Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-01-11 PC Minutes,~eny PROCEE~INGS OF TH~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 1 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUN7Y, MINNESOTA A r~gular meeting nf the Mounds View Planning Comnissian was cailed to order at 7:30 PM on Jan~ary 11, 1918 at the Mounds View City Ha11, 2401 Niyhway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota 55112. Members Presenta Chalrperson Haake Comnission Member Fo;3 Comnission Member Mackaben Commission Member Fedor CorrmTssion Member Glaaer ~ Coimllssion Member Burmeister Commissian Member 8lanchard A1so Present; Councilmember Baumgartner Bui7ding and Zoning Offir.ial Rose Absent: Commission Member Zepper The minuces of the Uecember 14, 1977 planning Commission Meeting were approved as presented. -~ ' ; 1MJOR SU@DIVISION REqUES7 OF RAY GALE - 8243 GROVELANp ROAD ~._.% Official Rose reported ihat the app7icant owns both the south end north halv?s of Lot 67, Auditors Subdivision 89, which measures 453.Z' fr~onting Ardan Avenue and 243.5' fronting Graveland Road, and is requesCing to subdlvida the two tots inLo four, which would front Ardan Avenue, all 1I3.3' wide and 140.5' deep, and one lot fronting Groveland Road, 103' wide and 453.2' deep. planning considerations include that a previous subdivision east of the parcel has provided a 30' easement for the extension ofi Fairchild Avenue, north of LaPort• Drive, to Ardan Avenue. The applicant, shoutd be required to dedicate the east 30' of Lot 67 for Fairchild Avanue. Only one additional 115' x 30' strip easement from 8205 6roveland Road wo!~ld he necessary for the requlred easements for the axtension of Fairchild Avenue. Na sewer or water services are available on Ardan Avenue between Groveland Road and Fairchild Avenue, so the app?icant wouid be required to petition for services. grant any additlonal easement necessary and waive the right of public hearing if he wishes to expe~ite malters or he can instal7 the services himseTf under City requirements and inspection. An additional lot couid be created which would front on propased fairchild avenu2, which wouid require the retacaCion of tiie appiicant's garage and oversized accassory buildings. Construction of proposed Fairchild Avenue would also minimally provide one additionai / lot frc~n 82Q~ Groveland fronting Fairchi7d. The p7at meets frontage and size require- ments, with one additional tot possibly 6eing created, Jnnuary 11, 197II Page 2 5ketch A, as presented by Official Rose, creates one additionat toC with a revislon ~ of the appiicants original preliminary piat, which would ai7ow an additional lot subdivision by the property owner to the south, All lots conform Co code require- ments and ~11ow tiie extension of Fairchild Avenue. Services could be provide~ tor the Fxirchild lot at the same time as the fnstallatlon of the Ardan services. Sketch B, as presented by Official Rose, wauld maximize tlie use of the applicants property and the property ad~acent to the south. One additional 'lot would be created but wouid take a combinatlon of the neighbors properties, but also provides better distribution of assessment costs. A deve7opment agreement would be necessary for the develapment and approval of the p1at. Additional utility and drainage easements would also be necessary generally along the sauth 5' of Lots 1-4 and the north 5' of Lot 5 depending upon tha flna) plat. The exisCing falr•child easements should be vacated should the extension qf Fairchitd south of Ardan,be disapproved. Official Rose ststed LhaC Staff's recommendation wouTd b? to deny the prellminary piat as proposed and recommended that the plat be Yevised according to Sketch B, with the Joint platting of 8227 end 8205 Groveland to create nlne lots, as Staff feels that Fairchild Avenue should,be extended south at that point in time to maximize the land use of the area and to equitab7y apportion the cost of the improvement. Official Rose also pointed ouC that it would 7ess expensive to do !t now at today's costs than at the predicted cost five to ten years from now.' -, Ken S~odin, the representative for the owner oF the property, stated that he would ; prefer to go with the laynut presented in Sketch A, and added that he wou7d tike to _. put the utilities in himseif, under the City's supervision. Chairperson Naake stated h~at she did not feel the City shouid gfve up the 30' along Fairchild. Cortmission Member Foss suggested that the Planning Commission could grant the requost as presented but change the lot sizes along Lots 2, 3 and 4 and leave Lot 5 as is, with the 3U' easement added on. MSP (Focs-Mackeben) to approve *he maSor subdivision request for tke Ray Ga7e property at 8243 Groveland Road with the following changes on the: iot sizes, that lots ]., 2 end 3 b~ 105.8' wtde by 1q0.5' deep, Lot 4 be 135.8' wide by 140.5' deep, with a 30' road easement on the east boundry line and 1ot 5 be 103' wfde by 453.2' deep, with a 30' easement on the east lnt tine. The developer wou]d be required to enter into a development agreement with the City prior to flna] platting of the prooerty, and the new preliminary piat wouTd fiave t~ meet o-~fth the approval of Staff ~efore qoing onio the City Councit. 7 ayes M11JOR SUBDIVTSION RfQUEST OF PINECREST PROPERTIES - 224G HIGNWAY 10 Official Rose reported that the Northcres~ Park site has been previously reviewed and approved at a concept stage for a P.U.D, but due to the requirements of a P.U.D., the deveioper is now requesting to go cunventional plattfi~g and zoning. Official Rose stated that the City and developer have met with Mn/00T to work out ~'' the street plan to coordinate the Northcrest property and Distric*. 2 for development. The ariginal streeL plan basica7ly considered the Nohthcrest property and left the danuary 11, 1978 Pa~e 3 ~ ad~oiM ng properties minimal access and in general was not the best street plan Por Che tqtal dfstrict. The City ha~ Midwest Pianniny do a s•iudy of the area bounded by 35W, County Road N and County Road H2 and Edgewood, in terms Highway 10 use in its present state and after New 10 has been developed. The inltial median cut that was proposed for the development on Highway ltl has now been moved to a more centrallzed location between County Roads t~ and H2, ~.hich wi11 allow better syncMronization of the traffic tight system, Official Rose stated that M9dwest P7anning feels very strongly that traffic within the development sYouid be abte to move from County Road H to County Road H2, thus the Quincy connection. Official Rose pointed out that one othar~ change which had been made ~aas to allow one road to go out to County Road N, which shou7d make it much easier for traffic to reach north or south hound 35W. The State also has p7ans to put the connection in for southbound Nighway 10 within the next year. Official Rose addad that the unly two reclassif!cations of streets would be County Road H into a minor arterial and Quincy into a collector. The proposed AOT for the entire area is approximatzly 29,000, oP which horthcrest Properties plans to generate almost 14,000. Official Rose clarified that the proposed use for Quincy would be comparable to that of Long Lake Road and that the proposed changes woutd not exceed the capabilitles of the roads. '. Commission Member Fedor asked if there wouTd be any problem in running the additiona] r' trai`fic past Pinewood School. Official Rose replied that Red Oak School present7y ---' fias approximatety 2000 cars going through its fntersection. This would be comparative tn Quincy with the added A.D.T. Canmisslon Member Burmeister pointed out that Sunnyside School has even more traffic. Chairperson Haake stated that it had been dec9ded a long time ago not to a11ow any more cur6 cuts along County Road N2. Official Rose replied that most of tha optlons that had been presented eartier to avoid a curb cut had been discussed and discarded unevened~sftrf~ut~on Pe~clems, such as emergency vefricle access, traffic stacking, Commission Memtier Fedor asked if the othcr property owner, Mr. Waste, had been infonned that a road might be going throu~h his pruperty. 6fficial Rose replied that he had noi been notified yet but th~". .e had earlier indicated very strongiy that he wou7d like a road to border Ms p; ~ erty, Official Rose po9nted out that the cunc ~ut could no2 6e made any closer to the High- way 10 intersection on Couttty Road H2 because of stacking problems and added tbat it was very important to have a curb cut along H2 fur both emergency vehicles and the h a y traffic f1ow. F!a also ointed out that there wi11 a7ways be an additional impact o~ l~ D.T. sanewhere vlhe;i any land is developed and that from a P1ann9ng.standpoint, you attc-mpt to d9stribute it on the be~t avallahle streets. Officia7 Rose also pointed out that as far as zoning was concerned, the acreage per use remains basically the same as was viewed in the concept stage. Official Rose rep~rted that the public improvements have been pet9tioned for and that a feasib111ty stud,y will oe prepared upon preliminary piat approvai. The public iniprovements that will be required are sanitary sewer, water main, including reloca- tlon of an existing 12" line a7ony platted Raymond Nvenue, concrete curb and gutter, straets, including upgrading County Road,H2 to its 5tate Aid design of 4R' wide, January 11, 1978 Page 4 ~ a storm sewer as shown on the City's storm sewer plan along County Raad H2 and south, includ<.ng the Program Basin, sidewalks along County Road H2 and Quincy Street, and undergraund wiring and street lights at all intersections and curves. Comm9ssion Member Glazer questioned who would finance the public improvements until the land is developed. Offictal Rose repiied that the financing couid come from a public improvement bond and would be assessed to the benefiting praperty owners. Chairperson Haake asked if the residents on the other side of County Road 112 would be responsibte for the cost of the curb cuts on 112. Official Rose replied tiiat H2 is a State Aid road and that it cauld be funded from that account. ~ill 89pm, representative of the property, statnd that he !aas getting very frustrated in trying to get the property ready to develop. He stated that he had first come to the City one year ego.with the feasiaility study and has thus far fi~rnished ali of the information requested, and is very anxious to get going on the pro~ect. Ne atso stated that he had not been plenning on putting in sidewalks as the area was to be cornmercial and iadustria'i nnd he did nnt feel they were necessary. Comnisaion Member Burmaister painted out that there would be apartments going in and children would be 1h the nrea, which would necessitate them. Mr. Biem replied that he wouid put the sidewalks in if it was decided they were necessery. He also stated thet it is costlhg between $7,000 and $8,000 per month ~ to keep the pro~ect going, wM ch is why he is very anxious, to get started. --' Commisslon Member Fedor stated that he felt the increased traffic a7ong Quincy wouid be a problem. He alsq stated that ha did not feel the property owners along N2 would be pleesed when the City tells them t(iey will be assessed for the improvements. Offic181 R~se replied that he dAes not anticipate the improvements along H2 to be assassed to the reaidents as they could fall under the drzinage impravement pro~ect and woutd be fundod both by State aid and the deveioper. Chairperson Heake questioned the Planning Commission members to see if they had any problema wlth the developer switching from a P.U.D. to conventional ptacting and xoning. Cammisslon t4ember Olezer stetpd that originally the general concept plan had been approVed, WhiCh wes then supposed,to be deve'loped into fine deta97, but now b,y awitchinfl ta con~enEional, atl the zoning changes were supposed to be okay, which he wes not comforteote w1th. Officlal ROse replied that the land uses were approved by the P1~nninq Carmission mRmbers for thp :'cring, and that the Council also approved the uses and zonings. CCmmisslon Member Glezer asked if any of the hearing process had been missed by star.ing with a P.U.D. and switching to conventional. Officia7 Rose replted that no step hed beon missed, since one puhlic hearing had already teen held, which concerned the ganera'I plan and zoning, and that another p4,lic hearing woutd be heid now to consiG2r Ehe straight platting and rezoning of Northcrest Park. The , Plenning Comnission and City Councll will review each development as it uccurs and ~ entnr into a Develoqnent Agreement• with the developer now, as opposed to the P.U.D. process oP or,e finai review of the developnent staye with the staff reviewing each davelo{vmunt. January il, 1978 MSD (Haake-Burmeister) ta recomnend ta the Council approvol aP the yrellminary ~ ptat that was introduced by.~inecrest Properties on danuary 11, 1978, wlth the foliowing ravision, that th~ llistrict 2 traffic plan be incorporated into tRe ptat tvith the exception of the Quincy Street connectlon. A roilcall vote was taken: Comnission Mem6er Cottmission Member Chairperson Naake Comnission Member Commission Member Comnlssion Membar Comnission Membeh 8lancherd - nay Burmeister - aye - aye Glazer - nay Fedor ~ nay Mackeben - nay Foss - abstein Pnge 6 4 n~yes, 2 ~yes, 1 abstain Commission Member Fedor stated that he was concerned that P1r.Waste would not want the assessments to his properC,y if the road were put thraugh. Councilmember 8aumgartnar replied that Ae hed spoken with Mr.Waste and that Mr. Waste had voiced hfs wlsh for a road through his praperty several times. OfficiaT Rose added that Mr. Weste would be notlfled of the publlc hearing and would be able to voice fifs opinion at.that time. Official Rose stated thaC a road system deveToped by the City for a district wou]d in most cases plan better for totaT ~` deveiopnent, r•athet^ Lhan developer piecemeal work. '.~ J Commission Member Foss questioned if there would be n road coming aut by Jackson. ~ Offloial Aose rept}ed that one connection was a must and that two woutd bs preferred ~ for a better distrtbutlor of trefflc A.D.T. Comnlssion Member Glazer steted that from past experience, he did not feat the City i could expect new Highwaty 10 to :syphon off that much traffic and Lhat the area might end up baing much more con~ested than was ptanaed on. afficlal Rose r9pliad Chet two independent sources had check the.p7an. ene for the developer end one Por ~he Cit,Y, and they had come very close to agreeing on the ~ 4rafiflc count and its impact. He a1so potnted out that the citizens themselves would elso be benefiting fr~m the roads as thoy wou]d be using thern. ~ MSD (Meckeban-Foss) to resortmertd to the Counci] approvat of thu pretiminary plat and re- ~ znnings introduced by Plnecrest Properties on January 11, 1978, viith the foltow- . ing revision, that ~he Dtstrlct 2 traffic plan be incorporated into the plat, r ~ A roiicail vote was takem ~ Comnission Member 8lanchard - aye ~ Comnission Member Burmeister - 'nay ~ . Chairperson Naake - nay ; ~ Comntssion Member G7azer - nay ; Comnlssion Member Fedor - nay i ± s Cortmission Member Mackeben - aye ~ i ~ Lomnission Member foss - aye 4 nayes, ', ~ ~ 3 ayes , January il, 1977 Peg. ~ Commission Members Olexer and Fedor ~LeLed that they had voLaQ eqelm t tho motlon ~ as they hed problems wiCh the Aoninp. Mr. Biem stated that tNe roed wes not e cruclal letue with h1m~ N~ etoo e~k~d Lhet Ehe Planning Comnission membere remen~ber whet the preranE Yoning C~E~gory for 4h• land is. Councilmember BeumgarEner ~tetad thn! 40 ecrac were pro~enEty ~on~d R-4 end theL they were gaing down to e ecree, whtch 1e wheL th• City wenEt~ Commisalon Member 0lezar replled Lhet everyone if awert of the canCOp! of <tap•do~n zoning but thet he hed hoped for eomethinp 1e~~ then R-A to yo lnto th~ eree, Chairperson Haake stnted that 1dee11y ~h~ would pre4~r A-S, or evm A•2, nnd that she felt she had campromised elroady by epprovinp the R-4, whlch waf pafti M atory sinc~ 9t had elresd, pona c;,to tha Cauntii aad baan opprovad, MSP (Fedor~olazer) to recoll the prevlaua motloo end tak~ enothrr vote~ T a~ysa MSP (Mackaban-Foss) Eo recommand !a !he Councit approvel oP th• pre11m1nery p~0L B0a rezonlrys introducad by Pinecra~t Prop~rtio~ on JenuAry 31, 1978 with !he fnllow- 1ng reW sion, that the Di~trict 2 treffic plen be incorpnratod {nta the p1aE~ A ro11ca11 vote wns takpn: , Cemmiuloi~ Memher 8lnnnherd - aya ~j Comnl~~lon Mombor Burmoi~tar - ney ~--~ Chal~per~on Haeke • nay Co~mlo~lart Hambnr oinxar - nay Commia~lon M~mbxr Fsdor - eya . Comnlrslon Membar Meckob~n - aye Comni~eion Member Fo~~ - ey~ 4 ayes, 3 nays Chairparaon Heek~ and Commis~inn Member Burmeirter eteted thet khey had voted ayeins~ the motion ne thny did not opprove of the qulncy connactlon. Camnisslon Membor 01ax~r ~taE~d l•het ha ~t111 we~ not happy wlth the aoning. Chetrperfon Nee::3 remindad tho P1annlnp Commiesion membsra Lhet there would be e medtlng the fourth Wedn~tdqy of eech month. Sha also steted thet she would not be at the Februery 8 meeLinp. Otticlal Roae lnformad tha Plenning Comnlssion members thet they would be dis- cussing the Hsreted and ~xalius property in the future es e developer would like Lo come 1n end dwe1op the proporty~, but thet thare wae e ma,ior problem i~ thet the St. Pau1 watarwork~ poa~ threuph the aree. Off1c1a1 Roaa atro lnfarmed the Plenning Commission members that they would bc~ stnrting to update tMe Comprahen~lve PSan soon, to conform with the Metropallten Council Systxme stataMen~, Officiel Rose atated theE aither he or Councllmember 9nungertner would bs glving ;he Plann+ng CammlAelon a briaP review of what the City Councll did 1n their pre- vloua mee4lnp. He added Chet at the Jenuery 9, 1978 Council meeting, ehey had ~~°u~~~ _ t ~5~,'k~~ r _. ~ .. .,.,E:.. .,:. , „ j -s..;r° - . . .,. . ,~ , .. ,. ._ .,., ~ ~ ~ January il, 1978 Page 7 . approved the conditionel use permit request of Crown Auto, after making an eddi- ~ tional requlrement of curbing along the west side of Ehe property. The Oa11ey ~~ Knotls lssue was tabled and a pu4lic hearing tentatively set on the lmprovemen2s before ar~y action w111 be taken. Official Rose reported that the Council had denied the request of Eugene Tomae for a lot split from 3 to 6 lots and that Mr. Tomas wnuld be coming back to the Planning,Comnisslon to get approvat to su6divide into four 1ots. Comnission htember Mackeben questioned hdw much Midwest Planning has cost the CiCy so far. Official kose replied that so far they had cost betwen E70D and E800, thattthe Cityfmay be5using1MidwestSPtanningcin thelfuture at the ex~ nse of t eed Developer. 7 ayee ~ MSP (Poss-Glezer)'to ad~ourn Lhe meeting at 9i25 PM. , ' Respectr'u11y submitted,' , Pamela Young -~ :;'~: , `. ^ -, ,, Recording Secretary ,• ' I ~ ~ ,' , ` , " ,' ~ , ~ ~ „ ,, ~~, , I , ~~ E ' ~ ~, , ~_' ' ,. - ~~ ~~, ~ ,~~ ;a~ r ' s~ ~ ,~. ~ , ,~ ~ ~,~, ;' ~ ~ °' ' , . ~ 3 , ~ , ' . . ' r ., ~. .. -,:_i { , ~i 1 ~ ' ~ ' . , ' .. ;r~ . . ,... . . . ; ~ ~, ~ r ' ~ i ( ~ ~' , , ~~ ,~~ ..~.. ~,~'; . ,,. ~. : .. _ ,.: '_ . ',.. .. ': , .,~,, ;.~,' :,..`:;:~ , _.~.. ..,.:.~ ~ ~ . ;,. . ....~' ,.~ ;, ., . ~. . ,. .; t . . . . .. . ., , . ... .. ' .. x > > ~ ,. r i ~~:, ~ . ..~ , , r '.i~ a:k .. . , . , ~ ~ , .. ~ ~ '~i , ,. ' ~ . . i ~ ' ~ '~ ! r ~ . ,. ' .. , ~ ,. ~ ', i 'i,'. ~. 't1 _ . :,'U r .i' . , r i. " 'r ~''1 ... ; ~ ~~. .. . ~~, '.~, ~..,.,, } .:{;( , , ,.; , , ' ~~ :,;' ~ '~ , .., ~ ,. .' ' i i-. .. ."~ I ~ . .! , ,,, '~ " ~ , .. , .. ~.v. ' ' ~ .. ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~,~.. , , ,. ., . ~ . . . ., . „ . ~ '.t. , .. ' , . s .. . . ~' ... . .. ~ ~ ' ' . , ' ' ~ ., . .,, +, ~ ~ .. ~ , ,. . . , , ~ . ... ,i', . ,. _ , . , . p, , ~, . ~ . ~ .. . ` ~ ~ ~ . . .. ~, ~ ~ .~. "~, , ' . , . s. ' ,:.. ,. . ~.. ...:.... _...,,, .. , _ ..... .,. ., . -