The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979-02-14 PC Minutes~1 r ; .~ l 1 v PROCEEDING9 OF THE PLANNIN3 COMMI89ION CITY 0~ MOUND3 t'2ES4 RAMBEY COUNTY, MINNE80TA A regular mae~ing oP the Mounde View Blanning Comrniseion wae called to nrdbr by Chairpereon Haake at 7s30 BM on February 14, 1979, at the 1Nounda View City Hall, 2401 Hightvay 10, Mounde View, MN 55112. Memb~re present~ Chairperec+n Haake Commiseion Member Blanohard Commiesion Member eurmeieter Cemmieaion Member Fedor Commieeion Member Glazer Cummiseian Member puan Also preeen"a Engineering Technician xampet Councilmember Foralund Ffeni;oere abdetita Commiaeion Membar Foae Commission Member Pose ~as out of town on bueinese. Chairperaon Haake asked that the minutea of January,24~ 1979, be corrected on paye 5, the motion regarding the siza,of the Planning Commission, to read as followa: MS (Foes-Fedq:) to recommand to the Counail that they kasp the number of inembers fnr the Planning Cnmmisaion at eeven, as it is a mnxe workable body and wae diacuaeed ^ aC previoue mea8inge in 1978. 2 ayes 3 ab~tain Motion failed. Thia reflects correct parliamentary pr~cedure, an abstention being the eame ae a no vote. Commiasion Member Glazer requeated the minutea be changed on page A, pareqraph 4~ laet seuteriaa to reudi He added that he did agrea ihat the proposefl zoning aP Lote 5 and 6 was propc~r becauae of their proximity to Mounde View 8quare and ae to their degrea o£ unsuitabill.ty Eor A-1 ueage. Coancilmember Eorelund requested that the minutes on page 1, paragraph 4, ! be corrocted to reads ~ . t~~acauee he Eelt it wae undeve].npable. The Council had ~ said at the time of the hearing that developera ehould put in their own eervices. MSP (Blanchard-Glazer) to approve the minutee oP. the .7anuary 24, 1979, I --' meeting ae corxected. 6 ayea, j~ ~•,-- _ Febraary 14, 1979 page 2 Ar~ Through diacueaion oP the Planninq Commleeion, eome membere have felt ~ ] that the Friday hefore Planning r.ommieeion meetinge is the dsy they favor to raaeive their packets. REVIEW OF LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS Cammieeion Member Burmeieter stated that the oriqinal concapt behind al]owing two 75 Eoot lote to be oreated frum a 150 foot lot wae to allow aubdivision of lote that were devnlop~d on aithor side and could not acquire any more land. The intant aeeme ~~o have bee~x loat now and af~yona with a 150 foot lot can eplit it in half. <:ommieaion Member Blanchard stated ehe prePera to allow the 75 Fo~t lot in minor subdiviei~ne only and not expand it to include major eu6divisiona. Commisoion Membar Glazer commented that the in+:ent wes to accommodate Cha hcr.dship'that may ha~.~e been impoeed an peraone leavinq them with no ~~har optiona. Commlesion Member Fedor said he would ].ike the loophole in the extsting Code cloeed to prevent juet anyone from creating amaller than 85 foot lots. Chairpersan Aaaka atated that the Planning Commission hae been strict in not allowing lota to yet emal].er, evan in oppobition to the M9tronol~.tan Caunail. Commiael.on Member Glazer agree3 that the Metropalitan Council eeeme to be promotin3 multiple dwellinqs. He etated that he would like to promote eingle family dwellings. Perhapa even xelent in the aize requdrement on eingle family lote and require larger area Eor mora intenae uaee. Somehow we're goi.ng to have to make it juet ae proEitable for eingle family home builders. Commisa:on Member puan statad he would like to ke.ep khe minimum 85 Fo~t overall and mini.miza loopholae in existinq Code. He euggested adding wording to the effect that the lanfl holder muet make an e£fort with concerted diligence to acqu3re addi*_lanal proporty beEara the Planninq Commieeion allowe creation oE 75 foot lote. Commission Member Fedo= akated that the Commieeion had wants3 Y,o overco:na qiving variancee of all types for people who wuuld hav~s problems with loke that are 150 Eeet. The Commiesiun wanted to glve them enma a~rt of ralioP. ttc.w wa tava laft i.t opsr, so that a 8cvelaper buyinc7 ~ eeriee oE these lote could came in with minor oubdivieione on all c+f them and fic Snto that claeoificetlon. We ahould att~y at tha 65 foot whenever we can. IE we drop it to 75 Peet, it will then encourege even omallar lntrs. The dsveloper eeeme to start at your mini.mum and go down. ~ ~„ February 14, 1979 Page 3 ~ Chal.rperson Hnahe atated that Lhe Planning Comm4asion hae the authority to grant variancea. Howeve,r„ a hardship must be proven and money cannot be a wnaiderati.on. Everytime the Cnmmiesi~n grante a.~ariance, iC ia chipping away at ita own ordinancea. Sttetead of doing this, the Commiesion deaidnd to allow the 75 fcot lote created from 150 footi lote and do away with the neceseity of requastinq a variance. Chairperson Haake etated that the conseneue UE Clie CommiasiRn ie that the lnopholea must be cloead in oxieting Code. ~ommission Membgs Fedor euggestad a policy that would requiro an owner reqiiesting a mdnor subdivielon to set out £uture plana for any, land he hss surrounding the r~quested snbdlviaiori to get a total look at that area rather than piecemeal it. And we'll require our 85 foot lote. Commission Member Burmeieter questioned the legallty of forcing a land owner to dn khat. Commisaion Member Fedor said we should continue to allow minor eubclivlaion of. 150 foot lots to 75 feet. Perhaps there ahould be time iimit betweon requeats fcr minor subd~:vision~ to ?revent one trom coming in the same night with three minor requests. Mayor McCarty, speakiny fram the audi~nce, r.oted that it is very easy ,,..`., with torrene property to transfer nwnerehip of property and circumvent ,'`T/ a time limit on one owner coming in for a eub8lvieion. Councilmember Foralund atated she hated to aee lot eizes como down Wliat with pseblema of water in the basements. Commiesion Member Blanchard euggeated reviewiny the Citizens Storm Sawer Auvisory Task Force Report to see its recommendations for the area eurrounding the proposed Bayport Auree plat. Chairpereon Haake atated tha.t thera is no rueh in coming bo a decision toniqht on rewording the ordinance since Saypo,rt wae appr.oved with 82.5 foot lots. Cha~.rperson Hae'r:e etated L•he conaenaus of the Planning Commisaion is that the original ordinance eksang~ allowing lots to go to 75 fn~t frontage related to minor ~ubdivialona where St is imposeible for the petitioner to acquire more land•to bring that lot up to our 85 font codo requirement. Zt was not the intent to providz n loopholc, whi.ch wa unwittingly dicl, when the petitioner comes before us with a major subdivieion and wants bmaller lot eizes than the 85 foot fruntaga. We would like to direct etaff to write aomething into ordinance form, an add~tion to cur exieting ordinance or whatever, to cloae th~o looFhole avd not have problems 11ke that encountered with the Saypoxt Acree plat occur again. I9e would request that Officlal Roee confer with Attornoy Meyers :,n thie and have eomethinq Eor the next maeting, other.wiAe tho aecond Wednesday in March. The Planning Commieeion wi11 reviow his proposed wording and make a }~ recommendation to Councll. February 14, 1979 Page 4 ~ Mayor McCarty abeCed he would pzsEas to sea a4mething aome flirectly Erom the Planning Commiesion becauee that ie who he and Counail aro ralying on for direation in theee matbere. Perhaps Counoil oould autihorixe tt~a Comm!.7sion t~ meet witih Attorney Meyere and review and reoammend on thie iesue jointly. Commiseion Member 6lazar etated he would be inte.reeted in having a juint work eeeeion with Attorney Meyer.s. Commieeion Member Burmeister steL•ed that etaYf is trainefl to do theee things, to come up with ~ha pxoper leqal terminology Por what the Con~ideion d~recte. ~ommiseion Member Fedor agreed that we ha~e used etaff we11 in the paet. He'd prafer to have eteff come up with the proposed wor~ing, the Commieaion review 1Y., and then on to Httorney Meyers. Ha ~tated that the C~mprehaneive Plan ia coming up for review. We can review the ieaue funther at that time if we etill have a problem. Staff's euygeetione are a gaod starting point. , Of£icial Rose will review with Attorne; Meyere and zacommend to the Commieeion a way to close the existing loophole. REVIEW OF (VEW Bfi2GHTON COI~SP.REHENSIVE PLAN i,~ Chairperson Haeke atated that nane of tha Commisaioners had received a capy of ths plan. 6he had onSy recel.ve@ it tonight. It ia too large to be copied. The Metropolitan Council q3ves surrounding communities 60 days to respond. She suggegted the majer, areae to be thorou9hly checked in the Plan are a:ha three blocks juet eouth oE Mounds Viaw and proposals for uilver Lake Roa3 and Old Highway 8. 7inother concern is that there is nothing in the,Plan about the sirport. I Chairperson Haake will review the New Driqhtan Comprehe»eive Plan ~ ' and bring it back with remarke on anything thnt needa to be reviewed. It ~ ' will be on the next agenda. ~ Councilmember Yorelund statpd that the Commiasion wnuld be intarested ; ~ in the Mayor's Guidelines for a Land Use and Development Committee. ? Chairperaon t5aake aeked that Official Rose dietributa the Gu3delines ; to the Commiesion MemUers. j ~ ~ Commiasion Membar Blanchard stated she will be abaent from the next '. meeting. Commisalon Member Glazer asked ataff to inveatiqate whether or not the 'I ; City ia committed to uee tha seYvices of Midweat Planning for updating our Comprehensive Plan. ~ MSF (Fedor-Burmeister) to adjourn r.C 8:55 PM. 6 ayas !i ~~J Respectful.ly aubmitted, ' Frank J. Kampel Engineering Technician