Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-01-2004 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION September 1, 2004 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: None 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 VR2004-008 Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Variance Request for a Non-Conforming Curb Cut at 7566 Silver Lake Road Applicant: Phyllis Melsaether 6. Review and Consider Amendments to the Planning Commission Bylaws 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 15, 2004 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: August 4, 2004 and August 18, 2004 2. Staff Reports 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Item No: 5 Meeting Date: September 1, 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 Variance to Allow a Driveway to Exceed the Maximum Curb Cut Width at 7566/7568 Silver Lake Road; Planning Case VR2004-008 Introduction: The applicant, Phyllis Melsaether, is requesting a variance to allow an already constructed driveway to remain as built at her property located at 7566/7568 Silver Lake Road. The driveway was constructed without a permit and exceeds the maximum curb cut width allowed in an R-2 district. The property has a two-family dwelling with separated garages. Mounds View Zoning Code requires that two-family dwellings with separated garage each have their own driveway with a curb cut not to exceed twenty (20) feet or the width of the garage, whichever is greater, at the right-of-way. The driveway, as constructed, has two, sixteen (16) foot driveways, with a turn around constructed at the curb cut, which connects the two driveways (See attached sketch). The curb cut is currently sixty-five (65) feet wide. The variance is for twenty-five (25) feet (the total curb cut of 65 feet minus the two, twenty-foot wide curb cuts). Discussion: Driveway and curb cut requirements are addressed in Section 1121.09 of the Zoning Code. The property is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential. In an R-2 district, for a two-family attached dwelling with separated garages, the code allows one driveway per unit with a maximum curb cut of twenty (20) feet or the width of the garage, whichever is greater. As built, the driveway has a combined curb cut of sixty-five (65) feet. Code would permit this property to have two separate driveways with a maximum curb cut of twenty (20) feet wide each, therefore, the middle twenty-five (25) feet of the combined curb cut is in excess of the permitted amount. Section 1104.01 states that driveways must be setback five (5) feet. The driveway meets the setback requirements, however, it exceeds the curb cut width limits. The same contractor who built the twinhome constructed the driveway. The contractor failed to obtain a permit for the work. Had a permit been obtained beforehand, the contractor would have had to construct two separate curb cuts, which would not have been permitted to be wider than twenty (20) feet each. The contractor was informed that the curb cut was too wide and that it must be brought into compliance, either by removing a portion of the curb cut or through a variance. The contractor paid the variance fee and left the rest of the application process up to Ms. Melsaether, the homeowner. Staff spoke with the applicant regarding this variance request. She is requesting to be allowed to leave the driveway as built for safety reasons. The applicant specifically states that the wide curb cut allows the homeowners and visitors to drive forward onto Silver Lake Road, as opposed to having to reverse onto the busy street (See attached letter). Melsaether Variance Report September 1, 2004 Page 2 If this variance request is denied, the applicant would need to remove the middle twenty- five (25) feet of the driveway, thereby creating two separate driveways of twenty (20) feet each. Beyond the curb cut, the driveway meets code and would be permitted to remain as is. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property is approximately 40,075 square feet and has one hundred ninety-six feet (196) feet of street frontage on Silver Lake Road. This lot exceeds the minimum lot requirements. Staff is not aware of any extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The driveway was constructed without a permit. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The Planning Commission would first need to determine whether a hardship exists. Melsaether Variance Report September 1, 2004 Page 3 f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The variance may be detrimental to the purpose of this Title unless it is determined that a hardship is present. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The driveway should not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Deny the requested variance. Resolution 771-04 is attached for the Commission’s denial if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Approve the variance as requested. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval with findings of fact appropriate to support the approval. 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. Letter Submitted by Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Sketch of Driveway and Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 771-04 Melsaether Variance Report September 1, 2004 Page 4 Melsaether Variance Report September 1, 2004 Page 5 Melsaether Variance Report September 1, 2004 Page 6 Melsaether Variance Report September 1, 2004 Page 7 Melsaether Variance Report September 1, 2004 Page 8 Melsaether Variance Report September 1, 2004 Page 9 Sketch of Driveway *Note: The driveway is 65’ at the curb cut and 70’ 6’’ at the driveway flares. The flares are not calculated into the curb cut measurement. Photograph of Existing Driveway 65’ Melsaether Variance Report September 1, 2004 Page 10 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 771-04 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A SIXTY-FIVE (65) FOOT CURB CUT WIDTH; PLANNING CASE NO. VR2004-008 WHEREAS, Phyllis Melsaether has applied for a variance from the maximum curb cut width requirement to allow a previously constructed driveway addition to remain on the property located at 7566/7568 Silver Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, the subject parcel is legally described as follows: DAILEY KNOLLS SUBJECT TO EASEMENT, LOT 1, BLOCK 1 WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential; and, WHEREAS, the R-2 zoning district allows two separate driveways with a curb cut of twenty (20) feet wide each for two family dwellings with separated garages; and, WHEREAS, a driveway has been constructed without a permit that increased the curb cut width to 65 feet; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Sketch of Driveway 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on September 1, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. Melsaether Variance Report September 1, 2004 Page 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related to the hardship criteria identified in Section 1125.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code: 1. The property is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential. 2. The R-2 zoning district allows two separate driveways, each with a curb cut up to 20 feet or the width of the garage, which ever is greater, for two-family dwellings with separated garages. 3. A driveway has been constructed on the property, which increased the curb cut width to 65 feet. 4. The property is regularly shaped and is neither exceptional nor extraordinary given the number of properties within the City that are zoned R-2. 5. The literal interpretation of the Code would NOT deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the property is not unique compared to other properties in the same zoning district. 6. Granting a variance in this case WOULD confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 7. The variance WOULD be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 8. The hardship criteria as identified in Section 1125.02 have NOT been satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the hardship criteria, testimony presented at the public hearing and the identified findings of fact, does hereby deny the variance request to allow a driveway to exceed the maximum curb cut width on the property located at 7566/7568 Silver Lake Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the applicant shall be notified of the right to appeal this denial to the City Council. The appeal shall be submitted in writing within 10 business days of the adoption of this Resolution. Adopted this 1st day of September, 2004. _________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: _________________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (Seal) Item No: 6 Meeting Date: September 1, 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 and Consider amendments to the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws Introduction: At the August 4, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to review the Bylaws and to suggest possible revisions relating to public comments unrelated to planning and zoning matters. Staff brought forward draft language at he August 18th meeting, at which time the Commission further refined the language for adoption at the September 1, 2004 meeting. 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 final direction was to include proposed revisions under the “Duties of Officers” section of the Bylaws generally as follows: 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 duties of the Commission 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. While this amendment does clarify the role of the Chair of the Planning Commission, it does not address the underlying issue of public comment, which is consistent with the Commission’s direction from August 18th. Recommendation: Review the proposed changes based on the Commission’s direction from August 18th and consider the attached resolution which effectuates the revision. If adopted by the Commission, the resolution and Bylaws will be forwarded to the City Council for their review. _____________________________________ James Ericson MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 770-04 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 minor revisions are 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 acceptance. 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 1st day of September, 2004. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: James Ericson Community Development Director \\TROUT\COMMDEV\PLANNING COMMISSION\PC BYLAW S\BYLAWS RESO 770-04.DOC CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS (Revised Sept 1, 2004) I. AUTHORITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission (Bylaws) are established in accordance with the Mounds View Municipal Code Section 401.06. Subd. 7 “The Commission shall adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its business.” Where there is a conflict between the provisions of the Bylaws and the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code, the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code shall govern. (For purposes of simplicity, the Planning and Zoning Commission may hereinafter be referred to as the Planning Commission or the Commission.) II. ADOPTION OF BYLAWS; REVIEW AND AMENDMENT: A. ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT: The Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution by an affirmative vote of the majority of members of the Planning and Zoning Commission appointed as voting members, and shall be placed on file with the City Clerk-Administrator and the Community Development Department. A copy of the bylaws shall be forwarded to the City Council for its information. Any amendments to the Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution in the same manner as the original Bylaws. B. ANNUAL REVIEW: The Bylaws shall be reviewed on an annual basis at the first regular meeting of the Commission in February. III. MEMBERSHIP AND VACANCIES. Vacancies on the Planning Commission shall be filled in accordance with the Municipal Code, Sections 401.02 and 401.03. IV. OFFICERS A. OFFICERS NAMED: The officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a chairperson and vice-chairperson. The Commission may create and fill such other offices from its members, as it may determine, to transact Commission business. In addition, the Director of Community Development, or his or her designee, shall act as the recording secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeting minutes. EXHIBIT A Resolution 770-04 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 duties of the Commission 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. 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. VII. INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans and additional information, as appropriate, for each item placed on the agenda for any regular or special meeting. The Commission packet should be delivered at least four days prior to the meeting. Each Commissioner is responsible for reviewing the material within the packet prior to the meeting. VIII. PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS: Advice from, consultation with, and/or requests for review by the City Attorney, City Engineer, City Planning Agency, or other paid consultants shall be in accordance with the Municipal Code, Section 401.07. IX. SUPPLEMENTARY PUBLICATIONS: All Commission members shall receive a copy of the Mounds View Municipal Code and a copy of the Municipal Comprehensive Plan as well as other materials provided by the City Council or City Staff. These materials shall be retained by each commission member and returned to the Community Development Director upon the member’s resignation or termination of appointment. X. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated Staff member or the Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Any member attending less than 20 meetings per year without the consent of the Commission shall be deemed to have vacated the office, and such vacancy shall be filled by the City Council pursuant to Section 401.03, Subd. 1. A leave of absence may be granted by the consent of the Commission. B. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: 1. General Standard: No Commissioner shall be appointed with private or personal interests likely to conflict with the general public interest. If any person appointed to the Commission shall find that their private or personal interests are involved in any matter coming before the Commission, they shall disqualify themselves from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter; alternatively, they may be disqualified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Commissioners in attendance. 2. Conflict Due to Economic Interests: A Commissioner has a conflict of interest if, in his or her discharge of official duties, would be required to take an action or make a decision that would substantially affect the Commissioner’s financial interests or those of an associated business, unless the effect on the Commissioner is no greater than on other members of the Commissioner’s business classification, profession, or occupation. In the event a conflict of interest exists with respect to a particular matter before the Commission, the Commissioner shall disqualify himself or herself from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter. C. EX PARTE CONTACTS: Ex parte contacts are contacts between individuals seeking to influence the decisions of the Planning Commission and individual Commission members outside the meeting forum. Such contacts include meetings with project proponents, residents, property owners, and citizens separate from Commission meetings, communication between Commission members outside the meeting forum, telephone calls or letters which attempt to influence a Commissioner’s opinion on a matter which will be subject to the Commissioner’s vote. When the Planning Commission is involved in a matter which is to be heard and decided by the Commission (e.g. variances), Planning Commissioners shall indicate to the person contacting them that such contact is inappropriate and all testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to ensure a fair hearing for all parties. In all other cases, Planning Commissioners should discourage such contacts and should avoid expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case. When ex parte contacts occur, the Planning Commissioner is responsible for notifying the Community Development Director, and for conveying the substance of the communication at the next commission meeting at which the matter discussed is under consideration. _______________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _______________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director \\TROUT\COMMDEV\PLANNING COMMISSION\PC BYLAWS\BYLAWS 2004 -- WITH CHANGES.DOC Revision History: September 1, 2004 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 the Council feels there are other issues that may justify going back 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 addressed previous concerns raised by the Commission regarding driveways that would become nonconforming as a result of the amendment. He summarized the City Code relating to nonconforming driveways in that permanent driveways constructed prior to October 1999 could remain in place even if they were nonconforming, however a nonconforming driveway permitted after October 1999 had no corresponding protection. He further stated that the driveway requirements in the city code are confusing and difficult to enforce and administer. Director Ericson suggested the Commission could review these code sections and make a recommendation that would clarify the language at a subsequent meeting. Director Ericson indicated that if the City had granted approval for a driveway less than five feet from a property line and a true hardship exists then that would be justification for a variance. He also indicated that there would be the option 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 discourage those property owners from 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 regardless of what is adopted this evening. Director Ericson suggested the City could create a program to assist property owners by providing an incentive to improve the driveway such as by entering into a contract for discount asphalt with one of the local asphalt companies. Director Ericson indicated that a majority of driveways with setbacks of less than five feet probably have no apparent hardship which would require the reduced setback. He further commented that he does not feel that this amendment would adversely 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. 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. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ 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 agrees with Chairperson Stevenson in that it would be fair and appropriate to redirect unrelated comments 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. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked what the comments were pertaining to at the last meeting. 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 not be 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.