The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-07-02 PC Minutesr~;;~~.., - '' ,. PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COhA1IS5I0N CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ~ kAt15EY COUNTY, MINNESnTA aegular ~leeting July 2,198Q Mounds View City Nall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View City I~alt -°-° ~--------°°_--°---°---° °-° ° °-----.._ ^ ° °-----°----°°-°-----°-°-- The Mounds View Planning Comnission was ca7led to i. CALL TO ORDER order at 7:30 P.M. on ~uly 2, 1980, by Chairperson Mountin. Members esent: Chairperson Mountin; Commission 2. ROLL CALL em ers: ~ oe e7, McCarthy, Feder, Loadtng, Warren, Haake (Arrtved at 7:40 P.M.}, and 5reske (non-voting member). Mieml~er~s absenY: Burmeister A1so resent: Frank Kampel, Actfng Buildirg and orc ng cial f~ ~i Corrections: ~Mc_~Ca~rt_hy: Delete the phrase "No other comments from ~~otlie~• Corm;issioners " on page 4, 4th para- graph. Mountin: Change "T-7" to "R-1" on the second to ~hTt paragraph on page 5.`- Goebel made a motlon, seconded by Warren to accept the Juae 78, 1980 minutes as corrected. Ayes-4 THE MOTION WAS CARRIED. Nays-0 Abst,entions-Loedin9~fedor (They both abstained because they were not present at this meeting). Corrections: ~McCart_hy~: Omit "Warren's" name fram thc ro$ter of inem e- rE s present, and add 'Goebel". 3. APPROVAL OF 6-18-80 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES (MOTION CARRIES) 4. APPftOVAI OF 6-25-80 SPECIAL MEETTNG ~tINUTES Goebel: Add Haake and Warren to the roster of member a'~ent. ` MountSn: Add a copy of the wetiand definition to the minutes. GoebeT m~e motion, seconded by McCarthy to acceqt the dune 25, 198U mtnutes as corre~ted. Ayes-6 7HE hYJTION WAS CARRIED. (MOTIQN CARRIES) Nays-0 ', Abstenttorfs- l.oc+din9(Ne was out present at this me~ting). ~ Chairperson Mountin extended greetings to the new 5. NEW CONMISSIOt1~MEM8ERS: commisstan members: Neil Lpediqs(who replaces Wa]ter Ne97 Loding Skiba) and Ken•8reske (member designate). Ken Breske ;,;: MOUNDS VIEW PLANNINO COMMiSSION REGULAR MEETING Page 2 July 2,19tf0 -------------------------°-...-------------° °-----------°-°-°--°-°^---------°. Acf,ing officia1 Kampel informed khe Covwnisslon p~ that Mr. 0'Conneli is requesting a driveway ' ~ varlance for a driveway prevlousty constructed an May 74.. 14tJ. The gbrage and tot line set- back is 6'. The newty constrUcted b'lacktop drlveway is presently 2' from the property 71ne. The minimum setback requirement of 5' could be met 1P the driveway were lined up with the east Pnd of the garage, Ali other set6ack require- menCs are met, Staff is recortmending deniat uf this variance request indicating that approval of this driveway installation (which is against code reg~!lations; would entice others to aiso apply for variances after the fact, Mr. 0'Connell reparted to the Camnission that his oriyinal driveway was cemented, Ne had the cement tore out to replace it with blacktop. He fiired a construction company to come in and do the ,~ob for him. He asked them to fill in the area where the previous driveway had been. P,t thnt time, Mr. 0'Connell explained, he assumed the construction canpany was aware of any exieting codes which would prevent him from doing su. However, recent7y when the Building ,^ Inspectar came out to his home, he indicated '~ that Mr. 0'Connell had two options: 1) Rip ~~ out the new driveway where it extendecl over the setback Pequirements, or 2) Apply for a variance Pequest to see if this requirement could be walvered. The construction company had not 9ndicated this potentiai probtem to him at the time of the drivewey installation. The Comnission i~dicated that according to the strict interpretation oF the code, a variance could not be awarded to Mr. 0'Connell. There is no apparent physical circumstance that Con- stitutes a(non-monetary) hardship. The pre- vious driveway existed under non-confm•min4 use (it was constructed before currently existing cades) and that redevelopment of structures today require adherence ta present codes, Tne cude's 9ntent is to avoid ancroachment upon other property owners and it keeps dissension to a minimum by following a strict interpretation and enforcement. Chairperson Mountin noted that iP requests for variances are granted, it eventually begins ta ¢reaken the 7aw. The resu]t is a nnn- enforceable code. The function of the Planning Coemissiun is to enfnrce the code requirements of a 5' setback aiid ignorance of existing cades is ~~ not a defendable p1ea. 6. VIlRIANCE REQVEST FROM RONALD 0'CONNELL, 2296 TERRACE DRIVE CASE 68-80 " , t , , ,. , MOUN~S VIEW PLANNINa COhtAIS5I0N Pege Three REGULAR MEETING July 2,198D' -------------~..__.-----^------`---°~-- There wes sone dtscusslon abaut a potentiel drai~age ~ problem if !he 6' set6ack was strictly adhered to in ~" this situation and iis feasibillty as a hardsM p cleuse. There was elso some discussion on whet type of noti- ficatlon to the construction compeny involved should be undertaken to remind them of adherence to city bu7lding codes. Commissioner Heeke recommended keeping a list in the City Ha11 offlce of companies who were not adhering to codes. Goebel made a motion, seconded by Haake, that tha variance request for Ronald 0'Cannell, 2296 Terrace Drive, to retain the present driveway within 2' of the property line not be granted for lack ot hardship and that the pavement be removed to at leasi 5' from th~ property line. Ayes-6 THE MOTION WAS CARRIED. Nays-1 (fedor; He stated he could see the possibillty of a dr~ainage probtem if this piece of driveway were torn up. He didn't feel a hardship state- ment was necessary for granting this particular variance.) IlmenJment: Haake made a motion, second~d by Goebel that r~ the motton strike the phrase "and if possible to replace the area with gravei or rock". Ayes=7 TNE MOTION WAS CARRIED Nays-0 Commissioner Fedor informed Mr. 0'Connell that his recourse on this decision was'to go to the City Council. He also advtsed Mr. 0'Connell that he may Wish to bring documentation for sapporting th~ variance req~~est on the basis of the potential drainage problem at that time. Acting Official Kampel.informed the Comnission that 7. Mr. Lee C. Smith is requestinq a rezoniny of the existing R-1 stngle fami]y lot on,7288 Silver lake Road to I-i industrial. The existing zoning and existing land use 6ot11 denote this area as R-7, single family residen- tiai. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map denotes this area as low density residential. The applicant is intending to use this slte as a small industrial establishment for repairing bicycles, snowmobiles, and selling safety equip- ment. Staff is recortmending denial of this rezoning request. (MOTION CARRIES) (MOTION CARRIES) REZONI~~G REQUEST FROM LEE C. SMITN, 7289 SIIVER I.AKE ROAD, CASE 59-60 MOUNDS V1EW PLANNINO COMMISSIQN REGULRR MEETINO Page 4 July 2,1980 Chelrperson Mountin informed Mr, Smith that any ~ rexoning requests should state the benefit to the area as we11 as to the cortmunlty in the proposal. Th1s perticular request for rezoning is against the co~nprehensive plan which states protection af residentlal areas from higher !ntensive uses and down zoning fran more intensive to less intensive uses. It also states the absence of buffering. Yh1s pnrticular request wouid result in spot zani~g, which wouid not 6e defendabie in caurt. This particuTar araa 1s a total restdent4al area other than a supportive neighborhood commercial (7-Eleven store) wh1Ch ic suppurted by the residents abutting it. The primary concern nf the Comnission 's not the particular use proposed by Mr. Smith but the zoning request itsetf. Warren made a motion, seconded by Goebei to recomnend tn the City Council to deny the request to razone 7200 Silver Lake Road ko I-1 whereas the property on 7288 Silver Lake Road is currently zoned R-1, The Comnisston aiso reaffirms that the Comprehensive Plan denotes this area as low density residentiaT and Y.hat it vro+Ald be creating a suEstandard industrial lot constituting spot zoning. Ayes-7 THE MOTION WAS CARRIED. '" Nays-0 Chairperson Mountin 4nformed Mr. Smith that he should contact Staff to find out when this item wouid be placed on the City Council's agenda. Comnissioner Haake ref~rred Mr. 5mith to Zoniny Code 40.05 for clarificat;on of this issue. Acting Official Kampei informed the Camnittee that B& F. Enterprises, Inc. was requesting the develap- q!ent of a twv-fami7y residential unit on the property of 250H and 2577 County Road I. This area was rezoned to R-2 (from R-1) in Cctober of 1978. The Compre- hansive plan Upaate land Use Map denotes this area as 1ow-density residential. The proposed development meets alt the setback and minlmum lot area requlrements. Sewer and water service is available to this proposed dupiex. The water servlce will be brought to the Froperty line for one of the units and eath unit will hev? separate water and sewer service. The dralnage plans have not been submitted at this :ime to show compliance with Resolution 983 although the applicant will be su6mitting evidence of compliance in the future. Staff is recommending app~oval of this prop~sal pending compliance with Resolution 983 and,pending approvai, '~~ the developer will enter int~ an agreement with the city with a bond set at 31,000 per unit to cover land- scap9ng, grading, paving and sodding. (MOTION CARRIES)- 8. DE'~ELOPMi;i~T PROPOSAL FROM B & E ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR PROPERTIES ON 2509 and 25ii COUNTY ROAD I CASE 60-80 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COffiNISSlON REGUl,AR MEETIN6 pa~e 5 July 2,1980 °.---°°-------------° ° -- °----°-----------... _,..------° °.--°-----------. °.------ ~°'~ Bob F.rickson, represznting B& E Enterprises, Inc. ~ 4,K'~ was present. The Comnission discussed the feasibil9ty of approving a develapment proposal without seeing the comp7lance of the devetoper to Resolution 983. Since the devsloper (Mr. Erickson) was not famillar with the requirements of Resolution 983, Comnissioner Naake exptained that it required any water thaC was displaced in the building of structures on any property had to be retalned (so that it would be released at the same rate. of speed as it had before development). Goe6e1 mada a motion, seconded by Haake that the Planning Comn9sslon reccm~iends to Council the approva7 af the 8& E Enterprises, Inc. N-2 development of a dupTex at 2504/2511 Ccunty Road I dependent on the stip~lations that Mr. Erickson w111 provide ~a the Council the followiny ir.formation (which the Conmission was deficient in on review of thts planj: 1) Tn include definitive statement of separate ~aater and sewer service ko C{ie unit>, 2) Drainage plan to be fn compliance with Resolution 983 (to include a topographical map for grade planning), 3) An agreement that should be entered into between the deve7oper and the City concerning a bond set at $1,00/unft to cover landscaping, grading, paving , and sodding. Tf this recomnendation seems reasonable to Council, the Planning Commission would also recomnend approval. - Ayes-6 THE MOTION WAS CA(IRIED. Nays-7 ~'r1c:,arthy: She did not fee7 ~ftc'Comnission should pass on to Couocil a decision that is not made upon complete information.) Mountin made a motion, secon~ed by McCarthy to notify Stuff that Lhe Plannin9 Comnission wi71 not consider future applications wittrout all the criteria for develop- ment inc~uding the provisions for Resolutlon 983. Ayes-6 TNF MOTION WAS CARRIED. Nays-1 (Goebel: Ne fee7s the Staff has been complying withir reasonableness of the s:~stem.) ,. (MOTTON CARRIES) (MOTION CFlRRIES) , THE PIANNING COMMISSION RECESSED FOR A BREAK AT 9:25 p.M. r•, s~/ Ua%~f.rv. .~~..%..... ..., _..a.~ Wrv<;.~'~i; . . . ....~.....~. ~ i.. .. .~i....~._..~ .~a.ri.l.'v~~i ~F:r:.L .. ..i..~,..,... . .a. ..~...... ... ..y,.y ~.r': . ~e'.. ,: MOUN~S V3EN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Paga 6 Ju1y 2,1980 -°°-^---°°-------°°----°-------------°°--~------------^---------------•°° °_- TNE PLANNING COMMISSION RECGNVENED AT 9~35 P.M. '.„.,.7 Goebei made a motion, sec~nded by McCarthy, 9. MILLER INOUSTRIAL PLAT ` to rEmove the M111er I~dustriel Plat Aeview PRELIMINARY PLAT REYIEW from the tabte. CASE 47-80 Ayes-7 THE MOT10N WAS CARRIEO. (MOTION CRRRIES; Nays-0 McCarthy made a motion, seconded by Warren to request a rcotion tn put the M111er Industrial Plat Preliminary Revtew back on the tabte pending additional consuTtant information. Ayes-7 THE MOTION WAS CARRIED. (MOTION CARRIES) NaYS~O ! i 'i Cha1r•person hbuntin reported that Cauncil had 10. CNAIRPERSON REPORTS called a~oint meet,ing with the Planning Commission on July 7th, 6:30 P.M., at their agenda session to -Joint Meeting 9ate. discuss the M11Yei• Industrial Plat. Chalrperson Mountin annaunced she was calling a ~oint meeting of the Council and P)anning Commission ^ ~ an Wednesday, July 9th, at 7:30 N.M., to hear the i presentatian hy the consultant on the Comprehensive ~-'' Plan Update. She felt it wus nace5sary that this presentation be made before both graups so that they a11 heard che same information. She noted -Joint Meetfng Date/ that thts was not a meeting for discussior, bu~ a meeting for presentation and information fram Cfie consultant. Chairperson reminded Comnissioners that the public -Neighborhood Informa- hearing is tentatively set for Juiy 30th. The tion Meetings Comnlssion will be presenttng at this meeting. The neighborhood meetings will take place in Hugust. Some discussion an v(sual aids and cantent of the, presentation followed. The format of these meetings wi11 be discussed ai the next regular Planning Comnission meeting ¢n July i6th. ~~~ ~ Goebel made a motTon, seconded by McCarthy tu ii. ADJOURNMENT ad~ourn the July 2, 1980 Planning Cortmissioners meeting. Ayes-7 THE Mo'fION WAS CARRIED. (MQTION CARRIES) Nays-0 Respectfully submitted, ,~ ~ Frank Kempel Acting Building and Zoning Officla /ret ~ ~