HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-18 PC MinutesPROCEEDINGS Of TNE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY Of MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
~ Ragular ~7eeting
June 18, 1980
Mowlds View City Ha11
2407 Nwy. 10, Mounds View :ity Hall
-....-..-°--°---------°---°--------°-----°------°------~-°----^ °----------------
ihe hbunds V1aW P1anning Comnission was called 1. CALL TO ORDER
to order aE 7:30 P,M, on June i8, 1980, by
Cheirparson Mountln.
Members resent: Chairperson Mountin;
omn ss an em ers: Nr.ake, Warr:n, G)azer,
McCnrthy, GoebeT
Members ahsent: Burmeister, F~dor
Atso resent: Building and Zcning Official Fose;
Ac ng er -Administratvr Anderson
CORRECTIONS:
Goebel noted that the first sentence on
page 4 read "8_2", instead of "R-4".
Mounti~ noted that the thirA sentence on
page 4(Agenda Item MB) shoutd read "E43,000"
~ instead ot "it".
Goebel made a motion, secondecl by McCarthy that the
minutes be approved as corrected.
Ayes-6 THE MOTION WAS CARRIED
Nays-0
CORRECTIONS:
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF JUNE 4, 1980
REGUTAR MEETING MINUTE5
(MOTION CARRIES)
' 4. APPRtlVAL OF JUNE 11, 1y80
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Mountin noted that the second paragraph on
page 2 shou7d read " . so that the homeowner
pro~erties wouid not be below, .."
Warren noted that the second sentence in paragraph
2, page 2 should be ellminated "Put curb and gutter
at Hiilview".
McCarthy noted that the fourth wond'of the first
sentence en page 3.shauld.read "water" and not
street,
Goebel made a motion, seconcled by McCarthy that tbe
minutes be aparoved as carrected.
es-6 iHE MOTION WAS CARRIED
~ys-0
(MOTION CARRIES)
~~:
MOUNOS VIEW PLANNINQ COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
~p`~ g June 18,148Q
.......e ...........................•.---°-°-----------°---°----------°°----------
~e to a mi~undaretandinq, Mr, 0'Cannell wes not
e~unE at !he meeting.
Uaabml mede a rootlon, seconded by Naeke, to tabls
thte epende item unE11 Jul~ 2nd. SEeff was alsn
inttructad to inform Mr. 0 Conneil of this meeting
end theL tho Planning Commission will proceed to
act an thi~ veriance request at that time.
~ef-~ THE MOTION WAS CARRIED
Neya-0
Offiaiel Rose prasented this noting that on 3/19/BO
the Flenning Commission had taken no actlon on tMs
apsnde tEem. Mr. John A. M111er is requesting to
rubdlvi~e a parcet oP tand int~ 10 industrlal and
3 commercial tots end to rezone the single family
property Co Commercial (B-3) and Industrial (I-1).
andSJudicial Dltchd~;'by County Road J., Highway 10
The Miller Industrial Park has received administrative
approval from kice Creek Watershed District and their
ermit is pending until the receipt of:
i 1. Detalls showing measures that wi11 be
ovided to prevent erasion and scouring at the out7et
entering Judlcial Ditch No. 1•
2. Ponding and itowage easements covering all
areas with existing elevations below that of 901.6 MSL.
3. Clarification of detention pond contours.
Rice CrePk Watershed District has designated 901.6 as the
100 year floo~ elevatian. The pretiminary plat of this
devel~pment shows an elevation of 9Q3.6 as minimum first
floor elevation.
MNOOS is still reviewing the future relocation of Highway
10 and the access to and flrom this proposed development,
A letter from MNDOT's distr7ct engineer (dated June 17,7980)
states that in comparing this plan (Case 47-80) wiCh the
most recent prellminary layout for T.H. 10 between 35W and
Co. Rd. J., he daes not see any ob,~ection to the proposal.
A letter ir:.m DNR (dated April 2, 1980) states that the type
II wettands present in this proposal do not fall under their
regulatory ~urisdiction and therefore do not have to be
notlfied with regard ta the altering of the wetland area.
5, RONALD 0'CONNELL,
2296 TERRACE DRIVE
VARIANCE REqUEST
CASE 58-80
(M07ION CARRIES)
6. MILLER INDUSTRIAL PRELIMINARY
PLAT REVIEW, ChSE AI-80
The tots in this revised preliminary plat also meet the minimum
area requirements. The applicant may petition for services to
:; put in by the cit;; and the cost may be assessed back to the
`~^O
.;.., .,_. .
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 3
---------------°---------°---
NEGULAA MEETINA
June 18,198b
-°°-°----°_°-°---°--°------~--°
operty owners or the appllcant may install his nwn
vices basad upon the specifications provided by
>+~,e city engineer (Mr. John Miller indicated that
he wi11 be insta111ng the services himself).
The city engi~eer is current7y reviewing the pre-
liminary p7at for compliance with Resolution 983.
Staff doesnot give a recomnendatinn at this time,
hut does caution the Commission to consider the
impact of the development proposed on the marsh
wetland area.
Gary Comstock, Mr. John Miller and son were also
pr~sent at the meettng for additional questions
fram the Comnission. Tlre,y reviewed the specific
plans with the Connlssio~i members and answered
their individuat questions.
Son~e of the concerns regarding this proposal were:
-Discussiun whei:her zoning stiouid be changed before
specifio pt^o,~ects are proposed.
-Discussion on the desire to preserve t,`,c wetlands.
iscussion regarding the suitability of so17s for
velopnent 1n this area, notiog that the soil
map shows 9096 of the area as being Loo wet for
devetopment. Th'~s could cause cracking on the
paved areas (frosting).
-Discuss9on cn whether~thepe will be enough water
pressure to handle the additional watep sewer system
into the development.
-Concern about the water quality of the Creek.
How mucfl' permeable surface wou7d be needed to maintain
the water quality. (Comstock responded that a babbie
will be inserted which will pr~vide a pet•manent water
level thereby the activity in 1:he pond would break
down any additionat residue).
-Dlscussion on who would 6e developing 9n thls area
and where the clientele wouid be drawn from (Mr. Miller
responded that he did not have any parCicular industry
in mind at this time),
-Oiscussion on detention ponds. This area is 1/4 of the
vagatation area in Moundsview. What will the capability
for storm water drainage be?
~
MOUNDS VIEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
Page 4 June 18,1980
scussion on thc lack af time before this meeting to
iew this proposai so that some criteria for recom-
~iiendaCioas for structure, considerations for the soil,
etc. could 6e carefully considered. The desire was to
present a comprehensive 11st of recomnendations to the
Ccuncii.
Mountin made a motion, seconded by Warren to table the
ma~or subdivision rezoning request from Mr. John Miller
(Case 47-80) instructing the planning comnissioners to
review mmiiciapl lvt 4?.-07 and diacuss tMs item a~ain
un July 2nd.
Aye-McCerthy, Warren, Mountin THE MOTION FAILS FOR LACK Of MAJORITY.
Hay-Goebel, Glazcr, Haake
Mountin and W.arren stated they feit more Cime taas needed
to consider this proposat. Goebel stated he felt a deti-
sion could b~ made at this time.
Geobel made a mation, secondzd by McCarthy to take a recess.
The Planning Comnission recessed for a break at 9:05 P.M:
The meeting resumed at 9:12 P.M.
j gbel made a motion to recomnend to ~;ouncil that the
+~tin Millcr proper*.~ under consideration, Case 47-80, Item N4,
be given consideration by the Council. The Vlanning CuniNssion
finds that the subdivision and proposed tayout does meet tlie
requirements for development of tha area under the condition
that some areas'of R-1 zor~ing appear to be inciuded in the
industriat development and that request for rezoning did not
come before the Corrmission before the subdivision of the pro-
perty was considered. In other words, barring the compliance
of the subdfvfsian meeting thc zoning requirements of the
area, thts pl&n seems to meet the other requirements of the
Gity. We wou]d 11ke to make no*.e of some characteristics of
thfs for the Council's consideration: 1) EssentiaTly ati the
area is comprlsed of soil with severe limitations, i.e, wetlands
that the City has fought to consarve in the past, 2) Recomnend
that no more than 50% impervious surface be on any of the lots
when fully developed because of the wetness limitations as
noted. Haake seconded the motion.
No action was taken on this motion.
McCarthy made a moCion, seconded by Mountin to table this
proposal untii the next vrork session (6-25-80) which would
yive tyr Comnission time for discussion and careful considerations.
This item will then be removed from the table at the regular
~ting on July 2nd,
~R'~es-McCarthy, Mountin, Marren, Glazer THE MOTION CARRIES (MOTION CARRIESj
Nay-Goebel, Naake
MOUNDS VIEW PLHNNING COhffi1ISSION
page 5
--------^-------°-----------°°_.----°
~ntin made a ~notion, seconded by Warren,
''~~,~'!quest7ng Staff to provide i:he Planulny
Comnission with cupies of the first drafts
of the Council minutes so they could have
an opportunity tn review the Gouncil's activities
as soon as tt~e minutes were available.
/~yes-6 THE MOTION WAS CARRIED
Naya-0
REGULAR MEE7IN0
~une 18,1980
--°-° ~-°----°---------° ---° ° -
Official Rose presented the chanyes the
Council had made at their last agenda meeting
on this resolution proposal:
H5a(2): To read"The developer proposes to re-zone
the porcel of a~+prnximately 3.8 acres and outlined
in yellow on Exhibit H as R-4.'~
#5a(3): To read "The developer proposed to ,ubmit a
P.U.D. for the property outlined 9n purple on Exhibit
H t~ith 4 or tess living untts per acre."
#5a(4): To read "The developer proposed to submit a
/"'~U.D. for the property outtined 1n pink on Exhibit H
(,~th 4 ar less living units per acre."
N7A: 7o read " . limited to the retocation or
removal uf 228 000 (instead of 23F.,OOU) cubic ay rds
of materla7~~
Goebel made a mokion, secoqded by Naake to recortmend
D-2 on 10, moving 3.8 acres south for R-4.
1{yes-5
Nay-1 (Mountin) Opposed ta R-4 for lack of assurity
that it w~uld bp guaranteed.
TNE MOTiON CARRIES
7, MINUTES OF CITY C9UNCIL
TO PLANNING COMMISION
(MOTION CARRIES)
8. AGREEMENT REVIEVl, M&E REAL7Y
RESOLUTION NUMBER 1100
Chairperson Mountln temporarily left the meettng at 10:40 P.M.
Gaebe7 made a motton, seconded by Glazer, to recomnend
4 units/acre at R-1.
P.yes-Glazer, Warren, Haake, Goebel
Nay-McCarthy(Does feel a need for tnwnhouse development
and this would be a good place for it. Aiso, does not
want that lower corner to go any higher than R-i.)
THE MOTION WAS CARRIEA.
Council will discuss this propasal at the June 23rd meeting.
The Planniny Commission also discussed the desire to see
a.Y~he elderly highrise pr•oposal retsined by the devetoper,
~;
(MUTION CARRIES)
(MOTION CARRIES)
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMdI5SI0N REGULAR MEETING ~'
Pege 6
-°°--°°--°-----°'----------------------------------- June 18,i980
------------------------------- i
~ f,hairperson Mountin returned to the meeting at 10:55 P.M. `,
i
~Official Rose informed the Comnission that 9, REVIGW OF PAST COUNCIL AC7ION5
Councii had deter•mined the interpretation for ~
AND NEXT AGENDA
"front yard setback" would mean"the range of
the existing setbacks of the 6u91dings located ~
on the same block." Therefore, Mr. Tom Johnson's ~
fee for a variance has been refunded, and his permit
to build has been issued.
Staff witl forward the goals and pollcles from the
Councit to the Planning Comnission as soon as they
ere available.
i
Chairperson Mountin: ~
-Workshop is set for June 25th. Planning ~
strate~ies for neighborhood meetings thereafter.
-Draft wi11 not be ready for review before „ ~
tha end cf the month.
Goebel made a motion, seconded by McCarthy to 10. ADJOURNMEN7 !
ad~ourn.
Ayes-6 THE MOT10N WAS CwaRIED.
(MOTIQN CARRIES)
Nays-0 ,
~ meeting ad~ourned at 11:05 P,M. ` "
! " o:.....e..FFu77~i eu6mi4*ed_
;
~i
y~.
;"' /ret
~ ,,.
~ ,:, "
_. . .
~, ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ..