Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-02-28 PC MinutesPROCEEDING9 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ~ RAMBEY COUNTY, MINNE60TA A regular mee~ing of the Mounde View Plenning Cocnmisei~ij was called to order by Chairperson Haake at 7s30 P6! on February 28~ 1979, at the Mounds View City Ha21, 24p1 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. Membeze preeenti Aleo prasentt Chairpereon Haake Buildinq & 2oning Offialal Roae Commiesion Member eurmeieter Caunailmember Forslund Commiseion Member Fodor Commiasion Membar L'osa Commission Member Freemore Commiesic~n Member Glazer Commiasion Member Goebel Commiseion Member QuRn Commission Member Alanchard was out of town and e.xcuae~l from the maeting. Chairperson Kaaka introduced the new Commiestoil Members, David Freemore and Ar. Joseph Goebel; and welcomed them to ~he Planning 'i Commiesioh. i ! The minutes of the February 7.4, 1979, nteeti.ng wora approved ae~ i " Pzesented. , i PLEASANT VIEtw DRIVE/H7CGHWAY 10 SEMAPHQRE i OEricial Roae prcaented the two plane eubmitked by Mn/~OT to th~ City for modification oE Highway 10 at Pleasant View Drive,in ' conjunction with the propoaed inatalZation of a semaphore. The Eirat plan discusaed, Proposal dk2A, would require considezabl~ easement taking of Mounda Viaw land incl.uciing elimination o£ tvro duplexes under construction. PropoQal #2A might also route additional ~a:aEfic onto Pleasant View Drive. The secand plan, Alternate #3, would take leas ktounds View land and would detour traffic off Pleasant View DsivR. Mn/DOT prefera Alternate R2A becauae it ia a straight intereection rather than angled. Commission Member Burmeieter asked why Mn/DOT has preaented thAee plana7 Has kraEfic increasec~7 Oifi.cial Rose stated there ie a fairly ].arge amount of land yet to be deve.loped in that area. Attid traffic is increasing naturalJ.y. He further indicated that Mn/DOT £eels the tra£Pic count with it~s acciaent aount may warrant the semaphoxe ahd ihat Spring Lako Park would benefi~ from the proposal. Commissiqn 6lember Foes remarked that it would coat Mn/DO'P more than 5200,000 to buy thosa two du~l,exas. `../ Commiesion Member Burmeister pai.nted out the backed up trafEic at the Silvez Lake Road and County Road I stoplighte and pieturad the sama thing happening at Fleaaant ~Jiew Drive. February 28, 1979 Paga 2 ~ The Cammiseion disauesed the pras and oona oF the propoeals at some lengt4i. Officisl RoRe atate3 that the Planning Commiegion ahould look at thia preeentation strictly From a po~nt of viaw of whether or not it will b~nefit Mounde View reaidonte and make a zacnmmendxtion to Council based on that. MBP (Haake-Glazer) that the Planning Commiseion recommend to tlie City Counoil that the City raject tha proposed semaphare at Pleasant View Drive and Highway 10, since we eae no warrant or nsad for !ha eiqnallization in Mounde View. Chairperson Haake etated Chat the City 11kes to couporate with iY.s neighbore, in this caee 3prinq Lake Park. But we sea no reason to in this .inetance. They wank to uae nur land for a eignal light where wo hava no problem. Co~niesion Member Quan queetioned if there io any connection between thie ana New T.Fi.10. Of£icial ao~e reaponded that i£ New T.H.10 goea in, it could cut traffic by at leaet 508. Commiasion Member Burmaister agreed that construction of New T.H.10 meana Mounds Viaw will need the added sempahore on Old 10 evan lees. Co~mnissian Member Goabel obaerved that the proposed constructfon seo~e to be an expensive investment if it~e just a stopgap measure. Puttina in a eignal ie one thing, but to purchase /°i1 aecera! acres of lan8 doeon't seem to make senae £or a temporary i,~ meaeure. < Official Roae atatefl that even if the traffic lesaens, the signallization remai.ns to keep speed down. Cammisoion Member Glazer atxted the assumption that you will divert traffic away from Old 10 after construction'of New 1D is ridiculous. That aesumas L•hat traffic remains conat3nt. You will juat end up with two very busy roada. Commiseion Member Fuse recommended a letter ~e aent to the City of Spring Lake Park to the zffar.t that the proposed semaphore and related con3tr.uct!on w~uld adversely aEfect the neighborhocd charackesistice of the new reaidential araa and we aee no benefit to Mounda View resideuts. Tharefore, we have to oppoae ite caneGruction. The Co~mnisaion agreed. Vote on the motion. LUT SI2EE Offlcial Rose explained the reanons for hie recommandation to adopt the "policy" of the old zoning r.ode allowinq plate reaoYdad prior to 1966 to subdivi~e into two equal lots. In the 1960's when aewer and water were inetallad against many citizena' wiahea, 8 ayes ~ pzobably through Metr~politan Cuuncil inalstence, many lots recorded prior to 1460 vrere Hlatted with 160' Zu~s, ~rohably because large area was demanded L•oz aepti.c tanks and private welis. At that tfine a project waa puahed through and cl.tizens February 28~ 1979 Paqe 3 aeaeesed. Having the 85' requiremonL, the Counoil thAn enacted ~~hat ~art of the zoning code which allewed any Eu~h 1G0' lote to be eubdivided equally in half, thun giving residents a chance to recoup aesasement ooete, also allowing t1iQ anbdivision witihout granting a variance. OfEicial Rose further etated thaL• he had recommended that Baypurt Aaree come in undor the major subdivision ragulations, usinq the fant that the Planning Comm~.esion and City Counail would want ta look at the wholo area before taking any action on it and, under a major eubdiviaion, the City could require develapment controls. The old zoning coda eection about 160' inte wasn'f. included in the natr coda beoauAe it wae Eorgotten. The City hae a hiatorical sequence of allowing theee eplite. Chairperson Haake stated ehe did not realize the eubjeet section ha4 b~en dolated Erom the new zonirg code. She etate3 that after conversin~ with some long time reeidents of Mounds Vtew, ahe learned the reaeon for th< 160' lota w$s that Mounds View required 4 acres at one timo, than 2 acrea, then 1 acre atid whzn it came down to a minimum, it onded up at 166 foot lots. Commisaion Member 8urmeieter etated the concern was the 75' l~te, not the 80' lota. The 150' lot subdivisicn is a neceesi.ty f~r garcels that are landlockedi but that aection of the new code ~--, eeems to he npen to misuse by devolopera owning several 130' i j late in ona area. ~~ Commiseiott Member Eedor questioned whether a developer who owns 5 nP the 150' lots could requesL• 5 minor aubdiviaione in a row? Official Rose indicated there ia much more criteria to meet than just t.he 75' frontage -- aquare fooCage, setbacke, loE must be interior, etc. Commisaion Member Fose stated the Commisoion must guard against rewriting ihe ordinance everytime somethinq comea up. On the 75' lota, 8U-906 are not ~evalopera, they ace individuals who own big lots. mhe 150' split wae approved to allow the homesteadera with hig lot~ and big assesaments to sabdivide., mhare aren't many lote left like that. Commiseion Membe: Burmeister agreed, but stated we're alao op~ning it up for dev~lopers to use the C:odo the way we did not intan3. Offi.cial Rose pointed out thst the subflivislon ordinance etates iand muet be subdivi3ed to ita maximum and sai3 he sees no o~ay to stiffen up the minor subdivision coae. Chairparson Haake asked if Chapter 4p.04 Subdivision C(3) etatee th~ sAmA thing as the old zaning code polic,y. Official Rose indicated ~ that section refers to lots being buiidahle, not to eubdlvision. ~ ;- r x F46ruary 28, 1979 Page 4 Commiasion Memt~er Goebel agked whether the eaypurt Acros land ~ would support homes? r pfficial Rose responded that tihe land ia just as developabla ae the land eround it. To date, everyone in the area haa paid hia ehare on assesement~. It's only undevelopable to thP point that tha City dnesn't want wet base~rtents or water running in the door. Co~tisaion Member Goebel commanted that is just as ut~itealthy as building too close to~ether. Some people do get better services because o£ the location of their property. Commission t9Amber Glazer cttated that anyL•ime anyone epeculates, hoiding J.and and waii:ing to develop it, they are taY.ing a riyk. Commission M~mber Fodar suggested deleting the new Section 3 regardinq the 150' minnr aubdivisions end replt~cing it with the ald section excapt etata for "minor subdivision only" and make two changas: replace the 1960 date with today's date and 150' rather than 1,60' 2ots. Official Rose skatefl that atill forcea the Ci.ty to grant a variance for the Bayport Acres lots und any other aubdivielone like it under a majc,r subdiviaion. ~ Commisaion Member Fosa asked 1E resurrectinq the old ordinance i and leavinq the current Sgction 3 on minars would salve tha gx~hlem. Cnmmtssion Member Fedor responded that it would sc,ive the Bay.port Acras eubdiviaion w3thout requirinq a varianoo. It wouldn't eolve the loophole in the minor subdivision ordinanne. Chairperaon Hanke euggested that mayhe the minor subdivlelon ordinance should be repealed. Official Rone commented that the builder can develop on the exiating land without subdividing. That co~ldn't be etapp~d without a moratorium. Sta£f is trying to 2ook at tha whole pioture. Theref~re, it was recomnended that tha developc,r come in under a major subdivision so we could requira developmant aontfole. Commisaion Member Goebel observed that if the Cammieslon doeen't want to allow tha land t;o be developad bocause of envfranmental reasona, then that should be fuced he•ad on at the tims~ the propooed dovelopmec~t is pres9nted. TFe Commieaion is very c~mmitted to tha 85' 1ots, which is admirable. Hut ik eeems that in tha oeee oF the Bayport issue, it's r~ally a grandfathered al~usa that we ehoul8 be honor3.ny and ere would not be aetting any precedent. It probahly won't happen again, but i~ it doee occur again~ we would respaot the granc3fa~hered clause. MSP !Haake-Goebel) to reinatate the old zoning uode provisions ae Chaptgr 40.06 Subdivtsion B (4)i FebLUary 28, 1979 ~ Any lot except a corner lot in an "R-1" District, platted and recor'ded prior. to May 9, 1950, which lok ie greater than 160 feet in widkh may Ue equally divided into tw~ loLS providing a].1 ather require- menta axuepting 1ot frantage requirements applicable to thia Uee Distri~t are met. Chairperaon Haake retterated that the recommanded paragraph is a grandfathered clause, it's been a policy ainca 1960. Vote on the motion. Chmirpersott Haake asked that if anyone has a thought between this meating and next meeticty rey2rd'.nq cloaing thn icophol= in the 75' lota ard.inanr.e, to bring it• wi~c.h them next time. COMPR~HENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Ufficial Rose statied lie was una~ile to complete the major portion of this item. He would lika the Commisaion to think about vrho thay want to have do the updata. Ha statad he hae~ had ho problem with Midwest Planning in tha projocto he hae worked with ~ rhem on. Be£ore the end of March, ataff will be making recommenda- tions as tc: what caa be done inhouse and what will need consulting ~ aervices. 8 ayee Chairperaon Haake stated ahce thought that Midweet drew up the 1975 update as the Planning Cammtasion had want~$ it done at that time. Cocmniesion Member Burmeister commented that Midweat doee hava the advantage o£ knowing tho city historically. Commission Member Goebol stated he would lika to see comprehene~ive plans done by other persone to eee if Midweet is wiL•hin reaeon~ Commisaion Member Quan concurred, etiating he hae looked at Midwest'a report profassionally and wasn't improeeed. Baet to look at other options. Commiseion Member Haake aeked if tha whole plan has to be redone? official Rose responded the existinq plan ie ohort in a number of araass the roet hae to bo updated. Hupafully, etaf£ will be able to do 606 of tha revisiunrr. Chairparson Haaks suggoeted that membare intereeted in reviewing plans of other oities cantact a numtaer of surrounding cities and _ ask for a copy oE their ple.n 1E it wasn't done by Midwe~t. '~~ Comriieaion Member Glnzer quentiona8 r~hati happened to t,ho inquiry Ear lax c3~~ IiCti3«1~ tlCVal~pmar.t c» ~t 9t~phsnn? Of£l.r,i~l Rase atated the requeat waa forwarded td the Nletropnlftan Council. Page 5 Eebruary 28, 1979 Pege 6 They apparently were eligible for funding under 335 and dld eot ( receive it. They were about three applicatione away from getiting funding. NEW ARIGHTOtd COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chairperaon Haake etated she had reviewed the New Drighton Plan which was done inhouRa. It stntee how many aaree they are putting ' aeide fox each ~f the development typee. There is no airPort policy. One interesting comment wne that their ; policy wae to control building height eo ae to remnin within guidalines required by air tra~Fic. mhe area sout•h of Zrondale High Scnool is propoeed to be eiimineteA ; ae a cammerciai apoh. They have alresdy widened Old Highway 8 and ax~ recammending other induatrlal davelopmenc there. ~ They wovld like to aee a regional eervice oenter by thr~ 8uper Valu. Thera are enough retail shoppinq centere around end tl~ey don't cara £or any more. Their intent ie to keap a neighborhood praE118. Thay are opposed to atrip development. The New Brighton Plan etates their reae~n £or npt wantincp any .+'~, mo.re apartmants or mobile hcmeso which we ehould xememhox when ~,~J we writa Mounds View's plan. Silver Lake Road remains exactly ae iti is now. Mayor McCarty etated he would liko to have somethinq Erom'tha Planning Coimnisaion which indiaatee that everything in tihe Cndee has been complied with, for ineCanae, that the varioue reguireuleqts for.'subdivisions (Chapter 42) hawe been taken aare'oY, perhapA a check lisk. The Planning CommisBi.on indioated thnt they aeeume staff has taken care oE the various Code raq~rirements. Meetihq adjounred at SO:10 PM. Reapectully aubmittad, Bteven A. Roee Building & Zoning OfEioie9, ~i ~''