HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-2005
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
February 16, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approve Minutes: January 5, 2005 and January 19, 2005
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already Present on the Agenda
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,
AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
5. Planning Case VR05-002
Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Number of Required Covered Parking
Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 7635 Greenfield Avenue
6. Planning Case MI05-001
Consideration of a Lot Line Adjustment (Minor Subdivision) Request between 3008
and 3016 County Road J
7. Planning Case MI05-002
Consideration of a Re-approval of a Minor Subdivision at 7630 Woodlawn Avenue
and 7618 Edgewood Drive
8. Review of Planning Commission Applications
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED.
PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT
763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: March 2, 2005
10. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes: None
2. Staff Reports
A. Update on County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports
Item No: 5
Meeting Date: February 16, 2005
Type of Business: Public Hearing
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow
for a Reduced Number of Covered Parking Spaces at
Greenfield Estates Located at 2370 County Road I and
7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue; Planning Case VR2005-
002
Introduction:
The applicant, Alan Menning, representing The Tycon Companies, is proposing to demolish
the existing garages and construct new garages at Greenfield Estates located at 2370
County Road I and 7521 – 7661 Greenfield Avenue. The proposal includes demolishing the
existing 126 individually divided garage stalls and constructing 78 new garage stalls in a
drive through style. The Zoning Code requires one covered parking space per unit.
Greenfield Estates has 125 units and would be required to have 125 covered parking
spaces. The applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement that would allow them
to have 78 covered parking spaces, which is 47 less than the required amount.
Discussion:
Parking requirements are addressed in Section 1121.13 of the Zoning Code. The Code
requires that multiple-family dwellings provide one and one half uncovered parking spaces
and one covered space per unit. Greenfield Estates has a total of 125 units. The applicant
is requesting to be allowed to reduce the number of covered parking spaces to 78 and
provide 247 uncovered parking spaces. The table below shows the existing and proposed
number of parking stalls, as well as the code requirements.
Code Requirement Existing Parking Proposed Parking
Covered Parking 125 126 78
Uncovered Parking 188 160 247
Total 313 286 325
The existing parking is currently non-conforming, as it provides a total of 286 parking spaces,
which is 27 spaces short of the 313 required spaces. The proposed parking would provide
12 more spaces than the total number of required spaces, however it would provide 47
spaces less than the requirement for covered parking.
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 2
In a letter addressed to the City (see attached), the applicant, Mr. Menning, explained the
hardship that Greenfield Estates is experiencing. The existing garages have had three fires
in the past few years due to juveniles breaking into the garages. The garages are appealing
for this type of activity because half of them are vacant and not visible to the rest of the
property. Staff agrees that the current garages are somewhat unsafe, as the back side of
the garages are not well lit. As Mr. Menning explains in the letter, because of the
configuration of the existing garages, the resident using the garage must step out of their
vehicle, open the door, drive into the garage, then close the garage door once they exit. The
proposed garages would be fully enclosed with only two vehicle entrances. Each resident
with a garage stall would have an electronic device to open and close the doors. When a
resident drives up to the garage, they can open the door without leaving their car and the
door will close behind them. The resident can then exit the garage through a side door
(facing the apartment buildings). The applicant is also proposing to add other safety
features, such as additional lighting for the proposed garages and a non-climbable fence that
will deter juveniles from using the adjacent natural area as a hangout.
The other consideration is that the garages have a very high vacancy rate. The applicant
provided information regarding the percentage of garages rented over the last seven years.
(See attached information sheet.) On average over the last seven years, only 58% of the
garages have been rented.
As communicated to the applicant, the decision made by the Planning Commission for this
request would only be approving or denying this variance and would not constitute an
approval or denial of other site plan modifications (such as rearranging parking, adding a
fence, etc.) Any other modifications done to the property would need to meet code
requirements and would require a permit.
Variance Considerations:
For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical
difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly
burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning
Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its
decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02,
Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of
the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective
date hereof have had no control.
The extraordinary circumstances surrounding this property are that existing garages are
poorly configured and are somewhat unsafe for residents. The applicant does not have
control over the actions of others, but is trying to improve the situation to deter similar
activities from occurring in the future.
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 3
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
Title.
The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not necessarily
deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone,
however denying the request would limit their ability to improve the safety and
functionality of the property.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
The circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in
that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function
and viability of their property.
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
The applicant feels this is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship, as it allows for
an adequate number of garages based on their past garage rental statistics and allows
them to create more uncovered parking than currently provided.
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
Granting a variance to reduce the number of covered parking spaces would not be
materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code. There have been no objections
raised up to this point from any of the adjoining property owners.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
The requested variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects.
Public Comment:
Staff has not received any comments or feedback from residents.
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 4
Recommendation:
After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and
affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the
request:
1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 784-05 is attached for the Commission’s
approval if that is the chosen course of action.
2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should
direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the
denial.
3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered
or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request
until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the
Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid
an inadvertent approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristin Prososki
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Letter from Applicant
3. Zoning Map
4. Location Map
5. Garage Rental Statistics
6. Photographic Documentation
7. Resolution 784-05
8. Existing Site Plan (Separate Attachment)
9. Proposed Site Plan (Separate Attachement)
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 5
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 6
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 7
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 8
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 9
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 10
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 11
Photographic Documentation
Photograph of Existing Garages
Back Side of Existing Garages
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 12
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 784-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED NUMBER
OF COVERED PARKING SPACES AT GREENFIELD ESTATES LOCATED AT 2370
COUNTY ROAD I AND 7521-7661 GREENFIELD AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING CASE VR2005-002
WHEREAS, the applicant, The Tycon Companies, has applied for a variance for a reduced
number of covered parking spaces at Greenfield Estates located at 2370 County Road I and 7521-
7661 Greenfield Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue are zoned R-4, High
Density Residential, and are legally described as:
Except the East 99.41 feet of Lot 2, All of Lot 1, Block 1
Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota
Lots 14 and 15, Block 1
Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota
Lots 16 and 17, Block 1
Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota
Lots 18 and 19, Block 1
Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, Section 1121.13 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that multiple
family properties must provide one covered parking space per unit; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a variance to provide 78 covered parking stalls for
an apartment complex with 125 units; and,
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 13
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Site Plan
5. Photographic Documentation
6. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to
property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship
thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique
or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, February 16, 2005, with regard to this
variance request; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied,
in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request:
1. The property is zoned R-4, High Density Residential.
2. The extraordinary circumstances surrounding this property are that existing garages
are poorly configured and are somewhat unsafe for residents.
3. Denying the request would limit the property owner’s ability to improve the safety
and functionality of the property.
4. The special conditions or circumstances necessitating the variance request do not
result from the actions of the applicant.
5. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in
that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the
function and visibility of their property.
6. Permitting the property to have 78 covered parking spaces is the minimum variance,
as it allows for an adequate number of garages based on past garage rental statistics
and allows them to create more uncovered parking than currently provided.
7. Granting a variance to reduce the number of covered parking spaces would not be
materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code. There have been no objections
raised up to this point from any of the adjoining property owners.
Greenfield Estates Variance Report
February 16, 2005
Page 14
8. The proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or
increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View
Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby approve the
variance request to reduce the number of covered parking spaces to 78, at Greenfield Estates
located at 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue.
Adopted this 16th day of February, 2005.
__________________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Item No: 6
Meeting Date: February 16, 2005
Type of Business: Commission Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Lot Line Adjustment (Minor
Subdivision) Between 3008 and 3016 County Road J;
Planning Case MI2005-001
Introduction:
Joseph Holmberg, property owner of 3008 County Road J, has applied for a lot line adjustment
(Minor Subdivision) for the west property line shared with 3016 County Road J. The driveway
leading to the home located at 3008 County Road J was once a shared driveway between 3008
and 3024 County Road J. 3024 County Road J was subdivided at some point and the lot at
3016 County Road J was created. 3016 County Road J is currently a vacant lot. The majority
of the driveway for 3008 County Road J is located across the west property line on 3016
County Road J. The owner of 3016 County Road J has agreed to sell Mr. Holmberg a 15 foot
wide section of land that is 155 feet long. The driveway would then be located on 3008 County
Road J. (See attached survey.) The applicant is requesting the lot line adjustment to make the
driveway meet the required setbacks in order t o sell the property.
Discussion:
According to the Mounds View City Code, a minor subdivision is a division of land less than two
acres in area in which only one additional lot is created. The definition also includes lot line
adjustments, even though no new lots (such as with this request) will be created by the
adjustment. Minor subdivisions do not require a public hearing and in contrast to a major
subdivision, a certificate of survey rather than a plat is all that is needed to record the change
with Ramsey County.
Both lots are zoned R-1, Single Family residential and the minimum lot size for an interior lot
(which both properties are) is 11,000 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
area for low density residential.
The parcel located at 3008 County Road J is currently 27,335 square feet. The proposed lot
line adjustment would add an additional 2,325 feet to the property, bringing it to 29,660 square
feet. The adjoining property, owned by Gary Meyer, is currently 25,470 square feet and would
be decreased to 23,145 square feet, more than double of the minimum requirement for an
interior lot. After the adjustment, the shared lot line would be shifted 15 feet closer to 3016
County Road J for the north 155 feet of the property line and will remain the same for the south
81 feet of the shared property line. (See attached survey.)
The Zoning Code requires that interior lots have a minimum o f 75 feet of street frontage. 3008
County Road J currently has 116 feet of frontage and if the lot line adjustment is approved as
presented, the property will have a frontage of 131 feet. 3016 County Road J currently has a
frontage of 108 feet and which would be reduced to 93 feet, if subdivided. Both lots meet the
minimum frontage and square footage requirements for interior lots.
3008/3016 County Road J Minor Subdivision
February 16, 2005
Page 2
Conforming Driveway
Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4(b) of the Zoning Code states that driveways must be located at
least five (5) feet from the property line. As proposed, the lot line adjustment would cause the
majority of the driveway to be located on the property that it serves, however, the driveway
would not meet the five (5) foot setback and would actually still be across the shared lot line in
one place. Staff is recommending that the City require the applicant to bring the driveway into
conformance no later than May 1, 2005. Because the applicant is planning to sell the home
soon, Staff would also recommend that the City require money to be placed in escrow to ensure
that the driveway is made compliant. If the property is sold prior to the driveway being made
compliant, it may be more difficult to get the future property owner to follow through with that
stipulation. Because the driveway is dirt, bringing it into compliance would basically mean
planting grass in the setback area.
Park Dedication Requirements
Every subdivision of land is ordinarily subject to park dedication requirements, however, the City
Council adopted Ordinance 745 in 2004, which provided for some flexibility in determining
what—if any—dedication would be required. Because no new lots are created by this
subdivision and no additional development would occur, Staff recommends that no park
dedication fee be required.
Easements
Usually with every subdivision of land, the City requires that drainage and utility easements be
dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. Given that both of these lots are pre-existing and
that just one of the lot lines is being adjusted, dedication of easements will not be required.
Public Notice.
Public notice is not required for this request. Given that no new development will occur, a
public hearing or public notice was not warranted.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Commission approve Resolution 785-05, a resolution
recommending approval of a lot line adjustment (minor subdivision) between 3008 and 3016
County Road J, with conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristin Prososki
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Photographic Documentation
4. Resolution 785-05
5. Certificate of Survey (Separate Attachment)
3008/3016 County Road J Minor Subdivision
February 16, 2005
Page 3
3008/3016 County Road J Minor Subdivision
February 16, 2005
Page 4
3008/3016 County Road J Minor Subdivision
February 16, 2005
Page 5
3008/3016 County Road J Minor Subdivision
February 16, 2005
Page 6
Photographic Documentation
Photograph of Area Involved in Lot Adjustment
3008/3016 County Road J Minor Subdivision
February 16, 2005
Page 7
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 785-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
(MINOR SUBDIVISION) BETWEEN 3008 and 3016 County Road J;
PLANNING CASE MI2005-001
WHEREAS, Applicant Joseph Holmberg has requested approval of a lot line
adjustment (minor subdivision) between 3008 and 3016 County Road J, property zoned R-
1, Single Family Residential, legally-described as follows:
The West 116 Feet of the East 216 Feet of Lot 1, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89
Ramsey County, Minnesota
And
The West 108 Feet of the East 324 Feet of Lot 1, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89,
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the applicant requests approval of a lot line adjustment to the common lot
line between the two lots; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey date-stamped
February 1, 2005 for the lot line adjustment showing the north 155 feet of the common lot line
moved 15 feet to the west; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Certificate of Survey has been forwarded to the City
Attorney for review; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant’s request for a lot line
adjustment is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant’s request for a
lot line adjustment and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104,
1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the lot line adjustment (minor subdivision) between 3008 and 3016
County Road J, subject to the following requirements:
3008/3016 County Road J Minor Subdivision
February 16, 2005
Page 8
1. The applicant shall arrange to record new property deeds with Ramsey County
within 60 days of Council approval and provide the City with proof of recordation.
Failure to do shall cause the approval to become null and void.
2. The driveway at 3008 County Road J shall be brought into conformance and will
meet the five (5) foot setback no later than May 1, 2005. The applicant shall place
money in escrow to ensure that the driveway is corrected, even if the property is
sold. The amount to be placed in escrow will be determined by the City Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs
staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 16th day of February, 2005.
__________________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Item No: 7
Meeting Date: Feb 16, 2005
Type of Business: Action
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of the Properties
Located at 7618 Edgewood Drive and 7630 Woodlawn
Drive; Mounds View Planning Case MI2005-002.
Introduction:
The owners and applicants, Marshal and Cindy Mills, have applied for a re-approval of a lot
line adjustment between the properties they own at 7618 Edgewood Drive and 7630
Woodlawn Drive. The subdivision, which was originally approved by the City Council in
January of 2002, would split off the rear 2,204 square feet of 7630 Woodlawn Drive and
combine that 2,204 square feet with the property at 7618 Edgewood Drive. (Marshal and
Cindy Mills own both properties.) The resulting area of the Woodlawn lot, improved with a
duplex, would be 12,500 square feet, the minimum required for a duplex lot.
The purpose of the land transfer is to create more space on the Edgewood Drive lot,
improved with a four-plex, upon which to build garages and supplemental parking space.
Currently the four plex does not provide any garage space, which is required under the
provisions of Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Zoning Code.
Discussion:
According to the Mounds View City Code, a minor subdivision is a division of land less than
two acres in area in which only one additional lot is created. The definition also includes lot
line adjustments, even though no new lots (such as with this request) may be created by the
adjustment.
After the subdivision, both lots would comply with the area and setback requirements of their
respective zoning districts. The land subdivided from the duplex lot (heretofore referred to as
Lot 12) is of little use to that lot due to its configuration. Combining this area with the
Edgewood Drive lot (heretofore referred to as Lot 20) would allow greater flexibility for the
property owner who would like to construct garages in the future.
Easements: There is an easement presently dedicated over the westernmost 10 feet of the
Edgewood Drive parcel (Lot 20 on the survey), which protects an existing stormsewer. The
subdivision would not alter this easement, as the stormsewer would not be impacted. The
applicant intends at some point in the future to construct garages to service the four plex.
The garages shall not be located within any current or proposed easement area. In addition,
if it is determined necessary, the applicants shall be required to execute a limited use
agreement to install an improved parking area over the stormsewer. The purpose of the
agreement would be to document that the City not be liable for any damage done to the
parking area or for any restoration in the event the parking lot is disturbed to service or repair
the stormsewer.
Mills Report
February 16, 2005
Page 2
Zoning: Lot 12 (the duplex lot) is zoned R-2, Single & Two Family Residential; and Lot 20
(the four-plex lot) is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential. While no zoning changes are
necessitated by this subdivision, the zoning designation of the land divided from Lot 12 and
added to Lot 20 should be rezoned from R-2 to R-3 at some point to be consistent with the
land use. Since there is no urgency to do this, staff would recommend including this piece of
land with a future comprehensive rezoning ordinance.
Comprehensive Plan: The same issue arises with the City’s Comprehensive Plan existing
and future land use maps. The parcels have different designations, yet the subdivision will
not change the associated land uses, so again there is no urgency to make the correction.
Staff recommends delaying any change until the next regularly scheduled round of map
updates.
Access and Traffic: There are no changes proposed with regard to the extent of vehicle trips
made on a daily basis as a result of this subdivision. The Mills would, however, like to
construct garages for Lot 20, which would require relocating the Edgewood Drive access to
the north side of Lot 20. The existing bituminous driveway along the south side of the
property would be removed at the same time. In so doing, Mr. Mills would be eliminating a
non-conforming driveway (non-conforming due to the limited setback from the intersection of
Bronson and Edgewood Drives.) A building permit would be needed for the garage and a
zoning permit for the driveway and parking area.
Park Dedication Requirements: Every subdivision of land is ordinarily subject to park
dedication requirements. The City Council adopted Ordinance 745 last year however which
provided for some flexibility in determining what—if any—dedication would be required.
Because no new lots are created by this subdivision and no additional development would
occur, no dedication will be required.
Public Notice. Public notice is not required for this request. Given that no new development
will occur, a public hearing or public notice was not warranted.
Recommendation:
This proposed subdivision is merely a redrawing of one common lot line between two parcels
to afford the property owner greater flexibility to make improvements to Lot 20. The
associated uses will not be changing as a result of the subdivision. There will not be any
impacts to traffic or congestion and the subdivision would not be inconsistent with either the
Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code. The subdivision was
approved once before in January of 2002, however due to mortgage issues the deeds were
never recorded, thus necessitating reapproval. Staff recommends approval of Resolution
786-05, subject to stipulations.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Zoning Map
C O U N T Y R O A D I
B R O N S O N D R I V E
Aerial View
Proposed
common lot
line
Existing
common lot
line
Plat Map
7618 Edgewood Dr.
Lot 20 (Parcel B)
7630 Woodlawn Dr.
Lot 12 (Parcel A)
Proposed
Common
Lot Line
Future Development Plan for
7618 Edgewood Drive
Future
Three
Stall
Garage
Future
Two
Stall
Garage
Photographic Documentation
Photo of the four-plex located at 7618 Edgewood Drive, looking northwest
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 786-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING RE-APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION
OF 7618 EDGEWOOD DRIVE AND 7630 WOODLAWN DRIVE;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI05-002
WHEREAS, the Applicants, Marshall and Cindy Mills, have requested reapproval of
a minor subdivision to divide approximately 2,060 square feet from the back of 7630
Woodlawn Drive, property zoned R-2, and concurrently attach it to 7618 Edgewood Drive,
property zoned R-3; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicants have submitted a Certificate and Plat of Survey (the
“Certificate”) for the identified properties, date-stamped January 26, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, both properties are owned by the Applicants and are legally described
as follows:
7630 Woodlawn Drive
Pin #: 08-30-23-22-0020
7618 Edgewood Drive
Pin #: 08-30-23-22-0026
Subject to Easements, Lot 12,
Block 2, Park View Terrace,
Ramsey County, Minnesota
Subject to Easements, Lot 20,
Block 2, Park View Terrace,
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the 2,060 square feet of land being detached from Lot 12 and attached
to Lot 20 is legally described as follows:
That part of Lot 12, Block 2, Park View Terrace lying southeasterly of the following
described line:
Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 20, Block 2, said Park
View Terrace, thence South 0 degrees 34 minutes 30 seconds
East, along the West line of said Lot 20 a distance of 13.98 feet;
thence south 34 degrees 38 minutes 22 seconds west a
distance of 75.97 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 12
and there terminating.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant’s request for a
minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201,
and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant’s request for a minor
subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and,
Resolution 786-05
Page 2
WHEREAS, a copy of the Certificate and Plat of Survey has been forwarded to the
City Attorney for his review; and,
WHEREAS, no park dedication fees shall be required with this subdivision due to
there being no new additional lots created by this subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision request made by Marshall and
Cindy Mills, owners of 7630 Woodlawn Drive and 7618 Edgewood Drive, subject to the
following:
1. The applicants shall execute and record two easement documents (one for each lot)
which dedicate to the public for public use the proposed additional easement areas.
2. No structures shall be allowed in any easement area.
3. Prior to the issuance of any building or zoning permits related to construction activity
that would encroach or approach the existing storm sewer easement, the Director of
Community Development shall review the plans to ensure the requirements of this
minor subdivision resolution are adhered to.
4. The applicants shall execute a limited use agreement in the event one is needed to
hold the City harmless for damages resulting from repair or maintenance to the
underlying stormsewer.
5. The applicants shall be responsible for recording new property deeds to effectuate
the subdivision with Ramsey County within 60 days of Council approval. Failure to
do so within the prescribed time frame (excluding unavoidable delays as determined
by the Community Development Director) shall render the minor subdivision null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs
staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 16th day of February, 2005
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Item No: 8
Meeting Date: Feb 16, 2005
Type of Business: Review
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review Applications for the Vacant Planning
Commission Seat
Introduction:
The City Council adopted Ordinance 741 in 2004 which clarified the process by which
applications for boards and commissions are reviewed and appointed. The Council
recognized the value of having the specific board or commission review the applications and
forward its recommendation on to the Council for their action as a whole. In previous years,
the Mayor has made the appointments with the approval of the Council.
Discussion:
There has been a vacancy on the Planning Commission as a result of the resignation of
former Planning Commissioner Liz Song last year. Staff has announced the vacancy at
Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the announcement has been posted on
the City’s website and has been scrolled on Cable Channel 16. During the two elections, it
was pointed out on more than one occasion that unsuccessful candidates could apply for
vacant positions.
We have received two applications for the vacant seat from Michael Marrone and Al Hull. Mr.
Marrone ran for a Council seat during the special election. Mr. Hull ran for mayor during the
general election and as a councilmember during the special election. Both have indicated a
desire to serve on the Planning Commission. Their applications are attached for the
Commission’s review. Both Mr. Hull and Mr. Marrone have been invited to attend the
Planning Commission meeting. It has been pointed out to both candidates that they can
make a statement as to the desire to serve on the Planning Commission and that the
Commission may respond with questions of their own.
Recommendation:
Review the applications and consider the candidates’ statements as to their desire to serve
on the Planning Commission. Questions may be directed to the candidates if additional
information is needed. The Commission may recommend one of the two candidates to the
City Council or it may recommend both candidates if it is determined that both would be good
candidates. No resolution is attached, a simple motion is all that would be needed.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director