Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-1998 PC PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 4, 1998 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 7:00 p.m., March 4, 1998. 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle, Brooks, Johnston, Obert, and Stevenson. Members absent: Commissioner Miller(Excused). Also present: Community Development Director Jopke, Planning Associate Ericson, Housing Inspector Dorgan, Council Liaison Koopmeiners(departed at 8:30 p.m.), and • Recorder Dave Hix. 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda. No citizen requests and comments for items Not on the agenda were considered. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 513-98, 8265 Spring Lake Road, Consideration of Resolution 1 No. 532-98, Denying a 7-Foot Variance to the Required 30-Foot Front-Yard Setback, Preferred Builders Inc. Planning Case No. 507-97, 2625 Highway 10, 7715 - 7761 Eastwood Road, 5 Discussion Regarding Walgreen's Development Request, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning, TOLD Development Company. • Mounds View planning Commission March 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Planning Case No. 513-98 8265 Spring Lake Road Applicant: Preferred Builders, Inc. Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a 7-foot Variance to the Required 30-foot Front-Yard Setback. The applicant, Preferred Builders, Inc., was present. Inspector Dorgan referred to the February 27, 1998 Planning Commission Memo which reminded the Commission Members that on February 18, 1998, the Commission tabled the Variance Request by Preferred Builders in order to allow the staff to get an opinion from the City Attorney in regards to language that was contained in the purchase agreement that Preferred Builders had with the EDA for the proposed property. Staff asked the City Attorney the following question: Is the City obligated to provide a • variance for the Developer to build the Minimum Improvements it desires to construct? The City Attorney responded: "The basic answer is no, since the EDA cannot generally obligate the City to grant a variance." "Likewise, pursuant to the Agreement, if a variance is necessary, it is the Developer's obligation to obtain all necessary permits, etc. for the construction of the Minimum Improvements. If the Developer can show some type of hardship (whatever that may be), a variance may then be applied for at the request of the Developer, but the Agreement itself does not require the granting of a variance. Such request would be independent of the Agreement and, pursuant to City Code, the burden of sustaining such request would be that of the Developer." Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments. Commissioner Stevenson asked if the proposed plan had been reworked to allow for the alternate four-foot variance as had been proposed at the Planning Commission Special Meeting held February 18, 1998. Darryl Westerlund, representing Preferred Builders, responded by saying the original garage width of 32' could be down sized to 28', with all of the width reduction coming out of the large garage door opening. He added the depth of the garage and the body of • the house would remain the same. • Mounds View planning Commission March 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 3 Mr. Westerlund told the Commission that many custom features are included in the house, including elliptical windows, brick, landscaping etc. The Developer feels the house, as proposed, will sell with its curb appeal. Commissioner Obert asked Director Jopke if the Housing Replacement Program had been discussed at the City Council Workshop session that had taken place the preceding week. This question was raised because the Commissioner feels that the miscommunication that has come about from the Preferred Builders Inc. project could have been avoided with some modifications to the Housing Replacement Program. Director Jopke told the Commissioners that the subject had been discussed by the Council and a resolution would be forthcoming that would address three changes to the existing policy. These changes were stated as follows: 1. Under the existing policy a tenant occupied property cannot be considered. The revision would make it possible to consider this condition on a case by case basis. 2. A suggested change to the number of criteria that a property would have to meet • to be considered for the program. 3. A change in the type of"team" that would be eligible to be involved in the program. He added nothing was discussed in the Council planning session that would relate to the Preferred Builder Inc., project. Commissioner Brooks asked the applicant what their plan was going to be if the Variance Request was denied. Mr. Westerlund told the Commission that Preferred Builders would be forced into building a smaller home with a two-car garage. He stated in the light of today's market demand for homes with three-car garages that a smaller home with the two-car garage would be harder to market. Commissioner Brasaemle stated he did not think the Developer has showed a hardship that would fill that requirement of the Variance. He added, after reviewing the Spring Parade of Homes floor plans, that there is a plan with a three-car garage that could be adapted to this piece of property that would not require a variance. • Mr. Westerlund told the Commission that Preferred Builders would gladly build a smaller home with a two-car garage if the City would cancel the current purchase agreement that • Mounds View planning Commission March 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 4 called out for the construction of a 1900 square-foot home with a three-car garage. An extended discussion was held between the Commission and the Developer as to how the existing floor plan could be modified or reoriented to fit the property limitations. Dorgan told the Commission that the purchase agreement between the EDA and Preferred Builders Inc., would have to be amended if the development specifications were changed. Commissioner Obert suggested it is not good planning to try to force a large home on a small lot just to meet the EDA's development goals. Commissioner Brasaemle made the observation that it was inappropriate for the EDA to assume that the seven-foot variance would be granted for this development. Commissioner Stevenson suggested tabling the issue one more time. The Planning Commission would ask the applicant to resubmit his plan on the basis of a four-foot variance. A second proposal should also be considered with the garage facing Arden • Avenue. Commissioner Johnston stated he would not be in favor of granting any variance if all the criteria for the variance were not met. Commissioner Stevenson asked if Resolution No. 532-98 could be modified and rewritten to indicate a four-foot variance. Motion/Second: Peterson/Stevenson to approve the Variance request to include a four-foot setback instead of a seven-foot setback as was originally requested. The basis for a hardship would be stated as a "substandard size corner lot in a City redevelopment situation " Commissioner Stevenson suggested including as one of the "Whereas" statements in the resolution, the inclusion of the required 1900 square foot building size. Commissioner Obert asked if the motion was based on accepting the house plan as submitted. Chairperson Peterson told the Commission it was his understanding that the variance was not stipulating a design,just the request for a specified setback. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to table the current motion to a later point in the evening's • • meeting. This would give the staff the time it needs to modify the existing resolution. • Mounds View planning Commission March 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 5 Ayes - 3 Nays - 3 (Obert, Johnston, Brasaemle) The motion failed. Motion/Second: Obert/Stevenson to table the first motion to approve the four-foot variance request. This will give the Developer the opportunity to resubmit a plan. Approval of the motion will also give City staff the time it needs to rewrite the resolution. The request will come up for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting. Ayes - 4 Nays - 2 (Brasaemle, Johnston) The motion passed. 5. Planning Case No. 507-97 2625 Highway 10,7715-7761 Eastwood Applicant: TOLD Development Inc. IP Discussion Regarding Walgreen's Development Request, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. The applicant, TOLD Development Company, was not present. Associate Ericson addressed the Commission with the following report: The Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, Dan Soler, responded to Mr. Ericson's request for the County to review Walgreen's Development Plan and related traffic study. Ramsey County made the following recommendations/comments: 1. Ramsey County supported the closure of Eastwood Road on to County Road I, citing its closeness to Highway 10 and operational problems of the intersection. 2. Ramsey County agrees that access from Walgreen's onto County Road I will not negatively impact traffic. The proposed median will not have to be extended along County Road I past the eastbound left turn into and out of the site. 3. A Mn/DOT study identifies construction of a westbound right turn lane on County Road I at Highway 10 as part of the geometric improvements to the Highway 10 Corridor. Ramsey County recommends that the construction of this right turn lane . be part of Walgreen's Development, with construction of this right turn lane being . Mounds View planning Commission March 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 6 made as a condition of the City's approval of the development. 4. Ramsey County agrees that the traffic diverted from Highway 10 by TH 118/610 will eventually return to pre-TH 118/610 completion levels. 5. The developer will be required to obtain access permits from Ramsey County for access and construction on County Road I. Associate Ericson also presented traffic accident statistics as follows: Over the past two years, from January 1, 1996, to the end of 1997, there were 18 accidents at the corner of County Road I and Highway 10. Four of these accidents occurred from periods at 10.00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. The remaining accidents were pedestrian related, cars hitting non-moving objects, property damage and no loss of-life accidents. Over a four-year period on County Road I and Long Lake Road there were five accidents. All of these were people exiting out of Mounds View Square. 6. Staff Reports/Information Items Recap of 2/26/98 Highway 10 Design Theme Workshop(verbal report) Director Jopke told the Commissioners that Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., the City's consultant for the Highway 10 Design Theme has held two workshops. The initial workshop was a fact finding workshop to determine the historically important items that the City would want to be included in the design theme. In the sccond workshop two different themes were brought forth: The Woodlands and Wetlands Theme, and the second one being The Main Street Theme. Signage to the City's main entries, nature features of the City, landscaping, walk ways, and other characteristics of the City were discussed as possible themes that would be included in the upcoming designs. Jopke had several visual aids that were used to give the Commissioners an idea of how the Highway 10 Corridor's design was progressing. Director Jopke told the Commission the City Council would ultimately be the ones to adopt the concept. Once this process is accomplished the Planning Commission would be involved in the process of working with the developers and contractors. Associate Ericson briefly reviewed the City's effort to control nuisance vehicles. Letters were sent to 237 property owners who own vehicles that are in apparent violation of the • Mounds View planning Commission March 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 7 City's nuisance code. To date, only 64 of the residents sent notices have responded. The substance of the letter was updated after the first round of letters were sent out as a result of negative feedback. Associate Ericson told the Commission the Silver View Project is going before the Council on Monday, March 9, for their consideration. Commissioner Stevenson asked when the Planning Commission would see plans for the theater development. Director Jopke told the Commission he anticipated seeing the plan within the next few weeks. Chairperson Peterson asked about the town home development on Long Lake Road. Jopke said to date there had been no applications submitted for that project. 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner Reports • No Chairperson or Planning Commissioner's Reports were considered. 8. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting There being no further business before the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m. (The Regular Meeting adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director • Planning Comm. Mtg March 4, 1998 Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Gft/ fmn,, ,J Q o,5. � c�,� e-it-Qle-is s LeY 6 - cI �ut4.�11P y6Am0`\, /061ek 5-5 G44 -(190 • •