The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-06-04 PC Minutes.~ i'.ka . , ~ PROCEEDIN45 OF iHE PLANNING COMMISS[ON . CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA ~ Regular Meetlrg ( % June 4, 1980 ' Mounds W ew City Ma11 2401 Hwy. -----°-----°----°--------°----~-----°---------° °-^-- 10, Mounds Vtew, MN 55112 ---°-----------°---°-- The Mounds Vtew Planning Carrmission was ca7led 1. CALL TO ORDF.R tu order at 7;30 p.m. on June 4, Y9S0, by Chairpersor, Mountin. Members Present: Cheirperson Mountin; 2. ROLL CALL ~ omm ss on em erso Warren, Haake, Glazer, McCarthy, Goehel. Also Present: Building and 2oning Officlal Aase Members Absent: Burmeister (ill~ and Fedor ouC o own CORR~CT[QNS: 3. AFPROVAL OF May 7, 1980 M~NUTES Warren aske~ that her name be removed from the "member absent" list since she was not yeC sworn in at the time of the last meeting. ~~ ( Mountin asked that the last sentence ~ on page 2 read "59 feet~~ rather than ~-- ~ ",r,i feet". The planning Comnisston accepted the May 7, 198o minutes as corrected. Ufficial Rose stated t~he applicant was requesting 4o add the North 30' of Lot N2 to Lot N] thereby making the cornar 1ot (Lot A1) 130.03 feet wide and Lot #2 102.0 feet wide. The existing plat map show the cor~er lot (Lot #1) as being 100.03 feet wido and Lot ~2 132.0 fest wide. Both the - existing and proposed lot layouts meet the city area and width requirements. 7he subdivider is increasing the corner lot to exceed the minimum. Under the subdivision ard9nance, Mr. Kremer is required to presenL this to the Pianning Commission for approvai. Staff is recomnendinc, the approval of the minor subdivisian, Mr. Kremer was present and indicated he had entered into a development agYeemenC with the City for installinq sewer and water. ~Goebel made a motion, secanded by Haake to recomnend ~to the City Councii permission for Mr, Leonard Kremer to ~•e-design his property line making the corner lot (Lot Mi) 103.03 feet wide and Lot ~2 -102.0 feet wide. 4. CA~E 54=80 (Kremer Subdiv;ision) Ayes-6 Nays-0 MOTIQN WAS CARRIED. (M07ION CARRIES) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING PAGE 2 June A, 1980 ~---^--°-°°-°--°°-----°------°--_.°°.-------•-°-°°°---------°-°-° °--- ~Officiai Rose informed the Pianning Cortmissian 5. CODE REVIEW-CHAPTER 40.05 Subd.C(a) •- tha~ the City Council has referred this revtew FRONT YARD SETBACKS back to the Planning Commission, The Council CASE 55-80 would like a consensus on the interpretation of the Code as it was rewritten by the Commission. Mayor McCarty was present and indicated to the Comission that he fet¢ a strict interpretation of tha Code did not a?low enough flexibility as Weil as not equaliy applying to a11 residents. If a resident has a house on the corner, he/she only has to conslder one ad,~acent structure, If a resident has an i~terior lot, there are two ed~acent structures involved. Ken 6reske, 2280 Terrace Cr~ve, pr•esented his reasons for wanting a more flexibie interpre- tation of the Code from the Comnission. He is currently plenning an addition to his hame. Ne will need to request a variance. There is no other way for him to net more 1lving space, other than moving, wliich is not feasible for him at this time. He stated he felt thls strict inter- pretation made it difficult for residents to r^ increase thcir living space iri the most econamical j ~way possible (that of remodaling versus moving ~ to a larger home). He is requesting the Camnis- sion consider the needs of the residents of the City for future remodeling/additions to their homas. After further discussian, the following motion - was made: Goebel made a motion, seconderJ by Haake to , recomnend to Council that the Commission had reviewed the Ordinance 40.05 and found it to clearly indicai:e the intention of the Commission. Furtherrrnre, any intention to modi°y an existing structure wouid require the same variance to this ordinance as a new stru?:°.ure would require. Also, , ad~acent structure woulu indicate the ad,~acent - property boundaries of the ~articular property in question. Ayes-4 MOTION WAS CARRIED (MOTION CARRIESj Nays-w (Warren, Mountin) Nay votes: Warren-doesn't agree with the adfacent structure interpretation. Mountin-doesn't accept the interpretatian or interib ~as stated in the motion. Mountin requested from Staff a copy of the attorney's remarks on this issue before the n2xt Commission meetin9. t;, e ~ '(+~prypC VI.F,W PLANNING COMMiSSION REOULAR MEETING • P,age 3 June 4, 1980 .-..--°--~---^--------°- °---°------°-~-°-------------------- °---- °------------ ° ~. lOfficlal Rose informed the Comnission that the "" intent of the ccntract was to limit the top-end The PLanning Commission and Council would direct Northwest Assaciates along with Staff~ After some dtscussion, the following motion wns mede: McCarthy made a motSon, seconded by Fedor to recortmend to the Council that the addttioneT ~ost due to services be9ng needed as a result af morQ rafined comprehensive plan (as required hy i:he Mat Councll) be granted. Ayes-6 MpTION WAS CARRIED Nays-0 ^Jnandmsat; Mpunkin made an amendmenE ta the motion, seconded hy Fedor to indicate to Council that the originai contract does not tontain specific time lines or tusk definitian. The ~Planninq Cortmission requests that future contracts entered into be more r.xplicit about product delivery. Ayes-6 MOTION WRS CARRIED Nays-0 Official Rose indicated to the Commission that this agreement would consumate the 7and actions. If the Comnission would wish to.rtwdify the proposal when it was prese~ted by the deVeloper, they could use a P.U.D. The UNR will not make a statement regarding thts proposal unti] it is in final form. Glazer wanted 1t noted in the minutes that he would {~refer seeing them meet Resoluticn #983 some other way as he didn`t want to see the wetlands disappear. Goebel concurred. 6. COFlTRACT REVIEW=PlORTHWES7 A550C, CASE 56-80 (AMENDMENT TO ORIQINAL CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES) (MOTIQN CARRIrS) ~. (MOTION CARRIES) 7, ~M & E REALTY COMPANY AGREEMENT (DATED 5-30-80) . After a general discussian, the following motion was made: l^"~Mountin made a motioq, seccnded by McCarthy to recomnend vto Council the foiiowing recomnenJaCions upor, reviewal of Lhe agreement proposal dated Ma,y 30, 1980; Page 4- Paragraph A- insert "Exhibit N and shall submit fnstead of "or". : .,.: : ,, .,, : ~ ,,, . . ...:. , ,..., _._._...,. ` 'MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETiNG „ ~ PAOE 4 June A, 1980 -------------~-----°-------------------°°.--°------------°°.------------------°-- ~(Motian continued) .,_,~ Sub Paragraph 2- The end nf the aentence should read " on Exhlbit H as R=,4". Sub Paragraph 4- Add "R_2" at the end. Paragraph~ C- dnsert "The Planning Comnission is concerned about secondary bonding and/or staged improvements to protect the city from long term financial lndebtedness". Page 5, Paragraph A-Insept "Ptanning Comnission expresses concern and possible re-evaluation of the lake depth". Ayes-5 (Comnissioner Haake teft before the vote was taken) Nays-0 THE MOTION WRS CF,RRIED. (MOTION CARRIES) Officiat Rose informed the Cortmission that the City has approximately 8280,OUD that has to be used far some p~a~ect by the end of June or it wi'Il be"1ost". He referred them to the attached __ Tetter from Dan Boxrud of SEN regarding cost ,estimates for various types of improvements. He ,,~'also referred them to an att~chment entitled "Proposed Sidewalk Locatiar~". The Councit is asking for recomnendations and priorities,fran tlie Commission'. Goebel indicated he would like to see an+~ther alternati~ae other than the sidewalk pro~osal. He svggested making eyery third street a ane-waq so that a portion of the street could be marked off for pedestrians and bicycies. This would require v~ry little eztra cost to the city since it would be on an already existing pavem2nt. After f~rther discussion, the fo~lowing motion was made: Glazer made a motion, seconded by Harren to table this item until the June llth work session.An official meeting wili be scheduled at 7:00 P.M. to discuss the use of MSA funds. A notice will be posted for the public. r , , Ayes-5 7he motion was carried. (MOTION CARRIES) Nays-0 Officia7 Ros~ t:ill have additional material available ~ at the ~ane llth meet!ng for the Comnission's consideration ~for the use of the funds. .:~~,,, . , ,,, 8, MSA FUNDS AVAILRBLE it~.yFp ~~ .~.,... , .,_.,:,. ,.,.~ .. .. _ . ~, "!'' . , . . .. ~ • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RP~June 4,~1980 ~•. Page 5 -°-°--°--°°--°-°-°--°°°-°--`----°---° °---°°°- !, )Goebel made a motion, seconded by Warren to schedule an 9, OVERFLOW WORKSHOP SCNEDULEG "'"° ovet~flow workshop for 7hursday, June 12, at 7:00 P.M. FOR COMMIS5ION-JUNE 12 Ayes••5 The motion was carried. (MOTION CARRIES) Nays-0 Warren made a motlon, seconded by Goebel to 10. AI]JOURNMENT ad,~ourn. Ayes-5 7he motion was carried~ (MOTION CAFRIES) Nays-0 ' ~ Respectfully submitted, (~~ /ret : \./ ~ Steven A: Rose ' ` ,; ~, . " ''' BU1lding and Zoning Official '.. • . ... .:R::. ~ •!;. ~ ... , . , . _ . , ~ ~i ,;'; .e ~ ' , , . ,.,.f i, + „ , ~~ i ~ . ~ , , ~ ~ ,~ . ~ ~ , ~ ! ~ ,, .. ,~, ~' ' ; ,~, , . , ,~ , , ~~ , - , , r ~ ., r .;: ~ , ,` ~ , ~ ~ ~ _ '' . ~ ;~; ~ ~ ~ , ~ ,: ,. S^; ,.r , , > ~• , , i +'' ~ y. ~ ~ r s~ ~ ~~ ~ : ~ , , .. ,. ~ . - ' : i , . , ~ , .: :~.. . 3 q l ~ ~ ~' . r . I ~~ ~ 4 . ` . .. ~ .~ ~ . i~,i . 1 . ' ' 1 . r~ ~ 'r. ' f ~ 1:: t ~ • ' ' ' ~ ~ I~ ~ i ~-. .~ . • ~ ~:3 ..~ i • . 'i.r~:l ~. :. .~.: / i ~ ~~ ..~~ . : .. . . ~. ~ .r i ... i ~.. . 5. ~ . ~ ~ ' • ' 1' ~ ' ' ~~ . .f . I1.' .i i ~ .~. ' " . d~ . ~ ~ ~ , .~ . .~. . ~ i . r~.. ... ± . 1 . . r ' . . .. . ., ' ~~ i. ~~ ~. r. ., i ` ! ... .. . .~.. 1 II . . .,...... +u......W_.».m.. . ........u...~..rv.,..l.~..Fduea:Wd.wu..... ..,n..a. ~:~~.avlxlY}a..~~knrL'nrv.~.i.- -...M.w..., ,~,. .+!. . . .....via. ..M' ... ~ -