|
;
<br />Item # 4
<br />.,:� . .,.:��:.._ , ,�..�;:., r . i�. .,�.�;- ,>,_,� ..�„ ..,., ��r_ _;.r,. _r
<br />_�_�.,,�... :.;..,..., „r ... _: . .. ,- '- -;:._ ... _��:_ _..�...�-��_ ..c.,.�..r
<br />Crty of Mounds Yiew
<br />�' � ; , , , • =,. ' , � . � - :�; :�; ;
<br />�
<br />Meeting.Date: Mar ch S, 2001
<br />, : ,. ,
<br />;.;�„ ,. , _.� __ . ,.:,- ,.,. .., �:�. .. .. ..... ..... . ..: . . ... .�,�,. , . . :.�� . .,,., .. _ „r
<br />7'Ctre.
<br />DISGUSSION AND REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN� F4R A 1b,912 SQUARE-FOOT
<br />S1NGLE-STQRY OFFICE BUILDING WITHN THE �ILVERVIEW ESTATES PUD.
<br />Introductao�:
<br />Minnesota Institute of Public Health (MIl'H} a subsidiary of Blue Cross Blue �hieid, has applied for
<br />a developrnernt review to construct a Ib,9i2 square-foot office building on the vacant lot southeast
<br />of the Holiday Stationstore. The lot was originally envisioned to support a 25,000 square foot two-
<br />story office huilding, which is what the Silverview Estates allows for in the PUD Document. MIPH
<br />would also like approval for a second expansion which would potentially add 6,000 square feet of
<br />second-story offzce space. �Ihile the use and square footages are consistent with the PUD, because
<br />the footprint and configuration are differeni from what was approved, the site plans need to be
<br />reviewed and reapproved. All together, the ma�mum proposed office space would be 22,912
<br />square feet. As MEr. Jerry Jaker, NID?H Director, indicated at the last meeting of the Planning
<br />Commission, the of�ice building would be used to provide of�'ice space �or 1VIIPH s�aff. No clinic,
<br />outpatieni, classroom or znedical procedures would take place at this facility.
<br />13ev�lopment Revie�vv Da�cussa�rz:
<br />As addressed at the Iast meeting, the proposal, even with the proposed b,000 square foot upper
<br />story expansion, satisfies all City �oning requirements and the requirements of the Silverview
<br />Estates PUD. One change has been made to the site plan regarding the placement of the building.
<br />On the plans date-stamped 2//2/01, the building was shown set back thirty feet (30'} from
<br />Highway 10. In response to Mr. Winiecici's concerns about obscured visibility fo his building, the
<br />deveiopers pulled the building back an additional twenty feet (20') resulting ir� a fif�y foot setback.
<br />The developers hava indicated ihat it would be cost prohibitive to pull the buitding back an.y
<br />further. Staff will have a graphic available that shows the sight lines to Mr. Winiecki's building
<br />and ground sign. Attached to this report is a copy of correspondence sent recently to Mr.
<br />Winiecici regarding the setback issue. _
<br />Dimensional Requirements:
<br />Front Setback (I�ighway 10}
<br />Sideyardl Setback (Holiday)
<br />Sideyard Setback (�Iiniecki)
<br />Parking lot Setback (Highway 10)
<br />Par�cing lat Seibacic (Holiday)
<br />Parking lot Setbacic (Winiecki)
<br />Required
<br />30 feei
<br />20 feet
<br />20 feet
<br />10 feet
<br />10 feet
<br />10 feet
<br />Existing or
<br />Proposed
<br />50 feet
<br />i 40 feet
<br />24 feet
<br />10 feei
<br />10 feet
<br />I25 feet
<br />Met?
<br />Met
<br />Met
<br />Met
<br />Met
<br />Met
<br />Met
<br />
|