Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-1998 k- MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1998 7:00 P.M. AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. September 16, 1998 b. October 7, 1998 2. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Update of Properties with Nuisance Code Violations b. Continued Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 111 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1998\10-21-98.AGN • ID PROCEEDINGS OF'1'H i MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Special Meeting September 16, 1998 Mounds, Y City Hall 2401 Highway 10, , nd ew, MN 55112 1. Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Plannin ,,, •s .*' Special r at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commis :rasae , Johnson, Miller, and Obert. Members absent: Commissioner Stevens* ,3=. d Co $ °� meiners. • Also present: Community Develop i Direct.. ' 'ck lop ; Planning Associate Jim Ericson; and Recorder Dave Hix. Index to s , Page Planning aK, -98, i• iof *,, k. of resolution No. 556-98, a 2 Resolution Ap.Weoi' y £ • arianc--4 0L or a Sidewalk, 5249 Greenfi 5'IWG OA, othy Plazuu•I ase No 536-';(e.*,. 4 eration of Resolution No. 560-98, a 3 Res.Ai ion Approving a° ' e Request to Allow a Joint Use Parking & ' ccess Arrangeme : 0etween the Businesses and a Zero-Foot Parking ck, 2200 & 2214=4i ghway 10 (Mermaid and Perkins, respectively), x} - Hall r` represe g the Mermaid °,0141111464-',,,•11,5-.. 535-98, Consideration of Resolution No. 558-98, a 4 Re` '* pproving a Variance to Allow for two Curb Cuts, 8111 Eastwood Road, llfichael Tobias • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 September 16, 1998 ID 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizens'requests or comments on items not on the agenda. --j • 4. Planning Case No. 533-98 Property Involved: 5249 Greenfield Avenue Consideration of Resolution No. 556-98, A Resolution a rovin•< variance R. Sidewalk. Applicant: Timothy White The applicant, Timothy White, was present. Associate Ericson gave his report as follow The applicant was back before the P1 'trig Co !, •.'sion a •§ Mime after his original request had been tabled. At the September8 Pla..$ g Co is.sion meeting, significant discussion • was held regarding the merits of £ : e as '� as the i•4 rpretation of the language in the Code relating to setbacks. Because of ?fr:• y fact. •< Y•sossibl ,0` dships), such as the slope of the land north of the . age, safety ations cess elsewhere on the lot, the Planning Commiss'§ & ' -• to ta. - est to e f tai to draft both approval and denial versions of the res. • Staff was recothat thg � ->° ommission adopt Planning Commission Resolution 556-98, a Re • #i • g a �# 'ce for Timothy White of 5249 Greenfield Avenue, to allow forpuce• $�� back or a deck-like sidewalk. Ch. rson Peterson re kirg e floor to the Commission for questions of staff suggested the f• wing amendment to the Resolution: Add to the first WAF,REAS the •tive notes th. 'cson had included in Section(a)under the staff report Analysis. She also • addi..• � •iage that stated leveling of the sidewalk on the north side of the garage was • exposure of the garage footings. Obert stated the hardships that were being discussed were really not hardships but conditions that were brought on by the property owner. He voiced his opposition to the stated hardships and expressed his concern that the City was allowing too many variances for work that had been done without first applying for the proper work permits. • • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 September 16, 1998 MOTION/SECOND: Brooks/Miller to approve Resolution No. 556-98, A Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk, as amended, 5249 Greenfield Avenue, Timothy White. VOTE: Ayes- 6 Nays- 0 Mot 3' c. 5. Planning Case No. 536-98 Property Involved: 2200 & 2214 Highway 10 (Mermai.? ,'d Per " , respectiv Consideration of resolution No. 560-98, a Resolution A a: :. .. + a Variance Requ"`M',Y ��' ow a Joint Use Parking and Access Arrangement between the and a Zero-Foot Parking Lot Setback. Applicant: Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid The applicant, Daniel Hall, was present. Associate Ericson gave his report as fol on, s: • Thea applicant was requesting a v. '` from r. ._ - PP Q g � � ,� requue � ve foot setback established for parking lots in a business district 11:e par.74.{;,-;.i of for , ` ermaid has been expanded and resurfaced ' .ccordance g£ . evelop •miffed to and approved by the City on May 11, ' e• t was 'er the'..444.61,3'`' e development plans were in error(off by appro feet ,� gKi$ `_; he parking lot north of the building as constructed encroaches •uired a #,� s}a,-tback and in one area crosses the property line onto the Perkins prope To comp - t e ° ®gy m .erty, e Mermaid has opened a secondary access drive between the tw. 6,•sinessec, the existing joint access. This access will serve to improve on between the " t ;:1 to improve the safety of Mermaid patrons by diverting Perkins t.r gRto the rear of the =`"£-rmaid. In addition, representatives from both properties have entered !tow- joint use agree g', such that bothproperties are protected in the event either use or hip should c .__e. The City will require that a cross-access and shared parking easement ! County to legitimize the arrangement. This document is being drafted by Staff was recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 560-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance for a Zero-Foot Setback for a Parking Lot, on Properties Located at 2200 & 2214 highway 10. • Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions of staff. PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 September 16, 1998 • Miller asked if the island between the two parking lots would remain. Dan Hall, told the Commission the island would remain "as is." Obert recommended adding that final approval be contingent eon exe • . d recordation of s, a the easement document. MOTION/SECOND: ObertBrasaemle to approve Resew ion No. ..gid-98, � £ Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use P. ,Nb,t and 4 ' ess Arran n the Businesses and a Zero-Foot Parking Lot Setback, . • ... ... for 2200 & 22 . " ay 10, Daniel Hall representing the Mermaid. VOTE: Ayes- 6 Nays- 0 ; '14 IA2 carried 6. Planning Case No. 535-98 • Property Involved: 8111 Eastwood Ro.' Consideration of Resolution No. 55:%°a`` a Res•,. "ion app•i ' g a Variance to Allow for two • Curb Cuts. Applicant: Michael Tobias is OW The ap• � ael of present. Associate Eric 's repo t ..s: The appli . as re. 4 ¢v ariance from the Code requirement that states a single-family prope all be limite•. ` e= e curb cut. Earlier this year, the applicant took out a building pe • o resurface his d k` , which had access onto both Sherwood Road and Eastwood Reo-,.si At that time . dicated that a building permit could not be approved due to the n• • e nforming nature 'the driveway, unless the access to Sherwood Road was removed. The t agreed an. F;"- permit was issued. Subsequent reinspection of the property showed that s •o . ained, both having been improved contrary to the permit. The applicant f g i ting that they had two alternatives to resolve the situation: 1. Remove the driveway access to Sherwood Road 2. Apply for and receive a variance The applicant chose to apply for a variance in order to maintain the driveway in its present • condition. • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 September 16, 1998 To understand the predominance of the type of driveway configuration present at 8111 Eastwood Road, staff surveyed corner properties north of Hillview between Groveland and Long Lake Road. There are 54 corner lots in this area, of which ten(18.5 percent) have multi•` urb cuts. In comparison, the percentage of all residential properties with more tha g e v $'cut is less than one percent. Corner properties present unique safety issues, 'th as m ' r distinct paths of traffic to monitor while backing out of the driveway. Som � eer to > •f tree cover, shrubs and other plantings, have limited visibility thereby K=.: asing the y 2 The applicant hired an asphalt company to do the requ. � +rive ; > •emolition reconstruction work. The contractor read and was aw , ity's request tha '44. `• s cut onto Sherwood Road was to be removed. It was the op •� # f . that the contractor made an error in not removing the curb cut as requested by theC, . $'$ �b� tten into the work contract that the Tobias family had with the contracto . Staff gave no recommendation but offered the 'ssion' Nn N' and "Option D" of Resolution No. 558-98, Approval or De ;., ,. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor the Co ' 'ssio ' tions of staff. • A discussion was held in regards t5. g>� con & # ted m• •,� ance and what constituted gst tuted reconstruction. The Code allow prove " of a : a'g conditions as long as they are not "expanded." It wast s oft-4`i .ion that e contractor was aware that the Sherwood Road curb cut w.. ! oved " � new work would include a turn around area in place of the old drive —.R.?'=• dra w• dimensions and quoted prices for the work. Obert stat:v'' '" " • hip to ustify the variance. He added, the problem that the •ro.e ,� � �. . $ �u• • . • an error made by the contractor and the contractor is th e who should ible for correcting the error, with no charge to the home owner. L,CoA, I . • d . s . aemle/Miller to approve Resolution No. 558-98 "Option D"Denial of ,;.• ce for Two 0,}"• Cuts, as amended, 8111 Eastwood Road, Michael Tobias. Ayes - 6 Nays- 0 Motion carried 7. Staff Reports/Information Items A. Highway 10 Design Theme • Director Jopke gave his report as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 September 16, 1998 • A visual presentation was made using concept plans that had been developed by the Hoisington Koegler Group, the City's design consultant with input from various Commission and City staff personnel. The Consultant had used the Theme "Woods and Wetland." This the •es use components of the "Mainstreet" theme which used neighborhood roads +nn• < community to the "main corridor." The Council has asked the staff to draft a design impleme=a 5. on repo lore potential funding for the project's $3 million plus budget 2 taff is rem _"' en1 4 gam;£ ,e Highway 10 Corridor Project be included in the City's �, •rehe• `gz a Plan Up• • , B. Theater Project Update Director Jopke gave his report as follows: A Development Agreement has been executed < _ # g}£ = g� Prope ¢ e City and the Developer have agreed to "work together" t• •=15' •roble s_ '` at may result from opening of the theater before the signalize'i�$ terse E ' ... 3 3f+ and Edgewood Road is ready. SEH has been given authorizati•$ o com•c e the i} for this signalized intersection, which will also service zity's N-= Comm Center. • One or two of the office buildin• °at are p.m f the •- opment may be built on a"spec" basis. Plans and sp;,, ',Region for t,� e• ildings °& iF � __'`oming from the developer earlier in the fall. C. Me ff ra 1/Banq'•(4:,11 '6 Update Director Jopk a =ce k -BA•rt as `. Septe $a-, `28, 1998 is � f`E2.0 $ate for the Development Agreement on this project. As part of this r4 ' elopment Agree. 111 City would provide$1.7 million in TIF assistance to the de (46 per. These funds :,,,•1.1`• cover site improvements and acquisition of the land, other than the '4£AA All site on the co•_'('r of Highway 10 and County Road H. The City would be solely . $,)•sible for acqu 8=I the Rent-All site and relocating the business, a sum of approximately St. i ently in the application process for a Minnesota Department of Trade and f$& '' which will, if successfully awarded, offset some of the costs of this project. as also expressed very strong interest in developing the Rent-All site as a possible Park&Ride. If this project goes forward there is a potential that the Metro Transit will share in some if not a large portion of the funds necessary to complete the project. D. Greenfield Ponds Tax Forfeit Properties • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 • September 16, 1998 Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: Ramsey County has notified the City of the availability of tax forfeited properties. p re are three properties that are located within the Greenfield Pond Subdivision, the tad .division. The properties were identified as Outlot A(the entire wetland are.; Outlo ; t 3 which are located on the unimproved Edgewood Drive. The City c 3 .: has a <;asement over the entirety of the wetland, Outlot A and B and part oft,' Staff •w. . ommissio.j for its opinion in regards to the City purchasing any or a ,-f the pro. Y'es. u ..do• would be to acquire a $200 "Use Deed" from the Cou • hich € . d give th •. r . ..e rights to utilize the property for a specific purpose, i.e., at31s4 \ of 3, with exte .ils corrections is the only buildable lot. Obert stated the property should be left available for p ' F'.to de Peterson stated the "Use Deed" would be the b $ $E Ericson stated staff would verify that there no nee. in in terms of additional drainage, mitigation, or for any other re J.'•n. If t Y" ity ••ahsS'"ave a need for the properties then a recommendation to "pass" o -:rope . will be arded to the Council. • 8. Chairperson and Plan 1).- Comm ,ners' ''orts No report- A conside 9. A• � � F to Ag. 'O t "ng There being n. # . . gess be"iik",,,,r e Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meet (The : - - immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) lly submitt `` Rick Jopke Community Development Director • PROCEEDINGS OFTHH' MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 7, 1998 Mounds '` City Hall 2401 Highway 10, s nds,_17. ew, MN 55112 1. Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Plannin =��_<u •s;' " Regular s m t#a .p er at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commis :rasae : arrived 7:05), Johnson, Miler, Obert, and Stevenson. Members absent: Council Liaison Koop ers • Also present: Community Develop i �� > •irect. ' 'ck lop S `', Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Housing Inspector Steve Dorgan, :4&$ ;s ecors '•ave • 3. Cit , s' Requests< _ • k mmen o) < 3 }'ot on the Agenda There z%, o ..41. ns' rea � a,.mments on items not on the agenda. 4. Appro utes A • ugu 4 � x (Special) Septemb A �a (Reg,tlar) • ► • ►t•• : aemle/Mller to approve the August 19, 1998 (Special) and September : , • egu ar meeminutes as amended. , §:X ' Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried 5. , ' eports/Information Items A. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element B. Housing Element • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 October 7, 1998 It was the consensus of the Commission to move this portion of the meeting to the Agenda Meeting. 6. Chairperson and planning Commissioners Reports No reports were considered. 7. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Co ��$g3 �� hairperson Pet �h� ��>f,:journed the meeting at 7:07 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjournea '• the sion) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Directo 411