The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1975-11-12 PC Minutes~t ~ MINUTES OF THE MQUNDS VIEW PLANNtNG COMr;tSSION November 12, 1975 The Mounds Visw Plamiing Commission was ca7led to order at the City HaiT by its cheirperson Barbara Haake at 7:30 p.m., on Wednesday , November 12, 197&. The foilowing members were present: Paui Fedor, Robert Gtazer, Nsncy Burmetster, Don Mackeben, Michael Lonerga~i and Phyllis elanchard. Rouert Rossman and Gerald Foss were absent, Ms, Naake mad~ the faitowing corrections 1n the October 22nd ~ninutes: Page 1, regarding Patrick Peliigrino, second paragraph, the lot size should be changed fram 35 to 40 feet to 201.5 X 100 feet. Page 2, regarding Ernest Danielson, the two north lo2s facing Gre~nwood prive the lot sizes shuuld be 81 % 254 feet and the remaining lot would be 85 R 264 feet. Page 3, seconA to the last paragraph, the last sentence should be changed to read, "shoulti indicate a 33 foot road easenient:' ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Mr. Ro6ert Carlson of Brentwoo~l Development Company. Property involved - the West 375 feet of Luts ?., 3, and 4 Audltors Subdivtsion No. 89. ' ! Ms. Haake stated Mr. Carisort's request is for a mafor subdivision '~,,..~' of 18 tots, White Oak ~states No. 3. She reported that the Comnission has given previoes spproval on tbis subdivision but Che time for filing the final p7at has elapsed. Mr. Carlson stated the reason the kime has e7apsed is because Mr. 8urns at County 1eve1 requested the signature spaces on the hard shetl copy be removed. Most of the people involved had moved out of the State and it has taken time to get the names released from the plat., However, the legal ramificaCions have Seen clarified and +.ne piat is ready for finalization. Ms. Haake depicted the parcei on the section map and rr,culled a mor!: recent subdivision of Lorraihe Bonin whose property adioins tha sub5ect property. She reported ttiat the BoMns would have a land locked piece of lard and asked about the pos~ibility of Mr. Car'Ison purchasing this pince Ca add to h9~ subdivision makiny 7ot six lerger. Mr. Car)son said he would iook into purchas9ng the land. Nowever; a1'I of the lanct in his p]at was tarrens and he d1d not know the status of the Donin land ur how this would affect Ms plat. Mr. Rossr,~an arr~ived at 7;35 p.m. Ns. Burmeister felt that since Mr. Carlson's plat was in the final stages, it :eemed easter to put the burden on the Bonins because they are only in the planning stages. ~ ' Mr. Glazer moved that the Commisslon approve the ma~or subdivision oP Brentwood Development Company involving the !sest 315 feet of Lots 2, 3, 4 Audltor's Subdivlsion No. 84. This ma~or subdivision creates 18 lots, as shown on the prelininary plat of White Oak Estates 3rd Addition, dated Auuust 1975, Eesements as shown have already been taken and discussed Planning Commission minutes Page 2 Novemher 12, 1975 (Plamiing Comnission meettn~ of February 26, 1975), it is to be noted in tM s motlon that Mr, Robert Carlson representing Brentwood Development Company has ~ agreed to make an uffer to purchase a 20' X 30' parcet of iand ad~vining the south east corner of aicek 2, Lot 6, This purchase would square nPf Lot G so t}iat it would be tn better special confnrmity with the ad~acent properties (see prelimfnary plat), This moctun was ;econded ~y Michaet !onergan and passed (9 ayes). Lean Jacobs. Property involved - 5544 St. Michael StreeE - varianae request to tnstati driveway two feet back from property line. Mr. ~acobs stated h1s originai plan was to enlarge his garage to allow for parking h1s camper and pickup truck but the plan exceeded th~ allowable square feet for n garage. Ne discussad the plan with the building inspector and asked instead for a slab on the side of his garage to store his camper in the winter months. He was instructed that his request wouid require actlo~ by the Ptanning Com,~ission 6ecause he would be closer to the 1ot line than five feet. The proposed slab would be 25' long connected to h1s present driveway and 11 feet wide. He has a tatal d9sCance of 13' bet~een his yaruge and the neighbors tot line. Ms. Burnieister asked if the camper~ woutd be taken ofF Lhe truck when it is parked on the s1ab. She asked if there is sonre reason it ean't be parked in baak of the house. Mr. ~acobs replied the tand slopes to fihe side and he is nfraid it wiTt tip over. Mr. Fedur asked if he tiad pians for screening ~~ the ares. Mr. Jacobs rep7ted possibty at a 1a¢er date he wouid put up a privacy fence but there vroutd be nothing but the carnper stored on the slab. Ms. 8urmelster asked about the other side of his house as an atternative in view ef the fact that he had 15 feet on that sfde. Mr. Jacobs said it would not be practical because thare woutd be no access without driving over the grass whiTe the ground is stiil soft. Ms. Naake said that Sf the hause was eL~er sold, the person buying the home may see the slab as an lncentive to add onto the garage. Ms. Burmeister added that varying from the ordinance opens a"new ean of worms". Motion by Rossman to approva three foot driaeway var9ance far Lean ~acobs, 5544 St. Mlchsels Street for the pur~ose of insta111ng a driveway. 7his motion was seconded by Pau; Fedor. Passed (7 Ayes) (2 Nayes) Mr. Rossman read Chapter 40.05 of the Municipai Code, subdivision,l, 2(c!)2 which states the edge of the driveway near?st ta the side lot 11~e sha)1 pe five {5) feet from such lot 11ne ex.ept by ,pecial ~ermission or by agreemenC with the owner uf the property ad~acent to have sa?d driveway nsarer to satd line. Ms, Burmeister saf~t she voted naye because she doesn't fieel there is a hardship in this case wlth l5 feet on the other side of the house where he could park the camper. She feeis this is set4ing n precedance. Mr. Lonergan said M s vote was naye because he did nut feal the Code ~"~'s was being read in the right intent. Ne saia it 1s creating a precedenc~ ~m„rl and th~re ts na hardshin in this situation and iooking at the property in the future, if it i~~ sold, problems coulA arise, '~ Pianning Cortmission minutes Page 3 A November 12, 1976 . W1)1lam Litwiller. Property invNlved - 5056 8 6057 5unnyslde Roud, varlance request t;; instell garages three t~et fwm pruperty line. Ms. Haake read Mr. L1Cwiiler's request. Mr. Litw111er said he ,1ust bought the dauble bungalow and the lot is 100 % 130', the bungalow is contered on tha 1ot and at present there 1s no garage. There 1s a swamp in the back of the bungatow ana the frunt yard is graded up so Lhat when people drive on it the "sand is lovsened and washes away to the stre.et when 1E rains. He said the living room window w111 look at the side of the garage. Ms. Heake asked ebout pushing the gar~~e back Further so there would be a better vie~x. Mr. Litwiller sald this would be very expensive because the whole watl would have to be clianged. Ms. Burmeister asked about attaching the garage. Again, Mr. Litw111er sei~ this would b]ock off i/2 of the house and' also.r,ost too much. Mr. Rossman asked if he could put the garage all the way raund to the back. Mr. Litwiller said that would make a very dangerous situatfon because he wnuld have a seven foot wa11 beside ~che drive•say. thotlon by Lonergan to deny tha request of Mr. Litwiller for a variance to install a garage three feet from the tot tine at 60b5 and 5057 Sunnyside Road. ` This motion was seconded by Giazer and carried (9 ayes). ~~+~w„ 1 ~ Mr. Gene Schouweiler. Property invo7ved - 8265 Eastwoad Road. Minor subdivtsion request. Motion by Ms. Haake to approve the minar subdivision request of Gene Schouwetler for the property located at 8266 Eastwood Road into two equai tnts (101.61 X 236.53' ). TM s motion was seconded by Lanergan and passed (9 eyes). Ms. Marlow JohnsCon. Property involved - 7841 Sprtng Lake Road. Minur s~bd9vision request. The Commission asked Ms. Johnston ~:hat precipitated tM s iot sp11t wh~n thare is no road planned to service the erea. Ms. Johnston repl9ed it was for, increase in value oF t6e tand u7d the money they conld ob2ain. Ms. gurmeister sair,this would crer,te lots 70 feet wide 1n the area und Jt wuuid be oper,ing up a prece~enC to have 70 foot lots when the mintawm lot size is 85 feet. Mr. Fedot~~ added that he did not thin4 it would be r. good idea to do anything in this area when there 9s na knqwle~!ge of what is yoing ta happen in the future. Mr. Lonergan agreed that it w~uld be poor ptanning to proceed untiT more informatlon on the roads can be obtatned. Motion by Burmeister to table the request of Mariowe Johnston, 7841 :m,~,, 5prinq Lake Road until th~e flrst meeting in December and at the r~eettng on ~ J Novertiber 26 there be a master plan obtained from possibly the City en~lnear ~r°' an the road so thnt the Pianning Comnission can review it ard come to a' dectsion at the December meeting. Motion was sewnded by Glszer and passed. (4 ayes). ' Plannlny ~omnission minotas Page 4 ~ Rovember 12, 1975 David Jahnke. Property involved - 8408 E~stvrood Road. tdinor StIM1 Hi si~n. Fiotion by M=. Naake to approve the subd1v15~un request of David Jaiuike, 8428 F.astwood Road creatinQ two 1ots: 1) 127 ft, wide on Eastwood by 473 ft. deep and 117.5 ft. wide on Suno side. 2) 234 ft. X 85 ft~ Motion seconded by Mackeben and carried {4 ayes~. Patrick Pt:111grino. Property involved - 2848 WoodcPest Orive. Variance request to install aversize accessory 6uilding, (480 square feet). (refer to Chapter 40.03, subdivision 2-'6), Ms. liaake stated Chat this request has been before the Planning Comnlssian at the iasL meeting and was tab7ed until a study could tre made of other comiwrities policy on accessory buildings. Ms, Naake read tha r~port. None of the other cities surveyed wouid a~lo~r a building of this type under tHe1r ordinance. Motlon by Haake to deny the request of Mr. Pe171grino represented by Mr. Kingland for a variance request to build an oversized accessory building. This motion was seconded by Nancy Burmeister and passed(8 ayes, 2 abstained). /~~~ Phy111s Blanchard abstained because she was not at the last meeting and was ~.r,,• not familiar with the entire request. Mr. Mackeben feit tio buitd onto the exiscing structure wouid be compounding this situation. Mr. Ran Smith representing Arthur Spagenski appeared before the Planning Commi,sion as e non fee item to get a feel for whether or not the Planning Commission would be 1n favor of a 1ot with less than a 30 foot setback. Ther~e was a discussion among Commission members concerning non-fee items. The Comnission felt that with the addition af another building inspector +n the city office thers should be no reason for persons to appear before Lhe~;. aa non-fe~ items. Any questions they may have could be answered by the buildin~ inspectur. ~dotion by 3utmeister that there should'not be~any encauragement b'y fhe st~ff for appiicants to come berore the Commission without paying the rn.qulred Fees. This motion was seconded by Haake and passed (9 a,yes). The Comnission mo~;ed to the 7ost item o~ the agenda. Ms. Haake read the letter from tne Minnesota Department or Highway comnEnting on Mounds View Co^,irehensive Plan. The Comn9ssion went through the letter and the following are their comments in regard to: 1. The Planning Commission w~uld like to see an index in the Comprehensive Plan, 2. vaiid, the Planhing Cormissloq concurs, 3. prefer Ccuprehensive Plan stand as it is. 4. Comp. Plan'stand as 1t is. _ 5. acY.nowiedged. 6, acknowiedged, 7. acknowledged, 8. disagree that County ~'~ Road J and Red Oak Drive are classed as minor arterials along with Highway 10. ~j The fronting of residents ar~ County Road J and Red Oak Drive wi11 cont7nue to exlst. The Planning Com~nission does not egree with the classification of minor arterials. 9. The Commission would like a of the table mndifted (Octaber, 1975). 10, comnent acknosvledged, 11. comments ncted and what do you teel' would be an alternative, 12, great. Adjuur~ment. il, OU p.m. Respectfuily submitted, Arlene Peddycoart, Recording Secretary