HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-06 PC Minutes3'. ..
. PROCEEDiNGS Of THE FLAA~ViKS C~MMIS5ION
CITY OF MOUNOS VIEW
p4MSEY CWNTY, MiNNESOTA
Reguler Meeting
,r,.~ May G, 1981
htounds V'ew C1ty He71
2401 Nwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
----°------^-------°---------°----------^----------^----°---°---------°.
The Mounds View Plenning Commisslan was calted 1. Cali to Order.
to order ak 7:a1 p.m. on Mey 6, 14R1, by
fheirparsbn Mountin.
MEMBE DRESENT: Commissionars MCC~rthy, Giezer, 2. Roii CaIT.
arr ve a p.m.?, Warren, M111er, ereske,
and Cheirperson Mountln,
AS,SO PRESENT: COuncilmgmb~r ForsTund, Park/Recreatlon
nn rea ry 0lrector Aoderson, Officiel Rose, and
ConsuTtir~g Englneer Dan Boxrud.
Correctic~nl: 3. Approvel of the karil i,
1981, Regular Meeting
Warren: Pege b, Para9raph 7, deleta the tast Minutes
Tine''rCOmmlssloner Werren discussed the R-3
designation as 1ndlceted on the Corprehensive
P1an. Page 3, paragreph 9, last itne shouid
read "wrttteo comments and oral" instead of
°bu~aw~=ora-1'~.-
~ Page 6, paregraph 1, chenge the tast xord
"drlveHays" to curb cuts.
Pege 8, paragraph 4, Motion fa11s for iack af ,
second ahould reed "Motion was out of order".
Mountlo: Paga 2, paesgraph 5, last 11ne, an areh-
'~fec~al review chenged to a development praposal.
Page 3, peregrsph 7, and paragraph 9, hearing
should be changed to record.
Page 7, paragraph 4, change revised to reviewed.
Motion Seeond: McCarthy/Breske moved :o accept Che
nu es o t e ApriT i, 1981, Reguler Meeting as
corrected.
6 ayea 0 neys
Motlan Seeond: McCarthy/Breske moved to accept the
nu es o e A{~rti 22> 1981, Special Meeting as
received.
,y...
~ There were no comnents or~ equests from the
audience.
Notlan Carried.
4. Approvat of the Aprii 22,
1981, Speciat Mesting
Minutes.
Motfvn Carried.
5. Residents requests nnd
Comments from the floor.
f
ia;..,, . . ..
Mounds V1aw Planning Comnission May 6, 1981
Regular Mesting. Page Two.
..--------°--------°----°-~------° ~-°-^-----°°------------------.... -----
The applicant's father, George Engberg, was in
attendance. 6. John Engberg - 3032 County
~ The Comprehensive Pian designation for this erea
was discussed. Zero lot itnes were dlscusaad.
Comnissloner Warren stated that she is very hesi-
tant to rezone to R-2. Commissioner Glazer s!nted
that he feels that 1f the request is eFproved, the
zero 1ot line concept wauld almost be obllgaLed ta
pass.
~ • Breske/Mountin moved to epprove the
rezon ng from R-1 to R-2, to epprove the subdivision
of one 1ot into two and to adopt Resolution No. 14-81
as written (Resotutian 1s attached).
tiscussion on the Motion:
Gtazer: Is apprehensive of a zero 1ot line Ordinance.
Ae`~eels thet if the request is approved, they will be
lacked •into it.
8reske: Is 1n fevor of the subdivisAon~.and rezoning
ec3use there are otV~er lots in the area, atleast onR in
Mounds V1ew and across Caunty Road J that have duplexes
on them. Also, he has no problem with zero lot 11nes.
~ Off1c1a1 Rose stated that by approvinc~ this rezoning,
that the City would not be obligated into epproW ng a
zero tot iine Ordinance. Discussion took place on
zero lot lines.
Vote Nas taken by calling of the rall.
Road J - Resolution 14-81,
Rezoning R-1 to R 2) -
Minor Sub ivisiqn - (1 Lot
into 2) Two Fem11y Dre111ng
Cese No. 78-B1
4 ayes 2 neys (Glazer and M111er v~ted nay.) Motion Carried
Glazer steted thet he Chlnks as he
s at earl9er that 1t's aimost e passive
comnttment on zern lot lines. Also, that
he doesn't feel that becau5e there are other
RL2 in the v1c1n1ty 1s reason entiugh for~,the
rezoning.
M111er: Is in favor of the subdivision but
woufdlike to see the rezuning as e separDte
lssue.
The sppttcant, Roger Lamni, was in attendance. 7, Rnger Lammi - 7980 Groveland
OfPiclai Rose revlewed the proposal. Rtlad - rezoning I~l,to B-1
Barbershop, Case No. 76-e1,
Cortmtss}oner Warren asked if Mr. Lemni was aware that Resolution No. 15-81
this neighbophood is primarlly single fami~y. Mr.
Lamni said thnt he was. She also stated that this
lot on the Comprehensive P1an is designated as
residential.
~ Mr. Lemm1 ssated that hp feels that a barbershop would
be a tbt better for the neighborhoad than the exlsting
hause. Further thet it would be a smell shop.
Mounds View Planning Comnlssion Mey 6, 1981
Regular Pteetiag Pege Three.
--------------------------------------------^---~-^--------^---°-------------
Comnissio~er Breske esked if there wes eny reeson
~ beside5 personal preferenee of remodelln~ insteed
of loeating 1n an office buitding? 14r. Lamni staCed
that he would own the land. Further that he would
not be living there.
Offlcial~ROSe slrawed graphlcs of Che pr•oposal. Mr.
Lammi said that the architect mede the shop took as much
residential es he could.
Chelrperson Mountin steted thet she is concerned because
the ComprehensiVe Plan dlscoureges development alnng
Nlghwey 10 theL is outside of the City Canter.
Motion Second: McCarthy/Warren moved to deny the request
an eccep~iisolution No. 15-8;, with the last word in
the peraqraph of Che Znd Whereas he changed from area;
to loC; (Amended Resolution is attached).
6 ayes 0 nays Mot~on~Cerrled.
Those 1~ atteadance for this cese were: Fred Haas, 8. Marvtn H. Anderson- Approxl-
Vice Aresident, Marvln H. Anderson Construction; Jerry mately 7600 Hwy. 10., Mixed
Fostar, Kraus~Anderson; nnd Pet3 Yan Hauer, Generat Planned Unit Oevelopment
Counsel, Health Central. (R-1, R-3, B-2) Residential
Comnercial Development -
~ Mr. Haas made a lengthly presentation of the proposal. Resolutton No. 25-81
' He discussed the changes of the streets per Che ConsuTting
Engineeps request. He said that they plan to deve1op
the single famlly erea flrst, then the townhoines. Further
thet Che panding area would be developed et the same L•ime
the single famity erea is deveTop~d, He would 11ke to
divide the doubte lots and have zern 1at lines beceuse
of eesicr ftrtanctrtg. Also, Lhat Kraus-Anderson would
be developing t'he comnercial area.
Com~issloner McCartl~y stated that the Park Comnlssion
is concerned because there is no access Co the Park on
the northwesC corner ef' the proNosal. She feels that ~
they need anather entrance. Mr. Haas stated that they
presently heve four accesses to the park. Dlscusslon
in length took place regarding the pathways ta the
park. Glazer volced opposition ~regarding the dredging
of the pond and zero lot lines.
Jerry Foster, Kraus-Anderson, stated that they were
propasing a 72 untt residerttfal bu11d4ng for the e]derly.
Also a medtcal office building, retail offtce, office,
and sit down restaurant and across the street, two more
office buitdings. He seld that they are entering 9~to an
agreement, wtth Health CPntral to provlde a medlcal ofHce
bul1ding for the elAerly.
Comnissioner Warren asked why the resldential buildtng for
~
the elderly was plac~d ~n Highwey 10, She voiced concern
regarding the heatth of the senior cttlzens (t.e. noise,
fvmes, trafftc). COmmtsstoner McCarkhy stated that
nrlglnally they wanted that unit down b,y the ponding area.
. Pbunds View Planning Comnission May 6, 1981
Reguter Meeting Page Four.
------^--------------------°-----------°---------^------------°-----°------
Discussion took place in length regarding the
ptecement of the elderly housing unit. Mr. Haas
~', also stated Chat they would try to save as many
_. of the Oak trees as possible.
Pate Ven Nauer, General Counsel~ Heatth Central,
made a presentation of Health Central services.
He stated that Health Central operates Un1ty
Hospital. He discussed the HUD 202 Program.
Rossible signallzation that wi11 be needed, was
discussed.
Councilmember Forslund discussed changes that had
been made W the Concept Plen.
Consuiting Engineer, ~aniel Boxrud, diccussed the
chenges thnt had been made to the roads.
'~,
~'
FJptton/Sec~; McCarthy/M111er moved to accept
Resolutlon No. 25-81, with the foltowing addi±ion:
after the 5th Nhereas, add on to the end of ~2;
"w4th meJor parking lot of R-4 unit being moved
to west end of building causing building to be
moved more to south of 1ot. Also that a N6 he
added to read "relocate curb cut on the east building
located above County Rced I northerly to circle of
the bu11d1ng to offer additional stacking for the
drive-through. (Amended Resolution is atteched).
5 ayes i nay (Glazer ywted nay because 1) he is MoCion Carried.
not in agreement with the ponding
Plan, 2) is not in favor with the type
of elderly housing that t'~as been pro-
posed, 3) feels he d1d not have
,ufficient time to reso]ve his tM nking
on the entire pra~ect.
Comnisslon Recessed tor a Sreak: 9:U6 p.m.
Comrolssion re-convaned: 9:14 p.m.
Thos~ in attendance were: The appllcanC Mr. , 9.
Tyson, and Walter Butler, Walter Butler Company.
Offieiel Rose reviewed lekter from klalter Butter
C~mpany. Decibei levels were dlccussed in'length.
Mr. Walter Butler made a lengthly presentation on
different declbel levets. He talked about HUD
Stendards. He showed grapMcs with dii`ferent
decibel leveis. He stated that no4se would be
get:arated mosCly on the south side of the bullding.
He stated that the noise decibels would Ee mostly
less than 55 decibets. further thet there were no
windows mi the north side of the bulldinc~ and only
tvro doors which were required by the fire Marshal
to cut dpwn on the nolse. He stated thaL trucks would
Tyson Truck Lines, Inc., -
4841 Mustend Clrcle -
Conditional Use Permlt (Motor
freight Terminat, I-1)
DSstributlon and Warehuuse
Use, Case 77-81, Resotution
No. 16-81
Mounds V1ew Planning Comnission Mey 6, 1981
Regular Meeting fage Five.
----°--------°-----------°----------^----°-^°-°-----------------------------
be leeving end staggered throughout th~ day nnd
~" night. FurtNer that the Tyscn Trucks are oquipped
with spsclal mufYler deslgns to lessnn eome of the
notse.
Comnissioner Warren asked how many trucks would be
leevtng each day. Mr. Tyson stated that last Monday
15 trucks 1~fC the terminal. Further that the drlvers
show up at dlfferent times. Also that perking of trucks
is only needad nn the weakends. Mr. Tyson stated that
the loadlng dock is on the south side of the ~uilding.
Their terminal would be e 24 hour operation. It was
stated that the warehouse would be sprinkted.
~ scusslon iook plece regarding notification of the
mobile home residents.
She extending of tha noise wall was discussed.
htotinn/Second: Warren/Miller to accept'Rbsolutian No.
16-81 wlth the following additions being made under
Now, Therefore, bP it resolved, 92,a,1) Site Plan
be modlfled to extend the noise barrier so as to loop
around the west corner of the parking 1ot approximetely
18 feet. That A new k2,a,2) be inserted as follows:
the Conditional Use Permit is sub~ect to review should
~ the operation nf the fac111ty exaeed the established
PCA noise level stmndards. And further that the rest
- of the exhibits be renumbered because of iosertion. `
Further that the residents of Che moblle home Park be
notified of the publlc hearing. (Amended Resolution _
9s attached). '
4 ayes 2 nays (McCerthy and Breske voted nay). Natlon Cerried,
MeCart • feels thet they already
eve su ficient mea~s to enforce
sCandards and do not need ta put
tMs 9nto tha ~ortd9tional Use Permit.
Breske: Dbes nat feel its even
en~orceabl e.
The applicant, Greg S. Kelly, was in attendance. ltl. Chemclean Truck Ylash -
Officlal Rose showed a plan of the proposed building. Greg S. KettY - 2151 Mustang
Drive ~ Deyetopment revlew -
Sumnar.Y of Discussion: Variance (reduced setbaek -
30' given, 40' requlred)
- Mr. Keliy stated that there was a 30' setback on the Offtce/Warehouse Building -
north and a 40' setback on Mustang. Case No. 80-01, ~~solution
No. 17-81
- Tt~e 51ze of the building is 50' by 55', large enough
for the trucks.
- Mr. Kelly stated that if the doors on the building are
'~ turned that they could not meet the parking requlrements.
Ne seid thet he would 17ke to put in e smaller nicer
buiiding then to put 1~ a larger cheaper one. He telked
about future expansion of the buiidtng. Further th d
thay mix chemtcats together but have no phosphates.
~
~
Mounds W ew Plenning Comnisslon May 6, ]9R1
Regular Meeting, Pege Six.
------------°^---~--------°---°---------°--~--°------------------------
A1so, that the surpectin9 Lhey use is only one drum.
,.-., They uae powder end nn 1lquids.
i
Mr. We11y stated that he does not know how they can
redestgn the building to meet a?1 of the Codes.
Motto Second: Wnrren/M111er moved to approve the
var ance o 30' setbeck on the north property line
and to accept Resolution No~ i7-81 wlth the fo116Ming
chanpes: Whereex, peregreph 4, the appiicent "can" be
changed to"cannot". Nheress, par~egreph 5, ba eltminated.
After'ROw, Therefore, be it resoTved, Ehet the Mounds
View Planning Comnlssion "approves" the request etc.
Lest line under Be Tt Further Resolved to read;
approved with a 30' sethack to the north property 11ne
and be included to rePTect staff considerations.
(Amended Resolution is attached).
Dlseussian of the MotioO • Corcmissioner McCerthy
ee s t a s s not a hardship, that he could
purchnse la~d from another property owner.
Chairperson Mountin sWted that she feels that the
int shouid be af a more useable size with additional
width and depth.
Call of the vote:
5 ayes 1 nay (McCarthy vnted nay)
McCarthy stated that she feels that
no hardsM p has been demonstrated.
Mr. Charles West, representing E.T. Hughes Construc- 11
tlon Company was in aYtendance.
Motton Sewnd:.Mitter/McCerthy movea to accept
' so u on o. 18-81 as wr9tten. (Resolutlon is
atteehedj.
Discussion on the Motion:
Commlsslaner Marren ~sked if this would be Section 8
Housing. F9r. West steted that 9t woutd nct.
6 ayes 0 nays
OYficial Rose stated that the appitcant hed baen
present eerlier but hed left.
Motion Second: McCarthy/Warren moved to accept
• eso u on o. 19-81 es written. (Resol!~t1on is
attached).
6 ayes 0 nays
~ Motton Second: Warren/McCarthy moved to accept
iteso u on . 20-81 as wrf.tten. ~Resolutlon is
atteched).
6 ayes 0 nays
Nbtion Carrled.
E.T. Nughee Constructi~n
Company - 7624 'edgewood
Drive -'qevelopment revi~w -
4 unit residentiai building
Case No. 79-81, Resolution
No. 18-81
Motton Carrled.
12. 7.J.B. Companles - ~704 )
Highway 10, Develoament revlew - i
OPfice Build9ng - Case
No. 83 - f~soiutlon No. 19-81
hWtion Carried.
13. Narsted b Todd Constructton
5159-Longvlew Lhive - Deve1-
opment reyiew - Two~Fam91y
'0-vellings - Case No. 81-81
Resolutilon No. 20-81
Motion Carrted
,-
Maunds View Planning Commlssion Mey 6, 1981
Regular Fteeting
°---------------------------------°-~------------°
----~- Page Seven.
°---------^--^----^
Motton Second: Warren/McCarthy moved to aecept 14. Harstad 6 Todd Constructlon
eso ut on o. 21-B1 as written. (Resolution Appruxtmetely ~dgewoad Drive
~ is atteched). end Hillview Roed - Ma,~or
Subdiviston - Single Famity
6 eyes 0 nays DeYelapmenC - Case 82-81
Resolut!on No. 21-81
Motion CeNrled.
Pbtion Second: Harren/McCarthy moved to accept 15. Heretad & Todd Cnnstruction
eso u on o. 22-81 es wriEten. (Resolution 5169 Lonflview Drive - Ma~or
is etteched). Subdivlsion - Cambinetlon
Rdsidential and Comnerc~lel
6 ayes 0 neys. Development - Case No. 84-81
Resolutlon No. 22-81
Motion Carried.
The appllcant was not in attendance. 16. James 8. Jackson - 2935
Highway 10, Rezoning {(~1
Motlan Second: Warren/Milter moved Lo accept to R-3) Medium Denslty
~so uC on o. 24-81 recomnandin denlal, as Residentlal - Cese No. 73-81
wrltten. (t~laolution is attached~. R~solutlon No. 24-81
6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrted.
tbtion/Second: McCarthy/Viarren moved to contlnue
.. 17. Extension of Meeting Time.
~
~
~ the meeting untit the end of the agenda.
~"~
6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried.
The appllcant, Mr. Elgenheer, and Ed Hance, 2401
Lowry Avenue, Minoeapolls, were in atCendanca.
Mr. Hance said that Ehe proposal has been arnund
for three years and he feels an action shouSd be
taken. Further that this proposal has substantlally
higher ground than other proposals that have been
deferred.
0lscussion took plac_e__on the fotlowing:
Ordinance a01. Protected wetlands.
Length of t~me that the proposal hes been around
Motion Seeond: Mauntin/McCarthy moved to accept
eso ut on -81 as written.
1&. Rrbert Eigenhner (Mounds
View Square P1aC) 2381
Covnty Road I - Ma~or
Subdivislon - Singe Fam97y
Residentlal - Case No. G5-80
Resolution No. 23-81
dscusslon on the Motion:
Gtazer: stated that thls proposal began befoPe Ordinance
went into'effect.
t ; hbtion Second: Warren/Glazer moved to delete the
~~/ anguage n esotution 23-81 and to insert new
lenguage. Mntion withdrawn - Motlon
out of order.
;a>
;_
~
,r-~
(ti/
hbunds View Pienning Comnisslon May 6, ~9U1
REgular Meeting __Page Eight.
° ,.---------------------------°---°--------------°---°°-----° ~-~--~-
Vote wes laken by cetling of the roll on the
origlnel motion.
2 eyes 3 rteys 1 ebstention hbtlon Fe11s.
(Glazer, Narren end M111er voted nay,
Breske ab~teined).
Motion Second :Warren/Glazer moved to accept
esolut an 23-e1, to deleta the lenguegc and
lnserE new lenguage, beceuse tiie dete of app11-
cetlon wes we11 before eny Wetland Ordinance wes
fineilzed. (A copy of the rdwritten Resolution
Ss atteched).
3 ayes 2 neys 1 ebstsntton Motlon Carried.
(Mauntln snd McCarthy voted nay).
~M~cGbrth,~~ Feeis that ow the advice of
s~af~ and Council, she does nat feel khis
actlon is appropriate at tMs time.
Mountin: Cancurred.
Commissioner Glazer left at 11:40 p.m.
Those ir aLta~dance were Ed Doiiatalle, Joe Ryan, 19. Donntalle's Supper flub
7G99 Knollwood. 2900 Hlghway 10 ~ Oevelopmont
Review - Change 1~ Use -
Official'ROse reviewed staff consideratlons. Mr. Case No. fi6-H1 - Resolutlon
I~yan staCed tha~ in connec Non with the remodeling No. 26-81
they are contemplating another exit to be constructed.
Atso, that the 6uilding ai11 be sprlnkled. A ladtes
wash room fac111ty w111 be lnstelled on t,he mein 1eve1.
The bottle shop wi11 be converted lnto a lounge.
Mr. D6nate1le st.ated that they w111 submit a 1eLter
to the f,ity regarding the future perking lmprovement
property purchase.
Discusslor Wok place on the 3 points in'Resotut~on
Nn. 26-81 that wou7d be required in the Development
Agreement.
~btion Second: McCarthy/Werren moved to eccept
R'eso u on o. 26-91 as written. (Resotution is
ottached). 6 ayes 0 nays
hbtlon Second: Warr~n/McCar~thy rtwved to eccept
so u on~. 5-el as wrltten. (R6salution
is atteched).
6 ayes 0 nays
Mot:ion Cerried.
20. Tsolution No. 5-81 -
recommeAdetion to approve
Shorevlew Canprehensive Plen.
Motlon'C~rrled.
Motion Second: Glezer/McCarthy moved to re-evaluete 21. mmprehensive Plan
~~ V1ew,ato dlrecLestafPSandrNorthwest Assocletes to Poputetlon Pro,~ections.
re-evaluate the pro'ecttons to the yeer 2000 as
stated in thc 198U Comprehensiva P1en.
6 ayes 0 neys
(Aotion Carriad.
r~. ,
Mounds Yiew Pianning Comnisslon Mey E, 1581
Pegular Meeting Pege Ntne.
---------- °..... ° °---° °-°-----°----°--°°-^.._.......-°------° °°.
6 ayes 0 nays
^ouncitmember Forslund lefC et 11 58 p.m.
~ Motioa Second: McCarthy/6lezer movad to diroct
ste o n oren the Beyport Uevelopers of the
setbnck requ) rements for Beyport.
22. Sat6ack requtrements for
eayport Acres,
Motion Carrled.
Perks/Recreetion end Forestry Oirector Anderson
revlewed the 511ver View Park Master P1an. Ne
s teted that the park erea was 51.9 acres. He
showed graph9c of Pien and changes that had been
made tn the Plan. tie stdted that the Park is
1n the Center of the City. Further that 30
ecres wi11 be active park and 42 acras witl be
open space. Park enCrance off of Bronson was
dlscussed.
23. Silver View Park Mnster
Plen
Metion Second: Mountin/Nbrren moved to advis:
e.. Y ounci] that they have revlewed the
concept plan for S11ver View Park and recammend
epproval .
fi ayes 0 nays
Mountin asked to discuss the Planning Commissioq's
~ role 1n park development guideline at the next agenda Z4•
~ session as requested by the Parks, Recreation & for-
.,,~,. estry Directnr.
Comnlssion comneoded staff for che preparation af
this lengthly agenAe and 9nformation.
Motian Second: Mountin/McCarthy moved to have a
eso u on rewn up whlch reads as fo7lows:
Whereas, the City Councli is reviswing Ordinance
303 eoncerning the parking of dlesel trucks an
~ residentiet proper~ty, and
Whereas even newer and more quiet diesel trucks
eng4nPS produce 80 to 83 dba at ideling speed.
(reference Walter 8utler, Presidnnt Waltar Butier
Company) and,
Wherees, the average set6ack between t4ounds View
homes is less than 30 feet and this noise wt11 not
Ce su~stantially descipeted,
Therefore be 1t resoived, that the Pianning
• Comnisslon recomnands W the Ctty Councll thet the
proposed Ord"nance 3Q3 permltting the pnrking of
trucks In residentlai areas not be epproved.
Motiorr Carried.
tlscuss past cauncil actions
and next agenda.
,,,. 3 ayes 3 nays (Warren, M111er and Glnzer voted MoCionaFa~i~s~rjor )eck of
~ nay?. ~'•
~~„~ G azer: Should be hendled by Etected
a c n1s. Trucks to him are not as
dis wpttve as the publlc bus system.
Warren: She respects the truek iesue.
, ~ r~ ' ,: ..1~ ~~ =..f, ~ ~..~vi~" 5 :~~ ... .... .~.. .
f+bunds 41ew Pienning Comnisslon Mey 6, 19R1
~ Regutar MegCing Pege Ten.
W~rH°n! Daes not feel thet this matter is
~~ for Lhe Plenning Camnission,
R~sr;)
M111ar: Cou1d not see no perking of trucks but
couTd-see xome 11m1teilons.
IL~was alaied that th~ meeElng regerding the
AiPport lssua would be et 7:3o p.m. on Mey 4. ~ ~
1981.
Attendants at 4/i6/81 Agenda Meeting: 26~ Chairnlen!S Report
k
~ Josey Nerren
Jean Milier
~ Sharon McCarthy . ,.
Ken 8reske
Bob Glazer
Peg Mountin
~ Steve Rose ,
~
,,
Attendants at 4/22/81 A9enda MeeEing: ,' ~ .
~. ,
;. :
sharon MccArthy ~ ``.
Jean Mtlter `
Bob Glezer , ' _;;a a... ' ,
Peg MounCin _ ,
SteVe Rose ' ` '
M~mbers absent:
,~;'.
~ ~<:x ;~' t- f : I
Ken Breske , ' ~
, , ; r ,
Josey Warren ~ ~ t °~
, , , .. J . { .tF '. ~~ \ ... f c._. ~
Motion Second: McCapthy/Breske moVe to ~ 26, Ad~oUNnment, ,.
, ;,
-~. ~
a ourn e meeting. .
r ~ ,~ .
,, .
.~ „~ ,
The meeting was.a8~ourned at 12:38 a.m.' '" ' .~~ ~ ~;`
6 ayes 0 neys , °~ a' ,
~
_ „
3 , .
, ~
,.
~. ,
,
~
.
J
~ ~
, ~
~ ,
RJ. ~ ' , ..1
1.I Yi „ '
.,
'y' ,~ ,
\' .... .. :q.. . .. .
~ . .~_,,
h} , , .. .. . .
~
~
.,
'
-; ~ .,
,~,~
,:
% , .. ~. , ., x ~.
~
, ,. .
~
:~
'
..'t .. ,.
_...
:
' '
.. ~
,. " (. ,i.. .~ ...,,
~
'
~
; . .
, r ~.
' . .
: ..
.
Y.
, i :.
., , . ,
~ , .
. ,,
.' ,
, .. - ,,
_;
~ .:'n~
~ ,. ~. ~
; ~ ' ~ -~ , . ...,. ~ ~~ ~ .,. .. . i
',-
. :, ' ' ,
- , ' ~ ~r~ ~.~.. ~
` ,.
.';:':,,'~ -n, ,
,;
,
' . ,.
. .. ~ _.
~ ~
, . - ~~ ,
r
~
-: ~ , .
.:. ,- ,
,
.
r~,.~,
, u.
ii.:
r;: ~ ~ _ . .. . .. .~ „ .. ,
.:.
,' .. ' ~' , - ~
~~ .r
w.~.....-_.....n,.....r.n.w..u.~~.Y..•..^••n..
.._....~r-.....av;.yry.....ie~umux....an:s
d..~.u'.zS'v.v.«...vmvn.~r.~~..,..t......c .
t~ree4l~i.'~5k~:i~.'nuv'L:l:r.y3.tti;lilJrtraSiJae,r ~citifd'
.,,; , ..
f,~)
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNINr, COMMTSSSON
RESOLUTSON N0. 14-81
CITY OF MOUND5 VIFW
COUNTY OP~RAM5EY
STnTE OF MINNCSOTA
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL RGGARDIN6 PLANNING CASE 78-8].
~~
~
WH~REA3, the Mounde View Planning Commiasion has reviewed the
application of John Engbarg for approval of a minor eubdivision, rezoning
from R-1 to R-2 and duplmx developmen4:~ and,
WIiEREA3, the Planning Commiseion has receivad and raviewed
seporta from City 9tafE end coneultnnte regardinq the requegt an3 ite
applioation to the Mounde View Municipal Codej and
WHEA~AS~ the existing and proposed lots all meet or exceed mini-
mt~r~ zoning cnds requiremante~ and
WHEREA3~ County Road ~T is cpneidered a'minor arterial wi~:h an
R-2 buffer b~inq appropriate for this locationj
NOW~ THEREFORE, 6~ IT RESOLVED that the. Muunde View,Planning
Commianian recommdnda approval of the requeat by John Engberg to eub-
divide the lot in q~estion into 2 lots, rexona one af the lots to R-2,
two-family and build a two-family residential dwelling on the R-2 lot.
Development agr~ement exhibits to inolude the fallowinge
1) aite plan ` '
2) plans and apecificxtions
3) qradinq and drainage plane - Reao.lution No. 983
4) Reeolutton No. 983 seaurtiy depoeit
5) Devolopment seouriky deposit
Aftopted tlxis 6th day of May, 1981.
ATTESTs
a rpereon ~
~
(SEAL)
E'tI ng an ..on ng ~ c n
~ ai~T;o;. a.. ...
~•'
~~
ti./ ATTE$T t
(SEAL) ~
`~.J
MOUN08 VIEW PLANNSNd COMMIBSION
RESOLUTION N0. 15-81 ~
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTX OE RAMSG~
SmATE OF MINNESOTA
~
RECQMMSNDATION 'PO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING PLANNING CASE 76-8.1
WFIEREAII, tha Mounds View Plnnnlnq Comm3asion hae reviewad the
application oE Rogor Lartuni regardin9 the rezoniny of tha propoxty
loaated at 7980 Groveland Road from R-1 to B-1~ and
WHEREA3, tha said'r.equest for businese zoninq is ineanaietant
with thu comprehoneive plan update diraction whiah designal-os medium
denaity reaidential as the appropriate usa for thls
NOW, THEREFORR, BC ZT RE60LVED that the Mounds View planning
Commiseion recommends to the City Council that ~he request for rezoning
fcr tho proparty'locatad at 79d0 Grov~land Road f.rom R-l,.,single family
to B-1, neighborhood bueinesa, be denied.
Adoptad thia 6th day of May, 1981.
J
1
,
~;
~ i;
~ui~cl:~ng an on ng 0 a a
a
~ '
,_._: ::.. ........ ... . . . , _ .
........ .
,~~~ . .,:..,.. . . ,.. , . „ .;
,/~ MOUNbB VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
~ RESOLUTION N0. 16-81
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR TYSON TRUCI( LINES
WIiEREAS, the City has reviewed all requ3red Aubmisaion
materials from the developerj and
'AHEItEAS, all zoning aode requirements have been metj and
WH~REAS, the Cit,y cousulting enginaer has reviewed thia
development proposal and submitted a letter ~f approval aubject Co
conditions stated in the letterj and
WHEREA~, all developmen~ will occur abovo the 880 'to~oqraphl.c
contour elevntion which, per the Mounds View Industrial Park Develop-
ment Agreemant No. 79-29, is tlie edge of developable landj and
WHEREASo ecreening of the adjacent reaidential dietriat has,
f~, been provided thus meeting conditionnl use raquirementei
ti""~J NOW, THEREEORE, BE IT AESOLVED that the Mounds View P1¢nning
Commisaion reaommends approval of Tyson Truck Linea' request to the
Mounda View Cicy Council with the following consideratione:
1. A conditional uae permi~ be qranted for khe motor freight
terminal in an I-1 induatrial diatrict.
2. A devalopment agreement be drafted to includ4 the £ollow-
ing proviei,ona:
a) Exh:bita
1) sit9 plan tnodified to include extontions of
the noiae barrier along the west corner 18'
soutih
2) building plans and specifications
3) conditional use permit raquirement of a re-
view process for the Pollution Control AgEncy
noise level standards
4) legal deacription
5) grading and drainage plan
6) aecurity deposit for grading, landacapinq,
paving and atripinq
~•
.,... . . .. . ,.. " ; r:<'.4 :i.. ., ,. ~, ;~ .~., ..., : ~ .. ..
~
~ ,.„.,, .._ .
; ~ ..7...:.. ,. ,.... -. .~.... .,. .
......~..:r.. .....,.~,..._ ........i..,,...._..
. . .
' RESOLUTION N0. 16-81 '
~ Paqe 2 1
~
~
~iya/' I
BE; IT FURTHER RESOLVED thati the Mounda View Planning Commiseion
reoommenda that tha ndtiae of the oonditional use permit..hearing'
inolude the xesidents oE tH'e trailor park,
~:~ Adopted this 6th day of May~ 1981. "
,,
~.
~`
. ATTE6Tt ~~
~
~.
, , ' c~-Fa~peraon
i
(SEAL)
, ,
: ~,- :
i._ ' . '.,Y ~, .~,. ..
f
~.
~ . . 1}.~ . . f.
~
.
J,. ~!.?
j
. . { ~ .~~
,f r,. „li ..
,t ' , •
., 1 ( ~~~il. ".~ ' <~~ ".
. ! ' .1.'. ~ 1 V ~, !I ~ . .. ~.
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ f ' ~ '' ~~ ~ su ~ ng an Zon ng o a ~~
~~ ~ , ,~, ~
4 < r•
~
~i
1
, i
H *.i ~ i.~ z
~ ~ ,..
.~
~
~ ~ ~
~ i
x
~
y
t ~
~
~ 4
~ y`1
(
:
. .\
1 '. t r' t a
k ., ~,
~~ ~.. A.-.l
-~i % 4r1 e e ~. ~ h r ~ ,
.. Y ~ ;
[
y~
~p. ~~ q P~ ., t i ,' V ' 'r F v ~ ~ [ C ~4' ~J tt
i .. ~~,' ~",f
~a .z r r~ ,'It'
~ .
rf ~.
h~ x '
.
~
{,
)
.: cr
ri '~ m~.
~ g- 1 + .'
1
~~'..
(
"M~~
~ I .
,
"'
~ ~ t ~
~,
1
) ~
~
~
, i~
L
I
J l} ~
;
3 ~r
, i '°q 'rv i~~~~ #h~~ ..Mi t . y'~{y '~iF `4y
~1~
r
f ¢ k ~~ ft ~.a Y e ' .~
~
4
~ , ty F I~ 4 j$~ t~!~ "
„tW- i~f ~'~ ~~. 14
~-~
a 7J 1 J ~
~. s'~} i .
~ ^ ~
~
'
~
~ I
~;! 1 . ~!i
t'CC' 91 b
1 ~ ;, ° p~f~k s ax ~,L ~
~ G R 31 ~t i~P ~~i i~ yr '~
}j } t
y y ~~
~
a Yi ~{ ~ p~sy
~
~
,
(
1 '
k~§t? ~
~ I~' .~ ~ray~ pt,'
r~,, ~.xF
~
~ ~f x~}
~~~1~ ~y x ~Eo4 .' '~i a ~~~ Y~{'~' '
.
~
~~
y
t
x
f ~' '}iA Jw 1 ~ Pe i Z ~,.
+
~
~ ~ Y,y~ ~''.Fatm i~ I+ a H i
f
~~
~
tf
'~k `.~
- (~
,~
~ y~h
~ ~
~
1 i .~1.
~ 1
~~~r; ~1 (
q
'
ll
'~
t~
i
~
i1
~
9
F
t
~
-, , ~ !
~
t
,
~ ~,,;
~p ~
.
,r , ~ ~ r
~
~ , , t ,
,
„~ ~ ._
~ ~ ~ ~,~
~ ~ a ~~
~
~~
~r ~ ~ ~ ~ `
~
fl ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ , _ ~
,~~
~
<r~
I 1 f ~ ~ 1! i 1
+~ 1 ,, ~,
~
l1`4'r
l
~
A~l ~~Vi~t
AT~ ~
a ~
~ „
~ ~ ~~"~ :1 a Y~; r ~~f
~ _. i rx ~ l ~i ~i ...
t
~
y
eF:
.~
~
1
.`" , ,
'
t " 'a < t "^
' ~
~ ' ~~ ~
y
.:
+
(:
Ir= , _ ~ ~ ; ",;'.t' - ~ ..... .., , t ... kh „ i
~ ~`'i
.~ ~ . ~ ,. . ~r ` ~
~
. . ~' . . :i~
..
.n.
: 1 .
~~
' lj:~ ~J:. ' ' e
~
.
.
'
~
.~
..
v ~
. . ~ ..~ . ~ ' .
.~. '. . ~~ . . . ~,i.: . .
i ~
.. .~.~: .. . .~': 'A~
~
I
j .A ~, 1
'
_ , ,.
g ~
` ~
~ i.
f .: S ~ , i~a
.F'f ~~~ y ~ , ~ .
~ . ~ 4 / ~ ~ i . •
r.
~
~~ ~~
~ ~
~
f
. ~
~ ~ ( .
'
' ~ t
. ' ~ , ~ ' ~ ... , a~
~~~~~ ~
~
t~ ~ ~ ~ 3
, t
~
' ~ ;~~kr , .. V
~ . ., ~ i '
~:
.~' 'I ' ~
~r , . ' . . .
' . , ~
, , ` ' .
~
u tz ;
.~
i
'.1TF~":'L'M!«`?C:EY...SM:y.4~:..:+~^.,wi.,G,t~.~e:::" ....~,,.~...: F, ~......:~.. ~.' ,. ...,,
~I~d.il;.3i.~k..~-:a.~ .. .. ,. ~.. .. ..»« ~
..w ~,~... .«.n, i~i,r..w.tv. r~u~xk'..:+~:fa ~,~,.. .~
. ..
~, ,
MODND'S VIEW PLAN"r1INt7 CODIh1IS6I0ti
~;. R~SOLUTTON N0. 17-81
L CITY OF MOUNOS VIEW ~
COUNTY Ofi RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDIN~ PLANNING CASE 80-81
WIiERCAS, the Mounds View Planning Commie~ion hae reviewed the
applioation of Greg S. Kalley reyuesting the conetruction oC an
office/warehouso lauilding at 2151 Muetang Drivei and
~ WHEItEAS, the epp.licant has applied fcr Uoth devel.opment approval
and a lp' rear yard setbaok variance~ and
WHEREAB, the prop~sed devalopmerit fall.s under the I-1 industrial
clasoificatiom and is thorefore conaistant with the land use and znni~q
of thg area~ and
WHEREA3, given the existing lot dimeneions, the applicaht cannot
place a reaeonably sizod buildinq on the lot and stay wi.~hin netback
requirementet
.
~ NOW, TfiEREFORE, HE ST RESOLVED that the Mounde View Planning
~ Commission approves the request f.or a 10' rear yard setbeak varianqe
due to an irregular sk~aped lotj
~ BE IT FU7~THER RESOLVED that~the Mounds View Planning Commieaion
recommenda approval of the develc,pment proposal eubmitted by,Greg S.
Kelley to constiruct an office/warehouse building at 2151 Muatang Driva
as presented. , , _,
Adopted th?a 6ch day of May~ 1987.. ~
~ ATTEST: . ~ ~ ~~ ~
'4 r a r'"ll~peraon _ ,
(SEAL)
` ~ ` Bu nq an 2on ng a a
,
~~./'
., , , ~ ; ' ., ~ ~ , . ~ ' , .r.
t
.. :~.uN~. .~l.:.i_._4.a:!.:.:.:1. ~~~4F.r~'~;:..~X;xu:..i~~•..~ S+t1.1~t~.Yi~~^'. 4,t.t.~~N~41.Ixi..r1>4.1i':~ytF.r.\P.~~:.i.•
ti~~ya~ ~Fyi~~w t.rr ... a.n. m.a e..rv ... .. ..
~
,. ~~
•.. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
REAOLUTION N0. 18~81
CZTY OF MUUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
.~ S7'ATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RE:COMM~NDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPM~NT
REQUEST SY E. T. hUGH~S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
;~'~ WHERF7AS, the Mounds Viow Planning Commisaion has r9viewed the
application of E. T. Hughas Conscructian Company regardin'g the devel-
opment of a 4-unit buildinq at 762A Edgewr,od Drive= and
WHEREAS, the City consulting engineer ha3 raviewed thia proposal
auci esunmicceu a lecier ox approvai~ and
I WHEREAS, tho propoaed development is conaiatant Wi~h the land
` uae ae designated in the Comorehenaive Land Use Mapj
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE80LVED that the Mounds VieW P1anRitfg
~.-~ Comml.ssion racommenda approval of the request by E. T. Hughea e'onetruc-
, tion Company to construct a 4-unit residantial buiidinq aC 7624 Edgewoo$
~J/ Drive with the following aonsidesationes
1) The reoommandations, as outllned in the lettar from the
consultinq engineer, ba adhered ta.
2) A development agreement be drafted to include the Lollow-
ing provisions:
~ a) site plan
sb) plans and apecificatior~a
c) Reaolution No. 983 requiromenta and 7-yeac~aeaurity
, d) S~te aecurity covering coete for paving,, etriping~
ourbing, plantinq, grading, and drainege.
Adopted this 6th day of May~ 1981.
ATTESTt
~
(SEAL)
C1n rpereon
u n~ an on ~yq o a
- ._ _ ~ . ... ._., . ._..... . . ..
_ ,_ -: -...:. _-.,.-.:. .: . _, - . ,
,K :,:,_
,.
~~ MUUNDS VIEW PLADINING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION I10. 19-81
' CITY OF MOUN~S VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF,MINNF.SOTA
RE90LUTION RECOMMENDING DEFEFItAL OF ACTTON ON
THE OFFICE BUILDING DEVELOPMEN'P PROPOSAL OI' T.J.H. COMPANIES
WHEREAS~ Thomas J. Budzynski, president of T.J.B. Companiee,
has applied Eor and requested approval to aonetruct an offl.ce buildingl
and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has adopted Ordlnance No. 301
antitled, "An Ordinance Prohibiting Development of Private Wetlande un
an Interim Sasis"; and
ru;,~nraw. ~ni,y „r~tin,nne qtAtea that nu authority for new bqildinq
development shall be permitted during the lnterim period~ and '
WHEREAS, tlie site of the proposed development ie located in part.,
n or totally within a designated wetland and ia subject to tiie regulatione
~~ of Ordinance No. 301i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the MOUttds View Plarining
Commlesion rocommenda deEerral of action on this propoeed $evelopmenti'
until Ordinanea No.~d01 ia rescinded and no longer in et:ect.
Adopted this 6th day of May, 19B1.
ATfiESTt ' .. ~ , '
C a rperaon
(SEAL)
u ng an on ng a a ,
~
...... ..M-PWite .n.. '. .
,.~n.. .. ...:L .~....,...i....v... ..... ....
,. ... ~.. . . ~ ~ . . ~r. ... _., ~~ . ~.. .. ......~~, ..,
MOUNDS VIEW PLANN7~G COMMSSSION
~ RESOLUTION N0. 20-91
CITY OF MOUNllS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OE MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DEFERRAL OF ACTION ON THE DUPLEX
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL OF HARSTAD-TODD CONS^aRUCTION COMPANY
WHEREA3, Haxatad-TOdd Construction Company hae epplied 19r
and requested approval tio construct a duplex residentia2 unit
located at 5159 Longview Drivei and
tatiEREA3, the City of Mounds View ham adupte8 Ordinenae A301
entitlad, "An Ordinance Prohibiting Deveiopment o! Priveie Wetlend on an
Interim Banis"~ and
WHEREAB, this Ordinan~e etetee that no authority Por new
building dovelopment shall be permitted during tha interim
periodJ and
WHEt2EAS, the eite of the propased duplex in loaated in par't
or totally ~vithin a designated wetland and ie subjeat to the
~~ r.egulations of Ordinance #301f
`~ NOW~ THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVG~ thut thG MOUnde View P2anning
Commiseion recommenda deEerral of action on thia proposad devolop-
ment until Ordinance #301 ie rescinded.
Adopted th3s 66h,day of May, 1981.
ATTESTt ~ ~ '
Cha rperaon
~ (8EAL1 ~ ~ ~ " ' ~
u nq nn 2nn ng o p
V
~
~r~s e..:,,~. ~ ~~~i:,, .~~:~u,
..,n, B:~ ~ ~. . ,.:.~+w. ..... .< x .,.,r,..~.r +,.;~..,
,,_
,~.
,~
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING ~UMMTSSION
~„~ RG90LUTTQN N0. 21-81
~ CITY OC MOUND5 VILW
~~ COUt3TY OF RAMSEY
BTATE OF MINNESUTA
RL"80LtlTION RECOMMENDING p6FERRAL OL' ACTION ON THE MAJQR
6tlgDYVIBI~N REQUEST OF HARSTAD-TODq CONSTRUCTION COMBANY
(GREENFTELb ESTATES)
"~ WtlEREA9, Naratad-TOdd Conatruation Company has applied for
+ and requeated approval to subdivide three lote into 24 in the
epproximate area of Edgewood Gri.ve and Hiilview Poadi and
WH~REA9, @he Git•y of Mounda V3ew has edopted Ordinance 9301
j „ etttitled, "An OYdinanoo Prohiblting Development of Private Wetlands
~n en Ynterim easis"~ snd
;~j
~ WNERCAB, thia Ordinance atatea that no plats or aubdivisione
,~ of private lande ehall be permitted during the interim pAr,.lodr and
WHERL*A9, the aite of the proposad majos eubdiviaion le
~ located in part or tot:ally within a designated wetland and is
eubjet:t to the regulstiona oE OrdinanqQ R3G1~
__ NOW, THEREFORE~ BE IT RE90LVED that the Mounds View Plahning
Commieeion recommends'def.erral of action on thie propoaed major
subdivision untll Ordinanca N301 is rescinded and no lonqer in e£Eect.
Adopted thia 6th day o£ May, 1581.
,~ ,~ ATTESTs ~
, Cha rperaon
~i, ~, ,
(SGAL) ~ ~
;"•'
, Bu ing an on ng c a. ~
~ ' ~ ~ ;,
1.~r/ „ ~ _.. , ~ . , ~ ' ~
~ ~ ',.~ , _ _, ~.',,. . , ~ . .~
.. . - ~ . . . .., ~.,,,....~... .,.~
. i_...~ .N.:Aaa . ~[5 r~~ln~ .~:n5~-+-i~:l'.r n:. M N.ll~.~ ~IV.:A. +~.YY:1 ~LL. ~ v.rr.n~a-,.51 .. ...:~.e.~ xrn n v. i:.:. ,~I'e~~F-:~~ { ~
}n<^~.rfl' ~ ,(.~fr%
+4)itFa~k..,. ..
~
~ MOUND3 VIEW PLANNINCi COMMI3EION
AEi~OLUTION H0. 22-D1
CITY OF MOUND3 VYFW
'~+~~ COUNTY OF RAM9CY
STF~TE OF' MINNESOTA
S2E30L~TION RECOMM~NDING DEFEF.RAL OF ACTION ON THE MAJOR
SUBDIVISION REQUFBT OF HARBTAD-TODD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
(MARTY'S MANOR!
~
~+.r/
WHERF..AS, [iaratad-TOdd Constructinn Company has applied for
and requested'aQproval to subdivide one lot into 13 in the appruximate
area of Wooclale Drive and Longview D.rive; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance N301,
entitled "P.n Ordina~tce Prohibiting Development of Private Wetland~
on an Interim Basis,"; and
, WIiGREAS~ ~hia Ordinance skates that no plats or subdiVisian9
a: pr;.~ata lau~y sl~ail Le pesini'tted durinq the ihterim peri~d7 and
WHEREAS, the eita o£ the proposed major subdiviaion ia lo-
oaEed in pa~t or totally witf~in a designated wekland and issubject
to the regulations of Urdinance #301j
NOW, THERLFORE, BE~I!f RESOLVED that the MoundR View Planning
Commisaian recommanda deferral of action on thie proposed ma3or
eubqiviaion until Ordiaance 9301 ie resciuded and no longer in
effoct. ~
Adopted this 6th day of May, 1981. "
~ , • i~
ATTEST: ' ' ~ ~
,
' , , . ,. ~ . '„
(SEAL) ~ ,
'~
„~~..:
~ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNiNt; ~OMMI95IpN
~N RrsoLUTZON No, 23-&1
CI'1'Y OF MOUNDS VIL•'W
~ COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RE90LUTION R~COMMENDIN6 ACTION ON THE MAJOR SUBllTVI8I0N
ti~QUEST OF RODCRT ET.GENEER (MOUNDS VIEW SQUARC PLAT)
;1
,,.
i'y,
i,
~~
WHEREAS, RobQrt Eigenear has applied for and reque~ted approvai
to subdivide one lot into 20 at County Rnad t and Edqewood Drive; and
WHEREAS, the appllcation far. subdivision was submitted to the
City of Mounds View on September 26, 1980, and to the Plannirty Commis-
sion for review ahortl}• thereafterj and
WHEREAS, the City oE Mounds View has adcpted O.rdinance #3C1
cntitle3; !'Pn ?r.~?{.n~n~e arohibitina Dovelonment of Private Weblan3s
on an Int.aiim-Basie° Witl~ an efPcctive date o£ March 19, 1~JBlj 'and
WHEREAS, the site oE the propoaed mzjor'subdivision is located
partly w~thin a designated wetland and mostiy outside the wetland;
flOW, TNER~FORE, HG IT~R~SOI,VGD that the t4ounds View Planninq
Commission racommend to the City Council that this requeat be coneider,ed
with tha followin9 provieions: ~
1) Platting be allowed only on that portion of land not
des~gnated as "wetland" by Ordinance k301j and
~
2) Development be a~lowed on plattable land.
Adopted this 6th dag of May, 1981.
ATTEST:.
'..
~ , _ CTiairperson
~.
t '1
~~./
-~~h-iiaw. ~~...n ....,.....~ vv_~. .......,i„ i .,. _~~.,~. ~ w..;.A~s . 5. a.u,. v ,t~ ..!'u a.. 4W.1~<3: ., ~..ilt~ ~ .
* .S~hY~C! ,.'-lg:
,<,. _..
,.., .
MOUNDu VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 29-81
CITY OF MOUNDS VIGW
"~~~ COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RECOMMENbATION TO CITY COUNCIL RE.^~ARDING PLANNING CASE 73-81
(REZONING :'ROM R-1 TO P,-2)
WHEREAS, the comprehensive plan states thatf "the prodominant
land uae within District 6 is single family" and "in keeping with
the exiating character of the naiqhborhood, it ie recommended that
the majority of the remaining undeveloped land is Diatrict 6 be
developed as single 'family homes"j and
WHEREAS, a subatantial. portion crf the property proposed Eor
rezoning ia abutted by single family homee; and
WHEREAS, the proparty has rreaent accose limitations except
From U.S. Highway 10 so as to make a divided zoning impracticaii and
WHEREAS, accass from U.S. Highway 10 is undeairable from the
atandpoint of eaf~ty and the orderly flow of traffic on the thorough-
fare{ and
O WHEREAS, placemant of a multiple d•rielling unit versus a eingle
dwalling unit along U.S. Hiqhway 10 would expuse more people to traffio
and in effeat usd them to abaorb nagative impactr and
WHEREAS, an overwhelming majority of the immAdiate naighbors
petitioned for single family use over other usqs for this propertyj
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commisaion recommends tk~at the requested xezoninq be denied.
Adopked this 6th day of May, 1981.
ATTESTs
C a rpersun
(SEAL)
u nq an on ng c a ,
'~'1
~e..~
s;,;,~,~,..~,.._ ,. . .,.. , . ~ .. . , ~ , , ,.. . . ... ,
ry'.~R.. .., ' . _ _ .-_
MOUNDS VIGW PLANNING COMMIS5ION
R~SOLUTION N0. 25-81
~ CITY 0~' MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSCY
STATF. OF MINNGSOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING At'PROVAL OF SILVER LAHE WOODS .,
DEVELOBMENT GTAGE FOR A PLANNED UNIT D£VELOPMENT
WHC[iCAS, the Cf.ty of Mounda View has reoeived an applicatiion
for a plannad unit development called Silver Lake Woodej and
WHER~AS, the City and the Owncre, bt & E Realty Company and
Kraus-Anderson Incorporated, had enh.ered into a plannEd unit develop-
ment concept stage agreement on Septamber 22, 1980t and
WHEREAS, tLe applicant, Marvin H. Anderson Construction Co.,
Eor the ownera, has aubmitted the information for khe development staye
for a~lann3d unit 3evelopment pursuant to the direction of the planned
unit developmettt concept stage; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the
aubt~tieaions ot the applicanLj an3
- Wt{EREAS, *,ha Mounds View Planning Commisaioii recommends the
~ followi,ng ohanqes or requirements~based on their re,viewc
1) Commarcial Area Prontage Highway 10 to include only 8-2 (7Limited
susinesa District),uses;
,
2) Stelocate R=4 elderly mu7.tiple dwalling buildinq in a south-
east diraction movinq the parking far.ilities to the northwest
corner oPE9r.ing a better buEfer between the R-4 and the H-2
medical pzoposalJ
3) The zoad eaAement in the B-2 area above County Aoad T proposed
to be named Sunnyside ~'xtansicni
4) All parking apaces shall be 9-s by 20' minimumr
5) A Eeaaibility atudy be orderad and prepared for the City Council
foz the public hearing revtew of the develvpment stagej
@) R9looate qurb cut Por drive-through bank facilities on east
oYEice building above County Road 2 and integrate drive-through
v~ithin thc, siteJ and
WHGREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commisaipn ha:s received modifiad
preliminary plats on Apri.l 30, 7.981 and finds them in confortnancer
~,
~
,
_,,..,., ._._..,_,,. ,.._ ,, ~,..,.. ,;~s. „,.:,.,~ . „~....,
~~',+~h1~..~. .....
Mounda Viaw Planning Cummiaoion
Reeolution No. 25-~1
Paga 2
~ ..._ . .. . ..i ~ ~~~~ ~ i-.~ ri
•.
.,. .. ' . . !1...,. .,..a. ....n . .~.~. ~I n.. .. ,.
. ,~
I
~ i.
NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT R~30LVED that ~he Mounds VieW Plunning,
Commiasion reaommenda tha City Counail`approve the development atega`b£ i=
the Silver Lake Woods.planned uniti development and'that tho ~pplicant I
ia direoted to aubmit a final plan~ned unit developmenl: atage pursuant~;
to ~his aation. ;, „ " ,. I
Adopted this l,t~ day of /~Yl a~ 1981. ~ „ ~
~' ATTESTi ~ ~ ' ' ~~~ ' ,
, ~. , , ' i ~ _ ~ ~~
' rperson, 4
~.
G-T~a~ ~
~ ,: ,;
~
,
,s , ;. ,r
.
(&EAL) ' , . ~.
<.,
, r
~,.t~,. .:.'`...1. ~F?.>t_: ..... ...::a... .AF~ .' ...... ..:....~ .. :._;~.~ ...,,._ ,. . ..:c;, .
.~
~ ~ , , ~' ~G , .,~~ ` - c , r _
.4 - p ~. ' ( ':
` ,v,?~ ,~ r eu ng an~~ zon n-o a
'~ r ~::;. ~ ~ ti rk~P?. ~~~°~r~°1[l~.vj ;~ ~ t g...r i~ : ~ ~h
~. ~~4y ~~ ~ +
~ ~ ,,
1 ~r,, ' ~~
~ f ~ a ~ t' ~ ~ < < ~~e :,~
' ~~ ~ : I~d1 °~1~' 9ti~,,,(4,~.nt t~,~~~ ~ ~, i ~ ~' ~ e . ~~ ~ <r~ ~ ~~ +. H ~i .
~ ti . >st ~~,~~i ld~fi~~f~Vyi d~rx~ ~ G ~ i~~ ~_. ~ ~ , ,~ rF ~E'' .~W ~'~yia ~ i
p 1~ ~ ~ ~i ~ i ~~ fi ~ ~. w j_' i ! w ' i . 1 i Y"~ 4 N '
it 3 w~~ i t~ .~ n.. d ~t~ ~~ i~.
'!f ;~n~,re ?'~~;fi~,~d~E~~§rrq m .~zn~r ~ ~r Iy1 a !~" r~i~S~Ptkref .g~
'~ ~ ~ C `' ~~ ^iaF i "~. o ~ a [ '. i G ,. r ~ .~ ~tr ~f,Y i i tF .
~ S ~ ~ ~b c~~~ ~h~~~~i~y#~.i.4 rt F~ i r: ,~i ! {~ ~ Fis; ~e 4 tit~i .r
. ~j ! l,'~~',~~e ~~ af~-~y~ p t~ ~~ St~ b s'ii ~ a f~ e8 T t ht ~ t i 1~ y' Ei .!
_i .~r ;' r5 s [ t
y f ~ ~~ .~~r~; i rt~ ~ .s ~h ~ ..1 i p t~r~µ~ P~
~ ~ ~i~ t~. cir~~ 1~~ 41. '~ 4~ ~yr~ti 4j i' 2 3 #~ ~s3kn ~~4t it~.YJ~r
~ :' '~f st s~'lo yt~.~ic •'` iu f ~ ~ ~f ~b`~ a ~u f ~'F {.W~Y~~ ~ f! ~ { .
~ 7 t t t~~I.ta(~"~~ 1'~ ~~~ ~~ tF s~k5~~liib~ i n,.,e ~ !r t' .' i~~ r
,.. r i rn d. r~ Y r y.7i ~'~ {~~LaY Y"'fd° ' iih '} }~~S ~ r~ i"r~ .~ r
~ .~~ . '* ~~ ... ~. ~ ~ti ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ , r v s t
~ , ' '~~ ~ - ~-' rt~i ~ rvi t~ r
~ 1 '~ i ~' k }tt9 k ~ L K r a~ ~ lty , ~~ f r ~ ~ ~ ~.. sp r
~; s 1.: r.r ti~~~ 5'. { Y t~ ~ f i~ ~h r ~ ~. ~if i~ ~~. ~~ ,
~ ~ ~ 6~~ l~ k5jt)? 1 i~t 11 . dk ~ ~~i'^L~~'titti°~~t7 t
'[ ~it ry'} ~ \ { F ( .t; ~ F 1 N % A..~ ~
~k ~ ( : il ! 5! . 1 ~ ~ f F t~ ~
~ . ~ ~ ~r~,. 7 r, i .AS ti ~ 345.,~` ~"~ 'n~ /~~'~ R E t~ ,
1 ,~ ~ wi ~t I~JAr ,'~. r ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~,J~ c 1'6i t@ ~ ~ f u
f ~ ~ i ~ ' .~ 4 tj : ~ '
" .' '.~~ ~ e ' i t~. ~ ~, t .~ ~ ~f ~~ ~ a .
b i i , J w,l ~ ^ 4h~' ~ S't ',~ a :. Iq~} ~ Si ,. ..
~
.. ~ ' 2 ~a i i :
, f
a a
_ ~',~ ~ ~.rii ~ ~ 1 ~`~ '3~~i` S ) _ ~d ~ t ~~ ~~u~ ~ ~~e
' ~ ~ ~' , Q ~ v~ . 1 i "- ' ~ i
f-. . i ~i~ i ~ ~e ~Y,. i .F > 2 ~: n ~~ .~ , ,
Y
l: ~ ~ f.. 1 4.n ~1: ~ T f F1~"4S ' +.
~ ~ .~ ~. , , , + .. , .
^ .
. _ . ... . ~..:`. I :...::i vv;.' '.,:' .'.. 5 _,,..:1. '
S ~~4n~ ... , ~ t.~. t j~ ~ l: ~ : t : ,
,}.. ~ 'r ;Y. ., . ~ ' , ~ S, . ' . .
} ! f ~~
,
.
" + ,
ir , ,k
t :~
i~
: .. ~ „'tr ~ , . -~ ,
ll, '/ . . / ~ .. Iv 3 ~:~ S eA:. ... .~, . :a .. .._. ~
„ , i 4 .~ ::~~ '!
~ .
'..,5~~*x.~a~w.,.ua.,-ne-.~..xsum+mRw'..~.~w~.Nm~.b.aa:a~a.....s,«;q;^hY~~:~•r'wk+lrc{+exxU7Uii~x x~.a4L.'n1Gi~ 1 '...;+'.=+G':ot,~]~pNWt~d~'~f'Y~i~X.'&"~~"~~°...~ i,~e~+o::~^.;.
., , , i. . . . , .
.~ , , ,. , , , , ~ ,. . , , , ~. , ' i
~. . _ . , . . ' . - . ~. _ .. . .. _. ~ . . . r.. . : . ..'. . ' '~ ~.: . ~
MOUND9 V~EW PLANNING COD1tdIS3I0N
RESOLUTYON N0. 26-81
/~.~ CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
f ~ CUUN7Y UF RAM3F,Y
' ""' STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AFPROVAL OF THE
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR 2900 HIGHWAY µ10
WHEREAS, the City has received a requeat for development
requiring remodeling of 2400 Highway H107 and
WHEREAS, the Mounda Viaw Planninq Commiasion has reviewed tha
reguast and found it to be reasonably conaistent with ttie er.iatinq
uae, zoning and facilitiesr and
WHEREAS; the ~ite at 2400 Highway q10 hae an existing and
historic parkinq facility use which does not apply to currettt code
requirementei and
WHEREAS, tha remodeling requeat does not eiqnifi~antly alter
che axiating end hiatoric oarking facilityt and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commiesion strongly recommen8e
that the parki~~g facilltiae Ue improved in the futuret
( ~; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounda View Plunning
`~../ Commiesion recommende to the City Council approval oE the development
for remodeling oE off-sale to lounge area for 2400 Highway A10 eubject
to tha followinq development agreement considerationrs:
1) Payment of City's fees and costa regarding the davelopment
agreement review within 30 days raceipt.
2) "Heat Efforts" requiremnnts in the development agreement
regarding future parking improveme~~t.
3) Sacurity deposit for development agreemAnt.
Adopted this 6th day o£ May, 1981.
ATTESTs
C a rperson
(SEAL)
~ui133ng a`nd onin~'L-"~g ff'ic~
~
.;..,,... .., , ~ _ _,., ,,. . ., .... .., .,.,.. , .,.. : ..::. . ~~.
RES~L~U2ION N0. 05~81 ~
~ CITY Ob' MOUNDB VIEW
COUN7'Y OF RAM9EY '
STATE OF MSNNL~60TA ~
RE80LUTION RECOMM~NDING APPROVAL bF SHOREVIEW ~
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN
~
WHEREA9, the Mounds View Planning Commiseion hae
reoeivad tha City of Shoroview's Proposed Compreheneive `
Guide Plan for formal reviewt and ~
WHEREAS, the Plan has baen formally reviewedi and ~
WNEREAS, tha Planning Commisaion has reepondecl to the ~'
Plan in a complementary manner witi~ reapect tu the, Mounde ~
View Plan SJpdatez
~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thHt,.the Mounda View ~~
ylanninq Cummisaion reoommenda to the City Covnail approval i
ot tY.e City of Shoreview'e Propoaed Comprehensiva Guid'e Plan.
AdopL•ed this 6th day of Mayr 1981,,, I
~ ATTESTa `
'.
a rperaon , ;
,
~SEAL) , I
~
~ 1 . u ng e Zon ng 0 c a I
_ ~ ~
r' ~,, ; r
~
, ,
4 °, , ~
- ,"' .
4
,... .
~
, ~
vv.i,Ftl~e~ .vv': n.w.~r ....u .a.+ ".'.n,.R . L..l ... rt•e.4 :.1..:..~. - .:... .v.«.v ..i.~.~:d, u . ~.:.:~:i.'AK `.. •e . .
:n,c... .rLee.i .Nirr' ••.
' yff~ r.NE+F r.v•