Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-01-18 PC MinutesGATEWAY TO THE NORTH p.R January L$, 1972 Vrit80 of UoudVkw' RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 HIGHWAY 10 ST. PAUL, MINN, 55112 5U, 4.5055 PINEWOOD NILLVIEW WNOLLWOOD TWELVE OAKS The regular meeting of the :.sounds View Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Stole at 6:10 P.M. Members present: Stole, Burggraff, Hillsdale, Glaser,' Haake, Feick, and Blanchard. W. Skiba was also present. !dilutes of the December meeting were read and approved. Chester Glisan, 519 10th Street, New Brighton, requested a lot split in;the A400 blank on Spring Lake Road. MOTION by Hillsdale to recommend approval of the request for an 65'x211' lot. eFU oonded bt Burggraff. Carried. Jim Bratland for Brede, Inc., requested permission to erect a 10x40 sign at corner of County Road I and Highway 10. (Sunset uemorial Gardens) TON by Iieeko to recommend that the Council DENY the ,Breda, I request c n onjecture with the Federal Governments! highway beautifioat ?on program. Seconded by Blanchard. Carries. Judy Ehlers, 7945.Edgewood Drive,,requested permission to operate a beauty shop in the basement of her home. She would employ one girl.. ?LOTION by' Glaser to DENY the request since it is against the zoning ordinance. (Seca E D1) Seconded by Yalek•. Carried. Arnold Elmouist, 6140 Long Lake Road, wishes to build a 12x30. building for a tool ehed,, L :OTION by Hillsdale to request approval for the accessory building. Se�oEi ed by Burggraff. Carried. Keith Herstad. Not here. -No action taken. !,10TION by Haake to instruct :Ir. Zylla to oontaot Miner Company about the trailer advertising Scotland Green with the idea of it being'rad tagged and removed unless they comply with sign ordl.nancas. Seconded by Feick. Carried. 5 meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.U. INORAM RUSTA' MAYOR GERALD JOHNSON, COUNCILMAN 3' ted, eep tfuliy s y li Blanoha9 BLANCHARD COUN CILMAN HOWARD H3DOE C COUNCILMAN DONALD HODOES, COUNCILMAN DENNSO 2YLLA, CLE RK•AD MINISTRATOR January 39, 1974 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WIII7W'H1 LAND P L A N P I I 2101 Hennepin PLANNING A•a fl 3S912I Ait0fl, INC. N O A N D M A N R I S I A N C H C O N I U I T A N T S Minneapolis, Minnesota 66406 Telephoner (612) 3743030 City of Mounds View Midwest Planning and Research, Inc. The proposed development of Lot 8,and the easterly one -half of Lot 9, Spring Lake Knolls Addition This memorandum Is In response to a request by the City of Mounds View to evaluate the present zoning of a parcel of property and its relationship to the surrounding property and land uses. The property in question is described as Lot 8 and the easterly one -half of Lot 9, Spring Lake Knolls Addition. This property consists of approximately two acres and is under the present nt Zoning Ordinance. Surrounding most District allowed single family "R -1" to the south, west and north with two family "R -2" zoning,on the east. Existing land uses are single family homes to the south and west and along the western One -half of the northern boundary. The properties lying to the north of the eastern one- half of the northern boundary and to the east are presently vacant. BACKGROUND INFORMATION_ The original Comprehensive Plan and accompanying zoning ordinance were adopted in the latter part of 1959, which designated the property in question as single family residential. This Comprehensive Plan also designated a transitional parcel of property to isolate the single family residentially zoned property from the property zoned light industrial. This transitional parcel is the tv✓o family property lying to the east of the: property In question. The zoning of the property in question was not changed from the original classification- of "R -1" to its present classification of "B -3" until November of 1965, when it was given a "B -3" conditional zoning, subject it the receipt and approval of building permit., The Village Council in 1968, passed a blanket amendment to the Zoning Ordinance removing the conditions from the property In question as well as the conditions from other similarly zoned properties. The, property has remained undeveloped until recently when the owner proposed to construct four small buildings for use as office space and small retail shops. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The rezoning of this property in 1965 from its original classlflcation of "R -1" Residential to "0-3" General Business constitutes a clear case of spot zoning. Spot zoning occurs when an isolated parcel of land has use classification changed to a use classification harmful to or not compatible with Ina use classlflcation of the surrounding area so as to favor a particular owner, and when the new use classification is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Development Plan adopted by the community. In order to assess the Impact of a commercially zoned oarcel in a residential area, the surrounding land uses must be studied. The area directly surrounding the subject property is already developed as single family. The Ctty is to the process of acquiring substantial acreage on the northeast corner of County Road 11-2 and Silver Lake Road to provide a City Park within the neighborhood. Multiple density housing already exists to the oast of the proposed park site on County Road 1-1-2 and a strip of property on Silver Lake Road directly north of the park site is proposed for two family residential use. Given the proposed park site as an anchor in the area, it is reasonable to assume that properties directly abutting it will become more attractive for residential development because of the natural and recreational amenities it offers to o residential area. As such, development within the area will probably tend to become increasingly residential, possibly of a higher density than single family residential especially in the area abutting Highway 10. Part of the planning update activities would involve a closer look at this portion of the City in general to assess whether changing land uce may be taking place in the Future based on the above argument, It is highly possible that the large industrially zoned property to the east of the subject site may no longer be attractive for industrial use and the addition of the park on its perimeter would tend to discourage such development. In addition, the relocation of Highway 10 to the northeast will act as an inhibiting force in further develop- eiont along old Highway 10, to some degree, especially to those properties currently' zoned industrial. industrial users require excellent transportation routing to their sites rid greater accessibility than other types of uses which would tend to make that large portion of un- developed industrial land abutting the new Highway 10 more primo for industrial development. In conclusion, therefore, it would be our initial observation that the area Immediately surrounding the subject site will be more intensely developed with residential uses than currently exists. For these reasons, we would have to recommend agonst any commercial development that would tend to interruptthis development in the future. The location of commercial /retall ases on the subject site is in conflict with the develop- ment guidelines within commercial of Comprehensive Plan of the called for along iHighway According to to which adopted tends t to P carry out l this emphasis by zoning large l Ordinance parcels of land for along commercial develop. ant site sets up an opportunity for Allowing l continued rezonings of resldentially zoned land to" B-3" P opportunity on those parcels of undeveloped land directly to the north of the suhlect site. This will create a strip- commercial atmosphere which Is in direct conflict to the Comprehensive Pion and should be discouraged. In addition, It should be pointed out that much of the presently zoned commercial property along Highway 10 is currently undeveloped and this land should be developed first, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, before land Is developed for a particular use which Is contradictory to that Plan. The proposed retail- office complex would be located in a residential area already highly developed. According to our information, the traffic to the site would access either Groveland Rood or Silver Lake Road, both of which measure 60' right -of -ways. According to the Comprehensive Plan report, a street composed of a 60' right -of -way is classified as a minor street which were not intended to handle the traffic volumes that would be generated by an office /retail center. in addition, such increased traffic volumes may pose a potential safety hazard to users wishing to use the proposed park which lies on the east side of Silver Lake Road and will draw heavily From residential users to the west and south. It would be our final recommendation that development of this parcel for "B -3" purposes not be allowed at this time because of the updating of the Comprehensive Plan which is presently occurring. Part of this planning update would Include a review of other spot re- zoning situations throughout the City and the effect of development on surrounding land uses. In addition, we would review in general how and to what degree land use configurations have shifted within the City since the original plan was completed and how these should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. In requesting a delay in development of this parcel, ws only ask that it be delayed for a reasonable period of time during the.upcoting period so that we be allowed to Luke a broader look int the land use picture within the City as a whole before we approve this critical parcel for commercial development.