Agenda Packets - 2001/03/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIPH Report to Council March 26, 2001 Page 4 year’s time, the money could be refunded to the property owner. The applicant is agreeable with this arrangement. Signage: The applicant proposes to install a 32 square foot internally illuminated sign near the Highway 10 access drive built upon a masonry base with materials to match the building. This sign currently exists at the MIPH office in Anoka. The signage on the building would be individually mounted letters to read “Minnesota Institute of Public Health.” The area of the building mounted signage would be approximately 24 square feet. Altogether, there would be approximately 56 square feet of signage for this development. Development Agreement: Because two of the four lots within the original Silverview Estates PUD have already been developed, the developer has requested that a new development agreement be drafted which pertains solely to the MIPH project (Lot 2). Staff and the City Attorney will work on this new development agreement and would not expect there to be any issues resulting from this process. For reference, the City approved a similar separate development agreement for the Realife Cooperative of Mounds View (Lot 4.) Setback Concerns: As mentioned earlier in this report, Mr. Winiecki would like to see the front setback of the proposed MIPH office building match his own setback, as was originally the shown on the Silverview Estates plans. (Refer to the attached Silverview Estates site plan.) The approved and executed Silverview Estates PUD document, however, indicates the minimum front setback to be 30 feet, similar to the zoning code requirement if this were not in a PUD. (Refer to Page 2 of this document.) Staff contends that the site plan proposed by the applicant satisfies all requirements of the PUD and Zoning Code, yet because the footprint and building configuration is different than what was originally approved, the applicant is seeking reapproval of the plans. In response to Mr. Winiecki’s concerns about compromised sightlines, staff drafted three sightline scenarios which are included for the Council’s review. The first scenario addresses the proposed 50-foot MIPH setback and the points at which partial visibility and full visibility to the Winiecki building is possible. The second scenario shows the MIPH building set back 73 feet to match the Winiecki building. Even set back the same distance, the Winiecki building loses a significant amount of visibility from what it has now. The last scenario shows the difference between the two setbacks as to the impact to full visibility. Staff believes the minimal difference between the two sightlines does not warrant necessitating a 73-foot setback for the MIPH building. Mr. Winiecki expressed to the Planning Commission that it was his recollection that the City Council assured him in 1997 that the setback of the office building on Lot 2 would match his own building. The Planning Commission directed staff to review the meeting