Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-01-24 PC MinutesPAOCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ,Q~ CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW f J RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNE30TA A regul~r meeting of the Mounde View Planning Co~ntesion was called to order by Acting Chairperaon Fedor at 7:35 PM on January 24, 1974 at the Mounde View City Hall, 2401 Highmay l0, Mounde V~ew, Minnesota 55112. Membere Preaent: ActinE Chairperson Fedor Co~iseion Idember Bl~nchard Co~niasion hIember Burmeister Commiebion Member Foea Commiesion Member Glazer Also Present: Building and 2oning Official Roae Councilmember Forslund. Membere Absent: Chairperaon Haake Commiasion Member Quan It was noted that Chairpereon Haake had stated at that previoua meeting that she wauld be out of town on January 24, and that Co~iseion Member Quan had stated he also would not be available for the mertinq. Councilmember Farslund asked that the minutes of the January 10, 1979 {~~eeting be changed to read on page 5, aeventh paragraph, that Mr. "+-~^Tobiason had tried to give hie land to the City aeveral yeare ago becauee he falt it wae undevelopable, and that the Council had said at that time that developere ehould put in their. own services. MSP (Burmeieter-Fosa) to approve the minutes of the January 10, 1979 meeting as corrected. 5 ayes MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND REZONI~G - BAYPORT BUILDERS INC. Qf£icial Rose reparked that the applir.ant has requested to combine and subdivide aix lots iitto Cen and rezone r.wo £rom R-1 to R-2. Planning considerations include thet both the exieting zoning and com- prehenetve land use deaignations are R-1 single family, }iut that rezoning of the propoead Lote 5 and 6 from R-1 to R-2 fronting County Road I ia typical of other eubdivixion requeste alon6 a minor arterial. Also, LoT. 7 oE the proposed plat has an existing qrandfaihered doc7 kpnnel uee. Of~icial Rose reported that sYl lota conform to existing code requixe- mente or pollciea in both £zontage nnd area . mhe policy bF. a1lQwing lote greater than 160 feet in width to be dlvided equally provided that all oCher requirementa execspting lat frontage requirementa are met, ia not in the new cade, ae it wes in the old zoning code. " Pfficial Rose reviewed l•tie frentage requiremente that were recently ~Ceviaed for minor aubdivisione and recommended, eince the revision would not apgly for thie applicant, that the old pol.icy and cade could be adopted ae Chapter 40.06, Subdivision B(4), whioh w~n1d allow the applicant to carry through with the eubdivision and meet the exiating January 24, 1979 Page 2 ~""Ocode and policy requiremenCa, He added that a variance recomcnandation Would be required i£ rhe code addition wae not appraved. Official Roee raported thaC water and aewer ia atubbed to the property linee for Lota 1-A inclueive, with Lot 7 already ueing service, and Lote 6 and B-1Q inclusive have aewer end watar service availabla in the street. He added that watar only ie etubbed to L~t 5 while aewer ie available in the atreet. Limited etorm sewer servica is evailaUle on Greenwood Drive, with cateh basine, but thet eyeCem doas not maet a three yQar etorm frequency capaciYy, and tha propoeed development would increaee that dei•iciency. The present easemente are adequate unleas a public i~pxovemer.t ~o made, euch ae etox~m sewer. Official Roee recouunended that all lot.s be required ~n draiu raspect- ively to the etreat frontages, and that basementa nr cellars below a 907 elevation be required to be drain tiled. He also recommended boriding for the einNle family lots of $500 earh and $1,000 each Eor the R-2 lote. Officisl Roae recommended that the. preliminnry plat be approved with the rezoning of Luta 5 and 6 from R-1 Co R~2 and that a acudy be raquested to define the impact on the exieting drainage capacir.y of the area, at the expenae of the developer, and a development agreement to minimally include the draining, druin tile and bondi~g. He aleo racommended a code amendment or vari.anca for the 82.5 foot lote. ,--~_ Commiseion Member Glazer asked why bonding would be requixed for the usingle family homea. Official Rose replied that it ia required of any major Aubdivieion of three or more lota, and thie would help ineure that the lote were dra£ned properly and eo f'orth. Acting Chairperaon Fedor aeked if the Council had passed an amendment to allow 75 foot lota in subdivieions. Official Roae reolied that it only appl.ied to minor subdivieione. Acting Chairperson r`edor pointed out that the appllcant ceuld come ~n for subdivieione of two lots at a time aad get them approved wi.thout a varience. Commi.saion Member Burmeieter etated thet the purpose of the ordinance revision ':ad been to ~llow people with 150 faot Iots to eubdivide 3nco two 75 foot lote when they had no other land avatlable. She also pointdd out that there wi11 be an ir!pact on the atorm eewar with the development and aeked if the impact would be lesaened if [he applicant oreated one leeR lot, ae he was doficient in width already. 0££icial Roee repYied the problem would still be present, even with on~ lese lat. Victor Viella, developer uf the property , etaCed that the land was primarily six seperate lota now, which he waa trying to divide in half. Ht added thut he wae not certain how one or two additional homes could cantribute to the def.iciency of the sCOrm sewer eynCem, eince the water would atill be there. ` $o~iasion Member Glazer aeked why the lota on the north eide were 109 ~ofeet wide, aud auggested that they be adjusted so that the other loCs would be closer to code. Mr. Viella replied thst there wae ~uaC one lot on the nortii si3e, which he aplit in half. Commi.seion Member January 24, 1979 Paga 3 eM~Fose added that the applicant could noe meet the equare footage require- ~ hente for a double 6ungalow if he ad~ueted the lor. ei.ze. Commieeion Mambar Burmeieter etatad ehe was concerned with approving the plan, knowing that the atorm aew•sr wae not adaquate. Official Rose raplied that that waa why Staff had r9commended a atudy be done. Aating Chairpereon Fedor aeked how much a atudy would coet. Official Rose repliad that iC could be eomewhere between $200 and $500. Commieeion Member Fose eeked what the etudy ehould accomplieh.. Official Rose replied that citizene would be concerned about the effect of development on the aurao~xditig property, auch ae water backing up into tihe other arde, and that tha CiCy aould ba proteccing itself wlth the etudy. ~e added that the study ehould only take a few weeke. Commieaion Member Blanchard etated that ehe would like to see a a*_udy done ae it wae a problem area and the storm sewer was not adequate. Mr, rl3ells stated ttiar he was confuaed with wh,y building one or two homee on a lot would affect the aituation eince the condition wae already present. Acting chairperaon Fedor expiained that thaoretically, rain water will drain on property and gn into the ground and no't effect the eurroactding property, but that with a house and blacktop or concrete for a driveway, the water could ao longer aeep .~in thera and would thue run off. i `--~ Cna~iseion Member Burntaieter etated ehae one etreet did noC have a atorm aewer at all and that ehe one on Greenfield wae inadequate alreadp, so ~he c;~ould like to see ~ etudy done.be~~re appxov~ng attyth~ng, Acting Chairperson Fedor stated that the preliminaxy plar could be approved contingent upon the study. Cormuisaion Mem6er Blenchard 43ked iE there wae a study of the area fram the cancerned cittzens group. Councilmembe.r Poralund x~pl~ed that she thought thara wes. Offlcial Roea sCated that any conatruct~on would have a humber o~ opt~ona, such se improvin~ the existing syetem, ponding in the re4r and ao £oxxh, and addad ehst the City xequirea developers to meat a Pive yenr etorm capacity. i4r, Viel7.a atated that N.ounds View has 6een tsying Cc upgxade ~,ta stozW eewer syetem, and aince it i.s deFicient thro~sghau~ the whoJ.e City, they wLll evidenCiy be upgrading the whole eyeCem. Offic~al Rose xeplied chat the outlook regardfns development is that propertiea Chat are going to be devnloped wi11 ba raquired to put a syetem in. Ha added *.hat ~zhe citizene liave indicatc3, vi~ Pro~ect ??78-1; thAC ns develoamenC occuxs, the dsvelopare should ba required to put in a eyatem and be toCally asaessed for it. ~! ~Co~niaelon Member Glazer stated he wass concerned w~Ch how cloae the R-2 ~"'~property wae to the exiating kermel. Mr, Vie11a repli.ed Chat ahe owner has indicated thet onco ttxe property ia go13 theC he M^R11 cxoee the kannal, he added Chat it t,ae b~aen used to help pay the asseesmants on Che propexty, January 24, 1979 Page 4 ,A~~Commiesion Member Burmeieter asked if the developer would coneider. putCing v ,in ~uet one R-2 lot and bringinE the others up to aode. Mr. Viella replled ` that thare would be a problem with land useage and coet. Commiaeion Member Foee etated he felt the plat was laid out as best ae poseible for the piece of land. He added that the R-2 lots do meet the area requirementa, which are not that eaey to meet, an~ that he feels it would be impoesibla to aak the developer to change tha R-2 loce. He aleo pointed out that the Metro Council had juet iaeued a letter recommend- ing smaller lote in the £uture. He aleo etated that he would agree that a etudq ehould be made ae to the affect of drainage on the other properties, MSP (Fose-Fedor) to recommend approval of the preliminary plat ae aub- mitted, dated January 19, 7.979, for Bayport Acres and further, thal• Lote 5 and 6 be rezoned from R-1 tu R~2 and that a atudy be required at the expense of the developer from the City's engineering firm to deFine the impact of the proposed development on the area. U~on City aati.ef.action of, the drainzge impact, and impr.ovement (if necessaryj, a developmAnt a~ree- ment ehculd be entar.ed into, in~luding the drainage coneideratione. A variance Eor the 82.5' Lront~~~e on the lots shall be granted, oX eabject ~ to the elanning Commisoion ataenQing che presonti ~xdinance for ~ ayeo , intErior lota leeo than 85 feet. 1 nay ~ 1 abetain; Commission Member Glazer etated lie was abetai.ning ae he atill felt the ~ plan to coneolidate Lote 5 and 6 and borraw ehe 8.8 feet from the late ; ~ould accomp.lieh both bringing the eight lota intn cunformit~ with the existing code for fronta~e and provide eome breathing epace for the r kennel. He added thae he did agree that Lote S and 6 would 6,ave Co be ; R-2 because of their proximity to Mounds 41ew Square. ~ ~ Commisaion Member Burmeiater stated that ehe had voted againet the motion ! as ehe did not feal the applicant has ehown a hardehip for the variance ~ for lot frc~x~tage. ~ Commiseion Member. Foes pointed out that with 19,000 aquare foot lota in todeye merket, they aell for $7.7-18,000 mini.m.wn and that if, th.e lot ei.ze wae incrAaeed, they would be brought up to at leeet $20,OUu', ~^.hich wou7.d create a hardahip for the builder as a higher priced home would have to be,puC on the 1ate. Commieeion Member BurmeisCer replie3 thae the Planning Coffiniseione's concern ie not with coet but rathex that the devcloper adherea to the code. She added that the developer couZd get the additional 8 f.eet he n~eds to bring the loke up to code. Commiasion Member Foae replied that the ~ob of. the Planning Comraiaeion is to provide a variety of aptions to developers wtthin various prtce ranges. Commiseion Member Burmeiater added that ehey ati11 cuuat eCay with3n code. Oiticial Rose pointed out that the developer could come Zu Lot eitiglr aubdivieiona and would meEt code, but recoamie~.ded that the plat ba ~pproved all at once which would provide a better developmant picture ~nd would require a development agreement. Januery 24, 1979 Page 5 !•+ rtouncilmember Forel!!nd poinGed evt rh~r rhe hamae direcely acrose tha ~ ~etreet are eingle family and aeked why all the lote were not planned eo be eing:d family. Cosmnieeion Membar Glazer rapli.ed that it is noe deeirable to have sittgla famixy hamea that cloea to Mounde View Square and that the axieting single family homes were there before the Center wae built. Asting Chairpereon Fedor added that they have been approving R-2 ae it makae a goAd buffor. He aleo added that the St, Paul Water Worke pro- perty would add more epace to the area, even though it aould noe be built on, NEXT A~iENDp AND PREVTOU3 CITY COUNCSL ACTIONS Official Roee reported that he 3e working on a echedule for tha Comprehensive °lan update, He aleo etated that he will put the codo amendment on the next agenda. Oificial Roea raportad th~t he would be ouL• of town tor the February 14 meeting, Councilmember Eorslund etated that the Council approved the Chapter 40 revieions at the January 22 meeting. 3he added that the Council voted to make tho Planning Commieaion and Park and Rec Commiaeion nine membere ,,r~-~again, ~'~../~There wae discuesion among the Commiesion Membera regaraing increaeing thair number to nine, and it was pointed out that the reaeon it hafl been decreased to eeven membere wae due to the trouble they had in getting a quorum. MSP (Foea-Fedor) to recommend ~.o the Council that Chey keep the numbar o£ membere for the Pl.anniag Commiesion at eeven, ae it ie u aore worka- ble body and wae diecussed at previaua meetinge in 1978. 1 ayas 3 abetain Yt wae noted that the Planning Commiseion would like more information from the Council nnd that eoma mQmbars would prefex ~o resd rhe Comicil minutes to sea what their discueaion was before voting on the moCian. Counatlmember Forslund explaimed to ehe Cosmniseion the reaeons the Council had voted to increaee the number of Commi~eionPra, in that it had been a eplie decieion on wha to appnint and there had been a change that eome members wauld not be reappointed. MSP (Glazar-Blenchard) to ad~ourn the moeting aC 9:05 PM. 5 ayee Respectfully eubmitted, p~; Steven R~ae Building and Zoning Official ~;,,: . ,