09-13-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 3 Regarding visibility, one resident expressed concern that the view from his home would be blocked by the construction of a building or fence on the vacant lot. While this may be true, development on the vacant lot cannot be denied to preserve this view. Staff would encourage the residents to be involved in the site plan review stage of the development, at which time consideration would be given to landscaping and fences and other physical site improvements such as lighting. Concerning the issue of traffic congestion, Staff acknowledges that County Road I carries a significant volume of traffic and while a curb cut onto County Road I would not improve traffic flow, Staff firmly believes that the anticipated daily vehicle trips to this property would be minimal so as to not cause any unreasonable congestion. Assuming a peak of ten vehicle trips per hour, a car would be entering or exiting the parking lot less than once every five minutes. At that rate, vehicle safety and traffic flow would not be compromised. Last, regarding the present zoning of the property, as indicated at the Planning Commission’s last meeting, the commission members examined this lot and its zoning during the comprehensive plan update. The commission determined that a residential development would not be appropriate on this site, even though it borders residential on three sides. Given its frontage on County Road I, the amount of traffic and the adjoining commercial use, the Planning Commission chose to maintain the commercial land-use designation, considering business/commercial to be the most feasible and appropriate future use. The Planning Commission inquired about the number of stalls, and if the applicant felt the parking requirement to be adequate or excessive. Mr. Mezzenga replied that twenty spaces were excessive, given the small size of the building. Staff agreed that the requirement may be more than what is needed and offered to provide the Planning Commission with office parking requirements from other municipalities. Staff referred to the Off-Street Parking Requirements publication, published by the American Planning Association. Of the nine examples given, none required more parking for an office use than does Mounds View. The range went from one space per 200 square feet to one space per 750 square feet. The most common ratio was one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. Applying the one per 250 ratio to the proposed 3,480 square foot building results in the need for 14 spaces. Given that, Staff drafted a site plan based on the 3,480 square foot building and a parking lot to accommodate 14 vehicles. The site plan differs from what was originally proposed by Mr. Mezzenga in that the building and parking lot have essentially traded places. The new site plan maximizes green-space while minimizing the parking area. With six less stalls and a reduction in the drive aisle width, more pervious surface area can be set aside for landscaping and grass. The building setback from Greenfield Avenue is 30 feet, which complies with the Zoning requirements. Because of the small lot size, however, variances are still necessary. The variances contemplated by the proposed site plan are as follows:  9’ reduction in front yard building setback  14’ reduction in front yard parking lot setback  18’ reduction in driveway separation requirement  2’ reduction in parking lot width requirement  6 space reduction in number of parking stalls required