Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-2002 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 19, 2002 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Miller at 7:00 p.m., June 19, 2002. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Scotch, Hegland, Zwirn, Song Members Absent: Stevenson (excused), Johnson (excused). Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case ZC02-003 2 Location: SW Corner of H2 and Long Lake Road Applicant: Marty Harstad ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Commissioner Zwirn’s statement as transcribed from the written copy he read from at the meeting. Chair, fellow Commissioners and Citizens. I came before this Commission and the City Council approximately ten months ago regarding the development of the Gustafson properties by Mezzenga contracting firm. At that time I had warned this Commission and the Council about several situations and details of the development that needed attention. Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Both bodies made representations to me that my concerns would be addressed. Mr. Mezzenga even agreed to certain conditions imposed by this Commission and the Council. However, this is not the case. Mr. Mezzenga has left the scene, sold the property with several conditions not addressed and not even brought to the attention of the new owners. This has imposed upon me the added frustration and inconvenience to notify staff and deal with bureaucratic delays. Although I don’t mind working with staff on these matters I’m sure they are sufficiently occupied with other projects. I’m not of the nature to be easily pacified by the political niceties and politically correct answers I get along with the numerous delays. This Commission and the City Council owes it to the citizens of Mounds View to deal with contractors of this ilk by imposing strict outlines of development with imposing penalties and fines or suspensions if not adhered to. Inspections must be made and conditions checked off before a contractor is released from his obligations. This evening we are to decide on a similar matter and by their own testimony citizens have been subjected to similar situations of contractor abandonment and government bureaucratic red tape over a frustratingly long 10-year period. I will not sit here and tolerate this facade of government. We must do a better job of monitoring the development and protecting and representing the citizens of Mounds View. Therefore, I implore you to be cautious with your vote. ____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Approval of Minutes a. May 1, 2002 MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Song. To Approve the Minutes of the May 1, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case ZC02-003 Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the request of the applicant for a rezone of 66 lots within the Red Oak Estates No. 3 Subdivision from R-1 single-family residential to R-3 medium density residential. He then indicated that the first meeting concerning this matter took place on June 5, 2002 and there was considerable resident input. He further indicated that of those residents speaking out against the rezoning the main concern was for flooding in the area due to already existing water issues that they did not want to have made any worse. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff feels that the introduction of townhomes along Greenwood Drive would not be appropriate because it is a single-family residential neighborhood. Community Development Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission is an advisory body to Council and noted the Commission is charged with making a recommendation based on information provided by Staff, the applicant, and input from the community. He then said it is a difficult task and noted the City Council, on numerous occasions, has said they are appreciative of the work the Commission does. Community Development Director Ericson explained that with rezoning requests two things are to be looked at. The first is to review the Comprehensive Plan and determine whether or not the request is consistent with the Plan. The Second is to look at the potential adverse effects on the neighborhood and determine whether the use will fit where it is intended. He then said that the tricky part is to allow for development that does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. Community Development Director Ericson explained that the property in question has always been zoned R-1 and there was never any rezoning. He then noted that townhomes were allowed previously in an R-1 district with a special use permit but the Code was changed and that is no longer the case. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that, at the last meeting, Staff had indicated that they felt an R-3 designation on the lots fronting H2 would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And, given the high density residential across the street, Staff is of the opinion that it would not be inconsistent. He then said that any construction would be contingent upon all outside agency approvals and required permits including any wetland zoning district requirements. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff had drafted two resolutions for consideration. They are both Resolution 699, the first version recommends denial of all 66 lots. The second version would recommend denial of lots 1 – 34 based upon the potentially extensive adverse effects to the neighborhood and inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and approval for Lots 35-52 and Lots 59-72 contingent upon all applicable and current building and zoning codes and wetland regulations being met and satisfied. Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson indicated that, at the last meeting, Staff was asked to sit down with Mr. Harstad and discuss whether he would accept R-2 for those lots fronting H2. He then noted that Mr. Harstad was not willing to accept that because the City’s Code would require that the lots be replatted to allow for twinhomes and Mr. Harstad cannot request a replatting of the lots without the permission of the six existing property owners. Commissioner Hegland commented that the common area partially extends into the area along Greenwood. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that was correct. Commissioner Hegland said that in any case Mr. Harstad would need to come to some sort of agreement with the existing property owners to divide it into two separate developments. He then said that if it is divided and townhomes allowed only along H2 there is still the issue of the common space along Greenwood that is not owned by Harstad. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that was correct. Commissioner Hegland said he did not see that issue as any different than the twinhome issue. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that an issue would remain unresolved but approval of the rezoning would allow something to be built. Martin Harstad of 2195 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton addressed the Commission and indicated he had not requested a replatting but a rezoning. He then said that he would be within his rights to build something on the 66 lots provided he has City approval and does not step outside the boxes. Mr. Harstad said he was before the Commission to come up with a solution for the property so they can build or do something with the property. He then said there are three options available to them and those are rezoning the 66 lots, asking for variances for 66 lots, or working out an agreement with the townhome association. Mr. Harstad indicated that in order to step out of the 66 boxes he would need consent of the six existing townhome owners. Commissioner Hegland commented that Mr. Harstad is asking the City to grant permission to develop the property as platted 27 years ago so that he does not have to do anything to reach an agreement with the other property owners. He then said that is an option that Mr. Harstad has chosen and it is not something that the City imposed on him. Mr. Harstad said he disagreed because if allowed to build what was originally platted and approved 27 years ago he would still be living in happy harmony with the townhome owners in that there is a townhome association agreement. Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland commented that Mr. Harstad did not develop the property in a timely manner and the only way to do that now without working it out with the homeowners association is to ask for the rezoning. Mr. Harstad agreed that it is not the only option but said the rules changed which put them in this position. Commissioner Zwirn asked who set up the homeowners association. Mr. Harstad said he believes his father did. Commissioner Zwirn asked if Mr. Harstad has actively participated in the association. Mr. Harstad indicated he has not and is not sure whether his father did but noted their telephone number is listed. Mr. Zwirn indicated that there had been statements made by residents that there have been issues that were not resolved and asked if Mr. Harstad had been contacted about the issues. Mr. Harstad said he has not. Acting Chair Miller asked whether the common space included the designated wetland. Mr. Harstad indicated at the time of platting 27 years ago there was a deed given to the City for a large portion of the wetland. He then said there is a drainage ditch that was deeded to the City as part of the original plat and there is wetland outside of that drainage ditch so the answer to the question is yes and no. Commissioner Zwirn asked if he was correct in recalling that Mr. Harstad had made the statement that part of the land was deeded to the City for a drainage ditch as a tradeoff for approval of another building project in the City. Mr. Harstad said he does not believe he made that statement and said he thought he said at the time of platting the City takes a piece of property for road and drainage. Commissioner Song asked how the taxes on the properties are paid. Mr. Harstad indicated there are 66 individual tax statements that are generated by the County. Ronald Morgan of 2656 West County Road H2 indicated he was speaking on behalf of the six townhome owners within the development that have built or own homes there. He then said he did not enjoy being at the meeting and said he has spent the last couple of weeks with consultants paying money for legal advice. He further stated that he thinks it is absolutely bizarre that Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ consideration can be given to the rezoning as it seems to be in direct conflict with the City attorney’s letter of January 18, 1998. Mr. Morgan said he is upset with the whole procedure and how things are taking place. He also said that he is amazed that Mr. Ericson did not make reference to the City Attorney’s letter at all during his presentation. Mr. Morgan asked why the City Planners would recommend this change from R1to R3. He then said that boggles his mind. He further stated that two weeks ago he was here and cannot recall one single person that spoke in favor of that change other than Mr. Harstad and the City. Mr. Morgan asked if the City is neutral or whether the rezoning was being considered to eliminate the ongoing litigation with Mr. Harstad and the City. He also asked if there is a bias with the City’s recommendation but said he sincerely hopes not and will assume there is not. Mr. Morgan said it was Keith Harstad that had this development 27 years ago and then stopped the project after getting special zoning through a special use permit and building only six units. Acting Chair Miller indicated that townhomes could be built within the R1 zone with a special use permit and noted the zoning was not changed. Mr. Morgan indicated the project was started and then abandoned and a number of years later the special use permit was withdrawn. Acting Chair Miller indicated that the City’s Code was changed and townhomes were no longer allowed in R1 and had to be in R3 zoning districts. Mr. Morgan indicated that Red Oak Estates, Inc. owns all of the common area which leaves Mr. Harstad’s 66 lots inaccessible. He then said that allowing the change does nothing for Mr. Harstad because he cannot get to the lots to build anything. Commissioner Hegland indicated that if Mr. Harstad develops the property that he owns the agreement says he has access as part of the association agreement. Mr. Morgan indicated it is his position that the six owners who have homes and pay association assessment dues are the only ones with voting rights. He then said that is contested by Mr. Harstad. He further stated that, if Mr. Harstad does not want to address the issues, it may be necessary to address the issues in court. Mr. Morgan indicated he wanted to make the point that he feels that any rezoning of the property must mutually be requested and signed by the existing townhouse owners that live right smack in the middle of this development. Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Morgan said he feels this is what Mr. Riggs said in his detailed letter of January 18, 1998. He then said he would leave a copy of the letter for the Commission. Mr. Morgan asked how Mr. Harstad was allowed to build townhomes without a PUD. He then said there are six owners within the development and he asked if it is legal to change the zoning without their approval. Mr. Morgan said he does not support the proposed zoning change. He then said there are homeowners in the middle of the development with existing issues that Mr. Harstad cannot get resolved and to add to those problems is unacceptable. He further stated he feels approving the zoning change would adversely affect the immediate neighbors and lower home values. Mr. Morgan indicated the townhome owners have collectively agreed that they may not be adverse to twin homes being built as individual but they are opposed to any buildings like the one already existing. Mr. Morgan said he looks to the City to respect the rights of the surrounding property owners. Acting Chair Miller commented that Mr. Morgan lives in a six-unit complex and questioned why he had said he did not want to see another one constructed. Mr. Morgan explained that there have been problems with the existing building that have not been addressed. He also said that the townhomes proposed are designed to have basement bedrooms and that is a questionable design based on the water table and other issues. He further stated that he feels the proposal for upscale townhomes was great and he would like to see something like that. Commissioner Zwirn commented that Mr. Morgan had made representations that there are issues with the six units and then asked if the association has attempted to address those issues with Mr. Harstad. Mr. Morgan indicated that the issues have not really been communicated to Mr. Harstad in any detail because there have been meetings with Mr. Harstad that have been very intimidating and not a pleasant experience. He further explained that at one of the meetings Mr. Harstad’s attorney was so intimidating that the group got up and left and at one of the other meetings the two groups agreed to disagree. He also said that the association decided not to bother addressing other issues since they were not getting cooperation on the existing issues. Commissioner Zwirn questioned why Mr. Harstad had an attorney present at a meeting to discuss issues. Mr. Morgan indicated the meeting was primarily held at the request of Mr. Harstad to discuss support for the rezoning. Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn asked whether or not Mr. Harstad has participated as an active member of the association by attending meetings to discuss issues or renovations. Mr. Morgan indicated there has been no participation from Mr. Harstad in the time he (Mr. Morgan) has been involved in the association. Commissioner Hegland asked whether the association was responsible for the common area as a whole. Mr. Morgan said yes. Commissioner Hegland indicated that whatever the association decides to do with the common space is not Mr. Harstad’s problem alone it is all association members problem. Commissioner Hegland asked what issues Mr. Harstad needed to deal with. Mr. Morgan said Mr. Harstad abandoned the homeowners association. Mr. Morgan said that the whole development should be looked at not just the individual lots. He then said Mr. Harstad pays no association dues and does not get involved in any meetings. Mr. Morgan said he wanted to be heard about his rights as a citizen and landowner having a house in the middle of that development. Commissioner Hegland indicated the rezoning would allow the type of home that Mr. Morgan has. He further said that the rezoning would bring the property into compliance with the City’s ordinances. Mr. Morgan said the property owners are tied in legally through the common property. He then said all the common area belongs to the association and that represents 50% of the land in question. Commissioner Hegland indicated the request Mr. Harstad is making would bring the property into compliance with the existing zoning code and the only reason the townhomes are there now is they were allowed before the change. Mr. Morgan said he does not accept that as he feels the vote of the six landowners is crucial and change cannot be made to that property without their consent. He then said the City can condemn the property, pay fair market value, and do what the City wants to do with the property. Lee Watkins of 2609 Louisa Avenue thanked Commissioner Zwirn for his statement at the beginning of the meeting. He then outlined some of the issues with the existing development such as the incomplete drainage ditch along H2 and suggested that the City needs to improve the Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ system by which a developer is excused from the project in order to ensure that all items are completed according to plans rather than having developers leave the scene with things undone. Mr. Watkins said he did not feel the City should have made the final acceptance and let construction start on the townhomes until the final grading was done. He then said he feels that makes Mr. Harstad and the City liable for the water related issues as well as the homeowners association for failure to maintain their portion of the drainage ditch and for trees overhanging the property line should they cause any damage. Mr. Watkins outlined various issues with the open property such as kids setting fires, hiding alcohol, hanging out and using motorbikes back there. Mr. Watkins encouraged homeowners to tally up their expenses related to repairs needing to be done due to the incompletion of this development and send them in to the City and Mr. Harstad for reimbursement. He then praised the City for keeping the zoning on Greenwood R1 and asked that the Commission completely turn down the rezoning request. Mr. Watkins suggested that if an agreement could not be reached on the common areas the City should condemn it and auction it off. He also suggested that the vacant unmanaged property could become an issue in the near future and suggested someone act on getting the grading finished and keeping the property mowed and accessible so that it does not become a hazard. Julian Sprunck of 2649 Louisa Avenue indicated he would like to add that last night his rain gauge recorded 1.75 inches of rain, the duck pond is back in his yard, and with more rains predicted for tonight he is debating if he should pull out the inner tubes his kids used to play with. He then said that while it is comical to watch the ducks argue with the squirrels he has concerns with flooding. Mr. Sprunck commented that Mr. Ericson had said at the last meeting that he would never allow building to take place if it would cause flooding. He then said that a verbal promise and a dollar will not get you a cup of coffee in his house because a verbal promise cannot be trusted. Mr. Sprunck said that in his career he has met too many mechanical, electrical, and civil engineers all of whom built projects based on statistics only to find out later on that they missed something. He then said that, in that regard, he would hope that he never has to come back to this body and say I told you so. Mr. Sprunck said this is a difficult decision to make and noted the Commission needed to balance the needs of one property owner versus the needs of 15 property owners. He then said that from his perspective it would be unjust to unduly balance those needs in favor of the one property owner. Mr. Sprunck commented that the area at present is high density simply because of Scotland Green and in the past two weeks he could not find or think of one defensible reason to raise that Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ population density. He then said he realizes that statement contradicts the statement of Mr. Ericson indicating that townhomes along H2 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but he does not know that anyone ever swore by the Comprehensive Plan as the only operative document. Mr. Sprunck said he was begging and requesting that the Commission deny the rezoning request. Margaret Meyer of 2654 Louisa Avenue indicated she was only vaguely aware of this issue because neighbors have talked about it. She then indicated that after her home was remodeled in the mid-1980’s a full basement was added and she has a sump pump that runs quite often because this is a really wet area. She further said she had come to support her neighbors and hear what was going on. Ms. Meyer commented that she thinks if Mr. Harstad were to come back and fix some of the grading issues it would go a long way toward improving neighborhood relations and support of his project. She then said she understands he owns the property and wants to make money which would broaden the tax base and ultimately be good for the City of Mounds View but the problems should be fixed first before moving forward. Ms. Meyer asked if the homes were designed to have basement bedrooms. Mr. Harstad said the homes would be split entries. Ms. Meyer indicated that all three of her bedrooms are on the lower level and it is damp. Barb Watkins of 2609 Louisa Avenue said she wanted to say she is against the rezoning because she likes a dry basement. She then said they moved to their house in June and by September were attempting to meet with Mr. Harstad to resolve issues. She then said her sump pump runs every half hour and they have installed a retaining wall to try to protect them because the grading was never done. She further said there have been many promises that she has not seen. Commissioner Scotch asked what sorts of promises had been made. Ms. Watkins indicated she had been told there would be a park and that Greenwood would be a single home development Commissioner Hegland asked who made these promises. Ms. Watkins indicated her builder Pinetree Builders had told her these things and she has been dealing with issues for 27 years. Lee Watkins addressed the Commission to say he was disappointed that one commissioner asked to be excused two weeks in a row and another one is absent. He then said he felt all members should be at this meeting because it is an important issue. Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Acting Chair Miller indicated that both Commissioners had personal obligations that needed to be taken care of Commissioner Hegland indicated he was ready to make a motion and explained that the action taken by the Commission was a recommendation to Council that could be overruled and urged residents to attend the Council meeting to make their feelings known. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 699, a Resolution Recommending Denial of a Requested Rezoning of Lots 1-52 and Lots 59-72, Block 1, Red Oak Estates No. 3, From R-1, Single-Family Residential, To R-3, Medium Density Residential. Commissioner Hegland indicated he had made the motion to deny because the request is only partially in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and there are enough questions as to whether or not it would have detrimental effects on the area that he feels strongly about denying it. Commissioner Scotch agreed that there are too many issues that would need to be addressed before she would feel comfortable approving the request. She then said the grading needs to be cleaned up. She further indicated that she is not against approval of a nice development but the existing development was not done properly. Mr. Harstad said he has heard a lot and agrees with some of it but looks at the development for a chance to get beyond the hurdles and correct some of the issues that were caused with the earlier development. He then said that 17 years ago there was a request for a rezoning that was denied and he and his brothers and sisters are trying to clean up some outstanding issues as their father retired. He further indicated that he could not answer to why the grading was not done in 1973 but said the process is different today and the City is better able to require that things be done according to the plans. Mr. Harstad said he could not speak for other builders or for Harstad Todd because that was his father and his uncle but he did assure the Commission and residents that any development that he is in charge of would be completed properly. He further said he was willing to work things out with the neighbors if his property is causing them trouble as well as working with the homeowners association to work out those issues but before he can do that a working plan for use of the property needs to be determined. Mr. Harstad commented that he has kind of a bad rap here tonight and he understands some of that but said he was not a party to what happened in 1973 and that is not the way he does business. He then said that whether this is approved or denied when the time comes someday he will work with neighbors, staff and work with the governing authority to try to alleviate these problems. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson indicated this matter would be on Council’s agenda on July 8, 2002. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 3, 2002 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, James Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.