Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03-1992 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 3, 1992 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. Call To Order called to order by Chair Mountin at 7: 39 p.m. on Wednesday, June 3 , 1992 . MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Colleen, 2 . Roll Call Miller, Nelson, Peterson, Ruggles, and Chair Mountin. Commissioner Stevenson had an excused absence. Commissioner Burgers had an unexcused absence. ALSO PRESENT: Planner Harrington, 411 Recording Secretary Asleson, and Councilmember Blanchard. Motion/Second: Ruggles/Colleen to 3 . Approval of approve the minutes of May 6, 1992. Minutes: May 6, 1992 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no resident requests or 4 . Resident comments from the floor. Requests and Comments from the Floor Planner Harrington reviewed Resolution 5. Consideration No. 339-92, regarding the request of of Resolution Harstad Companies to develop their No. 339-92 , property, known as "Greenfield Estates" . Regarding The Commissioners were shown a revised Development version of Resolution No. 339-92 as Request of drafted at the Commission's Special Harstad Meeting on May 27, 1992 . Planner Companies Harrington noted that all language (Greenfield concerning the Development Agreement Estates) , • would be included in the City Council's Planning Case resolution and that the following items No. 333-91 • Mounds View Planning Commission June 3 , 1992 Regular Meeting Page 2 would be included in Attachment A: original submittal narrative, phos- phorous stripping calculations, city consultant Peter Sabee's review, and revised plans dated June 3 , 1992 . Two letters from residents were read and noted for the minutes. Kay Weseman, 7807 Bona Road and Joan Sandidge, 7817 Bona Road both voiced their opposition to the proposed development in their letters. Chair Mountin asked that these letters and the attendance list from the May 20th agenda session be attached to these minutes. She also asked if the Planning Commission could include, as a part of their resolution, a statement urging that the City Council continue to inves- tigate the drainage problems on Bona • Road as noted in Ms. Sandidge's letter. Planner Harrington replied that it would not be appropriate to include this in the Greenfield Estates resolution, as this drainage problem on Bona Road is not related to the applicant's request. It would be more appropriate for the Commission to issue a recommendation independent of the Greenfield Estates resolution. Motion/Second: Miller/Colleen to recommend to the City Council that clean up of the stream leading into Branch 5 of Judicial Ditch No. 1 be given high priority as a result of comments received in the course of reviewing the Greenfield Estates proposal. 5 ayes 1 nay Motion Carried Commissioner Ruggles voted against the motion, as the ditch and the Greenfield Estates property have no relation, • except by proximity. • Mounds View Planning Commission June 3, 1992 Regular Meeting Page 3 Jeff Roos, of McCombs, Frank, Roos Engineering and representing the app- licant, wished to make several comments on the proposed resolution and the City's wetland ordinance in general. From a developer's standpoint, it would have been easier had variances not been needed in order to develop the property. However, Mr. Roos praised the wetland ordinance as being restrictive and workable at the same time. He has tried to convey to the residents that the Planning Commission has followed the ordinance and that in the end, the wetland will actually be improved with the development. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Roos to review residents' concerns regarding the three lots in the wetland. • Mr. Roos replied that three lots will be in areas that are currently wetland (rather than wetland buffer) . The developer will be filling the wetlands to create the building pad. Some residents believe that wetland is going to be lost, but actually, the developer will be creating wetland area elsewhere. Commissioner Nelson questioned the property lines being drawn through the drainage ponds: would the City have any liability issues to consider? Planner Harrington indicated that all ponds located within property lines will be taken as easements and that all other areas of the wetland will be conveyed to the City. Commissioner Ruggles asked why the developer didn't propose extending Edgewood Drive though to County Road I. Chair Mountin stated that this extension • was examined in the last proposal that Mr. Harstad brought to the Planning • Mounds View Planning Commission June 3, 1992 Regular Meeting Page 4 Commission. At that time, it appeared that the citizens did not want Edgewood to go through and that the soils in the area might be inappropriate for road construction. This may be why it was not proposed this time. Mr. Roos stated his belief that the plans that have been drawn to represent an improvement for the area and that the residents will realize this in time. Chair Mountin commented that some residents do not realize that Mounds View's wetland ordinance calls for wetlands management, rather than wetlands preservation. The ordinance does not prevent building in wetlands. If preservation is what residents want, they need to approach the Planning Commission and the City Council with • proposed changes. Planner Harrington stated that the ordinance allows for circumstances when a wetland can benefit, both aesthetic- ally and functionally, from development. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Roos if the houses that will be built in Green- field Estates would be larger, since the proposed lot sizes have increased. Mr. Roos replied that since the land values have increased along with the lot size, he assumes that the houses built will be in the $200, 000 price range. Motion/Second: Colleen/Miller to approve Resolution No. 339-92 , recom- mending approval of the development request of Harstad Companies' known as "Greenfield Estates" . 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Planner Harrington updated the 6. Staff Report Commission on Planning Case No. 338-92 , Mounds View Planning Commission June 3 , 1992 Regular Meeting Page 5 request for Conditional Use Permit to operate a residential dog kennel. The applicant is in the process of obtaining the required consent of 50% of property owners within 500 feet of her home, and would like to have action taken on the matter at a special meeting of the Planning Commission on June 17, 1992 . Planner Harrington also noted that Everest Development had requested that the Commission call to order at their June 17, 1992 agenda session to consider a PUD amendment at Mounds View Business Park. Everest would like to add more parking near the front door of Owens and Minor. The attendance at the Commission's May 7 . Report of Chair 20, 1992 agenda session included Commissioners Miller, Peterson, Nelson, • Ruggles, Stevenson, and Chair Mountin. Commissioner Colleen had an excused absence; Commissioner Burgers had an unexcused absence. The attendance at the Commission's May 27, 1992 special agenda session included Commissioners Miller, Nelson, Peterson, and Chair Mountin. Commissioners Colleen, Ruggles, and Stevenson had excused absences; Commissioner Burgers had an unexcused absence. There being no further business before 8 . Adjournment the Commission, Chair Mountin adjourned the meeting at 8 :25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 410 Paul Harrington City Planner Bill , Cherie and Lauren Wilson 2396 Pinewood Circle N.E . 111 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Home: (612) 784-7145 Work: (612) 298-6247 May 23 , 1992 Mounds View City Counsel Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Dear City Counsel Members : You will soon receive from the Mounds View Planning Commission; the Commissions findings and recommendation regarding the proposed development request by Harstad Companies . Harstad Companies desires to build single family homes on the property located east of Edgewood Drive , north of County Road I , south of Hillview Road and east of St . Michael street . This property is well defined in the City of Mounds View wetlands ordinance and is a necessary part of flood control , water quality and wildlife management for the area . I have attended two of the Mounds View Planning Commissions • . meetings where Harstad Companies has presented there proposed development . As a suggestion I would recommend that the City Counsel accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission . I make this suggestion without knowing the Planning Commission ' s final recommendation to the City Counsel . The Planning Commission has demonstrated a high level of professionalism and knowledge of housing developments at the two meetings I attended . I believe that every member of the Planning Commission has Mounds Views ' best interest at heart and that the Planning Commission will make the best decision possible regarding the proposed development . As a personal opinion; I can not agree with the re-drawing e 114i 4 - _ - ordinance allows for some development of the property around the wetland and the Mounds View Planning Commission has been very responsible when allowing land usage within the 100 foot buffer area around the wetlands ; the proposed development is founded on a loop hole in the ordinance . The "no net loss of wetland area" portion of the wetland ordinance was (I believe) intended to guard the wetland areas as they now exist . ( I purchased my house believing that the wetland boundaries were well identified and that the boundaries had some value . ) The literal moving of the wetland area , from where they now stand to another area of the same size does not guard the wetlands . Instead it makes wetlands a commodity that can be packaged and transported at will . I do not believe 1111 that the wetland ordinance was written with the intention that large land owners could redraw the wetland boundaries . Joan Sandidge Art, s4 +� 7817 Bona Road • Mounds View MN 55112 June 2, 1992 4( Ilk T4 -14 A � � City of Mounds View 411 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View MN 55112trZZtZ tirr- To: Members of the Planning Commission I am writing in regards to the development request of Harstad Companies to contruct single family homes on the property legally know as: EX W 180 FT OF N 183 FT THE NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 (SUBJ TO RDS) IN SEC 5 TN 30 RN 23 I understand that this development will be built on 7.9 acres of land designated as wetlands. The only change made in the current proposal is the increased lot size while still accomadating three homes in the wetland and eleven homes on the wetland buffer zone. • It is my understanding that Mounds View has an excellent Wetland Ordinance, which took many hours to prepare. What was the purpose of developing an ordinance only to have it torn apart by variances ? I have lived in my house since May 1978 and have had no water problems inside my home. I have, however, had structural damage to the foundation and my backyard continues to sink and is saturated during the spring and summer heavy rains. My front yard has been flooded up to 30 • - - - was told by Ric Minetor that these problems were not forseen when homes were developed in this area 15 years ago and that it may take up to five years if ever to rectify, if homeowners agree to pay for storm sewers. How did this end up being the homeowners problem? Perhaps because the city officials didn't take the time to do their Job? There has been widespread water damage caused to many homes in the Mounds View area due to negligence of the City Government to explore the possible consequences for current Mounds View homeowners. All of these issues have been brought before City officials in the past only to have you continue to consider endangering existing homeowners • property. A • Are the Harstad Companies really looking out for the • wildlife by not starting construction until August . Could it really be that the land will not be dry enough until that time? Why be concerned about the wildlife until August and afterwards run them off the land. . If you've read reports from 1987 from the Audubon Society and the DNR dealing with this parcel of land you would be aware that these animals will not return. I am asking you to use foresight when considering this development . My home is the largest investment that I will make In my lifetime. Put yourself in my shoes would YOU like your property threatened. Am I to trust our city officials in their judgement after the stories I've heard of crumbling foundations and water soaked basements. I am holding the City of Mounds View liable for any structural damage or water damage to my home and property due to the reconstructing of the wetlands and building of homes in the wetland area that borders my property. S erely, c4 Jo n Sandidge Lifetime Resident • • June 3, 1992 City of Mounds View Planning Commission: • I am against approval of the current Greenfield development proposal for the following reasons : It is not significantly different from the last proposal that was submitted and denied by the City Council . It contains overall the same amount of wetland usage. The number of houses in this proposal was reduced but the actual land area that is disturbed or developed is almost identical to the previous proposal. The developer is requesting what appears to be his entire portion cf the wetland buffer zone be allowed to be developed, and in addition that he be allowed to build 3 houses almost entirely within current wetland boundaries. I do not believe such a request is in compliance with the intent of the current wetland ordinance. This proposed development, in my opinion, would have a negative impact on the current wetland that has established itself over time on this property. There are no guarantees that I am aware of that this development will not overload a near capacity drainage system. If this development does cause water problems for the existing home owners in the area, the only solution would be a very costly storm sewer system that would be a burden for the taxpayers of Mounds View. 111 This development should be denied because it requests too extensive of variances from our ordinance. Furthermore there is no significant enhancement offered by this development that I could perceive that would justify its approval . Any . hardship (financial or otherwise) suffered by the owner of this property, I believe, could be eliviated with a much smaller development in size and with less (temporary or permanent) disruption to the wetland. It is my understanding from every survey the City has conducted in the past, that the people of Mounds View are strongly committed to wetland preservation. In addition most government (state and federal ) bodies urge responsible wetland management because of this valuable resource. Your review of this proposal should also take these to heart in your decision making. Thank You. Kay Weseman elZi4ae 7807 Bona Road 4 t ' II • �� Salm Jr 4 jNfe, #4777AfI4z - / ,,,',vl /79/47 5 A L., A . _4 / 7/Ti11 grita eiCt Lei (A_ ).;)Ler 0139‘ 4 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 339-92 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE HARSTAD DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL KNOWN AS GREENFIELD ESTATES WHEREAS, Harstad Companies has requested approval of a single family development proposal known as Greenfield Estates; and WHEREAS, Harstad Companies has requested the following in order to construct their proposed development: 1. Major Subdivision (13 single family lots) 2. Wetland Zoning District Map Amendment 3 . Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Variance from the 100 foot wetland setback requirement 5. Vacation from right-of-way (ROW) 6. Park land dedication credit . 7. Conditional Use Permit for working in the flood plain; and WHEREAS, the documents included in Attachment A and approved by the City Planner were received as part of this development proposal; and WHEREAS, the Army Corps of Engineers and the City's Engineering Consultant have reviewed the existing wetland boundary and found that a discrepancy exists in the boundaries shown on the City's Official Wetland Zoning Map; and the Wetland Zoning District Amendment to reflect the existing boundaries of Wetland No. 1-19; and WHEREAS, the Developer must meet the conditions outlined in Chapter 48 . 06, Subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 in order to obtain a wetland alteration permit; and WHEREAS, the City's Engineering Consultant has reviewed the development proposed with regard to Chapter 48 . 06, Subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 and found that the request meets or exceeds the requirements; and 411 Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 339-92 Page Two of Three WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit based on the City Consultant Engineer's finding that the request meets or exceeds the applicable sections of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested a variance from the 100 foot wetland setback requirement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Staff have reviewed this request and found that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and results from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of the property, since enactment of this Code, have had no control; and WHEREAS, furthermore, the Planning Commission and City Staff have found that the request is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and does not convey certain privileges upon the applicant that are not enjoyed by other • property owners within the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance request within the 100 foot wetland setback requirement; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested a Conditional Use Permit for working in a flood plain; and WHEREAS, the City's Engineering Consultant has reviewed the development proposal and found no adverse affect upon the flood plain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approving a Conditional Use Permit for filling in a flood plain; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested vacation of City- owned right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that property be accepted in lieu of the Park Dedication Fee; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends acceptance of land in lieu of the Park Dedication fee; and • Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 339-92 Page Three of Three WHEREAS, furthermore, the Planning Commission recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission review the proposal to determine possible passive recreational uses of the land provided by the Developer; and WHEREAS, it is the practice of the Planning Commission to recommend approval or denial of a development in total. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the development proposal known as Greenfield Estates as the request meets or exceeds all requirements for development as defined within the Mounds View Municipal Code. 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 3rd day of June, 1992 . • ATTEST: Ch4-64err . a rm (SEAL) /- (- Planner / • r ATTACHMENT A • • • 1) City of Mounds View Planning Application 2) Applicant's Letter of Submittal dated October 25, 1991 3) Applicant's Development Request Narrative dated October 25, 1991 4) Department of Natural Resources letter of comment on the proposal dated October 3, 1991 5) Department of the Army letter of comment on the proposal dated November 15, 1991 6) Copies of Preliminary Plat, Grading and Drainage Plan, Wetlands Map and Utility Plan dated October 25, 1991 • •