Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2003 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 19, 2003 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., November 19, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Scotch, Hegland, Zwirn, Miller and Song. Members Absent: Johnson (excused) Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case MA03-001 2 Proposed Longview Estates Preliminary Plat Applicant: Martin Harstad Planning Case VR03-011 10 Applicant: David Preztycki Location: 8471 Fairchild Avenue _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. October 15, 2003 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Zwirn. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for October 15, 2003 as Presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Public Hearing and Discussion to Review the Proposed Longview Estates Preliminary Plat. Community Development Director Ericson indicated this matter is a continued public hearing for Longview Estates. He then briefly reviewed the proposed plan indicating that there would be 15 lots, eight on Longview Drive and seven on Silver Lake Road. Director Ericson indicated that the minimum size requirements for a subdivision in a wetland zoning district are met with the proposed plan. He then said that half of the property is wetland and pointed out on the map provided the areas to be filled and recreated. Director Ericson indicated this request has not gone before Rice Creek Watershed District but he included the report from Rice Creek on the previous proposed subdivision which was for 11 lots. Director Ericson indicated there are issues with regard to the property raised by residents at the first public hearing and those issues concern the hydrology of the area, alteration of the wetland, the water table, and proposed impact to surrounding properties if the wetland is built on. He then said that Rice Creek Watershed District and Council would review and would need to authorize any development or wetland alteration permit. Director Ericson indicated that the applicant has stated that the proposed mitigation plan satisfies Rice Creek Watershed District criteria but a permit has not been submitted to them. He then said that Staff recommends that Mr. Harstad apply for a wetland permit from Rice Creek when this request moves to Council. He further commented that the City has the authority to approve or deny any alteration of any wetland so this has to go before Council with regard to the subdivision and the wetland alteration. Director Ericson indicated that all the concerns raised by residents would need to be addressed as well as the issue of the suitability of the soil for constructing homes. He then said that the City would need engineering reports to ensure that homes can be built there without causing issues for the newly constructed homes or the existing homes. Director Ericson indicated the City received a letter after the last meeting from a resident and that letter was included with the report. Director Ericson indicated that the Comprehensive Plan does designate this area as low density residential and the City anticipated the area having homes on it 30 years ago when the utilities were stubbed to the property. He then said that the utility stubs do not guarantee anything, however. Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated that Staff is asking the Planning Commission for direction as to whether to draft a resolution recommending approval, denial or approval of a modified plan. Director Ericson indicated that the Commission could make a recommendation for modification to the plan to Council but said the recommendation is not binding upon the developer or applicant. Chair Stevenson indicated that two years ago the Commission reviewed a plan for 11 lots and, at that time, made the determination that the most lots that would be considered would be eight. He then said that the Commission had recommended that Mr. Harstad could build if he were to go with the eight lots along Longview as those did meet the criteria. Chair Stevenson indicated that the previous plan did not have the seven lots on Silver Lake Road but Mr. Harstad has gone with the Commission’s recommendation with regard to the number of lots on Longview Drive. Director Ericson indicated that the City’s code allows for eight lots on Longview Drive not considering any wetland issues. He then said that the previous plan had deep lots and the trees along Silver Lake Road would have remained. He further indicated that this plan reflects eight lots on Longview Drive and seven lots along Silver Lake Road all of which meet the minimum requirements not considering the wetland issues and Rice Creek requirements. Commissioner Miller asked how it is possible to mitigate since this is all wetland. Director Ericson pointed out on the drawing provided the wetland area and the areas to be filled. He then said that, in relationship to the 7.14 acres, there is not a lot of area that would be filled and there are sufficient mitigation areas to accommodate for the filling. He further commented that Rice Creek and the City would need to approve that plan but the majority of the wetlands are left untouched. Director Ericson indicated that there would need to be a minimum of wetland alteration to approve the wetland alteration permit. He then said he is not qualified to assess whether the proposed runoff area is adequate but Rice Creek Watershed District would make the determination of requirements. Chair Stevenson commented that the property owner could take out the trees along Silver Lake Road even if there were no homes to be built along it so there is no guarantee that the trees would stay. Director Ericson indicated that with this 15-lot subdivision plan it is his understanding that most of the trees would be removed. He then said it would be his recommendation that any trees in the right of way remain except for those that need to be removed for driveway access. Commissioner Scotch indicated that the key issue with this proposal is the building on the wetland and the fear that once homes are built there it will be detrimental to the surrounding Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ residents. She then asked if there are any other areas of the City that were developed on wetlands and whether there was anything detrimental that came out of it. Director Ericson indicated that there was a house recently constructed south of this proposed development and there were issues with settling as well as the fact that a basement was not possible due to the soils. He then said that there is a risk that things may not be done right and the City would need to take that into consideration. Commissioner Miller indicated that FEMA does not consider the area a flood plain and asked at what point FEMA does consider an area a flood plain. Director Ericson indicated that FEMA makes that determination. Commissioner Hegland indicated that the flood plain just means you need flood insurance but it does not mean the property cannot be developed. Director Ericson indicated that the City cannot issue building permits to construct in a flood plain but this is not an issue as this is not a FEMA flood plain. Commissioner Hegland indicated the issue is that he has met the requirements for development for the property so then it becomes an issue of whether Rice Creek will allow it and whether there are any other issues the City needs to cover. He then said he is concerned about the effects on neighboring residents as well as the people purchasing these homes. Director Ericson indicated there would be a long-term maintenance bond on the project to make the developer responsible for hydrology issues that directly impact a neighboring property. Director Ericson indicated the City would need to make sure that the development agreement spells out all the expectations so that all issues are addressed and all contingencies are covered. Director Ericson indicated that he has said that the request meets the criteria but that does not mean that the City has to grant approval. He then said that if, in certain situations, the density does not fit the specific piece of land because of environmental conditions there may need to be a scaling back of the development because of issues with the property and/or traffic. He further indicated that the City has the right to say it is too much even though minimum requirements are met. Chair Stevenson asked if there were findings of fact to warrant denying this request as there is limited information at this point from Rice Creek. Commissioner Scotch commented that development would be nice but the concern is how large and will there be water issues if it is allowed. Director Ericson indicated that whenever this moves forward the developer would have engineer reports and Rice Creek would have an engineer report and so would the City to review and Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ ensure that the proposal would not negatively impact the surrounding area. He then said that there are technologies available today to assist with forecasting and predicting what would happen with water flow and provide a detailed hydrology analysis to ensure whatever is constructed on the site works. Director Ericson indicated that the City created the wetland ordinance it did so to protect wetlands because they are critical for the community and the City does not want to risk detriment to them. Commissioner Scotch asked whether there was anything on the horizon for fixing Silver Lake Road in the area where it dips. Director Ericson indicated that there would always be hills and valleys due to the soils out there but Ramsey County will be doing some repairs in the near future. Chair Stevenson commented that Woodcrest could not be developed because it sits on a floating bog and this is the same kind of ground. Chair Stevenson indicated that Staff seemed to be saying two different things one is go ahead and deny this or modify it with the findings but the Commission was not given any findings for support of denial. Director Ericson indicated that findings were not provided at this time but said the Commission does not need findings to direct Staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial. He then suggested that some relevant findings would be the risk to homes built there, the risk to homes already existing and the impact of the hydrology on the surrounding neighborhood as well as the additional traffic and access points on Silver Lake Road. Director Ericson indicated that Staff could develop findings to support approval as well as the Comprehensive Plan shows the area designated as single-family residential development. Steve Kuhl of 5176 Longview Drive indicated he and his wife have lived there since 1971 and are very familiar with the area. He then indicated that the house on the south end newly constructed was supposed to be constructed on the best ground in the area and they are having issues with settling. He further commented that there would be an issue with joining driveways to Silver Lake Road and noted that when the road was constructed they went down 30 to 50 feet before they found ground good enough to make the street. Mr. Kuhl indicated that his lot has standing water during the spring melt and when there are notable rains. He then said he is very concerned about the environmental impact to developing the property because there are a lot of wildlife that live in the area, including the snowy owl he saw today. Sandy Kuhl of 5176 Longview Drive indicated that the list of those that were invited to come to the meeting and comment should have been longer as it seems there were some that would be Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ interested that were not notified. She then said that Silver Lake Road is being widened in New Brighton and, if that happens in Mounds View, she is concerned with adding driveway accesses to it. She further commented that she does not feel that this proposal is good for the safety and welfare of the residents. Ms. Kuhl commented that the name Longview Estates may not be appropriate if there are now to be lots on Silver Lake Road. Lil Ward of 5177 Red Oak Drive indicated she is concerned with traffic and the wildlife but since she recently traveled Silver Lake Road between H and H2 and found that is very washboard she is even more concerned with adding homes on Silver Lake Road. She then said that this is a wonderful piece of land as a swamp and it should not be built on. She further commented that she hopes the Commission takes into consideration that the area is a swamp and should not be built on. Dayton Ward of 5177 Red Oak Drive indicated he agreed with everything that has been said and then added that the water table concern was not raised. He then said that he has water in his basement and his lot abuts Mr. Kuhl’s. He further commented that the first proposal saved the trees and the trees are an asset to the City as well as a buffer from high winds and noise for the neighborhood. Martin Harstad indicated he could address all the issues but the most important point is that the property could be engineered to be built upon. He then said that they are not proposing to come in and fill in all the wetlands and this is a very low quality wetland and that is because it is the acting storm sewer for the community. He further commented that they propose to treat water off of Silver Lake Road and Longview Drive before it enters the wetland and that is not currently being done. Mr. Harstad indicated that the city of Blaine has proven that wetlands can be filled and built upon. He then said that he would not build houses on unstable land as his brother wants to build the homes and they have been in the community all of their lives. He further commented that the density is not high density as, if there were no wetlands on the property, he could have 30 lots and comply with the City’s Code. Mr. Harstad challenged the Commission to point out an area of the City that has lots this large. He then said that he is aware of the fact that this is an environmentally sensitive area and he respects that and intends to take whatever precautions are necessary to ensure a quality development that does not negatively impact the existing residents. Mr. Harstad commented that this is considered an in fill project and in fill projects have issues as nobody wants to see the last wildlife or undeveloped area go. He then said that, if the City wants a park, they would be willing to sell the property to the City. He further commented that they have the right to develop their property and do what the City’s zoning ordinances allow. He also commented that he should have come in with the most density proposal first rather than the other way around. Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch indicated that this is not at all like Blaine as the property in Blaine was completely open and there were not the concerns with the existing homes. She then said that this is a smaller area with more wetland. Mr. Harstad indicated he recognized what has been said but they are all issues that they can work through. He then said he feels like he is apologizing for bringing this before the City but this is a seven acre piece of ground that his family owns and has owned and been paying taxes and assessments on for years and they would like to develop it. Commissioner Scotch commented that the area in Blaine was completely open and this is an already developed area. She then asked if Mr. Harstad could assure the City that there would not be issues with the new or existing homes if this plan goes forward. Mr. Harstad indicated he has not created the water problems that already exist but said he could assure the City with engineer’s reports that there would not be additional water problems caused by his development. He then said that, if there were any issues after the development, he would agree to examine them under a microscope for the cause. Commissioner Hegland indicated that an engineering report is not a guarantee and there is no guarantee which is why the long-term maintenance bond would be required to fix any issues. He then said that the issues that have come up have not been addressed and, if there are water problems in the area as expressed, he does not think it is unreasonable to go overboard to make sure that further development does not make it worse or further impact those with existing issues. Mr. Harstad suggested that the community needs a storm sewer as right now the City is allowing his property to be used as the storm sewer. Commissioner Hegland asked if Mr. Harstad was willing to put the sewer in. Mr. Harstad indicated he would be treating the water prior to discharge to a wetland so he basically is creating a storm water system. Commissioner Scotch asked whether Rice Creek had said that there was a need for a storm sewer. Mr. Harstad indicated that Rice Creek said that the water needed to be treated before it flows into the wetland. Chair Stevenson indicated the Commission did not feel comfortable two years ago with the water issues and the likelihood of issues even with 8 lots. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the family has explored the option of donating the land and getting tax credits for it. He then said that he understand the interest of trying to gain from this property but 15 years ago he sat on the League of Cities for insurance and had to deal with issues in Coon Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Rapids dealing with a developer who had all the engineering reports and guarantees but basements were collapsing. When it came time for the League of cities to do something, that developer suddenly lost all his credibility by not showing up to the meetings, values to the property went down and residents were left with years and years of lawsuits because the cities did not go after the builder and he is still in business. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that this City has common sense and testimony from those that live in the area for over 30 years about the water in the area. He then said that he was really adamant about it with the 11 lot proposal, would reluctantly go with eight but now it is up to 15 and he feels that over saturation. He also indicated that the developer would be selling to someone and walking away and he does not feel there is any way the developer would stand up and deal with water in the basements and cracked basements should that happen. Mr. Harstad indicated that he took offense to the comments but respected the opinion of Mr. Zwirn. Commissioner Scotch indicated there were some issues with a prior development of Mr. Harstad’s father that were not addressed. She then said the other thing is this is a different age and area compared to 10 or 15 years ago. She further commented that it would be nice to start out with a few homes and see how it goes. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he would like to make a motion to recommend denial of the proposal. Commissioner Miller said she feels the Commission needs to send something more than a recommendation of denial. Scotch wanted to make a recommendation for 8 lots on Longview and no lots on Silver Lake Road. Commissioner Hegland indicated that Rice Creek is concerned with water and runoff into the wetland and is not concerned with safety issues. He then said that he feels that the City needs more information than an old report from Rice Creek. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he would not go along with any development along Silver Lake Road so he suggested recommending denial and letting Mr. Harstad bring another plan with more backup data forward for consideration. Commissioner Hegland indicated that he would like to go as far as saying that the eight lots on Longview Drive meet the criteria and he thinks that is doable but the Silver Lake Road lots are not. Director Ericson indicated that the minutes would reflect what the Commission is more comfortable with. He then said that, if the recommendation is to deny the plan because the Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Commission is not comfortable with the intensity of the development on the site given the wetlands issues, Staff will draft a resolution recommending denial. Chair Stevenson indicated that the Commission is not comfortable with any more than the eight lots. Mr. Harstad asked what the basis for the eight lots was and why that was the magic number. Chair Stevenson indicated the City does not know that eight would work and he doubts personally that the ground can support eight houses. Commissioner Hegland indicated that whether or not the property can support houses is an engineering question. He then said that the previous proposal was for 11 lots and the Commission was not comfortable with that but did agree to the eight lots. He further commented that the Silver Lake Road lots have more issues than just the wetland. Mr. Harstad indicated that his proposal meets the wetland zoning ordinance requirements as drafted. He then said he understands the eight lots on Longview because that is the number of lot that fit with the frontage requirements but he does not understand why there is an issue with the Silver Lake Road lots if he meets the Ordinance requirements. He further commented that a townhome development north on Silver Lake Road was not denied because of a driveway hazard. Commissioner Zwirn indicated the developer of the townhomes was dropped down to four from the requested six or eight due to the driveways. Mr. Harstad indicated that if the issue of limiting the numbers is due to water he would like to have an engineer’s report that he can submit to the City for their engineer’s review and determination of whether or not the City is comfortable. He then asked for guidance as to what he is doing wrong because his proposal meets the requirements of the ordinance. Chair Stevenson indicated there is an issue of buffer versus wetland and this is not buffer this is wetland. Commissioner Scotch indicated Mr. Harstad is building in a wetland. Mr. Harstad indicated that Rice Creek has delineated the wetlands on the lot and he is proposing to build in the wetland buffer not the delineated wetland. Chair Stevenson indicated that he did not feel that the land is a buffer. He then said he has walked on the land and through the area when the park was put there 10 years ago and it is a wetland. He further commented that the Commission is not going to support more than what was supported two years ago. The Commission asked Staff to draft a resolution recommending denial of the request. Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding Variance Request for 8471 Fairchild Avenue Planner Prososki indicated that this case is a request for a six-inch variance to allow for a second story expansion, slightly less than five square feet of which would encroach. She then explained that the home was constructed slightly crooked on the lot and that has necessitated the variance request. Commissioner Miller asked how the home was built crooked on the lot. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. There were no residents present to comment. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Stevenson. To Approve Resolution 743-03, a Resolution Approving a Six-Inch Variance to Allow a Second-Story Addition to Encroach Into the Side- Yard Setback at 8471 Fairchild Avenue. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: December 3, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.