Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-1998 PC • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Special Meeting July 15, 1998 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10,Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Planning Commission special meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle, Brooks (departed at 8:54 p.m.), Miller, Obert, and Stevenson. Members absent Council Liaison Koopmeiners Also present: Community Development Director Jopke; Associate Planner Ericson;Economic • Development Coordinator Kevin Carroll;Housing Inspector Steve Dorgan; and Recorder Dave Hix. 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments On Items Not On The Agenda There were no citizens'requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. June 3, 1998 (Regular) B. June 17, 1998 (Special) MOTION/SECOND: Brasaemle/Stevenson to approve the Planning Commission June 3, 1998 (Regular) and June 17, 1998(Special)Meeting Minutes as amended. Ayes - 6 Nays- 0 Motion carried. 5. Staff Reports/Information Items A. Discussion Regarding Comprehensive Guide Plan -Land Use Element • • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 July 15, 1998 All Planning Commission Members acknowledged receipt of the City's current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map. Jopke told the Commission the Maps' color designations had been implemented by the I- 35W Corridor Coalition in an attempt to standardize land use definitions across the corridor. This process was intended to simplify the communication process between all of the communities that are members of the "Coalition." He suggested that the City of Mounds View return to its original approach of designating properties according to use instead of density, as had been done on the Maps before the Commission at this meeting. The Land Use Map and the Zoning Map were compared to one another in an attempt to bring out any inconsistencies that exist between the two maps. From a land use perspective, it was determined that the Highway 10 corridor is the area that needs the most attention and analysis as to how the available land along the corridor could be used. Jopke asked the Commission to consider two approaches to land use along the Highway 10 corridor: • 1. 2. Should the land be designated for specific uses? Should the land be dealt with on a case-by-case basis? Obert stated it was the consensus of the people that participated in the community forum process that Highway 10 should be the City's main area of commercial development. The citizens also expressed their feeling that County Road I should not be developed for commercial use, he added. Peterson told the Commission that the development of County Road I depended to a large extent on what the neighboring communities of Shoreview, Blaine, and Arden Hills had planned for developments in these cities. Future development in the cities could impact Mounds View's County Road I as a through road to their cities. Stevenson stated that the planning that is taking place by the City of Mounds View on the Comprehensive Plan Update is a blueprint for the future. If the Planning Commission decided to redesignate the remaining residential properties along Highway 10 or County Road I as business use, it would not mean that the home owners were being asked to relocate from their homes. The redesignation would only go into affect if and when the property changed ownership, he added. Peterson suggested that the City make a strong effort to change the Zoning Map to reflect the Comprehensive Land Use Map, particularly on the Highway 10 properties which are 411 "grossly out of sync." . PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 July 15, 1998 Brasaemle expressed concern in regards to the tax implications that the people, whose property is now zoned residential, would be faced with if their zoning was changed to business use. The property tax would be based on a higher valued commercial use rather than a lower valued residential use. Miller suggested safeguarding the current residential tax base along the Highway 10 corridor. This would allow the City to rezone the property for its eventual sale and development as business or commercial. Peterson suggested establishing a 285 feet plus-or-minus zone on either side of Highway 10 as the commercial corridor. The corridor would extend from the east end of Highway 10 to the west end of Highway 10, he added. Miller expressed concern in regards to commercial developments south of County Road 112, especially with the resistance that is being shown to the theater development. A lengthy discussion ensued in which the Planning Commission Members drew in their proposed 285 foot setback on the north and south side of Highway 10, going the full 110 east/west length of the highway, using the current Comprehensive Land Use Map for the basis of their designation proposals. Brasaemle suggested that the last piece of residential property next to the Everest triangular shaped property needed to be included in the Highway 10 corridor commercial designation. He also recommended that Town's Edge Terrace be designated Industrial, Light Industrial/Warehouse, or Mixed-Use PUD. Peterson suggested designating the Town's Edge Terrace property as HC/IND PUD. The rest of the Commission agreed with the designation of HC/IND PUD for the Town's Edge Terrace property. B. Planning Commission Vacancy and Terms (Verbal Report) Jopke told the Commission that City staff had received, and subsequently lost, a list of potential Commission candidates that would be added to the list that had already been discussed. In light of this fact, the selection of a candidate would have to be tabled in order to give City staff the time it needs to locate the missing list and add these names to the list of candidates being considered by the City to fill the vacancy on the planning Commission. Obert suggested that all applicants that are considered for the vacancy should be interviewed by the Planning Commission, including Liaison Koopmeiners, prior to selection by the Mayor and approval of the selection by City Council. The Commission unanimously agreed with Obert's suggestion. • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 July 15, 1998 C. Update on Overton Foyer Expansion at 2824 Woodale Drive Ericson told the Commission that the Overtons had not presented architectural plans to the City when they applied for their variance. The applicants had given an oral presentation through their architect and this presentation was the information that the Commission used in making their decision to grant the variance. Now that the addition to the home is taking place, the roof lines that had been described as slightly taller and in character with the existing home, were not fitting in with the character of the existing house or the neighborhood. Obert expressed concern that the City's development requirements for this type of project didn't stipulate that an addition must fit in with the existing neighborhood or blend in with the existing house. Ericson quoted from Section 1125 of the City Code, Variances: "The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this title or to other property in the same zone." . Brasaemle suggested that the Planning Commission modify the Code to require architectural drawings on variance applications that come before the Commission. Ericson quoted from Code: "All proposed industrial, commercial, and residential developments and expansions of existing facilities, except developments where public utilities and streets have previously been installed and the erection of no more than two detached single-family dwellings are planned must be reviewed by the City." This statement would make a developmental review necessary for the type of project that the Overtons are having constructed. Jopke suggested developing a code requirement that ties existing conditions to the proposed new development. Brasaemle suggested verbiage as follows: "Any expansion of an existing facility that requires a variance has to go through a development review." Peterson stated: "Politically and historically the City is stuck with letting people do whatever they want to do, appearancewise." Ericson suggested getting the Council's feedback on the issue. Have them make a judgement as to whether or not the Code language is acceptable or if it needs to be amended to try to solve this type of problem. • • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 July 15, 1998 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner's Reports No reports were considered. 7. Adjournment MOTION/SECOND: Brasaemle/Obert to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business before the Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke illCommunity Development Director •