The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-17-1992 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1992 7:30 P.M. AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: June 3, 1992 (Enclosed) 2. Discussion of Conditional Use Permit Request (Dog Kennel) of Mary Niezgocki, 8261 Red Oak Drive, Planning Case No. 338-92 NOTE: Planning Commission may call to order to take action regarding this item. 3. Discussion of Conditional Use Permit Request (Dog Kennel) of Lonnie Madison, 5200 Jeffery Drive, Planning Case No. 339-92 NOTE: Planning Commission may call to order to take action regarding this item. c 4. Discussion of Conditional Use Permit Request (Oversized Accessory Building) of Patrick & Cathy Stampfle, 7074 Knollwood Drive, Planning Case No. 347-92 **************************************************************** APPLICANTS: YOUR A 1'1 ENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO A 1'1 END. THANK YOU. **************************************************************** r • PROCEEDINGS OF Tat: PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA LIND,,+ ;.� : ,� Regular Meeting ici �fi „ ` r �� June 3, 1992 . Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. Call To Order called to order by Chair Mountin at 7 :39 p.m. on Wednesday, June 3, 1992. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Colleen, 2. Roll Call Miller, Nelson, Peterson, Ruggles, and Chair Mountin. Commissioner Stevenson had an excused absence. Commissioner Burgers had an unexcused absence. ALSO PRESENT: Planner Harrington, Recording Secretary Asleson, and • Councilmember Blanchard. Motion/Second: Ruggles/Colleen to 3. Approval of approve the minutes of May 6, 1992. Minutes: May 6, 1992 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no resident requests or 4. Resident comments from the floor. Requests and Comments from the Floor Planner Harrington reviewed Resolution 5 . Consideration No. 339-92, regarding the request of of Resolution Harstad Companies to develop their • No. 339-92, property, known as "Greenfield Estates" . Regarding The Commissioners were shown a revised Development version of Resolution No. 339-92 as Request of drafted at the Commission's Special Harstad Meeting on May 27, 1992. Planner Companies Harrington noted that all language (Greenfield concerning the Development Agreement Estates) , would be included in the City Council's Planning Case 0 resolution and that the following items No. 333-91 5„1 .U Y 7 ' J (:) vt- L f Mounds View Planning Commission June 3, 1992 • Regular Meeting Page 2 would be included in Attachment A: original submittal narrative, phos- phorous stripping calculations, city consultant Peter Sabee's review, and revised plans dated June 3, 1992 . Two letters from residents were read and noted for the minutes. Kay Wessman, 7807 Bona Road and Joan Sandidge, 7817 Bona Road both voiced their opposition to the proposed development in their letters. Chair Mountin asked that these letters and the attendance list from the May 20th agenda session be attached to these minutes. She also asked if the Planning Commission could include, as a part of their resolution, a statement urging that the City Council continue to inves- tigate the drainage problems on Bona Road as noted in Ms. Sandidge's letter. Planner Harrington replied that it would • not be appropriate to include this in the Greenfield Estates resolution, as this drainage problem on Bona Road is not related to the applicant's request. It would be more appropriate for the Commission to issue a recommendation independent of the Greenfield Estates resolution. Motion/Second: Miller/Colleen to recommend to the City Council that clean up of the stream leading into Branch 5 of Judicial Ditch No. 1 be given high priority as a result of comments received in the course of reviewing the Greenfield Estates proposal. 5 ayes 1 nay Motion Carried Commissioner Ruggles voted against the motion, as the ditch and the Greenfield Estates property have no relation, except by proximity. 111 )4)1:)11 (:))10] • Mounds View Planning Commission June 3, 1992 Regular Meeting Page 3 Jeff Roos, of McCombs, Frank, Roos Engineering and representing the app- licant, wished to make several comments on the proposed resolution and the City's wetland ordinance in general. From a developer's standpoint, it would have been easier had variances not been needed in order to develop the property. However, Mr. Roos praised the wetland ordinance as being restrictive and workable at the same time. He has tried to convey to the residents that the Planning Commission has followed the ordinance and that in the end, the wetland will actually be improved with the development. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Roos to review residents' concerns regarding the three lots in the wetland. Mr. Roos replied that three lots will be iin areas that are currently wetland (rather than wetland buffer) . The developer will be filling the wetlands to create the building pad. Some residents believe that wetland is going to be lost, but actually, the developer will be creating wetland area elsewhere. Commissioner Nelson questioned the property lines being drawn through the drainage ponds: would the City have any liability issues-to-consider? Planner Harrington indicated that all ponds located within property lines will be taken as easements and that all other areas of the wetland will be conveyed to the City. Commissioner Ruggles asked why the developer didn't propose extending Edgewood Drive though to County Road I. Chair Mountin stated that this extension was examined in the last proposal that • Mr. Harstad brought to the Planning LI i y TIL ''' ' '7.— Mounds View Planning Commission June 3, 1992 • Regular Meeting Page 4 Commission. At that time, it appeared that the citizens did not want Edgewood to go through and that the soils in the area might be inappropriate for road construction. This may be why it was not proposed this time. Mr. Roos stated his belief that the plans that have been drawn to represent an improvement for the area and that the residents will realize this in time. Chair Mountin commented that some residents do not realize that Mounds View's wetland ordinance calls for wetlands management, rather than wetlands preservation. The ordinance does not prevent building in wetlands. If preservation is what residents want, they need to approach the Planning Commission and the City Council with proposed changes. Planner Harrington stated that the • ordinance allows for circumstances when a wetland can benefit, both aesthetic- ally and functionally, from development. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Roos if the houses that will be built in Green- field Estates would be larger, since the proposed lot sizes have increased. Mr. Roos replied that since the land values have increased-along with the lot size, he assumes that the houses built will be in the $200,000 price range. Motion/Second: Colleen/Miller to approve Resolution No. 339-92, recom- mending approval of the development request of Harstad Companies' known as "Greenfield Estates" . 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Planner Harrington updated the 6 . Staff Report Commission on Planning Case No. 338-92, • 0 Fr- N-14 , UNAtirri - VED • Mounds View Planning Commission June 3, 1992 Regular Meeting Page 5 request for Conditional Use Permit to operate a residential dog kennel. The applicant is in the process of obtaining the required consent of 50% of property owners within 500 feet of her home, and would like to have action taken on the matter at a special meeting of the Planning Commission on June 17, 1992. Planner Harrington also noted that Everest Development had requested that the Commission call to order at their June 17, 1992 agenda session to consider a PUD amendment at Mounds View Business Park. Everest would like to add more parking near the front door of Owens and Minor. The attendance at the Commission's May 7 . Report of Chair 20, 1992 agenda session included Commissioners Miller, Peterson, Nelson, Ruggles, Stevenson, and Chair Mountin. • Commissioner Colleen had an excused absence; Commissioner Burgers had an unexcused absence. The. attendance at the Commission's May 27, 1992 special agenda session included Commissioners Miller, Nelson, Peterson, and Chair Mountin. Commissioners Colleen, Ruggles, and Stevenson had excused absences; Commissioner Burgers had an unexcused absence. There being no further business before 8. Adjournment the Commission, Chair Mountin adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Paul Harrington City Planner • MEMORANDUM S TO: PLANNING COMMISSION • FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, PLANNER\ DATE: June 10, 1992 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DOG KENNEL MARY NIEZGOCKI, PLANNING CASE NO. 338-92 At the May 20, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant was informed that the City Attorney's opinion was that all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code would need to be satisfied as part of the request for a conditional use permit to establish a residential dog kennel. Included in those requirements was petitioning property owners within 500 feet of the proposed dog kennel site for their opinion. The Municipal Code stipulates that at least 50% of the property owners within 500 feet must not object to the proposed use. The applicant has recently phoned and informed me that she will have the petition available prior to the June 17, 1992 Planning isCommission meeting. Staff will be reviewing the petition and verifying the signatures prior to that date. The appropriate resolution will be provided at the meeting. If you have any questions, please call. MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, PLANNER! ' DATE: June 10, 1992 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DOG KENNEL LONNIE MADISON, PLANNING CASE NO. 339-92 At the May 20, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant was informed that the City Attorney's opinion was that all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code would need to be satisfied as part of the request for a conditional use permit to establish a residential dog kennel. Included in those requirements was petitioning property owners within 500 feet of the proposed dog kennel site for their opinion. The Municipal Code stipulates that at least 50% of the property owners within 500 feet must not object to the proposed use. Staff has spoken to the applicant and been told that the petition is in the process of being circulated and will be provided prior to • the Wednesday meeting. Staff will be reviewing the petition and verifying the signatures prior to that meeting. The appropriate resolution will be provided at the meeting. If you have any questions, please call. • MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING COMMISSION te( . FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, PLANNER ' DATE: June 10, 1992 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - OVERSIZED ACCESSORY BLDG. PATRICK STAMPFLE, PLANNING CASE NO. 347-92 Patrick Stampfle, 7074 Knollwood Drive, has made application to allow the utilization of an existing 14' x 20' garage as a utility shed following the construction of a new 26 ' x 30' garage. Mounds View Municipal Code Chapter 40. 10 Subdivision D (6) allows for accessory structures exceeding 216 square feet and up to 400 square feet by conditional use permit. Staff has informed the applicant that the accessory structure cannot be utilized for the storage of automobiles. Also, the driveway surface currently leading- up the building will need to be removed as part of the approval of the conditional use permit. The applicant has indicated that both of these requirements are ` acceptable. One note, the proposed location of the new garage on the site is within the buffer zone of a City delineated wetland and will require that the applicant pay an additional building fee of $10.00 along with the standard permit fee for construction. Because this request is for an accessory building (i.e. garage) , review and approval of construction within the wetland buffer zone can be handled administratively by City staff. If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to give me a call. ,'CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW -▪ c TJ- PLANNING APPLICATION_-. ,: APPLICANT: P.-,47-g/ /e._. ar Gll�l 5�3•rtitf7i�(�.- Phone 773 -/53 7 :- ADDRESS: 707 .;11lla1C.•�or, afL - 014aLAtos Vier , t.. SS'/1Z_ - Street Address,'.City, State, and Zip Code l''1; x Interest in Property (check appropriate box): . a Owner of Property ❑ -Contract for Deed Owner z . . ❑ Lessee, Operator,Manager • ❑ -- Agreement to Purchase ❑ .Other (explain) Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final City action of this request t r w c PROPERTY INVOLVED '. - } Address/General Location -701 4 -'K►.ln�c.ivaor, ''22 3..6.74).. E -�Go' .. l-1 Legal Owner: . Name/Address Pinei 6 . I CA-r a 7 4.: - -.7 ,7 / J2 .JaU_Wco n r�2, . vylav,lDS Vi 4) -7'S—S-7 J Z_ • Present Use (check appropriate box): . ❑ - _.UndevelopedNacant- J�: :Single Family Dwelling _ ,�` T 0 "'Duple gTwo Family Dwelling _ �� t; ' °_b; i s4 i. Q r Multi-Family (No-...'of Units s_ ,'.'.- : . ) `x , x "z r` fi ; ` _ ❑ .� • 'Business%Commercial-Establishment - Industrial Establishment Q Other (explain) Property Classfication -- Abstract S , f Q -Torrens , . Y ±E' - :-;j, •» _4- fig•yil+7t.2 .:1: -w- �Ar 1` 'wr it. :..t., j'C .? i'� Y:4: "'•S.17• 'ilL.t 51 .'amu j. t n- r;`s p .a..�.,.M� „� f z�.� -:a..��'f3'. cu ,...::.:•C;34:1$:,.:,;:- i'i-7-''''''''' ...�r,;•... i�c Xg."`� �v 3.r.._'f gran f±.c� �. REQUEST '.Co�.f br-rto ,e i =- )%c - `'a tt_,eM i-r t p'i't).'''''''f-'„,_... 7-- '. '.. 4771•.``' /' X Zo I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE • i, t c `- - _ _ _ _ Signature Rezoning 5200/acre.minimum$200.mmdmum$1.000 Park Fund Dedication Fee Variance • R-i'to R.2-$75.all others$200 •Date Paid ' Conditional Use Permit L:R-t to R•2-$75,alt others$200- 1-. Receipt Number ---- - _ Code Appeal :.. 575 ti `: �:,..': _r a '; Develop./Site Plan Rev iew $100/acre;minimum 1004 ma aurum$500, Additional Fees Paid Minor Subdivision -, :$150 '•t ,::.•••,,41;11, f _ Date Paid Major S ubdAriaion. ,': $250 pias$250 deposit z x • Receipt Number Comp. Plan Amendment , $200 :: •.:::4:-'. -` <<=sv . Wetland Mteratton Permit $50 plus deposit determined by Staff .- TOTAL FEES PAID Wetland Buffer Permit - - DATE PAID ::::'• S .9/f - � : : Wetland Planning Sign:_. $1050 . *: RECEIPT NUMBER S 7 0 - :ill, PUD - $350 PUD Amendment $150 j Date of final action APPROVED 0 ;.DENIED Q TABLED ❑ - - Date . S-.I. Q ;•.Planning•Case No. �—' a` Adman.Account No. • ! R Y t t IF., • May 18, 1992 Mr. Paul Harrington, City Planner City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Mr. Harrington, As per our discussion on May 18th, I have supplied you with a plot plan of 7074 Knollwood Drive, with the proposed plan to build a new garage. My understanding from our discussion, was that only one curb-cut (driveway) and one garage per residential lot. As you can see on the - . attached drawing, I have an existing 14' X 20' garage which I would like to utilize for a utility shed to store lawn mowers, snowblower, lawn tools, etc. You indicated that I would need a variance because of the size of the existing garage which exceeds the square footage specified by Mounds View for a storage shed. I also understand that the existing driveway must be torn up to allow for the new driveway. The attached print shows the area of driveway which I plan to eliminate. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me: 641-4688 (days) 783-1557 (evenings) Thank you y i 7 , Pat Stampfle