Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-1997 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 5, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2410 Highway 10, Mounds View , MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:58 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Commissioners Brasaemle, Brooks, Johnston, Obert, Stevenson and Chair Peterson. Members absent: Commissioner Miller(excused). Also present: Community Development Director Jopke; Planning Associate Ericson; • Council Liaison Koopmeiners; and Recorder Dave Hix. 3. Approval of Minutes a. September 17, 1997 b. October 1, 1997 Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Stevenson to approve the meeting minutes from September 17, 1997 (Special), and October 1, 1997 (Regular) as submitted. • \ . - Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Kathleen Burding, 5085 Sunnyside Road addressed the Commission in regards to having a parking ordinance changed. She stated that parking for her residential neighborhood is restricted from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Ms. Burding presented the Commission with a signed petition from her neighbors asking • that the parking restrictions be lifted. She added that the parking has nothing to do with overflow from the school that is near her neighborhood. 410 Mounds View Planning Commission November 5, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 2 Ms. Burding continued stating that the history of the parking ban was such that twenty years ago parking was a problem because not all of the properties had driveways for off- street parking. Currently all properties have ample driveway space for their own vehicles. Ms. Burding, told the Commission that what she and her neighbors are asking for is that parking be allowed on the street during the day, with the same regulations for snow considerations that the rest of the City has. Chair Peterson asked Ms. Burding if she had spoken to anyone from the City about the request and if not, the best approach would be to address the City staff to get the issue placed on the City Council agenda and deal directly with the City Council on the problem. Associate Ericson recommended that Ms. Burding go to Chuck Whiting, the City Administrator, and that he could help Ms. Burding get the process moving in the right direction. No other request or comments were considered from the citizens. 5. Staff Reports/Information Items a. City Council Action, 10/27/97 (Verbal Report by Jim Ericson) Associate Ericson discussed two actions of relevance to the Planning Commission. The first regarded a wetland alteration permit and easement vacation requested by Good Value Homes for two lots on Pinewood Circle. The City Council looked at the plans and had questions as to why the easement was dedicated in the first place. City Attorney Bob Long was directed to research why the easement is there and will report to the City. The second issue regarded the Everest Group major subdivision, which the Council passed. The resubdivision is for the Mounds View Business Park East 2nd Addition, b. City Council Worksession, 11/3/97 (Verbal Report by Rick Jopke) Director Jopke addressed the Commissioners and reviewed a list of agenda items that had been discussed at the City Council worksession on 11/3/97. The items addressed included a general discussion with Representative Evans; a presentation of an engineering study concerning the current City Hall, with the different options available to correct problems; and the Ring Road development. • • Mounds View Planning Commission November 5, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 3 c. Summary of the Ring Road Community Meeting, 10/28/97 Director Jopke addressed the Commissioners regarding the commuinty meeting held at Pinewood Elementary School, which was attended by many residents. Many important issues were discussed, most important of which appeared to be traffic and the impacts to neighboring residential districts. Commissioner Obert asked what was happening with the 8005 Groveland Road project. Associate Ericson told the Commissioners that the property belonged to the Blanchard's and the property had two different appraisals: one by the City's appraiser and one by the owner's appraiser. There is a $10,000 dollar difference between the two appraisals and this difference will need to be resolved before the owners are willing to sell the property. This property is part of the housing replacement program. Director Jopke added that the Blanchard property is also being looked at as part of the Highway 10 redevelopment. • The Commissioners discussed the negative feed back that the community is giving to the ring road concept and how unfair this criticism is in light of the fact that the ring road at this time is just a concept. Director Jopke told the Commission that there had been some discussion with Charlie Hall, the owner of the Mermaid property. Mr. Hall had approached the City requesting tax increment assistance so he could develop his banquet hall in conjunction with the Mermaid facility. As it turns out the banquet facility does not generate enough tax increment to support the kind of assistance that he is looking for. Mr. Hall was made aware of these circumstances and was told that a hotel development would be needed . . ..- .. .1 - .. . ' ' make the tax increment scenario work. Mr. Hall has talked with a developer that would be interested in a hotel project and the development process is moving forward. Director Jopke suggested that the City take steps to investigate other possible developments along County Road H, the properties adjoining the Mermaid site. d. Comprehensive Plan Commissioner Brooks asked if the Comprehensive Plan review would be done as a regular part of the Planning Commission meeting agendas. • Chair Peterson stated that the Comprehensive Plan review procedure is made part of the Mounds View Planning Commission November 5, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 4 Planning Commission regular agendas. Commission Stevenson suggested that along with the two monthly meetings that are now scheduled for the Planning Commission that a third meeting be scheduled for Comprehensive Plan review issues only. Commissioner Brasaemle suggested that the Comprehensive Plan review agenda items be made part of the regularly planned Commission meetings as long as time allowed. He added, if the regular session agendas get too full to handle the Comprehensive Plan review, then a third meeting could be scheduled. Director Jopke suggested that a task force could be established to handle the Comprehensive Plan review. The Commission unanimously stated that in light of past experiences with the task force scenario that they would prefer the Planning Commission as a whole to review the Comprehensive Plan. • Commissioner Johnston asked if there would be a new Comprehensive Plan use map drawn up. Director Jopke stated that one of the functions of the Plan review is to create an up- dated-use map and implementation schedule. Commissioner Stevenson stated that the Comprehensive Plan review is also a time for any rezoning that might take place. Director Jopke asked the commissioners to review and make any comments/suggestions on the Proposed Work Program that was included in the agenda packets for each Commissioner. Director Jopke asked the Commissioners how they wanted to handle community input for the Comprehensive Plan review. Commissioner Brooks suggested advertisement through the Mounds View Matters. Commissioner Obert suggested that the City Staff create a schedule that could be printed in the local media. This open forum schedule would make it possible for all interested parties to participate in the review process. • • Mounds View Planning Commission November 5, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 5 Commissioner Brasaemle suggested an informative article in the Mounds View Matters that fully explains what the Comprehensive Plan is. Director Jopke suggested structuring the forums according to the eleven districts into which the Comprehensive Plan is divided. The Commissioners unanimously agreed that the district approach, combining planning districts as appropriate in three meetings, would be the best alternative. 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner Reports No reports were considered from the Chairperson or Commissioners. 7. Adjournment There being no further business before the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m. • Respectfully submitted, Sop Rick Jopke Community Development Director • •