Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-04-12 PC Minutes~4 ~ ';: ! PROCEEDINfiS OF THE PLANNING CONwMISSION CITY OF MOUN6S VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA A regutar meeting of the Mounds View Ptenning Comnlssion was celled to order et 7:30 PM on Apr11 12, 1978 at the Maunds View City Ilei1, 2401 Highwey 30, Mounds V1ew, Minneso4e 66112. Memhers PresenC: Cheirperson Haake ~omnission Mem6er Mackeben Comnission Member Fedor Commis~ion Memtier Burmelster Comnission Member 8lanchard Comnission Member Foss Also Present; Councilmember Baumgartner Building and Zuning Officlal Rose Members Absent; Commission Member Glezer Official Rose reported that Comm7ssion Member Glazer had culled him end would be absont due to p personal prablem, but did hope to 9oin the meeting later. Comnission Member Durmeister asked that the minutes of the Merch 22, 1978 meeting be corrected in the motion at the buttom af page 2 to reploce the cortma between dr1v~ and although with a period and stert a new sentence with although. She elso requested ~~''~~that the matlons on pego s ne corrected te have a comna rether than a perlod efter ~Lhe ;:~rd factrrs end continuo the santanae an. MSP {Burmeister-Blenchard) to approve the minutes of the March 22, 1978 meeting as corrected. b ayes BUILDING ADOITION REQUEST OF CHARLES HALL - 2200 HIGHWAY 10 Official Rose reported thet pursuant 1:o Chapter 59, Section 7, Devetopment Controls, tha Planning f,omnissir~n and City Council must review and approve the request of Charles Hall to construct an addltlon of a 24 lane bowllng a11ey to Ms existing bar and dining faeilltias. Th~ Planning Coimiission and City Council revleN~d plans similar to the current submissinn during the spring of 1976 and approved the appli- cetlan but due to financing, the praJect d9d not occur and the City wlthdrew its approval. Off1c1e1 Rose reported that plenning cnnsideratlons include that the area 1s xoned General Business and Shopping Centers end the use is a B-4 Reqlona1 Business type. 7he Comprehensive P1an denotes a highway comnerciet usage. The new addition is 20,640 square feet, compared to 20,1E0 square feet requested in 1976. OfPiciel Rose explained that the chnnge is represented by an addltional corridcr for the southri6iY anti•siicn a~~d avn a oreakdawn aF ti~a srea~ and tho differsnca in the squere footage requested versus C~at of 1975, and sumnarlxed eaying thet the current ptan Par constructinn is very simllar to the epproved 1975 plan, with the only iifference betng the addition o4 total square footage evolv9ng from the chenge 1n .~entrences. April 12, 1978 Page 2 fficial Rose rnported tfiat the original 1975 pta~i and the current pian hBVP. two means f public entrance. The original 1975 plan had entrances in the middle of the east side and the east corner of the north side, while the current pla~i now tocates onc entraoce in the east carner oF the south wa11 and another in the east corner or the north side. The reiocatlon of one of the entrances, together with the exisCing entrance, produces a better access for vehicle parking. OfPiciai Rose stated that. the exterior of the building is to be similar to the existing ext~rior and tbat no changes are planned for the floor plan of th~ existing building other than a door cut for entrance to the bowling addition, He added that Mr. Hall does plan to install a sprinkling system in +.he existing structure and plans ta locate a storage dumpster at the approximate center of the property along the we5t line, as he did in his 1975 pian. The storage apparatus would be screened by a redwood fence, OfflCial Rose added that in 1975, redwood was approved, aithouoh a Drick or biock fence was looked upon more Pavorabiy. No additional signage is ptanned, Official Rose stated that Mr. Hall plans two additional poles with three banks of 400 Watt scdium tamps intended to Tight the rew proposed parking on the westerly side of tlie property. The 1lghting is required to bo directed, contrulled or hooded as to nat tight ad~acerL property or right-ofi-ways., Official Rose reported that Staff has computed the number of requfired parking snaces to be 422, which considers the bar, dininq, kltchen and bowling lane requirements. Those spaces would be 9~'x20'. The applicant has provided for 427 spaces, of which seven are designed far compact caps, which could be an enforcement problem. The 1475 plan shoWed 476 spaces of 9'x20', which did not meet today's code requirements. The aisles are all ~''~ 24 feet, wtiich would be adequate for two-way traffic. Official Rose added that ptr. Hali ~„/ has requested on additional curb cut on County Road 4 which wa.s not in the ortainal pian. Due to the changK in parking, the additional curb cut woulc add to 6etter traffic control. Aiso, neiCher the 1475 origtnal plon nor the present plan show cancrete cu~~bin9, 7he present plan shows a 4-12 asphalt curb which should be required around the entire parking perimeter for both the new and old paved aweas. Officlal Rose reported that both the origlna] and the new Plan offer plantinqs a7ong the east anG norCh sides of the new addition. The original plan offered a 15 faot sod and 15 foot gravel area with ptantings along the west property line, while the new plan offers a flve foo~ gravel area with plantings along the west property line. Cade requires a minimum of five feet of green area. Official Rose recomnended that the west nurth-south traffic alsle be narrowed to 24 feet, yiving the reinaining footage to the gravel area in the event that a street should parallei the property, which would give it a more adequate se*.back. tlfficial Rose reForteU that the drainage plan reyuiras R9Ce Cieek Nater Shed approval which has nc~t yet beeh received but is on their April 26 agenda, Drainage also will require County approvaT, which was fusC recsived. Staff recommends that tbe devela~er bu11d a physical connectior~ to the existing storm sewer paralling County Road N for the overPlow oP the pund versus the over-the-curb fiow pendln~ Rice Creek and the County's recommendations. Official Rose rec.ortmended that a development agreement with the developer inc7ude a bond or escrow amount equal to appraximat~ly 5~ af the devr.lopment Costs shown on the buil~ing permit and ~xhibits showing detailed drainage, landscaping, 1lghting, i varking and trash enclosure plans. `~Chairperson Heake asked Mr. Hell if he would like to add anytM ng to Official Rnse's reporC. Mr. Hal? reptied thet Officiei Rase had done a Pine ~oa in presentlr.g his appilcation nnd that he had notM ng to add. Apri1 12, 1978 page 3 "omnission Member Fedor asked iP the north side of the perking iot wouid bordar wlth erkins, Official Rase replled that it would, end that Perkins did have curbing and piantings. He eiso RxulaTned that if Mr. Hait w4s re~uirad to have a 6' green area, it would reduce the aisle widti~ of the parking lot. Comnission Member Fedor questioned if concrete curbing would make snow plowing mure dlfficuit and asked 1f it ~;as a necessity. Officlel Rose replied thni• concrete curb- ing would heip any owner maintain his property, Cortmission Member Blanchard esked ti there wouid be any problein with the second access onto County Road H. OFficial Rose replied that there should not be any pro- blem as there was approximately 200' between where the two drive~ays woutd be. Comnission Member Foss asked what ty~e of ptantings wouid be put in. Mr. Ha1i replled that they would be 4-5' ta71 Juni pers. Official Rose added that according to the plan, they would be arcadia ~unipers. He added that the oniy chattge 9n the buffer would be on the ~est side, which would be reduced from 30' to 5', Comnission Member Foss asked if it would be better to eliminate the 7 parking spaces aTiowed for compact cars. O~ficial Rose rep7l~d that it would present a policing problem if the compact spaces were ullowed. Chairperson Haake asked if the 7 spaces were angled if they could perhaps get 6 standard size parking spaces. Official Rose replled Chat it might be possible to angle the spaces but that they would then lose additiona? spaces at the south end. v-. r ;Com!iission Member Fedor stated that he felt if they were onTy short S sryaces aut of e ~~'"'" requirec~ 422 that it would not be much of a problem. Chairperson Haake asked how many cars Mr. Hall averaged per niqhC now withaut the bowling attey addition. Mr. Hati reptied that he was not certain how many he i~ad per nigM;. Comnission Member Burmeister asked. if ttie parking spaces would be striped. Mr. Ha11 repiied that they would be. Comnission Member 87anchard asked if any additional signing wnuld be puL up. Mr Haii replied that he was not planning on it. Chairpersan Haake que:stioned if the drive should remain wide at the west end by Cour.#y Road H rather than narrowed. She also stated that she felt curbing should be lnciuded a11 the way arourid the area. Comnission Member Feaor staCad tha~ he was ageinst the c~rblr.g ~ecausE oA th€ cost, He added that he felt Mr. H;.11 had already shown that he c~uld keep his proPerty up. Comnission Member BurmelsCer added that she felt the lot appeared to be much neater since Mr. Hall had installed curbiny atong Highwa~y 10. MSP (Fedor-Foss) to recamnend to thE CTty Council Chat they approve the request of Charles Na]1, 2200 Highway 10 to issue a building permit for construction of a 24 lane bowling aitey cdditian to the Mermaid Club as presented today on the plot plan dated .`~larch 10, 1978 and that the C1ty enter inta e devslapment agrement including e bond ~/ur escrow amount equal to approximately 5~ of the development cosLs shown on t.he buildiny permit and axhibits showing detailed drainage plans, detailed landscapiny p7ans, detalled 1lghting plans, detailed parkina plans anc' detatled trasfi enciosOpe plans, and approve a variance of 8 parking spaces, with 414 spaces allawed for on ppril 12, 1978 ~the plan and 422 required hy code, and also a 5' variance for paved area setback ~From the north property line a~d southeast lnterior corner, Mr. Ha11 stated that he would 11ke to thank the Pianning Cortniission and Officiai Rose and his StafF for the exceilent work they did on his pro~ect. MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND REZONING REQUEST OF GLEN KARLEN - 2809 COUNTY ROAD I Official Rase reported that the appllcant had originally requested to tocate self-service car wash be~siness on the property in question, which had been denied, and was now requesting a ma~or subdivision of three lots and rezoning from R-i to R-2 for two of the iots. Page 4 5 ayes Officiat Rose reported that Lhe propos2d subdivis9on sketch creates three lots, a11 canforming to area requirements For the proposed R-1 and R-[ znnings. Lot 1~ with a proposed R-2 zoning, only has a 90' frontage, while a 100' frontage is required. L~t 2, bein~ z corner lot with a proposed R~2 zoning meets the mrnimum 100' frontage requirements. Lot 3, with an R-1 zoning, has an 80' frontage, while an 85' frontage is req~ired. The applicant has requested the lot configuration to compliment h1s dup'ex deve7opment plan. This would give Lot 3 enough rooni fnr a L•ypical garage addition, even though t.he tot frontage is substandard.;~ and' also give Lot,2, a sorner lot, additional setback room. Chairpe~~son Haake asked what the required square footage was for duplex pro~erty. r~-~Officiai Rose repifed that it is12500 square feeL. Chairperson Haake questloned if ,l~ie applicant cauld move the lot lines and give the corner lot more room. Official ~~~Rose repiied that the app7lcant was trying to meet coAe requirements as much as possible and could realize at least 100' an the corner lot, with12500 square feet, if addltional space was taken from one of the other 1ots. Comnission Member 6urmeister stated that she would much rather see an 80' lot wtth a larger corner lot. Coim~issian Member Fass stated that he felt it would be 6etter ta have a iarger lot on the corner so that the house c1a1d be set back ta altow better visabitity for the drivers at the corner. Mr. Karlen asked if the Pianning Commission could approve M s skQtch plan iP he agreed to meet the requirements they set. Official kose replied that the Planning Comnission has been asked from time to time to approve sketch plans but preferred not to. Cha4rparson Naakr tooY, a consensus of Che P~anM ng Commission and stated that their consensus seemed to be that they felt the s~bdivision of two lots to face Silver Lake: Aoad cou7d ~o to R-2 and that they would 11ke to see Lot 1 be bruught closer to cade, a 100 lot rather than a 90' lat. She added that the R-1 lot could remain at 80', and that a 5' variance would he granted. MRJOR SUBDIVISION AND REtONING REqUEST Of KEN THOf<NTON - 8200 PLEA5AN7 VIEW DRYVE ~fPiciel Rose reported that the appiicant ha~ reyuested approval of a two block, 20 '~lot subdivision, includiog one outlot, and rezoning of 14 lots fwam 8-4 to R-1 and five lot.s fram B-4 to R-2, leaving nne outlot at B-4 status. Aprii 12, 1978 Paye 6 ~Officfai Rore reported that the present zoning is General Business and Shupping Centers ~lAwhiCh is B-4, while the Comprehensive P1an Land Use Mep denotes the us~ge as medium denlsty a]ong the hlghway wlth a low density use on the interior. 14 lots are requested to b~ R-1, 6 lots to be R-2 and 1 lot, outlot A, to be B-4. Outlut A could be combined with lot 5, 1ot 6 or lot 7 or could be zoned R-2. Official Rose reported that services for water and sewer are provi~ed for alt four lots of Block 1 and services are prcvided for lots J, 2, 14 and 15, Block 2, on Pleasant View Drive. They are also available for lots 7 and 12, Dlock 2 on Spring Lake Roc~d. The eppllcant intends to instail the necessary publlc improvements for lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13, with a looped water main from Pleasant VS~w Orive to Spring Lake Road~ Outtot A, with improvements as proposed end existing, would only have water service, no sewer, but sewer couid 'oe provided off Spring Laka Road parailel to the looped water main on the north side of lot 7. He could grant a 20' easement and place the services in for the outtot, oue to the existing qraund elevations, drainage shou7d be directed toward the Highway 10 open ditch alung the ;joint property line of lots 5 and 5. Permit approval wouTd be required Pron the Highway Department, Official Rose repurted what easements would be required for the looped water main and for drainage. He added that in Block 1, a11 lots meet area requirements for thelr propose~.1 zonings and that lots 1 and 2 meet the minimum frontage requirements. Lots 3 and 4 would require frcntage variances of 8' and 25' respectfully. All lots in Block 2 mfiet the area requirements `or their proposed usage. lots 2, 3, M1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 meet the frontage requirements while lot i, a corner lot, has one frontage of 9U, while the requil~ed minimum is 100'. Lot 13, due to the street and easement !~onfiguratians, has only 66' of frontnge, A varlance may be requirad for setback and ,..~ a yariance wou7d bE~ required for the 65' frontage since an 8E' frontage is required~ Off9clal Rose recomnended that outlot A be combined with another lot or left as is with appropriate zoning. Official Rose stated that the plan creates a cul-de-sac with a depth of approximatety 460' ~~hich is in uxcess of the recomnended maximum length of 200' but that while the cul-de-sac does add to maintenance and safety probiems, it maximizes the use of the property. Ron Murphy, of Comstock and Davis stated that he was present to represent Mr. Thor;7ton and stated that they wouid easiiy bring Lot 3 inLo accordance with the setback require- ments by changing the angle. He added that lot 4 is 215' long facing the street and tn~t it is a buildabie 1ot. He also stated that Lot 1, 81ock 2 wou1d front either Nleasant View Drive or Pleasant View Court, with a 125' minimum frontage. Mr. Murphy agreed that Lot 13 was an odd shaped 1ot but fe1C it could be buildable. lae added that Lot B could be set back a few feet more and would not present any pro- blems, and that they could atso shift the prop~r•ty 1ina. Mr. Murphy st.ated that they had requested an additianaT exit out onto Highwey 10 from thm dsvelopment and that if the Highviay Department approved the request, they would make Uutlot A into a separate lot, but if it was not approoed, they would cornbine it with lot 6. Mr. Murphy added that they were looking at double bungalows Por four or five of xhe iots and they wouid tike to mt~ke proviclans for splitt1ng the tots ~ tt the ad3oining w~ll, wM ch v~ould allow individual ownership of each duubla bungalow. ~Chalrpersort Haake replied that such a requc~st would require the Planning Comnission to table the issue and study it. Mr. Murphy then sLated that he did not want the issue considered. He aiso added that he felt the Steff had done a flne fob is putting together the plan and presenting it. Apri1 12, 1978 Page 6 hairperson Haake questioned iP there could be a walkway between Spring Lake Road and teasant View Por the children to use in getting to the park and schoois. Officiel Rose replled that it had b2en discussed at one time and the property owners were vehemently c!pposed to it. He added that the easemenC was in existonce then and the people did not want the walkway. Conmission Member foss pointed out that some of the people who had been opposed to the v;alkway hnd since moved from the area. Mr. Thornton scatad that he would have no ob~ection to putting in a walkway as long as he did not have to mainta9n it. Russ Christianson, 8200 Spring Lake Foad stated that Mr. Thornton hed spoken to the residents of the area about his pians and that they were supportive of the rezaning for obvious reasuns but that they did have some reservations about the size of some of the lots, Lots 8 and 9, Block 2 and Lots 3 and 4, Black 1 in particular. He asked that the Pianning Comnisston do everything pos,lbie to make the area as pleasant as possible. Chairperson Haake pointed out that lot 8 did meet cade. Official Rose addrd thut. h~ felt Chere Nou1d not be'a building problem with the 1ots, and that var9ances !vere required because they did nat meet the letter of t.he iaw,so to say. He further added that he had conferred with Attorney Meyers, who agreed with his interpret;ation. Gary Cheznick, 8160 Spring Lake Road questioned where the pro osed water line from Spring Lake Road woutd go, Officlal Rose replied that it wouRd be approxfmately 10' from the property 11ne. ~~~~r. Cheznick stated that he was concE•rned with the trees that would be teken down. Ne ~-^'po{nted out that therA were six oak trees, 75-100' ta11 rhat wcu7d hnve to be taken ouC if the water line was put in. Mr. Murphy rep'lied that the water line could come 9n off Pleasant View Drive whfch wou7d be more expensive but that they wou~d be willing to do 1t in order to save the trees. Councilmember Baumgartner asked where Che runoff fram the stonn sewer would go. Mr Murphy replted that it coutd drain to both the north and south to catch basins. Caunr.i7member Baumgartner asked if Pleasant View CourC couid exit d9rect7y onto Highway 10 and thus avoid having such a long cul-de-sac. Mr. Murphy repifed that from past experience, he diJ not fee7 the Highway Cepartment would allow it. Chafrperson Haake edded that she felt it would be more desirabie to have a cui-de-sac. Comnission Membe~ Mackeben pointad out that the cui-de-sa^. would be a very long one. Councilmember Baumgartner added that the Planning Co~nission had spent three meetings with the Efyenheer development trying to get rid of his tong cul-de-sar, and had finally pequired a looped road. He asked if the Fire Department had comnented on the cul-de-•sac. Offlcial Rose repiied that they had and that they did not feel it wou7d be a problem. He also explained that the Eigenheer development had been a different situation since he had had the opportunlty to )oop the system because of the sixe, whereas with the Thornton development, it would be m~re detrimental and likety impossibte tp hook up to Highway i0. Official Rose added that he~felt the cu1-de-sac could be shortened, which viould be better than connecting with Hlghway 10. , "omnission Member Foss asked if there wculd be any probiem with the City mainLatning ~~+ waikway. Official Rose reulied that he was not sure if 10' woutd be wide enuugh, since it would have to be wide enough for a snow plow. He pointed out, though, that if it was much wider than 10', there couid be a problem with cars trying to drive down it. Apr11 12, 1978 Page 7 ~ike Nevrtnan, 8180 Spring lake Road expressed conr.ern aiith Lot 7 catching water, Mr~ ~ urphy replled that there was a tow 7otnt an the tot which provides Por naturei drainage. He added thaC it wauld noC present any problems~ Mr, Tharnton added tF.at the iot niight possibTy have to be built up a b1t. Mr. Cheznick presented pictures of the water on Lot 7. Ne also asked why the P1enning Cortmission would be more incllned to a11~:, duplexes rather than single famiiy homes next to Hlghway 10. Chairperson Haake replied that the Comprehensive Plan calls for that tyPe of develop~nent. She added that single family home owners would nat want to build aleng such a busy road. She also poinCed out thet Lot 1 would provide a buPfeM bet4~een the gas staCiun and homes, Commission Member Fedor aiso pointed out that the R-2 houses that were prasently being bu11t did not differ much from the frontages ~f single family homes. Mr. Cl~eznick asked what the fronts would iook like and if the houses w~uid b~ centered an the 1ots. Official Rose repiied that. the fronts would depend upon the style of each fiouse and that they would be centered as much ¢s possfble while at the saioe time they would try to save the trees. Mr. Thornton added that he wouid be happy to discuss the piacement of the homes. Mr. Ne~nan stated that he was concerned wit•h havlr,g extra cars on the road because oP the shortage of parking spaces at the dupiexes. Mr. Thornton replied thct. he felt there would be ample parking ailowed for since the duptexes would all have doubie garages. He a7so pointed out that he wi17 be doing all he can to enhance the appearance of the duplexes since he wi71 also be buitding single family homas and trying to se11 r-~those at the same time. ~ `•^^'Mr. Cheznick stated that he felt it wouTd be difficult to se77 a dupiex on either side of Mid-pmerican Auto because of the appearance of the business. Mr. 7harnton repiied that he was confide~t he wouid have no probie.m io seliing the ~omes. Comnission Member Foss stated Ehat he feit tf~e duplexes would provide a good buffer by being next to the car lot. , _..~_.__., __....___ ` MSP {Burr~ister-Blanchard) to recomnend Co the Council approval of the roquest of Ken i Thornton for a ~wo bloak, 20 tot subdivision and rezoning of 14 lots from B-4 to R-1 (Bloc!c 1, ~ lots 1, 2 und 3; B7ock 2, lots 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 70, 11, 13, 14 and 15), 5 1oCS from B-4 to t. R-2 ( D1ock 1, ?ot 4 and Block 2, lots 2, 5, 6 and 7), or if Out7ot A is included, 6 lots ~ from 8-4 to R-2. If Out1oC A is nut rezoned to R-2, it then wi11 become part of Lot 6, B1ock 2. Easements for tF.e looped water main should be the north 10' and east 10' of Lot 6, the south 10' of Lot B, the north 20' of Lok 7, and 20' of the northeast corner of Outiot A, and for drainege, the uiest 10' of Lot 6 a~d the east 10' of Lot 5, and 10' of the northwest ' corner of Outlat A. These e~senxnts are sub~ect tn a feasibitity study ryroducing the fact t.hat this would be the best way, creating a n~inimum 7os5 of existing foliage, lot 3 would require an 8' frontage variance at tlie building setback line and Lot 4 will require a 25' f~•ontage variance at the buiiding setback line. !at 1, B7ock 2 will rERUtre a 10' fronCage variance and an Lot 13, e varience wiTi be required for boCh setback e,~d 1ts 65' frontage. On the existing utility easements on the north side of lots 72 and 13 in Black 2, the owner has agreed to dedicate a 75' walkway on the southeast corner of Lot 14. A development agree- ment wi11 aiso be necessary. ?he eesement 15 for a catch bas9n insta7lation and conduit to ~rain to the existing ditch atong Highway 10 pending the feasibility study. 6 ayes ~omnission Mamber (ilazer ~ofoed the maeting at tM s time, Apr11 12, 19J8 Paga 8 Comnisslo~ Member Mackeben sceted thet he was c~nfused with the easement Por the wetk- ~xplained chatWtheyhwoutd~berdedlcetinggit because 1fNthey justigrantedpthereas mel~tter tho peopie wouid still own ft, Official Rose edded that the City had no present right to put a walkway over the easement unless an easement were granted for it. Comnission MembE~r Mackeben questioned if it would be more edvantageous on Lot 13 to ~ try and group the homes in tine rather than allowing the home to be built beck. Offlctal Rose rept',ed that the home could not 6e bu11t on the easement and thet they must sti11 maintain a 3~' setback from the rear tot 11ne, and that the developer ~ hopefully would come up with a house style that would compliment the tat. f Councilmember Baumgartner pointed out that with a 35' dedication, Lots 12 and 13 woutd change in size. Chairpersor Haake reptied that ¢hey would st111 meet code requirements~ ~ Counciln~mber 6aumgertnnr stated thet it must ba made known Lo the people who buy Lots ~ YL and Y3 that the dadication is there. Official Rose replied thet it would become pnrt , of the piat. M5P (MeckeEen-Foss) to amend the prevlous motlon to delete the variance request on lot 13 to bu11d a home deepar than the normal setback requirement. 6 ayes S absta{n Comnission Member Glazer abstained on the vote. t9r. Thornkon stated that he would 11ke the Councll to give him credit un the Park fund for the dedication. Chairperson Haake repited that the Park Qoard would consider it. r~, ~„~Ccmmisiian Member Mackeben left the meeting at tM s time. MAJOR SUBDIYISION REQUEST OF KEN SJODIN - 8100 GROVELFND ROAD - ..__....-- - . _ Official Rose rep~rted that Mr. S~odin was requesting to change hfs n~a,lor subd9vision request to a minor subdivision and drew a sketch of what he was requesting. Offleial Rose axpiained that Mr. SJodin was trying ta obtairt a buildabte ]ot fronting Groveland Road. He explained thc~ the City has, in the past, reviewed and had a feasibility study prepared for the extension af Kno7lwoad sout.h of Ardan Avenue. At that t1me, it seemed more feasible to connect in a westerly direction to Spring Lake Road. Since that time, the home io~ated at QTOQ Grovetand has been demolished, thus allowing the Knollwaod extenslon to connect to Grovelond Road and Sherwood Road. Atthough the proposed street easement and the existing Sherwood Road easement are not directly in line with each other, Sta.'f feels that an offsetting of the new street on its easement can compensate for the non-alignment. Official Rose explained that Mr. S,~odin is also interested in possible fu11 development af the property. In the,event that Knotiwood was extended south, he could grant easements and create buitdable 1ots. Officlal Rose added that the City 1s intepested in getting easements for the Knoilwood extension, and could deed one buildabl~ lot, which would become voided once the r~hoie plat becomes final. A1r. SJod7n expleined that he did not know Por s~re if the sxreet v~as gaing to 90 1n and that he had purchased the property with an ald house on it end had demoiished the Irouse wfth the idea of sp7ltting the lnt. However, the City now would prefer to put the roed through since the house had been demoiished. He explatned that he ~ would like ane minor subdivision at this time so he cou7d build one home. He edded ,~,.that ell the nssessments were in and paid on Graveland. He also added that he would sign a petikion for puttin~; Knollwood in and that• if the City did take a b0' easement, he wouid heve to dedicate the other lTy' to the other property owner. He added thet he would cocperate with the City in anY WB~, end painted out tf~at there were n iot oP Apri1 12, 1918 Paga 9 ~ ~-76' lots on ~roveland Road alreaAy and that the people wha wented to build att the one ,k~ ~ ~ ot he wes requesting were presently 1lving doHn the streeC on a 75' lot. a, 't Otficiel Rose pointed out that there is a morat.orium on a11 develupment, including building permits end thet the oniy way Staff would recommend such a minor subdiW sion was if Mr. S~odin wuuld dedicate the necessary street easements through the property ; if it wes shown to be th~ most feasible place to put the ruad through. He adddd ttint iP Mr. S,~aA1n were to se11 the property, the new owner could try to block having the ; street put through. Mr. S~odtn asked which would be the best Way for the road to go in. Officlal Rose replied that it Mould be best to Cie up with Sherwood Road, past the lot that Mr. S~odin would like to subdivide. Mr. S~od1n explained that when he originall,y purchasecl the property he had intended to tear down the old honse and create two huiidable loCS with the assessments paid, fronting G~~oveland artd that it would now be much wore expensive if the easements were takett por the raad. Comnisston Member Foss stated that he thought that the required 35~ uf the pra~ercy owners were willing to petition for the road to be put 1n. Chatrperson Haake asked Mr. S~odin if he would be willing to enter into an agreer~~ent with the Lity LhaC the south 7ot would not be built on untit a decision was made on where tho road would go thraugh. Mr. S,~odin replled ttiat he was wtTling to enter into - such an agre~ment. Ile addad tliaC lie would prefer tx~~ 77~,' lots versus one 96' lot ~~ in case the road did not go thraegh, since then he would stili have two buildable tots. Comnission Member Glazer asked if 35~ of the residents petitioned Por the road, tf #he City would consider putting the roed in and hold a pubiic hearing. Official,Rose repllQd tfiat the tast time the Counc9l considered the issue they had stated that they would not review it agaln until 35% of Lhe owners petitioned Por a road and they woutd then holA a public hearing. Offictal Rose stated that Mr. 5,lodin should be required to put 1n writing that he was willing to glve the 60' easement and not build on'the other lot, since 1f tfiey create two 77~s' lots and he reyuested a building permit, lie could 1n!nr appiy for a building permit for the second 1ot and the City would then have to yo tn court to try and stop him from bullding, Mr. S,~odin stated that he would p~•t in writing that he would not ask for a:econd building permit until a decision was made on the road. Comnlssion Member Fedor asked if the residents should petit,ion for a road right away so a feasi6111ty study could be done and a decision reached shortly. OPficial Rose replied thet it wouid take at least a month to do a feasibility study and that the Council would not be c~nsidering the issue for aC least a month. F1r. S,~ndin stated that he would agree to do nothing until a decision was reached on the road. Comnlssion t4ember Fedor replled that the City had not done anything sine~: no one had petitoned far servtces. He also added that they would be creating two substandard lots if thcy granted two 77~5' 1ots. ~''~Comnisslon Member Foss stated that he woula be in favor af the minor subdlvision if Mr. S~adin would reassure the City that ne wouid not do enything on the south tot unt11 the raad was pu~c thrcugh. Apr11 12, 1976 pege 20 Comnlssian Member 9lancherd statP~ theE she was not sure how lang tihe C1Gy coutd te19 ~people that they couldn't bu11d oii thelr property. Sha added that sho Pe1t a decision shouTd be ~nede on how the roed wes qotng to go through before a minor subdiWsiaa wes grented. Comnission Member 8urnreister steled thet she felti the horse wes being put befora the cart and thaE a deciston should be mnde on the roed before any subdivislon wes grented. Corrmisslon Member Glexer stated that he was in fevor of the subdivision a;~d thet he couid not sae eny reason for walting until tha rord lssue wes decided. Comnlsslon Member Fedor stated that he woutd like to know which way the road wes going to go end sinca there seemed to be enough people to petltion Por tha road, he felt a heering should he heid. He adde~ he wes in fevar of the subdivlsion request. Che1rperson Maake sLate~ that she was a?so 1n favnr of the request since she felt it was the only wny :he developer could go p~~esently and that she fe~t he wes w9111ng to negotiate With thn CiCy. Chairperson Naake stated thet thr, consensus seemed to be that he shauld go ahead end purYUe the minor subdivisian. ZONING MAP AND LAND USE UPDATE ,-~.,,Officlal Rose stated that he was oreparing a surmary of the Planning Cormission's ~ co~nts on the zontng mep and tai~d use updete. ,~, Orfictai Rose requested that the Curtmission Members discuss the issue of how the City should a11ow devetopment to occur, Councilmember Baumgertiier stet?~ thet one of the things the Task Force hed said they would do was made r recaimendetlon to the Councll by Apri1 24 on the moratorlum. He added Chat Attorney Meyers hnd point~d out that the City could 1ega11y en4nrcu the marnLorlum 1f they did it in good falth. Officiat Rose pointnd ouL thnt if the C1ty doas allow development, they da run e risk. Ne added thet they must remember thet if temporary holding ponds and related conduits ar2 instal7ed to some spucific storm criterion, and that criterion ~roves to be inadequa:e, we will sti11 be 'living with tho problem. Counciimember Baumgarkner stated that the first time someon~ has a water problem, they wtll came to the City And blame the City for their problems becsuse of continuing devetopnrent. Cheirparson Naake asked that each Cwimission Member 4e assigned an evening to attend a Task Force meeting es the Comnission's reprosentative. She asked that Comnlsstan Member 8lancherd attend tf~e Apr11 13 meeting, Go~nlssion Member 9urm~lstor the Apr11 20 mPeting, Comnissian MemEar Fedor the Apr11 27 mesting , Cumnission Memuei~ Foss tihe May 4 meeLing, Comn4ss4on Fiember Glazer the Mey 11 mer,ting, Car~~iss9on Membor Mackehen ~he May 26 mesttng, and thak she would taka the May 18 meeting, and they would then rotate again. MSP (Neake-Blenchard) to ad,~aurn tha meating at 10:30 PM. 6 ayes Respectfuily submitted, Pemela Case Recording Secretary