Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 17, 2001 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., October 17, 2001. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners, Stevenson, Johnson, Zwirn, Miller, and Scotch. Members Excused: Kaden (on leave), Hegland (excused). Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planner Atkinson. ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR01-010 2 Location: Silver Lake Road/County Road H2 Applicant: Marty Harstad Planning Case No. MA01-003 11 Location: County Road I/Long Lake Road Applicant: Gustafson/Zinser Planning Case No. VR01-011 12 Location: 5150 Irondale Road Applicant: Steve Stimmler Planning Case No. MI01-002 13 Location: 7841 Spring Lake Road Applicant: Brian Diehl Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Case No. DE00-002 18 Location: County Road I/Greenfield Avenue Applicant: Tony Mezzenga Staff Reports/Items of Information 20 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 20 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Approval of Minutes: a. August 15, 2001 b. September 5, 2001 c. September 19, 2001 MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Zwirn. To Approve the Minutes for August 15, 2001, September 5, 2001, and September 19, 2001 as presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case No. VR01-010 Community Development Director Ericson explained that this case was a variance request from the Harstads for reduced lot widths for a proposed major subdivision of land located between Longview Drive and Silver Lake Road. He then noted there was a public hearing in June and the matter was referred to Rice Creek Watershed District for approval. He further explained that Staff has since learned that part of the Code requires minimum lot widths of 125 feet and a minimum of 20,000 square feet for properties located within a wetland zoning district. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Harstad was given the new information and had submitted a new plat resulting in a variance request for 10 lots of less than 125 feet in width. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff had asked the applicant to consider the hardship requirements prior to applying for the variance. He then reviewed the variance requirements for the Commission and those in attendance. Community Development Director Ericson noted that the first requirement was that an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance must apply to the property which does not apply Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity over which the applicant has no control. Community Development Director Ericson then explained that the property in question was originally platted in 1963 as part of the Mueller Addition and noted that even though the property was not developed due to the costs involved with altering the wetland at that time, sanitary sewer and water stubs were installed in anticipation of future development. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the second requirement was that the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others. Community Development Director Ericson then indicated that if the Code were literally interpreted the Harstads would lose the ability to develop three of the lots, which would apply to other property owners in the same district. He then said, however, other property owners in a similar district probably would not have a vested interest in the undeveloped property as is the case here because the sewer and water stubs are already installed. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the third requirement is that the special conditions or circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. He then indicated that the sewer and water stubs were installed shortly after the land was originally platted in 1963 indicating that it was always the intention to develop the property. He further indicated that even though the applicant was aware of the constraints involved with developing the site, the applicant did not cause the special conditions or circumstances. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the fourth requirement is that granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege denied to others in the same district. He then indicated that granting a variance in this case would not confer special privileges to the applicant as all other platting requirements would be met by the proposal. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the fifth requirement was that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. He then indicated that the variance requested would be considered the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship if you made the assumption that the subdivision, less the wetland zoning district overlay requirements, would constitute the standard by which the hardship was measured. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the sixth requirement was that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code or to other properties in the same zone. He then indicated that the purpose of this part of the Code was to protect the wetlands. He further indicated that all the lots exceed the minimum square footage of 20,000 square feet and Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the plat and wetland alteration plans. He then stated that in light of those facts, Staff is satisfied that reduced lot widths would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Wetlands Zoning Regulations. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the seventh requirement was that the proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion on public streets. He then indicated that Staff did not feel that granting the variance would have any real impact on the light, air or traffic congestion. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff had looked at the requirements he just reviewed and had taken into consideration the hardship statement submitted by the Harstads while drafting its report for the Commission. He then recommended holding the public hearing and hearing resident input before coming to a conclusion on the variance request. Commissioner Miller asked how many utility stubs were put in at the property. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that there were ten stubs in place at the property. Chair Stevenson asked Mr. Ericson to point out the wetlands on the drawing. Community Development Director Ericson explained the drawing for the proposed development indicating the wetland was shown in blue and the open space was shown in green. He then indicated the open space would be an outlot and said ownership of the outlot had not yet been determined. He further indicated that the proposed development was basically the same configuration as the development across the street. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Steve Feldner of 5168 Longview Drive clarified that the proposed development was not the same configuration as the development across the street because there are only eight lots across the street and they are all the same width. He then indicated he feels that allowing the development would devalue the lots across the street because there would be 11 lots in a space that should contain eight. Mr. Feldner asked if the applicant would be willing to pay to put the utilities in the ground as it is not possible to put the utilities behind the houses and he does not want to be looking at utility poles in his front yard. He then asked if the homeowners in the new development would be willing to apply for wetland permits to cut their grass as a permit is required by law to mow grass in a wetland area. He also asked if residents would be forbidden to use pesticides or weed killers on their lawns because there is a steep grade at the back of the lots and all the pesticides and weed killers would run into the wetland. He then commented that, if that were allowed to happen, the wetland would become a stagnant pond within a year. Mr. Feldner indicated he did not see a viable way to develop the land as he can walk across the street ten feet and be standing in mud. He then indicated that anyone who says the wetland is only the blue area is lying because the whole thing is wet most of the time and if the developer fills it in it will not only ruin the wetland but will create a slope that will cause things to run into the wetland and it will turn it into a quagmire of rotting plants because nothing will be left alive in there. Community Development Director Ericson clarified that Mr. Feldner was correct as the blue areas on the map are replacement areas for fill that would be occurring. He then indicated that Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ the dark shaded area on the other map is the delineated wetland. He further stated that Mr. Feldner is correct in that there is a lot of wetland there. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff was also concerned for the delineation as it seems awfully wet but said that there are very stringent rules under the discretion of Rice Creek Watershed District and the delineations were received from Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Severson of 5172 Longview Drive indicated that the area is an established wetland that has been there for 100s of years and to take away the wetlands and make up others makes them standing water ponds not wetlands that take rain water and disperse or filter it. He then noted that the same thing was done in Woodcrest Park and he feels it is a shame they were allowed to do it. Chair Stevenson asked if more mitigation would be required as the lots are larger and extend more into the delineated wetlands. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the change in lot size does not change the amount of wetland that would need to be filled. He indicated that a Wetland Alteration Permit would be required and said each lot would have covenants indicating that the area beyond the flagged line is designated wetland and cannot be cut. He further indicated that the City does not have requirements governing the use of fertilizers and said the City typically makes a requirement that when there is a subdivision, a 10-foot natural buffer is maintained between the wetland and the sodded yard. Chair Stevenson asked how a house could be built and not be located in the wetland. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Harstad is proposing to fill an area to create a buildable site which does not leave a lot of usable back yard but the person building the home would be aware of that. He then indicated that Rice Creek Watershed District typically requires a two to one mitigation for filled wetland and said that Mr. Harstad has proposed leaving a lot of the wooded area and will receive an upland credit so his mitigation ratio would be one to one. Mr. Feldner asked if Mr. Harstad was asking for a variance on the two to one ratio as well. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Rice Creek Watershed District has fairly stringent requirements for wetlands and indicated that a developer can fill up to 400 square feet and beyond that the requirement is to create a two to one mitigation on the same site or set aside other land for conservation never to be developed. He then indicated that Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the proposal, pending receipt of a couple of paperwork items. Chair Stevenson asked if Rice Creek had taken soil borings. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the soil borings would need to be done and submitted to the City before the City would issue a building permit and those soil borings need to demonstrate that the soils can support a house. He then indicated that the developer would need to dig out the peat and bring in fill that is suitable to support a house. Mr. Feldner indicated that the developer could level all the trees before finding out that houses cannot be built there. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the City has made a request to preserve trees up to the setback line and has asked for a tree inventory. He then indicated that trees would not come down before the soil borings were completed. He further indicated that the neighborhood would not be left with an open patch of land that would not support houses. Pete Severson of 5172 Longview Drive indicated that there is a solid batch of trees that runs the entire length of Longview Drive and shades all the houses on the east of Longview Drive. He indicated that in order to put houses in the developer would have to take out the trees and put fake ponds behind the houses. He then indicated he is not impressed with what happened at Woodcrest and said he feels this development will destroy the wetland. He further indicated that there is a lot of wildlife in the area and said he has enjoyed the natural area for the 15 years he has lived there. He then asked the Commission not to allow the developer to wreck the wetland. Barbara Kosiak of 5173 Red Oak Drive indicated she has lived in the City for 30 years and said she is not sure she likes the deer that are in the wetland area as they eat her garden. She then indicated that her main concern is with the removal of the peat that holds water and replacing it with fill suitable for building houses on. She further indicated that doing so changes the water management in the area and she is concerned that neighborhood residents would have wet basements. Dave Tillman of 5166 Longview Drive asked if the buffer zone was enacted prior to the Harstads purchasing the land. He then stated that, “if you buy a swamp, you buy a swamp, if you buy bad stock you lose money.” He further stated that he feels the development would impact the light and air of the surrounding properties because the solid line of mature trees shades the houses across the street and means that those residents only have to run their air conditioners on the very hot days of summer. Mr. Tillman indicated that the wetland buffer zone extends to his front yard and said he had to adhere to the building Codes when he built his addition and he feels the developer should be held to the same requirements. Commissioner Scotch asked if the City had a requirement for the amount of wetlands it required. Community Development Director Ericson indicated there was no requirement for minimum amount of wetland acreage. He then indicated that some cities have no wetlands but said the City of Mounds View has a great water management system. He then commented that a lot of residents feel strongly about wetlands as they do offer an amenity to residents and they bring in Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ habitat and wildlife meaning any time there is an alteration it is a big deal. He further commented that the City is very aware of the impact and the loss of the wetland. Community Development Director Ericson spoke to the comment made by a resident that they could not believe the City would want to allow the development of a natural area by saying that the City would like the wetland to be left as it is but said the land is not owned by the City and the City cannot afford to purchase these types of properties to keep them from being developed. He further noted that, until a couple of months ago, this proposal was proceeding according to Code but said the City does have quite a few wetlands and has a part of the Code specifically designed to protect those wetlands. He then said that if Rice Creek Watershed District felt it was not a good idea they would not approve the proposal. Chair Stevenson asked the rationale behind Chapter 1010 and the 125-foot minimum lot width requirement. Community Development Director Ericson indicated he could only interpret that the City intended to further protect the wetland areas with more stringent requirements in a wetland district. Chair Stevenson indicated he knew the answer but asked for a reason. He then indicated that the City was concerned for the pressures placed on the wetlands by allowing too many houses to be built on them. He further indicated that he is concerned that this development would create more water pressure for the neighborhood for water runoff. Mr. Feldner indicated there are no storm sewers in that entire loop and said that two thirds (2/3) of the way up the road it breaks and goes in either direction. He then indicated that, at that point, water runs off toward the corner and the rest runs down the whole street and it is all being absorbed by the wetlands. He further indicated that if a house is located there it would necessitate the need for storm sewers and curb and gutter. He further commented that right now runoff is handled the natural way but said that, if the wetland is allowed to develop, the City would need to make arrangements for doing things the mechanical way with curb and gutter and storm sewers. Mr. Severson stated that if the law is 125 feet for frontage then the developer should have to stick to that because he has seen no information presented that would justify changing the rules. Vernon Larson of 2760 Woodale Drive indicated that when the hole was dug to install his utilities a pump was used to pump all the water out of the ground before they could be connected. He then indicated that, when the area dried out, his driveway sank a half an inch and had to be replaced which cost him $2,500. Mr. Harstad said he was torn as to how to respond to some of the residents’ comments. He then said his family has owned the property for many years and in 1992 the City of Mounds View enacted the new wetland buffer ordinance. He further indicated that other cities have enacted similar ordinances and said that government regulation was created and a local governing unit is Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ used to make sure that everyone is treated the same. He then commented that Rice Creek Watershed District is the local governing unit in this case and said it has indicated no problem with approval of the proposed development. Mr. Harstad stated that his father has paid taxes for years on the property and has paid the assessments for utilities to the property. He then stated that his father has allowed storm water to be dumped onto his property that contributes water to the wetland. Mr. Harstad indicated that, prior to 1992 when the buffer came in to play, they would have been able to develop the property and he said he is here to ask for something that is fair. He then indicated that he could have followed the Rice Creek Watershed District requirements for two to one replacement of wetlands but noted even more trees would have to be cut down. Mr. Harstad indicated that the trees would act as a buffer for the houses from Silver Lake Road. Mr. Harstad indicated that at the neighborhood meetings residents had asked that the proposed development blend into the neighborhood and stated he feels it will do so. Mr. Harstad indicated that the sewer and water stubs were installed and paid for at the property. He then said he understands residents’ concerns for losing the natural area across the street from their houses but said they own the property and are asking for a fair shake in developing it. Commissioner Johnson asked what the average square footage of the houses to be built would be. Mr. Harstad indicated that the footprint for the houses was listed as 2500 square feet. Commissioner Johnson asked what the square footage of the houses in the development across the street was. Mr. Harstad indicated the square footages in the existing development were 1000 or 1500 square feet. Commissioner Scotch indicated she felt residents are most concerned for what filling the wetland would do to their property with runoff. She then stated she has seen developments go in that sit on a wetland and the neighbors are hindered by the alteration of the property and do have water in their basements. The residents in attendance indicated that the wetland was the lowest spot in the area and said they feel a couple of small ponds would not replace the holding capacity of the wetland. Mr. Harstad indicated that, as part of Rice Creek Watershed requirements, he was required to submit calculations on how much ponding capacity exists prior to the development and how much ponding capacity exists after the development. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch indicated that she has seen Rice Creek approve things that are detrimental to the residents in the past and that is her concern. Mr. Harstad indicated he would be before the City Engineers on the matter and said he could only assure the Commission that if something goes wrong it does come back to the developer and he does not want to deal with it any more than the City does. Mr. Severson asked if the property was swamp land when his dad bought the land as he understood there was more water there when the land was purchased. Mr. Harstad disagreed saying that with the development in the area the City has directed water to the property due to the City’s lack of storm sewer in the area. Mr. Severson indicated he was there when the drainage area on the south end of the land was built and said that there was more water in the swamp than there is now. He then commented that the ground is always saturated and murky. Mr. Severson indicated that his house is buffered from Silver Lake Road by the trees located on the property along Longview Drive and said removing those trees subjects him to the noise of Silver Lake Road. He then asked if Mr. Harstad would be building the houses. Mr. Harstad indicated they would be selecting one builder to build all the houses in the development. He then indicated that he would be creating house pads that will permit a certain size home and the builder needs to build within that constraint. Mr. Severson asked if the houses would have basements. Mr. Harstad indicated that most houses in the existing neighborhood are split entry. He then indicated his plan calls for five split entry lots, five walkout lots and one look out lot. Mr. Severson indicated that one house in the area does not have a basement because of the water table. Mr. Harstad indicated that the south end of the property is the lowest and said the lots toward the north would be the walkout lots. Mr. Larson indicated he wanted to have a split-level house but the builder said he would have to haul in a lot of dirt and as he and his wife did not want to walk up a lot of steps they decided to eliminate the basement. Commissioner Miller asked when the City would hear from Rice Creek Watershed District on final approval. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the City had recently received notification from Rice Creek Watershed District that the matter has been tabled for more Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ information with the authority for administrative approval should the required documentation be received. Commissioner Miller questioned whether the matter should be held pending Rice Creek Watershed District’s final determination on the matter. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that whenever the City processes a Wetland Alteration Permit one of the stipulations is that the applicant have the approval of Rice Creek Watershed District. He then said the Commission could wait on the matter but suggested that the approval of the variance would be contingent upon receiving the Rice Creek Watershed District permit. Chair Stevenson indicated he did not want to deny a builder the right to build on property that he owns but said he feels the Commission needs to follow the requirements of the Code as they were put into place to protect the wetlands. He then indicated the effect of having property less than 125 feet wide could be very significant to the neighborhood. He further indicated that he is not convinced that the land would sustain homes but said that is for the developer to determine. Commissioner Miller agreed with Chair Stevenson. Commissioner Johnson indicated that the developer had changed his plans from 14 lots down to 11 lots and has done a lot for the community. He then indicated that, if Rice Creek Watershed District does not see a problem with the development, he could support granting the variance. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he had used a Franklin table to list positives and negatives and said that he had many negatives and not many positives. He then commented that Mr. Harstad had asked for fairness and said that he feels it would not be fair to the existing neighborhood to significantly alter the wetland because he feels it would have a negative impact on surrounding properties. Commissioner Scotch stated she has seen some of Mr. Harstad’s work in other developments and said he does nice developments. She commented that there is so much development going on so quickly that has hindered the community which is why she is torn on a decision on the matter. She then stated she would lean toward granting the variance. Commissioner Miller indicated she did not feel the applicant has met the criteria for granting the variance. Chair Stevenson indicated it appeared that the Commission was three to two against granting the variance. Community Development Director Ericson indicated Staff would draft a resolution and have it on the November 7, 2001 agenda. He then indicated that one Commissioner was not in attendance at the meeting and said he would provide a resolution for approval and for denial for consideration. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case MA01-003 Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:19 p.m. Planner Atkinson indicated this was a public hearing to consider the applicant’s request to create six lots from the existing three. He then indicated there had been a previous rezoning request and noted Council had tabled the second reading until the subdivision is approved. He also noted that there had been a variance granted for Lot 3 for a lot width of 94 feet. Planner Atkinson indicated that the lots all conform to the requirements of the zoning Code. He noted that there would need to be an easement for utilities over the backs of lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. He then reviewed the requirements for approval of a major subdivision and indicated that the subdivision would have little impact on the streets and noted there would be a 10% park dedication fee required which is calculated on the value of the newly created lots. He further indicated that the park dedication fees for this subdivision would be approximately $5,590. Commissioner Miller asked where the driveway access for Lot 3 would be located. Planner Atkinson indicated the driveway for Lot 3 would be located along Long Lake Road. Mr. Zinser indicated that Mr. Gustafson is making arrangements to turn his residence into an up and down duplex based on approval of multi-family housing for the lot. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 675-01, a Resolution Recommending Preliminary Plat Approval of a Major Subdivision of 2525 County Road I. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case VR01-011 Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Planner Atkinson indicated that the applicant has requested a variance to be allowed to construct a fence in the front yard of 5150 Irondale Road. He then indicated that the applicant is considered by City Code to have two front yards as it is a corner lot. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Atkinson indicated the applicant has a row of shrubs and is asking to add a six foot fence along that row of bushes. He then indicated he had a few calls about this matter, most of which stemmed from the confusing language concerning the two front yards. He did indicate, however, that one neighbor felt the fence would compromise the open feel of the neighborhood. Planner Atkinson indicated that this is a corner lot making it different from most other lots in the City. He then indicated that the applicant has said he would like to have a pool and noted the Code requires a fence of at least five feet in height and requiring the applicant to adhere to the strict language of the Code for corner lots would mean there would not be room for a pool. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the existing fence in the backyard was chain link. Planner Atkinson indicated it is a wooden fence. He then indicated that the applicant recently installed fencing where City Code would allow and noted the area that he wishes to fence used to have chain link. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Miller indicated she had gone to the area to get a visual of the situation and said that she did not feel the fence would obstruct anything because the house is set back on the lot. Planner Atkinson indicated there was a four-foot chain link fence already and the request is to replace it with a six-foot wood fence. Commissioner Miller indicated she was aware the Code says the applicant has two front yards but said she had a hard time seeing that in this instance. Chair Stevenson indicated he felt the Commission should consider the definition of corner lots and their front yards at some point. He then indicated he did not have a problem with this request. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Stevenson. To Approve Resolution 674-01, a Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow a Fence of Six Feet in Height to be Constructed in the Front Yard of the Property Located at 5150 Irondale Road. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Planning Case MI01-002 Planner Atkinson indicated the applicant had requested a minor subdivision of 7841 Spring Lake Road as the applicant wants to split off the back 260 feet of the lot to form a new lot to build a house on. He then indicated that the newly created lot would front on Oakwood Road and the private driveway to the Knollwood Green Townhomes. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Atkinson indicated the major issue is with the access point as the major frontage is on the access drive and not a full width street. He then indicated the property does, however, have a short distance fronting on Oakwood Road and the applicant is proposing that his driveway attach to the access drive and then out to Oakwood Road. Planner Atkinson indicated he had been in ongoing discussions with the public works foreman who had indicated it would be possible to grant the applicant permission to use the access drive provided the applicant agree to maintain the access drive. He then asked the Commission to consider the request noting that there is an existing gate that would need to be moved back to accommodate the applicant’s request. Planner Atkinson noted that the park dedication fee for this subdivision would be approximately $2,609.00 and said there was no resolution for approval as the matter needs to be discussed. Commissioner Miller asked if it would be possible to open up any other lots for development in the area. Planner Atkinson indicated that the neighbor to the north had expressed an interest in developing her property until she was informed of the cost of the required roadway. Planner Atkinson indicated he had spoken to a property owner a little farther north on Spring Lake Road who was concerned that if this were done with the private access road it would prohibit further development up Spring Lake Road. He then indicated that it would be difficult to extend that private road into a real road because the townhomes are located so close to the access drive. Chair Stevenson indicated he used to live in the area and noted that the City had assured residents at the time that Knollwood Green was approved that the access drive was for emergency purposes only and would never be converted to a standard roadway. He then indicated that he would never vote to approve anything that would ever convert the private drive to a standard roadway. Commissioner Johnson indicated that the access drive was for emergency access only. Chair Stevenson indicated if the access drive were opened up everyone in the area would be up in arms because it was a contested issue at the time. He then indicated he did not have a problem with allowing access onto the Oakwood Road extension. He further indicated that the City would need to change how it plows that street. Planner Atkinson indicated he would discuss snow removal with Mr. Pittman. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was enough frontage on Oakwood Road for a driveway. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Atkinson indicated that there was enough frontage on Oakwood Road for a driveway but said there is still a question as to whether the driveway would come out exactly onto Oakwood Road as it may be on the access drive. Chair Stevenson indicated he thinks the Commission could allow the subdivision with access onto Oakwood Road. Commissioner Miller indicated that the access drive was only for use at Knollwood Green. She then questioned whether the applicant would be using that access for his driveway. Chair Stevenson indicated that the gate may move back a few feet but said the function of the gate would not change. Janet Schultz of 7887 Spring Lake Road indicated she had lived in Mounds View for 40 years and said that when Knollwood Green was put in was the time to get a road in to develop the back of their lots but, when Knollwood Green was approved as it is, the City landlocked the homeowners to the north making it impossible to develop their lots. Chair Stevenson indicated he was opposed to Knollwood Green when it was put in. Ms. Schultz asked if the access drive was City property. Chair Stevenson indicated that the access drive is City property. Ms. Schultz asked if the City would ever allow it to become a real road. Chair Stevenson indicated that he would not personally vote to approve it as a roadway. Jim Gould of 7879 Spring Lake Road indicated that by opening up the requested lot the City would be opening a can of worms because the rest of those lots are landlocked and cannot be developed. Brian Diehl of 7841 Spring Lake Road clarified that he and his wife are building a house on the land and would be removing as few trees as possible to build the house. Chair Stevenson asked where Mr. Diehl’s preferred access would be. Mr. Diehl indicated that he would like to move the southern most gate 20 feet to put in his driveway and run it out on the southern part of the access road. He then indicated he had been working with the City since February and also with Knollwood Green and had reached an agreement that would make him responsible for snow removal and require that his actions not lessen the condition of the access drive. Commissioner Zwirn asked how far the driveway would overlap into the access drive. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Diehl indicated that he would not have any property on the paved surface of Oakwood Road. Ms. Schultz asked how the applicant intended to get to the house. Mr. Diehl indicated he intended to use the access drive to access Oakwood Road. Commissioner Miller clarified that as Ms. Schultz had indicated the lots further north would still be landlocked if the City granted this request. Commissioner Johnson indicated the only thing the applicant would get is an easement onto Knollwood Drive. Commissioner Zwirn asked how wide the easement would be. Mr. Diehl indicated he needed a single driveway and said they are building a 1500 or 1600 square foot rambler. Commissioner Miller asked who could approve the driveway onto the access drive. Mr. Diehl indicated the City would need to approve access to the access drive as it is City-owned property. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the question of whether to allow access is an issue the City has been discussing with Mr. Diehl. He then indicated that it is a matter of policy whether the City wants to allow the lot to have access on the City right of way and noted there is not a Public Works Director on staff currently to give direction on this type of policy question. Chair Stevenson said he did not have a problem with the request. Ann Lube of 2892 Highway 10 indicated she had lived in Mounds View for two years and moved to her location because it was a quiet area and she walks through the area a lot. She then asked if there was the potential for more development in the area in the future. Chair Stevenson indicated he did not see it happening but said there is always the possibility of development. Ms. Schultz indicated the only potential for development is if the City allows residents to build a road with a cul-de-sac. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that, in discussing the matter with Mr. Diehl, the cost to put the roadway in is too costly. He then noted that theoretically it could happen but said it was not practical. Ms. Schultz indicated the City saw to that when it allowed Knollwood Green to be constructed. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 16 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn indicated he felt the City needed to be consistent and, since the City gave assurances that the access road would not be used for anything other than emergency access, he feels the City should stand by that statement. Planner Atkinson asked the Commission to make its direction clear. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he felt granting the variance could open up a can of worms. Commissioner Miller asked Commissioner Zwirn to elaborate. Commissioner Zwirn indicated the past position of the Commission has been to indicate that the access drive would not be used for anything other than emergency purposes. He then indicated that allowing the applicant to use it for a driveway goes against what was previously promised to the residents. Commissioner Scotch asked if it was possible to gain access off of Spring Lake Road. Mr. Diehl indicated he was not sure but said it would require tearing down at least 20 mature trees. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the City’s Code requires a minimum of 75 feet of frontage. He then indicated that, in previous discussions with the applicant, it was explained that access was not possible without some kind of cul-de-sac being installed. He then indicated that, if Mr. Diehl were willing to put in the cul-de-sac, the City would not be able to deny the request to subdivide the property. He further indicated that whether or not to allow access onto the City right of way is a policy decision. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that he felt there should be some type of real access by way of a street improvement but said, in the past, the City has allowed access onto City right of way. Commissioner Zwirn asked if Mr. Diehl had attempted to purchase enough property from the property owner to the south to put in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Diehl indicated he had not actually gotten into a monetary discussion with the property owner to the south but said she was not interested in discussing the matter with him. Commissioner Johnson clarified that Knollwood Drive is not actually a street but a City right of way. Chair Stevenson indicated that installing a cul-de- sac would be the best solution. Chair Stevenson indicated he was not sure how to give direction on this matter as the Commission does not want to change the accessibility of the access drive. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 17 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson indicated the Commission needed to decide if it should recommend denial of the request based on the requirement for access onto an approved street or approve the request and allow the use of the City’s access drive. Commissioner Johnson asked if Knollwood Drive could be improved for the length of the easement. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the access drive stops at the back of Knollwood Green and said the units are pretty close to the property line and does not leave enough room without deviating the street onto the adjacent property. He then indicated that the access drive was not meant to be extended. Chair Stevenson indicated the access drive is not a standard City street width. Community Development Director Ericson indicated it is 25 feet wide and a typical street right- of-way is 66 feet wide. Chair Stevenson expressed concern for allowing the resident to make a turn onto a narrow access drive. Mr. Diehl indicated that the access drive was designed for emergency vehicles and said that 25 feet is wide enough for a driveway. Chair Stevenson indicated that relatively little would have to be done to the access drive other than moving the gate. Chair Stevenson suggested the property owner to the south might be concerned with headlights. Commissioner Johnson commented that he gets all the headlights from Knollwood Green. A resident in attendance asked what is to stop others from asking for access if this is granted. Chair Stevenson noted the next property north back ups to Knollwood Green making it landlocked. He then said that granting this usage would not entitle anybody else to usage of the access drive. Commissioner Zwirn reminded the Commission that the resident at 7851 was considering developing her property until the costs of widening the street entered into it. Commissioner Miller asked how the City could satisfy the requirement of the Code for abutting a publicly dedicated street. Commissioner Johnson suggested requiring that a piece of land be dedicated for a cul-de-sac to be put in at a later date to allow for future development. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 18 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson indicated he would include language for dedication for a right of way for a cul-de-sac for future development of the other lot. Commissioner Miller indicated she had a problem with the publicly dedicated street requirement and could not support the request. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Diehl could dedicate himself a street and meet that requirement. Chair Stevenson said there is not a way to allow owners to the north to develop because of the way Knollwood Green was allowed to be built. ____________________________________________________________________________ 9. Planning Case DE00-002 Community Development Director Ericson apologized that this matter was before the Commission because he had said last time the Commission would not see it again. He then explained that Mr. Mezzenga had been told by Ramsey County that there is a catch basin in the location for the driveway that cannot be moved. He further explained that Mr. Mezzenga had suggested cutting drains in the catch basin but Ramsey County would not permit that. Community Development Director Ericson outlined several choices for providing access to the development for the Commission to discuss. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Commissioner Johnson had said at the last meeting that he thought there was significant discussion concerning no access onto Greenfield. He then explained he had reviewed the minutes from that meeting and found that access onto Greenfield was not discussed at any length which leads him to believe that the Commission did not give it much consideration because it preferred access onto County Road I. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that option one would move the driveway closer to Tom Thumb which would take out two parking stalls and make the entrance cumbersome. He indicated that option two would mean the access to the parking lot would be only seven (7) feet from Greenfield Avenue. He indicated that option three would be to reconstruct the catch basin but said that Ramsey County has said it will not allow that. He indicated that the last option is to move the access onto Greenfield Avenue which would result in the loss of two parking stalls and make the parking lot setback five feet from the property to the south. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the City has to give Mr. Mezzenga access and said the matter is nobody’s fault but was simply not caught by Ramsey County in the planning stages for the development. Commissioner Miller questioned why the catch basin could not be reconstructed. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 19 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Ramsey County had explained that it is a one piece catch basin that can only be reconstructed if it is dug up and moved. He then indicated that Ramsey County has said they are unwilling to do so even if Mr. Mezzenga were to pay for it. Commissioner Scotch said the catch basin works well and should not be moved. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that, if it is the intent to keep access onto County Road I, the Commission would almost have to use the option where the driveway is closest to Greenfield Avenue because the Tom Thumb option does not work. Chair Stevenson indicated there is a safety concern for moving the access too close to Greenfield Avenue and said he would not approve of something less than 50 feet. Commissioner Miller questioned whether it was possible to drive over the catch basin. Community Development Director Ericson explained that the catch basin was built into the curb. Commissioner Zwirn asked the size of the catch basin. Community Development Director Ericson indicated it was approximately four feet by five feet. Commissioner Zwirn asked if it would be possible to create an island to allow the catch basin to remain where it is and still use that area for the access to the development. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that it could be done but said the building loses two parking stalls. Commissioner Zwirn then indicated he did not feel that the access should be on Greenfield Avenue because there are a lot of children that play on Greenfield Avenue and the bus stop is right there. The Commission asked Mr. Ericson to investigate whether Ramsey County would allow an island around the catch basin. ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Staff Reports a. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the EDA had approved the authorization of the issuance of taxable tax increment bonds so that the Mermaid project could move forward in an amount not to exceed $832,000. He then indicated that the bonds would be Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 20 ________________________________________________________________________ paid out of captured tax increment from the property noting the City had no risk as the bonds are personally guaranteed by the Hall family. b. Highway 10 Improvements Project Open House – October 15, 2001 Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the public meeting for the Highway 10 improvements project was held on October 15, 2001 and noted that it was not very well attended by the public. He then indicated that the consultants provided a range of choices for the corridor ranging from a full reconstruct to a mill and overlay and improvement of safety at the intersections. Commissioner Miller indicated that the consultants had indicated that the median would be dressed up with wildflowers. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that some people had expressed concern that not enough was actually being done and said that this is a window dressing for the corridor. He then indicated that the plans will be presented to Council for discussion. Chair Stevenson noted he was out of town on business or would have been in attendance at the public open house. ______________________________________________________________________________ 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 12. Next Planning Commission Meeting: November 7, 2001 ______________________________________________________________________________ 13. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.