Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-1997 • PROCEEDINGS FO THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 3, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2410 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:05 p.m., September 3, 1997. 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle, Brooks, Johnston, Miller, Obert, and Stevenson. Members absent: None • Also present: Planning Associate Ericson, City Council Liaison Koopmeiners, Recorder Dave Hix. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 487-97 and 504-97, 2627-2655 Highway 10, 2 Development Review of the revised site plan for Silver Lake Commons Residential development, and Minor Subdivision to combine two vacant lots into one onto which ten townhouse-styled dwellings would be constructed. 3. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda William Werner Sr., 2765 Sherwood Road, told the Commissioners that he is a member of the Charter Commission, and as such, has been observing how the Planning Commission works in comparison with that organization. Mr. Werner said that he was puzzled as to what criteria the Planning Commission uses to cast votes in its approval/disapproval process of the various actions that come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brooks and Chairperson Peterson answered by stating that the Staff • does research on the issues regarding Code compliance and any other issues that are Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 2 pertinent to a given application/request. After this process is done the Planning Commission is presented with the findings so that it may make a decision based on the appropriate facts. Commissioner Miller told Werner that each Commission member has a book containing with copies of the City's current Codes and Ordinances. Each application/request that comes before the Commission is studied to make sure that all applicable Codes and Ordinances are considered before a decision is made. Mr. Werner asked how much the citizens' opinions are considered in the decision making process. Commissioner Brasaemle stated that decisions are made by the Planning Commission based on if the particular request/application meets the guidelines set by the City's Codes and Ordinances and personal feelings have to be left out of the decision making process. Mr. Werner stated that his perception is that the Commission is making decisions without having all of the facts that might pertain to a given request/application. He added, in his • opinion, the City does not have a good overall comprehensive development plan. 4. Planning Case No. 487-97 and 504-97 2637-2655 Highway 10 Applicant: MSP Real Estate Development Review of the revised site plan for Silver Lake Commons residential development, and Minor Subdivision to combine two vacant lots into one onto which ten townhouse-styled dwellings would be constructed. The applicant, MSP Real Estate, was present. Associate Ericson gave the Commission a brief background on the case as follows: There are two actions before the Commission for consideration: (1) the development review and (2) a Minor Subdivision which is required to combine the two vacant lots that would make up the property for the new townhomes. This property development was proposed under an earlier development plan that was approved and then tabled by the City Council. The City-owned parcel of property that was to be developed as part of this project is being considered for other development opportunities. • Associate Ericson continued by stating the revised development will have 10 townhomes Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 3 instead of the originally planned 16. The complete renovation of the Red Oak apartments is still included in the revised development plan. All dimensional requirements, drainage and ponding, access and parking, landscaping and easement issues have been addressed by the applicant. He added that there are some clarifications that need to be made in regards to the originally planned chain-link fence. Consideration should also be given to entering into an easement with the neighboring property to allow for a pedestrian access to Eastwood Road at the northeast corner of the property. Associate Ericson addressed the Minor Subdivision stating the park dedication requirement will need to be met. He stated the easement requirements and changes to the survey would have to have proper documentation. Other issues needing to be resolved by MSP Real Estate: the new Red Oak Apartment garages and attached office and recreation area cross the lot line between the apartments and proposed lot for the townhome dwellings, and the driveway for the apartments would need to be relocated to the townhomes lot, and a shared access driveway easement recorded with the county. Associate Ericson stated that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 528-97, a resolution recommending approval of a development review • request for MSP Real Estate, provided the City Engineer has approved the drainage plan, subject to stipulations. Associate Ericson stated that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 529-97, a resolution recommending approval of a minor subdivision request of MSP Real Estate to combine the two vacant parcels south of the apartments into one lot, provided staff has resolved the two issues described above, subject to stipulations. Milo Pinkerton, president of MSP Real Estate, stated the development review before the Commission is to approve the development review based on the fact that all code and ordinances issues have been met. Commissioner Stevenson asked if there was an income level change based on a reduction from 16 townhome units to 10; many of the units will be of the subsidized type. He also asked the applicant to address, for the public, the approximate rise in the rent that would take place because of the upgrade planned for the Red Oak Apartments. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the townhomes will rent for $650-$750 with the tenant paying their own utilities. The apartment rates will go up to $520 for a one-bedroom and $590 for two-bedroom apartments. He added that the number of subsidized units is still ten, as • it was in the original development. Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 4 Chairperson Peterson opened the floor to the public for comments and questions. David Janke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that the City of Mounds View has met and exceeded all of the State and Federal statistics for the allowable number of rental facilities for a community of its size. He added that he had taken a personal survey, door-to-door in some cases, and he has not been able to find any of the citizens in favor of the project being proposed by MSP. Mr. Janke asked the Commission to listen to the voice of the community and vote for denying the application for this project. Jerry Linke, 2319 Knoll Drive, stated that he, too, is of the opinion that there are too many rental units in the City of Mounds View. He stated that the citizens, through their taxes, would be subsidizing the property taxes on these rental units if they are built. Mr. Linke stated that the City needs business and not more residential rental units. Ralph Mathis, 2907 Sherwood place, stated that he is a new resident in Mounds View and he and his family are very concerned about the number of residential rental units within the City and how it will affect people that are considering building private homes in Mounds View. 111 L.W. Stigney, 7841 Eastwood Road, stated that he has done a signature gathering campaign and has found major opposition within Pinewood, Irondale, and Silver Lake Commons to the development that is being proposed by MSP Real Estate. The overall opinion in these door-to-door surveys is no more rental units within the City of Mounds View. He added that his daughter will have to attend a different school because the proposed project is making it necessary to rezone the school boundaries. Associate Ericson reiterated for the public the fact that the property is zoned multi-family residential. The proposed project is a permitted use within these guidelines. Mike Coons, 7851 Eastwood, stated his opposition to the proposed project and there are already too many apartments within the City of Mounds View. He added that there aren't enough services as it is to justify the high taxes that are paid by residents of the City. Jan Delaney, 8273 Greenwood, stated as a school teacher she is concerned that there will be children living and playing so close to the Highway 10 traffic. Ken Beneke, 8390 Sunnyside Road, stated that he is a retired school teacher and in his opinion rental properties are harmful for the community because the transitionary nature of the residents who occupy the units makes for unstable school and home lives for the children. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 5 Mr. Werner asked if the staff is recommending approval of this project. Associate Ericson stated that the staff is recommending approval of the project because it meets all of the necessary code and ordinance requirements as set forth in the R-3 zoning. He added that it is not the staffs charge to have subjective feelings enter into the issue. Judy Hermann, 8273 Eastwood, asked if the property was zoned R-3 how could the City go about getting bids on commercial projects for the site. She continued by asking if the property was specifically rezoned for Mr. Pinkerton. Chairperson Peterson stated that the current zoning is dictated by the Comprehensive Plan. Richard Hermann, 8273 Eastwood Road, stated that the City needs to look at some common sense issues and "how many apartments does the City actually need?" He added if rezoning is the only option then it should be done. Commission Obert stated that the property owner has the right to develop the property • as he wants and he has legal rights as the property owner. Chairperson Peterson added that spot zoning could not be done. Commissioner Brasaemle stated for the public that any application/request that comes before the City has a time period in which a yes-or-no decision has to be made by the City. Chairperson Peterson added that this time period is 60 days and if a decision is not made within that time period the application.request is automatically passed; this is a State law. • - • :. Commissioner Stevenson said he would like to make a motion to table Planning Case Nos. 487-97 and 504-97 because of all of the opposition and questions that are being raised by the public. Chairperson Peterson asked for a second to the motion, there was none. Motion failed due to a lack of a second. Motion/second: Brooks/Miller to recommend approval of Planning Commission Resolution 528- 97, a resolution recommending approval of a development review for MSP Real Estate, provided • the City Engineer has approved the drainage plan, subject to stipulations, as amended, and Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1997 iRegular Meeting Page 6 Planning Commission Resolution 529-97, a resolution recommending approval of a minor subdivision request of MSP Real Estate to combine the two vacant parcels south of the apartments into one lot, provided staff has resolved the two issues described, subject to stipulations, as amended. Ayes - 4 Nays - 3 (Stevenson, Brasaemle, Obert) Motion carried. Chairperson Peterson opened the floor to the dissenting voters for comments. Commissioner Obert stated his opposition is based on the Focus 2000 Study that recommends commercial development for the Highway 10 corridor and the citizens' feelings that there are too many rental units in the City of Mounds View. Commissioner Stevenson also stated that the Highway 10 corridor cannot support any more apartment rental units and the area should be developed commercially. Commissioner Brasaemle stated that his primary objection is that residential rental units along Highway 10 is not an appropriate use of the property. He added that he would like to see the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning of the property amended to change the property to a commercial application. Commissioner Johnston stated that he voted for the project because it meets all of the required criteria as set out by City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission's charge is not to be subjective, but to make decisions based on facts. Commissioner Miller agreed with Johnston and added that the developer has the right to develop the property within the boundaries set by the Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Chairperson Peterson agreed with Miller and Johnston and added that the Commission does not have the right to subjectively make a decision on the project. He added that Mounds View doesn't need any more high density residential units. Commissioner Brooks stated that the Comprehensive Plan and the Code were met by MSP and the developer has the right to proceed with the project. 5. Staff Reports/Information Items 41 Associate Ericson told the Commission that the Silverview Estates PUD is hoping to Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 7 have all unresolved issues before the Commission at the September 17, 1997 Special Meeting of the Planning Commission. 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner Reports There were no reports from the Chairperson or Commissioners. 7. Adjournment to the Agenda Session. Chairperson Peterson adjourned the regular meeting at 9:32 p.m. (The agenda session was held immediately following adjournment of the regular session.) Respectfully submitted, James Ericson • Acting Community Development Director • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 528-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SILVER LAKE COMMONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AT 2637- 2665 HIGHWAY 10; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 487-97 WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate, Inc. has applied for a development review to renovate the existing Red Oak Apartments and to construct ten townhouse-styled dwelling units on the parcels located at 2637 -2655 Highway 10, property zoned R-3 and R-4, medium and high density residential, legally described as follows: LOTS 79 THROUGH 82 AND LOT 83, EXCEPT THE REAR 150 FEET THEREOF; SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23, RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for this and similar projects; and, • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made findings that the application from MSP Real Estate, Inc. meets the dimensional requirements as stated below: Required Proposed: Met? Building Setbacks: Front(Highway 10): 30 feet 30 feet Yes Side(East) 20 feet 30 feet Yes Rear: 40 feet 48 feet Yes Parking Lot Setbacks: 5 feet 5 feet Yes Minimum lot width: 100 feet 200 feet Yes Minimum lot area: (2,500 sf per D.U.): 10 New Units 25,000 sf 57,030 sf Yes 50 Total Units 125,000 sf 127,665 sf Yes Usable Open Space per unit (625 sf per D.U.): 10 New Units 6,250 sf 20,000 sf Yes New buildings height: <45 feet 30 feet Yes Minimum floor area per D.U.: Three bedroom units: 870 sq.ft. 1,320 sq.ft. Yes Four bedroom units: 920 sq.ft. 1,620 sq.ft. Yes Parking requirements: Uncovered: (1.15 per unit) 58 spaces 58 spaces Yes * Covered: (1.0 per unit) 50 spaces 51 spaces Yes *On July 16, 1997,the Planing Commission approved Resolution 513-97,which approved a reduction in the ratio of surface parking stalls per dwelling unit from 1.5 to 1.15, contingent upon the balance being set aside as proof ofparking,which could be utilized in the future as needed. Planning Commission Resolution No.528-97 Silver Lake Commons Development Review September 3, 1997 . Page 2 WHEREAS, on July 16, 1997, the Planning Commission in Resolution 514-97 recommended approval of the development review request for the Silver Lake Commons residential development; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 1997, The Mounds View City Council in Resolution 5144 approved the development review request for the Silver Lake Commons residential development;and, WHEREAS, the site plans for the Silver Lake Commons Residential Development have been amended to exclude the City-owned parcel at 2625 Highway 10 thus necessitating a reapproval of the development; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the landscape plan as proposed satisfies the requirements of the Code as amended in the stipulations below; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the drainage plan for this site and has found it acceptable and consistent with the Master Drainage Plan previously approved by the City Council and Rice Creek Watershed District; and, • WHEREAS, the City Fire Marshal has reviewed the site plans and finds the layout meets Fire Department requirements for emergency vehicle access. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the development review for the Silver Lake Commons development project proposed by MSP Real Estate, Inc. be approved subject to the following stipulations: 1. Prior to action by the City Council on this development review, the applicant shall: a. Revise the landscape plan to show a row of tree or shrub plantings along the property line adjacent to the City-owned property to act as a screen between the proposed residences and any future use of the City property. b. Revise the parking layout to show one additional parking space so that the count of surface parking is 58 spaces with 17 additional spaces set aside as future parking for a total of 75 possible surface spaces. c. Add a note to the site plan which states: "A variance in required parking ratios was approved for this property by • Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97. The parking ratios approved for this property are as follows: Planning Commission Resolution No. 528-97 Silver Lake Commons Development Review September 3, 1997 • Page 3 1.15 surface space per dwelling unit 1 garage space per dwelling unit The property owner is obligated to build up to an additional 17 parking spaces, which would meet the parking ratios required by the Zoning Code, if deemed necessary by the City based on future parking patterns and evidence that parking needs cannot be satisfied on-site. The property owner shall be notified in writing that additional parking must be built,.and upon such notice, shall construct the additional parking within 3 months, with consideration for weather conditions. " d. Add a note to the site plan which states, "All non-landscaped pervious surfaces are to be sodded" No seeded areas are to be allowed. e. Obtain a permanent drainage easement for that area on 7800 Eastwood Road to be regraded for drainage and flood control purposes. The easement shall be executed prior to approval of the development review by the City Council. f. Revise the site plan to show a chain link fence along the property line ilk adjacent to the City-owned parcel to be tied into the south end of the six unit townhouse building. 2. Prior to obtaining any building permits or grading permits, the applicant shall perform the following: a. Obtain permit approval from MnDOT for the relocation of the entrance to the project area, the construction of a right turn lane into the project, an acceleration lane for right turns exiting the project and for any regrading within the MnDOT right of way. b. A development contract shall be drafted and reviewed by the applicant. It shall include surety for construction of the Highway 10 right of way improvements. The contract shall be executed prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall obtain a ten-foot wide pedestrian easement from either of the two neighboring properties abutting Eastwood Road (either 2625 Highway 10 or 7800 Eastwood Road)to allow for a gated pedestrian way from the Silver Lake Commons development to Eastwood Road. 3. Approval of this development review request shall be contingent upon City Council approval of the subdivision request for this development. Planning Commission Resolution No. 528-97 Silver Lake Commons Development Review September 3, 1997 • Page 4 BE IT FURTHER 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 September, 1997. W:v"" Je Pet son, Chairperson ATTEST: j-rAAAA.us James Ericson, Planning Associate (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\CUMDEV\DEVCASES\487-971AMENDED.RES • •