Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-05-10 PC MinutesPROCEEOINGS OF TNE PIANNING COMMISSION ~ CITY Or" MOUNOS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA A regular meeting of the Mounds View P1anning Comnissian was cailed to order at 7:30 PM on May 10, 1978 at the Maunds View City Hall, 2401 Highwa~ 10, Maunds View, Minnesota 55112. Mem6ers Present: Chairperson Haake Comnission Member Fedor Comnisslon Member G1azer Comnission Member Burmeister A15o Present: Councilmember Baumgartner Bullding and Zoning Official Rose Members Absent: Comnission Member Blanchard Commission Mr.mher foss Chairperson Haake asked that the minutes of the April 26, 1978 meeting ba corrected to read on page 2, parayraph 5, 864 square feet rather than 860 square feet, on page 5, paYagraph 6, should be with s cunditSona7 use permit rather than wlthout, and page 6, paragrr.(sh 5 should be Edgewood rather than Knollwood. ~.MSP (F=dor-Burmeister) to approve the minutes of tfie Apsi1 26, 1978 meeting as icorreoted. 3 ayes ~/ 1 abstain Commission Member Glazer abstained fran the vote as he had not been present at the April 26 meeting. MAJOR SUBDTVISION AN~ REZONING REQUEST OF GLENN KARLEN - 2809 COUNTY ROAD I Official Ruse reported that the Planning Comnissior~ had reviewed a sketch of the prel{minary piat at the April 12 meeting and that the area is presently zoned R-1 and the applicant is proposing R-2 for the two lots that front S11ver Lake Road, which the Comprehensive Plan denotes a; single family. Official Rose stated that the proposed subdivlsion sketch creates three lots, all conforminu to area requirements far the proposed R-1 and R-2 zonings. Lot 1, with a proposed R-2 zoning, only has a 90 foot frontage, with a 190 faot frontage requlred Lot 3, being a corner lnt with a proposed R-2 zoning, meets Che minimun 100 foot frontage requlrements. Lot 2> with an R-1 zaning, has an f!0 foot frontage, wlth an 85 faot frontage reyuired. Official Rose reported that the applicant has requested this iot cunfiguration Lo cumpllment his dup7ex development plan. This wou7d give Lat 2 enouyh room for a typical garage addition, even though the lot frontage is substandard, and would a]so give Lot 3, a c~rner lot, sddittona7 setback room. ~fficial Rose added that tfie publ1c in,provements are availabla Por Che duplex devetopment but that the deveioper wuuld have to provide water servlce from Co. Rd. Por Lot 1. An additional 5' easement would 6e required along Silver l.ake Road. !~,,Ghairperson Haake stated that she would prefer seeing Lot 1 at 95 feet rather than 90 feet. Official Rose repliad that the appllcanC felt it would b2 bettar to have more frontage~ on Lot 3 to keep :he house off the corner, anQ t~at if th fror~t~qe of lct 1~ was 100', the appllcant wouid go under the area requ rements for 10 Mny 10, 1978 Page 2 ~,Comnission mein6cr Glazer stated that he was concerned wlth tha number of duplexes that were yoing in and the increase in rentaT nroperty. Counciimember Oaumgartner pointed out 2hat some of the required frontage couSd be taken from Lot 3 Co bring the others closer to code. Off1cial Rose replied that a variance wouid sti11 be requlred for one of the lots unless the subdivision lines were not drawn perpendicular. Mr. Karlen stated that as the applicant and builder, he felt the ptan showed the lots to their bes+, advantage, as he was trytng to keep the corner house as far away from Co. Rd. I as possible for safety reasons. He added that the surveyor had made a suggestion to bri~g the lot line in at an anyle. Chairperson Haake replied thaC the City would prefer not seeing angled 7ines. Councilmember Baumgartner Fointed out that two variances would have to be granted for the lots and that a hardship would freve to be proven. Ne also pointed out that a private sewer service had been installed for tne e~isting single famit,y home on ~ot 2 which goes in an easterly direction, passing through lot 3 and questioned whether ar not that made Lot 3 undeve7opable. Mr. Ka~~len replied that he had gone out toward County Rcnd I and then to Silver Lake Road and that the proposed bui'Iding is 20 feeC from tha sanitary sewer line. Official Rose added that an easzment would bE required on the final plat to insure that the house is not huiit on the sewer 1ine. Chairperson Haake stated that it is har•d to make a decisfon on Che request since the P7anning Commi~sian does not know where the du 1ex will be in relationship ta the •^"~,sewer line. She also pointed ~ut that a hards~ip wauid iiave to be proven for the ;variance to be granted, " Comnission Member Glazer suggest2d Chat,traffic could be a reasnn for Che hardship to be granted. Councllmember BaumgarCner pointed out that the sewer line is on private property and expressed cancern with the City be9ng able ta get in and taka care of any problams that might occur. Mr. Karlen replied Lhat an easement would be provided and that whoever buys the lot will be made aware of the easement. NSP (Burmeister-Haake) to table the request of Glen Karlen until Staff can clarify the measurement of where the ~iew sewer line crosses and the question of easement. 4 ayes REZONING REQUEST tlF RICHARD SWADDEN - 8101 SPRING LAKE ROAD Official Rose reported that the app7lcant has a purchase agreement on the propused parcet, contingent on the rezoning of the parc~7 from R-Z to B-2 for the future development af an off-sate tiquor sCore. Official Rose stated that the area is zoned R-1 and the Comprehensive Plan denotes the area medium densfty and the present review of the Comprehensive Plan does not inciude a chenge in the area. The lot is approx.imately 1.15 acres (50,008 square feet), and the applicant has provided a plot sketch proposal of a 12,OU0 squere ~ poot building and provided 27 parking spaces. The proposed building size is too ~„~~ arge to meet parking requirements since 90 spaces are required if the store is to be one ha1P storage and one half sales, nor does it meet buiiding setback rLquirements. May 10, 1978 Pa~e 3 Official Rose reported that the applicant has requested twa curb cuts on his plot -sketch, one on Highway 10 and one on Spring Lake Road. The Spring Lake Road curb cut should be moved north ta provtde better stacking distance. Officiat Rose recortmended that if the Planniny Commission were to recomnend approval t~at a recortmendation should be made to require the applicant to meet ali zoning requfrements with no variances granted. Councilmember Baumgartner asked ifi the proposed ~•ezoning was strictly for an off~ sale 11quor store. Mr. Swadden replied that it was. He added that he presentiy orins Budget Liquor in Mounds View Square and woutd 11ke to transfer thaL 1lcense to the new location. He explainEd that he has out~rown hts present space and that he does not have an option an his ten year lease, which will expire in scven more years. Chairperson Naake asked what the present square faotage Was at Budget Liquor. Mr. Swadden repliod that it is 8,000 squar•e feet and that he wauld like to increase Chat to 12,000 square feet, with approxlmately two-thirds of it being for sales and the otS~er third for storage. OfPicial Rose pointed aut that 90 parking spaces are required for retail ~aSes. Chairparson Haake stated that it seemed like an extremely large number oP parking spaces. OPficial Rose replied that the code was written~to require that number but that the City could do a study ta determine a reasonabte requirement for a generslized retail use. -"'~Caimission Member Fedor pointed out that the f,omnisslon must remember it might not ~ )a7ways be a Budget Liquor store and that a future occupant mtght require the 40 spaces. ~~ Comnission Member Giazer painted out that there is already property in the City zoned B-2 far that use and that there are already faur liquor stores on that strip of f{ighway 10. MSP (Haa!<e-Glazer to deny the request of Richard Swadden to rezone the property at 8101 Spring :.a e Road from R-1 to B-2 for the future development of an off-sale liquor store, the reason being that the Comprehensive Plan denotes the area as iuedium den3lCy and to rezane tt would ba spo*_ z~ning, which the City has avoided. There are other areas in the comnunity thaL are zoned B-2 which would be more ~ompatible for this purpose than this parcet. 4 ayes Official Rose reported that the appllcant has an option ta carry the r•equest on to the City Council and that the request must be submitted within 60 days for the Council to hear it at a pubiic hearing. MINOR SUBOIVISION REpUEST Of JOHN WESTLING - 8456 RED OAK DRIVE Offi:i~l Rose reported that the applicant has requested to divide a 1ot 150 4cet wida by 2&4 feet deep lnto two equai 7E feet wide by 264 feet deep lots. There are pre- sently two garages and one house located on the property. Both the 2oning and Comprehensive Plan denute the area as R-1, S'.rgle Family usage, and the appticant does intend the lot to be used for a single family dwelling. ~y~,.8oth lots meet the area requirements but neither meet the frontage requirement, both 6eing 10 feet short of the required 85 feet. The exisCing garage on Lot B wauld have to be removed before the final deeds couTd be appro~ed. The existing house and garage on Lot A meet setback requirements. ~ey ~a, 1978 , Page 4 ~OfPicfal Rose reporta~ that water and sewer are available in the boulevard and street respectively for Lot B. Easements are requested on both Lots A and B for the private servlce for the house located on Lat A, and an additional eight feet of road right-of- way is required for Red Oak Drive. Cormiission Member Glazer pointed aut that the lots across the street end the ones to the south appear to be approximately 80 feet wide. Chairpersan Haake pointed out severel lots in the area that are 85 feet or wider. Mr. Westllng stated that some of the newer homes in the area have 85 f~ot frontages, which is only 10 fee.t w.lder than what he is requesting. He also pointed out: that his lots are 264 feet deep , which would give more square footage than many af *..he lots in the area. Ne stated that the aewer line would be 2'6" lnto the other lots an~i could be written into th2 deed, and that there is a clean-o~t 32 feet fran the exisCing house buC that the sewer iine should not present a probiem. Counciimember Ba~mgartner stated that he iiad a problem, even thouyh ecomonica7ly two Y5 foot lots are the better way to go, with appraving a substandard lot since 85 feet 1s requlred and a hardship would have to be proven. He added that the Planning Commission and City Council must establish a policy for splitting 150 faot ]ots. Ne added that he realizes assessments are high hut that a hardship must be shuwn for granting a variance. ^ Comnission Member Glazer stated that the yuestion of hardship is a difficult one to --~ put a finger on. Commission MemNer durmeister added that there are several 15U foot lots iri the City and that she felt a halt should ba put on splitting the lots until the Plarnin, Commission and City Council can make a decis9on on what to do. Chairperson Haake stated that she felt the present house was far 2nough away from the 1ot line thaC it would not cause a problem with a lot split, and that 1f the Planning Cqmnission d1d approve the rr.quest and the issue went to the Cou~cil, a precedence would be established. Commission Member Burmeister stated that she felt each case shauld b2 fudged separateiy, OfficiaT Rose reported that Attorney Meyers is drawing up a memo concerning Conditional Use Perniits and variances that he wi11 be submixting to the Planning Comnission and City Cauncil, and reconmended that it might be wis: to table the issue un>il they hear from the City Attorney. Official Rose added that A±torney Nlayers has advised Che Counci] that a herdship must be pr~ven in subdividing 150 foot lots since they are buildable. Mr. Westling asked if there were lots iti Mounds View Chat were smalier than 75 feet. Chairperson Haake replied that there were sane 65 fc»L lots, which had been approved some time ago. Comnission Member 6urmeister added that the Maunds V1ew cod? ca11s for 85 r'uot lots and that square footage requirements must also be met. Mr. Westl~r~g stated that he has a large lot but ~ust does not have the required frontage. Comnission Member Giazer replied that the frontage requirement must be met to insure there is proper spacing between houses. Mr. Westling replied that there would be 22 feet .~between his house ard the proposed one. Mey io, 1978 Page 5 '/'*~Chairperson Naake stated that the City must follow the law unless a hardship can be prover. She added that she realizes the Metro Council is promoting smaller lots but that Mounds ViPw is upholding its ardinance. Comnission Member Fedor stated that the Planning Cortmission had held up an earlier applicant because he was not ab]e ta show hardship and that he felt it was difficult to say no to one person and yes to nnother. He added that the only hardship that could be shown now was an Qconanic one and tk-~ he agreed the issue in generat shoutd bp discussed and if necessary, the ordinance ~i~ehged to a11ow 150 foot tot splits. Caimission Member Glazer asked 'now long it would take to get the ordinance Changed. Chairperson Haake replled tha+, if the Planning Comnission feeis the ordinance w111 be changed, they could epprove this r•equest row and added that she did not want to hold up the appllcant. f,amnission Member Fedor asked if there was a buyer for the lot. Mr. Westling replled that there was not and that he planned to bufld to sell. Carmission Member Fedor asked it a 30 day delay would hurt M s schedu7e. Mr. Westling replied that he was concerne~ with tirne delays. Chairperson Haake suggested that the Planning Comrission make a recomnendation to approve the request and if the Council does approve of th~ concept, the Council could have the C1ty Attorney write an ordinance cover9ng 150 foot 7ots. She atso recomnended that 165 foot lots be covered and that a17 square footage requir~nenks still 6e met. ~--~ Cortmission Member Burmeister recaimended that such tot splits be granted oniy if there / is no other land that could be purchased. ~fficial Rose stated that the Cauncil could change ttie ordinance by ~^esolution and that w;iiTe it would have to be publlsl~ed, a pub7lc hearing would not havE t~ be held. He suggested that thp Pianning Commission cou1J make a recomnendation to the Councll, requestlnq that the ordinance be changed. Comnissio» Mwnber G7azer asked what the timing would be on gett9ng the ordinance changed. C~uncilmember Baumgartner reNlied that the next Council meeting 9s May 22, and that if the ordinance were reviewed that night, it would be publlshed in the New DrighLon Bulletin on May 25 and would then be legat. He added that it may take lonyer than that to get it on the Council agende. Mr. Westling stated that he would like a varience written, along with a recomnendation to the Council for the ordinance change. Comnission Member Fedor repiied that hardshtp would still have to h~ ahcwn in order for the variance to be granted. MSP (G7azer-durmeister) to ±ab1e the request of Mr. Westling until such time as the Pianning Corrmission can submit an ordinance change requesC to cover such Iot splits that result in substandard frontage lots. 4 ayes Chairperson Haake stated that the Ptanniny Commission wili request that an addition to the ordinance be written, that lots of minor subdiv1sion status of 150 feet or greater be dividied into two equal portians without a variance required as long as that subdivislon meets the minimum srea requirements and seCback requirements. Commission Member Burmeister added tha~ the repuests should only be epproved when ,v~there is no other land available to bring the lnts up to code. Mey 10, 1978 Page 6 Councitmember Baumgartner pointed out that there may be times when an equat sp11t is not desirab~e, such as if there is a trea in the middle and thet the Planning Cortmisslon should sEate that the sp11t does not heve to be equal if there is such a hardship. Chairpersun Haake replied that iP such an instance does ca~~e up, a varlance could be granted. PLOT PLAN REVIEW - SCQTLq~~D GREEN APARTMENTS - 22b2 SCOTLAND COURT Official Rose reported that the appllcanG desires to bu11d an outdoor recreationat facillty in the northwest corner of his R-4 development. Recreationai faciiities are considered as open space and therefore do not cause s change 9~ density. Official Rose reviewed a memo from the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Oirector wfiich discussed the feasibillty of the planned facility. He steted Staff recorrtnends that if a~oint agreement is not entered ioto by the City and applicant, the proposed fac111tiesshould be fenced from the park. Officiat Rose recumrnended plantlttgs bo r~quired for screening along the tennis courts that abut an R-4 bullding. Official Roso reported that the SDM charge estimate for the improvement wilt be approximately E4,273 and that a developmenL agreement wili be draw~ up and entered into, with a 6ond amount set Lo cave~ screening and fencing requira.ments. E1lzabeth F1av9n, proJect caordinator for Scatland Greeii, stated that she hoped .--. the Planning Comnission would approve the request as most of the proposed actaviti,es ! jwere spring and sumner ones aod that they would like to get going on them. She ~ added thaC they do not plan to install aatdoor 1lghts for the area as they feel with the additional summer sunliqht hours there wi11 be enouqh dayl9ght hours. Chuirperson Haake asked if Ms. fiavin understaod the reason the fencing was beiny required. Ms. f7avin replied that she did. Comnissiun Member Fedor asked why the screening was being requfred since it was internal. Official Rose replied ttiat the Ctty can require screenir.g for improvements if they feel the proposed activities would effect the health, safety or welfare ot the residents. Ms. Fiavin asked what ~ould be required by screening. Official Rose replled that shrubs, evergreens and sa forth would be required. Ms. Fiavin stated that there is a~ood distance fran the tennis courts to the nearest bWldin3, wM ch is not less than what is presently between buildings. She added that tha residents t~ave been told of the facilities that will be going in. Councllmember Baumgarter stated he fett it wou7d 6e a management problem, not a City problem if there were noise complaints and that he didn't feel the City should require screening internally. Kathy McKnight, 2677 Scotiand Court, stated she was a resident of the building clossst to the proposed facilities and that she had been a re;9dent of Scotland Green far three years and had chosen it because of its no-frills and moderate rent. She added that she had ~ust found out about the pro~ect when she got home from wurk as a card had been left in her mailbox, and that she contacted the people who were hane in her ~ building for thefir nptnions and that eight ouY of ti;~ aight she conttcted were against ~ the facittties being put 1n. Ms. McKnight added that this was the first year~ sha was not ailowed tc sign m year long lease and that she feared her rent would be raised to pay for the pro~ect. Mey 10, 1978 Page 1 ~^'~Mrs. Loren Kostad stated thet she was a caretaker at Scolland Green end that she jhad heard man,y favarable camients from the residents in her building, in favor of the pro~ect. ' Ms. Flavln stated that as meneger, she had 38 residents move out Apr11 30, and 43 leaving May 31, and that in checking with them to see why they were leaving, most steted thoy were going •~o pleces that offered more facillties. She added that the pro~ect is noE propasing eRy rent increase slnce they are trying to stay compet{tive with oEher rental property 1n the area. Chairperson Haake asked if the Scottand Green owners were aware of the 45 acre park that would be going in next door. Ms. Flavin replled that they were but thnt they would retner have their o~n park thin the use of a pubtic park, Comnission Member Glazer stated that• he felt as lonq as it was private property snd the requlrements were going to be met, the City should not stap the pro~ect. Official Rose replied that Staff often gets caught up 9n management's problems as they receive ca11s about perking, and camplaints on screening and so forth, which is one of khe reasons Staff would like Co require screenin9. MSP (Haake-Fedor) to recomnend to the City Council the approval of Che outdoor recreational facility for Sc~tland Green Apartments and that Scotland Green be charged upproximately $A273.60 toward the SDM charge and that a development agreement be drawn up and entered into, and that a fence 6e erected on che north and we;t side ,+++'~ of the play area, wherever Scotland Green feels it would be most feasibie to cantain (~their facilities for their exc1usive use. 4 ayes w Comnission Member Bunneister asked that Scotland Green take into consideraLion the recomnendations of the Park and Rec'reation Dtrector. Councilmembew 8aumgartrser pointed out that it is one of the respo~sibilities of the Building and Zoning O4fi,cial to think of everything possible that might invalve the City, and that Officiai Rose 9s anly tirying to protect the City and Poresee any and all potential pYOblems, and that the Ptanning Commission and City Councit have the responsibi7ity ta seler.t the options they feel are neces~ary. UPCOMING AGENDA AND PREYIOUS CITY COUkCII. ACTION Official Rosr. reporLed that the City had received a prafessionai report of traffic considerations from 7-11, and that he has been meeting with Midwest PlunnTag to review the report. EIEf,TION OF VICE CHAIRPERSON chairperson Heake sta:ed th~t paul Fednr would be vice chairman for the Pematnder oP i978. ~Chairperson Naake stated that she had received an outline of a proposed survey from i the Task FoPCe from Peter Sargent ~nd that he had ceiled her, requesting dlrectton 1 from the Plenniny Cuimi•ission on the survey. May 10, 1978 ~ Page 8 (' ~ ,(~~Councilmemher Baumgartner reported that at the Mey 8 Council meeting ha hed asked ~ r'the Tesk Force representattve 9P they had appointed a representetive to the Plenning ' Comnisslon end thet Ne11 Loeding had replied that they hed esked Por ~ volunteer but ?' that no one woutd do it. ;, " Councllmember eaumgartner also pointed out that the memo un the survey wns sigred ~ by the Tesk Furce but that notall members of the Tesk Force had seen the survey. i, ~ Chairperson Hnake stated that the Planning Comnission woutd tike more of an elaboratian ; of veto power ns referred tu in the survey and nsked if the whole Task Force was aware ~ of it. Gouncilmember Baumgernter esked that the 7'ask Force btr requlred to take minutes of their meetings as every other group in the City does. I Official Rose stated tfiat the Task Force is to review a11 pertinent applications ~ concerning storm water drainage and make recomnandations to the Planning Cammission, ~ wM ch ihe Planniny Commission ~ill review and then make their awn recanmendation to ~ tha City Counci]. He added thax the Planninti Comnissicn should request that a Task I Force member attend the Planning Commission meetings to comment on their recommendat~tons. ~ Cortmission Member Fedor stated that he would request at the Task Farce meeting on i May 11 that the Task Force keep minutes as an ofFicial record and that a representative ~ attend the Planning Comnission meetinys to expiain their recortmendatlons. "\ Comnission Member Burmeister asked that the Task Force guarantee that a11 correspondence I they send out in the Task Force name 6e seen by the ~vhole Task Force before 1t is sent ; - oue. Chairperson Naaka stated thai input from the Task Force should be raceived by the Cit; by Ghe Friday bafore the next scheduled P1anM ng Commiasion maeting'. MSP (Fador-Gtazer) to ad,~ourn the meeting at 10:46 PM. 4 ayes Respectfully submitted, Pamela Case Recording,Secretary r .»~,,.. . . ~ ~ . . . I ' /