05-08-2000 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Planning Associate Ericson explained that one of the requirements of an expansion of this scale is that the applicant obtain a Rice Creek Watershed District permit, and this permit has already been approved pending a cash surety and the applicant entering into an agreement with a contractor to do the work. He stated all of the issues with regard to the location of the pond and the wetland should be resolved. He indicated the construction of the stormwater holding pond represents a significant improvement to the site, as the stormwater runoff currently drains directly into the wetland. He explained that this proposal would allow the stormwater runoff from the parking lot to fit into the stormwater holding pond, and the pollutants and sediments would be filtered out before the water reaches the wetland. Planning Associate Ericson indicated one of the issues at the Planning Commission level was the drastic change to the landscaping on the site with the expansion of the parking lot. He explained that as many as 100 large trees would be removed, and the applicant is proposing to replace them with 90 trees, as well as a number of small shrub like plantings. He pointed out that this is not a one-to-one replacement or a comparable replacement in terms of removing a 100 year-old tree and replacing it with a one year-old tree, however, it is hoped that within a few years there would be significant coverage back on the site. Planning Associate Ericson stated another issue with the expansion project is that the Church is proposing to remove two houses, one located on Knollwood Drive, and one on County Road H2. He indicated the neighborhood has expressed some concern regarding the encroachment of the Church further into the neighborhood. He provided the Council with a letter staff received that date from Gordon Klaven, a resident at 2816 County Road H2, who clearly opposes this expansion and is concerned regarding the fact that rather than having a house adjacent to his property, he would have a parking lot and driveway. He indicated this resident is requesting that, at minimum, some type of fencing be erected. Planning Associate Ericson stated the issue of screening was brought forward at the Planning Commission level, at which time, a number of four to five-foot Arborvitae were added to the landscape plan, however, there is only a 7½ foot span between the driveway and the property line at the north end of the property on County Road H2, therefore, there is very little room for landscaping. He explained that the spacing between the driveway and the property line toward the south end of the parking lot increases to 11½ feet, therefore, landscaping could be included in addition to a fence, however, the landscape plan provided to the Council does not indicate any type of fencing. He pointed out that this was somewhat of a new issue, therefore, the Council might wish to stipulate that some type of fencing be provided in this area. Planning Associate Ericson stated the lighting that is being proposed on the site meets the City’s photometric requirements and the requirement that no light be spilled onto adjoining properties. He indicated the foot candle readings at the property lines are below one-foot candle, and all lighting is directed away from adjoining properties, however, with the expanded parking lot, the number of light standards and the intensity of the light, there would be a glow at this corner. He pointed out that this is a very residential area, and there are no other commercial or non- residential uses, therefore, this proposal represents a drastic change in terms of lighting alone. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the Planning Commission level, staff recommended the height of the proposed 30-foot light standards be reduced to a maximum of 25 feet. He indicated