Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 <br /> 1111 Special Meeting Page 4 <br /> Peterson noted that there were five main entrances for subtenants. Nelson said they were <br /> designed in a fashion that would allow two doors off of each entrance if needed. He added the <br /> building could be divided down into 5,000 square-foot spaces but the most likely tenant space <br /> would be 10,000 square-foot. <br /> Peterson asked for clarification in regard to the site's driveway lining up with the car wash. <br /> Nelson said the driveway was moved to its current location, as shown on the plan, so it matches <br /> up with one of the driveways of the car wash rather than have two staggered. This shouldn't be a <br /> conflict. He added before the plan gets to the Council, Everest would review the driveway <br /> locations and adjust any conflict that may occur. <br /> Ericson said a lighting plan had been submitted and it did meet City requirements. <br /> Peterson asked for a description of the retaining wall system located between the proposed <br /> building site and the adjacent C.G. Hill site. Nelson said the retaining wall system, a Keystone <br /> product, was described in detail in the civil plans for the project. There are also retaining walls <br /> along the north side of the property, he added. <br /> Miller asked for clarification in regard to snow storage. Nelson said the site did not have a lot of <br /> . room for snow storage. Accumulated snow will have to be removed from the site and relocated, <br /> Nelson said. Trash will be handled with dumpsters located inside of the building. Pick-ups and <br /> deliveries can be handled with grade-level entries located at various sites in the building. This <br /> type of building will have significantly less overall semi-truck traffic going to the building,Nelson <br /> said. <br /> Parking ratios were discussed and deemed acceptable by the Commission. Nelson said the <br /> parking in the business park had been designed for the highest range of tenant use and was flexible <br /> in terms of accommodating changing parking needs. If a problem with parking developed,Nelson <br /> added that the problem would self-correct, as tenants will not lease an area that has insufficient <br /> parking for their needs <br /> Miller asked if the second stipulation, which was to limit the office coverage in the building to 75 <br /> percent, would be eliminated. Obert said it was his opinion that the stipulation should remain as <br /> part of the Resolution. Nelson agreed that the market will self-correct the parking needs of each <br /> individual site. In this particular case, the site is engineered for 5 stalls per thousand which is <br /> almost 100 percent of the requirement in most suburbs. Ericson said staff would be comfortable <br /> omitting stipulation item No. 2 from the resolution. <br /> Obert asked for an explanation as to what would happen if extra parking is needed for a site that <br /> has been engineered for a certain amount of parking, or if parking complaints are lodged by <br /> 4110 <br /> neighboring businesses. Ericson said the City has no fall-back plan for this situation. This is an <br /> issue that is supposed to be under the control of the building owner or occupant, it is supposed to <br /> be a self-correcting issue. Obert suggested that the surrounding neighborhoods need protection, <br />