Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission April 20, 2022 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />perspective having appropriate onsite management facilities and other amenities for the residents <br />was outweighing the parking. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson indicated this was the City’s chance to fix or address the parking situation. <br />He noted there were 385 units on this property and the site was vastly under parked. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the cost for additional garages and stormwater management <br />on the property. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Sevald reported the City Council discussed this project at <br />their April worksession meeting and it was determined if another garage was added, costly <br />stormwater management would have to be put into the property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson explained he did not believe he would be doing his job as a Planning <br />Commissioner if he didn’t bring up his concerns about parking on this property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Curtis stated short of the garden area the only other option for parking would be <br />to construct a parking ramp, but he anticipated this would be cost prohibitive. Mr. Humestin <br />reported this was the case. <br /> <br />Commissioner Farmer reported the site currently has 719 parking stalls and 89 were covered. He <br />asked what the parking requirements were for apartment buildings at this time. Community <br />Development Director Sevald stated one garage stall and one and a half surface spaces is <br />required per apartment unit. He was of the opinion the City’s requirements were a bit higher <br />than was needed. He explained some cities set their parking requirements based on the number <br />of bedrooms in each unit versus per unit. <br /> <br />Commissioner Curtis questioned how wide the drive aisle was that cut east/west through the <br />develop ment. He asked if parking would fit on one side of the driveway. Mr. Humestin <br />estimated the drive lane was 24 feet wide. He did not believe additional parking would fit <br />against the curb. <br /> <br />Chair Rundle stated he was surprised this complex did not have a standalone management office. <br />He commented given the size of this apartment complex, the site needed a management office. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson encouraged the applicant to take another look at the plan to see if there <br />was any way to add more parking. Community Development Director Sevald stated plan does <br />show proof of parking for 18 additional stalls. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson questioned how many additional parking stalls would be gained when <br />the parking lot was re-striped. Mr. Humestin commented on the number of parking stalls that <br />would be gained through the new parking plan. <br />