HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-1998 PC • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
March 18, 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 18, 1998.
2. Roll Call
Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle,Miller,Brooks
(departed at 9:00 p.m.), Obert, and Stevenson.
Members absent: Commissioner Johnston (excused)
Also present; Planning Associate Ericson, Housing Inspector Dorgan, Council Liaison
• Koopmeiners (arrived 7:45 p.m.), and Recorder Dave Hix.
3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda.
There were no citizen requests and comments.
Index to Minutes Page
Planning Case No. 513-98, 8265 Spring Lake Road, Consideration of Resolution 2
No. 532-98, Approving a Four 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, 4
Consideration of Resolution No. 536-98 Regarding the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning Request for Walgreen's Development, TOLD Development.
Planning Case No. 515-98, 5394 Edgewood Drive, Discussion Regarding Development 9
for the Mounds View Community Center(formerly Bel-Rae Ballroom),
City of Mounds View.
•
• Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 2
4. Approval of Minutes
A. February 4, 1998 (Regular)
B. February 18, 1998 (Special)
Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to approve the February 4, 1998 (Regular)and February 18,
1998 (Special)meeting minutes as corrected.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0
5.
Planning Case No. 513-98
8265 Spring Lake Road
Applicant: Preferred Builders,Inc.
Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a Four Foot Variance to the Required 30-foot
Front Yard Setback.
4111 The applicant, Preferred Builders, Inc. was present.
Inspector Dorgan reviewed the Planning Commission Memo dated March 18, 1998. At
the March 4, 1998 Planning Commission regular meeting the Commission tabled the first
version of Planning Case 513-98, a variance request to deny a seven-foot variance to the
Required 30-foot front-yard setback. City staff had indicated the need for the additional
time to draft a variance that reflected the builder's compromise to allow for a four-foot
variance to the required 30-foot front yard setback.
Formal action was requested on the variance request so the City would be in compliance
with Minnesota State Statues that specify formal action within a 60-day time period.
Chairperson Peterson turned the floor over to the applicant for his comments.
Darryl Westerlund, representative for Preferred Builders, Inc., introduced the
Commission to Bruce Fulcan, the independent home designer that Preferred Builders uses
to design their house plans. Mr. Westerlund said much time and effort had been expended
trying to come up with a workable house plan or rework the proposed plan for the property
in question. To date, the designer has had no luck in this process.
Mr. Westerlund told the Commission Preferred Builders would be willing to build a
• smaller home on the lot, but this would take an amendment to the purchase agreement as it
now is written.
. Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 3
Chair Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments.
Commissioner Miller asked what the encroachment had been of the home that previously
occupied the lot.
Inspector Dorgan told the Commission the previous home had been 19.1 feet from the
property line.
Commissioner Brasaemle thanked Preferred Builders for the time and effort that was put
in to researching, at his request, other home plans for the site.
Commissioner Obert suggested building an oversized two car garage, to comply with the
building foot print requirements, as opposed to an undersized three car garage.
Mr.Westerlund answered by saying an oversized two car garage would be very close in
size to an undersized three car garage.
Commissioner Brasaemle stated a 44' wide house with a two car garage still has a
• problem because the house itself has to be 10'from the side property line, the garage only
has to be 5' from the side property line. So the problem is not the garage, the problem is
the width of the house. The house with no garage at all would still require a four foot
variance.
Commissioner Stevenson stated he was inclined to vote in favor of the variance because
the City knew the lot was undersized when they bought it. It was also known that a
variance would be required to make the property workable within the EDA requirement
that a 1900 square foot home be built on the property.
Motion/Second: Peterson/Miller to approve the version of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a
Four Foot Variance to the Required 30-foot Front Yard Setback.
Commission Obert stated his agreement with Commissioners Brasaemle and Stevenson,
except for one point; that point being this particular development does not fall under the
City's Housing Replacement Projects.
Chair Peterson suggested as part of the Whereas statements, on Page 2, language should
be added to the second Whereas that says, "No new corner lots would be platted with this
substandard size." The only situations that would not apply would be already existing
properties that are substandard and the home on the property was going to be totally
replaced.
• The Commissioners agreed.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 4
Chair Peterson asked for a vote on the motion on the floor.
Ayes - 4 Nays -2 (Brasaemle, Obert)
The motion carried.
Commissioner Brasaemle made his opposition statement as follows: The EDA put the
builder in the unfortunate position of having to do the dirty work of acquiring a
controversial variance on a property that the EDA knew was substandard and that the
builder would have a problem getting the variance granted. The EDA, in effect, forced the
Planning Commission to grant a variance on a project that it would not normally approve.
Commissioner Obert made his opposition statement as follows: The first opportunity the
City had to do something right with the Housing Replacement Program they decided to go
around the rules. Obert said he disagrees with this approach to problem solving.
6.
• Planning Case No. 507-97
2625 Highway 10, 7715-7761 Eastwood Road
Applicant: TOLD Development Company
Consideration of Resolution No. 536-98 Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Rezoning Request for Walgreen's Development.
The applicant, TOLD Development Company, was present.
Associate Ericson reviewed the Planning Commission Memo dated March 18, 1998
.. . .. - •. . • • a • •• • is. '• s -'. .in i he March 4 1998 Plannin. Commission
meeting where accident data for County Road I between Long Lake Road and Highway 10
was discussed. Also discussed at this meeting was accident data for the intersection of
Highway 10 and County Road I.
Impact to values of adjacent properties was discussed. The American Planning
Association's(APA) research division was contacted and information was requested that
would help shed some light on how the Walgreen's Development would impact the
surrounding neighborhood. The information had not been received at the time of the
March 18, 1998 meeting. As soon as the information becomes available the Commission
and public will be brought up to date on this issue.
• TOLD Development is still involved in negotiations with the neighboring property owners
on how best to resolve the water drainage and property devaluation issues.
• Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 5
New information brought to the Commission and public's attention was presented as
follows: Ramsey County will require that the developer improve the intersection of
County Road I and Highway 10 by constructing a right-turn lane on westbound County
Road I onto Highway 10. This construction, it is believed, will prevent stacking of
vehicles beyond the proposed Walgreen's access on County Road I.
MnDOT has stated it will not permit the currently proposed right-in right-out access onto
Highway 10 due to the following:
1. Its close proximity to the intersection of the highway and County Road I.
2. The property has an alternative means of access to the property via County Road I.
Staff has enlisted the advice of Mounds View Public Works Director,Mike Ulrich,to
assess the possibility of adding some type of traffic calming measures to Greenwood Drive.
This step could possibly reduce or slow down traffic passing through the neighborhood.
Associate Ericson told the Commission the City Attorney has advised staff that
Comprehensive Plan amendments require a public hearing to be held not only with the
City Council but also with the Planning Commission. Therefore, no action can be taken
•
on Resolution 536-98 until after the Public Hearing that is scheduled for April 1, 1998,
7:00 p.m., at the City Hall.
Chair Peterson turned the floor over to TOLD Development for its presentation.
Bob Cunningham, representative for TOLD Development, addressed the Commission as
follows: The right-turn on County Road I, as proposed by MnDOT, is acceptable with the
developer and they will fund this construction.
TOLD is of the opinion that the issue of the right-in right-out access is being passed
around from person to person at MnDOT. At first MnDOT indicated that the right-in
right-out access scenario would be acceptable. At a later date, with a different person from
MnDOT reviewing the plan, it was decided the access scenario would not be acceptable.
Currently the plan is in the hands of Michael Christiansen, who has indicated the City of
Mounds View has the right to grant the development access to Highway 10 over the
objection of MnDOT staff. If the City disregards MnDOT's recommendations, it is up to
MnDOT's staff to object to this decision. This is important for two reasons:
1. Access to the Walgreen store.
2. To keep as much traffic off of County Road I as possible.
110
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 6
TOLD is recommending that funds be set aside in an escrow account to construct the
traffic calming devices. Input from the Greenwood neighborhood residents will be
encouraged.
Associate Ericson requested that the Commission review the ordinance as it was drafted
and review Resolution 536-98. Staff is looking for feedback in regards to needed changes
and also, if it is possible for the Commission to indicate if they are leaning toward
approving or denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Request.
Commissioner Miller suggested several grammatical changes, which Ericson said he
would correct. She also questioned the reference to MnDOT's review of the process. It
was suggested that MnDOT has not given a definitive answer to the intersection
construction that would be part of this project.
Chair Peterson made reference to text that referred to a sidewalk. "The City would
require that a sidewalk would extend to the site from Long Lake Road", he suggested this
section of the Resolution would be the place to amplify Ericson's earlier comments in
regards to where a sidewalk will be built and who is going to cover the cost of the
• sidewalk.
Commissioner Stevenson asked if there were plans for a designated crosswalk from the
Walgreen property to Mounds View Square.
Commissioner Brasaemle said he would be very concerned about having a crosswalk
mid-block. He said, "Paint on the street isn't going to cut it", referring to cars that are
currently ignoring pedestrian-safety zones.
Commissioner Stevenson stated that people go around the corner very fast at the
intersection of Highway 10 and County Road I, making a crosswalk located there very
dangerous.
Chair Peterson opened the floor to the public for questions and comments.
Carol Arel, 7750 Greenwood Drive, said she would not send her children down a sidewalk
by themselves on County Road I to get to a Walgreen's store. She said, "A crosswalk is not
going to make cars stop." Her opinion was stated in favor of having a sidewalk all the way
to Long Lake Road.
Gayla Keyes, 7730 Greenwood Drive, asked if the City had contacted an assessor to have
an official evaluation of the impact that the Walgreen's Development would have on the
• adjacent neighborhood.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 7
Associate Ericson told Ms. Keyes the City has contracted with the American Planning
Association who is doing research into what other studies have been done specific to the
issue of how developments can affect the surrounding neighborhoods. The information is
forthcoming.
Ms. Keyes told the Commission she had been in touch with the Attorney General's Office.
They have indicated the City of Mounds View would ultimately be financially responsible
for any negative impact that the development would have on the adjacent neighborhood
property values.
Commissioner Brasaemle told Ms. Keyes that the City Attorney would be the appropriate
person to respond to her statement.
Chair Peterson opened the floor for discussion of the Commission's possible leanings on
the Walgreen's Development.
Commissioner Obert stated the people he has talked to, and feedback he has gotten from
the community forums, indicates the citizens of the community want any commercial
• development that takes place within the City to be restricted to the Highway 10 corridor.
Commissioner Brasaemle observed that the Walgreen's Development isn't strictly limited
to Highway 10, and this is the dilemma of this development.
Ms.Arel asked the Commission to what extent the City was going to allow commercial
development to encroach on residentially zoned areas.
Commissioner Brasaemle asked Ms. Arel to keep in mind the fact that commercial
developments are the base for the City's tax revenues. Commercial taxes subsidize the
residential use of City services.
Chair Peterson stated that access to the commercial areas is the one element that will keep
the commercial developments centralized to the Highway 10 corridor and out of the
neighborhood residential areas. It is not convenient to get off of a major road to access
commercial business.
Ms. Keyes made the observation that quite a lot of the commercial development that is
going on in the City is TIF funded. She stated that these TIF funded projects don't add
anything to the immediate tax base.
Commissioner Brasaemle responded by saying the Walgreen Development is not a TIF
• assisted project.
• Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 8
Ms.Arel told the Commission that they would be setting a precedent by rezoning the
residential areas to commercial for the Walgreen development.
Commissioner Brasaemle told Ms. Arel that the this Planning Commission was very
sensitive to the issue of rezoning residential property into commercial property. He added
that this Commission is not interested in encouraging a major effort to see a wide swath of
property through Mounds View turned into commercial property. The properties that have
frontage on, and adjacent to Highway 10, are the areas that are being considered for
commercial development.
Commissioner Brasaemle said he is still undecided on the Walgreen's Development issue
and asked the staff to develop resolutions to cover both the approval and denial of the
project.
Commissioner Miller stated she, too, is still undecided about the project.
Commissioner Obert stated he is having trouble making a decision whether to support or
to deny the project. The City does need to take advantage of its commercial development
• potential in order to keep the City's services at a reasonable level for the residents of the
City.
Chair Peterson stated commercial properties are worth more than residential properties,
thus producing more tax revenue. Strictly from a financial point of view the Walgreen's
Development is very good for the City of Mounds View. The role of the Planning
Commission is to try and figure out which course is best for the City's businesses and the
City's residents. The two issues have to be balanced against each other. He added, he,too,
is undecided but leaning toward approval of the project.
Ms. Keyes and the Commission had an extensive discussion in regards to how the
Walgreen's Development might effect the adjacent properties' ability to handle water
runoff.
Commissioner Stevenson reminded Ms. Keyes that TOLD Development has offered to
grade the development site in an effort to alleviate water problems occuring in the adjacent
properties. This work could be made as a condition of the development agreement.
Associate Ericson informed the Commission that this item would be on the April 1 agenda
at which time Staff would provide a report which addresses these issues.
i
• Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 9
7.
Planning Case No. 515-98
5394 Edgewood Drive
Applicant: The City of Mounds View
Discussion Regarding Development Request for the Mounds View Community Center(formerly
Bel-Rae Ballroom)
The applicant, The City of Mounds View, was present.
Associate Ericson told the Commission the staff report for the project is still not ready for
presentation. In light of this development, staff is recommending that Planning Case No.
515-98 be tabled to a future meeting when more information is available.
Issues that will need to be addressed when the case does comes before the Commission
will be :
1. A possible code amendment.
• 2. Possible rezoning to allow a particular use in the area.
3. Development review.
4. Wetland alteration.
5. A public hearing at the Council level.
Bids have been let for the project, but no approval has been obtained from the appropriate
Commissions and Council.
Commissioner Stevenson recommended pursuing a code amendment route to resolve the
use issue. The rest of the Commissioners agreed saying the property should be left B-3.
Chair Peterson confirmed with Associate Ericson that this item would be on the agenda for
discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting.
8. STAFF REPORTS/INFORMATION ITEMS
A. Recap of March 11, 1998, Community Forum Meeting(second of three forums-
verbal report)
Associate Ericson told the Commission that no summaries had been drafted of the
• March 11, 1998, Community Forum Meeting. The Commissioners, in a discussion
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 10
earlier in the evening's meeting, gave some feedback from the meetings they had
attended.
Commissioner Brasaemle stated the following points of interest from the meetings he had
attended:
1. Commercial development along the Highway 10 corridor, in the Northwest region.
2. Future development of the Anoka County Airport.
3. Transit issues.
4. Trails along Highway 10.
5. The Highway 10 Corridor Design Theme.
Chair Peterson agreed with Brasaemle's observations and added the following:
1. Residential development within the City.
2. Infrastructure development.
3. Developing a downtown feel within the City of Mounds View, meeting local needs
locally.
• 9. CHAIRPERSON AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REPORTS
No reports were considered.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Special meeting of the Planning Commission
Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m.
(The Special Meeting adjourned to the Agenda Session).
Respectfully submitted,
CL(7.12_,Rick Jopke
Community Development Director
•
•
Planning Comm. Mtg March 18, 1998
Please Sign In ! Here for Walgreens?
Name Address Phone # Check here✓
( t- laQ .e 13o greenwood t r`.
t ' �j
r o/ - 7 �77c0 /6/ �ct�oi c�c,�` .4 - 731 o d/
PAT S imo . /jJ, fo712e-
NA C(k_ Utr) 0, • #1 174-c-eck_S-±wrook ,0,0 6 c_rs
_, „ 2Crf eet6,64PeilL,LT__
'00/011014-0 bgoo &DA / k t9 U' 42O-a O
i, ign_ _ 2.s's_el 9.706 e d!efe A-t_ 7 8'6--
Ott (11,d,s - 1,3" , /may,/o 7z 77/7
•
40
. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 532-98
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A 4 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT
BUILDING SETBACK FROM A PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG ARDAN
AVENUE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT
8265 SPRING LAKE ROAD;
PLANNING CASE NO. 513-98
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of
Preferred Builders, Inc. to allow a 4 foot variance to the required 30 foot building setback from a
public road right-of-way for the construction of a single family home at 8265 Spring Lake Road;
and,
WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally
described as:
The North 53 feet of the West 218 feet of Lot 34, and the South 27 feet of the West 218 feet of
Lot 35, all in Auditors Subdivision No. 89,Ramsey County
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated
with this request:
1. Planning Application
2. Location Map
3. Building Front Elevation
4. Letter from the Applicant
5. Encroachment Map
6. Survey of Previous Home
WHEREAS, the applicant requests a 4 foot variance to the required 30 foot building
setback from a public road as required in Section 1104.01, Subd. 3, of the Mounds View
Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission
stating that the lot dimensions were substandard for a corner lot and that the proposed home
cannot meet the setback requirements without a variance; and,
WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the
• applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that homes in
the surrounding neighborhood are comparable in size to the proposed home; and
PAGE TWO OF TWO •
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 532-98
WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant in that the redevelopment of a substandard lot presents difficulties in the construction
of the proposed 1,900 square foot home on the proposed lot as required by the Mounds View
Economic Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, granting this variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same
district in that the size of the proposed home is typical of the homes which currently exist in the
surrounding neighborhood and that new corner lots would not be platted with a substandard size
and only existing substandard lots may receive a variance; and
WHEREAS,the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title
and to other properties in the same zone in that the proposed home would encroach less than the
home which had been previously located on the lot.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Mounds View Planning
Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of
IIP
Preferred Builders, Inc. for a reduction in the building setback requirement to a public right-of-
way from 30 feet to 26 feet for the construction of a single-family home at 8265 Spring Lake
Road.
Adopted this 18th day of March, 1998
Jerry terson, Chairman
ATTEST 4,....„____2
Rick J�opke,
Community Development Director
SEAL
•