The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-06-11 PC Minutes~ ~~ PROCEEQING5 OF TNE PLANNING COhiPiI5S10N CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA ~ Special Meeting June 11,1980 Mounds View City Natl 2401 Nwy. lO,Mounds View City Nall °-------------------°----------------° ..-----------------------...-^-~---------- The ~bunds View Planntng Comnission was called 1. CALL TO ORDER to order at 8:3~ p.m. on June 11, 19d0, by Chairperson Mountin. Me~mbers ~re~sent: ChairpPrson Mountin; Comnission 2. ROLI CALL 1~em er~ s: F1cCarthy, Goebel, Fedor, Giazer, Naake, Warren Members absent; Burmeister _O~th_ar.~. Pr.esent: City Engineer [lan Boxrud and 9uilding an~'Ioning OTficial Rose ~ The Gomis the funds Engineer Boxrud began the discussion by revtewing. the source of MSA funding. (It is obtained from part of the Minnesota gasoline tax dollars) The legislature is cracking down on unencumbered funds. Moundsview must present a proposal by June 30th or the City will lose $43,000 in MSA funding for next year. sion discussed the possibilihy of usin~ fm• sidewalks: Goebel-Opposed ta instalting sidewalks. The side- walks are not maintained Chat well during the winter. He suggested widening the streeC and designating a pathway on the side (meking the street one-way) For pedestrians and cyciists. The road would be maintained by the snaw plows in the winter, thereby resutting in a"year-round" walkway for pedestrians. He feels the City should also address the right of the non-auto commuter (pedestrian/cyclists). En ineer Boxrud-Responded to Goebel's suggestion. h s cou no ~e considered. appropriate for MSA funds unless the street was aidened and u!rbs and gutters were put in or you could 3ust widen the streets and not designate this area as a wa7kway. Glazer-Opposed to instalting sidewalks. He feels once construciion on new sidwalks b~gins, it will start a pattern of addttional ,idewalks being built (and there will be no MSA funding for this). En ineer Boxrud-He indicated that assessmeiCs could be c argea~~o ~Fe homeowner's who had property by the new sidea~niks. These assessments wouid probably be ~in the area of 825-530 per front foot. That revenue could be spent any way that the City wished to spend it. 3. REtiIEW M.S.A. CONSTRUCTIOiI PROPOSALS FOR EXPENDITURES MOUNDS VIEW PIANNING COMMISSION Page Two Feder-Doesn't feel it is fair to charge the ~roperty owner for putting in these sidewalks ,» 'because it is usually the owner's duty to keep the sidewalk clean and cleared of snow. Glazer-Doesn't feel 1t is fair to have the pru'per~y owners on the MSA streets~gain'by the instailation of cost•free sidewalks when other owners wo41~1 have to pay to have these side- walks installed. Other suggestions were: -!Mountin) Changing the grade of the street an Ardan Avenue so that it would not be below street 7eve1. -PUt curb and gutter at H171view. Offic9al.Rose indicated that Council had requested the departrtient lreads meet to consider use of these funds. It was the consensus of that meetina that the funds he used for instatiation of sidewalks on the MSA streets. After discussion reuarding the proposed pro,~ects, the fol7owing motion was made: ~Goebel made a mation, seconded by Glazer to recortmend Co Council not to recommend maintaining the MSA funds since the Commission could not determine a proJect that met the requirements as wei~ as fft the needs of the City. Ayes-6 The motion was carried. Nays-1 (Fedor~ Fedor voted Nay because he feels there are some pro,jects avallable to use the funds for and suggests insta111ng aidewalks without charging assessments to the property owners invo7ved. Official Rose presented Mr. Kremer's request to construct 2-two family residences on 2 newiy subdivided lots at approximately 7680-90 Silver t.ake Road. 7'his piece of property is zoned as R-2. It meets minimum setback requirements and minimum area requirements (for both lots). Bath )ots will be serviced with water and sewer based upon the proposed watermain on S11ver Lake Road and the sanitary sewer main located to the rear of both 1ots, The side and front yards should drain towards Silver Lake Road, wh5ch in turn will direct storm water to the culverL• on S.L.R. south of this developmen~. Staff recomnends approval of the proposal. REGULAR MEETING ~une iT,i9B0 (MOTION CARRIES) DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (CASE 57-80) MR. LEONARO KREMER 7680-90 SILVER LAKE R011D '~./~ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 ~McCarthy questioned the street table on this pruperty. OfficTal Rose respanded thet it was around 900 elevatian. The Commission disci~ssed the importance af waterproofing these basements to prevent future flooding probiems, (Fedor tempor~arily ]eft the meeting) Naake made a motion, seconded by Warren to approve Mr. Kremer's request to develop two lots located approximately 7680-90 Silver Lake Road into two- 2 famlly homes according to site plan dncument daCed June 2, 1980. Ayes-6 The motion was carried, Nays-0 Rmendment: McCar'chy made a motion, se~onded by Goebel that ifiese site pian, be completed to comply ~~ith Resolution ~983. REGULAR MEETING June 11, 1980 ------°---^-°° (MUTION CARRIES) Ayes-b The motion was carried (MOTION CARRIES) nsyS-e Goebel made a motion, secanded by McCarthy to 3~ ,A,~JOURNMENT adJourn the specSal meeting of June 11, 1980. ~ Ayes-6 The motion was carried. (~10TION CqRRIES) Nays-0 . The meeting was ad~ourhed at 8:30 P.M. /ret ,,.~„ ~ Respectfully submltted, ~ Steven A, Rose Building and Zoning Official