Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-06-14 PC MinutesPROCEEDINOS OF THE PLANNIN~ COMMISSIOH ~ CITY Of MOUNDS 4IEN RAMSEY COUN7Y, MINNESOTA A regulat meottng of the Mounds Wew P'ianning Comnissinn was called to order by Chelrperaon Heeke et 7:30 PM on June 14, 1978 at ~he Mounds View City Ha11, 2401 HigMvqy 30, Mounds View, Mlnnesota 66112. ~ Members Preseni: Aiso Present: Chairperson 4aake Councllmember Baumgartner ; Commisslon Member Burtneister Bu11d1ng and Zoning Official Rose Comnission Member Glazer Comnission Men~ber quan Members A6sent: Comnisslon Member Blanchard ~: Comnission Member Fedor Comnission Member Foss ~~: Chairperson liaake stated that Comnission Member Fedar was on vacatian. ~ Chairperson Haake stated that the minutes of the Mqy 24, 1978 meeting were approved ~,,-~ as read. ~ GAI.E. ADDITION - MAJOk SUBDI4ISION - 8237 GROVELAND ROAD OPficial Rose reported t•hat the City Council had epproved Che ma~ar subdlvision without 2he extension of Fairchild Avenue south of Ardan Avenue, and ttio appllcant now is.requesting five buitdable lots along Ardan Avenue, rather than the four he was or~giially granCed. Official Rose reparted that a11 ti;e lots meet minimum requlrements as presented 1n the P1na1 plat oP six 1ots. He added that in that perticular drainage distrlct, the C1ty ts experiencing drainage problans due Co lnadequate facillties in the area end thet L•he City Engineer is presentty working on the solution and recemmends that finet approvai not be granted until a temporary or peimanent improvement oP the drainage systP.m is made. ~ Counctlrt+ember Baumgartner asked who owned the sixth lot. Ken S~odin, ~ePresentqtiVe ~ of the development, reptied that there is one owner for thc P1v~ lots and tBpt Mr, Gale has retained the sixth 1ot. He added that they undprsCand there ere drainage problems wtiich w111 have to be laoked into. ~ Official Rose explained that the collector conduits are over~capacitated right now ~ find that there is a problem along Ardan Avenue whare one of the cztclo besins { backs up, and thst a smalt notding pon~1 could be lnsialled or the drainege diverted to ~elleve the over capacitnted system. ~ Commission Me~nber Giazer asked 1P thr.re was a park dedicatton, OPflciel Rase replled t ~ thet there is a E486 park dedicatlon fee, along with the 5UM cherge, ~! MSP (Haako-Glazer) to rccortmend to tha Council approval of the me~or subdivlsion , requ~st oP Rqy Ga7e, creating two lots into six, as presented tM s evening, with June 14, 1978 Page 2 dAA the folluwing provision - that a postponement of the recording nnd developnent of ~ Jthe plat be required unt~1 the Ardan Avenue drainage system is relieved. 4~yas REVIEW OF CHAPTER 40.06 - AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS Chairperson Hsake reviewed th? memo the PSanning Commission received from Attarney Meyers regarding the granting of variances for 1ot size. Official Rose expleined that thE report from the Atterney states several cases ~here varlances may be granted only when the appllcant sustains the heavy burden qf proaf of the resulting Nardship that a variance should be granted. He added thaC personal or ecanomic hardship is not a substantial reas~n for granting a Varlance. Official Rose stated that it is the opinion of the Atturney and SCaff that the ordinance sh4uld be changed tu altow smailer lat sizes and that Staft' has surveyad surraunding cities to see what they allow. Official Rose reported that Fridley allows 3,OU0 square feet for both interior and corner lots, versus Nuunds Vjews 11,000 square feet, and allows 75` interior lots, versus Mounds View 85' interiur tots, and 80' corner lots, versias Mounds Views 100'. He added that Arden H171s allows 14,0~0 square feet and 9b' fronLage f'or both interlor and cornet~ lots, New Brlghtmi allows 76' Prontage and 10,00U square feet for both interlor and corner lots, Spriny Lake Park allows 10,A00 square feet attd will grant a variance if the lot was owned befare 1976 a.nd ca~ meet 70~ of the required frontage, or ,~ in essence, 53' of frontage. He added thet Blaine requires 80' of frontage and i 'has no area requirement, while Brooklyn Park requires 75' o"r frontage for interior ~ lots and 90' for corner lots, and 9,500 square feet for interior lats and 10,b00 square feet for corner lots. Official Rose stated that after reviewing these requirements wlth the Attorney and .itaPf,they would propose the C1ty add two sections to Chapter 40.O6,one which would state that for a11 interior lots classified R-1, which are proposed for minor subdivision, one 1ot into two, a variance can be granted whare the lot frontage will not be less than 70% of the minimum 1ot width as stated in Subdivision B, Sectlon i, and the totai lot area will be not less than 100% of the minimum square footage, as stated in Subdivision B; Section 2, with the existing bui'Idings and any proposed building development required to raeet a17 setback requirements. Officiri Rose reported that the other propased change wou7d be that for a17 interior lots classified R-1, which are preposed for minor subdivision, one tot into two, a variance can be gr~anted where the lot frontage wi11 be not tess Chan 75 feet and the total 1ot area wiil be not less than 100% of the minimum square footage as stated in Subdivislon B, Section 2, with the existing buitdings and any proposed building development required to meet a77 setback requirements. Official Rose stated that with Lhe 70% width requirement, a 59.5' frontage would be allowed. He added that Chapter 40.04, Subd7vision C states that any parcel which wa~ recorded prior to May 9, 1960 which meets area requirements is bullAabie. Official Rase also stated that in reviewing the area map of the City, he did not be7teve there would be Rany instances wliere this wou7d be requested. I,,~J Officia'I Rose steted that in the case of ma~or subdivisions, Staff was proposin9 that 59% of the lots wou7d have to meet all code requireraents, with the other 50% being requlred to meet at least 9Q% of the requirements. Cha!roerson Haake sCaCed she would like to discuss ust minor subdivisions at this time. Official Rose rep1iQd that it is tne apinion of t~e attorney that ma~or subdivisions sho~ald be covered also. June 14, 19T8 Page 3 MSP (Haake-Quan) to recomnend to the Councit en ordinance change stated as follows, that for atl lnterior lots clesslfied R-1, which ere proposed for minor subdivtsion, ~ one 1ot into two, e variance can be granted where the lot frontege w111 be not less than 7b' and the tctal lot area wili be not tess than 100% of the minimum square Paotage es stated in Sub~lvision 0, Secttan 2, wlth existing bulldings and any pro- posed building davelopment to meet eli setbeck requtrements. 4 aye~ MINOR SUBDIVISION REpUEST OF JOHN WESTLING - 8466 RED OAK QRIVf MSP:(Burmelster-G7azer) to take the.minor subdivision raquest~oP John Westling f~•am the tabta. 4 ayes Offlcial Rose reported thaL the applicant has requested Co divida a lot 1S0' wide by 264' deep inEo two equal 75' wide by 264~ deep. OfPicial Rose added that the ptanning considerations remain the same as were dlscussed at the May 10, 1978 meating. He stated that it is Staff's apinion that if the ordlnance chanye is granted, the veriance could be legaily grantpd wSthout proof of hardship. MSP (Naake-Burmeistsr} to recamnend to the Ceuncll the approval ot the minor subdivisiun for John Nestting of ane lot into two, with ench iot to be 75' wide by 264' deep. This recortmendation 1s base~~ on the conCingency that the Council approves the ordinance chanqe that was recomnended in the previous actton, 7fle easements that are recorded on the surveyors certificate dated April 24, 1978 witl be required ta be taken. 4 ayes f~ Chairperson Haake stated that if the Council does not approve the ordinance change hir. ifestl~ng will have to come back to the Planning Commissioh for e variance, and that tt will be up to him.to prove the hardship. MINOR SUBDIVISION REpUEST OP JAMES STAPLES - 7710 WOODLAWN QRIVE Officlal Rose reported that the appiicant has requested to divide a lot measuring 176.17' wide on Che east and 175.77' wide on the mest by 296.74' deep into two lots, parcel A 6eing 90.77' wide by 296.74' deep and parca] B being 85.40' wide on the east and 85'00' wid2 on the weit by 296.74` deep. Official Rose stated that both proposed parcels A and e meet minimum arn.e and frontage requirements, and the existing housing and garage on pai•ce1 A mee*, minimum setoack requirements. Water and sc:wer are ava11ub1e 1n the street for both parceis A and 8, and a five foot easement would be required far parcels A and B on the west sides of the 1ot. 7he Zonin~ and Comprehensive Plan denote the area as R-1, sing'ie fam9ly usage, and the intended use for the lots must be classified R-i, Mr. Staples staCed that he had bought the lot 21 years ago but never ,~oined the iots tog~ther and wouid.,now like to sp11t them. Offlciat Rose expia9ned that the lots most 1lkely bad been combined at some time through taxaCfan. MSP (Burmelster-quan) to recomnend the.COUnciT approve the minor subdtvislon request of James Staples at 7710 Woodlawn Orive, with a 5' easement requlred on the rear ~ ,lat ltne on parcels A ar,d b. ~, ayes "or./ DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REVIEW - THOMAS BUDZYNSKI - 2732 NIGHWAY 10 Official Rose reportr.d that the applict~~yt has requested to remodel the existing June 14, 19i8 Page 4 ~ structure on the site into an insurance and real estate ofPice. Offlcial Rose reported that the Zoning Plan denoted the land as general business usage and the Comprehensive Land Use P1an denoted it mixed PUD, and the appllcarit intends to use it rur limited business. The existing structures meet setback requtrements end the 1ot meets area requirements. Afficiai Rosa added that a planting plah, specifying the shrub type proposed, must be su6mitted before f1na1 approval can be made, and that the tighting for the parking area must bo so r~estructed as to 111uminate the parking area and to not throw adverse 11ght lntensitias upon the site fmmediately to the west. Sewer is available to the site Gut water is not. Official Rose reported that aach parking space is required to 6e 9~' wide and 20' 1ong, as specified in the zoning ordinance 40.07, subdivision Oa, but that the preliminary drawin~ allows for only a 9' width. 7.oning ordinance 40.07 subdivtsion 8k stated thnt atl areas utilixed for parking spaces and driveways shall be surfaced with a 6' ctass 6 6ase and 2" bituminous topping, while the preitminary drawing show~ a crushed rock surface. Because the appllcant is not changing tfie contours or significantly altering the sitF, Staff does not feel it necessary that a dralnege plan be su4mitted. Hnwever, the SDM charge must be pald by the applicant. The number of proposQA parking spaces is adEquate. Official Rose reported that in the future, the City proposes to insta7l a ring road system in the vacini~v of this ~ot site to ellminate curb cuts and access directly off HighWay ia, and at the t9me this ring road system is 9mplemented, access off of Hlghwa~y 10 to the 51te will be eliminated with the entrance coming from the south. ~ The location design of the driveway and parking area is good for this planned future develnpment. Mr. Budzynski stated that he also owns the lot to the east and p7ans ta renovate the lot extensively and plans on building a business office in the future and will be working with Offic9al Rose ta see wfiat is aTlowable. Mr. Budzynski added that he will be bulldozing the ~~elding shop at the rear of the iot and might possibly move •tl~e house when the lease expires in two years, since 1t is a sound strucWre. He added that he will be putting a 6' fence behind the garage, and will have the parking area behind the hause. I4SP (Haake-Burmetster) to recomnend Co the Council approve of Mr. Budzynski's request at 2732 Highway 10 to develop the exist~ny st~uc+.ure on the site into an insurance and real estate office, with the following stipulations, that a,.planting plan, speciP9caliy shrub type proposed, must be suixnitted before finat approval is made, that the lighting for the parking area must be so restricted as to illuminate t•he parking area and to not throw adverse light intensity upon any surrounding stte, that whatever is required by law for City water, to have rhe w~ter system confo~m to Gity laa and fire code, that the applicant is aware that the parking spaces are tn ~e 9~'x20' and will conforn~, ar.d that the driveway and psrking area may ~e sur- faced with a suitably sized crushed rock and that after a period of one year from the issuance o4 the development agreemenC, the area would be required to be permanently surfaced. 4 ayes Mr. Budzynski stated that he appreciat2d the year Iong delay on putting in a perma- , nent btacktup surface as hc did not want to go to the expense now since they wouid ~ be changtng the lat and bullding on it within a year or two. Ctiairpersun Haake replied that the Pla~ning Comnissian is concerned that the crushed.rock 6e maintalned. June 14, 1918 Page 5 ~ MINOR SU6DIVISION REQUEST OF dOHN NEINAND - 0394 SPRING LAKE ROAD Official Rose reported that the appticant hes requested approvat of canbining Uutiot A of the Rosenquist Addition with the west 300' of his property, to create a buildable tot fronting PTeasant View Drive. Officiai Rose reported that both the zoning and Land Use Plan denote the area to be developad single family, R-1 and Chat R-1 development is pienned. Both lots created meet area requirements and the lot fronting Spring Lake Road conforms to frontage requtrements and all existing buildings meet setback requirements in the proposed subdivision, while Lot A fronting Pleasant View has an existing frontage of 80', requirin9 a 5' variance. Services are provided for the butidabte lot fronttng Pteasant Y1ew Drive, and an additionai 8' raad easemont is required fcr Spring Lake Road on Lot B. Chairperson Haake asked why the 8' road eesement wes required. Ufficial Rose replied that it is a County roaJ, which requires 39', and that there is presently an7y 25', necessita:ing the extra 8'. Ken Sfodin, representative far Mr, We9n=,nd stated that the easement was not known to Mr. ~einand or 1n the purchasa agreement and that he would have to discuss it with Mr. Weinand to see if fie ~as sti71 agreeable to the sale. MSP (Haake-Glazer) to recomnend to the Council approval of Che minor subdivisior. request of John Weinand at 8394 Sprin9 Lake Road, to divide his lot as presented on the surveyors aertificate dated June 12, 1978, revised June 14, 1978, without '~ the 8' easament requried alony Spring Lake Road. The reason for the 80.72' lat `~ fronting Pleasant View Drive is that the dimension was created by a previous sub- division and that the City anticipated servicing an BO' lot there hy providing it with a sewer stub. 4 ayes Chairperson Haake stated that..she did not feel the e' road easnient was require~f as a 50' road woutd be amply wide, versus a 66' wide road. SCREENING REpUIREMENTS - LAUNCHItrG PAD - 2375 HIGHWAY 10 Official Rose reported that A1 Hartinger was unable to attand the meeting. He also stated that the City forester does nnt feel the p7an Mr. Nartinger has presented is viabie since sane of the trees proposed will present problems with the high lines and others wilt shade sane oP the trees, most likely resulting in thc~n dying. tlfficial Rose also polnted out that the plantings w111 not prevent people from driv9ng through them, which is ~ problem the Launching Pad has exNerienced several times, and recomnended that concrete airbtnq be required 1f a planting screen is approved. Officiat Rose exptained that the screeoing requirement is intended to create a natural or man-made element, which would give a total screening effect of the park9ng iot. The proposai, as submitted by Mr. Hartinger, would not 6e workable and Staff recommends that if plantings are al'IoNed, that they be encompassed with a concrete curb with n minlmum 10` p'lanting area. Th1s would prevent encroachment of the screaning area. Also, a fence shouid be required to be constructed and maintained untiJ such a time as the natural screening can meet the intent of the ordinance. ~~ Official Rcse aiso pointed out thaC the proposed trees would not have branches to the ground ta provide screening required by code. June 10., 1978 Page 6 ~ Ghairperson Haa~e stated thdt Mr, Nartinger should he encpuPaged to put in the 10' green area and put a fence fin Where the curbing ~s in the parking lut, and recomnended a row oP evergr~ens 6e put in, Cartmisston Member Burmel'ster .,suggested Mr, Nartinger should be encauraged to cane in and speak to the forester. Comnission Memher Quan wecomnended instead that the issue be tabted and that Mr. Hartinger be required to tatk to the U oP M forestry department for their recomnendations. Commission Mer~ber Burmeister replied that the Ctty has a highly quatiPied forester ~tth a masters degree th~t Mr. Hartinger could tatk ta, MSP (Haeke-Glazer) that the Ptanning Carcnisslan would recomnend that the Launching Pad, on the north line of its Parking lot, wou7d put tn e comb{nation nP plantings, fencing and cur6ing and that they talk to the City Forester regaPding the 6est way oP accanplisliing this. 4 dyes Camnission Member Glazer recommended Chat the Planning Caimissi~n insist on a Pence. NEXT AGENDA AND pREVIOUS CITr COUNCiL AC'PIONS Official Rose reported that the Council ta6led Pro,~ect 1978-6, the pub11'c utilitie~ improvements foi~ Stlver Lake Road, at the June 12 meeting, to allow time for the soil conditions to 6e cBecked to insure that the 'iots are buildable and assessdble, ,r~y He added khat the Dailey Knolls addltion was alsa tabled to await a dec:ision on ! ; 1978-6, and that the ptat was redrawn, bringtng the lots up to 98~, '^~ Officiai Rose reported that Ken S,~odin's minor suhdivision request was tabled pending the planning Comnission's recomnendatlon on the ordinance change. Official Rose reported Lhat the Council approved the ~oint curb :uts far the duplexes but requtred s~parate driveways after the ~oint cuts, Official Rose reported that at :he next Planning Cannission meeting they wauld be covering the report from Midwest Planning on 7-11, and that the Planning Cors~issior would be required to make a rec!xrrnendation to the Council. Commission Member Quan statQd that he would like to receiVe the Planning Comnissian information as early as possible, perhaps staggering it and mailing iC out as 1t was prepared. Chairperson Haake stated that they have found in the past that the mail is noti retia6le and the best way to get the pac.kets out is to have them hand delivered, as they are now. qfficial Rose apologized Por not having the packets out to the Comnissinn ~denbers earller and exp]ainPd Lhat when the Council meeting and Pianning Commission meetings fall during the same rreek, he is tied up in working on the Cauncii agenda ftrst. Comnission Member Durmeister stated that the system fihey have now ts woricing much better than any previous system. Chairperson Haake added that the Comnission Members almost always have their packets the Monday before the meeting. ~~jChairperson Haake asked if the shed at Ridge Lane and Sunnyside Road had been checkeda Official Rose replied that it had been and that it was allowable because the address of the house is Sunnyslde, even Lhough the owner has access off Fidge Lane. ~ Pege 7 June 14, 1978 Chairperson Haake requested that,:the Ctanoing Camilssion memhers dMive by end vlew ~ Che situetion and suggested that they 1ook into preVenttng such occurnnces in the future. Cami+.ssion Member Quan stated that ther.e is a house on Ardan Rvenua between Qrean- Nith the houseandWthat tt tsransexisting~structure~tha4 hasebeennthere forfyearsar wl~ich may be a bnrderllne nuisance. 4 qVes MSP (Burmeister-Glazer) to adJourn the meeting at 9~30 PM. Respectfully subnitted~ Pamete Cese Record,ing Secretary . ,, , „ , ~ ., . .~ . ~,' _ . . . ; ,~ , , , .: , _ ~ ` ,{, _~ ~,. . , ~, _ . , ,:au , .:.,,. ~ ~~~ ,. .. .. . ,. -~ :~~v ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~r ,. , . ' " ~ . ~ . ~ ~ f ~ 1 : t _ ~. R f 'S!~ ~ \ :) f 1 . ! i'. I ~ Y) 11 Y ~C 4 ,a 6/jl" :~ ~ , ( , ~ ~ - , r : ,k Y t . Y.. ` . ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~~- ~ ~ a ', ~ ~ 1 ~ , t , ~ ~ S ~ ~,f N t~ ~ ~ i , , . ~ ~ ~i $ ` 'I.: ~' ~ .. t { x k k t 1~~ I ~ ~ . t t ~ tt t~ J~ 1~ /( i i t F Y ° ~~~ . ~ s . S ~' ; - ~ :i~ ~t., ~ ~4 . Y . r t qr'?L ~ 1 " . kf 7 P~~1 ~SS V~~~ ~ tt u .r ( i ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ . . .., ~ y ~ S y ~, r U " ~~rC .~ t t e ~. °~S e T l , y ~. i3y d Y~~ "( 5~ l &~. ~. i ' f ~ ~ lh o § ~ ~ ib '` '" ' k i : . ' 6 J i' . y}N y hi. ~ ~ i S ~ ! ~ ~ . y z k ~ . U ' ' ~k~ ~ ~ ~ . a. A .~ " ' ~~ ~ f ~ . h s , ~~ t r ~ i. ~ ~ 7 iY - ~ f : r .yt~ i ~~ y~' 'dr ~ ~ ~ r q3 ~'~ ~i $ ' S H ~ l ^ e , ~ . ~ - 4 ~ . ~ ~ - ~ t~ ~ ~t ~ ~. . l y ~ 1~'~'~'9i f ~ j _ T „ ~ C ' . ~ . . ~ " ~ ' ~ . , V r S As l F~~ ~~ s~ t - . .~. 1 i t. { ~i~ i t i~t~t: r 4 ~' ~ f I fi , s ~ , . ~ 4:. ~a~ « t ,i ~ ~ t ~ ~ : x~~ :."' ~ 7 % i~ ~ ~ ~ , . ., ~~ ir Yf~ ~ ' a f ~ . s • ~ x;~ f? 3 Y~ i ! ~1 ~k'.~' ~1 ~' e8 . 5 . ~ ~. ..r!' li tv / . . I 9 ~. ~ L ' ~~ ' , , i : ' I : i ~ i ! 2 ~ .. ..; 11 ' ~ \ . e ~ L i ~ t a I~~t~[ t 1 . { Y T t i/ 1 ~ , ~ .r ='Y i~' . , : 5 t, ~E .; .. , . _ ~ ~: X '~~ ~ ': ° t . _,i J I r.,~ ; . ~ ! twl :[~Y G ~ ~ 4 . ~ , , , , , 3 f-F I ~ + ` ~~ ' E : f . `' `Y ~ `~ ~ tj ~ „ , ' ,F ')1 r 4 ';~3s ~ 4 ~ .t5 4i~ ` i. ~ . ~ ,. ~ .~ . , k , e . .'P~ .. ~. _ r-~;: .,. ~ -% ~ ' F4~'`' ~W~cxA~V'.' 7`.N~.SWt#~~nah5cw+raewss*sv~«F++r.,..,~.~..,-.,,,~ .._._.,._._.- .._... . . . " .~ . ~ ' , , a i... i ~ ~ . , ~ " , . , . , , , ~ , .. , . . . ~ ' . ~ ., . . ~ , ., ~ . . . b.:.~ .... .