Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-04-26 PC MinutesARUCEEDINGS OF TNE PLANwING COMMISSION - i RAMSEY COUNTYNDMINNESOTA A regu]ar me9ting of the Mounds V1ew Ptanntng Cormiission was called to order at 7:30 PM on Apr1i 26, 1978 at the Mounds Vicw City Nall, 2401 Hlghway 10, Mounds Vtew, Mlnnesoto 66112. Members Present: Chairpersott Haake Com~lssion Mem4er Fedor Comnission Member Burnieister Comnission Member Bienchard Also Present: Counc:ilmember Bawn3artner Duilding and Zoning Official Rose Members Absent: Carenission Member Glazer Cortmission Member Foss Offic/al Rose reported that Comnisslon Member Glazer wns absenC due to a death in h1s famlly. Chalrperson Haake explained that Ca~miseion MQmber Mackeben had resigned from the ""1Ptar,rting Comrtfssfon. I~'-~Chairperson Hnnke requested 2hat the minutes of the Aprit 12, 1978 be chenged to read on page Q, paragraph 3, line 3'Lot 1' rather than 'corner lot', under the ma~or subdivisian Psquest of G1en Kar?en, and that the last tine oF Chat paragraph be cha~~ged to wead 'given to' rather than 'taken from'. MSP (Burmelster-Blanchard) to approve the Aprii 12, 1978 minutes as corrected VARIANCE REOUEST OF RICHARD WOLFARTH - 8395 GREENWOOD DRIYE 4 ayes Officinl Rose reported that the appllcant has requested a variance of the accessory bu11d1ng size requirement of 216 square feet to build a workshop behind his existing gnrage mlesuring 24' x 24' (576 squa~~e Peet). Officlal Rose explained that under the Code, Section 40.04, Sub. 0, accessory build- ings other than a garage shnlt require a conditional use permit as provided for in the code, except buiid9ngs less then 216 square feet used for the storage of butldings and 1awn maintenance equipment. No accessory bullding or garage is to occupy more than 25 percent of a roar yard. Official Rose stated thet the appiicant has an existing attached garage and thet under A0.04, Sub. D no permit sha11 be lssued Por the construcrion of more than one prlvate garege for each dweTling. Each applicant for a bulJdfng permit to construct eny dwailirgs shall be r~quired to provld= ofP-strket parking space for at least one wtomobile per farttily 1n addition to any gerage space to be used. Garages shali be ~o laceted on tho property es to conform with the side yard specifications of the "~zoning sode, in the perticular classificet9on for which 'the properCy is zaned. Every dwelling house theresfter erected she11 be so loceted on the lot so that at ieast a two car geraga, e9ther nttecheu or detached, ean be lccetad on tNe lot. Officlal Rose ~ April 26, 1978 Page 2 dded that the epplicant wi11 not exceed 25 percent of the reer yard with the ~•equested slse accessory building. Mr. Wolferth explained that he requires a heated place to work in the winter for his woad working and cer repair needs. He added Chat if the variance is not convenientha coula possibly use his present garage but thae it would be less Chairperso~ Hr,nke asked how far the accessory building would be from the house. Mr. Wolfarth replied that it would be 10'. ChaSrperson Naake asked if the d;•1ve would be kept 6' from the lot line and if the garage door would be a standard size door. Mr. Wolfarth replied that they would, Comnission Member Burmeiater asked if there was a requiremenk for garaye duor sizes. O~ficial Rose replied that there were na size requirer..ants ~or the doors. i Comnis5lon Member Burmeister asked if Mr. Wolfarth would be working on h1s own cars in the bui]ding. Mr. Wolfarth repliea that he ~auld. ; Chairperson Haske pointed out that Mr. Wolfartt~'s existing garage could be 860 syuare feet and asked 1P he had cansidered a9din~ on to his presant garage. Mr. Wolfarth replled that he had thought of it but it would not be as asthetically pleasing as Chp i~c~t bu11d1ny he was y~tanning. Comnission Member Burmeister asked how wide the driveway was. Mr. Wotfarth replied i ,p~.~that ". ttiere was 15' between the house and lot line, so he could have an 8' drive. ~ ~{"'°+"fChalrperson Haake asked if ar~y of the neighbors had coirmented on his plans. Mr. ~ Wolfarth replied that he had noC checked`witH`the neighbors b~!t that M s one neighbor -~ did have an accessory bullding. MSP (Haake-8lanchard) te deny the request fnr a variance for an accessory building q for RicharC Wolfarth in back of his house since the accessory building wnu7d be 576 ~ square feet, which would exceed the existing accessory building size by 360 square i feet, wM ch is too great an excess. TMs ~ould also support the ordinance wM ch ~ requires only one private garage for each dwelling. 4 ayes Cammission Member Burmeister stated that she was not comfortable with the driveway ~ and that she felt it could become something other than an accessory building with a driveway going back to it. M Chairperson Haake explained that the decision could be appeated by Mr. Wotfarth ~ Lo the City Council. ~ ~ ; OPficial Rose added that any appeal would have to be filed witM n 60 days. ~ Comnission Membor Foss ,~oi„ed the merting at th9s Lime, MINOR SUBOIVISION REUUEST Of KEN SJODIN - 8100 GR04ELAND ROAD 7fficiai Rose expialned that Mr. S,iodin had requested Planning Comnisslon response ~ '~,co a minor subdivfsion at the April 12, 1978 meeting, rather than a rna,~or subdivision, due to the questionable status of the extension pro,~ect of Knollwaod Orive sauth to Ardao Avenue, and that he has now'submitted a surveyars certificate for a minor + subdlvislon creating two lots. April 26, 1978 Page 3 ~Apfffcial Rose reported that the nrea in questlon ts single famiiy zoned and so ~ ~enoted 1n the Comprehensive Plan and that the proposed use is the same. Lot N meets ~rea requlrem?nts wlth 15,500 square feet given and 11,000 required, while its fr•ontnge is substandard at 77.6 feet, wiih 85 feet requlreJ, Lot B is an L-shaped lot, whlct~ cauld be subdivided further if the extension of Knotlwood Drive south of Ardan Avenue occurs. At the same time, it provides a buildabie lot with ample area, with 74,886 square feet given and 11,000 required. The lot would have a 77.5 faot substandard frontage since 85 feet is required. OfflciaT Rose added that if Knotiwood Drive were extended south and connected with Groveland Road through Lot 8, Lot A would become a carner lot, and a 100 faot minimum frantage wauld be required. If a street easemant were given along the south 60 feet, the corner 1ot would reniain with 95 feet, five feet short of the mtn9mum rsquireme~t. The homa 7ocated on the lot south of that oroperty is ]ocated 17 feet off the coimion property 71ne, while 30 feet is required. Official Rose stated that to reassure that the City could, at a~me point in the near future, extend Knoliwood south to connect to Groveland Road, Lat B must remain undeveloped. A covenant with the deed filed could restrict development untii the Knollwood extension is resotved or until a speciflc peria~ of time, such as 1-2 years, could be given during which development could not occur, The oniy uther option would be to require an easement whtch could be vacated if the street plan became improbabie. Officiai Rose added that water and sewer couid be provided off of Grove7and Road for Lot A and Lat B in the event the street plan becomes improbable. ~"'~~Ufficial Rose recomnended approval of the request only with a restrictive clause ~ ,wMch would provide for non-deve)opment of Lot B, or even better, require the ease- ='menC which could be vacated ir the event Che street pian becomes unlikely. Mr. S~odin stated that the highest part of the land was in the cencer and that it did get quite low at both ends. He added Chat he agreed with Off9cial Rose and would sign a document stating that he would not draw a building permit for Lot B until a decision was made on the road. He also stated that assessmenCS were in a~d paid for and that services were in for both lots. Mr. SJodin explained that he woutd like an equai subdivision so he would not end up with a lot he would not be able to build on. He a7so stated that there would be no drainage problems with the two lots. Commissfon Member 8urmesiter asked how large a section of land woutd be left if the road did go through. Official Rose replled 17.5' and that the two oarcets cou'Id be added together to make a corner lot. Ne added that the additional 17.5' should be deeded to the corner lot sa the owner would take care uf the strip. f,orm~ission t4err,ber Fedor asked if Mr. S~odin approved of the easement. Mr. S~adin replied Chat he d9d not as it would be a gift of $12,000 to the Ciey ~n return far a m9nor lot split. Co~mi9ssion Member Fass pointed out that Mr. 53odin would be g~ining buitdable loLs by the subdivision. Mr. S~odin rep1ted that he w4uld prefer the road going in else- ~ yhera and that he would refuse to develap the area if an easement was required. ' ~Official Rose stated that the City could set a date to vacate the easement if the road did not go through, and that it would be easier for the City to obtain an easement at this time rather than later. April ^c6, 1978 Page 4 amnissior MemLar Foss asked what the City wouid do in the futurP i` tli~y ~id not get i ha easement now, Mr. S3odin r~plied Chat he would prefer having the road go out to Spring Lake Park Road. Comnission Member Foss pointed out that the residents of the area were not yet ready to sell land to gat a road through that way. Official Rose a~ded that the City would try to get easements necessary for the road without going through condemnatlon. Mr. S~odin steted that George Payne had been trying tu get together a petition for a road at one time. Councilmember Baumgartner explained that the City could nat do anything untii they received a petition from 35 percent or more ot the property owners. Mr. S~od1n steted that he woutd be wi111ng to sign a pe*.iLion and stated that he would iike the City to make a decision on the road. Comnission Member Fedor questioned if the City would have to pay for condemned tand if the road went in along the back of the property. Official Rose replied that there is a dtfference betwe2n condemning 30' of land and taking a buiidable lot. Ne added that the Councii has tha right to decide whether to pay for property or require that Tt be dedicated, but if the prroperty ovmer did not ~ant to make,the dedication, the owner could take the City to court. Mr. S~odin stated that he had two aiternatives, to ask for a minor lot split for one side of the praperty, or to ask fcr a building permit on it as it is and locate the house to one side und in the future spiit tne land off. Ile added that if he did sit ,.•--~on it, there would be no reason to go ahead with any deveiopment. Mr. S~odin also ! stated that he could not s::~e any advantage to lir,ing up the ctreet with Sherwood and ~^-r'that he felt for safety purposes it should not be lined up. Official Rose replied that Mr. S~odin could build a house with a covenant and se11 it with a set amount of property, which lias been done before. He added thaC if he was willing to do that and keeP the house as far north as possibte, it would be acceptable Official Rose added that the Planning Comnission shoutd be carefu] not to start a step that wouid put the City in a posit on it would not want to be in ~~•e. creating two buildable lots on Spring Lake Read~. Chairperson Haake pointed out that if a covenant was put on, with a time 11mit of five years, a decision shauld be made on the road by then. Comnission Member Fedor yuestioned if Mr. S~edin was aliowed to build on the lot with the thought thet one lot wouid be a r.urner lot, cuuld they require a 10' setback, with the garage on the nortti s9de of the lot for a larger setback. Official Rose replied that the P7anning Commissiun coutd request Mr. S~odin to come up with a house plan whicn would not require a variance for construction. Mr. S~odin stated that he does have a buyer for the lot already and that they would like a typical split foyer and that he ~as not sure if he cou7d take a?0' setback on the south s1de. Mr. S~odin added that he did not feel the rnad woutd evPr go through as there were toa many trees and the land was lower at the other end, which would maY.e it cheaper. Officla7 Rose rep7led that the price of the land would remain the same, high or lnw. MSP (Haake-Blanchard) to recamiend to the Council approva'( of the minor subdivi;ion ~,^equest of Ken S~odin, 8106 Groveland Road in accardance wlth the surveyors certifScate dated April 18, 1978 with the foilowing stiputations, that a covenant with the deed be filed which would restrict development until the Knollwoud Extensian Nas resolved or until a specific period of time, i.e., 3-5 years, during which deve7opment cannot occur on the 7ot designated Lot B. 5 ayes Apr11 26, 197~ Page 5 Carmission Member Blanahard stated she Felt 2-3 years would be e more reasonable ~ength of time rether than 3-5 years, Commission Member Fedor stated he felt something wou]d be done on the road soon. Comnission Member Foss stated that he felt it would be better to have the road come out on Grovelend es it would provide a better access. Mr. S~odin replied that he was very reluctant to giva the lend for ttiat road. Counailm~nber Baumgartner pointed out that Mr, S~odin would be losing vne lot that way but gaining three more becausa of the road access. Councilmember ~aumgartner asked if Mr. S~odin was in real estate. Mr. S~odin replied that he ~as and that he also works with builders. Councilmember Baumgartner pofnted out that a buiider could put the garage on the south side of Lot A within 5', which would res~rict the 1ot from becoming a corner lot. Mr, S~odin repTied that there wou~d be 22.5 to 27.5 feet between the road easpment and t e house, depending on :he p acement. Officiai Rose stated that once the City has received a petition of 35 percent of the prr~perty owners requesting a road, a feasibillty study wi71 be ordered to decide the best wey Por the road to go in. Comnission Member Fedor questioned why the Plannirg Comnission had ~ot a1lowed an accessory building earlier without a conditinnal use permit. Counciimember Baumgarter stated that he would have Attorney Meyers look 9nto the ordinance and wording. r+~Chairperson Haake pointed out that 40.23 refers to conditional use pern~its and refers ~~to whether or not a conditional use permit is to be ailowed. Chairperson Haake stated that the Planning Comnission would tike the City Attorney to give them alt the particulars regerding a conditional use pern!1t and since they have Aeen working under the assumption that if a petitioner can mcet all the requirements or conditions Lhat are set out for them under a conditional use perniit, that *.he conditional use permit has to be granted, they would 71ke the Attorney's option if that is correct. ZONING MAP AND LANU USE UPDATE Official Rose statied that due to the storm drainage related problems and nending developments, he haA not had an opportunity to work on tha zoning map aad land use update Officiai Rose stated that ihe Pianning Comnission is ~llowed to hold public he~rings on rezontng~ with the approvai of ±he City Council und stated that he would tentatively like to set a public hear9n~ for June 14. Official Rose stated that he was in the process of drawing up a new zoning map and land use ntap and revie~ing the districts and nar•atives that go with the districts and that he wi71 have them to the Planning Comnission before the public hearing. Ofiicial Rose asked Councilmember Baumgartner to get Gouncil approval 4or holding a public hearing and added Lhat the date could be set at the nQxt Planning Comnissiqn meeting and that notice, woutd be pubtished in the newspaper and notices sent to ` re,idents who would be affected. ~Chairperson Naake stated that the Pianning Comnission needed to appofnt a new yice chairman. Official Rose repiied that he would put it on the next agende. April Z6, 1978 N°X7 AGENDA AND PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Fege 6 " Chairperson Haake reminded the Planning Comnission memberc of the dates they were responsible for attending the Task Force meetings. Gouncllmember Baumcartner reviewed Resolutian M892 which the City Council had approved at its April 24 meeting. Official Rose explained that Chapter N25 refers Co storm drainage management charges and that it allows the City to require fees for the type of run-off a development would inr,ur. He added that any money that is charged would be a creAited assessment if a system is put in at a later date, This would a11ow the City to he~~e a kitty fund for any minor or maJor imryrovements they may need to make on a sturm sewer. He added that it also tal:es into consideration Pro~ect 1973-4 and any okher storm sewer assessment already paid. The minimum a person wouid be charqed would be 525. Councilmember Baumgartner explained that the City will draw interest on the money buL that the developer will recaive an interest r,redit also. This method chould accrue approXimately $1,500,000 v;ith Fu11 development of the City. Official Rose stated that a charge will not be ievied untit a buiidfng permit is issued. H~ added that the City will be spending the money as they go, as necessary. Officiat Rose reported that the Council ordered a feasi611ity study for the eutension of Knollwood and a feasibility study for• the impravement of Silver Lake Road between Bronson ahd Coun?y Road I. Official Rose stated that the Council would not be hearing the Mounds View Square f,~~ldditlan plat or Dailey Knolls until they had received them and had an opportunity to revlew them. Comnission Member Fedor asked if the New Brighton State Bank was putting iIl a drive-in benk in Mounds View. Offlcial Rose replled that they had considered it at one time at Mounds View Square. MSP (Burmeister-Blanchard) to ad~ourn the meeting at 8:b0 !'M. 5 ayes RespecLfully sulmitted, Pamela Case kecording Secretsry ;~,: