The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-06-01 PC Minutes':;.:~~"k`„'.yd~,7"~'~~~ , . .. y,+ ~~ ,• ~ i ~~ ~ PROCEEDINdS Olr^ THE PLANNINO COI+QtISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MTNNE90TA Regular Maetl.ng June 1, 1583 Mounde View Ciey Hall 2401 Hwy, 10, t3ounde Vieev, MN 55112 •__--------~•_-^------------°-°-~-°--°--~---------°------~-------~-~- The Mounde View Planning Commieaion wea oglled to order by Chairman Mounein at 7i30 PM. DfEMSEAS PAESENT; Commies~.onnre MeCarthy, Ander.son, a:PlilI-'"; Fera`~tid, Quiak and Cheirman Mounein. It wae noted that• Corimiieeionar Warran had an excused abeenca. AL30 PRESENT: Engineering/Planning Technician ampR- e~- Motion 8acond: Forelund/McCarthy to approve the m~u es o a May 4, 1983 regular meeting and May i8, 1983 epecial meetin~, ~e preseuted. ~, ~,~~ 6 ayoe 0 na~e Thera were no reaidante requeets or caimnente frum tha floor. Chairman tiounef.n noted the eppl3.cer,t hae raqueeted hie item be tablod, tdotciun Becond: Andereon/Quick ra table diecusaian, ea requeete y the appllcant, utttil the June 15, 1983 agenda aeeeion, 6 ayes 0 nays It wae naked Mr, Haro wae not preeent. Motion Second: M111~er/Forslund to adopt Reeolu- on o. - 3, racon¢nendi.ng approva7. oE a con- ,..~ ditiunaL use parmit for an oversized accaeeory ` ~building et 3048 Couaty Road H-2. ~6 ayee 0 nays 1, Ca11 to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minuteei bi~y 4, 1983 and May 18, 1983 Motion Carrled 4. Reeidenta Re- queete and Co~ents from the Floor 5, Gordon Seyerkohler 7801 Sunnyeide Rd. Variance, CUP, Rezaning Caee 131-83 Motioa Carried 6, 41111ard Haro 3048 Cnty Rd H-2 CUP Caee 130-83 Motion Carriad ~ s I ~. 3 ~ t• :s ' Mounde View Planning Commieeion June 7., 198: Itegular Meatl:ng Page Two --------------------------------~-^---°---------------~°------------ /.~It wae noted Mr. Koopmainere was not present. 7. Roger Kaopmainere NE Co~ner of Cnty Technician Kampel explained tha applicent ia re- Rd I and Green- queeting a 6~t' rear yard eetback variance and wuod Dr., revie~±gd why the varienee wae raquired, and drew Variance a aketch of the property, ehowing the location Caee 132-83 and Er.ontage of the propoe~d building. The questien orae raiead if the building wae r.equired tn face County Rnad I, Technician Kampel replied that he had gone through old minu~es snd paperwork and could not find where it was apec'fi.ed in writing, He etatsd thst Mr. Koopmeinora is willing to front the dupLex an County Road I, if required, thaugh he would prsfer to face on Greenwood, due Co the tra£fic probleme on County Road I. Thero was diacusaion among the Co~iesionere re- gardfng how the front nf the lot wae determined, e.nd the £act that iP the applicant were to front an Greenwood, he would not need a ~~arianca. Motior./Seccn3: Anderean/McCarthy tc adopt R_e~l+stien, tTo~i~3, approving a rear, qard setback variance for tha ~xoperty lucated at 2581/2583 County Rnad I. "~~,6 ayee 0 nays ~ Technician Kampel reviea;~3 the ~pplicant'e request for a varianca for a driveway aetback. Mr. Emeraon, in reeponse to quc+ationing from the Commiseion, exp laineu~ the location of the hou.se to the north of him. It wae queetioned whether tha lote'could be eub- dividsd in the future. Technician Ramp~+l explained that eince Knoliwood Green wae put in, th6 poseibility eicista that the property cauld be subdivided. Chairman Mauntin explained that the Coc~iseion hae bean faced beEore with pre-exieting driveways which tha ownera havn requeet~d to reaurface, and in taking ouC tija building permit, the City ".~ua r.equirad thom to bring ie u~ to code. She aekad Mr. Emereon 1E he had coneidered a curvad driveway. Mr. E'mereon xaplied that he would have to take Jown hie 50' tree and many hadgae, and the exieting driveway would etill remain, ae it wae not in die- repaix the whole Length, He etated he would be un- ~ J~omfortable with a curved drivev~ay. Motion Carried 8. Eric Emaraon 7865 Spring Lake Rd., Variance, . Caea 133-83 It wae the f9eling of tha Con~ieeionera that they would rather let Sta4£ desl wiCh the iseue ae an Mounde View Planning Commiseion June 1, 1983 ' Regulur. Meating Page Three I ---^--~----~-~-°^------°--_°-------~-----~°----^------~-------------- ^.adminietrat~ve action, ns Chey would praEer to not hava to grant a vaxiancn. Technician Kampel exp2ained that the reanon it wae brought before L•he Planning Co~iseion wae 6eceuea parta of Che driveway would ba t~ken out complately and replaced, The Plaru~ing Co~iesion etated they felt tha repair and xesurfacing of tha exieting driveway did not require a variance for Che new drivewsy plecement and they directed BtaFf to proceed wirh the permit procaen, and rgcommended the faea be refunded eleo. Motion Second; McCarthy/Andereon to reco~ond to tie ounc t at the fees paid by Mr, Emereon be refunded. 6 ayea 0 nays Chairwan Mauatin explained to those pzeeenC thaC the Ylanning Commiasion had esrli.er mada thair recommendation to the Council on the propoeed development, the Council held a public hearing, and in light of'the diecuesion Chat occurred at that public t~eariug, the CaUnr_iI denied thA .--, spplicant's requeat to rezotte the property attd i 1 referred tha matter back L•o Ch~ Planning Con¢nieaion L./ for diacusalon on traneitional zoning to buf£er the R-]. property. Technician KampeI etated he had spoken to C;:~ engineer, Mr. Meimin, and they are in the prncese of submitt3ng a reviaed development propoeal to the City. Clu irman MounCln exnlained the Planr~ing Commisaion ie an advisory board, which raviewe applicatiotta and makea recoam~andationa to the Council. She explained the public hearing process and why it im requixed tu be at th9 Council leve7., and that due to tha commentu made ae the pubLic hearing , the item ie now back before thc Planning Commieaton. NIr. Malmin preeented the Commieeioners with nketchea of their new proposal for the area, and rev3ewed it. He etated they would be willing to dedicate 15' to the City, with high density an the eacl~ and park area to tha weet, but they do not favor a tot lot in the developmant, aa they do not feel anyone will want to aseume tne liability for it. Colleen Olsen, 7641 Edgewood Drive, atated the feel- {J ing is eCill unanimoua with the neighhore, that the new plan ia totally unacceptsbl.e, and it does not deal with the density or eraffic problems. She eteted ahe was given the impreaeion at the Ccuncil Motion Carrie6 9. Leonard Babinaki Subdiviaion/ Rezoning Diac. Case 128-83 ~ Mounde View Planning Commiaeion June 1, 1983 ' Regulaz Meating Pag~ Four '' ---------------------------------^-----°----------------------~----- ~+., meeting tlrat there ehould be a com romise, and 9he did ~ jnot feel it wsa a compromise with ~ueE one R-1 lot, She etated thnt elnce the land ie zoned R-1, ehe feels ~t ahould atay R-1 and would only agree to hsving the tao lote next to the Bal Rae be anything other than R-r ae ehe agreed they wculd not sell ae singlu Eamily. Wee Johneon, 7630 Greenfield Avenue, etated he agraed with Ms. Olaen`e co~nente and added he felt the probleme of parking, traffic an3 davaluation of the homes were not being addreseed yet. Mayor McCarty ~uggested it would be a good compromiea if the R-1 ware extended, but he did not have a eat idea ae to how fbr it ahould be extendad. Ae far ae parking, tha problem with children treespaesing, and ac forth, he etated there could be othar remediea to Y~ndle thoae, and that he felt the baeic problem wae tha impact on the property valuea. Chairmen Mountin cl.arifie~ tha denisty, with 1/3 be~ng low densitq and 2/3 being medium denaity residential. She stated ehe present zoning and Camp Plan ere tn r.~mpliance, with'the Comp Plan baing revised in 1980, with the adaption process eaking aoma tiae. She atated the feeling among ,'~ the Cou~iesionere at th~ time of adoption waa that •~~'thie pgrticular piece of propezty was questionabla. Sha added tha Ci.ty nEede tu offer mare housing optiona to people, ae they are now low in the medit~m density range. She added the zoning couflicte have not been resolved with the Comp Pl~n, Dave Williams, 7625 Edgewood Drive, etated he thought the Comp P1an wae only Co be used ae a guide, Chairmxn Mountir: replied ~he Planning Co~ieaion ie an advieory board only, and they make their recommendatian to tMe City Councll, who makes the final decieion. Rruce Markwardt, 7635 Edgewood Drive, read a portion oE the minutea fxom Y.ha public'heaxing, ak which the owner statod he had an opportunity to se11 to a singl.e family developer, but had chosen not to. There was ~iscuAeion among the Commiasionere an~ residenre gresent of the inconeistenclee between the Comp Plan and getual zoning, and how the Comp Plan was written. The Cou~igaioners ware polled stid their opinion was thia was a good transitional dev~lopment, and they ^•. were cottcerned with the valuation o~ the homee in ` ',the area, and that thera was room for more compromise, ~-/with perhape more R-1, and higher deneity acroes from the Bel Rae. Mounde View Planning Commiseion lune 1 1983 Regular Meating Page F~ve -----------------------------------------------------------------^-- Mr. Malmin clari£iad what ie exieting in the area, ae ~ far ae apartmente end duplexea and so forth, Me. Olaea atated tha apartmenta were in when ehe purchae~d her homa, but ehe felt that ainca the open land wae zoned R-1, thaC single f,smily homes would be built there. Chaii~man Mountin agreed thae the arr.a ie an ieland, as far ae tha eingle family homea, but added that the homee will always be an ieland in that araa. Mr. Williama etated he would like to make a counter proposal, aa he does not feel the developer has a reaeon- ible a7.eernaCive, and suggeated 14 R-1 lota and one duplex, He also reviewed the traffic and parking problame boiag expe.rienced presently. Mr.'Johnaon atAted he did not feel the City would be guarding the value ot the homea if they approved the proposed devalopment, as wae addressed in a paragraph Mnyor McCarty hsd read at the Council meeting, from the Comp Plan regarding its giiidelines and intent.. It was agreed among ~he Comniseionere that the value ~ o: the homes ee~mad to he tre most important iasue. ~ ~~, I'I8}`UY' DYCCtlYC,Y etated thatxmr~jor conce~n has been parking and traffic, but he feele Edgewood is designed end capable of handling as muoh trafEic as the ariginal proposal would have generated, He added that the parking and tresapasaing iasued could be handled. He etated he felt the present Planning Commiss:Lon was the best one the City had zver had. ~; Mayor McCarty recomm~nded tkat profeaeional expertiae be sought or.i the question of the value of the homes, I so that ahen the Counr_il takes ita final action, it ' would be based upon Che reco~endation of the Plann3ng '° Commiesion; wlth an experta opinion taken into i consideration. Ite added that the City needa such an j opiniott to protect itaelf, in the case of a laweuit. The Planning Co~isaion directed the developer to have a profeasianal planner look at the pLan and determine at what point thoae hemee could be harmed, and they specified that I~Sidweat Planning be used, as they are ~ che coneult3.ng egency on the Comp Plan, attd they hsve done work for the City before, very effectively, and iC wae felt the Planr~ing Commiaeion ahould require they ba ueed ae it would be in the City's beat interost. -~-. It waa noCed there ehould be apecific goal;r given to l ;the planner. a,.~ Ms. Olaen etated ehe did not feel the planner would look at the deneity iseue. Chairman Mountin replied that Mounde View Planning Commieaion Juue 1, 1983 Regulur Meeting Page 51x -----------------».,-----~---------°------------------^------------__ ~,tho plennar oould look at the danelty impact, as well ae propex~y values. Mnyor McCarty etated thet the~ need expediency, with definite direction. It wae the conceneue of the Planning,Con¢niesion Co direct 3taff to rePer tha Sabineki caae to Midweat Planning, and have them add.r.aes the treEEic impace, both aurtace and parking, end the general denaity of t~a neighborhood, ae well ae the area in queation, with the total untts and people per acre impeat, and the propezty valuaticn as it ralatee to tranaitional zoning, and refer to Park Director Andereon as eo how they could eleviate the parking problem with future development, and ra•~iew pro- posed parkwey psth, and adviee Midwest Planning the Commiseion would 'like to addrees their report, if poeaible, on June 15. Mr. Malmin atated he would ba ready by June 15. Tachnician Kampel etated he could not guarantee Midweet Planning could hava thair regort ready by that time but ne would eontact thr~ imn:adiately. ,_ He added ChaG the developer has submitted $S00 in ' fez~ ta caver Stsff ~nd ~onaultant reviewe, and ~ ets*_ed the feea should be the developera responeibility. ilayor McCercy acated he would like ieberg and Adao- ciatee as a second choice, if Midwest Planning aannot do the evaluation in time. Chairman ~ountin atated that if everything ie ready on June 1~, an3 the FYgnning Co~niasioa could reach a deeieion, they wiil call a epecial meeting to get the proposal back to th~ CounciL by their next Council meeting. Mr. Malm3a asked if the denaity could be dealt with L•iret, ~e every time they have to go back and changa the plan, it ia vQxy axpensive. Mayor McCarty advised they shnuld addrese the queat~on of why nut R-1 zoning, as far as properCy rights. Chairman Mountin edded chat it ie poseible to havc zero lot lines on thoae l~te, with condo- miniume, etc. as po~eibilitiea. Mx•. Williame atated they wauld like L•o see ownera, not rentese, on thc~ prc^perty. He atated he wauld -- cake the Ciey to caurt if a 4-p].ex was approved an , the lot next to h~s home. ~' It wea dECided the Planning Co~nisaion would begin thei,r June 15 meeting at 7 PM, with the Babineki proposal the Eirst item on the agenda. t, Mounde View Planning Commiesion June 1, 1983 Ragular Meeting Page Seven -°----°--~----~-------------------------~--------~------~----------- It wae noted ChaC Mr, liaioerg and Mr. Nanaon were 10~ Dalberg 9ite ~,present, Plan Review Technician Kempel reported tl~at the Council approved tha aubdivieiun and rezoning at Cheir May 23 meeting, and tha propoeal ie back before the Plenning Co~ieeion for eite plen approval, The Commiaeion directed Staff to prepare the eame reeoLu*.ion as bn£ore, addreAeing the new propoeal, and recnmmending approval, Mot~on Second; Forelund/Quick to adogt Resolution o, -, and forward iC to the Council before final spprovel of the minutes, 6 ayes 0 naye Motion Carried It wae noted that Mayor McCarty wauid rapreaent 11, Diacuas Past the Planning Co~iseion nt the next Council meating. Council Aotion and Ne~ct Agenda Teahnician Kampel advieed that Croes of Glory Church vrould ba on the next agenda, eeeking approval vf aakiag fiv~ lots inte two, and ehat the Baperkohler .._ prnpoaal will be back on. ~ GF,airwan Mountin xeported that ell mambera had baen 12. Chaizman'e preeent at the May 18, 1983 apacial meating. Repurt Te¢hnicicn Kampel eubmitt~+d a plan to the Commi- 13. Staff Raport eeionere, for the property between Castwood and Greenwood, with the propoeal to relocate the proparty lina, Se added all xaquirements have been met. Z7otion_Second: Quick/Andereon to adopl Reeolution o, 3, zecomnend~ng approval, and forwarding it to the Cnuncil bd£ore Einal approval of the minutes. 6 ayea G nays Mot~.on Carried Technician Kampel reportad he had haen cuntacted by Sob Fore, a rapreeentative of Kindercare Co., who diacuseed ~etabliehing a group daycare nureery in the City, which at preeent i~ e conditional uae in an R-3 dietxict. Kindercara wonld like to eae it ae a perm~tted uee/conditianal use in a coomaerciml zona, before they will eoamiit themsel~e~ ~to caming into Mounds View. The Planning Co~iealon diacuased Che lesuo and caacludeU Ghne daycara nnreeries ehould be left ea le, in s reaidential area. ahey adv4abd Lha ' Mnunde View Planniny Commiesion ti • ~ l M June 1 1983 e E~ P hC ng ee Regu ar -•-------.:^-----^---------------------^-----------~--- g ag -----•-_-•--~ eppliaant could apply if he would like Co addreee the ~ Planning Cnmmieaion, ~ Technician Kampel reported that Marv Andareon Homee hae requeeted to place a model oEfice center in une o£ Che garage unita af the 3ilver Lake Woode condominiume. He advieed model homes are coneidered a conditional uee in any R district. ~' .~ Motion 3econds MeCsrthy/Andereon to adopC Reeolution ~aC that when the unit that tha garxge goea w3Ch is sold, ~r the last unit in the devalopment ie sold, then tha permit ehall expire. FurCher, the reaolution ahould be forwarded ta tiie Council be£ore' final aoproval of minutee,' 6 ayes 0 nnye Mation Cerried Moti.an 9econd: Mi].ler/Forelund to adjourn the meating s ~ E a_y~~ D.paye Motion Carried RespectEully submittad, ~ " Frank J: Kampel ~ , ~ . Engineerin~/Planning, Techaician . , . , ., , ~ t ' r;.. ~. ~ ,~ ,...., .,. ~ . , r .. _. .. , ~ , . - ~ ' ,. ''i!i'i, !~'Sr r" ~ ~ i , ,.. . ~ ~. , ,., ~ .., . ~. , .... ~~ . . . ~ .~ . .. ,.. ~ ,. ~,~ ' ' , .r . .. . ~ .,. .. .~_. . , . ' ' ' _ , - . }.' ~ t . . , . _ ,. .~ . . , . :. . ,.. ~, , , . . . .... ,. • .~~p.. ..' ~, ' ` , . , ~ , ., ' ' , . , f.. ; ' ~ ~~. , ,,, d: .. ~ ,~,, , ' ,_. - , . , , ~ ~ .~ ~. ~ . .~. ' ~ . ~~ .~ ' ' . . , ,.._ .,.. , . , . ~ ~.~ ~ ' ~ .. ,~. :. , , . ,. . . . __ . .~, I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~' .~~..,,;.,a.,.~ . . . .~, ....__ .... ... .......,...,...,. ,.,.._.,,...~. i.,:.,..,~:ml,. ~x~yt:., ....~~.t~.w.xe.,.r.a,r..d~rsrcbV31~.S,N~"~u.'f~kew!,c.K ..;.._...1.~.i7.Y.~+.v