Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-04 PC Minutes; ~, ..... ~. , PROCBB~ING9 OF THE PLANNIN6 COMMI99ION CITY OF MOUND5 VLBW RAMS~Y COUNTY, MINNE90TA Aegula~t Maeting Pebruary 4, 1981 `°"` f Mounde Viaw City Hall i - 2401 Hwy. 10~ Mounde Viaw 1~1 55112 ; The Mouade View Planning Commieeion wae called 1. Call to Order to order. et 7t32 P.M. on February 4, 1981, by Chairperaon Mauntin. Membere oraeentt Commieeionare Loeding, 2. Roll CalY MeCarChy, c~lazer (exrivad at 7~~i0 P.M.), Wsrran, Millor, Breeka, and Cheirporeon Mountin. CF~airpexeon Mouatin noted that Commieeioner Pau1 Fedcr t~ae retired from the Planning Commieeion. He ves a long Carm member a~ well ee pae~ Vica- Chairpeceon aud hie contributione to the Commieeion were acknowledged. Gorrxetione: 3. Approval of 1-7-81 ~Ragular Meating Loedings ' Miautea~ ' 7.. Paga 4, laet patagYaph, undar Nay, ,~"^~ Votae-Loeding; Insert "by the t 1 Commieaion" between chairman and ~"•'~ and. 2. Reaolution 1102-81, firet paragraph, last sentence, add "the ~ate; and" ~ 3. Pago 2' of Exhibit C, Rasolutinn k03-81, 'B „ 3., second second insert "which~~ in place of "and" betwaen the words "follow- ing" and "are", MOTION/Second: MeCarChy/Miller movad to aPProvc the minutea of January 7, 1981, regalar meeting minutea us corrected. 6 ayea 0 Nays MOTION CARR2ED Commi9sioner Glazer arrived at 7s40 P.M. Clrrk-Adminietrator Pauley adminiatered the oath 4. Oath of Offica Administered of office to Co~ieeioner's Warrea and Glazer.' to Comnieaionere' Warnen and Olazer ~ , , . _ ,. ._: ' ~ ;.,,, D10UND5 VIBW PLANNINC COhA1IS3I0N Regula.r Meeting paae 2 Nabruary 4, 1981 ~ Parks, Iiecreation, and Forestry Director Andarson S. City Wida Park System discussad with the 4ommission tha complated Idastar Plan Presentatiun Park System Master Nlan. He bpiafly roviewed how Uy Parks, Racreation, the planning process had uvolved. The reviaw of and Forestry Director tha nine city parks included; site inventory, site analysis, planning criteris, concept planning ("blob" atudy), and naighborhoad meatinga, The muster plan submitted by Saundars, Thalden, and Associatas included proposals of sdditionsl vegetation (trees) and muliiple-use hockay rinks for year round usa, Director Andarson stated he would like to sae this Mastar Plen attached ox included witli the Mounds View Comprehensiva Plan. Commants from the Commissloners: Miller-She wculd like to see tha cost of the, p-fan scalad down. Warren-She A~ked if this Mester Plan was included, in ~etail, with the Comgrahensiva Plen, would the city ba locked into it? (Anderson raplied that this park Master Plan; as with tha other material in the Cumprehensive Plan, wera to be utilizod as "gLLidalines" ret•her Chan ~.~ spacific commiimonts.) ' Loeding-Since the raferendum was not passed by ~J T~ia voters, he didn~t think it should be included in tho Comprehansive Plan. Glazer-He asked Director Mderson to clarify t at Mounds View is approximately 10 acres short, of federal stendards fur park land, approximataly 26 acres of tha designa2ed park land is actually school playgrounds, and that Arden Park, Grean- field, aud Silverview parks ~.ncluda approximately 50'k of the open space park lands in Mounds View. Ha stated that the population increaso of some 3000 parsons up to the year 2000 citad in tha Comp Plan was unrealistically lnw. He said that a mora i~eulistlc projection would ba about S00 persons per yenr on the basis of the,3.ncreases we h¢ue had over tho pest 10 ycars. This would lead to an 3.ncrease of possibly 10,000 persons up to tho yoar 2000 which Hould loave the City woefully short of park and opan space if tha Federal policy of allowing 10 acras of snch land for avery thousand residents were followad. He felt that the opportunities to acquire park land are not, going to axist in years Co come end that the City shoul~i aggressivuly pursua any acquisi- tion aptions avsilable to it. ~ ~.:, . , MOUNUS VIOW PWNNING CODAtI55SON Ragular Meetittg Page 3 Rebruary 4, 1981 -° ^--°-------°°------------^--°--------'-'-----~---°'---------'-------`---^ /` Chaiiparson Mountin direcYed Staff to provide at the naxt aganda meeting some direction of the accaptability of inclusion of tha paxk plan with ~et Council. ~rs. 8onin stated that when the road was installed near tl~eir property st Pleasant Viaw Driva, sha and har family decided thay wantad more privacy auu thay moved out to 0ast Bethel whera thay have residad the 2ast yasr. They ero now requesting a sub- division of their lot located at 83A0 Pleasunt View Urive to creata two l~ts (one being 80.55~ wide, the otl~er baiug 95.62~ side}, She furtl~er indicated that if the lots were eplit into a 85' and 91.17~ lot, tha position of the lotline would be less than 10~ from the aide of the existing house. She felt• this would not only be a potential proble~n in se111ng tha property, 6ut that it wuuld also bo nn incunvonience to the future owners to have tha house 5~ from tho lor,line. She statod that several years ago, at the time of tha Rosonquist additiw~ subdivision, the feeliag was that ona of the lots in varianca to tha code would ba bettar than two with a lesser variance from the 85'. Commissionar Breske suggested to Mrs. Bonin to consider nllo~ing the 5~ satbacks, theraby making one lot 85' and the other lot 100' wide. Mrs. Bonin did not feel this was ecceptable. She further stuted that if the Commission was goinq to suggest this as their propo~al, she wanted to get commants from her husband arid realtor before discussing this in furthar deiail. Chairperso,t M~untin noted that the propossl presented by Commissionar 8raske would accomodata th91r (the Bonin's) reauast whila still operating within the parametars of the ordinance. The Commission was hes- itant in creating lo•cs that wou13 bo subject tq futura requasts for variances because of substan~ard fronteges~ Some of the commissioners noted that Mrs. Bonin's request for e veriance could possSbly be considerad a hardship bocause her home at 8380 Pleasant View Drive was positioned on that lot when no future division had been anricipated. Other membars of tho Comm~sszon felt it was not a hardship casa. In conclusion, the commissioners commants ware: Bres1•.o - He would like to seo tha lot at 85' wi3i~~with a 5~ setback, howevar, upon hearing Mrs. Bonin's comments and upon heaiing the ~ discussion with the Commission, ha would considar supporting the request as prasented. 6. Minor Subdivision (one lot into 2) 8380 Pleasant Viaw Drivs Cesa 72-81 D10UND5 VIBW PIr1NNING COt~A1ISSI0N Ragulnr Maeting Page S Pebruary 4, 1881 -`-------'------------'-----°~--°---~------°----------^'°'-----`----°--°--.. ~eekers end would not compliment Lhe adjacant R-1 ~ hames, The Coimnission e?.so felt the rationale for creating rantal units 4~: ahsorb the negative impacts of higher use land across the street was not in keaping with the Comprehensiva Plnn. When Mr~ 8lgenl~aer requested furthor diraction from the Commission et thst Octobor 15, 1980 meotiyg tho Conunission directed his davelopment tot 1, Approach the Rice Creek Watershed Raard to determine tha proportionate responsibility to the prasarvation of the drainege basin. 2. Directad the City Engineer to review tha feasibility of construction af the axt~nsion of Edgawood Drive along the fiigenhear property wall as from County Road I to Hiliview Road. 3. Dlract the Ci.ty Engfnaor Lu datermina the impact oF tha development of 3ha propertias along Edgewood Drive batween County Road T and Hillview Road on the drai:iaga basin~ 4. Direct the developer to reconsider the xequnst for R-2 rezoning. 5, Direct tha City 8nginear to review tho street layout. 6. Discuss any othor appropriaC6'concerns. Mr. Eigenheer is at this meeting tonight requasting,to subdivida i lot into T9 lots providing acca~s via 8dgawqod Drive and an internal straet scheme for a singls family dwelling development.' (Rica Creak Watershed District wilf not ba formaliy taking actlm~ on thls proposal c:ntil their Aabruary 25th meeting or letar). A summary of tl~e City 8ngineer~e raviaw " was available to the'Planning Co~mnission (lotter ~ datad January 30, 1981). -" The Planning Commission discussed ihe pruposed moratorium on the private wetlands (Ordinance 301). Official Rose geve e copy to Mr. 8lgenheer explaining tha first rgading of this ordinance had been held on 2/2/61. Chairperson Mountin noted tliat previous action of tho Planning Commission on this requect had Leen table uanding rocoipt of apprwal from the Rice Craek Watershed District. MOTION/Sacond: Clazor/Bro~ke moved ta remove th2 81g»nhear raquest ase 65-80) from tha tabla for purposes of discu~sion. Ayes-~ Nays-0 MOTION CARRIBD Copies of the preliminery plats for this roquest we:e dietributad to tha Commission by Official Rose. Keith Nelson, 8nginear from the Dewayna Olson Ca. was also MOUNDS VIBW PI.ANNING COhVNIS5TON Regular Meating Pa~^ 4 aebruary 4, 1981 "-^'-^"^""' ..............."-° ------`---..-°`--'°------"'-.-'-"--------'- Loa~~di~ng - He ia not convinced there is a demnn- /~°~ strate6le herdship according to his intarpreia- f.,, ~ tion of the Code 40,24, Subd, e. ~" blcCarth - She agrees with Loading and she is aga nst the subatendard lot divisiony. Oluzer - He would lika to eae the request gi~snted as Mrs. 8onin has submitted it. Wez~ren - She baliavas tha C:;mmiusion should creete Lhe aubatendard lot, giving variance to the oihar lot for lees Lhen !0' setbac9cs, ehe believes this problem wae not created by the applicant end thuC xheir requast far this subdivision should be grented. Miller - She egreas with Commissioner< Gaeding en~icCarthy. She doasn't want substandard 1ots. M6TION/Second: Braska/Glazer moved to adopt R~so u: on -81 (8xhibit A) granting the vnriunce to tt~e Ken Branln pzoperty at 8380 Pleaaant Viaw 4rive, Case 72-81 Ayes-Breske, Waxren, Glazar, Mountin Nays-Miller, McCarthy, 4oeding Nay votes: Miller-Sha doas noL think the City should - ~e creating substandard lots. Loedin -Na doesn't think the requirements or srdships have been net as listad in Coda 40.24. McCerth -She doesn't see a proven hardship a~is also against creating substanderd lots. Chafrperson Mountin informed Mrs. Bonin that tha Commission had pessed har request on a 4/3 vote. This Will be referred to the City Council. Official Roso wfll be contacting har with further information. Official Rose reviewad tha past action on thi.s roquast. The Planning Commission previously had reviawad a pro- posal from Mr. Eigenhaer for this parcel of land at their October ~5, 1980 maet3ng. At that tima, Mr. 8lgenheer requested a subdiviaion of one lot into 20 lots providing accass via Edgawood ~riva and an internal strae2 scheme. The Planning Commission denied the raquest because 2he poxtion of the plan which called for razoning of five iots along County Road i from R-1 to R-2 wcs undasirable. Tha rezoning which woul.d ,"``'a convert the R.-1 zoned land into R-2 rent land would 4~,~ do little to conserva existing opportunities for the ownership of privata property by prospective home MOTION CARRTBD , 7. Mnjor Subdivision (1 lot intn 19) Mounds View Square Plat Case 65-80 Robart EigaNioer ~. ...,;~;. . ,:. g~::.. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COFa1IS5I0N Reguler Meeting Paga 6 Pebruary 4, 1991 ---------'-'-° °--'-°-------------'---^--'--------------'--'--°---------°--"' ~ prasent. Ito did state the 2 foot bnrm could be eliminated and it wns also thair concern ta save Cha wetlands. Chsirparson Mountin left at 9:15 p.m./V~ce-Chaiiinan Lcading chaired for hor. ~ ', ~ Mr. Higenheer notad ha hed liean pursuing 4his projest fo~~ S~ years ~roW and he wes amciaus to mava ahead. ~MO'fION ~S~econd: Werren/McCerthy meved to table the request from Mr, 8lgenhear (Case 65-80) for e major subdivision until recaiving tha determination from Rica Creek Watershed District. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Abstarttions-1 (Breska-He stated he hed a conflict of inLerest on this particular request). In summary, Vica-Chuirman Loeding noted: 1. The plat includes portions of the existing wetlands, but such inclusion tright not be allowable undar ths~City's ordinance. 2. If a wetlands ordinonce is passed, the legal boundaries established by th~ ordinance are likely to differ fram thoso showtt on the present ~lat, 3. The present proposal does not demonstrate that the existfng wetlands cannot be pra- served under the present proposal nor ' does 1E demonstrate that the existing w~tlands can bo preserved after development. Commissi~ner Miller laft the meetir~g at 9:45 p.m. Tha hlanning Commission rocessed at 9:45 p.m, and convenad again at 9:55 p.m. Tha Planning Commission discussed this issua briefly. The comments included: Warren-She doesn't llke the plan and wauld liko t~oTable to provide more input on this issue in tha fature. Glazar-He would racommond denial of tha document u6 t would like to xeviaw new information as it davelops. McCarth -Sha stated that before the Commission loo s at ~any plat proposal, they should look at the probYem~ that mny exist with this particular typa nf ngraement. ~ 8. MnDOT-Blaine-Maunds Viaw Limited Use Pern}it and Joini Powars Agreemant y'a~. j '~ MQTTON/Sacond: Loeding/Warren movad that Lha A2anning '`/ omm~is.s3on iecommends un interim recommendation co tho City Council thet, 1) the uti2lty of Yhe outlot to ~ i MOUNDS VIOW PLAIrNING COFAIIS5ION Ragular Meeting ~ Page 7 ---------------------------------------February 4, 1981 °---------'-----------°-- -'---'------- r_., Mounds Viaw bn dntermined, 2) the davelopmanC show a r plai of property, S) the daveloper giva as speoifia an indication as possibla of tha proposad use of tho property. Ayes-5 Nays-0 MAIN MOTION CARRIED AMBNDMBNT TO MAIN MOTION/Second; Glaxar(McCarthy move to eve uate t e nu sance potantial with raspect to passnges, chamical pallutants, eutrophic ngents, odor, undesirable v6gatation and tha amount of increased xun-off in d~veloping. Ayas-5 Neys-0 AMBNDt~NT 7'0 MAIN MOTION CARRIED Commissionor Breske notod'that he felt the comments were not diract anough for tho Council to understend tha Plsnning Cammission~s feelings on this issue. hYJTION/Second: Glazer/McCarthy movad that tha Planning o~ s~s o-~un first review of this propasal wou1Z ~ recommend that the City noL pursua the joint powers and limited use parmit at this tima until further study of the wotlands and open space ~eeds currently baing addressed was completed. /-\ ~~; { Ayes-5 Nays-0 MOTION CARRIBD This was dnfarrad until the next meeting. 9. RBVIB~A OF SHORBVIHW , COMPREHBNSIVC PL.4N- Josey Warren Commissioner Braske reviawed his coimnents to the 10., REVIBW OP ARDHN HILLS Commission as statod in his 2/4/81 memo-(F.xhibit B). COMPREHHii$IVE PLAN- Upon Chairperson Mountin's directiva, he had Kan Braske raviewed the plan and fuund no problems with tho document. The Commissionars noted some minor changas to 11. FINAL DRAPT APPROVAL Official Rose. Warren and GJ.azer statrd thay wauld 0~+ HOUSING FLAN like to sea 2ha formula usad by Matropolitan Council in datermining that Mounds View~s fair share of low and mor3erate lncom~ housi.ng is 220-250 units through 1990. MOTION Sacond: Laeding/McCarthy movod to approve tTie~fious ng plari us presantr.d this evening with the noted corractions given to Official Rose. Ayes-4 Nays-3 (Glazer) NAY VOTE: Glazer notod this plan doasn~t raprasent ~ ~ his t~inking and ha is not comfortable with the !.~ plan as writtan. Speclfically tha plan is seadad with goels and policy statements that ara almast obsequious with •reapact to nccommodating MOUNDS VIHW PLANNTNG COMMISSION Regular Ffenting Paga A ~Fahr4ary A, 1981 __..^---'--°---'-"--"--"--^--.'-.-^..-'---------"°'--"-`-'^---~°-----'-'-'-- ~ ragional low and moderate income wanta~ He did foel thet it was necessary to overstete ,~~ tha Commission~s concern for thesa groups in order to act in an evenhandad munnar or that it was necassery to try aud imprass iha Met Council with such wording. He falt that tl~o plen was tha City's and as such, it should honestly projact the neads end attitudes of its populace, Attendsnce at workshop sessions; Housing Plan Workshop 1/15/81 Jean Miller Sharon McCarthy Nel7. Loeding Peg Moun4ln Stave Rose ~Housing P1an Workshop 1/21/81 Sharon McCarthy ' Bab Glazai Neil Loading PoE Mountin Charlotte Forslund ~' , _. ~ l 1, Housing P1an Workshop'1/28/81 `" ~~J Sharon McCarthy ,' Bob Glsxer ' Ken 8reska - Nail Loeding Jean Miller ' ", Peg Mountin ! ~~ Steve Rose ~ ~ "~ ' ` i' Charlotte Forslund A1 Brixius, NorYhwest Associated Consultants Joint Councl2/Plannins Commission Workshop 2/2/81' Neil Loeding Joan Miller Ken Breske Josay Warren Sharon McCarthy . Peg Mountin Oiticiai Rosa distr3buted copies of the administrutiva naws.letter, cnpy of the parking space propoaal for Mr. Donut (naxt agenda ~assi~n), and the revisad Chsptez 32 (next agenda session). Vicn-Chairman Looding notad tha meeting scheduled for Fabsvary 11, at 7;00 p.m. to review'the community ~~ improvament program with a potential. meeting on 12, CHA2RhNN'5 RHAORT ' , . ' , MOUNDS VIfiW PLANNING COh~iISSION Regular Meeting pgga g Februsry 4, 1981 Pebruary 25 e]so to continue the discussion if iL ~ aas necassary. ; .,~,¢,;+ MOTION/Seconds MeCarthy/Warren moved to adjourn~ ~ ! Ayes-5 Nays-0 MOTION.CARRIBD Adjournod et 11t50 p,sm. ,.~~o-. - ,i ~1t p ~t l b r ~n .~ft~~l -t:i~. ~ .' , 'tv 'f a, 4; Wt~l., I~ e 4t i~' ~F~ ,.~ ti x r i~Wr~ t" i~ . , e . ~ ~ ~ otf *, ~ ~ ~ t fr~ ~ r ~ ~ ' ~i ~ 4 ~ Fn /' r ~ ' ~ ~ . ~ '"y ' ~ ~ ( ~ ,~'~i!; ~ ry~ 1.1 ~rr3 :: % P~ at ~ R~ tli i 4~ a . ~ ~~.~~} p~k t ii 1 ~ ~ t : ' f s . V~;/ .. ~ ]t * A v ~. . y c ~ .t i v, t t f ' ~ i .qC r J~krtYA ~ ' } ~ f '~ ~ "~ ~a i ~ : Y ~ ~ '~ Y T i )r; ,. ! E `rkai~4'~ : ~ ' at~ - ~'. .. ~ . ~, , i dy ~ r t . ,t4' ~ ( } , ~. , c n } ? 1 ~ r I ~ .~ . "4 ~ ~ ~ ' R, u ~., ~ t4p,t ~ ~ ~ ''~ ~ f 4f i~ , ~ ; ~ n ~ ~.: ~4~ ~` ~, ~ ~ 1 .: ~; ,~ I A hay~ 4 ,ym a .! > ~ ~j)t l } t t ~ rY 1~ ' '~,., . .. ~ ~' ~.. µ ~ l N r a:, f 4 k , ~Sr~ ~~ x r t ': '?~' ? ~- : A .. ;- ~ ~ a , , , . ~ ~ t ..i~1 ~ T ~~ ~.: 1 f,. 1 ~ ~~ 1 t ~ . . 3 Y t uF Y _ . 4 . ~ ~~ ~ 3 H~ ~Y3 A~ ~ ~~ 1 ' ku ~ ("~t ~ il f Sf ) . 4 . ~~ i 16' ( ~ 6 4:~1 : ~ +'( .. 1, !~ ~'._ ~ 0 T ~ t ~ { , - ~! , ~ , P 4 , 5 ~ y T ~~ ~, ~r~ r~ 4 ; ! ~~ ~ ~ ' .i. , r r' & _ , i - :,xG . , I .~ ,. ~ , i., l 11' 4 1 ~ f ~ o . ' ' E ''' ' 21~'~' P t , q ~. _~~Ff1 1 r }~ f I E( t~ f '1 ' .. ~ .. '• ~. ~ _ .~ _: 7. ~ e .. t ~ . .r i ~x 12 i : f iS 6~ E . [i ' .. . I' ' , ' ~ ,' tEi' . ~"' IP .. Y) _ ,~.. . .? :: e:ig ~ r ' £~' r ~~ .- .. : k _~ „ ~ a : ~ . . Uw~l ~ i4 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ,t~~ q , r`~ . f ti "v .i s+ .; r , ; "' r i' f . . ~ ' I . ~ r p `r. ,t ` ~ . ' ~ .._ ,. . „ _, ..~ ~- .. . ... ~ , . . ,.~ ' ~ RE60LUTION NO. 04-81 CITY OF MOUNOS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RECOMMENDATION FOR APPRQVAL OF CASE 72-81 (MINOR 8U9DIVI'3ION) WBEREA9, initial developmenr oP the applicant'a nQighbor- hood wae not e selE-impoaed hardehipj and WHEAEA3, said development eo chanqad the charaater oP the area (as Ear as the applicant wae concerned) as tic compel' tliem to relocatej NOW, THEREFORE, SE IT RESOLVED khat the Planning Commiaeion of the.City o£ Mounds V'iaw recanunends that a varianoa be granted for a substandard lot 8(less then 85~ wide) por certificate o£ eurvey datied 0etober 20, 1980, and approve the Minor subdiviaion ~ (1 lot into 2) for Kenneth Donin at 8380 Pleaeant View Drive. ~ Final approval of thie eubdivi.eion will be aontingent on tl~orough oleenup oE both properties beEore the fileable oopy oP the deed ie ~ reodived by the City. ~ Adopte8 thie 4th _ day SP February ~ 1981. ATTEBT~ C a rperson IC~EAL) , ~ , , u nq& onng0 oa ~.r~ , , ~,,.,.,.. __ . .