Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-12-13 PC MinutesYduCSEDIN05 OF THE P'LA.NNING COMMI~SION ~ CYTY OF MOUNAS VIEW RAtQSEY COUNTY, MINtiESOTA A ragular maeting of the Dioundo Vi.aw Planning Commiseion wae called to order by Chairpereon Haeke at 7:30 PM ott Uecember 13, 1978 at eha Mounds View City He.ll, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds Viaw, Minneeota 55112, Membere Preeent: Chairpereun Haake Commiaeion Mamber Blanchard ~eromi~sion Member BuY~neiater Commieaion Nlembar Glazer Commieeion M~uber Quan Also Preeent; Councilmember Baumgartner Building ::~,d Zaning Official Rose Members Abaent: Cocmuiesion Membez Fedor Commiseion Member Foes Chairpereon Haake asked for any correcCions to r.he Novembar 29, 19~8 meettng minutee. I~Commiseion Member Glazer aeked that on page 5 anuther oint be added to °`~-~the list of queetione to be answered by the Mat Counci~, with thet point belng how doas Mounde Vi.ew's houeing compoeition with xeepect to low coet houeing, compare with its neighbors. Commieaion Member Fedor joined Che meeting at Chia tiwe. MSP (Haa?:e-G1aze=) to approve tbe minuCes of the November 29, 1978 meet- ing as corrected. 6 ayea OLYIdPIA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - 7624 EDGCWOOD DRIVE - TRIPLEX. DEVELOPMENT Official Ruea raported Chat Staff had met with Mr. Benson since hie re- queat was denied by the Planning Cammiesion, and that Mr. Heaeon had requeeted another sppearance befdre the Ylanning Commtesion. Officiel Roae reported that the applicant's plot plan dnoa meet minimum oode seeback aa the preeene code allows. 0££ic~.al Roee r~porCed that the requeshed Criplex does not fiC into either definition for a toc.mhauea or wultiple dwelling, se multiple dwellinge requira a ~oint entrance and townhouses require owner. occupation, He added that the triplex ie propoeed to be rental property and rental propezty genernlly doee not provide the grxater amount of gare.ge epaoes ve, owner occupied property and thereEore recommanded that 2y spac~3o per unit 6e req_ui~ad, o£ whiah one would be a qnrege apace. ~~Of£icial Roae recommendad that the Planning Commieeion consider an ardi- nanca chenge of 40.02 Sub. B~k34 definiCion of u niultip2e dwelling,ellowiag joint or aeparate main antr,ancse for apartments, leaving the townhouea definition untouahed. Dacembar 13, 1978 P86e 2 Although Offioial Rose a~reed that lt would ba imposeible to legally en- Eorae owner oooupancy of townhousee, by nature that ia moet always the faot. OfYicial Roee rupurCad that 5tafr had conduceed a eurvey of seven ~communitiea and found Chat all allowed two curb cute for R-2 and R••3 usae, He added that Staff had diecuesed it with t~a Police Chief, who telt that Cwo curb cute would not preeent a traffir prublem on a typical residentbai etreac. Ofticial Rose etated that a maximnm width of 12' for each curb cut or a~oint meximum width of 30' wae falt to be pr~cticaL, keeping all cuta a minimum of 50' from interscct•ione, A minimum oeparatian oE 40' could aleo be raquired for eaparate aure. Officixl Rose added that tha requaet for two curb cuta would raquire a variance and/or an ordinance change, Official Roee reported that the applicant haa requeeted turnarounde ~o pravent backing out txaEfic. He stated it could detxact from the overall looke uf the properCy but if properly done with connectin~ eidewalke and ecreening and so forth, could be basically unseen and very use£ul, Officia!. Roee reported that eight parkiug epaces would be provid~~, four ' garage nnd four outdoor, ae rzquired. lie added thaL- a de~rel.opmene sgzee- ' ment would incl.udQ concrete curbing, three plantinga at a minimum 2" at i breaet ha.ight, concrete sidewulk and bo~;d or eacrow of $3,000. ~ Official Roee xecommended the request be approved with ordi.nance changes , to k0,02, Sub. B~~34 to eCate that the tndividual dwe111ng units may have ~ eeparate or joink entrancee, and 40,07 Sub. D 8 f to state that in R-2 and R-3 uses, two cvrb cute would ~e permissuble witl-, maximum widthe of ~ 12' and a 40' aeparation, with a eingle maximum 30' cuC for. ~oint ueage. i Mr. Beneon atated ho would like to go wit.hout the two turnarounds in front ~ ae he felt they would be uaed for parking epaces rather than turnaroundo, ~ Commieeion Member Fedor asked what zoning the development would be, OfEi- ~ cial Roee r.eplied tha.t it would ba R-3, mulr,ipl.e dwelling. Mr. Senson stated he would like to go wi*_hout any curbing at all due to ~ the cost, or if neceesarp, bituminous. He pointed out that the triplex ~ would be juse one etep ovar a duplex. ~ Co~nies3an Member Burmeister etated ehe would not be in favor of bituminoua ! curbing ae it deteriorates very quiclcl.y with heavy use. 4 Commieeion Member Glazer pointed out that if the develapment is to be j claesiEied multiple family, i~ would require z500 equare feet, which is , leea than what would be required for a duplex. Officiul Rose repl3r~d ~ that Cha present code could allow a thzee or four plex on the ;~ eame property. Official Rose added that the qusAeion whiah muet be ; clerified in if it is re~rtal propertq or r~wner occuplied. Qhairpereon Haake etated that either o,n ordbnance change sh~uld be made or a variance grantad. Commiesion Member Burmaister etated ahe ati11 ob,jectad to Che parking ~'~eituation aa it wae tha esme ae wae preeeated at the ].ase meeting, and Chat `rj~he did nnt f~el it was enou$h, Officiel koee repliw.d that it economically imposeible to plan for every poesibility and that he did not feel the parking would poea a problem. Dacembar 13, 1978 Page 3 f 3. ~ ~ ~rI'1/fIY`9YpNY~ g~~~._ p_+rr,,,~ rnir rhnt in rpnair~grin~ a dt1[~l,ex ox aparttt,ent, ~an apartmeat would requira more parking. Sha ad~ed that ehe agreed with ~i Mr. IIeneon that the turneroun3e could very eaeily eurn into parking epacna, ~ 3he aleo added that the concreGe curbing would be very expeneive. Commieslon Member Burmeiseer pointed out that concrete curbing has been required o£ other devalopmente, and Chat they muet eet a etandsrd rsnd etay with it. Mr. Bensnn stat~d he did not Eae+l hie development would be like an apart- ment in that ~t would not have the abuse of cara hitting the curb all the tima, and that the curbing would actually be a border for the driveway. Commieeion DfembQr Pedor stated that he agreed it wae not an apartment bui.lding but that if ir., wae not coneidered an apartment bui~ding, it would not =1t on for that piece of property. Cn~nni~sion Member Burmeieter pointed out that they wexe r.aking :•uJ.es from different categories and not ataying with one categaxy. Nr. Naneon kitaCecl ther. it he had it to do all over again, he would go wiL•h a duplex zal•her than a triplex but that he lxae too much in it t~~.w to ewitch. Chairpereon Haake at+ked i.f ~arallel ~arking wae okay for an R-3 development. Official Roae replied that a 9~ x 22 atall ae presented moeta code and ,.~-~ that the builder must maintain the open epace requirement of 625', which i1a why the parking was planned that way. ~ ~, Commiseion Member. Glazex questionad whether the development would have to be considered multiple family aince it wae in R-3 zoning, MS (Blanchard-Haake) to recommend approvo of the aite nlan as presente~i with the delatiun bf the turnaroundo and with a variance for the two curb cuta eri.th the idea that there will be eome ordinance changea made. A development agreemenC wttll be entered 1nt~ containing concrete curbing, concrete eidewalk, tree plantings, an~3 a bond or escxow of $3,000. 2 ayee 4 iiays Gommission Member Quan asked if there wr+e uny~ way to pravent tha 22' from becoming a driveway. Of£iaial Rose repZled that the concrete curbing would prevent it. Mr. Benean asked why concrete aurbing waa being requl.red if it was not an ordinance. OE£icial Roee replie.d that for eame Cime the Counoil pondered tha quasti~n ot cuncrete curbing versus bicumi.nouo and ~hat Chzy 1~ave taken the poaition thaC in new development something be required tliat ie durable and laeting. HE added Chat concretz curbing ia ineurance that it will iaet. Councila:ember Baumgartner added that it hae bsen a pol~cy o£ the Council for a number of yeare to requ?.re concrete curbing for aiything over R-2 development. ~hairpereon Haaka polled the Coffiniseion Membere to find aut why they hucl ~.,~votod against the previous mott.on. December 13, 1978 Page 4 ~ommiseion Mambar Quan etated he Y.ad a problem with parallel parking, ~Ae aleo statad thst he would like to go with the or3ginal plan and grant variancee and not raquire additional parking space. Ha added that tie wae in favor of concrote curbing, Commieeion Membor Burraeister etated that ehe also haa a problem with Che parking but that ohe wovld not agrea to cutting it down. 5he added that eha felt tha building wae too large For the lot. Commiesion Member G1azQr atated he ielt ehey wero getting atuck with claoeifications. He added ehat he aleo £elt the buildit~g wae teo Iarge for tha lot, with the intended uae. ~ommisaion Member Fador eCated he felt Che aita fell into the townhouse claseification rather than multiple dwelling, and that th~y ahould be dtecuesing two units inetead of three. He added that he folt thep should only coneider approving a duplex or cor~bining the 2and caith aome ochex to allow for an apartment building. Official Roae pointed out that the applicant aan legalLy put in x three plex with ane curb cut and one large ~zarage with parking in back• mhe applicant aeethetioally pre£erred his pian, Cccomiseion Member Fedor pol.nted out that the desvelopment fite the towmhouse deftnikion except that it ie not owner occupied. .~°o ~~Chairperaon Haake aeked if Mr, Benaon would like to wait until the Planning Commiseion can work on hie rec~uest and ordinan,e revtsiane or let it go onto the Council with the Planning Co[mniesion'e danial and see whar the Council does with it. Mr, Benson stated that he would then have to con/ince the Council to approve it. Commission Member Fedor pointed out that the plan wae aleo denied at the previoue meeting and hae not beea changed much eince then. nEflcial Rose replied that the applicant had the optLon to come back before the Planning Commiseion again before Che iseue went on Co the Couttcil. He addad tliat he etrongly felt Lha Planning Commiseion ehould mske s recommendation to the Council that paeaea or table the iseue and have a work aeseion on the pr.oblems, He pointed out that eha Planning Commieeion i.s xn advisory body for tha Couttcl.l and Chey ehou].d make a recowmondatiott thah paseea, whether it be to spprove or deny. MS (Fados-Gl.azer) t,o recommend Yo the L'ouncil denial of' the requeet oi Olympic Conetruction Company for constxur.tion o£ a triplex a.t 7624 Edge- wood Drive becauee it faiis to meee Che minimum area lot requirement Eor a three unit Cus~•ntiouee. A rallcall vote was taken: '~. Decemher 1J, 1978 C~wmieaion Mewbar Commisaion Membar Commiaeion Member Commiaeion Member Commideion Member Chairperson tiaake Page 5 Quan - nay Blanchard - nay Burmeieter - aye Glazer - aye Fedor - aye - nay 3 ayee, ' 3 nayd M3P (Olazer-BUrmeietar) to recommend to Che City Council the dettial o£ the req+.xest on tho grounds that Che propoeed building aiza ie tou large for the axiating lot size, The Plsnning Commiaeion realizes that the zoning code does not apecificaily addreae itaelf to a triplex and classifications ae a townhouae or multiple dwelling unit are not ade- quate. Tharefora, the motion is b~caed on asthetic grounde, and is a compromiee between wltat the Plannir+g Cnuaniasion feels and the require- ments of a tcrc~nhouse and multi.ple 3we111ng. A rollcall vote was caken: Cummieaion Membex Fedar - aye Gnmmiaeion Member Gla~ex - aye Chpi.rpereon Haake - nay Commissicn rlemUer Burmeieter - a+je Commission Member Blanchar3 - na~ Coamiiseion M~mber Quan - aye 4 ayee, ~; 2 naye (~Commisaion Member Blanchard stated ahe dtd not feel they ehould denq Che req'uest because there ia not a definition for a triplex in Che code. She pointed out that it was brought to the Planning Commi,sei.on ae a iaultiple unik. Official Roee repliad that he felt l-he ettorney would adviee going by what the City felt ie the 'intent of tha code. Chairparson Haake atated that ehe felt the Planning Commieeion shnuld make some decision becauoe the appllcant has met the requirementa of the lot eize. Mr. Banaon stated he would be willing to waiC until January be£ore going before the Council. VARIAt~CE RRsUEST Or RODNEY DADIId -£f230 PLEASANT V2CW DRXVE UfEicial Rcae reported that the applicunt has requested to conatruct n duplex dc,~ell.ing requiring a rear yard setback varianne of 5', due to the irregular shape of the lot. OfEicial Rose reviewed the planning coneideretione and stated that Uecause of the irregular shape of tha lot, the weat corner of the dwellin~ ie below code, while the,other three cornexa ar~ at or ~r.ear.er L-han the re- quirEd code. Official ltose stated that Staff's main ccncern would be maintaining a reaeunable setback from Che city limiL•e o£ Spring Lakc Fark, ~~not knowing what may occur there. Further, that 25' would seem to be reaeonable, and with the definition questlon of a rear or slde yard setback, staff would recommend approval of the variance, due t~ the 3 aornered loti. December 13, 1978 Paga 6 ~""~Commission Member Burmetoter aeked what the Spring Lgke Park property wae zonad, Off~cinl Roae replied that it wae commercia2, He edded t~;at he felt Spring Lake Park would require wlialever bueinese wenC in to put in adequate ecraening. Mr. Damm etated that he could turn the building on the lot and come to withitt 3' of being lagal Uut that it would require mora Chan a right angla for turning into the driveway. MSP (Haake-Glazer) i.o grant the variance of 5' for the pr~posed duplex d~velopment at 8230 Plec~aant View Drive for the rear yard setback, the reaeon bein~ that they are deal3ng with a txinngular ehaped lot and thnt Che 30 setback in front i.s more deoireable to maintain. 6 ayea VARIANCE REpUEST OF RODNEY DAhIl~i - 8230 AI3D 8225 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE I Official Rose reported that the applicant has requeated to have two cuxb ' cuts each at the proposed duplex developmenCa at 8225 and 8230 Ple~~sant View llrive and thAt Mounde View code allowa only on~ curb cut per propezty. He edded that two curb cute have been allowed in the past and that Staff h~d conducted a ourvey u£ several othei communf.ties and found that they a11ow ewo curb cuts for duplex developmenta. Ae added Chat the applicant has p~+ovided a aurveyor's certificate ahowing L-he location and layout oP the proposed etructure, driveways and curb eute. He also ~'~c~tated that Pleasant f,'iew Drive io a reeidential, non-collector atreet whicti i ;is not heavily travelled. ~~ ~ Officlal Rosa recoumiended that the Planning Commiaeion consider a~,ossible ( ordinence change ellowing two curb cues where eech curb cut dnes not exceed 12 feet ar allow one curb cut maximum 30' in width. ~ Mr. Da~ stated he would like to put in two 16' curb cute. He sCated that from hie experience he hxd £ound with narrow drivewavs people back out over the grase and it soon becomes a muddy apot at t~ie end of the driveway. Offi~ial Rose recoimnended that Mr. Damm put :n a 3' radiuu at the end oP each drive. Commiseiom Member Burmeiater asked how the no mans land raould be maitttained. Offi.cial Roae suggested thRt rocks ard shrubbery be put in. 0£.ficl.al Roae drew a sketch oE the propored development and showed how the driveways could be put in, to meet the 30' width requirement, ueing the 3' radiua to increase it at L•he end. ~SSP (Haake-Burmeiater) to grant a variance to the exiating curb cut ordi- nance that eays the width a£ the dziveway ehould not exceed 22'. The variance is to grant,Mr. Damm an add±tional 8', which will allow a 30' curU euc a~ che propercy nt tf2Y5 Pleasant View Dtive aiad ti230 Fl~aasat View Drive, for the pzopoaed R-2 develonment, to accomodate adequate driveway width to the two oarages in the development, 6 ayes ~~~Chairperson Raake asked that Official Rose pre~,are an ordinancE change for the next Plannin~ Commisaion meet3ng, incorpora~ing the changee the Planning Commiaeinn would like ta see, Deaamber 13, 1978 Paga 7 ' ~iChairpereon Haake asked Che Planning Comniseion i£ theq would like to r l,~ make a recommendatinn regarding tha defittition of tiowmhoue~e and mulCiple dwellfnge. Offiaial Roae raco~ended that the wait ta see whethar the Council agreed with thair da^inition determina~ion snd denial oP Mr. aenson~A requsst. Commiesion Membar Burmeister suggestad that Official Rose cheeK inta whaC other citiee raquire. Councilmember Saumgartner repliad thet he felt tha Council would direcC Staff to aurvey other communities and prepare a proposed ordittance change, and have the Planning Commies3on review it, than tlla City Attorney and City Counail, OEficial R4ee addad Chat a deEinition wouZd have to be made firat on the intent o£ the code, Commiession Member Durmelater etated ehe would like to thank Councilmamber Sawngartner for being the Council liaeon and for all the help and eupport he had pravided, $he a3ded that ha had done an excellent ~ob and tha Gitg 4r111 be ar a lose wi.tho~xt h3m, Councilmember Baumgarkner etated that he had en,~oyed working with the Planning Gor~mission. Officiai Aoae added that Staff wfll mies Councilmember Bavmgartner equally as mucli. ~ NEXT AGENDA AND PREYIOUS CITY COUDICIL ACTIONS ~~Offici~l Rose reported thaL' the Council had accapted the City Adminiatra- , toxe reaignation, MSP (Blanchard-BUrmeister)'Co ad~ourn the maeting nt 1Q:00",PM. 6 aqes Respectfully subtoitted,, ' , ~ ... ..,._ _...._.__. ...,.~.,, ...., .._„ ,:.,.._ ,.... .,, ...:,.. _,.,.~. _,-.~,,, , ~ . :,,:,~ y u .