Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-01-25 PC MinutesP~QCEEOIN.r,g OF THE PLANNtNa COMMtS5i0N CITY Of MOUNDS YIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESUTA ~A regular meeting of the Mounds View planning Comnlssion was called to order a! 7:30 PM on Januery 25, 1978 at the Mounds Viow City l1a11, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota 65112. Members Present; A1so Present: Chairperson Nanke Carmission Mamber Mackeben Cam:+is,ion M~n6er Fedor Commission Member Glazer" Commission Member Burmeister Camnission Member 8lanchard Councilmember 8aumgartner Building and Zoning Officlal Rose Carmission Member foss wr.s noted as absent without notice. Chairperson HaaY,e announced that Cortmissian Mem6er Zepper had resi~ned Ms p~sition nn the P1ann(ng Commission. The minutes of the January 11, 1978 Ptannin~ Conunission Meeting were approved as presented. M/t~OR SUBDYVISIpN REQUEST OF EIGENHEER BUILD@RS INC. ob E19enheer introduced himself as the developer of the property and expiained that ~he has approximately 8 3/4 acres which he would Tike to have subdivided arod part of 9t rezoned from R-7 to R-2, and shaweA the area in questlan on a map and explained his plans for the development. Mr. Olson, a representative of the developnent, exp7ained that he had dlscussed the possibitity of an emergency vehicle ease~nent with the Staff but had come to the con- c7usion that it would be better es a walkway. Mr. U1son explained that the original proposai had a street going through to County Road I but that they had found they wou7d not be able to get around the St. Pau1 Water Works. He slso repor•ted that he had soil borings taken atang the north property tine and where they have proposed a connection to Edgewood. The results showed the further north, the worse the soil conditions get. Peat ranged from 7~,' to li'. Mr. 01son also stated tbat whiie several uf the lots requested were below the 85' frontaga required by code, most ather camunities allowed the narrawer Prantage, and that if he was required to meet the &5', he would lose at least two 1ots. Official Rose repnrted that Mr. Eigenheer is requesting approvai of a ma~or subdivision oF one iut inta 23, of which five would rPqutre rezoning from R-1 to R-2 for dup7ex developnent. Planning consideratlons include that the current zoning for the entire pnrce3 1; R-7 single family and the Canprehensive Plen denates a lnw density 7and u~e <_tatus ~'he lots which are requested for R-2 deve7opment ali have frontage on County Road I, which are lots 10, 77, 22 and 23, with the exceptlon of 7ot 21. County Road I, between Lorg lake Road and quinc.v Street carries 5,850 vehicles per day and the ~t. { January 25, 1978 Page 2 Cemprehensive P1an c7assifles the street as a~1nor ertertel. ' rOffic4al Rose staLed tha~ lot 6 is 252' iong and t30' deep and that if M~•. Eigenheer's plan of a cul-de-sac iwas to extend into the northerly property, tliree additionai 84' iots couTd be created with the ad~oining property owner. Lot 12 lias an existing single family home end garage fronting County Road I and both meet minimum setback requlrements with 8he proposed ptat. 4uts 2, 3, 4, 7 and B elt have 80' frontages and lots 16, 17 and 18 have 72' frontages which are below the 85' code requirement. Lots 2, 3 and 4 have 10,500 square feet, tots 7 and 8 have 10,400 square feet, lot 14 has 10,600 square feet and 1ot 20 has 10~700 square feet, which are all below the 11,000 square feet required by code. Lots 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are substandard in both ftrontage and square foatage. However, the present plat could be revised to create standard iots with 85' frontage and 11,OOQ square feet. Official Rose r~eported th~t the presented street plan creates a cul-de-sac appr~ximaCeiy 820' deep, wfiile for emergency purpases, cul-de-sacs are generaliy less than 300 feet deep. Mr. Eigenheer has provided for a 20 foot waikway and emergency easement betwean luts 10 and il to County Road I, which Staff has reviewed with Chief Fagerstrom and Chief Grabowski and concluded that the use of an emergency easement would be inadequate and most 1lkely presant probiems, such as having cars drive through, and keeping it open during the winter. A~onnection to County Road I direct7y sauth oF the cul-de-sac 7s not feusible due to t~e exis#ence of the St. Paul Water Works line at a high grade. However, it could 6e possible Co connect at the east property 11ne, due to a change in grade. "-~ Officiat Rose reported thaC Staff had consulted with Mr. ci~enheer and Keith Harstad, Che property owner to the north cancerning a 10oped street which would have kwo connections to proposed Edgewood Orive, one of which would be approximateiy at the aenter of the applicant's property and one at the comnon lot line between the two awners. The taoped system would create the same approximate number of lot,s and would create more footage of street, but provide; for a loop street system in the event of necessary r.mer3ency access. Official Rose also stated tbat evehtually a ho7diny pond tn the area will be necessary, and that the City cou1d assist the fi111rtg oo Pi~•. Eigenheer's ar Mr. Harstad's property, rather than having it hauled away. OYficiat Rose presented two ather alternatives, a connection to County Rqad I at the east property line or a connection to Oakwood Drive co the north, but stated that neither were very feasible or desirabie. Official Rose stated that with the approval of the plat, tdr. Eigenheer must be required to petit!on for servlces or insY.all them himself under the revision and inspection of the C1Ly, lncluding sewer, water, storm seaier, concrete curb and gutter. Under- . groundelectrical services and street 1lghts should b~ required of tha developer. The existing grade creates no unusual probiems for the deveiopment, but so11 condi- t9ons Gecome less desirable on the norther3y 100 teet. The easements shown on the preiiminary plat would be ad~quate but any revision to the plat would require Add1- tionai easemer~t censidaratiuns and revisions. `-J soilrcondltion$ke M~ke0lsontrepliedhthati herhad not~hadPitPcheckeddy~~en tested for Ccmmission t9ember Glazer asked if clearance would be required from the DNR because of danuary 25, 1978 the cattails in the marshy nrea. Official Rose replfed that the acreage is below ~°'ithe requirement for ONR approval and that the cattails are actualiy on Mr. Narstad's ~property, not Mr. Eigenheer's. Chairpersnn Haake stated that she felt the two biggest problems would be to decide where the road would go through and to get the lots to the 85' code requirement. Commission Piember Burmeister stated that she could not yo along with the R-2 zoning as the rest of the area was R-1 and that it should be maintained, as it is called fnr in the Comprehensive Ptan. Comnission Member Glazer asked why the particular lots were selected to be R-2. Mr. Eigenheer replied that he had selected the tots since they face County Ruad 1 and there is a stcre across the road from where he would 11ke to put them in. P~ge 3 Comnission Member Glazer asked if they would be rental property. t4r. Eigenh2er rcpN ed that theY wouid be mostly'owner occupied. Comnission Member Glazer stated that he was concerned with lot 21, fronting Edc~ewood. Mr. Olson replied that with the traffic on County Road I, they would like to havo the homes face County Road I but hava the driveways coming in from the back, from the cui-de-sac. He also stated that while the lacation does not dictate which lots sl~ould be R-2, he felt they have selected the best lots. He a7so stated that the R-2 homes would be in a higher price range and tax bracket. Mr. Eigenheer pointed out that two famTly homes are becoming very popular, due to inflation. ~'~~ Commission Member Fedor questioned why lots 10 antl 11 wou7d be Facing County Road I ,~.~rather Chan the cul-de-sac. Mr. E9genheer replted that it would be mm•e des9ra61e for the rest of the homes. Commission Member Mackeben stated khat he felt the R-2 property would provide an exce77ent buffer zone but did not see the feasibi7ity of lot 21. He also stated that neariv 50 percent of the lots would need some type of variance and that he did not dgree with tl~e long cul-de-sac. Chairperson Naake stated that she felt lot 21 should not be R-2 and recomme~ded that the ~avElopers get together with the Staff and work out tfie road system and bring the lots up to aode. She also stated that the generat cansensus of'the Planning Commisslon seemed to be that R-'L would be epproved. Kfr. Olson pointed out that the MeCro Council believes in smallar lot sizes, making >peas more dense und ttiat the proposed lots would be approved in nine out: of ten communities and that he was concerned with the economics of liaving to eliminate sane lots in order ta meet code requirements. Chairperson Hnake replied that Mounds View is very aware of the Metro Councii's position on lot sizes but that Mounds View has a set code, with 85' frontage requlrements. MSP (Haake-9lazer) to table the request of Eigenheer Bui7ders unt11 the pr•oblems ca,~ 6e wnrked out. 6 ayes Commission Member Mackeben stated that the Planning Commission is not necessarity opposed to variances or smaller lots with limited useage but that a hardship must ~ usually be showA. Commission Member Glazer stated that the decisions made on this particular development January 25, 1978 ~would carry over Co somc extent to Keith Harstad's development. CODE APpEAL QF BARBARA CARISON - 5239 J€FfERY DRIVE Official Rose reported thaC Barbara Carlson has requested to install a spectal 51nA used for washing hair in her existing single family home at 5239 Jeffery Drive, for use in her beauty shop home occupation. Official Rose reported that Staff discussed her request and according to Chapter 4U.10, Subdivision C, 3, c which states that no home occupation shaii be allowed which involves alterations or construction features not customarily found in dwellings, made the determination that a special sink used for washing hair comnercially is not an alteration or construction feature found customarily in single family dwellings. Although a speciai sink used for hair washing may be of little impact on a home occupation in a residential neighborhoad, there are oth~r co~nercial sinks which could be, sucli as sinks used for holding liquids for a process of manutacturing, such as dyeing, tanning or cleaning solutions. The installation wouid be cons?dered a permanent one, therefore considered a con- struction feature. Also, atCachments for customary slnks are ava91ab1e for headrest operations. Mrs. Carlson presented a picture to the Planning Commission of the type of sink sfie would like to piace in her home and stated that the only thing different ~3bout tha sink was that it had a dip in it for the head. ,--. ',Commissiun Member Fedor stated thaC he had not been tM nking of scmetM ng so small '~% when the wordtng "not customarily found in the home" had been discussed in writing the home occupation ordinance. Page 4 Mrs. Carison stated that there was a removable type insert she could attach to a sink but that she had examined one and fe7t it: was not suitable at all and that it would be very difficult to work with. She also stated that she has t~,wee children and that she would only be working in her beauty shop part time and that ~he does have a double wide driveway, which wnuld provide ample parking for her customers. Chairperson Haake stated that she was having a hard time turning down Mrs. Carlson's requesl; since the sink was such a sma11 item. Conmission Member Blanchard agreed. Officlal Rose stated that the intent of the ordinance was to keep things small, Counc9lmember Baumgartner pointed out that the ordinance sti71 states that she could not emptoy anyone to work with her. Comnission Member Mackeben asked Mrs. Car7sun if she would be abte to run h~r beaucy stiop without the sink. Mrs. Carlson reptied that she could be liaensed without the sink but that it would make it much more convenient for her operation if it were altowed. MSP (Mackeben-Fedor) tu approve the request of Darbara Carlson, 5239 Jeffery Orive to install a special hair sink for use in her beauty salon. 5 ayes ~~ 1 absta' Cammission Member Burmeister noted that the approval was ,~ust a,~udgement on January 25, 1979 Page 5 /~ o~~e ryarticular case. ~ ~ UpCOMING AGENOA AN~ PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Offlcial Rose reported that Gene Tanas wi71 be coming in saon to request that one tot tocated at 2070 Oakwood be subdivided into two. The tot is 150' wide and was at one time divided into two 76` iots, cnd Mr. 7anas would ltke it divided back into two nnce more. Official Rose reported that there is a hydraulics fitm interested 1~~ building in the Mounds View Industrial Park on a 1ot that is 125' deep 6y approximate.ly 3l0' wide. The 7ot is going to be very ~ifficutt to build on, due to its lack of depth, and the firm is trying to purchase some ~xtra property from the motel iocated behind. The present p7ot plan wou7d require many variances for setbacks. Comnission Member Glazcr expressed cqncern with any chemlcals that woutd be in the area possibly getting into the cr~ek. Officiai Rose rep7led tl~at the firm would-not be using any dangerous material. He atso stated that the City tias the optfon to accept the p7an fran the hydraulics fitm or xait for something else to come along. He reported that there is a 7ot availab7e across the street fran the ane the firm 1s interested in but at a higher cost. He also stated that the building would include a Cennts court and sauna for emplayees. Chairperson Naake asked if the Planning Comnission members would be witiing to ,t"~ compranise on a setback for the buitding and indications were that tf~ey would not, i ~ `"~-' Officiat Nose also reported that Mrs. Carlson had to pay a$50 fee for her code appeal and stated that the Planning ~umnission might want to recommend to the Councll that it be rewritten, with perhaps a$25 minimum fee and then aro rated. Commission Member Mackeben stated that he was not opposed to the $50 fee. Chair- persan Haake added that if someone wants to appea7 sanething badiy enough, they should 6e wilting to pay for it, Cour.cilmember Batar~artner reported that the City Council took acttan on Yhe Northcrest Properties and aNproved the prellminary ptat and that the developer wilt draw in a 60' easement at the Quincy connectlon of the property and thet a pubilc improvements hearing wi11 be hetd, at whtch tlme a11 the residents cen give thelr input into the proposed roads and so forth. Councilmanber Baumgr.rtner also reported that Seven-Eteven went before the Councii to request gas pumps. He reported thet the issue was tabled to aitow the CiLy Counctl to review the request further. Official Rose stated that 5even-~leven coutd meet a11 thF requirements other than the variance 1n parking but that they must be in relation to the Canprehensive P1an, the geographical area, tY~e character of the area and have a d~nonstrated need. ~_./ ~so~~+^'~~ ~ _ . ~ January 25, 1978, 4 . Page 6 ; ~ Comnission Member fedor pointed out that the uriderground gas pumps wou]d be inatalled ~across from the park, and that the entrance and exit from the tot were a~ e very bad ~c~ tntersectian. Chairperson Naake asked a11 comnissioh members to please ca11 her or Official Rose if they could not attend a meeting. Official Rose added that word could be teft with any of the secretaries at City Ha11 if h2 was not available. Chairperson Haake atso s~ated :hat the ~lannir~g Comnission was down to aeven memhers, and asked that Staff revtse the ordinance to read that ther~ must be seven members, rathar than nine, fow a fuil r.ontingency. She stated though that she felt five shoutd st111 be the required quarum and asked that a11 members be certain tn notify her or Official Rose of a planned absence to insure that thel^e would always be a quarum. Chairperson Haake stated tha: she woutd not be at the February 8 meeting. Commission Member Blanchard added thut she would not be at the February 22 meeting. ~ MSP (Butmel5ter-Blanchard) to adfourn at 9:10,PM. ~~Y~S ' '- \_,J " " ., „ , , . ~ ;..," ~'. . "` ~.,, , ; „ ~ , , i ± ,~ , „ , , . : ' ~ , ',. ~ , ~ , _.. . ~~.r+ ~d.. .,::au.,.: ,,, „ ;. ,_ . „. ..... . ;,:.. . ' ~ .._ ., ,~ ~. . . . ~,,n~-,.. . , ~. ~