff Reports 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Item No: 5 Meeting Date: August 18, 2004 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Dog Kennel at 8009 Red Oak Drive; Planning Case No. CU2004-004 Introduction: The applicant, Wayne Seehafer, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a residential kennel at 8009 Red Oak Drive, which is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The applicant is proposing to have a small breeding program for Olde English Bulldogs. The applicant would keep three dogs on the property and may sometimes have a fourth dog. Discussion: Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows residential dog kennels in Single Family Residential districts. The applicant is proposing to keep two female dogs and one male dog on the property. In addition, at times he may keep a puppy for an extended period of time. The Municipal Code requires that residents obtain a residential kennel license if they will be keeping more than two dogs that are more than six months old on the property. A residential kennel license will permit the resident to have up to four dogs. One of the conditions of the residential kennel license is that the applicant must submit a petition signed by at least 50% of the property owners within 500 feet of the applicant’s property stating that they agree with the establishment of the kennel. There are sixty properties within 500’ of applicant’s property. The applicant has obtained the signatures of 36 property owners, which is six more than the code requires (see attached petition). The applicant’s property is fully enclosed by fencing. Currently, there is one kennel in the rear yard. The applicant is proposing to construct two more kennels, so that the dogs could be separated (see attached site plan). The proposed kennels would be placed in the rear yard and located roughly 30 feet from the south (side) lot line, 48 feet from the north (side) lot line and at least 42 feet from the east (rear) property line. Section 1106.03 requires a five (5) foot setback, which the proposed kennels satisfy. Staff contacted the Mounds View Police Department and requested any complaints or reports filed regarding animals at the subject property. There are no complaints or reports on file in the Police Department for 8009 Red Oak Drive. Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report August 18, 2004 Page 2 CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is listed below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal to keep three to four dogs on the property would not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicant’s property is located on Red Oak Drive. The area of the lot is nearly half an acre. The size of the property would accommodate the proposed kennel. In addition, the rear yard of the property is fully fenced, which will prevent the dogs from entering into neighboring properties. Depreciation. The applicant has not had any complaints made about the dogs on his property. The proposed kennel should not cause depreciation of the subject property or the surrounding properties. The Character of the Surrounding Area. This part of the City is strictly a single-family residential area. Keeping dogs as pets is a common practice. The proposal would not be out of character in this area. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant has indicated that the need is because he would like to have more than two dogs on the property. Summary: The Zoning Code conditionally allows residential kennels in single-family residential districts. The applicant was able to obtain signatures from more than 50% of the property owners within 500 feet of his property and does not have any complaints regarding dogs on file with the Police Department. Based on the above analysis, Staff feels that the proposal adequately satisfies the conditional use criteria and would not adversely affect the surrounding area. Recommendations: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Resolution 769-04 is attached if the Commission selects this option. Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report August 18, 2004 Page 3 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution recommending denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the recommendation. If the Commission chooses to act on this option, Staff will provide the resolution to the Commission at the next meeting on September 1, 2004. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Letter of Recommendation from MV Animal Hospital 5. Petition from Neighbors 6. Proposed Site Plan 7. Resolution 769-04 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report August 18, 2004 Page 4 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report August 18, 2004 Page 5 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report August 18, 2004 Page 6 Zoning Map Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report August 18, 2004 Page 7 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report August 18, 2004 Page 8 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report August 18, 2004 Page 9 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report August 18, 2004 Page 10 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report August 18, 2004 Page 11 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 769-04 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL DOG KENNEL AT 8009 RED OAK DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2004-004 WHEREAS, Wayne Seehafer has applied for a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8009 Red Oak Drive, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Except North 82 5/10 feet of Lot 117 Spring Lake Park Hillview WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows residential dog kennels in Single Family Residential districts; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the signatures on the submitted petition are valid and meet the licensing requirement for residential dog kennels; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Letter of Recommendation from MV Animal Hospital e. Petition from Neighboring Properties f. Site Plan g. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request on Wednesday, August 18, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report August 18, 2004 Page 12 1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. 2. The size of the subject property is able to accommodate three to four dogs and the associate kennels. The rear yard is fully fenced, which will prevent the dogs from entering neighboring properties. 3. There are no complaints regarding dogs at the subject property. The proposal to keep three to four dogs should not depreciate the surrounding area. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed residential kennel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel, with conditions as follows: 1. No more than four dogs over the age of six months shall be allowed on the property. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for paying an annual license fee upon approval of this permit and again every year thereafter. 3. The applicant shall maintain the yard and kennel area in a clean, quiet orderly and sanitary condition. 4. The City Council, at its discretion, may review this conditional use permit at any time in the future if the need to do so arises. 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 18th day of August, 2004. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6 Meeting Date: August 18, 2004 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 last reviewed the Bylaws in February of this year. The last time they were amended was in 2001. In response to the meeting on August 4, 2004, the Bylaws are again before the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Discussion: Currently, there are no rules, regulations or ordinances that guide or define public comments made by Planning Commissioners at Planning Commission meetings. As a result of recent comments unrelated to planning or zoning matters, a majority of the Commission requested that the Bylaws be amended to include language that would address such statements. The following is draft language that could be inserted as a new paragraph entitled “Public Statements” under Section IX, Conduct of Members: D. Public Statements. Planning Commissioners are encouraged to provide input and contribute to discussions relating to matters before the Commission for consideration. Conversely, while appointment to the Commission does not restrict one’s right to free speech or expression, Commissioners shall refrain from making public statements unrelated to actions or requests before the Commission or unrelated to the established roles and responsibilities of the Planning Commission as articulated herein these Bylaws. Such statements should be addressed or directed to the appropriate commission or to the City Council and shall not be made so as to imply that the statement is representative of the Commission as a whole, unless such action has been authorized by the Commission. Recommendation: Review the attached Bylaws and the draft language pertaining to public statements. If an amendment is desired, the Commission will need to direct staff to draft a resolution amending the Bylaws and forwarding the revisions to the Council for their reference. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS (Revised February 21, 2001) 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. 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 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. 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 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. VI. 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. VII. 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. VIII. 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. IX. 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 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\BYLAWS\BYLAWS 2001 -- WITH CHANGES.DOC Revision History: February 21, 2001 February 2, 2000 March 5, 1997 February 3, 1993 October 1990 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 4, 2004 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., August 4, 2004. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Stevenson, Scotch, Hegland, Zwirn, Song Members Absent: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planner Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Consider Amendment to the Zoning Code Regarding 2 Driveway Setback Requirements Consider Amendment to Zoning Code Regarding Funeral 5 Homes and Mortuaries Discuss Public Comments Unrelated to Planning and Zoning 6 Matters _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. July 7, 2004 MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Miller. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for July 7, 2004 as Presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda William Werner of 2765 Sherwood Road addressed the Commission and asked why citizen requests and comments are at the beginning of the meeting. Chair Stevenson indicated that is to allow residents to discuss zoning or planning matters that are not on the agenda and to adjust the agenda, if necessary. Mr. Werner indicated he was wondering why Mr. Ericson is taking on the task of dealing with public statements made by planning commissioners. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that as the liaison to the Planning Commission it was his duty to bring this information to the Commission to address what has been, in the past, commonly accepted practices and procedures and get feedback to determine if there is consensus to address this in the by-laws. He then said that he is not sure who would be more appropriate because this is part of his job as liaison to the Commission. Mr. Werner asked if Council or the Mayor directed Mr. Ericson to do this. Director Ericson responded that he received no council direction regarding the memo associated with Item 7 on the agenda. Mr. Werner indicated he is on the Charter Commission and this kind of thing is something he would consider within the Charter Commission domain of discussion as to how to run meetings and any restrictions placed on it. Mr. Werner asked if the Commission was planning to change the by-laws. Chair Stevenson indicated it is on the agenda for discussion this evening. Mr. Werner asked if the Chair considered it improper to discuss the matter now. Chair Stevenson recommended adding comments when this is heard on the agenda. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Code Regarding Driveway Setback Requirements Community Development Director Ericson indicated this matter was before the Commission on July 21 for discussion as Council feels that the one-foot setback that private property owners may grant or deny to their neighbors may give someone more rights than they should be provided and may take away rights from a property owner if the neighbor says no. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated Council feels there are other issues that may justify going to a five- foot setback and, if there are situations where less than five feet is needed, then it should go through the variance process. He then said that the Commission discussed nonconforming driveways that would be created and the Code indicates that if you have a driveway that was approved at a certain setback by the City and the City changes the Code it becomes a legal nonconforming use but another area in the Code indicates that any driveway that was legally permitted prior to 1999 that is nonconforming may be allowed to remain and can be rebuilt and reconstructed; so the intent is if it was a legally permitted driveway before 1999 it would have that right but after 1999 it would not. Director Ericson indicated there are some issues with the nonconforming status of driveways and Staff would recommend looking at those issues separately. He then said that very few nonconforming driveways would be created by this amendment. Director Ericson indicated that if the City granted approval of a permit to have a driveway one foot from the property line and a true hardship exists then that would be justification for a variance. He then indicated that there would also be the opportunity for an administrative variance provided the neighbor does not object. Commissioner Hegland indicated there are driveways in town that are unimproved and he is concerned that this may encourage those property owners not to improve the driveway. Director Ericson indicated that Section 90202 of the Code discusses nonconforming driveways but separates out the permanent and nonpermanent and only provides that protection to permanent driveways so, if the driveway is dirt or gravel, then it could not be rebuilt or expanded. Director Ericson indicated that permanent driveways that are nonconforming could remain. Commissioner Hegland indicated he is concerned about setting up situations that would encourage people not to improve a driveway. Director Ericson suggested coming up with a program to assist property owners by providing an incentive to improve the driveway such as entering into a contract for discount asphalt with one of the local asphalt companies. Director Ericson indicated that in approximately 95% of cases where there is a nonconforming driveway there is no reason that the driveway would have to be located 2 feet from the property line. He further commented that he does not feel that this would affect more than a handful of properties as most properties have sufficient room for a driveway. Commissioner Miller indicated that this would eliminate the need to get permission from the neighbor. Chair Stevenson asked Staff to read the reasons the Code is being changed. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson read them. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch. To Approve Resolution 768-04, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Code Amendment to the Zoning Code Regarding Driveway Setbacks. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that he has seen in the community homes with a pad in front of the garage and then unimproved surface to the street. He then asked how this would impact those residents. Director Ericson indicated that the City has taken the position that residents can bring in Class Five as periodic maintenance of an unimproved driveway. He then explained that the permanent portion would be allowed to remain but the unimproved surface would need to conform to Code requirements. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether the City takes a position one way or the other with respect to completing the driveway. Director Ericson indicated that he City has taken the position that it does not want to force property owners to complete driveways but other cities have done so. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he has issues with this proposal because he feels it could discourage people from improving their property if they have to go through the whole process. Chair Stevenson commented that he does not see how the changes have any different effect on how the property owner would improve the driveway because they are not allowed to go to one foot now unless they have neighbor approval. Commissioner Hegland indicated he has no issue with the proposed change but would like the other issues to be dealt with. He then commented that there have been a lot of changes to the Code to accommodate new construction and he does not want to impose things on people that do not apply to already developed and existing properties. Director Ericson indicated that if a resident wishes to have a one foot setback and the neighbor says no then the resident is required to come before the Planning Commission. Director Ericson indicated that this would be added to the agenda for further driveway discussions. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Code Regarding Funeral Homes and Mortuaries Planner Prososki indicated that the City’s Code only allows for funeral homes and mortuaries in an R-O zone and, since there is only one R-O zone in the City that is very restrictive. She then said that this limitation was unintentional and Staff recommends a Code amendment to allow funeral homes and mortuaries in other appropriate zoning districts. She then reviewed her research findings with the Commission. Planner Prososki indicated that the Commission may wish to consider funeral homes and mortuaries separately, as one would have people coming to the establishment for services and the other would have the actual chemicals and things involved in preparing a body in addition to services. Planner Prososki asked the Commission to discuss whether it would like to differentiate between them and which districts they would be most appropriate in. She also asked the Commission to consider whether crematories should be included. Chair Stevenson commented that most facilities now have both funeral services and mortuary services in the same facility. Commissioner Hegland asked if Staff intended to make it a permitted use and, if so, they are not the same thing and the City should look into where a mortuary would be appropriate. Chair Stevenson indicated he would like to address crematories separately. Commissioner Scotch indicated that most facilities offer both funeral services and mortuary services. She then said that she feels it would be appropriate to allow them in the business district. Commissioner Zwirn commented that lumping them together would entail chemicals from the mortuary services. He then asked if those chemicals would be prohibited in certain districts. Planner Prososki indicated they would not. Commissioner Hegland asked how these businesses are regulated. Planner Prososki offered to look into it further but stated she believes they are licensed and regulated by the state. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there would be any necessary modifications to structures or buildings for disposal or drainage of the chemicals and how that would impact the district and neighboring facilities. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland indicated he is concerned about objections from the business community. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he would not want a funeral home or mortuary in Mounds View Square. The Commission agreed to look at them separately. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Discuss Public Comment Unrelated to Planning and Zoning Matters Community Development Director Ericson indicated this item is brought to the Commission for consideration at his own doing and he was not directed to put this together nor asked to address the Commission. Director Ericson commented that free speech is important in this country and the right to ones opinion should be embraced. He then said that his comments and the request this evening to consider does not take away the right to make comments and to address issues someone feels are important. He further commented that it is something that everyone has the right to do and to have an opinion and to express it says a lot about a person because a lot of people do not share opinions. Director Ericson suggested there may be more appropriate places for commissioners to express personal opinions unrelated to planning and zoning matters. He then commented in response to Mr. Werner’s question, that the reason for the public comment section on the agenda is for resident input and it is to get feedback from the community on planning and zoning issues and community development matters in general. Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission, like all City Commission, are appointed and serve a specific purpose which is to review issues and provide feedback and recommendations to the City Council. He then said that the specific duties of the Planning Commission are to review variance requests, review the Comprehensive Plan, rezoning requests, conditional use permits, planning and zoning matters and subdivisions. Director Ericson indicated that public comment, as a Planning Commission Member, is expected and encouraged, as the City wants opinions. He then said that is why members were appointed because the City values volunteer input as being important to the process. However, there is an understanding that public comment is limited to planning and zoning issues and related to the duties of Planning Commissioners and, if someone has an opinion or concern unrelated to planning and zoning, they should take those comments to the appropriate body whether that be the City Council, the Park and Recreation Commission or the Economic Development Commission, otherwise it clouds the issue of whether this is one person’s opinion or the opinion of the Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson commented that for a Planning Commissioner to take a position regarding politics or policies of the administration of the City would be going above and beyond what a commissioner was appointed to do. He then reiterated that being appointed to a board or commission does not take away anyone’s right to express a personal opinion, but that there may be a more appropriate place to make those comments. Director Ericson indicated that in addition to discussing this matter, he would like consensus for direction to put language into the Bylaws for Commission review that would discuss appropriate public comment and like statements. Chair Stevenson indicated that he feels that an amendment to the Bylaws would be absolutely appropriate and he would prefer not to see commissioners and other residents using this meeting for something other than planning business. If someone did come in off the street wanting to conduct their own personal statements on items not related to planning, with something in the by-laws, he would feel more empowered to ask them to stop and direct them to the appropriate body to hear those comments. Commissioner Song indicated she feels that it is fair and appropriate otherwise the Commission could waste a lot of time hearing comments that this body is not able to deal with. Commissioner Scotch agreed with Commissioner Song and said that the Commission could listen to unrelated comments but is unable to assist or address those concerns the way Council could. She further stated that the meetings are often long and unrelated comments and personal statements would make the meetings unnecessarily longer. Commissioner Miller said she agrees that it would be helpful to have something in the Bylaws that relates to the purpose of the Commission and comments that could or should be made and in what setting. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether, as it stands right now with regards to items not on the agenda, his taking advantage of that or if he was in violation of anything written into bylaws or codes or anything at this point. He then said that his comments were restricted to within a three to five minute period as suggested by general rule. Director Ericson indicated that there is nothing in writing right now and the Commission usually does not limit time for comments. Commissioner Zwirn asked if Mr. Ericson, while generating his Staff report on free speech and suggesting restricting citizen requests and comments, was soliciting opinions from people within the City as to whether or not he should be terminated. Director Ericson said, “not at all” and then said that some members of the City Council had in fact suggested he be removed from office. Commissioner Scotch asked what the comments were pertaining to at the last meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn indicated he was availing himself of the opportunity to address issues not on the agenda and there is nothing restricting ones ability to make statements and since this Commission is part of, or reports to, the City Council that, in his opinion, is having some problems and struggles with running the City properly he felt he could make the comments. Chair Stevenson asked if Commissioner Zwirn understood that if comments he wished to make did not pertain to planning and zoning matters then this would be not the appropriate venue. Commissioner Zwirn indicated there is nothing that restricts him from that at this point. Chair Stevenson stated that, as Chair of the Planning Commission, he is restricting further comments on items not related to planning and zoning matters or business of the Commission. Commissioner Hegland said he agrees that if it is not Commission business then there are better venues for it and, it is Chair Stevenson’s responsibility to manage the meeting so if having something in the Bylaws makes that easier for the Chair to do so, he would agree. He then said that he felt this was something that was understood by Commissioners. Commissioner Miller suggested stating under Item 4 on the Agenda that the comment period is for items related to planning business of the City. Director Ericson indicated that Staff could do that. He then said that Commissioner Zwirn is right in that there is nothing currently that would restrict the comments and that is why he feels it is appropriate to bring this before the Commission for a possible amendment to the Bylaws to help regulate the types of public comments heard at the previous meeting. Mr. Werner said he liked the emphasis on freedoms in the Staff’s memo on the matter. He then asked who drafted the Bylaws for the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson indicated that there have been Bylaws since the original Commission was established and the Commission reviews them annually for any necessary changes. Mr. Werner indicated that the Chair should have the authority to limit comments that are not appropriate to the discussions. Chair Stevenson indicated he would feel better doing so if there was something in the Bylaws that stated he was allowed to do so. Commissioner Hegland indicated he felt the Bylaws should state what the purpose of the Commission is and that the Commission is to stick to the business of the Commission. Chair Stevenson asked Staff to review the bylaws to determine whether it clearly states the purpose and duties of the Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Werner commented that he would say the Commission should take it upon themselves to work this problem out rather than having input from Staff or Council. Chair Stevenson indicated that the Commission is looking at this as a way to clarify how meetings are run. Mr. Werner asked that this be done without restricting the freedom of speech. Director Ericson agreed to review the Bylaws and have this matter on the agenda for consideration at the next meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 18, 2004 ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.