Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-1986 PROCEEDINGS OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 3, 1986 Mounds View City Ball 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was called to 1 . Call to order by Chairman Mountin at 7: 43 PM on Wednesday, Order September 3, 1986. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Zollne.r, Miller , Forslund 2 . Roll Call and Chairman Mountin. ALSO PRESENT: Public Works/Community Development Director Thatcher and Councilmember Blanchard. Motion/Second: Forslund/Zoliner to set aside the August 3. Approval of 21 , 1986 minutes to review at the next 'agenda session. Minutes: August 7 , 1986 4 ayes 0 nays and August 21 , 1986 • Motion Carried Motion/Second: Forslund/Miller to approve the August 7, 1986 minutes as presented. 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no residents requests or comments from the 4 . Residents floor. Requests and Comments from the Floor • The Planning Commission agreed to hear the next two 5. Raymond J. cases together, as Mr. Young was not present, and Mr. Young, 2267 Gjerde had agreed to speak for him also. Lois Drive, Case 193-86 an Director Thatcher explained the contractor who did the 6. Mylo Gjerde , work for these two parties was not licensed to do work 2272 Lois Driv in the City. IIe replaced an existing driveway for both Case 194-86 parties, with a cement driveway. The existing driveways were within 5 feet of the property line before replace- ment, and Code requires that any improvements done which *destroy greater than 50 percent of the use must abide by existing Code, and the existing Code requires the drive- ways to he 5 feet off the property line. Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 198 ' Regular. Meeting Page Two Mr. Gjerde presented pictures to the Planning Commission of Mr. Young's driveway. He stated his own had been in very bad repair and needed replacing. Chairman Mountin explained that when finding for an appli- cant on a variance request, they must find a hardship which must be unique to that property, and the hardship cannot be self-created by the property owner. Mr. Gjerde stated he felt his hardship was lack of room to park vehicles as he has a single car garage , and without the additional. 5 feet on the side of his driveway, there would be no place to park the three cars or boat. Commissioner Miller stated she felt the contractor should have checked with the City to see what the Code calls for before installing the driveways. Director Thatcher replied the ultimate responsibility rests with the property owner, to insure that any work being done meets Code, and that the contractor is licensed in the City. Mr . Gjerde stated that one corner of his garage is about 4 feet from the property line. Chairman Mountin stated she has a real problem with the 410 driveway encroaching on the lot line, and she reminded the Commissioners they cannot consider an economic hard- ship. Director Thatcher reported he has gone through the files and can find no variances that were ever granted for these two properties. Chairman Mountin also pointed out that according to Code, no driveway can be any wider- than 22 feet at the curb cut, and Mr. Gjerde ' s driveway is considerably wider than 22 feet. Mr. Gjerde replied lie had driven past a new home on Sherwood that has a three car garage and the driveway goes straight out to the street, and is wider than 22 feet. Director Thatcher replied he would have Staff look into it. IIe also checked for the Commissioners and reported Mr. Gjerde' s lot is 80 feet wide. Chairman Mountin stated she has a problem with a lot that size encroaching on the neighbor. She added that while the neighbor at this time may not mind, there is no assurance of who will live in those homes in the future and what their feelings may be. She also stated she did not want to delay a decision any longer on this item, and that if the Planning 411 Commission should deny the variances for the two properties, the property owners would have the right of appeal to the Council . • Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1986 40 Regular Meeting Page Three Motion/Second: Miller/Zollner to deny the variances for the property at 2267 Lois Drive, Case 193-86 , and 2272 Lois Drive, due to lack of hardship. 3 ayes 1 nay Motion Carried Commissioner Forsiund voted against the motion, stating she felt it was a pre-existing condition, and he only needs about a 2-1/2 foot variance since the garage is closer than 5 feet from the property line. She added she would rather see them park on the concrete driveway than on the grass. Chairman Mountin stated the applicants can appeal the Planning Commission ' s decision to the City Council. Director Thatcher reported the next Council agenda session is September 15, and he requested the applicants 0 submit a letter if they wish to appeal the denial Director Thatcher reviewed the history of Dynamic 7 . Dynamic Designers briefly. He also stated that, in response Designers, to the Planning Commission' s question of whether any 7656 Wood- further fill could be placed on the property, he has lawn Drive, determined that a minimal amount could still be placed Case 138-83 without causing any problems. He added that this wetland will not be changed with any future storm sewer system. Director Thatcher also pointed out the appli- cant was in the process of filling the properly when the City enacted the moritorium on the wetlands, and had the moritorium not been imposed , they could have filled the property and built on it. Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 198E Regular Meeting Page Four Jim Cepress, of Dynamic Designers, stated that Rice Creek Watershed District should have information available in their files as to what the fill capacity for the property was. Chairman Mountin reported the Planning Commission had previously expressed concern with having blacktop all the way to the front door, so they would like to see more fill placed on the property, if possible. She stated she would also like to see the utility easement markings indicated on the plats, for the City' s protection, as was done before for other developments. . Director Thatcher replied he will see the easements are added to the development agreement. Chairman Mountin also recommended that a statement be added to the development agreement, that when MSA improve- ments are scheduled for Edgewood, the outlet to the wet- lands should be approved. Cepress stated that the outlet at Bronson was checked . in 1983 and pipes could be seen coming in from both directions. The Planning Commission expressed concern about the . outlet under Bronson, and Director Thatcher stated he would follow up to make sure it was open. There was also discussion on who would bear the cost of making it workable. Director Thatcher stated he would report back to the Commissioners at their next meeting. Commissioner Zollner stated she was still concerned about the hardship statement in the proposed resolution, as she does not feel it addresses all the variances , specifically the variance for open space. She stated she feels the only hardship there is economic, as they could have enough usable open space if they cut down the size of the development. She also stated she feels the Planning Commission should remain consistent in addressing variance requests, citing the previous two cases which they had just turned down because the hardship was economic. Commissioner Forslund stated the developer would have had more open space if the City had not enacted the wetlands ordinance. Chairman Mountin noted the space could be considered passive open space. She added that this property is very unique and she does not feel the same situation would be encountered anywhere else in the City. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 198E Regular Meeting Page Five • • Motion/Second: Forslund/Mountin to approve Resolution No. 1.70-86. 2 ayes 2 nays Motion Fails Chairman Mountin stated she had seconded the motion to make sure it would not die, and to allow for a vote. She stated that she voted against the motion because the finding of uniqueness is not sufficient to support total waiving of the open space requirement. Commissioner Zollner stated she voted against the motion as she does not feel there is a demonstrated hardship to allow for a variance on the open space requirement. Chairman Mountin advised the applicant that they could appeal the denial to the Council. She added that once the variance issue has been resolved, the rest of the project can be addressed. Director Thatcher advised they could appeal at the September 15 agenda session, and he requested a letter from Dynamic Designers, if they wished to appeal the denial . Chairman Mountin clarified that at their last official 411 meeting, they had stated they could approve it without further variances , if it could be accomplished, but there were new variance requests involved tonight. Tim Nelson, of JLN Development, introduced the group 8. JLN Develop- of people with him. Iie stated that since they last ment, Pine- met with the Planning Commission, they have decided crest Proper . they do want to go ahead with a PUD, and they have reviewed Mounds View' s PUD ordinance and prepared the application. Mr. Nelson reviewed the development conceit •lan, and stated the antici.ate a four ear build-out on the project. Mr. Nelson reviewed the progress they have made on the checklist the Commissioners had given to Staff at their last meeting, and he introduced the traffic consultant they have hired, Mr. Jim Benshaw. Mr. Benshaw reported he is in the process of preparing a comprehensive traffic study of the area and all roadways that would potentially be affected by this development. He added they plan to have the full report completed by the September 15 Planning Commission agenda session. • iai.rman Mountin stated that the timetable that has Jeen prepared should include a time when the Planning Commission can meet with the residents of the adjacent properties in an in '!orthational meeting, before the Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1986 Regular Meeting Page Six • public hearing is held, as the residents often feel that all the decisions have been made already by the time the public hearing comes. Mr. Phil Carlson reviewed the site plan and the changes made since they last met with the Planning Commission. He specifically addressed access onto County Road H2 and elaborated on the plan they have chosen, as well as the ponding and parking plans. Director Thatcher clarified that the detention pond is not planned to have water in it at all times, unless the developer chose to have it that way for asthetic purposes, but it would still have to meet all the ponding requirements. Mr. Bill Frank stated he understands what the Code requires for ponding, and they are planning to establish a water storage facility that will meet Code and be asthetically pleasing. Mr. Carlson noted that much of the information presented will be part of the environmental assessment worksheet. Chairman Mountin noted that this review is informational only, with no action to be taken, and a preliminary site • review should be scheduled for a later date. There was discussion among the Commissioners and developer of what the berming would look like , with concern expressed about what the residents might see from their front windows. Director Thatcher pointed out the Fire Department wants access to the development along County Road H2, and preferably two or more entrances/exits. He also clarified that the extension of Quincy Street to the south as proposed to Highway 10 would be a right turn in, right turn out only. Director Thatcher stated that one of the major factors of this development will be how the residents north of the site view the results of the traffic studies , buffering, berming , zoning and so forth, and he recommended having the residents of the area come in on September 22 , when the Council has the tax increment financing hearing. Chairman Mountin stated she feels it is important the residents attend the public hearing at the Council level, since it is the Council that takes the action, and they come to the Planning Commission on an informational level only, but she stated she would prefer the residents not be involved with all the issues at the tax increment • financing hearing, as they may misconstrue the City' s intention. r Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1986 Regular Meeting Page Seven • Commissioner Forslund expressed concern over the extension of Quincy Street to the north, to intersect with County Road I by the school. Director Thatcher reviewed the requirements and steps to be followed for a PUD. Chairman Mountin stated she did not want the Planning Commission to feel rushed in their review of this proposed development, and she would like to have an informational meeting with the residents before giving approval to the conceptual plan. Mr. Frank stated that time is critical, and he would like the Planning Commission to be able to call to order at their September 17 agenda session, if necessary. It was the concensus of the Planning Commission to have an informational meeting with the residents on September 17, with Staff to have notices delivered to areas directly affected by the proposed development. Due to the lateness of the hour, Chairman Mountin adjourned 9. Adjournment the meeting at 11: 02 PM. • R• - •ectfully sub . tted, 041111 St- - Thatcher Pubis. Works/Com , - ity Development Director •