01-22-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: January 22, 2003 Title: UPDATE REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF POSTING GREENFIELD AVENUE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD I “NO PARKING” Introduction: This issue was discussed at the Planning Commission’s meeting on January 8, 2003 and at meetings previous to that in 2002. Direction had been given to have the property owner of 2402 County Road I work with staff to come up with a suitable resolution to the parking issue. Prior to the meeting on January 8, Mr. Farrell contacted staff and indicated he would be willing to expand the parking lot by an additional four stalls toward Greenfield Avenue, although this would result in the loss of green-space and would necessitate a revision to the variance approved for the site. Furthermore, if expanded by an additional four stalls, the parking lot would encroach onto the Greenfield right of way, necessitating approval of a Limited Use Agreement. Discussion: As was discussed at your last meeting, the sharing or leasing of parking stalls from Tom Thumb (Now Sam’s Tobacco) has been eliminated as an option. The site, which supports the convenience store and a Laundromat, has barely enough parking to serve its own needs. Further, the owner of Sam’s Tobacco has indicated he would be unwilling to make spots available for lease on the site. Regarding the expansion of the parking lot, Mr. Farrell indicated that because the asphalt company would be coming out in the spring to lay the second layer of asphalt on his parking lot, it would not be cost-prohibitive to expand the lot at the same time. To expand the lot to accommodate four additional stalls, the lot would be extended 18 more feet toward Greenfield Avenue. There is currently 28 feet of green-space between the lot and the street; the expansion would reduce the green-space to 10 feet. It appears as though the parking lot is currently 11 feet off the property line. With the expansion, the lot would encroach 7 feet into the right of way. To allow for this expansion, three things would need to occur: First, the original resolution approving the setback variance would need to be amended to allow for a zero-foot parking lot setback. Second, Mr. Farrell would need to execute a limited use agreement which would allow him the “limited” use of the right of way. The agreement would also indicate that the City would not be liable for any damage to the parking lot in the event of a utility or street repair. Last, as discussed by the Planning Commission, Mr. Farrell would need to execute a development agreement regarding the expansion which would also contain language as to the building, its maintenance and operation.