HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-15 PC MinutesPROCEEDINOS OC THE PLANNING COMAlISSION
CITY O~ MOUN~3 VIEW
RkMSEY COUNTY~ MINNE80TR
~ Regular Mee~inq
Ootober 15, ],980
,~, Mounde View Citiy Hall
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounda View MN 55112
----`-°-°°-^-°°-~----'--------------------------°-"~_-----....~~_----
The MounBe View Planning Commiesion wae aalled
~e order at 7i40 p.m. on oatober 15, 1980, by
Chariperaon Mountin.
Members Preaent: Commiesionere MaCarthy,
Loe nq, i"e or, 6lazex~, Warren, Millor, and
Chairperson Moun~in.
:d~,r.ba: Rbsent: Cemmieaioner xaake, abeence
axcue'- e3~--
Aleo Presents Councilmember Foralund, Ren
S•ree e me b~er designate), and Building and
2oiiiny OE}:icial Roae.
Correctionas
1. Call to order
2. Aoll Call
3. Approval uf Ootober
l. 1980 Minutea
Loedings
Corractl.on to the aorrectiona, Eiret page
r.-,' (Page 1, laet paraqraph,, eecond item)
1 ahould r.ead "further al~ong t~~ha~n 200 Eea~
~'~- toward Highway ~~s'•ei a~of-300 fec~t.
(Bage 2, laet eentence, second paragraphl
E1lminate "to the etreet" phrase, ineart
"Greenfield Avehue".
Corrections (continued) second page -
(Second sentence, second paragraph, P~a. 4e... 2)
(Last sentenae, third paragraph, a e 2i
(Seopnd a3tizen comment, Pa4e 4).
Correctivne (aontinued)(third page, bottom ,
paragraph) delet "xoade" insert "lote:'
Identify aorrectiona all on page '~-
Correatione (cohtinued)(Eourth paqe, third
line) ehould read "Count welfare..."
"..moro deneely dev~d due to the chara-
oter...".
(Paqe 8, 9nd of firet paraqraph) "Discueeion
aleo inaluded...review this requeat "and the
likelihood that tha devolo er could be required
-o ~e res one o or e nrm wn er n ro or on
o.~Fi~~ on o e ro er n e ooa
~~~ ra Aage se n .
A: .
MOUNpB VIEW PLANNING C~MMIBBION
Paga 2
MaCarthvs
~' (Page 5, firet paragraph, fourth
sentence) deletie "requestinq" lnaert
"Eho need fnr".
MOTION~SECONDt
MaCarthy/Wnrren moved to adopt the minutee
o£ Oatober 1, 1980, as amended.
Ayes-6 Nays-0 (Fedor abstained because
he 31d not attend the Oat~ber 1 meating)
OfEicial Roea proviGed the Commiseionars copies o~
~iry Atikorney Meqer's opinion 1980-7, Re: S1de Yard
Setbacks - ~riveways dated October 14, 1980; per '
Commiasion request/motion Octabez 1, 1980.
MOTION/`SECONDs
Warren/MCCarthy mo,ved to take the Jameo Odle
request for varience, Case 63-80, from the table.
Ayes-7 Nays-0
~The Commisaion has tabled Mr. (~1e's request for
~' ~arience to inatall hie driveway cloaer than five
~Ufeet from tha property litte on Ootober 1, 1980,
pending legal opi.ni.on as to whether tha requirem~nt
for a five Eoot driveway setback would be enforce-
able under the existing C1ty Codes. Attorney Meyera
adviaed the Commiesion that the Cude ia anforceable.
Chairpereon Mountin asked Mr. Odle if he had any
additional information to greaent to the Commission
relevunt to hia request for varience.
Mr. Odle submitted Eive photographs oE his proparty
taken at varioua anglae to demonstrate the grad,e
difference between the existing drivaway and the lawn-
agproximately 18 inches, a tree which would hava to
be removed, and 2 additional trees which uaould need
to be severely pruned in order to meet the setback
requiremants of tha Code. Mr. Odle atated tl~at the
reasnnabil!.ty of install.ation, cnnvanience, passible
tre9 ramovmd and/or damage, and qrading problema com-
prised his hardship and he tharefore requeets a
varience.
Comtniesioner Fedor commented that in the paet, resi-
dents had been required to move or reinovo garages in
4~ ?'rder to uphold the aetback raguiremente.
`~
Regular Meeting
Oatober 15, 1~90
MOTION CARRIEB
4. Varianoa Request
Case 63-80
James Od1e, 8070
Red Oak Drive
MOTION CARRIES
MOUND3 VIEW PLANNING COMMI36ION Regulsr MeeCinq
p$g~ ~ Oatober 15, 1980
'°~-°°~___~___~__^---___~_-__°___~____~__~_«•___~__~-_-• ..______-__-_-
.1r. Odle offered additional photographe ahowing
random drlveways in the area that arn not i~i
~onformance with preeent code requl.remente.
MOTION/SECONDi
MeCarthy/Warren moved to deny the requsat for
varienoe for driveway eetbaok~ Case 63-80,
Jamea Odle, 8070 Red Oek Drive For laok of
euffioient hardship.
Ayee-7 Naye-0
Chairperson Mountin offered to prov,ide Mr. Odle with
a copy aE pages 70 and 71, Loaal and Re ional P~lannin~
in Minnesota, Gunnar C. Ieberg, w13c c ear y exp3a~ns
~lie d3Y:~erance between "praatical difEicultiea" and
"undue hardehip".
Applicant request to subd3vlde one lot into 20 lota
providing aooesa via Edgewood Drive and an intornal
street saheme.
Tha Planning Commisaion had reviewed the proposal
informationally at its Oetober 1, 1980, meeting. The
developer is propnaing that the new lota fronting on
,-_County Stoad 2 ba rezoned from R-]. to R-2.
,,, OfEicial Roee presentad the Planning Report outlining
Planning Consideratione: Zoning and Land User Lot
araa; Frontaqe and ..Setback Requirementai Servirsesy
Road Systemi and Grading and Drainage. Of£iuial
Roee provided the Commiseion with copies of the Clty
Consultinq Enginaer; Dan Boxrud's, review and diacussed
hie findinga and recommendations.
Summary o£ Discuasion:
- What is the p~iblic hearing process Eor the exten-
sion of MSA streets.
- What ie the City policy (pursunnt to Chaptar 26)
for sseesaing MSA street im~rovementa back to the
benefiti.ng properties.
- Are the frontagea of Lots 6,'7, 8, and 9 on County
Road I suL•ficient, what is the proposed setback
for thoae lots, and eould thay £ront the interior
atreet.
- Where wi.ll the driveways for Lota 5 and 6 be located
and whioh driveways will exit on County Road I.
- Concerna incresaed over traEfic conqostion on County
Road I.
- Concerna 8ver the merite oE extending Edgewood Drive
from County Road T, to Hillvlew and impaat upon the
l ; wetlandq and Oakwood basin.
~~1' - Diecuesion over the "lollipop" ve. the "horseshoe"
etreet acheme/traEfio pattern~s and polica/fira
reeponse c~pabilitlea into the area.
MOxION ~ARRIES
5. Ma~cr Subdivialon
Caea fi5-A0, Aobert
Eigenheer, No. ef
Co.Ril i & ~. of
Edgawood Drive
MOUND9 VIEW PLANNING COMMI3STON
Page 4
'____`__~^__-___`-__"_"________________`___~~_~___
- What is the developern proportiionste ehare oF
^ r~eponaibi].ity to prutect and pzeeerve tihe
~ 1 watland area per UNR and Rice Cxeek Watershed.
- Cancerne over the pra~ervation of R-1 zoninq
north of CounCy Rond I.
- Diecuseion of the Eeanibility oE try3nq the
developer'e request for rezoning to the r~queet
for ma~or eubdivieion.
Ragular Meeting
Oatober 15, J,980
'__-......"'-"..-'.,_e_
Mr. Eiqenheer indicated that Lot 6 on County AoaR T
could remain R-1 ehould the City detr~rmine that tha
lot Erontaqe is insufficient. Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, an@ 9
will front on Couaty Road I and the homee will be
eet ba~;k even uith tho exlatinq home aebbaak as indi-
catefl on the draw3nga~
Keith Nelson, Chiaf Engineer Eor the develoPar„ state3
that he had conCacl•ed the DNR and that they havQ no
juriadiction over the property. He aleo atatfl3 that
th~e Rice Creak Waterahed Hoard is more interested in
the final streat layout and the eEforts of run-cif.f
an$ ero~~on than in the pra~ueed lnyout.
Commiesion Miller le£t - 9:30 p.m.
MOTION/SECONDs
;~~i Glazar/MCCarthy moved to recommend to the Council
`~~% that the requaet of Robert Eiganheer for a ma~or
subdiv3sian (1 lot into 20) in the property Located
north of, County Boad I and eaet oE Edqewood Dri've
be denied.
The reason for this negative reaommendatiox is
f.ounded on the undesired portion of the plan which
calla Por the rezoning of Eive lots along County
Road i from R-1 to R-2. Such rezoning aonverking
8-1 zoaed ]and into R-2 rent land does little tc
aoneerve existing opportunitiee Yar the ownerehip
of pr:ivate property by prospective home seekera
an4 will noti aomplimant tne adjacent R-1 homes.
The rational of creat3ng rontal. uni.ts to absorb the
negative impacte oP higher use J.and acrose the
street is not in keeping with our Compreheneive
Plan'e goalo and poliaiea. The Eaot that rezoninq
of R^I lote hae been granted in part on the north
aide of County Road I or bhe preeent proapeat of
greater r.eturna to the developer from an R-2 zoning
is aoaeidered poor justiEiaation Eor recommending
approval.
Ayea-4 Naye-2 (Warren, Mauntin)
-- Reaeon for Nay vota - Warren: The motion is unalaar,
but ik appeare that the plet ie being denied only
beaeuee of the R-2 zoning. Meuntinr Conaure with
Warren.
MOTION CARRIE6
MOUNDB V_ :'W PIJINNING COMMISBION
Page 5
Aegulsr Meeting
Oato6er ].5, 19An
-' ~"-' -..' ~.."-.. -' ~"'
~ Mr. Eigenheer requeeted Eurther direotion Prom
~ ^the Commieaioa.
( 1
~ -~ MOTION/SECONDi
I f3lazer/Loadinq moved ta continue dieausaion
of the proposal in orQer to provide diie~xtion
Por future development.
Ayas-5 Nays-1 (Peclor, felt that he needed
nora in4ormation/maberial= befoze h~a wouJ.c1 be
able tn provide dlrectiona to the developer)
~I SUmmany of Discuesions
Feasibility of the extension of Edgewood Drive.
I
- Tmpact of tl~e extention o~,Edqewaod nrive on
~ _ tha natural wetland and drainage basin.
The ben9fit, or lack of benePit, to the com-
! munitp in rezoning lote from R-1 t'o R-2.
- Poeaible recommondatione from UNR and Rice
Creek Watershed.
,j - Praaticality vf all lots using the internal
i etiregt c+ydtem for aocesa.
'~ MAIN MOTION;ISECONDs
~ ~ McCarthy/LOeding moved to dizect the development
~ _ to:
1) Approach the Rice Creek Waterehad Board to
daterm:ne hia proportionate reaponsibil~.ty to
the preservation of the drainage baein.
2) Diteat the City Engineer to review the feasi-
bility of conetructian of the extention of
Edgewood Driva alonq the Eigenheer property as
well as Prom County Road I to Hillview Road.
3) Direat the City Ehgineer to determine the
impaot of the development of the propestiea
alonq Edgewood Drive between County Road I and
Hillvi.ew Road on the drainage baein.
4) Direct the developer to raconsider the requeet
for R-2 zoning.
5) Direct the City Engineer to review the "hGree-
shoe" street layout vs, the "l,oll.i:pop" layout with
acce~s to all oroperties restricted to Edgewood
Drive for the deveYopment.
Ayes-6 Nays-0
Amendment to Main Mntion/Second, Loeding/Glazer
move3 ta anend the main motion to include, in
'" addition t~ the cansidaration mentioned, diacuse
'`J
any other appropriate concerns.
Ayas-5 Nays-1 (rtountin-amendment unclear)
MOTION CARRIES
MAIN MOTION CARRIES
AtlMENDMENT CARRTES
\;
$i~'!
MOUNDB VIEW PLANNINa COMM289ION Raguler Moetinq
Paga 6 Ootober 15, 1990
-____^____________________~.~.,..___-__-__^-_._~.__-_-.._~_-_____^_____~~.___~
CounoSlmembor Forelund otated that the Citv 6. Past City Counoil
Coun411 had appr~ved Dynanio Developera. Aatione/Lisieon
~'londay , oatober 29, bha Counnil will intarview Report
~lenninq Commiealon applioanta at ite Aqenda
meeting and will diecuse tha wetland ordi~~;noe,
Chaptex 48.
ofEioial Roee updated the oommieeion membe're,
on the Rraus-Andoreon (M 6 E Realty) propoeal
and reoent ohanqes in the lake deeign.
The Reaording Seoratary hae eubmitted her reeig-
n~iion nnd a copy wae de].ivered to dommfseion
members along with a mema from Clerk-Adminietrator
Pauley regarding minutea.
OPficial Roee r.nted th+xt ho had on Industrial
Development Propoeal pondinq for the next Reqular
Commigefon meetinq on Plovember 3.
Chalrperson Mountin etatad that ahe was collectinq
ordinancae fram neiyhboring oommunities ooncerning
the establiehumne of thair Flanning Commiaeionere
in order to maka a oomparativn studr. 3he inetruateci
the commieeionera to bagin developing possible rules
or by-laws to be dieauaeed in con~uction with Chapter
_ 32 at the ne~ct regular Commiseion meeting.
~- .
~ lommiasioner Loeding requested that the f.ollowing 7. Attachment Co
''etatement be wrltten into the minuteas minutee
&es Octnber Sth memo from oommiseion membere to
counailmembers concerning the Odle requeat. Loq8ing
abjecta t~ tha handling oE tha iesue in such that the
letter amounted to a v~te taken at an inEormal meeting
and that ho was n~t qiven the opportunity to explain
his nay vote. He requeste that the explanation
appear in these minutes~ "In the eventuality that
the City Attorney Eouad that the five foot setback
pravieian wae unenEorceahlp,theiPlanning Commieeion
would evidantly no lo:~gex have jurfediction, in whiah
case, the Council presumib].y wou13 want to deal with
the Odle requeat wlthout further reference to the
Planning Commiasion. I would t~ave approved the rs-
quest to the Council iE this eventuality had been
recoqnized.
MOTION/SECOND: 8. Adjournment
McC.arthy/Glazer moved to Adjourn the Oatobar 15,
1980, meeting.
Ayee-6 Nays-0 MOTION CAAAIEB
~ :. 1
'a~eeting adj.purned at 11s.4.0'p,m. Respaofully submitted,
Steven A. Rosa
Huilding 6 Zoning OfPioial